With Windows, I know that the step from 2000 to XP is significant because the names are way different. Similar with XP and Vista. But seriously, how can I expect something significant going from Tiger to Leopard?
BTW, I guess I can blame my ignorance, because as a long-time Linux user, I only view Windows and MacOS/X from afar.
Oh, I didn't know about this, but does this only work for high-energy, high frequency signals? That would be supported by the reference to "TV detector vans". IIRC short wave receivers don't even need battery to be able to receive because it uses amplitude modulation so a simple circuit powered by the signal would result in audio from the tiny speaker, and I don't think such a circuit would emit much of anything practically detectable.
Well, going from radio waves to IP (internet protocol) of any kind seems stupid - to receive radio waves you only have to be in the area, and nobody is able to find out you're tuning to that station, unless they actually hear you. With IP, on the other hand, there are sudden packets flowing from the source to the receiver (broadcast does not span local networks because the internet would be too easy to flood). Secondly, there will only be relatively few listeners (real agents plus a few curious people) to these IP streams, so one (a network operator) has much more chance of tracking all of them.
However, if the whole slashdot suddenly goes to listen to them, agents can hide much easier. Use slashdot as a coverup! 8-)
I fully agree. The significant chunks of text should be in default fault size, just like they are right now. Make the menu and sidebar fonts small if you wish, but please keep the main text default. Oh, and the design should not break if I have the smallest allowed font set to 14px and the design uses 10px somewhere.
this is off topic, don't waste time or moderation points...
For the parent - you might consider telling the submit form that you do your formatting in plain text. It was so much easier to read your comment in source view than rendered as HTML.
Some time ago, I expressed a similar wish, but I'd really settle for something much simpler: digging holes and climbing trees (and stuff). I find this real neat thing that I can't carry with me right now - I'll hide it under a rock or in a tree so that nobody finds it before I get back for it. How about that?
there's a big difference here - RMS is asked by people for a bit of his time, so he asks them to contribute. When you code on FOSS, it's often to scratch your own itch. If somebody asks you to code something for them, by RMS's logic you can charge them, sure, no problem. 8-)
Internet2 was announced in October 1996, now 10 years later it still seems to be poorly developed.
Remember how Arpanet started almost 40 years ago? And when did it become popular, with the masses having real access (even if slow for your standards) and using it? Thirty years after its creation. Please hold off your whining about Internet2 for a decade, then we may talk.
They can't really do away with real money in a tourist town. I highly doubt my foreign pay-as-you-go cell phone would allow me to pay conveniently in Caen.
It's time for the age-old debate about man's free will. Does it exist, or are we just kidding ourselves? [...] Eventually, we'll know for sure how the brain works.
And we will realize that it doesn't matter whether we have free will or not, because there will always be needs and satisfying them will not be free. In other words, if I feel like I have free will, I'm satisfied and it doesn't matter to me how I decide to get or not to get that latest gadget.
Anyway, in a brain of billions of neurons, there is plenty of space for chaos (and effectively randomness) that give me enough of a free will.
The contest will show code auditors what they should look for, what kinds of underhanded practices are there and what patterns they employ.
In a fun and harmless way this makes public the techniques until now used only by people with malice. It's really the same as showing how to crack a system, but here the system is "code auditors", and just like the system will close the holes and fix the bugs, the auditors will also improve.
(this is partly a summary of other comments, in what I think is more focused and readable form)
So what exactly is wrong in putting an invention in the current context? People are currently preoccupied with terrorism threats (at least the media is), and if you mentioned medical applications and not counter-bio-attack functions, you'd get much less attention (and funding), while being equally inaccurate as if you only mention counter-bio-attack and not medical applications.
What do you mean with "notable for its own worth" anyway? You mean you should be able to judge an invention without knowing the possible applications? The worth of an invention is in its applications.
I haven't read the article, so I don't know what applications it mentioned, but I'd expect a good article to mention several notable applications, and some of them will get noted more and some less.
Every vendor must foster ths because the funding, patent, and legal system is broken. Until it is changed, nothing will change.
What exactly is broken and in what ways? It's easy to say something is broken, but this particular saying is quite common yet few offer concrete and constructive criticism.
As mentioned above, it's the Copyright law that should be protecting your work and cashflow. DRM can only work well if we have "trusted computing" or if we limit our uses of the content. I'm not sure how comfortable you'd be with either option, but I know that I like neither.
"Trusted computing" means that I don't control my machine, as only approved components and programs can be allowed to access protected data. I don't see how open source could spread if the document formats (think.doc) would contain DRM (and I can easily see how users would like to protect all their.doc against unauthorized copying) - because suddenly I can't download the open-source program, tweak it, compile and run, as I'm no authority to approve programs.
Limited use of content is the current situation, I can use something on 5 machines, or only on iPod, or only on WMA devices or whatever. Not good either.
If we go back to using (and relying on) the copyright law as it was meant to be used, you'd have to publish your work much cheaper so that low-key pirating would not be so appealing any more (think normal user downloading on p2p) and high-key pirating could be prosecuted. Yes, I'm thinking International Copyright Law here.
[...] according to a person close to the commission who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the memo.
Does anybody honor their authorization any more? I understand that underhand practices are best uncovered, but how can those people even stay at that work when they have to do stuff they don't agree with? I'd expect the source "close to the commission" to resign now and look for a job where they will be more satisfied. I'm not saying he shouldn't have leaked the info, but does he have the guts to do more than anonymous leak?
Well, if I already have a computer, and am able to use it, it will be easy for me to use the same computer as a TV, right? I mean, of course a TV microwave would have a weird interface, but we're talking about going from computers where we are used to having multiple simple interfaces (think browser, mp3 player).
I, for one, would appreciate if my laptop could do so much more than it currently does, including TV and radio.
If you read enough Asimov, you'll know that he did in fact consider the hard problems. In particular one short story (can't remember the name tho) considers creating robots without the three laws so that the brain can be like 1000x smaller, but this was only for robots that could not really harm humans, robots who only knew a few commands which were hard-wired (2nd law), and robots cheap enough not to have to protect themselves (3rd law).
In short, Asimov's robots have huge brains and most of that is an implementation of the three laws. Nobody says it's simple.
Slashdot Mirror
More like pulling somebody from the path of a fist and then running them over with a car.
Yes, why play with twitching frog legs and your so called "electricity" when we have starving people and battling kingdoms to take care of?
Funnily enough, fancy abstract "basic research" often has benefits that greatly outweigh the relatively small costs of setting up "these experiments".
With Windows, I know that the step from 2000 to XP is significant because the names are way different. Similar with XP and Vista. But seriously, how can I expect something significant going from Tiger to Leopard?
BTW, I guess I can blame my ignorance, because as a long-time Linux user, I only view Windows and MacOS/X from afar.
And your point is?
Ever tried to do some delicate work in rubber gloves?
Yes! Encase it in titanium! It's cheap now!
Here's the link to EFF's take on this: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004721.php
Oh, I didn't know about this, but does this only work for high-energy, high frequency signals? That would be supported by the reference to "TV detector vans". IIRC short wave receivers don't even need battery to be able to receive because it uses amplitude modulation so a simple circuit powered by the signal would result in audio from the tiny speaker, and I don't think such a circuit would emit much of anything practically detectable.
However, if the whole slashdot suddenly goes to listen to them, agents can hide much easier. Use slashdot as a coverup! 8-)
I think the headlines should also be the links to the stories (same as "read more"), as they are so much bigger and easier to target for clicking.
I fully agree. The significant chunks of text should be in default fault size, just like they are right now. Make the menu and sidebar fonts small if you wish, but please keep the main text default. Oh, and the design should not break if I have the smallest allowed font set to 14px and the design uses 10px somewhere.
this is off topic, don't waste time or moderation points...
For the parent - you might consider telling the submit form that you do your formatting in plain text. It was so much easier to read your comment in source view than rendered as HTML.
Some time ago, I expressed a similar wish, but I'd really settle for something much simpler: digging holes and climbing trees (and stuff). I find this real neat thing that I can't carry with me right now - I'll hide it under a rock or in a tree so that nobody finds it before I get back for it. How about that?
there's a big difference here - RMS is asked by people for a bit of his time, so he asks them to contribute. When you code on FOSS, it's often to scratch your own itch. If somebody asks you to code something for them, by RMS's logic you can charge them, sure, no problem. 8-)
Remember how Arpanet started almost 40 years ago? And when did it become popular, with the masses having real access (even if slow for your standards) and using it? Thirty years after its creation. Please hold off your whining about Internet2 for a decade, then we may talk.
They can't really do away with real money in a tourist town. I highly doubt my foreign pay-as-you-go cell phone would allow me to pay conveniently in Caen.
And we will realize that it doesn't matter whether we have free will or not, because there will always be needs and satisfying them will not be free. In other words, if I feel like I have free will, I'm satisfied and it doesn't matter to me how I decide to get or not to get that latest gadget.
Anyway, in a brain of billions of neurons, there is plenty of space for chaos (and effectively randomness) that give me enough of a free will.
In a fun and harmless way this makes public the techniques until now used only by people with malice. It's really the same as showing how to crack a system, but here the system is "code auditors", and just like the system will close the holes and fix the bugs, the auditors will also improve.
(this is partly a summary of other comments, in what I think is more focused and readable form)
What do you mean with "notable for its own worth" anyway? You mean you should be able to judge an invention without knowing the possible applications? The worth of an invention is in its applications.
I haven't read the article, so I don't know what applications it mentioned, but I'd expect a good article to mention several notable applications, and some of them will get noted more and some less.
"Trusted computing" means that I don't control my machine, as only approved components and programs can be allowed to access protected data. I don't see how open source could spread if the document formats (think .doc) would contain DRM (and I can easily see how users would like to protect all their .doc against unauthorized copying) - because suddenly I can't download the open-source program, tweak it, compile and run, as I'm no authority to approve programs.
Limited use of content is the current situation, I can use something on 5 machines, or only on iPod, or only on WMA devices or whatever. Not good either.
If we go back to using (and relying on) the copyright law as it was meant to be used, you'd have to publish your work much cheaper so that low-key pirating would not be so appealing any more (think normal user downloading on p2p) and high-key pirating could be prosecuted. Yes, I'm thinking International Copyright Law here.
From TFA:
Does anybody honor their authorization any more? I understand that underhand practices are best uncovered, but how can those people even stay at that work when they have to do stuff they don't agree with? I'd expect the source "close to the commission" to resign now and look for a job where they will be more satisfied. I'm not saying he shouldn't have leaked the info, but does he have the guts to do more than anonymous leak?
I, for one, would appreciate if my laptop could do so much more than it currently does, including TV and radio.
In short, Asimov's robots have huge brains and most of that is an implementation of the three laws. Nobody says it's simple.