That is not what I said. Bugs and running as expected are not the same thing. A security bug may have jack-squad to do with how a program functions, except for malware. Don't expect those to be emulated by WINE. And which software relies on a BSOD to run as expected, apart from debugging software?
Why the words "just" and "real original"? You do know that the whole "Genuine"-"Real"-"Original"-thing only exists because marketeers found that the uneducated masses pay twice the price, just to see those very words on a box.
I'll trade the "real original" BSOD in for "just a reversed engineered" software package without masses of flaws any time.
As a Dutchman I can say that is correct.
Thing = ding
Object = voorwerp
Subject = onderwerp
There is a little bit more too it of course, translation depends on context. E.g. we have more words for (almost) the same thing, similar as in English.
Some buildings look ok, some look like they have been made out of Jelly, some look like they encoutered some sort of temporal anomaly. Guess Googles method with laser-measurements has a reason, but it's still impressive to see what can be done with Autorendering from Photo's.
You can argue whether or not doing a lot of js evals will be any faster/more efficient than pulling in XML. Haven't checked how fast/efficient are in the current generation of browsers, but I used to avoid them like the plague due to speed issues.
Nope. There are other things you can do of course. Reputation based schemes like Credence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credence_(reputation_management_scheme ) applied to peers could help you boot off peers out of swarms with no or poor reputation. This would force certain organizations to build reputation up first, but keeping that will be a tough cookie. Won't be fool-proof, but will make it harder. Not many people will give RIAA/MPAA the thumbs up.
Then there is small world theory. Downloading stuff through trackers from people you don't know is somewhat silly. You should be able to get the same content (though a bit slower) through semi-trusted contacts. The only way to defeat that is infiltration by certain organizations, but, rather tedious and difficult.
You can also create a scheme where you us peers as proxies. Instead of downloading something directly, you ask a peer to relay a bunch of encrypted anonymous bytes for you. Will slow down speeds well over 50%, but difficult to defeat.
There about a billion more ways. The fact that they are not implemented yet, is simply because most p2p-apps/networks don't want to start an arms race.
Gnutella (LimeWire et. al) has more than one way of searching. Through Ultrapeers, Ultrapeers and OOB-replies (e.g. not routed back through Ultrapeers) and Mojito (DHT).
Using Gnutella to search/index.torrents is already a long time feature of G2 (Gnutella 2, though it is NOT the successor of Gnutella), with Shareaza being the main client for the G2 network (along with very basic support for Gnutella, BitTorrent and eDonkey2000).
DHT-networks can be more efficient, but they are also vulnerable to attacks and pollution and are somewhat lossy.
Agree with parent. You could also set aside the money for a few months and see which project actually has issues with funding. If I remember correctly from about 2 years ago, OpenBSD (and OpenSSH) had serious issues with funding at that time: http://bsd.slashdot.org/bsd/06/03/21/1555243.shtml.
Occasionally, a part-time dev may step forward and announce he/she is willing to work full time on the project for a period time, provided people are willing to financially support him/her. Those may be good times to sponsor as well.
PS: next time, you might want to be a little more decent in your comments. I'm sorry you are frustrated, but there is no reason to take that out on me or anyone else here.
Both are bad and evil, but truth should always be accessible, no matter what. If you can't view truth, than you can no longer understand the world/reality around you. How can you form opinions on matters with are not part of your view of reality? How can vote? How can you understand people/groups/cultures/countries/... If you lack the necessary information to understand them? The only thing you can do is rely on some sort of authority to provide you with information/truth/whatever. (Recent) History has shown us that authorities cannot handle such responsibility. AFAIK, access to truth is one of the most basic human rights.
As for the sick bastard comment. The materials you mention do make me sick, but the don't make me a bastard per sé. It is how and why you view said materials.
Seeing the way the dollar is going, it isn't the smartest move to increase supply. As long as the dollar is weak, it is better to keep the prices for oil high (downside of selling oil in dollars). The only other option would be to start selling oil in euro's (several OPEC members already hinted at this), but that would probably crash the dollar.
Oil is a finite supply, especially the easy, cheap accessible oil. The longer you keep it under the ground, the more you can ask for it later.
Not all OPEC members are able to increase supply. As a whole, OPEC could increase supply, but the members who's oil production has peaked wouldn't be to happy about that. They would face both decreasing production and decreasing prices.
Regardless what OPEC does, for at least the next few years, demand will keep outgrowing supply, and thus prices will continue to rise. OPEC may be able to provide very short term relief by increasing supply, but the emphasis is short term.
Last but not least, there is more to the oil price than just OPEC and their production. Traders (e.g. the market) are responsible for a huge increase in the price of crude oil. The price of a barrel may be 120$ on the market, but that is nowhere near the price when it leaves the production facility.
my software has recently been adopted by a university, and I'm just not in a position to manage the entire set of applications and update everything on my own. Why not try at the university? If they adopted your software, they might/probably are also be interested in getting it further developed.
Is Turkey a good example than? That they need the military to protect secularism? And what about the recent movements away from secularism (by allowing the headscarf)?
I'm not sure what this writers' expertise is here... but it seems like a leap to think that 10s of millions of Europeans will convert to Islam over a period of a few years.
That will not be hapening. The number of Europeans that convert to Islam won't be large and nothing will happen in just a few years.
The issue at hand is more that many European countries have accepted a large number of immigrants in the past (and still do sometimes), thinking that it would be temporary and they would return to their original country. Except they didn't. They brought over their families instead. No real problem yet, except for two things. 1: A large portion did not integrate into/adapted to the mainstream society. 2: They have more children on average, which are not always integrating properly too. This is already causing tensions within the society and the problem is not expected to get better anytime soon.
if they're in the majority, they can work that democratic magic to pass the laws they want. That's what a democracy is all about
But that is the whole problem. If you procreate fast enough as a group, you can get your democratic majority. Not in a few years, but it still within a century. (especially with whole native babyboom generation dying in the next 40 years)
This whole thing is about the right to not be offended.
But that is the most ridiculous right anyone can ask for. Sometimes truth offends people, does that me we should lie to them instead? And what about religion? Some religious people are offended by any attempt to question their belief-system, does that mean we can no longer criticize any religion? And what if a religion offends certain people, is that allowed?
There is a subtle difference between disliking/disagreeing/etc and hating/hate speech. But looking at the topic of the book (haven't read it)
Steyn predicts in his new book, "America Alone," that Muslims will swarm over Europe, ban alcohol and put women in veils it just seems to me it is misguided political gesture to certain groups at the cost of freedom of speech. I'm a European and I occasionally worry about it too.
We have a politician in the Netherlands (Geert Wilders, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders ) who has some of the same ideas, and made a short movie about it, Fitna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film) It caused an outrage here even before anyone knew anything about it. Even to the point the government contemplated banning the movie, without actually having seen it.
You don;t hinestly believe that we went to Iraq to bring Freedom and Democracy do you?
I would consider it to be unlikely, but that is how it appears to be going down into the history books. If the war really was just about the oil and if the WMD's were known not to exists, you should consider it to be an unnecessary and illegal war (evil) which was supposed to also do some good (freedom and democracy), but ended up doing more evil.
Both are giving aid and comfort to an enemy government
China's government is not my favorite, but I do not call it an enemy government (anymore). In fact, I think very few governments will actually (dare to) call China's government an enemy in the open. But there is certainly room for improvement with regards to personal freedom and free speech. I can also pretty much understand why China is not pursuing that road (yet).
Evil in who's eyes? Robbing shareholders of profits can be seen as evil too. Robbing yourself of market-share in emerging markets can be seen as evil too. Not complying with authorities can even be seen as evil! Sometimes Good can come out of Evil (landing on the moon as a result of WWII) or Evil can come out of Good (bringing freedom and democracy to a country that isn't ready for it resulting in civil conflict).
What people also seem to miss about the whole "don't be evil" thing, is that not being evil does not imply being good. You can be neutral as well. Not evil, not good, just neutral.
it's all about markets and churches and hotels for the high frag count.
But those are not likely to be the targets over here (Europe, North-America) and those are different kinds of terrorism. Take Iraq; some of the terrorism is a form of resistance (violence aimed at occupying forces and collaborators), some is sectarian/tribal and some is foreign/imported. Different goals, different organization, different funding, etc.
I'm not saying there aren't terrorists whose sole goal is to spread death, destruction, chaos and fear. But, apart from the occasional fruitcakes, is not something to worry about in the West (yet).
Especially at airports I sometimes get so angry about all the silliness that I play some mind-game with the aim of blowing it all up.
Last time I was at an airport dropping my sister of, I was thinking the exact same thing. I saw her going through the security-checkpoint and she had to turn on her laptop so they knew it wasn't a bom. How silly is that: "could you please activate the potential on-switch of a bomb, so we can be sure it isn't a bom?"
Not sure if it is the same everywhere, but the security-checkpoint was pretty crowded, at least 50 at the checkpoint and 100 in close vicinity. If your goal, as a terrorist, is to instill fear, what better way to get people frightened to death of security checkpoints? As a bonus, you kill off some infidels and shutdown the airport of several days (depending on the airport anywhere between hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars/euro's/etc. of damage/loss)
The reality is of course, that the "real terrorist masterminds" and their cells, won't do that. They attack important/unique symbols. The fact that people die in the process, economic damages arise, etc are just bonuses. So the only thing I have to worry about at security checkpoints are those who are in control of them, or some radical religious fruitcake reading slashdot.
If the company distributes software itself, it will have to release to source-code. If you distribute software under the GPL, source-code must always be accessible (on request).
Second, you can only create a defacto standard if it is accepted within the industry. If you have a monopoly, you can effectively force (defacto) standards, but that's another story.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not what I said. Bugs and running as expected are not the same thing. A security bug may have jack-squad to do with how a program functions, except for malware. Don't expect those to be emulated by WINE. And which software relies on a BSOD to run as expected, apart from debugging software?
Why the words "just" and "real original"? You do know that the whole "Genuine"-"Real"-"Original"-thing only exists because marketeers found that the uneducated masses pay twice the price, just to see those very words on a box.
I'll trade the "real original" BSOD in for "just a reversed engineered" software package without masses of flaws any time.
As a Dutchman I can say that is correct. Thing = ding Object = voorwerp Subject = onderwerp There is a little bit more too it of course, translation depends on context. E.g. we have more words for (almost) the same thing, similar as in English.
Some buildings look ok, some look like they have been made out of Jelly, some look like they encoutered some sort of temporal anomaly. Guess Googles method with laser-measurements has a reason, but it's still impressive to see what can be done with Autorendering from Photo's.
I would bet both
You can argue whether or not doing a lot of js evals will be any faster/more efficient than pulling in XML. Haven't checked how fast/efficient are in the current generation of browsers, but I used to avoid them like the plague due to speed issues.
Distributed Hash Table ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_table ).
Nope. There are other things you can do of course. Reputation based schemes like Credence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credence_(reputation_management_scheme ) applied to peers could help you boot off peers out of swarms with no or poor reputation. This would force certain organizations to build reputation up first, but keeping that will be a tough cookie. Won't be fool-proof, but will make it harder. Not many people will give RIAA/MPAA the thumbs up.
Then there is small world theory. Downloading stuff through trackers from people you don't know is somewhat silly. You should be able to get the same content (though a bit slower) through semi-trusted contacts. The only way to defeat that is infiltration by certain organizations, but, rather tedious and difficult.
You can also create a scheme where you us peers as proxies. Instead of downloading something directly, you ask a peer to relay a bunch of encrypted anonymous bytes for you. Will slow down speeds well over 50%, but difficult to defeat.
There about a billion more ways. The fact that they are not implemented yet, is simply because most p2p-apps/networks don't want to start an arms race.
Gnutella (LimeWire et. al) has more than one way of searching. Through Ultrapeers, Ultrapeers and OOB-replies (e.g. not routed back through Ultrapeers) and Mojito (DHT).
Using Gnutella to search/index .torrents is already a long time feature of G2 (Gnutella 2, though it is NOT the successor of Gnutella), with Shareaza being the main client for the G2 network (along with very basic support for Gnutella, BitTorrent and eDonkey2000).
DHT-networks can be more efficient, but they are also vulnerable to attacks and pollution and are somewhat lossy.
Agree with parent. You could also set aside the money for a few months and see which project actually has issues with funding. If I remember correctly from about 2 years ago, OpenBSD (and OpenSSH) had serious issues with funding at that time: http://bsd.slashdot.org/bsd/06/03/21/1555243.shtml .
Occasionally, a part-time dev may step forward and announce he/she is willing to work full time on the project for a period time, provided people are willing to financially support him/her. Those may be good times to sponsor as well.
I couldn't find them in english, only in Dutch. The only english article I can find with some more Googling is http://www.nowap.co.uk/docs/windnoise.pdf
PS: next time, you might want to be a little more decent in your comments. I'm sorry you are frustrated, but there is no reason to take that out on me or anyone else here.
Yes.
Both are bad and evil, but truth should always be accessible, no matter what. If you can't view truth, than you can no longer understand the world/reality around you. How can you form opinions on matters with are not part of your view of reality? How can vote? How can you understand people/groups/cultures/countries/... If you lack the necessary information to understand them? The only thing you can do is rely on some sort of authority to provide you with information/truth/whatever. (Recent) History has shown us that authorities cannot handle such responsibility. AFAIK, access to truth is one of the most basic human rights.
As for the sick bastard comment. The materials you mention do make me sick, but the don't make me a bastard per sé. It is how and why you view said materials.
Wind Turbines can be rather loud as well, especially at night.
It isn't that easy.
Seeing the way the dollar is going, it isn't the smartest move to increase supply. As long as the dollar is weak, it is better to keep the prices for oil high (downside of selling oil in dollars). The only other option would be to start selling oil in euro's (several OPEC members already hinted at this), but that would probably crash the dollar.
Oil is a finite supply, especially the easy, cheap accessible oil. The longer you keep it under the ground, the more you can ask for it later.
Not all OPEC members are able to increase supply. As a whole, OPEC could increase supply, but the members who's oil production has peaked wouldn't be to happy about that. They would face both decreasing production and decreasing prices.
Regardless what OPEC does, for at least the next few years, demand will keep outgrowing supply, and thus prices will continue to rise. OPEC may be able to provide very short term relief by increasing supply, but the emphasis is short term.
Last but not least, there is more to the oil price than just OPEC and their production. Traders (e.g. the market) are responsible for a huge increase in the price of crude oil. The price of a barrel may be 120$ on the market, but that is nowhere near the price when it leaves the production facility.
Is Turkey a good example than? That they need the military to protect secularism? And what about the recent movements away from secularism (by allowing the headscarf)?
That will not be hapening. The number of Europeans that convert to Islam won't be large and nothing will happen in just a few years.
The issue at hand is more that many European countries have accepted a large number of immigrants in the past (and still do sometimes), thinking that it would be temporary and they would return to their original country. Except they didn't. They brought over their families instead. No real problem yet, except for two things. 1: A large portion did not integrate into/adapted to the mainstream society. 2: They have more children on average, which are not always integrating properly too. This is already causing tensions within the society and the problem is not expected to get better anytime soon.
if they're in the majority, they can work that democratic magic to pass the laws they want. That's what a democracy is all aboutBut that is the whole problem. If you procreate fast enough as a group, you can get your democratic majority. Not in a few years, but it still within a century. (especially with whole native babyboom generation dying in the next 40 years)
But that is the most ridiculous right anyone can ask for. Sometimes truth offends people, does that me we should lie to them instead? And what about religion? Some religious people are offended by any attempt to question their belief-system, does that mean we can no longer criticize any religion? And what if a religion offends certain people, is that allowed?
There is a subtle difference between disliking/disagreeing/etc and hating/hate speech. But looking at the topic of the book (haven't read it)
Steyn predicts in his new book, "America Alone," that Muslims will swarm over Europe, ban alcohol and put women in veils it just seems to me it is misguided political gesture to certain groups at the cost of freedom of speech. I'm a European and I occasionally worry about it too.We have a politician in the Netherlands (Geert Wilders, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders ) who has some of the same ideas, and made a short movie about it, Fitna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film) It caused an outrage here even before anyone knew anything about it. Even to the point the government contemplated banning the movie, without actually having seen it.
I would consider it to be unlikely, but that is how it appears to be going down into the history books. If the war really was just about the oil and if the WMD's were known not to exists, you should consider it to be an unnecessary and illegal war (evil) which was supposed to also do some good (freedom and democracy), but ended up doing more evil.
China's government is not my favorite, but I do not call it an enemy government (anymore). In fact, I think very few governments will actually (dare to) call China's government an enemy in the open. But there is certainly room for improvement with regards to personal freedom and free speech. I can also pretty much understand why China is not pursuing that road (yet).
Evil in who's eyes? Robbing shareholders of profits can be seen as evil too. Robbing yourself of market-share in emerging markets can be seen as evil too. Not complying with authorities can even be seen as evil! Sometimes Good can come out of Evil (landing on the moon as a result of WWII) or Evil can come out of Good (bringing freedom and democracy to a country that isn't ready for it resulting in civil conflict).
What people also seem to miss about the whole "don't be evil" thing, is that not being evil does not imply being good. You can be neutral as well. Not evil, not good, just neutral.
But those are not likely to be the targets over here (Europe, North-America) and those are different kinds of terrorism. Take Iraq; some of the terrorism is a form of resistance (violence aimed at occupying forces and collaborators), some is sectarian/tribal and some is foreign/imported. Different goals, different organization, different funding, etc.
I'm not saying there aren't terrorists whose sole goal is to spread death, destruction, chaos and fear. But, apart from the occasional fruitcakes, is not something to worry about in the West (yet).
Last time I was at an airport dropping my sister of, I was thinking the exact same thing. I saw her going through the security-checkpoint and she had to turn on her laptop so they knew it wasn't a bom. How silly is that: "could you please activate the potential on-switch of a bomb, so we can be sure it isn't a bom?"
Not sure if it is the same everywhere, but the security-checkpoint was pretty crowded, at least 50 at the checkpoint and 100 in close vicinity. If your goal, as a terrorist, is to instill fear, what better way to get people frightened to death of security checkpoints? As a bonus, you kill off some infidels and shutdown the airport of several days (depending on the airport anywhere between hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars/euro's/etc. of damage/loss)
The reality is of course, that the "real terrorist masterminds" and their cells, won't do that. They attack important/unique symbols. The fact that people die in the process, economic damages arise, etc are just bonuses. So the only thing I have to worry about at security checkpoints are those who are in control of them, or some radical religious fruitcake reading slashdot.
If the company distributes software itself, it will have to release to source-code. If you distribute software under the GPL, source-code must always be accessible (on request).
Second, you can only create a defacto standard if it is accepted within the industry. If you have a monopoly, you can effectively force (defacto) standards, but that's another story.