if you ignore this kind of advice, then you deserve everything that you get.
Are you talking to the people reading this, or the people that actually need the advice you're offering? I suspect those two groups are for the most part mutually exclusive.
If I recall correctly (haven't installed Fedora from scratch since about version 11), you can pick your filesystem using the advanced options in the installer, just like the Ubuntu installer. I don't recall whether this option is left out of the LiveCD installer, but I doubt it. As far as I understand, the LiveCD just has less packages installed by default...but the installer it runs is otherwise the same.
Don't forget the TV/cartoon series...or series of series. I think you'd have to be living under a rock, that is itself lodged underneath another larger rock, to have not been exposed to the majority of comic superhero stories.
I pay taxes for police services and such...since they're the government-employed guys that would remove the intruders you speak of, I believe it's me and other tax-paying citizens subsidizing them, not the other way around.
You have missed the whole point here. They DON'T own the copyright. That is to say, the people doing the investigating don't own the copyright. The people they work for might... or might not. If they're a bunch of guys hired by lawyers to go out and dig up "evidence", then they don't own the copyright any more than I do.
This is the third time I have said this in this topic: as the Righthaven case made clear recently, only people who actually own the copyrights can sue. RIAA and MPAA probably do not own any copyrights themselves. And any "investigators" working for them sure as hell don't own any copyrights.
Ok...so...for argument's sake, let's take RIAA/MPAA out of the equation, and assume the copyright holders are doing the suing. Let's also assume, in a hypothetical situation, that they have their own internal corporate employees doing the investigation. Would you still say that they can't touch any instance of data shared by bittorrent clients in order to identify the IPs that are sharing it?
Basically, I wouldn't bet on these types of technicalities/loopholes standing a rigorous test. As a defendant, I'm sure I'd cling to everything I could...but I think/hope the fact that an IP does not equal a person stands as a more important distinction, rather than trying to suggest that nobody can verify whether copyrighted content is illegally shared by looking at a copy of the shared data. The former is a question of reasonable doubt, where the latter is a question of whether the evidence is valid.
Well, if that verification is needed they can request one or more pieces from a client...if file pieces are successfully provided and they match the content the copyright holders are concerned about, then they can say that the remote client is in fact sharing the file. Yes...now they have a copy, but since they own the copyright, they are actually allowed to have this. At least, I think that's how most laypersons will interpret it...and I can't say I'd disagree with that perspective. I'm guessing that maybe some people are under the impression that the outcome of this type of approach is that the copyright holder will subsequently participate in the torrent by re-sharing the pieces they receive. However, a BT client can be modified to not share anything with any other clients...only download (certainly this is less efficient from a protocol perspective, but it is likely still effective for verifying clients that are sharing content).
I can only guess that the people investigating on behalf of the copyright holder thought of this approach, but let's assume for argument's sake they did. In that case, I'm still curious how it can be perceive that the copyright holder has somehow condoned implicitly filesharing simply by gathering information and data shared by clients in a bittorrent network.
Re. 'if they *did not* put it there': The way I understand BitTorrent is that you obtain the torrent file from a site online, load it in a client, which then queries trackers for lists of other clients' IP addresses and various metadata about how much they've downloaded/uploaded etc. So how is it illegal (a la copyright violation) to obtain all this data, when it is freely accessible and open via the BT protocol without ever having a single byte of the actual original file beforehand?
If you had to have a copy first, then what use would BitTorrent be to begin with?
[my apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted your comment]
As a local living in that area, who would you call to report his location and collect your reward? Do you call the police, and hope whoever you talk to is not corrupt?
I know I'd be keen to collect on the reward, but I don't like being dead either...so I don't really know how I personally would have gone about doing it. Presumably you have to be identifiable at the time that you call in the tip, and that's the catch. (Well, maybe I can think of ways *I* would have gone about it, but the situation would likely be very different for most locals in Pakistan).
Back to the draconian requirement for a BB data plan, I have a 9000 as my secondary phone WITHOUT a BB data plan. IT's ridiculous and stupid the quantity of applications coded by RIM or 3'rd party developers following the guidelines where the application simply doesn't WORK on wifi OR 3G data. I'm talking about apps which have NOTHING to do with RIM at all but that restriction to only use TCP traffic over.blackberry data connections (facebook is a good example) how fucking ridiculous! It's not going through RIM, it's just going to a normal, everyday internet site, yet it simply is hard coded not to work. Incredibly short sighted and frustrating. To me, internet / 3g / data / any TCP connection is a TCP connection, restricting that is just 'doing it wrong' (See also the official gmail application, no wifi support? whut!)
I feel exactly the way you do - I became the owner of a BB recently, with the expectation that I could get a basic pre-paid phone sim, and do everything else data-related over WiFi. Well...you clearly already know just how disappointing that turned out to be. For me, this is the real problem with BBs - if you want to get regular consumers (and keep them), don't treat them like they're stupid. When I'm told the 'Facebook' or 'Gmail' apps don't work because I don't have a data plan (but I do have a WiFi connection), I feel like RIM's just trying to screw me into paying for what's already available for free through any conventional Internet platform. From what I've been told, this is not the case with the Playbook - but if I ever get one, I'll be scrutinizing it very carefully in-store before taking one home.
The fact that more energy is consumed during manufacturing than during use is *because* the devices have been developed to be more efficient. Yes the manufacturing can be made more efficient, but once that's accomplished, the numbers will shift and again we'll be looking at trying to improve the devices' efficiency. Basically, efforts should be made to make everything more efficient all the time.
Ok...say what you want, but Win95 through to Win7 have perfectly clean desktops...until you litter them with icons/apps, which is totally under your own control. Same can be said for just about any other desktop, including KDE 3.x.
That said, you really should take a look at the latest KDE...or at least one of the many 4.x releases over the past couple years. It's about as clean as it gets as far as I'm concerned.
2) PCIe is way, WAY faster than it needs to be. 8x, which is half speed, is still more than you need as HardOCP found (http://hardocp.com/article/2010/08/16/sli_cfx_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x16x8/6) even for extremely high end cards in multi-card setups. For that matter on the forums Kyle said that 4x (quarter speed) is still more than enough for cards at 1920x1200. The highest end discreet cards don't need it, you are fine.
Can someone explain specifically what's special about this? How is this any better than using Tor yourself to search through any other search engine? Presumably, as long as you don't reveal personal information, your searches will be anonymous anyway. If that's the case, how does being able to point your browser to a *.onion domain to access a given service help - is it somehow more anonymous?
(please don't read sarcasm into my question - I'm actually interested to know this).
I think you have effectively clarified that P=NP does not imply a paradox (in that the question P=NP? does not fall within the set of P or NP sets).
That still leaves the question itself fairly vague. I think, however, the 'Consequences of the Proof' section of the Wikipedia article helps clarify why this question is even being asked to begin with...this is definitely something to leave to the experts.:)
I admittedly don't have a deep understanding of what this means, but from skimming the relevant page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem), it seems to me that if P=NP were to be proven (contrary to what the research noted in the OP), it will have taken significantly more effort to accomplish than it would be to verify the proof. So that in and of itself suggests P!=NP...and therefore by solving P=NP we would paradoxically also provide proof that P!=NP...or so goes my line of thinking. But I suppose this is just because I just don't have a clue what I'm talking about - is solving P vs. NP is a different category of problem solving in itself?
It's fine if they want to use Silverlight, but from what I can tell (maybe I'm wrong) they are only relying on the Web browser's useragent string to check if it can run the application. With the latest release of Moonlight installed on FF/Ubuntu, the default response I got from the website indicates I need to have Silverlight on Windows or Mac. If I switch to an IE8 useragent string (using useragent switcher), it then tells me I need Silverlight 3. I then tried switching to a useragent setting for FF on Vista, and all of a sudden it thinks I'm okay.
That's pretty lame in my opinion...it's fine to have a warning (although Moonlight already does that for you), but to assume the client browser can't handle the application without actually validating feature support, or at least providing the user with an option to try anyway is not all that friendly.
So what you're saying is that you use the same password for everything else? I guess that means whoever guesses your email password now also has your online banking password...but whew, your Facebook account is safe.:)
I just tried it with FF 3.5.5 (on Linux), and got nothing but a non-working clone of the YouTube player. It's been the same story with YouTube's HTML5 demo for some time as well.
If it's a windows-only thing, or Chrome-only, then it's not good enough to replace Flash yet.
I remember getting reamed-out by a support tech on the Skype forums for even hinting that an open source client might make solving problems alot easier - I hope he enjoys eating his words now.
Ever since moving to Linux, Skype has been the only thing other than MS Office that doesn't have an equal in terms of both quality and user base (at least, where user base is a factor). The main problems with Skype on Linux has been its ability to keep the client compatible with the constantly changing landscape in sound systems, from OSS, to ALSA, to PulseAudio, to...? Add to that the multitude of versions/distros, etc. If the client is open sourced, then you can download the responsibility of porting the application to different environments onto those with the skill/time/inclination to do so. And if nobody ever does port the client to sound system x on distro y, then at least they would have a valid reason to say there's not enough demand to bother.
I don't see why you're all up in a knot about this. I'm merely pointing out that renoX's statement omitted what is basically the substitute for developers 'goodwill' - money. By doing so, he's implying that the commercial projects somehow require less input than non-commercial. If a non-commercial project is important enough to someone with the resources, then funding it to give the give developers a paycheque can substitute where there is insufficient 'goodwill'.
If it's the 'FTFY' style of my reply that bothers you...then you might want to stop reading Slashdot. From the tone of your post, it seems like this website may be bad for your blood pressure.
Slashdot Mirror
if you ignore this kind of advice, then you deserve everything that you get.
Are you talking to the people reading this, or the people that actually need the advice you're offering? I suspect those two groups are for the most part mutually exclusive.
Eventually, the lasers could be mounted on a tank or ship to destroy enemy UAVs or even incoming artillery shells.
I can see this resulting in a lot of dead birds in the future.
If I recall correctly (haven't installed Fedora from scratch since about version 11), you can pick your filesystem using the advanced options in the installer, just like the Ubuntu installer. I don't recall whether this option is left out of the LiveCD installer, but I doubt it. As far as I understand, the LiveCD just has less packages installed by default...but the installer it runs is otherwise the same.
Don't forget the TV/cartoon series...or series of series. I think you'd have to be living under a rock, that is itself lodged underneath another larger rock, to have not been exposed to the majority of comic superhero stories.
I pay taxes for police services and such...since they're the government-employed guys that would remove the intruders you speak of, I believe it's me and other tax-paying citizens subsidizing them, not the other way around.
You have missed the whole point here. They DON'T own the copyright. That is to say, the people doing the investigating don't own the copyright. The people they work for might... or might not. If they're a bunch of guys hired by lawyers to go out and dig up "evidence", then they don't own the copyright any more than I do.
This is the third time I have said this in this topic: as the Righthaven case made clear recently, only people who actually own the copyrights can sue. RIAA and MPAA probably do not own any copyrights themselves. And any "investigators" working for them sure as hell don't own any copyrights.
Ok...so...for argument's sake, let's take RIAA/MPAA out of the equation, and assume the copyright holders are doing the suing. Let's also assume, in a hypothetical situation, that they have their own internal corporate employees doing the investigation. Would you still say that they can't touch any instance of data shared by bittorrent clients in order to identify the IPs that are sharing it?
Basically, I wouldn't bet on these types of technicalities/loopholes standing a rigorous test. As a defendant, I'm sure I'd cling to everything I could...but I think/hope the fact that an IP does not equal a person stands as a more important distinction, rather than trying to suggest that nobody can verify whether copyrighted content is illegally shared by looking at a copy of the shared data. The former is a question of reasonable doubt, where the latter is a question of whether the evidence is valid.
Well, if that verification is needed they can request one or more pieces from a client...if file pieces are successfully provided and they match the content the copyright holders are concerned about, then they can say that the remote client is in fact sharing the file. Yes...now they have a copy, but since they own the copyright, they are actually allowed to have this. At least, I think that's how most laypersons will interpret it...and I can't say I'd disagree with that perspective. I'm guessing that maybe some people are under the impression that the outcome of this type of approach is that the copyright holder will subsequently participate in the torrent by re-sharing the pieces they receive. However, a BT client can be modified to not share anything with any other clients...only download (certainly this is less efficient from a protocol perspective, but it is likely still effective for verifying clients that are sharing content).
I can only guess that the people investigating on behalf of the copyright holder thought of this approach, but let's assume for argument's sake they did. In that case, I'm still curious how it can be perceive that the copyright holder has somehow condoned implicitly filesharing simply by gathering information and data shared by clients in a bittorrent network.
Re. 'if they *did not* put it there': The way I understand BitTorrent is that you obtain the torrent file from a site online, load it in a client, which then queries trackers for lists of other clients' IP addresses and various metadata about how much they've downloaded/uploaded etc. So how is it illegal (a la copyright violation) to obtain all this data, when it is freely accessible and open via the BT protocol without ever having a single byte of the actual original file beforehand?
If you had to have a copy first, then what use would BitTorrent be to begin with?
[my apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted your comment]
As a local living in that area, who would you call to report his location and collect your reward? Do you call the police, and hope whoever you talk to is not corrupt?
I know I'd be keen to collect on the reward, but I don't like being dead either...so I don't really know how I personally would have gone about doing it. Presumably you have to be identifiable at the time that you call in the tip, and that's the catch. (Well, maybe I can think of ways *I* would have gone about it, but the situation would likely be very different for most locals in Pakistan).
Back to the draconian requirement for a BB data plan, I have a 9000 as my secondary phone WITHOUT a BB data plan. IT's ridiculous and stupid the quantity of applications coded by RIM or 3'rd party developers following the guidelines where the application simply doesn't WORK on wifi OR 3G data. .blackberry data connections (facebook is a good example) how fucking ridiculous! It's not going through RIM, it's just going to a normal, everyday internet site, yet it simply is hard coded not to work. Incredibly short sighted and frustrating. To me, internet / 3g / data / any TCP connection is a TCP connection, restricting that is just 'doing it wrong'
I'm talking about apps which have NOTHING to do with RIM at all but that restriction to only use TCP traffic over
(See also the official gmail application, no wifi support? whut!)
I feel exactly the way you do - I became the owner of a BB recently, with the expectation that I could get a basic pre-paid phone sim, and do everything else data-related over WiFi. Well...you clearly already know just how disappointing that turned out to be. For me, this is the real problem with BBs - if you want to get regular consumers (and keep them), don't treat them like they're stupid. When I'm told the 'Facebook' or 'Gmail' apps don't work because I don't have a data plan (but I do have a WiFi connection), I feel like RIM's just trying to screw me into paying for what's already available for free through any conventional Internet platform. From what I've been told, this is not the case with the Playbook - but if I ever get one, I'll be scrutinizing it very carefully in-store before taking one home.
The fact that more energy is consumed during manufacturing than during use is *because* the devices have been developed to be more efficient. Yes the manufacturing can be made more efficient, but once that's accomplished, the numbers will shift and again we'll be looking at trying to improve the devices' efficiency. Basically, efforts should be made to make everything more efficient all the time.
horrible Canadian subsidized horror movies.
Is that meant to be a critical, or just redundant?
Ok...say what you want, but Win95 through to Win7 have perfectly clean desktops...until you litter them with icons/apps, which is totally under your own control. Same can be said for just about any other desktop, including KDE 3.x.
That said, you really should take a look at the latest KDE...or at least one of the many 4.x releases over the past couple years. It's about as clean as it gets as far as I'm concerned.
2) PCIe is way, WAY faster than it needs to be. 8x, which is half speed, is still more than you need as HardOCP found (http://hardocp.com/article/2010/08/16/sli_cfx_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x16x8/6) even for extremely high end cards in multi-card setups. For that matter on the forums Kyle said that 4x (quarter speed) is still more than enough for cards at 1920x1200. The highest end discreet cards don't need it, you are fine.
8x ought to be enough for anybody...
Can someone explain specifically what's special about this? How is this any better than using Tor yourself to search through any other search engine? Presumably, as long as you don't reveal personal information, your searches will be anonymous anyway. If that's the case, how does being able to point your browser to a *.onion domain to access a given service help - is it somehow more anonymous?
(please don't read sarcasm into my question - I'm actually interested to know this).
I think you have effectively clarified that P=NP does not imply a paradox (in that the question P=NP? does not fall within the set of P or NP sets).
That still leaves the question itself fairly vague. I think, however, the 'Consequences of the Proof' section of the Wikipedia article helps clarify why this question is even being asked to begin with...this is definitely something to leave to the experts. :)
I admittedly don't have a deep understanding of what this means, but from skimming the relevant page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem), it seems to me that if P=NP were to be proven (contrary to what the research noted in the OP), it will have taken significantly more effort to accomplish than it would be to verify the proof. So that in and of itself suggests P!=NP...and therefore by solving P=NP we would paradoxically also provide proof that P!=NP...or so goes my line of thinking. But I suppose this is just because I just don't have a clue what I'm talking about - is solving P vs. NP is a different category of problem solving in itself?
It's fine if they want to use Silverlight, but from what I can tell (maybe I'm wrong) they are only relying on the Web browser's useragent string to check if it can run the application. With the latest release of Moonlight installed on FF/Ubuntu, the default response I got from the website indicates I need to have Silverlight on Windows or Mac. If I switch to an IE8 useragent string (using useragent switcher), it then tells me I need Silverlight 3. I then tried switching to a useragent setting for FF on Vista, and all of a sudden it thinks I'm okay.
That's pretty lame in my opinion...it's fine to have a warning (although Moonlight already does that for you), but to assume the client browser can't handle the application without actually validating feature support, or at least providing the user with an option to try anyway is not all that friendly.
There's no way it could be used as an ingredient in the powdered sugar sprinkled on my doughnuts...oh wait...
So what you're saying is that you use the same password for everything else? I guess that means whoever guesses your email password now also has your online banking password...but whew, your Facebook account is safe. :)
So does anyone know if this applies to software RAID configurations?
Just curious...
I think this comment points reveals a consistent flaw with Slashdot - the score from mod points stops at five. :/
I just tried it with FF 3.5.5 (on Linux), and got nothing but a non-working clone of the YouTube player. It's been the same story with YouTube's HTML5 demo for some time as well.
If it's a windows-only thing, or Chrome-only, then it's not good enough to replace Flash yet.
I remember getting reamed-out by a support tech on the Skype forums for even hinting that an open source client might make solving problems alot easier - I hope he enjoys eating his words now.
Ever since moving to Linux, Skype has been the only thing other than MS Office that doesn't have an equal in terms of both quality and user base (at least, where user base is a factor). The main problems with Skype on Linux has been its ability to keep the client compatible with the constantly changing landscape in sound systems, from OSS, to ALSA, to PulseAudio, to ...? Add to that the multitude of versions/distros, etc. If the client is open sourced, then you can download the responsibility of porting the application to different environments onto those with the skill/time/inclination to do so. And if nobody ever does port the client to sound system x on distro y, then at least they would have a valid reason to say there's not enough demand to bother.
Just my general opinion anyway.
I don't see why you're all up in a knot about this. I'm merely pointing out that renoX's statement omitted what is basically the substitute for developers 'goodwill' - money. By doing so, he's implying that the commercial projects somehow require less input than non-commercial. If a non-commercial project is important enough to someone with the resources, then funding it to give the give developers a paycheque can substitute where there is insufficient 'goodwill'.
If it's the 'FTFY' style of my reply that bothers you...then you might want to stop reading Slashdot. From the tone of your post, it seems like this website may be bad for your blood pressure.