The article is rather short on details, but exactly how is this different than what Cygwin has been doing for a number of years?
There are three approaches to this problem (aside from virtual machines, like VMWare, or emulation).
The Cygwin approach is to provide basically a windows library that implements the Linux API. You can then recompile Linux programs using that library to run on Windows.
The CoLinux approach is to basically run the Linux kernel as a process on Windows, and then you can run Linux binaries under Windows. Think of it as conceptually like User Mode Linux, but running on Windows instead of Linux.
The third approach is what my employer is doing, in a product that we have in beta right now, which I won't name since I'm not sure if we have announced this yet. It's kind of in between Cygwin and CoLinux--it provides an implementation of the Linux API on Windows, so you can run Linux binaries, but it has no Linux code in it. Basically the same way WINE lets you run Win32 binaries on Linux.
If they can get legitimate advertisers and successfully achieve directed advertising, that's even better
Good point. Google already has advertising to support search results, and generally people don't object, and when one is searching in order to find where to buy something, the ads are often useful.
Assuming gmail's ads will be as unobtrusive as the search ads, most people will welcome them if they are useful a good fraction of the time. If Google can figure out from my email that I'm shopping for a Thingy and gives me an ad for a great Thingy dealer that I've overlooked, how could I possibly object?
It will be interesting to see, though, what the reaction will be from companies that aren't advertising through Google. Suppose, for example, the I'm shopping for a mortgage, and I contact a mortgage company by email for a quote. I wonder if they might refuse to send a quote to a gmail address, out of fear that Google will figure out from the email that I'm interested in mortgages, and show me an ad for a better mortgage company?
Bad assumption. RAID is horrible for things the size of Google. Go read the article from a week or two ago that linked to the site that explained how Google's datastorage works.
At work, we went through a phase once of calling people who were doing X "X-boy". E.g., I was doing some email stuff, so people called me "email-boy". Well, one programmer was learning Qt, and as he left one evening, someone called out "Goodnight, cutie-boy!". Man, was his face red when he realized what that sounded like.:-)
I've thought of, when I get a house, putting my computers in a rack in a closet (if I can get adequate ventilation in a closet), or at least putting the computers in another room, for less noise, and just having on my desk a mouse, keyboard, DVD+R/RW drive, monitor, and speakers.
USB2 with chained hubs can go pretty far, so that covers the mouse, keyboard, and drive. Long audio cables are not a problem, so that covers the speakers (alternatively, I could use a USB "soundcard" and have that on the desk).
However, video seems to be the biggest problem. What's a good way to run video a reasonable distance? (By reasonable, let's say as far as USB2 for Firewire through the maximum number of allowed chained hubs can reach).
For every person who would want to introduce a flaw into such software there are hundreds, more likely thousands, who would want to expose that flaw and fix it. It really doesn't matter if their reasons are patriotic or ego related
Your counts are way off for the kind of systems they are talking about. For the kind of defense systems they are talking about, there aren't a huge number of people with the expertise to analyze the code. The "bad guy" and "good guy" communities would be about the same size if the code was open.
Green Hills RTOS is certified to some impressively high security level (EAL7), which is far beyond what Linux can reach. To reach that level, they have to have a formally verified design and implementation.
What this means is that all those bugs that get found and fixed quicker in open source than they do in normal closed source software aren't in Green Hills stuff in the first place.
I think 'infected computers' would be more likely.
You'd think that (and so would I), but we'd be wrong. There are a huge number of users who like that thing, and complain if anti-spyware sofware removes it (I know because I work at an anti-spyware company, and Gator is one of the ones we have to tread lightly with, because so many users actually want the damned thing).
This is why you run as a restricted user rather than administrator or power user. Restricted users don't have write or modify permissions to the WINNT or Program Files directories or subdirectories. And they certainly don't have permission to screw with the registry
So basically, then, that makes it so that if the user gets infected by something, all it can do is destroy that user's personal files, and propogate over the network, as opposed to doing all that AND making the user have to reinstall Windows by mucking with system stuff?
That's nice for administratos--they can clean the machine just by wiping that user, but for the user that is not going to make much difference.
However, for albums that do have good songs on them, I've noticed that in most cases, the songs I thought of as the best songs when I bought the album are not the songs I think of as the best songs years later, after I've listened to the album many times.
Many of the best songs have little appeal on the first one or two or dozen listenings.
My worry is that the emphasis online distribution puts on singles will make it so that albums are stuffed full of songs that sound great on one or two listens, but have little long-lasting appeal. If I wanted that, I could just listen to mainstream hit radio.
Singles is for fluff. Good music is album-oriented.
Click-thru agreements are as meaningless as EULAs in most countries. They CANNOT take away your rights given by the law.
Name some of those "most countries". Your statement is wrong in all Common Law countries, almost all of Europe, and pretty much everywhere else that I'm aware of.
Well, technically, you are correct that contracts can't take away rights. However, you can give up rights as part of your consideration to form a contract, and that is legally enforceable. There are certain rights that you cannot give up this way, but none that are applicable here.
Of course because I signed on the dotted lines, it's _supposed_ to be legal, however should we be obligated to give up our first-born sons just because we want access to some content?
You aren't obligated to get that content from Apple. Get it somewhere else if you don't like Apple's terms. If you agree to terms, you should indeed be obligated to stick to them--that's the whole essence of contract.
To get the bits, you have to agree to Apple's terms. This isn't like buying an item in the store, where any purported contract is hidden behind shrink-wrap, and so arguably fails to be a valid contract.
Lots of ignorant comments already. PlayFair is the same as DeCSS: it removes restrictions on fair use, and allows compatibility
Incorrect. With DVDs, you go to the store, and buy them. There's no contract involved, other than what is implied by the UCC.
With iTMS, you have to sign up for their service, and agree to their contract, before getting access to the songs. You can't use PlayFair without violating the contract you agreed to.
That's a big difference: DeCSS can be used by honest people simply trying to use what they paid for, whereas this iTMS cracker is only used by people who are being dishonest.
Interesting position. How is rearranging the bits of something I own "vandalism"? How is this not a perfect example of fair use?
Because you lied to get those bits in the first place?
seriously, this could be useful
on
3D, FPS File Manager
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I recall reading somewhere, several months ago, about a project at MS Research that displayed multiple workspaces in a 3D FPS way, basically like paintings hanging on the walls in a gallery. You walk around and click on a workspace, and it expands to fill the screen.
The article said that this made it easier to keep track of things, because humans have good 3D memory, so remembering that you are working on the budget proposal on the workspace that is in the middle of the far wall in the third room on the right of the north hall is a lot easier for most people than the ususal desktop/workspace switchers.
It seems to me that a 3D FPS file manager would have the same advantage, especially if the "rooms" could be decorated with different color schemes, and decorations and pictures on the walls, to help give a sense of uniqueness to each room.
That's not all that interesting, since you can already do that with the existing stream-on-demand subscription services.
There are three kinds of people (roughly) who download or stream music.
Those who will actively try to circumvent the license restrictions.
Those who generally want to obey the license restrictions, but don't want to think about them. If they can easily do something, they assume it is OK. This is the largest group.
Those who are aware of the license restrictions, and make sure they obey them.
DRM is aimed at (a) making it so that for group #2, it just works--things they are licensed to do work without too much hassle, and things they aren't licensed to do fail, and (b) stopping the less sophisticated people from group #1.
OK, think about this for a minute. Canadian law can't work the way the summary implies, because Canadians aren't idiots. To work reasonably, a legal system needs a way to allow you to discover the identity of someone you want to sue if they have done something that makes them legally liable to you.
Reading the story, we see that this is indeed the case. The ISPs weren't compelled to release the IDs because the music companies had not shown sufficient evidence that a copyright violation had occured. If they had shown sufficient evidence, the ISPs probably would have had to cough up the names.
Slashdot Mirror
There are three approaches to this problem (aside from virtual machines, like VMWare, or emulation).
The Cygwin approach is to provide basically a windows library that implements the Linux API. You can then recompile Linux programs using that library to run on Windows.
The CoLinux approach is to basically run the Linux kernel as a process on Windows, and then you can run Linux binaries under Windows. Think of it as conceptually like User Mode Linux, but running on Windows instead of Linux.
The third approach is what my employer is doing, in a product that we have in beta right now, which I won't name since I'm not sure if we have announced this yet. It's kind of in between Cygwin and CoLinux--it provides an implementation of the Linux API on Windows, so you can run Linux binaries, but it has no Linux code in it. Basically the same way WINE lets you run Win32 binaries on Linux.
Good point. Google already has advertising to support search results, and generally people don't object, and when one is searching in order to find where to buy something, the ads are often useful.
Assuming gmail's ads will be as unobtrusive as the search ads, most people will welcome them if they are useful a good fraction of the time. If Google can figure out from my email that I'm shopping for a Thingy and gives me an ad for a great Thingy dealer that I've overlooked, how could I possibly object?
It will be interesting to see, though, what the reaction will be from companies that aren't advertising through Google. Suppose, for example, the I'm shopping for a mortgage, and I contact a mortgage company by email for a quote. I wonder if they might refuse to send a quote to a gmail address, out of fear that Google will figure out from the email that I'm interested in mortgages, and show me an ad for a better mortgage company?
Bad assumption. RAID is horrible for things the size of Google. Go read the article from a week or two ago that linked to the site that explained how Google's datastorage works.
At work, we went through a phase once of calling people who were doing X "X-boy". E.g., I was doing some email stuff, so people called me "email-boy". Well, one programmer was learning Qt, and as he left one evening, someone called out "Goodnight, cutie-boy!". Man, was his face red when he realized what that sounded like. :-)
I had no problem. I stuck the CD in the drive, clicked the thingy to select all tracks, and clicked rip.
Why has it taken you ages to do this?
USB2 with chained hubs can go pretty far, so that covers the mouse, keyboard, and drive. Long audio cables are not a problem, so that covers the speakers (alternatively, I could use a USB "soundcard" and have that on the desk).
However, video seems to be the biggest problem. What's a good way to run video a reasonable distance? (By reasonable, let's say as far as USB2 for Firewire through the maximum number of allowed chained hubs can reach).
GNOME started late, and has never quite caught up to KDE. If they switch languages, they are going to fall further behind.
OK, so now that there are red, green, and blue LEDs...where's the LED TV?
Your counts are way off for the kind of systems they are talking about. For the kind of defense systems they are talking about, there aren't a huge number of people with the expertise to analyze the code. The "bad guy" and "good guy" communities would be about the same size if the code was open.
What this means is that all those bugs that get found and fixed quicker in open source than they do in normal closed source software aren't in Green Hills stuff in the first place.
You'd think that (and so would I), but we'd be wrong. There are a huge number of users who like that thing, and complain if anti-spyware sofware removes it (I know because I work at an anti-spyware company, and Gator is one of the ones we have to tread lightly with, because so many users actually want the damned thing).
So basically, then, that makes it so that if the user gets infected by something, all it can do is destroy that user's personal files, and propogate over the network, as opposed to doing all that AND making the user have to reinstall Windows by mucking with system stuff?
That's nice for administratos--they can clean the machine just by wiping that user, but for the user that is not going to make much difference.
However, for albums that do have good songs on them, I've noticed that in most cases, the songs I thought of as the best songs when I bought the album are not the songs I think of as the best songs years later, after I've listened to the album many times.
Many of the best songs have little appeal on the first one or two or dozen listenings.
My worry is that the emphasis online distribution puts on singles will make it so that albums are stuffed full of songs that sound great on one or two listens, but have little long-lasting appeal. If I wanted that, I could just listen to mainstream hit radio.
Singles is for fluff. Good music is album-oriented.
You find it ironic that a problem is found by people who make their living looking for such problems???
Hello! Why not just take the phones away from prisoners?
Here's a link to the Flyspeck Project, briefly mentioned at the end of the article, which aims to give a formal proof of the theorem.
Harry Potter? Spider-Man? Shrek?
Name some of those "most countries". Your statement is wrong in all Common Law countries, almost all of Europe, and pretty much everywhere else that I'm aware of.
Well, technically, you are correct that contracts can't take away rights. However, you can give up rights as part of your consideration to form a contract, and that is legally enforceable. There are certain rights that you cannot give up this way, but none that are applicable here.
You aren't obligated to get that content from Apple. Get it somewhere else if you don't like Apple's terms. If you agree to terms, you should indeed be obligated to stick to them--that's the whole essence of contract.
To get the bits, you have to agree to Apple's terms. This isn't like buying an item in the store, where any purported contract is hidden behind shrink-wrap, and so arguably fails to be a valid contract.
Incorrect. With DVDs, you go to the store, and buy them. There's no contract involved, other than what is implied by the UCC.
With iTMS, you have to sign up for their service, and agree to their contract, before getting access to the songs. You can't use PlayFair without violating the contract you agreed to.
That's a big difference: DeCSS can be used by honest people simply trying to use what they paid for, whereas this iTMS cracker is only used by people who are being dishonest.
Because you lied to get those bits in the first place?
The article said that this made it easier to keep track of things, because humans have good 3D memory, so remembering that you are working on the budget proposal on the workspace that is in the middle of the far wall in the third room on the right of the north hall is a lot easier for most people than the ususal desktop/workspace switchers.
It seems to me that a 3D FPS file manager would have the same advantage, especially if the "rooms" could be decorated with different color schemes, and decorations and pictures on the walls, to help give a sense of uniqueness to each room.
There are three kinds of people (roughly) who download or stream music.
DRM is aimed at (a) making it so that for group #2, it just works--things they are licensed to do work without too much hassle, and things they aren't licensed to do fail, and (b) stopping the less sophisticated people from group #1.
Reading the story, we see that this is indeed the case. The ISPs weren't compelled to release the IDs because the music companies had not shown sufficient evidence that a copyright violation had occured. If they had shown sufficient evidence, the ISPs probably would have had to cough up the names.