Huh? I went to my job fair and had the opposite experience. As a matter of fact, pretty much everyone I talked to asked me about my Unix experience and complimented me on it.
Perhaps you were looking for the wrong type of job? Most of my conversations focused on server side application programming and performance tools, and when I asked, none of the companies even mentioned Microsoft as a development platform, other than to say that they did have some NT in their operations.
If PDF will do (which is, of course, directly convertible to PS), you might want to look at the XSL:FOP, which is supported by the Apache XML group xml.apache.org.
They have C and Java libraries which serve this stuff up from XML files in real time via the webserver, but the cool thing is that these libraries also contain stand-alone tools for converting XML to PDF via XSL:FOP. I've used it to produce invoices for web orders. It works great.
The progression of programming language through to the current generation displays an obvious trend: computer languages are becoming easier and easier to understand and to learn. The natural trend seems to indicate that in the future, we may be able to program computers using natural or near-natural language.
What effect does today's verdict (in combination with this obvious trend) have on freedom of speech given that in a few years, it may be possible to implement DeCSS in pure English? Will rulings such as Judge Kaplan's (if upheld) be used as precedent to quell real speech in the future? If such English-like computer languages become possible, will it be illegal for me to even have a conversation on a BBS or newsgroup about how DeCSS works at some point in time, since that discussion may be directly translatable into a program which decodes DVDs?
Her e's a little webpage that lets you see how easy and accurate (or not) keystroke biometrics can be.
This was a project for a machine-learning course, and it uses a really simple k-nearest neighbor approach, so it could be improved quite a bit. Keystroke biometrics are nothing new. They are rather cool -- but not when you apply them to locking down content.
Now, using this biometric to "protect" music seems insanely lame, not because it can't be accurate, but because keystroke biometrics, like all other biometrics, *can* be rather easily compromised when used as access tokens. Recording my own keystroke pattern, providing a "re-player", and then distributing it on the net with all my mp3s would be fairly simple.
Retinal scans? Same problem. It's optical. It doesn't take long to figure out how to produce a copied image of someone's retina that would trick a scanner. Even if the scanner uses some of it's own tricks (measuring refraction, etc), it all ultimately becomes a stream of bits, and it just isn't that hard to replicate a stream of bits to an application... So it all boils down to how hard the case is glued together between the scanner's input and its encryption encoder.
The only thing any of these biometrics does is *increase* the difficulty, which *is* a deterent. Of course, adding this crap to music downloads is even more of a deterent from adopting it at all, so don't worry -- market forces will doom it anyway.
The U.S. Copyright Office is asking for comments on making exceptions to the DMCA for "non-infringing uses" of circumvention of encryption. The last day comments will be accepted is Feb 10, 2000, which is TOMMORROW.
The Office is asking for comments from "all interested parties, including representatives of copyright owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives, scholars, researchers and members of the public." Electronic submissions are preferred, and can be submitted to "1201@loc.gov". Important instructions on the format of these submissions are included HERE
It is likely that the "flier campaign" of 2600 has largely failed, not because it was a bad idea, but because the general populace just doesn't understand or care. We need to take our case to the decision makers and those in power who can effect change. Influencing the Copyright Office's rule-making body is a way in which we can be effective. Let's make our voices heard. Be assured that the MPAA and DVD-CCA are making their cases before the Copyright office.
I lived in Uruguay for two years, and I was quite impressed by their (lack) of IP law concerning software.
At the time, I could walk into a number of legitimate businesses and "purchase" software for about $2.00US per disk. The disks, of course, were copies. This was totally legal. I obtained a ton of nice games. It was great. Then one of the businesses was almost shut down because the owner had sold xeroxed copies of manuals. While it was legal to make copies of programs, copying manuals was definitely illegal. His business put up posters showing Uncle Sam stepping on Uruguay. Even though I am from the US, I found this really amusing and even sympathized. The amount charged for software in countries like Uruguay is extremely disporportionate to the amount of money the average person earns. The US software industry, with MS at the helm, is an oppressor of less wealthy nations and peoples.
Now, these jokers seem to be pulling some sort of scam in the that is the inverse of what I experienced. Perhaps the laws have swung in the opposite direction.
Hmmm. So a bunch of ordinary E*Trade users get a shot at this while I still get denied, even though I was invited by Red Hat and they weren't.
Oh well. I guess I need to put in an application to the "good ol' boys" network and see if I can get a break for once. I wonder if the "good ol' boys" require me to send a couple of grand before finding out if I'm ineligible. I hear that once you are one of the "good ol' boys," you can just sit back and let the $$$ flow in. That's nice.
Gerald Holmes has shown us the way: Mock the FUD-meisters unceasingly. There is no better answer to Metcalfe's blathering name-calling and subtle accusations than Holmes' blatant stupidity.
Let us expose this new round of FUD for what it is -- utter BS.
When Metcalfe calls Linux "communistic," let's chime in and agree that all Linux users are communistic satanists with long hair, people who disregard technology for the sake of destroying capitalism. Anyone who cannot immediately see the lunacy in such claims once made is beyond salvation and will remain a Microsoft drone no matter what the argument. The rest will plainly see that this new FUD is just bologne.
I just wanted to add my voice to all those others who are experiencing extreme frustration at the offer to join in on the upcoming IPO.
I was rejected solely on the basis of having limited experience in investing -- NOT because I didn't have the proper income or liquid net worth. That is really frustrating. Only the good ole' boys and those who lie are getting in, I guess, and an honest guy like me is left out in the cold.
I was rejected twice. I did not lie, though I thought I filled the form out "better" the second time. I had planned on purchasing and keeping the stock for some time -- I don't believe in flipping or in quick profits.
I am saddened and frustrated and soured by all of this. Red Hat's initial offer was a wonderful, generous, incentive-for-making-free-software-building, loyalty-to-Red-Hat-building move. E*Trade's rejection of my "eligibility" is a slap-in-the-face, this-is-what-you-get-if-you-GPL, discouraging move.
There are two outcomes to all of this:
1) Our frustration will be compounded as Red Hat's stock soars and we realize that we rightfully deserved to be making some earnings off of all of this. We will jump from the open-source boat in droves, finally realizing that all those rabid pro-Microsofter's were right -- it is all about money. We will take jobs working on closed-source projects and some of your sources for software development will disappear. Either that, or we simply lose all loyalty to Red Hat in favor of other distros.
2) We will smugly grin as Red Hat's stock value roller coasters with all the inexperienced investors who got in the second time by lieing, moving our loyalty to some other distribution and diminishing Red Hat's value further.
Red Hat *is* the market leader. It's the only distribution I've sworn by in my Linux using years. It's the first to offer stock and potential profit to those who helped it become what it is. Red Hat has always stood up for the developer. It is my hope that you will continue to work with E*Trade to remedy the situation that has affected many like myself.
Thanks, Alen
disclaimer: I don't care about all the regulatory debate taking place -- this is about how I personally feel about the issue, so if you want to respond with a "you're an idiot who doesn't understand the financial world" feel free, it really is irrelevant.
It might be a good idea to write Red Hat with *YOUR* perspective of how it feels to get locked out.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you were looking for the wrong type of job? Most of my conversations focused on server side application programming and performance tools, and when I asked, none of the companies even mentioned Microsoft as a development platform, other than to say that they did have some NT in their operations.
They have C and Java libraries which serve this stuff up from XML files in real time via the webserver, but the cool thing is that these libraries also contain stand-alone tools for converting XML to PDF via XSL:FOP. I've used it to produce invoices for web orders. It works great.
What effect does today's verdict (in combination with this obvious trend) have on freedom of speech given that in a few years, it may be possible to implement DeCSS in pure English? Will rulings such as Judge Kaplan's (if upheld) be used as precedent to quell real speech in the future? If such English-like computer languages become possible, will it be illegal for me to even have a conversation on a BBS or newsgroup about how DeCSS works at some point in time, since that discussion may be directly translatable into a program which decodes DVDs?
This was a project for a machine-learning course, and it uses a really simple k-nearest neighbor approach, so it could be improved quite a bit. Keystroke biometrics are nothing new. They are rather cool -- but not when you apply them to locking down content.
Now, using this biometric to "protect" music seems insanely lame, not because it can't be accurate, but because keystroke biometrics, like all other biometrics, *can* be rather easily compromised when used as access tokens. Recording my own keystroke pattern, providing a "re-player", and then distributing it on the net with all my mp3s would be fairly simple.
Retinal scans? Same problem. It's optical. It doesn't take long to figure out how to produce a copied image of someone's retina that would trick a scanner. Even if the scanner uses some of it's own tricks (measuring refraction, etc), it all ultimately becomes a stream of bits, and it just isn't that hard to replicate a stream of bits to an application... So it all boils down to how hard the case is glued together between the scanner's input and its encryption encoder.
The only thing any of these biometrics does is *increase* the difficulty, which *is* a deterent. Of course, adding this crap to music downloads is even more of a deterent from adopting it at all, so don't worry -- market forces will doom it anyway.
The Office is asking for comments from "all interested parties, including representatives of copyright owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives, scholars, researchers and members of the public." Electronic submissions are preferred, and can be submitted to "1201@loc.gov". Important instructions on the format of these submissions are included HERE
It is likely that the "flier campaign" of 2600 has largely failed, not because it was a bad idea, but because the general populace just doesn't understand or care. We need to take our case to the decision makers and those in power who can effect change. Influencing the Copyright Office's rule-making body is a way in which we can be effective. Let's make our voices heard. Be assured that the MPAA and DVD-CCA are making their cases before the Copyright office.
DO IT NOW!
At the time, I could walk into a number of legitimate businesses and "purchase" software for about $2.00US per disk. The disks, of course, were copies. This was totally legal. I obtained a ton of nice games. It was great. Then one of the businesses was almost shut down because the owner had sold xeroxed copies of manuals. While it was legal to make copies of programs, copying manuals was definitely illegal. His business put up posters showing Uncle Sam stepping on Uruguay. Even though I am from the US, I found this really amusing and even sympathized. The amount charged for software in countries like Uruguay is extremely disporportionate to the amount of money the average person earns. The US software industry, with MS at the helm, is an oppressor of less wealthy nations and peoples.
Now, these jokers seem to be pulling some sort of scam in the that is the inverse of what I experienced. Perhaps the laws have swung in the opposite direction.
Oh well. I guess I need to put in an application to the "good ol' boys" network and see if I can get a break for once. I wonder if the "good ol' boys" require me to send a couple of grand before finding out if I'm ineligible. I hear that once you are one of the "good ol' boys," you can just sit back and let the $$$ flow in. That's nice.
Let us expose this new round of FUD for what it is -- utter BS.
When Metcalfe calls Linux "communistic," let's chime in and agree that all Linux users are communistic satanists with long hair, people who disregard technology for the sake of destroying capitalism. Anyone who cannot immediately see the lunacy in such claims once made is beyond salvation and will remain a Microsoft drone no matter what the argument. The rest will plainly see that this new FUD is just bologne.
disclaimer: I don't care about all the regulatory debate taking place -- this is about how I personally feel about the issue, so if you want to respond with a "you're an idiot who doesn't understand the financial world" feel free, it really is irrelevant.
It might be a good idea to write Red Hat with *YOUR* perspective of how it feels to get locked out.
It's always wise to try to think about how others hold views you don't agree with before spouting potentially offensive comments.
The Book of Mormon is a very real thing to many of us. You don't have to believe what we believe, but please show at least a little respect.
Also note that the conferenc talks of LDS Church leaders were filtered by this software, so the kids couldn't access that either.
Check the latest rawhide -- it's got both, which means that 6.0 will have both.
From now on, ALWAYS send email to the lame pages, pointing them to the demoronizer. They should thank us for fixing their pages.