:%s/encrypted/corrupted/g
Seriously, they might call it encryption or some shit like it, but it's just really well-placed (or poorly-placed, depending on whose side you're on) corruption. If they were encrypted, normal CD players wouldn't read the disc (and I'll bet some won't anyway because of the corruption). They're trying to rely in the fact that some audio CD players will be more tolerant than CD-ROM devices. However, that's not certain. Either don't buy this kind of garbage, or make sure you return it after buying it to prove a point (it is defective).
You're sure about that? From another article on the same announcement:
Reaction from Lindon, Utah-based SCO was swift: The company portrayed the HP move as a tacit acknowledgment that SCO's recent legal maneuvering is proper.
"HP's actions this morning reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users running Linux are exposed to legal risks," SCO said in a statement. "Rather than deny the existence of substantial structural problems with Linux, as many open source leaders have done, HP is acknowledging that issues exist and is attempting to be responsive to its customers' request for relief. HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free.
"We are gratified that, alone among the major Linux vendors, HP has taken a strong stand to protect their customers by indemnifying them against possible legal difficulties stemming from their use of Linux," the SCO statement said. "We believe that this action signals that HP recognizes their Linux users could, in fact, face litigation because of copyright violations and intellectual property problems within Linux. As a company that strongly supports its customers, HP has done something about this."
I especially like the part: "Rather than deny the existence of substantial structural problems with Linux, as many open source leaders have done, HP is acknowledging that issues exist". That's just classic. In reality, HP is doing the opposite, and stating that they believe there's no problem, and that they're willing to put their own legal muscle behind the assertion. If HP believed there were problems with Linux, I'd think that they'd rather just drop it as soon as possible, rather than open themselves up to legal liability.
Then again, lets go over the facts. Red Hat has no right to believe their likely to be sued by SCO, according to SCO's recent legal filings, yet Red Hat is both a user and a distributor of Linux, and we are told that all users of Linux will be liable to SCO for damages from the misuse of SCO's copyrights and trade secrets. We're told that vendors should provide indemnification to users if they truly believe there's no IP problems with Linux, and the moment one does, SCO uses it as proof that there's IP problems with Linux. They tell us, their lawsuit with IBM is about copyright, trade secrets and patents, when their lawsuit is more about contract law than any of the IP laws. They announce they'll send out 1,500 invoices, and never do. They get "disappointed" when Red Hat decides they don't wish to blindly pay licensing fees to SCO, and try to get a declaratory judgement from the courts instead of being haunted by the spectre of a SCO lawsuit for years to come. I just want to know one thing -- Why is anyone in the press still listening to them when they obviously can't get their story straight?
Did anyone really think that Verisign would just say, "Oh, okay, we'll remove it because you asked so nicely!"? There's likely only two ways this is getting removed. One is by lawsuit (which is already happening), the other is by ICANN pulling their contract to control.net and.com. Given the fact that ICANN has traditionally handed Verisign every contract they've had available, I don't have much confidence in ICANN. I'd love to see both come crashing down on Verisign's head though.
Just watch, though. I'm sure that adding the "sitefinder" service is going to be much easier for verisign to do than tearing it back down if/when a court decides that Verisign had no right to do it. They'll certainly come up with bullshit technical explanation after explanation why it can't be brought down right now just to keep it up another day, week, month or year.
Shaw Cable has the same limited unlimited service.
The agreement for shaw says: "Residential services do not have specific guidelines of this nature as the Service is not intended for business applications. Shaw reserves the right to set specific limits for Bandwidth Usage and charge for excessive Bandwidth Usage for residential Services at any time." However, the agreement and reality are different. If you ever go over their magic bandwidth number (I've heard 15GB), they'll contact you and insist on charging you for that bandwidth that went past their internal 5GB/month guideline. Shaw, of course, provides no self-monitoring tools for their customers, so you can prevent yourself from going past that magical limit, you're just supposed to 'know'.
It's worse than that. Some RFCs state that you should attempt to deliver mail to the A record host if the MX records do not exist. This move by Verisign has increased the amount of traffic required to bounce a message, with possible retries, etc. Now your mail server has to start an entire SMTP connection to Verisign, and be told that the domain doesn't exist with a fatal SMTP error. Before, you'd get a single UDP packet and be done.
Well, yes, except this isn't about PCI-X. Intel's BTX boards are shown with PCI Express not PCI-X. PCI Express is serial, PCI is parallel. However, as I understand it, PCI-X is something different. It's basically 64-bit PCI slots at 66MHz or higher.
It's this attitude that kills companies more than any other reason. You must remember that despite Microsoft's attempts, there are competitors that they haven't managed to kill. Intuit is one, despite Microsoft practically giving Microsoft Money away with Windows 95, bundling it in virtually every "home" product they make, and aggressively pricing it. Quicken and QuickBooks still exist and are doing very well.
Should Google fear Microsoft? Who wouldn't? Should they lay down and die because they will inevitably be massacred by the Beast of Redmond? Of course not. Now, should Google IPO because of the Microsoft threat? I doubt it. Not being held to a board of stockholders lets them do things they wouldn't be able to do otherwise like refuse potential revenue streams like pop-up advertisments and pay-for-place search results. The very things that got Google where it is today would be lost if they IPOed and the stockholders started to demand that they maximize their revenue by doing so.
Right now Google has a better product than Microsoft. If they continue to have a better product than Microsoft, there's a good chance they could survive. If they cease having a better product than Microsoft they will die.
Except Kilo, Mega, Giga, etc are all SI prefixes which have a specific meaning. Now, it could be said that they are completely illsuited to measure the size of a hard drive, whose sectors are made from 512 byte blocks. Although, perhaps manufacturers will start advertising their drives as 56 GiB drives instead of 60GB. It is a deceptive trade practice, although it may be technically correct.
In order for him to get a straight answer he had to pre-emptively insult himself "Guys, I know I'm entirely retarded, but does anyone know how to get mplayer to play X?"
Uhm, so you think that just because someone insulted himself during the post means that everyone who might provide you with free technical support on Linux is a prick? Hate to break this to you, but that's hardly Linux's fault. Regardless of what you look for support on, you'll find idiots who want to give you snide comments like RTFM, or go do it yourself. My experience is that most people will try to help you provided you show that you made some effort to solve the problem yourself (such as state what you tried that didn't work).
Lets assume that you call a vendor for support. You'd likely to have paid for the support, so the vendor will likely allow you to be somewhat abusive of their support personelle because the money you pay them is worth the inconvenience. Now, most of the support you get on newsgroups is by people not getting any income for answering your questions, so their tolerance to put up with crap is significantly decreased. If you even ask a question in such a way that makes you look like you might be one of the assholes they deal with in the support business, you will be dropped as quickly as possible. When you want something for nothing, being polite and courteous versus appearing to bark out demands is the difference between getting an answer, and getting "RTFM". BTW, this applies equally to proprietary software lists (unmanned by paid employees) as to free software lists. Lists and discussion groups with paid employees answering questions (such as microsoft.public.*) can be friendlier, but you get boilerplate responses more often, and the same answer three times over before someone finally gets that their solution doesn't work for your problem.
Re:PowerPC Linux users had compiled boot 'scripts'
on
Booting Linux Faster
·
· Score: 1
The other option is to use the Windows XP trick of loading the GUI before the rest of the system is actually up. You get incredibly fast "boot times", but network capability isn't available for some time after you get into the GUI.
To make things worse, many systems that the patch was installed on from Windows Update never really did get patched. All the uninstall registry entries may be there, but the updated files are not. Only manually running the patch removed the vulnerability. Now, if this is happening, maybe there's something wrong with the Windows Update system...?
I believe this tool treats the code as one big file. Unfortunately, though, no matter how you do it, it's a computationally intensive process. However, I believe his program is broken. Unless, of course, there is no duplicated code between 4.4BSD-Lite2 and Linux, or Linux 2.6.0-test4 and Linux 2.6.0-test4 (yes, comparing the source tree to itself).
I'm pretty sure an actual physical signature would be required for such a contract rather than just a click through agreement. I imagine that this is different from a terms of service agreement where violating it simply means your service is terminated. In this case, you're verifying that you're authorized at submit this code, and that you authorize for it to be released under the GPL. This certified mail trail is what I mean about the death of ad hoc development. The overhead to signing, verifying, and processing the contracts and entering them into a system would be overwhelming. If it indeed could be done electronically, then perhaps it wouldn't be such a big deal, but this is also international... How do you deal with people in the U.K., Russia, China, Austrailia, etc? A contract that's valid in the USA might not be valid anywhere else.
I fail to see how this type of change would be trivial. There would have to be legal documents drawn up, and everyone who wants to contribute to the development would have to sign them. They'd have to go through a beurocratic process to be verified, processed and filed. They'd need to be renewed every x number of years, or whenever the contributor changed jobs. There may also need to be documents that the prospective contributor needs to get signed by his/her employer. The end result is the death of the ad hoc development style that was responsible for getting Linux where it is now.
If it has MP3 headers, it'll only play as audio. I'm sure audio porn is a big problem, though, and is certainly nothing like what you would hear on a movie or in music.
Except that Microsoft could likely claim that some of their copyright was intermingled in that document. Various magic, structures, etc could be claimed as being under copyright. Or maybe Microsoft ships the product with one or more DRM protected documents. Then there's the patents and trade secrets that could be claimed on the DRM process itself. What I'm curious about is if this will trigger more anti-trust suits against Microsoft... They have a defacto standard on office applications, and intentionally changing the format in a way that locks out all competitors is a little anti-competitive, isn't it?
Well at 24% ethanol to water, it's pretty non-flamable. You'd have the same risk from the regular bottles of alcohol that are present on most flights. Yes, you can light it on fire, but it's not terribly volitile. And if you were looking at trying to do bad things on a plane, it would likely be much easier to simply steal a bunch of the mini alcoholic beverages and bust them open than try and puncture a fuel cell for a laptop (which would likely be designed to withstand some abuse).
Here's another way of thinking about it. A CA will never revoke a certificate because of spam because of the liability it would cause. Can you imagine the lawsuit if a major corporation was prohibited with communicating with the rest of the world because of a fraudulent claim, or even a legitimate one. No, instead we're going to have a system nearly identical to the one today, with independant parties maintaining blacklists who are vulnerable to DDoS attacks.
I still don't believe that this would ever stop spam. It might slow it down for a few months, but getting it implemented would take years, so the gains would be worthless. All that would happen in this kind of set up would be middle men would appear, and buy dozens of domains and certificates to go with them. On the upside, this would likely create new jobs. But, I'm betting that spam companies could easily amortise the cost of 10-20 certificates over the process of a year, with even modest fees for spammers. And if you thought spam was bad now, just imagine how bad it'd be if it were legitimitized by an entire industry.
No, I think this is a very bad proposal and will do far more damage than good.
You think that a CA is going to revoke a cert just because spam originated from it? Not likely. You misunderstand the role that CAs play. They simply exist to try and prove that someone is who they say they are. All AMTP is likely to do is make spam middlemen appear on the scene. Instead of sending their spam through normal means, they'll transmit it to these spam middlemen, who will take all the means nessesary to make sure they have a wide variety of certificates across many domains. The spam will keep flowing, except there'll be new job opportunities for new scum.
You misunderstand the role that CAs play. They don't verify that they owner of the certificate is reputable. They only exist to verify that the owner is who he or she said they were. If there were no falsities on the application for the certificate, it's unlikely they'd get their cert revoked. What this move would likely do, however, is create spam middlemen, who's only role is a clearinghouse for spam. It'll raise the bar for the cost of sending spam slightly, and raise the bar for owning your own personal e-mail domain to the point of being unattainable by normal individuals.
2.6 still has problems, including many of the modules are not completely compatible with the new module infrastructure in 2.6, including power management and sysfs. It's quite possible it won't be fixed until well into the 2.6 series. I fully expect ACPI sleep S3/S4 to be fairly unusable until 2.6.7-10 or so.
Computer viruses and worms are generally more like biological parasites than biological viruses. That, and the fact that computer systems do not generally have any form of immune system for discovering foreign entities and eliminating them. Perhaps Palladium or TCPA could make such a system possible, but I don't want to think about having to get all software signed by a third party in order to avoid having it get deleted by an automated immune system.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't have to be. There are CD players that have digital outs, and cards that have digital ins.
:%s/encrypted/corrupted/g
Seriously, they might call it encryption or some shit like it, but it's just really well-placed (or poorly-placed, depending on whose side you're on) corruption. If they were encrypted, normal CD players wouldn't read the disc (and I'll bet some won't anyway because of the corruption). They're trying to rely in the fact that some audio CD players will be more tolerant than CD-ROM devices. However, that's not certain. Either don't buy this kind of garbage, or make sure you return it after buying it to prove a point (it is defective).
You're sure about that? From another article on the same announcement:
I especially like the part: "Rather than deny the existence of substantial structural problems with Linux, as many open source leaders have done, HP is acknowledging that issues exist". That's just classic. In reality, HP is doing the opposite, and stating that they believe there's no problem, and that they're willing to put their own legal muscle behind the assertion. If HP believed there were problems with Linux, I'd think that they'd rather just drop it as soon as possible, rather than open themselves up to legal liability.
Then again, lets go over the facts. Red Hat has no right to believe their likely to be sued by SCO, according to SCO's recent legal filings, yet Red Hat is both a user and a distributor of Linux, and we are told that all users of Linux will be liable to SCO for damages from the misuse of SCO's copyrights and trade secrets. We're told that vendors should provide indemnification to users if they truly believe there's no IP problems with Linux, and the moment one does, SCO uses it as proof that there's IP problems with Linux. They tell us, their lawsuit with IBM is about copyright, trade secrets and patents, when their lawsuit is more about contract law than any of the IP laws. They announce they'll send out 1,500 invoices, and never do. They get "disappointed" when Red Hat decides they don't wish to blindly pay licensing fees to SCO, and try to get a declaratory judgement from the courts instead of being haunted by the spectre of a SCO lawsuit for years to come. I just want to know one thing -- Why is anyone in the press still listening to them when they obviously can't get their story straight?
Just watch, though. I'm sure that adding the "sitefinder" service is going to be much easier for verisign to do than tearing it back down if/when a court decides that Verisign had no right to do it. They'll certainly come up with bullshit technical explanation after explanation why it can't be brought down right now just to keep it up another day, week, month or year.
Shaw Cable has the same limited unlimited service. The agreement for shaw says: "Residential services do not have specific guidelines of this nature as the Service is not intended for business applications. Shaw reserves the right to set specific limits for Bandwidth Usage and charge for excessive Bandwidth Usage for residential Services at any time." However, the agreement and reality are different. If you ever go over their magic bandwidth number (I've heard 15GB), they'll contact you and insist on charging you for that bandwidth that went past their internal 5GB/month guideline. Shaw, of course, provides no self-monitoring tools for their customers, so you can prevent yourself from going past that magical limit, you're just supposed to 'know'.
It's worse than that. Some RFCs state that you should attempt to deliver mail to the A record host if the MX records do not exist. This move by Verisign has increased the amount of traffic required to bounce a message, with possible retries, etc. Now your mail server has to start an entire SMTP connection to Verisign, and be told that the domain doesn't exist with a fatal SMTP error. Before, you'd get a single UDP packet and be done.
Well, yes, except this isn't about PCI-X. Intel's BTX boards are shown with PCI Express not PCI-X. PCI Express is serial, PCI is parallel. However, as I understand it, PCI-X is something different. It's basically 64-bit PCI slots at 66MHz or higher.
It's this attitude that kills companies more than any other reason. You must remember that despite Microsoft's attempts, there are competitors that they haven't managed to kill. Intuit is one, despite Microsoft practically giving Microsoft Money away with Windows 95, bundling it in virtually every "home" product they make, and aggressively pricing it. Quicken and QuickBooks still exist and are doing very well.
Should Google fear Microsoft? Who wouldn't? Should they lay down and die because they will inevitably be massacred by the Beast of Redmond? Of course not. Now, should Google IPO because of the Microsoft threat? I doubt it. Not being held to a board of stockholders lets them do things they wouldn't be able to do otherwise like refuse potential revenue streams like pop-up advertisments and pay-for-place search results. The very things that got Google where it is today would be lost if they IPOed and the stockholders started to demand that they maximize their revenue by doing so.
Right now Google has a better product than Microsoft. If they continue to have a better product than Microsoft, there's a good chance they could survive. If they cease having a better product than Microsoft they will die.
Except Kilo, Mega, Giga, etc are all SI prefixes which have a specific meaning. Now, it could be said that they are completely illsuited to measure the size of a hard drive, whose sectors are made from 512 byte blocks. Although, perhaps manufacturers will start advertising their drives as 56 GiB drives instead of 60GB. It is a deceptive trade practice, although it may be technically correct.
Lets assume that you call a vendor for support. You'd likely to have paid for the support, so the vendor will likely allow you to be somewhat abusive of their support personelle because the money you pay them is worth the inconvenience. Now, most of the support you get on newsgroups is by people not getting any income for answering your questions, so their tolerance to put up with crap is significantly decreased. If you even ask a question in such a way that makes you look like you might be one of the assholes they deal with in the support business, you will be dropped as quickly as possible. When you want something for nothing, being polite and courteous versus appearing to bark out demands is the difference between getting an answer, and getting "RTFM". BTW, this applies equally to proprietary software lists (unmanned by paid employees) as to free software lists. Lists and discussion groups with paid employees answering questions (such as microsoft.public.*) can be friendlier, but you get boilerplate responses more often, and the same answer three times over before someone finally gets that their solution doesn't work for your problem.
The other option is to use the Windows XP trick of loading the GUI before the rest of the system is actually up. You get incredibly fast "boot times", but network capability isn't available for some time after you get into the GUI.
I'm not entirely sure people would feel secure sending their (possibly confidential) files to Sun or IBM.
I don't think I'd miss Java and Flash on websites, but... I guess I can see why others might like them...
To make things worse, many systems that the patch was installed on from Windows Update never really did get patched. All the uninstall registry entries may be there, but the updated files are not. Only manually running the patch removed the vulnerability. Now, if this is happening, maybe there's something wrong with the Windows Update system...?
I believe this tool treats the code as one big file. Unfortunately, though, no matter how you do it, it's a computationally intensive process. However, I believe his program is broken. Unless, of course, there is no duplicated code between 4.4BSD-Lite2 and Linux, or Linux 2.6.0-test4 and Linux 2.6.0-test4 (yes, comparing the source tree to itself).
I'm pretty sure an actual physical signature would be required for such a contract rather than just a click through agreement. I imagine that this is different from a terms of service agreement where violating it simply means your service is terminated. In this case, you're verifying that you're authorized at submit this code, and that you authorize for it to be released under the GPL. This certified mail trail is what I mean about the death of ad hoc development. The overhead to signing, verifying, and processing the contracts and entering them into a system would be overwhelming. If it indeed could be done electronically, then perhaps it wouldn't be such a big deal, but this is also international... How do you deal with people in the U.K., Russia, China, Austrailia, etc? A contract that's valid in the USA might not be valid anywhere else.
I fail to see how this type of change would be trivial. There would have to be legal documents drawn up, and everyone who wants to contribute to the development would have to sign them. They'd have to go through a beurocratic process to be verified, processed and filed. They'd need to be renewed every x number of years, or whenever the contributor changed jobs. There may also need to be documents that the prospective contributor needs to get signed by his/her employer. The end result is the death of the ad hoc development style that was responsible for getting Linux where it is now.
If it has MP3 headers, it'll only play as audio. I'm sure audio porn is a big problem, though, and is certainly nothing like what you would hear on a movie or in music.
Except that Microsoft could likely claim that some of their copyright was intermingled in that document. Various magic, structures, etc could be claimed as being under copyright. Or maybe Microsoft ships the product with one or more DRM protected documents. Then there's the patents and trade secrets that could be claimed on the DRM process itself. What I'm curious about is if this will trigger more anti-trust suits against Microsoft... They have a defacto standard on office applications, and intentionally changing the format in a way that locks out all competitors is a little anti-competitive, isn't it?
Well at 24% ethanol to water, it's pretty non-flamable. You'd have the same risk from the regular bottles of alcohol that are present on most flights. Yes, you can light it on fire, but it's not terribly volitile. And if you were looking at trying to do bad things on a plane, it would likely be much easier to simply steal a bunch of the mini alcoholic beverages and bust them open than try and puncture a fuel cell for a laptop (which would likely be designed to withstand some abuse).
I still don't believe that this would ever stop spam. It might slow it down for a few months, but getting it implemented would take years, so the gains would be worthless. All that would happen in this kind of set up would be middle men would appear, and buy dozens of domains and certificates to go with them. On the upside, this would likely create new jobs. But, I'm betting that spam companies could easily amortise the cost of 10-20 certificates over the process of a year, with even modest fees for spammers. And if you thought spam was bad now, just imagine how bad it'd be if it were legitimitized by an entire industry.
No, I think this is a very bad proposal and will do far more damage than good.
You think that a CA is going to revoke a cert just because spam originated from it? Not likely. You misunderstand the role that CAs play. They simply exist to try and prove that someone is who they say they are. All AMTP is likely to do is make spam middlemen appear on the scene. Instead of sending their spam through normal means, they'll transmit it to these spam middlemen, who will take all the means nessesary to make sure they have a wide variety of certificates across many domains. The spam will keep flowing, except there'll be new job opportunities for new scum.
You misunderstand the role that CAs play. They don't verify that they owner of the certificate is reputable. They only exist to verify that the owner is who he or she said they were. If there were no falsities on the application for the certificate, it's unlikely they'd get their cert revoked. What this move would likely do, however, is create spam middlemen, who's only role is a clearinghouse for spam. It'll raise the bar for the cost of sending spam slightly, and raise the bar for owning your own personal e-mail domain to the point of being unattainable by normal individuals.
2.6 still has problems, including many of the modules are not completely compatible with the new module infrastructure in 2.6, including power management and sysfs. It's quite possible it won't be fixed until well into the 2.6 series. I fully expect ACPI sleep S3/S4 to be fairly unusable until 2.6.7-10 or so.
Computer viruses and worms are generally more like biological parasites than biological viruses. That, and the fact that computer systems do not generally have any form of immune system for discovering foreign entities and eliminating them. Perhaps Palladium or TCPA could make such a system possible, but I don't want to think about having to get all software signed by a third party in order to avoid having it get deleted by an automated immune system.