Give the Pardus 2011 live-dvd a spin. It should have video drivers, wifi, video codecs etc all work out of the box. At least I've had it work for every machine bar one so far without any config, and that one just needed a wifi driver blacklisted (yes, beyond a newbie, but I've tried Pardus, plus a whole lot more distros, on a bunch of machines - and Pardus had the highest success rate).
Good luck.
Hi Shaka,
That's kind of my point. They're pissed right now, but a high enough percentage don't have the sticking power to boycott Sony products for enough time to have a financial impact significant enough to change Sony's attitude towards customers. Three months after things are operational, bar a few straggling lawsuits, Sony will be acting as arrogant and entitled as ever.
It took years after the rootkit fiasco before I decided to extend some trust to Sony and spend money on their products.
Then came the removal of otheros, and I ceased spending any money with them. Then their bully tactics when the console got hacked, and I was glad I'd not spent any further money with them.
Now, I find even after not doing any business with them for such a period I'm still not free of their incompetence and poor management.
What will happen to Sony as a result of this? Nothing. All the muppets out there will continue to do business with this incompetent, morally bankrupt, behemoth.
Will I be dumb enough to become one of those muppets again? I hope not.
You could consider implementing port knocking.
It will be somewhat of an inconvenience for your clients, but it will
almost eliminate your ssh authentication failures.
Depending on your needs you may find RSP's Earth to be a viable solution.
http://open.rsp.com.au/projects/earth/
It's cross-platform and has a web interface (though you could build a desktop one easily enough if you wanted to).
Cheers,
Alan.
That's a good point, but it didn't bother the ISO when approving OOXML.
Though the W3C haven't scrapped the video tag and Microsoft has made no commitment there. Apple are a smaller player than Mozilla in the browser market. So either way we're looking at inconsistent behaviour.
On the other hand if people feel the standard provides benefits then they'll use the products which support it. So this puts the balance back towards providing a solid spec in the interests of end users. If there aren't benefits the standard will fail if there are benefits then the products which refuse to support it will fail.
That refuses to set a standard because people who should be implement it say they won't?
Simply choose the most appropriate technology, detail the requirements fully in your standard.
It's then a matter for the vendors to decide if they wish to make a standards compliant product
or not.
The point of a standards body is to put the interests of the general public first. Failure to do this
is failure to fulfil their purpose. Doing so because of what are effectively bullying tactics is even
worse as you've just decided to put corporate interests ahead of people's.
First ISO corrupts itself into virtual irrelevance now we're seeing W3C fail. Are there any
standards bodies left with the tenacity to get their job done?
Android had a nice half-way option for this. When you type a password in the last character you typed
appears and the rest are bullets. It can be turned off so it's all bullets. This way you have feedback on
what you typed without completely losing security. Some of the dialogs also have a show password
option. So if you really want to you can let other steal your password more easily...
I'd be curious to know what exactly the contracts they had with them stipulate. My guess is it's something along the longs of we own your information once you pass it to us. Ooopppss - guess you really should read those things before signing.
Anyone actually seen it?
Organize to have you and these vendors each bring along a system and a hacker. Their hacker tries to compromise your Free Software system, your hacker tries to compromise their windows system.
That should settle it rather efficiently. Just to put a little doubt into anything the "I"SVs may say make sure your client reads this first http://www.linux.com/feature/131059
What the author misses entirely is while he feels it is less likely to happen less likely is still more likely than utterly impossible.
There are other technologies available, such as Qt, where microsoft has no potential for a valid claim over the language. Why, as a developer, would I choose to put my code in a position where this concerns exist instead of taking a path that avoids it entirely?
I can understand how the role lead him to discover it, but he can't have known before getting that role that they were going to put functionality in that infringed on his patent.
There's also been no evidence on either side (his part of theirs) to prove whether he did/didn't tell them in advance. It's completely plausible that after interviewing him and seeing his patent they became interested in adding that.
I personally think software shouldn't be patentable at all http://www.binaryiris.com/node/26 so didn't even bother checking whether the patent is BS as the check is redundant;)
My interest was more that everybody is judging both him and microsoft when their is insufficient evidence in the article to do so. It's entirely he said she said without the gender variety.
There's no evidence to demonstrate he did these things. So in order for us to assume he's guilty we have to also assume he's precognitive.
It also describes it such that Microsoft "found" the evidence. That's got to be inadmissible, right? No chain of custody there it could just as easily be planted by them.
Hope the trial has some evidence behind it as there's insufficient to point fingers either way, but more than enough doubt to clear him.
given how well it's all gone you'd be forgiven for thinking they couldn't find people capable of handling sales, lending, and bank administration, regardless of nationality.
When we looked into it we found out that the cord itself degrades over time even in their storage and won't be usable in 18 years time. Verify that with the companies you're talking to as it was just over 5 years ago we looked at it. It's a lot of money for something that is only maybe useful and expires relatively soon.
Though of course if you find out later that they've developed a treatment for something your child happens to get and you didn't do it the price will have seemed like a bargain.
Also remember that our wisdom teeth are a source of stem cells - so he/she will be growing some spares (though in small quantities I guess) soon.
Not to mention the idea of stretching something has been around forever. Plus there's a small piece of prior art (albeit theoretical) that some people may be familiar with http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/
be charged?
He/she has admitted to being in possession of child pornography as well as viewing it.
At least according to the logic they seem to be following.
Actually - his question was if you don't distribute how is it illegal. The answer is it's not. The GPL only comes into force when you distribute the program. Though if you've distributed source and not a binary it's even more of a grey area as the source isn't using Qt libraries at all. It's just text.
Though so long as you don't distribute either source or a binary to anybody then you're perfectly legal.
Given OLPCs backflips on Free Software being included do not support this if your intent is to help spread Free Software. They could just as easily turn around and ship your "give one" with windows. And really who wants to give the "gift" of Microsoft?
Well done Nicolas. You were teaching them to fish, but ultimately caved and gave them their first Microsoft fillet. Not only have you let down those you sought to help, you've irrevocably destroyed the value of your word. You have no credibility here time to move on.
Install Squid (or some other form of caching proxy). http://www.squid-cache.org/ Then set your browser to use that proxy.
If you're running your own LAN then you could even setup a gateway server that has a transparent proxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_proxy#Transparent_and_non-transparent_proxy_server) as well as NAT. Benefits of using a transparent proxy over setting the proxy in your web browser is that all apps which use http traffic will have it cached (where possible).
Also note the https pages are never cached. Of course use AdBlock as well to cut back on traffic you don't want regardless of bandwidth;)
Cheers,
Alan.
If you are worried people would prefer to just see the action scenes from your movie on youtube rather than the whole thing then perhaps you have a larger problem.
Slashdot Mirror
IT jobs don't have feelings.
Give the Pardus 2011 live-dvd a spin. It should have video drivers, wifi, video codecs etc all work out of the box. At least I've had it work for every machine bar one so far without any config, and that one just needed a wifi driver blacklisted (yes, beyond a newbie, but I've tried Pardus, plus a whole lot more distros, on a bunch of machines - and Pardus had the highest success rate). Good luck.
Hi Shaka, That's kind of my point. They're pissed right now, but a high enough percentage don't have the sticking power to boycott Sony products for enough time to have a financial impact significant enough to change Sony's attitude towards customers. Three months after things are operational, bar a few straggling lawsuits, Sony will be acting as arrogant and entitled as ever.
It took years after the rootkit fiasco before I decided to extend some trust to Sony and spend money on their products. Then came the removal of otheros, and I ceased spending any money with them. Then their bully tactics when the console got hacked, and I was glad I'd not spent any further money with them. Now, I find even after not doing any business with them for such a period I'm still not free of their incompetence and poor management. What will happen to Sony as a result of this? Nothing. All the muppets out there will continue to do business with this incompetent, morally bankrupt, behemoth. Will I be dumb enough to become one of those muppets again? I hope not.
You could consider implementing port knocking. It will be somewhat of an inconvenience for your clients, but it will almost eliminate your ssh authentication failures.
Depending on your needs you may find RSP's Earth to be a viable solution. http://open.rsp.com.au/projects/earth/ It's cross-platform and has a web interface (though you could build a desktop one easily enough if you wanted to). Cheers, Alan.
That's a good point, but it didn't bother the ISO when approving OOXML. Though the W3C haven't scrapped the video tag and Microsoft has made no commitment there. Apple are a smaller player than Mozilla in the browser market. So either way we're looking at inconsistent behaviour. On the other hand if people feel the standard provides benefits then they'll use the products which support it. So this puts the balance back towards providing a solid spec in the interests of end users. If there aren't benefits the standard will fail if there are benefits then the products which refuse to support it will fail.
That refuses to set a standard because people who should be implement it say they won't? Simply choose the most appropriate technology, detail the requirements fully in your standard. It's then a matter for the vendors to decide if they wish to make a standards compliant product or not. The point of a standards body is to put the interests of the general public first. Failure to do this is failure to fulfil their purpose. Doing so because of what are effectively bullying tactics is even worse as you've just decided to put corporate interests ahead of people's. First ISO corrupts itself into virtual irrelevance now we're seeing W3C fail. Are there any standards bodies left with the tenacity to get their job done?
Android had a nice half-way option for this. When you type a password in the last character you typed appears and the rest are bullets. It can be turned off so it's all bullets. This way you have feedback on what you typed without completely losing security. Some of the dialogs also have a show password option. So if you really want to you can let other steal your password more easily...
I'd be curious to know what exactly the contracts they had with them stipulate. My guess is it's something along the longs of we own your information once you pass it to us. Ooopppss - guess you really should read those things before signing. Anyone actually seen it?
They even made a movie about it http://ur1.ca/3oog
and tell Doc Brown they don't need to wait for the clock tower.
Organize to have you and these vendors each bring along a system and a hacker. Their hacker tries to compromise your Free Software system, your hacker tries to compromise their windows system. That should settle it rather efficiently. Just to put a little doubt into anything the "I"SVs may say make sure your client reads this first http://www.linux.com/feature/131059
This is why I said valid claim, not claim :D
What the author misses entirely is while he feels it is less likely to happen less likely is still more likely than utterly impossible. There are other technologies available, such as Qt, where microsoft has no potential for a valid claim over the language. Why, as a developer, would I choose to put my code in a position where this concerns exist instead of taking a path that avoids it entirely?
I can understand how the role lead him to discover it, but he can't have known before getting that role that they were going to put functionality in that infringed on his patent. There's also been no evidence on either side (his part of theirs) to prove whether he did/didn't tell them in advance. It's completely plausible that after interviewing him and seeing his patent they became interested in adding that. I personally think software shouldn't be patentable at all http://www.binaryiris.com/node/26 so didn't even bother checking whether the patent is BS as the check is redundant ;)
My interest was more that everybody is judging both him and microsoft when their is insufficient evidence in the article to do so. It's entirely he said she said without the gender variety.
There's no evidence to demonstrate he did these things. So in order for us to assume he's guilty we have to also assume he's precognitive. It also describes it such that Microsoft "found" the evidence. That's got to be inadmissible, right? No chain of custody there it could just as easily be planted by them. Hope the trial has some evidence behind it as there's insufficient to point fingers either way, but more than enough doubt to clear him.
given how well it's all gone you'd be forgiven for thinking they couldn't find people capable of handling sales, lending, and bank administration, regardless of nationality.
When we looked into it we found out that the cord itself degrades over time even in their storage and won't be usable in 18 years time. Verify that with the companies you're talking to as it was just over 5 years ago we looked at it. It's a lot of money for something that is only maybe useful and expires relatively soon. Though of course if you find out later that they've developed a treatment for something your child happens to get and you didn't do it the price will have seemed like a bargain. Also remember that our wisdom teeth are a source of stem cells - so he/she will be growing some spares (though in small quantities I guess) soon.
Not to mention the idea of stretching something has been around forever. Plus there's a small piece of prior art (albeit theoretical) that some people may be familiar with http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/
be charged? He/she has admitted to being in possession of child pornography as well as viewing it. At least according to the logic they seem to be following.
Actually - his question was if you don't distribute how is it illegal. The answer is it's not. The GPL only comes into force when you distribute the program. Though if you've distributed source and not a binary it's even more of a grey area as the source isn't using Qt libraries at all. It's just text. Though so long as you don't distribute either source or a binary to anybody then you're perfectly legal.
Given OLPCs backflips on Free Software being included do not support this if your intent is to help spread Free Software. They could just as easily turn around and ship your "give one" with windows. And really who wants to give the "gift" of Microsoft? Well done Nicolas. You were teaching them to fish, but ultimately caved and gave them their first Microsoft fillet. Not only have you let down those you sought to help, you've irrevocably destroyed the value of your word. You have no credibility here time to move on.
Install Squid (or some other form of caching proxy). http://www.squid-cache.org/ Then set your browser to use that proxy. If you're running your own LAN then you could even setup a gateway server that has a transparent proxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_proxy#Transparent_and_non-transparent_proxy_server) as well as NAT. Benefits of using a transparent proxy over setting the proxy in your web browser is that all apps which use http traffic will have it cached (where possible). Also note the https pages are never cached. Of course use AdBlock as well to cut back on traffic you don't want regardless of bandwidth ;)
Cheers,
Alan.
If you are worried people would prefer to just see the action scenes from your movie on youtube rather than the whole thing then perhaps you have a larger problem.