I'm just saying that the concept is worthwhile and shouldn't just be dismissed because... you can think of a dozen ways around it.
Are you serious? If your front door is made of paper, do you really think it matters what type of lock you install?
If you're perfectly fine with inventions that fix problems (but don't actually work), why not buy my Honest Engine Document Control System (patent pending). Before you let anyone you don't trust have access to your document, you make them put their hand on a bible and repeat the following: "I promise not to share this information or let God strike me down".
I can't guarantee that God will, in fact, strike anyone down if they break their promise. But, as you say, it shouldn't just be dismissed because there are ways around it.
First, I wouldn't say that making it easier for governments and corporations to engage in illicit behavior is a good thing. Maybe that's just me...
Nevertheless, I actually think this technology might make such scandals MORE likely. If someone thinks that they can actually control information sent out of their physical control, perhaps they'll be more willing to detail their sins in Word.
All a whistleblower has to do is bring in a digital camera and snap a picture of his screen or install Naturally Speaking on a laptop and read the "restricted" document aloud.
How many are saying the same, but browsing from something other than IE while masquerading their user-agent as MSIE so they don't get locked out of various web sites?
DirectCD doesn't use a proprietary format, it uses the UDF filesystem and packet writing. The 2.4 kernel has read support for such drives, but not write support on CD-R drives due to lack of kernel write support for CDR/CDRWs. For more info.
You need to have the DirectCD software installed on windows to read it because it's not supported in the kernel before WinXP. When you use DirectCD to format a disk, it creates a minimal ISO9660 filesystem with the DirectCD-reading software.
I wasn't able to use the UDF filesystem on older CD-ROM hardware, but it should work fine on all the CD-R and DVD-ROM drives.
I guess if they can't get former cast members to care enough to watch the movie, they shouldn't be surprised when the fans skip it.
For the most part, I agree with you. I'm a fan and had planned to see it, but after it opened all the fans said it sucked so I decided not to bother. They've had this franchise running for nearly 40 years now. If they can't make a movie that will interest the fans, they shouldn't bother...
Maybe someday if it airs on TV (other than TNN) I might actually watch it. Then again, maybe I won't. I'm still considering undergoing hypnotic therapy to have all memories of Trek V supressed.
You do realize that the "everything is a string" model has been gone for nearly 5 years... It's also been using a byte-code compiler for just as long, so no, it's not the slowest thing out there. In fact, the tDOM XML parser/XSLT engine is extremely fast. Quoting the link:
The final results? Ade summarizes: "Under Linux tDOM SAX is 4 times faster than Java, under Windows 3 times. tDOM DOM is around 4 times faster than the fastest Java solution under both platforms." Memory tests confirmed Ade's own intensive experience over 18 months of working with DOM commercially: "the tDOM DOM tree needs typically between 2 and 3.5 times memory of the XML file size..." Common DOM parsing engines in commercial use bound to C and Java frequently require five to 30 (!) times as much memory as the base document.
> it must be said that the DCSD statement as a whole does not go very deep into the arguments made on either side....
> [I]t is hardly fair... to let the brief press release be the basis of an evaluation
I would disagree. First, the article I linked to is not a "press release" but the DCSD's final ruling. It's over 12 pages. Of that, nearly half of it is detailed quotes from the original Scientific American article. There is not so much as a single sentence quoted from BL's rebuttals to those articles.
If one can not infer the reasoning of the ruling from the ruling itself, then the ruling is meaningless. But the fact is that they DO explain their reasoning in this ruling. It is, however, their reasoning that is flawed in that their ruling does not take the defenses own words into consideration, dismissing them outright because the complainants never accepted them.
"The working group was faced with several decisions... On the first count, they decided that Lomborg's book was, in fact, intended as science, not debate."
To be accurate, the working group did NOT make that decision. The article clearly states: "No consensus on the Working Party was forthcoming in its reply to this question..."
Rather, the DCSD as a whole decided that it was a scientific work, despite the lack of direction from the Working Party.
On the second question, they quoted the complainants in great detail, yet if it weren't for their dismissal of the rebuttals, you wouldn't even know that BL had responded. The report never quotes his rebuttals, and they certainly don't try and refute them.
Their full ruling is here. As other articles have pointed out, the only evidence they used against him was from the Scientific American articles. Even then, the working group never bothered to consider his responses because, in their own words, "...his rebuttals are not accepted by the complainants."
Apparently, if you make file a complaint with the DCSD, they don't have to listen to rebuttals unless the rebuttals have already convinced those filing the complaint...
I think the developers will be the first to jump on the bandwagon. Just give them the bugzilla URL and show them how easy it is to add and track bugs. You don't even have to tell management until it's well entrenched.
Bugzilla's free (libre). Just install it. Managers always think everything's going to take a lot of time and they never foresee the benefits. On a Debian system, "apt-get bugzilla" and your done.
Most new technologies, Linux included, are installed in the enterprise by real people doing real work. Real Engineers(tm) don't wait around for the PHBs to realize a trend that's been going on for 6 years.
A Good Boss(tm) is one who sees that things work better now than before, and nothing more. If you expect more from a boss, you're delusional and you may as well start applying for management positions yourself.
And always remember: it's easier to get forgiveness than approval.
GNU/Octave is a free (libre) Matlab clone. There's also Scilab, which has a Matlab-like syntax. Finally, Maxima is now GPLed so you can explore that as well.
Scilab is mostly free, but still not free-enough to be included on Debian (it is packaged under non-free on a Debian system). See this thread for details.
I've certainly never complained about jobs going to India. Which/. users are making these contradictory statements? Or are you confused by the fact that there are multiple users on slashdot?
> I am sorry, did I say that GPL was taking something from me? No.
You'd better go re-read the thread. The original post that I was responding to stated: "...you don't really have much more freedom than with closed software, infact, in many cases you have much less."
I wanted to know how the GPL gives you less freedom that closed source. You're response was that closed source != commercial. True enough, but not really rebuttal to "closed source gives more freedom than GPL".
I supposed if I were saying "GPL monotonically better than closed source" you'd have a point. But the topic at hand was freedom, not "which is better".
Slashdot Mirror
> I can pretty much only look at [a PDF document].
You can even add additional restrictions to PDF docs as well. You can ask Dmitry Sklyarov how well they work.
If you're perfectly fine with inventions that fix problems (but don't actually work), why not buy my Honest Engine Document Control System (patent pending). Before you let anyone you don't trust have access to your document, you make them put their hand on a bible and repeat the following: "I promise not to share this information or let God strike me down".
I can't guarantee that God will, in fact, strike anyone down if they break their promise. But, as you say, it shouldn't just be dismissed because there are ways around it.
First, I wouldn't say that making it easier for governments and corporations to engage in illicit behavior is a good thing. Maybe that's just me...
Nevertheless, I actually think this technology might make such scandals MORE likely. If someone thinks that they can actually control information sent out of their physical control, perhaps they'll be more willing to detail their sins in Word.
All a whistleblower has to do is bring in a digital camera and snap a picture of his screen or install Naturally Speaking on a laptop and read the "restricted" document aloud.
> I bet NCR has a patent that covers this...
It's more likely that they're beginning to apply for said patent today.
Followup poll:
How many are saying the same, but browsing from something other than IE while masquerading their user-agent as MSIE so they don't get locked out of various web sites?
I guess they've stopped doing this, but the airline ticket agents asking if you're a terrorist always seemed pretty stupid to me.
You need to have the DirectCD software installed on windows to read it because it's not supported in the kernel before WinXP. When you use DirectCD to format a disk, it creates a minimal ISO9660 filesystem with the DirectCD-reading software.
I wasn't able to use the UDF filesystem on older CD-ROM hardware, but it should work fine on all the CD-R and DVD-ROM drives.
> I still haven't seen the final cut ...
I guess if they can't get former cast members to care enough to watch the movie, they shouldn't be surprised when the fans skip it.
For the most part, I agree with you. I'm a fan and had planned to see it, but after it opened all the fans said it sucked so I decided not to bother. They've had this franchise running for nearly 40 years now. If they can't make a movie that will interest the fans, they shouldn't bother...
Maybe someday if it airs on TV (other than TNN) I might actually watch it. Then again, maybe I won't. I'm still considering undergoing hypnotic therapy to have all memories of Trek V supressed.
Can't you just run fetchmail deliver through procmail to any format you want?
I guess I'd be happiest to see the prosecutor initiate proceedings against Intentia...
Hasn't happened yet. And they respect robots.txt and will remove the cache if you ask them, so I don't imagine it happening anytime soon...
And which of these alternatives have something like google's cache?
Incidentally, for those 5 years, NBC has been using Tcl in mission critical, real time applications to stream video to affiliates across the country.
I've been using tDOM lately, a Tcl interface to the DOM. It is, quite simply, the fastest XML parser I have found.
> it must be said that the DCSD statement as a whole does not go very deep into the arguments made on either side. ...
... to let the brief press release be the basis of an evaluation
> [I]t is hardly fair
I would disagree. First, the article I linked to is not a "press release" but the DCSD's final ruling. It's over 12 pages. Of that, nearly half of it is detailed quotes from the original Scientific American article. There is not so much as a single sentence quoted from BL's rebuttals to those articles.
If one can not infer the reasoning of the ruling from the ruling itself, then the ruling is meaningless. But the fact is that they DO explain their reasoning in this ruling. It is, however, their reasoning that is flawed in that their ruling does not take the defenses own words into consideration, dismissing them outright because the complainants never accepted them.
"The working group was faced with several decisions... On the first count, they decided that Lomborg's book was, in fact, intended as science, not debate."
To be accurate, the working group did NOT make that decision. The article clearly states: "No consensus on the Working Party was forthcoming in its reply to this question..."
Rather, the DCSD as a whole decided that it was a scientific work, despite the lack of direction from the Working Party.
On the second question, they quoted the complainants in great detail, yet if it weren't for their dismissal of the rebuttals, you wouldn't even know that BL had responded. The report never quotes his rebuttals, and they certainly don't try and refute them.
Apparently, if you make file a complaint with the DCSD, they don't have to listen to rebuttals unless the rebuttals have already convinced those filing the complaint...
On a Debian system, add to your /etc/sources.list:
deb http://marillat.free.fr/ stable main
Then:
apt-get libdvdcss video-dvdrip mplayer xine-dvdnav
I think the developers will be the first to jump on the bandwagon. Just give them the bugzilla URL and show them how easy it is to add and track bugs. You don't even have to tell management until it's well entrenched.
Bugzilla's free (libre). Just install it. Managers always think everything's going to take a lot of time and they never foresee the benefits. On a Debian system, "apt-get bugzilla" and your done.
Most new technologies, Linux included, are installed in the enterprise by real people doing real work. Real Engineers(tm) don't wait around for the PHBs to realize a trend that's been going on for 6 years.
A Good Boss(tm) is one who sees that things work better now than before, and nothing more. If you expect more from a boss, you're delusional and you may as well start applying for management positions yourself.
And always remember: it's easier to get forgiveness than approval.
If I were you, I'd start checking my credit report.
Last year I used H&R Block's Tax Cut under VMware.
Scilab is mostly free, but still not free-enough to be included on Debian (it is packaged under non-free on a Debian system). See this thread for details.
I've certainly never complained about jobs going to India. Which /. users are making these contradictory statements? Or are you confused by the fact that there are multiple users on slashdot?
> I am sorry, did I say that GPL was taking something from me? No.
You'd better go re-read the thread. The original post that I was responding to stated: "...you don't really have much more freedom than with closed software, infact, in many cases you have much less."
I wanted to know how the GPL gives you less freedom that closed source. You're response was that closed source != commercial. True enough, but not really rebuttal to "closed source gives more freedom than GPL".
I supposed if I were saying "GPL monotonically better than closed source" you'd have a point. But the topic at hand was freedom, not "which is better".