I was determined. What I did (which is rather rediculous when you think about it) is order Redhat 7.1, tar and copy all of my important stuff to another machine, completely wipe the hard drive, and install RH 7.1. I never thought it would get to this point, but after going through the same rpm dependency mess, RPM began imposing circular requirements - that is, GLIBC version such and such would need to be installed or a particular package, and the package itself required this version of GLIBC to be installed. Fun.
Even after installing the new version of RedHat, I still had to upgrade a few packages- but luckily, this was minor compared to what was happening before.
I have come to believe that this is a serious problem for Linux (at least RedHat)- every version of practically every app or library is so tightly coupled to specific versions of other apps or libraries. I can see average users pulling their hair out because all they want to do is get their work done, and sys admins dreading the day they have to install an upgrade on the machines in an entire department.
Re:Tracking encrypted communications
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
True. And, on a further note, who says anyone has to use e-mail? Why not an untraceable peer-to-peer file exchange network?
Secondly, however, the cost involves making sacrifices for the greater good.
If it's not freely chosen, then where does "freedom" come into play? All of those who have helped in the NY disaster have done so of their own free will, and that is something to marvel at. Making sacrifices "for the greater good", especially if they're unsubstantiated, isn't responsible, it's just plain stupid. Is there any proof, for example, that having an encryption backdoor available would have prevented the tragedy in NY? I haven't seen any, and there probably never will be.
This is a very good point. We know that certain attempts to commit terrorist acts have been foiled, but we have no idea why various governmental agencies (including those of other countries) were able to stop them. It seems like most people are operating under a blanket assumption that the intelligence allowing this to happen came from electronic surveylance. What if it turned out that the bulk of useful information comes not from the wealth of electronic toys, but from people? Do you think the FBI or NSA would ever admit this?
I finally got Koffice1.1 installed after a MAJOR effort dorking around with RPM dependencies, etc. But I have to say, kOffice looks very professional and very polished. My compliements to the developers. I'm sure there's functionality missing compared to both MS OFfice and StarOffice, but we have to remember - some of this functionality is so ethereal that it's used by only a small group of people anyway.
I think the KOffice team should concentrate on document interchange issues (RTF support, for example), and fleshing out the functionality in certain areas. The KOrganizer, for example, is off to a very good start, but it really needs an integrated contact manager with the ability to create printing templates for envelopes and the like. If it had this now, I'd be very tempted to drop my use of Palm Desktop entirely.
I thought this game was reasonably entertaining, and it's certainly non-violent. It's entirely creative, since you have to figure out how to build/maintain amusement parks based on the criteria for each level. When you get tired of using the pre-packaged rides, you can start designing your own, which emphasizes skills involving 3D/spatial assessment.
The article gushes on and on about the ability to actually apply this technology, and yet, there's no PICTURE of the pulley actually in use. Hmmmmm....
I agree, we are not entitled to expectation of privacy.
No? What would you do if someone followed you everywhere, watched where you were going, when you arrived home...when your KIDS come and go? I'd probably call the cops.
Oh wait...that IS the cops.
Why should a different standard exist for the government - ESPECIALLY the government?
I think this distinction needs to be made. I'm all for law enforcement, but because it IS government, and because power naturally tends toward corruption, there necessarily have to be limits. This is one of the costs/benefits of living in a free society, depending on how you look at it.
It CAN be used for good, but the problem is, and always has been, what ELSE it will be used for. Did anyone ever suspect, before it ever happened, that almost every company that gains access to your personal information would morph into an information pimp? Now, unfortunately, it's standard practice. And we LET it happen. Next, the government joined in, figuring that it could enhance its own revenue by selling information pertaining to local residents. Cool, huh?
Law enforcement has no business spying on "everyone" because "someone" broke the law. Now, they say, these systems only recognize criminals...but it's just a hop, skip, and jump away from something much more encompassing, and MUCH more Orwellian. Let us not forget that in Britain, the cameras watch EVERYTHING. Our freedom isn't worth the pedophile who breaks parole. Believe it not, the mere act of living carries some risk.
Camera surveillance in public places I am against primarily because, while it may have its legitimate uses, its almost impossible to prevent abuse of the system
Public surveilance using cameras entails, in my opinion, a presumption of guilt. The presumption is that you may commit a crime, so we (the government) are going to watch you so that if you do, we'll know about it.
Yhe government is great at hyping these new technologies (or just simply employing them with little or no regard for constitutional issues) and how they'll help everyone be safe. Just recently, I heard a news report suggesting that while cameras installed at intersections to catch people running red lights have created huge windfalls for local governments, they have NOT resulted in an increase in safety for motorists. I suspect that it won't be long until a few key decisions are made with respect to the legality/effectiveness of these robocop cameras.
real-world experience
Huh? What that a typo? I'd hardly call what happenened with the dot.com thing "real world." Well, perhaps the one thing that they have walked away with is the notion that often, there are no shortcuts. That, and oh...you get what you deserve when you waste other peoples' money.
Re:Progress? Or reinventing the wheel?
on
The Future Of 3D
·
· Score: 1
Tell you what...the day you can change the camera angle, lighting, or other aspect of an image on a whim, the quest for photorealistic 3D has some real value.
NaN, the Dutch company behind Blender, released a browser plugin last week so that you can run real 3D apps (created with Blender) right in the browser. Blender isn't authorware with 3D tacked on (like Director), it's the real deal, even having its own built-in game engine. At $299, the Blender Player Tools will cost a fraction of what people can expect to shell out for Director.
Why do you think geeks ARE geeks? Is it because they had some clueless bureaucrat shove a computer in their face and pretend that it would help them learn? I opine that geeks are driven by, among other things, a passion for technology. Along side this is an inclination to experiment, and to learn from the results. I don't think any amount of education, with or without a laptop, can instill this passion if it's not already there.
I agree with you - but IN GENERAL, it is my belief that the teen culture, as a whole - and with each successive generation, thinks that somehow, it is exempted from some of the "rules". These are the rules that govern such basic traits as dignity, self-respect, honesty, motivation, humility, hard work, and mortality. These are all character issues that ultimately, will dictate what KIND of person you become. They respresent such basic human qualities that they transcend generational differences. The fifteen-year-olds that recogize this will do well...those that don't will probably be sporting superficial, if not unhappy lives.
I've grown to despise pop culture - it's social "sugar" - it might be sweet to the taste, but there's little if any value for the human soul. I'm amazed at the way young kids try so hard to be like people other than who they are - usually by dressing a certain way, acting a certain way, etc. Many of them have become consumeristic droids that feel like they have to buy (and buy into) whatever crap is thrown their way by the corporate marketing machine. All of this nonsense is distracting them from the one thing that that will, ultimately, provide them with one of life's holy grails: a sense of inner peace and contentment. The irony here is that it is at this stage of life (being 15), that some of the most important decisions are made with respect to how easily (or even whether) they will find their way down this path.
The next type of business they ought to look at for an indication of excess is the local restaurants/catering companies. I spoke with a friend who recently took a position with a startup, and during on conversation, it was stated, "of course, we have our lunches catered in every day..." Not knowing at the time, I asked, "uh, tell me...is this by chance a startup?" Their affirmation was no surprise, really. It's simply amazing how careless people are with money when it's not their own.
Hmmm...right off the top of my head, there's an easy way around this - just use any of number of development front-ends (like Delphi, 4D, or whatever), to handle the process. These are NOT browsers, but they can certainly offer the same benefits where the acquisition of remote services are concerned. The only downside is that the user would need this front end app before they could use the service - but it's no worse than the "download this small stub application which then downloads and installs a buttload of other stuff" model that some vendors have going. If the whole process could be made generic enough, it could become as ubiquitous as some of the more standard utilities - like those used for software installation or compression.
Someone decided that they could attract a lot of people to a web site, make tons of money on advertising, and presto, and instant business success. Maybe businesses should stop trying to mold the internet into something it isn't and start realizing that there are some very fundamental aspects of conducting business that simply cannot be ignored. First and foremost, I'd say that assuming that one can create a web site that is in itself, a business, for the most part, won't work. There are exceptions, of course. Perhaps looking at the internet as an ADJUNCT to a more traditional business model, rather than a replacement, would be a good place to start.
Second, I've seen several traditional companies use their web sites as a way to shield themselves from their customers - with no contact information, and and hence, no way of dealing with a real person. I don't know about anyone else, but this is a REAL turn-off for me, although it seems to be more characteristic of some of the larger companies I've seen, rather than the smaller ones. The larger companies seem to gain customers by playing the numbers game, while some the smaller ones are truly interested in building communities of loyal customers.
Overall, I think there are still some real opportunities for business to flourish using the internet - but not at the expense of a solid foundation and a good understanding of how to use the internet effectively.
This is actually a good thing - it pits companies who relied on Adobe's assertions of a secure product, and with the money to pay for it, against Adobe itself. If I were involved with such a company, and I could prove not only that I was harmed by Adobe's misrepresentation, but that the DMCA makes it illegal for this kind of information to be disseminated, I'd think the law itself would be eventually be deemed unconstitutional.
That's the key. Like any other company ANYWHERE in the U.S., Adobe isn't SQUAT without the steady stream of revenue that comes from its customers. It would do well to remember this.
Adobe may be looking out for the shareholders with its zealous attention to the DMCA, but when enlightened customers stop buying software upgrades in protest, Adobe may very well have to rethink its position on this. I haven't upgraded Illustrator since version 7, and because of crap like this, I'm in no hurry to do so.
an owner authorization code is provided to the point of sale location in reponse to receiving a request code from the point of sale location requesting to reproducing predetermined information in a material object, and the predetermined information is reproduced in a material object at the point of sale location in response to receiving the owner authorization code.
OK, so let's sum this up:
1. A user submits a request to download something.
2. The remote server sends a request for an authorization code.
3. The user provides the authorization code.
4. Pending authorization, the remote server sends the requested information.
How about changing the process a little bit?
1. The user downloads the requested information WITHOUT a prior request for authorization.
2. The user THEN submits a request to purchase - perhaps days after the initial download.
3. User receives a serial number that activates the product.
This scheme is used in some software - download a limited version, and upon purchase, you receive a code to unlock all of the features.
It's little more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul, of course, is every politician's friend that stands to gain from this effort, and Peter is the lowly taxpayer. Bend over Peter, you're about to get screwed again by your Uncle.
There is so much background information you need in using Blender that this book will be good for quite some time. The Blender manual, while providing a good decription of what everything is, doesn't spend much time explaining it - it assumes that you already know what to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I was determined. What I did (which is rather rediculous when you think about it) is order Redhat 7.1, tar and copy all of my important stuff to another machine, completely wipe the hard drive, and install RH 7.1. I never thought it would get to this point, but after going through the same rpm dependency mess, RPM began imposing circular requirements - that is, GLIBC version such and such would need to be installed or a particular package, and the package itself required this version of GLIBC to be installed. Fun.
Even after installing the new version of RedHat, I still had to upgrade a few packages- but luckily, this was minor compared to what was happening before.
I have come to believe that this is a serious problem for Linux (at least RedHat)- every version of practically every app or library is so tightly coupled to specific versions of other apps or libraries. I can see average users pulling their hair out because all they want to do is get their work done, and sys admins dreading the day they have to install an upgrade on the machines in an entire department.
True. And, on a further note, who says anyone has to use e-mail? Why not an untraceable peer-to-peer file exchange network?
Secondly, however, the cost involves making sacrifices for the greater good.
If it's not freely chosen, then where does "freedom" come into play? All of those who have helped in the NY disaster have done so of their own free will, and that is something to marvel at. Making sacrifices "for the greater good", especially if they're unsubstantiated, isn't responsible, it's just plain stupid. Is there any proof, for example, that having an encryption backdoor available would have prevented the tragedy in NY? I haven't seen any, and there probably never will be.
This is a very good point. We know that certain attempts to commit terrorist acts have been foiled, but we have no idea why various governmental agencies (including those of other countries) were able to stop them. It seems like most people are operating under a blanket assumption that the intelligence allowing this to happen came from electronic surveylance. What if it turned out that the bulk of useful information comes not from the wealth of electronic toys, but from people? Do you think the FBI or NSA would ever admit this?
I finally got Koffice1.1 installed after a MAJOR effort dorking around with RPM dependencies, etc. But I have to say, kOffice looks very professional and very polished. My compliements to the developers. I'm sure there's functionality missing compared to both MS OFfice and StarOffice, but we have to remember - some of this functionality is so ethereal that it's used by only a small group of people anyway.
I think the KOffice team should concentrate on document interchange issues (RTF support, for example), and fleshing out the functionality in certain areas. The KOrganizer, for example, is off to a very good start, but it really needs an integrated contact manager with the ability to create printing templates for envelopes and the like. If it had this now, I'd be very tempted to drop my use of Palm Desktop entirely.
I thought this game was reasonably entertaining, and it's certainly non-violent. It's entirely creative, since you have to figure out how to build/maintain amusement parks based on the criteria for each level. When you get tired of using the pre-packaged rides, you can start designing your own, which emphasizes skills involving 3D/spatial assessment.
The article gushes on and on about the ability to actually apply this technology, and yet, there's no PICTURE of the pulley actually in use. Hmmmmm....
This would be thrown out of court in no time, once they learned that this behavior is no different than any other version of Windows.
I agree, we are not entitled to expectation of privacy.
No? What would you do if someone followed you everywhere, watched where you were going, when you arrived home...when your KIDS come and go? I'd probably call the cops.
Oh wait...that IS the cops.
Why should a different standard exist for the government - ESPECIALLY the government?
I think this distinction needs to be made. I'm all for law enforcement, but because it IS government, and because power naturally tends toward corruption, there necessarily have to be limits. This is one of the costs/benefits of living in a free society, depending on how you look at it.
It CAN be used for good, but the problem is, and always has been, what ELSE it will be used for. Did anyone ever suspect, before it ever happened, that almost every company that gains access to your personal information would morph into an information pimp? Now, unfortunately, it's standard practice. And we LET it happen. Next, the government joined in, figuring that it could enhance its own revenue by selling information pertaining to local residents. Cool, huh?
Law enforcement has no business spying on "everyone" because "someone" broke the law. Now, they say, these systems only recognize criminals...but it's just a hop, skip, and jump away from something much more encompassing, and MUCH more Orwellian. Let us not forget that in Britain, the cameras watch EVERYTHING. Our freedom isn't worth the pedophile who breaks parole. Believe it not, the mere act of living carries some risk.
Camera surveillance in public places I am against primarily because, while it may have its legitimate uses, its almost impossible to prevent abuse of the system
Public surveilance using cameras entails, in my opinion, a presumption of guilt. The presumption is that you may commit a crime, so we (the government) are going to watch you so that if you do, we'll know about it.
Yhe government is great at hyping these new technologies (or just simply employing them with little or no regard for constitutional issues) and how they'll help everyone be safe. Just recently, I heard a news report suggesting that while cameras installed at intersections to catch people running red lights have created huge windfalls for local governments, they have NOT resulted in an increase in safety for motorists. I suspect that it won't be long until a few key decisions are made with respect to the legality/effectiveness of these robocop cameras.
real-world experience Huh? What that a typo? I'd hardly call what happenened with the dot.com thing "real world." Well, perhaps the one thing that they have walked away with is the notion that often, there are no shortcuts. That, and oh...you get what you deserve when you waste other peoples' money.
Tell you what...the day you can change the camera angle, lighting, or other aspect of an image on a whim, the quest for photorealistic 3D has some real value.
NaN, the Dutch company behind Blender, released a browser plugin last week so that you can run real 3D apps (created with Blender) right in the browser. Blender isn't authorware with 3D tacked on (like Director), it's the real deal, even having its own built-in game engine. At $299, the Blender Player Tools will cost a fraction of what people can expect to shell out for Director.
Why do you think geeks ARE geeks? Is it because they had some clueless bureaucrat shove a computer in their face and pretend that it would help them learn? I opine that geeks are driven by, among other things, a passion for technology. Along side this is an inclination to experiment, and to learn from the results. I don't think any amount of education, with or without a laptop, can instill this passion if it's not already there.
I agree with you - but IN GENERAL, it is my belief that the teen culture, as a whole - and with each successive generation, thinks that somehow, it is exempted from some of the "rules". These are the rules that govern such basic traits as dignity, self-respect, honesty, motivation, humility, hard work, and mortality. These are all character issues that ultimately, will dictate what KIND of person you become. They respresent such basic human qualities that they transcend generational differences. The fifteen-year-olds that recogize this will do well...those that don't will probably be sporting superficial, if not unhappy lives.
I've grown to despise pop culture - it's social "sugar" - it might be sweet to the taste, but there's little if any value for the human soul. I'm amazed at the way young kids try so hard to be like people other than who they are - usually by dressing a certain way, acting a certain way, etc. Many of them have become consumeristic droids that feel like they have to buy (and buy into) whatever crap is thrown their way by the corporate marketing machine. All of this nonsense is distracting them from the one thing that that will, ultimately, provide them with one of life's holy grails: a sense of inner peace and contentment. The irony here is that it is at this stage of life (being 15), that some of the most important decisions are made with respect to how easily (or even whether) they will find their way down this path.
The next type of business they ought to look at for an indication of excess is the local restaurants/catering companies. I spoke with a friend who recently took a position with a startup, and during on conversation, it was stated, "of course, we have our lunches catered in every day..." Not knowing at the time, I asked, "uh, tell me...is this by chance a startup?" Their affirmation was no surprise, really. It's simply amazing how careless people are with money when it's not their own.
Hmmm...right off the top of my head, there's an easy way around this - just use any of number of development front-ends (like Delphi, 4D, or whatever), to handle the process. These are NOT browsers, but they can certainly offer the same benefits where the acquisition of remote services are concerned. The only downside is that the user would need this front end app before they could use the service - but it's no worse than the "download this small stub application which then downloads and installs a buttload of other stuff" model that some vendors have going. If the whole process could be made generic enough, it could become as ubiquitous as some of the more standard utilities - like those used for software installation or compression.
Someone decided that they could attract a lot of people to a web site, make tons of money on advertising, and presto, and instant business success. Maybe businesses should stop trying to mold the internet into something it isn't and start realizing that there are some very fundamental aspects of conducting business that simply cannot be ignored. First and foremost, I'd say that assuming that one can create a web site that is in itself, a business, for the most part, won't work. There are exceptions, of course. Perhaps looking at the internet as an ADJUNCT to a more traditional business model, rather than a replacement, would be a good place to start.
Second, I've seen several traditional companies use their web sites as a way to shield themselves from their customers - with no contact information, and and hence, no way of dealing with a real person. I don't know about anyone else, but this is a REAL turn-off for me, although it seems to be more characteristic of some of the larger companies I've seen, rather than the smaller ones. The larger companies seem to gain customers by playing the numbers game, while some the smaller ones are truly interested in building communities of loyal customers.
Overall, I think there are still some real opportunities for business to flourish using the internet - but not at the expense of a solid foundation and a good understanding of how to use the internet effectively.
This is actually a good thing - it pits companies who relied on Adobe's assertions of a secure product, and with the money to pay for it, against Adobe itself. If I were involved with such a company, and I could prove not only that I was harmed by Adobe's misrepresentation, but that the DMCA makes it illegal for this kind of information to be disseminated, I'd think the law itself would be eventually be deemed unconstitutional.
Adobe may be looking out for the shareholders with its zealous attention to the DMCA, but when enlightened customers stop buying software upgrades in protest, Adobe may very well have to rethink its position on this. I haven't upgraded Illustrator since version 7, and because of crap like this, I'm in no hurry to do so.
ARE YOU LISTENING ADOBE????
OK, so let's sum this up:
1. A user submits a request to download something.
2. The remote server sends a request for an authorization code.
3. The user provides the authorization code.
4. Pending authorization, the remote server sends the requested information.
How about changing the process a little bit?
1. The user downloads the requested information WITHOUT a prior request for authorization.
2. The user THEN submits a request to purchase - perhaps days after the initial download.
3. User receives a serial number that activates the product.
This scheme is used in some software - download a limited version, and upon purchase, you receive a code to unlock all of the features.
It's little more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul, of course, is every politician's friend that stands to gain from this effort, and Peter is the lowly taxpayer. Bend over Peter, you're about to get screwed again by your Uncle.
There is so much background information you need in using Blender that this book will be good for quite some time. The Blender manual, while providing a good decription of what everything is, doesn't spend much time explaining it - it assumes that you already know what to do with it.