[...] Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code [...]
Of course, if a company could prove it would cost them $50000 to physical perform source distribution...
Don't know where you are looking, but on the impact page for 2004 MN4 the only thing with 9.4 in it is a 9.4e-07 chance in 2032. But that is only a 0.00094% chance. Mind the exponent:-)
Unless you have a really weird internal floating point representation in your favorite language, 3.0 should always be equal to 3 (3.0 can be represented exactly in IEEE-like formats).
So no need to unlearn this habit...
Except that the theories at least have to be consistent with all current observations - and there are a quite a few observations which simply do not match with the old-times Standard Model, so we know we need better theories. After all, relativity could not be (or at least was not) tested either when it was proposed. Also, a theory created now that predicts observations which can only be made in the future can still tell us which observations we have to make to validate or invalidate it and like theories.
You are not warning against the GPL here, if I understand you correctly, but about opening the device driver source to outside eyes. Personally, I never understood how a hardware API would need to give away too much about the hardware itself, but I guess it depends a bit on the hardware itself. Then again, if someone wants to clone your hardware, and thinks it will help to have your device driver, they can always decompile the source code and read it (it will take a lot more effort, but that will probably not be a factor). So, all in all, I don't see your argument - but I am afraid manangement might see it differently.
Because dividing degrees celcius (or fahrenheid) this way has no meaning. Would you say that 20 degrees celcius is twice as hot as 10 degrees celcius? And how much hotter is that than -5 degrees celcius?
Yeah, something like that happened somewhere in our cable segment too - except that it was the DHCP server that was hit. It was a stupid Novell servers on Windows (first time I ever saw an ISP run on that), and the hacker's machine was more robust - presumable some kind of Unix. To make things worse (it may have been on purpose), the offending 'hacker' was running DHCP too, and the distributed IP address range got quite interesting... Of course, working around it was quite easy if you still remembered the gateway settings (its was not on the first IP of the segment, as is usually the convention)
Distributions do not *SELL* CVS, they distribute CVS. We choose those words with care for exactly that reason. All the clause is saying is that if you are a competitor you don't get to use our product for free.
while the license says (emphasise is mine): Notwithstanding [...] this License is not available to You if You and/or your employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a product which contains substantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software [...]
As this is an and/or, I would say that developing is enough to disqualify you, whether you sell it commercially or not. As most distributions have a patch or two in (the product) CVS, I would say that they helped develop CVS. But IANAL, of course.
Not knowing Swedish law, I have the nagging suspicion that, in that case, you have no valid copy, and it can not be used, neither by you, nor by the 17-year old, because it is not licensed.
All that a proxy can do for you, compared with masquerading (NAT) and firewall rules, is rewrite application-level protocol headers it knows about. This may, perhaps, help to stop attacks based on bad protocol implementations, but that is about all. And this is provided no encrypted (SSL/TLS/whatever) connection are used.
As an example, it is usually quite easy to tunnel an SSH connection through a proxy supporting HTTPS. It can't do anything with the data sent (even the HTTP headers are encrypted and unreadable by the proxy). And once you have an SSH tunnel, the sky is the limit...
Bottomline: Proxies don't do much (except if you want to filter content, but that won't buy you security unless it is extremely advanced), require support from all applications, and don't make the world much safer. IMHO, of course.
It's all in your head
on
Layoffs at WotC
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Remember folks - roleplaying is about together creating characters and a world. The roleplaying system you use can help you to get there, but it is not the important part. In fact, it is very possible to use a very simple system, or even no system at all. As long as your Game Master is fair, and you players play for the fun of it instead of trying to 'win' somehow, the sky is the limit!
Check out http://huizen.dds.nl/~frodol/psiconv/". Psiconv (yes, written by me, so sue me:-) ) is created to convert between EPOC 32 file formats and more common file formats found on Unix. It can't do everything yet, but it is progressing, and handles images, word files and (in the next release) sheet files pretty well. It is nicely integrated with AbiWord and I am working on Gnumeric support.
You will want to use PLPtools to transfer files from and to Linux (and perhaps other Unix-like systems). It can NFS-mount your Psion disk(s).
Jason Earl wrote: Much of the work that is being done by Linux developers can't be used by BSD developers unless they are willing to use the GPL style licenses as well.
Yes, but that is exactly what GPL-developers want: to protect their own code from commercialization by others. Allowing it to be put in the BSD kernel would mean it was no longer protected against that.
For my part, I have always found the GPL more fair. I don't mind giving things away, but I do mind people misusing my gifts for their own profit, instead of giving something away to the world themselves.
One of the things I kept reading in the preceding comments is that you must be crazy to use Linux (or *BSD) because it is so much more difficult. But the 'difficult' parts of Unix are in setting things up and administrating it, not in using it for normal user tasks.
One of the very nice things about any Unix system is that you can cleanly separate the system administration and the daily use. If you set it up properly, even a heavily used Unix desktop computer will take only very little administration, if any at all. And a user has to know nothing at all about it. Show me that on a Windows computer!
Even if the computer is not shut down properly, you must really be very unlucky if it will not come up again properly - granted, after a short (or somewhat longer) wait for the fsck to finish, but that is not very much different from the Win95/98/NT setup.
I know from experience that one of the things new users are most afraid of is that they will break something. When I told my mum that she could press any and all buttons, keys and other things, without any fear that she might do something fatal to her/mine computer, she started to really explore and try things, instead of living in eternal fear like she did on the Windows computer.
Yes, setting up a good user environment will take some work. I still think Unix is your best choice.
The project you are talking about is mine: psiconv. It aims to translate any Psion 5 file to a more commonly used format. And yes, it is slow going. For two reasons: on the one hand, it is rather complex, because I have to reverse-engineer the file formats first (there is no existing documentation, and Psion seems to claim it does not even exist);the other is that I spend a lot of time on another project: lm_sensors (Kernel I2C, SMBus and hardware monitoring support), as well as on real-world things...
The current state of the project is that it is able to translate Psion Word files to ASCII, HTML 3.3 and HTML 4.0. I am working on RTF (Rich Text Format) output right now (ugh! talk about an ugly file format!). And images and stuff will be supported Real Soon Now (tm).
I have recently set up a CVS archive; if others want to join me on this project, they are very welcome to do so. Contact me at frodol@dds.nl.
By the way, psiconv is of course distributed under the GPL, and the file format documentation is completely in the public domain!
I must be getting old-fashioned or something - but I still can't see the great benefits of overclocking. Especially bus overclocking, which stresses your complete system beyond its specifications. So you get a 10 percent CPU performance increase (but was CPU your bottleneck?). On the other hand, your system becomes more unstable. Personally, I'd rather have a slightly slower, but completely reliable system! On the other hand, I guess Windows typically crashes before your CPU/mainboards gets the chance... Note that I do see the reason those brain-dead Celerons are overclocked, as you seem to be able to get it to run 50 percent faster. But do people really notice less than 10 or 15 percent?
Slashdot Mirror
But we might be closer than you think.
On 3 GHz, light can only travel 10 cm during one clockpulse...
Don't know where you are looking, but on the impact page for 2004 MN4 the only thing with 9.4 in it is a 9.4e-07 chance in 2032. But that is only a 0.00094% chance. Mind the exponent :-)
Yes it would. Nice spotting...
Unless you have a really weird internal floating point representation in your favorite language, 3.0 should always be equal to 3 (3.0 can be represented exactly in IEEE-like formats). So no need to unlearn this habit...
strace
Except that the theories at least have to be consistent with all current observations - and there are a quite a few observations which simply do not match with the old-times Standard Model, so we know we need better theories. After all, relativity could not be (or at least was not) tested either when it was proposed.
Also, a theory created now that predicts observations which can only be made in the future can still tell us which observations we have to make to validate or invalidate it and like theories.
The idea is courtesy from the macosx forum
You are not warning against the GPL here, if I understand you correctly, but about opening the device driver source to outside eyes.
Personally, I never understood how a hardware API would need to give away too much about the hardware itself, but I guess it depends a bit on the hardware itself.
Then again, if someone wants to clone your hardware, and thinks it will help to have your device driver, they can always decompile the source code and read it (it will take a lot more effort, but that will probably not be a factor).
So, all in all, I don't see your argument - but I am afraid manangement might see it differently.
Because dividing degrees celcius (or fahrenheid) this way has no meaning. Would you say that 20 degrees celcius is twice as hot as 10 degrees celcius? And how much hotter is that than -5 degrees celcius?
As of 2.0.42, the API has been stable (ie. no more recompiles). They intend to keep it that way.
Sorry for that. I missed a Score 0 posting :-(
Ehmm...
Either this is a joke I don't get, or you are confusing Debian with some of the *BSDs...
Yeah, something like that happened somewhere in our cable segment too - except that it was the DHCP server that was hit. It was a stupid Novell servers on Windows (first time I ever saw an ISP run on that), and the hacker's machine was more robust - presumable some kind of Unix. To make things worse (it may have been on purpose), the offending 'hacker' was running DHCP too, and the distributed IP address range got quite interesting... Of course, working around it was quite easy if you still remembered the gateway settings (its was not on the first IP of the segment, as is usually the convention)
I just don't get his answer.
He says:
Distributions do not *SELL* CVS, they distribute CVS. We choose those words with care for exactly that reason. All the clause is saying is that if you are a competitor you don't get to use our product for free.
while the license says (emphasise is mine):
Notwithstanding [...] this License is not available to You if You and/or your employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a product which contains substantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software [...]
As this is an and/or, I would say that developing is enough to disqualify you, whether you sell it commercially or not. As most distributions have a patch or two in (the product) CVS, I would say that they helped develop CVS. But IANAL, of course.
Not knowing Swedish law, I have the nagging suspicion that, in that case, you have no valid copy, and it can not be used, neither by you, nor by the 17-year old, because it is not licensed.
All that a proxy can do for you, compared with masquerading (NAT) and firewall rules, is rewrite application-level protocol headers it knows about. This may, perhaps, help to stop attacks based on bad protocol implementations, but that is about all. And this is provided no encrypted (SSL/TLS/whatever) connection are used.
As an example, it is usually quite easy to tunnel an SSH connection through a proxy supporting HTTPS. It can't do anything with the data sent (even the HTTP headers are encrypted and unreadable by the proxy). And once you have an SSH tunnel, the sky is the limit...
Proxytunnel (proxytunnel.sourceforge.net) does the above for you.
Bottomline: Proxies don't do much (except if you want to filter content, but that won't buy you security unless it is extremely advanced), require support from all applications, and don't make the world much safer. IMHO, of course.
Yeah, nice, but the pictures are not cached...
Remember folks - roleplaying is about together creating characters and a world. The roleplaying system you use can help you to get there, but it is not the important part. In fact, it is very possible to use a very simple system, or even no system at all. As long as your Game Master is fair, and you players play for the fun of it instead of trying to 'win' somehow, the sky is the limit!
You will want to use PLPtools to transfer files from and to Linux (and perhaps other Unix-like systems). It can NFS-mount your Psion disk(s).
Much of the work that is being done by Linux developers can't be used by BSD developers unless they are willing to use the GPL style licenses as well.
Yes, but that is exactly what GPL-developers want: to protect their own code from commercialization by others. Allowing it to be put in the BSD kernel would mean it was no longer protected against that.
For my part, I have always found the GPL more fair. I don't mind giving things away, but I do mind people misusing my gifts for their own profit, instead of giving something away to the world themselves.
One of the things I kept reading in the preceding comments is that you must be crazy to use Linux (or *BSD) because it is so much more difficult. But the 'difficult' parts of Unix are in setting things up and administrating it, not in using it for normal user tasks.
One of the very nice things about any Unix system is that you can cleanly separate the system administration and the daily use. If you set it up properly, even a heavily used Unix desktop computer will take only very little administration, if any at all. And a user has to know nothing at all about it. Show me that on a Windows computer!
Even if the computer is not shut down properly, you must really be very unlucky if it will not come up again properly - granted, after a short (or somewhat longer) wait for the fsck to finish, but that is not very much different from the Win95/98/NT setup.
I know from experience that one of the things new users are most afraid of is that they will break something. When I told my mum that she could press any and all buttons, keys and other things, without any fear that she might do something fatal to her/mine computer, she started to really explore and try things, instead of living in eternal fear like she did on the Windows computer.
Yes, setting up a good user environment will take some work. I still think Unix is your best choice.
The current state of the project is that it is able to translate Psion Word files to ASCII, HTML 3.3 and HTML 4.0. I am working on RTF (Rich Text Format) output right now (ugh! talk about an ugly file format!). And images and stuff will be supported Real Soon Now (tm).
I have recently set up a CVS archive; if others want to join me on this project, they are very welcome to do so. Contact me at frodol@dds.nl.
By the way, psiconv is of course distributed under the GPL, and the file format documentation is completely in the public domain!
I must be getting old-fashioned or something - but I still can't see the great benefits of overclocking. Especially bus overclocking, which stresses your complete system beyond its specifications. So you get a 10 percent CPU performance increase (but was CPU your bottleneck?). On the other hand, your system becomes more unstable. Personally, I'd rather have a slightly slower, but completely reliable system! On the other hand, I guess Windows typically crashes before your CPU/mainboards gets the chance...
Note that I do see the reason those brain-dead Celerons are overclocked, as you seem to be able to get it to run 50 percent faster. But do people really notice less than 10 or 15 percent?