Not open Source folks... at least not like the open source according to the OSD.
And Creative Commons agrees, as indicated by how the open-source-style licenses have a green bar at the top of their pages, while the less permissive oneshave a yellow bar. Nonetheless, it's quite a progressive thing to do, so good for Radiohead.
it is the pet "owner's" responsibility to make sure that their animal is not running about loose.
That is true, but I don't think it gives the trapper the legal (or ethical) right to kill the animals indiscriminately. Any municipality will have clear laws about handling stray animals, and they most likely give at least some protection to the rights of the pet-owners in such cases. Since these cats are presumably not causing serious danger to life or property, anyone who thinks that the mere presence of another person's wayward pet entitles him to kill it, claim its carcass as his own property, and sell the fur for a profit is a thief in my view, and is almost certainly breaking local laws as well.
Yeah, this ought to obliterate any remaining reputation for geek-friendliness that Dell may have acquired by selling computers pre-loaded with Linux. Of course, they mostly ruined it already by charging more money to not get Windows.
To say that it would take a cracker "many years" to break TrueCrypt's encryption is a gigantic understatement. He would not have enough lifetime to do it (and there probably aren't enough years left on Earth to do it, anyway).
And if even that's not enough for you, TrueCrypt has built-in support for layering algorithms on top of each other. I've always been amused at the idea of a cracker laboriously using some super-secret method and years of number-crunching to finally break the AES-winning Rijndael encryption on a particular TrueCrypt volume, only to find that the encoded data is another ciphertext encrypted with one of the runners-up!
Most Slashdotters probably don't need to be told this, but anyone interested in historical fiction about Bletchley Park shouldn't miss Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson. It's entertaining and rich in technical detail.
I second your question. I used AVG Free for a long time and uninstalled it very quickly when I heard the news. But I'm having choosing a replacement cost-free anti-virus program for Windows. Here's are the factors I've been considering...
AVG Free Pro: seems pretty effective and runs inobtrusively (at least locally). Con: has DDoS'd websites in the past and perhaps still shouldn't be trusted.
Avira Pro: no track record of DDoS'ing websites. Con: obnoxious pop-ups "reminding" me about the premium version; apparently got some poor reviews for infection treatment.
Avast Pro: no track record of DDoS'ing websites. Con: requires manual re-registration.
I'm using Avira now but I'm considering switching again because of the pop-ups. Any advice? (And yes, I already run Linux but still need Windows for some things, and no, I'm not interested in paying for anti-virus software, since 99% of virus protection is common sense.)
Maybe term it Conjecture? It's the fitting word to use.
I believe "conjecture" is usually used in scientific contexts as a formal way to basically say "guess". It is also has a well-established meaning in mathematics, which is somewhat analogous to "hypothesis" is the natural sciences.
Functionally, 2-clause BSDL is identical to MIT. The slightly more common 3-cause BSDL includes a clause which basically says "don't use the developer's name for endorsement of derivative works".
IANAL, but I think BSD and MIT are functionally equivalent whether or not you use the third clause of BSD ("Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission"). Using someone's name or likeness for an endorsement without their permission is prohibited anyway; the clause to that effect is the BSD license is (I've read) just an avoidance-of-doubt thing. Of course, it could conceivably help you out in a court case some day—not to mention educate people on your personality rights—so maybe it's a good idea anyway.
Re:I've seen an effect
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The previous replies to the parent post are correct, and in addition, it is doubtful whether it is legally possible to write "public domain code" at all. You automatically hold an exclusive copyright to anything you write (assuming it isn't a work for hire); in order to allow others to freely reuse your code without worrying about getting sued, you need to surrender those rights somehow. A BSD-style license is the simplest way to do that. You could accomplish the same thing by stating that you are placing it in the public domain, but that creates gray areas; the law supports licensing much more unambiguously than self-divesting of copyright. (And the license has the disclaimer of warranty and so forth.)
I agree. But on the bright side, at least the "hackers took over" quote made the geek-friendly hacker/cracker distinction, which is fairly rare in the mainstream press. It makes me wonder how many BusinessWeek readers misunderstood it.
But if the cost-free tools are also open source, then—if they are popular enough to attract an active community of users and developers—they aren't likely to stay inferior forever. Open source isn't magic, but a healthy OSS project does tend to expand to meet the desires of its users sooner or later.
Yeah, I'm all for treating game developers well, but the whole "conspicuously treat a famous developer like a rock star" model famously failed with Daikatana.
(And incidentally, I believe the rock-star M&M thing actually started as a clever trick to make sure that concert venues actually read and fulfilled their technical contracts. Not criticizing your point, but we geeks should be sympathetic.)
I wonder if the chairman did mean "obscene" in the sense of U.S. law, and not the more common, think-of-the-children sense of mere indecency. TFA doesn't make this any clearer. (I'm new here.) The FCC's habits of applying decency standards to television are not encouraging. Then again, should we expect the chairman of the FCC to understand the obscenity/indecency distinction and speak accordingly?
If the ISP would only have to filter Miller-test-obscene material, I guess you can infer that essentially nothing actually meets that standard from the number of "hardcore" pornographic publications that are legally sold in the U.S. On the other hand, the Internet could probably shock us all with its ability to exceed the limits of depravity found even in commercial pornography.
The real question is how anyone could effectively "filter out" obscene material digitally. Most software filters for identifying any kind of human-readable material (copyright filters, etc.) are simplistic junk that return too many false positives and are easy to circumvent. The definitions for obscenity are so subjective that even humans have a tough time applying them.
They aren't preparing this discs for *you* in mind.
They creating them so *Microsoft* will have a solution to hold Windows 7 onto one single installation media. Until Service Pack 1.
Not that sort of two-way TV. This story discusses a sort of two-way TV where there can be commands sent by the viewer, for interactive applications or choosing a pay-per-view program for instance.
In before Big Brother references!:) That's a shame. TVs with built-in cameras would have allowed us to use the term "Orwellian" with some actual legitimacy for a change.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Not open Source folks... at least not like the open source according to the OSD.
And Creative Commons agrees, as indicated by how the open-source-style licenses have a green bar at the top of their pages, while the less permissive oneshave a yellow bar. Nonetheless, it's quite a progressive thing to do, so good for Radiohead.
An anonymous reader writes [...] the fantasy that hackers will be offered a job by those who they hacked [...] might still be the case
Glass, is that you?
I'm writing Google a letter telling them how awful this is an how they need to work on the Q/A.
Don't forget to sign it.
When we're counting humans, don't we also count dwarf humans?
Dwarf humans? I am only familiar with elf humans and orc humans. Or are they in Fourth Edition?
it is the pet "owner's" responsibility to make sure that their animal is not running about loose.
That is true, but I don't think it gives the trapper the legal (or ethical) right to kill the animals indiscriminately. Any municipality will have clear laws about handling stray animals, and they most likely give at least some protection to the rights of the pet-owners in such cases. Since these cats are presumably not causing serious danger to life or property, anyone who thinks that the mere presence of another person's wayward pet entitles him to kill it, claim its carcass as his own property, and sell the fur for a profit is a thief in my view, and is almost certainly breaking local laws as well.
"[...] the trapper that provides her with most of her skins admits that his catch does include a few unlucky pets."
That is criminally irresponsible and we should condemn both of them. Even if you aren't a pet person, this constitutes theft, at least.
Yeah, this ought to obliterate any remaining reputation for geek-friendliness that Dell may have acquired by selling computers pre-loaded with Linux. Of course, they mostly ruined it already by charging more money to not get Windows.
The result will make you slow down and appreciate the beauty and the aesthetics of type. Or else it won't.
Ah, you can't go wrong with a tautology. Unless you can.
To say that it would take a cracker "many years" to break TrueCrypt's encryption is a gigantic understatement. He would not have enough lifetime to do it (and there probably aren't enough years left on Earth to do it, anyway).
And if even that's not enough for you, TrueCrypt has built-in support for layering algorithms on top of each other. I've always been amused at the idea of a cracker laboriously using some super-secret method and years of number-crunching to finally break the AES-winning Rijndael encryption on a particular TrueCrypt volume, only to find that the encoded data is another ciphertext encrypted with one of the runners-up!
Blind government bashing is so rampant around here that it doesn't even need to be true to get props from a lot of readers.
That's the government's fault.
Are major web sites going down more often?
A bit more often now thanks to AVG?
Most Slashdotters probably don't need to be told this, but anyone interested in historical fiction about Bletchley Park shouldn't miss Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson. It's entertaining and rich in technical detail.
I second your question. I used AVG Free for a long time and uninstalled it very quickly when I heard the news. But I'm having choosing a replacement cost-free anti-virus program for Windows. Here's are the factors I've been considering...
AVG Free Pro: seems pretty effective and runs inobtrusively (at least locally). Con: has DDoS'd websites in the past and perhaps still shouldn't be trusted.
Avira Pro: no track record of DDoS'ing websites. Con: obnoxious pop-ups "reminding" me about the premium version; apparently got some poor reviews for infection treatment.
Avast Pro: no track record of DDoS'ing websites. Con: requires manual re-registration.
I'm using Avira now but I'm considering switching again because of the pop-ups. Any advice? (And yes, I already run Linux but still need Windows for some things, and no, I'm not interested in paying for anti-virus software, since 99% of virus protection is common sense.)
Maybe term it Conjecture? It's the fitting word to use.
I believe "conjecture" is usually used in scientific contexts as a formal way to basically say "guess". It is also has a well-established meaning in mathematics, which is somewhat analogous to "hypothesis" is the natural sciences.
That sounds like a great plan. Insert errors into our genetic code until the virus leaves us alone. That's got to work.
Well, one in every billion-odd genetic errors results in evolutionary mutation. I suppose if you're feeling really lucky...
(Hey, they got us this far!)
Functionally, 2-clause BSDL is identical to MIT. The slightly more common 3-cause BSDL includes a clause which basically says "don't use the developer's name for endorsement of derivative works".
IANAL, but I think BSD and MIT are functionally equivalent whether or not you use the third clause of BSD ("Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission"). Using someone's name or likeness for an endorsement without their permission is prohibited anyway; the clause to that effect is the BSD license is (I've read) just an avoidance-of-doubt thing. Of course, it could conceivably help you out in a court case some day—not to mention educate people on your personality rights—so maybe it's a good idea anyway.
The previous replies to the parent post are correct, and in addition, it is doubtful whether it is legally possible to write "public domain code" at all. You automatically hold an exclusive copyright to anything you write (assuming it isn't a work for hire); in order to allow others to freely reuse your code without worrying about getting sued, you need to surrender those rights somehow. A BSD-style license is the simplest way to do that. You could accomplish the same thing by stating that you are placing it in the public domain, but that creates gray areas; the law supports licensing much more unambiguously than self-divesting of copyright. (And the license has the disclaimer of warranty and so forth.)
The only comparable accomplishment was that of Niklaus Wirth, purportedly the namesake of bucky bits.
I agree. But on the bright side, at least the "hackers took over" quote made the geek-friendly hacker/cracker distinction, which is fairly rare in the mainstream press. It makes me wonder how many BusinessWeek readers misunderstood it.
But if the cost-free tools are also open source, then—if they are popular enough to attract an active community of users and developers—they aren't likely to stay inferior forever. Open source isn't magic, but a healthy OSS project does tend to expand to meet the desires of its users sooner or later.
Yeah, I'm all for treating game developers well, but the whole "conspicuously treat a famous developer like a rock star" model famously failed with Daikatana .
(And incidentally, I believe the rock-star M&M thing actually started as a clever trick to make sure that concert venues actually read and fulfilled their technical contracts. Not criticizing your point, but we geeks should be sympathetic.)
If the ISP would only have to filter Miller-test-obscene material, I guess you can infer that essentially nothing actually meets that standard from the number of "hardcore" pornographic publications that are legally sold in the U.S. On the other hand, the Internet could probably shock us all with its ability to exceed the limits of depravity found even in commercial pornography.
The real question is how anyone could effectively "filter out" obscene material digitally. Most software filters for identifying any kind of human-readable material (copyright filters, etc.) are simplistic junk that return too many false positives and are easy to circumvent. The definitions for obscenity are so subjective that even humans have a tough time applying them.
In before Big Brother references!