So I like many others in my position use Cold Fusion in my office, and would like to get some momentum behind a movement to get off of Cold Fusion and onto PHP. The one problem tat I am finding is that despite their similar natures, there is almost never a comparison between the two. PHP is mostly compared to ASP, JSP & Zope, and Cold Fusion is mostly compared to ASP & other proprietary engines - but I never seem to find any information on how the two compare.
What I would really need to convince the PHBs is: a. a comparison on how they hold up under heavy loads b. a comparison of features c. a comparison of how interoperable they are with other languages/toolkits
PHP looks better, but without any proof that it can hold up under the loads that cold fusion can (or beat CF) I can't get any movement.....
You wouldn't know good music if it bit you in the ass.
Nine Inch Nails has produced incredible albums, with an amazing range. Trean Reznor (The sum of NIN) has pioneered many areas of music, including the use of ecletic sound in his music, and being one of the forefathers of an entire genre of music (called industrial)
sure, it's grating, but unlike most of the bubblegum crap out there, it's music with a soul. NIN produces songs that give a view into human pain, suffering, and anger like no music before it.
This classes NIN with others who sing raw emotion, like Tori Amos & Rage Against The Machine.
God....Whine some more. Slashdot posts news, and sometimes it's about the things that are happening to/for them as a group. If sounds like Katz had help from Hemos, and perhaps more of the/. crew.
If you don't want to read it, it's as simple as skipping to the next one.
If you don't want news about slashdot itself, then filter that away too....otherwise please stop polluting the forum with mindless whining..
I develop in both, and java's speed is almost always the largest problem to overcome, whereas perl has done some really processor intensive stuff for us REAL fast.
Keep in mind, Perl does not fit into the classical interpreted/compiled paradigm - Not that I am saying java is either, actually the two share some similarities in this arena. Java can be 'compiled' into bytecode, then really compiled when it hits a browser's Just in time compiler. Perl on the other hand is read in, compiled then run. It appears to be an interpreted language - but in the background it is compiled.
What people don't seem to nderstand about mp3's are the following:
1. For most of the population, $12 is just not alot of money to spend for a CD, so instead of having to waste multiple hours ripping songs from someone else's CD, or downloading MP3's, then having the technical knowledge to turn those songs into a CD, people will buy the CD, because IT IS EASIER.
2. Companies declare their losses based on how many pirated copies they estimate exist - they seem to think that just because a person has downloaded a copy of some song that if it were not avlaible to them via a pirated channel, that of COURSE they would purchase it. This is wrong - everyone who has MP3s knows that half of the music they download they only kinda like, and so wouldn't pay for - and the other half they prolly have on CD.
So - that being a response to your MP3 comment, now I'll look at the iCrave comment - iCrave posts banners, but they keep the advertisement in place that existed - so as a result - the advertisers get a WIDER audience, so therefore the advertising slots are worth MORE money - because the commercial is playied on the standard TV channel, AND over the web. So because of this - the TV stations could justify charging MORE for a slot.
Keep in mind - people are not PURELY driven by money - many are driven by ease of use, and CD's are easier to aquire (accept for perhaps rare titles) then making an MP3 cd. Internet TV is similar - why watch a small crappy TV window that uses your bandwith, and shows a banner unless you just can't get the show you want to see? And who cares if you do - when the same commercials are being played?
Fine - but instead of one christian telling me about how I should live my life, and leaving me alone after I say 'I'm not interested', it is instead legions of people who all feel it is their personal duty to inform me that I am living my life 'wrong' and I should follow their madel, because it is 'right'.
It is a broad range of them too - everyone from the noramlly meek, polite, nice x-tian to the ragingly anti-abortion zelot to the white supremacist x-tian who thinks that the arian race is made up of God's children.
Christianity is a broad group, and I don't seek to pigon hole all christians based on the deplorable actions of certain segments, however one thing I have noticed is that just about all Christians disapprove of people NOT beliving like they do. Intolerance of different viewpoints is inherant in the religion - after all, the bible is the only truth (at least of you take any normal interpretaion)
Christians always seem to wonder why everyone else has tolerance issues towards Christianity & Christians - well, maybe it's because it appears the general christian view of us 'heathens' is hatred for being different, pity for not seeing the light, or a view of us as stupid for not seeing the 'proper' way of things
You won't be able to use your USB mouse with a distribution until the distro rolls in Kernel 2.4, (whenever that is released - I hear the target is like mid feb.) Because the 2.3 (Pre 2.4 devel kernel) kernel is the only one with USB support that REALLY works - and all distros right now are based on 2.2
My guess is that Mandrake is going to release 7.0, and then add Kernel 2.4 & XF86 4.0 to 7.1 - so (This is purely conjecture, so take it with a grain of salt) you will probably be able to use your USB mouse with Mandrake 7.1
Perhaps if you weren't so inflametory your post WOULD get moderated up - you ever think that perhaps it's not just what you say, but how you say it.....
Hmm- where should I start.....So many places to go in this statement.
First I guess I'll state that yes, you are correct - the media has not clue one. However you then go on to blame the 'left views' of these people. This has nothing to do with the mistake.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of people who are clearly from the right (and judging by the tone of your diatribe - the religous right) blame every problem they see in the world on the left. Well, this time I'm not gonna take it. The Left leanings of NPR has nothing to do with this error - in general if the left were to make a mistake of this sort, it would be probably FOR the underdog defendants, not the large corperate plaintif. I seem to remember that it's the LEFT that tends to support personal rights, and taking care of citizens, and the RIGHT that tells the poor to fsck off. (Granted - the right is the one that supports gun rights, not the left.)
Following this you point to secularism as a bias? This makes no sense. In a country founded on the rights for people to maintain free speech, free press, and FREE RELIGION there is no place in open media to bias itself towards any one religion, or even religion at all. Trust me - if the media wasn't secular - it would be far more screwed up. Media requires freedom to function properly. Because of this - if media has a 'higher' calling, it invariably biases that media from just reporting the facts. (Now granted, some would say that the media's fact reporting has been biased by the calling of profit - but that is a different argument....) If you want to take those facts and then draw conclusions that match your religous right bias that is fine, but the job of the media is supposed to be just to report the facts - and being secular is the only way to do that.
To address your statement of:
This same sort of unintentional understanding bias shows up all the time in gun control issues, religion issues, abortion issues, and politician issues, etc.
All I can say is that the media reports what happens, and if a group does things like bomb women's clinics, and use the right to arm in order to stockpile weapons for a coming revolution where a 'proper christian government' is put into place then it is not the media's fault the right looks bad - it's their own fault. If the Religous right is gonna continue to murder docters who are doing a procedure that IS LEGAL, then they deserve the bad press - it's not bias, it's their own damn stupidity.
From a left leaning, left brained secular humanist atheist who has a quite strong grasp of technology
Why is everyone who views these things from a religious point of view so obsessed with things like why? Why does the world exist? perhaps because it does
Why does life exist? perhaps because conditions randomly existed in a state that allowed life to form
When you are looking for primal causes, sometimes I think you look in vein - I think there is no reason for anything, it just is. Science never has said that it provides a why for the unverse, or life, or anything else - it just does it's best to explain how. Some people are just not satisified with a how based on 'well, me mostly don't know, by we are learning more every day', and a why of 'there is no why' - so they develop Religion to give those answers to them, and to alleviate their fears of living with an unfinished how, and no why.
I personally thing that this is why most religions are based upon fear. Fear brings people to religion, and religion keeps people playing on that fear.
Sorry if this sounds hostile, but I honestly cannot imagine a reason that a person would choose to blind themselves to learning, and gain all of their knowledge of the universe from an authority who claims to be infallible (Be it the Bible, the Pope, the Prophet, the Bhan-Wagen with his fourty gold Rols Royces) that is constantly proven by logic and reasoning to be thoroughly flawed. (Read: Flat Earth, Earth rides on the back of an elephant, Earth is the center of the universe, the world is only 6000 years old even though the chinese have contiguous records that date back furthur....)
Unfortunatly, in order to create this atmosphere of fear, religin invariably needs to make a them. This leads to hate among these groups. Christianity in it's sorted history has lead to the absolute, intollerable hatred of women for causing the original sin, blacks because they have no soul - so we are free to enslave them and hurt them as much as we wish, Gays - because they do not fit into the christian world view, Atheists - because they represent a threat to the power structure, and the list goes on. (and on, and on, and on....ad infenetium)
So, all this rambling leads me to my conclusion: Intead of searching for a why, and returning with the baggage of fear, loathing, and an infalible answer (who has few or no foundations other then 'God said so'), why not try to gain a world view that just says 'we only have learned so much, and even that is suspect', because at least that can have solid foundations - even if it cannot yet give you all the answers - it can at least provide you with a likely scenerio.
See - I'm not so sure my understanding of the GPL is faulty here. I think it goes something like this:
Mozilla can create an embeddable browser. That browser is a seperate and distinct program. If I write GPL code to create a program that calls Mozilla's Embeddable browser, but does not actually interface with it's functions (EG if I don't need to include the MozillaBrowser.so (or whatever it'll be called) file in my.c or.h file, then I am not breaching the license.)
For that matter, LGPL code IS compatable with the MPL. LGPL is also compatable with the GPL. I could write a library that is covered by the LGPL that invokes the mozilla (or other browser) browser (But does not depend upon it). I then can call that code from my GPLed program.
Mozilla has an Embeddable browser. So really if Konq wanted to embed the browser it shouldn't conflict with any of the liscenses. All you would need to do is call the embeddable browser from a GPL program. The program at that point is in two distinct code bases.
For that matter, a program like neoplanet could be created for linux - it allows multiple rendering engines to be used (IE or Mozilla), but it is a seperate & distinct program.
If Neoplanet can incorperate mozilla's rendering engine without breaching the MPL - or releaseing the neoplanet browser under the MPL then there should really be no problem doing it with a GPL program as well.
I have heard that quantum cryptanalysis will only help crack certain forms of crypto, such as RSA. What makes a cryptographic system resistant to quantum cryptanalysis, and is twofish such a system?
Tim makes good points in his essay, but I argue that he is wrong about how linuxites should not concentrate on the desktop (or more specifically that they should focus on keeping the web open, and winning the battle in web server space)
Apache's worst fight is ahead, not behind. How can I say this? Because Microsoft is shipping a personal web server with every copy of 98, and will continue to do this with later versions of it's os. We must show up to the fight for the desktop because of this. If we are concentrated on keeping the web open, and open source on top (a la Apache), we have to stand toe to toe with MS, and produce as many lunix users who are using apache as a personal web server, as MS produces windows 98/NT users who use the windows personal web server.
As bandwidth to the home increases through ADSL, cable and other means, I truely believe that the battle for most of the web will revolve around what each user is using for their own web server that runs on their desktop. To maintain dominance in web server space, we need to at least meet MS in the middle on desktop space.
well if atheists are getting their arguments from the hitchhiker's guide, no wonder why there are so few of them left
I think it's more like: No wonder there are so few atheists left if school systems like Kansas keep having issues with rectal cranial inversion disorder. Of course you'll have less atheists if school systems teach kids not to think, but instead just allow for 'faith'.
Teach kids reason, and eventually you will have a society that is based on an ever increasing understanding of the world. Teach kids faith, and you will end up with a theocracy that outlaws thought.
Keep your religion to yourself, and let the rest of us continue to function in reality.
Re:Facts from the con
on
BO2K cracked
·
· Score: 1
Oops - yep I meant ISS.
On your first point - Exactly - XOR 'encryption' sucks, it might as well be plaintext
As far as communication - I'm not really sure - but the program can communicate in more then one way - if they wrote a program to find it on UDP, just set it to TCP. If that doesn't work it can be set to ICMP. BO2K is quite impressive, and if ISS thinks they have a fool proof detection scheme, it is my guess that they have not hit all the bases.
Ok, I'm seeing alot of disinfo about BO2K here. So let's address a few right here:
1. Breaking BO2K's Crypto: Of course he broke BO2K's crypto - the Generic, straight from the 'box' crypto is XOR encryption - which is simple to 'break'. That said, inseide the US, you can download a plug-in that will allow BO2K to use 3DES. Sophos did not crack 3DES. Even if he did, the plugin architecture allows a programmer to add any encryption scheme they wish, and BO2K will use it fore all of it's transfers.
2. Detecting of BO2K Well - to detect BO2K in one configuration, all IIS had to do is look at the threads, and it will show up. This could be what they are discussing as easily detectable. However it is also possible to get BO2K to hide quite effectivly by having it hop between threads, and use whatever ports it wants to. IIS could also be referring to the fact that BO2K uses the same registry key every time - and it does so on purpose which leads into point 3....
3. BO2K is a virus BO2K is not a virus. Not even remotly. At worst it's a Trojan, but it is no more a Trojan then other packages like say PC Anywhere (and another one that I can not remember the name of - it starts with an S) Interestingly, some other 'remote admin' packages can also be installed over the net, or given as a 'trojan', or even be run as a hidden process. BO2K has many of the same features as similar packages, and has the same ability to be used for admin, as well as cracking.
4. BO2K is bad BO2K is what you make of it. It's a tool. it can be used in many ways - some bad, some good. It really has some very useful features. Those features again can be used as you see fit.
I am not affiliated with the cdc, these views come from seeing their presentation of BO2K at defcon.
Ok, I'm seeing alot of disinfo about BO2K here. So let's address a few right here: 1. Breaking BO2K's Crypto: Of course he broke BO2K's crypto - the Generic, straight from the 'box' crypto is XOR encryption - which is simple to 'break'. That said, inseide the US, you can download a plug-in that will allow BO2K to use 3DES. Sophos did not crack 3DES. Even if he did, the plugin architecture allows a programmer to add any encryption scheme they wish, and BO2K will use it fore all of it's transfers. 2. Detecting of BO2K Well - to detect BO2K in one configuration, all IIS had to do is look at the threads, and it will show up. This could be what they are discussing as easily detectable. However it is also possible to get BO2K to hide quite effectivly by having it hop between threads, and use whatever ports it wants to. IIS could also be referring to the fact that BO2K uses the same registry key every time - and it does so on purpose which leads into point 3.. 3. BO2K is a virus BO2K is not a virus. Not even remotly. At worst it's a Trojan, but it is no more a Trojan then other packages like say PC Anywhere (and another one that I can not remember the name of - it starts with an S) Interestingly, some other 'remote admin' packages can also be installed over the net, or given as a 'trojan', or even be run as a hidden process. BO2K has many of the same features as similar packages, and has the same ability to be used for admin, as well as cracking. 4. BO2K is bad BO2K is what you make of it. It's a tool. it can be used in many ways - some bad, some good. It really has some very useful features. Those features again can be used as you see fit. I am not affiliated with the cdc, these views come from seeing their presentation of BO2K at defcon.
It's real easy to feel old at 23 when you look at things like this and realize that neither of these kids probably remember things like Challanger (What were they like 3 ate the time?)
It's amazing that when so young (23 myself) we can feel so old.
But christianity does thigs like that every day. I live in a city close to where Mathew Sheppard was hung on a fence, tortured, burned, and eventually left for dead. A few weeks later the city of Casper Wyoming had a funeral for him - and Guess who showed up - non other then a christian preacher from Kansas who had a bunch of followers with signs like "God Hates Fags" - and you have the nerve to tell us that christianity isn't producing followers who are morally corrupt?
I have never run across a more hate filled group then the christian right. They hate gays, They hate blacks (and if you don't believe me, why don't you travel on down to the 'focus on the family' compound in Colorado Springs that is run by Dr. Dobbson - you won't be able to find so much as an Italian in that building - they are ALL WASPS), They hate non-submissive Women, They hate Jews, They hate really any member of another religion - heck plenty of protestants hate catholics - and technically they have the same core religion.
How many buddists do YOU know who would carry a sign to a funeral that says 'GOD HATES FAGS'
Just to point out that you are skewing the results of the polls. You took the most favoriable results for your argument off of that list. You sy 48% to 45% not much difference - well, I can do the same thing. On that same list there is a margin of 56% to 33% - hmm now that IS a significant majority. To get a fair reading why don't you try taking an average?
so what is it? 51.3% - 39.3% - now that still is a pretty signficant majority.
This is a prefect example of how the Anti-Choice movement constantly tries to skew things in thier favor. Take a statistics class - then give me numbers, instead of using information that is misleading in an attempt to manipulate the/.ers
I don't think it is a mistake. As long as Anti-Choice people allow these viloent homicidal maniacs to associate themselves with their movement, then they are Hypocrites.
The Pro-Life Movement talks out of one side of it's mouth, saying that they are not murderers - but on the other hand, they do not take personal responsibility for these nutballs attaching themselves to their movement. Silence is acceptance. And the Pro-"Life" movement has shown that it accepts people who will kill, and kill lots.
If pro-lifers want people to respect their position, then they had better find a way to seperate themselves from clinic bombers - because the silence speaks volumes - it says "I approve"
Slashdot Mirror
So I like many others in my position use Cold Fusion in my office, and would like to get some momentum behind a movement to get off of Cold Fusion and onto PHP. The one problem tat I am finding is that despite their similar natures, there is almost never a comparison between the two. PHP is mostly compared to ASP, JSP & Zope, and Cold Fusion is mostly compared to ASP & other proprietary engines - but I never seem to find any information on how the two compare.
What I would really need to convince the PHBs is:
a. a comparison on how they hold up under heavy loads
b. a comparison of features
c. a comparison of how interoperable they are with other languages/toolkits
PHP looks better, but without any proof that it can hold up under the loads that cold fusion can (or beat CF) I can't get any movement.....
thanks.
You wouldn't know good music if it bit you in the ass.
Nine Inch Nails has produced incredible albums, with an amazing range. Trean Reznor (The sum of NIN) has pioneered many areas of music, including the use of ecletic sound in his music, and being one of the forefathers of an entire genre of music (called industrial)
sure, it's grating, but unlike most of the bubblegum crap out there, it's music with a soul. NIN produces songs that give a view into human pain, suffering, and anger like no music before it.
This classes NIN with others who sing raw emotion, like Tori Amos & Rage Against The Machine.
Hello?
Public forum - anything said in a public forum can be quoted by ANYBODY without ANY permission.
You own the comments, but that doesn't give you some magical right to roll back 200 years of law.
The fact that they even tried is admirable, considering that they have absolutly NO legal obligation to do so.
God....Whine some more. Slashdot posts news, and sometimes it's about the things that are happening to/for them as a group. If sounds like Katz had help from Hemos, and perhaps more of the /. crew.
If you don't want to read it, it's as simple as skipping to the next one.
If you don't want news about slashdot itself, then filter that away too....otherwise please stop polluting the forum with mindless whining..
In no way is java 'faster' then Perl.
I develop in both, and java's speed is almost always the largest problem to overcome, whereas perl has done some really processor intensive stuff for us REAL fast.
Keep in mind, Perl does not fit into the classical interpreted/compiled paradigm - Not that I am saying java is either, actually the two share some similarities in this arena. Java can be 'compiled' into bytecode, then really compiled when it hits a browser's Just in time compiler. Perl on the other hand is read in, compiled then run. It appears to be an interpreted language - but in the background it is compiled.
What people don't seem to nderstand about mp3's are the following:
1. For most of the population, $12 is just not alot of money to spend for a CD, so instead of having to waste multiple hours ripping songs from someone else's CD, or downloading MP3's, then having the technical knowledge to turn those songs into a CD, people will buy the CD, because IT IS EASIER.
2. Companies declare their losses based on how many pirated copies they estimate exist - they seem to think that just because a person has downloaded a copy of some song that if it were not avlaible to them via a pirated channel, that of COURSE they would purchase it. This is wrong - everyone who has MP3s knows that half of the music they download they only kinda like, and so wouldn't pay for - and the other half they prolly have on CD.
So - that being a response to your MP3 comment, now I'll look at the iCrave comment - iCrave posts banners, but they keep the advertisement in place that existed - so as a result - the advertisers get a WIDER audience, so therefore the advertising slots are worth MORE money - because the commercial is playied on the standard TV channel, AND over the web. So because of this - the TV stations could justify charging MORE for a slot.
Keep in mind - people are not PURELY driven by money - many are driven by ease of use, and CD's are easier to aquire (accept for perhaps rare titles) then making an MP3 cd. Internet TV is similar - why watch a small crappy TV window that uses your bandwith, and shows a banner unless you just can't get the show you want to see? And who cares if you do - when the same commercials are being played?
just some thoughts on a misguided industry
Fine - but instead of one christian telling me about how I should live my life, and leaving me alone after I say 'I'm not interested', it is instead legions of people who all feel it is their personal duty to inform me that I am living my life 'wrong' and I should follow their madel, because it is 'right'.
It is a broad range of them too - everyone from the noramlly meek, polite, nice x-tian to the ragingly anti-abortion zelot to the white supremacist x-tian who thinks that the arian race is made up of God's children.
Christianity is a broad group, and I don't seek to pigon hole all christians based on the deplorable actions of certain segments, however one thing I have noticed is that just about all Christians disapprove of people NOT beliving like they do. Intolerance of different viewpoints is inherant in the religion - after all, the bible is the only truth (at least of you take any normal interpretaion)
Christians always seem to wonder why everyone else has tolerance issues towards Christianity & Christians - well, maybe it's because it appears the general christian view of us 'heathens' is hatred for being different, pity for not seeing the light, or a view of us as stupid for not seeing the 'proper' way of things
How about living among the Agnostics & Atheists?
I for one don't think they are evangelical - just defensive, because people routinly group them in with what are seen as 'offensive' groups
You won't be able to use your USB mouse with a distribution until the distro rolls in Kernel 2.4, (whenever that is released - I hear the target is like mid feb.) Because the 2.3 (Pre 2.4 devel kernel) kernel is the only one with USB support that REALLY works - and all distros right now are based on 2.2
My guess is that Mandrake is going to release 7.0, and then add Kernel 2.4 & XF86 4.0 to 7.1 - so (This is purely conjecture, so take it with a grain of salt) you will probably be able to use your USB mouse with Mandrake 7.1
Perhaps if you weren't so inflametory your post WOULD get moderated up - you ever think that perhaps it's not just what you say, but how you say it.....
First I guess I'll state that yes, you are correct - the media has not clue one. However you then go on to blame the 'left views' of these people. This has nothing to do with the mistake.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of people who are clearly from the right (and judging by the tone of your diatribe - the religous right) blame every problem they see in the world on the left. Well, this time I'm not gonna take it. The Left leanings of NPR has nothing to do with this error - in general if the left were to make a mistake of this sort, it would be probably FOR the underdog defendants, not the large corperate plaintif. I seem to remember that it's the LEFT that tends to support personal rights, and taking care of citizens, and the RIGHT that tells the poor to fsck off. (Granted - the right is the one that supports gun rights, not the left.)
Following this you point to secularism as a bias? This makes no sense. In a country founded on the rights for people to maintain free speech, free press, and FREE RELIGION there is no place in open media to bias itself towards any one religion, or even religion at all. Trust me - if the media wasn't secular - it would be far more screwed up. Media requires freedom to function properly. Because of this - if media has a 'higher' calling, it invariably biases that media from just reporting the facts. (Now granted, some would say that the media's fact reporting has been biased by the calling of profit - but that is a different argument....) If you want to take those facts and then draw conclusions that match your religous right bias that is fine, but the job of the media is supposed to be just to report the facts - and being secular is the only way to do that.
To address your statement of:
This same sort of unintentional understanding bias shows up all the time in gun control issues, religion issues, abortion issues, and politician issues, etc.
All I can say is that the media reports what happens, and if a group does things like bomb women's clinics, and use the right to arm in order to stockpile weapons for a coming revolution where a 'proper christian government' is put into place then it is not the media's fault the right looks bad - it's their own fault. If the Religous right is gonna continue to murder docters who are doing a procedure that IS LEGAL, then they deserve the bad press - it's not bias, it's their own damn stupidity.
From a left leaning, left brained secular humanist atheist who has a quite strong grasp of technology
Why does the world exist?
perhaps because it does
Why does life exist?
perhaps because conditions randomly existed in a state that allowed life to form
When you are looking for primal causes, sometimes I think you look in vein - I think there is no reason for anything, it just is. Science never has said that it provides a why for the unverse, or life, or anything else - it just does it's best to explain how. Some people are just not satisified with a how based on 'well, me mostly don't know, by we are learning more every day', and a why of 'there is no why' - so they develop Religion to give those answers to them, and to alleviate their fears of living with an unfinished how, and no why.
I personally thing that this is why most religions are based upon fear. Fear brings people to religion, and religion keeps people playing on that fear.
Sorry if this sounds hostile, but I honestly cannot imagine a reason that a person would choose to blind themselves to learning, and gain all of their knowledge of the universe from an authority who claims to be infallible (Be it the Bible, the Pope, the Prophet, the Bhan-Wagen with his fourty gold Rols Royces) that is constantly proven by logic and reasoning to be thoroughly flawed. (Read: Flat Earth, Earth rides on the back of an elephant, Earth is the center of the universe, the world is only 6000 years old even though the chinese have contiguous records that date back furthur....)
Unfortunatly, in order to create this atmosphere of fear, religin invariably needs to make a them. This leads to hate among these groups. Christianity in it's sorted history has lead to the absolute, intollerable hatred of women for causing the original sin, blacks because they have no soul - so we are free to enslave them and hurt them as much as we wish, Gays - because they do not fit into the christian world view, Atheists - because they represent a threat to the power structure, and the list goes on. (and on, and on, and on....ad infenetium)
So, all this rambling leads me to my conclusion:
Intead of searching for a why, and returning with the baggage of fear, loathing, and an infalible answer (who has few or no foundations other then 'God said so'), why not try to gain a world view that just says 'we only have learned so much, and even that is suspect', because at least that can have solid foundations - even if it cannot yet give you all the answers - it can at least provide you with a likely scenerio.
See - I'm not so sure my understanding of the GPL is faulty here. I think it goes something like this:
.c or .h file, then I am not breaching the license.)
Mozilla can create an embeddable browser. That browser is a seperate and distinct program. If I write GPL code to create a program that calls Mozilla's Embeddable browser, but does not actually interface with it's functions (EG if I don't need to include the MozillaBrowser.so (or whatever it'll be called) file in my
For that matter, LGPL code IS compatable with the MPL. LGPL is also compatable with the GPL. I could write a library that is covered by the LGPL that invokes the mozilla (or other browser) browser (But does not depend upon it). I then can call that code from my GPLed program.
Mozilla has an Embeddable browser. So really if Konq wanted to embed the browser it shouldn't conflict with any of the liscenses. All you would need to do is call the embeddable browser from a GPL program. The program at that point is in two distinct code bases.
For that matter, a program like neoplanet could be created for linux - it allows multiple rendering engines to be used (IE or Mozilla), but it is a seperate & distinct program.
If Neoplanet can incorperate mozilla's rendering engine without breaching the MPL - or releaseing the neoplanet browser under the MPL then there should really be no problem doing it with a GPL program as well.
I have heard that quantum cryptanalysis will only help crack certain forms of crypto, such as RSA. What makes a cryptographic system resistant to quantum cryptanalysis, and is twofish such a system?
Tim makes good points in his essay, but I argue that he is wrong about how linuxites should not concentrate on the desktop (or more specifically that they should focus on keeping the web open, and winning the battle in web server space)
Apache's worst fight is ahead, not behind. How can I say this? Because Microsoft is shipping a personal web server with every copy of 98, and will continue to do this with later versions of it's os. We must show up to the fight for the desktop because of this. If we are concentrated on keeping the web open, and open source on top (a la Apache), we have to stand toe to toe with MS, and produce as many lunix users who are using apache as a personal web server, as MS produces windows 98/NT users who use the windows personal web server.
As bandwidth to the home increases through ADSL, cable and other means, I truely believe that the battle for most of the web will revolve around what each user is using for their own web server that runs on their desktop. To maintain dominance in web server space, we need to at least meet MS in the middle on desktop space.
I think it's more like: No wonder there are so few atheists left if school systems like Kansas keep having issues with rectal cranial inversion disorder. Of course you'll have less atheists if school systems teach kids not to think, but instead just allow for 'faith'.
Teach kids reason, and eventually you will have a society that is based on an ever increasing understanding of the world. Teach kids faith, and you will end up with a theocracy that outlaws thought.
Keep your religion to yourself, and let the rest of us continue to function in reality.
Oops - yep I meant ISS.
On your first point - Exactly - XOR 'encryption' sucks, it might as well be plaintext
As far as communication - I'm not really sure - but the program can communicate in more then one way - if they wrote a program to find it on UDP, just set it to TCP. If that doesn't work it can be set to ICMP. BO2K is quite impressive, and if ISS thinks they have a fool proof detection scheme, it is my guess that they have not hit all the bases.
1. Breaking BO2K's Crypto:
Of course he broke BO2K's crypto - the Generic, straight from the 'box' crypto is XOR encryption - which is simple to 'break'. That said, inseide the US, you can download a plug-in that will allow BO2K to use 3DES. Sophos did not crack 3DES. Even if he did, the plugin architecture allows a programmer to add any encryption scheme they wish, and BO2K will use it fore all of it's transfers.
2. Detecting of BO2K
Well - to detect BO2K in one configuration, all IIS had to do is look at the threads, and it will show up. This could be what they are discussing as easily detectable. However it is also possible to get BO2K to hide quite effectivly by having it hop between threads, and use whatever ports it wants to. IIS could also be referring to the fact that BO2K uses the same registry key every time - and it does so on purpose which leads into point 3....
3. BO2K is a virus
BO2K is not a virus. Not even remotly. At worst it's a Trojan, but it is no more a Trojan then other packages like say PC Anywhere (and another one that I can not remember the name of - it starts with an S) Interestingly, some other 'remote admin' packages can also be installed over the net, or given as a 'trojan', or even be run as a hidden process. BO2K has many of the same features as similar packages, and has the same ability to be used for admin, as well as cracking.
4. BO2K is bad
BO2K is what you make of it. It's a tool. it can be used in many ways - some bad, some good. It really has some very useful features. Those features again can be used as you see fit.
I am not affiliated with the cdc, these views come from seeing their presentation of BO2K at defcon.
Ok, I'm seeing alot of disinfo about BO2K here. So let's address a few right here: 1. Breaking BO2K's Crypto: Of course he broke BO2K's crypto - the Generic, straight from the 'box' crypto is XOR encryption - which is simple to 'break'. That said, inseide the US, you can download a plug-in that will allow BO2K to use 3DES. Sophos did not crack 3DES. Even if he did, the plugin architecture allows a programmer to add any encryption scheme they wish, and BO2K will use it fore all of it's transfers. 2. Detecting of BO2K Well - to detect BO2K in one configuration, all IIS had to do is look at the threads, and it will show up. This could be what they are discussing as easily detectable. However it is also possible to get BO2K to hide quite effectivly by having it hop between threads, and use whatever ports it wants to. IIS could also be referring to the fact that BO2K uses the same registry key every time - and it does so on purpose which leads into point 3.. 3. BO2K is a virus BO2K is not a virus. Not even remotly. At worst it's a Trojan, but it is no more a Trojan then other packages like say PC Anywhere (and another one that I can not remember the name of - it starts with an S) Interestingly, some other 'remote admin' packages can also be installed over the net, or given as a 'trojan', or even be run as a hidden process. BO2K has many of the same features as similar packages, and has the same ability to be used for admin, as well as cracking. 4. BO2K is bad BO2K is what you make of it. It's a tool. it can be used in many ways - some bad, some good. It really has some very useful features. Those features again can be used as you see fit. I am not affiliated with the cdc, these views come from seeing their presentation of BO2K at defcon.
It's real easy to feel old at 23 when you look at things like this and realize that neither of these kids probably remember things like Challanger (What were they like 3 ate the time?)
It's amazing that when so young (23 myself) we can feel so old.
But christianity does thigs like that every day. I live in a city close to where Mathew Sheppard was hung on a fence, tortured, burned, and eventually left for dead. A few weeks later the city of Casper Wyoming had a funeral for him - and Guess who showed up - non other then a christian preacher from Kansas who had a bunch of followers with signs like "God Hates Fags" - and you have the nerve to tell us that christianity isn't producing followers who are morally corrupt?
I have never run across a more hate filled group then the christian right. They hate gays, They hate blacks (and if you don't believe me, why don't you travel on down to the 'focus on the family' compound in Colorado Springs that is run by Dr. Dobbson - you won't be able to find so much as an Italian in that building - they are ALL WASPS), They hate non-submissive Women, They hate Jews, They hate really any member of another religion - heck plenty of protestants hate catholics - and technically they have the same core religion.
How many buddists do YOU know who would carry a sign to a funeral that says 'GOD HATES FAGS'
Just to point out that you are skewing the results of the polls. You took the most favoriable results for your argument off of that list. You sy 48% to 45% not much difference - well, I can do the same thing. On that same list there is a margin of 56% to 33% - hmm now that IS a significant majority. To get a fair reading why don't you try taking an average?
/.ers
so what is it? 51.3% - 39.3% - now that still is a pretty signficant majority.
This is a prefect example of how the Anti-Choice movement constantly tries to skew things in thier favor. Take a statistics class - then give me numbers, instead of using information that is misleading in an attempt to manipulate the
I don't think it is a mistake. As long as Anti-Choice people allow these viloent homicidal maniacs to associate themselves with their movement, then they are Hypocrites.
The Pro-Life Movement talks out of one side of it's mouth, saying that they are not murderers - but on the other hand, they do not take personal responsibility for these nutballs attaching themselves to their movement. Silence is acceptance. And the Pro-"Life" movement has shown that it accepts people who will kill, and kill lots.
If pro-lifers want people to respect their position, then they had better find a way to seperate themselves from clinic bombers - because the silence speaks volumes - it says "I approve"