has anyone else been thinking that it could have been timed better? i mean, right now it's getting there in 2007, but what if they had timed it so it left three years later and arrived in 2010? would that be f****n freaky or WHAT? too bad jupiter is a moving target and you don't get many choices as to when you launch the satelite.. oh well -_-
This is the same with modern gun control legislation. Making guns illegal doesn't stop criminals from getting guns, only law-abiding citizens. There are now more guns in the US than their are people, and there is no stoping anyone from getting one. The same with weed, Same with computers, powerful microprocessors, and strong encryption. They can't be stopped!
bad anology, really..
guns and marijuana are physical objects. they take up space, and they have to be physically transported from one place to another. You can't "copy" a gun.
If you want to transport weed into the U.S., you have to actually physically take it across a border, usually passing somewhere heavily patrolled or like at the US/Mexico border,or at least a little booth where you show a passport and may be subject to random searches.
The internet has no borders. You just click the little box saying "i am in the U.S." and they don't know if you're lying or not. I've heard that they check your IP adress, and if it's clearly from a foreign country, you're denied downloading of most encryption products. So? Is it that hard to get a shell located in the U.S.?
And if you _do_ decide to physically take it across a border, it's a hell of a lot easier. If you have 3,000 pounds of cocaine you want to get across a border, that's going to take up quite a bit of space. If you have a copy of Netscape Navigator 4 on a computer hard drive, how the hell are they going to know that? If worst comes to worst you can just burn it to a CD-R and stick it in the car stereo. And since once you've got the copy of Netscape across the border you can make as many copies as you want..
i guess what i'm trying to say here is, smuggling software from point A to point B is totally effortless. Smuggling guns or drugs is different since it actually requires some amount of effort. If you know someone 20 yards away on the other side of the border is carrying weed you can stop them from crossing the border with it, by physically blocking their path if neccicary, but if they're sitting 20 yards across the border with a computer and telnet you can't stop them from getting a copy of PGP.
bootx is only one way to boot linuxppc. It is the one the linuxppc.com people push because it is the simplest if you already have a macos installation (which almost everyone with lppc does).
It is completely possible to not even have macos on the drive-- just boot into the Open Firmware prompt (cmd-ctrl-o-f i think) and type in a couple quick commands, and it will start up in linuxppc every time after that until you boot into macos (which will reset your OF stuff.. although you can set it back from there with this convenient program called Boot Variables.)
This is all very clearly documented in the linuxppc.org installation instructions, which i guess you've never had reason to read.
i have a linuxppc4 install on my computer that is somewhat messed up, mostly because i made the mistake of trying to download the whole damn thing over a modem instead of buying the CD. I need to reinstall it, and I'm considering grabbing a copy of the linuxppc 5 CD. However i was curious about maybe switching to debian instead.
i was wondering if anyone could tell me what the status of the port of the Debian distribution to the PPC platform is? is it usable yet? The page at http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/ says almost nothing.. and the documentation listed there in the docu/ directory returns 404 not founds. there's some powerpc binaries at ftp://ftp.us.debian.org//debian/dists/potato/mai n/binary-powerpc/ but i have no idea how to install them, and no clue where the documentation is.
Has anyone actually used this, or can anyone tell me how it's going? Are there installation instructions somewhere i missed? Is the Potato thing there really a full, complete distribution?
I've never used debian, and I'm not totally certain how the debian distribution would be different (especially since i never get to use RPM anyway, so the package manager doesn't matter much to me..) but i'm curious. Is it worth checking out, or should i just go with the Linuxppc 5/1999?
yes. i'm sorry, that was a typo.:P the current version is 4.5. 5.0 is not out yet. the mac version numbers do not exactly correspond to the windows version numbers in terms of features. not that it matters.
any of you people ever done an install of Enlightenment from source? i did this a couple weeks ago. i can't remember vertabrim what happened, but something that looked an awful lot like this happened during the./configure:
Checking for gtk... yes Checking for ESD... no WARNING: Esound library not found. Will compile without sound. Checking for imlib... yes Checking for lager_ale in _fridge... no Checking for any_kind_of_ale in _fridge.. no WARNING: We were unable to locate any ale in your refrigerator. We suggest you fix this problem immediately.
--- i've seen similar things too in other places.. something, i can't remember what, i think it was windowmanager, displayed during../configure:
Checking for life_signs in Kenny... no Oh my God!! They killed Kenny!! You bastards!! ---
i am a mac user using Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0.
does this announcement mean i am officially freed from any guilt of supporting microsoft by using MSIE..? at least until icab supports javascript, or Mozilla is real..?
in my mind, Microsoft Guilt and AOL Guilt cancel each other out.. it just kind of feels like all the spirit and streetcred have gone out of the word "netscape".
give me ten of these things and let me make a beowulf cluster out of them. let me mess with them for a month. at the end of the month i will give you the complete works of hamlet, a copy of the windows 98 source code, three parodies of "the blair witch project" and several/. articles on the windows "NSAKey" thing. allowed that you generate as many random thigns as you want, and can throw away the ones that don't make sense, anything can look impressive
i'm going to oversimplify, so don't flame me over my Java definition.
linux: a totally open and cross-platform server operating system. through GNOME/KDE is attempting to become a consumer OS. java: a slightly dodgy, but relatively open and (kind of) cross-platform embedded applet system. OK, meanwhile: Windows NT: a totally closed and mostly hardware-propeitary server operating system. through the W2K bug is attempting to become a consumer OS. ActiveX: a very dodgy, not very open, not very cross-platform embedded applet system.
alright, so basically java is to activex as linux is to windows nt. so following the logic of this article, and making similar wild indefensable assumptions.. if linux is destined to go the way of java, that means windows nt is destined to go the way of activex.
So let's look at which way java and activex have gone, and predict how linux and windows nt will go.
As they say, java has mostly failed for any user-end usage but is still being used for server type stuff. What's more, java is very versitile, still runs in a variety of situations (you can implement java code into mac os programs.. dunno about windows..), and it's still useful to have a java VM sitting around somewhere. Perhaps Linux will wind up the exact same way in a number of years --servers with little end-user status.
Meanwhile, activex has just kind of disappeared off the face of the planet because of its sheer uselessness. It has almost no support in anything, consumer-oriented or otherwise. but microsoft still tries to foist it on people. The only known thing anyone has ever written in activex that does something is a security exploit. (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,232 2425,00.html) You think this is gonna happen to NT?
This is all, of course, total BS. If anything even vaguely like this happens i'll be surprised.
the obvious problem with this thinking is: if they did release an "L++", why would anyone use it? The obvious answer is that it would supposedly have some kind of interesting features that no other linux flavor has.
But then you kind of run up against the fact that if it's released under the GPL, then it is trivial for, say, Redhat, to pull out all the nice features and incorporate it into redhat. Or for someone to hack together a compatible version of L++ and release it.
And if it isn't GPL, then, well, it doesn't have a gnat's chance in hell. Never mind for a second what exactly it is that wouldn't be GPLed; it sure isn't the kernel, cuz they'd have to rewrite it from the ground up to be free of the GPL virus. And if it's a replacement for GNU GCC/Make, well, it has to be compatible enough to still compile the kernel perfectly.
Whatever a non-GPLed L++ would hypothetically be, it would get no support from the open source community. Meanwhile the closed source community would consider it a waste of time to develop for, since they can reach a wider audience by writing for NT anyway.
i've noticed that sometimes you see real gems maybe three or four levels of replies deep in a conversation.. i mean, stuff that is within the context of that particular thread, but still brings up a point that everyone ought to see. The thing where it always displays the full text of posts score:4 or higher is nice, but the problem is the moderators usually don't bother reading messages nested that deep. so they just scroll by without even knowing that message is there, and it stays at score:1.
maybe you ought to set up some kind of flagging system, something where everyone, even non-moderators can say "this derserves moderating up".. and even though it wouldn't count in points, a little red icon invisible to non-moderators would appear next to the posting's listing in the parent threads. so that the moderators would know it's worth looking at.
I dunno how well this would work-- seems pretty easy to abuse. You'd have to set it up so people couldn't flag their own posts.. might be worth thinking about though.
During a couple of the Instant Messanging stories, it appeared that someone was going through and flaming everyone who mentioned Jabber (www.jabber.org) by saying jabber was insecure and we should all use this other client with strong encryption. (i can't remember the name of it-- i think it started with a C. anyone know what this is?)
But the thing was, you couldn't really tell if it was just one person or many people. I mean, the writing styles were somewhat similar and such, but since it was all Anonymous Coward you couldn't tell for sure.
While there really isn't anything wrong with this person promoting a secure IMing client, it would have been nice to know whether this was really a massive groundswell of support or just one guy going through and checking for jabber references.
even ignoring the huge amounts of previous prior art, i wonder how this would be patentable anyway. I mean, aren't patents supposed to cover specific, nonobvious techniques? Whereas this is broad, vague, and obvious. How was this ever approved?
I'm beginning to sense that the patent people just hand out patents to everyone who asks, and assume that if someone is hurt by that patent, whoever it was will just happen to have the huge amount of money laying around to have a bogus patent struck down.
as a couple other posters here have noted, the TV show "red dwarf" used the same idea for the entire series.. and if THAT isn't prior art..
Re:reverse engineering linux / BSD
on
Be on the G4
·
· Score: 2
yes. so?
does the GPL say there's anything wrong with that?
reverse engineering linux / BSD
on
Be on the G4
·
· Score: 4
"Some have suggested that we look into the Linux sources for such data. Perhaps, but I see little reason to open ourselves to possible accusations of reverse-engineering. We're welcome on x-86 hardware, we're not welcome on Apple G3/G4. We respect the logic and that settles it for us. "
"Accusations of reverse-engineering?" Ignoring for a second whether it is logically _possible_ to reverse-engineer linux, who would accuse them of anything, and what bad could possibly come out of it? As long as you aren't actually reusing code, i don't see any way they could violate the rights of a GPLed program.
What if they just had one engineer read the linuxppc kernel source, write down everything you have to do to work on a G3 chipset, pass that information to another couple of engineers and have them put that into Be? They wouldn't be copying any code, so it would be perfectly legal. Does it even have to be that complicated? I could understand if Be just wasn't comfortable getting information on the G3 chipset from a secondhand source, but that's not what they say the problem is.
Hell- forget linux, what about NetBSD? or Darwin? They could just take that code and it would be legal, wouldn't it? Is there anything in the ASPL that would at all limit Be's usage of code from Darwin?
I just wish it was possible to get more than one side of this story. All that we have to go on is what Be says, and while it sounds like it's probably true, i'm not certain how difficult it would really be for Be to work out the G3 if they wanted to. And maybe apple just has better things to do than provide tech support to Be? -mcc-baka
what i want to know is, what DOES this mean? do we have the SLIGHTEST idea AT ALL what the "nsakey" symbol does? even if we accept for a second it's a backdoor for the nsa, what does that backdoor do? is it clear from the dissasembly? any NT admins here who might know details? i've seen at least three contradictory explanatons of what a key in the cryptoAPI means.
they seem to be saying the debugging stuff was left in in the NT service pack and that you could see the names of the variables used.. well hell, there ought to be all KINDS of interesting stuff in there. beyond the NSAKEY thing,seems like it would be fascinating to just thumb through the variable names and see whatall is there. or was it just the security parts and nothing else that had the debugging? is there really a function called CREATE_RANDOM_GENERAL_PROTECTION_FAULT()? (j/k)
has anyone yet gone ahead and run their program to hacksaw out NSA_KEY like they suggest you do? does NT still run? does anything break, suggesting maybe NSA stands for something other than National Security Agency? how do we know that cryptonym's program actually _does_ take out NSAKEY, and not just replace NSAKEY with a key to let cryptononym in your system? How do we know "cryptonym" is not just a front for a shadowy orginisation working to create a human-alien hybrid so they can have FEMA infect all human life with a strange black substance spread by bees which causes the carrier to decompose, becoming food for alien life form and setting off the alien colonisation of earth?
but anyway, whatever this NSAkey thing does, i say we immediately get RCA or RZA or distributed.net or whatever going on cracking it.:)
-mcc-baka hey.. my mac may crash three times a day, but i have yet to hear about any security holes.
how difficult would it be for these people to distribute their maps in a vector-based image format instead of bitmap? would it be possible? it's all colored lines anyway. It might be large because it's over 100,000 colored lines, but you'd at least be able to zoom in. And the bitmap method makes it hard to see individual sections of the map..
what format would work for this? are there any formats that would allow you to name individual points on the map, so they could distribute along with the map a [probably huge] automatically generated index of the IP adreses?
the search engine at www.google.com does that for most of its pages, and it seems to have no legal issues. They have a little "cached" thingy next to most of their links. The reason for this is that any search engine database is usually pretty out of date, and if the page no longer exists you can at least see from the Google cache what it once looked like.
your point about banner ads is a important though--maybe the caching mechanism could be written in such a way as to recognize banner ads (the way iCab and some filtering software does..) and to make those images direct links to the orignal file instead of cached?
a better question would be how Slashdot itself would handle it without/.ing itself. A couple of icons and a massive amount of text thing, but if they also had to handle shipping out copies of these huge map images of the internet to ungodly amounts of people while the real map image website was down.. well, could it handle it? Maybe the caching would be text-only, and have the BASE HREF set accordingly. Then you could at least see an imageless version if the original site gets slashdotted, and it would solve the banner ad problem as well.
ok, let me guess: the "new setup" for slashdot.org referred to yesterday is now in place. this is just a massive test. and this is the reason all the BSD articles have been posted today-- the/. people know that any pro-BSD article will generate huge amounts of flaming and counter-flaming, thus testing if the new setup can handle large amounts of heavy traffic.
everyone's saying it's a toilet, but really, the more i look at it, the more i disagree: i think it looks like a waffle iron.
actually what it _really_ looks like is "George Foreman's Lean Mean Grilling Machine". If you've ever seen one of those, then the ottoman pc looks _exactly_ like that. only thicker.
either way i think we should praise intel for coming up with their own slightly scary "creative" design instead of stealing apple's slightly scary "creative" design. Although it looks like it takes after the imac in one way: a horrible keyboard. except that the keyboard's built in, so if you want an extended or DVORAK one then too bad.. i may be wrong though. i can't really see from that tiny picture. And doesn't it seem like a circular monitor would waste a lot of potential screen space? well, whatever.
i mean.. *snort* *snicker* um, i'm sure that it will be a very *giggles slightly* effective way of handling it. in all seriousness, i think we can all think that left to their own honor, we can trust the people to actually install software esigned to restrict their rights on their own computers without trying to circumven.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
heh.. oh, GOd.. eeh.. never mind.. HAHAHA..
(P.S. so that covers the web. what about FTP? newsgroups? telnet? shells in foreign countries? lynx running under shells in foreign countries? There's more than one way to get pr0n, you know)
Slashdot Mirror
has anyone else been thinking that it could have been timed better? i mean, right now it's getting there in 2007, but what if they had timed it so it left three years later and arrived in 2010? would that be f****n freaky or WHAT? too bad jupiter is a moving target and you don't get many choices as to when you launch the satelite.. oh well -_-
bad anology, really..
guns and marijuana are physical objects. they take up space, and they have to be physically transported from one place to another. You can't "copy" a gun.
If you want to transport weed into the U.S., you have to actually physically take it across a border, usually passing somewhere heavily patrolled or like at the US/Mexico border,or at least a little booth where you show a passport and may be subject to random searches.
The internet has no borders. You just click the little box saying "i am in the U.S." and they don't know if you're lying or not. I've heard that they check your IP adress, and if it's clearly from a foreign country, you're denied downloading of most encryption products. So? Is it that hard to get a shell located in the U.S.?
And if you _do_ decide to physically take it across a border, it's a hell of a lot easier. If you have 3,000 pounds of cocaine you want to get across a border, that's going to take up quite a bit of space. If you have a copy of Netscape Navigator 4 on a computer hard drive, how the hell are they going to know that? If worst comes to worst you can just burn it to a CD-R and stick it in the car stereo. And since once you've got the copy of Netscape across the border you can make as many copies as you want..
i guess what i'm trying to say here is, smuggling software from point A to point B is totally effortless. Smuggling guns or drugs is different since it actually requires some amount of effort. If you know someone 20 yards away on the other side of the border is carrying weed you can stop them from crossing the border with it, by physically blocking their path if neccicary, but if they're sitting 20 yards across the border with a computer and telnet you can't stop them from getting a copy of PGP.
-mcc-baka
uhh.. mari-ju-ana is bad, mm-'kay?
bootx is only one way to boot linuxppc. It is the one the linuxppc.com people push because it is the simplest if you already have a macos installation (which almost everyone with lppc does).
It is completely possible to not even have macos on the drive-- just boot into the Open Firmware prompt (cmd-ctrl-o-f i think) and type in a couple quick commands, and it will start up in linuxppc every time after that until you boot into macos (which will reset your OF stuff.. although you can set it back from there with this convenient program called Boot Variables.)
This is all very clearly documented in the linuxppc.org installation instructions, which i guess you've never had reason to read.
i have a linuxppc4 install on my computer that is somewhat messed up, mostly because i made the mistake of trying to download the whole damn thing over a modem instead of buying the CD. I need to reinstall it, and I'm considering grabbing a copy of the linuxppc 5 CD. However i was curious about maybe switching to debian instead.
i n/binary-powerpc/
i was wondering if anyone could tell me what the status of the port of the Debian distribution to the PPC platform is? is it usable yet? The page at
http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/
says almost nothing.. and the documentation listed there in the docu/ directory returns 404 not founds. there's some powerpc binaries at
ftp://ftp.us.debian.org//debian/dists/potato/ma
but i have no idea how to install them, and no clue where the documentation is.
Has anyone actually used this, or can anyone tell me how it's going? Are there installation instructions somewhere i missed? Is the Potato thing there really a full, complete distribution?
I've never used debian, and I'm not totally certain how the debian distribution would be different (especially since i never get to use RPM anyway, so the package manager doesn't matter much to me..) but i'm curious. Is it worth checking out, or should i just go with the Linuxppc 5/1999?
heh.. maybe the slashdot servers refused to go up on a friday the 13th, so rob had to set the clock forward a month so it would be a monday?
yes. i'm sorry, that was a typo. :P the current version is 4.5. 5.0 is not out yet.
the mac version numbers do not exactly correspond to the windows version numbers in terms of features.
not that it matters.
ok i feel stupid now.
any of you people ever done an install of Enlightenment from source? i did this a couple weeks ago. i can't remember vertabrim what happened, but something that looked an awful lot like this happened during the ./configure:
../configure:
Checking for gtk... yes
Checking for ESD... no
WARNING: Esound library not found. Will compile without sound.
Checking for imlib... yes
Checking for lager_ale in _fridge... no
Checking for any_kind_of_ale in _fridge.. no
WARNING: We were unable to locate any ale in your refrigerator. We suggest you fix this problem immediately.
---
i've seen similar things too in other places.. something, i can't remember what, i think it was windowmanager, displayed during
Checking for life_signs in Kenny... no
Oh my God!! They killed Kenny!! You bastards!!
---
The miracle of open source software.
i am a mac user using Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0.
does this announcement mean i am officially freed from any guilt of supporting microsoft by using MSIE..? at least until icab supports javascript, or Mozilla is real..?
in my mind, Microsoft Guilt and AOL Guilt cancel each other out.. it just kind of feels like all the spirit and streetcred have gone out of the word "netscape".
-mcc-baka
[standards are dead]
give me ten of these things and let me make a beowulf cluster out of them. let me mess with them for a month. at the end of the month i will give you the complete works of hamlet, a copy of the windows 98 source code, three parodies of "the blair witch project" and several /. articles on the windows "NSAKey" thing. allowed that you generate as many random thigns as you want, and can throw away the ones that don't make sense, anything can look impressive
i'm going to oversimplify, so don't flame me over my Java definition.
2 2425,00.html) You think this is gonna happen to NT?
linux: a totally open and cross-platform server operating system. through GNOME/KDE is attempting to become a consumer OS.
java: a slightly dodgy, but relatively open and (kind of) cross-platform embedded applet system.
OK, meanwhile:
Windows NT: a totally closed and mostly hardware-propeitary server operating system. through the W2K bug is attempting to become a consumer OS.
ActiveX: a very dodgy, not very open, not very cross-platform embedded applet system.
alright, so basically java is to activex as linux is to windows nt. so following the logic of this article, and making similar wild indefensable assumptions.. if linux is destined to go the way of java, that means windows nt is destined to go the way of activex.
So let's look at which way java and activex have gone, and predict how linux and windows nt will go.
As they say, java has mostly failed for any user-end usage but is still being used for server type stuff. What's more, java is very versitile, still runs in a variety of situations (you can implement java code into mac os programs.. dunno about windows..), and it's still useful to have a java VM sitting around somewhere. Perhaps Linux will wind up the exact same way in a number of years --servers with little end-user status.
Meanwhile, activex has just kind of disappeared off the face of the planet because of its sheer uselessness. It has almost no support in anything, consumer-oriented or otherwise. but microsoft still tries to foist it on people. The only known thing anyone has ever written in activex that does something is a security exploit. (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,23
This is all, of course, total BS. If anything even vaguely like this happens i'll be surprised.
the obvious problem with this thinking is: if they did release an "L++", why would anyone use it? The obvious answer is that it would supposedly have some kind of interesting features that no other linux flavor has.
But then you kind of run up against the fact that if it's released under the GPL, then it is trivial for, say, Redhat, to pull out all the nice features and incorporate it into redhat. Or for someone to hack together a compatible version of L++ and release it.
And if it isn't GPL, then, well, it doesn't have a gnat's chance in hell. Never mind for a second what exactly it is that wouldn't be GPLed; it sure isn't the kernel, cuz they'd have to rewrite it from the ground up to be free of the GPL virus. And if it's a replacement for GNU GCC/Make, well, it has to be compatible enough to still compile the kernel perfectly.
Whatever a non-GPLed L++ would hypothetically be, it would get no support from the open source community. Meanwhile the closed source community would consider it a waste of time to develop for, since they can reach a wider audience by writing for NT anyway.
i've noticed that sometimes you see real gems maybe three or four levels of replies deep in a conversation.. i mean, stuff that is within the context of that particular thread, but still brings up a point that everyone ought to see.
The thing where it always displays the full text of posts score:4 or higher is nice, but the problem is the moderators usually don't bother reading messages nested that deep. so they just scroll by without even knowing that message is there, and it stays at score:1.
maybe you ought to set up some kind of flagging system, something where everyone, even non-moderators can say "this derserves moderating up".. and even though it wouldn't count in points, a little red icon invisible to non-moderators would appear next to the posting's listing in the parent threads. so that the moderators would know it's worth looking at.
I dunno how well this would work-- seems pretty easy to abuse. You'd have to set it up so people couldn't flag their own posts.. might be worth thinking about though.
this would be pretty nice.
During a couple of the Instant Messanging stories, it appeared that someone was going through and flaming everyone who mentioned Jabber (www.jabber.org) by saying jabber was insecure and we should all use this other client with strong encryption. (i can't remember the name of it-- i think it started with a C. anyone know what this is?)
But the thing was, you couldn't really tell if it was just one person or many people. I mean, the writing styles were somewhat similar and such, but since it was all Anonymous Coward you couldn't tell for sure.
While there really isn't anything wrong with this person promoting a secure IMing client, it would have been nice to know whether this was really a massive groundswell of support or just one guy going through and checking for jabber references.
Just situations like that and stuff..
even ignoring the huge amounts of previous prior art, i wonder how this would be patentable anyway. I mean, aren't patents supposed to cover specific, nonobvious techniques? Whereas this is broad, vague, and obvious. How was this ever approved?
I'm beginning to sense that the patent people just hand out patents to everyone who asks, and assume that if someone is hurt by that patent, whoever it was will just happen to have the huge amount of money laying around to have a bogus patent struck down.
as a couple other posters here have noted, the TV show "red dwarf" used the same idea for the entire series.. and if THAT isn't prior art..
yes. so?
does the GPL say there's anything wrong with that?
"Accusations of reverse-engineering?"
Ignoring for a second whether it is logically _possible_ to reverse-engineer linux, who would accuse them of anything, and what bad could possibly come out of it? As long as you aren't actually reusing code, i don't see any way they could violate the rights of a GPLed program.
What if they just had one engineer read the linuxppc kernel source, write down everything you have to do to work on a G3 chipset, pass that information to another couple of engineers and have them put that into Be? They wouldn't be copying any code, so it would be perfectly legal. Does it even have to be that complicated?
I could understand if Be just wasn't comfortable getting information on the G3 chipset from a secondhand source, but that's not what they say the problem is.
Hell- forget linux, what about NetBSD? or Darwin? They could just take that code and it would be legal, wouldn't it? Is there anything in the ASPL that would at all limit Be's usage of code from Darwin?
I just wish it was possible to get more than one side of this story. All that we have to go on is what Be says, and while it sounds like it's probably true, i'm not certain how difficult it would really be for Be to work out the G3 if they wanted to. And maybe apple just has better things to do than provide tech support to Be?
-mcc-baka
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
what i want to know is, what DOES this mean? do we have the SLIGHTEST idea AT ALL what the "nsakey" symbol does? even if we accept for a second it's a backdoor for the nsa, what does that backdoor do? is it clear from the dissasembly? any NT admins here who might know details? i've seen at least three contradictory explanatons of what a key in the cryptoAPI means.
:)
they seem to be saying the debugging stuff was left in in the NT service pack and that you could see the names of the variables used.. well hell, there ought to be all KINDS of interesting stuff in there. beyond the NSAKEY thing,seems like it would be fascinating to just thumb through the variable names and see whatall is there. or was it just the security parts and nothing else that had the debugging? is there really a function called CREATE_RANDOM_GENERAL_PROTECTION_FAULT()? (j/k)
has anyone yet gone ahead and run their program to hacksaw out NSA_KEY like they suggest you do? does NT still run? does anything break, suggesting maybe NSA stands for something other than National Security Agency? how do we know that cryptonym's program actually _does_ take out NSAKEY, and not just replace NSAKEY with a key to let cryptononym in your system? How do we know "cryptonym" is not just a front for a shadowy orginisation working to create a human-alien hybrid so they can have FEMA infect all human life with a strange black substance spread by bees which causes the carrier to decompose, becoming food for alien life form and setting off the alien colonisation of earth?
but anyway, whatever this NSAkey thing does, i say we immediately get RCA or RZA or distributed.net or whatever going on cracking it.
-mcc-baka
hey.. my mac may crash three times a day, but i have yet to hear about any security holes.
how difficult would it be for these people to distribute their maps in a vector-based image format instead of bitmap? would it be possible? it's all colored lines anyway. It might be large because it's over 100,000 colored lines, but you'd at least be able to zoom in. And the bitmap method makes it hard to see individual sections of the map..
what format would work for this? are there any formats that would allow you to name individual points on the map, so they could distribute along with the map a [probably huge] automatically generated index of the IP adreses?
would that kick ass or what?
the search engine at www.google.com does that for most of its pages, and it seems to have no legal issues. They have a little "cached" thingy next to most of their links. The reason for this is that any search engine database is usually pretty out of date, and if the page no longer exists you can at least see from the Google cache what it once looked like.
/.ing itself. A couple of icons and a massive amount of text thing, but if they also had to handle shipping out copies of these huge map images of the internet to ungodly amounts of people while the real map image website was down.. well, could it handle it? Maybe the caching would be text-only, and have the BASE HREF set accordingly. Then you could at least see an imageless version if the original site gets slashdotted, and it would solve the banner ad problem as well.
your point about banner ads is a important though--maybe the caching mechanism could be written in such a way as to recognize banner ads (the way iCab and some filtering software does..) and to make those images direct links to the orignal file instead of cached?
a better question would be how Slashdot itself would handle it without
anyway the point is, google.com kicks ass.
wait.. UCB? UCB!! OH MY GOD!! THE UPRIGHT CITIZENS BRIGADE CREATED BSD!! THEY'RE OUT TO CONTROL US ALL!! so THAT's where the satan icon came from!!
ok, let me guess: the "new setup" for slashdot.org referred to yesterday is now in place. this is just a massive test. and this is the reason all the BSD articles have been posted today-- the /. people know that any pro-BSD article will generate huge amounts of flaming and counter-flaming, thus testing if the new setup can handle large amounts of heavy traffic.
:)
am i right?
-mcc
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
i just had a vision of Jon Katz standing against a white background and playing some musical instrument very badly.
Oh God, at times like this i'm glad i don't watch television.
everyone's saying it's a toilet, but really, the more i look at it, the more i disagree:
i think it looks like a waffle iron.
actually what it _really_ looks like is "George Foreman's Lean Mean Grilling Machine". If you've ever seen one of those, then the ottoman pc looks _exactly_ like that. only thicker.
either way i think we should praise intel for coming up with their own slightly scary "creative" design instead of stealing apple's slightly scary "creative" design. Although it looks like it takes after the imac in one way: a horrible keyboard. except that the keyboard's built in, so if you want an extended or DVORAK one then too bad.. i may be wrong though. i can't really see from that tiny picture. And doesn't it seem like a circular monitor would waste a lot of potential screen space? well, whatever.
MHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA..
i mean.. *snort* *snicker* um, i'm sure that it will be a very *giggles slightly* effective way of handling it. in all seriousness, i think we can all think that left to their own honor, we can trust the people to actually install software esigned to restrict their rights on their own computers without trying to circumven.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
heh.. oh, GOd.. eeh.. never mind.. HAHAHA..
(P.S. so that covers the web. what about FTP? newsgroups? telnet? shells in foreign countries? lynx running under shells in foreign countries? There's more than one way to get pr0n, you know)