Unjustified insults against the FSF and Richard Stallman make this article contain neither truth nor much worth thinking about.
Expecting records from the FSF about all the people who have contributed money and the sums of money thus contributed demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the (mis-used here) phrase 'information wants to be free'. Has this guy never heard of the word privacy, and would he like all companies with which he has transacted to give out details of all those transactions? No, and no-one else has even suggested that such information should even be available to anyone.
Also, why pick on Eazel for spending $13 million of investment capital? This is just a result of the.com stockmarket bubble, and there are many other companies which have spent similar amounts and since stopped trading, thus producing absolutely nothing useful. It shows the need for serious thought on ways to make money (whether through the internet or linux related services), without investors who just want to jump on the latest bandwagon.
The only serious points that are made are about the uneasy competition between Ximian and Eazel, which is exactly what you'd expect from two companies competing in the same sector.
As for the rest of the allegations he makes, from the reason for RMS starting the Free Software Foundation to the reason for it supporting a desktop that has been fully GPLed all along (without reliance on a private company) and many others are, in a word, garbage, that only a little historical investigation would disprove.
The answer is Routing. You can have a much better heirachy of subnetworks with 128 bits than with 32 bits, and it will simplify routing tables a lot. Also, the 128 bits is (IIRC) split into two lots of 64 bits, one lot to identify a particular computer and another half to identify ports / services or something (I didn't really understand it) on that computer.
There were ciphers in the 1950s (probably quite crackable now) and they may have used a OTP in the past.
However there's no reason they haven't changed things and now use a computerised cipher -- after all, with encrypted data, we'd never notice a switch between two good ciphers (without cracking it, anyway).
I somehow doubt the exact same set-up has been running 50 years.
exactly how many fields are you searching from though?
If it's one field, then what you say is true, you can search O(log(n)) if it's sorted by that field, but using this method, you can search by _any_ combination of fields, and given a lot of fields and a large database, you cannot do that ordinarily as you suggest.
Blame it on crap reporting, but I've read (not understood) the paper, and the breakthrough here is that you can search for multiple solutions at once. The algorithm to search for single solutions had existed for a few years already (by the same guy).
> 1) The file size would be larger by quite a bit.
Would this really be the case? I'm thinking of a standard MS Word file, which seems pretty bloated anyway. At least an XML file would have some linear relationship to the size of the document it stores.
This will not prevent Van Eck interception if a CRT monitor is used, as that is what generates the signals that could be intercepted. No-one intercepts the signals going through the monitor cable, so it is no use against that.
There is only on possible use for this - Software or hardware producing commercial video/images, which they don't want copied, can be encrypted all the way to the viewing device, so people cannot use screen capture type programs to save what they are watching to disk.
It provides no advantages for any user (even paraniod ones).
It depends exactly what probability the 1 in 37 million refers to.
I understand it to mean that a given DNA sample, using their testing techniques, will only match 1 in 37 million of the general population.
However, given 660,000 of the general population, the probability of you finding that one has just increased.
The probability you refer to "1 in 37 million that you will get a false match if it is in the database." is what the juries and others are led into believing, but it is not explicitly put that way, because (I believe) that is false.
The article actually says, "British authorities estimated that the likelihood of that match occurring at random was one in 37 million.", which is a totally different thing.
I don't think so. Maybe onle one person in 37 million would match that DNA, but they were searching from 660,000 people. That makes the probability 660,000 : 37,000,000 or more plainly, 1:56.
I bet that figure never came up at trial. This is blatantly a case of a mis-understanding of probability, from what I have read about the case. They have to use DNA to narrow the search from a few suspects, instead of using it to pick out a person from 660,000 previous convicts.
This is instead a problem in game design. The only realistic way to stop this is to design the game and network protocol so that the server only allows valid events to happen.
Obviously this some glaring drawbacks, like the server suddenly needs more horsepower, and hacked/insecure servers are no use, but that's a problem anyway. Also, it's too late to redesign all of quake so the server prevents any cheating, but this should be kept in mind when designing future open source games.
Another idea to toy with (which obviously haven't thought about) is to use encryption systems to validate every event, but not being a crypto-god, I don't know how exactly this would be done. It should allow for distributed servers however to work together, as there would be much harder for a server to cheat. Obviously this would also require lots of computing power for servers and clients though.
In short, games can be designed so cheating can't happen, but (as far as I can see) this needs more computing power. A quick fix is to make the game closed source so it can't be easily hacked. - c.f. security through obscurity and security through openess.
Yeah the free market works, but only in the longer term. Stop being against the Brazilian government on the principle of non-interference. Who says they're forcing anyone to use anything?
The public bodies still get a choice of _which_ free software to use, there's still competition between different projects.
Also, they'll have to pay money whatever software they use. Either they can pay a lot for the software, and that money will go abroad (closed software), or they can pay their own citizens for support and customising the software. Given that choice, it's easy to see why they're trying to boost their own economy by mandating that they keep the money in their country. After all, it's in their own interest as the Government to do so.
For the rest of us, we should be glad that such a large organisation as a government is prepared to invest in free software, which benefits everyone.
I know a few people who have joined a community through web based 'fan club' sites, mostly for bands. They primarily use message boards and chat rooms to hang out; what's strange is that these people have only started using the 'net recently, thay have never even heard of IRC or BBSs! I guess this is what the current generation of newbies do, and it works quite well.
I read documents under X (netscape, xPdf, whatever) and use the paging function of the Window Manager to have a large collection of documents available at once. Hitting a simple Ctrl+arrow key combo easily switches between documents, and I don't mind reading even large documents on screen.
Also when coding, I have many windows open - source browser, editors, reference documents, compile windows, program instances and have no problem flicking back and forth, which on my system, is nice and snappy. My source browser/editors also support split screen editing, so I can be messing about with several parts of a file at once, like keeping my thumb on a page of a book while I look at something else too.
Used properly, I can manage a lot more information at once on my computer than I ever could with paper.
eg, I go online, download all interesting looking pages from Slashdot, Linux Today, news sites etc and open each up in a separate window and possibly on a separate virtual screen. I then go offline and spend a while reading through each on screen.
You're making out that a company is just a collection of individuals, while in law (for a majority of purposes) a company is a legal person, and its employees work for it.
I am not saying that recruiting the beta testers was done the right way for them to be considered employees of the company (in fact I very much doubt it, but I haven't checked the full agreements) but that in a legal sense, employees exchanging software between themselves as part of their job may in law be considered to be doing this for their company, as they are a part of it.
The company as a whole must abide by the GPL when passing software to another 'person', and in this respect, any attempt by Corel to 'license' the software is invalid, as it is already licensed fully (by GPL). I'm going to conclude that their procedures are wrong for their purposes, but they are not the evil company some others on here would have us believe.
I'd say that this does not count as distribution, because I cannot get the software from Corel right now. If fact, no-one apart from the already selected beta-testers and employees can get it, so I don't see how it is distribution.
However, Corel has made the mistake of considering this as 'distribution', while not passing on rights associated with distribution of GPLed software. This is in fact a closed beta-test, so the beta-testers are working directly 'for' Corel. They have acquired the software as part of their specified 'job' for the company, and are now testing it for the company.
This should be protected by a contract between Corel and the beta-testers, or a Non Disclosure Agreement. It is, very unfortunate that they have presented this contract as a licensing agreement. That is wrong.
I ask Corel to void all such licensing, and create the same effect by passing out NDAs or Contracts to be signed, specifying what they may do with the software in their capacity of beta testers. Any breaches of it would then fall under contract law etc, which is stronger than licensing anyway.
When Corel releases it in any way for the public (as opposed the the strictly closed beta test happening) I have do doubt they will release everything under the proper licences, which do apply to distribution.
Give people a chance to take more power over their computers.
> Additionally, in my experience, most people simply can't program. It's just like higher levels of mathematics. If your brain isn't wired for it, you won't learn it well, no matter how much time you study.
I disagree. By teaching poeple, you can 'wire' their brain so they understand computers. The problem is that people believe that 'programming' is an elite skill which they can never learn, but this is untrue, it just takes some effort and understanding, which this program is trying to promote.
Slashdot Mirror
What else could it be.
.com stockmarket bubble, and there are many other companies which have spent similar amounts and since stopped trading, thus producing absolutely nothing useful. It shows the need for serious thought on ways to make money (whether through the internet or linux related services), without investors who just want to jump on the latest bandwagon.
Unjustified insults against the FSF and Richard Stallman make this article contain neither truth nor much worth thinking about.
Expecting records from the FSF about all the people who have contributed money and the sums of money thus contributed demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the (mis-used here) phrase 'information wants to be free'. Has this guy never heard of the word privacy, and would he like all companies with which he has transacted to give out details of all those transactions? No, and no-one else has even suggested that such information should even be available to anyone.
Also, why pick on Eazel for spending $13 million of investment capital? This is just a result of the
The only serious points that are made are about the uneasy competition between Ximian and Eazel, which is exactly what you'd expect from two companies competing in the same sector.
As for the rest of the allegations he makes, from the reason for RMS starting the Free Software Foundation to the reason for it supporting a desktop that has been fully GPLed all along (without reliance on a private company) and many others are, in a word, garbage, that only a little historical investigation would disprove.
It's perfectly legal in the UK for an ambulance, or any vehicle acting as an ambulance to drive above the speed limit.
The answer is Routing. You can have a much better heirachy of subnetworks with 128 bits than with 32 bits, and it will simplify routing tables a lot. Also, the 128 bits is (IIRC) split into two lots of 64 bits, one lot to identify a particular computer and another half to identify ports / services or something (I didn't really understand it) on that computer.
So yes, there is a use for 2^128 bits
Still, watching those .avis needs binary-only modules for xanim which I'd much rather not install, thanks.
.mpg format.
I'd expect a project using linux to go the open way and post these movies in, say
(PS I haven't checked what codecs the quicktime files use, but they're probably proprietary)
£0.02 from me
There were ciphers in the 1950s (probably quite crackable now) and they may have used a OTP in the past.
However there's no reason they haven't changed things and now use a computerised cipher -- after all, with encrypted data, we'd never notice a switch between two good ciphers (without cracking it, anyway).
I somehow doubt the exact same set-up has been running 50 years.
exactly how many fields are you searching from though?
If it's one field, then what you say is true, you can search O(log(n)) if it's sorted by that field, but using this method, you can search by _any_ combination of fields, and given a lot of fields and a large database, you cannot do that ordinarily as you suggest.
Blame it on crap reporting, but I've read (not understood) the paper, and the breakthrough here is that you can search for multiple solutions at once. The algorithm to search for single solutions had existed for a few years already (by the same guy).
> 1) The file size would be larger by quite a bit.
Would this really be the case? I'm thinking of a standard MS Word file, which seems pretty bloated anyway. At least an XML file would have some linear relationship to the size of the document it stores.
Look in the "testing" directory (instead of "v2.3") on your favourite mirror, patches can appear there first.
This will not prevent Van Eck interception if a CRT monitor is used, as that is what generates the signals that could be intercepted. No-one intercepts the signals going through the monitor cable, so it is no use against that.
There is only on possible use for this - Software or hardware producing commercial video/images, which they don't want copied, can be encrypted all the way to the viewing device, so people cannot use screen capture type programs to save what they are watching to disk.
It provides no advantages for any user (even paraniod ones).
We already have a very good packaging system. Want to install something and everything it depends on?
# apt-get install foo
Want to remove some software?
# apt-get remove foo
Want to hack the source to something?
$ apt-get source foo
Want to compile your own debian package from source you've just downloaded and/or tweaked?
$ debuild
And given the large number of packages available, I don't even bother checking whether the package I want exists first, 80% of the time it does.
It depends exactly what probability the 1 in 37 million refers to.
I understand it to mean that a given DNA sample, using their testing techniques, will only match 1 in 37 million of the general population.
However, given 660,000 of the general population, the probability of you finding that one has just increased.
The probability you refer to "1 in 37 million that you will get a false match if it is in the database." is what the juries and others are led into believing, but it is not explicitly put that way, because (I believe) that is false.
The article actually says, "British authorities estimated that the likelihood of that match occurring at random was one in 37 million.", which is a totally different thing.
1 in 37 million ?
I don't think so. Maybe onle one person in 37 million would match that DNA, but they were searching from 660,000 people. That makes the probability 660,000 : 37,000,000 or more plainly,
1:56.
I bet that figure never came up at trial. This is blatantly a case of a mis-understanding of probability, from what I have read about the case. They have to use DNA to narrow the search from a few suspects, instead of using it to pick out a person from 660,000 previous convicts.
Here is another mirror of this stuff, along with a rant I jsut had to get out of me.
This is instead a problem in game design. The only realistic way to stop this is to design the game
and network protocol so that the server only allows valid events to happen.
Obviously this some glaring drawbacks, like the server suddenly needs more horsepower, and hacked/insecure servers are no use, but that's a problem anyway. Also, it's too late to redesign all of quake so the server prevents any cheating, but this should be kept in mind when designing future open source games.
Another idea to toy with (which obviously haven't thought about) is to use encryption systems to validate every event, but not being a crypto-god, I don't know how exactly this would be done. It should allow for distributed servers however to work together, as there would be much harder for a server to cheat. Obviously this would also require lots of computing power for servers and clients though.
In short, games can be designed so cheating can't happen, but (as far as I can see) this needs more computing power. A quick fix is to make the game closed source so it can't be easily hacked.
- c.f. security through obscurity and security through openess.
Yeah the free market works, but only in the longer term. Stop being against the Brazilian government on the principle of non-interference. Who says they're forcing anyone to use anything?
The public bodies still get a choice of _which_ free software to use, there's still competition between different projects.
Also, they'll have to pay money whatever software they use. Either they can pay a lot for the software, and that money will go abroad (closed software), or they can pay their own citizens for support and customising the software. Given that choice, it's easy to see why they're trying to boost their own economy by mandating that they keep the money in their country. After all, it's in their own interest as the Government to do so.
For the rest of us, we should be glad that such a large organisation as a government is prepared to invest in free software, which benefits everyone.
I remember opening a bank account when I was 16, I didn't need a parent's signature.
You can become a company director when you're sixteen, and I'm sure they can sign legally binding contracts.
I know a few people who have joined a community through web based 'fan club' sites, mostly for bands. They primarily use message boards and chat rooms to hang out; what's strange is that these people have only started using the 'net recently, thay have never even heard of IRC or BBSs! I guess this is what the current generation of newbies do, and it works quite well.
Eighteen's not correct, it's 16 I'm fairly sure.
I read documents under X (netscape, xPdf, whatever) and use the paging function of the Window Manager to have a large collection of documents available at once. Hitting a simple Ctrl+arrow key combo easily switches between documents, and I don't mind reading even large documents on screen.
Also when coding, I have many windows open - source browser, editors, reference documents, compile windows, program instances and have no problem flicking back and forth, which on my system, is nice and snappy. My source browser/editors also support split screen editing, so I can be messing about with several parts of a file at once, like keeping my thumb on a page of a book while I look at something else too.
Used properly, I can manage a lot more information at once on my computer than I ever could with paper.
eg, I go online, download all interesting looking pages from Slashdot, Linux Today, news sites etc and open each up in a separate window and possibly on a separate virtual screen. I then go offline and spend a while reading through each on screen.
You're making out that a company is just a collection of individuals, while in law (for a majority of purposes) a company is a legal person, and its employees work for it.
I am not saying that recruiting the beta testers was done the right way for them to be considered employees of the company (in fact I very much doubt it, but I haven't checked the full agreements) but that in a legal sense, employees exchanging software between themselves as part of their job may in law be considered to be doing this for their company, as they are a part of it.
The company as a whole must abide by the GPL when passing software to another 'person', and in this respect, any attempt by Corel to 'license' the software is invalid, as it is already licensed fully (by GPL). I'm going to conclude that their procedures are wrong for their purposes, but they are not the evil company some others on here would have us believe.
IANAL..
I'd say that this does not count as distribution, because I cannot get the software from Corel right now. If fact, no-one apart from the already selected beta-testers and employees can get it, so I don't see how it is distribution.
However, Corel has made the mistake of considering this as 'distribution', while not passing on rights associated with distribution of GPLed software. This is in fact a closed beta-test, so the beta-testers are working directly 'for' Corel. They have acquired the software as part of their specified 'job' for the company, and are now testing it for the company.
This should be protected by a contract between Corel and the beta-testers, or a Non Disclosure Agreement. It is, very unfortunate that they have presented this contract as a licensing agreement. That is wrong.
I ask Corel to void all such licensing, and create the same effect by passing out NDAs or Contracts to be signed, specifying what they may do with the software in their capacity of beta testers. Any breaches of it would then fall under contract law etc, which is stronger than licensing anyway.
When Corel releases it in any way for the public (as opposed the the strictly closed beta test happening) I have do doubt they will release everything under the proper licences, which do apply to distribution.
Ditto, me too - high standards.
Not giving up just yet though
> and that the library files and engine are not distributed in a modified form
...
- Binaries, for running the game
> The source to the Hugo Library, of course, cannot be distributed in modified form unless
- Source, for hacking with / improving
Not contradictory, but still confusing
Give people a chance to take more power over their computers.
> Additionally, in my experience, most people simply can't program. It's just like higher levels of mathematics. If your brain isn't wired for it, you won't learn it well, no matter how much time you study.
I disagree. By teaching poeple, you can 'wire' their brain so they understand computers. The problem is that people believe that 'programming' is an elite skill which they can never learn, but this is untrue, it just takes some effort and understanding, which this program is trying to promote.