Details on how to become an XFree86 developer can be found here:
http://www.xfree86.org/developer.html
Okay, so it's not completely open access (you do have to become an "official" developer), but as has been pointed out before, this is because they're operating under a number of NDAs, and so *can't* just hand out the source straight out of CVS to just anyone.
...in which case, they have not patented the gene, "merely" processes relating to it.
I am uneasy about patenting processes relating to genes, as I am about patenting medicines, etc. (Yes, I understand the arguments for it, but I also understand the arguments against; I have yet to decide which outweighs the other.)
I am dead against patenting genes, or any part of them, that appear in living organisms. Ones created in a lab, possibly, but not naturally ocurring ones. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well try to patent grass, or sand. (And that's without even considering the ethical questions it would raise...)
The zero-choice pre-load is, I think, the causative factor of the other two--if computers start appearing in stores and on web sites pre-loaded with something besides MS-Windows, then vendors will start addressing those other choices.
There are a few companies offering pre-built PC systems, pre-installed with an OS other than Windows; two are
http://www.valinux.com - US based http://www.dnuk.com - UK based
I've not looked too much at the VALinux pages, but the last time I had a browse arond dnuk.com they offered to pre-install Windows, Red Hat, or even set it up to dual-boot; and if you didn't want Windows, they knocked the price off the price of the system.
Okay, really we'd like the "All the OS products must be open sourced plan", but I don't think that either the DOJ, or M$ are going to like that.
There is also a serious problem with that; right now, Windows security pretty much depends upon its obscurity (IMHO, of course).
If the source was relased, how many more security exploits do you think we'd see? Whatever we may personally think of M$ and their products, the people who use them do not deserve to bear the brunt of that.
As for a seperate software division porting Office to Linux, thus hurting Windows sales - surely this would not be in the best interests of The Microsoft Group? (Or whatever they would call themselves.) As such, wouldn't Gates (or whoever) veto the move? Or would he not be in a position to wield that much power over what would (presumably) still be his company?
That's the wonderful thing about litigation; you get to choose who you sue. No need to sue a company so big they could easily appeal you into submission, even if they lost the initial court case.
By now, most (if not all) servers should be delivering -everything- encrypted.
While I agree with this statement in principle, in practise it's not going to happen anytime soon. I work for a web development/hosting agency in the UK, and am "in charge" of one of the websites we host (that's in charge in the sense that should anyone have a question of a technical nature regarding the site, it's me that they (should) come to).
I was informed a few days ago by one of our sysadmins that the site is accounting for roughly 40% of the processor usage on the Sun server it's sharing with a few other sites. The secure server is only protecting half a dozen or so pages, totalling probably about 100-120K in size. There are a couple of CGIs, but they're both relatively simple. Were we to move the entire site over to SSL, I very much doubt that the server would be able to handle it adequately.
If you only encrypt the stuff you don't want "the wrong people" to see, "the wrong people" know where to look.
That, I agree with completely. Those of us who regard encryption as a good thing really ought to be encrypting as much as possible, even the emails that are literally just "Hi, how are you? Mail me back when you've got time!". If only more of my friends actually had the faintest idea how to use encryption, then I'd be able to (the one that's the most clued-up in this area, a sysadmin, is still "meaning to have a look at PGP when I get round to it"). More work needs to be done to integrate encryption seemlessly with email clients (and instant messengers? IRC?) before it will be adopted more widely.
Of course, in the book, Ishmael was the only survivor, other than the whale himself. Maybe Caldera were afraid of that, especially just before their IPO?
Yes, I'm disappointed that they backed-down and took the money, but at least M$ have paid out. They will (or at least, can be made to) lose face over this. That, at least, is a partial result.
On the other hand, never forget that Caldera are a company, and as such, exist solely to make money. This way, they don't have the lawsuit for people to worry about as they float, dragging their stock prices down...
But there are still things that you cannot do on the net and will never be able to do on the net, such as grocery shopping, having a sincere discussion with a friend or loved one, and much more.
Just a quick reply, as I'm up to my eyeballs in work and shouldn't even be reading Slashdot:o)
1. Here in the UK, there is at least one online grocery shopping servce, available in "selected areas" (= the major cities). Take a look at http://www.tescodirect.com/default.asp. Fresh groceries, delivered to your door, for £5stlg delivery. (God, I'm starting to sound like an advert!) I've not yet used the service, but my girlfriend is keen to - I just have to get round to registering for it.
2. I have had a number of very frank, sincere conversations with friends by email, during which some very deep discussions on very personal matters have taken place.
Now, I'm not saying that the internet should play a central role in our lives, but the way things are developing currently, I think that it probably will.
n computer science classes out of a hundred or so of us there were only 4, maybe 5 girls. And my cousin, a female ChemE major, said it's no different. There is definitely a discrepency in these fields.
It was the same when I did my Physics degree (here in the UK) - out of a year of 200+ of us, around about 10 were female, and not all of them stuck it out to the end.
Tim
Re:Red Flag Linux is not imposed on Chinese citize
on
China Banning Win2k
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad I hit relaod before posting pretty much exactly the same comment:o)
Also, given that this is (if the rumours are true), the Chinese government dictating policy to itself, it can only be a good thing (at least for China):
1. It will promote local business (the distro of Linux is produced in China (presumably by Chinese programmers)) 2. It wil help reduce governmental costs 3. The money they do spend (which all comes from taxes, don't forget) will go back into the Chinese economy. 4. Even if the money saved isn't added to, say, the education or healthcare budget, at least they'll be creating/securing jobs for Chinese programmers 5. Even if any modifications that are made to the kernel/apps aren't released back to the Open Source community, at least you can say "Well, its good enough for the Chinese government" the next time you're asked to support your pro-Linux arguments with more than just low cost and rock solid stability:o)
Everybody wins; even M$ doesn't really lose as (apparently) most of their software that's used in China is pirated anyway:o)
Cyberwarfare isn't like conventional warfare, where one side can simply win on bigger firepower.
Unless, of course, you regard the *ackers themselves as being the firepower; kinda like a really good *acker being the equivalent of a nuke (guaranteed destruction of the target), while "lesser" ones are more like conventional weapons (they'll probably do damage, maybe even destroy it, but your mileage will vary from target to target and *acker to *acker).
just remember there are thousands or very intelligent people all posting from their own unique viewpoints.
Not to mention the (doubtless large numbers of) people who lurk here, rarely if ever posting any comments.
Yes, there are (on occasion) some view points that seem to be held by the majority of/.ers that may seem a little questionable (everything linux is automatically good, everything M$ is automatically bad, etc - and believe me, I'm no fan of M$, but the knee-jerk bashing gets on my nerves occasionally!), but they are by no means the view of the/. community as a whole.
I always used to be dead against the private ownership of firearms, seeing absolutely no point to it - after all, what can you do with a gun but kill people?
Lately, I've become less and less sure of my position. One of the things that has helped to shake my resolve is an article a friend of mine gave me a link to - it can be found here. It makes a powerful case for the private ownership of firearms - I urge you to read it, if only to see the other side of the argument.
The page does quite clearly state that this is an alpha release. As such, you can't really expect it to be a fully functioning, feature-rich web browser, now can you?
Give them time, I'm sure they'll have everything implemented eventually. As for whether it'll be worth the wait, only time will tell.
Lawyers don't HAVE to take every case presented to them. If Big Evil Company (tm) wants to sue The Little Guy (tm)into oblivian you can take the high ground, it's easy you can always say "No I won't take your case" and walk away.
In an ideal world, of course you could do that. If you're self-employed, or are a senior partner with enough clout, of course you can do that (but not too often, you do have bills to pay). OTOH, if you're just another lawyer in a firm of them, doing that sort of thing too often will get you fired, or at least seriously hamper your chances of being promoted or getting to fight interesting cases, etc. (How often is too often will vary from boss to boss, of course.)
Do not forget that there is nothing particularly special about lawyers, or their profession - just like (most of) the rest of us, they don't necessarily get that much say in what they're assigned to do.
That's not to say that there aren't some lawyers out there who really don't give a fsck how evil the people/companies they represent are, of course there are. Just don't forget that most of the ones representing such clients really don't have any choice in the matter.
The only real difference is either i386 or i5/686 optimization (and as far as I can see, Mandrake's the only one with those optimizations... which is why I choose it religiously)
Stampede Linux also is optimised for i5/686 chips; there's another distro that produces versions for Pentiums, P2s, P3s, K6s and Athlons, but I forget the name:o(
Sorry, you're right, having gone back and reread the article, I realise that I completely misinterpreted it. (Hey, it's my first day back at work after the holiday, you can't expect my brain to work properly!)
Now, if only I'd done that before posting my comment...:o)
This is not about having the freedom to speed, it is about having the freedom to move about unmonitored.
Think about it - in order for the satellite to be able to tell the unit in the car that is speeding to choke off the fuel supply, it must know exactly what unit it is communicating with. That translates to knowing exactly what car it is monitoring. Unless the car has been stolen, or is shared between two (or more) people (and how many married couples have a car each?), that translates to knowing exactly where you are, wherever you are, whenever you drive.
Do we not have the right to freedom from that level of monitoring?
I have nothing to hide concerning my movements, under our current regime. But what of the future, or my daughter's future? I don't want my baby girl to grow up in a world where her every move, her every electronic conversation, is monitored and possibly noted down for future reference.
IANAL either, but I always thought that he difference between slander and lible is that lible is reproducible (as in copyable), eg recorded, written down, printed, broadcast on TV, etc.
You can also (try to) persuade the people that control the DNS servers at ISPs to point etoys.com at etoy.com's IP address (and do the same for all the other domains they own?) - if their net prescence is all they have, that'd kill them pretty damn quickly:o)
At the risk of having totally missed the point (I'm ired, and my brain isn't working too well:o) ), here in the UK, the things you strap on a horse's head to make it only able to see directly ahead are called blinkers:o)
Slashdot Mirror
Details on how to become an XFree86 developer can be found here:
http://www.xfree86.org/developer.html
Okay, so it's not completely open access (you do have to become an "official" developer), but as has been pointed out before, this is because they're operating under a number of NDAs, and so *can't* just hand out the source straight out of CVS to just anyone.
Cheers,
Tim
...in which case, they have not patented the gene, "merely" processes relating to it.
I am uneasy about patenting processes relating to genes, as I am about patenting medicines, etc. (Yes, I understand the arguments for it, but I also understand the arguments against; I have yet to decide which outweighs the other.)
I am dead against patenting genes, or any part of them, that appear in living organisms. Ones created in a lab, possibly, but not naturally ocurring ones. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well try to patent grass, or sand. (And that's without even considering the ethical questions it would raise...)
Tim
The zero-choice pre-load is, I think, the causative factor of the other two--if computers start appearing in stores and on web sites pre-loaded with something besides MS-Windows, then vendors will start addressing those other choices.
There are a few companies offering pre-built PC systems, pre-installed with an OS other than Windows; two are
http://www.valinux.com - US based
http://www.dnuk.com - UK based
I've not looked too much at the VALinux pages, but the last time I had a browse arond dnuk.com they offered to pre-install Windows, Red Hat, or even set it up to dual-boot; and if you didn't want Windows, they knocked the price off the price of the system.
Cheers,
Tim
Okay, really we'd like the "All the OS products must be open sourced plan", but I don't think that either the DOJ, or M$ are going to like that.
There is also a serious problem with that; right now, Windows security pretty much depends upon its obscurity (IMHO, of course).
If the source was relased, how many more security exploits do you think we'd see? Whatever we may personally think of M$ and their products, the people who use them do not deserve to bear the brunt of that.
As for a seperate software division porting Office to Linux, thus hurting Windows sales - surely this would not be in the best interests of The Microsoft Group? (Or whatever they would call themselves.) As such, wouldn't Gates (or whoever) veto the move? Or would he not be in a position to wield that much power over what would (presumably) still be his company?
Cheers,
Tim
That's the wonderful thing about litigation; you get to choose who you sue. No need to sue a company so big they could easily appeal you into submission, even if they lost the initial court case.
Cheers,
Tim
By now, most (if not all) servers should be delivering -everything- encrypted.
While I agree with this statement in principle, in practise it's not going to happen anytime soon. I work for a web development/hosting agency in the UK, and am "in charge" of one of the websites we host (that's in charge in the sense that should anyone have a question of a technical nature regarding the site, it's me that they (should) come to).
I was informed a few days ago by one of our sysadmins that the site is accounting for roughly 40% of the processor usage on the Sun server it's sharing with a few other sites. The secure server is only protecting half a dozen or so pages, totalling probably about 100-120K in size. There are a couple of CGIs, but they're both relatively simple. Were we to move the entire site over to SSL, I very much doubt that the server would be able to handle it adequately.
If you only encrypt the stuff you don't want "the wrong people" to see, "the wrong people" know where to look.
That, I agree with completely. Those of us who regard encryption as a good thing really ought to be encrypting as much as possible, even the emails that are literally just "Hi, how are you? Mail me back when you've got time!". If only more of my friends actually had the faintest idea how to use encryption, then I'd be able to (the one that's the most clued-up in this area, a sysadmin, is still "meaning to have a look at PGP when I get round to it"). More work needs to be done to integrate encryption seemlessly with email clients (and instant messengers? IRC?) before it will be adopted more widely.
Cheers,
Tim
Interesting analogy to use, Moby Dick.
Of course, in the book, Ishmael was the only survivor, other than the whale himself. Maybe Caldera were afraid of that, especially just before their IPO?
Yes, I'm disappointed that they backed-down and took the money, but at least M$ have paid out. They will (or at least, can be made to) lose face over this. That, at least, is a partial result.
On the other hand, never forget that Caldera are a company, and as such, exist solely to make money. This way, they don't have the lawsuit for people to worry about as they float, dragging their stock prices down...
Cheers,
Tim
Hhhhmmmmm, "FIRST POST" eh?
:o)
No, actually you were number 6, but nice try, please (don't bother to) play again.
Cheers,
Tim
But there are still things that you cannot do on the net and will never be able to do on the net, such as grocery shopping, having a sincere discussion with a friend or loved one, and much more.
:o)
Just a quick reply, as I'm up to my eyeballs in work and shouldn't even be reading Slashdot
1. Here in the UK, there is at least one online grocery shopping servce, available in "selected areas" (= the major cities). Take a look at http://www.tescodirect.com/default.asp. Fresh groceries, delivered to your door, for £5stlg delivery. (God, I'm starting to sound like an advert!) I've not yet used the service, but my girlfriend is keen to - I just have to get round to registering for it.
2. I have had a number of very frank, sincere conversations with friends by email, during which some very deep discussions on very personal matters have taken place.
Now, I'm not saying that the internet should play a central role in our lives, but the way things are developing currently, I think that it probably will.
Cheers,
Tim
n computer science classes out of a hundred or so of us there were only 4, maybe 5 girls. And my cousin, a female ChemE major, said it's no different. There is definitely a discrepency in these fields.
It was the same when I did my Physics degree (here in the UK) - out of a year of 200+ of us, around about 10 were female, and not all of them stuck it out to the end.
Tim
I'm glad I hit relaod before posting pretty much exactly the same comment :o)
:o)
:o)
Also, given that this is (if the rumours are true), the Chinese government dictating policy to itself, it can only be a good thing (at least for China):
1. It will promote local business (the distro of Linux is produced in China (presumably by Chinese programmers))
2. It wil help reduce governmental costs
3. The money they do spend (which all comes from taxes, don't forget) will go back into the Chinese economy.
4. Even if the money saved isn't added to, say, the education or healthcare budget, at least they'll be creating/securing jobs for Chinese programmers
5. Even if any modifications that are made to the kernel/apps aren't released back to the Open Source community, at least you can say "Well, its good enough for the Chinese government" the next time you're asked to support your pro-Linux arguments with more than just low cost and rock solid stability
Everybody wins; even M$ doesn't really lose as (apparently) most of their software that's used in China is pirated anyway
Tim
Last I heard, it was nearer 25% of the world's population - of course, that's still 1.5 billion people...
Tim
Should we simply disband our armed forces and live together on this world as one big happy family, embracing peace, bortherhood and friendship?
Yes, that is exactly what we should all do.
Unfortunately, as you so rightly point out, there are some very bad people in this world. It's not that we shouldn't, but that we can't.
Tim
Cyberwarfare isn't like conventional warfare, where one side can simply win on bigger firepower.
Unless, of course, you regard the *ackers themselves as being the firepower; kinda like a really good *acker being the equivalent of a nuke (guaranteed destruction of the target), while "lesser" ones are more like conventional weapons (they'll probably do damage, maybe even destroy it, but your mileage will vary from target to target and *acker to *acker).
Tim
just remember there are thousands or very intelligent people all posting from their own unique viewpoints.
/.ers that may seem a little questionable (everything linux is automatically good, everything M$ is automatically bad, etc - and believe me, I'm no fan of M$, but the knee-jerk bashing gets on my nerves occasionally!), but they are by no means the view of the /. community as a whole.
Not to mention the (doubtless large numbers of) people who lurk here, rarely if ever posting any comments.
Yes, there are (on occasion) some view points that seem to be held by the majority of
Tim
I always used to be dead against the private ownership of firearms, seeing absolutely no point to it - after all, what can you do with a gun but kill people?
Lately, I've become less and less sure of my position. One of the things that has helped to shake my resolve is an article a friend of mine gave me a link to - it can be found here. It makes a powerful case for the private ownership of firearms - I urge you to read it, if only to see the other side of the argument.
Cheers,
Tim
The page does quite clearly state that this is an alpha release. As such, you can't really expect it to be a fully functioning, feature-rich web browser, now can you?
Give them time, I'm sure they'll have everything implemented eventually. As for whether it'll be worth the wait, only time will tell.
Tim
Lawyers don't HAVE to take every case presented to them. If Big Evil Company (tm) wants to sue The Little Guy (tm)into oblivian you can take the high ground, it's easy you can always say "No I won't take your case" and walk away.
In an ideal world, of course you could do that. If you're self-employed, or are a senior partner with enough clout, of course you can do that (but not too often, you do have bills to pay). OTOH, if you're just another lawyer in a firm of them, doing that sort of thing too often will get you fired, or at least seriously hamper your chances of being promoted or getting to fight interesting cases, etc. (How often is too often will vary from boss to boss, of course.)
Do not forget that there is nothing particularly special about lawyers, or their profession - just like (most of) the rest of us, they don't necessarily get that much say in what they're assigned to do.
That's not to say that there aren't some lawyers out there who really don't give a fsck how evil the people/companies they represent are, of course there are. Just don't forget that most of the ones representing such clients really don't have any choice in the matter.
Tim
Stampede Linux also is optimised for i5/686 chips; there's another distro that produces versions for Pentiums, P2s, P3s, K6s and Athlons, but I forget the name :o(
Cheers,
Tim
Sorry, you're right, having gone back and reread the article, I realise that I completely misinterpreted it. (Hey, it's my first day back at work after the holiday, you can't expect my brain to work properly!)
:o)
Now, if only I'd done that before posting my comment...
Cheers,
Tim
This is not about having the freedom to speed, it is about having the freedom to move about unmonitored.
Think about it - in order for the satellite to be able to tell the unit in the car that is speeding to choke off the fuel supply, it must know exactly what unit it is communicating with. That translates to knowing exactly what car it is monitoring. Unless the car has been stolen, or is shared between two (or more) people (and how many married couples have a car each?), that translates to knowing exactly where you are, wherever you are, whenever you drive.
Do we not have the right to freedom from that level of monitoring?
I have nothing to hide concerning my movements, under our current regime. But what of the future, or my daughter's future? I don't want my baby girl to grow up in a world where her every move, her every electronic conversation, is monitored and possibly noted down for future reference.
I live in the UK, and I will fight this.
Tim
Very high on my wish list is a top domain not ruled by the needs and greeds of big coropration.
.net and .org?
You mean like
Cheers,
Tim
IANAL either, but I always thought that he difference between slander and lible is that lible is reproducible (as in copyable), eg recorded, written down, printed, broadcast on TV, etc.
:o)
I might well be wrong, though
Tim
You can also (try to) persuade the people that control the DNS servers at ISPs to point etoys.com at etoy.com's IP address (and do the same for all the other domains they own?) - if their net prescence is all they have, that'd kill them pretty damn quickly :o)
Tim
At the risk of having totally missed the point (I'm ired, and my brain isn't working too well :o) ), here in the UK, the things you strap on a horse's head to make it only able to see directly ahead are called blinkers :o)
Cheers,
Tim