It's Apple that have "forgotten" to port Hypercard. They are probably sorry that anybody still remembers it, since it doesn't fit their new business model.
It's a pity really. I think that that programming model (or something similar) would fit the phone/tablet quite well.
And yes, the subsidiary would owe Microsoft $0.
But, unless Microsoft passed on the source code and build environment to me, they don't get the "Clause 1" exemption, and are liable under "Clause 2".
Or are you talking about the "as written by Microsoft" version of the liability laws?
"multiple offsite backups" aren't the problem. A single "onsite" copy would have served in this case. A pocket-sized USB drive would apparently have held all the data, recent home PC drives could have held multiple copies, for very little cost.
Like many coders, I thought you were supposed to calculate Hash(password + salt).
I've never seen anyone suggest Hash(password + username + salt) as an option. Is this something that the security industry has shown to be ineffective long ago, and I have just missed it?
To me this looks like it would stop two users with the same password getting the same hash (assuming the salt is system wide, not per user) and make it harder to replace the hash with a known one and get a known password.
If I'm running a mid size company and I hire an ad agency that gets paid for referrals (and it's a fly by night LLC), I'm really venerable now. I guess the anti-spam crowd will tell me not to hire a fly-by-night, but don't most successful businesses start that way? And how am I suppose to know?
If you realy were venerable then I would hope you would know better than to leave yourself vulnerable to a lawsuit by hireing dodgy contractors.
I wonder how many "little deaths" would be needed to satisfy the license?
Or maybe each "little death" gets you a limited time to use the software?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_Mort
That's not how Public Key encryption generally works.
Encrypting something via Public Key system is slow, so what is generally done is a random key (128bit/256bit/1024bit/whatever) is generated, and some other system like IDEA/Blowfish/etc is used to encrypt the file with this random key. Then the random key itself is encrypted using the Public Key, and included in the output file (or this may be done first).
Encrypting the same file twice with PGP/GPG will result in different encrypted files. Here is what I got when I encrypted the same file twice:
If you're a Phd who has spent your whole life researching and proving something then you're likely to opposed someone proving eactly the opposite. Except it rarely comes to a complete reversal like that. Generally the next guy is going "You were 99% correct. Here is a minor adjustment that brings it to what I think is 100% correct". Or perhaps "Your theory gives results correct to 10 significant figures in all real world cases. However, using my much more complicated equations, we can now get answers to 15 significant figures, and cover some extremely unlikely situations that your equations did not handle at all".
Does NOBODY remember that the/etc/password file is where you convert a UID to a readable name? Almost EVERY program has to read/etc/passwd if they display the owner of a file.
Unless the system used LDAP, or NIS, or Kerberos, etc, instead of/etc/password files.
This is why there are system calls like getpwuid and getpwnam, to convert between UIDs and usernames independently of the underlying authentication system.
To fool programs like this, setup LDAP authentication, and fill your/etc/password file with dummy information.
If you were to take OpenOffice, make some changes to it, call it "FooWare XP" and charge $325/seat for it after having maybe fixed a couple of bugs, you'd resent contributing those changes back to the original project?
Try reading my post again, because you seem to have completely distorted my comment.
I did not refer to the case you describe in any way at all, I SPECIFICALLY discussed the idea of taking a small portion of that large code base, improving it in some way and contributing it back to the community. However, at that point, I cannot take that portion of code and use it in another piece of software without the GPL taking over the entire code base.
Thanks for completely misrepresenting the argument. It's no wonder people show concern when dealing with the OSS folks.
How is this different from a commercial closed-source proprietry license?
Replace Open Office in the example with Microsoft Office?. How do you think Microsoft would react? Would you concider that case to be theft/breach of copyright?
The stories of the flood, however they came about could also indicate that God caused the *firmament* to be pulled from the heavens, melting as it came to the Earth, causing the rains and the floods, changing forever the face of the Earth and the peoples who had lived, sheltered from the Suns radiation, much longer lifespans than we do today.
Have you noticed this neat thing about the lifespans the bible attributes to pre-flood times? If you call the time periods "months" instead of "years", they all turn out to be about the same as current normal lifespans?
The way it works in Australia is that the rounding is done on the total of the bill, not on each item. Totals ending in '1', '2', '6' or '7' are rounded down, those ending in '3', '4', '8' or '9' are rounded up.
Prices on individual items are normally not set as a 5cent multiple, but those ending in a '3', '4', '8' or '9' do seen common, whihc was also the case before this kicked in. Buying one gets you a round-up, buying 2 or 3 gets you a round-down.
"All organisms will have the same basic DNA building blocks" is non-falsifiable.
Of course it is falsifiable. All you need to do is find an organism that doesn't use the same basic DNA building blocks as the currently known species do. Perhaps you meant to say that the statment is non-provable?
To prove the statement, you would need to show that you had examined every single organism on the planet. OK, it might be provable in theory, but in practice there is no way to be sure you haven't missed the one rare organism that is the exeption to the rule (and only lives under 2km of bedrock, located under 3km of artic seawater or another 2km of antartic icecap).
Do you know that spam trojans would never use port 25? why? cause some ISPs block port 25 already. Also it would never stop outgoing mail as no connections to mail servers originate from port 25!
I'd suggest you get some background reading on SMTP and how it works
The block would be on any packet sent from the PC destined for port 25 on a remote system. An exception would be made for the ISP's own mail servers. This covers any source port on the users PC.
Is it wrong but every single show from that their list that I have enjoyed or at least considered watching is rated with a red light, and almost every single piece of lowest-common-denominator derivative garbage I checked is yellow light or better?
Surely you mean "yellow light or worse"?
Re:Lusting for a mini-laptop
on
Handtop Roundup
·
· Score: 1
I'd love to get something about the same size as a PDA (maybe a bit larger) but that can run a real OS
Have you looked at the Sharp Zaurus clamshell PDA's? They run a real OS (Linux). Unfortunately that rules out Outlook, but there are other options for email clients
Yes we foot the bill with 400,000$ a year but split up between 28,000 students that comes to - oh - 15$ or so a person.
I think that is the whole point. The cost is split between everyone, even those who don't use Microsoft software because they run Linux or *BSD or even Mac OS X.
Forcing unwilling people to subsidise your purchases seems a little unfair to me.
No email MTA keeps the email in the queue for a 5xx error as this is a hard bounce (retrying after a 5xx error would be a violation of the relevant RFCs)
If only this were true! I have seen several examples of mail servers that would not take 5xx=no for an answer. One or two of them wern't even spammers!
I have also seen some servers (generally Microsoft product) whose idea of "later" (as in, "put the message in the queue and try again later") is on the order of 1 second.
Second, when the crypto chip encrypts the data, it embeds a hash of the secure application in the data blob. When a piece of software decrypts it, the crypto chip computes a hash of the decrypting software, and compares it with the hash embedded in the encrypted data. If they disagree, it does not allow the data to be decrypted.
I bloody well hope it dosn't do this. If it does, all your documents will be lost every time you upgrade your word processor (for example).
Slashdot Mirror
It's a pity really. I think that that programming model (or something similar) would fit the phone/tablet quite well.
And yes, the subsidiary would owe Microsoft $0. But, unless Microsoft passed on the source code and build environment to me, they don't get the "Clause 1" exemption, and are liable under "Clause 2". Or are you talking about the "as written by Microsoft" version of the liability laws?
"multiple offsite backups" aren't the problem. A single "onsite" copy would have served in this case. A pocket-sized USB drive would apparently have held all the data, recent home PC drives could have held multiple copies, for very little cost.
It has already been shown that pebble bed reactors are not inherently safe designs
Do you have a reference for that? I'd really like to have a look at it.
I've never seen anyone suggest Hash(password + username + salt) as an option. Is this something that the security industry has shown to be ineffective long ago, and I have just missed it?
To me this looks like it would stop two users with the same password getting the same hash (assuming the salt is system wide, not per user) and make it harder to replace the hash with a known one and get a known password.
If you realy were venerable then I would hope you would know better than to leave yourself vulnerable to a lawsuit by hireing dodgy contractors.
I wonder how many "little deaths" would be needed to satisfy the license?
Or maybe each "little death" gets you a limited time to use the software?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_Mort
Just be carefull not to wear them inside out.
Encrypting something via Public Key system is slow, so what is generally done is a random key (128bit/256bit/1024bit/whatever) is generated, and some other system like IDEA/Blowfish/etc is used to encrypt the file with this random key. Then the random key itself is encrypted using the Public Key, and included in the output file (or this may be done first).
Encrypting the same file twice with PGP/GPG will result in different encrypted files. Here is what I got when I encrypted the same file twice:
$ ls -l whycopyrightdoc.ogg*
-rw-r--r-- 1 xxxx users 444876583 2008-12-09 16:27 whycopyrightdoc.ogg
-rw-r--r-- 1 xxxx users 442961134 2009-02-27 13:38 whycopyrightdoc.ogg.gpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 xxxx users 442961133 2009-02-27 13:33 whycopyrightdoc.ogg.gpg.1
$ cksum whycopyrightdoc.ogg*
2090966688 444876583 whycopyrightdoc.ogg
909254713 442961134 whycopyrightdoc.ogg.gpg
121574791 442961133 whycopyrightdoc.ogg.gpg.1
Unless the system used LDAP, or NIS, or Kerberos, etc, instead of /etc/password files.
This is why there are system calls like getpwuid and getpwnam, to convert between UIDs and usernames independently of the underlying authentication system.
To fool programs like this, setup LDAP authentication, and fill your /etc/password file with dummy information.
Well, a solution for the exact architecture the blob runs on. With an x86 blob PPC/SPARC/AMD64/etc users are just SOL.
How is this different from a commercial closed-source proprietry license?
Replace Open Office in the example with Microsoft Office?. How do you think Microsoft would react? Would you concider that case to be theft/breach of copyright?
Have you noticed this neat thing about the lifespans the bible attributes to pre-flood times? If you call the time periods "months" instead of "years", they all turn out to be about the same as current normal lifespans?
Interesting, isn't it?
Then you havn't done much study in evolution, have you.
Birds are descended from land animals (dinosaurs) and thus had to appear *AFTER* land animals.
Prices on individual items are normally not set as a 5cent multiple, but those ending in a '3', '4', '8' or '9' do seen common, whihc was also the case before this kicked in. Buying one gets you a round-up, buying 2 or 3 gets you a round-down.
Of course it is falsifiable. All you need to do is find an organism that doesn't use the same basic DNA building blocks as the currently known species do. Perhaps you meant to say that the statment is non-provable?
To prove the statement, you would need to show that you had examined every single organism on the planet. OK, it might be provable in theory, but in practice there is no way to be sure you haven't missed the one rare organism that is the exeption to the rule (and only lives under 2km of bedrock, located under 3km of artic seawater or another 2km of antartic icecap).
On the other hand, it can't hurt.
The block would be on any packet sent from the PC destined for port 25 on a remote system. An exception would be made for the ISP's own mail servers. This covers any source port on the users PC.
And yes, I do know how SMTP works.
Surely you mean "yellow light or worse"?
Have you looked at the Sharp Zaurus clamshell PDA's? They run a real OS (Linux). Unfortunately that rules out Outlook, but there are other options for email clients
The down side is you have to get them shipped from Japan, as they have not been released elswhere.m l
Try http://www.dynamism.com/zaurus/ or http://conics.net/shp/pda/zaurus-sl-c700/index.ht
I think that is the whole point. The cost is split between everyone, even those who don't use Microsoft software because they run Linux or *BSD or even Mac OS X.
Forcing unwilling people to subsidise your purchases seems a little unfair to me.
If only this were true! I have seen several examples of mail servers that would not take 5xx=no for an answer. One or two of them wern't even spammers!
I have also seen some servers (generally Microsoft product) whose idea of "later" (as in, "put the message in the queue and try again later") is on the order of 1 second.
When I think of the ideal medium, I think of something that can fit into my shirt pocket, but not so small that it get lost in my hair.
Your shirt pocket has hair in it?
Second, when the crypto chip encrypts the data, it embeds a hash of the secure application in the data blob. When a piece of software decrypts it, the crypto chip computes a hash of the decrypting software, and compares it with the hash embedded in the encrypted data. If they disagree, it does not allow the data to be decrypted.
I bloody well hope it dosn't do this. If it does, all your documents will be lost every time you upgrade your word processor (for example).