1/ Where are your stats to write in the name of "the majority of the crowd" ?
2/ I thought facts prevailed on thoughts in a trial.
If what people think mattered more than what really IS, then Microsoft would already have been splitered or many innocents would have been sentenced. What the majority of the crowd think only matters during elections.
3/ As you said : "It's also not up to YOU to decide that there is NO confusion". No it's really not up to you...
It does apply to you too. You cannot state what people really think and a judge cannot state that too. Even a survey cannot be used as a proof, else it would be sufficient in order to rule a law, to elect a president or to send someone to jail...
In fact it would be too dangerous for freedom if it was sufficient for a court to say people think something to rule a sentence. Just imagine :
"hey many people understand 'hackers' are pirates so let's inprison every computer experts in the country". This is not a stupid exemple. Here I paraphrase you : "hey many people understand 'dows' as 'Windows' so let's fordib any software that use 'dows' and are OS".
"Windows" & "Lindows" differ on the first letter. The beginning of a word is the most important to differenciate it from others. If you say "Lindows" to some he will propbably(1) ask you whether you wanted to say "Windows", then you explain the difference. If the difference was at the end of the name, it would be more elusive. Compare "Windoes" or "weendoos" with "Windows". According to your accent these names can be extremely confusing. For instance, these names would probably be pronounced the same by foreigners (I don't know with american accents).
Interestingly their spelling is much different than "Lindows".
4/ Will "Lindows.com, Inc" package their product with a design close to Microsoft (colors, font...) ? Well I don't know. If they do then they will probably be sentenced (at least here in Europe). Sincerely I doubt they will choose such a dumb marketing decision. However, Microsoft disputes the TM, not the package design.
So what ?
It is not given "the majority of the crowd" would confuse both products names.
Secondly, even in this case it would be a shame for justice to rule a decision on mood rather than on facts.
(1) : ok I give no more statistics than you do;-)
NB : Mikael : I'm not convinced by your product. But I really hope you will be able to kick their... pride.
There are also interesting testimonies from Near Death Experience victims. It is far cheaper than psychedelics and it may prove to have better results since the experience (and "contact") become permanent...
Well, please try none of these experiments and concentrate on praticing relationships with your beloved:-)
in a David Brin book (excellent writer), stars cans be made to explode into supernova. Then you have not a omni-directional light stream. Your signal can be detected from any point around the supernova & traces last for some time. So, why not study data signal from supernova ?
Ok, we do not know how to make a supernova send informative data, but we don't know either how to transform good old Sun into a supernova;-)
so how could we use lasers to measure distance to moon ? the distance was twice the atmosphere height. If we could use a laser to do that, aliens will probably be able to do better. Sorry, you'll get fried;-)
well we do not risk much because US government will probably prosecute & jail Aliens because they reverse engineered the DTV Codec, or anyone has licensed it to them ?
* in a democracy politicians present a political roadmap (evenhough they do not follow it closely), corporations do not have roadmaps, they just have marketing. Well maybe the difference is very small in US between political roadmap & corporation marketing...:-(
* in a democracy politicians are grouped in parties, corporations are not
corporatism in not an evolved form of democracy on the contrary politicians adopt values from corporatism (marketing, fast talk, very short term planning, seduction) herein is great danger
I would not talk of democracy but republic (like katz) because inside a corporation there is a very small number of people who can define strategies & who can choose/vote for others (in France CEO is ellected). that's the way of republic compared to democracy (everyone votes)
> e-mail to me often begins with the phrase: "I don't always agree with you, but..." > It's well-meant, but always strikes me as curious because it's so unwittingly revealing of a society > raised on corporatist pablum as a subsitute for dialogue and discussion
well, let me write you I don't always agree with you... starting a message that way simply means I want to share, to confront my ideas to yours, without wanting to hurt you
the purpose of sharing thoughts is not to offend you but it is to present you something else. If I am ruthless it will not make you change your mind. So I have more chance to you make your point of view evolve if I try to have a mature behaviour towards you.
in other words, beeing polite & having respect is a good thing
from the article : "Whatever potential Open Source has to make it easy for the good guys to proactively find security vulnerabilities, also goes to the bad guys."
yes, that's true more, it should frighten people but fear is a good thing
some time ago experiments in england demonstrated that when people feel in danger when driving they are safer. The experiment was to remove the central line of a dramatically lethal road. The result was near zero car crash. Other studies showed since cars become safer (airbag and other security stuff) accidents increase in number and even in danger because people drive faster. Therefore drivers feel safer and drive faster and when they crash, it hits much harder.
Man kind is such that we prefer forget danger. When we believe someone else will review an open source code, we do not review it. However it stands the same for close source. "We" believe corporations do a "good" job and we buy the soft eyes wide closed. In either case we forget the danger.
So what ?
Open source has in this matter one advantage compared to closed source : the bad guys can review security holes from the source and we know it. That must keep us awake, fasten our belt and drive slower.
We must use open source soft and realise that it does not protect us more that closed source. however it will keep us alert and enable us to have a better understanding of why we choose such security parameter.
for what I know global.asa are sort of (perl) modules in which you define special events : start/end application (a set of ASP pages form an application) ASA files go with ASP
ASA files are readable, so I do not think the security hole (if any) goes through them... one can find some ASA files in the samples provided with IIS
>>This wouldn't be in their best interests at all, >>especially given the current events.
well... was it written during "the current events" ? No. Look how Bill Gates show in front of judge Jackson... Proud & defiant... Look their low soft quality. In fact they do not bother with reputation. They control the market (not the home market... the real one : professional market, the real power).
>> Think about it. Why would Microsoft want this put into their software, >> when if it was found out, which would be likely, >> would lead to a massive publicity scandal, and possible legal action?
You think it must be the fact of a programmer because it is too dangerous for the corporation to do it : they sure would get caught. Well you can say the same about the programmer : when the backdoor gets public *he* get caught and the corporation will sue him (whenever he left M$ or not). that means your argument against the lone programmer (to defend the corp) stands for defending that programmer too. In other words, your argument cannot be used against M$ or the programmer and it cannot be used in their favor too...
Also, you mention loyalty. Yes M$ people are probably more loyal to their employer than many emplies. More than that. They earn lots of money so why one would risk that ?
My conclusion is we can not for sure say it is the act of a lone programmer. That means a doubt taints the "bright" reputation of M$. ;-)
ok it's not totally free, but it's open source more : when a version is given, they cannot take it back, it's yours.
In fact I do not see much difference between jet3D licence & GPL, because in these 2 : * you must give source * you may distribute freely * the code cannot be closed * the owner of the source remains the owner of the copyright
There is one huge advantage that GPL can not give. It is the product is given by a professional game team (aka people who have plenty of time & resources & are paid for writing the open library). That means it will be performant & it will evolve rapidly. But since it's open souce, it will also be blessed by the community.
There is another advantage : other companies can use that work but cannot close it, they are compelled to give anyone what they modified. That means that we may see a very effective library used by lots of professionals (each adding cute features) and *we* will be allowed to play with it. In other words it can become one of the very standard engines in the gaming world.
Very exiting.
:-D
there is mention of linux in the licence doc
on
Jet3d Game Engine
·
· Score: 1
the licence covers linux, even though there is no (yet?) code for it
why not take the code and adapt it for linux using SDL (that should need a special licence distribution from sam lantiga since SDL is LGPL)
My guess is we'll achieve that in 1-2 years when enough games are ported to Linux. By that time XFree 4 will be truely stable, 3D audio will be defined by Creative & Aureal and Crusoe processors might be interesting for a Linux console.
First I do not know Derek Simkowiak, so I cannot say his statements are sincere. Maybe is he some competitor trying to hit LinuxOne ? We need to know the official answer from LinuxOne before we flame them, but if they are in IPO that means we need to wait after the silence period...
Second, if LO are real bad guys, it is not necessarily bad to have that publicity, as long as we show we can figth it. Since Linux rise lots of hype, it is normal some people will (did ?) try to leverage this hype to their own very profit. This is Linux comunity to point out the bad guys... If we do, the community will earn a better reputation towards fiancial investitors. But we must not kill some knew-innocent corp...
... Well I do not know about LinuxOne either...:-) We need just some wisdom...
I would not be afraid (yet) if I were you, because the way it is writen it seems to be a standard answser probably given by a robot that scans newsgroup archives
as I read this, the message consider you want to make your own product with their brand name (freightening to be able to register the sentence "for dummies" !)
just ask them to know really what they want and what is the "else"
I though of some kind of licence for some time right now.
It's goal : promote some open sourceness without forcing companies to open everything in a given product.
Imagine you want to provide (sell) a product with some parts based upon a (L)GPL source. From what I understand of (L)GPL you cannot, unless you open everything. But some might want to improve the based source. Some improvements may be ok for everyone, but some others might be very valuable competitive assets. Therefore you might not want to give away these.
The result is you cannot use the source and the community will never gain anything. The solution is a licence that gives you the possibility to tie your closed code with open sourced code at the very condition that you give back something to improve the open sourced code.
Of course the community will not gain as much as if the company give everything, but on the other way the the company uses its own stuff (not the open sourced) the community will not gain anything either. The second advantage is to establish really opened protocol/formats/packages. The 3rd advantage follows the 2nd one : products differenciate on services and new features (not on unslaved formats/markets).
You could object that one corporation could tie its own closed format. But my answer is since its competitors will use the same basement, they will give the community the code to that format, just in order to break the advantage of the first. So that we will not be tied up by a closed format.
* new generation motion (intrusion) detector : place some intelligent dust, and noone can bypass the hall without being detected. You can even make them talk to some digital ID-pass so that they do not alert MPs all the time
* audio/data network nano-relays ? some kind of new wireless networks ?
* new drug deliverer medium : you pass, you inhale them and they deliver you some drug (illegal or not) according to some criteria (coupled with the intrusion detector, that can be very efficient to stop intrusion...)
* bug : you bypass, they fix on you and you'll be traced
* circuits surveyors : put them into your engine and they monitor it (ok they ought to be quite resistant), they can more easily detect a leak in the oil circuit or just monitor your performance and talk to the engine so that it adapt itself to have greater performance [air is not the only fluid...]
* ocean waves surveyors, ideal for biologists
* air/fluid cleaner ? not anymore wored by your smoker neighbourg (in countries less strict than US with smoking)
* perfume diffuser
* nano-painter : ideal to have a nice paint/coat on your car ?
well, when opposing people start using emotional arguments (in fact these are not arguments since they are emotional...), that means the war is in good way to be won.
but beware, this is not won already, and in fact the toughest part is to come.
Linux advocates are good techies, that's why they can effectively answer technical arguments. But they are rarely communication people. And there are thoses young people who trigger the "flame" thrower quicker than they think. This can be devastatous for linux.
You want to protect Linux ? answer quietly to these arguments. Just answer by exposing what these arguments really are, like it was done in this article. When people attack you with false or irrelevant arguments, the most effective behaviour is not to answer emotionnaly, neither it is to keep quiet (they continue to talk and finally it goes into some heads). The Answer is to explain what is the author goal and how his arguments are used. Probably some arguments will be serious and reveal weaknesses in Linux : do not be afraid of it, instead work to solve them (that's our best strength). Calmly facing what others can say, it will reveal how their arguments are vain, and spectators will learn not to hear the arguments. Authors reputation will dive into ablossom.
Be not like them : be not partial. Be impartial towards Linux : say where it fails (and aim to correct) and say (respectfully) what is irrelevant talk. The childish talk will turn against any who tells it (even you/Linux if you use it).
If you want the best Os and software : do not deafen ! Listen to weakness and correct them. We know our strengths, we do not know all our weaknesses. In a conflict, weaknesses are more important than strengths... And contrary to proprietary software, we can very effectively correct weaknesses because we do not have stock holders who can sell if a weakness is found in our product, we have no interest to hide such things...
so what to do ? Explain, explain, listen to and correct software weaknesses... and calmly explain !
the problem is people rarely notice who tells something, and on internet it's even worse. no one remember were that bit of information they read comes from. that means John Doe reads that Red Hat has secret conenctions with someone at Microsoft, and John Doe will not notice the message comes from AnomymousMaster. But John will remember the information (true or not). He will propagate the rumour, and that can harm the comagny (choose whiwh one would be harmes in that case;-)
with internet you can load up your brain at the speed of light (hope bill did not copyright that one) (or at the speed of your internet connection). In fact that's too fast to really care where the info comes from... we're in a sad world:`-(
AOL might well log what logon ID & telephone number connect to it and what IP is allocated to that ID...
in fact one of our telephon operator in france does that with mobile phone (a mobile phone connects to different router when it moves, it merely the same thing that with your dynamic IP adress). That enabled police to prove a terrorist called from a given place someone else days before when the guy told he did not !
its easy to have a table that say : that user had that IP from that time to that time after that, you have no anonymity shield... well unless you are a good cracker...
Slashdot Mirror
1/ Where are your stats to write in the name of "the majority of the crowd" ?
;-)
... pride.
2/ I thought facts prevailed on thoughts in a trial.
If what people think mattered more than what really IS, then Microsoft would already have been splitered or many innocents would have been sentenced. What the majority of the crowd think only matters during elections.
3/ As you said : "It's also not up to YOU to decide that there is NO confusion". No it's really not up to you...
It does apply to you too. You cannot state what people really think and a judge cannot state that too. Even a survey cannot be used as a proof, else it would be sufficient in order to rule a law, to elect a president or to send someone to jail...
In fact it would be too dangerous for freedom if it was sufficient for a court to say people think something to rule a sentence. Just imagine :
"hey many people understand 'hackers' are pirates so let's inprison every computer experts in the country". This is not a stupid exemple. Here I paraphrase you : "hey many people understand 'dows' as 'Windows' so let's fordib any software that use 'dows' and are OS".
"Windows" & "Lindows" differ on the first letter. The beginning of a word is the most important to differenciate it from others. If you say "Lindows" to some he will propbably(1) ask you whether you wanted to say "Windows", then you explain the difference. If the difference was at the end of the name, it would be more elusive. Compare "Windoes" or "weendoos" with "Windows". According to your accent these names can be extremely confusing. For instance, these names would probably be pronounced the same by foreigners (I don't know with american accents).
Interestingly their spelling is much different than "Lindows".
4/ Will "Lindows.com, Inc" package their product with a design close to Microsoft (colors, font...) ? Well I don't know. If they do then they will probably be sentenced (at least here in Europe). Sincerely I doubt they will choose such a dumb marketing decision. However, Microsoft disputes the TM, not the package design.
So what ?
It is not given "the majority of the crowd" would confuse both products names.
Secondly, even in this case it would be a shame for justice to rule a decision on mood rather than on facts.
(1) : ok I give no more statistics than you do
NB : Mikael : I'm not convinced by your product. But I really hope you will be able to kick their
#!perl
d \d)?$/) {
\ /articles\/$3\/$4\/$5.ASP";
d \d)?$/$1\t\t$2\tA TARGET=\"$3$4$5\" HREF=\"http:\/\/support.microsoft.com\/support\/kb \/articles\/$3\/$4\/$5.ASP\">$3$4$5\/A> \tFONT COLOR=black>I>$title\/I>\/ FONT>/;
use LWP::Simple;
if (not open (FILE, "hfnetchk.exe")) {
die "Could not find program 'hfnetchk.exe' in local directory";
};
close FILE;
my $CDE="hfnetchk.exe @ARGV";
my @log=`$CDE`;
open (FILE, ">hfnetchk.html") or die "Could not create the result file";
print FILE 'HTML>HEAD>TITLE>Microsoft Network Security Hotfix Checker Logger/TITLE>/HEAD>/BODY>' , "\n";
print FILE 'H2>FONT COLOR=purple>B>Microsoft Network Security Hotfix Checker Logger/B>/FONT>/H2>BR >BR>', "\n\n", 'FONT SIZE=small>PRE>';
my $URL;
my $ficurl;
my $title;
BOUCLE: foreach my $line (@log) {
if ($line=~/^(\s*.*?\s+)(MS[\d-]+)\s+(Q\d\d\d)(\d)(\
$URL="http:\/\/support.microsoft.com\/support\/kb
$ficurl=get ($URL);
if ($ficurl=~/TITLE>\s*(.*?)\s*\/TITLE&g t;/im) {
$title=$1;
print "$title\n";
};
$line=~s/^\s*(.*?)\s+(MS[\d-]+)\s+(Q\d\d\d)(\d)(\
$line=~s/^(.*?Patch Found.*)/FONT COLOR=green>B>$1\/B>\/FONT >/;
$line=~s/^(.*?Patch NOT Found.*)/FONT COLOR=red>$1\/FONT>/;
$line=~s/^(.*?WARNING.*)/FONT COLOR=red>B>$1\/B>\/FONT&g t;/;
}
print FILE $line;
}
print FILE '/PRE>/FONT>/BODY>/HT ML>';
close FILE;
print "\n\n\nCreated 'hfnetchk.html'\n\n";
system ('explorer.exe hfnetchk.html');
__DATA__
There are also interesting testimonies from Near Death Experience victims. It is far cheaper than psychedelics and it may prove to have better results since the experience (and "contact") become permanent...
:-)
Well, please try none of these experiments and concentrate on praticing relationships with your beloved
in a David Brin book (excellent writer), stars cans be made to explode into supernova. Then you have not a omni-directional light stream. Your signal can be detected from any point around the supernova & traces last for some time. So, why not study data signal from supernova ?
;-)
Ok, we do not know how to make a supernova send informative data, but we don't know either how to transform good old Sun into a supernova
so how could we use lasers to measure distance to moon ? the distance was twice the atmosphere height. If we could use a laser to do that, aliens will probably be able to do better. Sorry, you'll get fried ;-)
well we do not risk much because US government will probably prosecute & jail Aliens because they reverse engineered the DTV Codec, or anyone has licensed it to them ?
"DjVu" makes me think of french "Deja Vu" which means "already seen"
well I'm not sure of this one
:-(
* in a democracy politicians present a political roadmap (evenhough they do not follow it closely), corporations do not have roadmaps, they just have marketing. Well maybe the difference is very small in US between political roadmap & corporation marketing...
* in a democracy politicians are grouped in parties, corporations are not
corporatism in not an evolved form of democracy
on the contrary politicians adopt values from corporatism (marketing, fast talk, very short term planning, seduction)
herein is great danger
I would not talk of democracy but republic (like katz)
because inside a corporation there is a very small number of people who can define strategies & who can choose/vote for others (in France CEO is ellected). that's the way of republic compared to democracy (everyone votes)
> e-mail to me often begins with the phrase: "I don't always agree with you, but..."
> It's well-meant, but always strikes me as curious because it's so unwittingly revealing of a society
> raised on corporatist pablum as a subsitute for dialogue and discussion
well, let me write you I don't always agree with you...
starting a message that way simply means I want to share, to confront my ideas to yours, without wanting to hurt you
the purpose of sharing thoughts is not to offend you but it is to present you something else. If I am ruthless it will not make you change your mind. So I have more chance to you make your point of view evolve if I try to have a mature behaviour towards you.
in other words, beeing polite & having respect is a good thing
from the article : "Whatever potential Open Source has to make it easy for the good guys to proactively find security
vulnerabilities, also goes to the bad guys."
yes, that's true
more, it should frighten people
but fear is a good thing
some time ago experiments in england demonstrated that when people feel in danger when driving they are safer. The experiment was to remove the central line of a dramatically lethal road. The result was near zero car crash.
Other studies showed since cars become safer (airbag and other security stuff) accidents increase in number and even in danger because people drive faster. Therefore drivers feel safer and drive faster and when they crash, it hits much harder.
Man kind is such that we prefer forget danger.
When we believe someone else will review an open source code, we do not review it.
However it stands the same for close source. "We" believe corporations do a "good" job and we buy the soft eyes wide closed.
In either case we forget the danger.
So what ?
Open source has in this matter one advantage compared to closed source : the bad guys can review security holes from the source and we know it. That must keep us awake, fasten our belt and drive slower.
We must use open source soft and realise that it does not protect us more that closed source. however it will keep us alert and enable us to have a better understanding of why we choose such security parameter.
when will we need a security licence test ?
;-)
for what I know global.asa are sort of (perl) modules in which you define special events : start/end application (a set of ASP pages form an application)
ASA files go with ASP
ASA files are readable, so I do not think the security hole (if any) goes through them...
one can find some ASA files in the samples provided with IIS
>>This wouldn't be in their best interests at all,
>>especially given the current events.
well... was it written during "the current events" ? No. Look how Bill Gates show in front of judge Jackson... Proud & defiant... Look their low soft quality. In fact they do not bother with reputation. They control the market (not the home market... the real one : professional market, the real power).
>> Think about it. Why would Microsoft want this put into their software,
>> when if it was found out, which would be likely,
>> would lead to a massive publicity scandal, and possible legal action?
You think it must be the fact of a programmer because it is too dangerous for the corporation to do it : they sure would get caught. Well you can say the same about the programmer : when the backdoor gets public *he* get caught and the corporation will sue him (whenever he left M$ or not).
that means your argument against the lone programmer (to defend the corp) stands for defending that programmer too. In other words, your argument cannot be used against M$ or the programmer and it cannot be used in their favor too...
Also, you mention loyalty. Yes M$ people are probably more loyal to their employer than many emplies. More than that. They earn lots of money so why one would risk that ?
My conclusion is we can not for sure say it is the act of a lone programmer. That means a doubt taints the "bright" reputation of M$.
;-)
the licence of jet3D is really cool
ok it's not totally free, but it's open source
more : when a version is given, they cannot take it back, it's yours.
In fact I do not see much difference between jet3D licence & GPL, because in these 2 :
* you must give source
* you may distribute freely
* the code cannot be closed
* the owner of the source remains the owner of the copyright
There is one huge advantage that GPL can not give. It is the product is given by a professional game team (aka people who have plenty of time & resources & are paid for writing the open library). That means it will be performant & it will evolve rapidly. But since it's open souce, it will also be blessed by the community.
There is another advantage : other companies can use that work but cannot close it, they are compelled to give anyone what they modified. That means that we may see a very effective library used by lots of professionals (each adding cute features) and *we* will be allowed to play with it.
In other words it can become one of the very standard engines in the gaming world.
Very exiting.
:-D
the licence covers linux, even though there is no (yet?) code for it
why not take the code and adapt it for linux using SDL (that should need a special licence distribution from sam lantiga since SDL is LGPL)
My guess is we'll achieve that in 1-2 years when enough games are ported to Linux. By that time XFree 4 will be truely stable, 3D audio will be defined by Creative & Aureal and Crusoe processors might be interesting for a Linux console.
First I do not know Derek Simkowiak, so I cannot say his statements are sincere. Maybe is he some competitor trying to hit LinuxOne ? We need to know the official answer from LinuxOne before we flame them, but if they are in IPO that means we need to wait after the silence period...
:-) We need just some wisdom...
Second, if LO are real bad guys, it is not necessarily bad to have that publicity, as long as we show we can figth it. Since Linux rise lots of hype, it is normal some people will (did ?) try to leverage this hype to their own very profit. This is Linux comunity to point out the bad guys... If we do, the community will earn a better reputation towards fiancial investitors. But we must not kill some knew-innocent corp...
... Well I do not know about LinuxOne either...
I would not be afraid (yet) if I were you, because the way it is writen it seems to be a standard answser probably given by a robot that scans newsgroup archives
as I read this, the message consider you want to make your own product with their brand name (freightening to be able to register the sentence "for dummies" !)
just ask them to know really what they want and what is the "else"
NB : I haven't read the original mail
did not compaq stop the future of the Alpha Chip ?
AMD might buy some 64b technology from Compaq ?
Or maybe Transmeta really did some highly performant x86 emulator than AMD will use ?
I though of some kind of licence for some time right now.
It's goal : promote some open sourceness without forcing companies to open everything in a given product.
Imagine you want to provide (sell) a product with some parts based upon a (L)GPL source. From what I understand of (L)GPL you cannot, unless you open everything.
But some might want to improve the based source. Some improvements may be ok for everyone, but some others might be very valuable competitive assets. Therefore you might not want to give away these.
The result is you cannot use the source and the community will never gain anything.
The solution is a licence that gives you the possibility to tie your closed code with open sourced code at the very condition that you give back something to improve the open sourced code.
Of course the community will not gain as much as if the company give everything, but on the other way the the company uses its own stuff (not the open sourced) the community will not gain anything either.
The second advantage is to establish really opened protocol/formats/packages.
The 3rd advantage follows the 2nd one : products differenciate on services and new features (not on unslaved formats/markets).
You could object that one corporation could tie its own closed format. But my answer is since its competitors will use the same basement, they will give the community the code to that format, just in order to break the advantage of the first. So that we will not be tied up by a closed format.
your comments...
* new generation motion (intrusion) detector :
place some intelligent dust, and noone can bypass the hall without being detected. You can even make them talk to some digital ID-pass so that they do not alert MPs all the time
* audio/data network nano-relays ? some kind of new wireless networks ?
* new drug deliverer medium : you pass, you inhale them and they deliver you some drug (illegal or not) according to some criteria (coupled with the intrusion detector, that can be very efficient to stop intrusion...)
* bug : you bypass, they fix on you and you'll be traced
* circuits surveyors : put them into your engine and they monitor it (ok they ought to be quite resistant), they can more easily detect a leak in the oil circuit or just monitor your performance and talk to the engine so that it adapt itself to have greater performance
[air is not the only fluid...]
* ocean waves surveyors, ideal for biologists
* air/fluid cleaner ? not anymore wored by your smoker neighbourg (in countries less strict than US with smoking)
* perfume diffuser
* nano-painter : ideal to have a nice paint/coat on your car ?
well, when opposing people start using emotional arguments (in fact these are not arguments since they are emotional...), that means the war is in good way to be won.
but beware, this is not won already, and in fact the toughest part is to come.
Linux advocates are good techies, that's why they can effectively answer technical arguments. But they are rarely communication people. And there are thoses young people who trigger the "flame" thrower quicker than they think. This can be devastatous for linux.
You want to protect Linux ? answer quietly to these arguments. Just answer by exposing what these arguments really are, like it was done in this article. When people attack you with false or irrelevant arguments, the most effective behaviour is not to answer emotionnaly, neither it is to keep quiet (they continue to talk and finally it goes into some heads). The Answer is to explain what is the author goal and how his arguments are used. Probably some arguments will be serious and reveal weaknesses in Linux : do not be afraid of it, instead work to solve them (that's our best strength). Calmly facing what others can say, it will reveal how their arguments are vain, and spectators will learn not to hear the arguments. Authors reputation will dive into ablossom.
Be not like them : be not partial. Be impartial towards Linux : say where it fails (and aim to correct) and say (respectfully) what is irrelevant talk. The childish talk will turn against any who tells it (even you/Linux if you use it).
If you want the best Os and software : do not deafen ! Listen to weakness and correct them.
We know our strengths, we do not know all our weaknesses. In a conflict, weaknesses are more important than strengths...
And contrary to proprietary software, we can very effectively correct weaknesses because we do not have stock holders who can sell if a weakness is found in our product, we have no interest to hide such things...
so what to do ? Explain, explain, listen to and correct software weaknesses... and calmly explain !
cool !
what I see it law is quick to run after anonimous individuals who say nasty things about corporations
but law is slow to do anything against (anonimous?) corps who fill illegally our mailbox...
the problem is people rarely notice who tells something, and on internet it's even worse. no one remember were that bit of information they read comes from. that means John Doe reads that Red Hat has secret conenctions with someone at Microsoft, and John Doe will not notice the message comes from AnomymousMaster. But John will remember the information (true or not). He will propagate the rumour, and that can harm the comagny (choose whiwh one would be harmes in that case ;-)
:`-(
with internet you can load up your brain at the speed of light (hope bill did not copyright that one) (or at the speed of your internet connection). In fact that's too fast to really care where the info comes from... we're in a sad world
go outside in one of those cyber-place where you can use a computer against bucks (don't know the english name)
;-)
:-)
pay by cash (use gloves so that you do not leave your fingertips and a plastic bag on you hair so that no hair fall down on the note
then you can have real immunity, and noone can prove you are the one how wrote the nasty little thing
AOL might well log what logon ID & telephone number connect to it and what IP is allocated to that ID...
in fact one of our telephon operator in france does that with mobile phone (a mobile phone connects to different router when it moves, it merely the same thing that with your dynamic IP adress). That enabled police to prove a terrorist called from a given place someone else days before when the guy told he did not !
its easy to have a table that say : that user had that IP from that time to that time
after that, you have no anonymity shield... well unless you are a good cracker...