>That was the only reference I noticed, though, since I'm an anti-fan of Tarantino.
Oh come on.. You had to notice the fact that Tulip's wallet said "Not a very nice person at all." on it.. Either that or you haven't seen Pulp Fiction, which is possible I suppose..
Well, short of automatically recognizing the attack and blocking it off upstream, you probably don't have a defense. The real problem with the DOS attack is that your pipe becomes saturated and/or your servers become flooded. Either one can be fixed by cutting the data off upstream, with a good powerful filter system.
Short of that, I don't know any other way to stop it.
But that would be incorrect HTML syntax. alt is a required attribute for images. It's there because of concerns about universal access. I know it sounds silly but it really makes sense. Some images can be (at least partially) described (such as using images to provide neat text, you can put the text into the alt tag). Others can't be easily described and should be indicated as such by using alt="".
Just because it's a required attribute doesn't mean it must be there. I know that sounds stupid, but bear with me.
If you are writing your document to be HTML compliant, yes, it must be there. Unfortunately, the web is NOT HTML compliant, and never really has been. Web-HTML is based on (what else) market share. Just like it always has been. The "center" tag wasn't HTML back when everyone used it. That nasty "blink" tag wasn't HTML when it first came into being. Netscape added these to their browser, and since everyone used that browser, they could more or less control the market.
Now: the ALT tag is not required because the two browsers with major market share don't require it. I don't say that it's correct that this state of affairs should be. I wish the whole world stuck to standards. But they don't, and never will.
In programming, you must also handle the common case. One common case is leaving out that annoying "alt" attribute. I don't like it, but you deal with reality. If the blind guy's web browser doesn't like when you don't include an "alt" attribute, the browser is broken.
Now, if you are making your web pages accessible or HTML compliant, the "alt" attribute IS a requirement. I don't deny that. But the browser should be able to deal with it's nonexistance too.
re: 2 Allow me to correct you: YOU can't code effectively when YOU'RE high. I've never had a problem. Remember, different people, different effects, espescially with weed.
Well, I admit that that is a personal thing. I become stupid and useless on weed. If you're a heavy smoker (like my old roommates) then the line blurs and you can't tell whether the guy is high or not. I never really wanted to become that guy, you know? So I smoked occasionally, rather than daily (hourly sometimes.. those wackos)...
I personally think that's the best way to enjoy yourself with drug use. Keep it on the occasional level, and maybe go on a bender every year or so, for variety.
#3: the first time I dropped it was at a party.. I got extremely bored with the party, went upstairs, and sat down and played Super Mario World on the Super Nintendo until I beat the game. Something like 6 hours.. I couldn't stop playing, man.. It was really pretty cool. Anyway, I always think clearly on Big A, except when I try to shift focus, at which point the world falls apart for an entertaining few minutes.. Once the focus comes back, I'm cool and happy again. Anyway, it worked for me.:-)
That's a very good point. I've seen pages that use more than a dozen shim/spacer images just to line things up. If I have to wade through hundreds of "spacer" alts while using Lynx, I'll stab someone.
In other situations where alternative text is unnecessary or distracting, such as images used as spacers, bullets in lists, and links, ALT="" should still be included so that text based browsers can ignore the image. It is important not to use this technique if the image is a link or is important to understanding the page.
Personally, I think this Bobby guy is an idiot.:) A browser that reads text should just say nothing if no alt= text exists.. Bit stupid to use ALT=""...
Well, I've done a lots of types of drugs in my time, both while programming and not. Here's my thoughts on combining the two:
1. Alcohol - I used to be a damn good coder while drunk. Haven't tried it in a while, but back in college, I could get really ripped at a party, have a great time, come back to my room, and code up a wonderful program. Then I would forget doing it, so I'd be all surprised the next day when I'd load up my program to find it was done. I recall that for one class, we had to make up a simple language and code an interpreter for it. I wrote a program in Pascal (because I had the compiler available) to interpret this stupid little language. The program ended up being 10,000+ lines because I got trashed and kept adding to the language. Instead of the 8 types of statements, it ended up being almost as completely functional as old C64Basic, with around 100 commands or so. And most of it was written after drinking 4 Zimas and a bottle of Skyy Vodka.:-)
2. Weed - You can't code effectively when you're high. You end up giggling a lot and writing statements like "A=++B<C?D:E;"... Not good when you later try to understand what the hell you were doing...
3. LSD - Good old vitamin A. If you can get into coding while on acid, you will code like a madman. I'd get so focused while on acid that I found it impossible to stop whatever I happened to be doing until the effect wore off. Usually this took around 10 hours. Hell, I couldn't even turn my head. Hella neck pain the next day.
4. Hard stuff - Forget it. If you are a true geek, you won't even bother. It's hard enough to think, much less code while you're that screwed up.
Anyway, I gave up all that.. Too much pain afterwards, and it's hard enough to cope with the reality of stupid people.
I do agree though that it's hard to communicate after really getting into coding. I find, frequently, that while I'm coding, I block off the outside world to a large degree. People have remarked to me that they were trying to ask me questions, and I never even noticed their presence. It's like that sometimes.
I took this poll. I posted about it on/. at the time, but noone believed me, and claimed I was spreading FUD.. That's okay, I probably would have said the same thing.
Anyway, someone called me at my house and asked these exact questions (plus a lot more). But what strikes me as odd is that these results claim to have been taken on January 20-23, 2000. When someone running a survey asking me these exact same questions, it was well before that. Still in 1999, as a matter of fact.
So, I'm forced to wonder. Did they just do enough surveys until they got the results they wanted? I'm not entirely sure the same people called me as conducted this survey, but the questions are _exactly_ the same.
Sure you can! Making your customers into your enemy is not sound business practice.
Plus, there's only two sides to the coin. Trying to keep the public from copying music won't work, period. The public will do it anyway. You can't stop something from happening when everyone does it. No, the law won't stop it, nor will technology.
So they've got two alternatives. Embrace it, or die. That's it. Simple.
On a side note, why the hell isn't the "Extrans (html tags to text)" working anymore?
The requirement of immediate and irreparable injury is satisfied in this case. Copyright infringement is presumed to give rise to such harm. In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that defendants have infringed their copyrights, but rather that defendants offer technology that circumvents their copyright protection system and thus facilitates infringement. For purposes of the irreparable injury inquiry, this is a distinction without a difference. If plaintiffs are correct on the merits, they face substantially the same immediate and irreparable injury from defendants' posting of DeCSS as they would if defendants were infringing directly. Moreover, just as in the case of direct copyright infringement, the extent of the harm plaintiffs will suffer as a result of defendants' alleged activities cannot readily be measured, suggesting that the injury truly would be irreparable. </I>
Just because I own a gun, does this mean I shot someone?
Come on, judge...
Of course, this changes nothing. You can't turn back the clock, you can't rebuild the dam once it crumbles. People still offer the files up, and that's all there is to it.
Now, I want to see someone build a Linux DVD player, and let the MPAA try to nail them over THAT. Admittedly, the injunction states in one of the footnotes that it wouldn't matter, but still, I'd like to see them try. So where the fully functional Linux DVD player? Use the DeCSS code, it won't matter.
He contends that searching for illegal takes time and it's difficult to find the exact song you're looking for.
Well, he's wrong then.:-) Finding a song you want is extremely easy and relatively painless, with programs like Napster and some of the better MP3 web searches.
If the music industry were to make it extremely convenient to get songs from them, consumers would pay a small amount of change for each song in exchange for the time saved.
This is true, as far as it goes. They will NOT pay for something that's easy to get and pay for, if they cannot make copies for themselves and have it stop working. They will NOT pay for a music format they cannot give to a friend (regardless of the legality of this act). They will NOT pay for something that will only play on the one player they download it to and then not play on another player because the key is wrong. They don't care about keys and legality. They just want to listen to some tunes.
If the music industry had a site where I could go and legally download MP3's, for a small fee, and not have to search, and be legal in doing it, and not have to worry about encryption problems, or compatibility, and where I could take the file they gave me and decrypt it to make it into other formats, then I'd be the first to sign up.
But they'll never do that. They're not that smart.
Instead, they'll destroy themselves in the process of trying to convince people that it's better to license music instead of buying it.
They know that SDMI is a giant pain in the ass. This way they can let the CONSUMER kill portable digital music devices -- people will buy SDMI devices, they'll suck rocks, and people will naturally return them in droves.
Net result: hardware companies get royally screwed, and they all vow to never produce another portable MP3 player. And it's all because the "consumer doesn't like hardware players" . . . . </I>
The problem is that the consumer DOES want hardware digital audio players. They'll just go buy a NON-SDMI player. Simple.
They'll buy something that will play their existing MP3 collection, rather than having to use some new format they don't have already... ---
Well, the BTA I signed (The second one they sent me) only has restrictions regarding "Confidential information". It goes on to say that it is not confidential if a) it's WINE b) you had it before c) it will be disclosed after the beta test regardless of what you do.
Tat's simplifying the legal-ese, but seems to cover it. Anyway, a screen shot I can't see as being confidential under any circumstances. Since it gives you no info about the software. And they are going to sell this stuff anyway, right? Screen shots are fair game, IMHO. If they disagree, they'll say so.
With any luck, this version will have some noticable improvements... Bearing in mind of course that this version was undoubtedly used to help port Corel Office 2000 to Linux...
Doubt no more. I can confirm this. I just got my Corel Office Linux beta 1 CD. It says in the docs that WINE is in fact used to run the system. I haven't had time to install it yet, but I'll get it up and running to kick out a few screen shots.
Bloody hell. That's what I get for not previewing.
Here's the unmangled post:
This one really took me by surprise as a web developer.
Not much of a web developer are you?:-)
Just Kidding. Still, anyone who codes for the web should always remove ALL HTML tags, except for a predefined set, if deemed needed. That should be standard "web developer" knowledge.
Just like on SlashDot here. See that line down below the submit button? It reads: "Allowed HTML [B> [I> [P> [A> [LI> [OL> [UL> [EM> [BR> [TT> [STRONG> [BLOCKQUOTE> [DIV.*> [DIV> [P.*>"
All these tags are relatively safe tags. You can't post images, you can't post scripts, objects, embeds, forms, or other bad stuff.
Now, you CAN make a link that runs a script when clicked on, within that set of tags, so it's not totally secure.. [a href='javascript:code here'] and so on.
This one really took me by surprise as a web developer.
Not much of a web developer are you?:-)
Just Kidding. Still, anyone who codes for the web should always remove ALL HTML tags, except for a predefined set, if deemed needed. That should be standard "web developer" knowledge.
Just like on SlashDot here. See that line down below the submit button? It reads: "Allowed HTML
"
All these tags are relatively safe tags. You can't post images, you can't post scripts, objects, embeds, forms, or other bad stuff.
Now, you CAN make a link that runs a script when clicked on, within that set of tags, so it's not totally secure.. [a href='javascript:code here'] and so on.
I didn't see the phrase that annoyed you, but I'll give my take on it.
Grow up.
In a political discussion it is perfectly acceptable to say, "America screwed up royally" when referring to the American government screwing up royally. It is equally acceptable to say "China has no clue about what the Internet really is," when you're referring to China's stupid attempt to regulate online speech.
Now if he said "Chinese suck", then I'd agree with you. But to say "China sucks" is quite acceptable. You cannot be racist about a LAND, you can be racist about a PEOPLE.
Seems to me that the government is taking a risky position here.. I mean, basically, they're saying, "We'll give this stuff back, but only if you tell us what it is."
They can't force him to give up the key. The Fifth Amendment would protect him there. I'm not sure I see how they can legally refuse to return the files.
What if it wasn't encryption that this was over? What if it was just some file in a special format that didn't make any sense to the prosecuters? Could they then say, "We'll give you your file if you tell us what it means?" That's essentially the arguement the government is making.
In any key difference of opinion like this, always remove the controversial bit and see if the argument still holds water. This one doesn't.
However, we DO NOT need virus checkers to protect our systems or our own data from viruses or Trojan horse applications. You only need those things when you run closed-source binary applications. Nobody in their right mind would use closed source when they can get the source code and check it themselves before they compile it. If I can't get the source, then I don't use it.
I admit this is the best way to ensure a lack of viruses.
But, clueful people are not the only ones running Linux anymore. Linux has hit mainstream. Look at all the media, press, etc..
Do you seriously think everyone is going to never run closed source binaries? Hah!
YES, it's a good idea to promote OSS as being free of viruses, and YES, it's a good idea to promote Linux as being virus-free when used with OSS software. BUT, your standard PHB is not going to give up his non-OSS software functionality if there's no OSS project that is as good as or better than the non-OSS. Your average Joe Sixpack could care less about the merits of the way a piece of software is created, as long as the software: a) works, b) does what he needs it to do, c) is cheap and available.
With all that in mind, realize that Linux is not always going to have mostly OSS software being used on it. For these programs, for these people, an antivirus tool is needed.
I also take issue with folks who think GNU/Linux will have arrived when there is all this shrink-wrapped software available for it. That is not what I want, nor what most of you are going to want if you stop and think about it. Shrink-wrapped software means locking people out of their own systems. It means becoming more like the enemy. If you become the enemy, even in order to defeat them, you haven't won, just replaced the enemy with yourself. The whole fixation with trying to turn GNU/Linux into the next Windows with shrink-wrapped software and comparable software will destroy the community in the long run. I see us heading in that direction and I don't like it. For the good of the community, the fixation with Micro$oft has got to stop, and this desire have all the same tools as them has to end.
Stop thinking of non-OSS software as "the enemy" and you'll see something new. The majority of the world does not care about "the community". The majority of the world does not have the same ideals. Reality is not black-or-white, nor even grayscale. Reality is multi-colored. Anyone can play. Anyone can enter. The community isn't building non-OSS projects, the non-community is.
If you want to promote OSS, promote it on its merits above non-OSS. Show them how OSS ensures security through massive world-wide (free) support. Show them how OSS is virtually immune to, say, a virus or a trojan thru thousands of eyes scrutinzing the code. Show them how the OSS process produces superior software thru massive parallelism of coders. Show them how a virus enclosed in one piece of non-OSS code can infect an entire system of virtually bug-free open source, mostly free, software. Convince them that non-OSS, binary only, packages are bad in the long run. All that's fine and dandy.
But don't say that a worthy project like an anti-virus software is a bad thing simply because it's not needed at this precise moment.
I believe it takes 7 years to replace every molecule in the human body. But I have no proof of that at the moment.
Okay, let's say it's seven years then. It really doesn't matter.
After 7 years, none of you is the same. Yet you maintain continuity; continuity of memory, of being, of self... But, you can say that "you" are still "you" because the molecules that make you up now are in more or less the same pattern as the older molecules.
So, would it be fair to say that that physical entity is not you, but the pattern that makes that physical entity is "you" instead?
If it is fair to say that the pattern is really "you", then would you still be you if that pattern only existed in a computer system? I stipulate the pattern must change in order for you to be aware of it. That's what "time" is, after all. It has to be "emulated" oor running somehow. No use keeping you in just dead storage. (joke)
Slashdot Mirror
>That was the only reference I noticed, though, since I'm an anti-fan of Tarantino.
Oh come on.. You had to notice the fact that Tulip's wallet said "Not a very nice person at all." on it.. Either that or you haven't seen Pulp Fiction, which is possible I suppose..
---
Well, short of automatically recognizing the attack and blocking it off upstream, you probably don't have a defense. The real problem with the DOS attack is that your pipe becomes saturated and/or your servers become flooded. Either one can be fixed by cutting the data off upstream, with a good powerful filter system.
Short of that, I don't know any other way to stop it.
---
Also check out:0 .jpg 1 .jpg 2 .jpg 3 .jpg 1 .jpg 4 .jpg
:-)
http://members.xoom.com/linuxdaddies/nyc/nyc-01
http://members.xoom.com/linuxdaddies/nyc/nyc-01
http://members.xoom.com/linuxdaddies/nyc/nyc-01
http://members.xoom.com/linuxdaddies/nyc/nyc-01
http://members.xoom.com/linuxdaddies/nyc/nyc-04
http://members.xoom.com/linuxdaddies/nyc/nyc-08
If these images are any kind of order of these guys day, they just couldn't help but come back to that BSD booth...
---
But that would be incorrect HTML syntax. alt is a required attribute for images. It's there because of concerns about universal access. I know it sounds silly but it really makes sense. Some images can be (at least partially) described (such as using images to provide neat text, you can put the text into the alt tag). Others can't be easily described and should be indicated as such by using alt="".
Just because it's a required attribute doesn't mean it must be there. I know that sounds stupid, but bear with me.
If you are writing your document to be HTML compliant, yes, it must be there. Unfortunately, the web is NOT HTML compliant, and never really has been. Web-HTML is based on (what else) market share. Just like it always has been. The "center" tag wasn't HTML back when everyone used it. That nasty "blink" tag wasn't HTML when it first came into being. Netscape added these to their browser, and since everyone used that browser, they could more or less control the market.
Now: the ALT tag is not required because the two browsers with major market share don't require it. I don't say that it's correct that this state of affairs should be. I wish the whole world stuck to standards. But they don't, and never will.
In programming, you must also handle the common case. One common case is leaving out that annoying "alt" attribute. I don't like it, but you deal with reality. If the blind guy's web browser doesn't like when you don't include an "alt" attribute, the browser is broken.
Now, if you are making your web pages accessible or HTML compliant, the "alt" attribute IS a requirement. I don't deny that. But the browser should be able to deal with it's nonexistance too.
---
re: 2
:-)
Allow me to correct you: YOU can't code effectively when YOU'RE high. I've never had a problem. Remember, different people, different effects, espescially with weed.
Well, I admit that that is a personal thing. I become stupid and useless on weed. If you're a heavy smoker (like my old roommates) then the line blurs and you can't tell whether the guy is high or not. I never really wanted to become that guy, you know? So I smoked occasionally, rather than daily (hourly sometimes.. those wackos)...
I personally think that's the best way to enjoy yourself with drug use. Keep it on the occasional level, and maybe go on a bender every year or so, for variety.
#3: the first time I dropped it was at a party.. I got extremely bored with the party, went upstairs, and sat down and played Super Mario World on the Super Nintendo until I beat the game. Something like 6 hours.. I couldn't stop playing, man.. It was really pretty cool. Anyway, I always think clearly on Big A, except when I try to shift focus, at which point the world falls apart for an entertaining few minutes.. Once the focus comes back, I'm cool and happy again. Anyway, it worked for me.
---
Well, according to the bobby page at http://www.cast.org/bobby/html/gls/g9.html
Personally, I think this Bobby guy is an idiot.
---
Well, I've done a lots of types of drugs in my time, both while programming and not. Here's my thoughts on combining the two:
:-)
1. Alcohol - I used to be a damn good coder while drunk. Haven't tried it in a while, but back in college, I could get really ripped at a party, have a great time, come back to my room, and code up a wonderful program. Then I would forget doing it, so I'd be all surprised the next day when I'd load up my program to find it was done. I recall that for one class, we had to make up a simple language and code an interpreter for it. I wrote a program in Pascal (because I had the compiler available) to interpret this stupid little language. The program ended up being 10,000+ lines because I got trashed and kept adding to the language. Instead of the 8 types of statements, it ended up being almost as completely functional as old C64Basic, with around 100 commands or so. And most of it was written after drinking 4 Zimas and a bottle of Skyy Vodka.
2. Weed - You can't code effectively when you're high. You end up giggling a lot and writing statements like "A=++B<C?D:E;"... Not good when you later try to understand what the hell you were doing...
3. LSD - Good old vitamin A. If you can get into coding while on acid, you will code like a madman. I'd get so focused while on acid that I found it impossible to stop whatever I happened to be doing until the effect wore off. Usually this took around 10 hours. Hell, I couldn't even turn my head. Hella neck pain the next day.
4. Hard stuff - Forget it. If you are a true geek, you won't even bother. It's hard enough to think, much less code while you're that screwed up.
Anyway, I gave up all that.. Too much pain afterwards, and it's hard enough to cope with the reality of stupid people.
I do agree though that it's hard to communicate after really getting into coding. I find, frequently, that while I'm coding, I block off the outside world to a large degree. People have remarked to me that they were trying to ask me questions, and I never even noticed their presence. It's like that sometimes.
---
Do what loads of people do. Find the PC you wants at the store, then mail order the sucker. Shipping is cheaper than tax, a lot of times..
---
I took this poll. I posted about it on /. at the time, but noone believed me, and claimed I was spreading FUD.. That's okay, I probably would have said the same thing.
Anyway, someone called me at my house and asked these exact questions (plus a lot more). But what strikes me as odd is that these results claim to have been taken on January 20-23, 2000. When someone running a survey asking me these exact same questions, it was well before that. Still in 1999, as a matter of fact.
So, I'm forced to wonder. Did they just do enough surveys until they got the results they wanted? I'm not entirely sure the same people called me as conducted this survey, but the questions are _exactly_ the same.
---
Can't blame them for chasing profit.
Sure you can! Making your customers into your enemy is not sound business practice.
Plus, there's only two sides to the coin. Trying to keep the public from copying music won't work, period. The public will do it anyway. You can't stop something from happening when everyone does it. No, the law won't stop it, nor will technology.
So they've got two alternatives. Embrace it, or die. That's it. Simple.
On a side note, why the hell isn't the "Extrans (html tags to text)" working anymore?
---
The requirement of immediate and irreparable injury is satisfied in this case. Copyright infringement is presumed to give rise to such harm. In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that defendants have infringed their copyrights, but rather that defendants offer technology that circumvents their copyright protection system and thus facilitates infringement. For purposes of the irreparable injury inquiry, this is a distinction
without a difference. If plaintiffs are correct on the merits, they face substantially the same immediate and irreparable injury from defendants' posting of DeCSS as they would if defendants were infringing directly. Moreover, just as in the case of direct copyright infringement, the extent of the harm plaintiffs will suffer as a result of defendants' alleged activities cannot readily be measured, suggesting that the injury
truly would be irreparable. </I>
Just because I own a gun, does this mean I shot someone?
Come on, judge...
Of course, this changes nothing. You can't turn back the clock, you can't rebuild the dam once it crumbles. People still offer the files up, and that's all there is to it.
Now, I want to see someone build a Linux DVD player, and let the MPAA try to nail them over THAT. Admittedly, the injunction states in one of the footnotes that it wouldn't matter, but still, I'd like to see them try. So where the fully functional Linux DVD player? Use the DeCSS code, it won't matter.
---
He contends that searching for illegal takes time and it's difficult to find the exact song you're looking for.
:-) Finding a song you want is extremely easy and relatively painless, with programs like Napster and some of the better MP3 web searches.
Well, he's wrong then.
If the music industry were to make it extremely convenient to get songs from them, consumers would pay a small amount of change for each song in exchange for the time saved.
This is true, as far as it goes. They will NOT pay for something that's easy to get and pay for, if they cannot make copies for themselves and have it stop working. They will NOT pay for a music format they cannot give to a friend (regardless of the legality of this act). They will NOT pay for something that will only play on the one player they download it to and then not play on another player because the key is wrong. They don't care about keys and legality. They just want to listen to some tunes.
If the music industry had a site where I could go and legally download MP3's, for a small fee, and not have to search, and be legal in doing it, and not have to worry about encryption problems, or compatibility, and where I could take the file they gave me and decrypt it to make it into other formats, then I'd be the first to sign up.
But they'll never do that. They're not that smart.
Instead, they'll destroy themselves in the process of trying to convince people that it's better to license music instead of buying it.
What morons.
---
They know that SDMI is a giant pain in the ass. This way they can let the CONSUMER kill portable digital music devices -- people will buy SDMI devices, they'll suck rocks, and people will naturally return them in droves.
Net result: hardware companies get royally screwed, and they all vow to never produce another portable MP3 player. And it's all because the "consumer doesn't like hardware players" . . . . </I>
The problem is that the consumer DOES want hardware digital audio players. They'll just go buy a NON-SDMI player. Simple.
They'll buy something that will play their existing MP3 collection, rather than having to use some new format they don't have already...
---
- Anticipated Technical Functionality of Phase 2 Screening of Digital Audio Content
- SDMI Portable Device Specification - Part 1, Version 1.0 (PDWG99070802)
- Amendment 1 to the SDMI Portable Device Specification - Part 1, Ver 1 (PDWG99092302)
- Guide to SDMI Portable Device Specification - Part 1, Version 1.0
- Int erim Phase 1 SDMI Trademark License and Compliance Agreement
Sorry. I didn't notice they they weren't all fully qualified. Like I said, I just snagged em from sdmi.org...---
Well, the BTA I signed (The second one they sent me) only has restrictions regarding "Confidential information". It goes on to say that it is not confidential if a) it's WINE b) you had it before c) it will be disclosed after the beta test regardless of what you do.
Tat's simplifying the legal-ese, but seems to cover it. Anyway, a screen shot I can't see as being confidential under any circumstances. Since it gives you no info about the software. And they are going to sell this stuff anyway, right? Screen shots are fair game, IMHO. If they disagree, they'll say so.
---
- Anticipated Technical Functionality of Phase 2 Screening of Digital Audio Content
- SDMI Portable Device Specification - Part 1, Version 1.0 (PDWG99070802)
- Amendment 1 to the SDMI Portable Device Specification - Part 1, Ver 1 (PDWG99092302)
- Guide to SDMI Portable Device Specification - Part 1, Version 1.0
- Interim Phase 1 SDMI Trademark License and Compliance Agreement
Snagged these directly from www.sdmi.org...PDF format, sorry.
---
With any luck, this version will have some noticable improvements... Bearing in mind of course that this version was undoubtedly used to help port Corel Office 2000 to Linux...
Doubt no more. I can confirm this. I just got my Corel Office Linux beta 1 CD. It says in the docs that WINE is in fact used to run the system. I haven't had time to install it yet, but I'll get it up and running to kick out a few screen shots.
---
Bloody hell. That's what I get for not previewing.
:-)
.*> [DIV> [P .*>"
Here's the unmangled post:
This one really took me by surprise as a web developer.
Not much of a web developer are you?
Just Kidding. Still, anyone who codes for the web should always remove ALL HTML tags, except for a predefined set, if deemed needed. That should be standard "web developer" knowledge.
Just like on SlashDot here. See that line down below the submit button? It reads: "Allowed HTML [B> [I> [P> [A> [LI> [OL> [UL> [EM> [BR> [TT> [STRONG> [BLOCKQUOTE> [DIV
All these tags are relatively safe tags. You can't post images, you can't post scripts, objects, embeds, forms, or other bad stuff.
Now, you CAN make a link that runs a script when clicked on, within that set of tags, so it's not totally secure.. [a href='javascript:code here'] and so on.
---
Not much of a web developer are you?
Just Kidding. Still, anyone who codes for the web should always remove ALL HTML tags, except for a predefined set, if deemed needed. That should be standard "web developer" knowledge.
Just like on SlashDot here. See that line down below the submit button? It reads: "Allowed HTML
"
All these tags are relatively safe tags. You can't post images, you can't post scripts, objects, embeds, forms, or other bad stuff.
Now, you CAN make a link that runs a script when clicked on, within that set of tags, so it's not totally secure.. [a href='javascript:code here'] and so on.
---
5/infinity != 0.
the limit of 5/x as X approaches infinity is zero.
You cannot divide a number by a concept. You'll see it done, but this is just shorthand for other ideas. It's not what is actually happening.
And, zero is a number, by definition.
---
I didn't see the phrase that annoyed you, but I'll give my take on it.
Grow up.
In a political discussion it is perfectly acceptable to say, "America screwed up royally" when referring to the American government screwing up royally. It is equally acceptable to say "China has no clue about what the Internet really is," when you're referring to China's stupid attempt to regulate online speech.
Now if he said "Chinese suck", then I'd agree with you. But to say "China sucks" is quite acceptable. You cannot be racist about a LAND, you can be racist about a PEOPLE.
---
Seems to me that the government is taking a risky position here.. I mean, basically, they're saying, "We'll give this stuff back, but only if you tell us what it is."
They can't force him to give up the key. The Fifth Amendment would protect him there. I'm not sure I see how they can legally refuse to return the files.
What if it wasn't encryption that this was over? What if it was just some file in a special format that didn't make any sense to the prosecuters? Could they then say, "We'll give you your file if you tell us what it means?" That's essentially the arguement the government is making.
In any key difference of opinion like this, always remove the controversial bit and see if the argument still holds water. This one doesn't.
---
Someone else posted this a while back, but here's what I did.. very simple.
/etc/hosts (or in windows, find the "hosts" file under your windows directory):
Add this to
127.0.0.1 www.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.preferences.com
127.0.0.1 ad.washingtonpost.com
127.0.0.1 adbot.theonion.com
127.0.0.1 adpick.switchboard.com
127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ads.i33.com
127.0.0.1 ads.infospace.com
127.0.0.1 ads.msn.com
127.0.0.1 ads.switchboard.com
127.0.0.1 ads.washingtonpost.com
That removes quite a lot of ads, and all of doubleclick.
---
However, we DO NOT need virus checkers to protect our systems or our own data from viruses or Trojan horse applications. You only need those things when you run closed-source binary applications. Nobody in their right mind would use closed source when they can get the source code and check it themselves before they compile it. If I can't get the source, then I don't use it.
I admit this is the best way to ensure a lack of viruses.
But, clueful people are not the only ones running Linux anymore. Linux has hit mainstream. Look at all the media, press, etc..
Do you seriously think everyone is going to never run closed source binaries? Hah!
YES, it's a good idea to promote OSS as being free of viruses, and YES, it's a good idea to promote Linux as being virus-free when used with OSS software. BUT, your standard PHB is not going to give up his non-OSS software functionality if there's no OSS project that is as good as or better than the non-OSS. Your average Joe Sixpack could care less about the merits of the way a piece of software is created, as long as the software: a) works, b) does what he needs it to do, c) is cheap and available.
With all that in mind, realize that Linux is not always going to have mostly OSS software being used on it. For these programs, for these people, an antivirus tool is needed.
I also take issue with folks who think GNU/Linux will have arrived when there is all this shrink-wrapped software available for it. That is not what I want, nor what most of you are going to want if you stop and think about it. Shrink-wrapped software means locking people out of their own systems. It means becoming more like the enemy. If you become the enemy, even in order to defeat them, you haven't won, just replaced the enemy with yourself. The whole fixation with trying to turn GNU/Linux into the next Windows with shrink-wrapped software and comparable software will destroy the community in the long run. I see us heading in that direction and I don't like it. For the good of the community, the fixation with Micro$oft has got to stop, and this desire have all the same tools as them has to end.
Stop thinking of non-OSS software as "the enemy" and you'll see something new. The majority of the world does not care about "the community". The majority of the world does not have the same ideals. Reality is not black-or-white, nor even grayscale. Reality is multi-colored. Anyone can play. Anyone can enter. The community isn't building non-OSS projects, the non-community is.
If you want to promote OSS, promote it on its merits above non-OSS. Show them how OSS ensures security through massive world-wide (free) support. Show them how OSS is virtually immune to, say, a virus or a trojan thru thousands of eyes scrutinzing the code. Show them how the OSS process produces superior software thru massive parallelism of coders. Show them how a virus enclosed in one piece of non-OSS code can infect an entire system of virtually bug-free open source, mostly free, software. Convince them that non-OSS, binary only, packages are bad in the long run. All that's fine and dandy.
But don't say that a worthy project like an anti-virus software is a bad thing simply because it's not needed at this precise moment.
---
I believe it takes 7 years to replace every molecule in the human body. But I have no proof of that at the moment.
Okay, let's say it's seven years then. It really doesn't matter.
After 7 years, none of you is the same. Yet you maintain continuity; continuity of memory, of being, of self... But, you can say that "you" are still "you" because the molecules that make you up now are in more or less the same pattern as the older molecules.
So, would it be fair to say that that physical entity is not you, but the pattern that makes that physical entity is "you" instead?
If it is fair to say that the pattern is really "you", then would you still be you if that pattern only existed in a computer system? I stipulate the pattern must change in order for you to be aware of it. That's what "time" is, after all. It has to be "emulated" oor running somehow. No use keeping you in just dead storage. (joke)
---