Something of note that I came across, reguarding File security on NT and later. Often times, programs are designed badly, designed to write to places other than they should. I've experienced this as a lab administrator trying to get a 'secured' system image to which the basics of 'file system security' were applied. From my perspective, it was tedious, trying to lock down into a tight state, then releasing certain areas to programs that absolutely must write to them, either by creating new files, writing/modifying existing ones, or deleting them. It took quite a long time to sort through that mess, and only the determination of a fellow sys admin did it even get workable. At last guess, I think he started, and worked a week or so on it (perhaps longer) testing, trying, and watching the various programs.
It is a nice idea, and should've been implimented better. As it stands, NT File security is rather pointless.
The major problem with websites and companies relying on advertising is the notion that if you blast the consumer population with a message loud enough and long enough, you will make a sale. For TV's, it's trivial to ignore. Mute, get up and go away, or watch. It's up to you. All it wastes is your time if you're not interested (and usually, most people aren't).
Ads on the Internet waste a lot more than just time. They waste bandwidth (for those that get charged per byte/kbyte/etc), they waste time, and they waste space (low res displays). They're still generally as pointless as before, but now, it costs the user more to ignore the message, and you aren't afforded the same luxury as a mute button or 'switching the channel' during commercials. I can honestly say I don't think I've ever come across a single banner ad that I've ever felt compeled enough to click on. Is that me stealing money from the hosting site's pocket, or is that me excersizing my choice as a consumer and stating 'I don't want/need that product'? Just because an ad is present does not mean I have to look at it, or participate in the fun.
What this ultimately might mean is that yes, there are fewer free sites on the internet, fewer sites that permit you to view content without a subscription. This is bad? I have actually paid a subscription to someone's website for a year, and purchased a CD that site produced. That right there outdoes 99% of the banner ads I've ever seen. You want to advertise to me, fine. Understand that there are times when I don't want to be bothered, and politely leave me alone (That scores points). Understand that there are times which I'm looking for something new to do, something new to spend money on. Advertise content that makes relevent sense to me, instead of advertising some garbage I wouldn't line my bird's cage with.
Oddly enough, the notion that comes to mind is a widely known location to advertise, catagorized, sorted, so that people looking for something can go there and find it. Easy, simple, and it doesn't bother other people that really couldn't care less about the products. As for some sites that depend on 'ad clicking' for their revenue... they need to learn a better way to make money.
Most people do not hand code HTML documents anymore. Most people use a WYSIWYG program for it, such as Frontpage or the like. I personally learned to hand code my HTML documents because there were no good accessable WYSIWYG programs that I could get, and the ones I could sucked.
Besides, as someone else said, it's not lack of HTML skills professors lament. It's other things that have no basis in the computers on which they learn. In all honesty, teaching could be done WITHOUT computers entirely. It has been before, and worked.
Windows me believe it or not did have some changes in the background, as far as device drivers, software included, and features.
Oh, my roommate and I found out first hand about these background changes, especially the device drivers. None of the Windows 98 drivers would work with Windows ME, and for the longest time, there were no acceptable Windows ME drivers for the hardware he had. This Oh so wonderfull Multimedia experience has been relegated to the garbage now, with Windows 98 SE taking it's place. All that Windows ME was was a testing ground for them to use to try and get things right for Windows XP. WinME should NOT have even been released. It's like.. out in left field. Windows 98SE was supposed to be the last of the differentiated line for home users, and Win2k was supposed to be the combination thereof. Instead, Win2k releases, then WinME releases. Still wondering what happened there.
It offered dialup sharing, media recording/playback, better image editor, better styles.
Dialup sharing is within Win98SE. Media recording/playback and image editor, you're better off buying a more functional piece of software like Musicmatch or Adobe. As for better styles, big wow. I wouldn't claim that as a reason to upgrade to a system that came out with holes the size of MAC trucks.
There's one problem to this, about reselling a sale, and Everquest is a good example of it. Buy the original program, buy the expansions. You cannot resell the expansions (with license) if you so wanted because once it becomes active upon your account (you used the included license upon your account), Verant (The company controlling Everquest + servers) would have had to write in a way to 'unhitch' that license from your account so you could resell it. They didn't. Once that license key is used, it's used and henseforth tied to the account it's on.
One could still sell the account as a whole (including any/all expansions active on it), theoretically. I don't understand why some companies feel compelled to piss off customers like this, stating what you can and can't do with their software, as if they had some sort of far reaching grasp over their product once sold. No furnature company says what you can and can't do with their goods. No home builder says what you can and can't do in their house. Why is it primarily software companies that have this attitude?
Stable, til Everquest's parent company makes a patch, or changes an item to devalue it. It takes a while for the price of new items to stabilize, but yes, it does stabilize quite well. Sometimes, too, the price drops as the market gets saturated with that item.
I'm not necessarily sure how 'small' a percentage there is that gets recycled, beyond the fact that merchants, once sold things, only keep a small collection for resale. I myself have done quite a bit of this 'recycling' from merchants because people sell things of value to me (and my class, mostly) and didn't want to be bothered with finding someone like myself that wanted the items. While it's not necessarily viable to buy ALL things you own from Merchants in Everquest, it is a requirement at some point for everyone to do so.
As for being good at Everquest, that depends on what qualifies. Good could be sitting and camping a specific creature for the rare drops he has. That's a good way to make money. There's also going out and killing profitable creatures, which generally randomly have good or bad ammounts of cash on them. Considering the number of people that do this, it's hard to fit into the groove and get enough for yourself to make it worthwhile. I have a level 51st character, and I have yet to have over 1000 platinum pieces (whereas some things on the game sell for over 10k plat).
There are always uses for the cash you have to get you in a better place. The only reason people tend to get 'rich' is sort of like in real life. Getting Rich tends to be fighting some named creature, getting lucky enough to get a very rare item off him, and then being lucky enough within your group to be awarded that item. Of course, too, you have to find a buyer that's willing to pay the going price for that item, not always an easy thing when the item is valued at over 10k. Anything actually WANTED (since I have a sword valued at 11k that's rare to get rid of) tends to go for much more, or is very rare to find
I'm not entirely sure how this post rated an 'insightfull' other than the name chosen, but I do happen to use this language, and it is actually rather usefull. It's more usefull on windows machines than linux ones, however, as Linux has quite a number of scripting languages available to it already.
As for the name, it's proper name is "C-Styled Scripting" language. Now, if you can figure out some other short name than CSS from this name, I welcome the attempt. As it is, it's full name states very clearly what it is and uses a similarity to show what sort of familiarity people might have with it.
I doubt very seriously that their intent was to usurp the shortname for 'Cascading Style Sheets', but let's think about this for a second. The term 'CSS' also refers to Content Scrambling System. Is this not a conflict with Cascading style sheets, since that concept was around before DVDs (or I think it was, at least). Now, not including the programming language, there are 2 uses of the acronym 'CSS'. Why not pick on the MPAA for use of their TLA.:P Heck, why can't people call things by their proper names, anyways? Would make discussions like this quite a bit more pointless (not that it needed any more help being that).
If you don't like the name CSS for C styled scripting language, don't use it. Apply that TLA to whatever you want, but don't think that there can be only one use of the term CSS. That's like suggesting every word in the english language should have one and only one definition.:P
While I may be confused (true or not) about a great many things about RFC's, the GPL, copywrite licences and all that, one statement you made kind of made it clear to me what the major problem is.
How many times does it have to be repeated: "The original Kerberos spec had an empty, unused field." MS didn't add an extra field, or change the used fields, they simply used a field marked (By the Athena/Kerberos team) "reserved for future use."
The core of my disgruntlement at Microsoft over this is simply (as highlighted above) this spec was created and designed by someone else. Microsoft took the spec, used a field 'reserved for future use', and changed it without asking, telling, or otherwise disclosing to the original authors what changes were made.
I don't want to drag this debate out any longer, so I'll leave things at that.
They could also settle out of court, though I'm not sure whether they have to disclose what the settlement is (Ie: Settled for an undisclosed ammount (actual settlement value, 1/100th of a cent)). Whether or not a verdict has been reached just means what place you have the defendant in. There's always the option to 'opt out' and walk away from the case. Now, would it be wise for the current administration to do so? Probably not, but when has that ever stopped a politician?
Ok, so point in fact, the BSD license did exactally what it was intended to do. It permitted Microsoft to make the changes and they are Perfectly Legal in doing so. They have, at least so far as I see it, tainted the Kerberos spec so that their implimentation works, to it's fullest degree, only between Windows Workstation/Server machines. The fact they closed it off from everyone else means that now, if the OSS community wants to have full interoperability with a Windows server with Kerberos, they must reverse engineer their own spec (the portions that Microsoft modified). Seems a little goofey to me.
As for the notion of items #4 and #5 being possible if the reference spec was published under the GPL, it's sort of like saying I can write something based on an RFC protocol, modified to work only between my own software, and call it by the name the RFC calls it. "Compliant with RFC #, almost". Yes, if they didn't use the reference code, then they probably could've done the same thing. However, the BSD license made it so much easier for Microsoft to do this, as they didn't even have to write the bulk of the code, just copy and paste.
The BSD license is great when you want something incorperated in everyone else's work. It also, however, permits very broad ranging modifications to be made that will potentially break any standardization (if that code impliments a protocol). The GPL (were the Kerberos code published under this, or even the spec (if one can publish a spec under the GPL)) would have at least required Microsoft to publish the changes they made to the specification if they wanted to use it at all. That is, if they intended to use and redistribute that code and/or spec.
License at fault or not, the BSD license certainly didn't help preserve the open specification of the Kerberos code. Whether it hurt it or not really depends on whether or not a specification (not just code) can be published under the GPL.
So is it ok if I take Apache's source code, modify it so that it no longer says Apache (perhaps insert IIS), and then resell that product as something I created? No, I haven't read Apache's license, but I certainly doubt they are willing to go 'Hey, sure, take our code, slap your name on it, and give no respect to the proper creators'. Besides, there's a difference between taking, modifying, and using internally (even the GPL tends to permit this) and taking, modifying, and selling again as your own product.
If they put a field that was not currently in use to some sort of use, then they did in fact have to modify the code or modify the spec, one of the two. One of the other little things, too, is that dispite this being originally an Open Source project (Kerberos Spec/Code), Microsoft altered it to work better with their products, and (last I checked) were going to charge people or simply not give out their modifications for interoperability. So, main problem: Microsoft took an open specification, altered it to suit their whims, and will now make money on it (or simply stated, Microsoft gets something for no real effort of their own). Frankly, I could care less if they DO want to change the spec a little, but it was open before, but it annoys me that they don't seem willing to give anything back that anyone else can use.
The part that they don't like, I'm guessing, is that they can't do with.. say, Apache's code (And yes, I know Apache isn't GPL) and do with it what they did with the Kerberos code (BSD License, as I recall). That is, they can't take the implimentation of it, or code thereof, use it in their own products (Windows 2000 Server), and have the freedom to manipulate it (Re: Utilizing a previously empty portion of the challenge string for Windows specific code) without being forced legally to release that change back to the public. That's what they're whining about. They keep getting bit, hard, on IIS and other products, and they can't take (at least, what I consider most of the time) better software that's GPL'd (or similarly licensed) and basically theft it or portions thereof for their own commercial gain.
Pardon while I weep a little for Microsoft's shortcommings. *sigh* You want to do something usefull, Microsoft? Try actually making good, quality products, or contributing to Open standards (not Windows-specific), and stop whining about how you can't buy, intimidate, or otherwise crush your competition in the Open Source Software branch of the world. Sheesh.
You do realize that most cars are governed (at 110mph or so), and that it is not because they want to keep you from going excessive speeds, but because they want to keep you from sueing them when you do 150 or so, and blow your tires out (which, factory direct to you, were rated for 115 or 120mph only). There's a lot more involved in deciding whether or not your car is capable of surviving high speeds than whether or not the engine has enough 'umph' to get you there. Tires, differential, suspension, AND (suprise suprise) your brakes all figure in to what maximum speed the car is Safe to drive at.
See, I own a '95 Ford Mustang, 6cyl, 3.8liter engine, and it's governed at 110mph. It has a little more energy to make it faster, but the stock tires that came on the car (long gone, actually) were likely not capable of doing that for long, safely. A friend of mine owns a Camaro Z28. His car (if governed at all) has managed to do 140-150+, but his car also has Z rated tires (rated to like 165-175mph or so). Mine has S rated tires, if I recall correctly.
Keep in mind, automanufacturers Cannot put governers on the cars for the Government because laws vary, from state to state and over time. It would cost them too much in both popular opinion and effort to try to enforce speed limits by crippling your car mechanically/electronically. The only thing they care about in terms of governing your car's speed is so that you are alive to buy another car from them, and that you are not able to sue them because they put something out capable of doing something unsafe. (Read: The common joe moron would sue, like joe smoker sues the tobacco companies).
That's kind of the thing, though, and a difference you should be aware of. No Application should need to run in kernel mode (see note below for special system apps). A Driver might, but a driver is a special beast, and not an application.
I agree with the the statement that a Real operating system should be able to tell any Application to take a hike when it's done something bad, and do so without side effects. Protecting against Drivers is another issue, as once that driver is loaded into the kernel, in that situation, the kernel becomes the Application in question (kind of a bizare way to think of it, but hopefully you can see the point).
Remember the difference between Applications, Drivers, and the Kernel. Applications (except rare ones like system manipulation programs) do not need access direct to the kernel, and should not cause any OS instability. Drivers (that are loaded into the kernel itself) need to be checked severely for stability.
As for comparing PC's to Mainframes (or an AS/400), I don't think price matters, only the way applications are written, and treated by the OS kernel. Mainframes may be rock solid and not as feature rich, but then again, the mentality of stability should be the same across all hardware, irreguardless of it's features.
Please get the GPL licensing straight. You are only required to release the source code to modifications of a GPL'd project IF you redistribute those changes. Last I heard, if you didn't give the program out to anyone, you didn't have to post the changes anywhere, though I wager you also can't just use it to make money, either, unless their variant of the GPL permits it. Dunno on that one.
Point is, just because you tweak a GPL'd project does not immediately mean you are under threat of lawsuit to publish that code somewhere to give it back to the public. Redistribution means you have to provide the source to the people that downloaded/purchased the product. It's also dependant on the terms the original author put out what they permit and don't permit. As always, individual products using the GPL may vary their terms. Duh.
Is that like how badly corperations are getting shafted by Sun's prices? Is that a suggestion that all Mac users should move to cheaper (both in quality and in price, overall) PC hardware? You spend money according to your needs and your desires. Some people actually like Macs. Amazing. Some people like Sun hardware. Suprising? Overall, Sun and Apple hardware are much more stable than what can be seen in PC hardware. They keep their standards high, so their price stays high. PC makers can throw any old crap board out to the market. Ever suffered incompatabilities between motherboards and additional cards? Ya. Suprising, huh?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. It's $260/mo for a 1.0mbps Business class SDSL line, including a block of 32 IPs, and we're permitted to run any service we like on our line (most non-business grade lines don't permit this). Yes, the service guarontees are good (read above). If the service is down (or unusable) for more than 24 hours, we get a credit on our account for that time lost. The line has never been down more than 24 hours save 1 or 2 times in almost 3 years. The times the line WAS down was not the line itself, but rather the ISP (one we're no longer with) lost their main feed to the internet. At worst, it's been flakey (packet loss) for 12 hours or so, and even then, I can count the number of times that's happened in those 3 years on 1 hand. The only time we were down for an extended period was when Northpoint died and wouldn't relinquish their customers til they shut down their network. (Thanks Northpoint)
Typically, our line is constantly on, rock solid stable, and over all, I'm extremly pleased with it. I'm also pleased with the responsiveness of the ISP. When they call me after I register a ticket, just to see how things are going, I consider that good, and well worth the cost.
I have not fully read the GPL license, but I do have a good idea what is involved. I've also recently come across a revised variant of the GPL for libraries called the LGPL (Library General Public License, oddly enough). As the GPL states that any derived works (use in another program, use of portions of that source code, alterations in the program, etc) must also fall under the GPL license. Were this included in say.. libc, all works thereof that ever used libc must be GPL. The LGPL is kind of nice in that it's license, it basically applies itself to the library only, and not any programs you might include that library in. So, basically, any modifications, changes, improvements to the LIBRARY are required to be released and made available. The program you write Using that library is up to you to license, GPL, LGPL (if you wanted to, I suppose), or Closed source. Personally, for libraries, I'd like to see the LGPL used more than the GPL. In a way, the GPL is bad for business and for standards adoption (code written with GPL license). The LGPL protects the code it's applied to while leaving certain forms of 'derived works' up to the programmer to decide.
DeCSS (If you haven't ever used the program, which apparently you haven't) is not about Playing the DVD. It's about decrypting the disk so OTHER programs can gain access to the data. Using DeCSS, one can look at the contents of the disk, and copy them to your harddrive (As for the Windows variant, the one I saw, does not have a utility, or didn't, for funneling data through to a player). The data comes in the form of 2 sets of data. 1 are video files, VOB format If I recall right. These files (several for one movie) are broken up on a 1.0gig (approx) barrier, so will be between 3-5 files per movie. THESE FILES ARE VIDEO ONLY. There is no audio data encoded in these VOB files. For that, you must reference another set of files (or one, I never bothered to look). You must then 'sync' the video and audio data together in a player. DeCSS does not do this. The player does. DeCSS just exposes the data for you to view.
While I don't agree with the MPAA's stance in the matter, don't spout misinformed information. Know what you're talking about, please. Thanks.
To note, I've had a DSL line for some time, and beyond Northpoint's screwup and abuse of their customers, a few glitches in transition (the installer picked at the wire, causing a hard short on the line), and the occasional massive routing issue (Exodus.Net's routers crash and loop on each other), my DSL line is rock solid stable. It is a business grade line, meaning that if it's out for 24 hours, we are not charged for it. We can call in tech support any time of day to get someone to start and/or handle our problem. When we were transitioned, and were weeding out our lingering packet loss issue, I had the DSL ISP call/me/ to check up and see how the line was, and to inform me of the status of our line as they knew it. Took only a few days to finally get a phone tech out to repair the line after diagnosing the line.
By the by, I also get to listen to my Roommate's pager go off routinely, once if not more times in one night. Reason: Frame relay circuits bouncing up and down.
Before you slam a technology, remember that a technology is only as good as the company that impliments it. DSL is wonderfull and cheap ($260/mo for 1.0mbps DSL line. Price per bit is much better than $1000+/mo for 1.5mbps T1) when implimented properly.
Check out "What is Aimster?" from their website. Seems on first glance that it's an extension of the Instant Messanger (probably AOL instant messanger, hense 'AIM'ster) to permit incomming (you search others) transfers from other Aimster clients, Gnutella, Netmeeting, and outbound (others from you) only to the people on your buddy list. By this token, it is a highly selective propogation tool, and unlike Napster, the whole world cannot get it directly from you. It would have to navigate from buddy to buddy... to get widespread (which, depending on the people involved, might not be very far). Hope that helps.
Question: Does 'personal use' as defined by rental videos/games mean only you (yourself) the renting party may use/view/play that item, or can I have friends over to watch it with me? What about listening to a CD I bought, can I have friends over for that? What if I loan my CD to a friend of mine, is that legal? It is after all mine, and intended for 'my' personal use. What if I had previously made a backup copy (I use Minidiscs for my backups, personally), can I listen to my Minidisc while a friend listens to my CD? They're both mine, do I have to say "I'm sorry, Bob, but I can't let you listen to my CD when I'm not around. It's illegal."?
Seems kind of silly, but isn't that a similar situation with sharing MP3 files with a few of your friends? I mean, they're my friends, I know them, I'd let them borrow my CD. I can't let them listen the song to them in a more convenient format? Odd.
I suppose that's reaching a little, but it does blur the line, don't you think? How far can we claim 'personal use'? No one seems to want to answer that definitively from the RIAA side (beyond it's illegal).
Slashdot Mirror
Simple answer, one uses what tools come with/match the system.
Something of note that I came across, reguarding File security on NT and later. Often times, programs are designed badly, designed to write to places other than they should. I've experienced this as a lab administrator trying to get a 'secured' system image to which the basics of 'file system security' were applied. From my perspective, it was tedious, trying to lock down into a tight state, then releasing certain areas to programs that absolutely must write to them, either by creating new files, writing/modifying existing ones, or deleting them. It took quite a long time to sort through that mess, and only the determination of a fellow sys admin did it even get workable. At last guess, I think he started, and worked a week or so on it (perhaps longer) testing, trying, and watching the various programs.
It is a nice idea, and should've been implimented better. As it stands, NT File security is rather pointless.
The major problem with websites and companies relying on advertising is the notion that if you blast the consumer population with a message loud enough and long enough, you will make a sale. For TV's, it's trivial to ignore. Mute, get up and go away, or watch. It's up to you. All it wastes is your time if you're not interested (and usually, most people aren't).
Ads on the Internet waste a lot more than just time. They waste bandwidth (for those that get charged per byte/kbyte/etc), they waste time, and they waste space (low res displays). They're still generally as pointless as before, but now, it costs the user more to ignore the message, and you aren't afforded the same luxury as a mute button or 'switching the channel' during commercials. I can honestly say I don't think I've ever come across a single banner ad that I've ever felt compeled enough to click on. Is that me stealing money from the hosting site's pocket, or is that me excersizing my choice as a consumer and stating 'I don't want/need that product'? Just because an ad is present does not mean I have to look at it, or participate in the fun.
What this ultimately might mean is that yes, there are fewer free sites on the internet, fewer sites that permit you to view content without a subscription. This is bad? I have actually paid a subscription to someone's website for a year, and purchased a CD that site produced. That right there outdoes 99% of the banner ads I've ever seen. You want to advertise to me, fine. Understand that there are times when I don't want to be bothered, and politely leave me alone (That scores points). Understand that there are times which I'm looking for something new to do, something new to spend money on. Advertise content that makes relevent sense to me, instead of advertising some garbage I wouldn't line my bird's cage with.
Oddly enough, the notion that comes to mind is a widely known location to advertise, catagorized, sorted, so that people looking for something can go there and find it. Easy, simple, and it doesn't bother other people that really couldn't care less about the products. As for some sites that depend on 'ad clicking' for their revenue... they need to learn a better way to make money.
Most people do not hand code HTML documents anymore. Most people use a WYSIWYG program for it, such as Frontpage or the like. I personally learned to hand code my HTML documents because there were no good accessable WYSIWYG programs that I could get, and the ones I could sucked.
Besides, as someone else said, it's not lack of HTML skills professors lament. It's other things that have no basis in the computers on which they learn. In all honesty, teaching could be done WITHOUT computers entirely. It has been before, and worked.
Oh, my roommate and I found out first hand about these background changes, especially the device drivers. None of the Windows 98 drivers would work with Windows ME, and for the longest time, there were no acceptable Windows ME drivers for the hardware he had. This Oh so wonderfull Multimedia experience has been relegated to the garbage now, with Windows 98 SE taking it's place. All that Windows ME was was a testing ground for them to use to try and get things right for Windows XP. WinME should NOT have even been released. It's like.. out in left field. Windows 98SE was supposed to be the last of the differentiated line for home users, and Win2k was supposed to be the combination thereof. Instead, Win2k releases, then WinME releases. Still wondering what happened there.
It offered dialup sharing, media recording/playback, better image editor, better styles.
Dialup sharing is within Win98SE. Media recording/playback and image editor, you're better off buying a more functional piece of software like Musicmatch or Adobe. As for better styles, big wow. I wouldn't claim that as a reason to upgrade to a system that came out with holes the size of MAC trucks.
There's one problem to this, about reselling a sale, and Everquest is a good example of it. Buy the original program, buy the expansions. You cannot resell the expansions (with license) if you so wanted because once it becomes active upon your account (you used the included license upon your account), Verant (The company controlling Everquest + servers) would have had to write in a way to 'unhitch' that license from your account so you could resell it. They didn't. Once that license key is used, it's used and henseforth tied to the account it's on.
One could still sell the account as a whole (including any/all expansions active on it), theoretically. I don't understand why some companies feel compelled to piss off customers like this, stating what you can and can't do with their software, as if they had some sort of far reaching grasp over their product once sold. No furnature company says what you can and can't do with their goods. No home builder says what you can and can't do in their house. Why is it primarily software companies that have this attitude?
Stable, til Everquest's parent company makes a patch, or changes an item to devalue it. It takes a while for the price of new items to stabilize, but yes, it does stabilize quite well. Sometimes, too, the price drops as the market gets saturated with that item.
I'm not necessarily sure how 'small' a percentage there is that gets recycled, beyond the fact that merchants, once sold things, only keep a small collection for resale. I myself have done quite a bit of this 'recycling' from merchants because people sell things of value to me (and my class, mostly) and didn't want to be bothered with finding someone like myself that wanted the items. While it's not necessarily viable to buy ALL things you own from Merchants in Everquest, it is a requirement at some point for everyone to do so.
As for being good at Everquest, that depends on what qualifies. Good could be sitting and camping a specific creature for the rare drops he has. That's a good way to make money. There's also going out and killing profitable creatures, which generally randomly have good or bad ammounts of cash on them. Considering the number of people that do this, it's hard to fit into the groove and get enough for yourself to make it worthwhile. I have a level 51st character, and I have yet to have over 1000 platinum pieces (whereas some things on the game sell for over 10k plat).
There are always uses for the cash you have to get you in a better place. The only reason people tend to get 'rich' is sort of like in real life. Getting Rich tends to be fighting some named creature, getting lucky enough to get a very rare item off him, and then being lucky enough within your group to be awarded that item. Of course, too, you have to find a buyer that's willing to pay the going price for that item, not always an easy thing when the item is valued at over 10k. Anything actually WANTED (since I have a sword valued at 11k that's rare to get rid of) tends to go for much more, or is very rare to find
As for the name, it's proper name is "C-Styled Scripting" language. Now, if you can figure out some other short name than CSS from this name, I welcome the attempt. As it is, it's full name states very clearly what it is and uses a similarity to show what sort of familiarity people might have with it.
I doubt very seriously that their intent was to usurp the shortname for 'Cascading Style Sheets', but let's think about this for a second. The term 'CSS' also refers to Content Scrambling System. Is this not a conflict with Cascading style sheets, since that concept was around before DVDs (or I think it was, at least). Now, not including the programming language, there are 2 uses of the acronym 'CSS'. Why not pick on the MPAA for use of their TLA. :P Heck, why can't people call things by their proper names, anyways? Would make discussions like this quite a bit more pointless (not that it needed any more help being that).
If you don't like the name CSS for C styled scripting language, don't use it. Apply that TLA to whatever you want, but don't think that there can be only one use of the term CSS. That's like suggesting every word in the english language should have one and only one definition. :P
Move on, would ya?
How many times does it have to be repeated: "The original Kerberos spec had an empty, unused field." MS didn't add an extra field, or change the used fields, they simply used a field marked (By the Athena/Kerberos team) "reserved for future use."
The core of my disgruntlement at Microsoft over this is simply (as highlighted above) this spec was created and designed by someone else. Microsoft took the spec, used a field 'reserved for future use', and changed it without asking, telling, or otherwise disclosing to the original authors what changes were made.
I don't want to drag this debate out any longer, so I'll leave things at that.
They could also settle out of court, though I'm not sure whether they have to disclose what the settlement is (Ie: Settled for an undisclosed ammount (actual settlement value, 1/100th of a cent)). Whether or not a verdict has been reached just means what place you have the defendant in. There's always the option to 'opt out' and walk away from the case. Now, would it be wise for the current administration to do so? Probably not, but when has that ever stopped a politician?
As for the notion of items #4 and #5 being possible if the reference spec was published under the GPL, it's sort of like saying I can write something based on an RFC protocol, modified to work only between my own software, and call it by the name the RFC calls it. "Compliant with RFC #, almost". Yes, if they didn't use the reference code, then they probably could've done the same thing. However, the BSD license made it so much easier for Microsoft to do this, as they didn't even have to write the bulk of the code, just copy and paste.
The BSD license is great when you want something incorperated in everyone else's work. It also, however, permits very broad ranging modifications to be made that will potentially break any standardization (if that code impliments a protocol). The GPL (were the Kerberos code published under this, or even the spec (if one can publish a spec under the GPL)) would have at least required Microsoft to publish the changes they made to the specification if they wanted to use it at all. That is, if they intended to use and redistribute that code and/or spec.
License at fault or not, the BSD license certainly didn't help preserve the open specification of the Kerberos code. Whether it hurt it or not really depends on whether or not a specification (not just code) can be published under the GPL.
So is it ok if I take Apache's source code, modify it so that it no longer says Apache (perhaps insert IIS), and then resell that product as something I created? No, I haven't read Apache's license, but I certainly doubt they are willing to go 'Hey, sure, take our code, slap your name on it, and give no respect to the proper creators'. Besides, there's a difference between taking, modifying, and using internally (even the GPL tends to permit this) and taking, modifying, and selling again as your own product.
If they put a field that was not currently in use to some sort of use, then they did in fact have to modify the code or modify the spec, one of the two. One of the other little things, too, is that dispite this being originally an Open Source project (Kerberos Spec/Code), Microsoft altered it to work better with their products, and (last I checked) were going to charge people or simply not give out their modifications for interoperability. So, main problem: Microsoft took an open specification, altered it to suit their whims, and will now make money on it (or simply stated, Microsoft gets something for no real effort of their own). Frankly, I could care less if they DO want to change the spec a little, but it was open before, but it annoys me that they don't seem willing to give anything back that anyone else can use.
Pardon while I weep a little for Microsoft's shortcommings. *sigh* You want to do something usefull, Microsoft? Try actually making good, quality products, or contributing to Open standards (not Windows-specific), and stop whining about how you can't buy, intimidate, or otherwise crush your competition in the Open Source Software branch of the world. Sheesh.
See, I own a '95 Ford Mustang, 6cyl, 3.8liter engine, and it's governed at 110mph. It has a little more energy to make it faster, but the stock tires that came on the car (long gone, actually) were likely not capable of doing that for long, safely. A friend of mine owns a Camaro Z28. His car (if governed at all) has managed to do 140-150+, but his car also has Z rated tires (rated to like 165-175mph or so). Mine has S rated tires, if I recall correctly.
Keep in mind, automanufacturers Cannot put governers on the cars for the Government because laws vary, from state to state and over time. It would cost them too much in both popular opinion and effort to try to enforce speed limits by crippling your car mechanically/electronically. The only thing they care about in terms of governing your car's speed is so that you are alive to buy another car from them, and that you are not able to sue them because they put something out capable of doing something unsafe. (Read: The common joe moron would sue, like joe smoker sues the tobacco companies).
I agree with the the statement that a Real operating system should be able to tell any Application to take a hike when it's done something bad, and do so without side effects. Protecting against Drivers is another issue, as once that driver is loaded into the kernel, in that situation, the kernel becomes the Application in question (kind of a bizare way to think of it, but hopefully you can see the point).
Remember the difference between Applications, Drivers, and the Kernel. Applications (except rare ones like system manipulation programs) do not need access direct to the kernel, and should not cause any OS instability. Drivers (that are loaded into the kernel itself) need to be checked severely for stability.
As for comparing PC's to Mainframes (or an AS/400), I don't think price matters, only the way applications are written, and treated by the OS kernel. Mainframes may be rock solid and not as feature rich, but then again, the mentality of stability should be the same across all hardware, irreguardless of it's features.
Point is, just because you tweak a GPL'd project does not immediately mean you are under threat of lawsuit to publish that code somewhere to give it back to the public. Redistribution means you have to provide the source to the people that downloaded/purchased the product. It's also dependant on the terms the original author put out what they permit and don't permit. As always, individual products using the GPL may vary their terms. Duh.
That's just my little nit to pick.
Is that like how badly corperations are getting shafted by Sun's prices? Is that a suggestion that all Mac users should move to cheaper (both in quality and in price, overall) PC hardware? You spend money according to your needs and your desires. Some people actually like Macs. Amazing. Some people like Sun hardware. Suprising? Overall, Sun and Apple hardware are much more stable than what can be seen in PC hardware. They keep their standards high, so their price stays high. PC makers can throw any old crap board out to the market. Ever suffered incompatabilities between motherboards and additional cards? Ya. Suprising, huh?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. It's $260/mo for a 1.0mbps Business class SDSL line, including a block of 32 IPs, and we're permitted to run any service we like on our line (most non-business grade lines don't permit this). Yes, the service guarontees are good (read above). If the service is down (or unusable) for more than 24 hours, we get a credit on our account for that time lost. The line has never been down more than 24 hours save 1 or 2 times in almost 3 years. The times the line WAS down was not the line itself, but rather the ISP (one we're no longer with) lost their main feed to the internet. At worst, it's been flakey (packet loss) for 12 hours or so, and even then, I can count the number of times that's happened in those 3 years on 1 hand. The only time we were down for an extended period was when Northpoint died and wouldn't relinquish their customers til they shut down their network. (Thanks Northpoint)
Typically, our line is constantly on, rock solid stable, and over all, I'm extremly pleased with it. I'm also pleased with the responsiveness of the ISP. When they call me after I register a ticket, just to see how things are going, I consider that good, and well worth the cost.
I have not fully read the GPL license, but I do have a good idea what is involved. I've also recently come across a revised variant of the GPL for libraries called the LGPL (Library General Public License, oddly enough). As the GPL states that any derived works (use in another program, use of portions of that source code, alterations in the program, etc) must also fall under the GPL license. Were this included in say.. libc, all works thereof that ever used libc must be GPL. The LGPL is kind of nice in that it's license, it basically applies itself to the library only, and not any programs you might include that library in. So, basically, any modifications, changes, improvements to the LIBRARY are required to be released and made available. The program you write Using that library is up to you to license, GPL, LGPL (if you wanted to, I suppose), or Closed source. Personally, for libraries, I'd like to see the LGPL used more than the GPL. In a way, the GPL is bad for business and for standards adoption (code written with GPL license). The LGPL protects the code it's applied to while leaving certain forms of 'derived works' up to the programmer to decide.
DeCSS (If you haven't ever used the program, which apparently you haven't) is not about Playing the DVD. It's about decrypting the disk so OTHER programs can gain access to the data. Using DeCSS, one can look at the contents of the disk, and copy them to your harddrive (As for the Windows variant, the one I saw, does not have a utility, or didn't, for funneling data through to a player). The data comes in the form of 2 sets of data. 1 are video files, VOB format If I recall right. These files (several for one movie) are broken up on a 1.0gig (approx) barrier, so will be between 3-5 files per movie. THESE FILES ARE VIDEO ONLY. There is no audio data encoded in these VOB files. For that, you must reference another set of files (or one, I never bothered to look). You must then 'sync' the video and audio data together in a player. DeCSS does not do this. The player does. DeCSS just exposes the data for you to view.
While I don't agree with the MPAA's stance in the matter, don't spout misinformed information. Know what you're talking about, please. Thanks.
To note, I've had a DSL line for some time, and beyond Northpoint's screwup and abuse of their customers, a few glitches in transition (the installer picked at the wire, causing a hard short on the line), and the occasional massive routing issue (Exodus.Net's routers crash and loop on each other), my DSL line is rock solid stable. It is a business grade line, meaning that if it's out for 24 hours, we are not charged for it. We can call in tech support any time of day to get someone to start and/or handle our problem. When we were transitioned, and were weeding out our lingering packet loss issue, I had the DSL ISP call /me/ to check up and see how the line was, and to inform me of the status of our line as they knew it. Took only a few days to finally get a phone tech out to repair the line after diagnosing the line.
By the by, I also get to listen to my Roommate's pager go off routinely, once if not more times in one night. Reason: Frame relay circuits bouncing up and down.
Before you slam a technology, remember that a technology is only as good as the company that impliments it. DSL is wonderfull and cheap ($260/mo for 1.0mbps DSL line. Price per bit is much better than $1000+/mo for 1.5mbps T1) when implimented properly.
Check out "What is Aimster?" from their website. Seems on first glance that it's an extension of the Instant Messanger (probably AOL instant messanger, hense 'AIM'ster) to permit incomming (you search others) transfers from other Aimster clients, Gnutella, Netmeeting, and outbound (others from you) only to the people on your buddy list. By this token, it is a highly selective propogation tool, and unlike Napster, the whole world cannot get it directly from you. It would have to navigate from buddy to buddy ... to get widespread (which, depending on the people involved, might not be very far). Hope that helps.
Seems kind of silly, but isn't that a similar situation with sharing MP3 files with a few of your friends? I mean, they're my friends, I know them, I'd let them borrow my CD. I can't let them listen the song to them in a more convenient format? Odd.
I suppose that's reaching a little, but it does blur the line, don't you think? How far can we claim 'personal use'? No one seems to want to answer that definitively from the RIAA side (beyond it's illegal).