Let me clarify: 3 or more columns without using a table. Tables are inappropriate for the display of non-tabular data for several reasons (maintainability, speed of loading being the primary ones).
Is the difficulty of producing a layout that consists of three or more columns of equal height justification for adding some new feature to the specification to make this easier?
That would be nice, but if the experience of Adbusters is anything to go by, you won't be able to buy the spot. Why? Because TV/cable channels are worried about alienating their major customers (that's not you and me, that's the big corporations that are pushing for DRM and their affiliates and partners that buy the majority of advertising air time) and are anyway owned by some of the major forces pushing for DRM.
CACert.org also adds into the mix the fact that a large number of people will have verified the identity of the person using the certificate and assigned a "trust value" (based on looking at passport, government issued photo id etc). That's a lot more assurance than a simple self-signed certificate. It's the same model as the GPG "web of trust".
and you know what, they have all asked me to fill in my passport number (optional)
Bzzz yourself. What are you, a child? Your personal experience conflicts with mine where I have NEVER been asked for my passport number and I have NEVER been told that the airline is under an obligation to as a matter of routine share my confidential information with any government. I also note your "(optional)" there. It's now non optional. At this stage it's painfully obvious that you have an obsessive-compulsive desire to deny that large-scale monitoring and collection of personal data instituted by the USA is a threat to everyone. Yes, BA is culpable of an egregious leak of this info, but the ultimate cause is the dumb legislation passed in the USA.
B.t.w more fool you if you've been handing out your passport # to travel agents for decades.
...in this manner... through their website That's not what I'm arguing and it's not what you're denying either. What I'm arguing is that airlines had no interest in collecting and storing this information before the US government said that they wouldn't allow passengers to fly to the US unless the airlines collected it and passed it on to them. That's a US created situation. This particular fuck-up in implementation is just one way in which the system can go wrong. I'm sure there's plenty others. After all we've seen massive losses of information from credit card companies who have more of an incentive than the government to keep the data secret. You're just ranting and raving at this stage.
This type of data loss, through either the specific faulty mechanism highlighted above, or some other yet-to-be-revealed shocker, is an inevitable consequence of the data collection.
You can keep screaming, but it's just noise and is ignoring reality. No governments or corporations should be collecting this type of data unless there's a pressing need for it and there isn't, because it's no effing use in finding terrorists
British Airways (and you can bet a lot of other companies besides them) wouldn't be given the opportunity to collect this information if it wasn't as a result of the US pressure to collect the information. Once you start collecting this stuff it's going to be stored all over the place and is going to be leaked. It's also of no use for it's proposed function: screening out terrorists (see the Carney algorithm paper for details).
The USA pushed for the collection of it, ergo it's the USA's fault. The rest of your long apologia is irrelevant and is merely an hysterical reaction against criticism of this action by the USA.
This leak is an inevitable consequence of the attempt to collect enough information to determine whether or not an individual is a terrorist. The original article points out that UK citizens can expect similar problems once the UK government introduces their proposed national ID cards.
Dude, you're flying off half-cocked in an expression of your own "religion". It would seem that one of the central tenets of that religion is that any criticism of policies which are implemented as a result of US pressure is wrong because the US can do no harm. You're right that this shouldn't be focused on the USA though, and I don't think it is, it's just your sensitivities that are playing you up. It's pretty clear that EU and other governments are going along with these cockamamie intrusions into our private data and are not standing up for their own citizens security, convenience and safety.
This article is only incidentally about the USA. If it wasn't the US it'd be some other powerful state in the hot seat. The USA gets criticised a lot because it's the most powerful state on earth and so it does a lot more stuff. In this case it was due to Clinton that the airlines were pushed to start collecting this information (which is of no possible use against real terrorists) for the US government. They asked for it, so they caused the problem.
Some of what the USA does is good and some of it is dumb, this article is about one of the dumb parts: insisting on airline companies collecting data for a near useless passenger screening program. Instead of protecting us from terrorists it exposes us to fraud. It's dumb bureaucrats trying to solve a problem and fucking it up and they know it and they've been told about it (read any of Bruce Schneier's commentary on this stuff for years or even slashdot FFS and it's obvious with only a tiny bit of research that this is a dumb thing to be doing).
British Airway's own disgusting part in this involved leaving their website vulnerable for months after they'd been alerted the vulnerability, but even if they'd closed it there'd probably be some other way of getting the information.
Storing information in a way that is usable to meet the requirements of widespread screening and not have that data vulnerable to being leaked is damn hard (if at all possible) and should only be done when there's an demonstrated benefit. In this case the costs outweigh the benefits.
usability comes about as a result of ideology. You'll have fun times if you want to use newer kernels while you wait for nVidia/ATI/Matrox to slowly roll out the matching kernel module; try to get support from your distro vendor if you've got some weird problem; or, finally, do some hacking to add a feature you want for yourself.
Good luck with those closed drivers, you'll need it.
Fair comment. The caveat about "where there's a viable alternative" is very true. That means evaluating exactly what one's 3D needs are and then seeing if there's a FOSS solution. If there isn't then welcome to a world of pain dealing with the drivers. I know, I've had to support desktops for chemical engineers that need the stuff.
Supporting broken proprietary drivers is a very technical issue. Choosing to spend developer cycles on other things than doing free work for companies that don't give a damn about linux is a healthy and sane reaction. It is entirely possible and easy (if you've got a clue) to run nVIDIA's or ATI's lame closed drivers with Fedora Core 5. Just don't expect to get the benefits of community help if you do it. Fedora Core tracks the upstream kernel aggressively and nVIDIA et al are not willing to allocate sufficient developer resources to keep churning out updated versions of their proprietary modules.
It's simple: if you want a supported system then use hardware that has FOSS drivers. If you want to play with closed drivers then go ahead and do it, but don't make the idiotic assumption that you're going to have anything other than grief.
Nvidia and ATI can't either. The drivers contain technology licensed from other companies (such as S3). And in many cases they'd be damn near useless without that technology.
The proprietary drivers for those cards sure do. However there are pretty decent drivers for older Radeon cards:
Open source 3D acceleration is available on all Radeons up to and including the 9250 (rv280). The 7800/rv200 and below are supported by the radeon DRI driver; the 8500 through 9250 are supported by the r200 DRI driver. Both r200 and radeon DRI drivers use the radeon DRM driver.
There's also an r300 driver project which has some success for some people with some hardware (Radeon 9800) some of the time and has been accepted into Mesa.
Don't forget that Intel's i830-i945 chipsets also have open source drivers with working GL.
What seems like a clueful reviewer struggled to get it to work with Nvidia graphics (you know, that obscure hardware maker that only a handful of Linux users need to worry about).
Certainly more clueful than you appear to be (if you're on the level). Nvidia is always going to be a pain in the ass for anyone that runs a FOSS OS. As it happened this particular glitch was due to a glitch with the default kernel and non-gpl drivers. Use closed hardware, then be prepared to do the work to support it, because Nvidia/ATI/whoever won't and the distro makers can't. This problem is a direct result of that relationship and the take home lesson is DON'T BUY HARDWARE THAT ONLY HAS PROPRIETARY DRIVERS (yes, there is an open "nv" driver which supports 2D but that isn't good enough for most people.)
Mp3 was excluded for one reason. Dogma. It has nothing to do with Fraunhofer being beligerent, because if it did, don't you think Ubuntu or others would have excluded mp3 support by now. No. It has to do with Red Hat, and now the Fedora Project, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, i.e. trying to get the world to move away from mp3, and towards FOSS alternatives.
I think if there's any "dogma" on display it's yours. Red Hat is a company incorporated in the USA and is legally liable for any infringement of Frauenhofer's patents. Ubuntu does not face that situation. Red Hat also owns significant assets unlike Ubuntu and is vulnerable on that score.
Bullplop indeed. You must be talking about unsupported ATI video cards because the ATI Radeon 7500 that I use is supported out of the box with RHEL3,4, CentOS3,4, FedoraCore 1,2,3,4,5. I'll bet the other pieces of hardware that you mention are reliant and closed, proprietary and therefore UNSUPPORTABLE drivers.
That says nothing about the original statement that you're replying to, but your own is wildly misleading, uninformed and foolish. Buy supported hardware with open drivers or shut up. (Unless you're complaining to the hardware manufacturers.)
Which basically means people will be able to get the eye candy slowly on computers and force nvidia/ati/intel to support the server with a driver.
Care to explain exactly how that works? I've never seen an example of a company being forced to do anything of the sort. Currently the Xgl approach only works with the proprietary, closed drivers from NVIDIA and ATI. Neither of those companies has allocated sufficient engineers to keep pace with kernel development and as a result any reliance on their drivers is insane. The AIXGL approach on the other hand works with the Free/Open drivers and so is maintainable by the community and much less likely to cause headaches.
That's why AIGLX is going to be adopted and Xgl will not unless they change things pretty quickly.
He makes the material available gratis on his website and if you buy direct from him you pay only $5 more than amazon and you get a CD of the PDFs and he'll autograph it on request.
Why not kick back a few bucks his way to reward him for his good work?
Samsung make a couple of decent, cheap 1Gb players that are USB2.0, flash, with FM tuners, with a good backlit screen e.g. this one and this one. They also support MP3 and WMA and a whole load of other codecs out of the box and have about 15 hours battery life on a single AAA.
actually sit down and look at the data, then take a look around the world where its been tried, then take a look back at history and see the ruins of civilizations that thought it was a grand way to go... A fair & reasoned arguement can be made upon the facts, historical record, and current trials in quite a few diverse cultures that it weakens the society invaded & often destroys it.
You haven't provided any data or any reasoned argument. Just a blanket assertion without proof. You racist cunt.
I'd rather see a law like the "truth in advertising" - if you're getting money for writing the blog/hosting an ad, you have to state on your web site where that comes from and how much.
Sounds clear, sensible and fair. You'll never have a career in politics!
Ndiswrapper is unfortunately a way to work around what is to all intents and purposes broken hardware. You were cheated when you bought that thing. It's always going to be an administration pain in the ass until the manufacturer co-operates with the developers by providing specs. I know you probably don't want to hear that having spent your money (and time) on whatever that card is, but my advice would be to sell it and get a fully supported one. (I actually had to do exactly the same thing).
W.r.t. NetworkManager in FedoraCore4 the developer (Christopher Aillon) says himself that the current incarnation sucks and he's released a new, better version that you might be interested in trying out. It's working like a champ for me, and I had resorted to doing all my wireless configuration on the commandline in FC4.
Hope you get your situation sorted out. I feel your pain, but if you spend another $40 on a card that's supported, use OpenVPN on the Linksys router (flash the router with OpenWRT, it's simple and gives you real encryption as opposed to the lame-ass WPA which is crackable), then you'll be in clover.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, that's what I meant.
Let me clarify: 3 or more columns without using a table. Tables are inappropriate for the display of non-tabular data for several reasons (maintainability, speed of loading being the primary ones).
Is the difficulty of producing a layout that consists of three or more columns of equal height justification for adding some new feature to the specification to make this easier?
That would be nice, but if the experience of Adbusters is anything to go by, you won't be able to buy the spot. Why? Because TV/cable channels are worried about alienating their major customers (that's not you and me, that's the big corporations that are pushing for DRM and their affiliates and partners that buy the majority of advertising air time) and are anyway owned by some of the major forces pushing for DRM.
CACert.org also adds into the mix the fact that a large number of people will have verified the identity of the person using the certificate and assigned a "trust value" (based on looking at passport, government issued photo id etc). That's a lot more assurance than a simple self-signed certificate. It's the same model as the GPG "web of trust".
Bzzz yourself. What are you, a child? Your personal experience conflicts with mine where I have NEVER been asked for my passport number and I have NEVER been told that the airline is under an obligation to as a matter of routine share my confidential information with any government. I also note your "(optional)" there. It's now non optional. At this stage it's painfully obvious that you have an obsessive-compulsive desire to deny that large-scale monitoring and collection of personal data instituted by the USA is a threat to everyone. Yes, BA is culpable of an egregious leak of this info, but the ultimate cause is the dumb legislation passed in the USA.
B.t.w more fool you if you've been handing out your passport # to travel agents for decades.
This type of data loss, through either the specific faulty mechanism highlighted above, or some other yet-to-be-revealed shocker, is an inevitable consequence of the data collection.
You can keep screaming, but it's just noise and is ignoring reality. No governments or corporations should be collecting this type of data unless there's a pressing need for it and there isn't, because it's no effing use in finding terrorists
British Airways (and you can bet a lot of other companies besides them) wouldn't be given the opportunity to collect this information if it wasn't as a result of the US pressure to collect the information. Once you start collecting this stuff it's going to be stored all over the place and is going to be leaked. It's also of no use for it's proposed function: screening out terrorists (see the Carney algorithm paper for details).
The USA pushed for the collection of it, ergo it's the USA's fault. The rest of your long apologia is irrelevant and is merely an hysterical reaction against criticism of this action by the USA.
This leak is an inevitable consequence of the attempt to collect enough information to determine whether or not an individual is a terrorist. The original article points out that UK citizens can expect similar problems once the UK government introduces their proposed national ID cards.
Dude, you're flying off half-cocked in an expression of your own "religion". It would seem that one of the central tenets of that religion is that any criticism of policies which are implemented as a result of US pressure is wrong because the US can do no harm. You're right that this shouldn't be focused on the USA though, and I don't think it is, it's just your sensitivities that are playing you up. It's pretty clear that EU and other governments are going along with these cockamamie intrusions into our private data and are not standing up for their own citizens security, convenience and safety.
This article is only incidentally about the USA. If it wasn't the US it'd be some other powerful state in the hot seat. The USA gets criticised a lot because it's the most powerful state on earth and so it does a lot more stuff. In this case it was due to Clinton that the airlines were pushed to start collecting this information (which is of no possible use against real terrorists) for the US government. They asked for it, so they caused the problem.
Some of what the USA does is good and some of it is dumb, this article is about one of the dumb parts: insisting on airline companies collecting data for a near useless passenger screening program. Instead of protecting us from terrorists it exposes us to fraud. It's dumb bureaucrats trying to solve a problem and fucking it up and they know it and they've been told about it (read any of Bruce Schneier's commentary on this stuff for years or even slashdot FFS and it's obvious with only a tiny bit of research that this is a dumb thing to be doing).
British Airway's own disgusting part in this involved leaving their website vulnerable for months after they'd been alerted the vulnerability, but even if they'd closed it there'd probably be some other way of getting the information.
Storing information in a way that is usable to meet the requirements of widespread screening and not have that data vulnerable to being leaked is damn hard (if at all possible) and should only be done when there's an demonstrated benefit. In this case the costs outweigh the benefits.
usability comes about as a result of ideology. You'll have fun times if you want to use newer kernels while you wait for nVidia/ATI/Matrox to slowly roll out the matching kernel module; try to get support from your distro vendor if you've got some weird problem; or, finally, do some hacking to add a feature you want for yourself. Good luck with those closed drivers, you'll need it.
Fair comment. The caveat about "where there's a viable alternative" is very true. That means evaluating exactly what one's 3D needs are and then seeing if there's a FOSS solution. If there isn't then welcome to a world of pain dealing with the drivers. I know, I've had to support desktops for chemical engineers that need the stuff.
Supporting broken proprietary drivers is a very technical issue. Choosing to spend developer cycles on other things than doing free work for companies that don't give a damn about linux is a healthy and sane reaction. It is entirely possible and easy (if you've got a clue) to run nVIDIA's or ATI's lame closed drivers with Fedora Core 5. Just don't expect to get the benefits of community help if you do it. Fedora Core tracks the upstream kernel aggressively and nVIDIA et al are not willing to allocate sufficient developer resources to keep churning out updated versions of their proprietary modules. It's simple: if you want a supported system then use hardware that has FOSS drivers. If you want to play with closed drivers then go ahead and do it, but don't make the idiotic assumption that you're going to have anything other than grief.
Bullplop indeed. You must be talking about unsupported ATI video cards because the ATI Radeon 7500 that I use is supported out of the box with RHEL3,4, CentOS3,4, FedoraCore 1,2,3,4,5. I'll bet the other pieces of hardware that you mention are reliant and closed, proprietary and therefore UNSUPPORTABLE drivers.
That says nothing about the original statement that you're replying to, but your own is wildly misleading, uninformed and foolish. Buy supported hardware with open drivers or shut up. (Unless you're complaining to the hardware manufacturers.)
Oh, and AIXGL also is working on Intel i830 - i945, ATI Radeon 7000 - 9250 (r100 - r200)
Care to explain exactly how that works? I've never seen an example of a company being forced to do anything of the sort. Currently the Xgl approach only works with the proprietary, closed drivers from NVIDIA and ATI. Neither of those companies has allocated sufficient engineers to keep pace with kernel development and as a result any reliance on their drivers is insane. The AIXGL approach on the other hand works with the Free/Open drivers and so is maintainable by the community and much less likely to cause headaches.
That's why AIGLX is going to be adopted and Xgl will not unless they change things pretty quickly.
He makes the material available gratis on his website and if you buy direct from him you pay only $5 more than amazon and you get a CD of the PDFs and he'll autograph it on request.
Why not kick back a few bucks his way to reward him for his good work?
Samsung make a couple of decent, cheap 1Gb players that are USB2.0, flash, with FM tuners, with a good backlit screen e.g. this one and this one. They also support MP3 and WMA and a whole load of other codecs out of the box and have about 15 hours battery life on a single AAA.
Is there anything about SELinux in this? Also does it deal with creating jails?
You haven't provided any data or any reasoned argument. Just a blanket assertion without proof. You racist cunt.
Ndiswrapper is unfortunately a way to work around what is to all intents and purposes broken hardware. You were cheated when you bought that thing. It's always going to be an administration pain in the ass until the manufacturer co-operates with the developers by providing specs. I know you probably don't want to hear that having spent your money (and time) on whatever that card is, but my advice would be to sell it and get a fully supported one. (I actually had to do exactly the same thing).
W.r.t. NetworkManager in FedoraCore4 the developer (Christopher Aillon) says himself that the current incarnation sucks and he's released a new, better version that you might be interested in trying out. It's working like a champ for me, and I had resorted to doing all my wireless configuration on the commandline in FC4.
Hope you get your situation sorted out. I feel your pain, but if you spend another $40 on a card that's supported, use OpenVPN on the Linksys router (flash the router with OpenWRT, it's simple and gives you real encryption as opposed to the lame-ass WPA which is crackable), then you'll be in clover.