First of all, I can't believe they're bringing this like it's something new. Hasn't this been always known, what with hotmail exploits on bugtraq every week?
Secondly, why apache? Do they distribute scripts like messageboards or other vunerable stuuf?
Sorry, right now you cannot enter the contest. The International Obfuscated C Code Contest is closed.
Even though you missed last year's contest, please consider entering the next contest! While you should want for the new rules before sending in an entry, you can get an idea of what to expect by reading the old rules and the old guidelines.
UCITA has another indirect consequence that would hamstring free software development in the long term -- it gives proprietary software developers the power to prohibit reverse engineering. Again, this is already the case. You can't use it if you don't have a license, and all they have to do now to keep you from reverse engineering is bury in the license "PURCHASER agrees not to reverse engineer the PRODUCT." By doing that it becomes a promissory consideration of the license, a breach of which destroys the license's consideration, making it revocable at will. Again, this is all common law. Don't need a statute for that. All a law that says the same thing will do is change the language used in the lawsuit. The only attack to a no-reverse-engineering provision in a current license agreement is unconscionability -- and if you win that you have to surrender your license and the fruits of your reverse engineering.
How about just starting by disassembling the installer, jumping over the eula and using it then?
Actually, assembler is less portable and universally understandable, as you well know. Being different is nice, but I prefer to do it in a way that doesn't lock out others.
You do have a few valid points, however I think if you translate now, lots of kids will grow up with localised software, and will not learn enough english to be comfortable with it. And, in the long run, will not be able to communicate with a large part of the internet. If we don't translate, half a generation is lost, true. But after that, english will be standard. Maybe this will happen with localised versions available, but maybe not. I don't think this is robbing people of their culture, or anything in that direction. First of all, nobody is preventing them from say making their own or whatever, if they must. Culture isn't bad in itself, but you shouldn't let a too strong urge for tradition stand in the way of progress.
While I agree with the 'this is the way the world is won' comment, I'm actually not to wild about internationalisation. I think internationalisation is going to put up barriers in the long run, not break them down. If everybody gets used to 'computers speak english', everybody can communicate. So untill a real technological babelfish is made (no, altavista's babelfish doesn't count), people who don't speak english will be cut off large parts of the net. English is any easy language to learn, (It isn't my first language, and yes, it might show, but I'm reasonably understandable), compared to all other 'major' languages. So I say, everybody learn english. Don't waste time internationalising.
Ditto if you mount proc in/dev. But most people don't. Just like most people don't use devfs (yet). Not that I'm saying devfs is bad or anything, I want to keep as far away from that holy war as Ican.
It *could* put the prefs in ~/windows98, but it doesn't. Because it would be illogical. And since most of the rest of AS is logical, I'd assume this part is too.
Property is part of *this kind* of life. (Not that I'm completely opposed to it). But there are lots o' ways of living without property, If we could all just get along. Ah. Oops.:-)
My gripe with commance is that it totally ***** up my apache config file log section. So I still had to learn the format. Which enabled me to do a lot, quite possible more that possible with comanche. (Mind you, this was many moons ago, the bug may be fixed by now).
Yes, reentrant would be nice. But all tsr's would have to be modified to make use of it, and as for multitasking, it still has a lot of other problems (Also known as enourmous unpassable barriers). I think the develop a 'real' os out of dos would be folly, as it's just the wrong basis. Better start from scratch.
Invalid argument. Just because it's impossible to survive in this world without property, doesn't mean that to believe property is wrong means you should die. (BTW, how do you know he doesn't *like* theft?:) ).
Slashdot Mirror
They're people. Gosh, I though they where companys. You learn someting every day.
First of all, I can't believe they're bringing this like it's something new. Hasn't this been always known, what with hotmail exploits on bugtraq every week?
Secondly, why apache? Do they distribute scripts like messageboards or other vunerable stuuf?
Slashdotted already... Get yours while they're hot at google
Hmmm, slightly outdated:
How can I enter the contest?
Sorry, right now you cannot enter the contest. The International Obfuscated C Code Contest is closed.
Even though you missed last year's contest, please consider entering the next contest! While you should want for the new rules before sending in an entry, you
can get an idea of what to expect by reading the old rules and the old guidelines.
Funny, but uh-uh.... 3 person teams max....
One is a mathematical concept that represents 'one-ness', does that mean it's not odd?
UCITA has another indirect consequence that would hamstring free software development in the long
term -- it gives proprietary software developers the power to prohibit reverse engineering. Again, this is
already the case. You can't use it if you don't have a license, and all they have to do now to keep you from
reverse engineering is bury in the license "PURCHASER agrees not to reverse engineer the PRODUCT."
By doing that it becomes a promissory consideration of the license, a breach of which destroys the
license's consideration, making it revocable at will. Again, this is all common law. Don't need a statute for
that. All a law that says the same thing will do is change the language used in the lawsuit. The only attack
to a no-reverse-engineering provision in a current license agreement is unconscionability -- and if you
win that you have to surrender your license and the fruits of your reverse engineering.
How about just starting by disassembling the installer, jumping over the eula and using it then?
Though I've never run motif on my own comp, so I can't really judge, motif felt a lot faster to me than gtk and qt.
In norway you can get a lawyer payed by the state. And iirc, the eff has also offered to pay.
Actually, assembler is less portable and universally understandable, as you well know. Being different is nice, but I prefer to do it in a way that doesn't lock out others.
You do have a few valid points, however I think if you translate now, lots of kids will grow up with localised software, and will not learn enough english to be comfortable with it. And, in the long run, will not be able to communicate with a large part of the internet. If we don't translate, half a generation is lost, true. But after that, english will be standard. Maybe this will happen with localised versions available, but maybe not. I don't think this is robbing people of their culture, or anything in that direction. First of all, nobody is preventing them from say making their own or whatever, if they must. Culture isn't bad in itself, but you shouldn't let a too strong urge for tradition stand in the way of progress.
That's nothing. I've had win95 running on a 386-33, with 4mb ram. Not a nice sight.
While I agree with the 'this is the way the world is won' comment, I'm actually not to wild about internationalisation. I think internationalisation is going to put up barriers in the long run, not break them down. If everybody gets used to 'computers speak english', everybody can communicate. So untill a real technological babelfish is made (no, altavista's babelfish doesn't count), people who don't speak english will be cut off large parts of the net. English is any easy language to learn, (It isn't my first language, and yes, it might show, but I'm reasonably understandable), compared to all other 'major' languages. So I say, everybody learn english. Don't waste time internationalising.
> Don't underestimate the individual: it's all you are.
Yes, but I I have just one of em, organisations have lots!
anonimizer and rewebber.de don't need to be the proxy, they do url rewriting.
Ditto if you mount proc in /dev. But most people don't. Just like most people don't use devfs (yet).
Not that I'm saying devfs is bad or anything, I want to keep as far away from that holy war as Ican.
It *could* put the prefs in ~/windows98, but it doesn't. Because it would be illogical. And since most of the rest of AS is logical, I'd assume this part is too.
I think afterstep uses it. It puts it's preferences in ~/GNUstep, so...
BTW, if you don't use afterstep: It's real nice, try it!
How would you know that? Is the pre-nup public?
uptime.o creates /dev/uptime? Either you mean /proc/uptime, "uses /dev/uptime", or you're a pretty warped programmer.
/dev/kmem.
/Me sighs.... So much for the days of poking in
Property is part of *this kind* of life. (Not that I'm completely opposed to it). But there are lots o' ways of living without property, If we could all just get along. Ah. Oops. :-)
Not only that (I have to cats, not for consumption), but I doubt the meat of cats would be white when cooked. All other white meat is from birds....
My gripe with commance is that it totally ***** up my apache config file log section. So I still had to learn the format. Which enabled me to do a lot, quite possible more that possible with comanche. (Mind you, this was many moons ago, the bug may be fixed by now).
Yes, reentrant would be nice. But all tsr's would have to be modified to make use of it, and as for multitasking, it still has a lot of other problems (Also known as enourmous unpassable barriers). I think the develop a 'real' os out of dos would be folly, as it's just the wrong basis. Better start from scratch.
Invalid argument. Just because it's impossible to survive in this world without property, doesn't mean that to believe property is wrong means you should die. (BTW, how do you know he doesn't *like* theft? :) ).