Okay, so you check out your code, you make some changes... let's say the modification you want to make is going to take you a few weeks. You want some form of version control for your own work, right? But you can't have it without checking it all back in to your own local version control system.... cvs in this aspect is useless to you as you don't have commit.
Do CVS / Subversion allow you to give people commit access to branches, but not the trunk?
One could surmise that in open source, globally distributed kernel development, branching and merging are two of the most important features a source-control system can provide.
And regarding bitching.. ALL Developers bitch.. Linus just gets press, becuase, well, he's Linus.
What you just described is losely how modems actually do work. Anything over (I think, it's been like 12 years) 1200bps is using some kind of modulation and therefore using multiple tones.. effectively moving bits in parallel. This still doesn't change the nature of the device... to YOU it's still serial, bytes go in one end and come out the other. Of course rather than something produced by Mozart it sounds like a hellish screetching of a thousand banshees... but it's the same thing.
You would not be on the hook based on any card contract I've ever seen, in multiple countries.
The merchant would be on the hook; the onus is on them to prove the transaction was legitimate and authorized by the cardholder. If they cannot do that (like, show your signature, or stuff shipped to your home address, etc) then THEY eat the charges. The mearchants take the risk here, not you.
In fact, one of the benefits of using a charge/credit card is that you are protected from fraud... if using a credit card meant I was at risk of owing tens of thousands of dollars I never authorized, I wouldn't have one, and neither would most poeple.
Both licenses do one thing that has benefited us all hugely... they let people feel better about more or less giving away the code they write in one way or the other.
Both also have different aims... but the fact that there is a mountain of modern software being developed in both camps benefitting everyone should be enough to quell any argument that one is totally inferior and should go the way of the dodo.
It's interesting how humans argue the most about things that are almost the same. (there's a catch-phrase for this phenomenon that escapes me right now.. anyone know what it is?)
linux -vs- bsd gpl -vs- bsd catholic -vs- protestant sunni -vs- shiite united atheist league -vs- united atheist alliance
that kind of thing.
Both licenses do something closed licenses don't do.. they make code re-distributable, and the world is richer for it. can't we all just get along?
They're talking about CAM copies... and seriously, who cares? Of all forms of pirated video, the CAM is the lowest of the low, the worst possible quality. The only reason I'd ever watch a cam is of a movie I *really* want to see and is not going to be available at a local theater for months.. and even then, i'll still go watch it when it arrives, because cam copies just stink.
"It just works" as a general purpose home or business PC. Don't let issues with OS X server dissuade you.
Re:Implementations (lack of)
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
"There is not a good Lisp free implementation that runs on several platforms including Windows and that not makes all the code I write there GPL instead of the license I would like."
What do you mean by the second part of this; are you saying that because you used a GPL compiler, all your code is by default GPL? That's just not true.
Canadian tourists are not subject to US-VISIT because Canada is not a visa-waiver country. Canadians don't need a visa, however, the right of Canadians to enter the US comes from a completely different set of legislation as that for the rest of the world.
This depends on your search set size. You can't re-compute a face, but if you knew it was one of 10 people, you could certainly go from there.
If it's the last 4 digits of a credit card number, you know the color and font, and can therefore compute blurs for every single valid combination and see what matches.
I agree with you. In fact, I'm even for more gun control.
BUT
The US constitution doesn't make these distinctions. It says, clearly, that there can be NO law abriding your right to keep and bear arms. Not "No unreasonable law".. NO law. Any law affecting your right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.
This covers clever javascript methods of abusing the XMLHttpRequest function by effecitvely adding or overloading functions (yes, I know that's not REALLY what happens, but same result), however, it sounds like you still need to inject malicious code somehow in the first place, via XSS or stream injection or site hijacking to make this effective (and in any of those cases, you are already home free)
I don't fully understand the scope of the re-clonedreplacement XMLHttpRequest, if it is in scope for all subsequent calls to XMLHttpRequest even from parent windows or other non-child windows, then I can see this being very serious, but if not, it's just a clever way to take advantage of XSS.
I'll have to read this more when I'm awake tomorrow.
What makes you think they feel they have power over a US company?
THey have power over their own ISPs and infrastructure, and can block what they want within their own legal framework, no "authority" over US companies required.
I won't mention how hypocritical your post sounds given the propensity of the US government to do *exactly* this.
If I put up a website tomorrow and say "Hey, everyone, give me your software for FREE so I can sell it for 100% profit for myself, as much as I want for the next week", and you all AGREE to it, saying "yeah, sounds like a good idea"
The advantages are clear, however, it's not a technical skill; being able to tap out and listen to morse at 20wpm does not tell you how to prevent interference or build an antenna properly.
It's like computer programmers being required to type at least 100wpm and read code scrolling by at 10 lines per second. It's a useful skill, but has nothing to do with the ability to write proper software.
Now we're into semantics... stateless and connectionless are the same thing.
The nat or filter tables use the concept of a connection to allow/deny udp packets, but that is only a convention; UDP in and of itself is completely connectionless and stateless. There is absolutley nothing saying that 2 packets with the same source & destination ports are part of the same conversation at all.
It's not even an attack anyway... if you allow outgoing connections, why do you care if the person is connecting to someone else in the world who is firewalled -vs- someone who is out in the open, or whether htey are using UDP or TCP? (let's leave network performance & abusive UDP out of it...)
If my users are allowed to make outgoing UDP connections (which was my choice) then why do I care if they are making that connection to another firewalled person somewhere lese in the world -vs- a computer out in the open?
This is not hole punching, and not a security risk.
It is a way to get two computers that are already allowed to talk to whoever they want on the internet to talk to each other despite both having firewalls that don't allow incoming connections. It does not cause violation of firewall policy or break firewall rules in any way, it just gets over an unfortunate incompatability in this world of NAT.
The issue only arises because both parties are firewalled.
The short version: Using a 3rd server that both parties can connect to cleanly, the behavior of UDP is analyzed to see if source ports are static or predictable. If they are, it's trivial to have both hosts send packets to each other causing both firewalls to permit reply traffic, at which point direct communication between hosts over udp is possible.
This is easily overcome by randomizing source UDP ports at the nat layer.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so you check out your code, you make some changes... let's say the modification you want to make is going to take you a few weeks. You want some form of version control for your own work, right? But you can't have it without checking it all back in to your own local version control system.... cvs in this aspect is useless to you as you don't have commit.
Do CVS / Subversion allow you to give people commit access to branches, but not the trunk?
One could surmise that in open source, globally distributed kernel development, branching and merging are two of the most important features a source-control system can provide.
And regarding bitching.. ALL Developers bitch.. Linus just gets press, becuase, well, he's Linus.
What you just described is losely how modems actually do work. Anything over (I think, it's been like 12 years) 1200bps is using some kind of modulation and therefore using multiple tones.. effectively moving bits in parallel. This still doesn't change the nature of the device... to YOU it's still serial, bytes go in one end and come out the other. Of course rather than something produced by Mozart it sounds like a hellish screetching of a thousand banshees... but it's the same thing.
You would not be on the hook based on any card contract I've ever seen, in multiple countries.
The merchant would be on the hook; the onus is on them to prove the transaction was legitimate and authorized by the cardholder. If they cannot do that (like, show your signature, or stuff shipped to your home address, etc) then THEY eat the charges. The mearchants take the risk here, not you.
In fact, one of the benefits of using a charge/credit card is that you are protected from fraud... if using a credit card meant I was at risk of owing tens of thousands of dollars I never authorized, I wouldn't have one, and neither would most poeple.
Both licenses do one thing that has benefited us all hugely... they let people feel better about more or less giving away the code they write in one way or the other.
Both also have different aims... but the fact that there is a mountain of modern software being developed in both camps benefitting everyone should be enough to quell any argument that one is totally inferior and should go the way of the dodo.
It's interesting how humans argue the most about things that are almost the same. (there's a catch-phrase for this phenomenon that escapes me right now.. anyone know what it is?)
linux -vs- bsd
gpl -vs- bsd
catholic -vs- protestant
sunni -vs- shiite
united atheist league -vs- united atheist alliance
that kind of thing.
Both licenses do something closed licenses don't do.. they make code re-distributable, and the world is richer for it. can't we all just get along?
Why should it have a free version? RedHat decided NOT to do this anymore; they are protecting their trademark.
Because of the GPL (and what they provide to the community goes well beyond what the GPL requires), CentOS is made possible.
The effect you are describing (people thinking RedHat is somehow differnet than fedora) is *exactly* what RedHat Inc. wants.
... Says the guy who's NOT working from a tropical country sipping rum from a coconut watching beautiful dark skinned women run around in the sun...
just sayin'
How far?
They're talking about CAM copies... and seriously, who cares? Of all forms of pirated video, the CAM is the lowest of the low, the worst possible quality. The only reason I'd ever watch a cam is of a movie I *really* want to see and is not going to be available at a local theater for months.. and even then, i'll still go watch it when it arrives, because cam copies just stink.
"It just works" as a general purpose home or business PC. Don't let issues with OS X server dissuade you.
"There is not a good Lisp free implementation that runs on several platforms including Windows and that not makes all the code I write there GPL instead of the license I would like."
What do you mean by the second part of this; are you saying that because you used a GPL compiler, all your code is by default GPL? That's just not true.
It's not even illegal to sell it, it's illegal to advertise/solicit it for sale.
Canadian tourists are not subject to US-VISIT because Canada is not a visa-waiver country. Canadians don't need a visa, however, the right of Canadians to enter the US comes from a completely different set of legislation as that for the rest of the world.
Use cash, and politely ask if they offer a cash discount? Most places will happily provide one.
This depends on your search set size. You can't re-compute a face, but if you knew it was one of 10 people, you could certainly go from there.
If it's the last 4 digits of a credit card number, you know the color and font, and can therefore compute blurs for every single valid combination and see what matches.
I agree with you. In fact, I'm even for more gun control.
BUT
The US constitution doesn't make these distinctions. It says, clearly, that there can be NO law abriding your right to keep and bear arms. Not "No unreasonable law".. NO law. Any law affecting your right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.
Don't dismiss this to soon.
This covers clever javascript methods of abusing the XMLHttpRequest function by effecitvely adding or overloading functions (yes, I know that's not REALLY what happens, but same result), however, it sounds like you still need to inject malicious code somehow in the first place, via XSS or stream injection or site hijacking to make this effective (and in any of those cases, you are already home free)
I don't fully understand the scope of the re-clonedreplacement XMLHttpRequest, if it is in scope for all subsequent calls to XMLHttpRequest even from parent windows or other non-child windows, then I can see this being very serious, but if not, it's just a clever way to take advantage of XSS.
I'll have to read this more when I'm awake tomorrow.
What makes you think they feel they have power over a US company?
THey have power over their own ISPs and infrastructure, and can block what they want within their own legal framework, no "authority" over US companies required.
I won't mention how hypocritical your post sounds given the propensity of the US government to do *exactly* this.
What legal bills? They are being charged in the US right? They are a russian corporation, operated by Russians in Russia, legal under Russian law.
They'll just ignore it.
So? What's the issue?
If I put up a website tomorrow and say "Hey, everyone, give me your software for FREE so I can sell it for 100% profit for myself, as much as I want for the next week", and you all AGREE to it, saying "yeah, sounds like a good idea"
Who has been wronged, exactly?
The advantages are clear, however, it's not a technical skill; being able to tap out and listen to morse at 20wpm does not tell you how to prevent interference or build an antenna properly.
It's like computer programmers being required to type at least 100wpm and read code scrolling by at 10 lines per second. It's a useful skill, but has nothing to do with the ability to write proper software.
Because if some guy across the street does an ugly job of it, it may affect your housing value, so you don't permit it.
It's a way of making sure everyone's home looks exactly the same and nobody stands out, which is apparently very important to people in north america.
Now we're into semantics... stateless and connectionless are the same thing.
The nat or filter tables use the concept of a connection to allow/deny udp packets, but that is only a convention; UDP in and of itself is completely connectionless and stateless. There is absolutley nothing saying that 2 packets with the same source & destination ports are part of the same conversation at all.
It's not even an attack anyway... if you allow outgoing connections, why do you care if the person is connecting to someone else in the world who is firewalled -vs- someone who is out in the open, or whether htey are using UDP or TCP? (let's leave network performance & abusive UDP out of it...)
How is it a security issue?
If my users are allowed to make outgoing UDP connections (which was my choice) then why do I care if they are making that connection to another firewalled person somewhere lese in the world -vs- a computer out in the open?
This is not hole punching, and not a security risk.
It is a way to get two computers that are already allowed to talk to whoever they want on the internet to talk to each other despite both having firewalls that don't allow incoming connections. It does not cause violation of firewall policy or break firewall rules in any way, it just gets over an unfortunate incompatability in this world of NAT.
The issue only arises because both parties are firewalled.
The short version: Using a 3rd server that both parties can connect to cleanly, the behavior of UDP is analyzed to see if source ports are static or predictable. If they are, it's trivial to have both hosts send packets to each other causing both firewalls to permit reply traffic, at which point direct communication between hosts over udp is possible.
This is easily overcome by randomizing source UDP ports at the nat layer.