Yes, you are right!!!!!! I have thought of the same thing, if it is so, it can't even be proved!
Sometimes I wonder if people also see more than in different colors, what about shapes, or sizes, or directions? perhaps everything I see, you see as upside down? who knows! I am glad I am not alone!
My question is, are the hackers doing it for fame or for a revoluntnary cause? Take freenet for example, why did Ian Clarke have to tell us who he is? or in the case of yo!nk, why can't we have anonymous programmers? I realise that releasing a program anonymously will kind of make the program look illegal as we have today in the virus and warez scene, but how are they going to stop it? virus can be controlled because people don't want virus and run virus scanner. but how do you stop a tool that people want?
Not true! Contrally to popular belief, this is false! A lot of people do not turn in bug reports, very people turn in bug reports to make it worthwhile. If you also happen to release before you are done fully testing, people will pre judge your product! It is better to work on your code till it is very stable, do the first beta testing in-house, when you release, release quality software and impress the world. A lot of people today are releasing shitty code all in the name of testing.
There are a certain number of journalists who play this stupid game of writing misleading articles about linux, open source or whatever that we have. They do this for attention, why don't we just add these twerps to a black list, make sure their article never makes it to slashdot, deprive them of the pleasure. I will truely say slashdot has matured the day we can do that.
How does this post warranty such points? It is such a bull! It is so sad, gone are the days when empolyees keep trade secrets, secrets. Today they get paid for more, yet, they can't be trusted.... and your pansy ass is blaming apple for doing the right thing? What tatics should they be punished for? For protecting their secrets? MacOS X is shipping late? Why about Mozilla? Or Microsoft Windows? or countless number of products? You are just blahing. Shame on you, if you have nothing good to say, shut the hell up.
RIAA quoted on page 28, how Napster can block unauthorized music. The flaw in this is that every music that has to be traded on napster has to be approved. if i wanted to share the mp3 of the trax i just rawked up 5 minutes ago, I have to go through process of having napster approve it. the other flaw in this is that the protection uses artist name and music title. what stops me from distributing metallica's song under a new free artists name? nothing! hence, napster is right in maintaing that they don't have the technology to block all unauthorized mp3s. i am very disgusted at the paper.
LOL!!!!! My friends said Defcon 5 and 6 blew nuts, considering they went to defcon 2-4. They never plan on going again, and here you are saying that 6 and 7 were good. The guys who will go to 8 and 9 for the first time will say that it is good, but you will hate it. Such is life, popularity and fame sucks.
Yeah, I know what I am talking about. I have written an emulator for a cpu. I have also cloned an OS for an embedded system via reversing engineering. I didn't emulate the OS, I simulated it well enough that the apps written for the original could run on top of mine tho the internals were different.
It is possible for these guys to design a windows clone. The kernel will be simulated not emulated, the advantage is that they will skip design flaws, and use new techniques which they can borrow from the BSD's and Linux. As far as users are concerned. If the applications work fine, they will call it windows irrelevant of how the kernel works.
"Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; " - What this means is that if I modify the program, contrary to popular opinion, I only need to make the source available to people I provide the source code, this applies to a lot of license, why don't people see this? For example, if I have a hardware running linux, and I didn't make the executable avaiable to you, ie, the SETI hardware (irrelevant of if it is real or not), I am not obligiated to release the source. Am I wrong or right? I do like to know.
What you are forgetting is that you cannot define healthy without unhealthy, or cheerful without sad, and attractive without unattractive. If everyone was attractive, it would be the norm and have no meaning to you.
This arguably makes Dr. Hunkapiller one of the most important men in the world, since his company controls most of the machinery that makes such mapping possible. It's hard to argue that Gates, for all his billions, will have a fraction of his influence. Maybe if not for Gates, Computers will not be wild spread, and perhaps technology will not have advanced, thus the technology that helped Hunkapiller would not have existed, So how can you say that Gates will have a fraction of his influence? Life is funny like that, very small changes makes a big influence, for example, the guys that invented the transistor, you can give them credit for everything we have today, computers, cellphone, tv, vcr. Even the simple actions by a commoner on the street can really change the world in a big way, so don't come here telling us how great Hunkapiller is. Hunkapiller is not great, he is just another man, we are all important in one way or the other.
I just paid $10 for the heck of it, to show that there are still honest people out there who will pay for what they like. Not everyone is about ripping off.
My friend uses napster, he has tons, around 500 cds. I don't use napster, I have like 30 cds. I borrow most of my cds from friends, dub to tape, and listen to tons of radio.
Slashdot Mirror
So, why the fuck should I pay for 100 bands that never sell crap? I don't want their crap, so why should I pay for their crap?
quite true!
Yes, you are right!!!!!! I have thought of the same thing, if it is so, it can't even be proved! Sometimes I wonder if people also see more than in different colors, what about shapes, or sizes, or directions? perhaps everything I see, you see as upside down? who knows! I am glad I am not alone!
My question is, are the hackers doing it for fame or for a revoluntnary cause? Take freenet for example, why did Ian Clarke have to tell us who he is? or in the case of yo!nk, why can't we have anonymous programmers? I realise that releasing a program anonymously will kind of make the program look illegal as we have today in the virus and warez scene, but how are they going to stop it? virus can be controlled because people don't want virus and run virus scanner. but how do you stop a tool that people want?
fascdot grep '-f7 -d: cut '/etc/passwd cat' |' |
Not true! Contrally to popular belief, this is false! A lot of people do not turn in bug reports, very people turn in bug reports to make it worthwhile. If you also happen to release before you are done fully testing, people will pre judge your product! It is better to work on your code till it is very stable, do the first beta testing in-house, when you release, release quality software and impress the world. A lot of people today are releasing shitty code all in the name of testing.
There are a certain number of journalists who play this stupid game of writing misleading articles about linux, open source or whatever that we have. They do this for attention, why don't we just add these twerps to a black list, make sure their article never makes it to slashdot, deprive them of the pleasure. I will truely say slashdot has matured the day we can do that.
It is all an act by Sun. StarOffice was free anyway before they acquired it. So, what are you saying?!
How does this post warranty such points? It is such a bull! It is so sad, gone are the days when empolyees keep trade secrets, secrets. Today they get paid for more, yet, they can't be trusted. ... and your pansy ass is blaming apple for doing the right thing? What tatics should they be punished for? For protecting their secrets? MacOS X is shipping late? Why about Mozilla? Or Microsoft Windows? or countless number of products? You are just blahing. Shame on you, if you have nothing good to say, shut the hell up.
this is what made unix rule. PIPES! having the same thing for small gui apps that you can use to build bigger application is a neat idea.
RIAA quoted on page 28, how Napster can block unauthorized music. The flaw in this is that every music that has to be traded on napster has to be approved. if i wanted to share the mp3 of the trax i just rawked up 5 minutes ago, I have to go through process of having napster approve it. the other flaw in this is that the protection uses artist name and music title. what stops me from distributing metallica's song under a new free artists name? nothing! hence, napster is right in maintaing that they don't have the technology to block all unauthorized mp3s. i am very disgusted at the paper.
LOL!!!!! My friends said Defcon 5 and 6 blew nuts, considering they went to defcon 2-4. They never plan on going again, and here you are saying that 6 and 7 were good. The guys who will go to 8 and 9 for the first time will say that it is good, but you will hate it. Such is life, popularity and fame sucks.
very funny!
Yeah, I know what I am talking about. I have written an emulator for a cpu. I have also cloned an OS for an embedded system via reversing engineering. I didn't emulate the OS, I simulated it well enough that the apps written for the original could run on top of mine tho the internals were different.
I built my cart two years ago from information that I curled from the web.
It is possible for these guys to design a windows clone. The kernel will be simulated not emulated, the advantage is that they will skip design flaws, and use new techniques which they can borrow from the BSD's and Linux. As far as users are concerned. If the applications work fine, they will call it windows irrelevant of how the kernel works.
If you understand the software and systems, you will know who to blame, and you will have enough proff to lay your accusation.
"Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; " - What this means is that if I modify the program, contrary to popular opinion, I only need to make the source available to people I provide the source code, this applies to a lot of license, why don't people see this? For example, if I have a hardware running linux, and I didn't make the executable avaiable to you, ie, the SETI hardware (irrelevant of if it is real or not), I am not obligiated to release the source. Am I wrong or right? I do like to know.
What you are forgetting is that you cannot define healthy without unhealthy, or cheerful without sad, and attractive without unattractive. If everyone was attractive, it would be the norm and have no meaning to you.
This arguably makes Dr. Hunkapiller one of the most important men in the world, since his company controls most of the machinery that makes such mapping possible. It's hard to argue that Gates, for all his billions, will have a fraction of his influence. Maybe if not for Gates, Computers will not be wild spread, and perhaps technology will not have advanced, thus the technology that helped Hunkapiller would not have existed, So how can you say that Gates will have a fraction of his influence? Life is funny like that, very small changes makes a big influence, for example, the guys that invented the transistor, you can give them credit for everything we have today, computers, cellphone, tv, vcr. Even the simple actions by a commoner on the street can really change the world in a big way, so don't come here telling us how great Hunkapiller is. Hunkapiller is not great, he is just another man, we are all important in one way or the other.
developers are struggling with the complexity of programming the emotion engine, so how much support and backing will this receive?
I just paid $10 for the heck of it, to show that there are still honest people out there who will pay for what they like. Not everyone is about ripping off.
I called ABC to complain about this pratice, but a human picked up, so I hung up, I only wanted to leave a message on the answering machine.
funny that you mention scaning space for an ELF executables, I have thought of doing that to find the perfect programs. :-)
My friend uses napster, he has tons, around 500 cds. I don't use napster, I have like 30 cds. I borrow most of my cds from friends, dub to tape, and listen to tons of radio.