Frankly the guy probably doesn't need ragging on (in fact people should be checking he's ok).
A small coding mistake has had rather nasty and rather public consequences.
What does bear scrutiny is the process. In such a critical package should it really come down to just one guy? On such a critical package should Ubuntu not have their own man double checking everything rather than just accepting changes from Debian.
You can't make people infallible, but you improve the system to better mitigate such fallibility.
I'd like a definitive answer too. SSH keys might be important to a lot of people but as they are usually within an organisation revocation can be managed. I'm not sure that is the case with keys that are used publically.
Personally if the problem is with not particularly random (ie easily recreatable) keys then I don't see how the fact the key is signed by a third party makes any difference whatsoever.
If someone can regenerate your key then they can use that regenerated key with your certificate (which is publicly available from your webserver).
In fact even if you regenerate a new key/certificate, if someone has already captured your certificate then they can do this unless the users browser somehow finds out that your old certificate has been revoked.
Efficient in the sense that they don't bother working much on a whole heap of areas and just concentrate on oppression.
Dictatorships don't tend to get more done, they just try to do less. Perhaps that is efficient in some sense but not, I think, in a particularly useful one.
You are right though, for governmental systems that are somewhat more answerable to the public inefficiency is one thing that stops governments doing too many things the people aren't interested in as there tend to be enough things the people are interested in to keep them fairly occupied.
I ask because I can't recall any DMCA style take down (ie notification, counter notification etc) taking place here.
I think we've adopted certain aspects of the DMCA (such as banning circumvention of "effective technical measures") but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest we have adopted the DMCA completely.
There doesn't seem to be anything similar to the DMCA's takedown notices mentioned in the agreement
Evolution only holds when discussing the development of life in the ABSENCE OF INTELLIGENT DIRECTION. Once H. Sapiens crossed the line into sentience Darwin went right the hell out of the window because whether or not "Intelligent Design" is part of our past doesn't matter because it IS our future.
I think that's an overly strong statement. I don't think we are outside evolution just because we have and wield intelligence. Why is intelligence a different sort of "property" than any other (height etc) when it comes to evolutionary theory?
It's not as if our intelligence is perfect. It can bite us on the ass as much as help us.
We already live in a world where most of the organisms we see are the products of design... genetic engneered by US to serve OUR needs
We change our environment. So do ants. In principal is there any fundamental difference between us manipulating a gene and an ant building a sandhill? It's not as if we're even the first gene manipulators, we're very late on the scene in that regard.
1.10. Controller area network (CAN) protocol support
Recommended LWN article: "PF_CAN"
From the "Controller Area Network" Wikipedia article: Controller Area Network (CAN or CAN-bus) is a computer network protocol and bus standard designed to allow microcontrollers and devices to communicate with each other and without a host computer.. This implementation has been contributed by Volkswagen.
It would be interesting to know where Volkswagen use this in Linux. Can I buy a car "powered by Linux"?
The thing that is really bugging me is a silly problem with the calculator.
If you type in a sum long enough to make scrollbars appear on the "screen" then when you hit enter the result isn't visible, you just get a blank "screen" rather than an answer.
It's unnerving that such a simple tool has such a visible problem (and has had it for several months).
If anything I think the BBC (and the Australian ABC) are generally over-critical of whatever government currently in power.
However I do not see that as a bad thing. In a sense this is a way of them demonstrating their independence. It is far more dangerous for a national broadcaster to be too soft on those in power than too hard.
You'd think a Harvard professor saying in effect that diversity has a down side might be news worthy, unless that idea isn't attractive to the majority of the news media.
Is it really news? I'd have thought that the existence of such downsides should have been perfectly obvious who has opened their eyes. Indeed, the interesting discovery from that article seems to be that the downsides aren't quite as existing theories suggested, not the mere fact that downsides exist.
The trouble is we're all perched on this rather small rock so there doesn't seem to have much choice but to try and get along in one way or another.
Perhaps we could try to wall ourselves off from those not like us but the downsides to that action seem to be significant too.
I am sure that "legitimate" P2P usage is on the increase, however I'm also sure illicit P2P usage still is too.
For illicit use to be a declining share legitimate use would have to be growing (in absolute terms) faster than illicit use and that sounds highly unlikely to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly the guy probably doesn't need ragging on (in fact people should be checking he's ok).
A small coding mistake has had rather nasty and rather public consequences.
What does bear scrutiny is the process. In such a critical package should it really come down to just one guy? On such a critical package should Ubuntu not have their own man double checking everything rather than just accepting changes from Debian.
You can't make people infallible, but you improve the system to better mitigate such fallibility.
I'd like a definitive answer too. SSH keys might be important to a lot of people but as they are usually within an organisation revocation can be managed. I'm not sure that is the case with keys that are used publically.
Personally if the problem is with not particularly random (ie easily recreatable) keys then I don't see how the fact the key is signed by a third party makes any difference whatsoever.
If someone can regenerate your key then they can use that regenerated key with your certificate (which is publicly available from your webserver).
In fact even if you regenerate a new key/certificate, if someone has already captured your certificate then they can do this unless the users browser somehow finds out that your old certificate has been revoked.
Efficient in the sense that they don't bother working much on a whole heap of areas and just concentrate on oppression.
Dictatorships don't tend to get more done, they just try to do less. Perhaps that is efficient in some sense but not, I think, in a particularly useful one.
You are right though, for governmental systems that are somewhat more answerable to the public inefficiency is one thing that stops governments doing too many things the people aren't interested in as there tend to be enough things the people are interested in to keep them fairly occupied.
Citations?
In most cases I've read I've been pleasantly surprised at how good judges are.
Might be handy information for kidnappers to know too ;)
Is the Australian legislation really identical?
I ask because I can't recall any DMCA style take down (ie notification, counter notification etc) taking place here.
I think we've adopted certain aspects of the DMCA (such as banning circumvention of "effective technical measures") but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest we have adopted the DMCA completely.
There doesn't seem to be anything similar to the DMCA's takedown notices mentioned in the agreement
I think that's an overly strong statement. I don't think we are outside evolution just because we have and wield intelligence. Why is intelligence a different sort of "property" than any other (height etc) when it comes to evolutionary theory?
It's not as if our intelligence is perfect. It can bite us on the ass as much as help us.
We change our environment. So do ants. In principal is there any fundamental difference between us manipulating a gene and an ant building a sandhill? It's not as if we're even the first gene manipulators, we're very late on the scene in that regard.
Seems like you could cut out a lot of unnecessary paperwork by going straight to step 2.
Apparantly not
It would be interesting to know where Volkswagen use this in Linux. Can I buy a car "powered by Linux"?
The thing that is really bugging me is a silly problem with the calculator.
If you type in a sum long enough to make scrollbars appear on the "screen" then when you hit enter the result isn't visible, you just get a blank "screen" rather than an answer.
It's unnerving that such a simple tool has such a visible problem (and has had it for several months).
Political pressure tends to be pro impending doom these days.
Gnuman!
Sure, but in a sense it's like saying: "Information wants to be free, except information about me".
If anything I think the BBC (and the Australian ABC) are generally over-critical of whatever government currently in power.
However I do not see that as a bad thing. In a sense this is a way of them demonstrating their independence. It is far more dangerous for a national broadcaster to be too soft on those in power than too hard.
3 - Profit
2 - ?????
1 - I can't keep the joke going.
Or perhaps vampires.
Seriously, ISO should drop all other work and start thinking about some vaguely coherent and transparent voting procedures.
Perhaps that's why manned space flight is banned. Old Pec comes from heaven and we aren't giving it back.
I can see why you'd want to specify a minimum time but why a maximum? What disadvantage is there to having a device that does 15 minutes?
Seeing as he apparently can't remember where he is or how long he's been there without some external assistance.
The trouble is we're all perched on this rather small rock so there doesn't seem to have much choice but to try and get along in one way or another.
Perhaps we could try to wall ourselves off from those not like us but the downsides to that action seem to be significant too.
Our mortality!
I am sure that "legitimate" P2P usage is on the increase, however I'm also sure illicit P2P usage still is too.
For illicit use to be a declining share legitimate use would have to be growing (in absolute terms) faster than illicit use and that sounds highly unlikely to me.
cat /dev/urandom > /dev/input/js0