They ship the DLL with their product, therefor, according to the GPL, they must GPL the entire thing.
Uh huh, so if he just made the files two seperate downloads this would put him in the clear?
I think it's basically just nit-picking at that point, and a waste of time to try to enforce. If the community wants GPL'd code to flourish and make it into the mass market, attitudes like this aren't going to exactly bolster their position.
Or that the windows HTML library is not a part of IE? (initially, Microsoft would now let you think that it is part of windows, and IE is one tool that uses it)
Actually the HTML library isn't part of IE. Anyone can use the HTML library (MSHTML), and that's what Microsoft intended. Anybody could also re-create the API and write their own custom HTML library and as long as it re-created all of the interfaces and COM objects that MSHTML did, Internet Explorer would still run.
Again, the app that was written will run fine in the absence of the DLL that contains the GPL'd code-- it just won't perform many (any?) functions. Now if someone else were to re-create a new DLL that performed the functions required, they could include their DLL and the app would expose all of these additional features. Just as a plugin for Photoshop does.
It's more appropriate to realize that this app (and apps like it) are nothing more than a shell or wrapper, and that they don't care what library is present as long as the one that IS present properly recreates the functions it expects.
Their program will not work as advertised though. This they are advertising the GPL code as a feature of the program, and that could be seen legally to be an indicator that the code is part of the software, not an independent program that doesn't affect the closed source software at all.
Yeah, while it might get the case through the front door of the courthouse, once the product is looked at from a technical point of view and we've eschewed the marketing crap, it becomes crystal clear that all the GPL'd code is in a self-contained DLL.
Just my opinions. The GPL has specified what to do about DLLs already - hence the LGPL. It has yet to decide what to do about CORBA/pipes/etc - other methods of possibly using GPL code in closed source products.
I don't see how the LGPL applies to Dynamic Link Libraries though-- the LGPL seemed to me to be more intended for use with STATIC libraries (libraries that must be linked against, for example, the C runtime libraries). With DYNAMIC libraries though, the GPL or LGPL would be enough to give the public the right to access code in the DLL as long as the code IN the DLL remained GPL'd and open source.
Shrug, a feature list is a long ways away from a GPL violation. The app would still run fine without the DLL, it just wouldn't be able to perform all of it's tasks. Big deal-- if I delete some plugins from Photoshop, I suddenly can't save JPEG or GIF files, and my happy lens flare filter will disappear; but the marketing says it's all there. Whoops, the marketing didn't mention it was in seperate libraries!
If I write a plugin for Photoshop, I'm using Adobe's API for writing Photoshop plugins. I can reverse-engineer that API if I must, but that does not violate Adobe's copyright. If I write an application that uses a GPL'd DLL, I must open that DLL (use it's header in my code) in order to use it, and that act is what violates the GPL.
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the relevance of the header here. You can re-write the header since you have the GPL'd source for the DLL, so what exactly is the violation? There'd be a point to this rant if Vidomi had made their own DLL with their own custom modifications and then not released the source code to THAT, or if Vidomi had copied/pasted the code from the GPL source directly into their main applications code, but this isn't the case. The application is modular, and could run with or without the DLL, or with different DLL's from different people (GPL or no GPL code). So how again is the header relevant?
As for the differences between a DLL and a plugin, you're part right, part wrong-- now that Vidomi has released their product, there's nothing stopping anyone from writing a new DLL that performs the same (or similar) functions as the existing DLL to the same spec as the first one-- with this completed DLL in hand, one could delete/rename the GPL DLL, and replace it with the non-GPL DLL and run it normally. Literally, this application doesn't require the GPL code to run.
IMHO: The LGPL seems to be meant to be applied to static libraries, ala the C libraries, for example. Dynamic linking is an entirely different beast, and since DLL's are *really* seperate executables, I don't see how the GPL can be applied to a program that USES a DLL with GPL code in it. Now if they had created a library (in C, a Unit in Pascal, etc) and then linked against that, their entire project would need to be open sourced and under the GPL, or else they wouldn't be complying.
Plus as I stated elsewhere, there's nothing stopping someone from writing their own DLL that interfaces with this product that doesn't contain GPL code. This means the product, on it's own, still works without the presence of this GPL-code driven DLL. Just as plug-ins in Photoshop can be missing and the app itself (Photoshop) would still run (just no lens flares, for example).
If the code in the DLL is nothing more than a plug-in (and the main program can run without it, as has been said I believe on one of the linked-to websites), then how is this a violation of the GPL if the source code for the DLL is free (as is the DLL itself) and downloadable from their website?
Think of apps like Adobe Photoshop, and think of what would be the case if some 3rd party wrote a plug-in for Photoshop using GPL'd code-- would this force Adobe to open source the entire Photoshop product? Of course not. The only difference here is that it's not a 3rd party that's using the GPL'd code. The app still runs without the DLL though.
I'm not seeing the GPL violation here-- they put the code in a DLL, distribute all of their code for the DLL (AFAIK), and their app only uses the DLL if it's there, but CAN BE RUN WITHOUT IT.
In truth, if they wanted to avoid a GPL issue, they could write a new DLL, or have someone else write a DLL that would work with their application, but really, this sounds like a simple case of plug-ins (ala Photoshop), where the code in the DLL isn't needed for the main program to run.
Funny, they show up on Pricewatch as listing it at $190 without shipping. (Retail boxed.) The lowest price on this new Sony drive is $219, only $30 more for the ability to not just burn normal CD-R discs, but these newer 1.3 GB discs.
There's absolutely no reason to pass over this drive considering the small price difference.
You're comparing older technology to newer technology. Try comparing a retail boxed 16/10/40x Plextor drive (read: a high quality drive) to this. The prices are pretty close, even on Pricewatch.
Can existing CD drives read DVD? No. Can they read DVD-R? No. Can they read DVD-RW? No. Your idea that simply because nothing else reads it (yet), that it will fail, is entirely without merit. How do you think other media start out? Was CD compatible with floppy disk drives? No.
There's no doubt that adoption might not be 100%, but Sony did just about everything they could do to ease the pain by making their initial writer handle their new format AND existing formats in one drive (this Sony drive will read/write CD-R/CD-RW, as well as the new Purple Book format). It's only a matter of time before a) new companies release competing (cheaper) drives, and b) new media manufacturers come out with their own offerings.
Thanks for the clarification. =) I don't travel overseas, so knowing what's popular elsewhere isn't my strong-suit. I know they certainly made an agressive push in the US (going so far as to release actual albums on MiniDisc, a practice I believe they still perform). Plus you find a lot of different vendors making both MD media and MD drives (eg: Pioneer now sells an MD drive that supports read/write).
I guess flop was a little harsh; it hasn't exactly taken America by storm.;)
$10 per 2-pack, according to another post. 1500% is a pretty large fraction. Note that's more than the 8x difference I cited for 2.88MB vs. 1.44MB floppies.
The article linked to by this story indicated a far cheaper price for the media, the person who posted that (I think) was pulling numbers out of his ass. From the article--
Imagine storing over a gig of files onto a CD that costs less than $2. No, you are not dreaming. The ability to store up to 1.3GB of data easily and affordably is here and it's from Sony.
Still more than I implied, so I apologize, but cheaper than $10 for 2 discs. Plus, as people will recall from the days when CD-R was first brought to the masses, CD-R media was quite expensive. I think this is tame by comparison, and will probably drop once more people manufacture it.
$250 vs. $80 -- that's stretching the definition of "competitive". And again, that's more than the 3x difference cited for floppy drive prices.
The cheapest Plextor 16/10/40x drive is $181 on Pricewatch, and that's not retail boxed (as the Sony drive is, I believe). I realize that the Sony drive is 12x, but it's the "latest and greatest" as far as it's media format goes, and compared to the latest and greatest in CD-R, this is priced competitivly.
Remind me, again, why I would possibly want this over one of the DVD-based formats?
Easy. This is here right now. Writable and re-writable DVD media won't be here for some time (read: lots of standards fighting it out for your pocket book). The only VIABLE writable DVD medium so far is the one offered by Pioneer (which burns normal DVD-discs, AFAIK, no re-write capability).
As for it being packaged only with Sony PC's, wrong again-- check Pricewatch for prices that are sure to make you wonder why you'd pay MORE for a CD-R only drive. It's a standard (sort of, Purple Book implies you can atleast license it or some such drivel), so it's likely other producers will adopt it since (based on the price of Sony's drive) it appears cheap to implement. Finally, where again is the need for a stand alone player, considering (had you read the article the story linked to) the Purple Book standard defines it as a DATA ONLY medium (no music formats ala Red Book). The only stand alone device you might want is a dedicated non-writable drive, and again, given the low price on Sony's offering, I don't see this being expensive to implement.
You could, I don't know, maybe try reading the linked-to article?
I'll play nice and answer your questions though--
* They aren't readable in normal CD-ROM drives.
* I doubt a firmware upgrade will make them readable in DVD-ROM drives.
Otherwise, the drive itself will read and write both CD-R, CD-RW as well as -R and -RW versions of this new format. So, compatibility aside, there's no real reason to pick another CD-R drive over this one since this one is priced almost the same. My only legitimate reason to hold off is that I'd like to buy a SCSI version of the drive. =)
Yeah but the problem with 2.88MB floppies was the problems you pointed out in your post. From the review, it appears that the new media only costs a fraction more than current CD-R media, and the drive itself is competitively priced with existing CD-R only drives. The final nail in the coffin for standard CD-R drives is that this drive is bi-format; it'll write CD-R, CD-RW, as well as write and rewritable versions of the new format.
The situation with Sony's product is far better, and much more likely to be adopted.
To put it another way-- when they come out with a SCSI version, I'll bite.
Unless I missed out on something, the various "book" standards (Red Book, Orange Book, etc) are usually open or atleast available to competitors, so there's no reason to believe their Purple Book standard won't be the same way. Plus, even Sony has to realize that the key to mass adoption of a media format isn't just advertising, it's getting cheaper drives and media out into the publics hands.
I'll admit though, Sony does do a little overkill on media formats (Mini-Disc, as an example of one that pretty much flopped).
Just out of curiousity, could you post the listing of xxxxbyte terms (preferably in order of size? I'd seen them elsewhere once before, but wasn't sure if the listing was genuine or accurate (but since I see the same terms in your post, I guess they are afterall).
... not to be redundant (I know it is) but it's about time Rambus finally got chopped down for their behaviour. I thought it was bad enough when they wanted to collect large royalties on RDRAM, but when they expanded their claims to include all forms of SDRAM in an attempt to corner the memory market, that's when things got out of hand.
The only thing I think that's bad about this ruling is the Virgina law that limits punitive damages.. Infineon really deserves the money given their stand-up attitude towards Rambus.
I still don't get how Rambus claims they "innovate" anything.. stealing ideas from JEDEC or patenting obvious extensions to existing technology isn't innovation, it's patent-shopping at it's finest. It disturbs me to this day that Rambus' website has the claim "We never stop innovating.".
Best hopes to Infineon on the appeals process.
Re:Wouldn't Certification be Better?
on
IT Unions?
·
· Score: 1
Independent Certification is only half of the equation though-- so what, you've passed a test and proven you have memorized some cheat sheet, that doesn't guarantee you a good salary, benefits or fair work treatment. I'll never understand where the stigma for unions on Slashdot comes from, but it's unfounded and without merit. So far the only people I've seen reply to these stories that are anti-union say they make enough money and they don't want some leech mooching their salary. Again, unfounded and no merit.
If we don't unionize, the practices that IT currently evangelize, such as 6-7 days of work a week, 10-12+ hours a day, won't quit and will become the norm.
Is that what readers on Slashdot really want once they've settled down and formed a family?
They're using the correct terminology though, especially in the context the story is in-- old dial-up BBS listings. Those are dead. I'll give you the fact that internet BBS's are still alive (not too sure about 'well'), but for the story their statement is true.
Personally I miss running my old BBS, and have considered (although I know it'd be futile) to start one up out of my apartment. The only problem is that I run Windows 2000, and most of the old dial-up software won't cooperate under the NT kernel (the software I'd like to run, Renegade, most likely won't even launch on NT/2000).
Too bad Cott Lang didn't open source RG before he dumped it entirely.
...fixes the job. For a network running Microsoft software, taking common steps such as ensuring Guest access is disabled and that passwords are required for all resources will do the job.
I can see their point though about networks behind a firewall, but even inside a firewall I'd think companies would be proactive in securing their networks. I just think there's more "scare" than bite in this story-- the technology is secure, it's the networks the technology is run on that needs to be worked with (and this could easily be Linux or Windows systems). It could happen to more than just 802.11b based networks, this could happen to any company that has their network connected to the internet, or any home user that has DSL and a permanent IP address..
Admittedly, I haven't used any implementation of Object Pascal a lot, but I haven't really liked what I tried. Pascal is best suited as an introductory procedural language.
It also has it's place in business though, and in Europe it has a much larger following (specifically Borland's implementations of Pascal-- Borland Pascal and Borland Delphi). You're right though, as a training language it's a step above Basic and shares enough similarities with C and C++ that anyone migrating from Pascal should be able to catch on quickly.
About Java though, while it's nice to have garbage collection and be able to avoid memory leaks, I just don't see Java being a C/C++ killer. Garbage collection just seems like a step beyond exception handling (alloc a pointer, 'try' to operate on it, then free the memory in a 'finally' handler), and another way of bloating the CPU resources used by an application. (In other words, a step backwards.)
Java works for web technologies, but I don't see it taking the place of common application development.
Nah, object oriented Pascal is nice. I still use C++ though because it allows operators to be overloaded, something Delphi (Object Pascal) still lacks.. there are other minor differences, but at work I use Delphi and at home and whenever else possible I use C++.
...get a lawyer, take the school district to court. This isn't like a business that can refuse business to anyone, this is a school district, funded by tax payers dollars and accountable to the courts. I'd contact an attorney and see what my options are-- things like this need to be challenged in court and hopefully set a precedent that schools can't kick kids out because of the latest school shooting craze.
(Besides which, kicking kids out of school for having even THOUGHT of it or spoken the idea aloud IS NOT THE WAY TO DEAL WITH IT.. what's to stop these "potentially violent youth" from just coming back and waltzing into the school with a loaded fire-arm later? Out of all the kids in the school, would someone notice someone kicked out a month or two after it happened? (And further, pursue it enough to detain the kid and take them to an adult?) No, school shootings are best avoided by intervention and counseling, not making kids feel like their feelings are justified by punishing them.)
Slashdot Mirror
Uh huh, so if he just made the files two seperate downloads this would put him in the clear?
I think it's basically just nit-picking at that point, and a waste of time to try to enforce. If the community wants GPL'd code to flourish and make it into the mass market, attitudes like this aren't going to exactly bolster their position.
Actually the HTML library isn't part of IE. Anyone can use the HTML library (MSHTML), and that's what Microsoft intended. Anybody could also re-create the API and write their own custom HTML library and as long as it re-created all of the interfaces and COM objects that MSHTML did, Internet Explorer would still run.
Again, the app that was written will run fine in the absence of the DLL that contains the GPL'd code-- it just won't perform many (any?) functions. Now if someone else were to re-create a new DLL that performed the functions required, they could include their DLL and the app would expose all of these additional features. Just as a plugin for Photoshop does.
It's more appropriate to realize that this app (and apps like it) are nothing more than a shell or wrapper, and that they don't care what library is present as long as the one that IS present properly recreates the functions it expects.
Yeah, while it might get the case through the front door of the courthouse, once the product is looked at from a technical point of view and we've eschewed the marketing crap, it becomes crystal clear that all the GPL'd code is in a self-contained DLL.
I don't see how the LGPL applies to Dynamic Link Libraries though-- the LGPL seemed to me to be more intended for use with STATIC libraries (libraries that must be linked against, for example, the C runtime libraries). With DYNAMIC libraries though, the GPL or LGPL would be enough to give the public the right to access code in the DLL as long as the code IN the DLL remained GPL'd and open source.
Shrug, a feature list is a long ways away from a GPL violation. The app would still run fine without the DLL, it just wouldn't be able to perform all of it's tasks. Big deal-- if I delete some plugins from Photoshop, I suddenly can't save JPEG or GIF files, and my happy lens flare filter will disappear; but the marketing says it's all there. Whoops, the marketing didn't mention it was in seperate libraries!
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the relevance of the header here. You can re-write the header since you have the GPL'd source for the DLL, so what exactly is the violation? There'd be a point to this rant if Vidomi had made their own DLL with their own custom modifications and then not released the source code to THAT, or if Vidomi had copied/pasted the code from the GPL source directly into their main applications code, but this isn't the case. The application is modular, and could run with or without the DLL, or with different DLL's from different people (GPL or no GPL code). So how again is the header relevant?
As for the differences between a DLL and a plugin, you're part right, part wrong-- now that Vidomi has released their product, there's nothing stopping anyone from writing a new DLL that performs the same (or similar) functions as the existing DLL to the same spec as the first one-- with this completed DLL in hand, one could delete/rename the GPL DLL, and replace it with the non-GPL DLL and run it normally. Literally, this application doesn't require the GPL code to run.
IMHO: The LGPL seems to be meant to be applied to static libraries, ala the C libraries, for example. Dynamic linking is an entirely different beast, and since DLL's are *really* seperate executables, I don't see how the GPL can be applied to a program that USES a DLL with GPL code in it. Now if they had created a library (in C, a Unit in Pascal, etc) and then linked against that, their entire project would need to be open sourced and under the GPL, or else they wouldn't be complying.
Plus as I stated elsewhere, there's nothing stopping someone from writing their own DLL that interfaces with this product that doesn't contain GPL code. This means the product, on it's own, still works without the presence of this GPL-code driven DLL. Just as plug-ins in Photoshop can be missing and the app itself (Photoshop) would still run (just no lens flares, for example).
If the code in the DLL is nothing more than a plug-in (and the main program can run without it, as has been said I believe on one of the linked-to websites), then how is this a violation of the GPL if the source code for the DLL is free (as is the DLL itself) and downloadable from their website?
Think of apps like Adobe Photoshop, and think of what would be the case if some 3rd party wrote a plug-in for Photoshop using GPL'd code-- would this force Adobe to open source the entire Photoshop product? Of course not. The only difference here is that it's not a 3rd party that's using the GPL'd code. The app still runs without the DLL though.
I'm not seeing the GPL violation here-- they put the code in a DLL, distribute all of their code for the DLL (AFAIK), and their app only uses the DLL if it's there, but CAN BE RUN WITHOUT IT.
In truth, if they wanted to avoid a GPL issue, they could write a new DLL, or have someone else write a DLL that would work with their application, but really, this sounds like a simple case of plug-ins (ala Photoshop), where the code in the DLL isn't needed for the main program to run.
Funny, they show up on Pricewatch as listing it at $190 without shipping. (Retail boxed.) The lowest price on this new Sony drive is $219, only $30 more for the ability to not just burn normal CD-R discs, but these newer 1.3 GB discs.
There's absolutely no reason to pass over this drive considering the small price difference.
You're comparing older technology to newer technology. Try comparing a retail boxed 16/10/40x Plextor drive (read: a high quality drive) to this. The prices are pretty close, even on Pricewatch.
Can existing CD drives read DVD? No. Can they read DVD-R? No. Can they read DVD-RW? No. Your idea that simply because nothing else reads it (yet), that it will fail, is entirely without merit. How do you think other media start out? Was CD compatible with floppy disk drives? No.
There's no doubt that adoption might not be 100%, but Sony did just about everything they could do to ease the pain by making their initial writer handle their new format AND existing formats in one drive (this Sony drive will read/write CD-R/CD-RW, as well as the new Purple Book format). It's only a matter of time before a) new companies release competing (cheaper) drives, and b) new media manufacturers come out with their own offerings.
Thanks for the clarification. =) I don't travel overseas, so knowing what's popular elsewhere isn't my strong-suit. I know they certainly made an agressive push in the US (going so far as to release actual albums on MiniDisc, a practice I believe they still perform). Plus you find a lot of different vendors making both MD media and MD drives (eg: Pioneer now sells an MD drive that supports read/write).
I guess flop was a little harsh; it hasn't exactly taken America by storm. ;)
The article linked to by this story indicated a far cheaper price for the media, the person who posted that (I think) was pulling numbers out of his ass. From the article--
Still more than I implied, so I apologize, but cheaper than $10 for 2 discs. Plus, as people will recall from the days when CD-R was first brought to the masses, CD-R media was quite expensive. I think this is tame by comparison, and will probably drop once more people manufacture it.
The cheapest Plextor 16/10/40x drive is $181 on Pricewatch, and that's not retail boxed (as the Sony drive is, I believe). I realize that the Sony drive is 12x, but it's the "latest and greatest" as far as it's media format goes, and compared to the latest and greatest in CD-R, this is priced competitivly.
Easy. This is here right now. Writable and re-writable DVD media won't be here for some time (read: lots of standards fighting it out for your pocket book). The only VIABLE writable DVD medium so far is the one offered by Pioneer (which burns normal DVD-discs, AFAIK, no re-write capability).
As for it being packaged only with Sony PC's, wrong again-- check Pricewatch for prices that are sure to make you wonder why you'd pay MORE for a CD-R only drive. It's a standard (sort of, Purple Book implies you can atleast license it or some such drivel), so it's likely other producers will adopt it since (based on the price of Sony's drive) it appears cheap to implement. Finally, where again is the need for a stand alone player, considering (had you read the article the story linked to) the Purple Book standard defines it as a DATA ONLY medium (no music formats ala Red Book). The only stand alone device you might want is a dedicated non-writable drive, and again, given the low price on Sony's offering, I don't see this being expensive to implement.
You could, I don't know, maybe try reading the linked-to article?
I'll play nice and answer your questions though--
* They aren't readable in normal CD-ROM drives.
* I doubt a firmware upgrade will make them readable in DVD-ROM drives.
Otherwise, the drive itself will read and write both CD-R, CD-RW as well as -R and -RW versions of this new format. So, compatibility aside, there's no real reason to pick another CD-R drive over this one since this one is priced almost the same. My only legitimate reason to hold off is that I'd like to buy a SCSI version of the drive. =)
Yeah but the problem with 2.88MB floppies was the problems you pointed out in your post. From the review, it appears that the new media only costs a fraction more than current CD-R media, and the drive itself is competitively priced with existing CD-R only drives. The final nail in the coffin for standard CD-R drives is that this drive is bi-format; it'll write CD-R, CD-RW, as well as write and rewritable versions of the new format.
The situation with Sony's product is far better, and much more likely to be adopted.
To put it another way-- when they come out with a SCSI version, I'll bite.
Unless I missed out on something, the various "book" standards (Red Book, Orange Book, etc) are usually open or atleast available to competitors, so there's no reason to believe their Purple Book standard won't be the same way. Plus, even Sony has to realize that the key to mass adoption of a media format isn't just advertising, it's getting cheaper drives and media out into the publics hands.
I'll admit though, Sony does do a little overkill on media formats (Mini-Disc, as an example of one that pretty much flopped).
Just out of curiousity, could you post the listing of xxxxbyte terms (preferably in order of size? I'd seen them elsewhere once before, but wasn't sure if the listing was genuine or accurate (but since I see the same terms in your post, I guess they are afterall).
... not to be redundant (I know it is) but it's about time Rambus finally got chopped down for their behaviour. I thought it was bad enough when they wanted to collect large royalties on RDRAM, but when they expanded their claims to include all forms of SDRAM in an attempt to corner the memory market, that's when things got out of hand.
The only thing I think that's bad about this ruling is the Virgina law that limits punitive damages.. Infineon really deserves the money given their stand-up attitude towards Rambus.
I still don't get how Rambus claims they "innovate" anything.. stealing ideas from JEDEC or patenting obvious extensions to existing technology isn't innovation, it's patent-shopping at it's finest. It disturbs me to this day that Rambus' website has the claim "We never stop innovating.".
Best hopes to Infineon on the appeals process.
Independent Certification is only half of the equation though-- so what, you've passed a test and proven you have memorized some cheat sheet, that doesn't guarantee you a good salary, benefits or fair work treatment. I'll never understand where the stigma for unions on Slashdot comes from, but it's unfounded and without merit. So far the only people I've seen reply to these stories that are anti-union say they make enough money and they don't want some leech mooching their salary. Again, unfounded and no merit.
If we don't unionize, the practices that IT currently evangelize, such as 6-7 days of work a week, 10-12+ hours a day, won't quit and will become the norm.
Is that what readers on Slashdot really want once they've settled down and formed a family?
They're using the correct terminology though, especially in the context the story is in-- old dial-up BBS listings. Those are dead. I'll give you the fact that internet BBS's are still alive (not too sure about 'well'), but for the story their statement is true.
Personally I miss running my old BBS, and have considered (although I know it'd be futile) to start one up out of my apartment. The only problem is that I run Windows 2000, and most of the old dial-up software won't cooperate under the NT kernel (the software I'd like to run, Renegade, most likely won't even launch on NT/2000).
Too bad Cott Lang didn't open source RG before he dumped it entirely.
...fixes the job. For a network running Microsoft software, taking common steps such as ensuring Guest access is disabled and that passwords are required for all resources will do the job.
I can see their point though about networks behind a firewall, but even inside a firewall I'd think companies would be proactive in securing their networks. I just think there's more "scare" than bite in this story-- the technology is secure, it's the networks the technology is run on that needs to be worked with (and this could easily be Linux or Windows systems). It could happen to more than just 802.11b based networks, this could happen to any company that has their network connected to the internet, or any home user that has DSL and a permanent IP address..
Read the article title and credits--
See?
It also has it's place in business though, and in Europe it has a much larger following (specifically Borland's implementations of Pascal-- Borland Pascal and Borland Delphi). You're right though, as a training language it's a step above Basic and shares enough similarities with C and C++ that anyone migrating from Pascal should be able to catch on quickly.
About Java though, while it's nice to have garbage collection and be able to avoid memory leaks, I just don't see Java being a C/C++ killer. Garbage collection just seems like a step beyond exception handling (alloc a pointer, 'try' to operate on it, then free the memory in a 'finally' handler), and another way of bloating the CPU resources used by an application. (In other words, a step backwards.)
Java works for web technologies, but I don't see it taking the place of common application development.
Nah, object oriented Pascal is nice. I still use C++ though because it allows operators to be overloaded, something Delphi (Object Pascal) still lacks.. there are other minor differences, but at work I use Delphi and at home and whenever else possible I use C++.
...get a lawyer, take the school district to court. This isn't like a business that can refuse business to anyone, this is a school district, funded by tax payers dollars and accountable to the courts. I'd contact an attorney and see what my options are-- things like this need to be challenged in court and hopefully set a precedent that schools can't kick kids out because of the latest school shooting craze.
(Besides which, kicking kids out of school for having even THOUGHT of it or spoken the idea aloud IS NOT THE WAY TO DEAL WITH IT.. what's to stop these "potentially violent youth" from just coming back and waltzing into the school with a loaded fire-arm later? Out of all the kids in the school, would someone notice someone kicked out a month or two after it happened? (And further, pursue it enough to detain the kid and take them to an adult?) No, school shootings are best avoided by intervention and counseling, not making kids feel like their feelings are justified by punishing them.)
IMHO, of course.