Always weird to see what journalists feel aren't real words and need to be quoted.
No, actually it's just the journalist putting them around words that their readers might now know so that they don't feel like the article's too difficult for them to read.
The Times has been going downhill since News Corp bought it a few years back (i.e. the same parent company that owns Fox).
I thought the same thing at first. After re-reading the summary I concluded that when they said 32 bit numbers they meant 32bit.32bit.32bit.32bit (128 bits) for ipv6 to help explain it to the laymen who is used to the 8bit.8bit.8bit.8bit representation of ipv4.
I thought exactly the same thing. Then I read the article, which describes IPv4 as using "16-bit" addresses.
Why do people submit clueless articles like this to slashdot, and why does slashdot publish them?
(Not sour at all about having my last submission rejected, despite the fact that it was a good slashdot topic with wide appeal and which wasn't otherwise covered. Oh no.)
Therefore, the general public should own the data. It should therefore be "free".
Don't follow you there, I'm afraid. The general public should own the data, therefore you should need consent from the general public before changing licensing terms. Of course, that consent is just about impossible to get, so effectively you can't do it.
you might want to ask your lawyer whether the freedb database files contain any copyrightable expression, given that the titles themselves are not copyrightable and much of their arrangement may be functional.
You might also want to ask him whether or not you could be affected by the European Database Right, which almost certainly does cover this database. If he doesn't know, get a lawyer in Europe, too, assuming you'll be distributing your copy of the database to Europe.
Copyright law protection compilations where subjective taste is used to distinguish what gets included from what does not.
The water is somewhat muddied by the existence of Database Rights if you're operating in the EU. I believe the US senate has discussed legislation that would create a similar right there, but I don't think it has happened yet.
This database would be covered by that right:
To qualify for the sui generis database protection, the creator of the database must show that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents. It does not matter what the selection method was, or how much creative effort was involved.
And in this country you can sue anyone for anything, provided you can pay for your lawyers' fees.
And, I believe, anyone can file a motion for summary judgement against the plaintiff on the basis that there is no evidence against them. And I don't think you'd have to pay a lawyer's fee for that, either, it being a fairly simple argument. Just do a bit of research about what to put in it.
(Disclaimer: I have no experience of US courts, but I have read a little about them and my experience of UK courts suggests that this approach would be the right one to take in both situations. IANAL. Etc.)
Emulation is when you would say, run a PPC program on i386 Processor. Itercepting system calls is not emulation.
Yes it is, at least if you do it in order to imitate a different system. The word "emulate" means "behave in a fashion that imitates". Stop trying to redefine it to some restrictive use that would be better of being called "simulation".
Because hundreds of Desktop apps require 3D accelerated drivers.
Like erm... err... erm... you know. Oh, 3D rendering. I mean, everyone in my office spends all day doing 3D rendering.
Clearly you need to get a new job in an office where people really do spend all day (or at least substantial portions of it) doing 3D rendering. I'd suggest an architect or structural engineer's office as a good start.
NTFS was actually launched in 1993, 13 years ago, when Windows NT 3.1 (really 1.0, but the version was matched to the MS-DOS-based Windows 3.1) was released.
It's interesting to note that this means XP (which identifies itself internally as NT 5.1) is actually NT release 3.1.
3.1 is typically the best version of any microsoft product (except DOS; 3.3 was generally regarded as better). Version 4 (e.g. Win95, DOS 4.00,...) is often a complete flop, frequently requiring a quick followup release (W95OSR2, DOS 4.01) to rectify serious problems with it. At this point consumers start to lose cofidence and MS look for a new direction in order to convince people that their software isn't all that bad.
So, when Vista flops, what are MS going to replace it with?
NTFS is still in flux as Microsoft is still developing it.
From where I'm sitting it looks as though they haven't released an update for nearly 5 years now. That's not exactly what I'd call highly active development.
I have heard no complaints about TrueCrypt, which is free, open source, developed by people with serious intelligence and dedication, and supports both Windows and Linux.
While I do use TrueCrypt, I'd say it has one serious flaw compared with the system in question as I understand it: you need to allocate space to your encrypted files in advance. If you misestimate your space requirement, you either end up with multiple volumes, wasted disk space or having to move around a load of files between two volumes when you recreate a new one of a better size. That kind of management overhead is undesirable.
I like PhonebookFS under Linux, because it stores your encrypted data in multiple small files on your standard FS to allow it to shrink and grow as required. Unfortunately it isn't available for Windows and is kind-of slow if you want to do anything with large files.
I need to be able to access the data, if only for backup purposes.
It *ought* to be possible to back up encrypted data without the key in such a way that when you restore the backup it creates the original encrypted data again. Seriously: why should the backup administrator need to be able to decrypt the data? That's a clear security hole.
The person in the company with the password might be run over by a bus tommorow.
So have 3 people with the password and ensure they're never in the same place together. But I see no reason why one of those 3 must be the IT manager. Yet with standard Windows file encryption, the IT manager automatically gets access.
Or if you prefer something less dramatic, they may regularly change their password (good!), forget their old one (who cares?) and then need to restore from an old backup to prove what was on the system 6 months ago (Ah....).
I think if you explained to the CEO that the choice was his having to remember some old passwords, or his most sensitive data being subject to unencryption by anyone who can get hold of an old backup tape and the password that *it* was encrypted with (which is probably known by just about *all* of the IT staff), he'd probably choose to remember the old passwords.
It can be hard if you want to find the stuff you lost again. Believe me.
(If anyone knows where I can find a rather bizarre movie file that was a porn parody of streetfighter-style japanese video games, I'd love a link. That was fucking hilarious, but I lost the password for that volume:( )
TrueCrypt is your friend. It's open source, it mounts as a drive and you can even have hidden volumes (so you can deny having stored porn when your gf tells you to show her). It's great.
But you do have to decide how much space to allocate to your compressed files at the beginning... as far as I can see, there's no way to grow a volume after creation.
It isn't hard to distribute source. Why not just do so? (e.g. by copying the distribution you've derived from's source packages, as well as the binary ones that you aren't modifying).
But I still think Fred Brooks's advice in The Mythical Man-Month is correct: plan to build the first version to throw away. You will in any case, and it's better not to deliver the rubbish to the customer.
I'd take it further than that. My experience over the last 10 years of development work has been that for any medium-large project (the smallest I've worked on that this has applied to was an e-commerce system that has about 9,000 lines of code, the largest was a GUI framework that has about 40,000) was that the first version really didn't work well at all and could only be used internally; the second version was adequate for a few years of customer work but starting fraying at the edges after that; it was the third version, another rewrite from scratch, that actually managed to both work and be maintainable.
So for the first version, at least, agile tools and methods are probably appropriate. If you're going to throw it away, you might as well get it done quickly. For larger projects, it might be appropriate to take a similar approach for the second... just document it better, because you will be working with it for a year or two at least.
Slashdot Mirror
And if we do have humans living on multiple planets, I imagine they'll have to rethink networking a bit to account for that (imagine the lag!).
A UUCP gateway ought to be adequate.
there is a thing the newsies call a 'sidebar'.
Ahem. The Times Does Not Use Sidebars. The Times Has Class.
(or at least it pretends to, despite being owned by News Corporation).
frickin' "laser" beams
Given the standard of this article, I'd half expect them to be called "lazer" beams.
Always weird to see what journalists feel aren't real words and need to be quoted.
No, actually it's just the journalist putting them around words that their readers might now know so that they don't feel like the article's too difficult for them to read.
The Times has been going downhill since News Corp bought it a few years back (i.e. the same parent company that owns Fox).
I thought the same thing at first. After re-reading the summary I concluded that when they said 32 bit numbers they meant 32bit.32bit.32bit.32bit (128 bits) for ipv6 to help explain it to the laymen who is used to the 8bit.8bit.8bit.8bit representation of ipv4.
I thought exactly the same thing. Then I read the article, which describes IPv4 as using "16-bit" addresses.
Why do people submit clueless articles like this to slashdot, and why does slashdot publish them?
(Not sour at all about having my last submission rejected, despite the fact that it was a good slashdot topic with wide appeal and which wasn't otherwise covered. Oh no.)
Therefore, the general public should own the data. It should therefore be "free".
Don't follow you there, I'm afraid. The general public should own the data, therefore you should need consent from the general public before changing licensing terms. Of course, that consent is just about impossible to get, so effectively you can't do it.
you might want to ask your lawyer whether the freedb database files contain any copyrightable expression, given that the titles themselves are not copyrightable and much of their arrangement may be functional.
You might also want to ask him whether or not you could be affected by the European Database Right, which almost certainly does cover this database. If he doesn't know, get a lawyer in Europe, too, assuming you'll be distributing your copy of the database to Europe.
The water is somewhat muddied by the existence of Database Rights if you're operating in the EU. I believe the US senate has discussed legislation that would create a similar right there, but I don't think it has happened yet.
This database would be covered by that right:
(Source: Wikipedia - EU Database Directive)
False or erroneous facts might not be copyrightable, but an expression of them (e.g. a Slashdot comment) is.
Noone can come after you for paraphrasing Slashdot comments.
And in this country you can sue anyone for anything, provided you can pay for your lawyers' fees.
And, I believe, anyone can file a motion for summary judgement against the plaintiff on the basis that there is no evidence against them. And I don't think you'd have to pay a lawyer's fee for that, either, it being a fairly simple argument. Just do a bit of research about what to put in it.
(Disclaimer: I have no experience of US courts, but I have read a little about them and my experience of UK courts suggests that this approach would be the right one to take in both situations. IANAL. Etc.)
Emulation is when you would say, run a PPC program on i386 Processor. Itercepting system calls is not emulation.
Yes it is, at least if you do it in order to imitate a different system. The word "emulate" means "behave in a fashion that imitates". Stop trying to redefine it to some restrictive use that would be better of being called "simulation".
(source: Compact OED, www.askoxford.com)
I'd say this applies to wine and cedega, wouldn't you? They do try to equal or surpass Windows, and they do do it by imitating them.
Because hundreds of Desktop apps require 3D accelerated drivers.
... err ... erm ... you know.
Like erm
Oh, 3D rendering. I mean, everyone in my office spends all day doing 3D rendering.
Clearly you need to get a new job in an office where people really do spend all day (or at least substantial portions of it) doing 3D rendering. I'd suggest an architect or structural engineer's office as a good start.
Random aside:
...) is often a complete flop, frequently requiring a quick followup release (W95OSR2, DOS 4.01) to rectify serious problems with it. At this point consumers start to lose cofidence and MS look for a new direction in order to convince people that their software isn't all that bad.
NTFS was actually launched in 1993, 13 years ago, when Windows NT 3.1 (really 1.0, but the version was matched to the MS-DOS-based Windows 3.1) was released.
It's interesting to note that this means XP (which identifies itself internally as NT 5.1) is actually NT release 3.1.
3.1 is typically the best version of any microsoft product (except DOS; 3.3 was generally regarded as better). Version 4 (e.g. Win95, DOS 4.00,
So, when Vista flops, what are MS going to replace it with?
NTFS is still in flux as Microsoft is still developing it.
From where I'm sitting it looks as though they haven't released an update for nearly 5 years now. That's not exactly what I'd call highly active development.
I have heard no complaints about TrueCrypt, which is free, open source, developed by people with serious intelligence and dedication, and supports both Windows and Linux.
While I do use TrueCrypt, I'd say it has one serious flaw compared with the system in question as I understand it: you need to allocate space to your encrypted files in advance. If you misestimate your space requirement, you either end up with multiple volumes, wasted disk space or having to move around a load of files between two volumes when you recreate a new one of a better size. That kind of management overhead is undesirable.
I like PhonebookFS under Linux, because it stores your encrypted data in multiple small files on your standard FS to allow it to shrink and grow as required. Unfortunately it isn't available for Windows and is kind-of slow if you want to do anything with large files.
I need to be able to access the data, if only for backup purposes.
It *ought* to be possible to back up encrypted data without the key in such a way that when you restore the backup it creates the original encrypted data again. Seriously: why should the backup administrator need to be able to decrypt the data? That's a clear security hole.
The person in the company with the password might be run over by a bus tommorow.
So have 3 people with the password and ensure they're never in the same place together. But I see no reason why one of those 3 must be the IT manager. Yet with standard Windows file encryption, the IT manager automatically gets access.
Or if you prefer something less dramatic, they may regularly change their password (good!), forget their old one (who cares?) and then need to restore from an old backup to prove what was on the system 6 months ago (Ah....).
I think if you explained to the CEO that the choice was his having to remember some old passwords, or his most sensitive data being subject to unencryption by anyone who can get hold of an old backup tape and the password that *it* was encrypted with (which is probably known by just about *all* of the IT staff), he'd probably choose to remember the old passwords.
You just use steganography to hide the video game walkthroughs and Linux HOWTOs in a bunch of barnyard porn. She'll never find them.
Something about the fact that this was modded "informative" is frankly scary.
It can be hard if you want to find the stuff you lost again. Believe me.
:( )
(If anyone knows where I can find a rather bizarre movie file that was a porn parody of streetfighter-style japanese video games, I'd love a link. That was fucking hilarious, but I lost the password for that volume
s/compressed/encrypted/
Doh.
TrueCrypt is your friend. It's open source, it mounts as a drive and you can even have hidden volumes (so you can deny having stored porn when your gf tells you to show her). It's great.
But you do have to decide how much space to allocate to your compressed files at the beginning... as far as I can see, there's no way to grow a volume after creation.
I wouldn't say it's FUD: the GPL *does* have this requirement, that you either distribute source or provide a written offer to distribute source.
They should just distribute the source. It isn't hard, is it?
It isn't hard to distribute source. Why not just do so? (e.g. by copying the distribution you've derived from's source packages, as well as the binary ones that you aren't modifying).
But I still think Fred Brooks's advice in The Mythical Man-Month is correct: plan to build the first version to throw away. You will in any case, and it's better not to deliver the rubbish to the customer.
I'd take it further than that. My experience over the last 10 years of development work has been that for any medium-large project (the smallest I've worked on that this has applied to was an e-commerce system that has about 9,000 lines of code, the largest was a GUI framework that has about 40,000) was that the first version really didn't work well at all and could only be used internally; the second version was adequate for a few years of customer work but starting fraying at the edges after that; it was the third version, another rewrite from scratch, that actually managed to both work and be maintainable.
So for the first version, at least, agile tools and methods are probably appropriate. If you're going to throw it away, you might as well get it done quickly. For larger projects, it might be appropriate to take a similar approach for the second... just document it better, because you will be working with it for a year or two at least.
These processors apparently have less transistors than equivalent Pentium 4 cores (excluding cache), so yes they probably can.