These do look nice, but the killer feature on a keyboard for me would be a built in trackball somewhere near the middle of the main key area. The reason that I avoid using the mouse a lot is that the latency of getting my hands from over the main keys to the mouse and back is so high, having a trackball under a thumb would be ideal.
Not exactly in the arrow-key area, but it does have "IBM model-M" clickety-click buckling springs.. Available in PS/2 and serial.
This one has a trackball below the space bar. Or you could get a keyboard without numeric pad and place a trackball where the numeric pad would be. Perhaps buy a separate numeric keypad to go next to the trackball (or on your left, if you're lefthanded).
... is that no-one is saying "Yay! More Simpsons episodes!! Gee golly, I'm sure glad about that, why, that show just keeps on pushing the envelope, it's a miracle they've been around this long and STILL haven't jumped the shark! It sure is better than all those cancelled shows like Family Guy or Futurama and stuff like that.."
Nope, none of that here..
I guess the voice actors asked for a raise realising that whatever they get now is going to be their pension.... Worst.. Raise.. Ever..
Still I don't recall the option to enable the firewall by default during setup, it's possible I did and decided not to as I was planning on buying some new basic protection software the next day (a.v., firewall, etc.).
Make sure to enter the advanced/custom networking setup (the exact wording escapes me), where you can enter an IP number. In TCP/IP properties, click Advanced, then go to the Options tab, click on TCP/IP filtering, properties, check enable, and select "permit only" for all protocols.
You don't need to fill in anything in the TCP section, because TCP/IP filtering (not quite a firewall, but at least it comes standard) simply blocks incoming connections, not outgoing connections. Port 53 is useful to allow in the UDP section (for DNS).
TCP/IP filtering is present in NT 4.0 (no service pack required) and upwards.
It will protect you from the usual worms that would otherwise get you before the windows update patching cycle is complete.
An alternative would be to "slipstream" any servicepacks and patches (that support it..) onto the installation media. That means copying the original setup CD to a harddrive, running update.exe with the/s:c:\cdcontents flag, and then burning the updated cd contents to a new, blank cd, but to make it bootable you'd need the bootsector from the original setup cd (though that's been ripped aplenty and is available through the magic of google).
Still with the anoying endless stream of reboots involved in setting up a windows system a kind of numbness does set in.
If you slipstream SP1, you're up and running in 2 reboots, with maybe an additional one or two for any remaining windows update patches (notice that often even WU updates that can only be selected exclusively do NOT require a reboot, if you simply enter windows update again you can install more patches. DirectX is a notable exception, but then some systems can go without it.)
It's still annoying as heck though. Add to that that you can't easily mirror the windows update site. What are they smoking?
OK, I meant to say a full-frame sensor DSLR, like the Canon 1Ds.. With smaller sensor, apparently the image is cropped relative to 35mm.. Still, both 35mm and smaller sensors are both rectangular..
I wonder why they don't use a built-in lens to undo the ~ 1.5 'magnification'.
This is actually true, due to the nature of focusing a round image from a round lens onto a rectangular sensor (the round plug into the square hole, if you will).
35mm film is also a rectangular format.
A DSLR focusses the exact same picture on the sensor as a regular SLR would focus on the (greater) 35mm film area. That's the clever thing about these DSLR lenses - you get to keep your existing lenses AND they work the same way!
Some digital cameras are NOT designed to work with regular lenses, but can use lenses that are designed for use with 35mm film odies by using a convertor ring to screw them on. For example, tele or macro convertor lenses. In THAT case, you will lose some of the picture and the total light gathering capability; not surprising since you're mixing technologies not designed to go together.
Exactly, withing minutes of finishing my first install of XP pro (SP1) (finishing NOT starting), I connect to net intent on A) making shure it's connecting properly and all settings are correct. And B) donwloading the necessary patches, never made it to the windows update page as winxp's firewall isn't on by default and blaster had my system nearly unusable on the net by the time I'd logged in and verified I could get e-mail.(this with a connection that rarely reaches 28.8)
You can enable the built-in firewall during setup, before windows boots up for the first time. Do make sure to unplug your broadband connection during the first couple of boots, as the firewall isn't instantly active when tcp/ip is started and you'll be exposed to the outside during windows starting up.
So, it IS possible to install a windows machine and not get hit by worms, just very hard. By design(!).
But the definitions of criminal offences tend to remain the same until such time that the definition is changed.
Let me quote an explanation for the word cache from Oxford English Dictionary, published at 1976:
Hiding-place for treasure, provisions, ammunition, etc.; what is hidden in a cache.
Cache is never used to deride that particular sort of memory. Calling (contributory) copyright infringement is more along the lines of "meat is murder". Even if you wholeheartedly agree with that philosophy, good luck getting a butcher prosecuted for murder.
I second this, BUT make sure you still unplug the ethernet cable while booting because the built-in firewall starts AFTER tcp/ip and the rest.. You'll need to keep unplugging before rebooting and replugging when the box is totally up until all RPC patches have been installed.
Slipstreaming a service pack onto an installation CD is also always a good idea.
Despite the fact that IE is a security-hole-ridden pile of outdated junk and Opera and Mozilla beat it hands-down on features and standards compliance, huge numbers of people still use IE. Why? Because it came with the computer and they either don't know there are alternatives, don't want to know or aren't allowed to use them because they "aren't supported".
And because webmasters, especially those using Windows Media, are too stupid to embed multimedia in a way that mozilla can handle (i.e. no ActiveX, dummies). Especially big commercial sites with loadsacash budgets tend to fuck this up, whereas joe schmoe geocities sites tend to actually work (before their bandwidth limit is reached).
Most "IE-only" sites (that don't use javascript to kick you out) work perfectly in mozilla, mostly the windows(multi)media/plugin infested sites suck ass.
And yet... don't the owners of intellectual property rights -- such as Linus Torvalds -- have the right to expect sufficient attention to be paid to their own law enforcement needs?
If the Linux kernel got hijacked and put into, say, some other Well Known OS illegally, can you tell me that nobody around here would making any "John Ashcroft should drop the hammer on these guys" remarks?
Well, the FBI have to prioritize cases, so they prioritize on the basis of "damages".
GPL developers should put up notices on their webpages that non-exclusive, but non-open source, licenses are available on Product X (e.g. FooChip 7800 driver-patches for Linux) for $5000 per seat. Of course there would also be free (as in beer and speech) GPL licensing, but if you choose not to comply with the GPL, you oughta have bought the closed-source license.
Then, when some-one sells, for instance, routers with that software embedded, the author can call the FBI and say "Company X ripped me off for 30,000 copies at $5000 a piece!". The FBI will then calculate bogus, ficticious damages on the basis of those numbers (just like they do with proprietary software) and go after them.
Far-fetched? Not really.. Surely commercial software developers have given away some freebies (e.g. demo versions, review copies, beta-versions or just plain give-aways), that doesn't seem to invalidate their claims in the eyes of the feds..
But is this testing in a different context or enviroment -- i.e., of a patch or feature in 2.4 instead of 2.6 -- useful? More precisely, is such testing as useful as the testing of the patch or feature in the enviroment for which it was designed, i.e., 2.6?
I'd think it's more useful to test it in 2.4 as well as 2.6 rather than only testing in 2.6. Sure, it's more work (work that RedHat is willing to do) but it may turn up bugs in conditions that do not occur in 2.6 yet (or not reproducibly, etc.)
Listening to the sound of cells seems obvious..
on
The Sound of Cells
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Until you realise the article isn't about cell phones..
Port knocking is swell because it can totally disguise the fact that you're listening for incoming connections, and that's something ssh can't do.
And
Nothing other than coolness makes portknocking more secure than any other one-time-password scheme based on the same underlying password-generating technology (e.g. one-time-pad or a prng or whatever).
are in opposition, I think.
Taken out of context, sure they are! Congratulations, you must be the first person ever to take quotes out of context to "prove" a point.
Nothing other than coolness makes portknocking more secure for authentication. Which is what the original post went to great lengths to purport. Because, yeah, only portknocking could ever use a one-time-pad password scheme, yeah..
One is not requiring the establishment of a TCP connection itself, which presents the possiblity of untraceable packets, providing anonymity for the command sender.
No. Packets are packets, whether they're part of a connection or not. If you think portknocking is used, it's even easier to detect, because you can just throw out all the packets that are part of a connection (or query/response pairs from UDP protocols like DNS).
It also permits the listener to be anonymous if it is merely sniffing. When you're sniffing you're anonymous by definition (unless your sniffing implementation gives you away to tools like anti-sniff). Not a feature of portknocking. And sniffing is relatively hard/risky.
Thus there can be completely blind communication. Well.. No?
You use some mighty big words, but seem to be.. well.. confused.
You can do the same thing with a password over SSH, but that's higher level, using more complex code, and inherently more likely to succumb to high-level assaults such as buffer overflows, as well as mathematical assaults on the encryption itself, both of which fundamentally compromise the system's security.
In short, time-synchronized knocking is safer, simpler, and smarter than passwords or encryption for a certain number of niche applications.
Port knocking can only do authentication, so you'd still need encryption of the payload - that part of SSH is not replaced.
You could also just as easily use a one time password (yes even off of a one time pad) using SSH. There's nothing in SSH to prevent that, in fact, it can use pluggable authentication modules.
Port knocking is swell because it can totally disguise the fact that you're listening for incoming connections, and that's something ssh can't do.
If you used port knocking with a static sequence which then just fires up ssh(d), you'd be just as secure from an authentication viewpoint, and you'd have portknocking to hide the fact you're listening for incoming connections.
Nothing other than coolness makes portknocking more secure than any other one-time-password scheme based on the same underlying password-generating technology (e.g. one-time-pad or a prng or whatever).
It's our music. All of us. The record companies just have it on loan for the duration of their copyright, which, unfortunately for us, keeps getting extended.
I've got no clue what the new Xfree license entails... But nonetheless, I think the community is overreacting. By dropping Xfree, we no longer have any long-term alternatives (yeah, there are forks, but they haven't been around long enough to prove their stability or their worth).
a) this IS a fork b) being as it is a fork, it is XFree, the latest version before the license change, just being improved and such. c) you might have read the press release about who is supporting it - a whole lot of people. They are now no longer behind XFree. d) XFree was a fork of the reference implementation of X, the latter being made by the X.org people to begin with.
The only question is; how many XFree86 developers will jump ship to X.org? My guess is, most of them. By changing the license, the XFree86 project has made itself irrelevant, and who want to work on an irrelevant open source project? Yes, if people continue using XFree86, you'd get credited on manuals etc., but already RedHat, SuSE and debian are moving to X.org; so you'd be credited in places no one gets to see anyway, and your patches are of no use to anyone.
While obscenity is a Federal crime, the standards applied are "community standards".. So right-wing nutheads from will be determining what's "obscene" in San Fransisco. Presumably, pictures of gay couples getting "married" would be found obscene...
And you've got to love this: The ensuing years saw an explosion of porn, so much so that critics say that Americans' tolerance for sexually explicit material rivals that of Europeans.
NOOOOOOoooooooooooo!!!! Think of the Children! They'll grow up to be all, all.. European-like!! Can't have that happening!
Can't the FCC step in and prohibit the use of the words fuck, shit, piss, cunt, motherfucker, cocksucker and tits? (New CHEESE tits!)
Re:Why not use these skills for something useful ?
on
Linux for iPod Matures
·
· Score: 1
Linux on an Ipod is basically pointless. Especially on this very device, which is what hip people [penny-arcade.com] buy in the first place (don't get me wrong, I have one). That doesn't mean people can't tweak with it, but it's not that useful, since the geek population using iPods is outnumbered by the common consumers.
I've found the rockbox firmware for my Archos Jukebox pretty damn handy. And all it takes is to copy a file to the player. I'm sure an equivalently simple installation process will become available for 3rd party iPod firmware, and that 3rd party firmware will be just as good if not better than the original stuff in due time. Rockbox started out pretty useless I'd imagine, but I enjoy it now for its extended battery lifetime and countless extra features (though no real playlist abilities, but then, the physical UI of the archos jukebox player doesn't lend itself to easily composing those - so you have to compose.m3u files 'offline')
Parksysteme, in Germany, has been building such systems for forty years. But they haven't had many installations.
Some better known systems are above-ground silos that are covered in glass, so you can see the contents; car distributors (i.e. BMW) use these to at the same time store inventory and show it off (especially Smart brand cars).
This is an example of a cuboid based design; I think Parksysteme makes the cylindrical ones. There seem to be quite a bit of these around.
Adopting a "top-ten" list detailing industry best practices. Patches should be well-tested, small, localized, reversible, and easy to install. Patches would also not require reboots, use consistent registration methods, include no new features, provide a consistent user experience, and support diverse deployment methods.
I thought Microsoft was involved in the partnership. How is that going to work??
Presumably, they'd weasel out of it by calling their patches "enhancements", or including new features in any patch that requires a reboot and then announcing that it's an "free upgrade to version 3.1.0.4.8.9" and that versions prior to that are no longer supported.
The civil service has obviously had access to these documents for a while, so why do they have to "announce" these apparently real plans on April 1st and then get all irritable and have to deny repeatedly that its an april fools joke. Why didn't they release the story yesterday, or couldn't they have waited until tomorrow?
You're assuming that the company knowingly released expoitable software.
If they didn't do so knowingly, would they a) fix the bugs, or b) shoot the messenger, waisting precious time and money that could have been spent on item a)?
Slashdot Mirror
These do look nice, but the killer feature on a keyboard for me would be a built in trackball somewhere near the middle of the main key area. The reason that I avoid using the mouse a lot is that the latency of getting my hands from over the main keys to the mouse and back is so high, having a trackball under a thumb would be ideal.
Not exactly in the arrow-key area, but it does have "IBM model-M" clickety-click buckling springs.. Available in PS/2 and serial.
Unicomp on the Ball.
Or perhaps you enjoy a keyboard with a clit?
This one has a trackball below the space bar. Or you could get a keyboard without numeric pad and place a trackball where the numeric pad would be. Perhaps buy a separate numeric keypad to go next to the trackball (or on your left, if you're lefthanded).
Or a keyboard with a touchpad?
Or steal a 1U keyboard/trackball drawer from your work's datacenter?
Google itself uses akamai for DNS.
... is that no-one is saying "Yay! More Simpsons episodes!! Gee golly, I'm sure glad about that, why, that show just keeps on pushing the envelope, it's a miracle they've been around this long and STILL haven't jumped the shark! It sure is better than all those cancelled shows like Family Guy or Futurama and stuff like that.."
.. Worst .. Raise .. Ever ..
Nope, none of that here..
I guess the voice actors asked for a raise realising that whatever they get now is going to be their pension..
Still I don't recall the option to enable the firewall by default during setup, it's possible I did and decided not to as I was planning on buying some new basic protection software the next day (a.v., firewall, etc.).
/s:c:\cdcontents flag, and then burning the updated cd contents to a new, blank cd, but to make it bootable you'd need the bootsector from the original setup cd (though that's been ripped aplenty and is available through the magic of google).
Make sure to enter the advanced/custom networking setup (the exact wording escapes me), where you can enter an IP number.
In TCP/IP properties, click Advanced, then go to the Options tab, click on TCP/IP filtering, properties, check enable, and select "permit only" for all protocols.
You don't need to fill in anything in the TCP section, because TCP/IP filtering (not quite a firewall, but at least it comes standard) simply blocks incoming connections, not outgoing connections. Port 53 is useful to allow in the UDP section (for DNS).
TCP/IP filtering is present in NT 4.0 (no service pack required) and upwards.
It will protect you from the usual worms that would otherwise get you before the windows update patching cycle is complete.
An alternative would be to "slipstream" any servicepacks and patches (that support it..) onto the installation media. That means copying the original setup CD to a harddrive, running update.exe with the
linky
Still with the anoying endless stream of reboots involved in setting up a windows system a kind of numbness does set in.
If you slipstream SP1, you're up and running in 2 reboots, with maybe an additional one or two for any remaining windows update patches (notice that often even WU updates that can only be selected exclusively do NOT require a reboot, if you simply enter windows update again you can install more patches. DirectX is a notable exception, but then some systems can go without it.)
It's still annoying as heck though. Add to that that you can't easily mirror the windows update site. What are they smoking?
OK, I meant to say a full-frame sensor DSLR, like the Canon 1Ds.. With smaller sensor, apparently the image is cropped relative to 35mm.. Still, both 35mm and smaller sensors are both rectangular..
I wonder why they don't use a built-in lens to undo the ~ 1.5 'magnification'.
This is actually true, due to the nature of focusing a round image from a round lens onto a rectangular sensor (the round plug into the square hole, if you will).
35mm film is also a rectangular format.
A DSLR focusses the exact same picture on the sensor as a regular SLR would focus on the (greater) 35mm film area. That's the clever thing about these DSLR lenses - you get to keep your existing lenses AND they work the same way!
Some digital cameras are NOT designed to work with regular lenses, but can use lenses that are designed for use with 35mm film odies by using a convertor ring to screw them on. For example, tele or macro convertor lenses.
In THAT case, you will lose some of the picture and the total light gathering capability; not surprising since you're mixing technologies not designed to go together.
Exactly, withing minutes of finishing my first install of XP pro (SP1) (finishing NOT starting), I connect to net intent on A) making shure it's connecting properly and all settings are correct. And B) donwloading the necessary patches, never made it to the windows update page as winxp's firewall isn't on by default and blaster had my system nearly unusable on the net by the time I'd logged in and verified I could get e-mail.(this with a connection that rarely reaches 28.8)
You can enable the built-in firewall during setup, before windows boots up for the first time. Do make sure to unplug your broadband connection during the first couple of boots, as the firewall isn't instantly active when tcp/ip is started and you'll be exposed to the outside during windows starting up.
So, it IS possible to install a windows machine and not get hit by worms, just very hard. By design(!).
Bullshit. Meanings of words change over time.
But the definitions of criminal offences tend to remain the same until such time that the definition is changed.
Let me quote an explanation for the word cache from Oxford English Dictionary, published at 1976:
Hiding-place for treasure, provisions, ammunition, etc.; what is hidden in a cache.
Cache is never used to deride that particular sort of memory. Calling (contributory) copyright infringement is more along the lines of "meat is murder". Even if you wholeheartedly agree with that philosophy, good luck getting a butcher prosecuted for murder.
I second this, BUT make sure you still unplug the ethernet cable while booting because the built-in firewall starts AFTER tcp/ip and the rest.. You'll need to keep unplugging before rebooting and replugging when the box is totally up until all RPC patches have been installed.
Slipstreaming a service pack onto an installation CD is also always a good idea.
Despite the fact that IE is a security-hole-ridden pile of outdated junk and Opera and Mozilla beat it hands-down on features and standards compliance, huge numbers of people still use IE. Why? Because it came with the computer and they either don't know there are alternatives, don't want to know or aren't allowed to use them because they "aren't supported".
And because webmasters, especially those using Windows Media, are too stupid to embed multimedia in a way that mozilla can handle (i.e. no ActiveX, dummies). Especially big commercial sites with loadsacash budgets tend to fuck this up, whereas joe schmoe geocities sites tend to actually work (before their bandwidth limit is reached).
Most "IE-only" sites (that don't use javascript to kick you out) work perfectly in mozilla, mostly the windows(multi)media/plugin infested sites suck ass.
And yet... don't the owners of intellectual property rights -- such as Linus Torvalds -- have the right to expect sufficient attention to be paid to their own law enforcement needs?
If the Linux kernel got hijacked and put into, say, some other Well Known OS illegally, can you tell me that nobody around here would making any "John Ashcroft should drop the hammer on these guys" remarks?
Well, the FBI have to prioritize cases, so they prioritize on the basis of "damages".
GPL developers should put up notices on their webpages that non-exclusive, but non-open source, licenses are available on Product X (e.g. FooChip 7800 driver-patches for Linux) for $5000 per seat. Of course there would also be free (as in beer and speech) GPL licensing, but if you choose not to comply with the GPL, you oughta have bought the closed-source license.
Then, when some-one sells, for instance, routers with that software embedded, the author can call the FBI and say "Company X ripped me off for 30,000 copies at $5000 a piece!". The FBI will then calculate bogus, ficticious damages on the basis of those numbers (just like they do with proprietary software) and go after them.
Far-fetched? Not really.. Surely commercial software developers have given away some freebies (e.g. demo versions, review copies, beta-versions or just plain give-aways), that doesn't seem to invalidate their claims in the eyes of the feds..
But is this testing in a different context or enviroment -- i.e., of a patch or feature in 2.4 instead of 2.6 -- useful? More precisely, is such testing as useful as the testing of the patch or feature in the enviroment for which it was designed, i.e., 2.6?
I'd think it's more useful to test it in 2.4 as well as 2.6 rather than only testing in 2.6. Sure, it's more work (work that RedHat is willing to do) but it may turn up bugs in conditions that do not occur in 2.6 yet (or not reproducibly, etc.)
Until you realise the article isn't about cell phones..
Taken out of context, sure they are! Congratulations, you must be the first person ever to take quotes out of context to "prove" a point.
Nothing other than coolness makes portknocking more secure for authentication. Which is what the original post went to great lengths to purport. Because, yeah, only portknocking could ever use a one-time-pad password scheme, yeah..
One is not requiring the establishment of a TCP connection itself, which presents the possiblity of untraceable packets, providing anonymity for the command sender.
No. Packets are packets, whether they're part of a connection or not. If you think portknocking is used, it's even easier to detect, because you can just throw out all the packets that are part of a connection (or query/response pairs from UDP protocols like DNS).
It also permits the listener to be anonymous if it is merely sniffing.
When you're sniffing you're anonymous by definition (unless your sniffing implementation gives you away to tools like anti-sniff). Not a feature of portknocking. And sniffing is relatively hard/risky.
Thus there can be completely blind communication.
Well.. No?
You use some mighty big words, but seem to be.. well.. confused.
You can do the same thing with a password over SSH, but that's higher level, using more complex code, and inherently more likely to succumb to high-level assaults such as buffer overflows, as well as mathematical assaults on the encryption itself, both of which fundamentally compromise the system's security.
In short, time-synchronized knocking is safer, simpler, and smarter than passwords or encryption for a certain number of niche applications.
Port knocking can only do authentication, so you'd still need encryption of the payload - that part of SSH is not replaced.
You could also just as easily use a one time password (yes even off of a one time pad) using SSH. There's nothing in SSH to prevent that, in fact, it can use pluggable authentication modules.
Port knocking is swell because it can totally disguise the fact that you're listening for incoming connections, and that's something ssh can't do.
If you used port knocking with a static sequence which then just fires up ssh(d), you'd be just as secure from an authentication viewpoint, and you'd have portknocking to hide the fact you're listening for incoming connections.
Nothing other than coolness makes portknocking more secure than any other one-time-password scheme based on the same underlying password-generating technology (e.g. one-time-pad or a prng or whatever).
People who like IE and never consider an alternative just call it "the internet".
.com first.
"the internet" lists IE as the second hit, microsoft
It's not Nokias that explode, it's the crappy 3rd party batteries that do.
Only in Nokia phones though. No reports of aftermarket parts exploding in other brands of phone.
That's like saying "It's not your Ford that explodes, it's the non-Exxon fuel! If you use Exxon fuel your Ford won't explode.."
Even if the aftermarket batteries are the "explosives" where does Nokia get off making detonators?
"play their music"
No, it's not "your music."
It's our music. All of us. The record companies just have it on loan for the duration of their copyright, which, unfortunately for us, keeps getting extended.
I've got no clue what the new Xfree license entails... But nonetheless, I think the community is overreacting. By dropping Xfree, we no longer have any long-term alternatives (yeah, there are forks, but they haven't been around long enough to prove their stability or their worth).
a) this IS a fork
b) being as it is a fork, it is XFree, the latest version before the license change, just being improved and such.
c) you might have read the press release about who is supporting it - a whole lot of people. They are now no longer behind XFree.
d) XFree was a fork of the reference implementation of X, the latter being made by the X.org people to begin with.
The only question is; how many XFree86 developers will jump ship to X.org? My guess is, most of them. By changing the license, the XFree86 project has made itself irrelevant, and who want to work on an irrelevant open source project? Yes, if people continue using XFree86, you'd get credited on manuals etc., but already RedHat, SuSE and debian are moving to X.org; so you'd be credited in places no one gets to see anyway, and your patches are of no use to anyone.
While obscenity is a Federal crime, the standards applied are "community standards".. So right-wing nutheads from will be determining what's "obscene" in San Fransisco. Presumably, pictures of gay couples getting "married" would be found obscene...
And you've got to love this:
The ensuing years saw an explosion of porn, so much so that critics say that Americans' tolerance for sexually explicit material rivals that of Europeans.
NOOOOOOoooooooooooo!!!! Think of the Children! They'll grow up to be all, all.. European-like!!
Can't have that happening!
Can't the FCC step in and prohibit the use of the words fuck, shit, piss, cunt, motherfucker, cocksucker and tits? (New CHEESE tits!)
Linux on an Ipod is basically pointless. Especially on this very device, which is what hip people [penny-arcade.com] buy in the first place (don't get me wrong, I have one). That doesn't mean people can't tweak with it, but it's not that useful, since the geek population using iPods is outnumbered by the common consumers.
.m3u files 'offline')
I've found the rockbox firmware for my Archos Jukebox pretty damn handy. And all it takes is to copy a file to the player. I'm sure an equivalently simple installation process will become available for 3rd party iPod firmware, and that 3rd party firmware will be just as good if not better than the original stuff in due time. Rockbox started out pretty useless I'd imagine, but I enjoy it now for its extended battery lifetime and countless extra features (though no real playlist abilities, but then, the physical UI of the archos jukebox player doesn't lend itself to easily composing those - so you have to compose
Parksysteme, in Germany, has been building such systems for forty years. But they haven't had many installations.
Some better known systems are above-ground silos that are covered in glass, so you can see the contents; car distributors (i.e. BMW) use these to at the same time store inventory and show it off (especially Smart brand cars).
This is an example of a cuboid based design; I think Parksysteme makes the cylindrical ones. There seem to be quite a bit of these around.
Presumably, they'd weasel out of it by calling their patches "enhancements", or including new features in any patch that requires a reboot and then announcing that it's an "free upgrade to version 3.1.0.4.8.9" and that versions prior to that are no longer supported.
The civil service has obviously had access to these documents for a while, so why do they have to "announce" these apparently real plans on April 1st and then get all irritable and have to deny repeatedly that its an april fools joke.
Why didn't they release the story yesterday, or couldn't they have waited until tomorrow?
It was on BBC news yesterday.
You're assuming that the company knowingly released expoitable software.
If they didn't do so knowingly, would they
a) fix the bugs, or
b) shoot the messenger, waisting precious time and money that could have been spent on item a)?