For those who are not TCP/IP aware here is the entry you need to add to your hosts file, (that is on Unix like systems (like linux) (/etc/hosts)) to bypass the missing DNS entry.
88.80.13.160 wikileaks.org
In this way, you will bypass the absurd DNS injunction, and undermine the courts. (But wait, SCO has already done that.)
"The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around."
Depending on your OS you may need to log on to root to edit this file. If wikileaks.org ever changes its IP address you may need to update this entry. When the injunction is lifted DNS starts working again, the entry should be removed.
Basicly, the microkernel is a horrible example of bondage and discipline programming. In order to solve the low level problem of stray memory references, the professors from academia have come up with a low level solution, using the Memory Management Unit, (MMU) to prevent these errors. Unfortunately, this "solution" does high level collateral damage. By breaking the OS into a lot of little pieces, the u-kernels intoduce inefficiency. By putting constraints on how OSes are designed, ukernels make design, coding, and debugging more difficult. All of this to do checking, that at least in theory, could have been done at design, compile, or link time.
This error is basicly caused by wishfull thinking. The u-kernel advocates wish that Operation Systems design were less difficult. To Quote Torvalds:
So that 'microkernels are wonderful' mantra really comes from that desperate wish that the world should be simpler than it really is. It's why microkernels have obviously been very popular in academia, where often basically cannot afford to put a commercial-quality big development team on the issue, so you absolutely require that the problem is simpler.
So reality has nothing to do with microkernels. Exactly the reverse. The whole point of microkernels is to try to escape the reality that OS design and implementation is hard, and a lot of work.
It's an appealing notion.
Criticism of microkernels is said to be almost unknown in the academic world, where it might be a career limiting move (CLM).
In 1992, Tanenbaum said "LINUX is obsolete" and "it is now all over but the shoutin'" and "microkernels have won". It is now 2008, and the micro kernel advocates still have nothing that can compete with LINUX in its own problem space. It is time for micro kernel advocates to stop shouting.
We are all dead if we can not get out of the solar system.
If you want to know why read a news paper.
We can not get out of the solar system using rockets. Only a fundamental advance in physics can get us out. Therefore money should not be spent on cheap tricks with rockets. Money should be spent on fundamental physics. The builders of the UFOs have figured out how to do it. Therefore it is possible and we should work on figuring it out.
The physicists should play it like a bridge hand, that is, assume the contract can be made. That is, the physicists should assume as a axiom that there is a way out.
Nothing is lost by assuming this hypothesis. If it is false, we are all dead.
The highly educational program KStars can not be run on a OLPC because it runs under KDE not Sugar. But someone could create a stripped down kde environment capable of running KStars.
BTW, the KDE windows manager is not needed to run kde programs, just X11 and the KDE libraries.
If the OLPC supported triple boot, then people could create alternate ways to run programs that are not written in sugar, but booting REAL LINUX!
I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies of the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human religion. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means fitted to endure.
So that, upon the whole, we may conclude, that the Christian Religion not only was first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince of its veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.
Unfortunately, the only candidate that is "aware" of a need for funding the space program is Clinton. And that my friend is probably the easiest, cheapest way to put your worries to bed. The ability to leave the planet and watch the meteor smash it while drinking a beer on observation deck of a spaceship/station.
A space program does not protect against volcanos!
I believe that another issue that should be addressed is government preparation for really huge natural disasters. I am not talking about Hurricanes or tornadoes or even big earthquakes that can wipe out a single state.
I am talking about the erruption of the yellowstone supervolcano caldera that can drop volcanic ash on the whole country and wipe out several years' harvests. I am talking about a tidal wave from a collapse of the La Palma volcano that could flood the entire east coast.
I do not expect the government to save people in the immediate vicinity of these disasters--that is probably impossible. I do expect it try to save the rest of the country.
There are some things that clearly could be done. Food could be stockpiled. Masks to protect against volcanic dust could be stockpiled. Essential services like electric, communications could be routed around the flood zone on the east coast. There are many other things that could be done with thoughtfull preparation. Many lives (but not all) could be saved. Our Nation could still exist after one of these disasters with the right preparation.
FEMA is not going to ride to the rescue after these disasters have already occurred! Internal combustion engines will not work when their air filters are clogged with volcanic dust!
Air filters is one thing that should be stockpiled.
Most vehicles do not work under water.
It is known that these disasters will happen.
They are not a maybe or a could be like global warming, or what ever danger President Bush thinks he is fighting in Iraq. These disasters will happen, it is only a question of time.
It is difficult to plan for these disasters on an individual basis. You can try to stockpile food for your
family, but you also have to plan a defense to keep the starving hoards from taking that food from you.
Government could temporarily end the pay farmers not to grow food program, and use the money to stockpile food. In
this way, the whole nation could provided for.
Until we have a national plan to deal with huge disasters it is irrational to spend one single dollar on either Iraq or Global Warming. Because those problems are only could be or maybes. But the disasters I mention are known to be will bes!
The national media (with the exception of the History channel) are saying absolutely nothing about
this issue. I can not figure out why, but it is not right! Perhaps it is because these disasters can not be used as a pretext for further regulation of economic activity like global warming, and because every dollar used on these important problems can not be used to buy votes!
The key word here is "can". GC naturally sucks for the case you've outlined above, and the reasons are all correct, too. But many large programs out there don't really use that many "unmanaged" (in.NET parlance) resources - they mostly deal with classes and objects representing various entities and operations on them, which don't have any resources but memory to manage (they can use other resources during method invocations, but they don't hold onto them). GC is great for such stuff. The ability to pass around and return complex object graphs without caring about memory allocation is really worth it.
But there are many large C++ programs that do use the "object creation is resource allocation; object destruction is resource release" idiom in a fundmental way. Furthermore it is/was rational for these programs to do so. These programs should not be penalized because some are lazy and want the convenience of GC. Forced GC is too one size fits all. GC encourages a lazy programming style that can and usually does cause leaks of other (non-memory) resources.
Further, large numbers of C++ programs already exist. Such a fundmental change in philosophy would cause all these programs to have to be rewritten. All to support a dubious programming style. It is not going to happen. The people that ask for it do not understand C++ and its problem space. It is just annoying.
This problem has been known ever since David Hume wrote about causation in the Treatise and the Inquiry. It has been discussed in Philosophy departments Forever.
Hume points out that the extra assumptions needed to do Science are such that they are assumed by everyone every day in the course of daily life.
Yet another annoying attempt to force garbage collection on C++!
Garbage collection is a one size fits all solution, that is not appropriate for all the applications in the C++ problem space. Further there is a lot of C++ code already out there that does its own memory management. It would be difficult to retrofit this code to garbage collection.
Furthermore, many garbage collected languages lack proper destructors. At best they have a finalize method. This interfears with the C++ idiom "object creation is resource allocation; object destruction is resource release". This is the way C++ manages all resources. There are other resources besides memory; like open files, descriptors, network connections and many others. Because the garbage collected languages lack proper destructors, they actually make the management of these other resources more difficult. This can make garbage collected languages more complex and buggy. What the garbage collected languages give with one hand, they take away with the other!
I wish someone would develop a language with optional garbage collection and with proper destructors!
Will someone please explain to me why content modification is not a violation of
the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Clearly to modify content, you first have to intercept it.
Also as others have suggested, even if the ECPA could be waived by contract, this should violate the copyright
holder's copyright. The copyright holder is not a party to any agreement between the user and ISP.
The payments that Microsoft and Sun paid to SCO were nominally license fees, but actually were covert payments to fund SCOs lawsuits. By the terms of the SCO Novell deal license fees all belong to Novell and were never SCO's property. Judge Kimball has ruled that SCO converted (the civil word for stole) these fees.
Thus when Judge Kimball decides how much of the fees were for SVRX, that amount will be Novell's property that SCO never had title to.
So Novell will get priority for that amount over all other creditors for that amount.
But it is all based on a lie! The lie that the payments were for license fees!
In the action in Judge Kimball's court, no party has motivation to tell the truth about these fees. Novell does not want to say that the payments were not really license fees, because Novell wants that money. SCO can not tell the truth about those payments, because it would expose SCO executives to Lanham act charges. Thus, no party has motivation to tell the truth about those payments! The people that will be hurt by the judgment that the fees are not license fees (the other creditors) are not parties to the suit and hence have no right to speak!
Once the legal system gets to IBM's case (if it ever gets there), IBM may find itself in this category. But IBM is not interested in the money per-se, it wants to kick the $^&* out of SCO so that no one else ever wants to try to extort IBM again. Since Novell is helping kick the @#$% out of SCO, IBM is probably happy!
But what about SCO's other creditors? What about the poor programmers that work for SCO? What about the electric company for that matter? What about SCO's non-management witnesses? These people should not be punished for Microsoft and SCO's lie!
Because your cerebellum is misaligned setting up harmonic oscillations in your prefrontal cortex that threaten to overwhelm your structural integrity field. You've been playing with the matter / anti-matter inducer again haven't you?
Many people have a negative impression of forks. This view is incorrect. The threat of forks is the prime factor that protects free software users from exploitation by free software project leaders. When you get free software, you basicly have no right to demand anything from the software developers. As proprietary software has shown, there are many ways for the author of software to exploit end users. With free software the only factor that prevents this fear of forks! Project leaders know that if they go too far in the "wrong" direction, their project will fork! This is why forks are usually unnecessary.
Project forks are like the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Everyone knows the potential is there, so therefore it hardly ever happens!
Still, no one likes a gratuitous fork. Such forks are likely to fail. When a project forks, the leaders of the new branch are usually extremely apologetic explaining why the fork was necessary.
What if you are not a developer and do not have the technical ability to fork? How are you protected?
You are protected by the free rider principal. If you are justly unhappy with the way a project is going, chances are some developer is also. You can take a "free ride" on some one else's fork!
The right to fork is the sole protection end users receive from free software licensing. The right to fork is the right to be free!
As was noted yesterday, the internet uses 10% of electric power consumption in the U.S. A significant portion of the internet is devoted to p0rn. This p0rn contributes nothing of value to our society or culture. I believe that this portion of the Internet should be shutdown in order to prevent global warming and save the earth for our children.
Would you be willing to give up your p0rn for the sake of the children?
I plan to wait a year to let the bugs in this license shake out. I believe that GPLv3 is an improvement, but I am willing to let somebody's else's project be the guinea pig.
The Linux kernel development process is a spontaneous order. No government or "Central Committee" established it.
History has proved time and time again that when ever a "Central Committee" tries to interfear with a spontaneous order, the result is always bad.
Those who sit at ease making "bright idea" suggestions on how the kernel development process should be improved are really those who in their minds promote themselves to be members of a controlling "central committee".
The kernel development process can not be improved by those who sit.
The real way to improve the process is to git (pun intended) involved. Make a patch suggestion! Or if you are a rebel try to fork the process! Do something!
L. Detweiler created the theory called
the Snakes of Medusa that large numbers of
anonymous identities were being created, called
tentacles, and that these snakes were conspiring with each other for nefarious purposes.
Some cypherpunks discovered that Detweiler
was using his own theories, and that he had several tentacles of his own.
The GPL is not a contract. It was explictly and consciencely designed not to be a contract. It is not a contract because there is no two way exchange of value and no two way agreement. It's text explicitly says that you do not have to agree to it. It is a unilateral grant of rights.
Slashdot Mirror
"The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around."
Depending on your OS you may need to log on to root to edit this file. If wikileaks.org ever changes its IP address you may need to update this entry. When the injunction is lifted DNS starts working again, the entry should be removed.
I suspect the reason there is so much fuel in one place, is that there is no oxidizer to burn it.
I just tried this with Opensuse 10.3 with kernel patch=kernel-default-2.6.22.16-0.2
the exploit worked.
Basicly, the microkernel is a horrible example of bondage and discipline programming. In order to solve the low level problem of stray memory references, the professors from academia have come up with a low level solution, using the Memory Management Unit, (MMU) to prevent these errors. Unfortunately, this "solution" does high level collateral damage. By breaking the OS into a lot of little pieces, the u-kernels intoduce inefficiency. By putting constraints on how OSes are designed, ukernels make design, coding, and debugging more difficult. All of this to do checking, that at least in theory, could have been done at design, compile, or link time.
This error is basicly caused by wishfull thinking. The u-kernel advocates wish that Operation Systems design were less difficult. To Quote Torvalds:
Criticism of microkernels is said to be almost unknown in the academic world, where it might be a career limiting move (CLM).In 1992, Tanenbaum said "LINUX is obsolete" and "it is now all over but the shoutin'" and "microkernels have won". It is now 2008, and the micro kernel advocates still have nothing that can compete with LINUX in its own problem space. It is time for micro kernel advocates to stop shouting.
If you want to know why read a news paper.
We can not get out of the solar system using rockets. Only a fundamental advance in physics can get us out. Therefore money should not be spent on cheap tricks with rockets. Money should be spent on fundamental physics. The builders of the UFOs have figured out how to do it. Therefore it is possible and we should work on figuring it out.
The physicists should play it like a bridge hand, that is, assume the contract can be made. That is, the physicists should assume as a axiom that there is a way out.
Nothing is lost by assuming this hypothesis. If it is false, we are all dead.
BTW, the KDE windows manager is not needed to run kde programs, just X11 and the KDE libraries.
If the OLPC supported triple boot, then people could create alternate ways to run programs that are not written in sugar, but booting REAL LINUX!
Funny I felt a vast disturbance in the force that day. It was as if a gazillion worms suddenly cried out and then there was silence!
I am talking about the erruption of the yellowstone supervolcano caldera that can drop volcanic ash on the whole country and wipe out several years' harvests. I am talking about a tidal wave from a collapse of the La Palma volcano that could flood the entire east coast.
I do not expect the government to save people in the immediate vicinity of these disasters--that is probably impossible. I do expect it try to save the rest of the country.
There are some things that clearly could be done. Food could be stockpiled. Masks to protect against volcanic dust could be stockpiled. Essential services like electric, communications could be routed around the flood zone on the east coast. There are many other things that could be done with thoughtfull preparation. Many lives (but not all) could be saved. Our Nation could still exist after one of these disasters with the right preparation.
FEMA is not going to ride to the rescue after these disasters have already occurred! Internal combustion engines will not work when their air filters are clogged with volcanic dust! Air filters is one thing that should be stockpiled. Most vehicles do not work under water.
It is known that these disasters will happen. They are not a maybe or a could be like global warming, or what ever danger President Bush thinks he is fighting in Iraq. These disasters will happen, it is only a question of time.
It is difficult to plan for these disasters on an individual basis. You can try to stockpile food for your family, but you also have to plan a defense to keep the starving hoards from taking that food from you. Government could temporarily end the pay farmers not to grow food program, and use the money to stockpile food. In this way, the whole nation could provided for.
Until we have a national plan to deal with huge disasters it is irrational to spend one single dollar on either Iraq or Global Warming. Because those problems are only could be or maybes. But the disasters I mention are known to be will bes!
The national media (with the exception of the History channel) are saying absolutely nothing about this issue. I can not figure out why, but it is not right! Perhaps it is because these disasters can not be used as a pretext for further regulation of economic activity like global warming, and because every dollar used on these important problems can not be used to buy votes!
Further, large numbers of C++ programs already exist. Such a fundmental change in philosophy would cause all these programs to have to be rewritten. All to support a dubious programming style. It is not going to happen. The people that ask for it do not understand C++ and its problem space. It is just annoying.
Hume points out that the extra assumptions needed to do Science are such that they are assumed by everyone every day in the course of daily life.
Garbage collection is a one size fits all solution, that is not appropriate for all the applications in the C++ problem space. Further there is a lot of C++ code already out there that does its own memory management. It would be difficult to retrofit this code to garbage collection.
Furthermore, many garbage collected languages lack proper destructors. At best they have a finalize method. This interfears with the C++ idiom "object creation is resource allocation; object destruction is resource release". This is the way C++ manages all resources. There are other resources besides memory; like open files, descriptors, network connections and many others. Because the garbage collected languages lack proper destructors, they actually make the management of these other resources more difficult. This can make garbage collected languages more complex and buggy. What the garbage collected languages give with one hand, they take away with the other!
I wish someone would develop a language with optional garbage collection and with proper destructors!
Also as others have suggested, even if the ECPA could be waived by contract, this should violate the copyright holder's copyright. The copyright holder is not a party to any agreement between the user and ISP.
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.
Thus when Judge Kimball decides how much of the fees were for SVRX, that amount will be Novell's property that SCO never had title to.
So Novell will get priority for that amount over all other creditors for that amount.
But it is all based on a lie! The lie that the payments were for license fees!
In the action in Judge Kimball's court, no party has motivation to tell the truth about these fees. Novell does not want to say that the payments were not really license fees, because Novell wants that money. SCO can not tell the truth about those payments, because it would expose SCO executives to Lanham act charges. Thus, no party has motivation to tell the truth about those payments! The people that will be hurt by the judgment that the fees are not license fees (the other creditors) are not parties to the suit and hence have no right to speak!
Once the legal system gets to IBM's case (if it ever gets there), IBM may find itself in this category. But IBM is not interested in the money per-se, it wants to kick the $^&* out of SCO so that no one else ever wants to try to extort IBM again. Since Novell is helping kick the @#$% out of SCO, IBM is probably happy!
But what about SCO's other creditors? What about the poor programmers that work for SCO? What about the electric company for that matter? What about SCO's non-management witnesses? These people should not be punished for Microsoft and SCO's lie!
How does the shellfish relate to the Aquatic ape hypothesis which is thought by many to be crackpot?
is now and ever shall be
world without end.
Project forks are like the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Everyone knows the potential is there, so therefore it hardly ever happens!
Still, no one likes a gratuitous fork. Such forks are likely to fail. When a project forks, the leaders of the new branch are usually extremely apologetic explaining why the fork was necessary.
What if you are not a developer and do not have the technical ability to fork? How are you protected?
You are protected by the free rider principal. If you are justly unhappy with the way a project is going, chances are some developer is also. You can take a "free ride" on some one else's fork!
The right to fork is the sole protection end users receive from free software licensing. The right to fork is the right to be free!
Would you be willing to give up your p0rn for the sake of the children?
I plan to wait a year to let the bugs in this license shake out. I believe that GPLv3 is an improvement, but I am willing to let somebody's else's project be the guinea pig.
History has proved time and time again that when ever a "Central Committee" tries to interfear with a spontaneous order, the result is always bad.
Those who sit at ease making "bright idea" suggestions on how the kernel development process should be improved are really those who in their minds promote themselves to be members of a controlling "central committee".
The kernel development process can not be improved by those who sit.
The real way to improve the process is to git (pun intended) involved. Make a patch suggestion! Or if you are a rebel try to fork the process! Do something!
Chair warmers will accomplish nothing.
Some cypherpunks discovered that Detweiler was using his own theories, and that he had several tentacles of his own.
This incident confirms the Detweiler theory.
Eben Moglen tells how he enforces the GPL without it being a contract.
Next time do some reading before calling someone a moron.