It would also make attribute driven programs a lot more versitile.
Doing a diff of a dir would tell you diff's in uid's, group id's, start dates.. whatever you want.
If you just wanted to get a unique list of owners of files in a dir, you dont' have to do an ls | cut, but now it's a matter of ls'ing all the file's attribute's... or catting them. you get the idea.
Really now. Imagine a rootkit that did the same thing on a server. It could go undetectable on machines that are more likely to stay on 24/7 than a home box that gets turned off for hours, if not days at a time.
Depending on what way the statistics sway, you may have the same throughput. That is, if someone bothers to write the service that does this.
As long as the format is regular, it's pretty trivial to write a
simple script to do the transformation. XML helps enforce a certain amount of regularity, but it's by no means the only regular format.
True, but writing parsers for things like, perl, is a pain in the butt. At least with XML, writing XSL to transform is realtively easy. Even for ant.
Thank god make isnt' written to use perl as its language. *shudder*
Encryption is just a way of making things easily unreasable. Translating something from engilsh to french would be a weak form of encryption if done to me, since I only know english. Well, almost.
DES, AES etc.. they are mathematically hard to do since it requires math to break it.. where as french would require a dictionary. Even if I had the keys, doing it w/o a computer is a pain in the ass.
So unless you can read and understand machine code to a full, if not small degree, code written for games are encrypted by the fact that you can't unerstand it.
Do you hate your telephone 'cause you may not understand the actual signals over your phone? Do you hate your computer since you cant' easily look at the firmware and understand it?
I'm all for open softare and hardware et al.. but sometimes, you gotta let it go and live with some things you have, such as machine code, or encryption, which in 1.. 5.. 20 years, will be easily breakable. Wlll you then, be ok with DRM of 2003?
Layers upon layers of complexity. XML, XSL, Java, Ant Schemas...all for compiling a program. My sig is appropriate, here, too. A build system for software should be easy, intuitive, transparent, etc. etc. There has yet to be a replacement for make that has these attributes (makes tab syntax really isn't that big of a deal, either, even though that's what most people latch onto when complaining about it).
Whoahoahoa.. no. Blatantly wrong. If ant 1.0 used one particular XML format, and you upgraded to ant 2.0, to go from an ant 1.0 file to 2.0 file, you'd apply an xsl style sheet ONCE to upgrade it all. Any future XML you write would be in the 2.0 format. Simple as that.
Small shell scripts and makefiles. Is more really necessary to call cc and ld or javac or whatever for each file in a directory tree? The differences among platforms can't be so dire as to require gigantic build automation tools, which introduce more problems than they solve!
Bash? csh? sh? tcsh? bash 2.0? Which shell are you suggesting is usable across them all?
ant is just a program, just like make is. You run it against a config file of a certain format, just like Makefiles have their own format. Ant is no more compicated than make. hell.. you can use the core stuff from ant to run any program across many files, just like make. The targeted tasks are just to make those easier.
I'm not comparing it to owning coke for all cases. It's not an analogy. I'm just pointing out, posession can be a crime in the gov't eyes. Having information, drugs.. sometimes people.
By making things classified.. unposessable, the point is to protect the people involved. Whether it's slaves, drugs, information. In the case of slaves, it's to protect the slave itself, since he's in the US. In the case of coke, it's so we don't have a buch of coke heads runnign around. In the case of information, it's to prevent enemies from knowing, as well as not causing panic.
This does not mean that outlawing will eliminate the "threat" of "bad stuff". After all, we'd need a duplicate country with the law being different to gauge whether the law itself prevents or reduces posession. I would guess, that by making illegal, you simply make it harder to get and easier to stop the people who do have it from spreading it around.
There may be other ways, but I'm sure the cost of stopping information, drugs, beer.. from being owned successfully isn't trivial.
You're joking right? Information isn't classified to facilitate prosecution, it's classified because the information itelf is deemed potentially harmful. IMO, it should only be classified as a last resort, and only in cases where the general public doesn't need to know the info.
Of course it isn't classified to facilitate prosecution. The law that deems classified information unsharable due to danger, is to enforce the classification. Marking something classified and not enforcing it with some sorta punishment isn't much of a status, eh? Especially if there is 0 moral consequences.
That's possession of an item, not knowledge of a piece of information. Big difference.
Not too much of a difference. You can own knowledge. You get a copy of the originail, just like audio and video, but you can own a copy. And having a copy, as copyright law states, is illegal unless you are allowed to have a copy. In the case of classified information, it's illegal for different reasons. Not for profit of a company, buit for saftey and possibly defense reasons, which stems from saftey.
One of the bigger reasons it is illegal is due to the harm it can create. Now, look at the fact that a lot of various drugs, some that are possibly less harmful or not at all, are illegal too.
If I took something out of context, I merely misunderstood. Not trying to twist the argument:)
But i have worked with classified information. Not gov't classified, but classified to the financial industry. I have to declare what I have and don't have, and because of the sector i'm in, I can't even do "things" with some of the stuff I have. And I have delt with information that isn't public till later. Granted, it isn't completely the same as gov't classifications, but I do have a feel for it. I know there's a LOT of beaucracy behind it.
But back to the value of classification, I rather be safe than sorry.
I'm sure they have some processing sugar (like syntatical sugar) to make things easier or better for developers for the 64 bit world. Not stupid things like adding two floats, but taknig advangates of being able to do some "neat" stuff.
I equate the classification of freely available information to gun control. If you make the information illegal, then you guarantee that only criminals will have the information. Here's an idea for the paranoid fucksticks at the DHS - instead of burying your heads in the sand, how about working on securing the infrastructure, rather than obscuring it? What's that, you're not sure which points would be the best ones to secure? Well, there's this grad student who's going to be looking for a job pretty soon...
But you see, making it illegal to have some information is better, 'cause it makes people easy to prosecute. Not that I condone it on all counts. But look at something like cocaine. You'd be insane to keep it on your person in a lot of instances. One of the bigger reasons it is illegal is due to the harm it can create. Now, look at the fact that a lot of various drugs, some that are possibly less harmful or not at all, are illegal too. But you know what? It makes some people annoyed, but a lot more people "safe". Problem is, people who discover they don't accept their version of safe, become like you.
"It shouldn't be illegal 'cause then only criminals will XXX."
That is much of the point. Rather make it harder to live happy by having everything, than making it harder to live happy by having too much.
If information wanted to be free, it'd have a will or method of making itself known.
Also, the gov't witholds certain information for our own safty. You don't want people panic'd and making situations worse. It doesn't justify keeping all information classified, but it does justify keeping some of it.
No, we won't mod you down. We'll tell you. You are nit picking. All it says about his writing qualitiy is, that he was nice enough to review the book. This is slashdot. It's relaxed and depends on contributions from people.. a lot.
Unless you have something nice to say, say nothign at all. And unless he made a flagrant error, I suggest just commenting on the book./trogdor
Realize, the press release is the announcement of a product. No one does press-releases for FreeBSD or Linux. The closest you see is an "Announcemnet".
So ease up. If I didn't read the press release, I wouldn't know about the product which seems quite interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
It would also make attribute driven programs a lot more versitile.
Doing a diff of a dir would tell you diff's in uid's, group id's, start dates.. whatever you want.
If you just wanted to get a unique list of owners of files in a dir, you dont' have to do an ls | cut, but now it's a matter of ls'ing all the file's attribute's... or catting them. you get the idea.
Ok guys.. you are making this too easy.
Viruses, trojas, womrs.. they don't have to use email alone. What about ISS worms? They use HTTP.
I'm sure if someone found something in redhat default installs for apache, there'd be quite a few servers in the future that would get hit.
Really now. Imagine a rootkit that did the same thing on a server. It could go undetectable on machines that are more likely to stay on 24/7 than a home box that gets turned off for hours, if not days at a time.
Depending on what way the statistics sway, you may have the same throughput. That is, if someone bothers to write the service that does this.
Or to get a ruling on somethign that may come up later. Two companies may arrange a trial just to see if something is ok by US law or not.
But I'm not sure if it's considered "suing". (sueing?)
Wow. Um.. this is NOT gonna bode well with religions (and the people involved) that believe in creationism. /catholic
True, but writing parsers for things like, perl, is a pain in the butt. At least with XML, writing XSL to transform is realtively easy. Even for ant.
Thank god make isnt' written to use perl as its language. *shudder*
Encryption is just a way of making things easily unreasable. Translating something from engilsh to french would be a weak form of encryption if done to me, since I only know english. Well, almost.
DES, AES etc.. they are mathematically hard to do since it requires math to break it.. where as french would require a dictionary. Even if I had the keys, doing it w/o a computer is a pain in the ass.
So unless you can read and understand machine code to a full, if not small degree, code written for games are encrypted by the fact that you can't unerstand it.
Do you hate your telephone 'cause you may not understand the actual signals over your phone? Do you hate your computer since you cant' easily look at the firmware and understand it?
I'm all for open softare and hardware et al.. but sometimes, you gotta let it go and live with some things you have, such as machine code, or encryption, which in 1.. 5.. 20 years, will be easily breakable. Wlll you then, be ok with DRM of 2003?
Whoahoahoa.. no. Blatantly wrong. If ant 1.0 used one particular XML format, and you upgraded to ant 2.0, to go from an ant 1.0 file to 2.0 file, you'd apply an xsl style sheet ONCE to upgrade it all. Any future XML you write would be in the 2.0 format. Simple as that.
Bash? csh? sh? tcsh? bash 2.0? Which shell are you suggesting is usable across them all?
ant is just a program, just like make is. You run it against a config file of a certain format, just like Makefiles have their own format. Ant is no more compicated than make. hell.. you can use the core stuff from ant to run any program across many files, just like make. The targeted tasks are just to make those easier.
The good thing about doing ant conf files in XML, si if they change the format, you can use xsl to transform ALL of your xml to a new format.
As for the java thing, run's most everywhere.
No, it's just 10 years of dupes on this story. *sigh* /tongue in cheek
I'm not comparing it to owning coke for all cases. It's not an analogy. I'm just pointing out, posession can be a crime in the gov't eyes. Having information, drugs.. sometimes people.
By making things classified.. unposessable, the point is to protect the people involved. Whether it's slaves, drugs, information. In the case of slaves, it's to protect the slave itself, since he's in the US. In the case of coke, it's so we don't have a buch of coke heads runnign around. In the case of information, it's to prevent enemies from knowing, as well as not causing panic.
This does not mean that outlawing will eliminate the "threat" of "bad stuff". After all, we'd need a duplicate country with the law being different to gauge whether the law itself prevents or reduces posession. I would guess, that by making illegal, you simply make it harder to get and easier to stop the people who do have it from spreading it around.
There may be other ways, but I'm sure the cost of stopping information, drugs, beer.. from being owned successfully isn't trivial.
Of course it isn't classified to facilitate prosecution. The law that deems classified information unsharable due to danger, is to enforce the classification. Marking something classified and not enforcing it with some sorta punishment isn't much of a status, eh? Especially if there is 0 moral consequences.
Not too much of a difference. You can own knowledge. You get a copy of the originail, just like audio and video, but you can own a copy. And having a copy, as copyright law states, is illegal unless you are allowed to have a copy. In the case of classified information, it's illegal for different reasons. Not for profit of a company, buit for saftey and possibly defense reasons, which stems from saftey.
One of the bigger reasons it is illegal is due to the harm it can create. Now, look at the fact that a lot of various drugs, some that are possibly less harmful or not at all, are illegal too.
If I took something out of context, I merely misunderstood. Not trying to twist the argument
But i have worked with classified information. Not gov't classified, but classified to the financial industry. I have to declare what I have and don't have, and because of the sector i'm in, I can't even do "things" with some of the stuff I have. And I have delt with information that isn't public till later. Granted, it isn't completely the same as gov't classifications, but I do have a feel for it. I know there's a LOT of beaucracy behind it.
But back to the value of classification, I rather be safe than sorry.
You can compile xsl easily enough. XML, yes, it takes time to generate, but if your timing requirements isn't too intense, DOM will work fine.
Or (to give a plug), use a template engine, like freemarker or stxx which uses xml output to xslt stylesheets. http://stxx.sourceforge.net
I'm sure they have some processing sugar (like syntatical sugar) to make things easier or better for developers for the 64 bit world. Not stupid things like adding two floats, but taknig advangates of being able to do some "neat" stuff.
But you see, making it illegal to have some information is better, 'cause it makes people easy to prosecute. Not that I condone it on all counts. But look at something like cocaine. You'd be insane to keep it on your person in a lot of instances. One of the bigger reasons it is illegal is due to the harm it can create. Now, look at the fact that a lot of various drugs, some that are possibly less harmful or not at all, are illegal too. But you know what? It makes some people annoyed, but a lot more people "safe". Problem is, people who discover they don't accept their version of safe, become like you.
"It shouldn't be illegal 'cause then only criminals will XXX."
That is much of the point. Rather make it harder to live happy by having everything, than making it harder to live happy by having too much.
The case is, protect too much with the consequences of making people angry, versus protecting too little and creating a danger.
If information wanted to be free, it'd have a will or method of making itself known.
Also, the gov't witholds certain information for our own safty. You don't want people panic'd and making situations worse. It doesn't justify keeping all information classified, but it does justify keeping some of it.
Nono.. it' explains why..
/eggman
"He is most ill and he's rhymin' and stealin'.
m'thinks that is how he got his info
beowulf cluster! /obligatory
No, we won't mod you down. We'll tell you. You are nit picking. All it says about his writing qualitiy is, that he was nice enough to review the book. This is slashdot. It's relaxed and depends on contributions from people.. a lot.
/trogdor
Unless you have something nice to say, say nothign at all. And unless he made a flagrant error, I suggest just commenting on the book.
Realize, the press release is the announcement of a product. No one does press-releases for FreeBSD or Linux. The closest you see is an "Announcemnet".
So ease up. If I didn't read the press release, I wouldn't know about the product which seems quite interesting.
Crackability. Sounds like a word nabisco would use.
/bored
"Ritz.. now with more crackability."
In turn, I think using the AC option was a pansy thing to do. PANSY!