not sure what priority levels are available in Win9x
Now (not yet implimented)
Very Soon (reserved)
Soon (reserved)
Later (default priority for OS)
Much Later (default priority for MS applications)
Epoc Speed (default priority for non-MS applications)
Of course this is just from my own observations. The actual API calls may be named differently;)
Is:
RESTRICTED - You have attempted to access a restricted site. This restriction is to prevent you from inadvertently bringing offensive/non-business related material into the workplace. The proxy's access control configuration denies access to the requested object through this proxy.
Seeing as how I'm working with Unix systems I find the idea that this is either Offensive or Non-Business related rather amusing.
The only thing I can think of is that all of www.tuxedo.org is blocked, but I'm not sure why.
So what is it?
>>linking is equivalent to distributing banned content yourself
so by his thinking, if I link to a picture of a pot plant, its the same as distributing that same pot plant?
I'm not sure that its a fair analogy.
In your case what he's saying is that you are distributing the picture of the pot plant.
The main problem with Digital Media is that it is Digital Media. You can (so far) double click on a new monitor, and download the new monitor into your home. You CAN double click on a song and get a perfect copy of it indistinguishable from what you would hear off of a CD. You can even get a whole album and burn your own CD if you want.
I don't agree that linking is equivalen to distributing the content yourself, but that is whats freaking out the RIAA and MPAA more then anything else. They survive by having the best distribution channels in place. The internet just obsoleted that.
If everyone had a machine that, when fed a chemical formula, could reproduce any chemical, and all you had to do was double-click on the formula for Pot and the computer would retrieve that formula, download it into this device, and the device what output processed pot, would you consider linking to that formula "distribution"?
You may laugh, but thats the way it works now for MP3, WAV, AVI and MPG files.
for the unenlightened, can you explain the differences between static and dynamic linking? i don't know since i don't do high level languages.
Get thee to a programming class!::grin::
Basically:
Static = linked once when the program is compiled, so that the library is incorporated into the final executable.
Dynamic = the final executable dynamically links to the library (the *.so on Linux or *.dll on Windows) when it executes in order to access the routines in it.
Advantage of Static over Dynamic is that you don't need to worry about what version of the library is installed on the target machine, you already have your own version included in your program.
Advantages of Dynamic over Static (and the main reason it is used) is that it decreases the size executables take up (if 5 programs use the same library, you only need one copy), and it allows you to update a library without having to recompile all the programs that use it, provided the interface remains the same, giving the benifit of bug fixes easily for commonly used routines. (If the interface or expected behavior changes wildly then things get bad because one system might expect a certain version of a library, and another program might expect a different version with a different interface, hence the expression "DLL Hell" on MS Windows.
NIST reminds all interested parties that the adoption of AES is being conducted as an open standards-setting activity. Specifically, NIST has requested that all interested parties identify to NIST any patents or inventions that may be required for the use of AES. NIST hereby gives public notice that it may seek redress under the antitrust laws of the United States against any party in the future who might seek to exercise patent rights against any user of AES that have not been disclosed to NIST in response to this request for information."
-- Quoted from the NIST homepage
Its nice to know that someone thought this through and/or has been paying attention to recent events in the Patent arena.
Re:Depends what you do with it... and what OS
on
Portable Linux Box
·
· Score: 2
>>2) want a quiet low profile firewall in your >>server closet (what? you mean everyone doesn't have a server closet?)
>
>I've got a server corner of the room, which means >I'm jealous:), but I put together a quiet low >profile firewall (granted not this low) for $350.
Don't be too jelous. My server closet is under my desk. I wish I had a corner:)
>This is a great idea!, but what a niche.
I think they realized this, which is why the next generation (available in Japan already according to an earlier slashdot article) incorporates a NIC card, and the floppy/DVD drive into the unit. The device is bigger, but I can see where it would be useful.
1) Telecommuter who doesn't need the device while in route (Corporate executive?)
2) Security orginization. This would essentially allow them to have people work at 'real' computers, and then check them in to a desk or lock them up in a safe at night.
3) Sales Presentations/Conference Demos. Just add projector. Why bring a laptop? the integrated pointer is perfect for giving demos, (all you need is a mouse durring a presentation), or add a 'happy hacker' keyboard (as small if not small then a laptops. Heck, with the size of projectors nowadays, you might be able to put the device, keyboard, and projector into the same size as a laptop, but with more flexability (being able to give presentations also, or project onto the nearest whiteboard to do some work).
Granted most of this is still a niche market.
Heck, if I knew someone on a budget, for 800 they get a decent computer in a small space. I know one or two people who would jump on that. Add a flatscreen, keyboard, mouse, and low profile speakers, and this might be nice for anywhere where space is at a premium (Int. Space Station?).
The other funny thing was that it appears that the Russians have perfected cloning as the three FSB persons and the former FSB person who looked and acted similar!
Ever see the FBI? They've had this technology for a long time. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if either one side stole it from the other, they both bought it from a third party, or else it demonstrates the idea of parallel development:)
You know, this 'felon' is caught remarkably soon after MS's statement about Open Source software being "Un-American". This all reaks of being an MS conspiracy to discredit Open Source by using it to sell secrets to our enemies!
I had an Amiga 1000 (with an second external hard drive) and that thing was nice.
Of course I eventually had my modem and then its Printer, and motherboard all fry (long set of stories).
I ended up using the monitor as a TV screen hooked into my cable box when I finally got my own apartment until the picture tube burnt out.
Now all I have left is a big stack of floppies and the external drive. I've heard that IBM drives can't read Amiga drives (don't want to test that). I'd love to transfer stuff off of them (early writings, games, etc). So I can use them in an emulator or something. Anyone know if I can get a converter to hook up the amiga drive to an IBM? Or some other way to pull off the data?
>>It's bad crime-fighting too, since in the U.S. evidence obtained illegally is automatically discarded.
I was under the impression that evidence obtained illegally was only discarded if the source was a law enforcement agency. If evidence obtained illegally is presented to a law enforcement agency then they may use it (since THEY didn't act illegally to obtain the evidence). Now, wether charges can/should be brought against someone like that for breaking and entering is a totally different matter.
Depends what you do with it... and what OS
on
Portable Linux Box
·
· Score: 2
All it really needs is two NIC slots and it would be perfect for lots of applications.
1) want to set up a linux game server for an impromptu Network game?:)
2) want a quiet low profile firewall in your server closet (what? you mean everyone doesn't have a server closet?)
3) I know someone who works in security. He lugs around two laptops, so he can test things out. Having one of these with an ethernet interface would be lovely. Just set it up to boot a terminal off of the serial interface. Assign it an IP address, and then telnet into it, and Viola. A much smaller solution to needing to lug around two laptops.
I just felt that there should be some middle ground between giving unfettered access to the stuff to Comercial enterprises (and locking it away from Open Source), and between GPLing it, and forcing Comercial to use it. It may have been a little late and I was tired when I wrote it, but essentially I believed that neither one should be given an advantage by way of a restricted license (although I admit that my bias is toward Open Source, mostly due to companies like MicroSoft who have abused the public trust).
The day the Senate has a flamefest about the GPL and BSD is the day most techies find the CSPAN channel insteresting.:)
This is going to sound like a Troll but think about it for a minute before answering. Its really not ment as one.
You said:
"Anyone who is paid by the government to produce software, should be obliged to make the software available, for free, to everyone, with no strings attached." (emphesis mine)
Okay, I will agree with this statement but add that the GPL adds a 'string'. It requires that I am not allowed to use that code in an unrestricted manner (ie. a Closed Source project). A BSD style license would allow people to use the code in Open Source projects or in Closed Source ones.
Now, I also agree that if it was produced by taxpayer dollars, then if you want to do use it for Commercial gain, tough, you should re-impliment the code yourself. On the other hand, I can see that perhaps the LGPL might be more apropriate if the work is involved in producing a standard (ie. a referance implimentation) and it can be encapsulated into a library. This would allow it to be used by both closed and open source projects, and would hasten the adoption of the standard, while requiring that any change the closed source project attempts to make to the library (embrace & extend perhaps), is propogated back out to the community (if the use of the code can be monitored in some way).
Perhaps the reference library covered under the LGPL and the actual code itself covered under the GPL, might provide the msot flexability, but maintain the ability for closed source projects to still utilize the work while not surpassing the rights of the individuals.
MS is definately telling the truth (well, sort of).
The GPL is definately a borg-ish license (funny considering the picture of good old Bill that slashdot uses). This isn't a bad thing, but it is accurate.
The half-truth is the nonsense about it constraining "taxpayer funded software developement". Obviously he must mean the Microsoft-Tax, since otherwise I would expect that anything developed with money from the public, should be owned by the public.
There are several reasons that Microsoft could be doing this:
1) They are trying to cut down Open Source in the eyes of the uneducated (gee... there's a shocker)
2) They would prefer people use the BSD license so they can just take code and use it internally without worrying about things like having to extend their own code.
3) There is GPL code in an MS product and they are testing the waters to fight the GPL in court.
This last item is uncertain. Without a code review how can you really know when any closed source project uses open source code? Since an independent code review will never happen, this is a moot point (although I doubt even they would do this deliberately since their lawyers would eat them alive).
The amusing bit was the articles comment that Sun is embrasing the GPL. It makes sense. All Sun cares about (for the most part) is selling hardware (and more and more Java). If MS came out and supported Sparc over Intel for WindowsXP Sun would back off (maybe). Right now they are trying to hit MS where it hurts, in the Office Suite.
Of course in the long term Linux is starting to erode its marketplace (some, not drastically yet, although mind-share is definately shifting), and Mac OS X is awaited as Apple's rebirth. While I believe the former would have happened without any action by MS (in fact MS's inaction is probably what caused the growth of the Linux market more then anything else), the latter might not have happened if they hadn't put money into it and helped Apple limp along.
Of course this is just a guess. Its not like I have a working suborbital ascent vehicle that could forcibly eject that piece of floating refuse from the heavens or something. Right?
I'm not sure that this signifies MS is on the run.
What it DOES signify is:
1) MS views Open Source software as a threat (and rightly so IMHO)
2) MS thinks ONE of the ways to deal with it, is to discredit Open Source software.
They actually may have something there, since their bread and butter are offices. If they can convince enough of them that OSS is bad, they might stave off an OSS invasion. The truth is they may have acted too late though.
IBM HP and SGI are backing Linux
SUN is shipping Gnome as the desktop on the next rev of Solaris, not to mention that OpenOffice is picking up speed
(and I know the same companies mentioned above and others are now investing in the KDE and Gnome organizations)
There is lots of corporate influence out there that is getting in line behind OSS (in general) and Linux (in particular). MS may have ticked off too many people with its arogance, and bugs.
Sounds good. Just set up a region of the screen with associated Javascript code to handle a MOUSEOVER command. Then tie that into code which (1) launches an order, and (2) disables the mouseover box (to keep the truly moronic from ordering the same item again and again). If you want you can include a quantity box above the mouseover box. THat way you could order more then one quantity of an item at a time, all by moving your mouse over the 'ZERO-CLICK ORDERING' region of the HTML page:)
Heck, you could even do 2 mouseover regions either near each other or side by side (but far enough away to make it unlikely to pass over both accidentally). Use the first as a sort of 'safety toggle'. You have to pass over the first region to activate zero-click ordering, then pass over the second region to make the order and relock the system (meaning you would have to pass over the first region in order to unlock the ordering region again).
Remember folks, you've heard it hear first:)
You know... it may take some playing with, but I think it might actually have some interesting applications. If the ordering kicks off a child window to actually process the order (keeping the current window pointing to the same page but opening up a stripped down window for the processing and status), this might actually be a usable idea.
Um... Is it in their best interests to change patent practices? (especially if they are being payed lots of money recently ro fight against them). If they actually take pride in what they do, sure, go for it, I trust them... but 'pride in what they do' is not the sort of thing I usually associate with a law firm.
Slashdot Mirror
not sure what priority levels are available in Win9x
;)
Now (not yet implimented)
Very Soon (reserved)
Soon (reserved)
Later (default priority for OS)
Much Later (default priority for MS applications)
Epoc Speed (default priority for non-MS applications)
Of course this is just from my own observations. The actual API calls may be named differently
Sorry for the "OT" question, but what exactly does the www.tuxedo.org site do? It seems to be banned by the "Censor-ware" at the client I am at.
e r3 .html
The response when I try to get:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/taoup/chapt
Is:
RESTRICTED - You have attempted to access a restricted site. This restriction is to prevent you from inadvertently bringing offensive/non-business related material into the workplace.
The proxy's access control configuration denies access to the requested object through this proxy.
Seeing as how I'm working with Unix systems I find the idea that this is either Offensive or Non-Business related rather amusing.
The only thing I can think of is that all of www.tuxedo.org is blocked, but I'm not sure why.
So what is it?
>>linking is equivalent to distributing banned content yourself
so by his thinking, if I link to a picture of a pot plant, its the same as distributing that same pot plant?
I'm not sure that its a fair analogy.
In your case what he's saying is that you are distributing the picture of the pot plant.
The main problem with Digital Media is that it is Digital Media. You can (so far) double click on a new monitor, and download the new monitor into your home. You CAN double click on a song and get a perfect copy of it indistinguishable from what you would hear off of a CD. You can even get a whole album and burn your own CD if you want.
I don't agree that linking is equivalen to distributing the content yourself, but that is whats freaking out the RIAA and MPAA more then anything else. They survive by having the best distribution channels in place. The internet just obsoleted that.
If everyone had a machine that, when fed a chemical formula, could reproduce any chemical, and all you had to do was double-click on the formula for Pot and the computer would retrieve that formula, download it into this device, and the device what output processed pot, would you consider linking to that formula "distribution"?
You may laugh, but thats the way it works now for MP3, WAV, AVI and MPG files.
for the unenlightened, can you explain the differences between static and dynamic linking? i don't know since i don't do high level languages.
Get thee to a programming class!
Basically:
Static = linked once when the program is compiled, so that the library is incorporated into the final executable.
Dynamic = the final executable dynamically links to the library (the *.so on Linux or *.dll on Windows) when it executes in order to access the routines in it.
Advantage of Static over Dynamic is that you don't need to worry about what version of the library is installed on the target machine, you already have your own version included in your program.
Advantages of Dynamic over Static (and the main reason it is used) is that it decreases the size executables take up (if 5 programs use the same library, you only need one copy), and it allows you to update a library without having to recompile all the programs that use it, provided the interface remains the same, giving the benifit of bug fixes easily for commonly used routines. (If the interface or expected behavior changes wildly then things get bad because one system might expect a certain version of a library, and another program might expect a different version with a different interface, hence the expression "DLL Hell" on MS Windows.
" SPECIAL NOTE - Intellectual Property
NIST reminds all interested parties that the adoption of AES is being conducted as an open standards-setting activity. Specifically, NIST has requested that all interested parties identify to NIST any patents or inventions that may be required for the use of AES. NIST hereby gives public notice that it may seek redress under the antitrust laws of the United States against any party in the future who might seek to exercise patent rights against any user of AES that have not been disclosed to NIST in response to this request for information."
-- Quoted from the NIST homepage
Its nice to know that someone thought this through and/or has been paying attention to recent events in the Patent arena.
>>2) want a quiet low profile firewall in your >>server closet (what? you mean everyone doesn't have a server closet?) :), but I put together a quiet low >profile firewall (granted not this low) for $350.
:)
>
>I've got a server corner of the room, which means >I'm jealous
Don't be too jelous. My server closet is under my desk. I wish I had a corner
>This is a great idea!, but what a niche.
I think they realized this, which is why the next generation (available in Japan already according to an earlier slashdot article) incorporates a NIC card, and the floppy/DVD drive into the unit. The device is bigger, but I can see where it would be useful.
1) Telecommuter who doesn't need the device while in route (Corporate executive?)
2) Security orginization. This would essentially allow them to have people work at 'real' computers, and then check them in to a desk or lock them up in a safe at night.
3) Sales Presentations/Conference Demos. Just add projector. Why bring a laptop? the integrated pointer is perfect for giving demos, (all you need is a mouse durring a presentation), or add a 'happy hacker' keyboard (as small if not small then a laptops. Heck, with the size of projectors nowadays, you might be able to put the device, keyboard, and projector into the same size as a laptop, but with more flexability (being able to give presentations also, or project onto the nearest whiteboard to do some work).
Granted most of this is still a niche market.
Heck, if I knew someone on a budget, for 800 they get a decent computer in a small space. I know one or two people who would jump on that. Add a flatscreen, keyboard, mouse, and low profile speakers, and this might be nice for anywhere where space is at a premium (Int. Space Station?).
The other funny thing was that it appears that the Russians have perfected cloning as the three FSB persons and the former FSB person who looked and acted similar!
:)
Ever see the FBI? They've had this technology for a long time. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if either one side stole it from the other, they both bought it from a third party, or else it demonstrates the idea of parallel development
You know, this 'felon' is caught remarkably soon after MS's statement about Open Source software being "Un-American". This all reaks of being an MS conspiracy to discredit Open Source by using it to sell secrets to our enemies!
Too true.
I had an Amiga 1000 (with an second external hard drive) and that thing was nice.
Of course I eventually had my modem and then its Printer, and motherboard all fry (long set of stories).
I ended up using the monitor as a TV screen hooked into my cable box when I finally got my own apartment until the picture tube burnt out.
Now all I have left is a big stack of floppies and the external drive. I've heard that IBM drives can't read Amiga drives (don't want to test that). I'd love to transfer stuff off of them (early writings, games, etc). So I can use them in an emulator or something. Anyone know if I can get a converter to hook up the amiga drive to an IBM? Or some other way to pull off the data?
>> Amazing to hear that a lawyer will actually admit to doing something like that.
Oh, and while we are on the topic, can a move be made for an ethical hearing to have him dis-barred? >:)
>>It's bad crime-fighting too, since in the U.S. evidence obtained illegally is automatically discarded.
I was under the impression that evidence obtained illegally was only discarded if the source was a law enforcement agency. If evidence obtained illegally is presented to a law enforcement agency then they may use it (since THEY didn't act illegally to obtain the evidence). Now, wether charges can/should be brought against someone like that for breaking and entering is a totally different matter.
All it really needs is two NIC slots and it would be perfect for lots of applications.
:)
1) want to set up a linux game server for an impromptu Network game?
2) want a quiet low profile firewall in your server closet (what? you mean everyone doesn't have a server closet?)
3) I know someone who works in security. He lugs around two laptops, so he can test things out. Having one of these with an ethernet interface would be lovely. Just set it up to boot a terminal off of the serial interface. Assign it an IP address, and then telnet into it, and Viola. A much smaller solution to needing to lug around two laptops.
I just felt that there should be some middle ground between giving unfettered access to the stuff to Comercial enterprises (and locking it away from Open Source), and between GPLing it, and forcing Comercial to use it. It may have been a little late and I was tired when I wrote it, but essentially I believed that neither one should be given an advantage by way of a restricted license (although I admit that my bias is toward Open Source, mostly due to companies like MicroSoft who have abused the public trust).
:)
The day the Senate has a flamefest about the GPL and BSD is the day most techies find the CSPAN channel insteresting.
This is going to sound like a Troll but think about it for a minute before answering. Its really not ment as one.
You said:
"Anyone who is paid by the government to produce software, should be obliged to make the software available, for free, to everyone, with no strings attached." (emphesis mine)
Okay, I will agree with this statement but add that the GPL adds a 'string'. It requires that I am not allowed to use that code in an unrestricted manner (ie. a Closed Source project). A BSD style license would allow people to use the code in Open Source projects or in Closed Source ones.
Now, I also agree that if it was produced by taxpayer dollars, then if you want to do use it for Commercial gain, tough, you should re-impliment the code yourself. On the other hand, I can see that perhaps the LGPL might be more apropriate if the work is involved in producing a standard (ie. a referance implimentation) and it can be encapsulated into a library. This would allow it to be used by both closed and open source projects, and would hasten the adoption of the standard, while requiring that any change the closed source project attempts to make to the library (embrace & extend perhaps), is propogated back out to the community (if the use of the code can be monitored in some way).
Perhaps the reference library covered under the LGPL and the actual code itself covered under the GPL, might provide the msot flexability, but maintain the ability for closed source projects to still utilize the work while not surpassing the rights of the individuals.
Just a few thouhts.
MS is definately telling the truth (well, sort of).
The GPL is definately a borg-ish license (funny considering the picture of good old Bill that slashdot uses). This isn't a bad thing, but it is accurate.
The half-truth is the nonsense about it constraining "taxpayer funded software developement". Obviously he must mean the Microsoft-Tax, since otherwise I would expect that anything developed with money from the public, should be owned by the public.
There are several reasons that Microsoft could be doing this:
1) They are trying to cut down Open Source in the eyes of the uneducated (gee... there's a shocker)
2) They would prefer people use the BSD license so they can just take code and use it internally without worrying about things like having to extend their own code.
3) There is GPL code in an MS product and they are testing the waters to fight the GPL in court.
This last item is uncertain. Without a code review how can you really know when any closed source project uses open source code? Since an independent code review will never happen, this is a moot point (although I doubt even they would do this deliberately since their lawyers would eat them alive).
The amusing bit was the articles comment that Sun is embrasing the GPL. It makes sense. All Sun cares about (for the most part) is selling hardware (and more and more Java). If MS came out and supported Sparc over Intel for WindowsXP Sun would back off (maybe). Right now they are trying to hit MS where it hurts, in the Office Suite.
Thats amusing.
Anoying though. I just signed up for a subscription at Linux World Expo in NY and was looking forward to trying the mag out.
Now I find that they've gone under.
I haven't received an issue yet, but I did get a nifty t-shirt for signing up.
Of course in the long term Linux is starting to erode its marketplace (some, not drastically yet, although mind-share is definately shifting), and Mac OS X is awaited as Apple's rebirth. While I believe the former would have happened without any action by MS (in fact MS's inaction is probably what caused the growth of the Linux market more then anything else), the latter might not have happened if they hadn't put money into it and helped Apple limp along.
2001-03-26 08:23:46
Of course this is just a guess. Its not like I have a working suborbital ascent vehicle that could forcibly eject that piece of floating refuse from the heavens or something. Right?
I'm not sure that this signifies MS is on the run.
What it DOES signify is:
1) MS views Open Source software as a threat (and rightly so IMHO)
2) MS thinks ONE of the ways to deal with it, is to discredit Open Source software.
They actually may have something there, since their bread and butter are offices. If they can convince enough of them that OSS is bad, they might stave off an OSS invasion. The truth is they may have acted too late though.
IBM HP and SGI are backing Linux
SUN is shipping Gnome as the desktop on the next rev of Solaris, not to mention that OpenOffice is picking up speed
(and I know the same companies mentioned above and others are now investing in the KDE and Gnome organizations)
There is lots of corporate influence out there that is getting in line behind OSS (in general) and Linux (in particular). MS may have ticked off too many people with its arogance, and bugs.
''We can build a better product than Linux,'' he said.
Why don't they?
Sounds good. Just set up a region of the screen with associated Javascript code to handle a MOUSEOVER command. Then tie that into code which (1) launches an order, and (2) disables the mouseover box (to keep the truly moronic from ordering the same item again and again). If you want you can include a quantity box above the mouseover box. THat way you could order more then one quantity of an item at a time, all by moving your mouse over the 'ZERO-CLICK ORDERING' region of the HTML page :)
:)
Heck, you could even do 2 mouseover regions either near each other or side by side (but far enough away to make it unlikely to pass over both accidentally). Use the first as a sort of 'safety toggle'. You have to pass over the first region to activate zero-click ordering, then pass over the second region to make the order and relock the system (meaning you would have to pass over the first region in order to unlock the ordering region again).
Remember folks, you've heard it hear first
You know... it may take some playing with, but I think it might actually have some interesting applications. If the ordering kicks off a child window to actually process the order (keeping the current window pointing to the same page but opening up a stripped down window for the processing and status), this might actually be a usable idea.
Um... Is it in their best interests to change patent practices? (especially if they are being payed lots of money recently ro fight against them). If they actually take pride in what they do, sure, go for it, I trust them... but 'pride in what they do' is not the sort of thing I usually associate with a law firm.
I don't know, but I wish we could "Bring this to the attention of the apropriate authorities" (not THAT would make a fun headline) :)
A few quick articles from
The New Scientist
USA Today
An interview with Vince Cerf
I'm not sure what has been done lately if anyone has some more recent links let us know.
Or could someone use it as a Trans-Terra data-cache? :)
Sure latency will kill you, but I want to see the Feds/MPAA/RIAA try to raid THAT server.