From my interpretation of what's actually in the CITA program, this is no different than what's currently available in Apple's Find My iPhone capability. Allow the user to remotely lock (i.e. set a PIN) or wipe a device, and remove the pin and/or/restore the device if it's recovered.
It seems to me that all the armchair conspiracy theorists here are over-reacting.
Even if the Cunningham project doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria for the first internet crowdsourced project, there's always Project Gutenberg, started in 1971.
Vertex has a very generous patient assistance program for this drug. It's *free* for those without insurance and who make less than $150k/year, and for others there's a generous co-pay assistance program. This drug will be available for everyone who needs it. We've spent 10 years and I don't even know how many hundreds of millions of dollars developing this drug, and helping save lives is what keeps us motivated every day.
I once had to read The Simarillion for a class. It was my first exposure to the fantasy genre and I was quite confused, although I had already *not* read so many books for that class I had to continue. I slogged through literally the first quarter of the book before the scales suddenly fell off my eyes and suddenly I grokked it.
I closed the book, reopened it to the first page and breezed through the whole thing. It's still one of my favorites.
Well, yes, there is. Check freshmeat for installwatch, which includes inst2rpm, a script I wrote. These tools together will allow you to do a configure;./make; make install and have the information in the RPM data base. Best of all, deinstallation is then just a matter of rpm -e.
I believe you're interpreting the license incorrectly. It gives you the right to release binary-only executables. It doesn't say that you can't release source code. Borland's license can not affect what you do with what you've created. After all, you wrote your code for use with GCC, right? And running material you own through Borland's compiler in no way allows them to say what you can do with it, in the same way that running your food through a GE garbage disposal in no way gives GE the right to say what you can do with the remains!
How many people who've posted in this thread have actually looked at one of the sites in question, dvd-copy.com.
Can anyone really claim that a site with headlines like:
How to find/trade FREE DVD Movies online
and
What you need to trade Moviez online
is only interested in playback under linux? This is a site about pirating!
I'm all for DeCSS distribution, but this site isn't helping our cause. Championing this case is like the NRA championing a murderer as an example of responsible gun ownership.
Damnit, let me try again: "...wouldn't a really strict filter that disallowed GET or POST requests with the greater than or less than characters in them..."
(Since I can't quite figure out how to post naked angle brackets.)
I'm just guessing, but wouldn't a really strict filter that completely disallowed GET or POST requests with the strings "" in them (and possibly their %hex encodings (and possibly a few more characters) completely eliminate this?
Admittedly, this is a drastic solution, more akin to an amputation of a limb than a band-aid. But if you don't need the limb, and it's got gangrene....
Simply, the proposal is this. The server itself should *optionally* scan for and block any potentially malicious code in GET or POST requests, before they're passed to the handler. Yes, this would eliminate a large number of potentially useful uses of scripting, but a server administrator who had turned on this option would know that the site was secured against such attacks, rather than the security being up to *every* cgi script on the machine.
There could even be several levels of such scanning, for instance blocking all html tags in client requests, or only a subset of such tags, or no blocking.
Admittedly this isn't an ideal solution, but personally, for the sites I run, I'd love to be able to turn on this option which would block all tags. I could still get a customer's name and billing info without needing any HTML tags in the input. Yes, I'd be working under a more limited subset of the possible functionality, but the added security would be worth it, and that choice should be available as a configuration option.
I've never understood the "Motif is ugly" argument. What exactly is it that is unappealing? Remember, Motif is *highly* customizable (even themeable to an extent with X resources files, although you don't get background pixmaps). Calling Motif ugly is just saying "I don't like the defaults, and I don't know how to change them."
Here's a hint for your.Xdefaults file: *background: grey80
For those who don't know, LessTif is a LGPL'd replacement for Motif. It provides a nearly complete clean-room reimplementation of the Motif 1.2 API, and is source code-compatible with it. Most apps written for Motif run out-of-the box on when compiled with LessTif, and we want to know about those which don't.
Also, even though binary compatibility isn't a main goal of the LessTif project, some apps (including Netscape 4.5+) which are dynamically linked with OSF/Motif will also run when linked against LessTif. Getting this far is a tremendous accomplishment of the LessTif programming team (I'm on the core team, but I don't do much of the programming, as I mostly coordinate the releases.)
There are a few features missing in GTK which I find really annoying, being used to X applications which actually use the X Resource Mechanism.
1) GTK apps don't parse Xt command line arguments. so you can't do something like "gtkapp -geometry +400+20", or even worse, you can't do "gtkapp -display remotehost". How annoying!
2) GTK doesn't support the editres protocol for querying and customizing widgets.
3) GTK doesn't accept X resources from.Xdefaults like any X application should. Try setting a default geometry from.Xdefaults.
GTK suffers a bit from not-invented-here syndrome, and ignores existing standards like.Xdefaults and the X resources mechanism. I thought we liked standards around here? Yes, I know it's somehow possible through GTK's own customization files to accomplish these tasks, but why not use the existing standard mechanisms to accomplish the same task?
Finally, what's the status of i18n for GTK? Does it exist?
1) Considered by whom? Certainly not the LessTif core team and users. I write code to Motif/LessTif all the time.
2) And what's so bad about compatibility anyway? Heaven forbid!
LessTif is alive and well. Many of the "hundreds of applications" available for GTK, are new reinvent-the-wheel applications for which Motif/LessTif applications have been available for years. GTK/KDE are considered sexy because they're new, so existing applications are ported to the new toolkits for very little gain. But hey, hackers have the right to code whatever they like, even if it seems like a foolish effort to the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, welcome our new....wait, what?
From my interpretation of what's actually in the CITA program, this is no different than what's currently available in Apple's Find My iPhone capability. Allow the user to remotely lock (i.e. set a PIN) or wipe a device, and remove the pin and/or /restore the device if it's recovered.
It seems to me that all the armchair conspiracy theorists here are over-reacting.
You kids need to get off my lawn....
Even if the Cunningham project doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria for the first internet crowdsourced project, there's always Project Gutenberg, started in 1971.
But she insists on having the 1's...
just give her every other byte.
Vertex has a very generous patient assistance program for this drug. It's *free* for those without insurance and who make less than $150k/year, and for others there's a generous co-pay assistance program. This drug will be available for everyone who needs it. We've spent 10 years and I don't even know how many hundreds of millions of dollars developing this drug, and helping save lives is what keeps us motivated every day.
---
of course, I don't speak for Vertex.
Ho! "in the mist" of global warming. That's funny. Mist is a phenomenon of small droplets suspended in air. The word you're looking for is 'midst'.
I don't believe such a thing can possibly exist.
Of course they can. Here: 7, 3. I've just given you two *totally* random numbers.
I occasionally have to use vim to edit the Makefile for emacs.
I once had to read The Simarillion for a class. It was my first exposure to the fantasy genre and I was quite confused, although I had already *not* read so many books for that class I had to continue. I slogged through literally the first quarter of the book before the scales suddenly fell off my eyes and suddenly I grokked it.
I closed the book, reopened it to the first page and breezed through the whole thing. It's still one of my favorites.
A girl's got to have her standards.
Yeah, irregardless of the fact that I should be use to reading this sort of thing by now, it literally made my head explode when I read it.
There. Fixed that for you.
All you need is VNC.
Where'd this story come from? I don't recall seeing it yesterday, and there are *no* comments?
What's up with that?
Well, yes, there is. Check freshmeat for installwatch, which includes inst2rpm, a script I wrote. These tools together will allow you to do a configure; ./make; make install and have the information in the RPM data base. Best of all, deinstallation is then just a matter of rpm -e.
-Jon
I believe you're interpreting the license incorrectly. It gives you the right to release binary-only executables. It doesn't say that you can't release source code. Borland's license can not affect what you do with what you've created. After all, you wrote your code for use with GCC, right? And running material you own through Borland's compiler in no way allows them to say what you can do with it, in the same way that running your food through a GE garbage disposal in no way gives GE the right to say what you can do with the remains!
How many people who've posted in this thread have actually looked at one of the sites in question, dvd-copy.com.
Can anyone really claim that a site with headlines like:
How to find/trade FREE DVD Movies online
and
What you need to trade Moviez online
is only interested in playback under linux? This is a site about pirating!
I'm all for DeCSS distribution, but this site isn't helping our cause. Championing this case is like the NRA championing a murderer as an example of responsible gun ownership.
Damnit, let me try again: "...wouldn't a really strict filter that disallowed GET or POST requests with the greater than or less than characters in them ..."
(Since I can't quite figure out how to post naked angle brackets.)
I'm just guessing, but wouldn't a really strict filter that completely disallowed GET or POST requests with the strings "" in them (and possibly their %hex encodings (and possibly a few more characters) completely eliminate this?
Admittedly, this is a drastic solution, more akin to an amputation of a limb than a band-aid. But if you don't need the limb, and it's got gangrene....
Simply, the proposal is this. The server itself should *optionally* scan for and block any potentially malicious code in GET or POST requests, before they're passed to the handler. Yes, this would eliminate a large number of potentially useful uses of scripting, but a server administrator who had turned on this option would know that the site was secured against such attacks, rather than the security being up to *every* cgi script on the machine.
There could even be several levels of such scanning, for instance blocking all html tags in client requests, or only a subset of such tags, or no blocking.
Admittedly this isn't an ideal solution, but personally, for the sites I run, I'd love to be able to turn on this option which would block all tags. I could still get a customer's name and billing info without needing any HTML tags in the input. Yes, I'd be working under a more limited subset of the possible functionality, but the added security would be worth it, and that choice should be available as a configuration option.
Karma killer! A curse on your house! :)
I've never understood the "Motif is ugly" argument. What exactly is it that is unappealing? Remember, Motif is *highly* customizable (even themeable to an extent with X resources files, although you don't get background pixmaps). Calling Motif ugly is just saying "I don't like the defaults, and I don't know how to change them."
.Xdefaults file: *background: grey80
Here's a hint for your
"And they're not archaic." Um...like unix? or X?
Jon Christopher
LessTif Releasemeister
For those who don't know, LessTif is a LGPL'd replacement for Motif. It provides a nearly complete clean-room reimplementation of the Motif 1.2 API, and is source code-compatible with it. Most apps written for Motif run out-of-the box on when compiled with LessTif, and we want to know about those which don't.
Also, even though binary compatibility isn't a main goal of the LessTif project, some apps (including Netscape 4.5+) which are dynamically linked with OSF/Motif will also run when linked against LessTif. Getting this far is a tremendous accomplishment of the LessTif programming team (I'm on the core team, but I don't do much of the programming, as I mostly coordinate the releases.)
Jon Christopher
LessTif Releasemeister
There are a few features missing in GTK which I find really annoying, being used to X applications which actually use the X Resource Mechanism.
.Xdefaults like any X application should. Try setting a default geometry from .Xdefaults.
.Xdefaults and the X resources mechanism. I thought we liked standards around here? Yes, I know it's somehow possible through GTK's own customization files to accomplish these tasks, but why not use the existing standard mechanisms to accomplish the same task?
1) GTK apps don't parse Xt command line arguments. so you can't do something like "gtkapp -geometry +400+20", or even worse, you can't do "gtkapp -display remotehost". How annoying!
2) GTK doesn't support the editres protocol for querying and customizing widgets.
3) GTK doesn't accept X resources from
GTK suffers a bit from not-invented-here syndrome, and ignores existing standards like
Finally, what's the status of i18n for GTK? Does it exist?
Jon Christopher
LessTif Releasemeister
Several points to this:
1) Considered by whom? Certainly not the LessTif core team and users. I write code to Motif/LessTif all the time.
2) And what's so bad about compatibility anyway? Heaven forbid!
LessTif is alive and well. Many of the "hundreds of applications" available for GTK, are new reinvent-the-wheel applications for which Motif/LessTif applications have been available for years. GTK/KDE are considered sexy because they're new, so existing applications are ported to the new toolkits for very little gain. But hey, hackers have the right to code whatever they like, even if it seems like a foolish effort to the rest of us.
Jon Christopher
LessTif Releasemeister