Too simple-minded is right, of course. (Insert rant about the salary-justifying pointlessness of most office work here).
But nobody at all wants to decipher human-mangled data-entry forms. If you gotta do forms, PDF's forms are exactly what the doctor ordered: visually identical to the paper version and electronically enhanceable up the wazoo.
Novell didn't prevent that testing. SCO's claims *were* tested in court.
The judges repeatedly ordered SCO to provide actual evidence of their claims. They repeatedly... didn't provide any. That led the judges to remarks like "the vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and its actual evidence -- or complete lack thereof", and eventually to actually toss almost all of SCO's claims entirely (the order includes that quote).
Judge Wells didn't just dismiss the claims for lack of evidence. SCO told so many and such blatant lies about why they hadn't provided any that the Judge tossed their claims as a sanction for bad-faith or willful failure. If they had any evidence, the time came and passed for them to put up.
The only claims remaining are the kind that no amount of evidence could substantiate, e.g.
In similar fashion SCO argues that, "Under SCO's
interpretation of the contracts at issue, IBM is prohibited from
having former Dynix/ptx developers write source code for
Linux." Thus according to SCO, "IBM has breached its contracts
by permitting IBM developers exposed to Dynix/ptx methods and
concepts to contribute to Linux in the same area where each
developer worked." SCO then argues that item numbers 94, 186-
193, and 232-270 concern these types of contractual violations.
After reviewing item numbers 94 and 186-192 the court finds
that they are supported with enough specificity to survive the
current motion[...]
Where, please, do they say anything concrete about what was on those images?
The city could have shut the controversy down immediately by saying anything along the lines of "at least one social security number was exposed on the images we asked Google to remove". Or home address, or anything at all concrete.
And note this, from the dailybulletin article:
"Bottom line is, if we have a problem with our system that would allow for information that shouldn't be public to be public, we need to identify if there is a problem with our system," said City Manager Jeff Parker. "So until that is solved and identified, we're going to take that action."
"if we have a problem [...] we're going to take that action."
If I step on a nail, I'm going to get a tetanus booster. I just got a tetanus booster. Did I step on a nail?
And again:
contain private information about employees that should not be available to the public.
"should", according to whom? What information the city *is* required to make available to the public is a matter of law. What information *should be* available to the public is opinion.
Again: all they have to do to is identify one piece of personal data on those images that isn't publicly available by law. Poof: end of controversy. As it is, this is some kind of bastard echo of The Castle.
"public information" != "information that must necessarily be accessible instantly, on-demand
Sure: the government isn't obligated to go to any great length to make it convenient for the public to get public data, and they can even charge for what efforts they do make.
So?
That's not even remotely similar to the government forbidding a member of the public from exposing public information which he regards as scandalous to public scrutiny, which is what happened here.
Would you want anyone to see images of your entire pay stubs[...]?
Even the most slack-witted scan, which I just performed with about ten seconds' effort, reveals this:
The city did not contact this blog, nor have we been told what information in the documents is confidential - there were no Social Security numbers, no dates of birth, no personal identifiers. The documents only contained name and pay information
Hmm, yes. And the legal basis as to why the reasoning is 'sound' is...,/blockquote>
Because the C in DMCA is Copyright, first sale has survived -- what, 99 years? -- of extremely well-financed legal opposition, and the DMCA takedown notices say "under penalty of perjury". The seller has every right to sell the media he bought. Whether he has a right to sell the license with it *has nothing to do with copyright*. Falsely asserting copyright violation on the attempt is perjury *because the lawyer making that assertion agreed it's perjury*. It says so, right there above his signature.
Another possiblity is that he's already read some of the reasoned objections and figures anybody capable of typing "OOXML objections" into Google has too. There are sites that focus on calmly reasoned intellectual discourse, and the grok sites in particular exist to hone arguments for wider consumption. There's little point repeating the results for every shill and troll and just plain lazy MS fanboy on/.
But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why can't you share with the BSD coders who made it possible?
Because I don't want to expose my code to theft. The BSD-license people knowingly, intentionally, and (by now, effectively) explicitly expose their code to theft.
GPL2: code not exposed to theft.
BSD license: code exposed to theft.
That is to a first-order approximation the entire difference between the two licenses.
Do you see the puzzle here?
The BSD license grants one single freedom the GPLv2 does not: the right to wrap covered code in a more restrictive license.
Complaining when people use that freedom is... puzzling.
To rephrase your question as seen from the other side of the paradox:
But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why don't you expose your code to theft like the BSD coders?
And the answer is of course "because that's the whole reason I chose the GPL in the first place! If you don't want me doing that, why don't you say that in your license?"
Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
Oh, so it's a "business model", now, extending copyright into perpetuity and charging for what belongs to us all.
Vista is storing copies to provide desirable and useful features. Point-in-time recovery. Fast search.
Boneheads will still think dragging to the trash makes their porn go away. Real boneheads will still think emptying it makes it go away. And the ones stupid enough to get caught will seize on any lame-ass excuse to blame someone else.
If you're doing something you think the hierarchy-worshipers will eventually decide is in the top 10 on the who-do-we-rile-the-sheeple-with-next list, you spend time thinking about real security and spotting agents provocateurs and how to stop the bastards sucking every part of the economy they don't own completely dry.
Vista (or Google, or Spotlight or whatever Apple's version is called) indexing your hard drive is probably more helpful than dangerous even in that scenario.
You haven't read the docs. They explain exactly how it's done. There's 64 bytes of salt, and there's fully-encrypted data. That's it: nothing tells anything at all about the encrypted data. Not the algorithm or key size or any other parameters. Truecrypt has to brute-force them all, trying possible combinations one after another to find the one that produces usable data with your password.
Without the password, it really is just a large pool of random bits.
I don't think it's a question of what they have to do.
These guys sent a General to the Supreme Court to argue that it's America being invaded.
No, really. You have to read the whole thing to get a sense of it, but it's worth it. Hunt up "habeas corpus" in the U.S. Constitution when you get to the part where he says
My view would be that
if Congress, sort of, stumbles upon a suspension of the
writ, but the preconditions are satisfied, that would
still be constitutionally valid.
Those preconditions are "Invasion or Rebellion", and he's arguing that Congress really did "sort of, stumble" upon the suspension.
The only question is, how can we keep the damage to an absolute minimum? Silence and prayer until 2009 seems the wisest course.
No, really. You don't put out fires with gasoline.
but if they all did it, I guess these free sites might disappear
That's why I only block animated or otherwise in-your-face ads. Any ad/adsite that doesn't treat me like prey, doesn't get treated like prey in return.
Of course, sites that bulk up my blacklist with endless crap are simply wildcarded out of existence.
It's not just those who have been dropped. Verizon demonstrably regard their actual contract with their customers as a 5G-limit contract, which, going by what's being said here, is not what they advertised. The false-advertising crime applies to every one of their customers, because none of them received the unlimited-service contract they paid for.
And for those who haven't R'd, they throw that "unlimited" word at you in the very first point on every plan description, and then again, and again, and again.
I spent some time on it a while back (1.09 or so). I like the 3d-modeling interface; it's got its warts, but it's flexible and reasonably intuitive. Getting around takes very little getting used to, and flying is fun (but see below). The physics are arguably adequate. The community has some talented landscapers, architects, artists, vehicle designers, clothing and body designers...
I hear their simulator architecture has scalability problems. The descriptions I've read of it make me believe that's true. I know their object-scripting language, when I looked at it, was severely damaged by backward-compatibility warts and half-measure improvements.
Scumballs found the place a while ago, so you have to deal with guys setting up stupid Ponzi schemes and worse, (and/)or stealing people's designs, (and/)or breaking every rule that can't be mechanically enforced and generally abusing anything that gets within range.
They had severe problems with the limits of ownership. The first time you get launched into outer space just for finding e.g. a really cool free-to-copy hovercraft and taking a sightseeing tour lets a lot of the magic out of the place, and that's if you can find a nice stretch of land that isn't a mirror-house maze of exclusion fields. If there were only some way to simply exclude all evidence of a few people's existence from that world, it would be lovely.
Same thing is going on with AJAX. MS did not develop it.
A few Google searches says the story's not so simple. The link's longish by today's standards, so TWLAS (Those With Limited Attention Span) need not apply. The gist is that they had all the pieces in their hands to rub together. They built some of those pieces themselves, they built on some pieces from elsewhere, incorporated some more unchanged, put them together to build the first AJAX application... and didn't invest any more effort.
They're on to things that they can make fully proprietary, now, which (naturellement) are much, much more wizzo.
So "UNIX" has a non-general-purpose or non-kernel transaction manager, and has for decades. Seeing as how UNIX has been implemented at just about every conceivable point on the spectrum from microkernel to OneBigBlob, we can take that as a general assertion that you can find some kind of transaction manager out there somewhere for some variant of UNIX. Good. So what? Now Vista's going to have one too. Good for them.
I'm already on record here as saying that VM boundaries aren't the only way to maintain module independence, isolation, abstraction, coherence, whatever the POV-du-decade is on good design. You've got it or you don't. <shrug> I still don't see how their choice of toolset, whatever it is, is relevant here.
And what, pray tell, does your recovery code for ~can't-happen~ errors do if it isn't to spill its guts and get out without adding to whatever mess it encountered? Are you saying you *don't* put cheap sanity checks at strategic locations? That you don't try to recover when they fail? That recovery should leave detritus? That you've never anticipated a situation that needs human intervention to fix? That I should have put detailed recovery-routine code in a/. post? That a pre-existing rollback facility *won't* greatly simplify bailout code? I'm having a really hard time making sense of that criticism.
Slashdot Mirror
Too simple-minded is right, of course. (Insert rant about the salary-justifying pointlessness of most office work here).
But nobody at all wants to decipher human-mangled data-entry forms. If you gotta do forms, PDF's forms are exactly what the doctor ordered: visually identical to the paper version and electronically enhanceable up the wazoo.
Novell didn't prevent that testing. SCO's claims *were* tested in court.
The judges repeatedly ordered SCO to provide actual evidence of their claims. They repeatedly ... didn't provide any. That led the judges to remarks like "the vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and its actual evidence -- or complete lack thereof", and eventually to actually toss almost all of SCO's claims entirely (the order includes that quote).
Judge Wells didn't just dismiss the claims for lack of evidence. SCO told so many and such blatant lies about why they hadn't provided any that the Judge tossed their claims as a sanction for bad-faith or willful failure. If they had any evidence, the time came and passed for them to put up.
The only claims remaining are the kind that no amount of evidence could substantiate, e.g.
Where, please, do they say anything concrete about what was on those images?
The city could have shut the controversy down immediately by saying anything along the lines of "at least one social security number was exposed on the images we asked Google to remove". Or home address, or anything at all concrete.
And note this, from the dailybulletin article:
"if we have a problem [...] we're going to take that action."
If I step on a nail, I'm going to get a tetanus booster. I just got a tetanus booster. Did I step on a nail?
And again:
"should", according to whom? What information the city *is* required to make available to the public is a matter of law. What information *should be* available to the public is opinion.
Again: all they have to do to is identify one piece of personal data on those images that isn't publicly available by law. Poof: end of controversy. As it is, this is some kind of bastard echo of The Castle.
The Dance of the Hierarchy-Worshipping Toadies-at-Large is playing *everywhere* these days, isn't it?
Your premises are false.
Ten seconds' effort, the simplest scan of TFA, would have shown you your premises are false.
A ten-second scan of TFA reveals that *none* of that inappropriate information was made public.
Sure: the government isn't obligated to go to any great length to make it convenient for the public to get public data, and they can even charge for what efforts they do make.
So?
That's not even remotely similar to the government forbidding a member of the public from exposing public information which he regards as scandalous to public scrutiny, which is what happened here.
Even the most slack-witted scan, which I just performed with about ten seconds' effort, reveals this:
Another possiblity is that he's already read some of the reasoned objections and figures anybody capable of typing "OOXML objections" into Google has too. There are sites that focus on calmly reasoned intellectual discourse, and the grok sites in particular exist to hone arguments for wider consumption. There's little point repeating the results for every shill and troll and just plain lazy MS fanboy on /.
Because I don't want to expose my code to theft. The BSD-license people knowingly, intentionally, and (by now, effectively) explicitly expose their code to theft.
That is to a first-order approximation the entire difference between the two licenses.
Do you see the puzzle here?
The BSD license grants one single freedom the GPLv2 does not: the right to wrap covered code in a more restrictive license.
Complaining when people use that freedom is ... puzzling.
To rephrase your question as seen from the other side of the paradox:
And the answer is of course "because that's the whole reason I chose the GPL in the first place! If you don't want me doing that, why don't you say that in your license?"
Oh, so it's a "business model", now, extending copyright into perpetuity and charging for what belongs to us all.
And they are "Julie" and "Amero".
Vista is storing copies to provide desirable and useful features. Point-in-time recovery. Fast search.
Boneheads will still think dragging to the trash makes their porn go away. Real boneheads will still think emptying it makes it go away. And the ones stupid enough to get caught will seize on any lame-ass excuse to blame someone else.
If you're doing something you think the hierarchy-worshipers will eventually decide is in the top 10 on the who-do-we-rile-the-sheeple-with-next list, you spend time thinking about real security and spotting agents provocateurs and how to stop the bastards sucking every part of the economy they don't own completely dry.
Vista (or Google, or Spotlight or whatever Apple's version is called) indexing your hard drive is probably more helpful than dangerous even in that scenario.
You haven't read the docs. They explain exactly how it's done. There's 64 bytes of salt, and there's fully-encrypted data. That's it: nothing tells anything at all about the encrypted data. Not the algorithm or key size or any other parameters. Truecrypt has to brute-force them all, trying possible combinations one after another to find the one that produces usable data with your password.
Without the password, it really is just a large pool of random bits.
I can eat 1% of my box just moving the mouse, and all its cache are belong to me. You've got a thousand users on yours.
No, They can't.
Your ISP told you you need their "installation CD" to connect to the net?
Your ISP is treating you as ignorant prey.
I don't think it's a question of what they have to do.
These guys sent a General to the Supreme Court to argue that it's America being invaded.
No, really. You have to read the whole thing to get a sense of it, but it's worth it. Hunt up "habeas corpus" in the U.S. Constitution when you get to the part where he says
My view would be that if Congress, sort of, stumbles upon a suspension of the writ, but the preconditions are satisfied, that would still be constitutionally valid.Those preconditions are "Invasion or Rebellion", and he's arguing that Congress really did "sort of, stumble" upon the suspension.
The only question is, how can we keep the damage to an absolute minimum? Silence and prayer until 2009 seems the wisest course.
No, really. You don't put out fires with gasoline.
Post it again in a week!
But, see, that's not what these guys are doing. What they're doing is forcibly idling bandwidth.
Speaking of cheap tricks, I notice you don't mention copyright extension.
That's why I only block animated or otherwise in-your-face ads. Any ad/adsite that doesn't treat me like prey, doesn't get treated like prey in return.
Of course, sites that bulk up my blacklist with endless crap are simply wildcarded out of existence.
It's not just those who have been dropped. Verizon demonstrably regard their actual contract with their customers as a 5G-limit contract, which, going by what's being said here, is not what they advertised. The false-advertising crime applies to every one of their customers, because none of them received the unlimited-service contract they paid for.
And for those who haven't R'd, they throw that "unlimited" word at you in the very first point on every plan description, and then again, and again, and again.
I spent some time on it a while back (1.09 or so). I like the 3d-modeling interface; it's got its warts, but it's flexible and reasonably intuitive. Getting around takes very little getting used to, and flying is fun (but see below). The physics are arguably adequate. The community has some talented landscapers, architects, artists, vehicle designers, clothing and body designers ...
I hear their simulator architecture has scalability problems. The descriptions I've read of it make me believe that's true. I know their object-scripting language, when I looked at it, was severely damaged by backward-compatibility warts and half-measure improvements.
Scumballs found the place a while ago, so you have to deal with guys setting up stupid Ponzi schemes and worse, (and/)or stealing people's designs, (and/)or breaking every rule that can't be mechanically enforced and generally abusing anything that gets within range.
They had severe problems with the limits of ownership. The first time you get launched into outer space just for finding e.g. a really cool free-to-copy hovercraft and taking a sightseeing tour lets a lot of the magic out of the place, and that's if you can find a nice stretch of land that isn't a mirror-house maze of exclusion fields. If there were only some way to simply exclude all evidence of a few people's existence from that world, it would be lovely.
A few Google searches says the story's not so simple. The link's longish by today's standards, so TWLAS (Those With Limited Attention Span) need not apply. The gist is that they had all the pieces in their hands to rub together. They built some of those pieces themselves, they built on some pieces from elsewhere, incorporated some more unchanged, put them together to build the first AJAX application ... and didn't invest any more effort.
They're on to things that they can make fully proprietary, now, which (naturellement) are much, much more wizzo.
So "UNIX" has a non-general-purpose or non-kernel transaction manager, and has for decades. Seeing as how UNIX has been implemented at just about every conceivable point on the spectrum from microkernel to OneBigBlob, we can take that as a general assertion that you can find some kind of transaction manager out there somewhere for some variant of UNIX. Good. So what? Now Vista's going to have one too. Good for them.
I'm already on record here as saying that VM boundaries aren't the only way to maintain module independence, isolation, abstraction, coherence, whatever the POV-du-decade is on good design. You've got it or you don't. <shrug> I still don't see how their choice of toolset, whatever it is, is relevant here.
And what, pray tell, does your recovery code for ~can't-happen~ errors do if it isn't to spill its guts and get out without adding to whatever mess it encountered? Are you saying you *don't* put cheap sanity checks at strategic locations? That you don't try to recover when they fail? That recovery should leave detritus? That you've never anticipated a situation that needs human intervention to fix? That I should have put detailed recovery-routine code in a /. post? That a pre-existing rollback facility *won't* greatly simplify bailout code? I'm having a really hard time making sense of that criticism.
Oh, well.