Besides it is impossible in opinion of Fiebach to consult within the set period its lawyer. It is annoyed about the behavior of employer speaker Michael Wetzel, which guessed/advised it to the lawyer assistance, it however for it no extension of the period not described more near enables in particular. " Mr. Wetzel even guessed/advised me to switch a lawyer on. Mine is however in the vacation and I at present knows myself not, as I with restraint is ", does not deplore myself Feibach.
There we have it -- conslusive proof that lawyers are robots after all. (And what the HELL does the previous sentence mean?!)
Re:I need this like I need colonic irrigation
on
Galeon 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Thank God, someone else has the same problems as me! I use Netscape 4.7 on a P166 and can confirm every claim of the above poster. Let me add one more: exactly what is 4.7 doing when it takes 2 seconds to turn off one of the toolbars?
4.7 also has an unpredictable memory leak which used to cause it to expand inexorably until I was forced to killall netscape and restart. This happens less often since I upgraded to 64Mb RAM last month (don't laugh, it's way more than enough for all my other needs), but only because 4.7 normally crashes before it has time to consume this much memory. "Bus Error", anyone?
So this week I gave Mozilla a try. Here's what I found:
It renders all pages correctly!
It takes up a substantial chunk of my 64Mb, but less than 4.7 does when it goes crazy. I could live with this. But:
It is so slow on a P166 as to be totally unusable. They're not joking when they recommend a 233MHz processor minimum. Don't even think of trying Mozilla on anything less.
So now I'm back to 4.7 again. Next week I'll try Galeon, but I'm not hopeful. If Mozilla as a whole is slow, much of that must come from the Gecko renderer. I'll be surprised if any Gecko-based browser is usable on my machine, but I'll be damned if I have to buy a new computer just to browse the web in peace.
If your project is closed-source, then is isn't free software, but freeware.
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it, but these are the commonly accepted definitions on slashdot.
They certainly were that repressive. But think about how Americans would react if a fundamentalist government seized power, banning computers, music and TV. Surely there would be a mass hiding of equipment against the day when the government fell.
I must say though, it makes me feel a little sick that the first thing the Afghans will see when they brush the soil from the TVs will be Jerry Springer, Temptation Island and MTV...
For almost any other author I'd agree with you, but not for Tolkien. The thing which makes Tolkien unique among writers is that he produced an entire evolving mythology rather than a few monolithic novels. Part of the interest many people have in reading these documents stems from the inconsistencies and alterations made by JRRT himself, which mirror surprisingly well the changes undergone by the myths of cultures in the real world.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-- 10th Amendment
This is one of the few good things about the US legal system -- even if the federal govenment is paid off, the individual states are under no obligation to follow.
Of course the open-source model wouldn't work for cars. When building a car you have to fit everything into a rigidly defined shell which limits the size, shape and mass of all components. In other words, cars aren't modular enough to benefit from the parallelism which is open-source's greatest advantage.
But your implication that many open-source people are communists isn't only unjustified, it's absolutely FALSE. That is the kind of insidious tactic I'd expect from Microsoft's PR people; it is not welcome here.
Notice that the misleading `Microsoft' tag is only applied to.html files. There's no `Microsoft Bitmap', or `Microsoft Help File', or `Microsoft Device Driver', even though those 3 file formats really are Microsoft's own creation.
Clearly Microsoft have some difficulty accepting that open standards don't belong to them. But we know that already.
Color blind people don't see in b/w. They only lack the red, green or blue components of an image. B/W films contain all 3 of these components to equal extents - that's what makes them gray.
I can't believe that nobody picked up on this one:
Sims: But I don't think it's the case that the existence of encryption precludes use.
Judge: Well again, we're back to it does preclude use in digital form.
Sims: It -- well, it precludes perfect digital duplication, that's correct.
Either Sims has no idea what he's talking about or he's being deliberately misleading (which is, after all, his job). CSS precludes use. It does not preclude duplication whatsoever. The real DVD pirates, the ones that the MPAA should really be trying to stop, make a verbatim copy of an encrypted DVD onto blanks. Cryptology is used nowhere in this process.
Of course, what the MPAA professes to be afraid of is that movies will unencrypted and made available over the net. This is indeed one possible use of DeCSS. But even if this was feasible - remembering the current net connection speeds of most people - it would not be sufficent to justify the outright banning of DeCSS, or the gagging of legitimate scientific discussion among cryptologists about how CSS works.
I repeat: DeCSS does not enable copying. Copying is quite possible without decryption being used.
Do you find it irrelevant that the MPAA maintaining proprietary control of CSS encryption means they and they alone can approve the writing of all DVD players? The MPAA will inevitably refuse to approve an open-source player, because any random programmer could easily bypass the region check they demand.
True, DeCSS was not written for the purpose of playing DVDs on Linux. But the ideas it contains have made it possible for anyone to write a DVD player, with or without permission from the MPAA. This will certainly allow wider use of the new technology.
They will presumably find some method of extending the generic pigeon design to make it incompatible with everybody else's pigeons. To make a closed-source pigeon, they will castrate all of their pigeons (after taking a DNA sample) to ensure none of their 'trade secrets' are spread without a license to pigeons not under their control.
Many years ago, when IBM was buying in some components from a Japanese manufacturer, they advised the supplier "We desire a failure rate of 0.5%" (which was considered sufficient at the time).
When the components arrived from Japan, a note was enclosed saying: "We don't know why you want the faulty components, but for your convenience they have been packed separately."
Imagine the health insurance industry imposing a levy on the sale of all knives, to compensate them for the payments they make to victims of knife attacks. This seems fair to me. After all, it is pretty clear when people buy knives that they want to do some cutting...
Or just start selling consumers, new cooler `Windows Media Enabled!' speakers which only decrypt on the way to the speaker cones.
Exactly. What this new development is doing is moving the location of decryption further from the content provider and closer to the ears of the listener. Right now decryption happens in the software. Next it will happen in the sound card. The next logical step after that would be to move it to the speakers so we can't connect the Out socket of a soundcard to the In socket with a standard audio cable and re-record the original audio as it is played.
I'm not sure how much further we can go along this road. Will we have to get individual decrypting ear implants to ensure we can only hear the music we alone have paid for ("What? You want to play your music to your friends?") How about a 'Windows Media Enabled!' auditory nerve to do the decryption?
Slashdot Mirror
There we have it -- conslusive proof that lawyers are robots after all. (And what the HELL does the previous sentence mean?!)
4.7 also has an unpredictable memory leak which used to cause it to expand inexorably until I was forced to killall netscape and restart. This happens less often since I upgraded to 64Mb RAM last month (don't laugh, it's way more than enough for all my other needs), but only because 4.7 normally crashes before it has time to consume this much memory. "Bus Error", anyone?
So this week I gave Mozilla a try. Here's what I found:
- It renders all pages correctly!
- It takes up a substantial chunk of my 64Mb, but less than 4.7 does when it goes crazy. I could live with this. But:
- It is so slow on a P166 as to be totally unusable. They're not joking when they recommend a 233MHz processor minimum. Don't even think of trying Mozilla on anything less.
So now I'm back to 4.7 again. Next week I'll try Galeon, but I'm not hopeful. If Mozilla as a whole is slow, much of that must come from the Gecko renderer. I'll be surprised if any Gecko-based browser is usable on my machine, but I'll be damned if I have to buy a new computer just to browse the web in peace.If your project is closed-source, then is isn't free software, but freeware.
I'm not being pedantic for the sake of it, but these are the commonly accepted definitions on slashdot.
They certainly were that repressive. But think about how Americans would react if a fundamentalist government seized power, banning computers, music and TV. Surely there would be a mass hiding of equipment against the day when the government fell.
I must say though, it makes me feel a little sick that the first thing the Afghans will see when they brush the soil from the TVs will be Jerry Springer, Temptation Island and MTV...
For almost any other author I'd agree with you, but not for Tolkien. The thing which makes Tolkien unique among writers is that he produced an entire evolving mythology rather than a few monolithic novels. Part of the interest many people have in reading these documents stems from the inconsistencies and alterations made by JRRT himself, which mirror surprisingly well the changes undergone by the myths of cultures in the real world.
How does a graphics card driver know the name of the application which is using it?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-- 10th Amendment
This is one of the few good things about the US legal system -- even if the federal govenment is paid off, the individual states are under no obligation to follow.
But your implication that many open-source people are communists isn't only unjustified, it's absolutely FALSE. That is the kind of insidious tactic I'd expect from Microsoft's PR people; it is not welcome here.
Clearly Microsoft have some difficulty accepting that open standards don't belong to them. But we know that already.
Color blind people don't see in b/w. They only lack the red, green or blue components of an image. B/W films contain all 3 of these components to equal extents - that's what makes them gray.
Either Sims has no idea what he's talking about or he's being deliberately misleading (which is, after all, his job). CSS precludes use. It does not preclude duplication whatsoever. The real DVD pirates, the ones that the MPAA should really be trying to stop, make a verbatim copy of an encrypted DVD onto blanks. Cryptology is used nowhere in this process.
Of course, what the MPAA professes to be afraid of is that movies will unencrypted and made available over the net. This is indeed one possible use of DeCSS. But even if this was feasible - remembering the current net connection speeds of most people - it would not be sufficent to justify the outright banning of DeCSS, or the gagging of legitimate scientific discussion among cryptologists about how CSS works.
I repeat: DeCSS does not enable copying. Copying is quite possible without decryption being used.
True, DeCSS was not written for the purpose of playing DVDs on Linux. But the ideas it contains have made it possible for anyone to write a DVD player, with or without permission from the MPAA. This will certainly allow wider use of the new technology.
They will presumably find some method of extending the generic pigeon design to make it incompatible with everybody else's pigeons. To make a closed-source pigeon, they will castrate all of their pigeons (after taking a DNA sample) to ensure none of their 'trade secrets' are spread without a license to pigeons not under their control.
When the components arrived from Japan, a note was enclosed saying: "We don't know why you want the faulty components, but for your convenience they have been packed separately."
Imagine the health insurance industry imposing a levy on the sale of all knives, to compensate them for the payments they make to victims of knife attacks. This seems fair to me. After all, it is pretty clear when people buy knives that they want to do some cutting...
Exactly. What this new development is doing is moving the location of decryption further from the content provider and closer to the ears of the listener. Right now decryption happens in the software. Next it will happen in the sound card. The next logical step after that would be to move it to the speakers so we can't connect the Out socket of a soundcard to the In socket with a standard audio cable and re-record the original audio as it is played.
I'm not sure how much further we can go along this road. Will we have to get individual decrypting ear implants to ensure we can only hear the music we alone have paid for ("What? You want to play your music to your friends?") How about a 'Windows Media Enabled!' auditory nerve to do the decryption?