Are you saying that if I don't like program "X", but think that I know how it could be just like I would like it, my only options are to convince the original project that my way is better or do some completely new kind of program that solves a problem that hasn't already been solved before? How about it being my time, that I might choose to use how I see fit. Any argument that says that I should do something is just a way to make me not even bother.</RANT>
Try to look at it this way: Most developers are not working for you, so you are not in a position to order them around. There might be good, technical arguments to merge projects, drop support for legacy apps, and other unification efforts, so how about you go and find the arguments, present them nicely to the proper people, and help them implement the needed changes? I'm sure that would work even better than complaining on/.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
[snip]
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
That only means that if you distribute it binary-only, you have to provide a written offer to produce the source code, and said offer must be valid for 3 years. You use the written offer as your claim to the source, they give it to you. You ask again, they have no obligation to provide it again.
You are missing one important point, the words "any third party", which I've highlighted in the part of the GPL you quoted. This is the offer you are allowed to pass on under section c, if your distribution is non-commercial.
And since you can pass this offer on to anyone you wish, there is no reasonable way to put a limit on the number of times the offer can be invoked. If I give the binary to 1000 friends, each of them can use the offer I recieved, so I can't see any reason to assume that your offer is only valid for one source distribution (they can however charge for the distribution, and you only need to get the source for the binary you recieved). Once you have recieved the binary under section b, that is how you got it, and you have every right to distribute under section c, at least for the three years the offer must be valid for.
IE (version 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633 (not kidding, that's what it says), which appears to be the latest version (no patches pending in the update utility)) opens shell: URIs. So the answer to your question is YES, IE has this bug
Looking at the mail address ajs318 might be british. I don't know if they have legally mandated coverage, but here in Denmark we have 2 years (with a change in the "burden of evidence" after six months, after that the customer needs to argue that the defect was not caused by treating the item wrongly). There are of cause stores that try to weasel out, but then there is a cheap (~$10, refunded if you win), government sponsored organisation to complain to, and in the worst case the courts and the media to help you (obviously this does not work in all cases, but if you avoid really shady businesses it gives quite good protection).
I'm just curious. How would you make a "dedicated opensource d3d renderer", that is less of an emulator than WineX? Remember that WineX does not emulate the entire Windows/PC system, it only implements the API. There is some added complications in building an implementation of the d3d API on to of Linux/X/OpenGL (as WineX does), but I don't think you can get rid of much of it. Remember that most of the stuff that d3d does needs to be accelerated by the GPU to be fast enough, and the only accelerated interface to the GPU on Linux is X/OpenGL. To do something that has the _potential_ to eliminate some of the levels in WineX, you need to have lower level access to the hardware. And you still need to implement all of the Windows/DirectX API, and map it to Linux and X.
Or do you have any concrete examples of some feature in current cards, that _cannot_ be accessed in OpenGL? In that case you should lobby the manufacturer to include a way to access it in their Linux driver. Then I'm sure that WineX would get support for it, if it improves the implementation of a feature that is actually used.
I think that would be rather impractical since some of the programs I run from the cygwin terminal are graphical Win32 apps, including the program I get paid to work on.
But if you know of any cmd.exe replacements, that don't require me to either log in through ssh or run the terminal under X (I run a root-less X server, but I would rather not have it involved in my terminals, since it seems slightly less stable than the native terminals (mostly when remote machines crash or hang and such)), I would be glad to hear about it.
Personally, I'd reverse the comparison and say the DOS prompt is "almost as good as a Unix shell."
Then you would, IMHO, be lying. The DOS prompt has never been even close to a match to a proper Unix shell. Even running bash with the full gnu toolchain in a Windows XP cmd.exe prompt (thankyou cygwin) is still much worse than using the real thing (even their mouse selection stuff is retarded. OK they cannot have X's nice selection style cut'n'paste, but at least make the default selection tool line oriented, rather than block (I cannot remember even once needing the kind of selection you get in cmd.exe, if your text is not neatly on one line)).
Just a minor nit: "most time zones"? UTC aka GMT (close enough for us mere mortals anyway) aka zulu time is the time at the greenwich meridian, 0 longitude, and the international date line is at 180 longitude. If I'm not mistaken that would put roughly half the time zones before and half after UTC (at least there should be the same number (+/- 1) of whole-hour time zones on either side of UTC, I think there are a few time zones with fractional-hour offsets).
Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl
on
RF-Blocking Wallpaper
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Reading The Fine Article is naturally out of the question, this being/., but it would have told you that the FSS (Frequency Selective Surface) panels can be applied to many surfaces, including glass. One must assume that it does not significantly deteriorate your ability to look through the glass, since it was specifically mentioned.
Encryption? How? The attack described is against the analog line, after the call leaves the computer. At that point there is nothing you can do to protect the signal, you are trusting the person providing the modem to be a good guy.
Just to nitpick, you should check your dates better. According to/. Windows XP began shipping in late september 2001, a little over 2 and a half year ago.
Handling "millions" is actually a simple problem for a computer programmer. Any good coder is familiar with binary tree division, which allows you to handle lists of any size with just a few (max ~7) layers of hierarchal control.
If the tree is binary you get log(n) layers. So for seven layers you have at most 2^7 = 128 leafs.
Sure it grants freedom, both licenses grant some form of freedom, there is just a big difference between who is free to do what. With the BSD-style licenses the reciever of the code is free to treat it as their own, except attributing it to the original author and such things. With the GPL the people who use the product are free to get and use the code, at the cost of having to pass on their improvements.
I don't think you can get absolute freedom for all. In the BSD case anyone with enough resources can add enough to the code, closed, that someone you depend on will choose it, thereby forcing you to choose the closed version. In the GPL case the reciever is not granted the right to withhold any improvements, to use as leverage for a business model.
In either case you are getting more freedom than under propritary licenses. It is only a matter of choosing which kind of freedom you want to give the world: The freedom to always use anything that comes from your code, or the freedom to take your code and use it as their own. The choice is yours to make, I just happen to belong to the camp that thinks that the GPL provides a greater net benefit to the community as a whole.
And as for "It's going to happen whether Sun wants it to or not." just consider GCJ, Classpath, IKVM, and Kaffe. Given enough time and resources, there is nothing short of patents (which might be circumventable) to prevent them from becoming fully compliant implementations of the java standard.
True, but you are assuming that the "GIMP developers" are a single group, holding the complete copyright, and able to act together. Whether that is true or not I don't know, but unless all the developers who hold copyrights in the GIMP codebase (in theory anyone who have ever contibuted any code to the project, although some might have contributed too little to actually get anywhere legally (if they where to try)) agree, the complete project cannot change license.
FWIW, Hotmail also has a modified IMAP interface that is accessible via Outlook Express. One wonders if they will follow AOL's lead in this; it would not be all that difficult for them to do so.
It is not IMAP, it is called HTTPMail and is a derivative of WebDAV. And it is not just for OE, hotwayd is an neat little gateway that allows any POP3 client to access hotmail mailboxes.
Fair enough, I was thinking NAT at the network level, but what you are describing sounds rather nice, although you need a bit of smarts in the NAT boxes, to figure out which LAN-side IP to point the port at (if I have a NAT box standing around I want to connect all my machines). But other than that it sounds nice. If IPs where not in so damn short supply, I would still prefer a (hardware) firewall controlled by the NOC to a NAT device, but I guess NAT at that level is so common that most people can live with it.
PS: If you haven't guessed it, I'm one of those people who think that end-to-end is the way the net should work and hate NAT for the dumb work-around it is (that doesn't mean that I don't do NAT, I just don't like that I need it). And I'm eagerly awaiting the day when I can just get my/48 IPv6 prefix from my ISP and have it work.
Nice idea, but why did you bring NAT into it in your first post? Just firewall all ports not registered as opened for reason X on your server. Otherwise I (were I to use your service) would need to either decide in advance that I may need to serve something (if you explain it properly to new customers you would likely get lots of yes's), or I need to suddenly change my IP, just because I want to host that game of Quake.
You would also have to either do 1-1 NAT for anybody running a server (making it just that little bit harder for software to work correctly (if they e.g. need to use the IP at the application layer)), or your router(s) would need to handle all the traffic between servers and clients (why should the lag between me and my neighbour be different if I have a public IP (I may want to invite a friend from another town), even if we are on the same switch (or whatever)).
Despite this being/. I decided to perform a bit of research, so here are a few links to pages that I think support my point, that terraforming as far as a more hospitable atmosphere on Mars is possible:
They may be wrong, I may be wrong, but simply claiming the fact that the current Martian atmosphere is very thin as proof that no sustainable atmosphere is possible on Mars, that does not cut it. I will grant you that a 99% earth-like biosphere is unlikely, but a lot less is needed for it to be of use to a colony. Even a slight increase in temperature and pressure would make it easier to live on Mars, some plants might be able to grow (genetically modified mountain plants), the domes (or whatever it might be) needed for habitation might have to handle a smaller difference in pressure, or the time an astronaut might survive in an accident might increase.
And besides, even if it only lasts a few thousand years, an atmosphere might still prove useful. Not that I think we should do something like this without considering the consequenses, but once we have the technology, the trade-offs and risks might prove to be small enough for us to attempt terraforming Mars.
Are you sure about that? Do you have any references, or are you just guessing? What kind of timespan are you talking about (100's of years or millions of years)? I'm sure there would be differences (maybe lower pressure at "sealevel" or whatever), but why should Mars be uncapable of holding an atmosphere with a thickness coresponding to its gravity, provided that it recieves enough heat (say from orbital mirrors or super-greenhouse gases)? While it is smaller than the earth, it still pulls something like 0.39g on the surface.
I've never heard of GSM phones that could not be unlocked. Maybe some really old phones, but on modern phones it's just a code in the software which can be changed, if you get the unlock code.
Here (Denmark) the provide is obligated to remove the lock after six months (the maximum period they can require you to sign up for in exchange for discounts on the phone). And a lot of people simply buy a locked phone, have it unlocked (third party, on modern phones it can be done simply keying codes into it (just did it myself to a Nokia 3410)), and get a cheap service (since their new provider doesn't spend money subsidicing phones), and it is completely legal (you buy the phone, and of cause you pay the minimum monthly subscription to the original provider until you can cancel it).
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying that if I don't like program "X", but think that I know how it could be just like I would like it, my only options are to convince the original project that my way is better or do some completely new kind of program that solves a problem that hasn't already been solved before? How about it being my time, that I might choose to use how I see fit. Any argument that says that I should do something is just a way to make me not even bother.</RANT> /.
Try to look at it this way: Most developers are not working for you, so you are not in a position to order them around. There might be good, technical arguments to merge projects, drop support for legacy apps, and other unification efforts, so how about you go and find the arguments, present them nicely to the proper people, and help them implement the needed changes? I'm sure that would work even better than complaining on
You are missing one important point, the words "any third party", which I've highlighted in the part of the GPL you quoted. This is the offer you are allowed to pass on under section c, if your distribution is non-commercial.
And since you can pass this offer on to anyone you wish, there is no reasonable way to put a limit on the number of times the offer can be invoked. If I give the binary to 1000 friends, each of them can use the offer I recieved, so I can't see any reason to assume that your offer is only valid for one source distribution (they can however charge for the distribution, and you only need to get the source for the binary you recieved). Once you have recieved the binary under section b, that is how you got it, and you have every right to distribute under section c, at least for the three years the offer must be valid for.
IE (version 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633 (not kidding, that's what it says), which appears to be the latest version (no patches pending in the update utility)) opens shell: URIs. So the answer to your question is YES, IE has this bug
Looking at the mail address ajs318 might be british. I don't know if they have legally mandated coverage, but here in Denmark we have 2 years (with a change in the "burden of evidence" after six months, after that the customer needs to argue that the defect was not caused by treating the item wrongly). There are of cause stores that try to weasel out, but then there is a cheap (~$10, refunded if you win), government sponsored organisation to complain to, and in the worst case the courts and the media to help you (obviously this does not work in all cases, but if you avoid really shady businesses it gives quite good protection).
I'm just curious. How would you make a "dedicated opensource d3d renderer", that is less of an emulator than WineX? Remember that WineX does not emulate the entire Windows/PC system, it only implements the API. There is some added complications in building an implementation of the d3d API on to of Linux/X/OpenGL (as WineX does), but I don't think you can get rid of much of it. Remember that most of the stuff that d3d does needs to be accelerated by the GPU to be fast enough, and the only accelerated interface to the GPU on Linux is X/OpenGL. To do something that has the _potential_ to eliminate some of the levels in WineX, you need to have lower level access to the hardware. And you still need to implement all of the Windows/DirectX API, and map it to Linux and X.
Or do you have any concrete examples of some feature in current cards, that _cannot_ be accessed in OpenGL? In that case you should lobby the manufacturer to include a way to access it in their Linux driver. Then I'm sure that WineX would get support for it, if it improves the implementation of a feature that is actually used.
But if you know of any cmd.exe replacements, that don't require me to either log in through ssh or run the terminal under X (I run a root-less X server, but I would rather not have it involved in my terminals, since it seems slightly less stable than the native terminals (mostly when remote machines crash or hang and such)), I would be glad to hear about it.
Then you would, IMHO, be lying. The DOS prompt has never been even close to a match to a proper Unix shell. Even running bash with the full gnu toolchain in a Windows XP cmd.exe prompt (thankyou cygwin) is still much worse than using the real thing (even their mouse selection stuff is retarded. OK they cannot have X's nice selection style cut'n'paste, but at least make the default selection tool line oriented, rather than block (I cannot remember even once needing the kind of selection you get in cmd.exe, if your text is not neatly on one line)).
Just a minor nit: "most time zones"?
UTC aka GMT (close enough for us mere mortals anyway) aka zulu time is the time at the greenwich meridian, 0 longitude, and the international date line is at 180 longitude. If I'm not mistaken that would put roughly half the time zones before and half after UTC (at least there should be the same number (+/- 1) of whole-hour time zones on either side of UTC, I think there are a few time zones with fractional-hour offsets).
Reading The Fine Article is naturally out of the question, this being /., but it would have told you that the FSS (Frequency Selective Surface) panels can be applied to many surfaces, including glass. One must assume that it does not significantly deteriorate your ability to look through the glass, since it was specifically mentioned.
Encryption? How? The attack described is against the analog line, after the call leaves the computer. At that point there is nothing you can do to protect the signal, you are trusting the person providing the modem to be a good guy.
Just to nitpick, you should check your dates better. According to /. Windows XP began shipping in late september 2001, a little over 2 and a half year ago.
If the tree is binary you get log(n) layers. So for seven layers you have at most 2^7 = 128 leafs.
Sure it grants freedom, both licenses grant some form of freedom, there is just a big difference between who is free to do what. With the BSD-style licenses the reciever of the code is free to treat it as their own, except attributing it to the original author and such things. With the GPL the people who use the product are free to get and use the code, at the cost of having to pass on their improvements.
I don't think you can get absolute freedom for all. In the BSD case anyone with enough resources can add enough to the code, closed, that someone you depend on will choose it, thereby forcing you to choose the closed version. In the GPL case the reciever is not granted the right to withhold any improvements, to use as leverage for a business model.
In either case you are getting more freedom than under propritary licenses. It is only a matter of choosing which kind of freedom you want to give the world: The freedom to always use anything that comes from your code, or the freedom to take your code and use it as their own. The choice is yours to make, I just happen to belong to the camp that thinks that the GPL provides a greater net benefit to the community as a whole.
And as for "It's going to happen whether Sun wants it to or not." just consider GCJ, Classpath, IKVM, and Kaffe. Given enough time and resources, there is nothing short of patents (which might be circumventable) to prevent them from becoming fully compliant implementations of the java standard.
Well, the only e-mail address that is relevant to this testemony is the honypot address - likely not a big loss (e.g. just move it to a new one).
True, but you are assuming that the "GIMP developers" are a single group, holding the complete copyright, and able to act together. Whether that is true or not I don't know, but unless all the developers who hold copyrights in the GIMP codebase (in theory anyone who have ever contibuted any code to the project, although some might have contributed too little to actually get anywhere legally (if they where to try)) agree, the complete project cannot change license.
It is not IMAP, it is called HTTPMail and is a derivative of WebDAV. And it is not just for OE, hotwayd is an neat little gateway that allows any POP3 client to access hotmail mailboxes.
punitive?
Fair enough, I was thinking NAT at the network level, but what you are describing sounds rather nice, although you need a bit of smarts in the NAT boxes, to figure out which LAN-side IP to point the port at (if I have a NAT box standing around I want to connect all my machines). But other than that it sounds nice. If IPs where not in so damn short supply, I would still prefer a (hardware) firewall controlled by the NOC to a NAT device, but I guess NAT at that level is so common that most people can live with it. /48 IPv6 prefix from my ISP and have it work.
PS: If you haven't guessed it, I'm one of those people who think that end-to-end is the way the net should work and hate NAT for the dumb work-around it is (that doesn't mean that I don't do NAT, I just don't like that I need it). And I'm eagerly awaiting the day when I can just get my
Nice idea, but why did you bring NAT into it in your first post? Just firewall all ports not registered as opened for reason X on your server. Otherwise I (were I to use your service) would need to either decide in advance that I may need to serve something (if you explain it properly to new customers you would likely get lots of yes's), or I need to suddenly change my IP, just because I want to host that game of Quake.
You would also have to either do 1-1 NAT for anybody running a server (making it just that little bit harder for software to work correctly (if they e.g. need to use the IP at the application layer)), or your router(s) would need to handle all the traffic between servers and clients (why should the lag between me and my neighbour be different if I have a public IP (I may want to invite a friend from another town), even if we are on the same switch (or whatever)).
I don't know what MS are aiming for, but there is lots of work on Linux and elsewhere on putting the data in memory pages that are not executable.
So you want computers to only solve problems that are decidable? Unless that is the case, I see your Dijkstra and raise you one Rice's Theorem.
Despite this being /. I decided to perform a bit of research, so here are a few links to pages that I think support my point, that terraforming as far as a more hospitable atmosphere on Mars is possible:
They may be wrong, I may be wrong, but simply claiming the fact that the current Martian atmosphere is very thin as proof that no sustainable atmosphere is possible on Mars, that does not cut it. I will grant you that a 99% earth-like biosphere is unlikely, but a lot less is needed for it to be of use to a colony. Even a slight increase in temperature and pressure would make it easier to live on Mars, some plants might be able to grow (genetically modified mountain plants), the domes (or whatever it might be) needed for habitation might have to handle a smaller difference in pressure, or the time an astronaut might survive in an accident might increase.
And besides, even if it only lasts a few thousand years, an atmosphere might still prove useful. Not that I think we should do something like this without considering the consequenses, but once we have the technology, the trade-offs and risks might prove to be small enough for us to attempt terraforming Mars.
Are you sure about that? Do you have any references, or are you just guessing? What kind of timespan are you talking about (100's of years or millions of years)? I'm sure there would be differences (maybe lower pressure at "sealevel" or whatever), but why should Mars be uncapable of holding an atmosphere with a thickness coresponding to its gravity, provided that it recieves enough heat (say from orbital mirrors or super-greenhouse gases)? While it is smaller than the earth, it still pulls something like 0.39g on the surface.
I've never heard of GSM phones that could not be unlocked. Maybe some really old phones, but on modern phones it's just a code in the software which can be changed, if you get the unlock code. Here (Denmark) the provide is obligated to remove the lock after six months (the maximum period they can require you to sign up for in exchange for discounts on the phone). And a lot of people simply buy a locked phone, have it unlocked (third party, on modern phones it can be done simply keying codes into it (just did it myself to a Nokia 3410)), and get a cheap service (since their new provider doesn't spend money subsidicing phones), and it is completely legal (you buy the phone, and of cause you pay the minimum monthly subscription to the original provider until you can cancel it).
Thank you (and johannesg, Jerf, and mingot) for making the point I tried to make much better than I did (admittedly in a hurry).