How do you know this? You speak with authority, so can you also answer my question about the license? Will the license that allow buyers to load the Windows version on one PC and the Linux version on another?
Enough with the hysteria! The chemical they use absorbs moisture from the cloud, becomes very heavy, and drops from the sky. It rains down into the ocean where the salt water breaks it down. So the water cycle is not harmed in any way (as if it could be) -- the water ends up in the ocean, as before.
As for hurricanes, their theory has yet to be proven, but the idea is to drop this stuff in a straight line from the eye out to the edge, thus disrupting the hurricane enough to turn it back into a tropical storm -- maybe even a tropical depression. Yes, the low pressure area will remain, but the theory is that the high winds will not (the high winds are not caused by high pressure air rushing radially into the low pressure storm).
And finally, this is not silica gel. Just because "we already have something that absorbs water and moisture" doesn't mean anything else that absorbs water is worthless. Do you wipe up coffee spills with silica gel? No. Do you pack electronics in paper towels? No. Do you read the damn articles before you post? Apparantly Not.
We fully intend to release the retail Linux version of
Tux Racer at the same time as the retail Windows version; in fact they will be in the same box.
Oh, great! First I had to pay the Microsoft tax on my PC before I could run Linux, and now I must pay a Microsoft Tax on Tux Racer before I can play the Linux version? Unless they're both on the same CD (not just both CDs in the same box), what can possibly be your justification for this? Will your license allow any buyer to load and run the Linux version on one PC and the Windows version on another PC? If not, you're just inviting copyright violation. If so, who on Earth are you marketing to? The Windows customers won't have much use for the Linux CD, and visa-versa. The only way this makes any sense is if both versions are on the same disk, not in the same box. Otherwise both customer sets are paying for CDs they don't need and won't use.
With over 400 posts so far this is at best lost in the noise and at worst redundant, but here goes the obvious:
If you access a school's web page, and that web server logs accesses (or has a counter), then you've altered data on the server and violated the bill (it isn't a law yet, thank God). Even emailing the school for permission to access their web site violates the bill; you have to use snail mail. Why not just close all educational web sites? That would sure "protect" them!
I don't want voice recognition on any PDA until the PDA can read lips. I'm surrounded by people occasionally talking on their cell phones; the last thing I need is to have them all constantly talking to their PDAs! Besides, who are you talking to? The PDA, the person on the phone, or the phone itself? Or maybe your laptop? Or your car? Or your keychain? Hell, why not put voice-interfaces on everything, so we can relish the treat of hearing everyone talk to vending machines and elevators and doors, too!
Shut up already and let me alone! If it can't talk back, you shouldn't talk to it. If it does talk back, then talk to it in private.
A clue for those with sex on their minds
on
Joy of Linux
·
· Score: 2
This book was published in 1972. But this book was published in 1931. The rip-off is more famous than the original, you're ripping-off a rip-off, and some of these "jokes" are almost 30 years old now.
The older book is probably more useful to most of you anyway, since I'm sure you eat more frequently than you fsck.
Let's say the FBI walks into your house and plants one of these keystroke sniffers on your PC. How can you detect this? Oh, and let's assume it's a software sniffer, because if you're doing something that might attract the attention of the FBI, then you should be smart enough to check for physical bugs.
1) Run Linux or *BSD or another unix-like system. In a Windows PC you (or in this case, the FBI) can always "cancel" the login and gain some control over the PC, although you will not log into the associated NT network and thus cannot access network resources. So I assume there's a way the FBI could easily install a keyboard sniffer on a Windows PC. But would it work for unix? Even if the FBI knows unix inside and out and could write a keystroke sniffer for it, wouldn't they need to hack your system to install this software? Even if they could hack in, wouldn't they need root access? Discuss.
2) Use anti-virus software Would this work? Assuming you must run Windows, would anti-virus software detect the keyboard sniffer? Is there any other software that would? Is there a way to make an automated scan of the hard disk to see what new software's been added since you last logged into Windows? (remember, the FBI can't log in as you yet, because they have not yet sniffed your user ID and password, so the next time you log in is still the next time anyone has logged into your account). Discuss.
3) The best approach might be to use a diskless workstation to access an account on one of several physically remote, physically secure boxes. With SSH and VPN and PGP or GPG this should be easy to do in a secure way, and with a diskless workstation how can the FBI load their sniffing software? You could even have the last part of the secure communication be an agreement on which IP address to use next time, sort of a one-time-pad. The hard part would seem to be setting up the distributed, off-site host system, but I think the mafia should be able to pull that off. Comments?
I'd rather we go back to the Moon first. There's nothing you can do on Mars that you can't do on the Moon, except study Mars. Plus, there are lots of things better done on the Moon than anywhere else, such as astronomy. Either place, if you go outside you die, so you'll need the same technology to colonize the Moon as you'll need to visit Mars. Why spend months in a ship traveling to a place where you must spend months in the same ship before you can then spend more months getting back home? What will you do on the way to/from Mars?
I'm not saying don't go to Mars, but for practical reasons we should colonize the Moon first. If we can't support a Lunar colony for 12 months, even with regular trips to/from Earth, then how can we support a mission to Mars?
... and get turned into Nomad -- er, I mean V'ger?
Re:4. Is Alan Cox still not going to US convention
on
Adobe Backs Down
·
· Score: 2
Mod this up. Higher. Higher! HIGHER! +5 isn't enough for this post.
I can't "me too" this one enough. The EFF bungled this so badly I'm debating the value of contributing -- I think the ACLU makes far better use of their funds.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Please someone correct the error in my logic:
There's a new music CD copy protection scheme that introduces errors in the data, errors that CD players interpret as scratches and "fix" with their built-in error correction circuits. If you try to copy one of these CDs with a computer, the errors are reproduced, thus thwarting your illegal pirate operation.
Uh, but doesn't that then give you an exact copy of the "protected" CD, with an exact copy of the errors which will be corrected by the CD player's built-in error correction circuits?
What's the problem? What am I missing? Sure, you may not be able to play these copies on your computer, but you can't play the original either, so what's the big deal? Make a copy (that plays like the original on CD players) then take the original back and claim it's defective and demand a refund!
Please knock it off. The lawyers in this case were an independent firm, proactively chasing the case on their
own initiative. Adobe weren't even informed of what was going on before this hit the news.
Oh. Are you saying that Adobe didn't make them change Killustrator's name when they found out what the lawyers did on their behalf? Are you saying they don't owe the lawyers any money, thanks to Adobe's intervention? When that happens, I'll "knock it off." Until then, Adobe is on the shit list with the RIAA, Microsoft, and all the other IP thugs (although, in Microsoft's case, I can't blame them for embarrasment about Windows 3.1 and trying to stop any further infections by that particular virus).
But this is now the 2nd time Adobe has demonstrated rational thought, and worked out their differences
normally without resorting to lawsuits or extreme intimidation.
Let's see:
1st time: Killustrator changed their name. Adobe wins, and the guy still owes Adobe's lawyers a lot of money that Adobe isn't going to pay on his behalf, nor are they asking their lawyers to stop demanding payment.
2nd time: The guy was arrested. Adobe scored their point, the guy is still in jail, and Adobe hasn't done a thing to ask the FBI to release him; they've only agreed to talk to a 3rd party about avoiding further embarrasment.
Oh, yeah, this is "rational thought" -- cover your ass after it's been kicked in the court of public opinion! This is "working out their differences" -- as long as it goes their way! Pressing lawyers fees on private individuals after claiming they have no complaint against that individual, and keeping Dmitry in jail while they "talk" to the EFF are certainly not acts of "extreme intimidation." Unless you're another private individual working on an Open Adobe competitor or another individual working to expose stupid, ineffective "security." If I were in either category I'd feel extremely intimidated by Adobe's actions to date.
What Adobe want, and what they've been able to get so far, is the full weight and force of the FBI to induce people to not talk publicly about how poorly their products protect their customer's data./. is the only forum where I've seen their poor encryption even mentioned -- you won't hear that on CNN, because if CNN reported it Adobe might sic the FBI on them, too. As I see it, so far they're winning and there's no reason for anyone here to think of them as the "good guys."
Must be nice to work for such a company. My company issue Dell laptop has the little sticker that says it's made for Win2000, but we're not allowed to run anything other than Win98. Yeah, I'd rather run Linux, but at least Win2000 is stable; Win98 crashes so often we've stopped complaining about it and now look at the lockup/reboot cycles as bonus 15 minute breaks courtesy of the IT department.
Oh and btw, for many laptops these days, it's a smooth procedure to install a recent Linux distro, i.e. Red Hat
7.1 or SuSE 7.2, and of course you don't have to download umpteen drivers.
Yeah, I know. What I didn't say was that I loaded WinME and all the IBM patches on my wife's IBM 600; my IBM 600 has Red Hat 6.x (don't remember which; I don't much care because I'm going to upgrade to the 2.4 kernel once I pick a distro, and it's probably not going to be Red Hat 7.x). You're right, it was much easier to load Linux. Of course, I chose the IBM because of their Linux support:-)
BTW and OT, we bought them on eBay from a company that refurbishes them and sells them without an OS. Laptops without an OS are much cheaper than with an OS, since the OS in question is undoubtedly Windows.
As soon as a new system shows up here at work, I immediately wipe the hard drive and do a clean
installation.
Even the laptops? That's what this is, a laptop. Where do you get the hardware-specific drivers? I loaded WinME on a wiped-clean IBM 600 laptop and it loaded just fine, but it didn't really work right until I downloaded all the IBM patches and BIOS upgrades, essentially turning my over-the-counter copy of WinME into an IBM-Specific OEM copy of WinME. If Toshiba laptops run with over-the-counter Windows, that's a neat trick. Usually no two laptops from any given manufacturer share the same drivers, let alone use the generic drivers provided by Microsoft (if they share the same drivers they ususally have the same model number; IBM has dozens of "Model 600" laptops because each one requires a different driver mix).
Nothing here indicates the issue "has been resolved without going to court." Nothing except Vidomi's press releases, that is. Read the FSF "approval" and you'll see they simply say Vidomi's proposed solution will not violate the GPL. Says nothing about their previous violations and whether they will be sued over that. Which, I'm not alone in saying, I hope happens. But until we get a statement from the copyright owner that they will not sue Vidomi, this has not been "resolved without going to court."
2) The Hindenburgh (Gas tanks tend to burn, pressurized gas cylinders tend to explode)
How are you wrong? Let me count the ways:
1) The Hindenburg did not burn because it was full of hydrogen. It would have burned had it been filled with helium. Some guy at NASA proved it.
2) Gas tanks do not tend to burn. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of them not burning all over the world right now. You probably have several hundred very near you as you read this (in automobiles, in lawnmowers, etc.).
3) Pressurized gas cylinders do not tend to explode. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of them not exploding all over the world right now. You probably have several dozen very near you as you read this (fire extinguishers, propane tanks, medical oxygen tanks, helium tanks to blow up [inflate] children's ballons, etc.).
4) The Hindenburg was not a gas tank, nor was it a pressurized gas cylinder.
5) Nothing about the Hindenburg has anything to do with the idea of using hydrogen as a fuel. The Hindenburg ran on kerosene. Saying the Hindenburg "proves" hydrogen is dangerous is like saying the Kursk "proves" nuclear power is dangerous since it was a nuclear sub (or that Three Mile Island "proves" that electricity is dangerous since that's what it was making).
And as for your first point about all the energy used to "make" the hydrogen, you miss the point entirely. There are dozens of ways we can (and do) make hydrogen, some better than others. There is only one way to make gasoline. At least hydrogen will give us some options, one of which is make it from gasoline as needed.
When it all started:.MIL = military..EDU = education..COM = commercial..GOV = government..NET = network infrastructure..ORG = everything else. Not "non-profit", just everything else.
.MIL is unavailable to the public..EDU is unavailable to the public..GOV is unavailable to the public. Those domains are tightly controlled and for the most part stick to their original charter.
.COM,.NET, and.ORG are available to the public, and have been "misused" since almost the very beginning of the internet. Get over it.
Personally, I think General Motors should only be allowed gm.com and not be allowed to have buick.com, chevy.com, oldsmobile.com, etc. But that's my bias and I had to get over it, too. We all adapt or we die.
Um, no it's not. Not to take away from your rant, but ActiveX security settings are broken out separately.
It's called Active Scripting because VBScript and Javascript are both supported by the browser.
Oops. You're right and I'm wrong. I knew it was one of those MS-centric "extensions" -- ActiveX, VBScript, what's the difference? They're both odious security holes!
Slashdot Mirror
"in my time" must have been the '70s or early '80s. Anything that happend in the late '80s or '90s is "back in the day."
How do you know this? You speak with authority, so can you also answer my question about the license? Will the license that allow buyers to load the Windows version on one PC and the Linux version on another?
As for hurricanes, their theory has yet to be proven, but the idea is to drop this stuff in a straight line from the eye out to the edge, thus disrupting the hurricane enough to turn it back into a tropical storm -- maybe even a tropical depression. Yes, the low pressure area will remain, but the theory is that the high winds will not (the high winds are not caused by high pressure air rushing radially into the low pressure storm).
And finally, this is not silica gel. Just because "we already have something that absorbs water and moisture" doesn't mean anything else that absorbs water is worthless. Do you wipe up coffee spills with silica gel? No. Do you pack electronics in paper towels? No. Do you read the damn articles before you post? Apparantly Not.
Oh, great! First I had to pay the Microsoft tax on my PC before I could run Linux, and now I must pay a Microsoft Tax on Tux Racer before I can play the Linux version? Unless they're both on the same CD (not just both CDs in the same box), what can possibly be your justification for this? Will your license allow any buyer to load and run the Linux version on one PC and the Windows version on another PC? If not, you're just inviting copyright violation. If so, who on Earth are you marketing to? The Windows customers won't have much use for the Linux CD, and visa-versa. The only way this makes any sense is if both versions are on the same disk, not in the same box. Otherwise both customer sets are paying for CDs they don't need and won't use.
Enviornmental disgrace, too. I sure won't buy it.
If you access a school's web page, and that web server logs accesses (or has a counter), then you've altered data on the server and violated the bill (it isn't a law yet, thank God). Even emailing the school for permission to access their web site violates the bill; you have to use snail mail. Why not just close all educational web sites? That would sure "protect" them!
Shut up already and let me alone! If it can't talk back, you shouldn't talk to it. If it does talk back, then talk to it in private.
The older book is probably more useful to most of you anyway, since I'm sure you eat more frequently than you fsck.
1) Run Linux or *BSD or another unix-like system. In a Windows PC you (or in this case, the FBI) can always "cancel" the login and gain some control over the PC, although you will not log into the associated NT network and thus cannot access network resources. So I assume there's a way the FBI could easily install a keyboard sniffer on a Windows PC. But would it work for unix? Even if the FBI knows unix inside and out and could write a keystroke sniffer for it, wouldn't they need to hack your system to install this software? Even if they could hack in, wouldn't they need root access? Discuss.
2) Use anti-virus software Would this work? Assuming you must run Windows, would anti-virus software detect the keyboard sniffer? Is there any other software that would? Is there a way to make an automated scan of the hard disk to see what new software's been added since you last logged into Windows? (remember, the FBI can't log in as you yet, because they have not yet sniffed your user ID and password, so the next time you log in is still the next time anyone has logged into your account). Discuss.
3) The best approach might be to use a diskless workstation to access an account on one of several physically remote, physically secure boxes. With SSH and VPN and PGP or GPG this should be easy to do in a secure way, and with a diskless workstation how can the FBI load their sniffing software? You could even have the last part of the secure communication be an agreement on which IP address to use next time, sort of a one-time-pad. The hard part would seem to be setting up the distributed, off-site host system, but I think the mafia should be able to pull that off. Comments?
I don't need a Honeynet Project whitepaper to tell me that Statistics is my enemy. I learned that in school years ago!
I'm not saying don't go to Mars, but for practical reasons we should colonize the Moon first. If we can't support a Lunar colony for 12 months, even with regular trips to/from Earth, then how can we support a mission to Mars?
I can't "me too" this one enough. The EFF bungled this so badly I'm debating the value of contributing -- I think the ACLU makes far better use of their funds.
There's a new music CD copy protection scheme that introduces errors in the data, errors that CD players interpret as scratches and "fix" with their built-in error correction circuits. If you try to copy one of these CDs with a computer, the errors are reproduced, thus thwarting your illegal pirate operation.
Uh, but doesn't that then give you an exact copy of the "protected" CD, with an exact copy of the errors which will be corrected by the CD player's built-in error correction circuits?
What's the problem? What am I missing? Sure, you may not be able to play these copies on your computer, but you can't play the original either, so what's the big deal? Make a copy (that plays like the original on CD players) then take the original back and claim it's defective and demand a refund!
Oh. Are you saying that Adobe didn't make them change Killustrator's name when they found out what the lawyers did on their behalf? Are you saying they don't owe the lawyers any money, thanks to Adobe's intervention? When that happens, I'll "knock it off." Until then, Adobe is on the shit list with the RIAA, Microsoft, and all the other IP thugs (although, in Microsoft's case, I can't blame them for embarrasment about Windows 3.1 and trying to stop any further infections by that particular virus).
Let's see:
1st time: Killustrator changed their name. Adobe wins, and the guy still owes Adobe's lawyers a lot of money that Adobe isn't going to pay on his behalf, nor are they asking their lawyers to stop demanding payment.
2nd time: The guy was arrested. Adobe scored their point, the guy is still in jail, and Adobe hasn't done a thing to ask the FBI to release him; they've only agreed to talk to a 3rd party about avoiding further embarrasment.
Oh, yeah, this is "rational thought" -- cover your ass after it's been kicked in the court of public opinion! This is "working out their differences" -- as long as it goes their way! Pressing lawyers fees on private individuals after claiming they have no complaint against that individual, and keeping Dmitry in jail while they "talk" to the EFF are certainly not acts of "extreme intimidation." Unless you're another private individual working on an Open Adobe competitor or another individual working to expose stupid, ineffective "security." If I were in either category I'd feel extremely intimidated by Adobe's actions to date.
What Adobe want, and what they've been able to get so far, is the full weight and force of the FBI to induce people to not talk publicly about how poorly their products protect their customer's data. /. is the only forum where I've seen their poor encryption even mentioned -- you won't hear that on CNN, because if CNN reported it Adobe might sic the FBI on them, too. As I see it, so far they're winning and there's no reason for anyone here to think of them as the "good guys."
Do you work for Adobe?
Yeah, I know. What I didn't say was that I loaded WinME and all the IBM patches on my wife's IBM 600; my IBM 600 has Red Hat 6.x (don't remember which; I don't much care because I'm going to upgrade to the 2.4 kernel once I pick a distro, and it's probably not going to be Red Hat 7.x). You're right, it was much easier to load Linux. Of course, I chose the IBM because of their Linux support :-)
BTW and OT, we bought them on eBay from a company that refurbishes them and sells them without an OS. Laptops without an OS are much cheaper than with an OS, since the OS in question is undoubtedly Windows.
Even the laptops? That's what this is, a laptop. Where do you get the hardware-specific drivers? I loaded WinME on a wiped-clean IBM 600 laptop and it loaded just fine, but it didn't really work right until I downloaded all the IBM patches and BIOS upgrades, essentially turning my over-the-counter copy of WinME into an IBM-Specific OEM copy of WinME. If Toshiba laptops run with over-the-counter Windows, that's a neat trick. Usually no two laptops from any given manufacturer share the same drivers, let alone use the generic drivers provided by Microsoft (if they share the same drivers they ususally have the same model number; IBM has dozens of "Model 600" laptops because each one requires a different driver mix).
How are you wrong? Let me count the ways:
1) The Hindenburg did not burn because it was full of hydrogen. It would have burned had it been filled with helium. Some guy at NASA proved it.
2) Gas tanks do not tend to burn. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of them not burning all over the world right now. You probably have several hundred very near you as you read this (in automobiles, in lawnmowers, etc.).
3) Pressurized gas cylinders do not tend to explode. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of them not exploding all over the world right now. You probably have several dozen very near you as you read this (fire extinguishers, propane tanks, medical oxygen tanks, helium tanks to blow up [inflate] children's ballons, etc.).
4) The Hindenburg was not a gas tank, nor was it a pressurized gas cylinder.
5) Nothing about the Hindenburg has anything to do with the idea of using hydrogen as a fuel. The Hindenburg ran on kerosene. Saying the Hindenburg "proves" hydrogen is dangerous is like saying the Kursk "proves" nuclear power is dangerous since it was a nuclear sub (or that Three Mile Island "proves" that electricity is dangerous since that's what it was making).
And as for your first point about all the energy used to "make" the hydrogen, you miss the point entirely. There are dozens of ways we can (and do) make hydrogen, some better than others. There is only one way to make gasoline. At least hydrogen will give us some options, one of which is make it from gasoline as needed.
Personally, I think General Motors should only be allowed gm.com and not be allowed to have buick.com, chevy.com, oldsmobile.com, etc. But that's my bias and I had to get over it, too. We all adapt or we die.
Oops. You're right and I'm wrong. I knew it was one of those MS-centric "extensions" -- ActiveX, VBScript, what's the difference? They're both odious security holes!
Thanks for the correction.