In the end, it's important that it remains that way for OSS, becuase that's what gives the GPL legal force. If you were allowed to sell s distributed work without permission, provided you legally obtained and destroyed a copy for each work you distributed, GPL software would lack any enforcement ability. People could simply get your software for free legally, and then distribute modified versions.
I don't think I agree. You are allowed to sell modified versions of GPL code without receiving personalized, explicit permission from the author(s); RedHat does it every day. Maybe I'm missing a fundamental point here, but it seems like the Cleanflix people are doing the same thing as RH, SUSE, and every other commercial GNU/Linux distributor.
Is it fair to say that having a neutral position on gun regulation is the same as not protecting the 2nd Amendment?
Yes. While they may discuss and debate the issue, that's limited in scope to their corporate boardroom.
Is it reasonable to believe that the Second Amendment is protecting the invididuals' right to prevent Federal tyranny -- and all the extremes that entails, including the necessity for civilian mutually assured destruction?
Yes, because that's what it explicitly says.
I think the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment is appropriate and worth defending: States do need regular militias to protect against Federal tyranny, and any Federal step that supresses this right (States' militias) should be fought tooth and nail.
But that's ludicrous. It's like saying that Grandma Smith does need the right to publish her apple pie recipe. Of course she has that right - no one anywhere has any interest in taking it away from her. Similarly, no one would think of taking away the right of states to keep an organized militia. However, that's clearly not what the second amendment is about.
While I disagree with the ACLU and their stance of not defending the 2nd admendment, there are state and national organizations that do a better job of that.
I agree, but I think it's disingenuous that they claim to support "The Bill of Rights", when it's more accurate to say that they defend "Some of the Bill of Rights".
In that relation, they both cherry-pick what rights they want to defend and even defend rights that don't exist while more unpopularly-enforced rights suffer.
I think that the fundamental difference is that the EFF has the explicit goal of defending a particular set of rights. They're not really designed or funded to uphold the fourth amendment (quartering soldiers in your house), for example.
I think that's far more honest than claiming to uphold all civil rights, then pretending that inconvenient ones - such as the second amendment in the ACLU's case - don't exist or are otherwise not worth defending.
Also, as the other poster mentions, braille devices are extremely expensive, require a lot of power and are bulky (both in size and weight). A braille display with 40 braille cells will cost an additional $2500.
I could look it up, but this sounds like something worth discussing: why are braille devices so large and expensive? Aren't they basically a bunch of little solenoids that poke rods up from a surface? Unless I'm missing something, a 40 character (same as cell, right?) device would need 2x3x40=240 actuators. To my naive thinking, that seems like a pretty easy thing to make.
As more users make the switch, so will the malware coders.
That's right, because I can't put an Apache webserver online for more than 10 minutes before it's pwn3d.
That theory also ignores the importance of bragging rights. That's like saying that there's no point in going to the moon because it's an unpopular tourist destination, never mind the prestige you'd earn from actually doing it. Write yet another Windows worm? Yawn. Code a real OS X exploit? You're famous. If such a thing were easily possible today, I guarantee you that someone, somewhere would've done so already just for the ability to say they were the first.
That comment is bullshit. A lookup in the state table is actually _way_ more efficient than going through the ruleset for each packet, moreso if the ruleset is larger.
You misspelled "this".
State tables aren't happy magic O(zero) constructs - they take resources just like rulesets do. Imagine the case where a firewall is checking a billion simultaneous connections against a ruleset with only one entry. Do you honestly content that it'd be easier to look for the existence of a state table entry than to check for "dest addr == 1.2.3.4"? Especially if the ruleset were actually the output of FPGA that gets reconfigured on an hourly (or whenever) basis?
Or imagine that their blacklist granularity is a/24, figuring that blocking a "bad" addresses neighbors is probably desirable. In that case, they only have to track 16 million 24-bit network prefixes. Q: Is a.b.c.d blacklisted? A: It is if "blacklist[a*65536+b*256+c] == 1". I leave it to the reader to decide whether implementing an optimized version of that algorithm would be easier or harder than saving and checking state for millions of simultaneous connections.
Finally, my implementation would be inherently unsusceptible to a SYN flood. What happens when a stateful firewall gets a flood of incoming connections faster than it can make room to store them? That's also known as a DOS, which is generally something you don't want to design in to your system.
How exactly does a stateless IDS block connections for up to an hour?
Stateless != ruleless. For example, you could use OpenBSD's "pf" to create a stateless firewall that references an external rules file, then use a cron job to rewrite that rules file once an hour. That might be a pretty reasonable approach if you're filtering billions of packets per hour and can't afford to track state for each connection.
Not a single one of them comes close to the eloquence of the built-in "Aqua" appearance on Mac OS X.
What's that about opinions and butts? Go ahead and label me a heretic, but I think Aqua has nothing on KDE's Plastik theme. The difference is that I just stated an opinion, while you pretended to state a fact.
Now here's a real fact (just to show the difference): some people have different tastes from yours. Don't forget that.
Oh, and one last while I'm being pedantic: it's "elegance", unless Aqua really speaks to you.
He seems to think that consciousness itself is a sort of soul, and once humans are entirely machine--which he thinks is coming fairly soon--we will still be "human".
I recently read The Singularity Is Near and gave a lot of thought to exactly that subject. Kurzweil makes a very strong case for the idea that there will be a robot me filling my role 100 years from now, and I'm pretty interested in whether that entity will actually be me, or a simulacra that kisses my wife (or her simulacra) goodnight each evening.
His thoughts mixed randomly with mine:
Our neurons die and reshape themselves constantly - such is life. The only truly enduring part of our brains are the patterns that exist in them. Science is making rapid progress in nanotechnology. Suppose that a perfect "robotic" neuron replacement is created, and that they are slowly infused into us over time. A neuron dies; it gets replaced with silicon (or whatever). Now, this process would be exceedingly gradual, but at some point you'd reach the stage at which your mental patterns were running on silicon more than on grey matter. The only difference would be in the physical process supporting those patterns, not the patterns themselves. You would never have experienced a discontinuity in your "self".
Would you still be you? I'm personally satisfied that yes, you would be. More specifically, I'm satisfied that I would still be me.
You had to spend 10 minutes on the phone begging someone to allow you to use the software you purchased, but you're OK with that because they were pleasant. Exactly how bad do your vendors have to abuse you before you stop defending them?
so instead of just judging the product by its qualities against the other products available in Linux they judge them by other ideas, get bad reviews and the company doesn't find a reason to release a new improved version because they don't get the revenue that could justify keeping that product line.
Of course, you conveniently ignore the fact that availability of source and freedom to redistribute without buying licenses is why many of us use Linux and the BSDs in the first place. Since those are vitally important criteria to us, you can't possibly be surprised when we judge new projects against those standards.
For example, I have absolutely zero use for a closed-source webserver. If Microsoft ported IIS to Linux, I'd dismiss it out of hand as inherently unfit for purpose. Regardless of its other features, I simply can't use it for what I need it for. Even if IIS were otherwise a wonderful product and delightful to use, there wouldn't be any point in evaluating it in depth.
Well, the same goes for Corel's WordPerfect. I really don't know or care how it compares in features to OpenOffice, because it's missing the one critical feature that I require: a license to use its source. This has nothing to do with zealotry on my part, but a complete misunderstanding of my business needs on your part.
I honestly thought it was funny, even though I expected to hate it and only watched it because a friend insisted. It's OK that you disliked it, though - at least you actually saw enough of it to form an opinion of your own.
The fact that you didn't recognize one of the most often-used quotes of the movie means that you probably didn't watch it. Since you didn't watch it, how do you know that "it was totally retarded"? Did you read that somewhere and decide that it sounded cool and anti-trendy to hate the movie?
Today my gf is a school teacher and rarely if ever do the parents ever discipline the kid. Almost always in this day and age the parent will always standup for the kid and attack the teacher for letting it happen.
In the first month of school last year, my kid was a pain in the teacher's butt. Nothing really bad, mind you - just testing her limits and the teacher's authority. That sort of thing. Well, one day her teacher met me at the fence when I went to pick up my kid up. She hesitantly, nervously told me that she'd had some minor behavior problems and thought I should know about them. I told her that I was very sorry and that it wouldn't happen again, and to please let me know if there's anything else I could ever help with.
Now, this teacher is hardly the beaten down, frazzled type. Nonetheless, she seemed so genuinely relieved and gratified that I was taken aback. To this day, she always smiles and waves whenever we meet, and the other teachers magically seem to have learned my name and greet me pleasantly.
It's kind of sad that something as simple as a parent backing up a teacher's authority is such an unexpected surprise.
There is no player for this format (yet), but that shouldn't stop its adoption since that's the playing application's responsibility. Surely a lack of application support shouldn't get in the way of adopting my clearly superior, open format, should it?
You're right - that would be ridiculous. Since the OpenDocument Foundation released an OpenDocument plugin for Word, at least Massachusetts won't have to deal with any bizarre scenarios like that with their word processing.
Scenario: Copy is licensed - you're staring at the box and receipt on your desk - but the stupid activation is b0rked yet again Microsoft Server: Let's see... nope, this one's pirated.
Computer with WGA: Well then.
Computer with WGA: Black screen of uselessness until you spend three hours on the phone getting another code from MS's tech "support", all the while continuously explaining to your boss that no, the server's not back up yet and you don't know when it will be.
To me, it's a bit like someone calling themselves a doctor when they haven't been to medical school (or even have a Ph.D. of any sort).
True story:
New DSL installer: Hi, my name's Mike, but my friends call me "Doctor DSL".
Me: Hi, Mike.
Rest of office: <general laughter>
X.509 is worse
on
PGP & GPG
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Me, via IM: Hey, John, here's my GPG key. <pastes GPG key into IM window>
John: Cool. Here's mine.
Et voila - we can now start sending private messages back and forth (neglecting man-in-the-middle issues with the key exchange that can be trivially avoided with a single phone call or in-person meeting). Notice the missing step: neither of us paid Verisign or another CA for the privilege of saying "Hey, wanna go to lunch?" in private.
Slashdot Mirror
And I further point out the "-i" option:
Now, storing the mimetype in metadata would be very nice, but this is a pretty good way to make an educated guess.
We are, when asked politely.
I don't think I agree. You are allowed to sell modified versions of GPL code without receiving personalized, explicit permission from the author(s); RedHat does it every day. Maybe I'm missing a fundamental point here, but it seems like the Cleanflix people are doing the same thing as RH, SUSE, and every other commercial GNU/Linux distributor.
No, it doesn't. Even if it did, I guarantee that a knife tip has several orders of magnitude higher force per unit area than any bullet.
And that page, friends, is what geek pr0n looks like.
Ooh, so pretty...
Yes. While they may discuss and debate the issue, that's limited in scope to their corporate boardroom.
Yes, because that's what it explicitly says.
But that's ludicrous. It's like saying that Grandma Smith does need the right to publish her apple pie recipe. Of course she has that right - no one anywhere has any interest in taking it away from her. Similarly, no one would think of taking away the right of states to keep an organized militia. However, that's clearly not what the second amendment is about.
I agree, but I think it's disingenuous that they claim to support "The Bill of Rights", when it's more accurate to say that they defend "Some of the Bill of Rights".
I think that the fundamental difference is that the EFF has the explicit goal of defending a particular set of rights. They're not really designed or funded to uphold the fourth amendment (quartering soldiers in your house), for example.
I think that's far more honest than claiming to uphold all civil rights, then pretending that inconvenient ones - such as the second amendment in the ACLU's case - don't exist or are otherwise not worth defending.
I could look it up, but this sounds like something worth discussing: why are braille devices so large and expensive? Aren't they basically a bunch of little solenoids that poke rods up from a surface? Unless I'm missing something, a 40 character (same as cell, right?) device would need 2x3x40=240 actuators. To my naive thinking, that seems like a pretty easy thing to make.
That's right, because I can't put an Apache webserver online for more than 10 minutes before it's pwn3d.
That theory also ignores the importance of bragging rights. That's like saying that there's no point in going to the moon because it's an unpopular tourist destination, never mind the prestige you'd earn from actually doing it. Write yet another Windows worm? Yawn. Code a real OS X exploit? You're famous. If such a thing were easily possible today, I guarantee you that someone, somewhere would've done so already just for the ability to say they were the first.
No. In all fairness, neither had I considered the possibility that you might be afflicted with rabies or fetal alcohol syndrome.
You misspelled "this".
State tables aren't happy magic O(zero) constructs - they take resources just like rulesets do. Imagine the case where a firewall is checking a billion simultaneous connections against a ruleset with only one entry. Do you honestly content that it'd be easier to look for the existence of a state table entry than to check for "dest addr == 1.2.3.4"? Especially if the ruleset were actually the output of FPGA that gets reconfigured on an hourly (or whenever) basis?
Or imagine that their blacklist granularity is a /24, figuring that blocking a "bad" addresses neighbors is probably desirable. In that case, they only have to track 16 million 24-bit network prefixes. Q: Is a.b.c.d blacklisted? A: It is if "blacklist[a*65536+b*256+c] == 1". I leave it to the reader to decide whether implementing an optimized version of that algorithm would be easier or harder than saving and checking state for millions of simultaneous connections.
Finally, my implementation would be inherently unsusceptible to a SYN flood. What happens when a stateful firewall gets a flood of incoming connections faster than it can make room to store them? That's also known as a DOS, which is generally something you don't want to design in to your system.
Stateless != ruleless. For example, you could use OpenBSD's "pf" to create a stateless firewall that references an external rules file, then use a cron job to rewrite that rules file once an hour. That might be a pretty reasonable approach if you're filtering billions of packets per hour and can't afford to track state for each connection.
What's that about opinions and butts? Go ahead and label me a heretic, but I think Aqua has nothing on KDE's Plastik theme. The difference is that I just stated an opinion, while you pretended to state a fact.
Now here's a real fact (just to show the difference): some people have different tastes from yours. Don't forget that.
Oh, and one last while I'm being pedantic: it's "elegance", unless Aqua really speaks to you.
I recently read The Singularity Is Near and gave a lot of thought to exactly that subject. Kurzweil makes a very strong case for the idea that there will be a robot me filling my role 100 years from now, and I'm pretty interested in whether that entity will actually be me, or a simulacra that kisses my wife (or her simulacra) goodnight each evening.
His thoughts mixed randomly with mine:
Our neurons die and reshape themselves constantly - such is life. The only truly enduring part of our brains are the patterns that exist in them. Science is making rapid progress in nanotechnology. Suppose that a perfect "robotic" neuron replacement is created, and that they are slowly infused into us over time. A neuron dies; it gets replaced with silicon (or whatever). Now, this process would be exceedingly gradual, but at some point you'd reach the stage at which your mental patterns were running on silicon more than on grey matter. The only difference would be in the physical process supporting those patterns, not the patterns themselves. You would never have experienced a discontinuity in your "self".
Would you still be you? I'm personally satisfied that yes, you would be. More specifically, I'm satisfied that I would still be me.
You had to spend 10 minutes on the phone begging someone to allow you to use the software you purchased, but you're OK with that because they were pleasant. Exactly how bad do your vendors have to abuse you before you stop defending them?
Of course, you conveniently ignore the fact that availability of source and freedom to redistribute without buying licenses is why many of us use Linux and the BSDs in the first place. Since those are vitally important criteria to us, you can't possibly be surprised when we judge new projects against those standards.
For example, I have absolutely zero use for a closed-source webserver. If Microsoft ported IIS to Linux, I'd dismiss it out of hand as inherently unfit for purpose. Regardless of its other features, I simply can't use it for what I need it for. Even if IIS were otherwise a wonderful product and delightful to use, there wouldn't be any point in evaluating it in depth.
Well, the same goes for Corel's WordPerfect. I really don't know or care how it compares in features to OpenOffice, because it's missing the one critical feature that I require: a license to use its source. This has nothing to do with zealotry on my part, but a complete misunderstanding of my business needs on your part.
How much are you getting paid to participate in this project?
I honestly thought it was funny, even though I expected to hate it and only watched it because a friend insisted. It's OK that you disliked it, though - at least you actually saw enough of it to form an opinion of your own.
The fact that you didn't recognize one of the most often-used quotes of the movie means that you probably didn't watch it. Since you didn't watch it, how do you know that "it was totally retarded"? Did you read that somewhere and decide that it sounded cool and anti-trendy to hate the movie?
In the first month of school last year, my kid was a pain in the teacher's butt. Nothing really bad, mind you - just testing her limits and the teacher's authority. That sort of thing. Well, one day her teacher met me at the fence when I went to pick up my kid up. She hesitantly, nervously told me that she'd had some minor behavior problems and thought I should know about them. I told her that I was very sorry and that it wouldn't happen again, and to please let me know if there's anything else I could ever help with.
Now, this teacher is hardly the beaten down, frazzled type. Nonetheless, she seemed so genuinely relieved and gratified that I was taken aback. To this day, she always smiles and waves whenever we meet, and the other teachers magically seem to have learned my name and greet me pleasantly.
It's kind of sad that something as simple as a parent backing up a teacher's authority is such an unexpected surprise.
You're right - that would be ridiculous. Since the OpenDocument Foundation released an OpenDocument plugin for Word, at least Massachusetts won't have to deal with any bizarre scenarios like that with their word processing.
That's the one that most of us here dread.
True story:
New DSL installer: Hi, my name's Mike, but my friends call me "Doctor DSL".
Me: Hi, Mike.
Rest of office: <general laughter>
John: Cool. Here's mine.
Et voila - we can now start sending private messages back and forth (neglecting man-in-the-middle issues with the key exchange that can be trivially avoided with a single phone call or in-person meeting). Notice the missing step: neither of us paid Verisign or another CA for the privilege of saying "Hey, wanna go to lunch?" in private.