In practice, you can save back to older versions of Word or Excel, but you get alarming warnings that new features may not be saved. It doesn't tell you *what* part of your work is going to be lost, so most ordinary folk get a bit antsy and save it in the current version.
On the original point, this decision could work really well for MS and the gub'mnt. Data is kept in a fairly future proof, open format, but you can do something like patent your ingeneous schema to prevent other people from using it.
I think the intended(?) analogy is that firearm manufacturers should design their guns so that they are harder to use in illegal activities such as hold-ups, and that P2P developers must include features like DRM so that P2P cannot be used to commit illegal activities like swapping music.
The recent Slashdot story about biometric authorised guns shows that unworkable technical solutions are also available for firearms. You can imagine the outcry if the state demanded that all guns must include some kind of overide mechanism that in some way limited how that gun may be used.
The demands are actually quite similar, yet the position is radically different.
Even things that are heavily promoted as "patent-free" such as PNG, Ogg, and others, might be infringing some patent.
Specifically, PNG was written to side-step specific GIF patents, whilst Ogg was written to avoid specific MP3 patents. There is no guarantee that the authors avoided these patents completely, or that there aren't *other* patents that may be infringed by these projects.
Yes, I found that just because it is possible to automate conversion, it doesn't mean you/'ll get editable or maintainable results. I'd also about how many inefficiencies would be introduced when attempting to emulate features that are not native to a language (like the Perl work-around for case statements).
I used the a2p tool to convert some awk stuff to Perl so that we could run it on Windows. Whilst it worked, the resulting Perl was not particularly easy to read, even for Perl.
They are peril sensitive and turn black at the first hint of danger. For example, it will spot copyrighted materials and black out if you do not have appropriate DRM licences.
A friend of mine managed to short out is (Windows) PC whilst plugging in an external drive of some description. I don't kow if it was power on the pins, static electricty or his leaning on the power cord, but it friend the PC and the external drive!
At work, I tell pople if they must use external drives to back-up data, have two drives and use them alternately. This still doesn' give you protection against subtle corruption problems, what if you fsck up something important but don't realise until you copied over your backup device version?
But does it explain "... smart gun technology actually works"
Incidentally, the "proof" is that the holder of the authorised key can gain access 9 out of 10 times. It says nothing about how secure such weapons are against attempts to circumvent this authentication. Since firing a gun involves initiating a chemical reaction, it is still possible to bypass such mechanisms entirely. OTOH, this technology may be very useful in situations where a gun may be snatched (say from a police officer) or against negligence (say kids finding someone's unattended pistol).
We patch kernels so infrequently, I usally build them from source anyhow. For the most part, a kernel ir a kernel is a kernel, and I have never encountered any sitiuation where running my own kernel has messed up packages or dependancies.
I'm getting to a point where there are things in testing that I need, I'll grab those packages from backports.
I walked past the gym we have in the basement of our building. When too maany (non entitled) people started using it, they changed the PIN on the door. I know this because some Brainiac posted a apologetic notice on the door that helpfully included the *new* PIN for regular gym patrons.
Unfortunately it was taken down before I could take a picture of it.
There's nothing bad about that. If I use package "A" and love it, and then discover that the maintainers of this package are using a lot of code from package "B", I'd be much more inclined to think that "B" must be good as well (or at least have some features worth my attention). Definitely one of the strongest endorsements you can give, and yeah, only really an issue if you see things competitively.
Orindarily, I'd set up Ground Control Points (GCPs) and use those to calculate a transformation, but I just fudged it by eyes. I clipped out the part of the image where my transofrm started getting really poor. Even then, the bottom left is significantly off. Note the strip of "before" on the bottom right as it demonstrates the degree of rotation that was required.
No, I have never been to China. However it has been demonstrated that the Chinese government has an interest in technology to control Internet access:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/04/it_giants_ fingered_over_links/
On this basis, I'd expect the security provisions of IPV6 to be attractive (depeinding on what they let you do). Seems like a pretty logical conclusion to me.
I know where he's coming from, I get somewhat nit-picky about image registration/rectification as in cases like this, the absense of registration can give misleading impressions. Especially if you are un-aware of the shift. Since quality of the visualisation is excellent (I love the ghostly nature), you even stand a good chance of your images ending up in "gee whiz" email without any caveats.
Anyone out there with GIMP fu know if there's an affine transformation script that would let two imaages be registered with each other? The last tool I used to do this costs $$,$$$.
While I am not familar with IPV6 beyond the large increase in address space; IPV6 security features such as the Authentication Header might be a great way of making sure only nproperly documented citizens are allowed on the Internet. You may also be able to ensure that they do not connect to undesirable services such as anonymous proxies.
Perhaps SCO would be better to have on a pike outside the front gate? SCO might be more valuable completely ground into the dirt. It may be in Novell's interest for SCO to become an object lesson, and a bucket of IP no-one will ever consider seriously.
Someone wrote better quality code and because it's GPL'ed, your code becomes higher quality without having to re-invent or re-write that bit yourself. Organisations like Microsoft can't do that easily, not without acquiring or licencing individual cases.
The flipside of this re-use is that if too much of new project code is from the other fork, people are going to consider the fork even more seriously than before.
Currently, we are being blamed for many things that are going wrong with our corporate XP rollout. We have nothing to do with desktops. Nada!
This has been achieved by one of our staff sending out *one* broadcast email explaining how a particular hardware procurement issue was nothing to do with us, and explaining who to contact. Because this was (I now presume) the only informative email on the XP rollout, we started getting more questions about it. The more vigorously we denied having anything thing to do with the XP rollout, the more questions we got.
People never read email or signs, they just file away the contact details so they have someone to vent spleen on.
Slashdot Mirror
In practice, you can save back to older versions of Word or Excel, but you get alarming warnings that new features may not be saved. It doesn't tell you *what* part of your work is going to be lost, so most ordinary folk get a bit antsy and save it in the current version.
On the original point, this decision could work really well for MS and the gub'mnt. Data is kept in a fairly future proof, open format, but you can do something like patent your ingeneous schema to prevent other people from using it.
Xix.
They need a Molly Guard
I think the intended(?) analogy is that firearm manufacturers should design their guns so that they are harder to use in illegal activities such as hold-ups, and that P2P developers must include features like DRM so that P2P cannot be used to commit illegal activities like swapping music.
The recent Slashdot story about biometric authorised guns shows that unworkable technical solutions are also available for firearms. You can imagine the outcry if the state demanded that all guns must include some kind of overide mechanism that in some way limited how that gun may be used.
The demands are actually quite similar, yet the position is radically different.
I can use IR, Bluetooth or pop the MMC card out and read pictures on my PC using a card reader. I think your phone stinks.
Maybe take pics in a change-room or of security facilities? That way the Feds will retrieve the images for you.
Specifically, PNG was written to side-step specific GIF patents, whilst Ogg was written to avoid specific MP3 patents. There is no guarantee that the authors avoided these patents completely, or that there aren't *other* patents that may be infringed by these projects.
Xix.
Yes, I found that just because it is possible to automate conversion, it doesn't mean you/'ll get editable or maintainable results. I'd also about how many inefficiencies would be introduced when attempting to emulate features that are not native to a language (like the Perl work-around for case statements).
I used the a2p tool to convert some awk stuff to Perl so that we could run it on Windows. Whilst it worked, the resulting Perl was not particularly easy to read, even for Perl.
Xix.
I thought that was *GIANT* dancing robots oblierating Japanese culture (well, Tokyo at any rate).
They are peril sensitive and turn black at the first hint of danger. For example, it will spot copyrighted materials and black out if you do not have appropriate DRM licences.
Why can't Reality TV just die already?
Because no-one has started broadcasting an EQ channel where you can watch other people playing EQ.
And you thought home shopping network was dull...
Xix.
Good grief...
/
1.1s/is/his/
1.1s/kow/know/
2.2s/friend/fried
4.4s/pople/people/
A friend of mine managed to short out is (Windows) PC whilst plugging in an external drive of some description. I don't kow if it was power on the pins, static electricty or his leaning on the power cord, but it friend the PC and the external drive!
At work, I tell pople if they must use external drives to back-up data, have two drives and use them alternately. This still doesn' give you protection against subtle corruption problems, what if you fsck up something important but don't realise until you copied over your backup device version?
Xix.
But does it explain "... smart gun technology actually works"
Incidentally, the "proof" is that the holder of the authorised key can gain access 9 out of 10 times. It says nothing about how secure such weapons are against attempts to circumvent this authentication. Since firing a gun involves initiating a chemical reaction, it is still possible to bypass such mechanisms entirely. OTOH, this technology may be very useful in situations where a gun may be snatched (say from a police officer) or against negligence (say kids finding someone's unattended pistol).
Xix.
Probably the most insightful comment I've seen so far.
We patch kernels so infrequently, I usally build them from source anyhow. For the most part, a kernel ir a kernel is a kernel, and I have never encountered any sitiuation where running my own kernel has messed up packages or dependancies.
I'm getting to a point where there are things in testing that I need, I'll grab those packages from backports.
Xix.
I walked past the gym we have in the basement of our building. When too maany (non entitled) people started using it, they changed the PIN on the door. I know this because some Brainiac posted a apologetic notice on the door that helpfully included the *new* PIN for regular gym patrons.
Unfortunately it was taken down before I could take a picture of it.
Xix.
There's nothing bad about that. If I use package "A" and love it, and then discover that the maintainers of this package are using a lot of code from package "B", I'd be much more inclined to think that "B" must be good as well (or at least have some features worth my attention). Definitely one of the strongest endorsements you can give, and yeah, only really an issue if you see things competitively.
Since the visualisation was such a good one, I went and did some really rough rectification using GIMP.
Banda Aceh
Orindarily, I'd set up Ground Control Points (GCPs) and use those to calculate a transformation, but I just fudged it by eyes. I clipped out the part of the image where my transofrm started getting really poor. Even then, the bottom left is significantly off. Note the strip of "before" on the bottom right as it demonstrates the degree of rotation that was required.
Xix.
No, I have never been to China. However it has been demonstrated that the Chinese government has an interest in technology to control Internet access:_ fingered_over_links/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/04/it_giants
On this basis, I'd expect the security provisions of IPV6 to be attractive (depeinding on what they let you do). Seems like a pretty logical conclusion to me.
Xix.
I know where he's coming from, I get somewhat nit-picky about image registration/rectification as in cases like this, the absense of registration can give misleading impressions. Especially if you are un-aware of the shift. Since quality of the visualisation is excellent (I love the ghostly nature), you even stand a good chance of your images ending up in "gee whiz" email without any caveats.
Anyone out there with GIMP fu know if there's an affine transformation script that would let two imaages be registered with each other? The last tool I used to do this costs $$,$$$.
Xix.
While I am not familar with IPV6 beyond the large increase in address space; IPV6 security features such as the Authentication Header might be a great way of making sure only nproperly documented citizens are allowed on the Internet. You may also be able to ensure that they do not connect to undesirable services such as anonymous proxies.
Xix.
Perhaps SCO would be better to have on a pike outside the front gate? SCO might be more valuable completely ground into the dirt. It may be in Novell's interest for SCO to become an object lesson, and a bucket of IP no-one will ever consider seriously.
Someone wrote better quality code and because it's GPL'ed, your code becomes higher quality without having to re-invent or re-write that bit yourself. Organisations like Microsoft can't do that easily, not without acquiring or licencing individual cases.
The flipside of this re-use is that if too much of new project code is from the other fork, people are going to consider the fork even more seriously than before.
Rather like Luke trying to kill Darth Vader.
Scanning may have deficiencies compared to Mac, but AFAIK, Hollywood is quite picky about image quality.
This is some generic text that you don't want to read, but Slashdot will not let me post without some form of content.
Currently, we are being blamed for many things that are going wrong with our corporate XP rollout. We have nothing to do with desktops. Nada!
This has been achieved by one of our staff sending out *one* broadcast email explaining how a particular hardware procurement issue was nothing to do with us, and explaining who to contact. Because this was (I now presume) the only informative email on the XP rollout, we started getting more questions about it. The more vigorously we denied having anything thing to do with the XP rollout, the more questions we got.
People never read email or signs, they just file away the contact details so they have someone to vent spleen on.
All very Python or Dilbert or something. Sigh...