Sure you can. I imported my employer's CA certificate, and I have no problems using Safari on the iPhone with websites using certificates from that CA.
I used the iPhone Configuration Utility to create a "profile" containing the certificate, which makes it easier to install, but it's just some XML wrapping around the certificate. There are examples around that show how to do it.
Well, not in the consumer market at least. If you remember NeXTSTEP, IRIX, AIX, HP-UX, among others, that only ran on certain hardware. And Windows locks you into x86 based computers.
NeXTSTEP ran on quite a variety of hardware in the end. Initially, sure, it only ran on the NeXT brand "black" hardware, but as of 3.1, NeXTSTEP ran on hardware from HP, Sun, and generic Intel boxes (albeit with limited driver support, so you had to be very choosy if you were going to build an Intel machine to run it.)
Windows NT 3.1 ran on DEC Alpha and ARC MIPS hardware, and later PReP PowerPC hardware.
This G20 summit is not being defended by the President, or by Congress, but by the city, and by the wealthy.
Actually, the G20 summit was designated a National Special Security Event by the DHS. The Secret Service was the lead agency in charge of security. Local and State officials were acting under the direction of the Feds.
Yes, they are more significantly more expensive than 1920x1200 24" monitors. A 24" widescreen isn't that much bigger than a 20" 4x3 monitor, though. Same height, but about 4" wider, and if you really don't like having that much horizontal desktop, set your desktop to have black bars on the side.
It's a neat feature. But hardly novel or really that amazing. Other Unices offered this, and I'd be surprised if mainframe systems going back 30 years didn't. Heck, SunOS (the predecessor to Solaris) offered this, and it was end-of-life'd before Linux 0.1 was a gleam in any Finn's eye.
Linux 0.01 was released in September 1991. Linux 0.11 was released in December 1991.
The last release of SunOS (4.1.4) was in November 1994. It was supported by Sun until September 2003. Never underestimate the demand for long term commercial Unix support.
Port 587 was allocated by IANA and is documented by the IETF in RFC 2476, and the STARTTLS capability is documented in RFC 2487. It is not clear from the article whether Verizon is going to require STARTTLS or not. They may require STARTTLS for all mail on port 587 if they so choose.
I assume that the "full-on SSL" that you would prefer refers to the non-standard port 465 ("SMTPs"). That port was chosen arbitrarily by Microsoft, has not been standardized by any common standards body, and was previously already allocated to "URL Rendesvous Directory for SSM".
Why perpetuate non-standards when there are established standards which have the same functionality?
You were by far not the largest Cyrus installation. There are several installations with over 100K users. Cyrus is designed to scale horizontally (multiple small servers, each serving a portion of the users) rather than vertically (using very large servers to serve large numbers of users). The places which have the biggest problems with Cyrus tend to be those that run tens of thousands of users per server. Cyrus is far from perfect, but it can readily scale to very large installations.
What if someone takes your code and patents a part of it? BSD then says you cannot claim the patent or protect yourself from it.
The BSD license does not mention patents. There is nothing in the BSD license preventing you having patents based on BSD code, nor protecting yourself from others patent claims.
The certificate is public. There is no risk in transmitting it in the clear, and it is in fact done everytime you connect to the webserver.
The corresponding key, on other hand, must be kept secret.
You don't send the key to the signing authority, however. You only send a CSR (certificate signing request), which does not contain the key.
Now, that said, any trusted CA can issue a bogus signed certificate with a key of their choosing, and impersonate you, but that can be done independant of whether or not you have ever used that CA. For example, Verisign (or any CA that is commonly trusted) can generate and sign a certificate for "www.microsoft.com" and the majoritiy of browsers in the world will happily accept it as perfectly valid.
If someone downloaded binaries without source 15 years ago, you still have to be able to give him the source code for that version (if I understand everything correctly). How many projects are able to do that? Or can they just give her the source code for a more recent version? What if the project is dead?
No, you only need to provide source for three years from distribution:
GPL, v2, Section 3b:
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; or,
You can talk between Jabber services, as long as both sides support server-to-server communication. LJ Chat appears to support it, based on their own documentation.
You're still paying per-month on a device that does the "service" of reporting everything you click back to TiVo, flashing ads at you while you skip, not giving you a single-button skip option or automatic commercial editing, and sometimes forbidding you from recording or keeping some programs that your content masters have decided not to allow you. I actually transferred my old lifetime subscription, so I don't pay per month.
I don't particularly care if TiVo gets a report of all of my clicks. My TiVo has never flashed any ads at me while I skip; occasionally, a one line ad will appear at the end of a program on the "delete this recording" screen, but I just ignore it. As far as automatic commercial editing, I've found that the 30-second skip hack and/or just fast forwarding is good enough for my needs. I've also never been forbidden from recording anything I wanted to record.
The Comcast DVR I've used is significantly more ad-laden, also has no commercial skipping features, has worse fast-forward reaction time, and wouldn't surprise me if it reported back to Comcast on everything I watch.
Yeah, they may have some reason for some of these things, but I don't want to pay extra for it. I pay for my cable service, and the very instant there's a decent cablecard-enabled dvr that isn't TiVo, I'm all over it. As it is now, I won't even get digital cable, because I do like the fancy newfangled idea of recording something else other than what I'm tuned to. I'd rather pay the TiVo fee than pay the Comcast DVR fee, personally, even if it is a bit more. Also, the longer I keep my TiVo, the lower my effective monthly fee is because I have the lifetime service. As much as I would love to see better competition in the DVR field, it's highly unlikely that any other CableCard compatible DVR will have significantly different features as far as commercial skipping and such.
Also, pretty much all DVRs these days support recording something other than what you are watching. The CableCard TiVos certainly do, as do the Comcast DVRs that I've seen.
let me ask another GPL question. Lets say you make your own app under the GPL license. You're the only person that has worked on it and a bunch of people have downloaded it. It uses no other libraries but your own. You decide you want to make your next version closed source. Do you have a right to do that? Yes. You can't stop people from using the GPL'd releases under the terms of the GPL (it's an irrevokable license), however you can license any future version how you wish. You could also choose to license the existing code under additional licenses, for example, allowing a closed-source product to use your code for a fee.
Next question is the same except in this scenario other people have contributed but signed a waver giving you ownership of copyright (I'm not sure if that makes any difference)? No different. You, as the copyright holder, have the option of how to license the work.
Things like the Linux Kernel have copyrights held by many different people. These people would all have to agree to change the license. Things like various GNU software packages require submissions for inclusion in the main GNU distribution to have a signed copyright waiver (placing the code in the public domain) or to assign copyright to the FSF. This is what allows them to change the licenses on the GNU projects to GPLv3.
Scenario: Let's say company X takes some super-cool GPL code, modifies that code, but only offers that modified code to customers paying for the binaries. Of course, in order to get the privilege of paying for the binaries, you have to sign a contract commercially stating you won't ask for the code, and/or you won't distribute that code. Thus, Company X can now charge for modified GPL code, without breaking the terms of the GPL for not distributing their modified code back to the community at large, since the only folks getting the binaries are people they have binding commercial contracts with... This is explicity forbidden by the GPL, in section 6:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
In a suburb of Pittsburgh where I am from and travel to frequently, there is almost NO 7-Elevens. How can one area have so many and another have almost none? Strange. Because other chains are more prevalent. There are several Pennsylvania based convienence store chaise: Sheetz, Uni-Mart, Co-Go's, Country Fair, and probably others which I'm forgetting. If one were to open a new convenience store, there are many good reasons to choose to franchise a brand which is already common in your region. Advertising, for one, since you will gain benefit from corporate advertising. I often see Sheetz ads. I almost never see 7-11 ads.
I can very clearly tell the difference between the HD and non-HD versions of the channels. If you can't, great. Use MythTV.
But there exists no way to use MythTV for precisely what a TiVo Series 3 does today - record and play back all of the available HD channels provided by my cable provider. I specifically wanted to do this. I looked at MythTV. It isn't capable.
Interesting, can your Myth setup record HD channels, including those which aren't in the clear, from cable without recompressing the bitstream? No? Then you aren't doing what the TiVo series 3 does.
Just a suggestion, maybe you should know what you're talking about
Slashdot Mirror
...and as I stated in reply to that post, you can in fact import a root CA. I don't know why people believe that you can't.
As far as ghetto image animations, I don't know about that specifically, but in general, Javascript works for me.
What about JS and SSL don't work on the iPhone? Flash doesn't work, of course, but JS and SSL work fine.
You can't even load a CA signing cert
Sure you can. I imported my employer's CA certificate, and I have no problems using Safari on the iPhone with websites using certificates from that CA.
I used the iPhone Configuration Utility to create a "profile" containing the certificate, which makes it easier to install, but it's just some XML wrapping around the certificate. There are examples around that show how to do it.
Half the math guys needed hints to prove that if x-1 and x+1 are prime, x is divisible by 6.
That was the claim.
Perhaps "Half the math guys needed hints" because the statement cannot be proven. There is an obvious counter-example in X=4.
Gorobei was bemoaning the state of education in the math and sciences using hyperbole, and got caught up in it himself.
X = 4. X-1 is prime (3). X+1 is prime (5).
X is not divisible by 6.
OP is wrong.
QED.
Well, not in the consumer market at least. If you remember NeXTSTEP, IRIX, AIX, HP-UX, among others, that only ran on certain hardware. And Windows locks you into x86 based computers.
NeXTSTEP ran on quite a variety of hardware in the end. Initially, sure, it only ran on the NeXT brand "black" hardware, but as of 3.1, NeXTSTEP ran on hardware from HP, Sun, and generic Intel boxes (albeit with limited driver support, so you had to be very choosy if you were going to build an Intel machine to run it.)
Windows NT 3.1 ran on DEC Alpha and ARC MIPS hardware, and later PReP PowerPC hardware.
This G20 summit is not being defended by the President, or by Congress, but by the city, and by the wealthy.
Actually, the G20 summit was designated a National Special Security Event by the DHS. The Secret Service was the lead agency in charge of security. Local and State officials were acting under the direction of the Feds.
Here's a few.
Yes, they are more significantly more expensive than 1920x1200 24" monitors. A 24" widescreen isn't that much bigger than a 20" 4x3 monitor, though. Same height, but about 4" wider, and if you really don't like having that much horizontal desktop, set your desktop to have black bars on the side.
It's a neat feature. But hardly novel or really that amazing. Other Unices offered this, and I'd be surprised if mainframe systems going back 30 years didn't. Heck, SunOS (the predecessor to Solaris) offered this, and it was end-of-life'd before Linux 0.1 was a gleam in any Finn's eye.
Linux 0.01 was released in September 1991. Linux 0.11 was released in December 1991.
The last release of SunOS (4.1.4) was in November 1994. It was supported by Sun until September 2003. Never underestimate the demand for long term commercial Unix support.
Port 587 was allocated by IANA and is documented by the IETF in RFC 2476, and the STARTTLS capability is documented in RFC 2487. It is not clear from the article whether Verizon is going to require STARTTLS or not. They may require STARTTLS for all mail on port 587 if they so choose.
I assume that the "full-on SSL" that you would prefer refers to the non-standard port 465 ("SMTPs"). That port was chosen arbitrarily by Microsoft, has not been standardized by any common standards body, and was previously already allocated to "URL Rendesvous Directory for SSM".
Why perpetuate non-standards when there are established standards which have the same functionality?
You were by far not the largest Cyrus installation. There are several installations with over 100K users. Cyrus is designed to scale horizontally (multiple small servers, each serving a portion of the users) rather than vertically (using very large servers to serve large numbers of users). The places which have the biggest problems with Cyrus tend to be those that run tens of thousands of users per server. Cyrus is far from perfect, but it can readily scale to very large installations.
And it's Carnegie Mellon that's putting up the money, and who were (apparently) providing support for the original project.
Carnegie Mellon is not the Mellon Foundation. The Mellon is the same (Andrew), but other than that the two are unrelated.
Nothing protects you from someone else patenting your idea, except fighting the patent application in court.
The license under which you release your code is irrelevant with regards to patent law.
What if someone takes your code and patents a part of it? BSD then says you cannot claim the patent or protect yourself from it.
The BSD license does not mention patents. There is nothing in the BSD license preventing you having patents based on BSD code, nor protecting yourself from others patent claims.
The certificate is public. There is no risk in transmitting it in the clear, and it is in fact done everytime you connect to the webserver.
The corresponding key, on other hand, must be kept secret.
You don't send the key to the signing authority, however. You only send a CSR (certificate signing request), which does not contain the key.
Now, that said, any trusted CA can issue a bogus signed certificate with a key of their choosing, and impersonate you, but that can be done independant of whether or not you have ever used that CA. For example, Verisign (or any CA that is commonly trusted) can generate and sign a certificate for "www.microsoft.com" and the majoritiy of browsers in the world will happily accept it as perfectly valid.
If someone downloaded binaries without source 15 years ago, you still have to be able to give him the source code for that version (if I understand everything correctly). How many projects are able to do that? Or can they just give her the source code for a more recent version? What if the project is dead?
No, you only need to provide source for three years from distribution:GPL, v2, Section 3b:
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; or,
You can talk between Jabber services, as long as both sides support server-to-server communication. LJ Chat appears to support it, based on their own documentation.
I don't particularly care if TiVo gets a report of all of my clicks. My TiVo has never flashed any ads at me while I skip; occasionally, a one line ad will appear at the end of a program on the "delete this recording" screen, but I just ignore it. As far as automatic commercial editing, I've found that the 30-second skip hack and/or just fast forwarding is good enough for my needs. I've also never been forbidden from recording anything I wanted to record.
The Comcast DVR I've used is significantly more ad-laden, also has no commercial skipping features, has worse fast-forward reaction time, and wouldn't surprise me if it reported back to Comcast on everything I watch. Yeah, they may have some reason for some of these things, but I don't want to pay extra for it. I pay for my cable service, and the very instant there's a decent cablecard-enabled dvr that isn't TiVo, I'm all over it. As it is now, I won't even get digital cable, because I do like the fancy newfangled idea of recording something else other than what I'm tuned to. I'd rather pay the TiVo fee than pay the Comcast DVR fee, personally, even if it is a bit more. Also, the longer I keep my TiVo, the lower my effective monthly fee is because I have the lifetime service. As much as I would love to see better competition in the DVR field, it's highly unlikely that any other CableCard compatible DVR will have significantly different features as far as commercial skipping and such.
Also, pretty much all DVRs these days support recording something other than what you are watching. The CableCard TiVos certainly do, as do the Comcast DVRs that I've seen.
Both can be found a bit cheaper if you look around.
Things like the Linux Kernel have copyrights held by many different people. These people would all have to agree to change the license. Things like various GNU software packages require submissions for inclusion in the main GNU distribution to have a signed copyright waiver (placing the code in the public domain) or to assign copyright to the FSF. This is what allows them to change the licenses on the GNU projects to GPLv3.
I can very clearly tell the difference between the HD and non-HD versions of the channels. If you can't, great. Use MythTV.
But there exists no way to use MythTV for precisely what a TiVo Series 3 does today - record and play back all of the available HD channels provided by my cable provider. I specifically wanted to do this. I looked at MythTV. It isn't capable.
Irony.