In addition, RSA SecurID hardware authenticators are manufactured and sealed with an integral lifetime battery. No user maintenance or battery replacement is required. As a result, this authentication solution is as easy to deploy and administer as it is to use.
I believe you mean distcc -- distributed C compiler. It acts as a front-end for the local compiler which does load-sharing for compiling on multiple machines.
You are right. I think we're arguing about two different things.
The grandparent said that students would confuse unofficial APs with the official one and try to connect to the ones that students set up. From that, I inferred that it's also a security issue since students would also try to authenticate -- using their official university login -- with unofficial APs that might sniff traffic to them and store the password for future malicious use.
Therefore, I said that the university prevents mistakes like this by using a certificate that... certifies... that the official AP is really official and that it's safe to send it your university credentials.
The fact that users can accidentally or purposely purely connect to other APs is not a ground for argument -- I completely agree. However, hopefully they'll realize that it's unofficial and that the certificate does not apply.
if the University is already providing wireless internet access, why on earth are the students paying for private access via either cable or DSL? Too much money to burn?
Hardly. The problem is that the wireless access that we (in Waterview apartments) receive is abhorrent. It's pretty good on campus, near and inside school buildings, but out where the apartments are, it's very difficult to get reception. Sometimes the NICs do not see any access points, sometimes the signal is very low. Different apartments get different quality of service. The latency is high.
Even besides that, the university implements draconian policies: no filesharing, no BitTorrent(!), no public IP address (you get a 10.x.x.x address). Officially, you are to use their connection for educational purposes only.
Lastly, they use PEAP authentication which does not function well on Linux -- I've spent a long time trying to get it to work using a Cisco Aironet 350 PCI adapter, and xsupplicant does not support it very well yet. There is support only for Windows and Mac only.
The school could have SSIDs of "UofTAP", and all someone has to do is create one with the same SSID, and they now control the ntwork connection of potentially a large number of students.
This is not the case -- the university uses 802.11 authentication, complete with a certificate signed by a trusted authority. Granted, some people don't set up their computers to require such authentication before providing the login information, but that's another issue.
There is no easy way to confuse access points and to log into someone else's accidentally.
OK, I grant you that the page does mention something of the kind.
However, that still doesn't answer the question why it's proprietary. If anything, it makes companies more accountable to us: if a company cannot justify a higher price quoted to one client than to another, then it's a sign of untrustworthiness.
Ethics? Proprietary information? Since when is pricing of products of a public company private by any means? Doesn't capitalism encourage us to shop around for the best deal, comparing companies and setting them to fight against one another in order to ultimately provide a better deal for the consumer?
I opened your link, and nowhere there does it mention anything about pricing combined with unethicalness or unprofessionalness of revealing it to anyone else.
I know that personal anecdotes do not matter much, but I'm running my workstation with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" for over a year now, regularly `update -up world', and have yet to have a single software problem.
Yes, there are in fact a license designed just for music: The OpenMusic License. It comes in several flavors to allow the artist to choose the level of restrictions.
There is already a full-blown album of music licensed under that license.
My mistake. English is not my native language, and I do not use eye terminology in everyday speech. Just substitute "cornea" for "retina" in my original post, and it should make more sense.
I am not the parent poster, but from what I understand, the laser makes incisions on the surface of the eyeball around the retina to allow the doctor to flip the retina "open", much like you open a can: you cut around it, then flip.
Once it's flipped open, the laser does whatever's necessary to the eye's innards. Once done, the retina is flipped closed again and special drops are given to aid healing. The eye does not produce scar tissue.
Perhaps in the grandmother's case the laser made improper incisions which could not heal.
It's an interesting idea, but as you suggested, all votes would HAVE to tied to a specific revision of each page. Besides, if someone votes "Inaccurate", others have no way of knowing exactly what the voter had a problem with.
For this, every Wikipedia article has a Talk page where anyone (anonymous and logged-in) can write whatever they want about the article: inaccuracies, suggested additions, etc., without directly affecting the article itself.
In my opinion, openly and specifically discussing inaccuracy is much more effective than seeing a vague "Inaccurate" rating.
The EFF is not lying, but the sentence is ambiguous.
Flagged content must be output only to "protected outputs" or in degraded form: through analog outputs or digital outputs with visual resolution of 720x480 pixels or less--less than 1/4 of HDTV's capability.
AO: [alsa1x] 48000Hz 2ch Signed 16-bit (Little-Endian) (2 bps) Building audio filter chain for 48000Hz/2ch/16bit -> 48000Hz/2ch/16bit... Video: no video
So how does one explain that? As you can see, I am running the very latest version of mplayer. Do I need some special USE flag?
Tell that to Steve Gibson, who recently released SpinRite 6, $89/copy, without any documentation. He writes, SpinRite v6.0 documentation is playing catch-up.
This program is his main source of income, so it seems to work in the proprietary world!
Let me rephrase that: it alleviates the first half of the problem -- There is a business model available in somebody creating a pay-for-access server full of OSS software... the feature being that you don't have to fight the rest of the world to get what you want when you want it.
Of course, the ISPs could sense BitTorrent files going through their pipes and start their own temporary tracker. That would seemingly take care of the second half.
You are saying that there is an operating system in existence that never requires security updates AND is able to run common programs (after recompilation or not)? An example, please?
Slashdot Mirror
Gaim is, though, part of the Open Source Software CD which I maintain.
In addition, RSA SecurID hardware authenticators are manufactured and sealed with an integral lifetime battery. No user maintenance or battery replacement is required. As a result, this authentication solution is as easy to deploy and administer as it is to use.
Source: RSA Security - Hardware Authenticators.
I believe you mean distcc -- distributed C compiler. It acts as a front-end for the local compiler which does load-sharing for compiling on multiple machines.
Especially for Gentoo, it's invaluable.
You are right. I think we're arguing about two different things.
The grandparent said that students would confuse unofficial APs with the official one and try to connect to the ones that students set up. From that, I inferred that it's also a security issue since students would also try to authenticate -- using their official university login -- with unofficial APs that might sniff traffic to them and store the password for future malicious use.
Therefore, I said that the university prevents mistakes like this by using a certificate that... certifies... that the official AP is really official and that it's safe to send it your university credentials.
The fact that users can accidentally or purposely purely connect to other APs is not a ground for argument -- I completely agree. However, hopefully they'll realize that it's unofficial and that the certificate does not apply.
if the University is already providing wireless internet access, why on earth are the students paying for private access via either cable or DSL? Too much money to burn?
Hardly. The problem is that the wireless access that we (in Waterview apartments) receive is abhorrent. It's pretty good on campus, near and inside school buildings, but out where the apartments are, it's very difficult to get reception. Sometimes the NICs do not see any access points, sometimes the signal is very low. Different apartments get different quality of service. The latency is high.
Even besides that, the university implements draconian policies: no filesharing, no BitTorrent(!), no public IP address (you get a 10.x.x.x address). Officially, you are to use their connection for educational purposes only.
Lastly, they use PEAP authentication which does not function well on Linux -- I've spent a long time trying to get it to work using a Cisco Aironet 350 PCI adapter, and xsupplicant does not support it very well yet. There is support only for Windows and Mac only.
The school could have SSIDs of "UofTAP", and all someone has to do is create one with the same SSID, and they now control the ntwork connection of potentially a large number of students.
This is not the case -- the university uses 802.11 authentication, complete with a certificate signed by a trusted authority. Granted, some people don't set up their computers to require such authentication before providing the login information, but that's another issue.
There is no easy way to confuse access points and to log into someone else's accidentally.
OK, I grant you that the page does mention something of the kind.
However, that still doesn't answer the question why it's proprietary. If anything, it makes companies more accountable to us: if a company cannot justify a higher price quoted to one client than to another, then it's a sign of untrustworthiness.
Please explain.
Ethics? Proprietary information? Since when is pricing of products of a public company private by any means? Doesn't capitalism encourage us to shop around for the best deal, comparing companies and setting them to fight against one another in order to ultimately provide a better deal for the consumer?
I opened your link, and nowhere there does it mention anything about pricing combined with unethicalness or unprofessionalness of revealing it to anyone else.
Thank god; this is the only working URL I've found thus far.
i ggraph_movie.avi
Here it is again, this time linked and with a bonus so that most people can actually see the message:
http://freecache.org/http://blender3d.com/~bart/s
I don't think there's any concern of Slashdotting Freecache.
I know that personal anecdotes do not matter much, but I'm running my workstation with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" for over a year now, regularly `update -up world', and have yet to have a single software problem.
Yes, there are in fact a license designed just for music: The OpenMusic License. It comes in several flavors to allow the artist to choose the level of restrictions.
There is already a full-blown album of music licensed under that license.
My mistake. English is not my native language, and I do not use eye terminology in everyday speech. Just substitute "cornea" for "retina" in my original post, and it should make more sense.
I am not the parent poster, but from what I understand, the laser makes incisions on the surface of the eyeball around the retina to allow the doctor to flip the retina "open", much like you open a can: you cut around it, then flip.
Once it's flipped open, the laser does whatever's necessary to the eye's innards. Once done, the retina is flipped closed again and special drops are given to aid healing. The eye does not produce scar tissue.
Perhaps in the grandmother's case the laser made improper incisions which could not heal.
It's an interesting idea, but as you suggested, all votes would HAVE to tied to a specific revision of each page. Besides, if someone votes "Inaccurate", others have no way of knowing exactly what the voter had a problem with.
For this, every Wikipedia article has a Talk page where anyone (anonymous and logged-in) can write whatever they want about the article: inaccuracies, suggested additions, etc., without directly affecting the article itself.
In my opinion, openly and specifically discussing inaccuracy is much more effective than seeing a vague "Inaccurate" rating.
I'd love to put a link on my web site, but are there any promotional buttons, such as buttons provided to advertise Mozilla Firefox?
The EFF is not lying, but the sentence is ambiguous.
Flagged content must be output only to "protected outputs" or in degraded form: through analog outputs or digital outputs with visual resolution of 720x480 pixels or less--less than 1/4 of HDTV's capability.
The two bolded portions are mutually exclusive.
Blah, ruin the fun with your technicalities.
You gotta admit that the combination is more appropriate than usual.
vi todo
The system cannot find the file specified.
What an appropriate sig!
Tell that to Steve Gibson, who recently released SpinRite 6, $89/copy, without any documentation.
He writes, SpinRite v6.0 documentation is playing catch-up.
This program is his main source of income, so it seems to work in the proprietary world!
Let me rephrase that: it alleviates the first half of the problem --
There is a business model available in somebody creating a pay-for-access server full of OSS software... the feature being that you don't have to fight the rest of the world to get what you want when you want it.
Of course, the ISPs could sense BitTorrent files going through their pipes and start their own temporary tracker. That would seemingly take care of the second half.
BitTorrent alleviates the whole problem.
You are saying that there is an operating system in existence that never requires security updates AND is able to run common programs (after recompilation or not)? An example, please?
Yes, god forbid the administrator reboots for a kernel update to remove a vulnerability.
Once again, the adjective "state-of-the-art" was clearly referring to computer hardware, not to Windows NT running atop it.