No, it's completely different. It is like giving preferential treatment to a poor person (less than 60% market share) while you convict a wealthy person (more than 60% market share) for the same crime.
Technically, it is. All that stuff is built into an application called explorer.exe. In the system.ini or win.ini or something, you can change shell=explorer.exe to something else, and Windows will be different. LiteStep does this.
You can run it within other versions, and it works (sort of). The problem is, the 'physics' (internal functions, triggers, keyboard stuff, timers, etc...) got too confusing for the recorder to handle. It only records a small subset of the operations, and so if Microsoft bundles it, it would always have either too much functionality, or too little functionality, or the wrong type (relative or absolute mouse coordinates, for example)
Or maybe it just convinces them that Microsoft users are idiots who cannot learn to check for patches. Sysadmins running MS stuff are damn lucky that Microsoft makes patches, and they shouldn't ignore them.
Now why can't people learn that Microsoft networking products are fundamentally unsecure and stop using them so that we can avoid this nonsense
It's not Microsoft's fault: If you are a system admin, it's your responsibility to get patches. You can't blame the people who made Bind or Sendmail or Apache if you use a vastly out-of-date release, nor can you blame Microsoft it you aren't careful about patching it. There are plenty of things that are Microsoft's fault, but this isn't one.
The problem for the Greens seems to be that the companies are like Microsoft in another way: Profit. Most GE crops are also rendered sterile, you can't get viable seed from them. If you clone, distribute, or take rootstock, they sue you to kingdom come (hmm.. does an organism's genetic sequence fall under the DMCA?). You are to buy, plant, harvest, then buy again. Captive market. With normal crops, you plan right, you have seed for next year. What happens if GE plant 4, upon which your entire country has converted into production under dubious sponsership by some multinational corporation (think Nike and the like), ends up being replaced by super GE plant 4 PLUS, at a premium cost, that the country/people are not willing to pay? "Tough shit, guy, we're not selling GE plant 4 anymore."
Then, you switch to a multinational corporation that can provide you with the seeds you need at a cost you can afford. These companies compete, damn it. In the worst case, you can get Gnu/Corn or Gnu/Rice, which would be a GPL-compatible corn or rice distribution that you are free to copy and redistribute, as long as you don't genetically engineer it into a propriety crop.
What value do you realize, exactly, from releasing your own software under the BSDL?
I will assume that you have heard of karma. Karma isn't simply a number on slashdot, or a concept out of Eastern philosophy. In the software world, karma works. If I release a top notch network library under the GPL, the GPL community can benefit all it wants. They can release a great web server that can serve up pages twenty times faster. And at work, I can sit in front of a computer running a propriety operating system and wonder why the hell it still takes an hour to connect, with a GPL web server and a T3 line. Now, if I had released under the BSD liscense, the web server would still be twenty times faster. But the propriety operating system, which would also be able to use my code, would be able to connect in seconds, and I would be able to download MP3s on my T3 line at blazing speed. Do you see? If I make something that I want used everywhere, something that would make the world a better place, a good algorithm, a good bit of code, it doesn't help everyone to restrict it to GPL folks. Everybody should benefit from your intelligence, from good code. That's my view. You can have your own.
ever taken BSD-licensed code and integerated it into the kernel
Hell yeah. BSD code is free for the taking. Both Microsoft and the GNU folks use it to enhance the quality of their software. BSD code benefits both sides of the war, and slowly raises the usefulness of even the worst software by providing functional, good code that can be freely incorporated into anything, without bickering over politics.
Perhaps the programmer realizes that the users, and the community in general, have benefitted from his contribution, and that he has lost nothing that he sought to gain: He made the community better. He enhanced the quality of a product; instead of bickering over politics, he enhanced the average quality of software, if only by a small increment. But he did. And that it what makes all the difference. He does not fight a war against his fellow coder, he believes that the general good is a greater cause for work than his own personal good.
Then you've got a security leak, and encryption won't help you.
Not at all. What if somebody hijacks the truck on the way to the dump/incinerator/whatever? What if one of the magnetic tapes isn't fully erased? What if a braindead politician decides to also send the erased pads to schools, under the impression that they are also useless without the data disk?
Which would cost billions of dollars to fund the installation of technology that they can't even get to hit their targets half the time?
Perhaps it costs billions of dollars to get it to hit the target all of the time? Or should we just leave ourselves vulnerable to a nuclear attack from halfway across the world.
If an idea or a concept goes against their religion the religion demands that you silence it.
That's not unique to conservatives; that's unique to religion. However, there are certain ethical considerations that need to be made when evaluating a technology. For example, one should think about whether we as humans should be using the technology, (cutting down rainforests, building nuclear reactors) or if it poses more a danger than a threat. Conservatives are concerned more with morals and ethics than with the exact translation of the Bible or the Koran.
Ah, but that would be the name of an actual element. You see, by making up the name of an element, I can show that my situation is clearly hypothetical, and not based on anything resembling fact. That way, I don't get government goons knocking down my door and asking why I posted classified data to Slashdot.
Conservatives like education, because it makes for a lot of smart people who know what the hell they are doing in the workforce, instead of stoned hippies who haven't had a bath in a month. Conservatives like a healthy growing economy (results in good business). Poor people don't help with a booming economy, and so any sane person would think 'Gee, we should educate the poor people and make them better off!' To bring about this desirable result, you fund education.
The thing that Conservatives don't like is waste (also known as inefficiency), which the Federal Government has a large amount of. If the governmnet was a business, it would have gone bankrupt long before now. Although you may think it is, it is not because taxes are too low, it's because government is too big and a billion here and a billion there is not a 'Big Deal'.
What is it about Liberals that makes them think that business fundamentals don't apply to the government?
[Perhaps they don't believe that capitalist fundamentals belong anywhere -ed]
"Mommy, Mommy, Jake found the schematics for an R21 Assault Tank on the school's computer, and now all the cool kids have R21 Assault Tanks. Can I get an R21 Assault Tank? Please?"
The pad doesn't get destroyed, and somehow falls into enemy hands.
The pad does get destroyed, but the generator for the data on the pad falls into enemy hands, so they can derive the pad.
Both the generator and the pad don't fall into enemy hands, but somehow the generation method is derived from patterns on the data drives, which do fall into enemy hands.
If somebody hasn't already pointed it out, unclassified data can be combined to derive classified data. Say a terrorist already has the following information.
Uranium-235 is used in nuclear weapons. (publically available)
Tritanium shielding can be used to mask radiation from large amounts of Uranium-235. (publically available)
A military truck from Utah carries supplies along Interstate 12 every few months. (spy)
Nothing too dangerous in that, is there? But what if he discovered this:
A vehicle production facility in Utah ordered twelve tons of tritanium. (unclassified)
From that, a terrorist could theorize that he could aquire purified Uranium-235 for production of nuclear weapons by hijacking the military transport trucks running along Interstate 12. Clear?
Yes, it is very, ah, 'funky'. You can use magnetic analysis of the drive to get back data written to it a long time ago. Basically, the only way to actually remove data from a drive is this:
Overwrite about a dozen times with pseudo-random noise, not just zeros. Simply overwriting with a constant pattern (just zeros [000...] or just ones [111...], or just a pattern [01010101...]) is easy to read through in magnetic analysis. You can do this from the command line: dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/hda
Use a cryptographically secure number to write truly random data over the drive, to which no pattern can be found. This is the hardest step, and it should be done several times.
Finally, wave a magnet over it to scatter the remaining magnetic field. This shouldn't really be so much a 'wave' as a 'continuous bombardment that goes on for several hours', but the idea is the same.
Then, finally, you also format the drive. Simply formatting it or simply running 'dd' does nothing to prevent the people the Pentagon is afraid of from getting the data.
It isn't so much about reading back single bits, but about reading whole files, in which a single bit or two might be slightly damaged. For example, read the following sentence:
Th` new b`mber is m`de of tritanium oxid`.
The meaning of the sentence remains intact, even when four or five characters are lost. In the same way, quite a great amount of data can be uncovered by reading large chunks of data, even if you can't retrieve everything to the bit. Making these decisions based on politics and not security is a dangerous choice. I hope the Pentagon thought about it very seriously. Of course, with the Presidents virtually giving away our nuclear missile designs, there isn't much left to protect, but still the issue stands.
You are clearly wrong, because McDonalds is an evil, giant corporate empire. We all know that evil, giant corporate empires cannot compete on equal grounds with their family run good patriotic American competitors, so they try to run their family run good patriotic American competitors out of business. Clearly, you must be mistaken, because you indicate that an evil, giant corporate empire is coexisting with its family run good patriotic American competitors. Clearly, those facts are not supported by our arguement, and should be discarded.
Reminds me of the Simpsons cartoon where the school has a huge recycling drive, saves enough paper to protect a whole tree, and then runs over a sapling on their way out of the recycling center.
Even if America began better farming and conservation practices, there are a half dozen countries that are accelerating toward our position, and our pollution would just be replaced by theirs.
And, in environmentalism, it seems that the year when fossil fuels run out is much like the speed of light in physics; whatever year you're at, it's always six years afterward.
Slashdot Mirror
hand-to-hand combat
...
Like pong?
No, it's completely different. It is like giving preferential treatment to a poor person (less than 60% market share) while you convict a wealthy person (more than 60% market share) for the same crime.
Are you one of the users who doesn't know how to 'right-click'? Because that's what that menu there is for.
Technically, it is. All that stuff is built into an application called explorer.exe. In the system.ini or win.ini or something, you can change shell=explorer.exe to something else, and Windows will be different. LiteStep does this.
You can run it within other versions, and it works (sort of). The problem is, the 'physics' (internal functions, triggers, keyboard stuff, timers, etc...) got too confusing for the recorder to handle. It only records a small subset of the operations, and so if Microsoft bundles it, it would always have either too much functionality, or too little functionality, or the wrong type (relative or absolute mouse coordinates, for example)
afford to send his son to Harvard
A school from which Bill Gates dropped out in order to start Microsoft.
Or maybe it just convinces them that Microsoft users are idiots who cannot learn to check for patches. Sysadmins running MS stuff are damn lucky that Microsoft makes patches, and they shouldn't ignore them.
Now why can't people learn that Microsoft networking products are fundamentally unsecure and stop using them so that we can avoid this nonsense
It's not Microsoft's fault: If you are a system admin, it's your responsibility to get patches. You can't blame the people who made Bind or Sendmail or Apache if you use a vastly out-of-date release, nor can you blame Microsoft it you aren't careful about patching it. There are plenty of things that are Microsoft's fault, but this isn't one.
The problem for the Greens seems to be that the companies are like Microsoft in another way: Profit. Most GE crops are also rendered sterile, you can't get viable seed from them. If you clone, distribute, or take rootstock, they sue you to kingdom come (hmm.. does an organism's genetic sequence fall under the DMCA?). You are to buy, plant, harvest, then buy again. Captive market. With normal crops, you plan right, you have seed for next year. What happens if GE plant 4, upon which your entire country has converted into production under dubious sponsership by some multinational corporation (think Nike and the like), ends up being replaced by super GE plant 4 PLUS, at a premium cost, that the country/people are not willing to pay? "Tough shit, guy, we're not selling GE plant 4 anymore."
Then, you switch to a multinational corporation that can provide you with the seeds you need at a cost you can afford. These companies compete, damn it. In the worst case, you can get Gnu/Corn or Gnu/Rice, which would be a GPL-compatible corn or rice distribution that you are free to copy and redistribute, as long as you don't genetically engineer it into a propriety crop.
What value do you realize, exactly, from releasing your own software under the BSDL?
I will assume that you have heard of karma. Karma isn't simply a number on slashdot, or a concept out of Eastern philosophy. In the software world, karma works. If I release a top notch network library under the GPL, the GPL community can benefit all it wants. They can release a great web server that can serve up pages twenty times faster. And at work, I can sit in front of a computer running a propriety operating system and wonder why the hell it still takes an hour to connect, with a GPL web server and a T3 line. Now, if I had released under the BSD liscense, the web server would still be twenty times faster. But the propriety operating system, which would also be able to use my code, would be able to connect in seconds, and I would be able to download MP3s on my T3 line at blazing speed. Do you see? If I make something that I want used everywhere, something that would make the world a better place, a good algorithm, a good bit of code, it doesn't help everyone to restrict it to GPL folks. Everybody should benefit from your intelligence, from good code. That's my view. You can have your own.
ever taken BSD-licensed code and integerated it into the kernel
Hell yeah. BSD code is free for the taking. Both Microsoft and the GNU folks use it to enhance the quality of their software. BSD code benefits both sides of the war, and slowly raises the usefulness of even the worst software by providing functional, good code that can be freely incorporated into anything, without bickering over politics.
something enough people want
Perhaps the programmer realizes that the users, and the community in general, have benefitted from his contribution, and that he has lost nothing that he sought to gain: He made the community better. He enhanced the quality of a product; instead of bickering over politics, he enhanced the average quality of software, if only by a small increment. But he did. And that it what makes all the difference. He does not fight a war against his fellow coder, he believes that the general good is a greater cause for work than his own personal good.
Then you've got a security leak, and encryption won't help you.
Not at all. What if somebody hijacks the truck on the way to the dump/incinerator/whatever? What if one of the magnetic tapes isn't fully erased? What if a braindead politician decides to also send the erased pads to schools, under the impression that they are also useless without the data disk?
I like it, I like it! Very clever.
Which would cost billions of dollars to fund the installation of technology that they can't even get to hit their targets half the time?
Perhaps it costs billions of dollars to get it to hit the target all of the time? Or should we just leave ourselves vulnerable to a nuclear attack from halfway across the world.
If an idea or a concept goes against their religion the religion demands that you silence it.
That's not unique to conservatives; that's unique to religion. However, there are certain ethical considerations that need to be made when evaluating a technology. For example, one should think about whether we as humans should be using the technology, (cutting down rainforests, building nuclear reactors) or if it poses more a danger than a threat. Conservatives are concerned more with morals and ethics than with the exact translation of the Bible or the Koran.
Ah, but that would be the name of an actual element. You see, by making up the name of an element, I can show that my situation is clearly hypothetical, and not based on anything resembling fact. That way, I don't get government goons knocking down my door and asking why I posted classified data to Slashdot.
Hello Mr. Noodle Head,
Conservatives like education, because it makes for a lot of smart people who know what the hell they are doing in the workforce, instead of stoned hippies who haven't had a bath in a month. Conservatives like a healthy growing economy (results in good business). Poor people don't help with a booming economy, and so any sane person would think 'Gee, we should educate the poor people and make them better off!' To bring about this desirable result, you fund education.
The thing that Conservatives don't like is waste (also known as inefficiency), which the Federal Government has a large amount of. If the governmnet was a business, it would have gone bankrupt long before now. Although you may think it is, it is not because taxes are too low, it's because government is too big and a billion here and a billion there is not a 'Big Deal'.
What is it about Liberals that makes them think that business fundamentals don't apply to the government?
[Perhaps they don't believe that capitalist fundamentals belong anywhere -ed]
"Mommy, Mommy, Jake found the schematics for an R21 Assault Tank on the school's computer, and now all the cool kids have R21 Assault Tanks. Can I get an R21 Assault Tank? Please?"
Just in case one of the following happens:
- The pad doesn't get destroyed, and somehow falls into enemy hands.
- The pad does get destroyed, but the generator for the data on the pad falls into enemy hands, so they can derive the pad.
- Both the generator and the pad don't fall into enemy hands, but somehow the generation method is derived from patterns on the data drives, which do fall into enemy hands.
It's always best to be safe.If somebody hasn't already pointed it out, unclassified data can be combined to derive classified data. Say a terrorist already has the following information.
- Uranium-235 is used in nuclear weapons. (publically available)
- Tritanium shielding can be used to mask radiation from large amounts of Uranium-235. (publically available)
- A military truck from Utah carries supplies along Interstate 12 every few months. (spy)
Nothing too dangerous in that, is there? But what if he discovered this:- A vehicle production facility in Utah ordered twelve tons of tritanium. (unclassified)
From that, a terrorist could theorize that he could aquire purified Uranium-235 for production of nuclear weapons by hijacking the military transport trucks running along Interstate 12. Clear?Yes, it is very, ah, 'funky'. You can use magnetic analysis of the drive to get back data written to it a long time ago. Basically, the only way to actually remove data from a drive is this:It isn't so much about reading back single bits, but about reading whole files, in which a single bit or two might be slightly damaged. For example, read the following sentence:The meaning of the sentence remains intact, even when four or five characters are lost. In the same way, quite a great amount of data can be uncovered by reading large chunks of data, even if you can't retrieve everything to the bit.
Making these decisions based on politics and not security is a dangerous choice. I hope the Pentagon thought about it very seriously. Of course, with the Presidents virtually giving away our nuclear missile designs, there isn't much left to protect, but still the issue stands.
You are clearly wrong, because McDonalds is an evil, giant corporate empire. We all know that evil, giant corporate empires cannot compete on equal grounds with their family run good patriotic American competitors, so they try to run their family run good patriotic American competitors out of business. Clearly, you must be mistaken, because you indicate that an evil, giant corporate empire is coexisting with its family run good patriotic American competitors. Clearly, those facts are not supported by our arguement, and should be discarded.
Reminds me of the Simpsons cartoon where the school has a huge recycling drive, saves enough paper to protect a whole tree, and then runs over a sapling on their way out of the recycling center.
Even if America began better farming and conservation practices, there are a half dozen countries that are accelerating toward our position, and our pollution would just be replaced by theirs.
And, in environmentalism, it seems that the year when fossil fuels run out is much like the speed of light in physics; whatever year you're at, it's always six years afterward.
"Catering to the biggest group of users" isn't choice
That's right, it's democracy.