However, what Winelib does allow, that *is* wicked cool, is that you can port a Windows app to a non x86 platform quite easily. I don't really know of anyone that really values this (i.e. is willing to pay big bucks for it), but it's cool, nonetheless.
Software Synthesizer Plugins!
I've see, I think it is now, three different VST-plugin efforts that are going on, to get Linux up as a primo VST host... but I can really see this going weird when linuxPPC folks can take a VST.DLL and run it...)
I think the problem is that its so difficult for 'accountants' and 'evaluators' to really put a value on any open source which a company may end up contributing to with.diffs...
With software, there are a number of different approaches for 'valuating' a company codebase and sticking that figure in a spreadsheet along with all the company's other assets, such as account balances, etc.
With OSS though, how does that valuation occur? Its a public trust sort of scenario - as if the tax which all employees paid the government each year was 'also valuable' to the company, whose cash it was originally before payroll was paid.
OSS 'contributions' are a strange beast to an accountant, and unfortunately, many companies these days rely on valuations and assessments from 'traditional bankers' for things (such as getting loans to cover payroll, or new inventory for sales seasons, etc).
I know that EFF donations and all those 'tax-free writeoffs' are also valuable too, but these don't get thought of as 'investment return', generally. So if you put your main codebase development out into OSS, and your accountant wants to write all your primary code off as 'donations and contributions, non-return expected', then it gets a bit weird...
I think groklaw really ought to spend some time on this sort of thing; the more boring side of supporting linux/OSS on the legal fronts may well lead to a solution to this accounting dilemna, and that would surely be nice for a lot of companies that want to get into OSS... and still keep the books in order.
You know, we are now stuck in a pedantic infinite loop, so maybe I'll just say:
1. the document covered in opaque ink is the actual redact. the photocopy you get is an 'official copy', the original document has been prepared for publication, thus redacted. 2. once redacted, the photocopied information is a censor.
i just don't agree that you should close that gap between 'redact' and 'censor', or encourage that gap be closed, because in fact the legal justification for redacting by the government is not just about censorship... if redacting results in censorship, thats one thing, but the two terms are separate.
its possible for the government to 'redact' something and result in -more- information being included; i.e. when a FOIA request is filed, some pertinent information may be included by the gov't in their response, in order that the other doc is 'ready for publication'...
then again, IANAL, this is just based on my personal experience with developing document and policy management systems professionally, but not necessarily 'properly', heh heh...
No, its redacting which means "preparing for publication"... part of that preparation step is to 'vet' the material for confidential/protected information, and prevent that information from being communicated... this is not the same as censoring, though it is pretty similar.
The similarities, however, don't make it an equal. Through and through, redacting is not censorship... it is preparation for publication. A 'redacted' document is still published, and still made available... just that, if it contains secret information, this is supposed to be guarded from exposure.
Look, I'm not one to defend a governments rights to keep secrets (I think that any government that does is fundamentally corrupt), but I do insist that people know and understand their language properly, sometimes. Elide is a good word, but so is redacting... and neither are the same as censor.
I apologize for misunderstanding you. It seemed as if you were ridiculing the 'intelligence' community, somehow... a fair thing to do, these days, it seems... but really, some intel organizations are waaay ahead of the curve, alas.
I dunno, I think redact is completely suitable. It means 'prepare for publication', and on most redacts I've seen, it has to be by law -obvious- where the preparation was made on originally 'unalterted material'.
'elide' is a pretty good word... Be nice if we could use words like that in general speech.
This is why I don't work for an intelligence agency
how righteous of you. in fact, if you look and know a little about intelligence analysis techniques, i think you'll find that the NSA already know about this approach for 'interpreting' typewritten redacts, even as far back as the 50's.
what this story really seems to point out is the naivete of a lot of people about computers, and the powerful simplicity to seemingly difficult problems that they offer... the average consumer.
it wasn't so long ago that the idea of having massive dictionaries in ram and font and calculations on this order to make a practical approach was considered relatively 'resource difficult'.
but moores laws and fry's electronics has certainly changed that.
for the price of a nice night out, i could buy an extra computer for brute-force hacks against any target, stick it in my closet and forget about it. used to be, not so long ago you had to have a halon system and power room to do things like that...
okay, well, a) i've lived in japan, and b) i've been on two trips to china, including shanghai and a layover in hong kong, in the last 5 years. and i met plenty of ditzy sales-girls, hoo boy... maybe one too many.
so i'm not particularly freakin' on your 'netboy' comment, cute as it was.
as for your willingness to call someone an idiot, i think its only a matter of you being proud of your own smartness at 'proving someone wrong', so i won't take an offense. but it is you who are the idiot.
Well, it's not 'buried' if you have to know the IP address to access it, is it?
all i'm saying is, where are the RIAA gonna end up stopping this protocol-chasing stupidity? protocols are infinite. laws are infinite. none of this does anything for their markets, or the markets of their members.
sorry RIAA, but some of the most buried networks have been simple groups of people who trust each other enough to share a VPN setup. are the RIAA going to kill VPN's as well as p2p? because it doesn't look like they're going to stop their abusive law-making around -any- of the open public protocols.
See? You're relying on obscurity, not security. Anyone who would share with you will share with the RIAA.
ummm yeah, i guess my 'wry heh heh point' didn't really come across... i tried for it, though.
what the RIAA, really, is up against, is the OSI model... when what they ought to be doing, perhaps, is using the model and getting someone to write them up a good RFC for media-content control, their own new in-band protocols, for protecting their own content and the content of their group of members...
But instead, it seems they're just on the warpath.
... as far as I'm concerned, is the "VPN Name Resolution" service.
openswan and an IP address somewhere is all thats needed to 'bury a filesharing service'. It doesn't even have to be p2p... I know of a fair few VPN's that are maintained with quite steady uptimes, all using plain ol' FTP as the internal-xfer-service of choice...
Its interesting that its come to this. Whats next - routers which won't route unless they know the protocols being encapsulated in the tund'd packets they're peer-transferring for? Sheesh, as if that will ever happen...
(If anyone knows of some good VPN's, please share! heh heh...)
Congratulations, your statement has assumed the lofty title of The Dumbest Thing I've Ever Read on Slashdot.
Your so-called 'real world' is just as arbitrary as any other.
Congratulations on being trapped by your own misgivings over 'reality'...
Hell, the simple fact that we're arguing is evidence enough that just because you have a good idea doesn't mean that everyone else is going to drop what they're doing to help you realize it.
All it takes is one other person to agree and come along, and its happening. Whereas, fifty million other people can disagree with me all they want, and then nothing happens.
Look, all I'm saying is quit glorifying war for the sake of 'reality'. War is not reality, war is something that must be made in order to exist.
In the meantime, there's still plenty of hungry mouths to feed, and lots of heads with the same "Why?" thought bubble...
Well, okay, maybe if we make better bullets, we could use guns to 'tag' things, or 'put an RFID under someones skin', sure, yeah. Hey, maybe one day we can launch telecomunnications satellites with them, or something.
A shovel, while it can of course be used to kill can also be used to till a field, and rejuvenate it every year in preparation for a new crop. Life as a substance is so frail that in fact anything can be used to kill, so big deal, we're talking about purposes not physics... the purpose of a shovel is to dig things, whereas the purpose of a space-based ultra-fast tungsten alloy rod delivery system is to smash and destroy.
My point about this "mega-weapon cult" that seams to have gripped the world is that these weapons have no other use than to kill. Their purpose, finally, is to destroy.
What does it say about a nation that puts more into destruction than it does construction? I say, its time has come.
If that makes me some 'liberal brainwashee' then so be it. I don't consider myself 'liberal', at all. Maybe its just that I'm so sick of you Death Fascists and your endless justifications for doing the things you should not be doing, that I'm willing to stand up and profer a different view, even in the face of such vile antagonism from total strangers...
Explain to me how this tungsten-rod delivery mechanism could be used creatively to solve the worlds problems, and maybe I'd be willing to stand down from the soapbox...
Now, put a few rolls of al-foil, this machine, and a rocket together, then ship the whole thing up into geo-sync orbit to start folding durable space structures... up there...
LOVE == WAR was a key point in the novel known as 1984. Orwell was saying that peoples minds can be bent so that concepts once known full well to support civilization are instead used to support its destruction.
Saying that "love is the reason for war" is ludicrous and anyone who truly believes that enough to express it in an argument for peace is a brainwashed minion...
If you choose ignorance over education, I can imagine that you wouldn't see my point, yeah... so go ahead, move along, Citizen...
Yes. I don't see the same line-item on your budget for reconstruction as I do for death and mayhem.
Your nation worships death and strife.
More specifically, are you not down with the idea of working for peace and preparing for war at the same time?
Well, when a) the enemy you have made is one you actually did make (Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam...) and b) the whole world is held hostage to your adminstrations ideology, I don't think the American state has any business "making peace and war at the same time".
Actually, I do know the answer, and I'm sharing it with you. -- No, you don't. That's my point.
Well, thats your point, and you're entitled to it. But I don't think you're qualified, since you clearly have a bias against -any- option, not just the one I'm providing, to say whether or not I have an answer..
The answer to world peace is simply make it, above all else.
Dealing with the real world, the way things actually work, is not the same as liking or preferring it.
Dealing with the 'real' world is no different than dealing with 'any other world'. Conjecture, assessment, analysis... nothing happens unless we 'wish hard enough' for it to happen.
People like you, a "naysayer above and beyond all else", probably live very sad, miserable lives, constantly cowering from the 'outside world' which is 'real' and 'hurty'. Do you never dream?
Dreams are the first step to any situation a man creates for himself, and his fellows. Without positive dreams, without some responsibility for the endlessness of the future, entropy takes its toll.
And... why yes, in fact, lots of bad things have happened to me. But this is not an excuse to let my spirit for living and creating a positive future die... Entropy happens.
And the number of ill intentioned people required to oppress well-meaning people is vanishingly small.... isn't that what you and your President and his "weapons of mass destra^Huction" are supposed to be all about?
I'd also point out that the US defense budget is only a fraction of the total budget
So what you're saying is that the only way to solve conflicts like these is the eradication of millennia-old cultural traditions?
I never said this should be the only way of doing anything. Just that there ought damned well to be alternatives to spending $Trillions of dollars on something, and a nation which considers itself 'great' ought to have definitively and aggressively considered and pursued those options before defaulting to warfare and weaponry.
I don't know. I don't know the answers, and neither do you.
Actually, I do know the answer, and I'm sharing it with you, whether you think I know the answer or not.
But to decry those who are working to defend our way of life from the people who would seek to hurt us... that's just low, man. That's just low.
I wouldn't say I've 'decried' anything. My family has contributed greatly to national defense in two spheres of war in the past century, so I also don't feel a need to defend myself on this particular issue.
I am only trying to point out that the American "Cult of Weaponry" is a perverse form of S&M, when in fact "Farming and Irrigation" would be far more useful to the peasants in the desert, if you know what I mean...
Slashdot Mirror
"it's Internet all over again"
heh heh, thats a good one. i'm gonna start using that, too. nice!
That is one big hole. Frick.
... guess this would give me a way to find out.
I was just today wondering what the keylogging potential was for Safari
GAH!
However, what Winelib does allow, that *is* wicked cool, is that you can port a Windows app to a non x86 platform quite easily. I don't really know of anyone that really values this (i.e. is willing to pay big bucks for it), but it's cool, nonetheless.
... but I can really see this going weird when linuxPPC folks can take a VST .DLL and run it ...)
Software Synthesizer Plugins!
I've see, I think it is now, three different VST-plugin efforts that are going on, to get Linux up as a primo VST host
I think the problem is that its so difficult for 'accountants' and 'evaluators' to really put a value on any open source which a company may end up contributing to with
With software, there are a number of different approaches for 'valuating' a company codebase and sticking that figure in a spreadsheet along with all the company's other assets, such as account balances, etc.
With OSS though, how does that valuation occur? Its a public trust sort of scenario - as if the tax which all employees paid the government each year was 'also valuable' to the company, whose cash it was originally before payroll was paid.
OSS 'contributions' are a strange beast to an accountant, and unfortunately, many companies these days rely on valuations and assessments from 'traditional bankers' for things (such as getting loans to cover payroll, or new inventory for sales seasons, etc).
I know that EFF donations and all those 'tax-free writeoffs' are also valuable too, but these don't get thought of as 'investment return', generally. So if you put your main codebase development out into OSS, and your accountant wants to write all your primary code off as 'donations and contributions, non-return expected', then it gets a bit weird...
I think groklaw really ought to spend some time on this sort of thing; the more boring side of supporting linux/OSS on the legal fronts may well lead to a solution to this accounting dilemna, and that would surely be nice for a lot of companies that want to get into OSS
You know, we are now stuck in a pedantic infinite loop, so maybe I'll just say:
...
...
1. the document covered in opaque ink is the actual redact. the photocopy you get is an 'official copy', the original document has been prepared for publication, thus redacted.
2. once redacted, the photocopied information is a censor.
i just don't agree that you should close that gap between 'redact' and 'censor', or encourage that gap be closed, because in fact the legal justification for redacting by the government is not just about censorship... if redacting results in censorship, thats one thing, but the two terms are separate.
its possible for the government to 'redact' something and result in -more- information being included; i.e. when a FOIA request is filed, some pertinent information may be included by the gov't in their response, in order that the other doc is 'ready for publication'
then again, IANAL, this is just based on my personal experience with developing document and policy management systems professionally, but not necessarily 'properly', heh heh
It's censoring
... this is not the same as censoring, though it is pretty similar.
... it is preparation for publication. A 'redacted' document is still published, and still made available ... just that, if it contains secret information, this is supposed to be guarded from exposure.
... and neither are the same as censor.
No, its redacting which means "preparing for publication"... part of that preparation step is to 'vet' the material for confidential/protected information, and prevent that information from being communicated
The similarities, however, don't make it an equal. Through and through, redacting is not censorship
Look, I'm not one to defend a governments rights to keep secrets (I think that any government that does is fundamentally corrupt), but I do insist that people know and understand their language properly, sometimes. Elide is a good word, but so is redacting
You seem to stepped sideways...
... a fair thing to do, these days, it seems ... but really, some intel organizations are waaay ahead of the curve, alas.
I apologize for misunderstanding you. It seemed as if you were ridiculing the 'intelligence' community, somehow
I dunno, I think redact is completely suitable. It means 'prepare for publication', and on most redacts I've seen, it has to be by law -obvious- where the preparation was made on originally 'unalterted material'.
... Be nice if we could use words like that in general speech.
'elide' is a pretty good word
This is why I don't work for an intelligence agency
... the average consumer.
...
how righteous of you. in fact, if you look and know a little about intelligence analysis techniques, i think you'll find that the NSA already know about this approach for 'interpreting' typewritten redacts, even as far back as the 50's.
what this story really seems to point out is the naivete of a lot of people about computers, and the powerful simplicity to seemingly difficult problems that they offer
it wasn't so long ago that the idea of having massive dictionaries in ram and font and calculations on this order to make a practical approach was considered relatively 'resource difficult'.
but moores laws and fry's electronics has certainly changed that.
for the price of a nice night out, i could buy an extra computer for brute-force hacks against any target, stick it in my closet and forget about it. used to be, not so long ago you had to have a halon system and power room to do things like that
"My other car is a duck!"
Consider your head sploded.
... maybe one too many.
okay, well, a) i've lived in japan, and b) i've been on two trips to china, including shanghai and a layover in hong kong, in the last 5 years. and i met plenty of ditzy sales-girls, hoo boy
so i'm not particularly freakin' on your 'netboy' comment, cute as it was.
as for your willingness to call someone an idiot, i think its only a matter of you being proud of your own smartness at 'proving someone wrong', so i won't take an offense. but it is you who are the idiot.
Yeah? How many Japanese shop-girls are there in China?
...
okay, have it your way. Chinese shop-girl, then.
Same thing, different tectonic plate.
And yeah, before you say 'duh', in my experience, Chinese shop-girls can be just as ditzy as the Akihabra kind
Could actually just be standard Japanese "shop-girl" marketing 'schtick'.
Japanese shop-girls are often given weird lines and marketing gimmicks for their application in 'ditziness' factor.
Calculated, fashionable, weirdness...
Well, it's not 'buried' if you have to know the IP address to access it, is it?
... i tried for it, though.
all i'm saying is, where are the RIAA gonna end up stopping this protocol-chasing stupidity? protocols are infinite. laws are infinite. none of this does anything for their markets, or the markets of their members.
sorry RIAA, but some of the most buried networks have been simple groups of people who trust each other enough to share a VPN setup. are the RIAA going to kill VPN's as well as p2p? because it doesn't look like they're going to stop their abusive law-making around -any- of the open public protocols.
See? You're relying on obscurity, not security. Anyone who would share with you will share with the RIAA.
ummm yeah, i guess my 'wry heh heh point' didn't really come across
what the RIAA, really, is up against, is the OSI model... when what they ought to be doing, perhaps, is using the model and getting someone to write them up a good RFC for media-content control, their own new in-band protocols, for protecting their own content and the content of their group of members...
But instead, it seems they're just on the warpath.
... as far as I'm concerned, is the "VPN Name Resolution" service.
... I know of a fair few VPN's that are maintained with quite steady uptimes, all using plain ol' FTP as the internal-xfer-service of choice...
...
openswan and an IP address somewhere is all thats needed to 'bury a filesharing service'. It doesn't even have to be p2p
Its interesting that its come to this. Whats next - routers which won't route unless they know the protocols being encapsulated in the tund'd packets they're peer-transferring for? Sheesh, as if that will ever happen
(If anyone knows of some good VPN's, please share! heh heh...)
Congratulations, your statement has assumed the lofty title of The Dumbest Thing I've Ever Read on Slashdot.
...
Your so-called 'real world' is just as arbitrary as any other.
Congratulations on being trapped by your own misgivings over 'reality'...
Hell, the simple fact that we're arguing is evidence enough that just because you have a good idea doesn't mean that everyone else is going to drop what they're doing to help you realize it.
All it takes is one other person to agree and come along, and its happening. Whereas, fifty million other people can disagree with me all they want, and then nothing happens.
Look, all I'm saying is quit glorifying war for the sake of 'reality'. War is not reality, war is something that must be made in order to exist.
In the meantime, there's still plenty of hungry mouths to feed, and lots of heads with the same "Why?" thought bubble
Guns can only be used to kill things.
Well, okay, maybe if we make better bullets, we could use guns to 'tag' things, or 'put an RFID under someones skin', sure, yeah. Hey, maybe one day we can launch telecomunnications satellites with them, or something.
A shovel, while it can of course be used to kill can also be used to till a field, and rejuvenate it every year in preparation for a new crop. Life as a substance is so frail that in fact anything can be used to kill, so big deal, we're talking about purposes not physics... the purpose of a shovel is to dig things, whereas the purpose of a space-based ultra-fast tungsten alloy rod delivery system is to smash and destroy.
My point about this "mega-weapon cult" that seams to have gripped the world is that these weapons have no other use than to kill. Their purpose, finally, is to destroy.
What does it say about a nation that puts more into destruction than it does construction? I say, its time has come.
If that makes me some 'liberal brainwashee' then so be it. I don't consider myself 'liberal', at all. Maybe its just that I'm so sick of you Death Fascists and your endless justifications for doing the things you should not be doing, that I'm willing to stand up and profer a different view, even in the face of such vile antagonism from total strangers...
Explain to me how this tungsten-rod delivery mechanism could be used creatively to solve the worlds problems, and maybe I'd be willing to stand down from the soapbox...
Now, put a few rolls of al-foil, this machine, and a rocket together, then ship the whole thing up into geo-sync orbit to start folding durable space structures ... up there ...
And i think your the close minded on who thinks the poeple are all 100% perfect and good.
Bah, what a fool you are. I have never said that people are 100% perfect and good. That is your ideal, not mine.
If I truly had that ideal, I would have no problems with the 'goodness' of those people who choose to make weapons instead of tools of peace.
CLEARLY, those people are evil.
So, your little 'you are an idealistic fool' argument, has no weight. I know full well how evil people can be.
Which is why I say: STOP MAKING WEAPONS FOR USE BY EVIL PEOPLE.
You didn't make a point!
... so go ahead, move along, Citizen ...
Are you illiterate as well as being a bore?
LOVE == WAR was a key point in the novel known as 1984. Orwell was saying that peoples minds can be bent so that concepts once known full well to support civilization are instead used to support its destruction.
Saying that "love is the reason for war" is ludicrous and anyone who truly believes that enough to express it in an argument for peace is a brainwashed minion...
If you choose ignorance over education, I can imagine that you wouldn't see my point, yeah
One: are you asserting that our nation didn't?
..
Yes. I don't see the same line-item on your budget for reconstruction as I do for death and mayhem.
Your nation worships death and strife.
More specifically, are you not down with the idea of working for peace and preparing for war at the same time?
Well, when a) the enemy you have made is one you actually did make (Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam...) and b) the whole world is held hostage to your adminstrations ideology, I don't think the American state has any business "making peace and war at the same time".
Actually, I do know the answer, and I'm sharing it with you.
-- No, you don't. That's my point.
Well, thats your point, and you're entitled to it. But I don't think you're qualified, since you clearly have a bias against -any- option, not just the one I'm providing, to say whether or not I have an answer
The answer to world peace is simply make it, above all else.
Dealing with the real world, the way things actually work, is not the same as liking or preferring it.
... nothing happens unless we 'wish hard enough' for it to happen.
... why yes, in fact, lots of bad things have happened to me. But this is not an excuse to let my spirit for living and creating a positive future die ... Entropy happens.
Dealing with the 'real' world is no different than dealing with 'any other world'. Conjecture, assessment, analysis
People like you, a "naysayer above and beyond all else", probably live very sad, miserable lives, constantly cowering from the 'outside world' which is 'real' and 'hurty'. Do you never dream?
Dreams are the first step to any situation a man creates for himself, and his fellows. Without positive dreams, without some responsibility for the endlessness of the future, entropy takes its toll.
And
So do dreams.
Completely missing the point that "love is love" and nothing else...
I would say that in fact, you are the loser, no matter what games you think you may have won...
I ask again, "where is the love?". It seems Consumericans are incapable of it.
And the number of ill intentioned people required to oppress well-meaning people is vanishingly small. ... isn't that what you and your President and his "weapons of mass destra^Huction" are supposed to be all about?
... "people like me".
I'd also point out that the US defense budget is only a fraction of the total budget
Uh huh...
Rather inconvenient facts for people like you.
See, there you go again, pigeon-holing, putting me in a little box, making me small with your words and your labels
I'd sure like to meet a few more "people like me", frankly.
So what you're saying is that the only way to solve conflicts like these is the eradication of millennia-old cultural traditions?
...
I never said this should be the only way of doing anything. Just that there ought damned well to be alternatives to spending $Trillions of dollars on something, and a nation which considers itself 'great' ought to have definitively and aggressively considered and pursued those options before defaulting to warfare and weaponry.
I don't know. I don't know the answers, and neither do you.
Actually, I do know the answer, and I'm sharing it with you, whether you think I know the answer or not.
But to decry those who are working to defend our way of life from the people who would seek to hurt us... that's just low, man. That's just low.
I wouldn't say I've 'decried' anything. My family has contributed greatly to national defense in two spheres of war in the past century, so I also don't feel a need to defend myself on this particular issue.
I am only trying to point out that the American "Cult of Weaponry" is a perverse form of S&M, when in fact "Farming and Irrigation" would be far more useful to the peasants in the desert, if you know what I mean