I use IE for everything and set my own security levels and keep up to date with patches. Add a little shareware app called pop up stopper and its perfect. Tell me again why I need opera?
You mean besides the fact that I have your credit card info?????
[obligatory:-) ]
The GPL doesn't give you shit...... I'm just waiting for the day someone tries to pursue this legally by suing someone for GPL violation.
People don't get sued for GPL violations. They only get sued for Copyright violations. Once the GPL isn't worth sh*t (sh*t being what it's not worth once you violate it) you have no rights to distribute the associated GPL software that the DMCA doesn't otherwise give you. Once they show that you're distributing binaries of GPLed code, all they have to do is show that you're not making the source code available.
The GPL doesn't give the owner of the software's copyright any rights that they wouldn't otherwise have under copyright law. They simply give the recipient protection from copyright prosecution, as long as (s)he follows certain rules.
Click-through or no, I doubt than any BSA member has the right to force their way onto your premises. This belief, however, only applies to people who have limited themselves to retail (even bulk-retail) purchases. I'd be inclined to just ignore their notification. Of course, I'm not your lawyer.
If, on the other hand, you have gone out and negotiated and signed a legal agreement with a BSA member, then what a BSA member can do to/around your premises is limited by the terms of the written agreement. A written agreement is far more binding than any click-through agreement might be.
We are starting to get the distinct impression that FMC is fucking with us
on the peroxide supply situation. We keep doing the things they say
(spending thousands of dollars), and they keep coming up with some other
reason we still can't buy peroxide (or just not return calls for
weeks). They have strung us along for a long time now, and convinced us to
stop talking to Degussa, but we still don't have peroxide.
There was some talk about this a while ago, but I was a lot more hopeful
about FMC, so I didn't pursue it -- maybe it is time to set up a new
company on the scale of X-L Space Systems.
I don't want to be in the chemical processing business, but I would
probably be willing to be an anchor customer. I want to buy $100,000 worth
of peroxide this year.
One of Michael Carden's customers has one of his concentrators, and is
willing to do some peroxide production for us, but I would really prefer to
work with a company, even a small one, that is devoted to peroxide, and
really cares about all the details, not just someone that can feed a machine.
Would any ERPS people be interested in actually running a business to do
this? I would be happiest working with a proven production system (one of
Michael's), but I could entertain notions of paying for more development
work on the ERPS concentrators.
This is sort of a trial balloon here -- if FMC turns around and ships us
peroxide, that is still my preferred solution.
This would require the purchase of aluminum powder, guaranteed visit by the BATF. I found that it just was not worth the possible hassle.
Where's the jurisdiction? Aluminum powder isn't alcohol, tobacco or firearms.
I think that BATF includes Explosives (despite the name). In any case: Put a big-sized steelie in the nozzle of a firing rocket, and you've got a makeshift cannon. I think that classifies as a firearm.
I understand they can crank it out anywhere from 90% to 35% strength, depending on the customer.
You might want to post some contact information here -- and send it directly to Carmack. This sounds like exactly what he's looking for, and it might end up saving a few jobs in the mix.
How much peroxide would $100k get you? That's a lot of money,
Not really. It's enough to keep a small handfull of grease-monkeys employed full-time for a year -- not including equipment and supplies. It's probably enough to pay for a part-time production facility -- but that's what Carmack sounds like he wants to avoid.
U used pure gasoline to finish the process, or you tried to mix it into the water (the latter sounds kinda silly). I would have expected the use of something like a methanol mix in the later stages of cleaning.
I think that there was a MASSIVE spurt of postings... One moment, I was getting 4 posts.. then next I had over 100. Problems with the slash engine, or just a bunch of over-eager slashdot readers? You tell me.
Whilenot arguing against randomization (it has other benefits), I don't think that NAT boxes actually need to do any randomization to mask the number of clients behind them. All you have to do is treat any packet emanating from the NAT as if it had originated from NAT itself, and generate a new IPid for that packet -- random or not. For bandwith purposes, it's probably a good idea to do like the Solaris boxes, and generate a separate stream for each src/dst pair.. That's not a big deal, since the NAT software is going to have tables for this already.
This only leaves the case of packets that arrive at the NAT box pre-fragmented. Not much to do there but keep track of the fragmented packet in one way, or another -- much of the code currently used to re-assemble fragmented packets could probably be used here. The obvious (though slightly problematic) solution would be to always de-fragment outgoing packets.
Once a NAT box is always generating IPids for outgoing packets, it should become difficult, if not impossible to use IPids to identify different boxes behind the NAT. The method of generation is (IMHO) irrelevant.
Randomization only becomes an issue if the NAT box is one of many behind a second-level NAT. Of course, if the second-level NAT is using the same policy, this issue (once again) goes away.
____
In the case of the prime target of this method, (the small business/ home user), fragmantation shouldn't be a problem, should it??? I expect it would be relatively rare for the network behind the NAT of such an entity be so complex that fragmentation would be realistically necessary.
However, there is only one OS. Software released would be for that OS only, regardless if there was a Dell, HP, or Compaq splash screens on it.
I>However, there is only one OS. Software released would be for that OS only, regardless if there was a Dell, HP, or Compaq splash screens on it.
The various versions of Linux are rather different. Each one comes from a different source, has a different intent, and a different style. Drivers may be transferable between the versions, and software may be easily transferable, but each one provides a choice.
Part of the choice is the fact that we will never be at the absolute mercy of any one supplier with Open Source. If RedHat (for example) doesn't see the advantage of a change that I need for my software, I always have the right to modify and recompile the software for myself. I would also have the right to redistribute my modified software to others of a like mind.
If enough people liked my changes, I might then become the official source for that software.
Well, you thought wrong. The movement is about creating good software.
I'll disagree with this one as well. The OS movement is about having freedom. That freedom implies the freedom to produce good software, but OS is not limited to good software. On the other hand, OS software which becomes widely used will become good if only because defects will become the target of those among it's numerous users who have the knowledge and/or other resources to improve it. Some will fix it themselves. Others will hire people to make those changes.
I, myself, have been hired to make changes to OS software that was causing issues for an end-user. I then offered those changes to be folded back into the common source base.
Removing their own java isn't the same as installing Sun's. Just stalling for time...
Better than that, from MS's point of view. They now have an excuse to pull Jave Entirely from Windows. You notice that they pulled Java the day before they got a stay from the order demanding that they install Sun Java on Windows? Now they have Windows without Java, and it's all Sun's fault.
Trust me.. they'll use up every day available in getting around to making the SUN version of Java available fo Windows --- when the order is finally perfected by the appeal court.
Microsoft may not have completely killed Java on the Windows platform, but I think that they've definitely managed to knife this baby in the back.
They have a 'windows support' ad where some small business type comes running after the OD support babe...
"Oh my god, I'm so glad you're here! I thought -- I thought I could do the install by myself, but now the office is supposed to open in five minutes and..
Oh my god, what am I supposed to do???!!
Yep, yep, Windows definitely has a reputation for easy installation and support:-)
I sometimes think that MS consciously makes Windows obtuse and strange in places, just to keep people off guard. That way, all they have to do is claim that Linux is hard to use and support and the average user will go:
Oh my god, worse than Windows????!!!!
A A A R G G H H H H H !!!!
Even if they have a heart attack, it's still one less person thinking about using Linux.
But still, look at all the hardware manufacturer sites; just about all of them have necessary drivers for Windows Me, Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
Something to notice is that just about all of them need drivers for ME, 2000 and XP -- you need different drivers for every version of windows (OK, a bit of an exaggeration -- but only a bit!).
I don't remember having to hunt down a Linux driver for something since RH5.2. Windows, on the other hand....
the last install of MS XP Home I did was at the very most 35 minutes. Now granted I have no clue how long a RedHat 8 install takes but the SuSE 8.1 install I did last light came in at about 45.
I think it depends on what you install... Remember that most desktop Linux installations include more than a standard Windows Install. I have, however, found that the install process is mostly install media bound -- i.e. a network install from a local disk cache of the CDs is far faster than using the raw CDs.
In any case, when you say that XP installed in 35 minutes, did you include the time it took you to install Office, Photoshop (or anything equivalent to GIMP) and a whackload of other utilities??
Those tools aren't included in Windows, but they are a part of most Linux installs (and included in both the install time and the cost).
As for Hardware support.... uhm... OK... If you say so.. Just what hardware are you having trouble with? In general I find that a single Linux disk image will support a wider range of hardware than a Windows image will.
There's nothing wrong with comparing Apples and Oranges, as long as you have an exchange rate for your particular situation.
if you click on the "(#5217998)" in the header, you'll see that it has 50% flaimbait, 50% moderator (personally, I'd prefer the old absolute count method). This implies 1 flaimbait moderation followed by 1 funny moderation... Net moderation: 0
Since the 'funny' came last, it wins as the 'official' explanation.
I don't think it's Microsoft's misfortune. This is a calculated loss on their part. I don't think that M$ is too stupid to be able to tell that they're losing money on every box they're selling, or that they could end the hemorage by upping the price.
Best bet is that they're attempting to outbleed their competetors. Once they have a lock on the market, they'll be able to raise the price -- like they have with the office suite market.
That having been said, I have no problems with buying an X-Box and modding it so that I can run something *useful* on it...
But a service pack is _WAY_ different then a hotfix/patch.....
So sure, you have to reboot, but that's the only excuse for not installing a patch right away... but months later?
OK: Let's me get this straight:
MS publishes their hotfixes with a warning that they may break things and you should only install them if you're having problems;
Sysadmins are at fault for not ignoring MSs warning and blindly installing all hot-fixes immediately
If you'd blindly installed all MS hotfixes, you might break earlier hotfixes
Service Packs are mostly just rolled-together hotfixes, but they are known to wilfully break things;
Despite MS warnings to the contrary, Service Packs need regression testing but hot fixes don't.
A hotfix (...) has never (to my knowledge at lest) changed anything.
The hot fix that would have blocked code red was undone by a later hot fix.
The hotfix that would have blocked slammer was at risk of being, itself, slammed by a later hotfix installed in the 'normal' way.
MS's own servers were broken by the slammer virus.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean besides the fact that I have your credit card info????? :-) ]
[obligatory
People don't get sued for GPL violations. They only get sued for Copyright violations. Once the GPL isn't worth sh*t (sh*t being what it's not worth once you violate it) you have no rights to distribute the associated GPL software that the DMCA doesn't otherwise give you. Once they show that you're distributing binaries of GPLed code, all they have to do is show that you're not making the source code available.
The GPL doesn't give the owner of the software's copyright any rights that they wouldn't otherwise have under copyright law. They simply give the recipient protection from copyright prosecution, as long as (s)he follows certain rules.
If, on the other hand, you have gone out and negotiated and signed a legal agreement with a BSA member, then what a BSA member can do to/around your premises is limited by the terms of the written agreement. A written agreement is far more binding than any click-through agreement might be.
- To: erps-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [ERPS] Peroxide production
- From: John Carmack <johnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue Feb 4 22:02:01 2003
- Delivered-to: erps-list@lists.erps.org
- List-archive: <http://lists.erps.org/archives/erps-list/>
- List-help: <mailto:erps-list-request@lists.erps.org?subject=
h elp>
- List-id: ERPS discussion list <erps-list.lists.erps.org>
- List-post: <mailto:erps-list@lists.erps.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
> ,<mailto:erps-list-request@lists.erps.org?subject= subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
> ,<mailto:erps-list-request@lists.erps.org?subject= unsubscribe>
- Sender: erps-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We are starting to get the distinct impression that FMC is fucking with us on the peroxide supply situation. We keep doing the things they say (spending thousands of dollars), and they keep coming up with some other reason we still can't buy peroxide (or just not return calls for weeks). They have strung us along for a long time now, and convinced us to stop talking to Degussa, but we still don't have peroxide.There was some talk about this a while ago, but I was a lot more hopeful about FMC, so I didn't pursue it -- maybe it is time to set up a new company on the scale of X-L Space Systems.
I don't want to be in the chemical processing business, but I would probably be willing to be an anchor customer. I want to buy $100,000 worth of peroxide this year.
One of Michael Carden's customers has one of his concentrators, and is willing to do some peroxide production for us, but I would really prefer to work with a company, even a small one, that is devoted to peroxide, and really cares about all the details, not just someone that can feed a machine.
Would any ERPS people be interested in actually running a business to do this? I would be happiest working with a proven production system (one of Michael's), but I could entertain notions of paying for more development work on the ERPS concentrators.
This is sort of a trial balloon here -- if FMC turns around and ships us peroxide, that is still my preferred solution.
John Carmack
Where's the jurisdiction? Aluminum powder isn't alcohol, tobacco or firearms.
I think that BATF includes Explosives (despite the name). In any case: Put a big-sized steelie in the nozzle of a firing rocket, and you've got a makeshift cannon. I think that classifies as a firearm.
You might want to post some contact information here -- and send it directly to Carmack. This sounds like exactly what he's looking for, and it might end up saving a few jobs in the mix.
Not really. It's enough to keep a small handfull of grease-monkeys employed full-time for a year -- not including equipment and supplies. It's probably enough to pay for a part-time production facility -- but that's what Carmack sounds like he wants to avoid.
You mean besides (seemingly) spontaneous explosions, and disolved bodies if something goes terribly wrong?
Not much, I'd expect. :-(
$9.5B .. You still want to make a profit, bub.
U used pure gasoline to finish the process, or you tried to mix it into the water (the latter sounds kinda silly). I would have expected the use of something like a methanol mix in the later stages of cleaning.
If you don't think your mother knows about (and probably enjoys) sex, you don't understand the pre-requisites of motherhood.
I think that there was a MASSIVE spurt of postings... One moment, I was getting 4 posts.. then next I had over 100. Problems with the slash engine, or just a bunch of over-eager slashdot readers? You tell me.
Half the peroxide would go to my ex-girlfriend. Half would go to Carmack.
This only leaves the case of packets that arrive at the NAT box pre-fragmented. Not much to do there but keep track of the fragmented packet in one way, or another -- much of the code currently used to re-assemble fragmented packets could probably be used here. The obvious (though slightly problematic) solution would be to always de-fragment outgoing packets.
Once a NAT box is always generating IPids for outgoing packets, it should become difficult, if not impossible to use IPids to identify different boxes behind the NAT. The method of generation is (IMHO) irrelevant.
Randomization only becomes an issue if the NAT box is one of many behind a second-level NAT. Of course, if the second-level NAT is using the same policy, this issue (once again) goes away.
____
In the case of the prime target of this method, (the small business/ home user), fragmantation shouldn't be a problem, should it??? I expect it would be relatively rare for the network behind the NAT of such an entity be so complex that fragmentation would be realistically necessary.
The various versions of Linux are rather different. Each one comes from a different source, has a different intent, and a different style. Drivers may be transferable between the versions, and software may be easily transferable, but each one provides a choice.
Part of the choice is the fact that we will never be at the absolute mercy of any one supplier with Open Source. If RedHat (for example) doesn't see the advantage of a change that I need for my software, I always have the right to modify and recompile the software for myself. I would also have the right to redistribute my modified software to others of a like mind. If enough people liked my changes, I might then become the official source for that software.
Well, you thought wrong. The movement is about creating good software.
I'll disagree with this one as well. The OS movement is about having freedom. That freedom implies the freedom to produce good software, but OS is not limited to good software. On the other hand, OS software which becomes widely used will become good if only because defects will become the target of those among it's numerous users who have the knowledge and/or other resources to improve it. Some will fix it themselves. Others will hire people to make those changes.
I, myself, have been hired to make changes to OS software that was causing issues for an end-user. I then offered those changes to be folded back into the common source base.
Better than that, from MS's point of view. They now have an excuse to pull Jave Entirely from Windows. You notice that they pulled Java the day before they got a stay from the order demanding that they install Sun Java on Windows? Now they have Windows without Java, and it's all Sun's fault.
Trust me.. they'll use up every day available in getting around to making the SUN version of Java available fo Windows --- when the order is finally perfected by the appeal court.
Microsoft may not have completely killed Java on the Windows platform, but I think that they've definitely managed to knife this baby in the back.
I sometimes think that MS consciously makes Windows obtuse and strange in places, just to keep people off guard. That way, all they have to do is claim that Linux is hard to use and support and the average user will go:
Even if they have a heart attack, it's still one less person thinking about using Linux.Something to notice is that just about all of them need drivers for ME, 2000 and XP -- you need different drivers for every version of windows (OK, a bit of an exaggeration -- but only a bit!).
I don't remember having to hunt down a Linux driver for something since RH5.2. Windows, on the other hand....
I think it depends on what you install... Remember that most desktop Linux installations include more than a standard Windows Install. I have, however, found that the install process is mostly install media bound -- i.e. a network install from a local disk cache of the CDs is far faster than using the raw CDs.
In any case, when you say that XP installed in 35 minutes, did you include the time it took you to install Office, Photoshop (or anything equivalent to GIMP) and a whackload of other utilities??
Those tools aren't included in Windows, but they are a part of most Linux installs (and included in both the install time and the cost).
As for Hardware support.... uhm... OK... If you say so.. Just what hardware are you having trouble with? In general I find that a single Linux disk image will support a wider range of hardware than a Windows image will.
There's nothing wrong with comparing Apples and Oranges, as long as you have an exchange rate for your particular situation.
Perhaps Hedy Lamarr?
Since the 'funny' came last, it wins as the 'official' explanation.
You can get a measure of security by running it under https:
Best bet is that they're attempting to outbleed their competetors. Once they have a lock on the market, they'll be able to raise the price -- like they have with the office suite market.
That having been said, I have no problems with buying an X-Box and modding it so that I can run something *useful* on it...
This story has been done before -- in an earlier article. Granted it was an aside of that article, but it was mentioned in that article as an aside.
OK: Let's me get this straight:
- MS publishes their hotfixes with a warning that they may break things and you should only install them if you're having problems;
- Sysadmins are at fault for not ignoring MSs warning and blindly installing all hot-fixes immediately
- If you'd blindly installed all MS hotfixes, you might break earlier hotfixes
-
Service Packs are mostly just rolled-together hotfixes, but they are known to wilfully break things;
- Despite MS warnings to the contrary, Service Packs need regression testing but hot fixes don't.
A hotfix (...) has never (to my knowledge at lest) changed anything.-
The hot fix that would have blocked code red was undone by a later hot fix.
-
The hotfix that would have blocked slammer was at risk of being, itself, slammed by a later hotfix installed in the 'normal' way.
- MS's own servers were broken by the slammer virus.
Just how much knowledge do you have, anyways?