Well, I've got 50% for you: In gmc, drag a filename onto the command line, and it will paste the text for you. At least, it did it for me within the past two minutes. Sorry about opening the cmd line, though.
Mayhap you could provide a better explanation of what you are doing? As it was, I just used (as in not even 10 seconds ago) gmc to do just what you've described: I opened a folder, dragged a file into another folder (a sub folder, in case it matters), and dropped. The file was moved. I then went into that sub folder, dragged that file out into another folder (show in the left pane), and dropped, and the file was moved again. What exactly is gmc not doing for you?
1) Why bother with an external voice recorder? In this case, the better of the two also works without the visor. I happen to rather like it.
2) Speaking as the son of an RN, and hearing about their handwriting for several years, I can assure you that graffiti would be less error prone than reading what doctors pass off as handwriting.
3) As for what's supported and what isn't, there is one very simple solution: Make something for an alternate platform, and support it. To steal from a well known movie: If you build it, they will come.
There are two fundamental methods of doing patient notes: Writing them, and dictating them. Nurses usually have usable handwriting. However, the old cliche about doctor's handwriting is true: As a rule, it's atrocious, and nearly impossible to read with any accuracy. Now, how does this relate to the palm/visor platform?
1) Digital Voice Recorders do exist for the visor, allowing for quick and easy dictation. I'm too lazy to find an exact link, go to http://www.palmgear.com/hs/ to find at least two of them.
2) Graffiti may indeed be error prone, but it's still going to be more accurate than a doctor's handwriting.
Either way, I'd still prefer the palm over an unsupported product any day.
Allow me to point out the War of 1812, which America came dangerously close to losing to *drum roll please* Canada. Well, close enough that the Canadians burned down the White House. So, yes, we have been invaded.
Jeez, I'm not even a lawyer, and I know the differences between them. For the unknowning masses, here's the basic differences (more, though, are undoubtedly there):
Copyrights: Protect a specific version of something, and it's derivative works. Rewrite (from scratch) something which does the same thing, and you are free from copyright infringement. Duration: Until Congress decides to stop extending copyrights, plus a few years.
Tradmarks: Protect a specific item (logo, emblem, catch phrase, etc) in your industry, so that nobody else may use it in your industry. Hence, we could have Ford Motors, and Ford Music, legally. But not two Ford Motors. Duration: Until you stop protecting it (this may be wrong, but I don't think so).
Trade Secrets: No protection whatsoever (except for possible breaking and entering, contract law, and the like). If somebody figures out how to do the same thing that you have done, you are screwed. They can do it as much as they want. Duration: None.
Patents: Protect a specific implementation of an idea. If someone needs to do the same thing you have done, in the same way you have done it, they must get your permission to do so. Alternately, if they can find another method for doing it, you have no legal recourse against them. Duration: 17 years.
As you can see, the only pieces of IP which you must protect are trademarks and trade secrets. The rest will stay active whether you do anything or not.
As an aside: everyone talks about how Linux is open source and free. If Linux is so free then why do I have to pay Debain, Red Hat, LinuxPPC for a free program?
Funny, but I haven't paid a dime to get even Debian installed and working on my system. The closest I've gotten is download time. Since that can happen without my bothering with it, that doesn't count (ie: I kick off the download, and walk away for a while).
Why? Because Mickey Mouse is part of my history, too. They (Disney) make money off of him. I remember portions of my childhood with him. I should be able to express my memories in any way I choose without fear that Disney will come after me (legally speaking). Why? Because those memories are mine.
Disney has made their money off of Mickey, and Pluto, and Goofy, and all the others. They've made their money many times over. Now, how about I be allowed to tell people my story, in the manner in which I choose? And if that involves Mickey Mouse, why should I be prevented from telling my story?
The closest we come to a legal agreement between me and the Disney corporation is the one they accepted by becoming a company in the United States of America, wherein they agreed to abide by the rules of the Constitution which governs this country. This self-same document says that after a limited time, I'm entitled to use those previously copyrighted works to tell my story, to improve the quality of life in this country if I can. Disney is violating this agreement by getting the government of this country to extend copyrights indefinitely, so they can prevent me from doing my part.
Tell me again why I shouldn't have the right to use the character which they created long before my parents were even born, and have made (and will make) money off of through what will probably be my children's lifetimes?
I have to disagree. The CPUID is returning a different, unrecognized response. Therefore, given the same set of instructions (CPUID), it is behaving differently. So, how again is the kernel broken? Because it doesn't know how to handle a new, different set of responses, the kernel is broken? Talk about your tough rooms...
Brittle? The Linux kernel is brittle? Because Intel puts out a new CPU that behaves differently given the same set of instructions, thus causing a failure in the Linux kernel, the Linux kernel is brittle?
By those definitions, since the Linux kernel doesn't run on 6502 CPUs (by my knowledge anyway), it must be brittle. Man, that's harsh.
I'd like to point something out to you that you may not realize, and I'll use me as an example. People can know a language inside and out, and have no 'real' experience useful for getting a job.
For instance, I recently had a code challenge handed to me. It was to read a bit of C code with quadruply indirected pointers. I did it. what's more, I did it without a debugger or even pencil and paper. But I can't get a job programming. Why? No real experience. In other words, since nobody has paid me to code for them, I don't have experience in coding.
Without speaking for the requester, he may very well be in the same boat. He might be able to code circles around other people. But without having been paid for it, it's very difficult to find a job doing.
Unless earth's orbit has changed quite dramatically, an AU is still some 93 million miles (or is it 98? Can't remember). Which makes these more like 0.1AU away. Still close enough to be called a moon in my book (of course, I still consider Pluto to be a planet, so YMMV).
Perhaps you could attempt to check out the source code using these instructions? I just did, and found it so easy it was pathetic. My only complaint was the download time.
Isn't what you say about 128 bit encryption what they used to say a couple of years ago about 32-bit?
It may have been. However, some mathematical calculations have been done. If there is a perfect symmetric key cipher, and it is being used, it is not possible to brute force the key within the expected lifetime of the universe if every single atom in the universe is working on it simultaneously.
32 bit, many years ago, was impractical. 128 bit is impossible then, now, and forever (until we get quantum computers). Though it does require the perfect cipher, something which we will never be sure we have.
www.rpmfind.net has got to be the best resource for finding packages for any RPM based distro.
No argument there. rpmfind is a great site, and a fantastic resource.
I have to say I have never broken my system by installing an RPM in Redhat.
Neither did I when I was running it. Had some very hard times with some.rpm's, and gave up eventually, but never broke the system (to the best of my memory) with.rpm's. The point I was getting at was that I never felt I could trust the upgrade cd path. I've never had such an issue of trust with Debian's package manegement system.
Oh, and I don't recall even an update of any sort doing any weird things. Maybe I'm just lucky, but no upgrade has done weird things for me.
If RPM is so bad why don't SuSE and Mandrake use dpackage/dselect? (Debian still uses those right?)
And if Windows is so bad why do corporations use it and rely on it? That's the same sort of logic being employed in your statement. That being said, though, I should state a couple of things I didn't state before. 1) RedHat, as a corporation, has my approval. They seem to be staying true to the Open Source ideals on which they were founded. I applaud them for this, and wish them success. 2) RedHat Linux is an okay distribution of Linux. It does some things I don't like, but then again, Debian's installer is the installer from hell. The 2.2 installer is finally where Slackware was 5 years ago with the 1.2 kernels. 3) You're right, each distro has its good points and its bad points. I personally find (for me) that Debian's good points outweigh RedHat's good points. I also feel the Debian has fewer negative points than does RedHat. However, that's my opinion, and I want to restate this one piece of it:
RedHat is doing a great job, and I wish them well.
Gotta disagree there. I started with Slack, went to RedHat (thanks to its supremely easy install, they definitely did get that right), and moved on to Debian. After experiencing Debian, I'm not going back to any other distro. I'll say why later here.
Eventualy I will need an anwser to something/now/ and will need support. Commercial vendoes can provide that.
Given. Commercial vendors are the only way to go for guaranteed support. That's the one very good thing about RedHat.
If I want to download some app, if it exists in some package format, it exists in RPM.
I'll give you even odds that it will also exist in.deb format. Debian has a collection of packages like you would not believe. Well over 90% of the time, I go to install a package, and find it ready to five minutes later (by typing in 'apt-get install package). Of the remaining times, I can still, more often than not, go to the next rev of Debian (unstable), find the package, and install it, without breaking my system. Ever.
Let me repeat that: In the year and a half I've been using Debian, I have never broken my system due to installing a package of any sort, and I've done very regular upgrades of the software. And it stays running.
With RedHat, I've never been willing to even attempt system wide upgrades, and so have always wiped out previous installs and re-installed with a new rev of RedHat. No such fear with Debian. As I said before, I must disagree: RedHat, for me, is not the way to go. Debian is.
Now if only I could get a commercial support venture going for Debian:)
Yes, you're correct, Pedersen is wrong. But I'm sure he won't let the facts get in his way.
Actually, I do let the facts get in my way, and am not a rabid zealot. I did indeed misphrase, when I said $75 off of their tax bill. It should have been $75 off of their taxable income.
Your post seems to imply that I'm more wrong than that, though. Would you care to tell me exactly how, or would you prefer to stick with personal attacks?
This is typical Slashdot under-researched proganda
Mayhap you should consider a re-read of the article? It states (quite clearly, I might add) that by having employees exercise enough of their stock options, the company giving out the stock options gets a huge tax break.
For Cisco, this amount to some 4 billion US (roughly). For Microsoft, it came out to 5.25 billion US (roughly).
Every employee who exercises a stock option gets paid more. As an example, suppose I could exercise an option to buy MS stock for $15, and the actual price is $90. I, as an employee, have just made $75 (and I will be taxed on this $75). Furthermore, since this is actual income for me, tax law makes that into a deduction for the company (ie: They take $75 off of their tax bill). Have enough options exercised, and watch your tax debt go away, while your employees pay for it later. Again, go read the article. It's quite informative.
The point being, he means security through obscurity of algorithm, and you're talking about security through obscurity of data. Different things.
Ah, but the point I was making is that the data is what is being obscured, not the algorithm. Using the switching of the gates, you can (reliably) detect where things are in the current state of the smart card. Using that information, you can determine what exactly is being read/written wrt memory. Using that information, you can determine the keys needed to unlock the smart card. The end result? The data is being obscured, not the algorithm.
And "those years of learning what CBL circuits look like from a power/EMI standpoint are not applicable to NCL at all" looks like security by obscurity.
You're right, it is. However, security through obscurity should always be one facet of a security plan. To use the tired old bank analogy, you get a very good combination lock on your safe. And then you don't give out the combination. Your lock is your open source security (everybody knows how strong it is). Your combiation is your private key.
On the other hand, if you don't believe in security through obscurity in any fashion, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide the following information:
All passwords known to you.
Your government issued ID number (here in the states, your Social Security Number).
Your mother's maiden name.
Names, expiration dates, and numbers of all credit card numbers you have.
Any other information about you which may be helpful in performing an identity theft.
My new.sig, below, doesn't do enough. Not yet anyway. However, maybe we should start copyrighting the details of our personal life, encrypting them, and then using the DMCA as a means to prevent companies from getting them, by their own logic.
After all, if we have taken due precautions in protecting such details, and they still get them, they must have reverse-engineered the details from the available details. Since we've copyrighted those details, they've broken the la.
While I do wish that such a situation would work, and provide results, I don't believe t could. But maybe it could be the starting point for such a work?
Slashdot Mirror
Excel does better, though, as it can have stored procedures, in the form of macros :)
Well, I've got 50% for you: In gmc, drag a filename onto the command line, and it will paste the text for you. At least, it did it for me within the past two minutes. Sorry about opening the cmd line, though.
Mayhap you could provide a better explanation of what you are doing? As it was, I just used (as in not even 10 seconds ago) gmc to do just what you've described: I opened a folder, dragged a file into another folder (a sub folder, in case it matters), and dropped. The file was moved. I then went into that sub folder, dragged that file out into another folder (show in the left pane), and dropped, and the file was moved again. What exactly is gmc not doing for you?
Copyrights and patents may be slectively enforced at any time by their holders. Trademarks must always be enforced, or they lose their value.
1) Why bother with an external voice recorder? In this case, the better of the two also works without the visor. I happen to rather like it.
2) Speaking as the son of an RN, and hearing about their handwriting for several years, I can assure you that graffiti would be less error prone than reading what doctors pass off as handwriting.
3) As for what's supported and what isn't, there is one very simple solution: Make something for an alternate platform, and support it. To steal from a well known movie: If you build it, they will come.
1) Digital Voice Recorders do exist for the visor, allowing for quick and easy dictation. I'm too lazy to find an exact link, go to http://www.palmgear.com/hs/ to find at least two of them.
2) Graffiti may indeed be error prone, but it's still going to be more accurate than a doctor's handwriting.
Either way, I'd still prefer the palm over an unsupported product any day.
Fair enough. I didn't notice the 180 years portion of the remark. My apologies.
Allow me to point out the War of 1812, which America came dangerously close to losing to *drum roll please* Canada. Well, close enough that the Canadians burned down the White House. So, yes, we have been invaded.
As you can see, the only pieces of IP which you must protect are trademarks and trade secrets. The rest will stay active whether you do anything or not.
Funny, but I haven't paid a dime to get even Debian installed and working on my system. The closest I've gotten is download time. Since that can happen without my bothering with it, that doesn't count (ie: I kick off the download, and walk away for a while).
Disney has made their money off of Mickey, and Pluto, and Goofy, and all the others. They've made their money many times over. Now, how about I be allowed to tell people my story, in the manner in which I choose? And if that involves Mickey Mouse, why should I be prevented from telling my story?
The closest we come to a legal agreement between me and the Disney corporation is the one they accepted by becoming a company in the United States of America, wherein they agreed to abide by the rules of the Constitution which governs this country. This self-same document says that after a limited time, I'm entitled to use those previously copyrighted works to tell my story, to improve the quality of life in this country if I can. Disney is violating this agreement by getting the government of this country to extend copyrights indefinitely, so they can prevent me from doing my part.
Tell me again why I shouldn't have the right to use the character which they created long before my parents were even born, and have made (and will make) money off of through what will probably be my children's lifetimes?
I have to disagree. The CPUID is returning a different, unrecognized response. Therefore, given the same set of instructions (CPUID), it is behaving differently. So, how again is the kernel broken? Because it doesn't know how to handle a new, different set of responses, the kernel is broken? Talk about your tough rooms...
By those definitions, since the Linux kernel doesn't run on 6502 CPUs (by my knowledge anyway), it must be brittle. Man, that's harsh.
I'd like to point something out to you that you may not realize, and I'll use me as an example. People can know a language inside and out, and have no 'real' experience useful for getting a job.
For instance, I recently had a code challenge handed to me. It was to read a bit of C code with quadruply indirected pointers. I did it. what's more, I did it without a debugger or even pencil and paper. But I can't get a job programming. Why? No real experience. In other words, since nobody has paid me to code for them, I don't have experience in coding.
Without speaking for the requester, he may very well be in the same boat. He might be able to code circles around other people. But without having been paid for it, it's very difficult to find a job doing.
Unless earth's orbit has changed quite dramatically, an AU is still some 93 million miles (or is it 98? Can't remember). Which makes these more like 0.1AU away. Still close enough to be called a moon in my book (of course, I still consider Pluto to be a planet, so YMMV).
What, both of them?
Perhaps you could attempt to check out the source code using these instructions? I just did, and found it so easy it was pathetic. My only complaint was the download time.
It may have been. However, some mathematical calculations have been done. If there is a perfect symmetric key cipher, and it is being used, it is not possible to brute force the key within the expected lifetime of the universe if every single atom in the universe is working on it simultaneously.
32 bit, many years ago, was impractical. 128 bit is impossible then, now, and forever (until we get quantum computers). Though it does require the perfect cipher, something which we will never be sure we have.
No argument there. rpmfind is a great site, and a fantastic resource.
I have to say I have never broken my system by installing an RPM in Redhat.
Neither did I when I was running it. Had some very hard times with some
Oh, and I don't recall even an update of any sort doing any weird things. Maybe I'm just lucky, but no upgrade has done weird things for me.
If RPM is so bad why don't SuSE and Mandrake use dpackage/dselect? (Debian still uses those right?)
And if Windows is so bad why do corporations use it and rely on it? That's the same sort of logic being employed in your statement. That being said, though, I should state a couple of things I didn't state before. 1) RedHat, as a corporation, has my approval. They seem to be staying true to the Open Source ideals on which they were founded. I applaud them for this, and wish them success. 2) RedHat Linux is an okay distribution of Linux. It does some things I don't like, but then again, Debian's installer is the installer from hell. The 2.2 installer is finally where Slackware was 5 years ago with the 1.2 kernels. 3) You're right, each distro has its good points and its bad points. I personally find (for me) that Debian's good points outweigh RedHat's good points. I also feel the Debian has fewer negative points than does RedHat. However, that's my opinion, and I want to restate this one piece of it:
RedHat is doing a great job, and I wish them well.
Gotta disagree there. I started with Slack, went to RedHat (thanks to its supremely easy install, they definitely did get that right), and moved on to Debian. After experiencing Debian, I'm not going back to any other distro. I'll say why later here.
Eventualy I will need an anwser to something
Given. Commercial vendors are the only way to go for guaranteed support. That's the one very good thing about RedHat.
If I want to download some app, if it exists in some package format, it exists in RPM.
I'll give you even odds that it will also exist in
Let me repeat that: In the year and a half I've been using Debian, I have never broken my system due to installing a package of any sort, and I've done very regular upgrades of the software. And it stays running.
With RedHat, I've never been willing to even attempt system wide upgrades, and so have always wiped out previous installs and re-installed with a new rev of RedHat. No such fear with Debian. As I said before, I must disagree: RedHat, for me, is not the way to go. Debian is.
Now if only I could get a commercial support venture going for Debian
Actually, I do let the facts get in my way, and am not a rabid zealot. I did indeed misphrase, when I said $75 off of their tax bill. It should have been $75 off of their taxable income.
Your post seems to imply that I'm more wrong than that, though. Would you care to tell me exactly how, or would you prefer to stick with personal attacks?
Mayhap you should consider a re-read of the article? It states (quite clearly, I might add) that by having employees exercise enough of their stock options, the company giving out the stock options gets a huge tax break.
For Cisco, this amount to some 4 billion US (roughly). For Microsoft, it came out to 5.25 billion US (roughly).
Every employee who exercises a stock option gets paid more. As an example, suppose I could exercise an option to buy MS stock for $15, and the actual price is $90. I, as an employee, have just made $75 (and I will be taxed on this $75). Furthermore, since this is actual income for me, tax law makes that into a deduction for the company (ie: They take $75 off of their tax bill). Have enough options exercised, and watch your tax debt go away, while your employees pay for it later. Again, go read the article. It's quite informative.
Ah, but the point I was making is that the data is what is being obscured, not the algorithm. Using the switching of the gates, you can (reliably) detect where things are in the current state of the smart card. Using that information, you can determine what exactly is being read/written wrt memory. Using that information, you can determine the keys needed to unlock the smart card. The end result? The data is being obscured, not the algorithm.
You're right, it is. However, security through obscurity should always be one facet of a security plan. To use the tired old bank analogy, you get a very good combination lock on your safe. And then you don't give out the combination. Your lock is your open source security (everybody knows how strong it is). Your combiation is your private key.
On the other hand, if you don't believe in security through obscurity in any fashion, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide the following information:
After all, if we have taken due precautions in protecting such details, and they still get them, they must have reverse-engineered the details from the available details. Since we've copyrighted those details, they've broken the la.
While I do wish that such a situation would work, and provide results, I don't believe t could. But maybe it could be the starting point for such a work?