But, once again, we are asked to believe that THIS benevolient dictator is a good one. We are ASSUMING that this mark will be "Correctly" enforced through the end of time ( trademarks do not expire ).
Since for the past decade no enforcement actions were taken this is a lost mark.
This is a serious question. If commercial entities are no longer allowed to use "linux"* designation, how do they let someone know what they are using. As far as I know even the distros that use original names still describe themselves as a "linux based" operating system. You can't call it "RedHat" based either or "Mandrake" based.....
Also, how does someone get a trademark on a term that has been in general use for a decade without previous trademark protection? My understanding is that this trademark would never have been granted in the US because of the lack of enforcement. There is a good reason that unprotected trademarks cannot get protection, it's becaue you end up in this type of ridiculious situation where they can now go after everyone who has been using it openly for years without so much as a peep. There is little difference between this and the submarine patents that have irked the computing community for many years. They should have used another new and unique word or combination to trademark ( "Linux certified"? ) rather than linux.
Oh, and while I'm at this rant... In the past the community decided what was acceptable for the linux name. Although they may not have had much legal "teeth" the community would quickly respond to people who misused the name or the license. Now we have one entity that is claiming all future protection for the name, it's bullshit. We now have another corporate entity that is claiming providice over our work, work that we gave openly to the community. It is wrong and I will not abide by it.
Well then everthing is political. So removing AIDS information from government websites to push a sociall conservative agenda is ok. Pushing and abstence only police not only in this coutry, but in other is ok? ( Brazil recently turned down 40 million in AIDS funding from the US because they would have to subvert their own scientific research to push abstence dispite having made substantial headway on actual reduction in new cases ).
Also if you are reffering to him spending 3x as mush as any other president, that is a boldface lie that although often repeated has been complety refuted by facts.
Global warming, bush ( or the administration ) has repeatedly stated that global warming does not exist!
Tax policy. While the structure of the debate is highly fluid I can say that current policy boggles the mind. Conservates believe in small government and less taxation. But here we have the worst of all worlds, an administration that is quick to provide entitlements ( while ignoring the dcientifically derived numbers ) while decreasing tax revenue ( with a different and wrong set of numbers ) while bashing SS ( with a completly different set of made up numbers ).
Everyone is entitle to their own opinion but not their own facts!
If you are in public your image is fair game especially if you are a public figure. Generally ( this is not legal advice ) you only need a release for COMMERCIAL use of someone's image ( in an advertizement ) although it's always wise to get one anyways if possible.
The courts have held that things not plainly visible ( plainly being not obvios to a human at a reasonale distance or public place ) are illegal to disiminate. Like when you turn on night vision during the day. It captures IR and translates it to B&W, the problem is that our body reflects more of it than our clothes do giving all clothes a semi-transparent look. The courts have held that even though they were recourding in public they violated the privacy of the people taped. This doesn;t mean that all IR captures in public are illegal, but when it's specifically used to reveal information about a person that is not plainly visible it might be a crime.
The courts have also held that augmention of senses cannot be used as an excuse to break the 4th ammendmant. Cops can only use items that are plainy visible to initate a search on a private residence. This president was set after they used heat signatures to get warrants for pot growers ( because of the grow lamps used ). Remeber that with technology today you can basicly see movement and hear speech through walls.
The case they reference on the front page does not deserve the ridicule it gets. If I serve a product at a resurant that is unsafe for human consumption I think eventually I would get sued, especially if over the previous 5 years I had ignored repeated complaints!
It's the McDonalds coffee case and it's 100% legit.
that you end up not talking about. My grandfather died a few years ago and while my father was going threw his things he found a special medal from the navy along with a letter. He had been one of the first people on the ground at nagasaki after the bomb.
It's something he told no one about, and it he had not saved the medal and letter we still would not have known.
Firefx 1.1 will have native support... gnome, kde, avalon,...
It's the whole chicken/egg senario nobody will use the format until it's supported by clients, no client will implement until there is content. It's comming along and I just wish it were faster.
At this point, where will the commercial support for SVG go? Now that adobe has the defacto vector drawing platform for the web I fear that their support for the SVG format will go the way of the dodo.
Simply have the manager remind the students that the free networking is supported by thier continued purchasing. Simply changing the mindset is a whole lot better than trying to screw with a psudeo-login-tracking system. It also allows the managers to target just those that are a problem rather than inconviencing everyone.
Let me just say that I run Linux on IBM hardware and for the most part it's ok. The hardware is managed to within an inch of it's life and there are a number of propriatary componients to this hardware that just down not play well with "FLOSS" deployments. Ie keeping up to date often means loosing propriatary functionality or control for a while.
I see they are finally making progress on integrating more of the hardware into the software ( IE partitioning is kindof working ). But for the most part I spend 3x the time managing the IBM hardware then real commodity hardware like dell's. With commodity hardware I can find better documentation, better written toolchains ( free toolclains that can be altered ). With IBM's I have to reverse engeneer how the software works just to figure out why it stoped working.
Overall it's just an odd fit. IBM is trying to commodidize the OS so they don't have to worry about it, but the problem with that is it leads to the result that commodity hardware is better supported, not what IBM is selling! So the more they push Linux the more we are moving away from IBM hardware and moving to true commodity hardware like Dell's ( at less than half the price per CPU ). IBM hardware may be reliable, but st some point it's just not worth 2x or more of the price.
Because patches to RedHat cover the gamut of application ( X, OOo, FF,.... ) where the windows server, just the OS. That's stike one against this "study". They should ONLY count those bugs directly related to the service being studied. Many bugs and patches are against theoretical problems that have no real or even sometime possible local or remote exploit.
The other major problem is that the "days exposed" should start when an exploit is "in the wild" not when an alert is posted to the bug lists.
No study data is availible, but I can imagine that this is just like the pharmasuticals. MS doesn't have to "fake" data, they just run the study again, again, again,... until they get the results they want. Since they are in a position to squash any negative results it guarntees them the upper hand. Once they find one study that gives them the numbers they want.... then they replicate it "independanty" to prove they are right.
So you missed the CSS "opacity" item? IE uses some damm non-standardard "filtering" metod of addind simple opacity. Earlier versions of gecko and khtml use slight variations ( MozOpacity and KhtmlOpacity respectivly ).
Repeat after me, it's not about the platform unless the production units are seriously constrained in some way that cannot be replicated on development or testing. The one thing that has consistantly hamstringed projects in the past is not being able to replicate a dataset that comes close to replicating production bugs on development and testing. Without having a full production dataset in either development or testing you push something out that works only to find that the data causes some completly unrelated thing to break.
This is of course assuming that the software platform is adequitly compatible not to introduce stupid bugs because of diffrences between servers.
I use what tool works, and I am a firm beleiver in not spending money on propriatatry closed source solutions where an adiquite open source solution exists.
Since when is FOSS about *restrinting* choice? I though the reason that FOSS was superior was because the users has the source and the power to do with it what they wanted, if they want to port KDE widgets back to windows in a way that does not violate the licence... more power to them.
It's people like this that get misquoted and give the FOSS community a bad name.
"against UNREASONABLE search and seasure" The courts have held it within their discretion to determine what constitutes unreasonable and they have often weighed the reality and safty of a large number of people over the individual. If a police officer comes up to you in the airport and demands to see your ID, don't show them and then try to argue in front of a judge that the search was unreasonable.
It's not that I don't agree with the sentiment that you are addressing, but we have to work WITHIN the framework of not just the "Ideal world" but the reality of vast array of preexsisting court rulings.
Not to be the voice of reason around here, but the only thing on that list where they legally can not demand ID is the subway ( yet ). So many people alow themselves to be tracked anyways because of subway passes and credit cards. There have been rulings on almost every other location saying that the police can demand ID on planes, trins, busses, federal installations, and other sensitive areas. This does take it to a new level and I think the courts will have to decide is the 4th amendment applies when dealing with national security.
Despite my optimism I could see something like this going either way when it comes to the courts. I could see them saying that no seasure could take place unlesss there was suspision of wrongdoing, or I could see them saying this is a very limited seasure because it's already within police ability to stop and question people and check ID's at most of these locations.
Up till not the courts have been split on issues like this, the most recent being that you can't require protesters who have done nothing wrong to be scanned by a metal detrctors.
Um... have you tried it... only one permutation I entered returned Bush as the winner. Ever other single combination(s)/what if's/... retuned Al Gore as the winner and that does not even tough the illegal purging of voters through a republican connected out-soursed deal.
Um... how about the obvious. How fast is the Hard Drives in both computers? 145Mbps = ~18MB/s which is approaching the sustained limit for many ATA100/133 drives these day.
Those are the two items that will make a system secure. I would say proximity RFID reader + pin code.
When the Dr walks up it unlocks and askes for a pin ( it already knows who you are ). Once the pin is entered you are set... once the RFID leaves range ( 5-8 ft ) the station would automaticly lock. I personally think this would be the best of all worlds. I would not skimp on the proximity sensor for a card swipe since locking the station is still important, and the card is one more thing that they would have to keep clean. As much as the slashdot crew hares RFID it could be very handy you have to admit.
Slashdot Mirror
But, once again, we are asked to believe that THIS benevolient dictator is a good one. We are ASSUMING that this mark will be "Correctly" enforced through the end of time ( trademarks do not expire ).
Since for the past decade no enforcement actions were taken this is a lost mark.
This is a serious question. If commercial entities are no longer allowed to use "linux"* designation, how do they let someone know what they are using. As far as I know even the distros that use original names still describe themselves as a "linux based" operating system. You can't call it "RedHat" based either or "Mandrake" based.....
Also, how does someone get a trademark on a term that has been in general use for a decade without previous trademark protection? My understanding is that this trademark would never have been granted in the US because of the lack of enforcement. There is a good reason that unprotected trademarks cannot get protection, it's becaue you end up in this type of ridiculious situation where they can now go after everyone who has been using it openly for years without so much as a peep. There is little difference between this and the submarine patents that have irked the computing community for many years. They should have used another new and unique word or combination to trademark ( "Linux certified"? ) rather than linux.
Oh, and while I'm at this rant... In the past the community decided what was acceptable for the linux name. Although they may not have had much legal "teeth" the community would quickly respond to people who misused the name or the license. Now we have one entity that is claiming all future protection for the name, it's bullshit. We now have another corporate entity that is claiming providice over our work, work that we gave openly to the community. It is wrong and I will not abide by it.
*Approved use only, what about non-approved use.
Well then everthing is political. So removing AIDS information from government websites to push a sociall conservative agenda is ok. Pushing and abstence only police not only in this coutry, but in other is ok? ( Brazil recently turned down 40 million in AIDS funding from the US because they would have to subvert their own scientific research to push abstence dispite having made substantial headway on actual reduction in new cases ).
Also if you are reffering to him spending 3x as mush as any other president, that is a boldface lie that although often repeated has been complety refuted by facts.
Global warming, bush ( or the administration ) has repeatedly stated that global warming does not exist!
Tax policy. While the structure of the debate is highly fluid I can say that current policy boggles the mind. Conservates believe in small government and less taxation. But here we have the worst of all worlds, an administration that is quick to provide entitlements ( while ignoring the dcientifically derived numbers ) while decreasing tax revenue ( with a different and wrong set of numbers ) while bashing SS ( with a completly different set of made up numbers ).
Everyone is entitle to their own opinion but not their own facts!
Not really. Once people start seeing that every mail from everyone they know excpet those on hotmail get a warning it will cease to be effective.
False positives are WORSE than false nevatives.
If you are in public your image is fair game especially if you are a public figure. Generally ( this is not legal advice ) you only need a release for COMMERCIAL use of someone's image ( in an advertizement ) although it's always wise to get one anyways if possible.
Actuanlly no..
The courts have held that things not plainly visible ( plainly being not obvios to a human at a reasonale distance or public place ) are illegal to disiminate. Like when you turn on night vision during the day. It captures IR and translates it to B&W, the problem is that our body reflects more of it than our clothes do giving all clothes a semi-transparent look. The courts have held that even though they were recourding in public they violated the privacy of the people taped. This doesn;t mean that all IR captures in public are illegal, but when it's specifically used to reveal information about a person that is not plainly visible it might be a crime.
The courts have also held that augmention of senses cannot be used as an excuse to break the 4th ammendmant. Cops can only use items that are plainy visible to initate a search on a private residence. This president was set after they used heat signatures to get warrants for pot growers ( because of the grow lamps used ). Remeber that with technology today you can basicly see movement and hear speech through walls.
The case they reference on the front page does not deserve the ridicule it gets. If I serve a product at a resurant that is unsafe for human consumption I think eventually I would get sued, especially if over the previous 5 years I had ignored repeated complaints!
It's the McDonalds coffee case and it's 100% legit.
that you end up not talking about. My grandfather died a few years ago and while my father was going threw his things he found a special medal from the navy along with a letter. He had been one of the first people on the ground at nagasaki after the bomb.
It's something he told no one about, and it he had not saved the medal and letter we still would not have known.
Um...
...
Firefx 1.1 will have native support... gnome, kde, avalon,
It's the whole chicken/egg senario nobody will use the format until it's supported by clients, no client will implement until there is content. It's comming along and I just wish it were faster.
At this point, where will the commercial support for SVG go? Now that adobe has the defacto vector drawing platform for the web I fear that their support for the SVG format will go the way of the dodo.
Simply have the manager remind the students that the free networking is supported by thier continued purchasing. Simply changing the mindset is a whole lot better than trying to screw with a psudeo-login-tracking system. It also allows the managers to target just those that are a problem rather than inconviencing everyone.
that should be /etc/ppp/peers/[VPNName]
/etc/ppp/peers/
nodefaulroute
That's all folks. I use it all the time.
Let me just say that I run Linux on IBM hardware and for the most part it's ok. The hardware is managed to within an inch of it's life and there are a number of propriatary componients to this hardware that just down not play well with "FLOSS" deployments. Ie keeping up to date often means loosing propriatary functionality or control for a while.
I see they are finally making progress on integrating more of the hardware into the software ( IE partitioning is kindof working ). But for the most part I spend 3x the time managing the IBM hardware then real commodity hardware like dell's. With commodity hardware I can find better documentation, better written toolchains ( free toolclains that can be altered ). With IBM's I have to reverse engeneer how the software works just to figure out why it stoped working.
Overall it's just an odd fit. IBM is trying to commodidize the OS so they don't have to worry about it, but the problem with that is it leads to the result that commodity hardware is better supported, not what IBM is selling! So the more they push Linux the more we are moving away from IBM hardware and moving to true commodity hardware like Dell's ( at less than half the price per CPU ). IBM hardware may be reliable, but st some point it's just not worth 2x or more of the price.
Because patches to RedHat cover the gamut of application ( X, OOo, FF, .... ) where the windows server, just the OS. That's stike one against this "study". They should ONLY count those bugs directly related to the service being studied. Many bugs and patches are against theoretical problems that have no real or even sometime possible local or remote exploit.
... until they get the results they want. Since they are in a position to squash any negative results it guarntees them the upper hand. Once they find one study that gives them the numbers they want.... then they replicate it "independanty" to prove they are right.
The other major problem is that the "days exposed" should start when an exploit is "in the wild" not when an alert is posted to the bug lists.
No study data is availible, but I can imagine that this is just like the pharmasuticals. MS doesn't have to "fake" data, they just run the study again, again, again,
So you missed the CSS "opacity" item? IE uses some damm non-standardard "filtering" metod of addind simple opacity. Earlier versions of gecko and khtml use slight variations ( MozOpacity and KhtmlOpacity respectivly ).
Repeat after me, it's not about the platform unless the production units are seriously constrained in some way that cannot be replicated on development or testing. The one thing that has consistantly hamstringed projects in the past is not being able to replicate a dataset that comes close to replicating production bugs on development and testing. Without having a full production dataset in either development or testing you push something out that works only to find that the data causes some completly unrelated thing to break.
This is of course assuming that the software platform is adequitly compatible not to introduce stupid bugs because of diffrences between servers.
While not a supercoder I have worked on a few projects..
php ( specifically ldap module )
wine, samba, mozilla - bugfixes
I use what tool works, and I am a firm beleiver in not spending money on propriatatry closed source solutions where an adiquite open source solution exists.
Since when is FOSS about *restrinting* choice? I though the reason that FOSS was superior was because the users has the source and the power to do with it what they wanted, if they want to port KDE widgets back to windows in a way that does not violate the licence ... more power to them.
It's people like this that get misquoted and give the FOSS community a bad name.
Welcome to the real world.
"against UNREASONABLE search and seasure" The courts have held it within their discretion to determine what constitutes unreasonable and they have often weighed the reality and safty of a large number of people over the individual. If a police officer comes up to you in the airport and demands to see your ID, don't show them and then try to argue in front of a judge that the search was unreasonable.
It's not that I don't agree with the sentiment that you are addressing, but we have to work WITHIN the framework of not just the "Ideal world" but the reality of vast array of preexsisting court rulings.
Not to be the voice of reason around here, but the only thing on that list where they legally can not demand ID is the subway ( yet ). So many people alow themselves to be tracked anyways because of subway passes and credit cards. There have been rulings on almost every other location saying that the police can demand ID on planes, trins, busses, federal installations, and other sensitive areas. This does take it to a new level and I think the courts will have to decide is the 4th amendment applies when dealing with national security.
Despite my optimism I could see something like this going either way when it comes to the courts. I could see them saying that no seasure could take place unlesss there was suspision of wrongdoing, or I could see them saying this is a very limited seasure because it's already within police ability to stop and question people and check ID's at most of these locations.
Up till not the courts have been split on issues like this, the most recent being that you can't require protesters who have done nothing wrong to be scanned by a metal detrctors.
Um... have you tried it... only one permutation I entered returned Bush as the winner. Ever other single combination(s)/what if's/... retuned Al Gore as the winner and that does not even tough the illegal purging of voters through a republican connected out-soursed deal.
You need to stop watching FOX news
You forgot Sony.. offical sponsor of the HDTV coverage...
"Hey tom, Hey Tom. What ya doing? Watching the game. Can we watch too? We rought chips... and salsa. Ok"
Um... how about the obvious. How fast is the Hard Drives in both computers? 145Mbps = ~18MB/s which is approaching the sustained limit for many ATA100/133 drives these day.
So I would start there.
Those are the two items that will make a system secure. I would say proximity RFID reader + pin code.
When the Dr walks up it unlocks and askes for a pin ( it already knows who you are ). Once the pin is entered you are set... once the RFID leaves range ( 5-8 ft ) the station would automaticly lock. I personally think this would be the best of all worlds. I would not skimp on the proximity sensor for a card swipe since locking the station is still important, and the card is one more thing that they would have to keep clean. As much as the slashdot crew hares RFID it could be very handy you have to admit.