I think the X architecture is part of the *nix problem.
That might just be true.
Using unix domain sockets for all forms of internal communication is not my definition of something that's "better".
But this communication you speak of is not necessarily internal. "Better" is relative -- maybe not better for high frame rate shoot-em-up style games, but much better making programs work seemlessly over a network.
This is wrong on so many points, one doesn't know where to begin.
What,exactly, should a store full of highly pilferable items should do to prevent loss? You be the store manager for a moment.
If you say anything other than to ignore it and let it happen, then I will respond by saying that your solution is just as "discriminatory" by your own definition. Any solution (surveilance, searching customers' belongings as they leave the store, electronic tags, etc.) involve the same presumption of guilt, and they are more difficult and expensive to implement.
Having a policy of not carrying backpacks into a book store is not in any way like racial discrimination. It's more like a dress code in all ways except that it makes more sense than a dress code.
Rules about what can and cannot be done in a private establishment are never discriminatory if those rules apply to anyone and everyone who wishes to patronize the establishment. The fact that you (and many others, apparently) think that this is discrimination is a testament to how far removed we are from real discrimination. We don't even know the meaning of the word.
For example, in talking about legality of things in society it used to be in vogue to say: "We must outlaw X if, and only if, ALL its uses are bad uses."
Never mind when it was in vogue to say this (I'm not sure that it ever was); but when was it ever a statement of legal reality? I can't think of a time.
However, a number of things are illegal, under specific circumstances, because they have no significant legal use. (Meaning: The number of people who use them legally is statistically insignificant when compared to those who use them illegally.)
You could've made the same justification in the 1950s for the stores that said "No Blacks Allowed,"
Has it really come to this? Have we actually reached the point where we can compare not being allowed to carry backpacks into a book store with racial discrimination and keep a straight face? Surely, we must live in utopia and don't even know it.
I can see how his reasoning would appear sound to someone with little experience in cryptographic methods.
In fact, cryptographic algorithms are designed to be strong by themselves. If re-cyphering with itself or another algorithm would likely make it stronger then the original algorithm would have included this already in order to maximize its effectiveness.
Since I apparently must point out the obvious: The reason one wouldn't re-cypher before trying to crack the code is that this is not guaranteed to make the solution any easier to find and therefore might be a waste of time. This, by the way, is the same reason that one would not want to re-cypher their secret message -- because doing so might compromise the strength of the encoding.
Actually, the calendar on my VCR screwed up on 1-Jan-2000. It called the year "A0" and the day of the week was off by one. Made programming it to record shows on a particular day a real bother. I tried many things to correct it, but the problem didn't go away until 1-Jan-2001.
I didn't say it wasn't useful. Merely that it wasn't cryptographically interesting. No more interesting than, say, the chance of guessing n numbers consecutively.
But the necessary preparation for one-time pads is too high for it to be generally useful for real-time secure communication.
But that's not even an interesting case when talking about cryptography. You still need a secure channel on which to send your key. If you have such a channel then why are you not using that channel for your messages?
Unless you are using the same pad for all of your messages, in which case you have little hope of any real security.
Well, 'Apple' has nothing to do with the computer industry, while the terms 'window/windows' has been in use for a long time.
I don't understand this statement at all. Are you trying to say that 'Apple' is actually the name of a fruit and that 'windows' has no meaning outside of the computer industry? Never mind those glass-covered holes in the walls.
Or was that supposed to be funny? Yeah, that must be it.
how often in the real world are the users logging in at the console of their own computer NOT root/administrator (or equivalent).
My primary computing platform at work and at home is Linux and I almost *never* log in as root.
When I do something affecting system files or otherwise potentially dangerous (seldom), a little dialog pops up and asks for the root password. I am, therefore, reminded to use caution when I engage in such activities.
Unfortunatly there's a sucker born every minute who thinks "brand recongition" can be earned in some way other than solid performance, positive reviews and customer satisfaction.
What fantasy world do you live in? Those are the *hard* ways to earn brand recognition! Much easier (and arguably more effective) is paying a popular celebrity to publicly endorse your otherwise crummy product. I suppose that this falls under "positive reviews," but those can be bought. Is any athletic shoe really worth $150+ based on solid performance or customer satisfaction?
How is it that mp3's misinformative, opinionated tripe expressing a locally popular idea gets a (+5 Informative), while your researched, thoughtful comment expressing compelling evidence of an unpopular fact receives no moderation?
Small nitpick: UPS employees don't wear steel-toed boots. At least they didn't back when I was a loader, ~1991. It had something to do with heavy objects engaging the steel to slice your toes off.
Now then, during the time that I was a loader, and later when I was a contract computer tech, I *never* saw or heard of *anyone* destroying packages on purpose. I did occasionally see someone mistakenly back heavy equipment into packages or such, always a mistake.
And it was always dealt with seriously by supervisors. One time, I dropped a tiny box that couldn't have weighed more than 3 or 4 ounces from a height of about 10 inches onto a larger box. I did this in order to avoid having to climb out of a truck to place it carefully on the other box only to have to climb back into the truck. I was pulled aside and counselled about this infraction.
"Hijacked" is the wrong word, anyway. It suggests that Microsoft forcably overtook the TCP/IP stack that was formerly BSD's and so BSD no longer had one, which is of course not true.
What MS did was used the code as a part of their own, at no cost to BSD. This is perfectly acceptable by the BSD license, and Microsoft should not be seen as having wronged anyone for doing it (which is what the word 'hijacked' wrongly suggests). Microsoft, for its part, probably did everybody a favor by not trying to write it themselves. We can thank our lucky stars for that.
To see this another way, ask a Free Software enthusiast about "pirated software" and get ready for an earful about how software can be copied freely and so "pirated" is the wrong word...
Slashdot Mirror
That might just be true.
Using unix domain sockets for all forms of internal communication is not my definition of something that's "better".
But this communication you speak of is not necessarily internal. "Better" is relative -- maybe not better for high frame rate shoot-em-up style games, but much better making programs work seemlessly over a network.
Great! Now my work won't keep me from my vacation because I can take my work with me.
Oh. Wait...
What,exactly, should a store full of highly pilferable items should do to prevent loss? You be the store manager for a moment.
If you say anything other than to ignore it and let it happen, then I will respond by saying that your solution is just as "discriminatory" by your own definition. Any solution (surveilance, searching customers' belongings as they leave the store, electronic tags, etc.) involve the same presumption of guilt, and they are more difficult and expensive to implement.
Having a policy of not carrying backpacks into a book store is not in any way like racial discrimination. It's more like a dress code in all ways except that it makes more sense than a dress code.
Rules about what can and cannot be done in a private establishment are never discriminatory if those rules apply to anyone and everyone who wishes to patronize the establishment. The fact that you (and many others, apparently) think that this is discrimination is a testament to how far removed we are from real discrimination. We don't even know the meaning of the word.
Never mind when it was in vogue to say this (I'm not sure that it ever was); but when was it ever a statement of legal reality? I can't think of a time.
However, a number of things are illegal, under specific circumstances, because they have no significant legal use. (Meaning: The number of people who use them legally is statistically insignificant when compared to those who use them illegally.)
Has it really come to this? Have we actually reached the point where we can compare not being allowed to carry backpacks into a book store with racial discrimination and keep a straight face? Surely, we must live in utopia and don't even know it.
Anonymous Coward: Microsoft astroturfing Slashdot login.
I can see how his reasoning would appear sound to someone with little experience in cryptographic methods.
In fact, cryptographic algorithms are designed to be strong by themselves. If re-cyphering with itself or another algorithm would likely make it stronger then the original algorithm would have included this already in order to maximize its effectiveness.
Since I apparently must point out the obvious: The reason one wouldn't re-cypher before trying to crack the code is that this is not guaranteed to make the solution any easier to find and therefore might be a waste of time. This, by the way, is the same reason that one would not want to re-cypher their secret message -- because doing so might compromise the strength of the encoding.
I guess that just about sums it up.
Actually, the calendar on my VCR screwed up on 1-Jan-2000. It called the year "A0" and the day of the week was off by one. Made programming it to record shows on a particular day a real bother. I tried many things to correct it, but the problem didn't go away until 1-Jan-2001.
You can't us the ACRONYM tag in HTMLHelp? I really don't know, since I don't work in a Windows world, but it seems like a silly thing to be missing.
I suppose I can admit this publicly, since the statute of limitations has run out now...
The statute of limitations is meaningless. The men in blue suits are on their way to your fourth floor office right now.
gzip -9 compressed your 117 bytes down to 111. And the original file (452 bytes) down to only 93 bytes.
What is it about lack of copyright, exactly, that causes people to behave the way the GPL would have them?
You, sir/madam, are the ignorant one.
But the necessary preparation for one-time pads is too high for it to be generally useful for real-time secure communication.
You're right. But I have heard of the X Window System, which was first developed at MIT in 1985. Apple computer was founded in 1976.
However, the words "apple" and "window" since long before there was a computer industry to re-invent them.
Unless you are using the same pad for all of your messages, in which case you have little hope of any real security.
I don't understand this statement at all. Are you trying to say that 'Apple' is actually the name of a fruit and that 'windows' has no meaning outside of the computer industry? Never mind those glass-covered holes in the walls.
Or was that supposed to be funny? Yeah, that must be it.
My primary computing platform at work and at home is Linux and I almost *never* log in as root.
When I do something affecting system files or otherwise potentially dangerous (seldom), a little dialog pops up and asks for the root password. I am, therefore, reminded to use caution when I engage in such activities.
What fantasy world do you live in? Those are the *hard* ways to earn brand recognition! Much easier (and arguably more effective) is paying a popular celebrity to publicly endorse your otherwise crummy product. I suppose that this falls under "positive reviews," but those can be bought. Is any athletic shoe really worth $150+ based on solid performance or customer satisfaction?
Your entire post strongly suggests (to me, an embedded developer for motion control systems) that you haven't done embedded development yourself.
Oh yeah, this is Slashdot. Carry on.
Right. I'll stop using this colloquialism as soon as the bulk of GPL enthusiasts stop talking about software being hijacked.
care to do the math on world population given your ratio and assuming that only three people live in Santa Cruz?
Now then, during the time that I was a loader, and later when I was a contract computer tech, I *never* saw or heard of *anyone* destroying packages on purpose. I did occasionally see someone mistakenly back heavy equipment into packages or such, always a mistake.
And it was always dealt with seriously by supervisors. One time, I dropped a tiny box that couldn't have weighed more than 3 or 4 ounces from a height of about 10 inches onto a larger box. I did this in order to avoid having to climb out of a truck to place it carefully on the other box only to have to climb back into the truck. I was pulled aside and counselled about this infraction.
What MS did was used the code as a part of their own, at no cost to BSD. This is perfectly acceptable by the BSD license, and Microsoft should not be seen as having wronged anyone for doing it (which is what the word 'hijacked' wrongly suggests). Microsoft, for its part, probably did everybody a favor by not trying to write it themselves. We can thank our lucky stars for that.
To see this another way, ask a Free Software enthusiast about "pirated software" and get ready for an earful about how software can be copied freely and so "pirated" is the wrong word...