To the contrary, according to recent discussions, GPL and Apache 2.0 are VERY compatible, all except some minor subtle and nuanced corner-case patent issues which the lawyers haven't yet ironed out.
Have transcended the realm of the purely technical, into the realm of the social and cultural. So while I hate to say the research is irrelevant, there is a gigantic market for people who will shell out money for 10-second 8bit 11khz clips of some obnoxious catch tune for their disposable cell phone. I think the research is mostly valuable in very vertical areas, e.g. search technology, heuristical spam filtering and network monitoring, media categorization. Unfortunately a large part of day to day software development is simply trudging through boring development to develop rather boring (intellectually) things that users want.
Identification means nothing. You have to actually correlate identification with other information such as intent, and past behavior.
Ask yourself how long it will take the government from moving to a universal id, to move to universal spying and cataloging the behavior of citizens so it has 'records' to go along with those ids.
Otherwise the ids are worthless. A few middle eastern men committed a terrorist attack. But tens, or hundreds of thousands of *others* are just citizens which didn't.
Yeah, I don't get it: "oh no, our primitive numeric types aren't tied to arbitrary system architecture limits", sounds more like a feature to me than a bug. For the vast majority of software, why would you WANT your primitive types tied word-size? Fixed fundamental types eases portability, not hinders it.
Linux HAS already taken a DECADE to provide sufficient functionality, stability, and support (services and infrastructure), and Unix hasn't changed much fundamentally since them (more recently, at least partly due to open source cultivation), while Java has been changing in very major ways, at least every year. So your sarcastic comment isn't all that ironic.
Apparently updating uses the same attack vector as the exploit itself so if you turned off the feature that allows sites to "install software" then you don't get to use your little buttons.
Ok, so cripple all future zombie machines, and make an option to explicitly enable "full TCP/IP support". But make the option hardwired into the kernel (like the Ctrl-Alt-Del hook) so that it MUST PROMPT THE USER AND CANNOT BE DONE AUTOMATICALLY (or can be enabled automatically with an install image but ONLY AT INSTALL TIME).
Everybody who actually NEEDS raw socket support can opt-in, and breath a sigh of relief because there will be less haxxors out there.
I'm all for crippling people who are going to attack the network. Hell, give em etcha sketches, I don't care.
Sys V init scripts are just archaic and are showing their age and preventing more sophisticated forms of startup. Why doesn't RedHat investigate replacing Sys V init with a new, dependency-based, parallelizable startup system like Mac OS initialization system or Seth Nickell's proposed "SystemServices" init system:
This could easily be backwards compatible such that there are services defined which are simply one-to-one mappings to scripts. Once it's dependency based, you don't have to worry about assigning hardcoded priorities manually and then writing dock gadgets that tell the user when the services are done "starting". As a user I couldn't care less that the services are done starting. Programmers have a futuristic technology called semaphores that can be used to block until a required dependency is fulfilled. If you want to print, and the print spooler hasn't started, instead of blowing chunks, you just implicitly start it. Magic! Ideally, ALL services would be lazy by default unless specifically told by the user to start up automatically (i.e. ssh server, web server, etc.)
Amen. I for one WANT THE WARNINGS. I turn warnings and pedanticism on. I don't WANT the compiler to accept any slop I barf up and just assume an arbitrary interpretation. "OH NOE MY CODES WILL BRAKE!" So use an older compiler. Sheesh.
Or stated another way: code which is easy to create has a low cost of "opening". If you spent a lot of effort writing and debugging the code, you may be less inclined to "give away" all that effort.
C#/CLR is nice and has promise, but if you want UI consistency I would suggest sticking with Java/Swing for the meantime. With C#/CLR you have to pick between Microsoft's Windows Forms implementation, or Mono. As far as I know, Mono has an incomplete Windows Forms implementation at this time, and even if becomes complete I would expect at least some minor UI differences. At the current time I believe Mono has independent GTK, QT, etc. bindings. So if UI consistency is what you want, I'd stick with Java/Swing, and the default cross platform metal/ocean theme.
If and when Mono implements Windows Forms fully, so that they are sufficiently similar, you may want to re-evaluate at that time (depending on whatever other factors would influence your chioce).
How much does wrongful imprisonment cost to you? Maybe we should pay to have more intelligent police officers and cashiers. Or for that matter, stores that don't try to scam their customers.
Yeah, I'm sort of mystified about the claims that "windows is getting *nix security", when Windows (NT at least) has had a much more sophisticated ACL model for a long time now. Finally some add-on Linux projects are adding ACLS, mandatory access controls, etc. But bit-flipped per-file permissions is a giant step backwards. It's really retarded how I have to fuck around with sticky permission bits to get permissions to propagate down directory hierarchies in the standard *nix permission model. I just hope Linux gets good hierarchical ACL support soon.
Yeah, but you don't need to change TIME to get those benefits. Just have guidelines that employees come in earlier and leave early. You don't need to screw up the whole time system over it.
Even in the presence of CLR/C#, I think Java will continue to be very strong and popular. Some things are cumbersome and awkward in Java, granted it has its warts, but on the whole it is very "ergonomic". There is a gigantic amount you can do in Java that will be easily understandable and maintainable by other Java developers. Your options are limited, but that's a feature. JDK 1.5 (ne 5.0) did expand the language a bit with generics, and there has been a lot of controversy over that, but on the whole Java remains rather simple, and a massive amount of libraries have been developed for it, many of which are continually folded into the core.
And languages are not incapable of specifying requirements that result in implementations which perform the same taks more slowly than other languages. That shouldn't be hard to understand.
Hi Markus. Day by day I gain a little more respect for "old school" conservatives (or perhaps aka "libertarians") vs. new-school theo-pluticrats. I would much rather have old school conservatism on the other side of the aisle, I think think such conservatism has respectable positions. My question to you, if such a discussion can be entertained on Slashdot - conservatism/liberalism (at least in fairly recent formulation) seems to split on at least one axis of, say, "individual liberty vs. public/social/common good". My question is, does old-school conservatism see an intrinsic wrong, or at least danger to society (in addition to the market) of concentrations of wealth/power, alone? Or is such irrelevant as long as individual liberties are respected? From the very little I know about Jefferson and Madison it seems they would be against these sort of wealth disparities/intrinsically/. What is conservative thinking on this? One position I have identified is the "technology-uproots-monopolies" theory, that the markets are always changing, and therefore inevitably wealth and power monopolies will be eroded. But I'm not really convinced of that, especially of the increasing "gaming" of the legal , legislative, and judicial systems, and the ability for global entities to circumvent or avoid laws of any given state (essentially the state gives up control over the markets to more globalized entities - itself perhaps an argument for isolationism).
Slashdot Mirror
If you have kids, please hide your star wars fetish in the closet with your bell bottoms and platform shoes.
To the contrary, according to recent discussions, GPL and Apache 2.0 are VERY compatible, all except some minor subtle and nuanced corner-case patent issues which the lawyers haven't yet ironed out.
Have transcended the realm of the purely technical, into the realm of the social and cultural. So while I hate to say the research is irrelevant, there is a gigantic market for people who will shell out money for 10-second 8bit 11khz clips of some obnoxious catch tune for their disposable cell phone. I think the research is mostly valuable in very vertical areas, e.g. search technology, heuristical spam filtering and network monitoring, media categorization. Unfortunately a large part of day to day software development is simply trudging through boring development to develop rather boring (intellectually) things that users want.
Identification means nothing. You have to actually correlate identification with other information such as intent, and past behavior.
Ask yourself how long it will take the government from moving to a universal id, to move to universal spying and cataloging the behavior of citizens so it has 'records' to go along with those ids.
Otherwise the ids are worthless. A few middle eastern men committed a terrorist attack. But tens, or hundreds of thousands of *others* are just citizens which didn't.
Yeah, I don't get it: "oh no, our primitive numeric types aren't tied to arbitrary system architecture limits", sounds more like a feature to me than a bug. For the vast majority of software, why would you WANT your primitive types tied word-size? Fixed fundamental types eases portability, not hinders it.
Linux HAS already taken a DECADE to provide sufficient functionality, stability, and support (services and infrastructure), and Unix hasn't changed much fundamentally since them (more recently, at least partly due to open source cultivation), while Java has been changing in very major ways, at least every year. So your sarcastic comment isn't all that ironic.
Apparently updating uses the same attack vector as the exploit itself so if you turned off the feature that allows sites to "install software" then you don't get to use your little buttons.
Wait wait wait.
So after the second power on, if I power it off again, how do I turn it back on? Shit. Why do IBM products have to be so difficult to use.
Future Technology #1, here we come baby!
Eat THAT Hammurabi.
Ok, so cripple all future zombie machines, and make an option to explicitly enable "full TCP/IP support". But make the option hardwired into the kernel (like the Ctrl-Alt-Del hook) so that it MUST PROMPT THE USER AND CANNOT BE DONE AUTOMATICALLY (or can be enabled automatically with an install image but ONLY AT INSTALL TIME).
Everybody who actually NEEDS raw socket support can opt-in, and breath a sigh of relief because there will be less haxxors out there.
I'm all for crippling people who are going to attack the network. Hell, give em etcha sketches, I don't care.
Sys V init scripts are just archaic and are showing their age and preventing more sophisticated forms of startup. Why doesn't RedHat investigate replacing Sys V init with a new, dependency-based, parallelizable startup system like Mac OS initialization system or Seth Nickell's proposed "SystemServices" init system:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4711
http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/2003/Sep
This could easily be backwards compatible such that there are services defined which are simply one-to-one mappings to scripts. Once it's dependency based, you don't have to worry about assigning hardcoded priorities manually and then writing dock gadgets that tell the user when the services are done "starting". As a user I couldn't care less that the services are done starting. Programmers have a futuristic technology called semaphores that can be used to block until a required dependency is fulfilled. If you want to print, and the print spooler hasn't started, instead of blowing chunks, you just implicitly start it. Magic! Ideally, ALL services would be lazy by default unless specifically told by the user to start up automatically (i.e. ssh server, web server, etc.)
Amen. I for one WANT THE WARNINGS. I turn warnings and pedanticism on. I don't WANT the compiler to accept any slop I barf up and just assume an arbitrary interpretation. "OH NOE MY CODES WILL BRAKE!" So use an older compiler. Sheesh.
Or stated another way: code which is easy to create has a low cost of "opening". If you spent a lot of effort writing and debugging the code, you may be less inclined to "give away" all that effort.
1.5) add 1 extra power brick, and attack computer case fans to brink and to assembly
Yeah, description contradicts the content of the actual article.
"it is not greedy webmasters clicking ads on their own site but rather the advertisers themselves"
No, actually it WAS in fact Auction Expers clicking on ads on their own site to generate revenue.
C#/CLR is nice and has promise, but if you want UI consistency I would suggest sticking with Java/Swing for the meantime. With C#/CLR you have to pick between Microsoft's Windows Forms implementation, or Mono. As far as I know, Mono has an incomplete Windows Forms implementation at this time, and even if becomes complete I would expect at least some minor UI differences. At the current time I believe Mono has independent GTK, QT, etc. bindings. So if UI consistency is what you want, I'd stick with Java/Swing, and the default cross platform metal/ocean theme.
If and when Mono implements Windows Forms fully, so that they are sufficiently similar, you may want to re-evaluate at that time (depending on whatever other factors would influence your chioce).
How much does wrongful imprisonment cost to you? Maybe we should pay to have more intelligent police officers and cashiers. Or for that matter, stores that don't try to scam their customers.
Yeah, I'm sort of mystified about the claims that "windows is getting *nix security", when Windows (NT at least) has had a much more sophisticated ACL model for a long time now. Finally some add-on Linux projects are adding ACLS, mandatory access controls, etc. But bit-flipped per-file permissions is a giant step backwards. It's really retarded how I have to fuck around with sticky permission bits to get permissions to propagate down directory hierarchies in the standard *nix permission model. I just hope Linux gets good hierarchical ACL support soon.
Yeah, but you don't need to change TIME to get those benefits. Just have guidelines that employees come in earlier and leave early. You don't need to screw up the whole time system over it.
Even in the presence of CLR/C#, I think Java will continue to be very strong and popular. Some things are cumbersome and awkward in Java, granted it has its warts, but on the whole it is very "ergonomic". There is a gigantic amount you can do in Java that will be easily understandable and maintainable by other Java developers. Your options are limited, but that's a feature. JDK 1.5 (ne 5.0) did expand the language a bit with generics, and there has been a lot of controversy over that, but on the whole Java remains rather simple, and a massive amount of libraries have been developed for it, many of which are continually folded into the core.
Hell, Grover Norquist is the LEAST of our worries.
How about the post about programming your robot to do "the robot".
And languages are not incapable of specifying requirements that result in implementations which perform the same taks more slowly than other languages. That shouldn't be hard to understand.
Unless the adjective optimized applied to the noun bytecode and not compiler...
Hi Markus. Day by day I gain a little more respect for "old school" conservatives (or perhaps aka "libertarians") vs. new-school theo-pluticrats. I would much rather have old school conservatism on the other side of the aisle, I think think such conservatism has respectable positions. My question to you, if such a discussion can be entertained on Slashdot - conservatism/liberalism (at least in fairly recent formulation) seems to split on at least one axis of, say, "individual liberty vs. public/social/common good". My question is, does old-school conservatism see an intrinsic wrong, or at least danger to society (in addition to the market) of concentrations of wealth/power, alone? Or is such irrelevant as long as individual liberties are respected? From the very little I know about Jefferson and Madison it seems they would be against these sort of wealth disparities /intrinsically/. What is conservative thinking on this? One position I have identified is the "technology-uproots-monopolies" theory, that the markets are always changing, and therefore inevitably wealth and power monopolies will be eroded. But I'm not really convinced of that, especially of the increasing "gaming" of the legal , legislative, and judicial systems, and the ability for global entities to circumvent or avoid laws of any given state (essentially the state gives up control over the markets to more globalized entities - itself perhaps an argument for isolationism).