From what I can tell, it means that Granny can't get Gnome out of the box.
Gnome apps use GTK. GTK is distributed under the GPL, and uses libXext. Xext has an advertising clause. GTK (being GPLd) says it can't be distributed as part of an app with such a clause. (It doesn't list an advertising clause specifically, it just forbids additional restrictions.) So the Linux distro can't ship any Gnome apps, because it doesn't have a license to do so.
The fella that installed our elevator told a cow-orker that holding down the button does make it close the door sooner. I haven't noticed a difference, but I never did a real test.
These are modern elevators; the buildings are only about three years old.
I have a Palm Z-interpreter, and a whole slew of IF (mostly the top three from previous IF contests). It's great for when you're on a plane, waiting room, early to a meeting, or whenever you have time to kill.
Usually, I'll play new (to me) games on planes or other times when I have at least an hour, and re-explore old games when I've got less time, like waiting for a meeting.
I know they control some of the root servers, but why them?
Irrelevant. They control the.com and.net gTLDs.
If everybody just changed the list all at once, their servers would suddenly become quiet and this would be a non-issue.
It doesn't need to be all at once. Changes to the root DNS servers happen, incrementally, all the time. They don't change all at once, so the changes can gradually trickle down.
Remember that DNS servers usually fetch a new root server list as soon as they start up, so you just need one root server to remain the same for old servers to work.
The solution is to alter a DNS server so it examines the results it gets back from its parents, and if it's a BS Verisign auto-search response, tell the requestor that the domain doesn't exist.
That was done in the early days of the VS BS. The ISC released a patched bind that would do just that within a couple of days of the problem, although the ISC didn't particularly approve of it, and only reluctantly released it.
Without defending the MS design decisions, they elected to provide certain audio and video playback capabilities by incorporating WMP code "into the OS."
I don't know much about Windows programming, so I have to ask: how can this not be provided just as easily by making the media player a COM object?
Requiring a cert to run a mail server is NOT a heavy burden,
Personally, I don't think it's even necessary. I doubt that spammers will start doing man-in-the-middle attacks or DNS manipulation (not because they're morally above it, but because of the technical expertese, legal exposure, and risk of being caught and traced). So just make up a cert and stick it in a DNS record for your domain. No PKI needed => no payment to get your cert.
Re:I thought I would do this...
on
WB Cancels Angel
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I guess now comes the Collecter's Commentary.
Yeah, there's some stuff missing in that list (and that's not my actual movie collection either; for instance, of course I have Princess Bride). I meant to put Spaceballs and Alien in. Ice Pirates, Krull, and Bicentennial Man were oversights; the last is the one I feel particularly bad about, but I'm glad I got some Asimov in the list. (Bicentennial Man would probably also go into Documentary, since it's more of a "Life and Times of..." than anything else.)
Regarding TRON: I sat there staring at my TRON DVD for quite a while, trying to think if there was a category I could list it in. I considered "Travelogue", but I was trying to show some restraint for that category. In the end, with a heavy heart, I left it out. Similar for Forbidden Planet, 2001, and a couple of others; just no category I could think of to put them in.
I left out Free Enterprise, which I think should be in any sci-fi enthusiast's collection, but added a reference or two.
Oh, and you forgot the movie "hackers" under the "documentary" section.
I briefly considered putting it into Comedy, but left it out on the grounds that I don't consider it sci-fi at all.
Re:I thought I would do this...
on
WB Cancels Angel
·
· Score: 1
are we so deprived of sci-fi
Yeah, I'm going over my DVDs:
Action: Matrix, Angel, Terminator
Comedy: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Cop: Blade Runner
Disaster: Planet of the Apes, Space:1999, Soylent Green
Documentary: Fantastic Voyage, 1984
Romance: Solaris, The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Fifth Element, Freaks
Sports: Rollerball, Logan's Run, THX 1138
Spy: The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension, Men In Black
Travelogue: Star Trek, Stargate
Teen angst: Buffy the Vampire Slayer
War: Star Wars, Starship Troopers, Battlestar: Galactica
I've always hypothesized that this season was a kind of "what if". The whole season, everything has been pointing to them leaving W&H.
Personally, I think that this is the worst time for the story to end; I think they should get back to the hotel first and re-establish themselves, and that'll take another season.
If you're talking about the Mac perhaps you've forgotten the Amiga and the AtariST.
I wasn't talking about the Mac. As far as I could tell, the Apple ][ was the first ready-to-use (ie, non-kit) computer to support color. This was mostly because it was the first ready-to-use computer of any sort.
I only mentioned CGA and EGA because this seemed to be primarily a Mac v. PC thread.
But yes, many, many machines supported color before the Mac, including the PC, Amiga, ST, and scores of bitty boxes.
the first to include color support in their computers,
If you're talking about the Mac, then perhaps you've forgotten CGA and EGA. If you're talking about the Apple ][, then you're pretty much right: Apple was the first to build color capabilities into a complete, ready-to-use home computer-- but they were the first ones to build a complete, ready-to-use home computer, so I don't the the color capabilities are the significant part.
So maybe a Lisp Machine might have this problem? Of course, Lispers will tell you that they'd always have the sense to use a bignum:)
The Symbolics Lispms had wider words than PCs today. They used 36-bit words on the 3600s, with 4 bits of tag and 32 bits of data for numbers (or 8 bits of tag and 28 bits of data for pointers). They used 40-bit words on the Ivory, with 8 bits of tag and 32 bits of data for all types. So either way, the number is a 32-bit value. (This is why Lispms traditionally spec RAM in megawords, not megabytes.)
That aside, like I mentioned in my other post, they said that all the date code is bignum-friendly anyway.
I use a couple of sendmail rules to relay mail to aol and hotmail through my ISP, and everything else goes directly. Maybe you could do something like that.
I expect that after SPF gets into wide usage, that spammers will no longer forge from those domains. So by adding SPF records for your domain, you lower the spam bounces and joe-job BS that you get. Besides, a DNS query is cheap, much cheaper than an email, particularly since it can be cached. And you are using your ISP as a cache, right?
Worst case, no caching, you add about 400 bytes of traffic per email. That's nothing; the rest of the traffic involved in sending or receiving an email ends up about about 16k minimum anyway. Who cares about 400 bytes?
Big picture-wise, widespread implementation of measures that prevent spam are going to lower the traffic that AOL, hotmail, and other major email providers have to pass. Have you looked at the statistics? Add in labor etc, and I'd think that AOL, hotmail, etc would be jumping at the chance to help lower spam.
2) Spammers tend to use made up domains anyways.
Not in my experience, not anymore. Many MTAs will, by default, bounce mail that doesn't come from a genuine domain. So spammers use real domains, or real email addresses.
...you will have delayed email receiving times because your mail server will be trying to contact dns servers that don't exist.
No, if a spammer sends mail from a non-existent domain, then you get an NXDOMAIN from the root domain servers, and instantly know it's bogus. Why would you try to contact any DNS servers below the root? You'd never have any IPs to try to contact, and you don't send no packets without no IP.
The timeout would have to be short for this to work....
Why? If you're waiting for a response, you're not burning CPU. The timeout can be 1 second or 120, and you still use the same amount of CPU.
[If] a busy mail server can't respond in time, the email is rejected,
Why can't it be deferred (which normally happens with most DNS errors), or even failsafe so it gets passed (which normally happens with most anti-spam DNS measures)?
ZModem allowed asynchronous communications which provided faster data transfer rates and better error detection.
The error detection of Zmodem was no better than that of Kermit, AFAICT.
Kermit (the protocol) has lots of tunables. Flipping about four settings that are in the FAQ lets you get transfer rates faster than ZModem. Kermit could be a blazing fast protocol.
Most implementations shipped with defaults that were very fast-- if you had a noisy line. Most protocols would either choke and die on very noisy lines, or would slow to an agonizing crawl. Some gateways would intercept certain control characters, which would make other protocols just plain fail. Kermit, with its defaults, would chug right along, faster than other protocols in these conditions.
But those defaults would slow it down relative to the competition on clean lines with all 8 bits available. After about the 1200 baud days, I think that Kermit should have moved to more modern defaults. Yes, I have personally compared a tuned Kermit to ZModem, and Kermit wins. (Some implementations didn't have any way to tune the defaults, so you were stuck with a lousy performer.)
But nobody cares about speed when you're uploading a new program to a sat. You want reliability, and Kermit is reliable as all get out. Somebody said once that it'll work on little more than two tin cans with a wet string. If you've seen some of the networks that uplink to satellites, you'd probably choke. 7 bits, parts with handshaking and parts without, three or four escape characters at gateways, and sometimes an EBCDIC translator in the middle just to mess with you. Kermit can hack that, and that's why it's ideal for this sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I can tell, it means that Granny can't get Gnome out of the box.
Gnome apps use GTK. GTK is distributed under the GPL, and uses libXext. Xext has an advertising clause. GTK (being GPLd) says it can't be distributed as part of an app with such a clause. (It doesn't list an advertising clause specifically, it just forbids additional restrictions.) So the Linux distro can't ship any Gnome apps, because it doesn't have a license to do so.
and that the pedestrian phase in the traffic signals timing plan should be used during the next cycle.
What's the difference between the ped phase and a normal phase?
In lab experiments, they tested what happens if a rat gets a treat:
So, what happened to your biggest complainer?
The fella that installed our elevator told a cow-orker that holding down the button does make it close the door sooner. I haven't noticed a difference, but I never did a real test.
These are modern elevators; the buildings are only about three years old.
Try "Pixley Boyle", together or separately.
I was rather disappointed in "Daryl" (which, of course, should be Digital Artificial Robotic Youth Lifeform).
Usually, I'll play new (to me) games on planes or other times when I have at least an hour, and re-explore old games when I've got less time, like waiting for a meeting.
I know they control some of the root servers, but why them?
Irrelevant. They control the .com and .net gTLDs.
If everybody just changed the list all at once, their servers would suddenly become quiet and this would be a non-issue.
It doesn't need to be all at once. Changes to the root DNS servers happen, incrementally, all the time. They don't change all at once, so the changes can gradually trickle down.
Remember that DNS servers usually fetch a new root server list as soon as they start up, so you just need one root server to remain the same for old servers to work.
The solution is to alter a DNS server so it examines the results it gets back from its parents, and if it's a BS Verisign auto-search response, tell the requestor that the domain doesn't exist.
That was done in the early days of the VS BS. The ISC released a patched bind that would do just that within a couple of days of the problem, although the ISC didn't particularly approve of it, and only reluctantly released it.
Wow .. you realise that joke is already in the story, don't you?
Nope, didn't check the links. Apparently, the mods didn't either. Welcome to slashdot.
Without defending the MS design decisions, they elected to provide certain audio and video playback capabilities by incorporating WMP code "into the OS."
I don't know much about Windows programming, so I have to ask: how can this not be provided just as easily by making the media player a COM object?
You can find what you need at monster.com.
Requiring a cert to run a mail server is NOT a heavy burden,
Personally, I don't think it's even necessary. I doubt that spammers will start doing man-in-the-middle attacks or DNS manipulation (not because they're morally above it, but because of the technical expertese, legal exposure, and risk of being caught and traced). So just make up a cert and stick it in a DNS record for your domain. No PKI needed => no payment to get your cert.
Okay, I guess now comes the Collecter's Commentary.
Yeah, there's some stuff missing in that list (and that's not my actual movie collection either; for instance, of course I have Princess Bride). I meant to put Spaceballs and Alien in. Ice Pirates, Krull, and Bicentennial Man were oversights; the last is the one I feel particularly bad about, but I'm glad I got some Asimov in the list. (Bicentennial Man would probably also go into Documentary, since it's more of a "Life and Times of..." than anything else.)
Regarding TRON: I sat there staring at my TRON DVD for quite a while, trying to think if there was a category I could list it in. I considered "Travelogue", but I was trying to show some restraint for that category. In the end, with a heavy heart, I left it out. Similar for Forbidden Planet, 2001, and a couple of others; just no category I could think of to put them in.
I left out Free Enterprise, which I think should be in any sci-fi enthusiast's collection, but added a reference or two.
Oh, and you forgot the movie "hackers" under the "documentary" section.
I briefly considered putting it into Comedy, but left it out on the grounds that I don't consider it sci-fi at all.
are we so deprived of sci-fi
Yeah, I'm going over my DVDs:
Man, I don't have *any* sci-fi!
I've always hypothesized that this season was a kind of "what if". The whole season, everything has been pointing to them leaving W&H. Personally, I think that this is the worst time for the story to end; I think they should get back to the hotel first and re-establish themselves, and that'll take another season.
C: The language combining the power of assembly with the portability of assembler.
But thats not only dry, its also false.
Personally, I prefer what it says in Programming Perl: "A bare C program is about as portable as Chuck Yeager on foot."
If you're talking about the Mac perhaps you've forgotten the Amiga and the AtariST.
I wasn't talking about the Mac. As far as I could tell, the Apple ][ was the first ready-to-use (ie, non-kit) computer to support color. This was mostly because it was the first ready-to-use computer of any sort.
I only mentioned CGA and EGA because this seemed to be primarily a Mac v. PC thread.
But yes, many, many machines supported color before the Mac, including the PC, Amiga, ST, and scores of bitty boxes.
the first to include color support in their computers,
If you're talking about the Mac, then perhaps you've forgotten CGA and EGA. If you're talking about the Apple ][, then you're pretty much right: Apple was the first to build color capabilities into a complete, ready-to-use home computer-- but they were the first ones to build a complete, ready-to-use home computer, so I don't the the color capabilities are the significant part.
So maybe a Lisp Machine might have this problem? Of course, Lispers will tell you that they'd always have the sense to use a bignum :)
The Symbolics Lispms had wider words than PCs today. They used 36-bit words on the 3600s, with 4 bits of tag and 32 bits of data for numbers (or 8 bits of tag and 28 bits of data for pointers). They used 40-bit words on the Ivory, with 8 bits of tag and 32 bits of data for all types. So either way, the number is a 32-bit value. (This is why Lispms traditionally spec RAM in megawords, not megabytes.)
That aside, like I mentioned in my other post, they said that all the date code is bignum-friendly anyway.
So maybe a Lisp Machine might have this problem? Of course, Lispers will tell you that they'd always have the sense to use a bignum :)
That's what Symbolics said.
Then you should visit Le Texan in Paris.
I use SpamAssassin. The SPF record could be used to alter the score.
Some people use RBLs with a time lag. SPF-passed mail could bypass the lag.
It's another step.
I use a couple of sendmail rules to relay mail to aol and hotmail through my ISP, and everything else goes directly. Maybe you could do something like that.
1) Increased network traffic at all points
I expect that after SPF gets into wide usage, that spammers will no longer forge from those domains. So by adding SPF records for your domain, you lower the spam bounces and joe-job BS that you get. Besides, a DNS query is cheap, much cheaper than an email, particularly since it can be cached. And you are using your ISP as a cache, right?
Worst case, no caching, you add about 400 bytes of traffic per email. That's nothing; the rest of the traffic involved in sending or receiving an email ends up about about 16k minimum anyway. Who cares about 400 bytes?
Big picture-wise, widespread implementation of measures that prevent spam are going to lower the traffic that AOL, hotmail, and other major email providers have to pass. Have you looked at the statistics? Add in labor etc, and I'd think that AOL, hotmail, etc would be jumping at the chance to help lower spam.
2) Spammers tend to use made up domains anyways.
Not in my experience, not anymore. Many MTAs will, by default, bounce mail that doesn't come from a genuine domain. So spammers use real domains, or real email addresses.
No, if a spammer sends mail from a non-existent domain, then you get an NXDOMAIN from the root domain servers, and instantly know it's bogus. Why would you try to contact any DNS servers below the root? You'd never have any IPs to try to contact, and you don't send no packets without no IP.
The timeout would have to be short for this to work....
Why? If you're waiting for a response, you're not burning CPU. The timeout can be 1 second or 120, and you still use the same amount of CPU.
[If] a busy mail server can't respond in time, the email is rejected,
Why can't it be deferred (which normally happens with most DNS errors), or even failsafe so it gets passed (which normally happens with most anti-spam DNS measures)?
ZModem allowed asynchronous communications which provided faster data transfer rates and better error detection.
The error detection of Zmodem was no better than that of Kermit, AFAICT.
Kermit (the protocol) has lots of tunables. Flipping about four settings that are in the FAQ lets you get transfer rates faster than ZModem. Kermit could be a blazing fast protocol.
Most implementations shipped with defaults that were very fast-- if you had a noisy line. Most protocols would either choke and die on very noisy lines, or would slow to an agonizing crawl. Some gateways would intercept certain control characters, which would make other protocols just plain fail. Kermit, with its defaults, would chug right along, faster than other protocols in these conditions.
But those defaults would slow it down relative to the competition on clean lines with all 8 bits available. After about the 1200 baud days, I think that Kermit should have moved to more modern defaults. Yes, I have personally compared a tuned Kermit to ZModem, and Kermit wins. (Some implementations didn't have any way to tune the defaults, so you were stuck with a lousy performer.)
But nobody cares about speed when you're uploading a new program to a sat. You want reliability, and Kermit is reliable as all get out. Somebody said once that it'll work on little more than two tin cans with a wet string. If you've seen some of the networks that uplink to satellites, you'd probably choke. 7 bits, parts with handshaking and parts without, three or four escape characters at gateways, and sometimes an EBCDIC translator in the middle just to mess with you. Kermit can hack that, and that's why it's ideal for this sort of thing.