This does't make sense to me - surely, if they block the site, all they can determine is how many failed connects there were. If they DON'T block it, they can use packet-checking software to generate a bandwidth_used/time graph for real-world conditions. This smells very heavily of financial interests. --
Methanol can more efficiently be used as a fuel in fuel cells than by simply burning it. Yes, they won't be released commercially until 2004 but they've been independently predicted to take over a hefty slice of the market pretty soon. This is of course true - but retooling car plants for electric+fuel cell is a lot more complex and involves more commitment than doing a petrol engine>>methanol engine swap.
Methanol can more efficiently and easily be obtained a load of other ways such as from the natural gas that's burned off (read 'gone to waste') at oil rigs everywhere This is of course true, and I firmly believe it is a crime to throw valuable resources like that away just because it was mixed with the oil - why destroy a dwindling resource? but more importantly, I read the aim of this technology as wishing to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and to reverse the CO2 increase caused by that - just changing the flavour of fossil fuel you use can't really help that.
or from domestic and agricultural waste. Definitely - this is going to be produced anyhow, so should be used. --
They go on about how great this is, and how you can cut down on the amount of C02 into the atmosphere, and it sounds perfect. Until they get to the fact that you need a lot of electrons to make this work. Hess's law states that you can go through any pathway for a reaction, but that the amount of energy is the same in the end. This means that whatever you are burning to create this CO2 must release more energy than the ethanol that you are producing. Seems to me that ethanol releases a lot of energy when it burns. I want to know what type of fuel's CO2 they plan to convert. *I* wonder how high a percentage of CO2 the mix bubbled through the converter really needs. The problem with electrically powered cars has always been that not enough stored power could be carried for the speed of the motor you want - Motorway speeds will eat all the power you can load onto a mobile base fairly fast. *however*, if you have roadside petrol(gas) stations doing this conversion, you can have the following process:
Electricity is produced in non-polluting manner (difficult, I know)
At petrol station, electricity+atmospheric CO2 is converted to methanol and stored (continuous process)
Cars refuel as normal at station
Cars burn fuel, returning the original CO2 to the atmosphere it came from
As far as I can tell, this gives you "clean" electrically powered cars, but indirectly. --
I would suggest the opposite approach. Rather than trying to cover every possible loophole at $10K a pop, it would be in our best interests to establish a central "Prior Art" repository, with a searchable database indexed on likely terms. That way, we are more likely to find Patent Office clerks turning down patents based on common industry practices, rather than the current situation, where underpaid and overworked white collar staff seem to be approving anything they can't understand, and relying on expensive lawsuits to strike down anything that is out of line - and who has the money to take on these sorts of cases? --
I wrote a good portion of the "proper reading" on computer viruses.. the term "virii" is a valid collective term. In theory, it isn't (the latin root of virii isn't virus, but I can't remember the exact root offhand) but that's irrelevant - the word is sufficiently in use to make it a valid term for them, regardless of language purists. Keeping Latin pure isn't one of my goals in life:+) --
Out of interest, does that mean such people should not be using linux? No, not at all. It just means that you shouldn't expect moving them to Linux will wave a magic wand and keep them safe from all harm.
Or at least until they've had you/me/someone else clueful, giving them a good training course? (I'm tempted to add 'with a cattle prod' but shall refrain... erm, oops:) Wristbands, and feedback software that jolts them every time they Luse:+) --
Microsoft's Windows 2000 edges out NetWare for the Network World Blue Ribbon Award. Windows 2000 tops the field with its management interface, server monitoring tools, storage management facilities and security measures. I was surprised to see the remote-client based admin tools for Netware referred to as simple and basic - the server-based tools for NW have always lagged behind the remote ones, and nwadmin is still the easiest way to administer netware boxes (even if it is being depreciated now in favour of a java-based client). Unixware and Linux likewise administer well remotely; unless W2K has massive advances over NT, it will expect you to be at the server console to do almost anything, which was one of my main dislikes of NT. --
Where have you been lately? Bible thumpers have been doing just that for years now. Possibly, but I thought taking quotes out of context and using them as evidence was still frowned upon in.us courts of law? --
Windoze viruses spread so fast because the users let them - put a windows user on a linux box, and a virus will spread as fast there as it did under windows. I am responsible for virus control at the company I work for, and the number of users who will blindly answer "yes" to anything that appears on their screen is staggering - particularly on occasion if I am standing there watching them, having just told them off for getting the LAST infestation. Thank $DIETY at least SOME of my users have gotten the basic idea --
There were Unix viruses, Worms and Trojans around since before the PC was designed; they have spread since the first few machines set up UUCP links; Unix viruses are far from new.
Unix viruses are kept mainly in check because normal users don't have the permissions to do harm - they can harm their own files, they can harm the files of those that trust them. but they can't alter anyone else's, and, most importantly, they normally can't even INSTALL programs, never mind alter those already installed by other people.
Linux is not Unix - 90% of Linux boxes are single user (maybe single user with webserver, or with a email router, but still single user) and for a high percentage of those, that single user either runs as root, or, if smart enough to run as a user when out on the net, will load the same data files, use the same packages, and generally work in the same sandpit when doing admin tasks that require system privileges as when running his limited "safe" account. As more and more buy "fashionable" pre-loaded linux boxes, you will see a wave of people caught by the same factors that make a windows-based machine insecure - that the user will run things without thinking, and that the user has enough permissions that the virus can take a hold.
So, what it comes down to is that, in general, Unix viruses are not (and will not) be a problem, but that Linux has vunerabilities that make it less secure than Unix used to be. --
Go scroll down a bit through that document. Notice something? Yep, that's right, they're quoting Slashdot comments. Apparently what we post represents the `mindset of the hacker community'. I don't really mind that - what I *do* mind is that they are pulling individual phrases (not threads, not even entire posts, but phrases) from a huge wad of posts and using them selectively to push their point of view. I am surprised the defense didn't insist they produce (and the court consider) the entire thing, huge as it was.
As for payment now, I am not sure court evidence is bound by the same rules as a magazine..... --
it's borderline - most computers use a C compiler that produces object code (and yes, it IS machine code, but you can't run it directly) then feed *that* into a linker that adds in standard libraries, puts "how to run me" headers and tailers on as needed, then saves it as a ready-to-run file. you might not see it directly (some compliers hide the passes they make) but most go though this two-stage process. --
Do bear in mind, though, that many open-source coders are loathe to submit code under the NPL or MozPL, simply because the code can be put into a commercial product. I saw at mozilla.org (I believe) that they're of the opinion that there are more Mozilla developers within Netscape than without. (My apologies: I'd provide a link, but it was a couple months ago, and I've spent the last 15 minutes or so searching the site to no avail.) Yep, I remember that - I seem to recall it from the resignation letter some months ago however, and that it was blamed on too much of the original code being kept back by Netscape (so that a lot of work had to be done just to get to the same standard as NS 4 now "enjoys":+). If I had a suspicious mind (and sadly I do) I would suspect that some of the replacement modules are actually replacing code NS couldn't release as they were bought-in libraries, and that NS are now getting free replacements for that code. To be honest though, I think ANY scheme that allows the author to sell a closed-source release of the package is going to be viewed with a certain distaste; the author might be better off going for the Redhat model - sell boxed sets, complete with support, and then sell support - based on his greater familiarity with the package than recent contributors, he should be able to manage something from that - particularly if he can appeal to the business market that tends to want a Retailer to have a contract with...
< schnipp! >
If you take code out of one of the files contained in the Source Code and place it in a new file, whether you add new code or not, that is a Modification, and it is covered by the NPL.
This is where the difficulty arises; assuming you are replacing an existing (or stub) routine, can you be 100% sure you haven't included one or two lines identical to the original? a library call? a data structure? No piece of code in a package this large can be an island, and you must have read hundreds of lines of code before you feel confident enough to contribute. Even assuming you carefully work around every identical code routine to keep your contribution unique, can you guarantee the next person to patch it won't drag in code from the main body, and contaminate your offering? as I say, it's a difficult area, and the FAQs don't really cover it well enough. --
Oh, you stupid people. You really kill me. The particular method employed by PGP was a tradeoff because encrypting the entire message via RSA would take way too much time. Zimmerman was smart enough to come up with this compromise. I'm obviously one of those stupid people - I have absolutely no idea what difference this makes to my point. yes, a new, pure-rsa package could be written that didn't touch symmetric encryption with a bargepole, but then you would have the following:
no-one using pgp could decode your messages AT ALL - everyone would have to replace their software with your new version
Encrypting to twenty people would involve encrypting the entire file twenty times - with the space, processing and bandwidth costs this implies
vunerabilities in RSA with certain plaintexts (easy to avoid in generating IDEA keys, but awkward to impose on plaintext) would become viable attacks
older hardware currently more than usable as a standalone decryption "soak" become unusable, forcing people to either replace them with modern machines or do decryption on their general-purpose machine
I could list more, but can't see the point.
IDEA, as a symmetric algorithm, is much faster than RSA. Yep, still true today - just with larger files in the picture
Without RSA in the process, we're back to square one for all ciphers which is distributing the keys. RSA does away with that problem. Ah, now I understand. you haven't grasped the difference between PKI algorithms as a whole (the current unburdened example of which is DH/Egmal) and RSA, which is merely one example of it - and obviously not the first to be discovered, given that the patent on DH expired some months ago. PGP can (and does!) use DH as a replacement to RSA, just as it can (and does!) use CAST as a replacement to IDEA. problem is, there are no stable DOS command line releases currently available. 5.0i for DOS is untrustworthy and (as far as I know - I stand to be corrected) no longer being worked on, and GPG for Dos is *listed* as an unstable alpha not to be trusted for anything but sig verification. If you want a target to flame, might I suggest one of the "petrified girl" posts? No-one really cares if you fail to understand their content before you reply to them. --
RSA is an important algorithm to expire, mostly due to the "original" copies of PGP (most of which are still more trusted than the more modern, "gui" versions recently released by NAI). However, RSA's patent ONLY applies within the united states - european and eastern countries have been using more efficient, less bug-ridden implimentations for some years than the standard "RSAREF" implimentation forced upon users in the us. So the immediate benefit will be that the original PGP version of the RSA library can be restored, with increases in speed and in security (as source is available to be checked) over the current us usage. However, the other cornerstone of "classic" PGP (the IDEA symmetric algorithm, which does most of the work - the RSA key is merely used to encrypt an IDEA key) will not have it's patent expire until 2010 at the earliest. What is really needed is a usable, DOS command-line version of PGP (or GPG) to replace the existing batch-mode use of the RSA/IDEA standard with the more modern (but equally secure) DH/CAST base used in more recent implementations, which is patent-free (or expired:+) --
If I recall correctly, the Netscape licence for Mozilla allows for this - a public code base, but with an explicit licence for Netscape themselves to release any "improvements" added to the public base as part of their closed-source version. The exact details are on the Mozilla licence page, but basically it falls into two groups:
Modifications to the existing NPL code MUST themselves fall under the NPL - and be available to Netscape for their own private use.
Entirely new code may be licenced under NPL or under the Moz licence (code under the Moz licence is not available to Netscape for commercial purposes)
However, as far as I know, the distiction of "what is entirely new code" is sufficiently hard to draw that most code ends up under the NPL. I am ready to be corrected on this, of course:+) --
Now, this judge seems a little out of his league here. Not to be presumptuous or anything, but he IS presuming to enforce this thing across oceans, all around the world. I read this as the opposite - the ruling explicitly says that enforcing his ruling is the plaintiff's problem, and not the courts. He also says he not only suspects, but assumes that a lot of non-us sites will just ignore it, but that he is going to issue it anyway:+) --
Reading the posts that have been made so far, and in previous articles you get some very common arguments being made such as:
RIAA (or whoever) are greedy bastards I can't argue with that one:+)
they are stupid for even trying to copy protect It's aways been a moot point (even for software) - the cost of copy protection tends to be passed on to the legitimate users, and seldom really slows down professional pirates
we've been able to do it for years with analogue - what's the big deal There is a fine line between legitimate duplication (I copy my audio onto tapes for my walkman - that is to preserve my orginals in good condition, whereas if I carried them around when I went hillwalking, they would need replacing once a year or so (as the tapes do)) and pirating for sale - and it is based on what you intend to do with the copy, not on the copy itself. copying is not good or evil - but it can be used for good or bad reasons.
I have a 'right' to evaluate music even if I don't own it Yep, you do - but not by taking an illegal copy. you can hear it on the radio, in nighclubs, or if it is fringe music, it may be in the copyright owner's best interest to give a "sample" of the song some webspace. you DON'T have any rights to own a copy of someone else's work unless you have paid them for it.
Now don't get me wrong, I would love to pay nothing for my music and video/DVD etc. And I don't claim to be an angel when it comes to never ever pirating *ahem* backing up stuff, but let's get a reality check! Indeed - for DVD you have the wrong end of the stick entirely!
Blank DVDs cost more than pre-recorded ones - why copy?
CSS doesn't stop you copying DVDs, it stops you playing them
CSS enforces licencing fees for DVD players - preventing OSS players when the owners of the DVD drives HAVE ALREADY PAID for the unusable windows player software
CSS enforces regioning - restriction of trade by making a DVD on sale in one country unplayable by the DVD players in another country
In general, copy protection has cost more time and effort to impliment than it saves in legitimate sales regained - the best sanctions against copyright theft are legal, not technical, and only the threat of loss, not only of their profits but of their expensive copying equipment and their personal freedom, will disuade professional pirates. --
The very idea that there should be a Linux rally in conjunction with the W2K release is appalling. It will do nothing to promote the use of Linux, and will probably do nothing more than result in PR damage. Face facts -- aside from a different approach to development and marketing, Linux and Windows are the same thing: operating systems. I hate to break this too you, but holding a PR rally for YOUR competing product at the same time as a competitor IS a standard PR trick. If you think that Linux shouldn't stoop to this sort of thing, that is an ethical decision, and quite possibly right - but that doesn't make it a bad thing to do from a PR viewpoint.
Each has its strengths and weaknesses. If one or the other were to just disappear, some tasks would not be performed well when the other stepped in to fill the gap. Another dubious point - if Windows disappeared, I suspect you would be astonished how fast Linux ports of the major Windows apps would appear; however, I can't see this happening anytime in the near future, can you?
While I spend most of my time in Linux, simply because I enjoy using it more than Windows, it's not all things. I'm limited in my ability to surf because of an underpowered browser (Netscape) and a lack of plugins (Macromedia Shockwave and a workable Realplayer, as well as Windows Media Player formats that nothing in Linux can handle). Yep, Linux as an OS is undersupported; this isn't news, and the fact that Microsoft propriatory formats and packages aren't being ported is probably more a matter for the Merkin DOJ to sort out, rather than anything we can do.
I do a lot of webpage design, and Linux has serious shortcomings in this area. While I can code by hand in any text editor, or use Bluefish, it is simply more practical to use Homesite in Windows. I can't really comment - I *prefer* to code by hand in a plain text editor, but then, I am not a graphic artist or a website designer, but a programmer. Anyone who has the artistic and design skill to make a website more than just a row of links on pretty buttons has my admiration:+)
Office software is another area sorely lacking. Staroffice comes close to filling the bill, but in a world where MS Office has set the standard, asking users to trust their productivity to underpowered and incompatable Linux equivalents would simply be wrong. I agree - one of the thinks I *really* want to see from the DOJ decision is for Microsoft to be FORCED to port their propriatory packages (Office, any web stuff, possibly some of their development tools) to their competitors environments. They already do Mac versions of most of these....
And such a rally would do nothing to correct this situation. Constant bashing of MS has done nothing in the past. It's preaching to the choir when done in venues like/., and makes Linux users look like Trekkies with their rubber ears and toy phasers when done in public. Sorry, but I disagree - when only one point of view (ANY point of view, even if the person/organisation has the best of motives) has full media attention, then the public are being "herded" towards that point of view. There NEEDS to be a choice, so that those with half a braincell can make an informed decision. I doubt anyone is suggesting the Linux Geek Pride Movement blockade Richmond, burning effigies and breaking Win2K CDs into many glittering shards (and if *I* was in charge of marketing, I would see each Win2K CD so broken as income without needing a support department to field calls:+)
Time should be better spent writing code for Linux. See something that's lacking? Create it, or improve on what's already available. That is the whole idea behind Open Source software. Windows got to where it is partly because it does what people want it to do. As buggy as it might be, if it didn't fill a need, no amount of monopolistic practices would have caused it to spread the way it has. Again, I hate to shatter your illusions, but most of the Microsurfs can't even IMAGINE using an office suite that isn't identical to the one they have always used; mind you, the legal community seem to have a similar attachment to Word Perfect so it cuts both ways
I have no desire to turn on CNN the day of the W2K release and see a bunch of Linux Geeks who can't get a date and have too much time on their hands waving stuffed penguins and burning Windows CDs.
*I* don't want that either - but it *would* be nice for there to be someplace for reporters to go to get nice soundbytes to put up against the pre-audience-tested ones Richmond will have had opinion-polled and expert-designed ready for their now months overdue Win2K release.
I would rather be able to walk into my favorite software store and find useable products made for Linux. I'm not so fanatical about Linux as that - I would like to be able to walk into a suitably large software store and see the SAME packages on each wall, where the only difference is the little OS flash in the corner of the box - you should be able to pick up the same box on the Linux shelf as the Win9x shelf and there should be one to match for BeOs or OS/2... It is't going to happen though. --
I don't think Voltaire would defend to the death this jerk's right to animate someone's office blowing up. It's one thing to claim superiority for your group, and how everyone else will be under your thumb. But that is a specific threat to a specific person, and that is where the speaker's rights have ended and the victim's have begun. Spot on! I can't see the most rabid free-speech protestor trying to support this guy - If he had done this sort of thing in the street, or put up a big banner outside his home, he would have been treated no better and no worse than this - and that is how it should be. There *may* be a fine line between protected, political speech and actual threats, but he can't even SEE that line from where he is standing - not even with good binoculars..... --
The Internet is in most respects genderless. I have no idea whether any of the posters on Slashdot are female, or if they are white or black or Asian. How can I discriminate when I don't have anything at all to go upon? Hmm. I *half* agree - it is difficult or impossible to tell the sex of a poster, and colour is even worse, but those who approach english as a second language DO tend to be discriminated against online - the Internet has such a pro-english bias that sites that don't support an additional English translation page for each of their non-english ones often find themselves without an index in most search engines - and almost certainly not linked to from the english sites (although linking TO the english sites seems to be expected - strange that, isnt' it:+) --
Hmm. what I *would* like to see are a few time-based curbs on the true ACs - say the following:
"True" AC's defined as ACs without an account, or with an account with a karma less than 1 (yes, I know, but Karma is already there, and is easier to check)
Accounts starting with a Karma of 0, and automatically gaining a karma of 1 after one week AND four posts
No "True" ACs allowed to make a root post for the first half hour of a new topic's existance
No "True" ACs allowed to reply to a post within five minutes of it's posting time
I don't expect this to be a universal bandaid, but I *do* expect it to cut down on the number of "first post" and "petrified $GIRL" posts that you get in the first few minutes of a new topic - unless the posters want to spend the time and trouble of making enough legitimate posts to gain Karma enough to post the annoying ones.. I *do* see however how this will discourage a few of the newbies - but if the refusal was well-enough formatted (explaining why their root post wasn't accepted, and suggesting they register for an account and/or reply to an existing root post) this should be minimal... --
They're 1's and 0's people. They don't hurt people.
Yeah, and verbal abuse is just sound waves. They don't hurt people! Child porn and is just light reflected from a surface! It doesn't hurt people! Racist graffiti is just paint on a wall! etc, etc. I hate to tell you this - but that is true, online. The anonymity and "It's just a computer" attitude that leads to flames and abuse online, is also the best defense against it. Flamers are attacking an abstract; it is incredibly rare for a flamer to attack someone he knows better than "having seen on TV sometime" and the best defense is to delete it and move on - that is what killfiles are for. as for your "examples".. well.
verbal abuse is just sound waves. They don't hurt people! Unless you are suggesting the flamers actually come around to your living room and wave their little sheets of paper in your face, I don't see how this applies - someone in your face, shouting abuse at you is damaging. Someone on a TV screen hurling abuse normally gets a disgusted look and a reach for the channel-selector.
Child porn is just light reflected from a surface! It doesn't hurt people! Ah, enter the Horseman of the Internet <grin> If child porn is real, then it is evidence of a particularly sick crime, and is best forwarded to the authorities. If it is false/simulated (Suitably shaven legal-age girl, for example) then it is mildly distasteful, but not actively harmful. I can't imagine it being attractive enough for you to seek it out, and contrary to the opinion of those going for the Horseman vote, you aren't likely to suddenly find it in your Inbox one day.
Racist graffiti is just paint on a wall! Indeed it is - and usually a criminal offence (if a minor one). A better example may be someone paying for a billboard with a racist message on it, but even then, normally that wouldn't be accepted by those that sell billboard space. In any case, you need to do the virtual equivilent of painting it over....
I don't think we can really go with this deconstructionalist approach. Sure, online postings are one step further removed from reality, but I don't this gives people a God-given right to spout any old guff and expect other people to have to read it. I don't think that is the point being made here - normally an open forum IS a right to spout any old guff (subject to the structure of the forum of course) but ISN'T a right to expect anyone to read it. One of the advantages of the/. moderation structure is that pure "flame" posts seem to drop out very fast from moderation - the disadvantage of course is that "bad" moderation can and does occur, with valid and worthwhile posts being pushed down by those that disagree with them (mind you, this would be much worse if the moderator wasn't forced to choose between abusing his power and losing the right to type up a rebuttal, or replying and losing any chance of pushing down the post you dislike). People who prefer to live in a cosy cocoon of "view at 1" or even 2 or 3 may never even see such things - and that choice is as much or more their right as the initial poster's write to submit their text for view. --
I really think the lead-in for this article is misleading. He's not porting Linux to his N64. I disagree - He is laying down the framework for a port, in the same manner as Linux itself couldn't have been created without the Gnu compilers and utilities it is built on and with. He has Closely examined the hardware, built an interface between the N64 and the pc for test purposes, and has "emulated" a cartridge (or at least the initial handshake of one). Combine this with the N64 emulation data that is now emerging, and you should be able to start designing a Linux that would run on there. Ok, he hasn't exactly reached the top of Everest here, but he has at least climbed a few cliffs:+) --
Hmm. I can see good reasons to approach this from the other angle - instead of coming up with a bootstrap Linux on a N64 cart, have a standalone cart that takes the HP Microdrive (possibly a bad name - anyone remember the ZX Microdrive?:+) which has 300+MB of storage - as a bootable device. Properly constructed, such a cartridge could allow use of Linux, allow people to write their own games for the N64, and generally find a new use for a midrange-spec machine that is now being replaced with newer, faster models (and isn't that what Linux is usually loaded on?:+)
The N64 is a far-from-ideal platform for Linux - no keyboard, no networking, and almost no ram - but this could let hundreds of kids that have never used a "real" computer outside of a classroom get a feel for Linux - which is a reasonable end in itself:+) --
Slashdot Mirror
This does't make sense to me - surely, if they block the site, all they can determine is how many failed connects there were. If they DON'T block it, they can use packet-checking software to generate a bandwidth_used/time graph for real-world conditions. This smells very heavily of financial interests.
--
This is of course true - but retooling car plants for electric+fuel cell is a lot more complex and involves more commitment than doing a petrol engine>>methanol engine swap.
Methanol can more efficiently and easily be obtained a load of other ways such as from the natural gas that's burned off (read 'gone to waste') at oil rigs everywhere
This is of course true, and I firmly believe it is a crime to throw valuable resources like that away just because it was mixed with the oil - why destroy a dwindling resource?
but more importantly, I read the aim of this technology as wishing to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and to reverse the CO2 increase caused by that - just changing the flavour of fossil fuel you use can't really help that.
or from domestic and agricultural waste.
Definitely - this is going to be produced anyhow, so should be used.
--
*I* wonder how high a percentage of CO2 the mix bubbled through the converter really needs. The problem with electrically powered cars has always been that not enough stored power could be carried for the speed of the motor you want - Motorway speeds will eat all the power you can load onto a mobile base fairly fast. *however*, if you have roadside petrol(gas) stations doing this conversion, you can have the following process:
- Electricity is produced in non-polluting manner (difficult, I know)
- At petrol station, electricity+atmospheric CO2 is converted to methanol and stored (continuous process)
- Cars refuel as normal at station
- Cars burn fuel, returning the original CO2 to the atmosphere it came from
As far as I can tell, this gives you "clean" electrically powered cars, but indirectly.--
I would suggest the opposite approach. Rather than trying to cover every possible loophole at $10K a pop, it would be in our best interests to establish a central "Prior Art" repository, with a searchable database indexed on likely terms. That way, we are more likely to find Patent Office clerks turning down patents based on common industry practices, rather than the current situation, where underpaid and overworked white collar staff seem to be approving anything they can't understand, and relying on expensive lawsuits to strike down anything that is out of line - and who has the money to take on these sorts of cases?
--
I wrote a good portion of the "proper reading" on computer viruses.. the term "virii" is a valid collective term. :+)
In theory, it isn't (the latin root of virii isn't virus, but I can't remember the exact root offhand) but that's irrelevant - the word is sufficiently in use to make it a valid term for them, regardless of language purists. Keeping Latin pure isn't one of my goals in life
--
No, not at all. It just means that you shouldn't expect moving them to Linux will wave a magic wand and keep them safe from all harm.
Or at least until they've had you/me/someone else clueful, giving them a good training course? (I'm tempted to add 'with a cattle prod' but shall refrain... erm, oops :) :+)
Wristbands, and feedback software that jolts them every time they Luse
--
Microsoft's Windows 2000 edges out NetWare for the Network World Blue Ribbon Award. Windows 2000 tops the field with its management interface, server monitoring tools, storage management facilities and security measures.
I was surprised to see the remote-client based admin tools for Netware referred to as simple and basic - the server-based tools for NW have always lagged behind the remote ones, and nwadmin is still the easiest way to administer netware boxes (even if it is being depreciated now in favour of a java-based client). Unixware and Linux likewise administer well remotely; unless W2K has massive advances over NT, it will expect you to be at the server console to do almost anything, which was one of my main dislikes of NT.
--
Where have you been lately? Bible thumpers have been doing just that for years now. .us courts of law?
Possibly, but I thought taking quotes out of context and using them as evidence was still frowned upon in
--
Windoze viruses spread so fast because the users let them - put a windows user on a linux box, and a virus will spread as fast there as it did under windows.
I am responsible for virus control at the company I work for, and the number of users who will blindly answer "yes" to anything that appears on their screen is staggering - particularly on occasion if I am standing there watching them, having just told them off for getting the LAST infestation. Thank $DIETY at least SOME of my users have gotten the basic idea
--
- There were Unix viruses, Worms and Trojans around since before the PC was designed; they have spread since the first few machines set up UUCP links; Unix viruses are far from new.
- Unix viruses are kept mainly in check because normal users don't have the permissions to do harm - they can harm their own files, they can harm the files of those that trust them. but they can't alter anyone else's, and, most importantly, they normally can't even INSTALL programs, never mind alter those already installed by other people.
- Linux is not Unix - 90% of Linux boxes are single user (maybe single user with webserver, or with a email router, but still single user) and for a high percentage of those, that single user either runs as root, or, if smart enough to run as a user when out on the net, will load the same data files, use the same packages, and generally work in the same sandpit when doing admin tasks that require system privileges as when running his limited "safe" account. As more and more buy "fashionable" pre-loaded linux boxes, you will see a wave of people caught by the same factors that make a windows-based machine insecure - that the user will run things without thinking, and that the user has enough permissions that the virus can take a hold.
So, what it comes down to is that, in general, Unix viruses are not (and will not) be a problem, but that Linux has vunerabilities that make it less secure than Unix used to be.--
I don't really mind that - what I *do* mind is that they are pulling individual phrases (not threads, not even entire posts, but phrases) from a huge wad of posts and using them selectively to push their point of view. I am surprised the defense didn't insist they produce (and the court consider) the entire thing, huge as it was.
As for payment now, I am not sure court evidence is bound by the same rules as a magazine.....
--
it's borderline - most computers use a C compiler that produces object code (and yes, it IS machine code, but you can't run it directly) then feed *that* into a linker that adds in standard libraries, puts "how to run me" headers and tailers on as needed, then saves it as a ready-to-run file. you might not see it directly (some compliers hide the passes they make) but most go though this two-stage process.
--
Yep, I remember that - I seem to recall it from the resignation letter some months ago however, and that it was blamed on too much of the original code being kept back by Netscape (so that a lot of work had to be done just to get to the same standard as NS 4 now "enjoys"
To be honest though, I think ANY scheme that allows the author to sell a closed-source release of the package is going to be viewed with a certain distaste; the author might be better off going for the Redhat model - sell boxed sets, complete with support, and then sell support - based on his greater familiarity with the package than recent contributors, he should be able to manage something from that - particularly if he can appeal to the business market that tends to want a Retailer to have a contract with...
< schnipp! >
This is where the difficulty arises; assuming you are replacing an existing (or stub) routine, can you be 100% sure you haven't included one or two lines identical to the original? a library call? a data structure? No piece of code in a package this large can be an island, and you must have read hundreds of lines of code before you feel confident enough to contribute. Even assuming you carefully work around every identical code routine to keep your contribution unique, can you guarantee the next person to patch it won't drag in code from the main body, and contaminate your offering? as I say, it's a difficult area, and the FAQs don't really cover it well enough.
--
I'm obviously one of those stupid people - I have absolutely no idea what difference this makes to my point. yes, a new, pure-rsa package could be written that didn't touch symmetric encryption with a bargepole, but then you would have the following:
- no-one using pgp could decode your messages AT ALL - everyone would have to replace their software with your new version
- Encrypting to twenty people would involve encrypting the entire file twenty times - with the space, processing and bandwidth costs this implies
- vunerabilities in RSA with certain plaintexts (easy to avoid in generating IDEA keys, but awkward to impose on plaintext) would become viable attacks
- older hardware currently more than usable as a standalone decryption "soak" become unusable, forcing people to either replace them with modern machines or do decryption on their general-purpose machine
I could list more, but can't see the point.IDEA, as a symmetric algorithm, is much faster than RSA.
Yep, still true today - just with larger files in the picture
Without RSA in the process, we're back to square one for all ciphers which is distributing the keys. RSA does away with that problem.
Ah, now I understand. you haven't grasped the difference between PKI algorithms as a whole (the current unburdened example of which is DH/Egmal) and RSA, which is merely one example of it - and obviously not the first to be discovered, given that the patent on DH expired some months ago. PGP can (and does!) use DH as a replacement to RSA, just as it can (and does!) use CAST as a replacement to IDEA. problem is, there are no stable DOS command line releases currently available. 5.0i for DOS is untrustworthy and (as far as I know - I stand to be corrected) no longer being worked on, and GPG for Dos is *listed* as an unstable alpha not to be trusted for anything but sig verification.
If you want a target to flame, might I suggest one of the "petrified girl" posts? No-one really cares if you fail to understand their content before you reply to them.
--
RSA is an important algorithm to expire, mostly due to the "original" copies of PGP (most of which are still more trusted than the more modern, "gui" versions recently released by NAI). However, RSA's patent ONLY applies within the united states - european and eastern countries have been using more efficient, less bug-ridden implimentations for some years than the standard "RSAREF" implimentation forced upon users in the us. So the immediate benefit will be that the original PGP version of the RSA library can be restored, with increases in speed and in security (as source is available to be checked) over the current us usage. :+)
However, the other cornerstone of "classic" PGP (the IDEA symmetric algorithm, which does most of the work - the RSA key is merely used to encrypt an IDEA key) will not have it's patent expire until 2010 at the earliest.
What is really needed is a usable, DOS command-line version of PGP (or GPG) to replace the existing batch-mode use of the RSA/IDEA standard with the more modern (but equally secure) DH/CAST base used in more recent implementations, which is patent-free (or expired
--
- Modifications to the existing NPL code MUST themselves fall under the NPL - and be available to Netscape for their own private use.
- Entirely new code may be licenced under NPL or under the Moz licence (code under the Moz licence is not available to Netscape for commercial purposes)
However, as far as I know, the distiction of "what is entirely new code" is sufficiently hard to draw that most code ends up under the NPL. I am ready to be corrected on this, of course--
Now, this judge seems a little out of his league here. Not to be presumptuous or anything, but he IS presuming to enforce this thing across oceans, all around the world. :+)
I read this as the opposite - the ruling explicitly says that enforcing his ruling is the plaintiff's problem, and not the courts. He also says he not only suspects, but assumes that a lot of non-us sites will just ignore it, but that he is going to issue it anyway
--
- RIAA (or whoever) are greedy bastards
:+) - they are stupid for even trying to copy protect
- we've been able to do it for years with analogue - what's the big deal
- I have a 'right' to evaluate music even if I don't own it
Now don't get me wrong, I would love to pay nothing for my music and video/DVD etc. And I don't claim to be an angel when it comes to never ever pirating *ahem* backing up stuff, but let's get a reality check!I can't argue with that one
It's aways been a moot point (even for software) - the cost of copy protection tends to be passed on to the legitimate users, and seldom really slows down professional pirates
There is a fine line between legitimate duplication (I copy my audio onto tapes for my walkman - that is to preserve my orginals in good condition, whereas if I carried them around when I went hillwalking, they would need replacing once a year or so (as the tapes do)) and pirating for sale - and it is based on what you intend to do with the copy, not on the copy itself. copying is not good or evil - but it can be used for good or bad reasons.
Yep, you do - but not by taking an illegal copy. you can hear it on the radio, in nighclubs, or if it is fringe music, it may be in the copyright owner's best interest to give a "sample" of the song some webspace. you DON'T have any rights to own a copy of someone else's work unless you have paid them for it.
Indeed - for DVD you have the wrong end of the stick entirely!
- Blank DVDs cost more than pre-recorded ones - why copy?
- CSS doesn't stop you copying DVDs, it stops you playing them
- CSS enforces licencing fees for DVD players - preventing OSS players when the owners of the DVD drives HAVE ALREADY PAID for the unusable windows player software
- CSS enforces regioning - restriction of trade by making a DVD on sale in one country unplayable by the DVD players in another country
In general, copy protection has cost more time and effort to impliment than it saves in legitimate sales regained - the best sanctions against copyright theft are legal, not technical, and only the threat of loss, not only of their profits but of their expensive copying equipment and their personal freedom, will disuade professional pirates.--
Face facts -- aside from a different approach to development and marketing, Linux and Windows are the same thing: operating systems.
I hate to break this too you, but holding a PR rally for YOUR competing product at the same time as a competitor IS a standard PR trick. If you think that Linux shouldn't stoop to this sort of thing, that is an ethical decision, and quite possibly right - but that doesn't make it a bad thing to do from a PR viewpoint.
Each has its strengths and weaknesses. If one or the other were to just disappear, some tasks would not be performed well when the other stepped in to fill the gap.
Another dubious point - if Windows disappeared, I suspect you would be astonished how fast Linux ports of the major Windows apps would appear; however, I can't see this happening anytime in the near future, can you?
While I spend most of my time in Linux, simply because I enjoy using it more than Windows, it's not all things. I'm limited in my ability to surf because of an underpowered browser (Netscape) and a lack of plugins (Macromedia Shockwave and a workable Realplayer, as well as Windows Media Player formats that nothing in Linux can handle).
Yep, Linux as an OS is undersupported; this isn't news, and the fact that Microsoft propriatory formats and packages aren't being ported is probably more a matter for the Merkin DOJ to sort out, rather than anything we can do.
I do a lot of webpage design, and Linux has serious shortcomings in this area. While I can code by hand in any text editor, or use Bluefish, it is simply more practical to use Homesite in Windows. :+)
I can't really comment - I *prefer* to code by hand in a plain text editor, but then, I am not a graphic artist or a website designer, but a programmer. Anyone who has the artistic and design skill to make a website more than just a row of links on pretty buttons has my admiration
Office software is another area sorely lacking. Staroffice comes close to filling the bill, but in a world where MS Office has set the standard, asking users to trust their productivity to underpowered and incompatable Linux equivalents would simply be wrong.
I agree - one of the thinks I *really* want to see from the DOJ decision is for Microsoft to be FORCED to port their propriatory packages (Office, any web stuff, possibly some of their development tools) to their competitors environments. They already do Mac versions of most of these....
And such a rally would do nothing to correct this situation. Constant bashing of MS has done nothing in the past. It's preaching to the choir when done in venues like /., and makes Linux users look like Trekkies with their rubber ears and toy phasers when done in public. :+)
Sorry, but I disagree - when only one point of view (ANY point of view, even if the person/organisation has the best of motives) has full media attention, then the public are being "herded" towards that point of view. There NEEDS to be a choice, so that those with half a braincell can make an informed decision.
I doubt anyone is suggesting the Linux Geek Pride Movement blockade Richmond, burning effigies and breaking Win2K CDs into many glittering shards (and if *I* was in charge of marketing, I would see each Win2K CD so broken as income without needing a support department to field calls
Time should be better spent writing code for Linux. See something that's lacking? Create it, or improve on what's already available. That is the whole idea behind Open Source software. Windows got to where it is partly because it does what people want it to do. As buggy as it might be, if it didn't fill a need, no amount of monopolistic practices would have caused it to spread the way it has.
Again, I hate to shatter your illusions, but most of the Microsurfs can't even IMAGINE using an office suite that isn't identical to the one they have always used; mind you, the legal community seem to have a similar attachment to Word Perfect so it cuts both ways
I have no desire to turn on CNN the day of the W2K release and see a bunch of Linux Geeks who can't get a date and have too much time on their hands waving stuffed penguins and burning Windows CDs.
*I* don't want that either - but it *would* be nice for there to be someplace for reporters to go to get nice soundbytes to put up against the pre-audience-tested ones Richmond will have had opinion-polled and expert-designed ready for their now months overdue Win2K release.
I would rather be able to walk into my favorite software store and find useable products made for Linux.
I'm not so fanatical about Linux as that - I would like to be able to walk into a suitably large software store and see the SAME packages on each wall, where the only difference is the little OS flash in the corner of the box - you should be able to pick up the same box on the Linux shelf as the Win9x shelf and there should be one to match for BeOs or OS/2... It is't going to happen though.
--
I don't think Voltaire would defend to the death this jerk's right to animate someone's office blowing up. It's one thing to claim superiority for your group, and how everyone else will be under your thumb. But that is a specific threat to a specific person, and that is where the speaker's rights have ended and the victim's have begun.
Spot on! I can't see the most rabid free-speech protestor trying to support this guy - If he had done this sort of thing in the street, or put up a big banner outside his home, he would have been treated no better and no worse than this - and that is how it should be. There *may* be a fine line between protected, political speech and actual threats, but he can't even SEE that line from where he is standing - not even with good binoculars.....
--
The Internet is in most respects genderless. I have no idea whether any of the posters on Slashdot are female, or if they are white or black or Asian. How can I discriminate when I don't have anything at all to go upon? :+)
Hmm. I *half* agree - it is difficult or impossible to tell the sex of a poster, and colour is even worse, but those who approach english as a second language DO tend to be discriminated against online - the Internet has such a pro-english bias that sites that don't support an additional English translation page for each of their non-english ones often find themselves without an index in most search engines - and almost certainly not linked to from the english sites (although linking TO the english sites seems to be expected - strange that, isnt' it
--
- "True" AC's defined as ACs without an account, or with an account with a karma less than 1 (yes, I know, but Karma is already there, and is easier to check)
- Accounts starting with a Karma of 0, and automatically gaining a karma of 1 after one week AND four posts
- No "True" ACs allowed to make a root post for the first half hour of a new topic's existance
- No "True" ACs allowed to reply to a post within five minutes of it's posting time
I don't expect this to be a universal bandaid, but I *do* expect it to cut down on the number of "first post" and "petrified $GIRL" posts that you get in the first few minutes of a new topic - unless the posters want to spend the time and trouble of making enough legitimate posts to gain Karma enough to post the annoying ones..I *do* see however how this will discourage a few of the newbies - but if the refusal was well-enough formatted (explaining why their root post wasn't accepted, and suggesting they register for an account and/or reply to an existing root post) this should be minimal...
--
- They're 1's and 0's people. They don't hurt people.
Yeah, and verbal abuse is just sound waves. They don't hurt people! Child porn and is just light reflected from a surface! It doesn't hurt people! Racist graffiti is just paint on a wall! etc, etc.I hate to tell you this - but that is true, online. The anonymity and "It's just a computer" attitude that leads to flames and abuse online, is also the best defense against it. Flamers are attacking an abstract; it is incredibly rare for a flamer to attack someone he knows better than "having seen on TV sometime" and the best defense is to delete it and move on - that is what killfiles are for.
as for your "examples".. well.
Unless you are suggesting the flamers actually come around to your living room and wave their little sheets of paper in your face, I don't see how this applies - someone in your face, shouting abuse at you is damaging. Someone on a TV screen hurling abuse normally gets a disgusted look and a reach for the channel-selector.
Ah, enter the Horseman of the Internet <grin>
If child porn is real, then it is evidence of a particularly sick crime, and is best forwarded to the authorities. If it is false/simulated (Suitably shaven legal-age girl, for example) then it is mildly distasteful, but not actively harmful. I can't imagine it being attractive enough for you to seek it out, and contrary to the opinion of those going for the Horseman vote, you aren't likely to suddenly find it in your Inbox one day.
Indeed it is - and usually a criminal offence (if a minor one). A better example may be someone paying for a billboard with a racist message on it, but even then, normally that wouldn't be accepted by those that sell billboard space. In any case, you need to do the virtual equivilent of painting it over....
I don't think we can really go with this deconstructionalist approach. Sure, online postings are one step further removed from reality, but I don't this gives people a God-given right to spout any old guff and expect other people to have to read it. /. moderation structure is that pure "flame" posts seem to drop out very fast from moderation - the disadvantage of course is that "bad" moderation can and does occur, with valid and worthwhile posts being pushed down by those that disagree with them (mind you, this would be much worse if the moderator wasn't forced to choose between abusing his power and losing the right to type up a rebuttal, or replying and losing any chance of pushing down the post you dislike). People who prefer to live in a cosy cocoon of "view at 1" or even 2 or 3 may never even see such things - and that choice is as much or more their right as the initial poster's write to submit their text for view.
I don't think that is the point being made here - normally an open forum IS a right to spout any old guff (subject to the structure of the forum of course) but ISN'T a right to expect anyone to read it. One of the advantages of the
--
I really think the lead-in for this article is misleading. He's not porting Linux to his N64. :+)
I disagree - He is laying down the framework for a port, in the same manner as Linux itself couldn't have been created without the Gnu compilers and utilities it is built on and with. He has Closely examined the hardware, built an interface between the N64 and the pc for test purposes, and has "emulated" a cartridge (or at least the initial handshake of one). Combine this with the N64 emulation data that is now emerging, and you should be able to start designing a Linux that would run on there. Ok, he hasn't exactly reached the top of Everest here, but he has at least climbed a few cliffs
--
The N64 is a far-from-ideal platform for Linux - no keyboard, no networking, and almost no ram - but this could let hundreds of kids that have never used a "real" computer outside of a classroom get a feel for Linux - which is a reasonable end in itself :+)
--