I'd like to see provisions that recognize the fact that spammers are non-persons and non-animals, and are therefore not subject to the protections of the law or the Constitution.:-)
Don't give the yankees the conversion into Fahrenheit. How will they ever join the civilised world if they can keep using all of their outdated methods and systems. If you just give Celsius, the yanks might actually be forced learn something for a change.
Or, more likely, they'll try to impose their collective will on the rest of us, citing ridiculous statements by their leaders, like, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
I've never really found Win2K Pro to be at fault for a program crash.
How would you know? Perhaps one of the programs you ran relied on a Windows API or service that wasn't working properly (ask any seasoned Windows if you're unsure of whether such APIs or services exist), thus causing the program to crash.
The concept of mass isn't even defined for something as abstract as an idea. Even if an idea requires a non-zero-mass container, an idea cannot have mass. Note that this is not the same as saying that an idea has zero mass.
You failed to answer my point about who gets to judge the "entrants" and the rules of the contest.
It's irrelevent to my contradiction of your statement, "The $500 guantee is worthless."
Look, it's a simple matter of economics: Auditing code is mostly tedious and there are sufficiently many ways of earning much more money (and with a guaranteed payoff!) auditing code that no amount of spite is worth it.
One matter of economics you're not considering is that value and worth are not equivalent to monetary value.
I never said that $500 is enough to pay a competent-but-indifferent contractor to do an audit, because it obviously isn't.
Your statement was that the $500 guarantee has no worth. My statement was that the $500 guarantee (note: the guarantee, not the $500 itself) has some worth, which is proven by the fact that we are having this conversation.
A state implementing a patent system forbids individuals to develop and market their inventions, unless those inventions happen to not be covered by any patents, which is extremely rare in certain industries. This is presumably done for the benefit of society -- to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts".
Giving people the unconditional freedom to develop and market their inventions (i.e. abolishing patent, trademark, and copyright laws, as well as environmental and consumer protection laws) benefits individuals at the expense of society. Thus, we see that these systems are indeed socialist in nature (or, more accurately, that abolishing them would clearly not be a socialist action.)
Sometimes, businesspeople find it convenient to model ideas as property, and lawyers find it convenient to model patents as rights, but those are simply approximations -- approximations that cause great confusion when discussing policy.
You probably could, but that can easily be foiled, if that kind of behaviour becomes commonplace.
All the wireless network admins have to do is forward all DNS packets to a DNS server that only allows you to look up a specific domain, and block everything else.
No, it is worth something. If his software wasn't secure, offering the guarantee would have been an extremely arrogant move. DJB is arguably enough of an asshole that I suspect that there are numerous people who would go out of their way to find security holes in his guaranteed software, just to spite him.
Incorrect, it is open source.
It isn't GPL.
There's a big difference.
Yes, there is a big difference, and djbdns is not Open Source. It violates points #3 and #4 of the Open Source Definition. (It also doesn't comply with the DFSG which is why Debian has it in non-free.)
I quote:
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
In any case, given the choice between running djbdns and running an ugly beast of a DNS server, BIND, I chose to run djbdns.
I'm not worried about getting locked-in to djbdns, since I could probably write a complete replacement for it in about a week if I needed to (in Python, or about 2 weeks if I did it in C).
I've already written a tinydns replacement, and most of an axfrdns replacement (there is one bug in my axfrdns-replacement that I have to track down). I wrote both of those in a day (in Python).
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see provisions that recognize the fact that spammers are non-persons and non-animals, and are therefore not subject to the protections of the law or the Constitution. :-)
Any they're trying to see CD burners from satellites that have 1 m x 1 m of resolution.
First of all, I disagree that that is the "only real reason" why a person would need that much anonymity, but that's not what I'm going to argue.
Rather, I have a simple question for you: What do you think is wrong with wanting that much privacy, even if you don't strictly need it?
Fine. Then the Linux afficionado can get hired by a (soon to be) more successful company.
Or, more likely, they'll try to impose their collective will on the rest of us, citing ridiculous statements by their leaders, like, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
If you know it's 11 bytes, you don't need a \0
Ouch. I wonder what kind of performance hit that creates.
How would you know? Perhaps one of the programs you ran relied on a Windows API or service that wasn't working properly (ask any seasoned Windows if you're unsure of whether such APIs or services exist), thus causing the program to crash.
The concept of mass isn't even defined for something as abstract as an idea. Even if an idea requires a non-zero-mass container, an idea cannot have mass. Note that this is not the same as saying that an idea has zero mass.
As an AC poster pointed out, the parent's 'sig' executes rm -rf /
I tried to post an analysis, but I kept getting hit by the lameness filter, so I posted the analysis to http://www.dlitz.net/stuff/malicious-perl-sig/
Hint: If you're somewhat familiar with Perl, try doing the analysis yourself. The code is actually not anywhere near as complicated as it looks.
It's irrelevent to my contradiction of your statement, "The $500 guantee is worthless."
Look, it's a simple matter of economics: Auditing code is mostly tedious and there are sufficiently many ways of earning much more money (and with a guaranteed payoff!) auditing code that no amount of spite is worth it.
One matter of economics you're not considering is that value and worth are not equivalent to monetary value.
I never said that $500 is enough to pay a competent-but-indifferent contractor to do an audit, because it obviously isn't.
Your statement was that the $500 guarantee has no worth. My statement was that the $500 guarantee (note: the guarantee, not the $500 itself) has some worth, which is proven by the fact that we are having this conversation.
Giving people the unconditional freedom to develop and market their inventions (i.e. abolishing patent, trademark, and copyright laws, as well as environmental and consumer protection laws) benefits individuals at the expense of society. Thus, we see that these systems are indeed socialist in nature (or, more accurately, that abolishing them would clearly not be a socialist action.)
Sometimes, businesspeople find it convenient to model ideas as property, and lawyers find it convenient to model patents as rights, but those are simply approximations -- approximations that cause great confusion when discussing policy.
Depends on your termcap/terminfo.
Do you use a Dvorak keyboard layout?
Patents and copyrights are government intervention in the free market. Withholding patents/copyrights is hardly "communistic".
Don't assume that for any solvable problem, there exist an infinite number of practical (or even theoretical) algorithms to solve the problem.
Assuming the existence non-infringing algorithm.
I thought OS X was based on NeXT.
I thought the main thing that made Unix Unix was its API. The AmigaOS API was almost nothing like Unix's, IIRC.
All the wireless network admins have to do is forward all DNS packets to a DNS server that only allows you to look up a specific domain, and block everything else.
No, it is worth something. If his software wasn't secure, offering the guarantee would have been an extremely arrogant move. DJB is arguably enough of an asshole that I suspect that there are numerous people who would go out of their way to find security holes in his guaranteed software, just to spite him.
Yes, there is a big difference, and djbdns is not Open Source. It violates points #3 and #4 of the Open Source Definition. (It also doesn't comply with the DFSG which is why Debian has it in non-free.)
I quote:
In any case, given the choice between running djbdns and running an ugly beast of a DNS server, BIND, I chose to run djbdns.
I'm not worried about getting locked-in to djbdns, since I could probably write a complete replacement for it in about a week if I needed to (in Python, or about 2 weeks if I did it in C). I've already written a tinydns replacement, and most of an axfrdns replacement (there is one bug in my axfrdns-replacement that I have to track down). I wrote both of those in a day (in Python).
This is a one-time password system, which uses hashes, just like S/Key does. This is NOT a one-time pad system.
Who checks their email before evacuating because of a fire alarm??
In the spirit of true Windows development, you need to set up a scheduled task to continually re-delete sol.exe. ;-)