Apples and oranges. This is from an airshow where the pilot was flying 70 feet above the ground. Other than take off and landings, commercial flight they tend to be cruising at upwards of 10 thousand feet. The system on the flight you are describing sounds like it was implemented to insure a steady fligh around those altitudes, not for planes less than 100 feet off the ground. But I could be wrong, IANAPilot.
You can't mentally coerce someone into opening a door that isn't there. What will they say, "Crash the plane or we will kill everyone in here...with with a cutting device of some sort...or maybe some rope we can use to choke...one at a time...damn"?
What you may end up with is a system where if someone were injuring passengers, the pilot could release a knock out gas or something along those lines. Of course the risk of lawsuits (someone dying as a result of said gas and not the attackers) is probably too great for the airline industry to implement it.
All considered, it may just have to come down to the honor system: Attendant: "Do you promise not to hurt anyone on this flight?" Passenger: "I promise nothing." Attendant: "Security!"
Egypt air flight 990. That plane was determined to have been crashed by the co-pilot. (I realize that even with a cabin acceesible door, no one was able to save that plane). The fact is there is currently no sure fire way to prevent someone from intentionally crashing a plane except perhaps to use this kind of software to shape an entire flight pattern (shape, not dictate) in conjunction with pilot only access to the cockpit.
On a side note though, airlines are more aware of their terrorist allure and as a result are sufficiently safer than they were 2 years ago. But air planes are not the only vehicles that can be comandeered for malicious intent. What kind of thought has been put into making sure someone doesn't deliberatly derail a passenger train, or crash an 18 wheeler for that matter? Terrorists seek targets of oppotunity with destructive potential. The government seems to think safety can be achieved through covert operations (spying, wiretaps, etc) and by eroding citizens rights rather than implementing better security measures in vulnerable situations. Rather than making everyone a suspect, why not put systems into place that don't allow for that kind of behavior. Just my $.02
Why would you install Apt4RPM on Mandrake? Did you even try using URPMI? It's does for Mandrake what APT does for Debian: install packages and dependancies from internet repositories reliably. Once you add a few sources via URPMI.addmedia..., you pretty much set to go. As long as you use trustworthy sources, package management should be a breeze. I tried APT4RPM on Redhat 8 and was not impressed (although I liked it very much for Debian). Now, rpm itself segfaults on every other install I try, lots of broken packages.::shrugs:: To each their own...
Re:MS .doc / Adobe PostSript & PDF
on
Office 2003 and XML
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Agreed. Truth is, even if they exposed ALL of the formatting properties available in Office documents via XML, they would still be the only product on the market to implement all of the formatting features completely. By the time anyone caught up, MS could extend the functionality further. It's one thing to own the standard document format, it's another to be the market learder with the only product that fully supports the industry's open standard.
Netware in its current incarnation is a top notch server OS. It's got one of, if not the best LDAP implementations available (NDS, eDirectory) that offers integration with all of its products for very easy administration. (Groupwise is an excellent Exchange replacement, minus the constant virus problems). Once its setup, that's it. It does not require constant attention like other server OSes *cough*. It does still load on top of DOS (for reasons I can't understand) but it is in no way a DOS based OS. In fact, it seems to have borrowed quite a bit from Unix in versions 5 and 6.
What you gain: dead easy file/print administration, extensible LDAP framework built right in, excellent reliablity/stability, can be easily (if you read the documentation) performance tuned
What you lose: application support and expensive licensing.
For small to mid size businesses, you could do better with a WinNT or *nix solution, but for large enterprises with massively distributed networks, Netware is an excellent way to go.
Is it just me or is it everytime patent law/copyright law/IP law becomes an active topic on this forum, there are numerous interpretations of who is liable and to what degree? I have seens posts ranging from the linux developers getting sued to commercial developers getting sued to it being of no consequence to anyone.
The fact is, the same way judges and law makers don't understand technology appropriately, this community doesn't take the time to properly understand the legal aspects of what we do. The biggest risk to FS/OSS is not that it is being legally challenged, it's that we as a community don't know how to defend ourselves. While the attitude that "I do this because I want to, not because I have to" may produce some wonderful projects, it's not necessarily enough to ensure the safety and continuation of those projects.
No legal entity can ever prevent the development of FS/OSS. But unless we take up the attitude that understanding the law is almost as important as understanding how to code...well, then the revolution will not be televised.
I'm not sure they have the same goal in mind. Mono's main goal is to create an open implentation of.NET. What DotGNU set out to do is create an alternative implementation of the basic framework. Mono is recreating all the MS C# libraries so that programs compilied with.NET will run without recompilation under Mono. DotGNU is creating it's own core class libraries that focus more on security and privacy. Their approach is completely independent of whatever MS does with.NET in the future. As far as I can tell, all they have in common is that they are both implementing the ECMA stuff, which is NOT.NET.
Just as Mono starts making a little headway, Microsoft starts mapping out.NET V.2. I really would like to see this project accomplish what it set out to do, but you can't like it's odds.
Wal-Mart will stop carrying 'em. I give 'em about 2-3 weeks.
These non-Windows PCs have been available for some time now. In fact, if you want to read into it, they are expanding their offerings, indicating there is a demand for this. As the official nerd in my corner of the world, I've had my (non-technical) friends/family approach me (not the other way around) about the availability of these machines meaning that people are learning about them on their own. This just provides people with another choice when they buy a PC, which is what everyone really wants, isn't it?
I'm personally going to Wal-Mart in the next few days to see if A. They're actually carrying them and B. How long the returns line is
As has been said before (over and over), these are only being offered online. More so, Walmart is also selling Windows machines, explicitly labeled as such, to go along with their Linux/No-OS offerings. If anyone is returning one of their Linux PCs because it isn't windows, illiteracy is probably their problem, not Linux. Anyone buying a PC online is probably A) literate and B) already somewhat technically inclined. I say let Walmart worry about confusing people. We should applaud Walmart for doing what most other retailers aren't.
I remember reading an article a few months back that google was being used to discover exploitable webservers by using a malformed url as the search string. Has Google taken any steps to prevent this kind of malicious usage? Does Google even have a policy on this kind of thing or does it regard this as the responsibility of webmasters to keep their servers patched?
Entirely true. All my friends refer to me as "the cool one" because I use Linux. The guy using the windows machine is "the popular one". My buddy who has his CNE is "the shy one". We're like the Backstreet Boys of computing. Now they're gonna start calling me "the pretty one" or something. I wonder how OBOS is coming along...
The 30 Mb contains the full package(Browser, JRE 1.4, misc AOL bloatware, Real One, winamp, flash, etc). If you decide to do a browser only install, it's 10 Mb or so. It's trimmer than the 70 Mb IE ties up and unlike when Explorer crashes, it doesn't take your system down with it. At least not in my experience yet...
IMO, if you have the time or bandwidth, it is worth a look...
What's this GNU thing that everyone is clammoring to get attention to? See, I've been living on Mars in a cave with my fingers in my ears and my eyes closed.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are a vast number of computer users who don't even know what Linux (the operating system) is, let alone the different cultures behind the free software movement. In this respect, RMS is preaching to the converted. It's pretty obvious that everyone here is well aware of the contributions of the GNU Foundation. The majority of the discussion is about how to give due credit.
The other side of the fence however, things get a little muddier. How do you preach about freedom when most people don't know they're in shackles? What most people define as freedom boils down to the right to vote. When Congress (or any legislative body) passes a bill that flies in the face of freedom, people more or less accept it so long it doesn't overtly change their daily routine. Or if a company hires an army of lawyers or accountants to throw up a smoke screen while executives plunder the company vaults, people chalk it up to deplorable yet typical of corporate greed. As the line between citizen and consumer gets blurrier, these abuses will only get more blatant and the responses even more passive (so long as they keep offering "value added services").
This is the arena that a man like Richard Stallman should be playing to. IMHO, if he is genuinely concerned with liberating users of computer software and the world at large, his message would be better served freeing those who don't know they are confined. Within the free software community at large, at least people are free enough to choose their level of freedom. Linus chose best tool for the job. RMS chose freedom about all else. But what's truly important is that the choice was theirs to make.
So maybe people are right. The right to vote is freedom. Just make sure you have all the options available to you before you do.
Slashdot Mirror
"...I blame Slashdot, I blame ThinkGeek, and I blame everyone and anyone who's ever dramatized actors or rockstars or athletes..."
./ headlines that dramatized actors, rock stars and athletes. Let me see if I can guess them:
I must've missed the
RMS: Rock, Music, Sex!
Darl McBride Wins Oscar for Best Actor
Linus Torvalds Takes Up Jogging
I can see why you're upset. I'll wait til the dupe before I pass judgement myself.
Apples and oranges. This is from an airshow where the pilot was flying 70 feet above the ground. Other than take off and landings, commercial flight they tend to be cruising at upwards of 10 thousand feet. The system on the flight you are describing sounds like it was implemented to insure a steady fligh around those altitudes, not for planes less than 100 feet off the ground. But I could be wrong, IANAPilot.
"...bulkhead without a door..."
You can't mentally coerce someone into opening a door that isn't there. What will they say, "Crash the plane or we will kill everyone in here...with with a cutting device of some sort...or maybe some rope we can use to choke...one at a time...damn"?
What you may end up with is a system where if someone were injuring passengers, the pilot could release a knock out gas or something along those lines. Of course the risk of lawsuits (someone dying as a result of said gas and not the attackers) is probably too great for the airline industry to implement it.
All considered, it may just have to come down to the honor system:
Attendant: "Do you promise not to hurt anyone on this flight?"
Passenger: "I promise nothing."
Attendant: "Security!"
Egypt air flight 990. That plane was determined to have been crashed by the co-pilot. (I realize that even with a cabin acceesible door, no one was able to save that plane). The fact is there is currently no sure fire way to prevent someone from intentionally crashing a plane except perhaps to use this kind of software to shape an entire flight pattern (shape, not dictate) in conjunction with pilot only access to the cockpit.
On a side note though, airlines are more aware of their terrorist allure and as a result are sufficiently safer than they were 2 years ago. But air planes are not the only vehicles that can be comandeered for malicious intent. What kind of thought has been put into making sure someone doesn't deliberatly derail a passenger train, or crash an 18 wheeler for that matter? Terrorists seek targets of oppotunity with destructive potential. The government seems to think safety can be achieved through covert operations (spying, wiretaps, etc) and by eroding citizens rights rather than implementing better security measures in vulnerable situations. Rather than making everyone a suspect, why not put systems into place that don't allow for that kind of behavior. Just my $.02
If only it was that easy to detect evil intent in real life...
"Sally, cross your legs! His bit is set to 'evil'!"
On second thought...
Why would you install Apt4RPM on Mandrake? Did you even try using URPMI? It's does for Mandrake what APT does for Debian: install packages and dependancies from internet repositories reliably. Once you add a few sources via URPMI.addmedia ..., you pretty much set to go. As long as you use trustworthy sources, package management should be a breeze. I tried APT4RPM on Redhat 8 and was not impressed (although I liked it very much for Debian). Now, rpm itself segfaults on every other install I try, lots of broken packages. ::shrugs:: To each their own...
Agreed. Truth is, even if they exposed ALL of the formatting properties available in Office documents via XML, they would still be the only product on the market to implement all of the formatting features completely. By the time anyone caught up, MS could extend the functionality further. It's one thing to own the standard document format, it's another to be the market learder with the only product that fully supports the industry's open standard.
Now I don't want to hear any more complaints about linux not being a viable gamers system. This doesn't count as dual booting because...um....dang.
...japanese competitions didn't reward knowledge. I thought they only punished ignorance... tv has lied to me again.
Really? Do you think CNN uses Minix? Check the bottom of the page...
Netware in its current incarnation is a top notch server OS. It's got one of, if not the best LDAP implementations available (NDS, eDirectory) that offers integration with all of its products for very easy administration. (Groupwise is an excellent Exchange replacement, minus the constant virus problems). Once its setup, that's it. It does not require constant attention like other server OSes *cough*. It does still load on top of DOS (for reasons I can't understand) but it is in no way a DOS based OS. In fact, it seems to have borrowed quite a bit from Unix in versions 5 and 6.
What you gain: dead easy file/print administration, extensible LDAP framework built right in, excellent reliablity/stability, can be easily (if you read the documentation) performance tuned
What you lose: application support and expensive licensing.
For small to mid size businesses, you could do better with a WinNT or *nix solution, but for large enterprises with massively distributed networks, Netware is an excellent way to go.
Obligatory Simpsons reference:
"I don't want to kill Clippy."
"Then why did you write 'die clippy die'"
"No, that's German. It's 'the clippy the'"
Is it just me or is it everytime patent law/copyright law/IP law becomes an active topic on this forum, there are numerous interpretations of who is liable and to what degree? I have seens posts ranging from the linux developers getting sued to commercial developers getting sued to it being of no consequence to anyone.
The fact is, the same way judges and law makers don't understand technology appropriately, this community doesn't take the time to properly understand the legal aspects of what we do. The biggest risk to FS/OSS is not that it is being legally challenged, it's that we as a community don't know how to defend ourselves. While the attitude that "I do this because I want to, not because I have to" may produce some wonderful projects, it's not necessarily enough to ensure the safety and continuation of those projects.
No legal entity can ever prevent the development of FS/OSS. But unless we take up the attitude that understanding the law is almost as important as understanding how to code...well, then the revolution will not be televised.
I'm not sure they have the same goal in mind. Mono's main goal is to create an open implentation of .NET. What DotGNU set out to do is create an alternative implementation of the basic framework. Mono is recreating all the MS C# libraries so that programs compilied with .NET will run without recompilation under Mono. DotGNU is creating it's own core class libraries that focus more on security and privacy. Their approach is completely independent of whatever MS does with .NET in the future. As far as I can tell, all they have in common is that they are both implementing the ECMA stuff, which is NOT .NET.
Just as Mono starts making a little headway, Microsoft starts mapping out .NET V.2. I really would like to see this project accomplish what it set out to do, but you can't like it's odds.
Wal-Mart will stop carrying 'em. I give 'em about 2-3 weeks.
These non-Windows PCs have been available for some time now. In fact, if you want to read into it, they are expanding their offerings, indicating there is a demand for this. As the official nerd in my corner of the world, I've had my (non-technical) friends/family approach me (not the other way around) about the availability of these machines meaning that people are learning about them on their own. This just provides people with another choice when they buy a PC, which is what everyone really wants, isn't it?
I'm personally going to Wal-Mart in the next few days to see if A. They're actually carrying them and B. How long the returns line is
As has been said before (over and over), these are only being offered online. More so, Walmart is also selling Windows machines, explicitly labeled as such, to go along with their Linux/No-OS offerings. If anyone is returning one of their Linux PCs because it isn't windows, illiteracy is probably their problem, not Linux. Anyone buying a PC online is probably A) literate and B) already somewhat technically inclined. I say let Walmart worry about confusing people. We should applaud Walmart for doing what most other retailers aren't.
This is an article about Lycoris, not Lindows. Even if you did direct it to Joseph Cheek, I don't think he could help you...
I remember reading an article a few months back that google was being used to discover exploitable webservers by using a malformed url as the search string. Has Google taken any steps to prevent this kind of malicious usage? Does Google even have a policy on this kind of thing or does it regard this as the responsibility of webmasters to keep their servers patched?
Entirely true. All my friends refer to me as "the cool one" because I use Linux. The guy using the windows machine is "the popular one". My buddy who has his CNE is "the shy one". We're like the Backstreet Boys of computing. Now they're gonna start calling me "the pretty one" or something. I wonder how OBOS is coming along...
I don't think that at all.
Do you think that OS/2's fate in the desktop market would influence any decision to pursue an IBM Linux distro?
The 30 Mb contains the full package(Browser, JRE 1.4, misc AOL bloatware, Real One, winamp, flash, etc). If you decide to do a browser only install, it's 10 Mb or so. It's trimmer than the 70 Mb IE ties up and unlike when Explorer crashes, it doesn't take your system down with it. At least not in my experience yet...
IMO, if you have the time or bandwidth, it is worth a look...
What's this GNU thing that everyone is clammoring to get attention to? See, I've been living on Mars in a cave with my fingers in my ears and my eyes closed. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a vast number of computer users who don't even know what Linux (the operating system) is, let alone the different cultures behind the free software movement. In this respect, RMS is preaching to the converted. It's pretty obvious that everyone here is well aware of the contributions of the GNU Foundation. The majority of the discussion is about how to give due credit. The other side of the fence however, things get a little muddier. How do you preach about freedom when most people don't know they're in shackles? What most people define as freedom boils down to the right to vote. When Congress (or any legislative body) passes a bill that flies in the face of freedom, people more or less accept it so long it doesn't overtly change their daily routine. Or if a company hires an army of lawyers or accountants to throw up a smoke screen while executives plunder the company vaults, people chalk it up to deplorable yet typical of corporate greed. As the line between citizen and consumer gets blurrier, these abuses will only get more blatant and the responses even more passive (so long as they keep offering "value added services"). This is the arena that a man like Richard Stallman should be playing to. IMHO, if he is genuinely concerned with liberating users of computer software and the world at large, his message would be better served freeing those who don't know they are confined. Within the free software community at large, at least people are free enough to choose their level of freedom. Linus chose best tool for the job. RMS chose freedom about all else. But what's truly important is that the choice was theirs to make. So maybe people are right. The right to vote is freedom. Just make sure you have all the options available to you before you do.
The easiest and most enjoyably tokin' ring you'll ever set up...