But probably what you want to know is whether or not it is proprietary software. And the answer to that is 'mabye'. It depends on the license; If the compiler is licensed under the GPL, then it is free software. Similarly for other free software licenses - X, LGPL, BSD, etc. If it is under a proprietary license, then it is proprietary.:)
Yes, but the same is true of handwritten signatures as well.
There are several authentication models out there. One of them is the "flat" model, where you have a single authority that everyone trusts. For example, verisign offers a service where you go to a notary, and get authenticated, with photo ID and real signature, and all that, and mabye a witness. Then verisign will sign your digital key, so people that trust verisign can trust your key.
The other model is called a "web of trust". Essentially, you sign the keys for anyone who you know whose key it is. So if your friend gives you his key on floppy disk, you can sign it. All the signatures get sent to a keyserver. So for example, let's say that person A knows person B, who knows person C, who knows person D. Person A does not know persons C or D. Then, one day, person A needs to use person D's key for some reason. Person D's key is signed by person C, whose key is signed by person B, who you trust. So you can give marginal trust to person D. If there are multiple trust paths to the key in question then it gets more trust. The problem with the 'web of trust' model is that it assumes ubiquitous use.
I agree with your final answer; I think we should open our borders. This country has a history of a wave of immmigrants that comes in, is assimilated, and then turns around and says "nope, country's full!" to the next wave of immigrants. This happened with the Irish, it happened with the Chinese, now it is happening with latinos.
However, there is a flaw in your other premise that privitaziton makes things better. Yes, this works on a small scale. But big business breaks the model! Microsoft is a great example of this; You would think that, writing such bad software, they would shrivel up and die. But do to various "business" tactics, they are very successful.
Essentially, the capitalist model works very well on a small level, but there are certain things (IP, big business) that break the model.
Erhm, linus started writing linux while in finland. What makes you think there are no computers there? Are you so bigoted that you can't understand that there are other industrialized countries than the US?
Dude, I don't know what kind of crack you're on but I want some.
The day I graduated from high school I was offered a job at an ISP at $25 an hour; they wanted me to postpone college and work for them at $75k. There is a severe labor shortage out here in the SF bay area.
No, they are talking about strong cryptography and public-key authentication. Basically you take a hash of the data (probably the date, credit card number, and amount; but could be anything) and then encrypt it with your private key. The data can be decrypted with the public key, verifying that the private key was the one to encrypt it. Or something like that.
If you are referring to http authentication, then it has nothing to do with http... All you have to do is make sure that all the files are in the same Realm... The http spec says that the browser should keep sending the password w/ every request as long as it is in the same realm.
Read about the format for the.htaccess file, it'll become clear.
There are in fact World Cups for several sports, including rugby, volleyball, and (I think) tennis.
But the one I was referring to is soccer (football for everyone else in the world), and yes, it is a european thing. Also a south american thing, african thing, asian thing, pretty much a thing for anyone who dosen't live in the US.:b
I believe the next world cup was held in France in 1998, and was won by france, followed by Brazil. And I think the one before that was won by Brazil. The US, OTOH, rarely finishes in the top 5.
Yes, but the number of people who watch the world cup is measured in billions...
Re:I just had a bright moment...
on
YETI@Home
·
· Score: 1
distributed.net already does this, sorta.
Each project they work on has some prize money. For example, I think the RC5 challenge gives $1000 to the person who owns the computer that found the key, $1000 to the person's team, $2000 to distributed.net, and $6000 to charity. Or mabye it's $2000 to charity and $6000 to distributed.net. I'm not sure.
You seriously think any school would let you install a T1 in your dorm room?
Think again my friend, we can't even install phone lines in our dorm room; instead we get the crappy 'campus voice services'... pay twice as much, get half as much.
It's not an analogy at all. The fact of the matter is that, while no one has a (government-protected) monopoly on Operating Systems, Microsoft still has a monoploy on Windows.
This is especially true given the context of this thread; the DMCA may increase the monopoly power that already exists, but it does not really create any new monopolies.
And you are free to make your own media standard for mass distribution of video, but that's no guarantee that the movie studios will sell videos in that format.:)
What do you mean 'the rates aren't bad'? They charge 15 cents a minute during the day and 10.5 at night... Sprint offers 10 cents during the day and 5 at night, and AT&T offers 7 cents a minute 24x7.
You can't call something that is TWICE the going rate compeditive. Perhaps they were at some point in the past, but rates have been dropping and SCS hasn't kept up.
erhm, all IP is monolopy power. Patents, copyright, everything. Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows. You can't make your own Windows and sell it.
It seems like people are very willing to forget that the only reason that you can't make 100,000 copies of Windows NT (though I don't know why you'd want to) is that the government has granted Microsoft a monopoly on it.
Sure, you can go make some other program. And then you have a monopoly on it. But Microsoft maintains their original monopoly on windows.
Actually, I didn't use the word enterprise in that post at all. But I will in this one. I help out on the Amanda users' mailing list, and I can safely say that Amanda is being used to backup terabytes of data on hundreds of machines. That sound like enterprise to you?
I didn't say that ALL the filesystems have to fit on a single tape, I said that EACH filesystem much be able to fit on a single tape. Amanda shuffles the level 0 dumps around so that they are dynamically spread out from each other. It does a very good job at it too.
Also, in an enterprise your tapes are going to be at least 35GB DLT tapes; mabye larger. That's 70GB of data compressed. Not very many filesystems out there that are that big; and if you have one, you can split it into chunks with tar.
The rationale for having Amanda not split the filesystems apart is that you can recover everything without Amanda. This comes in very handy when the backup server's HD crashes the same day as the print server, and you are trying to recover the files with 20 people standing over you. Everything on tape can be restored with dd, and either tar or restore (depending which you used to backup).
I resent that you automatically assume that I don't know what enterprise means. I know that enterprise = thousands of employees. And the summer job was actually after high school; I'm presently in college. That job was at a comporable ISP to your own employer, Colt Internet. And Amanda worked fine for them.
Finally, I think your use of the word FUD is wrong. What I said was true, and not negative about the competition at all. Since FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, I really don't see how saying something good about Amanda could be FUD by any strech of the imagination.
Yes, it's called Amanda, and yes, it's covered by the GPL. It's homepage is at www.amanda.org. It has a few shortcomings, most notably, no filesystem can be bigger than a tape. But it also has a lot of features. Don't get discouraged by the release date - there have been several patches made, and there is a beta (almost done!) release, as well as an alpha release for further down the line.
You can use a junkbuster proxy to filter out ads. Alternatively, I believe that internet explorer allows you to set the 'doubleclick' domain to be in its own security zone, and then set that zone to not accept cookies.
Note also that you will only be associated w/ the database if they have some way to associate you w/ your entry in their database. Once your cookie is there, though, they will know.
Well, last time I checked, USA law dosen't have much to say about free speech vs. free beer, aside from that the author can do whatever he or she is so inclined.
Mostly the free speech/free beer thing is Richard Stallman's invention. And unfortunately, I don't have my french-english dictionary on-hand, but at the very least, libre is much closer to what we mean when we say free software than is gratis.
The point here is that both terms (free software and open source) are confusing to the public in general, as well as companies like sun. The fact that there is no seperate word to connotate 'free as in speech', allows, for example, microsoft to call IE Free Software.
Presumably they have done some amount of kernel hacking on their systems. I don't see any GPL compliance information on their page though. Perhaps this is like tivo, prior to our pointing out that they need to provide source?
Slashdot Mirror
But probably what you want to know is whether or not it is proprietary software. And the answer to that is 'mabye'. It depends on the license; If the compiler is licensed under the GPL, then it is free software. Similarly for other free software licenses - X, LGPL, BSD, etc. If it is under a proprietary license, then it is proprietary. :)
You're forgetting the speed. QT & GTK are lacking the quality that after you click on something you could write a symphony before it takes effect.
Yes, but the same is true of handwritten signatures as well.
There are several authentication models out there. One of them is the "flat" model, where you have a single authority that everyone trusts. For example, verisign offers a service where you go to a notary, and get authenticated, with photo ID and real signature, and all that, and mabye a witness. Then verisign will sign your digital key, so people that trust verisign can trust your key.
The other model is called a "web of trust". Essentially, you sign the keys for anyone who you know whose key it is. So if your friend gives you his key on floppy disk, you can sign it. All the signatures get sent to a keyserver. So for example, let's say that person A knows person B, who knows person C, who knows person D. Person A does not know persons C or D. Then, one day, person A needs to use person D's key for some reason. Person D's key is signed by person C, whose key is signed by person B, who you trust. So you can give marginal trust to person D. If there are multiple trust paths to the key in question then it gets more trust. The problem with the 'web of trust' model is that it assumes ubiquitous use.
I agree with your final answer; I think we should open our borders. This country has a history of a wave of immmigrants that comes in, is assimilated, and then turns around and says "nope, country's full!" to the next wave of immigrants. This happened with the Irish, it happened with the Chinese, now it is happening with latinos.
However, there is a flaw in your other premise that privitaziton makes things better. Yes, this works on a small scale. But big business breaks the model! Microsoft is a great example of this; You would think that, writing such bad software, they would shrivel up and die. But do to various "business" tactics, they are very successful.
Essentially, the capitalist model works very well on a small level, but there are certain things (IP, big business) that break the model.
Erhm, linus started writing linux while in finland. What makes you think there are no computers there? Are you so bigoted that you can't understand that there are other industrialized countries than the US?
The day I graduated from high school I was offered a job at an ISP at $25 an hour; they wanted me to postpone college and work for them at $75k. There is a severe labor shortage out here in the SF bay area.
No, they are talking about strong cryptography and public-key authentication. Basically you take a hash of the data (probably the date, credit card number, and amount; but could be anything) and then encrypt it with your private key. The data can be decrypted with the public key, verifying that the private key was the one to encrypt it. Or something like that.
It has nothing to do with your actual signature.
If you are referring to http authentication, then it has nothing to do with http... All you have to do is make sure that all the files are in the same Realm... The http spec says that the browser should keep sending the password w/ every request as long as it is in the same realm.
.htaccess file, it'll become clear.
Read about the format for the
The reason the DeCSS program was written for windows was that at the time windows did not have the requisite support for the DVD filesystem.
Once the support was added to the kernel, the css-auth part of the LiViD package was created, obsoleting DeCSS.
There are in fact World Cups for several sports, including rugby, volleyball, and (I think) tennis.
:b
But the one I was referring to is soccer (football for everyone else in the world), and yes, it is a european thing. Also a south american thing, african thing, asian thing, pretty much a thing for anyone who dosen't live in the US.
I believe the next world cup was held in France in 1998, and was won by france, followed by Brazil. And I think the one before that was won by Brazil. The US, OTOH, rarely finishes in the top 5.
The website for the 1998 world cup is here.
Yes, but the number of people who watch the world cup is measured in billions...
distributed.net already does this, sorta.
Each project they work on has some prize money. For example, I think the RC5 challenge gives $1000 to the person who owns the computer that found the key, $1000 to the person's team, $2000 to distributed.net, and $6000 to charity. Or mabye it's $2000 to charity and $6000 to distributed.net. I'm not sure.
no we don't.
You seriously think any school would let you install a T1 in your dorm room?
Think again my friend, we can't even install phone lines in our dorm room; instead we get the crappy 'campus voice services'... pay twice as much, get half as much.
It's not an analogy at all. The fact of the matter is that, while no one has a (government-protected) monopoly on Operating Systems, Microsoft still has a monoploy on Windows.
:)
This is especially true given the context of this thread; the DMCA may increase the monopoly power that already exists, but it does not really create any new monopolies.
And you are free to make your own media standard for mass distribution of video, but that's no guarantee that the movie studios will sell videos in that format.
Greetings from Merrill!
What do you mean 'the rates aren't bad'? They charge 15 cents a minute during the day and 10.5 at night... Sprint offers 10 cents during the day and 5 at night, and AT&T offers 7 cents a minute 24x7.
You can't call something that is TWICE the going rate compeditive. Perhaps they were at some point in the past, but rates have been dropping and SCS hasn't kept up.
Erhm, this dosen't have any of the new codecs. In particular, the sorenson (Qt4) codec is not availible.
erhm, all IP is monolopy power. Patents, copyright, everything. Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows. You can't make your own Windows and sell it.
It seems like people are very willing to forget that the only reason that you can't make 100,000 copies of Windows NT (though I don't know why you'd want to) is that the government has granted Microsoft a monopoly on it.
Sure, you can go make some other program. And then you have a monopoly on it. But Microsoft maintains their original monopoly on windows.
The fact of the matter is that the work is copyright and redistributing it, even if it was initally broadcast, is illegal.
Now, whether or not you feel that this law is just is an entirely different matter.
Actually, I didn't use the word enterprise in that post at all. But I will in this one. I help out on the Amanda users' mailing list, and I can safely say that Amanda is being used to backup terabytes of data on hundreds of machines. That sound like enterprise to you?
I didn't say that ALL the filesystems have to fit on a single tape, I said that EACH filesystem much be able to fit on a single tape. Amanda shuffles the level 0 dumps around so that they are dynamically spread out from each other. It does a very good job at it too.
Also, in an enterprise your tapes are going to be at least 35GB DLT tapes; mabye larger. That's 70GB of data compressed. Not very many filesystems out there that are that big; and if you have one, you can split it into chunks with tar.
The rationale for having Amanda not split the filesystems apart is that you can recover everything without Amanda. This comes in very handy when the backup server's HD crashes the same day as the print server, and you are trying to recover the files with 20 people standing over you. Everything on tape can be restored with dd, and either tar or restore (depending which you used to backup).
I resent that you automatically assume that I don't know what enterprise means. I know that enterprise = thousands of employees. And the summer job was actually after high school; I'm presently in college. That job was at a comporable ISP to your own employer, Colt Internet. And Amanda worked fine for them.
Finally, I think your use of the word FUD is wrong. What I said was true, and not negative about the competition at all. Since FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, I really don't see how saying something good about Amanda could be FUD by any strech of the imagination.
Erhm, I believe that it is a virus checker which runs on linux, but which checks viruii for other operating systems.
Yes, it's called Amanda, and yes, it's covered by the GPL. It's homepage is at www.amanda.org. It has a few shortcomings, most notably, no filesystem can be bigger than a tape. But it also has a lot of features. Don't get discouraged by the release date - there have been several patches made, and there is a beta (almost done!) release, as well as an alpha release for further down the line.
You can use a junkbuster proxy to filter out ads. Alternatively, I believe that internet explorer allows you to set the 'doubleclick' domain to be in its own security zone, and then set that zone to not accept cookies.
Note also that you will only be associated w/ the database if they have some way to associate you w/ your entry in their database. Once your cookie is there, though, they will know.
Well, last time I checked, USA law dosen't have much to say about free speech vs. free beer, aside from that the author can do whatever he or she is so inclined.
Mostly the free speech/free beer thing is Richard Stallman's invention. And unfortunately, I don't have my french-english dictionary on-hand, but at the very least, libre is much closer to what we mean when we say free software than is gratis.
The point here is that both terms (free software and open source) are confusing to the public in general, as well as companies like sun. The fact that there is no seperate word to connotate 'free as in speech', allows, for example, microsoft to call IE Free Software.
This is a good point. Another one is Free Software or Open Source. Namely, there is no word like french libre to connotate free speech, not free beer.
Presumably they have done some amount of kernel hacking on their systems. I don't see any GPL compliance information on their page though. Perhaps this is like tivo, prior to our pointing out that they need to provide source?