If you assume rough parity in terms of line of code between a Plone addon and a Wordpress plugin (a dangerous assumption), 10x more Wordpress related CVEs would indicate that Wordpress has a lower density of CVEs per LOC than Plone does.
But, of course, even that comparison is a misleading one to make. There are too many other factors that skew these numbers to draw any meaningful conclusions from them. CVEs simply weren't intended to be used for this kind of comparison.
I wonder the same thing about the scroll wheel. If you just slide you finger along the extreme right side of the screen, it's the same motion without the need for a separate wheel. Zoom would also be less ambiguous if it was done by sliding your index finger along the right side and your thumb along the left side at the same time.
It's probably safe to assume that every obvious way of translating a touch on a watchface into some standard UI concept is already patented though. Maybe the goal was to avoiding some existing patents.
They're not presenting a fair set of choices. You can get OLPCs with a very locked down and quirky interface that has only a handful of applications available and presents many barriers to developers (Sugar) or you can get it with a traditional interface and access to an existing pool of software (Windows.) For some reason providing a cleaned up GNOME or KDE interface isn't being presented as an option.
OLPC can hardly blame the Linux community for the fact that the Sugar UI/API and the Journal were mistakes.
We all want our voting machines to run open source software - but such hardware needs to be locked in the same manner as a Tivo. GPL3 software could not be used for an open source voting machine!
So you'd rather that only Diebold can compile binaries to run on their voting machines? The Tivo concept isn't that everyone watching the device should have access to the keys used to lock it down. The idea is that the people who purchase the hardware and received the software should have the keys to fully use the equipment they own. Likewise, I don't expect to compile my own voting software and demand it's installed at the polling place. What I do demand is that the state is given the tools necessary to verify that the source code they audit is actually used on the voting machines.
The industry brought Apple's domination through its initial demand that DRM be mandatory, and now they're unhappy because they succeeded in that endeavor.
Most of the folks saying similar things are forgetting that there is a third party in this equation. Microsoft certainly had an interest in preventing a single standard form of DRM early on in the hopes that they would end up where Apple is now. Perhaps the RIAA mistakenly believed that having many different incompatible forms of DRM would mean that consumers would repurchase the same music again and again.
I tend to agree that GConf is unintuitive, but it's nowhere near the level of the Windows Registry.
Regedit gives you no clues at all about what the different keys do or what their potential values are. GConf give you a description of what the key does and generally suggests the possible values. I used to feel exactly like you, that GConf is annoying and stupid. After working under Gnome for a few years now though, I personally find GConf to be far superior to the 500 different configuration dialogs it would take to flip through all the available options GConf represents. With GConf I can do a text search against the key names and values to find the particular behavior I want to change.
What's up with all the sheeple standing around watching? It's shameful that such a large crowd was too timid to stop the police from doing something so obviously wrong. What exactly would it take to get the crowd to intervene?
In my state, at least, they only go to the trouble of reading and recording write-ins if there's a possibility they'd affect the outcome.
When it's a fully automated system, where is the trouble exactly? Those rules were designed for manual vote counting where tabulating write-ins would be a burden. With electronic systems there should be no reason to hide the raw data coming off the machines.
In my neighborhood the association has the right to hire a contractor to make whatever changes are necessary, then to sue the homeowner for the cost of the work. Once these disputes get moved into court, it's impossible to ignore the association.
As others have pointed out, civilian small-arms would be highly innefective against the U.S. military.
The real protection we have is that the military is composed of human beings who hopefully wouldn't follow orders to drop bombs on their fellow citizens. The hardline communists failed in 1991 for that very reason.
Once we have robotic tanks and planes though there will be nothing left to stop a corrupt government from establishing a dictatorship whenever it wants.
I think they're referring to people like me who still run 1.0.7 and need to upgrade to 1.5.0.4.
The results are probably skewed by people like me who use the version of Firefox that came with their distro. I'm using Debian Stable with Firefox 1.0.4
Driving around it wouldn't be a real option since the breach would be a small path to begin with. I'm not at all familiar with what an artillery breach looks like, but when the mech infantry or the engineers create one it's just a small path for vehicles to run through single-file. Even if the shifting minefield is completely ineffective at causing damage it would still be effective at slowing down movement through the breach.
To be honest though, this doesn't sound like a worthwhile technology on cost basis alone. Building mines that can communicate with one another and manuever into position would be expensive. Mines are supposed to be cheap so that you can throw out tons of them. They're the military equivalent of spam.
As a former artilleryman, I can tell you that this would be close to useless. We were taught to clear minefields with artillery barrage - that is, when the first soldier encounters a mine, they all draw back and call in artillery. An artillery barrage will detonate all of the mines, regardless of whether they want to be detonated or not.
And this is the very point of this technology. Standard breaching techniques clear a path through a minefield in a brute-force fashion at a rapid pace. You plow a path through or detonate the surface to create a path. An adaptive minefield like the one being discussed here would fill in the breach after it has been created.
The petition for writ of certiorari is an interesting read. From the description at news.com.com.com.com you'd get the impression that this is a clear case of the Federal Circuit court not applying clear standards that the SCOTUS has already laid out, but the petition makes it clear that the Federal Circuit believes the SCOTUS's previous decisions create an unworkable framework for deciding "obviousness".
The SCOTUS basicly assumes that an invention is obvious when it is an aggregation of preexisting inventions. The holder of such a patent needs to demonstrate that the combination was unforseen or that it creates synergies beyond what would be expected. The Federal Circuit says that this goes against the concept of presuming that issued patents are valid. Every invention is obvious once it is disclosed, so the only way to shift the burden of proof off of the patent holder is to require that the infringer demonstrate clear evidence that the combination was suggested in technical literature prior to the patent issuing. The SCOTUS assumes that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" is capable of solving problems through novel combinations of existing technology. The Federal Circuit assumes that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" isn't capable of creative problem solving.
Neither one of these standards does justice to the concept of "obvious". It would be nice to see the SCOTUS create a workable framework for deciding obviousness rather than simply reiterating its previous decisions.
You may be prepared to find that the supposed hatred is all talk when a recently-laid off developer gets a new car wafted under his nose.
Hell, if they were giving out free cars, I'd write a piece of software to collect mine. They're only offering the chance to win a car though. If I wanted a chance to win a car I'd attend one of those stupid time-share seminars. If some recently laid-off developer is basing their financial survival on winning a BMW from SCO...well...it's no wonder they're unemployed.
OTOH, I can download Debian for the chance at winning a free operating system...and I win every time.
I have no problem with preventing minors from buying particularly violent bad games themselves.
The "think of the children" line can be used to justify banning anything and everything though. JT isn't interested in just stopping the sale to minors, he's interested in stopping the sale to anyone on the basis that minors might come in contact with it somehow. Let's just lock everyone under 18 into prisons and stop worrying about whether this or that might hurt them. I don't have kids and I'm over 18, so I'm not terribly concerned whether or not other people's progeny can handle playing Zelda, eating at McDonalds, drinking soda, playing basketball, walking, breating, or watching Harry Potter. If the children are so stupid and the parents so ineffectual, the only hope is to lock them all up.
And note the image isn't actually on his site. It's a logo for a now-defunct Chicago radio station, and that logo is on their site.
Hehe... The other images are hotlinked from wmich.edu and amazon.com. I get nastygrams from lawyers for putting the words "state" and "farm" too near each other. How does Joe Random 16 year old get away with this kind of stuff?
Wow.... The school oficials really are cluless. The Metallica music and stolen images are more than enough to get his site yanked off the internet. Why bother with making an issue over the content of his rants.
If you're going to be high and mighty about your right to free speech, you might want to avoid stealing the copyrighted artistic creations of others in the process.
Those only work with the Matrox binary driver. The earlier Matrox cards are functional with free drivers, but MergedFB support only works if you install the binary Hardware Abstraction Layer library from Matrox. For single-headed use though, the g400,450,550 are good cards.
Also, they weren't built for those drivers, wtf are you talking about? They use OpenGL for 3D. OPENGL. Not a direct driver interface. The whole POINT of drivers are to be a middleman between the standardized OS interfaces and the hardware.
But there are parts of OpenGL that simply don't work with free software drivers. If you make these parts a requirement for your program to work you're excluding free software users. S3TC is the most common example. Many games that should work fine with free software drivers don't because the author used S3TC by default and wrote the S3TC detection functionality in a buggy way. If I wrote software that used DRI/Mesa functionality that wasn't available in the ATI and Nvidia binary drivers I would be excluding users of those drivers in the same way.
...
And I don't. The chance that the binary drivers will EVER become opensource is about nil. I want good 3D, I NEED good 3D for my work. So no choice here. Also, I don't like an X server with artificially crippled functionality.
Then the goal you've picked is distinctly different than the goal of free software. If you're developing an X server where "crippled" OpenGL drivers will be excluded then I would be right to warn others that you're X server limits their freedom. I hope there are enough free software users who value their freedom to prevent closed drivers becomming a requirement in the X server.
Last I heard, the Radeon 9000 was the fastest card with working 3D acceleration in the Free drivers (somebody correct me if I'm wrong).
ATI Radeon FireGL 8800 is the fastest that's fully functional. If you want to support a company that actively works with the free software community to get their latest video chips running though, Intel is the way to go.
The 3DFX Voodoo 3 to 5 and the Matrox 400s & 500s are also very stable and reasonably peppy. Savage, SiS and Via are more problematic.
Slashdot Mirror
The number of CVEs assigned to Wordpress + plugins vs Plone + addons is a very misleading metric for making this type of claim.
https://wordpress.org/plugins/ shows 45,129 Wordpress plugins.
https://pypi.python.org/pypi?:... shows 3242 Plone addons.
If you assume rough parity in terms of line of code between a Plone addon and a Wordpress plugin (a dangerous assumption), 10x more Wordpress related CVEs would indicate that Wordpress has a lower density of CVEs per LOC than Plone does.
But, of course, even that comparison is a misleading one to make. There are too many other factors that skew these numbers to draw any meaningful conclusions from them. CVEs simply weren't intended to be used for this kind of comparison.
I wonder the same thing about the scroll wheel. If you just slide you finger along the extreme right side of the screen, it's the same motion without the need for a separate wheel. Zoom would also be less ambiguous if it was done by sliding your index finger along the right side and your thumb along the left side at the same time.
It's probably safe to assume that every obvious way of translating a touch on a watchface into some standard UI concept is already patented though. Maybe the goal was to avoiding some existing patents.
They're not presenting a fair set of choices. You can get OLPCs with a very locked down and quirky interface that has only a handful of applications available and presents many barriers to developers (Sugar) or you can get it with a traditional interface and access to an existing pool of software (Windows.) For some reason providing a cleaned up GNOME or KDE interface isn't being presented as an option.
OLPC can hardly blame the Linux community for the fact that the Sugar UI/API and the Journal were mistakes.
We all want our voting machines to run open source software - but such hardware needs to be locked in the same manner as a Tivo. GPL3 software could not be used for an open source voting machine!
So you'd rather that only Diebold can compile binaries to run on their voting machines? The Tivo concept isn't that everyone watching the device should have access to the keys used to lock it down. The idea is that the people who purchase the hardware and received the software should have the keys to fully use the equipment they own. Likewise, I don't expect to compile my own voting software and demand it's installed at the polling place. What I do demand is that the state is given the tools necessary to verify that the source code they audit is actually used on the voting machines.
The industry brought Apple's domination through its initial demand that DRM be mandatory, and now they're unhappy because they succeeded in that endeavor.
Most of the folks saying similar things are forgetting that there is a third party in this equation. Microsoft certainly had an interest in preventing a single standard form of DRM early on in the hopes that they would end up where Apple is now. Perhaps the RIAA mistakenly believed that having many different incompatible forms of DRM would mean that consumers would repurchase the same music again and again.
I tend to agree that GConf is unintuitive, but it's nowhere near the level of the Windows Registry.
Regedit gives you no clues at all about what the different keys do or what their potential values are. GConf give you a description of what the key does and generally suggests the possible values. I used to feel exactly like you, that GConf is annoying and stupid. After working under Gnome for a few years now though, I personally find GConf to be far superior to the 500 different configuration dialogs it would take to flip through all the available options GConf represents. With GConf I can do a text search against the key names and values to find the particular behavior I want to change.
What's up with all the sheeple standing around watching? It's shameful that such a large crowd was too timid to stop the police from doing something so obviously wrong. What exactly would it take to get the crowd to intervene?
In my state, at least, they only go to the trouble of reading and recording write-ins if there's a possibility they'd affect the outcome.
When it's a fully automated system, where is the trouble exactly? Those rules were designed for manual vote counting where tabulating write-ins would be a burden. With electronic systems there should be no reason to hide the raw data coming off the machines.
In my neighborhood the association has the right to hire a contractor to make whatever changes are necessary, then to sue the homeowner for the cost of the work. Once these disputes get moved into court, it's impossible to ignore the association.
As others have pointed out, civilian small-arms would be highly innefective against the U.S. military.
The real protection we have is that the military is composed of human beings who hopefully wouldn't follow orders to drop bombs on their fellow citizens. The hardline communists failed in 1991 for that very reason.
Once we have robotic tanks and planes though there will be nothing left to stop a corrupt government from establishing a dictatorship whenever it wants.
The rebuttal is pretty comprehensive, barring the section about the lines of memory allocation code
I would tend to agree and would love to talk about it more....after the motion is decided.
I think they're referring to people like me who still run 1.0.7 and need to upgrade to 1.5.0.4.
The results are probably skewed by people like me who use the version of Firefox that came with their distro. I'm using Debian Stable with Firefox 1.0.4
Driving around it wouldn't be a real option since the breach would be a small path to begin with. I'm not at all familiar with what an artillery breach looks like, but when the mech infantry or the engineers create one it's just a small path for vehicles to run through single-file. Even if the shifting minefield is completely ineffective at causing damage it would still be effective at slowing down movement through the breach.
To be honest though, this doesn't sound like a worthwhile technology on cost basis alone. Building mines that can communicate with one another and manuever into position would be expensive. Mines are supposed to be cheap so that you can throw out tons of them. They're the military equivalent of spam.
As a former artilleryman, I can tell you that this would be close to useless. We were taught to clear minefields with artillery barrage - that is, when the first soldier encounters a mine, they all draw back and call in artillery. An artillery barrage will detonate all of the mines, regardless of whether they want to be detonated or not.
And this is the very point of this technology. Standard breaching techniques clear a path through a minefield in a brute-force fashion at a rapid pace. You plow a path through or detonate the surface to create a path. An adaptive minefield like the one being discussed here would fill in the breach after it has been created.
The petition for writ of certiorari is an interesting read. From the description at news.com.com.com.com you'd get the impression that this is a clear case of the Federal Circuit court not applying clear standards that the SCOTUS has already laid out, but the petition makes it clear that the Federal Circuit believes the SCOTUS's previous decisions create an unworkable framework for deciding "obviousness".
The SCOTUS basicly assumes that an invention is obvious when it is an aggregation of preexisting inventions. The holder of such a patent needs to demonstrate that the combination was unforseen or that it creates synergies beyond what would be expected. The Federal Circuit says that this goes against the concept of presuming that issued patents are valid. Every invention is obvious once it is disclosed, so the only way to shift the burden of proof off of the patent holder is to require that the infringer demonstrate clear evidence that the combination was suggested in technical literature prior to the patent issuing. The SCOTUS assumes that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" is capable of solving problems through novel combinations of existing technology. The Federal Circuit assumes that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" isn't capable of creative problem solving.
Neither one of these standards does justice to the concept of "obvious". It would be nice to see the SCOTUS create a workable framework for deciding obviousness rather than simply reiterating its previous decisions.
You may be prepared to find that the supposed hatred is all talk when a recently-laid off developer gets a new car wafted under his nose.
Hell, if they were giving out free cars, I'd write a piece of software to collect mine. They're only offering the chance to win a car though. If I wanted a chance to win a car I'd attend one of those stupid time-share seminars. If some recently laid-off developer is basing their financial survival on winning a BMW from SCO...well...it's no wonder they're unemployed.
OTOH, I can download Debian for the chance at winning a free operating system...and I win every time.
I have no problem with preventing minors from buying particularly violent bad games themselves.
The "think of the children" line can be used to justify banning anything and everything though. JT isn't interested in just stopping the sale to minors, he's interested in stopping the sale to anyone on the basis that minors might come in contact with it somehow. Let's just lock everyone under 18 into prisons and stop worrying about whether this or that might hurt them. I don't have kids and I'm over 18, so I'm not terribly concerned whether or not other people's progeny can handle playing Zelda, eating at McDonalds, drinking soda, playing basketball, walking, breating, or watching Harry Potter. If the children are so stupid and the parents so ineffectual, the only hope is to lock them all up.
Remember when Intel started to make video cards and motherboards? The FTC forbade them from doing it. ATI + AMD would present a similar situation.
Don't forget VIA+Cyrix+S3.
We cannot afford to be lax because the only 'experts' in this field are us.
Neither gamers nor lawyers are experts on the psychological effects of prolonged exposure to simulated violence.
And note the image isn't actually on his site. It's a logo for a now-defunct Chicago radio station, and that logo is on their site.
Hehe... The other images are hotlinked from wmich.edu and amazon.com. I get nastygrams from lawyers for putting the words "state" and "farm" too near each other. How does Joe Random 16 year old get away with this kind of stuff?
Wow.... The school oficials really are cluless. The Metallica music and stolen images are more than enough to get his site yanked off the internet. Why bother with making an issue over the content of his rants.
If you're going to be high and mighty about your right to free speech, you might want to avoid stealing the copyrighted artistic creations of others in the process.
If you want MergedFB support with free drivers, ATI Radeon's would be the way to go....
In order of preference (for AGP4x):
FireGL 8800
FireGL 8700
8500
8500le
9100
9200
9250
9000
(Then the older Radeon DDR, Radeon 7000, Radeon 7500, etc..)
For AGP8x the 9250 and 9200 should perform a little better. I don't believe they outperform the FireGL 8800 and 8700 though.
Those only work with the Matrox binary driver. The earlier Matrox cards are functional with free drivers, but MergedFB support only works if you install the binary Hardware Abstraction Layer library from Matrox. For single-headed use though, the g400,450,550 are good cards.
Also, they weren't built for those drivers, wtf are you talking about? They use OpenGL for 3D. OPENGL. Not a direct driver interface. The whole POINT of drivers are to be a middleman between the standardized OS interfaces and the hardware.
...
But there are parts of OpenGL that simply don't work with free software drivers. If you make these parts a requirement for your program to work you're excluding free software users. S3TC is the most common example. Many games that should work fine with free software drivers don't because the author used S3TC by default and wrote the S3TC detection functionality in a buggy way. If I wrote software that used DRI/Mesa functionality that wasn't available in the ATI and Nvidia binary drivers I would be excluding users of those drivers in the same way.
And I don't. The chance that the binary drivers will EVER become opensource is about nil. I want good 3D, I NEED good 3D for my work. So no choice here. Also, I don't like an X server with artificially crippled functionality.
Then the goal you've picked is distinctly different than the goal of free software. If you're developing an X server where "crippled" OpenGL drivers will be excluded then I would be right to warn others that you're X server limits their freedom. I hope there are enough free software users who value their freedom to prevent closed drivers becomming a requirement in the X server.
Last I heard, the Radeon 9000 was the fastest card with working 3D acceleration in the Free drivers (somebody correct me if I'm wrong).
ATI Radeon FireGL 8800 is the fastest that's fully functional. If you want to support a company that actively works with the free software community to get their latest video chips running though, Intel is the way to go.
The 3DFX Voodoo 3 to 5 and the Matrox 400s & 500s are also very stable and reasonably peppy. Savage, SiS and Via are more problematic.