I expect the actual media itself can be made to let air through to the dye (through the use of some kind of porous plastic). That would probably be a bad ide for regular media, but these don't have to last more than 8 hours so they can use some kind of cheap shit material that lets the air through.
... It is because of Exchange. Although it has MANY shortcomings, it works, and even though it is perfectly feasible to use open protocols to accomplish most of what Exchange does,...
So if they have an exchange server then keep that, and use linux for the rest. Evolution can talk to exchange so there is no need for windows on the clients.
Ok, I don't know what/if there are linux alternatives to exchange that offer the same functionality, but he didn't really expect a full replacement, so he obviously could accept keeping the exchange server (if there is one)
This reminds me of a DVD my better half bought recently (I am Dina, fairly ok movie). DVD's have a feture so that it can be made impossible to fast forward past the warning (if the player respects it, I assume you can get modified players to skip the warning). The little bastards that made the dvd had used this to add a commercial that had to play before you cot to the menu, no way to skip it. I mean we paid full price for it, when I buy a product I expect it to be free of this stuff, at the least there should have been a warning on the box so people can decide not to buy the shit
In theory. However, given that the DMCA makes publishing a paper on how it's flawed illegal, it's still being prepped for deployment, flawed and everything.
Now IANAL but if there isn't any actual product to break yet, how can it be a violation of DMCA to publish a paper about how a proposed product is flawed?
Anyway, going ahead when it's known to be bad is just plain silly.
If MS releases their code (if it's open source, they're releasing the code, don't kid yourself), then no one has any reason to pay for it, and thus MS loses money.
I didn't say they should release the actual code, but the specifications. e.g. If MS had invented TCP/IP they should release the standard (packet format, rules of communication etc). Then people can verify that the standard itself doesn't have holes. And if they choose so implement it themselves, (MS would still have a headstart since they made it first, and an incentive to make a good implementation since they'll compete with others)
Yes I know it's hard to make a good business model based on open source, but when they target a server product at the open source market (apache) they can't expect closed source from a company with a bad reputation (in their attitude towards linux, everyone expects a dirty trick) to be accepted
Second, releasing a security method open-source is the quickest way to get it cracked. Look at HDCP, for example. It hasn't even been deployed yet, but it's already been cracked, because the specification for it was released on the web.
And this is a bad thing because?
Ok I'm not familiar with HDPC or what it is, but if it was cracked because the specification was released it's a good thing. Now instead of implementing a flawed product the flaw is discovered and the money isn't wasted
The community doesn't like closed source for things we have to trust because we can't veryfy ourselves that it is to be trusted
Your talk about UT2003 is way off the mark. UT is a game and closed source is acceptable (to me at least). OTOH if it was server software that I had to trust my business to I would prefer open source.
The point is: We don't trust Microsofts intentions, and we don't trust their security, if they had released the specs (not nessesarily the code) for the communication involved in passport, could verify that the protocol isn't flawed, and then choose if we want to use it (and if we do: if we want to use their version, or roll our own)
They could have simply released the specs for passport without any NDA or other stings attached.
If anyone wanted passport on apache they coulde easily implement it themselves as OpenSource.
What we are getting is a closed source product. We can't fix any fault's (security or other), we can't examine the code to make sure it's secure and we can't trust a fix to be available if it is
It seems I was not completely clear that I prefer a middle ground. Let's keep using a wordprosessor as an example. An one end of the scale we could stick a button for every funcion on the toolbar, with text to describe it.(using a lot of space, leaving less for the document you're editing). At the other extreme we wouldn't have any visible functions at all, only keyboard shortcuts (vi? leaving all the screen for the document you're editing). Most word processors use a middle ground with the most used options represented by symbols on a toolbar, and everything in the menus (in multiple levels with more used functions at the top level) plus keyboard shortcuts you can choose to learn.
For the car/driving anology the middle ground would be that people should learn to operate the car, learn the traffic rules, and basic maintainance (like filling gas (and oil for an old car)). For a computer basic file handling (save, move, delete, rename) starting and stopping programs, opening files etc are similar basic skills that should be expected.
Yes an entire computer system could be made as you describe with all text buttons and everything organized and commented in such a way that a neanderthal could use it. But there will have to be sacrifices. Power = complexity. (compare notepad to msword, or pico to emacs)
Problem is that all this text would take a lot of place on the screen. In order to have any place for the document / picture / whatever you're working with you will have to hide most actions in menus. Choosing Text -> Format -> Bold is a lot less efficient than clicking on the bold B on the toolbar.
You should have only ONE WAY to do something.
Without choice there is no room for personal preference.
If you tell someone how to do something, a different way then they have done it, they might think they are doing something entirely different: "No, I didn't 'delete' it, I 'removed' it."
Then the problem would be the person explaining, not the OS. Instead of saying "then right click on the icon and select delete" say "then delete the file" and if the user is used to pulling the icon to the trashcan he will do that. Of course it wouldn't hurt to tell him that "another way to do that would be to right click and select delete"
Then of course people that thing there is always only one way to do a thing probably has enough problems in life, we shouldn't add to them by introducing computers into the mess
A lot of people fail to realze that a computer is a tool, not a thing that magically does what you want it to. And as with all tools you have to learn to use it if you want to benefit from it. People that can't be bothered to learn the basics of operating a computer (I'm talking desktop GUI here, not command line and advanced configuring) don't need a computer enough to learn to use the tool. (In the same way a Car is a tool to get from one place to another, people can choose to learn how to use the tool (drive) or if they don't need it enough choose to do without it (walk,take the bus etc)
Well actually I already have the patent for that. I'm just waiting until it becomes the de facto standard business practice for people that can't do real work but like to steal others. Then I'll jump the gun on them and sue for damages
btw I patented sucsessfully doing it, the unsucsussful ones can do what they like since they don't have any money for me anyway
Remember these are politicians we're dealing with. They probably won't understand most of the bill because it deals with computers and technical stuff (If politicians had a clue they wouldn't say the mouse could be as dangerous as a gun, gut that a keyboard could).
Basicually no politician would like to be on the news as the guy that wotet agains the bill. "xxx today voted that hackers should not get life if someone got killed because of hacking" not good PR. And because everyone is in favor of this they also vote for the parts that they don't understand
I agree, but writing 2k+ lines of code with nothing but gotos seems as over the top as writing 50 lines of code where 1 goto would be simpler
There is a middle way you know
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools"
Quoth myself: "He who breaks a rule simply because it is a rule is a bigger fool than he who follows it because it is" You have to know when to break the rules, and all the time is not the correct answer
(4) by adding at the end the following: `(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or
imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and `(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any
term of years or for life, or both.'.
That really doesn't sound too harsh compared to the other US laws
You can't get life from ripping a CD like some people probably will be crying about
But if you try to e.g hack a hospital to get you old granpa to croak to get his money, then you will (and should) get the same sentence as if you strangled him with his pillow
Change you desk too
on
Painless Chairs?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
We weren't meant to be sitting on our asses al the time. There are desks that can be elevated so that you can work standing up, which might help your back.
Also you should move around when you can, instead of calling your collegue down the corridor walk over to his office with your question, might be good for the social work environment too
I think I pay around 10 Kroner, for 98 octane. 95 Octane is a bit cheaper but my old car can't take it. It also depends a little on competition in the area
But that's quite a turnaround from your previous position
No, that was a reply to a poster that seemed to think that car owners shouldn't have to pay directlyt for roads.
I still think that car owners should pay the costs, but then what they pay should be used to cover those costs, and not something else.
Out of curiosity, what proportion of the cost of pump fuel is tax in Norway?
Approximately 80%, depending on the price the gas company takes (the tax is a fixed amount pr litre not a % of the cost)
The other 70-80% goes elsewhere in the economy
> 2. Public transportation sux. and/or > 3. Public transportation is too expensive. It's actually 2 and 3.
Same problem as over here then, if the taxes had been used as originally intended we could have had nice roads and good public transportation. As it is the politicians sees the tax as just another source of income for the state
So if you want to make a modification to that problem now can you do it without breaking it?
Goto has it's uses, but in most cases the risk of introducing bugs and making maintainance har far outweighs them.
Gotos can be powerful, but power is something you have to be careful with. Just because it can be done with a goto doesn't mean it should. And not using loops (because of infinite loop problems) seems far more extreme than the "goto is evil" crowd.
I don't think it's fair that people who choose to use a car should pay for pavements ("Sidewalks" to the Americans) through their taxes. But they do.
So after you've parked at your destination how do you move from your car?
Moving freely is a basic human right, but driving wherever you like is a luxury. The state should pay the cost of human rights but not sponsor luxuries. [Although in CIV that seemed a good way to keep the people happy:) ]
You're not from round these here parts, are you?
No, I'm from Norway where the situation is about the same
....80%...
And how much of that is actually used for roads and to sponsor public transportation (to keep the roads less crowded for those that pay) ?
The fact that there still is need for a toll ring around London to limit traffic means that: 1. Driving into London still isn't expensive enough to stop people from doing it. and/or 2. Public transportation sux. and/or 3. Public transportation is too expensive.
... blah blah votes blah blah...
Well I've never claimed to foretell what the politicians will do. I have ewxpressed my opinions about what they should do. But you are right I don't expect a politician to have enough guts to try to do something right if he can remain popular by doing it wrong
Yes they are, and the road tax (no matter which way they collect it) would be added to the cost of transporting the goods.
And I still have my lisence and use it, just because I think that car owners should pay for the cost of cars doesn't automaticcaly mean that I'm not one myself.
But as long as car owners don't have to pay the real cost the public alternatives won't be as attractive, people would continue to drive, the roads would still need to be continually expanded and the environment would still suffer unnessesary. As long as people have to pay for the roads anyway through income taxes they can't choose not to pay by using them less. Because people are lazy they'll use what's most convenient as long as it costs the same
I don't think the submarine part is all that important. This was to be a test of a new reentry method. The submarine launched missile was just a convenient way to get it out into space to see if it worked.
AFAIK GPL wouldn't prevent anyone from modifying the server without giving it back as long as they keep the modified server to themselves. Suppose big bad company modifies the engine and makes a lot of money but since they're the only ones running the servers the opensource community won't benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
I expect the actual media itself can be made to let air through to the dye (through the use of some kind of porous plastic). That would probably be a bad ide for regular media, but these don't have to last more than 8 hours so they can use some kind of cheap shit material that lets the air through.
So if they have an exchange server then keep that, and use linux for the rest. Evolution can talk to exchange so there is no need for windows on the clients.
Ok, I don't know what/if there are linux alternatives to exchange that offer the same functionality, but he didn't really expect a full replacement, so he obviously could accept keeping the exchange server (if there is one)
This reminds me of a DVD my better half bought recently (I am Dina, fairly ok movie). DVD's have a feture so that it can be made impossible to fast forward past the warning (if the player respects it, I assume you can get modified players to skip the warning). The little bastards that made the dvd had used this to add a commercial that had to play before you cot to the menu, no way to skip it. I mean we paid full price for it, when I buy a product I expect it to be free of this stuff, at the least there should have been a warning on the box so people can decide not to buy the shit
/me gets off soapbox
Now that felt good, thank you all for listenenig
The Environmentalist "Do what we want or we will burn down your house!" world?
No no no.
"Do what we want or we will tear down and recycle your house"
Burning down houses contibutes to the greenhouse effect
We'll seriously doesn't this supercomputer have to use something similar to beowulf?. Only heavily optimized for purpose made hardware.
In theory. However, given that the DMCA makes publishing a paper on how it's flawed illegal, it's still being prepped for deployment, flawed and everything.
Now IANAL but if there isn't any actual product to break yet, how can it be a violation of DMCA to publish a paper about how a proposed product is flawed?
Anyway, going ahead when it's known to be bad is just plain silly.
If MS releases their code (if it's open source, they're releasing the code, don't kid yourself), then no one has any reason to pay for it, and thus MS loses money.
I didn't say they should release the actual code, but the specifications. e.g. If MS had invented TCP/IP they should release the standard (packet format, rules of communication etc). Then people can verify that the standard itself doesn't have holes. And if they choose so implement it themselves, (MS would still have a headstart since they made it first, and an incentive to make a good implementation since they'll compete with others)
Yes I know it's hard to make a good business model based on open source, but when they target a server product at the open source market (apache) they can't expect closed source from a company with a bad reputation (in their attitude towards linux, everyone expects a dirty trick) to be accepted
Second, releasing a security method open-source is the quickest way to get it cracked. Look at HDCP, for example. It hasn't even been deployed yet, but it's already been cracked, because the specification for it was released on the web.
And this is a bad thing because?
Ok I'm not familiar with HDPC or what it is, but if it was cracked because the specification was released it's a good thing. Now instead of implementing a flawed product the flaw is discovered and the money isn't wasted
The community doesn't like closed source for things we have to trust because we can't veryfy ourselves that it is to be trusted
Your talk about UT2003 is way off the mark. UT is a game and closed source is acceptable (to me at least). OTOH if it was server software that I had to trust my business to I would prefer open source.
The point is: We don't trust Microsofts intentions, and we don't trust their security, if they had released the specs (not nessesarily the code) for the communication involved in passport, could verify that the protocol isn't flawed, and then choose if we want to use it (and if we do: if we want to use their version, or roll our own)
They could have simply released the specs for passport without any NDA or other stings attached.
If anyone wanted passport on apache they coulde easily implement it themselves as OpenSource.
What we are getting is a closed source product. We can't fix any fault's (security or other), we can't examine the code to make sure it's secure and we can't trust a fix to be available if it is
Now tell us why we should be happy
It seems I was not completely clear that I prefer a middle ground. Let's keep using a wordprosessor as an example. An one end of the scale we could stick a button for every funcion on the toolbar, with text to describe it.(using a lot of space, leaving less for the document you're editing). At the other extreme we wouldn't have any visible functions at all, only keyboard shortcuts (vi? leaving all the screen for the document you're editing). Most word processors use a middle ground with the most used options represented by symbols on a toolbar, and everything in the menus (in multiple levels with more used functions at the top level) plus keyboard shortcuts you can choose to learn.
For the car/driving anology the middle ground would be that people should learn to operate the car, learn the traffic rules, and basic maintainance (like filling gas (and oil for an old car)). For a computer basic file handling (save, move, delete, rename) starting and stopping programs, opening files etc are similar basic skills that should be expected.
Yes an entire computer system could be made as you describe with all text buttons and everything organized and commented in such a way that a neanderthal could use it. But there will have to be sacrifices. Power = complexity. (compare notepad to msword, or pico to emacs)
Problem is that all this text would take a lot of place on the screen. In order to have any place for the document / picture / whatever you're working with you will have to hide most actions in menus. Choosing Text -> Format -> Bold is a lot less efficient than clicking on the bold B on the toolbar.
You should have only ONE WAY to do something.
Without choice there is no room for personal preference.
If you tell someone how to do something, a different way then they have done it, they might think they are doing something entirely different: "No, I didn't 'delete' it, I 'removed' it."
Then the problem would be the person explaining, not the OS. Instead of saying "then right click on the icon and select delete" say "then delete the file" and if the user is used to pulling the icon to the trashcan he will do that. Of course it wouldn't hurt to tell him that "another way to do that would be to right click and select delete"
Then of course people that thing there is always only one way to do a thing probably has enough problems in life, we shouldn't add to them by introducing computers into the mess
A lot of people fail to realze that a computer is a tool, not a thing that magically does what you want it to. And as with all tools you have to learn to use it if you want to benefit from it. People that can't be bothered to learn the basics of operating a computer (I'm talking desktop GUI here, not command line and advanced configuring) don't need a computer enough to learn to use the tool. (In the same way a Car is a tool to get from one place to another, people can choose to learn how to use the tool (drive) or if they don't need it enough choose to do without it (walk,take the bus etc)
Well actually I already have the patent for that. I'm just waiting until it becomes the de facto standard business practice for people that can't do real work but like to steal others. Then I'll jump the gun on them and sue for damages
btw I patented sucsessfully doing it, the unsucsussful ones can do what they like since they don't have any money for me anyway
Experienced users don't use Microsoft Windows.
--
-- unix is for people without a social life - Patrick van Eijk
Your statement together with your .sig leaves only one conclusion:
Experienced users don't have a social life
Remember these are politicians we're dealing with. They probably won't understand most of the bill because it deals with computers and technical stuff (If politicians had a clue they wouldn't say the mouse could be as dangerous as a gun, gut that a keyboard could).
Basicually no politician would like to be on the news as the guy that wotet agains the bill. "xxx today voted that hackers should not get life if someone got killed because of hacking" not good PR. And because everyone is in favor of this they also vote for the parts that they don't understand
I agree, but writing 2k+ lines of code with nothing but gotos seems as over the top as writing 50 lines of code where 1 goto would be simpler
There is a middle way you know
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools"
Quoth myself: "He who breaks a rule simply because it is a rule is a bigger fool than he who follows it because it is" You have to know when to break the rules, and all the time is not the correct answer
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
`(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.'.
That really doesn't sound too harsh compared to the other US laws
You can't get life from ripping a CD like some people probably will be crying about
But if you try to e.g hack a hospital to get you old granpa to croak to get his money, then you will (and should) get the same sentence as if you strangled him with his pillow
We weren't meant to be sitting on our asses al the time. There are desks that can be elevated so that you can work standing up, which might help your back.
Also you should move around when you can, instead of calling your collegue down the corridor walk over to his office with your question, might be good for the social work environment too
I think I pay around 10 Kroner, for 98 octane. 95 Octane is a bit cheaper but my old car can't take it. It also depends a little on competition in the area
But that's quite a turnaround from your previous position
No, that was a reply to a poster that seemed to think that car owners shouldn't have to pay directlyt for roads.
I still think that car owners should pay the costs, but then what they pay should be used to cover those costs, and not something else.
Out of curiosity, what proportion of the cost of pump fuel is tax in Norway?
Approximately 80%, depending on the price the gas company takes (the tax is a fixed amount pr litre not a % of the cost)
The other 70-80% goes elsewhere in the economy
> 2. Public transportation sux. and/or
> 3. Public transportation is too expensive. It's actually 2 and 3.
Same problem as over here then, if the taxes had been used as originally intended we could have had nice roads and good public transportation. As it is the politicians sees the tax as just another source of income for the state
You should be modded +1 flamebait
So if you want to make a modification to that problem now can you do it without breaking it?
Goto has it's uses, but in most cases the risk of introducing bugs and making maintainance har far outweighs them.
Gotos can be powerful, but power is something you have to be careful with. Just because it can be done with a goto doesn't mean it should. And not using loops (because of infinite loop problems) seems far more extreme than the "goto is evil" crowd.
I don't think it's fair that people who choose to use a car should pay for pavements ("Sidewalks" to the Americans) through their taxes. But they do.
So after you've parked at your destination how do you move from your car?
Moving freely is a basic human right, but driving wherever you like is a luxury. The state should pay the cost of human rights but not sponsor luxuries. [Although in CIV that seemed a good way to keep the people happy :) ]
You're not from round these here parts, are you?
No, I'm from Norway where the situation is about the same
And how much of that is actually used for roads and to sponsor public transportation (to keep the roads less crowded for those that pay) ?
The fact that there still is need for a toll ring around London to limit traffic means that:
1. Driving into London still isn't expensive enough to stop people from doing it. and/or
2. Public transportation sux. and/or
3. Public transportation is too expensive.
Well I've never claimed to foretell what the politicians will do. I have ewxpressed my opinions about what they should do. But you are right I don't expect a politician to have enough guts to try to do something right if he can remain popular by doing it wrong
Yes they are, and the road tax (no matter which way they collect it) would be added to the cost of transporting the goods.
And I still have my lisence and use it, just because I think that car owners should pay for the cost of cars doesn't automaticcaly mean that I'm not one myself.
But as long as car owners don't have to pay the real cost the public alternatives won't be as attractive, people would continue to drive, the roads would still need to be continually expanded and the environment would still suffer unnessesary. As long as people have to pay for the roads anyway through income taxes they can't choose not to pay by using them less. Because people are lazy they'll use what's most convenient as long as it costs the same
All your conspiracy theory are belong to us!
I don't think the submarine part is all that important. This was to be a test of a new reentry method. The submarine launched missile was just a convenient way to get it out into space to see if it worked.
AFAIK GPL wouldn't prevent anyone from modifying the server without giving it back as long as they keep the modified server to themselves. Suppose big bad company modifies the engine and makes a lot of money but since they're the only ones running the servers the opensource community won't benefit.
Well here the toll booths have been in place from day one, often even before the road has been finished.
When they have overcharged they should give at least as many passes away for free