It is also curious how SCO claims that a single company purchased one of their bogus licenses without disclosing the name. There needs to be full disclosure about the relationship between SCO and Microsoft.
Do you mean that Microsoft was that single company? Why not Sun? Microsoft doesn't sell Linux to customers. Sun does. And since the beginning SCO said that Sun is the only company that should not worry about the lawsuit.
Most? I would say some, hard to say many (without saying how many), but noway most... Were did you get your statistics from? Some urban legends?
People who do contribute the best before 30 may have a very brief education *AND* their contribution did require any serious education - that will be fixed by a very serious competition that would require a very serious (mean years of) education to make anything significant that the society will ever notice;
... *OR* they did not have to contribute anymore after they've got enough (for retirement) payment for their brief contribution - that will be fixed by a very hard competition once beter educated and more skiled people will make more significant (read: more payable) contributions;
Once the amount of knowledge of the humankind will increase the amount of time to learn and understand it will increase as well and that will increase the amount of years required for even basic education;
The real toolkit must be OS idependent *AND* language independent. In Python, Tcl, Perl, Scheme and Lisp I have non-GUI libraries doing very useful things and I want them to have GUI using the same toolkit. With SWT I am locked in in Java and that's exactly what I want to avoid.
POP3 as a protocol must die and it will as it's designed with wrong assumptions of copying messages to the client-side. IMAP is a protocol that based on the modern idea: "accesss the resource from everywhere" as it keeps all messages on the server-side. That's why comparing POP3 vs IMAP is like dial-up vs DSL - they are from different generation of Internet (one is a remnant from the past, another one is a today's technology). It's much better to ask them "GNOME vs KDE" or "Linux vs BSD".
[end of a joke]
The choice of the protocol is not really related anything social. And the role of politician is not to choose between two protocols as such a choice does not change anything in the society. What I would recommend is to ask candidates is something like that:
open-source vs close source to run in the goverment;
standard vs proprietary to sponsor by the goverment;
GPL vs BSDL to develop by the goverment;
Any choice from the above the goverment would make would change something socially meaningful, something important for the further social progress.
You You know, I'm just sending a couple of HTTP requests to these guys for every email, that's all.
The Judge How many emails is there?
You A lot.
The Judge To your knowledge, could this practice potentially harm their server (even temporarily)
You Hmmm... Yes
The Judge Ok, stop it.
You Yes your honor.
Me... I can do that, but with one condition.
The Judge What is that?
Me They should stop sending their unsolcitited emails to me.
The Judge Why they should?
Me Because it harms my mailserver, it wastes my time to filter it and it spends my bandwidth.
The Judge OK, they should stop sending their spam to everyone from where they do not want receive http requests.
I don't think that rootlessness is any important. Many users I know (including myself) prefer to have the root with X11 related menu.
As for X11 installation on OSX - yes, download and click. But will it run as expected after that? Having just xterm is not enough. I need a choice of windows and desktop managers.
In the original post I explained why we should do it (we should do it to shut the spammer down). Later I explained what we would be doing as I would explain it in the court (we do a statistical research project studiing how typical spammers are ready to get hits from all, or the same amount of, inviters they are invited).
On a second thought, millions of mailboxes are *FLOODED* with a spam inviting to visit a spammer's site, then what's wrong if the visitors will come to the site in a same *FLOODING* way? They have used the flood to invite - they have got the flood back, what's wrong with that? Somehow I don't belive that the spammer have any chances to win in the court against those who spam back.
1. Nice. Although I have managed to have it in Linux in Sawfish with XSLT/PDF filters.
2. No comments about Photoshop (I am a GIMP user), but as for Office I have serious usability-based reasons (apart of price ones) to prefer OpenOffice Office to Microsoft one on any platform I work. And OpenOffice Office is very bad in OSX (Linux and win32 versions work fine).
3. iTunes has very poor configurability comparing to xmms.
4. X11 in OSX is harder to install than even in Cygwin and it works worse than in Cygwin.
6. I always have problems with russian document and russian web sites in OSX.
8. The real calculator must be programmable. That's why I love M-x calc in emacs.
I can launch Bash in Cygwin too. And you know what? Same feeling. Like something good in the middle of candies. It's a refresh. Just pitty that the rest of the candy system was designed with no idea that anyone will like to open the terminal and script with Bash, Python and Perl.
By the way, Cygwin is also the coolest thing about Windows NT/2k/XP comparing Win-3.1
In very few years (1? 2?) the access to the retail markets of China and India (both == 2 billions of customers) will be much more important then the access to US markets (200 millions of customers). That's why US Army is trying its forces in Afganistan and Iraq: it's a training before much broader actions fixing potential problems for US markets. IP laws are necessary to bring a formal reason for such future military actions. The trueth is that US economy is a buble, like dot-com, just bigger. And that mega-bubble is very unstable.
Formally I don't want to bring the site down. Instead I continue the statistical research and want to see the correlation between our http requests and the response time. Seems innocent to me.
Do people really sit around looking at their eye candy?
Yes. it's called "screen saver". That's why I think it's the last missed part of deklets: to be deployed to the screensaver. It wuld be usefull especially for people like you (and in fact me too) who typically hates using CPU for any eye candy.
Speaking about CPU, in case of sitting on a desktop those desklets may still get your memory, CPU and even network bandwidth. In case of starting from a screensaver, they will do their job and use your PC resourcses exactly when you don't need those resources.
Re:an element of seriousness (seriosness?)
on
Flavor vs. Flavour
·
· Score: 1
There is a small company that I dislike. What prevents me from hacking their ip address and send shitload of spam in their name?
In my opinion it is posible to have a statistical analasys that would be capable to distinguish it unless you organize a really big attacke. On the other hand, a central (even if it's distributed) autority may help to gather a witness evidence against your unfair anti-competitive practice, which would be rather difficult if such NOSPAM@HOME project would not exist.
automatic or manual retaliation comes back to making justice yourself which is inherently illegal (at least in the us).
What makes it illigal? It is a statistical research project. Volonteers help to gather a statistical database of originally filtered emails. The central (and distributed) authority asks volonteer to help to gather the rest of information, namely the responsivity of a seller's web site, based on a pre-estimated schedule. BTW, the result of stitistical analysis can be peacefully used to consult the seller web site admin how to improve the site responsivity. Most likely the only advise would be so far: "shut your spam down and your site traffic will come back to normal".
I am actually ready to stand out in the court and say: "Well. the targetted company sends their marketing materials with only 5% of chance that the reader wants to read it. We study the responsivity of the targetted site by creating the traffic to the site where only 5% of actual requests are wanted by the business of the site's owners. How our 5% are different from their 5%? If what we do is illegal than what they do is illegal as well. But what we are doing is the non-profit research when only a very small group of people may dislike it, while what they are doing is a for-profit compaign when millions of innocent people dislike it."
I think that some sort of SETI approach can be used:
your filter recognizes the spam and gets URLs from it;
all such URLs are gathered in the central authority and statistically verified (how many filters have claimed the same site);
only the most often claimed sites are left in the list, while more rarely claimed sites are considered as claimed by mistake or by the anti-filter attack;
people willing to help to fight spam download the screensaver aka SETI@HOME, working at your CPU and net idle time;
the screensaver downloads the fresh list of sites to be fought back along with a centrally generated schedule;
the filter actually attacks back at the scheduled time points (if it's still the idlle time for client PC), not massively from the individual PC (so it doesn't look suspicious for the individual client *AND* it doesn't create any peak bandwidth problem for the attacker);
the spammer's web site is/.ed;
All problems I see resolvable:
a schedule must be smart to avoid a local bandwidth problem, but still flood the spammer, but with many such screensavers even a smooth atack will be not very smooth when it's multiplied to millions;
a central authority can be a subject for a counter-attack as well (will it start cyber-wars?), but if the central authority will really decentralized (p2p, SETI, other techs) that it should not be a problem;
spammers may use some sort of logging, but what can they do with it?
to avoid if someone will organize the fake claim in order to/. the innocent site, statistics should help - only really massively claimed sites will be counted;
The main idea of the spam is to send email massively on a very low cost. So if the attack will be also very massive, it will increase their cost of operation and at least some of them will go out of business.
Any attmpts of spammers to go through filters will not work, as you can manually submit the spam claim to (what is its name? NOSPAM@HOME?) the central authority. If the amount of such claims will be big enough, then the claimed sites will be included.
If I walk in to Wal-Mart and hand over $15 and get handed a DVD, I own that DVD. Does this mean I can copy it? No. Copyright law prevents that.
The question is not about can you copy it (copying is creating two entities instead of the original one). The question is can you sell your DVD to your friend (sell: you give up your copy, the amount of copies is the same, I guess authors' right are ok). If you can't then you don't own it: you have rented it to forever.
But actually the origianl question is even more interesting: when you buy a hardware with an embedded software, you pay for both as for the whole thing, b/c those two parts cannot work one without another.When you resell it most likely your friend doesn't want to buy only part of it - the whole thing only makes sense. If you cannot resell the part of it then that part is rented by you, you don't own it.
Even more interesting: if you resell you hardware *AND* there is no way to save the copy of the software then you've lost your software, your friend doesn't own it either. So, the software copy is lost for the society and that just proves that you did not own the software from the first place. So, you rented it. And the hardware vendor did not tell it to you when originally sold the hardware. Therefore your customer's rights are in the toilet. Is there any court capable to get them from there? With this law system I don't think so.
First sale doctrine applies only to the code I really own after I buy it. Seems to me that when my software license is not transferable then it mean only that I did not own it from the first place, sice I bought it. And that means that I've rented the code. Then, when I sell the hardware, my license (read: rental) agreement expires and the buyer must get own license (again: rental) agreement for the software.
The question is: is it clear from EULA? If not, can a hradware vendor be responsible for lying to hardware buyers?
My fault about Adobe - it was Disney and you are correct in it. But my original point is still valid: commercial and open source software can co-exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you mean that Microsoft was that single company? Why not Sun? Microsoft doesn't sell Linux to customers. Sun does. And since the beginning SCO said that Sun is the only company that should not worry about the lawsuit.
On a second thought, with this guy you don't have any chance to make more than one contribution :(
The real toolkit must be OS idependent *AND* language independent. In Python, Tcl, Perl, Scheme and Lisp I have non-GUI libraries doing very useful things and I want them to have GUI using the same toolkit. With SWT I am locked in in Java and that's exactly what I want to avoid.
Just try Tcl/Tk or Python/Tkinter and enjoy.
C:\WINDOWS>shutdown -a now
C:\WINDOWS> is a prompt, don't type it.
[end of a joke]
The choice of the protocol is not really related anything social. And the role of politician is not to choose between two protocols as such a choice does not change anything in the society. What I would recommend is to ask candidates is something like that:
- open-source vs close source to run in the goverment;
- standard vs proprietary to sponsor by the goverment;
- GPL vs BSDL to develop by the goverment;
Any choice from the above the goverment would make would change something socially meaningful, something important for the further social progress.Any software is an extension of some pre-existed software - mathematicians can prove it. Therefore SOFTWARE MUST BE NEVER PATENTED!
The Judge How many emails is there?
You A lot.
The Judge To your knowledge, could this practice potentially harm their server (even temporarily)
You Hmmm
The Judge Ok, stop it.
You Yes your honor.
Me
The Judge What is that?
Me They should stop sending their unsolcitited emails to me.
The Judge Why they should?
Me Because it harms my mailserver, it wastes my time to filter it and it spends my bandwidth.
The Judge OK, they should stop sending their spam to everyone from where they do not want receive http requests.
As for X11 installation on OSX - yes, download and click. But will it run as expected after that? Having just xterm is not enough. I need a choice of windows and desktop managers.
Besides, using bash interactively in Linux or *real* BSD is very natural way to configure the system. In OSX bash is a sort of... uselss for that.
On a second thought, millions of mailboxes are *FLOODED* with a spam inviting to visit a spammer's site, then what's wrong if the visitors will come to the site in a same *FLOODING* way? They have used the flood to invite - they have got the flood back, what's wrong with that? Somehow I don't belive that the spammer have any chances to win in the court against those who spam back.
2. No comments about Photoshop (I am a GIMP user), but as for Office I have serious usability-based reasons (apart of price ones) to prefer OpenOffice Office to Microsoft one on any platform I work. And OpenOffice Office is very bad in OSX (Linux and win32 versions work fine).
3. iTunes has very poor configurability comparing to xmms.
4. X11 in OSX is harder to install than even in Cygwin and it works worse than in Cygwin.
6. I always have problems with russian document and russian web sites in OSX.
8. The real calculator must be programmable. That's why I love M-x calc in emacs.
9. Themeing is the best where Apple is strong.
10. No comments from a Xemacs user.
As for quartz - sorry, but you are just addicted to the theme. Have you ever tried OSX themes in GNOME/Sawfish?
By the way, Cygwin is also the coolest thing about Windows NT/2k/XP comparing Win-3.1
In very few years (1? 2?) the access to the retail markets of China and India (both == 2 billions of customers) will be much more important then the access to US markets (200 millions of customers). That's why US Army is trying its forces in Afganistan and Iraq: it's a training before much broader actions fixing potential problems for US markets. IP laws are necessary to bring a formal reason for such future military actions. The trueth is that US economy is a buble, like dot-com, just bigger. And that mega-bubble is very unstable.
Formally I don't want to bring the site down. Instead I continue the statistical research and want to see the correlation between our http requests and the response time. Seems innocent to me.
Yes. it's called "screen saver". That's why I think it's the last missed part of deklets: to be deployed to the screensaver. It wuld be usefull especially for people like you (and in fact me too) who typically hates using CPU for any eye candy.
Speaking about CPU, in case of sitting on a desktop those desklets may still get your memory, CPU and even network bandwidth. In case of starting from a screensaver, they will do their job and use your PC resourcses exactly when you don't need those resources.
Perhaps: "rpc_authtaste_t authtaste;", no?
There is a small company that I dislike. What prevents me from hacking their ip address and send shitload of spam in their name?
In my opinion it is posible to have a statistical analasys that would be capable to distinguish it unless you organize a really big attacke. On the other hand, a central (even if it's distributed) autority may help to gather a witness evidence against your unfair anti-competitive practice, which would be rather difficult if such NOSPAM@HOME project would not exist.
automatic or manual retaliation comes back to making justice yourself which is inherently illegal (at least in the us).
What makes it illigal? It is a statistical research project. Volonteers help to gather a statistical database of originally filtered emails. The central (and distributed) authority asks volonteer to help to gather the rest of information, namely the responsivity of a seller's web site, based on a pre-estimated schedule. BTW, the result of stitistical analysis can be peacefully used to consult the seller web site admin how to improve the site responsivity. Most likely the only advise would be so far: "shut your spam down and your site traffic will come back to normal".
I am actually ready to stand out in the court and say: "Well. the targetted company sends their marketing materials with only 5% of chance that the reader wants to read it. We study the responsivity of the targetted site by creating the traffic to the site where only 5% of actual requests are wanted by the business of the site's owners. How our 5% are different from their 5%? If what we do is illegal than what they do is illegal as well. But what we are doing is the non-profit research when only a very small group of people may dislike it, while what they are doing is a for-profit compaign when millions of innocent people dislike it."
- your filter recognizes the spam and gets URLs from it;
- all such URLs are gathered in the central authority and statistically verified (how many filters have claimed the same site);
- only the most often claimed sites are left in the list, while more rarely claimed sites are considered as claimed by mistake or by the anti-filter attack;
- people willing to help to fight spam download the screensaver aka SETI@HOME, working at your CPU and net idle time;
- the screensaver downloads the fresh list of sites to be fought back along with a centrally generated schedule;
- the filter actually attacks back at the scheduled time points (if it's still the idlle time for client PC), not massively from the individual PC (so it doesn't look suspicious for the individual client *AND* it doesn't create any peak bandwidth problem for the attacker);
- the spammer's web site is
/.ed;
All problems I see resolvable:The main idea of the spam is to send email massively on a very low cost. So if the attack will be also very massive, it will increase their cost of operation and at least some of them will go out of business.
Any attmpts of spammers to go through filters will not work, as you can manually submit the spam claim to (what is its name? NOSPAM@HOME?) the central authority. If the amount of such claims will be big enough, then the claimed sites will be included.
GNU/Linux: Where to you want to go today?
BSD: Hey, are you guys comming or what?!?!
You forgot:
OSX: Hey, where do you think you are going to?
The question is not about can you copy it (copying is creating two entities instead of the original one). The question is can you sell your DVD to your friend (sell: you give up your copy, the amount of copies is the same, I guess authors' right are ok). If you can't then you don't own it: you have rented it to forever.
But actually the origianl question is even more interesting: when you buy a hardware with an embedded software, you pay for both as for the whole thing, b/c those two parts cannot work one without another.When you resell it most likely your friend doesn't want to buy only part of it - the whole thing only makes sense. If you cannot resell the part of it then that part is rented by you, you don't own it.
Even more interesting: if you resell you hardware *AND* there is no way to save the copy of the software then you've lost your software, your friend doesn't own it either. So, the software copy is lost for the society and that just proves that you did not own the software from the first place. So, you rented it. And the hardware vendor did not tell it to you when originally sold the hardware. Therefore your customer's rights are in the toilet. Is there any court capable to get them from there? With this law system I don't think so.
The question is: is it clear from EULA? If not, can a hradware vendor be responsible for lying to hardware buyers?
My fault about Adobe - it was Disney and you are correct in it. But my original point is still valid: commercial and open source software can co-exist.