I've found three ways to combine any proprietary work with GPL and other Free Software, without a need to give away any source code, even when the Free part is under the new and most rigorous GPL3 license.
Any combination? GPL template library (C++) used by proprietary code? That'd certainly be interesting to see.
...what if it's cheaper, more convenient, and more effective to just upgrade your battery to the next size up? Solar probably only makes sense if you'll be mobile (so no car batteries) and far away from mains power (so you can't just plug in at night) for an extended length of time.
If it were necessary to authorize a lot to identify with services, the credit industry would change to accepting it, so no credit rating issue.
Until the unexplained charges start showing up...
Prior restraint is an issue whether you're identified or not.
It's much more effective if you know/think they can identify you.
Criticism of those in power is legal under the Constitution.
And yet somehow, that never seems to help at the time. Maybe it'll help force them to let you start over in 10 years, but that's kinda too late.
Plus, "those in power" is more than just the government. It also includes your employer, and maybe more.
Any violation of those principles should be dealt with strongly, except they're currently not anyway because the US legal system is corrupt.
That's less of a problem that it just being entirely after-the-fact and reactionary. By the time the courts say you're in the right (assuming the other guy was sloppy enough that you have decent proof instead of sounding like a raving lunatic), any damage has already been done and probably can't be fixed.
I wonder if someday we'll just be able to plug our phones into our laptops, switching to the phone's processor when we need to save battery life?
That would be silly. Why not plug your foldable self-powered screen/keyboard thing into your "phone" when you need more pixels or want to type something long?
Oh, give me a locus where the gravitons focus
Where the three-body problem is solved,
Where the microwaves play down at three degrees K,
And the cold virus never evolved.
(chorus)
We eat algea pie, our vacuum is high,
Our ball bearings are perfectly round.
Our horizon is curved, our warheads are MIRVed,
And a kilogram weighs half a pound.
(chorus)
If we run out of space for our burgeoning race
No more Lebensraum left for the Mensch
When we're ready to start, we can take Mars apart,
If we just find a big enough wrench.
(chorus)
I'm sick of this place, it's just McDonald's in space,
And living up here is a bore.
Tell the shiggies, "Don't cry," they can kiss me goodbye
'Cause I'm moving next week to L4!
(chorus)
CHORUS:
Home, home on LaGrange,
Where the space debris always collects,
We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams:
Solar power and zero-gee sex.
It has proven necessary to give up privacy in order to develop security.
This is almost never the case, and can only be the case if the system is already designed to be insecure.
Take flying, for example. You can't fly anonymously - and nowadays (especially) you have to identify yourself multiple times
That is about fear/control, not security. It has not improved security. It would not have prevented the incident which it is a response to. Saying "oops, we were wrong, you actually shouldn't cooperate with hijackers" would have improved security. Giving the crew members stun guns (probably don't want real guns in such a crowded place) would have improved security. Keeping a list of who is allowed to travel does not improve security, but it does provide a useful tool to discourage dissent.
I'd personally be quite happy to use my credit card to sign up for free things if it eradicated a number of problems, such as spam and service abuse.
And whistleblowing, and your credit rating, and protection against "prior restraint", and criticism of those in power, and... oh, wait, those aren't "problems", are they?
Sockstress computes and stores so-called client-side SYN cookies
This isn't supposed to be possible.
I took it to mean that the client is doing something equivalent to the "normal" SYN cookies that servers use, so that it doesn't have to remember what connections it's in the middle of trying to open.
The attack being that you just force the host to create a gob-jillion syncookies (which have to be stored, eating up resources) and then do a plain old resource exhaustion attack
No, the entire point of syncookies is that you don't store them. You take what you would have stored, pack it into 3 or 4 bytes, encrypt it, and send it to the client machine. Then the client sends it back with the reply, and you decrypt it and read it into some kernel data structure or other.
I'd imagine that various bad things can happen if you use crappy encryption, so that an evil client can make a keygen for your cookies, but it doesn't sound like that's what they're doing. I think they're just doing the same thing on the client side, so they don't have to remember what connections they're in the middle of trying to open.
Package managers are evil. (because someone could possibly provide a repository with software that isn't free-as-in-fsf)
Hurd vs. Linux.
GPLv3 is "similar is spirit" to GPLv2. (The anti-Tivo stuff is an entirely new class of restriction.)
AGPL makes sense. (put it behind a proxy)
It's possible to make components that are themselves free-as-in-speech and yet can't be used in a non-free-as-in-speech system. (you may not speak in support of censorship...)
* Note: assert(RMS == FSF) for some of these, I believe that's an entirely reasonable assumption.
You in fact made a perfect case for the argument that the code SHOULD have been developed test first, because then all the interdependencies you describe would not exist. Instead your application would be properly designed to be composed of a number of modules which operate independently of each other and only expose well defined interfaces which are ALL tested.
I thought "Big Design Up Front" was supposed to be bad?
No, "collaborative editing". Revision control gives a tedious process of: commit document; update; read and edit; commit; rinse and repeat. Wikipedia says that Abiword and Google Docs (among others others) probably do what's asked for here.
According to the context you agree with when you get the broadband account your account really is 'unlimited'. In the context of broadband it only means that the company is not going to single you out and limit what you can do. That's all it means. There is legal precedence to use this word in this context. It's not fraud of false advertising.
Right, because they have given "unlimited" a new definition so that it does not (legally) mean what people expect it to mean. It's not legally fraud / false advertising, but it is effectively the same as those because they cause people to have false beliefs about what they're buying. The only difference is whether they lie outright, or put a little '*' next to the lie so they can use the fine print to redefine it to be true.
The problem I think is one of defining the value of information. How does one measure the value of streaming video from YouTube against the value of someone researching their family history? Or the value of someone doing a video conference with their son in Iraq against the value of a teenager watching porn?
Don't, it's not the ISP's place to impose such value judgments on you.
I'm not really aware of a good solution, but I'll be thinking about it now -- maybe you or someone else can offer an idea?
$15 / mo connection fee + $0.10 / GB transfer fee, or whatever numbers reflect the actual cost (plus competitive profit margin) of providing you with whatever amount you choose to use.
That can probably be said for retirement and welfare as well.
Maybe. Welfare/unemployment/social security is a "sometimes" case, some people really do need it, some people currently need it but would do better with free vocational training, a few are just scammers.
Retirement is different, because it's something you have much of your life to plan for. You might not be able to decide you'll never retire, but you can decide to build up enough savings. Hmm, unless that level of savings turns out to have funny effects on the economy, that would be interesting.
I'm getting seriously fed up of this. You are not paying even in the same ballpark of the actual cost of supplying your full connection's worth of bandwidth for an entire month.
I don't care that I can't constantly max out my connection, I do care if the ISP lies about it.
Why on earth the US ISPs have tried telling you that you can just use as much bandwidth as you want, for so long, I'll never understand.
I suspect it has to do with how misleading advertising tends to give you more customers in the short term.
The idea that the entire population can subsidize a minority with an extremely high download quantity actually isn't necessarily the only way to live.'
However, they seem perfectly okay using that economic model for their medical care, retirement, welfare, etc.
With medical care, at least, it isn't generally something you choose to need. It's not like I can say "doctors are too expensive, I think I'll just decide to never get sick".
It's simple: You pay for 'unlimited' usage, and that means you get usage that is as unlimited as the resource permits.
And since that isn't really unlimited, there's a bit of a problem. You're paying for one thing, and they're providing something else. That's usually called "fraud" or "false advertising", and it tends to annoy people who want to actually know (and get) what they're paying for. That they probably put something like "unlimited doesn't mean what you think it does" in the fine print only matters from a legal "see, you can't sue us, nyah nyah" perspective, not a "this isn't what I paid for, you bastards" perspective.
But piracy is distorting what should have been an interaction between two parties: creator and consumer. But instead of the consumer respecting the desires of the creator, they're ripping that away and screaming "Mine!" like a toddler. That kind of behavior doesn't get much respect from me. Let the creators choose.
Why? What (besides a law that "everybody" likes to ignore) gives the creators the right to dictate what you can do with their data? The original reason wasn't that they had any basic "right" to do that, it was that it seemed useful to society on the whole to pretend that they did... this is now being called into question. Why should we have to involve Disney if I have a kid and want to get copies of all the cartoons my parents have? It works just as well without Disney even knowing, so how can you say that it "should have been" an interaction involving them? The distortion is saying that they need to be dragged into it at all. Now maybe that's a useful distortion, but it's still a distortion and its usefulness is up for debate.
Given that the US economy is moving away from the production of physical goods, and embracing IP production more and more, it should come as no surprise that
... we're all doomed.
Copying bits isn't very useful, anyone can do is approximately for free. If we don't/can't provide useful services (which I take to include manufacturing things or digging things out of the ground), why would anyone do business with us?
I'd like to see more graphics cards with passive cooling. Every time I see one of these cards with a big honking fan on it, I wonder how long it will last and whether it is even possible to replace the fan if it fails.
What I want to know is how many watts (roughly = dollars/year) it uses, and whether this drops when the computer goes into powersave mode at night.
and generally don't care about the long standing conventions there already were in the rest of the world. k=1000, M=1000000, etc, period. If you insist on using rediculous numbers like 1024, 1048576, etc, you're gonna use your own damn prefixes for them. No hijacking please.
It seems that the metric system only dates back to the 60s. Computers are a bit older than that, so I think we k=2**10 people have priority.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found three ways to combine any proprietary work with GPL and other Free Software, without a need to give away any source code, even when the Free part is under the new and most rigorous GPL3 license.
Any combination? GPL template library (C++) used by proprietary code? That'd certainly be interesting to see.
...what if it's cheaper, more convenient, and more effective to just upgrade your battery to the next size up? Solar probably only makes sense if you'll be mobile (so no car batteries) and far away from mains power (so you can't just plug in at night) for an extended length of time.
If it were necessary to authorize a lot to identify with services, the credit industry would change to accepting it, so no credit rating issue.
Until the unexplained charges start showing up...
Prior restraint is an issue whether you're identified or not.
It's much more effective if you know/think they can identify you.
Criticism of those in power is legal under the Constitution.
And yet somehow, that never seems to help at the time. Maybe it'll help force them to let you start over in 10 years, but that's kinda too late.
Plus, "those in power" is more than just the government. It also includes your employer, and maybe more.
Any violation of those principles should be dealt with strongly, except they're currently not anyway because the US legal system is corrupt.
That's less of a problem that it just being entirely after-the-fact and reactionary. By the time the courts say you're in the right (assuming the other guy was sloppy enough that you have decent proof instead of sounding like a raving lunatic), any damage has already been done and probably can't be fixed.
Seeing that batteries are a very limited resource, how about having the option to use the unlimited power of the sun?
Solar power isn't really that unlimited, especially if you have to be mobile.
I wonder if someday we'll just be able to plug our phones into our laptops, switching to the phone's processor when we need to save battery life?
That would be silly. Why not plug your foldable self-powered screen/keyboard thing into your "phone" when you need more pixels or want to type something long?
It has proven necessary to give up privacy in order to develop security.
This is almost never the case, and can only be the case if the system is already designed to be insecure.
Take flying, for example. You can't fly anonymously - and nowadays (especially) you have to identify yourself multiple times
That is about fear/control, not security. It has not improved security. It would not have prevented the incident which it is a response to. Saying "oops, we were wrong, you actually shouldn't cooperate with hijackers" would have improved security. Giving the crew members stun guns (probably don't want real guns in such a crowded place) would have improved security. Keeping a list of who is allowed to travel does not improve security, but it does provide a useful tool to discourage dissent.
I'd personally be quite happy to use my credit card to sign up for free things if it eradicated a number of problems, such as spam and service abuse.
And whistleblowing, and your credit rating, and protection against "prior restraint", and criticism of those in power, and... oh, wait, those aren't "problems", are they?
I suspect the truth is still out there and when we understand it will change our view of the universe. It's happened before, it will happen again.
What makes this difficult is that while it's out there, we're stuck down here.
Sockstress computes and stores so-called client-side SYN cookies
This isn't supposed to be possible.
I took it to mean that the client is doing something equivalent to the "normal" SYN cookies that servers use, so that it doesn't have to remember what connections it's in the middle of trying to open.
The attack being that you just force the host to create a gob-jillion syncookies (which have to be stored, eating up resources) and then do a plain old resource exhaustion attack
No, the entire point of syncookies is that you don't store them. You take what you would have stored, pack it into 3 or 4 bytes, encrypt it, and send it to the client machine. Then the client sends it back with the reply, and you decrypt it and read it into some kernel data structure or other.
I'd imagine that various bad things can happen if you use crappy encryption, so that an evil client can make a keygen for your cookies, but it doesn't sound like that's what they're doing. I think they're just doing the same thing on the client side, so they don't have to remember what connections they're in the middle of trying to open.
* Note: assert(RMS == FSF) for some of these, I believe that's an entirely reasonable assumption.
Given the current economy, where can we find an archive-quality bank?
Try your local pawn shop.
You in fact made a perfect case for the argument that the code SHOULD have been developed test first, because then all the interdependencies you describe would not exist. Instead your application would be properly designed to be composed of a number of modules which operate independently of each other and only expose well defined interfaces which are ALL tested.
I thought "Big Design Up Front" was supposed to be bad?
Google "revision control".
No, "collaborative editing". Revision control gives a tedious process of: commit document; update; read and edit; commit; rinse and repeat. Wikipedia says that Abiword and Google Docs (among others others) probably do what's asked for here.
According to the context you agree with when you get the broadband account your account really is 'unlimited'. In the context of broadband it only means that the company is not going to single you out and limit what you can do. That's all it means. There is legal precedence to use this word in this context. It's not fraud of false advertising.
Right, because they have given "unlimited" a new definition so that it does not (legally) mean what people expect it to mean. It's not legally fraud / false advertising, but it is effectively the same as those because they cause people to have false beliefs about what they're buying. The only difference is whether they lie outright, or put a little '*' next to the lie so they can use the fine print to redefine it to be true.
The problem I think is one of defining the value of information. How does one measure the value of streaming video from YouTube against the value of someone researching their family history? Or the value of someone doing a video conference with their son in Iraq against the value of a teenager watching porn?
Don't, it's not the ISP's place to impose such value judgments on you.
I'm not really aware of a good solution, but I'll be thinking about it now -- maybe you or someone else can offer an idea?
$15 / mo connection fee + $0.10 / GB transfer fee, or whatever numbers reflect the actual cost (plus competitive profit margin) of providing you with whatever amount you choose to use.
That can probably be said for retirement and welfare as well.
Maybe. Welfare/unemployment/social security is a "sometimes" case, some people really do need it, some people currently need it but would do better with free vocational training, a few are just scammers.
Retirement is different, because it's something you have much of your life to plan for. You might not be able to decide you'll never retire, but you can decide to build up enough savings. Hmm, unless that level of savings turns out to have funny effects on the economy, that would be interesting.
I'm getting seriously fed up of this. You are not paying even in the same ballpark of the actual cost of supplying your full connection's worth of bandwidth for an entire month.
I don't care that I can't constantly max out my connection, I do care if the ISP lies about it.
Why on earth the US ISPs have tried telling you that you can just use as much bandwidth as you want, for so long, I'll never understand.
I suspect it has to do with how misleading advertising tends to give you more customers in the short term.
However, they seem perfectly okay using that economic model for their medical care, retirement, welfare, etc.
With medical care, at least, it isn't generally something you choose to need. It's not like I can say "doctors are too expensive, I think I'll just decide to never get sick".
It's simple: You pay for 'unlimited' usage, and that means you get usage that is as unlimited as the resource permits.
And since that isn't really unlimited, there's a bit of a problem. You're paying for one thing, and they're providing something else. That's usually called "fraud" or "false advertising", and it tends to annoy people who want to actually know (and get) what they're paying for. That they probably put something like "unlimited doesn't mean what you think it does" in the fine print only matters from a legal "see, you can't sue us, nyah nyah" perspective, not a "this isn't what I paid for, you bastards" perspective.
But piracy is distorting what should have been an interaction between two parties: creator and consumer. But instead of the consumer respecting the desires of the creator, they're ripping that away and screaming "Mine!" like a toddler. That kind of behavior doesn't get much respect from me. Let the creators choose.
Why? What (besides a law that "everybody" likes to ignore) gives the creators the right to dictate what you can do with their data? The original reason wasn't that they had any basic "right" to do that, it was that it seemed useful to society on the whole to pretend that they did... this is now being called into question. Why should we have to involve Disney if I have a kid and want to get copies of all the cartoons my parents have? It works just as well without Disney even knowing, so how can you say that it "should have been" an interaction involving them? The distortion is saying that they need to be dragged into it at all. Now maybe that's a useful distortion, but it's still a distortion and its usefulness is up for debate.
Given that the US economy is moving away from the production of physical goods, and embracing IP production more and more, it should come as no surprise that
... we're all doomed.
Copying bits isn't very useful, anyone can do is approximately for free. If we don't/can't provide useful services (which I take to include manufacturing things or digging things out of the ground), why would anyone do business with us?
Why not just use their own internal protocol specification?
This assumes that they have an internal specification, rather than just telling n00bs to RTFCode.
I'd like to see more graphics cards with passive cooling. Every time I see one of these cards with a big honking fan on it, I wonder how long it will last and whether it is even possible to replace the fan if it fails.
What I want to know is how many watts (roughly = dollars/year) it uses, and whether this drops when the computer goes into powersave mode at night.
It is only a narrow group of people interacting with the computer on a low level that really need binary units.
Such as anyone who wants to upgrade their RAM?
and generally don't care about the long standing conventions there already were in the rest of the world. k=1000, M=1000000, etc, period. If you insist on using rediculous numbers like 1024, 1048576, etc, you're gonna use your own damn prefixes for them. No hijacking please.
It seems that the metric system only dates back to the 60s. Computers are a bit older than that, so I think we k=2**10 people have priority.
How's this: 1 Imperial MB = 1048576B, 1 Metric MB = 1000000B, 1 mixed MB = 1024000B (as in a 1.44MB floppy disc).