From the GPL FAQ: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
Do you think Neverwinter Nights is going to link to any GPL-licensed libraries? I'd love to get my hands on the source code for that...
"What can I say? We're undeniably late and we know it. We've switched engines a couple of times, and we've started over a couple of times....In the end all that matters is the quality of the game"
So he's saying that if you released a great ground-breaking game a few years after it's great and ground-breaking, that's still ok.. Sign me up! I'd love to work for a company like that. Until they run out of money, that is.
My only real regret on this project is that I never found a way to make the Backspace key work, since the mechanism that controls it is deep inside the typewriter, far to deep to get to without risking disaster.
I guess youud'd haveto be a verryu good typistr to use ti!
What they're testing for here *is* random errors in the copy process, not intentional tampering.
But they're trying to pass it off as testing for both:
"Authentication" in this context means the process of ensuring that the duplicate of the hard drive provided in discovery is an exact copy of what the FBI originally acquired...All hard drives in this case were imaged by one of the three programs used by the FBI, all of which are recognized by the scientific community as reliable imaging programs. Thus, there should be no question about the authenticity of any of the hard drives
There are no known examples of two files that have the same MD5 (or SHA-1) hash values
Sorry, my original message was kind of weak:) The programs that the government uses to do the copy use CRC32, which is very easy to get around. The CRC32 values are listed in section 13 of the expert's affadavit. The government says that this is enough to authenticate the data.
SafeBack and the Logicube SFK-000A incorporate reliable internal CRC verification techniques, CART procedures do not require examiners to generate separate MD5 or SH-1 hashes for computers imaged using SafeBack or Logicube SFK-000A disk duplicator....All hard drives in this case were imaged by one of the three programs used by the FBI, all of which are recognized by the scientific community as reliable imaging programs. Thus, there should be no question about the authenticity of any of the hard drives.
In terms of autenticating evidence for use in court, shouldn't the government be using something stronger than CRC? If I were on the defense's side, I would tear this apart - the MD5 hash that they eventually received was taken well after the original image was created, leaving plenty of time to alter any data. There was ample opportunity for somebody (whether as part of a "government conspiracy" or as an overzealous investigator/prosecutor) to alter both the image and the original hard drive before taking the MD5 hash, and before the image was delivered to the defense as part of discovery. There's no use in having an MD5 hash if all it is doing is verifying that you have an exact copy of data that has been tampered with. The government should, as standard practice, take the MD5 hash before they even make the first image, and preserve that record along with other evidence. This would make it much more difficult for the defense to claim that the data presented in discovery or at trial is not authentic.
dd does a complete image copy of the partition, byte by byte... It doesn't matter what's on the drive, what file system it is, etc. It copies everything.
If the hash value of the original prior to duplication matches identically the hash value after the duplication, one may conclude that the duplicate file accurately reflects the data on the original file. The fact that the hash values match is typically more important than the hash values themselves.
Are they saying that two different files can't have the same hash value? That's a load of crap! It's not hard at all to modify data to create any hash value that you want, especially when you're including "deleted space" in the CRC calculations... It's good at telling you if there were any random modifications caused by errors during copying, but not that the files are identical.
Wow, that was the most interesting 354-page article I've ever seen posted here. I think it said something about some stuff blowing up, but I'm not really sure. I'm going to go to sleep now.
There's only one speed they take people to the hospitial based on need, they go no faster or slower than they can safetly. If there's any chance you need to go, you go. No first responder is going to waste time looking for a little black box which may or may not provide uselful information and may or may not even be working.
Did you read the article? They talk about wireless access to the data for ambulance crews (no "looking for a little black box"). They also quote a study that said that "15 percent of the people seriously injured in wrecks were transported to hospitals by helicopter, while perhaps four times as many should have been and would have had greater chances of survival with faster trips". A helicopter is a much faster way to get you to a hospital.
I have no idea how valid that study is or if it was conducted by shills for the "little black box" industry, but I can't see why it wouldn't be worth doing further development.
Speculation about ambulance crews using crash data is just hype - no ambulance is equipped to do that, nor would I want an EMT to spend time decoding the crash data instead of, say, saving my life
Of course they're not equipped to do that NOW - standardization would allow EMT's to carry equipment that could read data from any car.
The point made in the article is that some crashes cause internal injuries that are not immediately apparent to you or an EMT. They say that many people are not transported to a hospital via helicopter becuase the extent of their injuries is not determined until it is too late. If the EMT could see that the type of crash was likely to cause internal injuries, they could get you to a trauma center faster even if you didn't show any immediate symptoms.
Where does this reviewer get the balls to call a 852x480 display High Definition? A simple line doubler could convert any standard 480i signal to run on this thing, no HDTV receiver (or downsampling) required. And last time I looked, my projection HDTV screen (50% bigger, at about 50% of the cost) has a VGA input as well... And it even came with free speakers!
Here's my plan - I'm going to sign up for a membership card, and then under the terms of the GPL I can resell memberships to anybody I'd like to.. So if you want a membership card, don't send $120 to the FSF, send me $20 instead and I'll give you one!
For the umpteenth time, there is a difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech". Free Software gives you freedom in terms of use, but it does not guarantee free prices. The GPL even says that developers may sell their code for as much as they like, so long as they offer the source code with the provisions of the GPL for no more than that price again.
Sure, and the person I sell it to is then "free" to sell my software to anybody they like for as much as they like, or just give it away. Check the GPL FAQ:
"...if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."
Well, what good is beta testing.net SERVER if you can't take it online??
Although the poster is probably breaking several nondisclosure clauses in his beta testing agreement
I hope not! It's Release Candidate 2 and it's a more or less open test version. It ships with all MSDN and Technet subscriptions as far as I know. I'm testing a couple of my applications with the new version of the COM+ application server, so I think I'm safe from the software police for now.:)
OS X, on the other hand, just keeps getting better, proving that user-friendly yet powerful UNIX is not only possible, but damn profitable
Apple's net profit margin over the last couple of years has been hovering around 1%. That's $65,000,000 of profit on $5,740,000,000 of sales over the last year. It does, however, beat the $1.50 that Red Hat spends for every dollar they make.
As other people have already noted you can't burn dual-layered discs... But you CAN get double-sided DVD-R media. You still have to flip it over, but at least it's only one disc. They also seem to cost roughly twice as much as a regular single-sided disc.
Is that if MS make such a policy change they are dictating to everyone as no-one else has the rights required to forge another route, it's their way or the highway. No one is in such a forced dependancy relationship with the Kernel developers. We may depend upon them by choice, but if what they do really is seen as unacceptable then the rights given to us all by the kernel licence protect us from being completely at their whim.
I think Microsoft is more responsive to their customers than you give them credit for. They have a history of supporting products long after replacements are available.
In any case, having access to the source code as a solution for problems is not always the ideal situation. I work for a commercial financial services company, so please understand where I'm coming from when I say we're not in the business of writing OS-level software. Access to the source code may provide us with a safety net down the road, but it's not the first choice for an organization like ours.
Slashdot Mirror
From the GPL FAQ:
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
Do you think Neverwinter Nights is going to link to any GPL-licensed libraries? I'd love to get my hands on the source code for that...
"What can I say? We're undeniably late and we know it. We've switched engines a couple of times, and we've started over a couple of times....In the end all that matters is the quality of the game"
So he's saying that if you released a great ground-breaking game a few years after it's great and ground-breaking, that's still ok.. Sign me up! I'd love to work for a company like that. Until they run out of money, that is.
My only real regret on this project is that I never found a way to make the Backspace key work, since the mechanism that controls it is deep inside the typewriter, far to deep to get to without risking disaster.
I guess youud'd haveto be a verryu good typistr to use ti!
What they're testing for here *is* random errors in the copy process, not intentional tampering.
But they're trying to pass it off as testing for both:
"Authentication" in this context means the process of ensuring that the duplicate of the hard drive provided in discovery is an exact copy of what the FBI originally acquired...All hard drives in this case were imaged by one of the three programs used by the FBI, all of which are recognized by the scientific community as reliable imaging programs. Thus, there should be no question about the authenticity of any of the hard drives
All of these tools use CRC32.
That kind of depends on the strength of the hash algorithm, wouldn't you say?
Absolutely, which is why they shouldn't be relying on CRC32.
There are no known examples of two files that have the same MD5 (or SHA-1) hash values
:)
Sorry, my original message was kind of weak
The programs that the government uses to do the copy use CRC32, which is very easy to get around. The CRC32 values are listed in section 13 of the expert's affadavit. The government says that this is enough to authenticate the data.
SafeBack and the Logicube SFK-000A incorporate reliable internal CRC verification techniques, CART procedures do not require examiners to generate separate MD5 or SH-1 hashes for computers imaged using SafeBack or Logicube SFK-000A disk duplicator....All hard drives in this case were imaged by one of the three programs used by the FBI, all of which are recognized by the scientific community as reliable imaging programs. Thus, there should be no question about the authenticity of any of the hard drives.
In terms of autenticating evidence for use in court, shouldn't the government be using something stronger than CRC? If I were on the defense's side, I would tear this apart - the MD5 hash that they eventually received was taken well after the original image was created, leaving plenty of time to alter any data. There was ample opportunity for somebody (whether as part of a "government conspiracy" or as an overzealous investigator/prosecutor) to alter both the image and the original hard drive before taking the MD5 hash, and before the image was delivered to the defense as part of discovery. There's no use in having an MD5 hash if all it is doing is verifying that you have an exact copy of data that has been tampered with. The government should, as standard practice, take the MD5 hash before they even make the first image, and preserve that record along with other evidence. This would make it much more difficult for the defense to claim that the data presented in discovery or at trial is not authentic.
dd does a complete image copy of the partition, byte by byte... It doesn't matter what's on the drive, what file system it is, etc. It copies everything.
If the hash value of the original prior to duplication matches identically the hash value after the duplication, one may conclude that the duplicate file accurately reflects the data on the original file. The fact that the hash values match is typically more important than the hash values themselves.
Are they saying that two different files can't have the same hash value? That's a load of crap! It's not hard at all to modify data to create any hash value that you want, especially when you're including "deleted space" in the CRC calculations... It's good at telling you if there were any random modifications caused by errors during copying, but not that the files are identical.
Score: -1, Wishful Thinking
Wow, that was the most interesting 354-page article I've ever seen posted here. I think it said something about some stuff blowing up, but I'm not really sure. I'm going to go to sleep now.
There's only one speed they take people to the hospitial based on need, they go no faster or slower than they can safetly. If there's any chance you need to go, you go. No first responder is going to waste time looking for a little black box which may or may not provide uselful information and may or may not even be working.
Did you read the article? They talk about wireless access to the data for ambulance crews (no "looking for a little black box"). They also quote a study that said that "15 percent of the people seriously injured in wrecks were transported to hospitals by helicopter, while perhaps four times as many should have been and would have had greater chances of survival with faster trips". A helicopter is a much faster way to get you to a hospital.
I have no idea how valid that study is or if it was conducted by shills for the "little black box" industry, but I can't see why it wouldn't be worth doing further development.
Speculation about ambulance crews using crash data is just hype - no ambulance is equipped to do that, nor would I want an EMT to spend time decoding the crash data instead of, say, saving my life
Of course they're not equipped to do that NOW - standardization would allow EMT's to carry equipment that could read data from any car.
The point made in the article is that some crashes cause internal injuries that are not immediately apparent to you or an EMT. They say that many people are not transported to a hospital via helicopter becuase the extent of their injuries is not determined until it is too late. If the EMT could see that the type of crash was likely to cause internal injuries, they could get you to a trauma center faster even if you didn't show any immediate symptoms.
Where does this reviewer get the balls to call a 852x480 display High Definition? A simple line doubler could convert any standard 480i signal to run on this thing, no HDTV receiver (or downsampling) required. And last time I looked, my projection HDTV screen (50% bigger, at about 50% of the cost) has a VGA input as well... And it even came with free speakers!
Too bad hardly anything on Win32 is written using standard procedural C++.
When will phone manufacturers learn that using a touchscreen to dial a phone is incredibly annoying?
Here's my plan - I'm going to sign up for a membership card, and then under the terms of the GPL I can resell memberships to anybody I'd like to.. So if you want a membership card, don't send $120 to the FSF, send me $20 instead and I'll give you one!
For the umpteenth time, there is a difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech". Free Software gives you freedom in terms of use, but it does not guarantee free prices. The GPL even says that developers may sell their code for as much as they like, so long as they offer the source code with the provisions of the GPL for no more than that price again.
Sure, and the person I sell it to is then "free" to sell my software to anybody they like for as much as they like, or just give it away. Check the GPL FAQ:
"...if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."
Well, what good is beta testing .net SERVER if you can't take it online??
Although the poster is probably breaking several nondisclosure clauses in his beta testing agreement
:)
I hope not! It's Release Candidate 2 and it's a more or less open test version. It ships with all MSDN and Technet subscriptions as far as I know. I'm testing a couple of my applications with the new version of the COM+ application server, so I think I'm safe from the software police for now.
I'm pretty sure you're allowed online with it. After all, it still has that annoying online activation thing...
In any case, it's "release candidate 2" and it's rock solid, so I suspect that it'll be shipping before too long.
OS X, on the other hand, just keeps getting better, proving that user-friendly yet powerful UNIX is not only possible, but damn profitable
Apple's net profit margin over the last couple of years has been hovering around 1%. That's $65,000,000 of profit on $5,740,000,000 of sales over the last year. It does, however, beat the $1.50 that Red Hat spends for every dollar they make.
Wow, I'm typing this message on vaporware.. I've never done that before.
As other people have already noted you can't burn dual-layered discs... But you CAN get double-sided DVD-R media. You still have to flip it over, but at least it's only one disc. They also seem to cost roughly twice as much as a regular single-sided disc.
teachmaster of LOGOLOGIE - the first cyberage-religion
:)
That about sums the article up for me... When the Scientologists finish their peer review of this article, maybe I'll pay more attention.
If Linux took over the desktop market, I don't think a title of "Linux As Next Microsoft" would be appropriate. Why?
Well one more reason would be that Linux isn't a company...
Is that if MS make such a policy change they are dictating to everyone as no-one else has the rights required to forge another route, it's their way or the highway. No one is in such a forced dependancy relationship with the Kernel developers. We may depend upon them by choice, but if what they do really is seen as unacceptable then the rights given to us all by the kernel licence protect us from being completely at their whim.
I think Microsoft is more responsive to their customers than you give them credit for. They have a history of supporting products long after replacements are available.
In any case, having access to the source code as a solution for problems is not always the ideal situation. I work for a commercial financial services company, so please understand where I'm coming from when I say we're not in the business of writing OS-level software. Access to the source code may provide us with a safety net down the road, but it's not the first choice for an organization like ours.