The khtml devs beef is with fanbois who think that khtml should have new Webcore features an hour or two after Webcore gets them.
Then that is a problem of unrealistic expectations or a misunderstanding on the part of the "fanboys". That's not a problem with Apple's (perceived lack of) cooperation.
Everything I read from the KHTML team whined about how Apple (in their opinion) wasn't doing as much as they should have. I saw a lot of whining about how Apple wasn't giving access to internal code revision servers and whatnot. There was not a single word giving Apple credit for what they HAD done for you.
THAT is why you drew further ire, and I stick to my assertion that your arguments were full of omissions to support your position- aka, "stacking the deck".
The Konqueror team don't have access to the Safari code, at least not in a form they can use.
Actions speak otherwise- half the patches integrated according to the article.
It means in future open source projects will know what's coming when Apple decide to get "involved".
Yes. They can expect to get regular tarballs, participation of senior team leaders, active dialog on public mailing lists, and assistance of Apple engineers in interpreting the tarballs.
(No, seriously. Go read the archives and look at the discussion that follows when Apple sends in a code base. The "burnt out guy" whines. Another developer or two actually get to work and look at the code, start talking to Apple engineers, etc. An Apple engineer says "let me take a look at that" and a little bit later, comes back as promised with an answer and help.)
After starting out optimistic he's now bitter.
Optimistic is a funny word. He seemed under the impression that Apple was obligated to provide changelogs, access to internal revision control systems, etc. He also got upset when he realized that Apple had forked code. It sounds like he had unreasonable expectations, and when Apple said "I'm sorry, we can't do that" or "I'm sorry, we're not allowed to do that", he threw a hissy fit.
The Konqueror developer in question also used a logical fallacy called "Stacking the deck", a kind of fallacy-by-omission. He did not discuss any of Apple's assistance provided to developers on the mailing list, and repeatedly asserted that Apple was meeting "minimum" requirements of the LGPL, when in fact Apple was doing more.
That is why he got burned. Not because of actions on Apple's part- and your insinuation that Apple is to blame for the actions of its "Apple fanboys" is absurd. You're distracting from the core issue- that the developer used fallacies to promote his version of the facts. Sadly, few people bothered to actually read the mailing list exchanges.
Apple got the code to a rendering engine for free and gave back little to nothing
Again, you're distorting facts. Apple gave back all the code it was obligated to, and participated in an active dialog. If half of Apple's patches were integrated within less than a few months, that's a lot more than "little to nothing". Question- how long would it have taken the KHTML developers to become Acid2 compliant without the contributions by Apple? And if the patches were so worthless, why did they "waste" time and effort if writing their own stuff from scratch would have been more productive, as was implied if not outright stated by khtml developers?
THIS sort of thing is EXACTLY what the khtml devs were complaining about. Yes, Apple does the bare minimum the LGPL requires with Webcore but the khtml devs accepted that.
Actually, if you read the email exchanges, you see Apple engineers discussed the patch tarballs and actively assisted khtml developers when they asked for reasonable things (ie, not access to internal Apple revision control systems). KHTML devs did not reveal this (to my knowledge) in their "open letter" this cooperation, which is quite a bit more than the LGPL. The LGPL requires you make the patches available- that's it. Apple sent them, discussed them, provided help interpreting them, did work by proxy, etc.
This is a logical fallacy called "fallacy by omission", and the specific technique employed was called "Stacking the Deck".
What becomes apparent is that the KHTML team doesn't like that Apple is doing everything they should be, getting commended for it, and that the work (supposedly) wasn't useful to them (we see now that's not the case, as half the patches were easily applied).
If integrating half of the patches only took a month or two, guess what- it wasn't nearly as impossible as the KHTML team made it out to be, and the code wasn't nearly as useless as they portrayed it to be.
WEBCORE CODE CANNOT JUST BE DROPPED INTO THE KHTML TREE. Webcore directly uses OS X features. That is one problem. The code bombs Apple drops periodically have inadequate documentation as to why some changes were made and not others.
The second is irrelevant because of the first; they're also unrelated, though you imply them to be compounded. It's not Apple's responsibility to turn over Webcore, or convert the code to use something besides Webcore. They're not allowed to sit on that code, they HAVE to provide it.
Second, they've provided several of what you've referred to as "code bombs", which is one step ahead of a company that would just provide them with ONE tarball; they're sharing work progressively, and have an active dialog with the khtml team.
Webcore at this point is a khtml fork that is about two years old.
And your point would be what? The LGPL doesn't say "help integrate old code". It doesn't say, "only fork recent code", or "don't fork code at all". It doesn't say "provide changelogs". It doesn't say "provide the project coders with access to your internal revision control systems and corporate network". It doesn't say ANY of that! EVER! PERIOD!
I'm sorry, but this whole thing has left me very embarrassed for the open-source community, and left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. Apple IS one of the better companies as far as contributing to open-source, they've brought open-source technologies to more desktops than anyone else, they've come up with some truly unique technology which they've provided source for- and they still get kicked in the teeth.
A lot of companies are looking at how Apple was treated, and thinking, "geez, Apple did more than just send tarballs, and they got pretty beat up for it." Question: do you think this will encourage or discourage companies to do work on open-source projects?
I was working on the mail server today, and going through logs tracking a clamav/amavis problem.
I started to notice that...one...after...another...the buggers were connecting. We're not even a very big site (just got a bunch of mailing lists). The DNS names were xxx-yyy-zzz-aaa.(something).(insert european country code).
They outnumbered legitimate connections easily 5:1 or more, and the sessions all consisted of:
client: "HELO, I'm in your domain! Here, have some email"
Postfix: "take a flying leap."
client: "HELO, I'm in your domain! Here, have some email"
Postfix: "take a flying leap."
client: "HELO, I'm in your domain! Here, have some email"
Postfix: "take a flying leap."
Every single one would try and send between 3 and 5 messages before finally realizing it wasn't going to work, and disconnecting. It's irritating, because we do actually run a couple of DNS blacklists, but it seems a lot of european systems aren't on them.
When are we going to stop taking the "oh, we'll just filter it" attitude? Feels like all we've accomplished in half a decade is to do spammer's work for them and make users complacent by hiding all this shit from them. It's a classic white elephant problem if I ever saw it...
this is Tim Starling deciding to specifically and literally publish a list of usernames that share the same password, ostensibly for the purpose of revealing trolls and flooders with multiple accounts.
No, it's a developer using an "ends justifies the means" argument to catch sock puppet accounts created by people too stupid to assign them unique passwords.
Unfortunately, he didn't think "gee, this might catch some legitimate users off guard", and as a side effect, we see that Wikipedia developers didn't use salts for the passwords, which indicates just how lax they are about security (which is part of the article's point).
What you seem to be doing is diverting our attention away from the legitimacy of the claims (insecure Wikipedia code, lack of common sense, etc) by simply saying "the author of the story is a troll!"
it would appear that some of these are indeed obvious duplicate accounts
Then why didn't the developer simply remove them? If they're troll accounts, the people won't complain, most likely. If they do, say "oops, sorry, we had a little hiccup" (the swamp gas refracted polarized moon light off the stramospheric sub-layer). Problem solved. If submitted edits are tied to accounts, move the edits into a "holding area" for a month where they're not visible to the public (ie, back them up).
You drive a 5 cylinder car? That acheives 150-180 HP *more* then some other car?
Yes. 2.23l, 20v DOHC; runs about 17lb of boost (93-94 octane mandatory). With a chip, 270-280hp (stock is 217). $2-3k will get you 320-330HP or more; expensive because that level of power requires a larger turbo and improved exhaust manifold; that level of power also does for the most part exceed the flow rate of the stock dual exhaust system.
I went off the base model engine for the Civic, which is 115hp.
"Type-R" is well-known among the racing enthusiasts, as a tuned up version of the original platform to its maximum output
Nope. Actually, I know it to be mostly used for badge engineering- aka posturing.
There's a strong preference among many car enthusiasts for vehicles that just don't stand out. We call them "sleepers", and their performance and subtlety speak for themselves.
For example, with just a litre more displacement- helps to have 5 cylinders instead of 4) and a turbo- I've got around 150-180 more HP than them. A manual transmission (don't laugh, half the ricers drive automatics), all wheel drive, and not a single badge on the car except rings on the trunklid and 'quattro' in the front grille.
Kicker? Blue book value is probably half to a third what a new base-price honda coupe costs. Granted repairs are a little more common, but in the end, for some of us, the occasional hassle is worth it:-)
What does the slashdot crowd think of their choices?
To be frank, seems like a giant wiener waving contest.
In all seriousness, this is what any form of media does best; tell us just HOW IMPORTANT media is. Bloggers are especially impressed with themselves, so it makes perfect sense.
(PS: I don't mean media = press. Bloggers are as much journalists as gossip columnists, and about one step above "storytellers". Not surprisingly, in both camps there seems to be equal amounts of drama in the drivel they put out).
On a personal note, I can't wait to get my preordered copy! I've been looking forward to this documentary more so than HHGTG and Star Wars ROTS.
That quote is pretty blatant astroturf if I ever saw it.
I've met Jason Scott at a slashdot "meetup" (when they first started, haven't been to a single one since) and I kid you not- the guy monopolized the conversation, steering it at every chance he could to his favorite topic. Guess what that is? He is deeply in love with himself (hence the link to the "director" in the story itself, just in case you couldn't find it on your own), and he's been a Slashdot user for years- not Some Joe who just happened to get his project mentioned on Slashdot.
Jason, I hope you read this. I wouldn't have anything to complain about if the story had read "I've just completed my documentary about BBS's, here's more info, it's available for purchase starting..." Don't try and pull a fast one, because you're very bad at it.
With a caveat...that author chooses to have his books in digital format to give for free. Again, he *chooses*. Each author/publisher should have the right to choose.
Only the most successful authors get to set their own terms. Authors pretty much hand over not just a wide range of rights, but exclusivity as well.
The publishing world lost all credibility with me when they tried to fight the sale of used books, because they said they didn't get any royalties from the sale. No shit, really?:-)
The D'Souzas said the bombardment began after the first anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that the radio waves have caused them health problems ranging from headaches to lupus.
As someone who has a family member with Lupus, I call absolute bullshit on this.
Lupus causes haven't really been figured out. Furthermore, there's absolutely ZERO medical evidence that EMF/EMI causes or even aggravates Lupus. Trust me, I looked and looked after her doctor told her to "avoid cell phones and wireless devices whenever possible". I even emailed two mailing lists- one for researchers, one for patients- and came up with nothing. Nobody had ever heard of this. Furthermore, if their theory wer correct, we'd be seeing an explosion of Lupus cases (we haven't).
The D'Souzas said they will comply with the order and remove the sheet metal, but they also plan to gather evidence to show city officials what they believe is a problem with radiation.
That will be pretty tough, given there's next to no evidence EMF/EMI causes anything in people, and a lot of studies showing it has no discernible effects.
The inside of the house is also covered with foil and the beds are covered with a foil-like material as well,"
Sounds to me like they'd be a lot better served spending their money on a psychologist, not tin foil. Self-diagnosis ("radio waves are making us depressed, and giving us Lupus!") is a textbook sign of a hypochondriac.
Uh- no, they just figured out the inject company model:
"It uses a specially formulated Clorox® cleaning solution"
...which will probably cost significantly more than, say, a bottle of regular floor cleaner- which costs a buck or two and lasts months. What's so "specially formulated"?
Thanks, I'll pass. The roomba made sense- it replaced noisy, expensive vacuum cleaners (seriously, vacuum cleaners are expensive) and eliminated the work. This little bugger uses special, expensive consumables, and replaces two items which aren't particularly expensive (mop, bucket). Nor does it take very long to mop a floor- 2 minutes, if you include filling the bucket with warm water.
Not exactly 'turning it off' but it does stop it indexing and therefore chewing system performance.
You can't do this on folders you don't have write permission to- and on your main system drive, -you- shouldn't.
Any billboard that's as bright as the moon and is in full brightness all the time is going to tick every astronomer off within the viewable region
Pardon, but there's a slightly bigger issue, which is how disgusting the concept is. Photographs of the great outdoors? Brought to you by Nikon and Kodak. Night out camping? Brought to you by Hummer, buy one for your next trip and get there in style. Advertisements will universally become part of the landscape. It's so horrifyingly commercial, it makes me want to throw up. That you wouldn't be able to see Star XYZ is, sorry, rather secondary.
I keep waiting for the backlash, and I never see it. First it was the horizon with billboards. Then product placement (no, it's not a new trend, it's been around since the advent of TV). Then clothing. Most recently, people's bodies. Now we're talking about throwing up giant billboards so that you'll have to go inside to avoid them. Where will we stop? When will the backlash begin?
I've noticed that many "futuristic" movies have had floating advertisements in space/the sky (a few that come to mind- Judge Dread, The Fifth Element, and I believe Blade Runner, to name a few) and I think it was almost intended to get us used to the concept. I seriously hope it backfired, sickening people. I know it made my stomach turn.
Thankfully I think this is one area the conservative right will be with us on- they're probably even more horrified of "God's kingdom" being defiled than we are.
just don't get it. Why should talking about P2P networks be considered illegal, and why was he forbidden in the first place?
He wasn't fired for the subject of the talk. He was fired for disobeying his employer's instructions.
Academia has some of the most stifling environments around, coupled with heaps of politics and drama. A lot of very big egos, in a very small pond, and a lot of people who have tenure.
Chase says, however, that 'new cards are embedded with encryption software to prevent duplication and data theft'
Gentlemen, start your armchairs!
but since RFID has been cracked before, and the criminals are usually more clever than the vendors...."
...and we have Ignition!
Seriously, until we know the specifics, much of what anyone says in this story will be silly posturing and armchair engineering. It's also pretty hilarious to see a slashdot reader questioning the qualifications of a bank's security- do you honestly think they'd put their reputation (critical to a bank) and money on the line, without having the whole thing rather thoroughly evaluated by security consult firms? I'm not saying they're perfectly qualified, but I am saying they're a tad more qualified than the general slashdot readership, myself included.
It would have been nice if Slashdot had, say, gotten the inside scoop on some more details- instead of being about 12 hours behind the AP wire (I read about it this morning. And to think one of the reasons on the Slashdot FAQ for "not notifying people they're about to get slashdotted" is "we don't want you to have to wait an hour"). I used to read Slashdot for stories that have more detail/insight than AP stories, or beat them to the punch.
Of course BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate." Are you trying to say that HTTP and FTP aren't legitimate because they can be used to transfer illegal copies of things?
I didn't do a very good job of explaining this, but someone slashdot linked to included a screenshot, and the caption was "downloading perfectly legitimate, legal content", except the filenames were all blurred, and torrentspy was in the background.
It's like walking down the street away from a store with its security system going off, with a TV in your arms wearing a ski-mask, and saying to a policeman, "hey, I'm perfectly legitimate here!" I think the guy was doing it to be cute, which is even worse.
Nobody's claiming that BitTorrent isn't used for illegal things (I hope), but that doesn't mean that it's not "perfectly legitimate."
"Officer, I'm perfectly law-abiding. Well, except when I was doing 20mph over the limit when I drove past you." But I'm PERFECTLY law-abiding.
"Perfectly" means what it says; you're either perfect, or you're not. BitTorrent isn't "perfectly" or even "mostly" legitimate; I'd venture to say it's MOSTLY illegitimate, byte and client-wise. Witness that most of the innovations- RSS feeds and decentralized trackers- are only mostly used or needed by illegitimate activities.
Just because we can't really DO anything about legitimate vs. illegitimate use (or don't LIKE what some people may do about it), doesn't mean we whitewash the situation. Pretty soon, the public gets the illusion that these techies are just a bunch of lying thieves, and we're screwed indefinitely when it comes to issues that really matter, instead of "getting to listen/watch something for free". Like, say, privacy/human/workplace rights.
The kind of people that would watch a crappy version on their computers are NOT the people who would pay $9 to see it in the theatre. Will this affect anything? No.
Slashdot Citizen! Do not oppose the Group Think that P2P is used for 'TEST DRIVING' content, and that EVERYONE buys what they download! And that if Hollywood/MPAA only produced better stuff, we'd...buy...more of...
Wait...I thought we said we bought everything we downloaded?
People claiming BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate" (funniest example of this was a guy who blurred out the "legitimate" torrents and had torrentspy in a browser window behind the torrent client)....OR...Hollywood claiming BitTorrent/P2p is only used for illegitimate purposes
Downloaders claiming that they see/buy everything they download, as does everyone else on p2p....OR...Hollywood, claiming that every download = not just the lost ticket price, but some insane multiplier, when most people don't even bother to "seed" more than half or less of what they download.
Downloaders whining about how they'd go see/buy more movies/music, if only it was better, but still download the "crap" and don't go for independently produced stuff...OR...Hollywood claiming that downloaders are hurting them, while ignoring massive Group Think among producers, directors, and writers for churning out crap not worth paying over TEN DOLLARS to see in a theater where you'll be given the opportunity to pay $3.50 for a small bottle of water, your eardrums will get blown out, and your shoes will stick to the floors for a week.
I'm tired of both sides taking absolutely ridiculous, unsupportable positions...
I don't know if there are some Mac addicts here who can remember it, but the "AV" machines back then (660 AV and 840AV iirc) with their AT&T 3210 DSP, GeoPort, etc... were nicknamed Mac III [...]And of course were an horrible flop:)
I had a 660AV, and it was a nice machine- I liked it; it was an affordable 68040, and that's why I bought it (I believe- this was almost 10 years ago). Speech recognition was kind of cool, but didn't work all that well. The software modem stuff was crap, the DSP-powered fractals only exciting for about 5 minutes. It was one of the newer machines capable of loading its ROM into RAM for a very noticeable speedup, at the penalty of a couple MB of lost memory, and memory was megabucks at the time. Basically, Apple oversold the DSP capabilities, because virtually NOTHING came out that actually used the DSP, even though it was very quick. PowerPC came along, and everyone promptly forgot about the DSPs.
...but MAN oh MAN could that thing crash in spectacular ways. Why? Well, the main OS would crash, but the DSP would keep chugging along, but would get garbage from the main system...and you'd get an incredible video acid trip, along with all sorts of squeals, static, etc from the audio. One time, my soft-modem went completely bonkers, going on+off hook like crazy until I pulled the plug.
This doesn't seem to generate much of a performance hit, so I wonder why Microsoft is going for a different approach? Apple's seems to make more sense.
As a mac user (not "Mac nutjob"), there are several caveats to Spotlight and its indexing.
there can't be a one-to-many relationship, ie, no database files. This is why you don't have any access to Entourage email. Apple said "redo your storage of email", MS said "take a flying leap". I'm with MS on this one. You don't tell people to redesign their data storage because your architecture was short-sighted.
Indexing is pretty clever about waiting until things are quiet (and happens quickly enough even on a 1Ghz G4 powerbook) but it doesn't come with a set of built-in rules of what NOT to index, so things like web browser cache files are included in the index. If you're on battery power, that's wasted CPU cycles and disk I/O.
You can't exclude directories you don't have write permission to. Want to exclude all of/Developer,/Library, and/System, because most likely you won't be looking for files in there? Too bad.
The Spotlight index tends to get extremely fragmented within a week or two of initial use, even if there's plenty of free disk space and gigabytes of contiguous disk. It's not clear why, but after two weeks, the two spotlight index files were in over 400 fragments. A quick "on line" defrag with one of several defrag tools will fix this and it doesn't seem to get as bad from then on.
Smart Folders in both the Finder and programs like Mail are half-assed. For example, I made a Smart Folder that was "every file opened today", which worked -mostly- OK (there was stuff opened by the system, but that's OK). Except then I couldn't sort by atime, no matter what view I picked. It gets worse- you can't use nested conditions like you can in, say, Eudora or Firefox. Nor can you do a smart folder on arbitrary headers. It gets even worse- you can search for "read" as a boolean, not 'status' being either read, unread, replied, or forwarded. Want a smart folder that contains messages today you haven't replied to? Tough shit.
Want to see more than the document name? Have to click on the + every single time. There's no "show more info" view.
Spotlight isn't attached to any program, which makes managing its widow a royal pain in the ass.
In short, Spotlight is nice, but infuriatingly dumbed down more than usual.
One guy who doesn't own a TV, but gets harassed by the TV Licensing Agency (which is actually a private company contracted by the BBC, to the tune of a quarter billion pounds a year): http://www.marmalade.net/lime/
If the BBC essentially runs a public domain service anyway, why are the shows deleted after seven days?
Unlike American public television which is largely supported by private grants/donations/fundraising, the BBC is supported by advertising and (are you sitting down?) a yearly television tax.
A friend was at Suffolk University for a semester abroad. One day everyone in the dorm started running around like they were chickens with their heads cut off, and she asked what was going on. "The TV tax police!" She thought they were trying to do "pull a joke on the stupid American", until she looked out the window and saw a big van with antennas on top and what looked like police officers going building to building. (The vans use the RF from the heterodyne tuners to locate TVs that are on, I believe).
She said the scene would have made Orwell proud. Don't I recall hearing London has a 1:4 CCTV cameras:people ratio?
Slashdot Mirror
Then that is a problem of unrealistic expectations or a misunderstanding on the part of the "fanboys". That's not a problem with Apple's (perceived lack of) cooperation.
Everything I read from the KHTML team whined about how Apple (in their opinion) wasn't doing as much as they should have. I saw a lot of whining about how Apple wasn't giving access to internal code revision servers and whatnot. There was not a single word giving Apple credit for what they HAD done for you.
THAT is why you drew further ire, and I stick to my assertion that your arguments were full of omissions to support your position- aka, "stacking the deck".
Actions speak otherwise- half the patches integrated according to the article.
It means in future open source projects will know what's coming when Apple decide to get "involved".
Yes. They can expect to get regular tarballs, participation of senior team leaders, active dialog on public mailing lists, and assistance of Apple engineers in interpreting the tarballs.
(No, seriously. Go read the archives and look at the discussion that follows when Apple sends in a code base. The "burnt out guy" whines. Another developer or two actually get to work and look at the code, start talking to Apple engineers, etc. An Apple engineer says "let me take a look at that" and a little bit later, comes back as promised with an answer and help.)
After starting out optimistic he's now bitter.
Optimistic is a funny word. He seemed under the impression that Apple was obligated to provide changelogs, access to internal revision control systems, etc. He also got upset when he realized that Apple had forked code. It sounds like he had unreasonable expectations, and when Apple said "I'm sorry, we can't do that" or "I'm sorry, we're not allowed to do that", he threw a hissy fit.
The Konqueror developer in question also used a logical fallacy called "Stacking the deck", a kind of fallacy-by-omission. He did not discuss any of Apple's assistance provided to developers on the mailing list, and repeatedly asserted that Apple was meeting "minimum" requirements of the LGPL, when in fact Apple was doing more.
That is why he got burned. Not because of actions on Apple's part- and your insinuation that Apple is to blame for the actions of its "Apple fanboys" is absurd. You're distracting from the core issue- that the developer used fallacies to promote his version of the facts. Sadly, few people bothered to actually read the mailing list exchanges.
Apple got the code to a rendering engine for free and gave back little to nothing
Again, you're distorting facts. Apple gave back all the code it was obligated to, and participated in an active dialog. If half of Apple's patches were integrated within less than a few months, that's a lot more than "little to nothing". Question- how long would it have taken the KHTML developers to become Acid2 compliant without the contributions by Apple? And if the patches were so worthless, why did they "waste" time and effort if writing their own stuff from scratch would have been more productive, as was implied if not outright stated by khtml developers?
Actually, if you read the email exchanges, you see Apple engineers discussed the patch tarballs and actively assisted khtml developers when they asked for reasonable things (ie, not access to internal Apple revision control systems). KHTML devs did not reveal this (to my knowledge) in their "open letter" this cooperation, which is quite a bit more than the LGPL. The LGPL requires you make the patches available- that's it. Apple sent them, discussed them, provided help interpreting them, did work by proxy, etc.
This is a logical fallacy called "fallacy by omission", and the specific technique employed was called "Stacking the Deck".
What becomes apparent is that the KHTML team doesn't like that Apple is doing everything they should be, getting commended for it, and that the work (supposedly) wasn't useful to them (we see now that's not the case, as half the patches were easily applied).
If integrating half of the patches only took a month or two, guess what- it wasn't nearly as impossible as the KHTML team made it out to be, and the code wasn't nearly as useless as they portrayed it to be.
WEBCORE CODE CANNOT JUST BE DROPPED INTO THE KHTML TREE. Webcore directly uses OS X features. That is one problem. The code bombs Apple drops periodically have inadequate documentation as to why some changes were made and not others.
The second is irrelevant because of the first; they're also unrelated, though you imply them to be compounded. It's not Apple's responsibility to turn over Webcore, or convert the code to use something besides Webcore. They're not allowed to sit on that code, they HAVE to provide it.
Second, they've provided several of what you've referred to as "code bombs", which is one step ahead of a company that would just provide them with ONE tarball; they're sharing work progressively, and have an active dialog with the khtml team.
Webcore at this point is a khtml fork that is about two years old.
And your point would be what? The LGPL doesn't say "help integrate old code". It doesn't say, "only fork recent code", or "don't fork code at all". It doesn't say "provide changelogs". It doesn't say "provide the project coders with access to your internal revision control systems and corporate network". It doesn't say ANY of that! EVER! PERIOD!
I'm sorry, but this whole thing has left me very embarrassed for the open-source community, and left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. Apple IS one of the better companies as far as contributing to open-source, they've brought open-source technologies to more desktops than anyone else, they've come up with some truly unique technology which they've provided source for- and they still get kicked in the teeth.
A lot of companies are looking at how Apple was treated, and thinking, "geez, Apple did more than just send tarballs, and they got pretty beat up for it." Question: do you think this will encourage or discourage companies to do work on open-source projects?
"Okay Beaker, print out a test page now!"
"Meep"
[Whiirrrr zip whirrrrr zip whirrr]
"RAWWWWR!"
"Mee...meee...MEEEP MEEEP MEEEEEEP!"
"Good job, Beaker! Now we know that is definitely too much biological ink!"
(with apologies to the writers of Muppet Island).
I was working on the mail server today, and going through logs tracking a clamav/amavis problem.
I started to notice that...one...after...another...the buggers were connecting. We're not even a very big site (just got a bunch of mailing lists). The DNS names were xxx-yyy-zzz-aaa.(something).(insert european country code).
They outnumbered legitimate connections easily 5:1 or more, and the sessions all consisted of:
client: "HELO, I'm in your domain! Here, have some email"
Postfix: "take a flying leap."
client: "HELO, I'm in your domain! Here, have some email"
Postfix: "take a flying leap."
client: "HELO, I'm in your domain! Here, have some email"
Postfix: "take a flying leap."
Every single one would try and send between 3 and 5 messages before finally realizing it wasn't going to work, and disconnecting. It's irritating, because we do actually run a couple of DNS blacklists, but it seems a lot of european systems aren't on them.
When are we going to stop taking the "oh, we'll just filter it" attitude? Feels like all we've accomplished in half a decade is to do spammer's work for them and make users complacent by hiding all this shit from them. It's a classic white elephant problem if I ever saw it...
No, it's a developer using an "ends justifies the means" argument to catch sock puppet accounts created by people too stupid to assign them unique passwords.
Unfortunately, he didn't think "gee, this might catch some legitimate users off guard", and as a side effect, we see that Wikipedia developers didn't use salts for the passwords, which indicates just how lax they are about security (which is part of the article's point).
What you seem to be doing is diverting our attention away from the legitimacy of the claims (insecure Wikipedia code, lack of common sense, etc) by simply saying "the author of the story is a troll!"
it would appear that some of these are indeed obvious duplicate accounts
Then why didn't the developer simply remove them? If they're troll accounts, the people won't complain, most likely. If they do, say "oops, sorry, we had a little hiccup" (the swamp gas refracted polarized moon light off the stramospheric sub-layer). Problem solved. If submitted edits are tied to accounts, move the edits into a "holding area" for a month where they're not visible to the public (ie, back them up).
This seems like basic sysadmin 101, sorry.
Yes. 2.23l, 20v DOHC; runs about 17lb of boost (93-94 octane mandatory). With a chip, 270-280hp (stock is 217). $2-3k will get you 320-330HP or more; expensive because that level of power requires a larger turbo and improved exhaust manifold; that level of power also does for the most part exceed the flow rate of the stock dual exhaust system.
I went off the base model engine for the Civic, which is 115hp.
"Type-R" is well-known among the racing enthusiasts, as a tuned up version of the original platform to its maximum output
Nope. Actually, I know it to be mostly used for badge engineering- aka posturing.
There's a strong preference among many car enthusiasts for vehicles that just don't stand out. We call them "sleepers", and their performance and subtlety speak for themselves.
For example, with just a litre more displacement- helps to have 5 cylinders instead of 4) and a turbo- I've got around 150-180 more HP than them. A manual transmission (don't laugh, half the ricers drive automatics), all wheel drive, and not a single badge on the car except rings on the trunklid and 'quattro' in the front grille.
Kicker? Blue book value is probably half to a third what a new base-price honda coupe costs. Granted repairs are a little more common, but in the end, for some of us, the occasional hassle is worth it :-)
To be frank, seems like a giant wiener waving contest.
In all seriousness, this is what any form of media does best; tell us just HOW IMPORTANT media is. Bloggers are especially impressed with themselves, so it makes perfect sense.
(PS: I don't mean media = press. Bloggers are as much journalists as gossip columnists, and about one step above "storytellers". Not surprisingly, in both camps there seems to be equal amounts of drama in the drivel they put out).
That quote is pretty blatant astroturf if I ever saw it.
I've met Jason Scott at a slashdot "meetup" (when they first started, haven't been to a single one since) and I kid you not- the guy monopolized the conversation, steering it at every chance he could to his favorite topic. Guess what that is? He is deeply in love with himself (hence the link to the "director" in the story itself, just in case you couldn't find it on your own), and he's been a Slashdot user for years- not Some Joe who just happened to get his project mentioned on Slashdot.
Jason, I hope you read this. I wouldn't have anything to complain about if the story had read "I've just completed my documentary about BBS's, here's more info, it's available for purchase starting..." Don't try and pull a fast one, because you're very bad at it.
Only the most successful authors get to set their own terms. Authors pretty much hand over not just a wide range of rights, but exclusivity as well.
The publishing world lost all credibility with me when they tried to fight the sale of used books, because they said they didn't get any royalties from the sale. No shit, really? :-)
As someone who has a family member with Lupus, I call absolute bullshit on this.
Lupus causes haven't really been figured out. Furthermore, there's absolutely ZERO medical evidence that EMF/EMI causes or even aggravates Lupus. Trust me, I looked and looked after her doctor told her to "avoid cell phones and wireless devices whenever possible". I even emailed two mailing lists- one for researchers, one for patients- and came up with nothing. Nobody had ever heard of this. Furthermore, if their theory wer correct, we'd be seeing an explosion of Lupus cases (we haven't).
The D'Souzas said they will comply with the order and remove the sheet metal, but they also plan to gather evidence to show city officials what they believe is a problem with radiation.
That will be pretty tough, given there's next to no evidence EMF/EMI causes anything in people, and a lot of studies showing it has no discernible effects.
The inside of the house is also covered with foil and the beds are covered with a foil-like material as well,"
Sounds to me like they'd be a lot better served spending their money on a psychologist, not tin foil. Self-diagnosis ("radio waves are making us depressed, and giving us Lupus!") is a textbook sign of a hypochondriac.
Uh- no, they just figured out the inject company model:
"It uses a specially formulated Clorox® cleaning solution"
...which will probably cost significantly more than, say, a bottle of regular floor cleaner- which costs a buck or two and lasts months. What's so "specially formulated"?
Thanks, I'll pass. The roomba made sense- it replaced noisy, expensive vacuum cleaners (seriously, vacuum cleaners are expensive) and eliminated the work. This little bugger uses special, expensive consumables, and replaces two items which aren't particularly expensive (mop, bucket). Nor does it take very long to mop a floor- 2 minutes, if you include filling the bucket with warm water.
Not exactly 'turning it off' but it does stop it indexing and therefore chewing system performance. You can't do this on folders you don't have write permission to- and on your main system drive, -you- shouldn't.
Could we please move on to things that matter a wee bit more?
Pardon, but there's a slightly bigger issue, which is how disgusting the concept is. Photographs of the great outdoors? Brought to you by Nikon and Kodak. Night out camping? Brought to you by Hummer, buy one for your next trip and get there in style. Advertisements will universally become part of the landscape. It's so horrifyingly commercial, it makes me want to throw up. That you wouldn't be able to see Star XYZ is, sorry, rather secondary.
I keep waiting for the backlash, and I never see it. First it was the horizon with billboards. Then product placement (no, it's not a new trend, it's been around since the advent of TV). Then clothing. Most recently, people's bodies. Now we're talking about throwing up giant billboards so that you'll have to go inside to avoid them. Where will we stop? When will the backlash begin?
I've noticed that many "futuristic" movies have had floating advertisements in space/the sky (a few that come to mind- Judge Dread, The Fifth Element, and I believe Blade Runner, to name a few) and I think it was almost intended to get us used to the concept. I seriously hope it backfired, sickening people. I know it made my stomach turn.
Thankfully I think this is one area the conservative right will be with us on- they're probably even more horrified of "God's kingdom" being defiled than we are.
He wasn't fired for the subject of the talk. He was fired for disobeying his employer's instructions.
Academia has some of the most stifling environments around, coupled with heaps of politics and drama. A lot of very big egos, in a very small pond, and a lot of people who have tenure.
Gentlemen, start your armchairs!
but since RFID has been cracked before, and the criminals are usually more clever than the vendors...."
...and we have Ignition!
Seriously, until we know the specifics, much of what anyone says in this story will be silly posturing and armchair engineering. It's also pretty hilarious to see a slashdot reader questioning the qualifications of a bank's security- do you honestly think they'd put their reputation (critical to a bank) and money on the line, without having the whole thing rather thoroughly evaluated by security consult firms? I'm not saying they're perfectly qualified, but I am saying they're a tad more qualified than the general slashdot readership, myself included.
It would have been nice if Slashdot had, say, gotten the inside scoop on some more details- instead of being about 12 hours behind the AP wire (I read about it this morning. And to think one of the reasons on the Slashdot FAQ for "not notifying people they're about to get slashdotted" is "we don't want you to have to wait an hour"). I used to read Slashdot for stories that have more detail/insight than AP stories, or beat them to the punch.
Now it does neither.
Of course BitTorrent is "perfectly legitimate." Are you trying to say that HTTP and FTP aren't legitimate because they can be used to transfer illegal copies of things?
I didn't do a very good job of explaining this, but someone slashdot linked to included a screenshot, and the caption was "downloading perfectly legitimate, legal content", except the filenames were all blurred, and torrentspy was in the background.
It's like walking down the street away from a store with its security system going off, with a TV in your arms wearing a ski-mask, and saying to a policeman, "hey, I'm perfectly legitimate here!" I think the guy was doing it to be cute, which is even worse.
Nobody's claiming that BitTorrent isn't used for illegal things (I hope), but that doesn't mean that it's not "perfectly legitimate."
"Officer, I'm perfectly law-abiding. Well, except when I was doing 20mph over the limit when I drove past you." But I'm PERFECTLY law-abiding.
"Perfectly" means what it says; you're either perfect, or you're not. BitTorrent isn't "perfectly" or even "mostly" legitimate; I'd venture to say it's MOSTLY illegitimate, byte and client-wise. Witness that most of the innovations- RSS feeds and decentralized trackers- are only mostly used or needed by illegitimate activities.
Just because we can't really DO anything about legitimate vs. illegitimate use (or don't LIKE what some people may do about it), doesn't mean we whitewash the situation. Pretty soon, the public gets the illusion that these techies are just a bunch of lying thieves, and we're screwed indefinitely when it comes to issues that really matter, instead of "getting to listen/watch something for free". Like, say, privacy/human/workplace rights.
Slashdot Citizen! Do not oppose the Group Think that P2P is used for 'TEST DRIVING' content, and that EVERYONE buys what they download! And that if Hollywood/MPAA only produced better stuff, we'd...buy...more of...
Wait...I thought we said we bought everything we downloaded?
Aaaaaaa! [head implodes]
I don't know which is funnier:
I'm tired of both sides taking absolutely ridiculous, unsupportable positions...
I had a 660AV, and it was a nice machine- I liked it; it was an affordable 68040, and that's why I bought it (I believe- this was almost 10 years ago). Speech recognition was kind of cool, but didn't work all that well. The software modem stuff was crap, the DSP-powered fractals only exciting for about 5 minutes. It was one of the newer machines capable of loading its ROM into RAM for a very noticeable speedup, at the penalty of a couple MB of lost memory, and memory was megabucks at the time. Basically, Apple oversold the DSP capabilities, because virtually NOTHING came out that actually used the DSP, even though it was very quick. PowerPC came along, and everyone promptly forgot about the DSPs.
...but MAN oh MAN could that thing crash in spectacular ways. Why? Well, the main OS would crash, but the DSP would keep chugging along, but would get garbage from the main system...and you'd get an incredible video acid trip, along with all sorts of squeals, static, etc from the audio. One time, my soft-modem went completely bonkers, going on+off hook like crazy until I pulled the plug.
As a mac user (not "Mac nutjob"), there are several caveats to Spotlight and its indexing.
In short, Spotlight is nice, but infuriatingly dumbed down more than usual.
More information:
One guy who doesn't own a TV, but gets harassed by the TV Licensing Agency (which is actually a private company contracted by the BBC, to the tune of a quarter billion pounds a year): http://www.marmalade.net/lime/
Information about BBC revenue and expenditures, TVLA, etc: http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/international/bbc.htm l
Unlike American public television which is largely supported by private grants/donations/fundraising, the BBC is supported by advertising and (are you sitting down?) a yearly television tax.
A friend was at Suffolk University for a semester abroad. One day everyone in the dorm started running around like they were chickens with their heads cut off, and she asked what was going on. "The TV tax police!" She thought they were trying to do "pull a joke on the stupid American", until she looked out the window and saw a big van with antennas on top and what looked like police officers going building to building. (The vans use the RF from the heterodyne tuners to locate TVs that are on, I believe).
She said the scene would have made Orwell proud. Don't I recall hearing London has a 1:4 CCTV cameras:people ratio?