The keys will be one per model, or something like that (i.e. model 11235a may have the same key as 11235b, but not many models will share if any). Then if that model was compromised, it would disable the key. There may be multiple keys, who knows. But if it were a unique, per-model key, there would be too much to keep track of, and no way of telling if it had been hacked.
Just solder the usb devices directly onto the card, and epoxy the hole. When it comes down to it, even if one fails the price to replace isn't too bad.
Ther's no "ya'll" about it, tons of schools use this same system. Yes, it's possible, but it's just not practicle. You're throwing a random number generator at Calculus II, which has bad results. The parser is buggy, but it has to take in complicated solutions, also. It also has to deal with the fact that the answer can be presented in tons of different ways (Ok, it DOESN'T do that [well/much], but it needs to). It's just not something that can be reasonably done.
It's possible, trivial even, to write a program and have a way for students to solve problems (showing their work, of course!) in a machine-readable format.
Bullshit. The automated testing/grading program used by our math department is proof that such a system doesn't work. ilrn.com anybody? It's terrible.
If we got something along the lines of "Since deciding to open-source our project, we have embraced that opportunity this gives us to include source code from other projects to enhance our own." or "We put this Pear PC stuff in here only after we decided to open the source." in non-PHB speak.
Mod a computer power supply. I got my 550 Watt power supply for $10 plus shipping, and it works great. (Was supposed to be free shipping, but with that good of a deal I wasn't going to bother with it).
My post should read that I "doubt it would not be gone". And I was supposing, anyway. I know IE and Mozilla share no code. I was pointing out how ridiculous that was, even with no knowledge of the history.
You overlook the fact that this "P2P Ready file" is legel to make for personal use (but this is not the argument I'm making, so don't nitpick).
The reason for the difference is that the law wasn't written with that scenario in mind. Copyright infringement laws were written to target large operations conterfeiting copyrighted material.
Perusing the robots, I found:
Disallow:/kids/teeball/iraq
WTF
But really, it looks like they disallowed every/iraq and/text in every folder - whether it existed or not. Can't think of any reason, unless they don't want everyone to know about The bloodiest military mistake ever.
(Yes, this is a joke, look up google bombing [I think that's the term])
Honestly though, do you think Microsoft would leave such glaring and obvious evidence if they DID steal source from Mozilla? With access to the source, getting rid of that little scrap of "evidence" would be trivial, and I doubt that, given that they did steal code and "forget" to take that line out, that it would be gone by IE 6.
Someone, please, mod parent (MY POST) down. I JUST said that it's wrong, it's been shown to be wrong, and it has since been modded Interesting. It's not correct, so I want it modded into oblivion before someone reads it and bases some decision/opinion on the incorrect information. Don't bother with this post, I selected No Karma Bonus. At least mod the other one down so this post will point out its incorrectness.
I meant more like this:
Bobapp 1.0 is release under GPL2
Jim releases Jimapp, a derivative of that, under GPL3
Steve wants to make a derivative of Jimapp and lisence it under the original GPL2, but can't.
Sorry about the formatting, feel free to mod previous into oblivion, but use overrated so stupid metamods don't get you.
---Nemosomen
BAH, my college must have bastards, no AC posting from here.
I meant more like this:
Bobapp 1.0 is release under GPL2
Jim releases Jimapp, a derivative of that, under GPL3
Steve wants to make a derivative of Jimapp and lisence it under the original GPL2, but can't.
Based on the wording of the GPL, you cannot release a GPL program under an old lisence. It states that the program is licensed under either the included version, or any subsequent version thereof, at the discretion of whoever is going to be changing it. The GPL is also "unmodifiable" (Something I personally don't like) I assume, technically, this also forces derivitaves of someone who chose to use GPL3 on a GPL2'd project would forever be locked in GPL3
To be fair:
"The program does not distinguish between legal and illegal copies, as it is up to the user to determine, whether the files found by the program have been acquired legally, or whether the material should be deleted."
Though it should definately at least exclude default system sounds and the like. Perhaps even recognize certain common audio editors and ignore files saved in their default locations be those. This could actually be useful, if it were more refined, to the least computer savvy parents. (Read: The parents who "check their email" using voice recognition -- "Hoy Johnny, did I get any email?"
I'm making a point that "Open Source" doesn't mean "Infinitely Portable." Your counterpoint was that I shouldn't use Linux as a benchmark for portability (Which I didn't do). I was just giving an example of non-portable open source software (ZSNES would probably be an even better example -- almost 100% non-portable across architectures). The great grand uncle (Or nearabout) was equating "Open Source" with "Portable."
You, sir, have missed the point.
I think many of you fail to realize something. This is just me talking, but I don't think Bram Cohen gives a damn about GPL, or open software, or anything. He made BitTorrent as a resumé. He wanted it as widespread as possible, which includes having it as part of closed source projects as well. I don't imagine Cohen expected it to be this wildly popular, but his intent was to hopefully get a job in a bad job market. Feel free to correct me.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we'll just have to find a torrent of it instead...... Anybody?
But what fatass can break a flash drive just by sitting on it? I would venture to say I could safely jump on mine a few times.
The keys will be one per model, or something like that (i.e. model 11235a may have the same key as 11235b, but not many models will share if any). Then if that model was compromised, it would disable the key. There may be multiple keys, who knows. But if it were a unique, per-model key, there would be too much to keep track of, and no way of telling if it had been hacked.
Just solder the usb devices directly onto the card, and epoxy the hole. When it comes down to it, even if one fails the price to replace isn't too bad.
Ther's no "ya'll" about it, tons of schools use this same system. Yes, it's possible, but it's just not practicle. You're throwing a random number generator at Calculus II, which has bad results. The parser is buggy, but it has to take in complicated solutions, also. It also has to deal with the fact that the answer can be presented in tons of different ways (Ok, it DOESN'T do that [well/much], but it needs to). It's just not something that can be reasonably done.
It's possible, trivial even, to write a program and have a way for students to solve problems (showing their work, of course!) in a machine-readable format.
Bullshit. The automated testing/grading program used by our math department is proof that such a system doesn't work. ilrn.com anybody? It's terrible.
If we got something along the lines of "Since deciding to open-source our project, we have embraced that opportunity this gives us to include source code from other projects to enhance our own." or "We put this Pear PC stuff in here only after we decided to open the source." in non-PHB speak.
More likey: games.* is unproductive.
(Ok, more likely the overly broad *games*)
It was a joke... laugh. That joke apparently got me my first foe though, heh.
Swatch Harmonious Internet Time
If you don't understand, don't mod.
Mod a computer power supply. I got my 550 Watt power supply for $10 plus shipping, and it works great. (Was supposed to be free shipping, but with that good of a deal I wasn't going to bother with it).
Links? I recognize one of those. (Most curious about the "sticker" story.)
I think that if Orbitz wants to prohibit deep linking, then we should just follow the rules. It's their site, and they can do whatever they want with it. I find it immoral and rude to blatantly ignore the rules they set forth. Agree to the TOS to join and you agree to the terms therein. Quit whining, and just accept that you can't deep link.
My post should read that I "doubt it would not be gone". And I was supposing, anyway. I know IE and Mozilla share no code. I was pointing out how ridiculous that was, even with no knowledge of the history.
You overlook the fact that this "P2P Ready file" is legel to make for personal use (but this is not the argument I'm making, so don't nitpick). The reason for the difference is that the law wasn't written with that scenario in mind. Copyright infringement laws were written to target large operations conterfeiting copyrighted material.
Perusing the robots, I found: /kids/teeball/iraq /iraq and /text in every folder - whether it existed or not. Can't think of any reason, unless they don't want everyone to know about The bloodiest military mistake ever.
Disallow:
WTF
But really, it looks like they disallowed every
(Yes, this is a joke, look up google bombing [I think that's the term])
Honestly though, do you think Microsoft would leave such glaring and obvious evidence if they DID steal source from Mozilla? With access to the source, getting rid of that little scrap of "evidence" would be trivial, and I doubt that, given that they did steal code and "forget" to take that line out, that it would be gone by IE 6.
Someone, please, mod parent (MY POST) down. I JUST said that it's wrong, it's been shown to be wrong, and it has since been modded Interesting. It's not correct, so I want it modded into oblivion before someone reads it and bases some decision/opinion on the incorrect information. Don't bother with this post, I selected No Karma Bonus. At least mod the other one down so this post will point out its incorrectness.
Ah, you're right. I guess I've seen it so many times that I had assumed it was part of the lisence. I take back all I said.
There's a new button for "No Karma Bonus"....
I meant more like this:
Bobapp 1.0 is release under GPL2
Jim releases Jimapp, a derivative of that, under GPL3
Steve wants to make a derivative of Jimapp and lisence it under the original GPL2, but can't.
Sorry about the formatting, feel free to mod previous into oblivion, but use overrated so stupid metamods don't get you. ---Nemosomen BAH, my college must have bastards, no AC posting from here.
I meant more like this: Bobapp 1.0 is release under GPL2 Jim releases Jimapp, a derivative of that, under GPL3 Steve wants to make a derivative of Jimapp and lisence it under the original GPL2, but can't.
Based on the wording of the GPL, you cannot release a GPL program under an old lisence. It states that the program is licensed under either the included version, or any subsequent version thereof, at the discretion of whoever is going to be changing it. The GPL is also "unmodifiable" (Something I personally don't like) I assume, technically, this also forces derivitaves of someone who chose to use GPL3 on a GPL2'd project would forever be locked in GPL3
To be fair:
"The program does not distinguish between legal and illegal copies, as it is up to the user to determine, whether the files found by the program have been acquired legally, or whether the material should be deleted."
Though it should definately at least exclude default system sounds and the like. Perhaps even recognize certain common audio editors and ignore files saved in their default locations be those. This could actually be useful, if it were more refined, to the least computer savvy parents. (Read: The parents who "check their email" using voice recognition -- "Hoy Johnny, did I get any email?"
I'm making a point that "Open Source" doesn't mean "Infinitely Portable." Your counterpoint was that I shouldn't use Linux as a benchmark for portability (Which I didn't do). I was just giving an example of non-portable open source software (ZSNES would probably be an even better example -- almost 100% non-portable across architectures). The great grand uncle (Or nearabout) was equating "Open Source" with "Portable." You, sir, have missed the point.
I think many of you fail to realize something. This is just me talking, but I don't think Bram Cohen gives a damn about GPL, or open software, or anything. He made BitTorrent as a resumé. He wanted it as widespread as possible, which includes having it as part of closed source projects as well. I don't imagine Cohen expected it to be this wildly popular, but his intent was to hopefully get a job in a bad job market. Feel free to correct me.