"It's what you are implying, so you might as well be direct."
It's called, being polite. But, I'm glad you recognize it for what it is. One need not be so direct to get the message across as you, and I'm sure many others, so clearly recognized the meaning of my message without my having resorting to the use of profanity.
Cell phones are annoying when used indescrimately. Direct Connect phones in walkie-talkie mode should be reserved for construction zones, loud environments, on where discretion is off less concern. Nobody gives a rats ass about your cell phone conversation, unless of course, you're a stock broker and receiving insider information. Then, we all want to hear.
I still remember the listening to a guy in an airport toilet stall talking so loud into his phone trying to make us think he was important. What was far more important is that he finished his business so others could do their theirs.
The fact is that there are times when you should and should not be using your cell phone out of politeness for the people around you.
In a movie theatre (during the movie) is one just place. In a quiet restuarant is another. That's why the phones in such establishments are moved out of normal hearing range of people enjoying a meal. Your talking is disturbing the others around you. That's why the ushers will tend to take incessant chatters out of a theatre. Personally, I think they should crush the cell phone too.
Another time is when out on a date and engaging in converstations on your cell phone when you should be engaging in conversation with your present company.
There is a distinct difference between answering a cell phone call on the street (ala your meeting a friend on the street) and in a semi-private location (such as a movie theatre or restuarant) where your behavior directly affects those around you from enjoying themselves.
That's the problem with society today, to many fail to understand or exhibit common courtesy.
At least in Pennsylvania, IT workers are considered "exempt from overtime. Thus, you have three options:
1) Threaten to quit and hope they don't call your bluff. If they call your bluff, you'll like like an idiot of you don't quit. See #2.
2) Just quit "in-force" and watch them panic. With any luck (and hoping your other team members do the same), they'll do what they can to retain you. Make sure you have something else lined up or you won't be able to collect unemployment.
3) Suck it up and look really hard for a new job and pray the fire you for poor performance (that way, you get out of any non-competes and can collect unemployement).
Well, there's a fourth option, that's to quit and join the consulting firm your company has hired. Of course, that may not work either as they may have a non-compete/non-hiring agreement with your company.
If you choose #3, be sure to do the absolute minimal amount of work, call in sick a lot. Complain of illnessess like carpal tunnel syndrome, headaches, dizziness, back pain. And, be sure to visit doctors to get these "illnessess" on record. Then, when they let you go, you nail them for creating an unhealthy work environment and take them to the cleaners.
Baring that...a measure of last recourse...be sure to mutter to yourself and yell "grenade" or some other war time saying whenever your boss walks in. And, cover yourself with water so it looks like your sweating profusely and having some sort of stress attack. It helps, of course, to have some real legitimate combat experience to pull this one off effectively. Alternatively, you can come to work wearing trench coats and talk alot about your cache of weapons you've been collecting with your other, less stable, coworkers (who also wear trench coats). Make sure your supervisors overhear you. When they let you go, sue for creating a hostile work environment as, I assume, you don't truly have a cache of weapons.
I found myself pondering this question yesterday even before I read this article. While the challenge/response will work to some degree, how long will it take before optical/pattern recognition will catch up?
I wonder if the solution doesn't exist in the judicious use of public key encryption and a secure clearing house of certificates as well as a clearing house for known abusers.
Digitally signed and encrypted e-mail will allow for quick identification of the sender as well as preventing the viewing of the message if it is not decrypted. If then sender is on the abuse list, the recepient can decide whether to download the appropriate certificate or not to view the message. By default, the certificate should not be downloaded if on the abuse list.
With the proper PK infrastructure, ISPs can issue certificates to their customers pending certification of the customer's credentials. Now, hold the issuer of the certificate to the test as well as the issuee. If an ISP gives out certificates to known spammers, the ISPs certificate can be revoked by the ISPs issue authority. If none of the ISPs mail goes through, they probably won't stay in business for long. This, I would like to think, would make them a little more responsible and inclined to keep on top of their customers.
Businesses and such can be given issuing authority as well. If they abuse their e-mailing priveledge, they lose their ability to send mail. How many businesses in today's world can afford this? Not many.
Additionally, the relay receiving the initial mail can apply their digital signature to validate the message came from an authenticated user. If that signature matches on receipt, the message hasn't been forged regardless of what other headers are added (they aren't signed).
I realize my suggestions would require redesigned mail client and server software as well as a revamping of how e-mail is handled in general. But, I think the concept is sound. Whether it can be made practical (or even acceptable to the user community) is another issue.
A major downside to this is that by providing non-repudidation of the e-mail, anonymity goes away and messages can be tracked and analyzed through traffic analysis even if their content can not be viewed. So, while we would gain privacy of content, the sender's identity would not remain private.
I'd love to hear what others think of the idea (both good and bad). Maybe a grass roots approach might make some inroads into this problem and eliminate these cretins altogether.
The equipment is probably very well grounded and shielded...something most home and basic office equipment is not. I'd also suspect your ionic filters in the clean room are a bit higher quality than those of consumer grade and go further to trap excess ions from escaping the unit.
Shielding of components is getting better and most offices are now grounded (i.e. 3 prong vs 2 prong). When I ran my science fair experiments in 1982, which produced a lot of ions, I'd have 1/4 sparks jumping from file cabinents to the floor. Granted, my experiments were designed to product a boatload of directed ions, but this was at 50 ft (should watch neon bulbs and phosphoresent panels glow as well). Given that that beam pattern expanded (given electrostatic repusion and I tried to inject neutralizing ions into the stream), this is a frightening prospect to sensitive consumer electronics since it only takes on relatively small electrostatic discharge to punch a hole through your CPU's silicon substrate and render it useless (my experiments did not go into this area...I was building an ion engine turned raygun).
Ummmm...I would recommend that. The Ionic breeze works on the principle of charging dust particles and then attracting them to an oppositely charged plate. Some of the ionized particles get through. I'd have to think that injecting ionized air into your PC is not a wise idea. I'd have to question whether having them in the same room as your ocmputer equipment is a bright idea either.
As for the guy who says that Ionic Breeze doesn't work isn't familiar enough with the technology. Electrostatic air filters have been in effect for years with forced air systems. However, with proper design it can charge air/dust particles and accellerate them out the other side. I did something similar as part of my ionic engine science fair experiment in 1982 (I used a 200,000 volt differential and iodine gase as my propellent). Worked quite well.
What nobody is discussing is that these systems generate low to moderate amounts of ozone. While it's great to have in the upper atmosphere, ozone in your breathing air is quite corrosive to your lungs. If you suffer from ashma, I'd go with a filtration unit over an air ionizer.
Just for the record, Microsoft and Borland have a very good working relationship that has improved greatly in the past several years (especially i the.Net arena). As a Delphi developer since 1996, I have only seen improvements in the product and with it's interactions with the OS. But, I'm digressing.
The issue is whether or not they, the Firebird team, has acted badly or not. Mailbombing certainly isn't nice behavior. But, then again, neither is "stealing" another project's name recognition and "officially" announcing it on./
Given the wide dissemination of information that./ provides, the Mozilla team effectively attempted to force the issue. That's not exactly in the spirit of OSS either. I'd have to say both camps acted rather badly.
You have to understand the history of the Firebird DB project in the first place to understand their displeasure.
Firebird DB draws its codebase from Borland's InterBase. Borland was going to kill InterBase and let many of their developers go. Those developers decided to resurrect InterBase as an open source product. There was a lot of talk and Borland was going to release the full source code and rights to them so that this could happen. Then, the talks broke down and InterBase Corporation got screwed. InterBase became a commercial product again with substantially higher licensing fees than before.
So, they (IBC) took what source they DID have rights to and expanded the product and offer it as an OS solution. Because it essentially arose from the ashes, it was named Firebird (and the IBPhoenix support group was born).
Firebird is a very robust and powerful SQL 92 compliant database. It's adoptance by the OS community has been slow because most people remember it only as the commercial InterBase product. But, it's a very powerful, cross platform, database solution. I've used both InterBase and FireBird in my work I'm predominantly a Delphi developer..but do a fair amount of Linux work on the side). InterBase licensing costs are high. FireBird is free.
I suggest that you take a look at what Firebird (the DB) has to offer. I think you'll be pleasantly suprised. And, now that you have an understanding of where the name came from for the project, maybe you'll have a better appreciation of their fight to retain it.
RD
Re:Things to remember
on
Gas Goes Solid
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
2) When you break the hydrate down, you have methane and water. You have to do something with the water - dump it on the ground, feed it into the engine to be vaporized, something.
Along these grounds, why not recycle the water to a) cool the engine itself and b) drive a small turbine for added electrical power generation. Perhaps, this additional energy can be applied to a fly-wheel assembly for quicker accelleration.
1. CIWS does not unleash a wall of lead...it'd depleated Uranium. This makes the projectile far more effective against inbound targets.
2. CIWS classifies targets based on the potential target's trajectory. If the parameters for the inbound do not meet the threat criteria or fall outside of the weapons field of fire, it will not fire.
This means that CIWS is not intended to target boats, mines, or personnel. It will target and destroy inbound missles or planes that meet the threat criteria. It does this quite effectively.
To deal with other potential attacks, ships are equipped with other weapons,.50 Cal machine guns or 25mm chain guns and personnel who are supposed to be alert.
The only known case I am aware of where a CIWS was used in an anti-personnel manner was an CIWS test excerise that went terribly wrong. The CIWS tracked a drone right into the path of another ship ripping the bridge of the other ship and killing the ship's navigator.
To do this with an LED would require that the LED be actually driven by the data signal. Most of them go on at the start of the packet or byte and go off at the end, they don't go on for 1 and off for 0. So, you might be able to do a little traffic analysis, but you would not be able to recover the data.
Actually, that is incorrect. Improper design or construction of the system could produce power fluctuations that directly correlatate with the data signal even in circuits not directly related. These fluctuations can manifest themselves as amplitude modulations in the current driving the LEDs and thus detectable with the proper equipment. This is one of the reasons for ground planes having significantly larger surface area than power and data leads and the proper selection and use of bypass capacitors to shunt AC signals to ground.
Ah...so that explains why soda pop explodes when placed next to my subwoofer. Now, I wonder which brand of soda will produce the highest nuclear yield. Talk about energy drinks...
None at all when considered by itself. AES (ala Rijndael) does not depend upon prime numbers. Hence, it is not subject to factoring. It is a symmetric cipher with key lengths up to 256 bits.
Where it could be susceptible, however, is during a key negotiation session (say via Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange) or a naive approach of simply encoding the session key using the recepients RSA key.
Where I would be truly frightened is in the realm of digital signatures where somebody could forge a digital signature simply by knowing the sender's public key and factoring it. With digital signatures almost as legally binding as handwritten signatures, identity theft may increase using these methods.
The resulting impact may be less acceptance of digital signatures and more reliance on antiquated methods.
I thought that was the Great Nebula in Orion's belt? I never knew it was also known as the Horse Head nebula. Cool.
I still break out the old 4 1/4 to show the kids. Now, I just want a regional power failure on a clear night so they can see it the way it was meant to be seen.
Word has it from the 2000 Borland Developer's Conference, that Kylix was going to be Delphi on Linux. Next in the queue was going to be C++Builder on Linux. During that same conference, the core C++ compiler had been built and demonstrated compiling and running natively on Linux. That was two years ago.
Since that time, we have seen Kylix and Kylix 2 released as well as Delphi 6 and a new C++Builder. The fundamental piece was the use of CLX to make the code cross platform between Windows and Linux. VCL code simply will not port. And, the VCL never worked cleanly between Delphi and Kylix. CLX was the answer to this.
I expect that the upcoming release will be C++Builder on Linux. That means it will have the same look and feel as C++ Builder on Windows. Yes...a GUI oriented development tool with all the wizbang designers that many of us have come to love.
I'd also like to point out that Borland made it clear that they were not out to replace GCC. Their aim (well, 2 years ago), was to make a development tool that enabled developers with a Windows background migrate to Linux and bring their application development skills to the Linux platform. There was alot of talk about whether the libraries would be link compatible with GCC. They didn't have an answer that most of us wanted to hear. But, like I said, that was two years ago.
Borland is position themselves to enable developers to enter a new market. While the MS folks are concerned about pushing.NET out the door, Borland developers will already be developing Web services and database applications for both Linux and Windows and beating their competitors to the punch.
Will these tools be an immediate big hit with Linux users? Doubt it. It takes a lot to effect a paradime shift of that magnitude. But, you will see Windows developers porting their code to Linux and opening up new markets. Eventually, the die hard people will see the advantages of using a tool like C++Builder or Kylix in a corporate setting. And, if we are really lucky, we'll see Borland making their.so's compatible with rest of the Linux community. The whole point of doing a C++ version is simply that the majority of Linux developers use that language. But, they ported Delphi over first (ala Kylix) because the majority of their customers are Delphi users.
I agree. Borland isn't backing down per se. I think it was a poor choice of words. It's almost as if there was a standoff or something. When this article surfaced, Borland did have a chance to respond. It was all public outcry.
However, they (Borland) are claiming to be reworking the licenses. That, unfortunately, takes time (especially when lawyers are paid by the hour). So, we'll just have to be patient and see what comes of this. If it's not satisfactory, it will hit the proverbial fan again. Surely, it will be resolved by the Borland Developer's Conference in May. If not, Dale Fuller will find himself facing a rather hostile crowd as he did at the opening ceremony at last years conference.
FWIW, on their newsgroups, John Kastor stated that he has been pushing to have the licenses available online. John seems pretty good to his word. This event will probably accellerate the decision making process. The ball is in their court, let's see how they run with it.
Perhaps I should have put a (SP) next to it. I couldn't remember the correct spelling at the time and had not yet partaken of my morning coffee. Besides,I can conjure up a word to describe the situation and call it artistic license, no?
Frackus: (n)
Def: A play on words used to describe an unpleasant situation between powerless individuals and power hunger corporations. Often replaces the more gentle term, fracas.
Example: When I and my fellow developers read the licensing agreement a frackus ensued leaving us all rather bloody and sore.
The correct spelling should have been 'fracas'and the phrase should read:
"A few years ago, there was a similar fracas..."
BTW, on Howard Stern's Radio Show this morning, they were poking fun at Gov. Ventura's use of the phrase "we've boughten them time". On a whim, I looked up the word 'boughten'. While it sounds awkward, the word exists and was used in the correct context. Go figure. Score one for Jesse.
No. It's the employment of lawyers with nothing better to do than to screw with a good thing.
Who remembers the Borland license of TP5 days when the software was to be treated like a book?
I think they called it their "No Nonsense License Agreement" or something like that. We didn't complain about that one as it was pretty fair. I heard it was crafted by the software engineers themselves. Why can't a license like that become the industry boilerplate?
Unfortunately, the company grew and they hired laywers who had to make it virtually unreadable to anyone without a legal background. It went downhill from there. Lawyers server a purpose in a software company, like protecting it from litigation and protection of intellectual property. But, when it comes to licensing, they need to listen to the engineers and development community and license accordingly.
A few years ago, there was a similar frackus about, I think it was the Borland C++ license. They had a "non-compete" clause there. That was promptly removed after the application of public pressure. You'd think they learn from that. Perhaps, if they're smart, they'll pass the license by their real users for review and comment before putting it in the box.
There's still a strong push on the Borland NG to have the license reverted to one like the NNLA. Let's see what happens. Borland has a tendency to react favorably to its developer community.
Do you accept all this a Gospel truth? If you have received a copy of Kylix (i.e Open Edition), read the license yourself. Has anybody in here actually posted a copy of the license as it exists on the Kylix disks? I've seen reprints, but nothing that seems to point to Borland. Maybe I missed it.
Even if this is true, you can bet that it will be fixed REAL fast just as other licensing screwup were fixed. I do know that the Delphi 6 license is very reasonable (even in the similarly disputed sections). I wonder if somebody didn't replace the real license with an in-house spoof and the spoof made it into production. Who knows?
But, to reject Borland and it's tools because of this is ridiculous. Give Borland a chance to respond. But, I can't help but hope for the old "like a book" license to stage a comeback and a firing of the lawyers who drafted this supposed abombination up in the first place.
Why was the parent post to this message moderated as TROLL while other offbeat "stories" received "FUNNY" moderation? Apparently the moderator who awarded the Troll rating has a grudge against SANTA's R&D department or the fact that the Rudolf may soon be replaced. Must be a Union thing.
However, after breaking this story, Santa's publicist announced that no Reindeer will lose their jobs over this advancement. They will still be used to assist in public appearances and receive the daily allotment of special magic grain.
A few years ago, when I powered up one of the lost Clinton administration laptops (it was found in under a set on the DC Metro), I came across some interesting intelligience data. Apparently, the White Bearded One (WBO) has advanced well beyond what this article implies. I only caught a quick glimpse before the Secret Service snatched it from my hands and threatened to lock me up (didn't say where exactly).
Naturally, I pretended not to have seen anything...except to say I was looking for a video game to play and it was just sitting there looking like it wanted to be played.
Well, anyway...it seems that the WBO has been dabbling with quantum physics. Supposedly, he's found a way to convert himself into a wave function. This allows him to visit every home in the world simultaneously. But, it seems to work better if he contrained the function to a particular longitude. By adjusting this variable alone, he could make his visit to each child's home at exactly midnight in the child's time zone.
Pretty ingenious if you ask me. He doesn't even need to slip down any more chimmneys and risk getting stuck (or burned). And, because the probabliity of him being where you are looking is so remote, he remains completely stealthy yet accomplishes his yearly mission in exactly one solar day. Whoa.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's what you are implying, so you might as well be direct."
It's called, being polite. But, I'm glad you recognize it for what it is. One need not be so direct to get the message across as you, and I'm sure many others, so clearly recognized the meaning of my message without my having resorting to the use of profanity.
Cell phones are annoying when used indescrimately. Direct Connect phones in walkie-talkie mode should be reserved for construction zones, loud environments, on where discretion is off less concern. Nobody gives a rats ass about your cell phone conversation, unless of course, you're a stock broker and receiving insider information. Then, we all want to hear.
I still remember the listening to a guy in an airport toilet stall talking so loud into his phone trying to make us think he was important. What was far more important is that he finished his business so others could do their theirs.
RD
The fact is that there are times when you should and should not be using your cell phone out of politeness for the people around you.
In a movie theatre (during the movie) is one just place. In a quiet restuarant is another. That's why the phones in such establishments are moved out of normal hearing range of people enjoying a meal. Your talking is disturbing the others around you. That's why the ushers will tend to take incessant chatters out of a theatre. Personally, I think they should crush the cell phone too.
Another time is when out on a date and engaging in converstations on your cell phone when you should be engaging in conversation with your present company.
There is a distinct difference between answering a cell phone call on the street (ala your meeting a friend on the street) and in a semi-private location (such as a movie theatre or restuarant) where your behavior directly affects those around you from enjoying themselves.
That's the problem with society today, to many fail to understand or exhibit common courtesy.
At least in Pennsylvania, IT workers are considered "exempt from overtime. Thus, you have three options:
1) Threaten to quit and hope they don't call your bluff. If they call your bluff, you'll like like an idiot of you don't quit. See #2.
2) Just quit "in-force" and watch them panic. With any luck (and hoping your other team members do the same), they'll do what they can to retain you. Make sure you have something else lined up or you won't be able to collect unemployment.
3) Suck it up and look really hard for a new job and pray the fire you for poor performance (that way, you get out of any non-competes and can collect unemployement).
Well, there's a fourth option, that's to quit and join the consulting firm your company has hired. Of course, that may not work either as they may have a non-compete/non-hiring agreement with your company.
If you choose #3, be sure to do the absolute minimal amount of work, call in sick a lot. Complain of illnessess like carpal tunnel syndrome, headaches, dizziness, back pain. And, be sure to visit doctors to get these "illnessess" on record. Then, when they let you go, you nail them for creating an unhealthy work environment and take them to the cleaners.
Baring that...a measure of last recourse...be sure to mutter to yourself and yell "grenade" or some other war time saying whenever your boss walks in. And, cover yourself with water so it looks like your sweating profusely and having some sort of stress attack. It helps, of course, to have some real legitimate combat experience to pull this one off effectively. Alternatively, you can come to work wearing trench coats and talk alot about your cache of weapons you've been collecting with your other, less stable, coworkers (who also wear trench coats). Make sure your supervisors overhear you. When they let you go, sue for creating a hostile work environment as, I assume, you don't truly have a cache of weapons.
"He hasn't gotten email all week. Not that he is complaining about it."
I can hear them around the water cooler already...
"Whatta dick...he's the only one here in the office not getting spam. Why not?"
"Dude hasn't gotten any email for over a week and hasn't even realized it...Whatta Dick."
or...
Guys in the office say..."I hear even the spam companies don't send viagra e-mail to that Dick over there..."
Girls in the office hear..."Dick over there is REALLY Huge."
Now...Dick gets all the women in the office.
Guys say..."Whatta Dick..."
I found myself pondering this question yesterday even before I read this article. While the challenge/response will work to some degree, how long will it take before optical/pattern recognition will catch up?
I wonder if the solution doesn't exist in the judicious use of public key encryption and a secure clearing house of certificates as well as a clearing house for known abusers.
Digitally signed and encrypted e-mail will allow for quick identification of the sender as well as preventing the viewing of the message if it is not decrypted. If then sender is on the abuse list, the recepient can decide whether to download the appropriate certificate or not to view the message. By default, the certificate should not be downloaded if on the abuse list.
With the proper PK infrastructure, ISPs can issue certificates to their customers pending certification of the customer's credentials. Now, hold the issuer of the certificate to the test as well as the issuee. If an ISP gives out certificates to known spammers, the ISPs certificate can be revoked by the ISPs issue authority. If none of the ISPs mail goes through, they probably won't stay in business for long. This, I would like to think, would make them a little more responsible and inclined to keep on top of their customers.
Businesses and such can be given issuing authority as well. If they abuse their e-mailing priveledge, they lose their ability to send mail. How many businesses in today's world can afford this? Not many.
Additionally, the relay receiving the initial mail can apply their digital signature to validate the message came from an authenticated user. If that signature matches on receipt, the message hasn't been forged regardless of what other headers are added (they aren't signed).
I realize my suggestions would require redesigned mail client and server software as well as a revamping of how e-mail is handled in general. But, I think the concept is sound. Whether it can be made practical (or even acceptable to the user community) is another issue.
A major downside to this is that by providing non-repudidation of the e-mail, anonymity goes away and messages can be tracked and analyzed through traffic analysis even if their content can not be viewed. So, while we would gain privacy of content, the sender's identity would not remain private.
I'd love to hear what others think of the idea (both good and bad). Maybe a grass roots approach might make some inroads into this problem and eliminate these cretins altogether.
RD
The equipment is probably very well grounded and shielded...something most home and basic office equipment is not. I'd also suspect your ionic filters in the clean room are a bit higher quality than those of consumer grade and go further to trap excess ions from escaping the unit.
Shielding of components is getting better and most offices are now grounded (i.e. 3 prong vs 2 prong). When I ran my science fair experiments in 1982, which produced a lot of ions, I'd have 1/4 sparks jumping from file cabinents to the floor. Granted, my experiments were designed to product a boatload of directed ions, but this was at 50 ft (should watch neon bulbs and phosphoresent panels glow as well). Given that that beam pattern expanded (given electrostatic repusion and I tried to inject neutralizing ions into the stream), this is a frightening prospect to sensitive consumer electronics since it only takes on relatively small electrostatic discharge to punch a hole through your CPU's silicon substrate and render it useless (my experiments did not go into this area...I was building an ion engine turned raygun).
Ummmm...I would recommend that. The Ionic breeze works on the principle of charging dust particles and then attracting them to an oppositely charged plate. Some of the ionized particles get through. I'd have to think that injecting ionized air into your PC is not a wise idea. I'd have to question whether having them in the same room as your ocmputer equipment is a bright idea either.
As for the guy who says that Ionic Breeze doesn't work isn't familiar enough with the technology. Electrostatic air filters have been in effect for years with forced air systems. However, with proper design it can charge air/dust particles and accellerate them out the other side. I did something similar as part of my ionic engine science fair experiment in 1982 (I used a 200,000 volt differential and iodine gase as my propellent). Worked quite well.
What nobody is discussing is that these systems generate low to moderate amounts of ozone. While it's great to have in the upper atmosphere, ozone in your breathing air is quite corrosive to your lungs. If you suffer from ashma, I'd go with a filtration unit over an air ionizer.
RD
Just for the record, Microsoft and Borland have a very good working relationship that has improved greatly in the past several years (especially i the .Net arena). As a Delphi developer since 1996, I have only seen improvements in the product and with it's interactions with the OS. But, I'm digressing.
./
./ provides, the Mozilla team effectively attempted to force the issue. That's not exactly in the spirit of OSS either. I'd have to say both camps acted rather badly.
The issue is whether or not they, the Firebird team, has acted badly or not. Mailbombing certainly isn't nice behavior. But, then again, neither is "stealing" another project's name recognition and "officially" announcing it on
Given the wide dissemination of information that
You have to understand the history of the Firebird DB project in the first place to understand their displeasure.
Firebird DB draws its codebase from Borland's InterBase. Borland was going to kill InterBase and let many of their developers go. Those developers decided to resurrect InterBase as an open source product. There was a lot of talk and Borland was going to release the full source code and rights to them so that this could happen. Then, the talks broke down and InterBase Corporation got screwed. InterBase became a commercial product again with substantially higher licensing fees than before.
So, they (IBC) took what source they DID have rights to and expanded the product and offer it as an OS solution. Because it essentially arose from the ashes, it was named Firebird (and the IBPhoenix support group was born).
Firebird is a very robust and powerful SQL 92 compliant database. It's adoptance by the OS community has been slow because most people remember it only as the commercial InterBase product. But, it's a very powerful, cross platform, database solution. I've used both InterBase and FireBird in my work I'm predominantly a Delphi developer..but do a fair amount of Linux work on the side). InterBase licensing costs are high. FireBird is free.
I suggest that you take a look at what Firebird (the DB) has to offer. I think you'll be pleasantly suprised. And, now that you have an understanding of where the name came from for the project, maybe you'll have a better appreciation of their fight to retain it.
RD
2) When you break the hydrate down, you have methane and water. You have to do something with the water - dump it on the ground, feed it into the engine to be vaporized, something.
Along these grounds, why not recycle the water to a) cool the engine itself and b) drive a small turbine for added electrical power generation. Perhaps, this additional energy can be applied to a fly-wheel assembly for quicker accelleration.
Adds new meaning to the term "When Hell Freezes Over", eh?
VMWare creates VM's with BIOS' based on Phoenix, I do believe.
RD
1. CIWS does not unleash a wall of lead...it'd depleated Uranium. This makes the projectile far more effective against inbound targets.
.50 Cal machine guns or 25mm chain guns and personnel who are supposed to be alert.
2. CIWS classifies targets based on the potential target's trajectory. If the parameters for the inbound do not meet the threat criteria or fall outside of the weapons field of fire, it will not fire.
This means that CIWS is not intended to target boats, mines, or personnel. It will target and destroy inbound missles or planes that meet the threat criteria. It does this quite effectively.
To deal with other potential attacks, ships are equipped with other weapons,
The only known case I am aware of where a CIWS was used in an anti-personnel manner was an CIWS test excerise that went terribly wrong. The CIWS tracked a drone right into the path of another ship ripping the bridge of the other ship and killing the ship's navigator.
RD
Actually, that is incorrect. Improper design or construction of the system could produce power fluctuations that directly correlatate with the data signal even in circuits not directly related. These fluctuations can manifest themselves as amplitude modulations in the current driving the LEDs and thus detectable with the proper equipment. This is one of the reasons for ground planes having significantly larger surface area than power and data leads and the proper selection and use of bypass capacitors to shunt AC signals to ground.
RD
Ah...so that explains why soda pop explodes when placed next to my subwoofer. Now, I wonder which brand of soda will produce the highest nuclear yield. Talk about energy drinks...
RD
None at all when considered by itself. AES (ala Rijndael) does not depend upon prime numbers. Hence, it is not subject to factoring. It is a symmetric cipher with key lengths up to 256 bits.
Where it could be susceptible, however, is during a key negotiation session (say via Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange) or a naive approach of simply encoding the session key using the recepients RSA key.
Where I would be truly frightened is in the realm of digital signatures where somebody could forge a digital signature simply by knowing the sender's public key and factoring it. With digital signatures almost as legally binding as handwritten signatures, identity theft may increase using these methods.
The resulting impact may be less acceptance of digital signatures and more reliance on antiquated methods.
RD
I thought that was the Great Nebula in Orion's belt? I never knew it was also known as the Horse Head nebula. Cool.
I still break out the old 4 1/4 to show the kids. Now, I just want a regional power failure on a clear night so they can see it the way it was meant to be seen.
RD
Word has it from the 2000 Borland Developer's Conference, that Kylix was going to be Delphi on Linux. Next in the queue was going to be C++Builder on Linux. During that same conference, the core C++ compiler had been built and demonstrated compiling and running natively on Linux. That was two years ago.
.NET out the door, Borland developers will already be developing Web services and database applications for both Linux and Windows and beating their competitors to the punch.
.so's compatible with rest of the Linux community. The whole point of doing a C++ version is simply that the majority of Linux developers use that language. But, they ported Delphi over first (ala Kylix) because the majority of their customers are Delphi users.
Since that time, we have seen Kylix and Kylix 2 released as well as Delphi 6 and a new C++Builder. The fundamental piece was the use of CLX to make the code cross platform between Windows and Linux. VCL code simply will not port. And, the VCL never worked cleanly between Delphi and Kylix. CLX was the answer to this.
I expect that the upcoming release will be C++Builder on Linux. That means it will have the same look and feel as C++ Builder on Windows. Yes...a GUI oriented development tool with all the wizbang designers that many of us have come to love.
I'd also like to point out that Borland made it clear that they were not out to replace GCC. Their aim (well, 2 years ago), was to make a development tool that enabled developers with a Windows background migrate to Linux and bring their application development skills to the Linux platform. There was alot of talk about whether the libraries would be link compatible with GCC. They didn't have an answer that most of us wanted to hear. But, like I said, that was two years ago.
Borland is position themselves to enable developers to enter a new market. While the MS folks are concerned about pushing
Will these tools be an immediate big hit with Linux users? Doubt it. It takes a lot to effect a paradime shift of that magnitude. But, you will see Windows developers porting their code to Linux and opening up new markets. Eventually, the die hard people will see the advantages of using a tool like C++Builder or Kylix in a corporate setting. And, if we are really lucky, we'll see Borland making their
Guess we'll all have to wait and see, eh?
RD
I agree. Borland isn't backing down per se. I think it was a poor choice of words. It's almost as if there was a standoff or something. When this article surfaced, Borland did have a chance to respond. It was all public outcry.
However, they (Borland) are claiming to be reworking the licenses. That, unfortunately, takes time (especially when lawyers are paid by the hour). So, we'll just have to be patient and see what comes of this. If it's not satisfactory, it will hit the proverbial fan again. Surely, it will be resolved by the Borland Developer's Conference in May. If not, Dale Fuller will find himself facing a rather hostile crowd as he did at the opening ceremony at last years conference.
FWIW, on their newsgroups, John Kastor stated that he has been pushing to have the licenses available online. John seems pretty good to his word. This event will probably accellerate the decision making process. The ball is in their court, let's see how they run with it.
LOL!
Perhaps I should have put a (SP) next to it. I couldn't remember the correct spelling at the time and had not yet partaken of my morning coffee. Besides,I can conjure up a word to describe the situation and call it artistic license, no?
Frackus: (n)
Def: A play on words used to describe an unpleasant situation between powerless individuals and power hunger corporations. Often replaces the more gentle term, fracas.
Example: When I and my fellow developers read the licensing agreement a frackus ensued leaving us all rather bloody and sore.
The correct spelling should have been 'fracas'and the phrase should read:
"A few years ago, there was a similar fracas..."
BTW, on Howard Stern's Radio Show this morning, they were poking fun at Gov. Ventura's use of the phrase "we've boughten them time". On a whim, I looked up the word 'boughten'. While it sounds awkward, the word exists and was used in the correct context. Go figure. Score one for Jesse.
No. It's the employment of lawyers with nothing better to do than to screw with a good thing.
Who remembers the Borland license of TP5 days when the software was to be treated like a book?
I think they called it their "No Nonsense License Agreement" or something like that. We didn't complain about that one as it was pretty fair. I heard it was crafted by the software engineers themselves. Why can't a license like that become the industry boilerplate?
Unfortunately, the company grew and they hired laywers who had to make it virtually unreadable to anyone without a legal background. It went downhill from there. Lawyers server a purpose in a software company, like protecting it from litigation and protection of intellectual property. But, when it comes to licensing, they need to listen to the engineers and development community and license accordingly.
A few years ago, there was a similar frackus about, I think it was the Borland C++ license. They had a "non-compete" clause there. That was promptly removed after the application of public pressure. You'd think they learn from that. Perhaps, if they're smart, they'll pass the license by their real users for review and comment before putting it in the box.
There's still a strong push on the Borland NG to have the license reverted to one like the NNLA. Let's see what happens. Borland has a tendency to react favorably to its developer community.
RD
Do you accept all this a Gospel truth? If you have received a copy of Kylix (i.e Open Edition), read the license yourself. Has anybody in here actually posted a copy of the license as it exists on the Kylix disks? I've seen reprints, but nothing that seems to point to Borland. Maybe I missed it.
Even if this is true, you can bet that it will be fixed REAL fast just as other licensing screwup were fixed. I do know that the Delphi 6 license is very reasonable (even in the similarly disputed sections). I wonder if somebody didn't replace the real license with an in-house spoof and the spoof made it into production. Who knows?
But, to reject Borland and it's tools because of this is ridiculous. Give Borland a chance to respond. But, I can't help but hope for the old "like a book" license to stage a comeback and a firing of the lawyers who drafted this supposed abombination up in the first place.
RD
I thought you were going to say "Moe, Larry, and Curly", Attorneys At Law.
Enjoyed your post.
RD
Why was the parent post to this message moderated as TROLL while other offbeat "stories" received "FUNNY" moderation? Apparently the moderator who awarded the Troll rating has a grudge against SANTA's R&D department or the fact that the Rudolf may soon be replaced. Must be a Union thing.
However, after breaking this story, Santa's publicist announced that no Reindeer will lose their jobs over this advancement. They will still be used to assist in public appearances and receive the daily allotment of special magic grain.
Hope everyone had a Wonderful Holiday.
thx
RD
A few years ago, when I powered up one of the lost Clinton administration laptops (it was found in under a set on the DC Metro), I came across some interesting intelligience data. Apparently, the White Bearded One (WBO) has advanced well beyond what this article implies. I only caught a quick glimpse before the Secret Service snatched it from my hands and threatened to lock me up (didn't say where exactly).
Naturally, I pretended not to have seen anything...except to say I was looking for a video game to play and it was just sitting there looking like it wanted to be played.
Well, anyway...it seems that the WBO has been dabbling with quantum physics. Supposedly, he's found a way to convert himself into a wave function. This allows him to visit every home in the world simultaneously. But, it seems to work better if he contrained the function to a particular longitude. By adjusting this variable alone, he could make his visit to each child's home at exactly midnight in the child's time zone.
Pretty ingenious if you ask me. He doesn't even need to slip down any more chimmneys and risk getting stuck (or burned). And, because the probabliity of him being where you are looking is so remote, he remains completely stealthy yet accomplishes his yearly mission in exactly one solar day. Whoa.
Happy Holidays to All!
RD