We don't think its 'Ok', its just all we've got to work with in some cases. White Rhinos were gone in the wild as far as we could tell at one point, so a family of them, with a couple of breeding females (all related) were released into the wild in the hope that they would recover.
As long as they can breed just a couple times each, the population can recover. The effects of breeding with ones relations do not carry forward for too many generations before the recovery is complete, and you only need to get about to a second cousin before it ceases to matter anyway.
The reality of it is, while we know for a fact that many species have come and gone, most people today can't accept that it is going to happen right in front of our eyes.
Or licensed it directly from Microsoft, or read the published CIFS standards. There are multiple legal ways to get access to the internals of SMB that don't involve reverse engineering.
Uhm, Samba is INCLUDED in OSX. Its been there for years, its what gets enabled if you check 'file sharing' in the sharing preference panel. They never hid the fact.
$ smbd --version Version 3.0.28a-apple $ nmbd --version Version 3.0.28a-apple
I'll show you three OSS projects that Apple created right after you show me 3 OSS projects that aren't copies of something already done before.
Show me 3 original OSS packages and I'll show you 3 original Apple OSS packages.
Note: I drop the FL from your OSS because other than public domain there is no Freedom or libre, only restrictions. The FL part is just marketing bullshit in an attempt to make people think something that is entirely untrue.
So by false, you mean true. You just blamed it on the other person, you didn't change the actual outcome. I have to do more work because GPL grants me freedom... awesome.
Example: BSD licensed code called Project A. I make Project AB, don't distribute the source. Users have lost no freedom, they can still get Project A and all its source OR they can get Project AB with my modifications but not the ability to change my modified version. No freedom is lost because they didn't have my project before I created it. They have only gained the option of running my binaries. They DID NOT LOSE THE OPTION TO USE PROJECT A as my license does not effect it, and can not.
GPL licensed code, called project C. I make Project CD, I have lost the option to NOT distribute MY CODE because I'm basing it on GPL code which more or less requires make my code GPL (could use some other compatible license, but you're still basically using GPL due to its very specific restrictions like not being able to add additional restrictions, which means I can't give anyone else the option of not being as restricted as GPL either) as well. The user has lost the freedom to use my code completely because I have no intention of giving out my changes, so I just won't do it with GPL code. Project CD will simply never exist in reality. IF I DID continue with Project CD, the user would have the option of doing neat stuff with my code to... but I won't be continuing, and neither is Apple.
There is a time and place for both licenses, and my point isn't which one is better for your own social agenda, my point is that while you gain one type of freedom for the end user with GPL, you do so at the cost of losing any developer who doesn't want to follow the rules of GPL, which is pretty much anyone who wants to make a living by writing code rather than any of the rarely profitable ways to turn GPLd code into a profit center.
Its more or less impossible to 'sell' GPL'd software since anyone who has it can simply recompile it and give it away at cost, using my work without giving anything back. Basically, it wants everyone to live in a hippy commune. Which is fine for those people who want to do so, but they'll soon find themselves starving to death since those of us who DO actually DO THE WORK feel no need to support a bunch of free loaders.
There is a middle ground between GPL and BSD that would allow both sides to benefit, but Stallmen isn't going to be the guy promoting it, and most BSD followers aren't really going after the money anyway.
Not that you brought it up, but I don't feel like posting again... Its not like GPL code 'gets more contributions back' because of GPL, it gets contributions back because people don't want to continue applying their changes to new releases of the GPL code and patching everything up every time. Interestingly enough, BSD code bases get code back for... THE EXACT SAME REASON. An intelligent developer knows that submitting his patches back to the upstream project (and getting them accept) saves him/her the effort of maintaining those patches and keeping them in sync.
Its also important to note, Apple was using FreeBSD code (and other OSS code, GPL'd code included) BEFORE they hired JKH. They prefer BSD licensed code because it gives them far more flexibility as developers. They use GPL code where it provides other more overwhelming benefits, until as we're seeing, the balance changes.
Either way, Apple wasn't planning on letting people modify the version of CIFS they shipped, or contribute fixes back to the Samba tree, so no real loss there. Long story short, we learned something about Apple's ideology and nothing more.
Or they want to do something with CIFS that some other license they have restricts them from doing. Say for instance, letting an iPad talk to a SMB server. Samba's code can't be used because Apple truely isn't allowed to let anyone in due to restrictions it agreed to in order to get content licensed for the devices.
They picked the license they thought was more valuable to them to keep, and are replacing the other. Theres no reason they can't open source their new software and take advantage of OSS anyway, and still let people modify it on other devices.
They could also just fork the last Samba that used GPLv2 if its truely v3 that causes the problem. GPLv3 isn't retro active.
Lets also keep in mind, Samba is just a copy of someone elses software, and while its a very good copy with a lot of features the original doesn't have, its far from the only implementation out there and its always lagging behind since they have to reverse engineer to get anywhere. Apple could simply license the tech from Microsoft directly and be done with it. Microsoft in general has no problem licensing that sort of thing out, for the right price, and there are many examples of them doing just that, which is why Apple Mail has no problem talking to Exchange servers using the Exchange protocol for instance.
You assume its because Apple is evil. I assume its because they want to make money. We end up with entirely different reasons for what they are doing.
As an American I can say with the utmost certainly, we tend to get offended and any nickname given by someone other than a close friend, regardless of why it was given, term of endearment or insult.
I don't really know why, I've been wondering that for the last several years myself. It seems that our struggles with racism seem to focus more on the name calling than the actual bad things that were involved with it. I think it may possibly be because if we focus on the names we can trick ourselves into forgetting the real bad shit we did in the past to other human beings.
Thats just on theory I have anyway, but we definitely do have some retarded issue with name calling that seems to make any name offensive... its almost like its just an excuse to move to physical violence. Maybe we have it so good that we have to create conflict where there is none?
*sigh* I really wish we could do what Rodney King said and just fucking get along with each other.
I don't know what software you use for virus scanning and such, but nothing they would use to filter files is going to give a flying fuck what the extension is. Content scanners realized in the 90s that file extensions don't mean jack shit.
Physical theft scares most people more than electronic since you can easily be caught holding the evidence. A USB stick is relatively easy to conceal... unless they do searches in and out.
A print out? Anything of a size to be worth while is going to be big enough to be obvious that you're taking it out of the building.
In the end however, its mostly the mental component that makes people do an electronic transfer rather than sneaker net. Since they can't see the data flowing out, they have less fear of doing so compared to carrying out a ream of paper. They don't realize how its in fact easier to catch them electronically than physically.
All of this happens in low security places though, any high security location isn't going to let you take ANYTHING in or out that they haven't seen/inspected.
Any Windows machine on a domain can be tricked instantly.
Windows on a domain with enterprise certificate services installed trusts the domain certificate authority by default. The admins can then issue certs from that authority for any domain they like, which will be fully validated to anything using the Windows certificate store... meaning Internet Explorer by default, firefox doesn't, which is freaking annoying and I don't remember what chrome does. Either way, you just simply only allow IE to be used/installed and that problem is solved as well.
I do it all the time internally for testing purposes actually, though we don't force the use of a proxy and we don't hide the fact that our proxy does this from our users, but if they use hotmail, gmail or yahoo (and a handful of other sites) via our proxy I can easily view their traffic.
It takes longer to run openssl to generate the certificate than it does for me to make windows accept it as valid because the machines are in a domain which is EXPLICITLY trusted above all else.
Theres a reason people like the built in management support in Microsoft products.
The content isn't being posted by the NYT, so they don't actually have permission to it in the first place.
Just because some random guy puts content on twitter without permission doesn't mean twitter gets permission.
If the NYT officially tweeted the tweets then it would be another story, but this is someone else, who is unauthorized doing it.
Twitter is getting the content illegally (though not through any fault of their own) so their TOS is irrelevant. Its roughly the same as someone stealing my car, giving it to you, and then you claiming its OK for you to keep it/sell it or whatever because you didn't commit the actual crime.
From what I've seen however, we're not talking full articles here, just headlines and links to the articles? Meaning really what they need to do is not allow links from that twitter feed to bypass the paywall. Cutting off twitter completely isn't something they want to do since it does drive traffic to their site so they can entice people into possibly paying for the content. They just want to stop the automated systems that make a central easy to use way to bypass their paywall. I can't really disagree with them, its their content, they want to charge for it, they want to allow Twitter users to link to it and promote their site, they just don't want to create a very simple easy to use way for people to bypass the paywall and cut them out of revenue.
Contrary to popular belief, gasoline is rather stable. It generally doesn't explode, even if they do it in movies. Hell, it doesn't even burn for shit, the vapor does but thats really not important since the vapor is always around the gasoline itself.
However, if you've ever seen a high current battery of any size dump its current quickly, you'll be rather afraid.
Yes it is. It doesn't matter if you're too dense to get it. It doesn't matter if the acronym your emulator uses claims its not an emulator.
If you want to try that shit, then there is no such thing as emulation when it comes to computers as they are all just wrapping someone elses API, sometimes its the hardware API, but none the less, all emulators are just wrappers, some more complex than others.
I'll buy into your statement when the 'wrappers' you're speaking of are completely handled by the standard C preprocessor, but after that, your emulating.
While I agree with you in principle, I'm a little scared of a civil war in a country known to have nukes handy.
I would like to think that there are people in my country who know what they are doing trying to resolve these issues without throwing the country into chaos.
Of course, I realize that I'm just hopelessly optimistic about my own government, but still one has to wonder if its a good idea to start bringing about anarchy in nuclear armed nations.
I'm all for the truth, but not if it means nuclear detonations. Long term I want every country to be a better place, but if Assange's methods bring about a revolution tomorrow that results in megaton detonations, I'd probably rather that it take 10 or even 100 years to bring about change and avoid the whole vaporizing of large amounts of people and turning parts of their country into a wasteland thing.
Make government programs publicly auditable and military weaponry illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, or support. The last time America actually needed to defend itself militarily was Pearl Harbor. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to just have an arrangement with Canada to rent a defense force on an as-needed basis.
Do you know WHY Pearl Harbor was the last time? Its not because Canada would protect us.
Do you know why Canada and Mexico don't need a massive military? Because the US will step right up if anyone fucks with either one of them because the next step is the US.
When your military is so far advanced and so powerful no one else has a chance in hell of doing damage it tends to keep other rational people away. The only people the US worries about are those countries that actually have the capacity to be a problem. The ones with nukes, and China. Formally the USSR was a concern, but now not so much for obvious reasons.
Iraq was not approved by the UN and there were even objections by the UN Security Council (which the US is again, the largest voice in) against the invasion.
So passing several resolutions saying that if inspections weren't granted by X date they would be done by force wasn't approval?
The reality of it is, the UN threatened on several occasions to invade, and just never did it. The US on the other hand followed through.
A bit worse than Sadam Hussein did because Sadam actually had a people that supported him (it was more of a tribal genocide).
Its rather hard to be a leader and have a military to shell his own cities if no one supports him. Clearly some people do, even if its just the military, they are still following orders.
Lets see... Combine the metrics of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and their forks... and don't forget to include the big one... OS X. Yea, BSD is slightly more popular than Linux. I humbly suggest YOU go check out netcraft...
I am not an AC and I agree with the GP. If android should be more open how is WP7 better?
'open' is not the only measurement that determines better?
I prefer OSS, but its pretty far down on my list of reasons for choosing a product since its unlikely I'm going to do any source hacking, regardless of the fact that I can and do by profession.
Thanks for making me feel old... the reference was to the movie Back to the Future, from 1985.
It sucks to realize that one of your frequently visited websites is now inhabited by people who weren't even alive long enough ago to get pop movie references... I could be your father:(
Slashdot Mirror
We don't think its 'Ok', its just all we've got to work with in some cases. White Rhinos were gone in the wild as far as we could tell at one point, so a family of them, with a couple of breeding females (all related) were released into the wild in the hope that they would recover.
As long as they can breed just a couple times each, the population can recover. The effects of breeding with ones relations do not carry forward for too many generations before the recovery is complete, and you only need to get about to a second cousin before it ceases to matter anyway.
The reality of it is, while we know for a fact that many species have come and gone, most people today can't accept that it is going to happen right in front of our eyes.
Or licensed it directly from Microsoft, or read the published CIFS standards. There are multiple legal ways to get access to the internals of SMB that don't involve reverse engineering.
Uhm, Samba is INCLUDED in OSX. Its been there for years, its what gets enabled if you check 'file sharing' in the sharing preference panel. They never hid the fact.
$ smbd --version
Version 3.0.28a-apple
$ nmbd --version
Version 3.0.28a-apple
I'll show you three OSS projects that Apple created right after you show me 3 OSS projects that aren't copies of something already done before.
Show me 3 original OSS packages and I'll show you 3 original Apple OSS packages.
Note: I drop the FL from your OSS because other than public domain there is no Freedom or libre, only restrictions. The FL part is just marketing bullshit in an attempt to make people think something that is entirely untrue.
So by false, you mean true. You just blamed it on the other person, you didn't change the actual outcome. I have to do more work because GPL grants me freedom ... awesome.
Hence why its called viral. It restricts freedom.
Example:
BSD licensed code called Project A.
I make Project AB, don't distribute the source.
Users have lost no freedom, they can still get Project A and all its source OR they can get Project AB with my modifications but not the ability to change my modified version. No freedom is lost because they didn't have my project before I created it. They have only gained the option of running my binaries. They DID NOT LOSE THE OPTION TO USE PROJECT A as my license does not effect it, and can not.
GPL licensed code, called project C. ... but I won't be continuing, and neither is Apple.
I make Project CD, I have lost the option to NOT distribute MY CODE because I'm basing it on GPL code which more or less requires make my code GPL (could use some other compatible license, but you're still basically using GPL due to its very specific restrictions like not being able to add additional restrictions, which means I can't give anyone else the option of not being as restricted as GPL either) as well.
The user has lost the freedom to use my code completely because I have no intention of giving out my changes, so I just won't do it with GPL code.
Project CD will simply never exist in reality.
IF I DID continue with Project CD, the user would have the option of doing neat stuff with my code to
There is a time and place for both licenses, and my point isn't which one is better for your own social agenda, my point is that while you gain one type of freedom for the end user with GPL, you do so at the cost of losing any developer who doesn't want to follow the rules of GPL, which is pretty much anyone who wants to make a living by writing code rather than any of the rarely profitable ways to turn GPLd code into a profit center.
Its more or less impossible to 'sell' GPL'd software since anyone who has it can simply recompile it and give it away at cost, using my work without giving anything back. Basically, it wants everyone to live in a hippy commune. Which is fine for those people who want to do so, but they'll soon find themselves starving to death since those of us who DO actually DO THE WORK feel no need to support a bunch of free loaders.
There is a middle ground between GPL and BSD that would allow both sides to benefit, but Stallmen isn't going to be the guy promoting it, and most BSD followers aren't really going after the money anyway.
Not that you brought it up, but I don't feel like posting again ... Its not like GPL code 'gets more contributions back' because of GPL, it gets contributions back because people don't want to continue applying their changes to new releases of the GPL code and patching everything up every time. Interestingly enough, BSD code bases get code back for ... THE EXACT SAME REASON. An intelligent developer knows that submitting his patches back to the upstream project (and getting them accept) saves him/her the effort of maintaining those patches and keeping them in sync.
Its also important to note, Apple was using FreeBSD code (and other OSS code, GPL'd code included) BEFORE they hired JKH. They prefer BSD licensed code because it gives them far more flexibility as developers. They use GPL code where it provides other more overwhelming benefits, until as we're seeing, the balance changes.
Either way, Apple wasn't planning on letting people modify the version of CIFS they shipped, or contribute fixes back to the Samba tree, so no real loss there. Long story short, we learned something about Apple's ideology and nothing more.
Or they want to do something with CIFS that some other license they have restricts them from doing. Say for instance, letting an iPad talk to a SMB server. Samba's code can't be used because Apple truely isn't allowed to let anyone in due to restrictions it agreed to in order to get content licensed for the devices.
They picked the license they thought was more valuable to them to keep, and are replacing the other. Theres no reason they can't open source their new software and take advantage of OSS anyway, and still let people modify it on other devices.
They could also just fork the last Samba that used GPLv2 if its truely v3 that causes the problem. GPLv3 isn't retro active.
Lets also keep in mind, Samba is just a copy of someone elses software, and while its a very good copy with a lot of features the original doesn't have, its far from the only implementation out there and its always lagging behind since they have to reverse engineer to get anywhere. Apple could simply license the tech from Microsoft directly and be done with it. Microsoft in general has no problem licensing that sort of thing out, for the right price, and there are many examples of them doing just that, which is why Apple Mail has no problem talking to Exchange servers using the Exchange protocol for instance.
You assume its because Apple is evil. I assume its because they want to make money. We end up with entirely different reasons for what they are doing.
As an American I can say with the utmost certainly, we tend to get offended and any nickname given by someone other than a close friend, regardless of why it was given, term of endearment or insult.
I don't really know why, I've been wondering that for the last several years myself. It seems that our struggles with racism seem to focus more on the name calling than the actual bad things that were involved with it. I think it may possibly be because if we focus on the names we can trick ourselves into forgetting the real bad shit we did in the past to other human beings.
Thats just on theory I have anyway, but we definitely do have some retarded issue with name calling that seems to make any name offensive ... its almost like its just an excuse to move to physical violence. Maybe we have it so good that we have to create conflict where there is none?
*sigh* I really wish we could do what Rodney King said and just fucking get along with each other.
I don't know what software you use for virus scanning and such, but nothing they would use to filter files is going to give a flying fuck what the extension is. Content scanners realized in the 90s that file extensions don't mean jack shit.
Physical theft scares most people more than electronic since you can easily be caught holding the evidence. A USB stick is relatively easy to conceal ... unless they do searches in and out.
A print out? Anything of a size to be worth while is going to be big enough to be obvious that you're taking it out of the building.
In the end however, its mostly the mental component that makes people do an electronic transfer rather than sneaker net. Since they can't see the data flowing out, they have less fear of doing so compared to carrying out a ream of paper. They don't realize how its in fact easier to catch them electronically than physically.
All of this happens in low security places though, any high security location isn't going to let you take ANYTHING in or out that they haven't seen/inspected.
Any Windows machine on a domain can be tricked instantly.
Windows on a domain with enterprise certificate services installed trusts the domain certificate authority by default. The admins can then issue certs from that authority for any domain they like, which will be fully validated to anything using the Windows certificate store ... meaning Internet Explorer by default, firefox doesn't, which is freaking annoying and I don't remember what chrome does. Either way, you just simply only allow IE to be used/installed and that problem is solved as well.
I do it all the time internally for testing purposes actually, though we don't force the use of a proxy and we don't hide the fact that our proxy does this from our users, but if they use hotmail, gmail or yahoo (and a handful of other sites) via our proxy I can easily view their traffic.
It takes longer to run openssl to generate the certificate than it does for me to make windows accept it as valid because the machines are in a domain which is EXPLICITLY trusted above all else.
Theres a reason people like the built in management support in Microsoft products.
And where, exactly, do you think the money for those expense accounts comes from?
Awesome ... its distributed ... except not really since you have to go to a central site to start with.
The content isn't being posted by the NYT, so they don't actually have permission to it in the first place.
Just because some random guy puts content on twitter without permission doesn't mean twitter gets permission.
If the NYT officially tweeted the tweets then it would be another story, but this is someone else, who is unauthorized doing it.
Twitter is getting the content illegally (though not through any fault of their own) so their TOS is irrelevant. Its roughly the same as someone stealing my car, giving it to you, and then you claiming its OK for you to keep it/sell it or whatever because you didn't commit the actual crime.
From what I've seen however, we're not talking full articles here, just headlines and links to the articles? Meaning really what they need to do is not allow links from that twitter feed to bypass the paywall. Cutting off twitter completely isn't something they want to do since it does drive traffic to their site so they can entice people into possibly paying for the content. They just want to stop the automated systems that make a central easy to use way to bypass their paywall. I can't really disagree with them, its their content, they want to charge for it, they want to allow Twitter users to link to it and promote their site, they just don't want to create a very simple easy to use way for people to bypass the paywall and cut them out of revenue.
Contrary to popular belief, gasoline is rather stable. It generally doesn't explode, even if they do it in movies. Hell, it doesn't even burn for shit, the vapor does but thats really not important since the vapor is always around the gasoline itself.
However, if you've ever seen a high current battery of any size dump its current quickly, you'll be rather afraid.
Yes it is. It doesn't matter if you're too dense to get it. It doesn't matter if the acronym your emulator uses claims its not an emulator.
If you want to try that shit, then there is no such thing as emulation when it comes to computers as they are all just wrapping someone elses API, sometimes its the hardware API, but none the less, all emulators are just wrappers, some more complex than others.
I'll buy into your statement when the 'wrappers' you're speaking of are completely handled by the standard C preprocessor, but after that, your emulating.
Its a crime to solicite it, and it IS a crime to publish it.
It isn't treason to publish unsolicited classified information you receive, but its still a crime.
While I agree with you in principle, I'm a little scared of a civil war in a country known to have nukes handy.
I would like to think that there are people in my country who know what they are doing trying to resolve these issues without throwing the country into chaos.
Of course, I realize that I'm just hopelessly optimistic about my own government, but still one has to wonder if its a good idea to start bringing about anarchy in nuclear armed nations.
I'm all for the truth, but not if it means nuclear detonations. Long term I want every country to be a better place, but if Assange's methods bring about a revolution tomorrow that results in megaton detonations, I'd probably rather that it take 10 or even 100 years to bring about change and avoid the whole vaporizing of large amounts of people and turning parts of their country into a wasteland thing.
Make government programs publicly auditable and military weaponry illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, or support. The last time America actually needed to defend itself militarily was Pearl Harbor. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to just have an arrangement with Canada to rent a defense force on an as-needed basis.
Do you know WHY Pearl Harbor was the last time? Its not because Canada would protect us.
Do you know why Canada and Mexico don't need a massive military? Because the US will step right up if anyone fucks with either one of them because the next step is the US.
When your military is so far advanced and so powerful no one else has a chance in hell of doing damage it tends to keep other rational people away. The only people the US worries about are those countries that actually have the capacity to be a problem. The ones with nukes, and China. Formally the USSR was a concern, but now not so much for obvious reasons.
Seriously, Canada? What are you smoking?
Iraq was not approved by the UN and there were even objections by the UN Security Council (which the US is again, the largest voice in) against the invasion.
So passing several resolutions saying that if inspections weren't granted by X date they would be done by force wasn't approval?
The reality of it is, the UN threatened on several occasions to invade, and just never did it. The US on the other hand followed through.
A bit worse than Sadam Hussein did because Sadam actually had a people that supported him (it was more of a tribal genocide).
Its rather hard to be a leader and have a military to shell his own cities if no one supports him. Clearly some people do, even if its just the military, they are still following orders.
Lets see ... Combine the metrics of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and their forks ... and don't forget to include the big one ... OS X. Yea, BSD is slightly more popular than Linux. I humbly suggest YOU go check out netcraft ...
I am not an AC and I agree with the GP. If android should be more open how is WP7 better?
'open' is not the only measurement that determines better?
I prefer OSS, but its pretty far down on my list of reasons for choosing a product since its unlikely I'm going to do any source hacking, regardless of the fact that I can and do by profession.
Thanks for making me feel old ... the reference was to the movie Back to the Future, from 1985.
It sucks to realize that one of your frequently visited websites is now inhabited by people who weren't even alive long enough ago to get pop movie references ... I could be your father :(
Yes, and the plants with issues don't use plutonium, they use uranium. It's the radioactive cesium and iodine by products thats the problem.