because, at least in Germany, you are then liable for everything that is transfered over that hotspot.
Not if done properly. If you really run a deliberately open WiFi network you are legally a telecommunication provider and thus exempt from liability (as it should be the case in any EU member state). However, if you are caught filesharing and whine afterwards that maybe someone broke into your network, then probably not. So far, the courts have only decided on the latter cases.
This is not an open source project. From data/textures/readme.txt:
(C) 2007-2009 Blood Frontier Team, all rights reserved.
The "textures" package included in Blood Frontier may only be distributed with the Blood Frontier package. Redistribution or repacking outside this context without the author's consent is strictly prohibited.
If you want a real open-source shooter that rocks, try Nexuiz.
That said, anyone who is really interested in Linux would not be satisfied with the simplified versions that come with netbooks. If you are going to wipe the OS to install your own distro, then it doesn't make a great deal of difference what the original operating system is.
Not quite true. If it comes with some variant of Linux preinstalled then you know that all hardware components will work right out of the box, even if you install a different distro. No hassle with obscure drivers or poorly supported devices like the much-dreaded winmodems.
YES, please. My god I hate this aspect of Google, which is an incredibly annoying time-suck. It's even worse for me because I have a uni account that gives me access to most of the paywalled research, but only when I'm on campus, so when I'm off-campus and I want to know something I just desperately want the option to turn off all that paywalled crap.
Got an SSH account? Then you can download the papers by setting up an HTTP proxy.
I remember reading that what Rupert Murdoch actually wants is headlines to be trawled as currently done, but for actual news items to be paid for. He wants Google to check the story for relevance but not display it; Just a link to the place where you pay for / subscribe to the article.
Needless to say, Google said "It doesn't work like that."
Nah. These are not simply highly excited molecular states (i.e., Rydberg states of molecules), but molecules formed by a novel binding mechanism between one highly excited Rydberg atom (not molecule) and a second ground state atom.
Actually, this is about a new specification created by the Trusted Computing Group, so it's fairly open stuff. However, I fail to see how this actually solves any of the problems related to recent data breaches. If you lose your notebook with all your data the attacker also gets access to the Trusted Platform Module and can decrypt the disk. If you want to securely transport your data, this is horribly inconvenient as the whole point is to be able to access the data on different machines (which this tries to prevent).
// Code originally contributed by Microsoft Corporation. // This contribution to the Stonehenge project is limited strictly // to the source code that is submitted in this submission. // Any technology, including underlying platform technology, // that is referenced or required by the submitted source code // is not a part of the contribution. // For example and not by way of limitation, // any systems/Windows libraries (WPF, WCF, ASP.NET etc.) // required to run the submitted source code is not a part of the contribution
Why is Microsoft so pesky about this? It's all about patents. The Apache License requires each contributor to give a patent license for the code they have contributed. By stating that all the patent-emcumbered libraries are not part of the contribution, Microsoft does not give you a patent license, but you still have to acquire one if you actually want to use their code. So don't use this code, it's a patent trap.
In theory, if the banking system were known to be compromised in such a huge way, and there were no way of knowing if your own bank account was compromised or not, shouldn't there be a massive bank run?
In practice, this isn't much of a problem. Actually, there are two ways to earn money with this. You can commit old-school pen and paper wire transfer fraud, i.e., you fill out forms directing the bank to transfer funds from one account to another. However, there are two problems with that. First, you need to have a valid signature on the form and banks are required to check that (whether they actually do it is the banks' problem). Second, this scales not too well and if you dump 21M forms the bank will surely notice.
The second approach is to setup a fraudulent business and take part in the direct debit program. However, not everyone can participate in this and banks do some background checks. And even if there is a fradulent transfer from your account you can get your money back by a single call to your bank.
So in a nutshell, these methods can only be used to defraud negligent banks, not the customer. Oh, and all this typically doesn't work with saving accounts that hold the real money. That's why there is no reason to withdraw your money.
I mean, I'm all about open source but nobody developing or promoting proprietary software? What about the business world and the wide variety of custom made software tailored to specific business segments?
Especially there the use of free software is a win-win situation for both parties. The buyer prevents being locked-in, the vendor retains the right to use the code in future projects, and all happens under well-known licenses without legal pitfalls for anybody.
What about gaming?
Don't you think Blizzard could make the same money when WoW was free software?
Did you genocide Rs earlier? Depending on your class, these are the most annoying critters on the whole game (and then, depending on your class, these are the most annoying critters on the whole game!)
Nah. By the time you meet rust monsters, you should not be wearing metallic stuff anyway. Disenchanters aren't fast and may even come handy for your +6 Grayswandir. Ls, however, are both annyoing AND dangerous.
Come on, Richard Garriot (Lord British, of Ultima fame) is one of the founding fathers of the gaming industry as we know it, not just the son of some random astronaut...
This seems very clunky and hacky, but I suspect that the speakers at the OWASP talk have gotten this technique to work well enough so that it is both transparent and highly effective. Can you think of a website that needs you to click, say, a play button in order to view content? That click may be hijacked through an invisible iframe to execute an action on another website.
So, how is this essentially different from CVE-2004-0762, fixed in Firefox four years ago? Okay, they might have found new attack scenarios, but the technique seems to be rather old.
They waited until an inconvenient time to improve the chances that Ubuntu would agree to their demands rather than changing the browser.
There are several Brainstorm ideas that propose a way of dealing with the EULA for the upcoming Intrepid Ibex release:
Rebrand Firefox, ship it as Iceweasel. Iceweasel is the rebranded version of the Firefox browser, meaning it is 100% compatible with Firefox. The Debian people have been using it for years without problems.
Ditch Firefox, ship Epiphany. Replace Firefox completely by shipping Epiphany, which is the web browser for the GNOME desktop environment.
Do nothing. Users will be forced to accept the Mozilla EULA.
So far, the Iceweasel option seems to be the most popular by a large margin.
Am I the only one who sees a problem with the circular logic of saying, "We need some particle to give particles mass -- wait, what gives mass to the particle that gives particles mass?"
It doesn't mean that the Higgs gives mass to all particles, only to some of them. The standard model requires some particles (gauge bosons) to be massless, otherwise the whole theory leads to inconsistent results. For photons and gluons, this is fine, as current experimental results are consistent with these particles being massless. However, W and Z bosons, are all but massless -- they are even 100 times heavier than protons!
To fix this inconsistency, some very smart physicists came up with the idea to introduce another particle, namely the Higgs boson. The Higgs is not a gauge boson, so the standard model does not require it to be massless. Furthermore, by the Higgs-Kibble mechanism it is able to give mass to the W and Z bosons without tearing the standard model apart.
Slashdot Mirror
Hyper Estraier has a Google-like interface that has some additional features such as including regular expressions in your queries.
because, at least in Germany, you are then liable for everything that is transfered over that hotspot.
Not if done properly. If you really run a deliberately open WiFi network you are legally a telecommunication provider and thus exempt from liability (as it should be the case in any EU member state). However, if you are caught filesharing and whine afterwards that maybe someone broke into your network, then probably not. So far, the courts have only decided on the latter cases.
This is not an open source project. From data/textures/readme.txt:
(C) 2007-2009 Blood Frontier Team, all rights reserved.
The "textures" package included in Blood Frontier may only be distributed
with the Blood Frontier package. Redistribution or repacking outside
this context without the author's consent is strictly prohibited.
If you want a real open-source shooter that rocks, try Nexuiz.
That said, anyone who is really interested in Linux would not be satisfied with the simplified versions that come with netbooks. If you are going to wipe the OS to install your own distro, then it doesn't make a great deal of difference what the original operating system is.
Not quite true. If it comes with some variant of Linux preinstalled then you know that all hardware components will work right out of the box, even if you install a different distro. No hassle with obscure drivers or poorly supported devices like the much-dreaded winmodems.
YES, please. My god I hate this aspect of Google, which is an incredibly annoying time-suck. It's even worse for me because I have a uni account that gives me access to most of the paywalled research, but only when I'm on campus, so when I'm off-campus and I want to know something I just desperately want the option to turn off all that paywalled crap.
Got an SSH account? Then you can download the papers by setting up an HTTP proxy.
I remember reading that what Rupert Murdoch actually wants is headlines to be trawled as currently done, but for actual news items to be paid for. He wants Google to check the story for relevance but not display it; Just a link to the place where you pay for / subscribe to the article.
Needless to say, Google said "It doesn't work like that."
Really? Isn't that how Google tries to woo academic publishers?
Interestingly, Google Flu Trends shows similar signs, although there the peak already occured in October.
Nah. These are not simply highly excited molecular states (i.e., Rydberg states of molecules), but molecules formed by a novel binding mechanism between one highly excited Rydberg atom (not molecule) and a second ground state atom.
Actually, this is about a new specification created by the Trusted Computing Group, so it's fairly open stuff. However, I fail to see how this actually solves any of the problems related to recent data breaches. If you lose your notebook with all your data the attacker also gets access to the Trusted Platform Module and can decrypt the disk. If you want to securely transport your data, this is horribly inconvenient as the whole point is to be able to access the data on different machines (which this tries to prevent).
Frankly I would love an ARM based notebook except for just a few issues.
1. Flash. Like it or not Flash is everywhere and I have not seen a Linux ARM version.
2. Java. I need it and JavaFX could be a nice alternative to Silverlight/Moonlight.
Both Gnash and OpenJDK are available for ARM.
So the real question is, what DAQ's are available for python.
Comedi provides Python bindings.
// Code originally contributed by Microsoft Corporation.
// This contribution to the Stonehenge project is limited strictly
// to the source code that is submitted in this submission.
// Any technology, including underlying platform technology,
// that is referenced or required by the submitted source code
// is not a part of the contribution.
// For example and not by way of limitation,
// any systems/Windows libraries (WPF, WCF, ASP.NET etc.)
// required to run the submitted source code is not a part of the contribution
Why is Microsoft so pesky about this? It's all about patents. The Apache License requires each contributor to give a patent license for the code they have contributed. By stating that all the patent-emcumbered libraries are not part of the contribution, Microsoft does not give you a patent license, but you still have to acquire one if you actually want to use their code. So don't use this code, it's a patent trap.
I love to see when a company understands that giving something away they will get ten times more in return. And nowadays that happens too rarely.
Aren't you confusing something here? This move is nothing but a reward for companies choosing not to give anything to others.
Has anyone out there actually had their system bottlenecked by lack of random numbers?
I know some guys doing quantum Monte Carlo simulations. And yes, fast RNGs are crucial for their algorithms.
In theory, if the banking system were known to be compromised in such a huge way, and there were no way of knowing if your own bank account was compromised or not, shouldn't there be a massive bank run?
In practice, this isn't much of a problem. Actually, there are two ways to earn money with this. You can commit old-school pen and paper wire transfer fraud, i.e., you fill out forms directing the bank to transfer funds from one account to another. However, there are two problems with that. First, you need to have a valid signature on the form and banks are required to check that (whether they actually do it is the banks' problem). Second, this scales not too well and if you dump 21M forms the bank will surely notice.
The second approach is to setup a fraudulent business and take part in the direct debit program. However, not everyone can participate in this and banks do some background checks. And even if there is a fradulent transfer from your account you can get your money back by a single call to your bank.
So in a nutshell, these methods can only be used to defraud negligent banks, not the customer. Oh, and all this typically doesn't work with saving accounts that hold the real money. That's why there is no reason to withdraw your money.
I mean, I'm all about open source but nobody developing or promoting proprietary software? What about the business world and the wide variety of custom made software tailored to specific business segments?
Especially there the use of free software is a win-win situation for both parties. The buyer prevents being locked-in, the vendor retains the right to use the code in future projects, and all happens under well-known licenses without legal pitfalls for anybody.
What about gaming?
Don't you think Blizzard could make the same money when WoW was free software?
Did you genocide Rs earlier? Depending on your class, these are the most annoying critters on the whole game (and then, depending on your class, these are the most annoying critters on the whole game!)
Nah. By the time you meet rust monsters, you should not be wearing metallic stuff anyway. Disenchanters aren't fast and may even come handy for your +6 Grayswandir. Ls, however, are both annyoing AND dangerous.
Come on, Richard Garriot (Lord British, of Ultima fame) is one of the founding fathers of the gaming industry as we know it, not just the son of some random astronaut ...
EndNote does one thing [citation management] well. The problem is that citation management isn't a difficult thing to accomplish in software.
Absolutely true. Pybliographer has been available for years, so there is hardly a need for proprietary reference management software.
This seems very clunky and hacky, but I suspect that the speakers at the OWASP talk have gotten this technique to work well enough so that it is both transparent and highly effective. Can you think of a website that needs you to click, say, a play button in order to view content? That click may be hijacked through an invisible iframe to execute an action on another website.
So, how is this essentially different from CVE-2004-0762, fixed in Firefox four years ago? Okay, they might have found new attack scenarios, but the technique seems to be rather old.
They waited until an inconvenient time to improve the chances that Ubuntu would agree to their demands rather than changing the browser.
There are several Brainstorm ideas that propose a way of dealing with the EULA for the upcoming Intrepid Ibex release:
So far, the Iceweasel option seems to be the most popular by a large margin.
Who cares if it's banned in China, he just wants to spam his service to slashdot.
And probably not even true. Internet censorship in China is usually done via fake RST packets, not via DNS manipulations.
Why would you have to agree with Apple yanking it?
Money laundering.
Am I the only one who sees a problem with the circular logic of saying, "We need some particle to give particles mass -- wait, what gives mass to the particle that gives particles mass?"
It doesn't mean that the Higgs gives mass to all particles, only to some of them. The standard model requires some particles (gauge bosons) to be massless, otherwise the whole theory leads to inconsistent results. For photons and gluons, this is fine, as current experimental results are consistent with these particles being massless. However, W and Z bosons, are all but massless -- they are even 100 times heavier than protons!
To fix this inconsistency, some very smart physicists came up with the idea to introduce another particle, namely the Higgs boson. The Higgs is not a gauge boson, so the standard model does not require it to be massless. Furthermore, by the Higgs-Kibble mechanism it is able to give mass to the W and Z bosons without tearing the standard model apart.
I configured Tor to use a Chinese exit node. Here are my results:
- Chinese Wikipedia: accessible (used to be blocked)
- BBC Chinese (via bbcchinese.com): blocked
- BBC Chinese (via direct URL): accessible
- Article on Tibet in English Wikipedia: accessible (used to be blocked)
- Human Rights in China: blocked