I'm not a security expert, but I get the sense someone needs to go back to square one and figure out how to build a coherent, open, and secure model for networking that doesn't rely on giving such control to a small number of companies.
Well, an obvious fix would be to bundle each domain with a certificate for said domain - that is, have ICANN handle the whole certification thing. In fact you could propably adapt the DNS system to grab the current certificate fingerprint for a site along with the IP address; that should solve the problems with time-based revokes.
All the downloading done with your client will go through your normal (unencrypted) connection.
Actually, many BitTorrent clients nowadays can use encrypted connections for data transfer. I don't know if the tracker connections are encrypted, though.
You may want to send your legal department a copy of the GPL, and possibly a copy of the accompanying FAQ, which explains things in terms simple enough for non-lawyers or even just really confused lawyers to understand.
Actually, I'd say that the legal department made the right choice. After all, this way they are safe from any appearance of inpropriety, even in the court of public opinion, and lose nothing; in fact, having their changes and bugfixes put into upstream release would be to their benefit, since that way they wouldn't need to patch every new release.
Sorry, no. Regardless of what you thought I was saying, I explicitly said the predators should prey on asshole men (including socio/psychopaths), which means I think of them as the "lesser members of our societies".
Yes. And I'm saying that saying this makes you a psychopath. After all, isn't such ruthlessness the very reason they are troublesome ?
Maybe you're the asshole?
Because I think that feeding people - any people - to animals is a sick and disgusting idea ? Interesting definition of asshole you have there.
You may gain some extra skills as you get older, and you'd better to keep them interested. But, when you're in your teens and early 20's....it sure is nice to fuck, bust a nut...and still stay hard and be ready to go again. Not to mention 3-5+ times a night.
30 years and 6 times per day.
That all goes away when you get into your 40's........or so I hear.
Heh. When I was a kid, I was weak and sickly. I was allergic to everything imaginable, my teeth rotted in my mouth, my heart had a tendency to skip beats, etc. etc. As years go by, the people around me are past their physical prime, and are starting to pick up first signs of aging; while I, who used to be the weakest of the lot, am simply getting stronger and healthier each year, having shed those allergies and other problems along the way.
Their example is James Bond because he's aggressive, overly confident, always gets what he wants and has no respect for human life or the feelings of others.
Bond gets girls because Bond is confident and good-looking. Often saving the life of the heroine doesn't hurt either:). I don't know where you got the "no respect for human life" bit from; no Bond film I've seen has him shooting randomly to crowd, if anything they show him stopping various mass murdering schemes at considerable personal risk.
The message: women like overconfident assholes. Not news to me.
I have no idea what women in general like; nor does it really matter, because with 3 billion of them there's bound to be the odd pervert who finds me attractive:). However, if James Bond is your idea of an asshole, you're in for a lot of nasty surprises in life.
Instead of worrying about things like altering our genetics, the solution seems simple to me: we need predators. There's no natural predators for humans to keep our numbers under control, and remove the lesser members of our societies.
Sure there are: psychopaths and assholes. People like you, who think that "lesser members of our societies" should be fed to the wolves, literally.
Maybe we need some kind of predator that eats asshole men and the stupid bimbo women who like them.
You do realize, of course, that your comment put you right on top of the menu ?
There is a lot we don't teach children. We don't teach them that the sun revolves around the earth. We don't teach them 2 + 2 = 5. We should also not teach them the fairytales of a few deranged retards that creationism is.
With comments like this, you do nothing to help your cause; quite the contrary, a creationist could quote you as evidence that his opponents are arrogant morons who's arguments are kindergarden insults, and thus shouldn't be listened on.
The fact that the earth revolves around the sun isn't as obvious as people like to claim, If it is, why did it take until Galileo, which was more than thousands of years after the Greek had access to math?
It didn't. The Greeks also had a Sun-centric model. Galileo didn't observe that Earth revolves around Sun, he observed that Jupiter has moons which revolve around it. And the greeks didn't have access to either calculus or to telescopes.
The single most important handbrake on the development of human intellect has always been religion.
A likely unprovable claim, as it is impossible to compare history to a version without religion.
Except we don't need it. It's mostly for show. We have enough nuclear firepower to wipe the floor with any real nation that decided to oppose us. Are you seriously suggesting that if we engaged in a war where aircraft carriers were truly necessary and -under threat- that we would hold off on the nukes? We'd have to face an actual military foe for that.
Unless everyone who has a say in that is crazy or a moron, then yes, you would. The second you launch nukes, you drag the rest of the world into the war. Even if they hold off from launching their nukes on you - which isn't at all certain, because nuclear fallout will harm them, and you can't really be certain where a missile is going until it goes kaboom - you have pretty much signed your own death warrant, either in the war or in the economic and diplomatic fallout afterwards.
Nuclear weapons are only good to prevent others from using them on you. Launching a nuclear offense against anyone in a world there others hold nukes too is a suicide.
I'm using Firefox 2, because 3 contains some rather nasty bugs which make it useless to me. Specifically, in several pages, opening the middle-click menu takes minutes, and search-as-you-type hangs the machine completely.
Maybe the developers should had concentrated more on fixing bugs and less on "awesome"bar ?
Anyway, are there any actually reliable open-source browsers out there ? Lynx is out, because it can't display graphics:(.
So... Not only is this guy not a politician but a talk show host, but he also apparently falls short on the extortion, blackmail, embezzlement, rape and murder departments. The only thing he is being charged with is child porn, which he claims to have looked at as part of journalistic research. Furthermore, this case is clearly not ignored by the media, since you yourself provided a link to a newssite depicting it.
One of the strengths of Firefox for some time has been that right out of the box, the binary just ran on lots of Linux versions. With FF3 (starting with betas) they broke this.
Good. Firefox has a large enough memory footprint without statically compiling all the libraries into it just because someone might want to run it on an outdated distro.
FF3 requires a pretty new library (libpangocairo 1.0). I spent an hour trying to come up with it this afternoon for my 100+ users. No luck so far.
The firefox team really let us down big time. We've been anxiously awaiting this release because it's supposed to solve the memory bloat problems (several of us here have to restart the browser several times a week because it's consumed insane amounts of RAM).
Using the same shared libraries as everything else will reduce memory usage, because that way there will only be a single copy of the code in memory. Statically compiling libraries into programs for distribution was always a stupid, stupid, stupid hack.
Now, maybe the Firefox team should also provide a self-contained Firefox version for people who insist on using it on outdated distros - it's not much work, just a single linker flag if I remember correctly - but that certainly shouldn't be the default.
Proliferation concerns could cause diplomatic trouble with other nations, especially China. If other nuclear powers see that as a threat they might start increasing their own arsenal.
And ? Their arsenal is already already large enough to destroy the US. Consequently, them making it bigger will simply mean they're wasting money and thus weakening their own position.
True the kid could have been doing something else. Arguments that it would be more work so sort of a punishment for the smart kids I'm not sure I agree with. The smart kid was able to do the work with less effort (that is kind of what being smart means no?), so it isn't punishment, it is just asking the kid to work for just as long as everyone else. Same thing at work, if you get your work done quickly the boss finds something else for you to do.
Which means that you'll be doing more for the same pay. At work, that might be justifiable (from your perspective) as a means of improving your reputation, in that corporation and in the field in general; but a schoolkid is not going to be thinking years in advance. She's going to think: "If I get this done fast, I'll be given more work, so I should daydream instead of concentrating."
I remember that back in elementary school one of our teachers asked us to write a piece of text with as good handwriting as we could. I, being young and stupid, did so. Then she said: "Ha ! You revealed yourselves ! Any assignment that has worse handwriting than this will get discarded !"
Lets not get lost in the tangents. The no child left behind act was directly responsible for the removal of ethics courses from grade and high schools. There was not enough funding for both. It should not have taken a study to realize this was a bad idea.
It could be argued that the no child left behind act is largely responsible for our corrupt, money hungry, and materialistic society today.
Are you seriously arguing that ethics can be taught at school ? By schoolteachers ? To schoolkids - you know, the subhuman little monsters who usually pick one from amongst themselves to torture for fun ?
Are you planning on having the Devil, Cthulhu and Ganondorf as guest-lecturers, by any chance ? Because they'de fit right in. And they'd propably be more enthusiastic and instill better ethics than the regular teachers.
With 6.3 megs of source my guess is the guy from Space Oddessy would say "My God! It's full of bloat!"
Maybe. But then again, the JRE alone has a compiler (the JIT one), an interpreter, class correctness checker, and the whole Java class library which contains quite a bit of native code, so at least part of it should be included in that figure. The JDK adds another compiler (source ->> bytecode) and some tools.
6.3 megs isn't actually much when you start implementing a runtime environment. The compiled form of the C library in my machine is 6.3 megs.
I would be incredibly surprised if it was speedy. I wonder how many of those lines are "NOP"? How many of them are comments? How many are actual, once working code that has been commented out?
Size of code being large doesn't neccessarily mean that any particular code path is long, just that there are many of them. For example, adding a JIT compiler will make a virtual machine faster, but also increase code size.
This all depends on what you consider "Just Fine." Sure open source is progressing, but it doing so much more slowly than it could be given the obvious merits of the model.
And these merits are what Nokia wants to get rid of, for everyone but themselves. They want to be able to use FOSS in their phones, but deny the end users the ability to control those phones after they have been sold to them.
Accepting to co-exist with things such as DRM would simply allow more people into the community without alienating them with a group's standard of good or evil.
Accepting co-existence with DRM would undermine the very goals of FOSS. It is stupid to undermine your goals in order to gain popularity, especially if the reason you want popularity in the first place is to advance those goals. People who aren't willing to play by the community's rules are generally not welcome anywhere.
Trying that hard to stick to your beliefs in order to stick it to The Man will only make The Man use a solution you approve of even less. Speaking through eyes unclouded by vain hopes of a perfect world I say that's the best we can home for.
Since the whole FOSS movement began with precisely that kind of "vain hope", and has grown exponentially ever since, it is outright delusional to keep calling it vain.
And for the last one? I honestly have no clue, maybe it would be a bad idea to let some companies use FOSS to make their products, but I'm sure there would be just as many that would use FOSS to make a better product at a tolerable price.
Every company is free to use FOSS in their products, provided they stick to the license. That's what the "Free" means in "Free Open Source Software".
Now, I don't know about you, but I'd much rather get a better product from a company I dislike, than a horrible product from a company that makes me feel good by providing a happy cheery product that could have been much improved.
What, exactly speaking, does this have to do with the subject at hand ?
I am sure most of us on this site want open source to continue growing. Unfortunately for that to happen we need more acceptance from the bigger companies with the deeper pockets.
Open source seems to be growing just fine with the current level of acceptance.
This means that if we want growth to continue at a good rate we have to accept that certain concepts that are contrary to our philosophy have a place in community projects.
Apart from this being false - see below - there's an old saying: if you're willing to become evil in order to fight evil, why are you fighting it ?
The alternative is that projects that could benefit from going open source will not be able to, resulting in higher costs for the consumer, and less work dedicated to projects.
I guess that means that the companies which are willing to play by the FOSS rules are able to deliver products with lower price, capture the market from the ones which aren't, and make a killing, then.
The inflammatory, anti-corporate view may seem more interesting, but people should read it again with a cool head. "We are not yet ready to play by the [FLOSS world's] rules", and neither is the FLOSS world (yet) ready to play by the mobile industry's rules. Only by communicating those rules, expectations and prejudices can be removed so that we can all play by the same rules.
Why would they ever be willing to play by the rules, if they can get the benefit of FLOSS without playing by them ? What's their motive to get ready ?
And the anti-corporate view is based and well founded on bitter experience. Corporate world only has themselves to blame for their reputation.
You can't seriously expect phone manufacturers to remove the possibility of a SIM lock. You can't also seriously expect FLOSS developers not to want the modifications you made to their code to make the phone lockable. But if we want to work together (and we do), we need to find a way that makes everyone happy.
While I can certainly see the benefit for Nokia here, but I don't see benefit to FLOSS developers which would outweight the cost: every other corporation wanting to get special treatment too.
I've heard rant after rant about how postgreSQL is the greatest thing since lava lamps, but for some reason, nobody (that I saw) had bothered to mention the LGPL license. I still don't know how it's technologically better than MySQL, but I've never had the drive to look until now.
PostgreSQL is under the BSD license, actually. And in the years I have been using it, it has failed to ever once corrupt anything, despite the machine losing power several times in the middle of a complex transaction.
On the other hand, we have absolute, concrete evidence for what it takes for life to form.
No we don't. We have evidence that life can exist in Earth-like environment - not absolute evidence, thought, because this could be the Matrix, for example. We don't know if life started (formed) here, or if it did, what the precise conditions were. Nor do we have any idea how likely it was to start in whatever conditions it started in, here or elsewhere.
Sorry for the rant, but I don't really like it when people claim "absolute evidence" in science.
Personally, I think that shaming and embarrassing mistaken beliefs should come back into fashion. When people feel embarrassed about silly beliefs, they will start to question what they're told.
When people are mocked for their mistaken beliefs, they will make sure to follow the groupthink and not step out of line. Critical thinking requires you to be able to entertain wild and outlandish thoughts long enough to think about them, and perhaps even talk with someone else about them. If doing this will get you punished, you have created an incentive against questioning what you're being told.
They are all broad sweeping generalisations that have little bearing on the reality of the man on the street. Cultures are different, none better, none worse.
Well then, doesn't that logically mean that a culture which considers another culture inferior is no worse than a culture which doesn't ? So why are you posting ?
Your assumption that democracy is inherently better than dictatorship only holds for your cultural values.
Those values include things like "I'm unlikely to be imprisoned, killed, or taken to a labor camp by the secret police". Said atroticities happen often in dictatorships and rarely in democracies.
All political systems or cultures are better than dystopia and all are worse than utopia, they all have benefits and flaws, yet while there are more similarities than differences we tend to ignore the familiar (including our own flaws) and divide the world into false dichotomies, black and white, good and bad, or in this case better or worse.
And sometimes, in our eagerness to reject a black and white worldview, we take it to the opposite and equally ridiculous extreme and claim that there are no differences whatsoever. It might be very politically correct and make its adherents think they're being open-minded, but it is still rubbish.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, an obvious fix would be to bundle each domain with a certificate for said domain - that is, have ICANN handle the whole certification thing. In fact you could propably adapt the DNS system to grab the current certificate fingerprint for a site along with the IP address; that should solve the problems with time-based revokes.
If it's important or private, meet with the other guy face to face in a crowded and noisy place. That way there is nothing to read.
Actually, many BitTorrent clients nowadays can use encrypted connections for data transfer. I don't know if the tracker connections are encrypted, though.
Actually, I'd say that the legal department made the right choice. After all, this way they are safe from any appearance of inpropriety, even in the court of public opinion, and lose nothing; in fact, having their changes and bugfixes put into upstream release would be to their benefit, since that way they wouldn't need to patch every new release.
It has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with getting license fees from everyone who develops software for the console.
Yes. And I'm saying that saying this makes you a psychopath. After all, isn't such ruthlessness the very reason they are troublesome ?
Because I think that feeding people - any people - to animals is a sick and disgusting idea ? Interesting definition of asshole you have there.
30 years and 6 times per day.
Heh. When I was a kid, I was weak and sickly. I was allergic to everything imaginable, my teeth rotted in my mouth, my heart had a tendency to skip beats, etc. etc. As years go by, the people around me are past their physical prime, and are starting to pick up first signs of aging; while I, who used to be the weakest of the lot, am simply getting stronger and healthier each year, having shed those allergies and other problems along the way.
Choke on that, youth cult :q.
Bond gets girls because Bond is confident and good-looking. Often saving the life of the heroine doesn't hurt either :). I don't know where you got the "no respect for human life" bit from; no Bond film I've seen has him shooting randomly to crowd, if anything they show him stopping various mass murdering schemes at considerable personal risk.
I have no idea what women in general like; nor does it really matter, because with 3 billion of them there's bound to be the odd pervert who finds me attractive :). However, if James Bond is your idea of an asshole, you're in for a lot of nasty surprises in life.
Sure there are: psychopaths and assholes. People like you, who think that "lesser members of our societies" should be fed to the wolves, literally.
You do realize, of course, that your comment put you right on top of the menu ?
With comments like this, you do nothing to help your cause; quite the contrary, a creationist could quote you as evidence that his opponents are arrogant morons who's arguments are kindergarden insults, and thus shouldn't be listened on.
It didn't. The Greeks also had a Sun-centric model. Galileo didn't observe that Earth revolves around Sun, he observed that Jupiter has moons which revolve around it. And the greeks didn't have access to either calculus or to telescopes.
A likely unprovable claim, as it is impossible to compare history to a version without religion.
Unless everyone who has a say in that is crazy or a moron, then yes, you would. The second you launch nukes, you drag the rest of the world into the war. Even if they hold off from launching their nukes on you - which isn't at all certain, because nuclear fallout will harm them, and you can't really be certain where a missile is going until it goes kaboom - you have pretty much signed your own death warrant, either in the war or in the economic and diplomatic fallout afterwards.
Nuclear weapons are only good to prevent others from using them on you. Launching a nuclear offense against anyone in a world there others hold nukes too is a suicide.
I'm using Firefox 2, because 3 contains some rather nasty bugs which make it useless to me. Specifically, in several pages, opening the middle-click menu takes minutes, and search-as-you-type hangs the machine completely.
Maybe the developers should had concentrated more on fixing bugs and less on "awesome"bar ?
Anyway, are there any actually reliable open-source browsers out there ? Lynx is out, because it can't display graphics :(.
So... Not only is this guy not a politician but a talk show host, but he also apparently falls short on the extortion, blackmail, embezzlement, rape and murder departments. The only thing he is being charged with is child porn, which he claims to have looked at as part of journalistic research. Furthermore, this case is clearly not ignored by the media, since you yourself provided a link to a newssite depicting it.
Good. Firefox has a large enough memory footprint without statically compiling all the libraries into it just because someone might want to run it on an outdated distro.
Cairo is available from http://www.cairographics.org/. Pango is available from http://www.pango.org/. What, exactly speaking, is the problem ?
Using the same shared libraries as everything else will reduce memory usage, because that way there will only be a single copy of the code in memory. Statically compiling libraries into programs for distribution was always a stupid, stupid, stupid hack.
Now, maybe the Firefox team should also provide a self-contained Firefox version for people who insist on using it on outdated distros - it's not much work, just a single linker flag if I remember correctly - but that certainly shouldn't be the default.
And ? Their arsenal is already already large enough to destroy the US. Consequently, them making it bigger will simply mean they're wasting money and thus weakening their own position.
Which means that you'll be doing more for the same pay. At work, that might be justifiable (from your perspective) as a means of improving your reputation, in that corporation and in the field in general; but a schoolkid is not going to be thinking years in advance. She's going to think: "If I get this done fast, I'll be given more work, so I should daydream instead of concentrating."
I remember that back in elementary school one of our teachers asked us to write a piece of text with as good handwriting as we could. I, being young and stupid, did so. Then she said: "Ha ! You revealed yourselves ! Any assignment that has worse handwriting than this will get discarded !"
I learned something that day alright.
Are you seriously arguing that ethics can be taught at school ? By schoolteachers ? To schoolkids - you know, the subhuman little monsters who usually pick one from amongst themselves to torture for fun ?
Are you planning on having the Devil, Cthulhu and Ganondorf as guest-lecturers, by any chance ? Because they'de fit right in. And they'd propably be more enthusiastic and instill better ethics than the regular teachers.
Maybe. But then again, the JRE alone has a compiler (the JIT one), an interpreter, class correctness checker, and the whole Java class library which contains quite a bit of native code, so at least part of it should be included in that figure. The JDK adds another compiler (source ->> bytecode) and some tools.
6.3 megs isn't actually much when you start implementing a runtime environment. The compiled form of the C library in my machine is 6.3 megs.
Size of code being large doesn't neccessarily mean that any particular code path is long, just that there are many of them. For example, adding a JIT compiler will make a virtual machine faster, but also increase code size.
And these merits are what Nokia wants to get rid of, for everyone but themselves. They want to be able to use FOSS in their phones, but deny the end users the ability to control those phones after they have been sold to them.
Accepting co-existence with DRM would undermine the very goals of FOSS. It is stupid to undermine your goals in order to gain popularity, especially if the reason you want popularity in the first place is to advance those goals. People who aren't willing to play by the community's rules are generally not welcome anywhere.
Since the whole FOSS movement began with precisely that kind of "vain hope", and has grown exponentially ever since, it is outright delusional to keep calling it vain.
Every company is free to use FOSS in their products, provided they stick to the license. That's what the "Free" means in "Free Open Source Software".
What, exactly speaking, does this have to do with the subject at hand ?
Open source seems to be growing just fine with the current level of acceptance.
Apart from this being false - see below - there's an old saying: if you're willing to become evil in order to fight evil, why are you fighting it ?
I guess that means that the companies which are willing to play by the FOSS rules are able to deliver products with lower price, capture the market from the ones which aren't, and make a killing, then.
Why would they ever be willing to play by the rules, if they can get the benefit of FLOSS without playing by them ? What's their motive to get ready ?
And the anti-corporate view is based and well founded on bitter experience. Corporate world only has themselves to blame for their reputation.
While I can certainly see the benefit for Nokia here, but I don't see benefit to FLOSS developers which would outweight the cost: every other corporation wanting to get special treatment too.
PostgreSQL is under the BSD license, actually. And in the years I have been using it, it has failed to ever once corrupt anything, despite the machine losing power several times in the middle of a complex transaction.
No we don't. We have evidence that life can exist in Earth-like environment - not absolute evidence, thought, because this could be the Matrix, for example. We don't know if life started (formed) here, or if it did, what the precise conditions were. Nor do we have any idea how likely it was to start in whatever conditions it started in, here or elsewhere.
Sorry for the rant, but I don't really like it when people claim "absolute evidence" in science.
When people are mocked for their mistaken beliefs, they will make sure to follow the groupthink and not step out of line. Critical thinking requires you to be able to entertain wild and outlandish thoughts long enough to think about them, and perhaps even talk with someone else about them. If doing this will get you punished, you have created an incentive against questioning what you're being told.
Well then, doesn't that logically mean that a culture which considers another culture inferior is no worse than a culture which doesn't ? So why are you posting ?
Those values include things like "I'm unlikely to be imprisoned, killed, or taken to a labor camp by the secret police". Said atroticities happen often in dictatorships and rarely in democracies.
And sometimes, in our eagerness to reject a black and white worldview, we take it to the opposite and equally ridiculous extreme and claim that there are no differences whatsoever. It might be very politically correct and make its adherents think they're being open-minded, but it is still rubbish.