Guys. Last time I was taught about this, this came right down from the Latin language... In French, the singular is "scénario", and the plural may be "scénarios" (common) or "scénarii" (rare, direct from the Latin). Note the funny accent on the "E" which is no Latin sprach whatsoever !-)
That would make it the only French word that ends in "ii". French is my main language and even though scenarii is used in France (fortunately, I'm not living there), it's bad French. And it sounds awful. I'm unsure if it's worse or not than their other perversion of the word : "scénar".
P.S.: Grepping my French dictionary file, I do find ONE word ending in "ii" : impresarii. Never saw it before. I think it's bloody stupid.
I'm replying to my own post but the other was the translation and this is what I think of it. I think it's bullshit.
Point number 10, what the fuck ? zip is just a comression format. Point number 11, trusted folders are defined by YOU. So most people don't even have them. But if it's convenient to you to define a folder where all macros are trusted how is it different from accepting every macro while you open the document ? It must be quite convenient for developers who want to test their macros. Most other points ? Way too vague to mean anything. Beside, if the danger for an office suite which isn't really attacked right now is "maximal", how should be classify MS Office ?
And their famous proof-of-concept... they won't even tell us how they got it to run. My guess is that they defined a trusted folder and put it in.
Until they reveal that, this document is worthless. Like that other proof-of-concept from I don't remember which AV vendor. Their macro (if you accepted it) would download a porn picture from the net and put it in the document. I guess it's much more dangerous than sending documents with the picture already in.
Macro security is easy to bypass. "Trusted" folders are defined. Any macro placed in those folders is by definition, trusted.
Document signature do not really consider macros. Bypassing possibilities
Macros can be linked to events or services.
Other mechanisms : macro chaining, hypertext links, inter-application execution, OLE
Many mechanisms are usable for an infection
All known viral techniques known for Microsoft Office can be translated under OpenOffice.org
Every kind of infection is doable. (Infection and auto-reproduction)
Globaly, OpenOffice's suite is a bigger infection risk than Microsoft's suite.
No real security concepts.
Many functional viral roots were made as proof-of-concept
Infection successful no matter the security setting of the user.
Some senarii can act without alerting the user in any way (scenarii is a stupid plural in French too but they used it in the original)
Then they go on to explain (still in powerpoint bullets) that they managed to write a macro that sends an e-mail with an attached file which then executed C code which modified dicOOo.
And they conclude that infection risk under OOo is MAXIMAL and its use should be discouraged for security reasons.
They cleared that out. They said they'll keep them until they fall off the backup roll. What do you expect, that they nuke them from orbit the second you delete them ?
Everybody have different non-spammy word. How are they going to find out that MY innocent words are Python and Linux related ? If they knew, they might spam ME but it wouldn't affect anyone else. Beside, there's headers that are also full of infos.
Read A Plan for Spam by Paul Graham, it explains why such a scheme would not work.
Either way, your spam filters become increasingly useless.
Not at all. Random words have neutral meaning and spam words have spammy meaning. Unless they can fill their mails with words your own mails are filled with and your spam filter consider good, random words won't help them.
Popfile does. It works extremely well as long as you don't change your mind about what each category means. If you do, reset the category and start training it again.
If you find there isn't enough software for Linux, you haven't browsed your repositories. I'm not saying that "I miss software X" isn't valid but if you think there isn't enough new things to try in general, you are not trying very hard !
Definition of programming.
Programming is race between Programmers, to produce idiot proof apps, and God, to create better idiots.
So far God is winning.
Best is to allow the user to create their own question. The only issue here is that some people will choose questions that others could easily find the answer to. However, it is secure for those who know what they are doing.
Sometimes you cannot write your own so either you type random junk on the keyboard if you are sure you'll never forget your password or you understand the question in a twisted way. What's your favourite animal ? Dubya !
I feel like Schroder in "A Charlie Brown Christmas" having to dink-dink-dink on his little piano to get Lucy to recognize "jingle-bells". Another way of asking my question is "Does any version of the GPL allow (technically, not legally) non-signed software to run on a DRM device". The answer to that question is the same as asking if the GPL can circumvent DRM.
No. And the GPL is only legal, not technical. And it cannot in any direct way affect software not covered by it.
So the correct answer is that the GPL doesn't circumvent DRM.
There is a mention in the license that the covered software cannot be considered DRM. So if its GPL, you can circumvent it and no court can hold you responsible. But the new GPL does not circumvent any DRM in software it does not cover. Unless the GPL app is so critical to you that you absolutely have to distribute it and thus remove the DRM in your hardware.
That's intersting, but you didn't answer my question. Note that incentives and motivations have nothing to do with my question.
No really, that's the answer. GPL is a license, not a contract. It cannot control use. My only GPL weapon is to prevent you to redistribute my work if you don't comply with the rules of my license. So the GPL says, either you remove that pesky DRM stuff or you write your own software to put in your own DRMed hardware because I do not give you permission to redistribute MY software as long as its in there.
OK, so explain how GPLv3 is going to make it possible to circumvent the DRM.
If you make DRM apply to GPLv3ed software in a way that prevents the user to run it or run modified versions, you lose your right to redistribute such software.
Fully automatic grading breaks down quite badly if there is a possibility of students making small mistakes that cause large amounts of tests to fail (or, conversely, big mistakes that cause few tests to fail);
It becomes less of a problem if you let students use the grading system. Write test cases and send them to students, they'll know in advance how many of them pass and will be able to modify their program appropriately.
The only way they could ever "save" SWG would be to find a way to make the people worth playing with outnumber those who are not worth playing with, if they could do that the state of the gameplay would be highly irrelivant.
I wonder if there could be a technical solution for this. Maybe a kind of Bayesian filter that would let you tag peoples as "friend" or "jackass". People would be splitted into servers with people they like. And maybe we could add "unlinkable" (if both people link each other as such, they move as a unit so groups of friends and guilds would not be splitted).
We could even have elitists servers that really care about roleplaying that would be separated from the other players. All that automatically.
The reason their results dropped might be because they launched with hype and PR and people linked to them. Now that people lost interest, PageRank drops.
What's funny is that this lawsuit might make their PageRank increase temporarily once again:)
Uh... roll back room? I'm a bit confused; here in the UK, one of the standard driving test procedures is the hill start; if you roll back at all, you fail. (At least when I took it. They might have changed things.)
You have to allow roll back room and the person in front of you have not to roll back. That way, if it happens anyway, no one is damaged. Beside, I don't know how it is in the UK but in Canada you can drive with only a written exam if you are with someone owning a driver license.
Whether FOSS is "capitalist" or "communist" or "volunteerist" is completely irrelevant, and quite frankly I think anyone who constantly tries to hammer the FOSS square peg into one of those round holes is doing so for their own purposes
There is a very simple reason why you can fit FOSS in those holes. Capitalism, communism, volunteering and so on are all about managing scarcity. In FOSS, there is no scarcity.
What I like about Puppy is that it can save back to its own CD/DVD. If you burn it on a DVD, you almost have a hard drive. And like DSL, you can install more stuff on it automatically.
Oh and it can be installed to hard disk to give a new life to old computer.
Slashdot Mirror
That would make it the only French word that ends in "ii". French is my main language and even though scenarii is used in France (fortunately, I'm not living there), it's bad French. And it sounds awful. I'm unsure if it's worse or not than their other perversion of the word : "scénar".
P.S.: Grepping my French dictionary file, I do find ONE word ending in "ii" : impresarii. Never saw it before. I think it's bloody stupid.
I took this crap in the original document. Scenarii is as stupid in French as virii is in English so I left it intact.
I'm replying to my own post but the other was the translation and this is what I think of it. I think it's bullshit.
Point number 10, what the fuck ? zip is just a comression format. Point number 11, trusted folders are defined by YOU. So most people don't even have them. But if it's convenient to you to define a folder where all macros are trusted how is it different from accepting every macro while you open the document ? It must be quite convenient for developers who want to test their macros. Most other points ? Way too vague to mean anything. Beside, if the danger for an office suite which isn't really attacked right now is "maximal", how should be classify MS Office ?
And their famous proof-of-concept... they won't even tell us how they got it to run. My guess is that they defined a trusted folder and put it in.
Until they reveal that, this document is worthless. Like that other proof-of-concept from I don't remember which AV vendor. Their macro (if you accepted it) would download a porn picture from the net and put it in the document. I guess it's much more dangerous than sending documents with the picture already in.
Then they go on to explain (still in powerpoint bullets) that they managed to write a macro that sends an e-mail with an attached file which then executed C code which modified dicOOo.
And they conclude that infection risk under OOo is MAXIMAL and its use should be discouraged for security reasons.
They cleared that out. They said they'll keep them until they fall off the backup roll. What do you expect, that they nuke them from orbit the second you delete them ?
Everybody have different non-spammy word. How are they going to find out that MY innocent words are Python and Linux related ? If they knew, they might spam ME but it wouldn't affect anyone else. Beside, there's headers that are also full of infos. Read A Plan for Spam by Paul Graham, it explains why such a scheme would not work.
Popfile does. It works extremely well as long as you don't change your mind about what each category means. If you do, reset the category and start training it again.
http://popfile.sourceforge.net/
If you find there isn't enough software for Linux, you haven't browsed your repositories. I'm not saying that "I miss software X" isn't valid but if you think there isn't enough new things to try in general, you are not trying very hard !
http://www.yoism.org/
Warning, the website contains annoyances, turn off your sound before visiting.
Their holy book is already at version 0.2. You can join if you want and submit patches.
And it's very modular, you can remove mysticism from it if you wishes.
Of course, since idiots get into programming too.
Check the Daily WTF if you want exemples : http://thedailywtf.com/
I wonder if there could be a technical solution for this. Maybe a kind of Bayesian filter that would let you tag peoples as "friend" or "jackass". People would be splitted into servers with people they like. And maybe we could add "unlinkable" (if both people link each other as such, they move as a unit so groups of friends and guilds would not be splitted).
We could even have elitists servers that really care about roleplaying that would be separated from the other players. All that automatically.
What's funny is that this lawsuit might make their PageRank increase temporarily once again :)
Oh and it can be installed to hard disk to give a new life to old computer.
http://www.puppyos.com/
In french it's "couleur" and "saveur". And huh, why was 30% of english taken from french ?