Considering SCO now admits that IBM owns the copyright to the code, this simply becomes a contract case. That means, since IBM disclosed code which they own all the IP to, no one else has anything to worry about. After all, it's IBM that's ultimately responsible for their actions. Having said that, most of their legal department is taking a nap because SCO's claims are so worthless. Furthermore, IBM's Unix license is irrevokable, so it hardly puts IBM in a pinch, even with AIX. For SCO's claims to even hold water, SCO would have to have IP or copyright claims to IBM's products, such as AIX, OS/2, etc. They do not. Remember, just because SCO has IP rights on Unix, doesn't mean they, in turn, have rights to everything IBM has done to add value to Unix.
If you look at what they've been doing, they've been trying to pump up their stock prices. SCO's execs have been dumping SCO stock almost as fast as they can. This doesn't even sound like a company that is expecting to get a huge infussion of cash from an outstanding legal battle. This is the act of rats trying to bail on a sinking ship. I personally hope the FTC is watching them very closely.
It could go into a power saving mode until the eclipse has passed. If power isn't being generated after the eclipse has passed, it then could begin trying to figure what the heck happened. It can be used for any number of intelligent diagnostic and power saving modes. Also, if it knows all valid times that its cells should be getting power, it can figure out if it navigated into shade or if it's one of the other known events. If it's a known event, it may be able to wait it out. If it's an unknown event, it can attempt to backtrack and report a possible problem.
Remember, just because it tracks various bodies, doesn't have to mean that it does so in real time.
What was you point? Last I looked, most people in America still get their news from one primary source. Sadly, that's still the evening news or a news paper.
Meanwhile....then your correction makes absolutely no sense as you basically comments on something that's been available for ever, which has nothing to do with the current topic. In other words, feel free to ignore all of your posts.
Shesh.
LOL!
Insightful....lol....
Since I was assuming your were trying to add value to the conversation, I assumed the only possible conclusion that made sense. Since you've corrected me that your comments added zero value in any way, I can only laugh...
The biggest reason for performance differences is that little has been done to date to optimize Python.
With little insentive to do so (it's usually fast enough), there isn't a big push to make it lots faster. The general feeling is that Python could be heavily optimized and see a huge performance gain. Just the same, it's a big task and it is, generally fast enough already. So, it becomes a catch-22.
You obviously didn't read the story or failed to picture this properly. It requires a huge chunck of memory. Furthermore, the data in it's dictionary has to come from some where. Very doubtful you'll be able to sneak several gig worth of data onto a machine, and load it into memory, for it to be used as a remote exploit.
Just the same, while this is new research on an old subject, this really doesn't change anything. Would like to remind you that the whole point of that paper isn't that MS passwords are unsecure, rather, it's for research into time versus memory algorithm development. The fact that he used MS passwords as a basis for this research is entirely secondary.
In short, this is really nothing new on an old topic.
Re:Dean for President
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Dear God you're stupid.
Insightful? I think not. Shesh. The comment speaks loudly about the author and his inability to process facts.
Simple fact is, there are two major stepping stones of the Internet. The first was its inception and creation. Many years later, there was the mass realization and acceptance of it, where comments, such as, "democratizing the ability of an individual outside the established powers to enter into competition or publication or public recognition.", make a lot sense.
Are you that blind that you're unable to see the social emphasis and impact of government, both on and off the Internet?
You revisionist
Seems like you're the only once attempting to revise history.
You said: Perhaps because one of the definitions and points of open source software is that it is available to anyone, without exception.
Clearly there are exceptions which blows your whole argument out of the water. Those that violate the GPL are the exception. Please continue to learn and read more about it. And don't start with the "just go download it again", junk. Those that think that argument holds any water is without a brain cell. There is something called "spirit", which is supposed to be applied to law. Clearly the intension was not to revoke granted rights for the duration it takes to download it again.
Long story short, your statement is without merit because there are exceptions. Period. So, now then, hopefully we understand that my disagreement isn't with the GPL, rather, it's with your interpretation of the GPL. Bluntly stated, my opinions stated here are regarded as generally accepted fact. Feel to argue all you want, it doesn't change those facts nor does it change how invalid your generalized statement is.
Agreed! I didn't spell all that out, rather it was assumed to be understood. In retrospect, I thank you for clearing it up! I think you contributed to this thread.
I really have no idea why this was modded as funny. It's not. While revoking trademark rights would prevent them from calling it "SCO Linux", they could simply rename it. Trademark rights have nothing to do with copyright. They are two distinct IP areas of law.
Marking this as funny only helps show the ignorance of some of the people modding around here.
I believe it does qualify as distributing if it's external to the source of the changes. In other word, unless your organization is developing custom changes, you're distributing.
Feel free to correct as needed...it's been a while since i read it.
I'm constantly amazed at how many people think the DE is the ultimate in handguns. I have a friend that actually has one and I can tell you, unless you have a giant's hand, there is no way you'd want a DE. The springs will give you a hernia. The thing jumps like a spanked banshee when fired. It weighs a ton and the grips are massive.
Long story short, unless you're first name is Arnold, or a close relative, you're not going to like the DE at all.
Normally I'm not in a hurry to jump onto the conspiracy bandwagon, but with stuff like this, "determined to be an unconnected helium pressurant line that supplied hydraulic pressure to extend the landing strut", it's a no brainer to think something funny is going on.
Come on, truckers can connect their pressure lines. So can mechanics. They want us to believe that Nasa engineers and mechanics, on a one of a kind vehicle, can't do the same. Shesh! How odd is it that there isn't a check item AND a switch detecting if there is proper pressure to the landing gear. Heck, planes from the 1940's had these and Nasa can't afford a $20-dollar switch for something that's vital? This stinks to high heaven.
Wow, this must be/. got a clue day. I can't remember the last time I've read comments by so many people on so many different topics that actually make sense!
Congrats!
Why is it so hard for people to finally grasp that Windows is a crappy platform and is no where near as flexible and powerful as Unix/Linux is. Remote support is one area that Unix/Linux has ALWAYS excelled at.
Now then, don't get me wrong, I've certainly used VNC on a number of platforms (Win32, Linux, and even palm), but frankly, it stinks compared to simply being able to do something via ssh, or worst case, telnet. Both are light weight and as powerful as the underlying OS. With Windows, command line is an afterthought and downright painful. In fact, some types of remote administration can only be done via a heavy weight GUI interface. Even the lightest of remote display technology is still very heavy compared to the bliss that is ssh or telnet.
Believe it or not, a lot of remote support should not only be able to be done via something as simple as a palm, but does happen on a regular basis.
The age of a plane, unlike a car, has little to do with anything. Planes, unlike cars, are heavily inspected and very well maintained. Likewise, if a problem is suspected, recalled items get replaced fairly quickly. Unlike a car, where it may or not happen, and if it does get replaced, it may of been along any timeline.
Now then, since we are specifically talking about EM, it's topic that's been fairly well understood for a very long time now. So, just because the plane may be an older design doesn't suddenly increase it's risks. After all, it's not like we're talking about the Wright Flyer or something like that. In fact, older designs also tend to be updated. This is as true for the plans as it is for the planes themselves.
Comparing planes and cars is like comparing oranges maintained in a lab under close watch and scrutiny and apples being grow somewhere on some farm. In other words, I have no idea what the point is of the parent post.
If the Feds ever figure out it's your drive, you have plausible deniability. Not only did you not know it's there, but you did not place it there. In fact, you had no knowledge that anyone had placed it there. You knew there was some content there but you did not know what it was. There is a lot of content on FreeNet that is legal you know.
This is like a total stranger hiding something in your garage without your knowledge. Sure, you knew that by leaving your garage door open someone could come in and hide something illegal, but you hoped for the best. Just the same, that doesn't suddenly make you a master criminal.
Plausable deniability is what FreeNet is all about!
I don't think that's a substainable chain of logic. The basic goal of freenet is to provide plausible deniability for each and every node operator. It even provides anonymity, which can be deemed important in any society. This is hardly about bad laws nor is it about Orwellian nightmares.
Slashdot Mirror
Opps. Busted. Thanks for clarifying!
Considering SCO now admits that IBM owns the copyright to the code, this simply becomes a contract case. That means, since IBM disclosed code which they own all the IP to, no one else has anything to worry about. After all, it's IBM that's ultimately responsible for their actions. Having said that, most of their legal department is taking a nap because SCO's claims are so worthless. Furthermore, IBM's Unix license is irrevokable, so it hardly puts IBM in a pinch, even with AIX. For SCO's claims to even hold water, SCO would have to have IP or copyright claims to IBM's products, such as AIX, OS/2, etc. They do not. Remember, just because SCO has IP rights on Unix, doesn't mean they, in turn, have rights to everything IBM has done to add value to Unix.
If you look at what they've been doing, they've been trying to pump up their stock prices. SCO's execs have been dumping SCO stock almost as fast as they can. This doesn't even sound like a company that is expecting to get a huge infussion of cash from an outstanding legal battle. This is the act of rats trying to bail on a sinking ship. I personally hope the FTC is watching them very closely.
Sure it could. And if it drove it self into a perpetual shadow, it will be sitting there, worthless, for a very long time.
Did you completely read my post?
It could go into a power saving mode until the eclipse has passed. If power isn't being generated after the eclipse has passed, it then could begin trying to figure what the heck happened. It can be used for any number of intelligent diagnostic and power saving modes. Also, if it knows all valid times that its cells should be getting power, it can figure out if it navigated into shade or if it's one of the other known events. If it's a known event, it may be able to wait it out. If it's an unknown event, it can attempt to backtrack and report a possible problem.
Remember, just because it tracks various bodies, doesn't have to mean that it does so in real time.
What was you point? Last I looked, most people in America still get their news from one primary source. Sadly, that's still the evening news or a news paper.
LOL!
Insightful!
LOL!
Meanwhile....then your correction makes absolutely no sense as you basically comments on something that's been available for ever, which has nothing to do with the current topic. In other words, feel free to ignore all of your posts.
Shesh.
LOL!
Insightful....lol....
Since I was assuming your were trying to add value to the conversation, I assumed the only possible conclusion that made sense. Since you've corrected me that your comments added zero value in any way, I can only laugh...
Insightful...lol....
The biggest reason for performance differences is that little has been done to date to optimize Python.
With little insentive to do so (it's usually fast enough), there isn't a big push to make it lots faster. The general feeling is that Python could be heavily optimized and see a huge performance gain. Just the same, it's a big task and it is, generally fast enough already. So, it becomes a catch-22.
What's the reason they give for more correcting the issue?
LOL.
You obviously didn't read the story or failed to picture this properly. It requires a huge chunck of memory. Furthermore, the data in it's dictionary has to come from some where. Very doubtful you'll be able to sneak several gig worth of data onto a machine, and load it into memory, for it to be used as a remote exploit.
Just the same, while this is new research on an old subject, this really doesn't change anything. Would like to remind you that the whole point of that paper isn't that MS passwords are unsecure, rather, it's for research into time versus memory algorithm development. The fact that he used MS passwords as a basis for this research is entirely secondary.
In short, this is really nothing new on an old topic.
Dear God you're stupid.
Insightful? I think not. Shesh. The comment speaks loudly about the author and his inability to process facts.
Simple fact is, there are two major stepping stones of the Internet. The first was its inception and creation. Many years later, there was the mass realization and acceptance of it, where comments, such as, "democratizing the ability of an individual outside the established powers to enter into competition or publication or public recognition.", make a lot sense.
Are you that blind that you're unable to see the social emphasis and impact of government, both on and off the Internet?
You revisionist
Seems like you're the only once attempting to revise history.
So now you're spending $900 for both, $300 of which comes from your ink jet versus $600 for just the ink jet?
LOL...ya, okay...whatever...
I can assure you, I was very linear and easy to follow for anyone that is knowledgeable enough to be commenting on the topic in the first place.
You said:
Perhaps because one of the definitions and points of open source software is that it is available to anyone, without exception.
Clearly there are exceptions which blows your whole argument out of the water. Those that violate the GPL are the exception. Please continue to learn and read more about it. And don't start with the "just go download it again", junk. Those that think that argument holds any water is without a brain cell. There is something called "spirit", which is supposed to be applied to law. Clearly the intension was not to revoke granted rights for the duration it takes to download it again.
Long story short, your statement is without merit because there are exceptions. Period. So, now then, hopefully we understand that my disagreement isn't with the GPL, rather, it's with your interpretation of the GPL. Bluntly stated, my opinions stated here are regarded as generally accepted fact. Feel to argue all you want, it doesn't change those facts nor does it change how invalid your generalized statement is.
Agreed! I didn't spell all that out, rather it was assumed to be understood. In retrospect, I thank you for clearing it up! I think you contributed to this thread.
Thanks!
I'm sorry, but that's an ill informed opinion and not based on facts.
I really have no idea why this was modded as funny. It's not. While revoking trademark rights would prevent them from calling it "SCO Linux", they could simply rename it. Trademark rights have nothing to do with copyright. They are two distinct IP areas of law.
Marking this as funny only helps show the ignorance of some of the people modding around here.
I believe it does qualify as distributing if it's external to the source of the changes. In other word, unless your organization is developing custom changes, you're distributing.
Feel free to correct as needed...it's been a while since i read it.
I'm constantly amazed at how many people think the DE is the ultimate in handguns. I have a friend that actually has one and I can tell you, unless you have a giant's hand, there is no way you'd want a DE. The springs will give you a hernia. The thing jumps like a spanked banshee when fired. It weighs a ton and the grips are massive.
Long story short, unless you're first name is Arnold, or a close relative, you're not going to like the DE at all.
Normally I'm not in a hurry to jump onto the conspiracy bandwagon, but with stuff like this, "determined to be an unconnected helium pressurant line that supplied hydraulic pressure to extend the landing strut", it's a no brainer to think something funny is going on.
Come on, truckers can connect their pressure lines. So can mechanics. They want us to believe that Nasa engineers and mechanics, on a one of a kind vehicle, can't do the same. Shesh! How odd is it that there isn't a check item AND a switch detecting if there is proper pressure to the landing gear. Heck, planes from the 1940's had these and Nasa can't afford a $20-dollar switch for something that's vital? This stinks to high heaven.
Give the parent a mega-boost of +20 insightful.
Wow, this must be /. got a clue day. I can't remember the last time I've read comments by so many people on so many different topics that actually make sense!
/. clue day!
Congrats!
Why is it so hard for people to finally grasp that Windows is a crappy platform and is no where near as flexible and powerful as Unix/Linux is. Remote support is one area that Unix/Linux has ALWAYS excelled at.
Now then, don't get me wrong, I've certainly used VNC on a number of platforms (Win32, Linux, and even palm), but frankly, it stinks compared to simply being able to do something via ssh, or worst case, telnet. Both are light weight and as powerful as the underlying OS. With Windows, command line is an afterthought and downright painful. In fact, some types of remote administration can only be done via a heavy weight GUI interface. Even the lightest of remote display technology is still very heavy compared to the bliss that is ssh or telnet.
Believe it or not, a lot of remote support should not only be able to be done via something as simple as a palm, but does happen on a regular basis.
Congrats zulux, +1 for
The age of a plane, unlike a car, has little to do with anything. Planes, unlike cars, are heavily inspected and very well maintained. Likewise, if a problem is suspected, recalled items get replaced fairly quickly. Unlike a car, where it may or not happen, and if it does get replaced, it may of been along any timeline.
Now then, since we are specifically talking about EM, it's topic that's been fairly well understood for a very long time now. So, just because the plane may be an older design doesn't suddenly increase it's risks. After all, it's not like we're talking about the Wright Flyer or something like that. In fact, older designs also tend to be updated. This is as true for the plans as it is for the planes themselves.
Comparing planes and cars is like comparing oranges maintained in a lab under close watch and scrutiny and apples being grow somewhere on some farm. In other words, I have no idea what the point is of the parent post.
That's not true at all.
If the Feds ever figure out it's your drive, you have plausible deniability. Not only did you not know it's there, but you did not place it there. In fact, you had no knowledge that anyone had placed it there. You knew there was some content there but you did not know what it was. There is a lot of content on FreeNet that is legal you know.
This is like a total stranger hiding something in your garage without your knowledge. Sure, you knew that by leaving your garage door open someone could come in and hide something illegal, but you hoped for the best. Just the same, that doesn't suddenly make you a master criminal.
Plausable deniability is what FreeNet is all about!
I don't think that's a substainable chain of logic. The basic goal of freenet is to provide plausible deniability for each and every node operator. It even provides anonymity, which can be deemed important in any society. This is hardly about bad laws nor is it about Orwellian nightmares.
Doing so would potentially create legal trouble for all other freenet users which allow those types of files. That's the whole point of it.
Fair enough. Sorry, got caught by the trolling and didn't finish reading the last couple of lines.
:)
Clearly is within the "funny" domain. Feel free to ignore my previous post!