The US Hang Gliding Association (USHGA) had/has many concerns regarding the sport pilot program. Currently, hang glider and paraglider pilots fly under FAA part 103 which grants very liberal self-regulation to these pilots. One concern is that the sport pilot license is the beginning of the end to self-regulated hang glider/paraglider flight. The other problem is that it add stricter regulation for tow-parks such as Kitty Hawk Kites who tow hang gliders, which might hurt these outfits since they already have a tough time making money. There's also an often-ignored group of powered hang-glider's and powered paragliders that are like ultra-ultralights (sometimes <100lbs), who typically fly unregulated who may now need to have a sport pilot license, along with annual flight inspections, etc. That's a pain for something that fits in your trunk.
It is a double-edged sword, because some of these above groups fell into loopholes in the regulations, so the FAA's handling of thse groups may determine if the sport pilot license is a good thing or a bad thing.
Why? What's so wrong with Linspire that you don't want them to join your following? I see this attitude everywhere, but I don't understand it. I hope this is something more than the script-kiddie "If grandma can use it then it sux: OSS should be hard to use" attitude.
I have a theory: Once at least 10% of the people touting the ASP.NET GUI actually use it, the reviews won't be so good. The GUI looks good, demos well, but in actual use it is very inefficient. I thought that the idea of GUI design of HTML pages and separate code-behind files was the most revolutionary thing I ever saw in web development. Until I used it.
I believe that the VB-style property page GUI is a fad for quick & dirty development, but it won't extend well into larger systems. For example, try changing 1 property on 10 text boxes. You must click each text box, then click on the property page, scroll down to the proper value, click on it, highlight the existing contents, then change it. It's terribly inefficient.
The design of property pages doesn't allow for multiselect like most controls in other IDEs. The reliance on switching between mouse for navigation and keyboard for data entry is terrible. So the advanced coder goes to the HTML view to do a search and replace, but then finds another suite of problems. When you switch from the HTML view to CODE view (or vice-versa):
1) You lose undo history. 2) The entire HTML is reformatted.
- Much CSS is thrown out, units are changed
- Good HTML changes to IE-specific HTML 3) If any tags are not closed, the IDE deletes everything following the tag then closes it. This causes lots of problems when combined with #1.
Some of these issues can be fixed, but the propery page paradigm is intrinsic to Microsoft products.
That's a common RIAA/MPAA lie that appears to be sticking. Fair Use is stated legally in 2 places that I know of.
1) Section 107 and of the US Copyright Act. This act defines US copyright law and discusses derivative works, transformed works, etc. This law determines what is and is not a copyright violation, and mentions backups, copies for educational use, etc.
2) It is clarified in several supreme court cases. These rulings were later made into laws after they were upheld several times.
This is very important. Slashdot periodically posts stories about RBLs that add people, but never remove them. As horrible as it is to think, I wonder if some sort of legislation (governmental, ICANN, or otherwise) is necessary to keep these systems fair.
I recently had Comcast shut down my port 25 access due to spam reports. Of course, they refused to tell me who reported me or what they reported, so even giving them logs of my outgoing port 25 access from a sniffer isn't enough for them to remove the mark from my record. (However, if I tell them I went to Windows update and ran a virus scanner they enable my access again. Nevermind that Windows Update doesn't do much on my Linux box.:-) )
Unfortunately, that's not true. I bank with Provident Bank of Maryland, which is extends through Maryland and some of Pennsylvania. Last year I sent a packet with printouts of a dozen articles about Diebold ATMs, voting machines, and other funny business. I provided the material in PDF form on a CD, and included a letter about how I didn't trust Provident ATMs since they use Diebold. I sent it certified mail to their customer service department, and I heard nothing. A year later, and not even a form letter in reply. They just don't care.
Excellent question! My answer is no, for two reasons. 1) Those things don't come built-in to Mozilla - I have to download them and install them explicitly myself. 2) Because they provide a useful feature. Passing protocols to IE provides me no benefit (that I know of). I call those things "misfeatures."
...Is this really a security hole? When Mozilla receives a shell: request, it passes it on to an external handler in Windows. The "fix" for this is to disable this functionality...
I am shocked that everyone here is sticking on Mozilla's side. I love Mozilla, and have used it since the beta versions. I install it on mom & pop computers all the time for security. But this is definitely Mozilla's fault. Mozilla should not pass unknown protocols to explorer. IMHO, that defeats the purpose of Mozilla. That would be like coding Mozilla to pass ActiveX controls to Internet Explorer since it doesn't support them.
I treat Mozilla as a standalone app, and I consider that an advantage. I'm not vulnerable to scripting exploits, MS Office exploits, etc. But now I am told it passes some work to Explorer. I consider that a bug. I don't want it to pass everything except shell: to IE. I want it to pass nothing to IE.
Back in the day, I played Falcon 1 on my 8088, and later F-117A on my 386. Both games came with very full manuals detailing the planes and their respective armaments. I'm no military nut, but I loved these games for the manuals as much as the game play. To this day, I remember the range of an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile is 21 miles, and a Sidewinder is 7 miles (but more maneuverable).
One day, A friend of mine in High School was trying to show-up his knowledge by quizzing me about military armaments. It was fun catching him off guard by answering him correctly and talking about how an F-16 could do an Immelmann while a mig-29 could not.
Anyhow, that's my real-world example of legitimate learning via military video games. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to return to shooting a guy wearing hoverboots with my BFG10000. Okay, maybe ALL military games aren't realistic:-)
Firstly, this article is a summary of some other set of statistics. These summaries are usually horrible since the writers really don't understand statistics. Things never add up to 100%, and one quote often refers to a slightly different way of calculating things than another.
I don't know tons about security, so I read this with an open mind. But I KNOW some things are wrong:
A recent Forrester Research study compared Windows and Linux supplier response times on security flaws and was heavily criticised for its conclusion that Linux suppliers took longer to release patches.
I haven't read Forrester's research, so I would like to see it. (anybody know a link?) OSS is definitely faster at releasing patches. We see that time and time again. Perhaps they were comparing how long it took for the vendors like Red Hat to ship product updates for Apache, or put them on their web sites? But if I installed Apache, I don't look to Suse or Red Hat or Mandrake for my updates, I look to apt-get or apache.org. Of course, MS claims that all exploits come from MS patches anyway. (Which is proven not to be true on a weekly basis).
Lastly, the article rebuff's itself in the final quote:
A product is not necessarily more secure because fewer vulnerabilities are discovered," he added.
Even though that is the basis for the article's comparisons. lol!
I was coding a disk checking utility in asm on my 386. I meant to call int 13 function 02 "read disk sector" rather than int 13 function 03 for "write disk sector." I lost my whole hard drive. But I was adorky kid and didn't do backups.
The funny part is that I didn't realize what happened until I couldn't save the file I was working on. I went to a DOS shell to figure it out, and it dawned on me as I saw the prompt "Cannot locate COMMAND.COM. Please enter location (C:\COMMAND.COM)>" It was that wave of fear that slowly envelopes you when you stare at a pretty stalactite hanging from the cave mouth and realize that it's a tooth to the monster about to eat you.
Oh yeah, and my Dad told me that when I was 5 years old I erase the server at Cavalier Realty Corp. It must have been a sad system if it prompted the user "Delete everything vital on the system? Y/N:" or something similar.
Windows XP uses them on NTFS filesystems. If you set Explorer to Thumbnail preview mode, it a hidden file named thumbs.db with a separate stream that has the actual preview data in it. It's a terrible misfeature in many ways:
1) The thumbnail file can get corrupted and the folder cannot be viewed. 2) The thumbnail file takes space. 3) The thumbnail file cannot be copied -- so explorer complains every time you do a select-all of the folder, or try to copy the file. 4) If you burn the folder to disk, it prompts you to ask if you really want to burn that file too.
We are quickly reaching the point where the resolution of the display is going to experience bottlenecks from other components.
1) LCD panels with high resolutions (>1600x1200) need 2 or more DVI connectors. Yuck!
Programmers need to be aware of these or their applications will not function in the near future.
2) Many software assumes a specific DPI A program that is meant to run at 1024x768 at 96dpi will look like a postage stamp when you get a 300dpi display device (coming soon). A 16x16 icon will be the width of a human hair. Software needs to know that pixels aren't a valid measurement -- You need pixels and DPI.
Mac's got this right from the start. Applications don't display based on RESOLUTION, they use the monitor's SIZE. From there, you can increase or decrease the zoom level (by changing the resolution). PC users scoffed at this, but they will be the ones needing a magnifying glass to use their applications.
3) Much software assumes a specific aspect ratio (4:3 and square pixels) Open up Microsoft Word or Photoshop or Paint and draw a circle. It assumes a circle is the same number of pixels wide as it is tall. Well, that's great if your display has square pixels. That wasn't true at the old 320x200 or 640x400 resolutions of the old days. It has been a safe assumption for about 10 years now, but it isn't always true anymore. For example, if you use an LCD with a 5:4 aspect ratio (like 1200x1024) but run it in a 4:3 resolution (like 1024x768) things will be squished.
(I find it amusing when someone tells me how great a DVD looks on their LCD display, when Windows Media Player is stretching the image to the wrong size because it places black-bars on a screen that doesn't need them).
Very cool! That video is unbelievable? For a moment I thought it was a clever edit! If it is so effective, then why do they need to use a hot dog for the demonstration? Perhaps the hot dog has better conductivity, and makes for a better demonstration? Eventually (if they have not already), they will have to test this on animals.
This guy is really smart. He takes issue with the design of SQL, and with some of the commonly-used relational-database concepts (such as the NULL). His criticisms here are valid, but his position seems to be extreme. With that said, he is absolutely right about XQuery/XPath/XQueryX++/whatever.
XML is great for data exchange. Schemas are a wonderful way to describe data. But it is completely inappropriate for querying. If you need to query XML, you should import it into a database then query it that way. The very design trade-offs made when building XML were to make it extensible, and hard to query. XPath is nice to have for simple dinky import scripts. But trying to build a whole hierarchical query language on top of XML is silly.
If someone wants to build a standardized hierarchical query language, that's great. Very few people use hierarchical databases and need such a language, but I wish them luck in that endeavor. But don't pretend that it is appropriate to use it on XML, or that it has anything to do with XML. XML is an interchange format. Leave it where it works well.
Would it be too much to ask you to think for one minute before posting?
Troll
So when you hurt for-profit companies, you hurt the poor old people with the retirement funds
Troll. What you say is true, but you chose to ignore the fact that your example does not have immediate collateral damage. Don't pretend they are the same just to sound like you have a better argument.
There is a difference between a real technological shift and new methods of crime.
Stupid analogy. Bricks aren't outlawed. And the aggregate damage from bricks isn't going to destroy the glass industry.
I really only post this so that moderators realize you are just trolling. You have some points, so make them intelligently. Either that, or post in all caps so that people know you are a troll right away.
Huh? Every Mom and Pop I've given Mozilla or FireFox to has been ecstatic, right from the start. Nobody actually LIKES Internet Explorer. They either: 1) don't care 2) prefer Mozilla, or 3) are forced to use IE in a corporate environment.
Are there any open IM protocols? I noticed that Trillian now supports IRC, which makes sense so long as your friends all use the same server as you. Are there any IETF working groups for this? It can't be all that complicated to do. Maybe even piggy-back on some existing P2P system so that no one has to bear the expense of a central server?
1) If the malware/spyware does not tell you what it does, then you have a fraud case. No need for additional laws here. 2) If the malware/spyware does tell you, and you do not pay attention to the agreement, then it is the users fault.
The problem is with #2. Is it realistic to expect users to read these long contracts? Maybe, maybe not. Since normal everyday software now includes EULAs, people are used to ignoring them. THIS is what needs to be decided -- is it legal to bury this information in a multi-page EULA?
But I have a quick solution! Users should refuse to install applications that have EULAs. If every mom and pop called Microsoft or Dell or HP or Symantec when they saw an EULA, EULAs would be gone. *poof*
Unfortunately, this is where the consumers become sheep. They don't like malware, but they don't want to stand up to Microsoft either. So they have dug themselves a hole, and now they want the government to dig them out.
Companies have constituents too. This is agreat opportunity to send positive feedback to companies that support the DMCRA, especially if you are a customer. If they perceive that their customers support them on this, then they will be more likely to spend money lobbying for this type of legislation since it may become a selling point in their service. A letter may make more of a difference than a vote.
If each bus had a CB radio, they could periodically announce their position to a central office. Then people can call the central office to check where the bus is and get ETAs. Maybe local radio stations could announce bus information along with traffic/weather/news.
Sure, it isn't tecnologically cool, but most public transportation already has an office, a phone number, and maybe a radio.
Actually, that is almost EXACTLY what Microsoft has done! Signing your ActiveX control requires having a certificate authorized by Microsoft. That's about a 90% overlap in features/functionality to what a whitelist does. The crucial trade-off is that MS doesn't actually check what you put in the ActiveX control; but Mozilla doesn't allow just anyone to get whitelisted at will.
Suppose that I have XFree86 4.2 or 4.3 on my system, and I've been happily using apt/yum/rpm to keep myself up-to-date. How difficult is it to switch to X.org?
If X.ORG is marked as conflicting with XFree86, then apt will uninstall XFree86 for me -- along with everything that depends on it. KDE, Gnome, all my X applications... ack!
Or should I continue with XFree86 for a while? Obviously, my install tools don't care about license changes.
Slashdot Mirror
IAHGP? (I am a hang glider pilot)
The US Hang Gliding Association (USHGA) had/has many concerns regarding the sport pilot program. Currently, hang glider and paraglider pilots fly under FAA part 103 which grants very liberal self-regulation to these pilots. One concern is that the sport pilot license is the beginning of the end to self-regulated hang glider/paraglider flight. The other problem is that it add stricter regulation for tow-parks such as Kitty Hawk Kites who tow hang gliders, which might hurt these outfits since they already have a tough time making money. There's also an often-ignored group of powered hang-glider's and powered paragliders that are like ultra-ultralights (sometimes <100lbs), who typically fly unregulated who may now need to have a sport pilot license, along with annual flight inspections, etc. That's a pain for something that fits in your trunk.
It is a double-edged sword, because some of these above groups fell into loopholes in the regulations, so the FAA's handling of thse groups may determine if the sport pilot license is a good thing or a bad thing.
Why? What's so wrong with Linspire that you don't want them to join your following? I see this attitude everywhere, but I don't understand it. I hope this is something more than the script-kiddie "If grandma can use it then it sux: OSS should be hard to use" attitude.
I have a theory: Once at least 10% of the people touting the ASP.NET GUI actually use it, the reviews won't be so good. The GUI looks good, demos well, but in actual use it is very inefficient. I thought that the idea of GUI design of HTML pages and separate code-behind files was the most revolutionary thing I ever saw in web development. Until I used it.
I believe that the VB-style property page GUI is a fad for quick & dirty development, but it won't extend well into larger systems. For example, try changing 1 property on 10 text boxes. You must click each text box, then click on the property page, scroll down to the proper value, click on it, highlight the existing contents, then change it. It's terribly inefficient.
The design of property pages doesn't allow for multiselect like most controls in other IDEs. The reliance on switching between mouse for navigation and keyboard for data entry is terrible. So the advanced coder goes to the HTML view to do a search and replace, but then finds another suite of problems. When you switch from the HTML view to CODE view (or vice-versa):
1) You lose undo history.
2) The entire HTML is reformatted.
- Much CSS is thrown out, units are changed
- Good HTML changes to IE-specific HTML
3) If any tags are not closed, the IDE deletes everything following the tag then closes it. This causes lots of problems when combined with #1.
Some of these issues can be fixed, but the propery page paradigm is intrinsic to Microsoft products.
That's a common RIAA/MPAA lie that appears to be sticking. Fair Use is stated legally in 2 places that I know of.
1) Section 107 and of the US Copyright Act. This act defines US copyright law and discusses derivative works, transformed works, etc. This law determines what is and is not a copyright violation, and mentions backups, copies for educational use, etc.
2) It is clarified in several supreme court cases. These rulings were later made into laws after they were upheld several times.
Some links:
Fair Use at the US Copyright Office's web site
Fair use explained by BitLaw
Stanford Copyright & Fair Use
This is very important. Slashdot periodically posts stories about RBLs that add people, but never remove them. As horrible as it is to think, I wonder if some sort of legislation (governmental, ICANN, or otherwise) is necessary to keep these systems fair.
:-) )
I recently had Comcast shut down my port 25 access due to spam reports. Of course, they refused to tell me who reported me or what they reported, so even giving them logs of my outgoing port 25 access from a sniffer isn't enough for them to remove the mark from my record. (However, if I tell them I went to Windows update and ran a virus scanner they enable my access again. Nevermind that Windows Update doesn't do much on my Linux box.
Unfortunately, that's not true. I bank with Provident Bank of Maryland, which is extends through Maryland and some of Pennsylvania. Last year I sent a packet with printouts of a dozen articles about Diebold ATMs, voting machines, and other funny business. I provided the material in PDF form on a CD, and included a letter about how I didn't trust Provident ATMs since they use Diebold. I sent it certified mail to their customer service department, and I heard nothing. A year later, and not even a form letter in reply. They just don't care.
Excellent question! My answer is no, for two reasons.
1) Those things don't come built-in to Mozilla - I have to download them and install them explicitly myself.
2) Because they provide a useful feature. Passing protocols to IE provides me no benefit (that I know of). I call those things "misfeatures."
I am shocked that everyone here is sticking on Mozilla's side. I love Mozilla, and have used it since the beta versions. I install it on mom & pop computers all the time for security. But this is definitely Mozilla's fault. Mozilla should not pass unknown protocols to explorer. IMHO, that defeats the purpose of Mozilla. That would be like coding Mozilla to pass ActiveX controls to Internet Explorer since it doesn't support them.
I treat Mozilla as a standalone app, and I consider that an advantage. I'm not vulnerable to scripting exploits, MS Office exploits, etc. But now I am told it passes some work to Explorer. I consider that a bug. I don't want it to pass everything except shell: to IE. I want it to pass nothing to IE.
Back in the day, I played Falcon 1 on my 8088, and later F-117A on my 386. Both games came with very full manuals detailing the planes and their respective armaments. I'm no military nut, but I loved these games for the manuals as much as the game play. To this day, I remember the range of an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile is 21 miles, and a Sidewinder is 7 miles (but more maneuverable).
:-)
One day, A friend of mine in High School was trying to show-up his knowledge by quizzing me about military armaments. It was fun catching him off guard by answering him correctly and talking about how an F-16 could do an Immelmann while a mig-29 could not.
Anyhow, that's my real-world example of legitimate learning via military video games. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to return to shooting a guy wearing hoverboots with my BFG10000. Okay, maybe ALL military games aren't realistic
Firstly, this article is a summary of some other set of statistics. These summaries are usually horrible since the writers really don't understand statistics. Things never add up to 100%, and one quote often refers to a slightly different way of calculating things than another.
I don't know tons about security, so I read this with an open mind. But I KNOW some things are wrong:
I haven't read Forrester's research, so I would like to see it. (anybody know a link?) OSS is definitely faster at releasing patches. We see that time and time again. Perhaps they were comparing how long it took for the vendors like Red Hat to ship product updates for Apache, or put them on their web sites? But if I installed Apache, I don't look to Suse or Red Hat or Mandrake for my updates, I look to apt-get or apache.org. Of course, MS claims that all exploits come from MS patches anyway. (Which is proven not to be true on a weekly basis).
Lastly, the article rebuff's itself in the final quote:
Even though that is the basis for the article's comparisons. lol!I was coding a disk checking utility in asm on my 386. I meant to call int 13 function 02 "read disk sector" rather than int 13 function 03 for "write disk sector." I lost my whole hard drive. But I was adorky kid and didn't do backups.
The funny part is that I didn't realize what happened until I couldn't save the file I was working on. I went to a DOS shell to figure it out, and it dawned on me as I saw the prompt "Cannot locate COMMAND.COM. Please enter location (C:\COMMAND.COM)>" It was that wave of fear that slowly envelopes you when you stare at a pretty stalactite hanging from the cave mouth and realize that it's a tooth to the monster about to eat you.
Oh yeah, and my Dad told me that when I was 5 years old I erase the server at Cavalier Realty Corp. It must have been a sad system if it prompted the user "Delete everything vital on the system? Y/N:" or something similar.
Windows XP uses them on NTFS filesystems. If you set Explorer to Thumbnail preview mode, it a hidden file named thumbs.db with a separate stream that has the actual preview data in it. It's a terrible misfeature in many ways:
1) The thumbnail file can get corrupted and the folder cannot be viewed.
2) The thumbnail file takes space.
3) The thumbnail file cannot be copied -- so explorer complains every time you do a select-all of the folder, or try to copy the file.
4) If you burn the folder to disk, it prompts you to ask if you really want to burn that file too.
We are quickly reaching the point where the resolution of the display is going to experience bottlenecks from other components.
1) LCD panels with high resolutions (>1600x1200) need 2 or more DVI connectors. Yuck!
Programmers need to be aware of these or their applications will not function in the near future.
2) Many software assumes a specific DPI
A program that is meant to run at 1024x768 at 96dpi will look like a postage stamp when you get a 300dpi display device (coming soon). A 16x16 icon will be the width of a human hair. Software needs to know that pixels aren't a valid measurement -- You need pixels and DPI.
Mac's got this right from the start. Applications don't display based on RESOLUTION, they use the monitor's SIZE. From there, you can increase or decrease the zoom level (by changing the resolution). PC users scoffed at this, but they will be the ones needing a magnifying glass to use their applications.
3) Much software assumes a specific aspect ratio (4:3 and square pixels)
Open up Microsoft Word or Photoshop or Paint and draw a circle. It assumes a circle is the same number of pixels wide as it is tall. Well, that's great if your display has square pixels. That wasn't true at the old 320x200 or 640x400 resolutions of the old days. It has been a safe assumption for about 10 years now, but it isn't always true anymore. For example, if you use an LCD with a 5:4 aspect ratio (like 1200x1024) but run it in a 4:3 resolution (like 1024x768) things will be squished.
(I find it amusing when someone tells me how great a DVD looks on their LCD display, when Windows Media Player is stretching the image to the wrong size because it places black-bars on a screen that doesn't need them).
Very cool! That video is unbelievable? For a moment I thought it was a clever edit! If it is so effective, then why do they need to use a hot dog for the demonstration? Perhaps the hot dog has better conductivity, and makes for a better demonstration? Eventually (if they have not already), they will have to test this on animals.
This guy is really smart. He takes issue with the design of SQL, and with some of the commonly-used relational-database concepts (such as the NULL). His criticisms here are valid, but his position seems to be extreme. With that said, he is absolutely right about XQuery/XPath/XQueryX++/whatever.
XML is great for data exchange. Schemas are a wonderful way to describe data. But it is completely inappropriate for querying. If you need to query XML, you should import it into a database then query it that way. The very design trade-offs made when building XML were to make it extensible, and hard to query. XPath is nice to have for simple dinky import scripts. But trying to build a whole hierarchical query language on top of XML is silly.
If someone wants to build a standardized hierarchical query language, that's great. Very few people use hierarchical databases and need such a language, but I wish them luck in that endeavor. But don't pretend that it is appropriate to use it on XML, or that it has anything to do with XML. XML is an interchange format. Leave it where it works well.
Huh?
Every Mom and Pop I've given Mozilla or FireFox to has been ecstatic, right from the start. Nobody actually LIKES Internet Explorer. They either:
1) don't care
2) prefer Mozilla, or
3) are forced to use IE in a corporate environment.
Why does your family resist?
Are there any open IM protocols? I noticed that Trillian now supports IRC, which makes sense so long as your friends all use the same server as you. Are there any IETF working groups for this? It can't be all that complicated to do. Maybe even piggy-back on some existing P2P system so that no one has to bear the expense of a central server?
I see two cases here:
1) If the malware/spyware does not tell you what it does, then you have a fraud case. No need for additional laws here.
2) If the malware/spyware does tell you, and you do not pay attention to the agreement, then it is the users fault.
The problem is with #2. Is it realistic to expect users to read these long contracts? Maybe, maybe not. Since normal everyday software now includes EULAs, people are used to ignoring them. THIS is what needs to be decided -- is it legal to bury this information in a multi-page EULA?
But I have a quick solution! Users should refuse to install applications that have EULAs. If every mom and pop called Microsoft or Dell or HP or Symantec when they saw an EULA, EULAs would be gone. *poof*
Unfortunately, this is where the consumers become sheep. They don't like malware, but they don't want to stand up to Microsoft either. So they have dug themselves a hole, and now they want the government to dig them out.
Companies have constituents too. This is agreat opportunity to send positive feedback to companies that support the DMCRA, especially if you are a customer. If they perceive that their customers support them on this, then they will be more likely to spend money lobbying for this type of legislation since it may become a selling point in their service. A letter may make more of a difference than a vote.
For those who are struggling with the phrase "Arigato gozaimashita!" this link explains:
Frequently Asked Question in Japanese language - What is the difference between Arigatou gozaimasu and Arigatou gozaimashita?
If each bus had a CB radio, they could periodically announce their position to a central office. Then people can call the central office to check where the bus is and get ETAs. Maybe local radio stations could announce bus information along with traffic/weather/news.
Sure, it isn't tecnologically cool, but most public transportation already has an office, a phone number, and maybe a radio.
Ha! They've already found an error in the proof! All that he posted was his apology! :-)
Yes, I was actually confused at first. For the non-math geeks like myself, who are feeling stupid, look at definition 2a of apology.Actually, that is almost EXACTLY what Microsoft has done! Signing your ActiveX control requires having a certificate authorized by Microsoft. That's about a 90% overlap in features/functionality to what a whitelist does. The crucial trade-off is that MS doesn't actually check what you put in the ActiveX control; but Mozilla doesn't allow just anyone to get whitelisted at will.
Suppose that I have XFree86 4.2 or 4.3 on my system, and I've been happily using apt/yum/rpm to keep myself up-to-date. How difficult is it to switch to X.org?
If X.ORG is marked as conflicting with XFree86, then apt will uninstall XFree86 for me -- along with everything that depends on it. KDE, Gnome, all my X applications... ack!
Or should I continue with XFree86 for a while? Obviously, my install tools don't care about license changes.