but consider that 1,000 years ago aluminum was a hundred times more valuable than gold
Aluminum was not known as a metal 1,000 years ago, having been discovered in 1825 and purified enough to really test its properties in 1827. But yes, until the electolytic process was developed in 1886, it was quite vaulable because it was so hard to purify.
(There were, in fact, only seven pure metals known a thousand years ago -- iron, copper, tin, gold, silver, lead, and mercury. The isolation of zinc and its recognition as a metal dates to c.1200 AD in India, and arsenic was isolated around that time in Europe.)
If the test exploit had worked on my machine when I tested it (I'm running Firefox 1.0.3 on WinXP, so it should have worked, right?), I'd not have misunderstood it.
Successful exploitation requires that the site is allowed to install software (default sites are "update.mozilla.org" and "addons.mozilla.org").
So, unless you've whitelisted the exploit site (which generally would mean it's a site you trusted enough to install an XPI from), or the Mozilla website has been compromised, the exploit won't work.
Open Source Solaris lost it's chance at "cool" when Sun chose the license they did.
Huh? They chose/created an OSI-approved license
This is not 1998 anymore.
To quote the OSI's own statements on license proliferation:
"Interference between different open-source licenses is now perceived as a sufficiently serious problem that OSI has become as a victim of its own earlier success."
"OSI has long been aware that license proliferation is a problem. The steps that we have already taken have not headed off enough licenses. But we exist to serve our community, and our community -- from both the hacker and suit sides -- has been telling us loud and clear that it wants this problem solved."
"We will have another, overarching criterion in mind: promoting the reusability of code, and discouraging licenses which, while strictly OSD-conformant, nevertheless tend to create semi-gated communities attached to a single firm or vendor."
"These licenses put a hard brake on the growth of development communities around their products without actually delivering measurable advantages in revenue, market control, or risk management."
"We do not expect the Preferred category to hold any real surprises. Because the vast majority of the more than sixty thousand open-source projects fall under a very few well-established licenses such as GPL, BSD, and MIT, it is unlikely that a more than a few hundred projects would actually be inconvenienced even if we were to deprecate a score of other licenses."
It's a bit unfair to start calling something vaporware two months before the scheduled release.
True. But, given that we're currently seven months past the originally-scheduled November 2004 release, and five months past the then-scheduled January 2005, such unfairness is fortunately not occuring.
Not that I don't have sympathy for the developers, but the wait has been more than twice as long as the time originally promised.
"if I place a file on a website and I don't link to it from anywhere, I should be able to reasonably expect that it will never be found by a search engine."
Does your site's referer log require a password to access? Have you avoided visiting any sites whatsoever from your unlinked page?
If the answer to either question is no, then your "unlinked" page is quite likely linked in somebody's referer log, and is therefore vulnerable to being spidered. Literally millions of supposedly unlinked pages have been automatically indexed by search engines via referer logs. Not (intentionally) linking a page is not a sufficient precaution against getting the page spidered right now, whatever Google does with this service.
The whole point is that, with the unfriendly way Apple is minimally meeting its legal obligations under the license, Apple is not supporting the maintenence and extension of the KHTML library, nor providing any help or assitance to the creators of that engine.
It's using it, sure; and Microsoft included GNU utilities in Windows Services For Unix. Nobody pretended that Microsoft was doing FOSS a good turn with that, and nobody should pretend Apple is doing FOSS a good turn with Safari.
And if complaining about leeching discourages future leeches . . . well, who gives a damn? But it's not likely to do so. Adter all, memories of the old fight between NeXT and the FSF over honoring the GPL on GCC didn't deter Jobs from lifting a whole HTML rendering engine this time. Why would criticism over KHTML stop him from doing the same next time one of his companies needs something FOSS programmers wrote?
Release dates may have a contractual agreement behind them. In that case, there's a civil case to be made and damages to be won. Otherwise, no, there's no legal teeth behind release dates.
After the April 1 increase to 2,000 MB, it's added 121-odd GB in less than 21 days. That works out to a rate of a bit more than 5.75 MB/day, or 2,100 MB/year. So accounts, at the current rate, will be over 4 GB when the second anniversary of GMail rolls around.
Technically, you even have freedom of innocent passage even through territorial waters. Now, innocent passage has a lot of restrictions on what you can do; in practice, the costal state can usually claim you're "[making a] threat . . . of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State", "collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State", or "carrying out . . . research or survey activities". But, officially, you can run a carrier through somebody's territorial waters.
The Convention on the Law of the Sea prohibits four classes of crimes on the high seas (that is, in so-called international waters):
1) Transportation of slaves 2) Piracy (private acts of violence, detention, or depredation) 3) Illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances 4) Unauthorized broadcasting
Now, only 1 and 2 allow a boarding by any nation regardless of the ship's flag (though 4 allows any nation receiving the signals or interference from them to board). However, all countries are obligated to cooperate in the supression of all four; somebody will call your ship's flag country and get their cooperation.
What if your ship isn't under any country's flag? Well, ships without nationality are subject to boarding at any time by any nation, merely for being without nationality.
On the oceans, the only times you are not subject to the laws of one country are when you're subject to the laws of more than one country; the only times you are not subject to the laws of a specific country or countries is when you are subject to the laws of any country.
No need, I got it. Thus the "But seriously". It was just the highest-rated post that mentioned invites, so it was the ideal host for my comment parasite.
I've driven to Windsor, in the so-called "country" of Canada.
Everybody spoke English. Prices were quoted in dollars. All my U.S. radio stations came in just fine. The Detroit News was available in paperboxes. Everybody drove on the right side of the road. The bar had Miller, Bud, Coors, Molson, and Labbat's, just like the one less than a mile from my house. They even had a Tim Horton's just like the one in Troy, Michigan, where I'd gotten a frozen-and-reheated doughnut and a coffee that morning.
You can pretend all you like, but I think it's pretty clear Canada is just a scam of some kind.
All the 2.even kernels (2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6) are still being maintained. 2.0 and 2.2 last got release updates February of last year. Sure, they're in bugfix mode rather than feature add/backport, but they're still around and kicking.
Do you know how incredibly easy it is to have a Windows system infected?
You know, I've been running Windows systems for thirteen years now, and DOS ones for five years before that, without a single virus, worm, trojan, spyware, or other infection. So my answer is, "it's not easy at all if you have a clue."
Which, apparently, your friends and relatives don't have. They've been running IE and OE, I assume. They haven't had a hardware firewall between themselves and any IP connections, either. And they've run files they've downloaded or borrowed on a disk or found attached to their email without first having Norton or MacAfee look at them.
So, my question, is it that they've ignored your warnings, or is it that you haven't given them the necessary clue?
So, um, why is this so much more devastating if it kills more than just all my data? Software is the easiest thing to replace; my data is what's important, and I lose it no matter whether it's stored in a user account I nuke as a user or in the root account and I nuke it as root.
Imperial units weren't established until 1826, long after American independence, and were never adopted by the U.S. Among other differences, one was a different definition of the inch -- a U.S. inch was 2.540005 cm, and an Imperial inch was 2.53998 cm. In July 1959, the Canadian 2.54 cm inch was adopted as the International inch by the U.S. and the Commonwealth, but the U.S. continued to use the slightly longer U.S. inch (and foot/yard/mile) for surveying -- which includes surveys of Texas's area.
Accordingly, a Texas is not Metric, nor Imperial, nor even International, but purely U.S.
But in this case, these documents have never been published. But I'm not certain whether an item that has never been published is in the public domain or not.
In the U.S., works produced before 1 January 1978 and published after 31 December 2002 are under copyright for the life of the author plus seventy years, or 120 years from creation for anonymous and pseudonymous works. That would assuredly put all these works in the public domain.
(If they'd been published after 31 December 1977 and before 1 January 2003, they'd be under copyright until 31 December 2047, under a special rule.)
Wouldn't it be illegal if they sold the same product for 2 drastically different prices in different places?
No. Not in the slightest.
In fact, the EU goes out of its way to specifically protect the ability to internationally discriminate in price. Tesco Plc. was importing Levi's to the UK from resellers in the US. It could buy through a middleman and ship across the Atlantic cheaper than it could buy them directly, because Levi Strauss's geographically discriminatory pricing policies. As a result, it was selling Levis at half Levi's UK MSRP.
So Levi Strauss sued, and won in a case that went all the way up to the European Court of Justice. Tesco had to stop reselling Levi's jeans legally purchased outside of the EU unless it had Levi's permission for the resale.
Slashdot Mirror
but consider that 1,000 years ago aluminum was a hundred times more valuable than gold
Aluminum was not known as a metal 1,000 years ago, having been discovered in 1825 and purified enough to really test its properties in 1827. But yes, until the electolytic process was developed in 1886, it was quite vaulable because it was so hard to purify.
(There were, in fact, only seven pure metals known a thousand years ago -- iron, copper, tin, gold, silver, lead, and mercury. The isolation of zinc and its recognition as a metal dates to c.1200 AD in India, and arsenic was isolated around that time in Europe.)
Hmm. Okay, if you say so.
If the test exploit had worked on my machine when I tested it (I'm running Firefox 1.0.3 on WinXP, so it should have worked, right?), I'd not have misunderstood it.
Reading the Secunia explanation:
Successful exploitation requires that the site is allowed to install software (default sites are "update.mozilla.org" and "addons.mozilla.org").
So, unless you've whitelisted the exploit site (which generally would mean it's a site you trusted enough to install an XPI from), or the Mozilla website has been compromised, the exploit won't work.
Yep, tried it here, Firefox 1.0.3 on Windows XP. No effect.
Checking the Javascript console, it's just causing an "Error: install is not defined".
Oooh, big scary exploit.
Open Source Solaris lost it's chance at "cool" when Sun chose the license they did.
Huh? They chose/created an OSI-approved license
This is not 1998 anymore.
To quote the OSI's own statements on license proliferation:
"Interference between different open-source licenses is now perceived as a sufficiently serious problem that OSI has become as a victim of its own earlier success."
"OSI has long been aware that license proliferation is a problem. The steps that we have already taken have not headed off enough licenses. But we exist to serve our community, and our community -- from both the hacker and suit sides -- has been telling us loud and clear that it wants this problem solved."
"We will have another, overarching criterion in mind: promoting the reusability of code, and discouraging licenses which, while strictly OSD-conformant, nevertheless tend to create semi-gated communities attached to a single firm or vendor."
"These licenses put a hard brake on the growth of development communities around their products without actually delivering measurable advantages in revenue, market control, or risk management."
"We do not expect the Preferred category to hold any real surprises. Because the vast majority of the more than sixty thousand open-source projects fall under a very few well-established licenses such as GPL, BSD, and MIT, it is unlikely that a more than a few hundred projects would actually be inconvenienced even if we were to deprecate a score of other licenses."
It's a bit unfair to start calling something vaporware two months before the scheduled release.
True. But, given that we're currently seven months past the originally-scheduled November 2004 release, and five months past the then-scheduled January 2005, such unfairness is fortunately not occuring.
Not that I don't have sympathy for the developers, but the wait has been more than twice as long as the time originally promised.
"if I place a file on a website and I don't link to it from anywhere, I should be able to reasonably expect that it will never be found by a search engine."
Does your site's referer log require a password to access? Have you avoided visiting any sites whatsoever from your unlinked page?
If the answer to either question is no, then your "unlinked" page is quite likely linked in somebody's referer log, and is therefore vulnerable to being spidered. Literally millions of supposedly unlinked pages have been automatically indexed by search engines via referer logs. Not (intentionally) linking a page is not a sufficient precaution against getting the page spidered right now, whatever Google does with this service.
The whole point is that, with the unfriendly way Apple is minimally meeting its legal obligations under the license, Apple is not supporting the maintenence and extension of the KHTML library, nor providing any help or assitance to the creators of that engine.
It's using it, sure; and Microsoft included GNU utilities in Windows Services For Unix. Nobody pretended that Microsoft was doing FOSS a good turn with that, and nobody should pretend Apple is doing FOSS a good turn with Safari.
And if complaining about leeching discourages future leeches . . . well, who gives a damn? But it's not likely to do so. Adter all, memories of the old fight between NeXT and the FSF over honoring the GPL on GCC didn't deter Jobs from lifting a whole HTML rendering engine this time. Why would criticism over KHTML stop him from doing the same next time one of his companies needs something FOSS programmers wrote?
Release dates may have a contractual agreement behind them. In that case, there's a civil case to be made and damages to be won. Otherwise, no, there's no legal teeth behind release dates.
After the April 1 increase to 2,000 MB, it's added 121-odd GB in less than 21 days. That works out to a rate of a bit more than 5.75 MB/day, or 2,100 MB/year. So accounts, at the current rate, will be over 4 GB when the second anniversary of GMail rolls around.
Technically, you even have freedom of innocent passage even through territorial waters. Now, innocent passage has a lot of restrictions on what you can do; in practice, the costal state can usually claim you're "[making a] threat . . . of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State", "collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State", or "carrying out . . . research or survey activities". But, officially, you can run a carrier through somebody's territorial waters.
The Convention on the Law of the Sea prohibits four classes of crimes on the high seas (that is, in so-called international waters):
1) Transportation of slaves
2) Piracy (private acts of violence, detention, or depredation)
3) Illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
4) Unauthorized broadcasting
Now, only 1 and 2 allow a boarding by any nation regardless of the ship's flag (though 4 allows any nation receiving the signals or interference from them to board). However, all countries are obligated to cooperate in the supression of all four; somebody will call your ship's flag country and get their cooperation.
What if your ship isn't under any country's flag? Well, ships without nationality are subject to boarding at any time by any nation, merely for being without nationality.
On the oceans, the only times you are not subject to the laws of one country are when you're subject to the laws of more than one country; the only times you are not subject to the laws of a specific country or countries is when you are subject to the laws of any country.
No need, I got it. Thus the "But seriously". It was just the highest-rated post that mentioned invites, so it was the ideal host for my comment parasite.
I've driven to Windsor, in the so-called "country" of Canada.
Everybody spoke English. Prices were quoted in dollars. All my U.S. radio stations came in just fine. The Detroit News was available in paperboxes. Everybody drove on the right side of the road. The bar had Miller, Bud, Coors, Molson, and Labbat's, just like the one less than a mile from my house. They even had a Tim Horton's just like the one in Troy, Michigan, where I'd gotten a frozen-and-reheated doughnut and a coffee that morning.
You can pretend all you like, but I think it's pretty clear Canada is just a scam of some kind.
But, seriously, there are over nine hundred thousand invites out there free for the taking.
All the 2.even kernels (2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6) are still being maintained. 2.0 and 2.2 last got release updates February of last year. Sure, they're in bugfix mode rather than feature add/backport, but they're still around and kicking.
Do you know how incredibly easy it is to have a Windows system infected?
You know, I've been running Windows systems for thirteen years now, and DOS ones for five years before that, without a single virus, worm, trojan, spyware, or other infection. So my answer is, "it's not easy at all if you have a clue."
Which, apparently, your friends and relatives don't have. They've been running IE and OE, I assume. They haven't had a hardware firewall between themselves and any IP connections, either. And they've run files they've downloaded or borrowed on a disk or found attached to their email without first having Norton or MacAfee look at them.
So, my question, is it that they've ignored your warnings, or is it that you haven't given them the necessary clue?
rm -rf /
So, um, why is this so much more devastating if it kills more than just all my data? Software is the easiest thing to replace; my data is what's important, and I lose it no matter whether it's stored in a user account I nuke as a user or in the root account and I nuke it as root.
Emacs does so have a good text editor!
Imperial units weren't established until 1826, long after American independence, and were never adopted by the U.S. Among other differences, one was a different definition of the inch -- a U.S. inch was 2.540005 cm, and an Imperial inch was 2.53998 cm. In July 1959, the Canadian 2.54 cm inch was adopted as the International inch by the U.S. and the Commonwealth, but the U.S. continued to use the slightly longer U.S. inch (and foot/yard/mile) for surveying -- which includes surveys of Texas's area.
Accordingly, a Texas is not Metric, nor Imperial, nor even International, but purely U.S.
But in this case, these documents have never been published. But I'm not certain whether an item that has never been published is in the public domain or not.
In the U.S., works produced before 1 January 1978 and published after 31 December 2002 are under copyright for the life of the author plus seventy years, or 120 years from creation for anonymous and pseudonymous works. That would assuredly put all these works in the public domain.
(If they'd been published after 31 December 1977 and before 1 January 2003, they'd be under copyright until 31 December 2047, under a special rule.)
Me, I'm hoping for some of the lost dialogues of Aristotle.
To see anybody associated with Debian quoting "release early and often".
Must?
.
Winson Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Benjamin Disraeli, Gandhi, Said Musa, and Cesar Chavez walk into a bar . .
Wouldn't it be illegal if they sold the same product for 2 drastically different prices in different places?
No. Not in the slightest.
In fact, the EU goes out of its way to specifically protect the ability to internationally discriminate in price. Tesco Plc. was importing Levi's to the UK from resellers in the US. It could buy through a middleman and ship across the Atlantic cheaper than it could buy them directly, because Levi Strauss's geographically discriminatory pricing policies. As a result, it was selling Levis at half Levi's UK MSRP.
So Levi Strauss sued, and won in a case that went all the way up to the European Court of Justice. Tesco had to stop reselling Levi's jeans legally purchased outside of the EU unless it had Levi's permission for the resale.