Basicaly what the US goverment is slowly doing is attempting to bypass the laws of darwanism.
Good morning, Troll... well, much of the spelling does reek of temporal starvation... Darwin's laws are fine for genetic programming, but nobody authoritative seriously expects them to work in reality. That's why we have neo-Darwinists, neo-catastrophists, and so forth.
Darwin's own criteria for falsification of his theory were met decades ago, and the evidence dismissing his theory just keep piling up. For examples, there are (TIME cover stories notwithstanding) fewer and fewer "transitional" cadidates among the billions of fossils so far unearthed; more and more polystrate fossils and out-of-sequence "index" fossils; vertebrate fish (and the lampreys that live on them) have now been found in Cambrian rock (in China), extending the range of vertebrates to practically the entire "geologic column".
A new theory is required; one which requires you to bulletproof your children well before they might be exposed to Nasty Stuff.
Either install the crypto-zip extensions or install WinZip into WINE. Now, pull the.DOC out of the.EXE (self-extracting.ZIP), feed it to mswordview and stick it in your webserver.
While you're there, why not feed a copy to MSWord and try the versioning options? You might find out a bit about the evolution of the spec. (-:...and think while you're doing that: this might also be possible with C# one day...
What does surprise me is that you can't compile C# straight out of an encrypted MSWord document. The Microsoft Way would then have you execute the.DOC so that if the required binary wasn't present (-: maybe you ran it from a System/390:-) then C# would compile one for you. Just In Tangle technology.
And one day someone will publish a cracker for the encryption, making it Microsoft's contribution to the Open Source movement...
this is probably intended to compete with Java despite native compilation.
Java already has that, if you want it... it's called gcc-java.
Microsoft innovates again? Naaah! MS probably have people who sincerely believe that if it's not EXE it won't run. Not so much "hello? hello?" as "hello? i love you.VBS" (-:
...are a strong social framework, a tradition for the respect of individual rights, and a rational government working in harmony.
Strong social framework == strong nuclear families, leading to strong extended families.
The governments that we have today are by and large working to weaken families, announcements of programs to "strengthen the family" notwithstanding.
The needs of the many are often used as an excuse to totally ace the rights of the few. Thank you for that pearl of short-sightedness, Dr Spock (I much prefer Professor Bernardo de la Paz's line of reasoning in this respect, although I have many bones to pick with RAH's philosophies in general).
Which brings us to the fantasy of a rational government, let alone one acting in harmony with anything. Building on a foundation of irrational, selfish, group-minded (implies blame-sharing rather than acceptance of personal responsibility) people largely drawn from broken families does not result in strong, stable, thoughtful government.
Having said that, I do agree with you.
While the basic problem is not technological in nature, neverheless technology is relevant to the issue.
Tools are amplifiers. A hammer, for example, amplifies your ability to concentrate and apply kinetic energy. You can use that amplified power to build rocking-horses or to break skulls. Computers are likewise tools. The black-hats in the censorship field are using these tools to amplify their own power. One effective counter to this is to use our own computers as tools for eroding their power, to keep the balance a little fairer.
What I'm trying to explain with these analogies is that technology won't solve the problem, and is possibly a dangerous distraction from the real issues - but technology can help to contain the problem somewhat while real answers are found and implemented.
We're just really keen on random numbers, and when we have a really good pool of entropy, we don't like to see it evapourate - so we store it where others can use it too. (-:
I have no problem with storing an image (standard bitmap or scalable, e.g. (E)PS) in a document, plus a reference to the application that created it and the source file. Then you can have your convenient little diagram in a portable format, and when you double-click (or, right-click->edit) on the image the originating application is started with the sourcefile as the first parameter.
That way no application means no editing rather than no picture, which is how dear old "we know what you want" MS have done it.
I used to annoy PC users by using my Mac PowerBook to translate files for them that they couldn't open, from programs that they didn't have and that weren't even available for the Mac, e.g., Lotus AmiPro.
Likewise, feeding broken documents to the "strings" program to recover the text, or doing to a list with sed(/gawk) in one line and two seconds what would take a Word(/Excel) user weeks by hand. Highly amusing. (-:
Open Source (and Free as in Beer) solution
on
From Paper To PDF?
·
· Score: 1
Visit FooLabs and get a copy of xpdf, if your distro hasn't got one already (I'm using Mandrake 7.1 but I recall xpdf in every version of Mandrake from 6.0 on). Type:
pdftotext filename
Rememver to add -acsii7 if MeatheadSystems' Index Server doesn't like Latin1 character sets.
If you're scanning these using an autofeeder, run each stack of documents through three times and write a little parser (patch could almost do it) to sync up the text from all three scans, and where there is not unanimity, have a "vote" (and maybe spell check the relevant word(s) to see if one of the votes matches a known word, or a suggested spelling alternative matches one or a majority of the votes) to decide which word fits here.
This would sometimes fail where the source document is mis-spelled. A side-effect might be electronic copies better than the original.
Given that IE5.5 on the Mac-not-OS/X is much more standards-compliant than IE on Windows, I would hope that they port that to Carbon rather than re-porting the other. I would also guess that this would be the cheapest way of achieving their end.
It wouldn't surprise me of Office followed the same path, but Office Mac-vs-Win is not so much a camp divided as IE. The implication is that a port of Office to *BSD, Linux, BeOS, Hurd or practically anything else that runs X would be relatively simple (much of the toughest ripping out of misfeatures has already been done for the Mac port).
It would be hilarious if UnixOffice were notably more stable than Office2000 under Windows2000, and the world wound up generally using Office and Mozilla on Linux...
...after three tries at getting it right, and SMB is even more broken after what is probably best described as "many" tries.
Microsoft relied on security via obscurity and self-important code monkeys rather than careful and open design and community consultation. They almost certainly did it due to the combination of being paranoid (about anything "not invented here") and being a legend in their own mind.
If you're prepared to run a 2000-only MS network, many of SMB's known holes (some large enough to run an oil tanker through) will vanish - but even the 2000-specific stuff is slightly broken and so new that the cracks aren't showing through the paint yet.
There's good reasons that OpenSSH has had more downloads than there are bits in the package recently. And they're not recording things like Mandrake's RPMed version, either. The whole system is peer reviewed and runs on proven, solid technology. And because it's Unix, you can make a secure VPN like this (just add routing to taste):
pppd pty 'ssh -t user@host pppd notty'
As Vinod Valopililli said in the Halloween emails, there are no one-week drivers for NT - and no ten-second securely crypted VPNs for Windows.
This means that, if your computer at least claims to be running Windows 95, you can cut the number of keys you need to check in order to crack into the network exponentially.
And if you claim to be an old LANMAN client, that limits them to 8 letters long and reduces the character set even further. Also, if you're no good at writing sniffers, there's always a convenient.pwl file lying around somewhere to help you out.
No point in locking the gate if you haven't strung the fence properly. Might as well go and kiss the horse goodbye now. (-:
One of the earlier DEC CoBOL compilers did not require you to have an "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION." section in your program. If you did, and it wasn't perfect, the compiler would delete your source file! Happy Easter!
I don't know about Judge Jackson, but if they did that when a hearing was pending in my Court, my jurisdiction, I'd slam them and heavily fine them for Contempt of Court - and ring the Appeals Circuit judge who granted them the appeal without first adjourning and waiting for my Court to finish, and burn his ears off.
Slashdot Mirror
Basicaly what the US goverment is slowly doing is attempting to bypass the laws of darwanism.
Good morning, Troll... well, much of the spelling does reek of temporal starvation... Darwin's laws are fine for genetic programming, but nobody authoritative seriously expects them to work in reality. That's why we have neo-Darwinists, neo-catastrophists, and so forth.
Darwin's own criteria for falsification of his theory were met decades ago, and the evidence dismissing his theory just keep piling up. For examples, there are (TIME cover stories notwithstanding) fewer and fewer "transitional" cadidates among the billions of fossils so far unearthed; more and more polystrate fossils and out-of-sequence "index" fossils; vertebrate fish (and the lampreys that live on them) have now been found in Cambrian rock (in China), extending the range of vertebrates to practically the entire "geologic column".
A new theory is required; one which requires you to bulletproof your children well before they might be exposed to Nasty Stuff.
They add gotos for no reason.
No reason, my ass. Goto is there for the VB programmers.
On the 7th day, Bill was arrested.
"Microsoft has performed an illegal operation, and will be terminated." (-:
Either install the crypto-zip extensions or install WinZip into WINE. Now, pull the .DOC out of the .EXE (self-extracting .ZIP), feed it to mswordview and stick it in your webserver.
...and think while you're doing that: this might also be possible with C# one day...
.DOC so that if the required binary wasn't present (-: maybe you ran it from a System/390 :-) then C# would compile one for you. Just In Tangle technology.
While you're there, why not feed a copy to MSWord and try the versioning options? You might find out a bit about the evolution of the spec. (-:
What does surprise me is that you can't compile C# straight out of an encrypted MSWord document. The Microsoft Way would then have you execute the
And one day someone will publish a cracker for the encryption, making it Microsoft's contribution to the Open Source movement...
Eliminates costly programming errors
Probably supposed to say "Demonstrates costly programming errors".
Embraces emerging Web programming standards
Maybe they were distracted by Python. "Engulfs emerging Web programming standards" sounds more likely.
Extensive interoperability
With this one, they left out a word (in particular, "Destroys" at the front of the sentence). Or prehaps they meant "Expensive interoperability"?
this is probably intended to compete with Java despite native compilation.
Java already has that, if you want it... it's called gcc-java.
Microsoft innovates again? Naaah! MS probably have people who sincerely believe that if it's not EXE it won't run. Not so much "hello? hello?" as "hello? i love you.VBS" (-:
...are a strong social framework, a tradition for the respect of individual rights, and a rational government working in harmony.
Strong social framework == strong nuclear families, leading to strong extended families.
The governments that we have today are by and large working to weaken families, announcements of programs to "strengthen the family" notwithstanding.
The needs of the many are often used as an excuse to totally ace the rights of the few. Thank you for that pearl of short-sightedness, Dr Spock (I much prefer Professor Bernardo de la Paz's line of reasoning in this respect, although I have many bones to pick with RAH's philosophies in general).
Which brings us to the fantasy of a rational government, let alone one acting in harmony with anything. Building on a foundation of irrational, selfish, group-minded (implies blame-sharing rather than acceptance of personal responsibility) people largely drawn from broken families does not result in strong, stable, thoughtful government.
Having said that, I do agree with you.
While the basic problem is not technological in nature, neverheless technology is relevant to the issue.
Tools are amplifiers. A hammer, for example, amplifies your ability to concentrate and apply kinetic energy. You can use that amplified power to build rocking-horses or to break skulls. Computers are likewise tools. The black-hats in the censorship field are using these tools to amplify their own power. One effective counter to this is to use our own computers as tools for eroding their power, to keep the balance a little fairer.
What I'm trying to explain with these analogies is that technology won't solve the problem, and is possibly a dangerous distraction from the real issues - but technology can help to contain the problem somewhat while real answers are found and implemented.
We're just really keen on random numbers, and when we have a really good pool of entropy, we don't like to see it evapourate - so we store it where others can use it too. (-:
I have no problem with storing an image (standard bitmap or scalable, e.g. (E)PS) in a document, plus a reference to the application that created it and the source file. Then you can have your convenient little diagram in a portable format, and when you double-click (or, right-click->edit) on the image the originating application is started with the sourcefile as the first parameter.
That way no application means no editing rather than no picture, which is how dear old "we know what you want" MS have done it.
Now that's what I call followng your convictions...
So... they not only get the last word, but the previous few words as well?
Likewise, feeding broken documents to the "strings" program to recover the text, or doing to a list with sed(/gawk) in one line and two seconds what would take a Word(/Excel) user weeks by hand. Highly amusing. (-:
Rememver to add -acsii7 if MeatheadSystems' Index Server doesn't like Latin1 character sets.
If you're scanning these using an autofeeder, run each stack of documents through three times and write a little parser (patch could almost do it) to sync up the text from all three scans, and where there is not unanimity, have a "vote" (and maybe spell check the relevant word(s) to see if one of the votes matches a known word, or a suggested spelling alternative matches one or a majority of the votes) to decide which word fits here.
This would sometimes fail where the source document is mis-spelled. A side-effect might be electronic copies better than the original.
Try KFM, Mozilla, Amaya, almost anything else.
...because you'll get hits on photos of racing cars, Tibetan general stores, liquor shops, yachts, delivery trucks...
Given that IE5.5 on the Mac-not-OS/X is much more standards-compliant than IE on Windows, I would hope that they port that to Carbon rather than re-porting the other. I would also guess that this would be the cheapest way of achieving their end.
It wouldn't surprise me of Office followed the same path, but Office Mac-vs-Win is not so much a camp divided as IE. The implication is that a port of Office to *BSD, Linux, BeOS, Hurd or practically anything else that runs X would be relatively simple (much of the toughest ripping out of misfeatures has already been done for the Mac port).
It would be hilarious if UnixOffice were notably more stable than Office2000 under Windows2000, and the world wound up generally using Office and Mozilla on Linux...
It's also well-suited to software implementation: it uses operations on 8-bit bytes, which are easy to write in C and assembly.
My friend's DECsystem 10 is happier with 9-bit bytes. Of course, 36 bits at a time is easier still.
I think sending something SixBit packed or Rad50 packed would be secure enough today. (-:
Microsoft relied on security via obscurity and self-important code monkeys rather than careful and open design and community consultation. They almost certainly did it due to the combination of being paranoid (about anything "not invented here") and being a legend in their own mind.
If you're prepared to run a 2000-only MS network, many of SMB's known holes (some large enough to run an oil tanker through) will vanish - but even the 2000-specific stuff is slightly broken and so new that the cracks aren't showing through the paint yet.
There's good reasons that OpenSSH has had more downloads than there are bits in the package recently. And they're not recording things like Mandrake's RPMed version, either. The whole system is peer reviewed and runs on proven, solid technology. And because it's Unix, you can make a secure VPN like this (just add routing to taste):As Vinod Valopililli said in the Halloween emails, there are no one-week drivers for NT - and no ten-second securely crypted VPNs for Windows.
This means that, if your computer at least claims to be running Windows 95, you can cut the number of keys you need to check in order to crack into the network exponentially.
.pwl file lying around somewhere to help you out.
And if you claim to be an old LANMAN client, that limits them to 8 letters long and reduces the character set even further. Also, if you're no good at writing sniffers, there's always a convenient
No point in locking the gate if you haven't strung the fence properly. Might as well go and kiss the horse goodbye now. (-:
Oh, like OpenSSL? (-:
One of the earlier DEC CoBOL compilers did not require you to have an "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION." section in your program. If you did, and it wasn't perfect, the compiler would delete your source file! Happy Easter!
With appropriate programming, played "Daisy"...
...pretends to order a CD for Tobi during ./configure
I don't know about Judge Jackson, but if they did that when a hearing was pending in my Court, my jurisdiction, I'd slam them and heavily fine them for Contempt of Court - and ring the Appeals Circuit judge who granted them the appeal without first adjourning and waiting for my Court to finish, and burn his ears off.