> which is not the case in the BSD license, which explicitly waives all rights
Another complete nonsense (especially the emphasized word). Waiver of all rights is public domain. BSD means all intellectual property rights are fully retained (not waived) but some permission is granted is to use the work in certain ways.
I can take the code and release it under a new license.
Again, you are wrong. BSD does not permit relicensing. The copyright holder would have to assign his or her copyright to you. Only then you would be allowed by law to "release it under a new license".
and hidden known file extensions are not a problem. There is not much exploitation of running a picture attachment on Ubuntu called MyNakedWife.jpg.exe and why it won't run if clicked on in Ubuntu.
Or you could have been honest, and tell them that they actually don't need to migrate to Linux to prevent that kind of exploits.
(Tools > Folder Options > View > uncheck "Hide extensions for known file types")
another system from MS that does not offer me anything significant
You should find some time to read about the rather significant changes to the kernel and user land in Vista. Things like code layout randomization in Vista completely and inherently prevent exploits that are a breeze on XP. Seriously, read something about the changes in Vista vs XP (let alone Win 2000, which is obsolete and insecure crap by now).
I only have to fork the universes if the ciphertext is in my universe.
How do you find the universe containing the ciphertext? The complexity of finding the universe containing the ciphertext is 2^128 and the complexity of finding the correct key is again 2^128. The total complexity is 2^256.
Well, I'd simply have to create 2^128 universes and hide the ciphertext only in one of the universes. You'd have to install you QC in 2^128 universes.:-)
The lead researcher believes "the writing is on the wall" for 1024-bit encryption.
It should be noted (before people start panicking) that the 1024-bit key size refers to asymmetric or public-key cryptography (software like PGP, GPG, algorithms like DH/DSS, RSA), not to symmetric cryptography (software like TrueCrypt, algorithms like AES, Blowfish, Twofish, etc.).
A 256-bit symmetric key is completely infeasible to brute force and even if quantum computers become available, the complexity of brute force attack will still be 2^128 (which is again infeasible to brute force).
For most people, web browsing, reading e-mail, and processing word documents, spreadsheets, and presentations, Linux looks and feels pretty damn close to Windows - but has added enhancements, has better security, and is far cheaper to own.
The sole problem is, and the OP rightfully criticized it, was that Slashdot never posts articles like "10 security flaws in Linux patched". Everytime Windows is patched, there's an article. Occassionally this is true for OS X. That's the point. Still seeno bias? C'mon it's Slashdot and we know how it goes here.
XP is 5.1. Vista is 6.0. No need for conspiracy theories. Massive architectural changes with security in mind from the very beginning of the desing process (which MS says was the case with Vista) should show its fruit. And it seems it has.
Bingo -- you were right. I've just received a reply from Bob from the Slashdot staff (who I had emailed directly). He investigated the negative moderator actions on my posts in the past months and found out that it was a single person doing it.
Bob wrote that he "stripped him of his Slashdot rights".
Hopefully, meta-moderators will take care of these "moderators" in the future. Thanks for your eye-opening advice.
I looked at some of your recent posts. You do seem to get modded down a lot for no particular reason.
Thanks for your words. Now when I think about it, it is indeed possible that someone I've "beaten" in a discussion might be listing my posts whenever he's got any mod points and mods me down. It is certainly possible.
I am going to send a complaint the abuse dept of Slashdot. They do investigate such things.
Slashdot is actually more pathetic. The only thing you need to say to get modded as Troll is to mention a thing in which a BSD license is better than GPL. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, you will be modded as Troll everytime. How's that a good working system? It's rather ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
> which is not the case in the BSD license, which explicitly waives all rights
Another complete nonsense (especially the emphasized word). Waiver of all rights is public domain. BSD means all intellectual property rights are fully retained (not waived) but some permission is granted is to use the work in certain ways.
You're being needlessly pedantic
You know, law and licensing is like that. Every word, even one that might seem silly to you, actually matters.
I can take the code and release it under a new license.
Again, you are wrong. BSD does not permit relicensing. The copyright holder would have to assign his or her copyright to you. Only then you would be allowed by law to "release it under a new license".
creates something useful from your code and relicenses it in a way that prevents you from benefiting
BSD does not allow relicensing (i.e. changing the license terms). It only does not enforce itself on all parts of the derived work.
and hidden known file extensions are not a problem. There is not much exploitation of running a picture attachment on Ubuntu called MyNakedWife.jpg.exe and why it won't run if clicked on in Ubuntu.
Or you could have been honest, and tell them that they actually don't need to migrate to Linux to prevent that kind of exploits.
(Tools > Folder Options > View > uncheck "Hide extensions for known file types")
against a threat which doesn't even exist.
Iran is working on it. North Korea already launched some missile. They can get better very soon.
a lot of them are now part of the EU (which for some obscure reason still seems to allow the deployment of the US toys on its territory).
You forgot that most EU members and the US are also members of NATO, which makes them direct military allies bound by treaties.
SSL was created to prevent exactly these attacks, so why isn't it being used?
Easy one. Because the overall CPU load in the data centers goes up dramatically.
Staying in OS X means you know that your computer will always work; no worrying about viruses and the like.
Sheesh, I thought for a moment that I was watching another of those Mac vs PC Guy commercials. Just read what you wrote...
another system from MS that does not offer me anything significant
You should find some time to read about the rather significant changes to the kernel and user land in Vista. Things like code layout randomization in Vista completely and inherently prevent exploits that are a breeze on XP. Seriously, read something about the changes in Vista vs XP (let alone Win 2000, which is obsolete and insecure crap by now).
Now if the moderators would get a clue...
What's that supposed to mean? What and who are you referring to?
I only have to fork the universes if the ciphertext is in my universe.
How do you find the universe containing the ciphertext? The complexity of finding the universe containing the ciphertext is 2^128 and the complexity of finding the correct key is again 2^128. The total complexity is 2^256.
I didn't disagree.
:-)
All right, sorry.
Well, I'd simply have to create 2^128 universes and hide the ciphertext only in one of the universes. You'd have to install you QC in 2^128 universes.
Nope, you're wrong. If you have an n-bit key, QC reduces its search space to (n/2)-bit. Look it up.
The lead researcher believes "the writing is on the wall" for 1024-bit encryption.
It should be noted (before people start panicking) that the 1024-bit key size refers to asymmetric or public-key cryptography (software like PGP, GPG, algorithms like DH/DSS, RSA), not to symmetric cryptography (software like TrueCrypt, algorithms like AES, Blowfish, Twofish, etc.).
A 256-bit symmetric key is completely infeasible to brute force and even if quantum computers become available, the complexity of brute force attack will still be 2^128 (which is again infeasible to brute force).
For most people, web browsing, reading e-mail, and processing word documents, spreadsheets, and presentations, Linux looks and feels pretty damn close to Windows - but has added enhancements, has better security, and is far cheaper to own.
Don't forget better support for various hardware.
The sole problem is, and the OP rightfully criticized it, was that Slashdot never posts articles like "10 security flaws in Linux patched". Everytime Windows is patched, there's an article. Occassionally this is true for OS X. That's the point. Still seeno bias? C'mon it's Slashdot and we know how it goes here.
XP is 5.1. Vista is 6.0. No need for conspiracy theories. Massive architectural changes with security in mind from the very beginning of the desing process (which MS says was the case with Vista) should show its fruit. And it seems it has.
Good Thing (TM)
Sorry for being off-topipc, but, out of curiosity, why do people claim trademark rights in phrases like "Good Thing"?
Bingo -- you were right. I've just received a reply from Bob from the Slashdot staff (who I had emailed directly). He investigated the negative moderator actions on my posts in the past months and found out that it was a single person doing it.
Bob wrote that he "stripped him of his Slashdot rights".
Hopefully, meta-moderators will take care of these "moderators" in the future. Thanks for your eye-opening advice.
Thanks should probably go to the EU, where Apple was about to face anti-trust proceedings related to the DRM+iTunes+iPod combo.
I looked at some of your recent posts. You do seem to get modded down a lot for no particular reason.
Thanks for your words. Now when I think about it, it is indeed possible that someone I've "beaten" in a discussion might be listing my posts whenever he's got any mod points and mods me down. It is certainly possible.
I am going to send a complaint the abuse dept of Slashdot. They do investigate such things.
Slashdot is actually more pathetic. The only thing you need to say to get modded as Troll is to mention a thing in which a BSD license is better than GPL. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, you will be modded as Troll everytime. How's that a good working system? It's rather ridiculous.
On the contrary. What you advise is a WILLFUL act. You know you can infringe but INTENTIONALLY choose not to verify you do.
If you do your best to make sure you're not infringing, you will be acting in good faith.
Ask any decent lawyer what "in good faith" means, and what WILLFUL ignorance of a possibility of infringiment means, and what consequences they have.
The GPL is their enemy because the GPL proactively defends our freedom.
You mean the freedom to choose a different license for other portions of the program that uses portions of the original code?
there are so many patents out there that seem to cover everything that a developer is likely to never be able to produce anything
Is that a reason not to perform a patent search? Is that a reason to risk patent infringement?
it's very easy for somebody who isn't trained in patent searching to miss one.
Is that a reason not to perform a patent search? Is that a reason to risk patent infringement?
What the OP advised is rather silly (euphemism).