About 90 satellites remain active in geostationary orbit, was one number I saw quoted when googling this earlier. (Out of 120 launched? I may be misremembering that.)
Only a couple percent of satellites are geostationary. Plus, nobody's shooting them down, so they are not really part of the topic discussed anyway.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
I would have thought that everyone could agree that a programmer tinkering around with some source on his computer and then abandoning it would not be of any relevance of interest to the discussion, and could be implicitly ignored.
I guess I was wrong there.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=75 Right. Internet hysteria. That whole thing was because the iTunes store would recommend music to you based on what you were listening to. This was later changed to not be on by default after people complained. There was never any indication that it was malicious or meant for data mining.
Apple even altered the firewall software on Mac OS X to hide the fact that iTunes phones home. The OS X firewall does not monitor outgoing connections at all. It would never have shown if iTunes phoned home, and thus "modifying" it would make no sense.
And the source on Darwin was closed. They refused to release code required to compile and run Darwin. They refused to release code that was part of Darwin. Again, internet hysteria. http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-x86/2006/May/msg00008.html
Like I said. You really need to start questioning what you read on the internet, and not accept every single thing it shouts at you.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
iTunes phones home, It does not. Once again, you believe this because you belive internet hysteria without actually checking up on the facts.
The bundle software in much the same way that Microsoft was found guilty of anti-trust laws. Bundling software is not and has never been illegal. The reason Microsoft got in trouble was because they did this while in a position of market dominance, in which case there are additional restrictions on what you are allowed to do. You can hardly claim Apple has a monopoly.
Apple has waffled on that. You mean, the internet threw a hissy fit over an issue that never existed. The source has never been closed.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Your point was that, since the GPL binds the developer, a license such as BSD is freer. Now, the GPL does not bind the developer, so that argument carries absolutely no weight. There are other arguments to be made, but yours does not take you anywhere. And you dodge the point that the developer is pretty much always also the distributor. The fact that there are other distributors too doesn't change this. Thus, the developer is for all intents and purposes bound by the GPL.
I cannot make any sense of this. As I said before, there is no total order on liberties. You appear to believe that `protecting the user' means `less free', while `protecting the developer' means `more free': No, I mean that putting more demands on the developer means less free, and putting less demands on the developer means more free. The question of the user's ability to do this or that is entirely secondary, and a separate matter. You can say that "this license is more protective of user's rights" or "less protective", but calling that "free" is a severe misuse of the word "free".
And playing games with the word "free" is dangerous.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Sigh.
Did you even make the tiniest effort to understand what my original point was?
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Still playing silly semantic games. The fact that there is a second group of distributors makes no difference to the actual argument. That second group is not "users", either. My point that the user is not bound by the license still holds exactly as before.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
You insist that because they built upon an existing product, that ruled out them possibly using another existing product because NeXTstep started before Linux was big? No, using another existing product was ruled out because Steve Jobs was the founder of NeXT. Learn some computing history.
Furthermore, Apple was been one of the biggest pushers of DRM Bigger than Microsoft?
and proprietary standards Name two.
Given that they weren't even willing to keep the kernel open What exactly is http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/, then?
Perhaps you should pay a little less attention to internet hysteria, and a little more to actual truth.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
The party bound by the license is the distributor. And in how many cases is the developer not the distributor? Stop playing semantic games to cloud the issue.
PC gaming basically ruined games for over a decade. The lack of a simple and intuitive controller, or usability in general, shifted the focus towards needlessly complex games, leaving us with a stagnated market of FPSes, RTSes and micromanagement galore.
And boy am I ever glad to see it all finally come crashing down in favour of making games fun again. Good riddance to "hardcore gaming".
Just remember to put a rubber on the wiimote. They ship with them already on these days.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Ok, so what they want is more freedom for themselves. Which is quite a different thing from freedom for the user, which is what the GPL set out to protect. You said "it appears to provide a freer license": it is always necessary to be explicit about who gets the extra freedom. And the developer is the party bound by the license, not the user. Thus, a license with less restrictions, like BSD, is "more free" in any useful sense of the word.
You may think it is good to protect the user's interests, but this does not mean the "license is more free". It is less free. Don't conflate what you want with "freedom".
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
No, it leaves the choice with those who drive the development. If the main development branch suddenly decides to go GPL3 only, you are either stuck with an outdated version, or forced to use the GPL3 code.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Which part of "MacOS X is a continuation of NeXTstep" did you not understand? Mac OS X is not a from-scratch project. It was not created right after Mac OS 9. It's entirely based on NeXTstep, which is far older.
Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"The open-source compiler that started as a GCC fork"? LLVM is not a compiler. It is a code generator, optimizer and virtual machine, usable as a compiler back-end. It later added a gcc-based front end.
Also, Apple is currently driving development of an alternate BSD-licensed front end named clang.
Being given something is not a freedom. It may be a good thing, but stretching the definition of "freedom" to include that renders term almost entirely meaningless.
Don't conflate "things you want" with "freedom", please.
Isn't this a single point of failure to steal your entire online identity No.
How is this a good idea. One signin that (if I implemented this on my local machines) would allow access to not only my VPN, mailserver, web server, but also my bank account, mortgage, and any other personal details that are stored in any publically accessible server? That is a very bad idea, which is why OpenID is none of that.
SHA1, of which rainbow tables have been available for some time. Rainbow tables are not dependant on the specific hashing algorithms. They are a generic algorithm for breaking any hash.
Re:I thought those things were already broken
on
Yahoo CAPTCHA Hacked
·
· Score: 1
It's a theoretical attack that got posted on boingboing and then the entire blogosphere thought it was real because the "remembered reading something" about it.
Only recently did anyone attempt to do it in real life, after the idea had been spread far and wide for years.
Slashdot Mirror
About 90 satellites remain active in geostationary orbit, was one number I saw quoted when googling this earlier. (Out of 120 launched? I may be misremembering that.)
Only a couple percent of satellites are geostationary. Plus, nobody's shooting them down, so they are not really part of the topic discussed anyway.
I would have thought that everyone could agree that a programmer tinkering around with some source on his computer and then abandoning it would not be of any relevance of interest to the discussion, and could be implicitly ignored.
I guess I was wrong there.
Like I said. You really need to start questioning what you read on the internet, and not accept every single thing it shouts at you.
And playing games with the word "free" is dangerous.
Sigh.
Did you even make the tiniest effort to understand what my original point was?
Still playing silly semantic games. The fact that there is a second group of distributors makes no difference to the actual argument. That second group is not "users", either. My point that the user is not bound by the license still holds exactly as before.
Perhaps you should pay a little less attention to internet hysteria, and a little more to actual truth.
PC gaming basically ruined games for over a decade. The lack of a simple and intuitive controller, or usability in general, shifted the focus towards needlessly complex games, leaving us with a stagnated market of FPSes, RTSes and micromanagement galore.
And boy am I ever glad to see it all finally come crashing down in favour of making games fun again. Good riddance to "hardcore gaming".
You may think it is good to protect the user's interests, but this does not mean the "license is more free". It is less free. Don't conflate what you want with "freedom".
No, it leaves the choice with those who drive the development. If the main development branch suddenly decides to go GPL3 only, you are either stuck with an outdated version, or forced to use the GPL3 code.
Which part of "MacOS X is a continuation of NeXTstep" did you not understand? Mac OS X is not a from-scratch project. It was not created right after Mac OS 9. It's entirely based on NeXTstep, which is far older.
"The open-source compiler that started as a GCC fork"? LLVM is not a compiler. It is a code generator, optimizer and virtual machine, usable as a compiler back-end. It later added a gcc-based front end.
Also, Apple is currently driving development of an alternate BSD-licensed front end named clang.
Being given something is not a freedom. It may be a good thing, but stretching the definition of "freedom" to include that renders term almost entirely meaningless.
Don't conflate "things you want" with "freedom", please.
There is no "the OpenID database". They have put your username and password nowhere bu their own database where they have always been.
If it's for decoration, you do not sharpen it.
Yes.
It's a theoretical attack that got posted on boingboing and then the entire blogosphere thought it was real because the "remembered reading something" about it.
Only recently did anyone attempt to do it in real life, after the idea had been spread far and wide for years.
When you say "clubs", you could in fact mean that you kill baby seals for fun!
Maybe you should go actually read the linked paper, if you worry about what the words in the popular summary mean?