And if science threatens your faith, perhaps you ought to re-examine your beliefs. Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive things. It's really just a handful of overly-dogmatic religious sects (read: fundies) that need science to be wrong on evolution (and a number of other things, for that matter), in order for their religious beliefs to be right.
But the point seems to be that the device supports Wifi, which is fast enough for Skype.
Of course, developers working with this phone will already have to compete with the likes of Motorola, HP and NEC, which are have already announced such phones.
The PDF presentation that the group gave was en Français, but I got the gist. I'd post a translation, but my French is a little rusty.;) Anyway, they seem to be saying that because OOo doesn't support authentication certificates for documents or macros, and because OOo has an API that allows you to program in several different languages (Python, VBScript, Perl, C++, etc.) and that OOo has no solid verifiable security model, that the suite is fundamentally insecure.
I can see where some of this gets dismissed as "theoretical" -- for instance, while OOo has such an API, this isn't any more secure or insecure than the fact that other applications, like MySQL, for instance, have a similarly flexible API. Ditto for Microsoft Office or any operating system.
The information on authentication certificates seems a little outdated -- OOo 2.0 supports digital signatures for documents and macros and even security settings that prevent macros from being run that are not signed. I think that as for a solid, verifiable security model, OOo 2.0 seems to have one based on digital signatures.
The available scripts out there (Automatix, EasyUbuntu, etc) are not legal in the United States thanks to the patent quagmire. This preempts the use of the distribution in a large way (e.g. - most businesses simply can't afford to break the law, no matter how wrong it is).
The execution of such scripts is not necessarily illegal in the United States. The codecs, etc., that are downloaded are freely downloadable from the vendor's site. If the scripts download the codecs from that vendors site (even in an automated fashion), then no laws have been broken. What is illegal is redistributing non-freely-redistributable binaries.
P2P is a dead technology, plain and simple. It can't work in a secure network, for several reasons.
Who said anything about the Internet being a secure network?
Look, the Internet, by its very nature, is inherently insecure. It cannot be secure. Only networks where resources can be controlled and managed can be considered secure. You can only secure your own private network, and if that network is connected to the Internet, even via a firewall, its security must be considered at least compromiseable, if not already compromised (this depends on how important security is to your network -- U.S. military and civillian intellegence consider air gap security to be the only security that is acceptable in relation to the Internet and their classified systems). P2P or no P2P.
As for holes in the firewall -- any service your network provides to the public internet requires holes in your firewall. If you don't like that, then don't run services on your public facing connections. *shrug*
Get one that includes a base charger, you just stick it on the base at night.
Hmmm...what about a mouse that charges itself everytime you move it? It would use a similar principal as those flashlights that charge themselves when you shake 'em, or bicylces that use the motion of the wheel to charge a headlight.
Even worse, we have seen it abused already, for GPLv2. For example, Hans Reiser put a list of sponsors into the copyright notice, and then argued that those who add a GUI over his software without showing the adverts beside their progress bar breach his copyright. This did take a Joerg Schilling-like intentional twisting of the GPL, but with GPLv3, the twisting won't be needed anymore.
Nowhere in GPL V2 or V3 does it mention that the copyright notice must be preserved AS IS in your derivative work. It just says that a copyright notice must be present that tells the user that the work can be modified and/or distributed under the terms of the GPL.
Anybody who says any differently really probably needs to talk to a lawyer.
The great thing about it was that it was a TSR; you could leave it running in the background and invoke it with a few keystrokes.
Unfortunately, that was also what (sometimes) sucked about it. It would eat nearly have of your precious 'real memory' (>640K) and, even more unfortunately, it seemed to have a problem with many extended (EMS/XMS) memory managers, including the popular QEMM/386 from Quarterdeck.
All hail the new unremovable advertising popups in GPLv3 (section 5c)!
Popups are not required by 5c, and the requirements of 5c are definitely nothing new. Here is the wording of 5c in the current draft of GPL V3 (7/27/2006):
If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must include a convenient feature that displays an appropriate copyright notice, and tells the user that there is no warranty for the program (or that you provide a warranty), that users may convey the modified work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License together with the central list (if any) of other terms in accord with section 7. Specifically, if the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a command to display this information must be prominent in the list.; otherwise, the modified work must display this information at startup. However, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not comply with this subsection, your modified work need not make them comply.
5c says only that the program must include some type of feature accessible via a menu or command or button or something that's easy to find and use, that tells the user about the lack of warranty and that the work can be distributed (conveyed) under the terms of the GPL V3. Failing that, the program must display the information at startup. This is roughly equivalent to the GPL V2, section 2c, which says:
If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
2c was written at a time when programs were assumed to be command-line driven (think GNU Emacs, for which the GPL was written). The idea is that some notification is required; if the program runs interactively, it needs to display the notice either at startup or by accessing somewhere in the program's interface. The updated GPL V3 language in 5c seems to be more appropriate for a wide range of applications from command-line driven to GUI to Web applications.
Note that neither clause states that this notice must be a popup. The notice requirements are basically the same as for any copyrighted work -- while a notice is not specifically required under the Bern convention, in the U.S. and many other countries the copyright holder has limited ability to recover damages in a lawsuit without one.
Also, am I to assume that, even while cell phones are getting photo and video capabilities, the actual "videophone" is not just merely dead, it is really most sincerely dead?
Yeah. Who the hell wants the people they're talking to seeing what they look like at 5:30 am?
The thing you must never lose sight of is that Apple finds its own way of succeeding sometimes by doing things the way no other "sane" (read: "hidebound") person would do.
s/Apple/Steve Jobs/ and you're right on the money. The original Mac was going to be a failure because nobody wanted locked-up proprietary boxes with no CLI or expansion capabilities (and besides that, the Lisa was an abysmal failure), Mac OS X was going to be a failure because who would want to run NeXT Step on a Mac? The iTunes was expected to be failure because 'everyone' downloads illegal music, why would they pay even 99 cents/song?
Everywhere along the way, Jobs saw ways of adding twists to make it work.
What I envision: an iPhone that not only has a built-in PDA based on either Palm OS or some slimmed-down Mac OS X, and not only has an iPod built into it, but one with a video iPod integrated as well. Oh, and you can add this optional GPS package for $X. Throw in built-in wifi and bluetooth connectivity, and you've got one hot device that people won't be able to keep their hands off of.
If Apple introduces it Monday, remember, you heard it here first!
Step 1: Rip DVDs, bring in lots of income Step 2: Get sued by MPAA/Jack Valenti/Sony Pictures/Disney/somebody. Step 3: Pay lawyers Step 4: Get lots and lots of FREE publicity, building public empathy and support. Step 5: ???? Step 6: Profit!
Do you steal your software? Seriously, the software that comes with the Mac is a big part of what makes it such a value. For a developer, XCode is amazing and free, compared to Visual Studio for somewhere in the $300-$800 range, depending on the version.
Why do Mac people always assume that I must steal my software to get what comes with Macs for free?
Step 1: Get Ubuntu 6.06 either shipped to you for free on CD-ROM, or download an burn it.
Step 2: Install Ubuntu.
Step 3: Launch Synaptic Package Manager. (Or got Applications | Add Removed and click on 'Advanced')
Step 4: Go to the 'Development' section and choose from some of the finest world-class development tools ever written. gcc, Glade, Boa Constructor, Eclipse, etc.
Step 5: Use Synaptic in the same manor to install DVD authoring, video, audio and image editing packages.
Granted, DVD mastering software is limited, but there's some very fine audio and video editing software available. All at no cost.
The biggest road blocks I hear of for switching from Windows to a Mac are "price" and "games". I won't fuel the flamewars by making definitive statements about either point, other than to say that it looks like those blocks are starting to come down.
From what I can see, only one of those blocks are coming down. The other one, price, is still lingering. For about $100 less than what Apple wants for the 15.4" 2 Ghz Core Duo, I can get a comparably Dell Precision M65 Mobile Workstation with the same processor and hard drive, with an 11g wifi card and a 512MB nVidia Quadro FX 350M graphics adapter (an AGP version of this adapter alone costs well over $600) thrown in for free.
It was iD software that originally coined the term.
Actually, the honor goes to Mr. Paul Williams, but since you've likely never heard of him, or the software that he produced, well, I guess you'll just have to go on believing it was iD.;)
what part of "Congress shall make no law...." did YOU miss?
Maybe you should read the part about the powers of Judiciary. The Judiciary has no power to pass laws. (Judicial orders are another story, of course).
The problem with rulings like this is that they have a chilling effect on investigative reporting. If you're happy to have reporters cowering in fear of doing any real digging on a story, fine then. But the press is about the only true check we as citizens have on the power of government and if we defang them...well, if you think the Patriot Act is bad, as BTO would say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
The press can suck, no doubt, but they're the best check on government we have in this country. Every law that hinders their ability to do their jobs, is a law that favors closed, tyrannical, government.
And this is exactly what they were thinking of when they wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So what I want to know is this: what part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?
That being said I have no reason to look from Debian to ubuntu in the server space but newer Linux admins may find it appropriate.
Yeah. In the server space, there really isn't much difference between Ubuntu and Debian. They use the same base packages, for the most part. Ubuntu's differentiation is on the desktop, and Ubuntu is a very polished desktop distro.
That being said, check out the new Ubuntu Server that was released with Dapper. It's got automatic LAMP installation, which is nice and saves the trouble of manually integrating a LAMP stack.
Slashdot Mirror
And if science threatens your faith, perhaps you ought to re-examine your beliefs. Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive things. It's really just a handful of overly-dogmatic religious sects (read: fundies) that need science to be wrong on evolution (and a number of other things, for that matter), in order for their religious beliefs to be right.
Of course, developers working with this phone will already have to compete with the likes of Motorola, HP and NEC, which are have already announced such phones.
Man! You just made me choke on my burger!
The PDF presentation that the group gave was en Français, but I got the gist. I'd post a translation, but my French is a little rusty. ;) Anyway, they seem to be saying that because OOo doesn't support authentication certificates for documents or macros, and because OOo has an API that allows you to program in several different languages (Python, VBScript, Perl, C++, etc.) and that OOo has no solid verifiable security model, that the suite is fundamentally insecure.
I can see where some of this gets dismissed as "theoretical" -- for instance, while OOo has such an API, this isn't any more secure or insecure than the fact that other applications, like MySQL, for instance, have a similarly flexible API. Ditto for Microsoft Office or any operating system.
The information on authentication certificates seems a little outdated -- OOo 2.0 supports digital signatures for documents and macros and even security settings that prevent macros from being run that are not signed. I think that as for a solid, verifiable security model, OOo 2.0 seems to have one based on digital signatures.
The execution of such scripts is not necessarily illegal in the United States. The codecs, etc., that are downloaded are freely downloadable from the vendor's site. If the scripts download the codecs from that vendors site (even in an automated fashion), then no laws have been broken. What is illegal is redistributing non-freely-redistributable binaries.
Who said anything about the Internet being a secure network?
Look, the Internet, by its very nature, is inherently insecure. It cannot be secure. Only networks where resources can be controlled and managed can be considered secure. You can only secure your own private network, and if that network is connected to the Internet, even via a firewall, its security must be considered at least compromiseable, if not already compromised (this depends on how important security is to your network -- U.S. military and civillian intellegence consider air gap security to be the only security that is acceptable in relation to the Internet and their classified systems). P2P or no P2P.
As for holes in the firewall -- any service your network provides to the public internet requires holes in your firewall. If you don't like that, then don't run services on your public facing connections. *shrug*
Well, you break to those networks you can get into, y'know?
Hmmm...what about a mouse that charges itself everytime you move it? It would use a similar principal as those flashlights that charge themselves when you shake 'em, or bicylces that use the motion of the wheel to charge a headlight.
Maybe I should get a patent...
That depends on how many legacy programs require Administrator priveleges to even run. (Hint: a lot)
Nowhere in GPL V2 or V3 does it mention that the copyright notice must be preserved AS IS in your derivative work. It just says that a copyright notice must be present that tells the user that the work can be modified and/or distributed under the terms of the GPL.
Anybody who says any differently really probably needs to talk to a lawyer.
Unfortunately, that was also what (sometimes) sucked about it. It would eat nearly have of your precious 'real memory' (>640K) and, even more unfortunately, it seemed to have a problem with many extended (EMS/XMS) memory managers, including the popular QEMM/386 from Quarterdeck.
Mod parent down! WARNING: Link is NOT safe for work!
No, but I think it does open with the "I'll be there for you" theme music.
Popups are not required by 5c, and the requirements of 5c are definitely nothing new.
Here is the wording of 5c in the current draft of GPL V3 (7/27/2006):
5c says only that the program must include some type of feature accessible via a menu or command or button or something that's easy to find and use, that tells the user about the lack of warranty and that the work can be distributed (conveyed) under the terms of the GPL V3. Failing that, the program must display the information at startup. This is roughly equivalent to the GPL V2, section 2c, which says:
2c was written at a time when programs were assumed to be command-line driven (think GNU Emacs, for which the GPL was written). The idea is that some notification is required; if the program runs interactively, it needs to display the notice either at startup or by accessing somewhere in the program's interface. The updated GPL V3 language in 5c seems to be more appropriate for a wide range of applications from command-line driven to GUI to Web applications.
Note that neither clause states that this notice must be a popup. The notice requirements are basically the same as for any copyrighted work -- while a notice is not specifically required under the Bern convention, in the U.S. and many other countries the copyright holder has limited ability to recover damages in a lawsuit without one.
Probably for the same reason that early automobiles came with buggy whips. Because that's what you're 'supposed' to do.
In the fridge? Wouldn't it get cold?
Yeah. Who the hell wants the people they're talking to seeing what they look like at 5:30 am?
s/Apple/Steve Jobs/ and you're right on the money. The original Mac was going to be a failure because nobody wanted locked-up proprietary boxes with no CLI or expansion capabilities (and besides that, the Lisa was an abysmal failure), Mac OS X was going to be a failure because who would want to run NeXT Step on a Mac? The iTunes was expected to be failure because 'everyone' downloads illegal music, why would they pay even 99 cents/song?
Everywhere along the way, Jobs saw ways of adding twists to make it work.
What I envision: an iPhone that not only has a built-in PDA based on either Palm OS or some slimmed-down Mac OS X, and not only has an iPod built into it, but one with a video iPod integrated as well. Oh, and you can add this optional GPS package for $X. Throw in built-in wifi and bluetooth connectivity, and you've got one hot device that people won't be able to keep their hands off of.
If Apple introduces it Monday, remember, you heard it here first!
Nope.
Step 1: Rip DVDs, bring in lots of income
Step 2: Get sued by MPAA/Jack Valenti/Sony Pictures/Disney/somebody.
Step 3: Pay lawyers
Step 4: Get lots and lots of FREE publicity, building public empathy and support.
Step 5: ????
Step 6: Profit!
From what I can see, only one of those blocks are coming down. The other one, price, is still lingering. For about $100 less than what Apple wants for the 15.4" 2 Ghz Core Duo, I can get a comparably Dell Precision M65 Mobile Workstation with the same processor and hard drive, with an 11g wifi card and a 512MB nVidia Quadro FX 350M graphics adapter (an AGP version of this adapter alone costs well over $600) thrown in for free.
Maybe you should read the part about the powers of Judiciary. The Judiciary has no power to pass laws. (Judicial orders are another story, of course).
The problem with rulings like this is that they have a chilling effect on investigative reporting. If you're happy to have reporters cowering in fear of doing any real digging on a story, fine then. But the press is about the only true check we as citizens have on the power of government and if we defang them...well, if you think the Patriot Act is bad, as BTO would say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
And this is exactly what they were thinking of when they wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution:
So what I want to know is this: what part of "no law" did the legislatures not understand?