Because the majority of crash-inducing bugs don't result in security
vulnerabilities, there can be a fair amount of internal debate when
they're discovered during development.
a repeatable tool that takes a look at a crash
Both of the above quotes indicate that the tool does not determine
when a program will crash. It only analysis the crash after a
tester/developer has found a bug that makes the program crash.
This is not the halting problem, but a more ambiguous problem of
weather a specific crash inducing bug is a security risk, or just a
bug.
While the above post may be "Interesting" to some, it is a blatant example of a Tu Quoque Fallacy. Ignoring that the GP did not seek to praise the US government for its actions, the US government's involvement in any software production is not relevant.
Do you seriously think she wouldn't laugh at these jokes, if she were here?
If that is the case, then I am glad she is gone. Those that can't laugh at themselves are the poorest souls, and life in it's wonder is lost on them; death is better.
That is the system I want to see for music. One where I am able to hear an artist's music before I spend money, and then vote with my dollars who I think is the best.
How would the GPL work if there were no copyright on software?
For example, lets say you make a peice of software called TextWriter. I like it, so I take it and modify it, add some stuff and make it incomputable with your version but still use most of the same code and a similar GUI that you developed. I don't give anyone the source code, or anything else but a $100 binary executable. If there is no copyright on the software, you can say you publish it under the GPL all day and I don't have to listen to you, because you have no legal right to control what I do with the software.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Section 3c does not apply because they are selling the machines with the object code on them. Thus the machines must come with either the source code, or a written offer from Dibold to provide the source code. If neither of these are present, then they are in violation of the GPL regardless of weather receivers of the object code (purchasers of the machines) request the source code.
If it came down to a vote, I'm willing to bet most people would like to get rid of the dumb animal names.
Oh yeah? Well then why don't these people solve their own damn problem. Take the Ubuntu releases and repackage them under another distro name! Name it Ultra Serious Linux (USL). Start with USL 9000, and go up in number from there.
Nothing stoping you. Infact, even charge for it, because everyone knows good software is not available for free. Use the same Ubuntu repos if you'd like.
Since you are so keen on voting, you could even let your corporate customers vote on what the name of the next distro should be.
I'm sorry, but anyone arguing in favor of not putting up big warnings when a browser sees a self-signed cert is a dumb-ass. It's that simple.
Encryption without authentication is worthless to anyone who cares about security; if you don't know who you're communicating with, what's the point of encryption? For all you know, they're the very people you're trying to hide from.
I reject your false dichotomy, and suplant my own. Just because the browser doesn't display large warnings everytime a site uses a self-signed cert, doesn't mean that SSL with self signed certs and certs signed by a CA have to be displayed the same. I agree with you that SSL certs signed by a CA are more secure, and provide authentication where self signed certs do not.
However, clearly self signed certs are better, even if only marginally so, than unencrypted HTTP. Current browsers make it seem like self signed certs are less secure than plain HTTP trafic.
we cannot actually demonstrate evolution in a lab environment
We can and have. You can take two groups of bacteria that are grown in a certian enviroment, frezee one group but not the other. Note: frezzing reduces reproduciton rate which would reduce evolution, if it existed. Let the non frozen group live for some number of generations, perhaps 100, on a different environment then they were grown on. Then, let both groups live on the different environment.
The non frozen group will do better (ie will have more bacteria after a arbitrary number of generations)
this has been done.
The fact that this supports evolution is left as an excersise to the reader.
This has probably already been mentioned (didn't read all three pages of comments).
I had the same problem; I decided to go with Fusemail. Their minimum charge is $10 a month, which is quite reasonable, and for that you get 5 mailboxes and 50GB of storage. I think that is a fair deal, but YMMV. You can add on mailboxes if you need to, and they have good uptime as far as I have seen (only been with them for about a year, but no downtime at all yet).
Of course they will register a domain for you for a nominal fee (the usual $10 per year), or will let you buy your domain somewhere else and just point the MX records to their servers.
What non-*nix systems can't you run perl on?
Windows?
I run active perl on several XP machines without problems. I get a command line interface, so I can type perl one liners or I can run perl programs that end in.pl, either from the CL or by double clicking on them.
Mac OS?
I honestly don't know.
However, I am lead to believe that you can.
Perl 5.8 is included in the installation of Mac OS X v10.3 Panther
The most common OSes at this point are: Linux, Windows, and Microsoft.
Are you retarded? Did you mean to say something else?
I won't go into wtf is wrong with that sentence, and no I didn't read the rest of the post after that but I assume it gets better: how could it get worse?
While you didn't use to be able to, you can do most of that with IMAP and a e-mail client.
This is why I like IMAP, because I am not limited to just using a e-mail client or just using webmail. I can check my mail in Thunderbird at my house and on my laptop; check the same e-mail at work in thunderbird; and check the webmail using any other comp I hapen to have access to.
Now, before you send mail you encrypt it with gpg and whatever front end, like gpgShell above, you are (or aren't) using.
Paste the encrypted text into the e-mail, and send
When you get a message from your drug/child porn/illegal software/ect dealer it will look like gibberish
Copy the message, and then decrypt it with your program
The flaw in this is that if the computers you use are compromised, then they could get your key and passphrase. If you had stuff that was that secret, and moved around a lot I would get a laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
He did say
Emphasis mine
Both of the above quotes indicate that the tool does not determine when a program will crash. It only analysis the crash after a tester/developer has found a bug that makes the program crash.
This is not the halting problem, but a more ambiguous problem of weather a specific crash inducing bug is a security risk, or just a bug.
While the above post may be "Interesting" to some, it is a blatant example of a Tu Quoque Fallacy. Ignoring that the GP did not seek to praise the US government for its actions, the US government's involvement in any software production is not relevant.
If they are 'hard to find' why do you say 'It won't be long before we are seeing them.' ?
Yes.
But you wouldn't think everyone would catch on...
We shall honor the dead how we wish.
Perhaps you need to lighten the fuck up.
Lame and rude? Like she cares now.
Do you seriously think she wouldn't laugh at these jokes, if she were here?
If that is the case, then I am glad she is gone. Those that can't laugh at themselves are the poorest souls, and life in it's wonder is lost on them; death is better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ&feature=channel
While the Tivoization is allowed via GPL v2, it has been argued that it was never intended.
This is obviously not the case with the BSD license, and if it was they would have released another BSD license that fixed it.
I humbly suggest Magnatune
True. But commodore64's weren't being sold with "XP Ready" stickers on them before the XP launch either.
How would the GPL work if there were no copyright on software?
For example, lets say you make a peice of software called TextWriter. I like it, so I take it and modify it, add some stuff and make it incomputable with your version but still use most of the same code and a similar GUI that you developed. I don't give anyone the source code, or anything else but a $100 binary executable. If there is no copyright on the software, you can say you publish it under the GPL all day and I don't have to listen to you, because you have no legal right to control what I do with the software.
Section 3c does not apply because they are selling the machines with the object code on them. Thus the machines must come with either the source code, or a written offer from Dibold to provide the source code. If neither of these are present, then they are in violation of the GPL regardless of weather receivers of the object code (purchasers of the machines) request the source code.
I believe you are Affirming the Consequent.
Oh yeah? Well then why don't these people solve their own damn problem. Take the Ubuntu releases and repackage them under another distro name! Name it Ultra Serious Linux (USL). Start with USL 9000, and go up in number from there.
Nothing stoping you. Infact, even charge for it, because everyone knows good software is not available for free. Use the same Ubuntu repos if you'd like.
Since you are so keen on voting, you could even let your corporate customers vote on what the name of the next distro should be.
However, with regards to your previous question:
While i don't know about KDE, but in gnome my dialog box clearly says (emphasis mine)
The full path to the executable. As others have mentioned, UAC in Vista only gives you the file name, ie 'synaptic', not the full path.
I reject your false dichotomy, and suplant my own. Just because the browser doesn't display large warnings everytime a site uses a self-signed cert, doesn't mean that SSL with self signed certs and certs signed by a CA have to be displayed the same. I agree with you that SSL certs signed by a CA are more secure, and provide authentication where self signed certs do not.
However, clearly self signed certs are better, even if only marginally so, than unencrypted HTTP. Current browsers make it seem like self signed certs are less secure than plain HTTP trafic.
We can and have. You can take two groups of bacteria that are grown in a certian enviroment, frezee one group but not the other. Note: frezzing reduces reproduciton rate which would reduce evolution, if it existed. Let the non frozen group live for some number of generations, perhaps 100, on a different environment then they were grown on. Then, let both groups live on the different environment.
The non frozen group will do better (ie will have more bacteria after a arbitrary number of generations)
this has been done.
The fact that this supports evolution is left as an excersise to the reader.
[Citation Needed]
This has probably already been mentioned (didn't read all three pages of comments).
I had the same problem; I decided to go with Fusemail. Their minimum charge is $10 a month, which is quite reasonable, and for that you get 5 mailboxes and 50GB of storage. I think that is a fair deal, but YMMV. You can add on mailboxes if you need to, and they have good uptime as far as I have seen (only been with them for about a year, but no downtime at all yet).
Of course they will register a domain for you for a nominal fee (the usual $10 per year), or will let you buy your domain somewhere else and just point the MX records to their servers.
Personally, I'd argue that you haven't "Studied at Stanford" unless Stanford can issue a transcript with your name & the courses you've taken.
From TFS and TFA:
Each course comprises downloadable video lectures, handouts, assignments, exams, and transcripts.
Emphasis mine. I guess, personally, you could say you've "Studied at Stanford" if you take one of these courses.
Would that I had mod points to award you, good sir.
You are correct. The following are listed as forms of reproduction that are protected and exempt from copyright.
Criticism
Comment
News Reporting
Teaching(including multiple classroom copies)
Scholarship
Research
Ref: Circular92: Copyright Law of the United States and Related laws contained in title 17 of the United States code.
Circular92 Chapter 1 Section 107
I run active perl on several XP machines without problems. I get a command line interface, so I can type perl one liners or I can run perl programs that end in
Mac OS?
I honestly don't know.
However, I am lead to believe that you can. http://developer.apple.com/internet/opensource/perl.html
What other group of systems comprises "Most non-*nix systems"?
NB: I know that MacOS can be considered a *nix system, but I couldn't think of another operating system for comparison.
I won't go into wtf is wrong with that sentence, and no I didn't read the rest of the post after that but I assume it gets better: how could it get worse?
While you didn't use to be able to, you can do most of that with IMAP and a e-mail client.
This is why I like IMAP, because I am not limited to just using a e-mail client or just using webmail. I can check my mail in Thunderbird at my house and on my laptop; check the same e-mail at work in thunderbird; and check the webmail using any other comp I hapen to have access to.
For example, let's say you want to use Yahoo mail:
The flaw in this is that if the computers you use are compromised, then they could get your key and passphrase. If you had stuff that was that secret, and moved around a lot I would get a laptop.