And if Rich Mogull is arrogant enough to believe he doesn't need it, then he shouldn't be calling himself a security expert
I've never used antivirus on windows; nor have I ever gotten a virus on windows, so I feel like I'm justified in arriving at the conclusion that I don't need it. Antivirus software seems (anecdotally, anyway) only necessary if your computer engages in risky and promiscuous, uh, behavior. Or if you buy digital picture frames.
Yep, Windows has security holes (but then so has OS X) but the greater issue is that Windows own levels of high compatibility going right from DOS up to Vista means that a well-written virus will probably be able to run on just about any PC.
I have always been under the impression that OSX uses a fundamentally different (unix-style) security model that is inherently more secure, and that this will have more of an impact than any sort of after-the-fact antivirus software or defender programs.
It seems like the significant thing here is that Sequoia can threaten to sue and not get laughed out of town. That the case has no merit should be patently obvious to any observer, legally competent or not. The real issue is, how did things get so fucked up that companies feel entitled to operating in such secrecy?
It's actually pretty simple to "learn" a language if you understand the basic grammar patterns of a language.
No, it's not. It's fairly easy to learn a small set of grammatical rules that are similar to your native language, or a set of incredibly simple grammatical rules.
Give anybody a massaged data set from a concatenative language and they'll figure out the morphology pretty quick - but be absolutely unable to manipulate it in any meaningful or naturalistic way until they have hundreds of hours of experience with actual instances of language use. Additionally, the basic grammar patterns of a language are rarely (read:never) very regular, let alone perfectly regular. Small irregularities can make for big differences. There's simply too much in languages that's in the lexicon for anyone to be able to "learn" a language in two hours.
Women or anyone who might be targets of stalkers should especially take great offence to this. Why? Well, some asshole/creeper could follow a mark to their car, then note the license plate. Then the creeper can proceed to obtain more information by following the person and getting their address. Next, rummage any accessible mailbox or driveway mail or deliveries and note th presumed name.
Yeah, but it seems like this is the sort of thing that won't be influenced by somebody hearing your last name in a store. I mean, if they're going through your trash, they're probably going to find some piece of mail with your last name on it.
Safeway could someday become "Dangerway".
Really?
So, now, i use a valid Safeway card with a borked name, and I ONLY use cash so as to not commingle my real and shopper names.
Yeah, but one of the things that baffled the TSA people was the absence of a platter-based hard drive. When's the last time you travelled around with a laptop that had an SSD? I'm sure "weird" is a very different looking thing for visible light and x-rays.
I do believe that WE are providing the majority of content for Slashdot.
Seriously. I've been waiting for a check for like, five years now. All of those adblocking slashdot readers must be interfering with my revenue stream.
I use adblock, too, and in the time before I did, I *never* clicked on an online ad. Not once. Nor can I imagine a situation in which I would. ever. So why shouldn't I adblock not only slashdot, but every website?
* The horribly slow and ugly process of switching from the Windows desktop to full screen. First the screen flickers. Then the screen turns black. Then the desktop shows up for a second, "magnified" (because the resolution is lower). Then more blackness. Finally, the game shows up. Hard disk grinding throughout this time. Reverse this process when the game is over.
Man, I hated that. How hard could it be to make my computer not do that? Seriously.
Astrology isn't meant to be about science. It's not a way for generating empirically testable falsifiable claims about the world. It's a way of organizing a confusing and uncertain existence in ways that science simply can't. It's not exactly spiritualism, but it's not exactly not spiritualism.
If the person you're thinking about dating believes that Astrology is scientific, then she either misunderstands science or has such a need for certainty that probably arises from some sort of deeper psychological issues. Or is just a ditz. If she doesn't think Astrology is supposed to be scientific, then what's the problem? Everyone has their own personal mythologies. Maybe you think science can explain *everything* - which would be a personal mythology. How is that bad?
I'd hate for them to be the kind of thoughtless shitbags I see posting here about how everyone but them is a "big stupid idiot" for not believing exactly what you're told to, especially when what I was told about evolution 20 years ago is different than now.
Of course it was. That's how science works; it evolves. That doesn't mean what you were originally told was wrong, it was just less right than what we know now.
I'd hope they realize that at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if the lady in the office next to me believes God made the universe 6000 years ago, or if some other guy thinks it just popped out of nothing 2.53 billion years ago - both "calculations" are based on a ridiculously small data sample, and both are completely worthless, and almost guaranteed to be wrong.
Not quite: One is based on absolutely no objective explanation and one is based on a relatively small but existent data set. It's perfectly valid to question the faith in the scientific method as the ultimate measure of knowledge, but you can't hold religious belief up to standards of scientific knowledge and call it equal, because they simply operate in separate spheres.
There are very few vocal ID supporters. There are legions of evolution jackasses wasting time preaching to the choir, and generally annoying everybody
Clearly, you've never been a student at a certain large (mid)(south)western university. There are incredibly vocal ID supporters everywhere here.
Yeah, when I used to work in cash control, we'd have to count every stack of money twice - once by hand and once per machine. If the counts didn't match, we did another hand count. It seems silly that there's no sort of double-checking built in to a system that's the blood and marrow of our democracy, where companies require double and triple checks on things that are done every day.
I've got a 14" gateway tablet, and the screen is covered by a pane of glass. You'd only need a flexible layer on top if you had a *passive* touchscreen. AFAIK, both Wacom and Finepoint make active touchscreens, so the whole glass thing seems to be a moot point anyway. (The Gateway uses a finepoint touchscreen, not Wacom, because - surprise, surprise, they're way cheaper.)
Actually, you've got it backwards. Operant and respondant conditioning are vacuous concepts that are at least 60 or 70 years old. They're lacking in explanatory power and have been shown false by almost every study of the processes of language learning ever. In fact, the method of teaching a foreign language based on good ol' BF Skinner's ideas about "learning" was the most spectacular failure that teaching has ever seen.
I think sharp is a concept that really only applies to things on a macro-scale... even if dust is made out of diamonds, it's still not sharp.
human translation of the german article
on
XFree86 Alters License
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Here is a human-translated version of the german article:
The upcoming version of XFree86 is, due to a change in the licensing agreement, incompatible with the well-known GPL, and linking GPL applications with XFree86 will present itself as "problematic."
The troubles in the XFree-86 camp have just died down, but a further problem is beating at the gates. As David Dawes from the XFree-86 Project shared, the XFree-86 Project is changing its license to a new version 1.1. A change in the license does not, in principle, present a reason for causing problems, restrictive licensces have become more liberal in the past. The situation is, however, this time more problematic - the XFree86 license is getting more restrictive.
The license can still be seen as very liberal - all programs under the "XFree86 License 1.1" can be used, published, and advertised without the publication of the source code. A new addition, however, is a clause which states that every distribution and every product that contain XFree86 must affix a remark, either in the documentation or in the application ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). This is problematic, as the Free Software Foundation has remarked in another case.
The organization has classified the first version of the BSD license as not GPL-compatible in the past, and expressed doubts reguarding the linking of GPL and BST applications. The famous "BSD Advertising Clause" doesn't make the license non-free, but causes ither problems, including an incompatability with the GNU GPL, and for that reason the foundation [GNU] has asked the Free Software Foundation in the past to use the XFree86 license, because it is largely compatible with the BSD license and does not include the feared advertising clause. And with that may be the end, because assigning the BSD-clause as "GPL incompatible" makes the new XFree86 License for GPL applications automatically problematic.
The resolts of the earlier BSD License's declaration could have far-reaching effects for the distributors as well as for other manufacturers. GPL applications are allowed to be linked to a GPL incompatible library, with the need for a remark in the source code - a condition that will be met by very few applications. When the remark is not present, the linking is not allowed.
If XFree86 doesn't change its license, and the Free Software Foundation doesn't change its declaration, then the latest version of XFree86 will also be the last release rolled out by the distributors, because it is questionable whether distributors will get involved with a "problematic" use of the software. When the license is not changed, the options will be either freedesktop.org, Xouvert, or a new fork. Developers could be not entirely dissatisfied. As Pro-Linux from KDE-developer circles experienced, the developers are also not entirely satisfied with XFree86 and are still thinking about changing to freedesktop.org (thanks to rene.)
Slashdot Mirror
I've never used antivirus on windows; nor have I ever gotten a virus on windows, so I feel like I'm justified in arriving at the conclusion that I don't need it. Antivirus software seems (anecdotally, anyway) only necessary if your computer engages in risky and promiscuous, uh, behavior. Or if you buy digital picture frames.
I have always been under the impression that OSX uses a fundamentally different (unix-style) security model that is inherently more secure, and that this will have more of an impact than any sort of after-the-fact antivirus software or defender programs.
It seems like the significant thing here is that Sequoia can threaten to sue and not get laughed out of town. That the case has no merit should be patently obvious to any observer, legally competent or not. The real issue is, how did things get so fucked up that companies feel entitled to operating in such secrecy?
No, it's not. It's fairly easy to learn a small set of grammatical rules that are similar to your native language, or a set of incredibly simple grammatical rules.
Give anybody a massaged data set from a concatenative language and they'll figure out the morphology pretty quick - but be absolutely unable to manipulate it in any meaningful or naturalistic way until they have hundreds of hours of experience with actual instances of language use. Additionally, the basic grammar patterns of a language are rarely (read:never) very regular, let alone perfectly regular. Small irregularities can make for big differences. There's simply too much in languages that's in the lexicon for anyone to be able to "learn" a language in two hours.
Unless you're Kenneth Hale. Which none of us are.
Man, I do not want to know what product they were advertising.
I'd love to see my name on an ad during the superbowl.
Yeah, but it seems like this is the sort of thing that won't be influenced by somebody hearing your last name in a store. I mean, if they're going through your trash, they're probably going to find some piece of mail with your last name on it.
Really?
Really?
Yeah, but one of the things that baffled the TSA people was the absence of a platter-based hard drive. When's the last time you travelled around with a laptop that had an SSD? I'm sure "weird" is a very different looking thing for visible light and x-rays.
touche.
Many games don't support widescreen resolutions, so this is oftentimes not an option.
It seems odd that spammers will need to start using more complicated techniques, as it doesn't seem like people are getting any smarter.
Seriously. I've been waiting for a check for like, five years now. All of those adblocking slashdot readers must be interfering with my revenue stream.
Fair enough. Let's assume it's a female scientist and her ditzy boyfriend. Does this substantially change the discussion?
And science has roots in alchemy. Roots don't always tell you very much about the current state of the subject of discussion.
I use adblock, too, and in the time before I did, I *never* clicked on an online ad. Not once. Nor can I imagine a situation in which I would. ever. So why shouldn't I adblock not only slashdot, but every website?
Man, I hated that. How hard could it be to make my computer not do that? Seriously.
Astrology isn't meant to be about science. It's not a way for generating empirically testable falsifiable claims about the world. It's a way of organizing a confusing and uncertain existence in ways that science simply can't. It's not exactly spiritualism, but it's not exactly not spiritualism.
If the person you're thinking about dating believes that Astrology is scientific, then she either misunderstands science or has such a need for certainty that probably arises from some sort of deeper psychological issues. Or is just a ditz. If she doesn't think Astrology is supposed to be scientific, then what's the problem? Everyone has their own personal mythologies. Maybe you think science can explain *everything* - which would be a personal mythology. How is that bad?
Of course, more sophisticated ID supporters like to explain this away by making a distinction between micro- and macroevolution.
Do you really think it's that simple?
Of course it was. That's how science works; it evolves. That doesn't mean what you were originally told was wrong, it was just less right than what we know now.
Not quite: One is based on absolutely no objective explanation and one is based on a relatively small but existent data set. It's perfectly valid to question the faith in the scientific method as the ultimate measure of knowledge, but you can't hold religious belief up to standards of scientific knowledge and call it equal, because they simply operate in separate spheres.
Clearly, you've never been a student at a certain large (mid)(south)western university. There are incredibly vocal ID supporters everywhere here.
Not only an astronaut, but the ISS science officer. But I'm sure that a bunch of armchair specialists know way more than he does.
Yeah, when I used to work in cash control, we'd have to count every stack of money twice - once by hand and once per machine. If the counts didn't match, we did another hand count. It seems silly that there's no sort of double-checking built in to a system that's the blood and marrow of our democracy, where companies require double and triple checks on things that are done every day.
I'd like to continue this thread by vigorously affirming that the plural of anecdote is data.
I've got a 14" gateway tablet, and the screen is covered by a pane of glass. You'd only need a flexible layer on top if you had a *passive* touchscreen. AFAIK, both Wacom and Finepoint make active touchscreens, so the whole glass thing seems to be a moot point anyway. (The Gateway uses a finepoint touchscreen, not Wacom, because - surprise, surprise, they're way cheaper.)
Actually, you've got it backwards. Operant and respondant conditioning are vacuous concepts that are at least 60 or 70 years old. They're lacking in explanatory power and have been shown false by almost every study of the processes of language learning ever. In fact, the method of teaching a foreign language based on good ol' BF Skinner's ideas about "learning" was the most spectacular failure that teaching has ever seen.
I think sharp is a concept that really only applies to things on a macro-scale... even if dust is made out of diamonds, it's still not sharp.
Here is a human-translated version of the german article:
The upcoming version of XFree86 is, due to a change in the licensing agreement, incompatible with the well-known GPL, and linking GPL applications with XFree86 will present itself as "problematic."
The troubles in the XFree-86 camp have just died down, but a further problem is beating at the gates. As David Dawes from the XFree-86 Project shared, the XFree-86 Project is changing its license to a new version 1.1. A change in the license does not, in principle, present a reason for causing problems, restrictive licensces have become more liberal in the past. The situation is, however, this time more problematic - the XFree86 license is getting more restrictive.
The license can still be seen as very liberal - all programs under the "XFree86 License 1.1" can be used, published, and advertised without the publication of the source code. A new addition, however, is a clause which states that every distribution and every product that contain XFree86 must affix a remark, either in the documentation or in the application ("This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors"). This is problematic, as the Free Software Foundation has remarked in another case.
The organization has classified the first version of the BSD license as not GPL-compatible in the past, and expressed doubts reguarding the linking of GPL and BST applications. The famous "BSD Advertising Clause" doesn't make the license non-free, but causes ither problems, including an incompatability with the GNU GPL, and for that reason the foundation [GNU] has asked the Free Software Foundation in the past to use the XFree86 license, because it is largely compatible with the BSD license and does not include the feared advertising clause. And with that may be the end, because assigning the BSD-clause as "GPL incompatible" makes the new XFree86 License for GPL applications automatically problematic.
The resolts of the earlier BSD License's declaration could have far-reaching effects for the distributors as well as for other manufacturers. GPL applications are allowed to be linked to a GPL incompatible library, with the need for a remark in the source code - a condition that will be met by very few applications. When the remark is not present, the linking is not allowed.
If XFree86 doesn't change its license, and the Free Software Foundation doesn't change its declaration, then the latest version of XFree86 will also be the last release rolled out by the distributors, because it is questionable whether distributors will get involved with a "problematic" use of the software. When the license is not changed, the options will be either freedesktop.org, Xouvert, or a new fork. Developers could be not entirely dissatisfied. As Pro-Linux from KDE-developer circles experienced, the developers are also not entirely satisfied with XFree86 and are still thinking about changing to freedesktop.org (thanks to rene.)