Should this community be related to the Mozilla Foundation and comply, since day one, with the requirements to get a root certificate in Firefox?
I wish I could apply moderator points to articles so I could vote that part of it flamebait.
On day one, there were no requirements to get a root certificate in Mozilla. Mozilla essentially played a "me too" game in the beginning, putting in root certificates fairly willy nilly. It was only when CACert appeared on the scene that Mozilla magically decided on a set of standards. Not right away, of course. No, first they dragged their feet, then admitted it was an issue that needed dealing with, then created a policy and promised CACert would be added. That was three years ago.
Refinement isn't "one upping". Pico is an accomplishment, but it is hardly groundbreaking. The analogy is apt, because while designing a computer using TTL components is something of an accomplishment, it too is hardly groundbreaking.
Someone made a robot half the size of what Sandia made did six years ago. So this person had six years worth of COTS component improvements and six years to refine designs.
I'm impressed. Truly. In high school I built a computer out of TTL chips. Wow, I sure one-upped Eniac.
Sure the product is cool, but this is hardly a one-uppance.
But if everyone blocked ads, how would sites such as ours continue to offer content free of charge?
If everyone who didn't want to see ads blocked them, then the ads that were seen would have more value because they would be seen by people who wanted to see them. Pushing an ad on someone who doesn't want to see it is, what, going to suddenly make that person buy something?
I freely admit I block every ad I can. If I'm going to buy something, I'll actively go looking for it. I resent people telling me that I'm damaging them by not displaying their ads on my PC. Your ads are valueless when displayed on my PC anyway, so why should I expose myself to them? The ad industry has not endeared itself to the internet community. They have only themselves to blame for people wanting to block them.
How dare their web site go down when I need a driver? How dare anyone ever have a problem they don't know how to solve in sufficient time to deal with my selfish and entitled demands? Their tech support exists (solely, I might add) to tell me the bios version I need. So bye bye Asus, I consign you to the ash heap of history while I move along to a company that forces its developers to blog for me, whose support staff reads my every web site comment (including the ones on third party sites), and that spends every last dollar it has on server infrastucture. Of course, I don't particularly care that this company will be out of business in no time, because there are a constant influx of new companies who are willing to lose money for a year and fold.
While that is a tool that is sometimes used to avoid delisting, reverse splits are traditionally punished quite heavily by investors. It's also not a certainty that it would help them, as NASDAQ has rules about doing that to pump up your stock price. There are market capitalization requirements as well as absolute share price requirements. If they reverse split, they will almost certainly lose their already dwindling market cap, if they don't they face delisting from share value.
They have publicly said they have enough cash to last them until this fall. Not exactly a forecast that inspires confidence. Combine that with a reverse split and watch any remaining tatters of credibility they have in any form swirl down the crapper. If even one of those pending summary judgement motions goes against them, that will probably be all it takes to cause what few investors are left to cut and run.
No, I stand by my evaluation. I don't expect them to last more than three months in their current form.
SCO's stock price has been hovering around the 85-90 mark for the last few weeks. I think they only have a week or so left of it being under $1 before they get a delisting warning from NASDAQ.
So ya, they're still hanging in like a set of nasty klingons that resist toilet paper - but while I don't expect the big flush to come tomorrow, I really don't think they have any more than three months left.
The news that Gary McKinnon lost his appeal is newsworthy and Slashdot-worthy. The "Gary McKinnon" link should have been to some place like Wikipedia, though, that has at least a policy of neutrality, and not to the "Free Gary McKinnon" web site, which has zero neutrality.
Ya, the whole day pretty much is. What a waste of time. Maybe later on in the evening the id-10-t errors will stop.
The first April fool's I saw from Slashdot was funny. The second was, oh right, today's April first. I don't know how many it's been now, but it's just tiresome at this point.
He's a war hero - ok, fine. What difference does that make to my point? I don't care if he was Roger Ramjet or Captain America himself, having some campaign flunky set up a myspace account to get in touch with youth is just dumb.
Any politician who thinks he's going to get votes by making a myspace account deserves whatever he gets dished. Reminds me of the clueless professor from Real Genius who thought his students like it when he would "get down, verbally" with them.
"...but with the Conservatives in charge, all bets are off if they can find a way to claim it's about terrorism or child pornography."
Could this be any more of a partisan statement? Please, pass on the information about the bill, pass on who is introducing it, and the history of past attempts at this type of legislation. But please, kindly credit me with enough intelligence to be able to come up with my own opinion on the government in power. Keep the blatantly partisan editorializing out, thank-you kindly.
Where is the win in the situation? Native programs you maintain just the program. VM programs you maintain the program and the VM. The ignorance is people who convince enterprise management that this is a good thing.
I know you're not trying to be funny, but well, you are. While it's true that nothing is stopping someone from making a hardware Java bytecode running solution, the fact that it's possible doesn't make Java a non-interpreted language, any more than the fact that it's theoretically possible to create a hardware BASIC solution makes BASIC a non-interpreted language. Sure, it's possible, but until it's in a significant portion of desktop computers, thinking of it this way is a meaningless mental exercise.
Compiling a language to bytecode and running that in a VM is actually nothing new. Many BASIC interpreters worked that way, one notable one being Commodore's CBM BASIC on the Pet/SuperPet computers. They converted typed input into a sort of bytecode immediately on entering a line. Call this the first JIT compiler.
The move from bytecode to native wasn't a GNU gcj innovation either. Give that accolade to Borland. Back "In The Beginning"(tm), Pascal was a similar solution to Java. It compiled into a bytecode called P-Code. There was even hardware support for running P-Code - commercially, not just in the lab. Texas Instruments shipped a P-Code card for the TI/99 series. Not a lot of people used it, but it was done. It was still pretty obscure, though, and used mostly for education. Then Borland came around with Turbo Pascal and turned Pascal overnight from an educational exercise into something that real programs were made from.
Bytecode might make it theoretically a "compiled" language, but it doesn't make it non-interpreted. If the end result of the "compilation" is run through an interpreter, then it's interpreted. If the end result is run natively, then it's not.
Why the history lesson you might ask? It's to illustrate that Java and JVMs were a step back technologically, just like.NET. Yes, let's make everything into a bytecode-interpreted language just so it can take double (at least) the processing power to do everything and require an extra software layer to maintain on every platform it runs. Welcome to the days of BASIC, my friend. Please set your watch back 15 years.
While this is embarassing for Viacom, the unfortunate (for Google) reality is that if Google bites on this and points it out, it's bad for Google.
Google's big defense right now is the safe harbour provisions in the DMCA. Their legal argument is, they aren't required to put in safeguards so they can't be held liable for not doing so. If they, in some motion brief, go and point out that Viacom isn't safeguarding and how hypocritical that is, then Viacom in their reply can say "Oooops, you know, you're right, we're not, our bad, we're sorry, we'll pay reparations. And now, Google, since you've agreed it's a bad thing we've both done, you can pay reparations to us for your infraction too".
What a waste of beautiful wood. If corporations are going to pay for walnut, use it on the desk or furnishings, not on a piece of equipment with an inherent 2-year lifespan. If you're concerned about PC ugliness, put the thing under the desk and buy some longer cables.
I can't see this selling too much. I can't see anyone who values mahogany, oak, and walnut wasting precious wood like that. There are always a few of the wallpaper-with-money type folks looking for a new way to shock and awe, but I can't see this being anything more than a CEO's office thing.
Let the anti-violence activists do their job! I'll open the door for them, lay down the red carpet, and hold their jackets. I'm sick of cable packages designed to force you into channels I don't want to get channels I do. The days of this being a technical limitation due to the need to use bandpass filters on analog signals are long gone, but their hands picking my pocket aren't.
So let the activitsts have their hay-day and let congress mandate the ability to opt out of cable channels. Anything that gives me more choice in what I have to pay for is good. I am not crying for Comcast, believe me.
It's not so much his activities with SCO per se, but rather his conflict with the Noorda's. His name is mud throughout much of the membership that I know. The shock around Val (Noorda) Kreidel's death hasn't worn off, and I know a lot of people to some or extent or other link that with him.
You have to understand, this is not a bid to clean up the internet, this is a bid to clean up Yarro's reputation. Yarro is a mormon, and his reputation in the church has taken a huge beating with his falling out with the Noorda's and the whole SCO debacle. In Utah, members of the church who are businessmen can expect to have other memebers of the church who are businessmen not want to do business with them if they have a tarnished reputation. So... he is engaging in some very high profile activities to try and look as if he is championing moral behavior. He doesn't give a crap whether this actually passes or not, the whole point is just to make noise. In fact, he doesn't even have to have anyone even believe him. Just as long as there is enough "morality" noise that a person who would prospectively do business with him can point to to say "see... I'm not selling out in doing business with him", then he can still access his business network.
ISO seems to be more efficient at ramrodding through standards we don't want (OOXML) rather than getting out the ones we are desperately waiting for.:p
I was using Vista Pro over 10 years ago to do flyovers on Mars. I made some great movies flying over and around Olympus Mons. The images that it generated with simple texturing and DEM formatted landscape data was almost as good (considering resolution differences) as what I see there. I am singularly unimpressed with what they have now. Better yet, with a few changes in rendering rules, I could "terraform" Mars and see what Olympus Mons would look like with water and a treeline. I may see if I can dig out my old DOS copy of Vista Pro and play with it again.
If you say nothing that is unlawful (defamatory, treasonous, etc), there is no law that says that you have to identify yourself. If someone else wants to try and indentify you, though, that person is free to do so as long as no law is broken. Pretexting, for example, as a method for obtianing identifying information is ilegal in many states (and I agree it should be).
If you go through an effective anonymizing network, like Tor for example, for your communication; if your speech is not unlawful, if you tell no one else, and if your style of writing is bland enough that it cannot be linked definitively to you, then there is probably very little anyone can do to identify you. If, however, you use an internet cafe and someone observes you, they are free to share what they observed with anyone.
As long as no laws are broken on either side, the rights of the observer are just as strong as the rights of the observed. You can try to remain anonymous, and other people can try to reveal you. In that case, I don't cry either way. Bloggers should not be forced to identify themselves, but someone who outs a blogger should not incur some sort of hue and cry of protest either. Freedom cuts both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could apply moderator points to articles so I could vote that part of it flamebait.
On day one, there were no requirements to get a root certificate in Mozilla. Mozilla essentially played a "me too" game in the beginning, putting in root certificates fairly willy nilly. It was only when CACert appeared on the scene that Mozilla magically decided on a set of standards. Not right away, of course. No, first they dragged their feet, then admitted it was an issue that needed dealing with, then created a policy and promised CACert would be added. That was three years ago.
I suggest the buzilla report on this issue as interesting reading. Speficially Frank Hecker's post is illuminating.
No one could have worked harder with the Mozilla foundation than CACert.
Refinement isn't "one upping". Pico is an accomplishment, but it is hardly groundbreaking. The analogy is apt, because while designing a computer using TTL components is something of an accomplishment, it too is hardly groundbreaking.
Someone made a robot half the size of what Sandia made did six years ago. So this person had six years worth of COTS component improvements and six years to refine designs.
I'm impressed. Truly. In high school I built a computer out of TTL chips. Wow, I sure one-upped Eniac.
Sure the product is cool, but this is hardly a one-uppance.
I freely admit I block every ad I can. If I'm going to buy something, I'll actively go looking for it. I resent people telling me that I'm damaging them by not displaying their ads on my PC. Your ads are valueless when displayed on my PC anyway, so why should I expose myself to them? The ad industry has not endeared itself to the internet community. They have only themselves to blame for people wanting to block them.
How dare their web site go down when I need a driver? How dare anyone ever have a problem they don't know how to solve in sufficient time to deal with my selfish and entitled demands? Their tech support exists (solely, I might add) to tell me the bios version I need. So bye bye Asus, I consign you to the ash heap of history while I move along to a company that forces its developers to blog for me, whose support staff reads my every web site comment (including the ones on third party sites), and that spends every last dollar it has on server infrastucture. Of course, I don't particularly care that this company will be out of business in no time, because there are a constant influx of new companies who are willing to lose money for a year and fold.
And to top it all off... BAH HUMBUG!
While that is a tool that is sometimes used to avoid delisting, reverse splits are traditionally punished quite heavily by investors. It's also not a certainty that it would help them, as NASDAQ has rules about doing that to pump up your stock price. There are market capitalization requirements as well as absolute share price requirements. If they reverse split, they will almost certainly lose their already dwindling market cap, if they don't they face delisting from share value.
They have publicly said they have enough cash to last them until this fall. Not exactly a forecast that inspires confidence. Combine that with a reverse split and watch any remaining tatters of credibility they have in any form swirl down the crapper. If even one of those pending summary judgement motions goes against them, that will probably be all it takes to cause what few investors are left to cut and run.
No, I stand by my evaluation. I don't expect them to last more than three months in their current form.
SCO's stock price has been hovering around the 85-90 mark for the last few weeks. I think they only have a week or so left of it being under $1 before they get a delisting warning from NASDAQ.
So ya, they're still hanging in like a set of nasty klingons that resist toilet paper - but while I don't expect the big flush to come tomorrow, I really don't think they have any more than three months left.
The news that Gary McKinnon lost his appeal is newsworthy and Slashdot-worthy. The "Gary McKinnon" link should have been to some place like Wikipedia, though, that has at least a policy of neutrality, and not to the "Free Gary McKinnon" web site, which has zero neutrality.
Ya, the whole day pretty much is. What a waste of time. Maybe later on in the evening the id-10-t errors will stop.
The first April fool's I saw from Slashdot was funny. The second was, oh right, today's April first. I don't know how many it's been now, but it's just tiresome at this point.
He's a war hero - ok, fine. What difference does that make to my point? I don't care if he was Roger Ramjet or Captain America himself, having some campaign flunky set up a myspace account to get in touch with youth is just dumb.
Any politician who thinks he's going to get votes by making a myspace account deserves whatever he gets dished. Reminds me of the clueless professor from Real Genius who thought his students like it when he would "get down, verbally" with them.
Ya.
Where is the win in the situation? Native programs you maintain just the program. VM programs you maintain the program and the VM. The ignorance is people who convince enterprise management that this is a good thing.
I know you're not trying to be funny, but well, you are. While it's true that nothing is stopping someone from making a hardware Java bytecode running solution, the fact that it's possible doesn't make Java a non-interpreted language, any more than the fact that it's theoretically possible to create a hardware BASIC solution makes BASIC a non-interpreted language. Sure, it's possible, but until it's in a significant portion of desktop computers, thinking of it this way is a meaningless mental exercise.
.NET. Yes, let's make everything into a bytecode-interpreted language just so it can take double (at least) the processing power to do everything and require an extra software layer to maintain on every platform it runs. Welcome to the days of BASIC, my friend. Please set your watch back 15 years.
Compiling a language to bytecode and running that in a VM is actually nothing new. Many BASIC interpreters worked that way, one notable one being Commodore's CBM BASIC on the Pet/SuperPet computers. They converted typed input into a sort of bytecode immediately on entering a line. Call this the first JIT compiler.
The move from bytecode to native wasn't a GNU gcj innovation either. Give that accolade to Borland. Back "In The Beginning"(tm), Pascal was a similar solution to Java. It compiled into a bytecode called P-Code. There was even hardware support for running P-Code - commercially, not just in the lab. Texas Instruments shipped a P-Code card for the TI/99 series. Not a lot of people used it, but it was done. It was still pretty obscure, though, and used mostly for education. Then Borland came around with Turbo Pascal and turned Pascal overnight from an educational exercise into something that real programs were made from.
Bytecode might make it theoretically a "compiled" language, but it doesn't make it non-interpreted. If the end result of the "compilation" is run through an interpreter, then it's interpreted. If the end result is run natively, then it's not.
Why the history lesson you might ask? It's to illustrate that Java and JVMs were a step back technologically, just like
An interpreted language being used to write an opcode interpreter.
For an encore, perhaps they can write a JVM in BASIC.
WARNING: Performance implosion imminent due to recursive interpretation.
While this is embarassing for Viacom, the unfortunate (for Google) reality is that if Google bites on this and points it out, it's bad for Google.
Google's big defense right now is the safe harbour provisions in the DMCA. Their legal argument is, they aren't required to put in safeguards so they can't be held liable for not doing so. If they, in some motion brief, go and point out that Viacom isn't safeguarding and how hypocritical that is, then Viacom in their reply can say "Oooops, you know, you're right, we're not, our bad, we're sorry, we'll pay reparations. And now, Google, since you've agreed it's a bad thing we've both done, you can pay reparations to us for your infraction too".
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
I see, the external cables are shielded. Tha makes a lot of sense. Because, after all, there's way more EMI outside of my computer case than inside.
What a waste of beautiful wood. If corporations are going to pay for walnut, use it on the desk or furnishings, not on a piece of equipment with an inherent 2-year lifespan. If you're concerned about PC ugliness, put the thing under the desk and buy some longer cables.
I can't see this selling too much. I can't see anyone who values mahogany, oak, and walnut wasting precious wood like that. There are always a few of the wallpaper-with-money type folks looking for a new way to shock and awe, but I can't see this being anything more than a CEO's office thing.
Let the anti-violence activists do their job! I'll open the door for them, lay down the red carpet, and hold their jackets. I'm sick of cable packages designed to force you into channels I don't want to get channels I do. The days of this being a technical limitation due to the need to use bandpass filters on analog signals are long gone, but their hands picking my pocket aren't.
So let the activitsts have their hay-day and let congress mandate the ability to opt out of cable channels. Anything that gives me more choice in what I have to pay for is good. I am not crying for Comcast, believe me.
It's not so much his activities with SCO per se, but rather his conflict with the Noorda's. His name is mud throughout much of the membership that I know. The shock around Val (Noorda) Kreidel's death hasn't worn off, and I know a lot of people to some or extent or other link that with him.
You have to understand, this is not a bid to clean up the internet, this is a bid to clean up Yarro's reputation. Yarro is a mormon, and his reputation in the church has taken a huge beating with his falling out with the Noorda's and the whole SCO debacle. In Utah, members of the church who are businessmen can expect to have other memebers of the church who are businessmen not want to do business with them if they have a tarnished reputation. So... he is engaging in some very high profile activities to try and look as if he is championing moral behavior. He doesn't give a crap whether this actually passes or not, the whole point is just to make noise. In fact, he doesn't even have to have anyone even believe him. Just as long as there is enough "morality" noise that a person who would prospectively do business with him can point to to say "see... I'm not selling out in doing business with him", then he can still access his business network.
ISO seems to be more efficient at ramrodding through standards we don't want (OOXML) rather than getting out the ones we are desperately waiting for. :p
I was using Vista Pro over 10 years ago to do flyovers on Mars. I made some great movies flying over and around Olympus Mons. The images that it generated with simple texturing and DEM formatted landscape data was almost as good (considering resolution differences) as what I see there. I am singularly unimpressed with what they have now. Better yet, with a few changes in rendering rules, I could "terraform" Mars and see what Olympus Mons would look like with water and a treeline. I may see if I can dig out my old DOS copy of Vista Pro and play with it again.
If you say nothing that is unlawful (defamatory, treasonous, etc), there is no law that says that you have to identify yourself. If someone else wants to try and indentify you, though, that person is free to do so as long as no law is broken. Pretexting, for example, as a method for obtianing identifying information is ilegal in many states (and I agree it should be). If you go through an effective anonymizing network, like Tor for example, for your communication; if your speech is not unlawful, if you tell no one else, and if your style of writing is bland enough that it cannot be linked definitively to you, then there is probably very little anyone can do to identify you. If, however, you use an internet cafe and someone observes you, they are free to share what they observed with anyone. As long as no laws are broken on either side, the rights of the observer are just as strong as the rights of the observed. You can try to remain anonymous, and other people can try to reveal you. In that case, I don't cry either way. Bloggers should not be forced to identify themselves, but someone who outs a blogger should not incur some sort of hue and cry of protest either. Freedom cuts both ways.