Don't worry, he meant "on the keyboard". You know, the key with a windows logo on which you put a Beastie sticker to proudly display your loyalty to all things BSD to anyone who cares to look (except girls. Don't show the BSD sticker to girls. Unless you want to be Just Friends).
Could it just be that Apple is extorting the masses for something that is of little or no true value?
What is "true value"? I don't think such a thing exists---the closest thing is, essentially, a very popular value.
We all value human life (our own the most, then our relatives, then our friends, acquaintances, compatriots etc., then any human being). Does that make it a true value? Lions don't value human life, and we're probably nutritious to them. The universe doesn't have a mind (AFAIK), so it doesn't think anything about "us pathetic humans";-) Hostile aliens coming to our world wouldn't value human life. Who are we to say they are wrong? We're free to disagree, but that doesn't by itself make them wrong.
Maybe $2 for a funny little game that lasts for half an hour isn't something that many people value greatly, but some people value it at more than $2 (or they wouldn't buy it, according to economic theory and a rationality assumption). Who are you to say they're wrong?
(I probably share your views on the worth of most phone applications. I don't recall purchasing any myself. But if they make other silly people happy...)
"You missed the "in my opinion" line in your reply." [and others]
Heh... I half expected to see Ulrich Drepper's name in the bug discussion (famous for his glibc controversy regarding support for those fishy "Carp Architectures").
"The warranty for this faith does not apply in the event of damage by power surge, misuse, abuse, negligence, accident, acts of god, wear and tear, mishandling, misapplication, intrusion of or exposure to liquids, or other causes unrelated to defective materials or workmanship"
The vulnerability that the patch fixes is often disclosed along with the patch. So by the time the vulnerability becomes public, the script kiddies are likely already exploiting the vulnerability against targets with their own patch schedules.
Delaying the patch really doesn't help against independently discovered vulns. People might be already exploiting it.
[...] 1709. At that point in time, copyright wasn't considered an economic engine, the way that patents were.
Of course. Back then everybody had a production economy. Now some have an entertainment economy. Or at least, the entertainment bosses know the politicians' phone numbers and meet them in the golf clubs.
America built its textile industry, and indeed its prominence in the Industrial Revolution, only by flagrantly violating the patents of established European countries
I think "violating" is the wrong word to use there. English patent law [after US gained sovereignty] can only cover what English people do and what people do in England.
The words "used ideas patented elsewhere" might be more accurate.
It's just like the pirate bay: Swedish law says what they were doing was perfectly legal. That's why the guys were so ready to dismiss all the legal threats (especially those based on the DMCA).
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software [...] The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software [...] The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
If they truly Open Source it, then in fact it does mean they allow you to modify, redistribute and use it for whatever you want.
(and people complain that "free software" is easy to misunderstand...)
Not having read anything about the case, and I know it can't happen, but just based on how ethical the slashdot comments make AT&T and Verizon appear to be...
It wouldn't interoperate with implementations that chose TCP sequence numbers in the upper half of the 32-bit address space. BSD itself didn't do this until it had been up for 2^31 seconds
If we have a BSD box talking to a Windows box that's using high sequence numbers, we run into problems. If Windows boxes always use sequence numbers in the upper half, the bug manifests 0 seconds after talking to a Windows box.
What works for 68 years is BSD talking to BSD.
May you have lots of fun making the internet work under those conditions;-)
Whenever I have the time and attention answering or making a phone call requires, I also have my hands available, or I can make them available in a few seconds.
Well, I'd think that whenever you update the list, you'd make the user enter a password which you'd then run through a PBKDF to generate a signing key for a signature system (having already stored the validation key). Whenever you access the validation key, have the user input the password again (so you can re-make the signing key and check that the validation key is in fact the one the user doesn't know he wants it to be).
[oh, and if you can't compute the validation key]
Change the list, sign it, store the signature, then promptly forget the signing key.
Note how the parent said "a secure list [...]"?
If your response is "but the attacker can peep at your memory when you generate the signing key", then my response is "if he can do that, he has already pwnt you. Nuke from orbit, try again."
Slashdot Mirror
"click"!? In *BSD!?
Don't worry, he meant "on the keyboard". You know, the key with a windows logo on which you put a Beastie sticker to proudly display your loyalty to all things BSD to anyone who cares to look (except girls. Don't show the BSD sticker to girls. Unless you want to be Just Friends).
Sofa King Awesome
Is there anything at all awesome about the Sofa King, Tom Cruise? :|
things can be passed from one function to another without naming them.
Isn't that a rather point-less feature? ;-)
But that doesn't mean the monopoly telecoms won't play make-believe
You mean the telcos will lie? I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
what I want is a linux that boots fast
Ubuntu resumes out of suspend really fast.
Depending on what you do, this may or may not be good enough.
What he said.
Except with black holes! And hookers! In fact, forget about the collisions...
Q: What's it similar to?
It is a strange day on /. when tubgirl is on topic...
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)lail
I'm thinking +5 Epic Flail.
Fortunately, the educated still refer to it as petitio principii
For someone as educated as yourself, you seem to have a lot of trouble spelling "arrogant" ;-)
More generally, I thought the lesson the original iPod taught us was that specialized devices tend to do a much better job than multi-function devices
Posted from your SlashTop, I imagine?
I got really excited until I realised that this wasn't for the DEC Alpha processor.
Good news everyone! If you have a CPU, you can run debian on it.
From the list of supported architectures:
The difference between Linus and Obama is that Linus is a benevolent dictator for life! ;-)
Could it just be that Apple is extorting the masses for something that is of little or no true value?
What is "true value"? I don't think such a thing exists---the closest thing is, essentially, a very popular value.
We all value human life (our own the most, then our relatives, then our friends, acquaintances, compatriots etc., then any human being). Does that make it a true value? Lions don't value human life, and we're probably nutritious to them. The universe doesn't have a mind (AFAIK), so it doesn't think anything about "us pathetic humans" ;-) Hostile aliens coming to our world wouldn't value human life. Who are we to say they are wrong? We're free to disagree, but that doesn't by itself make them wrong.
Maybe $2 for a funny little game that lasts for half an hour isn't something that many people value greatly, but some people value it at more than $2 (or they wouldn't buy it, according to economic theory and a rationality assumption). Who are you to say they're wrong?
(I probably share your views on the worth of most phone applications. I don't recall purchasing any myself. But if they make other silly people happy...)
"You missed the "in my opinion" line in your reply." [and others]
Heh... I half expected to see Ulrich Drepper's name in the bug discussion (famous for his glibc controversy regarding support for those fishy "Carp Architectures").
None of that real trolling then, I see ;-)
"The warranty for this faith does not apply in the event of damage by power surge, misuse, abuse, negligence, accident, acts of god, wear and tear, mishandling, misapplication, intrusion of or exposure to liquids, or other causes unrelated to defective materials or workmanship"
The vulnerability that the patch fixes is often disclosed along with the patch. So by the time the vulnerability becomes public, the script kiddies are likely already exploiting the vulnerability against targets with their own patch schedules.
Delaying the patch really doesn't help against independently discovered vulns. People might be already exploiting it.
[...] 1709. At that point in time, copyright wasn't considered an economic engine, the way that patents were.
Of course. Back then everybody had a production economy. Now some have an entertainment economy. Or at least, the entertainment bosses know the politicians' phone numbers and meet them in the golf clubs.
America built its textile industry, and indeed its prominence in the Industrial Revolution, only by flagrantly violating the patents of established European countries
I think "violating" is the wrong word to use there. English patent law [after US gained sovereignty] can only cover what English people do and what people do in England.
The words "used ideas patented elsewhere" might be more accurate.
It's just like the pirate bay: Swedish law says what they were doing was perfectly legal. That's why the guys were so ready to dismiss all the legal threats (especially those based on the DMCA).
And now those responsible for locking the door from the outside have been locked in the basement after they went and checked the smell...
Just because they open source it doesn't mean they don't prohibit you from modifying, distributing, or otherwise using it as you wish.
Allow me to quote the Open Source Definition (from http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software [...] The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software [...] The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
If they truly Open Source it, then in fact it does mean they allow you to modify, redistribute and use it for whatever you want.
(and people complain that "free software" is easy to misunderstand...)
Not having read anything about the case, and I know it can't happen, but just based on how ethical the slashdot comments make AT&T and Verizon appear to be...
Ahem.
I hope they both lose.
I quote your parent:
It wouldn't interoperate with implementations that chose TCP sequence numbers in the upper half of the 32-bit address space. BSD itself didn't do this until it had been up for 2^31 seconds
If we have a BSD box talking to a Windows box that's using high sequence numbers, we run into problems. If Windows boxes always use sequence numbers in the upper half, the bug manifests 0 seconds after talking to a Windows box.
What works for 68 years is BSD talking to BSD.
May you have lots of fun making the internet work under those conditions ;-)
Can't hands-free voice dial [...]
This one I have never understood.
Whenever I have the time and attention answering or making a phone call requires, I also have my hands available, or I can make them available in a few seconds.
So why is this an important feature?
So, with a brute force attack, I've only got 36,030,233,524,592,808,479,552,335 years before they will reach mine!
If that figure is accurate and (very) precise, I can actually go and compute what your password is ;-)
Well, I'd think that whenever you update the list, you'd make the user enter a password which you'd then run through a PBKDF to generate a signing key for a signature system (having already stored the validation key). Whenever you access the validation key, have the user input the password again (so you can re-make the signing key and check that the validation key is in fact the one the user doesn't know he wants it to be).
[oh, and if you can't compute the validation key]
Change the list, sign it, store the signature, then promptly forget the signing key.
Note how the parent said "a secure list [...]"?
If your response is "but the attacker can peep at your memory when you generate the signing key", then my response is "if he can do that, he has already pwnt you. Nuke from orbit, try again."