The OISV is the Largest Organization of Independent software vendors, marketers, retailers and distributors in the World! Our membership represents thousands of software professionals who create, sell and supply shareware and trial software in 90 countries.
So, I guess they're an organization of mass-market proprietary software vendors. That's fine, but why do I worry that they'll pretend to actually represent the vast majority of software developers (who actually custom software which may or may not be proprietary)? It even looks like they're trying to pass off their "site technologies" list as a list of endorsements from major open-source projects. I really hope this isn't just a front for DRM proponents.
On the other hand, they'll probably be against software patents, and in favour of real open standards (e.g. ODF) and net neutrality, so maybe I shouldn't be so worried. Their mission statement seems good, in principle.
Triangulation? It's a little more direct than that. My CDMA phone (and it was a pretty basic phone) has Assisted GPS. It supposedly gives me the ability to switch it off (although it'll be re-enabled if I make an emergency call), but I really have no way of verifying that.
American. I know you apparently don't like this term. To be honest, I'm not exactly happy about it either. However, I cannot think of a term for us that is pronouncable and doesn't sound stupid. ("USians" is too hard to say if you pronounce it "U S ians" and stupid if you pronounce it "us ieans", and isn't consistant with not pronouncing "The US" as "The U S".)
"Usians"... pronounced similar to "Asians", but with a leading "yoo" instead of "ay".
<troll>... and why shouldn't a name for people from the U.S.A. sound stupid? It's quite fitting.</troll>
Yes, it's possible, but it isn't necesary. The bottom line is that China is basically saying, "It's secure, trust us", which is an argument that was dismissed by the security community decades ago.
I expect better of the economist than this. This is science fiction masquerading as news.
I just skimmed over the article. It was better than this:
So where does this leave Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics? They were a narrative device, and were never actually meant to work in the real world, says Dr Whitby. Quite apart from the fact that the laws require the robot to have some form of human-like intelligence, which robots still lack, the laws themselves don't actually work very well. Indeed, Asimov repeatedly knocked them down in his robot stories, showing time and again how these seemingly watertight rules could produce unintended consequences.
This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behavior was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov, a science-fiction writer.
Unsurprisingly, Asimov and others have failed to provide any reliable means of implementing said Laws.
Google grants you a personal, non-transferable and non-exclusive right and license to use the object code of its Software on a single computer limited strictly to non-commercial use only by you; provided that you do not (and do not allow any third party to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, reverse assemble or otherwise attempt to discover any source code, sell, assign, sublicense, grant a security interest in or otherwise transfer any right in the Software.
No. That would be the correct way to do this, but it looks as though the article tells you how to make your own set of alternative history buttons. Ugh.
Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 1
They don't have anywhere near a monopoly on server OSs anyway.
IIRC, it would be a violation of anti-trust law if MS used the money they made from their desktop OS monopoly in order to leverage themselves into the server OS (or any other) market.
Slashdot Mirror
First new nuclear bomb design in 20 years? You mean WinNuke isn't a nuclear bomb? No wonder people haven't taken my threats seriously...
Microsoft won't do that, because they can't compete in an open market and they know it.
Apache, Linux, GCC, and many other free software is also "commercial software".
Heh. And yet you managed to type "sounds"...
I like how the Xgl video is prettier than the Windows Vista one. Great job, Microsoft!
At least when the equipment is self-destructing, the area will be well-lit... unlike the rooms where autopsies are conducted on CSI.
s/who actually custom software/who actually develop custom software/
So, I guess they're an organization of mass-market proprietary software vendors. That's fine, but why do I worry that they'll pretend to actually represent the vast majority of software developers (who actually custom software which may or may not be proprietary)? It even looks like they're trying to pass off their "site technologies" list as a list of endorsements from major open-source projects. I really hope this isn't just a front for DRM proponents.
On the other hand, they'll probably be against software patents, and in favour of real open standards (e.g. ODF) and net neutrality, so maybe I shouldn't be so worried. Their mission statement seems good, in principle.
Triangulation? It's a little more direct than that. My CDMA phone (and it was a pretty basic phone) has Assisted GPS. It supposedly gives me the ability to switch it off (although it'll be re-enabled if I make an emergency call), but I really have no way of verifying that.
It's not "aboot", it's pronounced "a-bow-oot"... unless you're like most Canadians, who pronounce it the same way as the Usians.
"Usians"... pronounced similar to "Asians", but with a leading "yoo" instead of "ay".
<troll>... and why shouldn't a name for people from the U.S.A. sound stupid? It's quite fitting.</troll>
Not only that, but encrypting with raw RSA is considered to be very insecure, mainly because of RSA's commutative property.
While that might work, there is no guarantee that you'd actually increase your security by doing so.
Replace "cryptography" with "cryptanalysis", and your post will make sense.
Yes, it's possible, but it isn't necesary. The bottom line is that China is basically saying, "It's secure, trust us", which is an argument that was dismissed by the security community decades ago.
I expect better of the economist than this. This is science fiction masquerading as news.
I just skimmed over the article. It was better than this:
Unsurprisingly, Asimov and others have failed to provide any reliable means of implementing said Laws.
Rob, how has your reading comprehension been lately?
Ah, but even if you get to launch control, you still have to know the unlock codes.
... debian-legal will notice that Earth is not a planet under the new definition.
Then what's the purpose of "and/or"?
No. That would be the correct way to do this, but it looks as though the article tells you how to make your own set of alternative history buttons. Ugh.
IIRC, it would be a violation of anti-trust law if MS used the money they made from their desktop OS monopoly in order to leverage themselves into the server OS (or any other) market.
Ah, but where would the coin be flipped? At one lawyer's office, or the others? Who gets to flip and who gets to call?