First of all, the GPL has nothing to do with being able to run a program on more than one hardware architecture. It is common for GPL apps to run on many architectures because, with the source code available, they can be easily ported. Plenty of GPL apps, however, only support one architecture, or only support some limited subset of architectures. It is not against the spirit of the GPL to have software that only runs on x86; it that was against the rules, there would be no useful open source virtualization, no open source graphics acceleration, no WINE or Cedega, and no assembly language GPL code.
Or do you honestly mean to tell me that KVM, QEMU, or WINE are just ways to infect open source software with proprietary code? I doubt that any of the zealots here are actually running 100% open source systems, especially given the number of embedded computers running proprietary code that we use every day. Open source has nothing to do with refusing to do certain things with your computer or other devices because there is no workable open source solution, and even with all the open source code out there, there are still niches that open source hasn't worked its way into yet.
Since when does being an open source advocate mean refusing to do things for which there is no working open source solution? You may be in a position to swap your network card; for me, that would mean getting a brand new computer, and throwing out a computer that has absolutely nothing wrong with it. Perhaps I did not make this clear in my post: I want to use an open source driver, I use and advocate the use of open source software whenever it is possible. In this case, the open source driver (b43) just does not work, and worse than that, the Fedora team (which, by the way, I am a contributor to) continues to list it as "working" without any indication of problems.
Thank you. I am an open source advocate, but the driver for my network card is a half-assed approach that doesn't connect to any access points, or do much else that can be called "useful." ndiswrapper is a bandage that can be used until the kernel team and third party module developers can produce something usable. Trying to get rid of it will only restrict Linux adoption.
The difference, as far as I can tell, is that Google's pictures are available to everyone, whereas the ATM cameras are not (coincidentally, many security cameras' feeds can be found on Google).
The command is run on a second system that is connected via firewire.
Here's the thing though: this requires physical access. That makes it a low-salience attack, because gaining that kind of access is only an iota easier than pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding their password.
Actually, the MP3 stuff wasn't really innovative, because the parts of the sound spectrum that people wouldn't mind not hearing were known as early as the 1920s, and was used in the 1930s to save bandwidth on telephone lines. The real question was how to properly filter the file to compress it, without generating spurious sidebands and other artifacts.
Also, I was referring to the LZW compression in GIF;).
There is no way to fairly license software patents, because it is too easy to inadvertently infringe upon a software patent, without even realizing it. Consider, for example, a patent on virtual desktops (this is patented, IIRC). Now, you could easily ship a system with that functionality, without even realizing that's what you did; consider a person who is aware of the patent, ships a Linux system with only one VT and only single-workspace WMs, in an attempt to not infringe upon it. A user could, however, spawn a second X11 session, automatically creating a new VT, and thus infringing upon the patent.
The reason this is so easy is that software is like mathematics. Algorithms may arise inadvertently out of other algorithms, just like one mathematical system may inadvertently arise out of another (like the real numbers arising from pure set theory). If you cannot patent the pythagorean theorem, you should not be able to patent a system for compressing bitmapped images.
I'll bet you are full of it. Apple built Safari on an open source codebase, KHTML. This isn't a question of experimental APIs (which would be tested in a beta version anyway), this is Apple slapping the entire open source model right across the face. It isn't the first time, it won't be the last time. Apple is not some shining light in the dark world of anticompetitive business practices, or some beacon of morality, and the way they managed OpenDarwin is entirely indicative of that.
Unix (especially BSD) made the Internet. You say that Unix never brought computers into the home? I say that without a bunch of Unix servers hosting websites on the Internet, and a standardized and mostly compatible protocol and API in use on those systems, there would have been virtually no market for home computer systems. Windows was the OS that became dominant in the home, because most PC vendors were shipping Windows. Nobody would haven't spent the money on a computer, however, if there was no Internet for them to connect to. Windows NT Server had a much, much smaller presence on the Internet in the mid 90s than Unix and Unix-like systems did.
Sure, there would have been global networks without Unix. There was FidoNET. There were various mainframe systems that could be used to create global networks. But it would be a complete mess. Microsoft might have created its own network standard (and therefore its own network), Apple might have created a different one, and so on, and those networks would only be loosely coupled by a bunch of gateways. It would be an order of magnitude worse than what we see in the cell phone market.
So I would say that Unix did bring computers into the home, but nobody noticed it.
How many years and which operating system? Microsoft did sell a Unix at one time (Xenix) and they did release "Windows services for Unix," which is the Unix tools.
Competing with GNU does not mean that they are releasing open source software. What it means is that they would be release tools that are compatible with GNU, so that companies that are running GNU right now would have an easy time switching to Microsoft. It should be interesting to see Microsoft pull this off without violating the GPL.
Also, this idea reeks of embrace/extend/extinguish.
Do the findings of modern neuroscience have any bearing on your opinion that 13 year olds are adult enough to be held responsible for all their actions, and that their parents or the other adults in their lives have no culpability in what the child does? For the record, the conclusion of neuroscience researcher is that the brain does not finishing maturing until age 25, and that the brain of a 13 year old is still very immature. Do we baby a teenager along? Of course not. But teenagers do require guidance, and yes, teenagers are emotionally vulnerable.
Historically, although Jewish boys were considered responsible for their sins at the age of 13, they were not considered responsible enough to go out and live on their own for several years following the Bar Mitzvah ceremony.
Suppose that, somehow, I come to learn the name of one of your former lovers who you happened to be particularly attached to, and who broke your heart. It would take literally no effort on my part to impersonate that person in an email, unless you have a very strict policy about digital signing. If I wanted to mess with you, or if I had some malicious reason to cause you emotional harm, that would be an ideal way to do so, especially if I know that you are already under particular stress.
Now, for an adult, this may seem far-fetched -- most adults without preëxisting emotional problems would just shrug off emails from a former lover, without too many emotional issues. For teenagers, the situation is very different. The girl in this case was 13, but suppose that a slightly older girl (16?) who had just broken up with her boyfriend (considering the rate of sexual activity among high school students, such a break up could be difficult for our poor hypothetical girl) were to be harassed in the manner I outlined above. That could cause her serious emotional harm, and possibly drive her into a depression or into doing something really stupid.
It is hard enough to convince a full grown adult not to trust email and IM, even if it appears to be from someone they know. Teenagers will even more readily accept forged emails and IMs, and while that usually just means that botnet operators have easy targets, it also puts those teenagers at risk for cyber-bulling and manipulation. The neighbor in Megan's case took advantage of this fact to harass Megan, and the result was a tragic suicide. Instead of scoffing at the idea that anyone of any age would be foolish enough to trust messages sent over the Internet, you and everyone else making comments like this should be stopping to consider how you can explain the issues to a teenager (or someone who just doesn't have a clue).
I think that there has to be a reasonable expectation of the other person providing an accurate identity before any law of that sort can apply. Remember that it is very common for people to create new personas for themselves on the Internet, and prior to that, in social clubs or in writing (by using a pen name and narrating in the first person). There is no reasonable expectation of people providing accurate information about themselves on the Internet (or do you honestly think that you could try suing me or getting me arrested for using the screen name "betterunixthanunix" to post this?).
The girl in question was 13 years old, not a full grown woman. At that age, girls tend to be particularly vulnerable to harassment, and the neighbor made a concerted effort to harass the girl. There is simply no escaping this: it was wrong. Ultimately, the problem lied with the neighbor, who harassed a teenager until she committed suicide.
That is why it is a cold reboot attack. You don't have a chance to remedy it in software, you would need a hardware solution (like a capacitor on the RAM card that kept it powered just long enough to clear each cell).
Is Red Hat Developer Studio "real" enough for you? How about this combination: RHEL, RHDS, JBOSS? The only part you pay for is RHEL, but you can just as easily use CentOS and get away with paying nothing for any of it. Don't like RHDS or Eclipse? How about Netbeans, which is free and open source? Don't like JBOSS? Go ahead and use some other JEE AS. You may not have noticed, but JEE is interoperable.
The reason people are suspicious of this Microsoft offer is that they are worried that students who are trained on.NET will not have the necessary exposure to other systems to work with any other products. People give me blank stares when I talk about some common process in Linux, because they simply haven't been exposed to it -- it is Microsoft all the way, so they never learn anything else. Already, my school has a contract with Microsoft, so freshman engineers are exposed exclusively to Microsoft Office and get free copies. I frequently receive OOXML, and have to fight to convince them that they should have sent me plaintext or PS/PDF. It is as if the idea of someone not running Microsoft is completely foreign to them. I'm sorry, but Microsoft is simply not the be-all and end-all of the software world, and Windows Server is not suited to solve every problems (queue up the smartass who replaces "every" with "any" and gets modded "funny").
Mainly I think the problem people have is that Microsoft has not made a clear commitment to make this an open standard that anyone may implement in their software. Personally, I would expect no less from Microsoft, and wouldn't be surprised if their intention was to scare third party developers away from OOXML. This is the company that has fought tooth and nail to make sure that nobody ever uses third party software, after all, and now they are in a market that increasingly demands open standards and interoperability. What better way to kill two birds with one stone?
Slashdot Mirror
Or do you honestly mean to tell me that KVM, QEMU, or WINE are just ways to infect open source software with proprietary code? I doubt that any of the zealots here are actually running 100% open source systems, especially given the number of embedded computers running proprietary code that we use every day. Open source has nothing to do with refusing to do certain things with your computer or other devices because there is no workable open source solution, and even with all the open source code out there, there are still niches that open source hasn't worked its way into yet.
Thank you. I am an open source advocate, but the driver for my network card is a half-assed approach that doesn't connect to any access points, or do much else that can be called "useful." ndiswrapper is a bandage that can be used until the kernel team and third party module developers can produce something usable. Trying to get rid of it will only restrict Linux adoption.
The difference, as far as I can tell, is that Google's pictures are available to everyone, whereas the ATM cameras are not (coincidentally, many security cameras' feeds can be found on Google).
Here's the thing though: this requires physical access. That makes it a low-salience attack, because gaining that kind of access is only an iota easier than pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding their password.
(I just had to).
Uhm, it is the Japanese, 'nuff said.
People are easily dazzled and convinced to buy things they don't need.
Also, I was referring to the LZW compression in GIF ;).
The reason this is so easy is that software is like mathematics. Algorithms may arise inadvertently out of other algorithms, just like one mathematical system may inadvertently arise out of another (like the real numbers arising from pure set theory). If you cannot patent the pythagorean theorem, you should not be able to patent a system for compressing bitmapped images.
I'll bet you are full of it. Apple built Safari on an open source codebase, KHTML. This isn't a question of experimental APIs (which would be tested in a beta version anyway), this is Apple slapping the entire open source model right across the face. It isn't the first time, it won't be the last time. Apple is not some shining light in the dark world of anticompetitive business practices, or some beacon of morality, and the way they managed OpenDarwin is entirely indicative of that.
Sure, there would have been global networks without Unix. There was FidoNET. There were various mainframe systems that could be used to create global networks. But it would be a complete mess. Microsoft might have created its own network standard (and therefore its own network), Apple might have created a different one, and so on, and those networks would only be loosely coupled by a bunch of gateways. It would be an order of magnitude worse than what we see in the cell phone market.
So I would say that Unix did bring computers into the home, but nobody noticed it.
How many years and which operating system? Microsoft did sell a Unix at one time (Xenix) and they did release "Windows services for Unix," which is the Unix tools.
Also, this idea reeks of embrace/extend/extinguish.
Not to my knowledge. This is definitely a first for RoadRunner; I've been with them for several years now, and haven't seen anything like this.
Historically, although Jewish boys were considered responsible for their sins at the age of 13, they were not considered responsible enough to go out and live on their own for several years following the Bar Mitzvah ceremony.
Now, for an adult, this may seem far-fetched -- most adults without preëxisting emotional problems would just shrug off emails from a former lover, without too many emotional issues. For teenagers, the situation is very different. The girl in this case was 13, but suppose that a slightly older girl (16?) who had just broken up with her boyfriend (considering the rate of sexual activity among high school students, such a break up could be difficult for our poor hypothetical girl) were to be harassed in the manner I outlined above. That could cause her serious emotional harm, and possibly drive her into a depression or into doing something really stupid.
It is hard enough to convince a full grown adult not to trust email and IM, even if it appears to be from someone they know. Teenagers will even more readily accept forged emails and IMs, and while that usually just means that botnet operators have easy targets, it also puts those teenagers at risk for cyber-bulling and manipulation. The neighbor in Megan's case took advantage of this fact to harass Megan, and the result was a tragic suicide. Instead of scoffing at the idea that anyone of any age would be foolish enough to trust messages sent over the Internet, you and everyone else making comments like this should be stopping to consider how you can explain the issues to a teenager (or someone who just doesn't have a clue).
I think that there has to be a reasonable expectation of the other person providing an accurate identity before any law of that sort can apply. Remember that it is very common for people to create new personas for themselves on the Internet, and prior to that, in social clubs or in writing (by using a pen name and narrating in the first person). There is no reasonable expectation of people providing accurate information about themselves on the Internet (or do you honestly think that you could try suing me or getting me arrested for using the screen name "betterunixthanunix" to post this?).
No, but I have heard Slashdot described that way...
The girl in question was 13 years old, not a full grown woman. At that age, girls tend to be particularly vulnerable to harassment, and the neighbor made a concerted effort to harass the girl. There is simply no escaping this: it was wrong. Ultimately, the problem lied with the neighbor, who harassed a teenager until she committed suicide.
...with hell freezing over and all.
That is why it is a cold reboot attack. You don't have a chance to remedy it in software, you would need a hardware solution (like a capacitor on the RAM card that kept it powered just long enough to clear each cell).
The reason people are suspicious of this Microsoft offer is that they are worried that students who are trained on .NET will not have the necessary exposure to other systems to work with any other products. People give me blank stares when I talk about some common process in Linux, because they simply haven't been exposed to it -- it is Microsoft all the way, so they never learn anything else. Already, my school has a contract with Microsoft, so freshman engineers are exposed exclusively to Microsoft Office and get free copies. I frequently receive OOXML, and have to fight to convince them that they should have sent me plaintext or PS/PDF. It is as if the idea of someone not running Microsoft is completely foreign to them. I'm sorry, but Microsoft is simply not the be-all and end-all of the software world, and Windows Server is not suited to solve every problems (queue up the smartass who replaces "every" with "any" and gets modded "funny").
Sure.
Mainly I think the problem people have is that Microsoft has not made a clear commitment to make this an open standard that anyone may implement in their software. Personally, I would expect no less from Microsoft, and wouldn't be surprised if their intention was to scare third party developers away from OOXML. This is the company that has fought tooth and nail to make sure that nobody ever uses third party software, after all, and now they are in a market that increasingly demands open standards and interoperability. What better way to kill two birds with one stone?