What is wrong with software solutions? When I want to login to my bank I first need username, which is random. Then a password, which I can change. Then another password, which can be used only once. Bank sends these one-time-only passwords in a letter (100 in one letter, and a new letter is posted once they start to run out). Basicly they could provide them on a public website, because they can't be used unless you know the username and password also.
So tell me, how could a hardware solution be more secure than this?
> knowing for sure how someone voted can lead to intimidation, bribery, and the like.
Do you anyone who has a digital camera in his or hers mobile phone? I don't see how hard it could be to bribe someone and ask him/her to take a photo as a proof.
> This disturbs me as the person who has written the article...
The original article yesterday talked about Ubuntu 7.2 (it is now fixed to 7.04 after someone obviously mentioned about it to him). So it is quite obvious that the author has very little knowledge of Ubuntu. (Those who are familiar with Ubuntu can pretty well list all the released version numbers, as the release cycle is 6 months, every 4. and 10. month of a year and version numer is year.month )
> I used to -hate- the GPL. Now, I like the LGPL and I'm starting to think the GPL is the right way to go after all.
I think that for libraries and other software that can be used in various different applications, "public domain" is the way to go. Just like SQLite has done. Even it can be used in closed source, it still helps the human kind in general, because the less is needed to invent the wheel again. Of course there are other licenses which are equally good for this purpose.
For games and applications which codebase can't be used much for anything else except for forks of the application itself. GPL sounds like a good way to go.
I don't understand why a webpage that is edited by several people is less trusted source than a book, written by a single person. History is full of books that have all the facts wrong.
Have you ever tried inventing a new name for an open source project and use a name that hasn't been already taken? I actually tried inventing a new name for a paint program once and I can tell you that every name that contains the words "paint, photo, draw, color,..." are taken.
If you need to explain what Gimp means, then do so. It means GNU Image Manipulation Program
> Discoveries like this are why I find myself becoming a bigger and bigger advocate of solar power every day. > There is so much power streaming out of the sun.
Nah, solar power is not a good solution in a long run. Sun lasts, what? 5 000 000 000 years? We need to find a power source that doesn't run out of fuel.
Yes, that train would be very good for environment in addition of being faster than planes. The only problem is money and the fact that it needs to much iron that (if I remember correctly) it would require all the iron produced in the world for a full year. Of course this isn't possible because others require iron also, so either manufacturing should be increased or building would need to take more time.
One alternative is to find a large asteroid containing a lot of iron and drag it down here. The only question is, should we crash it to the NY or London?
Re:Morbid obesity for Firefox is not progress.
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
> In Firefox 2, there's already too much bloat. Saving images of pages hogs memory, and didn't visibly improve performance.
You can disable this if you like to. Basicly it is just a question about whether it should be enabled by default or not.
> Nobody cares about XUL, people
Actually some care. Because of the XUL+Javascript, it is very easy and fast to make addons for the Firefox (It took me a week to learn and make an extension that interacts with a website with data retrieved from another website). The great amount of addons is one of the key advantages Firefox has for other browsers. Nowadays surfing the web without an adblock plus is pure pain. And making websites would be impossible without Validator and Web Developer.
> In a few years, all web pages will have to work on the minimal browser comes with the OLPC machine.
In a few years, computer can be 10 times faster or 1000 times faster. Even OLPC machines might get upgraded. But Firefox devs are trying to improve the performance also.
> Keep in mind that all of the countries that are listed above the US are much smaller than the US, with higher population densities. > Thus it's easier to reach high broadband penetration rates in those countries.
Higher population densities? Really? Let's have a look at that.
Ok, I could give you Denmark and Singapore, but you are still losing for Sweden and Finland, and actually according to your own arguments, you should be clearly leading them.
> while letting them keep the OS they know how to use
I disagree. Majority of the users of Windows don't actually know how to use it. If they have problems, they need help. And during the normal everyday use, they don't actually use the OS at all, they just use the programs installed on it.
I asked my wife after 6 months of using Ubuntu how does she feel about using Linux and she replied. "What do you mean, I have just surfed the web and written some emails and edited some pictures. I haven't used Linux".
So basicly if we can replace Photoshop, Office, Outlook and IE. There is no problem replacing the Windows complitely. As long as someone is providing them the support they used to have with Windows also. (Which they probably need less with the Linux.)
I was a newbie with both Photoshop and Gimp. Here are the results: - With Gimp, I could draw some images, but I couldn't draw lines with it (later I learned how to do that) - With Photoshop, I couldn't draw anything. Never figured out how to do this.
So I think that both are complex and not intuitive enough. But because other is free and the other is not, I would certainly choose Gimp and learn using it.
- You don't need to buy a new computer to get modern version of the operating system. - Updating programs is easier. - You don't need to fear viruses and spyware. - The computer works faster, because antivirus programs are not slowing it down. - Installing new programs is easier. - Not all have paid for it, Linux is an legal option.
Yes, but it might be risky. Install both on separate folders and create a profile for each of them. Then modify the shortcuts for both to use their own profile. The risk is that if you click a link the profile set for the shortcut won't get counted in, so what ever profile was last used, will be loaded. This could cause corruption for the profile, so please backup your profile before trying this at home.
> It's kind of sketchy that they're not supporting older Windows or OS X versions
There is a reason for this. The changes they have made to the core won't work with older versions of Windows as easily as they do with more modern versions. This means that a lot of work would be need to add support for them. But it has been said that if anyone is interested doing the job, he/she is quite welcome to do it.
> I know this is off-thread, but is there anyway to speed up Windows booting?
Reinstalling helps for a while, but downgrading to older version of Windows seems to be the only solution. (You have to reinstall the older version also once in a while or it doesn't help either.)
If you know that you are going to die within the next 5 years, it doesn't mean that you are going to die. When we learn about genes, it does not only give us the tools to know that we are going to die, it also gives the tools to prevent it from happening.
> Nonsense. Users of the GPL have no authority to make such a restriction and there is none in the GPL. Remember, the GPL is a licence not a contract, > so it can't restrict what people can do with other stuff, only what they can do with the stuff covered by the licence.
License doesn't take anything away from the users. Let's remember that without any license, the program is protected by the copyright law. So you have permission to distribute it at all. So even you are allowed to do what ever you want with the non-GPLed software, you might not be allowed to do the same with the GPLed software. So in practise this means that you are allowed to distribute "A" and "B", but if you are trying to distribute those together, you no longer have permission to distribute the "B".
Here's the interesting part from the license: "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License" Source: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
The license mentions an example. A program "A" can be distributed under whatever license or without one, but if the "A" is distributed with GPLed software, the whole distribution must be on the terms of the GPL. If A can't be GPled, then it can't be distributed with the distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
What is wrong with software solutions? When I want to login to my bank I first need username, which is random. Then a password, which I can change. Then another password, which can be used only once. Bank sends these one-time-only passwords in a letter (100 in one letter, and a new letter is posted once they start to run out). Basicly they could provide them on a public website, because they can't be used unless you know the username and password also.
So tell me, how could a hardware solution be more secure than this?
> knowing for sure how someone voted can lead to intimidation, bribery, and the like.
Do you anyone who has a digital camera in his or hers mobile phone? I don't see how hard it could be to bribe someone and ask him/her to take a photo as a proof.
So you think that everyone lives 200 m from a voting point? Or do you think that everyone who doesn't live that near should be able to vote online?
> This disturbs me as the person who has written the article...
The original article yesterday talked about Ubuntu 7.2 (it is now fixed to 7.04 after someone obviously mentioned about it to him). So it is quite obvious that the author has very little knowledge of Ubuntu. (Those who are familiar with Ubuntu can pretty well list all the released version numbers, as the release cycle is 6 months, every 4. and 10. month of a year and version numer is year.month )
> I used to -hate- the GPL. Now, I like the LGPL and I'm starting to think the GPL is the right way to go after all.
I think that for libraries and other software that can be used in various different applications, "public domain" is the way to go. Just like SQLite has done. Even it can be used in closed source, it still helps the human kind in general, because the less is needed to invent the wheel again. Of course there are other licenses which are equally good for this purpose.
For games and applications which codebase can't be used much for anything else except for forks of the application itself. GPL sounds like a good way to go.
> Backdoor exploits into your OS? Ha! Try doing *that* on Firefox or Opera.
No problem. Firefox has IE tab and ActiveX extension. They are not installed by default, but it is certainly possible with Firefox also.
Anything else?
> It doesn't seem to fix the other problem
Usually security fixes are not ment to fix all the bugs in a software.
I don't understand why a webpage that is edited by several people is less trusted source than a book, written by a single person. History is full of books that have all the facts wrong.
> since I have trouble getting dual head output to work on my nvidia card in Ubuntu.
TVOut doesn't work? I got it working with these instructions quite easily:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/NvidiaTVOut
Have you ever tried inventing a new name for an open source project and use a name that hasn't been already taken? I actually tried inventing a new name for a paint program once and I can tell you that every name that contains the words "paint, photo, draw, color, ..." are taken.
If you need to explain what Gimp means, then do so. It means GNU Image Manipulation Program
> Discoveries like this are why I find myself becoming a bigger and bigger advocate of solar power every day.
> There is so much power streaming out of the sun.
Nah, solar power is not a good solution in a long run. Sun lasts, what? 5 000 000 000 years? We need to find a power source that doesn't run out of fuel.
Yes, that train would be very good for environment in addition of being faster than planes. The only problem is money and the fact that it needs to much iron that (if I remember correctly) it would require all the iron produced in the world for a full year. Of course this isn't possible because others require iron also, so either manufacturing should be increased or building would need to take more time.
One alternative is to find a large asteroid containing a lot of iron and drag it down here. The only question is, should we crash it to the NY or London?
> In Firefox 2, there's already too much bloat. Saving images of pages hogs memory, and didn't visibly improve performance.
You can disable this if you like to. Basicly it is just a question about whether it should be enabled by default or not.
> Nobody cares about XUL, people
Actually some care. Because of the XUL+Javascript, it is very easy and fast to make addons for the Firefox (It took me a week to learn and make an extension that interacts with a website with data retrieved from another website). The great amount of addons is one of the key advantages Firefox has for other browsers. Nowadays surfing the web without an adblock plus is pure pain. And making websites would be impossible without Validator and Web Developer.
> In a few years, all web pages will have to work on the minimal browser comes with the OLPC machine.
In a few years, computer can be 10 times faster or 1000 times faster. Even OLPC machines might get upgraded. But Firefox devs are trying to improve the performance also.
1. Why stop them when you can totally get rid of them: Adblock plus: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/186 5_ Firefox
m ing:User_Interface
2. http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_-
3. Goto 1
Your suggestions are how ever already listed in the wish-list. The only problem is that the list contains probably a thousand feature requests, so I'm not sure when they will be implemented.
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Feature_Brainstor
> Keep in mind that all of the countries that are listed above the US are much smaller than the US, with higher population densities.
> Thus it's easier to reach high broadband penetration rates in those countries.
Higher population densities? Really? Let's have a look at that.
Density/km for some countris mentioned here:
1th Denmark: 128.48
2nd Sweden: 20
3rd Singapore: 6208
4th Finland: 16
7th USA: 31
Ok, I could give you Denmark and Singapore, but you are still losing for Sweden and Finland, and actually according to your own arguments, you should be clearly leading them.
Source: Wikipedia
> while letting them keep the OS they know how to use
I disagree. Majority of the users of Windows don't actually know how to use it. If they have problems, they need help. And during the normal everyday use, they don't actually use the OS at all, they just use the programs installed on it.
I asked my wife after 6 months of using Ubuntu how does she feel about using Linux and she replied. "What do you mean, I have just surfed the web and written some emails and edited some pictures. I haven't used Linux".
So basicly if we can replace Photoshop, Office, Outlook and IE. There is no problem replacing the Windows complitely. As long as someone is providing them the support they used to have with Windows also. (Which they probably need less with the Linux.)
I was a newbie with both Photoshop and Gimp. Here are the results:
- With Gimp, I could draw some images, but I couldn't draw lines with it (later I learned how to do that)
- With Photoshop, I couldn't draw anything. Never figured out how to do this.
So I think that both are complex and not intuitive enough. But because other is free and the other is not, I would certainly choose Gimp and learn using it.
> Why do you think people will "switch"?
- You don't need to buy a new computer to get modern version of the operating system.
- Updating programs is easier.
- You don't need to fear viruses and spyware.
- The computer works faster, because antivirus programs are not slowing it down.
- Installing new programs is easier.
- Not all have paid for it, Linux is an legal option.
Yes, but it might be risky. Install both on separate folders and create a profile for each of them. Then modify the shortcuts for both to use their own profile. The risk is that if you click a link the profile set for the shortcut won't get counted in, so what ever profile was last used, will be loaded. This could cause corruption for the profile, so please backup your profile before trying this at home.
Firefox 3 is planned to be released on November: http://wiki.mozilla.org/ReleaseRoadmap
Wikipedia quotes the same source.
> It's kind of sketchy that they're not supporting older Windows or OS X versions
There is a reason for this. The changes they have made to the core won't work with older versions of Windows as easily as they do with more modern versions. This means that a lot of work would be need to add support for them. But it has been said that if anyone is interested doing the job, he/she is quite welcome to do it.
> I know this is off-thread, but is there anyway to speed up Windows booting?
Reinstalling helps for a while, but downgrading to older version of Windows seems to be the only solution. (You have to reinstall the older version also once in a while or it doesn't help either.)
> 1st person shooters are totally out of the question
Oh, like this one:
http://tremulous.net/
If you know that you are going to die within the next 5 years, it doesn't mean that you are going to die. When we learn about genes, it does not only give us the tools to know that we are going to die, it also gives the tools to prevent it from happening.
> Nonsense. Users of the GPL have no authority to make such a restriction and there is none in the GPL. Remember, the GPL is a licence not a contract,
> so it can't restrict what people can do with other stuff, only what they can do with the stuff covered by the licence.
License doesn't take anything away from the users. Let's remember that without any license, the program is protected by the copyright law. So you have permission to distribute it at all. So even you are allowed to do what ever you want with the non-GPLed software, you might not be allowed to do the same with the GPLed software. So in practise this means that you are allowed to distribute "A" and "B", but if you are trying to distribute those together, you no longer have permission to distribute the "B".
Here's the interesting part from the license:
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License"
Source: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
The license mentions an example. A program "A" can be distributed under whatever license or without one, but if the "A" is distributed with GPLed software, the whole distribution must be on the terms of the GPL. If A can't be GPled, then it can't be distributed with the distribution.