Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Dr. Hawkins writes: > Ashlock is more than slightly connected to the Santa Fe Institute :) OK - that got me to take a look... as a sad commentary on things, he is no longer with Iowa State. His faculty web page there says "In August I will be taking a leave of absence from Iowa State and moving

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > > > See the work of Dan Ashlock (Iowa State) and others; in addition to > > genetic algorithms, they've done work where programs evolve. > > I did some work on genetic algorithms a couple of decades ago through the > Santa Fe Institute. Ashl

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Dr. Hawkins writes: > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Björnke von Gierke wrote: > > Wait what? Self modifying automatic genetic code algorithm, here we come! > > See the work of Dan Ashlock (Iowa State) and others; in addition to > genetic algorithms, they've done work where programs evolve.

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 2, 2013, at 12:41 AM, Richmond wrote: > On 05/02/2013 02:48 AM, Timothy Miller wrote: >> On May 1, 2013, at 4:39 PM, stephen barncard wrote: >> >>> Well, here's another smart-aleck question while I'm feeling randy. Are >>> there script limits in the Community edition? >> I have no idea. D

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Björnke von Gierke wrote: > Wait what? Self modifying automatic genetic code algorithm, here we come! See the work of Dan Ashlock (Iowa State) and others; in addition to genetic algorithms, they've done work where programs evolve. -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 02.05.2013, at 02:17, Mark Wieder wrote: > No. There are no script limits and the limits on the number of frontscripts > etc have also been removed. Wait what? Self modifying automatic genetic code algorithm, here we come! -- Use an alternative Dictionary viewer: http://bjoernke.com/bvgdoc

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 05/02/2013 11:37 AM, René Micout wrote: Le 2 mai 2013 à 09:31, Richmond a écrit : I donated my "widow's mite" having read all the small print (think Gene Wilder in 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), and if you didn't you, quite frankly, have only yourself to blame. Dear Richmond, This

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Le 2 mai 2013 à 09:31, Richmond a écrit : > I donated my "widow's mite" having read all the small print (think Gene > Wilder in 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), and if you didn't you, quite > frankly, have only yourself to blame. Dear Richmond, This is good for people speak really good En

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 05/02/2013 02:48 AM, Timothy Miller wrote: On May 1, 2013, at 4:39 PM, stephen barncard wrote: Well, here's another smart-aleck question while I'm feeling randy. Are there script limits in the Community edition? I have no idea. Don't even know what a script limit is. Perhaps it is time y

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 05/02/2013 02:24 AM, Timothy Miller wrote: On May 1, 2013, at 3:14 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: They've been pretty up-front about the omission of the security module, it was in the Kickstarter materials. Security can't be in the community version. If it was, it would be worthless; anyone cou

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 05/02/2013 01:46 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote: On 5/1/13 5:39 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: On 02/05/2013, at 7:57 AM, stephen barncard wrote: If it's for your own use, why do you need to protect you stacks at all? You don't trust yourself? That was going to be my question. The only thing I can

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 05/02/2013 12:57 AM, stephen barncard wrote: If it's for your own use, why do you need to protect you stacks at all? You don't trust yourself? LOL! On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Timothy Miller < gand...@doctortimothymiller.com> wrote: On May 1, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Mike Bonner wrote:

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 05/02/2013 12:55 AM, Timothy Miller wrote: On May 1, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Mike Bonner wrote: If its 6.0.1 commercial you should be able to. But of course if its 6.0.1 commercial it should have been able to open it to begin with. If its the community version the answer would be no, that part of

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 5/1/13 6:24 PM, Timothy Miller wrote: On May 1, 2013, at 3:14 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: They've been pretty up-front about the omission of the security module, it was in the Kickstarter materials. Security can't be in the community version. If it was, it would be worthless; anyone could read

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Fabian Rodriguez wrote: > > On 2013-05-01 18:14, J. Landman Gay wrote: >> Security can't be in the community version. If it was, it would be >> worthless; anyone could read the algorithm and use it to unlock >> protected stacks made with the commercial version. Code

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

stephen barncard writes: > > Well, here's another smart-aleck question while I'm feeling randy. Are > there script limits in the Community edition? No. There are no script limits and the limits on the number of frontscripts etc have also been removed. -- Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Timothy Miller wrote: > I'm not a developer. Is the LC business model is moving away from DIY > users like me? Very much the opposite: the Community Edition finally brings all the benefits of a mature, robust xTalk to the masses, allowing the entire world to enjoy the language and its object

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 4:39 PM, stephen barncard wrote: > Well, here's another smart-aleck question while I'm feeling randy. Are > there script limits in the Community edition? I have no idea. Don't even know what a script limit is. Feel better now? TM

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 4:25 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > In terms of capabilities, nothing's changed. > > But yes, the pricing for the Commercial Edition has changed. > > Most developers were coding for multiple platforms, and by the time you add > up all the platforms from their formerly-complex pr

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Well, here's another smart-aleck question while I'm feeling randy. Are there script limits in the Community edition? sqb Stephen Barncard San Francisco Ca. USA more about sqb ___ use-livecode mailing list

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Timothy Miller wrote: > I have paid $50 to $100, give or take, for several major upgrades > to LiveCode, and Runtime Revolution before that, and Revolution Media > before that, always for the Macintosh-only version. > > I was not offered an upgrade to the commercial version. I was > notified auto

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 3:14 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > They've been pretty up-front about the omission of the security module, it > was in the Kickstarter materials. Security can't be in the community version. > If it was, it would be worthless; anyone could read the algorithm and use it > to unlo

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 02/05/2013, at 8:46 AM, "J. Landman Gay" wrote: > US government restrictions require that certain types of data be secured. (I > know what Timothy's stack is about.) So? That doesn't mean the stack needs to be password protected. Just the data encrypted. Most data isn't even protected by t

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 2:57 PM, stephen barncard wrote: > If it's for your own use, why do you need to protect you stacks at all? You > don't trust yourself? Nobody likes a smart aleck. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please vis

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 3:14 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > They've been pretty up-front about the omission of the security module, it > was in the Kickstarter materials. Security can't be in the community version. > If it was, it would be worthless; anyone could read the algorithm and use it > to unlo

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Timothy Miller wrote: >> Is LiveCode turning its back on users like me? > > Not at all. > > All previous versions of LiveCode were commercial versions, and all those > features and more are available in v6.0 of the Commercial Edition. Nothing

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2013-05-01 18:14, J. Landman Gay wrote: > Security can't be in the community version. If it was, it would be > worthless; anyone could read the algorithm and use it to unlock > protected stacks made with the commercial version. Code protection > w

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 5/1/13 5:39 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: On 02/05/2013, at 7:57 AM, stephen barncard wrote: If it's for your own use, why do you need to protect you stacks at all? You don't trust yourself? That was going to be my question. The only thing I can think of is for using it as some kind of secur

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 02/05/2013, at 7:57 AM, stephen barncard wrote: > If it's for your own use, why do you need to protect you stacks at all? You > don't trust yourself? That was going to be my question. The only thing I can think of is for using it as some kind of security feature for data which it's not des

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Timothy Miller wrote: > Is LiveCode turning its back on users like me? Not at all. All previous versions of LiveCode were commercial versions, and all those features and more are available in v6.0 of the Commercial Edition. Nothing's changed there. The Community Edition is what's new, a ver

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 5/1/13 4:55 PM, Timothy Miller wrote: Is LiveCode turning its back on users like me? Will I regret my modest contribution to the kickstarter fund? They've been pretty up-front about the omission of the security module, it was in the Kickstarter materials. Security can't be in the community

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

If it's for your own use, why do you need to protect you stacks at all? You don't trust yourself? On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Timothy Miller < gand...@doctortimothymiller.com> wrote: > On May 1, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Mike Bonner wrote: > > > If its 6.0.1 commercial you should be able to. But of