Domain: dgl.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to dgl.com.
Comments · 11
-
Re:I question the results.
Quite true. A quick search shows that even XP RC1 was supposed to be as fast as Win2k before it was released. In some cases, it was supposedly slightly faster. Of course, we know that this is not quite the truth/reality. For example, some of the articles:
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:DdOzbFHRPI8J:thesource.ofallevil.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.mspx+xp+release+candidate+faster+than+windows-2000&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
and
http://dgl.com/itinfo/2001/it010716.htmlSo, as implied by the OP... I'll believe it when I see it.
-
I wish I had oneFor the dick licks that say it's useless, I guess you missed all the previous articles about scientists who have been doing the same thing:
http://www.physorg.com/news92674403.html
http://dgl.com/itinfo/2003/it030528.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2006/Jul/06.html
-
Finger pointing.
Hmmm. That sure is embarrassing, when it happens.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/25/microsoft_ security_fixes_infected/
http://www.dgl.com/dglinfo/1996/dg961023.html
http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/20 02/06/va_nimda_korea.html -
Re:Metrics slightly skewed
-
Re:Good news everybody!
-
Wait ...
Until MSN changes the protocol again. Timothy's byline is imho the most insightful part of the document: it's an extract from an ancient quote that goes, "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run". [ref].
MSN's frequent "we won't let you run messenger because we need to install crucial updates for which you need to be administrator" errors is why I use Yahoo these days, but I can see how the videocam feature would be helpful to people - and how easy it would be for MSN to change it's protocols around.
Of course, GAIM had the same problem with Yahoo messenger, and they just fought them tooth-and-nail. What I'm saying is, unless somebody really puts their muscle behind this, MSN will just keep screwing around with them. -
Kiss digital security bye-bye?
The implications of this proof:
The math whiz who solves the Riemann hypothesis problem stands to not only earn a million dollars and global acclaim, but also to stand the information security industry on its ear. If it becomes simple to factor the product of prime numbers, current digital encryption software will be worthless. -
In that case -- Yay! I win a million dollars!
After reading the article, the solution looks pretty obvious.
The Riemann hypothesis asserts that all interesting solutions of the equation z(s) = 0 lie on a straight line.
Well, graphing s versus z(s), if z(s) is always zero, then obviously all values of s solving that equation lie on the s axis, which is a straight line. QED.
Sheesh. That wasn't so hard. -
Re:um...
This provides a pretty good layperson's overview of the problem, as well as why it's relevant.
-- shayborg -
Flight Simulator
For those of you who are too lazy to do the search for yourselves and haven't seen it before, details on how to activiate the flight simulator bug can be found at this site.
-
Different != Innovation...in fact, one could argue that everything we're doing with computers today is old hat and has been at least through the 80s, depending on the degree you want to nitpick. What innovation in the computer industry means to me is the process of making systems faster, more powerful, more reliable, more efficient, and easier to use. We obviously haven't stretched any of these characteristics to the limit yet in any operating system or in hardware, so that alone indicates to me that systems research is not dead.
People seem to think that we need some radical new paradigm in the way we're doing things in order to indicate progress; Microsoft is all too eager to jump in with a spiffy new standard and a handful of TLAs to placate this crowd and keep us all on the frequent-upgrade track. This is not good innovation (and while I'm talking about Microsoft, this isn't either). Sometimes different and more complex doesn't beat tried-and-true. Can't innovation be combining yesterday's solutions with today's needs to make a new product? Why are people so willing to attach the label of innovation on things that are new but not better?
I work in a Microsoft NT / IBM AS/400 / Linux environment. The AS/400 feels archaic, but does what we need it to. Linux feels archaic, but does what we need it to. Microsoft NT looks good.
---