My point is, if any of the ISP's do advertise an 'unlimited' service (but do have active capping), couldn't they be easily bitch slapped down by the ASA (al la the Apple G5 - fastest PC in the world).
As it happens, the ASA have already rejected a complaint against NTL on these grounds.
The Jewish people were sent into exile 2000 years ago, and yet they survived the Inquisition, pogroms, WWII, Stalin, etc. and always aspired to return to their land.
It's really dangerous to assume its reasonable to pick the time when your chosen nation was at its largest extent and assume you get to put the clock back.
One could just as reasonably say that they were once part of the Babylon empire, and therefore should be part of modern Iraq. Or under the Romans, so should be part of Italy.
These mythic religious fantasies are really damaging - witness the crusades.
There aren't any good, simple solutions to these problem. Several people have reasonable claims to the territory, and they need to work towards a reasonable solution.
Eh? Perl/Tk, Python/Tk and (let us not forget) Tcl/Tk are obsolete? Not dead yet, I'd say, although perhaps GTK+ is starting to replace it in favor. What say you?...
Anyone got a graphics API they want rendered obsolete? I'll just go study up on it, that should do it...)
In the Python world at least, wxPython is gaining ground on Python/Tk. I used to used Tcl/Tk, then dropped the Tcl, now I've dropped the Tk. Please don't look at though;)
Cards here in the USA already have a CCV2 number (3 or 4 digits on the back). A 4-digit PIN isn't going to cut out any fraud. People will just give the scammers their PIN.
We have CCV2 numbers too. The big difference is that a legitimate vendor will never ask you to provide a PIN.
The article doesn't say that client software is required at all... it says that after some checks the user may be prompted to download some software (presumably from an internal source) before it can connect to the internet.
What I imagine that they are tackling is the problem of people connecting to the network without the latest patches and virus definitions installed. New installs and laptops tend to bite you.
The way I would implement it would to have a server machine sitting on the network, providing tickets to authorize at the router. I'm guessing the antivirus vendors will add something to their existing wokrgroup/enterprise level management to do this.
If it provided a good way to enforce your existing policies it could be a valuable tool. With Cisco, there is hope for a clean, documented specification, which might be of general use.
If Linus Torvalds had wanted linux to be on the desktop, in 1993 he would have got his Finnish butt to the nearest school in Scandinavia with a HCI department and would have allowed usability folks substantial input on the design of the first kernel.
User interfaces are important but this is just utter nonsense. In what possible way is it the kernel's job to care about these things?
Have you ever tried counting pennies from a piggy bank? On your first count your have $10.38 then the next count your have $10.40. When the election is close and could decide the fate of the country (2001 US president elections) accuracy matters
That's why you have recounts when it's close, which is easy (if time-consuming) to do with a paper based system.
What's the penalty under the law for putting a backdoor in an open-sourced software project?
Depends where the case (if ever) is tried. In the UK, unauthorized modification of data: up to 5 years. Faking the change log with someone else's name - forgery, up to 10 years.
Maybe I've watched one too many movies, but am I the only one concerned about what happens when the bag guys get ahold of this and are able to shut down any hazardous truck they want?
On the other hand it could be useful, were the a gas tanker being driven by a cyborg killing machine sent back in time. Who'd make a movie with a plot like that though?
The explosion model assumes Fawkes was an expert in explosives and would have packed the barrels really tight instead of just using the barrels as is...
According to the BBC article Guy Fawkes' job was packing gunpowder for the army, so it's not unreasonable to assume he knew what he was doing.
The other issue is their notion that an invalid GPL means that all copyrights on Linux source code also becomes invalid and the work enters public domain. I'm no copyright expert, but I really doubt that's the way this works in the real world.
And it seems a curious thing to argue, even from their twisted point of view. Sure, it weakens IBMs counterclaim. However, it also implies that all the code they allegedly own in Linux has been effectively released into the public domain by themselves. Unless they mean: all code released under the GPL is in the public domain, except ours.
What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too. -- Rule of Acquisition #42
I've done a bit of digging, and I'm beginning to doubt the attribution of this quote to Emma Goldman.
Me too; at least I've not found any authoritative reference. It's been around long enough though, and I can find earlier references than 1987 on the net. You've got me curious too.
If course voting can change things, for example I'm sure the people of Iraq would have loved to vote a new leader when Saddam Hussein was in power, but couldn't.
That's the point though isn't it? Having the right to vote, is what you get after you have won your freedom. Nobody voted Sadaam out of power.
Women died for the right to vote: is there a significant gender bias in candidate voted for? Usually no; does that mean that women's right to vote is unimportant. Of course not.
Of course, communism is always doomed to failure because humanity is inately selfish (a necessary evolutionary trait), and the chance of a benevolent leadership persisting indefinately is unlikely.
Don't let the 'social Darwinists' fool you on that one; there are excellent evolutionary reasons why altruism is expected, which biologists are just beginning to understand in detail.
It's just plain wrong headed to think Darwinism implies selfishness; at the very minimum it's about looking out for your children and relations. It certainly doesn't preclude the evolutionary logic, as well as the morality, of defending your tribe or nation.
Not that you aren't partly correct, of course: self-interest is there in the picture. It's just a mistake to think evolution necessarily implies *narrow* self-interest.
The 2x speed up was comparing to sockets and sysv message queues alone.
Agreed. You probably can't achieve significant overall speedup in X that way. That's not a good reason not to use the fastest available method if there is OS support.
It may well be true that the small overall performance gain isn't worth the pain of adding new kernel interfaces to Linux. That's an architectural issue though.
I'm just disappointed that this discussion has turned into yet another 'why socktes don't slow down X'. I guess the top-leve poster was too - this is just one of the articles where I wish I could mod the summary as a troll and get people to read the original FA.
I agree. I'm far from convinced that sockets have anything to do with X being slow. In any case, doesn't X have a shared memory option? The point is, let's see some benchmarks PROVING that sockets slow things up before going off at some tangent to replace them.
You are looking at things ass-backwards. These guys have written an Xlib compatibility library for an existing GUI system, which happens to have some custom message passing layer underneath.
It's not about speeding up about X, even if the editorializing suggests it is.
There are no details about the benchmark on their page. A typical error is that the data isn't actually accessed on the receiving side. This may sound harmless, but it actually turns the results upside down due to cache issues.
Fair point. We don't have a lot to go on, and I would be very surprised if many of us have any experience of JourneyOs. I'm just surprised that folk got caught by Tim and his 'can this make Xfree86 faster?' troll; the article isn't about Linux or XFree86.
OK, repeat after me... X is NOT SLOW BECAUSE IT USES SOCKETS!!! Please understand this! When you are on a local machine it uses optimised sockets, which are the fastest way of streaming information between programs
No doubt you can explain the flaw in their benchmarking process that gave them a factor of 2 speed over sockets. Sockets are not slow. When people have gone away, produced something faster, and have figures to back it up, though, they gain some bragging rights.
Code counts. 'Nothing can possibly be ever better than sockets' BS doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is, if any of the ISP's do advertise an 'unlimited' service (but do have active capping), couldn't they be easily bitch slapped down by the ASA (al la the Apple G5 - fastest PC in the world).
As it happens, the ASA have already rejected a complaint against NTL on these grounds.
Anyway, isn't offside a rule, not a Law?
Nope, it varies from sport to sport but in Soccer they are Laws.
and it wont work for IBM.
IBM gets to dump whatever stock it can't shift onto people who won't complain what they get. I think it'll work just fine for IBM.
Metronomy on the other hand...
4) The PC must be connected to the internet at least once a month, and you must maintain an ISP dial-up account throughout the term of the agreement.
dial-up?
Sure, dial-up. Who is going to pay broadband rates, and then use a low-end PC?
The Jewish people were sent into exile 2000 years ago, and yet they survived the Inquisition, pogroms, WWII, Stalin, etc. and always aspired to return to their land.
It's really dangerous to assume its reasonable to pick the time when your chosen nation was at its largest extent and assume you get to put the clock back.
One could just as reasonably say that they were once part of the Babylon empire, and therefore should be part of modern Iraq. Or under the Romans, so should be part of Italy.
These mythic religious fantasies are really damaging - witness the crusades.
There aren't any good, simple solutions to these problem. Several people have reasonable claims to the territory, and they need to work towards a reasonable solution.
Eh? Perl/Tk, Python/Tk and (let us not forget) Tcl/Tk are obsolete? Not dead yet, I'd say, although perhaps GTK+ is starting to replace it in favor. What say you? ...
;)
Anyone got a graphics API they want rendered obsolete? I'll just go study up on it, that should do it...)
In the Python world at least, wxPython is gaining ground on Python/Tk. I used to used Tcl/Tk, then dropped the Tcl, now I've dropped the Tk. Please don't look at though
Cards here in the USA already have a CCV2 number (3 or 4 digits on the back). A 4-digit PIN isn't going to cut out any fraud. People will just give the scammers their PIN.
We have CCV2 numbers too. The big difference is that a legitimate vendor will never ask you to provide a PIN.
The article doesn't say that client software is required at all...
More detail in a CNN article.
The article doesn't say that client software is required at all... it says that after some checks the user may be prompted to download some software (presumably from an internal source) before it can connect to the internet.
What I imagine that they are tackling is the problem of people connecting to the network without the latest patches and virus definitions installed. New installs and laptops tend to bite you.
The way I would implement it would to have a server machine sitting on the network, providing tickets to authorize at the router. I'm guessing the antivirus vendors will add something to their existing wokrgroup/enterprise level management to do this.
If it provided a good way to enforce your existing policies it could be a valuable tool. With Cisco, there is hope for a clean, documented specification, which might be of general use.
If Linus Torvalds had wanted linux to be on the desktop, in 1993 he would have got his Finnish butt to the nearest school in Scandinavia with a HCI department and would have allowed usability folks substantial input on the design of the first kernel.
User interfaces are important but this is just utter nonsense. In what possible way is it the kernel's job to care about these things?
Have you ever tried counting pennies from a piggy bank? On your first count your have $10.38 then the next count your have $10.40. When the election is close and could decide the fate of the country (2001 US president elections) accuracy matters
That's why you have recounts when it's close, which is easy (if time-consuming) to do with a paper based system.
What's the penalty under the law for putting a backdoor in an open-sourced software project?
Depends where the case (if ever) is tried. In the UK, unauthorized modification of data: up to 5 years. Faking the change log with someone else's name - forgery, up to 10 years.
Maybe I've watched one too many movies, but am I the only one concerned about what happens when the bag guys get ahold of this and are able to shut down any hazardous truck they want?
On the other hand it could be useful, were the a gas tanker being driven by a cyborg killing machine sent back in time. Who'd make a movie with a plot like that though?
The explosion model assumes Fawkes was an expert in explosives and would have packed the barrels really tight instead of just using the barrels as is...
According to the BBC article Guy Fawkes' job was packing gunpowder for the army, so it's not unreasonable to assume he knew what he was doing.
While we're at it, we should switch to a 5 digit date for the year
You want the Long Now Foundation, just along the corridor.
The other issue is their notion that an invalid GPL means that all copyrights on Linux source code also becomes invalid and the work enters public domain. I'm no copyright expert, but I really doubt that's the way this works in the real world.
And it seems a curious thing to argue, even from their twisted point of view. Sure, it weakens IBMs counterclaim. However, it also implies that all the code they allegedly own in Linux has been effectively released into the public domain by themselves. Unless they mean: all code released under the GPL is in the public domain, except ours.
What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too.
-- Rule of Acquisition #42
I've done a bit of digging, and I'm beginning to doubt the attribution of this quote to Emma Goldman.
Me too; at least I've not found any authoritative reference. It's been around long enough though, and I can find earlier references than 1987 on the net. You've got me curious too.
From 1984: If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.
If course voting can change things, for example I'm sure the people of Iraq would have loved to vote a new leader when Saddam Hussein was in power, but couldn't.
That's the point though isn't it? Having the right to vote, is what you get after you have won your freedom. Nobody voted Sadaam out of power.
Women died for the right to vote: is there a significant gender bias in candidate voted for? Usually no; does that mean that women's right to vote is unimportant. Of course not.
Although if people are still shocked by quoting an anarchist-feminist who died over 50 years ago, they haven't woken up.
Of course, communism is always doomed to failure because humanity is inately selfish (a necessary evolutionary trait), and the chance of a benevolent leadership persisting indefinately is unlikely.
Don't let the 'social Darwinists' fool you on that one; there are excellent evolutionary reasons why altruism is expected, which biologists are just beginning to understand in detail.
It's just plain wrong headed to think Darwinism implies selfishness; at the very minimum it's about looking out for your children and relations. It certainly doesn't preclude the evolutionary logic, as well as the morality, of defending your tribe or nation.
Not that you aren't partly correct, of course: self-interest is there in the picture. It's just a mistake to think evolution necessarily implies *narrow* self-interest.
Principia Mathematica.
There has never been a more significant scientific publication
My physics teacher at school regarded it as the second most significant, after 'The Origin of Species'. I'm inclined to agree.
The 2x speed up was comparing to sockets and sysv message queues alone.
Agreed. You probably can't achieve significant overall speedup in X that way. That's not a good reason not to use the fastest available method if there is OS support.
It may well be true that the small overall performance gain isn't worth the pain of adding new kernel interfaces to Linux. That's an architectural issue though.
I'm just disappointed that this discussion has turned into yet another 'why socktes don't slow down X'. I guess the top-leve poster was too - this is just one of the articles where I wish I could mod the summary as a troll and get people to read the original FA.
I agree. I'm far from convinced that sockets have anything to do with X being slow. In any case, doesn't X have a shared memory option? The point is, let's see some benchmarks PROVING that sockets slow things up before going off at some tangent to replace them.
You are looking at things ass-backwards. These guys have written an Xlib compatibility library for an existing GUI system, which happens to have some custom message passing layer underneath.
It's not about speeding up about X, even if the editorializing suggests it is.
There are no details about the benchmark on their page. A typical error is that the data isn't actually accessed on the receiving side. This may sound harmless, but it actually turns the results upside down due to cache issues.
Fair point. We don't have a lot to go on, and I would be very surprised if many of us have any experience of JourneyOs. I'm just surprised that folk got caught by Tim and his 'can this make Xfree86 faster?' troll; the article isn't about Linux or XFree86.
one word: protability.
;)
Not even one word.
As for portability, why should they care? They are producing a window system for the OS they are selling, not everybody else's.
OK, repeat after me... X is NOT SLOW BECAUSE IT USES SOCKETS!!! Please understand this! When you are on a local machine it uses optimised sockets, which are the fastest way of streaming information between programs
No doubt you can explain the flaw in their benchmarking process that gave them a factor of 2 speed over sockets. Sockets are not slow. When people have gone away, produced something faster, and have figures to back it up, though, they gain some bragging rights.
Code counts. 'Nothing can possibly be ever better than sockets' BS doesn't.