Who the hell uses the 2.6 kernel in a production setting?
There are production settings other than servers. I run Linux on my desktop at work, for example, and many of the things in the 2.6 kernel would be quite welcome on my development machine.
Even for servers, there are quite a lot of servers where the improved performance of 2.6 would be worth the extremely slight theoretical loss of stability of 2.6 vs. 2.4. For example, if my database server goes down at work, all that happens for the 10 or 20 minutes it takes to come back up is that a dozen overworked people work on other stuff for 10 or 20 minutes from their ample TODO list.
Gee, I know it's a funny comment - but dang, I rarely see China up there in the top-3 spammer countries. Well over half of the spam I see comes from the good ole US of A. China and most of Asia actually seems to have culled a lot of their bad servers
Check the URLs in the spam. The spam itself may be relayed through some trojaned Windows machine in the US, but when you go to buy that viagra, it is probably from a Chinese web site.
A lot of local businesses will have localised mail servers, these people will now feel the crunch... I can imagine export type companies would really be wailing
They should be wailing--to their ISP, about how the ISP did not respond to abuse reports or apparently do anything to stop spam and scams.
This ain't rocket science. It's possible to run a large ISP and stay off of spam lists. AOL does it. Earthlink does it. MSN does it. The Spanish national ISP should be able to manage it.
And if they have decided that the money they make from spammers is worth the risk of blacklisting, then those export companies need to ask themselves if that is the kind of ISP they should be using.
What a bunch of arrogant fucksticks...How about sending the Telco's CEO a registered letter, pointing out what will happen within a month if things don't change?
I think it is interesting that you call them arrogant fucksticks, when you have no clue at all how this stuff works. Hint: a block only becomes this big when the ISP has repeatedly ignored abuse reports over a long period of time. The only way to get their attention is to block them.
And, in fact, now that they have been blocked, they suddenly have shown an interest in dealing with their spam, and have contacted AHBL.
Note also that AHBL asked for details on address ranges, so they could tune the fine-tune the blocks to just catch the dynamic addresses (the ISP claims that most of the problems are from users at Internet cafes), and was ignored. Note also that the ISP could solve this problem with a simple block on outgoing port 25 from their Internet cafe customers.
There is an interesting article in the latest CACM that says that people are polite to computers. For example, if a person uses a computer for a given task, and is then asked to take an online survey rating how well the computer handled task, they will rate it higher if they take the survey on the same computer than if they take it on a different identical computer, or if they take an offline survey.
Really, why bother, the dedicated calculator is dead. Just install EasyCalc and EasyStat which can do some pretty neat stuff for your Palm and you're all set
When I use a Palm with a stylus, my fingers get numb fast. I can use a calculator all day with no problem.
My understanding is that people have tried to build this thing before, and failed.
So we assume that because DaVinci was such a genius, this failure must be due to people failing to understand his design. Bright people then try to figure out what he could have meant.
It seems to me there is a very real possibility that what we actually have is a new design by those bright people, somewhat inspired by DaVinci's ideas.
Thinking about this in general, you've got an audio bit stream and a video bit stream coming from the media. They have both been encoded in various ways, and so both need to be decoded. After decoding, both need processing. The audio stream might need equalization, adjustment to match the number of speakers you have, and so on. The video stream might need 3:2 pulldown, deinterlacing, and other things done to it.
There is no logical reason to expect these two processing paths to introduce the same delay. In the past, both paths were fast enough that the difference was small enough to not worry about. Now it looks like video is slow enough that it matters. However, it's not wise to assume that video will always be the slow one--maybe the next audio format will be very slow.
Hence, it seems the the right then to do is make it so audio and video both have adjustable delays, so that they can be matched as needed.
Where to put these delays? One possibility that comes to mind is in the DVD players, PVRs, VCRs, and TV tuners. E.g., everything that provides an A/V signal into the system could provide a means of adjusting the delay.
Another possibility is to have display devices provide a video delay, and A/V receivers to provide an audio delay. Since most systems only have one receiver and one display, that would be cheaper than having every source device provide both delays, and easier on the user.
It would also be very nice if the manufactures would get together and provide a way to automatically set these delays, by having the display and the receiver talk to each other and figure out which of the audio and video is slower, so the other can set its delay.
These stories are always in the "Your Rights Online" section, but no one ever explains which rights are involved.
All that actually appears to have happened is that a bunch of people got busted for doing something illegal, and they happened to be doing it with computers. That does not make it relevant to my online rights, unless someone thinks we are supposed to have the right to do things online that are illegal offline.
There should really be a flat tax in this country and a national sales tax
If by "flat tax" you mean a fixed percentage, what is the reason for that? If you think it is unfair that people who make more should pay more, then a flat tax doesn't fix that--someone who makes twice as much pays twice as much.
Or do you mean a flat amount? In that case, what about people who don't make that much?
Going back to the flat percentage, since no one could actually be dumb enough to suggest a flat amount, isn't a flat percentage very harsh on the poor? Taking $1000 from someone who makes $10000 is going to impact them a lot more than taking $1000000 from someone who makes $10000000. The person making $10 million will pay their tax entirely out of money that would have gone to luxuries, whereas the person making $10k might have to cut back on food and shelter.
Most so-called flat tax proposals actually provide a deduction of a few K, and only tax money over that. But then they aren't flat...they are progressive, just like the current system. They merely have fewer brackets.
The other argument I've heard for a flat tax is that it would simplify things. An examination of the Internal Revenue Code shows that approximately one page of text deals with the rate structure, and the other several thousand pages deal with the question of WHAT and WHO to tax. Replacing the rate structure with a flat structure would result in shortening the Code by about half a page or so. BFD.
Maybe you can make more waiting tables than as an entry level programmer, but you have to consider advancement opportunities, too. When you are a senior programmer, 20 years from now, you'll be making a lot more than you would as a senior waiter.
We don't because of the runtime size. Our primary sales and distribution method is the Internet, and there is a pretty good correlation between the size of the download and how many people give up during the download.
Until the.NET runtime is on the vast majority of Windows systems, it is not an option for us, because including the runtime in our downloads would cost us too many downloads.
I haven't used MS VC++ for a few years (fortunately), but does it still get the scope of loop variables wrong?
This is the most annoying thing about using compilers that came out before the final C++ standard. The proper scope of such variables flip-flopped between draft standards. Here's a trick I saw somewhere that fixes this problem.
At the top of your code, put this:
#define for if(false);else for
That will make the for loop variable scope correct, no matter which draft of the standard the compiler follows.
Domains are cheap. Put the stuff that isn't work/child/whatever safe on a separate domain.
Maybe someone should fix the GPL violation
on
VIA Pulls PadLockSL
·
· Score: 1
If all this effort that people are spending to keep putting this thing up when people take it down were instead spent actually working on the code, perhaps the non-GPL'ed parts could be rewritten, and then it wouldn't keep disappearing.
At least South Park still manages to be fresh and timely after 8 years
On The Simpsons DVD commentary, someone mentions that after The Simpsons success, the other networks tried prime-time cartoons, which pretty much all flopped. The commentator mentions reading an interview with the writer for one of those others, and he was a terrific writer, but there was only one--one guy was suppose to write a whole season's worth of quality episodes. On The Simpsons, they had several terrific writers, and most writers worked mainly on one episode per season. So it came as no surprise to them that these other shows weren't anywhere as good as The Simpsons and soon died.
What's interesting about South Park is that it is mostly written by two people. This, more than anything, shows just how good Parker and Stone are.
There's some interesting material on the making of South Park at South Park Studios. Aside from their fairly good-sized rendering farm (driven by homegrown Perl scripts), they seem pretty small in all departments compared to other prime-time cartoons, present and past. I think this probably shows that it is not just Parker and Stone that are terrifically talented.
Now, I'm no TV exec, but something tells me that canceling a show, and then replacing it with one that gets high ratings isn't such a dumb thing to do?
What about syndication? I don't think those extreme reality shows that they are putting on are going to do well in syndication, because (1) they generally don't have enough episodes for syndication in the first place, and (2) there will be new extreme reality shows on that people will be watching--they aren't like sitcoms or dramas that be interesting years later.
It could be a classic case of optimizing the wrong thing. "Look, we won in our time slot! We made slightly more ad revenue than NBC that half hour! We'll probably win again with our one rerun of this show! All they have is something that will generate steady income the next 10 years as it is shown dozens of times a year in syndication around the world"
The WASTE code in Sourceforge still violates GPL. It still includes a bunch of RSA code that isn't GPL'ed. Some of it is explicitly under a license that is imcompatible with GPL, and the rest simply gives an RSA copyright notice and says nothing about licensing.
I think the reason things like UI and documentation are hard for open source is that the people that are good at them don't really get anything back by contributing their effort to open source.
Code can be split into parts and reused. A professional programmer benefits by having a large body of good open source code.
Documentation, on the other hand, is much more likely to be a one-shot thing. If a professional technical writer were to write, say, a terrific GIMP manual, and release it open source, it's not likely that they are going to get anything back that will help them on other documentation projects, at least to the extent a coder gets for releasing code.
Same for UI designers.
Basically, good open source documentation and UI design comes from people doing it as an act of charity, whereas there are good practical reasons for people to write open source code.
[...]a glance at the Top 500 List shows Linux holding spots at 4, 6 and 7 in the top 10 and Cray not appearing until slot 19. Someone should ask Dr. Terry why they don't have 3 slots in the top 10
Note that Cray is getting about 1/3 the performance of those Linux clusters with about 1/9th the processors. That's a pretty good argument for Dr. Terry's point.
I believe what they basically did was use the loopback device to put a Linux filesystem inside a file on the Windows filesystem. That served as the root filesystem for Linux.
So, basically it was a dual-boot setup, where you did not have to repartition your disk to get space for Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
There are production settings other than servers. I run Linux on my desktop at work, for example, and many of the things in the 2.6 kernel would be quite welcome on my development machine.
Even for servers, there are quite a lot of servers where the improved performance of 2.6 would be worth the extremely slight theoretical loss of stability of 2.6 vs. 2.4. For example, if my database server goes down at work, all that happens for the 10 or 20 minutes it takes to come back up is that a dozen overworked people work on other stuff for 10 or 20 minutes from their ample TODO list.
Check the URLs in the spam. The spam itself may be relayed through some trojaned Windows machine in the US, but when you go to buy that viagra, it is probably from a Chinese web site.
They should be wailing--to their ISP, about how the ISP did not respond to abuse reports or apparently do anything to stop spam and scams.
This ain't rocket science. It's possible to run a large ISP and stay off of spam lists. AOL does it. Earthlink does it. MSN does it. The Spanish national ISP should be able to manage it.
And if they have decided that the money they make from spammers is worth the risk of blacklisting, then those export companies need to ask themselves if that is the kind of ISP they should be using.
I think it is interesting that you call them arrogant fucksticks, when you have no clue at all how this stuff works. Hint: a block only becomes this big when the ISP has repeatedly ignored abuse reports over a long period of time. The only way to get their attention is to block them.
And, in fact, now that they have been blocked, they suddenly have shown an interest in dealing with their spam, and have contacted AHBL.
Note also that AHBL asked for details on address ranges, so they could tune the fine-tune the blocks to just catch the dynamic addresses (the ISP claims that most of the problems are from users at Internet cafes), and was ignored. Note also that the ISP could solve this problem with a simple block on outgoing port 25 from their Internet cafe customers.
There is an interesting article in the latest CACM that says that people are polite to computers. For example, if a person uses a computer for a given task, and is then asked to take an online survey rating how well the computer handled task, they will rate it higher if they take the survey on the same computer than if they take it on a different identical computer, or if they take an offline survey.
When I use a Palm with a stylus, my fingers get numb fast. I can use a calculator all day with no problem.
You are assuming that C# is slow. That is not a good assumption.
There is copyright law, and then there is wishful thinking ("Hey, since it is soooooo easy to download this stuff, it should be legal").
So we assume that because DaVinci was such a genius, this failure must be due to people failing to understand his design. Bright people then try to figure out what he could have meant.
It seems to me there is a very real possibility that what we actually have is a new design by those bright people, somewhat inspired by DaVinci's ideas.
Get DirecTV and then you can Tivo both, since the DirecTV Tivo has two tuners.
There is no logical reason to expect these two processing paths to introduce the same delay. In the past, both paths were fast enough that the difference was small enough to not worry about. Now it looks like video is slow enough that it matters. However, it's not wise to assume that video will always be the slow one--maybe the next audio format will be very slow.
Hence, it seems the the right then to do is make it so audio and video both have adjustable delays, so that they can be matched as needed.
Where to put these delays? One possibility that comes to mind is in the DVD players, PVRs, VCRs, and TV tuners. E.g., everything that provides an A/V signal into the system could provide a means of adjusting the delay.
Another possibility is to have display devices provide a video delay, and A/V receivers to provide an audio delay. Since most systems only have one receiver and one display, that would be cheaper than having every source device provide both delays, and easier on the user.
It would also be very nice if the manufactures would get together and provide a way to automatically set these delays, by having the display and the receiver talk to each other and figure out which of the audio and video is slower, so the other can set its delay.
All that actually appears to have happened is that a bunch of people got busted for doing something illegal, and they happened to be doing it with computers. That does not make it relevant to my online rights, unless someone thinks we are supposed to have the right to do things online that are illegal offline.
If by "flat tax" you mean a fixed percentage, what is the reason for that? If you think it is unfair that people who make more should pay more, then a flat tax doesn't fix that--someone who makes twice as much pays twice as much.
Or do you mean a flat amount? In that case, what about people who don't make that much?
Going back to the flat percentage, since no one could actually be dumb enough to suggest a flat amount, isn't a flat percentage very harsh on the poor? Taking $1000 from someone who makes $10000 is going to impact them a lot more than taking $1000000 from someone who makes $10000000. The person making $10 million will pay their tax entirely out of money that would have gone to luxuries, whereas the person making $10k might have to cut back on food and shelter.
Most so-called flat tax proposals actually provide a deduction of a few K, and only tax money over that. But then they aren't flat...they are progressive, just like the current system. They merely have fewer brackets.
The other argument I've heard for a flat tax is that it would simplify things. An examination of the Internal Revenue Code shows that approximately one page of text deals with the rate structure, and the other several thousand pages deal with the question of WHAT and WHO to tax. Replacing the rate structure with a flat structure would result in shortening the Code by about half a page or so. BFD.
Maybe you can make more waiting tables than as an entry level programmer, but you have to consider advancement opportunities, too. When you are a senior programmer, 20 years from now, you'll be making a lot more than you would as a senior waiter.
We don't because of the runtime size. Our primary sales and distribution method is the Internet, and there is a pretty good correlation between the size of the download and how many people give up during the download.
Until the .NET runtime is on the vast majority of Windows systems, it is not an option for us, because including the runtime in our downloads would cost us too many downloads.
So tell the compiler to output assembly code instead of object code.
This is the most annoying thing about using compilers that came out before the final C++ standard. The proper scope of such variables flip-flopped between draft standards. Here's a trick I saw somewhere that fixes this problem.
At the top of your code, put this:
That will make the for loop variable scope correct, no matter which draft of the standard the compiler follows.
Domains are cheap. Put the stuff that isn't work/child/whatever safe on a separate domain.
If all this effort that people are spending to keep putting this thing up when people take it down were instead spent actually working on the code, perhaps the non-GPL'ed parts could be rewritten, and then it wouldn't keep disappearing.
On The Simpsons DVD commentary, someone mentions that after The Simpsons success, the other networks tried prime-time cartoons, which pretty much all flopped. The commentator mentions reading an interview with the writer for one of those others, and he was a terrific writer, but there was only one--one guy was suppose to write a whole season's worth of quality episodes. On The Simpsons, they had several terrific writers, and most writers worked mainly on one episode per season. So it came as no surprise to them that these other shows weren't anywhere as good as The Simpsons and soon died.
What's interesting about South Park is that it is mostly written by two people. This, more than anything, shows just how good Parker and Stone are.
There's some interesting material on the making of South Park at South Park Studios. Aside from their fairly good-sized rendering farm (driven by homegrown Perl scripts), they seem pretty small in all departments compared to other prime-time cartoons, present and past. I think this probably shows that it is not just Parker and Stone that are terrifically talented.
What about syndication? I don't think those extreme reality shows that they are putting on are going to do well in syndication, because (1) they generally don't have enough episodes for syndication in the first place, and (2) there will be new extreme reality shows on that people will be watching--they aren't like sitcoms or dramas that be interesting years later.
It could be a classic case of optimizing the wrong thing. "Look, we won in our time slot! We made slightly more ad revenue than NBC that half hour! We'll probably win again with our one rerun of this show! All they have is something that will generate steady income the next 10 years as it is shown dozens of times a year in syndication around the world"
The WASTE code in Sourceforge still violates GPL. It still includes a bunch of RSA code that isn't GPL'ed. Some of it is explicitly under a license that is imcompatible with GPL, and the rest simply gives an RSA copyright notice and says nothing about licensing.
Code can be split into parts and reused. A professional programmer benefits by having a large body of good open source code.
Documentation, on the other hand, is much more likely to be a one-shot thing. If a professional technical writer were to write, say, a terrific GIMP manual, and release it open source, it's not likely that they are going to get anything back that will help them on other documentation projects, at least to the extent a coder gets for releasing code.
Same for UI designers.
Basically, good open source documentation and UI design comes from people doing it as an act of charity, whereas there are good practical reasons for people to write open source code.
Note that Cray is getting about 1/3 the performance of those Linux clusters with about 1/9th the processors. That's a pretty good argument for Dr. Terry's point.
I believe what they basically did was use the loopback device to put a Linux filesystem inside a file on the Windows filesystem. That served as the root filesystem for Linux.
So, basically it was a dual-boot setup, where you did not have to repartition your disk to get space for Linux.