Compare the two. If they match, then the file hasn't been tampered with... Tampering with this requires...
No, all that is required is to copy one key over the other in memory. Alternatively, one could modify a single comparison instruction in the loader. Then the match occurs, and the code will be allowed to load.
This is well within the range of an experienced hacker:
Disassemble the loader
Modify the assembly code so that the comparison is always true (JNE -> NOP, or other suitable instruction)
Reassemble the loader and replace it on the filesystem.
Note that all of these could be done without Windows' consent if the filesystem is mounted using Linux, or other suitably advanced OS.
Why we support the EFF. The EFF helps citizens keep the government in check. This is just one of the many scandals the EFF has brought to the public's attention.
Instead of whining about the erosion of our civil liberties, do something about it - support the EFF.
On the other hand, brainwashing kids to think that Creationism has any validity and is as credible a theory as Evolution does cause actual long-term harm to their intelligence, and to our country as a whole. It may be a neat story, but if our future textbooks discount real science and promote fairy tales as the truth, the rest of the world is going to leave us far, far behind.
I hate to feed the trolls, but I couldn't resist replying to this. My 7th grade textbook - with no references to Creationism, mind you - described the orbit of satellites as being in a constant state of free fall. The rationale was that the satellite was moving so quickly that the Earth moved out from under it as it fell, hence, it never hit the Earth.
No, I'm not kidding. This is what was taught. Nothing about counterbalancing forces, inertia, acceleration, etc... The explanation was dumbed down and just plain wrong - ostensibly because the author felt that 7th graders just couldn't understand gravity. Perhaps the author himself didn't understand it.
Creationism has never been a threat to our collective intelligence. Rather, it is the culture of ignorance - one which says, "Let the scientific expert tell me what to believe..." which is far more detrimental. Yes, science can unlock a greater understanding of the universe. But far too many people have been taught to trust science, and comply without a shred of any logical thought or analysis whatsoever. Most people who insist Global Warming is happening couldn't answer the question: By how much? Most high school graduates could not explain Newton's laws, or even the limitations of science. (For example, would the scientific method be appropriate for studying religion? Why or why not?) Yet these same people place an unabashed trust in science - something they don't truly understand. At least the Creationist understands what he believes, and the limitations thereof. Who is more ignorant - the one who professes absolute faith in something they can't understand, or one who is aware of the limitations of their own knowledge?
Even so, science curriculum in most public schools is so poorly constructed that the world will leave us behind anyway. Even should Creationism never again be mentioned in schools, the underlying attitude of ignorance will still take its toll on future generations. It's about ignorance, not Creationism.
I think you have confused censorship with censureship. The former is the prohibition of expression, while the latter is merely removal of something the people don't want.
For example, prohibiting talk show hosts from criticizing the President would be censorship. OTOH, prohibiting a talk show host from criticizing the President using foul language is not. While you might not agree with them, the majority of the people in this country do not want to hear foul language on the radio, or see nudity on TV.
I know its probably hard to imagine having kids, being a slashdotter and all (cue William Shatner at trekkie convention: "Have you ever kissed a girl..."). However, most people do at some point have children, and the last thing they want is to hear their toddler repeating "fuck, fuck, fuckety-fuck..." because they heard it on the radio. Or somewhat worse, having their daughters go bulimic on them because they're trying to look like some bare-chested floozy they saw on tv.
The airwaves are a public medium. They belong to the people. As such, they should be used in a way which benefits all of the public, not just a certain subset who feel that foul language and nudity are desirable. Granted, such broadcasts might not include everything you'd like to see or hear, but at least they don't offend a large portion of the viewers/listeners.
One final point for discussion: If the Left can tell us that religion should be a private thing, can't the Right tell the us that obscenity and indecency should be private as well? I mean, if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "offensive" because it disturbs someone else's worldview, then wouldn't vulgar speech and nudity be just as "offensive"? After all, it too disturbs someone's worldview.
Laws like this, ladies and gentlemen, are the true cost of terrorism. Yes, the terrorists did manage to kill 0.002 % of Americans 5 years ago, but the resulting fear and paranoia has led us to a state where everyone is a suspected terrorist and even innocent people are being tortured in the name of the "War on Terror". Far more Americans are affected by the knee-jerk reaction of Congress to 9/11 than by the actual attack itself.
On September 11, 2001, the terrorists took away more than just the lives of 4000 people. They managed to steal our liberties as well. We can't properly consider the impact of 9/11 without also considering the fact that it provided a catalyst for the removal of our Constitutional rights.
I hate to feed the trolls, but the counterargument is so irresistable: How many gamers would have seriously considered buying the systems you mention?
I know, I know. I must have had it hard because I had to settle for a $2000 PC back when we had to walk to school, both ways, in the snow...
Good graphics hardware has always been available to those who could afford to pay an engineer's salary. But even the average engineer would think twice about buying the systems you mentioned for their personal use. Even today, those systems wouldn't even be considered by most of us.
In the original PC, the VGA interface gave the CPU a direct window into the video memory. Your CPU was your GPU as well - the only thing the graphics card did was convert the raster of bytes in a certain location to a signal recognizable by the monitor. As such, the hardware wasn't optimized for the kinds of operations that would become typical in the games that followed. So video card manufacturers began a mitigation strategy which involved moving the computationally complex parts of rendering off to the video card, where the onboard processor could render much more quickly and more efficiently than the CPU itself. The drawback of this approach was that to take full advantage of your video hardware you had to run a certain buggy, unstable, and rather insecure operating system. Typically, the drivers were written only for Windows. Reinstalling Windows became a semi-annual ritual for serious gamers.
But, if ATI is successful in standardizing the GPGPU architecture, we may be able to take advantages of the video hardware on platforms other than Windows. While Linux has typical suffered a dearth of FPS games because of the lack of good hardware rendering support in the past, this has the potential for Linux to become the next serious gamer's platform.
I happen to know of one of the defendants - Software Plus in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. I've done quite a bit of business with them and would be quite surprised if they were actually guilty. They are a friendly shop with a handful of employees. My guess is that it went down something like this:
Customer/Investigator: My PC died and I don't have the recovery disks - can you help me get Windows running on it again?
Tech: Sure, I'll take a look at it.... Seems your hard drive is blank... You didn't happen to accidentally format it, did you?
Customer/Investigator (Trying to look as sheepish as possible): Um, is that what I did? I just right clicked on my hard drive, and then I got a progress meter... I thought I was running the virus scan.
Tech: Well, I don't know. Normally you'd have to buy another copy of XP.
Customer/Investigator: How much is that?
Tech: About $350
Customer/Investigator: 350? I could buy a whole another PC for that? Can't you do something for less? This is my boss' computer and I was just trying to help him out. If it's not fixed by the end of the day, I'll be in big trouble... Think you can help me out?
Tech: Well, I suppose we could reload XP for you and just charge you the labor...
My policy is that if you insist on running a non-free OS, then you can pay the cost of the non-free OS. Nothing makes Linux more appealing than a customer who has accidentally formatted their hard drive and has to pay another $350+ for an OEM copy of XP because they lost a single CD. However, I also understand that such an attitude makes it hard to stay in business. These guys probably thought they were just doing a Microsoft customer a favor...
Up until this point, anti-semitism as we know it did not exist.
As a matter of fact, it did. By the time the Crusades got going, Muslims had invaded Spain and forced the Jews to either convert or be killed. They did the same to the Christians. Had the Pope the audacity to start the Crusades many years earlier, the multitudes of Jews in Spain and Jerusalem could have been spared their lives.
In other words, if a company bundles its hardware with open-source software and ships it to customers, it surrenders rights to enforce patents.
No, it doesn't. The mere bundling of software is not sufficient to create a derivative work. Only if the company modifies the open-source software by adding patented algorithms to the open-source software would it lose the right of enforcement. Bundling is allowed by the GPL.
A short reading of the GPL v3 reveals this:
To the extent that identifiable sections of the modified work, added by you, 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 convey them as separate works, not specifically for use in combination with the Program. [emphasis added]
I really hate to beat a dead horse, but the media gets it wrong time and again. This make as much sense as saying, "If you write code with a Microsoft product, you can't give it away - because the operating system is proprietary!" I find it odd that a writer astute enough to get hired by Business Week doesn't understand the intricacies of copyright law.
I had a motherboard...
on
Computer Voodoo?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That wouldn't boot up unless freon spray was applied to the area just under the processor. (Okay, it wasn't real freon, but the CFC-free stuff...)
It seems that it had a few "cold soldered" joints on an IC or two, and freezing it brought them back into contact with each other.
First of all, ownership and intellectual property are the terms used by the MPAA and RIAA. They want it characterized as ownership when it comes to their rights, but not when it comes to the rights of the consumer. Their advertising is deliberately deceptive, "Own it on DVD today". So, they do want you to think of it as ownership - except when it comes to exercising your rights. Then, they say that different rules apply.
It's not my analogy - it is the MPAA's, and it is not just flawed, but deliberately dishonest. I'm merely exposing the dishonesty involved when it comes to considering a movie as property.
But on to practical matters.
Well, I can understand if they had a problem with me uploading my copy to a filesharing network. Doing so would probably prevent a slim margin of sales by people who wouldn't buy the DVD if they could download it. It would probably be unethical on my part to do so because it reduces their ability to be compensated for the work they've done. As you mentioned, the reason why DVD's are $15 is because they are allowed to spread the production cost across the millions of DVD's stamped.
However, this has nothing to do with what I can and can't do with what I've legally purchased. Granted, I bought a copy of the movie; I helped pay the studio's production costs. I shouldn't ever have to pay for a copy of the movie again - I don't get paid twice for the same work, and neither should the studio. If they want to make more money, they should do it the way the rest of the working people do: make another movie. Why should they be rewarded for laziness?
At the risk of abusing physical analogies, it's as if your carpenter came by every month after installing a picture window and charges you a royalty for your enhanced view of your back yard. He's not doing any additional work; why should he get paid again?
What the studios are doing is theft, plain and simple. I do rent movies - with the understanding that I can't keep the copy. This, at least, is honest. But, a lot of Americans are buying movies with the intent of owning them. 20 years from now, when DVD's are obsolete and players hard to find, they will become angry with Hollywood for preventing them from legally preserving their investment in movies. They're going to find that they will have to either re-buy their collections, some of which won't be available, or simply take a loss.
In essence, buying a DVD is just a long term lease. It ends when Hollywood says it does, and despite the fact that you did compensate the actors and the studio, you still don't own what you paid for.
That is the problem. When it comes to movies, you don't really own what you buy.
I could feel sorry for the movie studios about the impact of piracy, were it not for the fact that pirating a DVD is the only way to truly own it. I'd love to build a collection of movies, but there's no way I'm going to buy something that will be unwatchable by the time my kids are old enough to appreciate it.
I have nothing against the content producers making financial gain from their efforts. In fact, I work for a company that makes a considerable amount of money licensing code to third parties. I'm well aware of the situation that copyright creates, and I'm all for ownership of intellectual property.
That said, ownership is a two way street. I exchange my ownership of the code I produce for the salary my company pays me. I consider it a fair deal - I work a given number of hours in exchange for a one time payment. Once I've cashed the check (before, actually), I no longer own the code that I write. I have no problem with this arrangement. Whether my company sells one copy or a million makes no difference to me, because I've already been paid for the work I did. If the company can't sell my code, well, that's their loss, not mine. Or, if they are obscenely profitable, that's their gain. After all, they bought my code, and they own it. For them to make obscene profits does not impose any additional work burden on me.
However, the movie industry is actively opposed to intellectual property. When you buy a movie from them, they take your money, yet behave as if both the money and the movie are still theirs. You see, they don't believe in property. When you sell a piece of property, you give up any and all claim to the property. The movie industry's idea of a sale is more like an indefinite lease - you get to have a copy of the content for as long as it suits the studio. They feel that if they are not making enough money, they have the right to charge you time and again for the same material. (i.e. new movie on DVD instead of VHS, the "director's cut" version, etc...)
And you are supposed to like it. You pay for the DVD, but you don't own it:
You can't make a backup copy and aren't supposed to try.
You aren't allowed to post clips from the movie for critical review.
You can't make backgrounds from screenshots of good scenes.
You have to buy the soundtrack separately rather than recording it from the DVD.
Granted, I know there are ways around all of these, but they are not easy to come by, and require a technical aptitude beyond what the average user will possess. In effect, the studios are "Indian givers" - they aren't satisfied with either your money or the movie - they want them both.
Which, I think is one of the key reasons why I seldom buy movies anymore. It just doesn't seem right to give money to someone whose stated purpose is to explicitly rip off their customers, and goes to great length to defend the practice.
Anyone who spends any significant time organizing emails, or has a routine to do so is an ignoramus. No, I'm not trolling - it's a simple fact that most mail clients can be configured to do these routine chores for you. If you don't know how to use them, you're the lazy one. Don't berate the guy with 517 emails in his inbox for being disorganized when he can organize them all in about 30 seconds using his mail client. Why should he spend time doing something the computer can do faster?
If anything, a tidy inbox says that a person is inefficient. The most efficient of us don't spend any effort organizing our mail.
Five. It is an accepted fact that populations grow at an exponential rate until they reach the level at which the environment can sustain them.
Six. It is also a known fact that plants produce greater yields with longer, warmer growing seasons.
Seven. The warming of previously ice-locked areas of the arctic regions will provide arable land to support the burgeoning population growth expected in the coming centuries.
So, it would seem that global warming will play a very vital role in the ability of our planet to feed mankind in the upcoming centuries.
Why deny the inevitable? Why not embrace it? What GW fans seem to forget is that our society does not have the option to simply stop burning fossil fuels - it would result in an economic disaster at the least and food shortages and mass starvation at worst. Americans often forget that lack of food kills millions of Africans every year; do we really expect people to starve in an inane attempt to stop the climate change that may very well be necessary for the future of the human race?
Eight. Eliminating consumption of fossil fuels is not a realistic answer. When GW fans provide realistic, workable alternatives to fossil fuels, the world will listen. But we've had alternative energy since the 70's and it still hasn't worked out:
Solar cells are so expensive and environmentally dangerous to manufacture that they would only shift the pollution from one area to another.
Hydrogen is NOT an energy source.
Geothermal energy is not widely available.
Ethanol has promise, but it still produces carbon dioxide when burned.
Methane also produces carbon dioxide when burned.
Humans produce carbon dioxide. Imagine if everyone rode a bike to work, instead of drove. Actually, somebody did - the study they produced found that a human riding a bike to work actually released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than an SUV. Yes, driving your car is better for global warming than riding your bike. (Wish I had a link)
Okay, suppose global warming is happening. Should we do anything about it? It seems to me that it might actually be a good thing. Climate change happens, you know.
Granted, I'm not doing CE development, but on the occasions I've helped them debug some drivers, I distinctly remember taking coffee breaks in the time it took to reboot and reload the OS. And yes, this was over ethernet. The incremental compiles take about 20 minutes due the system dependencies. I'm pretty sure they're rebuilding the kernel, or parts thereof, as opposed to just rebuilding applications. And no, apparently the development tools provided by Microsoft don't have a standard input. They do have console out, but that doesn't help all that much. And they crash frequently.
My company markets reference designs for handheld devices (typically cell phones, media players, etc..) to OEMs. Our customer demand for Linux has increased dramatically in the past year. We've doubled the size of our group, and we still can't hire engineers with Linux experience fast enough.
Yes, we do WinCE development too. But, the WinCE group not only has at least twice as many engineers, they are also behind the Linux group in terms of features. When it comes to rapid development, there's simply nothing better than Linux, because most of the work has already been done. This allows us to concentrate on adding features that differentiate us from the competition, rather than on merely getting something working.
But WinCE also places substantial roadblocks to rapid development. A routine build of WinCE takes 20 minutes; a clean build takes more than an hour. By comparison, our average Linux build time is about 30 seconds, with a clean build taking about 15 or 20 minutes. But it gets worse for WinCE:
The FAT32 filesystem is a major liability for embedded devices. Because of the fact that the disk head must seek back and forth from the filesystem table to the actual data, the effective data bitrate decreases with time. This means that WinCE has a maximum practical encoding time of about 1 hour; after that, the filesystem driver just can't keep up. We don't have this problem when using ext3 under Linux.
WinCE doesn't have a native terminal; you have to recompile and reload the whole OS and application image in order to test a change of even a single line of code. Worse, you can't interactively debug the board because you have no way to send something to standard input.
The WinCE API is relatively new compared with that of Linux/UNIX. Our customers do not need to buy expensive documentation packages from Microsoft in order to work with our embedded Linux solutions; their engineers already know the Linux API, and can begin work immediately. When one considers the fact that the average consumer electronics device has a saleable lifetime of 3 to 6 months, development lag time becomes a critical factor.
Quite frankly, I'm glad to see the demand for Linux growing. However, I'm also putting in quite a bit of overtime because of it, so it is sort of a mixed blessing.
The amount of time Netflix saves my wife and I at the video store. That's got to be worth a lot more than the cost of a DVD lying around collecting dust.
One of the fundamental reasons why we chose Netflix was because we didn't have to rush to get to the video store on Friday nights. Or spend an hour deciding what we were going to rent because the best movies had already been rented. Or have to fight traffic on weekend nights with a crying baby.
Sure, I guess that if we get a movie or two we decide not to watch, we haven't achieved full efficiency. But so what?! We are able to spend more time watching movies and less time in traffic. How could that be a bad thing?
I'm not sure that hopping or moving mines would be effective, though. Why wouldn't the track drivers just drive around them? In order for a mine to be effective, it must remain hidden until after it is too late. If something hopped onto the road after the breach vehicle, most infantry units would just light it up with small arms fire or a.50 cal. Heck, it's hard to keep them from shooting anything that moves during combat.
Yes, humane weapons do exist. The M16, for example, was designed to wound, not to kill. But unlike a landmine, an M16, artillery shell, or even napalm bombing requires a human to make a targetting decision. A land mine has no concept of who or what it is blowing up. It kills a child or woman just the same as an enemy soldier.
I think the relative lethal effectiveness is a moot point. In fact, it is kind of the problem.
The fact that mines may be effective defensively doesn't justify the fact that they kill civilians. Nuclear war is an effective defense, but that doesn't make it humane. Incidentally, Saddam Hussein used minefields extensively, but that didn't stop the US Army; in fact, the presence of mines didn't even slow down the invasion.
I had a gunnery sergeant (Gulf War vet) who mentioned using artillery to clear minefields. In the first Gulf War, though, the front line units moved to fast for artillery to be practical. Apparently, the armor and infantry units would simply drive through the fields because the mines simply couldn't blast the track shoes apart.
The crucial difference between landmines and all other arms is that land mines kill indiscriminantly. It is not merely that they maim (napalm and shrapnel do that), but that they kill even those uninvolved with the conflict. That's inhumane.
An adaptive minefield would be a better term for it. They only "advance" this land mine possesses is the unique ability to be turned against friendly forces by a technologically advanced enemy. How would you like the land mines you planted hopping toward you in the middle of a fire fight?
As a former artilleryman, I can tell you that this would be close to useless. We were taught to clear minefields with artillery barrage - that is, when the first soldier encounters a mine, they all draw back and call in artillery. An artillery barrage will detonate all of the mines, regardless of whether they want to be detonated or not.
I never did like the concept of mines in the first place. They are the only munition in which a human is not involved in the targetting decision. Think about that - they'll kill anyone, or anything, indiscriminantly. U.S. mines will kill:
Enemy soldiers
Enemy vehicles
U.S. soldiers
U.S. vehicles
Women
Children
Medical personnel
Animals
Land mines are the only munition which stand a substantial liability of killing non-combatants. The aren't a humane weapon no matter how you think about it.
And this so-called advance really isn't an advance. Typically, when encountering a minefield, the infantry will call in artillery, which will detonate all the mines on the battlefield at once.
have had this for about 6 weeks now. I still pay with cash or credit card because the notion of giving my fingerprints to the government (via Jewel) doesn't appeal to me.
I wonder if any of the people who signed up for this considered the fact that the government could obtain their fingerprints by doing nothing more than getting a subpeona. In fact, I suspect that most businesses would gladly divulge them for the asking, so long as it was for fighting terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare the two. If they match, then the file hasn't been tampered with... Tampering with this requires...
No, all that is required is to copy one key over the other in memory. Alternatively, one could modify a single comparison instruction in the loader. Then the match occurs, and the code will be allowed to load.
This is well within the range of an experienced hacker:
Why we support the EFF. The EFF helps citizens keep the government in check. This is just one of the many scandals the EFF has brought to the public's attention.
Instead of whining about the erosion of our civil liberties, do something about it - support the EFF.
We're Americans, we measure our trash output in pounds, not kilograms. The metric system is for those snooty Europeans.
On the other hand, brainwashing kids to think that Creationism has any validity and is as credible a theory as Evolution does cause actual long-term harm to their intelligence, and to our country as a whole. It may be a neat story, but if our future textbooks discount real science and promote fairy tales as the truth, the rest of the world is going to leave us far, far behind.
I hate to feed the trolls, but I couldn't resist replying to this. My 7th grade textbook - with no references to Creationism, mind you - described the orbit of satellites as being in a constant state of free fall. The rationale was that the satellite was moving so quickly that the Earth moved out from under it as it fell, hence, it never hit the Earth.
No, I'm not kidding. This is what was taught. Nothing about counterbalancing forces, inertia, acceleration, etc... The explanation was dumbed down and just plain wrong - ostensibly because the author felt that 7th graders just couldn't understand gravity. Perhaps the author himself didn't understand it.
Creationism has never been a threat to our collective intelligence. Rather, it is the culture of ignorance - one which says, "Let the scientific expert tell me what to believe..." which is far more detrimental. Yes, science can unlock a greater understanding of the universe. But far too many people have been taught to trust science, and comply without a shred of any logical thought or analysis whatsoever. Most people who insist Global Warming is happening couldn't answer the question: By how much? Most high school graduates could not explain Newton's laws, or even the limitations of science. (For example, would the scientific method be appropriate for studying religion? Why or why not?) Yet these same people place an unabashed trust in science - something they don't truly understand. At least the Creationist understands what he believes, and the limitations thereof. Who is more ignorant - the one who professes absolute faith in something they can't understand, or one who is aware of the limitations of their own knowledge?
Even so, science curriculum in most public schools is so poorly constructed that the world will leave us behind anyway. Even should Creationism never again be mentioned in schools, the underlying attitude of ignorance will still take its toll on future generations. It's about ignorance, not Creationism.
I think you have confused censorship with censureship. The former is the prohibition of expression, while the latter is merely removal of something the people don't want.
For example, prohibiting talk show hosts from criticizing the President would be censorship. OTOH, prohibiting a talk show host from criticizing the President using foul language is not. While you might not agree with them, the majority of the people in this country do not want to hear foul language on the radio, or see nudity on TV.
I know its probably hard to imagine having kids, being a slashdotter and all (cue William Shatner at trekkie convention: "Have you ever kissed a girl..."). However, most people do at some point have children, and the last thing they want is to hear their toddler repeating "fuck, fuck, fuckety-fuck..." because they heard it on the radio. Or somewhat worse, having their daughters go bulimic on them because they're trying to look like some bare-chested floozy they saw on tv.
The airwaves are a public medium. They belong to the people. As such, they should be used in a way which benefits all of the public, not just a certain subset who feel that foul language and nudity are desirable. Granted, such broadcasts might not include everything you'd like to see or hear, but at least they don't offend a large portion of the viewers/listeners.
One final point for discussion: If the Left can tell us that religion should be a private thing, can't the Right tell the us that obscenity and indecency should be private as well? I mean, if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "offensive" because it disturbs someone else's worldview, then wouldn't vulgar speech and nudity be just as "offensive"? After all, it too disturbs someone's worldview.
Laws like this, ladies and gentlemen, are the true cost of terrorism. Yes, the terrorists did manage to kill 0.002 % of Americans 5 years ago, but the resulting fear and paranoia has led us to a state where everyone is a suspected terrorist and even innocent people are being tortured in the name of the "War on Terror". Far more Americans are affected by the knee-jerk reaction of Congress to 9/11 than by the actual attack itself.
On September 11, 2001, the terrorists took away more than just the lives of 4000 people. They managed to steal our liberties as well. We can't properly consider the impact of 9/11 without also considering the fact that it provided a catalyst for the removal of our Constitutional rights.
You're kidding, right?
I hate to feed the trolls, but the counterargument is so irresistable: How many gamers would have seriously considered buying the systems you mention?
I know, I know. I must have had it hard because I had to settle for a $2000 PC back when we had to walk to school, both ways, in the snow...
Good graphics hardware has always been available to those who could afford to pay an engineer's salary. But even the average engineer would think twice about buying the systems you mentioned for their personal use. Even today, those systems wouldn't even be considered by most of us.
In the original PC, the VGA interface gave the CPU a direct window into the video memory. Your CPU was your GPU as well - the only thing the graphics card did was convert the raster of bytes in a certain location to a signal recognizable by the monitor. As such, the hardware wasn't optimized for the kinds of operations that would become typical in the games that followed. So video card manufacturers began a mitigation strategy which involved moving the computationally complex parts of rendering off to the video card, where the onboard processor could render much more quickly and more efficiently than the CPU itself. The drawback of this approach was that to take full advantage of your video hardware you had to run a certain buggy, unstable, and rather insecure operating system. Typically, the drivers were written only for Windows. Reinstalling Windows became a semi-annual ritual for serious gamers.
But, if ATI is successful in standardizing the GPGPU architecture, we may be able to take advantages of the video hardware on platforms other than Windows. While Linux has typical suffered a dearth of FPS games because of the lack of good hardware rendering support in the past, this has the potential for Linux to become the next serious gamer's platform.
Which is a good thing, IMHO.
Customer/Investigator: My PC died and I don't have the recovery disks - can you help me get Windows running on it again?
Tech: Sure, I'll take a look at it.... Seems your hard drive is blank... You didn't happen to accidentally format it, did you?
Customer/Investigator (Trying to look as sheepish as possible): Um, is that what I did? I just right clicked on my hard drive, and then I got a progress meter... I thought I was running the virus scan.
Tech: Well, I don't know. Normally you'd have to buy another copy of XP.
Customer/Investigator: How much is that?
Tech: About $350
Customer/Investigator: 350? I could buy a whole another PC for that? Can't you do something for less? This is my boss' computer and I was just trying to help him out. If it's not fixed by the end of the day, I'll be in big trouble... Think you can help me out?
Tech: Well, I suppose we could reload XP for you and just charge you the labor...
My policy is that if you insist on running a non-free OS, then you can pay the cost of the non-free OS. Nothing makes Linux more appealing than a customer who has accidentally formatted their hard drive and has to pay another $350+ for an OEM copy of XP because they lost a single CD. However, I also understand that such an attitude makes it hard to stay in business. These guys probably thought they were just doing a Microsoft customer a favor...
As a matter of fact, it did. By the time the Crusades got going, Muslims had invaded Spain and forced the Jews to either convert or be killed. They did the same to the Christians. Had the Pope the audacity to start the Crusades many years earlier, the multitudes of Jews in Spain and Jerusalem could have been spared their lives.
Okay, but what if astronomers discover plutons on plutons?
In other words, if a company bundles its hardware with open-source software and ships it to customers, it surrenders rights to enforce patents.
No, it doesn't. The mere bundling of software is not sufficient to create a derivative work. Only if the company modifies the open-source software by adding patented algorithms to the open-source software would it lose the right of enforcement. Bundling is allowed by the GPL.
A short reading of the GPL v3 reveals this:
To the extent that identifiable sections of the modified work, added by you, 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 convey them as separate works, not specifically for use in combination with the Program. [emphasis added]
I really hate to beat a dead horse, but the media gets it wrong time and again. This make as much sense as saying, "If you write code with a Microsoft product, you can't give it away - because the operating system is proprietary!" I find it odd that a writer astute enough to get hired by Business Week doesn't understand the intricacies of copyright law.
That wouldn't boot up unless freon spray was applied to the area just under the processor. (Okay, it wasn't real freon, but the CFC-free stuff...)
It seems that it had a few "cold soldered" joints on an IC or two, and freezing it brought them back into contact with each other.
First of all, ownership and intellectual property are the terms used by the MPAA and RIAA. They want it characterized as ownership when it comes to their rights, but not when it comes to the rights of the consumer. Their advertising is deliberately deceptive, "Own it on DVD today". So, they do want you to think of it as ownership - except when it comes to exercising your rights. Then, they say that different rules apply.
It's not my analogy - it is the MPAA's, and it is not just flawed, but deliberately dishonest. I'm merely exposing the dishonesty involved when it comes to considering a movie as property.
But on to practical matters.
Well, I can understand if they had a problem with me uploading my copy to a filesharing network. Doing so would probably prevent a slim margin of sales by people who wouldn't buy the DVD if they could download it. It would probably be unethical on my part to do so because it reduces their ability to be compensated for the work they've done. As you mentioned, the reason why DVD's are $15 is because they are allowed to spread the production cost across the millions of DVD's stamped.
However, this has nothing to do with what I can and can't do with what I've legally purchased. Granted, I bought a copy of the movie; I helped pay the studio's production costs. I shouldn't ever have to pay for a copy of the movie again - I don't get paid twice for the same work, and neither should the studio. If they want to make more money, they should do it the way the rest of the working people do: make another movie. Why should they be rewarded for laziness?
At the risk of abusing physical analogies, it's as if your carpenter came by every month after installing a picture window and charges you a royalty for your enhanced view of your back yard. He's not doing any additional work; why should he get paid again?
What the studios are doing is theft, plain and simple. I do rent movies - with the understanding that I can't keep the copy. This, at least, is honest. But, a lot of Americans are buying movies with the intent of owning them. 20 years from now, when DVD's are obsolete and players hard to find, they will become angry with Hollywood for preventing them from legally preserving their investment in movies. They're going to find that they will have to either re-buy their collections, some of which won't be available, or simply take a loss.
In essence, buying a DVD is just a long term lease. It ends when Hollywood says it does, and despite the fact that you did compensate the actors and the studio, you still don't own what you paid for.
That is the problem. When it comes to movies, you don't really own what you buy.
I could feel sorry for the movie studios about the impact of piracy, were it not for the fact that pirating a DVD is the only way to truly own it. I'd love to build a collection of movies, but there's no way I'm going to buy something that will be unwatchable by the time my kids are old enough to appreciate it.
I have nothing against the content producers making financial gain from their efforts. In fact, I work for a company that makes a considerable amount of money licensing code to third parties. I'm well aware of the situation that copyright creates, and I'm all for ownership of intellectual property.
That said, ownership is a two way street. I exchange my ownership of the code I produce for the salary my company pays me. I consider it a fair deal - I work a given number of hours in exchange for a one time payment. Once I've cashed the check (before, actually), I no longer own the code that I write. I have no problem with this arrangement. Whether my company sells one copy or a million makes no difference to me, because I've already been paid for the work I did. If the company can't sell my code, well, that's their loss, not mine. Or, if they are obscenely profitable, that's their gain. After all, they bought my code, and they own it. For them to make obscene profits does not impose any additional work burden on me.
However, the movie industry is actively opposed to intellectual property. When you buy a movie from them, they take your money, yet behave as if both the money and the movie are still theirs. You see, they don't believe in property. When you sell a piece of property, you give up any and all claim to the property. The movie industry's idea of a sale is more like an indefinite lease - you get to have a copy of the content for as long as it suits the studio. They feel that if they are not making enough money, they have the right to charge you time and again for the same material. (i.e. new movie on DVD instead of VHS, the "director's cut" version, etc...)
And you are supposed to like it. You pay for the DVD, but you don't own it:
Granted, I know there are ways around all of these, but they are not easy to come by, and require a technical aptitude beyond what the average user will possess. In effect, the studios are "Indian givers" - they aren't satisfied with either your money or the movie - they want them both.
Which, I think is one of the key reasons why I seldom buy movies anymore. It just doesn't seem right to give money to someone whose stated purpose is to explicitly rip off their customers, and goes to great length to defend the practice .
Anyone who spends any significant time organizing emails, or has a routine to do so is an ignoramus. No, I'm not trolling - it's a simple fact that most mail clients can be configured to do these routine chores for you. If you don't know how to use them, you're the lazy one. Don't berate the guy with 517 emails in his inbox for being disorganized when he can organize them all in about 30 seconds using his mail client. Why should he spend time doing something the computer can do faster?
If anything, a tidy inbox says that a person is inefficient. The most efficient of us don't spend any effort organizing our mail.
Five. It is an accepted fact that populations grow at an exponential rate until they reach the level at which the environment can sustain them.
Six. It is also a known fact that plants produce greater yields with longer, warmer growing seasons.
Seven. The warming of previously ice-locked areas of the arctic regions will provide arable land to support the burgeoning population growth expected in the coming centuries.
So, it would seem that global warming will play a very vital role in the ability of our planet to feed mankind in the upcoming centuries.
Why deny the inevitable? Why not embrace it? What GW fans seem to forget is that our society does not have the option to simply stop burning fossil fuels - it would result in an economic disaster at the least and food shortages and mass starvation at worst. Americans often forget that lack of food kills millions of Africans every year; do we really expect people to starve in an inane attempt to stop the climate change that may very well be necessary for the future of the human race?
Eight. Eliminating consumption of fossil fuels is not a realistic answer. When GW fans provide realistic, workable alternatives to fossil fuels, the world will listen. But we've had alternative energy since the 70's and it still hasn't worked out:
Okay, suppose global warming is happening. Should we do anything about it? It seems to me that it might actually be a good thing. Climate change happens, you know.
Granted, I'm not doing CE development, but on the occasions I've helped them debug some drivers, I distinctly remember taking coffee breaks in the time it took to reboot and reload the OS. And yes, this was over ethernet. The incremental compiles take about 20 minutes due the system dependencies. I'm pretty sure they're rebuilding the kernel, or parts thereof, as opposed to just rebuilding applications. And no, apparently the development tools provided by Microsoft don't have a standard input. They do have console out, but that doesn't help all that much. And they crash frequently.
My company markets reference designs for handheld devices (typically cell phones, media players, etc..) to OEMs. Our customer demand for Linux has increased dramatically in the past year. We've doubled the size of our group, and we still can't hire engineers with Linux experience fast enough.
Yes, we do WinCE development too. But, the WinCE group not only has at least twice as many engineers, they are also behind the Linux group in terms of features. When it comes to rapid development, there's simply nothing better than Linux, because most of the work has already been done. This allows us to concentrate on adding features that differentiate us from the competition, rather than on merely getting something working.
But WinCE also places substantial roadblocks to rapid development. A routine build of WinCE takes 20 minutes; a clean build takes more than an hour. By comparison, our average Linux build time is about 30 seconds, with a clean build taking about 15 or 20 minutes. But it gets worse for WinCE:
Quite frankly, I'm glad to see the demand for Linux growing. However, I'm also putting in quite a bit of overtime because of it, so it is sort of a mixed blessing.
The amount of time Netflix saves my wife and I at the video store. That's got to be worth a lot more than the cost of a DVD lying around collecting dust.
One of the fundamental reasons why we chose Netflix was because we didn't have to rush to get to the video store on Friday nights. Or spend an hour deciding what we were going to rent because the best movies had already been rented. Or have to fight traffic on weekend nights with a crying baby.
Sure, I guess that if we get a movie or two we decide not to watch, we haven't achieved full efficiency. But so what?! We are able to spend more time watching movies and less time in traffic. How could that be a bad thing?
Stop reading slashdot!
I'm not sure that hopping or moving mines would be effective, though. Why wouldn't the track drivers just drive around them? In order for a mine to be effective, it must remain hidden until after it is too late. If something hopped onto the road after the breach vehicle, most infantry units would just light it up with small arms fire or a .50 cal. Heck, it's hard to keep them from shooting anything that moves during combat.
Well, point by point:
The crucial difference between landmines and all other arms is that land mines kill indiscriminantly. It is not merely that they maim (napalm and shrapnel do that), but that they kill even those uninvolved with the conflict. That's inhumane.
Since when to landmines heal anything?
An adaptive minefield would be a better term for it. They only "advance" this land mine possesses is the unique ability to be turned against friendly forces by a technologically advanced enemy. How would you like the land mines you planted hopping toward you in the middle of a fire fight?
As a former artilleryman, I can tell you that this would be close to useless. We were taught to clear minefields with artillery barrage - that is, when the first soldier encounters a mine, they all draw back and call in artillery. An artillery barrage will detonate all of the mines, regardless of whether they want to be detonated or not.
I never did like the concept of mines in the first place. They are the only munition in which a human is not involved in the targetting decision. Think about that - they'll kill anyone, or anything, indiscriminantly. U.S. mines will kill:
Land mines are the only munition which stand a substantial liability of killing non-combatants. The aren't a humane weapon no matter how you think about it.
And this so-called advance really isn't an advance. Typically, when encountering a minefield, the infantry will call in artillery, which will detonate all the mines on the battlefield at once.
have had this for about 6 weeks now. I still pay with cash or credit card because the notion of giving my fingerprints to the government (via Jewel) doesn't appeal to me.
I wonder if any of the people who signed up for this considered the fact that the government could obtain their fingerprints by doing nothing more than getting a subpeona. In fact, I suspect that most businesses would gladly divulge them for the asking, so long as it was for fighting terrorism.