But you could make a hard disk generator
I've seen several designs and some are better than others, but there isn't a great way to string out hundreds of IDE drives without a cluster and multiple processors. After weeding out a number of the large drives for storage, it may be a fun project to mess around with.
You know, I'm quite the nerd and this story, while tragic, is the exact kind of thing I'd like to know. In fact, Slashdot's firehose system is specifically made to sift the interesting stories - like this one - to the top. A quick thank you for being everything CmdrTaco wants the community to not be. If you read through the FAQ it's easy to find tidbits like this:
Some of my favorite "bad" or off-topic comments are things like "Slashdot sucks!" and "This isn't news for nerds!" and "Moderate this XXX!" Any of these may be true, but they're probably off topic! If you still don't understand your offtopic moderation please read the Omlette Rant
Why are there no links to the actual study Apparently you aren't familiar with global warming articles. It doesn't matter what side of the fence the article is on, journalists rarely cite their sources. Why you ask? Because it gives the journalist free reign to come up with their own conclusions.
My guess is if you dig for the studies you'll find the study found both good and bad aspects of the increased greenery.
I don't know if your intent is to fully discredit the article though (as it is hard to detect inflection over the internet) but I would like te mention it is a logical fallacy to believe that because the sources are untrustworthy at times that no information is ever correct - and it is also a logical fallacy to believe that no evidence confirms or negates a premise. Not siding with either you or the article, just a point for clarification.
How is this anything more than just another take on ergonomic grips on other products -- for instance the finger grooves on the grip of a pistol? This is directly from the claimed language in the independent claims of the application:
"and a sensor disposed in the hand impression, responsive to contact by a user, for enabling or disabling a processing unit in the data processing system" I'd say that's very different than ergonomic gripping as it's able to enable and disable the processor itself. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be patentable, I'm just saying you're way off with your assertion there.
Re:IAAAL (I am almost a lawyer) but...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't physically damage the servers per se, but it does damage legitimate players, mainly by disrupting the game economy (also by players getting for free what others have worked for, which damage to the economy is one aspect of, but that's not exactly a clear-cut issue), which I'd count as damage to the game. I'm not necessarily saying that Blizzard is in the right here, but glider *is* harmful. While what you said is true... I'd call it more of a disruption than true damage. Jealous players wanting an item undeserving players have isn't necessarily damage. Don't get me wrong, I agree that could be defined as damage by the court and that's up to interpretation, but as you said the damage to WOW's economy is rather arbitrary and ambiguous. How do you judge in real dollars what damage to a virtual/fake currency system constitutes?
More than likely the worst case for glider users (and what I said in the initial post) is the court will look for the easiest way to fix the economy and gameplay which will be something like removing glider users. The cost of doing so may be passed onto the people who violated the contract but that's even if the court decides Blizzard had the right to post a contract with the mentioned terms.
Hope that cleared things up.
IAAAL (I am almost a lawyer) but...
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It seems the article has a good point. Blizzard is trying to sue for what is a contract violation instead of a copyright violation. A copyright violation has a minimum penalty of $750 dollars because it usually deals with distribution of media and has real damage. Contract violation has no minimum because the damage dealt can vary so much.
In the case of Blizzard's WOW servers, I wouldn't even necessarily call what glider does "damage" to the server, but that will be up to the courts. If the judge has a head on his shoulder the most he'll hold contract violators responsible for is the cost to remove glider-users from the database split between all of the known glider users.
This has to be one of the stupidest attempts at trying to pin someone for copyright infringement ever. Let's just hope the judges aren't that dumb now!
Seems like an expensive way to just keep their name/product visible Because there's absolutely no value in advertising... *rolls eyes*
The point is they are taking reservations and shipping Tesla cars, some are already on the road - albeit in very limited quantity. In addition and as you said, the company is gaining visibility and publicity for their brand. Honestly I think it's a great way to do things.
I'd also much rather sign over $109k in person than wire it to some random company online... maybe that's just me.
An open source project having roots in a for-profit company is not a problem.
If they start data-mining Ubuntu computers for profit or something just as devious - THAT's a problem.
I'm going to use Ubuntu as long as it remains free of evil and cost. If one of those changes, I'll move along to a different distro, but as long as they have the most easy to use open-source desktop environment and continue to develop this project as quickly and as beautifully as they are I'll continue to use it - simple as that.
In defense of the USPTO, they did receive over 700,000 patent applications last year. Mistakes are bound to happen be it because of a sneaky attorney or an ill-prepared examiner.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe there are huge problems with the patent system and things need to change (and from the article itself, it looks like a small improvement at least is afoot), but you're statement is the equivalent of saying to a kid "Oh, you missed 1 problem out of 2000 on your test. You obviously don't know math and should never try again."
Not surprising for a business that calls itself a religion *Corrected* and to quote L. Ron Hubbard in a bulletin from him to the Scientology leaders: "Make money. Make more money. Make others produce so as to make money . . . However you get them in or why, just do it." and "Make sure that lots of bodies move through the shop,"
Let me start my response by quoting myself from earlier:
I know this is simply a metric of Microsoft's percent market share with the likelihood of a computer running a Microsoft product, and not with the programming ability level at Microsoft and:
A break-in through either case is equally devastating, but as I mentioned it's a factor of total number effected by the vulnerability and not quality of product individually. With that being said, I am not sidestepping anything. I agree that crap code is exactly that and I am purposely placing the severity of the exploit on the exact same level. As a hacker though, if I have the choice of writing code that can break into three computers versus 300 Million and it will take the same amount of effort... I go for the 300 million. This is the simple fact that Microsoft, being the market leader has to deal with.
Way off the mark...
More like there are two types of locks for your front door, we'll assign these locks random brands: Capple and Spikrosoft. Capple has a very small percentage of the market and Spikrosoft has a very large percentage.
Let's say there is a vulnerability that will allow access, but you need to order a specific sets of tools to gain access to each individual brand of lock. Because Spikrosoft has a much larger market share, the tools specific to breaking into that lock will much more heavily be ordered because much more stuff (inside the doorway) can be had by the sheer number of doors. This lends the doorway more likely to immediate break-in simply by popularity.
A break-in through either case is equally devastating, but as I mentioned it's a factor of total number effected by the vulnerability and not quality of product individually.
I was going to mention how many of Microsoft's patches have induced later zero-day bugs but more or less, you beat me to that point.
I also wanted to mention though how much more frequently Microsoft vulnerabilities are taken advantage of. I know this is simply a metric of Microsoft's percent market share with the likelihood of a computer running a Microsoft product, and not with the programming ability level at Microsoft, but it still means that if left unpatched for a fraction of the time, a Microsoft vulnerability is hundreds of times more devastating even if the same level of access is granted through it.
While the article is a good start, it is by no means a say-all in internet security.
Slashdot Mirror
But you could make a hard disk generator I've seen several designs and some are better than others, but there isn't a great way to string out hundreds of IDE drives without a cluster and multiple processors. After weeding out a number of the large drives for storage, it may be a fun project to mess around with.
cheers
My guess is if you dig for the studies you'll find the study found both good and bad aspects of the increased greenery.
I don't know if your intent is to fully discredit the article though (as it is hard to detect inflection over the internet) but I would like te mention it is a logical fallacy to believe that because the sources are untrustworthy at times that no information is ever correct - and it is also a logical fallacy to believe that no evidence confirms or negates a premise. Not siding with either you or the article, just a point for clarification.
...There's no catapult in the world that will catch THAT roadrunner!
Mmmmm, hairy crackers...
</Homer Simpson>
More than likely the worst case for glider users (and what I said in the initial post) is the court will look for the easiest way to fix the economy and gameplay which will be something like removing glider users. The cost of doing so may be passed onto the people who violated the contract but that's even if the court decides Blizzard had the right to post a contract with the mentioned terms.
Hope that cleared things up.
It seems the article has a good point. Blizzard is trying to sue for what is a contract violation instead of a copyright violation. A copyright violation has a minimum penalty of $750 dollars because it usually deals with distribution of media and has real damage. Contract violation has no minimum because the damage dealt can vary so much.
In the case of Blizzard's WOW servers, I wouldn't even necessarily call what glider does "damage" to the server, but that will be up to the courts. If the judge has a head on his shoulder the most he'll hold contract violators responsible for is the cost to remove glider-users from the database split between all of the known glider users.
The point is they are taking reservations and shipping Tesla cars, some are already on the road - albeit in very limited quantity. In addition and as you said, the company is gaining visibility and publicity for their brand. Honestly I think it's a great way to do things.
I'd also much rather sign over $109k in person than wire it to some random company online... maybe that's just me.
Don't worry, they're coming out with much more client-friendly nicknames after that:
Idiotic Iguana
Jobless Jaguar
Kolpophobic Kangaroo
Lustful Lynx
Menstruating Moose
I think that's proof of Ubuntu growing up a bit.
An open source project having roots in a for-profit company is not a problem.
If they start data-mining Ubuntu computers for profit or something just as devious - THAT's a problem.
I'm going to use Ubuntu as long as it remains free of evil and cost. If one of those changes, I'll move along to a different distro, but as long as they have the most easy to use open-source desktop environment and continue to develop this project as quickly and as beautifully as they are I'll continue to use it - simple as that.
A Microsoft site was slashdotted Obviously Microsoft needs more beards!
Just stare at your keyboard and BAM! you're logged on!
In defense of the USPTO, they did receive over 700,000 patent applications last year. Mistakes are bound to happen be it because of a sneaky attorney or an ill-prepared examiner.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe there are huge problems with the patent system and things need to change (and from the article itself, it looks like a small improvement at least is afoot), but you're statement is the equivalent of saying to a kid "Oh, you missed 1 problem out of 2000 on your test. You obviously don't know math and should never try again."
Because escalators don't break... they just become stairs.
Cleartype fonts will clear that right up. That's just the text edges, what you really need is good antialiasing.
"Make money. Make more money. Make others produce so as to make money . . . However you get them in or why, just do it." and "Make sure that lots of bodies move through the shop,"
Way off the mark...
More like there are two types of locks for your front door, we'll assign these locks random brands: Capple and Spikrosoft. Capple has a very small percentage of the market and Spikrosoft has a very large percentage.
Let's say there is a vulnerability that will allow access, but you need to order a specific sets of tools to gain access to each individual brand of lock. Because Spikrosoft has a much larger market share, the tools specific to breaking into that lock will much more heavily be ordered because much more stuff (inside the doorway) can be had by the sheer number of doors. This lends the doorway more likely to immediate break-in simply by popularity.
A break-in through either case is equally devastating, but as I mentioned it's a factor of total number effected by the vulnerability and not quality of product individually.
Go ahead... say it:
Orange
Exactly on the mark.
I was going to mention how many of Microsoft's patches have induced later zero-day bugs but more or less, you beat me to that point.
I also wanted to mention though how much more frequently Microsoft vulnerabilities are taken advantage of. I know this is simply a metric of Microsoft's percent market share with the likelihood of a computer running a Microsoft product, and not with the programming ability level at Microsoft, but it still means that if left unpatched for a fraction of the time, a Microsoft vulnerability is hundreds of times more devastating even if the same level of access is granted through it.
While the article is a good start, it is by no means a say-all in internet security.