McDowell was an Atheist who attempted to prove there was no God based on all available evidence.
So, because he couldn't prove the non-existence of god, he went from atheist to christian ? Maybe someone should have just pointed out to him that you simply can't prove a negative and he wouldn't have needed to convert.
How many of you went out to buy the ROTK EE DVD set today ?
Re:Badass new Cisco router's (presentation include
on
Router Wars
·
· Score: 1
I think the coolest thing to come out with these is going to be the GUI router and PIX config.
Ah yes.. the graphical PIX config, aka, PDM. Lovely little thing with it's real time graphics generation and traffic monitors. That is, until you try to actually get the PIX to do what you want. It's about that time that you hit the X at the top of the Window and fire up Minicom or HyperTerminal or any SSH client. I can write up a complete configuration for a PIX that has VPN client access, some server access on a DMZ through static NAT entries and a PAT setup for inside host in less time than it takes to actually start the PDM, let alone figure do all that in myriads of tabbed pages.
All the other things you mention, like Unity module for 2600 multi-purpose platform, along with Cisco Call Manager Express for a VoIP solution, the VAC and VAC+ (VPN Accelerator Card) are all already part of the Cisco line-up and have been for some time already. I haven't looked at the presentation, but i'm guessing this isn't very recent.
If you wanted, you could buy 2 2600 series routers and 1 3500PWR series Catalyst switch last summer and build a VoIP solution for an office doubling as a data backbone (the switch passes electrical current to the phones which filter it out for PCs so you can have both on the same port). Heck, you could build that 2 years ago using the Call Manager and Unity software versions on Windows servers.
Of course, if you'd bother to read the site you linked to, you would know these are not Official LEGO Sets that were actually sold in stores, but mainly an artist's design that was made in VERY limited quantity. And they now reside in a museam. They even have a quote from the LEGO group :
According to a press release issued by the LEGO Group, "If the had described his ultimate project to us in advance, he naturally would not have received a single LEGO element from us!"
So yes, you are completely overreacting. Buying LEGO knights and Star Wars set won't expose your children to this kind of material.
Yeah, what crap. A client just bought a new "computer" using a PII 433. My cost was about 2500$ and I have to sell it to him for MSRP of 4000$. Look at the specs reported by the OS :
Oh.. That's right. I forgot to mention what it was. See, embedded systems still use those chips, because frankly, that's all they need to be able to do their intended functions. A Cisco PIX 515E is no slouch either, being capable of something like 177 mbps of 3DES or AES throughput (off the top of my head).
The bottom of the line Cisco PIX, the 501, uses a AMD processor. Try to guess which. K6-2 ? Nope.. K6 ? neither.. K5 ? Close... it's actually the 586-DX4 133 mhz. Remember those ? That takes me back to PCs made about 1996. And a PIX 501 costs me about 400$ for a 10 user (10 translated ips) version. The MSRP is of course rather inflated. Here's its hardware output :
Just for fun, go check out the processor specs on the top of the line PIX 535. You'll be rather surprised what 35,000$ gets you. Here's a hint, it's not calculated using GHZ.
So there is still very good demand for this "old" technology. Let's not always assume Intel CPUs are used just for the latest wizz-bang Desktops or Laptops. If Cisco had to redesign their hardware each 6 months, we'd probably pay even more than the current inflated prices we have right now.
If only they'd toss on a mode so you could see what the check engine light really is...
Most cars have this. OBD-1/OBD-2 Honda's have a service connector that you can jump which will result in the CEL flashing error code stored on the ECU. It's a 2 pin connector located above the ECU which rests behind the passenger side kick panel.
Older Hondas have a led light on the ECU itself which flashes the code.
So... you're comparing Britney Spears and Gigli to documents about Medical science, astronomy and history ? Guess why people don't find it a tragedy...
Read the daimler filing, this is surely not one of them. This suit is about Daimler/Chrysler failure to comply to the audit letter sent to Unix licenses at the end of 2003. Basically, what they tell SCO is :
We already answered but anyway, you didn't have a right to ask in the first place, and if you did, as per your contract with Novell, they waived your right to an answer. Also, we haven't used your systems in a while, and you have failed to indicated clearly how we're infriging your IP and you didn't try to mitigate or give us a chance to cure. So screw off and come back when you've got something to sue us over.
And mostly, they're right, and you would know this if you followed groklaw's excellent coverage.
- The Gimp is phenomenal, but how about those fonts? Sure, you can do lots and lots of cool things with just images, but graphics pros _need_ those slick fonts.
And hum... what would those slick fonts be ? You can use any font your X server supports in the Gimp without much problem, so I don't see the issue here. Of course if you were to say the Gimp is not ready for pre-press work, you'd probably be right, but fonts ? Heck, even those "Windows Fonts Packages" are supported in X. I install Microsoft's own "Web Fonts" on X without so much as a hickup.
Ok, this has been brought up a lot on Slashdot in the past few years, and I really think everyone should read this speech by Eben Moglen on why there will never be a test of the GPL in court (and a bunch of other interesting stuff). Here's the relevant portion :
Let me show you why. The grave difficulty that SCO has with free software isn't their attack; it's the inadequacy of their defense. In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I make reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here tonight. That telephone call goes like this. "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop. And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get back your distribution rights, which have terminated by your infringement, but you are going to have to do it the right way."
At the moment that I make that call, the potential defendant's lawyer now has a choice. He can cooperate with us, or he can fight with us. And if he goes to court and fights with us, he will have a second choice before him. We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please make him stop."
One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no license." Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court, realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point, because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect he is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms, it stopped working for him."
But notice that in order to survive moment one in a lawsuit over free software, it is the defendant who must wave the GPL. It is his permission, his master key to a lawsuit that lasts longer than a nanosecond. This, quite simply, is the reason that lies behind the statement you have heard -- Mr. McBride made it here some weeks ago -- that there has never been a court test of the GPL.
It's quite simple see. The GPL cannot be tested in court, because if it is found invalid, the defendant can't continue to distribute the copyrighted work. If it is found valid, the defendant either has to abide by it's restrictions or can't continue to distribute the copyrighted work. Do you understand the pattern here ? Anyone who tries to fight it will only lose. That's the beauty of it.
Oh yes... but this article is about Counter-Strike competitions where females don't get the participate in the same brackets as male, and don't get to try and win the big cash prizes. Now please enlighten us as to how this is justifyable by saying girls prefer other games genres. I guess because the game is not targetted at them, they can't play it at the same level as men ?
It's a load of crock if you ask me. It's men afraid that their testosteron levels will be going down if they get beat by a girl. Get over yourselves. Even if only 1% of Counter-strike gamers are girls, it doesn't mean that they are the worst 1% of players. And it also doesn't mean that they can't play in a "no-girls allowed" tournement (you know the kind, where 8 year old boys don't want to catch cooties and stuff). And that they can't win the same prize money. This is not a sport where physical differences would tip the scale. Girls and boys handle mices and keyboards with the same skill.
I personnally don't see why women can't participate at the same level and even against men in this type of event.
If I develop an application for Linux + QT, I must develop under the GPL. If I develop an application for Linux + GTK, I can choose any license. Which is more "free"?
QT is more free. The Freedom granted by the GPL is not to the developer (as in freedom to do what he wants with the code), but rather it is Freedom given to the code. The code, under GPL, will never be closed or unmodifiable. It will never serve the purpose of one entity. It will always be there to be used, modified and distributed. And in that, QT applications using QT/X11 Free edition are more free than GTK applications under whatever licenses. TrollTech worked hard and produced some very high quality code, and they'll be damned if you can just take it and use it for your profit without giving back to the community (or them if you use their commercial license).
Now, if you're talking about the developer's freedom of doing anything he wants with the code (including embracing+extending and closing down the source code of his modifications), sure GTK is more free in that sense, but that is not the kind of Freedom that the FSF wants to grant you. Funny little bit of irony for a FSF driven project like Gnome, if you ask me.
if you've never seen a command prompt, you aren't ready to take an intro to C++ class.
What kind of command prompt is Ci\\something\\something anyway ? Your slashes are the wrong way! Not to mention using relative paths instead of an absolute path does not garantee your program will work if you move the executable around. Who's to say that Ci directory will be there all the time.
Geez, guess I can shred my Comp Sci. Degree now, it's probably worthless since i've never seen your mystery command prompt. Better quit my job too while i'm at it.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, this is much too simplistic. It's more like this :
SCO says, "Here, we have a cake recipe, this is our cake, we'll have it and eat it too". They then licensed this recipe to IBM. IBM then used this recipe to make another cake, changing out bits and parts that they took from other recipes. Like for instance the butter. IBM used a different butter than they used in a pie crust recipe before. Now their cake is SCO's recipe + their special pie crust butter.
Comes along Linux's cake recipe. IBM thinks it's a good recipe, but says "Hey Linux, try your cake recipe with our special pie crust butter that we use in our cake". But now SCO is mad. They say "Since you used your pie crust butter in our cake recipe to make your cake, it is now our pie crust butter, and you can't give it out to anyone, like the license for the cake recipe we gave you says, but the Linux folks cake recipe is now our cake recipe too since it uses your pie crust butter that's now an integral part of our cake recipe. And it costs 699$ to have the right to use the Linux cake recipe".
> When you view a message under Outlook, it uses IE to render the page.
Actually, no, it doesn't use IE. It uses the same HTML rendering engine that IE uses, which is called MSHTML. This is the same thing as embedding Gecko from Mozilla, or using the KHTML Widget in KDE. Outlook is still the one doing the opening of the page, and so if his application filter prevents outlook from doing any sort of HTTP operation, it won't load anything, even if IE can bypass his firewall.
Basically, for those who don't want to read the long (and very informative piece, thanks PJ!) It strikes down is second possibility and refutes much of his wrong language.
Slashdot Mirror
McDowell was an Atheist who attempted to prove there was no God based on all available evidence.
So, because he couldn't prove the non-existence of god, he went from atheist to christian ? Maybe someone should have just pointed out to him that you simply can't prove a negative and he wouldn't have needed to convert.
How many of you went out to buy the ROTK EE DVD set today ?
Ah yes.. the graphical PIX config, aka, PDM. Lovely little thing with it's real time graphics generation and traffic monitors. That is, until you try to actually get the PIX to do what you want. It's about that time that you hit the X at the top of the Window and fire up Minicom or HyperTerminal or any SSH client. I can write up a complete configuration for a PIX that has VPN client access, some server access on a DMZ through static NAT entries and a PAT setup for inside host in less time than it takes to actually start the PDM, let alone figure do all that in myriads of tabbed pages.
All the other things you mention, like Unity module for 2600 multi-purpose platform, along with Cisco Call Manager Express for a VoIP solution, the VAC and VAC+ (VPN Accelerator Card) are all already part of the Cisco line-up and have been for some time already. I haven't looked at the presentation, but i'm guessing this isn't very recent.
If you wanted, you could buy 2 2600 series routers and 1 3500PWR series Catalyst switch last summer and build a VoIP solution for an office doubling as a data backbone (the switch passes electrical current to the phones which filter it out for PCs so you can have both on the same port). Heck, you could build that 2 years ago using the Call Manager and Unity software versions on Windows servers.
But I agree, pretty neat stuff.
Yeah, what crap. A client just bought a new "computer" using a PII 433. My cost was about 2500$ and I have to sell it to him for MSRP of 4000$. Look at the specs reported by the OS :
Oh.. That's right. I forgot to mention what it was. See, embedded systems still use those chips, because frankly, that's all they need to be able to do their intended functions. A Cisco PIX 515E is no slouch either, being capable of something like 177 mbps of 3DES or AES throughput (off the top of my head).
The bottom of the line Cisco PIX, the 501, uses a AMD processor. Try to guess which. K6-2 ? Nope.. K6 ? neither.. K5 ? Close... it's actually the 586-DX4 133 mhz. Remember those ? That takes me back to PCs made about 1996. And a PIX 501 costs me about 400$ for a 10 user (10 translated ips) version. The MSRP is of course rather inflated. Here's its hardware output :
Just for fun, go check out the processor specs on the top of the line PIX 535. You'll be rather surprised what 35,000$ gets you. Here's a hint, it's not calculated using GHZ. So there is still very good demand for this "old" technology. Let's not always assume Intel CPUs are used just for the latest wizz-bang Desktops or Laptops. If Cisco had to redesign their hardware each 6 months, we'd probably pay even more than the current inflated prices we have right now.So... how is it working as a sound file editor at Microsoft ?
If only they'd toss on a mode so you could see what the check engine light really is...
Most cars have this. OBD-1/OBD-2 Honda's have a service connector that you can jump which will result in the CEL flashing error code stored on the ECU. It's a 2 pin connector located above the ECU which rests behind the passenger side kick panel.
Older Hondas have a led light on the ECU itself which flashes the code.
The U.S. Constitution gives that right. You do recognize those rights as granted by the U.S. Constitution right ?
So... you're comparing Britney Spears and Gigli to documents about Medical science, astronomy and history ? Guess why people don't find it a tragedy...
And Spider-Man had that real upbeat ending! And the sequel. There's never anyone crying or feeling depressed and down in that one either.
No, he wasn't happy with the battle at Helm's deep, and so in the new revised Extended Special Edition, the Orcs shoot first!
...when it was called Star Wars
is that it's t3h suck5!
C'est quoi qu'il y a de mal a parler français ?
Because then the slashdot community will scream bloody murder, invasion of privacy, etc.. And they will probably be right. Why is this modded +5 ?
And this could be one of them...
Read the daimler filing, this is surely not one of them. This suit is about Daimler/Chrysler failure to comply to the audit letter sent to Unix licenses at the end of 2003. Basically, what they tell SCO is :
We already answered but anyway, you didn't have a right to ask in the first place, and if you did, as per your contract with Novell, they waived your right to an answer. Also, we haven't used your systems in a while, and you have failed to indicated clearly how we're infriging your IP and you didn't try to mitigate or give us a chance to cure. So screw off and come back when you've got something to sue us over.
And mostly, they're right, and you would know this if you followed groklaw's excellent coverage.
- The Gimp is phenomenal, but how about those fonts? Sure, you can do lots and lots of cool things with just images, but graphics pros _need_ those slick fonts.
And hum... what would those slick fonts be ? You can use any font your X server supports in the Gimp without much problem, so I don't see the issue here. Of course if you were to say the Gimp is not ready for pre-press work, you'd probably be right, but fonts ? Heck, even those "Windows Fonts Packages" are supported in X. I install Microsoft's own "Web Fonts" on X without so much as a hickup.
Ok, this has been brought up a lot on Slashdot in the past few years, and I really think everyone should read this speech by Eben Moglen on why there will never be a test of the GPL in court (and a bunch of other interesting stuff). Here's the relevant portion :
It's quite simple see. The GPL cannot be tested in court, because if it is found invalid, the defendant can't continue to distribute the copyrighted work. If it is found valid, the defendant either has to abide by it's restrictions or can't continue to distribute the copyrighted work. Do you understand the pattern here ? Anyone who tries to fight it will only lose. That's the beauty of it.
Oh yes... but this article is about Counter-Strike competitions where females don't get the participate in the same brackets as male, and don't get to try and win the big cash prizes. Now please enlighten us as to how this is justifyable by saying girls prefer other games genres. I guess because the game is not targetted at them, they can't play it at the same level as men ?
It's a load of crock if you ask me. It's men afraid that their testosteron levels will be going down if they get beat by a girl. Get over yourselves. Even if only 1% of Counter-strike gamers are girls, it doesn't mean that they are the worst 1% of players. And it also doesn't mean that they can't play in a "no-girls allowed" tournement (you know the kind, where 8 year old boys don't want to catch cooties and stuff). And that they can't win the same prize money. This is not a sport where physical differences would tip the scale. Girls and boys handle mices and keyboards with the same skill.
I personnally don't see why women can't participate at the same level and even against men in this type of event.
If I develop an application for Linux + QT, I must develop under the GPL. If I develop an application for Linux + GTK, I can choose any license. Which is more "free"?
QT is more free. The Freedom granted by the GPL is not to the developer (as in freedom to do what he wants with the code), but rather it is Freedom given to the code. The code, under GPL, will never be closed or unmodifiable. It will never serve the purpose of one entity. It will always be there to be used, modified and distributed. And in that, QT applications using QT/X11 Free edition are more free than GTK applications under whatever licenses. TrollTech worked hard and produced some very high quality code, and they'll be damned if you can just take it and use it for your profit without giving back to the community (or them if you use their commercial license).
Now, if you're talking about the developer's freedom of doing anything he wants with the code (including embracing+extending and closing down the source code of his modifications), sure GTK is more free in that sense, but that is not the kind of Freedom that the FSF wants to grant you. Funny little bit of irony for a FSF driven project like Gnome, if you ask me.
if you've never seen a command prompt, you aren't ready to take an intro to C++ class.
What kind of command prompt is Ci\\something\\something anyway ? Your slashes are the wrong way! Not to mention using relative paths instead of an absolute path does not garantee your program will work if you move the executable around. Who's to say that Ci directory will be there all the time.
Geez, guess I can shred my Comp Sci. Degree now, it's probably worthless since i've never seen your mystery command prompt. Better quit my job too while i'm at it.
Actually, this is much too simplistic. It's more like this :
SCO says, "Here, we have a cake recipe, this is our cake, we'll have it and eat it too". They then licensed this recipe to IBM. IBM then used this recipe to make another cake, changing out bits and parts that they took from other recipes. Like for instance the butter. IBM used a different butter than they used in a pie crust recipe before. Now their cake is SCO's recipe + their special pie crust butter.
Comes along Linux's cake recipe. IBM thinks it's a good recipe, but says "Hey Linux, try your cake recipe with our special pie crust butter that we use in our cake". But now SCO is mad. They say "Since you used your pie crust butter in our cake recipe to make your cake, it is now our pie crust butter, and you can't give it out to anyone, like the license for the cake recipe we gave you says, but the Linux folks cake recipe is now our cake recipe too since it uses your pie crust butter that's now an integral part of our cake recipe. And it costs 699$ to have the right to use the Linux cake recipe".
>Nope; copyright is entirely civil law, not criminal
Not Criminal ?
Funny how you got moderated +5 Interesting. The moderators really are on dope.
> When you view a message under Outlook, it uses IE to render the page.
Actually, no, it doesn't use IE. It uses the same HTML rendering engine that IE uses, which is called MSHTML. This is the same thing as embedding Gecko from Mozilla, or using the KHTML Widget in KDE. Outlook is still the one doing the opening of the page, and so if his application filter prevents outlook from doing any sort of HTTP operation, it won't load anything, even if IE can bypass his firewall.
Ok, this is insightful how ? At best it's completly wrong and its poster is just ill-informed, at worst it's FUD, and its poster is just a troll.
People, don't try to explain it to him, this as already been covered in great lengths on Groklaw :
The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling
Basically, for those who don't want to read the long (and very informative piece, thanks PJ!) It strikes down is second possibility and refutes much of his wrong language.