Wouldn't it be ironic if the very thing that makes the prophecy come true is that nobody believes it?
What would it take to egg on large numbers of people into getting nothing more than an actual 666 tatoo just because it is all a big joke. Everyone fully aware of the prophecy. Nobody believing the prophecy.
A fad that is in fashion. Unbelief fueling a willingness not only to get the mark, but to laugh about it while doing so.
To make the joke even funnier, and since everyone is getting the mark, suppose we don't trade with those superstitious morons who won't get a tiny little mark.
Please also consider donating to the RIAA to see their intellectual property protected.
The RIAA seems to be doing just fine protecting their intellectual property without need of donations.
Many p2p file sharers blatantly misuse copyrighted music repeatedly and then have the audacity to share those mp3 files with the world.
The RIAA sues individual infringers, just as PearPC may sue CherryOS.
Remember, kids: it's copyright law which allows the enforcement of the GPL. It's copyright law which allows the RIAA to enforce its rights. You can't have one without the other.
There is one thing you can have without the other. It is possible to have copyrights, and licensing without having evil price fixing cartels that conspire to keep artists poor, while using their obscene profits to lobby for infinite term copyright laws, criminalizing software tools, DMCA, DRM, etc.
I think the moral, ethical and financial (as far as donations) differences between the RIAA and PearPC are night and day different.
The T-rex could of died out last week and it would have absoulutly nothing to do with how old the earth is. T-rex was around 65 million years or so ago. The earth is 4.6 BILLION. The dating of dinosaurs has nothing to do with the how science determined the age of the earth. Dipshit.
First, the parent is not a Troll. Who modded the parent Troll?
But the parent does use some kind of wierd logic.
The logic the parent should use goes something like this...
Conclusion: The earth was formed 6000 years ago.
Therefore, dinosaurs cannot be older than 6000 years.
If you can convince someone that dinosaurs are younger than 6000 years, then you can probably also convince them that the earth is about 6000 years old.
Once convinced of the age of the earth, it becomes possible to further convince people that the Biblical story of creation is intended to be taken literally as a step-by-step account of creation.
If the dinosaurs were older than the earth, this would shoot down the conclusion that we started with.
Therefore, it follows that the young age of dinosaurs dates the earth as being young.
PJ: Why did you donate back half of what you won under the settlement?
Eric: The reason for donation of half back is because the purpose of the lawsuit always has been to benefit and improve the SAE. It may have been necessary to drag them kicking and screaming up the learning curve, but my client has done so precisely because the organization needed the benefit of the learning experience.
The whole point is that DrewTech has been very generous to the SAE by donating 1/2 of the money back as a charitable contribution, to symbolize the educational benefit conferred on the organization (in particular, organization staff -- as distinct from the Membership, who mostly tend to "get" the GPL) through the mechanism of the lawsuit as a whole.
Why would someone choose.Net over java because java is not open source?
Because Mono is open source. It runs on every platform, including Windows. You can even have a completely private embedded mono within your own C application -- i.e. as a "scripting" language, or for loadable platform independant plug-ins. Let me give you an example....
For example, OpenOffice.org accepts UNO packages. In OOo 2.0, you don't even need to use the pkgchk command to install UNO packages, you just pick Tools --> Package Manager from within the office gui.
An UNO package can be written in Java. But Sun controls java. OOo cannot distribute its own private Java implementation. But OOo does distribute its own private Python implementation within OOo. As much as I love tinkering with UNO packages written in Python, it is presently a fact that the Python-UNO bridge is less than ideal for reasons I won't elaborate on here.
Now you can also use BeanShell and JavaScript to write UNO packages, or even scripts. But both of those are implemented in.... Java. So OOo is very much at the mercy of Sun's Java.
Now imagine if OOo could distribute its own private Mono implementation as well. This is an advantage that Mono would have over Java. Third party office developers could build UNO packages with Mono code that is JIT natively compiled, and works on any platform, and is independant of Java's and Sun's future.
another example
The GIMP. Suppose that every implementation of the GIMP (even on Windows, maybe especially on Windows) had GIMP# and Mono pre-installed. Now, GIMP third party plug-in developers could use, instead of C, a high level, safe, JIT compiled, language to write plug ins. The binary of those plug ins, just as with UNO packages for OOo, would be portable to GIMP on all platforms. i.e. only have to distribute one binary and one source. As with OOo UNO packages, your third party plug-in would work in a version of OOo (or the GIMP) that is running on an OS that may not even be invented yet!
Gnome developers just have some unexplainable love for Windows.Forms as opposed to Swing.
Maybe it is explainable.
Lots of software is going to be written for.NET on Windows.
What gui framework do you suppose all of that software is going to use? Windows.Forms
By having Windows.Forms on Mono, it further increases the portabiility of software between platforms. Isn't this one of the very goals of Java?
Why did Sun introduce Swing after they already had AWT? There are a number of reasons. Besides lack of flexibility and power in AWT, one of the reasons was portability. AWT had to be separately debugged on every platform.
So let me turn the silly statement around: Java developers just have some unexplainable love for Swing as opposed to {AWT | GTK | QT | SWT | etc.}.
My point: Mono developers (not Gnome developers) love Windows.Forms for the same explainable reason that Java developers like Swing (or perhaps SWT). It is available everywhere, uniformly, and works the same.
While Windows.Forms is not yet complete in Mono, that is the goal, and I believe, if I am not mis-speaking, the motivation.
As someone who pays for the software they run (when commercial) and also pays for the smattering of media they consume, could you please explain exactly how DRM is going to screw me over?
Also, considering that I write and sell commercial software, is a decent, working implementation DRM going to do anything but stop people from stealing (whoops, i mean infringing) from me?
Hey, I'm in the same boat. Developer. Consume very little media. Don't run ANY pirated software. I use only SuSE at home for almost six years now, and NO windows. And I don't mean that I have a secret Windows boot partition or Wine on the side.
Now that I've qualified myself as not a blatant software pirate....
As for media, DRM takes away fair use. If I buy a disk, I should have the right to make a copy for my car, or play it on my mp3 player.
As for software, the computer is MINE. Not THEIRS. It is MINE. I control it. The possibilities of someone else being able to "trust" the software running in my computer are scary. Automatically deleting e-mail. Copy and Paste content that can change over time. All kinds of possible abuses in the future.
In short: the copyright people need to get over it and adapt. The world has changed. We now live in a time where it costs almost zero to shuffle bits quickly to any part of the planet.
I am cynical enough to believe that DRM will eventually enable some future generation of tyrants to create locked down networks that only accept "trusted" clients. Censored and/or monitored communications, etc. Basically, "they" don't want the kind of uncontrolled communication that the Internet has brought to the masses.
You may think this sounds crazy, but just go back to your high school World History class and review.
The world was a different place in 1948. So why then would George Orwell write a book like 1984? When Aldus Huxley wrote Brave New World, the world of the time was quite different. What was the same was: people. Like the oracle said: what do men with power want?
DRM is about more than "piracy".
Hey, if you want to pay cartel-imposed prices for media that you cannot copy or legitimately use in multiple locations, or on the hardware/software of your choice -- be my guest. It is your right to pay high prices for low quality and restrictions.
Please don't suggest that everyone else should go along with it. DRM is going to screw everyone. Maybe not in the first year it is released. You are entitled to roll over and take it if you prefer. I'm not going to try to convince you not to fall in love with DRM. Go ahead. I don't like DRM, and I have a right not to like it. And rational reasons.
We've been through a past generation of this whole "copy protection" nonsense.
In case you were not born yet, let me summarize...
In the end, copy protection will be broken.
copy protection will only harm the legitimate consumer
everyone pays for the technology and overhead (except, of course, the pirates)
If a company uses DRM to place unacceptable restrictions on what I purchase I'll simply not buy it. It's really that simple. And I'm sure a lot of other people will do the same.
I strongly disagree.
Most people will just roll over and take it. Fair use disappears.
From their FAQ it doesn't sound like quite the same idea. I was thinking of the server sending you an SMS or e-mail with some PIN that you enter via. the computer. Their product seems to require that they call your phone, and you then enter at least a portion of the login via. the phone keypad.
Also, I was thinking of the usefulness of being able to run a Java Midlet in YOUR cell phone. Every modern cell phone that I've seen in the last couple years can install and run Java Midlets. Even the cheapo phones that they give away for free with service activation.
It would be possible to customize the Java Midlet per-user's phone. I was thinking of the phone as a check Key Frob. Instead of paying RSA a $$$BUNDLE$$$ for key frobs, use Midlets inside of common cell phones.
Suppose you require two factors
1. Something you know (password)
2. Something you have (cell phone)
Your phone could have a custom Java Midlet installed. These are easy to get installed, but they are not necessarily easy to get uninstalled. Even if there are utilities to get a midlet uninstalled so that you can install it to a different phone, it may not be so easy to get to the smallish "preferences" data that the midlet api allows the midlet to store within the phone. i.e. the "preferences" data in the phone is not part of the midlet application, and may not be retrievable. Or it may.
The Java Midlet in your phone can be YOUR key frob. A much cheaper alternative to those expensive RSA key frobs.
The idea is this. That little Java Midlet in your phone gives you a PIN that changes every 60 seconds. That PIN must be the same as the one that the login is expecting.
Furthermore, during login, the server could SMS or e-mail you a third PIN that must also be entered. (Or the Java Midlet could transparently, securely interact with the server to negotiate this.)
Now in order to log in, you are checking that you know your password, and have YOUR cell phone.
Second Idea...
If I want to interact with MY OWN server from an untrusted location, such as a Cafe, I would only want to interact through a custom Java Applet running in the browser.
I go to Cafe. Bring up IE. Visit my server. Log in, using a password. Now server sends my browser a Java Applet. The browser runs this, and it connects back to my server using a secure connection directly from the Applet back to my server. Now, all interaction with my server is via. my Applet, which is MY code, that I can somewhat trust. My Applet can then prompt me for the Phone PIN, which I get from my cell phone (which might further have been obtained via. additional phone and server interaction).
The Java Applet in the browser, can in fact, be a "remote pixel viewer", such as the VNC applet. But with custom (or just "obscure") protocol negotiation.
The only trust that I place in the untrusted IE browser is that it can correctly execute a Java Applet. Part of the negotiation between my Applet and my server could include the Applet sending a (function of) a checksum of the Applet classes (from the loaded in-memory classes) back to the server.
Don't be fooled by those inferior Linux products from the likes of Red Hat and others.
Buy only Genuine Microsoft (R) brand Linux. The Linux that Microsoft has embraced.
Yes, folks, Microsoft Linux has everything that you'll find in those other Linux knock offs. But Microsoft Linux has extended Linux with many great new patented features that set Microsoft Linux way ahead of the others. These features will extinguish the competition.
Using Microsoft Linux, you can still run every program written for those other generic Linux systems, while enjoying unique features found only in Microsoft Linux.
But wait! There's more!!!
Microsoft Linux is the only Linux that can run all your favorite programs, inclucing Excel, Word and Outlook, and many, many more! Now how much will you pay!?!
Order Now! Don't be left behind! Get in on a leading edge technology, from a leading edge company like Microsoft.
Unlike other brands of Linux, only Microsoft Linux has the stability, quality, and security that you've come to expect from the Microsoft name.
Limited time special offer!!! For a limited time, get a copy of Microsoft Linux for FREE! when you order Microsoft Office at full retail price! Remember, this is a limited time offer! This offer could be withdrawn at any time after our competition disappears! So hurry and order now!
[_] YES! I want to pre-order Microsoft Linux!
Enclosed is a blank check. When Microsoft Linux is ready to ship, please fill in the amount and then rush Microsoft Linux to me!
Are they really fighting delisting? Or are they just going to go through the motions of fighting, dragging everything out as long as possible. Filing for a hearing about delisting on the last of the 10 days that they have to file. Drag the hearing out using any possible tactic. They might be able to fight delisting until they have finished removing all money from the company.
Slashdot only occaisionally has a story about SCO. And when they do, such as the current thread, it is already (very) old news.
If you want to know what is going on with SCOXE, you need to follow Growlaw every day, and also the SCOX message board at Yahoo.
This is very worthy of a Slashdot post. These bastards have told huge lies in the media and press. Made the most outrageous claims about Open Source, the GPL (unconstitutional, communists, etc.), created a cloud of FUD about Linux intellectual property, and even a FUD cloud about open source in general. They have engaged in a stock scam to unjustly enrich themselves while doing the previously mentioned things. They have claimed to own rights that they do not own. They have accused everyone who uses Linux (that is me personally) of owing them license money. They have sued Linux users (although not over Linux use per se). They have threatened to sue any Linux user (i.e. me personally). They have produced not one shred of evidence that they own anything in Linux.
This is not gloating.
The truth needs to come to light. Anyone found to have engaged in criminal activity should be prosecuted.
Could it be that SCO wants to get delisted? Could this be the reason behind the delinquent filings?
Or maybe, with the recent Canopy/Yarro troubles, they are too busy shredding docu.... er, um, I meant, they have uncovered other issues that they need to investigate. After all, the lamer excuse they gave at the end of January 2005 was that "it is examining matters related to stock issued as part of its compensation plans".
C'mon. Who buys that one? The "issues" related to these compensation plans, whereby the principals loot the company blind are several years old history by now. How could this materially affect last quarter's 10-Q?
Or maybe, every quarter's 10-Q for quite some time now has had "irregularities". (and I don't mean constipation, or the opposite such as Darl running off at the mouth) So maybe there really are "issues" about the past looting, er, um, I mean "compensation" plans before this fiaSCO started?
Maybe none of the accountants who have to certify the results are willing to sign, now that these "issues" have been uncovered. Perhaps, they are having trouble covering it up and/or gettting someone to certify the results?
Tax them how? By milage? Should hosewives pay more per mile? Cell phone users pay more per mile? Hummer users pay more per mile? Or should they simply pay because they are a combination of the three?
Actually, the first company to ship a computer with a GUI was Commodore with the Amiga.
What year?
Apple shipped the Lisa in January 1983. I am not aware of what year the Amiga was first shipped. I thought it wasn't until at least 1984 (or later?). I would be interested to know if the Amiga truly beat Apple to the GUI.
The Lisa was the predecessor to the Mac. A sophisticated GUI. Actually superior to the original Mac in many ways.
When Apache and Postfix have the main CPU, you don't want your mp3 decoding to stop do you?
A single encode/decode task would ideally be coded as a single software cell. Perhaps even multiple functions in a single software cell. I.e. decode mp3, and add reverb as a single software cell that uses up a single SPU.
I run The GIMP and do a massive filter, and it realizes that there are seven SPU's available, so it issues five hundred software cell problems (non serial) that are consumed and processed by the seven SPU's. By non-serial, I mean like a single SETI work unit. Blurring this 64x64 pixel area is a single software cell problem. I divide my gazillion x jillion pixel image into a bunch of cells, and dispatch them to the pool of SPU's that I have.
Now I start Xine (yes, while still listening to mp3), and Xine issues (let's suppose) two software cells that continuously take up two SPU's. Now my GIMP blurr runs slower.
It is possible that with some rethinking, that even non-AV problems can exploit the cells. If you can look at the dependency graph of a spreadsheet and isolate cells that can be calculated in parallel, you can potentially send "streams" of spreadsheet-cells to a stream processing "software cell" (in an SPU) to process each formula. Now if I have five cells available, then I can potentially be calculating up to five non-interdependant spreadsheet-cells at once.
Next year, I add an additional two cell processors (16 more SPU's, for theoretical max of 2 additional Teraflops). Now my X Window system can use several additional cells to have many new kinds of eye-candy going on in real time, while I'm still using The GIMP, watching Pr0n, and listening to mp3's.
So Web servers will get faster, but (most) conventional office apps will not. Companies may even have to invest in tuning their code.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
We're addicted to the upgrade treadmill.
Wouldn't it be preferable to just keep trying to push up the clock speeds, even artificially high clock speeds even if it meant lower actual performance, while at the same time building ever more bloated software applications?
Think of our poor corporations! What will happen to the econoomy if they are forced to start tuning their applications? What if people aren't forced to keep buying bigger/faster new PC's, and then forced to buy new software? Having to innovate to use more parallel processing might put our corporations at a major competitive disadvantage? It might affect their business models of stamping out CD's and raking in profits!
A software cell runs on one of the APU's (or SPU's, or whatever we're currently calling them). It is sandboxed. When the main processor sends a software cell to one of the sub processors, it specifies exactly what memory that the hardware will allow that processor to access.
You can run a software cell from an untrusted source. The software cell is a combination of code/data. The processor performs some function on it. While running, the sub processor has access only to the memory that the main processor designated.
Applications like X Window system, Xine, MPlayer, mpg123, LAME, XMMS, etc., ad-infinitum, can be designed with their own software cells. In fact, entire libraries of software cells can be constructed and re-used. Libraries of multiplexors, demultiplexors, encoders, decoders, compositing, FFT's, transcoders, renderers, shaders, GIMP Filters (blurr, effects, etc.), etc.
If you're building an application, such as SETI at Home, then you organize your program as software cells. You can farm out as many software cells as you have hardware cell processors to handle.
Cells can be safely shuffled from device to device. Spare cell capacity in your TV or PS3 can run your SETI at Home, or your Xine cells.
The Cell processor isn't very helpful for, say OpenOffice.org spreadsheets or drawings, or spellchecking. But word processing isn't the function that usually needs super fire-breathing processor power.
It is not inconceivable that things like spreadsheet calculations can be effectively improved using software cells. But this is not as obvious (at least to me) as the former applications that I mentioned.
So if you had a 2 GHz main processor and one or more Cell co-processors (a variable, expandable number) you would have a tremendous amount of computing power. The applications that demand extraordinary power would have it -- even with just one cell coprocessor. And this was quite a list of applications I mentioned above. Just about anything audio-visual or doing massive parallel operations on pixels, or 3d.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be ironic if the very thing that makes the prophecy come true is that nobody believes it?
What would it take to egg on large numbers of people into getting nothing more than an actual 666 tatoo just because it is all a big joke. Everyone fully aware of the prophecy. Nobody believing the prophecy.
A fad that is in fashion. Unbelief fueling a willingness not only to get the mark, but to laugh about it while doing so.
To make the joke even funnier, and since everyone is getting the mark, suppose we don't trade with those superstitious morons who won't get a tiny little mark.
Please also consider donating to the RIAA to see their intellectual property protected.
The RIAA seems to be doing just fine protecting their intellectual property without need of donations.
Many p2p file sharers blatantly misuse copyrighted music repeatedly and then have the audacity to share those mp3 files with the world.
The RIAA sues individual infringers, just as PearPC may sue CherryOS.
Remember, kids: it's copyright law which allows the enforcement of the GPL. It's copyright law which allows the RIAA to enforce its rights. You can't have one without the other.
There is one thing you can have without the other. It is possible to have copyrights, and licensing without having evil price fixing cartels that conspire to keep artists poor, while using their obscene profits to lobby for infinite term copyright laws, criminalizing software tools, DMCA, DRM, etc.
I think the moral, ethical and financial (as far as donations) differences between the RIAA and PearPC are night and day different.
First, the parent is not a Troll. Who modded the parent Troll?
But the parent does use some kind of wierd logic.
The logic the parent should use goes something like this...
From TFA...
PJ: Why did you donate back half of what you won under the settlement?
Eric: The reason for donation of half back is because the purpose of the lawsuit always has been to benefit and improve the SAE. It may have been necessary to drag them kicking and screaming up the learning curve, but my client has done so precisely because the organization needed the benefit of the learning experience.
The whole point is that DrewTech has been very generous to the SAE by donating 1/2 of the money back as a charitable contribution, to symbolize the educational benefit conferred on the organization (in particular, organization staff -- as distinct from the Membership, who mostly tend to "get" the GPL) through the mechanism of the lawsuit as a whole.
Now that people are using copyright law to protect ownership of GPL source code
Copyright has always been the only way to protect the ownership of GPL code. This is not new.
people can no longer in the next breath defend copyright infringement on P2P networks.
Why not? Sure I can defend it. Just watch me. I won't go into detail. I'm sure plenty of others will.
Why would someone choose .Net over java because java is not open source?
Because Mono is open source. It runs on every platform, including Windows. You can even have a completely private embedded mono within your own C application -- i.e. as a "scripting" language, or for loadable platform independant plug-ins. Let me give you an example....
For example, OpenOffice.org accepts UNO packages. In OOo 2.0, you don't even need to use the pkgchk command to install UNO packages, you just pick Tools --> Package Manager from within the office gui.
An UNO package can be written in Java. But Sun controls java. OOo cannot distribute its own private Java implementation. But OOo does distribute its own private Python implementation within OOo. As much as I love tinkering with UNO packages written in Python, it is presently a fact that the Python-UNO bridge is less than ideal for reasons I won't elaborate on here.
Now you can also use BeanShell and JavaScript to write UNO packages, or even scripts. But both of those are implemented in.... Java. So OOo is very much at the mercy of Sun's Java.
Now imagine if OOo could distribute its own private Mono implementation as well. This is an advantage that Mono would have over Java. Third party office developers could build UNO packages with Mono code that is JIT natively compiled, and works on any platform, and is independant of Java's and Sun's future.
another example
The GIMP. Suppose that every implementation of the GIMP (even on Windows, maybe especially on Windows) had GIMP# and Mono pre-installed. Now, GIMP third party plug-in developers could use, instead of C, a high level, safe, JIT compiled, language to write plug ins. The binary of those plug ins, just as with UNO packages for OOo, would be portable to GIMP on all platforms. i.e. only have to distribute one binary and one source. As with OOo UNO packages, your third party plug-in would work in a version of OOo (or the GIMP) that is running on an OS that may not even be invented yet!
Gnome developers just have some unexplainable love for Windows.Forms as opposed to Swing.
.NET on Windows.
Maybe it is explainable.
Lots of software is going to be written for
What gui framework do you suppose all of that software is going to use? Windows.Forms
By having Windows.Forms on Mono, it further increases the portabiility of software between platforms. Isn't this one of the very goals of Java?
Why did Sun introduce Swing after they already had AWT? There are a number of reasons. Besides lack of flexibility and power in AWT, one of the reasons was portability. AWT had to be separately debugged on every platform.
So let me turn the silly statement around: Java developers just have some unexplainable love for Swing as opposed to {AWT | GTK | QT | SWT | etc.}.
My point: Mono developers (not Gnome developers) love Windows.Forms for the same explainable reason that Java developers like Swing (or perhaps SWT). It is available everywhere, uniformly, and works the same.
While Windows.Forms is not yet complete in Mono, that is the goal, and I believe, if I am not mis-speaking, the motivation.
As someone who pays for the software they run (when commercial) and also pays for the smattering of media they consume, could you please explain exactly how DRM is going to screw me over?
Also, considering that I write and sell commercial software, is a decent, working implementation DRM going to do anything but stop people from stealing (whoops, i mean infringing) from me?
Hey, I'm in the same boat. Developer. Consume very little media. Don't run ANY pirated software. I use only SuSE at home for almost six years now, and NO windows. And I don't mean that I have a secret Windows boot partition or Wine on the side.
Now that I've qualified myself as not a blatant software pirate....
As for media, DRM takes away fair use. If I buy a disk, I should have the right to make a copy for my car, or play it on my mp3 player.
As for software, the computer is MINE. Not THEIRS. It is MINE. I control it. The possibilities of someone else being able to "trust" the software running in my computer are scary. Automatically deleting e-mail. Copy and Paste content that can change over time. All kinds of possible abuses in the future.
In short: the copyright people need to get over it and adapt. The world has changed. We now live in a time where it costs almost zero to shuffle bits quickly to any part of the planet.
I am cynical enough to believe that DRM will eventually enable some future generation of tyrants to create locked down networks that only accept "trusted" clients. Censored and/or monitored communications, etc. Basically, "they" don't want the kind of uncontrolled communication that the Internet has brought to the masses.
You may think this sounds crazy, but just go back to your high school World History class and review.
The world was a different place in 1948. So why then would George Orwell write a book like 1984? When Aldus Huxley wrote Brave New World, the world of the time was quite different. What was the same was: people. Like the oracle said: what do men with power want?
DRM is about more than "piracy".
Hey, if you want to pay cartel-imposed prices for media that you cannot copy or legitimately use in multiple locations, or on the hardware/software of your choice -- be my guest. It is your right to pay high prices for low quality and restrictions.
Please don't suggest that everyone else should go along with it. DRM is going to screw everyone. Maybe not in the first year it is released. You are entitled to roll over and take it if you prefer. I'm not going to try to convince you not to fall in love with DRM. Go ahead. I don't like DRM, and I have a right not to like it. And rational reasons.
You wanted an explanation, there it is.
We've been through a past generation of this whole "copy protection" nonsense.
In case you were not born yet, let me summarize...
If a company uses DRM to place unacceptable restrictions on what I purchase I'll simply not buy it. It's really that simple. And I'm sure a lot of other people will do the same.
I strongly disagree.
Most people will just roll over and take it. Fair use disappears.
Truly distributed applications using XML/SOAP for RPC tend to be horribly slow.
You are thinking of the old hardware, back when computers only ran at 2.0 GHz and had only 1 GB of RAM.
You're going to need a hardware upgrade for Longhorn.
There's a reason it is called Longhorn. Because you're really, really going to get screwed this time with all of the DRM.
From their FAQ it doesn't sound like quite the same idea. I was thinking of the server sending you an SMS or e-mail with some PIN that you enter via. the computer. Their product seems to require that they call your phone, and you then enter at least a portion of the login via. the phone keypad.
Also, I was thinking of the usefulness of being able to run a Java Midlet in YOUR cell phone. Every modern cell phone that I've seen in the last couple years can install and run Java Midlets. Even the cheapo phones that they give away for free with service activation.
It would be possible to customize the Java Midlet per-user's phone. I was thinking of the phone as a check Key Frob. Instead of paying RSA a $$$BUNDLE$$$ for key frobs, use Midlets inside of common cell phones.
Suppose you require two factors
1. Something you know (password)
2. Something you have (cell phone)
Your phone could have a custom Java Midlet installed. These are easy to get installed, but they are not necessarily easy to get uninstalled. Even if there are utilities to get a midlet uninstalled so that you can install it to a different phone, it may not be so easy to get to the smallish "preferences" data that the midlet api allows the midlet to store within the phone. i.e. the "preferences" data in the phone is not part of the midlet application, and may not be retrievable. Or it may.
The Java Midlet in your phone can be YOUR key frob. A much cheaper alternative to those expensive RSA key frobs.
The idea is this. That little Java Midlet in your phone gives you a PIN that changes every 60 seconds. That PIN must be the same as the one that the login is expecting.
Furthermore, during login, the server could SMS or e-mail you a third PIN that must also be entered. (Or the Java Midlet could transparently, securely interact with the server to negotiate this.)
Now in order to log in, you are checking that you know your password, and have YOUR cell phone.
Second Idea...
If I want to interact with MY OWN server from an untrusted location, such as a Cafe, I would only want to interact through a custom Java Applet running in the browser.
I go to Cafe. Bring up IE. Visit my server. Log in, using a password. Now server sends my browser a Java Applet. The browser runs this, and it connects back to my server using a secure connection directly from the Applet back to my server. Now, all interaction with my server is via. my Applet, which is MY code, that I can somewhat trust. My Applet can then prompt me for the Phone PIN, which I get from my cell phone (which might further have been obtained via. additional phone and server interaction).
The Java Applet in the browser, can in fact, be a "remote pixel viewer", such as the VNC applet. But with custom (or just "obscure") protocol negotiation.
The only trust that I place in the untrusted IE browser is that it can correctly execute a Java Applet. Part of the negotiation between my Applet and my server could include the Applet sending a (function of) a checksum of the Applet classes (from the loaded in-memory classes) back to the server.
The problem, as I see it, is that we've got into a mode of having ridiculous punishments for small crimes.
The problem, as I see it, is that we've got into a mode of having ridiculous punishments for small crimes where the victim is rich, or a corporation.
Now if all small crimes had similar (ridiculous) punishments, I'd lave less problem with it, but still some problem.
the market IsNOT getting any nearer Microsoft - specially when their Operating system IsNOT becoming any safer for viruses
I can assure you that Microsoft's operating system is quite safe for viruses.
What if MS came out with MSLinux
New! Improved! Microsoft Linux!
Don't be fooled by those inferior Linux products from the likes of Red Hat and others.
Buy only Genuine Microsoft (R) brand Linux. The Linux that Microsoft has embraced.
Yes, folks, Microsoft Linux has everything that you'll find in those other Linux knock offs. But Microsoft Linux has extended Linux with many great new patented features that set Microsoft Linux way ahead of the others. These features will extinguish the competition.
Using Microsoft Linux, you can still run every program written for those other generic Linux systems, while enjoying unique features found only in Microsoft Linux.
But wait! There's more!!!
Microsoft Linux is the only Linux that can run all your favorite programs, inclucing Excel, Word and Outlook, and many, many more! Now how much will you pay!?!
Order Now! Don't be left behind! Get in on a leading edge technology, from a leading edge company like Microsoft.
Unlike other brands of Linux, only Microsoft Linux has the stability, quality, and security that you've come to expect from the Microsoft name.
Limited time special offer!!! For a limited time, get a copy of Microsoft Linux for FREE! when you order Microsoft Office at full retail price! Remember, this is a limited time offer! This offer could be withdrawn at any time after our competition disappears! So hurry and order now!
[_] YES! I want to pre-order Microsoft Linux!
Enclosed is a blank check. When Microsoft Linux is ready to ship, please fill in the amount and then rush Microsoft Linux to me!
I remember that very well.
Are they really fighting delisting? Or are they just going to go through the motions of fighting, dragging everything out as long as possible. Filing for a hearing about delisting on the last of the 10 days that they have to file. Drag the hearing out using any possible tactic. They might be able to fight delisting until they have finished removing all money from the company.
Slashdot only occaisionally has a story about SCO. And when they do, such as the current thread, it is already (very) old news.
If you want to know what is going on with SCOXE, you need to follow Growlaw every day, and also the SCOX message board at Yahoo.
This is very worthy of a Slashdot post. These bastards have told huge lies in the media and press. Made the most outrageous claims about Open Source, the GPL (unconstitutional, communists, etc.), created a cloud of FUD about Linux intellectual property, and even a FUD cloud about open source in general. They have engaged in a stock scam to unjustly enrich themselves while doing the previously mentioned things. They have claimed to own rights that they do not own. They have accused everyone who uses Linux (that is me personally) of owing them license money. They have sued Linux users (although not over Linux use per se). They have threatened to sue any Linux user (i.e. me personally). They have produced not one shred of evidence that they own anything in Linux.
This is not gloating.
The truth needs to come to light. Anyone found to have engaged in criminal activity should be prosecuted.
It is not "Darryl".
It is spelled "Darl". Rhymes with Carl. You can confirm this when listening to the mp3's of their quarterly conference calls.
Could it be that SCO wants to get delisted? Could this be the reason behind the delinquent filings?
Or maybe, with the recent Canopy/Yarro troubles, they are too busy shredding docu.... er, um, I meant, they have uncovered other issues that they need to investigate. After all, the lamer excuse they gave at the end of January 2005 was that "it is examining matters related to stock issued as part of its compensation plans".
C'mon. Who buys that one? The "issues" related to these compensation plans, whereby the principals loot the company blind are several years old history by now. How could this materially affect last quarter's 10-Q?
Or maybe, every quarter's 10-Q for quite some time now has had "irregularities". (and I don't mean constipation, or the opposite such as Darl running off at the mouth) So maybe there really are "issues" about the past looting, er, um, I mean "compensation" plans before this fiaSCO started?
Maybe none of the accountants who have to certify the results are willing to sign, now that these "issues" have been uncovered. Perhaps, they are having trouble covering it up and/or gettting someone to certify the results?
Tax them how? By milage? Should hosewives pay more per mile? Cell phone users pay more per mile? Hummer users pay more per mile? Or should they simply pay because they are a combination of the three?
Actually, the first company to ship a computer with a GUI was Commodore with the Amiga.
What year?
Apple shipped the Lisa in January 1983. I am not aware of what year the Amiga was first shipped. I thought it wasn't until at least 1984 (or later?). I would be interested to know if the Amiga truly beat Apple to the GUI.
The Lisa was the predecessor to the Mac. A sophisticated GUI. Actually superior to the original Mac in many ways.
When Apache and Postfix have the main CPU, you don't want your mp3 decoding to stop do you?
A single encode/decode task would ideally be coded as a single software cell. Perhaps even multiple functions in a single software cell. I.e. decode mp3, and add reverb as a single software cell that uses up a single SPU.
I run The GIMP and do a massive filter, and it realizes that there are seven SPU's available, so it issues five hundred software cell problems (non serial) that are consumed and processed by the seven SPU's. By non-serial, I mean like a single SETI work unit. Blurring this 64x64 pixel area is a single software cell problem. I divide my gazillion x jillion pixel image into a bunch of cells, and dispatch them to the pool of SPU's that I have.
Now I start Xine (yes, while still listening to mp3), and Xine issues (let's suppose) two software cells that continuously take up two SPU's. Now my GIMP blurr runs slower.
It is possible that with some rethinking, that even non-AV problems can exploit the cells. If you can look at the dependency graph of a spreadsheet and isolate cells that can be calculated in parallel, you can potentially send "streams" of spreadsheet-cells to a stream processing "software cell" (in an SPU) to process each formula. Now if I have five cells available, then I can potentially be calculating up to five non-interdependant spreadsheet-cells at once.
Next year, I add an additional two cell processors (16 more SPU's, for theoretical max of 2 additional Teraflops). Now my X Window system can use several additional cells to have many new kinds of eye-candy going on in real time, while I'm still using The GIMP, watching Pr0n, and listening to mp3's.
So Web servers will get faster, but (most) conventional office apps will not. Companies may even have to invest in tuning their code.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
We're addicted to the upgrade treadmill.
Wouldn't it be preferable to just keep trying to push up the clock speeds, even artificially high clock speeds even if it meant lower actual performance, while at the same time building ever more bloated software applications?
Think of our poor corporations! What will happen to the econoomy if they are forced to start tuning their applications? What if people aren't forced to keep buying bigger/faster new PC's, and then forced to buy new software? Having to innovate to use more parallel processing might put our corporations at a major competitive disadvantage? It might affect their business models of stamping out CD's and raking in profits!
What software will it run? Software "cells".
A software cell runs on one of the APU's (or SPU's, or whatever we're currently calling them). It is sandboxed. When the main processor sends a software cell to one of the sub processors, it specifies exactly what memory that the hardware will allow that processor to access.
You can run a software cell from an untrusted source. The software cell is a combination of code/data. The processor performs some function on it. While running, the sub processor has access only to the memory that the main processor designated.
Applications like X Window system, Xine, MPlayer, mpg123, LAME, XMMS, etc., ad-infinitum, can be designed with their own software cells. In fact, entire libraries of software cells can be constructed and re-used. Libraries of multiplexors, demultiplexors, encoders, decoders, compositing, FFT's, transcoders, renderers, shaders, GIMP Filters (blurr, effects, etc.), etc.
If you're building an application, such as SETI at Home, then you organize your program as software cells. You can farm out as many software cells as you have hardware cell processors to handle.
Cells can be safely shuffled from device to device. Spare cell capacity in your TV or PS3 can run your SETI at Home, or your Xine cells.
The Cell processor isn't very helpful for, say OpenOffice.org spreadsheets or drawings, or spellchecking. But word processing isn't the function that usually needs super fire-breathing processor power.
It is not inconceivable that things like spreadsheet calculations can be effectively improved using software cells. But this is not as obvious (at least to me) as the former applications that I mentioned.
So if you had a 2 GHz main processor and one or more Cell co-processors (a variable, expandable number) you would have a tremendous amount of computing power. The applications that demand extraordinary power would have it -- even with just one cell coprocessor. And this was quite a list of applications I mentioned above. Just about anything audio-visual or doing massive parallel operations on pixels, or 3d.