Glenn Reynolds is a partisan right-wing hack who believes that if you opposed the war with Iraq, you are "objectively pro-Saddam".
Heh. I thought you could only be called partisan in the US if you were a Republican or a Democrat, of which he is neither. You aren't really part of the political process here if you support something else.
I am right wing, being a libertarian. Strangly enough, I think this is a good thing. For one thing, it means I don't care about someone's political party when criticising them.
I shouldn't feed trolls I guess, but I found this one amusing.
All ximian does is mark it as 'deleted' and not show it.
I don't use my Evolution with IMAP, but evolution has an "Empty Trash" option that happily truly deletes the files marked deleted. You can also set it up to do this by default on exit.
Have you tried using this? Does it not work properly with IMAP or something?
Keith seems to believe that the solution to X performance issues lies in the clients; and in the long run this may very well be true. However, NX takes the old proxy/agent paradigm pioneered by LBX and dxpc and does something useful with it finally.
Actually, that is not strictly true. It took some effort, but I compiled up NX from scratch (It is available under GPL). One of the things it does is provide an xlib replacement which you sneak under the program you want to run using LD_PRELOAD. That replacement makes a huge difference. So, in a way, they are doing a runtime replacement of all the bits in the client that talk to the server.
I think this is one of the major reasons why NX works so well compared to LBX and friends. The other is that it keeps a fully persistant (between sessions) cache of bitmaps on the client side. It really is beautifully done.
The guys working on Xouvert have talked about working it directly into their version of X, and this would make me a very happy camper indeed.
Hm. I dunno. The only "cover up" in progress has been the reluctance of developers to speak out and call a spade a spade. The fact is that the new nVidia hardware simply can not compete with the new ATi hardware. Period. Go scratch around on the net and look at the technical details.
I was really happy that Valve had the guts to speak up. The only company consistently at fault in this whole fiasco is nVidia. Their latest ploy is to release a driver that uses reduced precision shaders, and pretend that its as good as the Radeon default settings. This is obvious in the first few days after the release of the det50 drivers. I'll wait a few weeks to be vindicated though.
Just in case you wonder, I am an nVidia card owner. This will change though. I am thoroughly disgusted with their behaviour to date. They lost and they would rather lie and cheat and bluster continuously than keep my trust. Sure, they might not sell as many cards in the short term if they just admit they screwed up and we'll have to wait for the next generation of their cards, but they sure as hell will lose out in the long term. They could admit defeat and bring their prices down and bite the bullet. Their current generation would make great low price video cards if you didn't care too much about image quality.
"NVidia? I remember them. Didn't they lie about their image quality and cheat in their drivers in games?" What a great way to be remembered.:-P
Your only option for UT2K3 (And likely Doom3 when it comes out) are either NV's or ATI's closed-source drivers. And NV's Linux drivers are FAR better.
Really? Damn, then I am screwed. The nVidia drivers I am using now totally screw with my kernel latencies when doing 2D rendering. I hate them with a passion. They're huge, they sit in my kernel space, and so far they seem to be the only cause of my machine dying.
My next card will not be an nVidia. At the moment, that means ATi. Good for them.
I have learnt my lesson. Unreal Tournament can wait. I want a video card that doesn't piss me off when I'm writing email. That means open source drivers that don't run in kernel space.
Does it irritate anyone else when people try to further compress already compressed media files? I mean - they should have a compulsory information theory test before people are allowed to use tools like zip and gzip.
Not really, because I realise that you can often do better than the entropy coding in the compression format. It has to be fast, and it might be compressing the stream without examining the whole stream beforehand. Hence you can often gain a few percent with zip or whatever.
I am currently working on my own codec, which, at the moment, doesn't use any entropy coding at all. Its better than MPEG-2, but not quite as good as MPEG-4 yet, but I have a long list of things still to do. I may not add entropy coding... it just might not gain me enough size to be worth it given the speed penalty.
I think the operative word in your subject line was "theory". In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, you rarely get a chance to optimally apply the theory.
Yes, but if the european company would like to sell their products in the US, the US patents would apply, no matter where the company is based.
Maybe, but they may apply in funny ways. I know of one company that got hit with a spurious USA patent, and they somehow came out okay because they arranged to make the stuff outside the USA and import it.
So from this I guess the patent may stop you from making that thing in the USA, but not necessarily from selling it. I'm not exactly sure what the loopholes are.
I'm not sure about this at all, but thought it was an interesting point for conversation.
So who's going to vet it as 'spam?' Want to do it after the DATA message is sent? Then you're doubling your bandwidth.
Want to try to identify based on the fact that there's a ton of mails coming through in a short period of time? What if the spammer simply re-orders his spam database, so it's not sorted by domain? If he has 1,000,000 emails, with, oh, 10,000 separate domains, then only every 100th email he sends will be to your domain, if he spaces them properly.
*nod* It is true your suggestion doesn't work. However, there are other possibilities. I used the word "distributed" for a reason. Here is one example:
Several people band together in a loose way. These people set up SMTP servers for domains that don't receive any real email. The server can be configured however you like. However, it never delivers mail. It simply records the IP of whoever connects to it. End of story. No tuples, spam characterisation, to or from addresses, nothing. You advertise some addresses for this domain by sticking them on web pages or whatever. By definition all connections to those servers are from spammers.
A spammer connects to your real SMTP server. It gets told to go away cos its new and untrusted. Now, the only way it can get a message to someone on your server is by reconnecting an hour later from the same IP and retrying.
In the meantime, the spammer has attempted to send this message to other addresses. He hits one of the honeypot SMTP servers in your distributed network (and, the bigger his mailshot, the more likely this is). Every 30 minutes you collect the list of IPs that hit the honeypots, and dump them into your blacklist.
An hour later your spammer tries again, but you now have that IP in your blacklist, and either silently drop the message, or just keep giving temporary errors.
If you make your honeypots behave identically to real servers, and give temporary errors too, then any retries by the spammer to honeypots will just revalidate that the spammer is still using that IP.
You make your IP blacklists slowly time out old IPs, so that if the IP is re-used by a legitimate sender he is not indefinitly locked out. This is unlikely to cause problems anyway, cos most people use their local SMTP server provided by the ISP to send email, and it knows the address ranges it serves.
I'm not attacking anything. I'm simply pointing out design issues (not necessarily flaws!) that the author, or you, might not have thought of. Isn't that one of the ideas behind open source? A sort of darwinian wheedling?
Excuse me for sounding off before, but from my reading of the article, it seemed quite clear to me that he had thought of this. You happened to the straw that broke the camel's back. I had just read a bunch of posts by people that carefully combine ignorance with a desire to read half the article.
Please excuse my outburst. However, to back up my point, here is a quote from the article:
# It is long enough to provide a good chance that if the sending host is in fact a spammer, they will be listed in other IP-based blacklists that may be used in conjunction with Greylisting, so that even if a spamming relay later attempts a redelivery that would no longer be delayed by Greylisting, it may still be blocked by other methods. # It is also long enough that other types of traffic analysis could be designed and implemented such that spamming IP's could be easily identified and blocked by other methods, in such a way that even the first recipients (before a spamming pattern starts to emerge) would still not be bothered by the spam email.
I think debate is a good thing, but doing your homework is advised.:-)
So you mix up your spams; rather than sending all viagra, you send a few viagra, and a few mortgage, a few horny teen sluts, and so on.
I'm not saying this is a bad idea; I'm saying that it's only going to work for a while. I'm saying that basing your defences on the fact that spam software isn't RFC compliant means your fine until the spammers get RFC compliant, and that isn't very difficult at all.
:-/ No. I think you aren't getting this. The whole point is that a new sender is untrusted for one hour. You now have one whole hour for other spam control measures to blacklist that IP, something that should be pretty simple with any kind of distributed database of SMTP connection attempts to honeypots, etc.
It's called greylisting for a reason. Stop thinking in black and white. Its an extra layer that is used to give you a tactical advantage. It makes your life easier when fighting spam. It's not The Final Solution, which is clearly acknowledged by its author. It's a tool. It's one more layer in the fight against spam.
So what if spammers write their code to try again in an hour? The RFC complaince thing is a red herring for you. It's the logical next step for spammers to make their code compliant. And when this happens, you have a method of giving you an one hour period for a distributed immune system to respond.
I get annoyed when people attack something for not doing something the author specifically claims it won't do. What! It doesn't do your laundry? Shame. How clever of you to point that out.
No. They're making a case that the whole management structure of Linux is flawed, since the project manager can't even determine that the work people under him submit is their own work.
I realise that you are merely stating what they say, and are not claiming to agree. It's a statement that amazes me though. Since when should someone make the default assumption that everyone she is dealing with is probably lying to her? How would she get through even a single day, knowing that she had to do background checks on absolutely everything said or presented to her?
Typically you trust someone until they prove to be unreliable, then you adjust your behaviour to compensate. If the people at SCO think in any way like that quote, then I think they should be put out of their misery and shot or something. It's only humane - living like that must be hell.:-)
If some court were to actually support this viewpoint, I would lose the infinitesimally small respect I already have for them.:-P
Hmm. I know Novell gave SCO the right to license out Unix bits, but did they give up the right to issue licenses themselves? My question is: Could IBM nip over to Novell, pay them 20 bucks and get a brand spanking new Unix license?
I think it is more like spreading viruses is illegal while writing viruses is unethical. And I don't think you have to actually write a virus just to know how they work either.
Hm. I just can't see that. I have written more than one virus in my time. Nobody got hurt. I played with them on isolated machines. I learnt something from doing it. It was a challenge and it was lots of fun. For example, I set myself the challenge of writing a virus that infected DOS.bat files and that was written in DOS batch language. I succeeded. That was almost as much fun as doing the boot sector stuff.
It turned out useful some time later when I had a non-bootable harddisk and only an assembler on a bootable floppy (a magazine cover disk:-) ) with which to fix it.
And at the end of all this, nothing got damaged. No people got hurt. I had fun watching my code wander around my systems. I played in assembler, and eventually deleted the viruses and moved on to other things, like artificial life simulations and genetic algorithms. 14 years later, I still have people oohing and ahing over the leet assembler skills I use on their embedded projects.
In other words, if you bought a $300 nVidia card on the strength of this benchmark, you bought a card that is %40 slower than it should be because nVidia went out of its way to lie about the speed.
Hmm. You know, this sounds like a great class action lawsuit. Even if the award wasn't too great, it would drive home the point nicely that cheating was stupid and self-destructive.
Of course, so few FX series cards have been sold that I think nVidia wouldnt have to pay out much.:-P
(Oh, and it's spelt "eke", btw.:-) I've seen a too few "eek"s lately to ignore that one. Please forgive me being anal.)
WET is my 2nd torrent experience, and the second bad one. I have an ADSL (3M/128k). On the length I have let Torrent downloaded (nearly 3h for 34%), I have get my upload capped at 12k nearly all the time, but my upload has runned at 4k in average with spikes at 10k. With gamespy with 42 min of waiting in the queue, I have downloaded it in less than 2h... I don't remember the exact stats from my first download, but they was as bad as this one... Why everyone say bittorent is the next big thing, but I can't get it to seem work correctly ?
I think you need to open up ports 6881-6889 through your firewall. I know someone else has said this, but I thought it was worth repeating with numbers: Without the port forwarding I got 5kB/s on a file. With port forwarding, I got 65kB/s on the same file, which is the max my line provides. I tried this a few times on a 200MB file, and the results were pretty consistent.
I can't emphasise enough how important those port forwards are. I hope you have better luck next time.:-)
South African money is printed with both normal and ultraviolet inks. People that are worried about counterfeit cash have a downward looking UV light installed at the base of the cash register. They pass the bill under the light on the way into the till. As a bonus, it works especially well in bad light conditions.
Under UV light the real bills look very different and very pretty. A shop owner showed me some printed bills that someone tried to pass once. Under the UV light, they glow pretty uniformly. The difference between a real note and a counterfeit is huge.
I think American dollars have to be the easiest bills to copy I have ever seen. My first thought when I saw them was "Are these people serious!?":-) . The only money I had ever seen that looked anything like them before was the money that comes in those Monopoly games, with a monochrome background and a single colour ink.
Most banks and stores that detect counterfeit bills do so using a special marker that leaves a particular mark/color on a true bill and nothing/or another special mark on fake. It's the reaction with the cloth-based real bill.
I like the way South African money is protected. It has a lot of different features, but IMO the best one is the fact that the bill looks completely different (and very pretty) under ultra-violet light. I have been to many a small store with an ulta-violet light mounted over the money tray in the till. Zero effort counterfeit bill checking!
American money is incredibly easy to counterfeit compared to many of the currencies I have used. It's also really stupidly designed. South African bills are all different sizes and colours depending on their denomination, and they are marked in braille too. This makes it really easy to identify a note in bad light, or if you are blind. They are easier to seperate in your wallet too. It also cuts down on the number of times you pay someone with a 10 when you meant to use a one.
It's funny that some Americans call the new notes "monopoly money", because that's what American dollars look like to us.:-)
After all, it now tells the RIAA which users are supplying "the best dope" to the p2p system.
Then now have an awfully good system to find just who to target... the users that are providing the best goods.
Not necessarily. You could identify the user with a RSA key. Only that user could sign a file with his key. Public keys could be distributed anonymously, or pseudo-anonymously.
Either way, all RIAA would know is that the owner of private key "x" releases a lot of good stuff. They would have no indication whatsoever where the key was, or who knew its passphrase.
Users could search for a file, then filter files by their signature. They would preferentially download files that were signed by people who have a long past history of providing uncorrupt files.
Your drug czar analagy doesn't hold in this scenario.
Quite frankly, the only stuff I have seen go into XFree recently that I thought was worthwhile was Keith's doing. Using X over a slow link is so much better since he added the XRENDER support, and I wait with bated breath for XRANDR support to become ubiquitous. I really like the idea of being able to move my applications from one X server (or client, as they call it) to another.
Judging from the past, if Keith were to start an X11 fork, I would be one to use it, because he adds stuff I find genuinely useful (not to mention ground-breaking in its effects).
Also, a less closed and more friendly development model for XFree would be nice. A fork would keep them honest.
Heh. Actually, it is spelt "Ja well no fine". It has a bunch of uses, and is a sort of catchall phase for some people.
It can be used to indicate agreement about something that will soon be done. "Ja well no fine, let's go sort it out" would be a classic use.
It is a sort of shorthand. "Ja" = "Yes". "Well" is used as in English meaning as a scatting word "welllll", or to mean that things (or you) are well. "No" indicates that nothing is wrong (as if the other person had asked if there was a problem), and the "fine" is to back this up.
"Ja well no fine" = "Yes all is well, no really, it's fine"
or
"Ja well no fine" = "Yes! ummmm... no, definitely, it's fine!".
The second use would be when you have made a strong decision.
It's hard to pin down, but I think that will do as a start. The link some other guy posted about it meaning "I'm bored" is just wrong, in my opinion.
Um. To be fair, you don't need nuclear anything to make an EMP pulse. If I was really determined to do it quietly, I could do it using a canister of compressed air and some fancy electronics. An explosive would probably be better, but loud.
Electromagnetic pulse compression weapons aren't that high tech.
His idea doesn't strike me as that absurd. I don't see such a device being used in this context, but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility.:-P Actually, the idea of some terrorists getting their hands on something like this near an airport kinda freaks me out. I've always thought it absurd that avionics "might" break down because of a cellphone. When I think about EMP weapons, I start thinking it's criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
Glenn Reynolds is a partisan right-wing hack who believes that if you opposed the war with Iraq, you are "objectively pro-Saddam".
Heh. I thought you could only be called partisan in the US if you were a Republican or a Democrat, of which he is neither. You aren't really part of the political process here if you support something else.
I am right wing, being a libertarian. Strangly enough, I think this is a good thing. For one thing, it means I don't care about someone's political party when criticising them.
I shouldn't feed trolls I guess, but I found this one amusing.
All ximian does is mark it as 'deleted' and not show it.
I don't use my Evolution with IMAP, but evolution has an "Empty Trash" option that happily truly deletes the files marked deleted. You can also set it up to do this by default on exit.
Have you tried using this? Does it not work properly with IMAP or something?
Keith seems to believe that the solution to X performance issues lies in the clients; and in the long run this may very well be true. However, NX takes the old proxy/agent paradigm pioneered by LBX and dxpc and does something useful with it finally.
Actually, that is not strictly true. It took some effort, but I compiled up NX from scratch (It is available under GPL). One of the things it does is provide an xlib replacement which you sneak under the program you want to run using LD_PRELOAD. That replacement makes a huge difference. So, in a way, they are doing a runtime replacement of all the bits in the client that talk to the server.
I think this is one of the major reasons why NX works so well compared to LBX and friends. The other is that it keeps a fully persistant (between sessions) cache of bitmaps on the client side. It really is beautifully done.
The guys working on Xouvert have talked about working it directly into their version of X, and this would make me a very happy camper indeed.
Hm. I dunno. The only "cover up" in progress has been the reluctance of developers to speak out and call a spade a spade. The fact is that the new nVidia hardware simply can not compete with the new ATi hardware. Period. Go scratch around on the net and look at the technical details.
:-P
I was really happy that Valve had the guts to speak up. The only company consistently at fault in this whole fiasco is nVidia. Their latest ploy is to release a driver that uses reduced precision shaders, and pretend that its as good as the Radeon default settings. This is obvious in the first few days after the release of the det50 drivers. I'll wait a few weeks to be vindicated though.
Just in case you wonder, I am an nVidia card owner. This will change though. I am thoroughly disgusted with their behaviour to date. They lost and they would rather lie and cheat and bluster continuously than keep my trust. Sure, they might not sell as many cards in the short term if they just admit they screwed up and we'll have to wait for the next generation of their cards, but they sure as hell will lose out in the long term. They could admit defeat and bring their prices down and bite the bullet. Their current generation would make great low price video cards if you didn't care too much about image quality.
"NVidia? I remember them. Didn't they lie about their image quality and cheat in their drivers in games?" What a great way to be remembered.
Your only option for UT2K3 (And likely Doom3 when it comes out) are either NV's or ATI's closed-source drivers. And NV's Linux drivers are FAR better.
Really? Damn, then I am screwed. The nVidia drivers I am using now totally screw with my kernel latencies when doing 2D rendering. I hate them with a passion. They're huge, they sit in my kernel space, and so far they seem to be the only cause of my machine dying.
My next card will not be an nVidia. At the moment, that means ATi. Good for them.
I have learnt my lesson. Unreal Tournament can wait. I want a video card that doesn't piss me off when I'm writing email. That means open source drivers that don't run in kernel space.
Does it irritate anyone else when people try to further compress already compressed media files? I mean - they should have a compulsory information theory test before people are allowed to use tools like zip and gzip.
Not really, because I realise that you can often do better than the entropy coding in the compression format. It has to be fast, and it might be compressing the stream without examining the whole stream beforehand. Hence you can often gain a few percent with zip or whatever.
I am currently working on my own codec, which, at the moment, doesn't use any entropy coding at all. Its better than MPEG-2, but not quite as good as MPEG-4 yet, but I have a long list of things still to do. I may not add entropy coding... it just might not gain me enough size to be worth it given the speed penalty.
I think the operative word in your subject line was "theory". In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, you rarely get a chance to optimally apply the theory.
Hmm. Thats annoying. I clicked on "parent" for that post to make sure that there wasn't some other attribution farther upstream. Nothing showed up.
:-P
Slashdot really annoys me sometimes. Sometimes it's impossible to tell what is going on with the threading.
My apologies.
There are NO such quotes in the articles linked.
Similarly, there are NO hits on Google for various cut and pastes out of the so-called quotes.
RTFA people, and especially, RTFA MODERATORS.
"Score:5, Informative", my ass.
Yes, but if the european company would like to sell their products in the US, the US patents would apply, no matter where the company is based.
Maybe, but they may apply in funny ways. I know of one company that got hit with a spurious USA patent, and they somehow came out okay because they arranged to make the stuff outside the USA and import it.
So from this I guess the patent may stop you from making that thing in the USA, but not necessarily from selling it. I'm not exactly sure what the loopholes are.
I'm not sure about this at all, but thought it was an interesting point for conversation.
-Nurf
I currently have an NVidia card, and NVidia drivers, and it is the sole reason for crashes on my machine.
/sbin/lsmod|grep -i nv
:-P
The display will lock, and I have maybe 30 seconds to SSH in and shutdown the machine, or it is hosed.
Also look at this:
maze root #
NVdriver 1066304 10 (autoclean)
A 1 meg kernel module? That must be all the cool special case code they have for cheating in benchmarks?
Never mind the fact that I am purposely running an slightly older driver cos the new one seems less stable and screws up 2D in interesting ways.
Now if I got myself an nForce based system, I could have these problems with a bunch of other binary drivers too! Sound, MB, ethernet, and video!
Not.
I'll pass, and I am SOO buying an ATI card next time. I have really found out the hard way that binary only drivers suck.
So who's going to vet it as 'spam?' Want to do it after the DATA message is sent? Then you're doubling your bandwidth.
:-)
Want to try to identify based on the fact that there's a ton of mails coming through in a short period of time? What if the spammer simply re-orders his spam database, so it's not sorted by domain? If he has 1,000,000 emails, with, oh, 10,000 separate domains, then only every 100th email he sends will be to your domain, if he spaces them properly.
*nod* It is true your suggestion doesn't work. However, there are other possibilities. I used the word "distributed" for a reason. Here is one example:
Several people band together in a loose way. These people set up SMTP servers for domains that don't receive any real email. The server can be configured however you like. However, it never delivers mail. It simply records the IP of whoever connects to it. End of story. No tuples, spam characterisation, to or from addresses, nothing. You advertise some addresses for this domain by sticking them on web pages or whatever. By definition all connections to those servers are from spammers.
A spammer connects to your real SMTP server. It gets told to go away cos its new and untrusted. Now, the only way it can get a message to someone on your server is by reconnecting an hour later from the same IP and retrying.
In the meantime, the spammer has attempted to send this message to other addresses. He hits one of the honeypot SMTP servers in your distributed network (and, the bigger his mailshot, the more likely this is). Every 30 minutes you collect the list of IPs that hit the honeypots, and dump them into your blacklist.
An hour later your spammer tries again, but you now have that IP in your blacklist, and either silently drop the message, or just keep giving temporary errors.
If you make your honeypots behave identically to real servers, and give temporary errors too, then any retries by the spammer to honeypots will just revalidate that the spammer is still using that IP.
You make your IP blacklists slowly time out old IPs, so that if the IP is re-used by a legitimate sender he is not indefinitly locked out. This is unlikely to cause problems anyway, cos most people use their local SMTP server provided by the ISP to send email, and it knows the address ranges it serves.
I'm not attacking anything. I'm simply pointing out design issues (not necessarily flaws!) that the author, or you, might not have thought of. Isn't that one of the ideas behind open source? A sort of darwinian wheedling?
Excuse me for sounding off before, but from my reading of the article, it seemed quite clear to me that he had thought of this. You happened to the straw that broke the camel's back. I had just read a bunch of posts by people that carefully combine ignorance with a desire to read half the article.
Please excuse my outburst. However, to back up my point, here is a quote from the article:
# It is long enough to provide a good chance that if the sending host is in fact a spammer, they will be listed in other IP-based blacklists that may be used in conjunction with Greylisting, so that even if a spamming relay later attempts a redelivery that would no longer be delayed by Greylisting, it may still be blocked by other methods.
# It is also long enough that other types of traffic analysis could be designed and implemented such that spamming IP's could be easily identified and blocked by other methods, in such a way that even the first recipients (before a spamming pattern starts to emerge) would still not be bothered by the spam email.
I think debate is a good thing, but doing your homework is advised.
So you mix up your spams; rather than sending all viagra, you send a few viagra, and a few mortgage, a few horny teen sluts, and so on.
:-/ No. I think you aren't getting this. The whole point is that a new sender is untrusted for one hour. You now have one whole hour for other spam control measures to blacklist that IP, something that should be pretty simple with any kind of distributed database of SMTP connection attempts to honeypots, etc.
I'm not saying this is a bad idea; I'm saying that it's only going to work for a while. I'm saying that basing your defences on the fact that spam software isn't RFC compliant means your fine until the spammers get RFC compliant, and that isn't very difficult at all.
It's called greylisting for a reason. Stop thinking in black and white. Its an extra layer that is used to give you a tactical advantage. It makes your life easier when fighting spam. It's not The Final Solution, which is clearly acknowledged by its author. It's a tool. It's one more layer in the fight against spam.
So what if spammers write their code to try again in an hour? The RFC complaince thing is a red herring for you. It's the logical next step for spammers to make their code compliant. And when this happens, you have a method of giving you an one hour period for a distributed immune system to respond.
I get annoyed when people attack something for not doing something the author specifically claims it won't do. What! It doesn't do your laundry? Shame. How clever of you to point that out.
No. They're making a case that the whole management structure of Linux is flawed, since the project manager can't even determine that the work people under him submit is their own work.
:-)
:-P
I realise that you are merely stating what they say, and are not claiming to agree. It's a statement that amazes me though. Since when should someone make the default assumption that everyone she is dealing with is probably lying to her? How would she get through even a single day, knowing that she had to do background checks on absolutely everything said or presented to her?
Typically you trust someone until they prove to be unreliable, then you adjust your behaviour to compensate. If the people at SCO think in any way like that quote, then I think they should be put out of their misery and shot or something. It's only humane - living like that must be hell.
If some court were to actually support this viewpoint, I would lose the infinitesimally small respect I already have for them.
Hmm. I know Novell gave SCO the right to license out Unix bits, but did they give up the right to issue licenses themselves? My question is: Could IBM nip over to Novell, pay them 20 bucks and get a brand spanking new Unix license?
I think it is more like spreading viruses is illegal while writing viruses is unethical. And I don't think you have to actually write a virus just to know how they work either.
.bat files and that was written in DOS batch language. I succeeded. That was almost as much fun as doing the boot sector stuff.
:-) ) with which to fix it.
Hm. I just can't see that. I have written more than one virus in my time. Nobody got hurt. I played with them on isolated machines. I learnt something from doing it. It was a challenge and it was lots of fun. For example, I set myself the challenge of writing a virus that infected DOS
It turned out useful some time later when I had a non-bootable harddisk and only an assembler on a bootable floppy (a magazine cover disk
And at the end of all this, nothing got damaged. No people got hurt. I had fun watching my code wander around my systems. I played in assembler, and eventually deleted the viruses and moved on to other things, like artificial life simulations and genetic algorithms. 14 years later, I still have people oohing and ahing over the leet assembler skills I use on their embedded projects.
How was this unethical?
In other words, if you bought a $300 nVidia card on the strength of this benchmark, you bought a card that is %40 slower than it should be because nVidia went out of its way to lie about the speed.
:-P
:-) I've seen a too few "eek"s lately to ignore that one. Please forgive me being anal.)
Hmm. You know, this sounds like a great class action lawsuit. Even if the award wasn't too great, it would drive home the point nicely that cheating was stupid and self-destructive.
Of course, so few FX series cards have been sold that I think nVidia wouldnt have to pay out much.
(Oh, and it's spelt "eke", btw.
Ciao!
WET is my 2nd torrent experience, and the second bad one. I have an ADSL (3M/128k). On the length I have let Torrent downloaded (nearly 3h for 34%), I have get my upload capped at 12k nearly all the time, but my upload has runned at 4k in average with spikes at 10k. With gamespy with 42 min of waiting in the queue, I have downloaded it in less than 2h... I don't remember the exact stats from my first download, but they was as bad as this one... Why everyone say bittorent is the next big thing, but I can't get it to seem work correctly ?
:-)
I think you need to open up ports 6881-6889 through your firewall. I know someone else has said this, but I thought it was worth repeating with numbers: Without the port forwarding I got 5kB/s on a file. With port forwarding, I got 65kB/s on the same file, which is the max my line provides. I tried this a few times on a 200MB file, and the results were pretty consistent.
I can't emphasise enough how important those port forwards are. I hope you have better luck next time.
-Nurf
South African money is printed with both normal and ultraviolet inks. People that are worried about counterfeit cash have a downward looking UV light installed at the base of the cash register. They pass the bill under the light on the way into the till. As a bonus, it works especially well in bad light conditions.
:-) . The only money I had ever seen that looked anything like them before was the money that comes in those Monopoly games, with a monochrome background and a single colour ink.
Under UV light the real bills look very different and very pretty. A shop owner showed me some printed bills that someone tried to pass once. Under the UV light, they glow pretty uniformly. The difference between a real note and a counterfeit is huge.
I think American dollars have to be the easiest bills to copy I have ever seen. My first thought when I saw them was "Are these people serious!?"
Most banks and stores that detect counterfeit bills do so using a special marker that leaves a particular mark/color on a true bill and nothing/or another special mark on fake. It's the reaction with the cloth-based real bill.
:-)
I like the way South African money is protected. It has a lot of different features, but IMO the best one is the fact that the bill looks completely different (and very pretty) under ultra-violet light. I have been to many a small store with an ulta-violet light mounted over the money tray in the till. Zero effort counterfeit bill checking!
American money is incredibly easy to counterfeit compared to many of the currencies I have used. It's also really stupidly designed. South African bills are all different sizes and colours depending on their denomination, and they are marked in braille too. This makes it really easy to identify a note in bad light, or if you are blind. They are easier to seperate in your wallet too. It also cuts down on the number of times you pay someone with a 10 when you meant to use a one.
It's funny that some Americans call the new notes "monopoly money", because that's what American dollars look like to us.
After all, it now tells the RIAA which users are supplying "the best dope" to the p2p system.
Then now have an awfully good system to find just who to target... the users that are providing the best goods.
Not necessarily. You could identify the user with a RSA key. Only that user could sign a file with his key. Public keys could be distributed anonymously, or pseudo-anonymously.
Either way, all RIAA would know is that the owner of private key "x" releases a lot of good stuff. They would have no indication whatsoever where the key was, or who knew its passphrase.
Users could search for a file, then filter files by their signature. They would preferentially download files that were signed by people who have a long past history of providing uncorrupt files.
Your drug czar analagy doesn't hold in this scenario.
So when I send my mother in law a picture, you expect me to step her though a 'save as' procedure?
There is a difference between showing a picture and executing code. One executes code, the other renders data.
You mother in law is most welcome to view her pictures.
Please learn the difference between code and data. Maybe this would be easier if you stopped using Microsoft email clients.
Quite frankly, the only stuff I have seen go into XFree recently that I thought was worthwhile was Keith's doing. Using X over a slow link is so much better since he added the XRENDER support, and I wait with bated breath for XRANDR support to become ubiquitous. I really like the idea of being able to move my applications from one X server (or client, as they call it) to another.
Judging from the past, if Keith were to start an X11 fork, I would be one to use it, because he adds stuff I find genuinely useful (not to mention ground-breaking in its effects).
Also, a less closed and more friendly development model for XFree would be nice. A fork would keep them honest.
Yes. It is a very South African thing. :-)
:-)
Zimbabweans and, I think to a lesser extent, Namibians will grok it too.
I still love the look of confusion I see on Americans' faces when I greet them with "Howzit?" without thinking.
Heh. Actually, it is spelt "Ja well no fine". It has a bunch of uses, and is a sort of catchall phase for some people.
:-)
It can be used to indicate agreement about something that will soon be done. "Ja well no fine, let's go sort it out" would be a classic use.
It is a sort of shorthand. "Ja" = "Yes". "Well" is used as in English meaning as a scatting word "welllll", or to mean that things (or you) are well. "No" indicates that nothing is wrong (as if the other person had asked if there was a problem), and the "fine" is to back this up.
"Ja well no fine" = "Yes all is well, no really, it's fine"
or
"Ja well no fine" = "Yes! ummmm... no, definitely, it's fine!".
The second use would be when you have made a strong decision.
It's hard to pin down, but I think that will do as a start. The link some other guy posted about it meaning "I'm bored" is just wrong, in my opinion.
There. I bet you wished you never asked.
Um. To be fair, you don't need nuclear anything to make an EMP pulse. If I was really determined to do it quietly, I could do it using a canister of compressed air and some fancy electronics. An explosive would probably be better, but loud.
:-P Actually, the idea of some terrorists getting their hands on something like this near an airport kinda freaks me out. I've always thought it absurd that avionics "might" break down because of a cellphone. When I think about EMP weapons, I start thinking it's criminal.
Electromagnetic pulse compression weapons aren't that high tech.
His idea doesn't strike me as that absurd. I don't see such a device being used in this context, but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility.