I have a special procedure for cell phone usage while driving:
0) Use a headset. Have both hands on the wheel at all times. 1) Immediately notify the caller that I'm driving. 2) Remember that the most important task is the driving. If the driving isn't getting enough cycles, the caller gets a spoken "Hold." and is then ignored until the driving is less demanding.
Is it "rude"? Most folks think so. Fuck em, I'm driving!;)
They gave Jerry a 44 BILLION offer, and a few weeks later, the company loses almost 25 billion in value...
This is interesting. What caused that drop in value? How does the Yahoo! before the offer differ from the Yahoo! after the offer? Did someone important leave? Did Yahoo! stop offering some critical service? If not, then what? A loss of ~50% of a company's value is kinda huge, no? Where did all that money go? Did it get lost in a sock drawer?
But, but, but, BitTorrent is no more bandwidth greedy than -say- SFTP or eMule! You *can* ask any decent BT (or SFTP or eMule) client to limit the bandwidth that it uses.
Maybe your Network Attached Toaster doesn't need a globally routed IP address. With IPv4, you'd give it an RFC 1918 private address, then configure your NAT/firewall so that it isn't allowed to make outbound connections.... Most home routers don't even make that possible in the user interface.
Most home routers I see already allocate from the 1918 space: 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
However, I've not run into a router that allows one to deny outbound connections to particular machines on one's LAN. This does seem like it would be a useful feature.
(for example DNS is sometimes done from a random port to help against poisoning, but if that goes through a NAT the random port is replaced with a non-random port).
This is often not the case. If your NAT device uses iptables the random port is typically preserved. (YEY, OpenWRT!) I hear that there are also various commercial devices which preserve the port randomization.
And the workarounds needed because of NAT are not improving security either. They make software more complicated for no good reason, and more complicated means more bugs, including security vulnerabilities.
Eh. Even complicated software *can* be bug free. Having said that, I fucking hate NAT and want it to die.;)
RMS could have avoided "unfree" software completely but apparently didn't have the assembly language chops to do it. So much for any hacker cred.
*shrug* I don't see how bootstraping the development of a free compiler with a non-free compiler is a violation of the mission to create a completely free computing system. Was the SVN group's early use of CVS a violation of their mission to develop a better CVS? After all, the SVN folks *could* have simply passed around tarballs and patches. Clearly they don't have any hacker cred, 'cause they didn't do it like Linus did in the early days.
Plus, in my general experience, a new copy of Vista takes several hours to get to work "right" for me. A new Ubuntu install takes about three setting changes and a rather large apt-get.
To be fair: 1) How long does that apt-get take? 2) How much of the setup time for Vista and Ubuntu represents automated tasks?
Your motivations for posting your original comment are clear. You had no desire to generate productive conversation. Surely a man as intelligent as yourself can understand this.:)
Remember, wine will always be a kludge. A damn good kludge at times, but still a kludge.
So, are things like QEMU and bochs kludges? If so, is valgrind a kludge?
I agree that native apps are by far the ideal situation. Moreover, by targeting Linux you stand a decent chance of having your app run on any Unix-ish platform out there. But, what's wrong with making Linux *even more* interoperable? If Linux plays so well with Windows that it even runs Win32 binaries -especially those of $MISSION_CRITICAL_APP-, what's to stop someone from dropping in a Linux box the next time that the MSFT bill collector comes calling?;)
*points* My desktop computer can output to a big ol' HDTV, too. I'd imagine that a stronger argument would be the dearth of single-machine multi-player games for the PC.
Hi! I'm an OGL noob. (I just use the basics to do some real-time viz for *really* basic data and statistics.) So, please take my question with a grain of salt, as I know fuck-all about D3D. : D
You say:
It's not really obtuse, both APIs are functionally equivalent. The biggest difference between both is that D3D is object-oriented whereas OGL is just a C-style series of function calls(ie. the difference is direct3DDevice->Present() vs glSwap()).
Have you examined OGL 3.0? (I'm sure that noone has driver support for it yet, but still.) I hear that it's now an object-oriented API. If you have looked at OGL 3, how does it compare to D3D 9 or 10?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a special procedure for cell phone usage while driving:
0) Use a headset. Have both hands on the wheel at all times.
1) Immediately notify the caller that I'm driving.
2) Remember that the most important task is the driving. If the driving isn't getting enough cycles, the caller gets a spoken "Hold." and is then ignored until the driving is less demanding.
Is it "rude"? Most folks think so. Fuck em, I'm driving! ;)
If I wasn't close to retirement, and wanted to build a career in AI, I'd be looking at how mapreduce works...
Why not do this stuff during your retirement? What else are you going to do with the time between now and your death?
I made this just for you, boss!
http://simoncion.livejournal.com/306396.html
Is the sole piece of supporting evidence for your "there's not 'always time'" position that NY Post story?
They gave Jerry a 44 BILLION offer, and a few weeks later, the company loses almost 25 billion in value...
This is interesting. What caused that drop in value?
How does the Yahoo! before the offer differ from the Yahoo! after the offer? Did someone important leave? Did Yahoo! stop offering some critical service? If not, then what? A loss of ~50% of a company's value is kinda huge, no? Where did all that money go? Did it get lost in a sock drawer?
But, but, but, BitTorrent is no more bandwidth greedy than -say- SFTP or eMule! You *can* ask any decent BT (or SFTP or eMule) client to limit the bandwidth that it uses.
Gah. I mis-spoke.
You *can* do any damn thing with OpenWRT. I should have said "I haven't run into a stock, consumer-grade router that...". Mea culpa.
AN added benefit (FOR NOW anyway) is that most ssh dictionary attacks are against IPv4 addresses.
Meh. Folks maybe shouldn't be allowing password authentication these days.
Heh. Windows Firewall seems to do a pretty good job, out of the box.
Dear mods:
This guy has the answer.
The ISP can control all traffic that flows through its network. What stops them from performing DPI and other analysis on the tunnelled traffic?
If you think you're smarter than everybody who's tried to do this before, then write up an Internet Draft. What's stopping you?
His lack of good ideas?
Maybe your Network Attached Toaster doesn't need a globally routed IP address. With IPv4, you'd give it an RFC 1918 private address, then configure your NAT/firewall so that it isn't allowed to make outbound connections. ... Most home routers don't even make that possible in the user interface.
Most home routers I see already allocate from the 1918 space:
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
However, I've not run into a router that allows one to deny outbound connections to particular machines on one's LAN. This does seem like it would be a useful feature.
(for example DNS is sometimes done from a random port to help against poisoning, but if that goes through a NAT the random port is replaced with a non-random port).
This is often not the case. If your NAT device uses iptables the random port is typically preserved. (YEY, OpenWRT!) I hear that there are also various commercial devices which preserve the port randomization.
And the workarounds needed because of NAT are not improving security either. They make software more complicated for no good reason, and more complicated means more bugs, including security vulnerabilities.
Eh. Even complicated software *can* be bug free. Having said that, I fucking hate NAT and want it to die. ;)
Perhaps, perhaps. (To both!)
The point is that RMS makes his own arbitrary and extreme definitions of non-evil code.
You have failed to make your point. HTH, HAND.
Eh. They're really a pair. The second one makes your intention *extra* clear... so maybe that's the one that the mods will swoop on first?
Heh. Did someone page me?
RMS could have avoided "unfree" software completely but apparently didn't have the assembly language chops to do it. So much for any hacker cred.
*shrug* I don't see how bootstraping the development of a free compiler with a non-free compiler is a violation of the mission to create a completely free computing system. Was the SVN group's early use of CVS a violation of their mission to develop a better CVS? After all, the SVN folks *could* have simply passed around tarballs and patches. Clearly they don't have any hacker cred, 'cause they didn't do it like Linus did in the early days.
Plus, in my general experience, a new copy of Vista takes several hours to get to work "right" for me. A new Ubuntu install takes about three setting changes and a rather large apt-get.
To be fair:
1) How long does that apt-get take?
2) How much of the setup time for Vista and Ubuntu represents automated tasks?
Your motivations for posting your original comment are clear. You had no desire to generate productive conversation. Surely a man as intelligent as yourself can understand this. :)
Remember, wine will always be a kludge. A damn good kludge at times, but still a kludge.
So, are things like QEMU and bochs kludges? If so, is valgrind a kludge?
I agree that native apps are by far the ideal situation. Moreover, by targeting Linux you stand a decent chance of having your app run on any Unix-ish platform out there. But, what's wrong with making Linux *even more* interoperable? If Linux plays so well with Windows that it even runs Win32 binaries -especially those of $MISSION_CRITICAL_APP-, what's to stop someone from dropping in a Linux box the next time that the MSFT bill collector comes calling? ;)
*points* My desktop computer can output to a big ol' HDTV, too. I'd imagine that a stronger argument would be the dearth of single-machine multi-player games for the PC.
The benefits of using the entire DirectX stack obviously must outweight those other markets otherwise games wouldn't do it.
Or maybe MSFT hands game devs a stack of cash and a team of D3D devs to provide support? ;)
Hi! I'm an OGL noob. (I just use the basics to do some real-time viz for *really* basic data and statistics.) So, please take my question with a
grain of salt, as I know fuck-all about D3D. : D
You say:
It's not really obtuse, both APIs are functionally equivalent. The biggest difference between both is that D3D is object-oriented whereas OGL is just a C-style series of function calls(ie. the difference is direct3DDevice->Present() vs glSwap()).
Have you examined OGL 3.0? (I'm sure that noone has driver support for it yet, but still.) I hear that it's now an object-oriented API. If you have looked at OGL 3, how does it compare to D3D 9 or 10?
Cheers!