I'm excited by the results, but I would like to see PIII / Athlon benchmarks for chips operating at the same Mhz.
In these benchmarks, it appears that their will be only marginal differences, although the Athlon is currently at the low end of a architecture (motherboards, etc), while the PIII has almost maxed out its design.
Well, we did contact law enforcement agencies. Have you ever done this? You make it sound like a veritable cure-all.
It's not. You have to deal with a lot of delays and red tape, and it's hard to get someone's ear if you can't *prove* substantial financial loss.
In our case the FBI investigator told me that they would not take our case, even though I had plenty of logs of someone hidden behind an AOL dynamic IP running DoS attacks for days.
---
The real problem with your argument though, is the premise that AOL should ignore abuse by their subscribers unless forced to do something about it by a governmental body. Government intervention should be the course of LAST resort.
Also, there's a wide range of activity that is considered abuse on the internet but is not technically illegal. Usenet SPAM is such a case, and if AOL continues to ignore the abuse its subscribers perpetrate, UDP is a reasonable response.
In your other post you claim that other ISPs are no better. Well, besides the fact that this does not in any way invalidate the arguments against AOL, it's been my experience that most other ISPs, even larger ones, are significantly better at curtailing abuse.
I'd also like to make a point that just because AOL is a large ISP with a huge userbase, this does not mean that they don't have the capability to be more responsive to abuses, or even more friendly toward outside sysadmins.
PDF's are *not* good for online content. They are great if you want to see an accurate print-preview before you eat up a ream of paper, but they are very awkward format to use for online documentation.
They aren't editable without expensive, proprietary tools, for one thing. Secondly, the acrobat reader is SO SLOW and most people's monitors can only display half of a page at once at a readable resolution.
PDFs should not be the primary format for open-source related online documentation. It goes against the entire philosophy!
Well, I think some people are bashing AOL in a knee-jerk type fashion. It seems we're calling a different company "The Next Microsoft" every day.
On the other hand, I don't exactly have the warm fuzzies. AOL's been picking up high profile netgadgets lately (Netscape, Instant Messenger {was this ICQ?}, now Shoutcast and WinAMP). I would guess that they are trying to corner the market on hip cybertools, so as too attract even more users to their network service.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to be popular, but AOL's current software practices leave a lot to be desired in the area of privacy, and forced advertising. These new aquisitions might turn out to be harmless party favours promoting the AOL name, or they might turn into trogan-horse like demographic harvesters. It'll probably be a little of both. I personally hate adware (even though it allows "free" services, I know) and hope that people develop marketing-free alternatives. Maybe I'll even be able to help:)
I don't know how serious they are about promoting open software either. They do seem to have left a good part of netscape/mozilla intact, but I'm still not convinced they really want to give anything back to the net without strings attached.
This is not really true. There aren't that many barriers to entry in the ISP business. If you don't like what you perceive as censorship, there's little to stop you from starting your own ISP and hosting all the AOL spam you want. If enough people find value in this service, you will gain customers and be successful (don't bet the bank on it though).
This isn't like oil or diamonds where supply is strictly limited to a few countries/corporations.
The reason I dislike AOL so strongly is their attitude towards the internet. AOL sees it as a natural resource to exploit, rather than a community. They take and take, but they do not accept any responsibility for problems they cause. In the environment of the internet, AOL is one of the largest polluters.
Last year a luser at AOL was running a barrage of Denial of Service attacks on our webserver. I don't know why (s)he did this but I do know that I received absolutely ZERO help from AOL resolving the issue. After a many attempts to talk to someone who could understand what a DoS attack is, I was told the equivalent of "tough luck". They wouldn't give me the time of day unless the FBI was involved.
When we discover cracking activity from other ISPs, those ISPs are usually very helpful in taking care of the problem.
This is just one example, but this newsgroup issue and earlier IRC issues seem to indicate a pattern of behavior. AOL needs to realize that the rest of the net doesn't exist for them to exploit. AOL needs to step up and take some kind of responsibility for the problems they create.
The biggest problem is that they've created an accountability nightmare. No one can effectively deal with an abuser armed with a box of AOL CDs, except for AOL. And AOL doesn't really care.
If the UDP forces them to improve their abuse management, I think that it's a good thing. I don't think they will change until there is damage to their reputation/bottom line.
I agree completely. Closed communities imply control over information, and from what history has shown us so far I don't feel this would be in the public interest.
This debate is similar to the debate over moderation we had earlier. You have to balance the annoyingness of noise with the danger of censorship. You might find yourself one day surrounded by people who say what you want to hear, closing off your mental horizons, and obfuscating the truth.
The censorship that exists in Western society today is often very subtle- it involves defining the scope of debate so as to exclude a wide swatch of viewpoints and dangerous questions while still providing a good facade of open discussion.
Yes, there are a lot of problems with public forums, but the solution shouldn't be a closed community. That seems to me to be lazy, oversimplistic, and even dangerous.
BTW- does anyone else dislike the name "weblog"? A weblog to me is in/var/log/apache/. There's got to be a better name than this!
The "rules of the game (and the model used in setting up the evalution)" were not based on common business practice, they were specifically chosen by Microsoft, at Microsoft's lab, because they show the greatest performace differential in their favor.
You can't pretend this is a fair setup. The "unbiased" hardware used in the first Mindcraft test is just as suspect as the rest of their test has proved to be.
A more fair test would involve either Microsoft and the linux team (whoever that turns out to be) agreeing on a neutral configuration, or alternatively a number of tests on different configurations.
If MS is choosing this battleground, why shouldn't linux testers choose one of their own?
I hope I'm not the only one who find it ironic that China was encouraging student protests against the US embassy. It wasn't too long ago that the world saw how China responds to student protests.
I think it is a good opportunity, but I agree with some of the other posters in that this "Open Benchmark" is probably a trap that will play into the hands of Linux detractors.
I don't see any problem with the restrictions on software and software tuning. I don't see any intrinsic problem with using a high end machine either. If Linux doesn't do SMP as well, this will be a good incentive to improve it.
The things I do see problems with are the clients, and the machine hardware. Ideally you would test samba performance with both windows NT and 9x clients, not just the configuration that favors NT. Also, an "Open Benchmark" should be composed of hardware that is comparably supported on both machines. I think that there should be some discussion over the hardware to be used. The hardware used on the first test, like every other part of the first test, is suspect.
I remember a previous thread of a previous article introduced the saying "Chase the dream, not the competition". I think it definitely applies here. I want to see linux stressed so that it will be improved. It doesn't matter to me if NT beats it, so long as the test is fair.
I downloaded and installed the windows95 Y2K patch 10 days ago. It was right on microsoft's site with all the other service packs and upgrades. Sure enough, it's missing from the lineup now. Luckily I still have a copy.
I wish that the update and service pack listing was clearer about the order in which the patches have to be installed, and if there are any overlaps. There are a goodly number of networking-related patches, for example, and little way to know under what circumstances you need to install them. There are a few pointers in the documentation, but not much. I pretty much have to go by the date.
Why don't they release another service pack that wraps them all up? I have no wish to bloat up to win98.
Ah, if only the windows components were as modularly developed as Linux, you just go to the respective author's web site and get what you need, or just download your distribution's latest release.
Why are you concerned about what's happened to geeks them *since* the Colorado shootings? I think you're missing the point. This issue of systematic geek harassment, abuse, and psychological torture has been going on for a long time. *This* is what needs to stop, not just the latest visible backlash.
Yes, to some extent all kids go through feelings of alienation, but for some people it's not just a phase- it's a daily torture that goes on for *years* with no way out (until you get out of that school system).
Why is *anyone* surprised about what happened in Littleton? When you pile enough rejection, physical abuse, and demeaning behavior at a person they learn to hate. Some people will internalize that hate, some will work off those emotions in positive ways, and some inevitably will strike back. Because they usually are not physically strong enough to just punch out their tormentors, it shouldn't surprise anyone that these kids will use weapons on hand.
These kids justify their actions as self defense, because they don't see any other way out.
WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR SITUATION and offer them a humane recourse to living with hate. This doesn't mean *just* telling them that killing is wrong. Yes, it is wrong, but it is just as wrong to make these kids live with degradation on a daily basis and naively think that it doesn't cause a great deal of pain. Again, we need to recognize their situation and offer them a way out.
> We aren't a big company, just a group of people > paying out of our own pockets and credit cards to > try to start our own business--we didn't even > have enough money to afford a tape backup for > the server. I'd love to nail the little bitch.
If you were smart enough to install linux, catch this guy in the first place, and install security holes you should really have been intelligent enough to know that you *must* have backup, no matter what, no matter how much money you don't have. It's not even an option.
Sorry to be cynical, but this has to be the #1 most damaging, most preventable mistake anyone with a computer can make.
We already have an open, useful format. It's called MP3. The reign of music distributors over artists and consumers is crumbling.
Music distributors are making a last ditch scramble to come up with a format that offers similar portability benefits to MP3 but is still under their exclusive control. They have only a limited time in which to do this, because the strategy hinges on convincing the public to buy into their proprietary products because it's an "upgrade" from regular CDs. They will completely gloss over or outright obscure the the freedom issues that differentiate their own format(s) from MP3.
If MP3 becomes a mainstream format, which is already happening, there will no longer be a convincing reason to trick people into "upgrading" to a closed format. Yes, you can claim technical performance benefits, but these will not be nearly as enticing as the portability benefit over CDs.
The way that music distributors like Sony are behaving reminds me of Microsoft when the internet was taking off. They wanted to sign people up on MSN, and derided the internet as an unorganized mess that will never go anywhere. MP3 and its descendants, like the internet, will thrive and leave the closed formats behind no matter how hard big business tries to stick our heads in the sand.
It's also often said that freedom of the press only applies to those with a press. I don't see a fundamental reason why only only corporations with millions of dollars should distribute mainstream music. It's just been something that you simply had to accept - until now.
When I read this article the only -1 comment was from the Glorious Meept. Well it just so has it that Meept's comment linked to a bit on The Register that impled this thing was a hoax.
Since this is one of the stronger pieces of evidence on this topic, I wish it were at least moderated at 2. Now I can't even find his article even though I have my threshhold at -1. *sigh*
I found it amusing and all, but maybe the Coffee Howto should not be in there with the other howtos that do not require one to double major in CS and EE. It's more of a "How-Might" and is probably just polluting the quality of the LDP.
> Just read kernel hacker's guide, implement a device driver (it could even be user > space i think). Please, compile it as a module, so that we won't need a > kernel compile in every update. Then write:
(and that's just the shortest thing I could quote to get the general idea across)
MP3 won't be "dead" until people no longer see a benefit to using an inexpensive, efficient, portable digital format to store music.
Since the current alternatives are neither as inexpensive, efficient, or portable I don't see how this guy has case.
Probably the only thing that will "kill" MP3 is if someone were to release an even more efficient / better quality encoding algorithm to the public domain.:P
Maybe domain names should be rationed, (ie, put a limit on how many names one person or entity can hold). I know this is draconian but I'd much rather see the names spread out over a large part of the private population than a few speculators or name-greedy companies with the vast majority.
This would be something like the limit of tickets one person can buy at the box office, to prevent someone from buying a whole bunch and then scalping them.
If you're going to buy a motherboard take the time to know the product. Don't just buy a unknown brand from a distributor. Make sure you know what make and model of motherboard you're picking up, and then check it on on the manufacturer's site and on Tom's Hardware pages. I've found that if the reseller doesn't tell you the brand it's usually because the product is low-piced but of inferior quality.
I've personally found Asus and Tyan motherboards are worthy buys, and I've heard that Supermicro and Abit make some motherboards that are very good for overclocking.
I would also agree with the person who suggested the modular component strategy. You can get cheap sound and video for about the same price on cards as they are on the board. That is a better long term move for most people.
I was a little disappointed to see Hemo's statements. While I can sympathize with wanting to do something about SPAM, when I read the law I don't think it is the right kind of legislature to deal with the problem.
This is from the summery:
The bill also adds the following to the list of those acts constituting use without authority or computer trespass: (i) using the services of an electronic mail service provider in contravention of the authority granted by or in violation of the policies set by the electronic mail service provider; (ii) falsifying e-mail transmission information in connection with the transmission of unsolicited bulk e-mail; and (iii) selling or distributing software which makes possible the transmission of false e-mail with the intent to facilitate the transmission of false e-mail. ---
As some other posters have already stated, "false email" is too vaguely defined and could be argued to encompass even legitimate domain masquerading. It should be much better defined.
What I really object to though, is clause '1'. I think spamming should only be illegal when it's done for malicious (DOS) purposes or as unsolicited *commercial* advertisements. I don't think email should be illegal simply because it was against the recipient's "usage policy". That's where I see possible violation of freedom of speech.
I also don't think the law should outlaw anonymous remailers. These have their legitimate uses. I don't think that it does, but I would like the definition of "false email" clarified so there's no room for doubt.
I am not a lawyer, I know that my arguements are not black and white. Please flame gently:P
I have a 1.0 MS Natural Keyboard. It works great and is constructed very well. Ever since switching to it my wrists are no longer sore after a few hours of typing.
Well, last month I spilled hot chocolate all over the keyboard, and it was a very syrupy, crystalized sugar hot chocolate mix. Needless to say it started behaving erratically. Well, I didn't want to unplug it from the back of the computer, because I've seen many cases where you need to reboot the computer to get it to work again once it disconnects. I had a 220 day uptime to protect on linux 2.0.34!
Well, I was able to take it fully apart, clean ALL the contacts, keys, and plastic layers and put it back together again without disconnecting it. I used to work near a keyboard repair shop and I can tell you that most every keyboard is a cheap piece of crap that can't be put back together in a sane fashion once you take it apart. Well, the MS 1.0 natural keyboard was built to be cleaned.
Not only does my keyboard look brand new and feel very comfortable, but my uptime is now at 260 days. I would highly recommend it!
It's a well known fact that Intel offers the services of their assembly wizards in order to create these outstanding claims of increased performance. Doesn't anyone remember when they were pushing MMX and quoting best case Photoshop filter speedups after their assembly team went to work on it?
So, if this is an accurate statement, it probably means that the original code was not very efficient, not that the processor is somehow magically faster. I'm sure similar speed boosts could be generated if AMD went around with assembly guys optimizing stuff for 3D-Now!.
I wonder how useful these new instructions really are. It seems like less and less people spend the effort to optimize code to this level. Unless the compiler does it for them the popular solution seems to be more memory/larger disk space/more expensive processor.
When I posted my article it was the fourth. However, all the subsequent posts are showing up at the top and pushing it down. Originally the "first" poster really was first. The order of the first level responses does not appear to go in chronological order anymore, at least with this story.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm excited by the results, but I would like to see PIII / Athlon benchmarks for chips operating at the same Mhz.
In these benchmarks, it appears that their will be only marginal differences, although the Athlon is currently at the low end of a architecture (motherboards, etc), while the PIII has almost maxed out its design.
-OT
This is it:
Users balk at German state's deal with Microsoft
Well, we did contact law enforcement agencies. Have you ever done this? You make it sound like a veritable cure-all.
It's not. You have to deal with a lot of delays and red tape, and it's hard to get someone's ear if you can't *prove* substantial financial loss.
In our case the FBI investigator told me that they would not take our case, even though I had plenty of logs of someone hidden behind an AOL dynamic IP running DoS attacks for days.
---
The real problem with your argument though, is the premise that AOL should ignore abuse by their subscribers unless forced to do something about it by a governmental body. Government intervention should be the course of LAST resort.
Also, there's a wide range of activity that is considered abuse on the internet but is not technically illegal. Usenet SPAM is such a case, and if AOL continues to ignore the abuse its subscribers perpetrate, UDP is a reasonable response.
In your other post you claim that other ISPs are no better. Well, besides the fact that this does not in any way invalidate the arguments against AOL, it's been my experience that most other ISPs, even larger ones, are significantly better at curtailing abuse.
I'd also like to make a point that just because AOL is a large ISP with a huge userbase, this does not mean that they don't have the capability to be more responsive to abuses, or even more friendly toward outside sysadmins.
-OT
PDF's are *not* good for online content. They are great if you want to see an accurate print-preview before you eat up a ream of paper, but they are very awkward format to use for online documentation.
They aren't editable without expensive, proprietary tools, for one thing. Secondly, the acrobat reader is SO SLOW and most people's monitors can only display half of a page at once at a readable resolution.
PDFs should not be the primary format for open-source related online documentation. It goes against the entire philosophy!
Well, I think some people are bashing AOL in a knee-jerk type fashion. It seems we're calling a different company "The Next Microsoft" every day.
:)
On the other hand, I don't exactly have the warm fuzzies. AOL's been picking up high profile netgadgets lately (Netscape, Instant Messenger {was this ICQ?}, now Shoutcast and WinAMP). I would guess that they are trying to corner the market on hip cybertools, so as too attract even more users to their network service.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to be popular, but AOL's current software practices leave a lot to be desired in the area of privacy, and forced advertising. These new aquisitions might turn out to be harmless party favours promoting the AOL name, or they might turn into trogan-horse like demographic harvesters. It'll probably be a little of both. I personally hate adware (even though it allows "free" services, I know) and hope that people develop marketing-free alternatives. Maybe I'll even be able to help
I don't know how serious they are about promoting open software either. They do seem to have left a good part of netscape/mozilla intact, but I'm still not convinced they really want to give anything back to the net without strings attached.
This is not really true. There aren't that many barriers to entry in the ISP business. If you don't like what you perceive as censorship, there's little to stop you from starting your own ISP and hosting all the AOL spam you want. If enough people find value in this service, you will gain customers and be successful (don't bet the bank on it though).
This isn't like oil or diamonds where supply is strictly limited to a few countries/corporations.
The reason I dislike AOL so strongly is their attitude towards the internet. AOL sees it as a natural resource to exploit, rather than a community. They take and take, but they do not accept any responsibility for problems they cause. In the environment of the internet, AOL is one of the largest polluters.
Last year a luser at AOL was running a barrage of Denial of Service attacks on our webserver. I don't know why (s)he did this but I do know that I received absolutely ZERO help from AOL resolving the issue. After a many attempts to talk to someone who could understand what a DoS attack is, I was told the equivalent of "tough luck". They wouldn't give me the time of day unless the FBI was involved.
When we discover cracking activity from other ISPs, those ISPs are usually very helpful in taking care of the problem.
This is just one example, but this newsgroup issue and earlier IRC issues seem to indicate a pattern of behavior. AOL needs to realize that the rest of the net doesn't exist for them to exploit. AOL needs to step up and take some kind of responsibility for the problems they create.
The biggest problem is that they've created an accountability nightmare. No one can effectively deal with an abuser armed with a box of AOL CDs, except for AOL. And AOL doesn't really care.
If the UDP forces them to improve their abuse management, I think that it's a good thing. I don't think they will change until there is damage to their reputation/bottom line.
- OT, who would not recommend AOL to anyone.
I agree completely. Closed communities imply control over information, and from what history has shown us so far I don't feel this would be in the public interest.
/var/log/apache/. There's got to be a better name than this!
This debate is similar to the debate over moderation we had earlier. You have to balance the annoyingness of noise with the danger of censorship. You might find yourself one day surrounded by people who say what you want to hear, closing off your mental horizons, and obfuscating the truth.
The censorship that exists in Western society today is often very subtle- it involves defining the scope of debate so as to exclude a wide swatch of viewpoints and dangerous questions while still providing a good facade of open discussion.
Yes, there are a lot of problems with public forums, but the solution shouldn't be a closed community. That seems to me to be lazy, oversimplistic, and even dangerous.
BTW- does anyone else dislike the name "weblog"? A weblog to me is in
The "rules of the game (and the model used in setting up the evalution)" were not based on common business practice, they were specifically chosen by Microsoft, at Microsoft's lab, because they show the greatest performace differential in their favor.
You can't pretend this is a fair setup. The "unbiased" hardware used in the first Mindcraft test is just as suspect as the rest of their test has proved to be.
A more fair test would involve either Microsoft and the linux team (whoever that turns out to be) agreeing on a neutral configuration, or alternatively a number of tests on different configurations.
If MS is choosing this battleground, why shouldn't linux testers choose one of their own?
-OT
I hope I'm not the only one who find it ironic that China was encouraging student protests against the US embassy. It wasn't too long ago that the world saw how China responds to student protests.
I think it is a good opportunity, but I agree with some of the other posters in that this "Open Benchmark" is probably a trap that will play into the hands of Linux detractors.
I don't see any problem with the restrictions on software and software tuning. I don't see any intrinsic problem with using a high end machine either. If Linux doesn't do SMP as well, this will be a good incentive to improve it.
The things I do see problems with are the clients, and the machine hardware. Ideally you would test samba performance with both windows NT and 9x clients, not just the configuration that favors NT. Also, an "Open Benchmark" should be composed of hardware that is comparably supported on both machines. I think that there should be some discussion over the hardware to be used. The hardware used on the first test, like every other part of the first test, is suspect.
I remember a previous thread of a previous article introduced the saying "Chase the dream, not the competition". I think it definitely applies here. I want to see linux stressed so that it will be improved. It doesn't matter to me if NT beats it, so long as the test is fair.
-OT
I just found the link to the Y2K package I downloaded a few days back:
http://www.microsoft. com/windows/downloads/bin/w95/y2kw95.txt
Is this what all the fuss is about?
I downloaded and installed the windows95 Y2K patch 10 days ago. It was right on microsoft's site with all the other service packs and upgrades. Sure enough, it's missing from the lineup now. Luckily I still have a copy.
I wish that the update and service pack listing was clearer about the order in which the patches have to be installed, and if there are any overlaps. There are a goodly number of networking-related patches, for example, and little way to know under what circumstances you need to install them. There are a few pointers in the documentation, but not much. I pretty much have to go by the date.
Why don't they release another service pack that wraps them all up? I have no wish to bloat up to win98.
Ah, if only the windows components were as modularly developed as Linux, you just go to the respective author's web site and get what you need, or just download your distribution's latest
release.
Why are you concerned about what's happened to geeks them *since* the Colorado shootings? I think you're missing the point. This issue of systematic geek harassment, abuse, and psychological torture has been going on for a long time. *This* is what needs to stop, not just the latest visible backlash.
Yes, to some extent all kids go through feelings of alienation, but for some people it's not just a phase- it's a daily torture that goes on for *years* with no way out (until you get out of that school system).
Why is *anyone* surprised about what happened in Littleton? When you pile enough rejection, physical abuse, and demeaning behavior at a person they learn to hate. Some people will internalize that hate, some will work off those emotions in positive ways, and some inevitably will strike back. Because they usually are not physically strong enough to just punch out their tormentors, it shouldn't surprise anyone that these kids will use weapons on hand.
These kids justify their actions as self defense, because they don't see any other way out.
WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR SITUATION and offer them a humane recourse to living with hate. This doesn't mean *just* telling them that killing is wrong. Yes, it is wrong, but it is just as wrong to make these kids live with degradation on a daily basis and naively think that it doesn't cause a great deal of pain. Again, we need to recognize their situation and offer them a way out.
-OT
> We aren't a big company, just a group of people
> paying out of our own pockets and credit cards to
> try to start our own business--we didn't even
> have enough money to afford a tape backup for
> the server. I'd love to nail the little bitch.
If you were smart enough to install linux, catch this guy in the first place, and install security holes you should really have been intelligent enough to know that you *must* have backup, no matter what, no matter how much money you don't have. It's not even an option.
Sorry to be cynical, but this has to be the #1 most damaging, most preventable mistake anyone with a computer can make.
It's often quoted "Information wants to be free".
We already have an open, useful format. It's called MP3. The reign of music distributors over artists and consumers is crumbling.
Music distributors are making a last ditch scramble to come up with a format that offers similar portability benefits to MP3 but is still under their exclusive control. They have only a limited time in which to do this, because the strategy hinges on convincing the public to buy into their proprietary products because it's an "upgrade" from regular CDs. They will completely gloss over or outright obscure the the freedom issues that differentiate their own format(s) from MP3.
If MP3 becomes a mainstream format, which is already happening, there will no longer be a convincing reason to trick people into "upgrading" to a closed format. Yes, you can claim technical performance benefits, but these will not be nearly as enticing as the portability benefit over CDs.
The way that music distributors like Sony are behaving reminds me of Microsoft when the internet was taking off. They wanted to sign people up on MSN, and derided the internet as an unorganized mess that will never go anywhere. MP3 and its descendants, like the internet, will thrive and leave the closed formats behind no matter how hard big business tries to stick our heads in the sand.
It's also often said that freedom of the press only applies to those with a press. I don't see a fundamental reason why only only corporations with millions of dollars should distribute mainstream music. It's just been something that you simply had to accept - until now.
-OT
When I read this article the only -1 comment was from the Glorious Meept. Well it just so has it that Meept's comment linked to a bit on The Register that impled this thing was a hoax.
Since this is one of the stronger pieces of evidence on this topic, I wish it were at least moderated at 2. Now I can't even find his article even though I have my threshhold at -1. *sigh*
Ouch, am I sorry I followed that link!
I found it amusing and all, but maybe the Coffee Howto should not be in there with the other howtos that do not require one to double major in CS and EE. It's more of a "How-Might" and is probably just polluting the quality of the LDP.
> Just read kernel hacker's guide, implement a device driver (it could even be user
> space i think). Please, compile it as a module, so that we won't need a
> kernel compile in every update. Then write:
(and that's just the shortest thing I could quote to get the general idea across)
-OT
MP3 won't be "dead" until people no longer see a benefit to using an inexpensive, efficient, portable digital format to store music.
:P
Since the current alternatives are neither as inexpensive, efficient, or portable I don't see how this guy has case.
Probably the only thing that will "kill" MP3 is if someone were to release an even more efficient / better quality encoding algorithm to the public domain.
-OT
Maybe domain names should be rationed, (ie, put a limit on how many names one person or entity can hold). I know this is draconian but I'd much rather see the names spread out over a large part of the private population than a few speculators or name-greedy companies with the vast majority.
This would be something like the limit of tickets one person can buy at the box office, to prevent someone from buying a whole bunch and then scalping them.
Just a few random ideas.
-OT
If you're going to buy a motherboard take the time to know the product. Don't just buy a unknown brand from a distributor. Make sure you know what make and model of motherboard you're picking up, and then check it on on the manufacturer's site and on Tom's Hardware pages. I've found that if the reseller doesn't tell you the brand it's usually because the product is low-piced but of inferior quality.
I've personally found Asus and Tyan motherboards are worthy buys, and I've heard that Supermicro and Abit make some motherboards that are very good for overclocking.
I would also agree with the person who suggested the modular component strategy. You can get cheap sound and video for about the same price on cards as they are on the board. That is a better long term move for most people.
Good luck
-OT
I was a little disappointed to see Hemo's statements. While I can sympathize with wanting to do something about SPAM, when I read the law I don't think it is the right kind of legislature to deal with the problem.
:P
This is from the summery:
The bill also adds the following to the list of those acts constituting use without authority or computer trespass: (i) using the services of an electronic mail service provider in contravention of the authority granted by or in violation of the policies set by the electronic mail service provider; (ii) falsifying e-mail transmission information in connection with the transmission of unsolicited bulk e-mail; and (iii) selling or distributing software which makes possible the transmission of false e-mail with the intent to facilitate the transmission of false e-mail.
---
As some other posters have already stated, "false email" is too vaguely defined and could be argued to encompass even legitimate domain masquerading. It should be much better defined.
What I really object to though, is clause '1'. I think spamming should only be illegal when it's done for malicious (DOS) purposes or as unsolicited *commercial* advertisements. I don't think email should be illegal simply because it was against the recipient's "usage policy". That's where I see possible violation of freedom of speech.
I also don't think the law should outlaw anonymous remailers. These have their legitimate uses. I don't think that it does, but I would like the definition of "false email" clarified so there's no room for doubt.
I am not a lawyer, I know that my arguements are not black and white. Please flame gently
- OT
I have a 1.0 MS Natural Keyboard. It works great and is constructed very well. Ever since switching to it my wrists are no longer sore after a few hours of typing.
Well, last month I spilled hot chocolate all over the keyboard, and it was a very syrupy, crystalized sugar hot chocolate mix. Needless to say it started behaving erratically. Well, I didn't want to unplug it from the back of the computer, because I've seen many cases where you need to reboot the computer to get it to work again once it disconnects. I had a 220 day uptime to protect on linux 2.0.34!
Well, I was able to take it fully apart, clean ALL the contacts, keys, and plastic layers and put it back together again without disconnecting it. I used to work near a keyboard repair shop and I can tell you that most every keyboard is a cheap piece of crap that can't be put back together in a sane fashion once you take it apart. Well, the MS 1.0 natural keyboard was built to be cleaned.
Not only does my keyboard look brand new and feel very comfortable, but my uptime is now at 260 days. I would highly recommend it!
-OT
It's a well known fact that Intel offers the services of their assembly wizards in order to create these outstanding claims of increased performance. Doesn't anyone remember when they were pushing MMX and quoting best case Photoshop filter speedups after their assembly team went to work on it?
So, if this is an accurate statement, it probably means that the original code was not very efficient, not that the processor is somehow magically faster. I'm sure similar speed boosts
could be generated if AMD went around with
assembly guys optimizing stuff for 3D-Now!.
I wonder how useful these new instructions really
are. It seems like less and less people spend
the effort to optimize code to this level. Unless
the compiler does it for them the popular solution seems to be more memory/larger disk space/more expensive processor.
When I posted my article it was the fourth. However, all the subsequent posts are showing up at the top and pushing it down. Originally the "first" poster really was first. The order of the first level responses does not appear to go in chronological order anymore, at least with this story.