2kT, uninhabitable for "many 1000 of years"? Gimme a break.
gg reading comprehension!! Nobody said anything about "many 1000 of years." I find it really annoying when people want to argue about something, but don't even bother to read and understand what the argument is about. Thanks for the straw man though; while he's not doing any good here, I'll put him to work in the cornfield.
But darling, what do you think the microwave oven does?
Well, sweetie, the microwave uses a device called a magnetron to generate microwaves--radio waves with a frequency of about 2.45GHz. These "microwaves" are absorbed by various molecules in the food, causing them to vibrate faster and heat up. Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation; they don't have enough energy to knock electrons out of orbit.
On the other hand, irradiation to kill pathogens in food is generally done with gamma radiation from a radioactive source, such as Cobalt 60. While gamma rays are also radio waves, they are of much higher frequency than microwaves: over 30 exahertz or so--that's 30,000,000,000GHz. As such, they have enough energy to knock electrons loose from orbit, and are known as ionizing radiation. Food irradiation is also done with X-rays, which are still ionizing radiation, but less energetic than gamma rays.
Seriously... nice one-sided commentary from phr1, in addition to not knowing where Albuquerque is (despite the ABQJournal's website stating the city and state at the top right of the page).
Many people had problems with the machines checking Kerry when they wanted to vote for Bush:
In Sandoval County, three Rio Rancho residents said they had a similar problem, with opposite results. They said a touch-screen machine switched their presidential votes from Bush to Kerry.
[Bernalillo County Clerk] Herrera said she's heard stories from Democrats and Republicans. In some cases, when people have tried to vote a straight ticket, the screen has given their votes to every candidate in the opposite political party, she said.
She certainly deserved what she got... If she doesn't want Bush to be president, she shouldn't vote for him (if she's even old enough to vote; if she's just some angsty teen, she'll just have to wait until she grows up). Wishing for his death is just childish and stupid.
$.05/min is significantly cheaper than some long distance rates, but it's trivial to get rates that low, or even lower. You can even get a flat monthly rate--all the long distance you want for $20/month or so; worth it if you do a lot of long distance calling.
So yes, I'm pretty sure it's $.05/min anywhere within the US.
It's because the other schmuck submitted the article before you did. You know/. holds articles and releases them on a schedule, right? They're not posted the minute they're accepted.
Its not so much about whether they helped or not as it is that Bush mentioned it like a billion times.
I must have watched a different debate than you. In the debate I watched, Bush mentioned it exactly once.
KERRY:... Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops.
Re:Is it an open protocol?
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 1
I think *you've* misconstrued things. The normal meaning of "commercial software" means "software that is sold" or "software that is not open source".
That's nice, but the discussion is about the meaning of "non-commercial use" (or "commercial use") [of software], not "commercial software."
Linux: bash:./foo: Permission denied
Windows: Windows cannot access the specified device, path, or file. You may not have the appropriate permissions to access the item.
More like:
Linux: bash:./foo: Permission denied
Windows: C:\temp>
Access is denied.
Although I don't see what your point is... bash and Windows Explorer have different error messages. So what? bash and cmd.exe have different error messages. Gnome Nautilus and cmd.exe have different error messages.
The defaults, to a very large extent, do determine what will be done.
I agree; it would be nice if Windows defaulted files to non-executable.
If turning off the executable attribute for one file is a big deal, how much trouble is it worth to turn off the executable attribute for all the files on a Windows system that should not be executable?
Who said it was a big deal to change one file? It's not. Is changing the attributes of a few thousand files under Linux something you would undertake lightly? No? Well it's not under Windows either.
My point is that there's no inherent limitation in Windows that requires all files to be executable; it is certainly possible and feasible to turn off execute for files that don't need it. While it is true that on a default installation, "you do not explicitly have to give execute permission to the file in question," it is not true that "it's just recognized as an '.exe' file by Windows and treated as an executable." It is treated as an executable because the execute ACL is present, not because of the file extension.
The problem with Windows and these worms is that you do not explicitly have to give execute permission to the file in question. It's just recognized as an '.exe' file by Windows and treated as an executable.
Not exactly true. NTFS has an Execute permission, but the default permissions that are set up when Windows is installed grant Execute permission on all files. If you manully change the permissions to not give Execute by default, Windows will not allow you to execute files until you explicitly grant Execute permission:
Double-clicking it from Explorer gives an error dialog: "Windows cannot access the specified device, path, or file. You may not have the appropriate permissions to access the item."
I tend to agree, but Slashdot posted a series of articles about Linux kernel 2.5.n and FreeBSD 5.3-BETAn, so I guess beta OS releases are deemed newsworthy here.
No, you are confused (as apparently many people are/were). The beta had a special license that said, "Redistribution is not permitted." The license on the release version never allowed modification, but did allow redistribution. If the license doesn't say that you may modify the code, you may not modify the code. I don't know why people think that if it doesn't say that modifications are allowed, that means they are allowed.
Ah, the guy in that story was counterfeiting the Canadian $20, which apparently does have a holographic stripe in its latest version. However, the story doesn't mention holograms; it says he removed "the optical security devices from real $20 bills."
The OpenBSD project read the original license the way I am sure most people would
In that case they, and "most people", need to practice their reading comprehension. The text of the license, which I am posting here for the third time, since nobody seems to actually want to read it, states: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."
Please show me where it says that changes are permitted. Thanks.
it doesn't matter whether it changed or not. unacceptable is unacceptable.
That's fine that they removed ipf. pf is a nice replacement and all. My point is that OpenBSD claims that the license did change, when it clearly did not.
But the "new" license didn't change any of the terms. The only change in the "new" license was the addition of this sentence: "Yes, this means that derivitive [sic] or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent."
I linked to the original license they imported (note that it's revision 1.1), which they had for 5 years before deciding it was unacceptable. It stated that "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors." I see nothing in that that implies that derivative or modified works were permitted. As Darren tried to tell them (apparently without success), the change was a clarification, not a change to the actual terms.
OpenBSD was the first operating system to integrate a packet filter, and it was the ipf codebase from Darren Reed that we chose. But a few years later he told us that we were not free to make changes to the code. So we deleted ipf, and our new packet filter far exceeds the capabilities of the one he wrote. -- Lyrics page
They removed ipf over 3 years ago, and they're still raving about it? Damn, Theo, stop living in the past and give it a rest already. They also conveniently ignore the fact that ipf did not undergo any sort of "Free-to-Non-Free transition" as they claim. The ipf license terms that OpenBSD had an issue with were the same terms it had when they integrated it: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."
Slashdot Mirror
gg reading comprehension!! Nobody said anything about "many 1000 of years." I find it really annoying when people want to argue about something, but don't even bother to read and understand what the argument is about. Thanks for the straw man though; while he's not doing any good here, I'll put him to work in the cornfield.
Well, sweetie, the microwave uses a device called a magnetron to generate microwaves--radio waves with a frequency of about 2.45GHz. These "microwaves" are absorbed by various molecules in the food, causing them to vibrate faster and heat up. Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation; they don't have enough energy to knock electrons out of orbit.
On the other hand, irradiation to kill pathogens in food is generally done with gamma radiation from a radioactive source, such as Cobalt 60. While gamma rays are also radio waves, they are of much higher frequency than microwaves: over 30 exahertz or so--that's 30,000,000,000GHz. As such, they have enough energy to knock electrons loose from orbit, and are known as ionizing radiation. Food irradiation is also done with X-rays, which are still ionizing radiation, but less energetic than gamma rays.
Now come eat your dinner, it's getting cold!
<3 Jabberkatz. +1 Insightful!
No.
They cache HTML conversions of those non-HTML files, not the original formats. You can lose a lot in the HTML conversion...
It elects the electors for the college.
Thanks for ignoring the second paragraph.
Many people had problems with the machines checking Kerry when they wanted to vote for Bush:
She certainly deserved what she got... If she doesn't want Bush to be president, she shouldn't vote for him (if she's even old enough to vote; if she's just some angsty teen, she'll just have to wait until she grows up). Wishing for his death is just childish and stupid.
So yes, I'm pretty sure it's $.05/min anywhere within the US.
RTF article summary? It's not free, it's 5 cents a minute.
It's because the other schmuck submitted the article before you did. You know /. holds articles and releases them on a schedule, right? They're not posted the minute they're accepted.
Better get your calculator fixed. Exp(i*Pi) + 1 is equal to 0, and Exp(2*Pi) = 535.491655524764736503...
I must have watched a different debate than you. In the debate I watched, Bush mentioned it exactly once.
That's nice, but the discussion is about the meaning of "non-commercial use" (or "commercial use") [of software], not "commercial software."
Windows: Windows cannot access the specified device, path, or file. You may not have the appropriate permissions to access the item.
More like: ./foo: Permission denied
Linux: bash:
Windows: C:\temp>
Access is denied.
Although I don't see what your point is... bash and Windows Explorer have different error messages. So what? bash and cmd.exe have different error messages. Gnome Nautilus and cmd.exe have different error messages.
The defaults, to a very large extent, do determine what will be done.
I agree; it would be nice if Windows defaulted files to non-executable.
If turning off the executable attribute for one file is a big deal, how much trouble is it worth to turn off the executable attribute for all the files on a Windows system that should not be executable?
Who said it was a big deal to change one file? It's not. Is changing the attributes of a few thousand files under Linux something you would undertake lightly? No? Well it's not under Windows either.
My point is that there's no inherent limitation in Windows that requires all files to be executable; it is certainly possible and feasible to turn off execute for files that don't need it. While it is true that on a default installation, "you do not explicitly have to give execute permission to the file in question," it is not true that "it's just recognized as an '.exe' file by Windows and treated as an executable." It is treated as an executable because the execute ACL is present, not because of the file extension.
Not exactly true. NTFS has an Execute permission, but the default permissions that are set up when Windows is installed grant Execute permission on all files. If you manully change the permissions to not give Execute by default, Windows will not allow you to execute files until you explicitly grant Execute permission:
C:\temp>cacls notepad.exe
C:\temp\notepad.exe [ a bunch of stuff deleted ]
BUILTIN\Users:(special access:)
DELETE
READ_CONTROL
SYNCHRONIZE
FILE_GENERIC_READ
FILE_GENERIC_WRITE
FILE_READ_DATA
FILE_WRITE_DATA
FILE_APPEND_DATA
FILE_READ_EA
FILE_WRITE_EA
FILE_READ_ATTRIBUTES
FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES
C:\temp>notepad
Access is denied
Double-clicking it from Explorer gives an error dialog: "Windows cannot access the specified device, path, or file. You may not have the appropriate permissions to access the item."
I tend to agree, but Slashdot posted a series of articles about Linux kernel 2.5.n and FreeBSD 5.3-BETAn, so I guess beta OS releases are deemed newsworthy here.
Email from Darren to the ipfilter list
Ah, the guy in that story was counterfeiting the Canadian $20, which apparently does have a holographic stripe in its latest version. However, the story doesn't mention holograms; it says he removed "the optical security devices from real $20 bills."
Assuming you're talking about US$20, it's trivial to show that it's not true. There is no hologram on any US $20 bill.
In that case they, and "most people", need to practice their reading comprehension. The text of the license, which I am posting here for the third time, since nobody seems to actually want to read it, states: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."
Please show me where it says that changes are permitted. Thanks.
That's fine that they removed ipf. pf is a nice replacement and all. My point is that OpenBSD claims that the license did change, when it clearly did not.
I linked to the original license they imported (note that it's revision 1.1), which they had for 5 years before deciding it was unacceptable. It stated that "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors." I see nothing in that that implies that derivative or modified works were permitted. As Darren tried to tell them (apparently without success), the change was a clarification, not a change to the actual terms.
They removed ipf over 3 years ago, and they're still raving about it? Damn, Theo, stop living in the past and give it a rest already. They also conveniently ignore the fact that ipf did not undergo any sort of "Free-to-Non-Free transition" as they claim. The ipf license terms that OpenBSD had an issue with were the same terms it had when they integrated it: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."