The GPL and similar licenses have been carefully crafted for the purpose of encouraging development and innovation. If you steal some Microsoft code, you have stolen from an immensely wealthy corporation who probably can't be hurt by the theft. If you steal from open source, you have stolen from humanity. Compare the former to passing gas in an executive meeting, compare the latter to spraying nerve gas in a city subway.
The worst thing about all this is, the people who "own" the open source code ask almost nothing from you in exchange for using their code. Just a little respect by way of referencing them, and passing on the same rights they granted to the thieves.
There is a reason why people who steal from charities are often times punished more severely than people who steal from a for-profit corporation.
I invited people in my last post to read up on memory management. The way the two OS's manage memory are NOT the same. The end result has similarities, or appear to, but the methods are quite different. For one thing, Windows tends to unload DLL's and things (faster if you tweak it to do so, slower if you don't tweak) to make room for system idle processes. Since Linux doesn't HAVE any system idle processes, we don't have to worry about unloading any libraries or anything.
I could point at the many memory "leaks" found in Windows, which MS has spent a lot of time trying to fix. Maybe that's all fixed in Win7 - but I have my doubts. To my knowledge, no other OS suffers from that problem, including Linux. Some few applications that run on Linux suffer from "leaks", but Linux handles that all differently, so we never end up with a gigabyte of memory dedicated to some process that is totally unproductive and unresponsive. Needless to say, we never see a BSOD or a segfault because of such leaks.
No, I'm sorry, but memory management on Microsoft systems is NOT like any other operating system, except superficially.
Hooray. Someone with some much needed sanity. People aren't executed in the modern world for petty theft. Someone mod this guy up - hell, give him 50 points. (Yeah, I know, the mod system is as broken as the legal system, lol)
Another ridiculous statement. The law was written with commercial applications in mind. Making copies of another man's work FOR SALE is what the law was meant to address. If I copy your work, and make $100 bucks, the judge can reasonably take $750 from me, and give it to the copyright holder. If I made a few thousand dollars before I was busted, the judge might reasonably make me pay $150,000.
Since file sharers don't make any money with uTorrent or any other file sharing scheme, those fines simply don't apply. It takes one twisted sense of spite to apply those punitive damages to people sharing stuff among themselves.
There are several issues that need to be determined.
First - suppose you run a store, and some kid comes in, steals a candy bar, and eats it. You call the law, you call the parents, everyone shows up. Most definitely, someone owes you SOMETHING. The candy bar has a street value of about a dollar. (Oddly, that's pretty close to the street value of a single soundtrack.) What do you demand as recompense? Most store owners don't want the dollar, because they are pissed off. Most store owners don't demand a million dollar payoff, either. Among other reasons, neither the parents, nor the cops, nor a judge, nor any jury is going to go along with such a thing.
So - what is reasonable? Personally, I make the KID pay for his candy bar, by working it off. Tell the parents that he can work in the store for a week, cleaning, mopping, or whatever, OR, you'll take the matter to court.
Compare that to RIAA. They want THOUSANDS of dollars for a ripped off song which has a similar street value to my candy bar. Do you not think that is preposterous? Do you not think that there are issues that need to be resolved here?
In my most honest opinion, Jammie owes the record companies a couple dollars to pay for her downloaded songs. She owes something in the way of punitive damages. 24 songs, at a buck apiece, is 24 bucks. Drawing on ancient tort law, let's treble the damages, so she now owes 72 bucks. If she had been offered this deal from the get-go, her conscience might have convinced her that 72 bucks was a good deal, and paid it.
Even if it goes to court, and a hard fought case goes to RIAA, no sane judge is going to award a million bucks. I invite you to check out your own court system in your own home town. First time offenders convicted of petty theft generally pay restitution, a small fine, court costs, and community service. If there is no lawyer involved, total cost is maybe $1500 bucks. Paying a lawyer in my home town would add 500 bucks to the bill, your mileage may differ.
Personally, as I've said, Jammy probably is guilty of something. But, guilty or not, the penalty has to be something within the realms of reason.
HOWEVER!!! Illegal evidence has never been admissable in a criminal court, nor should it be encouraged in a civil court. RIAA has a lot to answer for, regarding their "investigative" techniques. MediaSentry, among other things, has been shot so full of holes, it resembles the Titanic. Forensic evidence is never properly obtained, documented, or presented. The courts don't even seem to understand what all this evidence is SUPPOSED to mean, let alone examine it to determine if it's legal, and technically correct.
Bottom line, RIAA are a bunch of parasites who manage to get by because they shout "THIEF" more loudly than their victims can.
Let's put RIAA out of everyone's misery, then we might all get together to come up with some sane laws. Note, I don't even say "fair laws". For the sake of this argument, I only require "sane".
I get the impression that you are new to linux. If not, I apologize. But, Linux manages memory completely differently than Windows does. Linux will generally fill memory up, as much as possible, instead of swapping out to disk. Using Ubuntu, my physical memory is almost always at 100% usage, but swap memory is almost always zero.
I'm not qualified to explain how Linux manages memory - I can't even claim to completely understand it. But feel free to google Linux memory management. It's really interesting. Firefox on Linux has actually reached a full gigabyte of memory usage for me. That's one heck of a lot of windows and tabs open. But, the important thing is, I was NOT using swap memory - it was all physical memory, and FF did not slow down for me.
At a guess, I would say that you have 4 gig of memory installed. The machine I'm using for 64 bit only has 3 gig. I don't "think" that FF uses quite as much memory for similar tabs on my machine.
Tor has been shown to be less secure than some people believe. True, it's better than nothing, but today's standard is I2P. I won't waste space here - google is your friend - check it out. Be warned, the sickos who used to inhabit Tor and Freenet have moved to I2P, but I have found that if I don't look, I can't be terribly offended. It's actually cleaner than freenet, unless you go searching for child porn. Enjoy . . .
Some very few people actually do show their appreciation for employees loyalty. I'm not googling for the story, sorry, but there was that bank president in Florida, I think it was. His bank was bought out, he got one HELLUVA whopping bonus as his parting gift, and he split it between his bank officers. One super great boss. So, yeah, there are a few people out there who qualify as "human". Most people are just greedy bastards.
It looks like the shit may well and truly hit the fan in the next few days. I hope the Mousavi faction has things figured out. But, I fear Mousavi and a lot of his supporters are going to be disappeared. It's going to be all or nothing, whatever happens. No one over there is going to compromise.
Partly for the same reason that I don't especially like the new compact, ultralight, but fuel efficient automobiles. I grew up with two tons of steel, 300 HP or more, a smooth ride, and room for a grown man to lay across the back seat. I never hit my head on the roof of a car until about 1975. There was room and comfort inside those huge old boats that I grew up with. Yes, I've adapted - today, I drive a Mazda that gets 30 mpg. It's cramped, I feel the gravel and the cracks in the road surface through the suspension, it's noisy - AND MY HEAD ALWAYS TOUCHES THE ROOF!!
We adapt as we have to. Bradbury has little need to adapt to the internet. He can stay in his comfortable niche. Some of us don't have that luxury. In a way, I almost envy him.
To truly appreciate the writings of Bradbury and others, one must remember that his education preceded World War 2. No man had yet "walked" in space. No man had yet exceeded the speed of sound. No atomic weapons. No lasers, except in a few fantasy stories. Fairies and elves were as likely to be proven real, as a man walking on the moon.
Some of the greatest stories written as late as 1960 were based on hypothesis and premises that have since been proven wrong.
And, of course, Bradbury isn't strictly a "sci-fi" author, either. He weaves a story more like Stephen King, than Asimov or Clarke. I don't think (though I could be wrong) that Bradbury really based his stories on real scientific research, theories, and hypothesis.
Whatever - Bradbury will remain one of my near-favorites. Those who don't appreciate him need not read him.
Certainly not an idiot. Out of his element, yes, but absolutely NOT an idiot. I'm almost two decades younger than Bradbury, but I can sympathize with him. The internet can confuse even the young bright boys - just start a discussion on internet security, and see how many really smart young people get lost real fast.
Books. I find myself reading more and more of my favorites on the LCD screen, but books have something that the computer will never have. Books are solid, and real - the pixels on my screen are fleeting. A solid book and a cup of hot chocolate on a cold winter's night, listening to the storm blow outside......
Oh well, either you remember it and love it, or you don't.
But, don't call the old dude an idiot. Bradbury may not rank with Asimov and Clarke, but he a bright enough star in the SciFi and fantasy firmament. Never an idiot.
I tend to agree with you. But, it is necessary to destroy the credibility that RIAA enjoys in court, as well as arguing the more fundamental aspects of "fair use" and "First sale", and more. I read the PDF, and it thoroughly destroys Media Sentry as a "forensics" tool, or even as a data gathering tool. More, the paper demonstrates that the people using Media Sentry to gather data don't even understand the data they are gathering, nor how to verify that data. In short, it makes idiots of everyone at RIAA, starting with the talking suits who brag their software up, right down to the "technicians" who are busting people on the web. Credibility and/or the lack thereof, means an awful lot in any court. When was the last time a judge took your word over that of a cop? This is the problem we have right now. RIAA presents itself in court as a freind of the court, and as an enforcer. It's all entirely improper, of course, but they currently get away with it.
Google may tend to promote things that are Google-centric, and they may fail to recognize the importance of things that don't fit into their view. The same can be said of any big time development and distribution organization. That doesn't mean they stifle competition, or development. If there is any major player out there that actively seeks to stifle development that they can't control, that would be Microsoft. Even they are becoming less relevant, in that respect, thanks to Euro rulings among other things.
I cannot see that either Google or Amazon constitute some sort of monopoly, or oligarchy, or whatever term might fit. Apple may come close - but they don't quite make it either.
If I have an idea, it's easy to distribute the idea, it's easy to recruit developmental help (especially if I go open source), and it's pretty darned easy to display my wares on the internet. If it's really a good idea, people will pick it up. Now, whether I can make MONEY with my idea, is another matter entirely. An online game, for instance, requires expensive servers and personnel to maintain those servers. Not to mention support personnel. Which means, capital investment.
Am I to blame Google or Amazon, if I can't find the capital to start up my game? Maybe I should have hired some marketing guru to sell my idea to an investor somewhere, instead of whining that Google wouldn't move on my idea.
IMHO - Google deserves a good deal of credit for the innovative ideas that they push forward. At worst, they may neglect some important new technology, in favor of other technology. Never, to my knowledge, have they pulled a Microsoft by adopting then changing a standard, bastardizing it to the point no one else can make reasonable use of it.
The author will have to go a long way to make a convincing argument that Google stifles innovation. Making a case against Amazon would be considerably easier - but still no small task.
One has to wonder if the author hasn't submitted something to Google and Amazon, which was rejected by both. Failing to recognize that his submission may actually be worthless, he blames them for stifling innovation.
Perhaps I should make my point a little clearer. Worldwide attention is focused on events in Iran right now. It is glaringly obvious that violence is being commited by one or both sides. Anyone who feels "safe" in participating, who feels that they are beyond reach of either side if they aid and abet the other side, has his head so far up his rectum that his brain is atrophied from lack of oxygen. I mean, Iranians are like Jews, and Russians, and even Irishmen - they are EVERYWHERE!!
Interfering, in any manner, in a situation that is demonstrably violent invites violence. Plain, simple fact of life.
An ANONYMOUS proxy, well set up, behind several layers of bogus registrations just MIGHT be safe. No guarantees, but it might be. A transparent proxy set up in your own name is kinda dumb. Especially if you happen to be prone to social engineering. You know - silly stuff like posting your name and address, along with your college career and employment record to a social networking site.
I do not suggest that people sit around with their thumbs up their butts, and do nothing. I do suggest that people be aware of the risk they take, and guard against it.
Of course, not one person in 50 in this country would take any notice of a van load of men stalking them. I would. But, I've strolled across a few combat zones - maybe that makes a little difference. You might sneak up on me, but you better be pretty damned good, or you'll find that you are the prey, rather than the predator.
Maybe Intel has a CPU that magically blows away anything AMD has. I really doubt it, but maybe.
Problem number one, speed isn't everything. The various comm channels can choke an impossibly fast CPU down to nothing, and they can make a moderately fast CPU look really really fast. That is, after all, the reasoning behind AMD's rating system - the 2400+, 5400+, etc. My ancient 2400+ XP chip running at 2Ghz benches alongside Intel's chips clocked at 2400Mhz.
Problem number two - Intel charges a premium for their fast chips, and an even higher premium for all capabilities to be enabled. I recently looked at virtualization on Intel vs AMD. While AMD has been striving to enable virtualization on all their chips, Intel has only made a limited number of similar chips, and made the customers pay for the feature.
I'm not a fanboi for any hardware, or for any software - but it wouldn't take much effort for me to become an AMD fanboi. Their philosophy has always appealed to me.
Just about 4 years ago, maybe 5, I took that GPS cell phone into an AT&T office in Texarkana, Texas. Told them I wanted service, they offered me a phone. I showed them my phone, and I was told that I couldn't use my phone - I would have to buy a new one to use on their network. Perhaps I should have researched more, then. Could be, the salesman lied to me, could be he was telling the truth as he understood it, or it could be that he told me company policy.
Either way, I told him that I wasn't going to purchase another telephone, left the store, and haven't bought another cellphone since. That $180 piece of Motorola hardware still sits on a closet shelf.
The "trackable by police" is an arbitrary and artificial bogus requirement - but for the sake of argument, let's accept your argument as a legality. First, my 6 year old phone had GPS built in. Now, I challenge you to change carriers, and take your phone with you. Sure, you can *now* take your phone number, as a result of recent changes. But, take your actual handheld telephone with you to the new network. Oh, you can't? Why not? Oh no, no, no, you don't get away with any silly "technical reasons" explanation. The real fact is, the carrier wants to sell you yet another 30 dollar telephone for 180 bucks, or more, AND, lock you into another 2 year contract.
So, I'm back to my original argument: All options decisions are properly made by the customer, not by executives and boards of directors trying to maximize their profits with exclusive agreements between carriers and hardware providers. You, the customer, are being milked by a parasitic company, which borders on monopolistic.
It really isn't that difficult to understand: the customer should have any and all options. No decision made by a manufacturer or by a vendor should lock the customer down, in any way, shape, or form. It's my $100 bucks, or $500 bucks - I should get the phone of my choice, I should get to pick my carrier, and I should be able to pick the plan that fits MY needs, as opposed to the plan that the vendor is trying to push. It's the concept of "free market" that everyone gives lip service to, but instead of implementing a free market, every phone company wants to lock people in, or out, of their piece of the market.
If I want an iPhone of verizon, it's my decision. If I want it on AT&T, that's my decision. If I want to pull out the cell phone I bought 6 years ago, and have it connected to either of the two, neither one should lock me out.
All of the plans available today are abusive, in one way or another. And, that includes those damned two year contracts. If I want service NOW, knowing that I won't need it six months from now, that is MY decision, not theirs.
Mostly true. Only mostly. You seem to miss a couple important points, though. First, western media only sees the vocal portion of the population, most of which adopts western ways. Those back water people that the media never looks at, or talks to, still outnumber the vocal minorities in the cities.
There are plenty of towns in Iran that don't have telephones, let alone the technology we take for granted. Reread the article I copy pasted, and see if that isn't accounted for. Millions of Iranians distrust progress, technology, western ways of life, and America in particular. Grandpa is still alive, and preaches to the kids regularly about the evil west toppling their first democracy, and installing the Shah in it's place.
It's easy to believe that the vocal crowds in Tehran represent a majority, but closer examination has to make you wonder. Ahmidinijab has a lot of support precisely because he helps to ensure that the poor farmers are fed, with a little spending money each year. The progressives had a lot going for them, but I really don't think it was enough.
As the article states, it is possible that the vote is a fraud - but the demographics of the country just don't support that claim.
* The Geopolitics of Iran: Holding the Center of a Mountain Fortress
Related Special Topic Page
* The Iranian Presidential Elections
In 1979, when we were still young and starry-eyed, a revolution took place in Iran. When I asked experts what would happen, they divided into two camps.
The first group of Iran experts argued that the Shah of Iran would certainly survive, that the unrest was simply a cyclical event readily manageable by his security, and that the Iranian people were united behind the Iranian monarch's modernization program. These experts developed this view by talking to the same Iranian officials and businessmen they had been talking to for years -- Iranians who had grown wealthy and powerful under the shah and who spoke English, since Iran experts frequently didn't speak Farsi all that well.
The second group of Iran experts regarded the shah as a repressive brute, and saw the revolution as aimed at liberalizing the country. Their sources were the professionals and academics who supported the uprising -- Iranians who knew what former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini believed, but didn't think he had much popular support. They thought the revolution would result in an increase in human rights and liberty. The experts in this group spoke even less Farsi than the those in the first group. Misreading Sentiment in Iran
Limited to information on Iran from English-speaking opponents of the regime, both groups of Iran experts got a very misleading vision of where the revolution was heading -- because the Iranian revolution was not brought about by the people who spoke English. It was made by merchants in city bazaars, by rural peasants, by the clergy -- people Americans didn't speak to because they couldn't. This demographic was unsure of the virtues of modernization and not at all clear on the virtues of liberalism. From the time they were born, its members knew the virtue of Islam, and that the Iranian state must be an Islamic state.
Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization -- a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook "iPod liberalism," the idea that anyone who listens to rock 'n' roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran -- a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.
There are undoubtedly people who want to liberalize the Iranian regime. They are to be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to the touring journalists, diplomats and intelligence people who pass through. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and they are the ones willing to speak to Westerners. And these people give Westerners a wildly distorted view of Iran. They can create the impression that a fantastic liberalization is at hand -- but not when you realize that iPod-owning Anglophones are not exactly the majority in Iran.
Last Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with about two-thirds of the vote. Supporters of his opponent, both inside and outside Iran, were stunned. A poll revealed that former Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was beating Ahmadinejad. It is, of course, interesting to meditate on how you could conduct a poll in a country where phones are not universal, and making a call once you have found a phone can be a trial. A poll therefore would probably reach people who had phones and lived in Tehran and other urban areas. Among those, Mousavi probably did win. But outside Tehran, and beyond persons easy to p
A: How did you figure out that the attackers were agents of a foreign government? It seems that hundreds of thousands of people in Iran are demontrating - sometimes violently - for BOTH sides. Do you suppose that all of them are agents of the Iranian government? DUHHH!
B: Even if the are agents of a foreign government, who stated that it's the US' fault? I see that nowhere ahead of your post.
C: My take on the matter is, silly twits who have no conception of personal security, let alone electronic security, shouldn't be involving themselves in international affairs. People have been stalked and killed for far more frivolous matters than international politics. The idiot is lucky he has nothing worse than a couple bruises from stones being thrown at him. He COULD have been the target of a more professional asassination squad. It never ceases to amaze me that people have the balls to "get involved", but not enough brains to think matters through before doing so.
And, to think that some slashdotters have accused ME of having a high testosterone level......
The goal is not to waste energy transporting junk from one point on earth to another point on earth, rather the goal should be to put men "out there", to live, work, study, and to make new homes for man.
Space planes may be alright, when we are ready to put people onto another planet. They can fly down to the surface, instead of being dropped like a box of rocks. Floating down on wings is likely to prove more survivable.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL and similar licenses have been carefully crafted for the purpose of encouraging development and innovation. If you steal some Microsoft code, you have stolen from an immensely wealthy corporation who probably can't be hurt by the theft. If you steal from open source, you have stolen from humanity. Compare the former to passing gas in an executive meeting, compare the latter to spraying nerve gas in a city subway.
The worst thing about all this is, the people who "own" the open source code ask almost nothing from you in exchange for using their code. Just a little respect by way of referencing them, and passing on the same rights they granted to the thieves.
There is a reason why people who steal from charities are often times punished more severely than people who steal from a for-profit corporation.
I invited people in my last post to read up on memory management. The way the two OS's manage memory are NOT the same. The end result has similarities, or appear to, but the methods are quite different. For one thing, Windows tends to unload DLL's and things (faster if you tweak it to do so, slower if you don't tweak) to make room for system idle processes. Since Linux doesn't HAVE any system idle processes, we don't have to worry about unloading any libraries or anything.
I could point at the many memory "leaks" found in Windows, which MS has spent a lot of time trying to fix. Maybe that's all fixed in Win7 - but I have my doubts. To my knowledge, no other OS suffers from that problem, including Linux. Some few applications that run on Linux suffer from "leaks", but Linux handles that all differently, so we never end up with a gigabyte of memory dedicated to some process that is totally unproductive and unresponsive. Needless to say, we never see a BSOD or a segfault because of such leaks.
No, I'm sorry, but memory management on Microsoft systems is NOT like any other operating system, except superficially.
Hooray. Someone with some much needed sanity. People aren't executed in the modern world for petty theft. Someone mod this guy up - hell, give him 50 points. (Yeah, I know, the mod system is as broken as the legal system, lol)
Another ridiculous statement. The law was written with commercial applications in mind. Making copies of another man's work FOR SALE is what the law was meant to address. If I copy your work, and make $100 bucks, the judge can reasonably take $750 from me, and give it to the copyright holder. If I made a few thousand dollars before I was busted, the judge might reasonably make me pay $150,000.
Since file sharers don't make any money with uTorrent or any other file sharing scheme, those fines simply don't apply. It takes one twisted sense of spite to apply those punitive damages to people sharing stuff among themselves.
There are several issues that need to be determined.
First - suppose you run a store, and some kid comes in, steals a candy bar, and eats it. You call the law, you call the parents, everyone shows up. Most definitely, someone owes you SOMETHING. The candy bar has a street value of about a dollar. (Oddly, that's pretty close to the street value of a single soundtrack.) What do you demand as recompense? Most store owners don't want the dollar, because they are pissed off. Most store owners don't demand a million dollar payoff, either. Among other reasons, neither the parents, nor the cops, nor a judge, nor any jury is going to go along with such a thing.
So - what is reasonable? Personally, I make the KID pay for his candy bar, by working it off. Tell the parents that he can work in the store for a week, cleaning, mopping, or whatever, OR, you'll take the matter to court.
Compare that to RIAA. They want THOUSANDS of dollars for a ripped off song which has a similar street value to my candy bar. Do you not think that is preposterous? Do you not think that there are issues that need to be resolved here?
In my most honest opinion, Jammie owes the record companies a couple dollars to pay for her downloaded songs. She owes something in the way of punitive damages. 24 songs, at a buck apiece, is 24 bucks. Drawing on ancient tort law, let's treble the damages, so she now owes 72 bucks. If she had been offered this deal from the get-go, her conscience might have convinced her that 72 bucks was a good deal, and paid it.
Even if it goes to court, and a hard fought case goes to RIAA, no sane judge is going to award a million bucks. I invite you to check out your own court system in your own home town. First time offenders convicted of petty theft generally pay restitution, a small fine, court costs, and community service. If there is no lawyer involved, total cost is maybe $1500 bucks. Paying a lawyer in my home town would add 500 bucks to the bill, your mileage may differ.
Personally, as I've said, Jammy probably is guilty of something. But, guilty or not, the penalty has to be something within the realms of reason.
HOWEVER!!! Illegal evidence has never been admissable in a criminal court, nor should it be encouraged in a civil court. RIAA has a lot to answer for, regarding their "investigative" techniques. MediaSentry, among other things, has been shot so full of holes, it resembles the Titanic. Forensic evidence is never properly obtained, documented, or presented. The courts don't even seem to understand what all this evidence is SUPPOSED to mean, let alone examine it to determine if it's legal, and technically correct.
Bottom line, RIAA are a bunch of parasites who manage to get by because they shout "THIEF" more loudly than their victims can.
Let's put RIAA out of everyone's misery, then we might all get together to come up with some sane laws. Note, I don't even say "fair laws". For the sake of this argument, I only require "sane".
http://blog.codefront.net/2008/09/10/optimize-firefoxs-memory-usage-by-tweaking-session-preferences/
Check that link out guys - I did the caching tweaks, and it sped things up some, so I went back and used all the tweaks.
Let's remember that FF3.5 is still a beta. We should probably send feedback if we aren't happy.
I get the impression that you are new to linux. If not, I apologize. But, Linux manages memory completely differently than Windows does. Linux will generally fill memory up, as much as possible, instead of swapping out to disk. Using Ubuntu, my physical memory is almost always at 100% usage, but swap memory is almost always zero.
I'm not qualified to explain how Linux manages memory - I can't even claim to completely understand it. But feel free to google Linux memory management. It's really interesting. Firefox on Linux has actually reached a full gigabyte of memory usage for me. That's one heck of a lot of windows and tabs open. But, the important thing is, I was NOT using swap memory - it was all physical memory, and FF did not slow down for me.
At a guess, I would say that you have 4 gig of memory installed. The machine I'm using for 64 bit only has 3 gig. I don't "think" that FF uses quite as much memory for similar tabs on my machine.
Tor has been shown to be less secure than some people believe. True, it's better than nothing, but today's standard is I2P. I won't waste space here - google is your friend - check it out. Be warned, the sickos who used to inhabit Tor and Freenet have moved to I2P, but I have found that if I don't look, I can't be terribly offended. It's actually cleaner than freenet, unless you go searching for child porn. Enjoy . . .
Probably not, but they WILL kick the grammar nazis asses!!! All hail our Pirate overlords!! Everyone kick the grammar nazis!
Some very few people actually do show their appreciation for employees loyalty. I'm not googling for the story, sorry, but there was that bank president in Florida, I think it was. His bank was bought out, he got one HELLUVA whopping bonus as his parting gift, and he split it between his bank officers. One super great boss. So, yeah, there are a few people out there who qualify as "human". Most people are just greedy bastards.
Most assuredly, no one can be sure. I just posted a news article to another board, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/06/20/ST2009062001342.html
It looks like the shit may well and truly hit the fan in the next few days. I hope the Mousavi faction has things figured out. But, I fear Mousavi and a lot of his supporters are going to be disappeared. It's going to be all or nothing, whatever happens. No one over there is going to compromise.
Partly for the same reason that I don't especially like the new compact, ultralight, but fuel efficient automobiles. I grew up with two tons of steel, 300 HP or more, a smooth ride, and room for a grown man to lay across the back seat. I never hit my head on the roof of a car until about 1975. There was room and comfort inside those huge old boats that I grew up with. Yes, I've adapted - today, I drive a Mazda that gets 30 mpg. It's cramped, I feel the gravel and the cracks in the road surface through the suspension, it's noisy - AND MY HEAD ALWAYS TOUCHES THE ROOF!!
We adapt as we have to. Bradbury has little need to adapt to the internet. He can stay in his comfortable niche. Some of us don't have that luxury. In a way, I almost envy him.
To truly appreciate the writings of Bradbury and others, one must remember that his education preceded World War 2. No man had yet "walked" in space. No man had yet exceeded the speed of sound. No atomic weapons. No lasers, except in a few fantasy stories. Fairies and elves were as likely to be proven real, as a man walking on the moon.
Some of the greatest stories written as late as 1960 were based on hypothesis and premises that have since been proven wrong.
And, of course, Bradbury isn't strictly a "sci-fi" author, either. He weaves a story more like Stephen King, than Asimov or Clarke. I don't think (though I could be wrong) that Bradbury really based his stories on real scientific research, theories, and hypothesis.
Whatever - Bradbury will remain one of my near-favorites. Those who don't appreciate him need not read him.
Certainly not an idiot. Out of his element, yes, but absolutely NOT an idiot. I'm almost two decades younger than Bradbury, but I can sympathize with him. The internet can confuse even the young bright boys - just start a discussion on internet security, and see how many really smart young people get lost real fast.
Books. I find myself reading more and more of my favorites on the LCD screen, but books have something that the computer will never have. Books are solid, and real - the pixels on my screen are fleeting. A solid book and a cup of hot chocolate on a cold winter's night, listening to the storm blow outside......
Oh well, either you remember it and love it, or you don't.
But, don't call the old dude an idiot. Bradbury may not rank with Asimov and Clarke, but he a bright enough star in the SciFi and fantasy firmament. Never an idiot.
I tend to agree with you. But, it is necessary to destroy the credibility that RIAA enjoys in court, as well as arguing the more fundamental aspects of "fair use" and "First sale", and more. I read the PDF, and it thoroughly destroys Media Sentry as a "forensics" tool, or even as a data gathering tool. More, the paper demonstrates that the people using Media Sentry to gather data don't even understand the data they are gathering, nor how to verify that data. In short, it makes idiots of everyone at RIAA, starting with the talking suits who brag their software up, right down to the "technicians" who are busting people on the web. Credibility and/or the lack thereof, means an awful lot in any court. When was the last time a judge took your word over that of a cop? This is the problem we have right now. RIAA presents itself in court as a freind of the court, and as an enforcer. It's all entirely improper, of course, but they currently get away with it.
Google may tend to promote things that are Google-centric, and they may fail to recognize the importance of things that don't fit into their view. The same can be said of any big time development and distribution organization. That doesn't mean they stifle competition, or development. If there is any major player out there that actively seeks to stifle development that they can't control, that would be Microsoft. Even they are becoming less relevant, in that respect, thanks to Euro rulings among other things.
I cannot see that either Google or Amazon constitute some sort of monopoly, or oligarchy, or whatever term might fit. Apple may come close - but they don't quite make it either.
If I have an idea, it's easy to distribute the idea, it's easy to recruit developmental help (especially if I go open source), and it's pretty darned easy to display my wares on the internet. If it's really a good idea, people will pick it up. Now, whether I can make MONEY with my idea, is another matter entirely. An online game, for instance, requires expensive servers and personnel to maintain those servers. Not to mention support personnel. Which means, capital investment.
Am I to blame Google or Amazon, if I can't find the capital to start up my game? Maybe I should have hired some marketing guru to sell my idea to an investor somewhere, instead of whining that Google wouldn't move on my idea.
IMHO - Google deserves a good deal of credit for the innovative ideas that they push forward. At worst, they may neglect some important new technology, in favor of other technology. Never, to my knowledge, have they pulled a Microsoft by adopting then changing a standard, bastardizing it to the point no one else can make reasonable use of it.
The author will have to go a long way to make a convincing argument that Google stifles innovation. Making a case against Amazon would be considerably easier - but still no small task.
One has to wonder if the author hasn't submitted something to Google and Amazon, which was rejected by both. Failing to recognize that his submission may actually be worthless, he blames them for stifling innovation.
Magnificent bastard will work.
Perhaps I should make my point a little clearer. Worldwide attention is focused on events in Iran right now. It is glaringly obvious that violence is being commited by one or both sides. Anyone who feels "safe" in participating, who feels that they are beyond reach of either side if they aid and abet the other side, has his head so far up his rectum that his brain is atrophied from lack of oxygen. I mean, Iranians are like Jews, and Russians, and even Irishmen - they are EVERYWHERE!!
Interfering, in any manner, in a situation that is demonstrably violent invites violence. Plain, simple fact of life.
An ANONYMOUS proxy, well set up, behind several layers of bogus registrations just MIGHT be safe. No guarantees, but it might be. A transparent proxy set up in your own name is kinda dumb. Especially if you happen to be prone to social engineering. You know - silly stuff like posting your name and address, along with your college career and employment record to a social networking site.
I do not suggest that people sit around with their thumbs up their butts, and do nothing. I do suggest that people be aware of the risk they take, and guard against it.
Of course, not one person in 50 in this country would take any notice of a van load of men stalking them. I would. But, I've strolled across a few combat zones - maybe that makes a little difference. You might sneak up on me, but you better be pretty damned good, or you'll find that you are the prey, rather than the predator.
Maybe Intel has a CPU that magically blows away anything AMD has. I really doubt it, but maybe.
Problem number one, speed isn't everything. The various comm channels can choke an impossibly fast CPU down to nothing, and they can make a moderately fast CPU look really really fast. That is, after all, the reasoning behind AMD's rating system - the 2400+, 5400+, etc. My ancient 2400+ XP chip running at 2Ghz benches alongside Intel's chips clocked at 2400Mhz.
Problem number two - Intel charges a premium for their fast chips, and an even higher premium for all capabilities to be enabled. I recently looked at virtualization on Intel vs AMD. While AMD has been striving to enable virtualization on all their chips, Intel has only made a limited number of similar chips, and made the customers pay for the feature.
I'm not a fanboi for any hardware, or for any software - but it wouldn't take much effort for me to become an AMD fanboi. Their philosophy has always appealed to me.
Just about 4 years ago, maybe 5, I took that GPS cell phone into an AT&T office in Texarkana, Texas. Told them I wanted service, they offered me a phone. I showed them my phone, and I was told that I couldn't use my phone - I would have to buy a new one to use on their network. Perhaps I should have researched more, then. Could be, the salesman lied to me, could be he was telling the truth as he understood it, or it could be that he told me company policy.
Either way, I told him that I wasn't going to purchase another telephone, left the store, and haven't bought another cellphone since. That $180 piece of Motorola hardware still sits on a closet shelf.
Maybe I should pull it out, and try again?
The "trackable by police" is an arbitrary and artificial bogus requirement - but for the sake of argument, let's accept your argument as a legality. First, my 6 year old phone had GPS built in. Now, I challenge you to change carriers, and take your phone with you. Sure, you can *now* take your phone number, as a result of recent changes. But, take your actual handheld telephone with you to the new network. Oh, you can't? Why not? Oh no, no, no, you don't get away with any silly "technical reasons" explanation. The real fact is, the carrier wants to sell you yet another 30 dollar telephone for 180 bucks, or more, AND, lock you into another 2 year contract.
So, I'm back to my original argument: All options decisions are properly made by the customer, not by executives and boards of directors trying to maximize their profits with exclusive agreements between carriers and hardware providers. You, the customer, are being milked by a parasitic company, which borders on monopolistic.
It really isn't that difficult to understand: the customer should have any and all options. No decision made by a manufacturer or by a vendor should lock the customer down, in any way, shape, or form. It's my $100 bucks, or $500 bucks - I should get the phone of my choice, I should get to pick my carrier, and I should be able to pick the plan that fits MY needs, as opposed to the plan that the vendor is trying to push. It's the concept of "free market" that everyone gives lip service to, but instead of implementing a free market, every phone company wants to lock people in, or out, of their piece of the market.
If I want an iPhone of verizon, it's my decision. If I want it on AT&T, that's my decision. If I want to pull out the cell phone I bought 6 years ago, and have it connected to either of the two, neither one should lock me out.
All of the plans available today are abusive, in one way or another. And, that includes those damned two year contracts. If I want service NOW, knowing that I won't need it six months from now, that is MY decision, not theirs.
Mostly true. Only mostly. You seem to miss a couple important points, though. First, western media only sees the vocal portion of the population, most of which adopts western ways. Those back water people that the media never looks at, or talks to, still outnumber the vocal minorities in the cities.
There are plenty of towns in Iran that don't have telephones, let alone the technology we take for granted. Reread the article I copy pasted, and see if that isn't accounted for. Millions of Iranians distrust progress, technology, western ways of life, and America in particular. Grandpa is still alive, and preaches to the kids regularly about the evil west toppling their first democracy, and installing the Shah in it's place.
It's easy to believe that the vocal crowds in Tehran represent a majority, but closer examination has to make you wonder. Ahmidinijab has a lot of support precisely because he helps to ensure that the poor farmers are fed, with a little spending money each year. The progressives had a lot going for them, but I really don't think it was enough.
As the article states, it is possible that the vote is a fraud - but the demographics of the country just don't support that claim.
By George Friedman
Related Link
* The Geopolitics of Iran: Holding the Center of a Mountain Fortress
Related Special Topic Page
* The Iranian Presidential Elections
In 1979, when we were still young and starry-eyed, a revolution took place in Iran. When I asked experts what would happen, they divided into two camps.
The first group of Iran experts argued that the Shah of Iran would certainly survive, that the unrest was simply a cyclical event readily manageable by his security, and that the Iranian people were united behind the Iranian monarch's modernization program. These experts developed this view by talking to the same Iranian officials and businessmen they had been talking to for years -- Iranians who had grown wealthy and powerful under the shah and who spoke English, since Iran experts frequently didn't speak Farsi all that well.
The second group of Iran experts regarded the shah as a repressive brute, and saw the revolution as aimed at liberalizing the country. Their sources were the professionals and academics who supported the uprising -- Iranians who knew what former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini believed, but didn't think he had much popular support. They thought the revolution would result in an increase in human rights and liberty. The experts in this group spoke even less Farsi than the those in the first group.
Misreading Sentiment in Iran
Limited to information on Iran from English-speaking opponents of the regime, both groups of Iran experts got a very misleading vision of where the revolution was heading -- because the Iranian revolution was not brought about by the people who spoke English. It was made by merchants in city bazaars, by rural peasants, by the clergy -- people Americans didn't speak to because they couldn't. This demographic was unsure of the virtues of modernization and not at all clear on the virtues of liberalism. From the time they were born, its members knew the virtue of Islam, and that the Iranian state must be an Islamic state.
Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization -- a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook "iPod liberalism," the idea that anyone who listens to rock 'n' roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran -- a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.
There are undoubtedly people who want to liberalize the Iranian regime. They are to be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to the touring journalists, diplomats and intelligence people who pass through. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and they are the ones willing to speak to Westerners. And these people give Westerners a wildly distorted view of Iran. They can create the impression that a fantastic liberalization is at hand -- but not when you realize that iPod-owning Anglophones are not exactly the majority in Iran.
Last Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with about two-thirds of the vote. Supporters of his opponent, both inside and outside Iran, were stunned. A poll revealed that former Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was beating Ahmadinejad. It is, of course, interesting to meditate on how you could conduct a poll in a country where phones are not universal, and making a call once you have found a phone can be a trial. A poll therefore would probably reach people who had phones and lived in Tehran and other urban areas. Among those, Mousavi probably did win. But outside Tehran, and beyond persons easy to p
A: How did you figure out that the attackers were agents of a foreign government? It seems that hundreds of thousands of people in Iran are demontrating - sometimes violently - for BOTH sides. Do you suppose that all of them are agents of the Iranian government? DUHHH!
B: Even if the are agents of a foreign government, who stated that it's the US' fault? I see that nowhere ahead of your post.
C: My take on the matter is, silly twits who have no conception of personal security, let alone electronic security, shouldn't be involving themselves in international affairs. People have been stalked and killed for far more frivolous matters than international politics. The idiot is lucky he has nothing worse than a couple bruises from stones being thrown at him. He COULD have been the target of a more professional asassination squad. It never ceases to amaze me that people have the balls to "get involved", but not enough brains to think matters through before doing so.
And, to think that some slashdotters have accused ME of having a high testosterone level......
I don't want to see space planes. Or, more accurately, I don't want to see time, research, money, and blood, sweat and tears, spent on space planes, that could be spent on outer space. The space elevator idea seems to be much more appropriate, IMHO. http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/08/1924233/Inflatable-Tower-Could-Climb-To-the-Edge-of-Space?art_pos=1
The goal is not to waste energy transporting junk from one point on earth to another point on earth, rather the goal should be to put men "out there", to live, work, study, and to make new homes for man.
Space planes may be alright, when we are ready to put people onto another planet. They can fly down to the surface, instead of being dropped like a box of rocks. Floating down on wings is likely to prove more survivable.