Screamers is truly dire. If you see it, you'll wish that Peter Weller had been in a nasty traffic accident or something before they could begin filming.
Um... part of the reason that Intel hasn't been able to keep up with demand is because of the low yields for the higher-speed chips. Xeons come with 512KB, 1MB or 2MB caches; if Intel's having trouble with the 256KB cache on standard PIIIs, I don't think they're going to have an easier time with the Xeons.
Does anyone else think that Intel might have cancelled this because they're having trouble with yields on full-speed 1 and 2 MB caches? I mean, c'mon has Intel ever backed down on a new product simply because noone really needed it?
The DMCA is going to be the coup de grace for the commercial software industry in the US. It's completely unrealistic to expect compliance with such a ridiculously biased set of laws - and the result will be that people won't comply with it.
...it allows closed source modules much like the Linux kernel.
Nope. The binary modules thing for the kernel is a special inerpretation of the GPL by the copyright owner of the original Linux kernel (ie Linus) and all other kernel developers (by association). The "standard" application of the GPL would not allow this.
This is a fairly common misunderstanding about the GPL. Let me state it plainly:
The owner of the code can license his/her own work any way he/she damn well pleases.
In other words, I can license something under the GPL to everybody out there, and since the code is under the GPL, you can get it from anyone who has the code. BUT if you want ME to support that code for you, you have to license the code from ME (and only me) under a commercial license costing $$$. The reason I say "only me" here is that everyone else who has the code only has it under the GPL - which means they can't relicense it. Only the owner of the code can do that.
There's actually many pieces of software under multiple licenses. Probably the biggest is Perl - it's under the GPL and the Artistic License.
IMPORTANT - do not pick something like "pork rinds" or "lard"
Goldarn it - there goes my idea for the "Porkarito": 1000% of your daily allowance of pork fat in a one-handed easy-to-eat package, with pure lard sauce for that genuine fat flavor.
Try Slackware. You'll know just about every piece of software installed on your machine, you can choose what to install and what not to install down to individual packages, and you can do everything that the installer does from a shell yourself, if you prefer.
You chose to use an x86 chip and Windows; he (presumably) chose something else. Please explain why this bothers you enough to make a nasty little post like that.
Reminds me of a case in the late 70s or early 80s (I think) where the jury convicted a guy for bank robbery on the basis of fingerprint evidence, even though there were several witnesses that testified to seeing him in a different location at the time the robbery was taking place. I don't remember precisely, but I believe that the police had faked the fingerprints using prints that were already on file; it came out when someone realized that the prints used copy toner rather than fingerprint powder.
Moral of the story? The solider the evidence, the higher the probability that it's been faked;)
I believe the sound on the newer Sony models is provided by the NeoMagic video chip (no, I'm not kidding), which has a few problems under Linux at the moment.
MacOS (8.0/8.1 at least) replies to ICMP broadcasts, as do BorderWare (a firewall product!), Telebit Netblazers, some printers, and no doubt many other minor products. It's a disgrace, but it's not going to stop anytime soon, methinks.
There's a difference between "questioning textbooks" (which any reasonably bright kid is going to do anyway) and "brainwashing kids". If he wants to teach his students about Tesla, fine - but don't drag them into some paranoid fantasy world where "they" are out to get you.
BTW, if you think the US is conformist, try going to some other countries...
There's a difference between "questioning textbooks" (which any reasonably bright kid is going to do anyway) and "brainwashing kids". If he wants to teach his students about Tesla, fine - but don't drag them into some paranoid fantasy world where "they" are out to get you.
Unless blizzard.net are in the same business as blizzard.com, there's no conflict of trademark. That's the stupid thing about all these "trademark needs to be protected" law suits - they don't need to be protected if the two parties are in different lines of business. Since blizzard.net dorsn't seem to be a PC games company, I don't see how blizzard.com can claim a trademark infringement.
I'm all for Tesla, but does this teacher strike anyone else as being a couple of cans short of a sixpack? It's all very well to teach kids both sides of the story, but it seems to me that he's being just as biased as the educational system he's complaining about.
If glibc took hours to rebuild on a Celeron 466x2 system, you're doing something wrong (or you've got really cruddy disks). It took 25 minutes to rebuild glibc 2.1.2 on my dual PII/400. Did you remember to use the jobs directive to parallelize the build?
If you'd taken the time to look at the site, you would have seen that they are distributing a *PATCH* against FreeBSD 3.4, not the entire distribution. That means that the license applies only to the code they've written, not to the BSD source.
Be careful, guys - Lucent have given it a non-commercial-use license, for use on only one computer. The appropriate part:
"The Source Code, Documentation and Derivative Works (collectively "Licensed Software") may be used by you, or an organization of which you are a member or employee, solely for non-commercial, educational, evaluation and/or personal use on a single computer. "Non-commercial use" means uses that are not or will not result in (a) the sale, lease or rental of the Licensed Software; and/or (b) the use of the Licensed Software in any commercial product or service."
Commercial use requires a separate license which has to be negotiated with Lucent, so you won't be able to use this on a production machine.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he's talking about the two sequels to the book written by somebody else... K. W. Jeeter? Can't remember.
Screamers sucked. I can't believe you're recommending that pile of shit.
Screamers is truly dire. If you see it, you'll wish that Peter Weller had been in a nasty traffic accident or something before they could begin filming.
True 'nuff. But that's never stopped Intel before, has it? ;)
Um... part of the reason that Intel hasn't been able to keep up with demand is because of the low yields for the higher-speed chips. Xeons come with 512KB, 1MB or 2MB caches; if Intel's having trouble with the 256KB cache on standard PIIIs, I don't think they're going to have an easier time with the Xeons.
Does anyone else think that Intel might have cancelled this because they're having trouble with yields on full-speed 1 and 2 MB caches? I mean, c'mon has Intel ever backed down on a new product simply because noone really needed it?
The DMCA is going to be the coup de grace for the commercial software industry in the US. It's completely unrealistic to expect compliance with such a ridiculously biased set of laws - and the result will be that people won't comply with it.
Nope. The binary modules thing for the kernel is a special inerpretation of the GPL by the copyright owner of the original Linux kernel (ie Linus) and all other kernel developers (by association). The "standard" application of the GPL would not allow this.
This is a fairly common misunderstanding about the GPL. Let me state it plainly:
The owner of the code can license his/her own work any way he/she damn well pleases.
In other words, I can license something under the GPL to everybody out there, and since the code is under the GPL, you can get it from anyone who has the code. BUT if you want ME to support that code for you, you have to license the code from ME (and only me) under a commercial license costing $$$. The reason I say "only me" here is that everyone else who has the code only has it under the GPL - which means they can't relicense it. Only the owner of the code can do that.
There's actually many pieces of software under multiple licenses. Probably the biggest is Perl - it's under the GPL and the Artistic License.
IMPORTANT - do not pick something like "pork rinds" or "lard"
Goldarn it - there goes my idea for the "Porkarito": 1000% of your daily allowance of pork fat in a one-handed easy-to-eat package, with pure lard sauce for that genuine fat flavor.
Try Slackware. You'll know just about every piece of software installed on your machine, you can choose what to install and what not to install down to individual packages, and you can do everything that the installer does from a shell yourself, if you prefer.
Oops... stick a "HYPHEN" in there too.
I think not. Since you're spelling it out in letters, you'd probably get something like this:
rmrf*
What you'd have to say is:
"ARR-EMM SPACE ARR-EFF SPACE STAR"
I think it'd be easier to yell something like:
"TELINIT ZERO!"
;)
You chose to use an x86 chip and Windows; he (presumably) chose something else. Please explain why this bothers you enough to make a nasty little post like that.
Slashdot headline tomorrow:
Australian Airline manufactures Crusoe portables
;)
Reminds me of a case in the late 70s or early 80s (I think) where the jury convicted a guy for bank robbery on the basis of fingerprint evidence, even though there were several witnesses that testified to seeing him in a different location at the time the robbery was taking place.
I don't remember precisely, but I believe that the police had faked the fingerprints using prints that were already on file; it came out when someone realized that the prints used copy toner rather than fingerprint powder.
Moral of the story? The solider the evidence, the higher the probability that it's been faked
I believe the sound on the newer Sony models is provided by the NeoMagic video chip (no, I'm not kidding), which has a few problems under Linux at the moment.
MacOS (8.0/8.1 at least) replies to ICMP broadcasts, as do BorderWare (a firewall product!), Telebit Netblazers, some printers, and no doubt many other minor products. It's a disgrace, but it's not going to stop anytime soon, methinks.
There's a difference between "questioning textbooks" (which any reasonably bright kid is going to do anyway) and "brainwashing kids". If he wants to teach his students about Tesla, fine - but don't drag them into some paranoid fantasy world where "they" are out to get you.
BTW, if you think the US is conformist, try going to some other countries...
There's a difference between "questioning textbooks" (which any reasonably bright kid is going to do anyway) and "brainwashing kids". If he wants to teach his students about Tesla, fine - but don't drag them into some paranoid fantasy world where "they" are out to get you.
Unless blizzard.net are in the same business as blizzard.com, there's no conflict of trademark. That's the stupid thing about all these "trademark needs to be protected" law suits - they don't need to be protected if the two parties are in different lines of business. Since blizzard.net dorsn't seem to be a PC games company, I don't see how blizzard.com can claim a trademark infringement.
I'm all for Tesla, but does this teacher strike anyone else as being a couple of cans short of a sixpack? It's all very well to teach kids both sides of the story, but it seems to me that he's being just as biased as the educational system he's complaining about.
If glibc took hours to rebuild on a Celeron 466x2 system, you're doing something wrong (or you've got really cruddy disks). It took 25 minutes to rebuild glibc 2.1.2 on my dual PII/400. Did you remember to use the jobs directive to parallelize the build?
If you'd taken the time to look at the site, you would have seen that they are distributing a *PATCH* against FreeBSD 3.4, not the entire distribution. That means that the license applies only to the code they've written, not to the BSD source.
Be careful, guys - Lucent have given it a non-commercial-use license, for use on only one computer. The appropriate part:
"The Source Code, Documentation and Derivative Works (collectively "Licensed Software") may be used by you, or an organization of which you are a member or employee, solely for non-commercial, educational, evaluation and/or personal use on a single computer. "Non-commercial use" means uses that are not or will not result in (a) the sale, lease or rental of the Licensed Software; and/or (b) the use of the Licensed Software in any commercial product or service."
Commercial use requires a separate license which has to be negotiated with Lucent, so you won't be able to use this on a production machine.