Not strangle, no. It irks a bit I suppose, nonetheless words of common phrases often end up linked into a singleword over time.
Some body starts hyphenating the words, then, eventually, overtime, the hyphen is removed. Email irks too. It starts out as an acronym, then changes into a word. It's a total bastardization of the language, yet, thereitis.
Yes, you have something of a point, generically at least, however, given the actual case under discussion they might just have easily linked to a supplier of parchment and quill pens.
Well, you've got something of a point, but have you ever tried to pour concrete at low temperatures? It doesn't work so good. Gets all frozen and shit.
Therefore, I think they should take your advice, but build it in Miami.
As I said, in most cases. Rent control is actually rather rare, and given the hypothetical scenario, trying to decide whether you wish to take a particular apartment or not, one might assume there has been a change of tenant.
Of course, large networks have large flows of data, and when dealing with security you often don't know what you're looking for until you see it. It may take deductive reasoning to track down a problem, but it often takes a fair dollop of inductive reasoning to determine you have one in the first place from some pattern or anomoly, such as the minor billing anomoly that sent Cliff Stoll on his epic chase.
To, if I may coin a term, "coagulate" the large quantity of data from your security tools a wee bit of Perl might well be in order to make life easier.
If Mr. Wonka had said this, or some other equally valid point, I would have been left to reply:
Raise the bar high enough that everyone's equally suspect and no one stands out as a suspect either. We're right back where we started, except more repressive. In a sense this makes things easier on potential terrorists as the rules are more overt, rigid, and thus defined and gamable.
Raise the bar higher and everyone is treated like a criminal, but the criminals are the only ones that don't mind.
Sure, a landlord, in most situations, can ask whatever he wishes in rent. You may take it or leave it. The law does not give a hoot about rental prices. If you like the apartment and find the price reasonable, take it. If you don't, don't.
However, the law does not say you can be forced to use it, as per my quote it says exactly the opposite. That's why there's a story in the first place. It's entirely up to you, given that your rent gives you the right to use the landlord's network, whether you use it or bear the cost of setting up your own, which is your inalienable right (the network may be the landlord's property, but the spectrum is in the public domain, thus he cannot control it, even by contract, because it is not his property), and I can think of any number of reasons why you'd want to do that.
Obviously you don't do security for a large network.
No, no. That's not how it goes. If you take that approach people are likely to take it as a personal attack rather than a reasoned argument. To avoid such confusion it's best to proceed like this:
I ask, "Pipes and regular expressions?" (you dropped my question mark and replaced it with a period)
Then you say, "No, that won't do it, because. . . (and then you insert your argument here)
Otherwise people might think you're just being a jerk.
Now, I don't necessarily mind if people here and there think I'm being an intellectual jerk, or even an ignorant jerk (because, Lord knows, now and again I am an ignorant jerk), but I might feel bad if someone considered me just a jerk. So I can empathize with you being in a position where someone might think that of you.
Sure, that's like saying a magnifying glass can be used to find your lost class ring in the playground. Sure it will work, but extreme under-kill and a waste of time.
Wouldn't it be great if you could use pipes and regular expressions to find lost things? That would be sooooooooooo sweet, because (this is where I insert my argument) they're like a perfect multi-lens device of infinately variable focal length and aperature, hooked up to a spectrograph , a mass spectrograph, a lath, a mill, a tap and die set, a forge, a. ..
So there you are, in a playground in Central Park, NYC, and you suddenly realize your class ring is missing. You aren't sure where you lost it either. Let's say you know it had to be someplace on Manhatten. You zoom the lens out to encompass Manhatten, set the aperature appropriately, and turn on the spectrograph.
Then ask it to show you all the rings. And it does!
"Oh, shit," you say to yourself. "Look, only show me the rings with a garnet in them."
No, that didn't do it, there's still a pile of them too big to go through. Ok, how about all the gold rings with a garnet? Gold rings with a Garnet from the High School of the Performing Arts? Damn, that many? Ok, how about one of those,but with that little scratch on the side with '58 Porsche grease in it?
Bingo! There it is in a cab up in East Harlem.
See? Not like a magnifying glass at all, but an entire suite of logical tools and set theory manipulators that can be combined in any way that suits your fancy to return any logical result you want.
I was once having dinner with some friends and one of them, who happens to be a network tech, asked one who happens to be a professor of Chemistry, "Why has Organic Chemistry effectively become a required course for a medical degree? Does a doctor really need to know Organic Chemistry? What would they possible actually use it for?"
The Chemistry professor responded, "Well, a biochemist would obviously need and use Organic Chemistry, but if you just mean a practicing medical doctor, no, they don't need it and will never use it."
"Well," asked the net tech, " why do you make them learn it then?"
"We don't make them learn it to learn Organic Chem." replied the professor. " We make them learn it to learn deductive reasoning in a domain of applied set theory. It's to teach them diagnosis."
And network security is a diagnostic field requiring deductive reasoning in a domain of applied set theory.
Maybe we should make CS majors take Organic Chemistry.
Or maybe we should just make them take math with a certain focus on logic and set theory and apply same against the computer (a mathmatical logic machine) network. Then maybe they could use general purpose logical tools to construct their own specific case tools, instead of being restricted to the domain of premade tools that often don't even fit their network situation (since every large network is unique in its structure and logic, and thus no outsider can know the sets, or the possible set of logical prepositions).
"prohibit airport authorities from limiting or restricting tenants from implementing and operating a wireless system".
Emphasis mine.
You'll find another clause in your lease that goes something like this:
"If any clause of this contract is found to be void by law it does invalidate other legal clauses."
You see, they recognize that terms of your lease might well be legally unenforcable, void, and if they don't have that clause such could be held to void the entire lease.
You are not bound by void clauses, even if you sign them. Your landlord relies on your ingnorance of this fact to get you to follow the terms he wishes.
This statement by the FCC is that any such clause is void because your landlord has no legal authority to so restrict you, even by contract. It is prohibited.
Disney did decide to hold onto the patent for fire.
This is pretty close to accurate. The patent is weak. Very weak. People have been "chunkin' Punkins" with M80s in' em out of air cannons for years.
I won't name names, because I live an illegal fireworks state, but I certainly know people who have built PVC pipe air cannons for the express purpose of launching small fireworks.
They've taken something that the "inventors" didn't patent because they wanted to hide what they were doing for legal reasons and patented it for legal use.
In a perverse Disney sort of way it's kinda clever.
Don't play with matches. Dont' run with scissors. If you push it hard enough it will fall over.
Some things you just have to keep saying over and over. People are dense, and by the time one group gets it there's a whole new litter coming up from behind.
You, for instance, who thinks we've only been saying that for 10-15 years, wheras, in reality, 10-15 years ago you heard that from someone who'd already been saying it for 10-15 years.
Now it's your turn to smack your forhead and say "Oy".
That is correct, and the fact that they are releasing a 3D desktop that lets you open your documents at unreadable angles and allows unethical vendors to print EULAs on the back of things only proves it even more.
You bring up a good point, that being that lines of code is a pretty silly measure, of just about anything except pages per printout.
That said, the Zarus and other embedded Linux devices use a kernel optimized for embedding that throws out as much as three quarters of the code, since its functionality is simply not needed.
One of the nice things about open OSs is that you can do that sort of thing.
Presumably Windows CE is already an embedded optimized version of Windows.
While some might find it interesting to compare LOC if you're going to do it compare oranges to oranges and "the" Linux kernel can really only be compared to the Windows desktop version.
Me, I'm not interested in LOC. I'm interested in compiled binary size for a complete system that lets me get my work done, such as the Linux one I carry around on a single floppy. Sure, there's.77 million LOC of code in that kernel (less than half of your smallest suggested possible), but again a rather pointless measure of size, since at least half those lines never get compiled into the binary, and that's starting with a standard kernel, not one optimized for embedding.
Programers think in LOC because that's how their performance is often judged in the workplace and how they often think of themselves as getting payed by, or, if they're "hobbiests", think of themselves as validated by.
"Hey, I wrote 1000 lines of code this week."
"Yeah Sparky? Well, I wrote 10 lines of code in an afternoon that do the same thing. Learn to program or something, huh?"
LOC is a silly measure of productivity.
Marketers like LOC because they can sell numbers that are big and it's a number that can be raised completely arbitrarily if you want. Perhaps that's exactly what Microsoft is doing here.
LOC is a silly measure of consumer value or level of technology.
But I guess you've got to know it if you want to know how much paper to put in the hopper when you print the bastard.
The nuance of spoken language is at least as important as the content of what's being said.
And anyone who doesn't get this should try to find a recording of Robert Morely or Peter Ustinov reading something. Fan-bloody-tastic.
For those not willing to take the effort, or who cannot find such a recording, you can at least rent the movie Arthur and just listen to John Gielgud, or Ghandi and listen to John Gielgud and Ben Kingsley, or Lawrence of Arabia and listen to Peter O'Toole, Alec Guiness, Anthony Quinn, Omar Sharif, Jack Hawkins, Jose Ferrer, Arthur Kennedy, Anthony Quayle and Claude Raines.
Turn off the picture and just listen to the music in the voices of that one.
The "-centric" prefix, according to Merriam-Webster, is Latin, as is "sol."
Yes, I looked it up to be sure before I posted as well.
I am not a linguist. I just like words.
Ditto. I have no problem with solcentric as a legitimate Latinate word. "Soliocentric" is right out.
But we all make mistakes when the brain takes a vacation for unknown reasons and tend to say/write idiotic things.
I myself, not too long ago, posted "post priori" instead of "a posteriori." Why? I don't know. The former doesn't even make sense. It wasn't through common ignorance. I know the phrase, I know what it means, I know what the individual componants of the phrase mean and I know that my formulation was a logical idiocy.
Nonetheless, I wrote it. I had a brain fart. It happens.
It doesn't mean I'm an idiot. It means sometimes I get confused. If you can find it feel free to mod it down "-2 Needs more Coffee".
A better solution is for the court to rule MS must release fully functional versions of it's software for all of it's competitors operating systems.
This is the "trickle down" theory of reducing monopoly? Increasing its spread, including the stuff that creates the lockin?
Given this scenario you will be able to easily run WMA files on Linux through the simple expediant of running. . . WMP. This allows me to write a competing player exactly how?
Free hegomony for everbody!
Remember, much of the intent of the EU ruling is to increase competition on Windows itself, not the spread of Linux or other OSs. OSs have nothing directly to do with the issue. They're a red herring.
It's the codecs, file formats and APIs. The paint. The canvas and brush are already freely available.
Owning the canvas is worthless without paint. Unbundling Media Player is pointless, since the first time someone wants to run a WMA file they'll just download WMP. Thus if one can control the codec one controls the media, which is exactly Microsoft's stratagy. They really don't give a damn about Media Player, per se. That's why it was important to them to get WMA into the new DVD standard. That's why it's important to them to get it into CD DRM. When they lose hegomony over the desktop they'll still have hegomony over everything that runs on the desktop, and your TV, and your radio, and your. . . WMA is the enemy, not Media Player.
In order to forcably break up Microsoft's monopolies (there are more than one) you are going to have to infringe upon their rights somehow or other. There's no way around that. Forcing them to write a version of Media Player that can run under any OS infringes upon their rights. Forcing them to not/unbundle apps with their OS infringes upon their rights.
And does nothing to break their monopoly. It only spreads it across platforms. We're not talking about just the OS here. We're talking about apps as well. Competition at any level. And that can only be achieved by violating their "IP" at the level on which programs interact. The file formats, codecs and APIs.
IP whose only reason for existing is to create monopoly. They are the monopoly. Thus they are the one and only direct objects of actions against Microsoft's monopolies. To focus on anything else is a severe logical error.
If you're going to focus on bundling or Microsoft supplying monopoly "technologies" on other platforms you might just as well save everybody a lot of time, effort, money and grief by just saying "Aw, fuck it. They've won," and go home.
Slashdot Mirror
What does downloading porn have to do with reading a newspaper?
Page 3 girls.
KFG
I was talking about violins in the streets.
KFG
Not strangle, no. It irks a bit I suppose, nonetheless words of common phrases often end up linked into a singleword over time.
Some body starts hyphenating the words, then, eventually, overtime, the hyphen is removed. Email irks too. It starts out as an acronym, then changes into a word. It's a total bastardization of the language, yet, thereitis.
And thereisntanythingyoucandoaboutit.
KFG
Yes, you have something of a point, generically at least, however, given the actual case under discussion they might just have easily linked to a supplier of parchment and quill pens.
KFG
Air travel is not constitutionally protected, however.
No, but you are.
KFG
Well, you've got something of a point, but have you ever tried to pour concrete at low temperatures? It doesn't work so good. Gets all frozen and shit.
Therefore, I think they should take your advice, but build it in Miami.
KFG
As I said, in most cases. Rent control is actually rather rare, and given the hypothetical scenario, trying to decide whether you wish to take a particular apartment or not, one might assume there has been a change of tenant.
KFG
Of course, large networks have large flows of data, and when dealing with security you often don't know what you're looking for until you see it. It may take deductive reasoning to track down a problem, but it often takes a fair dollop of inductive reasoning to determine you have one in the first place from some pattern or anomoly, such as the minor billing anomoly that sent Cliff Stoll on his epic chase.
To, if I may coin a term, "coagulate" the large quantity of data from your security tools a wee bit of Perl might well be in order to make life easier.
If Mr. Wonka had said this, or some other equally valid point, I would have been left to reply:
"Well. . . yeah."
KFG
Raise the bar high enough that everyone's equally suspect and no one stands out as a suspect either. We're right back where we started, except more repressive. In a sense this makes things easier on potential terrorists as the rules are more overt, rigid, and thus defined and gamable.
Raise the bar higher and everyone is treated like a criminal, but the criminals are the only ones that don't mind.
KFG
Sure, a landlord, in most situations, can ask whatever he wishes in rent. You may take it or leave it. The law does not give a hoot about rental prices. If you like the apartment and find the price reasonable, take it. If you don't, don't.
However, the law does not say you can be forced to use it, as per my quote it says exactly the opposite. That's why there's a story in the first place. It's entirely up to you, given that your rent gives you the right to use the landlord's network, whether you use it or bear the cost of setting up your own, which is your inalienable right (the network may be the landlord's property, but the spectrum is in the public domain, thus he cannot control it, even by contract, because it is not his property), and I can think of any number of reasons why you'd want to do that.
It's not about money. It's about rights.
KFG
Obviously you don't do security for a large network.
.
,but with that little scratch on the side with '58 Porsche grease in it?
No, no. That's not how it goes. If you take that approach people are likely to take it as a personal attack rather than a reasoned argument. To avoid such confusion it's best to proceed like this:
I ask, "Pipes and regular expressions?" (you dropped my question mark and replaced it with a period)
Then you say, "No, that won't do it, because. . . (and then you insert your argument here)
Otherwise people might think you're just being a jerk.
Now, I don't necessarily mind if people here and there think I'm being an intellectual jerk, or even an ignorant jerk (because, Lord knows, now and again I am an ignorant jerk), but I might feel bad if someone considered me just a jerk. So I can empathize with you being in a position where someone might think that of you.
Sure, that's like saying a magnifying glass can be used to find your lost class ring in the playground. Sure it will work, but extreme under-kill and a waste of time.
Wouldn't it be great if you could use pipes and regular expressions to find lost things? That would be sooooooooooo sweet, because (this is where I insert my argument) they're like a perfect multi-lens device of infinately variable focal length and aperature, hooked up to a spectrograph , a mass spectrograph, a lath, a mill, a tap and die set, a forge, a. .
So there you are, in a playground in Central Park, NYC, and you suddenly realize your class ring is missing. You aren't sure where you lost it either. Let's say you know it had to be someplace on Manhatten. You zoom the lens out to encompass Manhatten, set the aperature appropriately, and turn on the spectrograph.
Then ask it to show you all the rings. And it does!
"Oh, shit," you say to yourself. "Look, only show me the rings with a garnet in them."
No, that didn't do it, there's still a pile of them too big to go through. Ok, how about all the gold rings with a garnet? Gold rings with a Garnet from the High School of the Performing Arts? Damn, that many? Ok, how about one of those
Bingo! There it is in a cab up in East Harlem.
See? Not like a magnifying glass at all, but an entire suite of logical tools and set theory manipulators that can be combined in any way that suits your fancy to return any logical result you want.
I was once having dinner with some friends and one of them, who happens to be a network tech, asked one who happens to be a professor of Chemistry, "Why has Organic Chemistry effectively become a required course for a medical degree? Does a doctor really need to know Organic Chemistry? What would they possible actually use it for?"
The Chemistry professor responded, "Well, a biochemist would obviously need and use Organic Chemistry, but if you just mean a practicing medical doctor, no, they don't need it and will never use it."
"Well," asked the net tech, " why do you make them learn it then?"
"We don't make them learn it to learn Organic Chem." replied the professor. " We make them learn it to learn deductive reasoning in a domain of applied set theory. It's to teach them diagnosis."
And network security is a diagnostic field requiring deductive reasoning in a domain of applied set theory.
Maybe we should make CS majors take Organic Chemistry.
Or maybe we should just make them take math with a certain focus on logic and set theory and apply same against the computer (a mathmatical logic machine) network. Then maybe they could use general purpose logical tools to construct their own specific case tools, instead of being restricted to the domain of premade tools that often don't even fit their network situation (since every large network is unique in its structure and logic, and thus no outsider can know the sets, or the possible set of logical prepositions).
KFG
And if you prove, and exercise, your lack of ignorance, you may have a difficult time convincing your landlord to renew your lease next year.
Now that may well be the case.
KFG
"prohibit airport authorities from limiting or restricting tenants from implementing and operating a wireless system".
Emphasis mine.
You'll find another clause in your lease that goes something like this:
"If any clause of this contract is found to be void by law it does invalidate other legal clauses."
You see, they recognize that terms of your lease might well be legally unenforcable, void, and if they don't have that clause such could be held to void the entire lease.
You are not bound by void clauses, even if you sign them. Your landlord relies on your ingnorance of this fact to get you to follow the terms he wishes.
This statement by the FCC is that any such clause is void because your landlord has no legal authority to so restrict you, even by contract. It is prohibited.
No, I am not a lawyer, but I am a landlord.
KFG
I would not be surprised if the Chinese government is welcoming of this development.
I would not be surprised if this has nothing to do with the Chinese government, you pirate scum you.
KFG
Something that lets us intergrate, collect, and correlate what the other great tools . . . find.
Pipes and regular expressions?
KFG
Disney did decide to hold onto the patent for fire.
This is pretty close to accurate. The patent is weak. Very weak. People have been "chunkin' Punkins" with M80s in' em out of air cannons for years.
I won't name names, because I live an illegal fireworks state, but I certainly know people who have built PVC pipe air cannons for the express purpose of launching small fireworks.
They've taken something that the "inventors" didn't patent because they wanted to hide what they were doing for legal reasons and patented it for legal use.
In a perverse Disney sort of way it's kinda clever.
KFG
Don't play with matches. Dont' run with scissors. If you push it hard enough it will fall over.
Some things you just have to keep saying over and over. People are dense, and by the time one group gets it there's a whole new litter coming up from behind.
You, for instance, who thinks we've only been saying that for 10-15 years, wheras, in reality, 10-15 years ago you heard that from someone who'd already been saying it for 10-15 years.
Now it's your turn to smack your forhead and say "Oy".
KFG
Sun is evil!
That is correct, and the fact that they are releasing a 3D desktop that lets you open your documents at unreadable angles and allows unethical vendors to print EULAs on the back of things only proves it even more.
KFG
You bring up a good point, that being that lines of code is a pretty silly measure, of just about anything except pages per printout.
.77 million LOC of code in that kernel (less than half of your smallest suggested possible), but again a rather pointless measure of size, since at least half those lines never get compiled into the binary, and that's starting with a standard kernel, not one optimized for embedding.
That said, the Zarus and other embedded Linux devices use a kernel optimized for embedding that throws out as much as three quarters of the code, since its functionality is simply not needed.
One of the nice things about open OSs is that you can do that sort of thing.
Presumably Windows CE is already an embedded optimized version of Windows.
While some might find it interesting to compare LOC if you're going to do it compare oranges to oranges and "the" Linux kernel can really only be compared to the Windows desktop version.
Me, I'm not interested in LOC. I'm interested in compiled binary size for a complete system that lets me get my work done, such as the Linux one I carry around on a single floppy. Sure, there's
Programers think in LOC because that's how their performance is often judged in the workplace and how they often think of themselves as getting payed by, or, if they're "hobbiests", think of themselves as validated by.
"Hey, I wrote 1000 lines of code this week."
"Yeah Sparky? Well, I wrote 10 lines of code in an afternoon that do the same thing. Learn to program or something, huh?"
LOC is a silly measure of productivity.
Marketers like LOC because they can sell numbers that are big and it's a number that can be raised completely arbitrarily if you want. Perhaps that's exactly what Microsoft is doing here.
LOC is a silly measure of consumer value or level of technology.
But I guess you've got to know it if you want to know how much paper to put in the hopper when you print the bastard.
KFG
Arrrrrrgh! My brain. Make it stop!
KFG
The nuance of spoken language is at least as important as the content of what's being said.
And anyone who doesn't get this should try to find a recording of Robert Morely or Peter Ustinov reading something. Fan-bloody-tastic.
For those not willing to take the effort, or who cannot find such a recording, you can at least rent the movie Arthur and just listen to John Gielgud, or Ghandi and listen to John Gielgud and Ben Kingsley, or Lawrence of Arabia and listen to Peter O'Toole, Alec Guiness, Anthony Quinn, Omar Sharif, Jack Hawkins, Jose Ferrer, Arthur Kennedy, Anthony Quayle and Claude Raines.
Turn off the picture and just listen to the music in the voices of that one.
KFG
The "-centric" prefix, according to Merriam-Webster, is Latin, as is "sol."
Yes, I looked it up to be sure before I posted as well.
I am not a linguist. I just like words.
Ditto. I have no problem with solcentric as a legitimate Latinate word. "Soliocentric" is right out.
But we all make mistakes when the brain takes a vacation for unknown reasons and tend to say/write idiotic things.
I myself, not too long ago, posted "post priori" instead of "a posteriori." Why? I don't know. The former doesn't even make sense. It wasn't through common ignorance. I know the phrase, I know what it means, I know what the individual componants of the phrase mean and I know that my formulation was a logical idiocy.
Nonetheless, I wrote it. I had a brain fart. It happens.
It doesn't mean I'm an idiot. It means sometimes I get confused. If you can find it feel free to mod it down "-2 Needs more Coffee".
KFG
Why not provide a productive outlet for prospective artists?
Because that would be overly reasonable in a world dominated by unreason.
KFG
I think the word you're looking for is "heliocentric".
Yes, I rather think it was, however, solcentric, while not the standard, would be a perfectly legitimate coining of a word that means the same thing.
Heliocentric itself was once simply "made up."
KFG
A better solution is for the court to rule MS must release fully functional versions of it's software for all of it's competitors operating systems.
This is the "trickle down" theory of reducing monopoly? Increasing its spread, including the stuff that creates the lockin?
Given this scenario you will be able to easily run WMA files on Linux through the simple expediant of running. . . WMP. This allows me to write a competing player exactly how?
Free hegomony for everbody!
Remember, much of the intent of the EU ruling is to increase competition on Windows itself, not the spread of Linux or other OSs. OSs have nothing directly to do with the issue. They're a red herring.
It's the codecs, file formats and APIs. The paint. The canvas and brush are already freely available.
Owning the canvas is worthless without paint. Unbundling Media Player is pointless, since the first time someone wants to run a WMA file they'll just download WMP. Thus if one can control the codec one controls the media, which is exactly Microsoft's stratagy. They really don't give a damn about Media Player, per se. That's why it was important to them to get WMA into the new DVD standard. That's why it's important to them to get it into CD DRM. When they lose hegomony over the desktop they'll still have hegomony over everything that runs on the desktop, and your TV, and your radio, and your. . . WMA is the enemy, not Media Player.
In order to forcably break up Microsoft's monopolies (there are more than one) you are going to have to infringe upon their rights somehow or other. There's no way around that. Forcing them to write a version of Media Player that can run under any OS infringes upon their rights. Forcing them to not/unbundle apps with their OS infringes upon their rights.
And does nothing to break their monopoly. It only spreads it across platforms. We're not talking about just the OS here. We're talking about apps as well. Competition at any level. And that can only be achieved by violating their "IP" at the level on which programs interact. The file formats, codecs and APIs.
IP whose only reason for existing is to create monopoly. They are the monopoly. Thus they are the one and only direct objects of actions against Microsoft's monopolies. To focus on anything else is a severe logical error.
If you're going to focus on bundling or Microsoft supplying monopoly "technologies" on other platforms you might just as well save everybody a lot of time, effort, money and grief by just saying "Aw, fuck it. They've won," and go home.
KFG