Yes -- after an "rm -rf ~", you can still boot the machine, and you can still use any of the other user accounts on the machine. With an rm -rf, all you can do is re-install from CD.
It certainly won't get much play from petroleum companies. I can just see them actively lining up to help sell you a hybrid vehicle that gets over 100 mpg in the USA.
This just in: cars are not sold by petroleum companies. Cars are sold by automobile companies. And yes, car companies would line up to sell you a hybrid vehicle that gets over 100mpg in the USA, if they could figure out a profitable way to do it.
Where is the F/OSS spirit? Guess it goes away when there are billions of dollars to be made?
What are you talking about? Just because a story appears on Slashdot, you think the people featured in that story have anything to do with open source? You realize that the third "S" in "OSS" stands for "software", right? And that this device is not software?
Perhaps Slashdot should just automatically coral-cache-ify any URLs that it sees? Then it wouldn't be an issue, and it might even solve the "Slashdot effect".
That said, the bottom line remains the same: People will be ditching their present generation of flat panel monitors in order to avail themselves of the new "legally obtained HD content in full HD"
My guess is that most people will go with plan B: download the free hack/patch that disables the DRM and lets them view whatever they want on their existing monitor. It should be out about 3 days before Vista is;^)
Good lord, we're not even done conquering the Middle East and now we've declared war on the animal kingdom for our energy needs! Norway is next
Of course, if one reads the article, one finds that the entire issue of cats is made up by the newspaper. The inventor never used cats, and never suggested using cats. Even the author of the newspaper story admitted that. It's an unprovoked, libelous hit piece designed to sell newspapers, nothing more.
understand and agree with your point, but your phrasing is off. It's not in a communist (i.e., command) economy but in a free market economy that a chip maker is required to produce CPUs for whatever price the buyer deems reasonable.
That doesn't sound quite right, either. In a free market economy a chip maker is not required to do anything -- that's what makes the market "free". (Of course, a chip maker may find that it is most profitable to sell product at a particular price, but that's the chip maker's own decision to make, not a "required" one)
The first thing to understand is that there is no "/. POV", because there are thousands of different people posting to Slashdot. You are going to see people advocating on both sides of every issue. That doesn't mean there is a double standard, only that there are diverse opinions.
Or, to put it more rudely: if something strikes you as stupid, think a minute before posting and make sure it isn't you.
Because nobody is going to notice the 7'8" long by 5' device weighing in at 10,200 pounds if you just surround it with marijuana.
Why would they notice that, if they don't notice the marijuana itself? The point is that truckloads of "stuff" can and do get through unexamined, fairly easily, on a regular basis.
I'm sick of hearing people scare the public into submission with fears of a "suitcase" bomb. Do you enjoy living in illogical fear?
I'm not fearmongering, I'm just being realistic. People who concentrate solely on whether a hostile nation has ICBMs are re-fighting the last war. Do you enjoy living in illogical denial?
The US public isn't in an uproar about the threat of a single city, or multiple cities being destroyed by the DPRK
True -- and three weeks ago, the US public wasn't in an uproar about the destruction of a single city by hurricane and flooding, either. Nobody pays much attention to potential disasters until they happen -- especially "new" types of disasters that they haven't experienced before. That doesn't mean there won't be hell to pay when they do. (Would you want to be known as "the President who let San Diego get nuked"?)
Last time I checked you couldn't put Little Boy or Fat Man on top of a Scud missile.
Missiles are passe technology anyway. Modern nukes are delivered UPS Ground. (or failing that, next to one of the tons of marijuana that flow freely into our country every day)
No, the only nation other than the United States with anything close to a MAD deterence capability is Russia
I'd say that the prospect of a single delivered nuke is enough MAD deterrence these days. In other words, I don't think the American people would consider the destruction of "only one" American city to be an acceptable resolution to a foreign policy crisis.
The problem was that Kennedy was percieved as being a spoiled rich boy by Nikita Khrushchev, someone the Soviet Premiere thought he could easily push around.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim, or are you just speculating?
The key to international security is to show that you are willing to fight those who threaten you, otherwise your weakness is going to be exploited for all it's worth until it's too late for you to do anything but go to war.
That's all well and good, but what do you think preparing pre-emptive nuclear strikes will cause other nations to do? If the two remaining members of the "Axis of Evil" are any indication, I'd say it causes them to develop their own nuclear stockpiles ASAP in order to deter American aggression. It's the same old MAD game we played with Russia, only this time we're playing against a number of small countries. So a major consequence of this policy is increased nuclear proliferation, and thus more chances for Bin Laden and friends to get their hands on a stolen/donated nuke.
He states that he believes most category 0 civilizations (Which we are) never make it to category 1 because of the rise of U235 and the inevitable invention of the nuclear weapon.
He seems to be making two unfounded assumptions there: (1) that most planets that can foster intelligent life will actually have significant amounts of U235, and (2) that most intelligent species will have warlike tendencies.
she never would have fallen for your even dumber father-in-law's pick-up lines, and he consequently wouldn't have had the opportunity to get her blind drunk and fuck her with her panties around her neck like a drunken slut, consequently getting her preggers with your future wife
Geez, after reading that vivid scenario, I kind of want to get a divorce...
One of the points basically comes down to "write perfect code".
No, I think it came down to "seriously consider security issues as part of the initial design stage", as opposed to the oft-used alternative of considering them only when forced to (e.g. after deploying the first version of the software and getting hacked). Seems like good advice to me.
His argument that an OS should ask you before running something is also stupid.
Perhaps, but an OS where each app had to present to the OS a list of capabilities it wanted permission to use, and the OS and/or user could decide to allow or deny each capability, isn't such a bad idea. For example you might see an OS dialog like "Application NiftyScreenBlanker wants permission to do the following things: (1) install a screen blanker module (2) install a keyboard logging facility (3) Read all files on the hard drive (4) send data to remote network hosts (A)llow (D)eny ?" would be a bit of a tip-off that something is awry...
If we could figure out a way to make a nuclear reactor which produced more fuel than it consumed.
Sounds good, but how does it get around that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics? (My guess is that the "produced" fuel contains less energy than the "consumed" fuel, so they are really just playing word games here)
the president never found out about the 9/11 threats until after they happened.
Here is the briefing that Mr. Bush was given on August 6th, 2001. Mr. Bush was enjoying a month-long vacation at the time, though, and didn't take the threat seriously. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but you can't say he wasn't warned.
And, IMHO, having a dead brain is better than being a robot with none.
Ooh, good one! I bet you won every playground debate in elementary school.
Intelligent, forward-looking politician works for years to fund and shepherd through a new technology before anyone else has ever even heard of it
New technology comes to fruition and pays off big-time, leads to economic boom and years of prosperity
In the next election, said politician rightfully claims credit for his work
Opposition strategists successfully run smear campaign again politician, twisting his words to paint him as a liar
Smear campaign works, politician is discredited, loses election to folksy but brain-dead ideologue opponent with little experience and no capacity for critical thinking
Brain-dead opponent spectacularly mismanages the country into one avoidable debacle after the next (ignoring 9/11 threats, exploding the deficit, invading the wrong country, advocating torture of prisoners, eviscerating FEMA and other gov't agencies, abandoning environmental laws, etc)
Nation begins long, slow decline into penury and ignomy
I don't know who to blame -- the character assassins who managed to get an incompetent leader elected over a competent one, or the American public who fell for it, twice. But either way, our nation is a poorer place for it.
How is the OS supposed to judge the friendliness of an app?
How about this: whenever the user tries to run an untrusted application, Windows offer to run that application in "safe mode". "Safe Mode" is just a user-friendly name for running the app inside a VMWare-style virtual windows process. That way, any damage the app does is limited to the virtual windows, and doesn't affect the "real" OS.
These days, the "glory" is sitting in the bank accounts of rich-but-naive Mac users. Sorry man, the days of l33t h4x0rs writing viruses for the fun of it are over; these days virus writers are professionals, and they're in it for the cash. And presumably Mac owners have lots of cash, or else they wouldn't have bought Macs...;^)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes -- after an "rm -rf ~", you can still boot the machine, and you can still use any of the other user accounts on the machine. With an rm -rf, all you can do is re-install from CD.
No, you were supposed to take the answer out of context, make an irrelevant smart-ass remark, and get modded funny. And you have succeeded.
The question was about where adopting Samba would eventually lead businesses, not about why they should adopt it. And it certainly wasn't about you.
This just in: cars are not sold by petroleum companies. Cars are sold by automobile companies. And yes, car companies would line up to sell you a hybrid vehicle that gets over 100mpg in the USA, if they could figure out a profitable way to do it.
Where is the F/OSS spirit? Guess it goes away when there are billions of dollars to be made?
What are you talking about? Just because a story appears on Slashdot, you think the people featured in that story have anything to do with open source? You realize that the third "S" in "OSS" stands for "software", right? And that this device is not software?
Perhaps Slashdot should just automatically coral-cache-ify any URLs that it sees? Then it wouldn't be an issue, and it might even solve the "Slashdot effect".
... countered by a larger number of more alert code readers. Hopefully it comes out to a win for the Good Side.
My guess is that most people will go with plan B: download the free hack/patch that disables the DRM and lets them view whatever they want on their existing monitor. It should be out about 3 days before Vista is
It should probably be notated that 3D (and even some 2D) graphics programming requires a working knowledge of at least basic trig...
Of course, if one reads the article, one finds that the entire issue of cats is made up by the newspaper. The inventor never used cats, and never suggested using cats. Even the author of the newspaper story admitted that. It's an unprovoked, libelous hit piece designed to sell newspapers, nothing more.
That doesn't sound quite right, either. In a free market economy a chip maker is not required to do anything -- that's what makes the market "free". (Of course, a chip maker may find that it is most profitable to sell product at a particular price, but that's the chip maker's own decision to make, not a "required" one)
The first thing to understand is that there is no "/. POV", because there are thousands of different people posting to Slashdot. You are going to see people advocating on both sides of every issue. That doesn't mean there is a double standard, only that there are diverse opinions.
Or, to put it more rudely: if something strikes you as stupid, think a minute before posting and make sure it isn't you.
What does the "FS" part of the name stand for?
Actually, I can't -- I never know whether to pronounce it as "kyoo-tee" or "kyoot".
Why would they notice that, if they don't notice the marijuana itself? The point is that truckloads of "stuff" can and do get through unexamined, fairly easily, on a regular basis.
I'm sick of hearing people scare the public into submission with fears of a "suitcase" bomb. Do you enjoy living in illogical fear?
I'm not fearmongering, I'm just being realistic. People who concentrate solely on whether a hostile nation has ICBMs are re-fighting the last war. Do you enjoy living in illogical denial?
True -- and three weeks ago, the US public wasn't in an uproar about the destruction of a single city by hurricane and flooding, either. Nobody pays much attention to potential disasters until they happen -- especially "new" types of disasters that they haven't experienced before. That doesn't mean there won't be hell to pay when they do. (Would you want to be known as "the President who let San Diego get nuked"?)
Missiles are passe technology anyway. Modern nukes are delivered UPS Ground. (or failing that, next to one of the tons of marijuana that flow freely into our country every day)
I'd say that the prospect of a single delivered nuke is enough MAD deterrence these days. In other words, I don't think the American people would consider the destruction of "only one" American city to be an acceptable resolution to a foreign policy crisis.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim, or are you just speculating?
The key to international security is to show that you are willing to fight those who threaten you, otherwise your weakness is going to be exploited for all it's worth until it's too late for you to do anything but go to war.
That's all well and good, but what do you think preparing pre-emptive nuclear strikes will cause other nations to do? If the two remaining members of the "Axis of Evil" are any indication, I'd say it causes them to develop their own nuclear stockpiles ASAP in order to deter American aggression. It's the same old MAD game we played with Russia, only this time we're playing against a number of small countries. So a major consequence of this policy is increased nuclear proliferation, and thus more chances for Bin Laden and friends to get their hands on a stolen/donated nuke.
He seems to be making two unfounded assumptions there: (1) that most planets that can foster intelligent life will actually have significant amounts of U235, and (2) that most intelligent species will have warlike tendencies.
Geez, after reading that vivid scenario, I kind of want to get a divorce...
No, I think it came down to "seriously consider security issues as part of the initial design stage", as opposed to the oft-used alternative of considering them only when forced to (e.g. after deploying the first version of the software and getting hacked). Seems like good advice to me.
His argument that an OS should ask you before running something is also stupid.
Perhaps, but an OS where each app had to present to the OS a list of capabilities it wanted permission to use, and the OS and/or user could decide to allow or deny each capability, isn't such a bad idea. For example you might see an OS dialog like "Application NiftyScreenBlanker wants permission to do the following things: (1) install a screen blanker module (2) install a keyboard logging facility (3) Read all files on the hard drive (4) send data to remote network hosts (A)llow (D)eny ?" would be a bit of a tip-off that something is awry...
Sounds good, but how does it get around that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics? (My guess is that the "produced" fuel contains less energy than the "consumed" fuel, so they are really just playing word games here)
Here is the briefing that Mr. Bush was given on August 6th, 2001. Mr. Bush was enjoying a month-long vacation at the time, though, and didn't take the threat seriously. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but you can't say he wasn't warned.
And, IMHO, having a dead brain is better than being a robot with none.
Ooh, good one! I bet you won every playground debate in elementary school.
Intelligent, forward-looking politician works for years to fund and shepherd through a new technology before anyone else has ever even heard of it
I don't know who to blame -- the character assassins who managed to get an incompetent leader elected over a competent one, or the American public who fell for it, twice. But either way, our nation is a poorer place for it.
How about this: whenever the user tries to run an untrusted application, Windows offer to run that application in "safe mode". "Safe Mode" is just a user-friendly name for running the app inside a VMWare-style virtual windows process. That way, any damage the app does is limited to the virtual windows, and doesn't affect the "real" OS.
These days, the "glory" is sitting in the bank accounts of rich-but-naive Mac users. Sorry man, the days of l33t h4x0rs writing viruses for the fun of it are over; these days virus writers are professionals, and they're in it for the cash. And presumably Mac owners have lots of cash, or else they wouldn't have bought Macs...