The transcript states that Page explained 64-bit users will need to double their memory because units of memory are naturally double the size. what the hell?
It's a new coding rule for Windows Vista: all variables must be pointers.
Come on, you're not even trying, here. How does Haliburton figure in? And you haven't even mentioned FEMA or global warming yet!
Below are some excerpts from a US Department of Justice report. Read them, and then decide if you want to face the facts or if you prefer continue to hide your head in the sand. The facts are: our government can be (and was, and is) bought and sold like a cheap whore. Just because you think the claims sound outrageous doesn't mean they aren't true.
Between 1995 and 2000, Microsoft donated more than $3.5 million to federal candidates and to the national parties, about two-thirds of which was contributed during the 2000 election cycle alone.6 Including company and employee donations to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 2000 election cycle, Microsoft's giving (that of the company, its PAC and its employees) amounted to more than $6.1 million, far more than has been previously reported. 7 Nearly $1 million came in the 40 days immediately before the November 7th election. As most political operatives know, these late contributions often are made by donors who don't want their participation known until after the election, when financial reports for the final days of a campaign are due, and public and news media attention are no longer focused upon the election. The effect of delaying contributions until very near the election is to thwart efforts by the news media and the political opposition to make disclosures meaningful to voters before they vote.
Comprising the majority of Microsoft's campaign contributions was soft money.8 Like their overall presence in Washington, Microsoft's soft money donations grew substantially since the beginning of the antitrust trial. In fact, in the seven days preceding Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling against Microsoft, the company donated more in soft money to the national political parties than it gave to federal candidates and political parties between 1989 and 1996.
23. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Microsoft and its executives accounted for some $2,298,551 in "soft money" contributions, according to FEC records. For context, consider that this was two-thirds more than the $1,546,055 in soft money contributed by the now-bankrupt Enron and its executives during the same period.
As one business commentator put it: "there's something quite disturbing about watching the world's richest man trying to buy his way out of trouble with Uncle Sam Gates's actions undermine the legal system itself."
25. While Microsoft has donated to both national political parties, the company has tended to favor Republicans, who have been more vocal in their defense of the company. Between 1995 and 1998, 72% of Microsoft's contributions went to Republicans, while the GOP received only 55% of the company's donations during the 2000 election cycle.11 Republicans received a total of $3.2 million, about half of which $1.69 million went to the national Republican Party.
37. While Microsoft contributed $100,000 to the Bush/Cheney Inaugural Committee in January 2001, virtually all contributions to presidential campaigns were made prior to July 31st , with the exception of contributions to Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne's campaign. (This is presumably because, to be eligible for federal matching funds for the primaries and federal funding for the general election, major party candidates receiving are not allowed to solicit or receive campaign contributions after they are nominated at their conventions.) Only four primary presidential candidates received contributions greater than $10,000: Bill Bradley, $33,400; George Bush, $57,300; Al Gore, $28,000, John McCain $39,448.
How can you remotely attack a machine that has no ports open? Answer: You can't.
Bah, you're not trying hard enough. Look for an exploit in the low level Ethertracks driver code. Since the EtherTracks driver runs in the kernel, once you've got it running code from your evil-packet, you've got full system access:^)
Based on the (very optimistic!) assumption that it takes 1 minute to write and swap a floppy, I calculate that it would take 9 1/2 months to complete the backup.
Don't forget another 9 1/2 months to verify each floppy, to ensure that the backup is valid...
I'll probably get laughed off of Slashdot for even asking this, but is there any conceivable way to repair a failed hard drive? i.e. could you open up the case and replace the motor, or even the heads, or etc?
even getting the initial copy across will take the several months, if not years, of monthly bandwidth caps from a common broadband connection
That assumes that the drive is already full when the first rsync is done. Assuming the user sets up his backup system when he first gets the drive (big assumption, I know), then the drive is likely to be mostly empty for the first rsync.
Probably still not very practical, though. What we really need is cheap 1TB DVDs to burn to.
The difference is that we end up with more energy from burning gasoline than it took to refine it > net energy gain.
Not exactly -- that would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The fact is that the 'refining process' started millions of years ago, and more energy was added to the system over those years than we take out of it at the end. It only seems like a gain to us if we ignore the first 99% of the process.
Anyway, it's irrelevant in the long run -- the details of fossil fuel refinement are only important as long as there is fossil fuel around to refine. Eventually there won't be any left.
But they have crap for an infrastructure, it would cost so much to put the system in place, that there is no realistic profit margin over the forseeable future.
Funny how that logic never seems to stop the nuclear power or ethanol industries...;^)
but the green people seem to get more pissed off at coal than every other fuel combined
And for good reason. Coal is the dirtiest fuel around from a global-warming perspective. Cheap coal energy isn't so cheap anymore if you have to factor in the cost of crop failure, massive flooding, etc.
Could this be another good example of how movie magic has inspired real world designers to come up with a new generation of technology?
I think it's almost always the other way around. When Hollywood decides to do a sci-fi movie and want it to look "futuristic", they hire some consultants from the Wired magazine crowd and ask them what they think the "next big thing" might be. The consultants describe digital paper or gesture recognition or 3D displays or whatever, and the movie people mock it up, make it look sexy, and put it in the movie.
Please don't accuse Hollywood of creativity again, you could damage their reputation;^)
If this method is made public, would it not mean that many (once accuring the necessary equipment), be able to easily whip up Hydrogen Bombs?
I don't see how -- even if some baddies could duplicate the process (something which currently the best government-funded labs, employing the brightest physicists and multi-billion-dollar budgets, can't do), how would the process be useful in building a hydrogen bomb? At best they could use it to generate some electricity and a little bit of radioactivity.
The main thing keeping people from building their own nukes is lack of access to the purified plutonium and/or uranium ingredients necessary to create them. AFAICT knowing how to fuse hydrogen into helium wouldn't change that fact.
As far as alternate energy sources, have you looked at oil? Seriously, oil shale in Colorado and tar sands in Alberta have more oil in them than all of Saudi Arabia.
Of course, those oil sources only count if they are (a) cheaper than the alternatives, and (b) environmentally acceptable to extract. From what I've read, extracting that oil could be an extremely messy operation from a global-warming/environmental-pollution perspective.
Well, sure, that's because Roomba looks like the umholy offspring of a frisbee and a cockroach. Everybody knows that a home vacuuming robot is supposed to look like this.
Monopolies only occur in markets with a barrier to entry, either natural or man-made.
I totally agree. That's why in an unregulated economy there is an economic incentive for companies to set up their own "man-made barriers to entry" -- that way they can enjoy monopoly profits and not have to deal with annoying competition. A valid role for government regulation, then, would be to make sure no single company can dominate the market to the extent that it is able force all its competitors out of the market.
As far as I can see, the only real and destructive monopolies in the world are those that are created by the government, not by businesses in the free market.
Correct -- because the government takes steps to ensure that this result occurs. In other words, you are looking at the results of successful regulation of the marketplace.
I guess the political PR machine has worked well on you if you really believe that bullshit.
I know you're smarter than everyone else here, and that the rest of us are just brainwashed drones, but since you have such an acute intellect why don't you sit back for a few moments and consider the possibility that it's a "political PR machine" that has convinced you that all of these frameworks (built up over decades) have no value? Then ask yourself, who are the people touting this belief, and how would they stand to gain if these frameworks were destroyed? Who would gain power, and who would suffer?
I would say that your "mixed" model hurts the market, not helps it.
Presumably that is because you have grown up in a time and place where the more extravagant abuses of capitalism have been curbed, and so you are blissfully ignorant of just how bad conditions can get without regulation.
Everyone can marry an individual of the opposite gender. In other words, this is not a civil rights issue as we all have the same right. It's an attempt to alter our culture.
Sixty years ago, you would have said: "Everyone can marry an individual of the same race. In other words, this is not a civil rights issue as we all have the same right. It's an attempt to alter our culture."
What if the law said that you HAVE to let people smoke in your place of business
You have a point to some extent, and I agree that giving government too much power is a hazard, but I think what your argument is missing is the fact that your rights stop where my rights begin (and vice versa). So there has to be a trade-off: Your right to smoke has to be balanced against other peoples' right to healthy air; your right to hire whoever you want has to be balanced against other peoples' right not be unfairly discriminated against.
Depends on your definition of "works", I suppose. Raw capitalism "works" in the same way that Darwinian evolution "works" -- the strongest (and most brutal) players prey on the rest until they've squeezed every last drop of money out of them. Eventually, you end up with a monopoly or oligopoly with control over everything, and everyone else is a wage slave under their control.
That's why almost all countries mix in a lot of government regulation, (anti-trust laws, living wage laws, environmental standards, etc) so that society can get the benefits of capitalism while avoiding the abuses.
So I would say capitalism doesn't work -- but a mixed model (of part capitalism, part socialism) does.
Yet the courts ruled that gays had special rights.
Actually, they ruled that gays should have the same rights as everyone else, without having to pretend to be straight in order to get them. (if you think gay marriage is a "special right", imagine yourself living as a straight person in a society where only gay marriages were allowed. Would you consider your wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex a "special right"?)
Not only that, but the court told businesses, no matter what religion of the leadership, they must pay money to gays to support the "spouse". That is even if the business is private, and the owners are christian and want to give christian values to the world, to make the place better.
Not only that, the courts previously ruled that businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against minorities in hiring, even if the business is private, and the owners are KKK members and want to give KKK values to the world, to make the place better.
The Microsoft traffic lights have four colors: Red for "stop", Yellow for "caution", Green for "Go", and Blue for "an illegal operation has occurred and this intersection will be shut down. Hit any car to reboot".
Slashdot Mirror
It's a new coding rule for Windows Vista: all variables must be pointers.
Below are some excerpts from a US Department of Justice report. Read them, and then decide if you want to face the facts or if you prefer continue to hide your head in the sand. The facts are: our government can be (and was, and is) bought and sold like a cheap whore. Just because you think the claims sound outrageous doesn't mean they aren't true.
Between 1995 and 2000, Microsoft donated more than $3.5 million to federal candidates and to the national parties, about two-thirds of which was contributed during the 2000 election cycle alone.6 Including company and employee donations to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 2000 election cycle, Microsoft's giving (that of the company, its PAC and its employees) amounted to more than $6.1 million, far more than has been previously reported. 7 Nearly $1 million came in the 40 days immediately before the November 7th election. As most political operatives know, these late contributions often are made by donors who don't want their participation known until after the election, when financial reports for the final days of a campaign are due, and public and news media attention are no longer focused upon the election. The effect of delaying contributions until very near the election is to thwart efforts by the news media and the political opposition to make disclosures meaningful to voters before they vote.
Comprising the majority of Microsoft's campaign contributions was soft money.8 Like their overall presence in Washington, Microsoft's soft money donations grew substantially since the beginning of the antitrust trial. In fact, in the seven days preceding Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling against Microsoft, the company donated more in soft money to the national political parties than it gave to federal candidates and political parties between 1989 and 1996.
23. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Microsoft and its executives accounted for some $2,298,551 in "soft money" contributions, according to FEC records. For context, consider that this was two-thirds more than the $1,546,055 in soft money contributed by the now-bankrupt Enron and its executives during the same period.
As one business commentator put it: "there's something quite disturbing about watching the world's richest man trying to buy his way out of trouble with Uncle Sam Gates's actions undermine the legal system itself."
25. While Microsoft has donated to both national political parties, the company has tended to favor Republicans, who have been more vocal in their defense of the company. Between 1995 and 1998, 72% of Microsoft's contributions went to Republicans, while the GOP received only 55% of the company's donations during the 2000 election cycle.11 Republicans received a total of $3.2 million, about half of which $1.69 million went to the national Republican Party.
37. While Microsoft contributed $100,000 to the Bush/Cheney Inaugural Committee in January 2001, virtually all contributions to presidential campaigns were made prior to July 31st , with the exception of contributions to Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne's campaign. (This is presumably because, to be eligible for federal matching funds for the primaries and federal funding for the general election, major party candidates receiving are not allowed to solicit or receive campaign contributions after they are nominated at their conventions.) Only four primary presidential candidates received contributions greater than $10,000: Bill Bradley, $33,400; George Bush, $57,300; Al Gore, $28,000, John McCain $39,448.
Bah, you're not trying hard enough. Look for an exploit in the low level Ethertracks driver code. Since the EtherTracks driver runs in the kernel, once you've got it running code from your evil-packet, you've got full system access
There's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from putting up a web site that does that...
Of course the figures would still be misleading, since different people pay different amounts of taxes.
Don't forget another 9 1/2 months to verify each floppy, to ensure that the backup is valid...
I'll probably get laughed off of Slashdot for even asking this, but is there any conceivable way to repair a failed hard drive? i.e. could you open up the case and replace the motor, or even the heads, or etc?
That assumes that the drive is already full when the first rsync is done. Assuming the user sets up his backup system when he first gets the drive (big assumption, I know), then the drive is likely to be mostly empty for the first rsync.
Probably still not very practical, though. What we really need is cheap 1TB DVDs to burn to.
Hey, man, our space program is on Mars right now. Just because the current vehicles only carry cameras, don't think we can't send over the heavies
Damn uppity Martian settlers, next thing you know they'll be declaring independence and throwing Coca Cola into the harbour...
Not exactly -- that would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The fact is that the 'refining process' started millions of years ago, and more energy was added to the system over those years than we take out of it at the end. It only seems like a gain to us if we ignore the first 99% of the process.
Anyway, it's irrelevant in the long run -- the details of fossil fuel refinement are only important as long as there is fossil fuel around to refine. Eventually there won't be any left.
Funny how that logic never seems to stop the nuclear power or ethanol industries...
And for good reason. Coal is the dirtiest fuel around from a global-warming perspective. Cheap coal energy isn't so cheap anymore if you have to factor in the cost of crop failure, massive flooding, etc.
I think it's almost always the other way around. When Hollywood decides to do a sci-fi movie and want it to look "futuristic", they hire some consultants from the Wired magazine crowd and ask them what they think the "next big thing" might be. The consultants describe digital paper or gesture recognition or 3D displays or whatever, and the movie people mock it up, make it look sexy, and put it in the movie.
Please don't accuse Hollywood of creativity again, you could damage their reputation
Better watch where you put your textbooks....
I don't see how -- even if some baddies could duplicate the process (something which currently the best government-funded labs, employing the brightest physicists and multi-billion-dollar budgets, can't do), how would the process be useful in building a hydrogen bomb? At best they could use it to generate some electricity and a little bit of radioactivity.
The main thing keeping people from building their own nukes is lack of access to the purified plutonium and/or uranium ingredients necessary to create them. AFAICT knowing how to fuse hydrogen into helium wouldn't change that fact.
Of course, those oil sources only count if they are (a) cheaper than the alternatives, and (b) environmentally acceptable to extract. From what I've read, extracting that oil could be an extremely messy operation from a global-warming/environmental-pollution perspective.
Well, sure, that's because Roomba looks like the umholy offspring of a frisbee and a cockroach. Everybody knows that a home vacuuming robot is supposed to look like this.
If they're corrupt, then Ballmer could probably bribe them.... it's not like he's short on cash.
I had no idea economists were so rude!
Monopolies only occur in markets with a barrier to entry, either natural or man-made.
I totally agree. That's why in an unregulated economy there is an economic incentive for companies to set up their own "man-made barriers to entry" -- that way they can enjoy monopoly profits and not have to deal with annoying competition. A valid role for government regulation, then, would be to make sure no single company can dominate the market to the extent that it is able force all its competitors out of the market.
Sure: The Standard Oil monopoly in the 1890's. Read Upton Sinclar's The Jungle. Read about the DeBeers diamond monopoly.
As far as I can see, the only real and destructive monopolies in the world are those that are created by the government, not by businesses in the free market.
Correct -- because the government takes steps to ensure that this result occurs. In other words, you are looking at the results of successful regulation of the marketplace.
I guess the political PR machine has worked well on you if you really believe that bullshit.
I know you're smarter than everyone else here, and that the rest of us are just brainwashed drones, but since you have such an acute intellect why don't you sit back for a few moments and consider the possibility that it's a "political PR machine" that has convinced you that all of these frameworks (built up over decades) have no value? Then ask yourself, who are the people touting this belief, and how would they stand to gain if these frameworks were destroyed? Who would gain power, and who would suffer?
I would say that your "mixed" model hurts the market, not helps it.
Presumably that is because you have grown up in a time and place where the more extravagant abuses of capitalism have been curbed, and so you are blissfully ignorant of just how bad conditions can get without regulation.
Sixty years ago, you would have said: "Everyone can marry an individual of the same race. In other words, this is not a civil rights issue as we all have the same right. It's an attempt to alter our culture."
It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.
You have a point to some extent, and I agree that giving government too much power is a hazard, but I think what your argument is missing is the fact that your rights stop where my rights begin (and vice versa). So there has to be a trade-off: Your right to smoke has to be balanced against other peoples' right to healthy air; your right to hire whoever you want has to be balanced against other peoples' right not be unfairly discriminated against.
Depends on your definition of "works", I suppose. Raw capitalism "works" in the same way that Darwinian evolution "works" -- the strongest (and most brutal) players prey on the rest until they've squeezed every last drop of money out of them. Eventually, you end up with a monopoly or oligopoly with control over everything, and everyone else is a wage slave under their control.
That's why almost all countries mix in a lot of government regulation, (anti-trust laws, living wage laws, environmental standards, etc) so that society can get the benefits of capitalism while avoiding the abuses.
So I would say capitalism doesn't work -- but a mixed model (of part capitalism, part socialism) does.
Actually, they ruled that gays should have the same rights as everyone else, without having to pretend to be straight in order to get them. (if you think gay marriage is a "special right", imagine yourself living as a straight person in a society where only gay marriages were allowed. Would you consider your wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex a "special right"?)
Not only that, but the court told businesses, no matter what religion of the leadership,
they must pay money to gays to support the "spouse". That is even if the business is private, and the owners are christian and want to give christian values to the world, to make the place better.
Not only that, the courts previously ruled that businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against minorities in hiring, even if the business is private, and the owners are KKK members and want to give KKK values to the world, to make the place better.
Some people even look upon this as a good thing.
The Microsoft traffic lights have four colors: Red for "stop", Yellow for "caution", Green for "Go", and Blue for "an illegal operation has occurred and this intersection will be shut down. Hit any car to reboot".
I must be a little dense; what "Microsoft tactics" is Google using?