I am looking over PearPC's documentation and it appears that in order that the client OS may network, PearPC emulates a virtual 3c90x ethernet card visible to the client OS, packets sent to which are available to the host operating system by way of a special network interface.
This virtual ethernet card has a MAC address, configurable from the second link above.
Therefore, PearPC is in fact a MAC emulator!
Re:Hmm, now why does this seem familiar
on
Inside the PSP
·
· Score: 1
This story isn't a dupe.
Hmm, now why does this seem familiar
on
Inside the PSP
·
· Score: 4, Informative
So what if, hypothetically, I live in NY and telecommute to Florida? That should mean that 100% of my income is [i]non[/i]taxible by the state of NY, right?
Or is the rule just "if we want your money, we can take it"?
Do you think (as a staunch Democrat) that I like this? Do you think I like having to settle for somebody center-left/centrist/center-right? Hell no. But the reality of current demographics and the Electoral College is such that I don't foresee any leftist Democrats being elected in the next decade or so
This was the exact logic that lead to the nomination of John Kerry.
As long as this logic is followed, only people like John Kerry will be nominated by the Democrats for election.
And as long as this logic is followed, the Democratic party will continue losing every single election they enter.
Listen: There is no such thing as "centrist". There is no "political spectrum". There are only two things. There are people who stand for something, and people who don't. Right now the Republicans are winning elections because they stand for something and they can convince people of what they stand for. If you put this up against what the democrats are offering-- which the democratic leadership thinks of as "centrism", but everyone else in the entire world sees as "we agree with the republicans, but we don't want to take it quite as far"-- it will lose every time. And in every election since 1994 not involving Bob Dole, it has. Whether what the Republicans offer is what people want is uncertain, but it is certain people would rather have real Republicans than fake Republicans.
I'm not sure she'll ever successfully shake her image as an ultra-liberal from upper New York
Of course the funny thing is this is only an image he possesses among conservatives. Why? Because if "liberal" means anything other than "pro-choice" or "person Bill O'Reily hates", then Ms. Clinton isn't particularly one.
I could say something here about Hillary Clinton's tendency to be viewed among actual Democrats-- you know, people who actually self-identify as agreeing in some fashion with left-wing or democrat ideals-- as a shady opportunist at best and a Republican at worst. But instead I'm just going to say this:
If you seriously think Hillary Clinton has ever been anything other than a social conservative, or that her social conservatism is in any way linked to the 2005 elections, well, frankly, you've been spending the last 13 years listening to too much of people like Bill O'Reily and too little of everyone else. She's always been like this.
When do I get my Deomocrat party back from the corps and self righteous?
When you stop waiting to get the Democrat party back and start acting to get the Democrat party back.
Vote in primaries and convince others to do the same. Take control. Exert influence on the local part of the party, even if this doesn't effect the national part. Stop being "disillusioned" and start being pissed off. The only reason the DNC leadership can continue to get away with this bullshit is that their base is too "disillusioned" to bother trying to stop them.
So the issue is that OO is dependent on Java, and the purely Free implementations of the relevant Java support is not ready to be a full standin for the vendor-supplied version.
It seems to me that the problem here is that the Free Java implementations are unready and need to be completed. It doesn't seem to me like the problem is that OO is using Java and needs to use something else.
Sun is hurting themselves and Java by not making it easier to include their JRE in a linux distro. But I find it very odd that people claiming to speak for the free software community seem to be taking the tack that OO should go with what is convenient for the Open Source community, rather than going with what is convenient for OO and letting the open source community write the code to make it convenient for them. This seems to be the opposite of the tack open source software advocates usually take. At least, when it is pointed out that open source software is criticized for inadequate interface quality or user friendliness, this is the claim made-- that if nonprogrammers don't like the interface, they should fix it themselves. Well, if programmers don't like OO's apparent dependence on sun-jre, perhaps they could fix GCJ themselves?
Nintendo is not a licensee of Immersion, and as far as I can gather they are not going to be because their rumble controllers do not work the same way as Microsoft's and Sony's. Nintendo is using independently developed technology that does not seem to be covered by Immersion's patents and in fact as far as I can tell predates it.
I'm not expecting the contract would be found enforceable-- i'm expecting the "contract", while neither formal nor legal, would be enough to make them an accessory to the author of the virus. For example:
Professional clown LeRoy Hullinger of Van Wert, Ohio, pleaded guilty to a charge that he tried to get a hit man to kill his wife in exchange for a microwave oven and other considerations.
Personally I doubt this would have been a legally enforceable contract, but he still went to jail for it.
Many of those documents have been manually transcribed, proof-read and reformatted into HTML or PDF documents by various volunteer members of the FOSS community, on their own time.
Now if I'm not mistaken, even things which are public domain, if you "edit" them you can copyright them-- because the document itself is public domain, but the editing, page numbers, etc are.
If you contract and pay someone to kill someone else, you are held liable in their murder. I'd assume if you contract and pay someone to write a virus, you're liable for whatever computer crimes are broken as well.
If you offer a $25,000 prize to someone who writes a virus, you are contracting someone to write a virus, and I would very much expect you are liable to be charged with computer crimes even if the person who writes the virus is never caught.
If you look at the link, these people have cancelled their contest. But the offer was still made. I am not sure canceling the contest is enough to get them out of legal liability of having offered cash to break the law. If someone attempts a mac virus in the next month, or some other timeframe that would make it likely to be a response to this "contest", I wonder what will happen to them.
Why does everyone feel a burning need to prove that linux is superior
Among the people performing quality development of open source software at this time are for-profit companies that have found a way to work open source into their business model.
If the enemies of open source can find a way to put these companies at an unfair disadvantage with customers through paid public slander, open source will indirectly suffer as a result of their problems.
I think most of the possible "fight" responses, as you put it, to this sort of thing are unlikely to be meaningfully productive. But it's definitely worth caring about.
Well that's silly. Those aren't hyperlinks. They're just printed URLs that happen to have been written by hand. This is about as innovative as a cuecat, and isn't at all new-- the one time I was in Cleveland, like four years ago, I could see from the rail system that someone or other had written out the full URL to the mp3.com account for their hip hop group on the backside of a tunnel support, facing where the trains go by.
If you want ACTUAL examples of semantic-web style hyperlinking in Graffiti, go to Houston. I'm still some of it is still there.
A few years ago, I think over the summer, someone went and drew a whole bunch of graffiti in the area around Rice University. At least, that was where most of it that I saw was. All of the graffiti was the exact same thing; a little logo saying "GONE" in stylized cursive. The E in "GONE" would always trail off into a little arrow.
The arrow pointed to the location of the next "GONE" logo.
These were scattered, and the proximity varied. Some of them were quite a ways from each other, some of them seemed to be following a road, some didn't. The only one I remember the specific location of was that there was one on this electrical transformer box on the Main Street side of Rice. But if you found one of these and followed the arrows, it would pick out for you this meandering path through south Houston.
If that really is the problem, then why deal with Verizon and Cingular at all? Release the thing in Europe, or somewhere (if some such place exists) where consumers have enough of a choice of cell phone providers that the provider can't stop the customer from doing what they like with their own phone. Once it's been out awhile, quietly try to make the public aware that the people in Europe have access to this phone iPod thing and that the only reason why Americans can't use it is because the American cell phone oligopoly doesn't like it. At that point the idea of defecting will start to look awfully attractive to the local providers...
The idea is that if two theories produce and predict the exact same results, the simpler one is to be preferred. If two theories produce and predict slightly different results, but the predictions only differ on matters which cannot be empirically tested, the simpler theory is to be preferred until such time as a way is found to empirically test which is more accurate.
This principle is often referred to as "Occam's Razor", as it is seen to be similar to an argument a 14th-century theologian named William of Ockham employed. His words, as Wikipedia quotes them, were something closer to "If two things are sufficient for the purpose of truth, it is superfluous to suppose another."
While this principle is technically not guaranteed to pick the "correct" theory, this is reasonable; would it be better, given two theories, to pick the one with more arbitrary complexity? Anyway, the only standard we have for "correct" is that it is consistent with evidence. Satisfying all collectable evidence is a worthwhile persuit in itself.
Slashdot Mirror
They're on a mission from God!
One restaurant manager who was so upset with his laptop that he threw it into deep fryer. That destroyed the laptop ... and deep fryer, too
Yes, but how did it taste???
See here, then look for "3c90x" on this page.
I am looking over PearPC's documentation and it appears that in order that the client OS may network, PearPC emulates a virtual 3c90x ethernet card visible to the client OS, packets sent to which are available to the host operating system by way of a special network interface.
This virtual ethernet card has a MAC address, configurable from the second link above.
Therefore, PearPC is in fact a MAC emulator!
This story isn't a dupe.
Ah yes, that must be it
So what if, hypothetically, I live in NY and telecommute to Florida? That should mean that 100% of my income is [i]non[/i]taxible by the state of NY, right?
Or is the rule just "if we want your money, we can take it"?
Interesting, I did not realize that.
Do you think (as a staunch Democrat) that I like this? Do you think I like having to settle for somebody center-left/centrist/center-right? Hell no. But the reality of current demographics and the Electoral College is such that I don't foresee any leftist Democrats being elected in the next decade or so
This was the exact logic that lead to the nomination of John Kerry.
As long as this logic is followed, only people like John Kerry will be nominated by the Democrats for election.
And as long as this logic is followed, the Democratic party will continue losing every single election they enter.
Listen: There is no such thing as "centrist". There is no "political spectrum". There are only two things. There are people who stand for something, and people who don't. Right now the Republicans are winning elections because they stand for something and they can convince people of what they stand for. If you put this up against what the democrats are offering-- which the democratic leadership thinks of as "centrism", but everyone else in the entire world sees as "we agree with the republicans, but we don't want to take it quite as far"-- it will lose every time. And in every election since 1994 not involving Bob Dole, it has. Whether what the Republicans offer is what people want is uncertain, but it is certain people would rather have real Republicans than fake Republicans.
I'm not sure she'll ever successfully shake her image as an ultra-liberal from upper New York
Of course the funny thing is this is only an image he possesses among conservatives. Why? Because if "liberal" means anything other than "pro-choice" or "person Bill O'Reily hates", then Ms. Clinton isn't particularly one.
I could say something here about Hillary Clinton's tendency to be viewed among actual Democrats-- you know, people who actually self-identify as agreeing in some fashion with left-wing or democrat ideals-- as a shady opportunist at best and a Republican at worst. But instead I'm just going to say this:
If you seriously think Hillary Clinton has ever been anything other than a social conservative, or that her social conservatism is in any way linked to the 2005 elections, well, frankly, you've been spending the last 13 years listening to too much of people like Bill O'Reily and too little of everyone else. She's always been like this.
When do I get my Deomocrat party back from the corps and self righteous?
When you stop waiting to get the Democrat party back and start acting to get the Democrat party back.
Vote in primaries and convince others to do the same. Take control. Exert influence on the local part of the party, even if this doesn't effect the national part. Stop being "disillusioned" and start being pissed off. The only reason the DNC leadership can continue to get away with this bullshit is that their base is too "disillusioned" to bother trying to stop them.
The problem is that SUN can remove all distribution rights after this really catches on
And if they did this I am sure IBM would be more than happy to step in and let their VM be used in its place.
You have a choice of compliant JVMs. This is a good thing.
So the issue is that OO is dependent on Java, and the purely Free implementations of the relevant Java support is not ready to be a full standin for the vendor-supplied version.
It seems to me that the problem here is that the Free Java implementations are unready and need to be completed. It doesn't seem to me like the problem is that OO is using Java and needs to use something else.
Sun is hurting themselves and Java by not making it easier to include their JRE in a linux distro. But I find it very odd that people claiming to speak for the free software community seem to be taking the tack that OO should go with what is convenient for the Open Source community, rather than going with what is convenient for OO and letting the open source community write the code to make it convenient for them. This seems to be the opposite of the tack open source software advocates usually take. At least, when it is pointed out that open source software is criticized for inadequate interface quality or user friendliness, this is the claim made-- that if nonprogrammers don't like the interface, they should fix it themselves. Well, if programmers don't like OO's apparent dependence on sun-jre, perhaps they could fix GCJ themselves?
That's... some pretty complicated plans.
I wonder if it ever occurred to them to just make a better website?
...
Nah, probably not.
Nintendo is not a licensee of Immersion, and as far as I can gather they are not going to be because their rumble controllers do not work the same way as Microsoft's and Sony's. Nintendo is using independently developed technology that does not seem to be covered by Immersion's patents and in fact as far as I can tell predates it.
Many of those documents have been manually transcribed, proof-read and reformatted into HTML or PDF documents by various volunteer members of the FOSS community, on their own time.
Now if I'm not mistaken, even things which are public domain, if you "edit" them you can copyright them-- because the document itself is public domain, but the editing, page numbers, etc are.
No?
If you contract and pay someone to kill someone else, you are held liable in their murder. I'd assume if you contract and pay someone to write a virus, you're liable for whatever computer crimes are broken as well.
If you offer a $25,000 prize to someone who writes a virus, you are contracting someone to write a virus, and I would very much expect you are liable to be charged with computer crimes even if the person who writes the virus is never caught.
If you look at the link, these people have cancelled their contest. But the offer was still made. I am not sure canceling the contest is enough to get them out of legal liability of having offered cash to break the law. If someone attempts a mac virus in the next month, or some other timeframe that would make it likely to be a response to this "contest", I wonder what will happen to them.
Why do people think this is directly targetting the ipod?
Because we read it.
Some obscure indie rock tune or rare jazz performance you heard on the radio?
Funnily, this is the kind of music that you're most likely to find available as unrestricted mp3s, which will obviously work in any music player you like.
Why does everyone feel a burning need to prove that linux is superior
Among the people performing quality development of open source software at this time are for-profit companies that have found a way to work open source into their business model.
If the enemies of open source can find a way to put these companies at an unfair disadvantage with customers through paid public slander, open source will indirectly suffer as a result of their problems.
I think most of the possible "fight" responses, as you put it, to this sort of thing are unlikely to be meaningfully productive. But it's definitely worth caring about.
Well that's silly. Those aren't hyperlinks. They're just printed URLs that happen to have been written by hand. This is about as innovative as a cuecat, and isn't at all new-- the one time I was in Cleveland, like four years ago, I could see from the rail system that someone or other had written out the full URL to the mp3.com account for their hip hop group on the backside of a tunnel support, facing where the trains go by.
If you want ACTUAL examples of semantic-web style hyperlinking in Graffiti, go to Houston. I'm still some of it is still there.
A few years ago, I think over the summer, someone went and drew a whole bunch of graffiti in the area around Rice University. At least, that was where most of it that I saw was. All of the graffiti was the exact same thing; a little logo saying "GONE" in stylized cursive. The E in "GONE" would always trail off into a little arrow.
The arrow pointed to the location of the next "GONE" logo.
These were scattered, and the proximity varied. Some of them were quite a ways from each other, some of them seemed to be following a road, some didn't. The only one I remember the specific location of was that there was one on this electrical transformer box on the Main Street side of Rice. But if you found one of these and followed the arrows, it would pick out for you this meandering path through south Houston.
I have no idea where the path lead.
That's pretty good. I wish they'd modded you up instead of me.
Just a question. Apparently the answer is "no"
If that really is the problem, then why deal with Verizon and Cingular at all? Release the thing in Europe, or somewhere (if some such place exists) where consumers have enough of a choice of cell phone providers that the provider can't stop the customer from doing what they like with their own phone. Once it's been out awhile, quietly try to make the public aware that the people in Europe have access to this phone iPod thing and that the only reason why Americans can't use it is because the American cell phone oligopoly doesn't like it. At that point the idea of defecting will start to look awfully attractive to the local providers...
Isn't Motorola supposed to be German anyway?
The idea is that if two theories produce and predict the exact same results, the simpler one is to be preferred. If two theories produce and predict slightly different results, but the predictions only differ on matters which cannot be empirically tested, the simpler theory is to be preferred until such time as a way is found to empirically test which is more accurate.
This principle is often referred to as "Occam's Razor", as it is seen to be similar to an argument a 14th-century theologian named William of Ockham employed. His words, as Wikipedia quotes them, were something closer to "If two things are sufficient for the purpose of truth, it is superfluous to suppose another."
While this principle is technically not guaranteed to pick the "correct" theory, this is reasonable; would it be better, given two theories, to pick the one with more arbitrary complexity? Anyway, the only standard we have for "correct" is that it is consistent with evidence. Satisfying all collectable evidence is a worthwhile persuit in itself.