I'd just be happy with a few intelligent daemons to watch my back, like when a program runs amuck and fills up the process list.
~ $ help ulimit
ulimit: ulimit [-SHacdflmnpstuv] [limit]
Ulimit provides control over the resources available to processes
started by the shell, on systems that allow such control. If an
option is given, it is interpreted as follows:
-S use the `soft' resource limit
-H use the `hard' resource limit
-a all current limits are reported
-c the maximum size of core files created
-d the maximum size of a process's data segment
-f the maximum size of files created by the shell
-l the maximum size a process may lock into memory
-m the maximum resident set size
-n the maximum number of open file descriptors
-p the pipe buffer size
-s the maximum stack size
-t the maximum amount of cpu time in seconds
-u the maximum number of user processes
-v the size of virtual memory
If LIMIT is given, it is the new value of the specified resource.
Otherwise, the current value of the specified resource is printed.
If no option is given, then -f is assumed. Values are in 1024-byte
increments, except for -t, which is in seconds, -p, which is in
increments of 512 bytes, and -u, which is an unscaled number of
processes.
The ACLU is a leading force behind censoring religious speech.
The ACLU does not have the ability or the authority to censor anybody. The ACLU opposes government sponsored religious speech (as it is unconstitutional) and uses the courts and lobbying to protect the letter and spirit of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state.
The ACLU defends the rights of individual citizens to exercise their right to religious speech in their private lives. For instance, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Lafayette-Parish school board in Louisiana because it's dress code violated the religious beliefs of Rastafarian Children. The ACLU also worked to pass the Religious Freedom Bill of 2000 which helped protect an individual's right to worship.
The ACLU is opposed to government sponsored religion and government restrictions on religion. How more pro religion can you get?
The ACLU claims to defend the Constitution, but basically ignores the 2nd Amendment.
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control because they believe that the 2nd Amendment refers to the rights of individual states to maintain individual militias. The ACLU also believes that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
The ACLU is strongly in favor of executing people without a trial.
Ok, I don't even know where this one came from. The ACLU is opposed to all forms of capital punishment and the practice of capital punishment. Aside from the fact that it is a cruel and unusual form of punishment (in violation of the Eighth Amendment), it is also applied disproportionately to minorities and the poor.
The ACLU in its "diversity" efforts supports the idea of denying people rights due to their skin color.
Obviously this is patently untrue. The ACLU supports civil rights for all Americans regardless of race, creed, gender, religion, political affiliation or sexual orientation. You're referring to the ACLU's support of Affirmative Action, which is something quite different. I won't try to convince you why Affirmative Action is a good thing, but I'll just say this: there are hundreds of other forms of non-race-based Affirmative Action that take place every day. Things like networking, and knowing a friend of a friend. Things like being in a certain fraternity or going to a certain business school or belonging to a certain society. Nothing can stop these little forms of Affirmative Action from taking place, so the only solution we have to make hiring and school admissions more racially equitable is to introduce one more element into the equation. And contrary to popular belief, Affirmative Action does not deny qualified people access to jobs or schools.
In addition to being a card carrying member of the ACLU, I am also a member of the EFF. I wouldn't pick one over the other because they are both important to civil rights online and offline.
Just becuase it runs on a version of linux doesn't make it special, now if they gave you the option to install whatever os you wanted and set it up the way you want, that would be different.
This is obviously a troll, but on the off chance you actually don't understand what the word embedded means, I'll fill you in.
Sony isn't selling you a PC. They're selling a set top box. They didn't choose Linux because they hate MS (what OS comes preinstalled on VAIO?) they chose Linux because of technical and financial considerations. If they sold you a box and said, "Ok, now go install your OS and your PVR software," then no one would buy it.
Obviously you can hack the device and put on whatever OS you want. But that's not Sony's concern.
This may seem a little naive, but why not just enclose the passenger cabin in a Faraday cage? Something like chicken wire should do fine. It could easily be concealed behind the wallpaper, carpet and overhead bins. Admittedly you'd have to do something about the windows, but this could easily seal-in most EM signals which harm airplane navigation systems (including cell phones).
Or is there some reason for putting radio navigation receiving equipment in the passenger cabin?
The host of the mp3 site isn't too bright. Sure the site may be located in China, but they have actual Amazon.com referrer-ids for the "Buy this Album" link. The MPAA can't get you if you're in China, but they can get your referrer fees from a US based corporation.:-D
Consumer computer users don't always need open source (though many of us developers would say different). But end-users often don't need or want the source code to their applications. For the government it's not a want. It's a necessity. Especially in applications of military or importance to the security of the national infrastructure. Obviously, no one cares if someone in the Dept. of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms can't print because their Windows NT print server is down. But everyone cares if a bug in the same operating system leaves the Navy dead in the water.
Some Open Source detractors say that peer code review is a myth and that no one has the time to do it anyway. The government has full time programmers who can and do audit internal software. They can audit OSS just as well. It is negligent to wait for your proprietary software manufacturer to release "HotFix #9182" when you can fix the bug yourself (especially if it exposes risks to national security).
So for vital government computer systems, using open source is a matter of national security. As for the bureacratic offices -- it's true they don't "need" OSS.
Almost every graphical web browser's User-Agent string starts with "Mozilla/4.0". So unless they go after Opera, AOL and Microsoft, then they aren't adequately defending their trademark -- hence they no longer own exclusive rights to the trademark.
I understand your point about code reuse and library sharing -- but I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. Many people are pissed off at the dependency hell they experience when they want to install one simple app from freshmeat. What good is a 500k source download if you need 20M of the latest libraries just to support it? Not to mention the time you spend hunting all over the web to find the latest versions.
HeroineWarrior knows that it's using esoteric libraries, they even say so:
Finally, since everything is built around the same esoteric, obscure libraries, everything tends to reflect improvements in the libraries simultaneously. It's not economical to update 5 obscure packages simultaneously every time one obscure package changes.
And who's to say that library changes and improvements don't make it back upstream? Programmers don't live in a vacuum -- otherwise they wouldn't be using outside libraries to begin with.
Aside from that the code is full GPL, so it's not stealing if the source (and any library changes are distributed when the binary is distributed). So if you want to redistribute a more difficult to install version (without restriction) -- you can! Not only that but you can personally fork the project and start developing it as you see fit. The GPL gives you those rights. The authors of Cinelerra are just trying to minimize the difficulty that people may experience with installing the software while trying to share something they think other people will find useful.
And it's free! You don't HAVE to accept gift-horses, you know.
A number of spam filters and spam blocking agents will mark a message as SPAM if it is only Bcc'd or CC'd. If you're going to Bcc -- at least make sure you have 1 To recipient else you may end up in the SPAM Folder.
You're using Mozilla, and that splash screen has been there for the past year.
If you want the "Professional browser" then you're looking for Netscape 7 (with ad-branding and all).
The Mozilla project went out of their way to allow you to mod the splash screen (like you did) so let's not go nuts and claim that the browser is unprofessional because the splash screen isn't "pretty enough".
Is this just too much work for our lazy American manufacturers to do?
I can't help but laugh at the irony of the poster calling American manufacturers lazy for not putting knock-knock jokes in their product manuals to get the lazy American CONSUMER to RTFM.;)
2 basic steps to stop the billing:
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As someone who used to work tech support for an ISP, I can tell you that there's 2 simple things you can do to stop the billing.
Notify them in writing. If you write (a letter, not an e-mail) to the billing address and say you want to cancel the service, then they (and you) have written, legal proof of your request to cancel. So you have the law on your side when it comes to step #2.
Call your credit card company. Tell them that
you have written the company asking to stop billing you, and instruct your bank to block any future charges from them.
I'm not claiming that this is the easiest thing to do or that it makes for good customer service on the part of ISPs. Many ISPs won't make you jump through these hoops (as a tech with my former employer, we could all cancel accounts, all we had to do was click "Cancel" -- and we didn't ask for a reason). But there is no way they can refute your intent to cancel if you've requested it in writing.
The gloves have come off?! Offering a $10 rebate is taking the gloves off?!
What about underhanded tactics like forcing OEMs to sign deals requiring them to buy a copy of your operating system for every PC they ship (even if they're selling it without an OS). What about embracing and extending an API so that you break the protocol and make your programs no longer interoperate with the competition? What about releasing updates to "components" of your operating system so users can't locate your competitors websites?!
This isn't die-hard, winner takes all competition. This is normal, everyday, non-monopolistic competition.
Unless the law is struck down by the courts, I can't imagine too many companies wanting to make the infrastructure investment in blocking on these urls on Pennsylvania-specific servers.
Not to mention possible fines or jail time if the company slips up and misses one? It's too big a risk. Blackhole-ing Pennsylvania may be the only option. Plus, after 1 day without internet access, the legislature will probably repeal the law.
I am probably one of the few people who actually likes the ads. Whether it be some cool offering on ThinkGeek, or a low priced DSL offer from Speakeasy, I like advertising as an interesting way of promoting new products and services to me.
This isn't to say advertising is the end all be all -- because, honestly, it's not. Some advertising is pure crap (like the flashing "You've got 1 new message" ad -- annoying as all hell and I'm just glad Mozilla has a "max_animation_repeat" option). The kinds of ads that try to deceive people just end up pissing people off -- and sure they get their CPM numbers, but if they're deceptive in their advertising, what's to say they're not deceptive in their business practices?
I'm not knocking the subscription idea, I think it's a really good one. Some people truly hate online advertising and some even have enough chutzpah to put their money where their mouth is.
My point is that I'm choosing to stay with the giant-ad sized slashdot because I actually find slashdot's ads useful (except for the VisualStudio crap). And no, I'm not using Mozilla's image blocking to hide the ads. Good luck with the subscription site, I'm sure you'll do well!
What's with the question mark at the end of the story title? Isn't the subject of the story one of the things slashdot promotes? Have convictions in the story you submit!
Everyone should note that the article referenced is not actually a news article. One of the unfortunate aspects of recent T.V. journalism is that it's become more opinion and less news. Fortunately this column is marked outright as an opinion piece so no one should confuse it as being something else.
Actually I have. But my point is that EAX is an extension to the AX register because the x86 was originally designed as a 16 bit processor. The 32 bit math was just a kludge extension. Hence "E-AX".
To anyone who's coded in Assembly, MIPS is pure beauty.
The entire ISA is minimized so as to accomplish most operations in the fewest clock ticks (duh -- it's RISC). But after dealing with the crappy x86 design, it is so refreshing to deal with a logical and straightforward architecture such as MIPS. No messing with ES or DS pointers, just simple, general purpose registers. And don't get me started on the "extended" register size kludge in x86 (EAX -- what the hell?). MIPS doesn't have such baggage.
I've coded for SPARCs, I coded for Motorola's 68k and 68HC processors. But nothing beats MIPS in terms of power from simplicity.
The 7,000 PRO; 15,000 AGAINST; and 7,000 opinion numbers reflect a definite change in how people communicate their displeasure with the anti-competitive and illegal business practices of Microsoft.
Only 5 years ago, a great many people would have e-mailed flame after flame to the DOJ against Microsoft; founded not on evidence or logic, but on emotional, personal opinion. But thanks to PR awareness and education in the community, more people can cite specific evidence or examples of Microsoft's illegal behavior, and make rational, well-formed arguments on how Microsoft has damaged innovation, broken published protocols, APIs and standards and how they have illegally leveraged their market position to force out competitors.
Gone, or at least greatly diminished, are the zealots who write "M$ SUCKS!" Instead, people are more educated on the issue and can express their comments with supporting evidence in a calm, rational manner.
Despite these advances and compelling arguments, the US-DOJ still backed down on its position in the antitrust suit; but it can no longer be said that the majority of people who disapprove of Microsoft's business practices are "Anti-MS-Zealots."
You know, it's funny. I was trying to post one of the needlessly long headers of crap that Outlook generates for each-and-every e-mail so I could make a point, but when I tried to "PreviewPost" I encountered a "Lameness filter."
This suggestions of this article are quite thought-provoking, but they also illustrate an interesting point: Napster really isn't P2P.
In theory, a true Peer-to-Peer file transfer network would exist in a decentralized fashion where you would never have to query a central host for routing or file availability. Napster requires you to route through one of the Napster servers for information. Even introducing Napigator still doesn't alter the Napster model because all it does is allow you to route through a different central host. It seems that all Napster did was integrate a search engine and nameserving into one element (coming from only one provider).
This isn't to knock the accomplishments of Napster, it was certainly an original idea to incorporate these areas and provide a GUI access client to boot. But it is apparent that Napster developers weren't all that revolutionary in their thinking either.
The suggestion of true P2P is revolutionary, and the perfect implementation (should it ever arrive) will also be revolutionary. But the Napster model is no different than everyone providing their MP3 list to a website who maintains a list of links on where to download MP3s. Napster simply automated this process. Napster is no more P2P than any TCP/IP connection not operated through a proxy.
Is http P2P? I'm talking directly to another system, and there is no moderator/mediator. Normally, I have to find out about that system from a 3rd party (e.g. a search engine) -- just like someone obtains a list of links from Napster.
True, I'm being no better than the author of the original article; because I too am offering no solutions. I'm just holding out hope for true P2P in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
ulimit: ulimit [-SHacdflmnpstuv] [limit]
Ulimit provides control over the resources available to processes started by the shell, on systems that allow such control. If an option is given, it is interpreted as follows:
-S use the `soft' resource limit
-H use the `hard' resource limit
-a all current limits are reported
-c the maximum size of core files created
-d the maximum size of a process's data segment
-f the maximum size of files created by the shell
-l the maximum size a process may lock into memory
-m the maximum resident set size
-n the maximum number of open file descriptors
-p the pipe buffer size
-s the maximum stack size
-t the maximum amount of cpu time in seconds
-u the maximum number of user processes
-v the size of virtual memory
If LIMIT is given, it is the new value of the specified resource. Otherwise, the current value of the specified resource is printed. If no option is given, then -f is assumed. Values are in 1024-byte increments, except for -t, which is in seconds, -p, which is in increments of 512 bytes, and -u, which is an unscaled number of processes.
The ACLU defends the rights of individual citizens to exercise their right to religious speech in their private lives. For instance, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Lafayette-Parish school board in Louisiana because it's dress code violated the religious beliefs of Rastafarian Children. The ACLU also worked to pass the Religious Freedom Bill of 2000 which helped protect an individual's right to worship.
The ACLU is opposed to government sponsored religion and government restrictions on religion. How more pro religion can you get?
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control because they believe that the 2nd Amendment refers to the rights of individual states to maintain individual militias. The ACLU also believes that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.For more information, see the ACLU's position paper online.
Ok, I don't even know where this one came from. The ACLU is opposed to all forms of capital punishment and the practice of capital punishment. Aside from the fact that it is a cruel and unusual form of punishment (in violation of the Eighth Amendment), it is also applied disproportionately to minorities and the poor.There is a whole section on their website about this.
Obviously this is patently untrue. The ACLU supports civil rights for all Americans regardless of race, creed, gender, religion, political affiliation or sexual orientation. You're referring to the ACLU's support of Affirmative Action, which is something quite different. I won't try to convince you why Affirmative Action is a good thing, but I'll just say this: there are hundreds of other forms of non-race-based Affirmative Action that take place every day. Things like networking, and knowing a friend of a friend. Things like being in a certain fraternity or going to a certain business school or belonging to a certain society. Nothing can stop these little forms of Affirmative Action from taking place, so the only solution we have to make hiring and school admissions more racially equitable is to introduce one more element into the equation. And contrary to popular belief, Affirmative Action does not deny qualified people access to jobs or schools.For more, please see the ACLU's section on Racial Equality.
In addition to being a card carrying member of the ACLU, I am also a member of the EFF. I wouldn't pick one over the other because they are both important to civil rights online and offline.
Sony isn't selling you a PC. They're selling a set top box. They didn't choose Linux because they hate MS (what OS comes preinstalled on VAIO?) they chose Linux because of technical and financial considerations. If they sold you a box and said, "Ok, now go install your OS and your PVR software," then no one would buy it.
Obviously you can hack the device and put on whatever OS you want. But that's not Sony's concern.
The GATOS project is very mature and all the Linux video drivers and TV capture features work flawlessly.
Combine that with a 120G harddrive and I never need to remember to set the VCR to record West Wing! :)
Or is there some reason for putting radio navigation receiving equipment in the passenger cabin?
The host of the mp3 site isn't too bright. Sure the site may be located in China, but they have actual Amazon.com referrer-ids for the "Buy this Album" link. The MPAA can't get you if you're in China, but they can get your referrer fees from a US based corporation. :-D
Some Open Source detractors say that peer code review is a myth and that no one has the time to do it anyway. The government has full time programmers who can and do audit internal software. They can audit OSS just as well. It is negligent to wait for your proprietary software manufacturer to release "HotFix #9182" when you can fix the bug yourself (especially if it exposes risks to national security).
So for vital government computer systems, using open source is a matter of national security. As for the bureacratic offices -- it's true they don't "need" OSS.
Almost every graphical web browser's User-Agent string starts with "Mozilla/4.0". So unless they go after Opera, AOL and Microsoft, then they aren't adequately defending their trademark -- hence they no longer own exclusive rights to the trademark.
HeroineWarrior knows that it's using esoteric libraries, they even say so:
And who's to say that library changes and improvements don't make it back upstream? Programmers don't live in a vacuum -- otherwise they wouldn't be using outside libraries to begin with.Aside from that the code is full GPL, so it's not stealing if the source (and any library changes are distributed when the binary is distributed). So if you want to redistribute a more difficult to install version (without restriction) -- you can! Not only that but you can personally fork the project and start developing it as you see fit. The GPL gives you those rights. The authors of Cinelerra are just trying to minimize the difficulty that people may experience with installing the software while trying to share something they think other people will find useful.
And it's free! You don't HAVE to accept gift-horses, you know.
A number of spam filters and spam blocking agents will mark a message as SPAM if it is only Bcc'd or CC'd. If you're going to Bcc -- at least make sure you have 1 To recipient else you may end up in the SPAM Folder.
You're using Mozilla, and that splash screen has been there for the past year.
If you want the "Professional browser" then you're looking for Netscape 7 (with ad-branding and all).
The Mozilla project went out of their way to allow you to mod the splash screen (like you did) so let's not go nuts and claim that the browser is unprofessional because the splash screen isn't "pretty enough".
I can't help but laugh at the irony of the poster calling American manufacturers lazy for not putting knock-knock jokes in their product manuals to get the lazy American CONSUMER to RTFM. ;)
- Notify them in writing. If you write (a letter, not an e-mail) to the billing address and say you want to cancel the service, then they (and you) have written, legal proof of your request to cancel. So you have the law on your side when it comes to step #2.
- Call your credit card company. Tell them that
you have written the company asking to stop billing you, and instruct your bank to block any future charges from them.
I'm not claiming that this is the easiest thing to do or that it makes for good customer service on the part of ISPs. Many ISPs won't make you jump through these hoops (as a tech with my former employer, we could all cancel accounts, all we had to do was click "Cancel" -- and we didn't ask for a reason). But there is no way they can refute your intent to cancel if you've requested it in writing.What about underhanded tactics like forcing OEMs to sign deals requiring them to buy a copy of your operating system for every PC they ship (even if they're selling it without an OS). What about embracing and extending an API so that you break the protocol and make your programs no longer interoperate with the competition? What about releasing updates to "components" of your operating system so users can't locate your competitors websites?!
This isn't die-hard, winner takes all competition. This is normal, everyday, non-monopolistic competition.
Not to mention possible fines or jail time if the company slips up and misses one? It's too big a risk. Blackhole-ing Pennsylvania may be the only option. Plus, after 1 day without internet access, the legislature will probably repeal the law.
This isn't to say advertising is the end all be all -- because, honestly, it's not. Some advertising is pure crap (like the flashing "You've got 1 new message" ad -- annoying as all hell and I'm just glad Mozilla has a "max_animation_repeat" option). The kinds of ads that try to deceive people just end up pissing people off -- and sure they get their CPM numbers, but if they're deceptive in their advertising, what's to say they're not deceptive in their business practices?
I'm not knocking the subscription idea, I think it's a really good one. Some people truly hate online advertising and some even have enough chutzpah to put their money where their mouth is.
My point is that I'm choosing to stay with the giant-ad sized slashdot because I actually find slashdot's ads useful (except for the VisualStudio crap). And no, I'm not using Mozilla's image blocking to hide the ads. Good luck with the subscription site, I'm sure you'll do well!
Actually I have. But my point is that EAX is an extension to the AX register because the x86 was originally designed as a 16 bit processor. The 32 bit math was just a kludge extension. Hence "E-AX".
To anyone who's coded in Assembly, MIPS is pure beauty.
The entire ISA is minimized so as to accomplish most operations in the fewest clock ticks (duh -- it's RISC). But after dealing with the crappy x86 design, it is so refreshing to deal with a logical and straightforward architecture such as MIPS. No messing with ES or DS pointers, just simple, general purpose registers. And don't get me started on the "extended" register size kludge in x86 (EAX -- what the hell?). MIPS doesn't have such baggage.
I've coded for SPARCs, I coded for Motorola's 68k and 68HC processors. But nothing beats MIPS in terms of power from simplicity.
Anna says:
See you at Masenko-Media!
Only 5 years ago, a great many people would have e-mailed flame after flame to the DOJ against Microsoft; founded not on evidence or logic, but on emotional, personal opinion. But thanks to PR awareness and education in the community, more people can cite specific evidence or examples of Microsoft's illegal behavior, and make rational, well-formed arguments on how Microsoft has damaged innovation, broken published protocols, APIs and standards and how they have illegally leveraged their market position to force out competitors.
Gone, or at least greatly diminished, are the zealots who write "M$ SUCKS!" Instead, people are more educated on the issue and can express their comments with supporting evidence in a calm, rational manner.
Despite these advances and compelling arguments, the US-DOJ still backed down on its position in the antitrust suit; but it can no longer be said that the majority of people who disapprove of Microsoft's business practices are "Anti-MS-Zealots."
Right on, slashdot. ;)
In theory, a true Peer-to-Peer file transfer network would exist in a decentralized fashion where you would never have to query a central host for routing or file availability. Napster requires you to route through one of the Napster servers for information. Even introducing Napigator still doesn't alter the Napster model because all it does is allow you to route through a different central host. It seems that all Napster did was integrate a search engine and nameserving into one element (coming from only one provider).
This isn't to knock the accomplishments of Napster, it was certainly an original idea to incorporate these areas and provide a GUI access client to boot. But it is apparent that Napster developers weren't all that revolutionary in their thinking either.
The suggestion of true P2P is revolutionary, and the perfect implementation (should it ever arrive) will also be revolutionary. But the Napster model is no different than everyone providing their MP3 list to a website who maintains a list of links on where to download MP3s. Napster simply automated this process. Napster is no more P2P than any TCP/IP connection not operated through a proxy.
Is http P2P? I'm talking directly to another system, and there is no moderator/mediator. Normally, I have to find out about that system from a 3rd party (e.g. a search engine) -- just like someone obtains a list of links from Napster.
True, I'm being no better than the author of the original article; because I too am offering no solutions. I'm just holding out hope for true P2P in the future.
My folks live in MD, so I could go into the schools there when I'm visiting for the Holidays.
And I live in Seattle, so I'd be happy to go into the schools here any time.
Note to self: build auto-gpg-encryption into xP.