So why didn't Intel do this?
on
AMD64 Preview
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Basically, you're saying that this is an important incremental improvement over previous x86 processors. Which describes every new x86 processor right back to the 8088. So you have to ask: why did Intel abandon the incremental approach with the Itanium? It's locked them in as the dominant CPU maker since forever.
I agree with you on every point, but one of your points needs further elaboration.
It might seem strange that a cheap router could provide such high level of security. It's effective for the same reason that it's cheap: the technology is very simple. Machines on the local network can open connections to remote machines, but no remote machine can access a local machine. In fact, remote machines can't even address local machines -- the network IP addresses are meaningless outside the local network. This is fundamentally more effective than all the complicated, expensive "firewall" solutions.
Of course, this doesn't meet everybody's needs. Some people have to have remote access to the local machine, or support P2P. But my experience with routers that isolate you from the internet at large makes me more than willing to give up a few network features.
I'm actually talking more from my experience with company networks than with these cheap routers. But the principle is the same. When you access the internet through a firewall proxy, you can only do things the proxy lets you do. And in a security conscious company, that is usually not much. While on a private network, there's nothing to stop you from opening any kind of connection you want.
No, Atari Games was the original operation -- Atari started out as an arcade game company, then branched out into consumer electronics. Time Warner spun off the consumer division as Atari Computer.
Strictly freelance. But very lucrative, because there are so many idiots who just have to keep trying to get in the last word, long after they've run out of actual things to say.
I was just wondering why SCO hasn't been sued under RICO. It's the same type of thing, isn't it?
I think this is kind of different from previous RICO suits. The classic RICO case is where some gangster demands payments in exchange for "protecting" somebody from "accidents". That's been extended into situations where political extremists who have advocated violence have faced RICO suits by the victims of that violence. But you're still talking about intimidating somebody with illegal acts.
In this suit, they appear to be saying that misuse of the civil justice system is also a form of extortion. Well, in a moral sense, that's obviously true. But that doesn't mean that the courts will automatically agree that DirecTV and/or SCO are covered by the RICO statute. Whoever's backing this suit has to risk a lot of money on a legal theory that has yet to be proven.
If you think SCO deserves a RICO suit, go ahead and sue them. It's not cheap, though.
Actually, it was more like a merger. I think that the Tramiels saw how PCs were squeezing out competing platforms (strange to remember how many there were: Amiga, Commodore, TI, Acorn... and that's just in the consumer market), and it was time to switch to businesses. Not the first computer company to do that: Data General also became a storage vendor, Control Data became an integrator...
And I think the old Atari Arcade division (called Midway West when it was finally shut down this year) also has some claim to Atari history. They stopped using the name, but it was Bushnell's original business, and they carried on for a long time.
I basically agree with your rant, but I have to pick one little nit: Infogrammes didn't buy Atari, they bought Hasbro Interactive, which had previously bought the Atari name from JTS, which had merged with Atari Computer, which was created when Warner spun off Atari's consumer division. There was also Atari's arcade division, which they renamed Time-Warner Interactive, and which eventually became Midway West, which is (I think) the division Midway shut down last May.
I guess Atari Computer has the biggest claim to being "the" Atari, since they used the name the longest. On the other hand, they seem to have been more or less moribund for about a decade. And Midway West carried on Atari's original business for much longer -- except for not using the name, they really did more "Atari stuff" than anybody.
No, Atari disappeared a long time ago. Exactly when is hard to pin down -- the history is convoluted. The current Atari is just a French video game company that acquired the name pretty much by accident when they bought up Hasbro Interactive.
My company took over Atari's building on North First Street in San Jose. There was a whiteboard that still had a project status for porting various well-known arcade games to Apple, C64, etc. Very melancholy.
I find that hard to believe. Certainly not for the first season or so. Maybe for the last two seasons. I'm told that UPN paid so much to steal Buffy that it guaranteed they'd never make a profit.
Ever read the shooting scripts for Buffy? (Can't give a link, the lawyers seem to have caught up with studiesinwords.de.) The ones written by Whedon have lots of little bitches and moans about budget constraints. A fight will be described as "Fyte! (And if we have the money, Fyte! Fyte! Fyte!)" Or he'll complain that he has to have Buffy meet Joyce between the top of the stairs and Joyce's bedroom, even though they don't have an actual set for either. My favorite is in the description of the big hell-factory set for "Anne", which ends by mentioning that the Line Producer is huddled in one corner, rendered catatonic at the expenditure of his entire set budget in one episode!
No lie. The spaceship set was a full scale mockup. And don't forget the CGI costs.
Somebody else mentioned that the omnilovable Raymond gets $1M per ep. But that's certainly the biggest single item in their budget. I don't know all the figures, but I'd guess that even with an overpaid star, ELR costs less to make than half a Firefly episode.
Well, his network might be set up so that 0 is the broadcast address. Anyway, I'd bet there aren't any network administrator, as such. Doesn't sound like a network under central control. For one thing, an administrator would have set up a DHCP server, rather than letting people pick their own IP addresses.
They did that by taking chances on stuff like Married with Children and the Simpsons. They're still taking those gambles. They gambled their future on the notion that people would actually watch "Joe Millionaire" or "American Idol", and they were right.
I once read an interview with the guys who created MwC. According to them, the network people gave them the same crap that destroys the originality in almost every creative or original TV show: "The characters should be more likeable. Al Bundy should have an interesting job." If they managed to get their concept on thei air, it's no thanks to anyone at Fox. Which, like all TV networks, has always been risk averse, and gets more so with time. If The Simpsons hadn't gotten good ratings from the very first episode, it'd been gone faster than you can say "Doooh!" And it sure as hell wouldn't have gotten on the air at all on the current Fox.
And those other shows you mention: "gambled the future"? Where have you been? These are reality shows. The genre's been popular for a long time, and they cost a pittance (by Hollywood standards) to produce. Especially American Idol which is just a retread of a British show.
I did think that Fox would give Firefly a decent change, mainly because Fox Entertainment is run by Gail Berman. Back when she was a studio person, she persuaded Whedon to turn Buffy into a TV series, and got him the backing to do it. But Buffy was relatively low-budget, and Firefly was very expensive indeed. I guess that made it a lot of enemies in the network, who begrudged the resources and air time for a show that would take a long time to find an audience, and that would probably not be profitable even when it did.
It's sort of ironic that Whedon's turning Firefly into a movie. He passed up a chance to direct Ironman because he thought that he could have more creative freedom with a TV series. But after watching Buffy's pathetic whinding-down (and re-watching older episodes enough times to see their flaws), I have to think he's better off doing stories that can be told in one sitting.
Not that it matters. I'm still a rabid fan, but I think Joss Whedon's 15 minutes is over. He tells good stories, but he sucks at the political and social negotiation you need to do to make a TV show or a movie.
I'll enter "10.0.0.0." when I just ment to enter "10.0.0.". You know the drill.
Well no, I don't. My mistakes tend to be more, well, cerebral. Like entering "168.192" or "129.186". That's why I like network 10. There's a ten in front? There's a 0.0 in the middle? Is the sequence number at the end correct? Then I got it right!
You've probably figured it out by now: I'm not an IT person.
Maybe the client works out of the box. But the last time I looked (some years ago, I admit), you couldn't have a Notes database without a Domino server. And the server is definitely not trivial to set up.
Sun has always needed an IDE to go with Java. First they tried to develop one in-house, which was a disaster. Then it seemed like they would surely buy either Symantec or Borland just for the sake of the IDE. But the Symantec IDE turned out to be a bomb. And I suspect that the thought of trying to digest Borland gave the Sun people nightmares. They finally ended up buying Forte, but that doesn't seem to have worked out.
Meanwhile, IBM has quietly pushed Eclipse. I keep getting the impression that IBM understands both the two relevent cultures (Java developers and open-source people) a lot better than Sun.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, you're saying that this is an important incremental improvement over previous x86 processors. Which describes every new x86 processor right back to the 8088. So you have to ask: why did Intel abandon the incremental approach with the Itanium? It's locked them in as the dominant CPU maker since forever.
It might seem strange that a cheap router could provide such high level of security. It's effective for the same reason that it's cheap: the technology is very simple. Machines on the local network can open connections to remote machines, but no remote machine can access a local machine. In fact, remote machines can't even address local machines -- the network IP addresses are meaningless outside the local network. This is fundamentally more effective than all the complicated, expensive "firewall" solutions.
Of course, this doesn't meet everybody's needs. Some people have to have remote access to the local machine, or support P2P. But my experience with routers that isolate you from the internet at large makes me more than willing to give up a few network features.
I'm actually talking more from my experience with company networks than with these cheap routers. But the principle is the same. When you access the internet through a firewall proxy, you can only do things the proxy lets you do. And in a security conscious company, that is usually not much. While on a private network, there's nothing to stop you from opening any kind of connection you want.
No, Atari Games was the original operation -- Atari started out as an arcade game company, then branched out into consumer electronics. Time Warner spun off the consumer division as Atari Computer.
Strictly freelance. But very lucrative, because there are so many idiots who just have to keep trying to get in the last word, long after they've run out of actual things to say.
Don't forget to save that text. It won't be the last time you need it!
No, I'd rather make my living suing people who post redundant crap on slashdot.
In this suit, they appear to be saying that misuse of the civil justice system is also a form of extortion. Well, in a moral sense, that's obviously true. But that doesn't mean that the courts will automatically agree that DirecTV and/or SCO are covered by the RICO statute. Whoever's backing this suit has to risk a lot of money on a legal theory that has yet to be proven.
If you think SCO deserves a RICO suit, go ahead and sue them. It's not cheap, though.
http://osr5doc.ca.caldera.com:457/NetConfigG/confi gparamsC.broadcast_address.html
And I think the old Atari Arcade division (called Midway West when it was finally shut down this year) also has some claim to Atari history. They stopped using the name, but it was Bushnell's original business, and they carried on for a long time.
I guess Atari Computer has the biggest claim to being "the" Atari, since they used the name the longest. On the other hand, they seem to have been more or less moribund for about a decade. And Midway West carried on Atari's original business for much longer -- except for not using the name, they really did more "Atari stuff" than anybody.
No, Atari disappeared a long time ago. Exactly when is hard to pin down -- the history is convoluted. The current Atari is just a French video game company that acquired the name pretty much by accident when they bought up Hasbro Interactive.
My company took over Atari's building on North First Street in San Jose. There was a whiteboard that still had a project status for porting various well-known arcade games to Apple, C64, etc. Very melancholy.
If you need Scotch to be a smartass, you're the only one on Slashdot!
OK, you're right. But that's the second time today I've had the gameshow thing thrown at me, and I do believe I'm tired of it! :(
Ever read the shooting scripts for Buffy? (Can't give a link, the lawyers seem to have caught up with studiesinwords.de.) The ones written by Whedon have lots of little bitches and moans about budget constraints. A fight will be described as "Fyte! (And if we have the money, Fyte! Fyte! Fyte!)" Or he'll complain that he has to have Buffy meet Joyce between the top of the stairs and Joyce's bedroom, even though they don't have an actual set for either. My favorite is in the description of the big hell-factory set for "Anne", which ends by mentioning that the Line Producer is huddled in one corner, rendered catatonic at the expenditure of his entire set budget in one episode!
Somebody else mentioned that the omnilovable Raymond gets $1M per ep. But that's certainly the biggest single item in their budget. I don't know all the figures, but I'd guess that even with an overpaid star, ELR costs less to make than half a Firefly episode.
Well, his network might be set up so that 0 is the broadcast address. Anyway, I'd bet there aren't any network administrator, as such. Doesn't sound like a network under central control. For one thing, an administrator would have set up a DHCP server, rather than letting people pick their own IP addresses.
And those other shows you mention: "gambled the future"? Where have you been? These are reality shows. The genre's been popular for a long time, and they cost a pittance (by Hollywood standards) to produce. Especially American Idol which is just a retread of a British show.
I did think that Fox would give Firefly a decent change, mainly because Fox Entertainment is run by Gail Berman. Back when she was a studio person, she persuaded Whedon to turn Buffy into a TV series, and got him the backing to do it. But Buffy was relatively low-budget, and Firefly was very expensive indeed. I guess that made it a lot of enemies in the network, who begrudged the resources and air time for a show that would take a long time to find an audience, and that would probably not be profitable even when it did.
It's sort of ironic that Whedon's turning Firefly into a movie. He passed up a chance to direct Ironman because he thought that he could have more creative freedom with a TV series. But after watching Buffy's pathetic whinding-down (and re-watching older episodes enough times to see their flaws), I have to think he's better off doing stories that can be told in one sitting.
Not that it matters. I'm still a rabid fan, but I think Joss Whedon's 15 minutes is over. He tells good stories, but he sucks at the political and social negotiation you need to do to make a TV show or a movie.
You've probably figured it out by now: I'm not an IT person.
Plus 10.*.*.* is easier to remember than the alternatives!
Yeah, and then it's just another email client, not an organizer.
You'll get another copy tomorrow!
Maybe the client works out of the box. But the last time I looked (some years ago, I admit), you couldn't have a Notes database without a Domino server. And the server is definitely not trivial to set up.
Meanwhile, IBM has quietly pushed Eclipse. I keep getting the impression that IBM understands both the two relevent cultures (Java developers and open-source people) a lot better than Sun.