Self-siccing: While chiefly used in text that is not one's own, occasionally, a sic is included by a writer after his or her own word(s) to note that the language has been chosen deliberately, especially where a reader may naturally doubt the writer's intentions.[30] Bryan A. Garner dubbed this kind of siccing as the "ironic use,"...
Nonetheless, a writer's siccing of his or her own words may lead readers to confuse the source of the sic as being the book's editor and is often considered strange even when the sic's source is understood.
West's Encyclopaedia of Law ain't Oxford Shorter
Welcome to Slashdot - were some people check facts, especially selectively quoted ones.
Except if you read TFA you'll see the guy used Debian 1.3 which I believe is old enough to actually support a 386 OOTB. I have to agree with the other posters I don't see how this can be in any way called a "hack".
I did read the TFA. It's not what I'd call and impressive hack, and certainly not elegant. I suspect the writer is wrong about needing an older Debian (I've certainly installed Etch onto a 386-DX) - the laptop he used is too old to support booting an el Torrito CD, and definitely won't support the new hybrid d-i. But the non-hybrid d-i is available - I'd either use a floppy to initiate a 6.0.2 series debbootstrap network install - or pxe install using a romamatic image (I have a stash of Xircom RE100s). expert install acpi and dma off - select the low memory version at the extra modules screen. It's ugly and slow, and it's not "out of the box" (which would give you a gui install that wouldn't run in the amount of RAM he had). I certainly wouldn't have chosen a FAT file system - wtf was he thinking? As for all the fiddling with live CDs and ferrying things by floppy disk - three wires and some insulating tape would have got him a serial modem cable, with Tom's Root Boot on a floppy, that, and another linux machine (connected) by the null modem would have made the whole process pretty simple (without rebuilding the installer you need to type your boot parameters and append the preseed serial modem settings
What's next, an article about installing Win 95 on a Pentium I? Hell I have an old B&W G3 in the closet maybe I should write an article about installing an older PPC distro on it, get me some money from page views. I wouldn't even call it a "hack" to do what I'll probably do with it, which is install an AMD dual core in the case. This is just using an OS as it was intended on hardware it was designed for, nothing more.
:-D If it was a Classic Mac you could:- pull the guts out of it, seal up any holes, fill it with water and drop a gold fish in - call it a MacQuarium. Or do a variation of what I'd seen done - use it as a thin client. I was pretty impressed when I thought I saw a modern OS running on a Classic Mac in 256 shades of glorious gray - until I twigged it was just a thin client. People used to go to the restaurant just to watch Amarok on a Classic Mac.
Pretty sure the also declining HackaDay is owned by the same absentee landlords as Slashdot....
Actually, if I were to do something like this, I'd use LFS instead.
Maybe if you took the time to read TFA you wouldn't talk rubbish
Or better yet, cross-compile NetBSD for i386.
That has been done (FreeBSD installed on a 386-SX) but it was a while ago, and it was a *big* job.
I once got a 386 for free and installed Redhat on it back in 1998. It's not that big of a deal.
You installed it on a 386-SX?? Really? I've got early copies of RedHat if the floppy disk haven't died, and plenty of 386-DX boards - I'm betting, like the RedHat manual says, it won't install on an SX chipset.
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola.
Motorola sold its government business back in 2001.
You are correct - and most of there defence contracts expired in the early nineties. If you get to meet some of the Motorola engineers that worked on the original backpack phones you can ask them, don't expect an answer (hint: for Cooper and his team development was 2 parts inspiration and 10 parts "acquired" from Europe). Would you like a link to an undisputed source the "proves" the original work was that of duplicating the work of Philips and Nokia? It's in the same filing cabinet as the one showing who killed JFK. What you need is a document that says Motorola wasn't hired to develop - that they simply sold a product.
What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?
Are you being obtuse? Did I say it was hardware components? What technology has Motorola developed since the 90s that isn't based on their military work? Show me a single source of reliable information in the last 5 years of the mobile IP wars where Motorola has been talking about infringement of *hardware* patents. Feel free to do you own research - no reason you should trust mine. Look at the patents Motorola claims have been infringed (hint it's not hardware) - then look at the patent date (hint 1973). Nokia patented a lot of hardware, Motorola patented "ideas". Just do the patent search - it's not rocket science.
Just because companies pay Motorola royalties doesn't mean those companies are using Motorola technology - just means they have lawyers.
The question is why? When you can get much more processing power at less dollar and energy cost from installing Linux on a hacked/rooted old smart phone, ereader, and yes even router.
Because the same hardware that chugs with Win98SE running an antivirus and a decent firewall, even when NLited - but can be pretty responsive when running modern true-32-bit software. "Leverage new life out of old hardware with new software". This post is being made on an IBM T22 Thinkpad running Squeeze KDE. I don't have plasma effects or widgets enabled (nor do I want them). But this processor and 256MB of RAM won't run anything useful and modern using the software of it's era - for most tasks it's just as quick as my 6 month-old high-end 2GB RAM laptop - which runs Windoof 7. Except power on to useable is 8 seconds, shutdown is 5 seconds (guess which OS does that).
Disclaimer: once Windoof 7 has been around for a few more years there'll be more way to trim the fat - but I'll never have the ability to do that at source code level, and it's not in the companies interests to release performance patches.
By all means *you* go buy the latest hardware every year - if it does what you want, then more power to you. But if your 2GB of sub-light speed RAM, dual-core 64-bit 3GHz machine with it's SATA hdd can't do anything useful quicker than my sub 1GHz single-core 32-bit processor with 256MB of PC100 dragging an IDE drive.... hey you do the math - you help the economy, I'll watch my wallet and my power bill.
Though really it's just about building things - gives me more joy than acquiring things. Sad really.
Do you have any idea how long it would take to just compile kernel on 386sx and 4MB of memory? My guess would be something around 6-10 days and it would be almost impossible with 120MB HD. Oh, and i really would like to see how that old HD would bang swap partition while compiling with that amount of RAM:)
My grand-daughter loves my old laptop- it's an IBM Thinkpad 380D - it's Debian built from source but no way did I compile it on that machine.
Because it's not a DX chip (full 32-bit). It won't work "out of the box" and I've spent the last decade using apt, so I'll call it a hack. Looks a lot simpler than ELKS which is the only other way I know to achieve the same thing (early Windoof will run on the same chipset, but requires thunk layers)
From the Debian Installation manual:-
However, Debian GNU/Linux squeeze will not run on 386 or earlier processors. Despite the architecture name "i386", support for actual 80386 processors (and their clones) was dropped with the Sarge (r3.1) release of Debian[2]. (No version of Linux has ever supported the 286 or earlier chips in the series.)
I've managed to install to 386-DX chipsets with 4MB of RAM, but not the SX. Very impressive. Especially given the price I can pick up industrial single card 386-SX boards. Not of interest to gamers and such, but very, very useful non-the-less.
I don't think you understand what [sic] is for. When quoting someone and there's a typo in the original, [sic] tells the reader that it's not a typo introduced during the quoting. That the error is from the original source.
I do - do you know the difference between square brackets and round? If you're going to play grammar nazi learn the language first. HINT: a pictionary is not an authoritative guide to language. Get a guide not made from felt and read beyond the first sentence. If your lips get sore use a little lubricant.
that Apple developed many of the technologies used in Android. For instance, I recall "data detectors" being discussed at WWDC in the mid 1990s.
*cough* just after Apple's ex-Nokia staff built the PenMac *cough*
Given the state of development at the time, I would guestimate that they spent millions developing it.
Does Apple pay Xerox a royalty for a GUI? No. Did Apple invent touch screens?? Do you know why Apple's legal department canned the PenMac?
When finally introduced in the iPhone they represented a tremendous advance in usability terms.
Ah those famous wikipedia "opinion" standards - "tremendous" advance in "usability". Do you mean they made doing "things" cooler? Perhaps you meant more efficiently? No? Did the iPhone make using mobile phones simpler - or quicker?
Google simply copied this UI for Android. I don't blame them, as Apple set a bar they had to meet. But as Apple already had a patent and was using it in a shipping product, they must have known they were in violation.
That is your "belief" - it's certainly not a fact.
I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it.
Some people believe they are Napoleon - try not to confuse facts with beliefs.
I don't think they're targeting Android so much as other phone manufacturers. I think we'll see that most of Motorola's patents relate to phone hardware - they really haven't done much in the phone software space. They're talking about doing more of this to help make their phones stand out compared to other Android phones - either by driving up competitor's prices or forcing them to drop features. This is actually a fairly reasonable use of the patent system since Motorola actually makes phones using their patents - it isn't "trolling" as we usually discuss it here.
No - it's just double dipping. The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola. Motorola now sells the same components on the civilian market (as the restriction period has expired). They made a profit the first time around, the second time around they had zero development costs and they charged less for the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again. Shitting in the water supply.
Try using the same argument to defend Northrop if your model manufacturer has to pay them a patent fee for your toy helicopter. Fortunately Northrop only patented manufacturing processes. Things may have changed now.
If you still think your ideas are sound, go ask the inventor of graphene didn't patent it (or things that can be made with it) HINT: he had a chat to one of the Motorola lawyers.
Actually, mobile phone patents are one area where the patents indeed are very specific. Most of the oldest companies in the industry (Nokia especially) had to do significant amount of R&D to get the whole industry to where it's now. It's far from the likes of software patents - mobile phone patents are deserved and the companies that have them have spend billions to develop the technology. It's only fair that someone who wants to profit from that research pays some of the costs via patent licenses.
Patents for manufacturing processes are one thing (and I support them), patents for use of language (and ideas) are the tools of bandits. If Nokia wants to double dip and charge people who use their phone and charge people who don't use *their* phones or *their* components - then I'll call thuggery. But we're not talking about manufacturing processes with Nokia or Motorola - it's "idea" patents - which is banditry practised by big players over small players (bullying) - and ultimately bad for Business (shitting in the water supply). When Nokia's patents are for software that pays a royalty to the people and companies that wrote the code libraries, or compiler they where build with - and a royalty to every language they were based on - including the English language (why doesn't anyone think of Shakespeare's children?) then I 'll indulge you in your bullshit justifications. Until then I'll call them what they are - bullshit.
Your justifications smack of the sort of servile paganism that believes if they worship and pay tribute with words to the powers that be - then they too will share in those powers. It doesn't work with worshipping football teams or "stars" either. Of course you may hold large blocks of shares with one of those companies in which case you are protecting your interests and I unreservedly retract the accusation that you are no better than the cock-sucking thieving liars, thugs and bullies you defend.
P.S. Welcome to Slashdot. Today you're the new guy.
Seems like a win for Asian manufacturers to me, as if US based companies don't want to be successful.
They do - it's geographic location and patriotism that blinds people to the truth - business goes where the money is, when it's not in the US, then they (sic) cease to be American companies. Or they base themselves in Washington to avoid US tax, and spend money on killing off profitable mobile phone manufactures just to strip them of patents as a means of avoiding paying US tax on all their European earnings.
Our wonderful omniscient current production model already has moved manufacturing jobs to South East Asia. Following this strategy of software patents will very soon also move design and innovation abroad. Once it is done all there is left is ownership and royalties. The situation will eclipse as China has grown to be the most powerful nation, which is in 5-10 years.
This is like watching a bacteria culture in a bottle... from inside. Reminds me of the Einstein quote "I know not with what weapons world war 3 will be fought but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones".
Particularly as it's now Chinese companies that annually apply for the most patents - and mostly they're manufacturing patents not stupidity like "device for transferring voice" "idea for word processor". Ten years ago Nokia and Microsoft shares were a good investment. Not anymore. There's a good reason for that.
Google knew fully well what will happen. That's why they don't provide any shield against patents or license them. They took the wise (if slightly evil) route of just giving out as "free" and not mentioning that other companies have patents that affects anyone using Android. Companies stupidly believed the whole free hype and are only now starting to realize that they would actually need to pay something for Android. When you license a mobile OS from other provides, for example from Nokia or Microsoft, all the relevant patents to the OS are included within the deal, the costs are known upfront and it's just simpler. They can only blame themself for not seeing thru the Google marketing.
Thank you for freeing me from corporate oppression - I now realise Microsoft (and Facebook) are the bastions of democracy, and proponents for a new and better world. Until now I'd laboured under the delusion that the world was a complex place of many shades, where the young eat the old and that's how it should be - I now see the error of my way, and understand that the "old school" rules, and all issues are either black or white. No longer am I a turd in the herd blinded by marketing and obsequiously sucking dick in the deluded belief I'll imbibe the power of my idol. Never more will I falsely believe that Microsoft, Skype, and Nokia are separate companies.
Oh wait... all companies are in it for the money - all share holders screw over companies for the money - all politicians suck cock - and you, as you shill for free, are a dickhead.
If they didn't agree to the license in the first place... you're screwed. But if they did - screw them. Assuming you made a point of getting your employers approval in writing for the original license - tell them to give you a hefty pay rise or you'll move Richard Stallman and an aviary of his favourite parrots into the lobby, and introduce him to all the major clients as the new Sales Manager - then, take the money and get yourself a job with a future.
Ewebuntu (Debian is too hard) temporarily decided to rename a Gnome app which they do not develop to the same name as a KDE app which Ewebuntu do not either user of maintain (Kubuntu ain't Canonical).. Upstream decided for them. Like Phoronix has ever got things right.
Dear fanboi retards (default XFCE isn't light, just as default KDE or Gnome isn't either) and Microsoft shills - it's nothing to do with either Gnome (which I dislike) or KDE (which I do like), hence my use of "Ewebuntu".
I used to go to Slashdot to see what's new, then I came to see what happened last week, now I come only to see what didn't really happen....
--
There's only two industries who call their clients - users. There's only one group of industry clients that call themselves "users" (I couldn't think of any appropriate Bill Hicks quotes)
One thing Bill Gates never ever had is "strong engineering background and technical vision". He is an excellent strategist without even the smallest hint of a conscience.
From the moment he bought QDos from Seattle Technologies and onwards its been a technological disaster with all decisions taken with the aim of crushing competition. The tech has always been behind anything else in priority. Internet Explorer is an excellent example where the desire to kill Netscape lead to its integration into Windows, a decision people thought would only lead to problems at the time, something that still plagues Windows from a security standpoint.
I suggest reading up on third party accounts on what really happened since the Dos trials with Digital and onwards.
And why a plane was unable to land when someone's son was making an offer that changed everything? (sigh)
You try and change what you claimed. You are consistently wrong. You deny the truth.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Thinking is a cerebral activity. If your statements involved your brain - then your brain is damaged. Weaselly - "Devious; misleading; sneaky." - that's you all right.
Modern computers don't have any security. Yes, this includes Linux, which isolates users from each other (to some extent) but doesn't give a single user any way of isolating his processes from each other and data.
Almost forgot - SELinux and AppArmor can do what you asked for - separate processes from filesystem objects..
Modern computers don't have any security. Yes, this includes Linux, which isolates users from each other (to some extent) but doesn't give a single user any way of isolating his processes from each other and data.
Wrong about *nix, I'm not in a position to comment on Microsoft. But feel free to weasel your way out of incorrect sweeping statements. If I have to point you at the solutions it's because you've gone to considerable trouble to ignore them.
It's difficult to figure out what's happening in your system,
for you maybe - the rest of us have no problems. Be fucking hard to debug if we couldn't.
and it's impossible to roll back any changes, besides reformatting and restoring from a backup.
Even such basic functionality as letting a program change what it will, but only applying the changes only to said program's context - pretend-admin, in other words - is missing; you need to run a full virtual machine to get that.
More bullshit and gibberish. File system changes in a virtual machine are identical to those in the host. Doesn't matter whether either of them have access to a block device as a file system, or a file. And chroot?
Who said anything about resealing an acid-resistant, epoxy-lined, Pepsi can?? Pepsi cans are constructed to cope with pressure anyway.
>>And that's where I get stuck - trying to figure out what is profitable to smuggle into China. Milk products made from milk?
The one item that has a huge markup is gold. the spread is up to 20%, and small 5 gram bars have the largest mark-up
I hadn't considered that - just presumed it came in by train from the north... I also hadn't thought of messages, and things people want knockoffs made of.
NOTE: small gold beads are a very popular item at a certain Melbourne gold refinery....
Yea, there's an idea for eavesdropping, place a bug in a spot with a lot of general noise when operating and where few people have conversations. If they required that you put it on your dashboard and announce yourself first, then I'd start to wonder such things. If this is the best that Red China can come up with, well then, no wonder communism is on the wane.
All the 'spying' that they need is done just by being active and identifiable at specific points, like ezpass. Perhaps the thing was just built by a committee, or someone who wanted to sell extra parts, or had a large engineering margin. People get so worked up about the silliest of menudo, while the real suppression becomes 'old news' and accepted. Oddly all this does is make them far less capable of spying than the City of London (when if comes to cars, but I'm sure that they keep great records on people).
It seems unlikely it'd be used for mass spying - so much easier to use, say, fucking mobile phones! (sigh). But if you were trying to catch people who think the police listen in to their mobile phones anyway - like smugglers (who are right) - then it's probably a good idea (reasonable return on investment) but I suspect it would be targeted - not blanketed.
Test your sarcastic ideas against reality - when was the last time anyone ever got convicted on the basis of a in car recording device huh? It's trivial technology - or do you have to get out of your car for people to hear you talk?
The device sits inside your car - it mounts up near the rear vision mirror. ezpass tells you which pass goes through the border not what they say - it's also been broken hasn't it?. Audio is probably more practical than the current systems deployed in the US that supposedly determine guilt from gate and other characteristic - or the Russian automated loan application stress meters.
If the recording capability is real - there's still no reason to automatically think it's a Chinese intelligence operation - it could be a police or customs operation, and it might not be Chinese.
As for people not getting busted on the basic of what they say when approaching checkpoints - happens all the time on airplanes and trains.
What doesn't seem to have occurred to people is - it's not like someone opened the device and went - oh look it's electronic, that's suspicious. We've always known they were electronic. What's allegedly been discovered is they have hidden audio recording capability. Be a bit like you opening up your phone and finding a camera in it when it wasn't supposed to have one - you'd probably get a bit suss, but you might not automatically assume every phone had a camera hidden in it.
And it's a crap thread title - the technology isn't that interesting - it's appears to be off the shelf.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-siccing: While chiefly used in text that is not one's own, occasionally, a sic is included by a writer after his or her own word(s) to note that the language has been chosen deliberately, especially where a reader may naturally doubt the writer's intentions.[30] Bryan A. Garner dubbed this kind of siccing as the "ironic use," ...
Nonetheless, a writer's siccing of his or her own words may lead readers to confuse the source of the sic as being the book's editor and is often considered strange even when the sic's source is understood.
West's Encyclopaedia of Law ain't Oxford Shorter
Welcome to Slashdot - were some people check facts, especially selectively quoted ones.
Except if you read TFA you'll see the guy used Debian 1.3 which I believe is old enough to actually support a 386 OOTB. I have to agree with the other posters I don't see how this can be in any way called a "hack".
I did read the TFA. It's not what I'd call and impressive hack, and certainly not elegant. I suspect the writer is wrong about needing an older Debian (I've certainly installed Etch onto a 386-DX) - the laptop he used is too old to support booting an el Torrito CD, and definitely won't support the new hybrid d-i. But the non-hybrid d-i is available - I'd either use a floppy to initiate a 6.0.2 series debbootstrap network install - or pxe install using a romamatic image (I have a stash of Xircom RE100s). expert install acpi and dma off - select the low memory version at the extra modules screen. It's ugly and slow, and it's not "out of the box" (which would give you a gui install that wouldn't run in the amount of RAM he had). I certainly wouldn't have chosen a FAT file system - wtf was he thinking? As for all the fiddling with live CDs and ferrying things by floppy disk - three wires and some insulating tape would have got him a serial modem cable, with Tom's Root Boot on a floppy, that, and another linux machine (connected) by the null modem would have made the whole process pretty simple (without rebuilding the installer you need to type your boot parameters and append the preseed serial modem settings
What's next, an article about installing Win 95 on a Pentium I? Hell I have an old B&W G3 in the closet maybe I should write an article about installing an older PPC distro on it, get me some money from page views. I wouldn't even call it a "hack" to do what I'll probably do with it, which is install an AMD dual core in the case. This is just using an OS as it was intended on hardware it was designed for, nothing more.
:-D If it was a Classic Mac you could:- pull the guts out of it, seal up any holes, fill it with water and drop a gold fish in - call it a MacQuarium. Or do a variation of what I'd seen done - use it as a thin client. I was pretty impressed when I thought I saw a modern OS running on a Classic Mac in 256 shades of glorious gray - until I twigged it was just a thin client. People used to go to the restaurant just to watch Amarok on a Classic Mac.
Pretty sure the also declining HackaDay is owned by the same absentee landlords as Slashdot....
Actually, if I were to do something like this, I'd use LFS instead.
Maybe if you took the time to read TFA you wouldn't talk rubbish
Or better yet, cross-compile NetBSD for i386.
That has been done (FreeBSD installed on a 386-SX) but it was a while ago, and it was a *big* job.
I once got a 386 for free and installed Redhat on it back in 1998. It's not that big of a deal.
You installed it on a 386-SX?? Really? I've got early copies of RedHat if the floppy disk haven't died, and plenty of 386-DX boards - I'm betting, like the RedHat manual says, it won't install on an SX chipset.
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola.
Motorola sold its government business back in 2001.
You are correct - and most of there defence contracts expired in the early nineties. If you get to meet some of the Motorola engineers that worked on the original backpack phones you can ask them, don't expect an answer (hint: for Cooper and his team development was 2 parts inspiration and 10 parts "acquired" from Europe). Would you like a link to an undisputed source the "proves" the original work was that of duplicating the work of Philips and Nokia? It's in the same filing cabinet as the one showing who killed JFK. What you need is a document that says Motorola wasn't hired to develop - that they simply sold a product.
What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?
Are you being obtuse? Did I say it was hardware components? What technology has Motorola developed since the 90s that isn't based on their military work? Show me a single source of reliable information in the last 5 years of the mobile IP wars where Motorola has been talking about infringement of *hardware* patents. Feel free to do you own research - no reason you should trust mine. Look at the patents Motorola claims have been infringed (hint it's not hardware) - then look at the patent date (hint 1973). Nokia patented a lot of hardware, Motorola patented "ideas". Just do the patent search - it's not rocket science.
Just because companies pay Motorola royalties doesn't mean those companies are using Motorola technology - just means they have lawyers.
The question is why? When you can get much more processing power at less dollar and energy cost from installing Linux on a hacked/rooted old smart phone, ereader, and yes even router.
Because the same hardware that chugs with Win98SE running an antivirus and a decent firewall, even when NLited - but can be pretty responsive when running modern true-32-bit software. "Leverage new life out of old hardware with new software". This post is being made on an IBM T22 Thinkpad running Squeeze KDE. I don't have plasma effects or widgets enabled (nor do I want them). But this processor and 256MB of RAM won't run anything useful and modern using the software of it's era - for most tasks it's just as quick as my 6 month-old high-end 2GB RAM laptop - which runs Windoof 7. Except power on to useable is 8 seconds, shutdown is 5 seconds (guess which OS does that).
Disclaimer: once Windoof 7 has been around for a few more years there'll be more way to trim the fat - but I'll never have the ability to do that at source code level, and it's not in the companies interests to release performance patches.
By all means *you* go buy the latest hardware every year - if it does what you want, then more power to you. But if your 2GB of sub-light speed RAM, dual-core 64-bit 3GHz machine with it's SATA hdd can't do anything useful quicker than my sub 1GHz single-core 32-bit processor with 256MB of PC100 dragging an IDE drive.... hey you do the math - you help the economy, I'll watch my wallet and my power bill.
Though really it's just about building things - gives me more joy than acquiring things.
Sad really.
Do you have any idea how long it would take to just compile kernel on 386sx and 4MB of memory? My guess would be something around 6-10 days and it would be almost impossible with 120MB HD. Oh, and i really would like to see how that old HD would bang swap partition while compiling with that amount of RAM :)
My grand-daughter loves my old laptop- it's an IBM Thinkpad 380D - it's Debian built from source but no way did I compile it on that machine.
Why a hack?
Because it's not a DX chip (full 32-bit). It won't work "out of the box" and I've spent the last decade using apt, so I'll call it a hack. Looks a lot simpler than ELKS which is the only other way I know to achieve the same thing (early Windoof will run on the same chipset, but requires thunk layers)
From the Debian Installation manual:-
However, Debian GNU/Linux squeeze will not run on 386 or earlier processors. Despite the architecture name "i386", support for actual 80386 processors (and their clones) was dropped with the Sarge (r3.1) release of Debian[2]. (No version of Linux has ever supported the 286 or earlier chips in the series.)
I've managed to install to 386-DX chipsets with 4MB of RAM, but not the SX. Very impressive. Especially given the price I can pick up industrial single card 386-SX boards. Not of interest to gamers and such, but very, very useful non-the-less.
Let us use more appropriate words for the definitions.
OK ;-p
First Microsoft, now Motorola, there's only so much milk you can can squeeze from that potato....
I don't think you understand what [sic] is for. When quoting someone and there's a typo in the original, [sic] tells the reader that it's not a typo introduced during the quoting. That the error is from the original source.
I do - do you know the difference between square brackets and round? If you're going to play grammar nazi learn the language first. HINT: a pictionary is not an authoritative guide to language. Get a guide not made from felt and read beyond the first sentence. If your lips get sore use a little lubricant.
Except for the fact
Citation needed.
that Apple developed many of the technologies used in Android. For instance, I recall "data detectors" being discussed at WWDC in the mid 1990s.
*cough* just after Apple's ex-Nokia staff built the PenMac *cough*
Given the state of development at the time, I would guestimate that they spent millions developing it.
Does Apple pay Xerox a royalty for a GUI? No. Did Apple invent touch screens?? Do you know why Apple's legal department canned the PenMac?
When finally introduced in the iPhone they represented a tremendous advance in usability terms.
Ah those famous wikipedia "opinion" standards - "tremendous" advance in "usability". Do you mean they made doing "things" cooler? Perhaps you meant more efficiently? No? Did the iPhone make using mobile phones simpler - or quicker?
Google simply copied this UI for Android. I don't blame them, as Apple set a bar they had to meet. But as Apple already had a patent and was using it in a shipping product, they must have known they were in violation.
That is your "belief" - it's certainly not a fact.
I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it.
Some people believe they are Napoleon - try not to confuse facts with beliefs.
I don't think they're targeting Android so much as other phone manufacturers. I think we'll see that most of Motorola's patents relate to phone hardware - they really haven't done much in the phone software space. They're talking about doing more of this to help make their phones stand out compared to other Android phones - either by driving up competitor's prices or forcing them to drop features. This is actually a fairly reasonable use of the patent system since Motorola actually makes phones using their patents - it isn't "trolling" as we usually discuss it here.
No - it's just double dipping. The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola. Motorola now sells the same components on the civilian market (as the restriction period has expired). They made a profit the first time around, the second time around they had zero development costs and they charged less for the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again. Shitting in the water supply.
Try using the same argument to defend Northrop if your model manufacturer has to pay them a patent fee for your toy helicopter. Fortunately Northrop only patented manufacturing processes. Things may have changed now.
If you still think your ideas are sound, go ask the inventor of graphene didn't patent it (or things that can be made with it) HINT: he had a chat to one of the Motorola lawyers.
Actually, mobile phone patents are one area where the patents indeed are very specific. Most of the oldest companies in the industry (Nokia especially) had to do significant amount of R&D to get the whole industry to where it's now. It's far from the likes of software patents - mobile phone patents are deserved and the companies that have them have spend billions to develop the technology. It's only fair that someone who wants to profit from that research pays some of the costs via patent licenses.
Patents for manufacturing processes are one thing (and I support them), patents for use of language (and ideas) are the tools of bandits. If Nokia wants to double dip and charge people who use their phone and charge people who don't use *their* phones or *their* components - then I'll call thuggery. But we're not talking about manufacturing processes with Nokia or Motorola - it's "idea" patents - which is banditry practised by big players over small players (bullying) - and ultimately bad for Business (shitting in the water supply). When Nokia's patents are for software that pays a royalty to the people and companies that wrote the code libraries, or compiler they where build with - and a royalty to every language they were based on - including the English language (why doesn't anyone think of Shakespeare's children?) then I 'll indulge you in your bullshit justifications. Until then I'll call them what they are - bullshit.
Your justifications smack of the sort of servile paganism that believes if they worship and pay tribute with words to the powers that be - then they too will share in those powers. It doesn't work with worshipping football teams or "stars" either. Of course you may hold large blocks of shares with one of those companies in which case you are protecting your interests and I unreservedly retract the accusation that you are no better than the cock-sucking thieving liars, thugs and bullies you defend.
P.S. Welcome to Slashdot. Today you're the new guy.
Seems like a win for Asian manufacturers to me, as if US based companies don't want to be successful.
They do - it's geographic location and patriotism that blinds people to the truth - business goes where the money is, when it's not in the US, then they (sic) cease to be American companies. Or they base themselves in Washington to avoid US tax, and spend money on killing off profitable mobile phone manufactures just to strip them of patents as a means of avoiding paying US tax on all their European earnings.
Our wonderful omniscient current production model already has moved manufacturing jobs to South East Asia. Following this strategy of software patents will very soon also move design and innovation abroad. Once it is done all there is left is ownership and royalties. The situation will eclipse as China has grown to be the most powerful nation, which is in 5-10 years.
This is like watching a bacteria culture in a bottle... from inside. Reminds me of the Einstein quote "I know not with what weapons world war 3 will be fought but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones".
Particularly as it's now Chinese companies that annually apply for the most patents - and mostly they're manufacturing patents not stupidity like "device for transferring voice" "idea for word processor". Ten years ago Nokia and Microsoft shares were a good investment. Not anymore. There's a good reason for that.
Google knew fully well what will happen. That's why they don't provide any shield against patents or license them. They took the wise (if slightly evil) route of just giving out as "free" and not mentioning that other companies have patents that affects anyone using Android. Companies stupidly believed the whole free hype and are only now starting to realize that they would actually need to pay something for Android. When you license a mobile OS from other provides, for example from Nokia or Microsoft, all the relevant patents to the OS are included within the deal, the costs are known upfront and it's just simpler. They can only blame themself for not seeing thru the Google marketing.
Thank you for freeing me from corporate oppression - I now realise Microsoft (and Facebook) are the bastions of democracy, and proponents for a new and better world. Until now I'd laboured under the delusion that the world was a complex place of many shades, where the young eat the old and that's how it should be - I now see the error of my way, and understand that the "old school" rules, and all issues are either black or white. No longer am I a turd in the herd blinded by marketing and obsequiously sucking dick in the deluded belief I'll imbibe the power of my idol. Never more will I falsely believe that Microsoft, Skype, and Nokia are separate companies.
Oh wait... all companies are in it for the money - all share holders screw over companies for the money - all politicians suck cock - and you, as you shill for free, are a dickhead.
If they didn't agree to the license in the first place... you're screwed. But if they did - screw them. Assuming you made a point of getting your employers approval in writing for the original license - tell them to give you a hefty pay rise or you'll move Richard Stallman and an aviary of his favourite parrots into the lobby, and introduce him to all the major clients as the new Sales Manager - then, take the money and get yourself a job with a future.
Seriously.
Ewebuntu (Debian is too hard) temporarily decided to rename a Gnome app which they do not develop to the same name as a KDE app which Ewebuntu do not either user of maintain (Kubuntu ain't Canonical).. Upstream decided for them. Like Phoronix has ever got things right.
Dear fanboi retards (default XFCE isn't light, just as default KDE or Gnome isn't either) and Microsoft shills - it's nothing to do with either Gnome (which I dislike) or KDE (which I do like), hence my use of "Ewebuntu".
I used to go to Slashdot to see what's new, then I came to see what happened last week, now I come only to see what didn't really happen....
--
There's only two industries who call their clients - users. There's only one group of industry clients that call themselves "users" (I couldn't think of any appropriate Bill Hicks quotes)
And we're also *this close* to winning the war on drugs...
Meanwhile - the people on drugs are winning(?)
One thing Bill Gates never ever had is "strong engineering background and technical vision". He is an excellent strategist without even the smallest hint of a conscience.
From the moment he bought QDos from Seattle Technologies and onwards its been a technological disaster with all decisions taken with the aim of crushing competition. The tech has always been behind anything else in priority. Internet Explorer is an excellent example where the desire to kill Netscape lead to its integration into Windows, a decision people thought would only lead to problems at the time, something that still plagues Windows from a security standpoint.
I suggest reading up on third party accounts on what really happened since the Dos trials with Digital and onwards.
And why a plane was unable to land when someone's son was making an offer that changed everything? (sigh)
For most people.
You try and change what you claimed. You are consistently wrong. You deny the truth.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Thinking is a cerebral activity. If your statements involved your brain - then your brain is damaged. Weaselly - "Devious; misleading; sneaky." - that's you all right.
Modern computers don't have any security. Yes, this includes Linux, which isolates users from each other (to some extent) but doesn't give a single user any way of isolating his processes from each other and data.
Almost forgot - SELinux and AppArmor can do what you asked for - separate processes from filesystem objects..
grsecurity - even finer grained control.
Modern computers don't have any security. Yes, this includes Linux, which isolates users from each other (to some extent) but doesn't give a single user any way of isolating his processes from each other and data.
Wrong about *nix, I'm not in a position to comment on Microsoft. But feel free to weasel your way out of incorrect sweeping statements. If I have to point you at the solutions it's because you've gone to considerable trouble to ignore them.
It's difficult to figure out what's happening in your system,
for you maybe - the rest of us have no problems. Be fucking hard to debug if we couldn't.
and it's impossible to roll back any changes, besides reformatting and restoring from a backup.
More bullshit. Squashfs, unionfs, and others. Are you trying to say Restore Points© are the solution? (hint - them's backups). If you need to reformat to restore from backup it's no wonder you come up with such weaselly statements.
Even such basic functionality as letting a program change what it will, but only applying the changes only to said program's context - pretend-admin, in other words - is missing; you need to run a full virtual machine to get that.
More bullshit and gibberish. File system changes in a virtual machine are identical to those in the host. Doesn't matter whether either of them have access to a block device as a file system, or a file. And chroot?
Who said anything about resealing an acid-resistant, epoxy-lined, Pepsi can?? Pepsi cans are constructed to cope with pressure anyway.
Lots of things are very profitable to smuggle in to China. Foreign cigarettes are a big one.
Brought in by the boat/ship load from the south, and the train load from the north. Old tea/opium routes never die!
>>And that's where I get stuck - trying to figure out what is profitable to smuggle into China. Milk products made from milk?
The one item that has a huge markup is gold. the spread is up to 20%, and small 5 gram bars have the largest mark-up
I hadn't considered that - just presumed it came in by train from the north... I also hadn't thought of messages, and things people want knockoffs made of.
NOTE: small gold beads are a very popular item at a certain Melbourne gold refinery....
Yea, there's an idea for eavesdropping, place a bug in a spot with a lot of general noise when operating and where few people have conversations. If they required that you put it on your dashboard and announce yourself first, then I'd start to wonder such things. If this is the best that Red China can come up with, well then, no wonder communism is on the wane.
All the 'spying' that they need is done just by being active and identifiable at specific points, like ezpass. Perhaps the thing was just built by a committee, or someone who wanted to sell extra parts, or had a large engineering margin. People get so worked up about the silliest of menudo, while the real suppression becomes 'old news' and accepted. Oddly all this does is make them far less capable of spying than the City of London (when if comes to cars, but I'm sure that they keep great records on people).
It seems unlikely it'd be used for mass spying - so much easier to use, say, fucking mobile phones! (sigh). But if you were trying to catch people who think the police listen in to their mobile phones anyway - like smugglers (who are right) - then it's probably a good idea (reasonable return on investment) but I suspect it would be targeted - not blanketed.
Test your sarcastic ideas against reality - when was the last time anyone ever got convicted on the basis of a in car recording device huh? It's trivial technology - or do you have to get out of your car for people to hear you talk?
The device sits inside your car - it mounts up near the rear vision mirror. ezpass tells you which pass goes through the border not what they say - it's also been broken hasn't it?. Audio is probably more practical than the current systems deployed in the US that supposedly determine guilt from gate and other characteristic - or the Russian automated loan application stress meters.
If the recording capability is real - there's still no reason to automatically think it's a Chinese intelligence operation - it could be a police or customs operation, and it might not be Chinese.
As for people not getting busted on the basic of what they say when approaching checkpoints - happens all the time on airplanes and trains.
What doesn't seem to have occurred to people is - it's not like someone opened the device and went - oh look it's electronic, that's suspicious. We've always known they were electronic. What's allegedly been discovered is they have hidden audio recording capability. Be a bit like you opening up your phone and finding a camera in it when it wasn't supposed to have one - you'd probably get a bit suss, but you might not automatically assume every phone had a camera hidden in it.
And it's a crap thread title - the technology isn't that interesting - it's appears to be off the shelf.