Except that's the opposite behavior I would have expected... The shared caches should eliminate that problem. A different cache structure could have a negative effect on a hand tuned algorithm though.
There are two percieved (sic) problems with UPnP. 1) [...] 2)
3) static routes to ports are a limited resource, and with UPnP are susceptable to denial of service by anybody on your network (assuming you don't just plain run out of them, or multiple people on your network want to run the same application.
if the (buggy) software really needs an open port to function
You're the first person I've ever heard generically call listening on a port a bug. Do you even know how networks work? Obviously not. This one statement right there is undenable proof that nobody should listen to all the rest of the trash you're spewing. You have to understand the basics before you're granted a pass to sweat the details.
NAT routers effectively solves the problem of IPs running out, or atleast it's delayed the problem by a decade or so
That's bullshit. They have done one of two things, neither of which is good. They have either delayed the problem of IPs running out for an unspecified, very short amount of time between now and when the next killer app is developed that requires incoming connections, OR, they have prevented that program from becoming viable.
In summary, all NAT has done is reduced the functionality of the internet.
Seems more likely to be a scheduling issue to me...
Core 0 loads byte 1, Core 1 loads byte 2, Core 1 or Core 2 has a cache miss on the XOR...(Do the cores share a cache?) Or it could be a locking problem. XOR is very common, and it would surprise me if it was slower than on previous intel chips.
Microsoft's new portable audio and video player will have a screen that's "bigger than that of the iPod video" [...] and built-in WiFi
Translation: The Microsoft device will be bigger than the iPod, and have signifigantly lower battery life.
Of course, given that it's from Microsoft, I'm sure they'll take a cue from every other product they make, and give it a worst-in-class user interface to top things off.
I'm not sure what you think is funny, unless you're just laughing at me for not being completely clued in to asian languages... I don't think I needed any knowledge of them for my point to be valid though.
Moving in favor of spoken English won't help literacy. I suspect, albeit without proof, that such a move would hurt it.
At the very least it would hide the problem.
People with exceptionally poor spelling are frequently considered 'stupid'. The reason for this is subconsious. The majority of a person's spelling ability comes through exposure. In other words, the more you read, typically, the better you spell. So when we see somebody spell poorly we subconsiously assume that they are either very lazy, or have not had signifigant exposure to ideas.
Poor spelling is currently a litmus test for a person's level of education. Changing the way we spell would take that away. Some would argue that is a good thing because it would reduce discrimination based on educational background. I would argue it's a bad thing for exactly the same reason.
The English language is messed up and inconsistant and it needs to be fixed.
Right, so spelling things phonetically and increasing the ambiguity between similar sounding words is going to promote consistency? If anything it will produce inconsistency in interpretation.
I can see no good coming of an increased link between the spoken and written languages. If anything, I think the Asian languages are on to something. Spoken language should be convienient, and in informal settings, quick to evolve. Written language, however should be more static and favor disambiguity over consistancy due to the lack of inflection that speakers have available to them.
Any change to written language that would increase ambiguity is dumbing the language down practically by definition.
Luckily, sweeping changes to the way English is written will never happen. There will never be a consensus. Changes will continue as they have in the past: in small increments over generations.
Generally when somebody says their all-natural product 'compares favorably' to some chemical alternative, them mean that it works 'almost as well'. If it worked better, they'd be saying that it works better than DEET.
In my experience, DEET does absolutely nothing to repel biting insects from me. If this new stuff 'compares favorably' to DEET, I guess I have nothing to look forward to here.
It doesn't really have to work though... He just needs to put 'Organic' on the bottle, and people will buy it even if they have no clue what the hell is in there. They'll swear it works too.
Some day somebody will have to explain to me, without using an annotated dictionary, how tapping international phone calls is domestic wiretapping.
Regardless I have good reason to believe you are wrong, and that it wholesale tapping of domestic digital phone transmissions, and just about anything else that went over commercial frame relay, was the status quo as early as 1997.
At some point you have to pick a battle you can win. The chance that whitebox PC component vendors will start shipping x86 systems with OpenFirmware is practically nil. The chance that Microsoft would support those systems is even smaller.
The EFI battle, however, can be won. Microsoft already supports it on Itanium, and Intel has big developer bucks behind it. It's not the greatest thing ever, but it is a modern firmware, and we do stand a chance of getting it on most PCs. Even Apple, who used to use OpenFirmware, has adopted it on their machines. It's also a little more user friendly than OpenFirmware, and, unlike OpenFirmware, the implementation is free (as in beer) on intel platforms. (OF isn't free *anywhere*)
how can implementing a new program in February 2001 possibly be "maintaining the status quo?" You do know what "status quo" means, correct?
Yes, I do, and you don't. You see, when your government has a history of being on the cutting edge of eavesdropping technology, incorporating the latest and greatest is maintaining the status quo. Sitting around and not increasing surveilance would have been the opposite.
So... there's less information gathering because there's more information to be had?
Yes, as a percentage.
Were you born yesterday, or did you just flunk history?
Nope, but you must have. I'll pick an extreme example for you and say JFK... We've had many popular presidents.
Judging by the clueless anti-bush rhetoric you've just spouted, I'm sure you'd think you'd be the first to jump on the fact that Bush is currently one of the least popular sitting presidents we've ever had. You don't seem like the type that would have argued that point.
Who is "he", and how is maintaining the status quo "adding to the pile"?
It seems to me that our monitoring programs have actually shrunk in the last six years or so due to the massive increase in data that there is to monitor. When we were debating Echelon in the '90s, why do you think the NSA wasn't already doing it? Do you think the NSA funded all that Linux performance and scalability work they did out of the kindness of their hearts?
The reason we're finding out about this now instead of ten years ago is that for the first time since, well, pretty much ever, the vast majority of journalists and government employees don't like the current administration, and are working extra hard to dig up dirt.
Reality is much less important than the beliefs of the guy with the checkbook.
Also, just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Companies like Black Duck software are raking in the cash, as are practically every IP lawyer in the US. They charge $20,000 to perform an automated audit on 100MB of source code, and small developers are beating down their doors to use their tool because the lawyer they paid to make sure they had their asses covered told them it was a good idea.
You hear about BSA audits because the BSA is trying to make an example out of the targets. You never hear about internal audits, but they are happening in all sorts of places where they never would have been considered before. Everybody is afraid of being the target of the next SCO or NTP.
God forbid that Microsoft's gains could have been through some kind of effort on their part to increase their market share
I'm not intended to flame or start an argument, but do you have anything to actually back up those statements? It goes against my own assessment of the situation, and it sounds to me just like a lot of FUD.
I'm not going to claim to have done any expert studies or anything, but I think that the mere fact that Microsoft hasn't come out with a new version of their operating systems since this whole debacle started really casts doubt on your theory that they are gaining ground due to effort on their part... Unless you count their marketing department spreading FUD through the trade rags as effort anyway...
Given the plain fact that Microsoft's core technologies have been completely stagnant for the last four years, I really have to wonder how you came about your assessment of the situation.
I'm also unsure how you figure that claiming some company benefited from FUD is in itself, FUD.
You're not carrying on a conversation with the radio talk show host. Hopefully...
You're mentally engaged.
CB doesn't demand the immediacy that a cellphone does.
That's total BS. The cellphone only "demands immediacy" because people are morons and have their priorities screwed up.
You're beating around the bush though. The point is that people driving poorly while they're on their cell phone is a symptom of them being a poor driver in the first place, and not the other way around. A good driver wouldn't be on their cell phone if they couldn't handle making sure the road was their primary focus.
they're probably going to get pissed off with me if I suddenly go quiet because I'm trying to concentrate on not rearending the guy in front of me.
When it's somebody on the other end who has those expectiations, you should use good judgement and not answer the phone in the first place. Or pull over first.
This is exactly what I'm saying. Linux is still big in embedded products, but it is now losing ground in end-user deployments. For the most part, the only people considering deploying linux right now already have linux, or are putting in an appliance.
the passenger usually has the sense to shut up in dangerous situations.
The screaming kid in the back seat doesn't. The radio talkshow host doesn't.
Unlike driving drunk, driving on the phone is a skill that can be acquired through proper training and state of mind. It's rediculous to compare it to driving drunk. You can drop the phone and immediatly have your mind completely on the task of driving. The same is not true for alcohol or children. The problem isn't that people talk on the phone while they drive. The problem is that people don't know how to talk on the phone when they drive.
Go look at the safety record for truckers (all of whom use CB radios practically constantly) compared to your average moron who barely passed the driving test even if he's *not* on the phone. The real problem is that we don't insist that our drivers know how to drive before we let them on the road.
This case dealt a near fatal blow to end-user linux in business. Over the last two years Microsoft made previoulsy unimaginable gains in server market share, and they are using it to increase their desktop lock. The vast majority of IT managers, CIOs, CFOs, and corporate legal departments are scared to death of the GPL. The FUD is made even worse by lawyers cashing in on those fears by telling people they need to pay for costly audits and license reviews.
Yeah, but when they asked that analyst for his source, he introduced the interviewer to his bare ass. When they asked him for references, he was only able to point to one other published report where he said the MacBook Pro was going to be delayed until July 2006.
Technically, only the audio portion is covered, and since there was a posted notice, even that would be up for debate. See 570-A:1. Specifically the definitions for 'intercepted' and 'Oral Communication'.
It looks to me like it is both legal, *and* admissable, but it it up to a judge to determine if the cop had "an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception".
Certainly, everything on the tape *after* the cop was notified of the camera's existance is allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that's the opposite behavior I would have expected... The shared caches should eliminate that problem. A different cache structure could have a negative effect on a hand tuned algorithm though.
3) static routes to ports are a limited resource, and with UPnP are susceptable to denial of service by anybody on your network (assuming you don't just plain run out of them, or multiple people on your network want to run the same application.
You're the first person I've ever heard generically call listening on a port a bug. Do you even know how networks work? Obviously not. This one statement right there is undenable proof that nobody should listen to all the rest of the trash you're spewing. You have to understand the basics before you're granted a pass to sweat the details.
That's bullshit. They have done one of two things, neither of which is good. They have either delayed the problem of IPs running out for an unspecified, very short amount of time between now and when the next killer app is developed that requires incoming connections, OR, they have prevented that program from becoming viable.
In summary, all NAT has done is reduced the functionality of the internet.
Seems more likely to be a scheduling issue to me...
Core 0 loads byte 1, Core 1 loads byte 2, Core 1 or Core 2 has a cache miss on the XOR...(Do the cores share a cache?) Or it could be a locking problem. XOR is very common, and it would surprise me if it was slower than on previous intel chips.
Translation: The Microsoft device will be bigger than the iPod, and have signifigantly lower battery life.
Of course, given that it's from Microsoft, I'm sure they'll take a cue from every other product they make, and give it a worst-in-class user interface to top things off.
I'm not sure what you think is funny, unless you're just laughing at me for not being completely clued in to asian languages... I don't think I needed any knowledge of them for my point to be valid though.
Moving in favor of spoken English won't help literacy. I suspect, albeit without proof, that such a move would hurt it.
At the very least it would hide the problem.
People with exceptionally poor spelling are frequently considered 'stupid'. The reason for this is subconsious. The majority of a person's spelling ability comes through exposure. In other words, the more you read, typically, the better you spell. So when we see somebody spell poorly we subconsiously assume that they are either very lazy, or have not had signifigant exposure to ideas.
Poor spelling is currently a litmus test for a person's level of education. Changing the way we spell would take that away. Some would argue that is a good thing because it would reduce discrimination based on educational background. I would argue it's a bad thing for exactly the same reason.
The English language is messed up and inconsistant and it needs to be fixed.
Right, so spelling things phonetically and increasing the ambiguity between similar sounding words is going to promote consistency? If anything it will produce inconsistency in interpretation.
I can see no good coming of an increased link between the spoken and written languages. If anything, I think the Asian languages are on to something. Spoken language should be convienient, and in informal settings, quick to evolve. Written language, however should be more static and favor disambiguity over consistancy due to the lack of inflection that speakers have available to them.
Any change to written language that would increase ambiguity is dumbing the language down practically by definition.
Luckily, sweeping changes to the way English is written will never happen. There will never be a consensus. Changes will continue as they have in the past: in small increments over generations.
Bad luck. It has been shown that nothing is more effective for longer periods than DEET
I don't doubt that. However something about me means that if I'm around, nobody near me needs to worry about mosquitos.. They all bite me instead.
Generally when somebody says their all-natural product 'compares favorably' to some chemical alternative, them mean that it works 'almost as well'. If it worked better, they'd be saying that it works better than DEET.
In my experience, DEET does absolutely nothing to repel biting insects from me. If this new stuff 'compares favorably' to DEET, I guess I have nothing to look forward to here.
It doesn't really have to work though... He just needs to put 'Organic' on the bottle, and people will buy it even if they have no clue what the hell is in there. They'll swear it works too.
Some day somebody will have to explain to me, without using an annotated dictionary, how tapping international phone calls is domestic wiretapping.
Regardless I have good reason to believe you are wrong, and that it wholesale tapping of domestic digital phone transmissions, and just about anything else that went over commercial frame relay, was the status quo as early as 1997.
At some point you have to pick a battle you can win. The chance that whitebox PC component vendors will start shipping x86 systems with OpenFirmware is practically nil. The chance that Microsoft would support those systems is even smaller.
The EFI battle, however, can be won. Microsoft already supports it on Itanium, and Intel has big developer bucks behind it. It's not the greatest thing ever, but it is a modern firmware, and we do stand a chance of getting it on most PCs. Even Apple, who used to use OpenFirmware, has adopted it on their machines. It's also a little more user friendly than OpenFirmware, and, unlike OpenFirmware, the implementation is free (as in beer) on intel platforms. (OF isn't free *anywhere*)
how can implementing a new program in February 2001 possibly be "maintaining the status quo?" You do know what "status quo" means, correct?
Yes, I do, and you don't. You see, when your government has a history of being on the cutting edge of eavesdropping technology, incorporating the latest and greatest is maintaining the status quo. Sitting around and not increasing surveilance would have been the opposite.
So... there's less information gathering because there's more information to be had?
Yes, as a percentage.
Were you born yesterday, or did you just flunk history?
Nope, but you must have. I'll pick an extreme example for you and say JFK... We've had many popular presidents.
Judging by the clueless anti-bush rhetoric you've just spouted, I'm sure you'd think you'd be the first to jump on the fact that Bush is currently one of the least popular sitting presidents we've ever had. You don't seem like the type that would have argued that point.
Who is "he", and how is maintaining the status quo "adding to the pile"?
It seems to me that our monitoring programs have actually shrunk in the last six years or so due to the massive increase in data that there is to monitor. When we were debating Echelon in the '90s, why do you think the NSA wasn't already doing it? Do you think the NSA funded all that Linux performance and scalability work they did out of the kindness of their hearts?
The reason we're finding out about this now instead of ten years ago is that for the first time since, well, pretty much ever, the vast majority of journalists and government employees don't like the current administration, and are working extra hard to dig up dirt.
Reality is much less important than the beliefs of the guy with the checkbook.
Also, just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Companies like Black Duck software are raking in the cash, as are practically every IP lawyer in the US. They charge $20,000 to perform an automated audit on 100MB of source code, and small developers are beating down their doors to use their tool because the lawyer they paid to make sure they had their asses covered told them it was a good idea.
You hear about BSA audits because the BSA is trying to make an example out of the targets. You never hear about internal audits, but they are happening in all sorts of places where they never would have been considered before. Everybody is afraid of being the target of the next SCO or NTP.
I'm not going to claim to have done any expert studies or anything, but I think that the mere fact that Microsoft hasn't come out with a new version of their operating systems since this whole debacle started really casts doubt on your theory that they are gaining ground due to effort on their part... Unless you count their marketing department spreading FUD through the trade rags as effort anyway...
Given the plain fact that Microsoft's core technologies have been completely stagnant for the last four years, I really have to wonder how you came about your assessment of the situation.
I'm also unsure how you figure that claiming some company benefited from FUD is in itself, FUD.
You're not carrying on a conversation with the radio talk show host. Hopefully...
You're mentally engaged.
CB doesn't demand the immediacy that a cellphone does.
That's total BS. The cellphone only "demands immediacy" because people are morons and have their priorities screwed up.
You're beating around the bush though. The point is that people driving poorly while they're on their cell phone is a symptom of them being a poor driver in the first place, and not the other way around. A good driver wouldn't be on their cell phone if they couldn't handle making sure the road was their primary focus.
they're probably going to get pissed off with me if I suddenly go quiet because I'm trying to concentrate on not rearending the guy in front of me.
When it's somebody on the other end who has those expectiations, you should use good judgement and not answer the phone in the first place. Or pull over first.
Perl is dual licensed, so you can use it under the Artistic license (which isn't one of the ones you listed as disallowed).
This is exactly what I'm saying. Linux is still big in embedded products, but it is now losing ground in end-user deployments. For the most part, the only people considering deploying linux right now already have linux, or are putting in an appliance.
The screaming kid in the back seat doesn't. The radio talkshow host doesn't.
Unlike driving drunk, driving on the phone is a skill that can be acquired through proper training and state of mind. It's rediculous to compare it to driving drunk. You can drop the phone and immediatly have your mind completely on the task of driving. The same is not true for alcohol or children. The problem isn't that people talk on the phone while they drive. The problem is that people don't know how to talk on the phone when they drive.
Go look at the safety record for truckers (all of whom use CB radios practically constantly) compared to your average moron who barely passed the driving test even if he's *not* on the phone. The real problem is that we don't insist that our drivers know how to drive before we let them on the road.
You're right, but I would word that as "Everybody but Microsoft".
It depends on your perspective.
This case dealt a near fatal blow to end-user linux in business. Over the last two years Microsoft made previoulsy unimaginable gains in server market share, and they are using it to increase their desktop lock. The vast majority of IT managers, CIOs, CFOs, and corporate legal departments are scared to death of the GPL. The FUD is made even worse by lawyers cashing in on those fears by telling people they need to pay for costly audits and license reviews.
So who lost again?
Yeah, but when they asked that analyst for his source, he introduced the interviewer to his bare ass. When they asked him for references, he was only able to point to one other published report where he said the MacBook Pro was going to be delayed until July 2006.
This, on the other hand, is actually happening.
Technically, only the audio portion is covered, and since there was a posted notice, even that would be up for debate. See 570-A:1. Specifically the definitions for 'intercepted' and 'Oral Communication'.
It looks to me like it is both legal, *and* admissable, but it it up to a judge to determine if the cop had "an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception".
Certainly, everything on the tape *after* the cop was notified of the camera's existance is allowed.
Also, that law is incredibly poorly written.
Hopefully he made a copy...
I would have... And I wouldn't have told anybody about it yet either.