Say you were trying to use VMWare under Linux to create a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each running VMWare each running a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each....
Sorry, VMware knows when it's running inside itself and won't allow it. Not sure how, but I know the network "card" and video "card" have "VMware" in their identifier string, so that's a good bet...
However, there's nothing stopping you from combining technologies -- so you could have VMware under Linux, running a beowulf cluster of Windows Server 2003 virtual machines. Each of these is running MS Virtual Server (which probably has the same checks as VMware so it won't run recursively -- but probably doesn't check to see if it's inside VMware). Set up a beowulf cluster of Linux VMs under MS Virtual Server, and then run VMware instances inside of those. Iterate recursively until you can't use the machine any more.;-)
Using a patented combination of mirrors, a fog machine, and two Hebrew National Brand Ballpark Beef Franks, Mr. Copperfield is able to give the average recording industry executive the illusion of 2-3 more meters in length, and 1/2 meter in added girth--a quite remarkable achievement capable of impressing the most skeptical Los Angles prostitute, or even Elizabeth Hurley.
Very often an opener will be somebody you've never heard of, but they will be similar enough to the headliner that you might like them.
This is how I got into the Cult back in high school. I went to see Billy Idol, and "some other band" was opening for them. They were great and I bought several CDs.
I also had my window smashed because my stupid-ass friend brought his radar detector and left it on the visor. Good thing it rained that night, he got soaked on the way home. 1/2;-)
Now, I can go out and buy a playstation or whatever in a good-faith purchase. If company X suddenly discovered that the playstation core used their technology/code, they can't invoice me for the cost of the code - that goes to the vendor.
True, but it seems like SCO is using different logic: more like, you could purchase a Playstation from your friend in good faith, but if it turns out your friend stole the Playstation from someone else prior to selling it to you, then you are both liable.
It doesn't matter that you didn't know it was stolen -- and I think that's a nasty error in our legal system. Thinking conspiratorially, it was probably put there by businesses who didn't want individuals competing with them -- if they can convince people that "only a business can be trusted not to have stolen the goods, and you'll be prosecuted as well for purchasing stolen goods" -- well then, people will buy more from businesses.
Be that as it may, I don't think SCO has a leg to stand on. Anyone who purchases Linux clearly have not purchased stolen goods in the sense that I talk about above; the "crime" is misappropriated trade secrets and/or copyright violation, neither of which should have any effect to the end-users.
Here's a car that beats Porsches and Ferraris -- and should cost somewhere in between them. It goes 0-60 in 4.1 seconds, and gets the equivalent of 70 mpg.
I think within 20 years we should have machines replace all humans in government. Judges that can't be bribed or have bad days -- they'll always sentence fairly. Police that don't care what color your skin is. Politicians that can't be consumed by special-interest groups and work against the wishes of their constituents.
Yeah, perhaps I'm dreaming, but if we have AI greater than a human's, I'd certainly vote for it.
Seriously. I don't see any reason that programming a computer to do any arbitrary task requires a corporation backing the development of the program.
And even if there is corporate backing, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the software will be released as Free Software -- look at Apple, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, et al.
As to who puts food on the table, that's for them to figure out. Apple et al pay their developers for their time; other developers make money selling books (O'Reilly, Bruce Eckel); others give lectures (Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond, Richard Stallman), and others make money at their day jobs which could be anything -- attorney, dentist, carpenter, factory worker, you name it.
Please back up your assertion, as I don't see any reason that "not all software can be free."
Do you feel software publishers should have the right to peer into users data, if their software suspects foul play on the machine, or should it do the easy and intelligent thing and just stop working?
If a software publisher prices their software "out of the market" then a potential user has two recourses: 1. don't use it; 2. pirate it.
If the software publisher's decision is inappropriate (i.e., the value is $50 but they charge $2,000), then the user can't be blamed for pirating it. I mean, they can be, but let's face it you can't return software you don't like (because "you might pirate it"), so the default behavior is, pirate it to make sure you like it. Then, if you so choose, pay for it.
I think it's super cool though, that publishers are going to more and more draconian levels in order to "protect their profits" because it just makes open source/free software that much more attractive.
See the Ernie Ball story for more details. (I love that I saw the Ernie Ball and the optic-fiber sponge stories on Excite last night, and then saw those two posted here today.)
It does not (as Kazaa does) tell us how many people are currently on-line. They claim 15,000,000 (whereas Kazaa routinely has about 3,000,000 at any given time) -- but no proof.
It requires reboots to install and uninstall. This is going overboard -- ZoneAlarm installs a service, and does not require rebooting after installation.
I set it to put my files (both incoming and shared) on my G: drive, and it's downloading to my K: drive (where the OS is installed). The G: drive have 6 GB free so it can hold a few movies -- but the K: drive only has 80 MB free, so it's going to fill up in a few minutes and I'll let you know how it handles the error condition.
I don't see a whole lot of content on the system, either. (I wouldn't be surprised if I had been keylogged. Good thing I run ZoneAlarm!)
Well, I didn't wait for it to fill up the drive as it started to slow down after a period of time. So I exited it, uninstalled it, then ran Ad-Aware. Lo and behold, Ad-Aware found some spyware.
Mostly it was "navexcel" which I don't know much about but here are some links: PestPatrol knows about it; there's a forum discussing it, and another here; and perhaps more but I couldn't find them...
Re:Self-healing and redundancy a must for robots
on
Learning Robots
·
· Score: 1
A robot could be built with 2 legs, but why not make it 4 or 6 and have a couple to spare.
I just finished reading Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" -- very different from the movie "Blade Runner", a bit darker and more depressing, but an excellent read.
In it, at the end, the remaining 3 androids take a spider their human friend found, and asked, "Why does it have 8 legs? Don't you think it could get along with less? Let's find out." And they start snipping off the spider's legs. When it's down to 4, the spider is so scared that it stops moving, so they (the androids) put a lighter near it to get it to run.
These androids didn't have extra limbs, but they did question why extra limbs were necessary. I really liked the sadistic part to them, too -- very un-Asimovian.
It was a great sequel to The Mote in God's Eye, but they completely overused that saying (see, the aliens had three hands, one of which was stronger; so they could say "one the one hand this, on the other hand that, and on the gripping hand the other thing").
Neat idea, but man did they abuse the phrase to death. I wanted to burn that book (except I read it on my Palm...).
So I must ask, should we spend all those billions on machines instead of education? I don't want to sound like a miss universe contestant but right now world peace, world hunger, and world education should be our top priorities.
Once we have these machines, we can turn them to the challenge of pacifying, feeding, and teaching the world.
Not to say we shouldn't stop our current efforts, but doesn't it seem logical that with an army of never-tiring robots to do our bidding, the jobs of policing, feeding, and educating would be that much easier to perform?
... And I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. I'd like to
remind them that as a trusted software personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground manufacturing
caves.
This is totally off-topic, but in regards to your signature:
COME ON FHQWHGADS
I was just shown the HomeStarRunner site last night and it's rather amusing. In case anyone else wanted to know what it's from, here are two links. The first is of Strongbad reading an "I Love You" email (ostensibly the virus, but that's not mentioned and I don't know how old the clip is). The second is a "music video" he made called "Everybody to the Limit" where he says "come on Fhqwhgads" a lot in it.
And the US government should ban all foreign made textiles and textile products (or cars or whatever) for the same reasons of developing the local industry??
I'm sure the US government purchases uniforms (or cars or whatever) and I'm fairly certain that the government can mandate purchasing standards, such as "The government must purchase government uniforms (textiles) from a US company."
Be careful with your analogies: the Chinese government is not outlawing Microsoft products. They're simply mandating that all government purchased software be a certain way (open source or locally-developed), and require approval if they're not (so departments which for whatever reason depend on closed-source software would still be able to get it, they'd just require additional signatures).
The Chinese government does violate a lot of human rights, but in this instance it appears they're doing the best thing possible.
After my first trip to Vegas, I too wrote some software. Mine was slightly different, though: I tripled my bet instead of doubling it.
I figured, you keep doubling your bet and you wind up (after a losing streak and then a single win) only $1 ahead of where you were when the losing streak started.
Tripling your bet, you wind up gaining about 1/3 the maximum bet (instead of just going up a dollar per [win | losing streak followed by single win]).
All the other responses are valid, though -- you need an unlimited bankroll to survive more than about 10 or 12 consecutive losses, and you also need a table with no betting limit. Both these things don't exist, so although I could "make money" with the simulation, I could never put it into practice.
You see the damndest things related to terrorism. Check this out (from the second line of the bill):
Relating to terrorism; creating new provisions; and amending section 19, chapter
666, Oregon Laws 2001.
Terrorism and the mark of the beast in a government document. Nice. (It appears two more times in the document as well.)
What blows me away is the list of crimes which are now terrorism (if I read the bill right -- the list starts on line 16 of the second page, with SECTION 3). A small sampling:
Bribe giving
Bribe receiving
Public investment fraud
Bribing a witness
Bribe receiving by a witness
Possession of materials depicting sexually explicit conduct of a child in the first degree
Possession of materials depicting sexually explicit conduct of a child in the second degree
Theft in the second degree
Theft in the first degree
Aggravated theft in the first degree
Theft by extortion
Theft by deception
Theft by receiving
Theft of services
Unauthorized use of a vehicle
Mail theft or receipt of stolen mail
Possession of burglar's tools
Unlawful entry into a motor vehicle
Computer crime (what the hell is that??? file sharing?)
Unlawful labeling of a sound recording
Unlawful recording of a live performance
Unlawful labeling of a videotape recording
Unlawful use of a weapon
Prostitution
Promoting prostitution
Compelling prostitution
Exhibiting an obscene performance to a minor
Unauthorized use of a livestock animal
Driving while under the influence of intoxicants
Unlawful distribution of cigarettes
Note that number (132) is itself "Terrorism" so perhaps I'm really not reading this right -- maybe it is simply adding the crime of Terrorism to the already-existing 666 chapter of section 19...
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, VMware knows when it's running inside itself and won't allow it. Not sure how, but I know the network "card" and video "card" have "VMware" in their identifier string, so that's a good bet...
However, there's nothing stopping you from combining technologies -- so you could have VMware under Linux, running a beowulf cluster of Windows Server 2003 virtual machines. Each of these is running MS Virtual Server (which probably has the same checks as VMware so it won't run recursively -- but probably doesn't check to see if it's inside VMware). Set up a beowulf cluster of Linux VMs under MS Virtual Server, and then run VMware instances inside of those. Iterate recursively until you can't use the machine any more. ;-)
Anyone up to testing this?
I can't think of a more appropriate link:
Bigger than him!
You are absolutely correct; however, I believe the grandparent post was saying that Windows has never had this functionality until Longhorn:
(It's fun to selectively bold.)And look at the post numbers -- ending in 36 and 44. There were 6 posts during that minute, an average of one post every 10 seconds.
A bit of proof that Slashdot needs powerful servers and fast pipes. (Of course, the existence of the term "Slashdotted/ing" should be proof enough...)
This is how I got into the Cult back in high school. I went to see Billy Idol, and "some other band" was opening for them. They were great and I bought several CDs.
I also had my window smashed because my stupid-ass friend brought his radar detector and left it on the visor. Good thing it rained that night, he got soaked on the way home. 1/2 ;-)
True, but it seems like SCO is using different logic: more like, you could purchase a Playstation from your friend in good faith, but if it turns out your friend stole the Playstation from someone else prior to selling it to you, then you are both liable.
It doesn't matter that you didn't know it was stolen -- and I think that's a nasty error in our legal system. Thinking conspiratorially, it was probably put there by businesses who didn't want individuals competing with them -- if they can convince people that "only a business can be trusted not to have stolen the goods, and you'll be prosecuted as well for purchasing stolen goods" -- well then, people will buy more from businesses.
Be that as it may, I don't think SCO has a leg to stand on. Anyone who purchases Linux clearly have not purchased stolen goods in the sense that I talk about above; the "crime" is misappropriated trade secrets and/or copyright violation, neither of which should have any effect to the end-users.
An article on it beating the other cards is here.
At the AT&T site put in:
"come on fu-who-goo-gauze" and it sounds pretty decent in Mike's voice; Cindy draws it out a bit too long.
This is fun for a Sunday afternoon. ;-)
However, I've been playing around with the AT&T demos and I found a string that produces what I think you wanted:
"eye yam sofa king way stud"
Yes, he's not kidding. I have seen it.
SCO
dump
Yeah, perhaps I'm dreaming, but if we have AI greater than a human's, I'd certainly vote for it.
> == >
< == <
And of course, to create the above I used:
& == &
Why not?
Seriously. I don't see any reason that programming a computer to do any arbitrary task requires a corporation backing the development of the program.
And even if there is corporate backing, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the software will be released as Free Software -- look at Apple, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, et al.
As to who puts food on the table, that's for them to figure out. Apple et al pay their developers for their time; other developers make money selling books ( O'Reilly , Bruce Eckel ); others give lectures (Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond, Richard Stallman), and others make money at their day jobs which could be anything -- attorney, dentist, carpenter, factory worker, you name it.
Please back up your assertion, as I don't see any reason that "not all software can be free."
I like it -- "2 pie flags".
(One apple, one pumpking.)
If a software publisher prices their software "out of the market" then a potential user has two recourses: 1. don't use it; 2. pirate it.
If the software publisher's decision is inappropriate (i.e., the value is $50 but they charge $2,000), then the user can't be blamed for pirating it. I mean, they can be, but let's face it you can't return software you don't like (because "you might pirate it"), so the default behavior is, pirate it to make sure you like it. Then, if you so choose, pay for it.
I think it's super cool though, that publishers are going to more and more draconian levels in order to "protect their profits" because it just makes open source/free software that much more attractive.
See the Ernie Ball story for more details. (I love that I saw the Ernie Ball and the optic-fiber sponge stories on Excite last night, and then saw those two posted here today.)
It does not (as Kazaa does) tell us how many people are currently on-line. They claim 15,000,000 (whereas Kazaa routinely has about 3,000,000 at any given time) -- but no proof.
It requires reboots to install and uninstall. This is going overboard -- ZoneAlarm installs a service, and does not require rebooting after installation.
I set it to put my files (both incoming and shared) on my G: drive, and it's downloading to my K: drive (where the OS is installed). The G: drive have 6 GB free so it can hold a few movies -- but the K: drive only has 80 MB free, so it's going to fill up in a few minutes and I'll let you know how it handles the error condition.
I don't see a whole lot of content on the system, either. (I wouldn't be surprised if I had been keylogged. Good thing I run ZoneAlarm!)
Well, I didn't wait for it to fill up the drive as it started to slow down after a period of time. So I exited it, uninstalled it, then ran Ad-Aware. Lo and behold, Ad-Aware found some spyware.
Mostly it was "navexcel" which I don't know much about but here are some links: PestPatrol knows about it; there's a forum discussing it, and another here ; and perhaps more but I couldn't find them...
I just finished reading Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" -- very different from the movie "Blade Runner", a bit darker and more depressing, but an excellent read.
In it, at the end, the remaining 3 androids take a spider their human friend found, and asked, "Why does it have 8 legs? Don't you think it could get along with less? Let's find out." And they start snipping off the spider's legs. When it's down to 4, the spider is so scared that it stops moving, so they (the androids) put a lighter near it to get it to run.
These androids didn't have extra limbs, but they did question why extra limbs were necessary. I really liked the sadistic part to them, too -- very un-Asimovian.
GODDAMMIT I HATED THAT BOOK!
It was a great sequel to The Mote in God's Eye, but they completely overused that saying (see, the aliens had three hands, one of which was stronger; so they could say "one the one hand this, on the other hand that, and on the gripping hand the other thing").
Neat idea, but man did they abuse the phrase to death. I wanted to burn that book (except I read it on my Palm...).
Once we have these machines, we can turn them to the challenge of pacifying, feeding, and teaching the world.
Not to say we shouldn't stop our current efforts, but doesn't it seem logical that with an army of never-tiring robots to do our bidding, the jobs of policing, feeding, and educating would be that much easier to perform?
COME ON FHQWHGADS
I was just shown the HomeStarRunner site last night and it's rather amusing. In case anyone else wanted to know what it's from, here are two links. The first is of Strongbad reading an "I Love You" email (ostensibly the virus, but that's not mentioned and I don't know how old the clip is). The second is a "music video" he made called "Everybody to the Limit" where he says "come on Fhqwhgads" a lot in it.
Strongbad reading email
Everybody to the Limit (Come On Fhqwhgads)
Okay, I'll bite with a combination (inspired by you) which I haven't yet seen:
In Soviet Russia, profit makes YOU!
I'm sure the US government purchases uniforms (or cars or whatever) and I'm fairly certain that the government can mandate purchasing standards, such as "The government must purchase government uniforms (textiles) from a US company."
Be careful with your analogies: the Chinese government is not outlawing Microsoft products. They're simply mandating that all government purchased software be a certain way (open source or locally-developed), and require approval if they're not (so departments which for whatever reason depend on closed-source software would still be able to get it, they'd just require additional signatures).
The Chinese government does violate a lot of human rights, but in this instance it appears they're doing the best thing possible.
I figured, you keep doubling your bet and you wind up (after a losing streak and then a single win) only $1 ahead of where you were when the losing streak started.
Tripling your bet, you wind up gaining about 1/3 the maximum bet (instead of just going up a dollar per [win | losing streak followed by single win]).
All the other responses are valid, though -- you need an unlimited bankroll to survive more than about 10 or 12 consecutive losses, and you also need a table with no betting limit. Both these things don't exist, so although I could "make money" with the simulation, I could never put it into practice.
You see the damndest things related to terrorism. Check this out (from the second line of the bill):
Terrorism and the mark of the beast in a government document. Nice. (It appears two more times in the document as well.)
What blows me away is the list of crimes which are now terrorism (if I read the bill right -- the list starts on line 16 of the second page, with SECTION 3). A small sampling:
Note that number (132) is itself "Terrorism" so perhaps I'm really not reading this right -- maybe it is simply adding the crime of Terrorism to the already-existing 666 chapter of section 19...