There's nothing but vents in the back panel where this would sit. It's possible that at one point they were planning on having the firewire port (or ports) in a second row on the I/O panel, which would have left room for three USB ports.
I used to administer about 100 Windows boxes. None of them have were compromised over a period of 10 years except by a user deliberately violating my security policies, which included bans on Internet Explorer and Outlook. A properly secured Windows network is not a problem.
However, out of the box, Windows XP SP2 should not be set up on the internet without additional protection:
The way Windows Networking (LAN Manager, etcetera) operates, you can't selectively firewall individual services because they all use the same ports. If it's got networking enabled (as it does out of the box), it is subject to attack. Until Windows Update has been run to bring it up to spec, it should be kept behind an external firewall.
Also, the design of Internet Explorer is inherently insecure and can not be fixed without major incompatible API changes. Until Microsoft addresses this I recommend using non-Microsoft browsers only. This issue doesn't apply to the Macintosh version of Internet Explorer, ironically.
OK, so you knew there was a reason he didn't just jump up and freak out
The first plane hit before he even left for the school. He knew it had hit before he reached the classroom, and it was the second impact that occurred while he was reading to the kids... not the first.
These are not questions subject to debate. The only questions are things like whether he had entered the car to leave for the school when the first plane had hit, or whether he was waiting in the car for the cavalcade to start; whether he was told as he left the car or whether he had been informed during the ride.
All this is widely documented outside of Michael Moore's film. Why are you even trying to imply that he's my only source of information? Is it because it's your only source of information?
Getting back to the subject, have you any real comments on the advisability of paper ballots?
Frankly, old bean, I don't care what you think of Michael Moore. I've never seen his movie. I don't trust him further than I can spit a politician.
You're blissfully unaware that a B25 slammed into the Empire State building in the late 40's aren't you?
Nice of you to tell me what I do or do not know. You've been doing that for a couple of messages now. You've also been reading my mind... or at least reading someone's mind.
My father was involved in the development of the World Trade Center. I am fairly sure I know a hell of a lot more than you about the construction of the WTC, the Empire State Building, and the history of the two constructions. There's absolutely no relationship between the two situations.
I recommend you do a bit of research there, while you're looking up the history of electronic ballots in the US.
Wasn't ilicit sex in the whitehouse, while Arafat waited, something that embarrased you for America at _all_?
A little. Not nearly as much as having George Bush sit there reading a book about a goat while the US was actually under attack. Remember what I said about there being plenty of blame to go around?
Should the allegations have stopped him from doing the right thing?
Did they? Was it patriotic for the Republicans to attempt to distract the President from doing his duty at a time like that? Me, I don't know, I just think that you're being mighty selective in applying blame.
Does firing a handful of Tomahawks into an empty tent _count_ as forceful action?
It was way too forceful for the Republicans. Whose fault was that?
Hey, mister Peabody, turn that wayback machine a little further [...]
Sure, go ahead and blame Carter as well. And Nixon, though I'd much rather have Nixon in the white house right now.
Kerry was in Vietnam for three months
Three month longer than Bush.
Bush does what he says
*snork*
Dude, they're all politicians. I pay attention to what they do not what they say.
Kerry is pushing an amendment that everyone I know in the computer security community has wanted since long before the media noticed that voting machines were "news". To you that seems to be an opprtunity to attack the "Democrats" and the "Media". Where are you getting *your* truth from?
Dude, when Clinton *did* respond to Al Quaeda the Republicans accused him of pulling a "wag the dog" trick to distract us from his embarassment over a blow-job.
There's *plenty* of blame to go around when it comes to Al Quaida. Nobody took them seriously. They were the product of Republican training and it was Bush's father that incited the first WTC bombing even if the Democrats bungled the investigation (though not nearly as bad as George has bungled this one).
And don't forget, when Clinton went to war he went in, did the job, and got out. He didn't use the Balkans as an excuse to attack Libya or some other country that was pissing him off the way Bush used Afghanistan as an excuse to go into Iraq. THAT is thinking clearly. What Bush does doesn't count.
It's war time. We needed a war president, a man capable of operating under fire himself, a man who understands force... not one who thinks it's a videogame. George Senior or John Kerry, either of them would have done the job. Instead we got Dubya.
I would use if (!ptr)... if the pointer is being used in a way that its value is related to a true-or-false condition. That is, reating it as a boolean makes semantic sense at the "human layer".
I would be utterly amazed if any modern compiler (say, any compiler released in the past couple of decades that wasn't a novice hobbyist effort) treated it any differently from if (ptr==NULL)....
I don't think I'd use if (ptr==0)..., even though I know that NULL is equivalent to 0 (and for eny modern compiler identical), because it doesn't make semantic sense in any situation I can think of... at least not off the top of my head. I would use if (ptr==NULL)... where that made sense.
Interix is a good product, but it doesn't fit the bill as Dovark is talking about.
Yeh, Interix is more BSD than Linux. So?
Linux BINARY emulation on BSD is a solved problem. Next?
As for Apple, Apple has said they were dropping things before and backed down when their customers and venders revolted. Remember Rhapsody?
If Apple makes USB 2 as reliable and fast as Firewire 400 (not even 800), then I'll believe they're capable of dropping Firewire. Right now it's not even close, even on Mac.
Microsoft doesn't need a secret project to create a hosted UNIX/Linux environment under NT, they already have an excellent one in the form of Interix.
If Microsoft is reinventing the wheel and doing it all over again, they're nuts.
I suspect Dvorak heard something about Interix and went off half-cocked. Given the way he's interpreting Apple's unbundling the Firewire cable from the iPod Mini (they're NOT removing FW support, they're just unbundling the cable) as Apple "dropping firewire"), going off half cocked is still his MO.
I make a taskbar icon program. I'll admit it's pretty shitty because it's beta. Also, You see more ads because of using it than not using it... (It links to pages with ads on them.)
Does it change your home page, refuse to uninstall, and demand $39.99 for an uninstaller once installed?
Probably not. Nobody who thought they were just providing a service would do that....
You missed the first few lines in his post where he says that this was his opinion and not a MS opinion.
This is his justification for his involvement in expanding Microsoft's patent arsenal.
His rationalization is that Microsoft is behaving defensively, that given the presence of software patents, Microsoft is forced to build up an arsenal of patents that they can use against people who sue them over their own use of patents.
I don't believe his rationalisation is justified, because Microsoft's actions in Europe do not make sense in this context. Therefore, his rationale for supporting the development of the IsNot patent falls down, unless I'm missing something. Can you explain what that something is?
Hold on, if Microsoft is just developing a patent arsenal in case someone else uses software patents against them, how come thay're pushing so hard for software patents in Europe? If this is just a matter of defense, Bill Gates should be asking European ministers to oppose the software patent process, not twisting their arms to push it through against the will of the European Parliament.
Since the option ROM isn't on the device, the ROM is stored in the system BIOS.
Which means if you don't have a supported card, and the CARD doesn't work, you're out of luck... but that's fair.
But that's not what has been reported.
What's been reported is that if you don't have a supported card, THE LAPTOP REFUSES TO BOOT. So I see two options here:
1. The reports are wrong, and you're right, and the cards aren't working, but the laptop does boot.
2. The reports are right, and they're not just declining to configure cards they don't know about they're unreasonably locking up people's computers because they're using the "wrong" cards.
The only ethical way to do this that I can see would be to approach the MAME authors, and arrange a contract whereby Ultracade pays for THEM to trademark the name in exchange for an exclusive license to the commercial use of the name (which of course they don't need to actually use).
Any scenario where the trademark doesn't end up in the hands of the people who developed the software and created the name and logo is just asking for trouble down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
This is old news.
There's nothing but vents in the back panel where this would sit. It's possible that at one point they were planning on having the firewire port (or ports) in a second row on the I/O panel, which would have left room for three USB ports.
I used to administer about 100 Windows boxes. None of them have were compromised over a period of 10 years except by a user deliberately violating my security policies, which included bans on Internet Explorer and Outlook. A properly secured Windows network is not a problem.
However, out of the box, Windows XP SP2 should not be set up on the internet without additional protection:
The way Windows Networking (LAN Manager, etcetera) operates, you can't selectively firewall individual services because they all use the same ports. If it's got networking enabled (as it does out of the box), it is subject to attack. Until Windows Update has been run to bring it up to spec, it should be kept behind an external firewall.
Also, the design of Internet Explorer is inherently insecure and can not be fixed without major incompatible API changes. Until Microsoft addresses this I recommend using non-Microsoft browsers only. This issue doesn't apply to the Macintosh version of Internet Explorer, ironically.
OK, so you knew there was a reason he didn't just jump up and freak out
The first plane hit before he even left for the school. He knew it had hit before he reached the classroom, and it was the second impact that occurred while he was reading to the kids... not the first.
These are not questions subject to debate. The only questions are things like whether he had entered the car to leave for the school when the first plane had hit, or whether he was waiting in the car for the cavalcade to start; whether he was told as he left the car or whether he had been informed during the ride.
All this is widely documented outside of Michael Moore's film. Why are you even trying to imply that he's my only source of information? Is it because it's your only source of information?
Getting back to the subject, have you any real comments on the advisability of paper ballots?
Frankly, old bean, I don't care what you think of Michael Moore. I've never seen his movie. I don't trust him further than I can spit a politician.
You're blissfully unaware that a B25 slammed into the Empire State building in the late 40's aren't you?
Nice of you to tell me what I do or do not know. You've been doing that for a couple of messages now. You've also been reading my mind... or at least reading someone's mind.
My father was involved in the development of the World Trade Center. I am fairly sure I know a hell of a lot more than you about the construction of the WTC, the Empire State Building, and the history of the two constructions. There's absolutely no relationship between the two situations.
I recommend you do a bit of research there, while you're looking up the history of electronic ballots in the US.
Wasn't ilicit sex in the whitehouse, while Arafat waited, something that embarrased you for America at _all_?
A little. Not nearly as much as having George Bush sit there reading a book about a goat while the US was actually under attack. Remember what I said about there being plenty of blame to go around?
Should the allegations have stopped him from doing the right thing?
Did they? Was it patriotic for the Republicans to attempt to distract the President from doing his duty at a time like that? Me, I don't know, I just think that you're being mighty selective in applying blame.
Does firing a handful of Tomahawks into an empty tent _count_ as forceful action?
It was way too forceful for the Republicans. Whose fault was that?
Hey, mister Peabody, turn that wayback machine a little further [...]
Sure, go ahead and blame Carter as well. And Nixon, though I'd much rather have Nixon in the white house right now.
Kerry was in Vietnam for three months
Three month longer than Bush.
Bush does what he says
*snork*
Dude, they're all politicians. I pay attention to what they do not what they say.
Kerry is pushing an amendment that everyone I know in the computer security community has wanted since long before the media noticed that voting machines were "news". To you that seems to be an opprtunity to attack the "Democrats" and the "Media". Where are you getting *your* truth from?
Dude, when Clinton *did* respond to Al Quaeda the Republicans accused him of pulling a "wag the dog" trick to distract us from his embarassment over a blow-job.
There's *plenty* of blame to go around when it comes to Al Quaida. Nobody took them seriously. They were the product of Republican training and it was Bush's father that incited the first WTC bombing even if the Democrats bungled the investigation (though not nearly as bad as George has bungled this one).
And don't forget, when Clinton went to war he went in, did the job, and got out. He didn't use the Balkans as an excuse to attack Libya or some other country that was pissing him off the way Bush used Afghanistan as an excuse to go into Iraq. THAT is thinking clearly. What Bush does doesn't count.
It's war time. We needed a war president, a man capable of operating under fire himself, a man who understands force... not one who thinks it's a videogame. George Senior or John Kerry, either of them would have done the job. Instead we got Dubya.
God help us.
Which problems of the last election?
Little things, like massive intimidation campaigns, ballots being thrown in the trash, that sort of thing...
The Democrats and the media did present Kerry as "not George Bush" way too hard, but that doesn't mean that the election was fair and open.
Don't you know that criticising /. will get you modded down?
I thought that was a weird comment, too. It's double-odd, when you think about it:
1. Unless you need 64-bit mode (which usually you don't), the Opteron is basically a faster Pentium clone, no?
2. Giving customers an option doesn't force them to switch.
I would use if (!ptr)... if the pointer is being used in a way that its value is related to a true-or-false condition. That is, reating it as a boolean makes semantic sense at the "human layer".
..., even though I know that NULL is equivalent to 0 (and for eny modern compiler identical), because it doesn't make semantic sense in any situation I can think of... at least not off the top of my head. I would use if (ptr==NULL) ... where that made sense.
I would be utterly amazed if any modern compiler (say, any compiler released in the past couple of decades that wasn't a novice hobbyist effort) treated it any differently from if (ptr==NULL)....
I don't think I'd use if (ptr==0)
Interix is a good product, but it doesn't fit the bill as Dovark is talking about.
Yeh, Interix is more BSD than Linux. So?
Linux BINARY emulation on BSD is a solved problem. Next?
As for Apple, Apple has said they were dropping things before and backed down when their customers and venders revolted. Remember Rhapsody?
If Apple makes USB 2 as reliable and fast as Firewire 400 (not even 800), then I'll believe they're capable of dropping Firewire. Right now it's not even close, even on Mac.
Microsoft doesn't need a secret project to create a hosted UNIX/Linux environment under NT, they already have an excellent one in the form of Interix.
If Microsoft is reinventing the wheel and doing it all over again, they're nuts.
I suspect Dvorak heard something about Interix and went off half-cocked. Given the way he's interpreting Apple's unbundling the Firewire cable from the iPod Mini (they're NOT removing FW support, they're just unbundling the cable) as Apple "dropping firewire"), going off half cocked is still his MO.
The poor man has probably never had to watch sausage being made before, and is unfamiliar with Sturgeon's Law.
I make a taskbar icon program. I'll admit it's pretty shitty because it's beta. Also, You see more ads because of using it than not using it... (It links to pages with ads on them.)
Does it change your home page, refuse to uninstall, and demand $39.99 for an uninstaller once installed?
Probably not. Nobody who thought they were just providing a service would do that....
As suggested in this previous comment...
What about starting from an API that's already got OpenGL bindings and acceleration, and using GNUstep instead of inventing a new library?
Yes! GNUstep and maybe a native OpenGL window system like Berlin instead of layers of hacks on top of X11.
I find it difficult to believe that he would have found his career limited if he'd asked to have his name left off he patent application.
> Can you explain what that something is?
His salary?
Ah, so you're saying he doesn't actually belive what he wrote. Got it.
You missed the first few lines in his post where he says that this was his opinion and not a MS opinion.
This is his justification for his involvement in expanding Microsoft's patent arsenal.
His rationalization is that Microsoft is behaving defensively, that given the presence of software patents, Microsoft is forced to build up an arsenal of patents that they can use against people who sue them over their own use of patents.
I don't believe his rationalisation is justified, because Microsoft's actions in Europe do not make sense in this context. Therefore, his rationale for supporting the development of the IsNot patent falls down, unless I'm missing something. Can you explain what that something is?
Hold on, if Microsoft is just developing a patent arsenal in case someone else uses software patents against them, how come thay're pushing so hard for software patents in Europe? If this is just a matter of defense, Bill Gates should be asking European ministers to oppose the software patent process, not twisting their arms to push it through against the will of the European Parliament.
What am I missing?
That was my first reaction as well.
And don't forget, God Wrote in Lisp.
What are the chances it'll be available for non-Windows people too?
Slim and none.
Since the option ROM isn't on the device, the ROM is stored in the system BIOS.
Which means if you don't have a supported card, and the CARD doesn't work, you're out of luck... but that's fair.
But that's not what has been reported.
What's been reported is that if you don't have a supported card, THE LAPTOP REFUSES TO BOOT. So I see two options here:
1. The reports are wrong, and you're right, and the cards aren't working, but the laptop does boot.
2. The reports are right, and they're not just declining to configure cards they don't know about they're unreasonably locking up people's computers because they're using the "wrong" cards.
Can you shed light on these two scenarios?
The only ethical way to do this that I can see would be to approach the MAME authors, and arrange a contract whereby Ultracade pays for THEM to trademark the name in exchange for an exclusive license to the commercial use of the name (which of course they don't need to actually use).
Any scenario where the trademark doesn't end up in the hands of the people who developed the software and created the name and logo is just asking for trouble down the road.
Hasn't 3COM already implemented this, putting higher level stack elements in their firmware?