They also want to be able to charge you for each and every installation.
Wrong. No, not only wrong, this is FUD. Please read up on the yast(2) license before spouting off such a nonsense. If they won't change the license in suse 8.1, and you know more than I know about this change, I have no idea where you get this from.
If not, I can only ask you to inform yourself and tell me how your sentence above can hold.
More importantly, if you make the mistake of thinking scientificly about what some people say in this movie, you might loose a lot of fun.
Paraphrased, scene with the orthodox jews, talking about the number with 257 (or so) digits: But you had thousands of years to find this number, you would have found the number just by trying out!
Unfortunately, 1E+200 is a little to big to count to, even if you have a lot of time on your hands. I very much like this movie, but I don't understand why they didn't at least cut of rough edges like this....
IANAKH, too, but I occasionaly lurk on linux-kernel. As far as I have understood, there are things to be done before it makes even sense to think about scheduling and process mgmt. policies, because there's simply not the information for the scheduler etc. to know about something like "local" or "remote" memory.
The Scuds at Israel wasn't really an erratic move.
Indeed, and if we look at it closer, the Scuds at Israel were the clearest sign that Sadam Hussein does act rational - well sort of -, at least it shows that he has not to great suicidal tendencies.
This is because if the Irakis had equiped these scuds with chemical/biological payload, which they had the technology for, a Israli counterstrike would have been unavoidable, and like you said, the coalition would have fallen apart. But at the same time, he had started a process which he would not have survived.
Doing what he did was the "best" thing in this situation.
In that discussion, alan cox pulled an extremely funny joke. Maybe someone else can elaborate, I'm short on time ATM, (or search google's archive of lkml, search for melvin and aunt tillie). He set up this page:
Jabber could be such a protocol. You might be interested in reading about their proposal to get their library into kde as "the standard" p2p protocol for kde. See here for an interesting discussion.
Indeed. You also don't teach tensor algebra before people have learned how to add two variables.
Tensor algebra & mathematics is actually a very nice analogy to OOP&programming.
One professor I had said when he introduced us to tensors that you don't understand them, you get used to them.
And that is exactly what my expierence is with OOP. At first it "feels" strange and new, and you have a problem wrapping your mind around it. But the more you try, the more natural it feels.
Another good example is languages. You can learn the rules and vocabulary of a foreign language as long as you want, if you don't speak and write ("get used to it") and with it learn to "think" the language, you'll never really be able to use it as a tool.
Yes, but as I wrote, (algebraic) topology is mostely concerned with the _if_ there is a homeomorphism, not how it is constructed. At least that is what I learned in topology. But I confess I just did not specialize in topology, when I learned about k-theory, bott periodicity and homotopy theory and the proof that the 7-sphere is parallelizable I thought I felt I should stop, otherwise my brain would explode;-).
Explicitly writing down homeomorphism was never done, apart from some trivial beginner examples (and I'm very thankful for that).
A better explanation would IMO have been to tell something about knots.
As a (former) mathematician, I sometimes wish people wouldn't try to explain mathematical things in laymans terms:
"His study is related to topology, the mathematical science of shapes. Among other things, topologists study how one shape can be changed into another shape -- say, a doughnut into a coffee cup -- without removing the one feature they have in common -- the hole in the doughnut and the hole in the cup's handle"
First, this sounds soo cheesy, and second, this is _not_ what topology is about (the "how" doesn't normally matter, the question is "if"). I can see people imagining mathematicians sitting in the offices with a big pile of knead and trying to form proper coffee cup handles out of doughnuts.
Then why haven't the producers and artists taken advantage of the Internet already?
Good question. I think changes of this dimension need time, much time. Many artists are bound by contracts, many new artists don't think they could make a living without a record deal. But ultimately, I'm sure it will go that way. One indication is the porn industry. They pioneered the use streaming video and seem to be quite far in using the internet for distributing their stuff, too. Regarding music, I think artists doing electronic/underground stuff are on the forefront of this wave.
About the RIAA being too huge to go anywhere, well that could have been said for a lot of huge industry branches in the history. No branch can ever be sure that it will be obsoleted by changing circumstances. That too will need time, but I'm quite sure the RIAA is blind enough to not see that possibility.
Trust me, the RIAA wants to be the next big Napster, they loved it just as much as we did. One minor addition, the RIAA wants to be the next big Napster in case this doesn't loose their stranglehold over the artists. And here we are again at the point of my first post, without complete control over this new distribution chain the RIAA will loose, and DRM etc. are their tools to hold this control.
And don't be sure that the CD format will never change, it just needs downwards compatible devices with DRM, and the right law can push these into the market. Don't believe this? What about the laws in nearly all western countries mandating digital recievers for TVs and tuners? IIRC, europe will shut down all analog terrestrial broadcast stations by 2010, therefore making all old tuners obsolete, AFAIK the same happens in the us.
No, corporate greed will try anything it can do to stuff this shit down our collective throats, and until the broad masses get the message and revolt, they will succeed.
We can only hope that the same greed will cause this cartell to implode, further down the road. Be it manufacturers of consumer devices, or alternative publishers having big success with the new distribution channel internet.
They are hiding behind the facade of "piracy" to protect their franchise. If the draconian DRM measures take hold, you'll wake up to find one day that even distributing your own works will be defined as "piracy" since the entertainment industry hasn't sanctioned said distribution.
I think if the publisher industries' wet dreams come true, you'll not be able to distribute anything anyone else might be able to listen to. They can't be that stupid to believe that DRM as it is now will solve their real problem, namely that the internet makes them as obsolete as the car did to coachmen. But if they succeed in getting control over all consumer devices, it might be quite easy for them to prevent these from playing anything unencrypted. Anybody should look at the region codes in dvd-players to see where we are heading.
The problem with digital technology is that there is no degradation of quality and that makes the potential for abuse staggering. That is why the industries are overenforcing copyright laws and making silly new laws to try to protect their intellectual property.
Nope. This is completely wrong. Ok, not completely, but what you write there is what the music industry wants people to believe.
Their worst problem is not the storage technology, it's the transport/distribution technology. A single person can reach much more people via the internet than in real life, potientally leaking out the stolen music to the whole world.
But it's not as easy as that. Look at games/software, we know they are pirated a lot, and they lend themselves more to pirating than music/movies, but it seems the game publishers do get enough people to buy their games. Why? Because of the packaging, because people think the price is adequate, because they want to play online and the server checks the serial of the game, and whatnot. Mostly it may be that online gaming fact today, and shows how the game publishers did turn the internet from their enemy to their friend, at least partly. Now, the problem with music/movies is that there is not so much additional worth in getting the data you want in a physical container (jewel case). At the same time the prices are not adequate in the public perception. This gets people to warezing.
But the real problem for big music/movie publishers is that the internet makes a classical distribution channel obsolete, unfortunately for them this distribution is their only real selling point, it's the only real unique offer they have for musicians.
Think about it, everything else could be done with a musician/producer combo. The producer makes a deal with the musician, finances the production and sells the stuff over the internet. This new supply chain does not need a player like a global music publisher.
IE4 was so uncompliant on a deeper level, it wasn't funny. There was a bug with packet fragmentation and redirects that caused internet explorer to display a blank page which said "Object moved, object can be found _here_.", where _here_ was a link to the target of the redirect. Funnily, their own proxy software tended to cause fragmentation of the redirect packet quite often.
What I didn't understand was how they were capable to produce this bug, this completely negates everything I know about seperating the different layers of transport.
Hmm, actually the idea to put security sensitive piece of software in a library isn't bad. While I have no idea how this specific case is handled in linux, it's clear that also in linux cryptographic libraries exist and are used throughout different apps.
Ok, Einstein, so please explay me why a user which figured out on himself how to get a piece of software doing what he wants (e.g. got media player to rip) should read the fucking manual to learn about a totaly non-obvious "feature" he didn't even know it was there?
Do you read the manual for your razor in order to learn that it will not give you an electric shock on every friday?
The difference is that the price/GB ratio has changed since then. This means that you can today build a quite cheap machine which hits the 32bit memory barrier.
If you need it is another question, but anybody who really could profit from big memory has to shell out quite a buck. Hammer (Itanium) will change that picture dramatically.
If Hammer performs as it sounds, and is not too expensive, it will rapidily enter mainstream, because 64bit is even a better marketing buzzword than XXXXMHz, esp. since Hammer promises both.
Google has oodles of CPU's working together. 64 bits will buy them nothing.
Wrong. Googles DB needs RAM. Lot's of it. More than 3GB if possible - with fast access. They don't need a lot of processing power (for their search stuff, I don't know exactly what voodoo they are working on also). There are postings to lkml from google programmers which show that. If they can get native 64bit adressing on a cheap plattform with just a recompile, they will do it.
I wouldn't dream of buying an Xbox in the hope that MS looses money on it. But, when calculating the prize for such a subsidized product, you goal is to get
Where mean_follow_up_earnings_per_buyer in this case is something like: mean_number_of_bought_games*game_earnings.
We assume game_earnings to be the same for each game (yeah, I know that's wrong, take the maximum off all possible earning if you like). Simple, right? Now, if many people buy the Xbox without buying a game, ever, mean_number_of_bought_games goes down, right? Since the number of people which are going to buy games for the Xbox isn't too high, it may well be that people buying Xboxes + 0 games can make mean_number_of_bought_games decrease significantly, eventually falsifying the inequality above.
Well, I have seen more sophisticated cracks than this would require. A commited cracker should have no problem in patching that nuisance away. Standard procedure for cracking software.
They don't need no stinking antigravity gadgets to let these things fly. I'll tell you what they do.
These ships are made of super light but super solid nanotechnological materials. Since they are so light, they fly practically without any technology. Read more books!
Scratch the last, I thought this were another side (which I don't find atm). What I was on to was to make daily images, but to just store the differential between a "master" and the daily state. I'm quite sure I've seen an open source way to do that.
But your idea is interesting if I make regular images of my *own* W2K installation though - maybe I should give it a try...
That was indeed what I meant, images of the original install was the right thing in our case, it is clealry not in yours. With a little scripting&boot manager magic + perhaps wake-on-lan one can even do scheduled nightly images. Add to that netcat+dd for windows (look on google for it, there's a standalone version), and it might really be possible to that on a live system (this is dangerous though, I assume) over the net.
But what might be nice could be nightly differential backups, but since we have no use for that, I didn't try this. It might come in handy for you, though. See for instance Easy Automated Snapshot-Style Backups with Linux and Rsync. Sound neat.
Slashdot Mirror
They also want to be able to charge you for each and every installation.
Wrong.
No, not only wrong, this is FUD.
Please read up on the yast(2) license before spouting off such a nonsense.
If they won't change the license in suse 8.1, and you know more than I know about this change, I have no idea where you get this from.
If not, I can only ask you to inform yourself and tell me how your sentence above can hold.
More importantly, if you make the mistake of thinking scientificly about what some people say in this movie, you might loose a lot of fun.
Paraphrased, scene with the orthodox jews, talking about the number with 257 (or so) digits:
But you had thousands of years to find this number, you would have found the number just by trying out!
Unfortunately, 1E+200 is a little to big to count to, even if you have a lot of time on your hands.
I very much like this movie, but I don't understand why they didn't at least cut of rough edges like this....
IANAKH, too, but I occasionaly lurk on linux-kernel. As far as I have understood, there are things to be done before it makes even sense to think about scheduling and process mgmt. policies, because there's simply not the information for the scheduler etc. to know about something like "local" or "remote" memory.
Simple Topology API is one thread about this stuff.
The Scuds at Israel wasn't really an erratic move.
Indeed, and if we look at it closer, the Scuds at Israel were the clearest sign that Sadam Hussein does act rational - well sort of -, at least it shows that he has not to great suicidal tendencies.
This is because if the Irakis had equiped these scuds with chemical/biological payload, which they had the technology for, a Israli counterstrike would have been unavoidable, and like you said, the coalition would have fallen apart.
But at the same time, he had started a process which he would not have survived.
Doing what he did was the "best" thing in this situation.
In that discussion, alan cox pulled an extremely funny joke. Maybe someone else can elaborate, I'm short on time ATM, (or search google's archive of lkml, search for melvin and aunt tillie).
He set up this page:
http://www.aunt-tillie.org/
However, maybe when pirating is 100% eliminated, microsoft windows XP will cost $30 and not $300.
You're not being serious, are you?
The only reason piracy would make the prize go up would be that the manufacturer doesn't sell enough copies to cover his costs with a lower prize.
Have you look at microsofts financial data recently?
Jabber could be such a protocol. You might be interested in reading about their proposal to get their library into kde as "the standard" p2p protocol for kde.
See here for an interesting discussion.
I for one would greatly like this.
Indeed. You also don't teach tensor algebra before people have learned how to add two variables.
Tensor algebra & mathematics is actually a very nice analogy to OOP&programming.
One professor I had said when he introduced us to tensors that you don't understand them, you get used to them.
And that is exactly what my expierence is with OOP. At first it "feels" strange and new, and you have a problem wrapping your mind around it. But the more you try, the more natural it feels.
Another good example is languages. You can learn the rules and vocabulary of a foreign language as long as you want, if you don't speak and write ("get used to it") and with it learn to "think" the language, you'll never really be able to use it as a tool.
Yes, but as I wrote, (algebraic) topology is mostely concerned with the _if_ there is a homeomorphism, not how it is constructed. ;-).
At least that is what I learned in topology. But I confess I just did not specialize in topology, when I learned about k-theory, bott periodicity and homotopy theory and the proof that the 7-sphere is parallelizable I thought I felt I should stop, otherwise my brain would explode
Explicitly writing down homeomorphism was never done, apart from some trivial beginner examples (and I'm very thankful for that).
A better explanation would IMO have been to tell something about knots.
As a (former) mathematician, I sometimes wish people wouldn't try to explain mathematical things in laymans terms:
"His study is related to topology, the mathematical science of shapes. Among other things, topologists study how one shape can be changed into another shape -- say, a doughnut into a coffee cup -- without removing the one feature they have in common -- the hole in the doughnut and the hole in the cup's handle"
First, this sounds soo cheesy, and second, this is _not_ what topology is about (the "how" doesn't normally matter, the question is "if").
I can see people imagining mathematicians sitting in the offices with a big pile of knead and trying to form proper coffee cup handles out of doughnuts.
Then why haven't the producers and artists taken advantage of the Internet already?
Good question. I think changes of this dimension need time, much time.
Many artists are bound by contracts, many new artists don't think they could make a living without a record deal.
But ultimately, I'm sure it will go that way. One indication is the porn industry. They pioneered the use streaming video and seem to be quite far in using the internet for distributing their stuff, too.
Regarding music, I think artists doing electronic/underground stuff are on the forefront of this wave.
About the RIAA being too huge to go anywhere, well that could have been said for a lot of huge industry branches in the history. No branch can ever be sure that it will be obsoleted by changing circumstances. That too will need time, but I'm quite sure the RIAA is blind enough to not see that possibility.
Trust me, the RIAA wants to be the next big Napster, they loved it just as much as we did.
One minor addition, the RIAA wants to be the next big Napster in case this doesn't loose their stranglehold over the artists. And here we are again at the point of my first post, without complete control over this new distribution chain the RIAA will loose, and DRM etc. are their tools to hold this control.
And don't be sure that the CD format will never change, it just needs downwards compatible devices with DRM, and the right law can push these into the market.
Don't believe this? What about the laws in nearly all western countries mandating digital recievers for TVs and tuners? IIRC, europe will shut down all analog terrestrial broadcast stations by 2010, therefore making all old tuners obsolete, AFAIK the same happens in the us.
No, corporate greed will try anything it can do to stuff this shit down our collective throats, and until the broad masses get the message and revolt, they will succeed.
We can only hope that the same greed will cause this cartell to implode, further down the road. Be it manufacturers of consumer devices, or alternative publishers having big success with the new distribution channel internet.
Mod this up anyone.
They are hiding behind the facade of "piracy" to protect their franchise. If the draconian DRM measures take hold, you'll wake up to find one day that even distributing your own works will be defined as "piracy" since the entertainment industry hasn't sanctioned said distribution.
I think if the publisher industries' wet dreams come true, you'll not be able to distribute anything anyone else might be able to listen to. They can't be that stupid to believe that DRM as it is now will solve their real problem, namely that the internet makes them as obsolete as the car did to coachmen. But if they succeed in getting control over all consumer devices, it might be quite easy for them to prevent these from playing anything unencrypted.
Anybody should look at the region codes in dvd-players to see where we are heading.
The problem with digital technology is that there is no degradation of quality and that makes the potential for abuse staggering. That is why the industries are overenforcing copyright laws and making silly new laws to try to protect their intellectual property.
Nope. This is completely wrong. Ok, not completely, but what you write there is what the music industry wants people to believe.
Their worst problem is not the storage technology, it's the transport/distribution technology. A single person can reach much more people via the internet than in real life, potientally leaking out the stolen music to the whole world.
But it's not as easy as that. Look at games/software, we know they are pirated a lot, and they lend themselves more to pirating than music/movies, but it seems the game publishers do get enough people to buy their games. Why?
Because of the packaging, because people think the price is adequate, because they want to play online and the server checks the serial of the game, and whatnot. Mostly it may be that online gaming fact today, and shows how the game publishers did turn the internet from their enemy to their friend, at least partly.
Now, the problem with music/movies is that there is not so much additional worth in getting the data you want in a physical container (jewel case). At the same time the prices are not adequate in the public perception. This gets people to warezing.
But the real problem for big music/movie publishers is that the internet makes a classical distribution channel obsolete, unfortunately for them this distribution is their only real selling point, it's the only real unique offer they have for musicians.
Think about it, everything else could be done with a musician/producer combo. The producer makes a deal with the musician, finances the production and sells the stuff over the internet. This new supply chain does not need a player like a global music publisher.
IE4 was so uncompliant on a deeper level, it wasn't funny.
There was a bug with packet fragmentation and redirects that caused internet explorer to display a blank page which said "Object moved, object can be found _here_.", where _here_ was a link to the target of the redirect.
Funnily, their own proxy software tended to cause fragmentation of the redirect packet quite often.
What I didn't understand was how they were capable to produce this bug, this completely negates everything I know about seperating the different layers of transport.
Hmm,
/usr/lib /usr/lib/libssl.a /usr/lib/libssl.so.0 /usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.4
actually the idea to put security sensitive piece of software in a library isn't bad.
While I have no idea how this specific case is handled in linux, it's clear that also in linux cryptographic libraries exist and are used throughout different apps.
>ls -1
see?
Uhm, operating system != kernel.
Even in MS software.
Ok, Einstein, so please explay me why a user which figured out on himself how to get a piece of software doing what he wants (e.g. got media player to rip) should read the fucking manual to learn about a totaly non-obvious "feature" he didn't even know it was there?
Do you read the manual for your razor in order to learn that it will not give you an electric shock on every friday?
The difference is that the price/GB ratio has changed since then. This means that you can today build a quite cheap machine which hits the 32bit memory barrier.
If you need it is another question, but anybody who really could profit from big memory has to shell out quite a buck. Hammer (Itanium) will change that picture dramatically.
If Hammer performs as it sounds, and is not too expensive, it will rapidily enter mainstream, because 64bit is even a better marketing buzzword than XXXXMHz, esp. since Hammer promises both.
Google has oodles of CPU's working together. 64 bits will buy them nothing.
Wrong.
Googles DB needs RAM. Lot's of it. More than 3GB if possible - with fast access. They don't need a lot of processing power (for their search stuff, I don't know exactly what voodoo they are working on also).
There are postings to lkml from google programmers which show that.
If they can get native 64bit adressing on a cheap plattform with just a recompile, they will do it.
I wouldn't dream of buying an Xbox in the hope that MS looses money on it.
But, when calculating the prize for such a subsidized product, you goal is to get
production_cost < selling_cost + mean_follow_up_earnings_per_buyer
Where mean_follow_up_earnings_per_buyer in this case is something like:
mean_number_of_bought_games*game_earnings.
We assume game_earnings to be the same for each game (yeah, I know that's wrong, take the maximum off all possible earning if you like).
Simple, right?
Now, if many people buy the Xbox without buying a game, ever, mean_number_of_bought_games goes down, right?
Since the number of people which are going to buy games for the Xbox isn't too high, it may well be that people buying Xboxes + 0 games can make mean_number_of_bought_games decrease significantly, eventually falsifying the inequality above.
Well, I have seen more sophisticated cracks than this would require. A commited cracker should have no problem in patching that nuisance away. Standard procedure for cracking software.
They don't need no stinking antigravity gadgets to let these things fly. I'll tell you what they do.
These ships are made of super light but super solid nanotechnological materials. Since they are so light, they fly practically without any technology. Read more books!
Btw. their windows are made of diamonds.
Maybe this answers your question?
Scratch the last, I thought this were another side (which I don't find atm).
What I was on to was to make daily images, but to just store the differential between a "master" and the daily state.
I'm quite sure I've seen an open source way to do that.
But your idea is interesting if I make regular images of my *own* W2K installation though - maybe I should give it a try...
That was indeed what I meant, images of the original install was the right thing in our case, it is clealry not in yours.
With a little scripting&boot manager magic + perhaps wake-on-lan one can even do scheduled nightly images.
Add to that netcat+dd for windows (look on google for it, there's a standalone version), and it might really be possible to that on a live system (this is dangerous though, I assume) over the net.
But what might be nice could be nightly differential backups, but since we have no use for that, I didn't try this.
It might come in handy for you, though. See for instance Easy Automated Snapshot-Style Backups with Linux and Rsync.
Sound neat.