So, Linux has native USB support in the kernel. Is there a plan to implement the "obviously superior" IEEE 1394 anytime soon?;)
There is the GNU/Lunix IEEE 1394 Subsystem, but does anyone know how well this works/had experience with using it or knows if it will be included in the kernel sometime?
This has nothing to do with the protocol, but wiretapping in general. Seriously, this article is a non-issue. We don't have privacy, it has been (and will continue to be) stripped from us. The trick is, it's legal to circumvent laws and obtain privacy (at a non-monetary cost). What we should be doing, instead of trying to forge privacy against the advancing "Feds", is yelling our lungs out to get that privacy back.
The US government should have no right to wiretap. If the premise that they should have the right is valid, then they have the right to EVERY word you speak. You can't say anything without the government being able to hear it. Privacy is non-existant. The statement "There is no such thing as privacy anymore" is true. (Who was that, Scott McNeely?)
Modifications to my position for wiretapping pundits: "What about the kidnapper/child/whatever scenario" Life sucks. Really, though, the whole concept of wiretapping in this situation should be rethought into a new pardigam. (I don't have time to type that up here;)
"Interstate communication, therefore under the jurisdiction of the Feds": Limit the right to only interstate calls and data transfer (based on target/destination, not path?). Thats still unconditional wiretapping, you say? Similar to the "feds" having the right to monitor anything you say across state lines. Now the true problem arises... technically, you don't have a *right* to privacy, do you? Where in the Constitiution do we have a right to say something to another person and nobody else can listen? If such an amendment existed, then this WOULD be an issue..... anyone up for drafting the next amendment to the constitution?
Why Xerox thought they could get people to dump the benefits of viewing a document on paper in favor of a clunky monitor on the desk is beyond me. The only "paperless" office that will ever emerge will be based on their new digital paper....
...which obviously has not even materialized yet. People realize the volitile and limited-access nature of the internet and print stuff out because it's easier to access that way. No need for a terminal, internet access, or some fancy-ass-expensive-wireless-internet-dohicky. You've got what you need, right there.
Digital paper better be the best damn thing that ever came out of the Xerox PARC, otherwise, nobody will buy the promise. It has to be thin, lightweight, flexable, high-res, store a dictionary, and work for months, even years on only a little electricity. This sounds farfetched, but digital paper is farfetched! It's the stuff you only dream of.
Hopefully Xerox (or anyone!) will be able to deliver the future, and not some rehash of existing technology.
The article stated that IBM probably would want the system to be "ubiquitous" and therefore slapped on every motherboard in existence. Yeah right. There were a number of hardware vendors willing to dyke out the PSN from the BIOS when the P3 squabble came about. There were even ones that were completely against the idea in the first place.
So what if (I'll use my fave vendor in this example) FIC refuses to put this "ubiquitous" chip in their motherboards. What if VIA thinks this is a stupid idea from so-called industry leader IBM, and declines to support it in the chipsets. Then what?
The chip dies and nobody's going to care!! Why? Since when have you seen somewhere the PSN is required to complete a transaction? Nowhere! Retailers aren't stupid, they know by supporting legacy hardware they get more customers. If just one slightly big name vendor refuses to support the chip, the whole system goes under. As the system propagates over the years, FIC/VIA's motherboards make up a huge userbase of people who don't have the chip. So when it gets to be somewhat reasonable to assume people have the chip, you have a couple hundred thousand or million users who will be left out. Will retailers lose that many customers? Heck no! They aren't going to tell potential e-commerce customers "To use this site, you must replace your motherboard". That would be a HUGE turnoff.
Until there is a universially accepted (by EVERY vendor) standard for unique IDs (I pray to god that doesn't happen, but MAC addresses are allready here...), this idea will never fly.
And don't forget, it's not illegal to make your own programmable ID chip, is it? If it was, this topic would be moot.
Plaster your Name and student ID # in the same font and size on your student ID. (Also, it doubles as a I Am 21 card, with your birthday under your picture!) Sure there's a barcode and magnetic strip, but what if its broken and you need to manually know your SID? Well, it's right there on the card. Very handy. However, SID == SSN.....:( International students are issued a SID that starts with zeros. Don't know about people who bitch at the system, but I think I am going to find out, after I figure out if VT falls under the jurisdiction of the Buckley Amendment (Which I'm really sure they do).
My programming skills have yet to enter into the experience required to write a new filesystem. However, when I do get to that level, and such a filesystem is not implemented, I will write such a thing.
I am not a lazy ass, just not educated enough. I was wondering if anyone had plans, or would like to make them, to bring such a filesystem to light in a timeframe earlier than is possible for me.
Does this mean any changes to the partitoning system that linux uses? Do all those ex2fs partitons in my extended just get converted to XFS if this is implemented? Or does a "new" scheme arise...
[offtopic] Personally, I would appreciate this upgrade if a "new" scheme were implemented, especially if it was similar to the FreeBSD or Solaris way of handling multiple filesystems. Does nobody else think that it's silly that Linux filesystems take up more than 1 logical partiton on your drive? (I speak from the IDE/PC realm) It's a pain in the ass, IMHO, for me to encapsulate 4 to 6 Linux partitons inside an extended partiton just so I can fit 3 other "normal" partitons on the drive that don't require a boot manager to boot. But of course, to even boot Linux in that extended partiton, I HAVE to use a boot manager to boot Linux.
Wouldn't it be nice to have 6 Linux filesystems sit inside *just one* Linux/XFS logical partiton? Then you can install it with 3 other OSes and just switch the active partiton when you want to boot somewhere. No boot manager needed!
I'm probably missing something in my logic. Feel free to tell me if I am! [/offtopic]
First International Computer (FIC), who traditionally uses VIA chipsets has this Slot A motherboard available. At least the specs and a picture for it... Looks like it beats a good deal of ass:)
Clock speed rounding (not even close to on topic)
on
Athlon Reviews
·
· Score: 1
I saw a version of the "Look Athalon Kicks Butt" article at Netcenter. I noticed the following in the article:
[Referring to Intel's counter to the Athalon] "A 700-MHz version is due in the fourth quarter, while Intel is planning 667-MHz and faster versions of the Pentium III."
I find it particularly interesting how Intel convieniently now rounds UP the.666_ instead of the canoical rounding down. Fear the marketing of a 666Mhz chip!
Apparently the LinuxPPC people haven't filtered JavaScript comments in the guestbook posts either. It runs in an infinite loop popping up a lame BIFF message.
I really hope that they don't seriously mean they will be indexing the entire web. That would mean their crawler would have to completely ignore ROBOTS.TXT.
I, for one, would like to keep some of the webpages I post on the internet un-indexed because they were ment for a couple of friends, not a couple billion people to rummage through.
1. Microsoft is more wrong than right MS delivers a messaging service. They know they can't compete with the established userbase that AIM and ICQ have. Since nearly everybody else does those, why should a newbie choose MSM over where all their buddies are? So Microsoft decides that if they could just hack out a bridge to AIM (why not ICQ?) they could market it as a feature and get a better userbase. Eventually they'll integrate it into something to make MSM the "obvious" choice of instant messaging and kill AIM. Typical Microsoft business-as-usual. So why in the devil is MS wrong? It's virtual tresspassing for MS to invade AOLs servers with messages from non-AIM users. Not only that, MS will be stealing revenue from AOL by not displaying AOL banners in MSM. AOL has the right to dictate how their servers are to be used. By tweaking the protocol, AOL is trying to say "Stay off our servers, Microsoft! They're not yours to play with." They have that right. What AOL should do is back up that No Tresspassing sign with a shotgun, instead of trying to put up bigger barricades for Microsoft . ..
2. AOL is more right than wrong As previously stated, AOL is right in defending their servers and tweaking their protocol to keep Microsoft off their property. What Microsoft is accusing AOL of, is using proprietary protocols. So? There is no law against proprietary products? If that was so, MS would have been long long gone a while ago. AIM users have made the choice to go with the proprietary solution. It doesn't mean jack for Microsoft or any oss/fsf/linux pundits to say "Hey AOL! Open your protocols or you're a mean, bad company." Ooooh, what a threat! Microsoft is a mean bad company and they're alive as ever. AOL can just shrug it off and say, "Don't like it? Go somewhere else." Nobody using AIM is going to go anywhere else, they've got all their buddies on AIM. No one can force AOL to do anything, so they'll keep on doing what they're doing and gain more AIM users everyday.
3. ESR has a deeper meaning than "MS is right" ESR is saying "Microsoft is right about open messaging". Sure they are. Open protocols are good. However, you can't force another company to use open protocols, especially if you're trying to get at their userbase (read: MONEY!). What Microsoft doesn't realize, but ESR and AOL do, is that by turning instant messaging into an open protocol where all the servers talk to each other and it doesn't matter what client you're using; nobody makes any money. It's just like IRC. Nobody makes money from running IRC servers and you can use whatever client you want. If Microsoft was really smart, they would look at what happened when they tried to "embrace and extend" IRC with Microsoft Chat. It didn't work. MSChat users are the bane of IRC users when they're in Comic Mode. Eventually, they all just hang out in microsoft-only chat servers. Exactly what would happen to instant messaging under Microsoft's plan. Now you tell me, out of all the IRC users, what percentage use MS Comic Chat?:) AOL knows where their money is, and they'll be dammned if they change to throw it all away.
So, what does all this add up to? AOL is defending it's property rights. Microsoft is trespassing on those rights. ESR is championing Microsoft stepping on their own oxygen supply.
Microsoft is trying to open up the instant messaging protocols on the internet and unwittingly trying to create a unprofitable medium where the servers are run without any capital gain and the clients could be written by anybody. This is good for us! Bad for business.
Eric is right. You can cheer for Microsoft this time, because you're cheering for them and AOL to lose.
Magazines, tax returns, job offers, bank statements, education-related paraphanalia, bills, official documents, eBay money orders and packages, etc etc
And of course, Credit card offers, columbia house garbage, local circulars, publishers clearinghouse, etc.
E-mail is too insecure, informal, unreliable, non-authoritative, or just not suited for delivering any of the items in the first list. As for the second, since none of us give a rats ass about them, they are stedily enroaching upon our digital domain . . .;)
I think the producers knew this and made the hype that they did, knowing that people wouldn't dismiss it if "someone else" thought it brought down the house.
The camerawork is realistic. Yes. This is not an advantage. In fact, the camerawork enhances the lameness of the movie. You realize that you're not really watching reality, but some homebrew, wannabe horror film.
Acting? Realistic. Again, not an advantage. I personally don't think watching some college students yell countless obscenities at each other and faking dramatacism by delivering stale lines is very entertaining. I can see the same thing by just walking onto a high school or college campus. These people need to take theatre. Just because you can do the camera doesn't mean you can act.
The movie is a crock. A waste of money and time. It deserves to be stay at the publicity level of being shown at frat parties to scare ditzy girls. Of course, all the proponents of TBWP probably will tell me that the raw uncut nature of the film is the nature of it's beauty. That the movie is the best ever made because of the "realistic" level.
Bullshit.
Forget the hype. Form your own opinion. This is mine.
Why even release it . . .
on
XFree86 News
·
· Score: 2
Where is the changelog and other assorted documentation thats supposed to be in the release?
"Due to a few important changes that came after 3.3.4 was finalized , a 3.3.5 release (which will include binaries) will be made in the next couple of weeks."
Ok, so they're releasing this version, which is known to be somewhat incomplete under a full blown version name. Why? Shouldn't they just call it a pre-release or a beta? It's only a couple weeks until the Real Deal comes out. Why say "Well, We have this new version of Xfree, but its got problems and we'll issue the fixes under the next version." Doesn't this sound like some idiot software company out of Redmond who releases service packs to fix service packs?
Ok, that was a little too much of a parallel. But do you see my point. If an Xfree86 release addmittively sucks, don't give it the entitlement of a full version number. Just call it 3.3.x-pre or something and let the world know: "For bleeding edge users only." At least they were half-thinking like that . . . they left out the documentation so idiots like me can't see if I need it for my Banshee. . .
I've had some problems with slashdot not loading under the Win95 Netscape 4.08 (128bit) stanalone. It either goes away after the offending article gets removed from the / or somebody fixes it manually.
I don't know if this is a problem with Slash or the input it's given. In any event, if you've got Slash to work more effectively, ring Rob up and offer to give him a hand. Remember: he can't even spell bayta.
Who in their right mind would buy digital music that gets stored on their hard drive when they could buy a CD and not have to worry about losing the data or accidently deleting it.
The pirates won't stop pirating. MP3 encoders won't stop coming out. MP3 players won't stop coming out. Rio won't go away.
RIAA can't stop MP3 any more than they can stop Microsoft from using their Word document format. All they are doing is trying to provide a "legal alternative" for the consumer buzz about MP3. I don't buy it, probably nobody who has MP3s will, and the new consumers won't see any advantages SDMI offers over a real CD.
So who cares? The MP3 "industry" and underground have nothing to fear.
Slashdot Mirror
There is the GNU/Lunix IEEE 1394 Subsystem, but does anyone know how well this works/had experience with using it or knows if it will be included in the kernel sometime?
The US government should have no right to wiretap. If the premise that they should have the right is valid, then they have the right to EVERY word you speak. You can't say anything without the government being able to hear it. Privacy is non-existant. The statement "There is no such thing as privacy anymore" is true. (Who was that, Scott McNeely?)
Modifications to my position for wiretapping pundits: ;)
"What about the kidnapper/child/whatever scenario"
Life sucks. Really, though, the whole concept of wiretapping in this situation should be rethought into a new pardigam. (I don't have time to type that up here
"Interstate communication, therefore under the jurisdiction of the Feds": ... technically, you don't have a *right* to privacy, do you? Where in the Constitiution do we have a right to say something to another person and nobody else can listen? If such an amendment existed, then this WOULD be an issue.....
Limit the right to only interstate calls and data transfer (based on target/destination, not path?). Thats still unconditional wiretapping, you say? Similar to the "feds" having the right to monitor anything you say across state lines. Now the true problem arises
anyone up for drafting the next amendment to the constitution?
Digital paper better be the best damn thing that ever came out of the Xerox PARC, otherwise, nobody will buy the promise. It has to be thin, lightweight, flexable, high-res, store a dictionary, and work for months, even years on only a little electricity. This sounds farfetched, but digital paper is farfetched! It's the stuff you only dream of.
Hopefully Xerox (or anyone!) will be able to deliver the future, and not some rehash of existing technology.
So what if (I'll use my fave vendor in this example) FIC refuses to put this "ubiquitous" chip in their motherboards. What if VIA thinks this is a stupid idea from so-called industry leader IBM, and declines to support it in the chipsets. Then what?
The chip dies and nobody's going to care!! Why? Since when have you seen somewhere the PSN is required to complete a transaction? Nowhere! Retailers aren't stupid, they know by supporting legacy hardware they get more customers. If just one slightly big name vendor refuses to support the chip, the whole system goes under. As the system propagates over the years, FIC/VIA's motherboards make up a huge userbase of people who don't have the chip. So when it gets to be somewhat reasonable to assume people have the chip, you have a couple hundred thousand or million users who will be left out. Will retailers lose that many customers? Heck no! They aren't going to tell potential e-commerce customers "To use this site, you must replace your motherboard". That would be a HUGE turnoff.
Until there is a universially accepted (by EVERY vendor) standard for unique IDs (I pray to god that doesn't happen, but MAC addresses are allready here...), this idea will never fly.
And don't forget, it's not illegal to make your own programmable ID chip, is it? If it was, this topic would be moot.
Plaster your Name and student ID # in the same font and size on your student ID. (Also, it doubles as a I Am 21 card, with your birthday under your picture!) Sure there's a barcode and magnetic strip, but what if its broken and you need to manually know your SID? Well, it's right there on the card. Very handy. However, SID == SSN ..... :( International students are issued a SID that starts with zeros. Don't know about people who bitch at the system, but I think I am going to find out, after I figure out if VT falls under the jurisdiction of the Buckley Amendment (Which I'm really sure they do).
I am not a lazy ass, just not educated enough. I was wondering if anyone had plans, or would like to make them, to bring such a filesystem to light in a timeframe earlier than is possible for me.
[offtopic]
Personally, I would appreciate this upgrade if a "new" scheme were implemented, especially if it was similar to the FreeBSD or Solaris way of handling multiple filesystems. Does nobody else think that it's silly that Linux filesystems take up more than 1 logical partiton on your drive? (I speak from the IDE/PC realm) It's a pain in the ass, IMHO, for me to encapsulate 4 to 6 Linux partitons inside an extended partiton just so I can fit 3 other "normal" partitons on the drive that don't require a boot manager to boot. But of course, to even boot Linux in that extended partiton, I HAVE to use a boot manager to boot Linux.
Wouldn't it be nice to have 6 Linux filesystems sit inside *just one* Linux/XFS logical partiton? Then you can install it with 3 other OSes and just switch the active partiton when you want to boot somewhere. No boot manager needed!
I'm probably missing something in my logic. Feel free to tell me if I am!
[/offtopic]
First International Computer (FIC), who traditionally uses VIA chipsets has this Slot A motherboard available. At least the specs and a picture for it... :)
Looks like it beats a good deal of ass
[Referring to Intel's counter to the Athalon]
"A 700-MHz version is due in the fourth quarter, while Intel is planning 667-MHz and faster versions of the Pentium III."
I find it particularly interesting how Intel convieniently now rounds UP the .666_ instead of the canoical rounding down. Fear the marketing of a 666Mhz chip!
Apparently the LinuxPPC people haven't filtered JavaScript comments in the guestbook posts either. It runs in an infinite loop popping up a lame BIFF message.
Well, they say they honor ROBOTS.TXT However your post suggests differently. You ought to e-mail them and find out. Their robots policy is stated here: http://www.fast.no/f aq/faqfastwebsearch/faqfastwebcrawler.html
I, for one, would like to keep some of the webpages I post on the internet un-indexed because they were ment for a couple of friends, not a couple billion people to rummage through.
MS delivers a messaging service. They know they can't compete with the established userbase that AIM and ICQ have. Since nearly everybody else does those, why should a newbie choose MSM over where all their buddies are? So Microsoft decides that if they could just hack out a bridge to AIM (why not ICQ?) they could market it as a feature and get a better userbase. Eventually they'll integrate it into something to make MSM the "obvious" choice of instant messaging and kill AIM. Typical Microsoft business-as-usual.
So why in the devil is MS wrong? It's virtual tresspassing for MS to invade AOLs servers with messages from non-AIM users. Not only that, MS will be stealing revenue from AOL by not displaying AOL banners in MSM. AOL has the right to dictate how their servers are to be used. By tweaking the protocol, AOL is trying to say "Stay off our servers, Microsoft! They're not yours to play with." They have that right. What AOL should do is back up that No Tresspassing sign with a shotgun, instead of trying to put up bigger barricades for Microsoft . .
2. AOL is more right than wrong
As previously stated, AOL is right in defending their servers and tweaking their protocol to keep Microsoft off their property. What Microsoft is accusing AOL of, is using proprietary protocols. So? There is no law against proprietary products? If that was so, MS would have been long long gone a while ago. AIM users have made the choice to go with the proprietary solution. It doesn't mean jack for Microsoft or any oss/fsf/linux pundits to say "Hey AOL! Open your protocols or you're a mean, bad company." Ooooh, what a threat! Microsoft is a mean bad company and they're alive as ever. AOL can just shrug it off and say, "Don't like it? Go somewhere else." Nobody using AIM is going to go anywhere else, they've got all their buddies on AIM. No one can force AOL to do anything, so they'll keep on doing what they're doing and gain more AIM users everyday.
3. ESR has a deeper meaning than "MS is right" :) AOL knows where their money is, and they'll be dammned if they change to throw it all away.
ESR is saying "Microsoft is right about open messaging". Sure they are. Open protocols are good. However, you can't force another company to use open protocols, especially if you're trying to get at their userbase (read: MONEY!). What Microsoft doesn't realize, but ESR and AOL do, is that by turning instant messaging into an open protocol where all the servers talk to each other and it doesn't matter what client you're using; nobody makes any money. It's just like IRC. Nobody makes money from running IRC servers and you can use whatever client you want. If Microsoft was really smart, they would look at what happened when they tried to "embrace and extend" IRC with Microsoft Chat. It didn't work. MSChat users are the bane of IRC users when they're in Comic Mode. Eventually, they all just hang out in microsoft-only chat servers. Exactly what would happen to instant messaging under Microsoft's plan. Now you tell me, out of all the IRC users, what percentage use MS Comic Chat?
So, what does all this add up to? AOL is defending it's property rights. Microsoft is trespassing on those rights. ESR is championing Microsoft stepping on their own oxygen supply.
Microsoft is trying to open up the instant messaging protocols on the internet and unwittingly trying to create a unprofitable medium where the servers are run without any capital gain and the clients could be written by anybody. This is good for us! Bad for business.
Eric is right. You can cheer for Microsoft this time, because you're cheering for them and AOL to lose.
And of course, Credit card offers, columbia house garbage, local circulars, publishers clearinghouse, etc.
E-mail is too insecure, informal, unreliable, non-authoritative, or just not suited for delivering any of the items in the first list. As for the second, since none of us give a rats ass about them, they are stedily enroaching upon our digital domain . . . ;)
Maybe they should sit on slashnet and accept "type-ins" there for our international friends.
IRC anyone?
http://maas-neotek.dhs.org/GIS/geeks2.mp3
10Mbps connection. Streaming accepted :)
I think the producers knew this and made the hype that they did, knowing that people wouldn't dismiss it if "someone else" thought it brought down the house.
The camerawork is realistic. Yes. This is not an advantage. In fact, the camerawork enhances the lameness of the movie. You realize that you're not really watching reality, but some homebrew, wannabe horror film.
Acting? Realistic. Again, not an advantage. I personally don't think watching some college students yell countless obscenities at each other and faking dramatacism by delivering stale lines is very entertaining. I can see the same thing by just walking onto a high school or college campus. These people need to take theatre. Just because you can do the camera doesn't mean you can act.
The movie is a crock. A waste of money and time. It deserves to be stay at the publicity level of being shown at frat parties to scare ditzy girls. Of course, all the proponents of TBWP probably will tell me that the raw uncut nature of the film is the nature of it's beauty. That the movie is the best ever made because of the "realistic" level.
Bullshit.
Forget the hype. Form your own opinion. This is mine.
"Due to a few important changes that came after 3.3.4 was finalized , a 3.3.5 release (which will include binaries) will be made in the next couple of weeks."
Ok, so they're releasing this version, which is known to be somewhat incomplete under a full blown version name. Why? Shouldn't they just call it a pre-release or a beta? It's only a couple weeks until the Real Deal comes out. Why say "Well, We have this new version of Xfree, but its got problems and we'll issue the fixes under the next version." Doesn't this sound like some idiot software company out of Redmond who releases service packs to fix service packs?
Ok, that was a little too much of a parallel. But do you see my point. If an Xfree86 release addmittively sucks, don't give it the entitlement of a full version number. Just call it 3.3.x-pre or something and let the world know: "For bleeding edge users only." At least they were half-thinking like that . . . they left out the documentation so idiots like me can't see if I need it for my Banshee. . .
http://www.newscientist.c o.uk/ns/19990717/newsstory7.html :p
Sorry I cut out the frames it was in
I've had some problems with slashdot not loading under the Win95 Netscape 4.08 (128bit) stanalone. It either goes away after the offending article gets removed from the / or somebody fixes it manually.
I don't know if this is a problem with Slash or the input it's given. In any event, if you've got Slash to work more effectively, ring Rob up and offer to give him a hand. Remember: he can't even spell bayta.
my god you guys are nerds :)
SDMI means nothing.
Who in their right mind would buy digital music that gets stored on their hard drive when they could buy a CD and not have to worry about losing the data or accidently deleting it.
The pirates won't stop pirating. MP3 encoders won't stop coming out. MP3 players won't stop coming out. Rio won't go away.
RIAA can't stop MP3 any more than they can stop Microsoft from using their Word document format. All they are doing is trying to provide a "legal alternative" for the consumer buzz about MP3. I don't buy it, probably nobody who has MP3s will, and the new consumers won't see any advantages SDMI offers over a real CD.
So who cares? The MP3 "industry" and underground have nothing to fear.