Sure it does...but you need to pick the target with the most money first.
I'm no Evil Patent Lawyer, but wouldn't it make even more sense to pick a smaller target first? Big enough to mean something, but not with super-deep legal pockets. That way, you can maybe convince them to give in and establish a precedent -- wasn't that the idea with BT suing Prodigy over hyperlinking?
their life can be extended dramatically by blinking them at ~60hz.
Oww! How about something a little faster, so it's not perceptible to humans? This flicker is one of the most annoying problems with (non-digital-balast) fluorescent lights. Let's not have that in new-technology lights.
It may be that the currently popular design for two-way devices does this, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to buy into.
I know, it sounds weird. But I think it's a more fundamental protocol design problem -- otherwise, *someone* would make modules that don't have this problem. I'm pretty sure SmartHome (makes cool stuff, quality control problems aside) would if they could -- their whole gimmick is selling more advanced X10 modules. Instead, check out this ad copy from one of their switches:
This powerful 600W switch offers nearly all the same benefits as our top-of-the-line SwitchLinc 2-Way Dimmer, including scene lighting participation. . The only feature left out is two-way transmission, or the ability to send X10 signals to other receivers. By omitting this feature, we've drastically reduced signal absorption, allowing your home to support more of these switches.
X10 devices frequently do not support a "request status" command. IMO, that should be a mandatory feature of a protocol such as this.
Unfortunately, every module which has the ability to broadcast drains the signal strength on the line. I'm not sure why, but it's definitely so. This means that making each module two-way would severely limit the number you could have.
Wouldn't this be declared as valid, and presumably laying the blame on the user.
Where, at least, some of the blame belongs. I've had my domain name used to send forged spam -- none of my systems was even involved, let alone anything I did. And with the current system, there's nothing at all I can do about it, or anything to prevent it from happening again -- yet, I had to deal with three days worth of bounce messages and several weeks of misdirected vitriol from spam victims. And of course, modern viruses spoof sender address all the time.
That's the problem SPF definitely solves, and I'm all for it. Even if it only makes a small dent, it's worth it for this alone.
The phrase which has now become famous was not a quote by Voltaire (although it is a paraphrasing of one of his statements)
Um, was he writing in English in that letter to another French guy? Probably not. In fact, this page has the source of the letter as A Book of French Quotations. In which case, the widely-quoted phrase isn't a paraphrasing but rather a *perfectly good translation*.
They only want to restrict access to their software by people who haven't paid for it. And they'll only do it legally too, or face massive fines from the courts.
Last I checked, the *AA people were about the music and movie industries, not software. If they *did* have software, I'm pretty sure no one would even want to "pirate" it.:)
If you don't like what can be done legally then try and get it changed.
Sure. The point, though, is that the content industry people are trying really hard to get the laws changed in *their* favor -- and so far, they seem to be winning. One thing that keeps them in check is the sheer difficulty of policing the internet -- any laws to stop Bad Stuff would have to be so broad and invasive that the minimal level of sense in the legislature (or, failing that, the courts) wouldn't let them stand.
But if there were just one big centralized network, regulation would suddenly be a lot easier -- and since the *AAs have invested a lot of money in the idea that regulation would be a Good Thing, easy + good = easily put into law.
You can take ideas from religions freely and to form your own religion.
I think the historical cases where this happened peacably are the exceptions, rather than the rule. There's almost always anger and political fighting, and often actual violence, all the way up to outright war.
Since most religions view their picture of the universe as The One True Path, it's typically more of a "freely distributable; do not modify under pain of eternal damnation" sort of license.
Please tell me how you will plow your farm, plant your corn, harvest it, process it and transport it to the ethanol plant, what you'll make your fertilizer from and how you'll get your ethanol to your hydrogen plant all without using any fossil fuels...
I'm loathe to admit this now, but I was one of the very first subscribers (I think the first -- not sure about the whole Quantum service and prehistory) to AOL in my town. This was before the Windows version, and the DOS version was actually a GeoWorks app. Or rather, it came with a GeoWorks runtime, which wasn't good for anyone else. I remember thinking it was really cool.
I was also on the beta team for AOL for Windows 1.0.
Not likely -- it's not like they rewrite everything from scratch. Or very much of *anything*. There's probably DOS 1.0 code in there somewhere still. There's a good chance that flaws in the old versions will exist for a long time.
Verizon is Bell Atlantic + GTE, the very very bad non-baby-bell from the midwest. (Known fondly as the "Grand Telephone Experiment".) Shortly after moving to Boston, glad to be finally away from such incompetence (oh, the pain getting a a frac T1 provisioned correctly), bam, here they are again.
[...] their actual purpose was to try and find US made robots and/or buildings(!) on the surface of the moon.
That's an interesting assertation. Do you have any references to back it up? It seems unlikely -- isn't a moon launch rather hard to hide? Why would they need to bother sending a lander there to check?
First of all, IBM has taken great pains to insure that anyone on their Linux team has never had access to AIX or Sys5 code. It was setup as a clean room exercise.
While this may be true for some things (although, really, has IBM actually said this?), it's definitely not true for the RCU stuff, which very clearly says it was " based on original DYNIX/ptx code".
I think this probably won't matter, since IBM can definitely make a good case that RCU isn't derivative of SysV/"SCO" code even though it was implemented in Dynix -- but the path through which this got into Linux seems pretty clear.
Caffeine keeps you awake, but reduces your ability to think clearly.
Actually, studies show otherwise. This one, for example, demonstrates that caffeine actually helps new brain cells grow. And this one [pdf file] shows that it helps with memory.
Sucks for legitimate high-traffic mailing lists not run by megacorporations.
And it's not just mailing lists: at Boston University, we have a brand new cluster of eight fast Linux boxes to deal with campus e-mail. Plus several older Sun systems. They keep up -- usually. And that's with e-mail _as it is_.
The real question is have they finally dumped the stupid x86 instruction set in favour of a space/energy/coding efficient RISC set?
Well, as others have pointed out, that's passe. But the Itanium is whole new fancy thing building on the lessons learned -- "EPIC" (explicitly parallel instruction computing, or some such).
Sure it would take time and money but in the end [snip snip snip...]
Yep, time and money but in the end. That's Intel's plan with Itanium, and they've still got some hope for it. In the meantime, AMD was going to eat their lunch (and breakfast and dinner) with x86-64, and it'd be silly to just sit there letting that happen. Sure, they *could* just wave their hands frantically and gush about how superior the new is to the old and hope the market listens -- but as real-world experience shows, refactoring usually wins over rewriting from scratch.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't see how complaining that a story is biased is even *slightly* insightful. C'mon.
Why do OSes like BeOS (and Linux window managers?) bother to implement workspaces, but then only stick with a fixed number?
FWIW, Window Maker lets you have an arbitrary number.
Sure it does...but you need to pick the target with the most money first.
I'm no Evil Patent Lawyer, but wouldn't it make even more sense to pick a smaller target first? Big enough to mean something, but not with super-deep legal pockets. That way, you can maybe convince them to give in and establish a precedent -- wasn't that the idea with BT suing Prodigy over hyperlinking?
their life can be extended dramatically by blinking them at ~60hz.
Oww! How about something a little faster, so it's not perceptible to humans? This flicker is one of the most annoying problems with (non-digital-balast) fluorescent lights. Let's not have that in new-technology lights.
I know, it sounds weird. But I think it's a more fundamental protocol design problem -- otherwise, *someone* would make modules that don't have this problem. I'm pretty sure SmartHome (makes cool stuff, quality control problems aside) would if they could -- their whole gimmick is selling more advanced X10 modules. Instead, check out this ad copy from one of their switches:
X10 devices frequently do not support a "request status" command. IMO, that should be a mandatory feature of a protocol such as this.
Unfortunately, every module which has the ability to broadcast drains the signal strength on the line. I'm not sure why, but it's definitely so. This means that making each module two-way would severely limit the number you could have.
Wouldn't this be declared as valid, and presumably laying the blame on the user.
Where, at least, some of the blame belongs. I've had my domain name used to send forged spam -- none of my systems was even involved, let alone anything I did. And with the current system, there's nothing at all I can do about it, or anything to prevent it from happening again -- yet, I had to deal with three days worth of bounce messages and several weeks of misdirected vitriol from spam victims. And of course, modern viruses spoof sender address all the time.
That's the problem SPF definitely solves, and I'm all for it. Even if it only makes a small dent, it's worth it for this alone.
Would taking a screenshot of a photo displayed on a website be stripping out the watermark?
Not if it's halfway-decent technology, it wouldn't. It's a *watermark*, not some sort of metadata in the headers.
The phrase which has now become famous was not a quote by Voltaire (although it is a paraphrasing of one of his statements)
Um, was he writing in English in that letter to another French guy? Probably not. In fact, this page has the source of the letter as A Book of French Quotations. In which case, the widely-quoted phrase isn't a paraphrasing but rather a *perfectly good translation*.
They only want to restrict access to their software by people who haven't paid for it. And they'll only do it legally too, or face massive fines from the courts.
:)
Last I checked, the *AA people were about the music and movie industries, not software. If they *did* have software, I'm pretty sure no one would even want to "pirate" it.
If you don't like what can be done legally then try and get it changed.
Sure. The point, though, is that the content industry people are trying really hard to get the laws changed in *their* favor -- and so far, they seem to be winning. One thing that keeps them in check is the sheer difficulty of policing the internet -- any laws to stop Bad Stuff would have to be so broad and invasive that the minimal level of sense in the legislature (or, failing that, the courts) wouldn't let them stand.
But if there were just one big centralized network, regulation would suddenly be a lot easier -- and since the *AAs have invested a lot of money in the idea that regulation would be a Good Thing, easy + good = easily put into law.
That's exactly the point -- it's impossible to keep source code secret, as this proves.
You can take ideas from religions freely and to form your own religion.
I think the historical cases where this happened peacably are the exceptions, rather than the rule. There's almost always anger and political fighting, and often actual violence, all the way up to outright war.
Since most religions view their picture of the universe as The One True Path, it's typically more of a "freely distributable; do not modify under pain of eternal damnation" sort of license.
Please tell me how you will plow your farm, plant your corn, harvest it, process it and transport it to the ethanol plant, what you'll make your fertilizer from and how you'll get your ethanol to your hydrogen plant all without using any fossil fuels...
Using the hydrogen of course. Duh.
I'm loathe to admit this now, but I was one of the very first subscribers (I think the first -- not sure about the whole Quantum service and prehistory) to AOL in my town. This was before the Windows version, and the DOS version was actually a GeoWorks app. Or rather, it came with a GeoWorks runtime, which wasn't good for anyone else. I remember thinking it was really cool.
I was also on the beta team for AOL for Windows 1.0.
Damn I'm lame.
Could this be a ploy to spur Win2k+3 updates?
Not likely -- it's not like they rewrite everything from scratch. Or very much of *anything*. There's probably DOS 1.0 code in there somewhere still. There's a good chance that flaws in the old versions will exist for a long time.
Verizon is Bell Atlantic + GTE, the very very bad non-baby-bell from the midwest. (Known fondly as the "Grand Telephone Experiment".) Shortly after moving to Boston, glad to be finally away from such incompetence (oh, the pain getting a a frac T1 provisioned correctly), bam, here they are again.
[...] their actual purpose was to try and find US made robots and/or buildings(!) on the surface of the moon.
That's an interesting assertation. Do you have any references to back it up? It seems unlikely -- isn't a moon launch rather hard to hide? Why would they need to bother sending a lander there to check?
First of all, IBM has taken great pains to insure that anyone on their Linux team has never had access to AIX or Sys5 code. It was setup as a clean room exercise.
While this may be true for some things (although, really, has IBM actually said this?), it's definitely not true for the RCU stuff, which very clearly says it was " based on original DYNIX/ptx code".
I think this probably won't matter, since IBM can definitely make a good case that RCU isn't derivative of SysV/"SCO" code even though it was implemented in Dynix -- but the path through which this got into Linux seems pretty clear.
Actually, with SE Linux, the root password *can* be root, and it'll still do you no good. That's the "SE" part....
Caffeine keeps you awake, but reduces your ability to think clearly.
Actually, studies show otherwise. This one, for example, demonstrates that caffeine actually helps new brain cells grow. And this one [pdf file] shows that it helps with memory.
Sucks for legitimate high-traffic mailing lists not run by megacorporations.
And it's not just mailing lists: at Boston University, we have a brand new cluster of eight fast Linux boxes to deal with campus e-mail. Plus several older Sun systems. They keep up -- usually. And that's with e-mail _as it is_.
The idea is communication and gaming would just cloud that with alterior [sic] motives.
I think you're confusing gaming with smoking pot....
don't give 'em any ideas!
Like I said, we're screwed.
The real question is have they finally dumped the stupid x86 instruction set in favour of a space/energy/coding efficient RISC set?
Well, as others have pointed out, that's passe. But the Itanium is whole new fancy thing building on the lessons learned -- "EPIC" (explicitly parallel instruction computing, or some such).
Sure it would take time and money but in the end [snip snip snip...]
Yep, time and money but in the end. That's Intel's plan with Itanium, and they've still got some hope for it. In the meantime, AMD was going to eat their lunch (and breakfast and dinner) with x86-64, and it'd be silly to just sit there letting that happen. Sure, they *could* just wave their hands frantically and gush about how superior the new is to the old and hope the market listens -- but as real-world experience shows, refactoring usually wins over rewriting from scratch.