Not to mention the animosity that is generated by the fact that the people who get the big bonuses are in sales, marketing, and management; coupled with the fact that when layoffs come they always seem to start in the IT department.
FTA: "There's really no reason to wait until the launch of Windows Vista to start shopping for a PC that can deliver a great Windows Vista experience..."
So I'll be able to upgrade from XP to Vista for free? If not, well... that would definitely be a reason. I know $136 isn't a lot to MS bigwigs, but it is to me.
Secondly, am I the only one that noticed that FarCry requires less of a system than Vista does? Holy Crap!!!
FarCry:
Minimum Requirements:
1GHz P3 or Athlon
256MB RAM
64MB 3D card
4GB hard drive space
Recommended Requirements:
2GHz P4 or Athlon XP 2000+
512MB RAM
128MB DirectX 9.0 3D card
I can run XP AND a 3D game with less hardware than Vista with some visual effects turned on. OMG!
I'm probably the only one, but I read the title as "Women Get Lots of Info From Male Feces". Which did seem a lot more interesting than the actual subject. A subject that I have seen tested at least 5 years ago. Not to mention that it seems like common sense that the #1 hormone effecting male development effects the features of the face, and that women would be able to detect the differences.
and also getting drier in certain parts, unfortunately for those of us who depend on hydropower for cheap electricity
Or any of the other minor uses for water besides hydro power, like oh... I don't know... DRINKING. Go a few days without potable water and see if you still care about cheap electricity.
After all, the original objective of the patent system was to advance science, industry, etc..., it was not intended as a means of... building monopolies.
Um... Actually, that's exactly what it was intended for. Give someone an artificial monopoly on their idea, and they'll be incouraged to innovate, knowing that they can recoupe their R&D costs.
The problem with some patents is that they are only ideas, not implementations. Take RIM versus NTP. What costs did NTP incur in developing their idea? None, they didn't develop it. Why do you need to protect something that you're not commercially developing?
It's like patenting the plot to a book, and suing every movie, comic, book, etc... that every uses your idea again.
This is basically the idea I came up with (damn, I should have patented it), with one small exception. I would charge the cost of the examination to the person who claimed prior art, if it turned out the prior art wasn't valid.
That way you ensure that prior art submissions couldn't be used abusively, just to cost the patent holder money.
Who or what exactly is the imminent threat facing Europe that the Americans so generously provide defense against? Since the Cold War, how many times was Europe attacked and defended by the United States, and by whom?
I've heard this argument applied to Canada, as well. I've seen idiots on CNN and Fox claim that Canada is defenseless without the US. One moron even claimed that Canada "needs the American nuclear shield" to protect it. Nuclear shield? What the fuck is that? Did I miss that day in physics class? When did H-bombs begin providing defense against an attack in progress? The thing these idiots forget is that the only country in the world that has ever attacked Canada on its own soil WAS THE US. One Fox goon claimed that Norway could conquer Canada if it wasn't for the US. This would be true, if Norway had any motivation for attacking Canada. Canada doesn't have a large military, not because the US defends it, but because they don't have enemies that post a threat of attack (other than the US). Remember, 9/11 happened in New York, not Toronto. That wasn't a coincidence.
Nuclear shield! Are these people born that stupid, or are they trained before they're allowed on the news?
1) They don't have to make it multiple threads.
2) Each core is hyper-threaded so it's actually 1-6 threads.
3) I don't know about the cell hiding the multi-threadedness, everything I've read says that XBox 360 is easier to program for than PS3 because of the dev tools. MS historically makes good dev tools and treats their developers well. Sony seems to continually make coding for its consoles difficult. Almost like they see it as a priviledge that you (a developer) are allowed to code for it.
You didn't actually add anything to the conversation. Read the PP again. "There wasn't anything on the table to require porn sites to use the domain."
Your link: "Periodically there are proposals to mandate the use of a special top
level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "unsafe" material
or the like. This document explains why this is an ill considered
idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical
points of view."
Just creating the domain does nothing. That's like saying that the.tv TLD shouldn't have been made because all tv shows would have to be moved to it. There was no such requirement for.xxx. It was an additional choice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the distinction is a little bit more specific than that.
Sci-fi is as you say. A regular story set in the future or focusing on technology (i.e.: Star Trek--although, not all episodes)
Science Fiction (SF) specifically refers to any fiction that put humans in a futuristic environment to illuminate and reflect on the human condition, culture and society. The classic example is showing tension between alien species that is derived essentially from their physical differences to demonstrate the ignorance inherent in racism found in our own society. Technology might be used to enable the story telling, but isn't the focus.
Closed Source Is Fertile Ground for Foul Play The nature of closed source makes security problems an inevitable concern. There are a handful of ways that malicious code can make its way into closed source and avoid detection during security testing, making government adoption of closed source particularly worrisome.
by Swoogan February 11, 2004
An old adage that governments would be well-served to heed is: A penny saved is a penny earned. When you rely on medium and high-cost products, you often get the shaft, and that, in my opinion, is exactly what governments are on track to get. Perhaps not today, nor even tomorrow, and not because closed source products are less capable or less efficient than non-commercial products, but because sooner or later, governments that rely on expensive closed source software will put their country's and their citizens' data in harm's way. Eventually--and inevitably--a closed source product will be found to contain a security breach--not one discovered by hackers, security personnel, or a CS student or professor. Instead, the security breach will be placed into the closed source software from inside, by someone working on the project.
This will happen because the closed source model, which does not let anyone modify source code and sell or distribute the results, virtually guarantees that if the writer inserts malicious code into the source it will not be found. Malevolent code can enter closed source software at several levels. First, and most worrisome, is that the core project code could be compromised by inclusion of source fix or extension. As the core code is not carefully scrutinized, it is terribly likely. Even more likely is that distributions will be created and advertised for free, or created with the express purpose of marketing them to governments at cut-rate pricing. As anyone can create and market a distribution, it's not far-fetched to imagine a version subsidized and supported by organizations that may not have U.S. or other government interests at heart.
Third, an individual or group of IT insiders could target a single organization by obtaining a good copy of Windows (for example), and then customizing it for an organization, including malevolent code as they do so. That version would then become the standard version for the organization. Given the prevalence of inter-corporation and inter-governmental spying, and the relatively large numbers of people in a position to accomplish such subterfuge, this last scenario is virtually certain to occur. Worse, these probabilities aren't limited to Windows itself, the same possibilities (and probabilities) exist for every closed source software package installed and used on the machines.
How Can This Happen?
The products of the closed source software development model have become increasingly entrenched in large organizations and governments, primarily in the form of Windows, an expensive closed-source operating system, the expensive closed-source IIS Web server, and closed source office suites. There are several reasons that closed source software--and Windows in particular--are seeing such a dramatic uptick in use, including Microsoft's extensive Windows support effort over the past several years, and the perception that Windows is more secure than Linux, despite the fact that both products are riddled with software security holes. (Use this menu to see the number of vulnerabilities reported by security watchdog group Secunia for an OS-by-OS comparison.)
So far, major closed source distributors such as Microsoft and others have been able to discover and remedy attacks on their core source-code servers. The distributors point to the fact that they discovered and privately discussed these breaches as evidence that their security measures work. Call me paranoid, but such attacks, however well handled, serve to raise the question of whether other such attacks have been more successful (in other words, undiscovered). Because anyone can create and market--or give a
If you had to inspect your kid's closet to find his new gun, you've already failed at a fundamental level.
I think that says it all.
That's what frustrated me so much with the columbine murders. They kept bring up how these kids wore trench coats, listened to marilyn manson, and played doom like that could make someone a murderer. Even if it could, don't you think if listening to marilyn manson can turn your kid into a murderer, you've already failed at a fundamental level?
I'm not totally blaming it on the parents, these guys were "young adults" after all, but they had serious problems that didn't come out of nowhere, and they didn't get any help for them.
First off, I didn't say that one year is always enough. Please show me a quote if I did. Secondly the original poster stated that we would have to wait 6 months. I simply stated that I've already waited a year. Thirdly the DVD took years to release because of the stupid encryption they HAD to have on it, but couldn't agree on how to implement it. Lastly, does it matter if it's accepted? The tech exists.
Minidiscs aren't accepted, but they do exist and therefore aren't vaporware.
You might be interested in reading this article (notice it was posted amost exactly a year ago) on the Register.
So, the ignore for six months part is over. This should actually be ready now.
"MAYBE, it's a damn good idea to start looking for a new place to live and expand to"
So lets say the earth can hold a pop of 6billion but not much more. Lets also say the pop doubles every 30 years (I don't know if this is true, but it's kinda irrelevant).
So instead of trying to stop the damage and pop growth on earth we look for a "new place". In thirty years the pop doubles and half go to mars.
Wow! We've bought ourselves a wopping 30years. At the end of that we can just quickly terraform 2 more planets to live on for the next 30 years.
I like my plan better. Stop population growth and stop harming the earth, and use it indefinately.
Somehow I doubt a culture that still idolizes Einstein (one of the more unique individuals of this century) is going to put all of its faith in human control and homogenization of all aspects of reproduction. What happens when every rich person has a copy of Einstein's gene's or some other brilliant person's? The homogenization occurs when a particular trait (or any other desired one) is discovered and sold over and over again until all children have virtually identical traits. The fun really starts when a new disease mutates and all these beautiful little masterminds don't have enough genetic diversity to withstand it. Say bye-bye...
Slashdot Mirror
Sonic Advance for the GBA was pretty good. It reminded me of the old Genesis sonic games.
Not to mention the animosity that is generated by the fact that the people who get the big bonuses are in sales, marketing, and management; coupled with the fact that when layoffs come they always seem to start in the IT department.
If you want a flat-file API there's FlatDB.Net. It has no front end, but is really easy to use from code. Works with Mono too.
So I'll be able to upgrade from XP to Vista for free? If not, well... that would definitely be a reason. I know $136 isn't a lot to MS bigwigs, but it is to me.
Secondly, am I the only one that noticed that FarCry requires less of a system than Vista does? Holy Crap!!!
FarCry:
Minimum Requirements: 1GHz P3 or Athlon 256MB RAM 64MB 3D card 4GB hard drive space
Recommended Requirements: 2GHz P4 or Athlon XP 2000+ 512MB RAM 128MB DirectX 9.0 3D card
I can run XP AND a 3D game with less hardware than Vista with some visual effects turned on. OMG!
I'm probably the only one, but I read the title as "Women Get Lots of Info From Male Feces". Which did seem a lot more interesting than the actual subject. A subject that I have seen tested at least 5 years ago. Not to mention that it seems like common sense that the #1 hormone effecting male development effects the features of the face, and that women would be able to detect the differences.
and also getting drier in certain parts, unfortunately for those of us who depend on hydropower for cheap electricity
Or any of the other minor uses for water besides hydro power, like oh... I don't know... DRINKING. Go a few days without potable water and see if you still care about cheap electricity.
Um... Actually, that's exactly what it was intended for. Give someone an artificial monopoly on their idea, and they'll be incouraged to innovate, knowing that they can recoupe their R&D costs.
The problem with some patents is that they are only ideas, not implementations. Take RIM versus NTP. What costs did NTP incur in developing their idea? None, they didn't develop it. Why do you need to protect something that you're not commercially developing?
It's like patenting the plot to a book, and suing every movie, comic, book, etc... that every uses your idea again.
This is basically the idea I came up with (damn, I should have patented it), with one small exception. I would charge the cost of the examination to the person who claimed prior art, if it turned out the prior art wasn't valid.
That way you ensure that prior art submissions couldn't be used abusively, just to cost the patent holder money.
Who or what exactly is the imminent threat facing Europe that the Americans so generously provide defense against? Since the Cold War, how many times was Europe attacked and defended by the United States, and by whom?
I've heard this argument applied to Canada, as well. I've seen idiots on CNN and Fox claim that Canada is defenseless without the US. One moron even claimed that Canada "needs the American nuclear shield" to protect it. Nuclear shield? What the fuck is that? Did I miss that day in physics class? When did H-bombs begin providing defense against an attack in progress? The thing these idiots forget is that the only country in the world that has ever attacked Canada on its own soil WAS THE US. One Fox goon claimed that Norway could conquer Canada if it wasn't for the US. This would be true, if Norway had any motivation for attacking Canada. Canada doesn't have a large military, not because the US defends it, but because they don't have enemies that post a threat of attack (other than the US). Remember, 9/11 happened in New York, not Toronto. That wasn't a coincidence.
Nuclear shield! Are these people born that stupid, or are they trained before they're allowed on the news?
1) They don't have to make it multiple threads. 2) Each core is hyper-threaded so it's actually 1-6 threads. 3) I don't know about the cell hiding the multi-threadedness, everything I've read says that XBox 360 is easier to program for than PS3 because of the dev tools. MS historically makes good dev tools and treats their developers well. Sony seems to continually make coding for its consoles difficult. Almost like they see it as a priviledge that you (a developer) are allowed to code for it.
You didn't actually add anything to the conversation. Read the PP again. "There wasn't anything on the table to require porn sites to use the domain."
.tv TLD shouldn't have been made because all tv shows would have to be moved to it. There was no such requirement for .xxx. It was an additional choice.
Your link: "Periodically there are proposals to mandate the use of a special top
level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "unsafe" material
or the like. This document explains why this is an ill considered
idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical
points of view."
Just creating the domain does nothing. That's like saying that the
Sci-fi is as you say. A regular story set in the future or focusing on technology (i.e.: Star Trek--although, not all episodes)
Science Fiction (SF) specifically refers to any fiction that put humans in a futuristic environment to illuminate and reflect on the human condition, culture and society. The classic example is showing tension between alien species that is derived essentially from their physical differences to demonstrate the ignorance inherent in racism found in our own society. Technology might be used to enable the story telling, but isn't the focus.
A good comparison is Star Trek vs Firefly.
Because nobody buys CDs anymore. Who would they sell them to?
Shit! Jay and Silent Bob really are going to come to my house and kick my ass. Until now, I thought it was impossible.
Closed Source Is Fertile Ground for Foul Play
The nature of closed source makes security problems an inevitable concern. There are a handful of ways that malicious code can make its way into closed source and avoid detection during security testing, making government adoption of closed source particularly worrisome.
by Swoogan February 11, 2004
An old adage that governments would be well-served to heed is: A penny saved is a penny earned. When you rely on medium and high-cost products, you often get the shaft, and that, in my opinion, is exactly what governments are on track to get. Perhaps not today, nor even tomorrow, and not because closed source products are less capable or less efficient than non-commercial products, but because sooner or later, governments that rely on expensive closed source software will put their country's and their citizens' data in harm's way. Eventually--and inevitably--a closed source product will be found to contain a security breach--not one discovered by hackers, security personnel, or a CS student or professor. Instead, the security breach will be placed into the closed source software from inside, by someone working on the project.
This will happen because the closed source model, which does not let anyone modify source code and sell or distribute the results, virtually guarantees that if the writer inserts malicious code into the source it will not be found. Malevolent code can enter closed source software at several levels. First, and most worrisome, is that the core project code could be compromised by inclusion of source fix or extension. As the core code is not carefully scrutinized, it is terribly likely. Even more likely is that distributions will be created and advertised for free, or created with the express purpose of marketing them to governments at cut-rate pricing. As anyone can create and market a distribution, it's not far-fetched to imagine a version subsidized and supported by organizations that may not have U.S. or other government interests at heart.
Third, an individual or group of IT insiders could target a single organization by obtaining a good copy of Windows (for example), and then customizing it for an organization, including malevolent code as they do so. That version would then become the standard version for the organization. Given the prevalence of inter-corporation and inter-governmental spying, and the relatively large numbers of people in a position to accomplish such subterfuge, this last scenario is virtually certain to occur. Worse, these probabilities aren't limited to Windows itself, the same possibilities (and probabilities) exist for every closed source software package installed and used on the machines.
How Can This Happen?
The products of the closed source software development model have become increasingly entrenched in large organizations and governments, primarily in the form of Windows, an expensive closed-source operating system, the expensive closed-source IIS Web server, and closed source office suites. There are several reasons that closed source software--and Windows in particular--are seeing such a dramatic uptick in use, including Microsoft's extensive Windows support effort over the past several years, and the perception that Windows is more secure than Linux, despite the fact that both products are riddled with software security holes. (Use this menu to see the number of vulnerabilities reported by security watchdog group Secunia for an OS-by-OS comparison.)
So far, major closed source distributors such as Microsoft and others have been able to discover and remedy attacks on their core source-code servers. The distributors point to the fact that they discovered and privately discussed these breaches as evidence that their security measures work. Call me paranoid, but such attacks, however well handled, serve to raise the question of whether other such attacks have been more successful (in other words, undiscovered). Because anyone can create and market--or give a
If you had to inspect your kid's closet to find his new gun, you've already failed at a fundamental level.
I think that says it all.
That's what frustrated me so much with the columbine murders. They kept bring up how these kids wore trench coats, listened to marilyn manson, and played doom like that could make someone a murderer. Even if it could, don't you think if listening to marilyn manson can turn your kid into a murderer, you've already failed at a fundamental level?
I'm not totally blaming it on the parents, these guys were "young adults" after all, but they had serious problems that didn't come out of nowhere, and they didn't get any help for them.
Well, Netscape 7.0 is sure a lot faster than Netscape 5 was.
Swoogan
Minidiscs aren't accepted, but they do exist and therefore aren't vaporware.
Swoogan
So, the ignore for six months part is over. This should actually be ready now.
Swoogan
Swoogan
So lets say the earth can hold a pop of 6billion but not much more. Lets also say the pop doubles every 30 years (I don't know if this is true, but it's kinda irrelevant).
So instead of trying to stop the damage and pop growth on earth we look for a "new place". In thirty years the pop doubles and half go to mars.
Wow! We've bought ourselves a wopping 30years. At the end of that we can just quickly terraform 2 more planets to live on for the next 30 years.
I like my plan better. Stop population growth and stop harming the earth, and use it indefinately.
Swoogan
Somehow I doubt a culture that still idolizes Einstein (one of the more unique individuals of this century) is going to put all of its faith in human control and homogenization of all aspects of reproduction. What happens when every rich person has a copy of Einstein's gene's or some other brilliant person's? The homogenization occurs when a particular trait (or any other desired one) is discovered and sold over and over again until all children have virtually identical traits. The fun really starts when a new disease mutates and all these beautiful little masterminds don't have enough genetic diversity to withstand it. Say bye-bye...