The sad thing is that being arrested for this might be the best thing to happen to their "career" as "security consultants". Look at how many of the former script kiddies with little real skills get high paying jobs after being arrested.
I won't name any names, but this kind of thing seems to be very common, in fact, this seem to be the way into the "security industry". It's cheezy, but kiddies always seem to end up with high ranking positions this way.
But there is a chance, a good one, that a generic benchmark will not reflect real world performance due to random chance in the way the compiler works, or the test you are using.
Suppose you decide to use Distributed.net as part of your benchmark suite. Certain processors (MIPS) do not have a hardware implementation of a certain operation (rotate left I think it is), which makes them seem extremely slow when you look at Dnet numbers.
I don't think benchmarking will ever be boiled down to a simple solution, there are always little complexities which call any numbers into question.
I don't think there is much motivation on the part of compiler writers to optimize for this particular implementation of the x86-32 ISA. This isn't like previous chips, where new cache handling opcodes were added, which compilers could use if available. I've talked to people much better versed in compiler writing than myself, and they all seem to agree, when it comes to "optimizing for P4", their answer is going to be "don't hold your breath".
I know you were kidding, but Napster didn't matter.
A lot of people saw Napster as their first way to really get mp3s, so they assume that if it weren't for Napster, this mp3 thing would have never hit mainstream.
Before Napster came out in it's shitty pre-Alpha form that was barely usable circa 1997 (remember how the windows wouldn't even redraw right?) there were plenty of web sites springing up to provide links to open windows shares and ftps that hosted mp3s. IRC mp3 channels were booming, and had been for at least a full year prior.
MP3s were the natural offspring of computers of pentium I speeds and higher, combined with inevitable advances in audio compression technologies, most of which had existed for a long time. Broadband caused it to explode in a huge way, but mp3s are small enough to trade over modems of the day (already 56K by that point).
Napster provided a GUI for Windows, but without Napster, MP3s would have rushed the scene just as quickly. Napster simply surfed on the wave of new technology, it did not create anything that wasn't already there.
My point is, if it weren't Napster, it would have been something else. To construct a universe without MP3s, computer technology would have to be delayed in other significant ways, maybe modems never got faster than 9600 bps and broadband was a 256kbit internet backbone at a major university.
Printing... You know, big plates that go on a printing press that pick up ink and put it on paper. Like newspapers, magazines, brochures, labels... etc.
I work in the labelling and packaging industry personally. We print things like soup can labels.
Even if there were a perfect technology to let deaf people communicate in the "normal" way, do you think the deaf would use it?
You pointed out an important thing, there is a deaf subculture that is tightly knit. I have little experience with it, by my girlfirend majored in hearing and speech disorders in college, and she tells me about it every time I think of some gizmo to help disabled people.
Do you think that the deaf subculture would reject ANY gizmo, no matter how advanced, just because it's a pride thing?
Work for the printing industry... arithmatic in your head will help with doing dimensions of things on the page, another thing that a proofreader must check.
Misspellings in this message were intentional to cause your brain to twist.:)
There are already accepted No-Cache tags that the lack of would probably signal implicit authorization to cache, and it would likely stand up in court.
I think you are agreeing with me... Note that the part of my message you quoted said "By your logic", i.e., by the original poster's logic that I disagreed with.
In any case, yes, what you said is what I meant, that open source or open standards still fits in line with a "maximize shareholder profit" line of motivation.
Re:Gates Foundation (O/T)
on
Solar Surgery
·
· Score: 1
start out as a simple millionaire's son with 3 years of Harvard behind him
They regularly fuck over the shareholder with dilution from stock based option compensation anyway, so fucking the shareholder is nothing new.
Your post is the antithesis of the open source philosophy. By your logic, no company would ever write for open source software because it benefits their competitors as much as it benefits them. You can see that isn't the case with many companies these days, betting more and more on open source.
Open standards never hurt companies. The company with the best implementation of the open standard will win in the end. The only reason not to adopt open standards is to try to hedge in a monopoly bet. It is the same with adopting an open standard and then bastardizing it so that people have to write for your version of the standard only. "Works best with Windows", etc.
Re:Boon for the third world... sorta
on
Solar Surgery
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Bill Gates, but he recognizes his philanthropy is better spent on vaccines [gatesfoundation.org]
God always warned about gifts from Satan.
In any case, Gates spends a few million a year on such charity endeavors. This is the equivalent to you or I spending about $3 a year on charity, scaling income and wealth down using a simple ratio.
I'm not talking about an organized effort to use fear as a tactic to affect change. I'm talking about the inevitable idiot(s) that steps over the line at any peaceful assembly.
So a person at a protest on a college campus who throws a rock through a window is an enemy combatant? There goes the first amendment.
Sure, it's not a right to destroy government property, but it's vandalism, not terrorism. Making something out to be more serious than it is is the first step. Next you hear, they will be shutting down all forms of protest because a few of the participants might get out of hand.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.
The "miners caps" to let disabled people look at letters to type have been around much longer than that. I remember my high school computer teacher mentioning them in 1993 or so.
Hey if MS can do something to secure the MS networks I have to support, and it contributes to the community. Take their money, develop it, and we all benefit from it. I might get a weekend off.
Hey, maybe if we appease the Nazis just a little more, they will back off. Collaboration with MS should not be tolerated on any level. This includes Miguel and his fetish for.NET, and any sort of "standard" MS has their grubby fingers in.
Oh... Yeah it isn't often mentioned. I'm not totally sure where I first saw it, it may have been when programming in VB, or from the book Supercharging Windows, which was a great book at the time for 3.1.
ALT+- (ALT+hyphen): Displays the Multiple Document Interface (MDI) child window's System menu (from the MDI child window's System menu, you can restore, move, resize, minimize, maximize, or close the child window) CTRL+TAB: Switch to the next child window of a Multiple Document Interface (MDI) program
They say that article applies back to Win 95, but I assure you, the shortcut was there in Win 3.1. Next time you are on a Win 95 box, run WINFILE.EXE or whatever Win 3.1 File Manager was named and try it.
The reason I know is because I used to develop in VB on Windows 3.1. Nothing serious, just playing around and making some crappy shareware, but I did learn a few things.
and finally the concept of hyperlink is far more advanced than what BT described in its patent (basically a `give me the next bit' button).
In a related story, BT sues Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson for inventing the "pipe" and Eric Shienbrood for the utility named "more". Also named as a defendant, Mark Nudelman, for writing a similar utility named "less". More at 11.
It's a good move for Apple, since nearly all the people who buy the family license would have just bought the single one and copied it 5 times anyway. Now they see that they have a viable option that won't cost $650 and still let them be legit, they are more likely to take it.
Slashdot Mirror
The sad thing is that being arrested for this might be the best thing to happen to their "career" as "security consultants". Look at how many of the former script kiddies with little real skills get high paying jobs after being arrested.
I won't name any names, but this kind of thing seems to be very common, in fact, this seem to be the way into the "security industry". It's cheezy, but kiddies always seem to end up with high ranking positions this way.
But there is a chance, a good one, that a generic benchmark will not reflect real world performance due to random chance in the way the compiler works, or the test you are using.
Suppose you decide to use Distributed.net as part of your benchmark suite. Certain processors (MIPS) do not have a hardware implementation of a certain operation (rotate left I think it is), which makes them seem extremely slow when you look at Dnet numbers.
I don't think benchmarking will ever be boiled down to a simple solution, there are always little complexities which call any numbers into question.
I don't think there is much motivation on the part of compiler writers to optimize for this particular implementation of the x86-32 ISA. This isn't like previous chips, where new cache handling opcodes were added, which compilers could use if available. I've talked to people much better versed in compiler writing than myself, and they all seem to agree, when it comes to "optimizing for P4", their answer is going to be "don't hold your breath".
I know you were kidding, but Napster didn't matter.
A lot of people saw Napster as their first way to really get mp3s, so they assume that if it weren't for Napster, this mp3 thing would have never hit mainstream.
Before Napster came out in it's shitty pre-Alpha form that was barely usable circa 1997 (remember how the windows wouldn't even redraw right?) there were plenty of web sites springing up to provide links to open windows shares and ftps that hosted mp3s. IRC mp3 channels were booming, and had been for at least a full year prior.
MP3s were the natural offspring of computers of pentium I speeds and higher, combined with inevitable advances in audio compression technologies, most of which had existed for a long time. Broadband caused it to explode in a huge way, but mp3s are small enough to trade over modems of the day (already 56K by that point).
Napster provided a GUI for Windows, but without Napster, MP3s would have rushed the scene just as quickly. Napster simply surfed on the wave of new technology, it did not create anything that wasn't already there.
My point is, if it weren't Napster, it would have been something else. To construct a universe without MP3s, computer technology would have to be delayed in other significant ways, maybe modems never got faster than 9600 bps and broadband was a 256kbit internet backbone at a major university.
Printing... You know, big plates that go on a printing press that pick up ink and put it on paper. Like newspapers, magazines, brochures, labels... etc.
I work in the labelling and packaging industry personally. We print things like soup can labels.
Even if there were a perfect technology to let deaf people communicate in the "normal" way, do you think the deaf would use it?
You pointed out an important thing, there is a deaf subculture that is tightly knit. I have little experience with it, by my girlfirend majored in hearing and speech disorders in college, and she tells me about it every time I think of some gizmo to help disabled people.
Do you think that the deaf subculture would reject ANY gizmo, no matter how advanced, just because it's a pride thing?
Work for the printing industry... arithmatic in your head will help with doing dimensions of things on the page, another thing that a proofreader must check.
:)
Misspellings in this message were intentional to cause your brain to twist.
There are already accepted No-Cache tags that the lack of would probably signal implicit authorization to cache, and it would likely stand up in court.
I think you are agreeing with me... Note that the part of my message you quoted said "By your logic", i.e., by the original poster's logic that I disagreed with.
In any case, yes, what you said is what I meant, that open source or open standards still fits in line with a "maximize shareholder profit" line of motivation.
start out as a simple millionaire's son with 3 years of Harvard behind him
:)
Oh yeah, rags to riches, rags to riches.
They regularly fuck over the shareholder with dilution from stock based option compensation anyway, so fucking the shareholder is nothing new.
Your post is the antithesis of the open source philosophy. By your logic, no company would ever write for open source software because it benefits their competitors as much as it benefits them. You can see that isn't the case with many companies these days, betting more and more on open source.
Open standards never hurt companies. The company with the best implementation of the open standard will win in the end. The only reason not to adopt open standards is to try to hedge in a monopoly bet. It is the same with adopting an open standard and then bastardizing it so that people have to write for your version of the standard only. "Works best with Windows", etc.
Bill Gates, but he recognizes his philanthropy is better spent on vaccines [gatesfoundation.org]
God always warned about gifts from Satan.
In any case, Gates spends a few million a year on such charity endeavors. This is the equivalent to you or I spending about $3 a year on charity, scaling income and wealth down using a simple ratio.
I'm not talking about an organized effort to use fear as a tactic to affect change. I'm talking about the inevitable idiot(s) that steps over the line at any peaceful assembly.
So a person at a protest on a college campus who throws a rock through a window is an enemy combatant? There goes the first amendment.
Sure, it's not a right to destroy government property, but it's vandalism, not terrorism. Making something out to be more serious than it is is the first step. Next you hear, they will be shutting down all forms of protest because a few of the participants might get out of hand.
The Court conducts business in a secret manner
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.
Her Honour would probably take offense to being referred to as "KK". Try to show a little respect, she appears to deserve it.
The "miners caps" to let disabled people look at letters to type have been around much longer than that. I remember my high school computer teacher mentioning them in 1993 or so.
Hey if MS can do something to secure the MS networks I have to support, and it contributes to the community. Take their money, develop it, and we all benefit from it. I might get a weekend off.
.NET, and any sort of "standard" MS has their grubby fingers in.
Hey, maybe if we appease the Nazis just a little more, they will back off. Collaboration with MS should not be tolerated on any level. This includes Miguel and his fetish for
For 2.2 trillion dollars, you could easily buy a not so small country. Think Sealand with a real military and some actual real estate. :)
Linux has them beat there. Each license is infinite! We only need to ship one copy to be able to claim 100% of the OS market.
As x approaches infinity...
x/anything = infinity.
Oh... Yeah it isn't often mentioned. I'm not totally sure where I first saw it, it may have been when programming in VB, or from the book Supercharging Windows, which was a great book at the time for 3.1.
And if you never leave the house like many of us, try Epitonic
Same deal, but you don't have to leave the house, and if the band sucks, rm is cheaper than biting the cover charge.
There are a few major label acts on there, but most of it is small time stuff. Highly recommend The Legendary Pink Dots, and Danielson Famile.
You really should have done a quick google search.
K B; EN-US;q126449&
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
ALT+- (ALT+hyphen): Displays the Multiple Document Interface (MDI) child window's System menu (from the MDI child window's System menu, you can restore, move, resize, minimize, maximize, or close the child window)
CTRL+TAB: Switch to the next child window of a Multiple Document Interface (MDI) program
They say that article applies back to Win 95, but I assure you, the shortcut was there in Win 3.1. Next time you are on a Win 95 box, run WINFILE.EXE or whatever Win 3.1 File Manager was named and try it.
The reason I know is because I used to develop in VB on Windows 3.1. Nothing serious, just playing around and making some crappy shareware, but I did learn a few things.
and finally the concept of hyperlink is far more advanced than what BT described in its patent (basically a `give me the next bit' button).
In a related story, BT sues Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson for inventing the "pipe" and Eric Shienbrood for the utility named "more". Also named as a defendant, Mark Nudelman, for writing a similar utility named "less". More at 11.
It's a good move for Apple, since nearly all the people who buy the family license would have just bought the single one and copied it 5 times anyway. Now they see that they have a viable option that won't cost $650 and still let them be legit, they are more likely to take it.