This means each generation is half the size of the previous. Are you proposing an indefinite decline (aka extiction), or just until there are less than X billion of us?
"First, I want to make one thing clear: In my view, governments and public bodies should not push "gratis," "free," "open" or "proprietary" solutions over any of the other options. That could severely damage the incentives for software developers and the national market for IT at large."
You haven't quite understood the open-source and free-software business proposition, have you ? What's more, in my views, when the government buys Microsoft software, it makes them a little richer and that threatens my job in a small non-Microsoft company that much more. How about a little of that?
You misunderstand the position. Currently the govt is effectively "pushing" microsoft's stuff. What you want, and what that quote states, is for them to stop pushing that, and not start pushing anything else specifically.
What do you see as a solution? If they start using something else, it still doesn't help your job in a "small non-Microsoft company." If they decide to use the best tools for the job (which they probably don't have the budget to determine) then your job security is based on your performance.
Personally, I think that the government *should* push open data storage formats. That would make switching to a different set of software that much less painful.
This is about Microsoft forcing you (so to speak) to give them permission to access your computer. Open source licenses do not force you to agree to allow the author/distributer to do anything with your computer. Open source licenses generally have no terms related to actual *use* of the software, they only apply to redistributing modifications to the source code.
I think it pretty much all comes down to one thing: "Don't touch my stuff!"
More accurately, if the advertisers know you're using trillian, AOL doesn't get ad revenues. It has to trickle back.
So what you need to do is to wire up the client so it still downloads the ads (so AOL has statistics showing that you saw them) and tell people that you're using AIM and seeing the ads.
Now it doesn't hurt AOL any, but it does hurt the advertisers, unless you weren't going to pay attention to the ads anyway.
I guess you're right... (AMD's processors are binary compatible, which means assembly code for them will be identical, except for processor specific extensions, but in this case those qualify as suspicious.)
But examining source code and compiling it yourself also requires a certain degree of skill, not to mention time and effort. In the end you'll usually have to rely on someone you TRUST. They're the ones that need the skills and time.
Just so ya know, keys are sent from the keyboard as a series of key press/release events, not as complete letters. (some keys are sent as very strange combinations, like "print screen" iirc, but it's still easy to tell)
All that needs to be done is to catch the keystrokes before they are decoded by the OS, which is probably not very difficult.
Autorepeat might be something tho... but I think the most that would be needed is to only register keypresses that are sent when they key was previously up. (Repeat is usually sent as multiple key down events with no intervening "up", and I'm pretty sure this is actually done in the keyboard.)
No need for source code, disassemble it. Look for the system call to hook the keyboard driver, find the code that processes those keystrokes and look for anything shifty. If it's on the level it should be fairly straight forward. It's not like this is some essential thing where you have to prove that it's malicious before you decide not to use it.
Once you're satisfied that it's ok, post it someplace and everyone who trusts you is good to go.
Why would you cache memory for DMA? It doesn't go through the processor (that's the Direct part) so you certainly wouldn't store it in the processor's cache. In fact, you'll only be accessing each location once, to copy it across the bus. Unless the memory can be read from ram faster than it can cross the bus, but I don't think that's the case...
If I had 1 person sending me data I could get an amazing 4.5kps while if I had 10 people sending me data I would get.45kps.
.45k * 10 people each sending it = 4.5k
With symmetrical connections, you get essentially the same speed (minus a little overhead), but most connections are asymmetrical. Most home connections (other than modems) will let you recieve more than you can transmit.
Of course the problem with that is that all these other people have to dedicate more of their line to you than anyone else. If ten people send you pieces of one thing, but only use one tenth of their bandwidth, you don't get any benefit.
Except usually measured over time as kilowatthours:
3*100W*2hr = 600Wh =.6kWh
That generator thing must've been drawing a lot of current!
Also, notice:
The machine went on to run for around two hours while photographs were taken, with no diminution in the brightness of the light bulbs, which remained lit during a short power cut.
Where was the power cut? Not to the lights, they kept lit. Must've been to the generator, for a "short power cut"...
So basically he's got a motor and a capacitor in a huge box. Or maybe just a flywheel.
Except you can't have microcode bugs without microcode, now can you?
I seriously doubt the 4004 had microcode. I know for a fact that the z80 didn't (originally anyway, it was the most complicated cpu to be hardwired), that's why it had so many undocumented instructions.
(Also, the middle link knows nothing about the z80, for example, it also "could join pairs of 8-bit registers to use for 16-bit operations". Dunno if it inherited that from the 8080 or what.)
People should not mess with what they don't understand.
Close. People should not mess with what they don't want to understand.
My mother is free to change all sorts of things on that nasty Windows ME machine, but she doesn't touch it. Is this because she doesn't understand it? Yes, but more to the point, she doesn't care about it and thus never will understand it.
At one point, I didn't understand any of that either. (Mind you, them was simpler times!) Now I do, why? Because I wanted to understand it, and I was able to play with it. Haptic learning is a wonderful thing.
Now, as for Aunt Tillie and building a kernel? I think it's likely that she won't care about it.
Forget whether or not they'll look for the logo, will the logo even be visible?
Out of the 7 audio CDs I have within easy reach, only one has the logo printed on the outside (and so tiny it's barely ledgible). All seven have the logo, but it's INSIDE the jewel case. How many stores will let you open the jewel case before you buy the CD?
And besides that, just having the logo on the case means nothing. All single-cd jewel cases have it, even the ones that come with software CDs. (Unless you really think Windows 2000 counts as "digital audio")
In other words, not everyone will punish freeloaders given the chance.
Look at it this way: Does everyone license thier code under the GPL? No, some use licenses like BSD which do not punish freeloaders. Clearly they are doing this by choice, as the license does not stop them from changing to a different one.
In contrast, are those using the GPL *choosing* to punish freeloaders? Not necessarily, if they started with GPL'd code for any reason, they *must* punish, it is not necessarily by choice. (Not to say that no one ever chooses the GPL, that's obviously not true, just that some people use it without a choice.)
Clearly, some people will choose to punish others for the "common good", while some will choose not to for whatever reason.
*resists the temptation to try to claim one way as better*
But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The license list page gives a partial list of GPL-compatible licenses.
The same thing goes for software which "incorporates" gpl'd code (but I'm not gonna go through that to quote the relevant part). If it can be considered one program in the end and one piece is under the gpl, the whole thing and all pieces must be also.
The DMV will issue you a card that is only for identification rather than a combined id/drivers license.
There are good reasons for driving to be a priviledge. It means that the government can remove that priviledge for those who show they are not capable of handling the resposibility.
If you have a problem with having your license revoked for being a bad driver, perhaps you should pay more attention when driving. Or maybe driving isn't for you.
You don't want to store biometric information on the card. Grab a blank card and you can do just about whatever you want to it, in your own home.
If you're gonna have biometrics, store the information in the database and a simple index number on the card. The database is much harder to crack than the card, and a failed attempt calls much more attention.
When the ice melts it melts for a reason - the sea has warmed up. And when the sea warms it will expand.
Um, second to last paragraph of post you replied to:
The thermal expansion of water due to global warming (supposedly, see the ATOC project [ucsd.edu] for more info) is likely to add a similar amount.
But wouldn't the ice melting cool the sea down again? In my experience, if you hold a glass of water with ice in it over heat, the ice melts and the water gets colder. This makes sense because it takes much more energy to heat water from -1C to 1C than from 19C to 21C. That whole "coefficient of freezing" or whatever it is.
Thanks for the link, seems only version 1 G/UUIDs use the MAC address... (aka "IEEE 802 address")
IP addresses are not guaranteed to be globally unique (eg, mine is 192.168.42.69), but MAC addresses are. (Except for cards that allow you to set them in software, but I understand those are rare.) I don't know why it would use your ip address unless it couldn't find a network card, or maybe it just matched by chance?
From MS's docs it sounds like UUID is used for intercomputer communication and GUID is within, but they're exactly the same things so who knows. Maybe they decided to be a little less arrogant to use "globally unique" rather than "universally"? Ehh, probably not.
That's right, and it only identies individual computers in as much as it includes the MAC address from the network card on which the software was CREATED. afaik GUIDs are NOT generated on regular user's systems.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you want, lisp's "eq/eql/equal"?
(not (equal '(large brain) '(intelligence)))
One child per couple. No more.
This means each generation is half the size of the previous. Are you proposing an indefinite decline (aka extiction), or just until there are less than X billion of us?
"First, I want to make one thing clear: In my view, governments and public bodies should not push "gratis," "free," "open" or "proprietary" solutions over any of the other options. That could severely damage the incentives for software developers and the national market for IT at large."
You haven't quite understood the open-source and free-software business proposition, have you ? What's more, in my views, when the government buys Microsoft software, it makes them a little richer and that threatens my job in a small non-Microsoft company that much more. How about a little of that?
You misunderstand the position. Currently the govt is effectively "pushing" microsoft's stuff. What you want, and what that quote states, is for them to stop pushing that, and not start pushing anything else specifically.
What do you see as a solution? If they start using something else, it still doesn't help your job in a "small non-Microsoft company." If they decide to use the best tools for the job (which they probably don't have the budget to determine) then your job security is based on your performance.
Personally, I think that the government *should* push open data storage formats. That would make switching to a different set of software that much less painful.
Uh, no.
This is about Microsoft forcing you (so to speak) to give them permission to access your computer. Open source licenses do not force you to agree to allow the author/distributer to do anything with your computer. Open source licenses generally have no terms related to actual *use* of the software, they only apply to redistributing modifications to the source code.
I think it pretty much all comes down to one thing: "Don't touch my stuff!"
Don't forget:
o) Income Tax
;)
More accurately, if the advertisers know you're using trillian, AOL doesn't get ad revenues. It has to trickle back.
So what you need to do is to wire up the client so it still downloads the ads (so AOL has statistics showing that you saw them) and tell people that you're using AIM and seeing the ads.
Now it doesn't hurt AOL any, but it does hurt the advertisers, unless you weren't going to pay attention to the ads anyway.
I guess you're right... (AMD's processors are binary compatible, which means assembly code for them will be identical, except for processor specific extensions, but in this case those qualify as suspicious.)
But examining source code and compiling it yourself also requires a certain degree of skill, not to mention time and effort. In the end you'll usually have to rely on someone you TRUST. They're the ones that need the skills and time.
Just so ya know, keys are sent from the keyboard as a series of key press/release events, not as complete letters. (some keys are sent as very strange combinations, like "print screen" iirc, but it's still easy to tell)
All that needs to be done is to catch the keystrokes before they are decoded by the OS, which is probably not very difficult.
Autorepeat might be something tho... but I think the most that would be needed is to only register keypresses that are sent when they key was previously up. (Repeat is usually sent as multiple key down events with no intervening "up", and I'm pretty sure this is actually done in the keyboard.)
No need for source code, disassemble it. Look for the system call to hook the keyboard driver, find the code that processes those keystrokes and look for anything shifty. If it's on the level it should be fairly straight forward. It's not like this is some essential thing where you have to prove that it's malicious before you decide not to use it.
Once you're satisfied that it's ok, post it someplace and everyone who trusts you is good to go.
Why would you cache memory for DMA? It doesn't go through the processor (that's the Direct part) so you certainly wouldn't store it in the processor's cache. In fact, you'll only be accessing each location once, to copy it across the bus. Unless the memory can be read from ram faster than it can cross the bus, but I don't think that's the case...
If I had 1 person sending me data I could get an amazing 4.5kps while if I had 10 people sending me data I would get .45kps.
With symmetrical connections, you get essentially the same speed (minus a little overhead), but most connections are asymmetrical. Most home connections (other than modems) will let you recieve more than you can transmit.
Of course the problem with that is that all these other people have to dedicate more of their line to you than anyone else. If ten people send you pieces of one thing, but only use one tenth of their bandwidth, you don't get any benefit.
3*100W = 300W = .3kW
.6kWh
Except usually measured over time as kilowatthours:
3*100W*2hr = 600Wh =
That generator thing must've been drawing a lot of current!
Also, notice:
The machine went on to run for around two hours while photographs were taken, with no diminution in the brightness of the light bulbs, which remained lit during a short power cut.
Where was the power cut? Not to the lights, they kept lit. Must've been to the generator, for a "short power cut"...
So basically he's got a motor and a capacitor in a huge box. Or maybe just a flywheel.
AMD just doesn't want to put their "Quantispeed Architecture" into a budget chip. ;)
Except you can't have microcode bugs without microcode, now can you?
I seriously doubt the 4004 had microcode. I know for a fact that the z80 didn't (originally anyway, it was the most complicated cpu to be hardwired), that's why it had so many undocumented instructions.
(Also, the middle link knows nothing about the z80, for example, it also "could join pairs of 8-bit registers to use for 16-bit operations". Dunno if it inherited that from the 8080 or what.)
People should not mess with what they don't understand.
Close. People should not mess with what they don't want to understand.
My mother is free to change all sorts of things on that nasty Windows ME machine, but she doesn't touch it. Is this because she doesn't understand it? Yes, but more to the point, she doesn't care about it and thus never will understand it.
At one point, I didn't understand any of that either. (Mind you, them was simpler times!) Now I do, why? Because I wanted to understand it, and I was able to play with it. Haptic learning is a wonderful thing.
Now, as for Aunt Tillie and building a kernel? I think it's likely that she won't care about it.
Nice and symmetrical:
void ReverseArray(int *array,int elem)
{
while (elem>1)
{
--elem;
*array ^= array[elem];
array[elem] ^= *array;
*array ^= array[elem];
--elem; ++array;
}
}
int list[] = { etc };
ReverseArray(list,sizeof(list)/sizeof(int));
Forget whether or not they'll look for the logo, will the logo even be visible?
Out of the 7 audio CDs I have within easy reach, only one has the logo printed on the outside (and so tiny it's barely ledgible). All seven have the logo, but it's INSIDE the jewel case. How many stores will let you open the jewel case before you buy the CD?
And besides that, just having the logo on the case means nothing. All single-cd jewel cases have it, even the ones that come with software CDs. (Unless you really think Windows 2000 counts as "digital audio")
In other words, not everyone will punish freeloaders given the chance.
Look at it this way: Does everyone license thier code under the GPL? No, some use licenses like BSD which do not punish freeloaders. Clearly they are doing this by choice, as the license does not stop them from changing to a different one.
In contrast, are those using the GPL *choosing* to punish freeloaders? Not necessarily, if they started with GPL'd code for any reason, they *must* punish, it is not necessarily by choice. (Not to say that no one ever chooses the GPL, that's obviously not true, just that some people use it without a choice.)
Clearly, some people will choose to punish others for the "common good", while some will choose not to for whatever reason.
*resists the temptation to try to claim one way as better*
The same thing goes for software which "incorporates" gpl'd code (but I'm not gonna go through that to quote the relevant part). If it can be considered one program in the end and one piece is under the gpl, the whole thing and all pieces must be also.
GPL: free code, enslave programmers
The DMV will issue you a card that is only for identification rather than a combined id/drivers license.
There are good reasons for driving to be a priviledge. It means that the government can remove that priviledge for those who show they are not capable of handling the resposibility.
If you have a problem with having your license revoked for being a bad driver, perhaps you should pay more attention when driving. Or maybe driving isn't for you.
You don't want to store biometric information on the card. Grab a blank card and you can do just about whatever you want to it, in your own home.
If you're gonna have biometrics, store the information in the database and a simple index number on the card. The database is much harder to crack than the card, and a failed attempt calls much more attention.
When the ice melts it melts for a reason - the sea has warmed up. And when the sea warms it will expand.
Um, second to last paragraph of post you replied to:
The thermal expansion of water due to global warming (supposedly, see the ATOC project [ucsd.edu] for more info) is likely to add a similar amount.
But wouldn't the ice melting cool the sea down again? In my experience, if you hold a glass of water with ice in it over heat, the ice melts and the water gets colder. This makes sense because it takes much more energy to heat water from -1C to 1C than from 19C to 21C. That whole "coefficient of freezing" or whatever it is.
I'm probably wrong, but just a thought.
Thanks for the link, seems only version 1 G/UUIDs use the MAC address... (aka "IEEE 802 address")
IP addresses are not guaranteed to be globally unique (eg, mine is 192.168.42.69), but MAC addresses are. (Except for cards that allow you to set them in software, but I understand those are rare.) I don't know why it would use your ip address unless it couldn't find a network card, or maybe it just matched by chance?
From MS's docs it sounds like UUID is used for intercomputer communication and GUID is within, but they're exactly the same things so who knows. Maybe they decided to be a little less arrogant to use "globally unique" rather than "universally"? Ehh, probably not.
ahh, that could be. I hadn't realized how often they use them.
That's right, and it only identies individual computers in as much as it includes the MAC address from the network card on which the software was CREATED. afaik GUIDs are NOT generated on regular user's systems.