You know, 15 years ago I had 1200 bauds, Now I have 2MB/s. That's a factor of ~13000. I had a 10MB hard drive. Now I have 200GB. That's a factor 20000. It looks like Moore's law is pretty much applicable to that too. Just slightly slower.
It makes sense, if you think about how graphical elements are grouped and have properties...
This is probably the worst application of XML I have ever heard. And believe me, people are using it for everything and nothing already.
So your proposal is to use a protocol that takes 10x the size of the data it needs to transfer. XML (used that way) is just a file format. Why taking the most bulky one?
Talk about a fast and lightweight system. I need to draw a pixel. Size of the XML packet: 165 bytes. Wow.
Either you are stupid or trolling. The government cannot check for prior art on every patent filed ever. It would raise the cost so much for new patents that the patents would be even more out of reach. And I'm sure you would be the first one to come and whine.
No, a better solution should be: Make filing a patent that is obviously bullshit a criminal offense. Something big with prison sentences, so that people will do their own research. At least, you must store the research for prior art somewhere to be able to produce it in a court of law.
I do have an account for a few month now, and I have yet to get a proff that it's working to use it. I try on a regular basis to switch my hotmail to this one, but then every time I send an email to my gmail account, it takes from 5minutes to 3 hours to be delivered.
That is just not acceptable. At all. At least for me.
We are exposed to far greater amounts of EM radiation from the sun, in all sorts of unfilitered frequencies
And so you just rightfuly assume that if we are immune to unfiltered frequencies all around the spectrum, one peak at 1900MHz cannot do any harm.
The right question should be: 4W at 1900MHz is it negligible compared to the 1900MHz freq. we're receiving from the sun. I'm pretty sure it is really far from being negligible.
By the way, we usually put Sun protection when we step outside for prolonged times. And even with it we can get damaged. Do you apply the same cream every time you pick up the phone?
I loved the first one so much that I blindly ran in the theaters to see the second one. I have never regretted my $5 (at the time) more than that. Truly pathetic.
I'm not saying solar cars are insecure, you got it all wrong. This was a prototype, and I don't give a damn what kind of security checks it went through. The guy lost control, that should say enough.
How many new cars can you buy from a car dealer that would "loose control" in the first few drives?
Not many. That one did.
I don't blame all solar cars. But anything that is a prototype not well tested (ie: years of testing, or an experienced team working on it, experienced in automobile security, not solar cars) is by definition dangerous.
They need to provide access to source that matches the binary they distribute
Well, not really. You forgot the entire point: If this binary is in any way a derivative of a GPL piece.
I can bundle software A (GPL) with software B (Not GPL) in the same installation process without modifying one line of code in soft A. Hence software B is still closed source and you can brush yourself to get the source code.
What is wrong (from a license standpoint) with that?
There is a reason for all the automobile (and motorcycle) constructors spend so much money on security. To make the loss of control of the vehicle less likely to happen.
That's why this "vehicle" should have never been allowed to drive on a road in the first place.
Built by students with no (or low) security on their minds, I wouldn't have driven it for the world, on a regular road!
Would you set your life in the hands of a school project that don't built the engine to be secure (because it's never been meant to drive on a road or pass any kind of driving safety checks)? I wouldn't.
Seeds were random generators. You can think of it as Math.random() in Java for example, initialized using the current time (That's the seed actually).
One seed was used to randomly choose files in the filesystem.
The other seed was used to generate numbers between 0 and 255 to XOR them with the actual files chosen by the first algorithm.
When the generated stream length was 150kbytes long, we got a key.
Of course, both me and my friend needed to have a FDD with 10 keys on it to read the files sent...
BTW, how did I weakened it by using this algorithm to generate keys? My goal was to make the key a "white noise" or other kind of noise. And why are these keys not supposed to be used more than once?
I once wrote a small program that would work from the simple manner: Take the file, take the key, XOR them both.
That is a very poor encryption algorithm, but I used keys that were ~150 kbytes. Unbreakable.
We would carry a floppy with ~10 keys on it and every time we would send a file we'll choose a different key and just send the filename of the key along the mail.
Of course, with that kind of poor kryptography you need a strong key, so my algorithm to generate a key was initiating two different random seeds, pick up a set of random files from the HDD with the first seed, and XOR them with the second random seed up until I reached the desired size for the key.
To get the original sentence: To a great extent IBM has avoided distributing GPL software directly
That basically means: IBM hasn't distributed a lot of GPL software directly.
That also mean that have distributed some.
So by providing ONE link, you just prove they did distribute some, and you are in agreement with the original statement. You didn't prove that they did a lot.
Hence, your link is not a counterpoint, because the author didn't say that they did not distribute any GPL code. The fact that they have ONE product that they distribute GPL doesn't prove that they are not scared of it. At all.
I said it's priced competively, now quit showing me the cheapest crap out there and show me one with the comparable specs
That's not the point. The point is to prove that you can buy a PC for less than a Mac. Of course, the PC will have lower performance. But the point is, the entry-level PC market begins lower than the entry-level Mac.
At equivalent prices, you will have equivalent performances, bundles, etc... Nobody pretended anything else.
The point is, if I have only $500 bucks, I have no choice but to go with a PC. Then, from that point, I am molded to the PC interface and my (me, dummy user) next machine will most likely be another PC, because I'm lazy by nature.
This just tend to indicate that these lower-end PCs can help getting users to go the MS route instead of the Mac route. Hence, more dynamic for the PC.
So that sums up to $520 for the eMachines one. Oh! And where do you find iMacs for $699? I'm just out of an Apple store and the iMacs start at $799 (as you can see Here).
So that rolls up to $280 difference. More than half the price of the PC.
Slashdot Mirror
I explain that if [...], they will need my services less frequently
It looks like your line of work (spyware removal) is going to die from your own word.
You know, 15 years ago I had 1200 bauds, Now I have 2MB/s. That's a factor of ~13000. I had a 10MB hard drive. Now I have 200GB. That's a factor 20000. It looks like Moore's law is pretty much applicable to that too. Just slightly slower.
It makes sense, if you think about how graphical elements are grouped and have properties...
This is probably the worst application of XML I have ever heard. And believe me, people are using it for everything and nothing already.
So your proposal is to use a protocol that takes 10x the size of the data it needs to transfer. XML (used that way) is just a file format. Why taking the most bulky one?
Talk about a fast and lightweight system. I need to draw a pixel. Size of the XML packet: 165 bytes. Wow.
Either you are stupid or trolling. The government cannot check for prior art on every patent filed ever. It would raise the cost so much for new patents that the patents would be even more out of reach. And I'm sure you would be the first one to come and whine.
No, a better solution should be: Make filing a patent that is obviously bullshit a criminal offense. Something big with prison sentences, so that people will do their own research. At least, you must store the research for prior art somewhere to be able to produce it in a court of law.
I do have an account for a few month now, and I have yet to get a proff that it's working to use it. I try on a regular basis to switch my hotmail to this one, but then every time I send an email to my gmail account, it takes from 5minutes to 3 hours to be delivered.
That is just not acceptable. At all. At least for me.
If they diverge from Intel, they're dead. See, Intel is still the norm and is here to stay.
I honestly don't know how AMD could get out of the outsider solution.
We are exposed to far greater amounts of EM radiation from the sun, in all sorts of unfilitered frequencies
And so you just rightfuly assume that if we are immune to unfiltered frequencies all around the spectrum, one peak at 1900MHz cannot do any harm.
The right question should be: 4W at 1900MHz is it negligible compared to the 1900MHz freq. we're receiving from the sun. I'm pretty sure it is really far from being negligible.
By the way, we usually put Sun protection when we step outside for prolonged times. And even with it we can get damaged. Do you apply the same cream every time you pick up the phone?
I haven't seen teh 4th one, but HIII is *much* less worse than HII. I mean, at least the got the special effects right!
Agreed, I vote for Highlander II without a doubt.
I loved the first one so much that I blindly ran in the theaters to see the second one. I have never regretted my $5 (at the time) more than that. Truly pathetic.
I'm not saying solar cars are insecure, you got it all wrong. This was a prototype, and I don't give a damn what kind of security checks it went through. The guy lost control, that should say enough.
How many new cars can you buy from a car dealer that would "loose control" in the first few drives?
Not many. That one did.
I don't blame all solar cars. But anything that is a prototype not well tested (ie: years of testing, or an experienced team working on it, experienced in automobile security, not solar cars) is by definition dangerous.
They need to provide access to source that matches the binary they distribute
Well, not really. You forgot the entire point: If this binary is in any way a derivative of a GPL piece.
I can bundle software A (GPL) with software B (Not GPL) in the same installation process without modifying one line of code in soft A. Hence software B is still closed source and you can brush yourself to get the source code.
What is wrong (from a license standpoint) with that?
There is a reason for all the automobile (and motorcycle) constructors spend so much money on security. To make the loss of control of the vehicle less likely to happen.
That's why this "vehicle" should have never been allowed to drive on a road in the first place.
Built by students with no (or low) security on their minds, I wouldn't have driven it for the world, on a regular road!
Would you set your life in the hands of a school project that don't built the engine to be secure (because it's never been meant to drive on a road or pass any kind of driving safety checks)? I wouldn't.
Seeds were random generators. You can think of it as Math.random() in Java for example, initialized using the current time (That's the seed actually).
One seed was used to randomly choose files in the filesystem.
The other seed was used to generate numbers between 0 and 255 to XOR them with the actual files chosen by the first algorithm.
When the generated stream length was 150kbytes long, we got a key.
Of course, both me and my friend needed to have a FDD with 10 keys on it to read the files sent...
BTW, how did I weakened it by using this algorithm to generate keys? My goal was to make the key a "white noise" or other kind of noise. And why are these keys not supposed to be used more than once?
IANAK (Kryptographer)
Bundling something with a product isn't necessarily modifying it. Are *you* going to sue them on this little technicality?
I so much agree with you. You can't possibly give away something and later on say: Oh no! Look what they've done with it! Let's prevent that!
The line between malware/spyware/crapware and regular software is often very thin, hence probably impossible to define in lawman's terms.
Hence the impossibility to enforce these kind of things.
I once wrote a small program that would work from the simple manner: Take the file, take the key, XOR them both.
That is a very poor encryption algorithm, but I used keys that were ~150 kbytes. Unbreakable.
We would carry a floppy with ~10 keys on it and every time we would send a file we'll choose a different key and just send the filename of the key along the mail.
Of course, with that kind of poor kryptography you need a strong key, so my algorithm to generate a key was initiating two different random seeds, pick up a set of random files from the HDD with the first seed, and XOR them with the second random seed up until I reached the desired size for the key.
Try and break that!
because everyone who thinks there is a market for something different can just take everything that's been done so far and run with it
I would just slightly alter that sentence: Not "everyone", but "every geek".
I didn't know if the first digit was counting in the 6 or only the number of zeros after that....
Thanks
Isn't 6 figures millions? Is it just hundreds of thousands?
I'm tired of saying the same thing 100 times. See here
To get the original sentence: To a great extent IBM has avoided distributing GPL software directly
That basically means: IBM hasn't distributed a lot of GPL software directly.
That also mean that have distributed some.
So by providing ONE link, you just prove they did distribute some, and you are in agreement with the original statement. You didn't prove that they did a lot.
Hence, your link is not a counterpoint, because the author didn't say that they did not distribute any GPL code.
The fact that they have ONE product that they distribute GPL doesn't prove that they are not scared of it. At all.
No insults, just plain english.
I said it's priced competively, now quit showing me the cheapest crap out there and show me one with the comparable specs
That's not the point. The point is to prove that you can buy a PC for less than a Mac. Of course, the PC will have lower performance. But the point is, the entry-level PC market begins lower than the entry-level Mac.
At equivalent prices, you will have equivalent performances, bundles, etc... Nobody pretended anything else.
The point is, if I have only $500 bucks, I have no choice but to go with a PC. Then, from that point, I am molded to the PC interface and my (me, dummy user) next machine will most likely be another PC, because I'm lazy by nature.
This just tend to indicate that these lower-end PCs can help getting users to go the MS route instead of the Mac route. Hence, more dynamic for the PC.
My bad for the prices, that was used ones ;-(. As for CRTs, you can find some for around $120 (Here).
eMachines at $400
Compaq at $430
HP for $530
So that sums up to $520 for the eMachines one. Oh! And where do you find iMacs for $699? I'm just out of an Apple store and the iMacs start at $799 (as you can see Here).
So that rolls up to $280 difference. More than half the price of the PC.
Well, at Amazon.com, eMachines start up at $400, Compaq at $315, HP at $500 (with a screen). So I guess your $699 iMac is still way out of league.
Of course, I'm only comparing stuff above 1.3GHz.
My point still stand. With a 1.3GHz Athlon and 256MB RAM, you still have a system more than capable. Apple don't do it.
Are you ready to pay 10x your current health coverage so that you can be guaranteed a 99.999998% stability on all health equipment?
Clearly there is a balance to be found. And as always in these cases, people will disagree on where exactly the balance should be settled.
This is a matter of opinion, don't try and make it a matter of "national health" or anything else bigger than a matter of opinion.