I get the same message. With IE 5.50PL2. And there aren't *any* contact details on the *entire* passport.com site (at least any pages I can get to) to complain about it at...
I guess it's just another case of a "copy-protection" technology prevent legal use (like watching DVD under Linux), while failing at preventing what it's designed to prevent (you can do a mirror copy of a DVD without decrypting it).
Its a common misconception that the scrambling of DVDs was designed to prevent copying the discs... in actual fact, it has two purposes:
to prevent you from copying the disk and changing the region code on it
to make DVD manufacturers dependant upon the MPAA due to the fact that they have to license some of their IP (i.e. the descrambling routines)
It was of course because of the second of these that the MPAA felt so threatened by DeCSS, not the first...
For those in the UK with digital TV
on
Mashed-Up Music
·
· Score: 1
The Q channel (453 on sky digital) has been playing a "Destiny's Child / Nirvana" mix that sounds similar to the one described above for a few weeks now. They've got another mix on now, but I can't remember what went into that one...
Personally, I can't say I like either of them, but it does work better than I would have expected...
As an OS developer I have actually embraced Bochs as a wonderful solution, and it was the most important tool that recently allowed me to write a simple multitasking kernel in under two weeks worth of spare time.
However, I just wish they'd be more responsive to bug reports. A problem I reported back while I was working on that kernel has just been ignored; in the end I worked around it (a different implementation prevented the problem that caused it from occurring), but I still wish they'd just read the report, which I'm sure included more than enough information for someone who's even only remotely familiar with the code to fix the problem in a couple of minutes.
I see a lot of people coming up with potential problems with lilo being installed on the mbr and defrag spotting it & stuff like this.
Obvious answer, of course, is to not install lilo on your MBR... put it on your root or/boot filesystem partition and make that active! Its what a sensible installer should do by default any way...
I think the main problem with defrag, though, relates to a solution that a lot of people use to the 1024 cylinder problem that LILO suffers from, which is when it whinges about not being able to access your linux partition (which is typically hda2 for a dual boot system), they put all the files (eg kernel, LILO program files and LILO map file) onto the DOS partition. If you *then* run defrag, it'll move them around, and LILO will fail to run. The answer to this is to mark the LILO files as system files, at which point defrag won't move them.
I used eudora light for a while as my mail client. I think the one thing that I learnt is that the way it handles attachments is *screwy*. It decodes them as soon as the e-mail that contains them is received, and drops them into a directory, adding a line like "Attachment Converted: " to the bottom of the e-mail. Try sending a Eudora user an e-mail with "Attachment Converted: c:\windows\ssblank.scr". Wait for an e-mail back that says "Whenever I load your attachment, my screen goes black...?":-)
the Software may automatically... install... ("Software Updates"), which may require you to accept updated terms and conditions for installation
This does not require you to accept the terms and conditions. It states that the software may do this, and may require you to accept the terms and conditions in order to do this, but presumably that if you don't accept the terms and conditions it won't install anything.
Classpath is not (or at least wasn't last time I used it, about 6 months ago) a decent library. It isn't even compatible with the Java 1.2 API, let alone 1.4...
Unix version contains software licensed from Mainsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1998-1999 Mainsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mainsoft is a trademark of Mainsoft Corporation
That's worrying. Mainsoft's only product is MainWin, a library for emulating Windows API on Unix (similar to the library version of Wine).
They are a microkernel based system, but with drivers running at 'priveleged level'.
The distinction is that drivers are not built as part of the kernel, nor do they run from within kernel calls: the kernel itself only handles communication between them and memory allocation and drivers run as processes.
You seem to be a little confused; kernel mode is not in any way equivalent to real mode. Win9x does use memory protection, just not to the extent you would usually expect.
User mode processes do not have access to directly modify many of the key OS data structures, and run at CR3. The OS kernel (which is really best only loosely described as such) runs at CR0.
What doesn't exist is protection between processes, and as you rightly point out, many OS features are implemented in user mode.
Well, if the law used to make the case were some kind of law to prevent passing of of work in this manner, then I would agree Google were in the clear. But given that the law is copyright, no amount of surrounding circumstances can change it. The court in question believes that the act of placing a reference on your web site that causes a browser to download and display an image in place amounts to copying that image, so Google are violating copyright. At least under the jurisdiction of that court, anyway...
I won't argue that it's fair use. In fact, it is really unfair on the owner of the content that is being usurped in this manner.
Note that I haven't used the term 'stolen.'
The problem is that in the case at hand, no copying is taking place, whereas in your hypothetical case, you are copying the data. This means that while copyright law definitely applies and makes your case illegal, it shouldn't apply in the case of embedding other people's images, and any court that says that it does just doesn't understand the matter in hand.
Yeah, but if you put a sign up in your library instructing all visitors to go to the other library to get the copy, then you're not.
This is a more suitable analogy: there is no copying taking place when you use <img src=...> to embed somebody else's image into your web site, other than possible of the URL. And most URLs are too short to be able to reasonably claim that you have copyright on them:-)
The comparison with subversion states that an FTP server is the only dependency that the system has, so I would guess it doesn't include server software but does include its own client.
I can't say I entirely agree that the technology looks more advanced.
If you ignore obvious failings, like the clunky big buttons in the cockpit of the X wings in New Hope (a sign of a fairly low budget film when you set it against other sci-fi films of a similar period - remember Alien?), then the tech looks pretty similar.
If anything, I would say it portrays an image that the direction intended to get over: technology may have advanced a little by the time the original trilogy occurred, but everyone was *poorer*. Things weren't as shiny, but they were more functional. Even down to the 'battle droids'. Robotic armies must be expensive to maintain: Much better to throw a few cheap people in, especially as they will be better than the droids...
How about a RAIKA? A redundant array of Kernel Admins
No, no that would be a RAKA. You're talking about a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Kernel Admins, which would essentially mean that we couldn't have anyone who was being payed to do the job, because that would be too expensive... has to be an array of volunteers, really.
Yeah, but why would that have been done? I mean, surely it's just X (standard plain old X) running KDE (presumably pretty much unmodified, other than having been heavily configured to look more like Windows)?
Oh, and source has to be distributed anyway, whether it was modified or not. That is part of the GPL. If it isn't on the CD, they have to send it to you when you ask for it.
Nobody seems to have noticed the underlying message of this article: MS Visual C++ was already producing faster code than GCC. The Intel compiler improves on both of them.
And to be quite honest, this isn't really surprising. Particularly on intel platforms, a lot of optimisation requires tricks that my guess is GCC just doesn't perform. It's a multiplatform compiler, and a multiplatform compiler cannot perform optimisations that only work on one platform! At a guess, it does not move floating point operations up the instruction stream in order to gain advantage from the parallelism provided by the intel's separate FPU (i.e. FPU instructions generally take longer than 1 cycle to execute, but the compiler may well expect them to be ready after 1 cycle, forcing the main CPU to stop and wait for the FPU to finish its operation). I understand that it keeps a reference to the ELF run time linking function dispatch table in a register at all times. On architectures with more than 6 general purpose registers this makes sense - on IA32 it does not! MSVC++ will not even consider doing this (it doesn't build ELF output), and I guess the Intel compiler will 'forget' this reference when it is not needed for a while. I'm sure there are more improvements that are possible...
The other thing to note: "CPU performance for Intel on Linux and MS Visual Studio.NET on Windows in a dead heat." -- That is, it only lets us catch up. And the Intel compiler on Windows gets better performance than the Intel compiler on Linux. Something for Linux to fix, that is... it's supposed to get better computationally intensive performance.
I had similar problems with 2.4.4. I knew that the problem was in the VM, so as soon as I heard about the 2.4.10 VM change I went out and got that kernel, which seemed to fix the problem. And I'm still running it; it seems stable enough to me. This is on a machine that works mainly as a file / web proxy / email server, but occasionally runs a compile or two. Only 40Mb of RAM though, which is probably why the problem occurred. Having said that, I used to run a system with similar load on 24Mb of RAM on 2.0.x just fine:-)
Slashdot Mirror
You know what's worse than that?
I get the same message. With IE 5.50PL2. And there aren't *any* contact details on the *entire* passport.com site (at least any pages I can get to) to complain about it at...
Its a common misconception that the scrambling of DVDs was designed to prevent copying the discs... in actual fact, it has two purposes:
It was of course because of the second of these that the MPAA felt so threatened by DeCSS, not the first...
The Q channel (453 on sky digital) has been playing a "Destiny's Child / Nirvana" mix that sounds similar to the one described above for a few weeks now. They've got another mix on now, but I can't remember what went into that one...
Personally, I can't say I like either of them, but it does work better than I would have expected...
As an OS developer I have actually embraced Bochs as a wonderful solution, and it was the most important tool that recently allowed me to write a simple multitasking kernel in under two weeks worth of spare time.
However, I just wish they'd be more responsive to bug reports. A problem I reported back while I was working on that kernel has just been ignored; in the end I worked around it (a different implementation prevented the problem that caused it from occurring), but I still wish they'd just read the report, which I'm sure included more than enough information for someone who's even only remotely familiar with the code to fix the problem in a couple of minutes.
I see a lot of people coming up with potential problems with lilo being installed on the mbr and defrag spotting it & stuff like this.
/boot filesystem partition and make that active! Its what a sensible installer should do by default any way...
Obvious answer, of course, is to not install lilo on your MBR... put it on your root or
I think the main problem with defrag, though, relates to a solution that a lot of people use to the 1024 cylinder problem that LILO suffers from, which is when it whinges about not being able to access your linux partition (which is typically hda2 for a dual boot system), they put all the files (eg kernel, LILO program files and LILO map file) onto the DOS partition. If you *then* run defrag, it'll move them around, and LILO will fail to run. The answer to this is to mark the LILO files as system files, at which point defrag won't move them.
Actually, if you read further down, he's suing AOL for their role in the creation of Gnutella.
Other than that, I agree...
No, but they'd got an awful lot fewer applications...
I used eudora light for a while as my mail client. I think the one thing that I learnt is that the way it handles attachments is *screwy*. It decodes them as soon as the e-mail that contains them is received, and drops them into a directory, adding a line like "Attachment Converted: " to the bottom of the e-mail. Try sending a Eudora user an e-mail with "Attachment Converted: c:\windows\ssblank.scr". Wait for an e-mail back that says "Whenever I load your attachment, my screen goes black...?" :-)
Excuse me, but this is bullshit. I've read the bill, it doesn't seem that you have.
Nobody is asking for existing equipment to be thrown out. The bill only applies to equipment being sold in inter-state commerce.
It has its problems, but not the one you're talking about.
the Software may automatically
This does not require you to accept the terms and conditions. It states that the software may do this, and may require you to accept the terms and conditions in order to do this, but presumably that if you don't accept the terms and conditions it won't install anything.
This seems reasonable...
Classpath is not (or at least wasn't last time I used it, about 6 months ago) a decent library. It isn't even compatible with the Java 1.2 API, let alone 1.4...
That's worrying. Mainsoft's only product is MainWin, a library for emulating Windows API on Unix (similar to the library version of Wine).
Why is Java rely on emulated Windows code?
So you found their list of patents, including one for an "Interactive vibrator for multimedia" then?
They are a microkernel based system, but with drivers running at 'priveleged level'.
The distinction is that drivers are not built as part of the kernel, nor do they run from within kernel calls: the kernel itself only handles communication between them and memory allocation and drivers run as processes.
You seem to be a little confused; kernel mode is not in any way equivalent to real mode. Win9x does use memory protection, just not to the extent you would usually expect.
User mode processes do not have access to directly modify many of the key OS data structures, and run at CR3. The OS kernel (which is really best only loosely described as such) runs at CR0.
What doesn't exist is protection between processes, and as you rightly point out, many OS features are implemented in user mode.
Well, if the law used to make the case were some kind of law to prevent passing of of work in this manner, then I would agree Google were in the clear. But given that the law is copyright, no amount of surrounding circumstances can change it. The court in question believes that the act of placing a reference on your web site that causes a browser to download and display an image in place amounts to copying that image, so Google are violating copyright. At least under the jurisdiction of that court, anyway...
Note that I haven't used the term 'stolen.'
The problem is that in the case at hand, no copying is taking place, whereas in your hypothetical case, you are copying the data. This means that while copyright law definitely applies and makes your case illegal, it shouldn't apply in the case of embedding other people's images, and any court that says that it does just doesn't understand the matter in hand.
This is a more suitable analogy: there is no copying taking place when you use <img src=...> to embed somebody else's image into your web site, other than possible of the URL. And most URLs are too short to be able to reasonably claim that you have copyright on them
Not a huge number. But I don't suspect you'll see many written in C# either, for the same reason: both are too demanding of their runtime environment.
The comparison with subversion states that an FTP server is the only dependency that the system has, so I would guess it doesn't include server software but does include its own client.
I can't say I entirely agree that the technology looks more advanced.
If you ignore obvious failings, like the clunky big buttons in the cockpit of the X wings in New Hope (a sign of a fairly low budget film when you set it against other sci-fi films of a similar period - remember Alien?), then the tech looks pretty similar.
If anything, I would say it portrays an image that the direction intended to get over: technology may have advanced a little by the time the original trilogy occurred, but everyone was *poorer*. Things weren't as shiny, but they were more functional. Even down to the 'battle droids'. Robotic armies must be expensive to maintain: Much better to throw a few cheap people in, especially as they will be better than the droids...
No, no that would be a RAKA. You're talking about a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Kernel Admins, which would essentially mean that we couldn't have anyone who was being payed to do the job, because that would be too expensive... has to be an array of volunteers, really.
Yeah, but why would that have been done? I mean, surely it's just X (standard plain old X) running KDE (presumably pretty much unmodified, other than having been heavily configured to look more like Windows)?
Oh, and source has to be distributed anyway, whether it was modified or not. That is part of the GPL. If it isn't on the CD, they have to send it to you when you ask for it.
Nobody seems to have noticed the underlying message of this article: MS Visual C++ was already producing faster code than GCC. The Intel compiler improves on both of them.
And to be quite honest, this isn't really surprising. Particularly on intel platforms, a lot of optimisation requires tricks that my guess is GCC just doesn't perform. It's a multiplatform compiler, and a multiplatform compiler cannot perform optimisations that only work on one platform! At a guess, it does not move floating point operations up the instruction stream in order to gain advantage from the parallelism provided by the intel's separate FPU (i.e. FPU instructions generally take longer than 1 cycle to execute, but the compiler may well expect them to be ready after 1 cycle, forcing the main CPU to stop and wait for the FPU to finish its operation). I understand that it keeps a reference to the ELF run time linking function dispatch table in a register at all times. On architectures with more than 6 general purpose registers this makes sense - on IA32 it does not! MSVC++ will not even consider doing this (it doesn't build ELF output), and I guess the Intel compiler will 'forget' this reference when it is not needed for a while. I'm sure there are more improvements that are possible...
The other thing to note: "CPU performance for Intel on Linux and MS Visual Studio.NET on Windows in a dead heat." -- That is, it only lets us catch up. And the Intel compiler on Windows gets better performance than the Intel compiler on Linux. Something for Linux to fix, that is... it's supposed to get better computationally intensive performance.
I had similar problems with 2.4.4. I knew that the problem was in the VM, so as soon as I heard about the 2.4.10 VM change I went out and got that kernel, which seemed to fix the problem. And I'm still running it; it seems stable enough to me. This is on a machine that works mainly as a file / web proxy / email server, but occasionally runs a compile or two. Only 40Mb of RAM though, which is probably why the problem occurred. Having said that, I used to run a system with similar load on 24Mb of RAM on 2.0.x just fine :-)