Consider that most SPAM does contain some kind of legitimate contact information -otherwise they couldn't acutally sell anything.
Then consider what would happen if even 1% of the recipients of a given message called that 800 number, or called the toll-number collect or found some way to respond directly to the "people" responsible for initiating the SPAM that you're not interested.
I thought the last time this was discussed it was "decided" the best IBM would probably be able to do is create a branch of gcc containing its optimizations.
There would be both advantages and disadvantages to doing this, but it would put an optimized compiler for the G5 out there.
Even if you have the source, it would take a lot of re-writing. Keep in mind that, particularly with regard to Aqua, much of the code has been optimizes specifically for the Velocity Engine of the G4/G5. So I'm guessing large portions of code would require a near-complete rewriting, not just a tweak and recompile.
Has he really, or is this just something everyone keeps repeating?
OK, I'm an idiot and don't know where to look, but I thought executives at his level had to make it public when they sold a significant stash of stock, and I haven't seen anything regarding his having done so since the litigation started.
Not that I think he's Mother Theresa or anything, I just haven't seen any evidence that he's actually done this.
...but that stuff about the mathematicians had me imagining a SCO representative doing a Maxwell Smart impersonation.
"Yes, we hired a team of crack mathematicians from MIT to scour the code...." "Would you believe we hired an accountant who's heard of MIT to scour the code..." "How about we cornered a kid coming out of his remedial math class and offered him free pizza if he could find two words that matched?"
When it comes to determining who's connected to what and how, simple-minded people like me can understand these pretty pictures better than a photograph of the motherboard.
The shlop that Apple throws out is a PR ploy plain and simple.
Is this any different than the "shlop" thrown out by Intel or AMD or IBM?
I agree we need "independent" benchmarks, but IMO pretty much all benchmarking is flawed, or more precisely the interpretation of the benchmarks is flawed. Who cares if processor A is 20% faster cranking through a stream of integer calculations if the integer unit pipeline is blown full of holes as soon as you throw a few other types of operations into the mix.
How is running a dual proc machine going to help software that isn't traditionally multi-threaded?
By allowing more than one program at a time to run well.
For example, I might have iMovie capturing DV to an external FW drive while I also doing something like play one of the games that are available for the Mac. I've actually tried and been unable to get iMovie drop out on a dual 1 GHz Mac. No matter what I throw at it, including Finder copies to/from the same external FW drive iMovie is captuing to or firing up Win XP in VPC, iMovie keeps capturing that video without dropping a frame.
Seems like there's been a lot of talk about this one-page form, but has anyone actually seen it?
Is there a web-accessible copy of it somewhere so we can actually see what info has to be provided and asserted as "correct" by the peron filling out the form?
It'd really be helpful if I could RTFF, but I haven't been able to find it, and I don't know if I can just walk into a county courthouse and ask for it and walk out with it in a reasonable amount of time or not.
The recent court decision about Verizon basically means that I can use copyright claims as grounds to demand from any ISP all the email/home addresses and phone numbers of all their customers.
Its bad, but not that bad. AFAIK you can't simply fill out a single form and force Verizon to hand over info on all their subscribers. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't you required to fill out a separate form for each identity and describe the "infringing" work? Also, if the paperwork is completely bogus you are still subject to perjury charges.
IOW I don't think this system is going to be very good for mining large quantities of data.
BTW, does anyone know if there is a web-accessible "form" for viewing? I would like to know exactly what information has to be provided and what responsibilities the person filling out the form actually has with respect to the accuracy/veracity of the information provided.
IIRC it specifically states in the MS EULA that the software is not to be used for running nuclear power plants among other things (life support systems, aviation systems...).
Your question is answered in the following paragraph from the article,
"[T]he distinct trend within the industry is to link the systems to access control center data necessary for business purposes," reads the report. "One utility interviewed considered the business value of access to the data within the control center worth the risk of open connections between the control center and the corporate network."
IANAL, but a basic premise of real-world trials is that there is no such thing as "surprise" evidence. What that means is that SCO is required to turn over all info they have on the supposed infringing code to whoever they are suing well in advance of the trial, giving the opposition plenty of time to evaluate and refute the "evidence".
AFAIK (not very far) the terms under which the code or "evidence" is released will be up to the court, not SCO. In other words, the details may still not be made publicly available, but its not up to SCO to decide. They'll have to convince a judge that there is a valid reason to keep the info away from the general public.
All the above is just the long way to say that SCO can't keep it under wraps until they're in court. They will have to, at minimum, reveal their evidence to the defendant in time for a reasonable defense to be made.
But wouldn't you think that someone with MS's clout could at least get something as good as Apple? Shouldn't they at least be able to get uniform licensing?
Slashdot Mirror
I keep thinking this could be the answer.
Consider that most SPAM does contain some kind of legitimate contact information -otherwise they couldn't acutally sell anything.
Then consider what would happen if even 1% of the recipients of a given message called that 800 number, or called the toll-number collect or found some way to respond directly to the "people" responsible for initiating the SPAM that you're not interested.
Think they'd be doing any real business that day?
That's a DDoS attack I'd like to see.
Can this compiler be used to generate native Mac OS X GUI applications (cocoa)?
Yes.
I'd say no. AFAIK Cocoa is all Objective C and Java. Neither of which seems to be supported by this compiler.
I thought the last time this was discussed it was "decided" the best IBM would probably be able to do is create a branch of gcc containing its optimizations.
There would be both advantages and disadvantages to doing this, but it would put an optimized compiler for the G5 out there.
Even if you have the source, it would take a lot of re-writing. Keep in mind that, particularly with regard to Aqua, much of the code has been optimizes specifically for the Velocity Engine of the G4/G5. So I'm guessing large portions of code would require a near-complete rewriting, not just a tweak and recompile.
I don't think the courts are quite stupid enough to believe a magic fairy left the files there.
OTOH, if you say a virus did it...
Has he really, or is this just something everyone keeps repeating?
OK, I'm an idiot and don't know where to look, but I thought executives at his level had to make it public when they sold a significant stash of stock, and I haven't seen anything regarding his having done so since the litigation started.
Not that I think he's Mother Theresa or anything, I just haven't seen any evidence that he's actually done this.
...but that stuff about the mathematicians had me imagining a SCO representative doing a Maxwell Smart impersonation.
"Yes, we hired a team of crack mathematicians from MIT to scour the code...."
"Would you believe we hired an accountant who's heard of MIT to scour the code..."
"How about we cornered a kid coming out of his remedial math class and offered him free pizza if he could find two words that matched?"
"(how can this not be aimed at sex-starved geeks?)"
Because she's ugly.
And that makes a difference to a sex-starved geek?
For more on the architecture, see
http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html
When it comes to determining who's connected to what and how, simple-minded people like me can understand these pretty pictures better than a photograph of the motherboard.
what use ARE the double sized words to most programmers?
Nothing.
But to memory and drive manufacturers, its money in the bank.
The shlop that Apple throws out is a PR ploy plain and simple.
Is this any different than the "shlop" thrown out by Intel or AMD or IBM?
I agree we need "independent" benchmarks, but IMO pretty much all benchmarking is flawed, or more precisely the interpretation of the benchmarks is flawed. Who cares if processor A is 20% faster cranking through a stream of integer calculations if the integer unit pipeline is blown full of holes as soon as you throw a few other types of operations into the mix.
That seems to be a point many people miss. Many of the API's any app including games, use have the potential of using a second processor.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, the days of running a single app at a time are over. I don't want to have to quit everything else just to play a game.
I guess I need more conffee.
:-)
Apparently, you do
IIRC, IBM is planning a line of servers using the same processor and running Linux.
How is running a dual proc machine going to help software that isn't traditionally multi-threaded?
By allowing more than one program at a time to run well.
For example, I might have iMovie capturing DV to an external FW drive while I also doing something like play one of the games that are available for the Mac. I've actually tried and been unable to get iMovie drop out on a dual 1 GHz Mac. No matter what I throw at it, including Finder copies to/from the same external FW drive iMovie is captuing to or firing up Win XP in VPC, iMovie keeps capturing that video without dropping a frame.
Try that with a single processor machine!
Just don't miss the one word sentence, "Drain." in the instructions for making a box of Mac and Cheese.
For those few who don't know, that comes after cooking the pasta in 2 or 3 quarts of water and before adding the powdered cheese-stuff.
Seems like there's been a lot of talk about this one-page form, but has anyone actually seen it?
Is there a web-accessible copy of it somewhere so we can actually see what info has to be provided and asserted as "correct" by the peron filling out the form?
It'd really be helpful if I could RTFF, but I haven't been able to find it, and I don't know if I can just walk into a county courthouse and ask for it and walk out with it in a reasonable amount of time or not.
The recent court decision about Verizon basically means that I can use copyright claims as grounds to demand from any ISP all the email/home addresses and phone numbers of all their customers.
Its bad, but not that bad. AFAIK you can't simply fill out a single form and force Verizon to hand over info on all their subscribers. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't you required to fill out a separate form for each identity and describe the "infringing" work? Also, if the paperwork is completely bogus you are still subject to perjury charges.
IOW I don't think this system is going to be very good for mining large quantities of data.
BTW, does anyone know if there is a web-accessible "form" for viewing? I would like to know exactly what information has to be provided and what responsibilities the person filling out the form actually has with respect to the accuracy/veracity of the information provided.
IIRC it specifically states in the MS EULA that the software is not to be used for running nuclear power plants among other things (life support systems, aviation systems...).
If you read the article, they do use a firewall -its just one with a back door kept open for official company business.
I guess it depends on wether you call that "using" a firewall or not.
Your question is answered in the following paragraph from the article,
"[T]he distinct trend within the industry is to link the systems to access control center data necessary for business purposes," reads the report. "One utility interviewed considered the business value of access to the data within the control center worth the risk of open connections between the control center and the corporate network."
IOW, they do it to save money. Time to be scared.
IANAL, but a basic premise of real-world trials is that there is no such thing as "surprise" evidence. What that means is that SCO is required to turn over all info they have on the supposed infringing code to whoever they are suing well in advance of the trial, giving the opposition plenty of time to evaluate and refute the "evidence".
AFAIK (not very far) the terms under which the code or "evidence" is released will be up to the court, not SCO. In other words, the details may still not be made publicly available, but its not up to SCO to decide. They'll have to convince a judge that there is a valid reason to keep the info away from the general public.
All the above is just the long way to say that SCO can't keep it under wraps until they're in court. They will have to, at minimum, reveal their evidence to the defendant in time for a reasonable defense to be made.
you blew your wad a little early trying to bash MS
Thanks for that oh-so-pleasant visual.
If I remember correctly some MS big shot has investments in it.
k amai.html
You may be right, but are you sure you're not thinking of Apple? http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/aug/18applea
But wouldn't you think that someone with MS's clout could at least get something as good as Apple? Shouldn't they at least be able to get uniform licensing?