I'd be willing to rip apart most of my paperbacks to scan them, there are few that are important enough as collectibles, or for sentimental reasons, for me to worry about.
I'd keep the covers, perhaps using them for a mural.
But yeah, anyways, the arbitrary laws are stupid. If it is legal for me to posess a certain bit stream, then it should be legal no matter how I obtained it.
Did you see the reply to my post that said "newsgroups"? I'm sure the poster simply meant that this ethical discourse continues in more detail on the newsgroups. Too bad he didn't specify which ones...
Likely in the same way they'll find out that it's because their entire inventory is tacky and overpriced. That way is... who cares? It's their problem.
They'll either find out and correct it, or continue what they're doing with less customers, perhaps drastically less.
You could, if you're bored, write them an email and explain this, but I doubt any company that hired an IE5-obsessed, javascript-dependent monkey to do their pages has any clue about reading feedback from their users.
Companies that took the time to research the net, even only in so much as finding a consultant who wasn't an idiot, won't have javascript dependant pages, and will periodically try out any new browsers (both by searching for them, and by checking the server logs for user-agent strings) to make sure that their site is properly functional in all browsers.
Re:Diminishing clock speeds
on
Itanium Update
·
· Score: 2
Is there a modern version of this? The last I saw it was on the Apple ][ in the early 80s.
I wouldn't mind checking it out again if you can point me to a copy.
Twenty bucks isn't much, but QT (for me) isn't essential. Neither are any of the other pluggins.
While I don't mind supporting developers whose work I would use, I'd rather just not watch Quicktime than pay $20 for the ability, especially as it's a rare activity.
Sure, I could pay for it even though I don't use it much, but at that point it does get expensive.
I realize authors need to eat (I write code for a living) but I don't see that their need to eat creates an obligation for me to support them.
The sad fact is that the bar is a lot higher in Linux, for useful shareware. In the windows world, I've seen shareware *ping* programs, (with a small GUI), in Linux cool programs like mtr and nmap are free, you've got to write something pretty cool to compete as freeware, let alone as shareware.
2) I know the law would protect you, I was saying that if MS had their way and the EULA was a contract, that you wouldn't be protected. Hypothetical.
3) Yeah, I know. They fail most of the prerequisites for a valid contract.
4) There's a difference between 'no the best' and 'shit'. MS fraudulently sells the product as enterprise ready for servers yet knows they are not capable, yet alone less capable than the free stuff.
5) Yes, monopolies should get different treatment than other companies. The spirit of capitalism is companies competing to bring you a product, not someone lying, cheating, and stealing to drive everyone else out of business, leaving the consumers with no choice.
If an ISP can't afford to provide the bandwidth they contracted to provide, they should charge more or provide less (after notifying customers).
I know of many ISPs that cap customers, either in momentary bandwidth (ie, speed caps) or in total bandwidth, or both, where the speed cap drops lower, the more you've downloaded.
This way that can afford their backbone costs and provide service to everyone without letting a few people use up a T3.
The reason QWest is providing unlimited bandwidth is so that they can drive all the competition out of business. Monopolistic practices.
And we're supposed to go easy on them when they don't provide what they contract to provide?
Do you think the board of QWest is sitting around, discussing overdue bills, saying "We don't have a realistic understanding of living on one wage and supporting children, so we should let these people slide a month" or do they automatically forward all overdue bills to collection, thus ruining your credit rating?
I might be prepared to cut them some slack if 1) they'd ever return the favor and 2) they we're monopolistic jerks trying to run everyone else out of business.
Ok, let both parties spell out the limits and liabilities, in detail.
When MS lists the IIS holes in the EULA and the user signs off on them, I'll accept it as the user's fault.
But, the EULA says, in as lawyerly prose as possible, that Microsoft isn't liable for anything. Even if they intentionally bundled a virus with the OS and targetted it at you, the EULA disclaims all responsibility.
I too think that people should be able to purchase less-than-perfect products, and then be unable to sue, if it was clear what the defects were, or the extent of the sellers knowledge.
For instance, if you buy a Machine, and it's marked "As Is", you're entitled to take it back for a full refund if you find that that the seller knew it didn't work. You see, "As Is" means "I don't know" not "I tested it and it failed". It's perfectly reasonable to sell something broken, even something you believe will never work again, as long as you make its condition clear when you sell it.
Microsoft *knows* its products are shit. If they don't take immediate steps to correct this, along with notifying potential customers, imho they're liable for the damages. Hell, there's a ton of companies who are skilled in fixing security bugs. Counterpane does security audits, both network and code. They could even bring in Theo from OpenBSD; whatever else it true about Theo, he's smart enough to know which C and C++ functions risk overwriting a buffer.
Because Microsoft makes NONE of these attempts to fix their products, in my eyes, they are liable for the damages caused.
How is routing packets based on the destination IP, which involves lookin in the packet, any different than routing based on the TCP level, such as transparent web proxies?
And then, what's wrong with routing a packet containing default.ida?... into/dev/null? Either it's a worm, and the customer didn't intend to send it, or it's a cracker, who you don't want using the service.
I think all ISPs should have dropped packets on port 80 that appeared to be CodeRed. It'd have stopped this thing quickly.
But then I think the Anti-CodeRed scripts that use the same hole, but to apply the patch or shutdown IIS and display a message explaining it, should have been used, and should be legal.
Attempted analogy. I shouldn't go into your car, even if unlocked. But, if your car was rolling slowly down the hill towards mine, would it be wrong if I opened the door and set the parking brake, to save both of us a large repair bill? Especially if I left you a nice note explaining the parking break, how to set/unset it, and why I did what I did.
In fact, in some jurisdictions, you'd be held responsible for not preventing an accident if you could have safely/easily done so, regardless of it being your "fault" to being with.
If breaking a bad law is never justified, what do you do when big companies literally buy laws ("donations" to politicians) and you'll *never* have any say in the law.
I mean, some laws you'll have a say in, and be overruled. Some laws you'll never get a say in, because if it ever comes to a vote, they've made sure it can't lose.
If you aren't justified in breaking a law, what can you do?
You know, not much is different between Linux and Windows.
I went from 98SE to 2k Pro, my computer would hang either when playing the startup sound, or in the first 30s of some program playing sounds. If I completely avoided anything making noise, it'd stay up all night.
I suspected the sound card, removed it, and the computer worked. Replaced it with an old ISA Awe64... Still worked.
I looked for docs on the Aureal Vortex under 2k... None.
I looked for message-board discussion on it. Very little, all negative.
Eventually, I found a site describing how to get it working with a slightly modified binary of the original driver, and a bunch of registry mods.
I left the Awe 64 in...
In fact, Windows was much harder to get working than Linux, because Windows doesn't support much user input. You double-click the exe, it installs. If it doesn't, you have no idea where it failed. (Without running filemon from www.sysinternals.com, or something similar.) At least in Linux you usually know what failed, and if someone tells you how to get it working it's only a matter of copying their config file or installation steps.
Well, that depends. If you mean "take over" literally, as in, be the only one, then I don't think it does.
But if you mean, why does Linux need to get easy to use, and be reasonable replacement for Windows, then I think this is very important.
1) Much of the world is far poorer than North America/Western Europe/Japan. An old P75 with 32MB would be server-class to much of the world's population. MS-Windows will never cater to this market. If you run Windows on that hardware it's either pathetically slow, or pathetically obsolete. Linux makes this hardware capable of connecting to the modern internet (perl, php, apache, postgreSQl, IPv6, and more).
2) Monopolies are bad. MS wants.NET to take over, and likely to provide all content on a pay-per-use basis. They also want a piece of all online financial transactions. If the only platforms out there are Windows, people aren't going to have much choice... Ditto with things like office suites, and control over your work. If the only way to edit a file is Word 2005 over.NET, what'll you do when MS decides you've violated a license and shuts you down remotely until you prove otherwise? If there's a perfectly functional alternative that you can place generic office staff at, this type of control is much harder to exert.
3) Freedom. Microsoft's only complaint about hardware-level content-access-controls is that they didn't have enough say in the implementation. Today, DVD players only come for Windows (and Mac, a bit) because of market forces. It's possible that in five years they would only be legal on an MS platform. (To legally access the access-control circuits, you'd need to send the right auth codes, which thanks to the DMCA, only an MS OS can send...) If another platform takes hold and a significant number of users adopt it (10% or more) companies and governments will think twice before making something Windows only.
I'd never think of forcing someone to run Linux, or any other OS. My only concern is that in a few years they might not have a choice.
I can honestly see MS making a case that "Any content protection can be cracked, on a general purpose computer" and getting government support for a computer than contains Windows 2005 in ROM, preventing anyone from having any direct access to the hardware. It'd also be likely that any attempt to swap the ROM, or bypass the OS would be a DMCA violation because, of course, the only reason to access the hardware directly is to do something the manufacturer didn't intend and that's obviously illegal.
Then there's the whole economic thing... Today I can get a mobo and CPU for about the same price as a 10GB HD, the smallest I can find. If I leave out a HD, it chops the cost of a basic system to 2/3. Thus a cheap Duron system, with 128MB of RAM, is around $300. Toss in an ethernet card with boot ROM and you can remote boot. Run apps off of a remote X-Server, and you can bypass CPU limitations of the client PC.
Thus for $350 or so, in total, I can setup an office workstation with a word processor, spreadsheet, database, 3d model editor, 2d graphics editor, email, browsing, compiler/IDE, etc.
I couldn't even buy a copy of MS Office for that price, or the OS, let alone the hardware required to run either 2k or XP (9x OSes aren't stable enough, imho).
This will only be possible (and legal) if MS doesn't get its way. To prevent that, we need to get people using Linux, so you aren't looked at oddly when you suggest a non-MS solution.
btw, just to smack anyone who says something about MS's terminal services... Think of the costs. Unix is cheaper to run, cheaper to buy, and cheaper to admin. While technically MS could do this, it wouldn't work as well, as quickly, or cheaply. Setup time on the unix version is also much lower.
Realism - Most people know that they'd rot in jail for the rest of their lives without the government actually caring.
Civil disobediance NEVER works. Sometimes it's luckily timed, and coincides with other changes, but governments are willing to simply ignore civil disobedience. They can either toss dissenters into prison until they recant, or give a message that the government may be accountable to those who foot the bill. Which do you think they'll choose?
Some civil disobedience is really a huge mob, willing to commit violence, and a civil leader who'll hold them back, if the government deals. That's threats of violence, just subtle. But that's what it takes, fear. If you can't make some lazy public employee fear for either his safety or easy paycheck, why would he bother lifting a finger?
> Who decides the "basic requirements"? The incumbents. That's exactly the same problem we have now.
The basic limits to get on the ballot are fairly easily met, and are usually just a certain number of signatures. That's a way that supporters who want to help their candidate can get involved.
> Who pays for the free airtime?
The taxpayers.
> No, thanks! I don't want any portion of my money (taxes) used to support the candidates I oppose!
Nor, any of your precious money spent on libraries with books you don't like, or roads used by people you don't support, I'm sure.
It's a package deal. You support my candidates, and I support yours. That way they compete on ideas, not money.
> So it's illegal for me to express my opinion? That's what I do when I support a candidate, by speaking on his behalf or contributing financially.
How is that different from supporting your local police officer? Just hand him a fifty when he pulls you over. Or the judge. Make sure to tip him a few grand whenever you've got a case being tried.
It's illegal, for good reason, in those cases. Why do you think bribery is a good thing with politicians? Or do you think that they'd forget a large cash donation and rule impartially?
> I should have the freedom to support whom I choose, and oppose whom I choose,
As should everyone else. If "campaign contributions" are allowed, people from richer areas (California) will have a lot more power than people from poorer areas (Kansas, etc). (Simply based on the average incomes, estimated by a multiple of the cost of living in each area.)
> TV/radio stations are businesses, and they deserve to get paid.
Sure. Just like the government pays for all the rest of the airtime it uses. Some is payed for in cash, some is part of the deal allowing the stations to use part of the EM spectrum, which is a public resource.
If all stations were required to cover the election, for the same ammount of time, at the same times, there wouldn't be an undue influence on one over the other. They'd be paid for the value of the airtime, and really, I can't think of anything more in the public interest than fair, unbiased coverage of the political system in action.
An informed populace might actually care, and if money didn't always decide the issue, they might not think voting was a waste of time.
I think people should be able to support their politician of choice, by putting in time at the campaign office doing so. Time is something all people have the same allotment of, and can decide to spend on an equal basis.
How do you honestly propose to limit corruption in a system where people could give a politician a million dollars, while describing their pet issue, and "hoping that it might be looked at."
I honestly don't see a way. To me, that system would be the equivalent of having C-SPAN display a price for each issue being argued, ala ebay... Your company need the EPA shackled while you dump some toxic waste? $1.5M. Need a residential zone changed to industrial? $.5M / square kilometer...
Removing spending caps wouldn't even help get more parties involved. Why would a corporation bother funding a third-party candidate when they could just buy the two main parties? I think removal of spending caps would just ensure that nobody else ever got into power.
Sure, their RDRAM chipset, using ram that was three times the price, was 5% (on average) ahead on all benchmarks except Q3, where it was 12% or so ahead...
Their SDRAM chipset was 20% or so behind VIA's chipset in almost all of the benchmarks, except where it fell farther behind.
So no, Intel's SDRAM chipset can't stay anywhere near VIA's SDRAM chipset. In fact, Intel's chipset fell farther behind than would be expected from ram bandwidth itself, leading to speculation that they intentionally crippled the chipset, so as to not take away sales from the more expensive product. (They've frequently done this, 486SX, Celeron 2, etc)
Face it, Intel currently has the slowest chipsets, and the slowest CPUs. The fastest x86 out there is an Athlon 1400 with DDR.
They tried this same vaguely threatened lawsuit trick against mobo makers when they were first coming out with Athlon boards. Intel and MS, can't compete with products, have to do it in court.
It makes a compiler easier write if you don't ever need forward-lookup, so to call a routine defined later, you need to pre-define it (ie, header files.) But it's a pain, and all it really saves is one pre-scan of the file for names.
It is also a pain to properly support some of the C++ spec, but much more of a pain, enough so that few people have properly implemented it.
In the first case, the compiler writer should btie the bullet and make it easier for the users. In the second case, the "right" thing to do is properly implement the spec, but if nobody does, you need to accept it and design a spec people will follow.
Actually, patching your server is one of the worst things you can do, if you aren't careful.
It depends on the OS, the severity, the size of the fix, and how easy it is to block in another way.
For an open source OS, with a simple fix, where you can look at it and be reasonably sure the patch is secure, go for it if the bug is serious.
For a closed-source OS, or a really complex patch, don't apply it until you've seen reports from people who do (give it a month or two) unless it's a huge bug and you can't block it with another method.
For example, some bugs would be port 139 overflows. Don't just patch Windows, firewall port 139 from the outside world.
Another example, Code Red... Use a filtering proxy/firewall to dump any port-80 traffic that requests "default.ida"
Keep in mind that patches aren't tested very well, simply because of the urgency of releasing them. I wouldn't trust an alpha-kernel on my servers, why would I try a webserver with an alpha patch?
This is especially important if you're working with a Microsoft system. They'd got a lot of history of releasing buggy service packs that can't be properly rolled back, etc.
THis is why full-disclosure is *essential*. Compotent admins can implement their own fixes while they wait for something official (and tested) to be developed.
Imagine if Code Red was describes only as a buffer overflow... It wouldn't be possible to protect yourself from it.
They didn't, but that was largely because they'd have been destroyed as well.
The USA was fairly close, after WW2, to making a bunch more nukes and carrying the war to the soviets. They were stopped partially because they couldn't afford the manpower to actually hold the country once it had been broken.
The USSR was fairly obviously looking to become the only superpower, and that would have been most quickly accomplished by destroying the USA.
Why do you think they didn't?
You may not like this, but war is a fact of life. As long as someone else desires violence, or is willing to use violence to get what they want, you have to be prepared to match them, or there's nothing stopping them.
Having an army, and building weapons of aggression, is required, unless you are so confident of your strength that you can rely 100% on defensive weapons. Do you want to risk your life on a missile defense system?
Ummm, hello moderator. You may be too crack-addled to click on the article, but then you shouldn't moderate. The post you marked as off-topic is *directly* ON-topic.
You can, at Fairtunes.org... The name suggests it's just music, but people have arranged donations for many other things.
Re:Because MS Bugs == Planned Obsolescence
on
Windows in 2020
·
· Score: 2
Playing games in 2k is a sure way to crash it. Many old Win32 games can toast it completely. ReVolt, Worms: World Party, and Rally Masters have all taken out 2k, easily.
Then there's the total lack of protection on most resources... A run-away program, even not as Admin, can render the system unbootable, or trash the registry.
The OS itself just isn't as stable. Win2k is the best of the MS OSes, but I'm pleasently suprised when it hits two weeks, and it's never lasted over a month, even with no games and light use.
I've worked on many *nix (not just Linux) boxes that had been up two years or more.
Then there's the issue of bloat.. Win2k chews through 512MB of RAM. I don't know if it's using a bad caching algorithm, or if the internals of the OS bloat enough to use a few hundred MBs, but it gets fairly slow before it finally tanks... thrashing like mad when you load something.
Win2k is a pretty nice OS, I use it for work, and home when I'm gaming. But it's not ready for serious work... MS's recommendation for most system problems is to reboot the computer.
No serious product needs to be shut-down like that. See the Cisco discussion on here from back when Slashdot went down... All the admins of real computers and dedicated hardware said that rebooting will never solve the problem, only the recent symptoms. Seeing as how Windows, out of the box, needs to be rebooted to fix many issues, and every time you update some system component, I can only conclude that you shouldn't use Win2k for anything that requires stability or security.
I recommend Win2k to *any* user of Windows, because it's much better than any of their previous OSes, but it's still liking putting a quad-xeon up against a Sun mainframe... real jobs need real OSes (and real hardware...)
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't know you enjoyed watching people shit...
You know, a flag is just a bit of cloth. If you're so fired up about what it represents, you're an utter moron.
I agree, that is kinda stupid.
I'd be willing to rip apart most of my paperbacks to scan them, there are few that are important enough as collectibles, or for sentimental reasons, for me to worry about.
I'd keep the covers, perhaps using them for a mural.
But yeah, anyways, the arbitrary laws are stupid. If it is legal for me to posess a certain bit stream, then it should be legal no matter how I obtained it.
Did you see the reply to my post that said "newsgroups"? I'm sure the poster simply meant that this ethical discourse continues in more detail on the newsgroups. Too bad he didn't specify which ones...
Me.
I don't know how to get pirated books.
Umm... I don't suppose you'd tell me, would you?
Well, it didn't kill anyone when the original part broke...
Most machines like this also come with covers over as many of the moving parts as possible, to guard against just that.
Likely in the same way they'll find out that it's because their entire inventory is tacky and overpriced. That way is... who cares? It's their problem.
They'll either find out and correct it, or continue what they're doing with less customers, perhaps drastically less.
You could, if you're bored, write them an email and explain this, but I doubt any company that hired an IE5-obsessed, javascript-dependent monkey to do their pages has any clue about reading feedback from their users.
Companies that took the time to research the net, even only in so much as finding a consultant who wasn't an idiot, won't have javascript dependant pages, and will periodically try out any new browsers (both by searching for them, and by checking the server logs for user-agent strings) to make sure that their site is properly functional in all browsers.
Is there a modern version of this? The last I saw it was on the Apple ][ in the early 80s.
I wouldn't mind checking it out again if you can point me to a copy.
Twenty bucks isn't much, but QT (for me) isn't essential. Neither are any of the other pluggins.
While I don't mind supporting developers whose work I would use, I'd rather just not watch Quicktime than pay $20 for the ability, especially as it's a rare activity.
Sure, I could pay for it even though I don't use it much, but at that point it does get expensive.
I realize authors need to eat (I write code for a living) but I don't see that their need to eat creates an obligation for me to support them.
The sad fact is that the bar is a lot higher in Linux, for useful shareware. In the windows world, I've seen shareware *ping* programs, (with a small GUI), in Linux cool programs like mtr and nmap are free, you've got to write something pretty cool to compete as freeware, let alone as shareware.
Actually, it appears we don't disagree.
1) Oops, my bad.
2) I know the law would protect you, I was saying that if MS had their way and the EULA was a contract, that you wouldn't be protected. Hypothetical.
3) Yeah, I know. They fail most of the prerequisites for a valid contract.
4) There's a difference between 'no the best' and 'shit'. MS fraudulently sells the product as enterprise ready for servers yet knows they are not capable, yet alone less capable than the free stuff.
5) Yes, monopolies should get different treatment than other companies. The spirit of capitalism is companies competing to bring you a product, not someone lying, cheating, and stealing to drive everyone else out of business, leaving the consumers with no choice.
It's such an intellectual passtime, a real thinking-man's game.
Left. Left. Left. Hey, another Left. etc.
What intellectual giants.
If you're gonna be into racing, don't watch NASCAR. Watch rally racing, where they have drivers with skill.
If an ISP can't afford to provide the bandwidth they contracted to provide, they should charge more or provide less (after notifying customers).
I know of many ISPs that cap customers, either in momentary bandwidth (ie, speed caps) or in total bandwidth, or both, where the speed cap drops lower, the more you've downloaded.
This way that can afford their backbone costs and provide service to everyone without letting a few people use up a T3.
The reason QWest is providing unlimited bandwidth is so that they can drive all the competition out of business. Monopolistic practices.
And we're supposed to go easy on them when they don't provide what they contract to provide?
Do you think the board of QWest is sitting around, discussing overdue bills, saying "We don't have a realistic understanding of living on one wage and supporting children, so we should let these people slide a month" or do they automatically forward all overdue bills to collection, thus ruining your credit rating?
I might be prepared to cut them some slack if 1) they'd ever return the favor and 2) they we're monopolistic jerks trying to run everyone else out of business.
Ok, let both parties spell out the limits and liabilities, in detail.
When MS lists the IIS holes in the EULA and the user signs off on them, I'll accept it as the user's fault.
But, the EULA says, in as lawyerly prose as possible, that Microsoft isn't liable for anything. Even if they intentionally bundled a virus with the OS and targetted it at you, the EULA disclaims all responsibility.
I too think that people should be able to purchase less-than-perfect products, and then be unable to sue, if it was clear what the defects were, or the extent of the sellers knowledge.
For instance, if you buy a Machine, and it's marked "As Is", you're entitled to take it back for a full refund if you find that that the seller knew it didn't work. You see, "As Is" means "I don't know" not "I tested it and it failed". It's perfectly reasonable to sell something broken, even something you believe will never work again, as long as you make its condition clear when you sell it.
Microsoft *knows* its products are shit. If they don't take immediate steps to correct this, along with notifying potential customers, imho they're liable for the damages. Hell, there's a ton of companies who are skilled in fixing security bugs. Counterpane does security audits, both network and code. They could even bring in Theo from OpenBSD; whatever else it true about Theo, he's smart enough to know which C and C++ functions risk overwriting a buffer.
Because Microsoft makes NONE of these attempts to fix their products, in my eyes, they are liable for the damages caused.
How is routing packets based on the destination IP, which involves lookin in the packet, any different than routing based on the TCP level, such as transparent web proxies?
/dev/null? Either it's a worm, and the customer didn't intend to send it, or it's a cracker, who you don't want using the service.
And then, what's wrong with routing a packet containing default.ida?... into
I think all ISPs should have dropped packets on port 80 that appeared to be CodeRed. It'd have stopped this thing quickly.
But then I think the Anti-CodeRed scripts that use the same hole, but to apply the patch or shutdown IIS and display a message explaining it, should have been used, and should be legal.
Attempted analogy. I shouldn't go into your car, even if unlocked. But, if your car was rolling slowly down the hill towards mine, would it be wrong if I opened the door and set the parking brake, to save both of us a large repair bill? Especially if I left you a nice note explaining the parking break, how to set/unset it, and why I did what I did.
In fact, in some jurisdictions, you'd be held responsible for not preventing an accident if you could have safely/easily done so, regardless of it being your "fault" to being with.
If breaking a bad law is never justified, what do you do when big companies literally buy laws ("donations" to politicians) and you'll *never* have any say in the law.
I mean, some laws you'll have a say in, and be overruled. Some laws you'll never get a say in, because if it ever comes to a vote, they've made sure it can't lose.
If you aren't justified in breaking a law, what can you do?
No, he said "updated". That means, up to date.
..." he'd simply install Redhat 6.2
... stable. That's like saying it has ... a nice personality.
If he wanted the packages he'd get from doing "apt-get
Debian is
The apt-get interface is very nice though, and an up-to-date distro could make good use of it.
You know, not much is different between Linux and Windows.
I went from 98SE to 2k Pro, my computer would hang either when playing the startup sound, or in the first 30s of some program playing sounds. If I completely avoided anything making noise, it'd stay up all night.
I suspected the sound card, removed it, and the computer worked. Replaced it with an old ISA Awe64... Still worked.
I looked for docs on the Aureal Vortex under 2k... None.
I looked for message-board discussion on it. Very little, all negative.
Eventually, I found a site describing how to get it working with a slightly modified binary of the original driver, and a bunch of registry mods.
I left the Awe 64 in...
In fact, Windows was much harder to get working than Linux, because Windows doesn't support much user input. You double-click the exe, it installs. If it doesn't, you have no idea where it failed. (Without running filemon from www.sysinternals.com, or something similar.) At least in Linux you usually know what failed, and if someone tells you how to get it working it's only a matter of copying their config file or installation steps.
> Why does Linux need to take over the desktop?
.NET to take over, and likely to provide all content on a pay-per-use basis. They also want a piece of all online financial transactions. If the only platforms out there are Windows, people aren't going to have much choice... Ditto with things like office suites, and control over your work. If the only way to edit a file is Word 2005 over .NET, what'll you do when MS decides you've violated a license and shuts you down remotely until you prove otherwise? If there's a perfectly functional alternative that you can place generic office staff at, this type of control is much harder to exert.
Well, that depends. If you mean "take over" literally, as in, be the only one, then I don't think it does.
But if you mean, why does Linux need to get easy to use, and be reasonable replacement for Windows, then I think this is very important.
1) Much of the world is far poorer than North America/Western Europe/Japan. An old P75 with 32MB would be server-class to much of the world's population. MS-Windows will never cater to this market. If you run Windows on that hardware it's either pathetically slow, or pathetically obsolete. Linux makes this hardware capable of connecting to the modern internet (perl, php, apache, postgreSQl, IPv6, and more).
2) Monopolies are bad. MS wants
3) Freedom. Microsoft's only complaint about hardware-level content-access-controls is that they didn't have enough say in the implementation. Today, DVD players only come for Windows (and Mac, a bit) because of market forces. It's possible that in five years they would only be legal on an MS platform. (To legally access the access-control circuits, you'd need to send the right auth codes, which thanks to the DMCA, only an MS OS can send...) If another platform takes hold and a significant number of users adopt it (10% or more) companies and governments will think twice before making something Windows only.
I'd never think of forcing someone to run Linux, or any other OS. My only concern is that in a few years they might not have a choice.
I can honestly see MS making a case that "Any content protection can be cracked, on a general purpose computer" and getting government support for a computer than contains Windows 2005 in ROM, preventing anyone from having any direct access to the hardware. It'd also be likely that any attempt to swap the ROM, or bypass the OS would be a DMCA violation because, of course, the only reason to access the hardware directly is to do something the manufacturer didn't intend and that's obviously illegal.
Then there's the whole economic thing... Today I can get a mobo and CPU for about the same price as a 10GB HD, the smallest I can find. If I leave out a HD, it chops the cost of a basic system to 2/3. Thus a cheap Duron system, with 128MB of RAM, is around $300. Toss in an ethernet card with boot ROM and you can remote boot. Run apps off of a remote X-Server, and you can bypass CPU limitations of the client PC.
Thus for $350 or so, in total, I can setup an office workstation with a word processor, spreadsheet, database, 3d model editor, 2d graphics editor, email, browsing, compiler/IDE, etc.
I couldn't even buy a copy of MS Office for that price, or the OS, let alone the hardware required to run either 2k or XP (9x OSes aren't stable enough, imho).
This will only be possible (and legal) if MS doesn't get its way. To prevent that, we need to get people using Linux, so you aren't looked at oddly when you suggest a non-MS solution.
btw, just to smack anyone who says something about MS's terminal services... Think of the costs. Unix is cheaper to run, cheaper to buy, and cheaper to admin. While technically MS could do this, it wouldn't work as well, as quickly, or cheaply. Setup time on the unix version is also much lower.
Try this one...
Realism - Most people know that they'd rot in jail for the rest of their lives without the government actually caring.
Civil disobediance NEVER works. Sometimes it's luckily timed, and coincides with other changes, but governments are willing to simply ignore civil disobedience. They can either toss dissenters into prison until they recant, or give a message that the government may be accountable to those who foot the bill. Which do you think they'll choose?
Some civil disobedience is really a huge mob, willing to commit violence, and a civil leader who'll hold them back, if the government deals. That's threats of violence, just subtle. But that's what it takes, fear. If you can't make some lazy public employee fear for either his safety or easy paycheck, why would he bother lifting a finger?
> Who decides the "basic requirements"? The incumbents. That's exactly the same problem we have now.
The basic limits to get on the ballot are fairly easily met, and are usually just a certain number of signatures. That's a way that supporters who want to help their candidate can get involved.
> Who pays for the free airtime?
The taxpayers.
> No, thanks! I don't want any portion of my money (taxes) used to support the candidates I oppose!
Nor, any of your precious money spent on libraries with books you don't like, or roads used by people you don't support, I'm sure.
It's a package deal. You support my candidates, and I support yours. That way they compete on ideas, not money.
> So it's illegal for me to express my opinion? That's what I do when I support a candidate, by speaking on his behalf or contributing financially.
How is that different from supporting your local police officer? Just hand him a fifty when he pulls you over. Or the judge. Make sure to tip him a few grand whenever you've got a case being tried.
It's illegal, for good reason, in those cases. Why do you think bribery is a good thing with politicians? Or do you think that they'd forget a large cash donation and rule impartially?
> I should have the freedom to support whom I choose, and oppose whom I choose,
As should everyone else. If "campaign contributions" are allowed, people from richer areas (California) will have a lot more power than people from poorer areas (Kansas, etc). (Simply based on the average incomes, estimated by a multiple of the cost of living in each area.)
> TV/radio stations are businesses, and they deserve to get paid.
Sure. Just like the government pays for all the rest of the airtime it uses. Some is payed for in cash, some is part of the deal allowing the stations to use part of the EM spectrum, which is a public resource.
If all stations were required to cover the election, for the same ammount of time, at the same times, there wouldn't be an undue influence on one over the other. They'd be paid for the value of the airtime, and really, I can't think of anything more in the public interest than fair, unbiased coverage of the political system in action.
An informed populace might actually care, and if money didn't always decide the issue, they might not think voting was a waste of time.
I think people should be able to support their politician of choice, by putting in time at the campaign office doing so. Time is something all people have the same allotment of, and can decide to spend on an equal basis.
How do you honestly propose to limit corruption in a system where people could give a politician a million dollars, while describing their pet issue, and "hoping that it might be looked at."
I honestly don't see a way. To me, that system would be the equivalent of having C-SPAN display a price for each issue being argued, ala ebay... Your company need the EPA shackled while you dump some toxic waste? $1.5M. Need a residential zone changed to industrial? $.5M / square kilometer...
Removing spending caps wouldn't even help get more parties involved. Why would a corporation bother funding a third-party candidate when they could just buy the two main parties? I think removal of spending caps would just ensure that nobody else ever got into power.
Sure, their RDRAM chipset, using ram that was three times the price, was 5% (on average) ahead on all benchmarks except Q3, where it was 12% or so ahead...
Their SDRAM chipset was 20% or so behind VIA's chipset in almost all of the benchmarks, except where it fell farther behind.
So no, Intel's SDRAM chipset can't stay anywhere near VIA's SDRAM chipset. In fact, Intel's chipset fell farther behind than would be expected from ram bandwidth itself, leading to speculation that they intentionally crippled the chipset, so as to not take away sales from the more expensive product. (They've frequently done this, 486SX, Celeron 2, etc)
Face it, Intel currently has the slowest chipsets, and the slowest CPUs. The fastest x86 out there is an Athlon 1400 with DDR.
They tried this same vaguely threatened lawsuit trick against mobo makers when they were first coming out with Athlon boards. Intel and MS, can't compete with products, have to do it in court.
Re: Making compiles easier to write
I agree, mostly.
It makes a compiler easier write if you don't ever need forward-lookup, so to call a routine defined later, you need to pre-define it (ie, header files.) But it's a pain, and all it really saves is one pre-scan of the file for names.
It is also a pain to properly support some of the C++ spec, but much more of a pain, enough so that few people have properly implemented it.
In the first case, the compiler writer should btie the bullet and make it easier for the users. In the second case, the "right" thing to do is properly implement the spec, but if nobody does, you need to accept it and design a spec people will follow.
Actually, patching your server is one of the worst things you can do, if you aren't careful.
It depends on the OS, the severity, the size of the fix, and how easy it is to block in another way.
For an open source OS, with a simple fix, where you can look at it and be reasonably sure the patch is secure, go for it if the bug is serious.
For a closed-source OS, or a really complex patch, don't apply it until you've seen reports from people who do (give it a month or two) unless it's a huge bug and you can't block it with another method.
For example, some bugs would be port 139 overflows. Don't just patch Windows, firewall port 139 from the outside world.
Another example, Code Red... Use a filtering proxy/firewall to dump any port-80 traffic that requests "default.ida"
Keep in mind that patches aren't tested very well, simply because of the urgency of releasing them. I wouldn't trust an alpha-kernel on my servers, why would I try a webserver with an alpha patch?
This is especially important if you're working with a Microsoft system. They'd got a lot of history of releasing buggy service packs that can't be properly rolled back, etc.
THis is why full-disclosure is *essential*. Compotent admins can implement their own fixes while they wait for something official (and tested) to be developed.
Imagine if Code Red was describes only as a buffer overflow... It wouldn't be possible to protect yourself from it.
*Prepared* to destroy...
They didn't, but that was largely because they'd have been destroyed as well.
The USA was fairly close, after WW2, to making a bunch more nukes and carrying the war to the soviets. They were stopped partially because they couldn't afford the manpower to actually hold the country once it had been broken.
The USSR was fairly obviously looking to become the only superpower, and that would have been most quickly accomplished by destroying the USA.
Why do you think they didn't?
You may not like this, but war is a fact of life. As long as someone else desires violence, or is willing to use violence to get what they want, you have to be prepared to match them, or there's nothing stopping them.
Having an army, and building weapons of aggression, is required, unless you are so confident of your strength that you can rely 100% on defensive weapons. Do you want to risk your life on a missile defense system?
Ummm, hello moderator. You may be too crack-addled to click on the article, but then you shouldn't moderate. The post you marked as off-topic is *directly* ON-topic.
BB is very anti-Tom Cruise(missile). Why?
You can, at Fairtunes.org... The name suggests it's just music, but people have arranged donations for many other things.
Playing games in 2k is a sure way to crash it. Many old Win32 games can toast it completely. ReVolt, Worms: World Party, and Rally Masters have all taken out 2k, easily.
Then there's the total lack of protection on most resources... A run-away program, even not as Admin, can render the system unbootable, or trash the registry.
The OS itself just isn't as stable. Win2k is the best of the MS OSes, but I'm pleasently suprised when it hits two weeks, and it's never lasted over a month, even with no games and light use.
I've worked on many *nix (not just Linux) boxes that had been up two years or more.
Then there's the issue of bloat.. Win2k chews through 512MB of RAM. I don't know if it's using a bad caching algorithm, or if the internals of the OS bloat enough to use a few hundred MBs, but it gets fairly slow before it finally tanks... thrashing like mad when you load something.
Win2k is a pretty nice OS, I use it for work, and home when I'm gaming. But it's not ready for serious work... MS's recommendation for most system problems is to reboot the computer.
No serious product needs to be shut-down like that. See the Cisco discussion on here from back when Slashdot went down... All the admins of real computers and dedicated hardware said that rebooting will never solve the problem, only the recent symptoms. Seeing as how Windows, out of the box, needs to be rebooted to fix many issues, and every time you update some system component, I can only conclude that you shouldn't use Win2k for anything that requires stability or security.
I recommend Win2k to *any* user of Windows, because it's much better than any of their previous OSes, but it's still liking putting a quad-xeon up against a Sun mainframe... real jobs need real OSes (and real hardware...)