If segmented memory is so great, then why has no other CPU manufacturer seen fit to introduce it since the days of the 80386? Maybe it's because paged memory attributes do accomplish everything important that segments do.
Ok, misunderstood me it is. Pretty much ANY non-embedded CPU that provides memory protection provides memory segments (actually, they offload it to the MMU), where memory segments are defined as an area for data or code. Early systems had little memory to spare (Or was it because VM hadn't been invented yet? I forget), so they used segment extents to define large chunks of memory. Intel took this route with the 286/386, but made the scheme brain damaged in an attempt to be backward compatible with previous versions.
Later system designs had more memory available to them and thus integrated Paging and Segmentation to function along the same lines. i.e. Each memory page is told what type of segment it is so that data cannot overwrite code. This scheme is far simpler to use than the extent scheme, but provides protection against data overwriting code.
The one down side to this scheme is that some systems allow for self-modifying code. i.e. They will execute a data segment. In that case, the system may need a "no execute" flag to prevent execution of areas. This situation is not a problem with the x86 architecture because code and data segments can overlap. i.e. Self modifying code can only occur if you explicitly set it as such.
The problem is that x86 OSes ALWAYS map the code and data segments over top of each other. Guess what happens then?
Note that the x86 can fairly easily use its segment scheme for protection AND paging at the same time, without running into the executable data problem. All the OS needs to do is separate the pages intended for code and the pages intended for data into separate segments.
Plain-old ordinary fission has already made diesel free ships a reality.
I thought about mentioning this, but since Fission hasn't caught on in the merchant ship market, I decided to drop it. I personally believe that shipping could be revolutioned with Nuclear technology, but no one wants to be the first to try with Green Peace and other anti-nuke organizations breathing down their necks.
Do you know why? It's because segmented memory models SUCKED.
You don't know what you're talking about. (Or perhaps just misunderstood me.)
Have you ever tried to program for a 80286?
The paging features introduced with the 80386 made the segmented model unnecessary, and programmers woldwide dropped segments in a heartbeat.
And these two statements prove it. The segmented memory was useless in the 80286, because Intel screwed the pooch on the protected mode implementation. It wasn't until the 80386 that the segmented model became useful. That's why I said "Nearly 20 years" and not "Over 20 years." (80286: 1982 vs. 80386: 1986)
As for pages, this has nothing to do with segmented memory. Paging is a scheme that allows for Virtual Memory implementations, not access to long memory addresses. You still need to create segments if you want to access 32 bit memory.
All you need to do achieve the same security goal is make data pages non-executable. That's what's been done with the latest x86 CPUs
The "No Execute" flag is patch because Operating System Programmers are too lazy to implement their Operating Systems correctly! Segmented memory works by separating the data, stack, and code sections into their own segments. No one can overwrite the code segment, and the data heap can't ever touch the program stack segment. To the running programs, this is transparent. Only the OS needs to know or care that these segments exist. Which means that there is very little reason *not* to use segmented memory.
I actually pointed that out in my original post. The problem is not their grasp of English, just that Americans are unable to understand them. My guess is that British have a much easier time, but that doesn't help Americans any.:-)
See, the problem is, it could never give off more energy than it takes in.
Strictly speaking, that's true of every reaction. Some sort of energy was required for the nucleus used in Fission to form in the first place. So it never gives off more energy than was put in. The key to nuclear tech is that we are harnessing one of the most energy dense fuels known to exist: The atom itself.
which in turn, hit other nucleii and cause a chain reaction.
The chain reaction in Fission is probably the biggest reason why Fission is so successful. You don't really need to *do* anything. Just stack up enough Uranium (or other fun radioactive material) and you've got massive thermal energy.
Fusion, however, is fission in reverse. Without the chain reaction, that is. It smashes two nucleii together with enough force to leave a strong force bond.
That's an oversimplification. Fission and Fusion are actually very similar processes. In Fission, individual neutrons are captured. These neutrons cause the atom to destablise, and then fall apart into mutiple, smaller atoms and a bunch of free particles. The fast neutrons released then need to bump around a bit (thus producing thermal energy) before getting captured by another atom that is ripe for splitting.
In Fusion, complete atoms are forced together instead of being captured. The process of overcoming the nuclear bonds results in a lot of potenial energy being converted into kinetic energy carried by the resulting atoms/free particles. The problem with most of our fusion methods to date has not been a matter of the system losing energy. In fact, Fusion tends to produce far MORE energy than Fission (as shown by thermonuclear weapons) but the problem is that no one has found a method for creating a self-maintaining Fusion reaction. (Other than creating a mass the size of the Sun, that is.) As a result, we tend to attempt to force Fusion on large enough masses to overcome the losses inherent in the methods we use to create the fission event.
Except that if segmented memory was actually *used* (instead of happily ignored), the return address would be a far pointer to a segment in the GDT or LDT table. Problem: There's no way (or actally, few ways) of knowing where a given address will lead, and the trojan wouldn't have permission to write over someone else's segment anyway.
It amazes me how we've had the tools to prevent these sorts of issues for nearly 20 years (on the x86, some systems have had it far longer) and yet today's super-modern-OSes still set up one code segment and one data segment, both overlapping the entirety of main memory. It's an atrocity I tell you!
just imagine if the nature of the stack wouldn't allow [buffer overruns]. If some kind of mechanism beside a simple jump had been used. Like registering an address in the CPU via an instruction and then calling that jump.
Would it annoy you to no end if I explained that you've just described the segmented memory model that has been available on the 386 and up since 1986? It just so happens that today's "Modern OSes" (right load of bull that is) map only two memory segments, then completely ignore the GDT, LDT, and TSS after that? It is, of course, done all in the name of "Performance", the mini-god for which many a programmer has sacrificed his first born for, but has never actually managed to show that this "performance" was worth it.
<sarcasm>But wait, we must claim that Java is slow in order to appease this mini-god! </sarcasm>
If only I could make as much money from my mistakes as Microsoft does from its learning experiences.
It's quite easy to do. Step 1: Build a monopoly for a required commodity. Step 2: There is no step 2.
By the time that Microsoft had committed to Windows 2000, they had virtually no competition. Many people did not *want* to upgrade to Windows 2000, but had little choice due to the lack of other options. NT and 9x were only going to get less and less secure, and Microsoft ensured that several programs were put in place to force upgrades.
The end result was that any OS that Microsoft put out was destined to become a success. That's why monopolies are considered a bad thing.:-/
Can they fuse something other than deuterium? Helium, lithium maybe? Don't some of the other elements have interesting fusion properties? (Seem to remember that boron would produce some sigificant voltage in the form of beta radiation).
I've got a much better solution to their problem. Just add some U-235 to the mechanism. Say, about 51kg. If my calculations are correct, that should fix their energy production problems in no time flat!;-)
It's just a personal victory laugh. People keep telling me that outsourcing will only continue to grow and will put local workers out of business all together. I take a mild amount of pleasure in proving them wrong, but I'm not stupid enough to vocalize it. Wait...
I'm sure it's real. In any case, it's not the "Cold Fusion" everyone is looking for. We've got a host of "cold" fusion options today including the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor and Sonofusion. Neither one manages to produce positive net energy output. What was so striking about the original Cold Fusion experiments was that they produced more energy than was put in. *If* it's actually fusion (and not just a weird chemical reaction) and *if* we can make it regularly reproducable, then Cold Fusion could essentially change the world.
Imagine a car that only needs to be refueled every few months/years. Or a power system for your home that is independent from the Grid. Or ships that no longer have to rely on Diesel. That is the temptation of Cold Fusion. Unfortunately, our physics and engineering are not quite that good yet. But I'm sure it's only 20 years away...;-)
Pakistan is filling the gap and rapidly becoming the next hotspot for labor outsourcing.
Population of India: 1,080,264,388 Population of Pakistan: 150,694,740
I'm thinking that Pakistan won't hold out for long.
Eventually Africa will be used as it really is the last spot of untapped labor (although a tad risky at the moment).
Hello Dear Friend, my name is Bozo Mumbo, and I am the rightful king of Nigeria. My brother recently kicked me out of the palace so now I have turned to offering outsourced tech workers at a low price...
It looks like the supply end of the curve is dropping as the demand curve goes up. Before you know it, this could result in an increasing cost of outsourced workers. Combined with the exact opposite curve in the countries doing the outsourcing (i.e. low demand == lower cost workers), a balance will soon have to be struck that will again restore tech workers to a thriving market in both America/Europe and India. No, there's not going to be another "tech boom". That's over with.
I have to say that I found the article rather amusing, as I've ran up against many of the "English speaking" Indian call centers. (I'm looking at you Citibank.)
Q: What do you get when you mix an Indian accent with the British flavor of English? A: Something completely incomprehensible to an American.
It's amazing how many cues exist in the accents we use in our language. American English is actually quite forgiving of foreign accents, but it frustrates me to no end trying to understand the Indian on the other end. It's not that he has an Indian accent. The reps actually tend to speak English quite well. The problem is that the slight Indian accent completely throws off the British accent (which most Americans are unaccustomed to anyway) and makes it very difficult to comprehend their speach. Add the quality of a telephone connection on the mix and you've got a communications disaster far worse than the bored utterances of the previous Floridians. (Who were no shining examples of pretty speech themselves.)
Ok, I'm done complaining. I'm sure I'll soon be hearing from all manners of Indians, British, and Floridians who all feel slighted just because I had a bad customer support experience. Cheerio!:-)
Ah yes, and a Federalist Republic instead bankrupts itself by voting the treasury only into the pockets of the rich via massive tax breaks. That's a lot better.
Come on Mr Sheep, tell us another one...
You know, that's a rather rude statement. Didn't your parents teach you any manners?
And for the record, the US treasury has been happily voted into the pockets of the percieved "poor", just as much as it has been voted into the pockets of the rich. (In fact, direct compensation has gone to the "poor" far more often than it has gone to the rich. Examples of this include welfare, medicare, unemployment, stimulis packages, and congressional pork.) Federalist Republics are like any other form of government: They are not perfect. What the FR attempts to acheive, however, is to provide enough balance to absorb poor desisions without a collapse of the government.
The example of voting the treasury into the pockets of the people is a common one given by textbooks. But another common one is the failure to provide for common defense. In a democracy, the voters can end up debating far too long to provide for the defense of their country. That's why the US President has command over the the military for defense, but it requires an act of congress to declare war.
If you sell a piece of woodwork but stipulate that the buyer is never allowed to sell it or let it be seen in public, that would seem to only benefit you, and that seems much closer to the Apple example to me.
That is also a perfectly legitimate example. If those terms are acceptable to you, then you both benefit. You are payed a sum, and the buyer has the piece of woodwork. Thus there is benefit on both sides. The terms that you are suggesting are actually quite similar to the terms that the movie industry claims over their works. e.g. The FBI warning at the beginning of a movie explains that you are not allowed to show your copy at a public event. It is for personal viewing only. And the inability to resell your license to someone else is core to many corporate software contracts.
In order for a contract to be unilateral, you must show that only one side unfairly benefits from the arrangement. For example, if you are stuck in the desert without food or water and I give you a contract for food and water that states that you will become my slave, that contract is unenforcable. (It also falls afoul of various duress laws, but I digress.)
Contract theory basically states that a contract must be designed as an equitable trade between two parties. Either side can add terms (which are sometimes added back and forth as a tit-for-tat method of negotiation) as long as the terms do not make the contract overtly unfair to one party over the other.
No, just power hungry, bought and paid for, politicians. Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely and all...
How are Congressional representatives in any way endowed with absolute power? Depending on which half we're talking, you've got 100-435 people with exactly the same power as yourself! The only time that a representative has any sort of special powers is when they are explicitly granted by an act of congress.
The closest thing to absolute power in our government is the President of the United States. And his powers are crippled in several places by Congress and the Supreme Court.
To say politicians are "ethical enough" to overcome bias by the money thrown at them is simply fooling yourself. [...] Look at the letter writing campaign against the Iraq war that happened. Did that stop it?
Who paid Congress to start a war? You can invoke the mystical "them", but unless you can show actual money, you're just waving your arms.
Allow me to explain the purpose of the organization of Federalist Rupublic over a true Democracy: In a true Democracy, the people are the leaders. This means that their collective will is *always* carried out, even if that will is counter-productive to the existence of the civilization. A common example of this is when a Democracy bankrupts itself by voting the treasury into its own pockets.
In a Republic, the representatives are there to represent the people's will, but only to the degree where the will of the masses aligns with the good of the country. In cases where the will of the people would be detrimental to the good of the country, then it is the DUTY of the representative to ignore the will of his constituents.
The answer is that the war industrial complex has MUCH more funds to back up their support.
Did you ever consider that there might have also been write ins that supported the war? Remember, Bush was reelected for a second term. That tends to suggest that the "will of the people" may not align with the fantasy that you have created.
Putting aside any issues I might have with the rest of your post (and much of that is down to the variations in laws between countries)
The subject is US Law, so that is the Law of which I speak.
can you name an instance of an EULA which is not wholy in favour of one party? The Apple example you cite is a classic case of one-sided restrictions.
You have a brain. Think about it. Is it a unilateral agreement if I sell a piece of woodwork I've done? Under your logic, I'm the only one who's benefitting from the arangement. Or how about a horse breeder? Is it a unilateral agreement if a stallion owner only agrees to breed with a champion filly?
Another question for you, if you consider the contract patently unfair (i.e. only to the benefit of Apple) why enter into the contract? Think about it.
What are you people blathering on about? I really, really don't understand why you've jumped into the "make a copy in RAM" argument when it was never even once addressed in my post. All I addressed was that copyright law allows a copyright holder to control the distribution of his works. That means that he has the right to not give it to you if you do not wish to agree to his terms.
Nonsense, they intended to trouser large sums of cash; the consequences for the public was never their concern.
Have you ever watched a game show where you look at the contestants and yell, "I could do WAY better! This guy's an idiot! Where do they find these people!" I'm willing to bet, however, that you yourself wouldn't do much better if you were in their place. You have the benefit of your comfortable living room, no pressure, and nothing at stake. But put you up on stage and you may have the same difficulties that you found so offensive in the contestant.
It's the same with Congress-critters. Believe it or not, many of them really are trying to do the right thing. That doesn't mean that they don't occasionally abuse their position (*cough*Post Stamps Scandal*cough*), but it does mean that they're not as inherently evil as everyone makes them out to be. They're just people trying to make the best decision they can on the limited information they have. That's why it can help a lot if you write your congress-person. An overwhelming degree of well thought out, public opinion can sway the opinion of a representative. Similarly, regular letters about a topic can sway opinion if a relevant bill hits the floor. These letters can also provide your representatives with insight that can be very helpful during debates.
So, instead of complaining like a backseat driver, write your congress-critter and help them to understand your opinions.
They don't grant me anything that copyright law does not.
Yes, they do. They grant you the right to use the software. Copyright law allows a copyright holder to determine the circumstances under which he will distribute his work. Simply adding terms such as, "I won't let you use this software unless you promise not to reverse engineer it and promise not to sue me," is not considered unilateral conditons. After all, the copyright holder doesn't have to distribute his work to you at all.
That being said, many court procedings are finding many common EULA terms to be unenforcable. For example, the bit of the contract that states that you will pay all legal costs in any court proceding is unlikey to be upheld by a judge if it's the copyright holder who's found to be in error.
Unfortunately, some courts are ignoring the law.
Nonsense. You just don't understand the law. Yes, sometimes courts make a bad decision. But that's why there are appeals courts and higher courts. Checks and balances. It may take a while, but most bad decisions are usually overturned.
For things that you personally consider bad decisions (but in all actuality are the law), may I suggest that you look to your nearest congress-critter for blame?
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that paragraph 3 is a very tricky restriction to meet. The information you provide to others may violate standard copyright law (e.g. The PC BIOS calls may have been considered a unique work unto themselves, thus a copyrightable thing.), or may violate other restrictions of the DMCA, especially as they relate to the details of the encryption device.
Granted, Apple says you have to use OSX on genuine or certified fake (wtf is that??) but if a solution comes up like PearPC does that mean that its against what Lexmark is fighting, or just violating the EULA?
You have to be careful here, because the law is full of interesting nuances. For example, when you purchase an ink cartrige you are purchasing the entire product, lot, stock, and barrel. No one can tell you what to do with it as long as you did not sign a contract and are not using it to break the law. This means that Lexmark cannot successfully sue you if you find a way to use the ink in a competitor's printer. Nor can they sue you if you want to take it apart and see what makes it tick.
Software, OTOH, is never sold in its entirety. The law recognizes that it is not a physical thing that can be taken away, and that copies can be made with impunity. As a result, all software is licensed. (Slight oversimplification, but hang with me here.) The basic terms amount to those provided by copyright law. But a software provider may optionally request that you sign/accept a license that places further restrictions on your ability to use the software. As long as those terms are not considered unilateral (i.e. only in the favor of one party) and that the user is considered to have agreed to the terms, the license is legal. This is the mechanism that allows Apple to prevent someone from running OS X on hardware other than Apple-sanctioned Macs.
It sounds like Lexmark thought they could pull a Nintendo with their authorization chip. Only, there happens to be a few things wrong with their approach:
Nintendo had a patent on their authentication chip. This afforded them significantly more protection than the DMCA clauses that Lexmark is attempting to use.
Nintendo licensed the chip to third parties, thus negating a need for reverse engineering. Lexmark is attempting to erect an artificial barrier against competitors, which a court is unlikely to find very sporting. (That's why you *always* look to be in a market with a set of *natural* barriers. Then no one can claim that you're being anti-competitive.)
The DMCA does not completely rule out reverse engineering. It just reigns it in to a razor thin line. The specific clauses actually work against Lexmark due to the issue that no other method has been made available for interoperability.
The specific clause from the DMCA is thus:
(f) Reverse Engineering. -
* (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
* (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
* (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
* (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
I'm not a lawyer (duh), but my reading of this says that the case of Compaq reverse engineering the PC BIOS would have also been legal, as long as they didn't publish their findings. (Which I believe that they did.)
It's important to understand that Congress intended the DMCA to protect digital anti-theft devices, not stop users from using their own software. The issue at hand is that the law was written before the full implications of computer technology and copyrights were fully understood. The bright side is that the actions of the MPAA, RIAA, and Adobe have gone quite a ways toward demonstrating how the market planned to abuse the law. While I doubt that we'll see the DMCA repealed, I seriously doubt we'll be seeing any new restrictions any time soon.
Tabs are a separate instance of the browser widget, and thus are treated as if communication was happening between separate windows. There's quite a bit of security in place that restricts when you can talk to another window. Frames are *supposed* to operate in the same fashion, but obviously have not been implemented as such.
Slashdot Mirror
If segmented memory is so great, then why has no other CPU manufacturer seen fit to introduce it since the days of the 80386? Maybe it's because paged memory attributes do accomplish everything important that segments do.
Ok, misunderstood me it is. Pretty much ANY non-embedded CPU that provides memory protection provides memory segments (actually, they offload it to the MMU), where memory segments are defined as an area for data or code. Early systems had little memory to spare (Or was it because VM hadn't been invented yet? I forget), so they used segment extents to define large chunks of memory. Intel took this route with the 286/386, but made the scheme brain damaged in an attempt to be backward compatible with previous versions.
Later system designs had more memory available to them and thus integrated Paging and Segmentation to function along the same lines. i.e. Each memory page is told what type of segment it is so that data cannot overwrite code. This scheme is far simpler to use than the extent scheme, but provides protection against data overwriting code.
The one down side to this scheme is that some systems allow for self-modifying code. i.e. They will execute a data segment. In that case, the system may need a "no execute" flag to prevent execution of areas. This situation is not a problem with the x86 architecture because code and data segments can overlap. i.e. Self modifying code can only occur if you explicitly set it as such.
The problem is that x86 OSes ALWAYS map the code and data segments over top of each other. Guess what happens then?
Note that the x86 can fairly easily use its segment scheme for protection AND paging at the same time, without running into the executable data problem. All the OS needs to do is separate the pages intended for code and the pages intended for data into separate segments.
Plain-old ordinary fission has already made diesel free ships a reality.
I thought about mentioning this, but since Fission hasn't caught on in the merchant ship market, I decided to drop it. I personally believe that shipping could be revolutioned with Nuclear technology, but no one wants to be the first to try with Green Peace and other anti-nuke organizations breathing down their necks.
Do you know why? It's because segmented memory models SUCKED.
You don't know what you're talking about. (Or perhaps just misunderstood me.)
Have you ever tried to program for a 80286?
The paging features introduced with the 80386 made the segmented model unnecessary, and programmers woldwide dropped segments in a heartbeat.
And these two statements prove it. The segmented memory was useless in the 80286, because Intel screwed the pooch on the protected mode implementation. It wasn't until the 80386 that the segmented model became useful. That's why I said "Nearly 20 years" and not "Over 20 years." (80286: 1982 vs. 80386: 1986)
As for pages, this has nothing to do with segmented memory. Paging is a scheme that allows for Virtual Memory implementations, not access to long memory addresses. You still need to create segments if you want to access 32 bit memory.
All you need to do achieve the same security goal is make data pages non-executable. That's what's been done with the latest x86 CPUs
The "No Execute" flag is patch because Operating System Programmers are too lazy to implement their Operating Systems correctly! Segmented memory works by separating the data, stack, and code sections into their own segments. No one can overwrite the code segment, and the data heap can't ever touch the program stack segment. To the running programs, this is transparent. Only the OS needs to know or care that these segments exist. Which means that there is very little reason *not* to use segmented memory.
Most educated Indians speak very good english,
:-)
I actually pointed that out in my original post. The problem is not their grasp of English, just that Americans are unable to understand them. My guess is that British have a much easier time, but that doesn't help Americans any.
See, the problem is, it could never give off more energy than it takes in.
Strictly speaking, that's true of every reaction. Some sort of energy was required for the nucleus used in Fission to form in the first place. So it never gives off more energy than was put in. The key to nuclear tech is that we are harnessing one of the most energy dense fuels known to exist: The atom itself.
which in turn, hit other nucleii and cause a chain reaction.
The chain reaction in Fission is probably the biggest reason why Fission is so successful. You don't really need to *do* anything. Just stack up enough Uranium (or other fun radioactive material) and you've got massive thermal energy.
Fusion, however, is fission in reverse. Without the chain reaction, that is. It smashes two nucleii together with enough force to leave a strong force bond.
That's an oversimplification. Fission and Fusion are actually very similar processes. In Fission, individual neutrons are captured. These neutrons cause the atom to destablise, and then fall apart into mutiple, smaller atoms and a bunch of free particles. The fast neutrons released then need to bump around a bit (thus producing thermal energy) before getting captured by another atom that is ripe for splitting.
In Fusion, complete atoms are forced together instead of being captured. The process of overcoming the nuclear bonds results in a lot of potenial energy being converted into kinetic energy carried by the resulting atoms/free particles. The problem with most of our fusion methods to date has not been a matter of the system losing energy. In fact, Fusion tends to produce far MORE energy than Fission (as shown by thermonuclear weapons) but the problem is that no one has found a method for creating a self-maintaining Fusion reaction. (Other than creating a mass the size of the Sun, that is.) As a result, we tend to attempt to force Fusion on large enough masses to overcome the losses inherent in the methods we use to create the fission event.
Except that if segmented memory was actually *used* (instead of happily ignored), the return address would be a far pointer to a segment in the GDT or LDT table. Problem: There's no way (or actally, few ways) of knowing where a given address will lead, and the trojan wouldn't have permission to write over someone else's segment anyway.
It amazes me how we've had the tools to prevent these sorts of issues for nearly 20 years (on the x86, some systems have had it far longer) and yet today's super-modern-OSes still set up one code segment and one data segment, both overlapping the entirety of main memory. It's an atrocity I tell you!
just imagine if the nature of the stack wouldn't allow [buffer overruns]. If some kind of mechanism beside a simple jump had been used. Like registering an address in the CPU via an instruction and then calling that jump.
Would it annoy you to no end if I explained that you've just described the segmented memory model that has been available on the 386 and up since 1986? It just so happens that today's "Modern OSes" (right load of bull that is) map only two memory segments, then completely ignore the GDT, LDT, and TSS after that? It is, of course, done all in the name of "Performance", the mini-god for which many a programmer has sacrificed his first born for, but has never actually managed to show that this "performance" was worth it.
<sarcasm>But wait, we must claim that Java is slow in order to appease this mini-god! </sarcasm>
If only I could make as much money from my mistakes as Microsoft does from its learning experiences.
:-/
It's quite easy to do. Step 1: Build a monopoly for a required commodity. Step 2: There is no step 2.
By the time that Microsoft had committed to Windows 2000, they had virtually no competition. Many people did not *want* to upgrade to Windows 2000, but had little choice due to the lack of other options. NT and 9x were only going to get less and less secure, and Microsoft ensured that several programs were put in place to force upgrades.
The end result was that any OS that Microsoft put out was destined to become a success. That's why monopolies are considered a bad thing.
Can they fuse something other than deuterium? Helium, lithium maybe? Don't some of the other elements have interesting fusion properties? (Seem to remember that boron would produce some sigificant voltage in the form of beta radiation).
;-)
I've got a much better solution to their problem. Just add some U-235 to the mechanism. Say, about 51kg. If my calculations are correct, that should fix their energy production problems in no time flat!
Bah, I made tons of typos in that post. It happens when Slashdot places you on a five minute deadline. :-)
I don't see any issue of "MWHAHAHAHA" here
It's just a personal victory laugh. People keep telling me that outsourcing will only continue to grow and will put local workers out of business all together. I take a mild amount of pleasure in proving them wrong, but I'm not stupid enough to vocalize it. Wait...
I'm sure it's real. In any case, it's not the "Cold Fusion" everyone is looking for. We've got a host of "cold" fusion options today including the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor and Sonofusion. Neither one manages to produce positive net energy output. What was so striking about the original Cold Fusion experiments was that they produced more energy than was put in. *If* it's actually fusion (and not just a weird chemical reaction) and *if* we can make it regularly reproducable, then Cold Fusion could essentially change the world.
;-)
Imagine a car that only needs to be refueled every few months/years. Or a power system for your home that is independent from the Grid. Or ships that no longer have to rely on Diesel. That is the temptation of Cold Fusion. Unfortunately, our physics and engineering are not quite that good yet. But I'm sure it's only 20 years away...
Pakistan is filling the gap and rapidly becoming the next hotspot for labor outsourcing.
Population of India: 1,080,264,388
Population of Pakistan: 150,694,740
I'm thinking that Pakistan won't hold out for long.
Eventually Africa will be used as it really is the last spot of untapped labor (although a tad risky at the moment).
Hello Dear Friend, my name is Bozo Mumbo, and I am the rightful king of Nigeria. My brother recently kicked me out of the palace so now I have turned to offering outsourced tech workers at a low price...
It looks like the supply end of the curve is dropping as the demand curve goes up. Before you know it, this could result in an increasing cost of outsourced workers. Combined with the exact opposite curve in the countries doing the outsourcing (i.e. low demand == lower cost workers), a balance will soon have to be struck that will again restore tech workers to a thriving market in both America/Europe and India. No, there's not going to be another "tech boom". That's over with.
:-)
I have to say that I found the article rather amusing, as I've ran up against many of the "English speaking" Indian call centers. (I'm looking at you Citibank.)
Q: What do you get when you mix an Indian accent with the British flavor of English?
A: Something completely incomprehensible to an American.
It's amazing how many cues exist in the accents we use in our language. American English is actually quite forgiving of foreign accents, but it frustrates me to no end trying to understand the Indian on the other end. It's not that he has an Indian accent. The reps actually tend to speak English quite well. The problem is that the slight Indian accent completely throws off the British accent (which most Americans are unaccustomed to anyway) and makes it very difficult to comprehend their speach. Add the quality of a telephone connection on the mix and you've got a communications disaster far worse than the bored utterances of the previous Floridians. (Who were no shining examples of pretty speech themselves.)
Ok, I'm done complaining. I'm sure I'll soon be hearing from all manners of Indians, British, and Floridians who all feel slighted just because I had a bad customer support experience. Cheerio!
Ah yes, and a Federalist Republic instead bankrupts itself by voting the treasury only into the pockets of the rich via massive tax breaks. That's a lot better.
Come on Mr Sheep, tell us another one...
You know, that's a rather rude statement. Didn't your parents teach you any manners?
And for the record, the US treasury has been happily voted into the pockets of the percieved "poor", just as much as it has been voted into the pockets of the rich. (In fact, direct compensation has gone to the "poor" far more often than it has gone to the rich. Examples of this include welfare, medicare, unemployment, stimulis packages, and congressional pork.) Federalist Republics are like any other form of government: They are not perfect. What the FR attempts to acheive, however, is to provide enough balance to absorb poor desisions without a collapse of the government.
The example of voting the treasury into the pockets of the people is a common one given by textbooks. But another common one is the failure to provide for common defense. In a democracy, the voters can end up debating far too long to provide for the defense of their country. That's why the US President has command over the the military for defense, but it requires an act of congress to declare war.
If you sell a piece of woodwork but stipulate that the buyer is never allowed to sell it or let it be seen in public, that would seem to only benefit you, and that seems much closer to the Apple example to me.
That is also a perfectly legitimate example. If those terms are acceptable to you, then you both benefit. You are payed a sum, and the buyer has the piece of woodwork. Thus there is benefit on both sides. The terms that you are suggesting are actually quite similar to the terms that the movie industry claims over their works. e.g. The FBI warning at the beginning of a movie explains that you are not allowed to show your copy at a public event. It is for personal viewing only. And the inability to resell your license to someone else is core to many corporate software contracts.
In order for a contract to be unilateral, you must show that only one side unfairly benefits from the arrangement. For example, if you are stuck in the desert without food or water and I give you a contract for food and water that states that you will become my slave, that contract is unenforcable. (It also falls afoul of various duress laws, but I digress.)
Contract theory basically states that a contract must be designed as an equitable trade between two parties. Either side can add terms (which are sometimes added back and forth as a tit-for-tat method of negotiation) as long as the terms do not make the contract overtly unfair to one party over the other.
References:
Unconscionability
Consideration
Your logic is faulty, young coward.
No, just power hungry, bought and paid for, politicians. Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely and all...
How are Congressional representatives in any way endowed with absolute power? Depending on which half we're talking, you've got 100-435 people with exactly the same power as yourself! The only time that a representative has any sort of special powers is when they are explicitly granted by an act of congress.
The closest thing to absolute power in our government is the President of the United States. And his powers are crippled in several places by Congress and the Supreme Court.
To say politicians are "ethical enough" to overcome bias by the money thrown at them is simply fooling yourself. [...] Look at the letter writing campaign against the Iraq war that happened. Did that stop it?
Who paid Congress to start a war? You can invoke the mystical "them", but unless you can show actual money, you're just waving your arms.
Allow me to explain the purpose of the organization of Federalist Rupublic over a true Democracy: In a true Democracy, the people are the leaders. This means that their collective will is *always* carried out, even if that will is counter-productive to the existence of the civilization. A common example of this is when a Democracy bankrupts itself by voting the treasury into its own pockets.
In a Republic, the representatives are there to represent the people's will, but only to the degree where the will of the masses aligns with the good of the country. In cases where the will of the people would be detrimental to the good of the country, then it is the DUTY of the representative to ignore the will of his constituents.
The answer is that the war industrial complex has MUCH more funds to back up their support.
Did you ever consider that there might have also been write ins that supported the war? Remember, Bush was reelected for a second term. That tends to suggest that the "will of the people" may not align with the fantasy that you have created.
Putting aside any issues I might have with the rest of your post (and much of that is down to the variations in laws between countries)
The subject is US Law, so that is the Law of which I speak.
can you name an instance of an EULA which is not wholy in favour of one party? The Apple example you cite is a classic case of one-sided restrictions.
You have a brain. Think about it. Is it a unilateral agreement if I sell a piece of woodwork I've done? Under your logic, I'm the only one who's benefitting from the arangement. Or how about a horse breeder? Is it a unilateral agreement if a stallion owner only agrees to breed with a champion filly?
Another question for you, if you consider the contract patently unfair (i.e. only to the benefit of Apple) why enter into the contract? Think about it.
What are you people blathering on about? I really, really don't understand why you've jumped into the "make a copy in RAM" argument when it was never even once addressed in my post. All I addressed was that copyright law allows a copyright holder to control the distribution of his works. That means that he has the right to not give it to you if you do not wish to agree to his terms.
Nonsense, they intended to trouser large sums of cash; the consequences for the public was never their concern.
Have you ever watched a game show where you look at the contestants and yell, "I could do WAY better! This guy's an idiot! Where do they find these people!" I'm willing to bet, however, that you yourself wouldn't do much better if you were in their place. You have the benefit of your comfortable living room, no pressure, and nothing at stake. But put you up on stage and you may have the same difficulties that you found so offensive in the contestant.
It's the same with Congress-critters. Believe it or not, many of them really are trying to do the right thing. That doesn't mean that they don't occasionally abuse their position (*cough*Post Stamps Scandal*cough*), but it does mean that they're not as inherently evil as everyone makes them out to be. They're just people trying to make the best decision they can on the limited information they have. That's why it can help a lot if you write your congress-person. An overwhelming degree of well thought out, public opinion can sway the opinion of a representative. Similarly, regular letters about a topic can sway opinion if a relevant bill hits the floor. These letters can also provide your representatives with insight that can be very helpful during debates.
So, instead of complaining like a backseat driver, write your congress-critter and help them to understand your opinions.
How are EULAs not unilateral?
They don't grant me anything that copyright law does not.
Yes, they do. They grant you the right to use the software. Copyright law allows a copyright holder to determine the circumstances under which he will distribute his work. Simply adding terms such as, "I won't let you use this software unless you promise not to reverse engineer it and promise not to sue me," is not considered unilateral conditons. After all, the copyright holder doesn't have to distribute his work to you at all.
That being said, many court procedings are finding many common EULA terms to be unenforcable. For example, the bit of the contract that states that you will pay all legal costs in any court proceding is unlikey to be upheld by a judge if it's the copyright holder who's found to be in error.
Unfortunately, some courts are ignoring the law.
Nonsense. You just don't understand the law. Yes, sometimes courts make a bad decision. But that's why there are appeals courts and higher courts. Checks and balances. It may take a while, but most bad decisions are usually overturned.
For things that you personally consider bad decisions (but in all actuality are the law), may I suggest that you look to your nearest congress-critter for blame?
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that paragraph 3 is a very tricky restriction to meet. The information you provide to others may violate standard copyright law (e.g. The PC BIOS calls may have been considered a unique work unto themselves, thus a copyrightable thing.), or may violate other restrictions of the DMCA, especially as they relate to the details of the encryption device.
Granted, Apple says you have to use OSX on genuine or certified fake (wtf is that??) but if a solution comes up like PearPC does that mean that its against what Lexmark is fighting, or just violating the EULA?
You have to be careful here, because the law is full of interesting nuances. For example, when you purchase an ink cartrige you are purchasing the entire product, lot, stock, and barrel. No one can tell you what to do with it as long as you did not sign a contract and are not using it to break the law. This means that Lexmark cannot successfully sue you if you find a way to use the ink in a competitor's printer. Nor can they sue you if you want to take it apart and see what makes it tick.
Software, OTOH, is never sold in its entirety. The law recognizes that it is not a physical thing that can be taken away, and that copies can be made with impunity. As a result, all software is licensed. (Slight oversimplification, but hang with me here.) The basic terms amount to those provided by copyright law. But a software provider may optionally request that you sign/accept a license that places further restrictions on your ability to use the software. As long as those terms are not considered unilateral (i.e. only in the favor of one party) and that the user is considered to have agreed to the terms, the license is legal. This is the mechanism that allows Apple to prevent someone from running OS X on hardware other than Apple-sanctioned Macs.
The specific clause from the DMCA is thus:
I'm not a lawyer (duh), but my reading of this says that the case of Compaq reverse engineering the PC BIOS would have also been legal, as long as they didn't publish their findings. (Which I believe that they did.)
It's important to understand that Congress intended the DMCA to protect digital anti-theft devices, not stop users from using their own software. The issue at hand is that the law was written before the full implications of computer technology and copyrights were fully understood. The bright side is that the actions of the MPAA, RIAA, and Adobe have gone quite a ways toward demonstrating how the market planned to abuse the law. While I doubt that we'll see the DMCA repealed, I seriously doubt we'll be seeing any new restrictions any time soon.
Tabs are a separate instance of the browser widget, and thus are treated as if communication was happening between separate windows. There's quite a bit of security in place that restricts when you can talk to another window. Frames are *supposed* to operate in the same fashion, but obviously have not been implemented as such.