They're dumping the PC side of the business. Their workstations, minis and mainframes will continue to be manufactured by IBM for IBM.
If IBM takes over Apple, then IBM will be manufacturing PowerPC based desktop computers. However, if IBM doesn't, then it will be manufacturing PowerPC based desktop computers. I guess the difference will be whether they go out the door running GNU/Linux or Mac OS X.
Sure you can. Take a look at RFC 2317. It's not a particularly fun exercise, based, as it is, upon DNS that was designed when 2^32 IP addresses seemed like a pretty big number, but it's do-able.
You'll note this does make use of CNAMEs, but that doesn't mean it's not "delegatable", it means it is.
Depends on whether (a) you use an off-the-shelf router (I used a couple and got fed up with stupid NAT connection auto-timeouts and the lack of auto fix-the-MTU hacks for PPPoE connections), and (b) whether it does all you want.
On my network at home, my DHCP server sets itself up according to my DNS. So if I want to change a few IP addresses, or change my entire network to run in a different netblock, or whatever, it's a simple matter of modifying the two name server zones (something I'd have to do anyway), and restarting everything.
I, admittedly, have a relatively large network for a home user (not that it's that big by/. standards), but it's not large by general standards.
Different people will appreciate different tools for the jobs. Some people like those dedicated router things, but most of them have never left a secure shell session to the office open for fifteen minutes...
IBM uses PowerPC and POWER interchangably nowadays. It's the "Power family of proccessors".
They may refer to it as the "Power family", but you shouldn't read that as meaning they're compatable.
As an example, the PowerPC-AS series doesn't support 32 bit PowerPC instructions. You will not get an out-of-the-box runs-on-your-G3 Debian installation to run on it.
The Power family is a family because they're all related, but just like real families, there are a lot of siblings in it who are far from compatable, have wildly different interests and strengths, and who will not deal with the same friends.
I bought my first Thinkpad because they have a good reputation. Subsequent Thinkpads were bought because of the first one - I've not come across laptops from anyone that are quite as nice in feel and look. Apple's - supposedly the Rolls Royce of laptops given what people say about them - are positively hideous in my view.
I don't think it has anything to do with the IBM name, and given the cache "Thinkpad" has, any company buying the business would do well to actually use the name and keep catering to the same customers with the models that are clearly from the same family.
If I wanted to accuse scientists of being greed-driven liars I would do so.
And you did.
but you seem to either want to believe that science is perfect or full of charlatans. Given your logic, anyone who makes a mistake that brings them money must by definition be a scoundrel.
By ascribing a motive, something the grandparent didn't do, you most certainly ruled out anyone making "mistakes". You proposed that the authors of this report deliberately wrote an allegedly flawed report because they will not be able to get research funding if they write a report drawing the opposite conclusion.
This isn't about proposing someone "made a mistake". If they "made a mistake" then the question of whether they can gain research funding by drawing the opposite conclusion is something you'd never have been mentioned.
You just told someone you hadn't accused the scientists in this field of foul play. You had made that accusation. If it's not what you intended to write, clarify them, remain silent, but don't pretend you never made it.
Nobody is accusing the world of science of foul-play.
Hmmm. Your response was to this:
This research has some serious flaws. It is essentially based on information for a single summer, the other information presented even contradicts the conclusions it draws. The estimations on temperature growth are not really supported by anything - I think it was written to grab headlines.
And your response was:
This seems to be the norm rather than the exception, unfortunately.
I guess it's very hard to get continued funding for a study that says "Everything's fine, situation normal" That must be why, no matter what the scientific endeavor, there's always some cataclysmic disaster looming on the horizon.
So -- using that old razor of Occam's -- either the entire world and every observable natural system is on the brink of an unheard-of disaster, or there is a noticable (and understandable) trend in scientific research to a) follow the herd, and b) doomsay.
I think it's very hard to read your comment as anything other than an accusation of "foul play". The original poster claims the report was written to "grab headlines", with the conclusion flawed because some of the presented information "contradicts the conclusions it draws".
You further rub salt in the wounds by claiming that that scientists are doing this because they can't get funding for "everything's fine, situation normal" reports. Of course, this is balderdash anyway: the oil industry does fund such reports, and presumably the Bush administration would also rather see such things.
To me, accusing the scientists working in this area of being greed-driven liars most certainly is accusing them of "foul play".
I heard of this guy who bought this game and found it didn't work on his PC and he couldn't get his money back because of some law passed by the government, and this is relevent because, like, the government has a representative on the UN and the UN is planning to take over DNS.
Seriously, to use a case of political persecution in Iran to attack the notion that the UN should have anything to do with DNS reaches a new low level, especially as the UN, for better or worse, has strived in the past (and would continue to do without the blocking actions of certain major security council members *cough* France *cough* United States) to use its might to deal with human rights abusers. Indeed, one of the first documents to come out of the UN was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The UN isn't perfect, but to suggest that a global system should be run by a single country - and one that right now has an absurdly parochial government with a recent history of human rights abuses - instead of an international entity beggars belief.
Bollocks. If Valve didn't put a time scale in the EULA and on the box, then they're in the wrong because "inperpetuity" is essentially the default, with reasonable exceptions.
What apologists like you are doing is justifying the unjustifiable. Valve has a duty to make a reasonable best effort to comply with its side of the bargain. It didn't. Not only did it not, but it's done so in a way that's downright sleazy. There was no serious cost associated with leaving a regular server up, it just chose not to.
ext2 is certainly not good at recovering from incomplete writes. Indeed, I know a fair few people who "tried" Linux in the late nineties and rejected it because there were people in the house that thought nothing of switching off the computer when they finished with it. After having the machine "rebooted" this way a few times, Linux wouldn't boot any more.
Interestingly, FAT's always handled the same situation well: it's crude, but that works in its favour. It was designed at a time, after all, when you really did just switch off the computer to switch it off.
MSN predates AOL buying Netscape by quite a few years.
MSN was originally released at the same time as Windows 95. The original version was universally panned as it was built upon proprietary Windows technologies using either SMB or something very similar to it (from a look and feel perspective, you were browsing file folders), I don't think it was even TCP/IP based, the original version certainly didn't give you access to the Internet. This changed fairly rapidly (Microsoft announced Internet access at the Spring 1995 COMDEX)
Ultimately AOL bought Netscape to bolster a failing ally in their war with Microsoft and MSN. That's about the size of it, and whatever they intended didn't really work out.
If you read the link, you'll see that the complaint was that the goods had already been bought, and Valve was imposing new terms and conditions for continued usage of a critical part of the game to people who'd bought the game and agreed to fairer terms and conditions in the past.
Seems sleazy to me. If I were in the same boat, I'd try to get my money back. I may be likely to be unsuccessful, but I can make it time consuming and thus expensive for Valve in the process.
What I particularly liked was the extra three hours of endings. Viewers of the original may remember that the film only ended about eighted times, over the space of half an hour. Apparently Peter Jackson wanted to put in more, to remain faithful to the book, but the studios balked at the idea.
The extended edition has the film end, and then inexplicitly continue, another 78 times.
If someone is a murder, are you "sinking down to their level" if you have them executed?
Actually that's precisely why many of us are opposed to the Death Penalty. I don't want to sink to the same level as the people whose actions I hate.
Throw them in prison for the rest of their lives. But there's no need to descend to their level, or tell the impressionable we approve of killing if we think someone's a very bad person.
This is only semi-true of OS X, and only in a way that doesn't matter.
When you set up your first user under OS X, the user is given administration rights. Generally speaking, this login, unless you really know more about the operating system than Apple generally considers necessary, is what most Mac users use all the time, indeed, by default the Mac will boot into it without prompting the user for a password. This account can do almost anything, though certain operations require the re-entry of the user's password.
For example, to install an application in the/Applications folder (the equivalent of C:\Program Files), you just drag the app to that folder. It's not necessary to enter a password, at least, not if you're doing so with the default account. You will be prompted for one only if you have to run a special installer for the application, which has to modify or install system files (files in/System.)
Of course, even this isn't much. You do not have to store an application in/Applications for it to be recognized as an application (be associated with default file types, etc), so a non-privileged user can still run malware.
Users can also indicate they want particular programs to load when they log into their account (including the default boot mentioned earlier) and you can add start up items programatically by modifying the user's ~/Library/Preferences/loginwindow.plist file.
Your comments are semicorrect for GNU/Linux and FreeBSD, but only - for the most part - because it's usually more difficult to get either platform to execute a program without the user's knowledge. Once such a program runs, again the application has a lot of flexibility. It can ensure it automatically starts up by being part of a user's.xsession, for instance, without ever requiring root privileges.
OS X is only more secure than the default install of Windows XP if you take the time to configure it as such. Likewise, Windows XP is more secure than the default install of OS X if you configure it as such. Both platforms are, in their default, users-are-encouraged-to-install-like-this-and-leav e-alone, installs just as insecure and just as vulnerable to malware. Indeed, at least XP SP2 has that firewall thing that blocks TCP/IP access on a program-by-program level.
I think in fairness, I don't generally hold my computer's power supply next to my head. Usually, even if the machine's directly next to me (or in front of me) there's quite a cushion between the power supply and my body (big hard case, optical drive, etc)
It is a small percentage, but obviously if these accidents are avoidable the manufacturers should be making every effort to prevent them from happening again. That's not to suggest they're not, or that they need further incentives to do so. It's also not to suggest cellphone users need be overly paranoid about it.
Oh, and one thing that definitely does help are manufacturers trying to boost sales of overpriced accessories through fear: the usual pretense is that all of this wouldn't have happened if the user hadn't bought a third party battery. Sure, that's it. And the third party battery is inherently unsafe why exactly, assuming it is? To the best of my knowledge, I suspect if it's true, the major reason is that any safety mechanisms built into the manufacturer's batteries are proprietary and, for the sake of making a fast buck, the manufacturer isn't divulging them. Small number of cases or not, that's not on.
What you could do is beam adverts into the person's visual areas. That way, you can fund research into artificial eyes and ensure their visual areas do not atrophy. Everyone wins!
Much as I'd like the debate to be about making GPL firmware, it isn't. The issue here is that OpenBSD cannot distribute the binaries of the uploadable firmware that's necessary to make the wireless functionality work. The license forbids it.
You'll note how silly this is. The firmware only works on products Intel sells. Intel doesn't sell the firmware seperately. There is no loss to Intel, at all, for it to provide OpenBSD users with the firmware, and it'd increase sales for Intel.
Hemos seems to think it may be that the firmware has been written by a third party. What I'd like to know is - if this is true - what idiot at Intel negotiated licensing that firmware while severely restricting how the firmware could be distributed to end users of Intel products.
It's comments like that that make me wonder if you actually even read the sentence you quoted. I said:
"Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that all criticisms of anything must stop
unless the person doing the criticism can think of a solution or alternative?
Note, this is not the same as "All criticisms of anything".
I see it as a fairly reasonable summary of:
Sorry, but this kind of stupidity really irks me. If the Yucca plan is flawed, then we should be working constructively to fix it, not criticizing it and offering no solutions.
If the above isn't supposed to mean "People who criticise and offer no solutions should STFU", perhaps you could explain what you originally meant?
I remember seeing ads for QNX back in the mid-eighties in various (UK) computer magazines. I'm pretty sure QNX predates the start of development of the HURD.
The parent's point was that instead of blathering on about a problem, how about taking a minute off from complaining to research the problem, and actually become informed about why some options are "solutions" and others are "opinions".
As I said just now, that's fucked up. You can't report a problem until you know the "solution" for it? If you express a criticism of something and do not have a solution for it, your comment is merely an "opinion" in some sort of derogatory way?
You want to know how you inspire confidence in a technology? You start getting people educated about the benefits and drawbacks of a technology.
Except that isn't what the grandparent argued. The grandparent argued that it's wrong to mention the drawbacks unless you have a solution for them.
You know something? Not every problem has a solution that solves everyone else's problems too. It happens. It's especially true with Yucca Mountain. The only "obvious" solution is to hold off producing stupid amounts of nuclear waste until we have a sane, rational, nuclear waste disposal system. This isn't something the obsessively pro-Nuke lobby wants to hear, so they continue to put their fingers in their ears whenever someone says "Hold on a moment, this isn't going to work."
And this new strategy, whining that nobody has the right to say "This isn't going to work" unless they solve the Nuclear Lobby's problems for them, takes the cake. Solve your own problems! If critics find a solution for you, that's great, but don't expect everyone to shut up simply because you're the one with the knife and we don't have any kevlar.
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that all criticisms of anything must stop unless the person doing the criticism can think of a solution or alternative?
Because, THAT my friend, burrowing one's heads in the sand and pretending problems do not exist, is the height of stupidity.
I know it's popular on Slashdot to flame as "stupid" anyone who's remotely critical of Nuclear power or its consequences. But tell me how you intend to inspire confidence in the technology if your attitude to real, genuine, concerns is to demand people stop talking about them?
Slashdot Mirror
There's another mirror here... ;-)
If IBM takes over Apple, then IBM will be manufacturing PowerPC based desktop computers. However, if IBM doesn't, then it will be manufacturing PowerPC based desktop computers. I guess the difference will be whether they go out the door running GNU/Linux or Mac OS X.
You'll note this does make use of CNAMEs, but that doesn't mean it's not "delegatable", it means it is.
On my network at home, my DHCP server sets itself up according to my DNS. So if I want to change a few IP addresses, or change my entire network to run in a different netblock, or whatever, it's a simple matter of modifying the two name server zones (something I'd have to do anyway), and restarting everything.
I, admittedly, have a relatively large network for a home user (not that it's that big by /. standards), but it's not large by general standards.
Different people will appreciate different tools for the jobs. Some people like those dedicated router things, but most of them have never left a secure shell session to the office open for fifteen minutes...
Not that that answers the question, but AltiVec is not a prequesisite to run any existing version of OS X.
As an example, the PowerPC-AS series doesn't support 32 bit PowerPC instructions. You will not get an out-of-the-box runs-on-your-G3 Debian installation to run on it.
The Power family is a family because they're all related, but just like real families, there are a lot of siblings in it who are far from compatable, have wildly different interests and strengths, and who will not deal with the same friends.
I don't think it has anything to do with the IBM name, and given the cache "Thinkpad" has, any company buying the business would do well to actually use the name and keep catering to the same customers with the models that are clearly from the same family.
This isn't about proposing someone "made a mistake". If they "made a mistake" then the question of whether they can gain research funding by drawing the opposite conclusion is something you'd never have been mentioned.
You just told someone you hadn't accused the scientists in this field of foul play. You had made that accusation. If it's not what you intended to write, clarify them, remain silent, but don't pretend you never made it.
You further rub salt in the wounds by claiming that that scientists are doing this because they can't get funding for "everything's fine, situation normal" reports. Of course, this is balderdash anyway: the oil industry does fund such reports, and presumably the Bush administration would also rather see such things.
To me, accusing the scientists working in this area of being greed-driven liars most certainly is accusing them of "foul play".
BTW, has anyone noticed that giant fetus that appears to be orbiting Jupiter all of a sudden? Where the hell did that come from?
Seriously, to use a case of political persecution in Iran to attack the notion that the UN should have anything to do with DNS reaches a new low level, especially as the UN, for better or worse, has strived in the past (and would continue to do without the blocking actions of certain major security council members *cough* France *cough* United States) to use its might to deal with human rights abusers. Indeed, one of the first documents to come out of the UN was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The UN isn't perfect, but to suggest that a global system should be run by a single country - and one that right now has an absurdly parochial government with a recent history of human rights abuses - instead of an international entity beggars belief.
What apologists like you are doing is justifying the unjustifiable. Valve has a duty to make a reasonable best effort to comply with its side of the bargain. It didn't. Not only did it not, but it's done so in a way that's downright sleazy. There was no serious cost associated with leaving a regular server up, it just chose not to.
Interestingly, FAT's always handled the same situation well: it's crude, but that works in its favour. It was designed at a time, after all, when you really did just switch off the computer to switch it off.
MSN was originally released at the same time as Windows 95. The original version was universally panned as it was built upon proprietary Windows technologies using either SMB or something very similar to it (from a look and feel perspective, you were browsing file folders), I don't think it was even TCP/IP based, the original version certainly didn't give you access to the Internet. This changed fairly rapidly (Microsoft announced Internet access at the Spring 1995 COMDEX)
Ultimately AOL bought Netscape to bolster a failing ally in their war with Microsoft and MSN. That's about the size of it, and whatever they intended didn't really work out.
Seems sleazy to me. If I were in the same boat, I'd try to get my money back. I may be likely to be unsuccessful, but I can make it time consuming and thus expensive for Valve in the process.
What I particularly liked was the extra three hours of endings. Viewers of the original may remember that the film only ended about eighted times, over the space of half an hour. Apparently Peter Jackson wanted to put in more, to remain faithful to the book, but the studios balked at the idea. The extended edition has the film end, and then inexplicitly continue, another 78 times.
Throw them in prison for the rest of their lives. But there's no need to descend to their level, or tell the impressionable we approve of killing if we think someone's a very bad person.
When you set up your first user under OS X, the user is given administration rights. Generally speaking, this login, unless you really know more about the operating system than Apple generally considers necessary, is what most Mac users use all the time, indeed, by default the Mac will boot into it without prompting the user for a password. This account can do almost anything, though certain operations require the re-entry of the user's password.
For example, to install an application in the /Applications folder (the equivalent of C:\Program Files), you just drag the app to that folder. It's not necessary to enter a password, at least, not if you're doing so with the default account. You will be prompted for one only if you have to run a special installer for the application, which has to modify or install system files (files in /System.)
Of course, even this isn't much. You do not have to store an application in /Applications for it to be recognized as an application (be associated with default file types, etc), so a non-privileged user can still run malware.
Users can also indicate they want particular programs to load when they log into their account (including the default boot mentioned earlier) and you can add start up items programatically by modifying the user's ~/Library/Preferences/loginwindow.plist file.
Your comments are semicorrect for GNU/Linux and FreeBSD, but only - for the most part - because it's usually more difficult to get either platform to execute a program without the user's knowledge. Once such a program runs, again the application has a lot of flexibility. It can ensure it automatically starts up by being part of a user's .xsession, for instance, without ever requiring root privileges.
OS X is only more secure than the default install of Windows XP if you take the time to configure it as such. Likewise, Windows XP is more secure than the default install of OS X if you configure it as such. Both platforms are, in their default, users-are-encouraged-to-install-like-this-and-leav e-alone, installs just as insecure and just as vulnerable to malware. Indeed, at least XP SP2 has that firewall thing that blocks TCP/IP access on a program-by-program level.
It is a small percentage, but obviously if these accidents are avoidable the manufacturers should be making every effort to prevent them from happening again. That's not to suggest they're not, or that they need further incentives to do so. It's also not to suggest cellphone users need be overly paranoid about it.
Oh, and one thing that definitely does help are manufacturers trying to boost sales of overpriced accessories through fear: the usual pretense is that all of this wouldn't have happened if the user hadn't bought a third party battery. Sure, that's it. And the third party battery is inherently unsafe why exactly, assuming it is? To the best of my knowledge, I suspect if it's true, the major reason is that any safety mechanisms built into the manufacturer's batteries are proprietary and, for the sake of making a fast buck, the manufacturer isn't divulging them. Small number of cases or not, that's not on.
What you could do is beam adverts into the person's visual areas. That way, you can fund research into artificial eyes and ensure their visual areas do not atrophy. Everyone wins!
You'll note how silly this is. The firmware only works on products Intel sells. Intel doesn't sell the firmware seperately. There is no loss to Intel, at all, for it to provide OpenBSD users with the firmware, and it'd increase sales for Intel.
Hemos seems to think it may be that the firmware has been written by a third party. What I'd like to know is - if this is true - what idiot at Intel negotiated licensing that firmware while severely restricting how the firmware could be distributed to end users of Intel products.
I see it as a fairly reasonable summary of:
If the above isn't supposed to mean "People who criticise and offer no solutions should STFU", perhaps you could explain what you originally meant?I remember seeing ads for QNX back in the mid-eighties in various (UK) computer magazines. I'm pretty sure QNX predates the start of development of the HURD.
You know something? Not every problem has a solution that solves everyone else's problems too. It happens. It's especially true with Yucca Mountain. The only "obvious" solution is to hold off producing stupid amounts of nuclear waste until we have a sane, rational, nuclear waste disposal system. This isn't something the obsessively pro-Nuke lobby wants to hear, so they continue to put their fingers in their ears whenever someone says "Hold on a moment, this isn't going to work."
And this new strategy, whining that nobody has the right to say "This isn't going to work" unless they solve the Nuclear Lobby's problems for them, takes the cake. Solve your own problems! If critics find a solution for you, that's great, but don't expect everyone to shut up simply because you're the one with the knife and we don't have any kevlar.
Because, THAT my friend, burrowing one's heads in the sand and pretending problems do not exist, is the height of stupidity.
I know it's popular on Slashdot to flame as "stupid" anyone who's remotely critical of Nuclear power or its consequences. But tell me how you intend to inspire confidence in the technology if your attitude to real, genuine, concerns is to demand people stop talking about them?