I was hoping to read an article that discussed the options for various scenarios, and actually supported the assessments based upon real experiences. Granted, the sample would have been so small as to be considered to be nothing more than demonstrative.
However, the article contained purely speculative figures, supported by hand-waving arguments like:
"The school using Unix can reasonably expect to achieve nearly perfect system reliability while maintaining a relative immunity to student attacks."
"The Windows-based solution, by contrast, will be under-supported with four full-time staff..."
" In contrast, someone who bought a Windows networking system for 200 users in 1996 would have been forced to upgrade both his servers..."
Where do these statements/numbers originate? Since he does not cite any studies, cases, etc., I can only assume that they are produced via the rectal fabrication method, or perhaps they are the byproduct of a recent colonoscopy.
In short: The article carries about as much weight as a Windows XP commercial on your television.
If I were to DoS the RIAA computer networks, do you think that an FBI investigation would ensue?
If the RIAA did the same to me, would you expect the same results?
Let's assume that a person is selling, on Ebay, Windows 95, which was pre-installed on a PC or whatever the case may be.
Why not simply state, at the beginning of the ad, that the seller acquired the PC, but does not agree to the EULA.
Why might this work? Well, if Microsoft is as lax about EULA refunds as many claim, then I am fairly certain that Microsoft is showing failure to agree on the contract.
This will, at the least, put Microsoft in a somewhat unfavorable position legally, as it could be shown they were neglegent to a degree.
All the seller wishes to do is to sell his "property" for a fair market value, given that the distributor has not fulfilled on the agreement.
I believe that most lawyers at MS would just as soon agree that it would be financially easier to simply turn a blind eye toward that sale, and focus on other, easier cases.
By creating a home video game console *and*, at the same time, facilitating the process of porting from said console to the PC (or vice-versa), Microsoft has created a mechanism by which video game companies may increase profit.
It is no surprise that successful home video games are ported to PC's, or PC games ported to video game consoles. It is done because there is money to be made.
The only reason why companies do not port EVERY game to EVERY platform is due to the cost of the port itself.
What does this have to do with this linux porting group? Well, pretty soon nearly all video games will be X-Box/PC based. This means that the development environment will become increasingly similar, and pretty much all PC games will be on the X-Box. If these guys work on an X-Box emulator early on, porting will be simplified (cheaper!).
This is actually what happened. The torpedo warhead was activated just after "launch", so it is believed. The current insider theory/rumor going around is that the new experimental torpedo (a supercavitating, possibly *supersonic*) torpedo was designed to have a self-activating warhead based upon a simple time elapsing mechanism. It is believed that the shaft chamber malfunctioned, but those in the control room were not aware of it. They ordered the launch, the torpedo chamber flooded, the torpedo armed, and "boom".
Your license to drive is a permission of action. That is, you have been granted the privelege to drive on public access roads, within the tolerance of the law. Furthermore, you have been made abundantly clear what your role and responsibilities are, and how and when you may exercise that privelege. The privelege (not right) to drive is a permission of an idea.
An EULA refers to a product, not a concept. Software is not an "idea", but the physical (electronic or otherwise) manifestation of that idea. It is code. It is not unlike a book, or a white paper.
We are entitled to buy and sell a book which we own.
What you are confusing is the difference between the product (software), and the ideas contained therein (proprietary algorithms and such).
It's quite simple, really.
I can buy a book, like, "A Catcher in the Rye". I can own that book. I can sell the book. I do not own the ideas contained therein. That is, I cannot quote from the book without giving appropriate credit. I cannot transcribe the book and lay claim to the transcription as my own.
Software is no different. I have the right to buy, use and sell Microsoft Windows, but I have no right to steal the ideas contained therein.
"I even heard that @home was giving customers static ip addresses in some divisions (don't know if this is still the cast)... While that may sound attractive to end users who want to run servers, what they don't realize is that it pretty much prevents growth. When utilization in a particular area grows, you need to be able to split the area up, which requires an ip renumber. If you can't renumber because everyone has a static, pretty soon the area is going to get horribly oversold resulting in super-slow access."
I say that's not really true. If you have overgrowth in a particular area, you have several problems. Static IP's is simply not one of them.
1. Shared cable lines are overburdened.
2. Shared gateway/points of presence (POPs) are overburdened.
So what do you do? Create new lines and open new POPs. What about those static IPs? Routing nightmare? Not really.
Many people are happy just to have a static IP (I was), and are more than willing to take a new static IP at a new POP, knowing that their bandwidth woes will go away (for a while).
I had 3 different static IP addresses when I used Speakeasy DSL. Every time they opened a new POP (Seattle->New York, NY->Boston...I live in MA), I took the new IPs, new POP, lower ping and higher average bandwidth. No problem.
Basically, the radar system designed to detect and track incoming threats is a multi-tier system. Part of that multi-tier system is not complete, so the test could only be conducted on 1 tier of that system.
This is why the beacon was needed. It would have been basically impossible otherwise. We are talking about an exo-atmospheric intercept, so it's not like you could very well fire the missile off and let it cruise around OUTSIDE THE ATMOSPHERE looking for its target.
In a *real* situation, with a *complete* system, the launch would have been detected by an external sensor, such as a satellite, AWACS, or even off-shore ship radar. This info would be relayed to the radar, which would tailor its search plan and begin tracking once the target was detected...yada yada yada...
This technology (bi-static radar usage) is nothing new. One of the biggest disadvantages of using this technique to detect "stealthy" aircraft is that bi-static radars need many receivers (as opposed to a single receiver) to be effective, as stealth aircraft tend to deflect radar signals.
By using cell phone towers, this implementation makes up for that loss.
However, stating that this technology will render stealth aircraft useless is as about as silly as stating that my shoe acts as a good muffler for a bazooka.
How well would this system work with regards to identification and tracking? Not well! Once you make a detection, you then need to refocus your search sector onto the threat. I bet that mobile telephone basestation has a real good set of directional emitters in the antenna unit. lol
Furthermore, this is technology that is implemented in places that you do not need it.
How many cell phone towers are around Seattle?
How many cell phone towers are around Fort Bragg or NORAD?
How many cell phone towers are in the middle of the Pacific/Atlantic/northernmost points of Canada?
Also, there is no way this technology can track anything of significant speed, like missiles.
Do you think enemy aircraft are going to fly into New York City to blow it up? Or would they just launch a missile?
-D
"...simple things like math".
Okay, if it's so "simple", create a new audio codec: here, now.
Maybe that's too tough for you. How about I give you a week...?
month?
a year?
Oh, you still can't create one. How about that! I guess that the math isn't so "simple".
The fact of the matter is that an audio codec SHOULD be patentable! CmdrTaco is an idiot for thinking otherwise.
That's like saying, "CPU designs shouldn't be patented, it's all based on math, and math is simple."
I'm afraid that the only thing here that is simple, is the minds of those who believe that patents (or just patents for audio codecs) are bad. These people have no understanding of simple economics. period.
-D
Also,
Since Neal Stephenson came up with the idea of countries going public (see Snow Crash...love Uncle Enzo!), I think that means that prior art exists, and if the world incorporates, Neal could sue and become sole dictator of the world! (inc)
Nuclear energy is the cleanest, most efficient and waste-less form of power known to man (aside from that cool matter/anti-matter stuff).
Our waste management services for nuclear power are far beyond its coal/oil counterparts. Go look at Mexico City/Athens or LA.
And here's the best part: There's no global nuclear energy cartel making you pay ghastly prices for your nuclear power.
If you invest ~$70 million (or whatever they invested) in this kind of technology, you want to recouperate your investment, or, even better make money.
In order to accomplish this in the movie industry, you have to maximize the number of butts you put in seats.
Since English is the most common language (known by many people in North America, South America, Australia, Europe, Antarctica and Asia), it is only logical to follow that making the movie in that language would lend itself to the greatest potential audience.
Code is a form of expression in the same sense that code is an argument or viewpoint.
Let's say I were to argue that the Queen of England is running an opium cartel. In order to make an effective argument, I would need to construct a set of statements, or criteria, which supported this. The argument would go something like this:
1) Read document "A" and note that it states the Queen has couriers who travel by ship to India 25 times a month.
2) Read ship invoice "B" that shows that 2 tons of opium are on these ships with each voyage.
3) Note that the invoice is signed by the Queen's couriers. ...etc...
n) therefore the Queen is an opium lord.
Regardless of how untrue it may be, if you take an unbiased view and follow these steps, you will come to the conclusion at the end. You may not agree with this, but this would be my view on this.
In fact, this argument would probably spur additional discussion, where people would provide their own input, and the argument would be accepted/rejected/modified.
Code, when submitted openly, goes through a similar process ("no, this won't work here","this will fail under these conditions", "this is a nice way to perform that task", etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
I was hoping to read an article that discussed the options for various scenarios, and actually supported the assessments based upon real experiences. Granted, the sample would have been so small as to be considered to be nothing more than demonstrative.
However, the article contained purely speculative figures, supported by hand-waving arguments like:
"The school using Unix can reasonably expect to achieve nearly perfect system reliability while maintaining a relative immunity to student attacks."
"The Windows-based solution, by contrast, will be under-supported with four full-time staff..."
" In contrast, someone who bought a Windows networking system for 200 users in 1996 would have been forced to upgrade both his servers..."
Where do these statements/numbers originate? Since he does not cite any studies, cases, etc., I can only assume that they are produced via the rectal fabrication method, or perhaps they are the byproduct of a recent colonoscopy.
In short: The article carries about as much weight as a Windows XP commercial on your television.
It even took the Gates family three tries:
William H Gates III
-D
more than likely, they'll do it the same way that VNC does it for Windows boxen.
-D
Maybee he is wik dem c0mp00ter geks, waitink fur den LOTR m00vie.
Mind yu, a m00se bite kan be viry nastey.
-Had to be done-
I think you are off your rocker.
If I were to DoS the RIAA computer networks, do you think that an FBI investigation would ensue?
If the RIAA did the same to me, would you expect the same results?
Here's a thought that should stir the pot.
Let's assume that a person is selling, on Ebay, Windows 95, which was pre-installed on a PC or whatever the case may be.
Why not simply state, at the beginning of the ad, that the seller acquired the PC, but does not agree to the EULA.
Why might this work? Well, if Microsoft is as lax about EULA refunds as many claim, then I am fairly certain that Microsoft is showing failure to agree on the contract.
This will, at the least, put Microsoft in a somewhat unfavorable position legally, as it could be shown they were neglegent to a degree.
All the seller wishes to do is to sell his "property" for a fair market value, given that the distributor has not fulfilled on the agreement.
I believe that most lawyers at MS would just as soon agree that it would be financially easier to simply turn a blind eye toward that sale, and focus on other, easier cases.
What do you all think??
-D
X-Box --Let me explain how this relates--
By creating a home video game console *and*, at the same time, facilitating the process of porting from said console to the PC (or vice-versa), Microsoft has created a mechanism by which video game companies may increase profit.
It is no surprise that successful home video games are ported to PC's, or PC games ported to video game consoles. It is done because there is money to be made.
The only reason why companies do not port EVERY game to EVERY platform is due to the cost of the port itself.
What does this have to do with this linux porting group? Well, pretty soon nearly all video games will be X-Box/PC based. This means that the development environment will become increasingly similar, and pretty much all PC games will be on the X-Box. If these guys work on an X-Box emulator early on, porting will be simplified (cheaper!).
Idiot.
You are some sad shit. Why not try to do some real arithmetic of your own???
64MB / $3 =
~$21.34/MB
18.2GB = 1836.8 MB (1024MB=1GB) / $239 =
$77.98/MB
Furthermore, you should have given him the benefit of the doubt by finding the MOST EXPENSIVE RAM ($/MB), and the CHEAPEST HD ($/MB).
idiot. idiot. fool. moron. idiot. idiot.
lamer. twerp. idiot. loser. defect.
idiot.
This is actually what happened. The torpedo warhead was activated just after "launch", so it is believed. The current insider theory/rumor going around is that the new experimental torpedo (a supercavitating, possibly *supersonic*) torpedo was designed to have a self-activating warhead based upon a simple time elapsing mechanism. It is believed that the shaft chamber malfunctioned, but those in the control room were not aware of it. They ordered the launch, the torpedo chamber flooded, the torpedo armed, and "boom".
Your license to drive is a permission of action. That is, you have been granted the privelege to drive on public access roads, within the tolerance of the law. Furthermore, you have been made abundantly clear what your role and responsibilities are, and how and when you may exercise that privelege. The privelege (not right) to drive is a permission of an idea.
An EULA refers to a product, not a concept. Software is not an "idea", but the physical (electronic or otherwise) manifestation of that idea. It is code. It is not unlike a book, or a white paper.
We are entitled to buy and sell a book which we own.
What you are confusing is the difference between the product (software), and the ideas contained therein (proprietary algorithms and such).
It's quite simple, really.
I can buy a book, like, "A Catcher in the Rye". I can own that book. I can sell the book. I do not own the ideas contained therein. That is, I cannot quote from the book without giving appropriate credit. I cannot transcribe the book and lay claim to the transcription as my own.
Software is no different. I have the right to buy, use and sell Microsoft Windows, but I have no right to steal the ideas contained therein.
-D
The "great quote" was not that he detested analogy.
He detested allegory. Big Difference.
-D
"I even heard that @home was giving customers static ip addresses in some divisions (don't know if this is still the cast)... While that may sound attractive to end users who want to run servers, what they don't realize is that it pretty much prevents growth. When utilization in a particular area grows, you need to be able to split the area up, which requires an ip renumber. If you can't renumber because everyone has a static, pretty soon the area is going to get horribly oversold resulting in super-slow access."
I say that's not really true. If you have overgrowth in a particular area, you have several problems. Static IP's is simply not one of them.
1. Shared cable lines are overburdened.
2. Shared gateway/points of presence (POPs) are overburdened.
So what do you do? Create new lines and open new POPs. What about those static IPs? Routing nightmare? Not really.
Many people are happy just to have a static IP (I was), and are more than willing to take a new static IP at a new POP, knowing that their bandwidth woes will go away (for a while).
I had 3 different static IP addresses when I used Speakeasy DSL. Every time they opened a new POP (Seattle->New York, NY->Boston...I live in MA), I took the new IPs, new POP, lower ping and higher average bandwidth. No problem.
-D
Let's put our calculators away, and get out our
.9 9 9 9 9 9 9
fingers and toes...
let's see: you calculated for 99.9999999 % uptime.
That would be:
9 9
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
now let's get out those calculators:
9-7 = 2
wow! 9 - 7 != 0!
You just calculated uptime for "9" 9's.
Apparently your math problem is much more severe than that of the general public.
-D
This is almost 100% correct.
Basically, the radar system designed to detect and track incoming threats is a multi-tier system. Part of that multi-tier system is not complete, so the test could only be conducted on 1 tier of that system.
This is why the beacon was needed. It would have been basically impossible otherwise. We are talking about an exo-atmospheric intercept, so it's not like you could very well fire the missile off and let it cruise around OUTSIDE THE ATMOSPHERE looking for its target.
In a *real* situation, with a *complete* system, the launch would have been detected by an external sensor, such as a satellite, AWACS, or even off-shore ship radar. This info would be relayed to the radar, which would tailor its search plan and begin tracking once the target was detected...yada yada yada...
Pick me, pick me! :)
JOVIAL will kick some serious buttocks!
-D
Transform into Superion! Now go check out Titan for energy cubes!
Is it just me, or was this title misleading?
It seemed to imply that Covad was covering FOR Verizon, not falsly blaming them.
How about renaming it something a little closer to the story, like "Covad falsified complaints, Verizon says". -D
This technology (bi-static radar usage) is nothing new. One of the biggest disadvantages of using this technique to detect "stealthy" aircraft is that bi-static radars need many receivers (as opposed to a single receiver) to be effective, as stealth aircraft tend to deflect radar signals.
By using cell phone towers, this implementation makes up for that loss.
However, stating that this technology will render stealth aircraft useless is as about as silly as stating that my shoe acts as a good muffler for a bazooka.
How well would this system work with regards to identification and tracking? Not well! Once you make a detection, you then need to refocus your search sector onto the threat. I bet that mobile telephone basestation has a real good set of directional emitters in the antenna unit. lol
Furthermore, this is technology that is implemented in places that you do not need it.
How many cell phone towers are around Seattle?
How many cell phone towers are around Fort Bragg or NORAD?
How many cell phone towers are in the middle of the Pacific/Atlantic/northernmost points of Canada?
Also, there is no way this technology can track anything of significant speed, like missiles.
Do you think enemy aircraft are going to fly into New York City to blow it up? Or would they just launch a missile?
-D
Okay, if it's so "simple", create a new audio codec: here, now.
Maybe that's too tough for you. How about I give you a week...?
month?
a year?
Oh, you still can't create one. How about that! I guess that the math isn't so "simple".
The fact of the matter is that an audio codec SHOULD be patentable! CmdrTaco is an idiot for thinking otherwise.
That's like saying, "CPU designs shouldn't be patented, it's all based on math, and math is simple."
I'm afraid that the only thing here that is simple, is the minds of those who believe that patents (or just patents for audio codecs) are bad. These people have no understanding of simple economics. period.
-D
flame/mod the hell out of me. I know I'm right.
Also,
Since Neal Stephenson came up with the idea of countries going public (see Snow Crash...love Uncle Enzo!), I think that means that prior art exists, and if the world incorporates, Neal could sue and become sole dictator of the world! (inc)
-D
Ok,
So let's say that the largest countries in the world incorporate.
Where do you host the stockholders' meeting?
-D
Since no one else has mentioned it, I will.
Nuclear energy is the cleanest, most efficient and waste-less form of power known to man (aside from that cool matter/anti-matter stuff).
Our waste management services for nuclear power are far beyond its coal/oil counterparts. Go look at Mexico City/Athens or LA.
And here's the best part: There's no global nuclear energy cartel making you pay ghastly prices for your nuclear power.
-D
Honestly, the answer is simple economics:
If you invest ~$70 million (or whatever they invested) in this kind of technology, you want to recouperate your investment, or, even better make money.
In order to accomplish this in the movie industry, you have to maximize the number of butts you put in seats.
Since English is the most common language (known by many people in North America, South America, Australia, Europe, Antarctica and Asia), it is only logical to follow that making the movie in that language would lend itself to the greatest potential audience.
-D
Actually, most casinos have data centers (different than your standard database) that far exceed 50TB of data. -Dennis
Let's say I were to argue that the Queen of England is running an opium cartel. In order to make an effective argument, I would need to construct a set of statements, or criteria, which supported this. The argument would go something like this:
...etc...
1) Read document "A" and note that it states the Queen has couriers who travel by ship to India 25 times a month.
2) Read ship invoice "B" that shows that 2 tons of opium are on these ships with each voyage.
3) Note that the invoice is signed by the Queen's couriers.
n) therefore the Queen is an opium lord.
Regardless of how untrue it may be, if you take an unbiased view and follow these steps, you will come to the conclusion at the end. You may not agree with this, but this would be my view on this.
In fact, this argument would probably spur additional discussion, where people would provide their own input, and the argument would be accepted/rejected/modified.
Code, when submitted openly, goes through a similar process ("no, this won't work here","this will fail under these conditions", "this is a nice way to perform that task", etc.).
-D