'merely by sending it the byte sequence "F0 0F C7 C8".'
à am pretty sure that it wasn't enough to "send" the byte sequence. That assumes that you could trigger the bug remotely. Instead you would need to execute that code sequence, so you need permissions to install software. Still bad, but not a huge deal 20 years ago, when computers with Intel CPUs were almost always single-user machines.
Yes, Christmas is definitely still something you can celebrate when you don't believe in Christ. I celebrate Christmas without being religious at all, and I come from a family of at least three generations of atheists. Christmas trees, Santa Claus, family gatherings and gift giving don't require any religious beliefs.
But isn't wishing a Merry Christmas like wishing someone to have a great weekend? It feels odd when someone says it even though you're going to work all weekend, but it's just a custom and well intentioned.
I wonder whether it's really a lack of ideas, and or worse engineering staff. I think engineers are, on average, less passionate than they used to be. For many people in the industry it's just a career now, and not a passion. Especially in large companies like Intel.
I think they created bad press by firing him. Not only will many investors agree with the author, Google also confirmed it has a toxic work environment.
Having the truck paid off is not really an argument - if you sold your truck you could probably fund bus tickets for the rest of your life. Also, what about insurance? I'd guess that's in the same order of magnitude as the bus fare.
I can fully understand not wanting to take the bus, and in your case it doesn't really sound feasible. I am driving a car to work every day even though it only saves me only about 20min - simply because public transport stresses me out while driving a car is relaxing for me. But money is usually not a good argument for doing that, at least for people living in urban areas with good public transport.
That doesn't change the fact that in most situations cars are more convenient and get you faster to your destination.
Do you think that if there was only one model, and everybody could get that for free, people would drive less?
A car usually costs you several hundred dollars/euros per month. A ticket for public transportation is usually a fraction of that, maybe 100 dollar/euro. Why would you think that reducing that cost would make a significant difference?
That's a translation problem. This law allows companies to sue when competitors violate existing laws and regulations. Something like 'unfair competition' would be a better translation.
Can't speak for others, obviously, but I mostly only ready Slashdot on Google Reader these days. I just don't have the time for writing comments any more, and, frankly, I guess I am too old for flamewars and trolling by now:)
Congratulations, Slashdot!
Should I really care which system is drawing the borders around my Firefox or Chrome windows?
Only when I need special software, like Photoshop or Gimp or a Java IDE or a game, the OS or desktop environment still matters. Unfortunately KDE apps are not in most people's 'special software' lists.
Actually many newer european cars have a start-stop-automatic (as soon as your car stops, the engine turns off; if you press the gas-pedal it turns on automatically), so there does not have to be any idling.
IIRC this is not popular in the US because its savings would not be included in the official MPG ratings, but some manufacturer (can't remember which) is going to introduce it in the US soon.
Wouldn't it be better for the environment to forbid dogs in the city? After all, a large dog has the same carbon footprint as two SUVs. But, oh, I guess we are just trying to make a point, not to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions...
Hmm.. but in that case, the bottle would be made of less valuable components. Which would mean that the demand for the components required for a plastic bottle is lower than the demand for the other components, and thus plastic bottle are merely a by-product. So I wonder, would reducing the number of plastic bottle have any impact on the general oil consumption?
After all, even if there wouldn't be any plastic bottles anymore, the oil would still be needed because of the other components.
"So your average plastic water bottle requires about 1/4 a litre of refined oil products to be produced."
I have no idea of plastic production, but it looks wrong to me: if oil costs about $40 per barrel (159l), 1/4 litre is about $0.05. I can't imaging a plastic bottle costing that much - I can buy a bottle of water in a supermarket for not much more than 5 cent. Am I missing something?
Given XML's ubiquity, I am much faster reading XML than YAML (actually I don't understand a lot of the stuff on the 1-page-introduction). And I know the APIs very well. And my favorite IDE supports XML, but not YAML. So YAML would be a poor choice for me...
In the data-model: yes. When being transmitted: no.
XOP optimizes only the transport of base64 encoded binary objects. When you parse the file with a XOP-capable parser, the element would look to you like a base64 string.
Actually, after looking at that reference card, YAML is much more complex than I thought it was.. compared to that, XML is simple (provided you ignore all that outdated crap like DTD/Doctype, processing instructions) and just use elements, attributes and built-in entities.
As you say, YAML is a specialized markup-language (data-centric, almost human-readable) and not a good choice for many use-cases (document-centric languages like XHTML and DocBook, combining languages with XML namespaces). In other words, it can not replace XML, it's just another syntax to learn. It needs a completely new infrastructure: new parsers, new editors, new schema description language, new translation languages and so on. Is that really worth it, only to make editing files with a simple text editor easier?
Re:Vista moved my cheese /are there any real reaso
on
Hostile ta Vista, Baby
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, I don't want Linux. Not because I can't use it (I definitely can, and am using it for over 10 years now, daily). But because for most of the things I do at home, the command line is simply not a good solution. And Linux does not have the apps that I want.
Vista moved my cheese /are there any real reasons?
on
Hostile ta Vista, Baby
·
· Score: 1
I have yet to experience Vista (probably very soon, when I buy my next computer), but I for the last days I was curious about any real reason against Vista.
So far arguments against it seem to be: 1. Vista moved my cheese (mostly changes in the GUI) 2. Vista has some minor bugs (sure, which new system doesn't?) 3. Someone did something stupid, and this won't work with Vista (Facebook problem, bad software not working anymore...)
Usually people don't even argue that the changes are bad by themselves - they just oppose them because it doesn't work the way they are used to. But for someone who is willing to accept changes, and knows that there will be some minor problems, is there any real reason against Vista?
Why only music? Let's add movies for another $5, because they copy them as well on the internet. $10 more for TV shows (hey, pay-per-view is expensive). I heard they pirate Operating Systems, so let's add another $15 for free Windows and MacOS sharing. And they even pirate expensive CAD applications, let's add $25 for them... Soon no one will be able to afford the internet anymore, only because every creator of intellectual property wants to be subsidized instead of competing in the market.
Slashdot Mirror
'merely by sending it the byte sequence "F0 0F C7 C8".' Ã am pretty sure that it wasn't enough to "send" the byte sequence. That assumes that you could trigger the bug remotely. Instead you would need to execute that code sequence, so you need permissions to install software. Still bad, but not a huge deal 20 years ago, when computers with Intel CPUs were almost always single-user machines.
Yes, Christmas is definitely still something you can celebrate when you don't believe in Christ. I celebrate Christmas without being religious at all, and I come from a family of at least three generations of atheists. Christmas trees, Santa Claus, family gatherings and gift giving don't require any religious beliefs.
But isn't wishing a Merry Christmas like wishing someone to have a great weekend? It feels odd when someone says it even though you're going to work all weekend, but it's just a custom and well intentioned.
I wonder whether it's really a lack of ideas, and or worse engineering staff. I think engineers are, on average, less passionate than they used to be. For many people in the industry it's just a career now, and not a passion. Especially in large companies like Intel.
I think they created bad press by firing him. Not only will many investors agree with the author, Google also confirmed it has a toxic work environment.
Having the truck paid off is not really an argument - if you sold your truck you could probably fund bus tickets for the rest of your life. Also, what about insurance? I'd guess that's in the same order of magnitude as the bus fare. I can fully understand not wanting to take the bus, and in your case it doesn't really sound feasible. I am driving a car to work every day even though it only saves me only about 20min - simply because public transport stresses me out while driving a car is relaxing for me. But money is usually not a good argument for doing that, at least for people living in urban areas with good public transport.
That doesn't change the fact that in most situations cars are more convenient and get you faster to your destination. Do you think that if there was only one model, and everybody could get that for free, people would drive less?
A car usually costs you several hundred dollars/euros per month. A ticket for public transportation is usually a fraction of that, maybe 100 dollar/euro. Why would you think that reducing that cost would make a significant difference?
That's a translation problem. This law allows companies to sue when competitors violate existing laws and regulations. Something like 'unfair competition' would be a better translation.
Can't speak for others, obviously, but I mostly only ready Slashdot on Google Reader these days. I just don't have the time for writing comments any more, and, frankly, I guess I am too old for flamewars and trolling by now :)
Congratulations, Slashdot!
Should I really care which system is drawing the borders around my Firefox or Chrome windows? Only when I need special software, like Photoshop or Gimp or a Java IDE or a game, the OS or desktop environment still matters. Unfortunately KDE apps are not in most people's 'special software' lists.
Actually many newer european cars have a start-stop-automatic (as soon as your car stops, the engine turns off; if you press the gas-pedal it turns on automatically), so there does not have to be any idling. IIRC this is not popular in the US because its savings would not be included in the official MPG ratings, but some manufacturer (can't remember which) is going to introduce it in the US soon.
Wouldn't it be better for the environment to forbid dogs in the city? After all, a large dog has the same carbon footprint as two SUVs. But, oh, I guess we are just trying to make a point, not to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions...
Hmm.. but in that case, the bottle would be made of less valuable components. Which would mean that the demand for the components required for a plastic bottle is lower than the demand for the other components, and thus plastic bottle are merely a by-product. So I wonder, would reducing the number of plastic bottle have any impact on the general oil consumption?
After all, even if there wouldn't be any plastic bottles anymore, the oil would still be needed because of the other components.
Oh, just checked oil prices... $88 per barrel. That means a plastic water bottle's raw material costs over $0.10?
"So your average plastic water bottle requires about 1/4 a litre of refined oil products to be produced."
I have no idea of plastic production, but it looks wrong to me: if oil costs about $40 per barrel (159l), 1/4 litre is about $0.05. I can't imaging a plastic bottle costing that much - I can buy a bottle of water in a supermarket for not much more than 5 cent. Am I missing something?
No display, and dials random numbers.
Given XML's ubiquity, I am much faster reading XML than YAML (actually I don't understand a lot of the stuff on the 1-page-introduction). And I know the APIs very well. And my favorite IDE supports XML, but not YAML. So YAML would be a poor choice for me...
In the data-model: yes. When being transmitted: no.
XOP optimizes only the transport of base64 encoded binary objects. When you parse the file with a XOP-capable parser, the element would look to you like a base64 string.
Actually, after looking at that reference card, YAML is much more complex than I thought it was.. compared to that, XML is simple (provided you ignore all that outdated crap like DTD/Doctype, processing instructions) and just use elements, attributes and built-in entities.
Actually XOP has W3C technical recommendation status since October 2005: http://www.w3.org/TR/xop10/
As you say, YAML is a specialized markup-language (data-centric, almost human-readable) and not a good choice for many use-cases (document-centric languages like XHTML and DocBook, combining languages with XML namespaces). In other words, it can not replace XML, it's just another syntax to learn. It needs a completely new infrastructure: new parsers, new editors, new schema description language, new translation languages and so on. Is that really worth it, only to make editing files with a simple text editor easier?
No, I don't want Linux. Not because I can't use it (I definitely can, and am using it for over 10 years now, daily). But because for most of the things I do at home, the command line is simply not a good solution. And Linux does not have the apps that I want.
I have yet to experience Vista (probably very soon, when I buy my next computer), but I for the last days I was curious about any real reason against Vista.
So far arguments against it seem to be:
1. Vista moved my cheese (mostly changes in the GUI)
2. Vista has some minor bugs (sure, which new system doesn't?)
3. Someone did something stupid, and this won't work with Vista (Facebook problem, bad software not working anymore...)
Usually people don't even argue that the changes are bad by themselves - they just oppose them because it doesn't work the way they are used to. But for someone who is willing to accept changes, and knows that there will be some minor problems, is there any real reason against Vista?
Why only music? Let's add movies for another $5, because they copy them as well on the internet. $10 more for TV shows (hey, pay-per-view is expensive). I heard they pirate Operating Systems, so let's add another $15 for free Windows and MacOS sharing. And they even pirate expensive CAD applications, let's add $25 for them... Soon no one will be able to afford the internet anymore, only because every creator of intellectual property wants to be subsidized instead of competing in the market.