You are misinformed. char x[5][10] does allocate a contiguous block of memory, and x[i][j] does index that memory the exactly as if you were to write *(&x + 10*i + j) !
I know this for a fact as I have written graphics software that treated multidimensional arrays as a contiguous blocks of memory accessing it using x[i][j] notation and iterated pointer notation depending on the circumstance and both worked the same. I have also read the assembler output from a C compiler and it indeed compiled x[i][j] the same as *(&x + 10*i + j).
To further back up my statement here is a direct quote from Kernighan and Ritchie's "The C Programming Language" Chapter 5:
5.9 Pointers vs. Multi-dimensional Arrays Newcomers to C are sometimes confused about the difference between a two-dimensional array and an array of pointer such as name in the example above. Given the definitions.
int a[10][20]; int *b[10];
then a[3][4] and b[3][4] are both syntactically legal references to a single int but a is a true two-dimensional array: 200 int-sized locations have been set aside, and the conventional rectangular subscript calculation 20×row+col is used to find the element a[row][col]. For b, however, the definition only allocates 10 pointers and does not initialize them; initialization must be done explicitly, either statically or with code. Assuming that each element of b does point to a twenty-element array, then there will be 200 ints set aside, plus ten cells for the pointers. The important advantage of the pointer array is that they rows of the array may be of different lengths. That is, each element of b need not point to a twenty-element vector; some may point to two elements, some to fifty, and some to none at all.
So the notation x[i][j] will compile down to either *(&x + 10i + j) or *(*(x+i) + j) depending on whether x was declared a true multidimensional array or an array of pointers.
One caveat (and possible source for your confusion) is that when declaring a true multidimensional array you must know the dimensions at compile time. You cannot for example declare x[width][height], and if you allocate a chunk of memory with malloc, you can access it as a single-dimensional array using the x[i] notation, but there is no notation for treating it as a multidimensional array. I have had to manually index dynamically allocated chunks of data using *(&x + 10i + j) before, and I agree it is a pain. Fortunately C++ fixed that and you can allocate multidimensional arrays at runtime and use the x[i][j] notation.
To be fair however, I'm pretty sure that FORTRAN 77 did not have automatic or allocatable arrays either - there were some implementation-specific ways of doing it, but it was not officially added until FORTRAN 90. But I am young enough that FORTRAN 90 was my first FORTRAN, and what I know about 77 is only from historic reading, not experience, so take that with a grain of salt.
Hehe, half dozen posts saying you are wrong and none of them explain why - thats slashdot for you.
Fraternal twins are dizygotic - they both come from a different eggs, and have different DNA. Identical twins are monozygotic - a single egg is fertilized and then divides into two identical embryos. Identical twins were also called paternal twins sometimes, which is probably your source of confusion (although that does not appear to be the prefered term now-a-days).
So there are twins with identical DNA, but you got the terms switched.
To answer the specific questions, another feature of this system is that all documents are saved automatically. Think a palm pilot, where you just edit your document and turn it off, then when you turn it back on everything is just like you left it in the real world. There is also global undo (works for any command - if not you are prompted before command is executed) which is saved between power cycles. There is also talk of having an automatic revision history so you can come back to a document at any time later, and revert to a previous version (this isn't infeasable - the VAX had a crude mechanism like this way back when).
The quit command is to exit the entire environment (ie to lougout). There is not quit command for a document - when you are done editing there is nothing special that you need to do just go on to your next task.
As to the global namespace, it may or may not be problematic (and actually calling it a global namespace might have been inacurate on my part). I don't know how they are actually implementing it (I am not involved in the project just read his book and have been watching from the sidelines). From what I have seen though, the commands will be able to do different things to different objects. For example, if I select some text and ^copy it will copy the text, if I select 5 whole documents and ^copy it will copy the documents. I can't imagine that they would attempt to write a single command that handles all the possible object that could act on.
The way I see implementing it is that each document type has a document handler class that provides the direct manipulation interface, as well as a programatic interface to manipulate the data. Then commands are written using this programatic interface. When the user issues a command it is the same as sending a message to a smalltalk object - if the command is recognised for that document it gets executed, otherwise you get an error. With this approach different document types could have commands with the same name, and it would not conflict.
However, from a user-interface point of view, if two documents types support a simular opperation, it is highly desirable for them to share a command name (so you don't have to remember to use ^find on one document type, ^search in another). From a technical point of view, this can all be done very easily with a late binding language like python, and sharing commands between document types can even make development easier - if the people work together. So the "single" command space creates a social problem not a technological one.
Which makes me sceptical of Raskins claims that this system will work well with comercial companies. To begin with, they don't like the idea of being demoted to writing commands, as opposed to developing full applications. This is one of the main reasons that OpenDoc died. Secondly, what happens when Alias writes a set of 3D modeling commands whose names conflict with Discrete's set of modeling commands? What if Maya doesn't like the 3D document handler and writes it's own incompatible one, with incompatible tools? You are back to where you started with walled off applications that don't integrate into the rest of the system, and potentially even conflict with one another, defeating most of the purpose of this new architecture.
To me is seems that this project will only work if it is managed as a coherent whole, like BSD or Squeak, and that means being open source with a strong leader. And now that I've gotten completely off-topic of your question I'll end my post:)
Let me explain how the system works. All interfaces involve a combination of directly modifying document contents, and issuing commands. Consider a word processor. In VI you have to switch between modes to issue commands and edit text. In emacs there is one mode, with shortcut keys to issue commands. However, as the number of commands grows these shortcuts become increasingly archane. In a GUI commands are issued by clicking in a menu or toolbar, but again as the number of commands increases you can end up with a very large menu tree to traverse.
Raskin's environment involves breaking a program like a wordprocessor apart so that there is no monolithic application - just a document handler and a bunch of small command that operate on the document - ie he is bringing the UNIX philosophy to the GUI world. Since all the commands are issued at the system level (like in unix) as opposed to the application level (like in Word) there will be a large number of commands in a single namespace (like in unix). Therefore shortcut keys are not acceptable, and both emacs-like hyroglyphics and vi-like modal interfaces have their own problems.
The solution he proposes can be thought of in two ways. One is to look at it a shortcut keys of infinate length. IE addition to the 30-odd single letter shortcuts possible on a keyboard (^c ^x etc) you can also type ^ls or ^repaginate. The Caps Lock key is not really a Caps Lock Key - it is a command key that just happens to be where the caps lock Key is on PC keyboards (BTW as any unix guru will tell you, that is where God intended the control key to be).
Another way of thinking about it is that holding down the command key brings up a floating command prompt, where you can type your command. Once you release the command key the command is executed.
This seems a little weird but it isn't that hard to type with your pinky held down (I DO IT ALL THE TIME WHEN TYPING ALL CAPS), and if someone does have difficulty, then special hardware like foot pedal, keyboard with command key under the thumb etc, or in worst case making the command key sticky (toggled) will easily solve the problem.
Yes, it would be nice if you didn't have to go down into the leaves, however, UUNET does not have Skype installed. Nor does the telco or your ISP. Only Skype users have the skype supernode software installed and so only they can act as supernodes.
This is horribly inefficient, however it is only used if you are behind a firewall or NAT and don't have have the necissary ports open. If you (or the person you are talking to) is on a publically routable IP address then Skype will just make a direct P2P connection with the other client. Which leaves you with a choice. If you block that port on your firewall, then you will have to go through a supernode every time you call someone else that is also behind a firewall. If you leave those ports open then you will never have to go though a supernode, but you may end up acting as a supernode for others.
Which is why over 10,000 people are already on the waiting list to pay $190,000 for a ride when it comes out. That is over $2 billion of potential revenue, and they expect the initial investment to be around less than $150 million. Unless they screw up and have a crash that scares everyone away, they are practically garenteed profit.
You are talking about a generation that grew up watching the first people to land on the moon and who were "promised" flying cars and space colonies were just around the corner, and now they are finally getting a chance for the first step into that future. Considering that people have spent $15 million dollars for a ride in the Soyuz, all the other ways celebrities throw away money, and how popular risking exotic "x-activities" are I am not surprised at all by the response.
From what I've seen, blogs are quite demonstrative of Sturgeons Law, and 90% of everything on them is crud. Furthermore, considering the overwhelming amount of groupthink and regurgitation in the blogosphere, any interesting link posted in a comment will end up in the non-comment section of a dozen blogs within the day.
Secondly, manually banning individual sites is a lot more work then you make it out to be. You are chasing a moving target, and creating a censorship issues of who gets to decide what sites do not deserve to be indexed. Google has been fairly conservative in blacklisting sites, usually only if they are an extreme violation of a quantitative rule that google sets. Deciding which comments are spam would be a much more subjective decision that google rightly avoids.
Or are they just a bunch of ex TV retards who think of the Internet as a TV with the remote connected directly to their marketing database?
No they are a bunch of intelligent businessmen who know that somewhere around 95% of home broadband users have no need or desire to serve large amounts of data. Given a fixed amount of bandwidth (limited by customers physical connection), they choose to allocate it in a manner that best serves their customers.
Those 5% that do need to serve data can get a "business" connection that has a more balanced upstream, and whose contract allows the customer to run servers / LANs / etc off the connection.
I was going to do this and then I realized that FLAC only cuts the file size in half, and like you said, disk is cheap. So I just ripped them to WAV, which can read by every encoder ever created on any platform, unlike flac which requires me to install extra software, and possibly go through a seperate step depending on if the encoder for the format of the week supports FLAC.
Yes, that would mean that constitutionally police are not allowed to search your car without a warrent. They can ask, and if you are not guilty of anything it will make your life easier to just let them, but you can refuse a search (the cops will then likely detain you and get a search warrent, your denial being "probable cause" but thats another story).
However this says nothing about whether they can track the motion of the car itself especially on public roads, it just limits them from searching what is in the car.
Not saying I like it, but he is right - our constitution says nothing about a right to privacy, the only privacy is that which is granted by individual laws.
To everyone expressing concern about using gmail in light of this exploit - I hope you know that all email is vulnerable to interception. It is sent as plaintext across the internet, and hops though a dozen servers before ending up at it's final destination. This exploit is just another way to do something that has been possible by design ever since email was created.
If you want your email to be secure you have to encrypt it. Otherwise don't have any expectation for privacy.
This would be an awsome product to hack on. I've been thinking about putting together a car-based mp3 player, and with the firmware now open and most of the functionality there that I want, this might be a better platform to work off of. I was originally planning on going with Mini-ITX hardware (or nano-ITX when it came out), Linux BIOS + LFS system on CF, and entirely custom software (with heavy using existing libraries). This would be much simpler, and result in just as good of a system.
On the I don't think it stands a chance at doing well in the marketplace though until it cuts it's size down some. The seperate player and hardrive backpack is fine (and infact prefered) for a car based system, but way to clunky for a handheld.
Lastly, speaking of OGG has anyone had any real-life experiance with the MPIO HD-300? I saw it in Best Buy, and it looked like a really nice system - 20 GB, about the same size as the iPod, felt solid, played OGG MP3 and WMA, was 20 bucks less than the iPod, and supposedly has significantly better battery life. This claim is backed up by the fact that in the past thier flash models have had the best battery life in the industry. On the other hand thier website has horrible english, so I would expect support to be lacking, and I can't find any sites that have actually reviewed the device (just regurgitated the press release, let users post uninformed opinions, and then called it a review). Anyone have some real info to add to this? Especially about its reliability/quality and how well it works with Linux?
First off there are always some students interested in doing stuff like this, and they will appreciate the opportunity to have something fun and/or challenging to do as opposed to the rest of high school. I went to a school with 500 kids, where the "it's not cool to be motivated or smart" syndrome was extremely high. Most kids did not go to college after high school. Even there, a dozen or so kids were interested enough to meet weekly for a tech club, and do tons of fundraising to pay for trips to state and national competitions.
My advice to you would be to see what existing clubs, the school already has such as MESA, TSA, Science Olimpiad, and help out. Being a (good) teacher is alot of work by itself, and I'm sure they would love to have someone help with extracurricular activities. In addition to easing the workload, it is always usefull to have experiance from industry to add to the teacher's perspective, and you may also be able to help the club branch out into some other areas that the teacher doesn't have much knowledge in.
In terms of drawing in students don't try to bait students in with thing that they are interested and then relating it to science and tech - the ones who don't care still won't care, and you will have watered things down for the ones who do. Just provide interesting hands-on projects that are defined enough to keep the student from feeling totaly lost, but open ended enough to encourage creativity and problem solving. It is hard to know where this balance lies, but again partner with a teacher and they can tell you how much the students know, and gauge how good a project will be.
The spam is not comming from china - china is simply hosting the spammer's websites. Here is the spam ecology:
American spammers pay Russian crackers to write viruses. These viruses infect Windows machines across the world. The spammers use the zombie machines to send spam which link to websites hosted in China. This has been the prototypical arrangement for many years.
Why is everyone assuming that they are not going to use mozilla? We have had a half dozen stories about AOL projects over the last couple weeks, and everyone on slashdot is acting like they are all describing completely independent projects (and thus a waste of duplicate effort), when it seems to me the stories are the product a bunch of blind reporters feeling-up the same elephant.
We already know that AOL has worked to integrate the IE engine into Netscape, has reworked the winamp core into a new AMP player using XUL for the interface, and implemented an AIM client in XUL. That appears to me to be a very consistent plan to integrate all their products / acquisitions into a new internet suite, based on Mozilla XUL.
Their decision to use IE makes perfect sense - it is the best way to ensure compatibility with as many sites as possible, and I would argue that most of the security problems that IE has are how the surrounding shell handles files/scripts/plugins - not the core itself. Lastly as firefox becomes more popular and more sites render correct in both IE and Firefox, they can swap engines out without the users noticing as much as they would now.
I won't comment on whether this will help AOL, or whether people will go for it, but it certainly does appear to be part of a well thought out plan, not a bunch of random uncoordinated actions.
I regularly peruse this blog and saw it long before it was slashdotted.
What summary didn't mention is that this cookie shaped is convieneintly worn on one's temple. It then picks up brainwaves to control the device, although anonymous test subjects have reported that you have to learn to think different in order to use it. Long time mac users oddly did not encounter this difficulty. Apple is also developing exciting new iFeel AI technology that chooses music to fit your mood.
*blogosphere flash*
HappyMonkey5 just posted exciting new info that with the upcomming IBM/Apple merger work is progressing on a force-feedback version of this technology called iObey. The RIAA is excited about the potential of this new technology to greatly increase the listening pleasure that consumers recieve from their licensed IP, as well as the new avenues available for protecting the rights of artists.
LinkBack from I<3aPllE
here is a pic of my friend testing 4(!!!) iPods OMG she is so lucky and pretty than me too i want to die
People still by 486 processors and higher for (relatively) heavy-weight embedded systems. Old design processors are far more forgiving of nasty environments (heat, cold, humidity, dust, vibration) than new top-of-the-line ones.
Not useless. All of the cell phones that I have used have mechanisms to automate touch-tone voice menus. So you could for could easily prefix the (out of network) numbers on your cell phone with this number. You'd have to do it for each one, but in most cases I'd expect you would really only want to do it for a few expensive (out of country) or frequently called (girlfriend out of network) numbers, and let the rest of the calls count against your normal minutes.
If you were concerned about incomming calls I don't see why they couldn't give you a VOIP phone number to have people call which is redirected to your cell phone via a in-network call, just like for outgoing calls.
So, no you probably wouldn't want to use this for all you calls - just like most landline VOIP users don't use it for all their calls - instead you would use it to save money on expensive long distance calls.
Money not the bottleneck.
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, the AIDS education groups have more money at their disposal now than they are able to spend. Most of them have not been able to scale their operations as fast as the US government, WHO, and other governments and private groups have been increasing funds. They are also having problems coordinating all the different aid groups and governments to get treatment/education where it is needed.
trying to remember where I read about this... well here is an article in the economist . It mainly talks about some peoples complaints with the money that is being given (mostly that it could go farther if the people giving it didn't require it to be spent in certain ways), but gets into some of the logistical issues towards the ends. Don't know if this article is available to nonsubscribers - googling for variations of the words 'ACHAP PEPFAR overload' might find other references.
I'm curious about the "not enforcing agreement" charge that the prosecution is making. First, I am wondering what legal basis this agreement falls under. It is not a copyright license. It could be construed as a contract. If so, then that contract would be between kazaa and it's users. Anyone who is sharing music which they do not have legal permission to redistribute would be in breach of contract, and thus kazaa could sue them. But is there anything in the law that says they have to? Why would a third party have any legal weight to require me to enforce a contract? Does anyone know what the law or precident is for something like this?
There are tons of documents in the public domain, or which have been released under licence which allows them to be freely redistributed. And of course there are documents that cannot legally be shared. The point of the betamax case is that the manufacture is not liable for crimes and offenses which the users commit. This is no different frome the betamax case where there were also both legal and illegal uses of the product.
For those who missed it last time around, Linus was also tempted to call it amd64 in reaction to intel's handling of the subject but decided to stick with the vendor neutral x86-64.
And yeah, this moved from the realm of rumor to fact nearly a year ago:)
These are not flaws in the article, they are called editing. The purpose of the article was to give some background into how Firefox was developed, and how it stacks up to IE. It was not to present the Complete History of Browsers. Nothing they said was incorrect. The browser did go through three names - that is a fact, and the nitty gritty details of why this happened were completely inconsequential to the story. Tabbed browsing is novel for the 90% people in the world who have never seen it, and taken in the context of what about Firefox is better than IE, is a completely accurate statement.
If the author of the article did include the arcane details of every irrelevant piece of information related to the browser, the finished article would be far less readable and interesting - in other words if you had written the article then it would be flawed in achieving its desired intention.
The thing you have to understand out the medical field is that (unlike software patents) royalties (and expected royalties) from medical patents have funded a huge amount of research that simply would not have been done otherwise. Furthermore, the costs to bring a new medicine to market are very high due to FDA regulations, and no company or research institute would have the means to do so if they were not given some sort of monopoly to sell the drug on the market.
I would agree that any research funded by public sources should be public, if if any of it isn't than that should be dealt with. Also, concidering how much profit the drug companies are making, I would agree that we could decrease the length of medical patents at the with out a significant negative impact on the rate of progress. If we approved them for 10 years extended by 5 years at the time of FDA approval, that would give a company time to get their through drug tested and brought to market, with at least 5 years with a monopoly on it's sale. However if a company did not pursue creating an actual product from their idea, they would loose the patent sooner, and even if they did the patent would expire 5 years sooner than it will today.
But after those tweaks you are basically left with a choice - make these privately developed drugs available to the people who can afford them now, and to everyone else once the patent expires - or don't have them at all for decades until the public sector gets around to it. Especially concidering how political the public sector funding can be, I for one am happy that we have a healthly, vibrant private medical sector - that works in addition to, and above and beyond what the public sector can do on it's own.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this for a fact as I have written graphics software that treated multidimensional arrays as a contiguous blocks of memory accessing it using x[i][j] notation and iterated pointer notation depending on the circumstance and both worked the same. I have also read the assembler output from a C compiler and it indeed compiled x[i][j] the same as *(&x + 10*i + j).
To further back up my statement here is a direct quote from Kernighan and Ritchie's "The C Programming Language" Chapter 5:
So the notation x[i][j] will compile down to either *(&x + 10i + j) or *(*(x+i) + j) depending on whether x was declared a true multidimensional array or an array of pointers.
One caveat (and possible source for your confusion) is that when declaring a true multidimensional array you must know the dimensions at compile time. You cannot for example declare x[width][height], and if you allocate a chunk of memory with malloc, you can access it as a single-dimensional array using the x[i] notation, but there is no notation for treating it as a multidimensional array. I have had to manually index dynamically allocated chunks of data using *(&x + 10i + j) before, and I agree it is a pain. Fortunately C++ fixed that and you can allocate multidimensional arrays at runtime and use the x[i][j] notation.
To be fair however, I'm pretty sure that FORTRAN 77 did not have automatic or allocatable arrays either - there were some implementation-specific ways of doing it, but it was not officially added until FORTRAN 90. But I am young enough that FORTRAN 90 was my first FORTRAN, and what I know about 77 is only from historic reading, not experience, so take that with a grain of salt.
Hehe, half dozen posts saying you are wrong and none of them explain why - thats slashdot for you.
Fraternal twins are dizygotic - they both come from a different eggs, and have different DNA. Identical twins are monozygotic - a single egg is fertilized and then divides into two identical embryos. Identical twins were also called paternal twins sometimes, which is probably your source of confusion (although that does not appear to be the prefered term now-a-days).
So there are twins with identical DNA, but you got the terms switched.
To answer the specific questions, another feature of this system is that all documents are saved automatically. Think a palm pilot, where you just edit your document and turn it off, then when you turn it back on everything is just like you left it in the real world. There is also global undo (works for any command - if not you are prompted before command is executed) which is saved between power cycles. There is also talk of having an automatic revision history so you can come back to a document at any time later, and revert to a previous version (this isn't infeasable - the VAX had a crude mechanism like this way back when).
:)
The quit command is to exit the entire environment (ie to lougout). There is not quit command for a document - when you are done editing there is nothing special that you need to do just go on to your next task.
As to the global namespace, it may or may not be problematic (and actually calling it a global namespace might have been inacurate on my part). I don't know how they are actually implementing it (I am not involved in the project just read his book and have been watching from the sidelines). From what I have seen though, the commands will be able to do different things to different objects. For example, if I select some text and ^copy it will copy the text, if I select 5 whole documents and ^copy it will copy the documents. I can't imagine that they would attempt to write a single command that handles all the possible object that could act on.
The way I see implementing it is that each document type has a document handler class that provides the direct manipulation interface, as well as a programatic interface to manipulate the data. Then commands are written using this programatic interface. When the user issues a command it is the same as sending a message to a smalltalk object - if the command is recognised for that document it gets executed, otherwise you get an error. With this approach different document types could have commands with the same name, and it would not conflict.
However, from a user-interface point of view, if two documents types support a simular opperation, it is highly desirable for them to share a command name (so you don't have to remember to use ^find on one document type, ^search in another). From a technical point of view, this can all be done very easily with a late binding language like python, and sharing commands between document types can even make development easier - if the people work together. So the "single" command space creates a social problem not a technological one.
Which makes me sceptical of Raskins claims that this system will work well with comercial companies. To begin with, they don't like the idea of being demoted to writing commands, as opposed to developing full applications. This is one of the main reasons that OpenDoc died. Secondly, what happens when Alias writes a set of 3D modeling commands whose names conflict with Discrete's set of modeling commands? What if Maya doesn't like the 3D document handler and writes it's own incompatible one, with incompatible tools? You are back to where you started with walled off applications that don't integrate into the rest of the system, and potentially even conflict with one another, defeating most of the purpose of this new architecture.
To me is seems that this project will only work if it is managed as a coherent whole, like BSD or Squeak, and that means being open source with a strong leader. And now that I've gotten completely off-topic of your question I'll end my post
Let me explain how the system works. All interfaces involve a combination of directly modifying document contents, and issuing commands. Consider a word processor. In VI you have to switch between modes to issue commands and edit text. In emacs there is one mode, with shortcut keys to issue commands. However, as the number of commands grows these shortcuts become increasingly archane. In a GUI commands are issued by clicking in a menu or toolbar, but again as the number of commands increases you can end up with a very large menu tree to traverse.
Raskin's environment involves breaking a program like a wordprocessor apart so that there is no monolithic application - just a document handler and a bunch of small command that operate on the document - ie he is bringing the UNIX philosophy to the GUI world. Since all the commands are issued at the system level (like in unix) as opposed to the application level (like in Word) there will be a large number of commands in a single namespace (like in unix). Therefore shortcut keys are not acceptable, and both emacs-like hyroglyphics and vi-like modal interfaces have their own problems.
The solution he proposes can be thought of in two ways. One is to look at it a shortcut keys of infinate length. IE addition to the 30-odd single letter shortcuts possible on a keyboard (^c ^x etc) you can also type ^ls or ^repaginate. The Caps Lock key is not really a Caps Lock Key - it is a command key that just happens to be where the caps lock Key is on PC keyboards (BTW as any unix guru will tell you, that is where God intended the control key to be).
Another way of thinking about it is that holding down the command key brings up a floating command prompt, where you can type your command. Once you release the command key the command is executed.
This seems a little weird but it isn't that hard to type with your pinky held down (I DO IT ALL THE TIME WHEN TYPING ALL CAPS), and if someone does have difficulty, then special hardware like foot pedal, keyboard with command key under the thumb etc, or in worst case making the command key sticky (toggled) will easily solve the problem.
Yes, it would be nice if you didn't have to go down into the leaves, however, UUNET does not have Skype installed. Nor does the telco or your ISP. Only Skype users have the skype supernode software installed and so only they can act as supernodes.
This is horribly inefficient, however it is only used if you are behind a firewall or NAT and don't have have the necissary ports open. If you (or the person you are talking to) is on a publically routable IP address then Skype will just make a direct P2P connection with the other client. Which leaves you with a choice. If you block that port on your firewall, then you will have to go through a supernode every time you call someone else that is also behind a firewall. If you leave those ports open then you will never have to go though a supernode, but you may end up acting as a supernode for others.
Which is why over 10,000 people are already on the waiting list to pay $190,000 for a ride when it comes out. That is over $2 billion of potential revenue, and they expect the initial investment to be around less than $150 million. Unless they screw up and have a crash that scares everyone away, they are practically garenteed profit.
You are talking about a generation that grew up watching the first people to land on the moon and who were "promised" flying cars and space colonies were just around the corner, and now they are finally getting a chance for the first step into that future. Considering that people have spent $15 million dollars for a ride in the Soyuz, all the other ways celebrities throw away money, and how popular risking exotic "x-activities" are I am not surprised at all by the response.
From what I've seen, blogs are quite demonstrative of Sturgeons Law, and 90% of everything on them is crud. Furthermore, considering the overwhelming amount of groupthink and regurgitation in the blogosphere, any interesting link posted in a comment will end up in the non-comment section of a dozen blogs within the day.
Secondly, manually banning individual sites is a lot more work then you make it out to be. You are chasing a moving target, and creating a censorship issues of who gets to decide what sites do not deserve to be indexed. Google has been fairly conservative in blacklisting sites, usually only if they are an extreme violation of a quantitative rule that google sets. Deciding which comments are spam would be a much more subjective decision that google rightly avoids.
Or are they just a bunch of ex TV retards who think of the Internet as a TV with the remote connected directly to their marketing database?
No they are a bunch of intelligent businessmen who know that somewhere around 95% of home broadband users have no need or desire to serve large amounts of data. Given a fixed amount of bandwidth (limited by customers physical connection), they choose to allocate it in a manner that best serves their customers.
Those 5% that do need to serve data can get a "business" connection that has a more balanced upstream, and whose contract allows the customer to run servers / LANs / etc off the connection.
I was going to do this and then I realized that FLAC only cuts the file size in half, and like you said, disk is cheap. So I just ripped them to WAV, which can read by every encoder ever created on any platform, unlike flac which requires me to install extra software, and possibly go through a seperate step depending on if the encoder for the format of the week supports FLAC.
Yes, that would mean that constitutionally police are not allowed to search your car without a warrent. They can ask, and if you are not guilty of anything it will make your life easier to just let them, but you can refuse a search (the cops will then likely detain you and get a search warrent, your denial being "probable cause" but thats another story).
However this says nothing about whether they can track the motion of the car itself especially on public roads, it just limits them from searching what is in the car.
Not saying I like it, but he is right - our constitution says nothing about a right to privacy, the only privacy is that which is granted by individual laws.
To everyone expressing concern about using gmail in light of this exploit - I hope you know that all email is vulnerable to interception. It is sent as plaintext across the internet, and hops though a dozen servers before ending up at it's final destination. This exploit is just another way to do something that has been possible by design ever since email was created.
If you want your email to be secure you have to encrypt it. Otherwise don't have any expectation for privacy.
This would be an awsome product to hack on. I've been thinking about putting together a car-based mp3 player, and with the firmware now open and most of the functionality there that I want, this might be a better platform to work off of. I was originally planning on going with Mini-ITX hardware (or nano-ITX when it came out), Linux BIOS + LFS system on CF, and entirely custom software (with heavy using existing libraries). This would be much simpler, and result in just as good of a system.
On the I don't think it stands a chance at doing well in the marketplace though until it cuts it's size down some. The seperate player and hardrive backpack is fine (and infact prefered) for a car based system, but way to clunky for a handheld.
Lastly, speaking of OGG has anyone had any real-life experiance with the MPIO HD-300? I saw it in Best Buy, and it looked like a really nice system - 20 GB, about the same size as the iPod, felt solid, played OGG MP3 and WMA, was 20 bucks less than the iPod, and supposedly has significantly better battery life. This claim is backed up by the fact that in the past thier flash models have had the best battery life in the industry. On the other hand thier website has horrible english, so I would expect support to be lacking, and I can't find any sites that have actually reviewed the device (just regurgitated the press release, let users post uninformed opinions, and then called it a review). Anyone have some real info to add to this? Especially about its reliability/quality and how well it works with Linux?
First off there are always some students interested in doing stuff like this, and they will appreciate the opportunity to have something fun and/or challenging to do as opposed to the rest of high school. I went to a school with 500 kids, where the "it's not cool to be motivated or smart" syndrome was extremely high. Most kids did not go to college after high school. Even there, a dozen or so kids were interested enough to meet weekly for a tech club, and do tons of fundraising to pay for trips to state and national competitions.
My advice to you would be to see what existing clubs, the school already has such as MESA, TSA, Science Olimpiad, and help out. Being a (good) teacher is alot of work by itself, and I'm sure they would love to have someone help with extracurricular activities. In addition to easing the workload, it is always usefull to have experiance from industry to add to the teacher's perspective, and you may also be able to help the club branch out into some other areas that the teacher doesn't have much knowledge in.
In terms of drawing in students don't try to bait students in with thing that they are interested and then relating it to science and tech - the ones who don't care still won't care, and you will have watered things down for the ones who do. Just provide interesting hands-on projects that are defined enough to keep the student from feeling totaly lost, but open ended enough to encourage creativity and problem solving. It is hard to know where this balance lies, but again partner with a teacher and they can tell you how much the students know, and gauge how good a project will be.
The spam is not comming from china - china is simply hosting the spammer's websites. Here is the spam ecology:
American spammers pay Russian crackers to write viruses. These viruses infect Windows machines across the world. The spammers use the zombie machines to send spam which link to websites hosted in China. This has been the prototypical arrangement for many years.
Why is everyone assuming that they are not going to use mozilla? We have had a half dozen stories about AOL projects over the last couple weeks, and everyone on slashdot is acting like they are all describing completely independent projects (and thus a waste of duplicate effort), when it seems to me the stories are the product a bunch of blind reporters feeling-up the same elephant.
We already know that AOL has worked to integrate the IE engine into Netscape, has reworked the winamp core into a new AMP player using XUL for the interface, and implemented an AIM client in XUL. That appears to me to be a very consistent plan to integrate all their products / acquisitions into a new internet suite, based on Mozilla XUL.
Their decision to use IE makes perfect sense - it is the best way to ensure compatibility with as many sites as possible, and I would argue that most of the security problems that IE has are how the surrounding shell handles files/scripts/plugins - not the core itself. Lastly as firefox becomes more popular and more sites render correct in both IE and Firefox, they can swap engines out without the users noticing as much as they would now.
I won't comment on whether this will help AOL, or whether people will go for it, but it certainly does appear to be part of a well thought out plan, not a bunch of random uncoordinated actions.
I regularly peruse this blog and saw it long before it was slashdotted.
What summary didn't mention is that this cookie shaped is convieneintly worn on one's temple. It then picks up brainwaves to control the device, although anonymous test subjects have reported that you have to learn to think different in order to use it. Long time mac users oddly did not encounter this difficulty. Apple is also developing exciting new iFeel AI technology that chooses music to fit your mood.
*blogosphere flash*
HappyMonkey5 just posted exciting new info that with the upcomming IBM/Apple merger work is progressing on a force-feedback version of this technology called iObey. The RIAA is excited about the potential of this new technology to greatly increase the listening pleasure that consumers recieve from their licensed IP, as well as the new avenues available for protecting the rights of artists.
LinkBack from I<3aPllE
here is a pic of my friend testing 4(!!!) iPods OMG she is so lucky and pretty than me too i want to die
More as the story unfolds.
People still by 486 processors and higher for (relatively) heavy-weight embedded systems. Old design processors are far more forgiving of nasty environments (heat, cold, humidity, dust, vibration) than new top-of-the-line ones.
Not useless. All of the cell phones that I have used have mechanisms to automate touch-tone voice menus. So you could for could easily prefix the (out of network) numbers on your cell phone with this number. You'd have to do it for each one, but in most cases I'd expect you would really only want to do it for a few expensive (out of country) or frequently called (girlfriend out of network) numbers, and let the rest of the calls count against your normal minutes.
If you were concerned about incomming calls I don't see why they couldn't give you a VOIP phone number to have people call which is redirected to your cell phone via a in-network call, just like for outgoing calls.
So, no you probably wouldn't want to use this for all you calls - just like most landline VOIP users don't use it for all their calls - instead you would use it to save money on expensive long distance calls.
Actually, the AIDS education groups have more money at their disposal now than they are able to spend. Most of them have not been able to scale their operations as fast as the US government, WHO, and other governments and private groups have been increasing funds. They are also having problems coordinating all the different aid groups and governments to get treatment/education where it is needed.
... well here is an article in the economist . It mainly talks about some peoples complaints with the money that is being given (mostly that it could go farther if the people giving it didn't require it to be spent in certain ways), but gets into some of the logistical issues towards the ends. Don't know if this article is available to nonsubscribers - googling for variations of the words 'ACHAP PEPFAR overload' might find other references.
trying to remember where I read about this
I'm curious about the "not enforcing agreement" charge that the prosecution is making. First, I am wondering what legal basis this agreement falls under. It is not a copyright license. It could be construed as a contract. If so, then that contract would be between kazaa and it's users. Anyone who is sharing music which they do not have legal permission to redistribute would be in breach of contract, and thus kazaa could sue them. But is there anything in the law that says they have to? Why would a third party have any legal weight to require me to enforce a contract? Does anyone know what the law or precident is for something like this?
There are tons of documents in the public domain, or which have been released under licence which allows them to be freely redistributed. And of course there are documents that cannot legally be shared. The point of the betamax case is that the manufacture is not liable for crimes and offenses which the users commit. This is no different frome the betamax case where there were also both legal and illegal uses of the product.
That just makes it easier for the robot to protect grandma at the bottom of the stairs.
For those who missed it last time around, Linus was also tempted to call it amd64 in reaction to intel's handling of the subject but decided to stick with the vendor neutral x86-64.
:)
And yeah, this moved from the realm of rumor to fact nearly a year ago
These are not flaws in the article, they are called editing. The purpose of the article was to give some background into how Firefox was developed, and how it stacks up to IE. It was not to present the Complete History of Browsers. Nothing they said was incorrect. The browser did go through three names - that is a fact, and the nitty gritty details of why this happened were completely inconsequential to the story. Tabbed browsing is novel for the 90% people in the world who have never seen it, and taken in the context of what about Firefox is better than IE, is a completely accurate statement.
If the author of the article did include the arcane details of every irrelevant piece of information related to the browser, the finished article would be far less readable and interesting - in other words if you had written the article then it would be flawed in achieving its desired intention.
The thing you have to understand out the medical field is that (unlike software patents) royalties (and expected royalties) from medical patents have funded a huge amount of research that simply would not have been done otherwise. Furthermore, the costs to bring a new medicine to market are very high due to FDA regulations, and no company or research institute would have the means to do so if they were not given some sort of monopoly to sell the drug on the market.
I would agree that any research funded by public sources should be public, if if any of it isn't than that should be dealt with. Also, concidering how much profit the drug companies are making, I would agree that we could decrease the length of medical patents at the with out a significant negative impact on the rate of progress. If we approved them for 10 years extended by 5 years at the time of FDA approval, that would give a company time to get their through drug tested and brought to market, with at least 5 years with a monopoly on it's sale. However if a company did not pursue creating an actual product from their idea, they would loose the patent sooner, and even if they did the patent would expire 5 years sooner than it will today.
But after those tweaks you are basically left with a choice - make these privately developed drugs available to the people who can afford them now, and to everyone else once the patent expires - or don't have them at all for decades until the public sector gets around to it. Especially concidering how political the public sector funding can be, I for one am happy that we have a healthly, vibrant private medical sector - that works in addition to, and above and beyond what the public sector can do on it's own.