Something very recently I have personally discovered... Use the system against itself.
Something like this bill that is so obviously tainted by corporate greed and manipulation needs to be quashed. Issues like legitamate creation of products, backing up of software YOU OWN, mixing CDs from your own CDs; these are all things that very well could happen. However, the largest atrocity of all of this is the fact that eventually places like/. will no longer exist. Public forum will be banned because we are copying their IP. What about competition? If I create a Word Processor, and it is better than M$'s Word, with this law they could swoop in and say I stole their IP, without regard to the fact that I created it on my own merits.
The end result here is the fact that this has much greater complications and consequences than what we are all coming up with. This could be very far-reaching to where we live in a very GATTACA-like country. This must not happen.
Things to do:
Contact your Represenatives. John McCain is one of mine, and he will be getting a very strong letter about this
Contact the Media. Usually they have some sort of viewer call in spot.
Something has to be done. Although my voice may not be loud, if you gather enough voices, we will all be very loud.
Well, since no one really knows what kind of stressors there might be in warp or hyperspace travel. This test proved that the design was well thought out. Besides, any one who is a Star Trek fan knows that the Enterprise was never designed for atmospheric travel.
While I agree with you about the lack of Linux support (however there are a lot of underlying reasons for that), I don't think that is the end of the world. 98 is dead. Face it, and move on.
I am also a Linux user, and I think you are only half right. Apple doesn't think that Linux is a second class citzen. It never has. Why do ou think that they sold some 10,000 Xserves all running Yellow Dog Linux to the U.S. Navy?? I garantee that the reason wasn't because of fear.
No, the reason why they don't support Linux is because of the almost infinite number of distributions out there. However, even then it is becoming less of an issue because Gnome and KDE desktop environments are becoming more and more unified, through standards like Freedesktop.org. Probably then, will we start seeing things like QuickTime and iTunes for Linux.
After reading the article, and seeing what the lines of code are, all I can say is "Where's John Stossel?? He needs to say Give me a break!!"
For those who do not know what this code is doing (other than commenting what they are doing); it is declaring one pointer, an integer, a long integer, all within a function that passes a memory map and a variable of type size_t (something specific to the kernel, I suppose). That is the first chunk of code.
Then, what the for loop is doing is allocating enough memory space for whatever the memory map needs. Also, they did a mutex_spinlock, sending that a function call of maplock of the memory map. This concludes the above function.
If this is what SCO is basing part, if not the entirity (sp?), of their claims; it just proves that SCO doesn't just not know what they are doing, but they have their head stuck in a very dark and smelly place.
After reading the article, and seeing what the lines of code are, all I can say is "Where's John Stossel?? He needs to say Give me a break!!"
For those who do not know what they are doing (other than commenting what they are doing) is declaring one pointer, an integer, a long integer, all within a function that passes a memory map and a variable of type size_t (something specific to the kernel, I suppose). That is the first chunk of code.
Then, what the for loop is doing is allocating enough memory space for whatever the memory map needs. Also, they did a mutex_spinlock, sending that a function call of maplock of the memory map. This concludes the above function.
If this is what SCO is basing part, if not the entirity (sp?), of their claims; it just proves that SCO doesn't just not know what they are doing, but they have their head stuck in a very dark and smelly place.
I find it absolutly appaling that the U.S. Government wouldn't want this kind of action. I do realize that with the current administration being in bed with the Oil companies makes it difficult, however I would think that some people would try to make it more accessible to the general public.
There is the environmental effects about this as well, however that wouldn't be the big selling point. Being in Arizona, I would think that this would almost be a great selling point, and an awesome location to have a solar powered house.
I am going to see how much it would cost to do my roof....
What I don't understand is why so many are so against such a change. The benefits are all there. IP addresses for everyone; never have another shortage (until the Mars colony gets on board); and it is backward-compatable with IPv4 (a.k.a. 0.0.192.168.1.1 = 192.168.1.1)
The ONLY reason why people are so against this is because Microsoft has NOT incorporated it into its Operating System. Apple is going to be doing that with their Panther release, and Linux has been doing it for years.
Please, lets just make the transition!
OS X and Apple's future with x86.
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
I think that OS X will be a very good thing for Apple. However I don't see them going to the x86 infrastructure. There are too many problems with it. To start, as many have pointed out, the archaic pre-PCI standard being supported on it. The other thing is that it isn't on a RISC-based model. That is one of the main reasons why the 'slower; 500MHz G4 stomped the hell out of the 'faster' 1 GHz PIII.
Anyways, back on track. I think that if Apple wants to increase its share of the world, it needs to do two things. A) It needs to do something about its pricing. The iMacs are a great start. Howere its more professional line (G4 Towers and G4 Powerbooks) need to be reduced. Secondly, Apple has to entice more developers to develop for the Os X platform. I think they are doing that with its UNIX under-pinnings. Another thing to do is offer a UNIX/Mac platform. OS X Server does this, however it hasn't been widely accepted due to the fact that many only see it as a Mac Server. I think if they get rid of that mis-information, plus get more developers and lower costs they will have made it an irresistable buy for an already awesomily-made machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Something very recently I have personally discovered... Use the system against itself.
Something like this bill that is so obviously tainted by corporate greed and manipulation needs to be quashed. Issues like legitamate creation of products, backing up of software YOU OWN, mixing CDs from your own CDs; these are all things that very well could happen. However, the largest atrocity of all of this is the fact that eventually places like /. will no longer exist. Public forum will be banned because we are copying their IP. What about competition? If I create a Word Processor, and it is better than M$'s Word, with this law they could swoop in and say I stole their IP, without regard to the fact that I created it on my own merits.
The end result here is the fact that this has much greater complications and consequences than what we are all coming up with. This could be very far-reaching to where we live in a very GATTACA-like country. This must not happen.
Things to do:
Something has to be done. Although my voice may not be loud, if you gather enough voices, we will all be very loud.
Sorry, but your pictures are not there. They are broken links.
Well, since no one really knows what kind of stressors there might be in warp or hyperspace travel. This test proved that the design was well thought out. Besides, any one who is a Star Trek fan knows that the Enterprise was never designed for atmospheric travel.
While I agree with you about the lack of Linux support (however there are a lot of underlying reasons for that), I don't think that is the end of the world. 98 is dead. Face it, and move on.
I am also a Linux user, and I think you are only half right. Apple doesn't think that Linux is a second class citzen. It never has. Why do ou think that they sold some 10,000 Xserves all running Yellow Dog Linux to the U.S. Navy?? I garantee that the reason wasn't because of fear.
No, the reason why they don't support Linux is because of the almost infinite number of distributions out there. However, even then it is becoming less of an issue because Gnome and KDE desktop environments are becoming more and more unified, through standards like Freedesktop.org. Probably then, will we start seeing things like QuickTime and iTunes for Linux.
Yep, I should have used the preview button...
After reading the article, and seeing what the lines of code are, all I can say is "Where's John Stossel?? He needs to say Give me a break!!"
For those who do not know what this code is doing (other than commenting what they are doing); it is declaring one pointer, an integer, a long integer, all within a function that passes a memory map and a variable of type size_t (something specific to the kernel, I suppose). That is the first chunk of code.
Then, what the for loop is doing is allocating enough memory space for whatever the memory map needs. Also, they did a mutex_spinlock, sending that a function call of maplock of the memory map. This concludes the above function.
If this is what SCO is basing part, if not the entirity (sp?), of their claims; it just proves that SCO doesn't just not know what they are doing, but they have their head stuck in a very dark and smelly place.
After reading the article, and seeing what the lines of code are, all I can say is "Where's John Stossel?? He needs to say Give me a break!!" For those who do not know what they are doing (other than commenting what they are doing) is declaring one pointer, an integer, a long integer, all within a function that passes a memory map and a variable of type size_t (something specific to the kernel, I suppose). That is the first chunk of code. Then, what the for loop is doing is allocating enough memory space for whatever the memory map needs. Also, they did a mutex_spinlock, sending that a function call of maplock of the memory map. This concludes the above function. If this is what SCO is basing part, if not the entirity (sp?), of their claims; it just proves that SCO doesn't just not know what they are doing, but they have their head stuck in a very dark and smelly place.
Just goes to show you that the only thing that the Dept. of Interior sees is the inside of their ass.
There is the environmental effects about this as well, however that wouldn't be the big selling point. Being in Arizona, I would think that this would almost be a great selling point, and an awesome location to have a solar powered house.
I am going to see how much it would cost to do my roof....
What I don't understand is why so many are so against such a change. The benefits are all there. IP addresses for everyone; never have another shortage (until the Mars colony gets on board); and it is backward-compatable with IPv4 (a.k.a. 0.0.192.168.1.1 = 192.168.1.1)
The ONLY reason why people are so against this is because Microsoft has NOT incorporated it into its Operating System. Apple is going to be doing that with their Panther release, and Linux has been doing it for years.
Please, lets just make the transition!
I think that OS X will be a very good thing for Apple. However I don't see them going to the x86 infrastructure. There are too many problems with it. To start, as many have pointed out, the archaic pre-PCI standard being supported on it. The other thing is that it isn't on a RISC-based model. That is one of the main reasons why the 'slower; 500MHz G4 stomped the hell out of the 'faster' 1 GHz PIII.
Anyways, back on track. I think that if Apple wants to increase its share of the world, it needs to do two things. A) It needs to do something about its pricing. The iMacs are a great start. Howere its more professional line (G4 Towers and G4 Powerbooks) need to be reduced. Secondly, Apple has to entice more developers to develop for the Os X platform. I think they are doing that with its UNIX under-pinnings. Another thing to do is offer a UNIX/Mac platform. OS X Server does this, however it hasn't been widely accepted due to the fact that many only see it as a Mac Server. I think if they get rid of that mis-information, plus get more developers and lower costs they will have made it an irresistable buy for an already awesomily-made machine.