I wonder if these game publishers (and music, movie and book publishers) ever stop to think about what they are saying. If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us, then doesn't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them? So when GPG takes the money I spent and buys new equipment for their offices, shouldn't I be getting a new monitor out of the transaction as well?
You fail to understand the situation. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. What matters is that the government is giving Chrysler money. Chrysler owes people money. The government is demanding that the bankruptcy court ignore the law and pay off junior debt holders before senior debt holders. This is another step along the path to being a banana republic ruled by the whim of despots and thugs.
Any time something like this happens everyone from the first manager with the authority to do something that refuses all the way up the chain gets held responsible for whatever happens as a result of their refusal to act.
Good idea. At this very moment you could be in Sudan saving lives. Since you aren't, please report to your nearest court house for sentencing. Given the severity of your crime -- several thousand cases of manslaughter over your lifetime -- it is likely you'll get the death penalty, but there is a small chance you'll get life without possibility of parole.... Or is it more a case of "laws for thee, but not for me"?
There are good reasons that jurisdictions don't make it mandatory to act. Not everyone has the skill, training or experience necessary to evaluate the situation and provide effective aid. As a result you can end up like this woman or this gentleman.
I'm not saying anyone should not act, I have and would again, but it's up to each individual to decide for themselves. Do you really want the state mandating ad-hoc emergency medical treatment from someone whose entire knowledge comes from watching House? Giving a non-swimmer the choice of jumping into a rushing river or being prosecuted for negligent manslaughter? No thanks.
Just to play devil's advocate, linux runs any X11 app
This is plainly not true. The various releases of X11 are incompatible at the protocol level and the API level. Not only did you have to fix up your code to compile against the new Xlib, your old binaries wouldn't work on the new server either. There are also plenty of extensions that applications depend on that aren't necessarily present in every X11 server. More or less exactly what you'd find throughout the various versions of Windows: some libraries and technologies get old and wither.
Wikipedia is just a reference. I remember that it was DEC. The question wasn't who did work on it in XFree86. It was where did it originate. It originated at DEC.
I hate patents as much as anyone else, but: 1) This isn't so obvious, and requires some fairly complex math
Actually this isn't new. Back in college, around 1993-1994 I was working with a team that used stripe lasers projected forward from a vehicle. Then a pair of stereoscopic cameras would take a picture. Then software would analyze the deflection in the beams to determine the shape of terrain the vehicle was approaching. In fact the information from the previous images was translated through the system's model of the terrain as the vehicle moved around. It was quite clever.
One might check this paper (I am not the author of the paper):
The API should never have exposed anything but an anonymous character string as address and end-point identifiers for anything but applications like network scanners that are inherently protocol-sensitive.
Given that the protocols aren't interchangeable in their feature sets what you state isn't even a desirable situation. But knowing the internals of the addressing scheme isn't necessary for a properly written program.
Re:Saw It in Music! Coming Soon in Games, E-Books
on
Why Bother With DRM?
·
· Score: 1
I also purchased the game, but I doubt I'd purchase a future 2D Boy game. Lacking features like volume controls and the ability to skip over their cut-scenes... it just shows a certain lazyness or lack of concern for the overall user experience.
If they'd done that we'd already be using IPv6 for everything because applications wouldn't have to know about the details of addresses because they'd just be arbitrary strings like file names already are.
Anyone who writes an application that needs to know the details of addresses is doing it wrong. Sockets don't require any particular knowledge of the underlying network protocols.
However, based on TPB trial, TPB people would be the one held accountable for the actions of others.
Not sure what the trial has to do with it, but I fail to see why there would be any question that the people organizing the effort wouldn't be held accountable.
I think intentionally sending someone money and then calling your bank and saying it wasn't intentional easily qualifies as fraud. Proving that one person intentionally did something may be hard. Proving fifty thousand people doing something within a short period of time, beginning right after a very public request to do so... not so hard.
Sounds like fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. My guess is the TPB guys are asking for more fines and jail time.
I'd also be interested how it is that someone sending me some kind of wire transfer would obligate me paying the costs of that transfer. I could understand if I was running some kind of online service where you gave me your credit card info and my software then turned around submitted that information for billing. I can't imagine a law firm providing that kind of billing service.
Let me get this straight... it's OK to discriminate against someone so long as it's not on the list?
That may possibly be the word of the law, but it's certainly not the spirit of it as far as I'm concerned.
You're kind of nuts. People should be able to say "I disagree with the choices you are making and I'm not going to be part of them, even indirectly." Otherwise you'll find that a gay caterer will end up being forced to provide meals for a neo-nazi dinner party.
The point of equal protection laws are that there are some attributes that a person has that are immutable and shouldn't be used to prevent them from doing a job they are fully capable of doing. But other attributes are choices and it's ok for others to discriminate based on those choices. In fact there are even immutable attributes that are ok to use in hiring, firing, leasing, etc.
Without knowing what company you work for, even spelling out using capital letters, hearing that you are a Chief Technology Officer just isn't that impressive. Every startup and small business that comes along dishes out fancy titles to employees. It's often a way to make people feel good about not getting a decent raise. Unless you work for a Fortune 500 tech company, it's just not that meaningful. At the last company I worked for, the CTO reported to a VP, who reported to a President, who reported to the CFO, who reported to the CEO, who reported to a Board of Directors. On the org chart, the CTO was closer to the server admin team than he was to the executive crapper.
In either case, it has to be proven that his being a Mormon was not a factor in deciding not to hire him (or whatever the discrimination laws require).
Actually it's the other way around. The prospective employee would have to prove that their religion was the reason they weren't hired. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing.
Anything is possible. The point is is does any BIOS vendor actually provide an API for doing a flash or is it just one of the options in the menus? And is it provided by the BIOS vendor (Phoenix, AMI, Intel, etc.) or is it provided by the motherboard manufacturer. And is it always in the same place and able to be spoofed the same way. Then there is the question of can you run that BIOS code from within your variously available runtime environments? Will it execute in protected mode? In x64 mode? In real mode? Under Windows? Under Solaris? Under Mac OS X?
The reality is that a skilled person can take a machine and disassemble the BIOS to learn all these secrets. But how much of that information is usefully transferable such that you can automate your new knowledge? The general risk of someone knowing how to leverage the built-in flash routines for one specific motherboard running one specific version of the BIOS running one specific OS is pretty small.
Terry Childs, apparently, refused to share passwords with people who didn't meet that policy requirement.
Terry Childs apparently refused to share the passwords with anyone. Can you explain to me how it's possible that an IT department of more than one person would allow it to come about that only one person knows the passwords necessary to maintain the network?
Second I never said "give the golden keys.... to any manager", I said that the role of server admin doesn't set policy re. access.
Third, this wasn't just a request to pass the password out to all and sundry on a whim, it was a emergency situation and only one person knew the password. I don't know about where you work, but I've worked for a large bank and for the military and at no point was I the only holder of the passwords. The fact that Childs was the only person who knew the passwords brings serious questions as to his just doing the job with proper regards to operational correctness.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if these game publishers (and music, movie and book publishers) ever stop to think about what they are saying. If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us, then doesn't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them? So when GPG takes the money I spent and buys new equipment for their offices, shouldn't I be getting a new monitor out of the transaction as well?
Or do they figure that this only goes one way?
You fail to understand the situation. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. What matters is that the government is giving Chrysler money. Chrysler owes people money. The government is demanding that the bankruptcy court ignore the law and pay off junior debt holders before senior debt holders. This is another step along the path to being a banana republic ruled by the whim of despots and thugs.
Worked for the UAW!
Good idea. At this very moment you could be in Sudan saving lives. Since you aren't, please report to your nearest court house for sentencing. Given the severity of your crime -- several thousand cases of manslaughter over your lifetime -- it is likely you'll get the death penalty, but there is a small chance you'll get life without possibility of parole.... Or is it more a case of "laws for thee, but not for me"?
There are good reasons that jurisdictions don't make it mandatory to act. Not everyone has the skill, training or experience necessary to evaluate the situation and provide effective aid. As a result you can end up like this woman or this gentleman.
I'm not saying anyone should not act, I have and would again, but it's up to each individual to decide for themselves. Do you really want the state mandating ad-hoc emergency medical treatment from someone whose entire knowledge comes from watching House? Giving a non-swimmer the choice of jumping into a rushing river or being prosecuted for negligent manslaughter? No thanks.
This is plainly not true. The various releases of X11 are incompatible at the protocol level and the API level. Not only did you have to fix up your code to compile against the new Xlib, your old binaries wouldn't work on the new server either. There are also plenty of extensions that applications depend on that aren't necessarily present in every X11 server. More or less exactly what you'd find throughout the various versions of Windows: some libraries and technologies get old and wither.
The first version of xinerama.c in the xfree86.org cvs tree, note the copyright message:
http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/Xinerama/Xinerama.c?rev=1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
Wikipedia is just a reference. I remember that it was DEC. The question wasn't who did work on it in XFree86. It was where did it originate. It originated at DEC.
No. It was DEC.
No. It was DEC.
Actually this isn't new. Back in college, around 1993-1994 I was working with a team that used stripe lasers projected forward from a vehicle. Then a pair of stereoscopic cameras would take a picture. Then software would analyze the deflection in the beams to determine the shape of terrain the vehicle was approaching. In fact the information from the previous images was translated through the system's model of the terrain as the vehicle moved around. It was quite clever.
One might check this paper (I am not the author of the paper):
http://tim.mcjunkin-web.org/mcjunkin_thesis_body.pdf
The API should never have exposed anything but an anonymous character string as address and end-point identifiers for anything but applications like network scanners that are inherently protocol-sensitive.
Given that the protocols aren't interchangeable in their feature sets what you state isn't even a desirable situation. But knowing the internals of the addressing scheme isn't necessary for a properly written program.
I also purchased the game, but I doubt I'd purchase a future 2D Boy game. Lacking features like volume controls and the ability to skip over their cut-scenes... it just shows a certain lazyness or lack of concern for the overall user experience.
Anyone who writes an application that needs to know the details of addresses is doing it wrong. Sockets don't require any particular knowledge of the underlying network protocols.
Not sure what the trial has to do with it, but I fail to see why there would be any question that the people organizing the effort wouldn't be held accountable.
I think intentionally sending someone money and then calling your bank and saying it wasn't intentional easily qualifies as fraud. Proving that one person intentionally did something may be hard. Proving fifty thousand people doing something within a short period of time, beginning right after a very public request to do so... not so hard.
Sounds like fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. My guess is the TPB guys are asking for more fines and jail time.
I'd also be interested how it is that someone sending me some kind of wire transfer would obligate me paying the costs of that transfer. I could understand if I was running some kind of online service where you gave me your credit card info and my software then turned around submitted that information for billing. I can't imagine a law firm providing that kind of billing service.
You're kind of nuts. People should be able to say "I disagree with the choices you are making and I'm not going to be part of them, even indirectly." Otherwise you'll find that a gay caterer will end up being forced to provide meals for a neo-nazi dinner party.
The point of equal protection laws are that there are some attributes that a person has that are immutable and shouldn't be used to prevent them from doing a job they are fully capable of doing. But other attributes are choices and it's ok for others to discriminate based on those choices. In fact there are even immutable attributes that are ok to use in hiring, firing, leasing, etc.
(BTW, discrimination is generally a good thing.)
First, no you aren't. Even in states that protect sexual orientation -- and not all states do -- being into S&M or B&D is not a protected class.
Without knowing what company you work for, even spelling out using capital letters, hearing that you are a Chief Technology Officer just isn't that impressive. Every startup and small business that comes along dishes out fancy titles to employees. It's often a way to make people feel good about not getting a decent raise. Unless you work for a Fortune 500 tech company, it's just not that meaningful. At the last company I worked for, the CTO reported to a VP, who reported to a President, who reported to the CFO, who reported to the CEO, who reported to a Board of Directors. On the org chart, the CTO was closer to the server admin team than he was to the executive crapper.
Actually it's the other way around. The prospective employee would have to prove that their religion was the reason they weren't hired. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing.
Anything is possible. The point is is does any BIOS vendor actually provide an API for doing a flash or is it just one of the options in the menus? And is it provided by the BIOS vendor (Phoenix, AMI, Intel, etc.) or is it provided by the motherboard manufacturer. And is it always in the same place and able to be spoofed the same way. Then there is the question of can you run that BIOS code from within your variously available runtime environments? Will it execute in protected mode? In x64 mode? In real mode? Under Windows? Under Solaris? Under Mac OS X?
The reality is that a skilled person can take a machine and disassemble the BIOS to learn all these secrets. But how much of that information is usefully transferable such that you can automate your new knowledge? The general risk of someone knowing how to leverage the built-in flash routines for one specific motherboard running one specific version of the BIOS running one specific OS is pretty small.
Terry Childs apparently refused to share the passwords with anyone. Can you explain to me how it's possible that an IT department of more than one person would allow it to come about that only one person knows the passwords necessary to maintain the network?
Ever hear of a single point of failure?
First I made no rant.
Second I never said "give the golden keys .... to any manager", I said that the role of server admin doesn't set policy re. access.
Third, this wasn't just a request to pass the password out to all and sundry on a whim, it was a emergency situation and only one person knew the password. I don't know about where you work, but I've worked for a large bank and for the military and at no point was I the only holder of the passwords. The fact that Childs was the only person who knew the passwords brings serious questions as to his just doing the job with proper regards to operational correctness.
I'm curious as to what your disagreement with me was. Your thought experiment is exactly what I said.
Hell, even in a joint title you can just go take it.