He was talking about poisoned seeds. And theoretically SHA-1 isn't fine for this and is vulnerable to the same flaws as MD5. It isn't practical now (and certainly not as practical as poisoning kazaa shares... where every other byte in a file is skipped(!) for performance when generating a hash).
"In what ways can you tinker with Linux that you cannot tinker with OS X?" All the GUI code and frameworks in OSX are proprietary. You don't have the "[keys to] everything Apple provides." You can get at the source to the darwin infrastructure along with a few other subsystems, but by no means everything.
It doesn't set that precedent at all. You can get sued for stealing something from my shop and smashing it up--and you can also get arrested. The fact that that is true doesn't set the precedent, so why do you think this new proposed law does? (note: I don't like the proposed law or criminalization of small scale copyright infringement. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong or at the least you said a lot of things and didn't explain the "why" on any of them.)
If you think SWG really tried to make that many changes you didn't play UO. UO was much much different than EQ/WoW. Coincedently Raph Koster played a big role in both SWG and UO.
" Given that the machine is now 3 years newer it is only ~2-3 times more powerful." In part of that range you give this thing would be beating out Moore's law (if you equate transitors to performance.. which isn't exactly valid.. so it is really even better) and otherwise it is just meeting it. That isn't unimpressive whatsoever.
*cough*google*cough*. Buying up other companies is not bad in and of itself and infact it can show a willingness to let the best people for the job handle the job.
"Now, I'm not an apologist for Stalinism, but socialism, in it's most basic form means "sharing." "
If I am a kindergardener playing with a toy that I own and my teacher says, "hey, you've played with that enough, let Joey play!" and proceeds to yank the toy out of my hands and give it to Joey am I "sharing" my toy? No. It is the same principle that renders a "forced" apology meaningless.
If you buy only hardware that has good linux support etc. you don't run into any of those problems with linux. You are talking about someone either buying a mac or buying a PC system and putting linux on it--therefore it is safe to assume that the person buying the x86 linux system can pick his hardware. After all, you can't buy a Mac and expect to run it on a randomly chosen PC--why do you expect linux to?
The article submitter says the patent "even covers" all these additional things. But the thing is, the patent really only covers a system encompassing ALL of those additional things, so it isn't as harmful as is thought. Unless you have a review system with all that specific email confirmation etc. then you are fine.
TV is 50-60fps (though it is interlaced nterlaced). The other advantage TV and Movies have to help avoid flicker is the motion blur that they get for free. Video cards render each frame as if the stuff were frozen in place and a picture were taken.
"Government can stop recognizing mouse click licensing"
... Ok, while not necessarily a "mouse click" license, you do realise that the GPL essentially relies on the same principles that "mouse click" licenses do don't you? Hmm, maybe not since it doesn't tell you what you can or can't do with it for your own use, only how you can legally redistribute it. If GPL3.0 gets the web app thing it could be a pretty much identicle to a typical "mouse click" license.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey fool, I mentioned Darwin in my post...
Redhat is publicly traded. After the purchase of Cygnus they had to release their financials.
He was talking about poisoned seeds. And theoretically SHA-1 isn't fine for this and is vulnerable to the same flaws as MD5. It isn't practical now (and certainly not as practical as poisoning kazaa shares... where every other byte in a file is skipped(!) for performance when generating a hash).
"In what ways can you tinker with Linux that you cannot tinker with OS X?" All the GUI code and frameworks in OSX are proprietary. You don't have the "[keys to] everything Apple provides." You can get at the source to the darwin infrastructure along with a few other subsystems, but by no means everything.
With all the resultant DDoSes you would probably see Verizon's IP block null routed round the world.
I don't know but I'm sure if they do Roland will have an article on it.
It doesn't set that precedent at all. You can get sued for stealing something from my shop and smashing it up--and you can also get arrested. The fact that that is true doesn't set the precedent, so why do you think this new proposed law does? (note: I don't like the proposed law or criminalization of small scale copyright infringement. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong or at the least you said a lot of things and didn't explain the "why" on any of them.)
If you think SWG really tried to make that many changes you didn't play UO. UO was much much different than EQ/WoW. Coincedently Raph Koster played a big role in both SWG and UO.
Hi. Exageration is a technique that has been used to emphasize the rediculousness of something throughout the ages.
"ell, as far as playability, you KNOW anything with the Zelda name on it is going to be really good."
Zelda 2 had the Zelda name on it.
" Given that the machine is now 3 years newer it is only ~2-3 times more powerful." In part of that range you give this thing would be beating out Moore's law (if you equate transitors to performance.. which isn't exactly valid.. so it is really even better) and otherwise it is just meeting it. That isn't unimpressive whatsoever.
For something like a console launch they damn well don't know.
*cough*google*cough*. Buying up other companies is not bad in and of itself and infact it can show a willingness to let the best people for the job handle the job.
Actually Bell Labs patented all sorts of stuff, tried to sue creators of unix workalikes, and more.
"Now, I'm not an apologist for Stalinism, but socialism, in it's most basic form means "sharing." "
If I am a kindergardener playing with a toy that I own and my teacher says, "hey, you've played with that enough, let Joey play!" and proceeds to yank the toy out of my hands and give it to Joey am I "sharing" my toy? No. It is the same principle that renders a "forced" apology meaningless.
Unless Apple sells the OS standalone how is it going to cut into their revenue?
If you buy only hardware that has good linux support etc. you don't run into any of those problems with linux. You are talking about someone either buying a mac or buying a PC system and putting linux on it--therefore it is safe to assume that the person buying the x86 linux system can pick his hardware. After all, you can't buy a Mac and expect to run it on a randomly chosen PC--why do you expect linux to?
The OP didn't suggest that. You just made it up. From the OP: "I'd rather spend $200 on OSX for my workstation than..."
" ...You know it's illegal" It isn't a crime. It is covered under civil law.
The article submitter says the patent "even covers" all these additional things. But the thing is, the patent really only covers a system encompassing ALL of those additional things, so it isn't as harmful as is thought. Unless you have a review system with all that specific email confirmation etc. then you are fine.
Wow, you simultaneously picked out his joke and made a fool of yourself.
There's no need for a dual-core GPU. GPUs are largely parralised anyway.
TV is 50-60fps (though it is interlaced nterlaced). The other advantage TV and Movies have to help avoid flicker is the motion blur that they get for free. Video cards render each frame as if the stuff were frozen in place and a picture were taken.
That is the point, it is easy to understand (it reads like english), but hard to write (you can't just write any valid english).
...
"Government can stop recognizing mouse click licensing"
... Ok, while not necessarily a "mouse click" license, you do realise that the GPL essentially relies on the same principles that "mouse click" licenses do don't you? Hmm, maybe not since it doesn't tell you what you can or can't do with it for your own use, only how you can legally redistribute it. If GPL3.0 gets the web app thing it could be a pretty much identicle to a typical "mouse click" license.