I'll bite. Verizon DSL (recently got the promised 3Mbit upgrade), solid as a rock (even when the power's out!). I've never received any spam on my email, but I'm careful about who gets that address...
10 of 10. Service was live the day after my order, and has never been down. (not that I've noticed, anyway. Whenever I wanted to use it, it worked)
ha-haaa! and the fiber contractor's already marked the dig lines in my alley!
they can't even get the fiber-to-the-premesis description right. Verizon's Fios product runs singlemode right up into the breakout box in the home. What did they think "customer premesis" meant, anyway?
Additionally, I'm kinda surprised the cable services are doing as well as they are, given their history of service outages.
heh. The best part of that exchange (in V at least) was that the Han Solo line was ad-libbed by Ford. I swear, if it weren't for the fact that other people helped write and direct 5 & 6, they'd have been such colossal bombs that the series would have been universally panned.
And no, so far to my knowledge SCO has presented nothing resembling real evidence.
This here is the meat of the situation. I think that Murphy actually does have a good handle on the situation (unlike some of the posters above), and he presents a thorough analysis, along with four ways SCO could easily win this. All they really have to do is show that IBM allowed their programmers to reuse or otherwise borrow from codebases that weren't theirs to borrow from within the scope of IBM's UNIX license.
However, if it truly were this trivial (and there's nothing to suggest that it isn't), SCO should have won this years ago. Why all the handwaving on their part? Why the deliberate obfuscation? Why the late/nonexistant "evidence" they say makes the case? If you've got absolute proof, you don't hide it in the back room and tell everyone they're not allowed; you put it out there for everyone to see, so they can say, "yup, open and shut case. IBM, pay up."
I've heard that while xlc makes for fast code, it's not GCC-compatible, and has a less-than-zero chance of outputting incorrect code. That last one alone kills it in my book...
Can there be a statute of limitations on collecting money for music?
There already is. In the States, it's called the Copyright Act. It expires 95 or so years after the death of the artist, at which point the content becomes free for everyone (public domain).
However, since that time is totally arbitrary and determined by the U.S. Congress, whenever it's about to expire, various Vested Intrests will simply lobby their CongressCritter to have the Act extended.
Well, it may take more power than an LCD, but just about every electronic component in a laptop does. LCDs don't use that much power by themselves, but the backlight they require does. I'd be willing to bet that the increased power drain is more than offset by the savings incured by the loss of the backlight.
Most of these features arrive with the Tiger release of OSX (10.4). The Quartz engine gets upgraded to support fully accelerated drawing (as opposed to simple compositing), resolution independance, plus the CoreImage/CoreVideo APIs.
It'll be interesting to see how well these technologies fare on both sides.
build a PC bigger, better, and faster than this for $500? I dunno. You'll no doubt be stuck w/ _something_ that is significantly under any one component in this box. It might not have Firewire, or the CPU will blow, or it'll be light on RAM, or, most likely, it'll have shitty integrated video. Remember that the Mac mini has a full-tilt Radeon 9200 with it's own dedicated 32MB of DDR. Now, that's not a particularly spectacular setup, but it'll murder the integrated SiS or Intel solutions.
Also, consider that this system is as small as a stack of CDs, and nearly silent. Even the SFF PC's are hard-pressed to manage that.
I find it hard to say the we're close to the limits of any technology in the computer/telecom field. Someone always seems to find a new way around it.
perhaps not, but things are getting really dicey WRT silicon processes. The lates process shrink to 90nm really hurt, and required bunches of tricks to make it work. Specifically, thermal dissipation is a big problem, as when you shrink chips, they get hotter, and require more idle power to make them work. This increases the total thermal power you've got to dissipate, and you've reduced the surface area with which to do so.
Leakage power is another problem. Sure, that 3.6GHz Prescott you've got there has a max dissipation of 110watt at full tilt, but it still consumes something like 53w doing nothing! That's pretty bad, and there's absolutely no fix for that. Physics and chemistry say so, and it only gets worse the smaller the transistors become. So 65nm will be a real bitch...
That's actually a really good idea, for a hydrogen station, anyway. This way, if the reactor fails for some reason, worst case, it's on the bottom of the ocean:)
you do have to admit, tho, that for simply playing MP3s and managing your music collection, iTunes is pretty hard to beat.
Now, for use w/ just about any other portable player other than th iPod, it's not great. For use with any other music service other than ITMS, well, you can't get there from here./no zealotry here, just trying to be fair...
well, assuming that the dropped frames aren't sequential in large number, some kind of ECC (think RAID5 for IP) could alleviate this issue. Granted, you'd be sending three packets for every two packets worth of data, but you could lose any one of them and still be okay.
However, I don't think most people would necessarily enjoy 50% larger payloads required to make this work. It could be tuned back, but for every decrease in overhead, the effect of losing a frame gets worse. In the end (and this is purely speculative, as I've no real data or math to back this up) it may be that TCP remains more effective with better throughput.
I'll be honest, I don't see/experience the kinds of lag and retransmission problems that are described in the article, and any large streaming transfers to my home or desk regulary consume 100% of my available bandwidth. So for me, TCP works just fine.
Actually, IIRC is that most near-orbit planets that large actually are rocky, have no atmosphere (the star blows it away, being so close), and radiate strongly in the infrared. They have silly surface gravities, too, something in the 300G range.
who within the company is trying to crash your routers?
well, for one, no non-network devices should be allowed to form adjacencies, and the easiest way to guarantee that is to set "passive-interface default", then explicitly allow adjacencies on a per-interface basis. Second, use a password, third, use the MD5 hash function to keep it secret. Finally, force the router ID for each OSPF node, and explicitly allow them in a neighbor access list.
Then the only people left on the parent's list of "who's hacking the company" are the router admins.
same thing a bit shorter for high bandwidth links.
access-list 150 deny ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any access-list 150 deny ip 127.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any access-list 150 deny ip 169.254.0.0 0.0.255.255 any access-list 150 deny ip 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 any access-list 150 deny ip 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 any access-list 150 deny ip 224.0.0.0 31.255.255.255 any access-list 150 deny ip host 255.255.255.255 any access-list 150 deny 89 any any access-list 150 permit ip any any
just some summarization. makes the list faster... altho not by much.
The DMCA expressly forbids systems that bypass copy protection systems, like cracking the CSS encryption codes. Wouldn't software that performs a bitwise direct copy of the encrypted data therefore be legal, as it's not attempting to play the DVD on unauthorized hardware, nor is it decrypting the MPEG-2 stream in any way?
Except for the fact that we _know_ the ones running this system are human, and they _will_ make mistakes. And given a government with the position that suspected terrorists, even if they happen to be citizens, are to be held in violation of their civil rights, with no access to legal counsel, and that it's okay to torture/kill them to find out what they may know, that inevitably, significant numbers of innocent citizens will be imprisoned/tortured/killed because of the mistakes of the persons acting on the data from this system.
Furthermore, this scenario ignores persons that may actually have a semi-seditious nature to their actions, members of various activist groups, such as environmentalists, anti-globalization protestors, 2nd amendment advocates, and the like. It also ignores the potential for blatant abuse of this system by those that make use of it.
Everything you mentioned is commonplace, meaning thousands and millions of people do those things everyday. Do you really think the FBI will automatically assume 10% of the US population is planning a terrorist attack?
Well, if they want to be as thorough as their mandate suggests, yes, they will. Invariably, mistakes will be made, innocents hurt, and the people (read: you) will shrug their shoulders thinking, "they must have done something," never realizing that the situation they're in is entirely created by themselves.
Wandering a bit off topic, I'd just like to say that the absolute best way to deal with terrorism is to attack the roots of the problem, and stop people from being quite so pissed off. The biggest problems facing our society aren't drugs, or terrorism, or sex, or assault weapons; it's the social movements of ignorance and "dude, who cares?" attitudes. These two do more damage to everybody than the other four combined, and removing the latter tends to make the former self-correcting problems.
I don't see why they wouldn't, the PPC is either-endian,
Not anymore. IBM removed one of the particularly useful instructions for endian-agnosticity from the PPC970 (G5). It's why VPC7 has been so delayed, MS has to figure a workaround.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bite. Verizon DSL (recently got the promised 3Mbit upgrade), solid as a rock (even when the power's out!). I've never received any spam on my email, but I'm careful about who gets that address...
10 of 10. Service was live the day after my order, and has never been down. (not that I've noticed, anyway. Whenever I wanted to use it, it worked)
ha-haaa!
and the fiber contractor's already marked the dig lines in my alley!
they can't even get the fiber-to-the-premesis description right. Verizon's Fios product runs singlemode right up into the breakout box in the home. What did they think "customer premesis" meant, anyway?
Additionally, I'm kinda surprised the cable services are doing as well as they are, given their history of service outages.
heh. The best part of that exchange (in V at least) was that the Han Solo line was ad-libbed by Ford. I swear, if it weren't for the fact that other people helped write and direct 5 & 6, they'd have been such colossal bombs that the series would have been universally panned.
magnetic tape? blech.
I'd _never_ trust important data to tape.
And no, so far to my knowledge SCO has presented nothing resembling real evidence.
This here is the meat of the situation. I think that Murphy actually does have a good handle on the situation (unlike some of the posters above), and he presents a thorough analysis, along with four ways SCO could easily win this. All they really have to do is show that IBM allowed their programmers to reuse or otherwise borrow from codebases that weren't theirs to borrow from within the scope of IBM's UNIX license.
However, if it truly were this trivial (and there's nothing to suggest that it isn't), SCO should have won this years ago. Why all the handwaving on their part? Why the deliberate obfuscation? Why the late/nonexistant "evidence" they say makes the case? If you've got absolute proof, you don't hide it in the back room and tell everyone they're not allowed; you put it out there for everyone to see, so they can say, "yup, open and shut case. IBM, pay up."
They've got nothing, and they know it.
arrrggghhh, I meant greater than zero...
I've heard that while xlc makes for fast code, it's not GCC-compatible, and has a less-than-zero chance of outputting incorrect code. That last one alone kills it in my book...
Do you have the right to break a law because you dont agree with it?
Yes. Always.
Can there be a statute of limitations on collecting money for music?
There already is. In the States, it's called the Copyright Act. It expires 95 or so years after the death of the artist, at which point the content becomes free for everyone (public domain).
However, since that time is totally arbitrary and determined by the U.S. Congress, whenever it's about to expire, various Vested Intrests will simply lobby their CongressCritter to have the Act extended.
SCSI is Small Computer Serial Interface.
SCSI is Small Computer System Interface. Not serial...
Well, it may take more power than an LCD, but just about every electronic component in a laptop does. LCDs don't use that much power by themselves, but the backlight they require does. I'd be willing to bet that the increased power drain is more than offset by the savings incured by the loss of the backlight.
Most of these features arrive with the Tiger release of OSX (10.4). The Quartz engine gets upgraded to support fully accelerated drawing (as opposed to simple compositing), resolution independance, plus the CoreImage/CoreVideo APIs.
It'll be interesting to see how well these technologies fare on both sides.
build a PC bigger, better, and faster than this for $500? I dunno. You'll no doubt be stuck w/ _something_ that is significantly under any one component in this box. It might not have Firewire, or the CPU will blow, or it'll be light on RAM, or, most likely, it'll have shitty integrated video. Remember that the Mac mini has a full-tilt Radeon 9200 with it's own dedicated 32MB of DDR. Now, that's not a particularly spectacular setup, but it'll murder the integrated SiS or Intel solutions.
Also, consider that this system is as small as a stack of CDs, and nearly silent. Even the SFF PC's are hard-pressed to manage that.
I find it hard to say the we're close to the limits of any technology in the computer/telecom field. Someone always seems to find a new way around it.
perhaps not, but things are getting really dicey WRT silicon processes. The lates process shrink to 90nm really hurt, and required bunches of tricks to make it work. Specifically, thermal dissipation is a big problem, as when you shrink chips, they get hotter, and require more idle power to make them work. This increases the total thermal power you've got to dissipate, and you've reduced the surface area with which to do so.
Leakage power is another problem. Sure, that 3.6GHz Prescott you've got there has a max dissipation of 110watt at full tilt, but it still consumes something like 53w doing nothing! That's pretty bad, and there's absolutely no fix for that. Physics and chemistry say so, and it only gets worse the smaller the transistors become. So 65nm will be a real bitch...
That's actually a really good idea, for a hydrogen station, anyway. This way, if the reactor fails for some reason, worst case, it's on the bottom of the ocean :)
Or, I won't tell you I didn't hire you.
you do have to admit, tho, that for simply playing MP3s and managing your music collection, iTunes is pretty hard to beat.
/no zealotry here, just trying to be fair...
Now, for use w/ just about any other portable player other than th iPod, it's not great. For use with any other music service other than ITMS, well, you can't get there from here.
well, assuming that the dropped frames aren't sequential in large number, some kind of ECC (think RAID5 for IP) could alleviate this issue. Granted, you'd be sending three packets for every two packets worth of data, but you could lose any one of them and still be okay.
However, I don't think most people would necessarily enjoy 50% larger payloads required to make this work. It could be tuned back, but for every decrease in overhead, the effect of losing a frame gets worse. In the end (and this is purely speculative, as I've no real data or math to back this up) it may be that TCP remains more effective with better throughput.
I'll be honest, I don't see/experience the kinds of lag and retransmission problems that are described in the article, and any large streaming transfers to my home or desk regulary consume 100% of my available bandwidth. So for me, TCP works just fine.
Actually, IIRC is that most near-orbit planets that large actually are rocky, have no atmosphere (the star blows it away, being so close), and radiate strongly in the infrared. They have silly surface gravities, too, something in the 300G range.
Passive = not sending ospf but will still receive.
And passive interfaces cannot form adjacendies. The packet gets discarded. Therefore, no exploit.
who within the company is trying to crash your routers?
well, for one, no non-network devices should be allowed to form adjacencies, and the easiest way to guarantee that is to set "passive-interface default", then explicitly allow adjacencies on a per-interface basis. Second, use a password, third, use the MD5 hash function to keep it secret. Finally, force the router ID for each OSPF node, and explicitly allow them in a neighbor access list.
Then the only people left on the parent's list of "who's hacking the company" are the router admins.
same thing a bit shorter for high bandwidth links.
access-list 150 deny ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any
access-list 150 deny ip 127.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any
access-list 150 deny ip 169.254.0.0 0.0.255.255 any
access-list 150 deny ip 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 any
access-list 150 deny ip 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 any
access-list 150 deny ip 224.0.0.0 31.255.255.255 any
access-list 150 deny ip host 255.255.255.255 any
access-list 150 deny 89 any any
access-list 150 permit ip any any
just some summarization. makes the list faster... altho not by much.
The DMCA expressly forbids systems that bypass copy protection systems, like cracking the CSS encryption codes. Wouldn't software that performs a bitwise direct copy of the encrypted data therefore be legal, as it's not attempting to play the DVD on unauthorized hardware, nor is it decrypting the MPEG-2 stream in any way?
Except for the fact that we _know_ the ones running this system are human, and they _will_ make mistakes. And given a government with the position that suspected terrorists, even if they happen to be citizens, are to be held in violation of their civil rights, with no access to legal counsel, and that it's okay to torture/kill them to find out what they may know, that inevitably, significant numbers of innocent citizens will be imprisoned/tortured/killed because of the mistakes of the persons acting on the data from this system.
Furthermore, this scenario ignores persons that may actually have a semi-seditious nature to their actions, members of various activist groups, such as environmentalists, anti-globalization protestors, 2nd amendment advocates, and the like. It also ignores the potential for blatant abuse of this system by those that make use of it.
Everything you mentioned is commonplace, meaning thousands and millions of people do those things everyday. Do you really think the FBI will automatically assume 10% of the US population is planning a terrorist attack?
Well, if they want to be as thorough as their mandate suggests, yes, they will. Invariably, mistakes will be made, innocents hurt, and the people (read: you) will shrug their shoulders thinking, "they must have done something," never realizing that the situation they're in is entirely created by themselves.
Wandering a bit off topic, I'd just like to say that the absolute best way to deal with terrorism is to attack the roots of the problem, and stop people from being quite so pissed off. The biggest problems facing our society aren't drugs, or terrorism, or sex, or assault weapons; it's the social movements of ignorance and "dude, who cares?" attitudes. These two do more damage to everybody than the other four combined, and removing the latter tends to make the former self-correcting problems.
I don't see why they wouldn't, the PPC is either-endian,
Not anymore. IBM removed one of the particularly useful instructions for endian-agnosticity from the PPC970 (G5). It's why VPC7 has been so delayed, MS has to figure a workaround.