I think the US should have a much bigger spot in the picture because we're much better than everyone else and have kicked so much more ass! Also, this is a good tool to show which companies aren't pulling their own weight in wars! Not to point fingers at anyone *cough*Ecuador*cough* but there are some major slackers in that map!
Of course, the only place they are going to get the right to do this is in the EULA of the latest closed-source media player created by Microsoft. It will be built into the OS and can't be removed. Also, it will have a hidden ditributed computing app bundled with it.
I wonder if the energy release is enough for single-sided nanotubes to be used as explosives. If for nothing else, this is definitely a nifty device for a way to ignite a fuse or something.
--Speed 3: Gone in a Flash-- Everybody stay calm! There's a bomb on the camera. If the little flash button is held for more than 3 seconds, the bomb is armed. If you take a picture....the bomb will detonate.
I could also see this (if nanotubed were cheap to come by) as being a good thing for campers. Need to start a fire? Get some kindling, logs, your nanotubes and a flashbulb and you're ready to go!
Another really neat thing I'd like to see this being used for: Self-destructing computers. When the machine receives the self-destruct command, it flips the switch on the flash and POOF! it's gone.
of course I forget to close the italics after the first quote and didn't preview. It should read:
Computers are going nowhere folks
WHAT?! But I thought there was still so much we didn't know about computers for us to just scrap them! Aren't they an essential part of our lives???
Regardless of whether or not Cliff's right, I'm printing out my food-service resumes by the dozen and selling all of my stock in any company that deals with computers!
WHAT?! But I thought there was still so much we didn't know about computers for us to just scrap them! Aren't they an essential part of our lives???
Regardless of whether or not Cliff's right, I'm printing out my food-service resumes by the dozen and selling all of my stock in any company that deals with computers!
It seems like it would be possible to develop reflective contact lenses to achieve the same effect. It'd have to be more precise though. Winking would be the obvious choice for clicking. If you don't want the mouse moving while you read, simply close your eyes for a second or two and it stops sending mouse commands. Close them for another brief moment and it reactivates. IR technology isn't my field though, so I could just be talking out of my butt. Personally, I'd like to see this happen...I'm too lazy to move my head.
So does this mean that we've now got to wonder if we should go out and buy the latest and greatest version of Norton if they have a big press release on the most recent virus?? Heh...time be afraid of the FUD!
If you REALLY were for freedom of speech, you wouldn't have even given your kooky idea a second though! You would be doing exactly what you're opposing.
It is the Church of Scientology's right to complain about the links without any harmful repurcussions (such as discrimination...exactly what you are proposing). Delisting all those that oppose or threaten to oppose Google is basically a form of discrimination purposefully meant to harm their business. IANAL, but that sounds like it might just be illegal...if not just a shoddy business practice. Although I think they're showing that they aren't very secure with themselves as a religion, the Church of Scientology is well within their rights to complain to Google, ESPECIALLY since they did it in a manner that is following the process of the law. I don't like the fact that it's the law, nor am I proud of my country for passing such a law, but it is and they did. Deal with it, but don't suggest solutions that violate others' rights in the name of upholding the rights of others.
just because you think you should be allowed to do something, doesn't mean that you should. And just because you feel something you're doing is the right thing to do, doesn't mean that it's legal.
The fancy name for what they're doing is called "avoiding liability." What we call it in the professional world is "covering their ass." Thye've shown that they feel this is right by not only making the letter public, but by adding an extra little "fuck you" to it by not blocking out the delisted links.
Personally, if a religion backed by tons of wealthy people came after me, I'd do the same thing. Google hasn't been around nearly as long as the Church of Scientology, and if I had to guess, probably can't afford to deal with lawsuits coming from well-funded groups.
this sounds like a ban on ALL open source implementations...on NON-WINDOWS operating systems.
First, let's take a look at their little clause on you not implementing this:
3.3 IPR Impairing License Restrictions. For reasons, including without limitation, because (i) Company does not have the right to sublicense its rights to the Necessary Claims and (ii) Company's license rights hereunder to Microsoft's intellectual property are limited in scope, Company shall not distribute any Company Implementation in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License.
Pretty straight forward, but keep in mind that individuals fall under the category of "Company" since they're using the term interchangeably with "the undersigned." Here's where it gets really interesting is in the definitions of their terms:
"IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge."
Yes, it specifically names the GPL and LGPL, but it isn't limited to those two! It applies to any license requiring an open source distribution, the ability to derive something else from it (whatever they mean by that....), or requires the implementation to be free!
Ok...so we alrady knew that M$ has it out for open-source, but it seems they're trying to be a little sneaky about it in the next part...here's where anti-competitive tactics come into play(yeah...I know...we already knew about those too).
Let's now look at their definition of "Company Implementation" as used in Section 3.3 above.
1.2 "Company Implementation" shall mean only those portions of the software developed by Company that implement CIFS for use on Non-Microsoft Platforms.
What's this mean? Well, it means that M$ has a way of getting out of being "totally" against open source development by basically saying "Hey...we want you to still distribute free/open source implementations...just make sure it's only for an MS OS." Obviously, this is also an attack on Linux and any other OS, as well as popular implementations of CIFS on these platforms, such as SAMBA.
If it weren't for "double jeopardy" laws, Microsoft would probably be in and out of court on a daily basis, purely for anti-competitive business tactics.
bring a midget and have the midget hand the senator printouts with all the points you plan on making. He'll be so amused by the midget being there he won't remember what you said, hence the printout. And later on he'll think back and say "Hey...that fellow with the midget, he sure had some good points. Not sure what they were but...oh wait, here they are right here."
The most important thing is that you're not just another face in the crowd. Captivate the guy's attention. A midget may not be the BEST way to do it, but I sure as hell would remember you!
Am I the only one interested in seeing what light looks like when it's stopped? What about when it's passing at the speed of a bicycle in a dark or foggy room?
First, think about what's most important about the naming convention. With such a sizable amount of computers, being able to quickly find them would be my highest priority. There's no general solution for this, though. It all depends on where all these machines are being kept. If you've got a giant warehouse with just rows of servers all lined up, then the obvious solution is to give each row and each column a name, either a number or a letter. Just make sure you've got signs up in the warehouse letting you know what row and column you're at. Easy to pronounce, and kind of easy to remember. This is similar to the zipcode idea posted above.
Personally, I would break each area up into sections and then have each server have an easily recognizable name. So if you've got them split into groups of 25, or so, you could name each in the following way:
[area name/number]+[naming theme for that area]
So say someone decides to name all machines in group 17 after famous hollywood computers and robots, you might have 17HAL, 17ROBBIE, and 17WOPR (sp?). You've got easily recognizable names so if two machines are named blweb385 and blweb386 and then you've got two others named dlweb385 and dlweb386, it slows you down because you have to compare each character in the name as opposed to just looking for HAL or ROBBIE.
Personally, I find that naming machines after reproductive anatomy tends to make for interesting times. At one place I worked at, the sysadmin decided to name all the machines after members of NWA and Digital Underground. A friend of mine works with some guys who decided that all the web servers would be named after liquors and the workstations would be named after beers. I think the gateways and firewalls are named after mixed drinks.
that "Next" button at the bottom of the first page of the article's going to be the sample code in Part 2! Would make for great irony and would shut up anyone that claims that they'd notice if their machine was doing something it's not supposed to.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not redundant! This is the easiest way to read the whole thing!
I think the US should have a much bigger spot in the picture because we're much better than everyone else and have kicked so much more ass! Also, this is a good tool to show which companies aren't pulling their own weight in wars! Not to point fingers at anyone *cough*Ecuador*cough* but there are some major slackers in that map!
Of course, the only place they are going to get the right to do this is in the EULA of the latest closed-source media player created by Microsoft. It will be built into the OS and can't be removed. Also, it will have a hidden ditributed computing app bundled with it.
I wonder if the energy release is enough for single-sided nanotubes to be used as explosives. If for nothing else, this is definitely a nifty device for a way to ignite a fuse or something.
--Speed 3: Gone in a Flash--
Everybody stay calm! There's a bomb on the camera. If the little flash button is held for more than 3 seconds, the bomb is armed. If you take a picture....the bomb will detonate.
I could also see this (if nanotubed were cheap to come by) as being a good thing for campers. Need to start a fire? Get some kindling, logs, your nanotubes and a flashbulb and you're ready to go!
Another really neat thing I'd like to see this being used for: Self-destructing computers. When the machine receives the self-destruct command, it flips the switch on the flash and POOF! it's gone.
Computers are going nowhere folks
WHAT?! But I thought there was still so much we didn't know about computers for us to just scrap them! Aren't they an essential part of our lives???
Regardless of whether or not Cliff's right, I'm printing out my food-service resumes by the dozen and selling all of my stock in any company that deals with computers!
It seems like it would be possible to develop reflective contact lenses to achieve the same effect. It'd have to be more precise though. Winking would be the obvious choice for clicking. If you don't want the mouse moving while you read, simply close your eyes for a second or two and it stops sending mouse commands. Close them for another brief moment and it reactivates. IR technology isn't my field though, so I could just be talking out of my butt. Personally, I'd like to see this happen...I'm too lazy to move my head.
So does this mean that we've now got to wonder if we should go out and buy the latest and greatest version of Norton if they have a big press release on the most recent virus?? Heh...time be afraid of the FUD!
If you REALLY were for freedom of speech, you wouldn't have even given your kooky idea a second though! You would be doing exactly what you're opposing.
It is the Church of Scientology's right to complain about the links without any harmful repurcussions (such as discrimination...exactly what you are proposing). Delisting all those that oppose or threaten to oppose Google is basically a form of discrimination purposefully meant to harm their business. IANAL, but that sounds like it might just be illegal...if not just a shoddy business practice. Although I think they're showing that they aren't very secure with themselves as a religion, the Church of Scientology is well within their rights to complain to Google, ESPECIALLY since they did it in a manner that is following the process of the law. I don't like the fact that it's the law, nor am I proud of my country for passing such a law, but it is and they did. Deal with it, but don't suggest solutions that violate others' rights in the name of upholding the rights of others.
just because you think you should be allowed to do something, doesn't mean that you should. And just because you feel something you're doing is the right thing to do, doesn't mean that it's legal.
The fancy name for what they're doing is called "avoiding liability." What we call it in the professional world is "covering their ass." Thye've shown that they feel this is right by not only making the letter public, but by adding an extra little "fuck you" to it by not blocking out the delisted links.
Personally, if a religion backed by tons of wealthy people came after me, I'd do the same thing. Google hasn't been around nearly as long as the Church of Scientology, and if I had to guess, probably can't afford to deal with lawsuits coming from well-funded groups.
About jurisdiction...hello?? Does the DeCSS case ring a bell? Or am I making a fool of myself because I don't know what I'm talking about?
Disclaimer: IANAL
This gives me an idea! An ice cream cooled processor!!
NEVER let anyone touch your privacy parts!
Go, information, go!
First, let's take a look at their little clause on you not implementing this:
Pretty straight forward, but keep in mind that individuals fall under the category of "Company" since they're using the term interchangeably with "the undersigned." Here's where it gets really interesting is in the definitions of their terms:
Yes, it specifically names the GPL and LGPL, but it isn't limited to those two! It applies to any license requiring an open source distribution, the ability to derive something else from it (whatever they mean by that....), or requires the implementation to be free!
Ok...so we alrady knew that M$ has it out for open-source, but it seems they're trying to be a little sneaky about it in the next part...here's where anti-competitive tactics come into play(yeah...I know...we already knew about those too).
Let's now look at their definition of "Company Implementation" as used in Section 3.3 above.
What's this mean? Well, it means that M$ has a way of getting out of being "totally" against open source development by basically saying "Hey...we want you to still distribute free/open source implementations...just make sure it's only for an MS OS." Obviously, this is also an attack on Linux and any other OS, as well as popular implementations of CIFS on these platforms, such as SAMBA.
If it weren't for "double jeopardy" laws, Microsoft would probably be in and out of court on a daily basis, purely for anti-competitive business tactics.
bring a midget and have the midget hand the senator printouts with all the points you plan on making. He'll be so amused by the midget being there he won't remember what you said, hence the printout. And later on he'll think back and say "Hey...that fellow with the midget, he sure had some good points. Not sure what they were but...oh wait, here they are right here."
The most important thing is that you're not just another face in the crowd. Captivate the guy's attention. A midget may not be the BEST way to do it, but I sure as hell would remember you!
Am I the only one interested in seeing what light looks like when it's stopped? What about when it's passing at the speed of a bicycle in a dark or foggy room?
But that takes so much work! I want some sort of "Insta-wine"...you know, just add water? Something as easy as throwing meat into a vat.
-Craw
So THAT'S how Jesus did it! Now I'm all anxious for the scientific procedure that shows us how to turn water into wine!
-Craw
First, think about what's most important about the naming convention. With such a sizable amount of computers, being able to quickly find them would be my highest priority. There's no general solution for this, though. It all depends on where all these machines are being kept. If you've got a giant warehouse with just rows of servers all lined up, then the obvious solution is to give each row and each column a name, either a number or a letter. Just make sure you've got signs up in the warehouse letting you know what row and column you're at. Easy to pronounce, and kind of easy to remember. This is similar to the zipcode idea posted above.
Personally, I would break each area up into sections and then have each server have an easily recognizable name. So if you've got them split into groups of 25, or so, you could name each in the following way:
[area name/number]+[naming theme for that area]
So say someone decides to name all machines in group 17 after famous hollywood computers and robots, you might have 17HAL, 17ROBBIE, and 17WOPR (sp?). You've got easily recognizable names so if two machines are named blweb385 and blweb386 and then you've got two others named dlweb385 and dlweb386, it slows you down because you have to compare each character in the name as opposed to just looking for HAL or ROBBIE.
Personally, I find that naming machines after reproductive anatomy tends to make for interesting times. At one place I worked at, the sysadmin decided to name all the machines after members of NWA and Digital Underground. A friend of mine works with some guys who decided that all the web servers would be named after liquors and the workstations would be named after beers. I think the gateways and firewalls are named after mixed drinks.
that "Next" button at the bottom of the first page of the article's going to be the sample code in Part 2! Would make for great irony and would shut up anyone that claims that they'd notice if their machine was doing something it's not supposed to.
-Crawdaddy