Hey, this is off-topic, but I'm just wondering it you still have a copy of that program you wrote (simple, or hard, it may be, but I can't program myself or I'd try)... I want it so I can do the same thing to people on my compy! (esp. since, if they get past LILO, that'll be a real shocker! ha!)
If you have it, email me at my address.. and thanks!
Then again, who knows but that slashdotted.org may start problems of it's own, as pages get to first be slashdotted and then slashdotteded. Or, ideally, the page would/could even out the slashdot effect so that for those of us who miss things the first time can then get them from slashdotted, and just "skip" slashdot to begin with, creating less traffic for those who know they can and do check slashdot regularly throughout each day.
Cool idea!
tragedy strikes again...(off-topic)
on
Kernels Galore
·
· Score: 1
I hope he doesn't either. Then again, it'd be nice if we all didn't get hit by trucks, you know?
but, back _on_topic... I never got to know the 2.0 kernel tree.. I'm very much a newbie to Linux.. been familiar with it for about a year now. (tragic, that's for sure) I just assumed, as one of the other posters did, that onward movement in kernel development was concrete, i.e., no development was made on "past" kernel trees once newer, "stable" ones were established (i.e., the question someone posted as to why the 2.0 tree was important now that we have the 2.2 tree). apparently not, which is fine with me, and I see why now, having read some of the other comments. yay linux!
The only way that a company like Intel can protect themselves from this is to bar their employees from buying at Amazon. I would not be surprised to see this happen.
Neither would I, because if I was any one of the many corporations/companies who has bought from Amazon, I certainly would discontinue to do so. Simply because I don't think it's anybody else's business what I'm buying. I realize that so people might feel that the attitude I'm expressing is unnecessary so long as I'm "being good," but still, if I wanted everybody to know what I buy, well, I would tell them myself.
But, back to my original point, there are lots of other places online to buy books/stuff/etc.. so I'd just stop using Amazon (though, to be honest, I've never bought anything through/at Amazon, nor had I ever planned to, nor do I, most certainly now that I've read this piece...)
In Star Wars, there are Holocrons that are tiny, wafer thin (from what I can tell) crystal-like squares that store immense amounts of data, mostly in the form of diaries, histories, etc.. legends, training, wisdom, and skills of the Jedi that are passed down from generation to generation. I realize that some might think that, well, if it's only history.. i.e., paperwork type stuff, it might not take up that much space, but you also have to remember that, as far as I know, the holocrons could also display video (holograph-projection, maybe?), and play sound. Of course, not too sure, I'll have to check my "Weapons & Technology" book again, but you get the idea. Pretty cool, IMO.
They said they got portability and extensibility...um, what about reliability, compatibility, and performance. Precisely! That's just it! They didn't get the other three, and boy, can't we tell?
Although I am an anti-Microsoft troll (but not as qualified as i could be), I still use/have to use M$ because I'm not as versed in Linux as I want to be, I don't have a Mac, I'd like BeOS but it's more $$ to pay, etc, etc.. so, I still use M$ much of the time. Esp since I have/had a WinModem, so.. that kinda sucks right there. (the had/have comes from the fact that it's in my laptop, which I don't have right now b/c it's temporarily out-of-service. oh well, c'est la vie).
Anyway, I thought it was interesting, just to read and try to get more insight into what happened back then, although, it seemed more of a feature story for some newspaper than an interview, because most of it was just quote from the 2 developers, and not people asking questions.. odd, I must say.
But I also wonder why he'd have all the rest of the equipment just gathered at/on a table in his apartment. I realize that he wasn't necessarily expecting the police to come search his apartment, which would be a reason why he could leave it just sitting out in the open, but I'm thinking that if I had done what he did, I would certainly have destroyed all the evidence that I could possibly destroy. i.e., _all_ of the equipment, floppies (or at least reformatted them), the CD-Rs, etc. or, if not, I'd certainly re-employ them, so that they weren't lying around suspiciously, saying "look at me, i'm just sitting here with no cpu. wonder why?" then again, I could be way off here, but I'm thinking that if he wanted to ensure that he wouldn't get caught/be arrested, there were steps that he could have taken that he didn't. oh well, it's no worry on me..
Why? Because we can. right on. why do you think we have computers in the first place? because we can. wasn't someone once quoted as saying that "there is a worldwide need for about 5 computers"? I can't remember who it was, but I know someone famous said that, long ago when computers first started out, and.. well, now, that wouldn't make much of a beowulf cluster to begin with.
why do you think anything's done? because it can be done, and so someone's going to do it. (or someones.. or something.. or..)
Personally, I think if a person gets a domain name, in ALL INNOCENCE of any conflict, they should not be penalised or subject to harassment by large companies through the courts. True, true. But the thing is, how exactly are you going to know that the person purchased it in all innocence? Sure, they may have some company behind it, etc.. but they may be purchasing a domain that sounds like something popular hoping that [either] (a)they [bigger] corporation which their domain resembles will buy it from them for mucho $$ or (b)they're hoping to "cash in" on the resemblance hoping that, when people are looking for that other corporation's page(s) they'll stumble onto the smaller company/corporation's page, and the smaller company will get more $/more popular, etc.
Of course, I also realize that (b) may not be such a big deal, but it's definitely not ALL INNOCENCE.
yes, it's sad.. and I know another, not as funny, example:
just because they don't understand how to use a calendar program that they want.. the computer is suddenly "stupid" and all associated programs contained therein are "stupid." and now it's a piece of junk. but the funny part comes when, as i've asked them what program it is that they're used to running (i.e., what calendar program it is that they used [at their school] and were accustomed to) they replied "it isn't a program."
like hell it isn't...
well, sorry about that, but, seriously.. come on people!
they could just mirror their site.. which actually might not be that good of an idea, i don't know.. but for when slashdot goes down.. gets too slow, something. maybe having another processor would be nice, who knows? (not me, obviously..)
think a lot of this questionnaire is less to do with the Internet being addictive per se than to do with using the Internet to feed your (possibly pre-existing) addictions.
You have a very good point there. Some of the questions nearer to the beginning seemed to be along the lines of, are you addicted to the net (such questions as "how much time do you spend each day on the internet?") though, as you pointed out, most of the questions were about being addicted to using the internet to do other things, such as buy products, view porn, talk to people, get sexual highs (orgasms, whatever you will), etc... but didn't focus on asking you if you felt a burning desire to be on the internet all the time, and whether or not you spent all time off the net planning the next you could be on the net.
Therefore, even though I filled out the survey, whatever evaluation they send me is going to be basically invalid, because the survey was neither about one thing or another. Either way, I don't care.. but, I just want to add, you have a _point_.
Just wondering because everyone seems to regard Beowulf as the greatest thing since armpit hair, and I'm sure not everyone has an app for it.
If armpit hair was a great thing.. or a bad thing.. or something to compare Beowulf clusters to. (and no, I'm not being one of those people that you're speaking of that regards "Beowulf as the greatest thing since..."). I'm just saying that, hmm, body hair and hard ware.. interesting mix.
Situtation is being handled by blameing everybody. Yes indeedy.. the quickest way out of a situation is to make sure you don't get the flak for it..
Of course, that means that the "smoking gun" left the gunpowder traces on your hand(s).. so, in the end [if not before] we all know you did it anyways.. so why bother hiding it?
Someone wake me up when the "real world" gets a clue.
yeah, that'd be nice, and it'd also be nice for someone to let Abe know just how disgusting that mailbag of his is..
come on, like we're supposed to believe he got mail all (or basically, as he at least implies) like that.. but, I will concede that, if he did, all the more power to him (i'm not jealous; i'm a female, with better things to do with my life), but it does seem _rather_ strange... then again, maybe it's just me.
I agree.. I mean, think about it. Anyone who's actually anything is not going to go around telling everybody else what they are. It'll come out naturally, and then everbody else will tell the person what they are. Apparently this little kiddie was a bit too full o' himself. Tsk-tsk-tsk.. to think, a/. [article] post was wasted on him.
BUT THE REAL MAGIC transpires when a two-qubit gate acts on a particle that is in a superposition of spin states. Kinda like mutliple personalities.;-)
Seriously though, it was a very interesting article, especially for blockheads such as myself, and I'm just hoping that they're over-estimating the time it'll take to develop this into something usable.
You'll note that instead of, as another poster suggested, MSN would insert this bug into their software, they are now responding to the packet, without coding a overflow in their software. They're responding to "the packet"? What packet are they getting? Or, do you mean that they're responding [differently] to the original packet send to the MS IM client from the server, so that the server will think their AOL IM? I didn't quite get that, because my initial thought was that you meant that MS was responding differently to the "buffer overflow" [packet], which I didn't understand because I was thinking: "MS isn't getting the packet! The server is!"
Stupid me..
Clarification would be helpful, though, because I'm curious as to what exactly MS is doing to make their IM client 'work.'
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, this is off-topic, but I'm just wondering it you still have a copy of that program you wrote (simple, or hard, it may be, but I can't program myself or I'd try)... I want it so I can do the same thing to people on my compy! (esp. since, if they get past LILO, that'll be a real shocker! ha!)
If you have it, email me at my address.. and thanks!
Then again, who knows but that slashdotted.org may start problems of it's own, as pages get to first be slashdotted and then slashdotteded. Or, ideally, the page would/could even out the slashdot effect so that for those of us who miss things the first time can then get them from slashdotted, and just "skip" slashdot to begin with, creating less traffic for those who know they can and do check slashdot regularly throughout each day.
Cool idea!
I hope he doesn't either. Then again, it'd be nice if we all didn't get hit by trucks, you know?
but, back _on_topic... I never got to know the 2.0 kernel tree.. I'm very much a newbie to Linux.. been familiar with it for about a year now. (tragic, that's for sure) I just assumed, as one of the other posters did, that onward movement in kernel development was concrete, i.e., no development was made on "past" kernel trees once newer, "stable" ones were established (i.e., the question someone posted as to why the 2.0 tree was important now that we have the 2.2 tree). apparently not, which is fine with me, and I see why now, having read some of the other comments. yay linux!
-my $0.0000000000001 worth-
"...as will the inventor of TCP/IP, Vinton Cerf, who is known as the "father of the Internet." How dare he steal credit from Algore?
Doh! Beat me to it....
I was just wondering the same thing as well...
any ideas, pass 'em on!
The only way that a company like Intel can protect themselves from this is to bar their employees from buying at Amazon. I would not be surprised to see this happen.
Neither would I, because if I was any one of the many corporations/companies who has bought from Amazon, I certainly would discontinue to do so. Simply because I don't think it's anybody else's business what I'm buying. I realize that so people might feel that the attitude I'm expressing is unnecessary so long as I'm "being good," but still, if I wanted everybody to know what I buy, well, I would tell them myself.
But, back to my original point, there are lots of other places online to buy books/stuff/etc.. so I'd just stop using Amazon (though, to be honest, I've never bought anything through/at Amazon, nor had I ever planned to, nor do I, most certainly now that I've read this piece...)
-my $0.00000001 worth-
In Star Wars, there are Holocrons that are tiny, wafer thin (from what I can tell) crystal-like squares that store immense amounts of data, mostly in the form of diaries, histories, etc.. legends, training, wisdom, and skills of the Jedi that are passed down from generation to generation. I realize that some might think that, well, if it's only history.. i.e., paperwork type stuff, it might not take up that much space, but you also have to remember that, as far as I know, the holocrons could also display video (holograph-projection, maybe?), and play sound. Of course, not too sure, I'll have to check my "Weapons & Technology" book again, but you get the idea. Pretty cool, IMO.
but I figured I could fit it in because it had something to do with random phrase generation...
go check this out, it's called The Jedi Training Generator. Click on "yodify" and it makes cool, randomly generated (I believe) Yoda-like statements.
They said they got portability and extensibility...um, what about reliability, compatibility, and performance.
Precisely! That's just it! They didn't get the other three, and boy, can't we tell?
Although I am an anti-Microsoft troll (but not as qualified as i could be), I still use/have to use M$ because I'm not as versed in Linux as I want to be, I don't have a Mac, I'd like BeOS but it's more $$ to pay, etc, etc.. so, I still use M$ much of the time. Esp since I have/had a WinModem, so.. that kinda sucks right there. (the had/have comes from the fact that it's in my laptop, which I don't have right now b/c it's temporarily out-of-service. oh well, c'est la vie).
Anyway, I thought it was interesting, just to read and try to get more insight into what happened back then, although, it seemed more of a feature story for some newspaper than an interview, because most of it was just quote from the 2 developers, and not people asking questions.. odd, I must say.
I wonder too.
But I also wonder why he'd have all the rest of the equipment just gathered at/on a table in his apartment. I realize that he wasn't necessarily expecting the police to come search his apartment, which would be a reason why he could leave it just sitting out in the open, but I'm thinking that if I had done what he did, I would certainly have destroyed all the evidence that I could possibly destroy. i.e., _all_ of the equipment, floppies (or at least reformatted them), the CD-Rs, etc. or, if not, I'd certainly re-employ them, so that they weren't lying around suspiciously, saying "look at me, i'm just sitting here with no cpu. wonder why?" then again, I could be way off here, but I'm thinking that if he wanted to ensure that he wouldn't get caught/be arrested, there were steps that he could have taken that he didn't. oh well, it's no worry on me..
Why? Because we can.
right on. why do you think we have computers in the first place? because we can. wasn't someone once quoted as saying that "there is a worldwide need for about 5 computers"? I can't remember who it was, but I know someone famous said that, long ago when computers first started out, and.. well, now, that wouldn't make much of a beowulf cluster to begin with.
why do you think anything's done? because it can be done, and so someone's going to do it. (or someones.. or something.. or..)
but you get my point
Personally, I think if a person gets a domain name, in ALL INNOCENCE of any conflict, they should not be penalised or subject to harassment by large companies through the courts.
True, true. But the thing is, how exactly are you going to know that the person purchased it in all innocence? Sure, they may have some company behind it, etc.. but they may be purchasing a domain that sounds like something popular hoping that [either] (a)they [bigger] corporation which their domain resembles will buy it from them for mucho $$ or (b)they're hoping to "cash in" on the resemblance hoping that, when people are looking for that other corporation's page(s) they'll stumble onto the smaller company/corporation's page, and the smaller company will get more $/more popular, etc.
Of course, I also realize that (b) may not be such a big deal, but it's definitely not ALL INNOCENCE.
Just thought I'd add my little to the fray.
yes, it's sad..
and I know another, not as funny, example:
just because they don't understand how to use a calendar program that they want.. the computer is suddenly "stupid" and all associated programs contained therein are "stupid." and now it's a piece of junk. but the funny part comes when, as i've asked them what program it is that they're used to running (i.e., what calendar program it is that they used [at their school] and were accustomed to) they replied "it isn't a program."
like hell it isn't...
well, sorry about that, but, seriously.. come on people!
they could just mirror their site.. which actually might not be that good of an idea, i don't know.. but for when slashdot goes down.. gets too slow, something. maybe having another processor would be nice, who knows? (not me, obviously..)
and that was my $0.000001 worth for today.
think a lot of this questionnaire is less to do with the Internet being addictive per se than to do with using the Internet to feed your (possibly pre-existing) addictions.
You have a very good point there. Some of the questions nearer to the beginning seemed to be along the lines of, are you addicted to the net (such questions as "how much time do you spend each day on the internet?") though, as you pointed out, most of the questions were about being addicted to using the internet to do other things, such as buy products, view porn, talk to people, get sexual highs (orgasms, whatever you will), etc... but didn't focus on asking you if you felt a burning desire to be on the internet all the time, and whether or not you spent all time off the net planning the next you could be on the net.
Therefore, even though I filled out the survey, whatever evaluation they send me is going to be basically invalid, because the survey was neither about one thing or another. Either way, I don't care.. but, I just want to add, you have a _point_.
Just wondering because everyone seems to regard Beowulf as the greatest thing since armpit hair, and I'm sure not everyone has an app for it.
If armpit hair was a great thing.. or a bad thing.. or something to compare Beowulf clusters to. (and no, I'm not being one of those people that you're speaking of that regards "Beowulf as the greatest thing since..."). I'm just saying that, hmm, body hair and hard ware.. interesting mix.
Situtation is being handled by blameing everybody.
Yes indeedy.. the quickest way out of a situation is to make sure you don't get the flak for it..
Of course, that means that the "smoking gun" left the gunpowder traces on your hand(s).. so, in the end [if not before] we all know you did it anyways.. so why bother hiding it?
Someone wake me up when the "real world" gets a clue.
yeah, that'd be nice, and it'd also be nice for someone to let Abe know just how disgusting that mailbag of his is..
come on, like we're supposed to believe he got mail all (or basically, as he at least implies) like that.. but, I will concede that, if he did, all the more power to him (i'm not jealous; i'm a female, with better things to do with my life), but it does seem _rather_ strange... then again, maybe it's just me.
He's about as Punk Rock as the Republican Party.
/. [article] post was wasted on him.
I agree.. I mean, think about it. Anyone who's actually anything is not going to go around telling everybody else what they are. It'll come out naturally, and then everbody else will tell the person what they are. Apparently this little kiddie was a bit too full o' himself. Tsk-tsk-tsk.. to think, a
Sheesh! The lengths we go for these scum..
Indeed, decoding mp3s apparently takes a lot of power behind the action.. can't get slow, cheesy processors to do it (60 mHz? can't remember)
anyway
I was just wondering: Why does decoding mp3s require floating point? What exactly does that mean?
I'm just curious here... thanks
BUT THE REAL MAGIC transpires when a two-qubit gate acts on a particle that is in a superposition of spin states. ;-)
Kinda like mutliple personalities.
Seriously though, it was a very interesting article, especially for blockheads such as myself, and I'm just hoping that they're over-estimating the time it'll take to develop this into something usable.
Computer-addicts Anonymous here I come.
oo, oo! wait for me!
this is off-topic, but I don't really care...
"anything to thwart the [intel, in this case] giants"
yay athlons!
This is one of the oldset encryption schemes around...
don't i feel stupid
da you have that backwards.
You'll note that instead of, as another poster suggested, MSN would insert this bug into their software, they are now responding to the packet, without coding a overflow in their software.
They're responding to "the packet"? What packet are they getting? Or, do you mean that they're responding [differently] to the original packet send to the MS IM client from the server, so that the server will think their AOL IM? I didn't quite get that, because my initial thought was that you meant that MS was responding differently to the "buffer overflow" [packet], which I didn't understand because I was thinking: "MS isn't getting the packet! The server is!"
Stupid me..
Clarification would be helpful, though, because I'm curious as to what exactly MS is doing to make their IM client 'work.'