Every good slashdotter should realize that this is impossible. Theregister must just be trying to pull one over on us. I mean, clearly the Bush Administration is in the pocket of Corporations, and would never allow this to happen to big business. Obviously, the story is a farce.
Get real. A free market results in competition, which results in better service to customers, which is WHAT WE AIN'T GOT.
Then what do you call the ability to choose between Cable, DSL from various and sundry ISPs, Satellite internet, Wireless internet in some locations, if not competition? Oh, and if that isn't enough for you, buy a T1 and some wifi equipment and start your own neighborhood ISP.
I propose that the reason broadband isn't more widely used in the US is simply because the demand for it isn't there. Most people aren't going to derive 2x the benefit from paying 2x (or in some cases as much as 5x) more for broadband over dialup.
In other countries broadband, and telecom in general, are run as a monopoly by the government, which uses tax money to heavily subsidize the costs. Basically, people don't know what they're paying for it. So naturally it'll appear a good choice to pay a few bucks more for government internet access than 3rd-party, unsubsidized dial-up.
Frankly, I'm glad we have the situation that we do here in the States. There are plenty of venues for people to obtain broadband if they want it. Cable/DSL in most cities, or satellite and other esoteric forms for the rest.
There really shouldn't be a big difference in power consumption. If you're watching a DVD, the majority of the CPU time (and therefore power) is being used by the DVD player software, not the OS. In fact, it's conceivable that power consumption would be/worse/ if Linux weren't configured to take advantage of ACPI power management (frequency scaling, CPU idling, that sort of goodness).
Perhaps you should go off and start your own "News for nerds" site. Nothing stopping you, is there? That way you can be a critical grammar-Nazi as much as you want.
I don't see you moving. Guess you just like to bitch. Typical. Too many people in this world who are quick to judge and slow to take any action to fix things.
Re:Does this finally solve the *other* major probl
on
IEEE Approves 802.11i
·
· Score: 1
It's not impossible to build a radio system where each person has entirely different encrypted stream of data sent to them.
Yeah, but all the stations could still receive each of the encrypted streams if they simply willed to tune it in. Granted, they wouldn't necessarily be able to decrypt it, which perhaps is what the original poster meant. However, you can't block them from receiving the encrypted signal.
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 0, Troll
And that differs from what the Fundamentalist Christian fanatics want, how exactly?
I'm a fundamentalist Christian. I don't recall thinking that I want death to anyone who disagrees with me, nor to dismantle all muslim countries. I'm pretty sure slavery isn't on the list of things I'm keen on either. So, unless you're going to claim that you know me better than myself (I wouldn't recommend it), looks like you're pretty much talking out your ass.
Re:Does this finally solve the *other* major probl
on
IEEE Approves 802.11i
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You know, the one that makes it that anyone on the wifi network can see all the other traffic?
I can't help but think that you don't know what you're talking about. The whole nature of RF is that if one person can receive the radio waves, so can several other people. You can't just select a single point to broadcast to. Sure, you can make sure that those RF waves are encrypted, and that's what this standard does. However, it's physically impossible to keep other parties from receiving the encrypted waves.
To utilize the (perhaps overused) broadcasting <-> speaking metaphor, assume that you have four people standing an equal distance apart from each other. If you say something to one, the others are going to hear it. Not much you can do about that. However, you can speak in code.
However, someone not knowing about Solaris, GCC, and sunfreeware.com might be a bit stumped. And the boinc/setiboinc boards reveal that quite a number of beta testers are confused about this, not only on Solaris but also on Linux. It's not completely obvious which GCC/libgcc packages contains libstc++.so.3 (as opposed to.2.x or.4.x).
How many people use Solaris that aren't familiar with it? It's not like Grandma is gonna come with a shiny new Solaris CD and install it.
Again, you're showing your lack of understanding of the situation. As another poster stated correctly, my intent was that they weren't being obnoxious about it.
So far as being firm believers in OSS, I think the work they are doing makes great strides for the ability of ordinary people to run Linux, which is great by my book. They make a great product, which they based legally off the wine project in accordance with wine's license, and further agree to release/all/ their code once they reach their subscriber requests.
I think if you ever used WineX, you'd think their efforts are well worth-while and well worth paying for, and the fact that it will eventually be free to the Linux community is just icing on the cake.
Transgaming only forced Gentoo to remove links to their CVS archive, which is publicly accessible. Their business model is based upon selling subscriptions to end users who want their product. The CVS repository is only there for developers, and they encourage developers to use it. Transgaming's argument is that having an ebuild that pulls from their CVS undermines their business model by giving end-users a free (as in beer) option to get releases.
Now, if they really wanted to be jerks, they could have just shut down their public CVS access. Seems to me, however, that politely asking (they didn't sue or anything) Gentoo to remove the ebuilds in question was a much nicer alternative. Could you explain what's wrong with this, exactly?
I find it interesting to note the apparent opinions of the slashdot editors when it comes to government. Usually the slashdot crowd is quite gung-ho in the direction of "Government bad! Free-markets! Regulation is evil, leave us alone! Ahhhh, censorhip!" etc. But as soon as they get irritated by a few spam messages in their mailbox, they start whining "Uncle Sam, save us from the spam! We need big and intrusive government protection! Someone please think of the children!"
A most interesting duality, and it's shameful that they depart from a stance of pure self-regulation. It would be much more productive to work on real technical solutions to the problem of spam, rather than whining that the government should bail us out. Hopefully most people realize this, and we'll get real technical solutions, without having to spend millions of taxpayer dollars.
Striping doesn't require a controller. It just requires a decent operating system. Linux can do striping/RAID0 on plain IDE (or SCSI) drives, no problem. Does seem to boost throughput quite a bit, as well.
My question was whether there was a difference between consenting to entry and consenting to a search. The two are different things (thought perhaps not legally, hence my question).
An interesting question struck me while reading this article, and since I'm not all that familiar with the relevant laws, I don't know the answer. Perhaps one of the law buffs (lawyer or no) can help me out.
Let's say a police officer were to appear at my door without a warrant, wanting to search my house. If I allow him to enter, can he use anything incriminating that he finds as evidence, even though he conducted the search without a warrant?
A slightly more complicated situation, what if instead of simply consenting to the search, I stated "well, you can come in, and I'm not going to stop you from doing whatever." What then?
We don't know what is causing global warming, so how about we stop burning fossil fuels, and err on the safe side.
Stop burning fossil fuels, and do what? Wind power? That might disturb the Earth's trade winds. Better stick on the safe side and not. Hydro? Might wreck precious water-based ecosystems. Better stick on the safe side and not. Where do we draw the line?
The fact of that matter is,/everything/ we could possibly do on any sort of scale, for power generation or otherwise, has/potentially/ dangerous side-effects. We couldn't do anything but sit in the cold and freeze to death if we wanted to avoid all potential of danger.
Seems to me there are two situations: certain death in the situation above, or slim possibility of death by doing the best we can at any given time. I certainly like the latter option better.
It all boils down to risk: everything has risk associated with it, and if you aren't willing to take the risk, you can't get the pay off. In some cases, the pay off is staying alive. I'm willing to take that risk.
Nobody in America, or anywhere in the world save communist nations, has the guarantee of employment upon graduation. Nobody has the right to work. Nobody is obligated to offer you a job. That's life.
If people in India can beat us on skills vs. pay, then they get the outsourcing. I'm certainly not going to advocate some stupid scheme like tariffs or subsidizing, like we see in agriculture today. If we don't need the farmers farming, then they should get a job that's useful to society.
....then change the Linux build scripts to randomize all the values for appropriate #defines throughout the kernel (syscall numbers, internal function names, etc). It thereby becomes impossible to work with the kernel internals without your source being available since it will need to compile on each individual system to inherit that system's randomzed #define values -- so if you want to keep your source closed, you must work only with the frozen external API.
And how does that help again? If this magical frozen API is going to do anything useful, it will still be possible for binary-only modules to fubar the state of the system. And when that happens, hapless users will/still/ go whining to lkml about how Linux sux because their system crashes.
I suppose your response then is that this frozen API should use rigorous sanity-checks on all inputs to ensure that the system can't enter an inconsistent state through them.
This isn't about fanaticism. This is about the overworked lkml guys not supporting binary drivers for the companies.
The kernel will happily load any modules you tell it to, binary or not, licensed or not. The reason this tag exists is so the loading of a binary driver will "taint" your kernel. That way when you submit a bug report, the kernel developers know that you had a binary only module loaded.
In that case, they'll ask you to reproduce the produce without the binary module loaded. If the problem doesn't happen, it's the vendor's problem, and not Linux's. And rightly so.
The company probably hoped that some Linux driver coder would just whip up a driver and save them the hassle. That's the wrong mentality, and until companies see Linux as a financial win, these sorts of problems will exist.
Actually, that's a fine mentality, and is really how most of the soundcard drivers (if not all drivers in general) have been written for Linux. The problem comes not when the vendor is laid-back about drivers, but when they become specification-Nazis. If they won't released the technical specs, driver writers have a hell of a time making something for Linux that will work. I believe this is the problem with Creative's EAX, as another poster mentioned above.
This is also the primary obstacle facing the DRI (3D hardware acceleration) project. If they had access to Nvidia and ATi's chip specs, open source drivers would exist for their cards. As it is, we have to be satisfied with binary only solutions.
I for one, hope that companies will be/more/ like those ones described above, not necessarily taking an action themselves to create Linux drivers, but freely allowing volunteers to do so.
No doubt about that, if it's going to be used it court, it needs to be verifiable, certifiable, and all those other good things. Just like all evidence.
For example in this case, what if the throttle position sensor had stuck even, and his foot wasn't really on the gas at all?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Engine throttle limitation? How is that going to help somebody?
"Keep them from going to fast," you say. That's not a good thing. What if my wife is pregnant and I'm driving her to the hospital? Or worse, she's injured and every second counts? Sure would suck if she died because I could only drive 30 mph.
People use full-throttle all the time. Merging on the interstate for example (unless you're one of those bastards who hits the end of the ramp at 45 while the guys in the right lane are going 70). There are a thousand situations where you need to be able to use your car to it's fullest mechanical extents. To say that governments should install throttle limiters is only one degree less stupid than saying governments should ban cars.
I'm sure a lot of people here on slashdot will think that this is just terrible and a travesty, But why? This is a win for society. This guy eas driving 100 in a 30mph zone. Is that really somebody you want on the roads? I don't.
But what about the privacy implications, you ask? Which ones. No data is stored unless you're in a collision, and in that case information is in the best interest of all parties.
I drive a car. I speed. I own aa radar detector. But this doesn't botehr me, because I'm a catious driver. I don't drive at highway speeds in a downtown area. I don't run people over. So unless you do, this isn't a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Every good slashdotter should realize that this is impossible. Theregister must just be trying to pull one over on us. I mean, clearly the Bush Administration is in the pocket of Corporations, and would never allow this to happen to big business. Obviously, the story is a farce.
Good bless America.
I propose that the reason broadband isn't more widely used in the US is simply because the demand for it isn't there. Most people aren't going to derive 2x the benefit from paying 2x (or in some cases as much as 5x) more for broadband over dialup.
In other countries broadband, and telecom in general, are run as a monopoly by the government, which uses tax money to heavily subsidize the costs. Basically, people don't know what they're paying for it. So naturally it'll appear a good choice to pay a few bucks more for government internet access than 3rd-party, unsubsidized dial-up.
Frankly, I'm glad we have the situation that we do here in the States. There are plenty of venues for people to obtain broadband if they want it. Cable/DSL in most cities, or satellite and other esoteric forms for the rest.
There really shouldn't be a big difference in power consumption. If you're watching a DVD, the majority of the CPU time (and therefore power) is being used by the DVD player software, not the OS. In fact, it's conceivable that power consumption would be /worse/ if Linux weren't configured to take advantage of ACPI power management (frequency scaling, CPU idling, that sort of goodness).
Bravo :-)
Perhaps you should go off and start your own "News for nerds" site. Nothing stopping you, is there? That way you can be a critical grammar-Nazi as much as you want.
I don't see you moving. Guess you just like to bitch. Typical. Too many people in this world who are quick to judge and slow to take any action to fix things.
Yeah, but all the stations could still receive each of the encrypted streams if they simply willed to tune it in. Granted, they wouldn't necessarily be able to decrypt it, which perhaps is what the original poster meant. However, you can't block them from receiving the encrypted signal.
I'm a fundamentalist Christian. I don't recall thinking that I want death to anyone who disagrees with me, nor to dismantle all muslim countries. I'm pretty sure slavery isn't on the list of things I'm keen on either. So, unless you're going to claim that you know me better than myself (I wouldn't recommend it), looks like you're pretty much talking out your ass.
To utilize the (perhaps overused) broadcasting <-> speaking metaphor, assume that you have four people standing an equal distance apart from each other. If you say something to one, the others are going to hear it. Not much you can do about that. However, you can speak in code.
How many people use Solaris that aren't familiar with it? It's not like Grandma is gonna come with a shiny new Solaris CD and install it.
Again, you're showing your lack of understanding of the situation. As another poster stated correctly, my intent was that they weren't being obnoxious about it.
/all/ their code once they reach their subscriber requests.
So far as being firm believers in OSS, I think the work they are doing makes great strides for the ability of ordinary people to run Linux, which is great by my book. They make a great product, which they based legally off the wine project in accordance with wine's license, and further agree to release
I think if you ever used WineX, you'd think their efforts are well worth-while and well worth paying for, and the fact that it will eventually be free to the Linux community is just icing on the cake.
Transgaming only forced Gentoo to remove links to their CVS archive, which is publicly accessible. Their business model is based upon selling subscriptions to end users who want their product. The CVS repository is only there for developers, and they encourage developers to use it. Transgaming's argument is that having an ebuild that pulls from their CVS undermines their business model by giving end-users a free (as in beer) option to get releases.
Now, if they really wanted to be jerks, they could have just shut down their public CVS access. Seems to me, however, that politely asking (they didn't sue or anything) Gentoo to remove the ebuilds in question was a much nicer alternative. Could you explain what's wrong with this, exactly?
I find it interesting to note the apparent opinions of the slashdot editors when it comes to government. Usually the slashdot crowd is quite gung-ho in the direction of "Government bad! Free-markets! Regulation is evil, leave us alone! Ahhhh, censorhip!" etc. But as soon as they get irritated by a few spam messages in their mailbox, they start whining "Uncle Sam, save us from the spam! We need big and intrusive government protection! Someone please think of the children!"
A most interesting duality, and it's shameful that they depart from a stance of pure self-regulation. It would be much more productive to work on real technical solutions to the problem of spam, rather than whining that the government should bail us out. Hopefully most people realize this, and we'll get real technical solutions, without having to spend millions of taxpayer dollars.
Striping doesn't require a controller. It just requires a decent operating system. Linux can do striping/RAID0 on plain IDE (or SCSI) drives, no problem. Does seem to boost throughput quite a bit, as well.
My question was whether there was a difference between consenting to entry and consenting to a search. The two are different things (thought perhaps not legally, hence my question).
An interesting question struck me while reading this article, and since I'm not all that familiar with the relevant laws, I don't know the answer. Perhaps one of the law buffs (lawyer or no) can help me out.
Let's say a police officer were to appear at my door without a warrant, wanting to search my house. If I allow him to enter, can he use anything incriminating that he finds as evidence, even though he conducted the search without a warrant?
A slightly more complicated situation, what if instead of simply consenting to the search, I stated "well, you can come in, and I'm not going to stop you from doing whatever." What then?
Stop burning fossil fuels, and do what? Wind power? That might disturb the Earth's trade winds. Better stick on the safe side and not. Hydro? Might wreck precious water-based ecosystems. Better stick on the safe side and not. Where do we draw the line?
The fact of that matter is,
Seems to me there are two situations: certain death in the situation above, or slim possibility of death by doing the best we can at any given time. I certainly like the latter option better.
It all boils down to risk: everything has risk associated with it, and if you aren't willing to take the risk, you can't get the pay off. In some cases, the pay off is staying alive. I'm willing to take that risk.
Nobody in America, or anywhere in the world save communist nations, has the guarantee of employment upon graduation. Nobody has the right to work. Nobody is obligated to offer you a job. That's life.
If people in India can beat us on skills vs. pay, then they get the outsourcing. I'm certainly not going to advocate some stupid scheme like tariffs or subsidizing, like we see in agriculture today. If we don't need the farmers farming, then they should get a job that's useful to society.
And how does that help again? If this magical frozen API is going to do anything useful, it will still be possible for binary-only modules to fubar the state of the system. And when that happens, hapless users will
I suppose your response then is that this frozen API should use rigorous sanity-checks on all inputs to ensure that the system can't enter an inconsistent state through them.
That's a lot of coding. You'd better get crackin'
This isn't about fanaticism. This is about the overworked lkml guys not supporting binary drivers for the companies.
The kernel will happily load any modules you tell it to, binary or not, licensed or not. The reason this tag exists is so the loading of a binary driver will "taint" your kernel. That way when you submit a bug report, the kernel developers know that you had a binary only module loaded.
In that case, they'll ask you to reproduce the produce without the binary module loaded. If the problem doesn't happen, it's the vendor's problem, and not Linux's. And rightly so.
What's wrong with this?
Actually, that's a fine mentality, and is really how most of the soundcard drivers (if not all drivers in general) have been written for Linux. The problem comes not when the vendor is laid-back about drivers, but when they become specification-Nazis. If they won't released the technical specs, driver writers have a hell of a time making something for Linux that will work. I believe this is the problem with Creative's EAX, as another poster mentioned above.
This is also the primary obstacle facing the DRI (3D hardware acceleration) project. If they had access to Nvidia and ATi's chip specs, open source drivers would exist for their cards. As it is, we have to be satisfied with binary only solutions.
I for one, hope that companies will be
That's a slippery slope argument, and doesn't hold up. What if they don't start monitoring you in real time with GPS?
The point is, this situation isn't a privacy invasion. Your scenario obviously would be. But equally obviously, this isn't that.
No doubt about that, if it's going to be used it court, it needs to be verifiable, certifiable, and all those other good things. Just like all evidence.
For example in this case, what if the throttle position sensor had stuck even, and his foot wasn't really on the gas at all?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Engine throttle limitation? How is that going to help somebody?
"Keep them from going to fast," you say. That's not a good thing. What if my wife is pregnant and I'm driving her to the hospital? Or worse, she's injured and every second counts? Sure would suck if she died because I could only drive 30 mph.
People use full-throttle all the time. Merging on the interstate for example (unless you're one of those bastards who hits the end of the ramp at 45 while the guys in the right lane are going 70). There are a thousand situations where you need to be able to use your car to it's fullest mechanical extents. To say that governments should install throttle limiters is only one degree less stupid than saying governments should ban cars.
I'm sure a lot of people here on slashdot will think that this is just terrible and a travesty, But why? This is a win for society. This guy eas driving 100 in a 30mph zone. Is that really somebody you want on the roads? I don't.
But what about the privacy implications, you ask? Which ones. No data is stored unless you're in a collision, and in that case information is in the best interest of all parties.
I drive a car. I speed. I own aa radar detector. But this doesn't botehr me, because I'm a catious driver. I don't drive at highway speeds in a downtown area. I don't run people over. So unless you do, this isn't a problem.