I've been arrested once (wrongly... I called the police for help with a drunk nut and they arrested me because some cops are LAZY ASSHOLES even though many are good, responsible people).
I believe this was on a Friday. By Monday, I had a dozen lawyer's advertisements in my mailbox offering to help me.
Windows Server 2003 or something like that. I've never bought it, probably never will, and therefore don't really care about the exact name. Linux makes a better server anyway.
the MS shrink-wrap licenses restrict the number of connections you are supposed to be allowed to have to the PC running the OS
they want you to buy XP Server edition to run real servers
FAKE attack?
on
SCO Offline
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Not sure what's going on here but:
C:\>ping www.sco.com Unknown host www.sco.com.
C:\>ping www2.sco.com
Pinging www2.sco.com [216.250.128.33] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 216.250.128.33: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=49 Reply from 216.250.128.33: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=49 Reply from 216.250.128.33: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=49 Reply from 216.250.128.33: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=49
Ping statistics for 216.250.128.33:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 68ms, Maximum = 71ms, Average = 69ms
The first ping, the "Unknown host" failure, is NOT a DoS failure. It means their www.sco.com DNS record has been removed from the public database so that nobody can lookup the IP address anymore. You can try to ping (or load the web page) all you want but your computer is doing nothing because it doesn't know what IP address to go for.
The second ping, the success, works great. If www2.sco.com is on the same physical connection that www.sco.com normally is on, then this demonstrates that their network connection is not currently encountering any significant attack.
As far as I know Springfield in the Simpons has never been localized into a specific state. In fact, they often make fun of the fact that nobody knows where Springfield is.
During one episode in elementary school they pull out a U.S. map and talk about Springfield with a pointer, but Lisa's head gets in the way so that the "camera" can't see the map.
The biggest feature in 2.6 is the massive improvement in scheduler performance focused mainly on DESKTOP use. This is the version that will stop the choppy mouse movements and sounds that newcomers to Linux hate so much.
Basically everything else in 2.6, while nice, is just cleanup and added hardware support (drivers). The virtual/dev stuff is cool but that's neither server- nor desktop-specific. The IO rewrites were a big thing but only kernel developers really care about that.
The author of the article was both wrong and boring.
Are there really people so miserable that the most entertaining thing they can think of to do is to write misleading messages in what is essentially the fine print on a news site? Talk about a total bunch of losers.
And with some of them it seems like it's all they do all day long!
I used to work for Wyle in San Antonio where they had a forerunner to the DFS called the ASDD (Advanced Spatial Disorientation Demonstrator). It was basically a cockpit the could rotate like a gryoscope and was mounted on a large, rotating motion base arm.
You can see the cockpit here: http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/ma rm ag97/mar15.htm
Look behind the visible screens (which make up the simulated flight control tower). The fun part is inside the round cockpit behind the glass. That part spins around to produce up to about 3 G's. You can't see in this picture but the cockpit rotates around like a 30 foot circle once it gets going, plus it spins around it's own center.
See also: http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/ma rm ag97/mar1005.htm
Older technology, but still cool. In that lab we used to study how different kinds of motion would fool the inner ear. Such as, a pilot who is taking off and who looks over his shoulder at the ground will experience a balance illusion that will throw off his perception of "down". If he is not trained to compensate, and is distracted by other circumstances, this illusion can easy cause him to bank the plane into a crash.
According to this info, EFI is a replacement for the old PC BIOS standards. For example they have a replacement for VGA called UGA, and it looks like they are improving the expansion card ROM access methods. I certainly agree with the idea of fixing the old broken cruft.
How is MS planning to use EFI to hurt Linux? I don't see anything obviously evil on this page.
Anything sold as a PC that doesn't run Linux properly will get flamed by the techs, will have trouble competing in the market, will have lots of "broken" returned systems, etc.
I really think Debian needs something inbetween the "somewhat obsolete but rock solid" Stable archive and the "frequently being upgraded and broken" Testing archive.
You know, a "reliable and secure enough for normal people to use but not embarassingly old" Normal archive. The kind of archive that could incorporate every new release of the 2.4 kernel as it's default kernel but that would not jump right on 2.6.0 because it's too new.
It's not that Debian isn't trying to do releases, it's just that every release cycle takes 8 months to settle down once they start trying. Dependency problems maybe?
Because I love and use Debian, but contrary to what the Debian fanatics will tell you, the testing/unstable versions are unusable for serious business. So, I have to use the stable build, which has many good qualities, but as others have noted... kernel 2.2 as the default kernel?!? X Window System is a P.I.T.A. for anybody but an X god and forget about detecting my Radeon. GCC in stable is so old that there are ANSI compatibility problems. etc. etc. And no, package pinning does NOT solve any of this.
I absolutely despise Windows, but at least I can run recent compilers on Windows 98 without having to compile the compilers myself. At least the latest games still work.
I'm not merely complaining idly. If I could pay $50 for a stable version of Debian that worked right, had reasonably modern versions of everything, and was still idealistically free, I'd be first in line with my checkbook.
In response to the recent release of kernel 2.6.0, Debian is accelerating their development cycle and plans to immediately release a stable distribution containing the new kernel. Look for this new version sometime in 2005.
(actually I'm a big fan of Debian but they gotta do something about their 2-year release cycles)
It is the nature of the universe to have unrestricted copying. The whole concept of evolution is based on massive copying with incremental improvements. If aliens had imposed copyright law on our distant ancestors, we would all still be chimps.
Besides, it is immoral to restrict what a person may or may not invent. Next thing you know we will be restricting what a person may or may not think. *oops*
The original Doom was the best because of the moody music and good level design. Who doesn't remember their first experience with the Cyberdemon, where you start out trapped in a small room and you can hear the cyberdemon footsteps circling around you?
In the dark with the sound pumping thru the stereo it was terrifying. Too bad the Spider Demon was lame.
I am a big fan of all your work but especially your "one man against the universe" type of stories, for example: A World Out Of Time, in which the hero finds a way to escape the grasp of a super-government called The State.
How do you think computer technology will affect the nature of government? Is The State inevitable, or will our decendants with Protector-level intellects someday shrug off any government "babysitting"?
Also Microsoft is probably fully aware that their security needs a LOT of work, but for older versions of Windows, I doubt they care if the problems really are the end of the world or not.
Think about it... they can turn poor security into a reason to upgrade. ("Windows 2003 has better security...buy now!")
HAHA I always thought the exact same thing. The first time I saw Starcraft my friend kept repeating "My Wife For Hire" over and over.
Even when I figured out what it really meant I still pretended it meant the first thing... made the game more entertaining. OK so I have simple pleasures.
What if descendants of this chip outperform Intel and AMD CPUs? In theory a large totalitarian government might be able to raise more research funds than a lone corporation such as Intel or AMD.
Maybe in a few years we will all be overclocking our Dragon 8 chips to 33 ghz and complaining about the Chinese chipset drivers.
Backwards compatibility is a major advantage that Windows has over the desktop. Now with Bochs, on this year's hardware people can run all the Windows software they depend on that is a few years old, without running Windows as their primary OS.
So installing Windows as your main OS is only necessary if you want to run the latest, greatest Windows software at top speed. This is a big win for Free Software, because we now have to compete only with brand new software instead of a couple decades of old stuff.
You are mostly right. Sid is always the name of the unstable Debian archive, and has been so for years. (Sid was the boy next door who breaks toys.) After Woody is released, Sid will still be the name of the unstable archive and they will pick a new name for the testing archive.
I read a rumor that the release after Woody will be Soldier, but the Debian release info page neither confirms nor denies that rumor:
None of this would be a problem if the game manufacturer allowed (and maybe even supported) transferring accounts and items between players.
The mechanics for secure, safe trade windows have already been established in these games. All they need to do is add accounts and real $$$ to the list of items that can be traded.
IMO the first MMORPG to do this will become massively successful.
from the Compression FAQ at:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/
.
9.1 Introduction
It is mathematically impossible to create a program compressing without loss
*all* files by at least one bit (see below and also item 73 in part 2 of this
FAQ). Yet from time to time some people claim to have invented a new algorithm
for doing so. Such algorithms are claimed to compress random data and to be
applicable recursively, that is, applying the compressor to the compressed
output of the previous run, possibly multiple times. Fantastic compression
ratios of over 100:1 on random data are claimed to be actually obtained.
Such claims inevitably generate a lot of activity on comp.compression, which
can last for several months. Large bursts of activity were generated by WEB
Technologies and by Jules Gilbert. Premier Research Corporation (with a
compressor called MINC) made only a brief appearance but came back later with a
Web page at http://www.pacminc.com. The Hyper Space method invented by David
C. James is another contender with a patent obtained in July 96. Another large
burst occured in Dec 97 and Jan 98: Matthew Burch applied
for a patent in Dec 97, but publicly admitted a few days later that his method
was flawed; he then posted several dozen messages in a few days about another
magic method based on primes, and again ended up admitting that his new method
was flawed. (Usually people disappear from comp.compression and appear again 6
months or a year later, rather than admitting their error.)
Other people have also claimed incredible compression ratios, but the programs
(OWS, WIC) were quickly shown to be fake (not compressing at all). This topic
is covered in item 10 of this FAQ.
...
A common flaw in the algorithms claimed to compress all files is to assume that
arbitrary bit strings can be sent to the decompressor without actually
transmitting their bit length. If the decompressor needs such bit lengths
to decode the data (when the bit strings do not form a prefix code), the
number of bits needed to encode those lengths must be taken into account
in the total size of the compressed data.
Another common (but still incorrect) argument is to assume that for any file,
some still to be discovered algorithm might find a seed for a pseudo-random
number generator which would actually generate the whole sequence of bytes
contained in the file. However this idea still fails to take into account the
counting argument. For example, if the seed is limited to 64 bits, this
algorithm can generate at most 2^64 different files, and thus is unable to
compress *all* files longer than 8 bytes. For more details about this
"magic function theory", see http://www.dogma.net/markn/FAQ.html#Q19
...
So far no one has accepted this challenge (for good reasons).
Mike Goldman makes another offer:
I will attach a prize of $5,000 to anyone who successfully meets this
challenge. First, the contestant will tell me HOW LONG of a data file to
generate. Second, I will generate the data file, and send it to the
contestant. Last, the contestant will send me a decompressor and a
compressed file, which will together total in size less than the original
data file, and which will be able to restore the compressed file to the
original state.
With this offer, you can tune your algorithm to my data. You tell me the
parameters of size in advance. All I get to do is arrange the bits within
my file according to the dictates of my whim. As a processing fee, I will
require an advance deposit of $100 from any contestant. This deposit is
100% refundable if you meet the challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been arrested once (wrongly... I called the police for help with a drunk nut and they arrested me because some cops are LAZY ASSHOLES even though many are good, responsible people).
I believe this was on a Friday. By Monday, I had a dozen lawyer's advertisements in my mailbox offering to help me.
It is possible to lie to one's self. It is still a lie.
Windows Server 2003 or something like that. I've never bought it, probably never will, and therefore don't really care about the exact name. Linux makes a better server anyway.
the MS shrink-wrap licenses restrict the number of connections you are supposed to be allowed to have to the PC running the OS
they want you to buy XP Server edition to run real servers
Not sure what's going on here but:
C:\>ping www.sco.com
Unknown host www.sco.com.
C:\>ping www2.sco.com
Pinging www2.sco.com [216.250.128.33] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 216.250.128.33: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=49
Reply from 216.250.128.33: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=49
Reply from 216.250.128.33: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=49
Reply from 216.250.128.33: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=49
Ping statistics for 216.250.128.33:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 68ms, Maximum = 71ms, Average = 69ms
The first ping, the "Unknown host" failure, is NOT a DoS failure. It means their www.sco.com DNS record has been removed from the public database so that nobody can lookup the IP address anymore. You can try to ping (or load the web page) all you want but your computer is doing nothing because it doesn't know what IP address to go for.
The second ping, the success, works great. If www2.sco.com is on the same physical connection that www.sco.com normally is on, then this demonstrates that their network connection is not currently encountering any significant attack.
As far as I know Springfield in the Simpons has never been localized into a specific state. In fact, they often make fun of the fact that nobody knows where Springfield is.
During one episode in elementary school they pull out a U.S. map and talk about Springfield with a pointer, but Lisa's head gets in the way so that the "camera" can't see the map.
2.6 is a server release?!?
/dev stuff is cool but that's neither server- nor desktop-specific. The IO rewrites were a big thing but only kernel developers really care about that.
The biggest feature in 2.6 is the massive improvement in scheduler performance focused mainly on DESKTOP use. This is the version that will stop the choppy mouse movements and sounds that newcomers to Linux hate so much.
Basically everything else in 2.6, while nice, is just cleanup and added hardware support (drivers). The virtual
The author of the article was both wrong and boring.
I don't comprehend trolling.
Are there really people so miserable that the most entertaining thing they can think of to do is to write misleading messages in what is essentially the fine print on a news site? Talk about a total bunch of losers.
And with some of them it seems like it's all they do all day long!
Hey... I'm not all that old! ;)
I used to work for Wyle in San Antonio where they had a forerunner to the DFS called the ASDD (Advanced Spatial Disorientation Demonstrator). It was basically a cockpit the could rotate like a gryoscope and was mounted on a large, rotating motion base arm.
a rm ag97/mar15.htm
a rm ag97/mar1005.htm
You can see the cockpit here:
http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/m
Look behind the visible screens (which make up the simulated flight control tower). The fun part is inside the round cockpit behind the glass. That part spins around to produce up to about 3 G's. You can't see in this picture but the cockpit rotates around like a 30 foot circle once it gets going, plus it spins around it's own center.
See also:
http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/m
Older technology, but still cool. In that lab we used to study how different kinds of motion would fool the inner ear. Such as, a pilot who is taking off and who looks over his shoulder at the ground will experience a balance illusion that will throw off his perception of "down". If he is not trained to compensate, and is distracted by other circumstances, this illusion can easy cause him to bank the plane into a crash.
No IDF keynote link (I didn't want a kiss anyway) but here's an Intel page about EFI:
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/efi.htm
According to this info, EFI is a replacement for the old PC BIOS standards. For example they have a replacement for VGA called UGA, and it looks like they are improving the expansion card ROM access methods. I certainly agree with the idea of fixing the old broken cruft.
How is MS planning to use EFI to hurt Linux? I don't see anything obviously evil on this page.
Anything sold as a PC that doesn't run Linux properly will get flamed by the techs, will have trouble competing in the market, will have lots of "broken" returned systems, etc.
I really think Debian needs something inbetween the "somewhat obsolete but rock solid" Stable archive and the "frequently being upgraded and broken" Testing archive.
You know, a "reliable and secure enough for normal people to use but not embarassingly old" Normal archive. The kind of archive that could incorporate every new release of the 2.4 kernel as it's default kernel but that would not jump right on 2.6.0 because it's too new.
It's not that Debian isn't trying to do releases, it's just that every release cycle takes 8 months to settle down once they start trying. Dependency problems maybe?
I'll tell you why.
Because I love and use Debian, but contrary to what the Debian fanatics will tell you, the testing/unstable versions are unusable for serious business. So, I have to use the stable build, which has many good qualities, but as others have noted... kernel 2.2 as the default kernel?!? X Window System is a P.I.T.A. for anybody but an X god and forget about detecting my Radeon. GCC in stable is so old that there are ANSI compatibility problems. etc. etc. And no, package pinning does NOT solve any of this.
I absolutely despise Windows, but at least I can run recent compilers on Windows 98 without having to compile the compilers myself. At least the latest games still work.
I'm not merely complaining idly. If I could pay $50 for a stable version of Debian that worked right, had reasonably modern versions of everything, and was still idealistically free, I'd be first in line with my checkbook.
In response to the recent release of kernel 2.6.0, Debian is accelerating their development cycle and plans to immediately release a stable distribution containing the new kernel. Look for this new version sometime in 2005.
(actually I'm a big fan of Debian but they gotta do something about their 2-year release cycles)
1) because projectors are a pain to keep in good working order
2) far lower resolution than this wall thingy
http://freenetproject.org/
Copyright is dying, and good riddance.
It is the nature of the universe to have unrestricted copying. The whole concept of evolution is based on massive copying with incremental improvements. If aliens had imposed copyright law on our distant ancestors, we would all still be chimps.
Besides, it is immoral to restrict what a person may or may not invent. Next thing you know we will be restricting what a person may or may not think. *oops*
The original Doom was the best because of the moody music and good level design. Who doesn't remember their first experience with the Cyberdemon, where you start out trapped in a small room and you can hear the cyberdemon footsteps circling around you?
In the dark with the sound pumping thru the stereo it was terrifying. Too bad the Spider Demon was lame.
Maybe Doom 3 will do better.
Larry,
I am a big fan of all your work but especially your "one man against the universe" type of stories, for example: A World Out Of Time, in which the hero finds a way to escape the grasp of a super-government called The State.
How do you think computer technology will affect the nature of government? Is The State inevitable, or will our decendants with Protector-level intellects someday shrug off any government "babysitting"?
Thanks!
Also Microsoft is probably fully aware that their security needs a LOT of work, but for older versions of Windows, I doubt they care if the problems really are the end of the world or not.
Think about it... they can turn poor security into a reason to upgrade. ("Windows 2003 has better security...buy now!")
HAHA I always thought the exact same thing. The first time I saw Starcraft my friend kept repeating "My Wife For Hire" over and over.
Even when I figured out what it really meant I still pretended it meant the first thing... made the game more entertaining. OK so I have simple pleasures.
Interesting: a government-sponsored CPU chip.
What if descendants of this chip outperform Intel and AMD CPUs? In theory a large totalitarian government might be able to raise more research funds than a lone corporation such as Intel or AMD.
Maybe in a few years we will all be overclocking our Dragon 8 chips to 33 ghz and complaining about the Chinese chipset drivers.
Bochs is a Windows killer in the long run.
Backwards compatibility is a major advantage that Windows has over the desktop. Now with Bochs, on this year's hardware people can run all the Windows software they depend on that is a few years old, without running Windows as their primary OS.
So installing Windows as your main OS is only necessary if you want to run the latest, greatest Windows software at top speed. This is a big win for Free Software, because we now have to compete only with brand new software instead of a couple decades of old stuff.
You are mostly right. Sid is always the name of the unstable Debian archive, and has been so for years. (Sid was the boy next door who breaks toys.) After Woody is released, Sid will still be the name of the unstable archive and they will pick a new name for the testing archive.
I read a rumor that the release after Woody will be Soldier, but the Debian release info page neither confirms nor denies that rumor:
Debian releasesNone of this would be a problem if the game manufacturer allowed (and maybe even supported) transferring accounts and items between players.
The mechanics for secure, safe trade windows have already been established in these games. All they need to do is add accounts and real $$$ to the list of items that can be traded.
IMO the first MMORPG to do this will become massively successful.
from the Compression FAQ at:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/
.
9.1 Introduction
It is mathematically impossible to create a program compressing without loss
*all* files by at least one bit (see below and also item 73 in part 2 of this
FAQ). Yet from time to time some people claim to have invented a new algorithm
for doing so. Such algorithms are claimed to compress random data and to be
applicable recursively, that is, applying the compressor to the compressed
output of the previous run, possibly multiple times. Fantastic compression
ratios of over 100:1 on random data are claimed to be actually obtained.
Such claims inevitably generate a lot of activity on comp.compression, which
can last for several months. Large bursts of activity were generated by WEB
Technologies and by Jules Gilbert. Premier Research Corporation (with a
compressor called MINC) made only a brief appearance but came back later with a
Web page at http://www.pacminc.com. The Hyper Space method invented by David
C. James is another contender with a patent obtained in July 96. Another large
burst occured in Dec 97 and Jan 98: Matthew Burch applied
for a patent in Dec 97, but publicly admitted a few days later that his method
was flawed; he then posted several dozen messages in a few days about another
magic method based on primes, and again ended up admitting that his new method
was flawed. (Usually people disappear from comp.compression and appear again 6
months or a year later, rather than admitting their error.)
Other people have also claimed incredible compression ratios, but the programs
(OWS, WIC) were quickly shown to be fake (not compressing at all). This topic
is covered in item 10 of this FAQ.
...
A common flaw in the algorithms claimed to compress all files is to assume that
arbitrary bit strings can be sent to the decompressor without actually
transmitting their bit length. If the decompressor needs such bit lengths
to decode the data (when the bit strings do not form a prefix code), the
number of bits needed to encode those lengths must be taken into account
in the total size of the compressed data.
Another common (but still incorrect) argument is to assume that for any file,
some still to be discovered algorithm might find a seed for a pseudo-random
number generator which would actually generate the whole sequence of bytes
contained in the file. However this idea still fails to take into account the
counting argument. For example, if the seed is limited to 64 bits, this
algorithm can generate at most 2^64 different files, and thus is unable to
compress *all* files longer than 8 bytes. For more details about this
"magic function theory", see http://www.dogma.net/markn/FAQ.html#Q19
...
So far no one has accepted this challenge (for good reasons).
Mike Goldman makes another offer:
I will attach a prize of $5,000 to anyone who successfully meets this
challenge. First, the contestant will tell me HOW LONG of a data file to
generate. Second, I will generate the data file, and send it to the
contestant. Last, the contestant will send me a decompressor and a
compressed file, which will together total in size less than the original
data file, and which will be able to restore the compressed file to the
original state.
With this offer, you can tune your algorithm to my data. You tell me the
parameters of size in advance. All I get to do is arrange the bits within
my file according to the dictates of my whim. As a processing fee, I will
require an advance deposit of $100 from any contestant. This deposit is
100% refundable if you meet the challenge.
...