You can always just install it, which does not take hours and hours to do.
That's already about 10 times more effort than I am willing to put into it.
Look, I understand that you put a lot of effort into it and *you* think it is very worthwhile. You just need to understand that no one really cares about all that. They just want to know, in less than 1 minute, what it does, so they can decide if they want to spend 2 minutes deciding whether or not to take 5 minutes and so on until they actually use your code.
You can always download the source to the project and take a look at it that way.
Are you fucking serious?
Why should I waste my time with your project? Sorry, I just don't see the need to spend hours looking over your code just to find out what does.
Re:Floating point performance
on
Mini-ITX Clustering
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
the floating point performance (why else would you build a cluster?)
* To crack encryption?
* To compile big projects?
* To compress huge files?
How about scientific computing? That's really the big thing that keeps cluster computing alive. Cracking encryption is the only thing on that list that makes sense. The other stuff shows your lack of knowledge of other disciplines by the fact that you think these are computationally expensive tasks.
You didn't understand at all. I'm not promoting breaking FCC regs, I'm saying that from a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter if Intel releases binary or source. Both can be modified to do illegal things.
regulations, shmregulations. Code is code. There are still the same liability problems (if they are real at all) with the binary code that Intel distributes as there are with the source code. Sure, it's a lot easier to hack source than binary, but it's still possible.
use channels which are off-limits for WLAN
Well, since those channels have to be put the binary SOMEWHERE, it doesn't seem too difficult to go find them and change them. Especially if they're known channels. I have my doubts that Intel went to much trouble to obfuscate that kind of thing.
Legally, all Intel has to do is say, do not use this code to violate FCC regulations. Don't they have to say that anyway for the device itself? Are they be held responsible if I turn my WLAN card into a pirate radio station? Nope.
From what little I know about finance, isn't this a bad thing? If their business ideas are good, then shouldn't they be taking out loans to expand their business? Debt-free may be good for normal folks, but for businesses, it isn't such a great thing.
Exactly. The *critic* is the one who gets sued, not the newspaper. Well, maybe the newspaper gets sued, but that's because he's hired and paid by the newspaper. But the newspaper wouldn't be required to do fact checking on letters to the editor for example.
If I put up libelous speech on the power line pole, the power company can't get sued, I get sued.
This is the solution and I hope that this is how it's done. One question though. The application is making multiple connections. How does the app guarantee that the outgoing port is going to be the same every time?
If I have a script that encasulates this process and I tell some other app about the script, this app rightfully thinks that all it needs to do is call the script to get access. Say it's web site mirroring tool. If the app tries to download two things at once, there is a good chance of problems.
Your solution of routing everything through a single app is probably the only solution to this problem. Maybe the kernel.
Everything costs less in third world countries for a reason. They don't care if the power goes out for an hour or two a week. They don't care about hot running water. They don't really care if the telephone goes out on a regular basis. There's a ton of reasons that everything costs more here.
You totally missed my point, which was that the more often than not, the reason that things cost less in third world countries has NOTHING to do with the reasons you give. It has everything to do with the fact that companies can get away with charging more here and for NO OTHER REASON than that.
The problem with those jobs in India, is that Indians are not being paid by Indians to work on Indian projects. Their paycheck is coming from American companies, who make their money from Americans. Take America out of picture and India and the rest of the third world doesn't have anyone to work for anymore. The third world is living off the hard work of my grandparents who fought hard for labor rights.
Where was the country with the big money outsourcing to the USA when it was in the same state as the third world is now? There wasn't one. The USA worked hard to fight for labor rights and built this economy by its bootstraps. The third world is using the first world as a stepping stool.
This is why I get so mad when I hear about jobs moving from the USA and Europe to India and other low-wage countries. We're told by supporters that we should simply do with less like those in India and we would get those jobs. But the truth is that the price of living is ARTIFICIALLY high in the USA and Europe. We don't require higher wages simply because we want more stuff, it's because the price of everything here is higher. And it's higher for no other reason than that companies can charge more here.
The labor movement in the USA and Europe created these powerful economies and fought for fair labor practices. We shouldn't be forced to overpay for everything simply because we fought the fight, and sweat shop countries haven't.
How about, instead of insulting people and their intelligence, you give us a easy to understand explanation of why this person is wrong since you imply that you know so much about economics.
Well, they at least claim to own the rights. While the technical details of how they own it or claim to own it are arguably important, the statement is based on their own opinion.
Um, so they can put things in the registry, so they can test their code with some option that can't be changed without being root. There are a lot of reasons. Maybe because they might actually know what they're doing and can take care of their own machine just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
You can always just install it, which does not take hours and hours to do.
That's already about 10 times more effort than I am willing to put into it.
Look, I understand that you put a lot of effort into it and *you* think it is very worthwhile. You just need to understand that no one really cares about all that. They just want to know, in less than 1 minute, what it does, so they can decide if they want to spend 2 minutes deciding whether or not to take 5 minutes and so on until they actually use your code.
You can always download the source to the project and take a look at it that way.
Are you fucking serious?
Why should I waste my time with your project? Sorry, I just don't see the need to spend hours looking over your code just to find out what does.
the floating point performance (why else would you build a cluster?)
* To crack encryption?
* To compile big projects?
* To compress huge files?
How about scientific computing? That's really the big thing that keeps cluster computing alive. Cracking encryption is the only thing on that list that makes sense. The other stuff shows your lack of knowledge of other disciplines by the fact that you think these are computationally expensive tasks.
You didn't understand at all. I'm not promoting breaking FCC regs, I'm saying that from a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter if Intel releases binary or source. Both can be modified to do illegal things.
I agree so much that I'm posting this.
regulations, shmregulations. Code is code. There are still the same liability problems (if they are real at all) with the binary code that Intel distributes as there are with the source code. Sure, it's a lot easier to hack source than binary, but it's still possible.
use channels which are off-limits for WLAN
Well, since those channels have to be put the binary SOMEWHERE, it doesn't seem too difficult to go find them and change them. Especially if they're known channels. I have my doubts that Intel went to much trouble to obfuscate that kind of thing.
Legally, all Intel has to do is say, do not use this code to violate FCC regulations. Don't they have to say that anyway for the device itself? Are they be held responsible if I turn my WLAN card into a pirate radio station? Nope.
From what little I know about finance, isn't this a bad thing? If their business ideas are good, then shouldn't they be taking out loans to expand their business? Debt-free may be good for normal folks, but for businesses, it isn't such a great thing.
the critic is going to be on the hook for libel
Exactly. The *critic* is the one who gets sued, not the newspaper. Well, maybe the newspaper gets sued, but that's because he's hired and paid by the newspaper. But the newspaper wouldn't be required to do fact checking on letters to the editor for example.
If I put up libelous speech on the power line pole, the power company can't get sued, I get sued.
MOD PARENT UP
This is the solution and I hope that this is how it's done. One question though. The application is making multiple connections. How does the app guarantee that the outgoing port is going to be the same every time?
If I have a script that encasulates this process and I tell some other app about the script, this app rightfully thinks that all it needs to do is call the script to get access. Say it's web site mirroring tool. If the app tries to download two things at once, there is a good chance of problems.
Your solution of routing everything through a single app is probably the only solution to this problem. Maybe the kernel.
RTFC. That's what I asked. What they *are* from the same IP.
What if multiple attempts from the same IP are made to access the port at the same time? Wouldn't the knocks get all mixed up?
They don't pay 50 cents for only rice. They get quite a bit more.
Even a sandwich costs more than 50 cents.
The files that this patch affects reveal a little tidbit of info about how Windows is put together and it makes one ask the question:
Why the hell does this require a kernel patch?
Java class files are fundamentally different because you actually can run them anywhere
This should say "you pray that you can run them anywhere"
Just a correction.
Everything costs less in third world countries for a reason. They don't care if the power goes out for an hour or two a week. They don't care about hot running water. They don't really care if the telephone goes out on a regular basis. There's a ton of reasons that everything costs more here.
You totally missed my point, which was that the more often than not, the reason that things cost less in third world countries has NOTHING to do with the reasons you give. It has everything to do with the fact that companies can get away with charging more here and for NO OTHER REASON than that.
The problem with those jobs in India, is that Indians are not being paid by Indians to work on Indian projects. Their paycheck is coming from American companies, who make their money from Americans. Take America out of picture and India and the rest of the third world doesn't have anyone to work for anymore. The third world is living off the hard work of my grandparents who fought hard for labor rights.
Where was the country with the big money outsourcing to the USA when it was in the same state as the third world is now? There wasn't one. The USA worked hard to fight for labor rights and built this economy by its bootstraps. The third world is using the first world as a stepping stool.
This is why I get so mad when I hear about jobs moving from the USA and Europe to India and other low-wage countries. We're told by supporters that we should simply do with less like those in India and we would get those jobs. But the truth is that the price of living is ARTIFICIALLY high in the USA and Europe. We don't require higher wages simply because we want more stuff, it's because the price of everything here is higher. And it's higher for no other reason than that companies can charge more here.
The labor movement in the USA and Europe created these powerful economies and fought for fair labor practices. We shouldn't be forced to overpay for everything simply because we fought the fight, and sweat shop countries haven't.
mac19.art.utah.edui nting.utah.edu
www.finearts.utah.edu
www.pr
I wonder if they plan on finding the guilty parties on these boxes?
No you're not.
have they modified gawk at all? That's the key question.
Thanks. That *really* helps.
How about, instead of insulting people and their intelligence, you give us a easy to understand explanation of why this person is wrong since you imply that you know so much about economics.
Well, they at least claim to own the rights. While the technical details of how they own it or claim to own it are arguably important, the statement is based on their own opinion.
Um, so they can put things in the registry, so they can test their code with some option that can't be changed without being root. There are a lot of reasons. Maybe because they might actually know what they're doing and can take care of their own machine just fine.