A lot of people are saying that it's not appropriate to go back to tech stories, in the face of what happened yesterday.
But one thing to consider is that terrorism seeks to disrupt our lives as much as possible.
Even not knowing who "they" are, we can best combat them by going back to "life as usual," while never forgetting what has happened. It's not insensitivity, it's showing strength in the face of a threat.
This is no surprise for anybody who participates in certain sports.
For example - in SCUBA diving, especially technical diving such as cave diving or deep diving, task loading is known as a huge problem that the diver has to overcome. Not only is there the time cost of changing contexts, there is an additional cost in stress - and stressed divers make mistakes and die.
A diver will spend a lot of time training so that his or her attention isn't taken up by performing regular tasks - which is to say, so that their conscious attention doesn't have to including those tasks in its scheduler.
I don't know either of those particular boxes, but if it's the same as a cable converter or a Dish Network controller...
There are two possible leads out of a TiVo - serial and tethered IR emitters. The TiVo has a huge database of possible controls codes, and you cycle through them on startup.
Actually, IDC's numbers show that both Linux and Solaris have been gaining market share, at the expense of all of the other Unixes (and NOT at the expense of Windows).
One way to interpret this is that the Unix market is consolidating around Linux and Solaris.
The reason the Linux PPC crowd got it working was because they reverse-engineered the information they needed.
Nooooo.....
They got it running because Apple published the source code to support the hardware under the GPL for MkLinux.
Even if Be, Inc. wanted to integrate that knowledge into their closed source BeOS, they could have clean-roomed the knowledge by having one set of engineers read the code and summarize it, and another set take the summaries and turn it into Be code. It's a well known technique.
It was a business decision by Be, Inc., pure and simple. Be was hoping to be bought by Apple and were so certain they were the only game in town that they overplayed their hand, causing Apple to look for alternatives... which they found at NeXT.
(More like a choice by Apple to cut off Be from their specs.)
I'm really, really tired of reading this nonsense. Apple has been shipping source code first for Linux, and then for Darwin, kernels that use Apple hardware! How much more information do you need, ferchrisakes?
Be, Inc. made a decision to stop pursuing Mac hardware, and the excuse that Apple stopped spending resources to help Be is a really flimsy excuse to hide behind.
The point of a review is to provide the reader with enough information to form an opinion about the movie. A reviewer should be intelligent and creative enough to describe what qualities in the movie might appeal to somebody else instead of just harping on why he hated it. Pay careful attention to great reviewers - though they tell you why they did (or didn't) like a movie, they'll also tell you what was good about it.
What should the reviewer say? How about (summarized), "If you're looking for deep character studies, this isn't the movie for you. If you're looking for miltary figures stalking through lush SFX scenery and don't care too much about the accuracy of the physics, this could be a movie for you."
I don't care about what Joe-Sixpack-Reviewer thinks of the movie, I care about what I would think of the movie.
The consitutional part is key. Technically your point is true - but the mechanism you cite is only how we determine what inalienable rights we actually recognize. Consider the history of the Bill of Rights and how it descends from documents like the Magna Carta. The essence is that there are some places that government , whether the instrument of Divine Right or the instrument of the People, may not intrude.
This is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. That's not picking a nit, that's the essential difference here. The notion of rights is that there are some things that a majority of people MUST NOT be able to decide to have the government do. For example, even if 55% of people decide that Christian should be required by law, our Constitution protects the rest of us from conversion by force. That's what (part of) the 1st Amendment is about.
Some things are too important to leave to the whims of the masses.
Perl can't be taken seriously as a high-end web site development language. For large complex sites (slashdot really isn't either - it's a very straightforward single application), perl just doesn't have the performance one needs, and it is very difficult to maintain.
Sure, perl works great as a quick way to put out code that works - but remember that it was designed as a report language, not a dynamic content engine. While there's an apparent similarity of these two tasks, they scale very differently.
Re:welcome to capitalism at its worst
on
The PS2 Experience
·
· Score: 1
Who said anything about welfare checks?
As much as corporate stooges would like you to believe otherwise, there are many who work and still fall below the poverty line. "The working poor" is a very real phenomenon.
This thing that I found really chilling about the book was (without giving too much away) that it seemed to be a prologue for a larger conflict to come. banks goes out of his way (in other books, too) that the Culture needs someone to kick its ass. It appears that Banks has decided just who is going to do that, even if he hasn't let us in on it yet.
Look to Windward, indeed.
Re:welcome to capitalism at its worst
on
The PS2 Experience
·
· Score: 1
Oh, please.
If we see people living below the poverty line spending their food money on a PS2, it'll be capitalism "at its worst."
If we see desperate gamers going around robbing grocery money from people unable to defend themselves, that'll be capitalism "at its worst."
As is, it's just capitalism at its most run-of-the-mill, typically pathetic.
All the old Infocom games did this. It allowed Infocom to port one single app (the zmachine) to each new platform and then have their full product line available on that platform. There's still a thriving interactive fiction community centered around an open source, reverse-engineered copy of the interpreter (several, actually, on desktop systems, Unix/Linux, PalmOS,...) and an open source compiler that generates code. More details at http://www.iflibrary.org/
I've used Amazon's one click before (once), not fully realizing that it truly is a "done deal". No amount of clicking let's you change your mind, or preview an order.
What the finagle are you talking about?
1-Click (SM) shopping allows you to go back and view, change, or delete your order for 90 minutes after you make it! Check out their About 1-Click Ordering page.
I'm not fond of the entire 1-Click Patent mess, but that's no excuse to throw around sloppy falsehoods. I've been using 1-Click since Amazon introduced it, and it's always worked this way.
In essence, it's an argument about the power of knowledge. The self-proclaimed hacker culture view this power as necessary for learning and promises that they can be trusted to use the power for good (and anyway, they're just helping improve systems). The coporate view is that they can't trust people to always behave well and must therefore do everything they can to limit that power (and since realistically unexploitable system aren't feasible, the "help" is not appreciated).
While a cracker might view a new exploit as an opporunity to learn and to expland his or her accumen, the parties being cracked must view the exploit itself as damage. Whether the cracker actually was benign or not, the hacked systems must be viewed with suspicion, and a huge expense must be incurred in cleaning those systems and all data must be viewed as compromised.
Frankly, I find the cracker point of view more than a little naive.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people are saying that it's not appropriate to go back to tech stories, in the face of what happened yesterday.
But one thing to consider is that terrorism seeks to disrupt our lives as much as possible.
Even not knowing who "they" are, we can best combat them by going back to "life as usual," while never forgetting what has happened. It's not insensitivity, it's showing strength in the face of a threat.
IMHO, of course.
"Insightful?"
Anybody who complains that Apple hardware prices are high hasn't been pawing attention for a couple of years.
Compare the price/performance of an iMac with similarly powered x86 systems. Compare the price of an iBook with similarly powered portables.
They're very competitive these days.
This is no surprise for anybody who participates in certain sports.
For example - in SCUBA diving, especially technical diving such as cave diving or deep diving, task loading is known as a huge problem that the diver has to overcome. Not only is there the time cost of changing contexts, there is an additional cost in stress - and stressed divers make mistakes and die.
A diver will spend a lot of time training so that his or her attention isn't taken up by performing regular tasks - which is to say, so that their conscious attention doesn't have to including those tasks in its scheduler.
Folks do know that Stargate SG-1 is going to the Sci-Fi Channel, right?
0 0126_1.html
http://www.scifiguide.net/stargate/news/archive/0
I don't know either of those particular boxes, but if it's the same as a cable converter or a Dish Network controller...
There are two possible leads out of a TiVo - serial and tethered IR emitters. The TiVo has a huge database of possible controls codes, and you cycle through them on startup.
Hope that helps,
Actually, IDC's numbers show that both Linux and Solaris have been gaining market share, at the expense of all of the other Unixes (and NOT at the expense of Windows).
One way to interpret this is that the Unix market is consolidating around Linux and Solaris.
Bob's answered this one on Slashdot before:
l
http://slashdot.org/features/00/10/12/163218.shtm
Point of Fact:
Bob Young, while a great guy, is not CEO of Red Hat. That's Matthew Szulik. Bob is the Chairman.
What were the last words heard from the Challenger?
"No! Give me a BUD Light!"
The reason the Linux PPC crowd got it working was because they reverse-engineered the information they needed.
Nooooo.....
They got it running because Apple published the source code to support the hardware under the GPL for MkLinux.
Even if Be, Inc. wanted to integrate that knowledge into their closed source BeOS, they could have clean-roomed the knowledge by having one set of engineers read the code and summarize it, and another set take the summaries and turn it into Be code. It's a well known technique.
It was a business decision by Be, Inc., pure and simple. Be was hoping to be bought by Apple and were so certain they were the only game in town that they overplayed their hand, causing Apple to look for alternatives... which they found at NeXT.
I suggest you look it up. Apple maintained their own Mach/Linux hybrid before Darwin.
(More like a choice by Apple to cut off Be from their specs.)
I'm really, really tired of reading this nonsense. Apple has been shipping source code first for Linux, and then for Darwin, kernels that use Apple hardware! How much more information do you need, ferchrisakes?
Be, Inc. made a decision to stop pursuing Mac hardware, and the excuse that Apple stopped spending resources to help Be is a really flimsy excuse to hide behind.
The point of a review is to provide the reader with enough information to form an opinion about the movie. A reviewer should be intelligent and creative enough to describe what qualities in the movie might appeal to somebody else instead of just harping on why he hated it. Pay careful attention to great reviewers - though they tell you why they did (or didn't) like a movie, they'll also tell you what was good about it.
What should the reviewer say? How about (summarized), "If you're looking for deep character studies, this isn't the movie for you. If you're looking for miltary figures stalking through lush SFX scenery and don't care too much about the accuracy of the physics, this could be a movie for you."
I don't care about what Joe-Sixpack-Reviewer thinks of the movie, I care about what I would think of the movie.
Can't you afford an $800 new iMac?
The consitutional part is key. Technically your point is true - but the mechanism you cite is only how we determine what inalienable rights we actually recognize. Consider the history of the Bill of Rights and how it descends from documents like the Magna Carta. The essence is that there are some places that government , whether the instrument of Divine Right or the instrument of the People, may not intrude.
No.
This is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. That's not picking a nit, that's the essential difference here. The notion of rights is that there are some things that a majority of people MUST NOT be able to decide to have the government do. For example, even if 55% of people decide that Christian should be required by law, our Constitution protects the rest of us from conversion by force. That's what (part of) the 1st Amendment is about.
Some things are too important to leave to the whims of the masses.
Sigh. The article is, er, factually deficient. For example:
They claim that a major shortcoming of PHP is a lack of a standard database API. Yet PHP has an excellent ODBC layer!
Alas, this seems to be another "I can justify my own language preferences with a lot of hand waving" article.
Perl can't be taken seriously as a high-end web site development language. For large complex sites (slashdot really isn't either - it's a very straightforward single application), perl just doesn't have the performance one needs, and it is very difficult to maintain.
Sure, perl works great as a quick way to put out code that works - but remember that it was designed as a report language, not a dynamic content engine. While there's an apparent similarity of these two tasks, they scale very differently.
Who said anything about welfare checks?
As much as corporate stooges would like you to believe otherwise, there are many who work and still fall below the poverty line. "The working poor" is a very real phenomenon.
[Vague spoiler follows. You've been warned.]
This thing that I found really chilling about the book was (without giving too much away) that it seemed to be a prologue for a larger conflict to come. banks goes out of his way (in other books, too) that the Culture needs someone to kick its ass. It appears that Banks has decided just who is going to do that, even if he hasn't let us in on it yet.
Look to Windward, indeed.
Oh, please.
If we see people living below the poverty line spending their food money on a PS2, it'll be capitalism "at its worst."
If we see desperate gamers going around robbing grocery money from people unable to defend themselves, that'll be capitalism "at its worst."
As is, it's just capitalism at its most run-of-the-mill, typically pathetic.
Actually, this is actually a place where he's not inconsistent. I think that RMS now believes that the LGPL was a mistake - IE, a failure and defeat.
All the old Infocom games did this. It allowed Infocom to port one single app (the zmachine) to each new platform and then have their full product line available on that platform. There's still a thriving interactive fiction community centered around an open source, reverse-engineered copy of the interpreter (several, actually, on desktop systems, Unix/Linux, PalmOS, ...) and an open source compiler that generates code. More details at http://www.iflibrary.org/
Nothing new under the sun...
What the finagle are you talking about?
1-Click (SM) shopping allows you to go back and view, change, or delete your order for 90 minutes after you make it! Check out their About 1-Click Ordering page.
I'm not fond of the entire 1-Click Patent mess, but that's no excuse to throw around sloppy falsehoods. I've been using 1-Click since Amazon introduced it, and it's always worked this way.
...they just have different perspectives.
In essence, it's an argument about the power of knowledge. The self-proclaimed hacker culture view this power as necessary for learning and promises that they can be trusted to use the power for good (and anyway, they're just helping improve systems). The coporate view is that they can't trust people to always behave well and must therefore do everything they can to limit that power (and since realistically unexploitable system aren't feasible, the "help" is not appreciated).
While a cracker might view a new exploit as an opporunity to learn and to expland his or her accumen, the parties being cracked must view the exploit itself as damage. Whether the cracker actually was benign or not, the hacked systems must be viewed with suspicion, and a huge expense must be incurred in cleaning those systems and all data must be viewed as compromised.
Frankly, I find the cracker point of view more than a little naive.