Yes, but if you have several trillion copies of your program you can run them all in parellel. Think of cytography....
There's a novel on this subject, "The Paris Option" by Robert Ludlam. Terrorists steal a DNA computer and use it to break all of our encryption codes and wreak havoc on the U.S. military and infastructure.
We're slowly, but surely, moving from a society where anything not expressly forbidden is permitted to one where anything not expressly permitted is forbidden.
The Founders are probably spinning in their graves.
Such as this one [windsurf.dyns.cx], which took forever to load because the images appear to have not been optimized? Looks like invalid HTML [w3.org] with a big table in it.
2. The product of an engineers work is totally reliable
Who designed the Tacoma Narrows bridge? The Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel walkway? The De Havilland Comet 1? The Ocean Ranger oil rig? The L'Ambiance Plaza in Bridgeport, Connecticut? Pre-Challenger solid rocket boosters? Hubble space telescope optics? The Cypress Structure (collapsed in 1989 Loma Prieta eauthquake)? I could go on...
Are you claiming that none of these were designed by "engineers", whos work you tout as "totally reliable"?
The original Osborne One case WAS a sewing machine case. The computer was built into the cover and the keyboard was fitted in the what would have been the base of the sewing machine. The sewing machine was used "keyboard tray" down.
The thing that struck me the most about the Osbourne 1 was the screen. At 4", it was very small and hard to read unless you practically glued your eye to it.
The first Kaypro machines had much nicer screens.
For those whom just can't stand the thought of govt. spending on public infrastructure, you can always just privatize the thing once the lines are laid and enough cutomers have signed up to make it profitable.
Who are all these customers? Sure, plenty of Slashdot readers will sign up, but Joe Sixpack is perfectly content with his 28.8K connection to AOL.
How much effort has been wasted rewriting stuff because someone didn't like the "license" on the original? Gnome comes immediately to mind, and I'm sure there are many other instances like this.
Imagine how much futher along open source software (oh, excuse me, free software) would be if there wasn't so much needless duplication of effort over something as stupid as license terms.
This alphabet soup of licenses (GPL, LGPL, BSDL, FDL, OPL v1 -A -B, LDP, etc.) is really getting out of hand. Do we want to be software developers and documentation writers, or do we want to be amateur lawyers?
In the end, this may affect a large portion of internet services such as DNS and email. Inappropriate routes may still exist that relay through the @home network, even after the network is shutdown
Anyone who uses @Home's crappy DNS and email services deserves what they get. Those were the first two services I replaced when I signed up with @Home almost 4 years ago.
If you've got a Linux or BSD box it's pretty easy to set up a caching namesever and your own email server.
Sure, you can use delete on your own inbox. But what if your an ISP and your customers demand less spam? Will you delete for them?
No, if I were an ISP I would not delete spam for my customers. I'd operate my ISP as a common carrier, just like the phone company. Just try calling your phone company and ask them to filter out calls from telemarketers and see how far you get.
Personally I'm still waffling on my choice for the next president. But you can be damn sure of two things: 1) that it won't be influenced by "who's the favorite to win", and 2) it won't be Bush.
Who are you going to vote for then? That dickhead who claims to have invented the Internet?
ATT@Home tried to implement a new AUP with a similar VPN restriction in the Bay Area over a year ago, but the massive outcry quickly resulted in @Home withdrawing the new AUP, replacing it with the old one, which didn't have the VPN restriction.
>I hate to break it to you, but IMHO sysinstall is >definately a handful for new users - I would >know, I didn't think very kindly of it the first >time I installed FreeBSD. Now that I have gotten >used to it, I think it's very useful - but there >is definately room for improvement.
I agree with you--sysinstall isn't the easiest interface around, but Debian's dselect is much more of a handful for new users.
>There's been a serious downturn in profitability >between 1995 and 1998 which is seriously >disconcerting.
Why is this disconcerting? What about all of the recent "darlings" of Wall Street, such as Amazon.com, Red Hat, etc. Have any of them *ever* made a profit? I doubt it...
Re:I want to try BSD .. but which one?
on
*BSD News
·
· Score: 1
The main difference is that Linux is a success and *BSD is a failure.
Why is it that some people feel that for Linux to succeed, BSD must fail? Or that Windows must fail? Why can't an operating system stand on its own merits?
Some people seem to think that choice of an operating system is a popularity contest. This is the "eat shit: 2 billion flies can't be wrong" argument and serves no useful purpose beyond starting flame wars.
When I choose an OS, I couldn't care less how much of an istalled base it has as long as it does what I need it to do. Nor does it matter whether the OS has a well-known personality associated with it, or that it's the current media darling.
I use Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows because each of them fulfills a special need that I have, not because of hype, popularity, or snob appeal.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a novel on this subject, "The Paris Option" by Robert Ludlam. Terrorists steal a DNA computer and use it to break all of our encryption codes and wreak havoc on the U.S. military and infastructure.
The Founders are probably spinning in their graves.
We're dealing with a Judge and jury who are most likely not tech-savy.
You're dealing with a jury who can't even figure out how to use a simple voting machine.
I don't know how I'd do it, but if I could, I'd move it to Redmond and drop it right on top of the Microsoft campus.
That reminds me of a British TV show called Keeping Up Appearances where the character's name is Bucket, yet she insists on pronouncing it as Bouquet.
Hell, most Intel CPUs are not pin compatible with other Intel CPUs.
-
In Soviet Russia, all your spam are belong to us.
Not to mention the lousy, uninspired photography.
Who designed the Tacoma Narrows bridge? The Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel walkway? The De Havilland Comet 1? The Ocean Ranger oil rig? The L'Ambiance Plaza in Bridgeport, Connecticut? Pre-Challenger solid rocket boosters? Hubble space telescope optics? The Cypress Structure (collapsed in 1989 Loma Prieta eauthquake)? I could go on...
Are you claiming that none of these were designed by "engineers", whos work you tout as "totally reliable"?
i've got to say that C# impresses the hell out of me.
That's because it was designed by Anders Hejlsberg, late of Borland (the same guy who designed Turbo Pascal), and not a Microsoft insider.
The original Osborne One case WAS a sewing machine case. The computer was built into the cover and the keyboard was fitted in the what would have been the base of the sewing machine. The sewing machine was used "keyboard tray" down. The thing that struck me the most about the Osbourne 1 was the screen. At 4", it was very small and hard to read unless you practically glued your eye to it. The first Kaypro machines had much nicer screens.
Check out Microsoft's "whois" entry. Lame, but kind of funny.
For those whom just can't stand the thought of govt. spending on public infrastructure, you can always just privatize the thing once the lines are laid and enough cutomers have signed up to make it profitable.
Who are all these customers? Sure, plenty of Slashdot readers will sign up, but Joe Sixpack is perfectly content with his 28.8K connection to AOL.
How much effort has been wasted rewriting stuff because someone didn't like the "license" on the original? Gnome comes immediately to mind, and I'm sure there are many other instances like this.
Imagine how much futher along open source software (oh, excuse me, free software) would be if there wasn't so much needless duplication of effort over something as stupid as license terms.
This alphabet soup of licenses (GPL, LGPL, BSDL, FDL, OPL v1 -A -B, LDP, etc.) is really getting out of hand. Do we want to be software developers and documentation writers, or do we want to be amateur lawyers?
In the end, this may affect a large portion of internet services such as DNS and email. Inappropriate routes may still exist that relay through the @home network, even after the network is shutdown
Anyone who uses @Home's crappy DNS and email services deserves what they get. Those were the first two services I replaced when I signed up with @Home almost 4 years ago.
If you've got a Linux or BSD box it's pretty easy to set up a caching namesever and your own email server.
No, it was actually located in neighboring Concord, way out near the Port Chicago Highway.
Sure, you can use delete on your own inbox. But what if your an ISP and your customers demand less spam? Will you delete for them?
No, if I were an ISP I would not delete spam for my customers. I'd operate my ISP as a common carrier, just like the phone company. Just try calling your phone company and ask them to filter out calls from telemarketers and see how far you get.
Personally I'm still waffling on my choice for the next president. But you can be damn sure of two things: 1) that it won't be influenced by "who's the favorite to win", and 2) it won't be Bush.
Who are you going to vote for then? That dickhead who claims to have invented the Internet?
Although the /. headline reads "@Home Stops Allowing VPNs", this is misleading.
While Comcast's new AUP explicitely forbids VPNs, there's nothing in the @Home AUP that does so. See
home.com/support/aup/
ATT@Home tried to implement a new AUP with a similar VPN restriction in the Bay Area over a year ago, but the massive outcry quickly resulted in @Home withdrawing the new AUP, replacing it with the old one, which didn't have the VPN restriction.
>I hate to break it to you, but IMHO sysinstall is >definately a handful for new users - I would >know, I didn't think very kindly of it the first >time I installed FreeBSD. Now that I have gotten >used to it, I think it's very useful - but there >is definately room for improvement.
I agree with you--sysinstall isn't the easiest interface around, but Debian's dselect is much more of a handful for new users.
Perhaps the RIAA should sue Al Gore. After all, he invented the Internet, didn't he?
>There's been a serious downturn in profitability
>between 1995 and 1998 which is seriously >disconcerting.
Why is this disconcerting? What about all of the recent "darlings" of Wall Street, such as Amazon.com, Red Hat, etc. Have any of them *ever* made a profit? I doubt it...
The main difference is that Linux is a success and *BSD is a failure.
Why is it that some people feel that for Linux to succeed, BSD must fail? Or that Windows must fail? Why can't an operating system stand on its own merits?
Some people seem to think that choice of an operating system is a popularity contest. This is the "eat shit: 2 billion flies can't be wrong" argument and serves no useful purpose beyond starting flame wars.
When I choose an OS, I couldn't care less how much of an istalled base it has as long as it does what I need it to do. Nor does it matter whether the OS has a well-known personality associated with it, or that it's the current media darling.
I use Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows because each of them fulfills a special need that I have, not because of hype, popularity, or snob appeal.