Maybe, I haven't tried it, but this is in the 2.6.8 changelog:
[PATCH] bug in V-link handling (arch/i386/pci/irq.c)
Via southbridges use register 0x3c of the on-board devices (USB and AC97) to control interrupt routing for those. In drivers/pci/quirks.c we set it correctly (dev->irq & 15). However, in pirq_enable_irq() where the second half of that stuff lives, we forget to apply the mask.
That's what causes problems with ioapic on via motherboards in 2.6. One-liner below ACKed by Alan, verified on via-based boxen here, obviously doesn't affect non-via ones (we only set interrupt_line_quirk for via chipsets).
Yes, that matters. But actually, the important buzword here is "chain of evidence".
In this case, the evidence goes from someplace associated with Al Quaeda to someplace probably not very objective when it comes to Al Quaeda.
Not that I'm saying he tampered with the evidence, but he could have. When you're 'innocent until proven guilty', rules of evidence are important. Of course, when you're a foreign enemy of the state, they probably aren't.
The cost savings are expected to come from the
transfer of about 460 employees to IBM, from streamlined work processes and from the use of more advanced IT systems
I suppose you mean 'on Windows or Linux', in which case the answer is 'on Linux'. We've been able to play songs purchased on Windows for a while, just not to purchase them on Linux.
The difference is that this system probably has a net energy savings whereas the cost of putting bridges on every intersection would negate any benefit.
Another difference is that this system makes it easy to 'incentivize' upgrades (as another poster already mentioned) and compliance, whereas a bridge system requires huge upfront capital costs and probably unfair *ugh* taxes to cover that cost after the fact.
Because half the world still uses those crappy programs from ten years ago. Did you see the stuff in the Enron auction? Do you think those Pentiums (what were they, 1's) run Windows XP?
You think that's bad, here's another recent occurrence in the 'ways-to-skirt-the-GPL' campaign: Gibraltar is a Debian-based firewall-on-a-cd distribution with a particularly nasty Copyright notice attached:
The Gibraltar CD-ROM layout and the selection of packages are copyrightable work and are copyrighted by Rene Mayrhofer as such.
It basically says "If you make a cdrom with the same selection of (GPLed) files on it, you're violating my copyright".
I also noticed that the latest version of Fedora includes similar language in their new click-through 'license agreement'.
unless they buy from RedHat etc who may guarrantee stability
That's just it: companies don't guarantee stability. This should be obvious.
Corporations and businesses are worried about one thing: growth. The way to grow is not to guarantee 'stability', but to take care of the needs of the next customer who walks in the door. And more likely than not, the customers who walk through the door of a 'service-based' business are interested in getting features instead of stability.
Customers who are happy with stable products don't complain, don't buy new products, and don't show up on the radar of corporate America.
by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
There are two rather large assumptions here. One is that the word 'right' in this phrase means 'right to completely control'. This is the usual, modern interpretation, and giving authors complete right to control their works tends to lead to things such as the DMCA. Under this broad interpretation, 'right' also includes the right to do such things as transfer rights and/or give them up. This particular feature might be that with which Darl takes issue.
Historically, though, another interpretation has instead been the rule. This view is that 'right' merely means the right to profit from one's work, rather than control it's use in every aspect. This view is evidenced by many bedrock institutions of US copyright/patent law, such as requiring the publication of works, the support of libraries, and various other 'fair use' traditions like the citation of works in educational material and even the practice of denying copyrightability of recipes. It is clear from a historical view that patent and copy rights have traditionally only extended to commercial 'for profit' applications.
Now, the question becomes "How does the word 'exclusive' fit into both or either of these interpretations?"
Taken literally, the first, 'modern' interpretation would seem to be invalid. What does 'exclusive' mean in this context? Does it mean the author is the only person who can completely control his work? If so, the word 'exclusive' would seem to be redundant and unnecessary. If it were otherwise, and authors had a 'complete' right to control their work, to exclude others from even basic knowledge of their ideas, how could we explain the basic American institutions listed above? More importantly, what would be the broader purpose of patent and copy rights in such a case and how would such grants promote the progress of science and useful arts?
However, with the second, traditional interpretation, 'exclusive' fits in nicely. 'Exclusive right' in this case would merely mean that the author could 'exclusively' profit from his/her work. As government-granted (civil) rights go, they tend to be somewhat more limited than (natural) rights retained by the people. 'Exclusive' in this case would merely tend to emphasize that this right is one of ownership, to the point of 'excluding' others from claiming similar ownership. Unlike a civil right such as 'voting', over which no person can claim exclusivity, patent and copy rights were meant to be somewhat more specialized. They were not, merely by the nature of their subject, however, meant to be placed alongside actual property rights in the scope of their 'exclusivity'.
Admittedly, the GPL is heavily dependent on the 'modern', broad interpretation of copy right. Either way, though, the great thing about the GPL is that, if it's 'unconstitutional', just about *every* copyright as practiced today is. For SCO (or anyone) to attack it would be to attack one of the bedrocks of modern business practice and would be, to say the least, an uphill battle.
This thing would have to be the size of a Sharpee in order to even remotely be used as a 'tracking device', especially in a country with such poor communications facilities as Mexico.
More likely, this probably was the doing of the US, but there's probably no more intent than limiting access to said sensitive information to responsible members of government.
We can't go trusting Mexicans with a smartcard they can say they 'lost'. If they 'lose' their arm, on the other hand, then there's a bit more cause for a friendly little visit from 'Mr. CIA'.
True. But, notice the M.O. of these people. They don't attack what they say they're against. They say they're against something small and obviously dispickable, then they attack anything they damn well please.
Bush says he's against terrorists in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and then goes and invades Iraq and turns the US into some sort of Orwellian nightmare.
Microsoft says it's against piracy yet hands out free/$1 software to universities and governments and creates licenses (Academic License, gimme a break) that discourage, even *preclude* their following.
Now the Congress says it's against software piracy and attacks P2P, and legitimate Open Source distribution methods in the process.
Ask yourself: What are they really fighting against?
Funny that you mentioned Michael Moore. I've been waiting for Bowling for Columbine to come out at Blockbuster's. They had said that it would be available this month. I called yesterday and was told that they wouldn't be carrying it. When I asked if it was because of the controversy surrounding Moore, they said yes and that they were going to see.. that maybe they would carry it in Dec!
I am pissed. Blockbuster is a huge distributor. I'm going to see if I can send an email of complaint to someone at Blockbuster's.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that matters. But actually, the important buzword here is "chain of evidence".
In this case, the evidence goes from someplace associated with Al Quaeda to someplace probably not very objective when it comes to Al Quaeda.
Not that I'm saying he tampered with the evidence, but he could have. When you're 'innocent until proven guilty', rules of evidence are important. Of course, when you're a foreign enemy of the state, they probably aren't.
Williams picks IBM for business transformation
It's called outsourcing, that's how it works.
If anything, putting system configuration abilities into the hands of end-users will *delay* corporate adoption rather than speed it.
I suppose you mean 'on Windows or Linux', in which case the answer is 'on Linux'. We've been able to play songs purchased on Windows for a while, just not to purchase them on Linux.
I use the phrase "you know what I'm saying" a lot and nod my head, even (ok, especially) when people obviously don't have a clue what I'm saying.
:)
It helps later when no one knows what's going on, that people have seen me make the effort to explain things and verify that other's understand
The difference is that this system probably has a net energy savings whereas the cost of putting bridges on every intersection would negate any benefit.
Another difference is that this system makes it easy to 'incentivize' upgrades (as another poster already mentioned) and compliance, whereas a bridge system requires huge upfront capital costs and probably unfair *ugh* taxes to cover that cost after the fact.
Because half the world still uses those crappy programs from ten years ago. Did you see the stuff in the Enron auction? Do you think those Pentiums (what were they, 1's) run Windows XP?
You think that's bad, here's another recent occurrence in the 'ways-to-skirt-the-GPL' campaign: Gibraltar is a Debian-based firewall-on-a-cd distribution with a particularly nasty Copyright notice attached:
The Gibraltar CD-ROM layout and the selection of packages are copyrightable work and are
copyrighted by Rene Mayrhofer as such.
It basically says "If you make a cdrom with the same selection of (GPLed) files on it, you're violating my copyright".
I also noticed that the latest version of Fedora includes similar language in their new click-through 'license agreement'.
unless they buy from RedHat etc who may guarrantee stability
That's just it: companies don't guarantee stability. This should be obvious.
Corporations and businesses are worried about one thing: growth. The way to grow is not to guarantee 'stability', but to take care of the needs of the next customer who walks in the door. And more likely than not, the customers who walk through the door of a 'service-based' business are interested in getting features instead of stability.
Customers who are happy with stable products don't complain, don't buy new products, and don't show up on the radar of corporate America.
I mean, why do we have FOSS again?
This is probably what Darl is blabbering about:
by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
There are two rather large assumptions here. One is that the word 'right' in this phrase means 'right to completely control'. This is the usual, modern interpretation, and giving authors complete right to control their works tends to lead to things such as the DMCA. Under this broad interpretation, 'right' also includes the right to do such things as transfer rights and/or give them up. This particular feature might be that with which Darl takes issue.
Historically, though, another interpretation has instead been the rule. This view is that 'right' merely means the right to profit from one's work, rather than control it's use in every aspect. This view is evidenced by many bedrock institutions of US copyright/patent law, such as requiring the publication of works, the support of libraries, and various other 'fair use' traditions like the citation of works in educational material and even the practice of denying copyrightability of recipes. It is clear from a historical view that patent and copy rights have traditionally only extended to commercial 'for profit' applications.
Now, the question becomes "How does the word 'exclusive' fit into both or either of these interpretations?"
Taken literally, the first, 'modern' interpretation would seem to be invalid. What does 'exclusive' mean in this context? Does it mean the author is the only person who can completely control his work? If so, the word 'exclusive' would seem to be redundant and unnecessary. If it were otherwise, and authors had a 'complete' right to control their work, to exclude others from even basic knowledge of their ideas, how could we explain the basic American institutions listed above? More importantly, what would be the broader purpose of patent and copy rights in such a case and how would such grants promote the progress of science and useful arts?
However, with the second, traditional interpretation, 'exclusive' fits in nicely. 'Exclusive right' in this case would merely mean that the author could 'exclusively' profit from his/her work. As government-granted (civil) rights go, they tend to be somewhat more limited than (natural) rights retained by the people. 'Exclusive' in this case would merely tend to emphasize that this right is one of ownership, to the point of 'excluding' others from claiming similar ownership. Unlike a civil right such as 'voting', over which no person can claim exclusivity, patent and copy rights were meant to be somewhat more specialized. They were not, merely by the nature of their subject, however, meant to be placed alongside actual property rights in the scope of their 'exclusivity'.
Admittedly, the GPL is heavily dependent on the 'modern', broad interpretation of copy right. Either way, though, the great thing about the GPL is that, if it's 'unconstitutional', just about *every* copyright as practiced today is. For SCO (or anyone) to attack it would be to attack one of the bedrocks of modern business practice and would be, to say the least, an uphill battle.
Yeah, my 'fast user switching', in Debian, consists of CTRL-ALT-F7 and CTRL-ALT-F8, and it's significantly faster than Windows I might add.
God. You people are all idiots.
This thing would have to be the size of a Sharpee in order to even remotely be used as a 'tracking device', especially in a country with such poor communications facilities as Mexico.
More likely, this probably was the doing of the US, but there's probably no more intent than limiting access to said sensitive information to responsible members of government.
We can't go trusting Mexicans with a smartcard they can say they 'lost'. If they 'lose' their arm, on the other hand, then there's a bit more cause for a friendly little visit from 'Mr. CIA'.
Cracking wouldn't be a problem for a stirling engine. But, low thermal conductivity might be. What we need is an 'internal' stirling.
With a Carnot engine, that means you get half of that, max, assuming perfect cooling (which doesn't really exist).
Sorry, that was bunk. With perfect cooling, you can get 100%. At reasonable temperatures for the hot and cold sides, the max is about 50%.
gasoline has energy content of 114,000 btu/gallon
With a Carnot engine, that means you get half of that, max, assuming perfect cooling (which doesn't really exist).
By the way, 114,000 btu == 33.41 kWh
True. But, notice the M.O. of these people. They don't attack what they say they're against. They say they're against something small and obviously dispickable, then they attack anything they damn well please.
Bush says he's against terrorists in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and then goes and invades Iraq and turns the US into some sort of Orwellian nightmare.
Microsoft says it's against piracy yet hands out free/$1 software to universities and governments and creates licenses (Academic License, gimme a break) that discourage, even *preclude* their following.
Now the Congress says it's against software piracy and attacks P2P, and legitimate Open Source distribution methods in the process.
Ask yourself: What are they really fighting against?
...that is all. :-)
And then what makes you think the Mossad wouldn't be the first ones to fly a plane into it?
Add in Jerusalem too and you might be on to something.
OK. Now imagine that the US Congress has outlawed those computers in order to protect manufacturers' profits from exactly that.
Ranging from:
'xterminals are cheaper' -- anyone care to back that up?
to:
'Windows terminal services can do this' -- don't know where to start on that one, suffice it to say: it can't.
to:
'This is just serial terminals' -- it isn't. RTFA.
I'm sure I missed a few...
The Tao is the yin and the yang. It is the good and the evil, it is everything and yet it is nothing, it is the beginning and the end.
The Tao was there at the kernel compile, and it will be there when the kernel panics.
Title should have been something like:
"In Capitalist Russia, Satan Launches Satellites"