My problem is finding new music. At its best, radio can do this well. Plays a lot of stuff; some is OK, some I don't like; some is new stuff.
At least in theory. Reality for the last far too many years has been bland, more bland and still more bland, all stuffed with adverts and presented by LOUD idiots. Actually, teams of loud idiots in case one of them gets popular and hence can demand a higher salary.
The last radio station that I really enjoyed listening too was a one-man station where he owned the station, understood music and had strong opinions. I disliked 3/4 of the music he played, but I liked the other 1/4. Got to hear new music and started to appreciate some new genres. (Then he died of a heart attack and the station was sold and became first a boring hard rock station and then an puncture-your-eardrums-bad easy-listening station./puke)
Radio is dead. (Music) TV is dead. The music recording industry is dead---it's just that, lacking much of a brain (to go with its lack of ethics and morals) it's not quite realised it yet.
References are also very important here (and probably there as well). Generally employers want to talk to previous employers.
Heh, that's interesting. In the UK, it's almost the opposite; an employer judges you based on CV, interview, previous work, and maybe qualifications; often, references aren't even followed up on, or they are checked after the job is offered to make sure you're not hiding some catastrophic thing. Correct. That is the only reason to check references---to verify facts. But, you always, always check references before you hire someone.
Some of you may never have met sociopaths. Charming scoundrels. Totally, absolutely convincing. Great interview technique. Exactly who you want to hire.
Check the references! What, they never worked for you? They did, but as building maintenance? Those certifications are actually bogus?
It is much worse to hire the wrong person than to not hire anyone at all. I know, at the end of an endless day of interviewing manifestly unsuitable candidates, when The Right One finally turns up, or even someone at least marginally employable, the temptation is to offer them the job on the spot out of sheer relief. Not Before Checking The References!
I would disagree that it was not in any way true to the short story. While it missed the sting in the tail of the short story, the constant themes of perception vs reality were the same.
I got much more upset about the lame physics.
Yes, we'd agree that 'inspired by' would be closer to the mark, but as an adaptation of a short story to a film, it wasn't too bad.
Rejoice!
Accept that OOXML is a farce, a failure and a debacle.
OOXML is not what is implemented in Office 2007. So, Office 2007 is not ISO compliant. I'm pretty confident it's never going to be compliant. I.e., MS is not going to patch their existing software to bring it into compliance with OOXML.
OOXML is obviously a hulking, unimplementable monstrosity, so no one is seriously going to write new software to use it. Especially when ODF exists.
If someone writes a contract that insists on ISO compliance, then any ODF s/w is fine. If they insist on OOXML compliance---well, then they just excluded Office. If they insist on Office, well, they can hardly claim to be following an ISO standard then.
The debacle around OOXML has really served mainly to harm MS, not to help it.
Possible, but I suspect that, at least for Opera and Safari, this is not the case.
Opera have said that they get 100/100, but they are not yet claiming victory. They are fixing a brand new implementation, that will be released 'soon', when it is ready. I imagine that the release will involve a ton of regression testing and code quality analysis.
Likewise Safari has various standards that the code has to adhere to. Reading the Webkit blog entries so far I get the feeling that it has not been enough merely to pass a test; there has been extensive consideration the best way to fix the code.
Yes, it's a race, but not at any cost, and the goal is not to just pass Acid3, it's to deliver a better browser.
Thus far, I'm optimistic that Acid3 is improving the overall code quality of the participating browsers.
an architecture that goes back all the way to the 1960s with System/360 - the longest running architecture to maintain backwards compatibility
Since the 1st 360 was introduced in 1964, and the Burroughs B5000 in 1961, you could argue that particular crown belongs to Unisys. If you trace the Large Systems from the B5500 (1964) they are more even.
What you call hyper-consumption, I think of as greed. And the Wikipedia definition seems to back that up.
The nature of greed lies in its excess. To feel hunger is not to be greedy. To enjoy a good meal, even a feast, is not greed. To constantly eat beyond the body's needs is greed.
To invent or improve things on order to cool oneself, travel more conveniently or crack the enemy's crytpo is not greed, nor is the desire for recognition or reward wrong.
The benefit of multicast is to the network provider. Where the same stream needs to be sent to many (thousands) of customers, multicast has a huge benefit. In fact, for 'push' content delivery it is the only viable means of networking.
And cable has been able to deal with the pricing issues for decades. The content is encrypted, with multiple keys---one for each subscriber. Anyone else can receive the multicast, but it does them no good without the key. When you join the stream, you not only join at an IP level, you authorise against the broadcaster and your key is enabled. For which you are sent a bill.
So, content provider gets to sell content to consumer, and network provider reduces costs. Content provider also knows exactly who has received the content.
For unencrypted content your points are valid, however even there a strong economic case can be made for multicast. Each consumer pays for bandwidth, so there is no direct cost benefit of multicast for them. But, it is in the network provider's interest to reduce costs, and by reducing bandwidth, multicast does this. Finally however, the content provider also has to buy bandwidth from somewhere, namely their upstream provider. They also have to serve that content. The economic benefits of a single server and 100Mbps (multicast) vs tens/hundreds of servers and 10Gbps (unicast) are fairly compelling to potential video content providers, if not to traditional text/web providers.
"The wheels of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine" (Sextus Empiricus)
I think that when this started, certain people wanted to make absolutely certain that SCO could not wriggle out of it. Every "i" dotted, every 't' crossed. Their fate was sealed some time ago. Now they face destruction. Certain, total and prolonged destruction. I suspect that SCO will be held up as a lesson of what not to do for a very long time.
Panther: % uname -v
Darwin Kernel Version 7.9.0: Wed Mar 30 20:11:17 PST 2005; root:xnu/xnu-517.12.7.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC
Tiger: % uname -v
Darwin Kernel Version 8.10.1: Wed May 23 16:33:00 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.22.5~1/RELEASE_I386
Spot the major release? From version 7 to version 8? Leopard is Version 9.something. The Kernel reved its major release number.
And Mac OS 8 was in fact a point release. It was going to be 7.7 but was changed to be Mac OS 8 to lock out the cloners.
In the meantime, Jobs bought out Power Computing-the largest Mac cloner-for $100 million, and terminated other clone agreements by releasing Mac OS 7.7 as "Mac OS 8" in mid 1997
The RIAA claims to be losing billions to 'piracy'. The amount of money they may be 'raking in' from settlements is not billions. The fortunes of the big four remain in decline, so the RIAA tactics are evidently not working.
If file sharing were the reason for their declining fortunes and the RIAA tactics were working, the big four would be making money again. They are not, so the RIAA tactics are not effective. Q.E.D.
That could be because they are not working, and it could also be because the decline in profits has nothing to do with file sharing
I'm having a great deal of difficulty parsing this sentence, being as it contains both "RIAA" and "sense of decency".
Thus far, their actions have conspicuously lacked decency, morality or even sanity.
Their aim puports to be to make more money for their members, but their actions are evidently not acheiving that, and no rational analaysis that I've seen shows that their current course has any chance of achieving it.
As I read it, that is a list of many customers, all of which are blanked out except one (the person under discussion).
I.e., RIAA gave AOL a list of IP addresses (they may also have given them a list of times, but I suspect not). AOL responded with a time that those addresses were in use.
So, RIAA *said* that AOL had confirmed that she was a file sharer. What AOL *actually* said was only that she used that IP address, once, at a certain time.
AOL may be able to correlate that to their own records, saying that a certain IP address was downloading material at a certain time. Or not.
The SecureWorks people claimed to have compromised a MacBook. That is, an Intel based machine.
But, as you quote:
Intel-based Mac mini, MacBook, and MacBook Pro computers are not affected
IOW, this is evidently not the same vulnerability claimed by SecureWorks.
Stumulated by the brouhaha, Apple have performed a code audit. (I'd suspect they did a remarkably thorough code audit too:) They have found some problems with the PPC drivers, and they have released a patch for them. They don't appear to have found any issues with the Intel code though.
This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow the character's spoken commands. ... Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.
. All you need is the skeleton. Looks like there's hope for DOS yet then.
A punch card was 80 columns, of 12 rows, that is, 960 bits per card. (In binary mode. EBCDIC encoded only 8 bits per column, but you could do a binary dump to cards). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_card
5MB = 5 x 1024 x 1024 x 8 bits, which would require 43,690.67 cards. That's about 9 boxes of cards, at 5,000 cards per box; or 25 linear ft of 'deck' . I'd say the punch card density was about 4 times better than the hard drive (not allowing for the size of the card reader/punch though).
At 1,000 cards per minute read speed (although some readers ran at 1,400 or better) it would require 44 minutes just to read the cards, i.e. a transfer rate of 16kps. It would be challenging to play an MP3 off that.
A standard cable setup has *about* 100 6MHz frequencies available. At *about* 30Mbps data rate each, that comes to 3Gbps.
In other words, GPON has pretty much the same bandwidth as cable---slightly less in fact. The only difference is that instead of a HFC, you have pure glass to the home.
In fact, PONs are basically just that---an extension of the cable way of doing things. Instead of cable modems, you have special GPON termination units. But, these are not set up to deliver anything like the full OC-48/STM-16 to any one customer. Give me a true FTTP any day.
Slashdot Mirror
At least in theory. Reality for the last far too many years has been bland, more bland and still more bland, all stuffed with adverts and presented by LOUD idiots. Actually, teams of loud idiots in case one of them gets popular and hence can demand a higher salary.
The last radio station that I really enjoyed listening too was a one-man station where he owned the station, understood music and had strong opinions. I disliked 3/4 of the music he played, but I liked the other 1/4. Got to hear new music and started to appreciate some new genres. (Then he died of a heart attack and the station was sold and became first a boring hard rock station and then an puncture-your-eardrums-bad easy-listening station. /puke)
Radio is dead. (Music) TV is dead. The music recording industry is dead---it's just that, lacking much of a brain (to go with its lack of ethics and morals) it's not quite realised it yet.
Music, however, lives!
Some of you may never have met sociopaths. Charming scoundrels. Totally, absolutely convincing. Great interview technique. Exactly who you want to hire.
Check the references! What, they never worked for you? They did, but as building maintenance? Those certifications are actually bogus?
It is much worse to hire the wrong person than to not hire anyone at all. I know, at the end of an endless day of interviewing manifestly unsuitable candidates, when The Right One finally turns up, or even someone at least marginally employable, the temptation is to offer them the job on the spot out of sheer relief. Not Before Checking The References!
I got much more upset about the lame physics.
Yes, we'd agree that 'inspired by' would be closer to the mark, but as an adaptation of a short story to a film, it wasn't too bad.
From TFA, he claims that .NET is neither clean nor coherent, i.e., that MS squandered an opportunity.
Rejoice! Accept that OOXML is a farce, a failure and a debacle. OOXML is not what is implemented in Office 2007. So, Office 2007 is not ISO compliant. I'm pretty confident it's never going to be compliant. I.e., MS is not going to patch their existing software to bring it into compliance with OOXML. OOXML is obviously a hulking, unimplementable monstrosity, so no one is seriously going to write new software to use it. Especially when ODF exists. If someone writes a contract that insists on ISO compliance, then any ODF s/w is fine. If they insist on OOXML compliance---well, then they just excluded Office. If they insist on Office, well, they can hardly claim to be following an ISO standard then. The debacle around OOXML has really served mainly to harm MS, not to help it.
Opera have said that they get 100/100, but they are not yet claiming victory. They are fixing a brand new implementation, that will be released 'soon', when it is ready. I imagine that the release will involve a ton of regression testing and code quality analysis.
Likewise Safari has various standards that the code has to adhere to. Reading the Webkit blog entries so far I get the feeling that it has not been enough merely to pass a test; there has been extensive consideration the best way to fix the code.
Yes, it's a race, but not at any cost, and the goal is not to just pass Acid3, it's to deliver a better browser.
Thus far, I'm optimistic that Acid3 is improving the overall code quality of the participating browsers.
The nature of greed lies in its excess. To feel hunger is not to be greedy. To enjoy a good meal, even a feast, is not greed. To constantly eat beyond the body's needs is greed.
To invent or improve things on order to cool oneself, travel more conveniently or crack the enemy's crytpo is not greed, nor is the desire for recognition or reward wrong.
And cable has been able to deal with the pricing issues for decades. The content is encrypted, with multiple keys---one for each subscriber. Anyone else can receive the multicast, but it does them no good without the key. When you join the stream, you not only join at an IP level, you authorise against the broadcaster and your key is enabled. For which you are sent a bill.
So, content provider gets to sell content to consumer, and network provider reduces costs. Content provider also knows exactly who has received the content.
For unencrypted content your points are valid, however even there a strong economic case can be made for multicast. Each consumer pays for bandwidth, so there is no direct cost benefit of multicast for them. But, it is in the network provider's interest to reduce costs, and by reducing bandwidth, multicast does this. Finally however, the content provider also has to buy bandwidth from somewhere, namely their upstream provider. They also have to serve that content. The economic benefits of a single server and 100Mbps (multicast) vs tens/hundreds of servers and 10Gbps (unicast) are fairly compelling to potential video content providers, if not to traditional text/web providers.
New Zealand split off from Australia about 65 MYA, and since that time has been isolated except from flying creatures.
There were dinosaurs in New Zealand after the split, yet they also died out about the same time as their kin elsewhere---despite their isolation.
"The wheels of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine" (Sextus Empiricus) I think that when this started, certain people wanted to make absolutely certain that SCO could not wriggle out of it. Every "i" dotted, every 't' crossed. Their fate was sealed some time ago. Now they face destruction. Certain, total and prolonged destruction. I suspect that SCO will be held up as a lesson of what not to do for a very long time.
% uname -v
Darwin Kernel Version 7.9.0: Wed Mar 30 20:11:17 PST 2005; root:xnu/xnu-517.12.7.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC
Tiger:
% uname -v
Darwin Kernel Version 8.10.1: Wed May 23 16:33:00 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.22.5~1/RELEASE_I386
Spot the major release? From version 7 to version 8? Leopard is Version 9.something. The Kernel reved its major release number.
And Mac OS 8 was in fact a point release. It was going to be 7.7 but was changed to be Mac OS 8 to lock out the cloners.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/09/30/leopard-and-the-history-and-future-of-mac-os-x-on-powerpc/What about Budweiser?
No, not that one, this one.
Nectar.
Good idea. Which do you recommend: Lenny or Sid?
If file sharing were the reason for their declining fortunes and the RIAA tactics were working, the big four would be making money again. They are not, so the RIAA tactics are not effective. Q.E.D.
That could be because they are not working, and it could also be because the decline in profits has nothing to do with file sharing
Thus far, their actions have conspicuously lacked decency, morality or even sanity.
Their aim puports to be to make more money for their members, but their actions are evidently not acheiving that, and no rational analaysis that I've seen shows that their current course has any chance of achieving it.
As I read it, that is a list of many customers, all of which are blanked out except one (the person under discussion).
I.e., RIAA gave AOL a list of IP addresses (they may also have given them a list of times, but I suspect not). AOL responded with a time that those addresses were in use.
So, RIAA *said* that AOL had confirmed that she was a file sharer. What AOL *actually* said was only that she used that IP address, once, at a certain time.
AOL may be able to correlate that to their own records, saying that a certain IP address was downloading material at a certain time. Or not.
A strange assertion, though it has a certain charm.
My bad, I was responding to info posted by parent. I should have checked the orginal info.
But, as you quote:
IOW, this is evidently not the same vulnerability claimed by SecureWorks.
Stumulated by the brouhaha, Apple have performed a code audit. (I'd suspect they did a remarkably thorough code audit too :) They have found some problems with the PPC drivers, and they have released a patch for them. They don't appear to have found any issues with the Intel code though.
5MB = 5 x 1024 x 1024 x 8 bits, which would require 43,690.67 cards. That's about 9 boxes of cards, at 5,000 cards per box; or 25 linear ft of 'deck' . I'd say the punch card density was about 4 times better than the hard drive (not allowing for the size of the card reader/punch though).
At 1,000 cards per minute read speed (although some readers ran at 1,400 or better) it would require 44 minutes just to read the cards, i.e. a transfer rate of 16kps. It would be challenging to play an MP3 off that.
Now. imagine Vista on punch cards...
In other words, GPON has pretty much the same bandwidth as cable---slightly less in fact. The only difference is that instead of a HFC, you have pure glass to the home.
In fact, PONs are basically just that---an extension of the cable way of doing things. Instead of cable modems, you have special GPON termination units. But, these are not set up to deliver anything like the full OC-48/STM-16 to any one customer. Give me a true FTTP any day.