One time when I was on a business trip... I was talking to the guy next to me on a Northwest Airlines flight... I was flying from Boston to Portland Oregon... Turns out, my ticket from Boston to Portland was MORE EXPENSIVE, then the guy next to me, that had a continuation from Portland to Tokyo....
You would think if all you wanted to do was remain hidden, there are easier ways that aren't so platform specific... If you have root access, a rootkit only needs to use Intel-VT or AMD-V and virtualize memory, such that the OS is no longer reading physical memory, but reading virtualized memory, such that it can't find the rootkit...
Essentially all the rootkit needs to do is just blindly pass memory read/write operations, except for those addresses where the rootkit lives... There, it just passes back random garbage/null/etc.
Because Apple makes a genuine effort to do good things in this area
I used to think the same thing about Apple, until I had the misfortune of working with both their standards guys and engineers in various standards bodies.
I won't go into detail, but I will say that I typically run into more issues with them than other companies. But my biggest gripe is the tact of the guys they send to these things.
I haven't taken a close look at the W3C member's agreement, but many other standards bodies remedy this by forming a patent pool that is freely accessible only to other member companies.
Yes I did read that page. (I work in these types of standards bodies for a living)...
Anyways, my point was that they are painting how fundamental it is for royalty free licensing. They even mention that the standard RAND terms are often abused by companies seeking to control access to technologies....
So even tho are are technically in the right by excersizing their right to refuse RF licensing, they ae contradicting the overall message/spirit of their statement by doing so.
They claim that companies abuse RAND terms to control access to a technology, and say that mandatory RF terms solves this, but then they use the loophole to refuse RF terms, to control access to said technology...
Besides, it also talks about obligations to RF terms could be hinged on granting of reciprocal RF licenses by any practitioner. Sounds like it means if the other W3C members wanted to, they could all refuse to license RF terms of other technologies to Apple unless Apple agrees to RF terms for the technology in question...
I've seen companies do this in other standards bodies all the time... I've even seen it go so far as companies leaving the standards bodies over crap like this...
Apple is a member of the W3C, and even advertises on it's own web page (Click Here) that it supports an immutable commitment to royalty free licensing on W3C standards, per the W3C patent policy.
Sounds like Apple is only interested in other companies licensing Royalty Free terms to them, but not the other way around....
From what I remember from my law class, (which I have to admit was many years ago), the vessel is considered the soil of the country it is registered in. So if the plane is registered in the US, then US laws apply, because even if you are outside the US, the inside of the plane is considered US sovereign soil. This is why when you fly on a US registered plane to another country, they still tell you stuff about, "Federal law prohibits smoking or tampering with, blah blah blah", etc.
This is retarded. I've owned a silver car, and I currently have a black car and two dark blue cars. I notice ZERO difference in the inside temperature of the car when the car sits in the sun. My dark blue car has a black interior, and my wife's dark blue car has a light grey interior... Again, ZERO difference is noticed when the car sits in the sun....
HOWEVER, when I had my cars tinted with metallic tints, I noticed a HUGE difference in the inside temperature when the car sits in the sun....
With that being said, I think it would be more beneficial to mandate tinted windows that it would to ban dark colored cars, if your only concern is how hard your A/C has to work....
It's very easy to do. Most if not all servers are currently IPv6 compatible and most of the software has this type of stuff abstracted away by the operating system.
You can't generalize all companies this way. Sure, Windows Vista and Windows 7 have IPv6 integrated in, and the OS abstracts the IPv6ness away from you, but that doesn't mean your problems are solved...
For example, Vista supports IPv6 out of the box while XP doesn't. Does this mean that simply upgrading your box from XP to Vista, and moving your apps over, is enough to make your apps IPv6 capable?
But anyways...
1. Windows XP uses a dual-stack to support IPv6, wheras Vista does not. Vista has one TCP/IP stack that does both IPv4 and IPv6. XP has two TCP/IP stacks, one that does IPv4 and one that does IPv6. To support IPv6 on this system, you'll need to bind to both TCP/IP stacks, and call into the correct modules, otherwise your code ain't gonna work with IPv6.
2.) What if you have to deal with embedded systems? Some of our systems are embedded, where everything is done in hardware. Much of this hardware does NOT support IPv6, because when it comes to fabbing chips, companies tend to want the lowest cost possible, so they will opt to not waste gates with IPv6 support if they don't plan on using it... It'll take some time to re-engineer these components, re-fab the chips, and re-validate the embedded system, etc.
3.) Just because the OS abstracts IPv6, does not mean the application does. What if your app expects to pass around IP addresses in dotted quad notation? What if somewhere in your code, it hard-coded the initializers for the sockets library to IPv4? What if you didn't map enough memory in your data structure to hold an IPv6 address? What if the change requires you to remap all your fields? That means every producer/consumer in that transaction chain will need to be updated and validated.
4.) All your infrastructure can support IPv6, and all your software can properly pass around IPv6 addresses, but that doesn't mean you are done... What if you have applications that use multicasting? IPv4 multicast addresses are not interchangeable with IPv6 multicast addresses. What if the change requires you to register a new multicast address with IANA? That's not a short process, believe me, I've gone through that process. So once you get this new IPv6 multicast address, you have to modify all your code to actually use it, etc. This can involve both software and hardware, as again, you could have embedded systems in the mix as well.
I actually know quite a few people with multi-component entertainment systems, but have no access to internet. That's what happens when you live out in the boondocks...
But anyways... I can see where he's coming from with the tv that must have the cable box on first... Many TVs will switch to the input that has signal... My projector is that way... Depending on which component is powered up first, the projector will switch to either HDMI, Component Video, Composite, etc. My AV switches are similar... There may be a race condition when you power on the AV switch, because it may auto switch to my Media Center (which is always on), or it may auto-switch to the DVD player, etc. So no only will the harmony not know if the switch is on DVD or PC, it won't know if the projector was on HDMI or Component Video.
I know many switches and tvs can't be directly switch to a particular source, you must enumerate through the sources. If you have one of these types of switches/tvs, then the Harmony can get easily confused, because it jmay not know if it needs to hit source 3 times or 5 times, because there may have been a race condition in determining which source was active when it was powered up, based on the input signals.
When I'm asked to interview prospective candidates, I don't really care what language they know. In fact, I'll often ask them what language they prefer, and I'll just try to ask questions in the context of their preferred language... (Tho I'll also ask why they prefer specific languages, as I try to probe how well they know each language)
But anyways, I like to probe to see how well they grasp concepts, such as threading, I/O, networking, data structures, security, etc.
For example, someone that has written code that uses winhttp winsock or whatever, may know what http is or how to write network enabled questions... But I want to know if they know why they should choose to use TCP vs UDP or vice versa, or why TCP is reliable, what makes it reliable... Why you wouldn't want to tunnel TCP within another TCP session, etc...
I don't necessarily want to hire somebody because they know how to code, I want to hire someone that can actually design a well architected system.
Fat binaries only work if the developer of said application CHOOSES to release their application in that format, compiled for multiple architectures.If you don't choose to compile for multiple architectures and create a fat binary, the resultant binary will not be compatible with architectures you didn't compile it for, without a simulator. Apple used Rosetta to emulate PPC on x86.
Fat binaries are much bigger than binaries targeted for a single platform. (Hence the name). On the PC this may be ok, but on a cell phone, I seriously doubt you'll want to be transferring fat binaries to it.
That's why instead of buying a new cert for every possible subdomain, you buy a signing cert for a signing authority, so you can have your own signing authority to sign the certs you'll actually use.
that will only happen if the Macbook and the iPhone merge to a common processor. Until then, the binaries will not be compatible with each other, so the same app on one will not run on the other, without some sort of emulation, but that eats into performance.
They already did this on humans back in the 1960's. In elementary school I remember watching a documentary in class. They had a scientist that made these goggles that did exactly that...
I can't remember how long it took him to adjust, but I remember he was wearing the goggles for 2 weeks in each orientation.
In addition, the fabs that were closed are not compatible with the process that makes the Atom... So that means outsourcing to TSMC is not costing any US jobs, especially when you consider what markets Intel is trying to go after with this. (ie, markets they are not currently in)
And FWIW, not all TSMC operations are overseas. There is a TSMC fab in the Portland metro area.
That's why(among other things) we have to use cryptography on anything we send via email, so it's authenticity and integrity can be verified.
But IT really hates when people send large documents back and forth over email, so we also have secure online repositories that people are supposed to push/pull documents to/from for x-group collaboration.
I never claimed that it didn't. You just have to realize that the high-end gaming market segment is but a tiny fraction of the market segment as a whole. I was just saying that graphics isn't everything to everybody.
It's like saying that F1 racing has done more to drive engine performance more than anything, and than using that as an example that every car down to a Chevy Aveo or Geo Metro needs a V8 engine.
Not everybody plays games. My wife owns zero games, and has played zero games on her PC since I met her. Same with my parents. Same with my wife's parents. If you ask her what her priorities are when it comes to her PC, and 3D graphics/games rate very low.
Slashdot Mirror
I love it when people without a fucking clue claim I haven't any legal knowledge.
Not sure about number two, but you really are wrong on number one... Refer to US Code Title 15 Chapter 22 Subchapter III, Paragraph 1125 Section 3A. It explicitly talks about fair use of trademarks.
One time when I was on a business trip... I was talking to the guy next to me on a Northwest Airlines flight... I was flying from Boston to Portland Oregon... Turns out, my ticket from Boston to Portland was MORE EXPENSIVE, then the guy next to me, that had a continuation from Portland to Tokyo....
You would think if all you wanted to do was remain hidden, there are easier ways that aren't so platform specific... If you have root access, a rootkit only needs to use Intel-VT or AMD-V and virtualize memory, such that the OS is no longer reading physical memory, but reading virtualized memory, such that it can't find the rootkit... Essentially all the rootkit needs to do is just blindly pass memory read/write operations, except for those addresses where the rootkit lives... There, it just passes back random garbage/null/etc.
Because Apple makes a genuine effort to do good things in this area I used to think the same thing about Apple, until I had the misfortune of working with both their standards guys and engineers in various standards bodies. I won't go into detail, but I will say that I typically run into more issues with them than other companies. But my biggest gripe is the tact of the guys they send to these things.
I haven't taken a close look at the W3C member's agreement, but many other standards bodies remedy this by forming a patent pool that is freely accessible only to other member companies.
You could also use RSS or ATOM feeds.
Yes I did read that page. (I work in these types of standards bodies for a living)... Anyways, my point was that they are painting how fundamental it is for royalty free licensing. They even mention that the standard RAND terms are often abused by companies seeking to control access to technologies.... So even tho are are technically in the right by excersizing their right to refuse RF licensing, they ae contradicting the overall message/spirit of their statement by doing so. They claim that companies abuse RAND terms to control access to a technology, and say that mandatory RF terms solves this, but then they use the loophole to refuse RF terms, to control access to said technology... Besides, it also talks about obligations to RF terms could be hinged on granting of reciprocal RF licenses by any practitioner. Sounds like it means if the other W3C members wanted to, they could all refuse to license RF terms of other technologies to Apple unless Apple agrees to RF terms for the technology in question... I've seen companies do this in other standards bodies all the time... I've even seen it go so far as companies leaving the standards bodies over crap like this...
Apple is a member of the W3C, and even advertises on it's own web page (Click Here) that it supports an immutable commitment to royalty free licensing on W3C standards, per the W3C patent policy. Sounds like Apple is only interested in other companies licensing Royalty Free terms to them, but not the other way around....
From what I remember from my law class, (which I have to admit was many years ago), the vessel is considered the soil of the country it is registered in. So if the plane is registered in the US, then US laws apply, because even if you are outside the US, the inside of the plane is considered US sovereign soil. This is why when you fly on a US registered plane to another country, they still tell you stuff about, "Federal law prohibits smoking or tampering with, blah blah blah", etc.
This is retarded. I've owned a silver car, and I currently have a black car and two dark blue cars. I notice ZERO difference in the inside temperature of the car when the car sits in the sun. My dark blue car has a black interior, and my wife's dark blue car has a light grey interior... Again, ZERO difference is noticed when the car sits in the sun....
HOWEVER, when I had my cars tinted with metallic tints, I noticed a HUGE difference in the inside temperature when the car sits in the sun....
With that being said, I think it would be more beneficial to mandate tinted windows that it would to ban dark colored cars, if your only concern is how hard your A/C has to work....
It's very easy to do. Most if not all servers are currently IPv6 compatible and most of the software has this type of stuff abstracted away by the operating system.
You can't generalize all companies this way. Sure, Windows Vista and Windows 7 have IPv6 integrated in, and the OS abstracts the IPv6ness away from you, but that doesn't mean your problems are solved...
For example, Vista supports IPv6 out of the box while XP doesn't. Does this mean that simply upgrading your box from XP to Vista, and moving your apps over, is enough to make your apps IPv6 capable?
But anyways...
1. Windows XP uses a dual-stack to support IPv6, wheras Vista does not. Vista has one TCP/IP stack that does both IPv4 and IPv6. XP has two TCP/IP stacks, one that does IPv4 and one that does IPv6. To support IPv6 on this system, you'll need to bind to both TCP/IP stacks, and call into the correct modules, otherwise your code ain't gonna work with IPv6.
2.) What if you have to deal with embedded systems? Some of our systems are embedded, where everything is done in hardware. Much of this hardware does NOT support IPv6, because when it comes to fabbing chips, companies tend to want the lowest cost possible, so they will opt to not waste gates with IPv6 support if they don't plan on using it... It'll take some time to re-engineer these components, re-fab the chips, and re-validate the embedded system, etc.
3.) Just because the OS abstracts IPv6, does not mean the application does. What if your app expects to pass around IP addresses in dotted quad notation? What if somewhere in your code, it hard-coded the initializers for the sockets library to IPv4? What if you didn't map enough memory in your data structure to hold an IPv6 address? What if the change requires you to remap all your fields? That means every producer/consumer in that transaction chain will need to be updated and validated.
4.) All your infrastructure can support IPv6, and all your software can properly pass around IPv6 addresses, but that doesn't mean you are done... What if you have applications that use multicasting? IPv4 multicast addresses are not interchangeable with IPv6 multicast addresses. What if the change requires you to register a new multicast address with IANA? That's not a short process, believe me, I've gone through that process. So once you get this new IPv6 multicast address, you have to modify all your code to actually use it, etc. This can involve both software and hardware, as again, you could have embedded systems in the mix as well.
I actually know quite a few people with multi-component entertainment systems, but have no access to internet. That's what happens when you live out in the boondocks...
But anyways... I can see where he's coming from with the tv that must have the cable box on first... Many TVs will switch to the input that has signal... My projector is that way... Depending on which component is powered up first, the projector will switch to either HDMI, Component Video, Composite, etc. My AV switches are similar... There may be a race condition when you power on the AV switch, because it may auto switch to my Media Center (which is always on), or it may auto-switch to the DVD player, etc. So no only will the harmony not know if the switch is on DVD or PC, it won't know if the projector was on HDMI or Component Video.
I know many switches and tvs can't be directly switch to a particular source, you must enumerate through the sources. If you have one of these types of switches/tvs, then the Harmony can get easily confused, because it jmay not know if it needs to hit source 3 times or 5 times, because there may have been a race condition in determining which source was active when it was powered up, based on the input signals.
When I'm asked to interview prospective candidates, I don't really care what language they know. In fact, I'll often ask them what language they prefer, and I'll just try to ask questions in the context of their preferred language... (Tho I'll also ask why they prefer specific languages, as I try to probe how well they know each language)
But anyways, I like to probe to see how well they grasp concepts, such as threading, I/O, networking, data structures, security, etc.
For example, someone that has written code that uses winhttp winsock or whatever, may know what http is or how to write network enabled questions... But I want to know if they know why they should choose to use TCP vs UDP or vice versa, or why TCP is reliable, what makes it reliable... Why you wouldn't want to tunnel TCP within another TCP session, etc...
I don't necessarily want to hire somebody because they know how to code, I want to hire someone that can actually design a well architected system.
Fat binaries only work if the developer of said application CHOOSES to release their application in that format, compiled for multiple architectures.If you don't choose to compile for multiple architectures and create a fat binary, the resultant binary will not be compatible with architectures you didn't compile it for, without a simulator. Apple used Rosetta to emulate PPC on x86.
Fat binaries are much bigger than binaries targeted for a single platform. (Hence the name). On the PC this may be ok, but on a cell phone, I seriously doubt you'll want to be transferring fat binaries to it.
That's why instead of buying a new cert for every possible subdomain, you buy a signing cert for a signing authority, so you can have your own signing authority to sign the certs you'll actually use.
that will only happen if the Macbook and the iPhone merge to a common processor. Until then, the binaries will not be compatible with each other, so the same app on one will not run on the other, without some sort of emulation, but that eats into performance.
They already did this on humans back in the 1960's. In elementary school I remember watching a documentary in class. They had a scientist that made these goggles that did exactly that...
I can't remember how long it took him to adjust, but I remember he was wearing the goggles for 2 weeks in each orientation.
In addition, the fabs that were closed are not compatible with the process that makes the Atom... So that means outsourcing to TSMC is not costing any US jobs, especially when you consider what markets Intel is trying to go after with this. (ie, markets they are not currently in)
And FWIW, not all TSMC operations are overseas. There is a TSMC fab in the Portland metro area.
That's why(among other things) we have to use cryptography on anything we send via email, so it's authenticity and integrity can be verified.
But IT really hates when people send large documents back and forth over email, so we also have secure online repositories that people are supposed to push/pull documents to/from for x-group collaboration.
Just to clarify, I meant in particular 3D graphics performance isn't everything to everybody...
I never claimed that it didn't. You just have to realize that the high-end gaming market segment is but a tiny fraction of the market segment as a whole. I was just saying that graphics isn't everything to everybody.
It's like saying that F1 racing has done more to drive engine performance more than anything, and than using that as an example that every car down to a Chevy Aveo or Geo Metro needs a V8 engine.
She watches lots of videos, many in HD. For those types of tasks, integrated graphics does the job just fine.
just to clarify, I meant I have no idea about the performance of the 9400. I did not mean I doubted its performance...
The 9300 and G45 were pretty neck and neck with regards to HD video decoding, so I don't know about the 9400.
However, the 790G was actually significantly slower at decoding HD video than both the 9300 and G45, according to Toms.
Not everybody plays games. My wife owns zero games, and has played zero games on her PC since I met her. Same with my parents. Same with my wife's parents. If you ask her what her priorities are when it comes to her PC, and 3D graphics/games rate very low.