C'mon, you know better than that. Declaring support and actually doing something are two completely different things.
I never said they were the same thing, you assumed/implied that. All I said is IBM 'declared' their support long ago. That is a factual statement. You can interpolate anything you want from that.
How was the passenger pigeon unfit for survival, beside not being bulletproof? We're responsible for the majority of recent extinctions, not some grandiose concept of
Darwinian pruning. Most large North American land mammals disappeared with the first arrival of human hunters. They were well adapted to the climate of the time and would still be if
not hunted to extinction.
Humans are a factor in evolution just like everything else. Dying because humans hunted you into extinction is just as evolutionarily valid as dying because some other animals hunted you into extinction. Or do you think that humans are not animals?
What is wrong with trying to repair the damage we've done?
Nothing. But you can't say that the passenger pigeon wasn't unfit for survival; clearly it was, since we killed it. If it was 'fit for survival' we wouldn't have been able to kill all of them. Sorry, that's how evolution works.
In any case, let the fit live, and let the unfit die.
It's seemed to work just fine that way for hundreds of millions of years before man was around...
Yep. And it will continue just as it has in the past for many million years after humans are gone. Which might not be too far away...
On the one hand, we get articles on Slashdot completely supporting Apple for turning to a BSD-based OS and then we get articles
lambasting them for completely logical business decisions, all because someone thinks a paten is dumb.
It's not like Apple is one person. A corporation can do both stupid and intelligent things at the same time.
Do you guys know how many dumb patents there are?
I think that's kinda what we're complaining about...?
Yes, of course you can say, "Well, duh, it's obvious that you can do that," but these guys did it and said, "Hey, we did
it first," and I haven't really seen a conclusive proof against that.
They sure did. And unless someone has proof that someone did do it before them, that is undisputable fact. I don't have proof otherwise, maybe someone else does; but they haven't come forward, AFAIK.
Boohoo that the world...
Boohoo that Apple...
Boohoo that you...
The point is not that comapnies abide by laws, or that companies are interested in their bottom line, or that we didn't do it first. The point is that the 1-click patent undermines exactly what the internet is founded on! What would happen if all those RFC's were actaully patents?!? There would be NO internet, because the patented RFC owners would demand royalites...!
Sometimes Slashdot sounds really insightful, and then sometimes, it sounds like a bunch of naive kids whining because things aren't going their way.
Actually, YOU sound like a kid whining because he didn't like what he read on/.
I have seen several space exploration documentaries detailing how poorly funded the Russian space prgram is. That is why their program is inferior; their scientists are intelligent, but they don't have the $ todo things correctly. For example, on one space staion (not the Mir I believe) they had to supply it every so often, so they did this with a docking satellite. They just put it in orbit, and computer controlled it from the ground to docking, then dumped it into deep space. Howver, someone in charge decided they didn't need to spend the (considerable) amount of $ installing the remote-computer controlled system (which allowed precision docking from the ground) on a disposable satellite, and instead to use the people on the space station to dock it manually (using remote hand controls and looking out the porthole!). Unfortunately, it's really hard to judge speed in space, and when they tried this it hit the station at about 70 mph, causing serious damage and almost killing everyone on board.
Anyway, the point of this rambling is that you can't privately fund a space effort; it just takes way too much $, and the only profitablity (at this point) is orbiting private satellites. There is NO $ to be made in exploring Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc.
That's the whole reason for government, isn't it? To pay for things which are good for us all, but which nobody will do privately 'cause they just wouldn't make any $ doing it? Or to say it another way, to take more of our money than we would ever choose to pay, to fund something that will (presumably) benefit everyone but no-one is willing to pay for?
Re:Making bucks off someone else's rep
on
Typosquatting
·
· Score: 2
Lat & Long and Street address are both ways of locating (or describing) a location. An IP address is also a way of describing a location. So an IP address can correspond to either a street address or lat & long. It depends on whether you're the type of person who looks up McDonald's lat & long and then uses GPS to get a Happy Meal. Perhaps you are.
Re:Making bucks off someone else's rep
on
Typosquatting
·
· Score: 2
I think that it is more like an address.
Do you know exactly what the address of your local McDonalds is? I don't. But I know the sign on the front says 'McDonalds' and generally what its appearance is.
A McDonald's street address would correspond to a website's IP address. NOT its DNS name.
Re:Making bucks off someone else's rep
on
Typosquatting
·
· Score: 2
A closer analogy would be if Burger King set up a store at 123 N. Main St., while McDonald's was at 123 S. Main. St.. People know where they are, they just got
the address wrong. The misdialed phone number analogy is also good...
No, your analogy is imperfect...
a real analogy would be someone opening a store that looked exactly (or almost exactly) like McDonalds, and called it MacDonalds (notice the extra 'a'). THAT's a typo analogy.
Considering the fact that you can tunnel packets through a host in another geographical location using SSH or other methods, this method is inherently flawed.
over 90% of the people who may use this will not know/bother with packet tunneling, they are the 'point-n-click' demographic.
Any system has weaknesses. There is no way to do something that can't somehow be circumvented by someone, at some time.
I know console makers often sell their boxes at a loss and make it up on the games. But lets face it. MS has a track record of generally shitty games, they really expect to make up for
developing the console on games like that?
They key here is installed base!
BillG will eat the cost (somewhat) in order to get one of these in evey home in the world. "It's got games for the kids, and can record hours of TV for the parents!" Then you have an installed base. Do not forget that is how M$ has made their money - their installed base. This is their plan. I guarantee. Once you have an installed base you can (almost) do anything. You rule the customer AND the companies providing games/services/etc for the installed product.
Don't underestimate M$, they know how to make money. Not much else, but making money - they got that down...
I thought this too, at first, until my company lawyer pointed out term/condition 2a in the GPL:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish...[that contains GPL'ed code]...to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties..."
You can charge for associated services, such as a transferral charge, warranty, etc. But you can't charge for the code itself.
At least, that's what my company's lawyers have concluded, according to what they told me. I work for IBM.
I notice that this story is "from the fun-with-accelerated-light-dept", which is technically incorrect since lasers are focused light, not accelerated light. You can't accelerate light (well, light moves slower when passing thru matter, so a transition from matter to vacuum would 'accelerate' it...but that's not how lasers work...)
As far as I can tell, the only substantial differences between the IBM Public License and the GPL are
Any contributions become IBM's property (Copyright IBM, All Rights Reserved)
You can charge $ for the program (although you must provide source) unlike the GPL (cannot charge for the actual code, only related services)
I know the main reason IBM doesn't like the GPL is the 'Viral Effect' where code that uses GPL'd code must be GPL'd itself (unless it dynamically links?), but it kinda (?) looks like the IBM Public License has the same problem...?
If you would care to rephrase your comment in a non flaming mater I'm sure we could disscuss any ideas you may have as to how to get QT running properly on my computer.
If you can't afford SCSI, more memory, or RAID...then why the hell are you going to buy hardware-compressed memory?!? Just buy more normal memory with the cash. The only case I can see is if the hardware-compressed memory costs (example) twice as much and gives twice or more virtual memory a lot (75+%, I'd say...) of the time (and that's not considering speed loss)...however I really doubt it's there now. And of course any paging when memory runs out is going to hurt bad. And if you have gobs of cash to spend on memory then obviously more memory is the better option...
Hmm...so you don't have enough $ for more (normal) memory, but you DO have enough $ for hardware-compreessed memory? O-k... Point is, unless this costs as much as normal memory, and is as fast as normal memory, it just isn't worth it. Whether or not you're poor.
In other words, if you are using any sort of paging file, this will almost certainly improve performance, not hurt it.
Any admin that sets up a server without enough memory to avoid using swap (except under really high load) is not doing their job. Obviously any paging is going to kill performance whether compressed memory chips are used or not. It would be much better to simply buy more normal memory than rely on better paging performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey now, some of us used to be ops in lez100!
That's why you use cron instead of writing a long-running daemon.
Don't run top or ps very often, do you?
Try '/sbin/pidof crond' and I'll be you've got it running.
C'mon, you know better than that. Declaring support and actually doing something are two completely different things.
I never said they were the same thing, you assumed/implied that. All I said is IBM 'declared' their support long ago. That is a factual statement. You can interpolate anything you want from that.
IBM declared their support of Linux long ago.
-Dan
ddstreet@us.ibm.com
How was the passenger pigeon unfit for survival, beside not being bulletproof? We're responsible for the majority of recent extinctions, not some grandiose concept of Darwinian pruning. Most large North American land mammals disappeared with the first arrival of human hunters. They were well adapted to the climate of the time and would still be if not hunted to extinction.
Humans are a factor in evolution just like everything else. Dying because humans hunted you into extinction is just as evolutionarily valid as dying because some other animals hunted you into extinction. Or do you think that humans are not animals?
What is wrong with trying to repair the damage we've done?
Nothing. But you can't say that the passenger pigeon wasn't unfit for survival; clearly it was, since we killed it. If it was 'fit for survival' we wouldn't have been able to kill all of them. Sorry, that's how evolution works.
In any case, let the fit live, and let the unfit die. It's seemed to work just fine that way for hundreds of millions of years before man was around...
Yep. And it will continue just as it has in the past for many million years after humans are gone. Which might not be too far away...
On the one hand, we get articles on Slashdot completely supporting Apple for turning to a BSD-based OS and then we get articles lambasting them for completely logical business decisions, all because someone thinks a paten is dumb.
...
/.
It's not like Apple is one person. A corporation can do both stupid and intelligent things at the same time.
Do you guys know how many dumb patents there are?
I think that's kinda what we're complaining about...?
Yes, of course you can say, "Well, duh, it's obvious that you can do that," but these guys did it and said, "Hey, we did it first," and I haven't really seen a conclusive proof against that.
They sure did. And unless someone has proof that someone did do it before them, that is undisputable fact. I don't have proof otherwise, maybe someone else does; but they haven't come forward, AFAIK.
Boohoo that the world
Boohoo that Apple...
Boohoo that you...
The point is not that comapnies abide by laws, or that companies are interested in their bottom line, or that we didn't do it first. The point is that the 1-click patent undermines exactly what the internet is founded on! What would happen if all those RFC's were actaully patents?!? There would be NO internet, because the patented RFC owners would demand royalites...!
Sometimes Slashdot sounds really insightful, and then sometimes, it sounds like a bunch of naive kids whining because things aren't going their way.
Actually, YOU sound like a kid whining because he didn't like what he read on
I have seen several space exploration documentaries detailing how poorly funded the Russian space prgram is. That is why their program is inferior; their scientists are intelligent, but they don't have the $ todo things correctly. For example, on one space staion (not the Mir I believe) they had to supply it every so often, so they did this with a docking satellite. They just put it in orbit, and computer controlled it from the ground to docking, then dumped it into deep space. Howver, someone in charge decided they didn't need to spend the (considerable) amount of $ installing the remote-computer controlled system (which allowed precision docking from the ground) on a disposable satellite, and instead to use the people on the space station to dock it manually (using remote hand controls and looking out the porthole!). Unfortunately, it's really hard to judge speed in space, and when they tried this it hit the station at about 70 mph, causing serious damage and almost killing everyone on board.
Anyway, the point of this rambling is that you can't privately fund a space effort; it just takes way too much $, and the only profitablity (at this point) is orbiting private satellites. There is NO $ to be made in exploring Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc.
That's the whole reason for government, isn't it? To pay for things which are good for us all, but which nobody will do privately 'cause they just wouldn't make any $ doing it? Or to say it another way, to take more of our money than we would ever choose to pay, to fund something that will (presumably) benefit everyone but no-one is willing to pay for?
Lat & Long and Street address are both ways of locating (or describing) a location. An IP address is also a way of describing a location. So an IP address can correspond to either a street address or lat & long. It depends on whether you're the type of person who looks up McDonald's lat & long and then uses GPS to get a Happy Meal. Perhaps you are.
I think that it is more like an address.
Do you know exactly what the address of your local McDonalds is? I don't. But I know the sign on the front says 'McDonalds' and generally what its appearance is.
A McDonald's street address would correspond to a website's IP address. NOT its DNS name.
A closer analogy would be if Burger King set up a store at 123 N. Main St., while McDonald's was at 123 S. Main. St.. People know where they are, they just got the address wrong. The misdialed phone number analogy is also good...
No, your analogy is imperfect...
a real analogy would be someone opening a store that looked exactly (or almost exactly) like McDonalds, and called it MacDonalds (notice the extra 'a'). THAT's a typo analogy.
Motherboard companies will most likely release new rev.s of current boards, just to keep in the game without spending too much money
agreed. Plus, why should they scramble to design&release USB 2.0 mobos when there are few if any USB 2.0 devices out there...
Pretty sure no motherboard is making mobos with a USB 2 port at the current time.
The USB 2.0 (final release) was just released in the beginning of May, so USB 2.0 mobos probably aren't out yet - but should be coming soon.
Considering the fact that you can tunnel packets through a host in another geographical location using SSH or other methods, this method is inherently flawed.
over 90% of the people who may use this will not know/bother with packet tunneling, they are the 'point-n-click' demographic.
Any system has weaknesses. There is no way to do something that can't somehow be circumvented by someone, at some time.
I know console makers often sell their boxes at a loss and make it up on the games. But lets face it. MS has a track record of generally shitty games, they really expect to make up for developing the console on games like that?
They key here is installed base !
BillG will eat the cost (somewhat) in order to get one of these in evey home in the world. "It's got games for the kids, and can record hours of TV for the parents!" Then you have an installed base. Do not forget that is how M$ has made their money - their installed base. This is their plan. I guarantee. Once you have an installed base you can (almost) do anything. You rule the customer AND the companies providing games/services/etc for the installed product.
Don't underestimate M$, they know how to make money. Not much else, but making money - they got that down...
> Casablanca, no CGI there, yet one of the best movies made.
;)
Just curious, what doen the 'I' in CGI stand for here?
I think he means SGI...? Otherwise I'm wondering the same thing. I wonder what company he develops games for...?
With the GPL you may charge for the program.
:
I thought this too, at first, until my company lawyer pointed out term/condition 2a in the GPL
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish...[that contains GPL'ed code]...to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties..."
You can charge for associated services, such as a transferral charge, warranty, etc. But you can't charge for the code itself.
At least, that's what my company's lawyers have concluded, according to what they told me. I work for IBM.
I notice that this story is "from the fun-with-accelerated-light-dept", which is technically incorrect since lasers are focused light, not accelerated light. You can't accelerate light (well, light moves slower when passing thru matter, so a transition from matter to vacuum would 'accelerate' it...but that's not how lasers work...)
As far as I can tell, the only substantial differences between the IBM Public License and the GPL are
Any contributions become IBM's property (Copyright IBM, All Rights Reserved)
You can charge $ for the program (although you must provide source) unlike the GPL (cannot charge for the actual code, only related services)
I know the main reason IBM doesn't like the GPL is the 'Viral Effect' where code that uses GPL'd code must be GPL'd itself (unless it dynamically links?), but it kinda (?) looks like the IBM Public License has the same problem...?
I thought this commercial was kinda cool. Different style for IBM.
Using 'Go' in netscape or (I think) 'history' or something in IE is equivalent.
I've been using computers since the C64 days
And you can't get QT working...?
If you would care to rephrase your comment in a non flaming mater I'm sure we could disscuss any ideas you may have as to how to get QT running properly on my computer.
Maybe you should ask for help instead.
If you can't afford SCSI, more memory, or RAID...then why the hell are you going to buy hardware-compressed memory?!? Just buy more normal memory with the cash. The only case I can see is if the hardware-compressed memory costs (example) twice as much and gives twice or more virtual memory a lot (75+%, I'd say...) of the time (and that's not considering speed loss)...however I really doubt it's there now. And of course any paging when memory runs out is going to hurt bad.
And if you have gobs of cash to spend on memory then obviously more memory is the better option...
Hmm...so you don't have enough $ for more (normal) memory, but you DO have enough $ for hardware-compreessed memory? O-k...
Point is, unless this costs as much as normal memory, and is as fast as normal memory, it just isn't worth it.
Whether or not you're poor.
In other words, if you are using any sort of paging file, this will almost certainly improve performance, not hurt it.
Any admin that sets up a server without enough memory to avoid using swap (except under really high load) is not doing their job. Obviously any paging is going to kill performance whether compressed memory chips are used or not.
It would be much better to simply buy more normal memory than rely on better paging performance.