Follow the same logic. And an anti-compete law is equivalent to a law that pervents you from bying a car that can go more than 70 mph, because you might speed. Or a law that pervents you from buying a gun because you might kill someone with it.
There's trade secret laws. One law is enough. The extra layer is redundant, and reduces our civil liberties.
I don't like a company to own parts of my brain. Some amount of protection is required, but it should be kept to the absolute bearable minimum.
I want a setting that says "drop all packets from hosts who request a no-longer-shared file." I want a setting that says "drop all packets from hosts who attempt to
download while the program is running but not connected to the network." I want a setting that says "drop all packets from hosts who send download requests
more than $TIMES per minute." My per-user upload limit is set at 1, so someone queueing up 200 files at a time generates an enormous amount of protocol
overhead. It might be 5 hours before that user gets all of his 200 files, all the while he's sending a constant barrage of packets which accomplish nothing.
Yeah! filter out those MFs on the client. If 80% of the clients block abusive clients, they will be essentially rendered useless.
Another idea... A shared list of abusive clients.
Or, a shared list of Gnutella client priority based on politeness?
Gnutella Kharma points, anyone?
you have to realize that an out-of-context power consumption specification for a component or a board is about as meaningful as an interrupt latency specification is for a real-time operating system.
This is the first time i've ever seen an analogy more complex than the original statement.
From the C/C++ books i've read, I was told that free/delete operations as written in the ANSI spec _specifically allow_ any behavior, including a full systems crash, in the case of a erronous use of free/delete. All this for performance reasons. They assume the programmer knows how to handle his stack.
In retrospect, this seems like negligence. But it only reflects the concenrns and the focus of C/C++ at the time : Speed.
So then, when if we ask him why he created us, he can lie and say:
"I created you evolve and become gods yourselfs, because I am the only one who can create such wonders."
One point not mentionned here: DirectFB is actually a solution to an old and ugly problem. Anyone here hate having this big heavy ROOT app running on your desktop 24/7? Anyone asked themselfs why this video output device isn't treated as every other device in the system : as a kernel driver?
Moreover, who here has seen how insanely complex DRI is? It shoudn't be.
This DirectFB with acceleration buit-in, is an answer to reestablish order to the Linux world. Push back video driver stuff back in the kernel, make shure it's stable, and leave complexety and crash prone code outside of root code.
I see X on top of the DirectFB as an excellent solution to a cleaner, more stable, easyer to port Linux.
Ah! someone gets it strait!
Computers are still high speed idiots.
The moores law only makes faster speeding idiots.
As long as the science of AI doesn't truly surmount the barriers of creativity and self-awareness, computers will only be tools that complement and enhance our usefullness.
We need to create an IA that not only meets the Turing test but exceeds it. Some form of 'beeing' that asks questions about its own existence like any other human started dooing at the age of 5.
Anything else is just fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Download them from the net. It's much safer. ;)
Follow the same logic. And an anti-compete law is equivalent to a law that pervents you from bying a car that can go more than 70 mph, because you might speed. Or a law that pervents you from buying a gun because you might kill someone with it.
There's trade secret laws. One law is enough. The extra layer is redundant, and reduces our civil liberties.
I don't like a company to own parts of my brain. Some amount of protection is required, but it should be kept to the absolute bearable minimum.
Great! Now people will realise that there is a direct link between loss of privacy and loss of freedom.
Does that mean I can legally copy copyrighted material on them, but not on other US-bought CDs?
Maybe I can sell them on ebay as "copy legal CDs"...
Now we can tap in a car engine's vibrations to recharge the battery...
Make it more efficient, and it can dampen the vibrations enough to even replace the muffler!
It's a heavy cable.
Yeah! filter out those MFs on the client. If 80% of the clients block abusive clients, they will be essentially rendered useless.
Another idea... A shared list of abusive clients. Or, a shared list of Gnutella client priority based on politeness? Gnutella Kharma points, anyone?
This is the first time i've ever seen an analogy more complex than the original statement.
Yeah! strait on!
Anyone with have numbers on what percentage of Hard Drives fail before they become obsoleted?
Hey, without them, bye bye Doom, Quake, Unreal, Half-life, etc...
In retrospect, this seems like negligence. But it only reflects the concenrns and the focus of C/C++ at the time : Speed.
Good to know.
The spreading of the subsequent e-mail viruses is the users fault.
So then, when if we ask him why he created us, he can lie and say: "I created you evolve and become gods yourselfs, because I am the only one who can create such wonders."
One point not mentionned here: DirectFB is actually a solution to an old and ugly problem. Anyone here hate having this big heavy ROOT app running on your desktop 24/7? Anyone asked themselfs why this video output device isn't treated as every other device in the system : as a kernel driver? Moreover, who here has seen how insanely complex DRI is? It shoudn't be. This DirectFB with acceleration buit-in, is an answer to reestablish order to the Linux world. Push back video driver stuff back in the kernel, make shure it's stable, and leave complexety and crash prone code outside of root code. I see X on top of the DirectFB as an excellent solution to a cleaner, more stable, easyer to port Linux.
Ah! someone gets it strait! Computers are still high speed idiots. The moores law only makes faster speeding idiots. As long as the science of AI doesn't truly surmount the barriers of creativity and self-awareness, computers will only be tools that complement and enhance our usefullness. We need to create an IA that not only meets the Turing test but exceeds it. Some form of 'beeing' that asks questions about its own existence like any other human started dooing at the age of 5. Anything else is just fraud.