Check out the MSDN Library. It may not be conclusive, but it is pretty darn close.
It is modularized. Sure, you can swap out IE -- if you write a program with the exact same COM interface. Just overwrite shdocvw.dll, and assuming it acts the same way as IE, it'll work just great. (BTW, "IE" is actually an ActiveX component; your new rendering engine would be used by the "IE program". Kinda funny.)
They do use standards, you dolt. If IE stopped supporting HTTPS, but rather HTTPMS, how useful do you think that would be? If they took out the HTML rendering engine, and put in one that only worked with HTMSL, how many sites would publish a second version? (Well, a lot. But still.) Word supports RTF. Excel imports/exports to CSV. Outlook talks SMTP. IAS supports RAIDIUS. The list goes on. Yes, support of these standards can be flaky at times, it may not be implemented properly, etc. -- but, they generally are functional. Also, most of the standards that Microsoft changes are ones that they have made themselves. (Are they not entitled to modify their own protocols?)
Personally, I don't see how Microsoft -- a closed and proprietary company -- could ever cooperate with Open Source Software. Their shared sorce program is a weak attempt, not at opening up, but increasing market share in one area where they're lacking. Yeah, that's a real open source attitude: present some code to the public to get more money.
Besides, Microsoft has already made clear that the GPL is a threat to capitalism; hence, their desire to have nothing to do with it.
Well, if IIS were to run under WINE... then that may be possible. (It doesn't.) That's not to say that they can't forge the headers under Apache, though.
We could do a TCP fingerprint to attempt to determine the host OS, though that isn't foolproof either. Worth a shot.
Well... no. KaZaA (or some other stupid capitalization) technically isn't using your CPU cycles... well, it is, but not for distributed computation. It's some other client, which (evidently) no one knew about. In any case, as far as I know, there was no such clause; no one knew about it. Plus, there need not be a clause, if the embedded program pops up a message box explaining what pushing "Yes" means. They don't need to include that in the license if you explicitly agree to it later.
What I find interesting is the fact that they could distribute some other program -- even if it is a "stub" program -- inside of something as widely used as KaZaA is kind of impressive. Surely, some one would have noticed... but if they did, they must have remained pretty quiet. Has anyone heard about this before Brilliant Digital said something?
Additionally, as a sidenote, giFT is pretty cool. Granted, the website does need some work, they actually have to release the new version (so you don't have to suck it out of CVS), and so forth. However, it's still pretty cool. Not the largest network, but if we were to get even 1% of Slashdot to join then OpenFT would be in excellent shape.
Whoops, sorry -- that's qtconsole-1.0.0/qtconsole, which contains only main.cpp, Makefile.a4, Makefile.in, and docs/ (which contains a few.html files with little to no actual content).
No, seriously guys -- get the source distrobution, unpack it, and go into the qtconsole-1.0.0/src directory. There's one.cpp file, entitled main.cpp, that simply displays an "April Fool's" message and exit.
Try for yourself. Slashdot editors really should read the stuff before they post it.
Okay... using your "veteran intuition and skill", tell me what's wrong using only this information. You see, even if FreeBSD (and assorted other Unix-like OSes) need extra preparation to find out what's wrong, at least you *can* find out what's wrong.
(Yes, as a remotely competent MS sysadmin, I know about core dumps and so forth, but the FreeBSD solution [a symbolic backtrace] is far better. Also, by the way, this is essentially an access violation that was done in kernel mode... which means you're still no closer to finding the answer.)
We've known that light can slow down since 1850. The speed of light does change when traveling through various things, depending on its index of refraction. So, you are not correct -- light can be and is slowed down easily.
Re:lot more than quantum...
on
Stopping Light
·
· Score: 1
Reliability would not go up. Think about this: what happens when you read the data back? Well, you'd have to make the light move again. Great, but what happens when you read it again? There's no more stored light, so there's nothing you could get out of this.
You could, of course, read it and re-write it. But, this, too, has problems with it -- you need lasers to do all your dirty work, so you're still limited by the speed of the switching electronics on them. Hmm...
Basically, without some serious work being done, this can't become the mass storage revolution we're all hoping for.
Pi is a transcendental number, meaining that it is a non-repeating, non-terminating decimal that is not algebraic (i.e. not a root of any repeating or terminating decimal). So, no, pi does not contain itself.
Also, though we can't fully evaluate pi, some guy named Lindemann proved in 1882 that, indeed, pi was transcendental (and that he had way too much time on his hands). More information can be found here, if you want.
Right... well, if you would have read the article, they divide everything into three categories. Class I devices show the state of the device (i.e. constant regardless of activity amount), Class II devices show the amount of activity (like blinking upon passing a packet), and Class III devices show the actual pattern of data being emitted. Naturally, your switch is most likely *not* a Class III device, making it impossible to recover the data transmitted from the LED pattern.
Also, we needn't worry about our LAN cards getting sniffed -- not only do they blink really freakin' fast (compared to a modem), they have "pulse stretchers" that make the lights light up for longer so they can be seen, which has the handy dandy side-effect of preventing data from getting out.
Wow, they plant to make thirty pods in two years for a price of $65 million. Great, and they're battery operated. Plus, they move at a whopping 25 miles per hour. I feel like this could easily become the sweeping revolution in mass transit.
"Passengers will 'hail' the pod from a designated stop, where they select the required destination along a set route." Sort of like a bus. Except buses don't cost $2 million to build, and they seat more than four passengers... additionally, they expect a trip to cost as much as a bus, except buses are cheaper, higher capacity, don't require a renovation of an infrastructure, already available, and in many cases faster than these pods.
Seriously, though, what if someone swipes the battery, smashes the windshield, or perhaps "disables" the potentially raised rail? Who would get sued? Or would they make you sign a disclaimer (the "you can't touch us if you get killed" variety)?
Basically, what I'm seeing is that we'd be better off *not* investing in these things: too expensive for too small of a gain.
The Hammer family of processors will differ from other AMD chips--and other Intel processors--in that they will be able to run conventional 32-bit applications found on Windows PCs today as well as 64-bit applications.
Perhaps we should read the article before we all run off and post;-)
It's interesting reading, including "Lesson four: UDP is better than TCP, but it still sucks" and "Lesson five: Whenever you think the Internet can't get any worse, it gets worse". It's good stuff.
Not so. Freenet does not pass traffic for every other node, only a small subset of nodes. Unlike Gnutella, there are no broadcasted messages. Freenet not only intelligently routes queries and query hits, it routes intelligently every message on the network.
While Freenet does pass file data in-band, this is a Good Thing (TM). I will agree that Freenet is unfairly compared to Gnutella or Napster; Freenet is an anonymous data publishing and retrieval system, while Gnutella and Napster are simple file sharing clients. Passing data in-band is what makes this anonymous, dynamic caching system possible. Agreed, it may be slower and use more CPU time, but many are willing to trade extra resources for anonymity.
One final point of note is that there is not an excessive amount of traffic on the network; data is passed through very few nodes on its way back to the client, and if the data is more "popular", it will be cached on a series of nodes, reducing the overhead further.
AT&T labs have produced something they call Sentient Computing, and while technically it may not be sentient, it would probably be kind of creepy. Each person wears a "bat" which lets a central computer monitor their whereabouts, and based on information fed to it by various sensors, can deduce what the person is doing.
This is a neat system; you can point at things with the bat and the computer will respond (like pointing the bat at a poster to choose scanner settings), however, since this computer is tied into the phone system (among other things), this could get kind of scary.
Yes, you are correct -- Gnutella is way simpler than Freenet. But, this comes with a price; Gnutella hands out your IP to anyone and everyone that wants it, cannot scale beyond a certain point, and makes no effort to protect your activities on the network.
Yes, Freenet is complicated, but what you lose in simplicity you gain in security, functionality, and resilience. (When was the last time people in China got news via Gnutella...)
I've gotten my cats (the earlier PS/2 ones, at least) to read Codabar, Code 128, and UPC-As... pretty much everything I've told it to. Barcodes are the most "legible" when printed on a laser printer; I had to enlarge the codes a wee bit to play nicely on my Lexmark 5700.
So, yes, these little annoying plastic things can read home-made barcodes.
Yeah, but "a little signal triangulation" won't help you if the computer you requested it from didn't have the data and is simply relaying it for you. Welcome to the wonderful, legal side-stepping realm of Freenet.
The idea behind Freenet is that of relaying a request for some other node transparently -- so, say the FBI operative attempts to retrieve some kiddy porn and contacts some unsuspecting node. Well, great. The request returns (carrying data), and the FBI goes after the node operator. However:
There is no way to prove that the node was carrying the data before the request, thus, the FBI agent was responsible for spreading the offending material
There is no way for the node operator to know what his node contains, and thus, no way to prevent the data from passing through
Even if the data did reside on that node, there is no way to prove that it got there by the node operator requesting it
So, you see, "a little signal triangulation" wouldn't help if a system like Freenet was implemented wirelessly.
Re:It's good to see they're working hard
on
AOL vs. Trillian
·
· Score: 2, Informative
A corporation, AOL is.
A possible competitor, Trillian is not. Trillian does not "compete" with AIM, it complements it. With all the Trillian users out there, why should AOL stop access to them? It increases the number of people on AOL can talk to.
"...when a service unleashes software that hacks into our system, and endangers the security of our system, we stop it."
That's a load of crap. Trillian does not hack into their system, it connects to it just as an official client does. Just because Trillian "happens" to speak the same language doesn't mean it's illegal. Again, third party clients make life easier for the people on AIM -- after all, AOL wouldn't want them downloading, say, MSN and using that instead, right? Blocking third party clients does not help AOL, it just makes life more intersting for both sets of developers as well as making it more difficult for people to communicate.
While there is truth in that it *is* their system and it *is* their place to decide whether or not to take action, doing so is simply a dumb idea.
> Which is why most likely, and I thought I made
> this clear in my first post, that Microsoft
> would need to release a service pack to enable
> dual processor configs in Windows XP Home (and
> likely allow quad processor configs in WXP
> Pro, and move the formula up for their other
> releases of XP/.NET Server).
NT4 workstation and Win2k Pro both support 2 processors. Server (IIRC) supports up to 4, Advanced Server supports up to 8, and Datacenter supports up to 32. No fuss, no muss. Out-of-the-box SMP support.
Also, it is not just a matter of enabling dual-processor configurations; it is a matter of modifying single-processor-specific sections of the kernel, as well as (again) adding locking in the appropriate places.
I can think of no reason that Microsoft would change their plan now instead of before the release date, and I find the idea of Microsoft releasing a service pack to add functionality that was taken out for the release of XP Home unlikely. if you want dual-processor support, buy Pro. (They get more money that way, you see.)
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I don't see how Microsoft -- a closed and proprietary company -- could ever cooperate with Open Source Software. Their shared sorce program is a weak attempt, not at opening up, but increasing market share in one area where they're lacking. Yeah, that's a real open source attitude: present some code to the public to get more money.
Besides, Microsoft has already made clear that the GPL is a threat to capitalism; hence, their desire to have nothing to do with it.
The existence of /bin/ls doesn't prove that it's running *nix, but it starts out with:
^?ELF^A^A^A FreeBSD
Kind of unsettling, no? But they'd have to forge IIS error pages, too... hmm. Good work.
Well, if IIS were to run under WINE... then that may be possible. (It doesn't.) That's not to say that they can't forge the headers under Apache, though.
We could do a TCP fingerprint to attempt to determine the host OS, though that isn't foolproof either. Worth a shot.
Well... no. KaZaA (or some other stupid capitalization) technically isn't using your CPU cycles... well, it is, but not for distributed computation. It's some other client, which (evidently) no one knew about. In any case, as far as I know, there was no such clause; no one knew about it. Plus, there need not be a clause, if the embedded program pops up a message box explaining what pushing "Yes" means. They don't need to include that in the license if you explicitly agree to it later.
What I find interesting is the fact that they could distribute some other program -- even if it is a "stub" program -- inside of something as widely used as KaZaA is kind of impressive. Surely, some one would have noticed... but if they did, they must have remained pretty quiet. Has anyone heard about this before Brilliant Digital said something?
Additionally, as a sidenote, giFT is pretty cool. Granted, the website does need some work, they actually have to release the new version (so you don't have to suck it out of CVS), and so forth. However, it's still pretty cool. Not the largest network, but if we were to get even 1% of Slashdot to join then OpenFT would be in excellent shape.
Whoops, sorry -- that's qtconsole-1.0.0/qtconsole, which contains only main.cpp, Makefile.a4, Makefile.in, and docs/ (which contains a few .html files with little to no actual content).
No, seriously guys -- get the source distrobution, unpack it, and go into the qtconsole-1.0.0/src directory. There's one .cpp file, entitled main.cpp, that simply displays an "April Fool's" message and exit.
Try for yourself. Slashdot editors really should read the stuff before they post it.
Ever seen a Windows NT "STOP" error? It pops up during the boot process in a nice, handy little blue screen, such as the following:
Okay... using your "veteran intuition and skill", tell me what's wrong using only this information. You see, even if FreeBSD (and assorted other Unix-like OSes) need extra preparation to find out what's wrong, at least you *can* find out what's wrong.
(Yes, as a remotely competent MS sysadmin, I know about core dumps and so forth, but the FreeBSD solution [a symbolic backtrace] is far better. Also, by the way, this is essentially an access violation that was done in kernel mode... which means you're still no closer to finding the answer.)
We've known that light can slow down since 1850. The speed of light does change when traveling through various things, depending on its index of refraction. So, you are not correct -- light can be and is slowed down easily.
Reliability would not go up. Think about this: what happens when you read the data back? Well, you'd have to make the light move again. Great, but what happens when you read it again? There's no more stored light, so there's nothing you could get out of this.
You could, of course, read it and re-write it. But, this, too, has problems with it -- you need lasers to do all your dirty work, so you're still limited by the speed of the switching electronics on them. Hmm...
Basically, without some serious work being done, this can't become the mass storage revolution we're all hoping for.
Pi is a transcendental number, meaining that it is a non-repeating, non-terminating decimal that is not algebraic (i.e. not a root of any repeating or terminating decimal). So, no, pi does not contain itself.
Also, though we can't fully evaluate pi, some guy named Lindemann proved in 1882 that, indeed, pi was transcendental (and that he had way too much time on his hands). More information can be found here, if you want.
Right... well, if you would have read the article, they divide everything into three categories. Class I devices show the state of the device (i.e. constant regardless of activity amount), Class II devices show the amount of activity (like blinking upon passing a packet), and Class III devices show the actual pattern of data being emitted. Naturally, your switch is most likely *not* a Class III device, making it impossible to recover the data transmitted from the LED pattern.
Also, we needn't worry about our LAN cards getting sniffed -- not only do they blink really freakin' fast (compared to a modem), they have "pulse stretchers" that make the lights light up for longer so they can be seen, which has the handy dandy side-effect of preventing data from getting out.
Wow, they plant to make thirty pods in two years for a price of $65 million. Great, and they're battery operated. Plus, they move at a whopping 25 miles per hour. I feel like this could easily become the sweeping revolution in mass transit.
"Passengers will 'hail' the pod from a designated stop, where they select the required destination along a set route." Sort of like a bus. Except buses don't cost $2 million to build, and they seat more than four passengers... additionally, they expect a trip to cost as much as a bus, except buses are cheaper, higher capacity, don't require a renovation of an infrastructure, already available, and in many cases faster than these pods.
Seriously, though, what if someone swipes the battery, smashes the windshield, or perhaps "disables" the potentially raised rail? Who would get sued? Or would they make you sign a disclaimer (the "you can't touch us if you get killed" variety)?
Basically, what I'm seeing is that we'd be better off *not* investing in these things: too expensive for too small of a gain.
Directly from the article:
The Hammer family of processors will differ from other AMD chips--and other Intel processors--in that they will be able to run conventional 32-bit applications found on Windows PCs today as well as 64-bit applications.Perhaps we should read the article before we all run off and post ;-)
There's another article that sounds similar about is written by Peter Lincroft entitled The Internet Sucks: Or, What I Learned Coding X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter back when multiplayer games were not plentiful.
It's interesting reading, including "Lesson four: UDP is better than TCP, but it still sucks" and "Lesson five: Whenever you think the Internet can't get any worse, it gets worse". It's good stuff.
Sourceforge makes a daily tarball of the CVS root. Granted, it has all the CVS metainformation in it still, but it's there...
s ro ot.tar.gz
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cvstarballs/bnetd-cv
Thought this might be useful for someone.
Not so. Freenet does not pass traffic for every other node, only a small subset of nodes. Unlike Gnutella, there are no broadcasted messages. Freenet not only intelligently routes queries and query hits, it routes intelligently every message on the network.
While Freenet does pass file data in-band, this is a Good Thing (TM). I will agree that Freenet is unfairly compared to Gnutella or Napster; Freenet is an anonymous data publishing and retrieval system, while Gnutella and Napster are simple file sharing clients. Passing data in-band is what makes this anonymous, dynamic caching system possible. Agreed, it may be slower and use more CPU time, but many are willing to trade extra resources for anonymity.
One final point of note is that there is not an excessive amount of traffic on the network; data is passed through very few nodes on its way back to the client, and if the data is more "popular", it will be cached on a series of nodes, reducing the overhead further.
AT&T labs have produced something they call Sentient Computing, and while technically it may not be sentient, it would probably be kind of creepy. Each person wears a "bat" which lets a central computer monitor their whereabouts, and based on information fed to it by various sensors, can deduce what the person is doing.
This is a neat system; you can point at things with the bat and the computer will respond (like pointing the bat at a poster to choose scanner settings), however, since this computer is tied into the phone system (among other things), this could get kind of scary.
Yes, you are correct -- Gnutella is way simpler than Freenet. But, this comes with a price; Gnutella hands out your IP to anyone and everyone that wants it, cannot scale beyond a certain point, and makes no effort to protect your activities on the network.
Yes, Freenet is complicated, but what you lose in simplicity you gain in security, functionality, and resilience. (When was the last time people in China got news via Gnutella...)
So, version 3 equals stable? Let's see here... remember Windows 3.0? How about DOS 3.0? Heck, the Linux kernel isn't 3.0.
I've gotten my cats (the earlier PS/2 ones, at least) to read Codabar, Code 128, and UPC-As... pretty much everything I've told it to. Barcodes are the most "legible" when printed on a laser printer; I had to enlarge the codes a wee bit to play nicely on my Lexmark 5700.
So, yes, these little annoying plastic things can read home-made barcodes.
Yeah, but "a little signal triangulation" won't help you if the computer you requested it from didn't have the data and is simply relaying it for you. Welcome to the wonderful, legal side-stepping realm of Freenet.
The idea behind Freenet is that of relaying a request for some other node transparently -- so, say the FBI operative attempts to retrieve some kiddy porn and contacts some unsuspecting node. Well, great. The request returns (carrying data), and the FBI goes after the node operator. However:
So, you see, "a little signal triangulation" wouldn't help if a system like Freenet was implemented wirelessly.
A corporation, AOL is.
A possible competitor, Trillian is not. Trillian does not "compete" with AIM, it complements it. With all the Trillian users out there, why should AOL stop access to them? It increases the number of people on AOL can talk to.
"...when a service unleashes software that hacks into our system, and endangers the security of our system, we stop it."
That's a load of crap. Trillian does not hack into their system, it connects to it just as an official client does. Just because Trillian "happens" to speak the same language doesn't mean it's illegal. Again, third party clients make life easier for the people on AIM -- after all, AOL wouldn't want them downloading, say, MSN and using that instead, right? Blocking third party clients does not help AOL, it just makes life more intersting for both sets of developers as well as making it more difficult for people to communicate.
While there is truth in that it *is* their system and it *is* their place to decide whether or not to take action, doing so is simply a dumb idea.
Is it just me, or is this the hundredth technological breakthrough in the last year that's poised to "revolutionize the marketplace"?
The real question is, though -- how many actually do?
Oh, one other thing:
> Which is why most likely, and I thought I made
> this clear in my first post, that Microsoft
> would need to release a service pack to enable
> dual processor configs in Windows XP Home (and
> likely allow quad processor configs in WXP
> Pro, and move the formula up for their other
> releases of XP/.NET Server).
NT4 workstation and Win2k Pro both support 2 processors. Server (IIRC) supports up to 4, Advanced Server supports up to 8, and Datacenter supports up to 32. No fuss, no muss. Out-of-the-box SMP support.
Also, it is not just a matter of enabling dual-processor configurations; it is a matter of modifying single-processor-specific sections of the kernel, as well as (again) adding locking in the appropriate places.
I can think of no reason that Microsoft would change their plan now instead of before the release date, and I find the idea of Microsoft releasing a service pack to add functionality that was taken out for the release of XP Home unlikely. if you want dual-processor support, buy Pro. (They get more money that way, you see.)