The "tax" is the one refered to in the summary - the piles of software/hardware the reviewer believes he needs to buy. I wouldn't continue to buy Apple if I didn't believe the costs weren't competitive/justified.
Well Duh. I'd much rather buy my way out of the situations he names than spend my time scrounging around for semi-adequate "free" solutions a la linux, or borked spyware crap a la windows. Maybe his time is free, but mine isn't.
You need to read the bitfrost spec. "root" isn't a viable security mechanism for modern computing, much as you like it. It doesn't distribute, and doesn't offer the multiple levels of security that are required in the OLPC types of deployment. There likely isn't an expert around who can "root" around problems. Instead, OLPC has a well-defined security model that makes sense for its deployment environment.
The security and authentication aspects of OLPC are vital to its deployment; any dropping to root to "fix" something is a total failure.
Did Intel address the power issues as well? Or does it expect access to a wall-wart every 2 hours?
The hardware isn't really what makes OLPC attractive; those who evaluate it only by that measure are missing the point.
I hope it won't pass. But this is a grim statement about the attorney general's lack of respect for the rule of law. Have a look at most of the provisions: it's about criminalizing a larger class of people and lowering the standard of proof. That's one of the key tools of the police state: make everyone guilty of something and you'll have a way to detain anyone you want to at any time. You'd be hard pressed to defend yourself against an accusation of attempted copyright theft, and this would let them have the server logs that show yoy visited sites hosting copyrighted materials. bang. They have something they can use againt you.
Every incoming president fires the US attorneys as part of the regime change.
Bush did it when he came into office too.
But Bush now went and fired US attorneys, in mid-term, because of ideological differences and insufficient "commitment" to the Bush cause. That's not right. If you're going to compare instances, make sure you're comparing apples to apples.
The article mentions at least one class of worker that was re-classified: the Adwords approval people. In a newspaper they would be the classified copy editors. It's a low-end job. I'm willing to bet Google isn't reclassifying engineers as hourly.
It's *exactly* not about fair. The idea is to use the tax to increase the likelihood that people will buy CFLs instead of incandescents. The tax works better than an outright ban, and actually relates to the otherwise "hidden" (energy) cost of the incandescent lightbulb.
Sometimes you don't want fair - that's why income redistribution is so popular in all civilized countries. I prefer to drop my standard of living a minor amount to not have my neighbours living in squalour. It's not about fair.
The anti-virus products are actually the virus. They drain more system and system administration resources than the viruses they block (and do *nothing* against the others) and their presence lets the OS vendors who should be dealing with security issues directy shirk that duty. Symantec and co. are the problem, not its cure.
There's a long continuum between "starving and illiterate" and first-world levels of comfort.
People think of "all the starving children" in Africa (and yes, there are many) but neglect to think about all the not-starving-but-not-getting-ahead children in developing countries. The OLPC gamble is to raise up the standard of living that part of the population and hope that trickle-down economics will raise the standard elsewhere. If the OLPC makes education easier (or more compatible with the 21st century), the result might well be a general improvement in standards of living in the developing world.
it is a lot harder to dump the cpu registers under such conditions than it is to trace memory accesses.
You've clearly never worked with a good hardware-assisted debugger. And virtualization makes this scenario possible without debugger hardware support.
Even more, no matter what, the key has to make its way from the device to the CPU register. On every modern machine that transaction goes through memory. Which means that brute-force tracing from the device to the registers should be able to find it. Not necessarily easily, but quite doable.
That's a completely bogus statement. In straight C you know your call graph. You know which function is called where and when. In C++ any method call might be virtual and you have no way to know at the call site. Or the function call might be a non-virtual override. No way to tell at the call site. It is much easier to mis-use (unintentionally) a C++ OO library than a straight C library. I see many more errors in C++ code than I do in straight C.
And you need to read too: there is substantial re-work in all their new products, even when based on the same gameplay mechanism. I hate to tell you, but that's not just a "rehash" a la NHL 2005->NHL 2006.
Sure, because as a company, when I have a license to print money, I just throw it away in the name of "innovation".
Blizzard are doing everything right as far as cashing in on their IP. They should continue. If that means another expansion, or another revision of a hugely popular, best-selling game, then they should do it.
I hate these whiners who would have you believe that Blizzard is doing it wrong because it's not tickling their particular itch.
One of my banks does something similar - you might not have understood that they are trying to stop phishing attacks. When I identify to my bank, after giving my username, but before giving my passowrd, the bank offers up a picture and a keyword (chosen by me) to show that this is them. They are showing *me* something they know so I know it's them and not a phishing site.
Slashdot Mirror
The "tax" is the one refered to in the summary - the piles of software/hardware the reviewer believes he needs to buy. I wouldn't continue to buy Apple if I didn't believe the costs weren't competitive/justified.
This post doesn't risk screwing up my computing environment, so it's on me ;-)
Maybe if I didn't value my non-work time I'd be willing to do that. I used to; but the cost equation has changed a little as my income has increased.
Well Duh. I'd much rather buy my way out of the situations he names than spend my time scrounging around for semi-adequate "free" solutions a la linux, or borked spyware crap a la windows. Maybe his time is free, but mine isn't.
Using the word "strong" in conjunction with the current state of the US dollar is evidence of deep denial.
You need to read the bitfrost spec. "root" isn't a viable security mechanism for modern computing, much as you like it. It doesn't distribute, and doesn't offer the multiple levels of security that are required in the OLPC types of deployment. There likely isn't an expert around who can "root" around problems. Instead, OLPC has a well-defined security model that makes sense for its deployment environment.
The security and authentication aspects of OLPC are vital to its deployment; any dropping to root to "fix" something is a total failure.
Did Intel address the power issues as well? Or does it expect access to a wall-wart every 2 hours?
The hardware isn't really what makes OLPC attractive; those who evaluate it only by that measure are missing the point.
That's not tabs, that's just MDI.
Bush did it when he came into office too.
But Bush now went and fired US attorneys, in mid-term, because of ideological differences and insufficient "commitment" to the Bush cause. That's not right. If you're going to compare instances, make sure you're comparing apples to apples.
The article mentions at least one class of worker that was re-classified: the Adwords approval people. In a newspaper they would be the classified copy editors. It's a low-end job. I'm willing to bet Google isn't reclassifying engineers as hourly.
I wish I had mod points.
All that's old is new again. Can you say Riccitiello for CEO?
Sometimes you don't want fair - that's why income redistribution is so popular in all civilized countries. I prefer to drop my standard of living a minor amount to not have my neighbours living in squalour. It's not about fair.
Pressing my turbo switch made my PC run slower. They all defaulted "on".
The anti-virus products are actually the virus. They drain more system and system administration resources than the viruses they block (and do *nothing* against the others) and their presence lets the OS vendors who should be dealing with security issues directy shirk that duty. Symantec and co. are the problem, not its cure.
People think of "all the starving children" in Africa (and yes, there are many) but neglect to think about all the not-starving-but-not-getting-ahead children in developing countries. The OLPC gamble is to raise up the standard of living that part of the population and hope that trickle-down economics will raise the standard elsewhere. If the OLPC makes education easier (or more compatible with the 21st century), the result might well be a general improvement in standards of living in the developing world.
You've clearly never worked with a good hardware-assisted debugger. And virtualization makes this scenario possible without debugger hardware support.
Even more, no matter what, the key has to make its way from the device to the CPU register. On every modern machine that transaction goes through memory. Which means that brute-force tracing from the device to the registers should be able to find it. Not necessarily easily, but quite doable.
DRM is dead. Let's bury it.
That's a completely bogus statement. In straight C you know your call graph. You know which function is called where and when. In C++ any method call might be virtual and you have no way to know at the call site. Or the function call might be a non-virtual override. No way to tell at the call site. It is much easier to mis-use (unintentionally) a C++ OO library than a straight C library. I see many more errors in C++ code than I do in straight C.
Looking forward to it. And a spiffy little iPhone.
I guess no writer is ever original in dealing with his established characters and worlds. I pity your worldview.
And you need to read too: there is substantial re-work in all their new products, even when based on the same gameplay mechanism. I hate to tell you, but that's not just a "rehash" a la NHL 2005->NHL 2006.
Blizzard are doing everything right as far as cashing in on their IP. They should continue. If that means another expansion, or another revision of a hugely popular, best-selling game, then they should do it.
I hate these whiners who would have you believe that Blizzard is doing it wrong because it's not tickling their particular itch.
Is your bank doing something similar?
Egg-on-my-face, colour me illiterate.