How did this modded as "insightful"? By shifting their entire salary to stock options, the Google directors are not avoiding a single "education" tax. Education is paid for out of the general fund (partially from standard income tax). They'll still be paying this tax! (See capital gains on stocks/options) The taxes they'd be avoiding (social security, medicare, etc) are all HEALTH and RETIREMENT taxes, they have nothing to do with education.
There reason everyone is "going nuts over this" is because the windows install that ships on these laptops has a license agreement that says something to the effect of: If you do not agree with this license you can return this software for a full refund. When you buy an "audio setup" or a car (an analogy in other posts) you aren't licensing the speakers or the tires; you know what you are buying. When you buy a computer, you are buying the hardware AND licensing the software. But, a clause (self imposed by Microsoft) gives you the privilage of returning the software. I'm not an expert in contract law, but there may be legal reasons that Microsoft is forced to add this clause.
I think your comparison here is quite unfair to the technological accomplishments of BlueGene/L. This is not simply a case of IBM "throwing more processors" at the problem, but BlueGene is a technological leap over other supercomputers. Not only is BlueGene faster, than for instance the Earth Simulator, but it also consumes FAR LESS power (which in turn minimizes the energy wasted cooling the thing) and takes up much less space. From an article published when BlueGene first overcame the Earth Simulator:
"Blue Gene/L's footprint is one per cent that of the Earth Simulator, and its power demands are just 3.6 per cent of the NEC supercomputer."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/29/supercompu ter_ibm/
So, I say to you, NO! The top 500 race is not simply big companies throwing money at a problem (well, it sort of is), but there is quite a lot of technical accomplishment going on here. You could argue that the people involved may not have the brilliance of Seymore, but they sure do have real talent.
I'd think employees would be more worried about being seen with an iRiver, since that runs Linux and all. An iPod doesn't have much direct impact to MS.
and must say that he is indeed a very smart guy. But, while it's unfortunate that his is being singled out in this incident, having a large number of files freely avaliable is "dumb" in my opinion. Especially, on Tech's Resnet where every computer has a static IP number.
Most people seem to be forgetting that there are two aspects to his suit(actually all the suits): that he had files avaliable and that he ran SMB indexing service for other students to use. One of those is illegal no matter how you look at it, and the other is a "gray area". I don't see how you can possibly advice him or any of the other students to countersue, on what basis?? They didn't have any of their rights infringed. They were leaving their computers open for anyone to access, as well as the indexing service, so there is no claim of "hacking" by the RIAA. There doesn't seem to me to be any reason they could file a countersuit.
It seems to me, based on all the articles I've read, the University is actually doing a very good job at standing up for one of their students. Curt Tompkins made a statement that he felt the RIAA should have alerted them before this problem grew so large, so that they could alert him early (remove his resnet). The fact is, there is no reason the University should have to stand up for someone who breaks the law, and I don't see where you get off bashing this fine school as you did. If you don't like it here, you're more than welcome to leave.
As for Joe, all I can say is good luck man. It is very unfortunate that he's the one singled out in this case because he really has a lot of potential in his future.
Nvidia and others do "distribute" binary-only drivers. Just because they don't actively send out CD's with their drivers does not mean they do not distribute them. Under the GPL both methods are concidered a distribution.
As far as writing drivers, as long you use the driver module method and do not need to directly change any preexisting kernel code, I do not believe there is any problem at all. That is how Nvidia and others can get away with that.
Like you noticed, but some other posters didn't, PurifyPlus is more than just the Purify memory-leak detection program. It also has a few other tools such as the code profiling and coverage testing utilities. While gcov/gprof are good tools, concidering they're free, I'm currently involved in a project where they aren't adaquate. For instance, neither will do measurements of code in shared libraries. But, I believe PurifyPlus will work fine with shared libraries and could be very useful for a project that is heavily dependant on shared libs.
If you look at the 1.1 comparison, there is a section that claims to have been handwritten ASM. Those two are practically the same. I doubt any two ASM programmers would write a function that is that similar.
Whenever my parents would make me mow the lawn when I was younger I always dreamed of building a robot-lawnmower so I didn't have to do it anymore. And don't call me lazy either, I had to mow an acre of hilly grass with a push mower once a week.:)
Slashdot Mirror
TFA actually says that it affects 1.0.7 and everything downward. Running 1.0.7 here myself and the test exploit worked: locked Firefox right up.
Just a fellow Tech alum. I graduated last May.
You've got to remember how old Louther is. He probably hasn't been following any updates to the language since 1972.
How did this modded as "insightful"? By shifting their entire salary to stock options, the Google directors are not avoiding a single "education" tax. Education is paid for out of the general fund (partially from standard income tax). They'll still be paying this tax! (See capital gains on stocks/options) The taxes they'd be avoiding (social security, medicare, etc) are all HEALTH and RETIREMENT taxes, they have nothing to do with education.
Actually, I'm often afraid of going on elevators...
There reason everyone is "going nuts over this" is because the windows install that ships on these laptops has a license agreement that says something to the effect of: If you do not agree with this license you can return this software for a full refund. When you buy an "audio setup" or a car (an analogy in other posts) you aren't licensing the speakers or the tires; you know what you are buying. When you buy a computer, you are buying the hardware AND licensing the software. But, a clause (self imposed by Microsoft) gives you the privilage of returning the software. I'm not an expert in contract law, but there may be legal reasons that Microsoft is forced to add this clause.
Um... looks like crops? :) If you've ever flown over Nevada, Arizona, etc. you'll see a lot of these irrigation circles.
Actually, I really do see it... Area 51
I think your comparison here is quite unfair to the technological accomplishments of BlueGene/L. This is not simply a case of IBM "throwing more processors" at the problem, but BlueGene is a technological leap over other supercomputers. Not only is BlueGene faster, than for instance the Earth Simulator, but it also consumes FAR LESS power (which in turn minimizes the energy wasted cooling the thing) and takes up much less space. From an article published when BlueGene first overcame the Earth Simulator: "Blue Gene/L's footprint is one per cent that of the Earth Simulator, and its power demands are just 3.6 per cent of the NEC supercomputer." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/29/supercompu ter_ibm/
So, I say to you, NO! The top 500 race is not simply big companies throwing money at a problem (well, it sort of is), but there is quite a lot of technical accomplishment going on here. You could argue that the people involved may not have the brilliance of Seymore, but they sure do have real talent.
I'd think employees would be more worried about being seen with an iRiver, since that runs Linux and all. An iPod doesn't have much direct impact to MS.
There are 1 kinds of people in the world...those who start counting at 0 and those who don't.
If you go through South Dakota, wander through the badlands and then head up to Wall Drug and get your free glass of cold water.
Or maybe it's just that AOL users aren't smart enough to install Kazaa since it doesn't come on their nifty 5000 free hours disk.
Do you think I can run PocketPC on this thing? I don't know that I'm ready to use Linux on my PDA...
Actually, even if you make your money from illegal activities you still need to claim taxes on it. That's what they caught Mr. Capone at, tax evasion.
and must say that he is indeed a very smart guy. But, while it's unfortunate that his is being singled out in this incident, having a large number of files freely avaliable is "dumb" in my opinion. Especially, on Tech's Resnet where every computer has a static IP number.
Most people seem to be forgetting that there are two aspects to his suit(actually all the suits): that he had files avaliable and that he ran SMB indexing service for other students to use. One of those is illegal no matter how you look at it, and the other is a "gray area". I don't see how you can possibly advice him or any of the other students to countersue, on what basis?? They didn't have any of their rights infringed. They were leaving their computers open for anyone to access, as well as the indexing service, so there is no claim of "hacking" by the RIAA. There doesn't seem to me to be any reason they could file a countersuit.
It seems to me, based on all the articles I've read, the University is actually doing a very good job at standing up for one of their students. Curt Tompkins made a statement that he felt the RIAA should have alerted them before this problem grew so large, so that they could alert him early (remove his resnet). The fact is, there is no reason the University should have to stand up for someone who breaks the law, and I don't see where you get off bashing this fine school as you did. If you don't like it here, you're more than welcome to leave.
As for Joe, all I can say is good luck man. It is very unfortunate that he's the one singled out in this case because he really has a lot of potential in his future.
Another article here: on quicken.com
:( One of the guys goes to my school...
Even lists names.
I bet it was really discovered on April 1st, but they were worried that /. would post 5 copies of the discovery.
Nvidia and others do "distribute" binary-only drivers. Just because they don't actively send out CD's with their drivers does not mean they do not distribute them. Under the GPL both methods are concidered a distribution. As far as writing drivers, as long you use the driver module method and do not need to directly change any preexisting kernel code, I do not believe there is any problem at all. That is how Nvidia and others can get away with that.
No, for that you should just buy a Beemer. They come with Win95 pre-installed.
I guess the author is implying that these older gamers have matured physically, but not mentally since they are still playing "kid games"?
Like you noticed, but some other posters didn't, PurifyPlus is more than just the Purify memory-leak detection program. It also has a few other tools such as the code profiling and coverage testing utilities. While gcov/gprof are good tools, concidering they're free, I'm currently involved in a project where they aren't adaquate. For instance, neither will do measurements of code in shared libraries. But, I believe PurifyPlus will work fine with shared libraries and could be very useful for a project that is heavily dependant on shared libs.
If you look at the 1.1 comparison, there is a section that claims to have been handwritten ASM. Those two are practically the same. I doubt any two ASM programmers would write a function that is that similar.
Whenever my parents would make me mow the lawn when I was younger I always dreamed of building a robot-lawnmower so I didn't have to do it anymore. And don't call me lazy either, I had to mow an acre of hilly grass with a push mower once a week. :)
So is this a violation of the DCMA? Just figured with all the attention it is getting lately...