I don't recall the part numbers. I just remember seeing the functionality in the docs for some parts we were using in embedded telco stuff in the 90s. Most of our parts (PIC, PIT, UART, etc) were fairly similar to what you find in a PC/AT. The functionality was optional and I believe we configured the clock/calendar to disable automatic time adjustments.
Because there's no real prospect for profit in the short to medium term by developing alternate fuels. When something needs to be done for the public good that doesn't have immediate profit potential, the only way it will get done is by putting government money into it.
Keep in mind that today's short-term outlook may be very different from next year's short-term outlook or the short-term outlook five years from now. By then the cost of traditional fuels may be high enough that alternative fuels will become cost effective and industry will jump on it. We may be very near such a tipping point. Government intervention may not be required. Also, government investment may not be very quick or cost effective. If you throw a lot of money at it today the money will most likely disappear into various pork barrel projects that produce nothing worthwhile. Why, for the same reason that industry is doing nothing. There is no perceived crisis or need. We are not going to get large scale alternative fuels from industry or government until there is a perceived need.
Seriously-Many applications have DST deep in the code.
Daylight savings is built into hardware not just software, some clock/calendar chips expect the days to be particular Sundays in particular months.
You confuse game & code, code is console frien
on
Review: Battlefield 2
·
· Score: 1
But Battlefield 2 was clearly designed from day one TO BE A CONSOLE GAME! Just look at the user interface. It's designed to be operated by a console-style game controller without any need for a keyboard, mouse, or any of the rest of the PC user interface.
I believe you are confusing the game with the code that implements it. The code is console friendly not the game, a stripped down (wrt content) BF2 could be shoehorned into consoles and you could resuse the user interface code.
Er... I thought we didn't like security through obscurity.
You are mistaken. Security through obscurity is good when it is one of many methods. Using it as your one and only method of security is what is bad. It's just another tool.
This whole thing smacks of what the music industry experienced with the "explicit" sticker that is put on CDs. Essentially, it looks like the govn't is trying to say what should / should not be played by people....
You are so wrong. Ratings and stickers for movies and music keep the government out. Your "explicit" sticker is simply a tool that lets the parents make a quick "no" decision if they are so inclined. These stickers do not prevent any adult from buying any product. The game industry is, and should be, following this model. For those of you who are too young to know any better that "explicit" sticker basically stopped Al Gore's wife Tipper from generating dumb-ass laws that would have gotten government involved.
Who can prove it's not the modder who's lying? Talk about jumping to conclusions without all the facts.
Anyone who looks at the data files shipped by Rockstar. If there is content (art, data, scripts, etc) or code specifically for that scene in their game then they are trully idiots and deserve be financially reamed by retailers who should return all copies on their shelves for a refund and demand replacement copies with the offending data and/or code removed. No government involvement is necessary.
In New Jersey (that was a Union state BTW) we used BB guns, one pump only for multipump models, had to aim for the stomach, had to wear sunglasses. Only one of the numerous things that make me wonder how my friends and I survived childhood in one piece.
$20 off of a $200 iPod mini, $30 off of a $300 regular iPod, that's a 10% discount. How does 10% qualify as "extensive"? I'm happy to take the 10% but it only a fair discount, "fair" as in a little better than mediocre not as in reasonable. Or maybe a token discount would be a better label. iPod is just too hot for anything more.
The only thing new here is that public domain and home grown licenses are being replaced with more formal open source licenses. A long standing method of operation, using free publicly available source code, now has a new label, "Open Source". Companies have been using public domain source, libraries, and tools for decades. The C Users Journal mainted a library. Technical books came with source code samples. People posted their work to BBS, Bix, the CompuServer DDJ Forum. Some people post buggy code and asked for help and often received it.
Every generations thinks they discovered something new and they are usually wrong. Your daddy legally shared source code too. Your grandma didn't only do it in the missionary position.
Ok, moron, since this is such a big deal to you, maybe it would help if you actually knew what happened?
There is a little problem with your rant. He admitted he lied, or do you consider "false testimony" and "a lie" to be different things. That would be classic if you do though.
"(CBS) Overcoming his earlier defiance, President Clinton on Friday acknowledged that he gave false testimony in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, just as prosecutors have contended. Mr. Clinton's admission in a deal with Independent Counsel Robert Ray brings an apparent end to the legal woes that have plagued his presidency and spare him from a possible criminal indictment after he leaves office."
Your failure to understand this is very dangerous. No citizen should be so easily manipulated by lawyer-types into believing what the lawyer wants them to believe.
And when you bought into the spin that "false testimony" and "a lie" are not the same that was not manipulation? Open your eyes, no president should be allowed to lie to the court, oh, excuse me, give false testimony to the court. Not even the sympathetic ones you like. That is a line that should not be crossed, its too dangerous.
Me: "BJ: Trivial. Lied to wife: Trivial, family matter. Lied to press: Trivial, understandable. Lied in court while under oath: Substantial, criminal, worthy of investigation and prosecution."
You: "Consider this: Clinton was in his final years in office. He couldn't run again. His marriage, however, lasts the rest of his life. For all we know, he lied to save his marriage. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, we don't really know. But I'm not going to tar and feather the guy for lying about his sex life. It really wasn't the general public's business."
Me: So it's OK to lie under oath in court and make a mockery of a judicial proceeding if it is convenient for your to do so. That is an amazing attitude, dangerous too.
You're right, that's an amazingly dangerous attitude. Pity that has little relevance to what I said.
In practice it is very much what you have said, although I admit you probably did not think things through very far and did not mean it that way, but that is the danger in making exceptions.
The real core of this is, while probably he shouldn't have lied, he really should never have been asked any questions relating to his affair with Lewinski, as they were immaterial to the matter at hand.
Wasn't the matter at hand the Jones investigation? Jones was claiming sexual harassment when she was a subordinte government employee. How is sexual relations with another subordinate government employee not relevant?
It was the very definition of a fishing expedition...
So a victim of workplace sexual harassment has no right to seek justice? Her predatory boss should be free to lie in court to preserve the "harmony" of his marriage and to protect his image. This is the position you are in fact advocating.
Hint: In life, honesty isn't always the best policy.
That's why we have the fifth ammendment. Before offering hints you should get a clue.
Consider this: Clinton was in his final years in office. He couldn't run again. His marriage, however, lasts the rest of his life. For all we know, he lied to save his marriage.
So it's OK to lie under oath in court and make a mockery of a judicial proceeding if it is convenient for your to do so. That is an amazing attitude, dangerous too. I don't think you have thought this concept through. Keep the knee jerk reaction in check for a little while and think about this for a little while.
Secondly, there was potentially more to it than his marriage. It could have established a pattern of behavior and be used against him in sexual harrassment lawsuits. At the time that he was exposed to such a risk so the lies could be viewed as obstruction of justice in such a context. Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
For one, it's not in the game. For two, modding the game to enable this feature is unlawful.
Wrong on both counts. It sounds like an Easter Egg not a mod: "cannot be accessed without entering a long string of cheat codes, and takes several hours of effort to access".
That is a big deal and quite idiotic of them. All copies of the game could be pulled from retail stores and a new manufacturing run could be required. That is a major financial mistake, someone should be fired, maybe even sued, by the publisher not some crazy parent.
I'm so tired of hearing about Clinton's blow job and how he lied about it... We as Americans like to make big deals of things that are so trivial not realizing the time, effort, and cost of such pursuits.
With respect to the public at large...
BJ: Trivial.
Lied to wife: Trivial, family matter.
Lied to press: Trivial, understandable.
Lied in court while under oath: Substantial, criminal, worthy of investigation and prosecution. You know, Nixon was not involved in the Watergate break-in, had no knowledge of it beforehand, and only got into trouble because he lied about it and covered it up. It is not the act that rightfully get's Presidents in trouble but the coverup and lies during official legal proceedings.
Your failure to understand this is very dangerous. No President should be allowed to lie under oath or in official legal proceedings.
The Republicans made the mistake of toying with a moderate in '96 (Dole) and he got hammered.
Dole's negatives had nothing to do with being a moderate. It was his age and health, far younger men have grow old very fast while in the oval office. Dole just did not "seem" like he would finish the job.
But the German press was full of the reports from German intelligence, which was that there was nothing there.
That is not my recollection. I think people are confusing what was said by politicians and by spooks, and what was said before and after the issue of invasion was brought up. A quick google found something that sounds familiar:
"I mean, an alternative view is one presented by people like Christopher Heachins [spelled phonetically], the journalist who says: look, if you look at Germany, where the political leaders were against the war, German intelligence was still producing these alarming reports about Saddam Hussein being a moments work away from producing a nuke, for instance. You can't
blame that on, you know, serving up the leaders what they want."
Former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter
ABC Sydney : Broadcast : 02/05/04
But we went to war on the promise by the Bush administration that Iraq was actively in the process of building up an arsenal that could find its way into Al Qaeda hands. We now know for facts that there were no real connections between Al Queda...
These two statements are not contradictory. The fact that Sadaam would not build nukes for Al Qaeda does not mean his nukes would not fall in their hands. The Soviets did not build nukes for them but we are certainly concerned Soviet nukes may be or fall into their hands.
So how many people have died for what?
No one will know for another 20 to 30 years whether the aggressive US policy against terrorists and their supporters, of which Sadaam was - just not the Al Qaeda faction, was a good idea or bad. It's hard to understand a war when you are in the middle of it. It often takes years and sometimes decades to sift through the evidence and see how things turned out, for good or ill. President Lincoln was merciless criticized during the American Civil War.
They were saying: "there is no evidence of WMD, give us time to prove that there is nothing". In contrast the Bush administration said that they had "compelling evidence" (sometimes using the word "proof") that they could not share for security reasons.
Turns out they had no evidence, let alone proof, because there was no weapons of mass-destruction program worth mentioning in Iraq. Oh... and the only ones who were saying that there was were the ex-Iraqis who everyone but the Bush administration had already written off as either delusional or having too much of an agenda to trust.
The above is erroneous. The UN said Saddam had WMD at the end of the Gulf War. Saddam agreed to get rid of it in the Gulf War cease fire. He failed to do so under UN supervision and effectively told everyone to "take his word for it" that it was gone. It was not only the US that said he still had WMD. The British, the Russians, the Germans, the Egytians, etc, all said that he still had it. Don't let an anti-war agenda revise history. Believing that Sadaam still had WMD was a very reasonable and prudent belief. Believing that there was an immenent danger and invasion was warranted right now is a separate debate.
The UN is only "good" at handing out food and medicine, not with managing contention and conflict. The later is more relevant to managing the net. How many times does the UN fail to stop horrendous crimes, even when UN peace keepers are on the scene. The good work is done by the doctor and others specidialists working, sometimes indirectly, for the UN. Frankly if they were working for Doctors without Borders or other organizations they would do just as much good work, perhaps better. These doctors and specialists are responsible for the success not the UN bureaucrats you want to hand the net to.
Weapons of mass destruction inspections? What do you know,they were right!
The UN never said Iraq had no WMD, the were not "right". Up to the beginning of the war they were saying we don't know and need more time to work, please let us continue. Your portrayal is quite distorted and revisionist.
She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll.
You mean until elected? Her entire Senate career is grooming and posturing. After winning a presidential election it's somewhat likely we return to the '92-3 agenda. The agenda that prompted voters to put the Republicans in charge of the House for the first time in what, forty something years? Supposedly she was angry over Bill getting the voters message and moving the agenda towards the center. Hopefully she eventually got the message but I'm worried that wshat we see today is still just posturing.
Ok, taken into account that Pentium Ms are around 50% faster than Pentium 4s at the same clockrate, I should infer Pentium Ms are 20 to 25% faster than PPCs
If your 50% faster number is accurate that would only be about 15-20% faster.
You are misunderstanding. Being able to dual boot may very well be possible, it will just require a new version of Windows that is aware of Apple's proprietary hardware. It's only the current Windows that expects PC compatible hardware that will most likely have problems.
The real answer is the big/little-endian is irrelevant performance wise, it is only on problem with respect to porting Mac-only code that never considered that binary data can have different formats. Unix code and code that targets PC and Mac will have a very easy time adjusting.
Slashdot Mirror
can you site any specific examples?
I don't recall the part numbers. I just remember seeing the functionality in the docs for some parts we were using in embedded telco stuff in the 90s. Most of our parts (PIC, PIT, UART, etc) were fairly similar to what you find in a PC/AT. The functionality was optional and I believe we configured the clock/calendar to disable automatic time adjustments.
Because there's no real prospect for profit in the short to medium term by developing alternate fuels. When something needs to be done for the public good that doesn't have immediate profit potential, the only way it will get done is by putting government money into it.
Keep in mind that today's short-term outlook may be very different from next year's short-term outlook or the short-term outlook five years from now. By then the cost of traditional fuels may be high enough that alternative fuels will become cost effective and industry will jump on it. We may be very near such a tipping point. Government intervention may not be required. Also, government investment may not be very quick or cost effective. If you throw a lot of money at it today the money will most likely disappear into various pork barrel projects that produce nothing worthwhile. Why, for the same reason that industry is doing nothing. There is no perceived crisis or need. We are not going to get large scale alternative fuels from industry or government until there is a perceived need.
Seriously-Many applications have DST deep in the code.
Daylight savings is built into hardware not just software, some clock/calendar chips expect the days to be particular Sundays in particular months.
But Battlefield 2 was clearly designed from day one TO BE A CONSOLE GAME! Just look at the user interface. It's designed to be operated by a console-style game controller without any need for a keyboard, mouse, or any of the rest of the PC user interface.
I believe you are confusing the game with the code that implements it. The code is console friendly not the game, a stripped down (wrt content) BF2 could be shoehorned into consoles and you could resuse the user interface code.
Er... I thought we didn't like security through obscurity.
You are mistaken. Security through obscurity is good when it is one of many methods. Using it as your one and only method of security is what is bad. It's just another tool.
This whole thing smacks of what the music industry experienced with the "explicit" sticker that is put on CDs. Essentially, it looks like the govn't is trying to say what should / should not be played by people....
You are so wrong. Ratings and stickers for movies and music keep the government out. Your "explicit" sticker is simply a tool that lets the parents make a quick "no" decision if they are so inclined. These stickers do not prevent any adult from buying any product. The game industry is, and should be, following this model. For those of you who are too young to know any better that "explicit" sticker basically stopped Al Gore's wife Tipper from generating dumb-ass laws that would have gotten government involved.
Who can prove it's not the modder who's lying? Talk about jumping to conclusions without all the facts.
Anyone who looks at the data files shipped by Rockstar. If there is content (art, data, scripts, etc) or code specifically for that scene in their game then they are trully idiots and deserve be financially reamed by retailers who should return all copies on their shelves for a refund and demand replacement copies with the offending data and/or code removed. No government involvement is necessary.
In New Jersey (that was a Union state BTW) we used BB guns, one pump only for multipump models, had to aim for the stomach, had to wear sunglasses. Only one of the numerous things that make me wonder how my friends and I survived childhood in one piece.
$20 off of a $200 iPod mini, $30 off of a $300 regular iPod, that's a 10% discount. How does 10% qualify as "extensive"? I'm happy to take the 10% but it only a fair discount, "fair" as in a little better than mediocre not as in reasonable. Or maybe a token discount would be a better label. iPod is just too hot for anything more.
The only thing new here is that public domain and home grown licenses are being replaced with more formal open source licenses. A long standing method of operation, using free publicly available source code, now has a new label, "Open Source". Companies have been using public domain source, libraries, and tools for decades. The C Users Journal mainted a library. Technical books came with source code samples. People posted their work to BBS, Bix, the CompuServer DDJ Forum. Some people post buggy code and asked for help and often received it.
Every generations thinks they discovered something new and they are usually wrong. Your daddy legally shared source code too. Your grandma didn't only do it in the missionary position.
Ok, moron, since this is such a big deal to you, maybe it would help if you actually knew what happened?
s /main265539.shtml
There is a little problem with your rant. He admitted he lied, or do you consider "false testimony" and "a lie" to be different things. That would be classic if you do though.
"(CBS) Overcoming his earlier defiance, President Clinton on Friday acknowledged that he gave false testimony in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, just as prosecutors have contended. Mr. Clinton's admission in a deal with Independent Counsel Robert Ray brings an apparent end to the legal woes that have plagued his presidency and spare him from a possible criminal indictment after he leaves office."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/19/politic
Your failure to understand this is very dangerous. No citizen should be so easily manipulated by lawyer-types into believing what the lawyer wants them to believe.
And when you bought into the spin that "false testimony" and "a lie" are not the same that was not manipulation? Open your eyes, no president should be allowed to lie to the court, oh, excuse me, give false testimony to the court. Not even the sympathetic ones you like. That is a line that should not be crossed, its too dangerous.
Me: "BJ: Trivial. Lied to wife: Trivial, family matter. Lied to press: Trivial, understandable. Lied in court while under oath: Substantial, criminal, worthy of investigation and prosecution."
You: "Consider this: Clinton was in his final years in office. He couldn't run again. His marriage, however, lasts the rest of his life. For all we know, he lied to save his marriage. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, we don't really know. But I'm not going to tar and feather the guy for lying about his sex life. It really wasn't the general public's business."
Me: So it's OK to lie under oath in court and make a mockery of a judicial proceeding if it is convenient for your to do so. That is an amazing attitude, dangerous too.
You're right, that's an amazingly dangerous attitude. Pity that has little relevance to what I said.
In practice it is very much what you have said, although I admit you probably did not think things through very far and did not mean it that way, but that is the danger in making exceptions.
The real core of this is, while probably he shouldn't have lied, he really should never have been asked any questions relating to his affair with Lewinski, as they were immaterial to the matter at hand.
...
Wasn't the matter at hand the Jones investigation? Jones was claiming sexual harassment when she was a subordinte government employee. How is sexual relations with another subordinate government employee not relevant?
It was the very definition of a fishing expedition
So a victim of workplace sexual harassment has no right to seek justice? Her predatory boss should be free to lie in court to preserve the "harmony" of his marriage and to protect his image. This is the position you are in fact advocating.
Hint: In life, honesty isn't always the best policy.
That's why we have the fifth ammendment. Before offering hints you should get a clue.
Consider this: Clinton was in his final years in office. He couldn't run again. His marriage, however, lasts the rest of his life. For all we know, he lied to save his marriage.
So it's OK to lie under oath in court and make a mockery of a judicial proceeding if it is convenient for your to do so. That is an amazing attitude, dangerous too. I don't think you have thought this concept through. Keep the knee jerk reaction in check for a little while and think about this for a little while.
Secondly, there was potentially more to it than his marriage. It could have established a pattern of behavior and be used against him in sexual harrassment lawsuits. At the time that he was exposed to such a risk so the lies could be viewed as obstruction of justice in such a context. Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
For one, it's not in the game. For two, modding the game to enable this feature is unlawful.
Wrong on both counts. It sounds like an Easter Egg not a mod: "cannot be accessed without entering a long string of cheat codes, and takes several hours of effort to access".
That is a big deal and quite idiotic of them. All copies of the game could be pulled from retail stores and a new manufacturing run could be required. That is a major financial mistake, someone should be fired, maybe even sued, by the publisher not some crazy parent.
I'm so tired of hearing about Clinton's blow job and how he lied about it ... We as Americans like to make big deals of things that are so trivial not realizing the time, effort, and cost of such pursuits.
...
With respect to the public at large
BJ: Trivial.
Lied to wife: Trivial, family matter.
Lied to press: Trivial, understandable.
Lied in court while under oath: Substantial, criminal, worthy of investigation and prosecution. You know, Nixon was not involved in the Watergate break-in, had no knowledge of it beforehand, and only got into trouble because he lied about it and covered it up. It is not the act that rightfully get's Presidents in trouble but the coverup and lies during official legal proceedings.
Your failure to understand this is very dangerous. No President should be allowed to lie under oath or in official legal proceedings.
The Republicans made the mistake of toying with a moderate in '96 (Dole) and he got hammered.
Dole's negatives had nothing to do with being a moderate. It was his age and health, far younger men have grow old very fast while in the oval office. Dole just did not "seem" like he would finish the job.
But the German press was full of the reports from German intelligence, which was that there was nothing there.
6 21.htm
...
That is not my recollection. I think people are confusing what was said by politicians and by spooks, and what was said before and after the issue of invasion was brought up. A quick google found something that sounds familiar:
"I mean, an alternative view is one presented by people like Christopher Heachins [spelled phonetically], the journalist who says: look, if you look at Germany, where the political leaders were against the war, German intelligence was still producing these alarming reports about Saddam Hussein being a moments work away from producing a nuke, for instance. You can't blame that on, you know, serving up the leaders what they want."
Former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter
ABC Sydney : Broadcast : 02/05/04
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5
But we went to war on the promise by the Bush administration that Iraq was actively in the process of building up an arsenal that could find its way into Al Qaeda hands. We now know for facts that there were no real connections between Al Queda
These two statements are not contradictory. The fact that Sadaam would not build nukes for Al Qaeda does not mean his nukes would not fall in their hands. The Soviets did not build nukes for them but we are certainly concerned Soviet nukes may be or fall into their hands.
So how many people have died for what?
No one will know for another 20 to 30 years whether the aggressive US policy against terrorists and their supporters, of which Sadaam was - just not the Al Qaeda faction, was a good idea or bad. It's hard to understand a war when you are in the middle of it. It often takes years and sometimes decades to sift through the evidence and see how things turned out, for good or ill. President Lincoln was merciless criticized during the American Civil War.
They were saying: "there is no evidence of WMD, give us time to prove that there is nothing". In contrast the Bush administration said that they had "compelling evidence" (sometimes using the word "proof") that they could not share for security reasons. Turns out they had no evidence, let alone proof, because there was no weapons of mass-destruction program worth mentioning in Iraq. Oh... and the only ones who were saying that there was were the ex-Iraqis who everyone but the Bush administration had already written off as either delusional or having too much of an agenda to trust.
The above is erroneous. The UN said Saddam had WMD at the end of the Gulf War. Saddam agreed to get rid of it in the Gulf War cease fire. He failed to do so under UN supervision and effectively told everyone to "take his word for it" that it was gone. It was not only the US that said he still had WMD. The British, the Russians, the Germans, the Egytians, etc, all said that he still had it. Don't let an anti-war agenda revise history. Believing that Sadaam still had WMD was a very reasonable and prudent belief. Believing that there was an immenent danger and invasion was warranted right now is a separate debate.
The UN is only "good" at handing out food and medicine, not with managing contention and conflict. The later is more relevant to managing the net. How many times does the UN fail to stop horrendous crimes, even when UN peace keepers are on the scene. The good work is done by the doctor and others specidialists working, sometimes indirectly, for the UN. Frankly if they were working for Doctors without Borders or other organizations they would do just as much good work, perhaps better. These doctors and specialists are responsible for the success not the UN bureaucrats you want to hand the net to.
Weapons of mass destruction inspections? What do you know,they were right!
The UN never said Iraq had no WMD, the were not "right". Up to the beginning of the war they were saying we don't know and need more time to work, please let us continue. Your portrayal is quite distorted and revisionist.
She represents the worst of the Democrats in that she doesn't have any positions that won't change based on tomorrow's opinion poll.
You mean until elected? Her entire Senate career is grooming and posturing. After winning a presidential election it's somewhat likely we return to the '92-3 agenda. The agenda that prompted voters to put the Republicans in charge of the House for the first time in what, forty something years? Supposedly she was angry over Bill getting the voters message and moving the agenda towards the center. Hopefully she eventually got the message but I'm worried that wshat we see today is still just posturing.
Ok, taken into account that Pentium Ms are around 50% faster than Pentium 4s at the same clockrate, I should infer Pentium Ms are 20 to 25% faster than PPCs
If your 50% faster number is accurate that would only be about 15-20% faster.
(1.5 - 1.3) / 1.3 = 0.154
(1.5 - 1.25) / 1.25 = 0.2
Now we have the same problem as with G5 vs P4, but Intel gets the short end with the lower clockrate and the PM advantage evaporates.
It's all academic. Even today's "slow" CPUs are far more than most people need for ordinary tasks.
You are misunderstanding. Being able to dual boot may very well be possible, it will just require a new version of Windows that is aware of Apple's proprietary hardware. It's only the current Windows that expects PC compatible hardware that will most likely have problems.
The real answer is the big/little-endian is irrelevant performance wise, it is only on problem with respect to porting Mac-only code that never considered that binary data can have different formats. Unix code and code that targets PC and Mac will have a very easy time adjusting.