I don't see why the multiple architectures would be a problem. I don't understand why they don't run 32-bit code on downwards-compatible 64bit machines... But I guess for people developing NaCl code, it'll just be normal to compile their code for multiple architectures including ARM.
If you're confused by the fact that Direct Rendering Manager and Digital Restrictions Management share abbreviations, what name would you recommend to replace Digital Restrictions Management?
White-hat? Hacking doesn't automatically get a white hat just because it's done for your favorite government (or other organisation). Developing malware and rootkits destined for actual use is black hat hacking, plain and simple. HBGary did both black and white hat stuff.
Open, free, it's all just mincing words. BSD licenses work one way, GPL works another; different people can have a different point of view about which one works better in certain circumstances. Endless debates about which one-word-category describes them more accurately just cloud the issues.
So you want two physical drives exposed over a single SATA link? Is that even possible? Seems like SATA was specifically designed to do 1-to-1 links. I suppose what you could do is drive both disks over the same controller and expose a single faux-physical disk of combined size to the mainboard/OS; you'd need to partition it along physical drive boundaries, then. Messy.
I'd rather just connect two drives where possible -- ie. desktops, upcoming laptops with dual SATA or PCIe+mSATA slots and just use a single (suitably large) SSD in other situations. Either you've got a desktop-replacement laptop and plenty of space for offering dual SATA (or at least mSATA+SATA), or you've got a portable machine, in which case a 2.5in HDD seems almost wasteful, these days. But that's just me.
They've got Linux downloads, including a.deb, even. However, the current version is "[n]ot currently compatible with x64-based Linux due to incompatibilities with the libraries." I could still install it using sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture/tmp/Livestation-3.2.0-i386.deb, and it seems to work fine (on Ubuntu 10.10 64-bit). It makes you register an account on first startup (or use your existing one, obviously), but it's quick and using completely bogus info works fine.
Bah, back button ate my reply. In short: For most of last year, I would have agreed, all the Android handsets were either crap or too expensive for a gadget that's easily dropped, lost or stolen. But these days there are a few very decent entry-level (around 200 EUR) Android smartphones that strike a balance similar to Nokia's entry-level smartphones. Here are the specs of two, ZTE Blade and Motorola Defy (both have high-res screens, FWIW).
The same thing is going on in Germany. Our public broadcasting system was modeled after the BBC. The same huge media lobby groups comically defending independent journalism (yeah, right).
As a result, the public broadcasters now have a list of criteria that everything they publish online has to conform with; the list is narrow enough that they're required to remove a huge amount of stuff from the archives -- aparently as much as 80%. They're also constantly under fire for everything they introduce, eg. smartphone apps. There was an effort to mirror data before it was deleted (@depub), but all the domains are dead, nobody seems to really know what happened to it. Couldn't find a torrent on the Pirate Bay, either.
Clearly, it does make sense to build something using borrowed money, if the thing you build has a higher return-on-investment than the interest you're paying on the loan. You seem to be saying that a high speed rail network doesn't have a high ROI; well, okay, that's a different argument.
Is that what I said? No, it isn't. !(Everyone will die) is not equivalent to (Everyone will be fine). Many people would die -- both from the explosion and the rapid deceleration --, many more would be injured, many would be physically fine. I'm extrapolating from actual train crashes, because AFAIK there never was a (successful) terrorist attack on a high speed train.
I didn't really mean the French in particular, no; all the Western European countries have a high speed rail network. I think most French would agree that a train is inherently safer than a plane. Maybe you know them better than I do.
A car crash is hard to survive because you're hurtling down a road in a tiny steel shell. Your "crush zone" is basically the motor compartment. A train is totally different, a comparison between the two really is quite meaningless. Besides the speed of train, you need to consider how rapidly the individual cars of the train are going to decelerate after an explosion/derailment. Even if you run a train into a bridge, you actually aren't: you're actually running the first part of a train into a bridge.
Note that I never said you couldn't do horrible damage by planting a bomb on a train (or the tracks, I guess). In the worst high speed rail accident, 101 of 287 passengers died. (It wasn't caused by a bomb.) And the fact remains that you can't run a train into a skyscraper.
Heh, I beg to differ. I certainly consider the cops armed with machine guns that were stationed at every major train station in Germany for many months to be security theater. All train stations are extensively monitored by video cameras. A forgotten suitcase is seemingly enough to halfway shutdown a train station for a couple of hours. So there's some security theater and paranoia in trains as well; but I agree that it's not comparable to air travel.
A deficit is something your grandchildren will be paying off. But building infrastructure like this is an investment that your grandchildren will continue making a profit from, too. Certainly a better long-term investment than fighting an overseas war.
High Speed Rail would have the EXACT same security measures as airplanes, except they would be even less safe as blowing up track is easy, especially when you have hundreds of miles to choose from.
Airport security in Europe is similar to (if not as invasive as) airport security to the US, yet we don't have any serious security (theatre) in our high speed rail network. AFAIK getting on a (low-speed) train in the US isn't quite as involved as getting on a plane, either; and I don't really think that'd change if the maximum train speed is a bit higher.
In fact, attacking a train would probably result in fewer casualties as attacking a train station (or an airport). If you detonate a bomb on a plane, chances are everyone on the plane will die. The same cannot be said for a regular train, not even a high speed one. And of course, crashing a train really isn't much of an option, since high value targets are typically not on your track, and it's trivially easy to cut the power to a train (in fact, it will happen automatically if you unexpectedly drive to fast).
High speed rail is useful in china because they don't have the built up infrastructure the US does for airplanes (or trains for that matter). If you were just starting a rail system in the US, of course you would build high speed rail. But we already have a rail system, and it works just fine.
AFAIK China had a built-up rail network before they started their high-speed effort, which is far from finished. And compared to laying those tracks, building more airports was easy (so they did that, too). But railway infrastructure scales much better than airports do. Building tracks is costly, but sending more, longer trains down them is comparatively cheap.
An additional question: Where would it be efficient? Very few cities have the public transportation infrastructure to support such a train station. Remember, you're competing with driving and airplanes. To replace driving you need a public transporation system.
Yeah, you should build that, too. There are probably a few connections in the US where starting a high speed network would make sense. Clearly, making coast-to-coast isn't really among those. Connecting the big cities along the coasts seems an obvious first start.
I think that number is significantly higher than 95%. Some geeks are able to set up internet access even if the national infrastructure is (mostly) disabled, but I doubt there are 6 million of them in the US. Of course a far smaller number is enough to get news in and out of a country, and the Internet is not strictly required (though obviously extremely useful) to disseminate information within it.
EU countries are not just encouraged to follow a directive, they're legally required to do so -- ie. implement in national law -- by a set date. For the copyright directive above, the implementation date was in 1995, and it appears that the Netherlands have implemented it along with every other major EU country.
Slashdot Mirror
Attack a sovereign country with cruise missiles, then lie about it. Yeah, that sounds about right.
I don't see why the multiple architectures would be a problem. I don't understand why they don't run 32-bit code on downwards-compatible 64bit machines... But I guess for people developing NaCl code, it'll just be normal to compile their code for multiple architectures including ARM.
What a shame that you can't BTO a higher res on the 13in laptop! Especially considering the 13in MacBook Air does have 1440x900.
People didn't wear shoes for a very long time, and even sandals are newer than most people think.
Thank you. That simple comment just had me
'Bio-cotton?' As opposed to what? Is that a way of saying organic cotton in other cultures?
Yep. Blame somewhat careless translation (from Dutch, apparently).
Haha. Now that tshirt, I might buy.
Not quite Julian Assange, but still.
If you're confused by the fact that Direct Rendering Manager and Digital Restrictions Management share abbreviations, what name would you recommend to replace Digital Restrictions Management?
I see what you did there!
White-hat? Hacking doesn't automatically get a white hat just because it's done for your favorite government (or other organisation). Developing malware and rootkits destined for actual use is black hat hacking, plain and simple. HBGary did both black and white hat stuff.
It does if you export instability and hysteria worldwide. Worked (well, works) exceedingly well for weapons.
Open, free, it's all just mincing words. BSD licenses work one way, GPL works another; different people can have a different point of view about which one works better in certain circumstances. Endless debates about which one-word-category describes them more accurately just cloud the issues.
So you want two physical drives exposed over a single SATA link? Is that even possible? Seems like SATA was specifically designed to do 1-to-1 links. I suppose what you could do is drive both disks over the same controller and expose a single faux-physical disk of combined size to the mainboard/OS; you'd need to partition it along physical drive boundaries, then. Messy.
I'd rather just connect two drives where possible -- ie. desktops, upcoming laptops with dual SATA or PCIe+mSATA slots and just use a single (suitably large) SSD in other situations. Either you've got a desktop-replacement laptop and plenty of space for offering dual SATA (or at least mSATA+SATA), or you've got a portable machine, in which case a 2.5in HDD seems almost wasteful, these days. But that's just me.
1.) OSX. Apple's penultimate desktop operating system, gain billions of fans for it's tight design and nearly flawless execution.
Flawless execution? Riiight...
They've got Linux downloads, including a .deb, even. However, the current version is "[n]ot currently compatible with x64-based Linux due to incompatibilities with the libraries." I could still install it using sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture /tmp/Livestation-3.2.0-i386.deb, and it seems to work fine (on Ubuntu 10.10 64-bit). It makes you register an account on first startup (or use your existing one, obviously), but it's quick and using completely bogus info works fine.
Bah, back button ate my reply. In short: For most of last year, I would have agreed, all the Android handsets were either crap or too expensive for a gadget that's easily dropped, lost or stolen. But these days there are a few very decent entry-level (around 200 EUR) Android smartphones that strike a balance similar to Nokia's entry-level smartphones. Here are the specs of two, ZTE Blade and Motorola Defy (both have high-res screens, FWIW).
The same thing is going on in Germany. Our public broadcasting system was modeled after the BBC. The same huge media lobby groups comically defending independent journalism (yeah, right).
As a result, the public broadcasters now have a list of criteria that everything they publish online has to conform with; the list is narrow enough that they're required to remove a huge amount of stuff from the archives -- aparently as much as 80%. They're also constantly under fire for everything they introduce, eg. smartphone apps. There was an effort to mirror data before it was deleted (@depub), but all the domains are dead, nobody seems to really know what happened to it. Couldn't find a torrent on the Pirate Bay, either.
Clearly, it does make sense to build something using borrowed money, if the thing you build has a higher return-on-investment than the interest you're paying on the loan. You seem to be saying that a high speed rail network doesn't have a high ROI; well, okay, that's a different argument.
Is that what I said? No, it isn't. !(Everyone will die) is not equivalent to (Everyone will be fine). Many people would die -- both from the explosion and the rapid deceleration --, many more would be injured, many would be physically fine. I'm extrapolating from actual train crashes, because AFAIK there never was a (successful) terrorist attack on a high speed train.
I didn't really mean the French in particular, no; all the Western European countries have a high speed rail network. I think most French would agree that a train is inherently safer than a plane. Maybe you know them better than I do.
A car crash is hard to survive because you're hurtling down a road in a tiny steel shell. Your "crush zone" is basically the motor compartment. A train is totally different, a comparison between the two really is quite meaningless. Besides the speed of train, you need to consider how rapidly the individual cars of the train are going to decelerate after an explosion/derailment. Even if you run a train into a bridge, you actually aren't: you're actually running the first part of a train into a bridge.
Note that I never said you couldn't do horrible damage by planting a bomb on a train (or the tracks, I guess). In the worst high speed rail accident, 101 of 287 passengers died. (It wasn't caused by a bomb.) And the fact remains that you can't run a train into a skyscraper.
Heh, I beg to differ. I certainly consider the cops armed with machine guns that were stationed at every major train station in Germany for many months to be security theater. All train stations are extensively monitored by video cameras. A forgotten suitcase is seemingly enough to halfway shutdown a train station for a couple of hours. So there's some security theater and paranoia in trains as well; but I agree that it's not comparable to air travel.
A deficit is something your grandchildren will be paying off. But building infrastructure like this is an investment that your grandchildren will continue making a profit from, too. Certainly a better long-term investment than fighting an overseas war.
High Speed Rail would have the EXACT same security measures as airplanes, except they would be even less safe as blowing up track is easy, especially when you have hundreds of miles to choose from.
Airport security in Europe is similar to (if not as invasive as) airport security to the US, yet we don't have any serious security (theatre) in our high speed rail network. AFAIK getting on a (low-speed) train in the US isn't quite as involved as getting on a plane, either; and I don't really think that'd change if the maximum train speed is a bit higher.
In fact, attacking a train would probably result in fewer casualties as attacking a train station (or an airport). If you detonate a bomb on a plane, chances are everyone on the plane will die. The same cannot be said for a regular train, not even a high speed one. And of course, crashing a train really isn't much of an option, since high value targets are typically not on your track, and it's trivially easy to cut the power to a train (in fact, it will happen automatically if you unexpectedly drive to fast).
High speed rail is useful in china because they don't have the built up infrastructure the US does for airplanes (or trains for that matter). If you were just starting a rail system in the US, of course you would build high speed rail. But we already have a rail system, and it works just fine.
AFAIK China had a built-up rail network before they started their high-speed effort, which is far from finished. And compared to laying those tracks, building more airports was easy (so they did that, too). But railway infrastructure scales much better than airports do. Building tracks is costly, but sending more, longer trains down them is comparatively cheap.
An additional question: Where would it be efficient? Very few cities have the public transportation infrastructure to support such a train station. Remember, you're competing with driving and airplanes. To replace driving you need a public transporation system.
Yeah, you should build that, too. There are probably a few connections in the US where starting a high speed network would make sense. Clearly, making coast-to-coast isn't really among those. Connecting the big cities along the coasts seems an obvious first start.
I think that number is significantly higher than 95%. Some geeks are able to set up internet access even if the national infrastructure is (mostly) disabled, but I doubt there are 6 million of them in the US. Of course a far smaller number is enough to get news in and out of a country, and the Internet is not strictly required (though obviously extremely useful) to disseminate information within it.
EU countries are not just encouraged to follow a directive, they're legally required to do so -- ie. implement in national law -- by a set date. For the copyright directive above, the implementation date was in 1995, and it appears that the Netherlands have implemented it along with every other major EU country.
I'm pretty sure it's a bug. I hope they fix it. The new system really shouldn't have been released with it in place, though.