Why shouldn't/. post a link to this? If there are ass-bandits who create software with embedded spy/scumware, I see it as poetic justice that people learn about and use a non-shitty alternative.
It will however, as a negative side effect, put amunition in the hands of our 'opponents'. E.g.: 'look they are helping people find illegal software'. But as someone else pointed out, this is news, and for that reason it does make sense the link is posted...
I guess I sometimes confuse/. for being Open Source evangalists, where it really is a news site. As the former, they would have a certain responsibility, especially when it comes to creating an image without blemishes. As the later, they can be objective and post what they want.
(And seriously, how much more 'illegal' is this than software that already allows you to leech mass quantities of software/music/etc that you didnt pay for?)
Well, I don't want to be the judge of that. There are however MANY people here that insist that P2P network are very useful for non-illegal means, although I've not really heard a lot of good examples...
You have a valid point tossed in with all the blame towards Slashdot. That point being the question of how legal and/or moral it is to hack and distribute freeware to remove undesired functionality (and would it make any difference if the app in question wasn't freeware).
The fact that it is freeware does not change the copyright that applies to it.
First, this is a valid event. It is part of the backlash towards Kazaa for their business practices
Fair enough, you are right.
Let's not confuse issues here. This has NOTHING to do with Open Source
You are right here too. My point is that it would probably help, if we want to be taken seriously, to link to Open Source alternatives for the Kazaa network, instead of linking to software that infringes on copyright. But I guess, that's not what the 'news' was about.
I guess the bottom line is, that in my opinion it doesn't look very professional to have a link on the front page to software that infringes on someones copyright. No matter how shitty that original software is.
But in all fairness, when someone rips off an Open Source project, they include full links as well...
please put a large wooden stick in your a$$ and stop shouting crap.
Ah, a good indication that the rest of your comment is going to be worth reading.
stuff like this is put on a site like this because the editor's think it maybe of interest for its regular readers. if 50% of/. users were interested in pirated adobe photoshop, we would indeed see the links here.
Yes, and I'm indicating that I'm not interested in seeing links to software that infringes on copyright. You do, I don't. (btw. you don't have to shove something up your rear because you made your viewpoint known, as far as I'm concerned)
What I am trying to say is that if you want to be taken seriously by a justice system, you are going about it the wrong way by endorsing copyright infringement.
and don't tell open source is against piracy.
Huh?
- open source is the copyright infringement (better term than brutal piracy) of the elitist smart. "we don't hack kazaa to kazaa-Lite, we write our own" - check out the GiFT - GiFT isn't FastTrack project.
Sounds clever, but you are missing the point. Kazaa-lite is based on the original binary, which by default is protected by copyright law. Nuf said.
On the other hand, implementing the protocol in 'clean-room' software, be it Open Source or not, has NOTHING to do with copyright. I know the DMCA is trying to say so otherwise, by basically moving reverse-engineering into the copying domain, but this still has to be proven to hold up in court.
if you write yourself a client, that connects to a proprietary network, where the client identifies itself wrongly to not be blocked out, it is not legal either, but it's already found its way to freshmeat.org...
Can you show me any evidence of this statement? Can you point me to ONE case where a judge ruled this?
WTF? I mean, are we going to see front-page links to warez copies of AutoCAD here soon, just because we don't agree with the way Autodesk wrote their software?
It baffles me, because the link is obviously to a piece of software that is not legal, no matter what license agreement or personal feelings.
For a site that is supposed to be so Open Source aware this seems especially strange. Open Source does not condone piracy. Instead it allows for alternatives. So why not have an article about a good Open Source alternative, instead of linking to illegal software?
(Yeah, I don't like spyware either, but if people are stupid enough to install it, then that's there bad. It's an other thing for the company to make it clear that the spyware exists, but these are law-technical issues. Which should be dealth with seperately.)
I booted up one day and the HD suddenly made the sort of noises you'd expect from a modem.
Before we take this problem any further, you will have to reinstall Windows. We get these calls ALL the time, just to find out that people have some resident software installed that dials out to send faxes.
So, use the 'format c:' program to make sure the offending software is not lurking on your harddrive, and then reinstall Windows from CD.
As a sidenote, I would like to add that even though this is obviously not a Western Digital problem, we are always more than happy to help the stupid user.
users who get stuck on pages simply close the browser window.
Which is exactly what you want because this generates an onunload event. At which point you can open a new window, which should preferably load a pop-under window, which has a hidden Flash object that plays a very loud siren.
Then when the user moves the mouse cursor outside of the window, you maximize the window and load a duplicate pop-under, which also plays the siren. Because although one siren is good, two sirens are better.
Now that you start getting the attention of the user, you load a full screen pop-up window, without borders, and in this window you will load an images to make it look exactly like a browser.
In the meantime the volume on the (hidden) Flash players should have increased to the absolute maximum, and you could even consider switching one over to a screaming cat. (Obviously the onunload handlers for the pop-under windows should open AT LEAST two pop-under of similar quality.)
Back to the front page,- now that you have full control over the browser look and feel, you can conveniently move any 'close' or 'back' buttons out of the way as soon as the mouse pointer gets too close.
At this point in time, you have increased the chances of getting a credit card number out of the user significantly, so it's up to you to present the user with the ability to enter their information.
The best way to achieve this is to just have the text box that you want filled out follow the mouse. Not all users are very smart, so keep what you want done obvious.
Once the information is obtained, change the page to read something among the lines that the user should absolutely NOT attempt to do anything, but most of all, not close any windows!, because his credit card may be charged twice.
After a last check that all pop-unders with screaming Flash players are still going strong, you are now done.
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday April 15, @11:02AM from the now-thats-a-duplicate dept.
Ben Wills writes "Slashdot announced that Google Released an API last Thursday. "The service, launched Thursday, is called Google Web APIs, for application programming interfaces. The tools let noncommercial software developers "query more than 2 billion Web documents directly from their own computer programs," according to Google's Web site. For now, the service is free." Google just keeps pushing the limits."
IThe IO/1 and the R/W signal from the C64 are used to create the ISA control signals using the 74LS139 decoder.
Muwhaahaa! They _actually_ make that chip anymore!:-) Sorry friends, just kidding. I thought using 74 logic was illegal by now.;)
BEWARE this layout is currently FAULTY. The read and write signals for the Embedded ethernet board were switched.
Now, there's nothing funny about that. I'm actually quite surprised about the tools that schematic capture people use. The symbols never seem to have been created correctly and it's amazing how hardware designers do not seem to use their tools to pick up errors for them, despite the incredible cost of making a mistake.
As a guy that comes from a software background, I look at it this way: one pin on the chip is write. It's obviously an output for that chip. This has to go to an other chip, for which it obviously has to be an input. For the read, it's again, obviously, the other way around. Now I understand humans fucking up, but the design software should pick this up: "you are connecting an output to an output".
I have used these schematic capture programs, and I know that they WILL pick up these kind of errors, as long as they have been specified in the symbols for the chips. But to name just one example, Intel, they create their symbols with all pins being passive. In other words the software can't pick up on errors like this.
I guess it's the same reason programmers don't use lint, but it's a lot cheaper for use to make mistakes during the development cycle (most of the time).
Believe me, I'm not trying to make fun of a couple of guys hobbying around. That's all cool. But I've seen the same thing done by contractors that get paid a decent amount of money to do these designs.
That's completely changed with this software; it's free
>Oh great! That means I won't have to pay $50 or more to do FAST's job for them!
Yeah, isn't that a joke? I'm sure they must have heard of the great 'free software' hype or something. Funny to think that this software will prolly only be free as in beer, not as in speech...
A 32-bit 33 MHz PCI bus can support one (1) gigabit ethernet card at full capacity (card's bandwidth is about 100 Mbytes/sec, PCI 32/33 is 133 Mbytes/sec).
Almost. 133MBytes/sec = 1064Mbit/sec. This means that it could only in theory keep up, if all bandwidth on the PCI bus was available for data. But, this number includes the overhead of setting up transfers and arbiting for devices that want to transfer, and these operations are fairly expensive.
Also, the PCI device needs to obtain descriptors etc. (which indicate where to put the Ethernet packets in RAM) over the same bus, costing more valueable cycles.
If you did have only the one device on the PCI bus (which is very unlikely), with a good chipset, you'd probably get over 100MB/sec, but not much more. So you'd never be able to actually get full Gb Ethernet. (as the test results show, things are MUCH worse then this, but this is probably caused by multiple devices on the PCI bus).
Talking about chipsets, a long time ago we had a board with an OPTi chipset. They ran out of silicon when designing the chip, so they couldn't implement the Bus Master FIFO, so they decided to just abort every BM cycle after each 32 bit transfer, yielding a max transfer rate of 4MB/sec!! For weeks, I couldn't figure why my network driver wouldn't send packets faster than 30 Mbit/sec, until my boss flew to California (where OPTi was located) to find out what we where doing wrong.
Back to the tests: for some reason they failed to mention the chipsets used on the motherboards which really is VERY important if you want to use a gigabit Ethernet card in a 32/33 PCI system. The fact that the Dell has 5 PCI slots probably means that it has an integrated PCI-PCI bus (not many chipsets support 5 PCI slots, unless one or more of them do not support Bus Mastering), which would certainly not improve things.
I think this is important to mention, because most systems today, at least desktops, will only have 32/33 PCI, and as the test results show, with a presumably shitty chipset, you only get marginally better performance than 100Mb Ethernet...
I hate to be negative here, you got some good points, but consider:
Open a relatively complicated page in MSIE, the same page in Mozilla-win32, and the same page agin in Mozilla-linux. Go to a bunch of annoying web sites, with Mozilla's pop-up/pop-down filters enabled.
Since that browser is also available for win32, what's the Linux benefit?
Run either Gnome or KDE. Change the themes, a couple of times, demonstrate the customizable UI. Switching between one of the mac Aqua-like themes, some star trek theme, and one of the Winxx-lookalike themes should be very effective.
This may look good to a lot of Linux people, but to a lot of more agnostic people, either Gnome or KDE don't look that great (and I'm mincing my words). For those that want to change the look and feel of their OS, there are several solutions for Windoze to do so. Again, doesn't really prove anything for Linux.
When the Linux box boots up, and is busy going through the initscripts, starting all the services, explain that if one service fails to start for some reason the boot process will continue and the machine should still be mostly usable. Ask if anyone experienced a situation where a Windows driver kept croaking during the boot process, and what happened alter.
On my notebook if I boot Linux without my network cable plugged in, it hangs forever during the boot. Incidentally, the boot-time for full GUI is about 5x longer than Windows XP (on this dual-boot system)
Now, enough Linux bashing already. The point is that you have to look at Linux's strong point, which is the system/kernel itself. Linux has a GUI which will suffice for many, but it really shines as a server.
Compare configuring a Linux box with a Windows box. The GUI based interfaces to configuring a Windows box always leaves you with the feeling 'did I _really_ set everything correctly, did I really patch up all the holes and am I really not running anything that I don't want to run.'. There's always an other dialog box around the corner.
The text file oriented configuration of a Linux box may seem arcane at first, but what if you want to move to an other PC? Just copy httpd.conf. Try doing that with IIS.
With Linux, if you want to, you can go through the source and initscripts and figure out EXACTLY what happens during boot.
I do agree with the prev poster that you want to show interoperability with a win box. Both Samba and NTFS. But you want to show the benefits of a proper filesystem too.
<anecdote> We once needed to play an MPEG stream over the network, which at the time was very unusual. So unusual that the MPEG hardware came with a driver that only ran under DOS, and only played from a file. So I created a Linux box which had the MPEG decoder hardware, and found the DOS driver still worked under dosemu.
I then created a fifo on the ext2 partition, which was used by the DOS software as the 'source' file. A little Linux program that pumped the stream from the network to the fifo, and all was well. </anecdote>
There must be some easier demonstratable things you could do to show of the power of the fs.
And if these folks are up for it, there's nothing quite is cool as compiling/installing a new kernel.
I've only pointed my gun at two people, both of whom where about to commit a crime against my person or property
That's great, until you run into the next criminal that holds a gun of his own. Or do you think criminals do not wisen up to that?
I'm getting a little tired of this argument, I fail for example to see what the CSS stuff has to do with it.
I hope I will never be within shooting range from you, because as much as you trust your judgement, I do not.
nelly little faggots like you
The name calling that you and your gun loving friends use here, display a wealth of intelligence, and makes me feel a lot better about y'all having your guns.
I dare you to find statistics on people killed by non-concealed weapons. I'd bet you money it was nearly non-existent.
Uhm, 250 kids in accidents? I pulled that from a pro-gun website. I know it's less than kids dying from drowning, but water is around for other reasons than just being a weapon. I think it's a sickening comparison.
BUT, don't get me wrong either, if you are saying that most killing happens by people ilegally carrying a gun, then yeah that's probably right.
However, it's an order of magnitude easier to obtain a gun here ilegally than it is in, say Germany. You probably have great arguments that that has nothing to do with people owning guns legally in the US, so go ahead.
In any case, I don't know if people should be allowed to have guns. I like the way the Dutch look at it: if it hurts someone else, than forget about it. If it doesn't, but it could potentially hurt yourself, well, that's your own choice. Hence: no guns, but smoke whatever you must.
I'm also not saying that guns being legal makes the US evil, or that it has caused high-school shooting. I believe that's a simple conclusion to draw, but the bottom line is that there's still a person at the other end of the barrel that decides to pull the trigger. If he hadn't had a gun he'd probably have found something else...
Anyways, thanks for calling me a dipshit and idiot. Let's see what you can come up with this time.
It is NOT however legal to carry a gun in your pocket without special permission. That's a concealed weapon.
Oh, yeah, good point, so how is having a permission and carrying a concealed weapon NOT carrying a gun?
You are absolutely right that I don't understand the difference between wearing a gun and wearing a gun. That one is with a license and the other one isn't doesn't change a rats ass for me. The point for me is that people are killed by guns and you CAN NOT DENY THAT.
But, of course a silly discussion to start on an american website. If there's one way to get an american excited, then it is to start about their guns.
Uhm, read the newspapers, and then tell me again that no-one carries a gun.
Who are you trying to fool? Not only do people carry guns, people get killed by those very same weapons. If these guns where sitting at home behind a lock, how come so many people get killed?
Even a 'pro gun' website like guncite admits that there's kids killed in accidents. I quote:
Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.
Oh, good! there's more kids drowning, so that justifies it then. God, you all make me sick.
Robert Duffy: Well wearing a gun and owning a gun are two very different things and neither of them have to do with any game in my opinion. The only countries I have ever seen citizens wearing guns are ones where it was illegal. I don't think to date I have seen a citizen wearing a firearm in public here in the US.
Riiiight. That's not a gun in my pocket, I'm just happy to see you.
Go Ahead and laugh. There are 100 million phone lines in the US
So? For every phone line there needs to be an exclusive last mile fibre? That sounds pretty absurd.
But I'm sure your point is largely valid though. However, we need fast last-mile links. It's important though that the right stuff is being put in the ground, and not just anything that some jackass company deems 'sufficient'.
A good government could aid in that, but with the obvious lack of such,... but oh, I'm getting too political for/.....
A couple of problems with the encrypted email though:
a) it requires JavaScript to run on the client-side. There are better solutions than this, if you don't mind that being a requirement.
b) he requires to keep the copyright message to stay intact. Can you say 'signature'?
c) If they enhanced the parser of the bot with JavaScript (and this is not THAT difficult), he writes the email plain to the document.
So some improvements:
- Forget about requirements of leaving certain comments in the code, these serve as signatures, so if the solution ever became widespread, the bots can be modified to understand that.
- Require user interaction to decrypt the address. For example, use the onclick() handler. It's orders of magnitude more difficult for a bot to simulate all possible 'onclick()'s than it is to execute script that's executed when the page is loaded.
Below is the code generated, and as you can see in the last lines, the email address is written plainly to the document:
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE='JAVASCRIPT'> // <!--Quick! Hide the java! // Speaking of Java, this particular script is (C) Copyright 2002 Jim Tucek // If you wish to use my Email Encryption script, these comments must be left // alone! That is all.
// Visit www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/ for script information and a bit of help // setting it up, or www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/email.html for contact // information.
// A brief history of this script can be found (and it's rather entertaining) // at www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/eencrypt.html
function goForth() { var c = '665 511 420 45 39 48 280 39 175 529 511 147 635 511 665 730'; var n = 779; var d = 103; c += ' '; var length = c.length; var number = 0; var bar = 0; var answer = ''; for(var i = 0; i < length; i++) { number = 0; bar = 0; while(c.charCodeAt(i) != 32) { number = number * 10; number = number + c.charCodeAt(i)-48; i++; } answer += String.fromCharCode(decrypt(number,n,d)); } retu rn answer; }
function decrypt(c,n,d) { // Split exponents up if (d % 2== 0) { bar = 1; for(var i = 1; i <= d/2; i++) { foo = (c*c) % n; bar = (foo*bar) % n; } } else { bar = c; for(var i = 1; i <= d/2; i++) { foo = (c*c) % n; bar = (foo*bar) % n; } } return bar; } emailAddress = goForth(); //emailAddress is the decrypted version of your email address, ie none@none.com document.write('<A HREF=mailto:' + emailAddress + '>Email me at: ' + emailAddress + '</A>'); // Stop hiding the script --> </SCRIPT>
There are even better ways to obfuscate things, but, I leave that as an exercise;)
Sorry for the strange formatting,- the fucking lameness filters demanded it...
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are not participating at all. You aren't supposed to read articles either:
:-)
- Do not click through from the home page to the comment page
- Do not post any comments to stories
- Do not submit new stories
Looks like you are violating the majority here
Not that I care. I was just joking. I don't agree with the mass-moderation of that thread either, but I think this is a bit silly.
Yeah, I was wondering about the sudden lack of 'T(H)GHSH(FCH)TBW!!' sigs.
;-)
So now we can finally, without risk of losing Karma, start making fun about those self-righteous bastards, eh?
Ah, it's dummies week!
User Interfaces for Dummies (aka this is what we knew 10 years ago)
Open Source for Dummies (aka not all software comes from Redmond)
Bandwidth saving for Dummies (aka a 4MB BMP takes long to download)
Why shouldn't /. post a link to this? If there are ass-bandits who create software with embedded spy/scumware, I see it as poetic justice that people learn about and use a non-shitty alternative.
/. for being Open Source evangalists, where it really is a news site. As the former, they would have a certain responsibility, especially when it comes to creating an image without blemishes. As the later, they can be objective and post what they want.
It will however, as a negative side effect, put amunition in the hands of our 'opponents'. E.g.: 'look they are helping people find illegal software'. But as someone else pointed out, this is news, and for that reason it does make sense the link is posted...
I guess I sometimes confuse
(And seriously, how much more 'illegal' is this than software that already allows you to leech mass quantities of software/music/etc that you didnt pay for?)
Well, I don't want to be the judge of that. There are however MANY people here that insist that P2P network are very useful for non-illegal means, although I've not really heard a lot of good examples...
You have a valid point tossed in with all the blame towards Slashdot. That point being the question of how legal and/or moral it is to hack and distribute freeware to remove undesired functionality (and would it make any difference if the app in question wasn't freeware).
The fact that it is freeware does not change the copyright that applies to it.
First, this is a valid event. It is part of the backlash towards Kazaa for their business practices
Fair enough, you are right.
Let's not confuse issues here. This has NOTHING to do with Open Source
You are right here too. My point is that it would probably help, if we want to be taken seriously, to link to Open Source alternatives for the Kazaa network, instead of linking to software that infringes on copyright. But I guess, that's not what the 'news' was about.
I guess the bottom line is, that in my opinion it doesn't look very professional to have a link on the front page to software that infringes on someones copyright. No matter how shitty that original software is.
But in all fairness, when someone rips off an Open Source project, they include full links as well...
please put a large wooden stick in your a$$ and stop shouting crap.
/. users were interested in pirated adobe photoshop, we would indeed see the links here.
Ah, a good indication that the rest of your comment is going to be worth reading.
stuff like this is put on a site like this because the editor's think it maybe of interest for its regular readers. if 50% of
Yes, and I'm indicating that I'm not interested in seeing links to software that infringes on copyright. You do, I don't. (btw. you don't have to shove something up your rear because you made your viewpoint known, as far as I'm concerned)
What I am trying to say is that if you want to be taken seriously by a justice system, you are going about it the wrong way by endorsing copyright infringement.
and don't tell open source is against piracy.
Huh?
- open source is the copyright infringement (better term than brutal piracy) of the elitist smart. "we don't hack kazaa to kazaa-Lite, we write our own" - check out the GiFT - GiFT isn't FastTrack project.
Sounds clever, but you are missing the point. Kazaa-lite is based on the original binary, which by default is protected by copyright law. Nuf said.
On the other hand, implementing the protocol in 'clean-room' software, be it Open Source or not, has NOTHING to do with copyright. I know the DMCA is trying to say so otherwise, by basically moving reverse-engineering into the copying domain, but this still has to be proven to hold up in court.
if you write yourself a client, that connects to a proprietary network, where the client identifies itself wrongly to not be blocked out, it is not legal either, but it's already found its way to freshmeat.org...
Can you show me any evidence of this statement? Can you point me to ONE case where a judge ruled this?
WTF? I mean, are we going to see front-page links to warez copies of AutoCAD here soon, just because we don't agree with the way Autodesk wrote their software?
It baffles me, because the link is obviously to a piece of software that is not legal, no matter what license agreement or personal feelings.
For a site that is supposed to be so Open Source aware this seems especially strange. Open Source does not condone piracy. Instead it allows for alternatives. So why not have an article about a good Open Source alternative, instead of linking to illegal software?
(Yeah, I don't like spyware either, but if people are stupid enough to install it, then that's there bad. It's an other thing for the company to make it clear that the spyware exists, but these are law-technical issues. Which should be dealth with seperately.)
I booted up one day and the HD suddenly made the sort of noises you'd expect from a modem.
Before we take this problem any further, you will have to reinstall Windows. We get these calls ALL the time, just to find out that people have some resident software installed that dials out to send faxes.
So, use the 'format c:' program to make sure the offending software is not lurking on your harddrive, and then reinstall Windows from CD.
As a sidenote, I would like to add that even though this is obviously not a Western Digital problem, we are always more than happy to help the stupid user.
Yours, WD.
users who get stuck on pages simply close the browser window.
Which is exactly what you want because this generates an onunload event. At which point you can open a new window, which should preferably load a pop-under window, which has a hidden Flash object that plays a very loud siren.
Then when the user moves the mouse cursor outside of the window, you maximize the window and load a duplicate pop-under, which also plays the siren. Because although one siren is good, two sirens are better.
Now that you start getting the attention of the user, you load a full screen pop-up window, without borders, and in this window you will load an images to make it look exactly like a browser.
In the meantime the volume on the (hidden) Flash players should have increased to the absolute maximum, and you could even consider switching one over to a screaming cat. (Obviously the onunload handlers for the pop-under windows should open AT LEAST two pop-under of similar quality.)
Back to the front page,- now that you have full control over the browser look and feel, you can conveniently move any 'close' or 'back' buttons out of the way as soon as the mouse pointer gets too close.
At this point in time, you have increased the chances of getting a credit card number out of the user significantly, so it's up to you to present the user with the ability to enter their information.
The best way to achieve this is to just have the text box that you want filled out follow the mouse. Not all users are very smart, so keep what you want done obvious.
Once the information is obtained, change the page to read something among the lines that the user should absolutely NOT attempt to do anything, but most of all, not close any windows!, because his credit card may be charged twice.
After a last check that all pop-unders with screaming Flash players are still going strong, you are now done.
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday April 15, @11:02AM
from the now-thats-a-duplicate dept.
Ben Wills writes "Slashdot announced that Google Released an API last Thursday. "The service, launched Thursday, is called Google Web APIs, for application programming interfaces. The tools let noncommercial software developers "query more than 2 billion Web documents directly from their own computer programs," according to Google's Web site. For now, the service is free." Google just keeps pushing the limits."
Some interesting stuff on http://dunkels.com/adam/tfe/hardware.html:
:-) Sorry friends, just kidding. I thought using 74 logic was illegal by now. ;)
IThe IO/1 and the R/W signal from the C64 are used to create the ISA control signals using the 74LS139 decoder.
Muwhaahaa! They _actually_ make that chip anymore!
BEWARE this layout is currently FAULTY. The read and write signals for the Embedded ethernet board were switched.
Now, there's nothing funny about that. I'm actually quite surprised about the tools that schematic capture people use. The symbols never seem to have been created correctly and it's amazing how hardware designers do not seem to use their tools to pick up errors for them, despite the incredible cost of making a mistake.
As a guy that comes from a software background, I look at it this way: one pin on the chip is write. It's obviously an output for that chip. This has to go to an other chip, for which it obviously has to be an input. For the read, it's again, obviously, the other way around. Now I understand humans fucking up, but the design software should pick this up: "you are connecting an output to an output".
I have used these schematic capture programs, and I know that they WILL pick up these kind of errors, as long as they have been specified in the symbols for the chips. But to name just one example, Intel, they create their symbols with all pins being passive. In other words the software can't pick up on errors like this.
I guess it's the same reason programmers don't use lint, but it's a lot cheaper for use to make mistakes during the development cycle (most of the time).
Believe me, I'm not trying to make fun of a couple of guys hobbying around. That's all cool. But I've seen the same thing done by contractors that get paid a decent amount of money to do these designs.
they are also running a RealAudio server which streams audio from the C64's cassette player and apparently, it sounds awful!
That has got to be one of the most funny things I've heard for a long time!
I can just imagine the two guys sitting there: 'yup. sounds like crap. coolest thing we've done so far, mind you, but yeah, sounds like crap.'
tis a 3com indeed. Thx!
Thankx! :-)
The software will be free
That's completely changed with this software; it's free
>Oh great! That means I won't have to pay $50 or more to do FAST's job for them!
Yeah, isn't that a joke? I'm sure they must have heard of the great 'free software' hype or something. Funny to think that this software will prolly only be free as in beer, not as in speech...
Oh, well. Bunch of losers...
A 32-bit 33 MHz PCI bus can support one (1) gigabit ethernet card at full capacity (card's bandwidth is about 100 Mbytes/sec, PCI 32/33 is 133 Mbytes/sec).
Almost. 133MBytes/sec = 1064Mbit/sec. This means that it could only in theory keep up, if all bandwidth on the PCI bus was available for data. But, this number includes the overhead of setting up transfers and arbiting for devices that want to transfer, and these operations are fairly expensive.
Also, the PCI device needs to obtain descriptors etc. (which indicate where to put the Ethernet packets in RAM) over the same bus, costing more valueable cycles.
If you did have only the one device on the PCI bus (which is very unlikely), with a good chipset, you'd probably get over 100MB/sec, but not much more. So you'd never be able to actually get full Gb Ethernet. (as the test results show, things are MUCH worse then this, but this is probably caused by multiple devices on the PCI bus).
Talking about chipsets, a long time ago we had a board with an OPTi chipset. They ran out of silicon when designing the chip, so they couldn't implement the Bus Master FIFO, so they decided to just abort every BM cycle after each 32 bit transfer, yielding a max transfer rate of 4MB/sec!! For weeks, I couldn't figure why my network driver wouldn't send packets faster than 30 Mbit/sec, until my boss flew to California (where OPTi was located) to find out what we where doing wrong.
Back to the tests: for some reason they failed to mention the chipsets used on the motherboards which really is VERY important if you want to use a gigabit Ethernet card in a 32/33 PCI system. The fact that the Dell has 5 PCI slots probably means that it has an integrated PCI-PCI bus (not many chipsets support 5 PCI slots, unless one or more of them do not support Bus Mastering), which would certainly not improve things.
I think this is important to mention, because most systems today, at least desktops, will only have 32/33 PCI, and as the test results show, with a presumably shitty chipset, you only get marginally better performance than 100Mb Ethernet...
I hate to be negative here, you got some good points, but consider:
Open a relatively complicated page in MSIE, the same page in Mozilla-win32, and the same page agin in Mozilla-linux. Go to a bunch of annoying web sites, with Mozilla's pop-up/pop-down filters enabled.
Since that browser is also available for win32, what's the Linux benefit?
Run either Gnome or KDE. Change the themes, a couple of times, demonstrate the customizable UI. Switching between one of the mac Aqua-like themes, some star trek theme, and one of the Winxx-lookalike themes should be very effective.
This may look good to a lot of Linux people, but to a lot of more agnostic people, either Gnome or KDE don't look that great (and I'm mincing my words). For those that want to change the look and feel of their OS, there are several solutions for Windoze to do so. Again, doesn't really prove anything for Linux.
When the Linux box boots up, and is busy going through the initscripts, starting all the services, explain that if one service fails to start for some reason the boot process will continue and the machine should still be mostly usable. Ask if anyone experienced a situation where a Windows driver kept croaking during the boot process, and what happened alter.
On my notebook if I boot Linux without my network cable plugged in, it hangs forever during the boot. Incidentally, the boot-time for full GUI is about 5x longer than Windows XP (on this dual-boot system)
Now, enough Linux bashing already. The point is that you have to look at Linux's strong point, which is the system/kernel itself. Linux has a GUI which will suffice for many, but it really shines as a server.
Compare configuring a Linux box with a Windows box. The GUI based interfaces to configuring a Windows box always leaves you with the feeling 'did I _really_ set everything correctly, did I really patch up all the holes and am I really not running anything that I don't want to run.'. There's always an other dialog box around the corner.
The text file oriented configuration of a Linux box may seem arcane at first, but what if you want to move to an other PC? Just copy httpd.conf. Try doing that with IIS.
With Linux, if you want to, you can go through the source and initscripts and figure out EXACTLY what happens during boot.
I do agree with the prev poster that you want to show interoperability with a win box. Both Samba and NTFS. But you want to show the benefits of a proper filesystem too.
<anecdote>
We once needed to play an MPEG stream over the network, which at the time was very unusual. So unusual that the MPEG hardware came with a driver that only ran under DOS, and only played from a file. So I created a Linux box which had the MPEG decoder hardware, and found the DOS driver still worked under dosemu.
I then created a fifo on the ext2 partition, which was used by the DOS software as the 'source' file. A little Linux program that pumped the stream from the network to the fifo, and all was well.
</anecdote>
There must be some easier demonstratable things you could do to show of the power of the fs.
And if these folks are up for it, there's nothing quite is cool as compiling/installing a new kernel.
The reason for the lower per capita incidence of firearm violence in Switzerland is because of the education and attitudes towards firearms.
Yeah, or how about, if you return to the military and you don't have your gun anymore, you have a whole lot of explaining to do.
In other words, for a gun to end up on the markets, someone is going to have his tits in the wringer, big time.
I've only pointed my gun at two people, both of whom where about to commit a crime against my person or property
That's great, until you run into the next criminal that holds a gun of his own. Or do you think criminals do not wisen up to that?
I'm getting a little tired of this argument, I fail for example to see what the CSS stuff has to do with it.
I hope I will never be within shooting range from you, because as much as you trust your judgement, I do not.
nelly little faggots like you
The name calling that you and your gun loving friends use here, display a wealth of intelligence, and makes me feel a lot better about y'all having your guns.
I dare you to find statistics on people killed by non-concealed weapons. I'd bet you money it was nearly non-existent.
Uhm, 250 kids in accidents? I pulled that from a pro-gun website. I know it's less than kids dying from drowning, but water is around for other reasons than just being a weapon. I think it's a sickening comparison.
BUT, don't get me wrong either, if you are saying that most killing happens by people ilegally carrying a gun, then yeah that's probably right.
However, it's an order of magnitude easier to obtain a gun here ilegally than it is in, say Germany. You probably have great arguments that that has nothing to do with people owning guns legally in the US, so go ahead.
In any case, I don't know if people should be allowed to have guns. I like the way the Dutch look at it: if it hurts someone else, than forget about it. If it doesn't, but it could potentially hurt yourself, well, that's your own choice. Hence: no guns, but smoke whatever you must.
I'm also not saying that guns being legal makes the US evil, or that it has caused high-school shooting. I believe that's a simple conclusion to draw, but the bottom line is that there's still a person at the other end of the barrel that decides to pull the trigger. If he hadn't had a gun he'd probably have found something else...
Anyways, thanks for calling me a dipshit and idiot. Let's see what you can come up with this time.
It is NOT however legal to carry a gun in your pocket without special permission. That's a concealed weapon.
Oh, yeah, good point, so how is having a permission and carrying a concealed weapon NOT carrying a gun?
You are absolutely right that I don't understand the difference between wearing a gun and wearing a gun. That one is with a license and the other one isn't doesn't change a rats ass for me. The point for me is that people are killed by guns and you CAN NOT DENY THAT.
But, of course a silly discussion to start on an american website. If there's one way to get an american excited, then it is to start about their guns.
Uhm, read the newspapers, and then tell me again that no-one carries a gun.
Who are you trying to fool? Not only do people carry guns, people get killed by those very same weapons. If these guns where sitting at home behind a lock, how come so many people get killed?
Even a 'pro gun' website like guncite admits that there's kids killed in accidents. I quote:
Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.
Oh, good! there's more kids drowning, so that justifies it then. God, you all make me sick.
Robert Duffy: Well wearing a gun and owning a gun are two very different things and neither of them have to do with any game in my opinion. The only countries I have ever seen citizens wearing guns are ones where it was illegal. I don't think to date I have seen a citizen wearing a firearm in public here in the US.
Riiiight. That's not a gun in my pocket, I'm just happy to see you.
Go Ahead and laugh. There are 100 million phone lines in the US
/. ....
So? For every phone line there needs to be an exclusive last mile fibre? That sounds pretty absurd.
But I'm sure your point is largely valid though. However, we need fast last-mile links. It's important though that the right stuff is being put in the ground, and not just anything that some jackass company deems 'sufficient'.
A good government could aid in that, but with the obvious lack of such,... but oh, I'm getting too political for
a) it requires JavaScript to run on the client-side. There are better solutions than this, if you don't mind that being a requirement.
b) he requires to keep the copyright message to stay intact. Can you say 'signature'?
c) If they enhanced the parser of the bot with JavaScript (and this is not THAT difficult), he writes the email plain to the document.
So some improvements: - Forget about requirements of leaving certain comments in the code, these serve as signatures, so if the solution ever became widespread, the bots can be modified to understand that. - Require user interaction to decrypt the address. For example, use the onclick() handler. It's orders of magnitude more difficult for a bot to simulate all possible 'onclick()'s than it is to execute script that's executed when the page is loaded. Below is the code generated, and as you can see in the last lines, the email address is written plainly to the document:There are even better ways to obfuscate things, but, I leave that as an exercise
Sorry for the strange formatting,- the fucking lameness filters demanded it...