Geeks aren't the only ones up in arms about light pollution either.
You'll also find plenty of greenies getting upset about light pollution due to the effect it has on insects and birds (and hence, lots of other critters too).
I agree that that would be a nice solution to many issues - unfortunately (as per usual) outdated regulations haven't been revised to allow these situations.
I'm not sure about anywhere else (or even if this reflects fact), but I had heard that in Australia you weren't able to charge for wireless access unless you held a telecommunications license - somewhere around the $10K mark. I was also under the impression that over here it was also against the law to provide a connection to the Internet from public wireless networks (such as wireless free-net type setups) due to the same regulations.
Once again, the problem comes down to the fact that technology changes so rapidly but the laws and regulations just don't keep up.
In firm slashdot tradition, I have not RTFA - however...
XML. For Page layout. Intended for printing.
So what makes this "Metro" anything other than a proprietary rehash of XSL:FO?!?
We're currently using it as a middle step between our own XML based documents and PDF, using FOP. Sure, FOP doesn't fulfil all of the spec, but the spec exists, and works well.
Problem was, neither party was providing any reasonable "solution" to the FTA. It's all well and good to abuse Johnny over these problems, but I didn't see Latham making any amazingly meaningful remarks or changes, other than stalling for time pulling his thumb.
It's exactly the same with the concerns much of the Australian IT community had with regards to the changes in copyright law, et al. Who listened to a word that was said? Certainly wasn't either Howard or Latham. The most I heard was 1 senator mentioning it to the press and that was the end of it.
Sure, the FTA sucks, but personally I'd hate to see how much worse off if the spineless Latham settled it... Could have been much worse. And not just for the techies.
There is a binary replacement for the IE ActiveX control, which will "replace" the control with one built from the Mozilla source.
In my testing (minimal) it seems to work reasonably well...
Scarily enough, the person doing it has also provided a tool to modify existing binaries to use this control rather than the IE one... I haven't tried it personally, but looks... interesting.
Problem is though, when things swing the other way.
Recently I've noticed that many people consider it quite acceptable for websites to be broken under IE and their reponse is either "Use Firefox!" or "Well they should support the standards".
Whilst this is true to a degree, it's essential that it doesn't swing the other way to how users of smaller browsers have been treated for years. Just because IE is broken and doesn't support the standards is no reason to say "Ah well, screw them".
I have seen this problem ranging from sites which rely on Firefox's JavaScript implementation (esp. the W3C DOM), to sites that expect the "advanced" CSS2/3 selectors that Firefox provides (and look horrible without them). Thankfully, most of the web-devs and designers smart enough (Troll -1:P) to be using Firefox are usually also smart enough to see why this is a Bad Thing (TM).
While I agree entirely with the fact that a truckload of money for certification (esp against standards) is often far too high, don't forget there are a few other things to consider.
- The company doing the checking has to survive - it takes time to check every bit of a system for compatibility and adherence to a standard. It even takes time to produce software to do the checking automagically (if at all possible).
- It's marketing. They are giving you the right to leverage their business name or trademark for your own good. If I go and get a CCNP or something like that, it's going to cost me a lot of money. Not because it's just that amount of services/teaching provided, but because I then have the marketing clout to splash the CCNP initials after my name. Same for UNIX.
As far as I have seen, the only people _not_ to charge ludicrous amounts of money for standards compliance testing are mobs like the W3C - probably because they don't _really_ have much marketing clout in the real world.
Yes, I know. There was, as far as I was aware, also issues with some countries refusing to pay millitary pensions because they conveniently didn't have records of their service.
Jury is still out on whether this was intentional in all cases, but yes, I agree entirely - that information DID have a use, and yes, it most certainly should have been preserved. Point is it didn't, and contrary to what anyone says, thats not likely to change in the future. Because after all, if we stored all our documents digitally they _CAN'T_ be lost... Right?
Really, same old - does ANYONE (I exclude the obvious hardcore security concious techies out there from this, obviously) take cybersecurity seriously? Companies dont. Home users dont. Hell, there are even Sys Admins out there that think security is just disabling the FTP server!
What I find odd though, is the differences in the way the media shows cybersecurity. Although it's been quite common in the media lately - movies (too numerous to bother counting - you know them anyway), news releases on viruses, phishing, etc. all have had (at least in Australia) an increase of media exposure in recent times. There's a lot of very serious attention out there to this issue, but it's not working!
People see a movie that examines cybersecurity, which may be discussing a real issue in the same way every other mainstream movie does (ie. somewhat realistic... Willing suspension of disbelief and all that). What I don't understand though is that movies about other topics make people stop and look at the bigger issue being discussed. People watch a war movie and go "oh hay, war is bad/good/hell". People watch a horror flic and go "oh hay, i'm going to buy me an axe and board my doors up to keep those psychos out". People watch a "cybersecurity" movie (or even news) and go "hah, it'll never happen to me - I know everything about my computer!".
Until we fix this problem, and get across to the public (and hence Governments) that this IS a major issue (and that it isn't going away), the problem is just going to get worse.
I guess part of the problem is the fact that the topics are usually quite abstract. Often, you can't explain how or even WHY these things happen without getting into some fairly abstract details. What do you mean people can talk to my computer? But it's listening to multiple things at once? And some might be good? But why would they want to use my computer to talk to websites?
AAAaaarrrrghhh....
Regardless, something needs to be done, as this is an all to common event.
And that will make a difference how? Warehouses of records were destroyed by all nations not long after WWII. We aren't even talking mainly classified documents here - we're talking rather mundane operational things like service records, etc.
Seriously, if you had the choice of:
1) Sort the warehouse full of documents and records spanning several years, transport them to a new location and store them. Or;
2) Burn the warehouse down, get someone else to rebuild warehouse.
Gee... Which one is less work... Seriously, no one cared when they did it in WWII, apart from the millitary historians 40 years later. This is, of course, not even considering if there were to be malicious destruction of documents by those involved/responsible/etc.
Simply put - if they don't want it made public, no amount of legislation will ever allow that information to become public.
You mean something similar to this where compromised IIS servers are going arround infecting IE???
Yes, it's a worry - it really is... All someone needs to do is make IE infect the IIS servers (presumably a fairly simple task, considering the initial exploitation of the servers was probably scripted anyway) and your dastardly plan will come to fruition.
Your logic is both correct and short-sighted at the same time. Yes, you can't pinpoint a "terrorist" on the basis of spending alone - just because I walk into a hardware store and buy a box cutter doesn't mean I am about to hijack the next plane I get onto. However, with sufficient data, a "terrorist" _can_ be distinguished from normal people - organisations across the globe have been doing it for years. However, when this information is fragmented, it really is useless.
A useful analogy is that in marketing. You may collect statistics saying that 60% of people that visit a website go to buy box cutters. You may also collect statistics saying that 50% of your visitors use Firefox under Linux. But unless you can tie those two bits of information together (via IP address, etc.) you won't know if mainly Linux users like box cutters or not. Collecting data for no reason is a problem - it's a waste of resources and a waste of time.
I agree, there is a huge issue of having one huge data repository for everyones details. I am also no huge fan of the "war on terror" or anything of that nature. However, I do subscribe to the logic of that if you are going to do something, do it right. It's your money they're wasting, not mine - I don't have to put up with your (often wacky) governments ways. Either they spend a few million dollars on a system which doesn't work, is a security problem and doesn't provide any valuable data, or they spend a few million dollars on something that at least works. Hey - they're a government and are going to waste the money anyway - may as well push for something that works!
On top of all this, having 50 smaller targets is more of a risk than 1 central one. Sure, you may bear the brunt of 50x the attacks on that one site - but at least you are only looking in one place! Plus, more sites means better chance (or worse, depending on how you look at it) of one site being unpatched or whatever. I certainly know which site I'd rather be administering and trusting with my private data!
Aren't there already PBXs that can do POTS <-> VoIP style connections? I seem to remember hearing about them, and a quick Google for them shows they aren't exactly unheard of.
Surely, if a phone has a basic 802.11 capability, the effort to write a Java or Symbian app to do the VoIP with the PBX wouldn't be amazingly difficult. And, scarily enough, it might even be platform dependant (or JVM dependant - whichever way your personal bias runs...)
Although I agree with your thoughts, hired security guards for buildings are technically not a govermental law enforcement agency, and yet they have the power to detain you under certain situations (such as waiting for police). Maybe I am missing the point, but how does this type of thing differ from a security guard company, or even a private investigator firm for that matter. I don't believe they should have the ability to "probe" a system.
Also, how do they distinguish public ports??? Do they mean unprotected ports, common ports, or what??? From what the way they seem to put it, it sounds like they consider ANY port to be public if they can get into it. If this is the case, I fail to see how it cannot be considered unauthorized access to a system, and hence hacking. Hell, even hits to port 80 can be considered hacking under certain circumstances, and that is probably one of the most common "public" ports on the internet.
As far as I can see, this company's actions are not in the realm of black and white... They are in a VERY murky shade of grey.
If the object is an extreme distance where depth perception is essentially nil or in a dim setting there depth is also less acute, then it is more 'believed' by the viewer. Otherwise, as long as one has two eyes, I see a problem.
Regarding making your own cables, it is very much a money saver. If everywhere else is anywhere like Australia, a 5m CAT5 UTP straight through ethernet cable (RJ-45) is about AU$20 - AU$25 (about US$10-12), whilst to make it costs :
$0.45 per metre of CAT5 cable
$0.45 per RJ-45 connector
So realistically, it costs less than $5 (US$ 2.50!!!) for a 5m length... Thats alot of profit going to the retailer. Granted, you have the crimper cost, etc... But once you have it, its a friend for life. Also, you can then have the cable any length you want!! WOW!!!
Back to the thread, the square Fibre connectors (no idea what they are called...) are nice to use, easy to plug in and appear to be quite sturdy, however making the cables looks to be a bitch of a job. We got hold of a CD one day with movies detailing putting the connectors onto the ends of the fibre... It took about 10-15 minutes per end, and there was the danger of the cut off piece of glass entering the skin!!! (However, they were demonstrating, so I presume a competent installer could do it quite quickly). What is more, they are quite streamlined, so pulling them through bundles wouldnt break the connector like with RJ-45's. Mind you, I wouldn't like to be treating the fibre too rough... At the price it is per metre, you wouldn't want to have to make another one!!!
Just one small problem. As far as I recall (and I know for certain in version 3.1) VMWare does not and have no intention of adding OpenGL and/or DirectX support for the virtual machines. Hence, most games won't work.
It has been a while since I looked at it again though, so they may have changed their view... But as far as I am aware, VMWare doesn't do those high end graphics thingumies
Slashdot is the only place I have seen anything about this "block list"...
On top of that, I haven't seen any sites "mysteriously dissapear" or anything... As far as I can tell, it mainly applies to things such as child pornography, and other illegal material.
Just the same as that Imports and Exports of physical material is prevented by customs (drugs, other illegal material, etc.), so too should other illegal material such as child pornography.
Am I allowed to bring 5kg of pure cocane into Australia? No, so why should I be able to bring any other illegal matterial into the country, be it physical or electronic.
Go back to your homes people, nothing to see here...
Get a pack of users stupid enough to do the testing for free... And leave them to it...
At least then you are testing for bugs with the 5% of people who do the things stupid enough to cause the esoteric ones...
In short, just because you think you're "l33t" by optimising your code so it runs on a 286, you're just wasting your time because computers are fast enough to not need that. Look at the amount of processor cycles donated to projects like Seti@Home - there is no need to optimise code, so stop whinging.
I disagree... Firstly, optimising code means that it will (usually) run faster and more efficiently. Its true that the ability for code to be able to run at a resonable rate on a 286 is no longer neccesary, but the fact that it will run faster than unoptimised code IS important.
Its the same as if you were to look at cars. You can have an old petrol guzzeler (your un-optimised code) or a modern car (your optimised code). They both get you there at the same speed, however, which would you rather??? The new one, because it takes less fuel... It is more efficient. Its the same thing with computers and software.
Sure, I could sit here and wait 1/2 an hour for an aplication do its job on a 286, and then move it over to a 1.2GHz and see it complete in a 10 seconds or so... But if that code was optimised, it could be complete in 2 seconds on that 1.2GHz, or only 15 mins on the 286.
People also always seem to forget that 286s, 386s, 486s, are all still around... Just because you haven't seen one in 5 years doesn't mean they aren't still around and in use. For example, I have a 133MHz at my feet at the moment working alongside my 1.2GHz machine. And I have 2 or 3 486's in the next room that I am constructing. That (off the topic) is where Linux succeeds - because it is efficient on old / low end machines.
Good, optimised code IS neccesary... Where would we all be if code had no optimisation??? Linux would be slow, Palmtops (and other embedded devices) would fail to exist without huge amounts of resources such as RAM and storage space, and you would have to wait for your BSOD to load on Windows...
No one is saying that "Code must be optimised or we will come and chop off your hands, legs and ears..." sort of thing... Optimised code should be goal, but not at the expense of deadlines, and other external modifiers.
Optimisation is as important to software as fuel efficiency is to cars. Its not a matter of being "l33t coders", its a matter of using everything that you have as efficiently as possible.
What would really be a good thing would be if the open-source community could produce an app as good as Photoshop. Otherwise it's an admission of failure -- we have to depend forever on Adobe adobe to treat us graciously.
I think you really need to stop looking at the OSS community and saying "We're the best... We can do everything right now...". Sure, OSS could produce a piece of software as good as Photoshop 6, etc. But it will take just as long (if not longer). Adobe has been working on PS for years... Version 6... Thats a hell of a lot of work... Sure, OSS could have a product out as good as PS6... However, it would have to have begun about the same time as PS1, and would have to have the same number of developers working on it, for the same hours, with the same skills...
Its just not reasonable to think that for every product there should be a OSS product that is as good or better... its just not going to happen.
Granted, OSS apps. are what will bring OSS into the desktop world. Non-geeks wont care about having the new 2.4.19 Kernel, or if their filesystem is ext2,ext3 or ReislerFS (sorry if the spelling is wrong... im lazy...) OSS will come onto the desktop through Aplications. However, good, strong aplications come from good, strong code, and good,strong code takes time to write... Alot of time...
I believe it is great that Adobe is even considering bringing their aplications to Linux. It may not be OSS, but it is better than nothing. As the aplications come, so will users to Linux, and other OSS 'alternative OS's'. Dont loose sight of the big picture and cast off an excelent Aplication Suite just because it isnt OSS...
Re:Must have been a typo
on
Lunar Power
·
· Score: 1
I thought that the power required to run four Intel P-IV processors at once WAS the sum of all power produced by fossil fuels across the globe?!?!?!
Possible Rammifications...
on
Lunar Power
·
· Score: 1
For a start, that huge swirling core is what produces the earth's magnetic field, protecting us from stray cosmic radiation... If we were to upset/ damage that magnetic field by screwing up the way the core spins, we wouldnt need any energy anyway... We'd all be dead... A very crispy dead...
And also, that lava is hot enough to melt metal, so everything would have to be made of Carbon (or another very high melting point material)...
Without him, we would still be back in the age of steam...
In 10 years time, people will look at Linus and laugh at how primitive the 2.4 kernel was...
"Oh.. He must have been a crackhead or a crap coder"... Which ofcourse we know is completely false...
The same with Tesla... At the time, with their current scientific knowledge, it was a great idea...
So before you go bashing Tesla (and other scientists for that matter) just think about where you would be if it wasnt for that tech-loony
Slashdot Mirror
Geeks aren't the only ones up in arms about light pollution either.
You'll also find plenty of greenies getting upset about light pollution due to the effect it has on insects and birds (and hence, lots of other critters too).
I agree that that would be a nice solution to many issues - unfortunately (as per usual) outdated regulations haven't been revised to allow these situations.
I'm not sure about anywhere else (or even if this reflects fact), but I had heard that in Australia you weren't able to charge for wireless access unless you held a telecommunications license - somewhere around the $10K mark. I was also under the impression that over here it was also against the law to provide a connection to the Internet from public wireless networks (such as wireless free-net type setups) due to the same regulations.
Once again, the problem comes down to the fact that technology changes so rapidly but the laws and regulations just don't keep up.
In firm slashdot tradition, I have not RTFA - however...
XML. For Page layout. Intended for printing.
So what makes this "Metro" anything other than a proprietary rehash of XSL:FO?!?
We're currently using it as a middle step between our own XML based documents and PDF, using FOP. Sure, FOP doesn't fulfil all of the spec, but the spec exists, and works well.
Problem was, neither party was providing any reasonable "solution" to the FTA. It's all well and good to abuse Johnny over these problems, but I didn't see Latham making any amazingly meaningful remarks or changes, other than stalling for time pulling his thumb.
It's exactly the same with the concerns much of the Australian IT community had with regards to the changes in copyright law, et al. Who listened to a word that was said? Certainly wasn't either Howard or Latham. The most I heard was 1 senator mentioning it to the press and that was the end of it.
Sure, the FTA sucks, but personally I'd hate to see how much worse off if the spineless Latham settled it... Could have been much worse. And not just for the techies.
Don't joke...
There is a binary replacement for the IE ActiveX control, which will "replace" the control with one built from the Mozilla source.
In my testing (minimal) it seems to work reasonably well...
Scarily enough, the person doing it has also provided a tool to modify existing binaries to use this control rather than the IE one... I haven't tried it personally, but looks... interesting.
Problem is though, when things swing the other way.
Recently I've noticed that many people consider it quite acceptable for websites to be broken under IE and their reponse is either "Use Firefox!" or "Well they should support the standards".
Whilst this is true to a degree, it's essential that it doesn't swing the other way to how users of smaller browsers have been treated for years. Just because IE is broken and doesn't support the standards is no reason to say "Ah well, screw them".
I have seen this problem ranging from sites which rely on Firefox's JavaScript implementation (esp. the W3C DOM), to sites that expect the "advanced" CSS2/3 selectors that Firefox provides (and look horrible without them). Thankfully, most of the web-devs and designers smart enough (Troll -1 :P) to be using Firefox are usually also smart enough to see why this is a Bad Thing (TM).
While I agree entirely with the fact that a truckload of money for certification (esp against standards) is often far too high, don't forget there are a few other things to consider.
- The company doing the checking has to survive - it takes time to check every bit of a system for compatibility and adherence to a standard. It even takes time to produce software to do the checking automagically (if at all possible).
- It's marketing. They are giving you the right to leverage their business name or trademark for your own good. If I go and get a CCNP or something like that, it's going to cost me a lot of money. Not because it's just that amount of services/teaching provided, but because I then have the marketing clout to splash the CCNP initials after my name. Same for UNIX.
As far as I have seen, the only people _not_ to charge ludicrous amounts of money for standards compliance testing are mobs like the W3C - probably because they don't _really_ have much marketing clout in the real world.
Yes, I know. There was, as far as I was aware, also issues with some countries refusing to pay millitary pensions because they conveniently didn't have records of their service.
Jury is still out on whether this was intentional in all cases, but yes, I agree entirely - that information DID have a use, and yes, it most certainly should have been preserved. Point is it didn't, and contrary to what anyone says, thats not likely to change in the future. Because after all, if we stored all our documents digitally they _CAN'T_ be lost... Right?
Really, same old - does ANYONE (I exclude the obvious hardcore security concious techies out there from this, obviously) take cybersecurity seriously? Companies dont. Home users dont. Hell, there are even Sys Admins out there that think security is just disabling the FTP server!
What I find odd though, is the differences in the way the media shows cybersecurity. Although it's been quite common in the media lately - movies (too numerous to bother counting - you know them anyway), news releases on viruses, phishing, etc. all have had (at least in Australia) an increase of media exposure in recent times. There's a lot of very serious attention out there to this issue, but it's not working!
People see a movie that examines cybersecurity, which may be discussing a real issue in the same way every other mainstream movie does (ie. somewhat realistic... Willing suspension of disbelief and all that). What I don't understand though is that movies about other topics make people stop and look at the bigger issue being discussed. People watch a war movie and go "oh hay, war is bad/good/hell". People watch a horror flic and go "oh hay, i'm going to buy me an axe and board my doors up to keep those psychos out". People watch a "cybersecurity" movie (or even news) and go "hah, it'll never happen to me - I know everything about my computer!".
Until we fix this problem, and get across to the public (and hence Governments) that this IS a major issue (and that it isn't going away), the problem is just going to get worse.
I guess part of the problem is the fact that the topics are usually quite abstract. Often, you can't explain how or even WHY these things happen without getting into some fairly abstract details. What do you mean people can talk to my computer? But it's listening to multiple things at once? And some might be good? But why would they want to use my computer to talk to websites?
AAAaaarrrrghhh....
Regardless, something needs to be done, as this is an all to common event.
And that will make a difference how? Warehouses of records were destroyed by all nations not long after WWII. We aren't even talking mainly classified documents here - we're talking rather mundane operational things like service records, etc.
Seriously, if you had the choice of :
1) Sort the warehouse full of documents and records spanning several years, transport them to a new location and store them. Or;
2) Burn the warehouse down, get someone else to rebuild warehouse.
Gee... Which one is less work... Seriously, no one cared when they did it in WWII, apart from the millitary historians 40 years later. This is, of course, not even considering if there were to be malicious destruction of documents by those involved/responsible/etc.
Simply put - if they don't want it made public, no amount of legislation will ever allow that information to become public.
You mean something similar to this where compromised IIS servers are going arround infecting IE???
Yes, it's a worry - it really is... All someone needs to do is make IE infect the IIS servers (presumably a fairly simple task, considering the initial exploitation of the servers was probably scripted anyway) and your dastardly plan will come to fruition.
Your logic is both correct and short-sighted at the same time. Yes, you can't pinpoint a "terrorist" on the basis of spending alone - just because I walk into a hardware store and buy a box cutter doesn't mean I am about to hijack the next plane I get onto. However, with sufficient data, a "terrorist" _can_ be distinguished from normal people - organisations across the globe have been doing it for years. However, when this information is fragmented, it really is useless.
A useful analogy is that in marketing. You may collect statistics saying that 60% of people that visit a website go to buy box cutters. You may also collect statistics saying that 50% of your visitors use Firefox under Linux. But unless you can tie those two bits of information together (via IP address, etc.) you won't know if mainly Linux users like box cutters or not. Collecting data for no reason is a problem - it's a waste of resources and a waste of time.
I agree, there is a huge issue of having one huge data repository for everyones details. I am also no huge fan of the "war on terror" or anything of that nature. However, I do subscribe to the logic of that if you are going to do something, do it right. It's your money they're wasting, not mine - I don't have to put up with your (often wacky) governments ways. Either they spend a few million dollars on a system which doesn't work, is a security problem and doesn't provide any valuable data, or they spend a few million dollars on something that at least works. Hey - they're a government and are going to waste the money anyway - may as well push for something that works!
On top of all this, having 50 smaller targets is more of a risk than 1 central one. Sure, you may bear the brunt of 50x the attacks on that one site - but at least you are only looking in one place! Plus, more sites means better chance (or worse, depending on how you look at it) of one site being unpatched or whatever. I certainly know which site I'd rather be administering and trusting with my private data!
Aren't there already PBXs that can do POTS <-> VoIP style connections? I seem to remember hearing about them, and a quick Google for them shows they aren't exactly unheard of.
Surely, if a phone has a basic 802.11 capability, the effort to write a Java or Symbian app to do the VoIP with the PBX wouldn't be amazingly difficult. And, scarily enough, it might even be platform dependant (or JVM dependant - whichever way your personal bias runs...)
Although I agree with your thoughts, hired security guards for buildings are technically not a govermental law enforcement agency, and yet they have the power to detain you under certain situations (such as waiting for police). Maybe I am missing the point, but how does this type of thing differ from a security guard company, or even a private investigator firm for that matter. I don't believe they should have the ability to "probe" a system.
Also, how do they distinguish public ports??? Do they mean unprotected ports, common ports, or what??? From what the way they seem to put it, it sounds like they consider ANY port to be public if they can get into it. If this is the case, I fail to see how it cannot be considered unauthorized access to a system, and hence hacking. Hell, even hits to port 80 can be considered hacking under certain circumstances, and that is probably one of the most common "public" ports on the internet.
As far as I can see, this company's actions are not in the realm of black and white... They are in a VERY murky shade of grey.
Then maybe you need a Cloak of Invisibility so as that you don't see the problem...
Yes, I appologise for the pun...
Regarding making your own cables, it is very much a money saver. If everywhere else is anywhere like Australia, a 5m CAT5 UTP straight through ethernet cable (RJ-45) is about AU$20 - AU$25 (about US$10-12), whilst to make it costs :
$0.45 per metre of CAT5 cable
$0.45 per RJ-45 connector
So realistically, it costs less than $5 (US$ 2.50!!!) for a 5m length... Thats alot of profit going to the retailer. Granted, you have the crimper cost, etc... But once you have it, its a friend for life. Also, you can then have the cable any length you want!! WOW!!!
Back to the thread, the square Fibre connectors (no idea what they are called...) are nice to use, easy to plug in and appear to be quite sturdy, however making the cables looks to be a bitch of a job. We got hold of a CD one day with movies detailing putting the connectors onto the ends of the fibre... It took about 10-15 minutes per end, and there was the danger of the cut off piece of glass entering the skin!!! (However, they were demonstrating, so I presume a competent installer could do it quite quickly). What is more, they are quite streamlined, so pulling them through bundles wouldnt break the connector like with RJ-45's. Mind you, I wouldn't like to be treating the fibre too rough... At the price it is per metre, you wouldn't want to have to make another one!!!
Just one small problem. As far as I recall (and I know for certain in version 3.1) VMWare does not and have no intention of adding OpenGL and/or DirectX support for the virtual machines. Hence, most games won't work.
It has been a while since I looked at it again though, so they may have changed their view... But as far as I am aware, VMWare doesn't do those high end graphics thingumies
Slashdot is the only place I have seen anything about this "block list"...
On top of that, I haven't seen any sites "mysteriously dissapear" or anything... As far as I can tell, it mainly applies to things such as child pornography, and other illegal material.
Just the same as that Imports and Exports of physical material is prevented by customs (drugs, other illegal material, etc.), so too should other illegal material such as child pornography.
Am I allowed to bring 5kg of pure cocane into Australia? No, so why should I be able to bring any other illegal matterial into the country, be it physical or electronic.
Go back to your homes people, nothing to see here...
Get a pack of users stupid enough to do the testing for free... And leave them to it... At least then you are testing for bugs with the 5% of people who do the things stupid enough to cause the esoteric ones...
In short, just because you think you're "l33t" by optimising your code so it runs on a 286, you're just wasting your time because computers are fast enough to not need that. Look at the amount of processor cycles donated to projects like Seti@Home - there is no need to optimise code, so stop whinging.
I disagree... Firstly, optimising code means that it will (usually) run faster and more efficiently. Its true that the ability for code to be able to run at a resonable rate on a 286 is no longer neccesary, but the fact that it will run faster than unoptimised code IS important.Its the same as if you were to look at cars. You can have an old petrol guzzeler (your un-optimised code) or a modern car (your optimised code). They both get you there at the same speed, however, which would you rather??? The new one, because it takes less fuel... It is more efficient. Its the same thing with computers and software.
Sure, I could sit here and wait 1/2 an hour for an aplication do its job on a 286, and then move it over to a 1.2GHz and see it complete in a 10 seconds or so... But if that code was optimised, it could be complete in 2 seconds on that 1.2GHz, or only 15 mins on the 286.
People also always seem to forget that 286s, 386s, 486s, are all still around... Just because you haven't seen one in 5 years doesn't mean they aren't still around and in use. For example, I have a 133MHz at my feet at the moment working alongside my 1.2GHz machine. And I have 2 or 3 486's in the next room that I am constructing. That (off the topic) is where Linux succeeds - because it is efficient on old / low end machines.
Good, optimised code IS neccesary... Where would we all be if code had no optimisation??? Linux would be slow, Palmtops (and other embedded devices) would fail to exist without huge amounts of resources such as RAM and storage space, and you would have to wait for your BSOD to load on Windows...
No one is saying that "Code must be optimised or we will come and chop off your hands, legs and ears..." sort of thing... Optimised code should be goal, but not at the expense of deadlines, and other external modifiers.
Optimisation is as important to software as fuel efficiency is to cars. Its not a matter of being "l33t coders", its a matter of using everything that you have as efficiently as possible.
i think we just slashdotted MS-NBC... or is it just my connection???
What would really be a good thing would be if the open-source community could produce an app as good as Photoshop. Otherwise it's an admission of failure -- we have to depend forever on Adobe adobe to treat us graciously.
I think you really need to stop looking at the OSS community and saying "We're the best... We can do everything right now...". Sure, OSS could produce a piece of software as good as Photoshop 6, etc. But it will take just as long (if not longer). Adobe has been working on PS for years... Version 6... Thats a hell of a lot of work... Sure, OSS could have a product out as good as PS6... However, it would have to have begun about the same time as PS1, and would have to have the same number of developers working on it, for the same hours, with the same skills...
Its just not reasonable to think that for every product there should be a OSS product that is as good or better... its just not going to happen.
Granted, OSS apps. are what will bring OSS into the desktop world. Non-geeks wont care about having the new 2.4.19 Kernel, or if their filesystem is ext2,ext3 or ReislerFS (sorry if the spelling is wrong... im lazy...) OSS will come onto the desktop through Aplications. However, good, strong aplications come from good, strong code, and good,strong code takes time to write... Alot of time...
I believe it is great that Adobe is even considering bringing their aplications to Linux. It may not be OSS, but it is better than nothing. As the aplications come, so will users to Linux, and other OSS 'alternative OS's'. Dont loose sight of the big picture and cast off an excelent Aplication Suite just because it isnt OSS...
I thought that the power required to run four Intel P-IV processors at once WAS the sum of all power produced by fossil fuels across the globe?!?!?!
For a start, that huge swirling core is what produces the earth's magnetic field, protecting us from stray cosmic radiation... If we were to upset/ damage that magnetic field by screwing up the way the core spins, we wouldnt need any energy anyway... We'd all be dead... A very crispy dead...
And also, that lava is hot enough to melt metal, so everything would have to be made of Carbon (or another very high melting point material)...
Without him, we would still be back in the age of steam... In 10 years time, people will look at Linus and laugh at how primitive the 2.4 kernel was... "Oh.. He must have been a crackhead or a crap coder"... Which ofcourse we know is completely false... The same with Tesla... At the time, with their current scientific knowledge, it was a great idea... So before you go bashing Tesla (and other scientists for that matter) just think about where you would be if it wasnt for that tech-loony