There's nothing in the article that claims you can't run a non-trusted OS using their BIOS. It simply tells the system what it found.
There is going to be one problem though, with dual booting a trusted OS and an untrusted one
For the chain of trust to work the bootloader has to be trusted, and you can be sure that the provider of the most used trusted bootloader (ms) will make sure it won't load linux (even when TCPA is disabled)
This means that you'll have to buy a third party trusted bootloader that can load linux and windows, or keep switching boot devices in the bios. And who do you think is going to buy any company that even talks about selling a custom trusted bootloader?
I think at the least this means goodbye to painless multibooting, yet another reason to dump windows once and for all.
What I would love about print on demand is if the format the books come in is somewhat flexible when it comes to layout. So that when I order a POD book I specify the paper size (among a few standard choices i suppose) and the text is adapted to it. Then if I can choose the binding too I can have all my books the same size and binding, it'll look beautiful in my bookshelf
So if I understand you correctly it's simply a requirement that proofreaders and layouters (yes it's a word, I just created it) can use msword to do their work. Then the author should be free to create the text in any format that can be converted to something msword can open when he hands it over to the publisher?
If I were to write a book (I won't because I haven't the knowledge to write one yet) I would avoid word if at all possible, I've had to read a 400+ page document in word and its not a suitable tool once the text becomes that long (newer versions may be better though, I haven't tried)
And there is ofcourse the issue that a lot of potential opensource writers can't or will refuse to run word on their systems
A bit later, not too long, you get nice clean electronic "source code".
You really should try tro release at least a few of the books electronically at once, and compare the sales numbers to those released a few months after the paper copies
I, and I expect others, like to download a book if possible, read part of it to verify that it's good, and then get the paper brick. I don't like to buy a book I haven't had a chance to look at, and most of the time I can't. (since the local bookstores don't have many computer books and I'll have to order specifically)
Why not the other way around? The format could be anything that can be converted to an acceptable.doc file. If a book is to be a project involving several authors I don't think msword is the ideal format
Another question: Will they be considering printing books that are already open-sourced but doesn't exist on paper (yet). e.g if an author wishes a book to be available on the net from day one, or perhaps in "beta" form. Would they still consider it for printing it?
Second question: will they/you need voulenteer reviewers? If the topic is relevant for me I would give feedback in exchange for beeing able to read the material while unfinished, and a free copy once the book is done
(Not to mention I would love my name in print in an acknowledgments section:-) )
I'll believe this when I see it. Microsoft releasing any kind of product for linux would be like admitting defeat. Customers would ask why they develop product for an inferior[1] platform. What we might see is some microsoft funded third party developing linux software (as in frontpage extensions for apache)
[1]: Not my opinion, but that's what they'll ask microsoft
Let's take a long movie and break it into three parts so we can extract more money from idiots who think they have to watch every film made from a book.
If they had made it into just one move I wouldn't have bothered seeing it as they would have to cut out way too much of the detail from the book. I never felt i had to watch it, and if the first movie had been crap I wouldn't have bothered with the others
Blech. I can't believe how totally ape-shit people go over this crap. I know someone who actaully re-bought the DVD of the original because they release a "special edition".
Look up the word "collector". Making a long version isn't that unusual, it allows directors to make an extra cut without worrying about the running length of the move. Of course beeing able to sell the same movie twice doesn't hurt.
There's better things to do than listen to me rant and rave, and there's better things to do than waste your hard earned cash on a dead author's movie.
Fortunately you don't get to choose for me. There are "better things" to use money on for everything, depending on who you ask. If someone choses to buy both the short and long version let them, and shut up as long as it isn't your money they are using. Do you see me complaining about how you choose to spend your money?
You are right, there is no absolute need for templates. But if they are going to implement them they should do it right, and that mean beeing able to force one or more interface(s) and/or a base class as the template type. After all the reason was stronger type safety
e.g. for a collection class you could just as easily just use that interface or base class as the parameter, and document that all object in the collection should be the same class
It's basically an extra bit of syntax to generate compile-time errors instead of run-time errors, letting stupid programmers know earlier:)
It seems I may have misunderstood the parent post. Reading through it again I believe he meant something like
class MySortedList<Comparable Element>{ void insert(Element e) { /* now we can do this: */ int i = e.compareTo(another_element); /* because we can be sure that e implements comparable */ } }
which it seems the specification doesn't support, and it should have. (to be really useful)
(so, for example, I could declare a SortedList type, where only types that implement Comparable can be used)
List<Comparable>
would probably do that for you
Disclaimer: I didn't actually check the spec, but int the page of the article there is nothing that indicates that is has to be a class and not an interface or abstract class
I had to crack accounts at the local university just to have some goddamn internet access.
You forgot to mention that you had to walk uphill for 20 miles barefoot in the snow to get there. And 20 miles uphill barefoot in the snow to get home again
The warning signs will be pre-release robotic rap videos.
Does this mean that doing "the robot" on the dance floor will become cool?
Oh horror, I wouldn't care if they mutilated the story as I would be warned and could avoid seeing it, but if people start doing the robot I might have to lock myself in the basement
Could work, with a small modification. Remove any positive moderation on an edited topic. Otherwise people would abuse it to get rid of -1's
That of cource would mean that the original has to be available when it comes to meta moderation, unless they set it up so that moderations on changed posts aren't meta-moderated
The real question is do we really want this added complexity (== larger chance of errors) just to be able to edit posts? After all most people learn by their mistakes and would stop to think "is this ok, is this good?" before hitting submit after a few screwups
Yes, but you seem to hold the misconseption that the US government shouldn't use open source since it has enough money to pay for proprietary software
I think that no matter how much money the government has it should go for the open source. Having money doesn't justify wasting it. (It's your taxes it comes from after all). Also the money saved could be put to better uses
Ok, I admit I was nowhere near toledo and have no idea how much (if any) coverage this got in the traditional media (tv and newspapers). But where I come from the news always like the occasional "evil hacker" story (why can't they learn they're called crackers?)
And I would expect that the cable company made sure all it's existing customers knew about the bust, (through it's newsletter or something like that) to prevent others from trying the same thing
The difference between commercial closed source (CCS) and open source software (OSS) is this:
If you use OSS you can choose to pay or not to pay
If you use CSS you can not (legally) choose, if they say you should pay, then you should pay.
If you develop a system and se a piece of OSS you can use anything you learn from it, and even use it as a "component" in your own software.
If you develop a system and see the source of CSS you'll get your ass sued if you make anything remotely similar, though you might be allowed for the privilege of using it as a component you are likely tied to the owning company and cant modify the internals of the "component"
OSS will lose its appeal the the mass if they end up having to pay for opensource software as well
There is the difference between having to pay and choosing to pay
Also of course if you are a programmer you could give something back to the community by helping develop OSS. If you're not you could help with ideas, bug reports, etc. And if you're a lazy unskilled idealist you could donate
those don't increase bandwidth used, they just make it use what it has more efficiently (supposedly). Basically just changes the MTU size for packets, it wouldn't appear on any of the company's reports that a person using those was getting more bandwidth.
Yes but do you think the people that just installed cable internet to surf hotmail understand that? The products claim to boost internet performance, and people got busted by the feds for boosting internet performance. So the less knowledgeable users won't dare use these
From the article: Shryock also confirmed the company wasn't sure how customers were getting the extra speed. "We don't fully understand how they're pulling this off just yet, but we're learning more every day."
Do you really expect that this company would be able to limit the bandwith at the server end, when they can't understand how the users increased their bandwith at the modem end?
Basically the cable company doesn't seem to have a clue, so instead of using their own money to solva a problem with a technical solution, they use the taxpayers money to solve a problem by using the FBI to scare the s**t out of their users.
Now half of their users won't dare install "download accelerator" (or any similar tool) since it "makes downloads faster" which is obviously illegal since those other guys got busted for makin their machines download faster. Less bandwith used => more money for the cable company
Re:Major downfall (no pun intended)
on
Fanwing Planes?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
With no ability to glide after engine failure, I cannot see the military putting forth much effort (or $$) in an aircraft of this nature
That depends on the use. For unmanned drones not gliding is an advantage, since there would be nothing useful left if it fails (or is shot down) over enemy territory
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing in the article that claims you can't run a non-trusted OS using their BIOS. It simply tells the system what it found.
There is going to be one problem though, with dual booting a trusted OS and an untrusted one
For the chain of trust to work the bootloader has to be trusted, and you can be sure that the provider of the most used trusted bootloader (ms) will make sure it won't load linux (even when TCPA is disabled)
This means that you'll have to buy a third party trusted bootloader that can load linux and windows, or keep switching boot devices in the bios. And who do you think is going to buy any company that even talks about selling a custom trusted bootloader?
I think at the least this means goodbye to painless multibooting, yet another reason to dump windows once and for all.
What I would love about print on demand is if the format the books come in is somewhat flexible when it comes to layout. So that when I order a POD book I specify the paper size (among a few standard choices i suppose) and the text is adapted to it. Then if I can choose the binding too I can have all my books the same size and binding, it'll look beautiful in my bookshelf
So if I understand you correctly it's simply a requirement that proofreaders and layouters (yes it's a word, I just created it) can use msword to do their work. Then the author should be free to create the text in any format that can be converted to something msword can open when he hands it over to the publisher?
If I were to write a book (I won't because I haven't the knowledge to write one yet) I would avoid word if at all possible, I've had to read a 400+ page document in word and its not a suitable tool once the text becomes that long (newer versions may be better though, I haven't tried)
And there is ofcourse the issue that a lot of potential opensource writers can't or will refuse to run word on their systems
Well since these books will be open-source you could convert them to any format you like, most pda's are able to display text and probably html too
A bit later, not too long, you get nice clean electronic "source code".
You really should try tro release at least a few of the books electronically at once, and compare the sales numbers to those released a few months after the paper copies
I, and I expect others, like to download a book if possible, read part of it to verify that it's good, and then get the paper brick. I don't like to buy a book I haven't had a chance to look at, and most of the time I can't. (since the local bookstores don't have many computer books and I'll have to order specifically)
Whatever we can convert the .doc file into
Why not the other way around? The format could be anything that can be converted to an acceptable .doc file.
If a book is to be a project involving several authors I don't think msword is the ideal format
Another question: Will they be considering printing books that are already open-sourced but doesn't exist on paper (yet). e.g if an author wishes a book to be available on the net from day one, or perhaps in "beta" form. Would they still consider it for printing it?
Second question: will they/you need voulenteer reviewers? If the topic is relevant for me I would give feedback in exchange for beeing able to read the material while unfinished, and a free copy once the book is done :-) )
(Not to mention I would love my name in print in an acknowledgments section
Hopefully He will be switching to Open Source!
He has, you come with it, it's called DNA
Unfortunately there is no accompanying lisence so some medical companies are making closed derivative works based on the original source
MS buys Borland: Bye bye kylix
MS buys Rational: Sue any open source that provides anything similar to rational products, or uses anything rational may have patented
2008 winter olympics to be held in hell
I'll believe this when I see it. Microsoft releasing any kind of product for linux would be like admitting defeat. Customers would ask why they develop product for an inferior[1] platform. What we might see is some microsoft funded third party developing linux software (as in frontpage extensions for apache)
[1]: Not my opinion, but that's what they'll ask microsoft
Let's take a long movie and break it into three parts so we can extract more money from idiots who think they have to watch every film made from a book.
If they had made it into just one move I wouldn't have bothered seeing it as they would have to cut out way too much of the detail from the book. I never felt i had to watch it, and if the first movie had been crap I wouldn't have bothered with the others
Blech. I can't believe how totally ape-shit people go over this crap. I know someone who actaully re-bought the DVD of the original because they release a "special edition".
Look up the word "collector". Making a long version isn't that unusual, it allows directors to make an extra cut without worrying about the running length of the move. Of course beeing able to sell the same movie twice doesn't hurt.
There's better things to do than listen to me rant and rave, and there's better things to do than waste your hard earned cash on a dead author's movie.
Fortunately you don't get to choose for me. There are "better things" to use money on for everything, depending on who you ask. If someone choses to buy both the short and long version let them, and shut up as long as it isn't your money they are using. Do you see me complaining about how you choose to spend your money?
You are right, there is no absolute need for templates. But if they are going to implement them they should do it right, and that mean beeing able to force one or more interface(s) and/or a base class as the template type. After all the reason was stronger type safety
e.g. for a collection class you could just as easily just use that interface or base class as the parameter, and document that all object in the collection should be the same class
It's basically an extra bit of syntax to generate compile-time errors instead of run-time errors, letting stupid programmers know earlier:)
Damn I hate replying to myself
It seems I may have misunderstood the parent post. Reading through it again I believe he meant something like
which it seems the specification doesn't support, and it should have. (to be really useful)
(so, for example, I could declare a SortedList type, where only types that implement Comparable can be used)
would probably do that for youDisclaimer: I didn't actually check the spec, but int the page of the article there is nothing that indicates that is has to be a class and not an interface or abstract class
I had to crack accounts at the local university just to have some goddamn internet access.
You forgot to mention that you had to walk uphill for 20 miles barefoot in the snow to get there. And 20 miles uphill barefoot in the snow to get home again
The warning signs will be pre-release robotic rap videos.
Does this mean that doing "the robot" on the dance floor will become cool?
Oh horror, I wouldn't care if they mutilated the story as I would be warned and could avoid seeing it, but if people start doing the robot I might have to lock myself in the basement
So am I doomed to working loser jobs or going back to school to be a nurse or engineer?!
You are doomed to take a shitty job (mc donalds?) for a year or two while working on an open source project on your spare time.
Then you can say: "I'm good, look I made this!" on your resume and get a good job
Could work, with a small modification. Remove any positive moderation on an edited topic. Otherwise people would abuse it to get rid of -1's
That of cource would mean that the original has to be available when it comes to meta moderation, unless they set it up so that moderations on changed posts aren't meta-moderated
The real question is do we really want this added complexity (== larger chance of errors) just to be able to edit posts? After all most people learn by their mistakes and would stop to think "is this ok, is this good?" before hitting submit after a few screwups
Yes, but you seem to hold the misconseption that the US government shouldn't use open source since it has enough money to pay for proprietary software
I think that no matter how much money the government has it should go for the open source. Having money doesn't justify wasting it. (It's your taxes it comes from after all). Also the money saved could be put to better uses
Ok, I admit I was nowhere near toledo and have no idea how much (if any) coverage this got in the traditional media (tv and newspapers). But where I come from the news always like the occasional "evil hacker" story (why can't they learn they're called crackers?)
And I would expect that the cable company made sure all it's existing customers knew about the bust, (through it's newsletter or something like that) to prevent others from trying the same thing
Yes and that is your choice
The difference between commercial closed source (CCS) and open source software (OSS) is this:
If you use OSS you can choose to pay or not to pay
If you use CSS you can not (legally) choose, if they say you should pay, then you should pay. If you develop a system and se a piece of OSS you can use anything you learn from it, and even use it as a "component" in your own software.
If you develop a system and see the source of CSS you'll get your ass sued if you make anything remotely similar, though you might be allowed for the privilege of using it as a component you are likely tied to the owning company and cant modify the internals of the "component"
My latest statistics on this issue show that about 95% of people having to pay will pay, but a much smaller percentage of people choose to pay.
A recent survey reports that 73,28 % of all statistics quoted on slashdot are made up
Damn, I just got an idea for a poll!
OSS will lose its appeal the the mass if they end up having to pay for opensource software as well
There is the difference between having to pay and choosing to pay
Also of course if you are a programmer you could give something back to the community by helping develop OSS. If you're not you could help with ideas, bug reports, etc. And if you're a lazy unskilled idealist you could donate
those don't increase bandwidth used, they just make it use what it has more efficiently (supposedly). Basically just changes the MTU size for packets, it wouldn't appear on any of the company's reports that a person using those was getting more bandwidth.
Yes but do you think the people that just installed cable internet to surf hotmail understand that? The products claim to boost internet performance, and people got busted by the feds for boosting internet performance. So the less knowledgeable users won't dare use these
From the article:
Shryock also confirmed the company wasn't sure how customers were getting the extra speed. "We don't fully understand how they're pulling this off just yet, but we're learning more every day."
Do you really expect that this company would be able to limit the bandwith at the server end, when they can't understand how the users increased their bandwith at the modem end?
Basically the cable company doesn't seem to have a clue, so instead of using their own money to solva a problem with a technical solution, they use the taxpayers money to solve a problem by using the FBI to scare the s**t out of their users.
Now half of their users won't dare install "download accelerator" (or any similar tool) since it "makes downloads faster" which is obviously illegal since those other guys got busted for makin their machines download faster. Less bandwith used => more money for the cable company
With no ability to glide after engine failure, I cannot see the military putting forth much effort (or $$) in an aircraft of this nature
That depends on the use. For unmanned drones not gliding is an advantage, since there would be nothing useful left if it fails (or is shot down) over enemy territory