No, no, no! That won't work. You have to "cut the head off the chicken" (so to speak). What you need to do is burn all the people that READ those books, after all, the reader is the one that gets the crazy ideas...
...the above statement is extreme sarcasm, please don't freak out, ya nutjobs...
Next thing: claiming and using your 5th Amendment rights will get you investigated further, because if you need to use the 5th, then clearly you did something wrong and we need to find out what that is!
Dudes, it's turning into "1984". Unelect the current occupants of office, it's our only hope.
You're a bit confused. The DOJ loves competition in all aspects of business because then they don't have to get involved. With MS making theis XDocs thing (and not much is really known about it yet) all it does is give Adobe some competition. The inherant instability of the stock market is the reason that Adobe stocks slumped. Someone sneezes and shares of Kleenex go up. That's how it works. Plus keep in mind this will force Adobe to make Acrobat better, and cheaper, so what's the prob? Plus, I know full well that PDF and Adobe aren't going to die over this. And everyone I know says Adobe products are overpriced simply because there are really no alternatives. Well, now there will be. This is a win-win situation for consumers and MS. Adobe just needs to keep up, that's all. Welcome to the marketplace, Adobe.
A while ago I emailed Carmack and asked him what current hardware would play it (Doom 3) at a good rate. (My idea was 1024x768x32 @ 85Hz more than 30FPS). His response was that there was currently no hardware in existance (and this was just before E3) that would play Doom 3 at the specs I mentioned and that they were shooting for an 800x600 stock resolution. So, basically, if you do not have top of the line hardware when Doom 3 comes out, you are in big trouble if you want to run this at a good rez and speed.
Moral: save your money kids, you'll be getting those 3Ghz P4s soon (along with the NV30 or Radeon 9700).
Hmmm, another good point. Perhaps each WU should be serial numbered and submission is only accepted once (prior to it being sent out for review.)
Re:They (SETI@Home) could fix this easily
on
Cheating at Seti@home
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ok, modify the above. Each SETI@Home install has a serial number, each computer has a different SN for it...then each computer can do no more than 4 WU a day. With that, you'd still be putting out the major numbers. (Nice going...!)
They (SETI@Home) could fix this easily
on
Cheating at Seti@home
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Simply by refusing more than 4 WU a day per person. (6 hours for a 1Ghz PC to do one unit x 4 units = 24 hours.) Add to this if a single unit appears to have been submitted more than, say, 3 times, it will be "suspect" and resent out to be checked and you (the original submitter) will only get credit for it once it passes this second level.
Now, perhaps, I'll find the reason that the Gospel of St. Thomas was kept out of the New Testament. Which is interesting considering that the experts think it's the oldest, and most accurate, version....
Theoretically, 47USC227, with it's overly broad interpretation and definition of a fax machine (a computer with a modem or other connection and a printer is a "fax machine"), could be used as a shield against spam. However, I talked to a couple of lawyers on this (and a congressman) and they all agreed that although a computer with the above attached equipment is technically a fax machine under 47USC227, it was not the intent of the law and therefore wouldn't be covered.
But that doesn't stop me from threatening spammers with it since they tend to be the lazy types who don't look that info up (or talk to a lawyer about this stuff). You'd be surprised that I get fewer than 10 spams a day now (it was over 60).
On a side note, I think that forging the "from" address on email to make it appear to have come from the recipient should be identity theft. If they're making emails look like I sent it to myself who's to say that they aren't using my address (which is clearly valid) as the "from" for others...My fiancee has this exact problem (her address looks like a random collection of letters and numbers, but it's not.) Now she's getting a crapload of returned and undeliverable emails. Right, like she spammed out a bunch of pr0n and I didn't know about it....whatever.
Too bad your link to micromac only talks about lowly Mac IIvi, Mac IIvx, Performa 600 and Centris 650 Macs and not about a SPARC which is what you were supposed to be talking up.
Ideally, architecture would have a really fast large amount of ram, a CPU capable of pulling from the ram at full speed, and a really fast output. Cache does get in the way a little, but not that much. Personally, I'd like to see 256MB of L1 cache, that would do then we wouldn't really need more ram except for heavy duty operations. But a CPU with that would be "prohibitively expensive." So the only way around that would be to eliminate the L1 and L2 cache entirely, but then you still need a fast CPU and I/O for that to overcome what you've lost in the exchange. In short, the argument "that real performance is obtained by putting even the weakest CPU with a fast I/O design" is slightly flawed. What is needed is really fast I/O and an equally fast CPU. Therein is the problem: CPU Ghz is important, the more the better.
People may just decide that an Internet Broadband Co-op is a good idea, form one, and snub their nose at the likes of ATT, Comcast, Rogers, Cox, and Mchsi. Policing users is not the job if the ISP, rather assisting law-enforcement once illegalities are done is. That is not a fine line but a really big one, and hard to miss.
I gotta tell you I hope Amazon and Ebay form a "joint venture" and buy the company that dared to do this then fire them all. Sales, whether online or in print, happens the same way. There is no patent for standard print advertising or standard money-order sales so why the f&*k does the patent office allow this crap? I'm telling you, there needs to be a complete oversight and review of patents. WRITE YOUR FREAKING CONGRESSMEN and tell them the patent office is allowing patents to things that should not be patentable. Oversight, review, and revocation rights need to be brought into play. Without which we might as well just say "fuck it."
...Come to think of it, that's probably why game companies already do just that... Ban by IP is a joke, ban by MAC isn't any better, Ban by CDKEY is practically the only thing you can do.
Ever since the Civil War, every so often, a nut (or two) show up and plan on doing something just like this. Too bad it's illegal, they'll fail, and go home, or they'll get shot (a la Ruby Ridge) and then they'll no longer be a problem.
I submitted this same story on the 11th and was amazed that it wasn't posted as it's an important debate, not to mention one that is extrememly volitile (which might be why it wasn't until now--get the Monday crowd, so to speak)..
At any rate, there have been tests done that disprove the OSS-is-more-secure model, basically stating that either style (OSS or Closed-Source) can be equally secure. We all know that. What I think is interesting is exactly how both camps go about the same thing (ie: security).
The OSS people find a bug, the author of the affected application is notified (probably by hundreds of affected people, or by bugtraq, or something like that, and he/she fixes the bug, releases a patch or new version and the world is more or less happy. (Some apps might not work, but then that's not the problem of the author.) Time from bug to "fix": about 2 weeks (at most).
Closed-Source people get a bug report, then they have to see where it is in the code, fix it (and here the similarities end) because there is (at least in the commercial business) a desire for backward compatibility and what MS likes to call "regression testing." Once that arduous process is done a patch is released. Time from bug to "fix": at least 2 weeks (unless your'e lucky.)
Really, the only thing I see different is the time involved, both bugs get fixed, but OSS doesn't have to test it with previous releases--the author only has to make sure it works on a "vanilla" install; whereas someone like MS has to make sure that it doesn't break anything going as far back as, say, Windows 98. (Which is pretty far back in computer time.)
I think the real way to describe it is that OSS is made secure faster than Closed-Source. Speed being the essence, that's the rub. If I want security I'd like it now, not later.
If points 1 and 2 are illegal, then the Mandrake Linux XBox Project is in the same boat since that requires modification to the XBox's components to make it work (and a custom USB connection).
No offense to anyone, but why the hell would anyone want to make the XBox run Linux? Just because you can? It doesn't help, it doesn't make it faster, all I can see that it does do is void your warranty for the sake of being l337.
Mac Viruses: MBDF-B, CODE 252, INIT-9403, Mac/Autostart.F, Mac/Simpsons.A,... there are more, you can look them up yourself...
Linux Viruses: Bliss, Slapper,... more on the way I'll bet (pretty safe bet, too).
Clearly your Admin is clueless. And if you feel that you're somehow immune, you're in the same boat. ALL operating systems are vulnerable to malicious code monkeys. It's how it is.
The following paragraph is one that I have problems with:
"There were other costs the study was not able to quantify, according to Robinson, such as security. While study participants were reluctant to provide hard figures on the costs of security breaches, it appears that the "cost for handling security issues on Windows systems was very high," says Robinson. The study revealed that Windows administrators spent twice as much time patching systems and dealing with other security-related issues than did Solaris or Linux admins."
First, it says that it's hard to quantify, then goes on to quantify it. Then it says that the study participants were reluctant to provide figures but it appears that the cost for security on Windows is very high. I'm sorry, but you're putting the cart before the horse. You need to back that up with more than heresay. And since your study subjects weren't willing to dole out the goods (all the figures) involved, this is just bad journalism. Don't believe what you read unless they're not obfuscating any data. They are, so this is junk. They aren't giving further proof of their final statement (Windows taking 2x the time for security). So I have to relegate this to the other piles of crud that float about. Without there being hard numbers given about, this is nothing more than propaganda/FUD.
This "discovery" was made LONG ago. They just never nailed down the exact trajectory it took around the Sun. They called it something else, so we'll see which name wins, the new or the old. And since it lies in the Kuiper Belt, it's probably just an asteroid anyways. In a few days/weeks we'll know more; and if this turns out to be more than an asteroid I'd be amazed. Plus an object that size doesn't explain Pluto's eccentric orbit. Not enough mass.
Knowing what you know now, what would you have fixed in the "Internet" as a structure. What hindsight have you now that makes you wish you had made other choices?
That would open themselves to many a lawsuit, asuming this is in the USA, of course. I suggest you tell your SLU admins to rethink their stance on this. That's unlawful entry, illegal use of someone else's computer system, (which is a violation of many new laws--unless SLU is the RIAA and they're just hunting MP3s), destruction of property (electronic, but property none-the-less), and a whole mess of other things. Sounds to me that the SLU admins (and whoever else wrote that code) need to be fired.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is a reason all captains of industry, and rich people in general support the democratic party."
Huh? You must be taking too high a dose of cough syrup. All corporate leaders I have ever seen are clearly Republican in nature.
No, no, no! That won't work. You have to "cut the head off the chicken" (so to speak). What you need to do is burn all the people that READ those books, after all, the reader is the one that gets the crazy ideas...
...the above statement is extreme sarcasm, please don't freak out, ya nutjobs...
Next thing: claiming and using your 5th Amendment rights will get you investigated further, because if you need to use the 5th, then clearly you did something wrong and we need to find out what that is!
Dudes, it's turning into "1984". Unelect the current occupants of office, it's our only hope.
You're a bit confused. The DOJ loves competition in all aspects of business because then they don't have to get involved. With MS making theis XDocs thing (and not much is really known about it yet) all it does is give Adobe some competition. The inherant instability of the stock market is the reason that Adobe stocks slumped. Someone sneezes and shares of Kleenex go up. That's how it works. Plus keep in mind this will force Adobe to make Acrobat better, and cheaper, so what's the prob? Plus, I know full well that PDF and Adobe aren't going to die over this. And everyone I know says Adobe products are overpriced simply because there are really no alternatives. Well, now there will be. This is a win-win situation for consumers and MS. Adobe just needs to keep up, that's all. Welcome to the marketplace, Adobe.
A while ago I emailed Carmack and asked him what current hardware would play it (Doom 3) at a good rate. (My idea was 1024x768x32 @ 85Hz more than 30FPS). His response was that there was currently no hardware in existance (and this was just before E3) that would play Doom 3 at the specs I mentioned and that they were shooting for an 800x600 stock resolution. So, basically, if you do not have top of the line hardware when Doom 3 comes out, you are in big trouble if you want to run this at a good rez and speed.
Moral: save your money kids, you'll be getting those 3Ghz P4s soon (along with the NV30 or Radeon 9700).
Hmmm, another good point. Perhaps each WU should be serial numbered and submission is only accepted once (prior to it being sent out for review.)
Ok, modify the above. Each SETI@Home install has a serial number, each computer has a different SN for it...then each computer can do no more than 4 WU a day. With that, you'd still be putting out the major numbers. (Nice going...!)
Simply by refusing more than 4 WU a day per person. (6 hours for a 1Ghz PC to do one unit x 4 units = 24 hours.) Add to this if a single unit appears to have been submitted more than, say, 3 times, it will be "suspect" and resent out to be checked and you (the original submitter) will only get credit for it once it passes this second level.
Now, perhaps, I'll find the reason that the Gospel of St. Thomas was kept out of the New Testament. Which is interesting considering that the experts think it's the oldest, and most accurate, version....
Theoretically, 47USC227, with it's overly broad interpretation and definition of a fax machine (a computer with a modem or other connection and a printer is a "fax machine"), could be used as a shield against spam. However, I talked to a couple of lawyers on this (and a congressman) and they all agreed that although a computer with the above attached equipment is technically a fax machine under 47USC227, it was not the intent of the law and therefore wouldn't be covered.
But that doesn't stop me from threatening spammers with it since they tend to be the lazy types who don't look that info up (or talk to a lawyer about this stuff). You'd be surprised that I get fewer than 10 spams a day now (it was over 60).
On a side note, I think that forging the "from" address on email to make it appear to have come from the recipient should be identity theft. If they're making emails look like I sent it to myself who's to say that they aren't using my address (which is clearly valid) as the "from" for others...My fiancee has this exact problem (her address looks like a random collection of letters and numbers, but it's not.) Now she's getting a crapload of returned and undeliverable emails. Right, like she spammed out a bunch of pr0n and I didn't know about it....whatever.
Too bad your link to micromac only talks about lowly Mac IIvi, Mac IIvx, Performa 600 and Centris 650 Macs and not about a SPARC which is what you were supposed to be talking up.
Ideally, architecture would have a really fast large amount of ram, a CPU capable of pulling from the ram at full speed, and a really fast output. Cache does get in the way a little, but not that much. Personally, I'd like to see 256MB of L1 cache, that would do then we wouldn't really need more ram except for heavy duty operations. But a CPU with that would be "prohibitively expensive." So the only way around that would be to eliminate the L1 and L2 cache entirely, but then you still need a fast CPU and I/O for that to overcome what you've lost in the exchange. In short, the argument "that real performance is obtained by putting even the weakest CPU with a fast I/O design" is slightly flawed. What is needed is really fast I/O and an equally fast CPU. Therein is the problem: CPU Ghz is important, the more the better.
"...will touch using sensors over the internet."
I know everyone is thinking "Touch this! " So, now I've said it. Let's move on to more clever jokes.
People may just decide that an Internet Broadband Co-op is a good idea, form one, and snub their nose at the likes of ATT, Comcast, Rogers, Cox, and Mchsi. Policing users is not the job if the ISP, rather assisting law-enforcement once illegalities are done is. That is not a fine line but a really big one, and hard to miss.
I gotta tell you I hope Amazon and Ebay form a "joint venture" and buy the company that dared to do this then fire them all. Sales, whether online or in print, happens the same way. There is no patent for standard print advertising or standard money-order sales so why the f&*k does the patent office allow this crap? I'm telling you, there needs to be a complete oversight and review of patents. WRITE YOUR FREAKING CONGRESSMEN and tell them the patent office is allowing patents to things that should not be patentable. Oversight, review, and revocation rights need to be brought into play. Without which we might as well just say "fuck it."
...Come to think of it, that's probably why game companies already do just that... Ban by IP is a joke, ban by MAC isn't any better, Ban by CDKEY is practically the only thing you can do.
Ever since the Civil War, every so often, a nut (or two) show up and plan on doing something just like this. Too bad it's illegal, they'll fail, and go home, or they'll get shot (a la Ruby Ridge) and then they'll no longer be a problem.
(Ok, so that subject isn't that great, sue me) ;)
I submitted this same story on the 11th and was amazed that it wasn't posted as it's an important debate, not to mention one that is extrememly volitile (which might be why it wasn't until now--get the Monday crowd, so to speak)..
At any rate, there have been tests done that disprove the OSS-is-more-secure model, basically stating that either style (OSS or Closed-Source) can be equally secure. We all know that. What I think is interesting is exactly how both camps go about the same thing (ie: security).
The OSS people find a bug, the author of the affected application is notified (probably by hundreds of affected people, or by bugtraq, or something like that, and he/she fixes the bug, releases a patch or new version and the world is more or less happy. (Some apps might not work, but then that's not the problem of the author.) Time from bug to "fix": about 2 weeks (at most).
Closed-Source people get a bug report, then they have to see where it is in the code, fix it (and here the similarities end) because there is (at least in the commercial business) a desire for backward compatibility and what MS likes to call "regression testing." Once that arduous process is done a patch is released. Time from bug to "fix": at least 2 weeks (unless your'e lucky.)
Really, the only thing I see different is the time involved, both bugs get fixed, but OSS doesn't have to test it with previous releases--the author only has to make sure it works on a "vanilla" install; whereas someone like MS has to make sure that it doesn't break anything going as far back as, say, Windows 98. (Which is pretty far back in computer time.)
I think the real way to describe it is that OSS is made secure faster than Closed-Source. Speed being the essence, that's the rub. If I want security I'd like it now, not later.
If points 1 and 2 are illegal, then the Mandrake Linux XBox Project is in the same boat since that requires modification to the XBox's components to make it work (and a custom USB connection).
No offense to anyone, but why the hell would anyone want to make the XBox run Linux? Just because you can? It doesn't help, it doesn't make it faster, all I can see that it does do is void your warranty for the sake of being l337.
Mac Viruses: MBDF-B, CODE 252, INIT-9403, Mac/Autostart.F, Mac/Simpsons.A, ... there are more, you can look them up yourself...
... more on the way I'll bet (pretty safe bet, too).
Linux Viruses: Bliss, Slapper,
Clearly your Admin is clueless. And if you feel that you're somehow immune, you're in the same boat. ALL operating systems are vulnerable to malicious code monkeys. It's how it is.
The following paragraph is one that I have problems with:
"There were other costs the study was not able to quantify, according to Robinson, such as security. While study participants were reluctant to provide hard figures on the costs of security breaches, it appears that the "cost for handling security issues on Windows systems was very high," says Robinson. The study revealed that Windows administrators spent twice as much time patching systems and dealing with other security-related issues than did Solaris or Linux admins."
First, it says that it's hard to quantify, then goes on to quantify it. Then it says that the study participants were reluctant to provide figures but it appears that the cost for security on Windows is very high. I'm sorry, but you're putting the cart before the horse. You need to back that up with more than heresay. And since your study subjects weren't willing to dole out the goods (all the figures) involved, this is just bad journalism. Don't believe what you read unless they're not obfuscating any data. They are, so this is junk. They aren't giving further proof of their final statement (Windows taking 2x the time for security). So I have to relegate this to the other piles of crud that float about. Without there being hard numbers given about, this is nothing more than propaganda/FUD.
Until Bush puts KaZaa in the "Axis of Evil", then look out all you P2Pers out there!
This "discovery" was made LONG ago. They just never nailed down the exact trajectory it took around the Sun. They called it something else, so we'll see which name wins, the new or the old. And since it lies in the Kuiper Belt, it's probably just an asteroid anyways. In a few days/weeks we'll know more; and if this turns out to be more than an asteroid I'd be amazed. Plus an object that size doesn't explain Pluto's eccentric orbit. Not enough mass.
That's the way it is: you cannot cure stupidity.
Knowing what you know now, what would you have fixed in the "Internet" as a structure. What hindsight have you now that makes you wish you had made other choices?
That would open themselves to many a lawsuit, asuming this is in the USA, of course. I suggest you tell your SLU admins to rethink their stance on this. That's unlawful entry, illegal use of someone else's computer system, (which is a violation of many new laws--unless SLU is the RIAA and they're just hunting MP3s), destruction of property (electronic, but property none-the-less), and a whole mess of other things. Sounds to me that the SLU admins (and whoever else wrote that code) need to be fired.