This really pisses me off. I have two HP notebooks that came with with (legal) copies of XP. I sure as hell don't want the updates, the only time I ever accepted a security update from Micorsoft was about a month after I bought the first one, several years ago. As soon as I did, I found that the notebook could no longer connect to the network with Knoppix. Sure, XP was OK, but the same Live Linux CD that worked before (and other ones made from the same ISO, as well as from later ISOs) could no longer do a DHCP handshake! As far as I could tell, the internal notebook NIC eeprom memory had been changed so that the default settings were now bogus, and XP was ignoring the values held in the NIC while Linux was trusting them. I couldn't get original values from HP to confirm this or reset the NIC's eeprom, so I couldn't completely confirm it, but I have no other explination. The work around of resetting the NIC in software that finally worked seemes to confirm it, but it had to be done every time I booted the system with Knoppix until Linux finally was revised to protect itself against this problem.
I sure don't want any more updates from Microsoft. I'll deal with protecting myself from all of their exploitable bugs my own ways, it's far safer than letting someone who has already screwed me free to screw me again. If there is any sort of class action suit over this, sign me up.
It would be nice to know the IP address that is being contacted here. With that, automatic update could be turned off at the router/firewall. If you trust Microsoft you always get punished.
But what I've been looking for, and am amazed that I can't seem to find, is a complete collection of all of the instructions for a current (or any recent) AMD processor. Yea, there are lots of documents that break out a small specialized subset of the instruction set, like this PDF. But without a full instructionset reference it doesn't do me much good. One would think that important information like this would be easy to lay one's hands on, particularly in the information age and when the information in question is the instruction set for a large CPU manufacturer who matains their own large website, but if such a document exists I sure can't find it. I even obtained some reference CDs from AMD hoping it might be there, but no luck.
So since the people posting and reading here are likely to have some knowledge about the instruction set, if anyone can provide me with a link to the full instruction set (less these new instructions, I expect), I would be very greatful.
Yea, you're too smart. You've figured out all by yourself that off-meter fares never happen and thet all cab rides are perfectly on the up and up. There are answers to your questions, but you obviously don't want to hear them either and would rather live in your own little world. Enjoy it.
Nah, even those of us renting the cab don't want to pay income tax on all of our income, only reporting about 1/2 of it is a big savings. For those of us not renting we can still get decent income by grabbing a fare, such as back to the airport, and keeping it off the meter. Can't do it quite as much since the odometer will give long trips away, but we make enough off-meter travel to the next fare to be able to pad some. Most people are quite willing to pay a fixed amount off-meter rather than watch that meter tick off while the cab sits in traffic.
The They envision ultimately printing sheets between rollers like newsprint quote came from the original article. But I expect it is just stupidity introduced by an ignorant reporter, not from the scientists, who know better to think that paper is made by a newspaper press. The reporter likely actually asked if the paper could be printed on, was told yes, and from there spun this absurd story that seems to make it sound like the paper would be produces by a printing press.
And exactly how does my old system running IPv4 address a computer elsewhere on the Internet that has a IPv6 address but no ipv4 address? What magic does that $20 box do to make my IPv4 computer able to say just who it is that it's trying to connect to, once IPv4 is no longer used for Internet addressing and there are more public internet devices than IPv4 can address? Do you have some deep insight into just how this would work that has so far eluded other network professionals, or were you just talking without thinking? If you know how to do this please share the technical details.
NAt is evil? And your proof is that by bypassing NAT your PC gets pwned in a matter of minutes?? If guess it's evil if your the one trying to hack into others' systems and getting blocked by those NAT routers. I got a NAT router the day that I first got a high speed connection. The only application that I've ever had a problem with that I couldn't get around by forwarding a port or some other similar tweek was with Netmeeting. The fix was simple, don't use Netmeeting, use one of the many other beter tools designed for the same purpose. I wouldn't run a computer without being behind a NAT router; carry one in my notebook travel bag.
Yea, for the few who just want to run an operating system, that an interesting choice. You can install and run Linux, and learn first hand why so many people get frustrated by it.
But if the OS is only a means to and end, and what you care about is running useful applications rather than just an OS, then you may want to run an OS that suports the applications that you run. I've seen wine, I've tried it, it is not a viable solution for most windows applications.
I've been using Linux on one of my systems for years. I still get frustrated by the learning curve. But I still run Windows on several other systems (including a Win98 system that I'm posting through now), because they run the software that I need to run to do the things that I want to do and to be compatable with the rest of the people that I interact with. A forced quick switch to ipv6 will not be a boon for Linux. People may try it, but will quickly realize that they have to switch away from it if they actually want to get anything done. And then they will be far less likely to ever come back. The best thing for Linux would be a slow transistion to ipv6 that allows it more time to mature and grow a user base, not a rushed cut over that will sour users to it if they try it at all.
It's not a question if the new spec should be that large (it should, but that's not the issue). It's if we need a new spec at all. If you acknowledge that we need a new spec, IPv6 seems to be it. And it would be absurd to come up with some short sighted spec with smaller addresses just to get caught with limits again.
Also, don't fall into the all too common trap of looking at how large 2 to 128 is and thinking that ipv6 really provides that many unique addresses. You have to look at how the bits are used, the number of useable Internet addressable devices is much smaller. Perhaps even around the size you may be thinking we need. A new addressing system can provide some nice new features. Imagine the benifit of having a portable IP addres that is yours no matter what network you connect to or where in the world you move. Kind of like having a real truly portable telephone number. As all communication merges into IP address this will be both handy and important.
None of this should be taken to imply that I support the absurd cut over schedule in this thread. But there are some nice things designed in ipv6 and it will be a positive thing if the convesrion is done right, not switched over in a mad rush.
Lets not forget to mention, this mandatory switch to ipv6 will finally kill of all of those pesky users who find their old hardware and Win98 perfectly adequate to their needs and have not rushed to buy everytime Bill released a new O.S. And, of course, all of the existing home routers, since manufacturers will be more inclined to sell a new ipv6 router than release a firmware fix for each and every old model.
I don't mean to suggest that all technical progress must stop because people still use old hardware or software. But this doesn't seem well thought out and seems an overly agressive time table. Look how much time was alloted to the transistion to HDTV from NTSC in the U.S., and that was only one country, not a global system. Since there is plenty of new hardware that people will still be buying this year that does not support ipv6, this seems like a schedule that will only cause problems and make Bill Gates happier and richer.
Sorry, it was a typo. There were several in this post. Should have read "lowered". And I'm confident it was happening; one time while handing back papers I was given a paper that was marked as a "B". She looked at me when she returned it, looked at the paper, and remarked it as a "C" on the spot.
Sure, I might have been able to fight it by appealing to the department head. But even in the unlikely event that I got the "B" back, there were still plenty more English papers to be written and graded subjectively. The result of fighting it could only be worse.
And the paper was hand written, not typed. Typos were not an issue.
The absuridity of this is that they are charging based on major, not on course. (That's not to say I support the idea at all, but the way this is being done is just stupid.) That means that a student with an enginering major would pay more for taking the same course that a "liberal arts" student does (even though the school requires him to take a certain number of "liberal arts" courses.). And it completely ignores the concept of changing majors. The smart students will simply enter the school as art history majors and take lots of engineering courses as electives, and then later switch their major.
Heck, this would even have a major bonus: when I was in school I know that one english "teacher" that I had deliberately lower the grades of engineering students )including myself) as opposed to BA majors (others may well have done this too, but I only am sure of it happening from one "teacher"). By entering as a BA canidate and then switching a student would be free of this type of grade discrimination, which I expect happens much more on the "arts" side of the university.
I should also mention that I paid more than the art history majors, and that was many years ago. But it was sone in the form of "Lab Fees" for engineering courses, not based on what my major was.
1) e-mail isn't United States Mail, in the United states mail fraud only applies to U.S. mail. Even is you send a real item some other way (such as Fed Ex or private courier), it's not mail fraud unless you send it through the mail.
said the film "would stay away from the series' (and first film's) sometimes tortured mythology"
So what's the point, other than to cash in on the franchise? Way bother to have an X-files move if you don't folow the X-files back story in it? It would be like taking some scifi space move that was completely unrelater to the star trek universe, casting a couple of aging trek actors, and slappimg the Star Trek name on it.
The problem that is said to cause drug resistant bacteria is over use - too many people taking the drug when they don't really need it to kill bacteria. And in this case the "cure" we're being offered is a drug that's in even wider use, now it will not only be used to treat the resistant drugs but will continue to be used widely to treat bone loss in old people (senile citizens). So it's not just a matter of what happens when the bugs become resistant, but that the resistance is on a fast track!
While there may be no absolute fix, this is a awful and flawed attempt at a fix and little more than an attempt to cash in by Intel without even understanding the probem.
Intel's "fix" is to monitor the keyboard and mouse and detect if any extra inputs are getting to the game that it's hardware does not detect as actually originating at the keyboard or mouse. The claim is that any such inputs must be coming from cheat codes such as bots.
However, this is bogus and flawed in a couple of different ways. It fails to allow for alternate input from common input device drivers that most would not consider cheating. This would include the popular Logitech G15 gaming keyboard's macro keys, joysticks with multiple function keys, even mice with extra programmable buttons, and the Belkin and Saitek gaming "pads". These last two alternate controlers are used by many handicapped gamers who have lost one limb and it allows them to play games that would otherwise require two hands (although they hardly completely level the field).
At the same time, the "fix" seems to do nothing for other types of cheats that are not input related. Players who change their systems so that they can see through walls, so that their character is harder to see in FPS games or so that other players are extremely easy to spot in such contests are ignored as a problem in this "fix", and that, of course, addresses only some of the ways that cheaters do cheat.
I often drop off on-line games when I see other players exhibiting superhuman skills (a few days ago I and a few other players observed on player who could cross the entire length of the playfield in a single bound when other players all required 4 or more jumps, even with all of the power-ups kicked in) and I would welcome a viable anti-cheat system, even if not perfect. But this system is far from even being good.
I agree with the original response, there will never be a perfect anti-cheat system. I don't see how there could be, when out computing power is growing to the point where it could run on an external box and "watch" the video and provide back it's own keyboard and mouse input in response. But the real issue here is that this is a poorly thought out approach that will impact legitimate users as much as it will slow the cheaters.
Xerox expects that over time, the technology will be used in personalized checks that will have the account holder's signature printed in a fluorescent stripe.
So they want to print my signature, right on the check, in a form that anyone with a UV light can read (even suggesting it is so the mrechant can verify "my" signature that way). How idiotic! First of all, the last thing that I want is my signature printed on the check so that any thief who gets hold of the checkbook can have a sample of what to practice signing my name like (it would be far better to use computer technology to show authorized bank tellers my segnature seperate from the check, easy enough to do with current computer technology). And worse, in an age where anyone can order checks with any account number on them (or even print them themselves), I hardly want the identity theives to be able to print their version of "my signature" on the checks they print so that they can convince someone accepting the check that it's valid because the signature matches.
Slashdot Mirror
I sure don't want any more updates from Microsoft. I'll deal with protecting myself from all of their exploitable bugs my own ways, it's far safer than letting someone who has already screwed me free to screw me again. If there is any sort of class action suit over this, sign me up.
It would be nice to know the IP address that is being contacted here. With that, automatic update could be turned off at the router/firewall. If you trust Microsoft you always get punished.
I had already read about this on the Scientific American site. It gets about 2 1/2 mpg. Hardly anything that rates the Slashdot hype headline.
So since the people posting and reading here are likely to have some knowledge about the instruction set, if anyone can provide me with a link to the full instruction set (less these new instructions, I expect), I would be very greatful.
Yea, you're too smart. You've figured out all by yourself that off-meter fares never happen and thet all cab rides are perfectly on the up and up. There are answers to your questions, but you obviously don't want to hear them either and would rather live in your own little world. Enjoy it.
Nah, even those of us renting the cab don't want to pay income tax on all of our income, only reporting about 1/2 of it is a big savings. For those of us not renting we can still get decent income by grabbing a fare, such as back to the airport, and keeping it off the meter. Can't do it quite as much since the odometer will give long trips away, but we make enough off-meter travel to the next fare to be able to pad some. Most people are quite willing to pay a fixed amount off-meter rather than watch that meter tick off while the cab sits in traffic.
This is a tremenous violation of our privacy. It will be much harder for us to make off-the-book trips and just pocket the money.
The They envision ultimately printing sheets between rollers like newsprint quote came from the original article. But I expect it is just stupidity introduced by an ignorant reporter, not from the scientists, who know better to think that paper is made by a newspaper press. The reporter likely actually asked if the paper could be printed on, was told yes, and from there spun this absurd story that seems to make it sound like the paper would be produces by a printing press.
Does that mean they are doing it again?
Boy, I hope this can satisfy us while we wait for the colaboration with Infocom to bring us a text based version of Quake 4.
I want $1 from everyone who does this too. And I have just as much right to it as they do.
And exactly how does my old system running IPv4 address a computer elsewhere on the Internet that has a IPv6 address but no ipv4 address? What magic does that $20 box do to make my IPv4 computer able to say just who it is that it's trying to connect to, once IPv4 is no longer used for Internet addressing and there are more public internet devices than IPv4 can address? Do you have some deep insight into just how this would work that has so far eluded other network professionals, or were you just talking without thinking? If you know how to do this please share the technical details.
NAt is evil? And your proof is that by bypassing NAT your PC gets pwned in a matter of minutes?? If guess it's evil if your the one trying to hack into others' systems and getting blocked by those NAT routers. I got a NAT router the day that I first got a high speed connection. The only application that I've ever had a problem with that I couldn't get around by forwarding a port or some other similar tweek was with Netmeeting. The fix was simple, don't use Netmeeting, use one of the many other beter tools designed for the same purpose. I wouldn't run a computer without being behind a NAT router; carry one in my notebook travel bag.
But if the OS is only a means to and end, and what you care about is running useful applications rather than just an OS, then you may want to run an OS that suports the applications that you run. I've seen wine, I've tried it, it is not a viable solution for most windows applications.
I've been using Linux on one of my systems for years. I still get frustrated by the learning curve. But I still run Windows on several other systems (including a Win98 system that I'm posting through now), because they run the software that I need to run to do the things that I want to do and to be compatable with the rest of the people that I interact with. A forced quick switch to ipv6 will not be a boon for Linux. People may try it, but will quickly realize that they have to switch away from it if they actually want to get anything done. And then they will be far less likely to ever come back. The best thing for Linux would be a slow transistion to ipv6 that allows it more time to mature and grow a user base, not a rushed cut over that will sour users to it if they try it at all.
Also, don't fall into the all too common trap of looking at how large 2 to 128 is and thinking that ipv6 really provides that many unique addresses. You have to look at how the bits are used, the number of useable Internet addressable devices is much smaller. Perhaps even around the size you may be thinking we need. A new addressing system can provide some nice new features. Imagine the benifit of having a portable IP addres that is yours no matter what network you connect to or where in the world you move. Kind of like having a real truly portable telephone number. As all communication merges into IP address this will be both handy and important.
None of this should be taken to imply that I support the absurd cut over schedule in this thread. But there are some nice things designed in ipv6 and it will be a positive thing if the convesrion is done right, not switched over in a mad rush.
I don't mean to suggest that all technical progress must stop because people still use old hardware or software. But this doesn't seem well thought out and seems an overly agressive time table. Look how much time was alloted to the transistion to HDTV from NTSC in the U.S., and that was only one country, not a global system. Since there is plenty of new hardware that people will still be buying this year that does not support ipv6, this seems like a schedule that will only cause problems and make Bill Gates happier and richer.
Sure, I might have been able to fight it by appealing to the department head. But even in the unlikely event that I got the "B" back, there were still plenty more English papers to be written and graded subjectively. The result of fighting it could only be worse.
And the paper was hand written, not typed. Typos were not an issue.
Heck, this would even have a major bonus: when I was in school I know that one english "teacher" that I had deliberately lower the grades of engineering students )including myself) as opposed to BA majors (others may well have done this too, but I only am sure of it happening from one "teacher"). By entering as a BA canidate and then switching a student would be free of this type of grade discrimination, which I expect happens much more on the "arts" side of the university.
I should also mention that I paid more than the art history majors, and that was many years ago. But it was sone in the form of "Lab Fees" for engineering courses, not based on what my major was.
You only need look at Ebert to realize that he understands even less about sports than he does about gaming.
2) Microsoft is above the law anyway.
So what's the point, other than to cash in on the franchise? Way bother to have an X-files move if you don't folow the X-files back story in it? It would be like taking some scifi space move that was completely unrelater to the star trek universe, casting a couple of aging trek actors, and slappimg the Star Trek name on it.
The problem that is said to cause drug resistant bacteria is over use - too many people taking the drug when they don't really need it to kill bacteria. And in this case the "cure" we're being offered is a drug that's in even wider use, now it will not only be used to treat the resistant drugs but will continue to be used widely to treat bone loss in old people (senile citizens). So it's not just a matter of what happens when the bugs become resistant, but that the resistance is on a fast track!
Intel's "fix" is to monitor the keyboard and mouse and detect if any extra inputs are getting to the game that it's hardware does not detect as actually originating at the keyboard or mouse. The claim is that any such inputs must be coming from cheat codes such as bots.
However, this is bogus and flawed in a couple of different ways. It fails to allow for alternate input from common input device drivers that most would not consider cheating. This would include the popular Logitech G15 gaming keyboard's macro keys, joysticks with multiple function keys, even mice with extra programmable buttons, and the Belkin and Saitek gaming "pads". These last two alternate controlers are used by many handicapped gamers who have lost one limb and it allows them to play games that would otherwise require two hands (although they hardly completely level the field).
At the same time, the "fix" seems to do nothing for other types of cheats that are not input related. Players who change their systems so that they can see through walls, so that their character is harder to see in FPS games or so that other players are extremely easy to spot in such contests are ignored as a problem in this "fix", and that, of course, addresses only some of the ways that cheaters do cheat.
I often drop off on-line games when I see other players exhibiting superhuman skills (a few days ago I and a few other players observed on player who could cross the entire length of the playfield in a single bound when other players all required 4 or more jumps, even with all of the power-ups kicked in) and I would welcome a viable anti-cheat system, even if not perfect. But this system is far from even being good.
I agree with the original response, there will never be a perfect anti-cheat system. I don't see how there could be, when out computing power is growing to the point where it could run on an external box and "watch" the video and provide back it's own keyboard and mouse input in response. But the real issue here is that this is a poorly thought out approach that will impact legitimate users as much as it will slow the cheaters.
So how many fourms, newgroups and private e-mail accounts will you be spamming on a daily basis to promote this stuff?
Xerox expects that over time, the technology will be used in personalized checks that will have the account holder's signature printed in a fluorescent stripe.
So they want to print my signature, right on the check, in a form that anyone with a UV light can read (even suggesting it is so the mrechant can verify "my" signature that way). How idiotic! First of all, the last thing that I want is my signature printed on the check so that any thief who gets hold of the checkbook can have a sample of what to practice signing my name like (it would be far better to use computer technology to show authorized bank tellers my segnature seperate from the check, easy enough to do with current computer technology). And worse, in an age where anyone can order checks with any account number on them (or even print them themselves), I hardly want the identity theives to be able to print their version of "my signature" on the checks they print so that they can convince someone accepting the check that it's valid because the signature matches.