"The worst part is all of the people who are more than willing to give up liberties a-plenty to only slightly improve the safety of their children. The worst part is that they'll insist that you give up the same liberties and yet still their children aren't much (if at all) safer."
The worst part is that, as this investigations show, those people are giving up their liberties for nothing more than the illusion of safety for their children. It is incredible police never imagined people would not buy child porn with their own credit cards.
Do they think people, for instance, pay drug dealers with credit cards?
So, if the test is to capture all pervs who think little children are sexy, then it's a fair net.
No way!
There is a vast difference between intending to commit a crime and actually committing it. One cannot be arrested for his/her criminal toughts as there can be no proof he/she would ever commit the crime and thus endanger society.
Didn't sci-fi dystopian fantasies teach you anything?!
You also have to factor in the energy spent running the computer (I assume it's an aging desktop PC with a CRT monitor) is much, much more than the price of the OLPC itself.
I hope any politician that gets into this is removed from power and put in jail along with the MS exec who made the sale.
By handing over the control of the requirements to Microsoft (as the Mono project does) you give Microsoft - who would pretty much wish them dead - the power to drive developer efforts as they wish. If they control what it means to be "compatible", then they already own the other projects.
What if MS waits for a free (as in speech) 1.0-compatible implementation to release the all-new-2.0-that-breaks-everything release? Will developers start coding right away? What if the format is not published? Will they have to reverse engineer it too? For how long and at what cost? Wouldn't those resources be better spent doing something else?
MS has not to worry about its user base because updates can be pushed down Windows Update to all their users. They can break compatibility as they wish provided they silently pushed the updates a month earlier.
So, I will pretty sure boycott and send very strong messages to any site that uses this technology and will recommend everybody to do the same.
This is a battle about open standards and a level playfield. We should not allow them to have it their way.
A dull Dell box (pun intended) is not interesting unless it has a unique form factor.
That 21 inch screen notebook monstruosity is such thing. Buy it and keep it functioning for the next 30 years and you will have something. There was also a Compaq desktop with a built-in LCD. I have a Monorail PC that still boots - it had it's HD and CD-ROM changed because they no longer worked. There is also a Sony Vaio whose keyboard folds up to cover half the screen as it becomes a stereo. There were a couple Compaq models with integrated monitors that were interestingly iMac-like.
Those are interesting PCs. No grey box, no matter how rare it is, will ever become interesting.
Anyway, most interesting computers are not PCs. A Sparcstation 1 is interesting as is a Voyager. Just about every SGI box is somewhat unique. If you are shopping today, buy a Tezro. If you want a Sun, buy a desktop SPARC (the amd64s are just PCs). IBM RS/6000s are a bit on the PC side, but are OK. Apples are very diverse and an interesting piece of study. The "flex-chassis" series is very interesting because of the modular mobos. The tower G3 is interesting because every time you open it, it draws blood from your hand. An IBM 3290 terminal is unique as it had a red plasma screen. An NCD 16 X terminal is interesting because of the square CRT. Any Lisp Machine is worth having. The Convergent non-PC x86 machines are very interesting as is their OS.
Rarity is for newcomers that don't really get it. It is a tool for those who can't see the other forms of value and for those who do to get rid of rare and dull hardware.
If a Motorola phone can run Linux, most certainly an iPhone can run Darwin.
Even if it doesn't - and Apple goes a different route with the kernel - they still have the BSD layer and most of their userland stuff remains relatively portable as soon as you port the *Kit stuff.
As for the eye candy, it's easy to do decent 2D acceleration even on a low-power device.
I say they are still looking good on the iPhone front.
I think (Apple has a couple million advisors everywhere) Apple should have aimed lower with 10.5.
They should release 10.5 right before Vista or right after it, with the flashiest features (the ones that increase wow-factor and are easy to do) thrown in and steal Redmond's thunder.
That way, they could even have more time to finish 10.6 with the real (i.e. versioned FS instead of time machine) features and still avoid Vista stealing OSX's spotlight (pun intended).
But that's just me. I bet they have very competent people on their payroll.
Re:Does anyone even use this OS?
on
CentOS 5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If Red Hat did not want this to happen, they could simply not base their product on GPL software. Of course, if they did that, they would never have become profitable in the first place, because there is no way they could have built a product as capable as RHEL5 from the ground up completely on their own and stayed in business.
They could have based their server product on *BSD, then close the source and live happily thereafter.
It's only GPL-ish licenses that prevent such behaviour
The Cell advantage lies in having one and only one kind of SPU (or über DSP) in the architecture instead of the myriad of different GPUs on the market.
That's an advantage Both Intel and AMD will try to get by making the GPU instruction set a standard much like the 80486 incorporated the 80387 instruction set in a single standard.
The Apple II did it in a completely different way.
When you set the high bit of a byte in the high-res screen, all 7 pixels in that byte get shifted half-pixel to the right (maybe left - it's been a long time).
It's like you had a 192x560 pixel screen but you always had to plot two pixels side by side.
The magnet's failure created ripples that extended through time. We are seeing the first one coinciding with us. Expect to read the same post next week as the second ripple reaches us.
Also, you will remember the ripple that also propagated into your past, about a week before the accident. Next week, you will remember the second one, two weeks before the accident.
I had one Dell Poweredge 1900 with a SATA RAID controller that was not supported by Debian stable. I simply decided it would be better to install CentOS instead, since it's good enough and the machine was supposed to host a bunch of virtual servers with OpenVZ. The VPSs are all Debian, but I saw it less of a problem to go Red Hat and Yum than it would be to roll our own kernels (and apply security fixes from time to time).
But I agree. With time, I came to rely more and more on the OS package management - even if I have to change OSs sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Too much caffeine and a civil liberties issue may result on friendly fire.
Sorry.
"The worst part is all of the people who are more than willing to give up liberties a-plenty to only slightly improve the safety of their children. The worst part is that they'll insist that you give up the same liberties and yet still their children aren't much (if at all) safer."
The worst part is that, as this investigations show, those people are giving up their liberties for nothing more than the illusion of safety for their children. It is incredible police never imagined people would not buy child porn with their own credit cards.
Do they think people, for instance, pay drug dealers with credit cards?
No way!
There is a vast difference between intending to commit a crime and actually committing it. One cannot be arrested for his/her criminal toughts as there can be no proof he/she would ever commit the crime and thus endanger society.
Didn't sci-fi dystopian fantasies teach you anything?!
You also have to factor in the energy spent running the computer (I assume it's an aging desktop PC with a CRT monitor) is much, much more than the price of the OLPC itself.
I hope any politician that gets into this is removed from power and put in jail along with the MS exec who made the sale.
Sorry. I got late.
Don't you oppress the guy.
Calling them equivalent is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
It's _NOT_ just a question of effort.
By handing over the control of the requirements to Microsoft (as the Mono project does) you give Microsoft - who would pretty much wish them dead - the power to drive developer efforts as they wish. If they control what it means to be "compatible", then they already own the other projects.
What if MS waits for a free (as in speech) 1.0-compatible implementation to release the all-new-2.0-that-breaks-everything release? Will developers start coding right away? What if the format is not published? Will they have to reverse engineer it too? For how long and at what cost? Wouldn't those resources be better spent doing something else?
MS has not to worry about its user base because updates can be pushed down Windows Update to all their users. They can break compatibility as they wish provided they silently pushed the updates a month earlier.
So, I will pretty sure boycott and send very strong messages to any site that uses this technology and will recommend everybody to do the same.
This is a battle about open standards and a level playfield. We should not allow them to have it their way.
The head of the CS department demands, as is "his right as a man", to be called "Loretta".
He also demands the right to have babies.
Things are getting shaky all over the place...
I am worried.
In this specific case, you can still pick the 1.1 release and GPL it back into, say, 1.1g.
If, on the other hand, 1.1 is under MS Shared Source License you should fork 1.0.
I agree.
There is no more precise way to see the future than to wait for it.
It must be rare _and_ interesting.
A dull Dell box (pun intended) is not interesting unless it has a unique form factor.
That 21 inch screen notebook monstruosity is such thing. Buy it and keep it functioning for the next 30 years and you will have something. There was also a Compaq desktop with a built-in LCD. I have a Monorail PC that still boots - it had it's HD and CD-ROM changed because they no longer worked. There is also a Sony Vaio whose keyboard folds up to cover half the screen as it becomes a stereo. There were a couple Compaq models with integrated monitors that were interestingly iMac-like.
Those are interesting PCs. No grey box, no matter how rare it is, will ever become interesting.
Anyway, most interesting computers are not PCs. A Sparcstation 1 is interesting as is a Voyager. Just about every SGI box is somewhat unique. If you are shopping today, buy a Tezro. If you want a Sun, buy a desktop SPARC (the amd64s are just PCs). IBM RS/6000s are a bit on the PC side, but are OK. Apples are very diverse and an interesting piece of study. The "flex-chassis" series is very interesting because of the modular mobos. The tower G3 is interesting because every time you open it, it draws blood from your hand. An IBM 3290 terminal is unique as it had a red plasma screen. An NCD 16 X terminal is interesting because of the square CRT. Any Lisp Machine is worth having. The Convergent non-PC x86 machines are very interesting as is their OS.
Rarity is for newcomers that don't really get it. It is a tool for those who can't see the other forms of value and for those who do to get rid of rare and dull hardware.
CS3 will sell more Macs to Mac users and more PCs do Windows users.
Leopard has the opportunity to sell Macs to Windows users.
If done with the right timing, it would inflict a huge damage on Microsoft, neutralizing the colossal effort to launch Vista.
The way it is now, all damage suffered by Microsoft at the Vista launch and after is self-inflicted.
It was always obviour MS would be easy to kick.
Now they are fallen, we realize it would have been much, much easier (or we could kick them a lot harder and a lot more).
That was a great wasted opportunity.
And don't tell me you don't love to kick their balls.
Unixes, in general, are very flexible OSs.
If a Motorola phone can run Linux, most certainly an iPhone can run Darwin.
Even if it doesn't - and Apple goes a different route with the kernel - they still have the BSD layer and most of their userland stuff remains relatively portable as soon as you port the *Kit stuff.
As for the eye candy, it's easy to do decent 2D acceleration even on a low-power device.
I say they are still looking good on the iPhone front.
I think (Apple has a couple million advisors everywhere) Apple should have aimed lower with 10.5.
They should release 10.5 right before Vista or right after it, with the flashiest features (the ones that increase wow-factor and are easy to do) thrown in and steal Redmond's thunder.
That way, they could even have more time to finish 10.6 with the real (i.e. versioned FS instead of time machine) features and still avoid Vista stealing OSX's spotlight (pun intended).
But that's just me. I bet they have very competent people on their payroll.
They could have based their server product on *BSD, then close the source and live happily thereafter.
It's only GPL-ish licenses that prevent such behaviour
One of the reasons there are 8 über DSPs in Cell is that it allows programmers to write sloppy code for them.
If it would run real fast with hand-optimized or machine code and one SPU it sure can run very well with 8 SPUs and a decent optimizing compiler.
It's not easier.
The Cell advantage lies in having one and only one kind of SPU (or über DSP) in the architecture instead of the myriad of different GPUs on the market.
That's an advantage Both Intel and AMD will try to get by making the GPU instruction set a standard much like the 80486 incorporated the 80387 instruction set in a single standard.
Because it would be easier to invade, should the need to destroy WMDs ever arise ;-)
Will I be able to search my comics strips (downloaded since ever) by keyword?
I would love that!
The Apple II did it in a completely different way.
When you set the high bit of a byte in the high-res screen, all 7 pixels in that byte get shifted half-pixel to the right (maybe left - it's been a long time).
It's like you had a 192x560 pixel screen but you always had to plot two pixels side by side.
Yes. It is.
The magnet's failure created ripples that extended through time. We are seeing the first one coinciding with us. Expect to read the same post next week as the second ripple reaches us.
Also, you will remember the ripple that also propagated into your past, about a week before the accident. Next week, you will remember the second one, two weeks before the accident.
The real trick is finding mistakes before they happen ;-)
I had a similar problem a couple weeks ago.
I had one Dell Poweredge 1900 with a SATA RAID controller that was not supported by Debian stable. I simply decided it would be better to install CentOS instead, since it's good enough and the machine was supposed to host a bunch of virtual servers with OpenVZ. The VPSs are all Debian, but I saw it less of a problem to go Red Hat and Yum than it would be to roll our own kernels (and apply security fixes from time to time).
But I agree. With time, I came to rely more and more on the OS package management - even if I have to change OSs sometimes.