A wifi network that broadcasts to the point where outsiders can sniff packets must be treated like it's directly on the internet, rather than behind a firewall. An ms network behind a firewall is easier to secure. In the end, the sysadmin maintaining a network is the more likely the weak or strong point in maintaining security, not linux vs windows.
The story says every DEVICE using an Intel CHIP will have WiFi. This threatens small players who want to sell you a plug-in card for your device (such as a PDA) since you already have it built in.
That would be a terrible network. If it takes 10000 hops for a packet to get across the country, and half of them need to be resent because they get lost along the way, your bandwidth and ping times are going to be very poor.
This is old news. Companies laid a lot of fiber at once knowing it wouldn't be used immediately. Given the cost to lay the fiber relative to the cost of the fiber itself, this is not unreasonable. The fiber is not lit currently because the tranceivers are very expensive.
Since DVD technology is still under patent, you need to pay the licensing fee to distibute a dvd player. In my opinion, this guy is guilty of patent violation, and that's what he should be prosecuted for. Not for reverse engineering, mind you, but for distributing the software to others, which can result in a significant loss in revenue to the dvd patent holders. You can't just reverse engineer a product and bypass the licensing fees. Technology will suffer in the long run.
As long as you're not making money by posting your quote, no one probably gives a rat's ass that you're using his quote. That's the attitude of most publishers, anyway.
"What if as a taxi driver, I have the radio on for my OWN enjoyment, and don't give a flip if the customer listens or not? What if I put the customer in a soundproofed rear compartment? What if I only listen to "talk radio" that never plays any music?"
My guess is that in this case you don't need to pay the fee. As for being absurd, I tend to agree, but no one in any govt. ever asked my opinion.
To nitpick, an office doesn't count, because the people being entertained are not clients, but employees, so the causal effect from listening to music and making money is harder to show. Restaurants and dept. stores, however, would be liable. Most restaurants and dept. stores don't broadcast public radio stations. They probably already pay royalties for their music loop tapes.
Yes, this type of legislation sets a precedent for nickel and diming everyone to death. Pretty soon they'll charging garage bands who make some money on the weekends playing cover tunes of popular songs, at the rate things are going.
As far as copyright, the creator does initially own the copyright. He usually turns it over to the publisher/record company for some sort of compensation package. Copyright these days extends to more than just copying for obvious reasons. Otherwise, I could rent a DVD and charge people a buck a piece to see it on my home theater system without compensating the creator.
What does copyright legislation have to do with speaker systems or lighting equipment. I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but you come off as neither intelligent or funny.
A single processor mac will still be beaten in price and performance by a PC. It's somewhat irrelevent, however, as many people have pointed out. Buy the machine that has the software you like and a price you're willing to pay, whther it be a pc or a mac.
I'm not talking about making money. I'm talking about the ability to own your work. GPL prevents someone from owning their work, so it's a limitation on freedom. Stallman is a champion of communism in software, not individual liberties.
Just because security is 100% effective, doesn't mean that it isn't effective at all. As far as the end of 802.11, you mean the end of 802.11 for dead beats who leech off of other people's bandwidth without paying for it.
"He further stacked the deck by running the benches on dual processors, where a fair test would have benched a single-proc app on single-proc macs and PCs"
Ahh. A dual processor Mac should do no worse than a single processor Mac. I don't know why people refuse to believe that Macs are slower than PC given the evidence. PC processors are clocked over twice as fast, and you'd have a hard time arguing that a PPC processor gets twice the work done in it's clock cycles to make up for the slower clock rate.
"Apple's first advantage is OS X. It's UNIX, which means that it blows Windows out of the water, performance-wise."
If that's true, then why are PC benchmarks using Windows blowing away Mac Benchmarks using OS X. The point is a high-end PC running Windows is faster and cheaper than a the fastest Mac running OS X.
The point is, the govt. is leaving the choice up to the parents. They're setting up a kid safe domain, but they're not saying this is the only place where kids can surf. It's up to the parents whether or not they want to restrict access to this domain. When the parents think they're old enough, they can let other content through.
The only people that get GPL software 'free as in beer' are end users. Anyone who modifies the code cannot profit from his additions because he is forced to give away the code for free. So I'd classify GPL as 'not free as in liberty' whereas a BSD license is 'free as in liberty'. Of course you have the freedom to accept the model or not, but if you buy into the model, you would be naive to say that it doesn't restrict your freedom.
So you must therefore conclude that people who thought red hat linux was overrated when it IPOed were the smart ones. They bought and and sold quickly and lost money. Those that had faith in Red Hat are the ones who were mistaken.
The article is overy simplistic, but ok for someone who knows nothing about processor architecture. Doesn't cover such things as pipelining, caching, etc. Hennessey and Patterson have a very good book on the subject for people who really want to know about processor architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
A wifi network that broadcasts to the point where outsiders can sniff packets must be treated like it's directly on the internet, rather than behind a firewall. An ms network behind a firewall is easier to secure. In the end, the sysadmin maintaining a network is the more likely the weak or strong point in maintaining security, not linux vs windows.
The story says every DEVICE using an Intel CHIP will have WiFi. This threatens small players who want to sell you a plug-in card for your device (such as a PDA) since you already have it built in.
That would be a terrible network. If it takes 10000 hops for a packet to get across the country, and half of them need to be resent because they get lost along the way, your bandwidth and ping times are going to be very poor.
This is old news. Companies laid a lot of fiber at once knowing it wouldn't be used immediately. Given the cost to lay the fiber relative to the cost of the fiber itself, this is not unreasonable. The fiber is not lit currently because the tranceivers are very expensive.
Since DVD technology is still under patent, you need to pay the licensing fee to distibute a dvd player. In my opinion, this guy is guilty of patent violation, and that's what he should be prosecuted for. Not for reverse engineering, mind you, but for distributing the software to others, which can result in a significant loss in revenue to the dvd patent holders. You can't just reverse engineer a product and bypass the licensing fees. Technology will suffer in the long run.
As long as you're not making money by posting your quote, no one probably gives a rat's ass that you're using his quote. That's the attitude of most publishers, anyway.
"What if as a taxi driver, I have the radio on for my OWN enjoyment, and don't give a flip if the customer listens or not? What if I put the customer in a soundproofed rear compartment? What if I only listen to "talk radio" that never plays any music?"
My guess is that in this case you don't need to pay the fee. As for being absurd, I tend to agree, but no one in any govt. ever asked my opinion.
Plants have nothing to do with copyright legislation. You paid for the plant, end of story.
"The music adds some soothing ambience while you eat(especially if you go out after work), but my food doesn't suddenly taste better because of it."
I'm sure the RIAA would produce an expert witness that would disagree.
To nitpick, an office doesn't count, because the people being entertained are not clients, but employees, so the causal effect from listening to music and making money is harder to show. Restaurants and dept. stores, however, would be liable. Most restaurants and dept. stores don't broadcast public radio stations. They probably already pay royalties for their music loop tapes.
Yes, this type of legislation sets a precedent for nickel and diming everyone to death. Pretty soon they'll charging garage bands who make some money on the weekends playing cover tunes of popular songs, at the rate things are going.
As far as copyright, the creator does initially own the copyright. He usually turns it over to the publisher/record company for some sort of compensation package. Copyright these days extends to more than just copying for obvious reasons. Otherwise, I could rent a DVD and charge people a buck a piece to see it on my home theater system without compensating the creator.
What does copyright legislation have to do with speaker systems or lighting equipment. I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but you come off as neither intelligent or funny.
A single processor mac will still be beaten in price and performance by a PC. It's somewhat irrelevent, however, as many people have pointed out. Buy the machine that has the software you like and a price you're willing to pay, whther it be a pc or a mac.
I'm not talking about making money. I'm talking about the ability to own your work. GPL prevents someone from owning their work, so it's a limitation on freedom. Stallman is a champion of communism in software, not individual liberties.
Just because security is 100% effective, doesn't mean that it isn't effective at all. As far as the end of 802.11, you mean the end of 802.11 for dead beats who leech off of other people's bandwidth without paying for it.
Someone please mod this post down as overrated, trolling, etc. When posts like this get a 5, you know slashdot moderation isn't working.
"He further stacked the deck by running the benches on dual processors, where a fair test would have benched a single-proc app on single-proc macs and PCs"
Ahh. A dual processor Mac should do no worse than a single processor Mac. I don't know why people refuse to believe that Macs are slower than PC given the evidence. PC processors are clocked over twice as fast, and you'd have a hard time arguing that a PPC processor gets twice the work done in it's clock cycles to make up for the slower clock rate.
"Apple's first advantage is OS X. It's UNIX, which means that it blows Windows out of the water, performance-wise."
If that's true, then why are PC benchmarks using Windows blowing away Mac Benchmarks using OS X. The point is a high-end PC running Windows is faster and cheaper than a the fastest Mac running OS X.
The point is, the govt. is leaving the choice up to the parents. They're setting up a kid safe domain, but they're not saying this is the only place where kids can surf. It's up to the parents whether or not they want to restrict access to this domain. When the parents think they're old enough, they can let other content through.
Not all parents want their 8 yr. olds to stumble across porn on the web. It not hard to do with even the most innocent searches.
The only people that get GPL software 'free as in beer' are end users. Anyone who modifies the code cannot profit from his additions because he is forced to give away the code for free. So I'd classify GPL as 'not free as in liberty' whereas a BSD license is 'free as in liberty'. Of course you have the freedom to accept the model or not, but if you buy into the model, you would be naive to say that it doesn't restrict your freedom.
Sorry, I meant They bought and and sold quickly and did not lose money.
So you must therefore conclude that people who thought red hat linux was overrated when it IPOed were the smart ones. They bought and and sold quickly and lost money. Those that had faith in Red Hat are the ones who were mistaken.
The article is overy simplistic, but ok for someone who knows nothing about processor architecture. Doesn't cover such things as pipelining, caching, etc. Hennessey and Patterson have a very good book on the subject for people who really want to know about processor architecture.
From the picture, it looks like he programmed the time into his VCR too, since it says something other than 12:00.