- This is a bad thing? For American Imperialist scum like me, it couldn't be better. I suppose you would prefer Iran, Syria, or China to do so?
Not necessarily, I was just mentioning that the US should pay proportionally to the say in the UN it gets. If it virtually controls UN actions, it should also pay for them.
- So? It's the principle of the thing. What has the UN done for us recently aside from starting wars? Albania, Somalia, Haiti, and now the Balkans (Sorry, peacekeeping exercises) Are any of these strategically important in the slightest? Did any of these countries want the US there? In every case there hasn't been a shortage of food, but crackpot dictators with guns have been controlling it.
The recent Balkans stuff in Kosovo was not the UN's fault. The United States got NATO to bomb Serbia and Kosovo without the UN's approval. The UN was not involved at all, apart from its refusal to do what the US went and did anyway, so this would've happened even if the UN didn't exist.
Do we really need a news article every time somebody joins or leaves Red Hat? I personally don't care about Rasterman leaving, Havoc Pennington joining, or any of their other personnel decisions.
The US has not paid its fair share. The US exerts a huge amount of influence, at times virtually controlling the UN's actions. At the very least, the UN never takes positions contrary to the US, due to its veto power. The dues the US pays should be proportional to the power it wields. In addition, the US dues to the UN, even if paid in full, would be less than $100 for each person in the US.
If the US doesn't wish to pay its dues, it should withdraw from the UN and stop voting in the Security Council.
Re:Thats not the point
on
BO2K cracked
·
· Score: 1
That's not the point either. The encryption algorithm was not meant to be strong. The only reason you'd want a strong encryption algorithm is if you wanted to use BO2K as a legitimate remote administration tool. Needless to say, that's not the real intended purpose. As a backdoor to somebody's machine, the strength of its encryption algorithm is completely irrelevant.
You could always buy cds online from launch.com. Their prices average $2 to $4 cheaper per CD, and the shipping charges are about the same as with CDNow. The only downside is a slightly worse selection than CDNow, though it still beats Columbia House's crappy selection.
Open Source still does not innovate. Linux merely copied its HA stuff from other UNIXes that've had it for quite a while now. Copying something yourself before Microsoft copies it is not innovation.
Crackers should not be classified as warez doods. The only skills warez doods have is being part of a group in which somebody has a bunch of bandwidth to send warez around. Crackers, on the other hand, are talented assembly programmers who reverse-engineer programs to remove the copy protection. Certainly they are several steps above warez doods.
1) It wasn't Linux emulation. FreeBSD can run Linux binaries natively, at approximately the same speed as FreeBSD binaries, and at approximately the same speed as Linux itself can run them. Therefore, there was no speed reason to use Linux rather than FreeBSD.
2) I'm not sure of exactly why, but apparently FreeBSD had some better support for their renderfarm than Linux did, hence the choice.
Oh come on. The storyline was pretty pathetic. The only reason I found the movie decent was because of the action.
"Your mind makes it real" is a pretty weak explanation for why somebody's physical body dies or gets injured just because a computer tells their brain that they've died or been injured.
The whole "bending the rules" via a "pirate signal" is somewhat fishy.
The ending with love bringing Keano Reeves back to life was EXTREMELY cheesy and cliché.
Five Matrix movies is just not going to work. It was a pretty good one movie, but IMO, even one sequel is pushing it, let alone two sequels and two prequels. Unlike a certain other epic saga, the storyline and concepts in The Matrix have too many holes in them. Upon close inspection, many things, especially the technical details, just don't hold up. Over five movies, this will be glaringly obvious.
Despite it's claims to be a general geek website, not a Linux website, this seems to say otherwise. The initial release of Myth 2 didn't get any mention on slashdot, but its porting to another OS did. The initial release is obviously more news-worthy, if the game contains any interesting and novel features. If not, don't mention it at all. Simple porting notices can be saved for freshmeat.
I agree. The original release of Myth II got no mention on slashdot, but a belated porting of it does. The initial release of a game is obviously more news-worthy than a port of the same game, unless slashdot is a Linux website (which it claims not to be).
As the others have sort of pointed out, it would only take around 1.73 days to serve up one page to everybody on earth (approximately six billion people), not 112 days.
The problem is that gold doesn't retain its value. The price of gold in the last ten years or so has dropped by more than 30%, largely due to countries selling off millions of tons of gold from their (now unnecessary) reserves. The resulting huge increase in supply causes the prices to go down. The same thing would happen if a huge new gold deposit was found, but the chances of that are less than the chances of another country selling off a lot of its reserves (like Britain is doing right now).
Re:On the other hand... what happens when Linux wi
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
This assumes:
1) No forking
2) The people maintaining the (unforked) kernel source tree are trustworthy.
So far these two things have held up. However, I consider it very improbable that they will hold up indefinitely. Eventually, either a significant group of developers will become annoyed enough to fork the tree, or one of the main kernel maintainers will not prove to be entirely trustworthy (aka taking money from a company to implement the features that company wants).
Well, I just did a whois (through rs.internic.net) it told me it was registered to "Chelsea Bayou Traders" in Sweden, and that the record was last updated 26-Feb-1999 (the creation date is not listed for some reason). Doing a whois through whois.register.com says it was registered by "Real Assets Limited" on Jun 08, 1999.
So if it was registered in February through InterNIC, how did somebody register it in June through register.com?
Also, why is everybody saying it's not registered according to InterNIC's whois? It appears to be registered to the Swedish people, as far as I can tell.
Virtually any hard drive on the market today can fill a 10baseT ethernet continuously, even with noncontiguous reads/writes. As for 100BaseT, you can fill that with a RAID setup. For example, cdrom.com fills its 100BaseT ethernet constantly, so the network is the bottleneck there, not the hard drives.
As for latency, hard drives are behind memory and CPUs, sure, but they're still ahead of networks. Most large networks have much worse than 9ms latency.
This practice always annoyed me as well. 3d video card makers are particularly bad about this. When one card runs Quake at 29.5 fps, and their competitor runs it at 28.7 fps, they set the x-axis at around 25 or so, so that 0.8 fps difference looks like a lot. If they set the x-axis at 0, where it's supposed to be, you wouldn't be able to see that there was much of any difference at all.
Re:So does this change the debian situation?
on
qt 2.0 released
·
· Score: 1
I certainly hope they are going to get permission for this license change from all the people who have contributed code to KDE, or else remove that person's code. Changing the license on somebody else's code without their permission is a definite no-no.
Slashdot Mirror
- This is a bad thing? For American Imperialist scum like me, it couldn't be better. I suppose you would prefer Iran, Syria, or China to do so?
Not necessarily, I was just mentioning that the US should pay proportionally to the say in the UN it gets. If it virtually controls UN actions, it should also pay for them.
- So? It's the principle of the thing. What has the UN done for us recently aside from starting wars? Albania, Somalia, Haiti, and now the Balkans (Sorry, peacekeeping exercises) Are any of these strategically important in the slightest? Did any of these countries want the US there? In every case there hasn't been a shortage of food, but crackpot dictators with guns have been controlling it.
The recent Balkans stuff in Kosovo was not the UN's fault. The United States got NATO to bomb Serbia and Kosovo without the UN's approval. The UN was not involved at all, apart from its refusal to do what the US went and did anyway, so this would've happened even if the UN didn't exist.
Do we really need a news article every time somebody joins or leaves Red Hat? I personally don't care about Rasterman leaving, Havoc Pennington joining, or any of their other personnel decisions.
The US has not paid its fair share. The US exerts a huge amount of influence, at times virtually controlling the UN's actions. At the very least, the UN never takes positions contrary to the US, due to its veto power. The dues the US pays should be proportional to the power it wields. In addition, the US dues to the UN, even if paid in full, would be less than $100 for each person in the US.
If the US doesn't wish to pay its dues, it should withdraw from the UN and stop voting in the Security Council.
That's not the point either. The encryption algorithm was not meant to be strong. The only reason you'd want a strong encryption algorithm is if you wanted to use BO2K as a legitimate remote administration tool. Needless to say, that's not the real intended purpose. As a backdoor to somebody's machine, the strength of its encryption algorithm is completely irrelevant.
You could always buy cds online from launch.com. Their prices average $2 to $4 cheaper per CD, and the shipping charges are about the same as with CDNow. The only downside is a slightly worse selection than CDNow, though it still beats Columbia House's crappy selection.
Open Source still does not innovate. Linux merely copied its HA stuff from other UNIXes that've had it for quite a while now. Copying something yourself before Microsoft copies it is not innovation.
I don't dislike slashdot in general, just some aspects of it. And I do read other websites (though MSN is not one of them).
Crackers should not be classified as warez doods. The only skills warez doods have is being part of a group in which somebody has a bunch of bandwidth to send warez around. Crackers, on the other hand, are talented assembly programmers who reverse-engineer programs to remove the copy protection. Certainly they are several steps above warez doods.
1) It wasn't Linux emulation. FreeBSD can run Linux binaries natively, at approximately the same speed as FreeBSD binaries, and at approximately the same speed as Linux itself can run them. Therefore, there was no speed reason to use Linux rather than FreeBSD.
2) I'm not sure of exactly why, but apparently FreeBSD had some better support for their renderfarm than Linux did, hence the choice.
Oh come on. The storyline was pretty pathetic. The only reason I found the movie decent was because of the action.
"Your mind makes it real" is a pretty weak explanation for why somebody's physical body dies or gets injured just because a computer tells their brain that they've died or been injured.
The whole "bending the rules" via a "pirate signal" is somewhat fishy.
The ending with love bringing Keano Reeves back to life was EXTREMELY cheesy and cliché.
Five Matrix movies is just not going to work. It was a pretty good one movie, but IMO, even one sequel is pushing it, let alone two sequels and two prequels. Unlike a certain other epic saga, the storyline and concepts in The Matrix have too many holes in them. Upon close inspection, many things, especially the technical details, just don't hold up. Over five movies, this will be glaringly obvious.
Despite it's claims to be a general geek website, not a Linux website, this seems to say otherwise. The initial release of Myth 2 didn't get any mention on slashdot, but its porting to another OS did. The initial release is obviously more news-worthy, if the game contains any interesting and novel features. If not, don't mention it at all. Simple porting notices can be saved for freshmeat.
I agree. The original release of Myth II got no mention on slashdot, but a belated porting of it does. The initial release of a game is obviously more news-worthy than a port of the same game, unless slashdot is a Linux website (which it claims not to be).
What if they're only charged with misdemeanor trespassing?
WinIce is fairly popular among crackers (those who crack the copy protection on software, not the misusage of the word to refer to system intruders).
As the others have sort of pointed out, it would only take around 1.73 days to serve up one page to everybody on earth (approximately six billion people), not 112 days.
The problem is that gold doesn't retain its value. The price of gold in the last ten years or so has dropped by more than 30%, largely due to countries selling off millions of tons of gold from their (now unnecessary) reserves. The resulting huge increase in supply causes the prices to go down. The same thing would happen if a huge new gold deposit was found, but the chances of that are less than the chances of another country selling off a lot of its reserves (like Britain is doing right now).
If it is a cracker convention, why do all these computer industry professionals show up every year?
esr said it best with
"People who do real work don't bother with Defcon."
ESR also said that the APSL 1.0 was Open Source.
yes.
This assumes:
1) No forking
2) The people maintaining the (unforked) kernel source tree are trustworthy.
So far these two things have held up. However, I consider it very improbable that they will hold up indefinitely. Eventually, either a significant group of developers will become annoyed enough to fork the tree, or one of the main kernel maintainers will not prove to be entirely trustworthy (aka taking money from a company to implement the features that company wants).
Well, I just did a whois (through rs.internic.net) it told me it was registered to "Chelsea Bayou Traders" in Sweden, and that the record was last updated 26-Feb-1999 (the creation date is not listed for some reason). Doing a whois through whois.register.com says it was registered by "Real Assets Limited" on Jun 08, 1999.
So if it was registered in February through InterNIC, how did somebody register it in June through register.com?
Also, why is everybody saying it's not registered according to InterNIC's whois? It appears to be registered to the Swedish people, as far as I can tell.
Well, if lightsabers could cut through anything, why did Luke's lightsaber bounce off Vader's armor?
Virtually any hard drive on the market today can fill a 10baseT ethernet continuously, even with noncontiguous reads/writes. As for 100BaseT, you can fill that with a RAID setup. For example, cdrom.com fills its 100BaseT ethernet constantly, so the network is the bottleneck there, not the hard drives.
As for latency, hard drives are behind memory and CPUs, sure, but they're still ahead of networks. Most large networks have much worse than 9ms latency.
This practice always annoyed me as well. 3d video card makers are particularly bad about this. When one card runs Quake at 29.5 fps, and their competitor runs it at 28.7 fps, they set the x-axis at around 25 or so, so that 0.8 fps difference looks like a lot. If they set the x-axis at 0, where it's supposed to be, you wouldn't be able to see that there was much of any difference at all.
I certainly hope they are going to get permission for this license change from all the people who have contributed code to KDE, or else remove that person's code. Changing the license on somebody else's code without their permission is a definite no-no.