Shouldn't that be "... who are not at least 18 or accompanied by a parent..."?
Apart from that, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. This only applies to public places where they have video games, but not to the private use of games, right? And come on, who still plays arcade games when you have the latest GeForce 1024 XYZ+ at home?
So what did you do as a consequence of this? What does matter?
I do understand your point, and I am glad not to work at that kind of company (I'm in research at a university). I would just like to know what you did and what you consider to be useful.
Okay, they have a website where you can get free hardware if you don't have some. But without a computer, how do you access their website? How do you send an email to the guy offering it? Maybe we need another website to... uh, wait...
Cool! This is the year 2000 version of the Logo Turtle. Anybody remember these things from like the 70s or early 80s? I wonder if somebody will come up with a Logo interpreter for this thing...
Maybe that is the use for the Transmeta chips, their niche! Crusoe wasn't meant to blow away the current Intel/AMD top chips, but an energy-efficient, fast chip for applications where power consumption plays a role.
Transmeta is really getting too much attention here on/., and their products are hyped beyond all recognition. Hey, wake up guys! this isn't the solution to all your CPU power needs, it's just a specialized processor for a specialized market.
I don't understand why people are so concerned about MIR. Come on, it's old, it's been damaged, it's falling apart, and with this fungus thing it's probably a very unhealthy environment, too. So why not just "de-orbit" it? What is so great about it? Okay, it was the first somewhat permanent thing in "space" (ahem, earth orbit, barely outside of the atmosphere), but that doesn't mean it has to stay there forever and be used. We aren't using ENIACs any more at huge costs, just because it was the first...
There is the ISS now, which is much more modern, bigger, better equipped, and it's operated by more than just one nation. So I really can't see the reason for keeping this old thing up there, wasting money and posing a threat to everybody working there.
I don't understand why people keep talking about voice email. This is about the most useless thing I can think of.
First, a voice email is always much larger than an ordinary one with the same content. That doesn't just affect the transmission time (that Audrey thing only has a 56k modem, so that does make a difference), but also the amount of space it needs when stored. My email archive is already in the thens of megabytes, and I store attachments separately.
And why do I need voice, anyway? What do we have writing for? And if I want you to listen to me talk, why don't I just leave a message on your answering machine?
I don't get it. Is this just so that people will not have such problem with the stylus input, or are they serious about this?
I saw a crappy movie once where they had anti-satellite-missiles mounted on aircrafts. And I guess shooting down satellites can't be all that hard, since you know their trajectories quite well. Especially with the GPS satellites... and you can also home in on their signal. And since they can't run away, you have plenty of time to do it.
So I guess that would really be a possible strike that Iraq could (at least in theory) do against the US. And the US would have a hard time guiding their weapons against the source of the attack (if successful, that is...), even though I guess that would be pretty well known.
I think this is only meant for certain situations, as the ones mentioned in the article. When you can use radar, you will use that. After all, GPS isn't too precise for non-military applications, and they can turn it off! (encrypt the signal), so it's not exactly fail-safe...
Playing stupid is all good and well, but I don't think that disclaimer will help much. Quote from the second paragraph of the article: To copy a video with up to 9 GB from a DVD to a CD-ROM requires a lot of computing power and time. So they might not be sued, but the aim of this article is clear to anyone with a brain. So it's going to create a lot more bad publicity than there already is; this is certainly the perfect example to show on TV as one of those "manuals for copying/breaking into machines/building bombs/blabla"... they're not going to show the disclaimer, that's for sure.
But *even then* will they probably not use many different commands so you could check for this as well and return the fake checksum... I know this is getting a bit silly, but it's possible. And it's quite a good way of checking a client's authenticity, I must admit;-)
I don't understand how they were able to pay several hundred million dollars in fines/fees. I mean, where does that come from? That can't be ad revenue from running this service for how long? One year, maybe two? Where does that money come from?
Ah, but limiting the viewing of a DVD to people who run a monopoly OS is okay?
This is BS. You know, there are players for DVD where you just put the DVD in and you can watch the movie. Using your argument, it would also be discrimination to force people who want to watch movies on VHS cassettes to buy a VCR. That doesn't make sense.
Limiting the viewing of a DVD to people in one particular country is okay aswell?
*That* is a far better argument, and one I believe would be interesting to try out in an international court (like that property organization of the UNO) once.
That's what I thought, too. Or they could simply block DNS requests to any machine other than their own DNSs. That should be possible with a bunch of firewall rules.
I don't think this is really going to happen. They are just going to build larger telescopes and use new methods. If you don't find a signal, how do you know it's really because there is nothing and not because your antenna is too small or your signal analysis isn't sensitive enough or you just used the wrong wavelength?
I have to say that I don't quite understand how this works, because AFAIK when you make a GET, you just request a file, but don't tell the server the whole URL (or the hostname, for that matter). So how does it know which of the virtual hosts you refer to? Is this a feature of HTTP 1.1? And even if not, could this be a problem with old browsers that assume that there is just one website per IP address and port?
I agree, this doesn't sound very convincing. But it can't be that hard to verify or falsify. You don't even need nmap, the http server tells you who it is and what it is running on anyway, doesn't it? And having a simple tool perform this on a few hundred requests (with a few secs in between them) can't be that hard, and then we know. At least for hotmail, dunno if MSN is accessible from the rest of the net.
Does somebody have the time and is bored enough to do this?
So what? Google is free, too. And I am not complaining about the ads, I am complaining about the facts that a big part of their archive has been offline for over six months now, that their search engine doesn't work properly (wrong result counts, doesn't always take specified newsgroups into accout, etc) and that they are turning it into yet another bloody portal site instead of sticking to a good and useful focused service.
Check this out (it's about the strongest chess computer at the time):
The secret of the Elite's strength is its cpu: a 4 mhz 6502! In order to pull off this trick, Fidelity cannot produce the Elite in mass quantites, and requires special orders which deliver it direct from the factory. They sift through thousands of 6502's to find one that runs a bit fast, attach a heat sink, and then turn up the clock rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, wrong, there's no "not" needed ... damn, I really have to work on my English parser ... sorry
Shouldn't that be "... who are not at least 18 or accompanied by a parent ..."?
Apart from that, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. This only applies to public places where they have video games, but not to the private use of games, right? And come on, who still plays arcade games when you have the latest GeForce 1024 XYZ+ at home?
So what did you do as a consequence of this? What does matter?
I do understand your point, and I am glad not to work at that kind of company (I'm in research at a university). I would just like to know what you did and what you consider to be useful.
Yes, I know, I was just trying to make a joke ... doesn't seem to have worked ... :-(
Okay, they have a website where you can get free hardware if you don't have some. But without a computer, how do you access their website? How do you send an email to the guy offering it? Maybe we need another website to ... uh, wait ...
Cool! This is the year 2000 version of the Logo Turtle. Anybody remember these things from like the 70s or early 80s? I wonder if somebody will come up with a Logo interpreter for this thing ...
Maybe that is the use for the Transmeta chips, their niche! Crusoe wasn't meant to blow away the current Intel/AMD top chips, but an energy-efficient, fast chip for applications where power consumption plays a role. /., and their products are hyped beyond all recognition. Hey, wake up guys! this isn't the solution to all your CPU power needs, it's just a specialized processor for a specialized market.
Transmeta is really getting too much attention here on
I don't understand why people are so concerned about MIR. Come on, it's old, it's been damaged, it's falling apart, and with this fungus thing it's probably a very unhealthy environment, too. So why not just "de-orbit" it? What is so great about it? Okay, it was the first somewhat permanent thing in "space" (ahem, earth orbit, barely outside of the atmosphere), but that doesn't mean it has to stay there forever and be used. We aren't using ENIACs any more at huge costs, just because it was the first ...
There is the ISS now, which is much more modern, bigger, better equipped, and it's operated by more than just one nation. So I really can't see the reason for keeping this old thing up there, wasting money and posing a threat to everybody working there.
I don't understand why people keep talking about voice email. This is about the most useless thing I can think of.
First, a voice email is always much larger than an ordinary one with the same content. That doesn't just affect the transmission time (that Audrey thing only has a 56k modem, so that does make a difference), but also the amount of space it needs when stored. My email archive is already in the thens of megabytes, and I store attachments separately.
And why do I need voice, anyway? What do we have writing for? And if I want you to listen to me talk, why don't I just leave a message on your answering machine?
I don't get it. Is this just so that people will not have such problem with the stylus input, or are they serious about this?
Please transfer the money to the usual bank account. Pleasure doing business with you, Mr. Hussein!
I saw a crappy movie once where they had anti-satellite-missiles mounted on aircrafts. And I guess shooting down satellites can't be all that hard, since you know their trajectories quite well. Especially with the GPS satellites ... and you can also home in on their signal. And since they can't run away, you have plenty of time to do it.
...), even though I guess that would be pretty well known.
So I guess that would really be a possible strike that Iraq could (at least in theory) do against the US. And the US would have a hard time guiding their weapons against the source of the attack (if successful, that is
I think this is only meant for certain situations, as the ones mentioned in the article. When you can use radar, you will use that. After all, GPS isn't too precise for non-military applications, and they can turn it off! (encrypt the signal), so it's not exactly fail-safe ...
Playing stupid is all good and well, but I don't think that disclaimer will help much. Quote from the second paragraph of the article: To copy a video with up to 9 GB from a DVD to a CD-ROM requires a lot of computing power and time. ... they're not going to show the disclaimer, that's for sure.
So they might not be sued, but the aim of this article is clear to anyone with a brain. So it's going to create a lot more bad publicity than there already is; this is certainly the perfect example to show on TV as one of those "manuals for copying/breaking into machines/building bombs/blabla"
Suckdot is a lot funnier!
But *even then* will they probably not use many different commands so you could check for this as well and return the fake checksum ... I know this is getting a bit silly, but it's possible. And it's quite a good way of checking a client's authenticity, I must admit ;-)
I don't use AIM, but what if the client simply identifies itself as an official AOL client?
I don't understand how they were able to pay several hundred million dollars in fines/fees. I mean, where does that come from? That can't be ad revenue from running this service for how long? One year, maybe two? Where does that money come from?
Ah, but limiting the viewing of a DVD to people who run a monopoly OS is okay?
This is BS. You know, there are players for DVD where you just put the DVD in and you can watch the movie. Using your argument, it would also be discrimination to force people who want to watch movies on VHS cassettes to buy a VCR. That doesn't make sense.
Limiting the viewing of a DVD to people in one particular country is okay aswell?
*That* is a far better argument, and one I believe would be interesting to try out in an international court (like that property organization of the UNO) once.
That's what I thought, too. Or they could simply block DNS requests to any machine other than their own DNSs. That should be possible with a bunch of firewall rules.
I don't think this is really going to happen. They are just going to build larger telescopes and use new methods. If you don't find a signal, how do you know it's really because there is nothing and not because your antenna is too small or your signal analysis isn't sensitive enough or you just used the wrong wavelength?
I have to say that I don't quite understand how this works, because AFAIK when you make a GET, you just request a file, but don't tell the server the whole URL (or the hostname, for that matter). So how does it know which of the virtual hosts you refer to? Is this a feature of HTTP 1.1? And even if not, could this be a problem with old browsers that assume that there is just one website per IP address and port?
I agree, this doesn't sound very convincing. But it can't be that hard to verify or falsify. You don't even need nmap, the http server tells you who it is and what it is running on anyway, doesn't it? And having a simple tool perform this on a few hundred requests (with a few secs in between them) can't be that hard, and then we know. At least for hotmail, dunno if MSN is accessible from the rest of the net.
Does somebody have the time and is bored enough to do this?
Actually, I do read a lot of newsgroups using a proper newsreader and my isp's newsserver. What I meant was an archive and a way to search old posts.
It is a free service.
So what? Google is free, too. And I am not complaining about the ads, I am complaining about the facts that a big part of their archive has been offline for over six months now, that their search engine doesn't work properly (wrong result counts, doesn't always take specified newsgroups into accout, etc) and that they are turning it into yet another bloody portal site instead of sticking to a good and useful focused service.
Bruahahahaha