not sure why this was modded as flamebait... I'll bite on this seemingly innocuous piece nonetheless.
(this description has a C bias) Copy by value and copy by reference are two ways that data can be transfered about in a program (i.e. passed as a parameter to a function). If the copy by value method is used, the destination function, call it bar(), will get it's own copy of the data that it can modify (the data will be physically copied to another location in memory that bar() can use). Any changes that bar() makes on the data won't affect what the data was before the function call was made.
The copy by value method is useful in certain situations and might be seen to be desirable since the original data won't get affected, however it has the additional overhead of utilizing more memory and taking longer to "set up" since all of the original data must be copied.
Copy by reference means you pass a reference to the original data to the function foo(). foo() now has access to all the original data. Any modifications that foo() makes will be reflected outside foo() as well. This has the advantage of speed since the original data doesn't need to be copied, as well as the fact that less memory is used up on the stack.
When programming in C++, for example, except for primitive data types, you will almost always want to pass objects by reference.
"Looking suspicious" and "mouthing off" are not illegal last time I checked.
Hmm, now I wonder, when was the last time you checked. Since you used that phrase... you've got me wondering whether you ever did check in the past whether looking suspicious and mouthing off were illegal. I wonder where I could read about that...
But seriously, the phrase "looking suspicious" has meaning in the english language. And for most people, it's pretty easy to understand. If you go around "looking suspicious", you may attract the attention of law enforcement officers. *boggle* And when you start mouthing off to these officers and act like a complete asshole, I can see how it would be a big surprise when you get a reaction. These people put their lives on the line every day to "keep the peace" and probably know what they are doing. Arresting people randomly definitely doesn't make their jobs any easier (the physical task of arresting somebody, transporting them to a holding area such as a police van or station, paperwork, etc.)
You may be familiar with the term "worst case scenario". If you want to see this concept in action, try making a bomb joke to an airport security officer. (the people around you will think it's hilarious, by the way... you'll make many friends with the other passengers, and they'll probably remember you for the rest of their lives) I think it is perfectly acceptable for law enforcement personnel to act on their gut feelings of a possible worst case scenario, especially when a suspicious looking and beligerant person crosses their path. But as for yourself, feel free to act however you please towards cops. Just don't come whining to other more sensible people when you feel your civil liberties have been violated.
Yeah, I find it more than adequate for my purposes. If I stay in the realms of what I normally use the web for (news sites, simple research, etc.) then yeah, netscape almost never crashes on me. However there are serious bugs that can cause a program crash/freeze and they are very reproducible. Many of the crashes I suffered through came from javascript errors (which I now have disabled by default). I know once site I used to frequent would crash win32 netscape without fail (www.calgaryflames.com).
For a lot of the cutting edge sites, netscape just doesn't cut the mustard (even not so cutting edge). But for older-styled, simpler pages (i.e. stuff that would be found on academic sites), netscape does just fine.
Yes, it works. Try forwarding the port (8080). Or just try connecting on the localroute. It just doesn't work from outside your LAN. But yes, if your point is that you aren't vulnerable to remote connections, then you are correct.
Alright, well first off, let me say that my post sounded more inflammatory than I intended it to be. Thanks for being civil in your reply.
Yes, it could be due to the nature of the applications I run at work that I haven't had as bad a win2k experience as you. I primarily run VC++, various MS SQL Server and Oracle applications, in addition to the server, and the actual applications I develope for.
I don't know what to make of my memory "problems", since they don't seem to affect anything. I think it could just be a case of me checking at strange times of the day or something. There is just a period in time where my reported memory usage becomes 30 mb higher than it was previously, and nothing I do decreases it. Oh well, I accept it begrudgingly as windows lameness.
As for blue screens of death (in win2k), I have never seen one, nor do I know anybody who has admitted to seeing one, although I can definately imagine it happening, if ever, with printing since I've noticed very flakey operation for print operations (jobs disappearing, etc).
I didn't call you a liar, however since I don't know you, I merely wanted to raise the point that you may not be telling the truth since there is so much anti-ms fud going around. There are many "anecdotal" tales of win2k crashing and pooping all the time, but very little hard evidence. And also, I didn't mean to imply that you were blindly bashing anything, but just reading some other comments from this article, I had that on my mind. If you really are crashing that often, it might be a good idea to check your video drivers. I've had problems with video/scsi drivers a bit. When I tried win2k beta, I updated to some bad tnt2 drivers and it caused no end of trouble including serious freezes.
You claim to have used win2k pro, yet you say it crashes once a week, or once every two weeks. How can this be the case? Either you have bad drivers (which are a problem under any OS), you are not telling the truth, or you are mistaken (or your hardware sux). I have never had an instance where I can't fire up task manager, kill an offending process, and return to normal operation. I have run win2k pro at work exclusively for over almost 4 months and it has never ever crashed once. Explorer has, on rare occasion, had little quirks, but it has righted itself, somehow. Also, I find it odd that as my uptime increases, so too does my memory usuage (it is usually fine up to about 2 weeks uptime).
Windows 2000 is a decent product. I still prefer FreeBSD on my own time, but it is a very reasonable platform to work on. I hate this attitude of bashing it blindly. For the record, I had a linux OS crash on me 3 times in my life (with stable 2.2 kernels), win2k never.
From the NYTimes article:(regarding piracy) "We don't have to prove it," said Leon Gold, a lawyer with the New York firm Proskauer Rose L.L.P., who is the studios' lead lawyer. "The point is, we're trying to prevent it."
This attitude is truly scary. They admit that they can't prove that DeCSS has done anything to aid or increase the rate of piracy of DVD discs but say that they don't need to, since they are trying to prevent piracy. The ends justify the means, right? Wow, this is truly an incredible point of view. I hope these guys aren't actually lawyers, since I thought it took brains to be one. My entire worldview has been shattered!!
But seriously, maybe we should ban guns because they might be used for killing (hey, I'm Canadian so I don't like guns anyways), and maybe we should ban cars since people can kill themselves with them by crashing into light posts and such. Why not ban kitchen knives since I'm sure people have died as a result of a kitchen knife-inflicted wound. When I was growing up, I remember my mom telling me that it only took as much water as can fill a teacup to drown in, so why don't we ban teacups too! And didn't I see a movie where somebody was killed with a wood chipper?
As off topic as that above rant might seem, I think it has a very valid application to the whole DeCSS thing. The enemy (MPAA, etc) wants to prevent piracy of their medium which is, as far as I'm concerned, fair enough. But, I like to think of DeCSS as a woodchipper. Sure, it can kill somebody, but it's built for a legitimate purpose, which is to be able to play your legally owned DVD wherever you damn well like.
And this whole preventing piracy before it starts argument is similar to shooting down somebody who is walking up the sidewalk to your house because they might be trying to break in. (remember that whole thread about census workers? or was that on kuro5hin, I dunno). I only have one other thing to say, a poorly done quote of Thomas Hobbes (or has it Thomas Jefferson, I dunno, anyway): A man that sacrifices liberty for security loses both and deserves neither.
That is a great post; a truly unique and insightful viewpoint (oh if only I had my mod points now). This should go into a top50 posts archive or something.
I hate to think of myself as a Bingo lady, though, and I'll just sort of add in why I wasted so many hours on MUD's. I don't really know why I first started playing a MUD, but I first started playing and I remember being so weak. Even a small fish or bird could slaughter me. Then I saw some huge high level character come through and slaughter everything in sight with a well placed spell. I had this sort of respect for this character and thought "boy, wouldn't that be cool if I could do that". And so that caused me to keep at it a bit longer... and then you just get into this cycle where you always need a more powerful character, better, more rare, and tweaked equipment. And then another character perhaps. And it goes on and on. There is definately a time when it stops being "fun" and starts becoming just a habit.
I play quake now for a different reason than I did in the past, which was to kick as much ass as possible. Now I just try to have as accurate a shot as possible. I often run around in huge ctf games with nothing but a railgun. I don't kill much since one hit only kills about 50% of the people I hit, but it is damn fun. I enjoy it a lot more than I used to, when I would play for frags. Many would argue that I'm not as good a player now as I was in the past since I am not as destructive and devastating, heh, but I don't really care... for me, it's all about fun now.
I don't know why I'm going on like this... I guess all I'm trying to say is that it is very easy to get caught up in a bad cycle with a lot of games. They are a great time waster(not a bad thing here), and if used properly, a great way to have fun. But used the wrong way, they also waste a lot of time (a bad thing) and don't give you much pleasure. If you want to be good at something, why not try learning a musical instrument, or become competitive in some sport. It's a lot better for you, and definately a better way to expend your competitive energy.
The MP3 format doesn't suck. It is just that your expectations are too high. MP3's have been around for years and when I first heard of them, I was into the.mod scene. At that time, I was truly amazed at the quality of mp3 sound with a compression ratio of 7-10 times that of uncompressed raw audio. But now, years later, people's expectations have risen very high. This is probably due in part to the fact that many people say things like "mp3's have CD Quality sound" and newbies expect as much. The mp3 format is flexible enough that you can increase the bitrate (and consequently the file size) and you'll get better sound quality. But "standard" 128kbps does sound rather lousey a lot of the time. 160kbps is ok for a lot of stuff.
mp3's really are a good bang for your buck (or byte, I should say). There are other higher quality formats out there that are more computation intensive, but have a higher quality than an mp3 at the same bitrate (I'm thinking mainly of VQF here). Just try encoding raw audio into vqf vs. mp3 and see what time time difference is (it's pretty huge).
This is a lot worse than the etoy vs. etoys issue. It is so wrong for so many reasons:
a) "This is my domain name. There are many others like it but this one is mine." Assigning "Corinthians.com" to a soccer team over a site with religious content is just fucking stupid. By a show of hands, how many people think of a Brazilian Soccer team when I say "Corinthians" and how many people think about the Bible. It doesn't take a Catholic to realize that the Bible has been around for quite a while and it has been in the "public domain" so to speak for a good number of centuries.
b) For some reason, Brazilians get priority on a domain name with a TLD designation that has, historically, been based in the USA. There are lots of TLD's out there, I don't see any reason why the Brazilian Corinthiano's or whatever the hell they call themselves have priority on.com as opposed to.net/.org/.edu/.mil/.br/.gov/.co.uk/.sg/.cx/.no/.i nt (hello WIPO). I fail to see any distinction there.
c) if they're upset about the ugly background colour at corinthians.com, I'm sure he could be convinced to change it:) (not that he should be forced to or anything).
yeah, I probably sound like an idiot after spouting off all that. Oh well. If you would like to share some insight, I have a thick skin, so feel free to debunk and tear down everything I said
I saw what I thought was another interesting approach to foiling the "mercenary bot". Some user, I can't remember his napster username, had inserted "METALLICA SUCKS" and "SCREW METALLICA" into most of his mp3 filenames, even though a lot of the songs weren't even metallica songs. I couldn't help but chuckle at the time.
If this was expanded to an even greater scale, and included... say, inserting Metallica song titles into other filenames, it would be very hard indeed to get the same sort of list that Metallica had compiled previously. Of course, would somebody try to make the argument that this is obstruction of "justice" or something?
Some processors turn out better than others, and those are sold as higher speeds. To make a different configuration for each incremental step of a chip would be insanely expensive.
This might be the case to a degree, however, I doubt it is the case that there are no changes in configuration from processor to processor (say a k7-600 to a k7-[78]00 or something). Sure the entire design isn't reworked, but the minor optimizations are what makes the difference at those high speeds...
Besides, in CMOS, aside from the difficulty in achieving quality silicon wafers, the actual production of the chips would be relatively constant, and would not lend itself to the amount of variation that you seem to suggest. But of course, as always, I could be wrong.
Did you read the article? Why would you upgrade a console? He said he expected the Xbox to have a 4-5 year run in the market, and that once released, nothing about the Xbox will change...ever.(that's basically a paraphrase of the article, btw).
I am with you in that I like an upgrade path for stuff I buy, but when have console systems ever been upgradable? And about the API, yeah, the fact that he said that they were using the dx8 api with some extra functionality, that sort of caught my radar, but anyways.
I agree, 45 TB seems like a very small amount of data, given the size and scope of the WWW. Even if you just take into account porn sites (of which I have no personal experience with:), the amount of websites is truely staggering, and many claim to have gigabytes and gigabytes of porno (I definately don't find this hard to believe). So for total data, 45 TB seems very small indeed.
Perhaps it is some metric of original content or something, I have no idea. You can also count sites like IBM who sell downloadable software of their website... would this count too? Or those my.mp3.com or whatever websites. Or internet radio (accessible from the web, right?).
When you start looking at it this way, though, it seems to me that it becomes harder and harder to define what "the web" in fact is, since what we classically think of as the WWW is more and more integrated with other protocols all the time.
But, I'm probably way off base anyways, so I'll just go sit in a corner.
Sorry for my ignorance, but doesn't full POSIX support sort of imply that the OS must be multiuser capable? As an example, the IEEE 1003 standards specify several identifiers specifically relating to user/group information management. Is this just sort of fudged in Be or what? Stuff like chown, for example. I realize that in the full scope of things, this might seem pretty trivial, but I'm still interested in how Be can be (if it indeed is) fully POSIX compliant in a single user situation.
And just to clarify, I'm not debating the fact that Be is/is not/will be/will not be a multi user OS.
What does NAT have to do with ipchains other than offer some overlapping functionality. The correct way to post a flame to the previous comment, I believe, would be something along the lines of "Out in the real world, we call that firewalling" since NAT has very little to do with firewalling and everything to do with "Network Address Translation".
back in the (fairly)old IRC days, there was a fairly well known exploit that could be used to send data to poor Mirc users printers. Some common ones were e-mail from God/the Devil, the "I hacked you" message, and so on. Funny stuff:)
Slashdot Mirror
not sure why this was modded as flamebait... I'll bite on this seemingly innocuous piece nonetheless.
(this description has a C bias) Copy by value and copy by reference are two ways that data can be transfered about in a program (i.e. passed as a parameter to a function). If the copy by value method is used, the destination function, call it bar(), will get it's own copy of the data that it can modify (the data will be physically copied to another location in memory that bar() can use). Any changes that bar() makes on the data won't affect what the data was before the function call was made.
The copy by value method is useful in certain situations and might be seen to be desirable since the original data won't get affected, however it has the additional overhead of utilizing more memory and taking longer to "set up" since all of the original data must be copied.
Copy by reference means you pass a reference to the original data to the function foo(). foo() now has access to all the original data. Any modifications that foo() makes will be reflected outside foo() as well. This has the advantage of speed since the original data doesn't need to be copied, as well as the fact that less memory is used up on the stack.
When programming in C++, for example, except for primitive data types, you will almost always want to pass objects by reference.
"Looking suspicious" and "mouthing off" are not illegal last time I checked.
Hmm, now I wonder, when was the last time you checked. Since you used that phrase... you've got me wondering whether you ever did check in the past whether looking suspicious and mouthing off were illegal. I wonder where I could read about that...
But seriously, the phrase "looking suspicious" has meaning in the english language. And for most people, it's pretty easy to understand. If you go around "looking suspicious", you may attract the attention of law enforcement officers. *boggle* And when you start mouthing off to these officers and act like a complete asshole, I can see how it would be a big surprise when you get a reaction. These people put their lives on the line every day to "keep the peace" and probably know what they are doing. Arresting people randomly definitely doesn't make their jobs any easier (the physical task of arresting somebody, transporting them to a holding area such as a police van or station, paperwork, etc.)
You may be familiar with the term "worst case scenario". If you want to see this concept in action, try making a bomb joke to an airport security officer. (the people around you will think it's hilarious, by the way... you'll make many friends with the other passengers, and they'll probably remember you for the rest of their lives) I think it is perfectly acceptable for law enforcement personnel to act on their gut feelings of a possible worst case scenario, especially when a suspicious looking and beligerant person crosses their path. But as for yourself, feel free to act however you please towards cops. Just don't come whining to other more sensible people when you feel your civil liberties have been violated.
-Ryan
Yeah, I find it more than adequate for my purposes. If I stay in the realms of what I normally use the web for (news sites, simple research, etc.) then yeah, netscape almost never crashes on me. However there are serious bugs that can cause a program crash/freeze and they are very reproducible. Many of the crashes I suffered through came from javascript errors (which I now have disabled by default). I know once site I used to frequent would crash win32 netscape without fail (www.calgaryflames.com).
For a lot of the cutting edge sites, netscape just doesn't cut the mustard (even not so cutting edge). But for older-styled, simpler pages (i.e. stuff that would be found on academic sites), netscape does just fine.
Yes, it works. Try forwarding the port (8080). Or just try connecting on the localroute. It just doesn't work from outside your LAN. But yes, if your point is that you aren't vulnerable to remote connections, then you are correct.
no, but for all the money you could be saving, why not hire some kids to do it. Course it would take a bit more time, perhaps...
Oh, and by the way, I am definately not pro-microsoft by any means. I still hate them for, amoung other things, unleashing MFC upon the world.
Alright, well first off, let me say that my post sounded more inflammatory than I intended it to be. Thanks for being civil in your reply.
Yes, it could be due to the nature of the applications I run at work that I haven't had as bad a win2k experience as you. I primarily run VC++, various MS SQL Server and Oracle applications, in addition to the server, and the actual applications I develope for.
I don't know what to make of my memory "problems", since they don't seem to affect anything. I think it could just be a case of me checking at strange times of the day or something. There is just a period in time where my reported memory usage becomes 30 mb higher than it was previously, and nothing I do decreases it. Oh well, I accept it begrudgingly as windows lameness.
As for blue screens of death (in win2k), I have never seen one, nor do I know anybody who has admitted to seeing one, although I can definately imagine it happening, if ever, with printing since I've noticed very flakey operation for print operations (jobs disappearing, etc).
I didn't call you a liar, however since I don't know you, I merely wanted to raise the point that you may not be telling the truth since there is so much anti-ms fud going around. There are many "anecdotal" tales of win2k crashing and pooping all the time, but very little hard evidence. And also, I didn't mean to imply that you were blindly bashing anything, but just reading some other comments from this article, I had that on my mind. If you really are crashing that often, it might be a good idea to check your video drivers. I've had problems with video/scsi drivers a bit. When I tried win2k beta, I updated to some bad tnt2 drivers and it caused no end of trouble including serious freezes.
-Ryan
You claim to have used win2k pro, yet you say it crashes once a week, or once every two weeks. How can this be the case? Either you have bad drivers (which are a problem under any OS), you are not telling the truth, or you are mistaken (or your hardware sux). I have never had an instance where I can't fire up task manager, kill an offending process, and return to normal operation. I have run win2k pro at work exclusively for over almost 4 months and it has never ever crashed once. Explorer has, on rare occasion, had little quirks, but it has righted itself, somehow. Also, I find it odd that as my uptime increases, so too does my memory usuage (it is usually fine up to about 2 weeks uptime).
Windows 2000 is a decent product. I still prefer FreeBSD on my own time, but it is a very reasonable platform to work on. I hate this attitude of bashing it blindly. For the record, I had a linux OS crash on me 3 times in my life (with stable 2.2 kernels), win2k never.
From the NYTimes article:(regarding piracy)
"We don't have to prove it," said Leon Gold, a lawyer with the New York firm Proskauer Rose L.L.P., who is the studios' lead lawyer. "The point is, we're trying to prevent it."
This attitude is truly scary. They admit that they can't prove that DeCSS has done anything to aid or increase the rate of piracy of DVD discs but say that they don't need to, since they are trying to prevent piracy. The ends justify the means, right? Wow, this is truly an incredible point of view. I hope these guys aren't actually lawyers, since I thought it took brains to be one. My entire worldview has been shattered!!
But seriously, maybe we should ban guns because they might be used for killing (hey, I'm Canadian so I don't like guns anyways), and maybe we should ban cars since people can kill themselves with them by crashing into light posts and such. Why not ban kitchen knives since I'm sure people have died as a result of a kitchen knife-inflicted wound. When I was growing up, I remember my mom telling me that it only took as much water as can fill a teacup to drown in, so why don't we ban teacups too! And didn't I see a movie where somebody was killed with a wood chipper?
As off topic as that above rant might seem, I think it has a very valid application to the whole DeCSS thing. The enemy (MPAA, etc) wants to prevent piracy of their medium which is, as far as I'm concerned, fair enough. But, I like to think of DeCSS as a woodchipper. Sure, it can kill somebody, but it's built for a legitimate purpose, which is to be able to play your legally owned DVD wherever you damn well like.
And this whole preventing piracy before it starts argument is similar to shooting down somebody who is walking up the sidewalk to your house because they might be trying to break in. (remember that whole thread about census workers? or was that on kuro5hin, I dunno). I only have one other thing to say, a poorly done quote of Thomas Hobbes (or has it Thomas Jefferson, I dunno, anyway): A man that sacrifices liberty for security loses both and deserves neither.
That is a great post; a truly unique and insightful viewpoint (oh if only I had my mod points now). This should go into a top50 posts archive or something.
I hate to think of myself as a Bingo lady, though, and I'll just sort of add in why I wasted so many hours on MUD's. I don't really know why I first started playing a MUD, but I first started playing and I remember being so weak. Even a small fish or bird could slaughter me. Then I saw some huge high level character come through and slaughter everything in sight with a well placed spell. I had this sort of respect for this character and thought "boy, wouldn't that be cool if I could do that". And so that caused me to keep at it a bit longer... and then you just get into this cycle where you always need a more powerful character, better, more rare, and tweaked equipment. And then another character perhaps. And it goes on and on. There is definately a time when it stops being "fun" and starts becoming just a habit.
I play quake now for a different reason than I did in the past, which was to kick as much ass as possible. Now I just try to have as accurate a shot as possible. I often run around in huge ctf games with nothing but a railgun. I don't kill much since one hit only kills about 50% of the people I hit, but it is damn fun. I enjoy it a lot more than I used to, when I would play for frags. Many would argue that I'm not as good a player now as I was in the past since I am not as destructive and devastating, heh, but I don't really care... for me, it's all about fun now.
I don't know why I'm going on like this... I guess all I'm trying to say is that it is very easy to get caught up in a bad cycle with a lot of games. They are a great time waster(not a bad thing here), and if used properly, a great way to have fun. But used the wrong way, they also waste a lot of time (a bad thing) and don't give you much pleasure. If you want to be good at something, why not try learning a musical instrument, or become competitive in some sport. It's a lot better for you, and definately a better way to expend your competitive energy.
The MP3 format doesn't suck. It is just that your expectations are too high. MP3's have been around for years and when I first heard of them, I was into the .mod scene. At that time, I was truly amazed at the quality of mp3 sound with a compression ratio of 7-10 times that of uncompressed raw audio. But now, years later, people's expectations have risen very high. This is probably due in part to the fact that many people say things like "mp3's have CD Quality sound" and newbies expect as much. The mp3 format is flexible enough that you can increase the bitrate (and consequently the file size) and you'll get better sound quality. But "standard" 128kbps does sound rather lousey a lot of the time. 160kbps is ok for a lot of stuff.
mp3's really are a good bang for your buck (or byte, I should say). There are other higher quality formats out there that are more computation intensive, but have a higher quality than an mp3 at the same bitrate (I'm thinking mainly of VQF here). Just try encoding raw audio into vqf vs. mp3 and see what time time difference is (it's pretty huge).
This is a lot worse than the etoy vs. etoys issue. It is so wrong for so many reasons:
.com as opposed to .net/.org/.edu/.mil/.br/.gov/.co.uk/.sg/.cx/.no/.i nt (hello WIPO). I fail to see any distinction there.
:) (not that he should be forced to or anything).
a) "This is my domain name. There are many others like it but this one is mine." Assigning "Corinthians.com" to a soccer team over a site with religious content is just fucking stupid. By a show of hands, how many people think of a Brazilian Soccer team when I say "Corinthians" and how many people think about the Bible. It doesn't take a Catholic to realize that the Bible has been around for quite a while and it has been in the "public domain" so to speak for a good number of centuries.
b) For some reason, Brazilians get priority on a domain name with a TLD designation that has, historically, been based in the USA. There are lots of TLD's out there, I don't see any reason why the Brazilian Corinthiano's or whatever the hell they call themselves have priority on
c) if they're upset about the ugly background colour at corinthians.com, I'm sure he could be convinced to change it
yeah, I probably sound like an idiot after spouting off all that. Oh well. If you would like to share some insight, I have a thick skin, so feel free to debunk and tear down everything I said
and your sig isn't from Platoon, it's from Full Metal Jacket.
I saw what I thought was another interesting approach to foiling the "mercenary bot". Some user, I can't remember his napster username, had inserted "METALLICA SUCKS" and "SCREW METALLICA" into most of his mp3 filenames, even though a lot of the songs weren't even metallica songs. I couldn't help but chuckle at the time.
If this was expanded to an even greater scale, and included... say, inserting Metallica song titles into other filenames, it would be very hard indeed to get the same sort of list that Metallica had compiled previously. Of course, would somebody try to make the argument that this is obstruction of "justice" or something?
Some processors turn out better than others, and those are sold as higher speeds. To make a different configuration for each incremental step of a chip would be insanely expensive.
This might be the case to a degree, however, I doubt it is the case that there are no changes in configuration from processor to processor (say a k7-600 to a k7-[78]00 or something). Sure the entire design isn't reworked, but the minor optimizations are what makes the difference at those high speeds...
Besides, in CMOS, aside from the difficulty in achieving quality silicon wafers, the actual production of the chips would be relatively constant, and would not lend itself to the amount of variation that you seem to suggest. But of course, as always, I could be wrong.
-Ryan
If you are interested, why not try reading a traceroute man page somewhere.
-Ryan
Did you read the article? Why would you upgrade a console? He said he expected the Xbox to have a 4-5 year run in the market, and that once released, nothing about the Xbox will change...ever.(that's basically a paraphrase of the article, btw).
I am with you in that I like an upgrade path for stuff I buy, but when have console systems ever been upgradable? And about the API, yeah, the fact that he said that they were using the dx8 api with some extra functionality, that sort of caught my radar, but anyways.
Here here, but I beg to differ... Coors is way worse than Bud!
I agree, 45 TB seems like a very small amount of data, given the size and scope of the WWW. Even if you just take into account porn sites (of which I have no personal experience with :), the amount of websites is truely staggering, and many claim to have gigabytes and gigabytes of porno (I definately don't find this hard to believe). So for total data, 45 TB seems very small indeed.
Perhaps it is some metric of original content or something, I have no idea. You can also count sites like IBM who sell downloadable software of their website... would this count too? Or those my.mp3.com or whatever websites. Or internet radio (accessible from the web, right?).
When you start looking at it this way, though, it seems to me that it becomes harder and harder to define what "the web" in fact is, since what we classically think of as the WWW is more and more integrated with other protocols all the time.
But, I'm probably way off base anyways, so I'll just go sit in a corner.
-Ryan
HAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
That lawn thing is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. You just made my day!
-Ryan
roflmao at work
Sorry for my ignorance, but doesn't full POSIX support sort of imply that the OS must be multiuser capable? As an example, the IEEE 1003 standards specify several identifiers specifically relating to user/group information management. Is this just sort of fudged in Be or what? Stuff like chown, for example. I realize that in the full scope of things, this might seem pretty trivial, but I'm still interested in how Be can be (if it indeed is) fully POSIX compliant in a single user situation.
And just to clarify, I'm not debating the fact that Be is/is not/will be/will not be a multi user OS.
What does NAT have to do with ipchains other than offer some overlapping functionality. The correct way to post a flame to the previous comment, I believe, would be something along the lines of "Out in the real world, we call that firewalling" since NAT has very little to do with firewalling and everything to do with "Network Address Translation".
-Ryan
It's a big conspiracy! And I seriously doubt that statistic.
-Ryan
sorry to be lame, but what's so great about his sig? I honestly can't figure it out, heh :)
-Ryan
back in the (fairly)old IRC days, there was a fairly well known exploit that could be used to send data to poor Mirc users printers. Some common ones were e-mail from God/the Devil, the "I hacked you" message, and so on. Funny stuff :)