yes but it's evolution that has provided us with the ability to do so. Therefore everything WE produce is a product of evolution. Evolution has in essence created us as a mere extention of itself.
nope, doping the diamonds won't work. It's not the presence of impure minerals in the diamond or lack thereof that make them distinguishable. Your local jewler will NEVER be able to tell the difference looking at this throuh any sort of magnification from a natural flawless diamond.
It's the actual structure of the diamond on a molecular level that is too perfect. DeBeers themselves with their absolute mod sophisticated equiptment SUSPECT they will be able to identify them... but there is nothing in existing grading labs that can, and your local jeweler certainly cannot.
But this mute and actually supports what your saying. The diamond market has been artificially kept afloat to this point. Contrary to popular belief diamonds are NOT rare, and I mean the natural ones. DeBeers simply controls the market by making sure all diamonds funnel through them and releasing them very slowly.
In short this is an industry that exists in it's present form with inflated prices only because of a fraud. It's about damn time someone shut them down. Real jewelers have plenty of other items of jewelry they can sell, and there is nothing to stop them from selling diamonds, just not for thousands of dollars. Your corner jeweler won't go out of business because of this, but debeers will and it's about time they do.
There was a punk teenage country on the other side of the water that didn't feel it was right for outsiders to lord over everything THEY worked for in their own land. Some of them were arrested and even executed before they finally won their independence. Now what they fought for has become the most powerful nation in the world.
Just because they have guns and power doesn't make their authority legitimate.
it is, historically it's been shown that microsoft uses BSD code in windows. So remember kiddies, when you contribute to bsd instead of linux all your doing is coding for microsoft and apple for free instead of them paying you like they do their other developers.
In what world is BSD more mature than linux? BSD is great, and it does outperform in a couple of area's, but it's certainly nowhere near as flexible.
If as much effort, and money to pay for more effort were put into BSD, it'd be the choice surely, and of course if the license were changed to the gpl rather than bsd license... nobody wants to code for microsoft for free and then pay to beta test the code they wrote;)
But the fact of the matter is that these investments have been put into linux and not bsd. Alot of it has carried over to bsd true (since there are no shortage of projects that are ported to bsd as well) but the truth is that people are investing in those for their use on linux... bsd getting the fruits of their labor is a side effect.
BSD is great. But linux is more mature in terms of features (unlike windows, legitimate stable secure and powerful features), development, mindshare, licensing, and marketshare. BSD outperforms linux in some specific cases, but an equally trimmed and tuned linux outperforms bsd in as many if not more areas. Most of all though, bsd is suitable for the server... that's pretty much it, linux is already either top dog, or among them on virtually every level of computing, from embedded to top 10 most powerful supercomputers in the world... linux is clearly already viable on the desktop as well, and while microsoft share shrinks (ever so slowly) linux marketshare grows (about equal speed, imagine that).
BSD is a wonderful system with great potential, but in order to topple the evil beast that currently sits on the throne we need to first unite behind one good *nix system. When ANY OSS *nix system takes the throne in all these arena's then open standards will prevail. Unlike the current taker the linux world has no reason to try to crush competition, except with the same spirit that has always driven it and that only leads to a better system... in both parties.
Linux has been chosen as the open source champion, no one person chose it, that wouldn't fit with open source. But nonetheless it was chosen by the community... it's not time for us to fight amongst ourselves, BSD vs Linux fight of the century crap, it's time to stand united against the proprietary beasts that have loomed their heads. After all, if linux wins, BSD wins. The two are breathern. Linux gets alot of stable and flexible code from BSD, and BSD's primary source of applications is linux.
Personally I'd port it to linux (this should be number 1 on your agenda, regardless of the rest), open source it, and leave up a paypal link on the site. Also make it a bittorrent download link so it mostly scales with the traffic.
But that's just me, if you want to go with the sharewaare model, stop worrying so much about piracy.
Your best off just making a token effort at preventing piracy. Piracy is the same for you as it is for microsoft, as it is for programs like winzip and all other software which can be pirated. It's advertising.
As a small application your biggest problem is that nobody has ever heard of it (you may have cracked that a bit by getting slashdotted, but that's not going to help as much if you don't port it to linux!). Let's say 1000 people pirate your software, and only 10 buy it... the rest pirate it. And lets say each of those 1000 get a couple friends to use it. That's another 2000, and at the same ratio another 20 people purchasing it. And continue this scenerio on. What am I saying? I'm saying maybe 10 people out of a 1000 have enoug concience they'll cough up a 10 spot. I'm pulling those out of arse but that's about as much faith as I have in mankind.
There is another side effect however... the more people who are using the software, the more popular it is... the more it will be mentioned in websites and through word of mouth, those people who do pay aren't going to be giving out pirated versions like the first users. They spawn more paying users.
Look at winzip, winzip has this down to an artform, it's possible to put a key in winzip but the protection is smoke and mirrors... winzip starts counting up the days you've used it after it expires and displays a nag, nothing else. Winzip is probably the mostly widely used piece of shareware there is. It's also I'm sure, the app which has the most paid for copies in the shareware world (in terms of people who've coughed up some cash, not ratio of paid for to pirated which doesn't matter).
Port it to linux, make it so that only those who have paid can have the source (it'll be leaked but refer to shareware argument... winex has been leaked too, but most pay the $5 anyway). Then pray you can get slashdotted again because you should have done these things BEFORE getting mass advertising to OSS loving linux using freaks.
100 boxes (50 rooms x 2) or even 50 in 8hrs isn't too shabby for patching windows boxes. Remember they would have to patch them by hand, between running the fix in safe mode and running the patch itself takes about 20min per box... true they can start one and go to the next, but they still have to sit at each box long enough to copy those in place, start the removal, go to the next box and repeat, go back to the first and close out the removal and start the patch, go to the other and start the patch, go back to the first and reboot, go to the other and reboot.
One person could maybe get 4-6 (they are in different rooms after all) going at a time without them sitting idle for long before you get back to them.
Then you have to figure that at least 15% of those patches and removals will screw up on a windows system and that will they will take another 30min to clean up the files and registry and run the patch again.
Linux way... install the patch on an apt server, one for debian, and one for rpm, that should cover pretty well everybody who can't be trusted to handle it themselves. Add a line so that this server is checked, apt-get -y install nukebadchit move to next machine. Although with the slightest bit of brainpower you'd have added this server in with a script to check it automatically from the start and would only have to drop the patch in the repository.
Of course it will get worse. Those steps your referring to are nothing short of completly wiping the board of everything microsoft has ever written. ALL of their products need scratched (except maybe games) and started over, with an entirely new design that will piss their users off. All of the sudden crazy things like multiuser and creating an unprivlaged user will become standard. Local admin will have to be given a password by default! (OMG no more hacking xp machines simply by booting them into safe mode!!!).
The entire OS will have to be rewritten, outlook and OE will no longer have mail scripting in these new versions. And most importantly, it will mean admitting they are completely insecure and incompetant, that they don't know how to write a secure system and hiring a 3rd party to do it 100% for them.
The obvious moral of the story is that your university shouldn't have had idiots running the network. If running windows on a 900+ user network weren't bad enough (assuming ms admins means ms network) this should have been allowed to begin with, the dhcp server should have been iced before it ever existed.
It also shouldn't have taken them a week to determine that users weren't getting proper ip's and to plug a laptop into a network jack on that segment (the only place that SHOULD have had even a remote chance of contacting your friends dhcp server), viewing the dhcp info (duh since they aren't getting ip's as they should... or are getting the wrong ip's) and seeing the lease info wasn't correct.
Actually insurance companies often pay out more than they take in... they take your money and put it in very secure high compounded interest accounts with the federal reserve, it's the interest from those and other investments that puts them into the profit margin, not people paying in more than they pay out.
ok, if not banning windows from the network altogether. Then simply define secure as "not windows" the fine for an insecure system (defined as "windows, any version") is that all tutition, book, meal, etc fees are doubled.
Simply don't allow windows on the network. It's too great a security risk. If the network cannot remain stable with these systems on it, then ban the systems.
Even if someone sneaks in a laptop it won't matter, with this policy in place 99% of the systems won't be windows, and the rogue systems shouldn't be able to wreak too much havoc.
Exactly what do you have in mind that is more secure than a linux box?
The PCI bus is certainly not up to spec for handling anything that truely would justify ATM levels of traffic, but linux itself will rival anything cisco has on the market.
although the bus is certainly needed, that would be one hell of a waste of processor;)
On one hand, dual and quad processing should help to handle the numerous simultaneous requests, 1ghz worth of processing power would do the job without a hiccup. Of course, NEW boards, with a NEW bus, are going to require NEW processors, whether they are needed or not.
Re:For what it's worth...
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
although if your using a "batch" file, and calling it that I'd assume your using windows. If that's the case, a one liner like:
ping www.sco.com -t
is better since it will continue forever and saves the trouble of typing it over and over again.
if your using linux then just:
ping www.sco.com will do the trick, since it pings until you stop it by default.
your right though, I can see how everyone doing this is critical so we can be sure to know the very moment sco's servers respond.
Re:For what it's worth...
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
hmm good point
Re:SCO's business plan
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
SCO and microsoft both have made public statements that microsoft purchased a license "to avoid any possible infringments".
Last I checked regardless of claims of compliance, ftp.sco.com is not accessible and hasn't been for a fair amount of time... I have no reason to believe it ever will be again.
Yes they have, they distributed this code under the terms of the gpl... not to mention several press releases and other statements while they were still complying. It would be pretty hard for them to claim at this juncture that they never entered into the contract... if they did, even though a decision in small claims court sets no precedent, the transcript of their testimony could then be used to persue them in a copyright infringment case...
If SCO did nothing they wouldn't have entered into the contract, but they did so something, they distributed the code under the terms of the contract you claim they "didn't" enter into.
Re:Suing SCO in small claims court?
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
yes but the gpl is a license, by accepting it's terms they've entered into a contract under which they were allowed to distribute your code (something they wouldn't be allowed to do under copyright law).
The contract is the license, the copyright is the reason they need it. Breaking the license and continuing to distribute is like not having one and therefore copyright violation. But breaking the license in itself is a breach of contract which THEY DO have with the copyright holders. There are plenty of ways to enter into a contract, a signiture is just one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
yes but it's evolution that has provided us with the ability to do so. Therefore everything WE produce is a product of evolution. Evolution has in essence created us as a mere extention of itself.
nope, doping the diamonds won't work. It's not the presence of impure minerals in the diamond or lack thereof that make them distinguishable. Your local jewler will NEVER be able to tell the difference looking at this throuh any sort of magnification from a natural flawless diamond.
It's the actual structure of the diamond on a molecular level that is too perfect. DeBeers themselves with their absolute mod sophisticated equiptment SUSPECT they will be able to identify them... but there is nothing in existing grading labs that can, and your local jeweler certainly cannot.
But this mute and actually supports what your saying. The diamond market has been artificially kept afloat to this point. Contrary to popular belief diamonds are NOT rare, and I mean the natural ones. DeBeers simply controls the market by making sure all diamonds funnel through them and releasing them very slowly.
In short this is an industry that exists in it's present form with inflated prices only because of a fraud. It's about damn time someone shut them down. Real jewelers have plenty of other items of jewelry they can sell, and there is nothing to stop them from selling diamonds, just not for thousands of dollars. Your corner jeweler won't go out of business because of this, but debeers will and it's about time they do.
There was a punk teenage country on the other side of the water that didn't feel it was right for outsiders to lord over everything THEY worked for in their own land. Some of them were arrested and even executed before they finally won their independence. Now what they fought for has become the most powerful nation in the world.
Just because they have guns and power doesn't make their authority legitimate.
although the guy your making fun of was wrong, and invariably and asshole. He wasn't saying he was noob on slashdot, he was saying he's a *nix noob.
Your argument is like claiming someone with a higher icq UIN has no business calling a low UIN a volleyball noob.
it is, historically it's been shown that microsoft uses BSD code in windows. So remember kiddies, when you contribute to bsd instead of linux all your doing is coding for microsoft and apple for free instead of them paying you like they do their other developers.
"and is in general more mature"
;)
In what world is BSD more mature than linux? BSD is great, and it does outperform in a couple of area's, but it's certainly nowhere near as flexible.
If as much effort, and money to pay for more effort were put into BSD, it'd be the choice surely, and of course if the license were changed to the gpl rather than bsd license... nobody wants to code for microsoft for free and then pay to beta test the code they wrote
But the fact of the matter is that these investments have been put into linux and not bsd. Alot of it has carried over to bsd true (since there are no shortage of projects that are ported to bsd as well) but the truth is that people are investing in those for their use on linux... bsd getting the fruits of their labor is a side effect.
BSD is great. But linux is more mature in terms of features (unlike windows, legitimate stable secure and powerful features), development, mindshare, licensing, and marketshare. BSD outperforms linux in some specific cases, but an equally trimmed and tuned linux outperforms bsd in as many if not more areas. Most of all though, bsd is suitable for the server... that's pretty much it, linux is already either top dog, or among them on virtually every level of computing, from embedded to top 10 most powerful supercomputers in the world... linux is clearly already viable on the desktop as well, and while microsoft share shrinks (ever so slowly) linux marketshare grows (about equal speed, imagine that).
BSD is a wonderful system with great potential, but in order to topple the evil beast that currently sits on the throne we need to first unite behind one good *nix system. When ANY OSS *nix system takes the throne in all these arena's then open standards will prevail. Unlike the current taker the linux world has no reason to try to crush competition, except with the same spirit that has always driven it and that only leads to a better system... in both parties.
Linux has been chosen as the open source champion, no one person chose it, that wouldn't fit with open source. But nonetheless it was chosen by the community... it's not time for us to fight amongst ourselves, BSD vs Linux fight of the century crap, it's time to stand united against the proprietary beasts that have loomed their heads. After all, if linux wins, BSD wins. The two are breathern. Linux gets alot of stable and flexible code from BSD, and BSD's primary source of applications is linux.
Personally I'd port it to linux (this should be number 1 on your agenda, regardless of the rest), open source it, and leave up a paypal link on the site. Also make it a bittorrent download link so it mostly scales with the traffic.
But that's just me, if you want to go with the sharewaare model, stop worrying so much about piracy.
Your best off just making a token effort at preventing piracy. Piracy is the same for you as it is for microsoft, as it is for programs like winzip and all other software which can be pirated. It's advertising.
As a small application your biggest problem is that nobody has ever heard of it (you may have cracked that a bit by getting slashdotted, but that's not going to help as much if you don't port it to linux!). Let's say 1000 people pirate your software, and only 10 buy it... the rest pirate it. And lets say each of those 1000 get a couple friends to use it. That's another 2000, and at the same ratio another 20 people purchasing it. And continue this scenerio on. What am I saying? I'm saying maybe 10 people out of a 1000 have enoug concience they'll cough up a 10 spot. I'm pulling those out of arse but that's about as much faith as I have in mankind.
There is another side effect however... the more people who are using the software, the more popular it is... the more it will be mentioned in websites and through word of mouth, those people who do pay aren't going to be giving out pirated versions like the first users. They spawn more paying users.
Look at winzip, winzip has this down to an artform, it's possible to put a key in winzip but the protection is smoke and mirrors... winzip starts counting up the days you've used it after it expires and displays a nag, nothing else. Winzip is probably the mostly widely used piece of shareware there is. It's also I'm sure, the app which has the most paid for copies in the shareware world (in terms of people who've coughed up some cash, not ratio of paid for to pirated which doesn't matter).
Port it to linux, make it so that only those who have paid can have the source (it'll be leaked but refer to shareware argument... winex has been leaked too, but most pay the $5 anyway). Then pray you can get slashdotted again because you should have done these things BEFORE getting mass advertising to OSS loving linux using freaks.
Actually piracy is far worse than just plain theft. But copyright infringment is a paper pushers crime, generally nowhere near as harmful as either.
for future reference... I don't know where the hell you are getting the "i" from but it's not part the abbreviation,
;)
;)
it's either
Mb - MegaBit ( 125,000 bytes or 1,000,000 bits)
MB - MegaByte (1,048,576 bytes or 8,388,608 bits)
Big difference between them, and if you don't use the right abbreviation (for either?) it's difficult to discern wth your talking about
650MB would be 681574400 bytes
650Mb would be 81250000 bytes
MiB would be men in black, that's a movie, not a transfer rate
Or just spend the 1k to get a more powerful laptop running linux to begin with.
100 boxes (50 rooms x 2) or even 50 in 8hrs isn't too shabby for patching windows boxes. Remember they would have to patch them by hand, between running the fix in safe mode and running the patch itself takes about 20min per box... true they can start one and go to the next, but they still have to sit at each box long enough to copy those in place, start the removal, go to the next box and repeat, go back to the first and close out the removal and start the patch, go to the other and start the patch, go back to the first and reboot, go to the other and reboot.
One person could maybe get 4-6 (they are in different rooms after all) going at a time without them sitting idle for long before you get back to them.
Then you have to figure that at least 15% of those patches and removals will screw up on a windows system and that will they will take another 30min to clean up the files and registry and run the patch again.
Linux way... install the patch on an apt server, one for debian, and one for rpm, that should cover pretty well everybody who can't be trusted to handle it themselves. Add a line so that this server is checked, apt-get -y install nukebadchit
move to next machine. Although with the slightest bit of brainpower you'd have added this server in with a script to check it automatically from the start and would only have to drop the patch in the repository.
Of course it will get worse. Those steps your referring to are nothing short of completly wiping the board of everything microsoft has ever written. ALL of their products need scratched (except maybe games) and started over, with an entirely new design that will piss their users off. All of the sudden crazy things like multiuser and creating an unprivlaged user will become standard. Local admin will have to be given a password by default! (OMG no more hacking xp machines simply by booting them into safe mode!!!).
The entire OS will have to be rewritten, outlook and OE will no longer have mail scripting in these new versions. And most importantly, it will mean admitting they are completely insecure and incompetant, that they don't know how to write a secure system and hiring a 3rd party to do it 100% for them.
The obvious moral of the story is that your university shouldn't have had idiots running the network. If running windows on a 900+ user network weren't bad enough (assuming ms admins means ms network) this should have been allowed to begin with, the dhcp server should have been iced before it ever existed.
It also shouldn't have taken them a week to determine that users weren't getting proper ip's and to plug a laptop into a network jack on that segment (the only place that SHOULD have had even a remote chance of contacting your friends dhcp server), viewing the dhcp info (duh since they aren't getting ip's as they should... or are getting the wrong ip's) and seeing the lease info wasn't correct.
Actually insurance companies often pay out more than they take in... they take your money and put it in very secure high compounded interest accounts with the federal reserve, it's the interest from those and other investments that puts them into the profit margin, not people paying in more than they pay out.
ok, if not banning windows from the network altogether. Then simply define secure as "not windows" the fine for an insecure system (defined as "windows, any version") is that all tutition, book, meal, etc fees are doubled.
churning out like-minded robots is EXACTLY what schools have been designed to do for ages now.
Simply don't allow windows on the network. It's too great a security risk. If the network cannot remain stable with these systems on it, then ban the systems.
Even if someone sneaks in a laptop it won't matter, with this policy in place 99% of the systems won't be windows, and the rogue systems shouldn't be able to wreak too much havoc.
Exactly what do you have in mind that is more secure than a linux box?
The PCI bus is certainly not up to spec for handling anything that truely would justify ATM levels of traffic, but linux itself will rival anything cisco has on the market.
although the bus is certainly needed, that would be one hell of a waste of processor ;)
On one hand, dual and quad processing should help to handle the numerous simultaneous requests, 1ghz worth of processing power would do the job without a hiccup. Of course, NEW boards, with a NEW bus, are going to require NEW processors, whether they are needed or not.
although if your using a "batch" file, and calling it that I'd assume your using windows. If that's the case, a one liner like:
ping www.sco.com -t
is better since it will continue forever and saves the trouble of typing it over and over again.
if your using linux then just:
ping www.sco.com will do the trick, since it pings until you stop it by default.
your right though, I can see how everyone doing this is critical so we can be sure to know the very moment sco's servers respond.
hmm good point
SCO and microsoft both have made public statements that microsoft purchased a license "to avoid any possible infringments".
Last I checked regardless of claims of compliance, ftp.sco.com is not accessible and hasn't been for a fair amount of time... I have no reason to believe it ever will be again.
Yes they have, they distributed this code under the terms of the gpl... not to mention several press releases and other statements while they were still complying. It would be pretty hard for them to claim at this juncture that they never entered into the contract... if they did, even though a decision in small claims court sets no precedent, the transcript of their testimony could then be used to persue them in a copyright infringment case...
If SCO did nothing they wouldn't have entered into the contract, but they did so something, they distributed the code under the terms of the contract you claim they "didn't" enter into.
yes but the gpl is a license, by accepting it's terms they've entered into a contract under which they were allowed to distribute your code (something they wouldn't be allowed to do under copyright law).
The contract is the license, the copyright is the reason they need it. Breaking the license and continuing to distribute is like not having one and therefore copyright violation. But breaking the license in itself is a breach of contract which THEY DO have with the copyright holders. There are plenty of ways to enter into a contract, a signiture is just one of them.