You have no contract? Or a very incomplete contract? I've never worked anywhere, except perhaps as an hourly dishwasher in high-school, without a contract. That's like accepting a job only knowing that your salary will be "pretty good".
The main thing that has changed over the years is that the software stack has grown deeper, and today there are many more people working at higher abstraction levels where a lot is handled for them.
But under the covers, little has changed. Someone must write and understand code all the way down to the hardware. You can bet that people writing kernels and drivers think a lot about space and speed. Or write some code for one of the low cost micro-controllers that are in virtually all electronic devices and you won't have the luxury of a large software stack.
There are very likely *more* people writing low level code today than 20 years ago. Only the percentage of programmers writing low level code is declining because there are many orders of magnitude more programmers writing higher level code.
TFA seems to get the distinction, but/.ers should note that at software companies like MS the D part of R&D is everyday product development which is always ongoing. So at MS R&D will always be a major part of overall expenses.
The article argues that MS isn't getting enough return from total R&D spending (which includes product development). People here just need to remember that R&D does not equate to just the R (research) part.
- BSD ensures freedom of the *producer* of the code to do what they want. - GPL ensures freedom of the *recipient* of the code to do what they want.
You are implying that licensing under the GPL somehow limits your options as the producer (aka copyright holder), which is not correct. If you are the copyright holder, you are free to re-license at any time. You may not be able to revoke a license that you granted others on an irrevocable basis, but you can certainly apply any number of separate licenses.
For a project that has multiple copyright holders the overall situation is more complex, but you still have the freedom to do what you want with the parts that you created.
However 1,777 seems a bit small for "popular software" if this represents every install since the bugged software was released. 1,777 unread messages currently in the Inbox. That is a lot of stolen accounts if the Inbox was emptied yesterday! In fact I would say that rather than implying innocence, this suggests the developer knew about the account and was actively removing, and presumably recording, the email. If a criminal case is made, it would be very interesting to get the Google's logs for that account.
I'll believe that when it ships and when it lasts for more one or two releases. At one point IE was going to be fully implemented on Linux (also with "help" from Microsoft).
I love how the silverlight download wants me to run silverlight.exe to install it... on my Linux box. Probably not going to work. How about some better user-agent checking with a message like: "For your own good, please go away. We are only planning to provide half-baked implementations and lip-service to non-Microsoft platforms".
Actually it appears that L3 has done more than just drop direct peering with Cogent. L3 seems to be filtering all traffic sourced from Cogent controlled IP blocks. So unless Cognet sets up a NAT arrangement with other peers, there is no way around this problem. L3 is actively blocking Cogent traffic.
If your company or ISP uses only Cogent for bandwidth, it is currently impossible to reach L3 only connected services. I believe L3 to Cogent is being blocked as well.
All they intended was to use the name Earthsea, and some of the scenes from the books, in a generic McMagic movie with a meaningless plot based on sex and violence.
Maybe they ruined her story (I'd agree that the show was generic and boring), but I think the author is sensationalizing.
The only "sex" I remember is a bit of kissing in the first scene and one kiss at the very end. I certainly wouldn't call that a sexual movie. Also there was some violence, but it certainly wasn't that prevalent considering the plot was about conflict. Did the book have zero violence or something?
I'm far form an expert on this, but I think you missed the point. When most "mail from" domains do not publish a key, the absence of a signature means little. Your solution only works when most domains have published keys. In other words, if I send you an email right now it will not have a signature and the domain will have no key. What did you learn from that? I was just pointing out that it will take a while for domain keys to kick in.
The good news is that DomainKeys knocks this first one over in reliably providing identity of the sending domain.
I agree that DomainKeys is a positive step. But it should be noted that this "domino" will not fall until DomainKeys (or even SPF)is widely adopted. In other words, it isn't very useful until most non-spammers are using it. Until that point, I can not assume the absence of a DomainKeys signature means spam.
We have to start somewhere, but unfortunately I think the domain forgery domino is still years away from being knocked over.
Slashdot Mirror
I counted to 4 in binary on my fingers and just stayed with that.
You have no contract? Or a very incomplete contract? I've never worked anywhere, except perhaps as an hourly dishwasher in high-school, without a contract. That's like accepting a job only knowing that your salary will be "pretty good".
The main thing that has changed over the years is that the software stack has grown deeper, and today there are many more people working at higher abstraction levels where a lot is handled for them.
But under the covers, little has changed. Someone must write and understand code all the way down to the hardware. You can bet that people writing kernels and drivers think a lot about space and speed. Or write some code for one of the low cost micro-controllers that are in virtually all electronic devices and you won't have the luxury of a large software stack.
There are very likely *more* people writing low level code today than 20 years ago. Only the percentage of programmers writing low level code is declining because there are many orders of magnitude more programmers writing higher level code.
It is a rabbit with a nasty cancerous virus. Just want I'd like my desktop named after!
Aka recents. You can't even tell how long an individual call lasted with the current implementation.
TFA seems to get the distinction, but /.ers should note that at software companies like MS the D part of R&D is everyday product development which is always ongoing. So at MS R&D will always be a major part of overall expenses.
The article argues that MS isn't getting enough return from total R&D spending (which includes product development). People here just need to remember that R&D does not equate to just the R (research) part.
- BSD ensures freedom of the *producer* of the code to do what they want.
- GPL ensures freedom of the *recipient* of the code to do what they want.
You are implying that licensing under the GPL somehow limits your options as the producer (aka copyright holder), which is not correct. If you are the copyright holder, you are free to re-license at any time. You may not be able to revoke a license that you granted others on an irrevocable basis, but you can certainly apply any number of separate licenses.
For a project that has multiple copyright holders the overall situation is more complex, but you still have the freedom to do what you want with the parts that you created.
I'll believe that when it ships and when it lasts for more one or two releases. At one point IE was going to be fully implemented on Linux (also with "help" from Microsoft).
I love how the silverlight download wants me to run silverlight.exe to install it... on my Linux box. Probably not going to work. How about some better user-agent checking with a message like: "For your own good, please go away. We are only planning to provide half-baked implementations and lip-service to non-Microsoft platforms".
Actually it appears that L3 has done more than just drop direct peering with Cogent. L3 seems to be filtering all traffic sourced from Cogent controlled IP blocks. So unless Cognet sets up a NAT arrangement with other peers, there is no way around this problem. L3 is actively blocking Cogent traffic.
If your company or ISP uses only Cogent for bandwidth, it is currently impossible to reach L3 only connected services. I believe L3 to Cogent is being blocked as well.
don't bitch about the out come
Or the outcome!
All they intended was to use the name Earthsea, and some of the scenes from the books, in a generic McMagic movie with a meaningless plot based on sex and violence.
Maybe they ruined her story (I'd agree that the show was generic and boring), but I think the author is sensationalizing. The only "sex" I remember is a bit of kissing in the first scene and one kiss at the very end. I certainly wouldn't call that a sexual movie. Also there was some violence, but it certainly wasn't that prevalent considering the plot was about conflict. Did the book have zero violence or something?
I think I'll model, simulate and then optimize the amount of shut-down time required for spam levels to drop to zero
No need for models and simulations... the answer is 'shut-down time' = Infinity
I'm far form an expert on this, but I think you missed the point. When most "mail from" domains do not publish a key, the absence of a signature means little. Your solution only works when most domains have published keys. In other words, if I send you an email right now it will not have a signature and the domain will have no key. What did you learn from that? I was just pointing out that it will take a while for domain keys to kick in.