At least thats what they could say and just do what IBM has done with their Thinkpad MAMOTH series (the ones that are like 8lbs, but have a real P4 in them)
There is no "one-size-fits-all" for laptops. Different users have different needs. A road warrior who is flying 2 or 3 times a week probably wants as lightweight a machine as he can get away with. And he is will to trade screen size, processor speed, and keyboard comfort for a few less pounds to drag through the airport.
Other people like a laptop because they can carry it from their desk to the conference room easily. They wouldn't care if it weighed 20 pounds, they want a full desktop replacement that is portable enough to move around the office and be carried home occassionally.
not bad for a company that has been dying for 20+ years according to the trolls.
They were nearly dead until Jobs came back. Apple before the iMac had one foot in the grave. Now the company is doing high quality engineering and top notch marketing.
The web/e-mail opinion is irrelevant. If you want to be counted (not heard, mind you) send a letter or a fax.
I've actually heard that this has changed. Apparently in the post-Anthrax congress, they would prefer you didn't send a letter. Email and fax are now listened to much more closely.
A fairer assessment is that, when sendmail was designed, security was not as big an issue as it has become today.
Absolutely. In sendmail's heyday, the internet was a collection of several hundred.edu and.mil organizations, with a few.com technology companies thrown in, notably IBM and DEC. The few hundred thousand people on the net tended to be researchers and faculty in technical fields and their students. Security was very lax because it was a relatively small, closed, professional society. People simply didn't worry about security.
It is probably time to either move to a new MTA or rewrite sendmail form the ground up.
It's a paradox that people who are so paranoid when it comes to security (there are no proof of concept remote exploits for either of these holes), would download patches from where ever and who ever.
One of the pluses of open source is that you have the ability to look at the code and determine exactly what the patch changes. For a small patch most sysadmins, even though they might not be an "elite" programmer, can determine that the code does some extra boundary checking or the like.
I would hope that sysadmins do this before installing code from an unknown source.
If you want to use another language, just write a quick compiler/interpeter in C and then use whatever language you want. Personally, I'm going to write a quick and dirty emulator then code in Z80 machine code.
The only way to do something like this is to make virus scanning software compulsory, which opens up an entirely new can of worms relating to privacy rights, freedoms related to what one can do with one's own property, and implementation of such a thing without a.) forcing every American to spend money on virus scanning software or b.) jacking up everyone's tax rates.
You're right that it would be difficult for the government to require that individuals install anti-virus software and the like. However, the US Federal Government is empowered by the interstate commerce clause to regulate the ISPs. One could write a law that requires that ISPs act in good faith to secure their network. An ISP could then require anti-virus software, firewall software, etc. as part of their terms of service.
I would imagine that an ISP might periodically run that new version of nmap on each of the IP addresses that have been handed out to clients. If a service with known security holes is discovered, and email is sent to the owner and a restrictive filter is put on that IP until it is patched. That should reduce the incidence of worms.
The ISP would also route all outbound SMTP packets through its own mail server.
Antivirus software there would look for email attachments containing viruses. This would take a nice bite out of viruses. <tinfoilhat>This also provides a convenient place for the government to monitor your email.</tinfoilhat>
I'm not sure, yet, what the best approach to trojans is.
Who is the dominant military power in the world today?
>Individually speaking? The US, though Russia has a seizable army too, and lo and behold, nukes.
Don't kid yourself. The US military has the ability to attack virtually any point on the globe with any amount of military force. Many nations have a military with a local reach. A substantial number have a regional reach. A few nations (China, Russia) can project the blunt instrument of a nuclear weapon, but lacking a "blue water" navy they can only reach so far with conventional military might. Only the US has the power, capability, and flexability to strike a target anywhere with any amount of force.
The only nation that comes close is Britain, because they have a navy that can support a moderate size strike force beyond their regional waters. Britain's carrier based aircraft don't have the capability to strike deep inland the way the US equipment can, so their reach is limited to a few hundred miles from shore. Their navy today is too small to support a huge expeditionary force.
Who is the dominant economic power in the world today?
>Interresting question, how do you want to calculate that? GDP?
The EU may be a competitor one day, but today it can hardly be called more than a free trade area, and many Europeans are understandably resistant to the idea of surrendering their country to the Fourth Reich. Besides, Brussells, Paris, and Berlin can be counted on to stifle growth with excessive bureacracy.
I'm not a lawyer but I have heard from two sources (lawyer friend and woman in work who is involved in legal content issues) and in the UK you don't have the "fair use" right that is in the US.
The UK traditionally had much more restrictive copyright law than the US. For instance, traditionally speaking, UK copyrights remained the property of their owners forever. Putting a "sunset" requirement on copyrights was one of the reforms that the framers of the US constitution added to our inherited English law. Of course that was 215 years ago, the UK may have updated their own view of copyright since then.
Nevertheless, it is generally safe to assume that rights in the UK are more narrowly defined and protected by law.
The USA is not the centre [center] of the known universe.
Yes we are. Deal with it!
Two millenia ago, the Roman empire was the center. 500 years ago, Europe was the center. The last hundred years have been, and it continues to be, the age of America. There is a reasonable chance that China and/or India may unseat us in 100 years, but for now we are the center.
Ask yourselves these questions...
Who is (for better or worse) the most culturally influential power in the world today?
Who is the dominant military power in the world today?
Who is the dominant economic power in the world today?
Who is the dominant political power in the world today? Hint: if you answered the same for military and economic it must be that power here.
You don't need to like the answer, but the simple fact is that the US is the dominant power today.
According your your entry "The truth about Microsoft" the MS business model is flawed. Flawed or not, I have more business from their model than I have competent developers. When you rea[ch] 20 weeks of unemployment and your ready to port your j2ee skills to C#, send me a message.
The MS business model is "flawed" because MS has no profit motive to create bug-free software. The problem, however, is our expectations. We as consumers can't simultaneously expect ongoing support and bug fixes without expecting to pay for a support subscription.
I'd hire you... ... but according to your journal you won't play on my team.
I'm not sure what gave you that impression. The journal entry you reference was written in defense of the microsoft developer. It was written when/. was littered with posts about the morons that MS must hire, as evidenced by the various flaws in MS products. I tried to make the case that MS people were likely as smart as the OS community, but that market forces drove them to allocate resources differently. I don't see how that makes me not a team player.
I am not a zealot. Perhaps, more accurately, I am a zealot but I'd prefer be gainfully employed as a member of a high quality team. Hell - I've written DCL as recently as 1998. If that isn't prostituting one's self I don't know what is.:)
If you're serious, send me an email. I'll send you my resume.
With practice, do you find that you can handle timing your hold to get the necessary precision, or do you still over-/under- shoot things a bit and have to tap it to get it exactly on?
It is accurate enough that I can highlight text or do a cut-paste operation the first time. I don't know if I'd use it for game play, however.
Re:How utterly annoying for Apple Computer
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
You can't trademark random common words, and then expect everyone else to stop calling things that.
An "unrelated" word is actually a fairly strong trademark. Made up marks are stronger, and related words are the least strong. "Xyzzy Music" is very strong, "Apple Music" is strong, and "Groovy Music" is weak.
You can trademark a common word used in an uncommon way. You can expect others not to start identifying similar things by using that same common word in a similarly uncommon way.
Apple Music is 100% right on the law (at lest in the US).
I took a few days to acclimate but I actually prefer the IBM nipple. I'm one of those people who would prefer to never remove my hands from the keyboard.
...if you think Slashdot leans to the left, that just means you lean to the right.
If I was going to compare slashdot to myself, then it is leaning so far to the left that it is horizontal. From now on I'll call it dashdot (-.).
On a more serious note, however, the labels "left" and "right" only tell part of the story. There is a second dimension of political philosophy that measures the degree of individualism supported by that philosophy. There are individualists and anti-individualists on both sides of the left-right spectrum.
For example, when the right wing lobbies for relief from anti-monopoly laws, they are advocating a reduction in individualism. When the left lobbies for trade unions they also advocate reducing an individuals rights. The extremes of these positions are fascism and communism. As a practical matter fascist and communist societies look very similar because the are similar. Both systems foster the reduction of the individual to some greater good. All that differs is the window dressing used in their propaganda.
In opposition to these forces on the right wing are the libertarians, and on the left are the Civil Libertarians. Both groups seek to limit the ways that individual liberty is undermined.
The corporations that control the media are not intrinsicly left or right. Corporations act in their self interest and tend to support either the left or the right depending on where that self interest lay in that particular issue. Corporations are, however, anti-individualist.
I'm also not trolling, but with the US governments slant to the right, anything critical of them would have to slant the other way, n'est pas?
I don't trust anyone that starts their comment "I'm also not trolling..." but I'll bite anyway...
The US government has an effectively miniscule power to censor. An "expose" on censorship in the US is really an indictment of the media - a media which is generally considered to have a slant to the left.
One example we find is that the US media is currently running story after story on how badly things are going in Iraq. This is on contrast with the observation that 1) Almost all the attacks are confined to the Saddam loyalist area arround Tikrit and Baghdad, the rest of the country is fairly peaceful and 2) even moderate-to-left congressmen than have visited Iraq say things are going reasonably well.
Please note that this is not to say that I think things are perfect by any stretch. The media tends to run stories for the purpose of ratings/circulation. Left/Right does not come into it very much at all.
Not for nothing, but virtually everything on there is a left wing issue or anti-American story.
There once was a time when people who were interested in jurnalism were interested in balance and truth, not pandering to their political supporters.
Re:How can one steal lines of code?
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
Other posters have pointed out that the dictionary does not preclude this application of the word steal.
Another way of thinking about it is "deprive the owner of the full value by illegal means."
For instance, you have a bank account, but you don't have a pile of cash sitting in a box in the bank vault. Your bank account is really an entry in the bank's database. If I were to fraudulently reduce the number representing your balance in your entry in the database, and then increase the number representing the balance in my own entry, I have not physically taken anything away from you. All I did was change some data in a database. But I reduced your ability to draw money from the bank through fraud, and so I stole from you.
Likewise, if I copy something from you illegally and sell or give it away, and that something is valuable because it is scarce, I've stolen from you since I illegally reduced the price you could get if you were to sell your item.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no "one-size-fits-all" for laptops. Different users have different needs. A road warrior who is flying 2 or 3 times a week probably wants as lightweight a machine as he can get away with. And he is will to trade screen size, processor speed, and keyboard comfort for a few less pounds to drag through the airport.
Other people like a laptop because they can carry it from their desk to the conference room easily. They wouldn't care if it weighed 20 pounds, they want a full desktop replacement that is portable enough to move around the office and be carried home occassionally.
They were nearly dead until Jobs came back. Apple before the iMac had one foot in the grave. Now the company is doing high quality engineering and top notch marketing.
I've actually heard that this has changed. Apparently in the post-Anthrax congress, they would prefer you didn't send a letter. Email and fax are now listened to much more closely.
Absolutely. In sendmail's heyday, the internet was a collection of several hundred .edu and .mil organizations, with a few .com technology companies thrown in, notably IBM and DEC. The few hundred thousand people on the net tended to be researchers and faculty in technical fields and their students. Security was very lax because it was a relatively small, closed, professional society. People simply didn't worry about security.
It is probably time to either move to a new MTA or rewrite sendmail form the ground up.
One of the pluses of open source is that you have the ability to look at the code and determine exactly what the patch changes. For a small patch most sysadmins, even though they might not be an "elite" programmer, can determine that the code does some extra boundary checking or the like.
I would hope that sysadmins do this before installing code from an unknown source.
If you want to use another language, just write a quick compiler/interpeter in C and then use whatever language you want. Personally, I'm going to write a quick and dirty emulator then code in Z80 machine code.
You're right that it would be difficult for the government to require that individuals install anti-virus software and the like. However, the US Federal Government is empowered by the interstate commerce clause to regulate the ISPs. One could write a law that requires that ISPs act in good faith to secure their network. An ISP could then require anti-virus software, firewall software, etc. as part of their terms of service.
I would imagine that an ISP might periodically run that new version of nmap on each of the IP addresses that have been handed out to clients. If a service with known security holes is discovered, and email is sent to the owner and a restrictive filter is put on that IP until it is patched. That should reduce the incidence of worms.
The ISP would also route all outbound SMTP packets through its own mail server. Antivirus software there would look for email attachments containing viruses. This would take a nice bite out of viruses. <tinfoilhat>This also provides a convenient place for the government to monitor your email.</tinfoilhat>
I'm not sure, yet, what the best approach to trojans is.
>Individually speaking? The US, though Russia has a seizable army too, and lo and behold, nukes.
Don't kid yourself. The US military has the ability to attack virtually any point on the globe with any amount of military force. Many nations have a military with a local reach. A substantial number have a regional reach. A few nations (China, Russia) can project the blunt instrument of a nuclear weapon, but lacking a "blue water" navy they can only reach so far with conventional military might. Only the US has the power, capability, and flexability to strike a target anywhere with any amount of force.
The only nation that comes close is Britain, because they have a navy that can support a moderate size strike force beyond their regional waters. Britain's carrier based aircraft don't have the capability to strike deep inland the way the US equipment can, so their reach is limited to a few hundred miles from shore. Their navy today is too small to support a huge expeditionary force.
Who is the dominant economic power in the world today?
>Interresting question, how do you want to calculate that? GDP?
The EU may be a competitor one day, but today it can hardly be called more than a free trade area, and many Europeans are understandably resistant to the idea of surrendering their country to the Fourth Reich. Besides, Brussells, Paris, and Berlin can be counted on to stifle growth with excessive bureacracy.
>What does dominance have to do with democracy?
I never claimed it did.
The UK traditionally had much more restrictive copyright law than the US. For instance, traditionally speaking, UK copyrights remained the property of their owners forever. Putting a "sunset" requirement on copyrights was one of the reforms that the framers of the US constitution added to our inherited English law. Of course that was 215 years ago, the UK may have updated their own view of copyright since then.
Nevertheless, it is generally safe to assume that rights in the UK are more narrowly defined and protected by law.
Yes we are. Deal with it!
Two millenia ago, the Roman empire was the center. 500 years ago, Europe was the center. The last hundred years have been, and it continues to be, the age of America. There is a reasonable chance that China and/or India may unseat us in 100 years, but for now we are the center.
Ask yourselves these questions...
- Who is (for better or worse) the most culturally influential power in the world today?
- Who is the dominant military power in the world today?
- Who is the dominant economic power in the world today?
- Who is the dominant political power in the world today? Hint: if you answered the same for military and economic it must be that power here.
You don't need to like the answer, but the simple fact is that the US is the dominant power today."I'm not dead yet...I'm getting better." - Boromir
Your sig is incorrect. Boromir says "I'm not dead yet...I think I'll go for a walk!"
Damn, I meant to say - what was his name again - the guy who used to be in Mettalica?
Is it anything like Basic?
In that they are both mistakes? Yes!
That's Right!
I'm the High Poobah of the Holy Order of the Lemur, and I'd know if you were my deputy.
Bang! Bang! Lie down, you're dead.
Kernighan = Lemmy, Straustoupe (sp?) = Timberlake
The MS business model is "flawed" because MS has no profit motive to create bug-free software. The problem, however, is our expectations. We as consumers can't simultaneously expect ongoing support and bug fixes without expecting to pay for a support subscription.
I'd hire you...
... but according to your journal you won't play on my team.
I'm not sure what gave you that impression. The journal entry you reference was written in defense of the microsoft developer. It was written when /. was littered with posts about the morons that MS must hire, as evidenced by the various flaws in MS products. I tried to make the case that MS people were likely as smart as the OS community, but that market forces drove them to allocate resources differently. I don't see how that makes me not a team player.
I am not a zealot. Perhaps, more accurately, I am a zealot but I'd prefer be gainfully employed as a member of a high quality team. Hell - I've written DCL as recently as 1998. If that isn't prostituting one's self I don't know what is. :)
If you're serious, send me an email. I'll send you my resume.
Quick show of hands: Who else read this as the first element of the Allah array?
It is accurate enough that I can highlight text or do a cut-paste operation the first time. I don't know if I'd use it for game play, however.
An "unrelated" word is actually a fairly strong trademark. Made up marks are stronger, and related words are the least strong. "Xyzzy Music" is very strong, "Apple Music" is strong, and "Groovy Music" is weak.
You can trademark a common word used in an uncommon way. You can expect others not to start identifying similar things by using that same common word in a similarly uncommon way.
Apple Music is 100% right on the law (at lest in the US).
I took a few days to acclimate but I actually prefer the IBM nipple. I'm one of those people who would prefer to never remove my hands from the keyboard.
Keep waiting. Wine only runs x86 code on an x86. It is a OS call emulation layer, not a processor emulator.
If I was going to compare slashdot to myself, then it is leaning so far to the left that it is horizontal. From now on I'll call it dashdot (-.).
On a more serious note, however, the labels "left" and "right" only tell part of the story. There is a second dimension of political philosophy that measures the degree of individualism supported by that philosophy. There are individualists and anti-individualists on both sides of the left-right spectrum.
For example, when the right wing lobbies for relief from anti-monopoly laws, they are advocating a reduction in individualism. When the left lobbies for trade unions they also advocate reducing an individuals rights. The extremes of these positions are fascism and communism. As a practical matter fascist and communist societies look very similar because the are similar. Both systems foster the reduction of the individual to some greater good. All that differs is the window dressing used in their propaganda.
In opposition to these forces on the right wing are the libertarians, and on the left are the Civil Libertarians. Both groups seek to limit the ways that individual liberty is undermined.
The corporations that control the media are not intrinsicly left or right. Corporations act in their self interest and tend to support either the left or the right depending on where that self interest lay in that particular issue. Corporations are, however, anti-individualist.
I don't trust anyone that starts their comment "I'm also not trolling..." but I'll bite anyway...
The US government has an effectively miniscule power to censor. An "expose" on censorship in the US is really an indictment of the media - a media which is generally considered to have a slant to the left.
One example we find is that the US media is currently running story after story on how badly things are going in Iraq. This is on contrast with the observation that 1) Almost all the attacks are confined to the Saddam loyalist area arround Tikrit and Baghdad, the rest of the country is fairly peaceful and 2) even moderate-to-left congressmen than have visited Iraq say things are going reasonably well.
Please note that this is not to say that I think things are perfect by any stretch. The media tends to run stories for the purpose of ratings/circulation. Left/Right does not come into it very much at all.
There once was a time when people who were interested in jurnalism were interested in balance and truth, not pandering to their political supporters.
Another way of thinking about it is "deprive the owner of the full value by illegal means."
For instance, you have a bank account, but you don't have a pile of cash sitting in a box in the bank vault. Your bank account is really an entry in the bank's database. If I were to fraudulently reduce the number representing your balance in your entry in the database, and then increase the number representing the balance in my own entry, I have not physically taken anything away from you. All I did was change some data in a database. But I reduced your ability to draw money from the bank through fraud, and so I stole from you.
Likewise, if I copy something from you illegally and sell or give it away, and that something is valuable because it is scarce, I've stolen from you since I illegally reduced the price you could get if you were to sell your item.