Just about anything is better than aCC (in terms of adherance to the C++ standard, at least)
Last I checked, GCC (2.95.2, I think) still had some problems with pointers to virtual member functions, but it does warn you, and that is one of the more obscure and poorly implemented features of C++.
From what I heard, RedHat thought that the gcc 2.96 snapshot they got would be library compatable with gcc 3.0. They didn't want to ship 2.95.2 because it is a dead-end branch that isn't compatable with either 3.0 or egcs. They didn't want to ship egcs because stuff like kde2 won't compile with it. They truly stated that they *really* wanted to avoid breaking the C++ ABI twice (once going to 2.95.2 and once going to 3.0)
So, they were caught between a rock and a hard place... The didn't have any "good" compiler to ship, so they did the best they could and shipped an older egcs release as "kgcc". They could have postponed their release (like Linus just did for 2.4), but who knows how long before 3.0 is released? Also, they have a lot of customers without requirements for a specific version of the compiler... Why make those guys wait for the GCC guys to get 3.0 finished?. As it stands 2.96 compiles most C and C++ code correctly (or as well as any other version of GCC), and kgcc compiles the kernel. It Seem To Work(tm) for most people, if they have correct C++ code, and use kgcc for the kernel.
That said, there have been a *lot* of problems reported with RH7, though many come from not RTFM ("I can't compile my own kernels!"). They probably should have delayed shipment for more QA, but not necessarily waited for a new compiler.
Uh, as much as I advocate user involvement, final bugfixes of a kernel release are maybe not the best way for people just learning C to start out..:). But, anyone with a few logic skills can help out by A) finding crashes/bugs/bad stuff, B) isolating the variables that affect said problem, and C) sending detailed reports to the kernel mailing list.
People with some experience in C may want to look at the code to try to find the problem, and either point kernel hackers at the suspect area or submit a patch. But this is much less important than detailed bug analysis: usually it is a simple matter for a kernel hacker to fix many bugs once reproducing them is down to a science.
If you feel like hacking, by all means dig in, but always include bug reports in addition to patches. And test patches on as many systems as you can before submission.
Well, IBM's "JFS for Linux" is based on their port of JFS for OS/2 (remember that?) as opposed to their JFS for AIX, which is what most people associate with the name.
The current JFS for Linux project is, for instance, still case insensitive. Hardly an acceptable situation for a UNIX filesystem, but hopefully one that can be fixed.
Only if the number of keywords supported is in the patent. But yes, it should be easy to get around... Though adding functionality per. se. is not enough. You need to either remove some functionality, or replace some function with a (preferably better) alternative that isn't described in the patent.
The guy I talked to who worked for the NSA on math/crypto said the NSA would not disclose any weakness they found, but they would advise NIST whether a given algorithm was good or bad. So, if you trust them (I do on this count), they would keep NIST from choosing a code they could crack, but not reveal how to do so.
It was supposed to go something like:
NIST: We have these 6 finalists. We think we would like to use #2.
NSA: You really don't want to do that.
NIST: Ok, how about #6?
NSA: Sounds good.
NIST: #6 it is!
I have heard from two seperate electronics stores that Sony is short on DVD parts for the PSX2. The consensus seems to be that the lens is most scarce. Sony's production levels of component DVD players is down to effectively zero, leading a degree of credibility to this theory, since supposedly the scarce parts are all being put into PSX2s, and none into stand alone DVD players.
I think that would only happen when you were genuinely exceeding the transfer speed of the disk, in which case, "you dummy". tux2fs probably *will* take more memory (substantially more?) than ext2 or a journaling filesystem, but with the amount of memory that most systems have available for file cache, I doubt that is a problem.
Embedded devices that need consistant IO rates with little RAM for buffering probably want to look at a journaling FS.
Kudos to these Universities for recognizing there's a larger issue here rather than just whittling away at users' access just because it's the easier, less risky thing to do
I seriously doubt that. These Universities are the ones smart enough to realize that this minimizes their risk. If they do nothing and are sued, they have an easy case that it isn't their responsibility to police their students. However, if they *DO* try to censor their networks, they are safe for the day, but suddenly set precedent for ensuring legal use of their networks... Then they suddenly become liable for future infractions. When the next "big thing" comes along and the RIAA wants them to block it if they don't/can't/won't, they are really in trouble.
Still, it is good to see some universities not being bullied around so easily.
He is the chairman of the fedral reserve board. Among other things, the board sets interest rates from the fedral reserve. This means that he basically has control over the supply of US dollars to the world.
Consider that while international politics are a factor, most of what George W. or Al will do will be of minor interest to people outside the US. However, the US economy has a huge influence on the world economy, and to a large extent, Alan Greenspan regulates its growth.
Right. Just go on beliving in your fanciful little world. In three months, the most powerful man in the world with be the same person it is today. Alan Greenspan.
I agree. I am much less concerned that the FBI botched the job and left a hole open (they are smart guys, after all--if they didn't find it, I won't), I am worried about what it is *designed* to do. I don't want it around, even if it perfectly conforms to the description the FBI already gave.
I suppose some people are worried that the FBI would leave a secret back-door in there, but I seriously doubt it--they have little to gain from doing so (can get unauthorized data without a warrant... If the FBI wants a warrant, they can get one), but much to loose (someone else could exploit it, the public could discover it and demand Carnivore be shut down, someone in the agency could use it as blackmail, foriegn governments could spy on the US).
Satellites suck. They have a modem uplink and insanely high latency. While some may argue that latency isn't a big deal for home users, A) they haven't used low latency links, and B) the kind of latency Direct TV has is absurd.
The point is for such a CD to be a rosetta stone. While I can't say that I think like an alien, I have to imagine that a species that could intercept such a device would A) be curious as to what the CD was, and B) have the technology to look at really small things. So they put it under an electron microscope, and ta-da! you see a long grove whith markings on it.
Now, while aliens probably don't use ASCII, if they have anything that we would consider intelligence and technology, they will figure out they are looking at a binary code--after all, that is the second simplest numerical system possible, after tick marks.
From that point, whether an alien will be able to reverse engineer ISO9660 is up for debate, but one of the most important things is that it is undeinable proof of an intelligent species. Of course, so is a space vehicle. Anyway, if it were ME discovering that CD, and finding that it had binary encoded data on it, I would certainly work real hard to decypher it. Honestly, if a species can unravel quantum mechanics (another must for high technology as far as we know), they can figure out how to read a CD.
Intel (and AMD) change to slot designs to allow off-chip caches that ran at high speeds. Then, Intel and AMD switched back to sockets to lower packaging costs when the cache sizes could be fit on a reasonably sized chip again.
Don't discount the value of a nice case. Especially for people who *do* do a lot of upgrading, having a case that makes such things easy is a Good Thing. Cheap cases may have poor circulation, causing overheating, or be too flimsy, causing high-RPM drives to vibrate and eventually damage themselves. Stamped edges that haven't been finsished can cut you, and inadequite motherboard support can cause PCI cards to not seat well. Inferior power supplies may drop out under load or heat, and damage peripherals (I have had this happen 3 times with cheap cases--that is a major reason I get high quality stuff, too).
Like my monitor, I consider a high quality case to be an investment that will last through several CPU generations. Having to go buy a new one (If I weren't going to switch to AMD) would not kill me, but it is rather annoying.
I don't think this is a sinister MS plot to allow greedy lap-dog corporate friends of microsoft to use their orbital mind control lasers on me, but I do think this is one in a long string of fundamental archetectural designs by microsoft that while trying to adopt Sun's slogan "The network is the computer" ignore that there are rather seedy parts of that global computer.
Internet users *need* process level sandboxing, strong authentication, fine grained access control, and that sort of thing. MS has decided, based on the highly skilled recommendations of their "moron estimator" that talking paperclips are more important.
To be brutally honest to the UNIX crowd, they haven't done much better. Most commercial UNIXen install horibly insecurely by default--again part of the "who cares, it will be behind a firewall anyway" mentality. We have said "UNIX is secure because it has strong user-level access control", but single-user workstations need process level access control, to deal with the huge volume of untrusted code on the internet. There are some people working on better systems for free UNIX systems to perform those tasks, but they are a hell of a long way from prime-time.
Much work has gone into making server systems secure. Most UNIX systems, and even NT can be relatively easily set up as a moderately secure web server. FreeBSD's jail() is a nice touch for secure virtual servers, and more esoteric systems like HP's virtual vault can give you more peace of mind yet (I am not convinced it is more secure than a properly configured Linux/BSD machine, but many bosses won't listen to that). However, client side security is a joke at best, and a catastrophy more often.
The idea here is to force vendors (particularly those of questionable reputation) to make stuff that adheres to a miniumum standard of quality. The idea is, you shouldn't *have* to have stuff serviced often, if you do, the law isn't working.
The law is probably designed to protect people who don't upgrade their hardware all the time, but just buy a computer and want it to work. People who install new video cards ought to be bright enough to buy from a reputable vendor in the first place. That said, an overall higher quality of components would make it less likely that your MB would die, whether you upgraded the video or not.
Even if they are obsolete, doesn't mean they aren't still widely used. Very soon now, you will not be able to buy a 2000 model year car new. They will be obsolete, replaced with the latest and greatest identical 2001 models, but that is another point entirely. Anyway many people will drive them for years. Some will sell them in a few years, and some cars will go through 3 or 4 owners before being junked in 10-15 years.
I am still using several old computers, and most of the components in my "main system" are 3 years old. When I finally upgrade, the computer will still have a home, whether I find another use for it, sell it, or give it away. It probably wont last 10 years, but I bet it will last 5-6. I know a lot of people still using 386's and 486's (I decomissioned my last 486 from its post as NAT-box just after Y2K when the VESA bus network card went out and I had a spare P200 board lying around. I wouldn't have expected support on the 5 year old machine, but 2 years seems reasonable to me.
There are a lot of people out there using obsolete hardware.
Too bad even your average granny user will ocasionally add new software, potentially even user-approved hardware upgrads (USB scanner?) As we all know, W98 is very suceptible to application level bugs crashing the system. And with the amount of software that add things to the boot sequence to speed up loading at runtime, all of these things can dramatically decrease reliability.
Of course, I would consider W95/98 (presumably ME, as well) inherently "lemons" precisely because user applications can trivially crash the whole system.
Uh, Acer would quickly find out that the cost of repairing all the defects was high. Given that people are dumb and rarely think about warranties when buying computers (a habit made easy by manufacturers that try to hide them) this should, in theory, make it easier for Dell to compete with Acer, since moron computer buyers wouldn't be led astry by the unrealistically low cost of Acer systems.
I don't know if it will work for computers, which the complex interactions of hardware and software, much of which is under user control, but lemon laws on cars have been *extremely* successful in raising the quality and safety of cars, without, I think, damaging competition. Of couse, cars are a differnet issue, since safety (including that of other motorists, not just the idiot who bought a pinto) are an issue.
Frankly, I would like to see something that penalized manufactures even *more* for having defective products... just to make sure they have the incentive to make it work right the first time, rather than expecting a certain percentage of defects. Like, compensating the owner for time/productivity/data/whatever loss (though with some sort of liability limits -- people who store critical data on an Acer, even with a lemon law, deserve what they get).
This is a government imposed minimum warranty, and an attempt to keep hardware quality from going down the storm drain (it is already in the gutter) in the face of massive price competition between vendors. The idea is that if everyone has to meet some uniform minimum standard of quality, vendors can still compete equally, while protecting consumers from complete junk. Whether it will work remains to be seen. The problem is that massively catosrophic failure in the first 2 years isn't that common, and is often already covered under warranties. What we need are protection against "flaky" RAM, video cards, and chipsets that work fine 99% of the time, but randomly corrupt data, crashing the computer. This is very difficult to do and only a few large vendors of certified "server systems" do this rigorously. Even then, it is only usually tested with certain combinations of software, which may or may not expose all potential problems.
An interesting point, if it *does* work, it should lower the price of computers to people like me who value reliablity even on a desktop, and have to pay a premium for high quality components.
However, what is relevant: If I buy a computer with a defective drive controller that only shows up under Linux because Linux uses a different DMA mode/PIO level/whatever, will I be able to sue? This used to be a major problem. Until windows started using the higher performance settings, hardware manufacturers didn't give a rats ass if their drives corrupted data outside the most performance poor settings (irq unmasking, anyone?)
Same thing with memory and CPUs. I have had bad memory and bad CPUs that worked fine under windows, not even necissary because Linux "pushed the hardware harder", but just because of different usage patterns. The fact is, most hardware vendors only test under Windows, and if it works there, it is deemed "correct" regardless of whether 90% of the modes of operation were tested.
These things are getting better, but it would be nice to force vendors to have some accountability for these issues.
"The MPAA is dedicated to the idea that all intelectual property should be under their control, even if that means stealing and hiding the protected intellectual property of others."
Sounds much more accurate to me.
What we really need is for some enterprising cracker to stealthily implant the decss code into some covert channel in the video stream of major motion pictures prior to their release on DVD. Then all we would need to crack DVDs would be a some form of stenography tool. The irony would kill me.
Note: If somebody actually does this, it wasn't me!
ADD is, by definition, a disease. This disease includes a chemical imbalance in the brain. Much like clinical depression, it has symptoms that are not conclusive. Normal people get bored, normal people get depressed. The difference is, people with those diseases are unable to control themselves to, in ADD, continue working on something after they become bored. In the case of depression, medication allows people to, through conciling or whatever, come to terms with whatever trauma instigated their depression and deal with it.
However, both are frequently mis-diagnosed, largely by non-professionals because a normal person may exhibit many of the same symptoms, but without the chemical imbalance. I have known several people with ADD, to whom Ritalin was a godsend. This contributes to the overperscription, because to the people genuinely afflicted, it is a miracle drug.
Many bright children, in particular, are mis-diagnosed as having ADD by teachers who notice that they don't pay attention. In many cases this is because the students are so far ahead of the teachers that they might as well be in their own world. Or, they give up on waiting for the rest of the class to catch up, and start reading (this is what I always did). The solution to this is to seperate students out by learning speeds and teach them differently. However, this is usually criticized as elitism and unfair. I went to 1-4 at a school that did that kind of tracking (well, they started in 3rd grade, I think), and 5-8 in a system that was only concerned with brining each student up to "state norms", and I can say without a doubt that what is totally unfair is to refuse to teach each student at the rate they want and are able to learn.
Slashdot Mirror
Just about anything is better than aCC (in terms of adherance to the C++ standard, at least)
Last I checked, GCC (2.95.2, I think) still had some problems with pointers to virtual member functions, but it does warn you, and that is one of the more obscure and poorly implemented features of C++.
From what I heard, RedHat thought that the gcc 2.96 snapshot they got would be library compatable with gcc 3.0. They didn't want to ship 2.95.2 because it is a dead-end branch that isn't compatable with either 3.0 or egcs. They didn't want to ship egcs because stuff like kde2 won't compile with it. They truly stated that they *really* wanted to avoid breaking the C++ ABI twice (once going to 2.95.2 and once going to 3.0)
So, they were caught between a rock and a hard place... The didn't have any "good" compiler to ship, so they did the best they could and shipped an older egcs release as "kgcc". They could have postponed their release (like Linus just did for 2.4), but who knows how long before 3.0 is released? Also, they have a lot of customers without requirements for a specific version of the compiler... Why make those guys wait for the GCC guys to get 3.0 finished?. As it stands 2.96 compiles most C and C++ code correctly (or as well as any other version of GCC), and kgcc compiles the kernel. It Seem To Work(tm) for most people, if they have correct C++ code, and use kgcc for the kernel.
That said, there have been a *lot* of problems reported with RH7, though many come from not RTFM ("I can't compile my own kernels!"). They probably should have delayed shipment for more QA, but not necessarily waited for a new compiler.
Uh, as much as I advocate user involvement, final bugfixes of a kernel release are maybe not the best way for people just learning C to start out.. :). But, anyone with a few logic skills can help out by A) finding crashes/bugs/bad stuff, B) isolating the variables that affect said problem, and C) sending detailed reports to the kernel mailing list.
People with some experience in C may want to look at the code to try to find the problem, and either point kernel hackers at the suspect area or submit a patch. But this is much less important than detailed bug analysis: usually it is a simple matter for a kernel hacker to fix many bugs once reproducing them is down to a science.
If you feel like hacking, by all means dig in, but always include bug reports in addition to patches. And test patches on as many systems as you can before submission.
Well, IBM's "JFS for Linux" is based on their port of JFS for OS/2 (remember that?) as opposed to their JFS for AIX, which is what most people associate with the name.
The current JFS for Linux project is, for instance, still case insensitive. Hardly an acceptable situation for a UNIX filesystem, but hopefully one that can be fixed.
Only if the number of keywords supported is in the patent. But yes, it should be easy to get around... Though adding functionality per. se. is not enough. You need to either remove some functionality, or replace some function with a (preferably better) alternative that isn't described in the patent.
The guy I talked to who worked for the NSA on math/crypto said the NSA would not disclose any weakness they found, but they would advise NIST whether a given algorithm was good or bad. So, if you trust them (I do on this count), they would keep NIST from choosing a code they could crack, but not reveal how to do so.
It was supposed to go something like:
NIST: We have these 6 finalists. We think we would like to use #2.
NSA: You really don't want to do that.
NIST: Ok, how about #6?
NSA: Sounds good.
NIST: #6 it is!
I have heard from two seperate electronics stores that Sony is short on DVD parts for the PSX2. The consensus seems to be that the lens is most scarce. Sony's production levels of component DVD players is down to effectively zero, leading a degree of credibility to this theory, since supposedly the scarce parts are all being put into PSX2s, and none into stand alone DVD players.
I think that would only happen when you were genuinely exceeding the transfer speed of the disk, in which case, "you dummy". tux2fs probably *will* take more memory (substantially more?) than ext2 or a journaling filesystem, but with the amount of memory that most systems have available for file cache, I doubt that is a problem.
Embedded devices that need consistant IO rates with little RAM for buffering probably want to look at a journaling FS.
I seriously doubt that. These Universities are the ones smart enough to realize that this minimizes their risk. If they do nothing and are sued, they have an easy case that it isn't their responsibility to police their students. However, if they *DO* try to censor their networks, they are safe for the day, but suddenly set precedent for ensuring legal use of their networks... Then they suddenly become liable for future infractions. When the next "big thing" comes along and the RIAA wants them to block it if they don't/can't/won't, they are really in trouble.
Still, it is good to see some universities not being bullied around so easily.
He is the chairman of the fedral reserve board. Among other things, the board sets interest rates from the fedral reserve. This means that he basically has control over the supply of US dollars to the world.
Consider that while international politics are a factor, most of what George W. or Al will do will be of minor interest to people outside the US. However, the US economy has a huge influence on the world economy, and to a large extent, Alan Greenspan regulates its growth.
Right. Just go on beliving in your fanciful little world. In three months, the most powerful man in the world with be the same person it is today. Alan Greenspan.
I agree. I am much less concerned that the FBI botched the job and left a hole open (they are smart guys, after all--if they didn't find it, I won't), I am worried about what it is *designed* to do. I don't want it around, even if it perfectly conforms to the description the FBI already gave.
I suppose some people are worried that the FBI would leave a secret back-door in there, but I seriously doubt it--they have little to gain from doing so (can get unauthorized data without a warrant... If the FBI wants a warrant, they can get one), but much to loose (someone else could exploit it, the public could discover it and demand Carnivore be shut down, someone in the agency could use it as blackmail, foriegn governments could spy on the US).
Satellites suck. They have a modem uplink and insanely high latency. While some may argue that latency isn't a big deal for home users, A) they haven't used low latency links, and B) the kind of latency Direct TV has is absurd.
The point is for such a CD to be a rosetta stone. While I can't say that I think like an alien, I have to imagine that a species that could intercept such a device would A) be curious as to what the CD was, and B) have the technology to look at really small things. So they put it under an electron microscope, and ta-da! you see a long grove whith markings on it.
Now, while aliens probably don't use ASCII, if they have anything that we would consider intelligence and technology, they will figure out they are looking at a binary code--after all, that is the second simplest numerical system possible, after tick marks.
From that point, whether an alien will be able to reverse engineer ISO9660 is up for debate, but one of the most important things is that it is undeinable proof of an intelligent species. Of course, so is a space vehicle. Anyway, if it were ME discovering that CD, and finding that it had binary encoded data on it, I would certainly work real hard to decypher it. Honestly, if a species can unravel quantum mechanics (another must for high technology as far as we know), they can figure out how to read a CD.
Intel (and AMD) change to slot designs to allow off-chip caches that ran at high speeds. Then, Intel and AMD switched back to sockets to lower packaging costs when the cache sizes could be fit on a reasonably sized chip again.
Don't discount the value of a nice case. Especially for people who *do* do a lot of upgrading, having a case that makes such things easy is a Good Thing. Cheap cases may have poor circulation, causing overheating, or be too flimsy, causing high-RPM drives to vibrate and eventually damage themselves. Stamped edges that haven't been finsished can cut you, and inadequite motherboard support can cause PCI cards to not seat well. Inferior power supplies may drop out under load or heat, and damage peripherals (I have had this happen 3 times with cheap cases--that is a major reason I get high quality stuff, too).
Like my monitor, I consider a high quality case to be an investment that will last through several CPU generations. Having to go buy a new one (If I weren't going to switch to AMD) would not kill me, but it is rather annoying.
Much work has gone into making server systems secure. Most UNIX systems, and even NT can be relatively easily set up as a moderately secure web server. FreeBSD's jail() is a nice touch for secure virtual servers, and more esoteric systems like HP's virtual vault can give you more peace of mind yet (I am not convinced it is more secure than a properly configured Linux/BSD machine, but many bosses won't listen to that). However, client side security is a joke at best, and a catastrophy more often.
The idea here is to force vendors (particularly those of questionable reputation) to make stuff that adheres to a miniumum standard of quality. The idea is, you shouldn't *have* to have stuff serviced often, if you do, the law isn't working.
The law is probably designed to protect people who don't upgrade their hardware all the time, but just buy a computer and want it to work. People who install new video cards ought to be bright enough to buy from a reputable vendor in the first place. That said, an overall higher quality of components would make it less likely that your MB would die, whether you upgraded the video or not.
Even if they are obsolete, doesn't mean they aren't still widely used. Very soon now, you will not be able to buy a 2000 model year car new. They will be obsolete, replaced with the latest and greatest identical 2001 models, but that is another point entirely. Anyway many people will drive them for years. Some will sell them in a few years, and some cars will go through 3 or 4 owners before being junked in 10-15 years.
I am still using several old computers, and most of the components in my "main system" are 3 years old. When I finally upgrade, the computer will still have a home, whether I find another use for it, sell it, or give it away. It probably wont last 10 years, but I bet it will last 5-6. I know a lot of people still using 386's and 486's (I decomissioned my last 486 from its post as NAT-box just after Y2K when the VESA bus network card went out and I had a spare P200 board lying around. I wouldn't have expected support on the 5 year old machine, but 2 years seems reasonable to me.
There are a lot of people out there using obsolete hardware.
Too bad even your average granny user will ocasionally add new software, potentially even user-approved hardware upgrads (USB scanner?) As we all know, W98 is very suceptible to application level bugs crashing the system. And with the amount of software that add things to the boot sequence to speed up loading at runtime, all of these things can dramatically decrease reliability.
Of course, I would consider W95/98 (presumably ME, as well) inherently "lemons" precisely because user applications can trivially crash the whole system.
Uh, Acer would quickly find out that the cost of repairing all the defects was high. Given that people are dumb and rarely think about warranties when buying computers (a habit made easy by manufacturers that try to hide them) this should, in theory, make it easier for Dell to compete with Acer, since moron computer buyers wouldn't be led astry by the unrealistically low cost of Acer systems.
I don't know if it will work for computers, which the complex interactions of hardware and software, much of which is under user control, but lemon laws on cars have been *extremely* successful in raising the quality and safety of cars, without, I think, damaging competition. Of couse, cars are a differnet issue, since safety (including that of other motorists, not just the idiot who bought a pinto) are an issue.
Frankly, I would like to see something that penalized manufactures even *more* for having defective products... just to make sure they have the incentive to make it work right the first time, rather than expecting a certain percentage of defects. Like, compensating the owner for time/productivity/data/whatever loss (though with some sort of liability limits -- people who store critical data on an Acer, even with a lemon law, deserve what they get).
This is a government imposed minimum warranty, and an attempt to keep hardware quality from going down the storm drain (it is already in the gutter) in the face of massive price competition between vendors. The idea is that if everyone has to meet some uniform minimum standard of quality, vendors can still compete equally, while protecting consumers from complete junk. Whether it will work remains to be seen. The problem is that massively catosrophic failure in the first 2 years isn't that common, and is often already covered under warranties. What we need are protection against "flaky" RAM, video cards, and chipsets that work fine 99% of the time, but randomly corrupt data, crashing the computer. This is very difficult to do and only a few large vendors of certified "server systems" do this rigorously. Even then, it is only usually tested with certain combinations of software, which may or may not expose all potential problems.
An interesting point, if it *does* work, it should lower the price of computers to people like me who value reliablity even on a desktop, and have to pay a premium for high quality components.
However, what is relevant: If I buy a computer with a defective drive controller that only shows up under Linux because Linux uses a different DMA mode/PIO level/whatever, will I be able to sue? This used to be a major problem. Until windows started using the higher performance settings, hardware manufacturers didn't give a rats ass if their drives corrupted data outside the most performance poor settings (irq unmasking, anyone?)
Same thing with memory and CPUs. I have had bad memory and bad CPUs that worked fine under windows, not even necissary because Linux "pushed the hardware harder", but just because of different usage patterns. The fact is, most hardware vendors only test under Windows, and if it works there, it is deemed "correct" regardless of whether 90% of the modes of operation were tested.
These things are getting better, but it would be nice to force vendors to have some accountability for these issues.
How about:
"The MPAA is dedicated to the idea that all intelectual property should be under their control, even if that means stealing and hiding the protected intellectual property of others."
Sounds much more accurate to me.
What we really need is for some enterprising cracker to stealthily implant the decss code into some covert channel in the video stream of major motion pictures prior to their release on DVD. Then all we would need to crack DVDs would be a some form of stenography tool. The irony would kill me.
Note: If somebody actually does this, it wasn't me!
ADD is, by definition, a disease. This disease includes a chemical imbalance in the brain. Much like clinical depression, it has symptoms that are not conclusive. Normal people get bored, normal people get depressed. The difference is, people with those diseases are unable to control themselves to, in ADD, continue working on something after they become bored. In the case of depression, medication allows people to, through conciling or whatever, come to terms with whatever trauma instigated their depression and deal with it.
However, both are frequently mis-diagnosed, largely by non-professionals because a normal person may exhibit many of the same symptoms, but without the chemical imbalance. I have known several people with ADD, to whom Ritalin was a godsend. This contributes to the overperscription, because to the people genuinely afflicted, it is a miracle drug.
Many bright children, in particular, are mis-diagnosed as having ADD by teachers who notice that they don't pay attention. In many cases this is because the students are so far ahead of the teachers that they might as well be in their own world. Or, they give up on waiting for the rest of the class to catch up, and start reading (this is what I always did). The solution to this is to seperate students out by learning speeds and teach them differently. However, this is usually criticized as elitism and unfair. I went to 1-4 at a school that did that kind of tracking (well, they started in 3rd grade, I think), and 5-8 in a system that was only concerned with brining each student up to "state norms", and I can say without a doubt that what is totally unfair is to refuse to teach each student at the rate they want and are able to learn.