We see news all the time about Microsoft vulnerabilities discovered by third parties, and later patched by Microsoft, but I can't recall many being discovered by Microsoft. I often imagine that it's because releasing patches for vulnerabilities previously unknown to researchers and the public creates an unnecessary risk by disclosing the vulnerabilities to anyone willing to reverse engineer the patches, and so the patches are held back until they vulnerabilities are rediscovered outside of Microsoft or until the next major product release, but I'm basing this on nothing more than speculation. What does Microsoft do inhouse identify and patch vulnerabilities that have not yet been discovered by third parties?
We, the People, or at least our elected, often self serving representatives, tell corporations what they have the right to do by making laws. If it's not against the law, then there's little that can be done to stop them, aside from changing the law, boycotting them, or convincing them to act against their legal obligations to shareholders. As rotten as Microsoft is, they're just trying to do exactly what the law encourages, or fails to adequately discourage. The biggest problem here is our failure to exert enough influence on our own lawmakers. The government regulates the corporations, and hopefully someday enough people will care enough to ensure that corporations don't regulate the government. But for the time being, Microsoft is doing just what they're supposed to, in the econonomic sense.
And selling military technology to China might already be very illegal.
In a competitive market, morality is defined by law. Companies will (and are supposed to) do whatever it takes to succeed. If one company decides not to do something on based personal morals, not determined by law, they'll be simply be pushed aside by a company that will, so that their restraint will have had no positive effect. Same goes for pollution. If the profitable choice is the polluting one, the companies that choose not to pollute will have no success in reducing pollution, but instead will simply be pushed out of the market by those that are willing to pollute for profit, unless the law steps in to make pollution an unprofitable choice.
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute the Program, or other covered work, so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute it at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution....
I guess all this means is that if lawmakers want to void or weaken part of the GPL, they'll have to void this part as well.
I'm sure Microsoft would love it if Google's DRM only allowed Windows and perhaps Mac users to access their media, just like the DRM's of all Microsoft's other competitors.
When I search for it, all that comes up is "X-Windows on a Floppy", which is Linux. The latest release was November 2005.
Now, I can't remember ever installing Windows and finding it already had all the necessary drivers, with the exception of 3.11, and some OEM provided restore CD's. I've had pretty good luck with Linux distros including all the right drivers. It seems like any Windows version won't have drivers for anything released less than one year before or more than three years before that version of Windows was released. So XP won't support anything released after 2000 out of the box. If for some reason you have something that old, it won't have accelerated OpenGL support, so you'll still have to go to the manufacturer's website and get the correct drivers. In fact, there is not a piece of hardware in existence for which a vanilla install of Windows XP fresh out of the box will have accelerated OpenGL support, so any claims Microsoft tries to make about having better legacy support is made bullshit by their failed attempts to kill a "not invented here" graphics standard.
Those who don't understand cookies are doomed to argue against them, poorly.
You don't need cookies to track people online. IP plus browser string works fine if the number of users is small enough. In most online forums, I can (if I wanted) track forum members just by checking my server log for hits to my linked avatar. Without any setup/work required on my part, just with the host's default server settings, it tells me their ip address, the referer (which of my posts they were reading), when they viewed it, and what browser they're using. Combined with things I know about them and other information like the "users viewing this forum" information that so many boards share, I imagine I could match usernames to ip addresses, and even find the exact identities of some of them. People might expect a website to track them, but they never expect other users of the site to track them, without cookies. If you're so worried about being tracked, try blocking third party images in addition to those third party cookies you're probably already blocking.
If I exclude the "less than 1 second" benchmarks, the reiser filesystems are a little better off, but still in last place. If I additionally exclude the "Remove 10,000 Directories" benchmark, reiser 4 and 3 move up to 2nd and 3rd place, and EXT2 and 3 move into last. JFS seems to win 1st no matter how I work the numbers.
I like it when my system can run at 0-5% cpu usage during even the most intense disk activity, with minimal I/O wait. Disk activity should not be cpu intensitive. Reiser4 might win on a faster processor, but any filesystem that takes more than a few % cpu smells of possibly poor scalibility, which might pin the CPU to 100% on certain loads or configurations even on a modern system. Maybe there's a bunch of O(n) list operations going on in there that could be made O(log n) or O(1), or maybe it's doing a lot of poll waiting. There's no reason I can imagine for a filesystem to need a lot of CPU.
Based on the geometric mean of all the benchmark times for each filesystem, which effectively weights all benchmarks equally: JFS won EXT2 and EXT3 took 17% longer than JFS XFS took 29% longer than JFS Reiser3 took 38% longer than JFS Reiser4 took 52% longer than JFS
Now, 1.52 seconds is not a whole lot longer to wait than 1 second. With any luck we'll see a post from Hans explaining why Reiser4 took longer, or what sacrifices were made to make the others faster, if there are any.
January 29th will mark the 10th anniversary of Duke Nukem 3D. After that day comes and goes and nothing happens, I'll have to remember to visit some of the DNF message boards to make fun of them all for waiting this long.
Slashdot Mirror
Watching over money that will never be claimed, and getting paid an extra fee to do it, has to be the greatest get rich scheme ever.
The article claims that the official BitTorrent client, written in Python, requires the Java 1.5 runtime.
All good questions, but you're asking the wrong person.
It's probably a "better safe than sorry" sort of thing. 0.625mb is just the minimum before you're guaranteed to have poor performance.
We see news all the time about Microsoft vulnerabilities discovered by third parties, and later patched by Microsoft, but I can't recall many being discovered by Microsoft. I often imagine that it's because releasing patches for vulnerabilities previously unknown to researchers and the public creates an unnecessary risk by disclosing the vulnerabilities to anyone willing to reverse engineer the patches, and so the patches are held back until they vulnerabilities are rediscovered outside of Microsoft or until the next major product release, but I'm basing this on nothing more than speculation. What does Microsoft do inhouse identify and patch vulnerabilities that have not yet been discovered by third parties?
I guess I should have said corporations instead of companies. Corporations are expected by law to do their best to maximize shareholder profits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_C ompany.
We, the People, or at least our elected, often self serving representatives, tell corporations what they have the right to do by making laws. If it's not against the law, then there's little that can be done to stop them, aside from changing the law, boycotting them, or convincing them to act against their legal obligations to shareholders. As rotten as Microsoft is, they're just trying to do exactly what the law encourages, or fails to adequately discourage. The biggest problem here is our failure to exert enough influence on our own lawmakers. The government regulates the corporations, and hopefully someday enough people will care enough to ensure that corporations don't regulate the government. But for the time being, Microsoft is doing just what they're supposed to, in the econonomic sense.
And selling military technology to China might already be very illegal.
In a competitive market, morality is defined by law. Companies will (and are supposed to) do whatever it takes to succeed. If one company decides not to do something on based personal morals, not determined by law, they'll be simply be pushed aside by a company that will, so that their restraint will have had no positive effect. Same goes for pollution. If the profitable choice is the polluting one, the companies that choose not to pollute will have no success in reducing pollution, but instead will simply be pushed out of the market by those that are willing to pollute for profit, unless the law steps in to make pollution an unprofitable choice.
12. Liberty or Death for the Program.
...
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
the Program, or other covered work, so as to satisfy simultaneously your
obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as
a consequence you may not distribute it at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution by all those who
receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you
could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from
distribution.
I guess all this means is that if lawmakers want to void or weaken part of the GPL, they'll have to void this part as well.
We can't have people whistleblowing whenever the government violates the constitution. That's treason!!!
"Strangle these animals so we can figure out how they died"
I'm sure Microsoft would love it if Google's DRM only allowed Windows and perhaps Mac users to access their media, just like the DRM's of all Microsoft's other competitors.
That's nothing like my first computer, where the only fun thing I could do on it was learn to program.
When I search for it, all that comes up is "X-Windows on a Floppy", which is Linux. The latest release was November 2005.
Now, I can't remember ever installing Windows and finding it already had all the necessary drivers, with the exception of 3.11, and some OEM provided restore CD's. I've had pretty good luck with Linux distros including all the right drivers. It seems like any Windows version won't have drivers for anything released less than one year before or more than three years before that version of Windows was released. So XP won't support anything released after 2000 out of the box. If for some reason you have something that old, it won't have accelerated OpenGL support, so you'll still have to go to the manufacturer's website and get the correct drivers. In fact, there is not a piece of hardware in existence for which a vanilla install of Windows XP fresh out of the box will have accelerated OpenGL support, so any claims Microsoft tries to make about having better legacy support is made bullshit by their failed attempts to kill a "not invented here" graphics standard.
It beats doing a straight average of all the benchmarks, where some take 50 seconds and others take 0.03 seconds. I was in a hurry.
Those who don't understand cookies are doomed to argue against them, poorly.
You don't need cookies to track people online. IP plus browser string works fine if the number of users is small enough. In most online forums, I can (if I wanted) track forum members just by checking my server log for hits to my linked avatar. Without any setup/work required on my part, just with the host's default server settings, it tells me their ip address, the referer (which of my posts they were reading), when they viewed it, and what browser they're using. Combined with things I know about them and other information like the "users viewing this forum" information that so many boards share, I imagine I could match usernames to ip addresses, and even find the exact identities of some of them. People might expect a website to track them, but they never expect other users of the site to track them, without cookies. If you're so worried about being tracked, try blocking third party images in addition to those third party cookies you're probably already blocking.
http://lake.stark.k12.oh.us/ was offline before I could even find its url in Google.
If I exclude the "less than 1 second" benchmarks, the reiser filesystems are a little better off, but still in last place. If I additionally exclude the "Remove 10,000 Directories" benchmark, reiser 4 and 3 move up to 2nd and 3rd place, and EXT2 and 3 move into last. JFS seems to win 1st no matter how I work the numbers.
I like it when my system can run at 0-5% cpu usage during even the most intense disk activity, with minimal I/O wait. Disk activity should not be cpu intensitive. Reiser4 might win on a faster processor, but any filesystem that takes more than a few % cpu smells of possibly poor scalibility, which might pin the CPU to 100% on certain loads or configurations even on a modern system. Maybe there's a bunch of O(n) list operations going on in there that could be made O(log n) or O(1), or maybe it's doing a lot of poll waiting. There's no reason I can imagine for a filesystem to need a lot of CPU.
Based on the geometric mean of all the benchmark times for each filesystem, which effectively weights all benchmarks equally:
JFS won
EXT2 and EXT3 took 17% longer than JFS
XFS took 29% longer than JFS
Reiser3 took 38% longer than JFS
Reiser4 took 52% longer than JFS
Now, 1.52 seconds is not a whole lot longer to wait than 1 second. With any luck we'll see a post from Hans explaining why Reiser4 took longer, or what sacrifices were made to make the others faster, if there are any.
Will the BIOS and firmware also have to be open source? Maybe this move will give some hardware manufacturers an incentive to start providing this.
January 29th will mark the 10th anniversary of Duke Nukem 3D. After that day comes and goes and nothing happens, I'll have to remember to visit some of the DNF message boards to make fun of them all for waiting this long.
I can't wait to find out if any of my servers' hard disks are failing.
The next big Windows worm will be unleashed on a Wednesday.
I'll just say all the information I create is private, allowing only those I choose (those who pay) to access it.
How can private information be protected without intellectual property laws?