Then you are shit out of luck. Apple sells computers. Apple-branded computers. X86 machines are not part of their roadmap and I doubt they ever will be.
I'm not SOL, I'm typing this on a powerbook;). I was just making a point regarding subsituting Darwin for OS X.
I write in "SEE ID" and then my signature next to it on my credit cars. I then say thank you to the cashiers who check my ID.
I'd sign it too, for the instance that someone checks the signature but ignores your plea to check ID. If you leave it blank, a thief could sign it for you, and when the signatures look identical, a cashier might be less inclinded to check ID.
That's what I do, and I used to just have "see ID" as you do, but someone convinced me of the wisdom of doing both.
Wikibooks has a lot of promise for a top notch open-source reference textbook. Consider writing or revising some material in there.
I checked it out, and would consider helping - just wondering, but the one I checked out (General Chemistry) didn't look too good as a learning text, though it was structured well as a reference.
Is that the design? Because I think it's also important that something be devised that work as a learning text. And I'd be willing to help where possible.
Yeah. You're missing the fact that the entire book is there for you to read, aparently.
OK. Go to this link and enlighten the rest of us as to how you can get more than pages 204-208.
I see four pages and links in the bottom left to buy. The only way I can see to defeat it is to go to "more results" which will let you get 4-page snippets starting at any page. But that cuts down on readability pretty substantially. It may be enough to screw google from a fair use standpoint, but I'm not their legal team (or anyone's, for that matter).
If someone freely chooses to engage in activities that are bad for their own health, it is their right to do it, to the extent that it is not bad for the health of others. If my own right to smoke in smoking-designated areas is revoked due to fucktards like yourself, I will be one angry motherfucker.
So I assume you're willing to forego any social health benefits in whatever country you live (including medicare/medicaid in the US)? Because as long as we're all paying for your dumb ass, we get a say.
Official: Scientology is worse than a piquepaille/. story.
Man, they're really going to sue you now. Nothing's worse than a fucking piquepaille story. That guy is a fucking leech, always posting shit with links to his goddamn ad-happy blog. Blech.
How do you know they didn't? Most companies don't publicize the C&D letters they get, unlike individuals with a spotlight/soapbox/forum...
Fair point, though I'd have thought google would have been more proactive about things had they received one and it would have leaked out in some way. Guess we'll see?
It'll still be interesting to see how damages are calculated when the "damage" is increasing the revenue of the plaintiff.
Legally speaking, there is absolutely no reason why I should have to put a robots.txt file on my site to keep my copyrighted information from being illegally duplicated by Google.
1). Google isn't duplicating anything except headlines. That likely comes under fair use. 2) Because they KNEW they could easily keep google from doing that using robots.txt and NEVER sent a C&D, it's going to be really hard to get damages. They might get be able to get google to stop doing it - and I doubt even that - but the chances for damages is low, since they knew they could stop the so-called damage at any time.
Also, how does this hurt them? It will be hard to claim that when google drives people to their site and increases their revenue. Ultimately, if AFP wants to isolate themselves from the world, go right ahead.
You're confused. This is a French news agency we're talking about here, not the French state. Same difference as between SCO and the USA. Not the same thing at all, eh?
OK, amend that to read "A lot of French assholes." Better?
Operating systems develop slowly in their core design and philosophy, and that's no bad thing.
Unless it remains vaporware the entire time.
Linux knows where it's going, but the horizons surrounding the Hurd are very fuzzy indeed. It will take time.
Until they actually release an OS, all this discussion is pretty much theoretical. The horizons are fuzzy because we can't actually run the damned thing to refine it.
Heck my first "IBM Compatible" was a 486SX 20mhz with 2MB of RAM and an 80mb hard drive(first computer at all was a Commodore 128) and I managed to run Windows 3.1 with word processor, spreadsheet, and a comm program (for dialing BBS's) all running. It all worked just fine.
Heh! Mine had twice the RAM, twice the HDD, and 5 extra MHz. I guess that's the extra quality that comes with Packard-Bell.;)
Well my old lecturer once told me that you need 75MHZ for every task you do on a computer so add them up together and you will get the MHZ of a computer you need. So by his logic word processor and spreadsheet and printing and email would need 300MHZ. But less does it I think probably.
So on my old 486 SX-25, I ran 1/3 of a program? Please don't tell me this guy was actually teaching CS.
The technical part I don't entirely grasp is that each camera has a different phase or something, and the glasses can block out the image from the wrong camera. This creates the effect instead of a flat image at 56 frames a second (or whatever they use) you see the scene as you would if you were there in 28 frames a second.
It's polarized lenses. As you probably recall, photons have an electric field that oscillates in a given plane. Basically, a polarizing lens blocks all light except that which oscillates in a specific plane. In new 3D glasses, one lens is horizontally polarized, one vertically. The sreen sends out two images, one eye sees one image, the other sees the other.
They have a Shrek-3D thing at Universal's theme park (to which I was unwillingly dragged...;P). I figured that's how the glasses worked, and convinced myself by overlapping the right and left lenses (using two pair of glasses). Blocks out effectively all the light. Then, overlapped two left lenses, which I could see through. Then, I turned one lens 90 degrees, and it blocked out all the light.
So, ultimately, it's just plain old plane polarizing filtering lenses
This guy's gone totally batshit insane. I think the best thing anyone could do for the franchise at this point is put the man in a damned straighjacket and throw him off the brooklyn bridge with a lead weight in a backpack on his back.
This entire hearing is a media circus that the media wanted to cover. They know the gambit. The media is the one who pressured this into being an issue, not congress.
That, to me, IS the story. Or at least the intersting bit. Congress foaming at the mouth over an industry consisting of approximately 1000 people in a given year? Please. Although I personally believe Congress was all about this thing - they get to get facetime on TV, and they finally have an issue they can all gang up on. It's perfect for them.
that a nerd likes baseball doesn't mean that baseball is 'nerdy'. I'm sure a lot of nerds like death metal but should we announce slayer gigs on slashdot? no.
I'm fine with that as long as the standard is applied to other TV shows and whatnot. It's the hypocrisy that annoys me.
In REALITY (is that different from reality in some way?) it's impossible to define a sane cap. What's sane for you, might be completely unusable for me, or vice versa.
Well that's why kernels are easy to recompile. I would love to see the number of people who have ever intentionally run a number of programs over, say, 10,000. If you were to set it there, I bet no one would ever need more. I bet no more than 100 people have ever needed more than that in the history of unix.
However, I bet more than 100 boxes have been taken down by forkbombs. Look at it as a risk analysis: what's the risk of setting the cap at 10,000? There's a 1 in a million (or lower) chance you'll ever be inconvenienced - for the 15 minutes it takes to recompile your kernel - and no chance of being successfully forkbombed. If you set it at infinity? A real chance of being forkbombed.
By your logic, you ought to leave all your ports open too, because you might want to access them sometime. Security is always something of an inconvenience. Hell, if you're so worried about temporary inconvenience, don't set a password, there's a better chance you'll forget that than you needing 10,000 processes. Hell, forget security - I'd set a cap to prevent people (or myself) from *accidentally* setting up an infinite fork.
Uhm, yeah. Steroids are "biotech". Nice justification for submitting a baseball story review to/.
And we sports fans put up with similar lame justifications for submitting a story about the latest inane Star Trek/Wars spinoff/episode/whatever. So deal with it.
Regardless of the merits of the Congressional focus on baseball, it's a whole lot more newsworthy than the usual popular media related drivel on slashdot.
Then why was the Brazilian kid Marcelo Tossatti, not even gone to college yet at the time, elected by Linus Torvalds as maintainer of the freakin' LINUX KERNEL (2.4.x)?
Sorry but the ability for a non-privileged user to run as many programs as the like is a feature, not a bug. Inability to turn that feature off would be a bug, but given that few modern Linux boxes are actually used as multi-user remote-login accounts, it's a completely unecessary overhead.
Right, it's a feature, but the question isn't whether it should ever be allowed, but what the default setting should be. I think the article made a pretty good case that default should be no.
And if you are administrating a true multi-user old-style-Unix type server, you should know enough to stop people fork bombing you (i.e. quotas).
First, I think a lot of unix people would be shocked to find that's on by default as the writer was. Second, that basically means that anyone who successfully hacks into a user account takes the machine down. That applies for your desktop machine, not just "old-style" unix type servers. Third, you mention the relative scarcity of old style servers these days - they're still more common than a user who needs to run an INFINITE number of programs. Even capping somewhere in the thousands would work, keeping anyone from being hampered in their work.
Basically, this is a case of idea vs. reality. You want the IDEA that you can run as many programs as you want, though you'll never need to. So in REALITY, a sane cap never hurts you. However, a lack of a cap provides very REAL security problems, either from a user or from someone who manages to hack a user account. Again, you really don't want EVERY userland exploit to lead to a kernel takedown, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not SOL, I'm typing this on a powerbook ;). I was just making a point regarding subsituting Darwin for OS X.
OS X is a lot more than Darwin. Quartz? Aqua? The iLife suite?
I'd sign it too, for the instance that someone checks the signature but ignores your plea to check ID. If you leave it blank, a thief could sign it for you, and when the signatures look identical, a cashier might be less inclinded to check ID.
That's what I do, and I used to just have "see ID" as you do, but someone convinced me of the wisdom of doing both.
You're right, why does the shuffle come with any controls other than "volume" and "play?"
Wait - where is that? It's not on my standard 103-key.
I checked it out, and would consider helping - just wondering, but the one I checked out (General Chemistry) didn't look too good as a learning text, though it was structured well as a reference.
Is that the design? Because I think it's also important that something be devised that work as a learning text. And I'd be willing to help where possible.
OK. Go to this link and enlighten the rest of us as to how you can get more than pages 204-208.
I see four pages and links in the bottom left to buy. The only way I can see to defeat it is to go to "more results" which will let you get 4-page snippets starting at any page. But that cuts down on readability pretty substantially. It may be enough to screw google from a fair use standpoint, but I'm not their legal team (or anyone's, for that matter).
So I assume you're willing to forego any social health benefits in whatever country you live (including medicare/medicaid in the US)? Because as long as we're all paying for your dumb ass, we get a say.
Man, they're really going to sue you now. Nothing's worse than a fucking piquepaille story. That guy is a fucking leech, always posting shit with links to his goddamn ad-happy blog. Blech.
Or just sell them as Pentium Pros.
Fair point, though I'd have thought google would have been more proactive about things had they received one and it would have leaked out in some way. Guess we'll see?
It'll still be interesting to see how damages are calculated when the "damage" is increasing the revenue of the plaintiff.
1). Google isn't duplicating anything except headlines. That likely comes under fair use. 2) Because they KNEW they could easily keep google from doing that using robots.txt and NEVER sent a C&D, it's going to be really hard to get damages. They might get be able to get google to stop doing it - and I doubt even that - but the chances for damages is low, since they knew they could stop the so-called damage at any time.
Also, how does this hurt them? It will be hard to claim that when google drives people to their site and increases their revenue. Ultimately, if AFP wants to isolate themselves from the world, go right ahead.
OK, amend that to read "A lot of French assholes." Better?
Unless it remains vaporware the entire time.
Linux knows where it's going, but the horizons surrounding the Hurd are very fuzzy indeed. It will take time.
Until they actually release an OS, all this discussion is pretty much theoretical. The horizons are fuzzy because we can't actually run the damned thing to refine it.
Heh! Mine had twice the RAM, twice the HDD, and 5 extra MHz. I guess that's the extra quality that comes with Packard-Bell. ;)
So on my old 486 SX-25, I ran 1/3 of a program? Please don't tell me this guy was actually teaching CS.
It's polarized lenses. As you probably recall, photons have an electric field that oscillates in a given plane. Basically, a polarizing lens blocks all light except that which oscillates in a specific plane. In new 3D glasses, one lens is horizontally polarized, one vertically. The sreen sends out two images, one eye sees one image, the other sees the other.
They have a Shrek-3D thing at Universal's theme park (to which I was unwillingly dragged...;P). I figured that's how the glasses worked, and convinced myself by overlapping the right and left lenses (using two pair of glasses). Blocks out effectively all the light. Then, overlapped two left lenses, which I could see through. Then, I turned one lens 90 degrees, and it blocked out all the light.
So, ultimately, it's just plain old plane polarizing filtering lenses
Nah, somebody oughtta encase him in carbonite.
That, to me, IS the story. Or at least the intersting bit. Congress foaming at the mouth over an industry consisting of approximately 1000 people in a given year? Please. Although I personally believe Congress was all about this thing - they get to get facetime on TV, and they finally have an issue they can all gang up on. It's perfect for them.
I'm fine with that as long as the standard is applied to other TV shows and whatnot. It's the hypocrisy that annoys me.
I'm a nerd. I like baseball. I'm not the only one. QED.
And if you want to maintain that lofty standard, then /. should stop accepting stories about Buffy.
Well that's why kernels are easy to recompile. I would love to see the number of people who have ever intentionally run a number of programs over, say, 10,000. If you were to set it there, I bet no one would ever need more. I bet no more than 100 people have ever needed more than that in the history of unix.
However, I bet more than 100 boxes have been taken down by forkbombs. Look at it as a risk analysis: what's the risk of setting the cap at 10,000? There's a 1 in a million (or lower) chance you'll ever be inconvenienced - for the 15 minutes it takes to recompile your kernel - and no chance of being successfully forkbombed. If you set it at infinity? A real chance of being forkbombed.
By your logic, you ought to leave all your ports open too, because you might want to access them sometime. Security is always something of an inconvenience. Hell, if you're so worried about temporary inconvenience, don't set a password, there's a better chance you'll forget that than you needing 10,000 processes. Hell, forget security - I'd set a cap to prevent people (or myself) from *accidentally* setting up an infinite fork.
And we sports fans put up with similar lame justifications for submitting a story about the latest inane Star Trek/Wars spinoff/episode/whatever. So deal with it.
Regardless of the merits of the Congressional focus on baseball, it's a whole lot more newsworthy than the usual popular media related drivel on slashdot.
There's ONE.
Right, it's a feature, but the question isn't whether it should ever be allowed, but what the default setting should be. I think the article made a pretty good case that default should be no.
And if you are administrating a true multi-user old-style-Unix type server, you should know enough to stop people fork bombing you (i.e. quotas).
First, I think a lot of unix people would be shocked to find that's on by default as the writer was. Second, that basically means that anyone who successfully hacks into a user account takes the machine down. That applies for your desktop machine, not just "old-style" unix type servers. Third, you mention the relative scarcity of old style servers these days - they're still more common than a user who needs to run an INFINITE number of programs. Even capping somewhere in the thousands would work, keeping anyone from being hampered in their work.
Basically, this is a case of idea vs. reality. You want the IDEA that you can run as many programs as you want, though you'll never need to. So in REALITY, a sane cap never hurts you. However, a lack of a cap provides very REAL security problems, either from a user or from someone who manages to hack a user account. Again, you really don't want EVERY userland exploit to lead to a kernel takedown, do you?