instead of FreeBSD, Apple should have used Linux as a base for their venture into the world of UNIXishness. then it could call the product 'Liger'. you know... because ligers are bred for their skills in magic.
so i guess the RAID in RAID-0 is not really RAID? last i checked, RAID-0 (aka, striping) was an actual RAID configuration though not necessarily in the mindset of RAID as you hinted at. maybe you were thinking of concatentation?
the *BSD's tail is "smart". GNU's tail needs to be told to be "smart".
the difference is whether or not the program follows the inode (GNU's version) versus following the file name (*BSD's version). if you mv a file, the file's inode doesn't change, just it's name/position within the hierarchy (unless of course you are mv'ing across filesystems). look at the man page for GNU's tail and you'll find the "--follow=name" flag.
so what you're saying is that even though RMS beats everyone over the head with his "GNU/Linux" rants he doesn't respect the X Consortium's naming wishes for their "X Window System"? bwahahaha... that's just too damned funny.
i actually had trouble with 3xxx drivers in Wolfenstein since the release of the 1.40 (and 1.41) patch. i backed the drivers down to the 2xxx series and everything has been working fine. i've heard others mumble something similar to my experiences as well. 2D has been just fine with all sets of drivers i have used though. on to the 4xxx series now i guess...
I didnt know enough (and still dont)about lunar physics or photography to be able to make a judgement call on a lot of the claims.
that brings about an interesting point. the producers of that show were probably counting on the fact that 99% of the world is just as (un)savvy as you are on those topics (me included). i can spew out a whole load of techno mumbo-jumbo to non-tech people and they'll believe it with no question. it doesn't make what i said correct though.
from what I understand, hubble is unable to gaze upon objects so close to earth. it was designed to peer deep into space.
imaging satellites are probably too close to earth to get a good photo as well. and it really doesn't make sense to build a satellite just to take pictures of the moon. of course, even if NASA (or whomever) did that, there'd still be people saying it was all a hoax... *sigh*
if you have requested to be put on the DNC list and get repeated calls, file a complaint with the FCC. they can levy fines of several thousands of dollars per incident. they should also be able to tell you more about the laws regarding telemarketing.
imagine the oil lamp company that offers a free lamp *rental* (not a purchase, you do not own the lamp) if you purchase the oil for it and then cries foul when you try to create the electric lightbulb. yes, in that case i would say that the lamp company would be in their right to either charge you for the lamp or insist that you return it. it is their property after all, not yours.
the difference, however, is that when Edison used oil/gas lights, he had bought those lights and owned them. he was then free to do whatever he wanted with them including developing a better, competing product.
the BK situation is different because the data is stored on BK's servers. while i would argue that the actual BK client itself (the binary copy you have anyways) is yours to do with what you please, the actual service that BK provides is under their control. if it were possible to run your own BK server on your own hardware with your own internet connection, i don't think McVoy would have a leg to stand on with his new policy.
so, going back to your Edison analogy, i think the oil/gas light industry would have been upset had Edison developed the electric light bulb in their factories/development labs. however, while Edison did use their products, he did so at his own expense and was therefore in the right.
as a p.s. i want to make it clear that i don't think software vendors should have the right to dictate what uses one can get out of software. when you buy a hammer, the hammer manufacturer can't tell you what to do with it. the same should be true of software since software is basically a tool. however, in the case where a business is providing a service that makes use of their own resources, i think they should have the full right to make any contractual stipulations that they want. it is their equipment and their business.
i hope that clears up my viewpoint a little. i'm thinking my original reply might have left a few confused as to what my actual viewpoint was.
i think your analogies are off. in the H. G. Wells analogy, i think it might be more like:
H. G. Wells would forbid anyone from publishing a novel that was written using his typewriter/pencil.
or in the chip fab analogy:
company X would forbid company Y from producing a competing product using X's fabrication facilities.
it doesn't appear as though BK is trying to eliminate the competition. BK is simply saying: you can't use their resources (bandwidth, server space, software, etc) if you work on a competing product. as Larry McVoy says several times on the mailing list, he is running a business and supporting your competition is not a great idea for a business.
i do, however, think that the restriction is a bit harsh since it doesn't just keep the project from being developed using BK. it also keeps the developers who help develop competing products from using BK to work on non-competing products (like the linux kernel). this seems to have caused quite a problem for several of the kernel developers.
all i can say is that it's about time that these issues are being talked about in areas where it really matters. i am especially impressed that EULA's are mentioned.
even though the bill won't pass this year and there's always the chance it won't pass next year either, i think it is great that the subject will be highlighted. i urge everyone in the US to contact their representatives and let them know that this issue is very important. this is the time to get the ball rolling before it sinks back into the mud.
after reading this article i feel a bit better about Jack Valenti. from the article, Rep. Zoe Lofgren is quoted:
This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends
Valenti's response:
If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie... You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.
it is apparent that Mr Valenti has some sort of problem understanding exactly what the words "not authorize" mean together. so that makes me think that maybe we have misunderstood him all this time. maybe what he really wants to say is what we want to hear, but he just doesn't know what words to use...
i'm sorry but i just have to say that the 3d environments in movies just won't work. there's too much movement. it seems like it would be very tiring to be waving your arms around like that. i have a hard enough time moving between the keyboard and mouse...
it's not the GOTO's that are bad, it's the programmers that use them poorly that make them bad. would you say that #include directive is bad? well, how about this:
if(foo > 0) { #include "bar.c" }
looks pretty nasty to me and yes, i have actually seen this in some code for a very large project. maybe we should put #include's in the same category as GOTO's?
Re:Oh boy:: me not worried, it won't work
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
what's funny is that you always see statistics estimating how much money is lost due to piracy yet never see statistics regarding how much money is lost by consumers not willing to mess with copy-protected CD's or how much money all of these copy-potection schemes save companies each year. how much money did blizzard lose due to people being unhappy with Diablo II's CD's not working all CD-ROM drives? how many customers did they lose after chasing the bnetd proejct? i'd love to see a report that said "CD protection schemes saved $2B last year... meanwhile, 20,000 customers demanded refunds due to inoperable discs.". maybe one day the companies will realize that they are just going through the motions and spending alot of money while doing it.
i've got 2 80mm 45CFM fans mounted near the CPU/Heatsink. i also have 3 80mm fans located at the front of the case to keep the hard drives cool. airflow definately is not a problem.
i really don't think so. i've tested and re-tested my setup to see where the problem lies. the current configuration i have seems to work best. and i'm using arctic silver iii, which is supposed to be the best heatsink compound around. i even used their instructions for heatsink/CPU preparation. *shrug*
though i really can't say anything bad about the company, i must say that i will not be using AMD in the future. over the past couple of years i have had nothing but troubles with AMD-based products. the main problem (as you have already guessed) has been heat. even now i have an 1800+ (1.533GHz) processor running at 1.150GHz and it's still 140F. oh, and that's including an all-copper heatsink and 50CFM fan combo too.
this is really sad considering i would be 100% behind AMD if weren't for these problems. maybe if the Hammer shows better heat handling, i'll get one. for now, though, it's Intel...
is this really a suprise? part of the idea behind what some of the search engines have done with paid-for ads has been to keep the user unaware that they are being targeted. of course, if you are smart enough, you could probably pick the paid-for ads out of the list. -jh
the thing that is disgusting is that there are a lot of fees that you can't take off of your bill even though it is only used for dial-up. i know there are monthly charges for interstate long-distance and such, but i would never use that line for long distance. in fact, i don't even want that phone line to even have the ability to make long distance calls... but i pay the fee anyways...
ok, valid point, but with your analogy, you are having to actually physically sign something. this then gives OmniCorp something tangible to work with. true, if they don't have your signature, i wouldn't think their argument would stand up in court. however, EULA's are different. there is nothing for you to sign. most simply say that by opening the package (which typically you have to do to even see the EULA) you are held responsible by the terms of the "contract" or "agreement". the way you disagree is by not opening the package or hitting the "accept" button. saying that you disagree and then using the software anyway doesn't seem like it will stand up in court if EULA's are found enforceable.
to use an analogy along the same lines as yours, imagine the same setting but now there is no piece of paper to sign and no witness to accept a verbal acceptance. there is only a single sign that reads "by entering into this facility, you hereby relinquesh your rights to your first-born to the OmniCorp corporation". whether you agree or disagree is up to you, and your action (whether you enter or not) will determine that fact. even if you walk into the facility backwards without looking at the sign, the fact is that you did enter the facility, and that's where OmniCorp has you. the courts will not accept the "I didn't know..." plea.
i'm not saying that i'm for EULA's though. personally i don't think they should ever stand up in court. if a company wants to make an agreement with me, they need to get my signature or verbal agreement before a witness to do so. however, that may not be the way the courts see it. it's scary, but true.
this idea has been mentioned time and time again. there is even some sort of VBS program that is supposed to remove the EULA posting before you actually see it when you install software. the problem is this: ignorance is not a defense. just tell any cop "I didn't know..." and he'll just smile as he hands you your ticket. i think you'd find it hard to prove your innocence in court when they find out that you knowingly removed the EULA and are then claiming "I didn't know...".
now, it might be different if the company fudged up the EULA when they packaged the product. but to be honest, i'm sure the companies lawyers make absolutely sure that the EULA is present and worded correctly on the master copy before the pressings are made.
Slashdot Mirror
instead of FreeBSD, Apple should have used Linux as a base for their venture into the world of UNIXishness. then it could call the product 'Liger'. you know... because ligers are bred for their skills in magic.
so i guess the RAID in RAID-0 is not really RAID? last i checked, RAID-0 (aka, striping) was an actual RAID configuration though not necessarily in the mindset of RAID as you hinted at. maybe you were thinking of concatentation?
funny you should mention that. they were hacked just last weekend...
the *BSD's tail is "smart". GNU's tail needs to be told to be "smart".
the difference is whether or not the program follows the inode (GNU's version) versus following the file name (*BSD's version). if you mv a file, the file's inode doesn't change, just it's name/position within the hierarchy (unless of course you are mv'ing across filesystems). look at the man page for GNU's tail and you'll find the "--follow=name" flag.
so what you're saying is that even though RMS beats everyone over the head with his "GNU/Linux" rants he doesn't respect the X Consortium's naming wishes for their "X Window System"? bwahahaha... that's just too damned funny.
i actually had trouble with 3xxx drivers in Wolfenstein since the release of the 1.40 (and 1.41) patch. i backed the drivers down to the 2xxx series and everything has been working fine. i've heard others mumble something similar to my experiences as well. 2D has been just fine with all sets of drivers i have used though. on to the 4xxx series now i guess...
I didnt know enough (and still dont)about lunar physics or photography to be able to make a judgement call on a lot of the claims.
that brings about an interesting point. the producers of that show were probably counting on the fact that 99% of the world is just as (un)savvy as you are on those topics (me included). i can spew out a whole load of techno mumbo-jumbo to non-tech people and they'll believe it with no question. it doesn't make what i said correct though.
from what I understand, hubble is unable to gaze upon objects so close to earth. it was designed to peer deep into space.
imaging satellites are probably too close to earth to get a good photo as well. and it really doesn't make sense to build a satellite just to take pictures of the moon. of course, even if NASA (or whomever) did that, there'd still be people saying it was all a hoax... *sigh*
if you have requested to be put on the DNC list and get repeated calls, file a complaint with the FCC. they can levy fines of several thousands of dollars per incident. they should also be able to tell you more about the laws regarding telemarketing.
and again, the analogy is off...
imagine the oil lamp company that offers a free lamp *rental* (not a purchase, you do not own the lamp) if you purchase the oil for it and then cries foul when you try to create the electric lightbulb. yes, in that case i would say that the lamp company would be in their right to either charge you for the lamp or insist that you return it. it is their property after all, not yours.
the difference, however, is that when Edison used oil/gas lights, he had bought those lights and owned them. he was then free to do whatever he wanted with them including developing a better, competing product.
the BK situation is different because the data is stored on BK's servers. while i would argue that the actual BK client itself (the binary copy you have anyways) is yours to do with what you please, the actual service that BK provides is under their control. if it were possible to run your own BK server on your own hardware with your own internet connection, i don't think McVoy would have a leg to stand on with his new policy.
so, going back to your Edison analogy, i think the oil/gas light industry would have been upset had Edison developed the electric light bulb in their factories/development labs. however, while Edison did use their products, he did so at his own expense and was therefore in the right.
as a p.s. i want to make it clear that i don't think software vendors should have the right to dictate what uses one can get out of software. when you buy a hammer, the hammer manufacturer can't tell you what to do with it. the same should be true of software since software is basically a tool. however, in the case where a business is providing a service that makes use of their own resources, i think they should have the full right to make any contractual stipulations that they want. it is their equipment and their business.
i hope that clears up my viewpoint a little. i'm thinking my original reply might have left a few confused as to what my actual viewpoint was.
i think your analogies are off. in the H. G. Wells analogy, i think it might be more like:
H. G. Wells would forbid anyone from publishing a novel that was written using his typewriter/pencil.
or in the chip fab analogy:
company X would forbid company Y from producing a competing product using X's fabrication facilities.
it doesn't appear as though BK is trying to eliminate the competition. BK is simply saying: you can't use their resources (bandwidth, server space, software, etc) if you work on a competing product. as Larry McVoy says several times on the mailing list, he is running a business and supporting your competition is not a great idea for a business.
i do, however, think that the restriction is a bit harsh since it doesn't just keep the project from being developed using BK. it also keeps the developers who help develop competing products from using BK to work on non-competing products (like the linux kernel). this seems to have caused quite a problem for several of the kernel developers.
all i can say is that it's about time that these issues are being talked about in areas where it really matters. i am especially impressed that EULA's are mentioned.
even though the bill won't pass this year and there's always the chance it won't pass next year either, i think it is great that the subject will be highlighted. i urge everyone in the US to contact their representatives and let them know that this issue is very important. this is the time to get the ball rolling before it sinks back into the mud.
after reading this article i feel a bit better about Jack Valenti. from the article, Rep. Zoe Lofgren is quoted:
... You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.
... then again, i could be wrong.
This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends
Valenti's response:
If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie
it is apparent that Mr Valenti has some sort of problem understanding exactly what the words "not authorize" mean together. so that makes me think that maybe we have misunderstood him all this time. maybe what he really wants to say is what we want to hear, but he just doesn't know what words to use...
i'm sorry but i just have to say that the 3d environments in movies just won't work. there's too much movement. it seems like it would be very tiring to be waving your arms around like that. i have a hard enough time moving between the keyboard and mouse...
looks pretty nasty to me and yes, i have actually seen this in some code for a very large project. maybe we should put #include's in the same category as GOTO's?
what's funny is that you always see statistics estimating how much money is lost due to piracy yet never see statistics regarding how much money is lost by consumers not willing to mess with copy-protected CD's or how much money all of these copy-potection schemes save companies each year. how much money did blizzard lose due to people being unhappy with Diablo II's CD's not working all CD-ROM drives? how many customers did they lose after chasing the bnetd proejct? i'd love to see a report that said "CD protection schemes saved $2B last year... meanwhile, 20,000 customers demanded refunds due to inoperable discs.". maybe one day the companies will realize that they are just going through the motions and spending alot of money while doing it.
i've got 2 80mm 45CFM fans mounted near the CPU/Heatsink. i also have 3 80mm fans located at the front of the case to keep the hard drives cool. airflow definately is not a problem.
i really don't think so. i've tested and re-tested my setup to see where the problem lies. the current configuration i have seems to work best. and i'm using arctic silver iii, which is supposed to be the best heatsink compound around. i even used their instructions for heatsink/CPU preparation. *shrug*
though i really can't say anything bad about the company, i must say that i will not be using AMD in the future. over the past couple of years i have had nothing but troubles with AMD-based products. the main problem (as you have already guessed) has been heat. even now i have an 1800+ (1.533GHz) processor running at 1.150GHz and it's still 140F. oh, and that's including an all-copper heatsink and 50CFM fan combo too.
this is really sad considering i would be 100% behind AMD if weren't for these problems. maybe if the Hammer shows better heat handling, i'll get one. for now, though, it's Intel...
is this really a suprise? part of the idea behind what some of the search engines have done with paid-for ads has been to keep the user unaware that they are being targeted. of course, if you are smart enough, you could probably pick the paid-for ads out of the list.
-jh
the thing that is disgusting is that there are a lot of fees that you can't take off of your bill even though it is only used for dial-up. i know there are monthly charges for interstate long-distance and such, but i would never use that line for long distance. in fact, i don't even want that phone line to even have the ability to make long distance calls... but i pay the fee anyways...
ok, valid point, but with your analogy, you are having to actually physically sign something. this then gives OmniCorp something tangible to work with. true, if they don't have your signature, i wouldn't think their argument would stand up in court. however, EULA's are different. there is nothing for you to sign. most simply say that by opening the package (which typically you have to do to even see the EULA) you are held responsible by the terms of the "contract" or "agreement". the way you disagree is by not opening the package or hitting the "accept" button. saying that you disagree and then using the software anyway doesn't seem like it will stand up in court if EULA's are found enforceable.
to use an analogy along the same lines as yours, imagine the same setting but now there is no piece of paper to sign and no witness to accept a verbal acceptance. there is only a single sign that reads "by entering into this facility, you hereby relinquesh your rights to your first-born to the OmniCorp corporation". whether you agree or disagree is up to you, and your action (whether you enter or not) will determine that fact. even if you walk into the facility backwards without looking at the sign, the fact is that you did enter the facility, and that's where OmniCorp has you. the courts will not accept the "I didn't know..." plea.
i'm not saying that i'm for EULA's though. personally i don't think they should ever stand up in court. if a company wants to make an agreement with me, they need to get my signature or verbal agreement before a witness to do so. however, that may not be the way the courts see it. it's scary, but true.
this idea has been mentioned time and time again. there is even some sort of VBS program that is supposed to remove the EULA posting before you actually see it when you install software. the problem is this: ignorance is not a defense. just tell any cop "I didn't know..." and he'll just smile as he hands you your ticket. i think you'd find it hard to prove your innocence in court when they find out that you knowingly removed the EULA and are then claiming "I didn't know...".
now, it might be different if the company fudged up the EULA when they packaged the product. but to be honest, i'm sure the companies lawyers make absolutely sure that the EULA is present and worded correctly on the master copy before the pressings are made.
any OS that allows you to backspace over the login prompt needs to be destroyed!