>>But it is certain that once people start upgrading their old boxes, sooner or later they will need new applications to run on them.
KFG>Why?
Because most companies run Windows. You have an engrained outsourced techs (what I do) reccomend Windows on everything because it breaks down. That equals more money for us. Also, people need the newest version of XYZ program (Office for example). To run Office 2003 on Win95 equlivalent hardware is asking for a mutiny.
And since Linux has grown much since the.BOMB, most companies dont do that. Just wait.. in a few years many, many companies will use it. My reason is that they'll hire competant Linux 'users' that will get open-source software in and cut the companies bottom line. And that's good for everybody.
I "know" what you mean. Like india/Japan/China has ever contributed any major open-source tool or filter to make computing easier....
Oh wait! Most of the people that make open-source tools are in America (not just US) and many parts of Europe.
China's not a threat until the govt over there takes the reigns of their people. Until then, thry're not as much a threat. Japan's the great mime to the US. Cool gadgets appear over there after WE create them. And finally,. India's only threat is programming and call centers. Too many of then live in poverty to do much else..
Enter -1 mod's now. I take those mods as accepting my viewpoint.
Trust me. I was putting out feelers to see who'd say that first.
After all, I am a card carrying member of the NRA, and I cant see Mr. Heston saying something of the sort to the parents who had their kids killed. Even as such, read another post I wrote in this article HERE
I might sound like a nut, but I'm of the firm beleif that the more guns that our country has, the lower our crime rate gets. It'd also make more people polite knowing you really dont want to get in a fight with someone who's packing, and 5 or 6 witnesses who'll make sure everything's on the up and up.
I guess if you want, you'll read what I said with the grain of salt.
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
>>>I've always found this perspective absurd. If you outlaw seven-winged dogs, only outlaws will have those.
Yep. And for you, I presume, he prohibition worked. There was no speak-easy's and the gangsters fought over non-alcoholic beer.
>>>What you're presenting is not an argument against gun control/bans, it's an argument against prohibitive laws, e.g. against murder. Hey, if you outlaw murder, one might say, then those outlaws--because they then will be--will be murdering left and right.
You're trying to make absurd a very true point. Murder is illegal for regular citizens but banning it sure as hell doesnt make murder non-existant.
Anyways, murder has different rules and beliefs to whom is doing it. In a war, your country calls it a casualty.. where you killing the enemy can get you a purple heart, religous zealots call it a jihad where you go to $good_place if you do work of $deity. Then there's crazyies who kill for certain reasons. They in the US are summairly executed after all appeals have been extinguished.
>>>This is, of course, totally nonsensical. The objective of most 'anti-gun' groups isn't banning, anyway--it's strict control to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the real outlaws (i.e., the ones who actually commit crimes).
Yes, it is. Anti gun groups are the types that want citizens to be essentially powerless. And when some thug with an ingram overpowers a bunch of people, we're supposed to call upon our 'protecters', the police. I want that power to defend, to my death, my family and friends against any hostile.
My last beleif is that if everybody had guns, this country would be a lot more polite, and there'd be much less crime. After all, would you want to seriously cut somebody off (posible wreak on road) if you knew that they'd possibly hold you at gun-point along with witnesses making sure the law enforcement officals were called? It'd also eliminate a bunch of stupid burglaries, theft, and other nuisance crimes.
ANd you're probably thinking I'm a gun nut that I'd let children be around guns (after all, they'd be in the house). I've used a rifle since I was 6. And now, at 22, I'd say I handled not shooting myself or others.
For primaries, many of them do. The reason is that you could vote for the worst of the opposing party and the best of the party you support, so you must choose which party to "support".
For the major elections, this is not done. However, you're a fool if you dont vote every chance you get. What little power we control is still power.
Then how about a system that your votes are anonymous UNTIL you check your vote.
Example:
A voting place already knows a lot about you by the time you get in there. 1: You have to register to vote, which includes name and address. 2: You visited the precint so you're physically close to here. 3: Many states require you to announce your alligences (R, D, other..)
All the voting places dont know about you is the link to the votes you did and your name. My idea is to make these e-votes semi-anonymous.
Everyody would get a chad with a serial (probabaly md5 hash), location, and time of vote. The votes would be tallied electronically so that this tag goes to the respective votes. If there's a question whether votes were illegal or not, they can check to see who's ID it was attached to and delete it. However, as the fail-safe, the person can check their vote by sacrificing their anonymity to check for a valid vote.
What BillG says is bullshit. Daemons that are externally accessable MUST be secured down. That includes any sort of code errors in the server.
Once you open a port to a server, all data can flow in and out through the protocols specified. You really cant block "bad" tcp data if your server is accessable.
How do you firewall off a semi-legit request to a external MS-Exchange that "Admin's" the server? Even stateful devices like the Packeteer cant selectively block data in the TCP block... expessially 0-day exploits.
Yeah. You can use firewalls(cough). That's why Unix is the Internet OS.
That was a choice back in the 70's when Unix was created.
You either have strong file type attributes (like forks in MacOS) or treat everything as a bitstream and let he filters take care of decoding. The UNIX way is to show +X against -X. Past that, it's a file something has to decipher.
In MacOS, there were file attributes, similar to MIME types, built into the FS itself. That format also included the creating program used. Because it was done as such, you could have a program automatically know the type of data with no regard how the file was "named". It just worked.
Windows brought a bastardised for of both. They included the 8.3 format of naming (which later wend to 127 or 255, I forget). They then had the OS use a program that parses the last.XYZ characters to the bound program that supposedly created it. For example,.pdf is usually intereped as a Adobe Portable Document File. However, on windows, if another program uses the.pdf for its own format, the Adobe program is brought up whenever the user opens that non-abdobe pdf file.
The problem you get is conflicting characters over the 36^3 namespace. Most meaningful triplets are already used. The future Windows OS'es allow unlimited.XYZ characters, but many developers cant use them due to backward compatibility problems.
What this leads to is problems concerning how MSH is going to handle data types. Is this going to be handled like the old MS way of.something or by FS tags that tell exactly what the format is? And the last question that Richie asked himself: what's better, stream or bits or 'objects'. We're all using his answer now...
After looking through the basics, isn't the FileID something similar Hans did in Reiser? Course in the earlier versions, the "same ID bug" got my/usr/X11R6 directory mixed up with/etc. Let's just say I've not used Reiser3 again...
I guess what I've said in a roundabout way is that this corruption goes far beyond what you mentioned.
We do the minimalist solution, and charge greatly for it. We provide those "5 Year Pipes" to our customers who are unknowing what they bring. After all, buying MS hasnt gotten people fired (adaptation of IBM slogan). We slap WinNT and 2K on the servers.. and when they fail, we rebuild... for a fee. If the hardware fails (Depends if they purchased hardware raid or backup), we send the drive off to data recovery, if they OK it. The last I can remember we doing that, the cost for recovery was 900$. We charged 6000$. And that was for a company who we already had a 5 year service contract with...
Many, many tech support companies have this same "mantra" of using half-baked software so that they will still have jobs fixing garbage-ware.
Yes, I do understand the duality of "Free" when it comes to software, but the suits dont. All they care about is "How much is it going to cost them".
In my line of work, we install computers/networks for small businesses that cannot/will not support their own IT. Many of those places would easily benefit of using linux on the servers. My boss wont use it because we charge 1500$ for a Win2k Server license. I'm asked where free software will make money.
I know many of those places would benefit of using a free software solution, but we can inflate the cost of licenses to make money. Upgrades also require newer hardware which makes us more money. Windows breaks, so we're contracted to fix them. Make more money.
Linux prevents upgrades of hardware because it'll run on less. Linux software upgrades (via source or deb's) are free. We cant "sell" a free solution to a customer, but we can jack on 50% on properiatary software. Also, unless you have the root password, Linux usually doesnt break.
You do the math...
And in my dad's line of work, he was in the R&D department. It consisted of 2 engineers (mechanical and electrical) and 11 marketers. My dad was the electrical engineer. No matter what idea the 2 engineers in the "Research and Development" came up with, the marketers were to gang-bust it down.
Fair use also prevents professors from photocopying the whole book/magazine for class use.
Considering how poorly done the law meaning of "fair use" is, it's worthless to give any credance to. Fair use is only fair after a couple million spent in the law coffers.
For Amazon: They "purchase" the books. Fair use allows cutting snippets out and showing people. They just built a search engine out of snippets.
Against Amazon: They do not have the authorization to give out whole books, whether in snippets or not. Fair use does not allow complete articles of published material
My opinion: I really dont know. I'd prefer more freedom when it comes to published material, but it's a fair request/statement the authors guild says. It's not like they demand you read the books/magazines with 499$ book "translators", and books are reasonablly priced. Combine that with really big and good used book sellers.
Driving permits are not stated directly in the constution, so it is an issue with the state. Some will say that the Civil war quelled states' rights. It quelled the big ones (for example..control over abortion or, slavery per state). Smaller issues arent bothered by the national govt. unless it's a "touchy feely" issue like lowering the blood alcohol content to.08% .
If I remember, a local tv station in Indianapolis (WISH - 8) said it had to do with the big metal foundry near the center of town. They were somehow emmitting large amounts of ELF (extremly low frequency) noise that made other objects vibrate at other frequencies. Hence the "humm".
Slashdot Mirror
>>But it is certain that once people start upgrading their old boxes, sooner or later they will need new applications to run on them.
.BOMB, most companies dont do that. Just wait.. in a few years many, many companies will use it. My reason is that they'll hire competant Linux 'users' that will get open-source software in and cut the companies bottom line. And that's good for everybody.
KFG>Why?
Because most companies run Windows. You have an engrained outsourced techs (what I do) reccomend Windows on everything because it breaks down. That equals more money for us. Also, people need the newest version of XYZ program (Office for example). To run Office 2003 on Win95 equlivalent hardware is asking for a mutiny.
And since Linux has grown much since the
I "know" what you mean. Like india/Japan/China has ever contributed any major open-source tool or filter to make computing easier....
Oh wait! Most of the people that make open-source tools are in America (not just US) and many parts of Europe.
China's not a threat until the govt over there takes the reigns of their people. Until then, thry're not as much a threat.
Japan's the great mime to the US. Cool gadgets appear over there after WE create them.
And finally,. India's only threat is programming and call centers. Too many of then live in poverty to do much else..
Enter -1 mod's now. I take those mods as accepting my viewpoint.
Trust me. I was putting out feelers to see who'd say that first.
After all, I am a card carrying member of the NRA, and I cant see Mr. Heston saying something of the sort to the parents who had their kids killed. Even as such, read another post I wrote in this article HERE
I might sound like a nut, but I'm of the firm beleif that the more guns that our country has, the lower our crime rate gets. It'd also make more people polite knowing you really dont want to get in a fight with someone who's packing, and 5 or 6 witnesses who'll make sure everything's on the up and up.
I guess if you want, you'll read what I said with the grain of salt.
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
>>>I've always found this perspective absurd. If you outlaw seven-winged dogs, only outlaws will have those.
Yep. And for you, I presume, he prohibition worked. There was no speak-easy's and the gangsters fought over non-alcoholic beer.
>>>What you're presenting is not an argument against gun control/bans, it's an argument against prohibitive laws, e.g. against murder. Hey, if you outlaw murder, one might say, then those outlaws--because they then will be--will be murdering left and right.
You're trying to make absurd a very true point. Murder is illegal for regular citizens but banning it sure as hell doesnt make murder non-existant.
Anyways, murder has different rules and beliefs to whom is doing it. In a war, your country calls it a casualty.. where you killing the enemy can get you a purple heart, religous zealots call it a jihad where you go to $good_place if you do work of $deity. Then there's crazyies who kill for certain reasons. They in the US are summairly executed after all appeals have been extinguished.
>>>This is, of course, totally nonsensical. The objective of most 'anti-gun' groups isn't banning, anyway--it's strict control to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the real outlaws (i.e., the ones who actually commit crimes).
Yes, it is. Anti gun groups are the types that want citizens to be essentially powerless. And when some thug with an ingram overpowers a bunch of people, we're supposed to call upon our 'protecters', the police. I want that power to defend, to my death, my family and friends against any hostile.
My last beleif is that if everybody had guns, this country would be a lot more polite, and there'd be much less crime. After all, would you want to seriously cut somebody off (posible wreak on road) if you knew that they'd possibly hold you at gun-point along with witnesses making sure the law enforcement officals were called? It'd also eliminate a bunch of stupid burglaries, theft, and other nuisance crimes.
ANd you're probably thinking I'm a gun nut that I'd let children be around guns (after all, they'd be in the house). I've used a rifle since I was 6. And now, at 22, I'd say I handled not shooting myself or others.
You got a legitamate source(s) for that? That sounds a little outlandish that they'd give shit to the people at Columbine right after the shooting.
For primaries, many of them do. The reason is that you could vote for the worst of the opposing party and the best of the party you support, so you must choose which party to "support".
For the major elections, this is not done. However, you're a fool if you dont vote every chance you get. What little power we control is still power.
Then how about a system that your votes are anonymous UNTIL you check your vote.
Example:
A voting place already knows a lot about you by the time you get in there.
1: You have to register to vote, which includes name and address.
2: You visited the precint so you're physically close to here.
3: Many states require you to announce your alligences (R, D, other..)
All the voting places dont know about you is the link to the votes you did and your name. My idea is to make these e-votes semi-anonymous.
Everyody would get a chad with a serial (probabaly md5 hash), location, and time of vote. The votes would be tallied electronically so that this tag goes to the respective votes. If there's a question whether votes were illegal or not, they can check to see who's ID it was attached to and delete it. However, as the fail-safe, the person can check their vote by sacrificing their anonymity to check for a valid vote.
Voting people in and out by strong cryptogaphy.
What BillG says is bullshit. Daemons that are externally accessable MUST be secured down. That includes any sort of code errors in the server.
Once you open a port to a server, all data can flow in and out through the protocols specified. You really cant block "bad" tcp data if your server is accessable.
How do you firewall off a semi-legit request to a external MS-Exchange that "Admin's" the server? Even stateful devices like the Packeteer cant selectively block data in the TCP block... expessially 0-day exploits.
Yeah. You can use firewalls(cough). That's why Unix is the Internet OS.
That was a choice back in the 70's when Unix was created.
.XYZ characters to the bound program that supposedly created it. For example, .pdf is usually intereped as a Adobe Portable Document File. However, on windows, if another program uses the .pdf for its own format, the Adobe program is brought up whenever the user opens that non-abdobe pdf file.
.XYZ characters, but many developers cant use them due to backward compatibility problems.
.something or by FS tags that tell exactly what the format is? And the last question that Richie asked himself: what's better, stream or bits or 'objects'. We're all using his answer now...
You either have strong file type attributes (like forks in MacOS) or treat everything as a bitstream and let he filters take care of decoding. The UNIX way is to show +X against -X. Past that, it's a file something has to decipher.
In MacOS, there were file attributes, similar to MIME types, built into the FS itself. That format also included the creating program used. Because it was done as such, you could have a program automatically know the type of data with no regard how the file was "named". It just worked.
Windows brought a bastardised for of both. They included the 8.3 format of naming (which later wend to 127 or 255, I forget). They then had the OS use a program that parses the last
The problem you get is conflicting characters over the 36^3 namespace. Most meaningful triplets are already used. The future Windows OS'es allow unlimited
What this leads to is problems concerning how MSH is going to handle data types. Is this going to be handled like the old MS way of
Ahh, thanks ;-)
/usr/X11R6 directory mixed up with /etc. Let's just say I've not used Reiser3 again...
After looking through the basics, isn't the FileID something similar Hans did in Reiser? Course in the earlier versions, the "same ID bug" got my
MacOS FileID's?
Are they comparible to what Reiser4FS will have? Are they better that XYZ offering in Linux?
I'm seriously interested in what EXACTLY they are. Please spare the fanboy attitude if you do wish to answer..
I did. 45 Million.
Wait.. The story says 37 million... DAMN THEM!
I guess what I've said in a roundabout way is that this corruption goes far beyond what you mentioned.
We do the minimalist solution, and charge greatly for it. We provide those "5 Year Pipes" to our customers who are unknowing what they bring. After all, buying MS hasnt gotten people fired (adaptation of IBM slogan). We slap WinNT and 2K on the servers.. and when they fail, we rebuild... for a fee. If the hardware fails (Depends if they purchased hardware raid or backup), we send the drive off to data recovery, if they OK it. The last I can remember we doing that, the cost for recovery was 900$. We charged 6000$. And that was for a company who we already had a 5 year service contract with...
Many, many tech support companies have this same "mantra" of using half-baked software so that they will still have jobs fixing garbage-ware.
Yes, I do understand the duality of "Free" when it comes to software, but the suits dont. All they care about is "How much is it going to cost them".
It's not just that.
In my line of work, we install computers/networks for small businesses that cannot/will not support their own IT. Many of those places would easily benefit of using linux on the servers. My boss wont use it because we charge 1500$ for a Win2k Server license. I'm asked where free software will make money.
I know many of those places would benefit of using a free software solution, but we can inflate the cost of licenses to make money. Upgrades also require newer hardware which makes us more money. Windows breaks, so we're contracted to fix them. Make more money.
Linux prevents upgrades of hardware because it'll run on less. Linux software upgrades (via source or deb's) are free. We cant "sell" a free solution to a customer, but we can jack on 50% on properiatary software. Also, unless you have the root password, Linux usually doesnt break.
You do the math...
And in my dad's line of work, he was in the R&D department. It consisted of 2 engineers (mechanical and electrical) and 11 marketers. My dad was the electrical engineer. No matter what idea the 2 engineers in the "Research and Development" came up with, the marketers were to gang-bust it down.
Isn't that racist calling for answers for ISP's for midgets?
That's like Gnaa selling an ISP service for its' members (yuck).
Yeah. It was a joke. Now laugh.
Two companies are joining to make....... money!!
Why didnt I think of this? Or I could have patented this as a "way to coexist".
Nothink to see here. Move on netizen.
Come on. The comment from cipster saying "big fat Unix sysad" must have clued you in...
;-) It's not like it was some fecal storm or bloody anus'es. Just a "fat unix sysad"
If it didnt, you deserved a look
Hot SEXXXY sysad looking for beautiful woman
I cant believe Trollaxor got an article ;-) Goes to show that trolls are listened to when there's an article.
ObOntarget: So, is there any interesting tidbits in Darwin that's not in Linux? Or is it bragging rights of Apple?
Too true..
Fair use also prevents professors from photocopying the whole book/magazine for class use.
Considering how poorly done the law meaning of "fair use" is, it's worthless to give any credance to. Fair use is only fair after a couple million spent in the law coffers.
This could go either ways
For Amazon: They "purchase" the books. Fair use allows cutting snippets out and showing people. They just built a search engine out of snippets.
Against Amazon: They do not have the authorization to give out whole books, whether in snippets or not. Fair use does not allow complete articles of published material
My opinion: I really dont know. I'd prefer more freedom when it comes to published material, but it's a fair request/statement the authors guild says. It's not like they demand you read the books/magazines with 499$ book "translators", and books are reasonablly priced. Combine that with really big and good used book sellers.
Enter 10'th amendment.
.08% .
Driving permits are not stated directly in the constution, so it is an issue with the state. Some will say that the Civil war quelled states' rights. It quelled the big ones (for example..control over abortion or, slavery per state). Smaller issues arent bothered by the national govt. unless it's a "touchy feely" issue like lowering the blood alcohol content to
No questions asked. You use their network, you use their hardware and suck up all the problems with it.
I know, it's not nice.
Actually it's the boredom there..
;-)
Just kidding
If I remember, a local tv station in Indianapolis (WISH - 8) said it had to do with the big metal foundry near the center of town. They were somehow emmitting large amounts of ELF (extremly low frequency) noise that made other objects vibrate at other frequencies. Hence the "humm".