Furthermore people who received SCO licenses (GPL, in the SCO distribution) for SCO code (alleged Unix IP in Linux) can reasonably count on that license to be valid, even if SCO was hoodwinked and snookered into it. That is, if SCO licensed the code to me, even unintentionally, but I entered into that license in good faith, then that license is valid. Remember, this is (alleged) SCO code that SCO licensed to me (when I downloaded the 2.4.13 kernel from their FTP site)! Obviously RedHat doesn't have the authority to license SCO code to me, but SCO certainly does, and did!
What is this, some kind of Freudian slip? Obviously he meant to say, "I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of SCO."
Forget the fact that it's digital -- that's just an internal implementation detail (and maybe a buzzword to try to hook some rube customers). Externally it's pretty much an ordinary run of the mill "disposable" camera: you "buy" the thing for $10, take your 25 pictures, return it and get prints. Exactly the same (to the user) as a "disposable" film camera, but with a nifty DIGITAL sticker on it somewhere.
The "digitalness" of it is really only important to Ritz, who can maybe save a little money by not having to go through so much single-use material (camera film).
Cops who wear neckties in the field either wear clip-ons or breakaways. The breakaway is a regular necktie in every way except it's actually in two pieces held together with velcro which hides under the collar at the back of the neck. Somebody yanks on one of those hard and it just tears right off (with that satisfying velcro sound), with the free bonus that the yanker doesn't get the resistance he was expecting and tends to fall flat on his ass.
Maybe I don't understand what the lines and arrows mean, but it looks to me like Minix starts as a branch from very late V7 Unix in 1984, then Linux starts as a branch from Minix 1.something in 1990.
My understanding has always been that Linux 0.1 was written entirely from scratch by Torvalds with no code copied from anywhere. So what exactly do these "branches" in the diagram represent? If Linux 0.1 was really based on Minix 1.something then there would have to be a direct evolutionary descent from Unix V7. Is this true?
Agreed! Very informative, and I just about bust a gut when he said "albumen" instead of "albedo". Solar panels... cover roads... no net change in eggwhites.
Agreed. Enemy of my enemy, and all that. We must not be fooled by appearances though; Verizon did not fight RIAA for any noble purpose, not even for the PR value of it.
There are companies that will do the right thing just for the sake of doing the right thing, because they are controlled by honorable people. Verizon is not one of them. Probably no publically traded corporation could fit that description. Corporate officers do not have the freedom to direct the company according to their personal honor or in the interests of any entity other than their corporation and its shareholders.
Perhaps I'm overly cynical; perhaps corporations can occasionally be steered by determined officers in the right direction (for the greater good) even to their own slight detriment. But just look at Verizon's track record. If you've ever been their customer you'll know what I mean. They would never ever ever do anything to help anybody but themselves.
For the record, spam is any E-mail received that tries to sell you something or, in the case of political spam, get your vote, and that you did not ask for
Spam is unsolicited bulk email/posting/messaging. Doesn't have to be commercial or political or religious or anything; it doesn't even have to make sense. Sending an excerpt of/dev/random to a lot of people who didn't ask for it is spam.
Perhaps AOL/Time Warner is merely releasing the information upon request by RIAA.
This is most likely correct. AOL is a member of the RIAA, thus they would voluntarily cooperate, or even just go after the suspects themselves.
I will count myself as fortunate (for once) for getting Roadrunner service from AOL/TW.
You are not safe! Your ISP is safe from getting a subpoena, but the RIAA (or maybe just AOL) can and probably will still sue you for infringement if your "lucky" number comes up.
Verizon, the only ISP with enough backbone to fight for their customers
The cognitive dissonance is warping my brain into some kind of Moebius knot.
Verizon would never under any circumstances lift a finger for the sake of their customers. Verizon has never given a shit about their customers and never will.
Verizon fought to keep their private data (customer access logs) private because: 1. that data could be valuable; 2. there could be something incriminating to Verizon in there; 3. they don't have a good public interface to that data and setting up a system to comply with such demands without stepping on some customer's rights (thus exposing Verizon to liability) would be a lot of work.
the fiber optic networks that were laid down before the dot com bust are just sitting there dormant in the ground.
Is that really true? Are there many deployed fiber runs in which not a single fiber is active? My impression is that when the trenches were dug and the cables laid, an excess of fiber was included in all the cables so that future increases in traffic could be handled without digging new trenches. That is, all that "dark fiber" is just excess capacity (which is necessary and good) rather than deployed-but-unused connectivity.
* linux/kernel/acct.c
*
* BSD Process Accounting for Linux
*
* Author: Marco van Wieringen
*
* Some code based on ideas and code from:
* Thomas K. Dyas
That sort of almost looks like it might be something like a "copyright disclaimer" (i.e. declaration of originality by Marco with attribution of some of the "intellectual property" (ideas) to Thomas). One could potentially imagine similar (or even substantially the same) code in SCO, for BSD-compatibility purposes. Maybe they have some TKD-inspired code in SCO as well?
Or maybe I'm chasing a wild goose here, and "central module" just refers to the kernel part of the "Linux Operating System".
2: The debris tail, pointing in the wake of the comet.
Huh? Why would a "debris trail" form in the "wake" of the comet? Bits fall off and get "left behind"? In freefall in a vacuum that just doesn't make sense. Bits that "fall off" the comet would proceed along with the comet, and not be left behind.
Your bill does not get cut in half. Rather, half the money collected from your "customers" by Speakeasy is credited to your account. That is, if you charge your neighbor $10/month for WiFi access, you get $5 off your monthly bill from Speakeasy. I don't know what happens if you are somehow able to bill more than twice your total monthly fee.
I'm definitely not getting any packet loss or data errors. I stress-test the heck out of the network regularly. The LAN as a whole is every bit as reliable and fast as the pure-CAT-5 intra-room segments.
Before I tried it the idea sounded insane to me too. A friend told me he was getting 10 megabit just fine over 2-pair CAT3 and I all but called him a liar.... After fighting with crappy early PNA implementations for while I decided to give it a try, and voila, it worked just great at 100 Mbps full duplex.
Naturally there's absolutely guarantee this to work everywhere. It's kind of like overclocking or hotrodding -- you cut down the safety margins and maybe, if you're lucky, it still works fine. No freakin' way I'd do this for a business, but for a home network, what the hell. Might as well give it a try before you start cutting holes in walls. If it works (like mine does) then you've saved yourself plenty of money and effort; if it doesn't, you've only wasted a couple of hours and a few RJ-45 sockets.
My advice to nerd homeowners everywhere: try the spare CAT-3 first! (This is for serious networking nerds only. If you don't already know how to build and diagnose an ethernet, forget it.)
At least, it does for me. 2 pairs is all it takes. I'm measuring 93 million bits per second right now over a TCP stream from this workstation to the server in the basement, about 25 meters of wiring away. I have 2 spare phone lines inside the house, each a CAT-3 twisted pair; the two together form a single 100TX connection. Have to be very careful to hook up the wires to the jacks in the right order! Also, I have a 100TX switch at every junction (wall plate) acting as a repeater to keep the signal strong -- multiple splices seemed to degrade the signal enough that the wires would only carry 10 Mbps. I used the cheapest low-power switches I could find two years ago, Linksys EZXS55W, and there doesn't seem to be any extra overhead going through 5 of them (0.2 ms ping times).
Naturally this wiring will be no good whatsoever for gigabit and higher speeds.... If I ever want to upgrade from 100 megabit I'll have to rewire the house.
(For the skeptics: yes, you really only need four wires (two pairs) for 100 Mbps fast ethernet. Eight-wire cables are a big fat waste of copper!)
I've also set up a similar 100 Mbps LAN over CAT-3 at a friend's house and it works fine for him too.
Re:It's a JOKE people, sheesh
on
The Bug
·
· Score: 1
What, "+5 Funny" not good enough for you? You want a standing ovation or something?
Mass migration out of Europe as a means of alleviating population pressure was impossible! Emigration from Europe to the New World never significantly reduced population growth in Europe. Similarly emmigration from Earth will never significantly reduce Earth's population growth. There just isn't enough energy available to get people out of our deep graviational well faster than they can reproduce.
What we can and should do is establish extraterrestrial colonies that might survive even if some worldwide disaster wipes out human civilization on Earth. (That disaster may very well be overpopulation-related.)
We might also reduce some of the harmful effects of population growth for a while by moving some industries off Earth.
All granted; I have no argument with the burning paint theory. Did you notice the two sentences I block-quoted, particularly the "... invisible.... Watch..." part? The questions are answered by testing the inflammability of various airship designs, not by watching films for the presence or absence of invisible flames. The oxymoron is pretty clear.
Hydrogen burns with an invisible flame. Watch the footage - it's not the hydrogen that's the big problem.
If we can't see the hydrogen burning, how can we tell how much of a problem it was by watching? And what ignited the rocket-fuel paint in the first place? Maybe a brief but very hot hydrogen fire?
Negative slant? Which article are you talking about? The headline, blurb, and linked articles are all very neutral, with no slant that I can detect. (Obviously some participants in the/. discussion will react negatively; diversity of opinion is to be expected in any such forum, and shouldn't be cause for alarm or confusion.)
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore people who received SCO licenses (GPL, in the SCO distribution) for SCO code (alleged Unix IP in Linux) can reasonably count on that license to be valid, even if SCO was hoodwinked and snookered into it. That is, if SCO licensed the code to me, even unintentionally, but I entered into that license in good faith, then that license is valid. Remember, this is (alleged) SCO code that SCO licensed to me (when I downloaded the 2.4.13 kernel from their FTP site)! Obviously RedHat doesn't have the authority to license SCO code to me, but SCO certainly does, and did!
I thought it was Linuxtag that sued SCO in Germany.
What is this, some kind of Freudian slip? Obviously he meant to say, "I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of SCO."
Can it run SkiFree?
But the supreme court decision was a 5-4, not 9-0, so Bush only won by 1 vote in that venue. No matter how you slice it, that was one close race!
The "digitalness" of it is really only important to Ritz, who can maybe save a little money by not having to go through so much single-use material (camera film).
Cops who wear neckties in the field either wear clip-ons or breakaways. The breakaway is a regular necktie in every way except it's actually in two pieces held together with velcro which hides under the collar at the back of the neck. Somebody yanks on one of those hard and it just tears right off (with that satisfying velcro sound), with the free bonus that the yanker doesn't get the resistance he was expecting and tends to fall flat on his ass.
My understanding has always been that Linux 0.1 was written entirely from scratch by Torvalds with no code copied from anywhere. So what exactly do these "branches" in the diagram represent? If Linux 0.1 was really based on Minix 1.something then there would have to be a direct evolutionary descent from Unix V7. Is this true?
Agreed! Very informative, and I just about bust a gut when he said "albumen" instead of "albedo". Solar panels ... cover roads ... no net change in eggwhites.
There are companies that will do the right thing just for the sake of doing the right thing, because they are controlled by honorable people. Verizon is not one of them. Probably no publically traded corporation could fit that description. Corporate officers do not have the freedom to direct the company according to their personal honor or in the interests of any entity other than their corporation and its shareholders.
Perhaps I'm overly cynical; perhaps corporations can occasionally be steered by determined officers in the right direction (for the greater good) even to their own slight detriment. But just look at Verizon's track record. If you've ever been their customer you'll know what I mean. They would never ever ever do anything to help anybody but themselves.
Verizon would never under any circumstances lift a finger for the sake of their customers. Verizon has never given a shit about their customers and never will.
Verizon fought to keep their private data (customer access logs) private because: 1. that data could be valuable; 2. there could be something incriminating to Verizon in there; 3. they don't have a good public interface to that data and setting up a system to comply with such demands without stepping on some customer's rights (thus exposing Verizon to liability) would be a lot of work.
Presumably the "central module" would be somewhere in linux/kernel. Offhand I would guess sched.c. Examining 2.4.21:
/usr/src/linux/kernel
% cd
% grep -i copyright *.c
(yada yada, copyright Linus, etc -- "lameness" filtered)
The only one that really stands out is acct.c:
* linux/kernel/acct.c
*
* BSD Process Accounting for Linux
*
* Author: Marco van Wieringen
*
* Some code based on ideas and code from:
* Thomas K. Dyas
That sort of almost looks like it might be something like a "copyright disclaimer" (i.e. declaration of originality by Marco with attribution of some of the "intellectual property" (ideas) to Thomas). One could potentially imagine similar (or even substantially the same) code in SCO, for BSD-compatibility purposes. Maybe they have some TKD-inspired code in SCO as well?
Or maybe I'm chasing a wild goose here, and "central module" just refers to the kernel part of the "Linux Operating System".
Your bill does not get cut in half. Rather, half the money collected from your "customers" by Speakeasy is credited to your account. That is, if you charge your neighbor $10/month for WiFi access, you get $5 off your monthly bill from Speakeasy. I don't know what happens if you are somehow able to bill more than twice your total monthly fee.
I'm definitely not getting any packet loss or data errors. I stress-test the heck out of the network regularly. The LAN as a whole is every bit as reliable and fast as the pure-CAT-5 intra-room segments.
Before I tried it the idea sounded insane to me too. A friend told me he was getting 10 megabit just fine over 2-pair CAT3 and I all but called him a liar.... After fighting with crappy early PNA implementations for while I decided to give it a try, and voila, it worked just great at 100 Mbps full duplex.
Naturally there's absolutely guarantee this to work everywhere. It's kind of like overclocking or hotrodding -- you cut down the safety margins and maybe, if you're lucky, it still works fine. No freakin' way I'd do this for a business, but for a home network, what the hell. Might as well give it a try before you start cutting holes in walls. If it works (like mine does) then you've saved yourself plenty of money and effort; if it doesn't, you've only wasted a couple of hours and a few RJ-45 sockets.
My advice to nerd homeowners everywhere: try the spare CAT-3 first! (This is for serious networking nerds only. If you don't already know how to build and diagnose an ethernet, forget it.)
Naturally this wiring will be no good whatsoever for gigabit and higher speeds.... If I ever want to upgrade from 100 megabit I'll have to rewire the house.
(For the skeptics: yes, you really only need four wires (two pairs) for 100 Mbps fast ethernet. Eight-wire cables are a big fat waste of copper!)
I've also set up a similar 100 Mbps LAN over CAT-3 at a friend's house and it works fine for him too.
What, "+5 Funny" not good enough for you? You want a standing ovation or something?
What we can and should do is establish extraterrestrial colonies that might survive even if some worldwide disaster wipes out human civilization on Earth. (That disaster may very well be overpopulation-related.)
We might also reduce some of the harmful effects of population growth for a while by moving some industries off Earth.
All granted; I have no argument with the burning paint theory. Did you notice the two sentences I block-quoted, particularly the "... invisible .... Watch ..." part? The questions are answered by testing the inflammability of various airship designs, not by watching films for the presence or absence of invisible flames. The oxymoron is pretty clear.
Negative slant? Which article are you talking about? The headline, blurb, and linked articles are all very neutral, with no slant that I can detect. (Obviously some participants in the /. discussion will react negatively; diversity of opinion is to be expected in any such forum, and shouldn't be cause for alarm or confusion.)