: I'm sick of essentially being blackmailed by people I buy stuff off who refuse to give me feedback until I've given them feedback, even though I've just paid them £100 for an item they are yet to post.
So you think Google will make them better people?
Wow, no wonder why their stock price is so high. There must be some serious human engineering done there.
From a recent LKML email:
I got slashdotted! Yay!
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I claim that Mach people (and apparently FreeBSD) are incompetent idiots.
I also claim that Slashdot people usually are smelly and eat their boogers, and have an IQ slightly lower than my daughters pet hamster (that's "hamster" without a "p", btw, for any slashdot posters out there. Try to follow me, ok?).
Furthermore, I claim that anybody that hasn't noticed by now that I'm an opinionated bastard, and that "impolite" is my middle name, is lacking a few clues.
Finally, it's clear that I'm not only the smartest person around, I'm also incredibly good-looking, and that my infallible charm is also second only to my becoming modesty.
So there. Just to clarify.
Linus "bow down before me, you scum" Torvalds
Linus is not saying COW is bad. He is saying in this specific case it's not necessarily a gain. In fact, he is right that if your "COW hit ratio" is now low enough, it's a loss due to the setup and fault handling cost.
In process fork time COW is a win because the ratio is low enough.
Well, technically it's the title, not the smiley, but who cares? Certainly how a posting is modded is more important than the topic itself, isn't it?
What I tried to imply is this mental picture: someone posted a virus for Linux, and Linus wasn't worried about PR or any implication of "Linux is insecure". Instead, he was worried about a kernel/gcc bug that was exposed by the virus, although the bug actually could help to defeat the virus. And he went on to fix the bug and let the virus run.
This is quite a picture that shows how a geek reacts. He only sees the technical side of everything and is honest about it. No politics, no B.S. And here comes the title: this is what we call geeks.
It's getting silly to have to elaorate. I thought people would get it, although I wasn't expecting either an OT or an Insightful. But with both replies to my posting arguing how it should have been modded, it seems I have to do this silly thing.
I should remember that insightfulness surely is related to length of the text.
Scale as in "complexity".
A VM level virtualization perfectly separates the two layers of software. On the other hand, building virtualization inside OS itself means that everything needs to be touched to be properly virtualized.
VMWare used to do full-virtualization, which means the VM could run any OS unmodified. It has some performance issues, and Xen's paravirtualization gets a fine balance, that is to have a minimal set of modification of the guest OS. Now these companies are trying to propose a Virtual Machine Interface ABIs to standardize the VM-OS interface to make the layering even easier.
To me, the OpenVZ approach is a step backward.
And it's coming.
But I think VMWare and Xen got it right. OpenVZ tries to do it inside the OS, which makes OS too much more complicated. It's not going to scale.
What is McAfree afraid of? Being bashed on rootkits.com just like Lavasoft?
I think it's very important for the general public to know the information about virus and anti-virus technologies. Big companies try so hard to protect their secrets so that nobody else could get into the market. We often have no idea what kind of pieces of crap are running on our computers which we rely so much upon. Well, let the worms come out of the can!
You know, I got a lot of chinese spams too. Heck, I hate them.
But there are two reasons why you think you've got more Chinese spams:
1. Technically, the spam filter probably did a poorer job at filtering out spams in foreign languages. In an English-dominant world, this isn't surprising.
2. Psychologically, you may tend to remember all the spams with square characters that you don't understand.:-) Learning some Chinese might help.
I think what happened at Tiananman Square was a tragedy, but now imagine what would happen if you were to stop a US tank..
Even cops could shoot you if you didn't "freeze" right away.
I'd say that tank man was a troll while the camera man was just waiting to catch the pictures. The fact that he actually STOPPED the tank meant something.
On a different reply I mentioned this, but maybe it's of interest to more people to hear what China has to say. It might be the motivation of finally inventing their own standard.
http://www.dvdtown.com/messageboard/topic/5/34/
ABOUT ROYALTIES OF DVD PLAYERS
To Whom It May Concern:
There are a lot of rumors around in recent days about the issue of DVD patents. The patent holders especially 6C and 3C are claiming that Chinese DVD player manufacturers are unjustifiably taking over the majority of market share by avoid paying patent fees. It seems imperative for Chinese DVD manufacturer to clarify some facts and clearly state its stand.
Since1999, Chinas manufacturers are taking a positive attitude to negotiate royalty issues with 3C and 6C, and Chinese manufacturers have clearly expressed their desires to pay the royalties as long as it is a fair play. Since the majority of the patent rights are integrated in the loader and encoding/decoding chip-sets, Chinese sides suggested a most easy and practical way to collect the royalties, that is, to add the royalties on the key parts because the key parts suppliers are no more than ten, on the other hand, the assemblers are more than hundreds. If some assemblers pay the royalties and some not, it will make an unfair competition in the market.
Although 3C and 6C claimed Chinas DVD player manufacturers should pay them royalties for the patents used in the machine, few people noted the fact that Chinas manufacturers are just assemblers in the field, all the key parts such as loader, decoder chipset are supplied by 3C and 6C themselves or their related and/or associated companies. However, the benefit groups refused the suggestion and persisted on charging the patent fee to the DVD player assemblers rather than the loader and chip-set suppliers.
There is one more fact that worth notice, that is, some members of the benefit groups are leading suppliers of DVD players themselves, which may well explain why the benefit groups would prefer the tremendous trouble to deal with hundreds of DVD assembly manufacturers to settlement the royalties by easier and practical way to collect the royalties from the a fewer key parts and chipsets suppliers.
The benefit groups have to admit that they have a so call cross licensing± between each other. But benefit groups have always refused to open the black box of the content of this cross licensing±. It is dubious whether they are paying patent fees to each other or how much is paid. Many of the 6C and 3C members are both component suppliers and DVD player manufacturers. If there is a special rate between each other, that will constitute an unfair competition. Chinese DVD player suppliers will be in an inferior position to compete with their opponents.
The stubborn position of 3C and 6C result in another issue in question, that is, whether the royalties have been included in the price of the DVD loaders and chip-sets that are sold to Chinas assemblers. If so, the benefit groups are guilty for double charging the patent fee. In the market, the price of the benefit parties DVD player is about 30% higher than Chinese DVD players price, we think it is reasonable because Chinas labor cost and system cost for operating is lower than the developed countries. The $19.60 royalties claimed by the benefit parties is just around 30%. Therefore, we have reason to suspect or believe the benefit groups are charging the royalties doubly.
What deserves mentioned is the patent holders including 6C and 3C are asking altogether US$20 patent fee which is based on the price of DVD players four years ago when it was as high as US$400. Now, the price of DVD players has dropped to a significantly low price. The retail price in some chain stores in the US, it could be as low as around $70 US dollars. We doubt if the consumers in the world especially in US and Europe where the royalties are stirred up in high noise are willing to pay extra 20 dollars for a DVD player. Meanwhile, we would
I sorry, since when did China start respecting American patents? Or any IP rights? Last I knew, piracy was considered a huge problem in China specifically because IP rights were *not* protected.
For one thing, you are mixing up patent and copyright. Piracy has nothing to do with patent.
Just google "DVD patent royalty China". Here is one link I just found.
They aren't looking at the economic implications, they're looking at preventing ideas like "freedom", "democracy", and "Dallas" [wikipedia.org] (I'm only half-way joking here) from being imported.
I don't think so (translate: what you said is complete B.S.)
China just doesn't want to pay royalty to the current patent holders.
If China adopted the existing standards, it would have to pay for every DVD player it made. China industry has been groaning over this for years.
Not everything is about politics.
I am not sure fault-tolerance is cheaper than clustering. You can build a cluster from cheap PCs and you can keep adding nodes to it. But fault-tolerant servers sound like not easily scalable, vendor-locked in, and costly too (since the hardware has to be specially designed).
I've been playing CIV3 for two years and the only reason I'm not playing now is because I'm waiting for CIV4.
Yes AI cheats. They can see what you cannot see; they can see what they are not supposed to see. They build things faster than you do and more so when the level goes up.
Some of the cheats we could live without, such as seeing all the maps and knowing where resources are so they could go there and settle.
Some of them are necessary. For example, the building bonuses: how the hell would you make a more difficult level otherwise? The AI is the same, the only thing you could do is to give them additional advantages. It's just inevitable. This is true for all kinds of games. In a FPS game such as HALO you design a more difficult mode by deploying more enemies, for a strategy game such as CIV you need to have other kind of bonuses that the AI could outnumber you. The only fact is that in either case the AI is the same AI. An "easy" mode AI is as smart as an "hard" mode AI.
So I wouldn't call it "cheat". It's just the way to make up different levels.
From what I read about CIV4, it looks like you'd need 3 cities to have a cultural victory. This would make One City Challenge (OCC, which means you can only have one city in the game) + cultural victory impossible. What are the Firaxis's considerations to support OCC and other variants in CIV4?
Trading reputation is a very tricky (and obscure) concept in CIV3. For example, if you have an active per-turn trade with A, and B cut the trading route, change is that you'd ruin your reputation which cannot be recovered during the rest of the game. How is it going to change in CIV4?
Most Americans also have a car, two TV's, a video game system, a cell phone, a job , and could probably obtain illegal substances without fear of being caught.
Jeez, which year do you think we are in? The 80th's?
Do you know why gas price is so high now? You really need to get out of your little world. You'd be amazed at how fast China has been changing in the past two decades compared to US.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course we know what G stands for in Google.
: I'm sick of essentially being blackmailed by people I buy stuff off who refuse to give me feedback until I've given them feedback, even though I've just paid them £100 for an item they are yet to post.
So you think Google will make them better people?
Wow, no wonder why their stock price is so high. There must be some serious human engineering done there.
From a recent LKML email: I got slashdotted! Yay! On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I claim that Mach people (and apparently FreeBSD) are incompetent idiots. I also claim that Slashdot people usually are smelly and eat their boogers, and have an IQ slightly lower than my daughters pet hamster (that's "hamster" without a "p", btw, for any slashdot posters out there. Try to follow me, ok?). Furthermore, I claim that anybody that hasn't noticed by now that I'm an opinionated bastard, and that "impolite" is my middle name, is lacking a few clues. Finally, it's clear that I'm not only the smartest person around, I'm also incredibly good-looking, and that my infallible charm is also second only to my becoming modesty. So there. Just to clarify. Linus "bow down before me, you scum" Torvalds
Linus is not saying COW is bad. He is saying in this specific case it's not necessarily a gain. In fact, he is right that if your "COW hit ratio" is now low enough, it's a loss due to the setup and fault handling cost. In process fork time COW is a win because the ratio is low enough.
What I tried to imply is this mental picture: someone posted a virus for Linux, and Linus wasn't worried about PR or any implication of "Linux is insecure". Instead, he was worried about a kernel/gcc bug that was exposed by the virus, although the bug actually could help to defeat the virus. And he went on to fix the bug and let the virus run.
This is quite a picture that shows how a geek reacts. He only sees the technical side of everything and is honest about it. No politics, no B.S. And here comes the title: this is what we call geeks. It's getting silly to have to elaorate. I thought people would get it, although I wasn't expecting either an OT or an Insightful. But with both replies to my posting arguing how it should have been modded, it seems I have to do this silly thing. I should remember that insightfulness surely is related to length of the text.
Scale as in "complexity". A VM level virtualization perfectly separates the two layers of software. On the other hand, building virtualization inside OS itself means that everything needs to be touched to be properly virtualized. VMWare used to do full-virtualization, which means the VM could run any OS unmodified. It has some performance issues, and Xen's paravirtualization gets a fine balance, that is to have a minimal set of modification of the guest OS. Now these companies are trying to propose a Virtual Machine Interface ABIs to standardize the VM-OS interface to make the layering even easier. To me, the OpenVZ approach is a step backward.
And it's coming. But I think VMWare and Xen got it right. OpenVZ tries to do it inside the OS, which makes OS too much more complicated. It's not going to scale.
What is McAfree afraid of? Being bashed on rootkits.com just like Lavasoft? I think it's very important for the general public to know the information about virus and anti-virus technologies. Big companies try so hard to protect their secrets so that nobody else could get into the market. We often have no idea what kind of pieces of crap are running on our computers which we rely so much upon. Well, let the worms come out of the can!
You know, I got a lot of chinese spams too. Heck, I hate them. But there are two reasons why you think you've got more Chinese spams: 1. Technically, the spam filter probably did a poorer job at filtering out spams in foreign languages. In an English-dominant world, this isn't surprising. 2. Psychologically, you may tend to remember all the spams with square characters that you don't understand. :-) Learning some Chinese might help.
I think what happened at Tiananman Square was a tragedy, but now imagine what would happen if you were to stop a US tank.. Even cops could shoot you if you didn't "freeze" right away. I'd say that tank man was a troll while the camera man was just waiting to catch the pictures. The fact that he actually STOPPED the tank meant something.
I am not sure about this, but I think Al Gore did invent Internet.
Where the hell are those kids coming from?
The title says it all. It's so embarrassing since Maxthon uses IE engine.
No, he should be on the SCO case instead.
On a different reply I mentioned this, but maybe it's of interest to more people to hear what China has to say. It might be the motivation of finally inventing their own standard.
http://www.dvdtown.com/messageboard/topic/5/34/
ABOUT ROYALTIES OF DVD PLAYERS
To Whom It May Concern:
There are a lot of rumors around in recent days about the issue of DVD patents. The patent holders especially 6C and 3C are claiming that Chinese DVD player manufacturers are unjustifiably taking over the majority of market share by avoid paying patent fees. It seems imperative for Chinese DVD manufacturer to clarify some facts and clearly state its stand.
Since1999, Chinas manufacturers are taking a positive attitude to negotiate royalty issues with 3C and 6C, and Chinese manufacturers have clearly expressed their desires to pay the royalties as long as it is a fair play. Since the majority of the patent rights are integrated in the loader and encoding/decoding chip-sets, Chinese sides suggested a most easy and practical way to collect the royalties, that is, to add the royalties on the key parts because the key parts suppliers are no more than ten, on the other hand, the assemblers are more than hundreds. If some assemblers pay the royalties and some not, it will make an unfair competition in the market.
Although 3C and 6C claimed Chinas DVD player manufacturers should pay them royalties for the patents used in the machine, few people noted the fact that Chinas manufacturers are just assemblers in the field, all the key parts such as loader, decoder chipset are supplied by 3C and 6C themselves or their related and/or associated companies. However, the benefit groups refused the suggestion and persisted on charging the patent fee to the DVD player assemblers rather than the loader and chip-set suppliers.
There is one more fact that worth notice, that is, some members of the benefit groups are leading suppliers of DVD players themselves, which may well explain why the benefit groups would prefer the tremendous trouble to deal with hundreds of DVD assembly manufacturers to settlement the royalties by easier and practical way to collect the royalties from the a fewer key parts and chipsets suppliers.
The benefit groups have to admit that they have a so call cross licensing± between each other. But benefit groups have always refused to open the black box of the content of this cross licensing±. It is dubious whether they are paying patent fees to each other or how much is paid. Many of the 6C and 3C members are both component suppliers and DVD player manufacturers. If there is a special rate between each other, that will constitute an unfair competition. Chinese DVD player suppliers will be in an inferior position to compete with their opponents.
The stubborn position of 3C and 6C result in another issue in question, that is, whether the royalties have been included in the price of the DVD loaders and chip-sets that are sold to Chinas assemblers. If so, the benefit groups are guilty for double charging the patent fee. In the market, the price of the benefit parties DVD player is about 30% higher than Chinese DVD players price, we think it is reasonable because Chinas labor cost and system cost for operating is lower than the developed countries. The $19.60 royalties claimed by the benefit parties is just around 30%. Therefore, we have reason to suspect or believe the benefit groups are charging the royalties doubly.
What deserves mentioned is the patent holders including 6C and 3C are asking altogether US$20 patent fee which is based on the price of DVD players four years ago when it was as high as US$400. Now, the price of DVD players has dropped to a significantly low price. The retail price in some chain stores in the US, it could be as low as around $70 US dollars. We doubt if the consumers in the world especially in US and Europe where the royalties are stirred up in high noise are willing to pay extra 20 dollars for a DVD player. Meanwhile, we would
For one thing, you are mixing up patent and copyright. Piracy has nothing to do with patent.
Just google "DVD patent royalty China". Here is one link I just found.
They aren't looking at the economic implications, they're looking at preventing ideas like "freedom", "democracy", and "Dallas" [wikipedia.org] (I'm only half-way joking here) from being imported. I don't think so (translate: what you said is complete B.S.) China just doesn't want to pay royalty to the current patent holders. If China adopted the existing standards, it would have to pay for every DVD player it made. China industry has been groaning over this for years. Not everything is about politics.
Alan was No.2 a couple of years ago, but now he is not much active (after his MBA). Actually I've not seen many posts from him on LKML.
I am not sure fault-tolerance is cheaper than clustering. You can build a cluster from cheap PCs and you can keep adding nodes to it. But fault-tolerant servers sound like not easily scalable, vendor-locked in, and costly too (since the hardware has to be specially designed).
I've been playing CIV3 for two years and the only reason I'm not playing now is because I'm waiting for CIV4. Yes AI cheats. They can see what you cannot see; they can see what they are not supposed to see. They build things faster than you do and more so when the level goes up. Some of the cheats we could live without, such as seeing all the maps and knowing where resources are so they could go there and settle. Some of them are necessary. For example, the building bonuses: how the hell would you make a more difficult level otherwise? The AI is the same, the only thing you could do is to give them additional advantages. It's just inevitable. This is true for all kinds of games. In a FPS game such as HALO you design a more difficult mode by deploying more enemies, for a strategy game such as CIV you need to have other kind of bonuses that the AI could outnumber you. The only fact is that in either case the AI is the same AI. An "easy" mode AI is as smart as an "hard" mode AI. So I wouldn't call it "cheat". It's just the way to make up different levels.
From what I read about CIV4, it looks like you'd need 3 cities to have a cultural victory. This would make One City Challenge (OCC, which means you can only have one city in the game) + cultural victory impossible. What are the Firaxis's considerations to support OCC and other variants in CIV4?
Trading reputation is a very tricky (and obscure) concept in CIV3. For example, if you have an active per-turn trade with A, and B cut the trading route, change is that you'd ruin your reputation which cannot be recovered during the rest of the game. How is it going to change in CIV4?
1000 cars? Sorry, after reading this I am convinced that you ARE a moron.
Most Americans also have a car, two TV's, a video game system, a cell phone, a job , and could probably obtain illegal substances without fear of being caught. Jeez, which year do you think we are in? The 80th's? Do you know why gas price is so high now? You really need to get out of your little world. You'd be amazed at how fast China has been changing in the past two decades compared to US.