Is it me or does this sound like a tremendous failure on the part of operating system vendors, in that this has to be implemented in hardware?
It's just you. The reality is that there is a tremendous failure on the part of the hardware vendors that would require this to be done in software.
Here's why:
To implement this in the OS requires that the OS look up the value of the instruction pointer in an NX table every time it changes pages (assuming that the NX flag operates on a page basis), which would add several clock cycles to every JMP/JR/CALL instruction, and would significantly decrease performance.
If a basic feature such as this one needs to be implemented by every operating system, it makes more sense to implement it via hardware (the applicable cliche being "Don't reinvent the wheel").
Im sure its more secure but hell, I think this could in the end lead to more complacency in software design. "No need to bother writing secure code cus new chips will have NX technology?"
Alternatively, if resources don't have to be dedicated to fixing this problem, those resources can be devoted to fixing other problems. This argument is a little like the argument that, if I want to lose weight, I shouldn't exersize, because I might become complacent about what I eat.
It's shortsighted but unfortunately it fits the general profile of human behaviour.
I'm not sure how shortsighted it really is. After all, if I can make myself $10 million over the next week, but in the process I guarantee that I can never get a job in my current industry, should I really care?
Oranized crime is not in the business of harrassment, vandalism, assault and rape. Although these crimes are sometimes derivitives of an organized money making venture, or staying out of jail.
While organized crime may not commonly be in the business of vandalism or rape (there being little money in either venture), they are definitely in the business of harassment (e.g. protection rackets) and assault (e.g. murder for hire), as there is a lot of money to be made in both ventures.
However, willing the Star Trek universe to simply die is such a waste. Star Trek fans know the aliens, we know the different politics for different alliances, we know the history... starting a whole new universe with a new show makes that all wasted.
IT'S JUST A TELEVISION SHOW!
Seriously, all this time you've spent getting to know the Star Trek universe is already "wasted", because IT DOESN'T EXIST. There's no such thing as Klingons, Ferengi, Romulans, Vulcans, warp drive, or the United Federation of Planets. It's all a fantasy. If there's any value to be had in fantasy, it certainly isn't in the KNOWING of the imaginary universe.
Also, what is the deal with hating Rick Berman? He worked on part of TNG, DS9, Voyager, and now Enterprise. He's contributed as much to the Star Trek universe as Gene Roddenberry.
Quality of work is far more important than quantity of work. Voyager isn't much of a credit, since you can only blow up the ship and use time-travel/reality-shifting to bring it back so many times before it becomes a really stale plot device. And let's not forget Nemesis (much as I wish I could), which was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. No one involved in the production of that movie should ever be allowed to work on another movie ever.
Depends what type of password they're asking for. I can imagine my boss giving up some of his real passwords for a bribe because he thinks "big deal... that one's not protecting anything sensitive anyway".Except, that comes down to him not understanding that whole "weakest link in the defenses" problem. Yea, maybe THAT password isn't, but what does that give a malicious user access to that could be abused elsewhere? What apps level attacks are we now vulnerable to? What databases could be stolen? Could the attacker now impersonate you to get more information from other people?
He'll start to think it's a big deal when "he", in a drunken stupor, writes threatening e-mails to his boss, his boss's boss, and the President of the United States. He may deny that he did it, but only he could have sent out those e-mails, unless he was stupid enough to give his password out.
I am not a mechanic but it seems to me common sense to understand how somthing I use often works. I would think that non-techies would have this attitude about computers (which they don't neccesarily care about but need every day) just as I have the attitude about cars (which I don't really care about but would use daily).
Non-techies don't even have this attitude about cars, and why should they? Take the car in for an oil change once every few thousand miles, make sure it gets its 10k/15k/20k/whatever k service, and keep the gas tank full, and 95% of the time it will run good for years, the other 5% there's nothing that they could do even if they knew how the thing worked.
Most people don't think they have the time to become less ignorant, this stuff looks (and is) very complicated, and they don't know how they'd even go about it. It's really easy to overlook just how much more you know than the average person does, and it's easy to forget how much time it took you to accumulate this knowledge.
Sometimes. An independant artist might be able to afford a more or less "concept album" such as your describing where the tracks mean something next to each other, but when my band (also indie) attempted to release our 2nd album, we hired a promoter guy and he rearranged all of our tracks to attempt to get the biggest bang in the first 2 to 3 tracks. The logic behind this was the radio playlist directors needed to hear the most radio friendly tracks up front instead of digging through a full album to find them. It's sad, but logical and I can't imagine it's any different in the bigger music industry circles. -jeff!
I actually wasn't referring to a "concept album", just that the songs on an album are generally arranged to give the album a "flow". In your case, your target audience was the radio guys, so your flow wasn't quite as purely artistic as you would have liked. On the other hand, if having a couple "hooky" tracks at the beginning can convince someone to keep listening, then that's a pretty good arrangement. I'm sure, once you get your first double-platinum album, you'll have a lot more control over the process.
Well, sure it is within a song, but saying that the order of songs within an album is important to the "aesthetic effect", is like saying that if I read a book by J. Random Author without reading all of his other books, in the order they were written, that I'm missing the effect.
Not at all. An album is not a random collection of songs, as your analogy would suggest, but is instead constructed with specific songs in a specific song order, so that a person can listen to it all the way through to get a specific desired aesthetic effect. Creating an album as a collection of songs is most definitely a deliberate and artistic process. This is not to say that the only way to enjoy songs is to listen to the entire album, but that there is (or should be) an added effect from doing so.
On the other hand, how often do I have a chance to listen to the entire album to get that effect, or how many times do I need to? Not a lot, to both questions. The best part about the shuffle (and audio files in general) is that I have the option to listen to my music in a variety of ways. When I'm driving or at work, I do prefer the randomness of the shuffle. When I'm at the gym, I like to listen to an album straight through.
The "brain damage" quote is obviously from one of those brain-damaged adults who assumes that everyone who has different modes of thought from their own is brain-damaged.
Hmmm... I live in Nevada and I'm wondering how this works. The article says that all states have use tax, but it is collected on the state income tax form. What does a fine upstanding citizen, in states like Nevada where there is no income tax
And from all of us degenerate gamblers who pay your taxes for you, you're welcome.
Sorry, but OSS is NOT free (as in beer). People are paid for their time, and implementing anything takes time. This needs to be stressed to anyone that wants OSS as their instincts that nothing is truly priceless is true.
People get nervous about things being "free" because they think they're being sold the Brooklynn Bridge. People in general have a very good sense of what a friend of mine used to call "down-home cynicism". If you don't give them the catch, their imagination will run wild. If you're honest that the license is free, but the ultimate costs are not I think people will gladly accept this.
This really doesn't endear OSS to anyone. All it does is confirm in the mind of a non-techie that there is a large cost to OSS (developers are not cheap, competent ones less so) and indefinite cost to OSS software. There's also the cost of the time to find someone who can handle it, which is something that few in the business world (except/. readers) have in surplus.
On the other hand, off-the-shelf software has a well-defined cost (the sticker price), and has a phone number or web site that I can go to if there are problems, making it much easier and time-efficient to deal with these things.
There are two principles that I've experienced in my career about successful software that I see many OSS proponents ignoring or unaware of. The first principle is that the vast majority of computer users (and this includes people who make the decisions about what to use) don't care how their computer or software works, they just want it to work right now. The second principle is that, given the choice between a product that always works, and which costs $100/hr for support, or a product that breaks frequently, and costs $100/yr for support, 90% of people will choose the second product, because no one trusts the claims that the first product always works.
In my experience, the OSS that acheives success outside of the OSS community usually follows the first principle, by installing quickly and easily, and rarely requires editing config files or reading documentation to use. I can't think of any OSS that does a good job on the second principle (not that I'm claiming it doesn't exist).
Just what is a company supposed to do when designing computerized medical equipment? Hire a team of engineers to create everything from the operating system to the GUI front-end? And people wonder why medical insurance costs so much...
When people's lives are at stake, I do expect the designers to take well-known failure modes, such as the Blue Screen, into consideration, in much the same way that I expect everyone else who designs systems that have high potential for catastrophic failure to. If I design an air traffic control system, and I don't build the OS myself, and use XP instead, then I can't really blame Microsoft when it goes down, because everybody and their grandmother could have told me that Windows isn't reliable enough for this application.
It seems to me that Penny Arcade could have their own defamation case against Infinium Labs if they wanted to.
Tim Roberts clearly made an intentionally false statement about the actions of Gabe and Tycho, and my guess is that a lot of Penny Arcade's readership would be more than happy to testify that they would have lost all respect for the comic strip had this phone call actually occured, potentially costing Penny Arcade a significant portion of their add revenue. I know that I would have lost respect for them were this true.
If a politician said something like this it would get torn apart by the media. If a scientist said something he would loose his credibility and there would be articles written to counter this in major publications. Why does that not happen with M$??? It's almost like they are "above the law" and what thsy say happens. Kind of like when God speaks.
From a single story you are concluding that no one is questioning these statements?
Politicians get torn apart in the media only because other politicians and opinion column writers get involved. It almost never happens in the original story.
When a science story appears, it is invariably presented by the journalist as gospel truth, and it's only after the rebuttals are published that there is a chance of credibility loss.
I saw nothing in the article to suggest that this was "like when God speaks". I simply saw an account of what a MS executive stated in a keynote speech. In this situation, there are no questions, no rebuttal, and no excuse for a journalist to impose his own opinions into the story. Instead, it is an opportunity for the readers to for their own opinions. And, quite frankly, as the story develops, this won't be good for Microsoft. It never is when the head of a security technology unit makes ludicrous statements like these.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
The only case where my statement is "profoundly incorrect" is when the commercial purpose directly relates to criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. However, just because it is possible that these conditions overlap a commercial purpose, none of these conditions is a "commercial purpose", so I stand by my statement that "commercial purpose" is not covered by fair use.
Without a disclaimer, I'm left to conclude that you MUST BE a lawyer (or, more likely, a high ranking judge) and as such I will be citing your Slashdot post in a case I currently have before the Federal appeals court.
If I lose, expect to be sued.
Feel free to sue me, assuming, of course, that you can find out who I am and track me down. I'll give you a hint: I live in a state that allows for damages against plaintiffs of frivilous lawsuits.
The song is 5:20 long. A ten year old kid sang 10 seconds of the song or 3.125% of the song. They used no actual music or clips of the song just a kid saying 3.125% of the words to the beat.
So it's a bit either way IMHO. has no music, tunes, singing or the original recording by eminem. I don't know about the legality of it, but I presume with such a minor amount of 'copying', apple's ad agency thought there was no need to get permission, but eminem obviously disagrees.
Federal copyright law happens to agree with Eminem in this case. Copyright does apply to song lyrics, there is no such thing as "fair use" for commercial purposes, and the percentage of the song used is irrelevant, because 1) it is clearly identifiable as lyrics unique to the song, and 2) is clearly intended by the advertiser to be recognized as the Eminem song.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the FBI has been doing this in computer crime cases since the last few years of the Clinton administration under that bastion of civil liberties (nevermind Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Elian Gonzalez) Janet Reno, and it didn't require several TB of potential evidence to make it happen.
I love to be the bearer of bad news, and you really need to check your dates. The Ruby Ridge incident happened in 1992, during the previous Bush administration. Unless, of course, this is all just a troll.
I'm no legal strategist but wouldn't it be smarter for Infinium to actually demo one of these consoles then go after HardOCP for slander/defamation/whatever? Right now it sounds like they don't like the attacks on their vapourware. My idea assumes, naturally, that Infinium actuall has a Phantom console to demo...
It would be smarter, because they could then show that the HardOCP's statements were in fact false, which is necessary for a libel or defamation claim, but they wouldn't win anyway, because they would still have to show that HardOCP knew the statements were false. And the "use of Infinium's proprietary images... with the intent to tarnish Infinium's image and dilute the value of its name" isn't going to get them anywhere, because HardOCP is a news organization, and has a lot of protections against this kind of thing, and definitely is not subject to trademark issues on this matter.
The letter is probably nothing more than legal posturing, intended to scare the little guy, but of little use to anyone who has their own lawyer.
This isn't just for correcting tuning. The real boon for guitarists is not the ability to correct tuning quickly (that's actually really easy), but to change to alternate tunings quickly. There are many alternate tunings that take advantage of resonance between different open strings for very interesting sounds, but are not suitable for general-purpose use like the "standard" tuning because the intervals are too awkward.
Unfortunately, properly changing a guitar to an alternate tuning isn't as simple as re-tuning the strings, the truss rod also needs to be adjusted, to counter the change in overall string tension (which is considerable when adjusting the lower 3 strings), and a truss rod adjustment requires about 12 hours of settling time. The guitar will still play, but it won't sound so good.
Of course, buying a different guitar for each tuning quickly become cost-prohibitive, so this is a great compromise for those guitarists who like to use multiple tunings and who don't have lucrative contracts with major record labels.
Why Bush Administration? Why not the simple statement that SOME in the exective branch were not properly checked and balanced by the other branches allowing supression of information that might have effected policy?
1) Because the Bush Administration is the only administration in the US Federal government right now.
2) Because they are directly addressing policies that Bush has personally promoted.
3) Because in order to make changes to policies, it is necessary to deal directly with those who are directly responsible for those policies.
4) Because it's completely irrational to think that a person can be in power without being held responsible for how they use that power.
This was the same group that said SDI wouldn't work back in '83-'84.
After a few successful tests, i'd suggest that they were full of it then, and continue to be full of it now. Talk about a group with an axe to grind. They might as well have called themselves 'Union of Progressive Scientists'. Truth in advertising.
Since when have there been any successful tests? The tests done in the 80's were all rigged, and the tests done a couple years ago, despite the hype, were almost complete failures.
Actually, I am aware of all this stuff. I was hoping that my comment would be blatantly obvious sarcasm, since an interrupt is, by definition, a method to notify the computer of a state change.
... if you read the patent, the embodiment of the invention requires that the host OS detect the change/insertion of the media via an interrupt, so polling the device instead of responding to an interrupt is a simple work-around.
There must be some prior art for using an interrupt to notify the OS of a hardware state change.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's why:
- To implement this in the OS requires that the OS look up the value of the instruction pointer in an NX table every time it changes pages (assuming that the NX flag operates on a page basis), which would add several clock cycles to every JMP/JR/CALL instruction, and would significantly decrease performance.
- If a basic feature such as this one needs to be implemented by every operating system, it makes more sense to implement it via hardware (the applicable cliche being "Don't reinvent the wheel").
Alternatively, if resources don't have to be dedicated to fixing this problem, those resources can be devoted to fixing other problems. This argument is a little like the argument that, if I want to lose weight, I shouldn't exersize, because I might become complacent about what I eat.Seriously, all this time you've spent getting to know the Star Trek universe is already "wasted", because IT DOESN'T EXIST. There's no such thing as Klingons, Ferengi, Romulans, Vulcans, warp drive, or the United Federation of Planets. It's all a fantasy. If there's any value to be had in fantasy, it certainly isn't in the KNOWING of the imaginary universe. Quality of work is far more important than quantity of work. Voyager isn't much of a credit, since you can only blow up the ship and use time-travel/reality-shifting to bring it back so many times before it becomes a really stale plot device. And let's not forget Nemesis (much as I wish I could), which was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. No one involved in the production of that movie should ever be allowed to work on another movie ever.
Most people don't think they have the time to become less ignorant, this stuff looks (and is) very complicated, and they don't know how they'd even go about it. It's really easy to overlook just how much more you know than the average person does, and it's easy to forget how much time it took you to accumulate this knowledge.
On the other hand, how often do I have a chance to listen to the entire album to get that effect, or how many times do I need to? Not a lot, to both questions. The best part about the shuffle (and audio files in general) is that I have the option to listen to my music in a variety of ways. When I'm driving or at work, I do prefer the randomness of the shuffle. When I'm at the gym, I like to listen to an album straight through.
The "brain damage" quote is obviously from one of those brain-damaged adults who assumes that everyone who has different modes of thought from their own is brain-damaged.
On the other hand, off-the-shelf software has a well-defined cost (the sticker price), and has a phone number or web site that I can go to if there are problems, making it much easier and time-efficient to deal with these things.
There are two principles that I've experienced in my career about successful software that I see many OSS proponents ignoring or unaware of. The first principle is that the vast majority of computer users (and this includes people who make the decisions about what to use) don't care how their computer or software works, they just want it to work right now . The second principle is that, given the choice between a product that always works, and which costs $100/hr for support, or a product that breaks frequently, and costs $100/yr for support, 90% of people will choose the second product, because no one trusts the claims that the first product always works.
In my experience, the OSS that acheives success outside of the OSS community usually follows the first principle, by installing quickly and easily, and rarely requires editing config files or reading documentation to use. I can't think of any OSS that does a good job on the second principle (not that I'm claiming it doesn't exist).
It seems to me that Penny Arcade could have their own defamation case against Infinium Labs if they wanted to.
Tim Roberts clearly made an intentionally false statement about the actions of Gabe and Tycho, and my guess is that a lot of Penny Arcade's readership would be more than happy to testify that they would have lost all respect for the comic strip had this phone call actually occured, potentially costing Penny Arcade a significant portion of their add revenue. I know that I would have lost respect for them were this true.
Politicians get torn apart in the media only because other politicians and opinion column writers get involved. It almost never happens in the original story.
When a science story appears, it is invariably presented by the journalist as gospel truth, and it's only after the rebuttals are published that there is a chance of credibility loss.
I saw nothing in the article to suggest that this was "like when God speaks". I simply saw an account of what a MS executive stated in a keynote speech. In this situation, there are no questions, no rebuttal, and no excuse for a journalist to impose his own opinions into the story. Instead, it is an opportunity for the readers to for their own opinions. And, quite frankly, as the story develops, this won't be good for Microsoft. It never is when the head of a security technology unit makes ludicrous statements like these.
IKHTSL.
The letter is probably nothing more than legal posturing, intended to scare the little guy, but of little use to anyone who has their own lawyer.
Unfortunately, properly changing a guitar to an alternate tuning isn't as simple as re-tuning the strings, the truss rod also needs to be adjusted, to counter the change in overall string tension (which is considerable when adjusting the lower 3 strings), and a truss rod adjustment requires about 12 hours of settling time. The guitar will still play, but it won't sound so good.
Of course, buying a different guitar for each tuning quickly become cost-prohibitive, so this is a great compromise for those guitarists who like to use multiple tunings and who don't have lucrative contracts with major record labels.
2) Because they are directly addressing policies that Bush has personally promoted.
3) Because in order to make changes to policies, it is necessary to deal directly with those who are directly responsible for those policies.
4) Because it's completely irrational to think that a person can be in power without being held responsible for how they use that power.
Actually, I am aware of all this stuff. I was hoping that my comment would be blatantly obvious sarcasm, since an interrupt is, by definition, a method to notify the computer of a state change.