Do you seriously think that this type of problem would go unnoticed by the multitude of geeks out there? Once discovered, do you honestly think it would remain unreported? That's part of the goodness of Open Source...it's eminently auditable by everyone.
Developers and sysadmins are the only ones who are going to notice anyway...my mom doesn't think about whether or not her new program does just what it says it will, and wouldn't update it, or ever be aware of this type of problem unless somebody told her about it.
Do you think Microsoft finds most of the vulnerabilities in it's products, or the legion of geeks out there?
If all you ever play is FPS-type games, I can see how you'd think that. I've played plenty of games (Pick your favorite Mario-world title starting with the SNES platform, 1080 Avalanche, warcraft, starcraft, command and conquer, Master of Orion, etc.) where 4 hours is just a good intro into how not to get killed repeatedly or how to do something useful. If I bought a game that I could beat in 4 hours, I'd want my money back.
Actually, I prefer to browse at higher resolutions with the browser maximized...lets me read more before I have to scroll. I could care less how many lines the text is spread over. I would prefer more information onscreen to whitespace any day.
That's great, except for the fact that non-existent domains are supposed to return nxdomain answers. It was a great oversight not to limit the ability of wildcards in the tlds as part of the spec. There are other apps aside from mail and web browsers that use the internet and do name lookups...that much is known.
Unfortunately, now we have a problem with having to design future apps to check for and parse a stupid verisign web-page instead of just knowing "that domain doesn't exist".
and "It should be noted that each phase builds upon the other.", but the first phase they mention is PEI...
Intel mentions (about the "Security" phase) here that:
The objective is to ensure that the first code executed by the processor is trustworthy and that this code has sufficient resources in and of itself to determine the trustworthiness of any subsequent code. What "authenticate" and "trustworthy" mean can evolve over time and across platforms
A speaker's sound reproduction characteristics are defined by the motor strength (magnet), compliance (bounciness of the surround and spider), and moving mass. Change one of these things, and you've just changed the overall compliance of the speaker (the "Q", in audiophile-speak).
If you change the "Q" for high-frequency and midrange drivers, the effects may be minimal, because drastically changing their "Q" is more difficult".
Low frequency drivers are another matter, and a great deal of design work goes into pairing the driver, enclosure, and port length to get a particular response curve. If you can find out from the manufacturer whether the surrounds will work well, you might be able to keep the speakers around for a while, and have them sound as good as new...otherwise, it's a crap shoot.
Also remember that you're going to need a fairly robust adhesive to make the things stick for more than 20 minutes, and speaker basket and cone sizes can vary widely for "standard" sizes...especially for major name brand manufacturers.
Overall, it's probably going to be best for you to retire you 15-year-old gear, and start shopping for a new pair that will last that long, but it wouldn't hurt to try to fix your current ones while you look.
Scene: a darkened computer lab at Nasa mission control...Tech-1 has just been sent in to see why it's taking so long to restore the rover to operation...
Tech-1: Hey, I thought you already rebooted it?
Tech-2: Dammit!!! I'll have to try again [grumble]
Tech-1: I don't understand...I thought this was a pretty simple reboot into cripple mode
Tech-2: [swearing silently]...I know! Remember the budget cuts we had?
Tech-1: Yeah...what have they got to do with this?
Tech-2: Well, project management got worried about whether or not we had any proprietary code from SCO running on the rover.
Tech-1: Oh, for crying out loud! Everyone knows that's a load of crap. So why did that make a difference?
Tech-2: Well, it didn't HAVE to, except that they had to choose an OS that they were fairly sure had no infringing code in it.
Tech-1: So, what did they go with Solaris, unixware?
Tech-2: Nope, too risky...and c'mon...like we're gonna run *unixware* on it...can't say I'm enjoying their choice, though.
Tech-1: I'm dying to know...what OS is it?
Tech-2: Well, Let's just say it's *really* hard to hit F8 at the right time when you're working from 100 million miles away...stupid Windows 98...
Tech-1: [mischevious look spreading across his face]...hey...didn't Microsoft just extend support for Windows 98? Who's got Bill Gates' number?
Well, dammit, you could have at least mentioned some of that before forcing me to read only the first 5 pages of the RFC and making myself look like an ass. This is slashdot, for crying out loud...I don't have time to check the facts thoroughly, that's YOUR job;)
Which is a nice enough statement, except that the RFC doesn't say that they're not allowed, it says they "may be axcluded".
I'll agree that putting a username:password pair in the url typed into a secure url is stupid if you value security, but not allowing it at all does not make IE any more or less compliant with the RFC.
since I don't allow in attachments that end in.pif.exe.scr.com or.bat (including zipped ones...thank you antigen), there have been precisely zero delivered to anybody's inboxes.
I was listening up until you said "Granted, I'm only in my mid 20's...".
I was 7 years old when I saw Star Wars, and it was AWESOME (to me at the time, anyway).
In the 70's and 80's, there weren't 15 new movies a week coming to the theaters, and hand-made special effects meant that making cool high-tech stuff was really, really hard. Star Wars may be dated today, but George and crew have been improving special effects for the entire industry for 30 years.
You might want to be grateful for the flash-in-the-pan "cool thing" that you don't give a fuck about...not that you're required to be.
Goddamn 20-something AC Star Wars trolls...[grumble]
You seem to be stuck on the notion that databases are either used only internally or are completely public and free. Lexis-Nexis would beg to differ.
Nope...not at all. I was reading the articles and posts, and they are talking about protecting (and encouraging) public databases.
Salable databases are different, but also not in need of legal protection beyond whatever contract the purchaser is bound by. If you know somebody who paid for something, and you want a copy, he is either legally allowed or prohibeted from doing so, depending on the agreement made at the time of the sale.
The data that Groklaw uses is publicly available (read: come and get it, no strings attached), and if it wasn't, Groklaw wouldn't publish it, because it'd be illegal.
The fact that there are for-profit law indexes that get their feathers ruffled seems to parallel SCO being mad at Linux distributors. They can't understand why someone would give away what they are charging for. Why should a list of data be copyrightable? Should my grocery list be protected by copyright? Am I allowed to sue if someone else goes shopping with it?
It just doesn't make any sense to me. I suspect that there are some wheels in motion, but I can't fathom the reason for the bill, based on what I've read so far.
The thing is, "databases" like GrokLaw are the ones that don't need this protection. Why make a public database public if you don't want people to use the data? It makes no sense. This bill talks about protections to make sure that people keep on creating new public databases, and that keeps causing my neurons to short-circuit.
Private databases aren't shared, so they don't need it. Public databases *are* shared, so (as far as I can tell) they don't need it, or shouldn't be shared. There has to be some reason that this bill is getting pushed forward, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is...
In the existing framework, I find music and artistic things are sensible to apply copyright to, as are proprietary things of various types. Data made publicly available today is immediately trivial to collect, and those who make data available *know* that. Why else are there subscription-based search sites? This bill is pointless, unless it's somehow malicious.
Has everyone ignored MySQL Control Center (I've been using it for a year or so, now)?
It looks like Administrator will be a better version (or at least more attractive), but it's not like "Oh, finally!!! a GUI interface for mySQL!!!". Granted, it's still at version 0.9.4 (*note to self: newer version than the one I'm running...have to update), but that's farther along than the currently-nonexistent Administrator.
How about a 3D version that uses the shapes of the original maps and vehicles, but adds a third degree of motion (tanks can shoot over walls, jets and biplanes can fly up and down, 3-D split-screen visuals, etc). Oh, and keep the "can't shoot until your last shot hits something" part.
The thing is, it *didn't* royally suck...compared to everything else. Of course, the fact that it had no competition (well, aside vrom the Vectrex that I lusted after to play Battlezone on) made that an easy win. The apple II, C-64, etc. didn't come out until a couple of years after the 2600. Demon attack (Activision, I believe) was a pretty decent 2600 game.
Windows XP was the disappearance of the Win 9x/ME product line, and the forking of Windows 2000 into Home and Commercial versions...well, technically, there *was* no "home" version of Win2k, but you get the idea. Both versions of Windows XP are built on the NT kernel, not versions of 9x/ME were.
I was fortunate enough to work at a place that resold used Sun hardware. I was even luckier to be working on the floor as a tester and system configurator. We couldn't sell monitors that failed our (arguably arbitrary) standards for brightness, clarity, etc. I ended up shelling out $40 for a VGA to Sun video adapter, and got a free, but "dim" (wink, wink) 20-inch Sony monitor...not cheap back in 1998.
It finally got replaced last month by a 18.1" Dell UltraSharp LCD (same size corner-to-corner), but it still works well, just takes a few minutes to warm up so the picture can stabilize, these days.
Buy or scrounge an old 5 1/4" floppy and use one of the many existing C64 emulators that support floppy drives to get at it. A lot of people have done work getting this stuff to be painless, and there's certainly no shortage of C-64 zealots out there. Poke around a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Developers and sysadmins are the only ones who are going to notice anyway...my mom doesn't think about whether or not her new program does just what it says it will, and wouldn't update it, or ever be aware of this type of problem unless somebody told her about it.
Do you think Microsoft finds most of the vulnerabilities in it's products, or the legion of geeks out there?
If all you ever play is FPS-type games, I can see how you'd think that. I've played plenty of games (Pick your favorite Mario-world title starting with the SNES platform, 1080 Avalanche, warcraft, starcraft, command and conquer, Master of Orion, etc.) where 4 hours is just a good intro into how not to get killed repeatedly or how to do something useful. If I bought a game that I could beat in 4 hours, I'd want my money back.
Actually, I prefer to browse at higher resolutions with the browser maximized...lets me read more before I have to scroll. I could care less how many lines the text is spread over. I would prefer more information onscreen to whitespace any day.
Unfortunately, now we have a problem with having to design future apps to check for and parse a stupid verisign web-page instead of just knowing "that domain doesn't exist".
Intel mentions (about the "Security" phase) here that:
The objective is to ensure that the first code executed by the processor is trustworthy and that this code has sufficient resources in and of itself to determine the trustworthiness of any subsequent code. What "authenticate" and "trustworthy" mean can evolve over time and across platforms
Trustworthy computing anyone?
A speaker's sound reproduction characteristics are defined by the motor strength (magnet), compliance (bounciness of the surround and spider), and moving mass. Change one of these things, and you've just changed the overall compliance of the speaker (the "Q", in audiophile-speak). If you change the "Q" for high-frequency and midrange drivers, the effects may be minimal, because drastically changing their "Q" is more difficult". Low frequency drivers are another matter, and a great deal of design work goes into pairing the driver, enclosure, and port length to get a particular response curve. If you can find out from the manufacturer whether the surrounds will work well, you might be able to keep the speakers around for a while, and have them sound as good as new...otherwise, it's a crap shoot. Also remember that you're going to need a fairly robust adhesive to make the things stick for more than 20 minutes, and speaker basket and cone sizes can vary widely for "standard" sizes...especially for major name brand manufacturers. Overall, it's probably going to be best for you to retire you 15-year-old gear, and start shopping for a new pair that will last that long, but it wouldn't hurt to try to fix your current ones while you look.
Hey, this is Slashdot...if *I* thought it was funny, everybody else has to, too. Get with the program, already.
Tech-1: Hey, I thought you already rebooted it?
Tech-2: Dammit!!! I'll have to try again [grumble]
Tech-1: I don't understand...I thought this was a pretty simple reboot into cripple mode
Tech-2: [swearing silently]...I know! Remember the budget cuts we had?
Tech-1: Yeah...what have they got to do with this?
Tech-2: Well, project management got worried about whether or not we had any proprietary code from SCO running on the rover.
Tech-1: Oh, for crying out loud! Everyone knows that's a load of crap. So why did that make a difference?
Tech-2: Well, it didn't HAVE to, except that they had to choose an OS that they were fairly sure had no infringing code in it.
Tech-1: So, what did they go with Solaris, unixware?
Tech-2: Nope, too risky...and c'mon...like we're gonna run *unixware* on it...can't say I'm enjoying their choice, though.
Tech-1: I'm dying to know...what OS is it?
Tech-2: Well, Let's just say it's *really* hard to hit F8 at the right time when you're working from 100 million miles away...stupid Windows 98...
Tech-1: [mischevious look spreading across his face]...hey...didn't Microsoft just extend support for Windows 98? Who's got Bill Gates' number?
[Fade to black]
Good info, I stand corrected.
I'll agree that putting a username:password pair in the url typed into a secure url is stupid if you value security, but not allowing it at all does not make IE any more or less compliant with the RFC.
since I don't allow in attachments that end in .pif .exe .scr .com or .bat (including zipped ones...thank you antigen), there have been precisely zero delivered to anybody's inboxes.
I was 7 years old when I saw Star Wars, and it was AWESOME (to me at the time, anyway).
In the 70's and 80's, there weren't 15 new movies a week coming to the theaters, and hand-made special effects meant that making cool high-tech stuff was really, really hard. Star Wars may be dated today, but George and crew have been improving special effects for the entire industry for 30 years.
You might want to be grateful for the flash-in-the-pan "cool thing" that you don't give a fuck about...not that you're required to be.
Goddamn 20-something AC Star Wars trolls...[grumble]
Nope...not at all. I was reading the articles and posts, and they are talking about protecting (and encouraging) public databases.
Salable databases are different, but also not in need of legal protection beyond whatever contract the purchaser is bound by. If you know somebody who paid for something, and you want a copy, he is either legally allowed or prohibeted from doing so, depending on the agreement made at the time of the sale.
The data that Groklaw uses is publicly available (read: come and get it, no strings attached), and if it wasn't, Groklaw wouldn't publish it, because it'd be illegal.
The fact that there are for-profit law indexes that get their feathers ruffled seems to parallel SCO being mad at Linux distributors. They can't understand why someone would give away what they are charging for. Why should a list of data be copyrightable? Should my grocery list be protected by copyright? Am I allowed to sue if someone else goes shopping with it?
It just doesn't make any sense to me. I suspect that there are some wheels in motion, but I can't fathom the reason for the bill, based on what I've read so far.
Private databases aren't shared, so they don't need it. Public databases *are* shared, so (as far as I can tell) they don't need it, or shouldn't be shared. There has to be some reason that this bill is getting pushed forward, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is...
In the existing framework, I find music and artistic things are sensible to apply copyright to, as are proprietary things of various types. Data made publicly available today is immediately trivial to collect, and those who make data available *know* that. Why else are there subscription-based search sites? This bill is pointless, unless it's somehow malicious.
It looks like Administrator will be a better version (or at least more attractive), but it's not like "Oh, finally!!! a GUI interface for mySQL!!!". Granted, it's still at version 0.9.4 (*note to self: newer version than the one I'm running...have to update), but that's farther along than the currently-nonexistent Administrator.
Well?
google found them pretty quickly for me... here
Offtopic my ass, I'd say a link to "SCO sues MikeRowesoft" would fit right in...
How about a 3D version that uses the shapes of the original maps and vehicles, but adds a third degree of motion (tanks can shoot over walls, jets and biplanes can fly up and down, 3-D split-screen visuals, etc). Oh, and keep the "can't shoot until your last shot hits something" part.
The thing is, it *didn't* royally suck...compared to everything else. Of course, the fact that it had no competition (well, aside vrom the Vectrex that I lusted after to play Battlezone on) made that an easy win. The apple II, C-64, etc. didn't come out until a couple of years after the 2600. Demon attack (Activision, I believe) was a pretty decent 2600 game.
Try this on your emulator (not sure it'll work right unless on a real C64, VIC-20, CBM, PET, etc though)
10 poke 144,88
20 ? CHR(RND(255)+1)
30 GOTO 20
Windows XP was the disappearance of the Win 9x/ME product line, and the forking of Windows 2000 into Home and Commercial versions...well, technically, there *was* no "home" version of Win2k, but you get the idea. Both versions of Windows XP are built on the NT kernel, not versions of 9x/ME were.
It finally got replaced last month by a 18.1" Dell UltraSharp LCD (same size corner-to-corner), but it still works well, just takes a few minutes to warm up so the picture can stabilize, these days.
Buy or scrounge an old 5 1/4" floppy and use one of the many existing C64 emulators that support floppy drives to get at it. A lot of people have done work getting this stuff to be painless, and there's certainly no shortage of C-64 zealots out there. Poke around a bit.
System will go down for reboot in 15 seconds...
Linuz Torousveld...he was the inventor of Linouex, right?