try using the latest sky2 NIC driver Yeah, true, Steve Hemminger has been investigating this obnoxious, multifaceted bug for months. It is proving hard to nail down. Turning off flow controls seems to fix it for some people. Check LKML and bugzilla.kernel.org for details.
But the kernel itself is hardly cutting-edge. Linus' intention is not to be cutting edge, unless cutting edge will make for a better kernel. Nothing generally prevents more functionality being pushed out to userspace (e.g., FUSE).
That being said, OOXML is vastly better specified than ODF is. As I pointed out on my blog some time ago, it would not be possible to build a spreadsheet today using the ODF specification, too many details would have to be extracted from either the OOXML spec (oh, the irony!) or an existing implementation that was based on public information like the Excel documentation (Gnumeric, Open Office). Sigh...
I find that mixing business with religion just doesn't work. Best tool for the job and all that. "Best tool for the job" is only one tool for the job, and it's not a very good one for long-term sustainability. Though Microsoft's interests may parallel yours in the short term, you must consider that their interests in the long term are unrelated at best or opposite yours at worst in the long term. No long-term profit for non-monopolists and all that.
Re:slightly off-topic - general post on AI
on
Marvin Minsky On AI
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Um... AI may give rise to consciousness, but it won't give rise to your consciousness. We still don't know what makes you "you"; way too much neuroscience to be done.
You have to have a copy of the information at some point, and AFAIK no program can determine whether an image is child pr0n or not, so whoever blew the whistle saw the images. I don't know the exact language of the applicable laws is, but I'm sure it's got some questionable elements---both ways, too. The meaning of "to have" is just too hazy a concept when it comes to digital information.
Good point. What's the difference between possession with intent to expose someone and possession with intent to masturbate? It's still possession, right?
On what grounds? If the judge allows the deposition to happen, she can probably ask that it be sealed, but I'd think that would be the extent of her available relief.
Re:Statistical analysis
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Whoa there, buddy. You do know that it's been almost a month since the deadline and no legal action has been filed?
When I first saw the C&D, I knew it wasn't sent out of malice, and I thought it was just business: if trademarks (like the name and image of Sonic) are not defended once in a while, they run the risk of being declared diluted and thus invalid, so I thought that this was Sega taking care of its responsibility to its bottom line to defend its... "intellectual property" (bleh, I feel sick now that I said that phrase). I knew it was just an empty threat, but I didn't know for sure why.
In full 3D, there is just too much freedom of movement to manage the speed required for a Sonic game. Maybe if they stopped making the levels so linear and more planar. Falling into a void to one's death is so passé. If I'm in a forest, make it a big forest with a few roads, leading to the objective, but put all the goodies deep in there; if I'm in a city, let me run around the whole damn thing. Maybe have a few static parts to a level, but generate most of it as needed.
I also think the controls can use some creativity. Make the forward/side control more throttle-like/rudder-like using an analog stick (or even a D-pad!), and make the (other) analog stick look around, with the camera zeroing out along with the control. Devote a button to hard cuts (reverse/brake and to the side). Jumping can remain a function of how long you hold the button down, but have it be a charging-up action; the longer (up to a point) I hold the button, the higher I jump. Tone down in-air control.
I have not considered the merits of what I just wrote. I'm just throwing forth ideas. They may be stupid. They may be infeasible. I'm just trying to be creative.
If Sega did sell out to us, then they do a piss-poor job of representing what we* want, namely:
better and more sophisticated ("sophisticated" not necessarily meaning "complex" nor "mature") plotlines (Sega wouldn't know a good story if it bit them on the ass)
better dialog, though it might be a translation problem
development of existing characters (quality, not quantity)
English voice acting that does justice to the franchise, like the Japanese voice acting.
Did I mention that we actually notice how the gameplay sucks too, and how much of a problem that is?
* By "we", I am referring to my perception of what the aggregate fan wants.
P.S.: If Sega had not created a wealth of minor characters, we would have done it ourselves.
I was going to mod you down, but I think I'll speak some instead.
The moment that Sega decided to give Sonic, et al. an actual identity, as opposed to the bland and generic Mario and crew (and let's not kid ourselves here, character details matter very little in his sphere---Nintendo focuses much more on gameplay, and justifiably so), Sega opened an inverse Pandora's box: there is all this room for derivative works outside of video games (which has been done, both commercially and fan-based), but this has alienated non-fans (the association with the furry fandom could be incidental and not causal). And, of course, the games have continued to decline in quality, which is fatal no matter what.
Sega has no clear objective for Sonic. He maintains his original product differentiation from Mario as described above, but otherwise, he's still a me-too, devoid of boldness and originality in both gameplay and storyline.
To actually address what I think you're referring to: yeah, I hate the humans too. If they're going to keep inventing characters to the point where they actually make Sonic non-asexual, nobody wanted to see him kiss some dainty-ass innocent human girl.
Crap, I need to cut off my rant now. I'll be resuming it later.;)
Except that the TPM is designed to be tamper-resistent. How are you supposed to hack something like that, where the only unencrypted copies are inside the chips and not on the busses? Or do you think that the TPM concept is also fundamentally flawed (which I do not believe---morally flawed, yes, but technically sound)?
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want to contract a disease with a 60% mortality rate, where a healthy immune system can work against you; any step I can take that would reduce my potential exposure would be well worth it from my point of view. If my life is to be reduced to a crapshoot, I'm going try as hard as I can to improve my odds.
I'm not so certain in cases like this. There are plenty of situations of comedic movies where a trademark is parodied and no such mention of licensing is made. Perhaps certain litigious parties would like people to believe that one has to file claims against every usage, regardless of how small, but precedent seems to suggest otherwise. One need not sue everyone; one need not even threaten everyone. When in doubt, threaten now, ask questions later. All that matters is that you can demonstrate a history of enforcing the rights granted by the mark.
Trademark law (at least, the case law) doesn't work like that.
If you do not take steps to protect your trademark by either threatening to sue or---apparently, because I've never seen it done like this until now---granting permission, then if someone does end up violating your trademark, no matter how flagrantly, they can argue (and successfully at that) that the mark has been diluted and is therefore invalid. You snooze, you lose.
Interestingly, a recent instance of this happening was when Sega Europe fired off a nastygram to YTMND regarding an instance of [ahem] unsavory treatment [link NSFW] of a certain trademarked character. Sega can't do anything right these days. If you read the C&D, you can tell it's pure BS, but it's this aspect of trademark law (i.e., needing to defend marks in such an asshatterous manner) that gets it put on my personal proscription list, along with copyright and patent.
Contracts can be renegotiated, yet this requires time, effort, and money, which are things that no company wants to waste, so I can understand why nVidia, et al. don't do this spontaneously. However, we don't even know what the terms of these contracts are: who the other parties are, what technologies they cover, etc. I don't know whether it's because of non-disclosure clauses or some nuance of contract law that is over my head, but whatever the reason, lots of companies are just downright uncommunicative and uncooperative.
Google might be capable of the same kind of shenanigans (e.g.) Microsoft or Real are capable of, but they haven't demonstrated it in the same palpable manner.
Slashdot Mirror
This is real?!
This can't be real.
Yes, you can damage some hardware by using improper settings.
A keyboard is not an example of such hardware.
Illegal procedure is a five-yard penalty.
:)
It should go without saying, but apparently it needs repeating.
I use the ISO date scheme, you insensitive clod!
Um... AI may give rise to consciousness, but it won't give rise to your consciousness. We still don't know what makes you "you"; way too much neuroscience to be done.
You have to have a copy of the information at some point, and AFAIK no program can determine whether an image is child pr0n or not, so whoever blew the whistle saw the images. I don't know the exact language of the applicable laws is, but I'm sure it's got some questionable elements---both ways, too. The meaning of "to have" is just too hazy a concept when it comes to digital information.
Good point. What's the difference between possession with intent to expose someone and possession with intent to masturbate? It's still possession, right?
:D
Could I have worded that any worse?
On what grounds? If the judge allows the deposition to happen, she can probably ask that it be sealed, but I'd think that would be the extent of her available relief.
This article about her experience at LinuxWorld 2005 in Boston comes to my mind whenever doubts are cast about her existence.
[shiver of pleasure]
Whoa there, buddy. You do know that it's been almost a month since the deadline and no legal action has been filed?
When I first saw the C&D, I knew it wasn't sent out of malice, and I thought it was just business: if trademarks (like the name and image of Sonic) are not defended once in a while, they run the risk of being declared diluted and thus invalid, so I thought that this was Sega taking care of its responsibility to its bottom line to defend its... "intellectual property" (bleh, I feel sick now that I said that phrase). I knew it was just an empty threat, but I didn't know for sure why.
However, someone appears to have discovered why Sega Europe sent YTMND that C&D, and if it's true, that reason is idiotic.
I also think the controls can use some creativity. Make the forward/side control more throttle-like/rudder-like using an analog stick (or even a D-pad!), and make the (other) analog stick look around, with the camera zeroing out along with the control. Devote a button to hard cuts (reverse/brake and to the side). Jumping can remain a function of how long you hold the button down, but have it be a charging-up action; the longer (up to a point) I hold the button, the higher I jump. Tone down in-air control.
I have not considered the merits of what I just wrote. I'm just throwing forth ideas. They may be stupid. They may be infeasible. I'm just trying to be creative.
If Sega did sell out to us, then they do a piss-poor job of representing what we* want, namely:
* By "we", I am referring to my perception of what the aggregate fan wants.
P.S.: If Sega had not created a wealth of minor characters, we would have done it ourselves.
I was going to mod you down, but I think I'll speak some instead.
;)
The moment that Sega decided to give Sonic, et al. an actual identity, as opposed to the bland and generic Mario and crew (and let's not kid ourselves here, character details matter very little in his sphere---Nintendo focuses much more on gameplay, and justifiably so), Sega opened an inverse Pandora's box: there is all this room for derivative works outside of video games (which has been done, both commercially and fan-based), but this has alienated non-fans (the association with the furry fandom could be incidental and not causal). And, of course, the games have continued to decline in quality, which is fatal no matter what.
Sega has no clear objective for Sonic. He maintains his original product differentiation from Mario as described above, but otherwise, he's still a me-too, devoid of boldness and originality in both gameplay and storyline.
To actually address what I think you're referring to: yeah, I hate the humans too. If they're going to keep inventing characters to the point where they actually make Sonic non-asexual, nobody wanted to see him kiss some dainty-ass innocent human girl.
Crap, I need to cut off my rant now. I'll be resuming it later.
Except that the TPM is designed to be tamper-resistent. How are you supposed to hack something like that, where the only unencrypted copies are inside the chips and not on the busses? Or do you think that the TPM concept is also fundamentally flawed (which I do not believe---morally flawed, yes, but technically sound)?
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want to contract a disease with a 60% mortality rate, where a healthy immune system can work against you; any step I can take that would reduce my potential exposure would be well worth it from my point of view. If my life is to be reduced to a crapshoot, I'm going try as hard as I can to improve my odds.
Trademark law (at least, the case law) doesn't work like that.
If you do not take steps to protect your trademark by either threatening to sue or---apparently, because I've never seen it done like this until now---granting permission, then if someone does end up violating your trademark, no matter how flagrantly, they can argue (and successfully at that) that the mark has been diluted and is therefore invalid. You snooze, you lose.
Interestingly, a recent instance of this happening was when Sega Europe fired off a nastygram to YTMND regarding an instance of [ahem] unsavory treatment [link NSFW] of a certain trademarked character. Sega can't do anything right these days. If you read the C&D, you can tell it's pure BS, but it's this aspect of trademark law (i.e., needing to defend marks in such an asshatterous manner) that gets it put on my personal proscription list, along with copyright and patent.
Contracts can be renegotiated, yet this requires time, effort, and money, which are things that no company wants to waste, so I can understand why nVidia, et al. don't do this spontaneously. However, we don't even know what the terms of these contracts are: who the other parties are, what technologies they cover, etc. I don't know whether it's because of non-disclosure clauses or some nuance of contract law that is over my head, but whatever the reason, lots of companies are just downright uncommunicative and uncooperative.
Truly, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy that shallow into the Internet.
(Well, maybe more of the former than the latter.)
Google might be capable of the same kind of shenanigans (e.g.) Microsoft or Real are capable of, but they haven't demonstrated it in the same palpable manner.
(Disclaimer: Didn't RTFB.)