So since data-storage hardware is organized into groups that are powers of 2, it makes sense to use powers of 2 for the prefixes.
So a HD is not data-storage hardware if 1G != 2^30
But then again, if I want to dump my 1M of memory to HD, I'm gunna need 1.048756M of disk space to hold the actual data [plus more for the filing system to track this data, but this is expected]
But then again again, don't HD's use sectors of 512 bytes, not 500 bytes?
Interestingly, the levy only applies to BLANK media.
Thus, shurely, all you need to do is take a file with you when you want to buy some CR-RW and use it to test the media is working by writing it *BEFORE* purchasing it. Then when you buy it, it ain't blank and so can't have a levy applied?
1. Measuring speed is difficult, but to give you an example, the Mono C# compiler compiles itself on 3.5 seconds (50,000 lines of code).
That means absolutely nothing...I've got a program that compiles in about 5 mins or 20 secs: it just depends whether I compile it on my 486/66 or my Athlon/800
This IS a mockup...in an environment typical of the time
If anyone wants to install Win 3.11 on my 486 (running DOS 6.22 & Win 3.1) + the other s/ware I'm quite happy to loan the machine (as long as I get it back in working condition with my data to replace back on my home LAN) - I'm sure that'd count as less than a mock up.
despite the fact that the git who filled the thing was told about abundant prior art before the patent was issued. I know he was told because I was one of the people doing the telling
If there was prior art, and it can be shown that it was, then shirley this is a clear indication of the state of the USPTO; and begs the question of how many other [software] patents have been issued for which there is prior art - they clearly haven't been doing their research properly; or does the USPTO not have to bother checking that prior art exists - only publish the requested patent and ask all those that know if there is any just and legal inpediment as to why it shouldn't be granted to speak now or forever hold their peace?
Thank goodness I deleted that pesky "default.ida" file...
Now for what reason did you want to go and do a silly thing like that? I actively put in a default.ida file, found out the next file that the worm/virus was trying to get and added that as a symbolic link to it; and then the next...
> Just 360 -- less than 2 per cent -- of BSD Unix servers were successfully breached in August.
This statement clearly states that less than 2 percent of the BSD servers on the net were attacked.
No it doesn't.
Assume that there are 20,000 BSD servers
Then if 360 were attacked, that less than 2% represents 100% success rate of attack. If 20,000 were attacked that 100% represents less than 2% success rate.
Without attack rates and success rates [of machines] those figures are meaningless.
It basically says that the update might deliberately break your Office installation
Aha, we've found their anti-piracy policy: distribute a buggy, remotely hackable system and then require you to download the correct system via patches and totally mess up your install if it's not legit.
Have the PSU go wrong and 240V will boldly go where 240 volts shouldn't - onto the circuit board, set fire to a chip or two and burn a nice little hole in the PCB, along with lots of nice, toxic fumes.
So they halted development for 6 months, sent every single developer to a school in developing secure code, purchased 200 million in books on secure programming for their developers, and then went back to work.
Reminds me of the story that the MOD ordered lots of copies of the Ladybird book on computers. The publishers politely wrote back stating that they were intended for 8 year olds; only to get a reply confiming the order. [or something like that...just can't find my source at the moment]
If the technology wasn't interesting enough that they felt the need to delete 35 weeks worth of emails about it, why did M$ need to steal the technology (as claimed by Burst)?
Surely the fact that M$ came up with the code in the 4 years from '94 to '98 without having any knowledge of the patent(?) would imply that the idea is obvious and so non-patentable?
Why did they found it necessary to [try to] obfucate the comment about function name changes by using a greek font? Are they scared that someone may recognise it as their comments and point out that they actually wrote the code, not SCO?
The version of malloc() given for Linux is very representative of an implementation of the algorithm given in "The Design of the Unix(R) Operating System" by Maurice J. Bach:
{
for (every map entry)
{
if (current map entry can fit requested units)
{
if (requested units == number of units in entry)
delete entry from map;
else
adjust start address of entry;
return (original address of entry);
}
}
return (0); }
Besides, what proof have we got that they actually wrote the SCO version and not took the Linux version, "hastily embroidering it with a few footnotes in order to avoid prosecution under the...copyright laws..." ["Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams]. The continuation of the above quote suggests what is happening?:
"...It is interesting to note that a later and wilier editor sent the book backwards in time through a temporal warp and then successfully sued the breakfast ceral company for infringement of the same laws."
$ cat/proc/sys/kernel/osrelease 2.2.23 $ cd/usr/src/kernel $ wc -l `find/usr/src/linux -name \*.c` | tail -1 1756539 total $ wc -l `find/usr/src/linux -name \*.h` | tail -1
444061 total $ echo 1756539 444061 + p | dc 2200600 $
So the 2.2.23 kernel (excluding/arch/[non-i386]) comes to 2,200,600 lines (including all comments, blank lines and kernel header files).
Any offers to repeat this on a newer kernel (yes I know that SCO only complains about 2.4+ kernels; and I need to upgrade this kernel...), but it would give an indication of the extra lines that 2.4+ kernels have over 2.2.23 and so the size of the supposed SCO code inclusion into the kernel.
Perhaps the lawyers also ought to be paid in vouchers to the max value of ~25% of the total of what the clients got ($202m in vouchers - ie they should get $48m worth of vouchers).
"You might get the paper by bleaching one-dollar bills...the cashier would notice it didn't feel right before he/she noticed it didn't look right."
Would the bleaching process also remove the embossing print of the $1 bill? How many [sighted] people do you know who can tell the difference between a $1 bill and a $20 bill by feel alone? I've got a $1 and a $5 bill here and they both feel the same - vaguely embossed - to me.
This is one area that we in the UK (and europe) have an advantage over the U$: our notes are of different sizes, with the higher denominations being larger: bleaching a 5 note and then trying to print a 20 onto it would be a dead give away in a stack of 20 notes: it'd be significantly smaller!
So the UK counterfitter, to get the right paper, could try to bleach a 20 note, trim it and print a 5 value on it!
"I wish yahoo had some guts and had decided to take it on."
Isn't this exactly what SCO are hoping with their "Linux run-time licences"? If they get enough takers (even just one?) they'll say "ah, but, we've got this/all these licencee(s) to prove that we're right as they knew that they were using it wrongly and so IBM had better pay up, and all you other Linux users 'cos we're gunna sue ya."
- Linux is a Unix kernel clone. - There is no such thing as Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux. There are IBM or RH distributions that make use of the Linux kernel
Don't Red Hat, etc patch their distro kernels? In which case, shirley, as the kernel that comes with the distro isn't a standard kernel and the Red Hat one differs from the SuSe one, etc, there are such things as Red Hat Linux, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
So since data-storage hardware is organized into groups that are powers of 2, it makes sense to use powers of 2 for the prefixes.
So a HD is not data-storage hardware if 1G != 2^30
But then again, if I want to dump my 1M of memory to HD, I'm gunna need 1.048756M of disk space to hold the actual data [plus more for the filing system to track this data, but this is expected]
But then again again, don't HD's use sectors of 512 bytes, not 500 bytes?
Interestingly, the levy only applies to BLANK media.
Thus, shurely, all you need to do is take a file with you when you want to buy some CR-RW and use it to test the media is working by writing it *BEFORE* purchasing it. Then when you buy it, it ain't blank and so can't have a levy applied?
1. Measuring speed is difficult, but to give you an example, the Mono C# compiler compiles itself on 3.5 seconds (50,000 lines of code).
That means absolutely nothing...I've got a program that compiles in about 5 mins or 20 secs: it just depends whether I compile it on my 486/66 or my Athlon/800
This IS a mockup...in an environment typical of the time
If anyone wants to install Win 3.11 on my 486 (running DOS 6.22 & Win 3.1) + the other s/ware I'm quite happy to loan the machine (as long as I get it back in working condition with my data to replace back on my home LAN) - I'm sure that'd count as less than a mock up.
despite the fact that the git who filled the thing was told about abundant prior art before the patent was issued. I know he was told because I was one of the people doing the telling
If there was prior art, and it can be shown that it was, then shirley this is a clear indication of the state of the USPTO; and begs the question of how many other [software] patents have been issued for which there is prior art - they clearly haven't been doing their research properly; or does the USPTO not have to bother checking that prior art exists - only publish the requested patent and ask all those that know if there is any just and legal inpediment as to why it shouldn't be granted to speak now or forever hold their peace?
Thank goodness I deleted that pesky "default.ida" file...
Now for what reason did you want to go and do a silly thing like that? I actively put in a default.ida file, found out the next file that the worm/virus was trying to get and added that as a symbolic link to it; and then the next...
> Just 360 -- less than 2 per cent -- of BSD Unix servers were successfully breached in August.
This statement clearly states that less than 2 percent of the BSD servers on the net were attacked.
No it doesn't.
Assume that there are 20,000 BSD servers
Then if 360 were attacked, that less than 2% represents 100% success rate of attack. If 20,000 were attacked that 100% represents less than 2% success rate.
Without attack rates and success rates [of machines] those figures are meaningless.
It basically says that the update might deliberately break your Office installation
Aha, we've found their anti-piracy policy: distribute a buggy, remotely hackable system and then require you to download the correct system via patches and totally mess up your install if it's not legit.
The study was based on interviews with 12 companies, seven of which use Microsoft's .NET platform and five of which use Linux.
And how many of the other 1000s of Windoze companies (as M$ would have us believe?) also [(a)] responded [and (b)] with such positive findings?
Perhaps a better re-write of this sentence would be:
The study was biased on interviews with 12 companies...
Have the PSU go wrong and 240V will boldly go where 240 volts shouldn't - onto the circuit board, set fire to a chip or two and burn a nice little hole in the PCB, along with lots of nice, toxic fumes.
Some people believe the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese
You mean they're not?
So they halted development for 6 months, sent every single developer to a school in developing secure code, purchased 200 million in books on secure programming for their developers, and then went back to work.
Reminds me of the story that the MOD ordered lots of copies of the Ladybird book on computers. The publishers politely wrote back stating that they were intended for 8 year olds; only to get a reply confiming the order. [or something like that...just can't find my source at the moment]
I agree, a new code base (kernel, new gui, etc) is the way to go...
Just loike good ol' MSDOS 6.22 (Kernel) + Windoze 3.1 (GUI)?
Neither have I ever got a virus with XP...but then again, I don't use XP.
If the technology wasn't interesting enough that they felt the need to delete 35 weeks worth of emails about it, why did M$ need to steal the technology (as claimed by Burst)?
...is automatically invoked based upon type information in the document or associated with the object's data.
Isn't this what '#!{script_processor}' does in a *nix executable script file?
Surely the fact that M$ came up with the code in the 4 years from '94 to '98 without having any knowledge of the patent(?) would imply that the idea is obvious and so non-patentable?
Aren't the James Bond films copyrighted...did they pay for use of them? Anyone got the number of the RIAA?
Why did they found it necessary to [try to] obfucate the comment about function name changes by using a greek font? Are they scared that someone may recognise it as their comments and point out that they actually wrote the code, not SCO?
The version of malloc() given for Linux is very representative of an implementation of the algorithm given in "The Design of the Unix(R) Operating System" by Maurice J. Bach:
{
for (every map entry)
{
if (current map entry can fit requested units)
{
if (requested units == number of units in entry)
delete entry from map;
else
adjust start address of entry;
return (original address of entry);
}
}
return (0);
}
Besides, what proof have we got that they actually wrote the SCO version and not took the Linux version, "hastily embroidering it with a few footnotes in order to avoid prosecution under the...copyright laws..." ["Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams]. The continuation of the above quote suggests what is happening?:
"...It is interesting to note that a later and wilier editor sent the book backwards in time through a temporal warp and then successfully sued the breakfast ceral company for infringement of the same laws."
This do as a guess?
/proc/sys/kernel/osrelease /usr/src/kernel /usr/src/linux -name \*.c` | tail -1 /usr/src/linux -name \*.h` | tail -1
/arch/[non-i386]) comes to 2,200,600 lines (including all comments, blank lines and kernel header files).
.../arch/[non-i386]: *.c = 231,840; *.h = 9,051; .../arch/i386: *.c = 29,559; *.h = 1,068]
$ cat
2.2.23
$ cd
$ wc -l `find
1756539 total
$ wc -l `find
444061 total
$ echo 1756539 444061 + p | dc
2200600
$
So the 2.2.23 kernel (excluding
Any offers to repeat this on a newer kernel (yes I know that SCO only complains about 2.4+ kernels; and I need to upgrade this kernel...), but it would give an indication of the extra lines that 2.4+ kernels have over 2.2.23 and so the size of the supposed SCO code inclusion into the kernel.
[Also:
Perhaps the lawyers also ought to be paid in vouchers to the max value of ~25% of the total of what the clients got ($202m in vouchers - ie they should get $48m worth of vouchers).
"I got nothing but pictures of bloody Beethoven."
I knew the original Lassie was actually a little laddie, but I didn't know Beethovwn was a bitch; but then again, I haven't watched the films.
"You might get the paper by bleaching one-dollar bills...the cashier would notice it didn't feel right before he/she noticed it didn't look right."
Would the bleaching process also remove the embossing print of the $1 bill? How many [sighted] people do you know who can tell the difference between a $1 bill and a $20 bill by feel alone? I've got a $1 and a $5 bill here and they both feel the same - vaguely embossed - to me.
This is one area that we in the UK (and europe) have an advantage over the U$: our notes are of different sizes, with the higher denominations being larger: bleaching a 5 note and then trying to print a 20 onto it would be a dead give away in a stack of 20 notes: it'd be significantly smaller!
So the UK counterfitter, to get the right paper, could try to bleach a 20 note, trim it and print a 5 value on it!
"I wish yahoo had some guts and had decided to take it on."
Isn't this exactly what SCO are hoping with their "Linux run-time licences"? If they get enough takers (even just one?) they'll say "ah, but, we've got this/all these licencee(s) to prove that we're right as they knew that they were using it wrongly and so IBM had better pay up, and all you other Linux users 'cos we're gunna sue ya."
- Linux is a Unix kernel clone.
- There is no such thing as Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux. There are IBM or RH distributions that make use of the Linux kernel
Don't Red Hat, etc patch their distro kernels? In which case, shirley, as the kernel that comes with the distro isn't a standard kernel and the Red Hat one differs from the SuSe one, etc, there are such things as Red Hat Linux, etc.