a majority of the American people have granted them that trust.
Obligatory election year post: No, a minority of the electorate voted for Bush, and a majority of Supreme Court justices finished it off by appointing him president.
Things like Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player have become part of the operating system? Why? It's good for developers. Need to view a HTML or XML based helpfile? Just use the built in Windows functions.
Hogwash. The browser and the player were previously separate apps which MS decided to wire into the O/S as an end-run around the consent decree and the subsequent actions in which Netscape was involved. Microsoft decided that the decree was a little too confining, and got clever with its coders. No other reasons make sense.
Where the browser is located, under/WINNT or another folder, doesn't matter, it's just one API, and whether it's over here or over there makes no difference. That it is more consistently available to be called upon is, perhaps, a relief now to developers, that they won't have to stick the latest copy of IE on the CD or link to it on their website. THAT much I'll concede.
Linux hasn't got that level of consistency going for it yet, and no pretty outer wrapper the way MacOS does (and i'm NOT talking about desktops, people!) I'll concede also that Windows makes life simpler by providing fewer options.
What gets Microsoft in trouble isn't bundling this software with the operating system.
That is exactly what got them in trouble!
This software IS the operating system now.
Only by choice did MS do that, not out of necessity (except for legal necessity.) The availability of a consistent IE version on a given target installation platform is still random, so many developers choose to require IE 6.
What gets them in trouble is that Microsoft can and does use their dominance to push competition out of the market, killing off Netscape
And how exactly did they do that? By bundling the browser with the operating system. That's what got them in trouble. It was the result of clever legal scheming, not any particular coding need.
memtest86 gives you a bootable floppy that will scan *all* RAM in a system, and turns up the most obscure memory errors. Some errors are not consistent, they only appear in transitions from one bit pattern to another, for example. Or adjacent bit cells may bias the bit in question.
That's all it does, but it's good. And it's free. One other point, systems with mismatched parts (designed for different bus speeds or timings), and overclocked systems, may generate memory errors. Since I started using memtest86, I've stopped overclocking, as every single overclocked system I've checked has shown errors under memtest86!
However, it's a very important topic, because whether or not the conspiracy innuendo's true (short of an indictment we'll never know), it's the outcome of the release that will be the future worry... endless virus campaigns, forcing Microsoft to drop support for current products, requiring licensees to upgrade to TCP-compliant hardware and operating systems, government pronouncements on the subject (or worse, mandates), ISPs shutting down the relatively unfettered protocol usage we enjoy today.
With that much source code on the loose, these outcomes are likely become the topic of many future/. articles... so get used to it!
You don't agree and the idea's old... so what? The idea ain't goin' away... just because it's impossible to prove doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning. Also impossible to determine was who had the greater motivation-
Microsoft, with a couple hundred million users they'd really wouldn't mind being compelled to buy their next O/S
Or some surly hacker who doesn't care if he loses his job?
Fear is a powerful motivator against the latter... and Microsoft's greed, which has compelled them to illegal market-manipulating tactics in the past, seems the greater force. We haven't seen much response from Microsoft about the source leak, yet it may prove to be the 9/11 for the computer business, if virus writers get busy with it.
Is that what you meant to say?:) It's plain from this first exploit that basic coding security precautions are not being followed (or retroactively applied) at Microsoft.
I'm bracing for the coming flood of exploits. The OSS community may prove themselves honorable and pitch in to help, but it's the script kiddies, and those whose moral compass is broke, that I'm worried about.
Just musing, but what if Microsoft wanted to speed the acceptance of their upcoming Palladium-based operating system? What's the best way to do that? Release the source, of course!
Maybe Mainsoft's just a scapegoat.
Re:Not an endorsement, an "I don't care if you do
on
Linux and DRM?
·
· Score: 1
xgyro: two negatives do not equal an endorsement.
It may makes sense to have an in-built encryption facility that makes life easier for users, but Linus specifically does not come out saying he's for DRM.
Not an endorsement, an "I don't care if you do it"
on
Linux and DRM?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
From the dictionary--
en*dorse - To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction: endorse a political candidate. See synonyms at approve.
This did not happen. The quote from the article which you've fictionalized into an "endorsement" goes something like this--
"I also don't necessarily like DRM myself," Torvalds wrote on the "Linux-kernel" mailing list. "But...I'm an 'Oppenheimer,' and I refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for whatever you want to--which very much includes things I don't necessarily personally approve of."
Please, xgyro, tell us how you extrapolated "use Linux for whatever you want to...[including] things I don't necessarily personally approve of" into "endorsed"?
A Microsoft troll, no doubt, but necessary to refute. Fiction becomes myth becomes fact after time.
That's good. My neighborhood punk-rock wifi cafe is sitiated on a park, and they put a decent gain antenna hooked to a wifi-ethernet bridge under the awning. About 1/2 the 14 acre park gets the signal despite trees.
Code monkeys, writers, web designers, casual web surfers populate the place and work in the park during summer. It's an awesome situation. The cafe's earned loyalty from its customers.
Agreed on all counts. I was speaking as a developer, however, so let me explain--
A multitasking PalmOS would allow for something I and others have desired: concurrently running apps. Today, a running PalmOS app sees its peer apps as a static database -no APIs (only PalmOS's), no services, so that interaction is only possible through direct reads or writes to that app's database resource (a programming practice avoided for good reason on most other platforms), or via the very limited PalmOS clipboard.
Accessing a second app from the current app -in part or whole- is basically impossible. At the very least, being able to pop up a form from another app, without losing the current app's context, is not possible, but it would be a much-needed enhancement to PalmOS's already elegant interface. Concurrency shouldn't affect the user interface, or the simplicity of the Palm UI that most of us prefer--
Case in point, on a PalmOS Smartphone, the dialer, the call history, and the address book are separate apps. If you call my phone, and I want to save your number to my address book, I have to: 1) End the call (which is an app), 2) Switch to the call history app and look up the call, 3) Select "copy this number to address book" which inserts the number as a nameless record into the addressbook database, 4) Close call history app by switching to the PalmOS app menu, 5) Select the addressbook app, 5) Find the number and edit it.
That could be slimmed way down to: 1) Click "Save this number to addressbook" during the call, which would pop up the addressbook app's new entry form with the current call's number already inserted into it, 2) Enter name / make changes and save.
Judicious use of concurrency would keep things from getting out of hand. Threading would let the phone app continue to update call info onscreen, while other apps can be accessed concurrently. It would also allow more sophisticated programming models for the apps that need it, such as multimedia apps. Heck, even relatively simple chores such as displaying a clock or animation onscreen within an app can be a hairy piece of business in PalmOS today.
PalmOS =5.x limits what you can get from the hw
on
Palm Changing OS Strategy
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Look, Palm devices have gone from being about as fast as your wristwatch, up to today's being as powerful as laptops of a few years ago (400mhz, 32MB+ RAM, hundreds of megs in SD/MMC.) For a handheld computer that runs for days on battery power, that's quite a bit of power, and possibility.
They're powerful enough to play mp3s and movies, they do wifi, the pen interface has gotten simpler and more accurate. But it's all limited by the operating system. The problem with PalmOS is, it's built around a Windows 3.x-style event loop with no threading. "Cooperative multiprocessing," if you can call it that.
Word today from a developer at a biggish PalmOS app development company, is that Palm has gotten some of the BeOS blokes to develop a microkernel, threading, and device driver architecture; that'll be OS 6.0. It won't be open source, sadly, but it'll have Palm's usual level of documentation and support.
Look at the Zaurus for the example of a pocket computer that's reaching in the right direction: Linux with multitasking, device drivers... mad extensibility. Palm don't got that today.. although I think running KDE is a bit of overdevelopment. Who needs a terminal window, these things have enough power to process speech recognition? That's why the O/S needs to grow.
Presented as facts in the referenced article is the incendiary opinion that Linux users are behind the MyDoom Windows virus. The author, Stephen Evans, presents no information that would lead anybody to conclude that such is the case. He offers an entirely opinion-based article as though it were fact.
Yet he makes strong conclusive assertions, such as, "It is about malice not money," and "There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt" -yet there is nothing but doubt, as the virus author's motives are unknown, and Evans presents no such information.
I believe a retraction is order, and at least a reprimand for Evans. If, however, you won't avail yourselves of that remedy for such a big lapse in journalistic integrity, perhaps you should relegate Evan's "article" to BBC's opinion page.
Designed to have massive loads heaped upon it... and move slowly. Am I the only one who remembers when you could run a relatively complex IDE on a 300mhz box without needing to shut down Mozilla or your mp3 player?? Or even a 100mhz machine? What is it with Eclipse, does blinking the cursor take all that much power? Sheesh.
You are high on crack, you conservative rag. Care to link any statistics, troll? Infant mortality skyrocketed in the rest of Iraq during the sanctions years. Lack of access to medicines, clean water, basic nutrition.
Kurdistan was not under Hussein's direct control, and had relatively free trade (smuggling) with other nations, especially Turkey. They therefore circumvented the sanctions, which were mostly enforced in international waters, air cargo, and major highways into Iraq.
The Washington Post is a conservative rag by leftist standards. You avoided answering any of my statements with facts or links. What I get for arguing with an AC troll. Time to browse again in +1 territory.
Did you even bother to read the links before replying? The sources they're cacheing, the ones to which I linked, are the mainstream Washington Post (conservative rag), New York Times (liberal rag), and some independent journalists.
You cannot even compare Iraq's totalitarian "socialism" with today's defining examples of socialist states.
The term "socialism" is an unfortunate catch-all for what has become a broad spectrum of political systems, ranging from totalitarian dictatorships (some of these despots supported by the US, such as China) all the way over to "soft" socialist states, such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Canada, and last, but not least, The United States of America.
Yes, the USA is a socialist state, by definition, because of its huge social spending policy, and that approximately half its voters belong to a socialist party known as the Democrats.
The other half, Republicans, disavow socialism, but exhibit strong socialistic tendencies by the very fact they accept huge quantities of social pr0k spending each year, on seniors, medical, corporate welfare, etc.
And how, dear AC troll, exactly did the U.S. "reduce" death and destruction? Did you include the twelve years of U.S.-demanded sanctions, which the U.N. estimated killed over 500,000 children alone in your estimation? Did you include the estimated 10,000 civilian deaths in Gulf War II?
How is it that Americans rationalize all this death as somehow being okay? When Saddam orders a few thousand deaths with WMD, it's justification for a unilateral invasion and take-over of a nation. When Bill Clinton and George Bush order up war and sanctions, it's somehow okay. But when a despot, fallen out of favor with the U.S., does it, its major crime. Somebody please explain this to me?
It's not like they didn't try to convince the public thru the media that they were discovering WMD evidence during the aftermath. Remember the uncovering of barrels of 'poision' and "possible chemical weapons?".
Few of these stories had much followup to turn public opinion back. The excitement of the announcements were key to keeping skepticism low. Possibly part of a campaign to build up bits of evidence in peoples mind which balances the equation, Saddam==WMD.
Don't you get the underlying double standard yet? Besides which, Safire is a neocon lapdog fuckwit, getting strokes for cheerleading the conquering of other nations.
I know I know, this sounds like a troll, but if anybody still believes the U.S. really had a valid WMD pretense for its party with Death in Iraq, please explain in terms that don't include vague excuses like "it needed to be done" or "Saddam had it coming," because there are plenty of dictators still out there who the U.S. is still cozy with, and Saddam was one whom U.S. danced closely with.
One day (soon hopefully), american Democrats will pull their heads out of their asses and aggressively pursue the Republican's international war crimes the way they pursued the Clinton cigar story.
This domain's been around since 1997, and their site layout is strangely familiar. Not to bring any heat on them- this must be protected parody, or IP law is seriously broken.
Somehow the PublicTechnology link referenced above points to a blank page. Here's the real article:
http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=m od load&name=News&file=article&sid=443
Text:
Government surveillance of citizens. Book it online... (yes, really)
Print article Email article to a friend This was published: 2004-01-13 07:05:00 The Home Office has published new forms on line for government bodies to use, when embarking on directed or covert surveillance and investigation of UK citizens. A small piece of eGovernment in motion, but appearing in stark prominence at this moment in time. It may be security, but being so clinical reads too close for comfort.
PublicTechnology is interested to read the details of these forms, especially in light of the topical Hutton inquiry. Big brother, watching and hacking? It's legal and here are the forms to prove it.
On the Home Office's web pages for these forms, there's a 'useful links' box, which when we looked at the pages contained broken links to the only (crucial for form users and the public) guidance notes which seemed visible -the "Code of Practice - Covert Human Intelligence", and "Code of Practice - Covert Surveillance". It's easy to work out the syntax for the URLs, so try these links instead: Code of Practice - Covert Human Intelligence and Code of Practice - Covert Surveillance
Reading through forms and guidance notes makes one realise the extent of possible 'big brother' investigation by a wide range of public sector organisations outside the police and MOD.
Two Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) notices have been created under section 22(3) and section 22(4) of the Act. RIPA provides for, and regulates the use of, a range of investigative powers, by a variety of public authorities.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) provides for, and regulates the use of, a range of investigative powers, by a variety of public authorities. It updates the law on the interception of communications to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet. It also puts other intrusive investigative techniques on a statutory footing for the very first time; provides new powers to help combat the threat posed by rising criminal use of strong encryption; and ensures that there is independent judicial oversight of the powers in the Act.
Part I relates to the interception of communications and the acquisition and disclosure of communications data. Part II relates to the use of covert surveillance, agents, informants and undercover officers. Part III covers the investigation of electronic data protected by encryption. Part IV provides for independent judicial oversight of the powers in the Act. Part V covers miscellaneous and supplemental matters such as consequential amendments, repeals and interpretation.
The forms linked to below are standard forms for use by all public authorities who are listed in Schedule 1 of RIPA. The forms are an indication of the information required before an authorisation can be granted and are consistent with the requirements in the codes of practice. The Home Office recommends that all users of the form should add any information that is relevant to their organisation but avoid taking any information out of the form.
The forms do not apply to the following who have separate arrangements for the grant of authorisations under Part II of RIPA, they are: Police forces, the intelligence services, the armed forces, HM Customs and Excise and the Ministry of Defence.
Related links to this story:
RIPA Notice Under s22(3) RIPA Notice Under s22(4)
Directed Surveillance Application for Directed Surveillance Authorisation Review of Directed Surveillance Authorisation Cancellation of Directed Authorisation Renewal for Directed Surveillance Authorisation
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) Application for conduct-use of CHIS Authorisation Review of CHIS Authorisation Renewal for CHIS Authorisation Cancellation of conduct-use of CHIS Authorisation
A previously anonymous item of clothing, with a sewn-in RFID tag, has a potentially traceable history- where it was made, where shipped, warehoused at, retailed, who it was sold to, when, how much.
You almost have to wonder if, despite our best efforts, in twenty years time when RFID is presumably more prevalent, that there will be developed a system which generates a snapshot profile of a person based on what the RFIDs in their possession. Perhaps not as accurate as a fingerprint, but enough variability that it could assist law enforcement in finding a person better than facial recognition, for example.
Watch out racial profiling, here comes consumer profiling!
Video's fat, but takes up much less room on a DVD than you might imagine. Your typical 90min movie DVD sometimes has several different versions of the same movie -Spanish, French dubbed versions- each ~1GB apiece. So the whole DVD ain't taken up by just the one movie.
So storing or generating keyframes as needed, followed by deltas, 512MB is probably way more than enough, I'm guessing that would nicely buffer half an hour of MPEG2 or 4 video!
"... just like they do with audio tracks." -It needs to be said that this Pioneer box functionally does nothing new. Digital video mixers, loopers and sequencers -taking audio and video signals from many sources, digital and analog- have been in the hands of video deejays for years. Maybe what's unique is the form factor, or integration of new functions. Hard to tell from that PR blurb that/. calls an "article.":)
reasonable strategy: allocate a huge buffer... do repetitive flushes and complete reloads of data...
Um, this is reasonable how? If you're coding on a 3GHz dream machine w/4GB 400mhz RAM, there will be somebody out there who, quite reasonably, will want to run your code on a 64MB Pentium 133... Testing only on unencumbered machines makes for delusional developers.;)
I'm split: either yer trollin'/., or you gotta tell us what OSS projects you've contributed to, with the above philosophy!
Slashdot Mirror
a majority of the American people have granted them that trust.
Obligatory election year post: No, a minority of the electorate voted for Bush, and a majority of Supreme Court justices finished it off by appointing him president.
You are forgetting your operating system history.
/WINNT or another folder, doesn't matter, it's just one API, and whether it's over here or over there makes no
Things like Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player have become part of the operating system? Why? It's good for developers. Need to view a HTML or XML based helpfile? Just use the built in Windows functions.
Hogwash. The browser and the player were previously separate apps which MS decided to wire into the O/S as an end-run around the consent decree and the subsequent actions in which Netscape was involved. Microsoft decided that the decree was a little too confining, and got clever with its coders. No other reasons make sense.
Where the browser is located, under
difference. That it is more consistently available to be called upon is, perhaps, a relief now to developers, that they won't have to stick the latest copy of IE on the CD or link to it on their website. THAT much I'll concede.
Linux hasn't got that level of consistency going for it yet, and no pretty outer wrapper the way MacOS does (and i'm NOT talking about desktops, people!) I'll concede also that Windows makes life simpler by providing fewer options.
What gets Microsoft in trouble isn't bundling this software with the operating system.
That is exactly what got them in trouble!
This software IS the operating system now.
Only by choice did MS do that, not out of necessity (except for legal necessity.) The availability of a consistent IE version on a given target installation platform is still random, so many developers choose to require IE 6.
What gets them in trouble is that Microsoft can and does use their dominance to push competition out of the market, killing off Netscape
And how exactly did they do that? By bundling the browser with the operating system. That's what got them in trouble. It was the result of clever legal scheming, not any particular coding need.
memtest86 gives you a bootable floppy that will scan *all* RAM in a system, and turns up the most obscure memory errors. Some errors are not consistent, they only appear in transitions from one bit pattern to another, for example. Or adjacent bit cells may bias the bit in question.
That's all it does, but it's good. And it's free. One other point, systems with mismatched parts (designed for different bus speeds or timings), and overclocked systems, may generate memory errors. Since I started using memtest86, I've stopped overclocking, as every single overclocked system I've checked has shown errors under memtest86!
I don't need karma, so that's not it...
... endless virus campaigns, forcing Microsoft to drop support for current products, requiring licensees to upgrade to TCP-compliant hardware and operating systems, government pronouncements on the subject (or worse, mandates), ISPs shutting down the relatively unfettered protocol usage we enjoy today.
/. articles... so get used to it!
However, it's a very important topic, because whether or not the conspiracy innuendo's true (short of an indictment we'll never know), it's the outcome of the release that will be the future worry
With that much source code on the loose, these outcomes are likely become the topic of many future
Microsoft, with a couple hundred million users they'd really wouldn't mind being compelled to buy their next O/S
Or some surly hacker who doesn't care if he loses his job?
Fear is a powerful motivator against the latter... and Microsoft's greed, which has compelled them to illegal market-manipulating tactics in the past, seems the greater force. We haven't seen much response from Microsoft about the source leak, yet it may prove to be the 9/11 for the computer business, if virus writers get busy with it.
Is that what you meant to say? :) It's plain from this first exploit that basic coding security precautions are not being followed (or retroactively applied) at Microsoft.
I'm bracing for the coming flood of exploits. The OSS community may prove themselves honorable and pitch in to help, but it's the script kiddies, and those whose moral compass is broke, that I'm worried about.
Just musing, but what if Microsoft wanted to speed the acceptance of their upcoming Palladium-based operating system? What's the best way to do that? Release the source, of course!
Maybe Mainsoft's just a scapegoat.
xgyro: two negatives do not equal an endorsement.
It may makes sense to have an in-built encryption facility that makes life easier for users, but Linus specifically does not come out saying he's for DRM.
From the dictionary--
en*dorse - To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction: endorse a political candidate. See synonyms at approve.
This did not happen. The quote from the article which you've fictionalized into an "endorsement" goes something like this--
"I also don't necessarily like DRM myself," Torvalds wrote on the "Linux-kernel" mailing list. "But...I'm an 'Oppenheimer,' and I refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for whatever you want to--which very much includes things I don't necessarily personally approve of."
Please, xgyro, tell us how you extrapolated "use Linux for whatever you want to...[including] things I don't necessarily personally approve of" into "endorsed"?
A Microsoft troll, no doubt, but necessary to refute. Fiction becomes myth becomes fact after time.
That's good. My neighborhood punk-rock wifi cafe is sitiated on a park, and they put a decent gain antenna hooked to a wifi-ethernet bridge under the awning. About 1/2 the 14 acre park gets the signal despite trees.
Code monkeys, writers, web designers, casual web surfers populate the place and work in the park during summer. It's an awesome situation. The cafe's earned loyalty from its customers.
Agreed on all counts. I was speaking as a developer, however, so let me explain--
A multitasking PalmOS would allow for something I and others have desired: concurrently running apps. Today, a running PalmOS app sees its peer apps as a static database -no APIs (only PalmOS's), no services, so that interaction is only possible through direct reads or writes to that app's database resource (a programming practice avoided for good reason on most other platforms), or via the very limited PalmOS clipboard.
Accessing a second app from the current app -in part or whole- is basically impossible. At the very least, being able to pop up a form from another app, without losing the current app's context, is not possible, but it would be a much-needed enhancement to PalmOS's already elegant interface. Concurrency shouldn't affect the user interface, or the simplicity of the Palm UI that most of us prefer--
Case in point, on a PalmOS Smartphone, the dialer, the call history, and the address book are separate apps. If you call my phone, and I want to save your number to my address book, I have to: 1) End the call (which is an app), 2) Switch to the call history app and look up the call, 3) Select "copy this number to address book" which inserts the number as a nameless record into the addressbook database, 4) Close call history app by switching to the PalmOS app menu, 5) Select the addressbook app, 5) Find the number and edit it.
That could be slimmed way down to: 1) Click "Save this number to addressbook" during the call, which would pop up the addressbook app's new entry form with the current call's number already inserted into it, 2) Enter name / make changes and save.
Judicious use of concurrency would keep things from getting out of hand. Threading would let the phone app continue to update call info onscreen, while other apps can be accessed concurrently. It would also allow more sophisticated programming models for the apps that need it, such as multimedia apps. Heck, even relatively simple chores such as displaying a clock or animation onscreen within an app can be a hairy piece of business in PalmOS today.
Look, Palm devices have gone from being about as fast as your wristwatch, up to today's being as powerful as laptops of a few years ago (400mhz, 32MB+ RAM, hundreds of megs in SD/MMC.) For a handheld computer that runs for days on battery power, that's quite a bit of power, and possibility.
They're powerful enough to play mp3s and movies, they do wifi, the pen interface has gotten simpler and more accurate. But it's all limited by the operating system. The problem with PalmOS is, it's built around a Windows 3.x-style event loop with no threading. "Cooperative multiprocessing," if you can call it that.
Word today from a developer at a biggish PalmOS app development company, is that Palm has gotten some of the BeOS blokes to develop a microkernel, threading, and device driver architecture; that'll be OS 6.0. It won't be open source, sadly, but it'll have Palm's usual level of documentation and support.
Look at the Zaurus for the example of a pocket computer that's reaching in the right direction: Linux with multitasking, device drivers... mad extensibility. Palm don't got that today.. although I think running KDE is a bit of overdevelopment. Who needs a terminal window, these things have enough power to process speech recognition? That's why the O/S needs to grow.
Presented as facts in the referenced article is the incendiary opinion that Linux users are behind the MyDoom Windows virus. The author, Stephen Evans, presents no information that would lead anybody to conclude that such is the case. He offers an entirely opinion-based article as though it were fact.
Yet he makes strong conclusive assertions, such as, "It is about malice not money," and "There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted - illegally and unacceptably, lest anyone be in any doubt" -yet there is nothing but doubt, as the virus author's motives are unknown, and Evans presents no such information.
I believe a retraction is order, and at least a reprimand for Evans. If, however, you won't avail yourselves of that remedy for such a big lapse in journalistic integrity, perhaps you should relegate Evan's "article" to BBC's opinion page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3457823.stm
Sincerely,
blah blah...
Thanks for the memories, Saddam
Designed to have massive loads heaped upon it... and move slowly. Am I the only one who remembers when you could run a relatively complex IDE on a 300mhz box without needing to shut down Mozilla or your mp3 player?? Or even a 100mhz machine? What is it with Eclipse, does blinking the cursor take all that much power? Sheesh.
"The sanctions killed no-one."
You are high on crack, you conservative rag. Care to link any statistics, troll? Infant mortality skyrocketed in the rest of Iraq during the sanctions years. Lack of access to medicines, clean water, basic nutrition.
Kurdistan was not under Hussein's direct control, and had relatively free trade (smuggling) with other nations, especially Turkey. They therefore circumvented the sanctions, which were mostly enforced in international waters, air cargo, and major highways into Iraq.
The Washington Post is a conservative rag by leftist standards. You avoided answering any of my statements with facts or links. What I get for arguing with an AC troll. Time to browse again in +1 territory.
Did you even bother to read the links before replying? The sources they're cacheing, the ones to which I linked, are the mainstream Washington Post (conservative rag), New York Times (liberal rag), and some independent journalists.
You cannot even compare Iraq's totalitarian "socialism" with today's defining examples of socialist states.
The term "socialism" is an unfortunate catch-all for what has become a broad spectrum of political systems, ranging from totalitarian dictatorships (some of these despots supported by the US, such as China) all the way over to "soft" socialist states, such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Canada, and last, but not least, The United States of America.
Yes, the USA is a socialist state, by definition, because of its huge social spending policy, and that approximately half its voters belong to a socialist party known as the Democrats.
The other half, Republicans, disavow socialism, but exhibit strong socialistic tendencies by the very fact they accept huge quantities of social pr0k spending each year, on seniors, medical, corporate welfare, etc.
And how, dear AC troll, exactly did the U.S. "reduce" death and destruction? Did you include the twelve years of U.S.-demanded sanctions, which the U.N. estimated killed over 500,000 children alone in your estimation? Did you include the estimated 10,000 civilian deaths in Gulf War II?
How is it that Americans rationalize all this death as somehow being okay? When Saddam orders a few thousand deaths with WMD, it's justification for a unilateral invasion and take-over of a nation. When Bill Clinton and George Bush order up war and sanctions, it's somehow okay. But when a despot, fallen out of favor with the U.S., does it, its major crime. Somebody please explain this to me?
It's not like they didn't try to convince the public thru the media that they were discovering WMD evidence during the aftermath. Remember the uncovering of barrels of 'poision' and "possible chemical weapons?".
Few of these stories had much followup to turn public opinion back. The excitement of the announcements were key to keeping skepticism low. Possibly part of a campaign to build up bits of evidence in peoples mind which balances the equation, Saddam==WMD.
The U.S. gov't knew that 15 years earlier, Saddam gassed the Kurds, in part because U.S. companies and the CIA provided the materials needed to produce those WMD, and continued providing Iraq assistance even after the U.S. had knowledge of their use against the Kurds.
We also knew the WMD existed because the U.N. oversaw their destruction after Persian Gulf War I.
Isn't it funny that, after getting the green light from the U.S. to become a mass murderer, the U.S. spun that knowledge to begin their own campaign of death and destruction in Iraq? You don't know who to believe anymore.
BUSH IS LEAVING TOWN IN 2004!
Americans can have military and spy adventures abroad which topple governments, bring U.S.-friendly dictators into power, kill or main thousands, but it's not terrorism unless its another foreign power unleashing it.
Don't you get the underlying double standard yet? Besides which, Safire is a neocon lapdog fuckwit, getting strokes for cheerleading the conquering of other nations.
I know I know, this sounds like a troll, but if anybody still believes the U.S. really had a valid WMD pretense for its party with Death in Iraq, please explain in terms that don't include vague excuses like "it needed to be done" or "Saddam had it coming," because there are plenty of dictators still out there who the U.S. is still cozy with, and Saddam was one whom U.S. danced closely with.
One day (soon hopefully), american Democrats will pull their heads out of their asses and aggressively pursue the Republican's international war crimes the way they pursued the Clinton cigar story.
www.mightgrowsoft.com/
This domain's been around since 1997, and their site layout is strangely familiar. Not to bring any heat on them- this must be protected parody, or IP law is seriously broken.
Or I am crazy. Help me figure this one out.
Somehow the PublicTechnology link referenced above points to a blank page. Here's the real article:
m od load&name=News&file=article&sid=443
http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=
Text:
Government surveillance of citizens. Book it online... (yes, really)
Print article Email article to a friend This was published: 2004-01-13 07:05:00
The Home Office has published new forms on line for government bodies to use, when embarking on directed or covert surveillance and investigation of UK citizens. A small piece of eGovernment in motion, but appearing in stark prominence at this moment in time. It may be security, but being so clinical reads too close for comfort.
PublicTechnology is interested to read the details of these forms, especially in light of the topical Hutton inquiry. Big brother, watching and hacking? It's legal and here are the forms to prove it.
On the Home Office's web pages for these forms, there's a 'useful links' box, which when we looked at the pages contained broken links to the only (crucial for form users and the public) guidance notes which seemed visible -the "Code of Practice - Covert Human Intelligence", and "Code of Practice - Covert Surveillance". It's easy to work out the syntax for the URLs, so try these links instead: Code of Practice - Covert Human Intelligence and Code of Practice - Covert Surveillance
Reading through forms and guidance notes makes one realise the extent of possible 'big brother' investigation by a wide range of public sector organisations outside the police and MOD.
Two Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) notices have been created under section 22(3) and section 22(4) of the Act. RIPA provides for, and regulates the use of, a range of investigative powers, by a variety of public authorities.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) provides for, and regulates the use of, a range of investigative powers, by a variety of public authorities. It updates the law on the interception of communications to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet. It also puts other intrusive investigative techniques on a statutory footing for the very first time; provides new powers to help combat the threat posed by rising criminal use of strong encryption; and ensures that there is independent judicial oversight of the powers in the Act.
Part I relates to the interception of communications and the acquisition and disclosure of communications data. Part II relates to the use of covert surveillance, agents, informants and undercover officers. Part III covers the investigation of electronic data protected by encryption. Part IV provides for independent judicial oversight of the powers in the Act. Part V covers miscellaneous and supplemental matters such as consequential amendments, repeals and interpretation.
The forms linked to below are standard forms for use by all public authorities who are listed in Schedule 1 of RIPA. The forms are an indication of the information required before an authorisation can be granted and are consistent with the requirements in the codes of practice. The Home Office recommends that all users of the form should add any information that is relevant to their organisation but avoid taking any information out of the form.
The forms do not apply to the following who have separate arrangements for the grant of authorisations under Part II of RIPA, they are: Police forces, the intelligence services, the armed forces, HM Customs and Excise and the Ministry of Defence.
Related links to this story:
RIPA Notice Under s22(3)
RIPA Notice Under s22(4)
Directed Surveillance
Application for Directed Surveillance Authorisation
Review of Directed Surveillance Authorisation
Cancellation of Directed Authorisation
Renewal for Directed Surveillance Authorisation
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS)
Application for conduct-use of CHIS Authorisation
Review of CHIS Authorisation
Renewal for CHIS Authorisation
Cancellation of conduct-use of CHIS Authorisation
Background notes on this story:
A previously anonymous item of clothing, with a sewn-in RFID tag, has a potentially traceable history- where it was made, where shipped, warehoused at, retailed, who it was sold to, when, how much.
I imagine this would delight both law enforcement and attorneys alike. DEA too.
You almost have to wonder if, despite our best efforts, in twenty years time when RFID is presumably more prevalent, that there will be developed a system which generates a snapshot profile of a person based on what the RFIDs in their possession. Perhaps not as accurate as a fingerprint, but enough variability that it could assist law enforcement in finding a person better than facial recognition, for example.
Watch out racial profiling, here comes consumer profiling!
Video's fat, but takes up much less room on a DVD than you might imagine. Your typical 90min movie DVD sometimes has several different versions of the same movie -Spanish, French dubbed versions- each ~1GB apiece. So the whole DVD ain't taken up by just the one movie.
/. calls an "article." :)
So storing or generating keyframes as needed, followed by deltas, 512MB is probably way more than enough, I'm guessing that would nicely buffer half an hour of MPEG2 or 4 video!
"... just like they do with audio tracks." -It needs to be said that this Pioneer box functionally does nothing new. Digital video mixers, loopers and sequencers -taking audio and video signals from many sources, digital and analog- have been in the hands of video deejays for years. Maybe what's unique is the form factor, or integration of new functions. Hard to tell from that PR blurb that
reasonable strategy: allocate a huge buffer ... do repetitive flushes and complete reloads of data ...
;)
/., or you gotta tell us what OSS projects you've contributed to, with the above philosophy!
Um, this is reasonable how? If you're coding on a 3GHz dream machine w/4GB 400mhz RAM, there will be somebody out there who, quite reasonably, will want to run your code on a 64MB Pentium 133... Testing only on unencumbered machines makes for delusional developers.
I'm split: either yer trollin'