Tom Daschle isn't. And, given that he's the Senate Majority Leader, his opinion does actually matter.
Re:Itanium at 1.6 GHz in 2003 ?
on
Intel's Big Chip
·
· Score: 1
The extra bits might come in handy when dealing with computational problems where imprecision and numerical instability are real issues, and also when handling large files or really large-memory tasks...
In any event, 'tho, I doubt that they'll immediately claim that it's aimed at desktop consumers, rather than scientific computing or decently hefty servers, just like the Xeon variants were mostly pushed for servers.
That's a pathetic, tired argument, and if you weren't a fool, you'd realize it.
The software developer loses when more and more people realize that folks like you are willing to steal, and then others decide to join them.
The software developer loses when their resources are flooded by idiots with pirated copies asking for customers support. Yes, it happens. I've seen idiots flood a company board... asking for pirated versions of the company's own software. Some idiots even post questions to USENET groups about bugs they're experiencing... before it's ever released, without being beta testers.
The software developer loses if intellectual property rights are eroded, because that's the ONLY leverage he has over publishers.
The software developer loses when his people decide that they'd NEVER pay for software, and therefore they leave the potential audience.
But hey, feel free to revel in your selfish foolishness, knowing full well that you're not alone by any means.
Ah. So you'd rather that the authorities assume that, despite his violent rhetoric and dissemination of material regarding building bombs, that he's merely a harmless chap who does not pose the slightest danger.
Frankly, if he's advocating violent overthrow, he should be glad that apparently he wasn't holding anything resembling a gun or a bomb component.
Given that he also disseminated information about the design of explosives and advocated the violent overthrow of the government, it makes one heck of a lot of sense. He might have been a nutcase who actually was ready to practice what he preached, rather than the digital equivalent of a delusional graffiti artist.
They're not circumventing any effective technological access protection measure, nor are they claiming too. At least, Napster and their ilk aren't, because the.MP3s ripped don't *have* any access protection measures. So DMCA shouldn't apply. Regular copyright law, however, still might, if the services have as their prevailing use the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.
You're not doing your country any good if you mismanage to the point where you're unprofitable, then collapse so that neither your jobs nor your products (or services) exist anymore.
The Mitrokhin archives would indicate otherwise. The KGB, after all, assaulted the presidential palace and assassinated the previous ruler and his family, and "encouraged" the successor to formally "invite" the Russian military in.
Hrm, Stalin was a bit more in touch with reality after the initial shock of Barbarossa wore off. He was willing to drive his country *hard* to survive, whereas AFAIK Hitler laboured on in the delusion that his country didn't really even need to go completely over to a war-footing, economically, to conqueor the world; he intended to conquer while his people miraculously would still live fairly normal consumerish lives. Stalin, I suspect, was less driven by insane dreams and illusions, and focused more on maintaining raw power. IOW, he strikes me as far more rational.
(Imagine a "Cold War" with a nuclear-armed Hitler. With Stalin and successors, the concept of mutually assured destruction worked. Hitler, on the other hand, I'm not so sure he would have responded rationally to that concept rather than willingly starting a war to obliterate all humanity on Earth.)
Aye. My impression is that Beijing didn't go after Falun Gong very much until they started holding organized rallies with large numbers of people. THAT shows that there's another authority that people are loyal to, and revealing that in a tolitarian nation is NOT a good thing to do unless you're planning to fight back.
It's the same reason why Rome-following Catholicism isn't appreciated there, but the state church is -- loyalty to somebody besides the Party is not appreciated.
How do you know that they weren't aeronautical engineers in PLA uniforms? It would seem to be a reasonable thing to do -- send over technically-trained guards, without mentioning that little detail to their hosts.
Red Hat may write the configuration files so everything fits in their own setup, going where they want them to go. Some configuration decisions may result in vulnerabilities...
How old is the software that runs the embedded systems in a car? Or the control systems in a power plant? Or obscure databases in the depths of Government departments? Or avionics in airplanes?
I'd suspect that a vast number of systems are running very old software. Whether or not opening it up would be damaging, *shrug*, but old != useless.
Re:But this way Microsoft doesn't lose money...
on
X-Box Emulated (Not)
·
· Score: 1
Only if they were thinking short-term, which they definitely DON'T do. Keep in mind that the people who use emulators aren't exactly associated with *purchasing* games, either.
Microsoft *wants* you to buy the console. Why? Market share. Frankly, even though they're Microsoft and not a no-name company, who the heck is going to want to write or port more games for the XBox if they can't boast a decent market share? If their console numbers look dismal compared to PS2 and GameCube, then they've invested a lot of money for nada. If they get a good market share, then game companies will have to take a long, hard look at paying licensing fees to tap into that market and bringing over their better games there, rather than missing out.
Cheating problems can be reduced significantly. Consider, for instance, Netrek. Most of the data (shield strength, ship position, et al) are stored on the server, so an honest server can be sure that no rogue client can get to them. If the server says you're dead, you're dead. *shrug* This means that client cheating is basically limited to user-interface issues, like auto-aiming, turn keys, or constantly showing all known army counts.
Then, an honest server can attempt to verify the legitimacy of a client binary. All the maintainers of "blessed", official clients have individual cryptographic key pairs, IIRC, which can be labeled as trusted by the server. These pairs are used for periodic challenges from server to client. While this isn't perfect, in practice people didn't seem to cheat except on anything-goes 'borg' servers.
Well, it makes sense if you document assumptions and algorithms, at least in sufficiently complicated non-self-documenting code. Taking enough time to organize your thoughts so that they're in coherent comments may make it easier to actually implement, since you've mentally done the organization already.
Frankly, there's no reason to care about an enemy's feelings, once he's dead or otherwise incapacitated.
Or, for that matter, for the killer's feelings, if the killing is necessary -- cops don't LIKE having to shoot suspects, but if it's necessary, they'll do it, even if it means they'll end up drinking a little more for the rest of their life...
Re:Economic imbalance is the issue here
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
The problem is defining "terrorism".
For instance, the assorted Arab nations that grudgingly endorsed the US actions, or at least agreed not to condemn it, also generally made a point of saying that the Palestinian vs. Israel deal was NOT terrorism.
Of course, Arafat and the PLO simply had peace in mind when they deliberately release known terrorists from custody, and order tens of tons of small arms and heavy weapons.
Re:Another issue of the Katzine
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
Feh. Firepower generally trumps defense. I doubt that there was a single Allied tank that could withstand a direct hit from the 128mm gun on a JagdTiger during WWII, for instance; and any country with a nuclear ballistic-missile submarine force today basically has an unstoppable attack/retalliation method, since they could launch their missiles on very short notice from unknown locations and with but a tiny window for interception.
For instance, it wouldn't have mattered how many nuclear weapons we have, if the USSR had been willing to fight to the death to make its point -- since nukes only counter other nukes by fear, unless you have such overwhelming intelligence and numbers that you eliminate the opponent's capabilities in a massive, undetected first strike. And that presumes that you've figured out that it's time to strike first.
If Mullah Omar had a single nuclear ICBM -- say, if bin Laden had given enough money to bribe the crew of a submarine -- there would have been zilch to stop him from using it beyond a preemptive strike (and again, that's pretty difficult with mobile, concealed launchers). Maybe a decade or two from now, EKVs and other ABM systems will be far more mature -- but those can still be overwhelmed with numbers or alternate methods.
We're beyond the days of swords, where skill with a sword might not only enable you to kill more easily, but also prevent you from being killed. Heck, even longbows had similar dynamics as today's toys -- firing a retalliatory volley of your own won't necessary stop your internal organs from being penetrated by the enemy's volley.
Defense is *hard*, and in the Nuclear Age it's based primarily on fear. The problem comes when your opponent just doesn't give a damn anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Tom Daschle isn't. And, given that he's the Senate Majority Leader, his opinion does actually matter.
The extra bits might come in handy when dealing with computational problems where imprecision and numerical instability are real issues, and also when handling large files or really large-memory tasks...
In any event, 'tho, I doubt that they'll immediately claim that it's aimed at desktop consumers, rather than scientific computing or decently hefty servers, just like the Xeon variants were mostly pushed for servers.
Whatever runs the big e-commerce sites, I'd think...
That's a pathetic, tired argument, and if you weren't a fool, you'd realize it.
The software developer loses when more and more people realize that folks like you are willing to steal, and then others decide to join them.
The software developer loses when their resources are flooded by idiots with pirated copies asking for customers support. Yes, it happens. I've seen idiots flood a company board... asking for pirated versions of the company's own software. Some idiots even post questions to USENET groups about bugs they're experiencing... before it's ever released, without being beta testers.
The software developer loses if intellectual property rights are eroded, because that's the ONLY leverage he has over publishers.
The software developer loses when his people decide that they'd NEVER pay for software, and therefore they leave the potential audience.
But hey, feel free to revel in your selfish foolishness, knowing full well that you're not alone by any means.
Ah. So you'd rather that the authorities assume that, despite his violent rhetoric and dissemination of material regarding building bombs, that he's merely a harmless chap who does not pose the slightest danger.
Frankly, if he's advocating violent overthrow, he should be glad that apparently he wasn't holding anything resembling a gun or a bomb component.
Given that he also disseminated information about the design of explosives and advocated the violent overthrow of the government, it makes one heck of a lot of sense. He might have been a nutcase who actually was ready to practice what he preached, rather than the digital equivalent of a delusional graffiti artist.
They're not circumventing any effective technological access protection measure, nor are they claiming too. At least, Napster and their ilk aren't, because the .MP3s ripped don't *have* any access protection measures. So DMCA shouldn't apply. Regular copyright law, however, still might, if the services have as their prevailing use the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.
EM radiation is not the same as being bombarded by large numbers of gamma rays, so your comparison is more than slightly silly.
You're not doing your country any good if you mismanage to the point where you're unprofitable, then collapse so that neither your jobs nor your products (or services) exist anymore.
No. Or, rather, it'd get thrown out and the prosecutor ridiculed. Go read the law.
Well, at least as a literacy test... a LOT would fail, it seems.
Sounds like the socket version of frequency hopping.
The Mitrokhin archives would indicate otherwise. The KGB, after all, assaulted the presidential palace and assassinated the previous ruler and his family, and "encouraged" the successor to formally "invite" the Russian military in.
Hrm, Stalin was a bit more in touch with reality after the initial shock of Barbarossa wore off. He was willing to drive his country *hard* to survive, whereas AFAIK Hitler laboured on in the delusion that his country didn't really even need to go completely over to a war-footing, economically, to conqueor the world; he intended to conquer while his people miraculously would still live fairly normal consumerish lives. Stalin, I suspect, was less driven by insane dreams and illusions, and focused more on maintaining raw power. IOW, he strikes me as far more rational.
(Imagine a "Cold War" with a nuclear-armed Hitler. With Stalin and successors, the concept of mutually assured destruction worked. Hitler, on the other hand, I'm not so sure he would have responded rationally to that concept rather than willingly starting a war to obliterate all humanity on Earth.)
Aye. My impression is that Beijing didn't go after Falun Gong very much until they started holding organized rallies with large numbers of people. THAT shows that there's another authority that people are loyal to, and revealing that in a tolitarian nation is NOT a good thing to do unless you're planning to fight back.
It's the same reason why Rome-following Catholicism isn't appreciated there, but the state church is -- loyalty to somebody besides the Party is not appreciated.
How do you know that they weren't aeronautical engineers in PLA uniforms? It would seem to be a reasonable thing to do -- send over technically-trained guards, without mentioning that little detail to their hosts.
Red Hat may write the configuration files so everything fits in their own setup, going where they want them to go. Some configuration decisions may result in vulnerabilities...
From the article:
"I don't think these robots will be confined to the ocean. We will eventually make robots to hunt down pathogens..."
Quoth Agent Smith: "Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we are... the cure."
How old is the software that runs the embedded systems in a car? Or the control systems in a power plant? Or obscure databases in the depths of Government departments? Or avionics in airplanes?
I'd suspect that a vast number of systems are running very old software. Whether or not opening it up would be damaging, *shrug*, but old != useless.
Only if they were thinking short-term, which they definitely DON'T do. Keep in mind that the people who use emulators aren't exactly associated with *purchasing* games, either.
Microsoft *wants* you to buy the console. Why? Market share. Frankly, even though they're Microsoft and not a no-name company, who the heck is going to want to write or port more games for the XBox if they can't boast a decent market share? If their console numbers look dismal compared to PS2 and GameCube, then they've invested a lot of money for nada. If they get a good market share, then game companies will have to take a long, hard look at paying licensing fees to tap into that market and bringing over their better games there, rather than missing out.
Cheating problems can be reduced significantly. Consider, for instance, Netrek. Most of the data (shield strength, ship position, et al) are stored on the server, so an honest server can be sure that no rogue client can get to them. If the server says you're dead, you're dead. *shrug* This means that client cheating is basically limited to user-interface issues, like auto-aiming, turn keys, or constantly showing all known army counts.
Then, an honest server can attempt to verify the legitimacy of a client binary. All the maintainers of "blessed", official clients have individual cryptographic key pairs, IIRC, which can be labeled as trusted by the server. These pairs are used for periodic challenges from server to client. While this isn't perfect, in practice people didn't seem to cheat except on anything-goes 'borg' servers.
Well, it makes sense if you document assumptions and algorithms, at least in sufficiently complicated non-self-documenting code. Taking enough time to organize your thoughts so that they're in coherent comments may make it easier to actually implement, since you've mentally done the organization already.
The object is not to appease, but to neutralize.
Frankly, there's no reason to care about an enemy's feelings, once he's dead or otherwise incapacitated.
Or, for that matter, for the killer's feelings, if the killing is necessary -- cops don't LIKE having to shoot suspects, but if it's necessary, they'll do it, even if it means they'll end up drinking a little more for the rest of their life...
The problem is defining "terrorism".
For instance, the assorted Arab nations that grudgingly endorsed the US actions, or at least agreed not to condemn it, also generally made a point of saying that the Palestinian vs. Israel deal was NOT terrorism.
Of course, Arafat and the PLO simply had peace in mind when they deliberately release known terrorists from custody, and order tens of tons of small arms and heavy weapons.
Feh. Firepower generally trumps defense. I doubt that there was a single Allied tank that could withstand a direct hit from the 128mm gun on a JagdTiger during WWII, for instance; and any country with a nuclear ballistic-missile submarine force today basically has an unstoppable attack/retalliation method, since they could launch their missiles on very short notice from unknown locations and with but a tiny window for interception.
For instance, it wouldn't have mattered how many nuclear weapons we have, if the USSR had been willing to fight to the death to make its point -- since nukes only counter other nukes by fear, unless you have such overwhelming intelligence and numbers that you eliminate the opponent's capabilities in a massive, undetected first strike. And that presumes that you've figured out that it's time to strike first.
If Mullah Omar had a single nuclear ICBM -- say, if bin Laden had given enough money to bribe the crew of a submarine -- there would have been zilch to stop him from using it beyond a preemptive strike (and again, that's pretty difficult with mobile, concealed launchers). Maybe a decade or two from now, EKVs and other ABM systems will be far more mature -- but those can still be overwhelmed with numbers or alternate methods.
We're beyond the days of swords, where skill with a sword might not only enable you to kill more easily, but also prevent you from being killed. Heck, even longbows had similar dynamics as today's toys -- firing a retalliatory volley of your own won't necessary stop your internal organs from being penetrated by the enemy's volley.
Defense is *hard*, and in the Nuclear Age it's based primarily on fear. The problem comes when your opponent just doesn't give a damn anymore.