Well, if you're talking about speciation...we have. Macroevolution is defined (IANAEB (I am not an evolutionary biologist)) as speciation--the point at which one population which has evolved/naturally selected/whatever'd itself to a point where it can no longer breed with whatever it branched from. It's been observed numerous times--creating new species of flies, for example. Also, people tend to knock it, but have you ever heard of the fossil record? It's not nearly as bad as idiots like Jack Chick would you have you believe.
That would work, except for the fact that unless you make this some sort of governmental-issued license--which is, frankly, ridiculous--you get major forgery issues. Hell, I'm 16 and I've already memorized my dad's credit card number. I'm mostly a "good kid" and I'd never use it, but I could a. buy stuff online b. use it as a kind of "proof of age"--hello porn! But otherwise it's a good idea.
No, you're not. Either they are paid off, or they just *really* like Intel. A great example is their A64 review; the only Intel processor that beat it with any consistency was a heavily overclocked (with a phase-change system, IIRC) processor, which was neck-and-neck with the best A64s.
Tom's: Clearly an Intel victory. Isn't it? Guys? Right? Isn't it?
Re:First thing I do after installing a new gentoo
on
BZFlag goes Platinum
·
· Score: 1
Well, we'll be the first to hear how the 12/10/2005 build is from you, won't we?
It's true that this strengthens the decision, but does not "set it in stone." Had they granted certiorari, then ruled in Verizon's favor, that would do so--it is VERY difficult to overturn set precedent, one reason why, for example, the NRA hasn't tried very many second amendment court challenges against gun control--should the SCOTUS rule against them, they would find themselves in a *very* bad position. So: Good, but not as good as it could have been.
but it seems to me that, if I'm understanding what this does correctly, it to some extent increases the vulnerability of the system. What happen if a virus, say, preempts the entire rest of the system and takes up all the execution time?
can be found between this and google. For one thing, it must have a similar algorithm to PageRank. If you search "litigious bastards", not counting the "special" result on the top, the fourth hit is SCO. "Miserable failure" hits GWB #1. Not *quite* the same results, but close....
Not really. From what I understand (IANAcomputer engineer)...
Sure, sounds better to have, say, 2 FX-51s, each with their own 1 Mb L2 cache, together on the chip. But better yet would be the same two execution units/l1 caches/etc., but ONE 2 Mb l2 cache...so, same memory, each one can still get 1 Mb, but if they need more, they can get more as well.
Not only does evil P2P software break the law, it helps infect your computer!
A program called Winamp, used by illegal copyright infringers to play their music files called MP3s, has a security hole allowing evil hackers to enter your system!
We need to band together to ban this evil and dangerous Winamp program.
Remember, no matter what, it is WRONG to use Winamp to play downloaded MP3s--and now, it is dangerous. Respect copyrights; uninstall Winamp.
Hmm, yes, sounds like a good idea. Keeps you from getting in trouble.
But that does not mean that it is a good thing, really...it fails to fix the problem we have, the problem that you CAN get in trouble for things that are not wrong.
Don't get me wrong; downloading a copy of, say, Collateral without paying for it, having any intention of paying for it, for the sole reason that you do not want to pay for it, is wrong. But there is that pesky thing called fair use. Not everything students do on these networks is wrong.
Shame! Shame on them, for failing to stand up to those damn groups! We cannot let civil liberties stand in the way of security!
To think, we cannot just go ahead and blame everyone with darker skin than us for 9/11!
While we are at it, why not just ban those damn towelheads from the country? Surely only those who worship Allah could contemplate attacking America, the home of all that is good and holy (except those politicans who give into groups who want that damn equal protection thing.)
Remember, we cannot let the ACLU win!
There is one thing I do like about IE's tendency to do that, which I otherwise abhor--public computers. I use a bunch of public terminals at one place, where, to (hopefully) prevent people messing around, they have disabled right clicking. My only choice for multiple window browsing (Which I can't live without) is to use C-N to get a new window, and then click the link in *that* window. In that situation it's helpful--but I can't think of any other.
In my opinion, the privacy concerns people have about GMail are vastly overrated. Don't get me wrong, I'm just as privacy/rights obsessed as the next Slashdotter...but there isn't very much wrong with GMail.
Go to Google, will you? Type something into the search box, let's say "books." No reason why, just a random word. On the right side of the screen, what do you see?
Under the heading "sponsored links", you see adds for Amazon and the like. Things which paid to get in on the "books" search.
Do people complain about this? No!
But, I hear you cry, GMail is looking into my personal words! They can context-ad my searches, but not my email!
And why not?
From everything I've seen, it's been said that no person will EVER read what you've written/been sent. If that's true, then how is your privacy invaded? It's not!
Pure code scanning your email and showing ads is not an invasion of privacy.
But, I hear you cry, if they start with that, they may end up reading our email by hand/searching it for use other than anonymous advertising/whatever?
So? So could Hotmail. So could Yahoo. We trust them not to actually read our mail. We have to trust Google too; we all know the lesson of Ken Thompson's "Reflection on Trusting Trust"...we have to trust any mail service at some point. My point? I'll trust them not to actually read them. Anonymous ad fetching? That's OK.
Well, no. Note well, I'm neither accusing nor sure, but assuming the case that "They figured out the problem, and fixed it" then it sounds more like security through obscurity to me.
If it's true that they figured out how to fix the flaw, why didn't they *publish* it so other people would fix it too?
THat's true, but while I'm not a physicist, is there any reason an optical chip would be limited to visual light? How about something with a vastly smaller wavelength?
I'd disagree here....(That is, I'm assuming your point is that they care more about 3ds Max.) Several reasons why. Note please that I am not taking any opinion on "file sharing is right/wrong" or "file sharing hurts/helps industry/consumers". 1. How many people downloaded the hit single? Considerably more than downloaded 3ds Max. Probably enough to make it more of a loss. 2. How much is the industry complaining? Like it or not, they're going to listen to lobbyists, and in the slightly more altruistical version, they're going to listen to whether the company cares. RIAA/ARIA/MPAA are complaining amazingly. Discreet(sp? They do it weirdly, I think...) isn't complaining very much. Some software companies are (Game houses, M$, etc...) but not nearly as much as the music folk.
No, I disagree.
IMHO, braces are considerably better than indents as block delimiters. Why?
2 reasons.
1. Ease of use. How often have you had problems getting tabs/indents/spaces to EXACTLY line up correctly? It can be...annoying. Whitespace can be unpredictable, in my experience. If I slap a bracket before and after a piece of code, not much can mess that up.
2. Readability. Whitespace control is one of the best ways to keep your code readable. Once again, just slap braces in the right place, and format to your heart's content, and you'll be fine. If you have to use whitespace as blocks.... well...you can't.
I disagree. I overclock, not often, not insanely.
I don't do it to say, My XYZ is better than yours, or because I want power for the sake of power. I just want to improve my performance, because I can. Do I need my UT2k3 frame rate to go up from 40 to 45? No. I'm not doing it to prove some point.
I just think that if my processor has the headroom, I might as well use it. And it doesn't drop efficiency or safety. I test what I overclock, and regardless of what the Intel engineer claims, I don't get any more crashes. And my processor isn't going to die; because I don't push limits. I see how far I can go without lowering stability at all, and I stop there.
Overclocking to me isn't a religion, or a way to save lots of money by buying cheap processors. I just think, well, a few extra percent can't hurt...I might as well take it. It has no risk; if I can't get anything, I'm OK with that, and if I can, why not use it?
Let's say I'm stupid or work for a company which absolutely, completely as the author said "wants to avoid the legal limelight", and I buy a SCO license.
A month later, a summary judgement is released--SCO is smoking something really strong. Case dismissed.
Is there any legal recourse to get my $699 back?
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that this is from Ebaum's World, I find it hard to believe it's not just a joke/fake.
Well, if you're talking about speciation...we have. Macroevolution is defined (IANAEB (I am not an evolutionary biologist)) as speciation--the point at which one population which has evolved/naturally selected/whatever'd itself to a point where it can no longer breed with whatever it branched from. It's been observed numerous times--creating new species of flies, for example. Also, people tend to knock it, but have you ever heard of the fossil record? It's not nearly as bad as idiots like Jack Chick would you have you believe.
That would work, except for the fact that unless you make this some sort of governmental-issued license--which is, frankly, ridiculous--you get major forgery issues. Hell, I'm 16 and I've already memorized my dad's credit card number. I'm mostly a "good kid" and I'd never use it, but I could a. buy stuff online b. use it as a kind of "proof of age"--hello porn! But otherwise it's a good idea.
No, you're not. Either they are paid off, or they just *really* like Intel. A great example is their A64 review; the only Intel processor that beat it with any consistency was a heavily overclocked (with a phase-change system, IIRC) processor, which was neck-and-neck with the best A64s. Tom's: Clearly an Intel victory. Isn't it? Guys? Right? Isn't it?
Well, we'll be the first to hear how the 12/10/2005 build is from you, won't we?
how does this compare to a station wagon full of DVDs hurtling down the highway?
Pffff. Can't be right. Everyone knows Daedalus runs as a small piece of code on every device on the planet.
It's true that this strengthens the decision, but does not "set it in stone." Had they granted certiorari, then ruled in Verizon's favor, that would do so--it is VERY difficult to overturn set precedent, one reason why, for example, the NRA hasn't tried very many second amendment court challenges against gun control--should the SCOTUS rule against them, they would find themselves in a *very* bad position. So: Good, but not as good as it could have been.
but it seems to me that, if I'm understanding what this does correctly, it to some extent increases the vulnerability of the system. What happen if a virus, say, preempts the entire rest of the system and takes up all the execution time?
*winces* context clash! Please, don't mix your metaphors. Star Trek!=SETI. At all.
can be found between this and google. For one thing, it must have a similar algorithm to PageRank. If you search "litigious bastards", not counting the "special" result on the top, the fourth hit is SCO. "Miserable failure" hits GWB #1. Not *quite* the same results, but close....
We do all realize that this is WAY out of date? This page has been up since April 1st. 2003.
Sure, sounds better to have, say, 2 FX-51s, each with their own 1 Mb L2 cache, together on the chip. But better yet would be the same two execution units/l1 caches/etc., but ONE 2 Mb l2 cache...so, same memory, each one can still get 1 Mb, but if they need more, they can get more as well.
Not only does evil P2P software break the law, it helps infect your computer! A program called Winamp, used by illegal copyright infringers to play their music files called MP3s, has a security hole allowing evil hackers to enter your system! We need to band together to ban this evil and dangerous Winamp program. Remember, no matter what, it is WRONG to use Winamp to play downloaded MP3s--and now, it is dangerous. Respect copyrights; uninstall Winamp.
Hmm, yes, sounds like a good idea. Keeps you from getting in trouble. But that does not mean that it is a good thing, really...it fails to fix the problem we have, the problem that you CAN get in trouble for things that are not wrong. Don't get me wrong; downloading a copy of, say, Collateral without paying for it, having any intention of paying for it, for the sole reason that you do not want to pay for it, is wrong. But there is that pesky thing called fair use. Not everything students do on these networks is wrong.
Shame! Shame on them, for failing to stand up to those damn groups! We cannot let civil liberties stand in the way of security! To think, we cannot just go ahead and blame everyone with darker skin than us for 9/11! While we are at it, why not just ban those damn towelheads from the country? Surely only those who worship Allah could contemplate attacking America, the home of all that is good and holy (except those politicans who give into groups who want that damn equal protection thing.) Remember, we cannot let the ACLU win!
There is one thing I do like about IE's tendency to do that, which I otherwise abhor--public computers. I use a bunch of public terminals at one place, where, to (hopefully) prevent people messing around, they have disabled right clicking. My only choice for multiple window browsing (Which I can't live without) is to use C-N to get a new window, and then click the link in *that* window. In that situation it's helpful--but I can't think of any other.
In my opinion, the privacy concerns people have about GMail are vastly overrated. Don't get me wrong, I'm just as privacy/rights obsessed as the next Slashdotter...but there isn't very much wrong with GMail. Go to Google, will you? Type something into the search box, let's say "books." No reason why, just a random word. On the right side of the screen, what do you see? Under the heading "sponsored links", you see adds for Amazon and the like. Things which paid to get in on the "books" search. Do people complain about this? No! But, I hear you cry, GMail is looking into my personal words! They can context-ad my searches, but not my email! And why not? From everything I've seen, it's been said that no person will EVER read what you've written/been sent. If that's true, then how is your privacy invaded? It's not! Pure code scanning your email and showing ads is not an invasion of privacy. But, I hear you cry, if they start with that, they may end up reading our email by hand/searching it for use other than anonymous advertising/whatever? So? So could Hotmail. So could Yahoo. We trust them not to actually read our mail. We have to trust Google too; we all know the lesson of Ken Thompson's "Reflection on Trusting Trust"...we have to trust any mail service at some point. My point? I'll trust them not to actually read them. Anonymous ad fetching? That's OK.
Well, no. Note well, I'm neither accusing nor sure, but assuming the case that "They figured out the problem, and fixed it" then it sounds more like security through obscurity to me. If it's true that they figured out how to fix the flaw, why didn't they *publish* it so other people would fix it too?
THat's true, but while I'm not a physicist, is there any reason an optical chip would be limited to visual light? How about something with a vastly smaller wavelength?
I'd disagree here....(That is, I'm assuming your point is that they care more about 3ds Max.)
Several reasons why. Note please that I am not taking any opinion on "file sharing is right/wrong" or "file sharing hurts/helps industry/consumers".
1. How many people downloaded the hit single? Considerably more than downloaded 3ds Max. Probably enough to make it more of a loss.
2. How much is the industry complaining? Like it or not, they're going to listen to lobbyists, and in the slightly more altruistical version, they're going to listen to whether the company cares. RIAA/ARIA/MPAA are complaining amazingly. Discreet(sp? They do it weirdly, I think...) isn't complaining very much. Some software companies are (Game houses, M$, etc...) but not nearly as much as the music folk.
No, I disagree. IMHO, braces are considerably better than indents as block delimiters. Why? 2 reasons. 1. Ease of use. How often have you had problems getting tabs/indents/spaces to EXACTLY line up correctly? It can be...annoying. Whitespace can be unpredictable, in my experience. If I slap a bracket before and after a piece of code, not much can mess that up. 2. Readability. Whitespace control is one of the best ways to keep your code readable. Once again, just slap braces in the right place, and format to your heart's content, and you'll be fine. If you have to use whitespace as blocks.... well...you can't.
I disagree. I overclock, not often, not insanely. I don't do it to say, My XYZ is better than yours, or because I want power for the sake of power. I just want to improve my performance, because I can. Do I need my UT2k3 frame rate to go up from 40 to 45? No. I'm not doing it to prove some point. I just think that if my processor has the headroom, I might as well use it. And it doesn't drop efficiency or safety. I test what I overclock, and regardless of what the Intel engineer claims, I don't get any more crashes. And my processor isn't going to die; because I don't push limits. I see how far I can go without lowering stability at all, and I stop there. Overclocking to me isn't a religion, or a way to save lots of money by buying cheap processors. I just think, well, a few extra percent can't hurt...I might as well take it. It has no risk; if I can't get anything, I'm OK with that, and if I can, why not use it?
Let's say I'm stupid or work for a company which absolutely, completely as the author said "wants to avoid the legal limelight", and I buy a SCO license. A month later, a summary judgement is released--SCO is smoking something really strong. Case dismissed. Is there any legal recourse to get my $699 back?
these haiku sure are
super, but who has that kind
of time? Get a life.