Someone please tell me, exactly what the damage would be? Let's see. I use a free app which totally destroys the video that I'm editing. Okay? So what? Only a moron would copy the data to disk and then erase the original unless the final cut has been burned and a backup copy has been made? So, let's say it destroys the video? Just copy it to the disk again? I don't get it? Where's the damage???
I assume this is your short list! Voyager, by far, was the crappiest ST EVER. Nothing made sense. The Captain made choices that any sane 14y.o. would know would be dumb. The command structure made no sense and was rarely enforced in such a manner that would maintain it self. The plots were horrid and transparent and usually obvious how the three part episode would end within the first ten minutes of the first episode....blah...blah...blah...this added with yours, is my VERY SHORT LIST....
oh ya, gotta love this one...exactly what was the whole point of the warp engines moving? I can think of a millions reasons for them not to, can't think of a single reason why they did...as far as I know, it was never explained...
I'm hoping I won't have to reverse the polarity of my stomach with the new show, which is exactly what I had to do when it came to Voyager. Ack! Puke! Ack! The pain...make it stop...:)
It seems that Bynari's TradeXch no longer exists. They renamed the product to "Insight". If you look here, you'll see that they also removed the native Exchange Server support, so it too, now only functions as a standards compliant MUA.
I'm not too terribly surprised to see that the proxy that was used was removed as it had lots of issues depending on the version of CDO and MAPI that was installed on the machine that runs the proxy. Furthermore, lots of people just didn't like the idea of running a proxy. Between the hard sale of a proxy and the problematic support issues, it makes complete sense for them to focus on just making a good groupware product. While I haven't seen the latest, I suspect that it has lots of improvements since i last saw it.
As I understand it, the story about that city using Linux as it's desktop, is using Insite (servers and clients) as part of their solution.
Except if you had actually read the article, it would be painfully clear that Microsoft is behind it as every organization that they found doing this were being paid by Microsoft. Now, let me think...multiple organizations doing this...each organization being paided by Microsoft....all the organizations refuse to disclose how much they are being paid by Microsoft....hmmmmm.....naww...I guess you are right...there is no way Microsoft could be behind this....Hmmmmmmmm.
Please let me know where you purchase your rose colored glasses.
Well, if there were any credibility of these companies in reporting that they are taking losses, they would report what their projections were for the previous two, three, or four years (prior to the year in question). Next, adjust the year in question's projected sales by how historically close (above or below) they've been and see where the numbers fall out. Since no one has actually done this type of thing which is very easy to do, I suspect that there is merit to the claims that sales have actually been improved, or worse case, there has been no actual losses.
If you think about it, they have only biased reasons to lie about these types of things and not a single reason to say anything counter to their position. Thusly, anyone that's breathing should take EVERYTHING they say with a very large grain of salt.
On the other hand, if someone wanted the DCMA to be invalidated what would be the best way of doing it without ticking off a lot of people and spending the least amount of money? You arrest someone from another country for violation of that law and use them as the legal acid-test.
Because of the fact that Abobe has withdrew their complaint and the FBI is still intent on pursuing this line of action, it seemingly makes sense that someone higher up does want this case to, at a minimum, recieve world wide attention and possibly, actually go to court. Think about it. Other countries have already started down this path. What better way to wake everyone up?
Of course, the best part is, (as long as your name isn't Sklyarov) since he's from another country, the amount of presure to actually prevent him from being taken to court is going to be minimal compared to using a citizen.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the static charge was traveling to the computer, isn't that why the computer is supposed to be grounded? I would guess that he either has an improperly grounded computer (3-prong to 2-prong adapter) or his wall socket has not been properly wired (this is incredibly common). I've even seen ground wires that were "live."
Is it just me or does anyone else realize that with the advent of CG being so impressive and TTS available of this quality, physical actors could become a thing of the past in perhaps ten or fifteen years. Previously, I've always said that even if we didn't need actors to act, we'd still need voice actors. I guess that isn't true anymore either. Just TTS the whole script. In fact, you may be able to use this technology to better lip sync the TTS to the animation since timing could be completely computer controlled.
The other thing that Microsoft has done is help give the GLP teeth. In the event that someone decides to challenge the GPL, we now have official documents from a well known company which help acknowlege (although somewhat incorrectly) what is expected of code licenced under the GPL.
In short, we should be saying, "Thank you Mr. Microsoft!"
BTW, I really like the fact that their license is pretty much void since pretty much EVERY developer is in violation. In short, you get to pretty much completely ignore their license as it's legally voided. Beyond that, it just means that Microsoft still holds the copyright on it. This has zero effect on anything other than making them look ignorant and of course, nullifying their own license...heheh.
Because it has nothing to do with the issue and your example doesn't apply. A house is private property. If you extend the logic in your example, a house would be more like a secured system which does NOT have ready public access. As such, you are correct. Someone doing the above is probably up to no good, however, you really need to be thinking of a small down town or any other public facility (last I checked, the Internet is a public place). As such, I see people, even AFTER they see the sign that clearly indicates the store is closed, go a ahead and pull on the door...just making sure... I've never once seen any of these people get a ticket or get thrown in jail. Must not be illegal. Port scanning is no different at all.
For some reason, when it comes to things like this people first try to place their house or other private property into the formula when it's pretty well understood that the Internet is a public place. If you are using ANY idiom comparing private property and the Internet, you are more than likely giving a bad example.
You're attempting to dodge the bullet and didn't answer a single question. Your soltion isn't viable. It simple doesn't work for the situation. I gave you a perfectly good reason to do this. Period. The simple fact is, you are unable to justify your answer. You'd rather try to poke holes in a real world problem (which you didn't fix by any leap of the imagination - eithe mine or by making port scanning illegal) by living in an imaginary world where everyone is out to get YOU! Simply put, there are VERY valid reasons for ports to be scanned. Period. Try answering some of the questions raised in the first post before you bother to defend your self and take odd ball shots elsewhere.
Exactly. There is no legitimate reason to portscan a range of dialup, cable, or DSL IP addresses.
I can tell you that your assertion is completely untrue. In many cases, ISPs use something called dynamic IP addreses. These addresses can change (usually do) every time your computer connects to your ISP. Since we all know that computers often get disconnected from dialup connections, how do I find my computer when I'm at work if I need to use it? I can't because you just made it illegal. Back in the real world where people should need to actally commit a crime before something is illegal, I should be able to do a port scan (a specific port that is open on my computer) to locate my computer. Once located, my computer will respond (on said port) with a message that only my computer will generate. According to you, I've broken the law. Back in the real world, where I've had to do such things, I'm certainly not a criminal. You on the other hand are trying to make me one. For what?
As someone else clearly stated, there are already laws in place that completely address these issues. Port scanning in no shape or form should EVERY be made illegal. Let's say that it is illegal. How is it going to stop someone from doing it? Will it keep your system safer? No! Will it create problems will spoofed scans. Yes! Does is have any real value? No! So why would you want such completely obtuse law that does absolutely NOTHING for you or your computer. You make no sense.
Except that would mean that their case is baseless as they could only sue the manufacturer that was violating their patent unless they can prove the the purchasers knew they were getting the product which violated a patent. Which I think is doubtful. Obviously the blame can go so far, which shouldn't be touching everyone who once thought they may have known someone that may have a brother whos sister knew somebody that saw a magnet covered by their patent.
I don't think they have a chance for recalls, however, they may wind up getting a royalties package out of this, which is probably what they really want in the first place.
That's true, but that means the whole process (all threads) must migrate. Unless you are runnings lots of processes (each having lots of threads), you don't gain much from this model.
Re:Isn't this kind of like Hotspot in hardware?
on
FPGA Supercomputers
·
· Score: 1
A friend of mine and I, about 6-8 years ago were talking about doing this type of thing. Not actually us doing this, rather, it being done. Furthermore, we talked about arrays of FPGAs being programmed which would in turn, dynamically retune to work in concert. The FPGAs that we were looking at, at the time, were no where near fast enough, but I think it's cool that we were able to see so far into the future on something like this. We also assumed that one day this would be the basis of a dynamic NN for super cool AI. Now, if only the site were not being slashdotted so I can actually read the article....
For what it's worth, when the Navy started using NT, it wasn't qualified either. Rather, someone up top said, "do it NOW" and they did. After the, now famous NT systems crashes, it came to light that NT never went through the Naval approval process. As such, to date it still does not qualify for "active" deployed duty. To top it all off with, someone stated that had NT been able to travel the standard channels, it would of never been accepted. Rather, they would of gone with a UNIX or some other type of OS. I'm not really sure this will keep it [NT] from sinking out ships or not, nonetheless, that's where we stand. I can easily see Linux getting much more green lights than NT did.
If an application has been signed as being an official certified application, does that, in the consumer mind, open the door for a libel mind set? In other words, if this certified and signed application hoses my data, doesn't that mean that Microsoft, or whom ever signed it, should pay for the restoration of my data? What about pain and suffering? After all, I had to tell my boss that the report that would of won us a $1,000,000 contract is now destroyed by this application. If not, why do I care that it's signed. Surely since it is signed and certified, this gives me as a consumer some additional recourse?
I'm not saying that there is or is not merit to such a claim, but doesn't it create the possibility of such an end-user mind share?
Actually, Linux has supported SYS V IPC (semaphores, shared memory, and message queues) for a very long time now. So yes, Linux does support semaphores. If you want mutexes, you'll need to create your own implementation on top of SYS V IPC or look for many libraries that already do this. Likewise, if you need recursive mutexes, again, you'll need to implement this on your own.
Also, depending on what you need semaphores for, you can also use unix sockets, files, or memory mapped files. You've got lots of options. Saying Linux doesn't support semaphores isn't one of them.
Rather obvious. W2K is NT. If we lay it all out, we wind up with:
NT3.1 = 1.0
NT 3.5 = 1.1
NT 3.5.1 = 1.1.1
NT 4.0 = 1.5
W2K = 2.0
Did I miss any? Of course, the SP's would be point releases off of each. It funny how Microsoft has done such a good job of making people forget just how new their flag ship OS is. How many of you would be in a hurry to run 1.x of a new database for your next DW project? IMOHO, running a 1.0 of ANY OS for serious computing is just asking for trouble. Oh well, they finally hit 2.x now. No matter how you count them, or what you call it, NT 2.0 is really the most current MS offers.
I thought they said they used 50% less CPU power not system power since it's well known that the CPU uses a small portion. In other words, assuming a given Intel CPU uses x amount of power, the TM CPU is supposed to use x/2 power. The HD and display use the biggest chunks. I've not heard of them refusing to offer specific evidence. That statement alone seems rather questionable as why would IBM even left the sheets to get into bed if there wasn't at least some validity to their claims. I can't see why someone would make press releases without first checking to see they can deliver somewhere on the same page as what their press release says.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone please tell me, exactly what the damage would be? Let's see. I use a free app which totally destroys the video that I'm editing. Okay? So what? Only a moron would copy the data to disk and then erase the original unless the final cut has been burned and a backup copy has been made? So, let's say it destroys the video? Just copy it to the disk again? I don't get it? Where's the damage???
Supporting and continuing development are two different things.
I assume this is your short list! Voyager, by far, was the crappiest ST EVER. Nothing made sense. The Captain made choices that any sane 14y.o. would know would be dumb. The command structure made no sense and was rarely enforced in such a manner that would maintain it self. The plots were horrid and transparent and usually obvious how the three part episode would end within the first ten minutes of the first episode....blah...blah...blah...this added with yours, is my VERY SHORT LIST....
:)
oh ya, gotta love this one...exactly what was the whole point of the warp engines moving? I can think of a millions reasons for them not to, can't think of a single reason why they did...as far as I know, it was never explained...
I'm hoping I won't have to reverse the polarity of my stomach with the new show, which is exactly what I had to do when it came to Voyager. Ack! Puke! Ack! The pain...make it stop...
It seems that Bynari's TradeXch no longer exists. They renamed the product to "Insight". If you look here, you'll see that they also removed the native Exchange Server support, so it too, now only functions as a standards compliant MUA.
I'm not too terribly surprised to see that the proxy that was used was removed as it had lots of issues depending on the version of CDO and MAPI that was installed on the machine that runs the proxy. Furthermore, lots of people just didn't like the idea of running a proxy. Between the hard sale of a proxy and the problematic support issues, it makes complete sense for them to focus on just making a good groupware product. While I haven't seen the latest, I suspect that it has lots of improvements since i last saw it.
As I understand it, the story about that city using Linux as it's desktop, is using Insite (servers and clients) as part of their solution.
Except if you had actually read the article, it would be painfully clear that Microsoft is behind it as every organization that they found doing this were being paid by Microsoft. Now, let me think...multiple organizations doing this...each organization being paided by Microsoft....all the organizations refuse to disclose how much they are being paid by Microsoft....hmmmmm.....naww...I guess you are right...there is no way Microsoft could be behind this....Hmmmmmmmm.
Please let me know where you purchase your rose colored glasses.
That still makes them brain dead...right?
Well, if there were any credibility of these companies in reporting that they are taking losses, they would report what their projections were for the previous two, three, or four years (prior to the year in question). Next, adjust the year in question's projected sales by how historically close (above or below) they've been and see where the numbers fall out. Since no one has actually done this type of thing which is very easy to do, I suspect that there is merit to the claims that sales have actually been improved, or worse case, there has been no actual losses.
If you think about it, they have only biased reasons to lie about these types of things and not a single reason to say anything counter to their position. Thusly, anyone that's breathing should take EVERYTHING they say with a very large grain of salt.
On the other hand, if someone wanted the DCMA to be invalidated what would be the best way of doing it without ticking off a lot of people and spending the least amount of money? You arrest someone from another country for violation of that law and use them as the legal acid-test.
Because of the fact that Abobe has withdrew their complaint and the FBI is still intent on pursuing this line of action, it seemingly makes sense that someone higher up does want this case to, at a minimum, recieve world wide attention and possibly, actually go to court. Think about it. Other countries have already started down this path. What better way to wake everyone up?
Of course, the best part is, (as long as your name isn't Sklyarov) since he's from another country, the amount of presure to actually prevent him from being taken to court is going to be minimal compared to using a citizen.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the static charge was traveling to the computer, isn't that why the computer is supposed to be grounded? I would guess that he either has an improperly grounded computer (3-prong to 2-prong adapter) or his wall socket has not been properly wired (this is incredibly common). I've even seen ground wires that were "live."
Is it just me or does anyone else realize that with the advent of CG being so impressive and TTS available of this quality, physical actors could become a thing of the past in perhaps ten or fifteen years. Previously, I've always said that even if we didn't need actors to act, we'd still need voice actors. I guess that isn't true anymore either. Just TTS the whole script. In fact, you may be able to use this technology to better lip sync the TTS to the animation since timing could be completely computer controlled.
Does anyone know if vectorization optimizations are being planned for GCC? Is Intel going to pony up anything here?
And not legally binding since they've managed to void their own license. Hhehehe!
The other thing that Microsoft has done is help give the GLP teeth. In the event that someone decides to challenge the GPL, we now have official documents from a well known company which help acknowlege (although somewhat incorrectly) what is expected of code licenced under the GPL.
In short, we should be saying, "Thank you Mr. Microsoft!"
BTW, I really like the fact that their license is pretty much void since pretty much EVERY developer is in violation. In short, you get to pretty much completely ignore their license as it's legally voided. Beyond that, it just means that Microsoft still holds the copyright on it. This has zero effect on anything other than making them look ignorant and of course, nullifying their own license...heheh.
For some reason, when it comes to things like this people first try to place their house or other private property into the formula when it's pretty well understood that the Internet is a public place. If you are using ANY idiom comparing private property and the Internet, you are more than likely giving a bad example.
You're attempting to dodge the bullet and didn't answer a single question. Your soltion isn't viable. It simple doesn't work for the situation. I gave you a perfectly good reason to do this. Period. The simple fact is, you are unable to justify your answer. You'd rather try to poke holes in a real world problem (which you didn't fix by any leap of the imagination - eithe mine or by making port scanning illegal) by living in an imaginary world where everyone is out to get YOU! Simply put, there are VERY valid reasons for ports to be scanned. Period. Try answering some of the questions raised in the first post before you bother to defend your self and take odd ball shots elsewhere.
Exactly. There is no legitimate reason to portscan a range of dialup, cable, or DSL IP addresses.
I can tell you that your assertion is completely untrue. In many cases, ISPs use something called dynamic IP addreses. These addresses can change (usually do) every time your computer connects to your ISP. Since we all know that computers often get disconnected from dialup connections, how do I find my computer when I'm at work if I need to use it? I can't because you just made it illegal. Back in the real world where people should need to actally commit a crime before something is illegal, I should be able to do a port scan (a specific port that is open on my computer) to locate my computer. Once located, my computer will respond (on said port) with a message that only my computer will generate. According to you, I've broken the law. Back in the real world, where I've had to do such things, I'm certainly not a criminal. You on the other hand are trying to make me one. For what?
As someone else clearly stated, there are already laws in place that completely address these issues. Port scanning in no shape or form should EVERY be made illegal. Let's say that it is illegal. How is it going to stop someone from doing it? Will it keep your system safer? No! Will it create problems will spoofed scans. Yes! Does is have any real value? No! So why would you want such completely obtuse law that does absolutely NOTHING for you or your computer. You make no sense.
Except that would mean that their case is baseless as they could only sue the manufacturer that was violating their patent unless they can prove the the purchasers knew they were getting the product which violated a patent. Which I think is doubtful. Obviously the blame can go so far, which shouldn't be touching everyone who once thought they may have known someone that may have a brother whos sister knew somebody that saw a magnet covered by their patent.
I don't think they have a chance for recalls, however, they may wind up getting a royalties package out of this, which is probably what they really want in the first place.
That's true, but that means the whole process (all threads) must migrate. Unless you are runnings lots of processes (each having lots of threads), you don't gain much from this model.
A friend of mine and I, about 6-8 years ago were talking about doing this type of thing. Not actually us doing this, rather, it being done. Furthermore, we talked about arrays of FPGAs being programmed which would in turn, dynamically retune to work in concert. The FPGAs that we were looking at, at the time, were no where near fast enough, but I think it's cool that we were able to see so far into the future on something like this. We also assumed that one day this would be the basis of a dynamic NN for super cool AI. Now, if only the site were not being slashdotted so I can actually read the article....
For what it's worth, when the Navy started using NT, it wasn't qualified either. Rather, someone up top said, "do it NOW" and they did. After the, now famous NT systems crashes, it came to light that NT never went through the Naval approval process. As such, to date it still does not qualify for "active" deployed duty. To top it all off with, someone stated that had NT been able to travel the standard channels, it would of never been accepted. Rather, they would of gone with a UNIX or some other type of OS. I'm not really sure this will keep it [NT] from sinking out ships or not, nonetheless, that's where we stand. I can easily see Linux getting much more green lights than NT did.
If an application has been signed as being an official certified application, does that, in the consumer mind, open the door for a libel mind set? In other words, if this certified and signed application hoses my data, doesn't that mean that Microsoft, or whom ever signed it, should pay for the restoration of my data? What about pain and suffering? After all, I had to tell my boss that the report that would of won us a $1,000,000 contract is now destroyed by this application. If not, why do I care that it's signed. Surely since it is signed and certified, this gives me as a consumer some additional recourse?
I'm not saying that there is or is not merit to such a claim, but doesn't it create the possibility of such an end-user mind share?
Greg
Actually, Linux has supported SYS V IPC (semaphores, shared memory, and message queues) for a very long time now. So yes, Linux does support semaphores. If you want mutexes, you'll need to create your own implementation on top of SYS V IPC or look for many libraries that already do this. Likewise, if you need recursive mutexes, again, you'll need to implement this on your own.
Also, depending on what you need semaphores for, you can also use unix sockets, files, or memory mapped files. You've got lots of options. Saying Linux doesn't support semaphores isn't one of them.
Enjoy,Greg
Rather obvious. W2K is NT. If we lay it all out, we wind up with:
NT3.1 = 1.0
NT 3.5 = 1.1
NT 3.5.1 = 1.1.1
NT 4.0 = 1.5
W2K = 2.0
Did I miss any? Of course, the SP's would be point releases off of each. It funny how Microsoft has done such a good job of making people forget just how new their flag ship OS is. How many of you would be in a hurry to run 1.x of a new database for your next DW project? IMOHO, running a 1.0 of ANY OS for serious computing is just asking for trouble. Oh well, they finally hit 2.x now. No matter how you count them, or what you call it, NT 2.0 is really the most current MS offers.
I thought they said they used 50% less CPU power not system power since it's well known that the CPU uses a small portion. In other words, assuming a given Intel CPU uses x amount of power, the TM CPU is supposed to use x/2 power. The HD and display use the biggest chunks. I've not heard of them refusing to offer specific evidence. That statement alone seems rather questionable as why would IBM even left the sheets to get into bed if there wasn't at least some validity to their claims. I can't see why someone would make press releases without first checking to see they can deliver somewhere on the same page as what their press release says.
If I recall, that was a security system application and was supposedly real, just slightly adapted.