Obviously, the authors of anonymous posts are remembered to eliminate duplicate posting. So if you make a review anonymously, you can't make another review on the same book with the same account.
Slashcode can store the IP addresses of non-logged-in AC's. (I obviously have no idea if they do, or if so, how long this persists, but the code is there.) I'm not sure if logged-in AC's are tracked by account, though. (I'd sorta wish they were - sometimes I would like to see replies to AC posts.)
While it may be difficult for games, you could try emulators (and not-emulators) for the genealogy and accounting software. Try WINE first, and if that fails, set up a Windows install inside Bochs, plex86, or vmware. And remember to email the vendors and tell them how many appendages you'd give for a Linux port.
It's difficult to reverse-engineer hardware, and even Microsoft doesn't write it's own print drivers. It's no surprise that Cannon's drivers are better, they did write the hardware after all.
But no company will write CUPS drivers if they think the demand for them isn't significant. And they don't know unless people tell them. So it really does make a difference to ask for driver support.
Quite a flamewar you've started there. I'd just like to show you this, perhaps as an example of when short words complicate the text.
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 1
Mostly a GNU/Hippie myth. Free research software has been around a long time, but so has proprietary stuff.
Chemistry has been around for a long time, but so has alchemy.
They've already done that. After not marying a European, Lisa becomes President. Bart is a bum, but a good diplomat. Marge doesn't understand the concept of picturephones. Maggie looks just like Lisa but with thinner hair-spikes, and Maggie Jr. is the exact same as Maggie was.
This [egg] cell is a person. If it is placed in the right environment, it will survive and develop into a man or woman.
By that same logic, isn't every cell's nucleus a person? When placed in the right environment, it could develop into a person. Should I start nurturing my hangnails? They contain just as much 'divine fire,' just as much DNA (more?), than sperm or egg cells.
Also, when you come on so strong, it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic. One "insensitive clod" would have put you over the line.
That's the second time I've heard a study like that mentioned here. I really wish someone had citations.
The cause of a tumor would be something causing a mutation in the DNA of a cell, which then becomes cancerous and divides uncontrolably. So if the radiation didn't cause mutations but did accelerate the division of cancerous cells, it would accelerate the growth of existing tumors but not start new ones.
Even if radiation was shown to accelerate the growth/division of cancerous cells, I wonder if it affects the growth/division of noncancerous ones. If so, it might be a mixed blessing instead of all bad.
You're probably expecting a lot of controversy, since the people who appreciate Ogg's openness are tend to dislike DRM. But I don't see a problem.
DRM and encryption, it seems, is most easily implemented at the file level. So you could DRM anything. Ogg is a stream format, and I assume OGG-S is trying to DRM there so it' still useful for streaming. But again, who cares?
Besides, even if the masses are resigned to DRM, I'd still rather the codec be Vorbis than WMA.
"Toulouse said Microsoft took months because it wanted to ensure that a single repairing patch solved any related problems." So they wanted to fix each of many related vulnerabilities and release the patch as one. Because releasing several patches is worse PR than releasing just one, I think.
"(As an aside, it's interesting to note that this vulnerability was silently fixed in Windows 2000 SP4 and Windows Server 2003, due to an additional comparison being included in ASN1BERDecCheck().)" Not only did Microsoft know about the bug for six months, they also knew how to fix it. And they did so, silently, for other products.
Finally, if they've sat on it for six months, why is it being released now? The article mentions several upcoming meetings that make this a very bad time, PR-wise. Could it be that they were aware of exploits in the wild starting recently? If so, would we ever know?
For complex systems like this, there are many things you can change to have the same effect. But changing some things will have huge negative side effects, while changing others will only be positive.
Having web browsers perform a search when a domain that doesn't exist is typed is a good thing. But implementing it at the DNS level is the worst possible way to do it. For one, nobody can choose anymore - instead of being able to change a browser setting, my browser's search code will never be invoked, because everything will redirect to sitefinder. And it breaks many other things - reverse DNS for spam. It's like taking cyanide for a headache: your dead, but at least your head doesn't hurt!
The article mentions that Microsoft is unaware of any computers hacked with this vulnerability. Assuming it wasn't ever used, then not disclosing it until a patch was made worked well in this situation.
But not disclosing the problem has drawbacks, too. Your system is insecure, and you have to hope nobody else knows about the exploit either. And it's Microsoft's decision when to patch it. It will be interesting to hear why it took them six months. What if it was simply PR: do you feel safe knowing you're vulnerable so Microsoft gets good PR (until now)? Or perhaps it's just laziness. If customers don't know about an exploit, how can they apply pressure to counter it?
Have you ever looked at a fractal? The math is simple, but that patterns are infinitely complex and varied. Conway's game of life, perhaps? Simple rules, complex patterns right between chaos and order. Simple rules can create complex things.
We both look at nature and see boundless complexity. You say, "whoever designed this must be way smarter than us." I say, "whatever designed this must not be constrained to understanding it."
We design things with a top-down approach. You can see how this affects our designs. For example, we were able to jump to the concept of wheels; our designs aren't restricted by what has gone before. But our designs are limited by our understanding; we don't like spaghetti logic which is common in natural designs.
Check this out. He took an FPGA, started with random patterns, tested them, took the best ones, mutated them, and repeated this a few thousand times. As expected, the circuits got good at doing what he selected for. But the circuits took advantages of defects in the FPGA, the temperature, crosstalk etc. Just like life, they worked very well in the environment they evolved in, but they were very dependant upon it. And the most important thing - when the circuits were done, they couldn't figure out how they worked.
My point is that a simple, mindless process, not encumbered by understanding, can produce amazingly complex things. Is that so hard to believe?
By saying you feel sorry for those who can't take religion literally, you've just implied that you're better than them. In your next breath, you say it's not your place to judge. Which is it?
Some people accept on faith that there is a God or gods. Some people accept on faith that there is none. Some people say it cannot be known. But regardless, we ought to treat each other with respect, and not talk down our noses at those who don't believe as we do.
Prayer and illness. It has been proven that those who pray will have significantly better outcomes than those who don't.
Another demonstrated effect is the placebo effect. If you give somebody sugar pills, or magnetic bracelets, or whatever, as long as they believe it will help them, it will. People who pray for themselves, and believe it will help, probably experience this effect. But it doesn't prove anything, certainly not that the prayers have been answered.
Get a large group of sick people to report their health while an army of nuns prays for half of them. Don't let the people find out who's being prayed for. If the prayed-for people get recover faster, that would support the theory of an omnicient being answering prayers. But I doubt that would happen.
I wouldn't consider different distros using different patchsets to Linux forks. The kernels used by most distros swarm around vanilla - they get upgraded at the same time and have mostly the same code. Often the only difference is which features are applied. A fork would involve having two vanilla Linuxes, each evolving in a different direction, and some core developers going to Fredix while some stay with Linux.
That's the kernel. Certainly many distros fork, for example Mandrake was once RedHat optimized for i586. But consider why a fork happens: somebody thinks, "I could do this better myself." This is more likely to happen with a closed or inflexible project than with an open, flexible one.
If SkyOS gets popular, then becomes open, a fork would be likely. But if it opens while it's still small, developers won't think they can "go it alone." A lot also depends on how the project is managed.
This is exactly what's wrong with the bureaucracy today.
If they want to increase the penalty for crime X (X could be fraud, copyright infringement, theft), they don't just, well, increase the penalty. Instead, they make up some newer, more vague "crime" Y (faking WHOIS info, trafficing in circumvention tools, carrying crowbars). The effect is that there are more laws, they make less sense, and more people are criminals.
I don't want to live in a system where everyone's a criminal, and where I must trust that nobody will call me on. Unfortunately, I already do.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashcode can store the IP addresses of non-logged-in AC's. (I obviously have no idea if they do, or if so, how long this persists, but the code is there.) I'm not sure if logged-in AC's are tracked by account, though. (I'd sorta wish they were - sometimes I would like to see replies to AC posts.)
Not too many people know that decillion means 10^33. But what they ought to do is just write that.
While it may be difficult for games, you could try emulators (and not-emulators) for the genealogy and accounting software. Try WINE first, and if that fails, set up a Windows install inside Bochs, plex86, or vmware. And remember to email the vendors and tell them how many appendages you'd give for a Linux port.
It's difficult to reverse-engineer hardware, and even Microsoft doesn't write it's own print drivers. It's no surprise that Cannon's drivers are better, they did write the hardware after all.
But no company will write CUPS drivers if they think the demand for them isn't significant. And they don't know unless people tell them. So it really does make a difference to ask for driver support.
Quite a flamewar you've started there. I'd just like to show you this, perhaps as an example of when short words complicate the text.
Mostly a GNU/Hippie myth. Free research software has been around a long time, but so has proprietary stuff. Chemistry has been around for a long time, but so has alchemy.
They've already done that. After not marying a European, Lisa becomes President. Bart is a bum, but a good diplomat. Marge doesn't understand the concept of picturephones. Maggie looks just like Lisa but with thinner hair-spikes, and Maggie Jr. is the exact same as Maggie was.
I wonder if you can cannonize a child?
By that same logic, isn't every cell's nucleus a person? When placed in the right environment, it could develop into a person. Should I start nurturing my hangnails? They contain just as much 'divine fire,' just as much DNA (more?), than sperm or egg cells.
Also, when you come on so strong, it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic. One "insensitive clod" would have put you over the line.
The cause of a tumor would be something causing a mutation in the DNA of a cell, which then becomes cancerous and divides uncontrolably. So if the radiation didn't cause mutations but did accelerate the division of cancerous cells, it would accelerate the growth of existing tumors but not start new ones.
Even if radiation was shown to accelerate the growth/division of cancerous cells, I wonder if it affects the growth/division of noncancerous ones. If so, it might be a mixed blessing instead of all bad.
You adult-chauvanist pig!
DRM and encryption, it seems, is most easily implemented at the file level. So you could DRM anything. Ogg is a stream format, and I assume OGG-S is trying to DRM there so it' still useful for streaming. But again, who cares?
Besides, even if the masses are resigned to DRM, I'd still rather the codec be Vorbis than WMA.
"Toulouse said Microsoft took months because it wanted to ensure that a single repairing patch solved any related problems." So they wanted to fix each of many related vulnerabilities and release the patch as one. Because releasing several patches is worse PR than releasing just one, I think.
"(As an aside, it's interesting to note that this vulnerability was silently fixed in Windows 2000 SP4 and Windows Server 2003, due to an additional comparison being included in ASN1BERDecCheck().)" Not only did Microsoft know about the bug for six months, they also knew how to fix it. And they did so, silently, for other products.
Finally, if they've sat on it for six months, why is it being released now? The article mentions several upcoming meetings that make this a very bad time, PR-wise. Could it be that they were aware of exploits in the wild starting recently? If so, would we ever know?
Developers!!! Developers!!! Developers!!!
The AP article mentioned that "eEye had successfully tested the method to break into its own computers." So the probability that it's possible is 1.
Having web browsers perform a search when a domain that doesn't exist is typed is a good thing. But implementing it at the DNS level is the worst possible way to do it. For one, nobody can choose anymore - instead of being able to change a browser setting, my browser's search code will never be invoked, because everything will redirect to sitefinder. And it breaks many other things - reverse DNS for spam. It's like taking cyanide for a headache: your dead, but at least your head doesn't hurt!
The article mentions that Microsoft is unaware of any computers hacked with this vulnerability. Assuming it wasn't ever used, then not disclosing it until a patch was made worked well in this situation.
But not disclosing the problem has drawbacks, too. Your system is insecure, and you have to hope nobody else knows about the exploit either. And it's Microsoft's decision when to patch it. It will be interesting to hear why it took them six months. What if it was simply PR: do you feel safe knowing you're vulnerable so Microsoft gets good PR (until now)? Or perhaps it's just laziness. If customers don't know about an exploit, how can they apply pressure to counter it?
Have you ever looked at a fractal? The math is simple, but that patterns are infinitely complex and varied. Conway's game of life, perhaps? Simple rules, complex patterns right between chaos and order. Simple rules can create complex things.
We both look at nature and see boundless complexity. You say, "whoever designed this must be way smarter than us." I say, "whatever designed this must not be constrained to understanding it."
We design things with a top-down approach. You can see how this affects our designs. For example, we were able to jump to the concept of wheels; our designs aren't restricted by what has gone before. But our designs are limited by our understanding; we don't like spaghetti logic which is common in natural designs.
Check this out. He took an FPGA, started with random patterns, tested them, took the best ones, mutated them, and repeated this a few thousand times. As expected, the circuits got good at doing what he selected for. But the circuits took advantages of defects in the FPGA, the temperature, crosstalk etc. Just like life, they worked very well in the environment they evolved in, but they were very dependant upon it. And the most important thing - when the circuits were done, they couldn't figure out how they worked.
My point is that a simple, mindless process, not encumbered by understanding, can produce amazingly complex things. Is that so hard to believe?
I don't think grandparent was saying those who believe in God are ill, he was saying that many prophets were.
Some people accept on faith that there is a God or gods. Some people accept on faith that there is none. Some people say it cannot be known. But regardless, we ought to treat each other with respect, and not talk down our noses at those who don't believe as we do.
Another demonstrated effect is the placebo effect. If you give somebody sugar pills, or magnetic bracelets, or whatever, as long as they believe it will help them, it will. People who pray for themselves, and believe it will help, probably experience this effect. But it doesn't prove anything, certainly not that the prayers have been answered.
Get a large group of sick people to report their health while an army of nuns prays for half of them. Don't let the people find out who's being prayed for. If the prayed-for people get recover faster, that would support the theory of an omnicient being answering prayers. But I doubt that would happen.
I wouldn't consider different distros using different patchsets to Linux forks. The kernels used by most distros swarm around vanilla - they get upgraded at the same time and have mostly the same code. Often the only difference is which features are applied. A fork would involve having two vanilla Linuxes, each evolving in a different direction, and some core developers going to Fredix while some stay with Linux.
That's the kernel. Certainly many distros fork, for example Mandrake was once RedHat optimized for i586. But consider why a fork happens: somebody thinks, "I could do this better myself." This is more likely to happen with a closed or inflexible project than with an open, flexible one.
If SkyOS gets popular, then becomes open, a fork would be likely. But if it opens while it's still small, developers won't think they can "go it alone." A lot also depends on how the project is managed.
Yeah, they want banners ads on each side!
If they want to increase the penalty for crime X (X could be fraud, copyright infringement, theft), they don't just, well, increase the penalty. Instead, they make up some newer, more vague "crime" Y (faking WHOIS info, trafficing in circumvention tools, carrying crowbars). The effect is that there are more laws, they make less sense, and more people are criminals.
I don't want to live in a system where everyone's a criminal, and where I must trust that nobody will call me on. Unfortunately, I already do.
It depends on which facts you consider. I think one should consider as many as possible.
The article considered two facts:
- The Linux community is angry at SCO.
- MyDoom targets sco.com
So it comes to the obvious conclusion, as have you, that the attack was perpetrated by pissed Linux zealots.But what happens when you add more facts, facts which might require research?
Now a different story emerges, hmm?