Transplanting bone marrow to a HIV-infected individual should, IMO, be followed by a mandatory sterilisation.
The exact same argument can be made about any other deadly disease with a cure. We should obviously be sterilising everyone who gets antiobiotics to cure pneumonia.
There's not much point in using slow processors on routers, and lots of reasons not to. Cisco and Juniper should wake up -- BGP isn't done in hardware, and it can be quite CPU intensive.
so I figured that any intelligent spammer knows about it and could easily strip out the identifier if they wanted
Spammers aren't interested in the last 5% who use countermeasures. Most of the spam my machine receives has a destination address of 2bslashdot or 2busenet at my domain. (Both addresses are non-existent, but I can see the attempts in my mail servers logs.) My real unobfuscated address is shown here on slashdot and in every Usenet/mailing list post I make, but I only receive a couple of spams a year to those addresses.
It's funny that they turn + into 2b though, and I'm not sure why they drop the first part of the address. Maybe the percent sign confuses their parser. Actually I should try something like test+';drop table addresses
And client side (font) rendering is good exactly _how_?
It means innovation can happen in the client libraries and not have to wait for all the servers to catch up. It can lead to fewer roundtrips between clients and servers.
You should never enshrine complex things in protocol specifications; protocols change way too slowly. Font rendering used to be a simple thing, but the demands of modern applications force it to be complex, and the X11 protocol simply can't keep up. Nor should it.
I don't have client-side rendering problems with ssh transparency. If anything, it helps that you don't have to install all the fonts an application needs on all the X-servers it might end up running on.
Why can't we have flicker-free mode switching in userspace X drivers?
You can't have flicker-free mode switching at all, except in a few cases. If you switch frequencies, the screen is going to take a moment to resync. With the mode setting in the kernel, the kernel can make sure that it uses a video mode running at the same frequencies as the X server. The alternative is to run a user-mode mode setting program before starting kernel output. This is possible, but that means not being able to show diagnostics before userspace is running.
X11 in 2008 is a lot different from X11 in 1998. Much of the X11 API is never used, and therefore you can get away with making a much simpler X-server which only supports the new calls. It won't run very old programs without some sort of compatibility box, but those are fairly rare.
Thank you sweet Jesus! Finally somebody is doing something that should have been done looooong time ago!
People have been doing bits and pieces of it for a long time. Client-side font handling, client-side rendering in general, kernel mode setting... Without those things, this project would be a lot larger.
This is quite typical of free software by the way: A lot of things are quietly replaced and enhanced without anyone noticing, and suddenly someone uses all the changed bits to create something radically new.
Nevertheless, all the studios have to provide is a bit of software. The player manufacturers have to license the patents and add the necessary hardware features. It sounds like a free ride for the studios to me.
In fact Schily is not what I consider to be a good politician. He has won the Big Brother Award two times.
I prefer to explain his commitment to free software this way: If you work hard to become Big Brother, you get better at recognizing when others do the same to you...
Except that the makers of the computer chips shouldn't even know that the chips they're making are to be used in a voting machine, much less how they would be used in a voting machine.
Ok, you want generic chips. Welcome to Systems Management Mode, the perfect backdoor.
Just of the country I live in. I'm an egoistical bastard like that. Not even the airports around here have free wifi. You need a plan, and then you might as well just go with wireless broadband.
The bus I happen to go to work on has free wifi, but that's simply a wireless broadband device rebroadcast as wifi. I'm better off grabbing the bandwidth directly from the wireless broadband.
As for necessary? A private cell phone isn't necessary for me. I'd give that up before I gave up my wireless broadband.
Well, obviously I only care about land area where I am likely to go. The country I live in is a good first approximation. They do let me out at times, if I behave nicely.
That doesn't matter to me as a customer.... You do realise that?
It should matter to you that a call can be produced for 0.03EUR/min and you're paying at least 0.10EUR/min for it. Twice that if you're calling from a land line. That's the cost of not having a competitive market.
And yet, I have been telling you that in my country exactly this is happening! Are you obtuse or what?
No, you're simply fact-resistant. Go read the actual documents. If you live in a decent country, the inter-carrier rates are public, and so are the rates that virtual carriers pay to the main carriers. Compare.
By "paying for incoming" calls you mean "paying more for an outgoing call because you call a different carrier".
The cost ends up at the consumer, no matter which way around you twist it. In the US, the person who has a choice in using a mobile or not pays for that choice.
I checked with my carrier and outgoing calls to any carrier (fixed and mobile) in my country are exactly the same price an outgoing to a cellphone on the same network.
Yes. You are paying the same price for something that costs vastly different amounts for the service provider. This leads to complete distortion of the market.
The best customer for a cell phone provider in Europe is the one who spends all day receiving calls from other carriers. The worst customer is the one who spends all day actually making calls. It leads to all sorts of funny behaviour on the ISP side, like being unable to turn off voice mail. Voice mail is free money, twice: First you earn a bunch from some other carrier when someone leaves a voice mail (and you don't even have to use your expensive bandwidth for it), and second you make money when the customer calls voice mail to listen to the message. At least in the second case the provider has to spend a little bit on bandwidth.
The only reason why this hasn't spun completely out of control is that the antitrust authorities are limiting inter-carrier rates.
Anyway, the price of a cell phone minute, just the airtime, in the actually competitive market in Denmark, is less than 0.03EUR. The same minute when sold inter-carrier is 0.15EUR. If either the market or the antitrust authorities were doing the job properly, those rates would be approximately the same. (Basic economic theory, in a competitive market, the price of a good approaches the cost of its production).
Inter-carrier rates for incoming calls are non-existent where I live and I know they don't exist in Belgium, France, Germany and The Netherlands. Maybe Danmark is special in this case?
Nope. You're just uninformed. The carrier loses money when you call a different carrier. (Unless you're on a really crappy plan.)
If mobile broadband were fast enough to watch TV online,
It is.
if the bandwidth caps were high enough to connect to my firm's remote server 8 hours a day
They are.
and watch 5 hours of TV shows online a week
That can be iffy, can you stay within 10GB?
and it was less than the $30 a month I pay for internet now
It's more than $30. Mobile broadband isn't going to win over very much of the fixed broadband market in the near term. There are lots of downsides to it, including cost and (often) latency. Still, it's wonderful to have in addition to fixed broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
Transplanting bone marrow to a HIV-infected individual should, IMO, be followed by a mandatory sterilisation.
The exact same argument can be made about any other deadly disease with a cure. We should obviously be sterilising everyone who gets antiobiotics to cure pneumonia.
There's not much point in using slow processors on routers, and lots of reasons not to. Cisco and Juniper should wake up -- BGP isn't done in hardware, and it can be quite CPU intensive.
Your naÃve trust in security is somewhat endearing.
non-root users are able to do things that only root users should be able to do".
That is about as likely as the spontaneous generation of trout in milk.
The quoted sentence is exactly what happens in every local-root bug, and local-root bugs are not exactly uncommon.
Another poster guessed at a pty bug. I like that guess.
To find a string in a file I used to do "find . | xargs grep foo"
It's generally wise to use -print0 and -0...
Does this mean that telnetd is setuid root, or does it mean that you already have to have root to get root?
Neither. That is why this article is news.
so I figured that any intelligent spammer knows about it and could easily strip out the identifier if they wanted
Spammers aren't interested in the last 5% who use countermeasures. Most of the spam my machine receives has a destination address of 2bslashdot or 2busenet at my domain. (Both addresses are non-existent, but I can see the attempts in my mail servers logs.) My real unobfuscated address is shown here on slashdot and in every Usenet/mailing list post I make, but I only receive a couple of spams a year to those addresses.
It's funny that they turn + into 2b though, and I'm not sure why they drop the first part of the address. Maybe the percent sign confuses their parser. Actually I should try something like test+';drop table addresses
If we assign a team of 100 programmers to the project, I believe we can have xlogo ported by 2015.
How can rendering the font on the client and sending it to the server as a bitmap result in fewer roundtrips between client and server?
The client knows what it wants on the screen. It just dumps it all there in one transaction. No queries for available fonts or anything.
And client side (font) rendering is good exactly _how_?
It means innovation can happen in the client libraries and not have to wait for all the servers to catch up. It can lead to fewer roundtrips between clients and servers.
You should never enshrine complex things in protocol specifications; protocols change way too slowly. Font rendering used to be a simple thing, but the demands of modern applications force it to be complex, and the X11 protocol simply can't keep up. Nor should it.
I don't have client-side rendering problems with ssh transparency. If anything, it helps that you don't have to install all the fonts an application needs on all the X-servers it might end up running on.
Why can't we have flicker-free mode switching in userspace X drivers?
You can't have flicker-free mode switching at all, except in a few cases. If you switch frequencies, the screen is going to take a moment to resync. With the mode setting in the kernel, the kernel can make sure that it uses a video mode running at the same frequencies as the X server. The alternative is to run a user-mode mode setting program before starting kernel output. This is possible, but that means not being able to show diagnostics before userspace is running.
None of these have replaced the X11 standard.
X11 in 2008 is a lot different from X11 in 1998. Much of the X11 API is never used, and therefore you can get away with making a much simpler X-server which only supports the new calls. It won't run very old programs without some sort of compatibility box, but those are fairly rare.
Thank you sweet Jesus! Finally somebody is doing something that should have been done looooong time ago!
People have been doing bits and pieces of it for a long time. Client-side font handling, client-side rendering in general, kernel mode setting... Without those things, this project would be a lot larger.
This is quite typical of free software by the way: A lot of things are quietly replaced and enhanced without anyone noticing, and suddenly someone uses all the changed bits to create something radically new.
Nevertheless, all the studios have to provide is a bit of software. The player manufacturers have to license the patents and add the necessary hardware features. It sounds like a free ride for the studios to me.
In fact Schily is not what I consider to be a good politician. He has won the Big Brother Award two times.
I prefer to explain his commitment to free software this way: If you work hard to become Big Brother, you get better at recognizing when others do the same to you...
cmd.exe is particularly stupid because it allows batch invocation, and practically noone on Windows forbids the creation of foo.bat.
Unless you actually believe all the executives at all the movie studios and their major shareholders are so stupid they can't read a graph, of course.
AFAIK the movie studios don't pay all that much for DRM. Most of the cost is, AFAIK again, borne by player manufacturers.
Except that the makers of the computer chips shouldn't even know that the chips they're making are to be used in a voting machine, much less how they would be used in a voting machine.
Ok, you want generic chips. Welcome to Systems Management Mode, the perfect backdoor.
I'd estimate offhand that I'm able to get into a free network in about 40% of locations I've tried it at.
You're lucky. But even then 40% is way low, and it doesn't work if you're on the move.
50% of what land area? the entire earth?
Just of the country I live in. I'm an egoistical bastard like that. Not even the airports around here have free wifi. You need a plan, and then you might as well just go with wireless broadband.
The bus I happen to go to work on has free wifi, but that's simply a wireless broadband device rebroadcast as wifi. I'm better off grabbing the bandwidth directly from the wireless broadband.
As for necessary? A private cell phone isn't necessary for me. I'd give that up before I gave up my wireless broadband.
Well, obviously I only care about land area where I am likely to go. The country I live in is a good first approximation. They do let me out at times, if I behave nicely.
That doesn't matter to me as a customer.... You do realise that?
It should matter to you that a call can be produced for 0.03EUR/min and you're paying at least 0.10EUR/min for it. Twice that if you're calling from a land line. That's the cost of not having a competitive market.
And yet, I have been telling you that in my country exactly this is happening! Are you obtuse or what?
No, you're simply fact-resistant. Go read the actual documents. If you live in a decent country, the inter-carrier rates are public, and so are the rates that virtual carriers pay to the main carriers. Compare.
By "paying for incoming" calls you mean "paying more for an outgoing call because you call a different carrier".
The cost ends up at the consumer, no matter which way around you twist it. In the US, the person who has a choice in using a mobile or not pays for that choice.
I checked with my carrier and outgoing calls to any carrier (fixed and mobile) in my country are exactly the same price an outgoing to a cellphone on the same network.
Yes. You are paying the same price for something that costs vastly different amounts for the service provider. This leads to complete distortion of the market.
The best customer for a cell phone provider in Europe is the one who spends all day receiving calls from other carriers. The worst customer is the one who spends all day actually making calls. It leads to all sorts of funny behaviour on the ISP side, like being unable to turn off voice mail. Voice mail is free money, twice: First you earn a bunch from some other carrier when someone leaves a voice mail (and you don't even have to use your expensive bandwidth for it), and second you make money when the customer calls voice mail to listen to the message. At least in the second case the provider has to spend a little bit on bandwidth.
The only reason why this hasn't spun completely out of control is that the antitrust authorities are limiting inter-carrier rates.
Anyway, the price of a cell phone minute, just the airtime, in the actually competitive market in Denmark, is less than 0.03EUR. The same minute when sold inter-carrier is 0.15EUR. If either the market or the antitrust authorities were doing the job properly, those rates would be approximately the same. (Basic economic theory, in a competitive market, the price of a good approaches the cost of its production).
Inter-carrier rates for incoming calls are non-existent where I live and I know they don't exist in Belgium, France, Germany and The Netherlands. Maybe Danmark is special in this case?
Nope. You're just uninformed. The carrier loses money when you call a different carrier. (Unless you're on a really crappy plan.)
If mobile broadband were fast enough to watch TV online,
It is.
if the bandwidth caps were high enough to connect to my firm's remote server 8 hours a day
They are.
and watch 5 hours of TV shows online a week
That can be iffy, can you stay within 10GB?
and it was less than the $30 a month I pay for internet now
It's more than $30. Mobile broadband isn't going to win over very much of the fixed broadband market in the near term. There are lots of downsides to it, including cost and (often) latency. Still, it's wonderful to have in addition to fixed broadband.