This will be impossible and they know it. There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes. It wouldn't surprise me if MS did this internally. Meh, who cares though. Just another reason to use VMWare.
You should, and you can. Just remember that this is all about false positivies and false negatives. Let's say I ran an ISP and I cut-off everyone who sent 10,000 messages or more a day. How many legitimate users would that cut-off? 1%?.01%?.001%? If someone has a legitimate need to send 10k emails then they can give their ISP a call, declare that they have legit reason, and get their service re-enabled. I hate such systems, but if it eliminated 70,000 pwned computers and forced 70 legitimate users to make a phone call, that is a fair trade-off.
The article says that this might be attractive to businesses: I can see that since most businesses don't care about graphics. This is similar to businesses buying computers with cheap on-board video cards. But that means they will be profiting on the low-end. It seems like this is more of a boon for laptops and consoles: Currently, laptops with decent video cards are expensive and power-hungry. Same with consoles. But for mid-range and high-end systems, there must be a modular bus connecting these two parts since they are likely to evolve at different rates, and likely to be swapped-out individually.
Microsoft always has a stance against something. For example, Microsoft considers free and open software to be their enemy. Not their competition, not just an alternative. However, suppose I called some of the other top software companies in the world. Do you think that Intuit considers GNUCash to be the enemy or that Symantec thinks that free virus scanners, firewalls, and disk partitioning tools should be unconstitutional because they are viral and will destroy the industry? Does Adobe send secret emails chiding the makers of the GIMP? Do they embrace and extend standards like PNG the way Microsoft did with HTML? Does Autodesk make PR statements about Blender in an attempt to spead FUD about it?
When Microsoft talks about open-source they sound like George Bush talking about terrorism. They have a lot of bright people, and can make some damn good software. But the company would do better if they stopped declaring competitors to be an axis-of-evil, and just made software.
Ahhhh, very interesting. Thanks. It sounds especially unfortunate if there is no "damage" as in the case of criticizing someone statements or exposing censorship.
If this is correct, then I actually like the DMCA! Based on reading Slashdot, I've always assumed it was:
Entity A posts some content to service C. Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it. C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA. The End.
How come I hear all these stories about "oh, they DMCA'd me and now my content is gone and there is nothing I can do!" stories, when it sounds like all they have to do is reply stating that it does not infringe and why, and then the content is back up. This law seems like an excellent way to take down obviously infringing content quickly, while giving someone who has real content a valid way to get out of it. It might be better if they get a change to reply FIRST though, before the content is taken down.
It sounds like the case didn't deal with the GPL directly. The case dealt with selling software below cost. This is important, because in some states it is illegal to sell commodities below cost. (This was to deal with Wal-mart offering loss-leaders and driving small companies out of business). So it is a valid question to ask: Is it legal to sell software below cost? The court found that unlike commodities, the software industry can thrive with companies offering free software. That makes sense to me.
To put a fine point on this, it has little to do with the GPL (a copyright) since this was not an analysis of copyright. And it had little to do with open-source, since I can sell open-source software. It deals with free (as in beer) software.
I don't see these two positions as comparable..NET is used for developing small to large-scale applications, on par with Java or C++. PERL is used for small highly-portable scripts, tools, and add-ons. Judging only from the choice of languages, it sounds to me like these are two completely different positions, probably with different titles, salaries, team sizes, and expectations. You need to make your decision based on those factors.
I must also echo what another poster said: 120 miles is a LOOONG commute.
Dual power connectors, yeeeha! Video card manufacturers really aren't doing much about idle power consumption. 66 watts at idle just to display a static frame buffer. I can't imagine what will happen running Vista w/ Aero glass. I bet people's power consumption numbers will double.
In 5 years, the Internet won't look anything like it does today, those children will be in different age groups, and the results won't be meaningful anymore. You can't spend 5 years to determine something that changes significantly every 1-3 years.
In my state, 38% of the eligible voters voted in the last election. So if those 62% went out and voted for each of the 3 other parties (Green, Libertarian, Populist) registered in my state, at random, then we we would have 5 viable parties. That would completely change the political landscape. Finally, there would have to be real discussion on issues. It means that someone would be in office who didn't have campaign contributions from big corporations. It means we would have representatives would be turning away lobbyists instead of making shady deals in smoky rooms (sorry for the cliche). So I say, if you are uninformed, vote for the guaranteed losers.
I'm not sure if you are kidding or not, so I'll answer these questions seriously.
1) There are a variety of ways of determining temperature without a thermometer. For example, we know the temperatures of planets, suns, asteroids, space, underground, high in the sky, in the past, and in the future. Fortunately, global warming is only partially about temperature, so that is just one of many indicators. A detailed discussion as to how and why this all is true is too much to post here. I would suggest starting with the Wikipedia articles on global warming and global climate change. They reference TONS of articles you can look at from there to get explanations on all of this.
2) Ironically, global warming may cause another ice age. Just like #1, start with the Wikipedia article. You don't have to trust it completely - just use it as a launching point for references.
3) I don't know when those photos were taken, and they could be photoshopped, doctored, taken at different times, or even completely different places. But the photos were there to illustrate the point, they aren't the factual evidence. If you want that, there are plenty of photos of receding glaciers over recent history. Ultimately, if you don't trust any of the sources, I've been told Greenland and Alaskan vacations are wonderful. A friend of mine recommended the glacier fly-overs. Breathtaking views. I would love to talk to the pilots who have been doing them for years.
the other is to punish the guilty. Its nota bout "vengence". Its about making the person understand that what they did was wrong and will not be tolerated.
No, it is about deterrence. Making them understand that what they did was wrong is brainwashing. Making them understand that it will not be tolerated is vengeance.
CNET wasn't clear on what they meant by "technology issues" which makes this article seem inconsistent, and makes the reactions very mixed.
For one thing, it includes lots of non-technology things. If you say H1-B visas are a technology issue because they impact technology companies, then EVERYTHING is a technology issue. Taxes, minimum wage, anything with financial impact. Perhaps CNET did not have a clear idea of what they wanted the purpose of the article to be. THese votes don't indicate how technologically adept a representative is, which is what I thought it would be about.
And many of the readers didn't understand what "technology" meant either. Look at this comment for example:
Do lawmakers votes on whether to allow Internet gambling really reflect their views on technology? More than allowing funding for stem-cell research or NASA?
Internet gambling votes are an easy way to determine if the representative understands technology. It is technically impossible to regulate internet gambling. It is an international issue, and it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Internet. But stem-cell research is an issue of morality and money, not technology.
Ignoring Net Neutrality is a vast omission since it is probably one of the most clear-cut of technology issues. CNet says that it wasn't included because businesses are so divided over it. That is a copout: The line is phone companies & router manufacturers -vs- everyone else. It is plain to see, but they choose to ignore it. That is irresponsible.
The article says that NPR is filing a complaint with the FCC due to non-compliance by satellite radio broadcasters and devices. That's a perfectly reasonably thing to do. But both the article and Slashot summary imply that NPR has an axe to grind against Satellite radio. Is there some NPR -vs- satellite radio thing going on that I don't know about? It seems like that is pre-requisite knowledge for understanding this article.
I've never understood why doesn't work. It works for JPEG, GIF, etc. The reason video isn't accessible is because soembody, one day, decided that video is somehow fundamentally different than images.
This is very cool. It also has nothing to do with materializing free hand sketches. It is a technique where you can draw in the air, in 3D, then render the image. Nothing is materialized. The Slashdot summary makes it look like some sort of 3D printing device.
On the Mohs Hardness Scale, a diamond has a rating of 10 while a sapphire has a rating of 9. That is why it is very common to see sapphires in engagement rings. That was a really smarmy jeweler: I've been to a dozen jewelers and I've never had a jeweler try tell me otherwise.
Some of the results showed promise for the technology, but most were just funny -- for example, who would mistake Barbara Streisand for Shrek, or Lance Bass of N'Sync for a Teletubby?"
That's just trolling. The software was instructed to find the celebrity who most closely matched a cartoon character. It didn't mistake anyone for a cartoon character. And since cartoon characters are not within the scope of what the software is for, it shows that it worked better than expected. Attempts like this to belittle the success of the technology are akin to Ad Hominem attacks, and have no merit in a discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
This will be impossible and they know it. There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes. It wouldn't surprise me if MS did this internally. Meh, who cares though. Just another reason to use VMWare.
You should, and you can. Just remember that this is all about false positivies and false negatives. Let's say I ran an ISP and I cut-off everyone who sent 10,000 messages or more a day. How many legitimate users would that cut-off? 1%? .01%? .001%? If someone has a legitimate need to send 10k emails then they can give their ISP a call, declare that they have legit reason, and get their service re-enabled. I hate such systems, but if it eliminated 70,000 pwned computers and forced 70 legitimate users to make a phone call, that is a fair trade-off.
The article says that this might be attractive to businesses: I can see that since most businesses don't care about graphics. This is similar to businesses buying computers with cheap on-board video cards. But that means they will be profiting on the low-end. It seems like this is more of a boon for laptops and consoles: Currently, laptops with decent video cards are expensive and power-hungry. Same with consoles. But for mid-range and high-end systems, there must be a modular bus connecting these two parts since they are likely to evolve at different rates, and likely to be swapped-out individually.
Microsoft always has a stance against something. For example, Microsoft considers free and open software to be their enemy. Not their competition, not just an alternative. However, suppose I called some of the other top software companies in the world. Do you think that Intuit considers GNUCash to be the enemy or that Symantec thinks that free virus scanners, firewalls, and disk partitioning tools should be unconstitutional because they are viral and will destroy the industry? Does Adobe send secret emails chiding the makers of the GIMP? Do they embrace and extend standards like PNG the way Microsoft did with HTML? Does Autodesk make PR statements about Blender in an attempt to spead FUD about it?
When Microsoft talks about open-source they sound like George Bush talking about terrorism. They have a lot of bright people, and can make some damn good software. But the company would do better if they stopped declaring competitors to be an axis-of-evil, and just made software.
Ahhhh, very interesting. Thanks. It sounds especially unfortunate if there is no "damage" as in the case of criticizing someone statements or exposing censorship.
If this is correct, then I actually like the DMCA! Based on reading Slashdot, I've always assumed it was:
Entity A posts some content to service C.
Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it.
C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA.
The End.
How come I hear all these stories about "oh, they DMCA'd me and now my content is gone and there is nothing I can do!" stories, when it sounds like all they have to do is reply stating that it does not infringe and why, and then the content is back up. This law seems like an excellent way to take down obviously infringing content quickly, while giving someone who has real content a valid way to get out of it. It might be better if they get a change to reply FIRST though, before the content is taken down.
(IANAL)
It sounds like the case didn't deal with the GPL directly. The case dealt with selling software below cost. This is important, because in some states it is illegal to sell commodities below cost. (This was to deal with Wal-mart offering loss-leaders and driving small companies out of business). So it is a valid question to ask: Is it legal to sell software below cost? The court found that unlike commodities, the software industry can thrive with companies offering free software. That makes sense to me.
To put a fine point on this, it has little to do with the GPL (a copyright) since this was not an analysis of copyright. And it had little to do with open-source, since I can sell open-source software. It deals with free (as in beer) software.
I don't see these two positions as comparable. .NET is used for developing small to large-scale applications, on par with Java or C++. PERL is used for small highly-portable scripts, tools, and add-ons. Judging only from the choice of languages, it sounds to me like these are two completely different positions, probably with different titles, salaries, team sizes, and expectations. You need to make your decision based on those factors.
I must also echo what another poster said: 120 miles is a LOOONG commute.
Holy crud! I misread that: It is 220 WATTS AT IDLE! The idle TEMPERATURE in deg C is the 66.
Dual power connectors, yeeeha! Video card manufacturers really aren't doing much about idle power consumption. 66 watts at idle just to display a static frame buffer. I can't imagine what will happen running Vista w/ Aero glass. I bet people's power consumption numbers will double.
In 5 years, the Internet won't look anything like it does today, those children will be in different age groups, and the results won't be meaningful anymore. You can't spend 5 years to determine something that changes significantly every 1-3 years.
In my state, 38% of the eligible voters voted in the last election. So if those 62% went out and voted for each of the 3 other parties (Green, Libertarian, Populist) registered in my state, at random, then we we would have 5 viable parties. That would completely change the political landscape. Finally, there would have to be real discussion on issues. It means that someone would be in office who didn't have campaign contributions from big corporations. It means we would have representatives would be turning away lobbyists instead of making shady deals in smoky rooms (sorry for the cliche). So I say, if you are uninformed, vote for the guaranteed losers.
I'm not sure if you are kidding or not, so I'll answer these questions seriously.
1) There are a variety of ways of determining temperature without a thermometer. For example, we know the temperatures of planets, suns, asteroids, space, underground, high in the sky, in the past, and in the future. Fortunately, global warming is only partially about temperature, so that is just one of many indicators. A detailed discussion as to how and why this all is true is too much to post here. I would suggest starting with the Wikipedia articles on global warming and global climate change. They reference TONS of articles you can look at from there to get explanations on all of this.
2) Ironically, global warming may cause another ice age. Just like #1, start with the Wikipedia article. You don't have to trust it completely - just use it as a launching point for references.
3) I don't know when those photos were taken, and they could be photoshopped, doctored, taken at different times, or even completely different places. But the photos were there to illustrate the point, they aren't the factual evidence. If you want that, there are plenty of photos of receding glaciers over recent history. Ultimately, if you don't trust any of the sources, I've been told Greenland and Alaskan vacations are wonderful. A friend of mine recommended the glacier fly-overs. Breathtaking views. I would love to talk to the pilots who have been doing them for years.
Ironically, such a law can only be used against people who DO identify themselves! lol!
For one thing, it includes lots of non-technology things. If you say H1-B visas are a technology issue because they impact technology companies, then EVERYTHING is a technology issue. Taxes, minimum wage, anything with financial impact. Perhaps CNET did not have a clear idea of what they wanted the purpose of the article to be. THese votes don't indicate how technologically adept a representative is, which is what I thought it would be about.
And many of the readers didn't understand what "technology" meant either. Look at this comment for example:
Internet gambling votes are an easy way to determine if the representative understands technology. It is technically impossible to regulate internet gambling. It is an international issue, and it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Internet. But stem-cell research is an issue of morality and money, not technology.
Ignoring Net Neutrality is a vast omission since it is probably one of the most clear-cut of technology issues. CNet says that it wasn't included because businesses are so divided over it. That is a copout: The line is phone companies & router manufacturers -vs- everyone else. It is plain to see, but they choose to ignore it. That is irresponsible.
The article says that NPR is filing a complaint with the FCC due to non-compliance by satellite radio broadcasters and devices. That's a perfectly reasonably thing to do. But both the article and Slashot summary imply that NPR has an axe to grind against Satellite radio. Is there some NPR -vs- satellite radio thing going on that I don't know about? It seems like that is pre-requisite knowledge for understanding this article.
Fry: "Virtual Virtual Bowling! It feels just like you are playing virtual bowling!"
That has to be an editorial mistake.
10 million hits on "Software Patents"
132 million hits on "porn"
Note that this does not consider the vast amounts of software patent porn.
I've never understood why doesn't work. It works for JPEG, GIF, etc. The reason video isn't accessible is because soembody, one day, decided that video is somehow fundamentally different than images.
This is very cool. It also has nothing to do with materializing free hand sketches. It is a technique where you can draw in the air, in 3D, then render the image. Nothing is materialized. The Slashdot summary makes it look like some sort of 3D printing device.
lol
Slashdot: How the DMCA Protects YouTube
On the Mohs Hardness Scale, a diamond has a rating of 10 while a sapphire has a rating of 9. That is why it is very common to see sapphires in engagement rings. That was a really smarmy jeweler: I've been to a dozen jewelers and I've never had a jeweler try tell me otherwise.