The point the article is making is that this system cannot be made to work for everybody at once.
So you either put up boundaries, and have systems
that work perfectly, but only within those boundaries, or you need a system with wider scope at the outset. --
Too stupid to live.
Because both sides have verbally accepted does not mean you have to go through with the deal, which was the original claim.
You've always got the choice of simply backing out completely. It may be because the other side has made fraudulent claims, but you do have that choice.
Bait and switch relies on the fact that it's preferrable for the customer to pay the increased price than it is for them to go and purchase elsewhere (preferrable is a highly subjective term).
I'd expect a haggling market trader to be able to back out with no particular loss of investment. And if they are acknowledging "the cheek of it" then they are, in effect, renegotiating the customer a preferential rate just for the sheer affrontery. --
Too stupid to live.
Presumably: unless both parties are willin to renegotiate. Which must be what's happning here (unless the vendor goes chasing after her, shouting "Fraud!") --
Too stupid to live.
There was such a system on sale at my local Tempo a few months ago. I really can't remember the details, because I only looked at it for a few seconds.
It wasn't very expensive: maybe 60 pounds. And it produced "reasonable" storage requirements: about 1 Gig onto 1 hour of video tape.
The problem was that it used a normal video recorder. So using it to backup my current storage would only require 9 tapes, which isn't too bad. But it would take 36 hours to read or write those tapes...
Because if it's not optional, then the end-user (rather than end-luser) can't run software they've written themselves. Well, not without registering with Microsoft anyway. Which isn't going to happen.
And once the option's been turned off, you'll be able to run anything. I presume.
So it's got advantages for businesses, as they'll be able to ensure that their desktop machines don't get infected with screensavers, whilst home users will probably disable it at the first opportunity.
I used to run 98, and then NT on my work machine (I switched because of the security, and need to run Oracle applications which only run on NT).
I also ran Pegasus mail, copying my new mail every 5 minutes. The work machine was left on permanently. At home I downloaded and deleted my mail once a day. Great, I've got my mail on both machines.
Except that NT would happily crash every few days, and if I didn't reboot it before performing another download from home, it would miss mail.
Finally I switched to linux, on the same hardware. Since October, the machine has been rebooted twice: due to electrical testing, and a fan failure.
(I don't use those NT only apps any more). -- Too stupid to live.
I haven't looked through the text of the bill, so I don't know whether it includes the problem that's just occurred to me. I hope it does, really, because that ought to blow it out of the water, somewhat. Credit cards (and bank cards etc)! I use them in my daily life, and yet I have no way of (personally) finding out what data is on them. I'll admit that the data is standardised, and that a sufficiently power organisation (such as the police) could demand that the issuing body reveal the information, but I can't access it myself. Does that mean I'm liable for imprisonment? -- Too stupid to live.
Microsoft have demonstrated their monopolistic tendencies many times in the past. Windows was only passed on to distributors who agreed not to sell DR-DOS. Windows was tweaked *specifically* not to run on DR-DOS. The first point of call for any windows fault was to blame DR-DOS, if that happened to be on the machine.
Then again for applications running on windows (We'll only give you windows if you agree not to sell ).
Microsoft have demonstrated their monopolistic tendencies many times in the past. Windows was only passed on to distributors who agreed not to sell DR-DOS. Windows was tweaked *specifically* not to run on DR-DOS. The first point of call for any windows fault was to blame DR-DOS, if that happened to be on the machine.
Then again for applications running on windows (We'll only give you windows if you agree not to sell ).
You've not looked quite far enough. There's an explanation of the problem further through the same document:
12.1 IDE problems with 34+ GB disks
Drives larger than 33.8 GB will not work with recent kernels. The details are as follows. Suppose you bought a new IBM-DPTA-373420 disk with a capacity of 66835440 sectors (34.2 GB). Recent kernels will tell you that the size is 769*16*63 = 775152 sectors (0.4 GB), which is a bit disappointing. And giving command line parameters hdc=4160,255,63 doesn't help at all - these are just ignored. What happens? The routine idedisk_setup() retrieves the geometry reported by the disk (which is 16383/16/63) and overwrites what the user specified on the command line, so that the user data is used only for the BIOS geometry.
The routine current_capacity() or idedisk_capacity() recomputes the cylinder number as 66835440/(16*63)=66305, but since this is stored in a short, it becomes 769. Since lba_capacity_is_ok() destroyed id->cyls, every following call to it will return false, so that the disk capacity becomes 769*16*63. A patch is available - probably it will soon get into some official kernel.
I can vouch for this first hand, since I've got one of the IBM 37GB drives. Andreas' patch certainly seems to fix the problem. But it'll be nice when it does officially get to be part of the kernel. -- Too stupid to live.
>Most Linux users are people who don't want to use Microsoft's products, >Blair said. That means the OS most likely to suffer because of Linux's >success is Unix, And how does the first sentence imply the second? I'd argue Unix will PROSPER because of the rising popularity of Linux.
I *think* the idea is that users are split between Microsoft and Unix. Those using Microsoft will continue to do so despite Linux, and it will only eat into the Unix user base.
Of course, we're reasonably sure that this conclusion is wrong.
It works for me. But I find the results suspect (NB, I work with Oracle databases, so my opinions are biased too.)
Consider the date & time datatypes: date, time, timestamp, timestamp with timezone, datetime, abstime, datetime (other version), abstime, reltime, smalldatetime, timespan, year.
Alledgedly, MySQL supports 6 of these, Postgresql 8, and Oracle only 1. But that one, despite being called date, also includes the time down to the second. If you don't want the time ignore it.
Similarly, the function list seems to have been needlessly extended to demonstrate the extra functions in some databases (not necessarilly MySQL, but that's where this example comes from): Oracle doesn't support FROM_DAYS or TO_DAYS (correct, it uses TO_CHAR or TO_DATE respectively, but they're not listed.) It doesn't include WEEKDAY either, but uses TO_CHAR again.
There are more mistakes like this which are not in Oracle's favour. But I don't care enough to rant.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
The Professor and the Madman is th US title of The Surgeon of Crowthorne.
D'oh. I meant to quote
Module Size 1,875mm x 1,080mm x 45mm
From the article:
Full HD 1,920 x 1,080 pixels 16:9 aspect ratio
Resolution 1,920 x RGB x 1,080 (Full HD)
Which makes the pixels 1mm square. Or, 0.04 inches square.
D'oh! Yes, 30 Gbytes. Mea Culpa...
--
Too stupid to live.
That'd be Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic?
--
Too stupid to live.
True, but "does not work" implies "imperfect."
The point the article is making is that this system cannot be made to work for everybody at once.
So you either put up boundaries, and have systems
that work perfectly, but only within those boundaries, or you need a system with wider scope at the outset.
--
Too stupid to live.
Is the the MacOSX equivalent of OpenSSL?
(I'd assumed that OpenSSL would work on MacOSX, given all the spiel about it being Unix based.)
--
Too stupid to live.
Because both sides have verbally accepted does not mean you have to go through with the deal, which was the original claim.
You've always got the choice of simply backing out completely. It may be because the other side has made fraudulent claims, but you do have that choice.
Bait and switch relies on the fact that it's preferrable for the customer to pay the increased price than it is for them to go and purchase elsewhere (preferrable is a highly subjective term).
I'd expect a haggling market trader to be able to back out with no particular loss of investment. And if they are acknowledging "the cheek of it" then they are, in effect, renegotiating the customer a preferential rate just for the sheer affrontery.
--
Too stupid to live.
Presumably: unless both parties are willin to renegotiate. Which must be what's happning here (unless the vendor goes chasing after her, shouting "Fraud!")
--
Too stupid to live.
Of course, to be consistent with Shared Source, what they mean by "fostering discussion" ought to be:
we talk, you listen.
--
Too stupid to live.
No, he's right... Sort of.
What they really mean is "Roxio is trying to get for free what other companies are paying *us* for (and we got for free in the first place)."
--
Too stupid to live.
--
Too stupid to live.
There was such a system on sale at my local Tempo a few months ago. I really can't remember the details, because I only looked at it for a few seconds.
It wasn't very expensive: maybe 60 pounds. And it produced "reasonable" storage requirements: about 1 Gig onto 1 hour of video tape.
The problem was that it used a normal video recorder. So using it to backup my current storage would only require 9 tapes, which isn't too bad. But it would take 36 hours to read or write those tapes...
So I left it alone.
--
Too stupid to live.
Because if it's not optional, then the end-user (rather than end-luser) can't run software they've written themselves. Well, not without registering with Microsoft anyway. Which isn't going to happen.
And once the option's been turned off, you'll be able to run anything. I presume.
So it's got advantages for businesses, as they'll be able to ensure that their desktop machines don't get infected with screensavers, whilst home users will probably disable it at the first opportunity.
I hope...
--
Too stupid to live.
I also ran Pegasus mail, copying my new mail every 5 minutes. The work machine was left on permanently.
At home I downloaded and deleted my mail once a day. Great, I've got my mail on both machines.
Except that NT would happily crash every few days, and if I didn't reboot it before performing another download from home, it would miss mail.
Finally I switched to linux, on the same hardware. Since October, the machine has been rebooted twice: due to electrical testing, and a fan failure.
(I don't use those NT only apps any more).
--
Too stupid to live.
I haven't looked through the text of the bill, so I don't know whether it includes the problem that's just occurred to me. I hope it does, really, because that ought to blow it out of the water, somewhat.
Credit cards (and bank cards etc)! I use them in my daily life, and yet I have no way of (personally) finding out what data is on them.
I'll admit that the data is standardised, and that a sufficiently power organisation (such as the police) could demand that the issuing body reveal the information, but I can't access it myself.
Does that mean I'm liable for imprisonment?
--
Too stupid to live.
Windows was only passed on to distributors who agreed not to sell DR-DOS.
Windows was tweaked *specifically* not to run on DR-DOS.
The first point of call for any windows fault was to blame DR-DOS, if that happened to be on the machine.
Then again for applications running on windows (We'll only give you windows if you agree not to sell ).
--
Too stupid to live.
Windows was only passed on to distributors who agreed not to sell DR-DOS.
Windows was tweaked *specifically* not to run on DR-DOS.
The first point of call for any windows fault was to blame DR-DOS, if that happened to be on the machine.
Then again for applications running on windows (We'll only give you windows if you agree not to sell ).
--
Too stupid to live.
12.1 IDE problems with 34+ GB disks
Drives larger than 33.8 GB will not work with recent kernels. The details are as follows. Suppose you bought a new IBM-DPTA-373420 disk with a capacity of 66835440 sectors (34.2 GB). Recent kernels will tell you that the size is 769*16*63 = 775152 sectors (0.4 GB), which is a bit disappointing. And giving command line parameters hdc=4160,255,63 doesn't help at all - these are just ignored. What happens? The routine idedisk_setup() retrieves the geometry reported by the disk (which is 16383/16/63) and overwrites what the user specified on the command line, so that the user data is used only for the BIOS geometry.
The routine current_capacity() or idedisk_capacity() recomputes the cylinder number as 66835440/(16*63)=66305, but since this is stored in a short, it becomes 769. Since lba_capacity_is_ok() destroyed id->cyls, every following call to it will return false, so that the disk capacity becomes 769*16*63. A patch is available - probably it will soon get into some official kernel.
I can vouch for this first hand, since I've got one of the IBM 37GB drives. Andreas' patch certainly seems to fix the problem. But it'll be nice when it does officially get to be part of the kernel.
--
Too stupid to live.
>Blair said. That means the OS most likely to suffer because of Linux's
>success is Unix,
And how does the first sentence imply the second? I'd argue Unix will PROSPER because of the rising popularity of Linux.
I *think* the idea is that users are split between Microsoft and Unix. Those using Microsoft will continue to do so despite Linux, and it will only eat into the Unix user base.
Of course, we're reasonably sure that this conclusion is wrong.
--
--
Too stupid to live.
It works for me.
:-)
But I find the results suspect (NB, I work with Oracle databases, so my opinions are biased too.)
Consider the date & time datatypes:
date, time, timestamp, timestamp with timezone, datetime, abstime, datetime (other version), abstime, reltime, smalldatetime, timespan, year.
Alledgedly, MySQL supports 6 of these, Postgresql 8, and Oracle only 1.
But that one, despite being called date, also includes the time down to the second. If you don't want the time ignore it.
Similarly, the function list seems to have been needlessly extended to demonstrate the extra functions in some databases (not necessarilly MySQL, but that's where this example comes from):
Oracle doesn't support FROM_DAYS or TO_DAYS (correct, it uses TO_CHAR or TO_DATE respectively, but they're not listed.) It doesn't include WEEKDAY either, but uses TO_CHAR again.
There are more mistakes like this which are not in Oracle's favour. But I don't care enough to rant.
--
Too stupid to live.