Untrue. What fsync() doesn't do is tell the hard drive to write it to the platter, so the data can be lost in the event of a failure between the fsync() and when the drive actually flushes it. This is spelled out in the man page for fsync on Mac OS X.
You can verify this by using the fs_usage command to see what is going on -- when the fsync is called, data are indeed written to disk.
Apple is claiming that the boxed copies are upgrade versions, and not the original license. So "actual damages" would still include whatever cost Apple claims (or could convince a court of 8-)) for the original license.
The difference is a big one, and it should terrify you.
Instead of a single host doing a few dozen or hundred ssh attempts -- which can be easily blocked, even automatedly -- this is a bunch of different hosts doing a coordinated attack. Low-key for the moment, sure -- each host has attempted to only do one or two probes at a time. But still the coordination is undeniable.
And the part that should terrify you: if the coordinator, instead of having each host do a couple of probes in succession, chose instead to have all of the probes come in at once. From random hosts in the botnet.
That's a DDoS, and would kick your one-man-and-a-dog site off the net. For a while, at least. And there would be nothing you could do about it.
He was "useful" because Apple is being sued for patent infringement by another company. By showing that this guy invented something similar (if not identical -- I haven't read any of the patents in question, so I'm going solely on what I've read elsewhere!) the company suing Apple loses to prior art.
However, I've seen absolutely no indication that Apple paid him. I would assume they paid his travel expenses, and may even have paid him as an expert witness, but I've seen absolutely nothing indicating that he is getting anything else. In fact, TFA explicitly says he's not, contrary to what the submitter said.
The only thing left that's not public domain is the name.
And the layout -- in particular, I suspect that the bonus spaces are the most copyrightable aspect. (There was something, a couple of months ago, that discussed the copyrightability, to make up a word, of game rules. But a quick search couldn't find it.)
While I don't use Facebook, I did see the version of Scrabble up for the iPhone... and at ten dollars, I considered it too much money.
I disagree -- it'll make it clearer to Apple executives that open source people are ungrateful jerks who should be ignored at least, and possibly actively campaigned against.
I can find plenty of fault with Apple's open source policies... but they do have some, and they have made some pretty significant offerings. Yes, they could do more, and I'm sure there are plenty of Apple engineers who argue for that every day.
And those arguments get a lot harder to make with stunts like this.
Or, rather, what I presume it will be: thumbs-up icons appearing on screen at random moments during programming. That's right -- you pay TiVo for the privilege of having obtrusive advertising on during the show!
I've said this for years: TiVo long ago decided that their customers were the advertisers, and not their users.
That didn't stop them from charging their users, however.
The summaries I've seen indicated that Apple had gotten to 3rd place in terms of hardware sales -- not that people were sticking with Mac OS X instead of Windows on their new machines.
I assume, of course, that a large number of people who buy a Mac stick with the native OS... but I'm not a market research firm, so I don't have to have actual data to back my beliefs:).
on Mac OS X. Go to System Preferences, then Keyboard & Mouse, and click on the "Modifier Keys" button. You can then swap any around -- I set caps lock to be control, but you can also change the Alt and Command keys. So if the keyboard has them swapped, you can swap them in software, and be happy.
Not just pay for it, but actually pass the tests. Which are pretty intensive, from what I gather -- there's a pretty good chance the BSDs wouldn't pass. But mainly because they aren't compatible with every single header file, command line utility, and API since V7 and on:).
One can certainly debate that particular point, but I've not looked at the conformance test suite, so all I can do is speculate based on comments I've heard from others.
Yes, it was very much inspired by Williamson... but, as with Asimov, in the movie it was a direct consequence of thinking through the three laws. In the case of With Folded Hands, it was more directly built into their programming.
That's why I say it was Asimovian: the character followed the laws thorugh, exactly as Asimov and Daneel did.
If that doesn't mean anything to you, then you haven't read enough Asimov. If they do, then your criticisms don't hold water. Either way... the movie covered it, and covered it in almost exactly the same way that Daneel did, admittedly in a far more condensed way.
(I do have a problem with the big action scene at the end, because even with the Zeroeth Law, robots would have subdued, not injured or killed, human beings. The scene in Susan Calvin's apartment was dead on, however.)
I suspect you haven't spoken with any highly-visible corporate women officers. Regardless of their personalities or original appearance... they get make-overs. They get expensive haircuts. They get extremely expensive clothes. And so forth.
Asimov did not foresee this; when he created Susan Calvin, the only way a woman would be in her mid-thirties, unmarried, and having a professional job is if she were unattractive, physically and emotionally. And Calvin fit that.
It does not match what really happened, and attempting to stick with that concept is, quite frankly, stupid and irrational.
Asimov had lots of small action scenes in his books. Being menaced by a robot with a modified First Law; the terror of having to go outside into the open; running to stop a robot caught in a loop... those spring to mind with no thought. What he didn't have was the large melée that the movie had at the end.
I don't see how I, Robot is "garbage." Other than a large action scene that Asimov wouldn't've written in his books, the plot is entirely an Asimovian robotic mystery: the three laws (or four laws, as Asimov had in his later books) are completely integral to the plot; the clues are related to robotics and are visible to the viewer, instead of being hidden and revealed after the fact; and the societal impact of the technology is examined.
Even the actress they had playing Susan Calvin was the right age, and there was no romance between her and the main character.
seekdir and readdir are unreliable when you're modifying the directory being read. The API requirement is that readdir return each directory entry that existed at the time the directory was opened exactly once. In the traditional UNIX implementation, the directory is simply a sequential stream of bytes; this is pretty easy -- you can simply lseek to the position that telldir returned. However, other systems don't use something that simple -- Mac OS X, for example, uses a B-Tree for the catalog file. Worse, they use a single catalog file for the entire filesystem's catalog, meaning that any modifications (adding, removing, or renaming files anywhere) causes the layout to change.
And telldir only returns a long, which -- in most implementations -- is smaller than off_t, so a simplistic implementation can have some problems. Of course, having a directory that's larger than 4GBytes could result in some other problems 8-).
This doesn't seem to have been a particularly well-handled, or deeply-sincere, attempt by Microsoft... so what were they really doing?
This is a sincere question; I've seen a lot of acquisitions (and even hostile takeovers) happen, and this seemed lacking in many ways. Maybe I've missed some of the machinations; maybe not.
Slashdot Mirror
Untrue. What fsync() doesn't do is tell the hard drive to write it to the platter, so the data can be lost in the event of a failure between the fsync() and when the drive actually flushes it. This is spelled out in the man page for fsync on Mac OS X.
You can verify this by using the fs_usage command to see what is going on -- when the fsync is called, data are indeed written to disk.
For most people, if their iPod is stolen, they've got much bigger problems than having someone look at an email address.
Personal photos and contact lists, for example, are a much bigger issue.
The email addresses have always been in clear-text. Even in the encrypted song files.
Seriously, am I the only person in the entire world who runs strings or emacs on binary files just to see what might be in them?
Another poster provided information that contradicted me, so I am pointing out that I am wrong 8-).
Apple is claiming that the boxed copies are upgrade versions, and not the original license. So "actual damages" would still include whatever cost Apple claims (or could convince a court of 8-)) for the original license.
I believe, but can't cite the law, that you can actually register up to the time of filing a lawsuit, to get statutory damages.
Hemocyanin -- the copper-based equivalent to hemoglobin.
I sometimes want a pet cuttlefish.
The difference is a big one, and it should terrify you.
Instead of a single host doing a few dozen or hundred ssh attempts -- which can be easily blocked, even automatedly -- this is a bunch of different hosts doing a coordinated attack. Low-key for the moment, sure -- each host has attempted to only do one or two probes at a time. But still the coordination is undeniable.
And the part that should terrify you: if the coordinator, instead of having each host do a couple of probes in succession, chose instead to have all of the probes come in at once. From random hosts in the botnet.
That's a DDoS, and would kick your one-man-and-a-dog site off the net. For a while, at least. And there would be nothing you could do about it.
He faces up to five years for each count. Although most seem to agree he won't serve anywhere near that much time.
Thank you; I sit corrected. :)
I don't think that counts as a "share of the cash generated from the sale of 163 million iPods," though.
He was "useful" because Apple is being sued for patent infringement by another company. By showing that this guy invented something similar (if not identical -- I haven't read any of the patents in question, so I'm going solely on what I've read elsewhere!) the company suing Apple loses to prior art.
However, I've seen absolutely no indication that Apple paid him. I would assume they paid his travel expenses, and may even have paid him as an expert witness, but I've seen absolutely nothing indicating that he is getting anything else. In fact, TFA explicitly says he's not, contrary to what the submitter said.
I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.
And the layout -- in particular, I suspect that the bonus spaces are the most copyrightable aspect. (There was something, a couple of months ago, that discussed the copyrightability, to make up a word, of game rules. But a quick search couldn't find it.)
While I don't use Facebook, I did see the version of Scrabble up for the iPhone... and at ten dollars, I considered it too much money.
I disagree -- it'll make it clearer to Apple executives that open source people are ungrateful jerks who should be ignored at least, and possibly actively campaigned against.
I can find plenty of fault with Apple's open source policies... but they do have some, and they have made some pretty significant offerings. Yes, they could do more, and I'm sure there are plenty of Apple engineers who argue for that every day.
And those arguments get a lot harder to make with stunts like this.
Or, rather, what I presume it will be: thumbs-up icons appearing on screen at random moments during programming. That's right -- you pay TiVo for the privilege of having obtrusive advertising on during the show!
I've said this for years: TiVo long ago decided that their customers were the advertisers, and not their users.
That didn't stop them from charging their users, however.
The summaries I've seen indicated that Apple had gotten to 3rd place in terms of hardware sales -- not that people were sticking with Mac OS X instead of Windows on their new machines.
I assume, of course, that a large number of people who buy a Mac stick with the native OS... but I'm not a market research firm, so I don't have to have actual data to back my beliefs :).
Your epidermis is showing.
on Mac OS X. Go to System Preferences, then Keyboard & Mouse, and click on the "Modifier Keys" button. You can then swap any around -- I set caps lock to be control, but you can also change the Alt and Command keys. So if the keyboard has them swapped, you can swap them in software, and be happy.
Not just pay for it, but actually pass the tests. Which are pretty intensive, from what I gather -- there's a pretty good chance the BSDs wouldn't pass. But mainly because they aren't compatible with every single header file, command line utility, and API since V7 and on :).
One can certainly debate that particular point, but I've not looked at the conformance test suite, so all I can do is speculate based on comments I've heard from others.
As I commented elsewhere: The Zeroeth Law.
Yes, it was very much inspired by Williamson... but, as with Asimov, in the movie it was a direct consequence of thinking through the three laws. In the case of With Folded Hands, it was more directly built into their programming.
That's why I say it was Asimovian: the character followed the laws thorugh, exactly as Asimov and Daneel did.
Two words: Zeroeth Law.
If that doesn't mean anything to you, then you haven't read enough Asimov. If they do, then your criticisms don't hold water. Either way... the movie covered it, and covered it in almost exactly the same way that Daneel did, admittedly in a far more condensed way.
(I do have a problem with the big action scene at the end, because even with the Zeroeth Law, robots would have subdued, not injured or killed, human beings. The scene in Susan Calvin's apartment was dead on, however.)
I suspect you haven't spoken with any highly-visible corporate women officers. Regardless of their personalities or original appearance... they get make-overs. They get expensive haircuts. They get extremely expensive clothes. And so forth.
Asimov did not foresee this; when he created Susan Calvin, the only way a woman would be in her mid-thirties, unmarried, and having a professional job is if she were unattractive, physically and emotionally. And Calvin fit that.
It does not match what really happened, and attempting to stick with that concept is, quite frankly, stupid and irrational.
Asimov had lots of small action scenes in his books. Being menaced by a robot with a modified First Law; the terror of having to go outside into the open; running to stop a robot caught in a loop... those spring to mind with no thought. What he didn't have was the large melée that the movie had at the end.
I don't see how I, Robot is "garbage." Other than a large action scene that Asimov wouldn't've written in his books, the plot is entirely an Asimovian robotic mystery: the three laws (or four laws, as Asimov had in his later books) are completely integral to the plot; the clues are related to robotics and are visible to the viewer, instead of being hidden and revealed after the fact; and the societal impact of the technology is examined.
Even the actress they had playing Susan Calvin was the right age, and there was no romance between her and the main character.
It was a shockingly good science fiction movie.
seekdir and readdir are unreliable when you're modifying the directory being read. The API requirement is that readdir return each directory entry that existed at the time the directory was opened exactly once. In the traditional UNIX implementation, the directory is simply a sequential stream of bytes; this is pretty easy -- you can simply lseek to the position that telldir returned. However, other systems don't use something that simple -- Mac OS X, for example, uses a B-Tree for the catalog file. Worse, they use a single catalog file for the entire filesystem's catalog, meaning that any modifications (adding, removing, or renaming files anywhere) causes the layout to change.
And telldir only returns a long, which -- in most implementations -- is smaller than off_t, so a simplistic implementation can have some problems. Of course, having a directory that's larger than 4GBytes could result in some other problems 8-).
This doesn't seem to have been a particularly well-handled, or deeply-sincere, attempt by Microsoft... so what were they really doing?
This is a sincere question; I've seen a lot of acquisitions (and even hostile takeovers) happen, and this seemed lacking in many ways. Maybe I've missed some of the machinations; maybe not.