The appeals court said Microsoft had ``misconstrued'' part of its June 28 opinion and ``failed to demonstrate any substantial harm that would result from the reactivation of proceedings in the district court during the limited pendency of the (Supreme Court appeal).''
Not a lot more info. Are the court rulings public documents?
And what exactly are you basing that observation on? I have a facimille of the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica and, while some of the articles are a bit shorter that we would expect in a modern volume (famously the complete entry for Woman runs: "the female of man. See Homo.") but it is comprehensive with few, if any, obvious omissions.
Similarly, the French L'Encyclopédie was, with its original 28 and first edition 35 volumes in folio size, a remarkably comprehensive work.
Indeed, I would argue that (commercial) encyclopaedias have a history of being very comprehensive from the first edition onwards. In this spirit, none of the free versions are anywhere close, not even beta.
The point of an encyclopaedia is, indeed, to be comprehensive and also authoritative. I had a look at the "best of Wikipedia" pages, and while the writing was sometimes engaging, on these two counts the articles simply did not measure up.
As an example, look at the article on Calendar. On the first count, that of being comprehansive, it fails obviously by missing half of the articles to specific calendars it mentions at the bottom. (This may change over time.)
On the second count, that of being authoritative, the Encyclopædia Britannica (subscription required, yadayada) runs to 17 double column pages in my printed edition. It mentions over 15 specific calendars, as opposed to the 6 of Wiki (3 of which has no content).
And - I almost forgot! - the Wiki page is factually incorrect. A calendar does not measure time, a clock does. The printed Britannica definition "a calendar is a means of grouping days in ways convenient for regulating life and religious observances and for historical and scientific purposes" is much better.
For the computer programmers out there, think of the calendar as the thing that translates time (time_t or whatever; an event in the Universe) into a date; a date having a legal or social meaning. In this context it is interesting that the calendar can change with eight to ten weeks' notice.
So I guess I'm not impressed yet. Still, it is early days and the project may grow.
If you need a "network administrator" with a "USB keyboard and/or [huh?] 3-button mouse" to get the thing up and running and connected, then it is obviously not for the average Joe luser.
Do you really think that Megacorp Inc is going to buy hundreds of these to their employees? Maybe if it had a bar-code scanner it would be useful for field service people, but I didn't see that included....
Now if this thing had a bar-code reader and it was certified to run SAP, Siebel, et al., then I could see it being bought by the truck load by some companies I know.
The contract builds upon NSA's prior work in
developing a set of new security controls for the Linux kernel and NAI Labs'
prior work in developing an example security policy configuration for these
controls and several additional kernel controls.
Does anybody know what NSA's prior work on the kernel is? Any pointers, web sites,/. articles,... for the un-initiated?
To address the question in the subject of the original/. post: IANAL but as I understand English law, you specifically do not own your body. Some precedence was set in a court a long time ago. Apparently the argument was along the line that since your body is give to you freely by God, you cannot own it. Interesting. In any case: you don't own your body in the sense of property right.
You do seem to have the "right of first use":-), so to speak, in almost all cases except where you are dead or insane. So doctors shouldn't be chopping you into pieces without your knowledge and selling the bits to the highest bidder.
Which is excatly what they have been doing here in the UK. Tissue samples were "donated" to pharmacutical companies in return for monetary donations to the hospital (and, presumably?, the consultant's pet research projects).
This recently caused a bit of an uproar here. It followed the, eh, inappropriate treatment of dead bodies (you really shouldn't just keep them in a heap on the floor in an un-cooled room that happened to be spare, and if you do, then you should never let a photographer in -- as usual the worst sin is to be caught).
I don't think I want to know what they are doing to my (OK, not my) body anymore....
I pay around $2000 a year, including taxes, for a 2M/256k line, 20:1 contention, fully routed with 15 IPs...
Are you sure you mean bucks and not quid? The offering from Demon -- one of the UK's largest ISPs -- is priced at £175 per month, i.e. £2,100 pa or around $3,000 for 2M/256k 20:1 access.
The BT offering is slightly cheaper but (1) you need to have windoze and (2) you MUST use their NAT -- there is no static IP with all ports open option. Did we already mention that BT suxs?
When I change jobs (no, I'm not planning it at the moment) I move countries, unless the UK fixes its infrastructure. Internet access and railways seems to be the most urgent priorities...
Yahoo's new system works like this: Once a message is composed, it travels, unencrypted, to Yahoo, which sends it through a secure connection to SecureDelivery.com. There, the message and any attachments are scrambled.
Does anybody have any idea why they are not using SSL to upload the original message? It seems silly not to...
Somebody mentioned that the message will still be stored in plain-text on Yahoo's servcers. I have never used Yahoo mail, but don't they have an option NOT to store a local copy? Most mail clients have this, and I guess you can always CC yourself to get access to a (more) secure copy of your own mail on the SecureDelivery encryption server.
The public at large and all interested circles may direct their comments to the Directorate General for
the Internal Market, either by mail to the following address: European Commission, DG
Internal Market (MARKT/E/2), Rue de la Loi, 200 (C100 5/13), B - 1049 Brussels, or by e-
mail to be directed to MARKT-SOFTPAT@cec.eu.int . Any comments should be received on or
before 15 December 2000.
I recommend all EU slashdotters to comment. It is more important than voting! Get on with it.
Anyone who knows where you can buy unbleached long life printer paper please let me know...
I happen to care about these things, so:
Try Preservation Equipment (there is a US version but I can't remember it's name -- University-something...):
Mellotex
Mellotex is a smooth brilliant white paper that is manufactured on twin-wire machines for added strength
and stability. The twin-wire technology also creates two identical printing surfaces to achieve perfect
printing results with no paper feeding problems. The smooth uncoated sheet is pH neutral, unbuffered
and 100% elemental chlorine-free. Not only is Mellotex the premier product for use on colour copiers and
digital printing equipment, but it also makes an ideal unbuffered interleaving sheet. The paper conforms to
ISO 9706 requirements for permanence and as such is suitable for archival use or applications requiring
"acid-free" paper.
It's no good without the proper ink. Have a browser around on their site and get a copy of the catalogue (presumably from the US).
I don't get a prompt for this information: they just e-mail the password change URL. Evan after removing the login cookie on my browser, it still lets me get the password with no problems.
I really don't understand what you are doing -- are you using the same links that I described?
The deal about "pre-existing conditions" isn't that they mean you can't get an insurance, just that you have to tell the insurance company when you apply so they can factor the risk into their premium calculations.
The idea is that the insurance company should know everything you know, or they will be over-loaded with "bad risk", i.e. high-risk individuals will disproportionatly seek insurance which actually harms everybody.
Why shouldn't I be able to buy a naked system and not have to pay for Windows again if I was to actually want Windows on the new system?
You are assuming, as are most of the other posters here, that you are buying a copy of the software.
You are not.
You are purchasing the right to keep and use a copy of the software under certain circumstances, as detailed in you EULA.
This is a completely different thing.
There are limits and restrictions on what you can do with the software. Now, I have not read a Microsoft EULA for a long, long time (strictly penguin-ware at home) but it would seem to me that, once you accept the idea of buying this rather neboulous concept of a "licence" [and I, personally, don't think contract law should allow it], then it is quite reasonable that any contractually binding restrictrions can be imposed.
It would seems to be entirely reasonable -- within this framework -- to limit your use to a single computer. I don't know if Microsoft actually does this, but I can't see why they wouldn't? Seems as reasonable as the whole EULA concept [i.e. not at all...]
It fits well with Microsoft's policy of shipping versions of Windows that is "crippled" to a particular hardware configuration.
<rant>
If you value your freedom, then by all means buy and pay good money for a copy of some useful or interesting software. Even if you don't get a copy of the source. But don't sell yourself to lifetime bondage [*] for a copy of edlin.
</rant>
([*] I checked a Microsoft EULA once: your obligations did not end if you returned or destroyed all copied of the software. Even death didn't free you: your estate would still be liable.)
Most significantly, they have changed the kernel header files (to support the 2.4 version). That in itself should be enough to warrant a major version number increment. (That was how we did it in the good old VMS days!)
but it is still a standard 15-pin connector. A USB option is apparently available, but I'm guessing (does anybody know?) that it involves a converter:-)
Unfortunately I have no experiences with this monitor, but if somebody would lend me a sample.....
before a million other people waste bandwidth by asking the same question:
The last line of his post was a flamebait.
I responded seriously to the remainder of the post.
Now can we get back on-topic?
Your comments I can say that without a doubt SMP is the best price/performance solution in contrast to the fastest uni-proc on the market is BS. It really depends on the application. Honest. For general purpose use, e.g. running a workstation at home, you are absolutely right: SMP is an excellent solution, usually very cost-effective (by allowing you to use less than state-of-the-art processors) and is in fact what I use at home.
But if you have a single CPU intensive process that can not be multi-threaded, then you are probably better off with the faster CPU.
And even in a more generic situatuion, if the newer CPU has a bigger cache, you may -- again for some applications -- be better off with the single CPU and the bigger cache (basically if the bulk of your problem fits in the bigger cache but cannot be split in two parts that would fit in a two-way SMP's cache -- two CPUs are no competition against memory latency).
What would be interesting is how it [the Intel CPU] compares with the CPUs that run inside most modern servers.
The problem is that you are starting to compare systems, not just CPUs. Of course this is what you ultimately want to do, but unfortunately this is a little harder. There are many more variables to consider.
Some old numbers are in the classic Unix-vs-NT article at unix-vs-nt.org where you have ByteMarks on I*86 and Sparc platforms using Linux and Solaris (about half way down the article).
I don't know of any more recent benchmarks -- I guess there should be some web server statistics out there somewhere.
The program they make the speed tests with is Intel's iCOMP.
Actually, as far as I can make out, they only used the iCOMP tests for Intel's processors. All other processors were converted from the manufactures benchmark to iCOMP compatible numbers using a "magic formula". The quote from their site is:
The CPU Scorecard benchmarks are based upon Intel's iCOMP, a combined rating of integer, floating-point, internet (Java) and multimedia performance.
Published CPU benchmark scores, including those listed below, are converted to the iCOMP scale using a unique and comprehensive, comparative statistical algorithm.
Sounds like a recipe for biased, unreliable, PHB numbers to me. I'll make a note to avoid this site in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Try the venerable F-SECURE: workstation and firewall products.
Here it says
Not a lot more info. Are the court rulings public documents?
according to this article on the BBC News web site.
Errrr, come on - this is pure FUD. At least try the search before you post, and you'll find articles on
The last of which mentiones Ice T in the second paragraph...
Oh, and it gives you two external guides (The Rough Guide is my favourite) with history and discography.
You are not going to promote Open Source / Open Documents / Community Efforts by being factually incorrect.
And what exactly are you basing that observation on? I have a facimille of the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica and, while some of the articles are a bit shorter that we would expect in a modern volume (famously the complete entry for Woman runs: "the female of man. See Homo.") but it is comprehensive with few, if any, obvious omissions.
Similarly, the French L'Encyclopédie was, with its original 28 and first edition 35 volumes in folio size, a remarkably comprehensive work.
Indeed, I would argue that (commercial) encyclopaedias have a history of being very comprehensive from the first edition onwards. In this spirit, none of the free versions are anywhere close, not even beta.
The point of an encyclopaedia is, indeed, to be comprehensive and also authoritative. I had a look at the "best of Wikipedia" pages, and while the writing was sometimes engaging, on these two counts the articles simply did not measure up.
As an example, look at the article on Calendar. On the first count, that of being comprehansive, it fails obviously by missing half of the articles to specific calendars it mentions at the bottom. (This may change over time.)
On the second count, that of being authoritative, the Encyclopædia Britannica (subscription required, yadayada) runs to 17 double column pages in my printed edition. It mentions over 15 specific calendars, as opposed to the 6 of Wiki (3 of which has no content).
And - I almost forgot! - the Wiki page is factually incorrect. A calendar does not measure time, a clock does. The printed Britannica definition "a calendar is a means of grouping days in ways convenient for regulating life and religious observances and for historical and scientific purposes" is much better.
For the computer programmers out there, think of the calendar as the thing that translates time (time_t or whatever; an event in the Universe) into a date; a date having a legal or social meaning. In this context it is interesting that the calendar can change with eight to ten weeks' notice.
So I guess I'm not impressed yet. Still, it is early days and the project may grow.
If you need a "network administrator" with a "USB keyboard and/or [huh?] 3-button mouse" to get the thing up and running and connected, then it is obviously not for the average Joe luser.
Do you really think that Megacorp Inc is going to buy hundreds of these to their employees? Maybe if it had a bar-code scanner it would be useful for field service people, but I didn't see that included....
Now if this thing had a bar-code reader and it was certified to run SAP, Siebel, et al., then I could see it being bought by the truck load by some companies I know.
But as it is: who is it for?
Funny!
But for reference: it's licenced under the GPL - that's the normal GPL.
Stupid me: should have checked the NSA web site for the information.
Does anybody know what NSA's prior work on the kernel is? Any pointers, web sites, /. articles, ... for the un-initiated?
To address the question in the subject of the original /. post: IANAL but as I understand English law, you specifically do not own your body. Some precedence was set in a court a long time ago. Apparently the argument was along the line that since your body is give to you freely by God, you cannot own it. Interesting. In any case: you don't own your body in the sense of property right.
You do seem to have the "right of first use" :-), so to speak, in almost all cases except where you are dead or insane. So doctors shouldn't be chopping you into pieces without your knowledge and selling the bits to the highest bidder.
Which is excatly what they have been doing here in the UK. Tissue samples were "donated" to pharmacutical companies in return for monetary donations to the hospital (and, presumably?, the consultant's pet research projects).
This recently caused a bit of an uproar here. It followed the, eh, inappropriate treatment of dead bodies (you really shouldn't just keep them in a heap on the floor in an un-cooled room that happened to be spare, and if you do, then you should never let a photographer in -- as usual the worst sin is to be caught).
I don't think I want to know what they are doing to my (OK, not my) body anymore....
The average population density in Japan is 334 people per square kilometer. In the USA it is 29.
Distribution problems will probably kill your suggestion until the energy problems gets much worse.
Are you sure you mean bucks and not quid? The offering from Demon -- one of the UK's largest ISPs -- is priced at £175 per month, i.e. £2,100 pa or around $3,000 for 2M/256k 20:1 access.
The BT offering is slightly cheaper but (1) you need to have windoze and (2) you MUST use their NAT -- there is no static IP with all ports open option. Did we already mention that BT suxs?
When I change jobs (no, I'm not planning it at the moment) I move countries, unless the UK fixes its infrastructure. Internet access and railways seems to be the most urgent priorities...
Does anybody have any idea why they are not using SSL to upload the original message? It seems silly not to...
Somebody mentioned that the message will still be stored in plain-text on Yahoo's servcers. I have never used Yahoo mail, but don't they have an option NOT to store a local copy? Most mail clients have this, and I guess you can always CC yourself to get access to a (more) secure copy of your own mail on the SecureDelivery encryption server.
Here - there is even an e-mail address:
I recommend all EU slashdotters to comment. It is more important than voting! Get on with it.
I happen to care about these things, so:
Try Preservation Equipment (there is a US version but I can't remember it's name -- University-something...):
It's no good without the proper ink. Have a browser around on their site and get a copy of the catalogue (presumably from the US).
I'm just a happy customer...
I don't get a prompt for this information: they just e-mail the password change URL. Evan after removing the login cookie on my browser, it still lets me get the password with no problems.
I really don't understand what you are doing -- are you using the same links that I described?
I don't know about the links in the e-mail, but if you go to Amazon.com and scroll to the bottom you'll find a Privacy Notice link.
Click on it, and on the resulting page you find a Customer Communication Preferences link.
Click on it, type your e-mail, select the forgotten password option and hit continue.
This will e-mail the password. Then update your e-mail preferences using the same two starting links.
I don't seem to have your problem?
IMHO Amazon.com has done a reasonable job of responding to the privacy and spam concerns of their customers. YMMV
The deal about "pre-existing conditions" isn't that they mean you can't get an insurance, just that you have to tell the insurance company when you apply so they can factor the risk into their premium calculations.
The idea is that the insurance company should know everything you know, or they will be over-loaded with "bad risk", i.e. high-risk individuals will disproportionatly seek insurance which actually harms everybody.
You are assuming, as are most of the other posters here, that you are buying a copy of the software.
You are not.
You are purchasing the right to keep and use a copy of the software under certain circumstances, as detailed in you EULA.
This is a completely different thing.
There are limits and restrictions on what you can do with the software. Now, I have not read a Microsoft EULA for a long, long time (strictly penguin-ware at home) but it would seem to me that, once you accept the idea of buying this rather neboulous concept of a "licence" [and I, personally, don't think contract law should allow it], then it is quite reasonable that any contractually binding restrictrions can be imposed.
It would seems to be entirely reasonable -- within this framework -- to limit your use to a single computer. I don't know if Microsoft actually does this, but I can't see why they wouldn't? Seems as reasonable as the whole EULA concept [i.e. not at all...]
It fits well with Microsoft's policy of shipping versions of Windows that is "crippled" to a particular hardware configuration.
<rant>
If you value your freedom, then by all means buy and pay good money for a copy of some useful or interesting software. Even if you don't get a copy of the source. But don't sell yourself to lifetime bondage [*] for a copy of edlin.
</rant>
([*] I checked a Microsoft EULA once: your obligations did not end if you returned or destroyed all copied of the software. Even death didn't free you: your estate would still be liable.)
Uh, eh, umm, excellent point :-( Mea Maxima Culpa
Most significantly, they have changed the kernel header files (to support the 2.4 version). That in itself should be enough to warrant a major version number increment. (That was how we did it in the good old VMS days!)
Red Hat lists the enhancements as
Yes, I like the Samsung SyncMaster 770TFT as well (and am using it now!), but the poster asked for;
So it doesn't really fit the bill, does it?
I think the poster need the SyncMaster 1100p+. It has
but it is still a standard 15-pin connector. A USB option is apparently available, but I'm guessing (does anybody know?) that it involves a converter :-)
Unfortunately I have no experiences with this monitor, but if somebody would lend me a sample.....
before a million other people waste bandwidth by asking the same question:
The last line of his post was a flamebait.
I responded seriously to the remainder of the post.
Now can we get back on-topic?
Your comments I can say that without a doubt SMP is the best price/performance solution in contrast to the fastest uni-proc on the market is BS. It really depends on the application. Honest. For general purpose use, e.g. running a workstation at home, you are absolutely right: SMP is an excellent solution, usually very cost-effective (by allowing you to use less than state-of-the-art processors) and is in fact what I use at home.
But if you have a single CPU intensive process that can not be multi-threaded, then you are probably better off with the faster CPU.
And even in a more generic situatuion, if the newer CPU has a bigger cache, you may -- again for some applications -- be better off with the single CPU and the bigger cache (basically if the bulk of your problem fits in the bigger cache but cannot be split in two parts that would fit in a two-way SMP's cache -- two CPUs are no competition against memory latency).
The problem is that you are starting to compare systems, not just CPUs. Of course this is what you ultimately want to do, but unfortunately this is a little harder. There are many more variables to consider.
Some old numbers are in the classic Unix-vs-NT article at unix-vs-nt.org where you have ByteMarks on I*86 and Sparc platforms using Linux and Solaris (about half way down the article).
I don't know of any more recent benchmarks -- I guess there should be some web server statistics out there somewhere.
Actually, as far as I can make out, they only used the iCOMP tests for Intel's processors. All other processors were converted from the manufactures benchmark to iCOMP compatible numbers using a "magic formula". The quote from their site is:
Sounds like a recipe for biased, unreliable, PHB numbers to me. I'll make a note to avoid this site in the future.