There's a reason for that. ~90%+ of computers on earth are running Windows, while it's estimated that Macs control about 2.5% of the market. If you're writing malware to hurt people, do you want to do it to a very small minority? No, you want to go after the big group, because you get the most victims that way.
It's only illegal if he infects other peoples' computers with it. If he's only using it in his own testing environment, there's nothing illegal about it at all.
If by "well versed in frauds and half-truths" you mean well versed in spreading their own brand of propoganda and half-truths, then yes, you are correct.
I dunno about that, I think you're making a leap with the "law as a measure of morality" and the "measuring stick for trust."
I don't typically trust someone on how much they pay attention to breaking or not breaking the law; I trust them based on how dodgy I perceive them to be. This *can* be related to laws that they choose to ignore or not, but it's not a requirement.
Just as law and morality intersect, and some things that are considered immoral by most (i.e, killing) are also illegal does not mean that morality and legality are actually related on a grander scale. What you hold as morally right, the guy next to you may not agree. Laws have to address a larger society, within which there are many different, sometimes conflicting, moral belief systems, and law has to address all of these equally.
I find it interesting how there is a group of people who have a huge hardon for the BSD license, and a group of people who have a hardon for GPL, and then everyone else who uses FOSS sits in the middle somewhere.
The net neutrality talk isn't making things cheaper, fiber is just becoming more proliferate and easy to manufacture. Overall bandwidth is increasing due to sheer inevitability.
The internet will be ruined if it becomes tiered. It stands to put smaller ISPs out of business, and increase net cost for the end user, thus lining the pockets of the major ISP execs... sorry, but that's just not something most people want to see.
Let's not turn the Internet into RIAA/MPAA v2.0.
"So we built a technology bridge, and we built an IP bridge and a commercial framework that supports that. Novell said to us, 'Hey, look, if you're serious about this stuff, you better help us promote Suse Linux.' To which we said, 'You know we're trying to sell Windows, that's what we do for a living! Windows, Windows, Windows, baby! We don't do Linux that way here.'
"What we agreed, which is true, is we'll continue to try to grow Windows share at the expense of Linux. That's kind of our job. But to the degree that people are going to deploy Linux, we want Suse Linux to have the highest percent share of that, because only a customer who has Suse Linux actually has paid properly for the use of intellectual property from Microsoft. And we took a quota, you could say, to help them sell so much Suse Linux.That's part of the deal. We are willing to do the same deal with Red Hat and other Linux distributors, it's not an exclusive thing. But after a few years of working on this problem, Novell actually saw the business opportunity, because there's so many customers who say, 'Hey look, we don't want problems. We don't want any intellectual property problem or anything else. There's just a variety of workloads where we, today, feel like we want to run Linux. Please help us Microsoft and please work with the distributors to solve this problem, don't come try to license this individually.' So customer push drove us to where we got."
So basically they think Linux users want their help? Since when? I've never heard of a Linux guy/girl saying "zomg please help me Microsoft! I love you!" Usually it's the complete opposite. That's called 'delusions of grandeur,' Mr. Ballmer.
And besides, last time I checked, Microsoft has never once innovated anything. MSDOS was bought by Gates from the guy who wrote it (QDOS, then). Windows borrowed its GUI from MacOS, which borrowed its GUI from Xerox. The DirectX idea came from OpenGL. Et cetera, et cetera. And that's why they won't say which Microsoft "innovations" Linux is infringing upon.
I think they're trying this because their little SCO scam is losing in court, so they're moving to Plan B.
...it's chipping away at my civil rights. No longer is the first ammendment 100% inclusive anymore! It has moved from "freedom of speech" to "freedom of speech unless you say..."
fun stuff to do with/dev/urandom
cat/dev/urandom >/dev/mouse (Should be fun to watch)
cat/dev/urandom >/dev/hda1 (I suspect this randomizes the harddrive contents)
cat/dev/urandom >/boot/bzImage (Warning! This will make the computer unable to boot)
And if it's 1000 times slower, it takes 1000 times as long to do. Supposing it took 1 minute to process on the supercomputer, it takes you 16 hours, 40 minutes (give or take a couple of milliseconds) to process. Would you rather wait two hours and a minute for the data, or almost 17 hours? Personally, I'd take the 2 hours.
And broadcasting messages to all users! Oooh thats fun. And when you fix their stuff,
shutdown -r now
Broadcast from root:
The system is going down for maintenance NOW!!
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/opteron-1 9.html
Looks to me like the opterons pretty much beat the pants off of barton 3000+'s in most FPU ops, but a few are only by a slim margin. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that there's two opterons, and only one barton.
Its probably better to compare the dual opterons to the dual xeons... in which case the opterons did 2-3x better, in everything but mflops. But that probably has to do with the xeon's having almost twice the frequency of the opterons. (the xeons were 3.06GHz, and the opterons were 1.8GHz)
Re:$2 million for a computer?
on
Cray XT-3 Ships
·
· Score: 1
It's a supercomputer. You use it for taking over the wor- I mean, things like rendering a feature-length CG movie. Or doing the special effects for Star Wars ep. 3 _
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately not everyone is as optimistic about it as you, but I hope that they're wrong ;)
There's a reason for that. ~90%+ of computers on earth are running Windows, while it's estimated that Macs control about 2.5% of the market. If you're writing malware to hurt people, do you want to do it to a very small minority? No, you want to go after the big group, because you get the most victims that way.
It's only illegal if he infects other peoples' computers with it. If he's only using it in his own testing environment, there's nothing illegal about it at all.
If by "well versed in frauds and half-truths" you mean well versed in spreading their own brand of propoganda and half-truths, then yes, you are correct.
Apache is very well written, as is Konqueror.
Yeah but in the end the best code is written by the Software Engineers ;)
I dunno about that, I think you're making a leap with the "law as a measure of morality" and the "measuring stick for trust." I don't typically trust someone on how much they pay attention to breaking or not breaking the law; I trust them based on how dodgy I perceive them to be. This *can* be related to laws that they choose to ignore or not, but it's not a requirement. Just as law and morality intersect, and some things that are considered immoral by most (i.e, killing) are also illegal does not mean that morality and legality are actually related on a grander scale. What you hold as morally right, the guy next to you may not agree. Laws have to address a larger society, within which there are many different, sometimes conflicting, moral belief systems, and law has to address all of these equally.
I find it interesting how there is a group of people who have a huge hardon for the BSD license, and a group of people who have a hardon for GPL, and then everyone else who uses FOSS sits in the middle somewhere.
Someone beat you to the punch. http://www.slashgear.com/wii-power-glove-092860.ph p/
Talk about a challenge. The best way to keep a cracker from cracking your security would be to implement it and then stfu.
The net neutrality talk isn't making things cheaper, fiber is just becoming more proliferate and easy to manufacture. Overall bandwidth is increasing due to sheer inevitability. The internet will be ruined if it becomes tiered. It stands to put smaller ISPs out of business, and increase net cost for the end user, thus lining the pockets of the major ISP execs... sorry, but that's just not something most people want to see. Let's not turn the Internet into RIAA/MPAA v2.0.
Yeah, but that was not the intended meaning of questionable.
This was:
questionable
-adjective
1. of doubtful propriety, honesty, morality, respectability, etc.
- from dictionary.com
And it certainly fits the list you gave.
quote:
"So we built a technology bridge, and we built an IP bridge and a commercial framework that supports that. Novell said to us, 'Hey, look, if you're serious about this stuff, you better help us promote Suse Linux.' To which we said, 'You know we're trying to sell Windows, that's what we do for a living! Windows, Windows, Windows, baby! We don't do Linux that way here.'
"What we agreed, which is true, is we'll continue to try to grow Windows share at the expense of Linux. That's kind of our job. But to the degree that people are going to deploy Linux, we want Suse Linux to have the highest percent share of that, because only a customer who has Suse Linux actually has paid properly for the use of intellectual property from Microsoft. And we took a quota, you could say, to help them sell so much Suse Linux.That's part of the deal. We are willing to do the same deal with Red Hat and other Linux distributors, it's not an exclusive thing. But after a few years of working on this problem, Novell actually saw the business opportunity, because there's so many customers who say, 'Hey look, we don't want problems. We don't want any intellectual property problem or anything else. There's just a variety of workloads where we, today, feel like we want to run Linux. Please help us Microsoft and please work with the distributors to solve this problem, don't come try to license this individually.' So customer push drove us to where we got."
So basically they think Linux users want their help? Since when? I've never heard of a Linux guy/girl saying "zomg please help me Microsoft! I love you!" Usually it's the complete opposite. That's called 'delusions of grandeur,' Mr. Ballmer.
And besides, last time I checked, Microsoft has never once innovated anything. MSDOS was bought by Gates from the guy who wrote it (QDOS, then). Windows borrowed its GUI from MacOS, which borrowed its GUI from Xerox. The DirectX idea came from OpenGL. Et cetera, et cetera. And that's why they won't say which Microsoft "innovations" Linux is infringing upon.
I think they're trying this because their little SCO scam is losing in court, so they're moving to Plan B.
...it's chipping away at my civil rights. No longer is the first ammendment 100% inclusive anymore! It has moved from "freedom of speech" to "freedom of speech unless you say..."
fun stuff to do with /dev/urandom /dev/urandom >/dev/mouse (Should be fun to watch) /dev/urandom >/dev/hda1 (I suspect this randomizes the harddrive contents) /dev/urandom >/boot/bzImage (Warning! This will make the computer unable to boot)
cat
cat
cat
And if it's 1000 times slower, it takes 1000 times as long to do. Supposing it took 1 minute to process on the supercomputer, it takes you 16 hours, 40 minutes (give or take a couple of milliseconds) to process. Would you rather wait two hours and a minute for the data, or almost 17 hours? Personally, I'd take the 2 hours.
And here I was thinking AOL was the biggest commercial supporter of spam. I guess they finally started to form a clue in their tiny little minds?
And broadcasting messages to all users! Oooh thats fun. And when you fix their stuff, shutdown -r now Broadcast from root: The system is going down for maintenance NOW!!
But think about this... if it takes an hour to send it to a cray, then it's going to take a lot longer to send to any other machine.
The only solution is for everyone to get large beowulf clusters. Now if we can only fit that into the budget...
I wonder how much the 30,000-odd CPU model would cost. Imagine the solitaire on that!
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/opteron-1 9.html
Looks to me like the opterons pretty much beat the pants off of barton 3000+'s in most FPU ops, but a few are only by a slim margin. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that there's two opterons, and only one barton.
Its probably better to compare the dual opterons to the dual xeons... in which case the opterons did 2-3x better, in everything but mflops. But that probably has to do with the xeon's having almost twice the frequency of the opterons. (the xeons were 3.06GHz, and the opterons were 1.8GHz)
It's a supercomputer. You use it for taking over the wor- I mean, things like rendering a feature-length CG movie. Or doing the special effects for Star Wars ep. 3 _