Because everybody knows that companies should invest millions of dollars to develop technologies which should then be given away for free. That's the only workable business model, right?
No, I'm not a fan of patent trolls; but this isn't patent trolling. IBM has created a new, better way to embed cache RAM on the CPU die, at a signifigant cost in both manpower and materiel. This isn't like they patented "a method to check customers out with one click" or something similarly banal. This is a real, new technology which took a great deal of time, energy and work to create. No "prior art", no "trivially obvious" - this is exactly the kind of technological advancement which patents should protect.
IBM's BlueGene is a massively parallel supercomput
on
Supercruncher Applications
·
· Score: 2, Informative
With hundreds (thousands) of independent cores working on the same problem, it's parallel.
Yes, that's the whole crux of the matter - rpm can't (shouldn't) automagically elevate its priveledges - in fact, once running, it's running with the authority of the UID which launched it - period. No priveledge elevation on the fly here (and I consider that a really good thing)!
Let's say rather that you need root authority to install rpm packages for use by all users.
rpm itself doesn't require root authority, and if everything you intend to do with rpm happens in directories to which you have write authority, rpm will work just fine.
By default, rpm does use directories (notably, in/var) which will require running with root authority; but this can be overridden with command line switches (say, to install an rpm which will only be used by you).
I don't think I can post a response long enough to ennumerate all the reasons why it ain't happenin'. I'll just hit the heights . ..
1) Nobody was there before MicroSoft. IBM could've been, but they misjudged terribly the actual scope and nature of the PC market (incidentally, even IBM wasn't there first - anybody remember Heath Z80's or Commodore's PET?). Apple can't just walk to the top of the hill - they have to displace the current king o' the hill first.
2) Microsoft's products may have always been iffy when it comes to QC, but so much of what they did was cutting edge - even when they were copying the competition! I have a friend who swears that M$ Word was the first WYSIWYG word processor, but I'd swear I saw a Macintosh doing it before M$ got to market. Either way, M$'s WYSIWYG office products and their flight simulator were hailed as revolutionary when they hit the market - because they were. Individual users and even business users accepted egregious mistakes and shortcomings because the new software was cool!
3) Microsoft's upper management - from Mr. B. Gates on down - have always had a clear vision: business first, cool tech second (or further down?). We Linux types tend to point out the results of this kind of thinking (buggy software, vulnerable OS's, exploits which cause a "what were they thinking" response), but we often fail to observe the results of this kind of thinking (checked the price of M$ stock lately? How 'bout the company's net worth? Mr. Gates' net worth?).
4) Even though most individuals tend to view DRM as evil (necessary or not is a subject for another debate), MicroSoft puts it in everything they make. Why? Because big business is where the big bucks are at; and big businesses love things that'll perpetuate their business model (see: patents), even when it's outmoded, superannuated and ineffective. Apple may be willing to play ball with DRM as a necessary evil, but MicroSoft has not only embraced DRM but even looks poised to marry it. It doesn't matter what a few hundred thousand geeks decide to do with their individual desktop dollars - big business makes us the monetary minority in a huge way.
The remaining dozen or so reasons why Apple will not be able to displace Microsoft (in the forseeable future) are left as an exercise for the reader to find.
The amplitude of the strings (which make up the fundamental particles, which make up the matter and energy in the universe) is decreasing. The Universe is maintaining a constant size; however, the particles within that Universe are shrinking, giving us the illusion that the Universe is expanding.
When the energy state of all strings is zero, the Universe will be empty. No big crunch. No big rip. Just heat-death. I'm so certain of it, I'll bet my paycheck on it - but good luck collecting on the bet!
I know I'll sleep better if non-certified code such as you describe is agressively and immediately removed from government servers.
Validation exists for a reason. If you feel the criteria are too lax, you should be lobbying to have them tightened, not proclaiming "oh, well. C'est la vie!".
Then again, perhaps you have a vested interest in denigrating the validation process - by your own declaration, you have non-validated code ostensibly running where it shouldn't be? How much do you stand to lose here if government entities start aligning theory and practice?
For who? Please tell me the U. S. Government. Ple-e-e-ase?
It would just confirm my estimate of the IQ of the average civil-servant! (with apologies to all three of those civil servants out there with IQ's > 80)
Non-validated tools are worthless. The likelihood of their being used as tools by any branch of the government (including the banks) is virtually nil today. D'you really think business will follow where the government/banking industry won't go, or end users (with no business or government end-points to connect to)?
And of course, any moron can "write an insecure application" using any tools. Writing a secure application, OTOH . . .
Surveillance began after Beavan went to Bournemouth police with a DVD containing information from chat logs...
This guy sounds a lot like Stone Phillips (without the newscrew, of course). So . . . is this guy really a vigilante, or is he just a perv who got cold feet?
Mac ads constantly rag on a hardware platform (PC - as in x86 architecture).
Even though the viewing public, a.k.a. Joe Sixpack, knows it Windows the Mac ads are attacking, their literal effect is to make Linux fanboi's like myself (yes, I can admit that about myself) want to jump up and yell that PC is a FAR more flexible player than MAC.
I can't believe I just posted that. I'm going to go wash my mind out with bleach now.
Apple is ragging on PC - probably about something involving music, personal media, whatever. In the middle of this, three executives walk up, look at PC and say "Excuse us, but we need you back at work now" - leaving the Mac looking awkward, confused and alone.
Apple is ragging on PC - the usual story - and in the middle, up walks a red demon and a penguin who PC introduces as his "brothers".
As are any lamps/lighting fixtures without sufficient room for the (bulkier) flourescent "twisty" bulbs.
What next, outlaw electric heat as inefficient (personal experience, gas is better for furnaces and water heaters)? How 'bout SUV's? Recreational watercraft/atv's/aircraft? I know - how 'bout CRT's? LCD's/plasma displays have much lower power requirements than CRT's.
Incidentally, how well will one of these flourescents work/hold up in my oven? How will it work in my granddaughter's E-Z bake oven? Also, I can see the flicker from flourescents - it gives me headaches on some days. Can I get an exemption on health grounds? Never mind that it'll make visiting my friends problemmatic.
Even if it passes, this law will be unenforceable. The state of California will be sued (further) into oblivion if this passes.
Just how is a US law like this supposed to tear down the Great FireWall of China?
Oh, that's right - instead of complying with Chinese law, these players will tell the Chinese government "We can't hand over the records you've requested as a matter of US law".
Previously, they capitulated because their only choice was to face being blocked by China's Great FireWall. This changes that how?
People once thought that about automobile exhaust.
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 1
Been to Los Angeles lately?:D
I'm almost certainly overstating the point, but we've gotten to where we are by not looking before we leap. New technology; I think that at least a phased introduction would be in order. Pilot programs - if the impact is as minimal as most here seem to think, then a pilot program should readily prove that. If not (unlikely, but possible) then we could save ourselves a whole world of heartburn.
I'm sure 5% would be enough to cause an environmental impact.
As I said elsewhere, my little automobile is well-tuned and doesn't put too many pollutants in the air - by itself. Something about the difference between being crushed by a boulder or buried under 10,000 pebbles. The first is far more dramatic; but the second is equally lethal, less obvious and harder to prevent.
Y'know, my automobile only puts out a tiny amount of pollutants - by itself. Put my car together with, say, 150,000 others and let us all drive around the San Fernando Valley for awhile.
What? You mean that's already been done? What's the air like out there?
I suppose my suburban US baises were showing there. Yes, I would accept any gawdawful eyesore to preserve my way of life.
I don't know if this thing is patentable, though - once the wind generates power, using that power (or passive air cooling) to condense water from air should be fairly trivial. Of course, the efficiency of the mechanism which generates that power from wind would be crucial (and is probably the part he's patenting).
While we're at it, we should consider investing in
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 1
Incidentally, anybody here but me wondering what effect dessicating ambient air will have on the ecosystem? One guy, one installation, no big - you put 1,000 of these in 1 square mile, I bet you get a dry microclimate. Fill a city with these babies, you could well have an impact on weather patterns for hundreds of miles.
This isn't like, say, hydroelectric energy production - there, the water is only slowed slightly in its natural journey to the lowest point it can find. Here, you're extracting a trace gas (water vapor) from air - not slowing it down (think: classic windmill, hydroelectric dam) but taking it out (think: pumping water out of a lake/river/well for irrigation).
Besides - people already balk at the idea of having a wind farm near their residence (classic NIMBY reaction). Just 'cuz these 'mills make water instead of electricity doesn't make 'em any less of an eyesore.
That's a thought . . . but OTOH I have a built-in, affirmative defense should the *AA determine that I am a pirate.
I'm told that I'm responsible for network activity on my IP regardless of the unsecured wireless; but to date I'm not sure anybody has tested that in court (most of the *AA's prior victims have settled out rather than make that argument). I'm watching the case of a Ms. Lindor of New York to see how the hash will settle on this question.
Taking your logical argument one step further, even secured wireless routers are vulnerable.
I have an old class-b wireless router; it'll only do 128-bit WEP. My new class-g wireless router'll do WPA, but that's been broken as well (a friend of mine demonstrated that to me just this last weekend).
Both my wireless routers (in two different residences, BTW) are set to "wide open" nowadays. I figure "why bother?", when script kiddies like my buddy can just download the latest and greatest crack to break my encryption in minutes. Of course, I've removed the antennae; my machines (in the house) get "fair" signal strength, but I'm sure to get at my wireless routers from outside will require a cantenna.
An inordinately high percentage of "pirated" video materials are produced in Hollywood. Therefore, Hollywood is ultimately responsible for the majority of video piracy.
Also, a recent study of divorced couples showed that in 100% of all cases the couple were married. Therefore, marraige leads directly to divorce.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not a fan of patent trolls; but this isn't patent trolling. IBM has created a new, better way to embed cache RAM on the CPU die, at a signifigant cost in both manpower and materiel. This isn't like they patented "a method to check customers out with one click" or something similarly banal. This is a real, new technology which took a great deal of time, energy and work to create. No "prior art", no "trivially obvious" - this is exactly the kind of technological advancement which patents should protect.
I've seen the things - trust me, they're massive!
Nice try, Micro$oft guy!
Yes, that's the whole crux of the matter - rpm can't (shouldn't) automagically elevate its priveledges - in fact, once running, it's running with the authority of the UID which launched it - period. No priveledge elevation on the fly here (and I consider that a really good thing)!
rpm itself doesn't require root authority, and if everything you intend to do with rpm happens in directories to which you have write authority, rpm will work just fine.
By default, rpm does use directories (notably, in /var) which will require running with root authority; but this can be overridden with command line switches (say, to install an rpm which will only be used by you).
RTFM.
I don't think I can post a response long enough to ennumerate all the reasons why it ain't happenin'. I'll just hit the heights . . .
1) Nobody was there before MicroSoft. IBM could've been, but they misjudged terribly the actual scope and nature of the PC market (incidentally, even IBM wasn't there first - anybody remember Heath Z80's or Commodore's PET?). Apple can't just walk to the top of the hill - they have to displace the current king o' the hill first.
2) Microsoft's products may have always been iffy when it comes to QC, but so much of what they did was cutting edge - even when they were copying the competition! I have a friend who swears that M$ Word was the first WYSIWYG word processor, but I'd swear I saw a Macintosh doing it before M$ got to market. Either way, M$'s WYSIWYG office products and their flight simulator were hailed as revolutionary when they hit the market - because they were. Individual users and even business users accepted egregious mistakes and shortcomings because the new software was cool!
3) Microsoft's upper management - from Mr. B. Gates on down - have always had a clear vision: business first, cool tech second (or further down?). We Linux types tend to point out the results of this kind of thinking (buggy software, vulnerable OS's, exploits which cause a "what were they thinking" response), but we often fail to observe the results of this kind of thinking (checked the price of M$ stock lately? How 'bout the company's net worth? Mr. Gates' net worth?).
4) Even though most individuals tend to view DRM as evil (necessary or not is a subject for another debate), MicroSoft puts it in everything they make. Why? Because big business is where the big bucks are at; and big businesses love things that'll perpetuate their business model (see: patents), even when it's outmoded, superannuated and ineffective. Apple may be willing to play ball with DRM as a necessary evil, but MicroSoft has not only embraced DRM but even looks poised to marry it. It doesn't matter what a few hundred thousand geeks decide to do with their individual desktop dollars - big business makes us the monetary minority in a huge way.
The remaining dozen or so reasons why Apple will not be able to displace Microsoft (in the forseeable future) are left as an exercise for the reader to find.
When the energy state of all strings is zero, the Universe will be empty. No big crunch. No big rip. Just heat-death. I'm so certain of it, I'll bet my paycheck on it - but good luck collecting on the bet!
Validation exists for a reason. If you feel the criteria are too lax, you should be lobbying to have them tightened, not proclaiming "oh, well. C'est la vie!".
Then again, perhaps you have a vested interest in denigrating the validation process - by your own declaration, you have non-validated code ostensibly running where it shouldn't be? How much do you stand to lose here if government entities start aligning theory and practice?
It would just confirm my estimate of the IQ of the average civil-servant! (with apologies to all three of those civil servants out there with IQ's > 80)
And of course, any moron can "write an insecure application" using any tools. Writing a secure application, OTOH . . .
There's just something wrong about a crewman who never smiles!
And from a related article here:
This guy sounds a lot like Stone Phillips (without the newscrew, of course). So . . . is this guy really a vigilante, or is he just a perv who got cold feet?
Even though the viewing public, a.k.a. Joe Sixpack, knows it Windows the Mac ads are attacking, their literal effect is to make Linux fanboi's like myself (yes, I can admit that about myself) want to jump up and yell that PC is a FAR more flexible player than MAC.
I can't believe I just posted that. I'm going to go wash my mind out with bleach now.
Apple is ragging on PC - the usual story - and in the middle, up walks a red demon and a penguin who PC introduces as his "brothers".
First Post! (?)
What next, outlaw electric heat as inefficient (personal experience, gas is better for furnaces and water heaters)? How 'bout SUV's? Recreational watercraft/atv's/aircraft? I know - how 'bout CRT's? LCD's/plasma displays have much lower power requirements than CRT's.
Incidentally, how well will one of these flourescents work/hold up in my oven? How will it work in my granddaughter's E-Z bake oven? Also, I can see the flicker from flourescents - it gives me headaches on some days. Can I get an exemption on health grounds? Never mind that it'll make visiting my friends problemmatic.
Even if it passes, this law will be unenforceable. The state of California will be sued (further) into oblivion if this passes.
Oh, that's right - instead of complying with Chinese law, these players will tell the Chinese government "We can't hand over the records you've requested as a matter of US law".
Previously, they capitulated because their only choice was to face being blocked by China's Great FireWall. This changes that how?
I'm almost certainly overstating the point, but we've gotten to where we are by not looking before we leap. New technology; I think that at least a phased introduction would be in order. Pilot programs - if the impact is as minimal as most here seem to think, then a pilot program should readily prove that. If not (unlikely, but possible) then we could save ourselves a whole world of heartburn.
As I said elsewhere, my little automobile is well-tuned and doesn't put too many pollutants in the air - by itself. Something about the difference between being crushed by a boulder or buried under 10,000 pebbles. The first is far more dramatic; but the second is equally lethal, less obvious and harder to prevent.
(Atmosphere gets thinner and drier as you go up).
Y'know, my automobile only puts out a tiny amount of pollutants - by itself. Put my car together with, say, 150,000 others and let us all drive around the San Fernando Valley for awhile.
What? You mean that's already been done? What's the air like out there?
I don't know if this thing is patentable, though - once the wind generates power, using that power (or passive air cooling) to condense water from air should be fairly trivial. Of course, the efficiency of the mechanism which generates that power from wind would be crucial (and is probably the part he's patenting).
Incidentally, anybody here but me wondering what effect dessicating ambient air will have on the ecosystem? One guy, one installation, no big - you put 1,000 of these in 1 square mile, I bet you get a dry microclimate. Fill a city with these babies, you could well have an impact on weather patterns for hundreds of miles.
This isn't like, say, hydroelectric energy production - there, the water is only slowed slightly in its natural journey to the lowest point it can find. Here, you're extracting a trace gas (water vapor) from air - not slowing it down (think: classic windmill, hydroelectric dam) but taking it out (think: pumping water out of a lake/river/well for irrigation).
Besides - people already balk at the idea of having a wind farm near their residence (classic NIMBY reaction). Just 'cuz these 'mills make water instead of electricity doesn't make 'em any less of an eyesore.
I'm told that I'm responsible for network activity on my IP regardless of the unsecured wireless; but to date I'm not sure anybody has tested that in court (most of the *AA's prior victims have settled out rather than make that argument). I'm watching the case of a Ms. Lindor of New York to see how the hash will settle on this question.
I have an old class-b wireless router; it'll only do 128-bit WEP. My new class-g wireless router'll do WPA, but that's been broken as well (a friend of mine demonstrated that to me just this last weekend).
Both my wireless routers (in two different residences, BTW) are set to "wide open" nowadays. I figure "why bother?", when script kiddies like my buddy can just download the latest and greatest crack to break my encryption in minutes. Of course, I've removed the antennae; my machines (in the house) get "fair" signal strength, but I'm sure to get at my wireless routers from outside will require a cantenna.
Also, a recent study of divorced couples showed that in 100% of all cases the couple were married. Therefore, marraige leads directly to divorce.