> They can download all the software they want, surf the web and write their email all on the same system they use for their data analysis without worry and I'm not getting calls or visits to my office saying "Ummmmmmm. I think my system is infected"
I assume then you're referring to them being able to download all sorts of windows software after which they'll be unable to run it. If you can run any bit of software, you one day will just stumble over some bit of spyware or virus. The only difference between a virus/spyware and a normal program is that the normal program does what the user tells it to and a virus/spyware program does what its creator tells it to do. A computer can't tell who is giving out the orders.
Mac's aren't immune, they're just very incompatible.
Whadda ya mean, 2+2 > 0? I thought we were all doing modulus calculations... sure as hell gives me lower prices at the supermarket, although it's usually preceded by a fierce fight with the store clerk...
I always thought mars to be the embodiment of the best place to have sex in... It's large, nobody can see you (well, that used to be true), it's already red and it's got a lot of temperature for you to compensate.
Microsoft can't get a reasonable research done without paying for it, and if they pay for it the people they pay will pretty much say anything they want to. Microsoft has something to lose if the test tells anybody they are not the all-over winners, so the test will show that they are and thus be totally useless. Most, if not all, Microsoft-funded researchers I've seen reports from always report between 25 and 500% profit from using Microsoft software, with the top number being implied as the generic profit.
On the other hand, Apache (and the other OSS guys) also have something to lose by showing a solely bad report. They don't have anything to fear from partly bad reports or good reports. They can be largely trusted, but keep in mind that there is a good chance that they're completely sucking in one or more departments. I've seen these papers include one or two benchmarks that show >100% profit but they can usually be claimed to a single obvious cause (say, the IIS server running an apache compatibility layer or Apache running some win32 dll to get something working, such as.NET). They then report the average of the better scores as probable profit, which isn't entirely unbiased but to be expected.
Main conclusion I can draw from the system of capitalization is that you can not trust anybody. If somebody has ANYTHING to lose at a certain result, the result will never show and the test will not be reliable. The only people that are reliable are those that don't have anything to lose but their life. Yet, these people only work for public broadcasting corporations under a do-what-you-like agreement so they could be honest. And still you can't trust them entirely, since there is something to gain from a positive result...
How to figure out which is better? Try them both (fsck illegal software, just friggin download it and try which is better, you are the only one that can be truly honest to you, not counting schizofrenics) and roll out the better performing one after paying for the licensing costs. Oh, and donate to the poor-Microsoft-fund because the GPL is a price-fixing scheme that's designed to make Microsoft run out of business (explanation: Microsoft does what everybody did 10 years ago. If RMS can give it away 3 years after they did it Microsoft has nothing to do anymore).
Try http:///*ads* and http://ads/ for blocking most (if not all) ads. You might want to refine them though, I can see them blocking www.dadswebsite.com.
The only difference between me and any other person you might actually want to send a message is that he is the guy you want to reach, and I'm the guy hacking the connection trying to get the info too. Anything you send to him gets to me too, anything you send to me gets to him (even if I have to retransmit it all). Given identical algorithms & everything, there just/HAS/ to be something that you both have but that I don't have. Say, a key.
Sorry to say so, but quantum cryptography is just a very awkward way of putting the bits on the line. It's not stopping me from reading everything and putting them on the next line too. Not even turning directions of any given number of photons, or the exact timings or anything.
That is of course the theory. In practice, I don't have quantum devices or the cash for even a simple quantum device.
That can in fact be very useful. Using a coding style that evolves the code out of the algorithm itself is quite useful in later re-reading:
[code]
char *readfile(char *filename) {// open file// determine file length// allocate buffer// read file in memory// close file// return buffer
}
[/code]
Everyone with a little coding sense can figure out how to code this in any language (the char *'s are for C) without changing the algorithm for loading the file itself. The algorithm is documented in the code in the area just above the code that does it. Result is that you can see what the code is supposed to do, and can then look to see if it really does that. However:
[code]
void *dsth(char*x) {
int y = open(f, 0x02); int z = lseek(y, 0x0, 0x3); lseek(y, 0, 0);
void *b = malloc(z); read(y, b, z); close(y); return b;
}
[/code]
does not make anything clear to me. If I were to make a similar function based on a file with a header, or a packet with a header, I would have no clue what it did. Yet, the lower one should work (didn't test) and the upper one is just comment.
Am off fixing my not-used-for-some-months USB stick that had broken the USB connector off.
Note for the original poster, you can try it yourself if you like, just be careful with soldering. Don't overheat it too much and be careful with the tin. The things (at least my USB stick) can take just about anything.
FYI, it's
http://*.googlesyndication.com/
Blocks their text ads on all sites except their own (google, gmail) since they then embed them in the web pages themselves.
Found most ads hilarious however, I usually mail and search with type numbers and loads of words that could be used in multiple ways (and it occasionally even looks up english words in the dutch adsense, which gives totally hilarious connections).
> Two. They want to set a precedent. If you fail to enforce a patent, and it (accidently) ends up in a standard that becomes pervasive. You can't be johnny come lately and start enforce it.
You do remember the FAT patents Microsoft is trying to enforce? So, the conclusion is obvious.
> Why do I half to deal with all this over bloated adobe crap????... and the same with crapromedia now that I'm thinking of it.
Flash is going to be bloated more too, Adobe took it over about a week ago. Prepare to see PDF's with embedded flash you cannot block.
I'm 4th year CS, about to graduate, and NOW he tells me it didn't stand for counterstrike in the first place? Must admit, lots of source, not too much cs...
Slashdot Mirror
> They can download all the software they want, surf the web and write their email all on the same system they use for their data analysis without worry and I'm not getting calls or visits to my office saying "Ummmmmmm. I think my system is infected"
I assume then you're referring to them being able to download all sorts of windows software after which they'll be unable to run it. If you can run any bit of software, you one day will just stumble over some bit of spyware or virus. The only difference between a virus/spyware and a normal program is that the normal program does what the user tells it to and a virus/spyware program does what its creator tells it to do. A computer can't tell who is giving out the orders.
Mac's aren't immune, they're just very incompatible.
Whadda ya mean, 2+2 > 0? I thought we were all doing modulus calculations... sure as hell gives me lower prices at the supermarket, although it's usually preceded by a fierce fight with the store clerk...
I still consider the australian patent of the wheel the least innovative one. Granted in the 21st century no less.
Step 3: Offer support.
I always thought mars to be the embodiment of the best place to have sex in... It's large, nobody can see you (well, that used to be true), it's already red and it's got a lot of temperature for you to compensate.
What was rorschach again?
In other news, the US military will replace their Defcon system with a Longhorn box attached to the internet.
Microsoft can't get a reasonable research done without paying for it, and if they pay for it the people they pay will pretty much say anything they want to. Microsoft has something to lose if the test tells anybody they are not the all-over winners, so the test will show that they are and thus be totally useless. Most, if not all, Microsoft-funded researchers I've seen reports from always report between 25 and 500% profit from using Microsoft software, with the top number being implied as the generic profit.
.NET). They then report the average of the better scores as probable profit, which isn't entirely unbiased but to be expected.
On the other hand, Apache (and the other OSS guys) also have something to lose by showing a solely bad report. They don't have anything to fear from partly bad reports or good reports. They can be largely trusted, but keep in mind that there is a good chance that they're completely sucking in one or more departments. I've seen these papers include one or two benchmarks that show >100% profit but they can usually be claimed to a single obvious cause (say, the IIS server running an apache compatibility layer or Apache running some win32 dll to get something working, such as
Main conclusion I can draw from the system of capitalization is that you can not trust anybody. If somebody has ANYTHING to lose at a certain result, the result will never show and the test will not be reliable. The only people that are reliable are those that don't have anything to lose but their life. Yet, these people only work for public broadcasting corporations under a do-what-you-like agreement so they could be honest. And still you can't trust them entirely, since there is something to gain from a positive result...
How to figure out which is better? Try them both (fsck illegal software, just friggin download it and try which is better, you are the only one that can be truly honest to you, not counting schizofrenics) and roll out the better performing one after paying for the licensing costs.
Oh, and donate to the poor-Microsoft-fund because the GPL is a price-fixing scheme that's designed to make Microsoft run out of business (explanation: Microsoft does what everybody did 10 years ago. If RMS can give it away 3 years after they did it Microsoft has nothing to do anymore).
Expert windows team? Where do you get those?
ok, screw niceness. Slashdot screwes up the url.
h t t p : / / * / * a d s *
h t t p : / / * a d s *
but then without spaces.
Try http:///*ads* and http://ads/ for blocking most (if not all) ads. You might want to refine them though, I can see them blocking www.dadswebsite.com.
How long would it take to think up a lie that somebody might be fooled by?
If Mr. Murphy had written everything in esparanto, he wouldn't have lied. Yet, he doesn't use esparanto, so he is lying.
(note, the second sentence is an equivalent sentence more-obvious-for-the-less-x86-savvy among us)
Interception resistant?
/HAS/ to be something that you both have but that I don't have. Say, a key.
The only difference between me and any other person you might actually want to send a message is that he is the guy you want to reach, and I'm the guy hacking the connection trying to get the info too. Anything you send to him gets to me too, anything you send to me gets to him (even if I have to retransmit it all). Given identical algorithms & everything, there just
Sorry to say so, but quantum cryptography is just a very awkward way of putting the bits on the line. It's not stopping me from reading everything and putting them on the next line too. Not even turning directions of any given number of photons, or the exact timings or anything.
That is of course the theory. In practice, I don't have quantum devices or the cash for even a simple quantum device.
or setting the post mode to "plain old text" as opposed to html stuff.
That can in fact be very useful. Using a coding style that evolves the code out of the algorithm itself is quite useful in later re-reading: [code] char *readfile(char *filename) { // open file // determine file length // allocate buffer // read file in memory // close file // return buffer
}
[/code]
Everyone with a little coding sense can figure out how to code this in any language (the char *'s are for C) without changing the algorithm for loading the file itself. The algorithm is documented in the code in the area just above the code that does it. Result is that you can see what the code is supposed to do, and can then look to see if it really does that. However:
[code]
void *dsth(char*x) {
int y = open(f, 0x02); int z = lseek(y, 0x0, 0x3); lseek(y, 0, 0);
void *b = malloc(z); read(y, b, z); close(y); return b;
}
[/code]
does not make anything clear to me. If I were to make a similar function based on a file with a header, or a packet with a header, I would have no clue what it did. Yet, the lower one should work (didn't test) and the upper one is just comment.
> Windows 2000 can do just about anything a user wants, it can play DVD movies, surf the web, play games. Why do we need a new version of Windows?
The least you could do is upgrade the comment every three years or so, to compare $NEW_WINDOWS_VERSION with $CURRENT_WINDOWS_VERSION.
you are requested not to encrypt passwords for transport with salts, as the transport network can't handle it reliably.
I am /NOT/ looking forward to a PDF newspaper printed on active paper with a real punch-the-monkey ad in the newspaper.
Am off fixing my not-used-for-some-months USB stick that had broken the USB connector off. Note for the original poster, you can try it yourself if you like, just be careful with soldering. Don't overheat it too much and be careful with the tin. The things (at least my USB stick) can take just about anything.
It's about time the US gave the "Statue of Liberty" back to the country where it now belongs.
FYI, it's http://*.googlesyndication.com/ Blocks their text ads on all sites except their own (google, gmail) since they then embed them in the web pages themselves. Found most ads hilarious however, I usually mail and search with type numbers and loads of words that could be used in multiple ways (and it occasionally even looks up english words in the dutch adsense, which gives totally hilarious connections).
> ... and .\ is ...
Is that a slashdot mirror?
> Two. They want to set a precedent. If you fail to enforce a patent, and it (accidently) ends up in a standard that becomes pervasive. You can't be johnny come lately and start enforce it.
You do remember the FAT patents Microsoft is trying to enforce? So, the conclusion is obvious.
literally though, try the Bona-Fide OS development website.
> Why do I half to deal with all this over bloated adobe crap???? ... and the same with crapromedia now that I'm thinking of it.
Flash is going to be bloated more too, Adobe took it over about a week ago. Prepare to see PDF's with embedded flash you cannot block.
I'm 4th year CS, about to graduate, and NOW he tells me it didn't stand for counterstrike in the first place? Must admit, lots of source, not too much cs...