> anyone who has recently sat on their USB thumbdrive! Does plugging it into the back of your laptop and then dropping your laptop on the floor back-end first count too?
The USB plug was ripped off. Being soldered back on it physically worked, but was at a 70 degree angle to normal position, so it wasn't portable anymore.
Actually, the opposite. Two processes that communicate quite heavily SHOULD be run together on two processors, especially since they will share memory and thus cache lines, plus they can spend time spinning on a lock instead of swapping threads. Given short locks and equal speed, they can work a whole lot more efficient on a dual-core than on a single-core.
FYI, it's called Gang Scheduling and has been described for quite some time.
Then I suppose I'll just keep playing all my DVD's with my NOT-A-DVD-PLAYER-MPlayer that's 100% free and available for everybody at www.mplayerhq.hu. Note, it also runs in windows and just allows you to pick which movie track to play, so just ignore the ad sections or skip over them.
> Production assistants. Peer reviewers and authors are not paid. This gives them little incentive to do things either on time or in the way they are asked. Someone has to nicely chase them and organise them and help them.
Slaves are not paid. This gives them little incentive to do things either on time or in the way they are asked. Someone has to nicely whip them and put them in chains and help them.
They finally found the silver bullet? Wow... and that even after the entire world has been searching for it for 42 years and didn't find it, with techniques as powerful as RAD and OOP. Guess they're just a whole lot smarter than the entire rest of the world.
I kind of notice this is a joke, but you imply it's illegal software. Why?
Or is this another bit of new US law I didn't hear about yet? You can use it for bad stuff so it's forbidden? Might as well forbid napkins, towels and bras then, I could strangle you with one of them...
hmmm... thinking of that, could you get the dutch government to pass that law too?
I must agree with you. There are around 5700000000 people who could not care at all about what some US company is doing with its fees. For slashdot this might just be a 60-70% of the visitors.
People at slashdot, post news from all over the world or don't post it from your local space either. Don't be such hypocrits.
I don't think you can talk about "public perception of the IE's security"... can't say that I ever noticed any security in IE. Except from whining about all legal server certificates and not asking about running all sorts of random programs, forcing me to download stuff, spawning windows at random and not caring about any standards thereby causing a lot of broken websites.
To be very honest, I'm busy converting it all to OGG vorbis files. Not to save space or get better quality (yes, I know it actually degrades) but to not use something closed like MP3. Haven't completed conversion since I'd still like to own a portable OGG player at some time, and those &*@#('s at the companies making portable music players just don't seem to get that I really don't care about WMA or AAC or RM or whatever crap format they might cock up, but that I do care about OGG files. There's like, 2 different players that work.
All stuff I rip off my cd's now are encoded to ogg by default, VBR q=5. Don't claim to be opposed to closed standards and then actively help them spread.
That means:
- I can lend it to a friend, not listen to it in the meantime and when I get it back listen to it again
- I can copy it onto all sorts of music carriers that don't need adjusting for it, such as mp3, cd, cassette tape and so on, so I can enjoy it in any form and at any place I like to
- I can modify the song to my own request
- I can reacquire it without payment since I already paid for it
- I can choose which songs (not albums, songs) I get
- It wouldn't be overly expensive (say, 0.60 per song or something around that)
Since this is all pretty impossible to do, I go for the company that sells them without copyright protection software. If they make it possible for me to do these, I will not go around these things. If they make it impossible to do any of these, I'm not going to care much about their copyright (since they don't care about my use right).
If he hosted ads on the site and can prove within reasonable amount of doubt that it only served to pay his hosting bills, I think that wouldn't qualify as "profit intent". In any case, he didn't have any bad faith intent.
If you can get all the manufacturers to agree, comparing systems based on FLOPS would be effective, because it would remove the irrelevant clock speed argument, and thus allow you to compare how much work can be done in a time frame by the processor.
In theory of course.
In practice, you can get up to 1GFLOPS on a pretty simple machine, just put all your resources on doing flops asap. Ignore branches in your design, just make it run as many floating point instructions in a row as quickly as possible.
In real situations however, both FLOPS and MIPS say very little. There's a damn good reason it's commonly transscribed as "Meaningless Indication of Processor Speed"
BUT, the trademark complaint is formulated under the wrong article.
[quote]... with the bad faith intent to profit from that mark...
[/quote]
He didn't host the site with any bad faith intent, nor any form of profit intent (afaik, it's kind of slashdotted now). Hence, it doesn't fall under that article and should not be allowed by the court to be a valid complaint.
IANAL but I do follow a rights-course in senior-level CS, does that count for this kind of case?
This isn't an advantage, shells can do lots of stuff a lot quicker & more efficient than GUIs can, even the most experienced GUI's. Also, Windows doesn't really have a shell to speak of.
2> No Root user. All mac developers know their code is always running at root.
Yes, that makes me feel just so safe. Instead of explicitly shielding off all power, you give EVERYBODY FULL POWER. Does not add to security.
And is also true for Windows, the first part at least. You can't do that much as admin, since there's something higher (SYSTEM, note this is how it's supposed to be written).
3> Pascal strings. ANSI C Strings are the number one way people exploit Linux and Wintel boxes.
How is this an advantage? You have a hell of a hard time creating C software with pascal strings, they are not easily manipulable, have the overhead of keeping the length up to date, are limited in length and most of all, I can still abuse them!
Try 0x7F 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF . I'm going to bet that your MacOS program will try to read 2GB of memory. Which it doesn't have, hence buffer overflow.
4> Macs running Webstar have ability to only run CGI placed in correct directory location and correctly file "typed" (not mere file name extension).
Windows boxes running Webstar would too, but somebody didn't port it. Plus, unix doesn't execute anything not marked "executable". That says a hell of a lot more to me than a file type (although I'm a proponent of file types).
5> Macs never run code ever merely based on how a file is named. ".exe" suffixes mean nothing!
IE, you are totally incompatible. You can not copy an executable file to windows and back and still use it. That sounds really bad & stupid and it is very much not a security improving thing per se, but just plain incompatible for the point of being incompatible (or as they call it, "different").
4> Stack return address positioned in safer location than some intel OSes.
Such as at a random location? There is no location safe if you know where it is. Playing hide and seek is NOT going to help security. Search for "security through obscurity" and figure it out. NB: you should probably go to 6 after 5, but that might just be a manifestation of thinking different.
7> There are less macs, though there are huge cash prizes for cracking into a MacOS based WebStar server (typically over $10,000 US).
Nobody cared enough about having a macos box to their disposal for anything, mainly because it's incompatible as hell. Why do you think that internet-connected supercomputers don't get hacked as often? Is it because Crays run operating systems that are better? Don't really think so.
8> MacOS source not available traditionally, except within apple, similar to Microsoft source only available to its summer interns and engineers, source is rare to MacOS. This makes it hard to look for programming mistakes...
Most hackers look for programming mistakes in binary code, since most companies (such as Microsoft) release only binaries. Also, hacks are determined about specific byte conditions in most programs, which means that even recompiling it using a slightly different compiler will make the exploit not work. So, Unix is a lot more safe (unix which you compile yourself, not redhat-style unix) than macos.
Have any more points? Preferably any that are harder to revoke than just a 3-second thought?
Slashdot Mirror
> anyone who has recently sat on their USB thumbdrive!
Does plugging it into the back of your laptop and then dropping your laptop on the floor back-end first count too?
The USB plug was ripped off. Being soldered back on it physically worked, but was at a 70 degree angle to normal position, so it wasn't portable anymore.
my poor usb stick... *sob*
> The constructive alternative is obvious. Gmail should live primarily on your own disk, preferably integrated with the Google Desktop.
Would that help Google not get your email, or would it help them get all your data?
The other way around, I'll swim from my home town to America... America, Limburg, The Netherlands, that is.
Actually, the opposite. Two processes that communicate quite heavily SHOULD be run together on two processors, especially since they will share memory and thus cache lines, plus they can spend time spinning on a lock instead of swapping threads. Given short locks and equal speed, they can work a whole lot more efficient on a dual-core than on a single-core.
FYI, it's called Gang Scheduling and has been described for quite some time.
Then I suppose I'll just keep playing all my DVD's with my NOT-A-DVD-PLAYER-MPlayer that's 100% free and available for everybody at www.mplayerhq.hu. Note, it also runs in windows and just allows you to pick which movie track to play, so just ignore the ad sections or skip over them.
> Production assistants. Peer reviewers and authors are not paid. This gives them little incentive to do things either on time or in the way they are asked. Someone has to nicely chase them and organise them and help them.
Slaves are not paid. This gives them little incentive to do things either on time or in the way they are asked. Someone has to nicely whip them and put them in chains and help them.
"... and tracking ad clicks"
Ad clicks? You are implying that the firefox site includes ads AND adblock? What's the point of the ads?
PS: should slashdot have ads? Can't tell that myself...
They finally found the silver bullet? Wow... and that even after the entire world has been searching for it for 42 years and didn't find it, with techniques as powerful as RAD and OOP. Guess they're just a whole lot smarter than the entire rest of the world.
I kind of notice this is a joke, but you imply it's illegal software. Why?
Or is this another bit of new US law I didn't hear about yet? You can use it for bad stuff so it's forbidden? Might as well forbid napkins, towels and bras then, I could strangle you with one of them...
hmmm... thinking of that, could you get the dutch government to pass that law too?
I must agree with you. There are around 5700000000 people who could not care at all about what some US company is doing with its fees. For slashdot this might just be a 60-70% of the visitors. People at slashdot, post news from all over the world or don't post it from your local space either. Don't be such hypocrits.
How did you ever get past the lameness filter with that sort of lame patent?
I don't think you can talk about "public perception of the IE's security"... can't say that I ever noticed any security in IE. Except from whining about all legal server certificates and not asking about running all sorts of random programs, forcing me to download stuff, spawning windows at random and not caring about any standards thereby causing a lot of broken websites.
To be very honest, I'm busy converting it all to OGG vorbis files. Not to save space or get better quality (yes, I know it actually degrades) but to not use something closed like MP3. Haven't completed conversion since I'd still like to own a portable OGG player at some time, and those &*@#('s at the companies making portable music players just don't seem to get that I really don't care about WMA or AAC or RM or whatever crap format they might cock up, but that I do care about OGG files. There's like, 2 different players that work.
All stuff I rip off my cd's now are encoded to ogg by default, VBR q=5. Don't claim to be opposed to closed standards and then actively help them spread.
Google's still right. They say "almost nothing".
That means: - I can lend it to a friend, not listen to it in the meantime and when I get it back listen to it again - I can copy it onto all sorts of music carriers that don't need adjusting for it, such as mp3, cd, cassette tape and so on, so I can enjoy it in any form and at any place I like to - I can modify the song to my own request - I can reacquire it without payment since I already paid for it - I can choose which songs (not albums, songs) I get - It wouldn't be overly expensive (say, 0.60 per song or something around that) Since this is all pretty impossible to do, I go for the company that sells them without copyright protection software. If they make it possible for me to do these, I will not go around these things. If they make it impossible to do any of these, I'm not going to care much about their copyright (since they don't care about my use right).
If he hosted ads on the site and can prove within reasonable amount of doubt that it only served to pay his hosting bills, I think that wouldn't qualify as "profit intent". In any case, he didn't have any bad faith intent.
In theory of course.
In practice, you can get up to 1GFLOPS on a pretty simple machine, just put all your resources on doing flops asap. Ignore branches in your design, just make it run as many floating point instructions in a row as quickly as possible.
In real situations however, both FLOPS and MIPS say very little. There's a damn good reason it's commonly transscribed as "Meaningless Indication of Processor Speed"
BUT, the trademark complaint is formulated under the wrong article. [quote] ... with the bad faith intent to profit from that mark ...
[/quote]
He didn't host the site with any bad faith intent, nor any form of profit intent (afaik, it's kind of slashdotted now). Hence, it doesn't fall under that article and should not be allowed by the court to be a valid complaint.
IANAL but I do follow a rights-course in senior-level CS, does that count for this kind of case?
1> No command shell.
This isn't an advantage, shells can do lots of stuff a lot quicker & more efficient than GUIs can, even the most experienced GUI's. Also, Windows doesn't really have a shell to speak of.
2> No Root user. All mac developers know their code is always running at root.
Yes, that makes me feel just so safe. Instead of explicitly shielding off all power, you give EVERYBODY FULL POWER. Does not add to security.
And is also true for Windows, the first part at least. You can't do that much as admin, since there's something higher (SYSTEM, note this is how it's supposed to be written).
3> Pascal strings. ANSI C Strings are the number one way people exploit Linux and Wintel boxes.
How is this an advantage? You have a hell of a hard time creating C software with pascal strings, they are not easily manipulable, have the overhead of keeping the length up to date, are limited in length and most of all, I can still abuse them!
Try 0x7F 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF . I'm going to bet that your MacOS program will try to read 2GB of memory. Which it doesn't have, hence buffer overflow.
4> Macs running Webstar have ability to only run CGI placed in correct directory location and correctly file "typed" (not mere file name extension).
Windows boxes running Webstar would too, but somebody didn't port it. Plus, unix doesn't execute anything not marked "executable". That says a hell of a lot more to me than a file type (although I'm a proponent of file types).
5> Macs never run code ever merely based on how a file is named. ".exe" suffixes mean nothing!
IE, you are totally incompatible. You can not copy an executable file to windows and back and still use it. That sounds really bad & stupid and it is very much not a security improving thing per se, but just plain incompatible for the point of being incompatible (or as they call it, "different").
4> Stack return address positioned in safer location than some intel OSes.
Such as at a random location? There is no location safe if you know where it is. Playing hide and seek is NOT going to help security. Search for "security through obscurity" and figure it out.
NB: you should probably go to 6 after 5, but that might just be a manifestation of thinking different.
7> There are less macs, though there are huge cash prizes for cracking into a MacOS based WebStar server (typically over $10,000 US).
Nobody cared enough about having a macos box to their disposal for anything, mainly because it's incompatible as hell. Why do you think that internet-connected supercomputers don't get hacked as often? Is it because Crays run operating systems that are better? Don't really think so.
8> MacOS source not available traditionally, except within apple, similar to Microsoft source only available to its summer interns and engineers, source is rare to MacOS. This makes it hard to look for programming mistakes...
Most hackers look for programming mistakes in binary code, since most companies (such as Microsoft) release only binaries. Also, hacks are determined about specific byte conditions in most programs, which means that even recompiling it using a slightly different compiler will make the exploit not work. So, Unix is a lot more safe (unix which you compile yourself, not redhat-style unix) than macos.
Have any more points? Preferably any that are harder to revoke than just a 3-second thought?