"Further note: Make sure you have at least "moderate filtering" selected for your Google search for "OS-tans" otherwise some definitely not safe for work images will show up."
Oh dear Gord. There's a rule of the internet: "There is porn of it. No exceptions." Apparently that applies to operating systems, as well as animate objects.
"Based on the article, "TRIPS" is nothing more than a Out-Of-Order(OOO) SuperScalar based processor. So unless the article is grossly simplifying (possible), this is nothing but a PR stunt."
I'd call it OOE perfected. EDGE allows OOE on scales orders of magnitude larger than current architectures can (and a few other benefits), using less (and less power consuming) hardware. This is accomplished through a rather interesting paradigm inversion (I haven't seen anything like it before, though I don't exactly scour comp-sci journals looking for every pet project of some professor), as windows this large would fry CPUs using current OOE techniques. It's definitely an interesting invention, but we'll see if it's practical enough to ever justify production (for example, it seems to me that the limitations on branches would make the code rather bloated; but it's possible they've already figured out a solution to this, and I'm not aware of it).
Any crash in kernel mode (e.g. access violation) = BSOD. There are also a wide variety of other things that cause BSODs (like calling a function that is likely to take a long time while at hardware realtime priority, which would cause a complete system stall), but that's probably what this is. I believe there are some ways to catch things like access violations and recover before a BSOD is thrown (this works just like C++ try/catch pairs), but it requires the coder of the driver causing the access violation to wrap potentially dangerous accesses in that.
My list of suspects, from most probable to least: 1. Toshiba video driver bug 2. Vista kernel bug 3. The video codec. Note, however, that this is assuming the codec is running in user mode (things in user mode can only cause BSODs if the kernel or a driver uses some invalid data passed through a system call without verifying it - major security hole), which I don't know for sure (I've never done multimedia programming). If this is actually running in kernel mode, I'd move it at the top of the list.
I picked the Common Development and Distribution License for my recently open source projects. I wrote up a rather length justification for this decision (and why I decided against others, like the GPL, LGPL, and BSD license) on my blog.
I should add that Unix has a clear advantage with respect to user access rights, as it was always a fundamentally multi-user system. To be precise, NT has ALWAYS been a secure (in the sense of protecting one user's data from another) multi-user system, no matter what the clueless Linux zealots say. However, NT had a very low market share until XP came out. Before that, MS-DOS and Windows 9x, both fundamentally single-user systems (Windows 9x had some basic multi-user support, but zero security), had nearly all of the market. So by the time XP came out, there were an innumerable number of programs that assumed full control of the computer, and an innumerable number of programmers to write new code based on that assumption.
There's no other reason. IE comes with Windows, which is a overwhelming majority of the market, and it's easier than learning something new.
The answer is about the same as asking why most Windows programs require you to be admin: because they're too lazy to learn how to deal with not having access to every last corner of the computer (this is probably even easier than learning to write for multiple browsers).
Congratulations. You have just unwittingly illustrated the mindset that makes businesses wary of open-source software, and gives bite to Microsoft's FUD. Of course not all open source coders have such a knee-jerk mindset, but you are a member of an influential (in intimidation power, not number) minority.
"I'm saying that it's justified by the fact that he was being questioned by a grand jury, which denies you your constitutional right to protection from self-incrimination. Not that our constitution ever meant that much, being just a piece of paper, but there seem to be exceptions to every "right" that the constitution supposedly guarantees us.
He was denied his fifth amendment rights. You don't think that is wrong?
Here's a concept for you: You cannot be held to an oath made under duress of force. The force in question is denial of constitutional rights."
What on EARTH are you talking about? Exactly what force are you referring to? The fifth amendment guarantees the protection from self-INCRIMINATION. Are you saying that what he did with Monica was CRIMINAL? I don't even know any Republicans that think that.
"Then they'll try to draft something saying that any end-user of an ISP account is liable for all copyright infringement that goes on through it, including that of 3rd parties and minors."
I should think that would be quite amusing and short-lived. You could just go trolling for unsecured wireless networks in the rich area of town, and download to your heart's content. The RIAA would either never sue, or sue and get bitchslapped by people with lawyers as expensive as the RIAA has.
When the authorities can keep the prisons "drug-free" they can start arguing that they can win the war on drugs. So far I've seen no evidence that it is possible.
I'll let you in on a little secret, but you have to promise not to tell (it's certainly not something that many people know): there is only one truth; regardless of whether anyone knows it, or how many people think how many different things, there is only one truth. "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" is nothing more than a formality to attempt to minimize the probability that an innocent person will be found guilty, given that it isn't always possible for us to know the truth. A criminal is still a criminal if there isn't enough evidence to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt, and an innocent person is still innocent if there is enough evidence to convict them. You seem to not have reached the level of fuzzy logic processes yet. You see things as either being true or false, and you have default values attached to different cases. As a scientist, I can't afford false negatives any more than I can afford false positives. Just because an experiment does not prove something beyond a reasonable doubt (there's a similar concept in science, as well; but we have a much better grasp of what it really means) does NOT mean that it isn't true; similarly, even if an experiment "proves" something beyond a reasonable doubt, it may still be false. If scientists had such a black and white outlook, you'd probably go to the witch doctor every time you got sick.
So, now I'm wondering: if it's found that the amount they were suing for exceeded their own lawyer fees, would that pose a legal problem for future law suits? In other words, is it legal to bring law suits when you know that the suit will be a net loss for you even if you win?
The US Federal Government called--it seems that Sweden is infringing on their patent for "Application of the Kansas City Shuffle to a Population of Citizens to Effect Domestic Surveillance Under the Auspices of Preventing Terrorism for the Purpose of Perpetuating Financial Debt"
Patent revoked. Clearly Sweden has prior art on this.
Support for new hardware in the Linux kernel is much faster than it used to be. Surely dell's lowend (read older) systems should work. Perhaps this might even encourage dell not to use substandard versions of common hardware. They won't have to add support for hardware if it has a normal PCI ID. I have a feeling the linux community would be even willing to help write drivers for their hardware.
Tech support is another story. Dell is trying to move everything to india and I don't think there are enough Linux fans in india to staff their helpdesk. I just can't imagine the typical workflow steps are going to work with a linux box right now.
Now that was a useful post. It points out two important things the Linux community can do to help Dell get this project off the ground as quickly as possible:
1. Help with writing drivers for any Dell hardware that's too obscure to already have Linux drivers.
2. Help with generating a single comprehensive online knowledge base that outsourced tech support people could use when helping users with Linux problems.
The other major problem is total lack of interest/responsibility on the part of parents. They expect to give their kids to the school and let the school do the teaching and parenting, while they're either working all the time or out doing what they want to do. Then they blame the school for anything that goes wrong, from poor grades to bad behavior, when really they're more responsible for it than the school. Of course, if you're a teacher and say that to them, you can expect a formal complaint. You can also expect a formal complaint if you try to discipline the kids in an attempt to correct behavior problems the parents expect you to fix.
I gotta say that at least based on probability, I have to go with the RIAA on the matter of whether there was a NAT. The internal/external IP address match is significant; not bullet-proof (it can be spoofed), but probability does suggest that there was no NAT in this instance. Besides that, someone with the knowledge to spoof that would have a reason for doing it; if you can think of a reason somebody would spoof it in that particular way (apart from trying to intentionally incriminate innocent people), feel free to share.
The problem with DRM is it switches off peoples brains. The linked article is a great example. The guy writing it apparently doesn't understand economics at all, and compensates by throwing around buzzwords and reducing everything to absurdity.
Ah, so I'm not the only one who thought so. There's a quote from one of the design meetings/debates at our company: "The database can't be so abstract that it doesn't contain anything!" I think that's exactly what this article is - so abstract that it doesn't really contain any useful information at all.
Slashdot Mirror
"Further note: Make sure you have at least "moderate filtering" selected for your Google search for "OS-tans" otherwise some definitely not safe for work images will show up."
Oh dear Gord. There's a rule of the internet: "There is porn of it. No exceptions." Apparently that applies to operating systems, as well as animate objects.
"Based on the article, "TRIPS" is nothing more than a Out-Of-Order(OOO) SuperScalar based processor. So unless the article is grossly simplifying (possible), this is nothing but a PR stunt."
I'd call it OOE perfected. EDGE allows OOE on scales orders of magnitude larger than current architectures can (and a few other benefits), using less (and less power consuming) hardware. This is accomplished through a rather interesting paradigm inversion (I haven't seen anything like it before, though I don't exactly scour comp-sci journals looking for every pet project of some professor), as windows this large would fry CPUs using current OOE techniques. It's definitely an interesting invention, but we'll see if it's practical enough to ever justify production (for example, it seems to me that the limitations on branches would make the code rather bloated; but it's possible they've already figured out a solution to this, and I'm not aware of it).
Any crash in kernel mode (e.g. access violation) = BSOD. There are also a wide variety of other things that cause BSODs (like calling a function that is likely to take a long time while at hardware realtime priority, which would cause a complete system stall), but that's probably what this is. I believe there are some ways to catch things like access violations and recover before a BSOD is thrown (this works just like C++ try/catch pairs), but it requires the coder of the driver causing the access violation to wrap potentially dangerous accesses in that.
My list of suspects, from most probable to least:
1. Toshiba video driver bug
2. Vista kernel bug
3. The video codec. Note, however, that this is assuming the codec is running in user mode (things in user mode can only cause BSODs if the kernel or a driver uses some invalid data passed through a system call without verifying it - major security hole), which I don't know for sure (I've never done multimedia programming). If this is actually running in kernel mode, I'd move it at the top of the list.
I picked the Common Development and Distribution License for my recently open source projects. I wrote up a rather length justification for this decision (and why I decided against others, like the GPL, LGPL, and BSD license) on my blog.
I should add that Unix has a clear advantage with respect to user access rights, as it was always a fundamentally multi-user system. To be precise, NT has ALWAYS been a secure (in the sense of protecting one user's data from another) multi-user system, no matter what the clueless Linux zealots say. However, NT had a very low market share until XP came out. Before that, MS-DOS and Windows 9x, both fundamentally single-user systems (Windows 9x had some basic multi-user support, but zero security), had nearly all of the market. So by the time XP came out, there were an innumerable number of programs that assumed full control of the computer, and an innumerable number of programmers to write new code based on that assumption.
There's no other reason. IE comes with Windows, which is a overwhelming majority of the market, and it's easier than learning something new.
The answer is about the same as asking why most Windows programs require you to be admin: because they're too lazy to learn how to deal with not having access to every last corner of the computer (this is probably even easier than learning to write for multiple browsers).
Congratulations. You have just unwittingly illustrated the mindset that makes businesses wary of open-source software, and gives bite to Microsoft's FUD. Of course not all open source coders have such a knee-jerk mindset, but you are a member of an influential (in intimidation power, not number) minority.
"I'm saying that it's justified by the fact that he was being questioned by a grand jury, which denies you your constitutional right to protection from self-incrimination. Not that our constitution ever meant that much, being just a piece of paper, but there seem to be exceptions to every "right" that the constitution supposedly guarantees us.
He was denied his fifth amendment rights. You don't think that is wrong?
Here's a concept for you: You cannot be held to an oath made under duress of force. The force in question is denial of constitutional rights."
What on EARTH are you talking about? Exactly what force are you referring to? The fifth amendment guarantees the protection from self-INCRIMINATION. Are you saying that what he did with Monica was CRIMINAL? I don't even know any Republicans that think that.
"Then they'll try to draft something saying that any end-user of an ISP account is liable for all copyright infringement that goes on through it, including that of 3rd parties and minors."
I should think that would be quite amusing and short-lived. You could just go trolling for unsecured wireless networks in the rich area of town, and download to your heart's content. The RIAA would either never sue, or sue and get bitchslapped by people with lawyers as expensive as the RIAA has.
When the authorities can keep the prisons "drug-free" they can start arguing that they can win the war on drugs. So far I've seen no evidence that it is possible.
Spent a lot of time in prison, have we?
Has anyone ever compared the percentage of the people RIAA has sued that are disabled to the percent of disabled people in the general population?
I'll let you in on a little secret, but you have to promise not to tell (it's certainly not something that many people know): there is only one truth; regardless of whether anyone knows it, or how many people think how many different things, there is only one truth. "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" is nothing more than a formality to attempt to minimize the probability that an innocent person will be found guilty, given that it isn't always possible for us to know the truth. A criminal is still a criminal if there isn't enough evidence to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt, and an innocent person is still innocent if there is enough evidence to convict them. You seem to not have reached the level of fuzzy logic processes yet. You see things as either being true or false, and you have default values attached to different cases. As a scientist, I can't afford false negatives any more than I can afford false positives. Just because an experiment does not prove something beyond a reasonable doubt (there's a similar concept in science, as well; but we have a much better grasp of what it really means) does NOT mean that it isn't true; similarly, even if an experiment "proves" something beyond a reasonable doubt, it may still be false. If scientists had such a black and white outlook, you'd probably go to the witch doctor every time you got sick.
Whoops. "if it's found that their own lawyer fees exceeded the amount they were suing for"
So, now I'm wondering: if it's found that the amount they were suing for exceeded their own lawyer fees, would that pose a legal problem for future law suits? In other words, is it legal to bring law suits when you know that the suit will be a net loss for you even if you win?
continuously emitting light pulses that last just a billion-billionth of a second.
A billion billionths of a second! That sounds very fast indeed; around 1 Hz!
You know the world's in bad shape when the US of today is the slow-poke on that road.
The US Federal Government called--it seems that Sweden is infringing on their patent for "Application of the Kansas City Shuffle to a Population of Citizens to Effect Domestic Surveillance Under the Auspices of Preventing Terrorism for the Purpose of Perpetuating Financial Debt"
Patent revoked. Clearly Sweden has prior art on this.
France found something they can beat the US (and other countries) at: the race to fascism. Can't blame them for taking advantage :P
Support for new hardware in the Linux kernel is much faster than it used to be. Surely dell's lowend (read older) systems should work. Perhaps this might even encourage dell not to use substandard versions of common hardware. They won't have to add support for hardware if it has a normal PCI ID. I have a feeling the linux community would be even willing to help write drivers for their hardware. Tech support is another story. Dell is trying to move everything to india and I don't think there are enough Linux fans in india to staff their helpdesk. I just can't imagine the typical workflow steps are going to work with a linux box right now.
Now that was a useful post. It points out two important things the Linux community can do to help Dell get this project off the ground as quickly as possible:
1. Help with writing drivers for any Dell hardware that's too obscure to already have Linux drivers.
2. Help with generating a single comprehensive online knowledge base that outsourced tech support people could use when helping users with Linux problems.
And half of that is porn...
I'd imagine more in the 95%-99% range...
The other major problem is total lack of interest/responsibility on the part of parents. They expect to give their kids to the school and let the school do the teaching and parenting, while they're either working all the time or out doing what they want to do. Then they blame the school for anything that goes wrong, from poor grades to bad behavior, when really they're more responsible for it than the school. Of course, if you're a teacher and say that to them, you can expect a formal complaint. You can also expect a formal complaint if you try to discipline the kids in an attempt to correct behavior problems the parents expect you to fix.
And now that Slashdot has heard of it, Microsoft will never receive another patent again.
I gotta say that at least based on probability, I have to go with the RIAA on the matter of whether there was a NAT. The internal/external IP address match is significant; not bullet-proof (it can be spoofed), but probability does suggest that there was no NAT in this instance. Besides that, someone with the knowledge to spoof that would have a reason for doing it; if you can think of a reason somebody would spoof it in that particular way (apart from trying to intentionally incriminate innocent people), feel free to share.
Ughhh. I'm up to 40 and reading. This is like a Mongolian version of Law and Order.
The problem with DRM is it switches off peoples brains. The linked article is a great example. The guy writing it apparently doesn't understand economics at all, and compensates by throwing around buzzwords and reducing everything to absurdity.
Ah, so I'm not the only one who thought so. There's a quote from one of the design meetings/debates at our company: "The database can't be so abstract that it doesn't contain anything!" I think that's exactly what this article is - so abstract that it doesn't really contain any useful information at all.