I totally agree that the olympic games should not be a political statement.
Yet, take for instance the opening ceremony. I managed to watch the first 5 minutes that it took to finish my pizza which I almost threw up listening to the crap that the nbc commentators were spitting out of their mouths. After this I just briefly turned the tv on to see the countries entering(only part I was really interested in since there's a couple dozen friends of mine marching under different flags).
Every other comment was an indirect reference to 9/11. Add this to the fact that the athletes entrance was interrupted over half a dozen times by commercials and I pretty much gave up on any faith that there was any decency left in the games.
As much as I managed to watch it, it was pretty much clear that the original olympic ideals were gone.
Whatever happended the olympic games promoting peace and harmony instead of drawing parallels to terrorism, doing live broadcasts from a warzone(american gi's in kandahar) in the middle of the opening ceremony, pointing out the axis of evil when iran marched in, turning the olympic village into a concentration camp or doing a live memorial service for what in Bush Jr's head amounts to war casualities. Then again 75% of the above was probably due to nbc and not visible to those in foreign countries.
As a matter of fact. As soon as the bribery scandal came into public knowledge they should've disqualified slc and given the games to sweden that got second place. I would trust the swedish to live up to the expectations of olympic spirit more than americans.
Try this with your palm.. Take a magnifying glass, go out to fry ants, wonder what would happen if the beam briefly touched your palm's screen, try.. cry..
Trust me, it doesn't take much exposure to fry that lcd screen. Granted, I didn't waste my palm but rather an ancient 5$ digital watch.. And this was way back when I was 8 back in the 80s, but still..
Okay.. Where does it say that.net framework is anything but a developers tool to make better applications faster? That is the million dollar question..
.net is a strategy for world domination,.net framework is a technology and this is probably where you are misled. Microsoft's ultimate strategy is using latter to accomplish the former.
However, it just so happens that the technology is great as such and by creating an open alternative you essentially undermine microsoft's ultimate strategy.
Better yet, you don't need to spend all that effort coming up with something new because someone else already did it for you..
A rich shark has a fancy new high-tech pool. You think that the pool and technology is good but would rather not swim with the shark in the same pool.
So you take a good look at the technology, go back to your own pool and recreate it there.
Shark has spent all that money installing all those hi-tech equipment there and you essentially just collect the benefits without putting in as much effort.
And if it turns out that all of those hi-tech equipment don't work like planned you still have your own pool..
Wake up.. Microsoft has spent countless hours and a lot of money to come up with something that is actually good! It doesn't matter what their strategy is but as a technology.net framework is terrific. Note that.net generally refers to a lot more than just.net framework, which is what de Icaza is enthusiastic about.
We can get the benefits of the technology and ignore the strategy. Even if microsoft decides to change it's api or use patented processes it cannot prevent oss-community from essentially getting a free lunch on microsoft's expense because it is impossible to patent something as broad as.net framework. They might be able to lock up some minor details but it is the concept that matters.
So microsoft pulls out the rug from underneath us and somehow prevents further interoperability with future.net revisions. What are we left with? A great technology.. What is there to lose?
Oss has always been about taking the best ideas and implementing them in an open manner. What is different here? Nobody is going to force you to use it but if it is going to increase developers productivity then why not?
I had in my computer the following: cd-rw, dvd, sb live platinum, ati radeon dual display, 2x 7200rpm 40gig with athlon xp 1600 and lot of stability problems with a 300w ps.
Sometimes dvd-drive would not spin up in the beginning and computer would have to be turned on and off a couple of times before all the components would power up. Sometimes one or another hd did not get recognized, etc..
All these problems disappeared when i got a 400w ps.
It would totally depend on how far from the earth you were. If you are exactly on a geosyncronous orbit then you would definetly feel weightless no matter what. I'd assume that such a space elevator would be "anchored" on a geosyncronous orbit since otherwise it would drift and probably break the whole assembly.
If you are below the geosyncronous orbit you'd feel slight gravitational pull and above it you'd feel the effect of sentripetal force of the elevator keeping you attached to the earth - you'd actually be standing on the roof then.
Shuttles are normally orbiting the earth at a speed and height (mv^2/r=GmM/r^2) where earths pull is just enough to keep them on a steady circular course around earth - so they are technically free falling but never approaching earth. Geosyncronous orbit is just a special case where you're going at the same angular velocity as earth.
Directly supported by xfree86. You can specify several virtual servers in the xf86config file all of which can have their own mouses, keyboards and monitors.
Just hook up a couple of usb keyboards and mouses to a computer along with a dual-head or two video cards and set them up in the config file.
For sound you'd just have to have two sound cards and configure programs in different servers to use different dsp-devices(which hopefully are not hard coded)..
If you make money of a mpeg-4 feed then you are required to pay a royalty. That seems rather fair considering these people took enormous amounts of time and effort to create an awesome compression scheme that works not only in software but has also been implemented in hardware(try to have some "free" alternatives implemented in hardware).
Yet.. If you don't make any money of the feed you are not required to pay anything. If it brings no value to you I suppose you wouldn't pay for it anyway..
Don't like it, fine don't use it. If you pay for it they get a small share. If you're not paying for it nobody's getting anything(except maybe an extra value to the end-user). What did these people not get again?
There is a very simple mathematical example about this.
Suppose you flip a coin. Everytime you get tails you move an object left, heads moves it right. Question now being. What is the probability that this object ends up at point A given an infinite amount of flips.
It just so happens that it can be proven mathematically that this probability is 1. So there is a 100% probability that it will occupy every and all possible places in that infinite line. Now think of a combination of objects following same sort of mathematical game but with a little more complex rules that allow for, say, 4 dimensional motion(to account for time too).
Some people even think that the universe is just a temporary statistical anomaly(that was given infinite amounts of coin flips).
What the second law of termodynamics states is that statistically in a closed system the amount of entropy, given enough time, always decreases.
So if put a vase broken into pieces in a closed box chances are that when I open it sometime in the future that I still find the same pieces. However, if I had infinite amounts of time at some point in time there is 100% possibility that those pieces rearranged themselves into a solid vase.
The probability of this occuring for long periods of time is infinetly small but again given infinite amounts of time the possibility of it occuring for any given amount of time is 100%.
But there is a clear distinction. 10 years ago every virus would attach itself to a host program, hence the name virus, and when the host program was run it would propagate. If the host program happened to be a system file or boot block you would get automatic propagation. Otherwise it would propagate when you ran the program in question.
Generally viruses would attach a short jump code in the beginning of the program and then insert rest of their code to the end. Once their own code was run they would jump back to the beginning of the program and you would run it as if nothing had happened.. This is fundamentally different from the current concept of outlook 'virus' that most definetly is just a trojan horse. It does not attach itself to an existing program(no, being an attachment in an email does not count) therefore it should not be called a virus. Some macro viruses, however, are entitled to the being called virus.
Then again, terms change in the course of time and to most people internet is just the web.. little do they know..
Actually it does disqualify it as a virus. These type of programs are called trojans. Being a virus requires self-reproduction. Posing as a useful program is categorized as a trojan horse..
Technically even the outlook 'worms' are not viruses as they require user to run the offending attachment in order to propagate.
Trojan horses they are but as it doesn't sound as exciting as virus so.. oh well.
Re:Eh? How can they get away with selling that?
on
HP-LX 1.0 Secure Linux
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Uh.. How about you go download the GPLed code from hp's site right now instead of speculating about what people could do.
However.. You are not going to get the closed source administration tools without which the kernel mod's are almost worthless. You also don't get a fully set up distribution with all the configuration and will have to duplicate all the effort that went into creating it.
If you want to be reasonably sure that your version is secure you'd have to perform extensive testing on it and have a lot of really smart people take a look at it. This is actually the easiest part as it follows normal linux development method. Still, whose ass is on the line if things are not as secure as they should be?
And you can bet your ass that anything that doesn't need to be GPLed is not and it comes with a very strict HP license that specifically forbids any disassembly, resale, etc.. Support contracts probably also include a clause that you have to have purchased the official hp distribution..
More than just kernel modifications!
on
HP-LX 1.0 Secure Linux
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Typical slashdot ranting about gpl violations and how this is nothing new etc.. I wonder if anyone even read the article.
This is much more than just a few kernel modifications but rather a full distribution that comes on 4 cd's. Instead of just having some hacks that improve security the whole distribution is build from ground up with security in mind.
For example: You can't access shell unless you're on a console or use ssh. You can't access the configuration tools unless you are in posession of administrators private ssh key. Also, the installer forces you to set the system up with security in mind instead of installing everything and the kitchen sink..
Best part of this is that it comes with support from a highly reputable vendor. Sure it has it's price tag but imagine the amount of work required to make a full distribution that's security conscious and backing it up with hp's name!
And yes, you can download the source code that goes into kernel..
Isn't this the same technology that is being used in shops as an anti-theft measure? Somehow the clerks at the register seem to be able to disable it so that the alarms on the doors do not beep.. The bigger ones get taken off but I mean the ones that have been stuck between book pages and glued on the bottom of a bottle of vitamins etc..
This is assuming that you mean a remote sender who already has an established connection with the client..
You need to go no further than gnutella to see that this has already been implemented. In gnutella these are called push requests.
So you have a communication protocol for the established connection that includes commands for the server(sender) to ask the client to open an additional connection.
If you meant running a server behind nat I should ask you to stop smoking whatever it is that you smoke..
It should be mandatory for slashdot postings to have the submitter first go through all links and submit them to google for searching and as such automatic caching and then on a sidebox provide a link to google cache of this link. This way slashdot could avoid having anything and everything cached and yet provide people the opportunity to view the cached page through google.
Everybody could be happy and all the content would be cached.. how about that?
Uh.. drinking strong alcoholic drinks is a sure way to dehydrate your body. Even wine and beer dehydrate. Ever gone to bed drunk? How do you feel like when you wake up? Damn thirsty..
Maybe a moderate alcohol consumption with risky water etc, but not alcohol by itself.. might as well be drinking salt water. Go ask a health specialist if you don't believe me..
Nope.. official traffic related deaths are at around 35-38 thousand / year.. definetly less than 45. But yes, your point is still valid. I checked this up recently somewhere us-gov pages but can't recall the exact location..
If you had picked as your example anything other than cash I would have let it go but..
Stolen goods are worth a lot less then the real thing with the notable exception of cash. Cash has an absolute value unless we're talking about antique coins etc..
Concerning the theft of your laptop.. It might or might not have a value aside being a paperweight. That means that in an open market the thief could sell his "paperweight" for far more than a price of a regular paperweight. Meaning that your laptop has more value than a paperweight thus making him liable to far more than just a theft of a paperweight.
Which brings as about a full circle. A discussion that started from the defined value of software coming back to the "defined" (by the seller) value of hardware..
Ah.. but your analogy is not entirely correct. If I pirate 20 million dollars worth of microsoft software it might or might not be worth that much to me. Microsoft is not going to lose anything except if I really needed the software and would have actually bought it legally. However, taking that 20 million dollars in notes I definetly gain 20 million dollars and thats where the big difference is.
I can't take that software anywhere and sell it for 20 million dollars. Nobody is going to value pirated software that much. Nobody is even going to want 20 million dollars worth of microsoft software. So if I calculate just the value of my posession it is for all practical purposes zero. With those notes.. well i'd really have 20 million. It is not that much of a loss to the federal bank. They could probably write it off as a damaged set and mark down the serial numbers for identification but still I did gain 20 million dollars worth of money, something totally different than 20 billion zeros and ones on a cd.
Nope. Computer chips are most definetly not 1-D. Even 2-D is kind of stretching the truth but can be accepted as conceptually it is the best way of describing the architecture.
Strictly from a physical standpoint they are 3-D and this is best proven by the lack of widespread infinite memory capacity as between any two points there is an infinite number of 2-D planes and this can be proven mathematically.
1-D is just pure silly because even doing a flat representation of a modern chip requires a 2-D plane, and a rather filled up one it is for even a simple memory chip.. There is no way one could trace anything more complicated than series of capacitors, resistors or semiconductor junctions on a single line and even then it would physically 1-d only from the standpoint of path of electricity.
Slashdot Mirror
heheh.. How about a full outfit from Mover. Looks good, does it's job well and costs a fortune..
And your own reviews are as welcome as mine.
If my review was as welcome as JonKatz's I'd probably kill myself..
I totally agree that the olympic games should not be a political statement.
Yet, take for instance the opening ceremony. I managed to watch the first 5 minutes that it took to finish my pizza which I almost threw up listening to the crap that the nbc commentators were spitting out of their mouths. After this I just briefly turned the tv on to see the countries entering(only part I was really interested in since there's a couple dozen friends of mine marching under different flags).
Every other comment was an indirect reference to 9/11. Add this to the fact that the athletes entrance was interrupted over half a dozen times by commercials and I pretty much gave up on any faith that there was any decency left in the games.
As much as I managed to watch it, it was pretty much clear that the original olympic ideals were gone.
Whatever happended the olympic games promoting peace and harmony instead of drawing parallels to terrorism, doing live broadcasts from a warzone(american gi's in kandahar) in the middle of the opening ceremony, pointing out the axis of evil when iran marched in, turning the olympic village into a concentration camp or doing a live memorial service for what in Bush Jr's head amounts to war casualities. Then again 75% of the above was probably due to nbc and not visible to those in foreign countries.
As a matter of fact. As soon as the bribery scandal came into public knowledge they should've disqualified slc and given the games to sweden that got second place. I would trust the swedish to live up to the expectations of olympic spirit more than americans.
Try this with your palm.. Take a magnifying glass, go out to fry ants, wonder what would happen if the beam briefly touched your palm's screen, try.. cry..
Trust me, it doesn't take much exposure to fry that lcd screen. Granted, I didn't waste my palm but rather an ancient 5$ digital watch.. And this was way back when I was 8 back in the 80s, but still..
Okay.. Where does it say that .net framework is anything but a developers tool to make better applications faster? That is the million dollar question..
.net framework is a technology and this is probably where you are misled. Microsoft's ultimate strategy is using latter to accomplish the former.
.net is a strategy for world domination,
However, it just so happens that the technology is great as such and by creating an open alternative you essentially undermine microsoft's ultimate strategy.
Better yet, you don't need to spend all that effort coming up with something new because someone else already did it for you..
I would rather put your analogy this way:
A rich shark has a fancy new high-tech pool. You think that the pool and technology is good but would rather not swim with the shark in the same pool.
So you take a good look at the technology, go back to your own pool and recreate it there.
Shark has spent all that money installing all those hi-tech equipment there and you essentially just collect the benefits without putting in as much effort.
And if it turns out that all of those hi-tech equipment don't work like planned you still have your own pool..
Now who ate whose lunch and at what cost?
Wake up.. Microsoft has spent countless hours and a lot of money to come up with something that is actually good! It doesn't matter what their strategy is but as a technology .net framework is terrific. Note that .net generally refers to a lot more than just .net framework, which is what de Icaza is enthusiastic about.
.net framework. They might be able to lock up some minor details but it is the concept that matters.
.net revisions. What are we left with? A great technology.. What is there to lose?
We can get the benefits of the technology and ignore the strategy. Even if microsoft decides to change it's api or use patented processes it cannot prevent oss-community from essentially getting a free lunch on microsoft's expense because it is impossible to patent something as broad as
So microsoft pulls out the rug from underneath us and somehow prevents further interoperability with future
Oss has always been about taking the best ideas and implementing them in an open manner. What is different here? Nobody is going to force you to use it but if it is going to increase developers productivity then why not?
Nope.. 300w is not enough for everyone.
I had in my computer the following: cd-rw, dvd, sb live platinum, ati radeon dual display, 2x 7200rpm 40gig with athlon xp 1600 and lot of stability problems with a 300w ps.
Sometimes dvd-drive would not spin up in the beginning and computer would have to be turned on and off a couple of times before all the components would power up. Sometimes one or another hd did not get recognized, etc..
All these problems disappeared when i got a 400w ps.
It would totally depend on how far from the earth you were. If you are exactly on a geosyncronous orbit then you would definetly feel weightless no matter what. I'd assume that such a space elevator would be "anchored" on a geosyncronous orbit since otherwise it would drift and probably break the whole assembly.
If you are below the geosyncronous orbit you'd feel slight gravitational pull and above it you'd feel the effect of sentripetal force of the elevator keeping you attached to the earth - you'd actually be standing on the roof then.
Shuttles are normally orbiting the earth at a speed and height (mv^2/r=GmM/r^2) where earths pull is just enough to keep them on a steady circular course around earth - so they are technically free falling but never approaching earth. Geosyncronous orbit is just a special case where you're going at the same angular velocity as earth.
Sure it works.
Directly supported by xfree86. You can specify several virtual servers in the xf86config file all of which can have their own mouses, keyboards and monitors.
Just hook up a couple of usb keyboards and mouses to a computer along with a dual-head or two video cards and set them up in the config file.
For sound you'd just have to have two sound cards and configure programs in different servers to use different dsp-devices(which hopefully are not hard coded)..
Did you even read the fscking article?
If you make money of a mpeg-4 feed then you are required to pay a royalty. That seems rather fair considering these people took enormous amounts of time and effort to create an awesome compression scheme that works not only in software but has also been implemented in hardware(try to have some "free" alternatives implemented in hardware).
Yet.. If you don't make any money of the feed you are not required to pay anything. If it brings no value to you I suppose you wouldn't pay for it anyway..
Don't like it, fine don't use it. If you pay for it they get a small share. If you're not paying for it nobody's getting anything(except maybe an extra value to the end-user). What did these people not get again?
There is a very simple mathematical example about this.
Suppose you flip a coin. Everytime you get tails you move an object left, heads moves it right. Question now being. What is the probability that this object ends up at point A given an infinite amount of flips.
It just so happens that it can be proven mathematically that this probability is 1. So there is a 100% probability that it will occupy every and all possible places in that infinite line. Now think of a combination of objects following same sort of mathematical game but with a little more complex rules that allow for, say, 4 dimensional motion(to account for time too).
Some people even think that the universe is just a temporary statistical anomaly(that was given infinite amounts of coin flips).
What the second law of termodynamics states is that statistically in a closed system the amount of entropy, given enough time, always decreases.
So if put a vase broken into pieces in a closed box chances are that when I open it sometime in the future that I still find the same pieces. However, if I had infinite amounts of time at some point in time there is 100% possibility that those pieces rearranged themselves into a solid vase.
The probability of this occuring for long periods of time is infinetly small but again given infinite amounts of time the possibility of it occuring for any given amount of time is 100%.
Then again I'm no quantum physicist..
Curriculum vitale.. life's curriculum or something.. yeah it's a resume for you north americans..
But there is a clear distinction. 10 years ago every virus would attach itself to a host program, hence the name virus, and when the host program was run it would propagate. If the host program happened to be a system file or boot block you would get automatic propagation. Otherwise it would propagate when you ran the program in question.
Generally viruses would attach a short jump code in the beginning of the program and then insert rest of their code to the end. Once their own code was run they would jump back to the beginning of the program and you would run it as if nothing had happened.. This is fundamentally different from the current concept of outlook 'virus' that most definetly is just a trojan horse. It does not attach itself to an existing program(no, being an attachment in an email does not count) therefore it should not be called a virus. Some macro viruses, however, are entitled to the being called virus.
Then again, terms change in the course of time and to most people internet is just the web.. little do they know..
Actually it does disqualify it as a virus. These type of programs are called trojans. Being a virus requires self-reproduction. Posing as a useful program is categorized as a trojan horse..
Technically even the outlook 'worms' are not viruses as they require user to run the offending attachment in order to propagate.
Trojan horses they are but as it doesn't sound as exciting as virus so.. oh well.
Uh.. How about you go download the GPLed code from hp's site right now instead of speculating about what people could do.
However.. You are not going to get the closed source administration tools without which the kernel mod's are almost worthless. You also don't get a fully set up distribution with all the configuration and will have to duplicate all the effort that went into creating it.
If you want to be reasonably sure that your version is secure you'd have to perform extensive testing on it and have a lot of really smart people take a look at it. This is actually the easiest part as it follows normal linux development method. Still, whose ass is on the line if things are not as secure as they should be?
And you can bet your ass that anything that doesn't need to be GPLed is not and it comes with a very strict HP license that specifically forbids any disassembly, resale, etc.. Support contracts probably also include a clause that you have to have purchased the official hp distribution..
Typical slashdot ranting about gpl violations and how this is nothing new etc.. I wonder if anyone even read the article.
This is much more than just a few kernel modifications but rather a full distribution that comes on 4 cd's. Instead of just having some hacks that improve security the whole distribution is build from ground up with security in mind.
For example: You can't access shell unless you're on a console or use ssh. You can't access the configuration tools unless you are in posession of administrators private ssh key. Also, the installer forces you to set the system up with security in mind instead of installing everything and the kitchen sink..
Best part of this is that it comes with support from a highly reputable vendor. Sure it has it's price tag but imagine the amount of work required to make a full distribution that's security conscious and backing it up with hp's name!
And yes, you can download the source code that goes into kernel..
Isn't this the same technology that is being used in shops as an anti-theft measure? Somehow the clerks at the register seem to be able to disable it so that the alarms on the doors do not beep.. The bigger ones get taken off but I mean the ones that have been stuck between book pages and glued on the bottom of a bottle of vitamins etc..
This is assuming that you mean a remote sender who already has an established connection with the client..
You need to go no further than gnutella to see that this has already been implemented. In gnutella these are called push requests.
So you have a communication protocol for the established connection that includes commands for the server(sender) to ask the client to open an additional connection.
If you meant running a server behind nat I should ask you to stop smoking whatever it is that you smoke..
Extending this idea a little further...
It should be mandatory for slashdot postings to have the submitter first go through all links and submit them to google for searching and as such automatic caching and then on a sidebox provide a link to google cache of this link. This way slashdot could avoid having anything and everything cached and yet provide people the opportunity to view the cached page through google.
Everybody could be happy and all the content would be cached.. how about that?
Uh.. drinking strong alcoholic drinks is a sure way to dehydrate your body. Even wine and beer dehydrate. Ever gone to bed drunk? How do you feel like when you wake up? Damn thirsty..
Maybe a moderate alcohol consumption with risky water etc, but not alcohol by itself.. might as well be drinking salt water. Go ask a health specialist if you don't believe me..
Nope.. official traffic related deaths are at around 35-38 thousand / year.. definetly less than 45. But yes, your point is still valid. I checked this up recently somewhere us-gov pages but can't recall the exact location..
If you had picked as your example anything other than cash I would have let it go but..
Stolen goods are worth a lot less then the real thing with the notable exception of cash. Cash has an absolute value unless we're talking about antique coins etc..
Concerning the theft of your laptop.. It might or might not have a value aside being a paperweight. That means that in an open market the thief could sell his "paperweight" for far more than a price of a regular paperweight. Meaning that your laptop has more value than a paperweight thus making him liable to far more than just a theft of a paperweight.
Which brings as about a full circle. A discussion that started from the defined value of software coming back to the "defined" (by the seller) value of hardware..
Ah.. but your analogy is not entirely correct. If I pirate 20 million dollars worth of microsoft software it might or might not be worth that much to me. Microsoft is not going to lose anything except if I really needed the software and would have actually bought it legally. However, taking that 20 million dollars in notes I definetly gain 20 million dollars and thats where the big difference is.
I can't take that software anywhere and sell it for 20 million dollars. Nobody is going to value pirated software that much. Nobody is even going to want 20 million dollars worth of microsoft software. So if I calculate just the value of my posession it is for all practical purposes zero. With those notes.. well i'd really have 20 million. It is not that much of a loss to the federal bank. They could probably write it off as a damaged set and mark down the serial numbers for identification but still I did gain 20 million dollars worth of money, something totally different than 20 billion zeros and ones on a cd.
Nope. Computer chips are most definetly not 1-D. Even 2-D is kind of stretching the truth but can be accepted as conceptually it is the best way of describing the architecture.
Strictly from a physical standpoint they are 3-D and this is best proven by the lack of widespread infinite memory capacity as between any two points there is an infinite number of 2-D planes and this can be proven mathematically.
1-D is just pure silly because even doing a flat representation of a modern chip requires a 2-D plane, and a rather filled up one it is for even a simple memory chip.. There is no way one could trace anything more complicated than series of capacitors, resistors or semiconductor junctions on a single line and even then it would physically 1-d only from the standpoint of path of electricity.