On the other hand JFK was the rich, womanizing son of a guy who made a killing on the speculation and insider dealing that lead to the great depression, who's personal doctor gave him amphetamine for back pain.. He started the Vietnam war and tried to violently overthrow the Cuban government.
I don't think he was a bad president but the way some people put him on a pedestal is probably a bit naive; he probably would have gone down in popularity like they all do, these days with much more media scrutiny he probably couldn't have become president, and if he had become president today he wouldn't have been assassinated due to the far increased security.
Also I think Obama is doing well but if you think he's doing something wrong don't try and blame it on some unnamed, invisible evil. They did the same thing with the perfect Chairman Mao and Mrs. Mao who was pure evil
Bear in mind that when you create a copy of a container you are supposed to create a new container, copy the files over, and then send off the new container. If you just sync changes or repeatedly copy over the container file you use it does raise some differential attack possibilities that TrueCrypt take seriously enough to warn against.
Whether this matters depends on how large you want the container to be; if it's large it can take ages to backup for this reason.
I agree that info which needs to remain personal should always be encrypted locally and that how it should be accessed from multiple places needs to be built around that. You can't have an open-access any-client web-hosted system and then add encryption on top, if you really value keeping it to yourself. For all you know these embarrassing e-mails were securely encrypted using EFS, but that wouldn't have made any difference to the deceased because someone else was taking care of it.
Yeah there's no good reason fusion power is taking such a long time to develop, not like there's an immensely powerful magnet, extremely rare fuel and an immense neutron flux to try and contain..
Or how about nuclear energy?.. (You can even call uranium the "battery", if you insist.)
Why people get so attached to this or that source of energy is really weird. If we want realistic ways to lower emmisions we'll need solar where it's sunny, wind where it's windy, geothermal where it's unstable, hydroelectric where it is stable, nuclear where it's safe, natural gas where it isn't, and inevitably some coal filling in the gaps where things are developing.
To take this article as meaning that solar power has rendered nuclear obsolete is like saying Priuses have rendered trains obsolete because they get better gas mileage.. They have different characteristics and will both be used as appropriate.
Microsoft are making money, and lots of it, so they're doing something right.
These sorts of research projects are the sort of things that are very cool and flashy, but probably would be hard to make money off, and probably don't represent the majority of MS research projects which we don't hear about which aren't flashy at all.
e.g. we've all heard of Photosynth and Songsmith, other flashy but uncommercialized projects, but probably fewer people know about Singularity (Or only know about it in reference to how MS admitted that Linux takes slightly fewer cycles to start a process up than Windows), and Singularity is a relatively very well known research project.
A research project about some abstract aspect of computer science of the sort that'd be applicable to Windows Mobile data compression or Office Visio data-map representations isn't going to get any slashdot attention but is going to help Microsoft's bottom line ultimately.
Check out http://research.microsoft.com to get a taste for the actual volume and flavor of research that goes on at MS
It never reaches -30 here, and we get systems and cars which overheat much more easily in summer so we're due for some tech which favors hotter places. (Solar panels don't count, even here they're not economical)
The other trend is clock encoding. Instead of sending bits synchronously, or sending a strobe (a separate clock) signal along with the data. Now we 'encode' the clock into the data, using encoding such as the 8B/10B encoding. The receiving circuit can then 'retrieve' the clock from the data signal (it basically allow you to identify each set of data from each clock cycle, and detect problems). Serial interfaces are also usually accompanied by training sequences at start up (may be software implemented) to adjust various parameters to make the data transmission ideal for the environment.
Isn't Manchester encoding / differential Manchester encoding (having both clock and data going down one line) really old?
You need to try new things ofc, plus tests actually show that it works, BP bought 32 of them and they're being deployed, and they could make a big difference.
Definitely misunderestimated Costner here, I figured it was an attempt to float his crazy nephew's hair-brained idea or something..
Of course, you need to remove many of the new.NET crap, which is ruining the industry for everyone
I can see how a Wine dev wouldn't like.NET, but I like it just fine and if you're a Windows developer it's an excellent choice. (It even has inroads into Linux via mono, which is surprisingly compatible both at a framework, language and CLR level)
Emulators are good, but Linux is less than 20 years old (even if you don't consider 2.0 to be the first real release), and you'll have big problems trying to run old un-updated software, which isn't using some POSIX-compliant subset of linux's functionality, on a modern linux. Windows has, by comparison, much better backwards compatibility (largely because source is more likely to be unavailable which makes maintaining the software manually harder, so the effects are lessened)
(Unless you were saying DOSEMU&FreeDOS only run on linux? They do run on Windows)
As long as they keep racing towards a standard it is a great thing, there was definitely equally fierce competition a decade ago but it was far less productive
I'm not a coder. I couldn't create a kernel if my life depended on it. I couldn't code a hungry cat to catch a mouse. 1/2 or more of what I read in code is gibberish to me.
But, one thing is pretty sure. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux, and his programming background came directly from Unix. OF COURSE he is going to write the same commands he has used a thousand times in the same way. OF COURSE there are going to be lines that look very much the same, sometimes even identical.
Linus Torvalds started linux; out of the current code he authored a few percent. Linux is now massive, and this is a pretty large amount of it for one guy to have written, but his main job these days is on managing code submissions from others. This case is really unrelated to Torvalds; if submitted code was plagiarized he wouldn't have been responsible or known about it, and it's really fairly unrelated to Linux; if SCO were to have succeeded Linux wouldn't disappear, but certain companies like IBM, SGI, etc, would have needed to pay some cash and redo some code.
Torvalds is not on trial here.
Also, as a guy who had his own code plagiarized, I am very wary of special pleading to try and excuse such behavior. We need to look at the facts of the case; we can still use Linux (I do) and at the same time be completely, absolutely opposed to it being tainted with plagiarized code.
The truth is that code was reused (if not copied, exactly, in the same way you don't submit a copied essay which you've taken from a classmate) from a UNIX derivative, which is now (somewhat disputably) owned by SCO.
That is understandable (even if illegal and arguably inethical); there's a dying version of UNIX which no-one seems to be the definite owner of, why not reuse useful snippets from it for the sake of compatibility and efficiency? Well this whole mess is exactly why; when in doubt write your own goddamn code, always.
We should be just as mad at SGI and IBM for being lazy and careless as we are annoyed that a company like SCO exists only to litigate and not do anything useful.
But please do not try and excuse or downplay this behavior. Linux is not going away, and we want justice to always be done because next time it'll be some other company using code from Linux (or one of your projects).
These are not small words like "kissing" that are under dispute, this is not about reusing some very common routines that everyone uses, that's just silly. Rather it's about companies wanting to maintain compatibility with legacy versions of UNIX and doing so by referring directly to the legacy UNIX at best, and plagiarizing their code at worst.
Trying to imply that this is some nonsense that should be dismissed just because you like Linux is like playing down and ridiculing the evidence of the murder of Hans Reiser's wife because you like ReiserFS. It's even sillier in some ways because Linux isn't at stake in the case like ReiserFS was. (An extreme analogy I know, but valid).
Always support justice, always maintain strict ethics when using your code as you would expect others to for your own code. If everyone did that companies like SCO couldn't exist, and more money would go to coders and less to lawyers.
Not like us slashdot users; we're so not saddos that we lap up a story about how a bunch of saddos were referred to as saddos, and in the discussion we agree that they are saddos. Someone somewhere is trying to think up a Portal glados pun and failing, slashdot gets ~117 hits to Facebook's 700,000 in news.bbc.co.uk, gits are comparing google hits to make a point no-one wants to hear; this is where the movers and shakers move and shake.
Okay I'm just bitter because this is idle material
Slashdot Mirror
If you looked up "pyrrhic victory" in the dictionary it'd probably make reference to Sun vs Microsoft
Why do you think Oracle bought Sun?
For Solaris?
Don't be ridiculous, they bought it for SPARC..
If WikiLeaks had made a moral choice not to publish the leak would the source reconsider his moral choice to publish it?
It's just a moral gray area, there are good arguments on both sides but I expect Wikileaks has balanced it all up more closely that anyone here
On the other hand JFK was the rich, womanizing son of a guy who made a killing on the speculation and insider dealing that lead to the great depression, who's personal doctor gave him amphetamine for back pain.. He started the Vietnam war and tried to violently overthrow the Cuban government.
I don't think he was a bad president but the way some people put him on a pedestal is probably a bit naive; he probably would have gone down in popularity like they all do, these days with much more media scrutiny he probably couldn't have become president, and if he had become president today he wouldn't have been assassinated due to the far increased security.
Also I think Obama is doing well but if you think he's doing something wrong don't try and blame it on some unnamed, invisible evil. They did the same thing with the perfect Chairman Mao and Mrs. Mao who was pure evil
Bear in mind that when you create a copy of a container you are supposed to create a new container, copy the files over, and then send off the new container. If you just sync changes or repeatedly copy over the container file you use it does raise some differential attack possibilities that TrueCrypt take seriously enough to warn against.
Whether this matters depends on how large you want the container to be; if it's large it can take ages to backup for this reason.
I agree that info which needs to remain personal should always be encrypted locally and that how it should be accessed from multiple places needs to be built around that. You can't have an open-access any-client web-hosted system and then add encryption on top, if you really value keeping it to yourself. For all you know these embarrassing e-mails were securely encrypted using EFS, but that wouldn't have made any difference to the deceased because someone else was taking care of it.
That and getting it to last more than a few seconds, which requires materials which can withstand the neutron flux
Yeah there's no good reason fusion power is taking such a long time to develop, not like there's an immensely powerful magnet, extremely rare fuel and an immense neutron flux to try and contain..
Or how about nuclear energy?.. (You can even call uranium the "battery", if you insist.)
Why people get so attached to this or that source of energy is really weird. If we want realistic ways to lower emmisions we'll need solar where it's sunny, wind where it's windy, geothermal where it's unstable, hydroelectric where it is stable, nuclear where it's safe, natural gas where it isn't, and inevitably some coal filling in the gaps where things are developing.
To take this article as meaning that solar power has rendered nuclear obsolete is like saying Priuses have rendered trains obsolete because they get better gas mileage.. They have different characteristics and will both be used as appropriate.
Microsoft are making money, and lots of it, so they're doing something right.
These sorts of research projects are the sort of things that are very cool and flashy, but probably would be hard to make money off, and probably don't represent the majority of MS research projects which we don't hear about which aren't flashy at all.
e.g. we've all heard of Photosynth and Songsmith, other flashy but uncommercialized projects, but probably fewer people know about Singularity (Or only know about it in reference to how MS admitted that Linux takes slightly fewer cycles to start a process up than Windows), and Singularity is a relatively very well known research project.
A research project about some abstract aspect of computer science of the sort that'd be applicable to Windows Mobile data compression or Office Visio data-map representations isn't going to get any slashdot attention but is going to help Microsoft's bottom line ultimately.
Check out http://research.microsoft.com to get a taste for the actual volume and flavor of research that goes on at MS
It never reaches -30 here, and we get systems and cars which overheat much more easily in summer so we're due for some tech which favors hotter places. (Solar panels don't count, even here they're not economical)
The other trend is clock encoding. Instead of sending bits synchronously, or sending a strobe (a separate clock) signal along with the data. Now we 'encode' the clock into the data, using encoding such as the 8B/10B encoding. The receiving circuit can then 'retrieve' the clock from the data signal (it basically allow you to identify each set of data from each clock cycle, and detect problems). Serial interfaces are also usually accompanied by training sequences at start up (may be software implemented) to adjust various parameters to make the data transmission ideal for the environment.
Isn't Manchester encoding / differential Manchester encoding (having both clock and data going down one line) really old?
Because everyone sets the times on their cameras
Maximum original sentence perhaps, which got changed to include the extra fraud? Probably specified somewhere in the article
You need to try new things ofc, plus tests actually show that it works, BP bought 32 of them and they're being deployed, and they could make a big difference.
Definitely misunderestimated Costner here, I figured it was an attempt to float his crazy nephew's hair-brained idea or something..
You think you sound smart when you write like that? You sound like a pompous pindick
Of course, you need to remove many of the new .NET crap, which is ruining the industry for everyone
I can see how a Wine dev wouldn't like .NET, but I like it just fine and if you're a Windows developer it's an excellent choice. (It even has inroads into Linux via mono, which is surprisingly compatible both at a framework, language and CLR level)
Wow you're easily amused. How about this: Windows 7 isn't bad, period. Better?
Emulators are good, but Linux is less than 20 years old (even if you don't consider 2.0 to be the first real release), and you'll have big problems trying to run old un-updated software, which isn't using some POSIX-compliant subset of linux's functionality, on a modern linux. Windows has, by comparison, much better backwards compatibility (largely because source is more likely to be unavailable which makes maintaining the software manually harder, so the effects are lessened)
(Unless you were saying DOSEMU&FreeDOS only run on linux? They do run on Windows)
As long as they keep racing towards a standard it is a great thing, there was definitely equally fierce competition a decade ago but it was far less productive
I'm not a coder. I couldn't create a kernel if my life depended on it. I couldn't code a hungry cat to catch a mouse. 1/2 or more of what I read in code is gibberish to me.
But, one thing is pretty sure. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux, and his programming background came directly from Unix. OF COURSE he is going to write the same commands he has used a thousand times in the same way. OF COURSE there are going to be lines that look very much the same, sometimes even identical.
Linus Torvalds started linux; out of the current code he authored a few percent. Linux is now massive, and this is a pretty large amount of it for one guy to have written, but his main job these days is on managing code submissions from others. This case is really unrelated to Torvalds; if submitted code was plagiarized he wouldn't have been responsible or known about it, and it's really fairly unrelated to Linux; if SCO were to have succeeded Linux wouldn't disappear, but certain companies like IBM, SGI, etc, would have needed to pay some cash and redo some code.
Torvalds is not on trial here.
Also, as a guy who had his own code plagiarized, I am very wary of special pleading to try and excuse such behavior. We need to look at the facts of the case; we can still use Linux (I do) and at the same time be completely, absolutely opposed to it being tainted with plagiarized code.
The truth is that code was reused (if not copied, exactly, in the same way you don't submit a copied essay which you've taken from a classmate) from a UNIX derivative, which is now (somewhat disputably) owned by SCO.
That is understandable (even if illegal and arguably inethical); there's a dying version of UNIX which no-one seems to be the definite owner of, why not reuse useful snippets from it for the sake of compatibility and efficiency? Well this whole mess is exactly why; when in doubt write your own goddamn code, always.
We should be just as mad at SGI and IBM for being lazy and careless as we are annoyed that a company like SCO exists only to litigate and not do anything useful.
But please do not try and excuse or downplay this behavior. Linux is not going away, and we want justice to always be done because next time it'll be some other company using code from Linux (or one of your projects).
These are not small words like "kissing" that are under dispute, this is not about reusing some very common routines that everyone uses, that's just silly. Rather it's about companies wanting to maintain compatibility with legacy versions of UNIX and doing so by referring directly to the legacy UNIX at best, and plagiarizing their code at worst.
Trying to imply that this is some nonsense that should be dismissed just because you like Linux is like playing down and ridiculing the evidence of the murder of Hans Reiser's wife because you like ReiserFS. It's even sillier in some ways because Linux isn't at stake in the case like ReiserFS was. (An extreme analogy I know, but valid).
Always support justice, always maintain strict ethics when using your code as you would expect others to for your own code. If everyone did that companies like SCO couldn't exist, and more money would go to coders and less to lawyers.
I thought he'd say hexagons, without anti-aliasing it'd look nasty for straight lines, but it might be better for some things
Finally! A colloquial take on lorem ipsum filler-text; how have I got on without this?!
Not like us slashdot users; we're so not saddos that we lap up a story about how a bunch of saddos were referred to as saddos, and in the discussion we agree that they are saddos. Someone somewhere is trying to think up a Portal glados pun and failing, slashdot gets ~117 hits to Facebook's 700,000 in news.bbc.co.uk, gits are comparing google hits to make a point no-one wants to hear; this is where the movers and shakers move and shake.
Okay I'm just bitter because this is idle material
We would prefer you say "stunning" ("breathtaking" would also have been fine)