Eh? He offered OS X for free for these machines, but they turned it down due to it being closed source. If it fell through, that would be taking a kick in the balls, especially since there's a good chance this might make it into one of Apple's segments, considering they still target education, while using their operating system at Apple's expense. That's more than you can say for yourself. What have YOU done for poor little Sebastian in Nigeria, personally?
It might help if I mention that something like this could be done using session ids in cookies. The server generates a random position for said "holy object", and associates it with a session id. This goes on, and for each new request, a new id and news position are generated and associated. This ought to keep the bot guessing for a very long time, especially if there are multiple correct answers. The hair thing is a good idea, but what about the colorblind? I think that identifying generic objects would be a bit more accessible, but having multiple correct answers (and having to get them all correct) is a nice idea.
In that case, one could render them all into one image and use alphanumeric identifiers for the kittens instead. Even better, throw in a bunch of random pictures and ask the user to type in the ID of whichever one is item "x". Someone suggested that you use flickr with the kittens, so having access to multiple "x" pictures is a must. You get all the combinations of strange alphanumeric strings and the usability/cuteness factor of contrasting fuzzy animals.
their argument is "why should Google be able to use my pipes for free?"
The main problem with their argument is that the internet is really a series of tubes. When they understand that, I'll be able to receive my internets faster.
I guess it's perfectly moral to deny a product to someone because they aren't of the right age, race, sex, or nationality, then. All right, I'll run with that. I guess it's also logical to expect said someone to withhold any complaints because it's moral, right? Okay, I've been enlightened.
Who knew that a stateless, event-driven constantly running MVC-like framework would outperform scripting languages that had to be reset for each request? It's a good thing they didn't compare stuff such as RoR or Django with FastCGI and page cache, or else ASP.NET wouldn't look as great as it did in this article and eWeek would feel ashamed for still using the obsoleted ASP . . . well, that last one should be valid either way, especially since they WTFA.
Okay, so by your logic it should be legal for your teleco, say AT&T, to drop any third party ISP like AOL or EarthLink so its' customers could only use AT&T's Internet services?
I was a BeOS user (and hobbyist developer) and really liked BFS, but it can't really be compared to WinFS which (if ever completed according to specs) will be an entirely different beast, much more advanced than a simple file system with custom attributes.
How so? The fact that it's just like UFS (metadata) on top of FFS (inodes), WinFS (searchable metadata) on top and NTFS (inodes) on the bottom? Give some examples. I'm sure the rest of Slashdot wants to know what's so much greater about vaporware than usable filesystems.
I actually wouldn't mind shows which only showed commercials.
They already tried it secretly, and it became a hit, but shows that actually showcased commercials were never popular. Just disguise it as anything else, and the sheep will come . . .
Pirate steals stream, hosts it over P2P (and if it's on there, he doesn't care about intellectual property), millions of other people host it and suddenly everyone's an Intellectual Property holder! How can this be a bad thing? (Yeah, sort of naïve to beleive that, but it's worth a shot . ..)
But, the only alternative I see, scary thought, ISP's being forced to go back to some sort of "pay for what you use" service
I don't know about you, but I already pay for what I use. 24GB/Month downstream cap, 6GB/Month upstream cap for $80. Granted, it's on a satellite system, but the idea that people might actually have to pay for what they use would make the internet faster because Joe Consumer isn't raping the ISP's connection to the backbone just so he can get high-res pr0n. Not a bad idea, really, as long as the price isn't rediculous.
That's just it, whatever controls delete functions imposed those restrictions... on a shortcut file (see the image, it's hard to see, but the dialog does explain that it's a shortcut). Not only that, but he complains later on about the useability(sp?) of the same dialog, and I agree with him. What happened to 'Are you sure you want to delete these (numdelete) items permanently? Yes, No'? It was simple and easy to understand. Now we get this. Two buttons to click for just one deletion. Can you imagine the headache of emptying a recycle bin with 100+ items in it... two hundred clicks for an operation that used to require one. That's what he was getting at.
The idea you have is fine; it's what we have right now. The priority goes to the customers on your line requesting something off the other line paying more for faster service. Verizon and AT&T figure there's not enough money, so they're going to double-dip and put a theoretical cap on Google if Google doesn't pay the fines. So, while Google is paying for who knows how many different OC192 pipes and you're paying for the 1.5Mbps down/256Kbps up, the telecos want to tell Google, "It'd be a shame if this packet didn't make it to the customer, wouldn't it?" The Internet Mafia is what the telecos have become, and those who whacked down the fair access bill don't really care.
WTF are you talking about? OS X isn't a pure microkernel, and the last monolithic kernel from the Windows Family was ME. Windows NT and Mac OS X use the same kernel architecture: the Hybrid kernel model. As much as Windows blows, you've gotta get your facts straight before shooting off FUD.
But what if said program is turned into a kernel/server? If the kernel itself could trap anything trying to write to the boot sector, or even had a copy of it to overwrite the shafted one at shutdown/suspend, wouldn't this exploit be nullified? If the user was notified and told that it could render their box useless, they might wise up to the problem and kill the offending process.
It seems sort of stupid that every OS out there gives boot sector overwrite capabilities to any program with the UID set to root. If I'm wrong, please correct me...
Does he want Microsoft to take out support for obsolete hardware every time they upgrade their operating system?
I beleive Microsoft managed that on their own. Compare that to A G4 from 1999, which can run OS X.IV.III (the current version of OS X) just fine (ignore the 0MB RAM, I have no idea who writes that stuff). Seriously, how many 1999 PCs could possibly handle Vista, with its' 512MB RAM reccommendation, 64 MB DirectX 9 compliant GPU requirement and a DVD-ROM at the least? Don't give me the upgrade crap; if you plan on that it's like building a completely new PC, and how many normal people (read:AOLers) could do it themselves or would really pay someone to fix it instead of buying a new Dell?
Slashdot Mirror
It's running NT 4 Embedded (Codename: Windows for Toasters) isn't it?
Eh? He offered OS X for free for these machines, but they turned it down due to it being closed source. If it fell through, that would be taking a kick in the balls, especially since there's a good chance this might make it into one of Apple's segments, considering they still target education, while using their operating system at Apple's expense. That's more than you can say for yourself. What have YOU done for poor little Sebastian in Nigeria, personally?
It might help if I mention that something like this could be done using session ids in cookies. The server generates a random position for said "holy object", and associates it with a session id. This goes on, and for each new request, a new id and news position are generated and associated. This ought to keep the bot guessing for a very long time, especially if there are multiple correct answers. The hair thing is a good idea, but what about the colorblind? I think that identifying generic objects would be a bit more accessible, but having multiple correct answers (and having to get them all correct) is a nice idea.
In that case, one could render them all into one image and use alphanumeric identifiers for the kittens instead. Even better, throw in a bunch of random pictures and ask the user to type in the ID of whichever one is item "x". Someone suggested that you use flickr with the kittens, so having access to multiple "x" pictures is a must. You get all the combinations of strange alphanumeric strings and the usability/cuteness factor of contrasting fuzzy animals.
The main problem with their argument is that the internet is really a series of tubes. When they understand that, I'll be able to receive my internets faster.
I guess it's perfectly moral to deny a product to someone because they aren't of the right age, race, sex, or nationality, then. All right, I'll run with that. I guess it's also logical to expect said someone to withhold any complaints because it's moral, right? Okay, I've been enlightened.
Who knew that a stateless, event-driven constantly running MVC-like framework would outperform scripting languages that had to be reset for each request? It's a good thing they didn't compare stuff such as RoR or Django with FastCGI and page cache, or else ASP.NET wouldn't look as great as it did in this article and eWeek would feel ashamed for still using the obsoleted ASP . . . well, that last one should be valid either way, especially since they WTFA.
Okay, so by your logic it should be legal for your teleco, say AT&T, to drop any third party ISP like AOL or EarthLink so its' customers could only use AT&T's Internet services?
Pirate steals stream, hosts it over P2P (and if it's on there, he doesn't care about intellectual property), millions of other people host it and suddenly everyone's an Intellectual Property holder! How can this be a bad thing? (Yeah, sort of naïve to beleive that, but it's worth a shot . . .)
But, the only alternative I see, scary thought, ISP's being forced to go back to some sort of "pay for what you use" service
I don't know about you, but I already pay for what I use. 24GB/Month downstream cap, 6GB/Month upstream cap for $80. Granted, it's on a satellite system, but the idea that people might actually have to pay for what they use would make the internet faster because Joe Consumer isn't raping the ISP's connection to the backbone just so he can get high-res pr0n. Not a bad idea, really, as long as the price isn't rediculous.
I tried one chapter with LaTeX and foud out that actually I spend more time in LaTeX preparing my tables that doing the same thing in Word
You know, they have a graphical frontend to make that sort of stuff in LaTeX easier.
That's just it, whatever controls delete functions imposed those restrictions... on a shortcut file (see the image, it's hard to see, but the dialog does explain that it's a shortcut). Not only that, but he complains later on about the useability(sp?) of the same dialog, and I agree with him. What happened to 'Are you sure you want to delete these (numdelete) items permanently? Yes, No'? It was simple and easy to understand. Now we get this. Two buttons to click for just one deletion. Can you imagine the headache of emptying a recycle bin with 100+ items in it... two hundred clicks for an operation that used to require one. That's what he was getting at.
The idea you have is fine; it's what we have right now. The priority goes to the customers on your line requesting something off the other line paying more for faster service. Verizon and AT&T figure there's not enough money, so they're going to double-dip and put a theoretical cap on Google if Google doesn't pay the fines. So, while Google is paying for who knows how many different OC192 pipes and you're paying for the 1.5Mbps down/256Kbps up, the telecos want to tell Google, "It'd be a shame if this packet didn't make it to the customer, wouldn't it?" The Internet Mafia is what the telecos have become, and those who whacked down the fair access bill don't really care.
WTF are you talking about? OS X isn't a pure microkernel, and the last monolithic kernel from the Windows Family was ME. Windows NT and Mac OS X use the same kernel architecture: the Hybrid kernel model. As much as Windows blows, you've gotta get your facts straight before shooting off FUD.
But what if said program is turned into a kernel/server? If the kernel itself could trap anything trying to write to the boot sector, or even had a copy of it to overwrite the shafted one at shutdown/suspend, wouldn't this exploit be nullified? If the user was notified and told that it could render their box useless, they might wise up to the problem and kill the offending process.
It seems sort of stupid that every OS out there gives boot sector overwrite capabilities to any program with the UID set to root. If I'm wrong, please correct me...
Does he want Microsoft to take out support for obsolete hardware every time they upgrade their operating system?
I beleive Microsoft managed that on their own. Compare that to A G4 from 1999, which can run OS X.IV.III (the current version of OS X) just fine (ignore the 0MB RAM, I have no idea who writes that stuff). Seriously, how many 1999 PCs could possibly handle Vista, with its' 512MB RAM reccommendation, 64 MB DirectX 9 compliant GPU requirement and a DVD-ROM at the least? Don't give me the upgrade crap; if you plan on that it's like building a completely new PC, and how many normal people (read:AOLers) could do it themselves or would really pay someone to fix it instead of buying a new Dell?