> "... He wrote algorithms that analyzed various text and data points of junk e-mail to produce "organic" images of plantlike structures that spontaneously grew based on incoming spam. "
One time I did a spline interpolation of dots with coordinates I took from/dev/urandom. I still wonder why they looked like brownian motion...
bravery: 1. n, one of the most typical characteristics of a man enjoying safety.
quote from Ambrose Bierce: "The Devil's dictionary".
Jokes aside, you're perfectly right. And EVEN if you prefer safety over freedom, just explain to me how being in THAT list is going to stop terrorists? I mean, if you *know* you're on their list, you're not going to carry guns on the aircraft, are you?
> "The role of CPU performance is definitely waning, and if a radical new technology fails to materialize quickly we will be compelled to write more efficient code for power consumption costs and reasons," Fomitchev writes. Yes, he is right. The problem is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy has been very long forgotten from the manifacturers of OS for 90% of the PC's around the world. I do not want to start a flamewar, just consider how many features of the OS you really need? It is arguably a GOOD practice to put everything you can in an OS, but for cryin' out loud, at least there must be a way to remove the unneeded parts.
> Slow, bloated software entails higher costs in terms of both direct and indirect power consumption, and the author reasons that code optimization will likely involve the replacement of blade server racks with microblade server racks where every microblade executes a dedicated task and thus eats up less power. That looks like where we're heading now. Jut consider the 1000 projects for distributed computing out there, and the whole virtualization thingy. But this by itself cannot mean that much less power. If you want less consumption, you have to rely on technology AND on more optimized software.
> The collective number of microblades should also far outnumber initial "macro" blades. Fully isolating software components should enhance the system's robustness thanks to the potential of real-time component hot-swap or upgrade and the total removal of software installation, implementation, and patch conflicts. YES!!! That's what we're talking about, man! We need separate modules to do the work. Just for info, try googling for Microkernels vs. Monolithic. Tannenbaum has good arguments in favor of microkernels in terms of stability. I don't want to take either side, but it is true that whilst a mere 99.999% of the cars don't suffer from reboots of their onboard computers, our desctops still do. Remember the old joke: "You've moved your mouse. Please restart your computer for the changes to take efect."
> The likelihood of this happening is reliant on the factor of energy costs, which directly feeds into the factor of code optimization efficiency." Maybe we should move into higher-programming languages that take most of the optimizations hidden from the programmer. For example I have recently read a review that optimizied Java code is VERY near native C performance. Even if that is not true, C is not adapded enough for the various SSE, SIMD and so on optimizations in the modern PCs. Yes, GCC makes all kinds of optimizations, but maybe WE need to move into higher-order logic for our programs?
> Wireless networks should not be able to be setup without encryption. That is only YHO.
> As it stands now anyone wanting to release virus's or download anything can do so by driving up to almost any hotel in the US. So what? Are you proposing, that instead of fixing all the bugs and closing wide open doors and windows (pun intended) we lock ourselves? Lemme get this strait - because it *can* be used by bad people. Sheesh. I try to apply common sense, but packet sniffing and logs are not exactly the kind of evidence you need before the court, that includes ISP's logs, for the simple reason of ease-to-forge. There is no problem with the police using it as a guideline, but it IS NOT EVIDENCE.
> Any resident with an unencrypted network is subject to their network being used for -any- purpose. So are you if you leave your car unlocked with the keys. So are you guilty of something? Stupidity IS a birth right.
> Firmware makers should be required to make encryption a default setup value. > Period. What if I leave my password short and easy-to-remember? And "unintendedly" stick it on everyone else's doors.
> Hackers and mal contents need not worry about their actions. No problem for them, I think. The problem is not the open lanes (the routers and wi-fi) but the crappy software behind the scenes.
The latest twist: Buried in a new filing from SCO (nyse: SCO - news - people ) is a claim that International Business Machines (nyse: IBM - news - people ) destroyed evidence by ordering its programmers to delete copies of software code that could have helped SCO prove its case. Yeah... there are 2 options: 1. We never got the code, yet somehow we *KNOW* you're infringing our rights with it. 2. We had the code, but we lost it, so YOU must provide it.
SCO alleges this happened in 2003, yet the company has never talked about it in public before.
However, an attorney for SCO says the code deletion is one reason why the Lindon, Utah, software maker has been unable to comply with a demand that it produce examples of allegedly stolen code.
"It's kind of hard for us to do that," says Brent Hatch, an attorney with Hatch, James & Dodge in Salt Lake City, "because we don't have it. It was destroyed before it could be given to us."... Toward the end of its objection, SCO claims IBM deleted copies of two versions of Unix, called Dynix and AIX, which could have helped SCO prove its case. Soooo... it is the first, then. We never had the code, but you're baaaad. Veeery baaad. And because you can't find the code of one OS of maybe 1000 (with the different versions), so you're hiding something.
SCO claims the move was "egregious" and represents "spoliation of evidence," a potentially serious charge.
"Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed 'dozens' of its Linux developers...to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers," SCO's objection claims. Claims, claims...
"One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer," SCO says. One guy working for IBM said, that he delete some code of some old obscure UNIX implementation. So what?
Hatch says the allegation has become relevant now, because it helps explain why SCO could not meet demands to cite source code... and we couldn't think of anything else.
Hatch concedes the Wells ruling represented a setback for SCO. But he says SCO still has a strong case. So, pigs do fly?
"You can't read big things into all these little wars," Hatch says. "It's like saying the North didn't win the Civil War just because a couple of battles were bad for us." Couple of battles? Come on, every semi-intelligent being can see their case is just hot-air.
And most of all, the judge cannot rule this in their favor for one simple reason: They have to proove that IBM did this for the purpose of winning the case. So what? Someone in your organisation deletes some code when you're under litigation. You're charged with "destruction of evidence". Just because you destroyed some evidence, doesn't make you guilty. The destruction have to be on purpose. Unless there is sufficient proof of their guilt, their claim is just bullsh*t, or put otherwise, good-ol-FUD.
> It amazes me how soon that people forget about reality. Me too. So why did you?
> The fact is that there have been thousands of terrorist attacks that have been halted due to these government activities. You mean like the killer bees or the razor in the apple on Halloween?
> Just because Bush and the government is aggressively protecting us doesn't give anyone the right to complain! OMG!!! Can I protect you aggressively by punching you? It won't hurt... much. But I will save you because I won't kill you. Agree?
> Sadly, it's hard for the government say "look what we stopped", because if we give the terrorists any information, we put ourselves at massive risk. I for one don't want to lose my way of life. So, basically, we should trust everybody that says: I want your privacy? THAT is a sure way not-to-loose your way of life.
> Would you rather have you and your children dead, or safe? That's really the question on the table. Heeey, you are sooo muuuch safer. From your neighbour and from your mother. That b**ch always wanted to kill you, right? And from schoolmates... THAT is a relieve, right? When did criminals started to obey the law, by the way? Newsflash: If I wanted to kill you NOONE could stop me. Deal with it.
> It seems like many here would choose dead. Supporting our president's right to spy on criminal terrorists is saving us from certain destruction. To risk a little bit of theoretical "personal privacy of innocent Americans" seems like an extremely reasonable price to pay. No, many would choose freedom or choose death. Maybe you haven't noticed how many people have died in rebellions throughout the history of mankind. Terrorists are a timed event, but consequences of loosing your freedom will be a burden to your children as well. The 'little bit of theretical personal privacy' means you can be watched and you won't be able to find out who did it, let alone punish the bastards. That is lawful? I think it is even against the human rights convention. And it is only about BASIC human rights!
> This is war. Old laws can no longer apply if innocent American lives are on the line. It is the only morally just course of action. And it will be as successfull as the war on drugs. So, if these were innocent lebanese or other middle-eastern people, rules apply. But for americans... it is (arguably) moral to spy in other countries. But at least there you won't have the power to put people in jail with it. Got the difference?
> You have two choices when using SIMD instructions in C: > 1. Use non-portable (between hardware, and often between compilers) intrinsics (or even inline assembly). > 2. Write non-vectorised code, and hope the compiler can figure out how to optimally decompose these into the intrinsics. >Effectively, you think vectorised code, translate it into scalar code, and then expect the compiler to translate it back.
Why not create standard libraries with classes (well, only for C++ maybe, but worth a try), that will use optimizations with SIMD instructions. For example, if the library is compiled with gcc, it will optimize. With other compilers it won't, but it will work either way. And someone would extend it...
> When you pass a C file to a compiler, it generates an object file. It has absolutely no way of knowing where functions declared in the header are defined. You can hack around this; pass multiple source files to the compiler at once and have it treat them as a single one, for example, but this falls down completely when the function is declared in a library (e.g. libc) and you don't have access to the source.
But if the function is in a pre-linked library there is no way to make it inline whatever language you use. You'r example of libc is not very good, because you can use the source of glibc:).
Anyway, the article has a point, but the proposition that C can be slower with modern processors is not a sound one. But in the future, who knows?
> First, I think they are right by saying the specifications are unclear. That would be my "mainstream" objection/q. MS had a chance to choose a list of people they trust to be fair. They said that MS has not complied with court order. I am waiting for their objection.
> Second, any government power is illegitimate. The EU harms both its citizens and Microsoft by standing in between. Illegitimate government? What do you mean? Like the former Iraq government? Or the previous elections for president of USA? Is there an universal method for determining which government is legal and which is not?
Anyway, you're right. EU harms both. Unfortunately, if left on their own MS will harm users (in term of quality, prices, choice) citizents more, so EU has to intervene. The best market is the free one, but monopolies have to be regulated, otherwise they can be a danger for other markets. The rest is subject to the rules that every government forge. Even illegal ones.
the almighty shareholders: WTF happened? We lost 1/4 of our revenue, we are in the red? We won't have dividents, and the prices of the shares have plumeted 10 times?
bill or steve or another unlucky chap: But... but...
***Lightning strikes and only smoking shoes remain.***
> Mod parent up!
Look! The troll has a girlfriend!!!
> Like ANY typical government body, the EU is greedy and practices the golden rule quite frequently: those who make the rules get the gold. So, Microsoft pays out a little money and boosts prices (passing it on to the consumer) while the Euro bureacrats get richer.
O suuuuuuure... OMG ROLF DUD!!!
Monopolists do not fix prices based on supply and demand. They are already at the maximum the market can pay, so they CAN'T charge more, because they will get LESS. More high-sea plundering and such...
Besides, you imply that MS will NOT charge more if they don't pay the fine. Such a good idea... let's leave murderers out of jail, because they feel more inclined to kill eyewitnesses that can provide proof.
I am sure the EU beurocrats care soooo much for the 230 million US$ MS will pay, that they will ignore their own anual budget of 121 billion Euros. And EU has GDP of about 12 100 billion Euros.
> How does this help the computer users? Not at all. Imagine instead if they had punished Microsoft by forcing it in some way to be better to its consumers.
Providing chance for the competition is the best way to ensure lower prices. If you haven't noticed, the price of the software has been rising, and for the hardware has been falling. Noooo, it is not the monopoly that gives them the chance to charge such money for the OS.
> Or imagine if they had forced Microsoft to pay this money DIRECTLY to computer users.
Now that is a neat idea. More than 90% of EU citizens have computers, so I suppose the money ARE going to computer users.
> Nope, never going to happen. The main interest of the EU is in enriching itself, not helping anyone. No way the victims of Microsoft, however they are defined, are going to see justice however it is defined.
Yes, EU's main interest is to enrich itself? Who is supposed to argue that. Just beacuse europeans prefer to be rich, not to have rich corporations doesn't mean they are stupid. Of cource, if you want another Enron to drag people (this time it may be you) down to financial death, go on. Nobody's stoping you.
Saying that the most common malware only effects Windows, therefore Macs are more secure is simply bad reasoning.
Why? Being less of a target sometimes makes you more secure. Yeah, yeah, security by obscurity, but nonetheless...
What matters is rate of contact and rate of infection after contact.
A well configured Windows machine, with a good up-to-date virus/spyware scanner and firewall which prevents unauthorized registry changes is pretty hard to actually infect.
And is pretty hard to actually use. Have you tried NAV lately? From all I have seen only nod32 gives you back enough power to actually do something.
I'm sure that "out of the box" Macs are better. But it's not "out of the box" that I care about. My concern is level of security during actual operation.
Yes, being secure "out of the box" is at least as important as everything else summed. In terms of security it is UNforgivable, it is a fscking OS, newbies use it. See "Writing Secure Code" from Microsoft Press.
I have no problem believing that Macs are more resistant to malware, but this measure doesn't show that to necessarily be the case.
So, what you're saying is:
A big company, namely Google, has found a legal and insofar ethical way to make money. They want a level playing field. But, as it turns out, some government-created and funded monopolies don't get the big slice. Therefore, you propose that the government give them even more powers, cuz they can't compete fairly.
By the way, Google has filed threats, that say basicly:
You will be permitted by law to shape network traffic. BUT antitrust laws say that you cannot limit our traffic and make a similar service (look at MS vs EU case, bundling for monopolies, etc). DON'T even try it, bastards.
Hehe... I still have to read most of the comments, but I post my true story.
For years I have been assembling all kinds of computers. This happened two years ago. The story happend before my arrival.
One of my neighbours had a very old (must... say.... antique) and she wanted to listen to music. So, she send her dad to buy a sound card. He is an engeneer... electronic engeneer... still he couldn't find the PCI slot the card needed. Needless to say, there was none, but he had ISA. Well, he tried to use it, but the slots are not physically compatible. So he cut the sound card to fit it in the ISA.
By the way, I also use extensively betas, but under Linux. For example, I'm trying the latest unstable kernel, because it has something I want. Well... if that beta IS beta, so 99% of the MS software I use must be called pre-alpha, considering its stability and reliability. And I mean released MS software, not betas.
3. WGA appears to effectively give someone else (specifically Microsoft) control over your machine (for instance the recently announced "remote shutoff" function). To the user, a program that limits their control of the computer (and gives someone else more control) is harmful. Note that the argument "but Microsoft would only shut off illegitimate versions of Windows" doesn't make any difference. Even if that's true, there is still a loss of control for the user. This is harmful to the user.
Not only that... suppose my copy is illegal. WHAT EXACTLY GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO SHUT IT DOWN??? If I don't comply with the EULA that still doesn't give them the right to control my computer!!! They should sue me, if they wish, but shutting down MY computer?!
Sorry for the harsh words, but everybody who distributes the package is obliged to supply the source code as well. You can use it without limitations. So, if you modify it, you MUST supply it. Otherwise, how can someone prove it has been modified?
The only justifiable use of anti-trust laws is to regulate government-created monopolies (the telcos, for example).
True, but there are laws that regulate the prices of these types of monopolies. You'd better count them as owned by the government.
They created that mess, it's only right that they should clean it up. For private, unsubsidized organizations, however, even potential competition is sufficient to avoid "market failure" over the long term. Sure, a few billion dollars in cash reserves can hold real competition off for a fair amount of time, even without the government's assistance, but those reserves must eventually be exhausted. In the meantime consumers benefit from the below-cost pricing and other marketing incentives. Besides bribing the government for increased regulation (raising the long-term legal and financial barriers to entry for the market), all of the efforts of the incumbent organization to hold off competition can only serve to gradually undermine the incumbent's position.
I beg to differ... Actually, how do you think these kinds of monopolies come into existance? If you think about big businesses, you'll see that they have a lot of advantages over the small ones:
1st, advertisment is cheaper. MUCH cheaper.
2nd, they can dump prices for a substantial amount of time.
3rd, the government is usually afraid of big businesses going bankrupt (unemployment and so on), therefore in case of emergency they can call for support. It is not illegal or something, that is policy.
Take, for example, the practice of "dumping" a product on the market (selling it below cost to make competition unprofitable). This requires existing cash reserves, and it loses the company money over time (and is thus unsustainably over the long term). Additionally, a smart startup would use the opportunity to buy its competitor's products below cost, selling them at a profit once the incumbent's reserves are expended. Far from destroying the competition, the "monopoly's" efforts can serve only to ultimately strengthen their opponents position -- trading short-term monopoly gains for a long-term loss of market share. Similar principles apply to such "undesirable" monopoly practices as bundling, price-fixing, and horizontal and vertical market integration; none of these methods can save an inefficient company from competition in the end, and they can all be used by efficient producers (even monopolies) to the benefit of the consumers.
Monopolies try to preserve their state. That is natural. Everybody tries to do it. If left on their own, they can do it forever, because they have the money, therefore they have the power. And yet again, these kings of tactics hurt everyone but the competitor. They are illegal for monopolies, because the monopolies have the strength needed to lock the market. That is why the government have to intervene, not because it is "fair".
In a free country you are entitled to do everything that is not forbidden. There are thouhts put behind antitrust laws. If that is forbidden,do not underestimate the man that proposed the law. Take for example MS. They have a competition on search engines and browsers. If you allow them to "disable" Firefox and effectively prohibit Google.com, how can somebody call that unfair? What is fair? But it is anticompetitive. They are a monopoly. It is abuse of power, they are EXPLICITLY not allowed to do that. They must be punished. Being a monopoly is not the crime, nor is the tries to monopolize another marker. HOW YOU DO IT IS WHAT MATTERS!!!
Just show me a way to prevent MS from doing what I told you, that doesn't boil to one thing: they must not use their power for leverage on another marker.
There are many illegal activities of companies being prosecuted: for example - bundling for monopolies, FUD (if it can be proven), all kinds of deceipt, CEOs making profit from their company in the stock market (aren't ENRON executives in trial?). For all I know laws are passed so people can live better. If that is achieved through business, so be it. But, in the end, it is the PEOPLE that matter.
But my friend, this IS a discussion!!! Ask everybody here and he will say to you that antitrust laws are good. (Everyone knows it. Take a diploma in economics or at least study some... you'll see why it is this way.)
Antitrust laws are good and protect the comunity.
There you have it.
Imagine you are a shareholder... and your company gives you not 10 mils, but 5 mils in dividents... WHO IS THE FSCKING BASTARD THAT DID IT? MY COMPANY CEO DOESN'T DO IT RIGHT!!! GUT HIM!!!
Well... don't you think that once the aforementioned fine is found to be non-effective (I doubt it) the EU court will double-tripple-quadrupple it? You know, when a criminal insists on doing the same crime the penalties get worse...
Sony allows you to play every blu-ray disk to every blu-ray device with every blu-player. It is an unfortunate consequence there are not so many players.
The point is that YOU pay for the music. YOU can listen to it wherever you want, whenever you want.
Slashdot Mirror
> "... He wrote algorithms that analyzed various text and data points of junk e-mail to produce "organic" images of plantlike structures that spontaneously grew based on incoming spam. "
/dev/urandom. I still wonder why they looked like brownian motion...
One time I did a spline interpolation of dots with coordinates I took from
bravery:
1. n, one of the most typical characteristics of a man enjoying safety.
quote from Ambrose Bierce: "The Devil's dictionary".
Jokes aside, you're perfectly right. And EVEN if you prefer safety over freedom, just explain to me how being in THAT list is going to stop terrorists? I mean, if you *know* you're on their list, you're not going to carry guns on the aircraft, are you?
> "The role of CPU performance is definitely waning, and if a radical new technology fails to materialize quickly we will be compelled to write more efficient code for power consumption costs and reasons," Fomitchev writes.
Yes, he is right. The problem is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy has been very long forgotten from the manifacturers of OS for 90% of the PC's around the world. I do not want to start a flamewar, just consider how many features of the OS you really need? It is arguably a GOOD practice to put everything you can in an OS, but for cryin' out loud, at least there must be a way to remove the unneeded parts.
> Slow, bloated software entails higher costs in terms of both direct and indirect power consumption, and the author reasons that code optimization will likely involve the replacement of blade server racks with microblade server racks where every microblade executes a dedicated task and thus eats up less power.
That looks like where we're heading now. Jut consider the 1000 projects for distributed computing out there, and the whole virtualization thingy. But this by itself cannot mean that much less power. If you want less consumption, you have to rely on technology AND on more optimized software.
> The collective number of microblades should also far outnumber initial "macro" blades. Fully isolating software components should enhance the system's robustness thanks to the potential of real-time component hot-swap or upgrade and the total removal of software installation, implementation, and patch conflicts.
YES!!! That's what we're talking about, man! We need separate modules to do the work. Just for info, try googling for Microkernels vs. Monolithic. Tannenbaum has good arguments in favor of microkernels in terms of stability. I don't want to take either side, but it is true that whilst a mere 99.999% of the cars don't suffer from reboots of their onboard computers, our desctops still do. Remember the old joke: "You've moved your mouse. Please restart your computer for the changes to take efect."
> The likelihood of this happening is reliant on the factor of energy costs, which directly feeds into the factor of code optimization efficiency."
Maybe we should move into higher-programming languages that take most of the optimizations hidden from the programmer. For example I have recently read a review that optimizied Java code is VERY near native C performance. Even if that is not true, C is not adapded enough for the various SSE, SIMD and so on optimizations in the modern PCs. Yes, GCC makes all kinds of optimizations, but maybe WE need to move into higher-order logic for our programs?
> Wireless networks should not be able to be setup without encryption.
That is only YHO.
> As it stands now anyone wanting to release virus's or download anything can do so by driving up to almost any hotel in the US.
So what? Are you proposing, that instead of fixing all the bugs and closing wide open doors and windows (pun intended) we lock ourselves? Lemme get this strait - because it *can* be used by bad people. Sheesh. I try to apply common sense, but packet sniffing and logs are not exactly the kind of evidence you need before the court, that includes ISP's logs, for the simple reason of ease-to-forge. There is no problem with the police using it as a guideline, but it IS NOT EVIDENCE.
> Any resident with an unencrypted network is subject to their network being used for -any- purpose.
So are you if you leave your car unlocked with the keys. So are you guilty of something? Stupidity IS a birth right.
> Firmware makers should be required to make encryption a default setup value.
> Period.
What if I leave my password short and easy-to-remember? And "unintendedly" stick it on everyone else's doors.
> Hackers and mal contents need not worry about their actions.
No problem for them, I think. The problem is not the open lanes (the routers and wi-fi) but the crappy software behind the scenes.
> I smell coffee...
Nice. Maybe you'll wake up:).
The latest twist: Buried in a new filing from SCO (nyse: SCO - news - people ) is a claim that International Business Machines (nyse: IBM - news - people ) destroyed evidence by ordering its programmers to delete copies of software code that could have helped SCO prove its case.
... ... it is the first, then. We never had the code, but you're baaaad. Veeery baaad. And because you can't find the code of one OS of maybe 1000 (with the different versions), so you're hiding something.
... and we couldn't think of anything else.
Yeah... there are 2 options:
1. We never got the code, yet somehow we *KNOW* you're infringing our rights with it.
2. We had the code, but we lost it, so YOU must provide it.
SCO alleges this happened in 2003, yet the company has never talked about it in public before.
However, an attorney for SCO says the code deletion is one reason why the Lindon, Utah, software maker has been unable to comply with a demand that it produce examples of allegedly stolen code.
"It's kind of hard for us to do that," says Brent Hatch, an attorney with Hatch, James & Dodge in Salt Lake City, "because we don't have it. It was destroyed before it could be given to us."
Toward the end of its objection, SCO claims IBM deleted copies of two versions of Unix, called Dynix and AIX, which could have helped SCO prove its case.
Soooo
SCO claims the move was "egregious" and represents "spoliation of evidence," a potentially serious charge.
"Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed 'dozens' of its Linux developers...to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers," SCO's objection claims.
Claims, claims...
"One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer," SCO says.
One guy working for IBM said, that he delete some code of some old obscure UNIX implementation. So what?
Hatch says the allegation has become relevant now, because it helps explain why SCO could not meet demands to cite source code
Hatch concedes the Wells ruling represented a setback for SCO. But he says SCO still has a strong case.
So, pigs do fly?
"You can't read big things into all these little wars," Hatch says. "It's like saying the North didn't win the Civil War just because a couple of battles were bad for us."
Couple of battles? Come on, every semi-intelligent being can see their case is just hot-air.
And most of all, the judge cannot rule this in their favor for one simple reason:
They have to proove that IBM did this for the purpose of winning the case. So what? Someone in your organisation deletes some code when you're under litigation. You're charged with "destruction of evidence". Just because you destroyed some evidence, doesn't make you guilty. The destruction have to be on purpose.
Unless there is sufficient proof of their guilt, their claim is just bullsh*t, or put otherwise, good-ol-FUD.
Just astounded what would people do just so that they won't have to work with the Linux/OSS nightmare...
Disclaimer: IANA, A as in american.
> It amazes me how soon that people forget about reality.
Me too. So why did you?
> The fact is that there have been thousands of terrorist attacks that have been halted due to these government activities.
You mean like the killer bees or the razor in the apple on Halloween?
> Just because Bush and the government is aggressively protecting us doesn't give anyone the right to complain!
OMG!!! Can I protect you aggressively by punching you? It won't hurt... much. But I will save you because I won't kill you. Agree?
> Sadly, it's hard for the government say "look what we stopped", because if we give the terrorists any information, we put ourselves at massive risk. I for one don't want to lose my way of life.
So, basically, we should trust everybody that says: I want your privacy? THAT is a sure way not-to-loose your way of life.
> Would you rather have you and your children dead, or safe? That's really the question on the table.
Heeey, you are sooo muuuch safer. From your neighbour and from your mother. That b**ch always wanted to kill you, right? And from schoolmates... THAT is a relieve, right? When did criminals started to obey the law, by the way? Newsflash: If I wanted to kill you NOONE could stop me. Deal with it.
> It seems like many here would choose dead. Supporting our president's right to spy on criminal terrorists is saving us from certain destruction. To risk a little bit of theoretical "personal privacy of innocent Americans" seems like an extremely reasonable price to pay.
No, many would choose freedom or choose death. Maybe you haven't noticed how many people have died in rebellions throughout the history of mankind. Terrorists are a timed event, but consequences of loosing your freedom will be a burden to your children as well. The 'little bit of theretical personal privacy' means you can be watched and you won't be able to find out who did it, let alone punish the bastards. That is lawful? I think it is even against the human rights convention. And it is only about BASIC human rights!
> This is war. Old laws can no longer apply if innocent American lives are on the line. It is the only morally just course of action.
And it will be as successfull as the war on drugs. So, if these were innocent lebanese or other middle-eastern people, rules apply. But for americans... it is (arguably) moral to spy in other countries. But at least there you won't have the power to put people in jail with it. Got the difference?
> You have two choices when using SIMD instructions in C:
:).
> 1. Use non-portable (between hardware, and often between compilers) intrinsics (or even inline assembly).
> 2. Write non-vectorised code, and hope the compiler can figure out how to optimally decompose these into the intrinsics. >Effectively, you think vectorised code, translate it into scalar code, and then expect the compiler to translate it back.
Why not create standard libraries with classes (well, only for C++ maybe, but worth a try), that will use optimizations with SIMD instructions. For example, if the library is compiled with gcc, it will optimize. With other compilers it won't, but it will work either way. And someone would extend it...
> When you pass a C file to a compiler, it generates an object file. It has absolutely no way of knowing where functions declared in the header are defined. You can hack around this; pass multiple source files to the compiler at once and have it treat them as a single one, for example, but this falls down completely when the function is declared in a library (e.g. libc) and you don't have access to the source.
But if the function is in a pre-linked library there is no way to make it inline whatever language you use. You'r example of libc is not very good, because you can use the source of glibc
Anyway, the article has a point, but the proposition that C can be slower with modern processors is not a sound one. But in the future, who knows?
Of course you will. But FYI:
> First, I think they are right by saying the specifications are unclear. That would be my "mainstream" objection/q.
MS had a chance to choose a list of people they trust to be fair. They said that MS has not complied with court order. I am waiting for their objection.
> Second, any government power is illegitimate. The EU harms both its citizens and Microsoft by standing in between.
Illegitimate government? What do you mean? Like the former Iraq government? Or the previous elections for president of USA? Is there an universal method for determining which government is legal and which is not?
Anyway, you're right. EU harms both. Unfortunately, if left on their own MS will harm users (in term of quality, prices, choice) citizents more, so EU has to intervene. The best market is the free one, but monopolies have to be regulated, otherwise they can be a danger for other markets. The rest is subject to the rules that every government forge. Even illegal ones.
You're right. That was meant for another post. Sorry :(
Shareholders.
Imagine a meeting:
the almighty shareholders: WTF happened? We lost 1/4 of our revenue, we are in the red? We won't have dividents, and the prices of the shares have plumeted 10 times?
bill or steve or another unlucky chap: But... but...
***Lightning strikes and only smoking shoes remain.***
> Mod parent up! Look! The troll has a girlfriend!!! > Like ANY typical government body, the EU is greedy and practices the golden rule quite frequently: those who make the rules get the gold. So, Microsoft pays out a little money and boosts prices (passing it on to the consumer) while the Euro bureacrats get richer. O suuuuuuure... OMG ROLF DUD!!! Monopolists do not fix prices based on supply and demand. They are already at the maximum the market can pay, so they CAN'T charge more, because they will get LESS. More high-sea plundering and such... Besides, you imply that MS will NOT charge more if they don't pay the fine. Such a good idea... let's leave murderers out of jail, because they feel more inclined to kill eyewitnesses that can provide proof. I am sure the EU beurocrats care soooo much for the 230 million US$ MS will pay, that they will ignore their own anual budget of 121 billion Euros. And EU has GDP of about 12 100 billion Euros. > How does this help the computer users? Not at all. Imagine instead if they had punished Microsoft by forcing it in some way to be better to its consumers. Providing chance for the competition is the best way to ensure lower prices. If you haven't noticed, the price of the software has been rising, and for the hardware has been falling. Noooo, it is not the monopoly that gives them the chance to charge such money for the OS. > Or imagine if they had forced Microsoft to pay this money DIRECTLY to computer users. Now that is a neat idea. More than 90% of EU citizens have computers, so I suppose the money ARE going to computer users. > Nope, never going to happen. The main interest of the EU is in enriching itself, not helping anyone. No way the victims of Microsoft, however they are defined, are going to see justice however it is defined. Yes, EU's main interest is to enrich itself? Who is supposed to argue that. Just beacuse europeans prefer to be rich, not to have rich corporations doesn't mean they are stupid. Of cource, if you want another Enron to drag people (this time it may be you) down to financial death, go on. Nobody's stoping you.
It is Jim Slashdotter, bastard!!!
Why? Being less of a target sometimes makes you more secure. Yeah, yeah, security by obscurity, but nonetheless...
What matters is rate of contact and rate of infection after contact.
A well configured Windows machine, with a good up-to-date virus/spyware scanner and firewall which prevents unauthorized registry changes is pretty hard to actually infect.
And is pretty hard to actually use. Have you tried NAV lately? From all I have seen only nod32 gives you back enough power to actually do something. I'm sure that "out of the box" Macs are better. But it's not "out of the box" that I care about. My concern is level of security during actual operation.
Yes, being secure "out of the box" is at least as important as everything else summed. In terms of security it is UNforgivable, it is a fscking OS, newbies use it. See "Writing Secure Code" from Microsoft Press. I have no problem believing that Macs are more resistant to malware, but this measure doesn't show that to necessarily be the case.
You are absolutely right.
A big company, namely Google, has found a legal and insofar ethical way to make money. They want a level playing field. But, as it turns out, some government-created and funded monopolies don't get the big slice. Therefore, you propose that the government give them even more powers, cuz they can't compete fairly.
By the way, Google has filed threats, that say basicly:
You will be permitted by law to shape network traffic. BUT antitrust laws say that you cannot limit our traffic and make a similar service (look at MS vs EU case, bundling for monopolies, etc). DON'T even try it, bastards.
For years I have been assembling all kinds of computers. This happened two years ago. The story happend before my arrival.
One of my neighbours had a very old (must... say.... antique) and she wanted to listen to music. So, she send her dad to buy a sound card. He is an engeneer... electronic engeneer... still he couldn't find the PCI slot the card needed. Needless to say, there was none, but he had ISA. Well, he tried to use it, but the slots are not physically compatible. So he cut the sound card to fit it in the ISA.
Yeeeees.... That is so *NOT* like Bush and his scumbag company in the White House.
By the way, I also use extensively betas, but under Linux. For example, I'm trying the latest unstable kernel, because it has something I want. Well... if that beta IS beta, so 99% of the MS software I use must be called pre-alpha, considering its stability and reliability. And I mean released MS software, not betas.
Come on, guys!!! The parent is obviously a joke!!! Irony at it's best.
Not only that... suppose my copy is illegal. WHAT EXACTLY GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO SHUT IT DOWN??? If I don't comply with the EULA that still doesn't give them the right to control my computer!!! They should sue me, if they wish, but shutting down MY computer?!
Sorry for the harsh words, but everybody who distributes the package is obliged to supply the source code as well. You can use it without limitations. So, if you modify it, you MUST supply it. Otherwise, how can someone prove it has been modified?
True, but there are laws that regulate the prices of these types of monopolies. You'd better count them as owned by the government.
They created that mess, it's only right that they should clean it up. For private, unsubsidized organizations, however, even potential competition is sufficient to avoid "market failure" over the long term. Sure, a few billion dollars in cash reserves can hold real competition off for a fair amount of time, even without the government's assistance, but those reserves must eventually be exhausted. In the meantime consumers benefit from the below-cost pricing and other marketing incentives. Besides bribing the government for increased regulation (raising the long-term legal and financial barriers to entry for the market), all of the efforts of the incumbent organization to hold off competition can only serve to gradually undermine the incumbent's position.
I beg to differ... Actually, how do you think these kinds of monopolies come into existance? If you think about big businesses, you'll see that they have a lot of advantages over the small ones:
1st, advertisment is cheaper. MUCH cheaper.
2nd, they can dump prices for a substantial amount of time.
3rd, the government is usually afraid of big businesses going bankrupt (unemployment and so on), therefore in case of emergency they can call for support. It is not illegal or something, that is policy.
Take, for example, the practice of "dumping" a product on the market (selling it below cost to make competition unprofitable). This requires existing cash reserves, and it loses the company money over time (and is thus unsustainably over the long term). Additionally, a smart startup would use the opportunity to buy its competitor's products below cost, selling them at a profit once the incumbent's reserves are expended. Far from destroying the competition, the "monopoly's" efforts can serve only to ultimately strengthen their opponents position -- trading short-term monopoly gains for a long-term loss of market share. Similar principles apply to such "undesirable" monopoly practices as bundling, price-fixing, and horizontal and vertical market integration; none of these methods can save an inefficient company from competition in the end, and they can all be used by efficient producers (even monopolies) to the benefit of the consumers.
Monopolies try to preserve their state. That is natural. Everybody tries to do it. If left on their own, they can do it forever, because they have the money, therefore they have the power. And yet again, these kings of tactics hurt everyone but the competitor. They are illegal for monopolies, because the monopolies have the strength needed to lock the market. That is why the government have to intervene, not because it is "fair".
In a free country you are entitled to do everything that is not forbidden. There are thouhts put behind antitrust laws. If that is forbidden,do not underestimate the man that proposed the law. Take for example MS. They have a competition on search engines and browsers. If you allow them to "disable" Firefox and effectively prohibit Google.com, how can somebody call that unfair? What is fair? But it is anticompetitive. They are a monopoly. It is abuse of power, they are EXPLICITLY not allowed to do that. They must be punished. Being a monopoly is not the crime, nor is the tries to monopolize another marker. HOW YOU DO IT IS WHAT MATTERS!!!
Just show me a way to prevent MS from doing what I told you, that doesn't boil to one thing: they must not use their power for leverage on another marker.
There are many illegal activities of companies being prosecuted: for example - bundling for monopolies, FUD (if it can be proven), all kinds of deceipt, CEOs making profit from their company in the stock market (aren't ENRON executives in trial?). For all I know laws are passed so people can live better. If that is achieved through business, so be it. But, in the end, it is the PEOPLE that matter.
But my friend, this IS a discussion!!! Ask everybody here and he will say to you that antitrust laws are good. (Everyone knows it. Take a diploma in economics or at least study some... you'll see why it is this way.) Antitrust laws are good and protect the comunity. There you have it.
Imagine you are a shareholder... and your company gives you not 10 mils, but 5 mils in dividents... WHO IS THE FSCKING BASTARD THAT DID IT? MY COMPANY CEO DOESN'T DO IT RIGHT!!! GUT HIM!!!
Well... don't you think that once the aforementioned fine is found to be non-effective (I doubt it) the EU court will double-tripple-quadrupple it? You know, when a criminal insists on doing the same crime the penalties get worse...
Sony allows you to play every blu-ray disk to every blu-ray device with every blu-player. It is an unfortunate consequence there are not so many players.
The point is that YOU pay for the music. YOU can listen to it wherever you want, whenever you want.