Boy is my face red now:) Was it always the GNU General Public License, or is that a GPL 2.0 thing (can't seem to find any O-G GPL's lying around here.) I guess I've just gotten used to anything starting with a G being GNU (or eventually resolving to GNU, as is the case of the (GNU Image Manipulation Program) Tool Kit; hmm... are there any programs that use GTK [I'm thinking Glade] as the first G... mmm...)
At any rate, I stand by the comment that RMS is going to demand the Microsoft change their insulting of the general public license to insulting the _GNU_ General Public License.
Blast it all... To finish this comment...
It's now the general public license instead of the GNU Public License. Does this mean:
A) Microsoft still hasn't even figured out what the GPL stands for linguistically, let alone what the GPL stands for logically?
B) RMS will be demanding that Microsoft refer to it as the GNU-General Public License
How about instead just running a script that looks in all directories for a COPYING file. It then checks to see if it is truly the GPL, and if so, replaces the file, which takes up a whole several k of diskspace, with a symbolic link to a master copy of the GPL. On many systems, this could free up as much as whole megabyte (you got it, 1024 whole k) of space, which is probably considerably more than the savings you'd get from trying to blindly compress everything.
I was under the impression that under Linux, if you set the appropiate flag in/proc, Linux will give you a pointer to all the memory you ask for; only when you actually page in all of the memory is there the possibility of a problem. (Or alternatively, turn off the flag in/proc, and then Linux will not over-commit memory resources. The first approach is nice when you're dealing with a lot of programs which may malloc a lot of memory but then never use the memory; the second is nice for situations requiring greater stability; programs can recover from malloc returning NULL, but programs discovering they don't have the memory they were expecting is a bit harder.)
Grr...
I know I being pedantic, but using cout is like using stdout... printf is more roughly equivalent to >> (or if you prefer, fprintf is, since printf is just fprintf(stdout, blah and therefore fprintf more accurately maps to how >> works with multiple streams, not just cout/cin). It upsets me greatly that people are taught to use cout and end up completely missing the point of what >> means.
It's apparently not feature complete with paradroid, but at one point, someone was developing a game based on the parts he liked of paradroid. Check out NightHawk at the Linux Game Tome.
Nope. That's the whole point of 128 bits. Assuming you're doing brute force, and have 1000 of these computers overclocked to run at 1000 GHz (to make the math easier), and of course assuming that they can do one trial per cycle,
2 ^ 128 trials * 1 cycle / trial * 1 second / (10^12 aggregate computer cycles) * 1 year / (3600 * 24 * 365) = 10790283070806014 years = 10 quadrillion years.
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
...and Capcom would later sue DataEast for their SF2 ripoff Fighter's History. Fighter's History was a fairly lame ripoff (I played it once in a pizza place just to see if it was as bad as it was made out to be... it was); pretty sure Capcom won that one.
Hmm... picking weak passwords is the automatic one that comes to mind. I've seen systems where cgi-bin programs are run as the user where they are located in, any other programs less experienced users may be induced to run, etc.
The best defense against these (other than running John the Ripper or what not to force your users to use good passwords and locking down other things) is to minimize what the attacker can do.
I could be wrong, maybe you meant it that way, but your analogy seems a bit flawed. Last I checked, people with AB blood could get A, B, O, and AB blood (I'm ignoring the Rhesus factor), whereas A people can only get A and O. Public domain code is like O; anyone can use it in their own code. Logically, GPL is now A and BSD is now B; both can use public domain code, and that code now effectively becomes tinted. AB is a little trickier; it's possible for code to be both BSD's and GPL'd, but requires some work.
It seems to be that there are at least two reasons why IDG/ 'the system' are going to be maligned. First off, is it reasonable for a company to have the sole right to use two words in a phrase, and moreover have said right for all products. (Anyone know if any elevator companies have been sued by Maxwell House for using their catch-phrase?)
Secondly, as mentioned in the subject, I'm not at all familiar with Australian law, and am not really familiar with U.S. law, but I did see a quote on one of the other groups having trouble with IDG's saying that companies have the responsibility of protecting their trademark from dilution by commercial groups, with the implication that non-commercial groups are not a threat for dilution.
Anyone care to comment what Australian Trademark Law says on the subject?
I'm curious what advantages using XML offers. LaTex can be made to produce very nice looking PDF's (or at least, LaTeX can be made to produce nice looking postscript, which can then be distilled into a PDF), and LaTeX is pretty much available for any platform and any text editor.
I'm not trying to start any jihads; just curious what the other side has to offer, as right now, I'm pretty happy with LaTeX.
(As an aside, it did take a little work to get dvips to use good fonts for my system, your milage may vary)
Re:Why don't you just ask Google?
on
Ask Gneeves?
·
· Score: 1
This message has no point, except to remove my incorrect moderation.
How many of the suggestions have you done: None of them; all of my code is squeaky-clean 1-5 5-10 10-15 20-40 40-50 All of them, and proud of it. 3 + 6i of them Hey, what about 16-19?
Slashdot Mirror
Way back in 99, there was an article in ask slashdot about it http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/99/02/17/1813211.s html.
Seem to remember it mostly being video cards hogging the bus so they can win at benchmarks.
I think it's pretty obvious where the 46Mb/s came from... he's just running his monitor at 1Hz.
Boy is my face red now :) Was it always the GNU General Public License, or is that a GPL 2.0 thing (can't seem to find any O-G GPL's lying around here.) I guess I've just gotten used to anything starting with a G being GNU (or eventually resolving to GNU, as is the case of the (GNU Image Manipulation Program) Tool Kit; hmm... are there any programs that use GTK [I'm thinking Glade] as the first G... mmm...)
At any rate, I stand by the comment that RMS is going to demand the Microsoft change their insulting of the general public license to insulting the _GNU_ General Public License.
Blast it all... To finish this comment...
It's now the general public license instead of the GNU Public License. Does this mean:
A) Microsoft still hasn't even figured out what the GPL stands for linguistically, let alone what the GPL stands for logically?
B) RMS will be demanding that Microsoft refer to it as the GNU-General Public License
C) Cowboy Neal.
How about instead just running a script that looks in all directories for a COPYING file. It then checks to see if it is truly the GPL, and if so, replaces the file, which takes up a whole several k of diskspace, with a symbolic link to a master copy of the GPL. On many systems, this could free up as much as whole megabyte (you got it, 1024 whole k) of space, which is probably considerably more than the savings you'd get from trying to blindly compress everything.
I was under the impression that under Linux, if you set the appropiate flag in /proc, Linux will give you a pointer to all the memory you ask for; only when you actually page in all of the memory is there the possibility of a problem. (Or alternatively, turn off the flag in /proc, and then Linux will not over-commit memory resources. The first approach is nice when you're dealing with a lot of programs which may malloc a lot of memory but then never use the memory; the second is nice for situations requiring greater stability; programs can recover from malloc returning NULL, but programs discovering they don't have the memory they were expecting is a bit harder.)
Grr...
I know I being pedantic, but using cout is like using stdout... printf is more roughly equivalent to >> (or if you prefer, fprintf is, since printf is just fprintf(stdout, blah and therefore fprintf more accurately maps to how >> works with multiple streams, not just cout/cin). It upsets me greatly that people are taught to use cout and end up completely missing the point of what >> means.
It's apparently not feature complete with paradroid, but at one point, someone was developing a game based on the parts he liked of paradroid. Check out NightHawk at the Linux Game Tome.
Nope. That's the whole point of 128 bits. Assuming you're doing brute force, and have 1000 of these computers overclocked to run at 1000 GHz (to make the math easier), and of course assuming that they can do one trial per cycle,
2 ^ 128 trials * 1 cycle / trial * 1 second / (10^12 aggregate computer cycles) * 1 year / (3600 * 24 * 365) = 10790283070806014 years = 10 quadrillion years.
Haven't we established that you can't have authenticated binaries / trusted clients?
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
Care to explain how a spell checker would work in this case? Last I checked, able was a valid spelling.
...and Capcom would later sue DataEast for their SF2 ripoff Fighter's History. Fighter's History was a fairly lame ripoff (I played it once in a pizza place just to see if it was as bad as it was made out to be... it was); pretty sure Capcom won that one.
Hmm... picking weak passwords is the automatic one that comes to mind. I've seen systems where cgi-bin programs are run as the user where they are located in, any other programs less experienced users may be induced to run, etc.
The best defense against these (other than running John the Ripper or what not to force your users to use good passwords and locking down other things) is to minimize what the attacker can do.
I could be wrong, maybe you meant it that way, but your analogy seems a bit flawed. Last I checked, people with AB blood could get A, B, O, and AB blood (I'm ignoring the Rhesus factor), whereas A people can only get A and O. Public domain code is like O; anyone can use it in their own code. Logically, GPL is now A and BSD is now B; both can use public domain code, and that code now effectively becomes tinted. AB is a little trickier; it's possible for code to be both BSD's and GPL'd, but requires some work.
It seems to be that there are at least two reasons why IDG/ 'the system' are going to be maligned. First off, is it reasonable for a company to have the sole right to use two words in a phrase, and moreover have said right for all products. (Anyone know if any elevator companies have been sued by Maxwell House for using their catch-phrase?)
Secondly, as mentioned in the subject, I'm not at all familiar with Australian law, and am not really familiar with U.S. law, but I did see a quote on one of the other groups having trouble with IDG's saying that companies have the responsibility of protecting their trademark from dilution by commercial groups, with the implication that non-commercial groups are not a threat for dilution.
Anyone care to comment what Australian Trademark Law says on the subject?
I'm curious what advantages using XML offers. LaTex can be made to produce very nice looking PDF's (or at least, LaTeX can be made to produce nice looking postscript, which can then be distilled into a PDF), and LaTeX is pretty much available for any platform and any text editor.
I'm not trying to start any jihads; just curious what the other side has to offer, as right now, I'm pretty happy with LaTeX.
(As an aside, it did take a little work to get dvips to use good fonts for my system, your milage may vary)
This message has no point, except to remove my incorrect moderation.
You fool.... .0000001101010011111101111100111011 m .0000001110010101100000010000011000 m
.1 inch .10001 inch .1001 inch
13 mm =
14 mm =
15 mm = ??
1/2 inch =
17/32 inch =
9/16 inch =
Duh... or do you still use decimal?
Besides...
The metric system is the tool of the devil.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the ways I likes it.
-- Grandpa Simpson
How many of the suggestions have you done:
None of them; all of my code is squeaky-clean
1-5
5-10
10-15
20-40
40-50
All of them, and proud of it.
3 + 6i of them
Hey, what about 16-19?