Our system works like this: elected leaders may declare a state of emergency and evacuate an area, but if the citizens feel that it was unjustified, they can sue the official later. In this case, I doubt there will be many lawsuits, since the people of New Orleans were beginning to evacuate on their own anyway.
Billions of floppy disks were created, but floppy drives are becoming pretty rare these days. 25 years from now, USB may very well be supplanted by something entirely different, or special USB adapters may need to be purchased to use USB devices.
You aren't sued for being a monopoly. You are sued for anticompetitive behavior, and Apple is as anticompetitive as it comes. I have said for a long time that it is a wonder Apple hasn't been found guilty of illegal tying and bundling over Mac OS X, as well as over iTunes, iPods, and Quicktime. Yes, it is illegal to try and force people to buy your hardware in order to run your software, or to use your software in order to use your hardware.
Apple can't have it both ways. They cannot claim that Mac is a separate market from the rest of personal computer world, and also claim that they are not a monopoly or that they are not engaged in anticompetitive behavior in their market.
Remember that your iPhone has a big, juicy battery in it, that can power more advanced computation. An EZPass tag is powered by the radio waves it receives, and so cannot have the same sort of processor than an iPhone has.
That's funny, McCain's videos are playing on my system, using swfdec. Here's a better question: Why are these people not providing alternative streaming links?
Embedded devices are rarely designed to be very secure. One of the problems is that often there is not enough space for strong crypto, even a strong cryptographic hash. Things are getting better these days, with smaller transistors and lower power circuitry, but it is still difficult to get really strong crypto in a small RFID transponder like that.
Really, the only thing that the 6 year old system isn't doing that Vista can do is the fancier graphics. I haven't tried to run any heavy commercial apps on it, though it did a pretty good job with some heavy DSP for a class I took a few months back.
My point, however, was not that an old Pentium 4 system could perform on the same level as a new Core 2 quad, but that for the overwhelming majority of the PC market, there is no need for upgrades until a system actually breaks. Yes, specialized markets in science, engineering, and financial modeling, where the most demand is placed on a computer, benefit from having the latest, fastest processors, lots of RAM, and large and fast hard drives. Those markets don't represent a majority of the PC world, however. Most of the PC world is either home users, most of whom are browsing the web, listening to music, and watching videos, office users, most of whom are not really creating documents so complex as to justify 2GB or more of RAM, and arguably point-of-sale systems, which barely need any resources at all. My point was that a (decent) system from 2002 could handle those tasks, but that PC vendors have worked hard to convince people that they *must* upgrade every so often in order to keep pace with the world's software; in the case of Windows, that seems to be the case.
Sorry, my post may have been unclear. I was describing two different systems, one from 2002 running CentOS 5, and the other from 2005 running Fedora 9. Yes, the three year old laptop does support KDE's 3D settings. Sorry for the confusion.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I just don't think it is in the interest of companies that are making money from people who buy replacements for perfectly functional computers to encourage the use of software that doesn't require such hardware upgrades. What economic incentive is there for a hardware maker to ship systems that don't need to be upgraded for 5, 6, maybe even 10 years, when they could ship systems that need to be upgraded every 3 years?
Personally, the penalty I would like to see is for Mediasentry's corporate charter and registration to be revoked. That would teach their directors right and quick.
Oh well, we don't live in a country where citizens come first.
I love it when people try to defend "Web 2.0" by claiming that anyone who thinks web development is misguided is just a technophobe who wants to return computers to the state they were in in 1991. Yes, if someone says, "AJAX is bad," clearly they are also against GUIs, the Internet, and personal computers. After all, there is clearly no use for computers except as web clients or servers in this day and age, in their eyes.
I would argue that another reason hardware makers shy away from Linux is that a typical Linux system can remain functional and operating on a single computer far longer than a Windows system. I have a system from 2002 running the latest CentOS right now, no problems at all. I've had my laptop for three years, and see no reason to upgrade my hardware, even though I am running the latest Fedora and KDE. Compare with Vista, where I would have required an upgrade just to use some of the features.
Why would a hardware maker of any sort want to back a platform that decreases the incentive to upgrade and buy more hardware?
Depends on who you are. I have a friend who just rotates out rarely used files by burning them to a DVD, thus freeing up space for things he uses more often. I know someone else who doesn't even bother to hang on to movies, because once she's seen them, she has no interest in seeing them again.
You may not have noticed, but this comic was actually published by Jack Chick. You see, back in the 13th century, a secret society was started by the Vatican, which had the goal of weakening any sort of copyright law. Jack Chick learned about this in a well known conspiracy theory textbook which was published by someone with a degree from a diploma mill, and has decided to share the message with all the world. But there is hope! Accept Jesus as your personal savior, and copyright infringement will end!
I wouldn't even assume it was an admin. My guess is that a HR person of some sort had a weak password, and that from there the attacker was able to sneak into Red Hat's internal network. Within that network, the attacker would have had a much easier time getting into higher security systems, and eventually start getting those packages signed. Whoever it was probably spent several weeks working on this, especially given the sophistication of the attack (targeting the signing server to apparently compromise Red Hat's customers).
Fedora is not as stable as RHEL. If you want "community support" with RHEL's stability, you should use CentOS. In Fedora 9, we have a beta X server, a bleeding edge kernel, and the disastrous KDE 4.0.
A lower end mainframe can replace roughly 1000 commodity servers, or so I've been told. It consumes roughly 10kW of power and requires only one operator to keep it functional (well, assuming 8 hours shifts, 3 operators). Those 1000 commodity servers will be consuming ~100W a piece, so the overall power consumption will be 10 times higher than the mainframe, and will probably require at least 3 administrators on the clock at any given time (so going with non-overlapping 8 hour shifts, that's 9 administrators). The cost savings could easily justify the expense of the mainframe, assuming that you are an institution that uses 1000 or more commodity servers.
Yes. We have at least two functioning mainframes at my university, and they look like strangely shaped refrigerators -- single refrigerators. The only other mainframe I saw in person was the Red Hat Summit this year, and it was open; inside, it looked like a bizarre rack where the internal wires from the servers were all exposed. Modern mainframes are not the same "big iron" equipment from the 1960s...
People were saying mainframes would die because of things like cluster servers, desktop computing, etc. The idea was that cheap commodity servers could replace mainframes for back end tasks, without the expense (an IBM mainframe, last I checked, cost $100k per year just to own, plus the salaries of the mainframe operators), and that commodity desktops could replace mainframes with thin client connections for typical office applications. While the latter is certainly true, the former is not -- it turns out that operating hundreds of commodity servers actually costs a lot, and for many institutions with HUGE server needs, mainframes wind up being a lot less expensive in the long run. The costs of commodity hardware come from things like cooling needs, power needs (including the power needed to run large air conditioners), the increased number of administrators needed to maintain that many systems, and a few other factors, which together wind up exceeding $100k (or $1M for the largest mainframes) by a wide margin.
I guess you missed that part about "standard." Or about non-Microsoft browsers. Or non-Microsoft operating systems. Cross platform programming has been important since before Microsoft, before the Internet, and certainly before the world wide web. There are other, better designed ways of creating distributed applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Our system works like this: elected leaders may declare a state of emergency and evacuate an area, but if the citizens feel that it was unjustified, they can sue the official later. In this case, I doubt there will be many lawsuits, since the people of New Orleans were beginning to evacuate on their own anyway.
/me coughs and mumbles RED HAT while coughing
There is also Canonical, Novell, Oracle, Mandriva, and various other third parties that provide support for free software.
Billions of floppy disks were created, but floppy drives are becoming pretty rare these days. 25 years from now, USB may very well be supplanted by something entirely different, or special USB adapters may need to be purchased to use USB devices.
This new attack relies on an attacker compromising login credentials. Then, the compromised login is used to install a rootkit on the target system.
This may rival the DNS vulnerability.
You aren't sued for being a monopoly. You are sued for anticompetitive behavior, and Apple is as anticompetitive as it comes. I have said for a long time that it is a wonder Apple hasn't been found guilty of illegal tying and bundling over Mac OS X, as well as over iTunes, iPods, and Quicktime. Yes, it is illegal to try and force people to buy your hardware in order to run your software, or to use your software in order to use your hardware.
Apple can't have it both ways. They cannot claim that Mac is a separate market from the rest of personal computer world, and also claim that they are not a monopoly or that they are not engaged in anticompetitive behavior in their market.
Remember that your iPhone has a big, juicy battery in it, that can power more advanced computation. An EZPass tag is powered by the radio waves it receives, and so cannot have the same sort of processor than an iPhone has.
Should have read, "are not playing on my system."
That's funny, McCain's videos are playing on my system, using swfdec. Here's a better question: Why are these people not providing alternative streaming links?
"First time?" We are lucky to get it right the 800th time.
Embedded devices are rarely designed to be very secure. One of the problems is that often there is not enough space for strong crypto, even a strong cryptographic hash. Things are getting better these days, with smaller transistors and lower power circuitry, but it is still difficult to get really strong crypto in a small RFID transponder like that.
Really, the only thing that the 6 year old system isn't doing that Vista can do is the fancier graphics. I haven't tried to run any heavy commercial apps on it, though it did a pretty good job with some heavy DSP for a class I took a few months back.
My point, however, was not that an old Pentium 4 system could perform on the same level as a new Core 2 quad, but that for the overwhelming majority of the PC market, there is no need for upgrades until a system actually breaks. Yes, specialized markets in science, engineering, and financial modeling, where the most demand is placed on a computer, benefit from having the latest, fastest processors, lots of RAM, and large and fast hard drives. Those markets don't represent a majority of the PC world, however. Most of the PC world is either home users, most of whom are browsing the web, listening to music, and watching videos, office users, most of whom are not really creating documents so complex as to justify 2GB or more of RAM, and arguably point-of-sale systems, which barely need any resources at all. My point was that a (decent) system from 2002 could handle those tasks, but that PC vendors have worked hard to convince people that they *must* upgrade every so often in order to keep pace with the world's software; in the case of Windows, that seems to be the case.
Sorry, my post may have been unclear. I was describing two different systems, one from 2002 running CentOS 5, and the other from 2005 running Fedora 9. Yes, the three year old laptop does support KDE's 3D settings. Sorry for the confusion.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I just don't think it is in the interest of companies that are making money from people who buy replacements for perfectly functional computers to encourage the use of software that doesn't require such hardware upgrades. What economic incentive is there for a hardware maker to ship systems that don't need to be upgraded for 5, 6, maybe even 10 years, when they could ship systems that need to be upgraded every 3 years?
Personally, the penalty I would like to see is for Mediasentry's corporate charter and registration to be revoked. That would teach their directors right and quick.
Oh well, we don't live in a country where citizens come first.
I love it when people try to defend "Web 2.0" by claiming that anyone who thinks web development is misguided is just a technophobe who wants to return computers to the state they were in in 1991. Yes, if someone says, "AJAX is bad," clearly they are also against GUIs, the Internet, and personal computers. After all, there is clearly no use for computers except as web clients or servers in this day and age, in their eyes.
I would argue that another reason hardware makers shy away from Linux is that a typical Linux system can remain functional and operating on a single computer far longer than a Windows system. I have a system from 2002 running the latest CentOS right now, no problems at all. I've had my laptop for three years, and see no reason to upgrade my hardware, even though I am running the latest Fedora and KDE. Compare with Vista, where I would have required an upgrade just to use some of the features.
Why would a hardware maker of any sort want to back a platform that decreases the incentive to upgrade and buy more hardware?
Depends on who you are. I have a friend who just rotates out rarely used files by burning them to a DVD, thus freeing up space for things he uses more often. I know someone else who doesn't even bother to hang on to movies, because once she's seen them, she has no interest in seeing them again.
You know, I didn't think of that at first, but you are right! This reeks of reefer madness...so to speak.
You may not have noticed, but this comic was actually published by Jack Chick. You see, back in the 13th century, a secret society was started by the Vatican, which had the goal of weakening any sort of copyright law. Jack Chick learned about this in a well known conspiracy theory textbook which was published by someone with a degree from a diploma mill, and has decided to share the message with all the world. But there is hope! Accept Jesus as your personal savior, and copyright infringement will end!
OK, maybe I am too familiar with Chick tracts...
I wouldn't even assume it was an admin. My guess is that a HR person of some sort had a weak password, and that from there the attacker was able to sneak into Red Hat's internal network. Within that network, the attacker would have had a much easier time getting into higher security systems, and eventually start getting those packages signed. Whoever it was probably spent several weeks working on this, especially given the sophistication of the attack (targeting the signing server to apparently compromise Red Hat's customers).
Fedora is not as stable as RHEL. If you want "community support" with RHEL's stability, you should use CentOS. In Fedora 9, we have a beta X server, a bleeding edge kernel, and the disastrous KDE 4.0.
A lower end mainframe can replace roughly 1000 commodity servers, or so I've been told. It consumes roughly 10kW of power and requires only one operator to keep it functional (well, assuming 8 hours shifts, 3 operators). Those 1000 commodity servers will be consuming ~100W a piece, so the overall power consumption will be 10 times higher than the mainframe, and will probably require at least 3 administrators on the clock at any given time (so going with non-overlapping 8 hour shifts, that's 9 administrators). The cost savings could easily justify the expense of the mainframe, assuming that you are an institution that uses 1000 or more commodity servers.
Yes. We have at least two functioning mainframes at my university, and they look like strangely shaped refrigerators -- single refrigerators. The only other mainframe I saw in person was the Red Hat Summit this year, and it was open; inside, it looked like a bizarre rack where the internal wires from the servers were all exposed. Modern mainframes are not the same "big iron" equipment from the 1960s...
People were saying mainframes would die because of things like cluster servers, desktop computing, etc. The idea was that cheap commodity servers could replace mainframes for back end tasks, without the expense (an IBM mainframe, last I checked, cost $100k per year just to own, plus the salaries of the mainframe operators), and that commodity desktops could replace mainframes with thin client connections for typical office applications. While the latter is certainly true, the former is not -- it turns out that operating hundreds of commodity servers actually costs a lot, and for many institutions with HUGE server needs, mainframes wind up being a lot less expensive in the long run. The costs of commodity hardware come from things like cooling needs, power needs (including the power needed to run large air conditioners), the increased number of administrators needed to maintain that many systems, and a few other factors, which together wind up exceeding $100k (or $1M for the largest mainframes) by a wide margin.
I guess you missed that part about "standard." Or about non-Microsoft browsers. Or non-Microsoft operating systems. Cross platform programming has been important since before Microsoft, before the Internet, and certainly before the world wide web. There are other, better designed ways of creating distributed applications.