While this is closer than the "steal a car" analogy, it's still not the same. The LU costs money to continue to operate. Being able to copy a file from my friend costs the original artist/media company nothing, while being able to ride a train does. This would be more like if I made a fake ticket to their concert, which isn't what we are talking about.
You've always been able to use java.awt.image.BufferedImage to create dynamic images. The application I'm working on does that. But you are right that now you don't have to use xvfb (which I never thought was that big of a pain, but I like the -D solution better).
I'm kind of interested in java.awt.image.VolitileImage. It makes an image using the video card's memory, with the trade off that the image may be destroyed at any moment. I've done some tests and on my machine it didn't improve performance at all, but on a system with a good video card, it may be an awesome class.
Re:Linux and XP - use both
on
SuSE 7.3 vs XP
·
· Score: 1
Well I wish it would stop, because once it's gotten to a certain point it will always swap when I switch from one appliction to another, thus prompting me to reboot (if it didn't effect the machine, I really wouldn't care). For something that is supposed to speed the machine up, it really drags it down.
They wouldn't have much of a legal ground to stand on if they did this. It's fairly hard to hijack other people's IP, even with signed contracts, especially if it isn't "work-for-hire". Because of that, such a change would not grant them the rights to the IP you think it will, and at the same time get them sued into oblivion.
Re:Linux and XP - use both
on
SuSE 7.3 vs XP
·
· Score: 1
I use the hibernate feature in Windows 2000 on my laptop. It does seem to work perfectly, but one of the things I notice is that it then pretty much simulates a longer uptime. The longer my machine is up, the more RAM it uses, eventually forcing me to do a restart. I haven't tried XP on here (being a work machine) and I'm wondering if the same RAM loss happens over time.
Incidentally, linux has the same hibernate feature.
I believe the company that puts the mosaic photos out has a patent on the process, however.
Re:Lets face it, Times are hard everywhere.
on
The Laid-off Techie
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
And these same people don't have an attitude that says "I know I'm not going to be making 65k/year". Most of them feel they deserve 100k+. Just trying to inject a little more perspective.
Dispite of what you think of an MBA program, it does have quite a bit of good knowledge that, while you could learn on your own, helps in running a business. But businesses aren't founded on degrees, they are founded on one thing: credit. And a fresh graduate doesn't have the dredit required to start a business. To get good credit, you have to work for a while, hold fairly stable jobs, and show a proficiency that would get a creditor to believe you will make money and be able to pay them back.
And regardless, I would never think that an MCS would be enough to say a person should be instantly a CTO, neither does an MBA make you an instant CEO. That doesn't mean you don't learn important things in each program.
A lot of times sompanies put in a laundry list in order to scare away inexperienced people. They want people to respond saying "I only have half the skill you list, but I can pick up the rest easily".
Kind of unfair, but you try looking through 600 resume's because you are looking for a skilled J2EE developer.
And the salary is always negotiable after the interview.
"Do you really want any user to pre-empt the processing in the kernal by CPU to the detriment of other users? A more logical answer to this is to have set guarantees as how much processing time is given to each user."
Actually, I would think it would be the opposite. Being able to preempt within the kernel can pretect you against a DOS attack where a process repeatedly makes long running kernel calls. That would give that process more than it's fair share of time, and other processes couldn't respond to interrupts as well. Without a fully preemptable kernel, you can't guarantee how long a process can run, because it is impossible to preempt them while they are in a kernel call.
You are probably thinking of preemtive multitasking. Most modern operating systems use preemtive multitasking, where the kernel enforces when a process gets on the CPU, instead of cooperative multitasking, where a process (in a cooperative way) tells the kernel that it's okay to interrupt it (directly or indirectly) and then kernel makes a decision to give another process the CPU. Cooperative multitasking is bad because a process can decide not to cooperate and effectively take over the system.
This is a refinement on preemptive multitasking, which linux had before. Before having a preemptive kernel, the kernel could only preempt the process if it wasn't in a kernel call (okay, there are some kernel calls like writes to disk that it can preempt but most it can't). So, if an interrupt happens while my process is in the middle of a kernel call, the process that handles the interrupt will just have to wait until the call is completed.
With this patch, my process will be preempted for the handling process, allowing it to respond in a very timely fashion. Thus, this is considered to be a prerequisite for real time operating systems.
According to this Windows NT does have a preemptive kernel, but I doubt 9x/ME do. I'm not even sure that page is right, since I couldn't find any primary sources for this and other pages imply it doesn't (by listing a fully preemptive kernel as a feature under one operative system, but not listing it under windows NT).
Windows CE definitly has a fully preemptive kernel.
Tort law, indeed, does give different levels of liability to commercial entities than to noncommercial ones. It's been decided in law and case law that is an entity is making money off of you, they have a higher duty of care. In fact, there are even good samaritan laws lowering liability for people who are doing something for the community without direct benefit to themselves (and an ego boost is considered an indirect benefit).
Of course, I don't think that it is true that free, as in libre, software should have a waiver. After all, if I have a suppot contract with RedHat then I expect that to be enfored. However, free, as in gratis, software shouldn't be held to the same regard (even if closed source) since the authors aren't profitting off of you.
This really isn't a badge that Linux can hide behind. Many people, myself included, would like to see linux replace Windows as the mainstream OS. It's hard to say you should switch to linux because it isn't mainstream. If everyone did switch, then it would be mainstream and thus more targeted.
That said, however, I also whink that this report is exaggerated because of the whole same bug-different ditro thing, the bugs in packages that aren't common for anyone to use (and your can use a root exploit on a package you don't have), plus the fact that I would assume that open source projects would have more security bug reports than closed source ones because it is easier to find them with the source.
If you like that kind of stuff, you may like Alton Browns "Good Eats" show on the Food Network. He will often give very deep knowledge about a perticular foodstuff, pulling out diagrams and actors where necessary.
traditionally monopolies tend to die of their own weight within 15 years
This really don't fint with my understanding of the history in this country. The rail companies in the 1800s had monopolies lasting well longer than this. Even if this is true, the problem with monopolies isn't the fact that they are monopolies, but that they can often use this status to control and hurt the marketplace. It's only in these cases where they have violated the law, and we shouldn't just let them do it because they'll be gone in less than 15 years, likely replaced by a new monopoly
A white man saying "nigger" isn't necessarily racist. I call my asian friend a nigger all the time and he calls me one back (note, I'm caucasian). But when we say nigger (actually, more like "niggah") it means close friend. However, when you use the word against a person or a set of people in a hatefully derisive way, then you've made a racist act. Racism comes from the thought and attitude behind it.
Now this desn't stop a black person from misunderstanding an exchange between my friend and myself, but us calling each other niggers isn't racist.
Actually, one of the real problems is when cops think, say, young black males are more likely to be stealing an expensive car. So they pull over young black males in expensive cars on a nuisance charge they normally wouldn't pull someone over for (like changing lanes without signalling). This makes all young black males have to be extra careful while driving, just to get "equality".
Then to make things worse, every now and then they'll catch a guy who did steal the car, not because young black males in expensive cars are more likely to be theives, but because some actually are theives. Then, the cop feels justified in his/her profile and continues on with it. The cop may even think "I don't pull over nearly as many white young males who have stolen a car" not realizing that it's because of the disproportionate number of young black males pulled over.
The problem with computerized profiling is that it will continuously flag certain individuals that meet the profile. Every time they go somewhere they will have to deal with it, simply because they choose to be different within their rights. I wouldn't want to be a gay polyamorous man heading to Disneyland with my group once this system is put in.
the constitution allows for this, it's just that it has to be amended. There are procedures to amend the constitution. Once amended, the government can pass whatever crazy laws the new amendment allows.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reminded of my wife and I. We'll spend hours IMing while sitting beside each other.
Geek girls rock.
A post wont do it. A story submission, however....
Not with the karma cap :)
While this is closer than the "steal a car" analogy, it's still not the same. The LU costs money to continue to operate. Being able to copy a file from my friend costs the original artist/media company nothing, while being able to ride a train does. This would be more like if I made a fake ticket to their concert, which isn't what we are talking about.
You've always been able to use java.awt.image.BufferedImage to create dynamic images. The application I'm working on does that. But you are right that now you don't have to use xvfb (which I never thought was that big of a pain, but I like the -D solution better).
I'm kind of interested in java.awt.image.VolitileImage. It makes an image using the video card's memory, with the trade off that the image may be destroyed at any moment. I've done some tests and on my machine it didn't improve performance at all, but on a system with a good video card, it may be an awesome class.
Well I wish it would stop, because once it's gotten to a certain point it will always swap when I switch from one appliction to another, thus prompting me to reboot (if it didn't effect the machine, I really wouldn't care). For something that is supposed to speed the machine up, it really drags it down.
They wouldn't have much of a legal ground to stand on if they did this. It's fairly hard to hijack other people's IP, even with signed contracts, especially if it isn't "work-for-hire". Because of that, such a change would not grant them the rights to the IP you think it will, and at the same time get them sued into oblivion.
I use the hibernate feature in Windows 2000 on my laptop. It does seem to work perfectly, but one of the things I notice is that it then pretty much simulates a longer uptime. The longer my machine is up, the more RAM it uses, eventually forcing me to do a restart. I haven't tried XP on here (being a work machine) and I'm wondering if the same RAM loss happens over time.
Incidentally, linux has the same hibernate feature.
Sorry, but I found prior art for such zero-click shopping
I believe the company that puts the mosaic photos out has a patent on the process, however.
And these same people don't have an attitude that says "I know I'm not going to be making 65k/year". Most of them feel they deserve 100k+. Just trying to inject a little more perspective.
Dispite of what you think of an MBA program, it does have quite a bit of good knowledge that, while you could learn on your own, helps in running a business. But businesses aren't founded on degrees, they are founded on one thing: credit. And a fresh graduate doesn't have the dredit required to start a business. To get good credit, you have to work for a while, hold fairly stable jobs, and show a proficiency that would get a creditor to believe you will make money and be able to pay them back.
And regardless, I would never think that an MCS would be enough to say a person should be instantly a CTO, neither does an MBA make you an instant CEO. That doesn't mean you don't learn important things in each program.
Yeah, grammar is important, but so is spelling
A lot of times sompanies put in a laundry list in order to scare away inexperienced people. They want people to respond saying "I only have half the skill you list, but I can pick up the rest easily".
Kind of unfair, but you try looking through 600 resume's because you are looking for a skilled J2EE developer.
And the salary is always negotiable after the interview.
"Do you really want any user to pre-empt the processing in the kernal by CPU to the detriment of other users? A more logical answer to this is to have set guarantees as how much processing time is given to each user."
Actually, I would think it would be the opposite. Being able to preempt within the kernel can pretect you against a DOS attack where a process repeatedly makes long running kernel calls. That would give that process more than it's fair share of time, and other processes couldn't respond to interrupts as well. Without a fully preemptable kernel, you can't guarantee how long a process can run, because it is impossible to preempt them while they are in a kernel call.
You are probably thinking of preemtive multitasking. Most modern operating systems use preemtive multitasking, where the kernel enforces when a process gets on the CPU, instead of cooperative multitasking, where a process (in a cooperative way) tells the kernel that it's okay to interrupt it (directly or indirectly) and then kernel makes a decision to give another process the CPU. Cooperative multitasking is bad because a process can decide not to cooperate and effectively take over the system.
This is a refinement on preemptive multitasking, which linux had before. Before having a preemptive kernel, the kernel could only preempt the process if it wasn't in a kernel call (okay, there are some kernel calls like writes to disk that it can preempt but most it can't). So, if an interrupt happens while my process is in the middle of a kernel call, the process that handles the interrupt will just have to wait until the call is completed.
With this patch, my process will be preempted for the handling process, allowing it to respond in a very timely fashion. Thus, this is considered to be a prerequisite for real time operating systems.
According to this Windows NT does have a preemptive kernel, but I doubt 9x/ME do. I'm not even sure that page is right, since I couldn't find any primary sources for this and other pages imply it doesn't (by listing a fully preemptive kernel as a feature under one operative system, but not listing it under windows NT).
Windows CE definitly has a fully preemptive kernel.
If it's really that big of a problem, you could always rename/retag the files to me more different.
First, you say free software needs a waiver. Why?
Tort law, indeed, does give different levels of liability to commercial entities than to noncommercial ones. It's been decided in law and case law that is an entity is making money off of you, they have a higher duty of care. In fact, there are even good samaritan laws lowering liability for people who are doing something for the community without direct benefit to themselves (and an ego boost is considered an indirect benefit).
Of course, I don't think that it is true that free, as in libre, software should have a waiver. After all, if I have a suppot contract with RedHat then I expect that to be enfored. However, free, as in gratis, software shouldn't be held to the same regard (even if closed source) since the authors aren't profitting off of you.
IANAL, but my wife used to go to law school
This really isn't a badge that Linux can hide behind. Many people, myself included, would like to see linux replace Windows as the mainstream OS. It's hard to say you should switch to linux because it isn't mainstream. If everyone did switch, then it would be mainstream and thus more targeted.
That said, however, I also whink that this report is exaggerated because of the whole same bug-different ditro thing, the bugs in packages that aren't common for anyone to use (and your can use a root exploit on a package you don't have), plus the fact that I would assume that open source projects would have more security bug reports than closed source ones because it is easier to find them with the source.
If you like that kind of stuff, you may like Alton Browns "Good Eats" show on the Food Network. He will often give very deep knowledge about a perticular foodstuff, pulling out diagrams and actors where necessary.
traditionally monopolies tend to die of their own weight within 15 years
This really don't fint with my understanding of the history in this country. The rail companies in the 1800s had monopolies lasting well longer than this. Even if this is true, the problem with monopolies isn't the fact that they are monopolies, but that they can often use this status to control and hurt the marketplace. It's only in these cases where they have violated the law, and we shouldn't just let them do it because they'll be gone in less than 15 years, likely replaced by a new monopoly
A white man saying "nigger" isn't necessarily racist. I call my asian friend a nigger all the time and he calls me one back (note, I'm caucasian). But when we say nigger (actually, more like "niggah") it means close friend. However, when you use the word against a person or a set of people in a hatefully derisive way, then you've made a racist act. Racism comes from the thought and attitude behind it.
Now this desn't stop a black person from misunderstanding an exchange between my friend and myself, but us calling each other niggers isn't racist.
He wasn't saying the ones in the country are racist. He was saying that people who hate people from a monocultual country aren't racist.
Actually, one of the real problems is when cops think, say, young black males are more likely to be stealing an expensive car. So they pull over young black males in expensive cars on a nuisance charge they normally wouldn't pull someone over for (like changing lanes without signalling). This makes all young black males have to be extra careful while driving, just to get "equality".
Then to make things worse, every now and then they'll catch a guy who did steal the car, not because young black males in expensive cars are more likely to be theives, but because some actually are theives. Then, the cop feels justified in his/her profile and continues on with it. The cop may even think "I don't pull over nearly as many white young males who have stolen a car" not realizing that it's because of the disproportionate number of young black males pulled over.
The problem with computerized profiling is that it will continuously flag certain individuals that meet the profile. Every time they go somewhere they will have to deal with it, simply because they choose to be different within their rights. I wouldn't want to be a gay polyamorous man heading to Disneyland with my group once this system is put in.
the constitution allows for this, it's just that it has to be amended. There are procedures to amend the constitution. Once amended, the government can pass whatever crazy laws the new amendment allows.