This sounds like a good application for GPG. Join a league, get your key signed, get on the "good list." Cheat (get caught cheating), and your public key is placed on the signed "bad list." Servers would "belong" to leagues by checking the league listings to authenticate users.
If you get on the bad list, you can make a new key, but you have to start from scratch paying dues or otherwise earning "member in good standing" status.
So you have a cryptosystem. What value does it have if nobody trusts it? Who would use it? What are they risking? Lots of smart people need to establish a scientific consensus on the difficulty of a theoretical crack.
The value of a cryptosystem is shared, therefore, by the cryptographer and the community of cryptanalysts who establish its trustworthiness. Since the cryptanalysts have to do more work establishing the new system, you need to buy them out.
I suggest you patent it, and then seek a DoD contract. If that fails, sell shareware (good luck). You're going to do MUCH more work defending your system with mathematical proofs than you had to do to concieve and implement it for yourself. Go on the lecture circut for a little cash. Phil Zimmerman did...
The problem here is the fog surrounding the legal operations of the corporation. The solution is to systematize it in a clear and unambiguous way. I've felt the need for computer systems to help people operate democratic bodies (like corporate boards of directors), and I've begun to spec out a system.
Why do we tolerate the cloudiness around "The Board" of a corporation? Basically, the only thing you need (besides filing papers with the state after-the-fact) is some people willing to form and document a consensus about how to cooperate in the future. Couldn't that happen in an open and public way on IRC or something? After all, that is how early Linux programmers coordinated, and it seems to have woked fine to start with anyways... Isn't it a step backward to pull things into the murky and mystical darkness of "THEM" in "THE BOARDROOM?" I think, even if "can't we all just get along" is insufficient, that our alternative should conform to our basic principles of openness and scientific process.
This is an amateur effort, and I am looking for collaborators. The resulting work would be BSD licensed, but must remain secret until the *whole* set of essential functions (closed alpha, closed beta, and THEN open beta testing) can be made freely available as widely as possible (you must agree to NDA until open beta testing). I want to "set the bar" before creating demand for commercial versions, but I don't want to discourage copycats...
I don't understand why people are whining about Apache 2.0 being shunned by the masses. Running a DOT ZERO version means LOTS OF PATCHES. If you can't easily recompile and move on (like your site depends on changing interfaces/features/bugs) then dot zero is not for you.
This isn't a chink in Apache's gleaming armor. Its free software. The process is just plain old programming and software evolution. Dot zero is for people of the bleeding edge. Not all websites qualify. The Apache way is a superior way to the IIS way. Other ways may be just dandy also. Problems with Apache 2.0 are no indication on that issue as long as they are.
Let me explain the process. You tell me if the analogy fits.
robber:
You have a serious bug that can compromise a lot of running systems.
OpenSSL:
Oh really?
robber:
I'm serious. Here's how to exploit it, and here's a patch. I demand you fix it.
OpenSSL:
Let me have a look at that... We promise we'll fix it.
robber:
Well, I found it on accident, but it only took me a few hours to write the exploit and the patch. It shouldn't take more than a day or so to get the fix out.
OpenSSL:
We will update our code and send out a patch notice, but it's up to the users to upgrade on their own...
robber:
To give your notice some teeth, I'm going to post the worm to Usenet in 30 days if nobody beats me to it.
N1 will not replace any good Unix admins. There are reasons for this. The way *I* set up a Solaris box, it is near zero maintenance anyway. What (in addition) could N1 offer? Say I have "n" Sparc boxen in a bunch of cabinets, and an interface that makes them all behave like one machine. Do you really think offering all the services on one virtual box will be any simpler than offering a few here and one there on individual servers?
Here's another reason: Unix provides the service of enforcing principles on processes. Even if you take away the enforcement of access to individual hardware devices, and you have this magical VM (like good-ol IBM VM on 390...) for every service to occupy, those services--the software that unix runs-- must still be configured. Here's another idea to chew on: application programmers are not the brightest bulbs. The best thing about unix is how hard you can press sloppily written applications to do work. You can wrap any application in a script that cleans up after a crash and stick it in inittab to minimize the impact of a true bad-and-right piece of software. It rarely inerrupts a good-and-right (or wrong) service. The computer scientists who design operating systems' software are the bright ones: it's all about solving specific problems with general solutions. Most of my work is troubleshooting and pointing the finger of blame on one vendor, or another, or the LAN, or the WAN performance, or some other person... If I never had to install another box, if Sun dropped it on "the grid" and magically the capacity of the system was increased, it wouldn't buy me any slack time. I take trends of problems and create a generalized strategy to elimanate a whole class of problems at their causes. I represent the business needs to the uncaring robot machines. I force them to submit.
Will it be any less work for me to wrangle one big fat pseudomachine? I doubt it seriously. The suits can't articulate what they want in english. How is N1 going to give them what they want? If the CFO is looking at the salaries and grinding his teeth over mine... I'll gladly take twice my salary in consulting fees to do break-fix work on his N1 architecture while he pays his (damned... grinding teeth again) staff to break it for me. I am an artist. CFO: You don't know how to make the machines do your boring repetitive work for you, but I do (stupid luser...). To the BOARD: When your CFO is taking his golden parachute, no thing gives greater joy than to say "I told you so!"
Seriously though.. say you take SunONE, and run your JavaVM on Grid Engine, and wrap it all in SunManagementCentre with a back-door of Jumpstart for new nodes. Solaris Admin: Do you think it will put you out of a job? There are probably a hundred programmers who can write business applications that distribute well. CFO: you can't afford them, so HA! There's a reason unix has only made small incremental architectural progress: the bar is already set so high...
D&D Rules were always worthless (opinion)
on
Layoffs at WotC
·
· Score: 2
I remember that in the years I played D&D, AD&D, Star Frontiers, and a handful of other RPGs, I wasted the most money on AD&D books because they are chocked full of crap nobody ever really uses in game play. What I mean is, it's about weapons and combat and who can honestly say they didn't end up making up their own bastardization of the rules just to keep the roleplay flowing? Who really runs the whole tedious AD&D combat sequence?
The genre isn't dead. I have friends developing a streamlined game system that keeps all the stuff you want in a fantasy RPG, but leaves out all the complicated unwieldly combat rules (which I vaugely remember evolved out of a naval combat boardgame) that turn roleplaying into arguments about how to roll dice in a particular situation.
I'll cheer if the D&D books go out of print, and the copyrights go undefended. That's because they trademark stupid things like "halfling" because the Tolkien pricks trademarked "Hobbit". It's stupid. Besides, all my old tattered and rotting books may eventually be worth something then...
All I know is that if D&D books go out of print because WoTC goes out of business before anyone (who cares) buys up the rights, it won't stop the old fogeys. Nobody *REALLY* needs any new D&D rules (D20) anyways. Everyone always ends up making things up as they go along, and that's fine with or without WoTC.
Do not take this lightly. It can make citizens into subjects of an already exclusive government. It takes the abuse of power into part of your private domain in ways most people are not prepared to understand. Privacy, as a right, is defined by the U.S. Constitution's explicit freedom from "quartering of soldiers."
Email this stuff to the people who you forward jokes to. You need them to know how you feel.
[from the (
Bill of Rights) 3rd. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.
Pd is inexorably tied up with Digital Rights Management. Your computer will have several partitions, each of which will be able to read and write its own data. There's nothing in Pd that prevents someone else (MPAA, Disney, Microsoft, your boss) from setting up a partition on your computer and putting stuff there that you can't get at. Microsoft has repeatedly said that they are not going to mandate DRM, or try to control DRM systems, but clearly Pd was designed with DRM in mind.
There seem to be good privacy controls, over and above what I would have expected...
When you think about a secure computer, the first question you should ask is: "Secure for whom?" Microsoft has said that Pd allows the computer-owner to prevent others from putting their own secure areas on the computer. But really, what is the likelihood of that really happening? The NSA will be able to buy Pd-enabled computers and secure them from all outside influence. I doubt that you or I could, and still enjoy the richness of the Internet. Microsoft really doesn't care about what you think; they care about what the RIAA and the MPAA think. Microsoft can't afford to have the media companies not make their content available on Microsoft platforms, and they will do what they can to accommodate them. There's often a large gulf between what you can get in theory -- which is what Microsoft is stressing in their Pd discussions -- and what you will be able to have in practice. This is where the primary danger lies.
If you consent to allowing companies to install DRM agents on your computer, you are giving up your legal domain of privacy to them. This is not bad if each program is quarantined off from any others, but what is to keep them from conspiring with each other via RPC across "partner" servers from vendor to vendor to offer you "tighter integration." The programs on your computer even with perfect process separation on your Pd equipped computer are no more trustworthy than the websites from each respective vendor. Worse: you still have to trust Microsoft to implement (instead of pretending to implement) those security functions.
In America, dinner usually means MEAT. The meal is usually focused on a meat main dish. I have a basic cooking textbook made for use in culinary schools. It has the unflattering (but scientifically accurate) description of the two basic ways to cook meat: with dry or moist heat. The object of dry heat cooking is to cook the meat until it reaches "the desired degree of coagulation," (temperature) and the object of moist heat is to cook "until the connective tissues have sufficiently broken down." Hitting one of those marks will generally mean achieving "good cook" status with your guests. Screwing it up usually means disappointing people.
What would be the first lesson for any beginner to master as a main meat dish, or what's the easiest way to make sure it's done (but not overdone) when you serve it?
I say we make Moby say what *WE* want to hear if he wants any sales on his next album. Why do we let the record companies have all the control?
It goes like this: Moby: "I'm really sorry I disrespected my fans by saying they all want to rip me off even though some of them aren't tech-savvy enough to know how." Fans: "We accept your apology, and now we feel like you might deserve some of our money depending on how good your recordins are. We will buy your record if we like it instead of getting copies from our friends. Then again, if you suck, how do we know your apology is sincere?"
In Illinois, when you pay to have a line installed, you bought the local loop(s) for however many pair they charged you to drop. I think the subloop (pole to your house) can be claimed by you. The rest of the loop is a grey area owned mostly by the phone company, but held in public trust by the charter granted to the phone company.
Illinois took Ameritech to court last year over the same issues.
Illinois won. Now SBC has legal minimum service standards or they risk having to pay millions of dollars in refunds (again) or losing their charter to operate the CO (if the state legislature decides to get involved).
Sorry, but I'm one of those wealthy people who has SDSL for the sake of taking a loop away from Ameritech. I pay almost out of principle. I installed a 110 block and ran CAT-5 in my house. The install (truck already rolled) should have taken 10 minutes. The Covad line technician had to argue with the Ameritech CO people for 60 minutes about taking bridge clips off, and before that, he had to spend an hour to tone out the subloop because they don't properly tag lines in my neighborhood. Your ILECs and RBOCs can and will still harass the CLECs, but that doesn't stop me from getting my unmetered (not oversold) DSL Internet access.
Who paid for the local loop? AT&T? Where did they get that kind of cash? You would not be so irritated and confused if you knew the history of our phone system. Also, if you were to invest in joe6pack.net as a capital invetment in your own POPs with your own last-mile wiring, you would not be an RBOC subject to the regulations questioned by the decision we speak of. Therefore all of your economic arguments' examples are moot.
Calling someone else an ignorant fuck does not exclude you from being one yourself.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, you don't have to worry unless you have only one pair of telephone wires run to your house/office. The decision says it removes the "line sharing" stuff from a list of services that must be offered to CLECs without bundling. This is that the phone company can deny CLECs access to the loop already providing your voice phone service. They hinted at, but ultimately balked at deciding to throw out the whole unbundled service mandate list. It looks to me that Covad can demand a local loop to your house if there is a dry one available. Go to your box and find out how many pair you have!
Accordingly, the Line Sharing Order must be vacated and
remanded. Obviously any order unbundling the high frequency portion of the loop should also not be tainted by the
sort of error identified in our discussion of the Local Competition Order and identified by petitioners here as well.
Petitioners also claim that the Commission without explanation reversed a prior decision that a portion of the spectrum of a loop cannot qualify as a "network element." The
Commission urges that any language suggesting such a view
is explicable as simply reflecting a judgment on technical
feasibility, which it here reversed on the basis of a reexamination of the facts. Line Sharing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 20942-43, p 63. We think the Commission's view is convincing.
I have a TiBook 667, and friends run OSX on Pizmo powerbooks. The networking has never been an issue to be quite honest. The packet handling code is all lifted from FreeBSD-3.2, which is blisteringly fast. The slowness I've heard about is in the Aqua eye-candy features like transparency and the "genie" effect. I have personally had slowness with some Carbon (The OS8/9-OSX cross compatibility framework) apps due to poor event loop handling, but that's just cooperative multitasking that hasn't been fixed in the "Carbonization" of the app.
I am a FreeBSD person, so I have very high expectations about the multitasking performance, and I *HATE* the vestiges of classic that people leave in their apps. I have a prejudicial preference for all things Cocoa, because that means OSX preemptive multitasking ala FreeBSD (as far as performance goes).
I regularly FTP/SFTP from OSX to sparcv9-Solaris-8 and x86 FreeBSD-STABLE. I am impressed with the performance of the little 5400 RPM 30GB HDD on my TiBook, but thus I haven't felt the network stack's influence on latency or bulk transfer speed: Mach or anything.
If you were smart, you would realise that people who do good work pull 10 times the wieght of the festering boil crowd. If you pull four supplicants along with you, then you can have half your time/wits to yourself!
You know this is a bad idea; try this instead. Make them pay the schools, and then make them compete for those schools' software dollars in an open marketplace. If they really are just a "natural" monopoly, then the schools will give MS all their money back and get software as if it was free. If not, then we will see it unfold in the public record of how the schools spend these dollars. Just make sure the process is de-politicised and fully disclosed so we can catch people trying to give kickbacks to school officials on the side.
Darwin is a Mach kernel, which is a microkernel, based OS. Microkernels ONLY manage/arbitrate the connections between the upper half of device drivers and the IO buffer interface that software can see. The FreeBSD kernel is wrapped around Mach, rather than attatching drivers directly. As a result, the kernel (managing all kinds of goofy stuff like tables of TCP/UDP sockets in use) is preemptable by drivers that need realtime processing (like a FireWire video stream). Also, since the FreeBSD kernel layer only sees a virtual device interface, devices can be attatched and detatched at will without crashing the kernel. You can unload the device driver, recompile it, reload it, and you have just upgraded a device driver without needing to reboot. If your hardware wouldn't fry in the process, you could rip the video card out of a runnig machine, and replace it. Applications may decide to die when they get the message they are not allowed to write to the framebuffer, but then again they could be written to wait patiently...
The same sort of technique is used to "virtualise" filesystems. So, you have Mac, Mac-extended, UFS, FAT, EXT2FS partitions on the disk, the software is insulated from the differences. It's as if everything looks like it's wrapped in an NFS mount to the OS. This may not be totally accurate on a technical level, but you should understand that there is another layer of abstraction to the Mach kernel architecture..
Theoretically, you could have heterogenous CPUs in a system. Mach would treat them just like another device with a driver and IO to route here and there. Not that this isn't possible in other OSes, but Mach makes it much easier to do the software side.
Welcome to the world of PROPAGANDA. Psychologists know that people will subconsciously accept brazen lies if they are sufficiently tired, confused, or distracted before taking in the false causal statement. This is called "suggestability". They will subconsciously seek a (false if necessary) internal logic or even a leap-of-faith to understand the author. If they are too tired to question this understanding, they will keep it and use it as if it were fact, gleefully making false judgements baed upon the supposed "fact."
Once published, GPL code cannot be re-closed. If any code was lifted from another GPL project, the copyright holder of THAT code may be owed damages for any attempt to do so.
I should be more clear. I also assumed (possibly wrongly) that Tilley lifted other GPL code to do his perl work. Let that be a lesson to people who are averse to code reuse. What I mean is his boss can't have it both ways: you can't lift GPL code to take advantage of preexisting work and also control the distribtion of source code of those derived products. If this is truly between Tilley and his boss, then you are right. What I am talking about is between Tilley's boss and the GPL copyright holders of any work Tilley borrowed from to produce his work under contract.
Once published, GPL code cannot be re-closed. If any code was lifted from another GPL project, the copyright holder of THAT code may be owed damages for any attempt to do so.
Tilley can rewrite anything he did under contract with the jerky employer under the bad contract and re-release it under GPL as hiw own (derived from his jerky-boss's old GPL code).
Ever heard of FreeBSD? How about Darwin (and MacOSX)? Maybe Solaris even matters?
I have a personal peeve about "linux compatible" software getting a few unnecessary dependencies that have to be ripped out in order to get it to build on any other POSIX style system. I hate that in the same way I hate crappy MS bloatware.
I agree with you whole-heartedly in spirit, but things keep making want to kill... The devil is in the details. I need portable free software or else... Seriously though: portability, modularity, reusability, manageability, and other features of non-microsoft code are good pacific tools with which to undo the beast.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like a good application for GPG. Join a league, get your key signed, get on the "good list." Cheat (get caught cheating), and your public key is placed on the signed "bad list." Servers would "belong" to leagues by checking the league listings to authenticate users.
If you get on the bad list, you can make a new key, but you have to start from scratch paying dues or otherwise earning "member in good standing" status.
Thanks again Phil!
So you have a cryptosystem. What value does it have if nobody trusts it? Who would use it? What are they risking? Lots of smart people need to establish a scientific consensus on the difficulty of a theoretical crack.
The value of a cryptosystem is shared, therefore, by the cryptographer and the community of cryptanalysts who establish its trustworthiness. Since the cryptanalysts have to do more work establishing the new system, you need to buy them out.
I suggest you patent it, and then seek a DoD contract. If that fails, sell shareware (good luck). You're going to do MUCH more work defending your system with mathematical proofs than you had to do to concieve and implement it for yourself. Go on the lecture circut for a little cash. Phil Zimmerman did...
The problem here is the fog surrounding the legal operations of the corporation. The solution is to systematize it in a clear and unambiguous way. I've felt the need for computer systems to help people operate democratic bodies (like corporate boards of directors), and I've begun to spec out a system.
Why do we tolerate the cloudiness around "The Board" of a corporation? Basically, the only thing you need (besides filing papers with the state after-the-fact) is some people willing to form and document a consensus about how to cooperate in the future. Couldn't that happen in an open and public way on IRC or something? After all, that is how early Linux programmers coordinated, and it seems to have woked fine to start with anyways... Isn't it a step backward to pull things into the murky and mystical darkness of "THEM" in "THE BOARDROOM?" I think, even if "can't we all just get along" is insufficient, that our alternative should conform to our basic principles of openness and scientific process.
This is an amateur effort, and I am looking for collaborators. The resulting work would be BSD licensed, but must remain secret until the *whole* set of essential functions (closed alpha, closed beta, and THEN open beta testing) can be made freely available as widely as possible (you must agree to NDA until open beta testing). I want to "set the bar" before creating demand for commercial versions, but I don't want to discourage copycats...
I don't understand why people are whining about Apache 2.0 being shunned by the masses. Running a DOT ZERO version means LOTS OF PATCHES. If you can't easily recompile and move on (like your site depends on changing interfaces/features/bugs) then dot zero is not for you.
This isn't a chink in Apache's gleaming armor. Its free software. The process is just plain old programming and software evolution. Dot zero is for people of the bleeding edge. Not all websites qualify. The Apache way is a superior way to the IIS way. Other ways may be just dandy also. Problems with Apache 2.0 are no indication on that issue as long as they are.
Let me explain the process. You tell me if the analogy fits.
robber:
OpenSSL:
robber:
OpenSSL:
robber:
OpenSSL:
robber:
N1 will not replace any good Unix admins. There are reasons for this. The way *I* set up a Solaris box, it is near zero maintenance anyway. What (in addition) could N1 offer? Say I have "n" Sparc boxen in a bunch of cabinets, and an interface that makes them all behave like one machine. Do you really think offering all the services on one virtual box will be any simpler than offering a few here and one there on individual servers?
Here's another reason: Unix provides the service of enforcing principles on processes. Even if you take away the enforcement of access to individual hardware devices, and you have this magical VM (like good-ol IBM VM on 390...) for every service to occupy, those services--the software that unix runs-- must still be configured. Here's another idea to chew on: application programmers are not the brightest bulbs. The best thing about unix is how hard you can press sloppily written applications to do work. You can wrap any application in a script that cleans up after a crash and stick it in inittab to minimize the impact of a true bad-and-right piece of software. It rarely inerrupts a good-and-right (or wrong) service. The computer scientists who design operating systems' software are the bright ones: it's all about solving specific problems with general solutions. Most of my work is troubleshooting and pointing the finger of blame on one vendor, or another, or the LAN, or the WAN performance, or some other person... If I never had to install another box, if Sun dropped it on "the grid" and magically the capacity of the system was increased, it wouldn't buy me any slack time. I take trends of problems and create a generalized strategy to elimanate a whole class of problems at their causes. I represent the business needs to the uncaring robot machines. I force them to submit.
Will it be any less work for me to wrangle one big fat pseudomachine? I doubt it seriously. The suits can't articulate what they want in english. How is N1 going to give them what they want? If the CFO is looking at the salaries and grinding his teeth over mine... I'll gladly take twice my salary in consulting fees to do break-fix work on his N1 architecture while he pays his (damned... grinding teeth again) staff to break it for me. I am an artist. CFO: You don't know how to make the machines do your boring repetitive work for you, but I do (stupid luser...). To the BOARD: When your CFO is taking his golden parachute, no thing gives greater joy than to say "I told you so!"
Seriously though.. say you take SunONE, and run your JavaVM on Grid Engine, and wrap it all in SunManagementCentre with a back-door of Jumpstart for new nodes. Solaris Admin: Do you think it will put you out of a job? There are probably a hundred programmers who can write business applications that distribute well. CFO: you can't afford them, so HA! There's a reason unix has only made small incremental architectural progress: the bar is already set so high...
I remember that in the years I played D&D, AD&D, Star Frontiers, and a handful of other RPGs, I wasted the most money on AD&D books because they are chocked full of crap nobody ever really uses in game play. What I mean is, it's about weapons and combat and who can honestly say they didn't end up making up their own bastardization of the rules just to keep the roleplay flowing? Who really runs the whole tedious AD&D combat sequence?
The genre isn't dead. I have friends developing a streamlined game system that keeps all the stuff you want in a fantasy RPG, but leaves out all the complicated unwieldly combat rules (which I vaugely remember evolved out of a naval combat boardgame) that turn roleplaying into arguments about how to roll dice in a particular situation.
I'll cheer if the D&D books go out of print, and the copyrights go undefended. That's because they trademark stupid things like "halfling" because the Tolkien pricks trademarked "Hobbit". It's stupid. Besides, all my old tattered and rotting books may eventually be worth something then...
All I know is that if D&D books go out of print because WoTC goes out of business before anyone (who cares) buys up the rights, it won't stop the old fogeys. Nobody *REALLY* needs any new D&D rules (D20) anyways. Everyone always ends up making things up as they go along, and that's fine with or without WoTC.
Do not take this lightly. It can make citizens into subjects of an already exclusive government. It takes the abuse of power into part of your private domain in ways most people are not prepared to understand. Privacy, as a right, is defined by the U.S. Constitution's explicit freedom from "quartering of soldiers." Email this stuff to the people who you forward jokes to. You need them to know how you feel.
Consider Bruce's analysis:
If you consent to allowing companies to install DRM agents on your computer, you are giving up your legal domain of privacy to them. This is not bad if each program is quarantined off from any others, but what is to keep them from conspiring with each other via RPC across "partner" servers from vendor to vendor to offer you "tighter integration." The programs on your computer even with perfect process separation on your Pd equipped computer are no more trustworthy than the websites from each respective vendor. Worse: you still have to trust Microsoft to implement (instead of pretending to implement) those security functions.
In America, dinner usually means MEAT. The meal is usually focused on a meat main dish. I have a basic cooking textbook made for use in culinary schools. It has the unflattering (but scientifically accurate) description of the two basic ways to cook meat: with dry or moist heat. The object of dry heat cooking is to cook the meat until it reaches "the desired degree of coagulation," (temperature) and the object of moist heat is to cook "until the connective tissues have sufficiently broken down." Hitting one of those marks will generally mean achieving "good cook" status with your guests. Screwing it up usually means disappointing people.
What would be the first lesson for any beginner to master as a main meat dish, or what's the easiest way to make sure it's done (but not overdone) when you serve it?
I say we make Moby say what *WE* want to hear if he wants any sales on his next album. Why do we let the record companies have all the control?
It goes like this:
Moby: "I'm really sorry I disrespected my fans by saying they all want to rip me off even though some of them aren't tech-savvy enough to know how."
Fans: "We accept your apology, and now we feel like you might deserve some of our money depending on how good your recordins are. We will buy your record if we like it instead of getting copies from our friends. Then again, if you suck, how do we know your apology is sincere?"
Recession is two consecutive financial quarters with inflation that meets or exceeds growth.
In Illinois, when you pay to have a line installed, you bought the local loop(s) for however many pair they charged you to drop. I think the subloop (pole to your house) can be claimed by you. The rest of the loop is a grey area owned mostly by the phone company, but held in public trust by the charter granted to the phone company.
Can anyone refute/substantiate this?
Illinois took Ameritech to court last year over the same issues.
Illinois won. Now SBC has legal minimum service standards or they risk having to pay millions of dollars in refunds (again) or losing their charter to operate the CO (if the state legislature decides to get involved).
Sorry, but I'm one of those wealthy people who has SDSL for the sake of taking a loop away from Ameritech. I pay almost out of principle. I installed a 110 block and ran CAT-5 in my house. The install (truck already rolled) should have taken 10 minutes. The Covad line technician had to argue with the Ameritech CO people for 60 minutes about taking bridge clips off, and before that, he had to spend an hour to tone out the subloop because they don't properly tag lines in my neighborhood. Your ILECs and RBOCs can and will still harass the CLECs, but that doesn't stop me from getting my unmetered (not oversold) DSL Internet access.
TROLL!
Hyperbole
Confusion
TROLL!
Who paid for the local loop? AT&T? Where did they get that kind of cash? You would not be so irritated and confused if you knew the history of our phone system. Also, if you were to invest in joe6pack.net as a capital invetment in your own POPs with your own last-mile wiring, you would not be an RBOC subject to the regulations questioned by the decision we speak of. Therefore all of your economic arguments' examples are moot.
Calling someone else an ignorant fuck does not exclude you from being one yourself.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, you don't have to worry unless you have only one pair of telephone wires run to your house/office. The decision says it removes the "line sharing" stuff from a list of services that must be offered to CLECs without bundling. This is that the phone company can deny CLECs access to the loop already providing your voice phone service. They hinted at, but ultimately balked at deciding to throw out the whole unbundled service mandate list. It looks to me that Covad can demand a local loop to your house if there is a dry one available. Go to your box and find out how many pair you have!
I have a TiBook 667, and friends run OSX on Pizmo powerbooks. The networking has never been an issue to be quite honest. The packet handling code is all lifted from FreeBSD-3.2, which is blisteringly fast. The slowness I've heard about is in the Aqua eye-candy features like transparency and the "genie" effect. I have personally had slowness with some Carbon (The OS8/9-OSX cross compatibility framework) apps due to poor event loop handling, but that's just cooperative multitasking that hasn't been fixed in the "Carbonization" of the app.
I am a FreeBSD person, so I have very high expectations about the multitasking performance, and I *HATE* the vestiges of classic that people leave in their apps. I have a prejudicial preference for all things Cocoa, because that means OSX preemptive multitasking ala FreeBSD (as far as performance goes).
I regularly FTP/SFTP from OSX to sparcv9-Solaris-8 and x86 FreeBSD-STABLE. I am impressed with the performance of the little 5400 RPM 30GB HDD on my TiBook, but thus I haven't felt the network stack's influence on latency or bulk transfer speed: Mach or anything.
If the sites go away, reply to this comment with the news, and I can honor reasonable requests for copies of the english translated mirror.
This *MAY* require PGP (GPG) key exchange, so make sure you have yours ready!
If you were smart, you would realise that people who do good work pull 10 times the wieght of the festering boil crowd. If you pull four supplicants along with you, then you can have half your time/wits to yourself!
You know this is a bad idea; try this instead. Make them pay the schools, and then make them compete for those schools' software dollars in an open marketplace. If they really are just a "natural" monopoly, then the schools will give MS all their money back and get software as if it was free. If not, then we will see it unfold in the public record of how the schools spend these dollars. Just make sure the process is de-politicised and fully disclosed so we can catch people trying to give kickbacks to school officials on the side.
Darwin is a Mach kernel, which is a microkernel, based OS. Microkernels ONLY manage/arbitrate the connections between the upper half of device drivers and the IO buffer interface that software can see. The FreeBSD kernel is wrapped around Mach, rather than attatching drivers directly. As a result, the kernel (managing all kinds of goofy stuff like tables of TCP/UDP sockets in use) is preemptable by drivers that need realtime processing (like a FireWire video stream). Also, since the FreeBSD kernel layer only sees a virtual device interface, devices can be attatched and detatched at will without crashing the kernel. You can unload the device driver, recompile it, reload it, and you have just upgraded a device driver without needing to reboot. If your hardware wouldn't fry in the process, you could rip the video card out of a runnig machine, and replace it. Applications may decide to die when they get the message they are not allowed to write to the framebuffer, but then again they could be written to wait patiently...
The same sort of technique is used to "virtualise" filesystems. So, you have Mac, Mac-extended, UFS, FAT, EXT2FS partitions on the disk, the software is insulated from the differences. It's as if everything looks like it's wrapped in an NFS mount to the OS. This may not be totally accurate on a technical level, but you should understand that there is another layer of abstraction to the Mach kernel architecture..
Theoretically, you could have heterogenous CPUs in a system. Mach would treat them just like another device with a driver and IO to route here and there. Not that this isn't possible in other OSes, but Mach makes it much easier to do the software side.
Welcome to the world of PROPAGANDA. Psychologists know that people will subconsciously accept brazen lies if they are sufficiently tired, confused, or distracted before taking in the false causal statement. This is called "suggestability". They will subconsciously seek a (false if necessary) internal logic or even a leap-of-faith to understand the author. If they are too tired to question this understanding, they will keep it and use it as if it were fact, gleefully making false judgements baed upon the supposed "fact."
AKA: sales pitch.
What I said originally:
I should be more clear. I also assumed (possibly wrongly) that Tilley lifted other GPL code to do his perl work. Let that be a lesson to people who are averse to code reuse. What I mean is his boss can't have it both ways: you can't lift GPL code to take advantage of preexisting work and also control the distribtion of source code of those derived products. If this is truly between Tilley and his boss, then you are right. What I am talking about is between Tilley's boss and the GPL copyright holders of any work Tilley borrowed from to produce his work under contract.Once published, GPL code cannot be re-closed. If any code was lifted from another GPL project, the copyright holder of THAT code may be owed damages for any attempt to do so.
Tilley can rewrite anything he did under contract with the jerky employer under the bad contract and re-release it under GPL as hiw own (derived from his jerky-boss's old GPL code).
Jerky boss go screw!
Ever heard of FreeBSD? How about Darwin (and MacOSX)? Maybe Solaris even matters?
I have a personal peeve about "linux compatible" software getting a few unnecessary dependencies that have to be ripped out in order to get it to build on any other POSIX style system. I hate that in the same way I hate crappy MS bloatware.
I agree with you whole-heartedly in spirit, but things keep making want to kill... The devil is in the details. I need portable free software or else... Seriously though: portability, modularity, reusability, manageability, and other features of non-microsoft code are good pacific tools with which to undo the beast.