rusk

17 ms·

331.
by rusk 2y ago
Hoof Hearted
332.
by rusk 2y ago
Scotty manages his tech debt
333.
by rusk 2y ago
You’re talking nonsense we have an abundance of radio devices capable of point to point routing.
334.
by rusk 2y ago
Cross talk takes place on PHY and by the time you get up to routing it’s all been eliminated
335.
by rusk 2y ago
Publishing the key is a crime but even “discovering” the key is a crime. My toy thought is that you could legally do key discovery using non-copyrighted media though of course now that I think about it why would it be ciphered in that case
336.
by rusk 2y ago
I was using Mesh networking as an example. Obviously it can’t handle heavy load or longer distances well, however it is much more efficient for local point to point. If you like, you can consider just plain old VOIP where the central entity
337.
by rusk 2y ago
You do if you want to route across a broader area which is a different use case to what we are talking about. Two phones right next to each other are routes through the BTS even though they could easily route directly to one another and tha
338.
by rusk 2y ago
What you suggest could be accomplished with mesh networking. GP is correct in saying the reasons are orthogonal to functional reasons. Phone systems have always been centralised like this. Billing is one aspect, but lawful surveillance is a
339.
by rusk 2y ago
From what I recall, it was the actual protection method that was protected by DMCA - when DVD protection was cracked it was forbidden to distribute a particular section of code so they just printed it on a Tee-shirt to troll the powers that
340.
by rusk 2y ago
They claim “safe harbour” - if nobody complains it’s fair game
341.
by rusk 2y ago
This is interesting. I wonder could you use it as a basis for “legally” circumventing a technology by applying it to non-copyrighted works.
342.
by rusk 2y ago
Isn’t this comment in the public domain? I presume that’s what I’m doing when I’m posting on a forum. If somebody copied and pasted something I wrote on here could I in theory use copyright law to restrict distribution? I think the law woul
343.
by rusk 2y ago
We are in a transition phase. The centre cannot hold indefinitely. An ever more centralised web is putting walls around information but the web itself now is such a tiny corner of cyberspace now. It feels like there’s oceans of knowledge al
344.
by rusk 2y ago
Yeah I got ya
345.
by rusk 2y ago
Agreed, and I’m not fully aware au fait with DOJ reasoning. Perhaps it’s an anti-trust thing as it gives them a way to steer the development of the web to their own ends? That would be my key concern about Chrome anyway. But to come back
346.
by rusk 2y ago
65-80 for readability however once you introduce indentation this naturally increases. I always felt that shorter lines were a good way to encourage less nested code. Alas after all these years the consensus is against me.
347.
by rusk 2y ago
Two files on a laptop
348.
by rusk 2y ago
”a stitch in time saves nine” ”prevention is better than cure” [ante-] ”closing the stable door after the horse has bolted”
349.
by rusk 2y ago
Didn’t dispute it was a service. What I was saying that Google run everything at a loss, and it’s all paid for by advertising. They don’t sell themselves advertising. No advertising no money.
350.
by rusk 2y ago
That’s a “half baked” analogy if ever I heard one. With you on the service but the rest of it is just stupid. To align with your analogy Google would have to restrict chrome to accessing only their sites and services, which would be usele
351.
by rusk 2y ago
hopefully the fines you get from some of the worlds wealthiest nations wouldn’t eclipse the profit you’d make
352.
by rusk 2y ago
More akin to Window Manager to me. But yes more than a mere “shell” and through my error I have learned oh so much.
353.
by rusk 2y ago
Not sufficient on its own to qualify it as an OS though. The VM subsystem described in sibling comment makes a big difference though!
354.
by rusk 2y ago
There was a way to “drop to DOS” alright, which is what you would have had to do for games and the like. Can’t remember the exact mechanism but it could have been the x on the “program manager” window. The raise Windows you’d type “win” and
355.
by rusk 2y ago
Thanks for that it’s very interesting. I had no idea the virtual machine system was so advanced. Device drivers and such were all still real mode but yes I can see how this would make DOS a component of Windows rather than the other way rou
356.
by rusk 2y ago
Thanks ”Win32s lacked a number of Windows NT functions, including multi-threading, asynchronous I/O, newer serial port functions and many GDI extensions. This generally limited it to "Win32s applications" which were specific
357.
by rusk 2y ago
Windows 3.1 was just a graphical shell. All the drivers and stuff were still managed by DOS. You still needed to configure your system with config.sys EDIT it’s coming back to me. Windows 3.1 did have a a subsystem for running 32 bit apps c
358.
by rusk 2y ago
James Clerk Maxwell has entered the conversation
359.
by rusk 2y ago
Agree, the terminology in those days was “shell”. Though Windows 95 was arguably similar running atop “DOS 7” it actually imposes its own 32-bit environment with its own “protected mode” drivers once booted. Dropping to DOS reverted to “rea
360.
by rusk 2y ago
I think it needed DOS … just not the Windows “shell”

More ›