Well, in the simplest terms you are wrong, but the explanation is more complicated.
Knowing allowing shill bidding (whether by yourself or others) is cause for revocation of an auctioneer's license or fines by state regulators. The state law most often says that a business cannot conduct auctions without an auctioneer's license, so the leverage for fines and punishment is generally against continued ability to conduct auctions and not strictly a legal matter aside from maybe breach of contract claims or similar.
Shilling itself may or may not be illegal state by state, but just because you can't go to jail for it alone does not preclude you having your ass handed to you in a courtroom. Again, you can be sued under breach of contract or for violation of the UCC for which law may allow certain claims.
In this particular case, ICANN probably has some type of contract governing the auctions that GoDaddy is probably also violating. I would imagine that their hole is pretty deep in this matter.
It's funny you mention this; you know they used to do this -- Back in 1997/1998 the only way to get an SSL certificate for a webserver was to submit to pretty thorough vetting of your personal or business identity. I remember having to jump through hoops for this the first time I got an SSL certificate.
Now that you can get an SSL cert set up inside of 10 minutes that means absolutely nothing (You can even get one for free), they had to create the stupid EV system to go back and make sure that there would be an easy way for the end users to tell the difference. You know what is funny though? The vendors examine you less when getting an EV certificate now than they did to get an SSL certificate 10 years ago.
It's odd that you mention this because it's pretty much what I was going to post about -- of all the ridiculously violent and/or illegal things you can do in the game, the ONE and ONLY thing (that I have seen to far) that the game actually disclaims and cautions you against is driving drunk.
In the opening sequence, your drunk cousin gives you the keys because he proclaims he is in no condition to drive, then later, after going drinking the game suggests you hail a cab (which you can actually do, no problem.) If you choose not to, you actually get another warning when you get behind the wheel. Indeed, driving in that condition in the game is really quite challenging.
I'm not sure what MADD's motives really are here. It seems to me that if they actually wanted to get an effective message out about not driving drunk maybe they should have emphasized the game's "Take a cab" point or pointed out that not even hyper-violent criminals want to mess around with driving drunk. They could have still ridden the GTA press wave and actually accomplished something. As it is, they just end up alienating themselves further from reality.
Personally, I don't think HDMI problems are as big of a deal as people make it out to be.
Consider yourself one of the lucky ones. I have had trouble with every HDMI setup I have ever touched and 100% of the problems without a single exception have been with the HDCP handshake. It hasn't seemed to matter if it's low end, high end, old, or new gear it simply doesn't work reliably 100% of the time and therein lies the real problem.
You know, while the HDMI people were ripping off the DVI standard to make some extra money they should have done something innovative to improve upon it. The physical connector of HDMI is worse than DVI, the audio channel is very limited in the bitstreams it can transport, and the data channel is a complete and total joke. On top of this they didn't bother to make HDCP any more robust than it was with DVI, leaving everyone with a horribly broken "standard" to adhere to. To add insult to it, they keep changing the thing because they couldn't get it right to begin with.
No offense meant here, but normal move/copy operations are traditionally highly destructive events on MacOS anyway. For instance there is absolutely no simple way to merge two folders contents together on the mac. If you drag a folder called "Documents" into your home directory and click on "OK", the Mac OS will happily delete your entire documents folder. I was reminded of this enormous frustration while recovering from some multi-volume backups recently, having to resort to an obscure OS X commandline tool 'pax' and Leopard's newfound support of hardlinks to make some simple file copies play nice and not unnecessarily consume 3 times the disk space they should have.
For all of the flack the Windows file copy interface gets, it is both safer and more flexible than trying to use the Finder: an interface that makes file management so stupefying it becomes impossible.
I too think your example about your powerbook story making digg to be non-exemplary. To be honest with you, digg is the best place for that and when I go to digg that is the kind of thing that I expect. You said you only made about $20 from the thing so that, to me, doesn't seem like enough motivation to go to the effort and expense of gaming digg. If you tried to game digg with crap, you would fail. I mean there are people out there like kipkay that are supposedly successful at it, but at the same time if kipkay's videos really sucked, he wouldn't be.
I didn't say they were on their last legs and I didn't mean to imply that you will see any changes within the next several years, even. I'm also not trying to compare macs to PC's on the magical "TCO" number either. I'm trying to compare $200 thin clients that can take the abuse in schools for a solid 10 years to $1500 iMacs that can barely muster 4 and require maintenance besides.
However, the ENTIRE industry is gravitating to virtual machines for servers at a (rather insane) pace and virtual desktop/thin cient is getting adopted faster than I think anyone ever expected. Swallowing the iMac and xServe pill along with the labor to replace and manage the individual machines (you know you don't even NEED deepfreeze/ghost et. al. to manage VM's right?) will get harder and harder to swallow. And so here's the problem:
If Apple isn't already giving virtualization companies/projects the incentive to work on the technology to properly virtualize OS X server and OS X on the desktop TODAY, they aren't going to be ready to do it TOMORROW when you suddenly realize that, hey, you'd really like to have it because it makes your job a lot easier. And unless you want to trust Apple to work on it internally and stay competitive, I still think they aren't moving agressively enough into this space.
Well, honestly it's a point of compromise. If you want to virtualize Desktop OS X you want to get rid of a bunch of apple desktop hardware. If you want to virtualize OS X Server, you want to get rid of a few Xserves.
Considering what enterprise VMWare licenses actually cost, there is no way in hell you are going to slap them onto no-name 1u boxes. It's simply not done. But neither are you going to install your ESX licenses on Xserves -- it's not cost effective for other reasons.
Considering how Desktop OS X is very GPU dependent and remote viewing protocols are currently extremely inadequate for OS X thin client computing, it makes a lot of sense for Apple to push their own virtual desktop platform that can solve these problems. I'm talking Apple-made thin clients (and/or apple licensed thin client specs) and apple hosted virtualization -- perhaps their hardware will need GL compositing in the clients, for instance? Or maybe they will want to have vector processors in the Xserves to assist with this kind of work for theVM's server-side?
Apple is about delivering a better experience using both software and hardware. I would sure like to see OS X on non-apple hardware too, whether virtualized or not, but I am just trying to be realistic with a request. I think it would be very difficult for Apple to attempt to actually release and support an OS X for generic x86 and I don't expect that they have an economic incentive to do that right now.
It would be important to note in the summary that they seem to be allowing virtualized 10.5 server but still only if you do it on Apple-branded hardware and only if you buy licenses for each instance. It is kind of strange considering that the users who need this sort of thing are also the users who are quite good about being license compliant. A lot of these people who are asking for this are ready to deploy virtual Xserves right on top of existing VMWare ESX clusters today if it were simply ALLOWED. I can't really see the justification from a piracy concern standpoint or honestly even from the standpoint of losing hardware sales on the Xserve line.
What they really ought to allow is desktop OS X to be virtualized on top of apple hardware (ie run OS X VM's on xserve clusters) and allow OS X server to be virtualized on top of non-apple hardware. Not allowing this is really going to hurt their server business over the next few years I suspect. I also think that virtual desktop instances of OS X would be a very appealing way forward for the education market. I think Apple is enjoying its last days of lock-in in schools and having really NO computing product that is purpose built for education will probably make them slip soon.
I got three or four of these today. I think they will be a pretty short lived trend for a couple of reasons:
You can't understand it. Think a million times worse than Max Headroom on a cell phone. It's so noisy and distorted that you can barely make out that it is a female voice much less interpret the stock symbol she is attempting to SPELL! I have a nice noise canceling headset for my phone and still have to use the phonetic alphabet to spell things on the phone. How do they expect this to work?
They are huge. Mine passed my spam filter simply because I've never had a spam bigger than 100KB, so I haven't ever bothered to filter them. I guess things like the Storm botnet are changing the limits of this, but still, 100KB is 10-100 times the amount of data vs a normal spam that you have to send out to plaster your message onto everyone's inbox.
The real take-home message here is that while there is quite a lot of mention about how the spammers are 'having to get innovative' the reality is that they are having to get desperate. There is no innovation in sending a unique audio message to somebody via email. But when they have to bypass all existing spam filters in addition to having to resort to sending out huge, uniquely distorted audio files to get their message across they are definitely feeling cornered.
"Can" means a lot of things in this context; in that he is able and free to to declare a license change is not in dispute; however the methodology of the "opt-out deadline" is not quite so cut and dry. There absolutely will be a time cost, a financial cost, and a great coding effort if the license is to be changed. Andrew Morton boils it down a lot more objectively in his public statements about the matter: There is simply no current or anticipated business case to justify the license change in the kernel project.
There have been large projects such as Samba and Asterisk that have had the economic incentive to go through the hassle of changing licenses to something more favorable to their intentions, but for the kernel the hassle is going to be so much greater that the incentive will have to be very high. Something like a court (very unlikely) declaring GPLv2 to be unenforceable, for instance, would be the kind of incentive needed to push this change through the kernel.
Using the syscall license thing as an analogy for a GPXv2 to GPLv3 transition is not really fair as the scope of the latter is so much greater. The syscall changes were an attempt to clarify and explicitly restate an interpretation of the existing license, not to change it.
I would put in my NetApp vote as well; they are awesome for NAS, particularly if you have a need for both NFS and CIFS and then even moreso if you need both NFS and CIFS access to the same data concurrently. Once you learn ONTAP and get your head around what NetApp calls everything: 'aggr' 'vol' etc. you will find the machines extremely capable, but unfortunately extremely expensive.
However instead it was a product of two things that I have:
1) An IM client that auto-copies URL's to the clipboard and 2) Completely insane friends.
I'm not sure how a pillow with nipples produced for cats is going to help your laptop save power, but certainly it won't hurt. I just hit Ctrl-V and a URL came out so I assumed it was the one I had just copied.
Just a handy tip for you (if you don't already use it) or others who are looking at disabling atime more for the power savings than the IO -- on laptops you should also be using noflushd (non-journaling filesystems only) or (ideally) Laptop Mode Tools. Also do not forget to configure syslog so that it doesn't constantly sync writes.
It's also worth mentioning that you *can* have atime enabled with properly configured laptop-mode and laptop-mode-tools and still see almost as much power savings -- The atime writes will still happen, but at least they will be buffered for when the HDD actually needs to spin up and do a lot of other more pressing IO.
Yes; he is. ntfs-3g on OS X is very very slow for read and abysmally slow for write. If you had ever gone through the undertaking of installing it you would know that anyone technically capable of the feat would not need the book you just published there on how to tell what speed their USB is.
Home use licenses are pretty much standard with all Microsoft products when you purchase Software Assurance, which you generally do with MS Office. Was I the only one who read this and thought it was probably someone who had never actually done a volume license deal with MS making a mountain out of a molehill?
Although it's rare for a terse response to sarcasm to be on topic, this one is. "Tubes..." refers to the statement made by Senator Ted Stevens on the Senate floor in his attempt to simplify the explanation of Internet bandwidth issues. These and other statements by Senator Stevens were humorously presented and popularized by Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," and have become a popular cliché on technology discussion forums.
Nearly every BMW produced since about 1980 (Except most///M cars which displace it for an oil temp. gauge instead) has had an instantaneous fuel consumption gauge in the instrument cluster. It's not unique to BMW of course, but an indicator like this really can help you save gas and drive more fuel efficiently. You can control your acceleration and coasting so that you never drop below 20MPG fuel efficiency, for instance, or you can easily find the most fuel efficient cruising speed based on current road/wind/etc. conditions.
If your car doesn't have such a gauge and you want one then as long as your car was built after 1996 you can pick up an instrument that connects to your OBDII port in the driver's footwell to give you some information about your fuel consumption.
Well this is outright false and on top of that it is stupid. First and foremost if you are owed a refund, you're just giving the IRS an interest free loan. Secondly, if you wait too long (3 years) without filing anything, you can never get your money back. Even if you take the 5 minutes to file a 1040EZ that lets them keep all of your money you at least get 10 years to reclaim it with a proper filing.
Now, in very rare cases it might be that you would be entitled to a refund due to having had some of your earnings withheld but also not required to file because you made only, say, $400 the entire year, but you'd still be dumb to let the IRS keep your money.
Slashdot Mirror
HTML 5 has <event-source> . You could do XMPP on this if you want, but it's not limited to XMPP (which it shouldnt be)
Well, in the simplest terms you are wrong, but the explanation is more complicated.
Knowing allowing shill bidding (whether by yourself or others) is cause for revocation of an auctioneer's license or fines by state regulators. The state law most often says that a business cannot conduct auctions without an auctioneer's license, so the leverage for fines and punishment is generally against continued ability to conduct auctions and not strictly a legal matter aside from maybe breach of contract claims or similar.
Shilling itself may or may not be illegal state by state, but just because you can't go to jail for it alone does not preclude you having your ass handed to you in a courtroom. Again, you can be sued under breach of contract or for violation of the UCC for which law may allow certain claims.
In this particular case, ICANN probably has some type of contract governing the auctions that GoDaddy is probably also violating. I would imagine that their hole is pretty deep in this matter.
It's funny you mention this; you know they used to do this -- Back in 1997/1998 the only way to get an SSL certificate for a webserver was to submit to pretty thorough vetting of your personal or business identity. I remember having to jump through hoops for this the first time I got an SSL certificate.
Now that you can get an SSL cert set up inside of 10 minutes that means absolutely nothing (You can even get one for free), they had to create the stupid EV system to go back and make sure that there would be an easy way for the end users to tell the difference. You know what is funny though? The vendors examine you less when getting an EV certificate now than they did to get an SSL certificate 10 years ago.
Were they Banyan Vines?
It's odd that you mention this because it's pretty much what I was going to post about -- of all the ridiculously violent and/or illegal things you can do in the game, the ONE and ONLY thing (that I have seen to far) that the game actually disclaims and cautions you against is driving drunk.
In the opening sequence, your drunk cousin gives you the keys because he proclaims he is in no condition to drive, then later, after going drinking the game suggests you hail a cab (which you can actually do, no problem.) If you choose not to, you actually get another warning when you get behind the wheel. Indeed, driving in that condition in the game is really quite challenging.
I'm not sure what MADD's motives really are here. It seems to me that if they actually wanted to get an effective message out about not driving drunk maybe they should have emphasized the game's "Take a cab" point or pointed out that not even hyper-violent criminals want to mess around with driving drunk. They could have still ridden the GTA press wave and actually accomplished something. As it is, they just end up alienating themselves further from reality.
Consider yourself one of the lucky ones. I have had trouble with every HDMI setup I have ever touched and 100% of the problems without a single exception have been with the HDCP handshake. It hasn't seemed to matter if it's low end, high end, old, or new gear it simply doesn't work reliably 100% of the time and therein lies the real problem.
You know, while the HDMI people were ripping off the DVI standard to make some extra money they should have done something innovative to improve upon it. The physical connector of HDMI is worse than DVI, the audio channel is very limited in the bitstreams it can transport, and the data channel is a complete and total joke. On top of this they didn't bother to make HDCP any more robust than it was with DVI, leaving everyone with a horribly broken "standard" to adhere to. To add insult to it, they keep changing the thing because they couldn't get it right to begin with.
Except of course for all those high-end ceramic and low-end plastic composite knives that are being made these days..
No offense meant here, but normal move/copy operations are traditionally highly destructive events on MacOS anyway. For instance there is absolutely no simple way to merge two folders contents together on the mac. If you drag a folder called "Documents" into your home directory and click on "OK", the Mac OS will happily delete your entire documents folder. I was reminded of this enormous frustration while recovering from some multi-volume backups recently, having to resort to an obscure OS X commandline tool 'pax' and Leopard's newfound support of hardlinks to make some simple file copies play nice and not unnecessarily consume 3 times the disk space they should have.
For all of the flack the Windows file copy interface gets, it is both safer and more flexible than trying to use the Finder: an interface that makes file management so stupefying it becomes impossible.
I too think your example about your powerbook story making digg to be non-exemplary. To be honest with you, digg is the best place for that and when I go to digg that is the kind of thing that I expect. You said you only made about $20 from the thing so that, to me, doesn't seem like enough motivation to go to the effort and expense of gaming digg. If you tried to game digg with crap, you would fail. I mean there are people out there like kipkay that are supposedly successful at it, but at the same time if kipkay's videos really sucked, he wouldn't be.
I didn't say they were on their last legs and I didn't mean to imply that you will see any changes within the next several years, even. I'm also not trying to compare macs to PC's on the magical "TCO" number either. I'm trying to compare $200 thin clients that can take the abuse in schools for a solid 10 years to $1500 iMacs that can barely muster 4 and require maintenance besides.
However, the ENTIRE industry is gravitating to virtual machines for servers at a (rather insane) pace and virtual desktop/thin cient is getting adopted faster than I think anyone ever expected. Swallowing the iMac and xServe pill along with the labor to replace and manage the individual machines (you know you don't even NEED deepfreeze/ghost et. al. to manage VM's right?) will get harder and harder to swallow. And so here's the problem:
If Apple isn't already giving virtualization companies/projects the incentive to work on the technology to properly virtualize OS X server and OS X on the desktop TODAY, they aren't going to be ready to do it TOMORROW when you suddenly realize that, hey, you'd really like to have it because it makes your job a lot easier. And unless you want to trust Apple to work on it internally and stay competitive, I still think they aren't moving agressively enough into this space.
Well, honestly it's a point of compromise. If you want to virtualize Desktop OS X you want to get rid of a bunch of apple desktop hardware. If you want to virtualize OS X Server, you want to get rid of a few Xserves.
Considering what enterprise VMWare licenses actually cost, there is no way in hell you are going to slap them onto no-name 1u boxes. It's simply not done. But neither are you going to install your ESX licenses on Xserves -- it's not cost effective for other reasons.
Considering how Desktop OS X is very GPU dependent and remote viewing protocols are currently extremely inadequate for OS X thin client computing, it makes a lot of sense for Apple to push their own virtual desktop platform that can solve these problems. I'm talking Apple-made thin clients (and/or apple licensed thin client specs) and apple hosted virtualization -- perhaps their hardware will need GL compositing in the clients, for instance? Or maybe they will want to have vector processors in the Xserves to assist with this kind of work for theVM's server-side?
Apple is about delivering a better experience using both software and hardware. I would sure like to see OS X on non-apple hardware too, whether virtualized or not, but I am just trying to be realistic with a request. I think it would be very difficult for Apple to attempt to actually release and support an OS X for generic x86 and I don't expect that they have an economic incentive to do that right now.
It would be important to note in the summary that they seem to be allowing virtualized 10.5 server but still only if you do it on Apple-branded hardware and only if you buy licenses for each instance. It is kind of strange considering that the users who need this sort of thing are also the users who are quite good about being license compliant. A lot of these people who are asking for this are ready to deploy virtual Xserves right on top of existing VMWare ESX clusters today if it were simply ALLOWED. I can't really see the justification from a piracy concern standpoint or honestly even from the standpoint of losing hardware sales on the Xserve line.
What they really ought to allow is desktop OS X to be virtualized on top of apple hardware (ie run OS X VM's on xserve clusters) and allow OS X server to be virtualized on top of non-apple hardware. Not allowing this is really going to hurt their server business over the next few years I suspect. I also think that virtual desktop instances of OS X would be a very appealing way forward for the education market. I think Apple is enjoying its last days of lock-in in schools and having really NO computing product that is purpose built for education will probably make them slip soon.
I got three or four of these today. I think they will be a pretty short lived trend for a couple of reasons:
You can't understand it. Think a million times worse than Max Headroom on a cell phone. It's so noisy and distorted that you can barely make out that it is a female voice much less interpret the stock symbol she is attempting to SPELL! I have a nice noise canceling headset for my phone and still have to use the phonetic alphabet to spell things on the phone. How do they expect this to work?
They are huge. Mine passed my spam filter simply because I've never had a spam bigger than 100KB, so I haven't ever bothered to filter them. I guess things like the Storm botnet are changing the limits of this, but still, 100KB is 10-100 times the amount of data vs a normal spam that you have to send out to plaster your message onto everyone's inbox.
The real take-home message here is that while there is quite a lot of mention about how the spammers are 'having to get innovative' the reality is that they are having to get desperate. There is no innovation in sending a unique audio message to somebody via email. But when they have to bypass all existing spam filters in addition to having to resort to sending out huge, uniquely distorted audio files to get their message across they are definitely feeling cornered.
"Can" means a lot of things in this context; in that he is able and free to to declare a license change is not in dispute; however the methodology of the "opt-out deadline" is not quite so cut and dry. There absolutely will be a time cost, a financial cost, and a great coding effort if the license is to be changed. Andrew Morton boils it down a lot more objectively in his public statements about the matter: There is simply no current or anticipated business case to justify the license change in the kernel project.
There have been large projects such as Samba and Asterisk that have had the economic incentive to go through the hassle of changing licenses to something more favorable to their intentions, but for the kernel the hassle is going to be so much greater that the incentive will have to be very high. Something like a court (very unlikely) declaring GPLv2 to be unenforceable, for instance, would be the kind of incentive needed to push this change through the kernel.
Using the syscall license thing as an analogy for a GPXv2 to GPLv3 transition is not really fair as the scope of the latter is so much greater. The syscall changes were an attempt to clarify and explicitly restate an interpretation of the existing license, not to change it.
I would put in my NetApp vote as well; they are awesome for NAS, particularly if you have a need for both NFS and CIFS and then even moreso if you need both NFS and CIFS access to the same data concurrently. Once you learn ONTAP and get your head around what NetApp calls everything: 'aggr' 'vol' etc. you will find the machines extremely capable, but unfortunately extremely expensive.
I use SHA-512 with 8 bit salts. For the near future it seems like the best way to deal with password storage.
That would be quite a bizzare Google Bomb indeed.
However instead it was a product of two things that I have:
1) An IM client that auto-copies URL's to the clipboard
and
2) Completely insane friends.
I'm not sure how a pillow with nipples produced for cats is going to help your laptop save power, but certainly it won't hurt. I just hit Ctrl-V and a URL came out so I assumed it was the one I had just copied.
Just a handy tip for you (if you don't already use it) or others who are looking at disabling atime more for the power savings than the IO -- on laptops you should also be using noflushd (non-journaling filesystems only) or (ideally) Laptop Mode Tools. Also do not forget to configure syslog so that it doesn't constantly sync writes.
It's also worth mentioning that you *can* have atime enabled with properly configured laptop-mode and laptop-mode-tools and still see almost as much power savings -- The atime writes will still happen, but at least they will be buffered for when the HDD actually needs to spin up and do a lot of other more pressing IO.
Yes; he is. ntfs-3g on OS X is very very slow for read and abysmally slow for write. If you had ever gone through the undertaking of installing it you would know that anyone technically capable of the feat would not need the book you just published there on how to tell what speed their USB is.
Home use licenses are pretty much standard with all Microsoft products when you purchase Software Assurance, which you generally do with MS Office. Was I the only one who read this and thought it was probably someone who had never actually done a volume license deal with MS making a mountain out of a molehill?
> I'm also ignoring the slight problem of actually accelerating at 1g continuously for 20+ years.
Why is it a problem? Just use regenerative braking and take the trip in reverse gear.
Although it's rare for a terse response to sarcasm to be on topic, this one is. "Tubes..." refers to the statement made by Senator Ted Stevens on the Senate floor in his attempt to simplify the explanation of Internet bandwidth issues. These and other statements by Senator Stevens were humorously presented and popularized by Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," and have become a popular cliché on technology discussion forums.
Nearly every BMW produced since about 1980 (Except most ///M cars which displace it for an oil temp. gauge instead) has had an instantaneous fuel consumption gauge in the instrument cluster. It's not unique to BMW of course, but an indicator like this really can help you save gas and drive more fuel efficiently. You can control your acceleration and coasting so that you never drop below 20MPG fuel efficiency, for instance, or you can easily find the most fuel efficient cruising speed based on current road/wind/etc. conditions.
If your car doesn't have such a gauge and you want one then as long as your car was built after 1996 you can pick up an instrument that connects to your OBDII port in the driver's footwell to give you some information about your fuel consumption.
Well this is outright false and on top of that it is stupid. First and foremost if you are owed a refund, you're just giving the IRS an interest free loan. Secondly, if you wait too long (3 years) without filing anything, you can never get your money back. Even if you take the 5 minutes to file a 1040EZ that lets them keep all of your money you at least get 10 years to reclaim it with a proper filing.
Now, in very rare cases it might be that you would be entitled to a refund due to having had some of your earnings withheld but also not required to file because you made only, say, $400 the entire year, but you'd still be dumb to let the IRS keep your money.
I guess that's fine if you want to sit on the phone for two and a half months pestering them about their late 1099's.
It's really not a lot of work to re-file a 1040 if you are using tax software. Save your original, load it back up, make the change, and re-file it.