While this is a non-final action [PDF], which means that Blackboard will be able to appeal, I love how lawyers help lawyers make lawyers more money. I mean, incompetent doctors generate business for incompetent doctors, but lawyers do it with flair!
Sorry, but are you suggesting that because I use complicated concepts like basic economics, I am a scheister, a swindler, or a usurer?
Not you, the RIAA and similar organizations.
Would you prefer if I avoided using such aloof and intellectual terms as "trading" or "ownership"?
Point being that we're not talking about trading kilogrammes of potatoes. The discussion is about 'owning' ideas and intellectual property and the transmission thereof. It's being argued widely, in case you didn't notice, that information and ideas (eg: recordings of music/melodies, as opposed to the actual personal and live performance of music) should not be defined in the same way as material objects because they are so easy to replicate at no appreciable cost.
Yes, the RIAA is a target but so is the concept of copyright which, it is argued, is being abused to make unfair profit and hound ordinary people into paying protection money. This why the two are linked, not due the stupidity of anyone.
It looks like you don't have much of a clue either and, as always, more fingers on your hand are pointing at you than at those you accuse.
The bottom line is that:
The RIAA behaves like a spoilt child, a bully and, whilst it operates within legal boundaries, it doesn't operate within moral or ethical boundaries. It is exploitative and this is what people are angry about.
There are no alternatives, really, to the RIAA (as you basically admit in points d and e), so it is a monopoly. Again an unacceptable situation.
People aren't totally stupid to swallow your talk about business deals and whatever. In essence, ordinary people are angry and have had enough of scheisters and swindlers and usurers and corporate plunderers. Fuck that shit and in your face!
? Do you consider 219 MB portable? well, i was thinking of a minimalistic viewer with print functionality, much like a PDF viewer. Reason being ODF is much easier to edit than PDF - just unzip the contents and edit the XML. This makes ODF very useful for automated form completion and such things. However, to open the thing in a fully functioning office suite is not always the optimal solution as there is actually too much functionality.
...the whole point of copyright is to insure a rich public domain.
The point of copyright is to isure the incomes of copyright holders. Only the public domain wants to be a rich public domain, if you get my drift. To ensure an abundance of beautiful music and software in the public domain it is necessary to remove the industrial process from the artistic process. Artists should be paid for the time they spent creating a work, or paid a one-off for it, just as it always was, and imitating that art should be considered to be nothing more than flattery.
It's not the US in this case by the way, so its constitution doesn't come into it.
I can't wait for that. PDF import will turn OpenOffice.org into a poor-man's Adobe Acrobat. I want a portable ODF viewer with print functionality. That's what's stopping me from actually using OpenOffice over PDF for some applications at the moment.
Anyways, going back to the article, I think the EULA is just a mistake and believe they will correct it. It does however bring up a valid point about the usefulness and legalities around EULA's.
Any EULA is basically saying:
This software is mine, so piss off!
If you use it, it's your stupid fault, so piss off!
The above makes it look like they think they still have the right to block traffic their customers want. Beware of special deals like this.
There is probably more to it. Might be they will target P2P users in a different way, like nabbing music and whatever else sharers. Also there might be a fear that unless a deal is struck with Bit Torrent, the technology will be pushed underground where it will become even more difficult to monitor and control.
drop the cap level that you are allowed to download and start charging for anything over the cap. I think ISP's in Australia are a bit harsh in cropping speeds to 64kbps once the monthly limit is reached, as this is annoyingly slow. Instead they should cap to around 128kbps which allows for fairly useful day-to-day browsing and emails and VOIP calls whilst making P2P too annoyingly slow to contemplate. But in fairness, most ISP's here don't charge for excess traffic once it's shaped. You basically get what you pay for here, by and large, and you don't have to pay for what you don't need.
For the same reason a programmer should learn anything -- to understand what is going on in the background.
Understanding is fine, but having to take into consideration that your threaded app needs to be able to run on a single, dual, n^2 core processors, putting in contingencies and trying to slice up your code for this purpose and at the same time making it readable and logical to onlookers, is a bit rich.
It's not the job of a C++ programmer to have to take into account where in memory their code might be running, or even what operating system is running, in many instances (of course they should be allowed to do this when appropriate). Abstraction is valid and worthy. Parallel processors should be the same and programmers shouldn't have to worry about their program running properly on a single or 64 cores. If the 64 core processor is running your app as slowly as a single core, then it's just a crap computer/compiler/OS.
Threads were never meant to be the basis of a parallel computing model but as a mechanism to execute sequential code concurrently. To find out why multithreading is not part of the future of parallel programming, read Nightmare on Core Street. There is better way to achieve fine-grain, deterministic parallelism without threads. You have it exactly right, but I don't think multicore processing is going away soon. Rather, I think the solution will be in things like hypervisors and changes in kernels, etc, to allocate resources in a responsible way. Multicore CPU's don't have to be useless, but this time it's a case of the mountain needing to come to Mohammad, not the other way around.
ne reason could be that software engineers with more experience simply already know about these things, and have faced off against the many problems with concurrency. Threads can be hell to deal with for instance. So because of things they don't show any interest.
I think to make programming too different from natural human thought processes will result in less manageable code and probably less performance & profit for effort. Multithreading within an application is great for some things, like heavy mathematical tasks that aren't strictly linear, predictable jobs which can be broken up and pieced together later, etc. But why should programmers be forced to learn how to do this? I think it's up to operating systems and compilers to work this out, really. The point of multiprocessor design is to reduce various bottlenecks and improve energy efficiency, as far as I can tell.
Yes, experienced programmers are probably avoiding the learning curve because until now it's been a bumpy ride with parallel processing.
But I also can't quite see why older programming languages such as C, which has adapted well to event driven design, can't adapt easily to multithreading. Surely, as I am suggesting, implementing this is more a compiler issue with maybe a few basic additions to the language itself?
How can Graphene be the new silicon if it's just one atom thick. I don't think we're likely to be seeing Graphene enhancements on our girlie Jpegs and AVI's anytime soon.
But of course the games are no longer about sport, only commerce and trade, so they will go ahead as planned. And that's where the answer lies, in boycotting, wherever possible, goods from countries whose practices we disagree with.
m, McCain solictited and got the endorsement of John Hagee, an outspoken anti-Catholic pastor of a megachurch in Texas. Among other things, Hagee has called the Roman Catholic Church "the Great Whore" and says that Catholics are apostates (non-believers). Most Catholics with enough knowledge of Vatican life would come close to calling parts of the Catholic Church as "the Great Whore", but for Americans to be calling such names is a bit hipocritical, from a cultural perspetive. And most Catholics are apostates anyway, just ask them yourself. Sad, but true.
My crystal ball says that it may be a foreplay leading to uprising in California....
I had to laugh at that last sentence. I guess foreplay does lead to uprising, so to speak.
I can't see why.. err.. russians as you put it.. would want to destabilize China which is making these.. err.. russians.. so rich. Except of course if it's to make China not dump the US dollar or something. But anyway.
And since guys doing such things for fun are nearly entirely pro-Tibet, who is left as the only interested party?
Possibly you're right. But I wouldn't be surprised if something much worse than cyber-attacks is awaiting the freedom-seeking Tibetans.. err, 'Terrorists', after the Olympic Games are finished.
The Chinese government is red-faced on this and it hasn't even begun to wreak its vengeance.
There are a huge number of undersea cables and pipes that currently reside on the surface of the ocean floor. How will they be affected by this device? Remember to Dial Before You Dig, and after you dig, dial again to make sure you severed the cable.
If that means Java will be thrown into the fiery pit, count me in! Not sure how far we can stretch this analogy before being cut down by lightning, but I'd hazard to guess that Java followers will be forced underground for, I dunno, a couple of hundred years until finally the Bill Gates of the day embraces it and, under the influence of his Javascripting wife, enforces Javascript throughout the civilized world, with all its imperfections. Eventually, several thousand clockcycle-years later there will be an adjustment to Javascript such that any negative references to Javascript 1.0 will be removed and the world will be doomed to relive all the crap that went before.
Slashdot Mirror
Not you, the RIAA and similar organizations.
Would you prefer if I avoided using such aloof and intellectual terms as "trading" or "ownership"?Point being that we're not talking about trading kilogrammes of potatoes. The discussion is about 'owning' ideas and intellectual property and the transmission thereof. It's being argued widely, in case you didn't notice, that information and ideas (eg: recordings of music/melodies, as opposed to the actual personal and live performance of music) should not be defined in the same way as material objects because they are so easy to replicate at no appreciable cost.
Yes, the RIAA is a target but so is the concept of copyright which, it is argued, is being abused to make unfair profit and hound ordinary people into paying protection money. This why the two are linked, not due the stupidity of anyone.
It looks like you don't have much of a clue either and, as always, more fingers on your hand are pointing at you than at those you accuse.
The bottom line is that:
Yeah. A Laptop is safe, even connected to a network, provided you make no contact with the network as the user.
Like my car - very very safe as long as you don't back it out of the garage.
...the whole point of copyright is to insure a rich public domain.The point of copyright is to isure the incomes of copyright holders. Only the public domain wants to be a rich public domain, if you get my drift. To ensure an abundance of beautiful music and software in the public domain it is necessary to remove the industrial process from the artistic process. Artists should be paid for the time they spent creating a work, or paid a one-off for it, just as it always was, and imitating that art should be considered to be nothing more than flattery.
It's not the US in this case by the way, so its constitution doesn't come into it.
Any EULA is basically saying:
There is probably more to it. Might be they will target P2P users in a different way, like nabbing music and whatever else sharers. Also there might be a fear that unless a deal is struck with Bit Torrent, the technology will be pushed underground where it will become even more difficult to monitor and control.
P2P traffic has to get smarter, basically - encryption, port and protocol randomization, methinks. The time has come.
Understanding is fine, but having to take into consideration that your threaded app needs to be able to run on a single, dual, n^2 core processors, putting in contingencies and trying to slice up your code for this purpose and at the same time making it readable and logical to onlookers, is a bit rich.
It's not the job of a C++ programmer to have to take into account where in memory their code might be running, or even what operating system is running, in many instances (of course they should be allowed to do this when appropriate). Abstraction is valid and worthy. Parallel processors should be the same and programmers shouldn't have to worry about their program running properly on a single or 64 cores. If the 64 core processor is running your app as slowly as a single core, then it's just a crap computer/compiler/OS.
I think to make programming too different from natural human thought processes will result in less manageable code and probably less performance & profit for effort. Multithreading within an application is great for some things, like heavy mathematical tasks that aren't strictly linear, predictable jobs which can be broken up and pieced together later, etc. But why should programmers be forced to learn how to do this? I think it's up to operating systems and compilers to work this out, really. The point of multiprocessor design is to reduce various bottlenecks and improve energy efficiency, as far as I can tell.
Yes, experienced programmers are probably avoiding the learning curve because until now it's been a bumpy ride with parallel processing.
But I also can't quite see why older programming languages such as C, which has adapted well to event driven design, can't adapt easily to multithreading. Surely, as I am suggesting, implementing this is more a compiler issue with maybe a few basic additions to the language itself?
How can Graphene be the new silicon if it's just one atom thick. I don't think we're likely to be seeing Graphene enhancements on our girlie Jpegs and AVI's anytime soon.
I had to laugh at that last sentence. I guess foreplay does lead to uprising, so to speak.
I can't see why.. err.. russians as you put it.. would want to destabilize China which is making these.. err.. russians.. so rich. Except of course if it's to make China not dump the US dollar or something. But anyway.
Possibly you're right. But I wouldn't be surprised if something much worse than cyber-attacks is awaiting the freedom-seeking Tibetans.. err, 'Terrorists', after the Olympic Games are finished.
The Chinese government is red-faced on this and it hasn't even begun to wreak its vengeance.