MS could lose money on every one they sell, and sell millions per year. I don't think they have any intention of profiting directly from this move. It's PR. Public Relations and Partner Relations. A warning shot to the partners, and a morality shot for the publics. It's also Press Relations. They get to boost the number of "sales" for whatever SW they want. As opposed to calling it "loss" you chalk it up (internally) as marketing or PR. The partner shot? Its not "We can make machines too", its "we can make agreements with non-US companies where we are not bound by restrictions in our dealings with them. We can certainly license them at cheaper rates and require they do things our way. And when we do we won't need you so much.
Apple is. Consider the whole antitrust stigma. If they start doing exactly -or damned close to- what Apple does with the.mac account then there is grounds for them to do it. After all others are already doing it. I have a strong hunch that this is the first step in MS trying to counter/catch up with the gains Apple has with the.mac/iLife/iPod combo.
Sure, everyone's "eyes on MS" are on how it relates to Google, but MS has never operated that way. Mac is out of the single digit share and posting gains each month. Vista is a bit slow on pickup, and Leopard is due out soon. Apple is pulling off what Linux people have said for years: put an appealing application on the MS platform. The iPod/iTunes(/and iPhone?) combo has done that.
Consider the different paths for Business use of Linux and Windows. Windows essentially was taken up by businesses because they wanted workers that were using the apps already (and thus didn't need training or as much). They then eventually started working their way into the server market. Linux started on the serve rmarket and is making it's way to the desktop.
Now, MS is trying to make it's way into the "personal device" market - phones, Zune, "media PCs". Apple, however, seems to be going the opposite direction. iPod (audio), iPod (Video), OSX (Intel). So far there is good evidence this strategy, if it exists is working. But the question here is which strategy is more likely to succeed assuming equal competence?
I'd say the apparent Apple strategy is the winner. Seriously, does having a Windows PC make you WANT a Windows phone? Most Windows people I know (professional Windows engineers) find the opposite. People with Windows machines that keep failing also develop an aversion. But Apple's apparent strategy of making the iPod and using that leverage to get people to look at other Apple products is the one based on people *wanting* something. It's been the big Linux desktop failing. Linux Desktop has been largely about it being an escape from MS, not a seeking of something from a positive desire.
Microsoft's compatibility issues only strengthen the perceived Apple strategy. People have learned to expect compatibility issues with devices from different makers. So, the thinking may be, if you get an iPod sure you'll start with iTunes on Windows but then start looking at Macs "just to be sure". And many who try OSX seem to quite enjoy it. I know my wife is loving it, and I am doing pretty well.
MS does not have the "accessory" market range or penetration Apple does. Ultimately, the Mac ads and current orientation are clearly at the masses. People seem to have an innate sense that computers *should* be easier and less hassle - and they're right. For average home user, OSX does fit that expectation. This is the real threat to MS, and it's someone MS has fought before. It is common when facing potential enemies to take on someone you've beat before as a morale and PR move.
All the signs for me point to MS being a tad concerned about Apple's gains. After all, if people start using non-MS software at home and run non-MS machines at home, they know that is the road to deeper penetration. They've been down that road. Apple doesn't have to take over as dominant. But a 25-40% share for Apple would spell serious trouble if not general doom for the monopoly (but not necessarily the company). If the experience with OSX leads more people to consider Linux[1], and Linux can capitalize on it, then the monopoly is in greater risk.
1: I'm using Linux as shorthand for "The Linux Community"
Any transportation device should be as light as possible while meeting the requisite safety and non-weight performance requirements. If you save 10% of the weight of the plane due to lighter wings (and possibly lighter fuselage) you increase it's capability in one or more of these areas:
Fuel consumption Capacity Speed Maneuverability Long term maintenance
IF the wings actually met two or three times as much as they needed to, the odds are very high that they could be lightened significantly.
Mass is possibly the single most critical aspect in transportation. Given the choice between spending 3500USD more on a vehicle that was 30-50% lighter versus spending that 3500USD on the same vehicle but with hybrid drive systems, I'd take the lighter one every single time.
And for those who want to talk about "safety" of mass it's false. Mass is not what makes a car safer, it's the size. More energy absorption decreases the impact force to your body.
If you want to see the future of farming, take a look at what marijuana growers are doing. They seem to be the only farmers truly interested in maximizing output in small spaces in less than ideal conditions.
So too are permaculture people, and people who grow food in small spaces. And space/extra-terrestrial colonization people. And yes there is a suprising amount of overlap among those groups.
With each story tall enough you can get light where it needs to be by direct reflectors and light pipes using "sidelight". Not that I'm saying it's a good idea, just that it is not out of the question. I've seen it done on smaller scales.
1) It isn't a matter of need. So your argument about what is needed is irrelevant. Whether it would work in a taller building versus a shorter one is not something dependent on need.
2) Your assertion is no more valid than the assertion you argue against. It also is not a single component complaint. If this system were to work in say NY, why would it not work in Kansas? If it were cost effective in a place with expensive land, what would make it less or not cost effective with cheaper land? Why would the farmer not convert to the so-called "vertical Farming"?
3) This is just plain asinine and profoundly stupid. Yes, stupid. If you look at the history of invention you'll find that your bias is not only false, but counter to historical fact. For example, most farming innovations were created in and by "urban" people, then worked their way toward the rural uses.
If we take your assertion here and apply it to tech, you'd be saying that computer innovation can only come from professors in tech heavy areas such as Silicon Valley. You'll find this to be false as well. Innovation and creativity has no geographical bounds.
Re:Low energy efficiency, high cost
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
But in fact, the biggest transportation fuel cost is the SUV trip to the grocery store.
Not that I'm one of those grumblers, but care to back that up with documentation? I know form personal direct analysis that me spending even 10 bucks on fuel to get to the store and back (my big SUV even with today's gasoline costs would only take a fe bucks to do it) with a couple hundred dollars of groceries is a far cry from the more expensive cost to ship that the trucking industry has. Now if you were to argue that going to the store once for each item instead of what "normal" people do (SUV owners or Prius owners, or even those on bicycles) do when they go shopping, then sure I might be able to agree (if the numbers held up). But until you could show evidence that that is what "normally" happens when people do their routine shopping it would be a non-sequiter.
Given the cast difference between fuel economy for tractor-trailers and their distance and the fuel economy for even the worst MPG-rated SUVs and their distance, I'm very dubious of your assertion. And that is before considering the cost of the "empty trip" syndrome most trucking transports face.
After spending all that money on reducing the per-acre productivity? Seriously. it's a common misconception that today's farms are more productive per acre than they were decades ago. In one sense, they are. Today's farms using machine labor design are more productive than yesterday's farms using machine labor.
So-called "modern farms" are designed for machine harvesting and use. However, the best producing of these farms can not compare to the "old style" farms. The "old style" is known by several names usually "Intensive" or "integrated" [something] such as "American Intensive" or "French Intensive". These methods produce far more per acre than do mechanical based farms. Some of these methods are replicated by necessity in hydroponics. It is the leading factor in why many people believe hydroponics to be superior. In one respect, it is. But only if you compare it to "modern agriculture". If you look at historical agriculture (still practiced in many areas), you'll find hydroponics to be close to but often not higher in output per area.
But what about labor? Again, this is something we've got serious misconceptions about again due to believing that today's farms are The Way. Intensive farming or gardening refers to the type, not the resource usage. Hundreds of years ago the French were getting a few times more food per acre with one person handling several acres.
Using th "intensive" methods, most farms can double, triple, or even quadruple their output. Sure, some of them may have to employ more people to do so. But many of them will find more profit in doing so. And if you are talking about adding 3 billion people, I'm sure there will be people available. If you can triple the output of our existing cropland, you won't need buildings or more cropland.
Why not good old manual pushcards, levels, etc.? Have people gotten so incompetent that we think it's a good idea to have people who can't grasp basics of how to physically operate basic machinery (like "push the pen in the whole") deciding who gets to have their finger on the button?
Seriously. If that's how far we've devolved the make it a random lottery. Do a lotto style drawing. First draw for the state to choose from, then county, then city, district and then people to serve. Once you've served, your name is removed from future pools. The way it should be done for jury duty, btw.
Think of the money we coudl save. No more campaign contributions, no more plastering signs everywhere, no more "debates" and endless polling, no more occupying the "news" channels with meaningless sound bytes from candidates. Think of of the time, money, energy, and effort spent in campaigning on both sides (candidate and non-candidate) spent today being replaced by such a simple system.
WHoc ares if it is antithetical to "democracy". It's antithetical to *freedom*. That's what is important. The federal government of the US was NOT created to protect, promote, or push democracy. It wasn't even founded as one. It was designed for the express purpose of protecting liberty and freedom. It was the first government in history with the specific design and intent to *limit* government power.
A Democracy can do evil things. A democracy eventually takes away your freedoms and liberties. Why should I care about democracy? Freedom. Liberty. That's what matters. The form of government only matters in how well it protects freedom and limits government incursion and abuse. There is nothing inherent about democracy that does those things.
For all those who believe in democracy as a savior, ask yourself if you think that democracies don't do evil. They do. ALL forms of government can and have done so. So why protect democracy? Why not try protect freedom instead?
The only way to outlaw riders is to slip it in as a rider to a completely unrelated yet "crucial" bill that is not seeing much opposition from either party. Slip in an additional one that no bill may be sectional. That means the bill must contain a complete copy of the proposed legislation - no "change word "foo" to "bar" in CR 16.4.3.2.4.1.12
According to this: Not only that, it's done 'without alerting the caller during the call that the caller is being identified,'
They are describing a means to RECORD callers without their knowledge, and hence without their consent. So would this software be illegal in some jurisdictions? You bet yer ass it would be.
Wonder how it handles people who say "uhm" or "uhh" a lot.;)
I prefer to mandate encryption. No valid signing or proper encryption, you're spam. With modifications to Postfix you reject at SMTP level with instructions. I'm also considering moving my email to an TLS enforced MTA. No TLS, no accepting the email. Sure the RFCs say a publicly referenced server shouldn't do this, but this is a specifically private server. It is intended only to be used by authorized people. If you want to do business with me, it will be encrypted, period. Solves multiple problems - no snooping the email on the wire by my ISP. Not a matter of having something to hide, it's a matter of it being nobody else's business.
Will the spammers eventually start using TLS? Maybe. But not likely. Will they eventually start signing and encrypting email? Maybe, but again not likely. Too much effort and cost in it. Once I've identified a PGP signature to be from a spammer, it gets blacklisted.
Knowingly reporting as spammers addresses/nets/people who are not spamming can, and should, get you blacklisted.
Do you think an article from Australia about an event IN Australia by an Australian company just might be enough context for EST to mean AEST? Sure, they should have used the correct *full* AEST but hey habit is as habit does.
And there is no "Eastern American Time", it's EST/EDT. if you feel the need to spell it out, it is "North American", don't forget the Canadians, eh?
Sorry mods, nothing insightful about the parent. Informative perhaps, but certainly not bearing any insight.
What, are trying to compensate vicariously or something? Most people's houses are less than 4800 square feet. Most businesses fit in less than 4800 square feet. By those accounts you can't call it a "server room" then, can you?
170 racks, assume 42U per rack, 1U servers will get you hmmm a damned lot of servers. Take a couple racks out for infrastructure and some SAN and it looks like a DC, sounds like a DC, quacks like a DC, and smells like a DC. I'd call it a DC.
Seriously, if you insist in being pedantic:
* A "data centre" is a "center for data", not "a giant room filled with thousands of computers". So by that account the two racks in my garage count. They've got raid arrays, multiple servers and switches, UPS, etc..
* "a few" is a lot less than 170.
As far as effort, I've seen more effort go into server rooms than "full fledged data centers". If you have the requisite knowledge, ability, and contacts a data center going into an existing building is not terribly difficult. Ever see a "retrofit" of an old bank vault or bunker into a DC? Pretty quick and smooth.
A data center is a data center based on it's purpose, not the real or perceived effort that went into it or how many square feet it has.
But it isn't tricky. Licensing is licensing the only difference between licenses is what you get and or give (pay, exchange). If you are going into the software business on any platform without proper understanding and respect for the licenses of any code you will be using then you are destined for failure or massive legal problems. THis is true of any license,
Going closed source is not "any more "tricky" on Linux than it is on WIndows. Indeed, as far as licensing goes I'd put my money on it being easier. No endless negotiations and NDAs for the fundamental libraries and so forth - the vast majority of libraries are simply licensed with publicly available terms.
For example say you want to make a proprietary application that is essentially a means to store, modify, and view data. So you use QT4, and SQLLite or PostreSQL. How is it tricky from a licensing standpoint? You purchase a license to make a closed source application using QT4 from TrollTech, you use the built in DB support for whichever of those libraries and there you go. How would you do the same on Windows? Well, exactly the same. Ok, so you purchase the Windows license instead of the Linux License. Hell the exact same process works for OSX.
Yes, the flexibility there is due to QT, but the underlying platform is simply a platform in each case. And that is the point. Developing software where you don't write the whole infrastructure from scratch in-house involves licensing other people's code. That is no more tricky than the authors of the code you want make it. It so happens that BSD, GPL, and LGPL make it pretty simple.
Nobody can force you to release your source, even if you violate the GPL.
How about suing for specific action in compliance with the agreement? EULAs, for example, contain a clause that the copyright owner can force you to *destroy* your media. Suing to enforce the agreement is just as valid. The difference is it is not copyright law that applies, but contract law. In contract law, you have two remedies to a broached contract: sue to end or sue to enforce. Under contract law you can indeed force someone to abide by the agreements - which in the case of the GPL means providing code to those who are entitled to it by contract. Or you can sue for damages which is what most people do.
Stable temperatures in a deep hole in the ground is normal, and expected as the ground provides a thermal stabilization feature. Same thing happens here on Earth, and news of it NOT being the case on Mars would be big news.
Contrary to popular belief, the sandstorms on Mars are nothing like ours on Earth. To put it simply, the winds are not strong enough to create the storms like ours. The popular media will talk about windspeeds, but fail to mention or account for the much lower pressure on Mars. The lower the atmospheric pressure the faster the wind must blow to exert a similar pressure. What we see in Martian dist storms are very small/fine particles, not the "grains of sand" you see at the beach or in your local sandbox. They are more along the lines of flour. Hmm wait this is slashdot. They are more like the powdered sugar on the top of your Krispy Kremes. To fill that big of a hole with that fine of stuff would take on helluva long time. Especially after accounting for blowing back out or other wind currents not taking it in there in the first place.
After all, wouldn't an employer require their programmers to sign a noncompete clause which would inherently preclude them from participating in OSS projects that compete with their employer's products?
Not necessarily. Mine specifically states that working on OSS even if it competes is not considered working for competition because they (my employer) can still use it. And yes they are a name most here would know. Of course it doesn't mean you can take proprietary info and put it in an OSS project, but that's true regardless.
like, say, SCO, could patent "SCO Linux" or "Linux" for their product and then sue the shit out of other distribution makers or OSS projects for "patent infringement" because the others "Linux" infringe on theirs, and all can be confused because all are in fact names of operating system distributions, and "Linux" isn't a generic term
1) You can't patent a name. 2) You can't combine trademarks without dilution
Sorry but your post only gets close the issue. You need to go one more step for it to make sense.
Corporations are fictions created by government. A Corporation is not a natural result of a free market. A corporation is a business that has been granted immunity from natural consequences from their actions as well as well as legal consequences. A Corporation is an arm or agent of the government. In practice it has become a means the government to enact limitations that it could not get away with directly. This was exacerbated when the Supreme Court made the mistake of declaring Corporations to be nearly synonymous with natural humans.
The solution: remove corporate charters. That isn't the same as dissolving the business, just dissolving their immunities. They can still do business - if they can do so while being responsible enough to do so without special privileges and immunities. If you examine the history of corporations and their actions you'll find that the majority of them are actions that they get away with due to immunities of being corporations. They are in nearly all cases only able to amass the power and wealth they do due to their protections.
Slashdot Mirror
MS could lose money on every one they sell, and sell millions per year. I don't think they have any intention of profiting directly from this move. It's PR. Public Relations and Partner Relations. A warning shot to the partners, and a morality shot for the publics. It's also Press Relations. They get to boost the number of "sales" for whatever SW they want. As opposed to calling it "loss" you chalk it up (internally) as marketing or PR. The partner shot? Its not "We can make machines too", its "we can make agreements with non-US companies where we are not bound by restrictions in our dealings with them. We can certainly license them at cheaper rates and require they do things our way. And when we do we won't need you so much.
Apple is. Consider the whole antitrust stigma. If they start doing exactly -or damned close to- what Apple does with the .mac account then there is grounds for them to do it. After all others are already doing it. I have a strong hunch that this is the first step in MS trying to counter/catch up with the gains Apple has with the .mac/iLife/iPod combo.
Sure, everyone's "eyes on MS" are on how it relates to Google, but MS has never operated that way. Mac is out of the single digit share and posting gains each month. Vista is a bit slow on pickup, and Leopard is due out soon. Apple is pulling off what Linux people have said for years: put an appealing application on the MS platform. The iPod/iTunes(/and iPhone?) combo has done that.
Consider the different paths for Business use of Linux and Windows. Windows essentially was taken up by businesses because they wanted workers that were using the apps already (and thus didn't need training or as much). They then eventually started working their way into the server market. Linux started on the serve rmarket and is making it's way to the desktop.
Now, MS is trying to make it's way into the "personal device" market - phones, Zune, "media PCs". Apple, however, seems to be going the opposite direction. iPod (audio), iPod (Video), OSX (Intel). So far there is good evidence this strategy, if it exists is working. But the question here is which strategy is more likely to succeed assuming equal competence?
I'd say the apparent Apple strategy is the winner. Seriously, does having a Windows PC make you WANT a Windows phone? Most Windows people I know (professional Windows engineers) find the opposite. People with Windows machines that keep failing also develop an aversion. But Apple's apparent strategy of making the iPod and using that leverage to get people to look at other Apple products is the one based on people *wanting* something. It's been the big Linux desktop failing. Linux Desktop has been largely about it being an escape from MS, not a seeking of something from a positive desire.
Microsoft's compatibility issues only strengthen the perceived Apple strategy. People have learned to expect compatibility issues with devices from different makers. So, the thinking may be, if you get an iPod sure you'll start with iTunes on Windows but then start looking at Macs "just to be sure". And many who try OSX seem to quite enjoy it. I know my wife is loving it, and I am doing pretty well.
MS does not have the "accessory" market range or penetration Apple does. Ultimately, the Mac ads and current orientation are clearly at the masses. People seem to have an innate sense that computers *should* be easier and less hassle - and they're right. For average home user, OSX does fit that expectation. This is the real threat to MS, and it's someone MS has fought before. It is common when facing potential enemies to take on someone you've beat before as a morale and PR move.
All the signs for me point to MS being a tad concerned about Apple's gains. After all, if people start using non-MS software at home and run non-MS machines at home, they know that is the road to deeper penetration. They've been down that road.
Apple doesn't have to take over as dominant. But a 25-40% share for Apple would spell serious trouble if not general doom for the monopoly (but not necessarily the company). If the experience with OSX leads more people to consider Linux[1], and Linux can capitalize on it, then the monopoly is in greater risk.
1: I'm using Linux as shorthand for "The Linux Community"
Any transportation device should be as light as possible while meeting the requisite safety and non-weight performance requirements. If you save 10% of the weight of the plane due to lighter wings (and possibly lighter fuselage) you increase it's capability in one or more of these areas:
Fuel consumption
Capacity
Speed
Maneuverability
Long term maintenance
IF the wings actually met two or three times as much as they needed to, the odds are very high that they could be lightened significantly.
Mass is possibly the single most critical aspect in transportation. Given the choice between spending 3500USD more on a vehicle that was 30-50% lighter versus spending that 3500USD on the same vehicle but with hybrid drive systems, I'd take the lighter one every single time.
And for those who want to talk about "safety" of mass it's false. Mass is not what makes a car safer, it's the size. More energy absorption decreases the impact force to your body.
I think you mis-spelled "compulsory" there.
If you want to see the future of farming, take a look at what marijuana growers are doing. They seem to be the only farmers truly interested in maximizing output in small spaces in less than ideal conditions.
So too are permaculture people, and people who grow food in small spaces. And space/extra-terrestrial colonization people. And yes there is a suprising amount of overlap among those groups.
With each story tall enough you can get light where it needs to be by direct reflectors and light pipes using "sidelight". Not that I'm saying it's a good idea, just that it is not out of the question. I've seen it done on smaller scales.
There are more problems with your problems:
1) It isn't a matter of need. So your argument about what is needed is irrelevant. Whether it would work in a taller building versus a shorter one is not something dependent on need.
2) Your assertion is no more valid than the assertion you argue against. It also is not a single component complaint. If this system were to work in say NY, why would it not work in Kansas? If it were cost effective in a place with expensive land, what would make it less or not cost effective with cheaper land? Why would the farmer not convert to the so-called "vertical Farming"?
3) This is just plain asinine and profoundly stupid. Yes, stupid. If you look at the history of invention you'll find that your bias is not only false, but counter to historical fact. For example, most farming innovations were created in and by "urban" people, then worked their way toward the rural uses.
If we take your assertion here and apply it to tech, you'd be saying that computer innovation can only come from professors in tech heavy areas such as Silicon Valley. You'll find this to be false as well. Innovation and creativity has no geographical bounds.
But in fact, the biggest transportation fuel cost is the SUV trip to the grocery store.
Not that I'm one of those grumblers, but care to back that up with documentation? I know form personal direct analysis that me spending even 10 bucks on fuel to get to the store and back (my big SUV even with today's gasoline costs would only take a fe bucks to do it) with a couple hundred dollars of groceries is a far cry from the more expensive cost to ship that the trucking industry has. Now if you were to argue that going to the store once for each item instead of what "normal" people do (SUV owners or Prius owners, or even those on bicycles) do when they go shopping, then sure I might be able to agree (if the numbers held up). But until you could show evidence that that is what "normally" happens when people do their routine shopping it would be a non-sequiter.
Given the cast difference between fuel economy for tractor-trailers and their distance and the fuel economy for even the worst MPG-rated SUVs and their distance, I'm very dubious of your assertion. And that is before considering the cost of the "empty trip" syndrome most trucking transports face.
So, can you back it up?
After spending all that money on reducing the per-acre productivity? Seriously. it's a common misconception that today's farms are more productive per acre than they were decades ago. In one sense, they are. Today's farms using machine labor design are more productive than yesterday's farms using machine labor.
So-called "modern farms" are designed for machine harvesting and use. However, the best producing of these farms can not compare to the "old style" farms. The "old style" is known by several names usually "Intensive" or "integrated" [something] such as "American Intensive" or "French Intensive". These methods produce far more per acre than do mechanical based farms. Some of these methods are replicated by necessity in hydroponics. It is the leading factor in why many people believe hydroponics to be superior. In one respect, it is. But only if you compare it to "modern agriculture". If you look at historical agriculture (still practiced in many areas), you'll find hydroponics to be close to but often not higher in output per area.
But what about labor? Again, this is something we've got serious misconceptions about again due to believing that today's farms are The Way. Intensive farming or gardening refers to the type, not the resource usage. Hundreds of years ago the French were getting a few times more food per acre with one person handling several acres.
Using th "intensive" methods, most farms can double, triple, or even quadruple their output. Sure, some of them may have to employ more people to do so. But many of them will find more profit in doing so. And if you are talking about adding 3 billion people, I'm sure there will be people available. If you can triple the output of our existing cropland, you won't need buildings or more cropland.
Why not good old manual pushcards, levels, etc.? Have people gotten so incompetent that we think it's a good idea to have people who can't grasp basics of how to physically operate basic machinery (like "push the pen in the whole") deciding who gets to have their finger on the button?
Seriously. If that's how far we've devolved the make it a random lottery. Do a lotto style drawing. First draw for the state to choose from, then county, then city, district and then people to serve. Once you've served, your name is removed from future pools. The way it should be done for jury duty, btw.
Think of the money we coudl save. No more campaign contributions, no more plastering signs everywhere, no more "debates" and endless polling, no more occupying the "news" channels with meaningless sound bytes from candidates. Think of of the time, money, energy, and effort spent in campaigning on both sides (candidate and non-candidate) spent today being replaced by such a simple system.
WHoc ares if it is antithetical to "democracy". It's antithetical to *freedom*. That's what is important. The federal government of the US was NOT created to protect, promote, or push democracy. It wasn't even founded as one. It was designed for the express purpose of protecting liberty and freedom. It was the first government in history with the specific design and intent to *limit* government power.
A Democracy can do evil things. A democracy eventually takes away your freedoms and liberties. Why should I care about democracy? Freedom. Liberty. That's what matters. The form of government only matters in how well it protects freedom and limits government incursion and abuse. There is nothing inherent about democracy that does those things.
For all those who believe in democracy as a savior, ask yourself if you think that democracies don't do evil. They do. ALL forms of government can and have done so. So why protect democracy? Why not try protect freedom instead?
The only way to outlaw riders is to slip it in as a rider to a completely unrelated yet "crucial" bill that is not seeing much opposition from either party. Slip in an additional one that no bill may be sectional. That means the bill must contain a complete copy of the proposed legislation - no "change word "foo" to "bar" in CR 16.4.3.2.4.1.12
According to this:
;)
Not only that, it's done 'without alerting the caller during the call that the caller is being identified,'
They are describing a means to RECORD callers without their knowledge, and hence without their consent. So would this software be illegal in some jurisdictions? You bet yer ass it would be.
Wonder how it handles people who say "uhm" or "uhh" a lot.
I prefer to mandate encryption. No valid signing or proper encryption, you're spam. With modifications to Postfix you reject at SMTP level with instructions. I'm also considering moving my email to an TLS enforced MTA. No TLS, no accepting the email. Sure the RFCs say a publicly referenced server shouldn't do this, but this is a specifically private server. It is intended only to be used by authorized people. If you want to do business with me, it will be encrypted, period. Solves multiple problems - no snooping the email on the wire by my ISP. Not a matter of having something to hide, it's a matter of it being nobody else's business.
Will the spammers eventually start using TLS? Maybe. But not likely. Will they eventually start signing and encrypting email? Maybe, but again not likely. Too much effort and cost in it. Once I've identified a PGP signature to be from a spammer, it gets blacklisted.
Knowingly reporting as spammers addresses/nets/people who are not spamming can, and should, get you blacklisted.
Do you think an article from Australia about an event IN Australia by an Australian company just might be enough context for EST to mean AEST? Sure, they should have used the correct *full* AEST but hey habit is as habit does.
And there is no "Eastern American Time", it's EST/EDT. if you feel the need to spell it out, it is "North American", don't forget the Canadians, eh?
Sorry mods, nothing insightful about the parent. Informative perhaps, but certainly not bearing any insight.
What, are trying to compensate vicariously or something?
Most people's houses are less than 4800 square feet. Most businesses fit in less than 4800 square feet. By those accounts you can't call it a "server room" then, can you?
170 racks, assume 42U per rack, 1U servers will get you hmmm a damned lot of servers. Take a couple racks out for infrastructure and some SAN and it looks like a DC, sounds like a DC, quacks like a DC, and smells like a DC. I'd call it a DC.
Seriously, if you insist in being pedantic:
* A "data centre" is a "center for data", not "a giant room filled with thousands of computers". So by that account the two racks in my garage count. They've got raid arrays, multiple servers and switches, UPS, etc..
* "a few" is a lot less than 170.
As far as effort, I've seen more effort go into server rooms than "full fledged data centers". If you have the requisite knowledge, ability, and contacts a data center going into an existing building is not terribly difficult. Ever see a "retrofit" of an old bank vault or bunker into a DC? Pretty quick and smooth.
A data center is a data center based on it's purpose, not the real or perceived effort that went into it or how many square feet it has.
Seriously. If you lease the hardware/software combo instead it isn't distribution.
But it isn't tricky. Licensing is licensing the only difference between licenses is what you get and or give (pay, exchange). If you are going into the software business on any platform without proper understanding and respect for the licenses of any code you will be using then you are destined for failure or massive legal problems. THis is true of any license,
Going closed source is not "any more "tricky" on Linux than it is on WIndows. Indeed, as far as licensing goes I'd put my money on it being easier. No endless negotiations and NDAs for the fundamental libraries and so forth - the vast majority of libraries are simply licensed with publicly available terms.
For example say you want to make a proprietary application that is essentially a means to store, modify, and view data. So you use QT4, and SQLLite or PostreSQL. How is it tricky from a licensing standpoint? You purchase a license to make a closed source application using QT4 from TrollTech, you use the built in DB support for whichever of those libraries and there you go. How would you do the same on Windows? Well, exactly the same. Ok, so you purchase the Windows license instead of the Linux License. Hell the exact same process works for OSX.
Yes, the flexibility there is due to QT, but the underlying platform is simply a platform in each case. And that is the point. Developing software where you don't write the whole infrastructure from scratch in-house involves licensing other people's code. That is no more tricky than the authors of the code you want make it. It so happens that BSD, GPL, and LGPL make it pretty simple.
So your "hypothetical" is entirely without merit.
Nobody can force you to release your source, even if you violate the GPL.
How about suing for specific action in compliance with the agreement? EULAs, for example, contain a clause that the copyright owner can force you to *destroy* your media. Suing to enforce the agreement is just as valid. The difference is it is not copyright law that applies, but contract law. In contract law, you have two remedies to a broached contract: sue to end or sue to enforce. Under contract law you can indeed force someone to abide by the agreements - which in the case of the GPL means providing code to those who are entitled to it by contract. Or you can sue for damages which is what most people do.
Stable temperatures in a deep hole in the ground is normal, and expected as the ground provides a thermal stabilization feature. Same thing happens here on Earth, and news of it NOT being the case on Mars would be big news.
Contrary to popular belief, the sandstorms on Mars are nothing like ours on Earth. To put it simply, the winds are not strong enough to create the storms like ours. The popular media will talk about windspeeds, but fail to mention or account for the much lower pressure on Mars. The lower the atmospheric pressure the faster the wind must blow to exert a similar pressure. What we see in Martian dist storms are very small/fine particles, not the "grains of sand" you see at the beach or in your local sandbox. They are more along the lines of flour. Hmm wait this is slashdot. They are more like the powdered sugar on the top of your Krispy Kremes. To fill that big of a hole with that fine of stuff would take on helluva long time. Especially after accounting for blowing back out or other wind currents not taking it in there in the first place.
After all, wouldn't an employer require their programmers to sign a noncompete clause which would inherently preclude them from participating in OSS projects that compete with their employer's products?
Not necessarily. Mine specifically states that working on OSS even if it competes is not considered working for competition because they (my employer) can still use it. And yes they are a name most here would know. Of course it doesn't mean you can take proprietary info and put it in an OSS project, but that's true regardless.
Some observations ...
;)
Even there Linux is on top.
That's buttwiping material "micro&soft", right?
like, say, SCO, could patent "SCO Linux" or "Linux" for their product and then sue the shit out of other distribution makers or OSS projects for "patent infringement" because the others "Linux" infringe on theirs, and all can be confused because all are in fact names of operating system distributions, and "Linux" isn't a generic term
1) You can't patent a name.
2) You can't combine trademarks without dilution
Sorry but your post only gets close the issue. You need to go one more step for it to make sense.
Corporations are fictions created by government. A Corporation is not a natural result of a free market. A corporation is a business that has been granted immunity from natural consequences from their actions as well as well as legal consequences. A Corporation is an arm or agent of the government. In practice it has become a means the government to enact limitations that it could not get away with directly. This was exacerbated when the Supreme Court made the mistake of declaring Corporations to be nearly synonymous with natural humans.
The solution: remove corporate charters. That isn't the same as dissolving the business, just dissolving their immunities. They can still do business - if they can do so while being responsible enough to do so without special privileges and immunities. If you examine the history of corporations and their actions you'll find that the majority of them are actions that they get away with due to immunities of being corporations. They are in nearly all cases only able to amass the power and wealth they do due to their protections.