It does make sense. (Sort of.) Traction is necessary for acceleration, not speed. Notice a top fuel dragster. Very wide wheels in the back - lots of traction for the wheel that hook the power to the ground. Very narrow, bicycle looking wheels in the front - minimal friction to slow the car down. If you want to go faster, but don't care how long it takes you to get up to speed (low acceleration but high speed), you want tires with low traction and thus low friction. If you want to get up to speed very quickly (lots of acceleration) you need lots of traction under the powered wheels.
Notice the tires on a road bicycle. Very narrow, low friction tires. The human leg doesn't provide a great deal of power, so it's not necessary to have a great deal of traction to prevent spin out. Low friction means you go faster with less work. Now look at a mountain bike. Wide tires that get lots of friction. Great for riding rough, slippery trails at high speed. But not great for riding long distances on the road. Try doing a century on a road bike and then doing it on a mountain bike.
Of course, on many cars low friction wheels are not going to give you any increase in speed. On my car, the rev limiter kicks in at just over 130. Low friction wheels would let me go that fast with a tad less work but it wouldn't help me go any faster.
30 HP from a CAI? I suppose it's possible (most things are) but it's extremely remote. That intake would have to be so constricted that the engine was barely running for a simple CAI to make that much difference. A CAI is usually going to give you from 1 to 5 HP, with most applications being much closer to 1 than 5.
Certain cars benefit from chips because the factory profile is a trade off between performance and streetability. Aftermarket chips shift the profile in favor of the former at the expense of the latter. Still, 30 HP is a lot to expect from that as well.
Yes, there are lots of ways to improve performance but usually the amount of power is directly proportional to the expense of the mod. To get a signficant gain, you have to invest a significant amount of money. That was the point of my original post. You can't just stick a big engine in a small car and let 'er rip anymore.
Damn it, wasn't finished. Meant to hit preview and hit reply.
Californians have to have their car inspected every couple of years. This is to ensure that their stock components are not failing. If you put on aftermarket parts, it doesn't matter if you meet the test standards are not. Unless those parts are CARB approved (and most are not), you're illegal. So long as you pass the test, you may very well get away with it because no one will know that you're running illegal aftermarket parts. But it doesn't change the fact that what you did is illegal, and you risk fines or possibly worse (not sure what the max penalty is) if you get caught.
It has nothing to do with safety. A properly perpared racecar is much safer than the average street car (discounting safety features such as turn signals and brake lights). It's about clean air regs. I can install a set of headers, high-flow cats and an aftermarket muffler and significantly increase my horsepower without increasing the polution my engine makes. However, because I modified my catalytic converters, it's illegal.
Even adjusted for inflation, $30k is much more expensive than the muscle cars of yesteryear. However, if that's your price range take a look at the new Pontiac GTO. Base price of $32k, 350HP 5.7L V-8, 0 to 60 in 5.3. Sweet car.
You're completely missing the point. Yes, there are lots of aftermarket things you can do to a car to make it more powerful. However, those things tend to complicate and increase the cost of the car, not simplify it. I drive a Dodge Stratus Coupe RT, which is essentially a slightly modified Mitsubishi Eclipse. I've done a few mods and the next one I want is to install a supercharger from Ripp. Supercharger, headers and installation (including tuning) is going to set me back about six grand. The post I was responding to was suggesting a return to simple, inexpensive power cars, not to just getting horsepower out of your car without regard for cost.
Additionally, if you look at lots of these aftermarket mods, they're marked for track use only. Installing them means your car is no longer street legal. In many states, you can get away with it indefinitely, but a car manufacturer would never be able to put a model which incorporated those features on the dealer lot.
I'm not sure it's that simple. There are tons more regulations that manufacrurers must meet today - from safety regulations to pollution measures. Throwing a 440ci engine with a four barrel carb into a light car simply isn't possible anymore.
I think you missed the thrust of the grandparent's comments. A better way to put it would be that the DMCA makes it trivial to prevent all legal copying. Do we threrefore need specific legal rights to restore the ability to create "fair use" copies? It may be impossible to prevent most forms of copying from a technical stand-point, but doing so makes you a criminal, even if what you're doing falls easily under "fair use" provisions.
No. He's clearly saying that he believes MS has 50 or more lawsuits that it will back, directly or indirectly, in an attempt to discredit or slow the adoption of FOSS. It doesn't matter if the cases have merit. Most experts see little merit in SCO's case but the FUD IS affecting FOSS. It's costing FOSS companies money to defend against it, and it's making some ITO's pause and at least think about the wisdom of switching to FOSS. That's all MS wants, and it doesn't need a lot of merit in the cases; just lots of sound and fury.
Oh, I have no doubt what-so-ever that Baystar expects to benefit from it's cozy relationship with MS. More digging may very well reveal exactly what their angle is. However, I doubt seriously that the money Baystar gave SCO came from MS.
No one is suggesting that the money came from Microsoft. Microsoft brokered the deal - they arranged for Baystar to give SCO the money. That way they could truthfully claim that they were not the source of SCO's money.
Haven't run into the "too many open files" thing yet but I only have a few hundred meg of archives.
Evolution doesn't handle mailing lists as well as I'd like. Several of the mailing lists I frequent don't munge the "Reply To" header (which is, of course, a whole 'nother topic). I'd like to be able to configure Evolution so that default replies in those folders go to the group rather than the sender.
Evolution is a Gnome app. I run KDE. That makes configuring things like the default font for the overall program (not the font messages are displayed in) awkward and cumbersome. This isn't really Evolution's fault, of course. It's something that's begging for a system wide fix, and it's something that, IMNSHO, is going to have to be fixed before Linux is truly "ready for the desktop."
The message threading doesn't seem to work right all of the time. Sometimes the same thread will be split into multiple trees for no reason that I can figure out.
I'd like to be able to specify maildir as the default format rather than having to convert every directory I make.
There are a few other nit-picky things that crop up from time to time as well but I keep trying other email programs and I keep coming back to Evolution, so it's doing something right. If they ever add maildir format support to Thunderbird, I might consider switching to it. But Evolution is a solid mail client that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend to anyone.
The form may contain scripting, but it doesn't arrive in the form of an email from another user.
The form is created by the developer and installed on the users machine. That's a completely different scenario from executing unknown scripts in a received email.
Where in your scenario is there any need for processing active code by the email client? Filling out forms and syncing mobile clients do not require active code in the email. The scripts you mention run on the server which receives the forms submitted by email, not in the email client.
I have no problem with you saying that I am wrong. I've learned a great deal by people letting me know that something I posted was incorrect. But if you're going to correct me, at least address what I actually said, which was that there is no need for an email client to execute active code in a received email.
The original problems with Outlook arise when I send you an email which contains code which is then automatically executed on your machine. While it is possible to find a use for such capability, there are alternative ways to accomplish the same functionality without anywhere near the security risk. Providing the capability for Outlook to execute scripts which arive as email was a boneheaded move on MS's part.
As an aside, note that the recent viruses do not rely on a vulnerability in Outlook. The virus arrives as an attachment which is manually executed by naive or poorly trained users. The primary weakness being exploited here (other than user's poor habbits) is that the average user runs with administrative privleges under an MS OS.
The article claims that Evolution supports only mbox format. This is incorrect. I haven't been able to find a way to force maildir as the default format, but you can click on any folder and convert it to maildir format. Importing maildir format is as simple as dragging and dropping the directories into Evolution's directory.
That's a condemnation of Outlook, not of email. It was MS's braindead decision to allow scripting in their email client that caused the problem. There is no need for active email. It's a solution in search of a problem that spawned a whole host of them.
Not sure what you mean. I use Outlook at work and Outlook 2003 allows you to send your email as HTML. You can also use Word as your editor, which should certainly allow you to compose in HTML. Am I misunderstanding your question?
History of fund performance is public knowledge. So is the name of the fund manager. It doesn't take a great deal of work to find out who's managing your fund, and what their performance history is. If you purchase a fund without researching such elementary information, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Also note how the fellow mentions that people want a good brand when buying water: The people don't care about the bottle, just who bottles it.
What do you think the definition of "good brand" is? Perhaps it means a brand who has a known history of producing good products; one who can be trusted to provide a quality product for the money?
As for _No Logo_, there was a recent issue involving Firestone tires. They tended to come apart and cause accidents. Don't you think it's nice that all of the Firestone tires have "Firestone" written on the side so that I can avoid buying them in the future? Or would you prefer that all tires come unbranded, and you just hope that you don't get a Firestone the next time you need tires?
I said it touches on issues similar to implied warranty of fitness, not to that particular doctrine.
If I buy a product, I assume that it's going to do what it's supposed to do. I don't have to ask if a lawn mower will cut my grass.
Similarly, if I accept a job I shouldn't have to ask if the working conditions are reasonably safe. Just as I assume a product is fit to perform its intended function, I assume a job is safe to perform unless expressly informed otherwise.
Incidently, your example is incorrect. The tractor has not violated the implied warranty of fitness. If the tractor manufacturer explicitly states that it will perform to a certain specification and it fails to do so, that's a violation of an explicit guarantee, not an implied warranty. If the salesman misrepresents the product, that's a seperate issue too. If I buy the tractor and it chokes down if the grass is more than two inches high, that's a violation of an implied warranty. The function of the tractor is to mow lawns and the manufacturer provides an implied warranty that it will fulfill that function.
If I purchase a lawn tractor to mow a 1/4 acre lawn, and it burns up in a week, that's a violation of either an implied or explicit warranty. However, if I buy a small electric string trimmer and try to mow a quarter acre with it and it burns up, that's not a violation of an implied warranty because the string trimmer was not intended for the use to which I put it.
From a MS EULA (case modified to avoid lameness filter):
By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the software product, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, manufacturer and Microsoft licensing, inc. ("MS") are unwilling to license the software product to you. In such event, you may not use or copy the software product, and you should promptly contact manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused product(s) in accordance with manufacturer's return policies.
Different wording but seems similar enough in meaning to me.
IANAL either, but it seems to me that "accept this License," in this context, means "comply with the terms of," and not "morally or ethically agree with." I strongly doubt that one can legally terminate a license because another vocally objects to it so long as they comply with the terms.
If Richard M Stallman were to purchase a copy of Windows (this is a theorectical example, folks. Work with me here!), could MS terminate his license because he's publicly said all software should be free?
I assume that you're talking about thalidomide, which was a safe, effective drug for everyone except pregnant women. The irony is that it was frequently prescribed to combat nasuea and insomnia caused by pregnancy. It's now approved in the US (it was never approved here in the 50s, when all the problems occurred in Europe), and is being used effectively for treatment of certain effects of leprosy, with a number of other potential uses being researched.
Slashdot Mirror
It does make sense. (Sort of.) Traction is necessary for acceleration, not speed. Notice a top fuel dragster. Very wide wheels in the back - lots of traction for the wheel that hook the power to the ground. Very narrow, bicycle looking wheels in the front - minimal friction to slow the car down. If you want to go faster, but don't care how long it takes you to get up to speed (low acceleration but high speed), you want tires with low traction and thus low friction. If you want to get up to speed very quickly (lots of acceleration) you need lots of traction under the powered wheels.
Notice the tires on a road bicycle. Very narrow, low friction tires. The human leg doesn't provide a great deal of power, so it's not necessary to have a great deal of traction to prevent spin out. Low friction means you go faster with less work. Now look at a mountain bike. Wide tires that get lots of friction. Great for riding rough, slippery trails at high speed. But not great for riding long distances on the road. Try doing a century on a road bike and then doing it on a mountain bike.
Of course, on many cars low friction wheels are not going to give you any increase in speed. On my car, the rev limiter kicks in at just over 130. Low friction wheels would let me go that fast with a tad less work but it wouldn't help me go any faster.
30 HP from a CAI? I suppose it's possible (most things are) but it's extremely remote. That intake would have to be so constricted that the engine was barely running for a simple CAI to make that much difference. A CAI is usually going to give you from 1 to 5 HP, with most applications being much closer to 1 than 5.
Certain cars benefit from chips because the factory profile is a trade off between performance and streetability. Aftermarket chips shift the profile in favor of the former at the expense of the latter. Still, 30 HP is a lot to expect from that as well.
Yes, there are lots of ways to improve performance but usually the amount of power is directly proportional to the expense of the mod. To get a signficant gain, you have to invest a significant amount of money. That was the point of my original post. You can't just stick a big engine in a small car and let 'er rip anymore.
Damn it, wasn't finished. Meant to hit preview and hit reply.
Californians have to have their car inspected every couple of years. This is to ensure that their stock components are not failing. If you put on aftermarket parts, it doesn't matter if you meet the test standards are not. Unless those parts are CARB approved (and most are not), you're illegal. So long as you pass the test, you may very well get away with it because no one will know that you're running illegal aftermarket parts. But it doesn't change the fact that what you did is illegal, and you risk fines or possibly worse (not sure what the max penalty is) if you get caught.
It has nothing to do with safety. A properly perpared racecar is much safer than the average street car (discounting safety features such as turn signals and brake lights). It's about clean air regs. I can install a set of headers, high-flow cats and an aftermarket muffler and significantly increase my horsepower without increasing the polution my engine makes. However, because I modified my catalytic converters, it's illegal.
Even adjusted for inflation, $30k is much more expensive than the muscle cars of yesteryear. However, if that's your price range take a look at the new Pontiac GTO. Base price of $32k, 350HP 5.7L V-8, 0 to 60 in 5.3. Sweet car.
You're completely missing the point. Yes, there are lots of aftermarket things you can do to a car to make it more powerful. However, those things tend to complicate and increase the cost of the car, not simplify it. I drive a Dodge Stratus Coupe RT, which is essentially a slightly modified Mitsubishi Eclipse. I've done a few mods and the next one I want is to install a supercharger from Ripp. Supercharger, headers and installation (including tuning) is going to set me back about six grand. The post I was responding to was suggesting a return to simple, inexpensive power cars, not to just getting horsepower out of your car without regard for cost.
Additionally, if you look at lots of these aftermarket mods, they're marked for track use only. Installing them means your car is no longer street legal. In many states, you can get away with it indefinitely, but a car manufacturer would never be able to put a model which incorporated those features on the dealer lot.
I'm not sure it's that simple. There are tons more regulations that manufacrurers must meet today - from safety regulations to pollution measures. Throwing a 440ci engine with a four barrel carb into a light car simply isn't possible anymore.
I think you missed the thrust of the grandparent's comments. A better way to put it would be that the DMCA makes it trivial to prevent all legal copying. Do we threrefore need specific legal rights to restore the ability to create "fair use" copies? It may be impossible to prevent most forms of copying from a technical stand-point, but doing so makes you a criminal, even if what you're doing falls easily under "fair use" provisions.
No. He's clearly saying that he believes MS has 50 or more lawsuits that it will back, directly or indirectly, in an attempt to discredit or slow the adoption of FOSS. It doesn't matter if the cases have merit. Most experts see little merit in SCO's case but the FUD IS affecting FOSS. It's costing FOSS companies money to defend against it, and it's making some ITO's pause and at least think about the wisdom of switching to FOSS. That's all MS wants, and it doesn't need a lot of merit in the cases; just lots of sound and fury.
Oh, I have no doubt what-so-ever that Baystar expects to benefit from it's cozy relationship with MS. More digging may very well reveal exactly what their angle is. However, I doubt seriously that the money Baystar gave SCO came from MS.
No one is suggesting that the money came from Microsoft. Microsoft brokered the deal - they arranged for Baystar to give SCO the money. That way they could truthfully claim that they were not the source of SCO's money.
Haven't run into the "too many open files" thing yet but I only have a few hundred meg of archives.
Evolution doesn't handle mailing lists as well as I'd like. Several of the mailing lists I frequent don't munge the "Reply To" header (which is, of course, a whole 'nother topic). I'd like to be able to configure Evolution so that default replies in those folders go to the group rather than the sender.
Evolution is a Gnome app. I run KDE. That makes configuring things like the default font for the overall program (not the font messages are displayed in) awkward and cumbersome. This isn't really Evolution's fault, of course. It's something that's begging for a system wide fix, and it's something that, IMNSHO, is going to have to be fixed before Linux is truly "ready for the desktop."
The message threading doesn't seem to work right all of the time. Sometimes the same thread will be split into multiple trees for no reason that I can figure out.
I'd like to be able to specify maildir as the default format rather than having to convert every directory I make.
There are a few other nit-picky things that crop up from time to time as well but I keep trying other email programs and I keep coming back to Evolution, so it's doing something right. If they ever add maildir format support to Thunderbird, I might consider switching to it. But Evolution is a solid mail client that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend to anyone.
The form may contain scripting, but it doesn't arrive in the form of an email from another user.
The form is created by the developer and installed on the users machine. That's a completely different scenario from executing unknown scripts in a received email.
Where in your scenario is there any need for processing active code by the email client? Filling out forms and syncing mobile clients do not require active code in the email. The scripts you mention run on the server which receives the forms submitted by email, not in the email client.
I have no problem with you saying that I am wrong. I've learned a great deal by people letting me know that something I posted was incorrect. But if you're going to correct me, at least address what I actually said, which was that there is no need for an email client to execute active code in a received email.
The original problems with Outlook arise when I send you an email which contains code which is then automatically executed on your machine. While it is possible to find a use for such capability, there are alternative ways to accomplish the same functionality without anywhere near the security risk. Providing the capability for Outlook to execute scripts which arive as email was a boneheaded move on MS's part.
As an aside, note that the recent viruses do not rely on a vulnerability in Outlook. The virus arrives as an attachment which is manually executed by naive or poorly trained users. The primary weakness being exploited here (other than user's poor habbits) is that the average user runs with administrative privleges under an MS OS.
The article claims that Evolution supports only mbox format. This is incorrect. I haven't been able to find a way to force maildir as the default format, but you can click on any folder and convert it to maildir format. Importing maildir format is as simple as dragging and dropping the directories into Evolution's directory.
That's a condemnation of Outlook, not of email. It was MS's braindead decision to allow scripting in their email client that caused the problem. There is no need for active email. It's a solution in search of a problem that spawned a whole host of them.
Not sure what you mean. I use Outlook at work and Outlook 2003 allows you to send your email as HTML. You can also use Word as your editor, which should certainly allow you to compose in HTML. Am I misunderstanding your question?
RTFA. Note that Outlook has been included for completeness, both because of its popularity and for use as a reference.
Keen is not abandonware.
History of fund performance is public knowledge. So is the name of the fund manager. It doesn't take a great deal of work to find out who's managing your fund, and what their performance history is. If you purchase a fund without researching such elementary information, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Also note how the fellow mentions that people want a good brand when buying water: The people don't care about the bottle, just who bottles it.
What do you think the definition of "good brand" is? Perhaps it means a brand who has a known history of producing good products; one who can be trusted to provide a quality product for the money?
As for _No Logo_, there was a recent issue involving Firestone tires. They tended to come apart and cause accidents. Don't you think it's nice that all of the Firestone tires have "Firestone" written on the side so that I can avoid buying them in the future? Or would you prefer that all tires come unbranded, and you just hope that you don't get a Firestone the next time you need tires?
I said it touches on issues similar to implied warranty of fitness, not to that particular doctrine.
If I buy a product, I assume that it's going to do what it's supposed to do. I don't have to ask if a lawn mower will cut my grass.
Similarly, if I accept a job I shouldn't have to ask if the working conditions are reasonably safe. Just as I assume a product is fit to perform its intended function, I assume a job is safe to perform unless expressly informed otherwise.
Incidently, your example is incorrect. The tractor has not violated the implied warranty of fitness. If the tractor manufacturer explicitly states that it will perform to a certain specification and it fails to do so, that's a violation of an explicit guarantee, not an implied warranty. If the salesman misrepresents the product, that's a seperate issue too. If I buy the tractor and it chokes down if the grass is more than two inches high, that's a violation of an implied warranty. The function of the tractor is to mow lawns and the manufacturer provides an implied warranty that it will fulfill that function.
If I purchase a lawn tractor to mow a 1/4 acre lawn, and it burns up in a week, that's a violation of either an implied or explicit warranty. However, if I buy a small electric string trimmer and try to mow a quarter acre with it and it burns up, that's not a violation of an implied warranty because the string trimmer was not intended for the use to which I put it.
From a MS EULA (case modified to avoid lameness filter):
By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the software product, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, manufacturer and Microsoft licensing, inc. ("MS") are unwilling to license the software product to you. In such event, you may not use or copy the software product, and you should promptly contact manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused product(s) in accordance with manufacturer's return policies.
Different wording but seems similar enough in meaning to me.
IANAL either, but it seems to me that "accept this License," in this context, means "comply with the terms of," and not "morally or ethically agree with." I strongly doubt that one can legally terminate a license because another vocally objects to it so long as they comply with the terms.
If Richard M Stallman were to purchase a copy of Windows (this is a theorectical example, folks. Work with me here!), could MS terminate his license because he's publicly said all software should be free?
I assume that you're talking about thalidomide, which was a safe, effective drug for everyone except pregnant women. The irony is that it was frequently prescribed to combat nasuea and insomnia caused by pregnancy. It's now approved in the US (it was never approved here in the 50s, when all the problems occurred in Europe), and is being used effectively for treatment of certain effects of leprosy, with a number of other potential uses being researched.