write something and put it out for GPL, my ONLY option if I want to continue to have any control is to require copyright assignment to me for any patches/etc.
So why, precisely, should you have control over the code that I write? If I offer up a patch to project X, my intent is to contribute to project X. It's not to add to your personal code library. You have control over your code. You have control over your project. (Someone else, of course, can fork your project and create a derivative project over which you have no control. That project, of course, must be released under the GPL, so you'd still have access to it, just not control over it.)
which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example. So, once it's been tainted with non-copyright-assigned GPL code, your project is never your own again, which puts off people like the parent poster who want to retain the copyrights on their code.
Any developer worth his salt is going to have copies of his original code and the patches he himself wrote. That code is his and he has full control over it. The code in the project isn't his code. It's an amalgamation of his and others' code. If he didn't write it, and he didn't pay for it, why on earth should he have absolute control over it?
If you want to maintain absolute control over all code in a project, write it yourself or pay someone to assist you in writing it. If you ask for and accept the voluntary labor of others to advance your project, you lost the ability to have absolute control over all of the code in the project. That's the whole intent and purpose of the GPL. It isn't a bug. It's a feature. If you don't want to make that trade, don't use the GPL. If you can convince others to contribute code to your project under a BSD or other such license, then more power to you.
For almost every major project out there, someone somewhere is making money off of it. Would you stop contributing to the linux kernel because you know there are a bazillion vendors out there using that code to make money on their product?
Who's making money off the kernel? Red Hat, for example, doesn't make money off the kernel per se. They put a great deal of time and effort into creating a distro, adding value to it, and supporting it. That's what earns them their money. The kernel enables them to make money, but that's quite a distinction from taking my code and locking it up into a proprietary app and charging me if I want to use it. If I want the extra service Red Hat provides, I can pay them for the privilege. If not, I can download the kernel and any additions or changes they make to it without paying for their services. The GPL ensures that.
TiVo is arguably making money off the kernel, and arguably doing so in a manner that circumvents the intent of the GPL. Thus the GPL v3 and this article. So would I stop contributing? Probably not. But do I support a change to the license to eliminate the loophole? Absolutely.
I'm proud of the code I write, and a lot of it is portable - I know it inside and out - but other people have fixed, added on, improved and optimized my code. As a result of that happening under the GPL, I can't use that for other closed-source projects I work on. It's frustrating, I don't feel comfortable using my own code because its GPL'd.
Horsefeathers. You can use your own code for any purpose you like, under any license you like. Releasing it under the GPL places obligations on others who acquire the code under that license. It doesn't place any obligation on you, nor prevent you from releasing your own code under multiple other licenses simultaneously. What you actually appear to be saying here is that you're no longer sure what code is actually yours in project X, and you're afraid of using other people's code, which they released under the GPL, in a closed source application. The real solution to that issue is good record keeping and an effective version control system, so you know what code is yours and what is not. Changing to a different license is a way to avoid the particular issue you're facing, but it's neither the only one nor necessarily the best one. If you've truly gotten lots of outside assistance on a project, the first question I'd ask is if the same level of assistance would have been available under another license. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm quite willing to help advance a project knowing that my efforts are protected by the GPL. I'm not so willing to pitch in and help out if I suspect that you're going to take the product of my hard labor, stick it in a proprietary application, and stuff the money you get for my labor in your bank account.
It appears that Beagle only indexes local files (your home directory by default.) The FAQ includes this:
Does Beagle support Mozilla Thunderbird?
Beagle is no longer built with default Thunderbird support, as of version 0.2.15. (Support for indexing email, news, RSS, and addresses had originally been added in Beagle 0.2.8, but was removed due to memory issues.)
I'm currently looking at setting up a homebrew system using htdig. I run my own server, so in theory I should be able to run htdig on it, and run a custom service which accepts a URL as an argument and calls htdig to index that page. Then all that's necessary is to create a simple Firefox extension to pass the current URL on to the server... Shouldn't be too difficult to hack out something like that, right? Damn, there goes my weekend.
What I want is a tool that indexes every page I bookmark. (Better yet, indexes either every page I visit or put an "Index" button on the toolbar, or, best, make it user configurable.) Then I could search through only the pages I've visited to find information I know I've seen but can't remember where. It doesn't seem like this would be overly difficult to implement as a FF extension.
How did Dell turn the software to spyware? They installed in on the machine, yes, but Google created it and dictated it's behavior. It allows Google to track every website you visit, even if you never intentionally use Google at all. It can be removed, but it's certainly not user friendly for a non-techie. You have to go through Control Panel, and the name is hardly intuitive (again, for a non-techie.) At the very least, there should be a simple "Uninstall" entry in the Start menu. Spyware? Eh, that's probably pushing it a little bit. But Google and Dell are pushing the edge of responsible, ethical behavior too.
Without agreeing with his point, I think he was pointing out that it's somewhat contradictory to call open source software "intellectual property." The whole point of open source is, in essence, to prevent software from being treated like property.
While I certainly sympathize with the photographer I don't think Flickr has any obligation in the matter what-so-ever.
You're right. They don't have any obligation.
She took advantage of a free service that they offer in order to gather support for her cause.
Took advantage? In what way? She used the free site that they made available. She had no obligation NOT to use the site as she did. That "obligation" knife cuts both way.
Either way I don't see this as being an issue of "right vs. wrong". She doesn't pay Flickr anything so far as I can assume. She can't expect anything from them.
"Right" and "wrong" are mighty big words. They cover lots of ground. Flickr's actions weren't criminal, and I don't see a valid argument that they were evil. But that doesn't mean that they weren't wrong in the judgment of a great many people.
And the issue of payment has nothing to do with the issue of expectations. I expect lots of things from lots of people and companies where there's no payment involved. I may or may not have any sort of legal recourse if my expectations aren't met, but that's distinct from saying I have no expectations.
And yeah if they piss off the market the market may decide to find an alternative, but that's their problem and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they "overstepped their bounds". Their bounds are basically they can do whatever they want with their property.
Absolutely true. They can indeed do what they want with their property. But Slashdot can do what they like with their property as well. And that means Slashdot can post a story about what Flickr did and invite people to comment on it. I can do what I like with my time and my property, so I can come on here and post about how much I disagree with Flickr's actions in this instance. And if enough people come on here and read about what Flickr did and agree with the opinions and comments posted on here and stop using or visiting Flickr's sites as a result, Flickr will get the message that their actions weren't appreciated. That is the market in action. That's preciesly and exactly how the market works.
Flickr has a right to do what they like with their property, but that in no way, shape, form or fashion denies my right to criticize what they, in fact, did choose to do. Their right is neither shield nor insulation from response. The right to speak or act does not mean that you're immune from the consequences of those words or actions. Flickr was within their right to act as they did. And I'm within my right to post, here and elsewhere, that it was a boneheaded move on their part.
If you want to make silly analogies, at least try to make them as accurate as possible. The corner pizza joint is, presumably, a family restaurant open to the public of all ages. You have a right to expect reasonably civil behavior there. So compare being raped for an hour... to... not being able to go to the local strip club because there's a stripper you find highly unattractive who keeps hassling you for money.
(And yes, that's still a pretty lame analogy. But at least it captures the fact that you're in an adult location where activity that would be highly inappropriate in other places is not only accepted but expected there.)
Yes, I know what bin they stick her records into. I know that they play her on XM's Cross Country and probably on a similar channel on Sirius and various web stations. I know they list her on the alt country charts. But who's the authority on precisely what music belongs in what genre? Who decides what the "right" answer is? Does the fact that they have no other category to stick her into, so they toss here into alt country have any actual affect on the sound of her music?
Yes, Lucinda's music is often classified as "alt country." Same with James McMurtry, etc. But, while she's influenced by lots of sources, the roots of her music are predominantly blues and rock, not country. I picked Kenny Chesney because the name will be familiar to a wider range of/. readers. But her music doesn't have much to do with Jimmy Rodgers or Hank Williams Sr. or Flatt and Scruggs or Bob Wills or Jim Reeves or Webb Pierce or any of the other great artists who form the roots of country music.
There is some great alt country out there too. Hank III, Chris Knight, Southern Culture on the Skids, etc. I'm not disparaging country music or alt country. I like both a great deal, along with other flavors of country, rock and jazz. But if music genres have any real meaning related to the actual sound of the music, Lucinda's music isn't country. And no amount of record store classification is going to change that.
Lucinda isn't country, regardless of where some record store decides to stick her cds. She's a lot closer to, say, Eric Clapton than she is to Kenny Chesney.
Why download hundreds of mp3s when I can listen to the same music streaming from the internet?
You can listen to the same music whenever you like? I'd like to hear Lucinda William's "Righteously." The version from "Live at the Filmore", not the studio release. Right now. Where do I tune in to hear that?
IF this isn't a simple work-for-hire situation, that seems quite fair, unless the customer is willing to pay a lot more money to the developer for sole ownership of the copyright, who then be saddled with the need to reinvent the wheel on future projects.
If this is the company's standard method of operating, it's quite likely that they reused a few wheels in this project. Turning over the copyright may require extensive rewriting to remove code that's already in other projects to which they retained the copyright.
The headline is highly misleading. What the court ruled was that if an IP used in the commision of a crime, in this case child pornography, is traced back to you, then that's probable cause for the issuance of a warrant to search your house. The court did not rule that just having an open WAP was probable cause for anything, nor did they rule that an open WAP wasn't a possible defense against the charge if there is no other evidence. After obtaining the warrant, the police found CDs with child porn in the individual's bedroom. That's the evidence that convicted him. He tried to have the evidence thrown out, arguing that there was no probable cause to issue the warrant. The court disagreed. If you have an open WAP, someone else may use it to commit a crime. But the probablity that you did so is sufficient to issue a warrant to search for additional evidence. So it's more like saying that if you buy a gun and someone else uses it to shoot someone, the police are going to get a warrant and come search your house.
Not really the same at all. HP is going to start selling printing services. They'll still own the printer and charge you for each page you print. It's no different from leasing a car and paying a surcharge on mileage. Music companies, on the other hand, don't lease you equipment. They claim to be selling you something, but then try to tell you what you can and can't do with it after you purchased it.
Because most people won't bother to search out the cost per page printed over the life of the printer. They'll see one printer for $599 and one for $1599 and buy the cheap one. It's the same principle as the "Bad security products drive out good security products" story that posted a couple hours ago.
DHCP is, in fact, irrelevant for this scenario as I understand it. He isn't assigning IPs to machines, which is what DHCP does. He's assigning blocks of IPs to other people for use as they see fit. The host using the IP might be sitting on the other side of two or three routers over which he has no control. It might not be assigned to a host or even a server. It might be assigned to a router interface. It might be assigned to a switches management VLAN. It might be one of a pool of IPs used in NATting a large number of hosts. Etc, etc, etc. The precise assignment of the IP is almost certainly not his responsibility and trying to track all of that additional info makes the job much harder, not easier. (Not to mention stepping on the toes of whomever he's assigning the IPs to. I know I'd be quite irritated if I had to go through my ISP to change where I"m using one of the IPs in my/30 block.) Anyone who suggests DHCP as an answer to this issue is either seriously misunderstanding the issue or has only cursory knowledge of the subject.
160 over three and a half years? Out of some 21,000? Doesn't seem overly excessive to me.
The article also fails to differentiate between NIPR (unclassified) and SIPR (classified) laptops. Regardless of your clearance, it's illegal to put classified information on a non-classified laptop. And classified laptops can not generally be taken home unless you have a certified storage location (a safe.) If they're not locked up, they should be in your direct possession at all times. If a significant number of classified laptops are missing, then it's a serious issue both in terms of the potential damage and in terms of users violating security procedures.
Non-classified laptops missing can be serious as well, particularly in terms of individual personal data being compromised and leading to identity theft or credit fraud. But the loss of sensitive-but-unclassified info is not nearly as serious in terms of the big picture as loss of classified data.
I think that the old canard about scientists doing their best work under the age of 30 is mainly something that research assistants throw around in the hope that they'll get tenure. I've been around scientists all my life and I can tell you it's baloney, invented by scientists under 30.
You're misunderstanding the canard. There are lots and lots of very active and very productive scientists over the age of 30. No one (at least no one with any credibility) is saying that scientists dry up and become ineffective on their 30th birthday. What the canard is talking about is revolutionary breakthroughs - leaps of progress that are original and break with tradition. The canonical example is Einstein publishing the Special Theory of Relativity at under 25. Older scientists do great things and accomplish a lot that's worthy of respect and admiration. But, generally speaking, their work tends to be incremental - to continue the trend in which the field of study was going. Rarely do they make a breakthrough which completely revolutionizes the field and takes it in a new direction. Getting a PhD in mathematics at age 50 is a wonderful achievement. But until she does something that revolutionizes her particular area of study, she isn't a counterexample to the canard at all.
No, you made a blanket statement that said this was only of use to people trying to cheat and do an upgrade without a legitimate XP license. I pointed out several situations where it would be useful for legitimate upgraders. Only one of them - the XP key being invalidated - was a "what if" that's rumor based and I specifically pointed that out in my post.
This is only a benefit for people who don't have a legitimate claim to using a Vista upgrade license seeing as an XP->Vista install would take significantly less time.
Not necessarily. If an XP->Vista install does invalidate your XP key (an as yet unproven supposition), then what happens if your hard drive crashes and you need to reinstall Vista? Will it allow you to use the old XP key as an upgrade? Or what if you your install of XP is old and crufty and you can no longer find your install CD? This allows you to do a pristine install. It also means that once you upgrade, you don't need to keep the XP CD and key handy in case you have to reinstall.
Can you imagine if all of MS's OS's had this requirement?
"What are you doing?"
"Reinstalling. My hard drive crashed. I have to install Windows 3.1 from floppy, then upgrade to Windows 95, then upgrade that to Windows 2000, then upgrade that to XP and finally upgrade to Vista. I'll be finished in a couple of days."
Slashdot Mirror
write something and put it out for GPL, my ONLY option if I want to continue to have any control is to require copyright assignment to me for any patches/etc.
So why, precisely, should you have control over the code that I write? If I offer up a patch to project X, my intent is to contribute to project X. It's not to add to your personal code library. You have control over your code. You have control over your project. (Someone else, of course, can fork your project and create a derivative project over which you have no control. That project, of course, must be released under the GPL, so you'd still have access to it, just not control over it.)
which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example. So, once it's been tainted with non-copyright-assigned GPL code, your project is never your own again, which puts off people like the parent poster who want to retain the copyrights on their code.
Any developer worth his salt is going to have copies of his original code and the patches he himself wrote. That code is his and he has full control over it. The code in the project isn't his code. It's an amalgamation of his and others' code. If he didn't write it, and he didn't pay for it, why on earth should he have absolute control over it?
If you want to maintain absolute control over all code in a project, write it yourself or pay someone to assist you in writing it. If you ask for and accept the voluntary labor of others to advance your project, you lost the ability to have absolute control over all of the code in the project. That's the whole intent and purpose of the GPL. It isn't a bug. It's a feature. If you don't want to make that trade, don't use the GPL. If you can convince others to contribute code to your project under a BSD or other such license, then more power to you.
For almost every major project out there, someone somewhere is making money off of it. Would you stop contributing to the linux kernel because you know there are a bazillion vendors out there using that code to make money on their product?
Who's making money off the kernel? Red Hat, for example, doesn't make money off the kernel per se. They put a great deal of time and effort into creating a distro, adding value to it, and supporting it. That's what earns them their money. The kernel enables them to make money, but that's quite a distinction from taking my code and locking it up into a proprietary app and charging me if I want to use it. If I want the extra service Red Hat provides, I can pay them for the privilege. If not, I can download the kernel and any additions or changes they make to it without paying for their services. The GPL ensures that.
TiVo is arguably making money off the kernel, and arguably doing so in a manner that circumvents the intent of the GPL. Thus the GPL v3 and this article. So would I stop contributing? Probably not. But do I support a change to the license to eliminate the loophole? Absolutely.
I'm proud of the code I write, and a lot of it is portable - I know it inside and out - but other people have fixed, added on, improved and optimized my code. As a result of that happening under the GPL, I can't use that for other closed-source projects I work on. It's frustrating, I don't feel comfortable using my own code because its GPL'd.
Horsefeathers. You can use your own code for any purpose you like, under any license you like. Releasing it under the GPL places obligations on others who acquire the code under that license. It doesn't place any obligation on you, nor prevent you from releasing your own code under multiple other licenses simultaneously. What you actually appear to be saying here is that you're no longer sure what code is actually yours in project X, and you're afraid of using other people's code, which they released under the GPL, in a closed source application. The real solution to that issue is good record keeping and an effective version control system, so you know what code is yours and what is not. Changing to a different license is a way to avoid the particular issue you're facing, but it's neither the only one nor necessarily the best one. If you've truly gotten lots of outside assistance on a project, the first question I'd ask is if the same level of assistance would have been available under another license. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm quite willing to help advance a project knowing that my efforts are protected by the GPL. I'm not so willing to pitch in and help out if I suspect that you're going to take the product of my hard labor, stick it in a proprietary application, and stuff the money you get for my labor in your bank account.
It appears that Beagle only indexes local files (your home directory by default.) The FAQ includes this:
... Shouldn't be too difficult to hack out something like that, right? Damn, there goes my weekend.
Does Beagle support Mozilla Thunderbird?
Beagle is no longer built with default Thunderbird support, as of version 0.2.15. (Support for indexing email, news, RSS, and addresses had originally been added in Beagle 0.2.8, but was removed due to memory issues.)
I'm currently looking at setting up a homebrew system using htdig. I run my own server, so in theory I should be able to run htdig on it, and run a custom service which accepts a URL as an argument and calls htdig to index that page. Then all that's necessary is to create a simple Firefox extension to pass the current URL on to the server
What I want is a tool that indexes every page I bookmark. (Better yet, indexes either every page I visit or put an "Index" button on the toolbar, or, best, make it user configurable.) Then I could search through only the pages I've visited to find information I know I've seen but can't remember where. It doesn't seem like this would be overly difficult to implement as a FF extension.
How did Dell turn the software to spyware? They installed in on the machine, yes, but Google created it and dictated it's behavior. It allows Google to track every website you visit, even if you never intentionally use Google at all. It can be removed, but it's certainly not user friendly for a non-techie. You have to go through Control Panel, and the name is hardly intuitive (again, for a non-techie.) At the very least, there should be a simple "Uninstall" entry in the Start menu. Spyware? Eh, that's probably pushing it a little bit. But Google and Dell are pushing the edge of responsible, ethical behavior too.
Nonexistent intellectual property? Semi-existent intellectual property? WTF?
Without agreeing with his point, I think he was pointing out that it's somewhat contradictory to call open source software "intellectual property." The whole point of open source is, in essence, to prevent software from being treated like property.
can you spell hypocrit?
Yes. You, apparently, can not.
While I certainly sympathize with the photographer I don't think Flickr has any obligation in the matter what-so-ever.
You're right. They don't have any obligation.
She took advantage of a free service that they offer in order to gather support for her cause.
Took advantage? In what way? She used the free site that they made available. She had no obligation NOT to use the site as she did. That "obligation" knife cuts both way.
Either way I don't see this as being an issue of "right vs. wrong". She doesn't pay Flickr anything so far as I can assume. She can't expect anything from them.
"Right" and "wrong" are mighty big words. They cover lots of ground. Flickr's actions weren't criminal, and I don't see a valid argument that they were evil. But that doesn't mean that they weren't wrong in the judgment of a great many people.
And the issue of payment has nothing to do with the issue of expectations. I expect lots of things from lots of people and companies where there's no payment involved. I may or may not have any sort of legal recourse if my expectations aren't met, but that's distinct from saying I have no expectations.
And yeah if they piss off the market the market may decide to find an alternative, but that's their problem and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they "overstepped their bounds". Their bounds are basically they can do whatever they want with their property.
Absolutely true. They can indeed do what they want with their property. But Slashdot can do what they like with their property as well. And that means Slashdot can post a story about what Flickr did and invite people to comment on it. I can do what I like with my time and my property, so I can come on here and post about how much I disagree with Flickr's actions in this instance. And if enough people come on here and read about what Flickr did and agree with the opinions and comments posted on here and stop using or visiting Flickr's sites as a result, Flickr will get the message that their actions weren't appreciated. That is the market in action. That's preciesly and exactly how the market works.
Flickr has a right to do what they like with their property, but that in no way, shape, form or fashion denies my right to criticize what they, in fact, did choose to do. Their right is neither shield nor insulation from response. The right to speak or act does not mean that you're immune from the consequences of those words or actions. Flickr was within their right to act as they did. And I'm within my right to post, here and elsewhere, that it was a boneheaded move on their part.
Well, it IS a new item on the stack...
(Please do note that I'm not defending this decision, just pointing out what the thought process likely was...)
If you want to make silly analogies, at least try to make them as accurate as possible. The corner pizza joint is, presumably, a family restaurant open to the public of all ages. You have a right to expect reasonably civil behavior there. So compare being raped for an hour ... to ... not being able to go to the local strip club because there's a stripper you find highly unattractive who keeps hassling you for money.
(And yes, that's still a pretty lame analogy. But at least it captures the fact that you're in an adult location where activity that would be highly inappropriate in other places is not only accepted but expected there.)
Yes, I know what bin they stick her records into. I know that they play her on XM's Cross Country and probably on a similar channel on Sirius and various web stations. I know they list her on the alt country charts. But who's the authority on precisely what music belongs in what genre? Who decides what the "right" answer is? Does the fact that they have no other category to stick her into, so they toss here into alt country have any actual affect on the sound of her music?
/. readers. But her music doesn't have much to do with Jimmy Rodgers or Hank Williams Sr. or Flatt and Scruggs or Bob Wills or Jim Reeves or Webb Pierce or any of the other great artists who form the roots of country music.
Yes, Lucinda's music is often classified as "alt country." Same with James McMurtry, etc. But, while she's influenced by lots of sources, the roots of her music are predominantly blues and rock, not country. I picked Kenny Chesney because the name will be familiar to a wider range of
There is some great alt country out there too. Hank III, Chris Knight, Southern Culture on the Skids, etc. I'm not disparaging country music or alt country. I like both a great deal, along with other flavors of country, rock and jazz. But if music genres have any real meaning related to the actual sound of the music, Lucinda's music isn't country. And no amount of record store classification is going to change that.
Lucinda isn't country, regardless of where some record store decides to stick her cds. She's a lot closer to, say, Eric Clapton than she is to Kenny Chesney.
Why download hundreds of mp3s when I can listen to the same music streaming from the internet?
You can listen to the same music whenever you like? I'd like to hear Lucinda William's "Righteously." The version from "Live at the Filmore", not the studio release. Right now. Where do I tune in to hear that?
IF this isn't a simple work-for-hire situation, that seems quite fair, unless the customer is willing to pay a lot more money to the developer for sole ownership of the copyright, who then be saddled with the need to reinvent the wheel on future projects.
If this is the company's standard method of operating, it's quite likely that they reused a few wheels in this project. Turning over the copyright may require extensive rewriting to remove code that's already in other projects to which they retained the copyright.
The headline is highly misleading. What the court ruled was that if an IP used in the commision of a crime, in this case child pornography, is traced back to you, then that's probable cause for the issuance of a warrant to search your house. The court did not rule that just having an open WAP was probable cause for anything, nor did they rule that an open WAP wasn't a possible defense against the charge if there is no other evidence. After obtaining the warrant, the police found CDs with child porn in the individual's bedroom. That's the evidence that convicted him. He tried to have the evidence thrown out, arguing that there was no probable cause to issue the warrant. The court disagreed. If you have an open WAP, someone else may use it to commit a crime. But the probablity that you did so is sufficient to issue a warrant to search for additional evidence. So it's more like saying that if you buy a gun and someone else uses it to shoot someone, the police are going to get a warrant and come search your house.
Not really the same at all. HP is going to start selling printing services. They'll still own the printer and charge you for each page you print. It's no different from leasing a car and paying a surcharge on mileage. Music companies, on the other hand, don't lease you equipment. They claim to be selling you something, but then try to tell you what you can and can't do with it after you purchased it.
Because most people won't bother to search out the cost per page printed over the life of the printer. They'll see one printer for $599 and one for $1599 and buy the cheap one. It's the same principle as the "Bad security products drive out good security products" story that posted a couple hours ago.
DHCP is, in fact, irrelevant for this scenario as I understand it. He isn't assigning IPs to machines, which is what DHCP does. He's assigning blocks of IPs to other people for use as they see fit. The host using the IP might be sitting on the other side of two or three routers over which he has no control. It might not be assigned to a host or even a server. It might be assigned to a router interface. It might be assigned to a switches management VLAN. It might be one of a pool of IPs used in NATting a large number of hosts. Etc, etc, etc. The precise assignment of the IP is almost certainly not his responsibility and trying to track all of that additional info makes the job much harder, not easier. (Not to mention stepping on the toes of whomever he's assigning the IPs to. I know I'd be quite irritated if I had to go through my ISP to change where I"m using one of the IPs in my /30 block.) Anyone who suggests DHCP as an answer to this issue is either seriously misunderstanding the issue or has only cursory knowledge of the subject.
Not sure about Douglas Adams but check out Gene Wolfe's "Book of the Long Sun" series
160 over three and a half years? Out of some 21,000? Doesn't seem overly excessive to me.
The article also fails to differentiate between NIPR (unclassified) and SIPR (classified) laptops. Regardless of your clearance, it's illegal to put classified information on a non-classified laptop. And classified laptops can not generally be taken home unless you have a certified storage location (a safe.) If they're not locked up, they should be in your direct possession at all times. If a significant number of classified laptops are missing, then it's a serious issue both in terms of the potential damage and in terms of users violating security procedures.
Non-classified laptops missing can be serious as well, particularly in terms of individual personal data being compromised and leading to identity theft or credit fraud. But the loss of sensitive-but-unclassified info is not nearly as serious in terms of the big picture as loss of classified data.
I think that the old canard about scientists doing their best work under the age of 30 is mainly something that research assistants throw around in the hope that they'll get tenure. I've been around scientists all my life and I can tell you it's baloney, invented by scientists under 30.
You're misunderstanding the canard. There are lots and lots of very active and very productive scientists over the age of 30. No one (at least no one with any credibility) is saying that scientists dry up and become ineffective on their 30th birthday. What the canard is talking about is revolutionary breakthroughs - leaps of progress that are original and break with tradition. The canonical example is Einstein publishing the Special Theory of Relativity at under 25. Older scientists do great things and accomplish a lot that's worthy of respect and admiration. But, generally speaking, their work tends to be incremental - to continue the trend in which the field of study was going. Rarely do they make a breakthrough which completely revolutionizes the field and takes it in a new direction. Getting a PhD in mathematics at age 50 is a wonderful achievement. But until she does something that revolutionizes her particular area of study, she isn't a counterexample to the canard at all.
No, you made a blanket statement that said this was only of use to people trying to cheat and do an upgrade without a legitimate XP license. I pointed out several situations where it would be useful for legitimate upgraders. Only one of them - the XP key being invalidated - was a "what if" that's rumor based and I specifically pointed that out in my post.
This is only a benefit for people who don't have a legitimate claim to using a Vista upgrade license seeing as an XP->Vista install would take significantly less time.
Not necessarily. If an XP->Vista install does invalidate your XP key (an as yet unproven supposition), then what happens if your hard drive crashes and you need to reinstall Vista? Will it allow you to use the old XP key as an upgrade? Or what if you your install of XP is old and crufty and you can no longer find your install CD? This allows you to do a pristine install. It also means that once you upgrade, you don't need to keep the XP CD and key handy in case you have to reinstall.
Can you imagine if all of MS's OS's had this requirement?
"What are you doing?"
"Reinstalling. My hard drive crashed. I have to install Windows 3.1 from floppy, then upgrade to Windows 95, then upgrade that to Windows 2000, then upgrade that to XP and finally upgrade to Vista. I'll be finished in a couple of days."
Not true. Ebay is much worse. At a flea market, I can look at the product and I have it in hand when I give the guy my money.