OK, help me out here - IANAL, but if you are, please just say so and I'll try to understand your points differently - or maybe I'll just believe without understanding (I often reach that point with my own attorneys, and I'm not ashamed to admit ignorance).
Otherwise, here's where you're losing me.
1. I must not document that I met fair use criteria if prosecution can document that they own the copyright. BUT - perhaps I must document that I met fair use criteria if prosecution is trying to prove that I've VIOLATED the copyright they've documented owning. There's a world of difference in that. At face value, what you say is wrong.
2. The whole "Simply put..." paragraph seems not internally self-consistent. I'm sure criminal law attempts to uphold innocent until proven guilty. So it's possible (and does happen every day) for all sorts of prosecutorial attempts at proofs of guilt to be presented - but defense quite often invokes proving contrary facts to disprove the prosecution. Example - "I can prove you murdered your wife last night in New York." "No, you can't - I can prove I was in LA last night." Example - "I can prove that you used our copyrighted material and contend that you had no right to do so in the way that you did." "You are incorrect - I can prove that I was exercising my Fair Use rights." As far as I can see, arguments to the contrary dismiss wrongful prosecution as an impossibility - and that's not OK.
3. Isn't it true that defense often proves that prosecution is wrong precisely because the accused was within their rights?
4. In criminal law in New Mexico, it doesn't say I do not have the right kill someone. It says that I do not have the right to kill someone with an exception of self-defense even unto death when no option to the contrary is available to me. If I were attacked, and had no option, and exercised my right, I would face a grand jury (minimum) or even go to court (more likely now that a scant 30 years ago) because they could prove that I killed someone. My defense would be precisely to prove that the fact that I killed someone notwithstanding, I did so within my rights and was not merely not found guilty - as you phrase it - but instead would be found not guilty. Again, a world of difference in those two statements. (I wish I could find online the statement published in the Albuquerque newspapers in 1976 by the local prosecutor. When asked when it was legal to kill an intruder into your home or onto your property with a firearm, he replied that it was not legal to do so until you had the felon squarely in your sights - otherwise, you'd face prosecution as a menace to the public for missing. No one was shocked at this "cavalier" attitude - they were amused that newcomers kept having to have this explained to them, hence, the newspaper article.)
If you're a lawyer, I'll accept what you say, and that I'm wrong, and be glad that I don't retain you and/or that I don't live in your state. If you're not, please either recognize that you're wrong, or try to show me again that I am using internally self-consistent arguments. TIA, and I do mean that very sincerely.
If Fair Use is the appropriate charge against infringement, then the charge was not valid, period. It was only valid to bring the charge before the people for disposal. Again - two very different things.
You keep using the word right and I don't that word means what you think it means.
Uhhh.... the obligatory IANAL..... but I'm under the impression that fair use is a defintion specifying a specific right reserved to the end-user under copyright law. Just because a right can be invoked as a defense strategy doesn't mean it isn't a right - isn't that so?
Rio Rancho, NM (where Intel made Pentiums) went this route beginning a few years ago. It's had mixed success, with the city threatening to rebid and other actions. One of the allegations made in a local paper (maybe not online, not sure, but you can try AbqTrib links from googling "rio rancho wireless broadband" and getting a trial access or something - I won't) was that the contractor was using home-grade rather than industrial-grade components in severe-environment areas. The following link discusses that they're fixing this and Wichita's POV on it.
I really don't want to fuel discussions about the evil-ness of businesses but I do want to add to the debate about whether government control or free enterprise are the ways to get this done, and I just want to share - as an admittedly-ridiculous data-point-of-one - views as a resident where this occured, in response to many comments made already.
1. Unfair/hidden taxation. Rio Rancho has a lot of retirees, but it also thinks like it's the 2000s, not the 1990s. IOW, no one really questioned if it were fair if taxes were required for this if they didn't want the service, any more than they question if school taxes are fair if they don't have kids. It adds to the quality of life and with taxation, there has to be give and take. If you live somewhere where quality of life isn't a concern, I suggest moving.
2. Should it be a utility-like thing like water, under city control, etc? Yes. No one trusted that any vendor or vendors could serve students in hard-to-wifi areas, schools, Intel, the city, unless contractually required to do so.
3. Should it be a utility-like thing.... (same question). No. No one trusts city hall to understand the internet correctly.
4. Should it be franchised, like cable? Absolutely not. Horror stories abound with last-mile-of-cable problems, access rates being fixed to near-impossible-to-change copper/fiber/switch infrastructures, not to mention all of the other evils associated with cable franchises. The goal of city-wide wireless access is to fix all of that.
5. That Rio Rancho had trouble and had to re-groove the supplier means the supplier, like any other, will be greedy. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they just got in over their heads by inexperience. But having contractual control by the city meant they could be compelled to fix things or face a contract lawsuit - way different than the steering-committee nightmares associated with listening to a cable franchise explain (lie) about why something cannot be done. IOW, swift action is occuring.
And I guess that's my overall perspective. It's a new area, but not without precedent. Vendor/providers are still discovering the right way to execute the business, or discovering new business models for this. Cities need to find the right balance between control and bureaucracy. Citizens need to hold their cities and vendors accountable.
Not trying to suggest a utopian model or claim that Rio Rancho's way is right - the jury is still way out on that, but maybe it will be ok.
Just want to emphasize - there are good and bad precendents to study on this.
From your ear's point of view, then the folicles and cells that are tuned to the reatined frequencies, experience more accoustic energy at a given sound level. Eardrum excites the hammer - so the ears are a half-wave rectifier. Naturally occuring sound is non-sinusoidal (excepting some pipe organs) - it's a series of attacks and decays (dissipations), best modeled as a exponentially damped (co)sine waves. Dynamic range is important because 1) duh - it was there in the original source, and 2) the ear-assembly as a half-wave rectifier needs (naturally-occuring) amplitude relaxation.
Clipped music means that the system can't reproduce the transition from wavefront to wave decay over time, so the top of the wave is clipped, or flattened - so, at that point, the system is putting out a biased DC voltage during that time, rather than AC. This causes nasty things in the amplifiers, nastier things in speakers and even nastier things in your ears.
Don't have a cow. Always good advice. Was having a bad day, made worse by people speculating wildly about reporting procedures in an industry they've never worked in.
Sure, a big mess, some radioactivity, but we're talking self-limiting here, nothing like a mushroom cloud.
Great thinking, Edison. Got a solution for the Chernobyl Sarcophogus? Have any concept of the loss of life that occured immediately there, or the ongoing cancers faced by the people in the now dead zone?
1. No company - or agency - can change classifications without oversight from a senior agency.
2. Classifications are in fact mandated by a set of strict procedures - nothing as slack as guidelines are acceptable.
3. There are oversight processes in place at every facility handling any type of classified material - period. It even includes very regular visits with plenty of hands-on inspections. It absolutely includes inspections of new or changed documents/classifications.
4. Therefore this couldn't have been anything less than hiding the information - perhaps within some narrow defintion of the correct procedures, and most certainly successfully - but no way it wasn't "hiding."
You are posting things you have absolutely no firsthand knowledge of - or are purposefully misleading about things - with an air of calm authority to pose supposedly thoughtful questions or new ideas, which to be kind, are nothing less than mendacious and you know it.
Who in the hell modded you insightful?
It is illegal per the Espionage Act of 1972 to disclose publicly or acknowledge having retained a security clearance. Do not even try to give me the rubarb that you've held any clearance whatsoever in your life as a response to this. And FWI, you wanna know what a LACK of reporting looks like?????? Read a copy of the NRC Newsletter - where if you don't have sufficient backup oil for an oil change to a never-used emergency generator, that MIGHT be used in case of an accident, you'll report to congress and you will face the consequences (a true story from a regulated (is there any other kind?) commercial reactor in the US). And anything in the military nuclear supply chain is even more stringent - way, way, way more.
I suppose it's not hard to believe that most people don't have HDTV - but where did you learn that most most people don't know how to work them?
Early adopters such as myself certainly do/did what all early adopters of any technology do - learned the ins and outs, decided to accept the throwaway risk. In so doing, the early adopters of any technology are (partially) used by the industry to shape sustaining features (see the AVS forum - manufacturers and content providers do listen) - and the early adopters influence the next tier of buyers, usually friends or business associates and thereby share their experiences. That entire group most certainly as a rule knows how to work their TV sets (allowing that you must mean something about connecting to home theatre equipment or something...)
I think it's in the next tier of market advancement - the one we've only just now entered for HDTV, IMO. Among the mass market, I'm sure confusion will abound. To this day, people that still have VCRs may still have a blinking 12:00 on them - I don't know - but I wouldn't characterize them as not being able to work their VCRs.
I'll accept - without any checking - that most don't download to an HTPC, because that in and of itself is still in the early adoption stage. (I use MacMini for my HTPC and pay attention to offerings and planned offerings - so as an HTPC early adopter, I think my opinion to agree with you counts for something - maybe.)
Your point on Microsoft not being business retarded I can't agree with whole cloth. For the most part, you're dead on - but each business unit has its own management. And Microsoft is somewhat brain dead, not merely business retarded, when it comes to the new digital consumption for HDTV.
My arguments are: 1. Brought to you by the same people who killed the iPod with Zune? 2. DRM in WMP10? 3. If I owned or worked for a company good at acquistion, good at taking credit for other work after jumping on the bandwagon later, I would probably not be so good at jumping right into a new technology and acting any other way than business retarded (not knowing my own identity), unto the point of acting brane dead.
How did MS get into the HD-DVD business? AFAIR, it was because Gates decided to not miss out on the bandwagon - and he wasn't going to catch up with HDTV unless they did something proactive any more than they were/are going to catch up with digital music. Good business sense, but wishes ain't horse and not everybuddy gets to ride.
Finally, for anyone who cares to read on, my 2 cents on the whole HD-DVD and Blu-ray debate is simply this - 720p and 1080i sets handle about a megapixel every 60th of a second. Marketing aside, that's why both are truly HD. HD-DVD and Blu-ray is designed (as far as I know) for 1080p, or two megapixels/(1sec/60). Does this mean, SoWhatEarlymon - soon everyone will have 1080p? Nope. After a certain point in megapixels, you need things like contrast, color range, trueness, etc - in fact, once megapixel rates are in the same neighborhood, those are the driving factors for picture quality - and why people with better HDTVs don't fanboy themselves into the 720p/1080i/1080p arguments.
So next year, when you go into a store and compare three similarly priced TVs with the same high-quality signal input - if one is 720p, one is 1080i, one is 1080p you're either going to buy the bigger number - or the one that looks best to you. And if the 1080p's don't hit the same price points with the same high quality as some of the 720p or 1080i sets, then 1080p isn't going to dominate - again, all in my opinion.
(If you have any doubts on the above two points - go to a camera store and compare digital cameras - is quality merely a function of megapixels because, afer all, it's all digital? I think most people now see my point.)
But if I'm right - and from discussions over these years with many other early adopters (I've met locally and online) - then you'll continue to see the lukewarm response to the wh
This is a little off-topic, but maybe the info is revealing:
I was in a pub in Taiwan last week, and the Taiwan Beer Girl came by, handing out promotional items. One thing very popular in Asia from my view is little cell phone charms. For ordering a Taiwan Beer (which I highly recommend.... ) she handed us three of these little charms. They were in the shape of little Taiwan Beer bottles, just less than half of your index finger in length.
The point? They have green and red LEDs inside that are RF sensitive and they light up when your phone rings - even if on ring-mute.
RF detectors for your cell phone to show activity - free at a local bar. I tried to explain the state of things back home on our cell phone capabilities - they flatly refused to believe that these little charms aren't being handed out for free in our bars, much less what we go through for contract details, etc. I'm still amazed.
I'm still waiting for them to develop the system that tracks eye movements, and just put left click / right click on the keyboard. Uhhhhh - dude. Left wink / right wink. And eyebrows for scrolling.....
Sometimes, I have to carry a phone in my pocket as opposed to some kind of holster. I'm kinda looking forward to trying something with non-snagging edges.
I also like the differentiation from a peer-marketing POV. Already, anyone carrying an iPhone is noticed in our group, and perhaps unbelievably to some, not for the OoooooohAaaaah of it, but for the, "How does it work? I've been hearing about it..." factors. I don't think it will take too long to gauge the response, once they're more widely available, to a red oval phone.
Plus, it'll match my red Swingline.
I was primed for an iPhone - but after hearing so much both ways, I'm going to need some direct feedback from pals before making a final decision on it. I recognize that I may represent a minority-type thinker, but I think the same will apply to the OpenMoko.
(Yeah, yeah, yeah - Neo1973 - whatever - I for one hate consumer products with alphabet soup names. Swift kick for a phone that says FIC on the front, but it's really a Neo1973, er, OpenMoko, er.... it's a dessert topping, it's a floor wax (now that's the '70s).)
The only thing I've seen for this in the last month is a suction-cupped gooseneck cradle. I've seen quite a few of those in Taiwan, and the picture that I saw was same thing - for hands-free speakerphone/bluetooth driving - no power, no data, no sound - but comforming to the oval shape, with - AFAIR - the right side of the phone cradle open.
Everything's/.'d right now, so, sorry, I can't find the link for it.
But they seem to have been working on/thinking of something. One thing's certain - if it's slightly profitable to do so, Taiwan or China will build accessories for it.
The increase in profits means an increase in taxes paid, a definite public good. Maybe for a company lacking in shark-like accountants, that is true. But not really the general case as I understand it.
A job given to one person is almost always a job loss to another - the only way to break the stagnant cycle of the conservation of jobs is to provide expansion, and that where high-tech comes in, in today's world. A new job isn't one that has moved to your neighborhood - it's one that has been created from whole cloth. Get enough of those jobs, and you change a community. Then immigrants provide diversity and that's something that you put on your bottom line - but it impacts your quality of life in the best way possible.
So, not all profitable company growth is good - see Enron wrt taking care of shareholders. But all good company growth is profitable.
Wow. Troll was the least of my intentions, most sincerely. I apologize for the bandwidth and will try to do better in future.
FWIW - I negotiate with large corporations for a living and truly intended to pass on what I've gained from experience. Again, sincere apologies for sounding otherwise to any/all offended.
I don't mean to sound cruel or condescending, but my view is that most posts here, with a tip to Feynman, aren't even wrong.
Paraphrasing/summarizing/(even missing-the-point-you-ignorant-slut if you so choose):
1. "MS would win big by having Vista on Apple as it increases revenue." Booooookay - (and I *AM* writing this on an Apple) - aka, any Apple has to be considered as encroachment on their market dominance. Believe what you want, but Apple and Linux aren't threats to MS (from the marketing standpoint) - they're annoyances. It's not like there's an untapped sea of Apple users who have never heard of Windows and could be shown some kind of light. And then discover Windows thanks to VM. And want more of the same. And give access to a great untapped resource of potential Windows users of which you speak. Or anything, man.
2. "MS could win big with an OEM agreement with Apple." Uhhhhhh.... uuuuuuhhhhhhh - Dell, et al, have no other commercially dominant OS supplier to turn to, whereas Apple is devoid of this problem as they can supply their own OS. The only thing an Apple OEM agreement - in my not-so-humble opinion - could do is to invert negotiations everywhere. OEM agreements don't come from the Keebler Elves, you don't get a bag of them that are pretty much the same wherever you go - they're customized. And Mr. We-will-charge-a-buck-for-tunez-no-matter-what is not going to be easy to negotiate with - and neither will Dell, et al, after finding Apple may have some market lock with questions to be asked.
3. "Apple could win big by having an OEM agreement with MS." Ooooooh - scary - it would be admitting that OS X couldn't do it all - BEEEEP! Wrong. If they failed to get appropriate terms and had to charge to more for WinWhatever, then it increases the chances of adoption failure while Apple marketing has to fend off further charges of being overpriced. Better terms than that? See point number 2.
4. "Could be a support nightmare for MS and not worth the fringe buyers." Mmmmmmm - and which of you isn't a support nightmare for MS? And how much sleep have you seen them lose on your so-called nightmares?
5. "MS is all about control and VM under OS X effectively takes that control away." I went into the future where this happened and overheard Sparky and Scooter wondering what that MS Project thing was that they needed for effective Gant charts and WBS management and why that sideways-infinity thing was needed...... Or not. See points 1 and 3.
It's about each side picking their battles, very wisely, with decades of winning and losing in this industry and it's about knowing what side of the consumers' asses to kiss - along with erstwhile partner/competitors - and a few government entities tossed in here and there - and a few renegade lawyers now that I think about it - and when.
To make the point clear: You can burn out a power transistor if you run it too hard, but this is not possible on a CPU. It will hang long before it even gets close to be damaged. If the chip overheats and/or is driven at a too high clock, it just hangs. Reset and cool, and it is good as new. Boooooookay. I really think that these views persist because unless you follow things like the International Reliability Physics Symposium (irps.org) or the Integrated Reliability Workshop (iirw.org) you miss that there are no simple answers. Here's an over-simplified one: http://hubpages.com/hub/_Overclock_Vs_Stock_The_Pr os_And_Cons and while it gets the idea across, it totally blows what electromigration is - the migration of material in a flow counter to that of current where small metal voids accumulate into larger ones - to the point where the metal lines will actually open.
It comes down to what happens physically to the building blocks of the semiconductor under stress - and heat, which I understand is a by-product of overclocking, is a definite stressor.
As for the CPU just hanging, I think you have to know why it's hanging - in the old days (see Celeste BelCastro's research at NASA from the early 70s on CPU reliability if you can find it - it's quite interesting), it was noted that it was important to differentiate between single-event latchup, soft latchups (such as you describe) and hard latchups (damage or its precursor).
I know pretty much doodly squat about overclocking - because I see no reason to stress things beyond their ratings except my car and my relationships - and have no first-hand experience to offer.
But I just wanted to chime in that although you sound very convincing, I hope you're not leading others astray with overgeneralizations. Your statement, as quoted, seems incredibly counterintuitive to me.
OK, sorry for the confusion in my post. I'll clarify.
The VirtualPC WinXP I spoke of was separately purchased and licensed and is still in use on that previous laptop.
The WinXP under Parallels was a completely separate purchase at full retail (US $300 or so afair for the XP alone) - and has been performing very nicely on my MacBook Pro (Intel-based) for a number of months. Nothing on this system has materially changed in these months of being just okey dokey - until I met the trouble mentioned.
I hate retail prices, I hate paying that kind of freight, I hate paying Microsoft - but I hate software piracy a whole lot more, and don't even wade into the gray areas, lest I find myself over my head. So a few hundred clams was a good investment - and certainly was instrumental in my WinXP still running here - or so I believe - as I got okey dokey support (I have had to call MS a number of times for machine rebuilds and so forth, and I'm under the impression that they have some record of me having had to re-install..... (maybe)) - but new install or re-install wasn't involved here. As I said, the other thing I can tie to the transient was going onto the net from Asia.....
I don't do anything but security upgrades to either the host or the VM OS when on travel - when it's your livelihood on the line, an unrecoverable "upgrade" puts too much at stake. So, nothing in this laptop's profile should have been at play.
You may be right. But for many semiconductor dudes (like me), the reasons are many and varied. To name a few:
* use OS X and need Windows * use Linux/laptop and need Windows * need or desire to partition an entire OS so that during a presentation, if casually called away from laptop, fewer worries about "innocent" snooping
Business guys adopt tomorrow what the propellerheads did yesterday. Last time I had trouble w/ a net connection for Windows in a hotel in the Bay Area and the drogue started to give me dos-window instructions, I sighed - and got the immediate response: "My apologies. From your reaction you're obviously running VMWare - may I ask if you're on Linux or some other 'nix?"
I believe that there's more to Microsoft's dislike of VM than simply DRM, and I think that they're hoping to be shielded by a bit of DRM FUD.
Last year I was in Taiwan running WinXP under VirtualPC - with the appropriate upgrades after Microsoft had bought the product from its creators - and I had zero trouble.
This year, I'm in Taiwan again, but this time I'm running WinXP under Parallels. Shortly after my use of the machine here on the internet, I got this message telling me that my hardware had significantly changed since the original installation and that I needed to re-validate - I don't recall the rest of the message, but it involved Genuine Advantage and suggestions of unusability. So, even though I'm not carrying my original box around with the keycode (would you??), I decided to be brave and tapped on the warning from the tray as instructed. Took me right to an MS page at what appeared to be Microsoft-Taiwan, and it was quite persistent that I should continue to be routed to some Chinese language page. Long story short, I got some embedded wizard launched, got the MS phone number for the USA (Bangalore notwithstanding), called in, got re-validated and woot, woot, woot.
It seems - very strongly to me - that the only thing that Microsoft could have detected was my location in a way that didn't make sense to them, and I think I triggered something that decided I had a pirated copy. I really haven't had any use of my machine or anything change in any other way to cause me to suspect anything else.
So, how long before business travellers - and we fill a lot of 747s, virtually all running Windows - picking up VM for one reason or another start pitching fits when they discover that they can go into a full-screen presentation and be tagged publicly as potential software pirates?
I couldn't understand why MS had a real problem with Vista under VM, but if the cause I posited is in fact true, then the problem Microsoft is worried about goes back to the XP codebase. Say anything about Vista's new codebase, but it's all from the same company..... so, I think DRM is a specious explanation but it allows them to hide behind something where they can try to claim some innocence regarding VM - when in fact the OS may be more seriously broken w.r.t. VM than they're admitting.
For one thing, English is one of the official languages in India - many of their governmental offices were set up by the British (apologies for any inaccuracies in this, my Indian friends explained it to me this way).
For another, the guy is getting trained as best he knows how and is already intimidated by the jargon - advice to seek work elsewhere isn't fair. It's about contributing, not power.
Perhaps you've partially answered your own question -
Try putting in your sig the following (as you see fit) for anyplace you care to participate:
"I'm an Indian grad student whose CS teachers run away at the mention of Linux. Any assistance or advice on how to mesh with this group is most appreciated. I want to contribute and need help getting started."
Ignore anyone who criticizes you for this - anyone who can't recall their beginnings is a lost cause, and to be avoided.
It's about contributing, not power or prestige. You'll find your home. Best luck, and hope this helps!
Slashdot Mirror
OK, help me out here - IANAL, but if you are, please just say so and I'll try to understand your points differently - or maybe I'll just believe without understanding (I often reach that point with my own attorneys, and I'm not ashamed to admit ignorance).
Otherwise, here's where you're losing me.
1. I must not document that I met fair use criteria if prosecution can document that they own the copyright. BUT - perhaps I must document that I met fair use criteria if prosecution is trying to prove that I've VIOLATED the copyright they've documented owning. There's a world of difference in that. At face value, what you say is wrong.
2. The whole "Simply put..." paragraph seems not internally self-consistent. I'm sure criminal law attempts to uphold innocent until proven guilty. So it's possible (and does happen every day) for all sorts of prosecutorial attempts at proofs of guilt to be presented - but defense quite often invokes proving contrary facts to disprove the prosecution. Example - "I can prove you murdered your wife last night in New York." "No, you can't - I can prove I was in LA last night." Example - "I can prove that you used our copyrighted material and contend that you had no right to do so in the way that you did." "You are incorrect - I can prove that I was exercising my Fair Use rights." As far as I can see, arguments to the contrary dismiss wrongful prosecution as an impossibility - and that's not OK.
3. Isn't it true that defense often proves that prosecution is wrong precisely because the accused was within their rights?
4. In criminal law in New Mexico, it doesn't say I do not have the right kill someone. It says that I do not have the right to kill someone with an exception of self-defense even unto death when no option to the contrary is available to me. If I were attacked, and had no option, and exercised my right, I would face a grand jury (minimum) or even go to court (more likely now that a scant 30 years ago) because they could prove that I killed someone. My defense would be precisely to prove that the fact that I killed someone notwithstanding, I did so within my rights and was not merely not found guilty - as you phrase it - but instead would be found not guilty. Again, a world of difference in those two statements. (I wish I could find online the statement published in the Albuquerque newspapers in 1976 by the local prosecutor. When asked when it was legal to kill an intruder into your home or onto your property with a firearm, he replied that it was not legal to do so until you had the felon squarely in your sights - otherwise, you'd face prosecution as a menace to the public for missing. No one was shocked at this "cavalier" attitude - they were amused that newcomers kept having to have this explained to them, hence, the newspaper article.)
If you're a lawyer, I'll accept what you say, and that I'm wrong, and be glad that I don't retain you and/or that I don't live in your state. If you're not, please either recognize that you're wrong, or try to show me again that I am using internally self-consistent arguments. TIA, and I do mean that very sincerely.
If Fair Use is the appropriate charge against infringement, then the charge was not valid, period. It was only valid to bring the charge before the people for disposal. Again - two very different things.
You keep using the word right and I don't that word means what you think it means.
I watched the Usurf debacle unfold from the sidelines. You are correct - the city had no idea and a fool and his money are soon parted.
0 /news/story6.txt
Now there's Azulstar: http://www.observer-online.com/articles/2006/03/2
Thought you'd find it interesting.
Uhhh .... the obligatory IANAL ..... but I'm under the impression that fair use is a defintion specifying a specific right reserved to the end-user under copyright law. Just because a right can be invoked as a defense strategy doesn't mean it isn't a right - isn't that so?
Rio Rancho, NM (where Intel made Pentiums) went this route beginning a few years ago. It's had mixed success, with the city threatening to rebid and other actions. One of the allegations made in a local paper (maybe not online, not sure, but you can try AbqTrib links from googling "rio rancho wireless broadband" and getting a trial access or something - I won't) was that the contractor was using home-grade rather than industrial-grade components in severe-environment areas. The following link discusses that they're fixing this and Wichita's POV on it.
0 7/06/04/story3.html
http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/20
I really don't want to fuel discussions about the evil-ness of businesses but I do want to add to the debate about whether government control or free enterprise are the ways to get this done, and I just want to share - as an admittedly-ridiculous data-point-of-one - views as a resident where this occured, in response to many comments made already.
1. Unfair/hidden taxation. Rio Rancho has a lot of retirees, but it also thinks like it's the 2000s, not the 1990s. IOW, no one really questioned if it were fair if taxes were required for this if they didn't want the service, any more than they question if school taxes are fair if they don't have kids. It adds to the quality of life and with taxation, there has to be give and take. If you live somewhere where quality of life isn't a concern, I suggest moving.
2. Should it be a utility-like thing like water, under city control, etc? Yes. No one trusted that any vendor or vendors could serve students in hard-to-wifi areas, schools, Intel, the city, unless contractually required to do so.
3. Should it be a utility-like thing.... (same question). No. No one trusts city hall to understand the internet correctly.
4. Should it be franchised, like cable? Absolutely not. Horror stories abound with last-mile-of-cable problems, access rates being fixed to near-impossible-to-change copper/fiber/switch infrastructures, not to mention all of the other evils associated with cable franchises. The goal of city-wide wireless access is to fix all of that.
5. That Rio Rancho had trouble and had to re-groove the supplier means the supplier, like any other, will be greedy. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they just got in over their heads by inexperience. But having contractual control by the city meant they could be compelled to fix things or face a contract lawsuit - way different than the steering-committee nightmares associated with listening to a cable franchise explain (lie) about why something cannot be done. IOW, swift action is occuring.
And I guess that's my overall perspective. It's a new area, but not without precedent. Vendor/providers are still discovering the right way to execute the business, or discovering new business models for this. Cities need to find the right balance between control and bureaucracy. Citizens need to hold their cities and vendors accountable.
Not trying to suggest a utopian model or claim that Rio Rancho's way is right - the jury is still way out on that, but maybe it will be ok.
Just want to emphasize - there are good and bad precendents to study on this.
Uhhhh ... you mean like this? http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/69de/
Clipped music means that the system can't reproduce the transition from wavefront to wave decay over time, so the top of the wave is clipped, or flattened - so, at that point, the system is putting out a biased DC voltage during that time, rather than AC. This causes nasty things in the amplifiers, nastier things in speakers and even nastier things in your ears.
Something like that, anyway.
Not a big problem if pipes leak???????????
Have you ever heard of a LOCA - loss of coolant accident? OK, these were different pipes - merely the ones carrying fissile material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_coolant
No, I didn't think so.
Sure, a big mess, some radioactivity, but we're talking self-limiting here, nothing like a mushroom cloud.Great thinking, Edison. Got a solution for the Chernobyl Sarcophogus? Have any concept of the loss of life that occured immediately there, or the ongoing cancers faced by the people in the now dead zone?
http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/data/chernobyl- today/sarcophagus.conditions.html
No, I didn't think so.
1. No company - or agency - can change classifications without oversight from a senior agency.
2. Classifications are in fact mandated by a set of strict procedures - nothing as slack as guidelines are acceptable.
3. There are oversight processes in place at every facility handling any type of classified material - period. It even includes very regular visits with plenty of hands-on inspections. It absolutely includes inspections of new or changed documents/classifications.
4. Therefore this couldn't have been anything less than hiding the information - perhaps within some narrow defintion of the correct procedures, and most certainly successfully - but no way it wasn't "hiding."
You are posting things you have absolutely no firsthand knowledge of - or are purposefully misleading about things - with an air of calm authority to pose supposedly thoughtful questions or new ideas, which to be kind, are nothing less than mendacious and you know it.
Who in the hell modded you insightful?
It is illegal per the Espionage Act of 1972 to disclose publicly or acknowledge having retained a security clearance. Do not even try to give me the rubarb that you've held any clearance whatsoever in your life as a response to this. And FWI, you wanna know what a LACK of reporting looks like?????? Read a copy of the NRC Newsletter - where if you don't have sufficient backup oil for an oil change to a never-used emergency generator, that MIGHT be used in case of an accident, you'll report to congress and you will face the consequences (a true story from a regulated (is there any other kind?) commercial reactor in the US). And anything in the military nuclear supply chain is even more stringent - way, way, way more.
Don't mod me flamebait. Mod me flaming pissed.
I suppose it's not hard to believe that most people don't have HDTV - but where did you learn that most most people don't know how to work them?
Early adopters such as myself certainly do/did what all early adopters of any technology do - learned the ins and outs, decided to accept the throwaway risk. In so doing, the early adopters of any technology are (partially) used by the industry to shape sustaining features (see the AVS forum - manufacturers and content providers do listen) - and the early adopters influence the next tier of buyers, usually friends or business associates and thereby share their experiences. That entire group most certainly as a rule knows how to work their TV sets (allowing that you must mean something about connecting to home theatre equipment or something...)
I think it's in the next tier of market advancement - the one we've only just now entered for HDTV, IMO. Among the mass market, I'm sure confusion will abound. To this day, people that still have VCRs may still have a blinking 12:00 on them - I don't know - but I wouldn't characterize them as not being able to work their VCRs.
I'll accept - without any checking - that most don't download to an HTPC, because that in and of itself is still in the early adoption stage. (I use MacMini for my HTPC and pay attention to offerings and planned offerings - so as an HTPC early adopter, I think my opinion to agree with you counts for something - maybe.)
Your point on Microsoft not being business retarded I can't agree with whole cloth. For the most part, you're dead on - but each business unit has its own management. And Microsoft is somewhat brain dead, not merely business retarded, when it comes to the new digital consumption for HDTV.
My arguments are:
1. Brought to you by the same people who killed the iPod with Zune?
2. DRM in WMP10?
3. If I owned or worked for a company good at acquistion, good at taking credit for other work after jumping on the bandwagon later, I would probably not be so good at jumping right into a new technology and acting any other way than business retarded (not knowing my own identity), unto the point of acting brane dead.
How did MS get into the HD-DVD business? AFAIR, it was because Gates decided to not miss out on the bandwagon - and he wasn't going to catch up with HDTV unless they did something proactive any more than they were/are going to catch up with digital music. Good business sense, but wishes ain't horse and not everybuddy gets to ride.
Finally, for anyone who cares to read on, my 2 cents on the whole HD-DVD and Blu-ray debate is simply this - 720p and 1080i sets handle about a megapixel every 60th of a second. Marketing aside, that's why both are truly HD. HD-DVD and Blu-ray is designed (as far as I know) for 1080p, or two megapixels/(1sec/60). Does this mean, SoWhatEarlymon - soon everyone will have 1080p? Nope. After a certain point in megapixels, you need things like contrast, color range, trueness, etc - in fact, once megapixel rates are in the same neighborhood, those are the driving factors for picture quality - and why people with better HDTVs don't fanboy themselves into the 720p/1080i/1080p arguments.
So next year, when you go into a store and compare three similarly priced TVs with the same high-quality signal input - if one is 720p, one is 1080i, one is 1080p you're either going to buy the bigger number - or the one that looks best to you. And if the 1080p's don't hit the same price points with the same high quality as some of the 720p or 1080i sets, then 1080p isn't going to dominate - again, all in my opinion.
(If you have any doubts on the above two points - go to a camera store and compare digital cameras - is quality merely a function of megapixels because, afer all, it's all digital? I think most people now see my point.)
But if I'm right - and from discussions over these years with many other early adopters (I've met locally and online) - then you'll continue to see the lukewarm response to the wh
This is a little off-topic, but maybe the info is revealing:
.... ) she handed us three of these little charms. They were in the shape of little Taiwan Beer bottles, just less than half of your index finger in length.
I was in a pub in Taiwan last week, and the Taiwan Beer Girl came by, handing out promotional items. One thing very popular in Asia from my view is little cell phone charms. For ordering a Taiwan Beer (which I highly recommend
The point? They have green and red LEDs inside that are RF sensitive and they light up when your phone rings - even if on ring-mute.
RF detectors for your cell phone to show activity - free at a local bar. I tried to explain the state of things back home on our cell phone capabilities - they flatly refused to believe that these little charms aren't being handed out for free in our bars, much less what we go through for contract details, etc. I'm still amazed.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/03/openmoko-detail s-pricing-availability-for-neo1973/
hth
Sometimes, I have to carry a phone in my pocket as opposed to some kind of holster. I'm kinda looking forward to trying something with non-snagging edges.
I also like the differentiation from a peer-marketing POV. Already, anyone carrying an iPhone is noticed in our group, and perhaps unbelievably to some, not for the OoooooohAaaaah of it, but for the, "How does it work? I've been hearing about it..." factors. I don't think it will take too long to gauge the response, once they're more widely available, to a red oval phone.
Plus, it'll match my red Swingline.
I was primed for an iPhone - but after hearing so much both ways, I'm going to need some direct feedback from pals before making a final decision on it. I recognize that I may represent a minority-type thinker, but I think the same will apply to the OpenMoko.
(Yeah, yeah, yeah - Neo1973 - whatever - I for one hate consumer products with alphabet soup names. Swift kick for a phone that says FIC on the front, but it's really a Neo1973, er, OpenMoko, er.... it's a dessert topping, it's a floor wax (now that's the '70s).)
The only thing I've seen for this in the last month is a suction-cupped gooseneck cradle. I've seen quite a few of those in Taiwan, and the picture that I saw was same thing - for hands-free speakerphone/bluetooth driving - no power, no data, no sound - but comforming to the oval shape, with - AFAIR - the right side of the phone cradle open.
/.'d right now, so, sorry, I can't find the link for it.
Everything's
But they seem to have been working on/thinking of something. One thing's certain - if it's slightly profitable to do so, Taiwan or China will build accessories for it.
It's time that hasn't stood up to the test. Just ask Michael Valentine Smith.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/09/24/business/t
A job given to one person is almost always a job loss to another - the only way to break the stagnant cycle of the conservation of jobs is to provide expansion, and that where high-tech comes in, in today's world. A new job isn't one that has moved to your neighborhood - it's one that has been created from whole cloth. Get enough of those jobs, and you change a community. Then immigrants provide diversity and that's something that you put on your bottom line - but it impacts your quality of life in the best way possible.
So, not all profitable company growth is good - see Enron wrt taking care of shareholders. But all good company growth is profitable.
Wow. Troll was the least of my intentions, most sincerely. I apologize for the bandwidth and will try to do better in future. FWIW - I negotiate with large corporations for a living and truly intended to pass on what I've gained from experience. Again, sincere apologies for sounding otherwise to any/all offended.
I don't mean to sound cruel or condescending, but my view is that most posts here, with a tip to Feynman, aren't even wrong.
. and.sux/
Paraphrasing/summarizing/(even missing-the-point-you-ignorant-slut if you so choose):
1. "MS would win big by having Vista on Apple as it increases revenue." Booooookay - (and I *AM* writing this on an Apple) - aka, any Apple has to be considered as encroachment on their market dominance. Believe what you want, but Apple and Linux aren't threats to MS (from the marketing standpoint) - they're annoyances. It's not like there's an untapped sea of Apple users who have never heard of Windows and could be shown some kind of light. And then discover Windows thanks to VM. And want more of the same. And give access to a great untapped resource of potential Windows users of which you speak. Or anything, man.
2. "MS could win big with an OEM agreement with Apple." Uhhhhhh.... uuuuuuhhhhhhh - Dell, et al, have no other commercially dominant OS supplier to turn to, whereas Apple is devoid of this problem as they can supply their own OS. The only thing an Apple OEM agreement - in my not-so-humble opinion - could do is to invert negotiations everywhere. OEM agreements don't come from the Keebler Elves, you don't get a bag of them that are pretty much the same wherever you go - they're customized. And Mr. We-will-charge-a-buck-for-tunez-no-matter-what is not going to be easy to negotiate with - and neither will Dell, et al, after finding Apple may have some market lock with questions to be asked.
3. "Apple could win big by having an OEM agreement with MS." Ooooooh - scary - it would be admitting that OS X couldn't do it all - BEEEEP! Wrong. If they failed to get appropriate terms and had to charge to more for WinWhatever, then it increases the chances of adoption failure while Apple marketing has to fend off further charges of being overpriced. Better terms than that? See point number 2.
4. "Could be a support nightmare for MS and not worth the fringe buyers." Mmmmmmm - and which of you isn't a support nightmare for MS? And how much sleep have you seen them lose on your so-called nightmares?
5. "MS is all about control and VM under OS X effectively takes that control away." I went into the future where this happened and overheard Sparky and Scooter wondering what that MS Project thing was that they needed for effective Gant charts and WBS management and why that sideways-infinity thing was needed...... Or not. See points 1 and 3.
Where is Google's legal bitch against MS's desktop search? (See http://all.over.the.web.this.week/) And where is that same Google complaint against Spotlight? (See http://irdf.web-2.0.org/ or http://but.apple.is.small.and.cool.and.ms.is.mean
It's about each side picking their battles, very wisely, with decades of winning and losing in this industry and it's about knowing what side of the consumers' asses to kiss - along with erstwhile partner/competitors - and a few government entities tossed in here and there - and a few renegade lawyers now that I think about it - and when.
But that's just me.
It comes down to what happens physically to the building blocks of the semiconductor under stress - and heat, which I understand is a by-product of overclocking, is a definite stressor.
As for the CPU just hanging, I think you have to know why it's hanging - in the old days (see Celeste BelCastro's research at NASA from the early 70s on CPU reliability if you can find it - it's quite interesting), it was noted that it was important to differentiate between single-event latchup, soft latchups (such as you describe) and hard latchups (damage or its precursor).
I know pretty much doodly squat about overclocking - because I see no reason to stress things beyond their ratings except my car and my relationships - and have no first-hand experience to offer.
But I just wanted to chime in that although you sound very convincing, I hope you're not leading others astray with overgeneralizations. Your statement, as quoted, seems incredibly counterintuitive to me.
OK, sorry for the confusion in my post. I'll clarify.
The VirtualPC WinXP I spoke of was separately purchased and licensed and is still in use on that previous laptop.
The WinXP under Parallels was a completely separate purchase at full retail (US $300 or so afair for the XP alone) - and has been performing very nicely on my MacBook Pro (Intel-based) for a number of months. Nothing on this system has materially changed in these months of being just okey dokey - until I met the trouble mentioned.
I hate retail prices, I hate paying that kind of freight, I hate paying Microsoft - but I hate software piracy a whole lot more, and don't even wade into the gray areas, lest I find myself over my head. So a few hundred clams was a good investment - and certainly was instrumental in my WinXP still running here - or so I believe - as I got okey dokey support (I have had to call MS a number of times for machine rebuilds and so forth, and I'm under the impression that they have some record of me having had to re-install..... (maybe)) - but new install or re-install wasn't involved here. As I said, the other thing I can tie to the transient was going onto the net from Asia.....
I don't do anything but security upgrades to either the host or the VM OS when on travel - when it's your livelihood on the line, an unrecoverable "upgrade" puts too much at stake. So, nothing in this laptop's profile should have been at play.
You may be right. But for many semiconductor dudes (like me), the reasons are many and varied. To name a few:
* use OS X and need Windows
* use Linux/laptop and need Windows
* need or desire to partition an entire OS so that during a presentation, if casually called away from laptop, fewer worries about "innocent" snooping
Business guys adopt tomorrow what the propellerheads did yesterday. Last time I had trouble w/ a net connection for Windows in a hotel in the Bay Area and the drogue started to give me dos-window instructions, I sighed - and got the immediate response: "My apologies. From your reaction you're obviously running VMWare - may I ask if you're on Linux or some other 'nix?"
I think that VM is coming in a big way. ymmv
I believe that there's more to Microsoft's dislike of VM than simply DRM, and I think that they're hoping to be shielded by a bit of DRM FUD.
Last year I was in Taiwan running WinXP under VirtualPC - with the appropriate upgrades after Microsoft had bought the product from its creators - and I had zero trouble.
This year, I'm in Taiwan again, but this time I'm running WinXP under Parallels. Shortly after my use of the machine here on the internet, I got this message telling me that my hardware had significantly changed since the original installation and that I needed to re-validate - I don't recall the rest of the message, but it involved Genuine Advantage and suggestions of unusability. So, even though I'm not carrying my original box around with the keycode (would you??), I decided to be brave and tapped on the warning from the tray as instructed. Took me right to an MS page at what appeared to be Microsoft-Taiwan, and it was quite persistent that I should continue to be routed to some Chinese language page. Long story short, I got some embedded wizard launched, got the MS phone number for the USA (Bangalore notwithstanding), called in, got re-validated and woot, woot, woot.
It seems - very strongly to me - that the only thing that Microsoft could have detected was my location in a way that didn't make sense to them, and I think I triggered something that decided I had a pirated copy. I really haven't had any use of my machine or anything change in any other way to cause me to suspect anything else.
So, how long before business travellers - and we fill a lot of 747s, virtually all running Windows - picking up VM for one reason or another start pitching fits when they discover that they can go into a full-screen presentation and be tagged publicly as potential software pirates?
I couldn't understand why MS had a real problem with Vista under VM, but if the cause I posited is in fact true, then the problem Microsoft is worried about goes back to the XP codebase. Say anything about Vista's new codebase, but it's all from the same company..... so, I think DRM is a specious explanation but it allows them to hide behind something where they can try to claim some innocence regarding VM - when in fact the OS may be more seriously broken w.r.t. VM than they're admitting.
Geez, could you guys be a little less brutal?
For one thing, English is one of the official languages in India - many of their governmental offices were set up by the British (apologies for any inaccuracies in this, my Indian friends explained it to me this way).
For another, the guy is getting trained as best he knows how and is already intimidated by the jargon - advice to seek work elsewhere isn't fair. It's about contributing, not power.
You were green once too, you know.
Perhaps you've partially answered your own question -
Try putting in your sig the following (as you see fit) for anyplace you care to participate:
"I'm an Indian grad student whose CS teachers run away at the mention of Linux. Any assistance or advice on how to mesh with this group is most appreciated. I want to contribute and need help getting started."
Ignore anyone who criticizes you for this - anyone who can't recall their beginnings is a lost cause, and to be avoided.
It's about contributing, not power or prestige. You'll find your home. Best luck, and hope this helps!