I was actually trying to be a little humorous. You or I know before we do it that to scream "first post" is stupid. This person, on the other hand, didn't figure that out until he was down-modded. However, he did figure that out. In other words, he gained some insight. My response was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, which is the reason for my parenthetical comment, in case someone thought I was totally serious.
There is no monopoly. iPhones are something like 3% of the market (units), so that is a laugh. The iPod has about 70% market share (units), and it has not grown for a couple years.
You mean like this? http://www.obd-codes.com/trouble_codes/nissan/
It took me less than a minute to find this (search terms: "nissan computer error codes"). And anyone could get the information out of the service manuals. Don't forget that you can walk into any auto parts store and grab a reader for most common computers, so you don't need a dealer or other mechanic.
Besides, no one is wanting to desolder the chips out of an iPod, so that example is pointless. They want to interface to the iPod in ways not intended by the manufacturer, which the Nissan owner could do. I knew a paraplegic that had after market modifications made to a van that replaced the standard control with a panel board, removed the driver's seat, and added a ramp and pathway to the driver's seat. My father's truck consists of a 49 Ford pickup with a 67 Chevy engine, with an adapter to interface the two. No one wants to use a car's computer apart from the engine. It does not lock down the user of a car in any way, except when that computer must be replaced, it must be purchased from Nissan. But that is true about a book such as the latest Stephen King novel, and generally people don't claim lockdown for physical books -- they are actually a prime example in comparisons to software or eBooks. Cars similarly are much less locked down.
Last, even if you come up with an example where there is lockdown in the presence of proprietary parts, that still does not invalidate "Having proprietary parts does not imply lockdown." Rather, you have to show that in all cases of proprietary parts, there is lockdown.
The stupid part is that it's such a fundamental part of our culture that most people don't even realize it's copyrighted, and yet it's going to be for quite a long time yet.
Until 2030, as it was registered in 1935, if we assume that copyright is not lengthened again. But for us to assume would make an ass out of u and me.
That Nissan of yours has just a *few* more proprietary parts than your iPod... just sayin'.
That's not relevant.
iPods play unlocked content just fine, you know.
That is.
Having proprietary parts does not imply lockdown. What is at issue here is lockdown of use. He can use his Nissan however he darn well pleases (modulo applicable laws). He can not (will not?) with the iPod, however, as alternate interface software is being targeted. Though, he only complains about the locking down of content, as opposed to the interface, which means his complaint is accurately addressed by your second statement.
Offtopic? I would say that anyone who tried to make a "first post" blew it. Thus, the above comment is spot on. Apparently BountyX has gained some insight. (But don't anyone dare mod it insightful! We don't want to encourage such things.)
At the time, it meant a huge flood of works into a market that was not originating many works. All countries go through this -- China will not (really) enforce laws on IP until such time as they start originating IP in large amounts. It provides a way for developing countries to get up to speed faster (and yes, the US was a developing country at that time).
The tail refers to the increased sales of less popular products. If you have one seller selling the most popular n products, and another that sells all products, then the difference of total sales between the two can be larger than the total sales of the first. The reason it applies here is that Amazon can sell Monty Python (which, sadly to say, is not appreciated by all) while the average seller does not. Basically, Internet sellers can use the long tail effect to their advantage by having larger inventories at minimal cost.
The effect of this is that more products in the tail are available, and therefore more get sold. This paper shows that while traditionally the top 20% of most popular products capture 80% of the market, on the net it captures only 73%.
(Though, in all fairness, more fun than guys losing tools was when an Indonesian sat got hit by feces. Literally. That's when NASA stopped dumping their shit in space.)
[Citation needed]
Anything "dropped" in orbit stays in orbit until/unless the orbit decays, at which point it hits atmosphere, and then things start burning up. Whatever hits the ground would not be recognizable. Besides, in googling around, I could only find things that talked about how feces was stored, and only greywater got dumped.
The orbits of the tool bag and the shuttle will intersect at between one and four places, depending on the direction it was pushed in. Also, the touch points are not necessarily 180 degrees apart.
However, that is just a niggling point. The real point is that the two ellipses are different, and the orbital periods are going to be slightly different as a result. Therefore, after exactly one orbital period of the shuttle, the tool bag will not be there. The 90 minutes/1 mph/1.5 mi calculation is probably off, but the idea is correct -- the bag will take a different amount of time to get back to the orbits' intersection point than the shuttle. Not much different, but space is big.
I actually agree with everything but the first paragraph. My conclusion is not that the line is meaningless, but that it is hard to draw, and since much clearer concepts in law are still really hard to figure out, I do not think that his system will work. Law needs lines that are well enough defined for society can function, and his distinctions do not provide that.
However, that said, his statement does have meaning, and so the proper response is to say, "What clear distinction can I make that best approximates the fuzzy distinction I have in my head?" For a long time, that was words affixed on a page that demonstrated creativity. Perhaps we should return to that.
It was backwards-compatibility, both with programs and user expectations. HFSX is the way to go if you want case-sensitivity. Just beware, some programs assume non-case-sensitivity, and break in mysterious ways if the assumption is broken (Just as the opposite is true for many Unix utilities).
I bought a MacBookPro two years ago because "it's UNIX, you'll love it". It's not UNIX and I don't love it.
Have you noticed the file system is not case sensitive?
The default filesystem is not case sensitive. So? Unix is not defined by the filesystem it runs on, but the kernel. HFS is case-preserving, and is even when used under Linux. Does that make Linux not Unix? Besides, if you really want to, use HFSX or UFS for a case-sensitive file system.
Or perhaps you noticed all the extra files that reside on Mac systems when you tar a directory?
Again, so? Some Mac operations leave around extra files (resource forks, metadata, etc.) when interfacing with file systems that do not support rich metadata. That is the MacOS compensating for the lack of rich metadata storage.
Not really UNIX, but where are dump and restore?
Oh, so you require that your favorite backup programs be installed in order for it to be called Unix? Even though almost no one will use them (if they even use backup utilities). Apple can't put every tool that has ever been traditionally on some Unix system in a Mac install. If you really want it, get the source!
And there *are* problems getting X-11 to play nice w/cocoa. For example, look at the issues between MagicDrawUML and Eclipse. Works great on X boxes, won't work at all under cocoa. This isn't the only example, just the one irrtating me today.
I can't find anything about it. While I will admit that programs that interact with two radically different UIs (X11/Cocoa) can have problems, I do not see how this illustrates the "not Unix" point. Cocoa is not standard Unix, and why you expect a Unix program to magically understand it is beyond me.
Granted, at least it isn't windows and the hardware is nice enough. But it isn't UNIX.
Well, you haven't given any reasons for that yet, so here is some thoughts. Would you consider Nextstep to be Unix? Straight from BSD. Then, futz with it a bit and call it Darwin. Not Unix? It's Posix, and it can be made to look like any other BSD. Then change the directory structure around a bit, and add a new UI. That makes it not Unix? I don't think so. Take a Posix program and compile it (assuming a full Mac install with optional components) and it will run.
Perhaps you are complaining that the Mac does not feel like Unix. Well, that's a good thing, because the average person can't deal with traditional Unix feel. If you like the traditional Unix feel, run X11 all the time. Because the Mac is Unix.
Ever hear of the NFS options to squash root access? It'll map to the user 'nobody' if you do it right. Presto, instant client root limitations.
Squashing root access is useless. You su root, then su to the user whose files you want to access.
NFS was written back in the time when anyone with root access was trusted. The security measures on top of it are afterthoughts and not well integrated. That is not to say that they don't work, but there exist better solutions now, like the Andrew File System.
A name is nothing more than an identity. It is not an individual. This applies to either birth names, legal names, aliases, nicknames, login names, etc. In California, common law states that any name that you regularly use in public affairs is a legal name. My brother changed his name that way. The real question is whether to use a name that is traceable to an individual, and with how much effort. All you need is to be able to prove the individual behind the identity, should you have a requirement to do so later. And if you want anonymity, you have a name that is not traceable.
It's the fact that Michelle is a woman's name, and much more common than Michele. I had never seen a Michele before 8 months ago, and you are the second. And I am in America.
It's also interesting in its inconsistency -- Stallman has no problem with copyright, or with any work of art being regarded as proprietary -- except in the case of software.
Another useful copyright reform is decreasing the breadth of copyright: works should be divided into categories so they can be governed better independently. There are, Stallman said, three types of copyrighted works today:
Works of practical use
Works of opinion
Works of Art and Entertainment
Practical works include software, recipes, educational material, and typefaces (and more). All of these must be free (as in freedom), Stallman said. "If it is required to do a job, and you don't control it, you don't control your life," he said. Recipes passed from person to person, free software, free typefaces, and Wikipedia are all examples of free practical works. There's "more to do," Stallman said, but we've proved it can be done.
Given that you know that there is mean, median, and mode, you should know that they are all called an "average". So, for a suitably defined "average" (median) in any distribution, 50% are below average. And given how intelligence works, I think median is the most meaningful measure. Have you ever noticed that standardized tests are all in percentiles?
Slashdot Mirror
I was actually trying to be a little humorous. You or I know before we do it that to scream "first post" is stupid. This person, on the other hand, didn't figure that out until he was down-modded. However, he did figure that out. In other words, he gained some insight. My response was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, which is the reason for my parenthetical comment, in case someone thought I was totally serious.
There is no monopoly. iPhones are something like 3% of the market (units), so that is a laugh. The iPod has about 70% market share (units), and it has not grown for a couple years.
You mean like this?
http://www.obd-codes.com/trouble_codes/nissan/
It took me less than a minute to find this (search terms: "nissan computer error codes"). And anyone could get the information out of the service manuals. Don't forget that you can walk into any auto parts store and grab a reader for most common computers, so you don't need a dealer or other mechanic.
Besides, no one is wanting to desolder the chips out of an iPod, so that example is pointless. They want to interface to the iPod in ways not intended by the manufacturer, which the Nissan owner could do. I knew a paraplegic that had after market modifications made to a van that replaced the standard control with a panel board, removed the driver's seat, and added a ramp and pathway to the driver's seat. My father's truck consists of a 49 Ford pickup with a 67 Chevy engine, with an adapter to interface the two. No one wants to use a car's computer apart from the engine. It does not lock down the user of a car in any way, except when that computer must be replaced, it must be purchased from Nissan. But that is true about a book such as the latest Stephen King novel, and generally people don't claim lockdown for physical books -- they are actually a prime example in comparisons to software or eBooks. Cars similarly are much less locked down.
Last, even if you come up with an example where there is lockdown in the presence of proprietary parts, that still does not invalidate "Having proprietary parts does not imply lockdown." Rather, you have to show that in all cases of proprietary parts, there is lockdown.
The stupid part is that it's such a fundamental part of our culture that most people don't even realize it's copyrighted, and yet it's going to be for quite a long time yet.
Until 2030, as it was registered in 1935, if we assume that copyright is not lengthened again. But for us to assume would make an ass out of u and me.
That Nissan of yours has just a *few* more proprietary parts than your iPod... just sayin'.
That's not relevant.
iPods play unlocked content just fine, you know.
That is.
Having proprietary parts does not imply lockdown. What is at issue here is lockdown of use. He can use his Nissan however he darn well pleases (modulo applicable laws). He can not (will not?) with the iPod, however, as alternate interface software is being targeted. Though, he only complains about the locking down of content, as opposed to the interface, which means his complaint is accurately addressed by your second statement.
Offtopic? I would say that anyone who tried to make a "first post" blew it. Thus, the above comment is spot on. Apparently BountyX has gained some insight. (But don't anyone dare mod it insightful! We don't want to encourage such things.)
In older software, you actually did get a hole where the video was. The hole would be filled with some odd color (I think it was pink).
At the time, it meant a huge flood of works into a market that was not originating many works. All countries go through this -- China will not (really) enforce laws on IP until such time as they start originating IP in large amounts. It provides a way for developing countries to get up to speed faster (and yes, the US was a developing country at that time).
The tail refers to the increased sales of less popular products. If you have one seller selling the most popular n products, and another that sells all products, then the difference of total sales between the two can be larger than the total sales of the first. The reason it applies here is that Amazon can sell Monty Python (which, sadly to say, is not appreciated by all) while the average seller does not. Basically, Internet sellers can use the long tail effect to their advantage by having larger inventories at minimal cost.
The effect of this is that more products in the tail are available, and therefore more get sold. This paper shows that while traditionally the top 20% of most popular products capture 80% of the market, on the net it captures only 73%.
An African or European swallow?
... you want room 12A, just along the corridor.
This makes it sound a little less inane. However, it was apparently a survey conducted online. So, it is pretty bad.
And you got modded funny too, despite your seriousness. Wake up moderators! What next, this is funny?
(Though, in all fairness, more fun than guys losing tools was when an Indonesian sat got hit by feces. Literally. That's when NASA stopped dumping their shit in space.)
[Citation needed]
Anything "dropped" in orbit stays in orbit until/unless the orbit decays, at which point it hits atmosphere, and then things start burning up. Whatever hits the ground would not be recognizable. Besides, in googling around, I could only find things that talked about how feces was stored, and only greywater got dumped.
The orbits of the tool bag and the shuttle will intersect at between one and four places, depending on the direction it was pushed in. Also, the touch points are not necessarily 180 degrees apart.
However, that is just a niggling point. The real point is that the two ellipses are different, and the orbital periods are going to be slightly different as a result. Therefore, after exactly one orbital period of the shuttle, the tool bag will not be there. The 90 minutes/1 mph/1.5 mi calculation is probably off, but the idea is correct -- the bag will take a different amount of time to get back to the orbits' intersection point than the shuttle. Not much different, but space is big.
I actually agree with everything but the first paragraph. My conclusion is not that the line is meaningless, but that it is hard to draw, and since much clearer concepts in law are still really hard to figure out, I do not think that his system will work. Law needs lines that are well enough defined for society can function, and his distinctions do not provide that.
However, that said, his statement does have meaning, and so the proper response is to say, "What clear distinction can I make that best approximates the fuzzy distinction I have in my head?" For a long time, that was words affixed on a page that demonstrated creativity. Perhaps we should return to that.
It was backwards-compatibility, both with programs and user expectations. HFSX is the way to go if you want case-sensitivity. Just beware, some programs assume non-case-sensitivity, and break in mysterious ways if the assumption is broken (Just as the opposite is true for many Unix utilities).
I bought a MacBookPro two years ago because "it's UNIX, you'll love it". It's not UNIX and I don't love it.
Have you noticed the file system is not case sensitive?
The default filesystem is not case sensitive. So? Unix is not defined by the filesystem it runs on, but the kernel. HFS is case-preserving, and is even when used under Linux. Does that make Linux not Unix? Besides, if you really want to, use HFSX or UFS for a case-sensitive file system.
Or perhaps you noticed all the extra files that reside on Mac systems when you tar a directory?
Again, so? Some Mac operations leave around extra files (resource forks, metadata, etc.) when interfacing with file systems that do not support rich metadata. That is the MacOS compensating for the lack of rich metadata storage.
Not really UNIX, but where are dump and restore?
Oh, so you require that your favorite backup programs be installed in order for it to be called Unix? Even though almost no one will use them (if they even use backup utilities). Apple can't put every tool that has ever been traditionally on some Unix system in a Mac install. If you really want it, get the source!
And there *are* problems getting X-11 to play nice w/cocoa. For example, look at the issues between MagicDrawUML and Eclipse. Works great on X boxes, won't work at all under cocoa. This isn't the only example, just the one irrtating me today.
I can't find anything about it. While I will admit that programs that interact with two radically different UIs (X11/Cocoa) can have problems, I do not see how this illustrates the "not Unix" point. Cocoa is not standard Unix, and why you expect a Unix program to magically understand it is beyond me.
Granted, at least it isn't windows and the hardware is nice enough. But it isn't UNIX.
Well, you haven't given any reasons for that yet, so here is some thoughts. Would you consider Nextstep to be Unix? Straight from BSD. Then, futz with it a bit and call it Darwin. Not Unix? It's Posix, and it can be made to look like any other BSD. Then change the directory structure around a bit, and add a new UI. That makes it not Unix? I don't think so. Take a Posix program and compile it (assuming a full Mac install with optional components) and it will run.
Perhaps you are complaining that the Mac does not feel like Unix. Well, that's a good thing, because the average person can't deal with traditional Unix feel. If you like the traditional Unix feel, run X11 all the time. Because the Mac is Unix.
Ever hear of the NFS options to squash root access? It'll map to the user 'nobody' if you do it right. Presto, instant client root limitations.
Squashing root access is useless. You su root, then su to the user whose files you want to access. NFS was written back in the time when anyone with root access was trusted. The security measures on top of it are afterthoughts and not well integrated. That is not to say that they don't work, but there exist better solutions now, like the Andrew File System.
A name is nothing more than an identity. It is not an individual. This applies to either birth names, legal names, aliases, nicknames, login names, etc. In California, common law states that any name that you regularly use in public affairs is a legal name. My brother changed his name that way. The real question is whether to use a name that is traceable to an individual, and with how much effort. All you need is to be able to prove the individual behind the identity, should you have a requirement to do so later. And if you want anonymity, you have a name that is not traceable.
It's the fact that Michelle is a woman's name, and much more common than Michele. I had never seen a Michele before 8 months ago, and you are the second. And I am in America.
It's also interesting in its inconsistency -- Stallman has no problem with copyright, or with any work of art being regarded as proprietary -- except in the case of software.
Actually, it is all "works of practical use".
Another useful copyright reform is decreasing the breadth of copyright: works should be divided into categories so they can be governed better independently. There are, Stallman said, three types of copyrighted works today:
Practical works include software, recipes, educational material, and typefaces (and more). All of these must be free (as in freedom), Stallman said. "If it is required to do a job, and you don't control it, you don't control your life," he said. Recipes passed from person to person, free software, free typefaces, and Wikipedia are all examples of free practical works. There's "more to do," Stallman said, but we've proved it can be done.
He also calls them "functional works".
Given that you know that there is mean, median, and mode, you should know that they are all called an "average". So, for a suitably defined "average" (median) in any distribution, 50% are below average. And given how intelligence works, I think median is the most meaningful measure. Have you ever noticed that standardized tests are all in percentiles?
I don't suppose you have ever watched a low-rider with loud mufflers drive by that same row of cars? It actually happens.
Sorry, but how does lack of flash cripple email? Javascript, maybe.