As I am just getting done dealing with a hard drive failure on my home machine, it has become apparent that more space is not always better. Sure, you can store tons of whatever on it, but what about when it dies? I spent many hours figuring out how to rearrange the space on my other machines to try and back up my data and it was just a plain chore. It would be nice if backup technology started to pick up the pace a little bit, because backing up 30G onto DVDs even is not acceptible.
Because everybody knows that Microsoft does not want to force a single, closed document format on all state agencies.
Read the statement more carefully:
Microsoft's Yates said the company agrees with the adoption of XML but does not agree that the solution to "public records management is to force a single, less functional document format on all state agencies."
They're not opposed to forcing a single document format on all state agencies, they're opposed to the *level of functionality* in the format that Massachusetts has chosen.
So clearly it *is* permanantly irrevocable, which is a good thing.
Exactly...that's the *point* of the Creative Commons that he doesn't get. So you fork your work private at some point (book-only update to an essay or something), the older stuff remains under the CC license. This is what he can't get his head around, that anybody would even want to be able to do this. He thinks the old version of the essay would devalue the book-only update, which is silly.
He also equates compensation with perfect control over the work's use. This is the attitude of such an ivory...well, not so academic...*platinum* tower of entitlement addiction that it basically translates to, "How'm I gonna buy a Jaguar *now*?" He doesn't know, he's behind the curve, he's spent too much time writing puff pieces for ad clicks that he finds himself out of touch with what's happening. Poor Andrew!
for Google to buy up a small part of the worlds existing as-yet-unused-broadband infrastructure only means that Google wants to still be relevant in 3 years time. I don't think it means anything more than that... it is what every telecomms company should be doing to ensure relevance in the comming All-IP all the time world.
The difference is that not many people think of Google as a telecom company.
"Hi, I'm going to Burning Man next week to prance around the desert in my fur coat high on Ecstasy. However, I don't feel like I'm doing enough for the world by engaging in these activities, is there a way for me to charge my iPod without buying gas from The Man?"
indeed. they've already set the groundwork for popular and exploitable technologies, the only thing left is for them to play cop for the crimes they invented.
Don't put the blame on them, because truly it's the system's fault for not salting the passwords.
Oh, I'm not assigning blame. While the IT department should certainly account for their incompetence, that the administration lashes out rather than admit to a problem really comes as no surprise.
More often then not people are dumb and easily scared. Every time you do something they don't expect you to do, they might treat you as a criminal, no matter what your intentions.
This is why it's not a good idea to humiliate people who have more power than you if you have something to lose.
so what is being sustained when the monopoly begets inferior products? are we supposed to be glad we get a madden game at all, just because nobody else was qualified to create something so good? EA is just milking it, plain and simple. you want to play a football video game, well take it and like it sucker.
"I haven't published anything in months since the information coming out about the history of the "SCO vs. The World" cases made me look like an idiot. Watch me astroturf my own story onto Slashdot so I can get some advertising money. Also, as anybody ever told you about a great little company called Amway?..."
But once they all have done it (and, yeah, I know that will take quite a few years), what happens next?
Space tourism seems to me like it might end up being more of a fad than anything else unless we can make space an actual destination
What's wrong with a fad? It won't end there, time and ideas will march on once people know what to expect. History tells us that there are early adopters, then a critical mass becomes interested (which is sometimes denigrated as a fad), then enough people have experience to figure out new things to do with the idea. It's no big deal, and nobody's come up with a practical way to just jump from zillion dollar personal trips to Phloston Paradise. It takes a "once they have all done it" to build upon the experience.
The governments philosophy is clear; make us 'feel' so confused and guilty-- in EVERYTHING that we do (and don't do),
The historical method for increasing government control over peoples' lives is to treat more and more things as if they were emergencies, which keeps people freaked out and pining for help. Where would America be today without weird people on the subway and people trying to see porn whenever they can? Well, now you're supposed to tell the government whenever you notice it.
There will soon be facial recognition scanning done in most metropolitan areas, airports, etc and they will know everything you do, buy and are interested in.
I wonder about the old saying that goes something like, "Never attribute to malice that which is easilly attributable to incompetence," or something to that effect. I've always been of the mind that one should never attribute to incompetence that which is easilly attributable to malice.
Well that's the pessimistic view, to be sure, but Hanlon's Razor has never really applied here, though I've really tried to make it so. I just can't figure out where the incompetence lies. They haven't shown any evidence that they could have misinterpreted, they have gone out of their way to badmouth their opponents, and they've spent the last three years innovating new and exciting ways to polish a turd in each and every one of their stockholder conference calls. I've looked, asked, and googled for the slightest shred of incompetently applied legal force, and I can't find it. Sometime's Hanlon's law doesn't apply and the people are being truly malicious. It happens.
Under certain economic systems this may be true, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of being physically possible. You're trying to apply something like Zeno's dichotomy paradox to resource exhaustion.
After basically ignoring the SCO UNIX market and worse -- attacking some of his best customers, Darl is doing a volte-face. The key question is: WHY?
I don't know if you were here last week, but Novell asked the court to freeze SCOs assets because SCO hasn't been paying Novell its share of UNIX licensing for the past few years. This is money that SCO has been using to fuel it's sue-happy strategy.
Why couldn't they have done this several months ago, before my boss started looking closely at Wikipedia, and their method of allowing anyone - even users not logged into specific user accounts - to edit a given page?
I think they did do it several months ago. Here's a clip from one of their config docs:
* By adding the following line to LocalSettings.php, it is possible to entirely disable anonymous edits:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
That kind of stupidity doesn't adequately explain it. Either someone doesn't know how to read or they have incompetents handling their administration. That is, why the mistaken terminology?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a law for hardrives, the Murphy's law :)
As I am just getting done dealing with a hard drive failure on my home machine, it has become apparent that more space is not always better. Sure, you can store tons of whatever on it, but what about when it dies? I spent many hours figuring out how to rearrange the space on my other machines to try and back up my data and it was just a plain chore. It would be nice if backup technology started to pick up the pace a little bit, because backing up 30G onto DVDs even is not acceptible.
I remember J.S. Bach's 'A Musical Game' and all the people who have subsequently imitated it.
Oldest. Music snob. Ever.
Because everybody knows that Microsoft does not want to force a single, closed document format on all state agencies.
Read the statement more carefully:
Microsoft's Yates said the company agrees with the adoption of XML but does not agree that the solution to "public records management is to force a single, less functional document format on all state agencies."
They're not opposed to forcing a single document format on all state agencies, they're opposed to the *level of functionality* in the format that Massachusetts has chosen.
Any internal slashdotty-type person care to comment?
lol. that'll be the day.
So clearly it *is* permanantly irrevocable, which is a good thing.
Exactly...that's the *point* of the Creative Commons that he doesn't get. So you fork your work private at some point (book-only update to an essay or something), the older stuff remains under the CC license. This is what he can't get his head around, that anybody would even want to be able to do this. He thinks the old version of the essay would devalue the book-only update, which is silly.
He also equates compensation with perfect control over the work's use. This is the attitude of such an ivory...well, not so academic...*platinum* tower of entitlement addiction that it basically translates to, "How'm I gonna buy a Jaguar *now*?" He doesn't know, he's behind the curve, he's spent too much time writing puff pieces for ad clicks that he finds himself out of touch with what's happening. Poor Andrew!
for Google to buy up a small part of the worlds existing as-yet-unused-broadband infrastructure only means that Google wants to still be relevant in 3 years time. I don't think it means anything more than that... it is what every telecomms company should be doing to ensure relevance in the comming All-IP all the time world.
The difference is that not many people think of Google as a telecom company.
Actually most people for this bring kilowatt generators.
Which run on...?
Or in plain english, sure the lawyers get paid, but it's not coming out of your rebate so STFU and stop whining.
This is not entirely true. The negotiations of settlement are such that the fees the lawyers receive can affect the level of rebate.
"Hi, I'm going to Burning Man next week to prance around the desert in my fur coat high on Ecstasy. However, I don't feel like I'm doing enough for the world by engaging in these activities, is there a way for me to charge my iPod without buying gas from The Man?"
indeed. they've already set the groundwork for popular and exploitable technologies, the only thing left is for them to play cop for the crimes they invented.
If a user doesn't wanna be tracked, they won't be tracked. This story is just press, free advertisement, and hype for this particular company.
Whoa, whoa...let's not fly off the handle here! We don't know that they didn't pay anything.
Don't put the blame on them, because truly it's the system's fault for not salting the passwords.
Oh, I'm not assigning blame. While the IT department should certainly account for their incompetence, that the administration lashes out rather than admit to a problem really comes as no surprise.
More often then not people are dumb and easily scared. Every time you do something they don't expect you to do, they might treat you as a criminal, no matter what your intentions.
This is why it's not a good idea to humiliate people who have more power than you if you have something to lose.
so what is being sustained when the monopoly begets inferior products? are we supposed to be glad we get a madden game at all, just because nobody else was qualified to create something so good? EA is just milking it, plain and simple. you want to play a football video game, well take it and like it sucker.
"I haven't published anything in months since the information coming out about the history of the "SCO vs. The World" cases made me look like an idiot. Watch me astroturf my own story onto Slashdot so I can get some advertising money. Also, as anybody ever told you about a great little company called Amway?..."
But once they all have done it (and, yeah, I know that will take quite a few years), what happens next?
Space tourism seems to me like it might end up being more of a fad than anything else unless we can make space an actual destination
What's wrong with a fad? It won't end there, time and ideas will march on once people know what to expect. History tells us that there are early adopters, then a critical mass becomes interested (which is sometimes denigrated as a fad), then enough people have experience to figure out new things to do with the idea. It's no big deal, and nobody's come up with a practical way to just jump from zillion dollar personal trips to Phloston Paradise. It takes a "once they have all done it" to build upon the experience.
The governments philosophy is clear; make us 'feel' so confused and guilty-- in EVERYTHING that we do (and don't do),
The historical method for increasing government control over peoples' lives is to treat more and more things as if they were emergencies, which keeps people freaked out and pining for help. Where would America be today without weird people on the subway and people trying to see porn whenever they can? Well, now you're supposed to tell the government whenever you notice it.
There will soon be facial recognition scanning done in most metropolitan areas, airports, etc and they will know everything you do, buy and are interested in.
You sure about that?
I wonder about the old saying that goes something like, "Never attribute to malice that which is easilly attributable to incompetence," or something to that effect. I've always been of the mind that one should never attribute to incompetence that which is easilly attributable to malice.
Well that's the pessimistic view, to be sure, but Hanlon's Razor has never really applied here, though I've really tried to make it so. I just can't figure out where the incompetence lies. They haven't shown any evidence that they could have misinterpreted, they have gone out of their way to badmouth their opponents, and they've spent the last three years innovating new and exciting ways to polish a turd in each and every one of their stockholder conference calls. I've looked, asked, and googled for the slightest shred of incompetently applied legal force, and I can't find it. Sometime's Hanlon's law doesn't apply and the people are being truly malicious. It happens.
Resource exhaustion is economically impossible.
Under certain economic systems this may be true, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of being physically possible. You're trying to apply something like Zeno's dichotomy paradox to resource exhaustion.
After basically ignoring the SCO UNIX market and worse -- attacking some of his best customers, Darl is doing a volte-face. The key question is: WHY?
I don't know if you were here last week, but Novell asked the court to freeze SCOs assets because SCO hasn't been paying Novell its share of UNIX licensing for the past few years. This is money that SCO has been using to fuel it's sue-happy strategy.
What "throne" is it supposed to capture?
The "Highest return per advertising dollar" throne.
It's funny how you never hear the phrase 'right to privacy' nowadays.
Is there really a "right" to privacy where this is concerned? People call a lot of things rights that actually are just social conventions.
Why couldn't they have done this several months ago, before my boss started looking closely at Wikipedia, and their method of allowing anyone - even users not logged into specific user accounts - to edit a given page?
I think they did do it several months ago. Here's a clip from one of their config docs:
* By adding the following line to LocalSettings.php, it is possible to entirely disable anonymous edits:
#Entirely disable Anonymous Edits
$wgWhitelistEdit = true;
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
That kind of stupidity doesn't adequately explain it. Either someone doesn't know how to read or they have incompetents handling their administration. That is, why the mistaken terminology?