Yes, Linux supports shared objects. However, the gp post to yours advocated static linkage for stability. It's a "pay me now or pay me later" kind of thing: if you depend on so's, you get so hell. If you don't, you get patch nightmares.
Not a pretty picture, either way. (Grumble grumble off to patch a server at home...)
The Linux approach of simple standalone custom-compiled apps works best for hardened Internet servers
And this explains why all the various items which compiled the libpbm handling libraries have needed to be patched over the past few weeks? I mean, tetex needs a fix because of a bug in the JPEG handling code in libpbm?
You may complain about DLL Hell, but the "Oh, shit, I've got to patch that one, too?" hell that Linux sysadmins have been in recently is every bit as bad!
Uhh...ebag? The article referenced in the submission is the Fallows article, republished through CNet.
I guess we can at least look forward to a Michael Sims finding a way to dupe this using the original NYTimes. I wonder -- do the editors get a cut of the ad revenue that is generated by each of the articles they sponsor n the front page?
The case was not about the right of people to possess legally obscene videos, which is already legal. It is about the right of people to distribute them. In this case, Extreme Associates specializes in material which is legally obscene, including films in which "women get the throats cut".
The judge claims that the state has no compelling state interest in regulating such films. I disagree. If you and your honey get off on cutting, I have no problem with that as long as nobody's forced or tricked into participating. The instant there's money involved, as there is here, the odds that at least one of the participiants is coerced go through the ceiling -- and, yes, the state has a legitimate interest in prevent such coercion.
Almost all of the formatting in a WordML file is in comments.
You're confusing the 1997 save-as-HTML function, which did put formatting in comments in order to edit in word, with the W2K2 save as XML function, which saves in a publicly available XML schema. WordML is the latter one.
The real reason that these are significant is that they were the huge missing piece in Rummy's grand scheme to Transform the Military. An army of robots run from far away would not have any of the political costs of putting enough soldiers on the ground to organize a successful occupation would have.
If he'd had these, Rummy might have gotten away with Iraq.
Yeah, I know. New Zealand should really have been named "A couple of small islands off the coast of Australia".
Or did you mean that the aurorae in the SOuthern Hemisphere should have been named differently? You're right, of course -- aurora's have nothing to do with the dawn.
Nope. If you remove the copy on your system and then hand the disks to someone else (whether or not you profit), then it's not an infringment. If you keep a copy and give the CDs to a friend...well, you're stealing money from my children. If your friend wants a copy of Office, he should buy it himself, or use OO.O.
Programmers aren't being singled out...programs are. There is a difference -- I am not the code I write, no matter how I feel when a tester files a bug "against me".
As to "spying" on you, no, but DVD's do enforce that you'll see certain parts of the data stream, and modern television broadcasts do include Macrovision to make it hard to take snaps of the screen. A check on the name and signature of a file before "releasing" it from the P2P client or before sending it out from the P2P client would serve equally well, yet would prevent unauthorized duplication through the client.
Sorry, you're right, typeahead. Here's the relevant passage:
The Betamax is, therefore, capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Sony's sale of such equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of respondents' copyrights
Same interpretation, different wording. The point is that the device is unlikely to cause significant impairment of copyrighted works. Very different from the "gee, it can be used for non-infringing purposes."
It's a question of what the Supes meant when they issued Betamax. The exact phrase the opinion used was "admits of singificant non-infringing use" -- which admits of two interpretations. The first one (which you advocate) is that a socially significant application exists which is non-infringing. The second is that an actual use to which the product will be put in a significant fraction of cases is non-infringing. That's the difference between buying a bomb at bubba's blast barn (illegal, even though bombs do have theoretical legal uses) and buying a VCR at Fry's (legal, back when they were still manufactured.)
It seems that most people on/. want the first to apply -- "In theory, a lot of people could use BitTorrent to d/l NetBSD, so BitTorrent is not illegal." I rather doubt that is what the Court meant; if it had been, then they wouldn't have gone on to discuss the legality of time-shifting. Opinions don't waste time like that; if it's in, then it's in for a reason. If so, then it is plausible, and even likely, that BitTorrent as it stands now could be infringing, yet a trivial modification which would guarantee that most of the files out there were legally distributed would be legal.
I'd guess that a large percentage of the videocassettes sold are blank and are used to record broadcast or cable television, yet the devices that permit this to be done (VCRs) were ruled to be legal because they also are used for playback of pre-recorded media that users purchase in stores.
You need to reread what I wrote. The Betamax decision hangs on two points, one of which is that a device with significant non-infringing uses is not illegal, and the other of which is that time-shifting is fair use. There is no infringement if I record a show and use it for my own entertainment; there is only infringement if I retransmit or otherwise redistribute the show to others. What you're describing is the significant non-infringing use of blank videocassettes.
Let me rephrase that: "P2P has vast significant non-infringing uses".
Great strawman, but not relevant. There's no real threat to the tecnology, per se, anymore than there was ever a threat to magnetic recording technology. There's only a threat to particular realizations incorporating the technology. A given P2P app have a significant fraction of non-infringing use, while another may not. In that case, it could well be the case that the former was legal, and the latter banned.
That is not the point. Having vast non-infringing uses is not the same as having significant non-infringing use. What one can do with something is very different from what one typically does do with something -- and it's the latter the judicial system works on, not the former.
After all, one significant use for nuclear devices would be the construction of low-cost canals to improve transport. That doesn't mean you'll be buying a 10megaton device down at Bubba's Bomb Buy-mart.
The parent is right. Guns are among the least likely weapons to be used accidentally, no matter how likely they are to be used negligently. More than that, the gp is right, albeit unintentionally: the major reason for gun safety improvements over the years is due to the application of legal sanctions against weapons manufacturers, which were held liable for failure to exercise due care in preventing accidental discharge.
All that said, I don't understand the value in Murray's bill. Contrary to the current cant here on/., I expect the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit on Kazaa, and to do it without reversing _Betamax_ at all. Remember, Betamax had two key points: a device with significant non-infringing uses was not illegal, and time-shifting was fair use. Both sides agreed that the major use to which VCR's were put was time-shifting, and therefore, if time-shifting was not an infringement, then it provided a significant non-infringing use.
It's not clear to me that Betamax protects P2P systems like Kazaa. The standard arguments in favor of P2P systems tend to talk about rare uses such as distribution of fringe materials by the copyright holders themselves. Those may be uses, but they are not significant uses in the real world. Until P2P companies take steps to make them significant, it isn't likely that Betamax applies.
You might want to read the ACM discussion. They did a factor analysis on the basis of scalar responses very similar to the Standish study. Their results basically show that the CHAOS study is nonsense.
A tsunami is not an instant disaster. In some places, the best part of an hour elapsed between the time that the first tsunami strikes began and the time when that place was devastated. Are you telling me that an hour's delay isn't time to get 40 or 50 metres about mean sea level? In Bangldesh, you might have an argument, but not in Sri Lanka.
Whether or not Jobs held the title CEO, he was CEO during the Lisa debacle. The Macintosh project was a peter principle job, after Sculley was forced on Jobs for his stupidity. The Mac was a flop for two years after its 1984 introduction until the LaserWriter was introduced with an exclusive contract. (That's what Jobs was hoping for with the Airport a decade and a half later. He misread Microsoft's ability to respond. Again.) Even then, the Mac would have floundered if it hadn't been that Sculley came on board and (a) moved to a VME-bus based architecture, allowing third parties to produce add-in cards, and (b) forced a push to the Power PC chip, allowing Apple to move away from the moribund 68020 family. Neither of those changes would have happened if Jobs hadn't been moved aside. Notice, if you will, that he quit over the first one.
Fortunately for the rest of Apple's shareholders, the people at Kleimer-Perkins haven't let Jobs' smoke and mirrors blind them in the past. It may be that he's learned his lesson. I'm not optimistic -- which is why I don't own any Apple stock.
Steve Jobs (has no fiduciary responsibility to his customers whatsoever. None. He has to keep his customer base satisfied in order to satisfy his investors, but that is the limit of his responsibilities.
I don't know how he keeps the reality distortion field around him so solid on this point. When, in the past, he has failed in his responsibilities to his shareholders, he's been booted out of the CEO's slot at Apple. It's happened twice, once after the Lisa and the other time after Microsoft started whaling the crap out of the Macintosh. In both cases, it has been because Jobs made an aesthetic guess that was wrong.
BioDiesel == still bad for the environment because:
High compression/temperature == High NOx
High compression, short combustion == high soot production
High compression, high hp, low RPM == low efficiency during start/stop driving == high fuel consumption in city driving == more pollution/mile traveled.
Yeah, biodiesel produces less marginal CO2 than dinodiesel, but the doesn't solve the problems implicit in a diesel engine.
An order of magnitude is an astronometric term referring to the brightness of stars. A single "order of magnitude" (from A to O, for instance) correstponds to a factor of ten in luminance.
Of course, that doesn't explain Slashdot's interesting use to day.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but think of what it would do for the RIAA. They'd have soooo many opportunities to send out threatening letters!
Yes, Linux supports shared objects. However, the gp post to yours advocated static linkage for stability. It's a "pay me now or pay me later" kind of thing: if you depend on so's, you get so hell. If you don't, you get patch nightmares.
Not a pretty picture, either way. (Grumble grumble off to patch a server at home...)
You may complain about DLL Hell, but the "Oh, shit, I've got to patch that one, too?" hell that Linux sysadmins have been in recently is every bit as bad!
Uhh...ebag? The article referenced in the submission is the Fallows article, republished through CNet.
I guess we can at least look forward to a Michael Sims finding a way to dupe this using the original NYTimes. I wonder -- do the editors get a cut of the ad revenue that is generated by each of the articles they sponsor n the front page?
The case was not about the right of people to possess legally obscene videos, which is already legal. It is about the right of people to distribute them. In this case, Extreme Associates specializes in material which is legally obscene, including films in which "women get the throats cut".
The judge claims that the state has no compelling state interest in regulating such films. I disagree. If you and your honey get off on cutting, I have no problem with that as long as nobody's forced or tricked into participating. The instant there's money involved, as there is here, the odds that at least one of the participiants is coerced go through the ceiling -- and, yes, the state has a legitimate interest in prevent such coercion.
The real reason that these are significant is that they were the huge missing piece in Rummy's grand scheme to Transform the Military. An army of robots run from far away would not have any of the political costs of putting enough soldiers on the ground to organize a successful occupation would have.
If he'd had these, Rummy might have gotten away with Iraq.
After all, don't happy people kill themselves in suicide car bombs all the time? Why would anyone think they'd be pissed?
Yeah, I know. New Zealand should really have been named "A couple of small islands off the coast of Australia".
Or did you mean that the aurorae in the SOuthern Hemisphere should have been named differently? You're right, of course -- aurora's have nothing to do with the dawn.
Nope. If you remove the copy on your system and then hand the disks to someone else (whether or not you profit), then it's not an infringment. If you keep a copy and give the CDs to a friend...well, you're stealing money from my children. If your friend wants a copy of Office, he should buy it himself, or use OO.O.
Programmers aren't being singled out...programs are. There is a difference -- I am not the code I write, no matter how I feel when a tester files a bug "against me".
As to "spying" on you, no, but DVD's do enforce that you'll see certain parts of the data stream, and modern television broadcasts do include Macrovision to make it hard to take snaps of the screen. A check on the name and signature of a file before "releasing" it from the P2P client or before sending it out from the P2P client would serve equally well, yet would prevent unauthorized duplication through the client.
Same interpretation, different wording. The point is that the device is unlikely to cause significant impairment of copyrighted works. Very different from the "gee, it can be used for non-infringing purposes."
It's a question of what the Supes meant when they issued Betamax. The exact phrase the opinion used was "admits of singificant non-infringing use" -- which admits of two interpretations. The first one (which you advocate) is that a socially significant application exists which is non-infringing. The second is that an actual use to which the product will be put in a significant fraction of cases is non-infringing. That's the difference between buying a bomb at bubba's blast barn (illegal, even though bombs do have theoretical legal uses) and buying a VCR at Fry's (legal, back when they were still manufactured.)
/. want the first to apply -- "In theory, a lot of people could use BitTorrent to d/l NetBSD, so BitTorrent is not illegal." I rather doubt that is what the Court meant; if it had been, then they wouldn't have gone on to discuss the legality of time-shifting. Opinions don't waste time like that; if it's in, then it's in for a reason. If so, then it is plausible, and even likely, that BitTorrent as it stands now could be infringing, yet a trivial modification which would guarantee that most of the files out there were legally distributed would be legal.
It seems that most people on
Great strawman, but not relevant. There's no real threat to the tecnology, per se, anymore than there was ever a threat to magnetic recording technology. There's only a threat to particular realizations incorporating the technology. A given P2P app have a significant fraction of non-infringing use, while another may not. In that case, it could well be the case that the former was legal, and the latter banned.
That is not the point. Having vast non-infringing uses is not the same as having significant non-infringing use. What one can do with something is very different from what one typically does do with something -- and it's the latter the judicial system works on, not the former.
After all, one significant use for nuclear devices would be the construction of low-cost canals to improve transport. That doesn't mean you'll be buying a 10megaton device down at Bubba's Bomb Buy-mart.
The parent is right. Guns are among the least likely weapons to be used accidentally, no matter how likely they are to be used negligently. More than that, the gp is right, albeit unintentionally: the major reason for gun safety improvements over the years is due to the application of legal sanctions against weapons manufacturers, which were held liable for failure to exercise due care in preventing accidental discharge.
/., I expect the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit on Kazaa, and to do it without reversing _Betamax_ at all. Remember, Betamax had two key points: a device with significant non-infringing uses was not illegal, and time-shifting was fair use. Both sides agreed that the major use to which VCR's were put was time-shifting, and therefore, if time-shifting was not an infringement, then it provided a significant non-infringing use.
All that said, I don't understand the value in Murray's bill. Contrary to the current cant here on
It's not clear to me that Betamax protects P2P systems like Kazaa. The standard arguments in favor of P2P systems tend to talk about rare uses such as distribution of fringe materials by the copyright holders themselves. Those may be uses, but they are not significant uses in the real world. Until P2P companies take steps to make them significant, it isn't likely that Betamax applies.
No, that's boXP, run by boXPeons.
Never mind.
You might want to read the ACM discussion. They did a factor analysis on the basis of scalar responses very similar to the Standish study. Their results basically show that the CHAOS study is nonsense.
A tsunami is not an instant disaster. In some places, the best part of an hour elapsed between the time that the first tsunami strikes began and the time when that place was devastated. Are you telling me that an hour's delay isn't time to get 40 or 50 metres about mean sea level? In Bangldesh, you might have an argument, but not in Sri Lanka.
I call bullshit.
Whether or not Jobs held the title CEO, he was CEO during the Lisa debacle. The Macintosh project was a peter principle job, after Sculley was forced on Jobs for his stupidity. The Mac was a flop for two years after its 1984 introduction until the LaserWriter was introduced with an exclusive contract. (That's what Jobs was hoping for with the Airport a decade and a half later. He misread Microsoft's ability to respond. Again.) Even then, the Mac would have floundered if it hadn't been that Sculley came on board and (a) moved to a VME-bus based architecture, allowing third parties to produce add-in cards, and (b) forced a push to the Power PC chip, allowing Apple to move away from the moribund 68020 family. Neither of those changes would have happened if Jobs hadn't been moved aside. Notice, if you will, that he quit over the first one.
Fortunately for the rest of Apple's shareholders, the people at Kleimer-Perkins haven't let Jobs' smoke and mirrors blind them in the past. It may be that he's learned his lesson. I'm not optimistic -- which is why I don't own any Apple stock.
Ummm...no.
Steve Jobs (has no fiduciary responsibility to his customers whatsoever. None. He has to keep his customer base satisfied in order to satisfy his investors, but that is the limit of his responsibilities.
I don't know how he keeps the reality distortion field around him so solid on this point. When, in the past, he has failed in his responsibilities to his shareholders, he's been booted out of the CEO's slot at Apple. It's happened twice, once after the Lisa and the other time after Microsoft started whaling the crap out of the Macintosh. In both cases, it has been because Jobs made an aesthetic guess that was wrong.
- High compression/temperature == High NOx
- High compression, short combustion == high soot production
- High compression, high hp, low RPM == low efficiency during start/stop driving == high fuel consumption in city driving == more pollution/mile traveled.
Yeah, biodiesel produces less marginal CO2 than dinodiesel, but the doesn't solve the problems implicit in a diesel engine.An order of magnitude is an astronometric term referring to the brightness of stars. A single "order of magnitude" (from A to O, for instance) correstponds to a factor of ten in luminance.
Of course, that doesn't explain Slashdot's interesting use to day.