Give it up dude, most of/. is so far up Apple's ass they get poked in the eye whenever Steve Jobs gives someone head.
The funniest part is/. generally sanctions people stealing music, but Apple enforcing their ridiculous EULA against *people who paid for their OS* is kosher?
Where are the "I don't believe in IP" people? Apple makes the RIAA look friendly. At least the RIAA doesn't tell you what kind of stereo you have to play your music on.
At my last job, I worked with a lot of women in IT, and most were from the middle east or India. 1 was a physicist from the US, the other a CS intern from the US. She moved to administration a few years (and companies) down the road after trying project management.
I knew a CS grad at the company before that from the US and she also moved to administration (Sun boxes).
Maybe, in general, women don't like coding very much.
Most IT Women I've met seem to enjoy administration more than coding (database, unix etc.) or finding bugs (LOTs of women in QA), though the physicist loved coding and stayed there.
Maybe men and women are just wired differently. It sure feels like it... I've been involved in interviewing applicants and we had one woman come in over a 5 year period.
The CS intern I worked with had no issues doing the work, and did a great job, she just likes running database servers more.
To each their own... It definitely takes a special breed of person to love coding. They are called "Masochists". Usually it's a guy on the receiving end:-)
So, it's a "dick move" to remove the trademark as requested so you can distribute the software? Uh, I don't think so. -------------- Exactly, you are *required* to remove the trademark before redistribution.
However naming it "iceweasel" could be considered a bit fresh, if not clever ROFL.
no, they are trying to stop the libraries from distributing their database and other people from profiting from their database, without kicking some money back. That's fair considering the amount of work it takes for them to keep the database updated. ------------------Actual Agreement Summary------- OCLC® encourages and supports the widespread, non-commercial use of WorldCat records for scholarship and research to advance innovation that benefits libraries, museums, archives and their users. The âoePolicy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Recordsâ is intended to foster such use while protecting the investment OCLC members have made in WorldCat, and ensuring that use of WorldCat records provides benefit to the membership.
YOU ARE FREE:
1. To use, reproduce, incorporate into works and display WorldCat records.
2. To transfer WorldCat records of your libraryâ(TM)s, archiveâ(TM)s or museumâ(TM)s own holdings.
UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Noncommercial Use. Use of WorldCat records for commercial purposes requires a separate agreement with OCLC.
2. Noncommercial Transfer. WorldCat records may not be sold, sublicensed, or otherwise transferred for a fee, other economic gain or commercial purposes.
3. Attribution. OCLC encourages you to identify WorldCat and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. as the source of WorldCat-derived records.
4. Reasonable Use. Use must not discourage the contribution of bibliographic and holdings data to WorldCat or substantially replicate the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat.
5. Modification. OCLC encourages you not to remove the OCLC number, the link to the policy, and any other means of attribution from WorldCat-derived records.
6. Conveyance. The policy terms and conditions remain in effect following the transfer of WorldCat records. --------------------end agreement summary--------
This is likely a reaction to funding cuts and reduced donations due to the shitty economy.
Maybe they want to stay in operation and survive?
There are almost no "free" databases that don't have some provision in their license about using it for profit or redistributing it. Even when you pay for a database you usually have to pay a redistribution license fee (often per unit) if you plan to use it to make money or incorporate it into a product.
cycles aren't everything in all cases... AMD still has more system bandwidth, which speeds up everything when talking about IO bound applications. FSB speeds up every aspect of the computer.
The applications where AMD is superior are IO bound applications like database servers, and music production.
Intel is better for video because you are dealing with a limited number of streams and it's computationally expensive, so is CPU bound.
With audio you can have hundreds of streams (often 4-6 per fader on the mixer), and at 24/96, will quickly overwhelm any intel based system. Since a lot of us use DSP cards ( think of it as GPU for sound) the data path capacity, especially to the DSP processors (PCI/PCI-e) is very important, and Intel simply can't touch AMD in this respect.
AMD architecture simply has untouchable plumbing. If you will notice, Apple is looking for a new chip vendor. This probably has a lot to do with it since most audio professionals use Apple gear.
If Jobs and Co. were smart, they'd offer both intel and amd architectures, depending on the job being done. Intel is fantastic for video and a lot of pro video peeps use Apple gear too. Those are two market segments that couldn't be more different in their requirements. To be the best of the best for multimedia, Apple needs to either build a new architecture or offer both AMD and Intel.
You should offer up your mad skillz and extra servers/hosting capacity you have laying around to help them increase their site availability if it means that much to you.
I know I would if I cared. As it is I don't use NDIS wrapper so apathy got the best of me.
He said there were quotes that were too long, and they were improperly attributed. That's repackaging IMHO, outright theft actually, whether or not it's intentional.
If you question inmates in a prison 99% are there because of something they didn't mean to happen.
; )
Then there's the whole issue of civility. It's not polite to rip someone off and make money from their ideas without their permission. Expect a reaction.
I can grab a bunch of acapella Madonna vocals off the internet and remix a medly song from it, using a few seconds here and there, and call it "the madonna lexicon".
Think I'd get away with it, even if I attributed the vocals to her?
I doubt it, the attack dogs would be on me within hours after I released it. In fact, defending myself would cost more than I'd make from the track at the end of the day, regardless of whether or not a judge decided I was covered by fair use.
However I could remix every song in her catalog, and if I sent them to her record company, asked for permission, and worked out a deal ahead of time, and paid them, there would be no problem, provided the work enhanced the catalog and they liked it.
That's how it's supposed to work. Trying to skirt this process claiming "fair use" and proceeding full steam ahead is begging for trouble.
They are being more than a little disingenuous pretending that they thought it was ok, otherwise the judge would have just told them to fix the problems and publish it, right?
I'd be pretty pissed too if I was Rowling... Had they done the polite thing, they'd be enjoying profit now instead of court battles.
It's likely her tithe would have been trivial compared to not being able to publish anything because of this injunction. They'd have been able to work something out too since they already had a working relationship with her. As it is they betrayed their relationship and rudely stabbed her in the back.
I can't believe they didn't get an attorney involved before trying to do this. If they did, they should be suing their attorney for giving them bad advice. I know better and I'm a dumb schlep off the street. I could have told them that they'd be much better off talking to Rowling about it and working out a deal.
Everyone knows there's legal, and then there is right. If you do the right thing, you get a lot less resistance and trouble. If you screw people, just staying within the limits of the law, expect to make attorneys a *lot* of money and don't be surprised if you find yourself where these people are since it takes really good attorneys to keep you walking the fine line between legal and illegal without falling on the wrong side. As well you are virtually guaranteeing a suit. Whether you win or not isn't as important as what the net cost of doing business that way is. It's just pure stupidity. Sure you may come out ahead, but is it really worth it?
It reminds me of those people that just walk into traffic, knowing that if they get hit within the crosswalk that they can sue the driver, whether or not the light is green. My driving teacher joked that sometimes they are dead right.
Personally I hope they never get to publish it; actually I hope JK steals their lexicon idea and publishes one herself, then releases it at cost, out of spite, while this one is tied up in court.
It would serve them right. Whether or not what they did was legal, at least in my mind, and apparently Rowlings', is secondary to the fact that it was downright slimy, especially after all the work and effort JK put into helping the owner of the site make sure the electronic online version was absolutely correct and accurate.
... if the author of the lexicon had gotten permission from JK Rowling to repackage her work in printed form, and worked out a deal for part of the income that would be generated due to all the material in the lexicon from *her* books, there wouldn't have been a problem.
Too bad greed got the best of them...
I can't fault J.K. Rowling for not laying down and watching it happen. Everyone involved is entitled to a stake in the profits, and they sidestepped the fountain that made it all possible. JK is definitely involved and deserves (as well as being legally entitled to) a piece of the pie.
The lexicon author and would be publisher got what they deserved for being greedy stupid little monkeys. Everybody wants a free ride...
They knew better and can't play dumb and pretend they didn't. I'm not a book publisher or attorney and I know better than to try some shit like that with someone else's franchise.
They can also move your job to some black hole like Ohio... That sure as hell got me to quit.
Nothing against Ohio or the people that live there, but the local economy there is as dead as a doornail compared to either coast, especially near Dayton where they wanted me to move.
My paranoia was satisfied when the rest of the people in my department did move there, then got laid off 6 months later. Some bought houses after moving there.
And... a company can also not keep you from making a living using your skills with a stupid agreement.
The best thing you can do with a non-compete is ball it up and throw it away, and submit the rest of the docs you sign when starting a new job without it.
I've done this at my last 2 jobs and nobody noticed. There was so much paperwork at my last job they just didn't notice.
If they call you on it, just play dumb ; ) At least that way you'll get a feel for the company and it's culture and can decide if signing something that says you can't work for anyone else is such a great idea.
The last non-compete I actually signed was in 1997.
OSX uses a Mach kernel and is "Mach based" (specifically the kernel is called XNU). You can't blame that on BSD though NeXT used a lot of ideas from BSD when designing Mach. XNU, however, is not a "BSD kernel" therefore it's not "BSD based" any more than linux is. There's a lot of BSD heritage in linux as well but nobody says linux is "BSD based".
OSX is not BSD or based off of it. It's Mach based.
Apple has a lot of BSD code (stacks, subsystems, etc etc) on their system, as well as the ability to run BSD and GNU software, but it's a Mach system, not BSD. Moreover a big difference between Mach and BSD is that Mach is a "microkernel". BSD is monolithic with a few microkernel features. There's a HUGE conceptual and philosophical (as well as performance) difference.
Despite all of this, Apple contributes to FreeBSD as well as using a lot of FreeBSD code in XNU which is where this confusion comes in. Saying it's "based" on BSD just isn't correct.
...overhead. Some companies spin off their IT departments into a subsidiary since there's no way to justify the overhead of IT or quantify IT's contribution. Likewise, an IT "department" will eventually find themselves fighting for funding just to get the bare essentials needed to keep up with capacity and user requirements.
As a subsidiary, you can charge a fixed amount per desktop managed, which turns you into a profit center. This allows you to lease equipment and keep it new. When you are done with lease, send it back and get a new replacement.
You use a combination of ticketing and time sheets to track your time. This turns you from overhead to profitable subsidiary. Your budget problems also more or less disappear provided you get your pricing in "the zone" ; ) This enables you to get the latest gee-whiz technology for your company and make your contributions a lot more visible.
It's hard to not justify a profitable IT subsidiary company. Just remember to keep it competitive or you may find your parent company's departments going somewhere more affordable to get IT support ROFL. This can be partially prevented with a carefully written network policy, but you need to be reasonable because other people need to run and budget their departments too. If you squeeze them too hard they'll be *forced* to look elsewhere.
In this manner if your parent company is expanding, so will your revenue and budget as you add more users, enabling you to hire more IT people as needed and justified by your revenue.
I've been in 2 companies that used this model and when they made the switch they went from being under funded and budget starved to getting the money they needed to make the client (non-IT) happy and being able to afford necessary staff.
>Google trying to drive more people towards its own online suite of office applications?
Google apps are pretty damn good now. I use them all the time. I'll take "can access it from anywhere without installing any software" over hardcore features any day of the week.
They also have built in collaboration. Star Office is kind of redundant. Then again I'm just a "normal" person with regard to Office products. As a software engineer, my requirements for an office product set the bar pretty low.
An accountant, or other financial business professional, will most likely find the software not quite delivering what they need in a spreadsheet etc. application. Then again, they'd also probably find Star Office lacking.
isn't that the dye "degrades" creating error rates. This does happen with CD-RW's and happens really fast. The real problem is the media physically starts to fall off the acrylic and you start getting pinholes where it's missing.
This phenomena is easily seen by holding the disk up to a bright light. In fact, you'll see these "pinholes" out of the box for some cheap cd's.
You can use better CD's that are thicker and have a layer of acrylic over the dye layer but the problem then becomes clouding in the clear plastic on the read side and scratches.
For best results use high quality cd-r (NOT cd-rw) don't expose them to UV, and don't scratch them.
I have good quality CD's which have lasted over 10 years already with no errors. I just used good quality cds and didn't leave them laying around outside the case.
> Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?
Not much, at least from my POV. _NONE_ of the MD representatives got voted out of the house, well none except for Gilchrist who is retiring.
Same old politics...
Hint: for real change, you need to get rid of the people that have been writing the laws. The prez just decides whether or not to veto them.
Oh well there's always the next election. People talk about change this, change that, but from where I sit, nobody's walking the walk.
Nobody is changing stuff with their votes. We still have a democratic senate and house with the same old democrats in office. We got rid of 17 republicans. Whoopdeedoo. Electing Barak is no great change, despite the historical significance of his racial makeup. Either way we'd be getting change, by default, in the oval office.
We should have 435 new people in the house of R. THAT is change. We have failed ourselves as voters.
Nothing will change because nothing has changed except that which was changing whether or not we like it. How little we've learned...
Enjoy the buzz of Barak winning, then get ready for more of the same old thing, from the same old house, same old senate, and the same old lobbyists.
I find your claim that Sarah Palin might become President is a sign of idiocy laughable on its face. Aren't the dems the ones who keep saying that no experience can prepare you for president (since Obama has no experience)? And yet, they keep saying that Palin is inexperienced? Pot? Kettle?
I think you are missing the larger stupidity.
You have to consider that Palin is not running for prez, it's Obama vs. McCain. That makes this argument (and campaign tactic) even more stupid (or shrewd?) than it appears on the surface. It's a classic fallacious red herring argument.
About the OP: >The academics and computer scientists who said they were unreliable "have won that battle."'"
No they have not won the battle. They believe that electronic voting can work, but it needs to be done right. Here's a great link to Avi Rubin's (who more or less started the whole voting machine security/traceability debate) site that explains what the academics want and how Diebold etc can fix their machines.
None want paper, they want the electronic systems to be designed and implemented properly. Paper voting is a PITA and also inaccurate. Avi etc have told Diebold etc how to fix their machines, til they were blue in the face, and were categorically ignored.
This development in MD and VA is a step backwards. What we (I'm a MD resident) should do is let Avi and Accurate( http://accurate-voting.org/ ) write the requirements for the machines and put the contract up for bid to have them built properly to spec.
There has _never_ been anything "built right the first time" with information technology.
Just about everything in existence has been started with a target audience size and feature set that got a lot bigger. If it works you try to scale and extend it as the audience grows. However when scaling/extending it usually you have to make some compromises to avoid starting over from scratch.
The result (after much expansion) is almost always less than optimal, often very soon after initial implementation, but still does the job. Once it's no longer doing the job and can't be expanded, you rebuild.
If IPv6 takes over and all the hardware gets replaced, eventually we'll stress it out and need to expand it again. If not the protocol, at least the hardware.
This is a pretty simple and self-evident fact to most of us... hindsight is always 20/20 and it's real easy to critique stuff that was designed 35 years ago for a very limited audience, just because it doesn't do the job for the entire world and all the applications that didn't exist back then.
/sarcasm on
Where was this guy in 1973? He could have saved us a lot of trouble by telling Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn what they were doing wrong ; )
If I were a nasty sort of black-hatted individual, the quickest way I can think of for destroying an enemy would be planting kiddie porn on his computer and dropping a dime to the authorities.
You could _destroy_ someone this way. All you'd need to do is break their wireless router, change the mac address on your wireless card, connect, then download a bunch of kiddie porn using their connection, burn it to CD, slide it under the door, hang out til they get home, and you see them pick it up (putting their finger prints all over it), call police.
There would be evidence at the ISP showing it was downloaded via their connection, and possession is 9/10ths of the law. They'd be screwed. The police wouldn't bother checking their PC for a lack of evidence which would indicate that someone else did this to them because they'd have enough to convict them.
This would be WAY too easy to do to someone and even easier than planting it on their PC.
First, SMB is nothing like FTP. It's a whole different protocol, which uses a different network transport(when dealing with NetBEUI), with a different set of clients. FTP is a pure file transfer protocol, which uses pure TCP/IP.
Second dns/bind does not understand NetBIOS and doesn't do NetBIOS name resolution. That's wrong protocol and wrong name resolution service.
Just FYI ; )
Here's a link to better help you understand how NetBIOS name resolution works:
Here's just one of the differences FTA: "The NetBIOS namespace is flat. This is different to the hierarchical namespace of Domain Name System (DNS). Because the NetBIOS namespace is not as scaleable as DNS, it does not work well for large networks. NetBIOS naming should be used for private networks."
yea cutting gears by hand is no joke. I used to be a machinist apprentice and union steelworker (that's what convinced me I needed to go to college =D). CNC machines can bang them out pretty fast, but they still aren't cheap.
You need to produce an engineering drawing as well if the gear is going to be custom made. Gears are surprisingly complex if you've never designed one, and have a lot of properties to consider for your application.
Slashdot Mirror
Give it up dude, most of /. is so far up Apple's ass they get poked in the eye whenever Steve Jobs gives someone head.
The funniest part is /. generally sanctions people stealing music, but Apple enforcing their ridiculous EULA against *people who paid for their OS* is kosher?
Where are the "I don't believe in IP" people?
Apple makes the RIAA look friendly. At least the RIAA doesn't tell you what kind of stereo you have to play your music on.
Talk about double standards...
-Viz
A lot of people are forgetting that the only reason Psystar got nicked is they were openly violating the EULA.
You, as an individual, can get OSX and do whatever the hell you want with it. What apple doesn't know won't hurt them ; )
>and nothing gives you the right to decide that you don't like how Apple is selling their product, and do whatever you please with their work.
I live by the philosophy that if you purchase something, you can do what you want with it as long as you don't violate copyright. **** Apple's EULA.
A EULA is only enforceable if the company knows you are violating it.
-Viz
At my last job, I worked with a lot of women in IT, and most were from the middle east or India. 1 was a physicist from the US, the other a CS intern from the US. She moved to administration a few years (and companies) down the road after trying project management.
I knew a CS grad at the company before that from the US and she also moved to administration (Sun boxes).
Maybe, in general, women don't like coding very much.
Most IT Women I've met seem to enjoy administration more than coding (database, unix etc.) or finding bugs (LOTs of women in QA), though the physicist loved coding and stayed there.
Maybe men and women are just wired differently. It sure feels like it... I've been involved in interviewing applicants and we had one woman come in over a 5 year period.
The CS intern I worked with had no issues doing the work, and did a great job, she just likes running database servers more.
To each their own... It definitely takes a special breed of person to love coding. They are called "Masochists". Usually it's a guy on the receiving end :-)
-Viz
...busy getting technology management and marketing degrees so they can be the boss of us.
-Viz
So, it's a "dick move" to remove the trademark as requested so you can distribute the software? Uh, I don't think so.
--------------
Exactly, you are *required* to remove the trademark before redistribution.
However naming it "iceweasel" could be considered a bit fresh, if not clever ROFL.
-Viz
no, they are trying to stop the libraries from distributing their database and other people from profiting from their database, without kicking some money back. That's fair considering the amount of work it takes for them to keep the database updated.
------------------Actual Agreement Summary-------
OCLC® encourages and supports the widespread, non-commercial use of WorldCat records for scholarship and research to advance innovation that benefits libraries, museums, archives and their users. The âoePolicy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Recordsâ is intended to foster such use while protecting the investment OCLC members have made in WorldCat, and ensuring that use of WorldCat records provides benefit to the membership.
YOU ARE FREE:
1. To use, reproduce, incorporate into works and display WorldCat records.
2. To transfer WorldCat records of your libraryâ(TM)s, archiveâ(TM)s or museumâ(TM)s own holdings.
UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Noncommercial Use. Use of WorldCat records for commercial purposes requires a separate agreement with OCLC.
2. Noncommercial Transfer. WorldCat records may not be sold, sublicensed, or otherwise transferred for a fee, other economic gain or commercial purposes.
3. Attribution. OCLC encourages you to identify WorldCat and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. as the source of WorldCat-derived records.
4. Reasonable Use. Use must not discourage the contribution of bibliographic and holdings data to WorldCat or substantially replicate the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat.
5. Modification. OCLC encourages you not to remove the OCLC number, the link to the policy, and any other means of attribution from WorldCat-derived records.
6. Conveyance. The policy terms and conditions remain in effect following the transfer of WorldCat records.
--------------------end agreement summary--------
This is likely a reaction to funding cuts and reduced donations due to the shitty economy.
Maybe they want to stay in operation and survive?
There are almost no "free" databases that don't have some provision in their license about using it for profit or redistributing it. Even when you pay for a database you usually have to pay a redistribution license fee (often per unit) if you plan to use it to make money or incorporate it into a product.
Nothing to see here, move along...
-Viz
cycles aren't everything in all cases... AMD still has more system bandwidth, which speeds up everything when talking about IO bound applications. FSB speeds up every aspect of the computer.
The applications where AMD is superior are IO bound applications like database servers, and music production.
Intel is better for video because you are dealing with a limited number of streams and it's computationally expensive, so is CPU bound.
With audio you can have hundreds of streams (often 4-6 per fader on the mixer), and at 24/96, will quickly overwhelm any intel based system. Since a lot of us use DSP cards ( think of it as GPU for sound) the data path capacity, especially to the DSP processors (PCI/PCI-e) is very important, and Intel simply can't touch AMD in this respect.
AMD architecture simply has untouchable plumbing. If you will notice, Apple is looking for a new chip vendor. This probably has a lot to do with it since most audio professionals use Apple gear.
If Jobs and Co. were smart, they'd offer both intel and amd architectures, depending on the job being done. Intel is fantastic for video and a lot of pro video peeps use Apple gear too. Those are two market segments that couldn't be more different in their requirements. To be the best of the best for multimedia, Apple needs to either build a new architecture or offer both AMD and Intel.
-Viz
You should offer up your mad skillz and extra servers/hosting capacity you have laying around to help them increase their site availability if it means that much to you.
I know I would if I cared. As it is I don't use NDIS wrapper so apathy got the best of me.
-Viz
He said there were quotes that were too long, and they were improperly attributed. That's repackaging IMHO, outright theft actually, whether or not it's intentional.
If you question inmates in a prison 99% are there because of something they didn't mean to happen.
; )
Then there's the whole issue of civility. It's not polite to rip someone off and make money from their ideas without their permission. Expect a reaction.
I can grab a bunch of acapella Madonna vocals off the internet and remix a medly song from it, using a few seconds here and there, and call it "the madonna lexicon".
Think I'd get away with it, even if I attributed the vocals to her?
I doubt it, the attack dogs would be on me within hours after I released it. In fact, defending myself would cost more than I'd make from the track at the end of the day, regardless of whether or not a judge decided I was covered by fair use.
However I could remix every song in her catalog, and if I sent them to her record company, asked for permission, and worked out a deal ahead of time, and paid them, there would be no problem, provided the work enhanced the catalog and they liked it.
That's how it's supposed to work. Trying to skirt this process claiming "fair use" and proceeding full steam ahead is begging for trouble.
They are being more than a little disingenuous pretending that they thought it was ok, otherwise the judge would have just told them to fix the problems and publish it, right?
I'd be pretty pissed too if I was Rowling... Had they done the polite thing, they'd be enjoying profit now instead of court battles.
It's likely her tithe would have been trivial compared to not being able to publish anything because of this injunction. They'd have been able to work something out too since they already had a working relationship with her. As it is they betrayed their relationship and rudely stabbed her in the back.
I can't believe they didn't get an attorney involved before trying to do this. If they did, they should be suing their attorney for giving them bad advice. I know better and I'm a dumb schlep off the street. I could have told them that they'd be much better off talking to Rowling about it and working out a deal.
Everyone knows there's legal, and then there is right. If you do the right thing, you get a lot less resistance and trouble. If you screw people, just staying within the limits of the law, expect to make attorneys a *lot* of money and don't be surprised if you find yourself where these people are since it takes really good attorneys to keep you walking the fine line between legal and illegal without falling on the wrong side. As well you are virtually guaranteeing a suit. Whether you win or not isn't as important as what the net cost of doing business that way is. It's just pure stupidity. Sure you may come out ahead, but is it really worth it?
It reminds me of those people that just walk into traffic, knowing that if they get hit within the crosswalk that they can sue the driver, whether or not the light is green. My driving teacher joked that sometimes they are dead right.
Personally I hope they never get to publish it; actually I hope JK steals their lexicon idea and publishes one herself, then releases it at cost, out of spite, while this one is tied up in court.
It would serve them right. Whether or not what they did was legal, at least in my mind, and apparently Rowlings', is secondary to the fact that it was downright slimy, especially after all the work and effort JK put into helping the owner of the site make sure the electronic online version was absolutely correct and accurate.
They are reaping what they have sown.
-Viz
... if the author of the lexicon had gotten permission from JK Rowling to repackage her work in printed form, and worked out a deal for part of the income that would be generated due to all the material in the lexicon from *her* books, there wouldn't have been a problem.
Too bad greed got the best of them...
I can't fault J.K. Rowling for not laying down and watching it happen. Everyone involved is entitled to a stake in the profits, and they sidestepped the fountain that made it all possible. JK is definitely involved and deserves (as well as being legally entitled to) a piece of the pie.
The lexicon author and would be publisher got what they deserved for being greedy stupid little monkeys. Everybody wants a free ride...
They knew better and can't play dumb and pretend they didn't. I'm not a book publisher or attorney and I know better than to try some shit like that with someone else's franchise.
-Viz
They can also move your job to some black hole like Ohio... That sure as hell got me to quit.
Nothing against Ohio or the people that live there, but the local economy there is as dead as a doornail compared to either coast, especially near Dayton where they wanted me to move.
My paranoia was satisfied when the rest of the people in my department did move there, then got laid off 6 months later. Some bought houses after moving there.
Sad...
-Viz
And... a company can also not keep you from making a living using your skills with a stupid agreement.
The best thing you can do with a non-compete is ball it up and throw it away, and submit the rest of the docs you sign when starting a new job without it.
I've done this at my last 2 jobs and nobody noticed. There was so much paperwork at my last job they just didn't notice.
If they call you on it, just play dumb ; ) At least that way you'll get a feel for the company and it's culture and can decide if signing something that says you can't work for anyone else is such a great idea.
The last non-compete I actually signed was in 1997.
-Viz
OSX uses a Mach kernel and is "Mach based" (specifically the kernel is called XNU). You can't blame that on BSD though NeXT used a lot of ideas from BSD when designing Mach. XNU, however, is not a "BSD kernel" therefore it's not "BSD based" any more than linux is. There's a lot of BSD heritage in linux as well but nobody says linux is "BSD based".
OSX is not BSD or based off of it. It's Mach based.
Apple has a lot of BSD code (stacks, subsystems, etc etc) on their system, as well as the ability to run BSD and GNU software, but it's a Mach system, not BSD. Moreover a big difference between Mach and BSD is that Mach is a "microkernel". BSD is monolithic with a few microkernel features. There's a HUGE conceptual and philosophical (as well as performance) difference.
Despite all of this, Apple contributes to FreeBSD as well as using a lot of FreeBSD code in XNU which is where this confusion comes in. Saying it's "based" on BSD just isn't correct.
Here's a link written by someone that knows what they are talking about which explains OSX's lineage: http://www.sdbug.org/pipermail/sdbug/2004-January/002519.html
-Viz
...overhead. Some companies spin off their IT departments into a subsidiary since there's no way to justify the overhead of IT or quantify IT's contribution. Likewise, an IT "department" will eventually find themselves fighting for funding just to get the bare essentials needed to keep up with capacity and user requirements.
As a subsidiary, you can charge a fixed amount per desktop managed, which turns you into a profit center. This allows you to lease equipment and keep it new. When you are done with lease, send it back and get a new replacement.
You use a combination of ticketing and time sheets to track your time. This turns you from overhead to profitable subsidiary. Your budget problems also more or less disappear provided you get your pricing in "the zone" ; ) This enables you to get the latest gee-whiz technology for your company and make your contributions a lot more visible.
It's hard to not justify a profitable IT subsidiary company. Just remember to keep it competitive or you may find your parent company's departments going somewhere more affordable to get IT support ROFL. This can be partially prevented with a carefully written network policy, but you need to be reasonable because other people need to run and budget their departments too. If you squeeze them too hard they'll be *forced* to look elsewhere.
In this manner if your parent company is expanding, so will your revenue and budget as you add more users, enabling you to hire more IT people as needed and justified by your revenue.
I've been in 2 companies that used this model and when they made the switch they went from being under funded and budget starved to getting the money they needed to make the client (non-IT) happy and being able to afford necessary staff.
-Viz
>Google trying to drive more people towards its own online suite of office applications?
Google apps are pretty damn good now. I use them all the time. I'll take "can access it from anywhere without installing any software" over hardcore features any day of the week.
They also have built in collaboration. Star Office is kind of redundant. Then again I'm just a "normal" person with regard to Office products. As a software engineer, my requirements for an office product set the bar pretty low.
An accountant, or other financial business professional, will most likely find the software not quite delivering what they need in a spreadsheet etc. application. Then again, they'd also probably find Star Office lacking.
-Viz
isn't that the dye "degrades" creating error rates. This does happen with CD-RW's and happens really fast. The real problem is the media physically starts to fall off the acrylic and you start getting pinholes where it's missing.
This phenomena is easily seen by holding the disk up to a bright light. In fact, you'll see these "pinholes" out of the box for some cheap cd's.
You can use better CD's that are thicker and have a layer of acrylic over the dye layer but the problem then becomes clouding in the clear plastic on the read side and scratches.
For best results use high quality cd-r (NOT cd-rw) don't expose them to UV, and don't scratch them.
I have good quality CD's which have lasted over 10 years already with no errors. I just used good quality cds and didn't leave them laying around outside the case.
It's not rocket science.
-Viz
> Now...honestly, what do you think is really going to change?
Not much, at least from my POV. _NONE_ of the MD representatives got voted out of the house, well none except for Gilchrist who is retiring.
Same old politics...
Hint: for real change, you need to get rid of the people that have been writing the laws. The prez just decides whether or not to veto them.
Oh well there's always the next election. People talk about change this, change that, but from where I sit, nobody's walking the walk.
Nobody is changing stuff with their votes. We still have a democratic senate and house with the same old democrats in office. We got rid of 17 republicans. Whoopdeedoo. Electing Barak is no great change, despite the historical significance of his racial makeup. Either way we'd be getting change, by default, in the oval office.
We should have 435 new people in the house of R. THAT is change. We have failed ourselves as voters.
Nothing will change because nothing has changed except that which was changing whether or not we like it. How little we've learned...
Enjoy the buzz of Barak winning, then get ready for more of the same old thing, from the same old house, same old senate, and the same old lobbyists.
-Viz
>nforce
Problem #1
-Viz
I find your claim that Sarah Palin might become President is a sign of idiocy laughable on its face. Aren't the dems the ones who keep saying that no experience can prepare you for president (since Obama has no experience)? And yet, they keep saying that Palin is inexperienced? Pot? Kettle?
I think you are missing the larger stupidity.
You have to consider that Palin is not running for prez, it's Obama vs. McCain. That makes this argument (and campaign tactic) even more stupid (or shrewd?) than it appears on the surface. It's a classic fallacious red herring argument.
About the OP:
>The academics and computer scientists who said they were unreliable "have won that battle."'"
No they have not won the battle. They believe that electronic voting can work, but it needs to be done right. Here's a great link to Avi Rubin's (who more or less started the whole voting machine security/traceability debate) site that explains what the academics want and how Diebold etc can fix their machines.
http://avirubin.com/vote/
None want paper, they want the electronic systems to be designed and implemented properly. Paper voting is a PITA and also inaccurate. Avi etc have told Diebold etc how to fix their machines, til they were blue in the face, and were categorically ignored.
This development in MD and VA is a step backwards. What we (I'm a MD resident) should do is let Avi and Accurate( http://accurate-voting.org/ ) write the requirements for the machines and put the contract up for bid to have them built properly to spec.
-Viz
There has _never_ been anything "built right the first time" with information technology.
Just about everything in existence has been started with a target audience size and feature set that got a lot bigger. If it works you try to scale and extend it as the audience grows. However when scaling/extending it usually you have to make some compromises to avoid starting over from scratch.
The result (after much expansion) is almost always less than optimal, often very soon after initial implementation, but still does the job. Once it's no longer doing the job and can't be expanded, you rebuild.
If IPv6 takes over and all the hardware gets replaced, eventually we'll stress it out and need to expand it again. If not the protocol, at least the hardware.
This is a pretty simple and self-evident fact to most of us... hindsight is always 20/20 and it's real easy to critique stuff that was designed 35 years ago for a very limited audience, just because it doesn't do the job for the entire world and all the applications that didn't exist back then.
Where was this guy in 1973? He could have saved us a lot of trouble by telling Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn what they were doing wrong ; )
-Viz
If I were a nasty sort of black-hatted individual, the quickest way I can think of for destroying an enemy would be planting kiddie porn on his computer and dropping a dime to the authorities.
You could _destroy_ someone this way. All you'd need to do is break their wireless router, change the mac address on your wireless card, connect, then download a bunch of kiddie porn using their connection, burn it to CD, slide it under the door, hang out til they get home, and you see them pick it up (putting their finger prints all over it), call police.
There would be evidence at the ISP showing it was downloaded via their connection, and possession is 9/10ths of the law. They'd be screwed. The police wouldn't bother checking their PC for a lack of evidence which would indicate that someone else did this to them because they'd have enough to convict them.
This would be WAY too easy to do to someone and even easier than planting it on their PC.
-Viz
First, SMB is nothing like FTP. It's a whole different protocol, which uses a different network transport(when dealing with NetBEUI), with a different set of clients. FTP is a pure file transfer protocol, which uses pure TCP/IP.
Second dns/bind does not understand NetBIOS and doesn't do NetBIOS name resolution. That's wrong protocol and wrong name resolution service.
Just FYI ; )
Here's a link to better help you understand how NetBIOS name resolution works:
http://www.tech-faq.com/understanding-netbios-name-resolution.shtml
Here's just one of the differences FTA:
"The NetBIOS namespace is flat. This is different to the hierarchical namespace of Domain Name System (DNS). Because the NetBIOS namespace is not as scaleable as DNS, it does not work well for large networks. NetBIOS naming should be used for private networks."
-Viz
>I cannot believe the samba team is down to ONE full time developer.
That's one full time developer working on AD. Not everyone on the samba team works on active directory support.
yea cutting gears by hand is no joke. I used to be a machinist apprentice and union steelworker (that's what convinced me I needed to go to college =D). CNC machines can bang them out pretty fast, but they still aren't cheap.
You need to produce an engineering drawing as well if the gear is going to be custom made. Gears are surprisingly complex if you've never designed one, and have a lot of properties to consider for your application.
-Viz
>A poorly designed multi-disk storage system
or unmonitored one ; )
People are really stupid sometimes.
-Viz