Meh... just put the filing fee on your credit card and then include the credit card under the bankruptcy filing. That's, of course, assuming you have a credit card with any balance left.
They really should put out "common tasks" metrics:
(Margin of error = +/- 5 minutes)
FULL LOAD (minimum runtime): 40 minutes
Idle: 5 hours
Blue Ray play time: 3 hours
Video Games (100% GPU, 75% CPU (or whatever standard metrics are agreed on)): 90 minutes
With some standard like the above, and presenting it to the user without a wildly inaccurate answer of hours for "typical use," the user can review it and get a feel for the general amount of time it will run without feeling like they've been given a promise that it will absolutely work for no less than 5 hours no matter what you are doing when the manufacturer means it should run for around 5 hours if you use it to browse the internet and use MS Word.
I would say DRM is fine in a "rented" situation, as long as it does not rootkit my machine or otherwise open me up to security issues.
I believe that the DRM needs to be 100% cross platform, and should be such that you can access the content offline (a self deleting file format come to mind).
There are many solutions which could work (Adobe's PDF has a built in self destruct option, and could be implemented across the board).
These are the only times and ways that I would accept DRM. If the file is purchased, get out of my files and don't tell me what to do with my property (and get rid of the whole concept of licensing!! I don't license a product, I purchase it. Anything else is ridiculous).
My local library has a "digital library" available. I can download their application and listen to a book on my laptop, can read a book in their proprietary reader, etc. Their system simply disallows the physical copy to leave the library while the digital copy is out, thereby ensuring that they've purchased the rights to lend that book.
You can't get it on a kindle, but if you have a netbook running windows, the digital library is here. If you're using an e-book reader, or use any other OS, you're screwed (This is one of the many myriad of reasons that my house still has XP machines in it, though Linux is stepping in where I can use it).
It's not that the digital library isn't here, it's that it's crippled beyond use for many people, and that is what will ultimately destroy the concept.
That's why I've always thought that we should screw going digital unless you plan to go all the way digital (though we're stuck with what we are given to use). Either give me a paper trail or give me convenience of online voting. Online voting has too many issues, so give me simple paper voting, and count it by hand.
Errors will happen, but hey, at least we have a hardcopy and can recount if we need to, and can count twice to confirm the number.
why did we try to do anything else in the first place?
How hard can it be to build a foolproof system? I mean, come on! Why not do something like this:
computer voting system
Scantron copy is printed out for manual verification by the voter (with the selected candidate's name printed directly on the scantron sheet for easy verification, along with an "overlay" that shows the names above the scantron vote column for more certain verification), and dropped into a lockbox if confirmed to be accurate
voter selects button on screen stating that he/she has confirmed his/her vote. This prints a second, identical Scantron, which is dropped into a second locked box.
System has two CDR drives in it (not CD-RW)
As each vote is confirmed by the voter, the data for that vote is burned to each CDR (in triplicate or whatever for error correction), with no method for marking deletes - once the vote is cast, it is cast (that's what the "confirm or start over" mechanical button should be for)
Each CDR tray is set such that ejecting the CDRs drops one into the same lockbox as the scantrons, and the other into the same lockbox as the scantrons which were reviewed by the voters manually
Finally, when the voting is complete, each lockbox is sent to a different counting station, unlocked in front of many witnesses, run through the scantron, and verified against the CDR.
If the margin of error is greater than 99.95% or whatever their acceptable limit is, then the scantrons at that station are manually counted, using the printed names, not the scantron letter value, as the printed names are what the voter verified
Same thing happens at the other station
Results are determined thus:
There are 6 counting methods available in this scenario (2 CDRs, 2 scantron auto reads, and (if needed) two manual reads).
All that needs happen is that 4 of the 6 counts match up. CDRs are almost guaranteed to match up, so that's two (and if they don't match up, there has been some type of tampering or system failure, and we move from the CDRs into the Scantrons). After that, if the two scantron autoreads match up to the CDRs within the margin of error, then we know that the votes were counted correctly (3 items were not reviewed by the voter, but those 3 items match up with the voter reviewed cards). If, after looking at these four counting options, we do not have four matches (One of the scantron autoreads doesn't match the other three, or one of the CDRs is corrupted or unreadable, etc.), we do the manual counts. If we do not have 4 matching counts at this point, the votes are not valid, and a revote is required.
Yes, this is an "armchair" analysis, and I'm sure has some holes in it, but how in the heck is an Access Database with VB triggers any better than this armchair analysis?
Exactly. Think about it - a common user is in the jury. That user is only familiar with network administration insomuch as it interferes with their enjoyment of their job (unable to access YouTube, etc.). This individual could be biased simply because of position ("stickin' it to the arrogant IT Admin"), rather than facts and laws. Other IT industry managers (not just IT Admins, but other managers in similar level positions with similar level experience and responsibilities) would be better able to understand both sides of the story. A jury of end users (some likely with a thing against admins telling them what they can do) is certainly not a jury of his peers.
Where is his jury of peers then? A guy who flips burgers at the local McDonald's and doesn't know a thing about networking or the tools of the trade is certainly not his "peer". Neither would a CEO of a multinational pharmaceutical company be his peer. Only others who have a general knowledge of his general field (various IT folks, engineers, and others who could readily understand the technology involved in the criminal case) should really be considered "peers." I'd file for a mistrial if no one on the jury knew anything about network administration in some form or another.
No, but many of these rental places provide easy access to a GPS unit, which includes details on where to procure a gun, where local banks are, quickest getaway route...
So, the car rental company/GPS manufacturers jointly provided:
a vehicle for committing the crime
an information source which enables an individual to easily procure the needed information to commit the crime.
BitTorrent/TPB jointly provide:
a vehicle for committing the crime
an information source which enables an individual to easily procure the needed information to commit the crime.
I'm seeing a lot of parallels here.
I think Copyright infringement is wrong, but the punishments are horribly off base, and I think that copyright laws need to be scaled back to 7-14 years, long enough to make some money, but short enough to spur new cultural creations, so I'm not supporting the illegal use to which TPB is being put, but I seriously don't see how they are breaking any laws any worse than a car rental company would be breaking any laws should someone use the car with GPS to commit a robbery.
Why not, as a nation, simply buy some island from Mexico (and make it a "prison state" and treat it like it's not a state at all) somewhere near Texas, dump people there, and revoke their citizenship. They cannot legally enter the rest of the US again, they cannot legally enter Mexico, which is nearby, and they have lots of other angry, deadly people to worry about, not to mention survival, so that should take care of those who are most dangerous and cannot ever be returned to society. Rehabilitate the rest (don't jail them, rehabilitate them!)
If we ever find that we screwed up and sent the wrong person there, go back and pick them up (assuming they survived).
Why not take it a step further... offer options for installing bloatware. Let the vendors of the software pay to get you to install the bloat... AOL installer? $5 off computer. Norton Antivirus 90 day trial? $3 off computer. WildTangent game system with trial games? $10 off computer.
Add in all sorts of other softwares, and people who want a cheap computer can opt in to the bloat (and format it later and deal with that minor hassle), and those who just want a clean computer can choose not to have any bloat installed (and not get any discounts off the price).
The software providers pay the vendor per install anyways, and the savings are currently being passed on to the customers anyways, so why not do this, and allow those who don't want bloat to get the product at the cost the vendor would have to sell it if they didn't get kickbacks for installing bloat.
Simple solution: Buy cheap, and put the $$ you saved into supplying food to starving people in other countries. You have no guarantee that by buying the more expensive keyboard you are actually helping someone get out of those sweatshops, but by giving the difference to non-profit causes who reach out to these people, you are guaranteeing that your money gets used to help them, and doesn't simply get pocketed by the rich business owners.
They don't have to "get together" to screw you. One will do it, and all the rest will see the money making opportunity, so they will jump on with similar tiered services. No joint effort is needed (See: Gas hikes for the sake of gas hikes... prices go up one place, they go up all places, even though there is no underlying cost to cause the price to go up - holiday weekends, e.g.).
Long Version:(See bottom for short version) While your sarcasm makes a good point, there is definitely a need to change the method of voting. With the current system, his point stands. If I like candidates B and A, in that order, and you like candidates B and C, in that order, but I hate candidate C's position on many things (and you hate candidate A's position on many things), and candidate B is neither Republican, nor Democrat, and doesn't have enough money to run a campaign because of it, who will each of us vote for?
If I vote for B and you vote for B, great, we get the person we both wanted into office. The thing is, we both know that isn't how it works. If A and C are the Republican and Democratic options, then I will vote A and you will vote C. Why?
Well, take a look at this scenario:
I vote my conscience (B), and you, not wanting A to even have a chance, vote defensively (C, as opposed to your preferred B), and the general populace simply votes party line, then A and C will get the most votes, my B vote disappears in the mix, and your C vote tips the balance.
The result of this is that not too many people vote their conscience, because they are smart enough to see that the vote will end up swallowed up in the mix.
This leads to an ever tightening grip by one or two parties, eliminating any valid options unless you want to "throw away" your vote.
Solution? I'm not an expert, but Range (or Score) Voting seems to be a seriously well thought out alternative that has relatively few issues with it (far less ways to manipulate it than our current system).
Yes, the first 2 or three presidential elections would end up still with a majority going to the current top two candidates, but you might see a surprising number of "minor" parties jumping up as realistic contenders as people get used to being able to cast their intentions as opposed to their defense against another candidate.
More exposure to different party ideals is a good thing for everyone, and there are dozens of parties with varying ideologies, one of which likely matches you better than the party you've effectively been forced to conform to (of course there will be many who find their current party still their best option, but more realistic choices is always better).
tl;dr: Current plurality voting system favors the top two parties. Range Voting (or some other solution) is needed to provide real alternatives to the current habit of defensively voting for the lesser of two evils - this will bring about greater awareness of other party options beyond the top 2, and mitigate the issues surrounding "throw away" votes.
I like hemi engines, but I don't want to buy a dodge truck.
So, if the market were like Apple and OSX, I'd be screwed - but I can buy a Hemi anywhere!
ok, so not a perfect analogy.
This is closer to wanting a viper engine in your mustang. The hardware is great, and the OS is great, but what if you want that OS in a different piece of hardware? Vipers have viper engines, but I can still buy a viper engine to put in a mustang, and there's nothing that the viper manufacturer can legally do to stop me.
Ever think that by having text-to-speech, they instantly reach a whole new audience? This allows someone with a visual impairment to have both a book reading device and a "screen reader" for wikipedia and some other media outlets. Sounds like a good deal to me.
The point of the "Getting Things Done" methodology is to... wait for it... get things done! Having all of my information in one place simply increases my efficiency much more than switching to a "more efficient" interface (I put it in quotes because whether or not it is more efficient depends entirely on the person using it and his or her strengths and weaknesses). If I were to rely on a desktop application, I would then be totally lost when I am not on my personal laptop. By using Gmail on Gears, I have the benefit of having all of my information available to me from any internet connection anywhere, in addition to having it available offline on my personal laptop when traveling. Yes, I could opt for a USB thumb drive with portable thunderbird or something, but I have ADD and a propensity for losing things, so Gmail on Gears is perfect. Nothing to lose!
So, in my personal experience, it is more efficient for me to use this interface, irregardless of any perceived inefficiencies.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh... just put the filing fee on your credit card and then include the credit card under the bankruptcy filing. That's, of course, assuming you have a credit card with any balance left.
They really should put out "common tasks" metrics:
(Margin of error = +/- 5 minutes)
FULL LOAD (minimum runtime): 40 minutes
Idle: 5 hours
Blue Ray play time: 3 hours
Video Games (100% GPU, 75% CPU (or whatever standard metrics are agreed on)): 90 minutes
With some standard like the above, and presenting it to the user without a wildly inaccurate answer of hours for "typical use," the user can review it and get a feel for the general amount of time it will run without feeling like they've been given a promise that it will absolutely work for no less than 5 hours no matter what you are doing when the manufacturer means it should run for around 5 hours if you use it to browse the internet and use MS Word.
FYI: If you have permission, by definition, it's not SPAM.
I would say DRM is fine in a "rented" situation, as long as it does not rootkit my machine or otherwise open me up to security issues.
I believe that the DRM needs to be 100% cross platform, and should be such that you can access the content offline (a self deleting file format come to mind).
There are many solutions which could work (Adobe's PDF has a built in self destruct option, and could be implemented across the board).
These are the only times and ways that I would accept DRM. If the file is purchased, get out of my files and don't tell me what to do with my property (and get rid of the whole concept of licensing!! I don't license a product, I purchase it. Anything else is ridiculous).
My local library has a "digital library" available. I can download their application and listen to a book on my laptop, can read a book in their proprietary reader, etc. Their system simply disallows the physical copy to leave the library while the digital copy is out, thereby ensuring that they've purchased the rights to lend that book.
You can't get it on a kindle, but if you have a netbook running windows, the digital library is here. If you're using an e-book reader, or use any other OS, you're screwed (This is one of the many myriad of reasons that my house still has XP machines in it, though Linux is stepping in where I can use it).
It's not that the digital library isn't here, it's that it's crippled beyond use for many people, and that is what will ultimately destroy the concept.
That's why I've always thought that we should screw going digital unless you plan to go all the way digital (though we're stuck with what we are given to use). Either give me a paper trail or give me convenience of online voting. Online voting has too many issues, so give me simple paper voting, and count it by hand.
Errors will happen, but hey, at least we have a hardcopy and can recount if we need to, and can count twice to confirm the number.
why did we try to do anything else in the first place?
Results are determined thus:
There are 6 counting methods available in this scenario (2 CDRs, 2 scantron auto reads, and (if needed) two manual reads).
All that needs happen is that 4 of the 6 counts match up. CDRs are almost guaranteed to match up, so that's two (and if they don't match up, there has been some type of tampering or system failure, and we move from the CDRs into the Scantrons). After that, if the two scantron autoreads match up to the CDRs within the margin of error, then we know that the votes were counted correctly (3 items were not reviewed by the voter, but those 3 items match up with the voter reviewed cards). If, after looking at these four counting options, we do not have four matches (One of the scantron autoreads doesn't match the other three, or one of the CDRs is corrupted or unreadable, etc.), we do the manual counts. If we do not have 4 matching counts at this point, the votes are not valid, and a revote is required.
Yes, this is an "armchair" analysis, and I'm sure has some holes in it, but how in the heck is an Access Database with VB triggers any better than this armchair analysis?
Exactly. Think about it - a common user is in the jury. That user is only familiar with network administration insomuch as it interferes with their enjoyment of their job (unable to access YouTube, etc.). This individual could be biased simply because of position ("stickin' it to the arrogant IT Admin"), rather than facts and laws. Other IT industry managers (not just IT Admins, but other managers in similar level positions with similar level experience and responsibilities) would be better able to understand both sides of the story. A jury of end users (some likely with a thing against admins telling them what they can do) is certainly not a jury of his peers.
Where is his jury of peers then? A guy who flips burgers at the local McDonald's and doesn't know a thing about networking or the tools of the trade is certainly not his "peer". Neither would a CEO of a multinational pharmaceutical company be his peer. Only others who have a general knowledge of his general field (various IT folks, engineers, and others who could readily understand the technology involved in the criminal case) should really be considered "peers." I'd file for a mistrial if no one on the jury knew anything about network administration in some form or another.
Check if it is down here.
ldap and ical are your friends.
So, the car rental company/GPS manufacturers jointly provided:
BitTorrent/TPB jointly provide:
I'm seeing a lot of parallels here.
I think Copyright infringement is wrong, but the punishments are horribly off base, and I think that copyright laws need to be scaled back to 7-14 years, long enough to make some money, but short enough to spur new cultural creations, so I'm not supporting the illegal use to which TPB is being put, but I seriously don't see how they are breaking any laws any worse than a car rental company would be breaking any laws should someone use the car with GPS to commit a robbery.
No encryption was circumvented... reverse engineering is allowed under the DMCA. What, exactly, about his idea do you believe this falls under?
Why not, as a nation, simply buy some island from Mexico (and make it a "prison state" and treat it like it's not a state at all) somewhere near Texas, dump people there, and revoke their citizenship. They cannot legally enter the rest of the US again, they cannot legally enter Mexico, which is nearby, and they have lots of other angry, deadly people to worry about, not to mention survival, so that should take care of those who are most dangerous and cannot ever be returned to society. Rehabilitate the rest (don't jail them, rehabilitate them!)
If we ever find that we screwed up and sent the wrong person there, go back and pick them up (assuming they survived).
Why not take it a step further... offer options for installing bloatware. Let the vendors of the software pay to get you to install the bloat... AOL installer? $5 off computer. Norton Antivirus 90 day trial? $3 off computer. WildTangent game system with trial games? $10 off computer.
Add in all sorts of other softwares, and people who want a cheap computer can opt in to the bloat (and format it later and deal with that minor hassle), and those who just want a clean computer can choose not to have any bloat installed (and not get any discounts off the price).
The software providers pay the vendor per install anyways, and the savings are currently being passed on to the customers anyways, so why not do this, and allow those who don't want bloat to get the product at the cost the vendor would have to sell it if they didn't get kickbacks for installing bloat.
Win/Win, eh?
Harassment is not a crime, it is a tort, so something doesn't seem quite right with the summary... but this is slashdot - who'm I kidding?
it will hit the floor every time
Tell a quantum physicist that....
Simple solution: Buy cheap, and put the $$ you saved into supplying food to starving people in other countries. You have no guarantee that by buying the more expensive keyboard you are actually helping someone get out of those sweatshops, but by giving the difference to non-profit causes who reach out to these people, you are guaranteeing that your money gets used to help them, and doesn't simply get pocketed by the rich business owners.
They don't have to "get together" to screw you. One will do it, and all the rest will see the money making opportunity, so they will jump on with similar tiered services. No joint effort is needed (See: Gas hikes for the sake of gas hikes... prices go up one place, they go up all places, even though there is no underlying cost to cause the price to go up - holiday weekends, e.g.).
Long Version: (See bottom for short version)
While your sarcasm makes a good point, there is definitely a need to change the method of voting. With the current system, his point stands. If I like candidates B and A, in that order, and you like candidates B and C, in that order, but I hate candidate C's position on many things (and you hate candidate A's position on many things), and candidate B is neither Republican, nor Democrat, and doesn't have enough money to run a campaign because of it, who will each of us vote for?
If I vote for B and you vote for B, great, we get the person we both wanted into office. The thing is, we both know that isn't how it works. If A and C are the Republican and Democratic options, then I will vote A and you will vote C. Why?
Well, take a look at this scenario:
I vote my conscience (B), and you, not wanting A to even have a chance, vote defensively (C, as opposed to your preferred B), and the general populace simply votes party line, then A and C will get the most votes, my B vote disappears in the mix, and your C vote tips the balance.
The result of this is that not too many people vote their conscience, because they are smart enough to see that the vote will end up swallowed up in the mix.
This leads to an ever tightening grip by one or two parties, eliminating any valid options unless you want to "throw away" your vote.
Solution? I'm not an expert, but Range (or Score) Voting seems to be a seriously well thought out alternative that has relatively few issues with it (far less ways to manipulate it than our current system).
Yes, the first 2 or three presidential elections would end up still with a majority going to the current top two candidates, but you might see a surprising number of "minor" parties jumping up as realistic contenders as people get used to being able to cast their intentions as opposed to their defense against another candidate.
More exposure to different party ideals is a good thing for everyone, and there are dozens of parties with varying ideologies, one of which likely matches you better than the party you've effectively been forced to conform to (of course there will be many who find their current party still their best option, but more realistic choices is always better).
tl;dr:
Current plurality voting system favors the top two parties. Range Voting (or some other solution) is needed to provide real alternatives to the current habit of defensively voting for the lesser of two evils - this will bring about greater awareness of other party options beyond the top 2, and mitigate the issues surrounding "throw away" votes.
Google Books to the rescue!
A better car analogy:
I like hemi engines, but I don't want to buy a dodge truck.
So, if the market were like Apple and OSX, I'd be screwed - but I can buy a Hemi anywhere!
ok, so not a perfect analogy.
This is closer to wanting a viper engine in your mustang. The hardware is great, and the OS is great, but what if you want that OS in a different piece of hardware? Vipers have viper engines, but I can still buy a viper engine to put in a mustang, and there's nothing that the viper manufacturer can legally do to stop me.
Ever think that by having text-to-speech, they instantly reach a whole new audience? This allows someone with a visual impairment to have both a book reading device and a "screen reader" for wikipedia and some other media outlets. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Hahahahahaha... look it up, it is viruses. Virii is not a word.
The point of the "Getting Things Done" methodology is to... wait for it... get things done! Having all of my information in one place simply increases my efficiency much more than switching to a "more efficient" interface (I put it in quotes because whether or not it is more efficient depends entirely on the person using it and his or her strengths and weaknesses). If I were to rely on a desktop application, I would then be totally lost when I am not on my personal laptop. By using Gmail on Gears, I have the benefit of having all of my information available to me from any internet connection anywhere, in addition to having it available offline on my personal laptop when traveling. Yes, I could opt for a USB thumb drive with portable thunderbird or something, but I have ADD and a propensity for losing things, so Gmail on Gears is perfect. Nothing to lose!
So, in my personal experience, it is more efficient for me to use this interface, irregardless of any perceived inefficiencies.