Thanks Daniel. For some reason, the/. minions rejected my submission of a frontpage story to that effect, including plugs for the torrent (via IRC) and ordering CDs to support the project. I can only assume that the anti-BSD Linux Zealots are responsible.../me shakes his fist
Thanks to you and the rest of the crew for making sure I have something geekish to do this weekend.
Essentially, yes. What I'm saying is that if the product fails out of the period for which it is warrantied, then yes... you should have taken that into consideration like you would for other pieces of technology. If Microsoft only covers the damn things for 90 days, then a consumer has the responsibility to ask themselves why that is the case... and make their purchasing decisions accordingly. 1 year is NOT an absolutely unreasonable timeframe. It is the same timeframe that harddrives are warrantied in most cases. 1 year is entirely precedented and reasonable for what is essentially a PC built for gaming, especially one sold at less than hardware cost.
When I bought my (refurbished) Xbox, I declined the opportunity to purchase extra coverage. If the damn thing fails out of the 90 day period it is covered, then I know I'm out the creek without an Xbox and its my own damn fault for not buying extra replacement coverage. That is how this works.
BTW, I buy extra warranty coverage when I get a car and would never dream of suing the manufacturer for failure outside of the time period in which they guaranteed it would't fail.
That is why you buy extended warranties from the retail outlet. This is just a case of a whiny customer trying to get some cash out of a company with deep pockets. Its sympathetic judge gambling. Hopefully he gets some crotchety pro-business asshole who decides to award MS some damages against the whiny litigious bastard;)
Well, after watching CSI:New York last night, I've learned I need to be scared of nibbling on any part of girls when I eat sushi off them...
... dammit.
I'd trade that in for remaining afraid of apples, poisoned wagon wheels, any all the other "be careful, kids!" FUD that used to keep us alive Back in tha Day.
PayPal would have some information but even that could be mostly false accept for an actual checking account number. Would a law enforecement agency be able to track down the owners?
Sure... a bank account number is a grrreat piece of evidence. They have to access the funds somehow, either electronically so it can be transfered or applied as a bill payment to something, or physically get access. Those provide all sorts of great opportunities to track down the bastards;)
That evil DMCA thing might be all that is needed to get the investigation and disclosure of information happening, too... good times, good times.
Doesn't Lucas realize that Empire Strikes Back, with screenwriters Who Aren't Named Lucas and a director Who Isn't Named Lucas, was the best of the Star Wars movies? The awful acting out of Mannequin Skywalker and Amidala good have been hammered out with somebody capable of writing good dialog and a director capable of recognizing stale delivery.
Don't forget, they are flooding the market with cheap and less capable goods. In other words, people who buy this get what they pay for. Meanwhile, Linux is still free and fully functional.
This is a good opportunity for $desktoplinuxdistribution to make inroads.
BTW, apparently the Acadian french concept of poutine differs from the Quebecois. Poutine means "mess" in French, at least that is what I'm told. It means "coronary" to Anglo-Saxons.
Doing everything with computer-generated graphics is done all the time, as long as you don't include voice: Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.
In the case of SCatWoT, you've got a virtual set. If the actors involved can pull off decent performances lacking even a mockup environment to feed off of, then good for them.
They should state that this action will be taken in an EULA that requires ack'ing (its not like warezmonkeys read these things... hell, its not like ANYBODY reads them), so that they approve the deletion.
This doesn't undo his status as "fucking scoundrel". Its not like Lucas had him save a box of kittens from getting eaten by a Hutt. Failing to shoot first is poor reflexes or a lapse in anticipating your enemy's next move, if anything. All we know is:
1. Greedo is a lousy shot
2. Han should have had some coffee or a Red Bull before confronting the little green bastard
Sure... just ask Cisco and OpenBSD. OpenBSD developed CARP to address Cisco's aggression against an IETF standard which they believe to overlap with their HSRP patent.
The IETF community proposed work in this direction in the late 90's, however in 1997 Cisco informed them that they believed some of Cisco's patents covered the proposed IETF VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol); on March 20, 1998 they went further and specifically named their HSRP "Hot Standby Router Protocol" patent. Reputedly, they were upset that IETF had not simply adopted the flawed HSRP protocol as the standard solution for this problem. Despite this legal pressure, the IETF community forged ahead and published VRRP as a standard even though there was a patent in the space. Why? There was much deliberation at all levels of the IETF, and unfortunately for all of us the politicians within eventually decided to allow patented technology in standards -- as long as the patented technology is licensed under RAND (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) terms. As free software programmers, we therefore find ourselves in the position that these RAND standards must not be implemented by us, and we must deviate from the standard. We find all this rather Unreasonable and Discriminatory and we *will* design competing protocols. Some standards organization, eh?
Due to some HSRP flaws fixed by VRRP and for compatibility with the (HSRP-licensed) VRRP implementations of their competitors, Cisco in recent times has largely abandoned HSRP and now relies on VRRP instead -- a protocol designed for and by the community, but for which they claim patent rights.
On August 7 2002, after many communications, Robert Barr (Cisco's lawyer) firmly informed the OpenBSD community that Cisco would defend its patents for VRRP implementations -- meaning basically that it was impossible for a free software group to produce a truly free implementation of the IETF standard protocol. Perhaps this is because Cisco and Alcatel are currently engaged in a pair of patent lawsuits; a small piece of which is Cisco attempting to use the HSRP patent against Alcatel for their use of VRRP. Some IETF working group members took note of our complaints, however an attempt in April 2003 to have the IETF abandon the use of patented technology failed to "reach consensus" in the IETF.
A few years ago, the W3C, who designs our web protocols, tried to move to a RAND policy as well (primarily because of pressure from Microsoft and Apple), but the community outrage was so overpowering that they backed down. Some standards groups use this policy, while others avoid it -- the one differentiation being the amount of corporate participation. In the IETF, the pro-RAND agents work for AT&T, Alcatel, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, and other large companies. Since IETF is an open forum, they can blend in as the populace, and vote just like all others, except against the community.
Translation: In failing to "reach consensus", the companies who benefit from RAND won, and the community lost again.
I think what we're seeing here is that a few of those people, i.e., your target audience, don't like the name and are having trouble expressing why. Being able to express why a dislike exists is not a predicate for acting on that dislike. In other words, it is entirely possible that the people who you need to get the support of may not support the distribution due to poorly forulated, illogical, and irrational reasons.
Personally, I don't like the name "UserLinux", but I'm prepared to evaluate the product on its technical merits regardless. I think name is a bit awkward and unfortunately triggers some of the negative feelings many sysadmins have associated with "users". I don't want a Linux distribution targetted at "users", even though we are all users. I want a distro that has a blend of the features, power, elegance in design, cluefullness, and ergonomics. I want a distribution that can be used equally well as a server or desktop. I want a distribution that is rewarding to clueful administrators, not overly cumbersome to novice users, and is based on a solid design. I don't think I can really justify my personal dislike of the name UserLinux further right now, so take these comments for what they are worth.
As a member of your target audience, I'd suggest you adopt a different name. ClueLinux ("clue" being generally considered to be the opposite of "user" for most BOFH's... hell, BOFHLinux would be awesome, but inappropriate for business) would likely generate more excitement without any rational basis to explain it;)
No, check your assumptions. I am not a "lefty troll" trying to slander anybody (except maybe Chomsky). What I am trying to point out, with my rambling example of enforced control over implementation of an idea, that property rights are A) Natural, B) Do seem to extend beyond physical objects or places, C) Require enforcement if they are to exist in an operational sense. I did not place a value judgement on the Chief or Random Caveman in my example.
This little mental exercise aside, I firmly believe in property rights, freedom of speech, and other real libertarian ideals. I do not believe in systems which exist to strip individuals of their property for the good of another, and I do believe in the individual's right to protect (i.e., enforce) ownership of their property. I realize that property rights are a key to the rights of the individual... that is why I took the opening shot at Chomsky. He might believe in small government, but his economic principles are nothing more than slavery of individuals to the hive. Luckily, he's got the "anarchist" slant, which leads to a lack of systems to enforce such slavery.
"statist" is one of the more abused words used to describe political ideologies, and some more verbage is necessary to separate the libertarian from the socialist, two very different beasts. Chomsky's anarchistic socialism doesn't lead to freedom, at least in terms of property (which the libertarian would argue is absolutely necessary to freedom of the individual).
Back on topic... in the "natural world", things (whether it is a stick or a cave) are owned by force of might and social interaction, essentially systems which enforce ownership of some physical thing. An idea cannot be shared in the "natural world" without that idea becoming free. However, the use of an idea can be controlled by the same systems as physical property. For example, the Chief's Spear could be made by Random Caveman, giving him the same weaponry as the Chief. Chief can control this by taking away, killing, or putting social pressures onto Random Caveman. The idea is no longer free, but subject to force of might and social pressure. Fast forward to today, and we have the same thing except suits are involved. Can an idea be owned? Absolutely.
The question before us is whether or not it is right or wrong to allow anyone to enforce ownership. This is not a cut and dried issue, certainly not in the same way that physics is. Any answer to the question which fails to recognize that we are presented with a moral and philosophical issue can be safely ignored.
Star Trek should be allowed to die. The quality of life Star Trek would be expected to have, should Star Trek ever recover, is minimal. We believe that significant brain damage has been incurred durring previous attempts to bring Star Trek back from the brink of death.
I think it is time we discuss organ donation with the patient's legal guardians. Star Trek, through such altruism, could allow others to have the second chance that we believe Star Trek does not at this stage of illness. We regret that Babylon 5 could have been saved if only the DNR order for Star Trek had been given years ago. Let us not make the same mistake again... *sniff*
The only responsibility they have in using their power is to their shareholders and customers. If a Windows machine, typically in place in the desktop since they aren't that strong as servers, is passing traffic then odds are it is in some "interactive" way. Why they hell shouldn't they have the stack try to get some preferential treatment?
This isn't an instance of a broken standard as far as I'm concerned, it is just a shady implementation/intepretation of the standard. I'd expect nothing less from the folks in Redmond;)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks to you and the rest of the crew for making sure I have something geekish to do this weekend.
When I bought my (refurbished) Xbox, I declined the opportunity to purchase extra coverage. If the damn thing fails out of the 90 day period it is covered, then I know I'm out the creek without an Xbox and its my own damn fault for not buying extra replacement coverage. That is how this works.
BTW, I buy extra warranty coverage when I get a car and would never dream of suing the manufacturer for failure outside of the time period in which they guaranteed it would't fail.
That is why you buy extended warranties from the retail outlet. This is just a case of a whiny customer trying to get some cash out of a company with deep pockets. Its sympathetic judge gambling. Hopefully he gets some crotchety pro-business asshole who decides to award MS some damages against the whiny litigious bastard ;)
... so download one of the cd-rom images for the LiveCD or wait for the FTP install stuff to be available in a short while. RTFA.
I'd trade that in for remaining afraid of apples, poisoned wagon wheels, any all the other "be careful, kids!" FUD that used to keep us alive Back in tha Day.
That evil DMCA thing might be all that is needed to get the investigation and disclosure of information happening, too... good times, good times.
I fell off my Segway.
Doesn't Lucas realize that Empire Strikes Back, with screenwriters Who Aren't Named Lucas and a director Who Isn't Named Lucas, was the best of the Star Wars movies? The awful acting out of Mannequin Skywalker and Amidala good have been hammered out with somebody capable of writing good dialog and a director capable of recognizing stale delivery.
This is a good opportunity for $desktoplinuxdistribution to make inroads.
BTW, apparently the Acadian french concept of poutine differs from the Quebecois. Poutine means "mess" in French, at least that is what I'm told. It means "coronary" to Anglo-Saxons.
In the case of SCatWoT, you've got a virtual set. If the actors involved can pull off decent performances lacking even a mockup environment to feed off of, then good for them.
I wonder if Mudge will have to use his real name?
I'm also sure that Ford kicks BMW's ass in terms of popularity, at least in the USA.
I'm going to have to work something about the prevalence of bad taste into my Stupid People Theory.
Good times, good times...
They should state that this action will be taken in an EULA that requires ack'ing (its not like warezmonkeys read these things... hell, its not like ANYBODY reads them), so that they approve the deletion.
This doesn't undo his status as "fucking scoundrel". Its not like Lucas had him save a box of kittens from getting eaten by a Hutt. Failing to shoot first is poor reflexes or a lapse in anticipating your enemy's next move, if anything. All we know is:
1. Greedo is a lousy shot
2. Han should have had some coffee or a Red Bull before confronting the little green bastard
3.5: "CARP License" and "Redundancy must be free":
Personally, I don't like the name "UserLinux", but I'm prepared to evaluate the product on its technical merits regardless. I think name is a bit awkward and unfortunately triggers some of the negative feelings many sysadmins have associated with "users". I don't want a Linux distribution targetted at "users", even though we are all users. I want a distro that has a blend of the features, power, elegance in design, cluefullness, and ergonomics. I want a distribution that can be used equally well as a server or desktop. I want a distribution that is rewarding to clueful administrators, not overly cumbersome to novice users, and is based on a solid design. I don't think I can really justify my personal dislike of the name UserLinux further right now, so take these comments for what they are worth.
As a member of your target audience, I'd suggest you adopt a different name. ClueLinux ("clue" being generally considered to be the opposite of "user" for most BOFH's... hell, BOFHLinux would be awesome, but inappropriate for business) would likely generate more excitement without any rational basis to explain it ;)
- EvilAlien,
Proudhon is an example of why individuals should also have the right to means of self-defence (and by extention, their property).
This little mental exercise aside, I firmly believe in property rights, freedom of speech, and other real libertarian ideals. I do not believe in systems which exist to strip individuals of their property for the good of another, and I do believe in the individual's right to protect (i.e., enforce) ownership of their property. I realize that property rights are a key to the rights of the individual... that is why I took the opening shot at Chomsky. He might believe in small government, but his economic principles are nothing more than slavery of individuals to the hive. Luckily, he's got the "anarchist" slant, which leads to a lack of systems to enforce such slavery.
"statist" is one of the more abused words used to describe political ideologies, and some more verbage is necessary to separate the libertarian from the socialist, two very different beasts. Chomsky's anarchistic socialism doesn't lead to freedom, at least in terms of property (which the libertarian would argue is absolutely necessary to freedom of the individual).
Back on topic... in the "natural world", things (whether it is a stick or a cave) are owned by force of might and social interaction, essentially systems which enforce ownership of some physical thing. An idea cannot be shared in the "natural world" without that idea becoming free. However, the use of an idea can be controlled by the same systems as physical property. For example, the Chief's Spear could be made by Random Caveman, giving him the same weaponry as the Chief. Chief can control this by taking away, killing, or putting social pressures onto Random Caveman. The idea is no longer free, but subject to force of might and social pressure. Fast forward to today, and we have the same thing except suits are involved. Can an idea be owned? Absolutely.
The question before us is whether or not it is right or wrong to allow anyone to enforce ownership. This is not a cut and dried issue, certainly not in the same way that physics is. Any answer to the question which fails to recognize that we are presented with a moral and philosophical issue can be safely ignored.
I'd also like the car to come with a neuralizer feature for those situations.
I think it is time we discuss organ donation with the patient's legal guardians. Star Trek, through such altruism, could allow others to have the second chance that we believe Star Trek does not at this stage of illness. We regret that Babylon 5 could have been saved if only the DNR order for Star Trek had been given years ago. Let us not make the same mistake again... *sniff*
This isn't an instance of a broken standard as far as I'm concerned, it is just a shady implementation/intepretation of the standard. I'd expect nothing less from the folks in Redmond ;)
SPF has some good traction, but as far as I'm concerned, this is the death knell for SenderID.