It really depends on which books you're intending to read. You probably aren't saving that much compared to mass market paperbacks, but you are compared to trade paper or hard back. Where Kindle really shines is for stuff that's out of copyright. You can get really impressive collections that would be very expensive- not to mention heavy and taking up a lot of shelf space- for $1 or less.
None of these stupid suggestions are online, so they're useless. For home users, the ONLY realistic offsite backup solution in online backup over the internet.
Give me a break. Copying your data to an external hard drive and keeping it elsewhere is a perfectly realistic solution. You just need to find a workable off-site location, like your desk at work or a friend's house. That's exactly what I do. It's not automated- I have to move the drive myself- so it's only good for snapshots, but it's still a workable solution. If my house burns down or a thief steals my PC, I'll lose at most a week or two of data. I may miss that week's worth of data, but it will be a much smaller loss than the decade plus of data that I'll save.
That would be a more plausible explanation if they didn't have a version for Solaris on Sparc. I'm more inclined to believe that the root problem is unwillingness to devote the resources.
When you have industries becoming dependent on materials from abortions for research, you create a financial incentive to support abortion.
But embryonic stem cell research does not depend on material from abortions. By the time that an embryo has developed to the point that a woman even knows that she's pregnant, the embryo is no longer useful for stem cell research. "Embryonic" stem cell research uses blastocysts that were generated for in-vitro fertilization but never implanted. These are quite literally cells that can't develop into babies without considerable further medical intervention.
I think you're missing a point. No system can ever be more secure than the method used to distribute security credentials, so you're not losing anything by distributing something like a SSH key fingerprint (which, when you think about it, is just another security credential) at the same time. Either I can send those credentials securely or I can't. If I can, I can send the SSH key fingerprint using the same secure method and I'm safe. If I can't, you can intercept my other credentials the same way you intercepted the SSH key fingerprint, and you can pwn me without needing a fancy man-in-the-middle attack.
(as long as your certain who your talking to on the first connection).
Which you can be with a little bit of effort. Every SSH implementation I've used asks you to verify the key fingerprint of the server before it accepts it as valid. If you send people the key fingerprint through a separate channel- like sending it to them on the same document that includes their original username and password- it will be very difficult for anyone to interfere.
A bank could do essentially the same thing by printing the fingerprint for their SSL certificate on the back of their ATM cards. Then they could deliberately not use a certificate that was signed by a trusted CA, and force users to check the certificate against the number on the back of their card. It's not completely secure, since stupid users can always fail to check, but it's probably better than relying on unreliable CAs.
After downloading the updated package meta-data, but before requesting any packages (and therefore before it has revealed anything to the mirror), any services that are to be upgraded are disabled.
That will only work until the vulnerability is in something that can't be shut down during the update process, like the package manger or the kernel. That list might be small enough that it's practical to have a single, secure server for those updates, but it's an added complication to the problem.
Set up whatever crazy work hours and pay rate you want. But as soon as the actual health and well being of the employee comes into concern, the government should have some say as to what's going on.
That's great. You just need to remember that overwork is bad for your health and draw the logical conclusion.
It's been 20 years since I've done Calculus, however I do remember that even with an infinite tail, the area under the curve isn't infinite - Specifically the integration of 1/x from 0=> infinity is e or about 2 2/3.
You remember wrong. The integral of 1/x is ln(x). ln(x) goes to -infinity as x goes to 0, so the integral from 0 to any positive number will be infinite. More importantly, ln(x) goes to +infinity as x goes to infinity, so integral of 1/x from any positive number to infinity is infinite. ln(x) obviously diverges very slowly, so you have to go way out there to get to any large number, but you can get any arbitrarily large number by going far enough.
It looks to me as though you're confusing two parts of the article. It's actually talking about two sets of correspondence, one about the knighthood and one about funding disputes. On the knighthood, it says:
"Professor Hawking does not like titles. In fact he dislikes the whole concept of them," a spokesman told The Times.
So he turned the knighthood down because he dislikes knighthood in principle. That seems like a reasonable position, and a willingness to turn down personal advancement on a matter of principle seems like an honorable decision. The arguments about funding were a separate issue and, apparently, one that came about some time after he turned down the knighthood.
The Republicans needed Monica to point out that Bill couldn't keep his pants zipped because it was otherwise historically irrelevant. The same certainly isn't true of W's war crimes and ignoring the Constitution. Those things are going to be the hallmark of his presidency whether there's an impeachment or not. It's far more important for the Democrats to increase their chances of winning the next election- which impeachment would probably hurt- than to try to add some kind of historical black mark to Bush's presidency.
Exactly. There's no point in going for impeachment if you can't win the conviction. All it will do is cause backlash. Unfortunately, I think the same thing is probably true of pursuing criminal charges against all of the low level enablers engaged in torture, black site prisons, warrantless wiretaps, etc.
Gunning for impeachment and throwing the crooks in jail are viscerally attractive, but we have to look at our long term goals. The last thing we want to do is look like a bunch of America-hating cranks out to persecute Bush and his supporters for trying to protect the USA. It's far more important to destroy the Administration's worst ideas than to throw individual Bushies in jail.
The solution is to pull back the curtain and show just how bad those guys have been. Our goal should be to turn anyone associated with Bush's policies into a political leper that no politician in his right mind wants to touch. In its own way, that will be a worse punishment for those involved than any likely prison sentence, and it will achieve the real goal of avoiding those policies in the future.
As a practical matter, impeachment is impossible. Whether Bush's actions were or weren't illegal is beside the point. Impeachment is an inherently political process, not a strictly legal one. A conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate. The Democrats would have a hard time getting enough Republican votes for conviction if Bush murdered a decorated war hero on national television, and there's no chance at all with what he's actually done. The best they can hope for is to shine enough light onto what he's done that anyone associated with his crimes becomes a political pariah.
But adding God doesn't really simplify things. Saying "God willed it" is easy because it doesn't require you to think or learn about science, but it isn't simple because it requires you to assume the existence of an omnipotent God with all the philosophical and theological baggage that implies. Unless you substitute the belief in God for everything we know about science (e.g. that objects fall because of God's will, not because of universal gravity) then believing in God only adds another thing to think about. That's the exact opposite of Occam's maxim that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".
An even better approach would be to have just a Windows partition. Then do your real work under Linux by booting from a memory stick. If you want to get really paranoid, you could keep all of your sensitive data on a separate, encrypted memory stick, camera memory card ("hidden" in your camera), phone memory card ("hidden" in your phone), etc.
Of course, you should go ahead and do some unimportant work under Windows. Play games, surf the net (safe, unimportant web sites, only, of course), keep your golf scores, etc. That way, if somebody ever does search your laptop, it won't look like a system that's just been wiped to avoid generating any evidence.
She's actually doing this pro se, i.e. representing herself, rather than paying for a lawyer. That means she's not paying a huge lawyer bill, but it has still cost her time and effort.
you'd have to be pretty stupid to sign over all the original work in a contract if you've been contracted to produce a final product,
It depends on what you're designing and how much they're willing to pay. If you're just customizing a basic framework that you expect to re-use on future projects, it doesn't make much sense to sell the original work- unless they're willing to pay you enough to redevelop the framework for those future project, of course. If you're making things one off that you're unlikely to be able to sell again, it doesn't make sense to make ownership of the design a sticking point.
And that assumes you have the leverage to negotiate your favored position. If you work as an employee rather than an independent contractor, you won't have much choice. Your contract will almost certainly give full rights to all your work to your employer.
Lucas Licensing called the prop designer a "fan" even though he created the Stormtroopers!
A spokesman for Lucas Licensing said: "We would never want to discourage fans from showcasing their enthusiasm for the movies. However, anyone who tried to profit from using our copyrights and trademarks without authorisation... we will go after them."
I don't think that was his meaning, though he could have expressed himself better. The idea is that they aren't objecting to fans wanting to have and wear their own Star Wars costumes and props. What they object to is somebody selling Star Wars stuff without giving them a cut.
But what about the time limit you would have to register these?
IMO, there should be a mixture of the current system where everything is automatically under copyright, and the proposed system where you have to pay a fee to keep the copyright. So the creator would have exclusive rights for a relatively short time- maybe 1 to 5 years- after which he'd only retain copyright if he was willing to pay a periodic renewal fee. That would give creators time to assess the value of their work and decide if it was worth paying for copyright. Anything that the creator didn't care about would be released into the public domain, where others could take a crack at it if they disagreed about its value.
As for the time, anything digital can be changed, what if say some classified documents were released by the government however because the government didn't pay the fee they would become public domain and legally anyone here or abroad could have them (yes I know with leaked documents this always happens even when its not legal but its the best example I can think of right now) legally.
This is actually a particularly bad example. Legally, nothing produced by a government employee in his official capacity may be copyrighted; it's automatically in the public domain. At the same time, classified documents have other legal protections, like espionage laws.
So the public domain should only get things of little value?
No. I'm a firm believer that copyright should expire- probably sooner than it does today- and everything should eventually wind up in the public domain. But that doesn't mean that all works should go in equally fast. If the creator really doesn't care about his work, it shouldn't stay under copyright. When it's abandoned, it should move into the public domain so that people who do care about it can use it right away.
No the real question would be how much would you have to pay for that comment you just wrote.
The answer is easy: nothing. You're never required to pay the property tax. It's just that you lose your copyright if you don't pay. Since I don't really care about the value of my slashdot comments, I wouldn't pay and they'd lapse into the public domain.
That's exactly the point. Things like blog comments that have little monetary value to their creators shouldn't be protected indefinitely. Neither should books that their publishers care so little about that they're allowed to go out of print. They should move into the public domain so that other people can make use of them without fear of lawsuit.
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I mean is that there are a lot of people who use the language of free markets as an excuse when it suits them, but are happy to ask for government protection when things don't go their way. The people who want to preserve local monopolies for broadband providers but complain bitterly any time there's talk of government regulation of the broadband industry are a good example. I'd go so far as to say that there are far more fake free marketers than there are real ones.
Specifically, they recommend what has worked in many other countries -- government investment and unbundling -- which are often criticized by free market groups, even though those policies have resulted in faster, better connections for smaller total costs.
Of course the "free market" groups don't like it. They hate the idea of consumers getting more for less, because the lower cost is coming at the expense of corporate profits. That's because most of those "free market" people don't really want a free market at all. They hate government regulation when it keeps them from doing what they want, but they love it when it keeps new competitors from getting into the market. That's why they're so keen on local monopolies- the antithesis of free markets.
Slashdot Mirror
It really depends on which books you're intending to read. You probably aren't saving that much compared to mass market paperbacks, but you are compared to trade paper or hard back. Where Kindle really shines is for stuff that's out of copyright. You can get really impressive collections that would be very expensive- not to mention heavy and taking up a lot of shelf space- for $1 or less.
Give me a break. Copying your data to an external hard drive and keeping it elsewhere is a perfectly realistic solution. You just need to find a workable off-site location, like your desk at work or a friend's house. That's exactly what I do. It's not automated- I have to move the drive myself- so it's only good for snapshots, but it's still a workable solution. If my house burns down or a thief steals my PC, I'll lose at most a week or two of data. I may miss that week's worth of data, but it will be a much smaller loss than the decade plus of data that I'll save.
That would be a more plausible explanation if they didn't have a version for Solaris on Sparc. I'm more inclined to believe that the root problem is unwillingness to devote the resources.
But embryonic stem cell research does not depend on material from abortions. By the time that an embryo has developed to the point that a woman even knows that she's pregnant, the embryo is no longer useful for stem cell research. "Embryonic" stem cell research uses blastocysts that were generated for in-vitro fertilization but never implanted. These are quite literally cells that can't develop into babies without considerable further medical intervention.
I think you're missing a point. No system can ever be more secure than the method used to distribute security credentials, so you're not losing anything by distributing something like a SSH key fingerprint (which, when you think about it, is just another security credential) at the same time. Either I can send those credentials securely or I can't. If I can, I can send the SSH key fingerprint using the same secure method and I'm safe. If I can't, you can intercept my other credentials the same way you intercepted the SSH key fingerprint, and you can pwn me without needing a fancy man-in-the-middle attack.
Which you can be with a little bit of effort. Every SSH implementation I've used asks you to verify the key fingerprint of the server before it accepts it as valid. If you send people the key fingerprint through a separate channel- like sending it to them on the same document that includes their original username and password- it will be very difficult for anyone to interfere.
A bank could do essentially the same thing by printing the fingerprint for their SSL certificate on the back of their ATM cards. Then they could deliberately not use a certificate that was signed by a trusted CA, and force users to check the certificate against the number on the back of their card. It's not completely secure, since stupid users can always fail to check, but it's probably better than relying on unreliable CAs.
That will only work until the vulnerability is in something that can't be shut down during the update process, like the package manger or the kernel. That list might be small enough that it's practical to have a single, secure server for those updates, but it's an added complication to the problem.
That's great. You just need to remember that overwork is bad for your health and draw the logical conclusion.
You remember wrong. The integral of 1/x is ln(x). ln(x) goes to -infinity as x goes to 0, so the integral from 0 to any positive number will be infinite. More importantly, ln(x) goes to +infinity as x goes to infinity, so integral of 1/x from any positive number to infinity is infinite. ln(x) obviously diverges very slowly, so you have to go way out there to get to any large number, but you can get any arbitrarily large number by going far enough.
It looks to me as though you're confusing two parts of the article. It's actually talking about two sets of correspondence, one about the knighthood and one about funding disputes. On the knighthood, it says:
So he turned the knighthood down because he dislikes knighthood in principle. That seems like a reasonable position, and a willingness to turn down personal advancement on a matter of principle seems like an honorable decision. The arguments about funding were a separate issue and, apparently, one that came about some time after he turned down the knighthood.
Except, of course, that its orbit crosses that of Neptune. That minor technicality relegates Pluto to status as a minor planet.
The Republicans needed Monica to point out that Bill couldn't keep his pants zipped because it was otherwise historically irrelevant. The same certainly isn't true of W's war crimes and ignoring the Constitution. Those things are going to be the hallmark of his presidency whether there's an impeachment or not. It's far more important for the Democrats to increase their chances of winning the next election- which impeachment would probably hurt- than to try to add some kind of historical black mark to Bush's presidency.
Exactly. There's no point in going for impeachment if you can't win the conviction. All it will do is cause backlash. Unfortunately, I think the same thing is probably true of pursuing criminal charges against all of the low level enablers engaged in torture, black site prisons, warrantless wiretaps, etc.
Gunning for impeachment and throwing the crooks in jail are viscerally attractive, but we have to look at our long term goals. The last thing we want to do is look like a bunch of America-hating cranks out to persecute Bush and his supporters for trying to protect the USA. It's far more important to destroy the Administration's worst ideas than to throw individual Bushies in jail.
The solution is to pull back the curtain and show just how bad those guys have been. Our goal should be to turn anyone associated with Bush's policies into a political leper that no politician in his right mind wants to touch. In its own way, that will be a worse punishment for those involved than any likely prison sentence, and it will achieve the real goal of avoiding those policies in the future.
As a practical matter, impeachment is impossible. Whether Bush's actions were or weren't illegal is beside the point. Impeachment is an inherently political process, not a strictly legal one. A conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate. The Democrats would have a hard time getting enough Republican votes for conviction if Bush murdered a decorated war hero on national television, and there's no chance at all with what he's actually done. The best they can hope for is to shine enough light onto what he's done that anyone associated with his crimes becomes a political pariah.
But adding God doesn't really simplify things. Saying "God willed it" is easy because it doesn't require you to think or learn about science, but it isn't simple because it requires you to assume the existence of an omnipotent God with all the philosophical and theological baggage that implies. Unless you substitute the belief in God for everything we know about science (e.g. that objects fall because of God's will, not because of universal gravity) then believing in God only adds another thing to think about. That's the exact opposite of Occam's maxim that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".
Sorry, but if if it's really true that "All your culture are belong to us", then it's time to remember the following sequence:
An even better approach would be to have just a Windows partition. Then do your real work under Linux by booting from a memory stick. If you want to get really paranoid, you could keep all of your sensitive data on a separate, encrypted memory stick, camera memory card ("hidden" in your camera), phone memory card ("hidden" in your phone), etc.
Of course, you should go ahead and do some unimportant work under Windows. Play games, surf the net (safe, unimportant web sites, only, of course), keep your golf scores, etc. That way, if somebody ever does search your laptop, it won't look like a system that's just been wiped to avoid generating any evidence.
She's actually doing this pro se, i.e. representing herself, rather than paying for a lawyer. That means she's not paying a huge lawyer bill, but it has still cost her time and effort.
It depends on what you're designing and how much they're willing to pay. If you're just customizing a basic framework that you expect to re-use on future projects, it doesn't make much sense to sell the original work- unless they're willing to pay you enough to redevelop the framework for those future project, of course. If you're making things one off that you're unlikely to be able to sell again, it doesn't make sense to make ownership of the design a sticking point.
And that assumes you have the leverage to negotiate your favored position. If you work as an employee rather than an independent contractor, you won't have much choice. Your contract will almost certainly give full rights to all your work to your employer.
I don't think that was his meaning, though he could have expressed himself better. The idea is that they aren't objecting to fans wanting to have and wear their own Star Wars costumes and props. What they object to is somebody selling Star Wars stuff without giving them a cut.
IMO, there should be a mixture of the current system where everything is automatically under copyright, and the proposed system where you have to pay a fee to keep the copyright. So the creator would have exclusive rights for a relatively short time- maybe 1 to 5 years- after which he'd only retain copyright if he was willing to pay a periodic renewal fee. That would give creators time to assess the value of their work and decide if it was worth paying for copyright. Anything that the creator didn't care about would be released into the public domain, where others could take a crack at it if they disagreed about its value.
This is actually a particularly bad example. Legally, nothing produced by a government employee in his official capacity may be copyrighted; it's automatically in the public domain. At the same time, classified documents have other legal protections, like espionage laws.
No. I'm a firm believer that copyright should expire- probably sooner than it does today- and everything should eventually wind up in the public domain. But that doesn't mean that all works should go in equally fast. If the creator really doesn't care about his work, it shouldn't stay under copyright. When it's abandoned, it should move into the public domain so that people who do care about it can use it right away.
The answer is easy: nothing. You're never required to pay the property tax. It's just that you lose your copyright if you don't pay. Since I don't really care about the value of my slashdot comments, I wouldn't pay and they'd lapse into the public domain.
That's exactly the point. Things like blog comments that have little monetary value to their creators shouldn't be protected indefinitely. Neither should books that their publishers care so little about that they're allowed to go out of print. They should move into the public domain so that other people can make use of them without fear of lawsuit.
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I mean is that there are a lot of people who use the language of free markets as an excuse when it suits them, but are happy to ask for government protection when things don't go their way. The people who want to preserve local monopolies for broadband providers but complain bitterly any time there's talk of government regulation of the broadband industry are a good example. I'd go so far as to say that there are far more fake free marketers than there are real ones.
Of course the "free market" groups don't like it. They hate the idea of consumers getting more for less, because the lower cost is coming at the expense of corporate profits. That's because most of those "free market" people don't really want a free market at all. They hate government regulation when it keeps them from doing what they want, but they love it when it keeps new competitors from getting into the market. That's why they're so keen on local monopolies- the antithesis of free markets.