Car taxes are a state tax (at least everywhere I have lived). Typically the money you pay for state car taxes do NOT go to pay for *city* streets. (I know of no place where this is true) Since there are typically no taxes that are directly related to building or maintaining city streets, the city must figure some way of generating revenue to pay for them. Either take the money from other taxes OR have people pay for the services they use (i.e. parking meters), because statistically people who are driving through the city (thus using said streets) are going to need to park somewhere. If in a private parking garage, the city get business taxes from them. So you have the people paying who use the service. Or people park on metered streets, again people paying for the services they use. Get it now?
So people who don't have cars should have to pay extra for those who do? Why are there tolls on roads and bridges? So that the people who use the service pay for it and those that do not are not burded with that tax liability.
I would be willing to bet money you would be the first one to whine when they raise taxes to pay for things YOU don't use. The implementation might be screwed, but the idea of paying only for the services you use is a great idea.
Except for the cry babies who whine about everything.
As a pedestrian, it is genuinely difficult for me to comprehend this level of laziness.
As a lazy driver, who would rather jump in his car than walk half a mile to the store, I AGREE with you 100%. This is utter bullshit. People get things shoved up their ass and are upset because it hurts a little.
OMG!!!! Having to walk an entire block so the city gets revenue to be able to fix streets, add new traffic lights and repaint worn out markings. I cannot imagine a worse crime. Call the police! Call the national guard! Call Bill O'Reilly!
If you don't like it, do something about it. Did YOU run for city council? Did YOU even vote in your last city election? Do YOU know the names of the people on the city council?
Children are dying by the thousands every day because they don't have enough to eat. Slavery still exits. People who oppose the government simply disappear or only their head is found. And you people are worried about walking a fucking block?!?!?!
What a bunch of cry babies!!!!
It's just a giant money grab by the city under the guise of "smart" technology. It's smart alright - smart for the city.
And just how do you suggest the cities pay for road repairs or new traffic lights? I would be willing to bet money you would be the first one to complain when there are potholes in the streets., but you want other people to have to pay for it. The problem is NOT that the city, state or federal government asking people to pay for the services people use, but rather how the money is distributed. Create laws that say parking money MUST be used ONLY for the automobile infrastructure and park usage fees are used ONLY for park services. Don't bitch about having to pay for something. Damned freetrards!
It doesn't, depending on the subject. However, one thing the Bush administrator continually ignored is that torture very rarely works to get reliable information. Usually you get what the victim *thinks* you want to hear. You then need to corroborate using other sources.
Please forgive them they are Americans. You know the same people where most of them can't even find Iraq on a map. The same ones that think New Mexico is a foreign country. Or the where one recent vice-president said he never went to Latin America because he never studied Latin in school. They also don't realize that since the real name of the country is written in Arabic even "Iraq" is NOT the way the country is spelled, but rather a convention.
As an American, there is nothing you did to pardon. What is shameful is the ethnocentricity of my fellow countrymen.
As long as you are not "representing" the US military, you have the same rights as anyone else. That is, if not in uniform, you can protest, support political candidates and so forth. Certain rights are restricted, like freedom of movement when you are ordered to go to Iraq, but it is just like any contract. If a civilian signs a contract to go to Iraq and doesn't he can be sued for damages. A soldier can end up going to jail, but that is the nature of the contract you sign. Anyone saying they have NO rights in the military does not know what they are talking about.
Define "certain information". I am really not trying to be insulting, but that is a very naive question. Each person would have to carry a 1000 page volume of the things not to talk about. You could TRY to generalized it by saying "no sensitive information", but just what is "sensitive information"? Is the fact your platoon leader is a jerk "sensitive information"? Well, it could be used as a means of gaining your trust when you "just happen" to get in a conversation with one of the workers fixing the shower. He was paid to gain your trust by using that fact. Sound far-fetched? It's standard practice and just one of many types of "social engineering".
There are flurry of tweets coming from a couple dozen people saying "I gotta sign off for today." Then 15 minutes later, someone on the outside of the compound sees a convoy of vehicles leave. The convoy arrives back several hours later and the tweets start up again. This same pattern happens over the course of a week. Even a bad intelligence analyst can say that it is likely that the tweets stop right before the unit goes out on patrol. What "sensitive information" did the tweets contain?
Military intelligence is rarely about getting the entire battle plan and quickly translating it for the generals. It is about piecing together little things. The big chunks are few and far between.
Then there is the human factor. People are not robots. People forget, people don't think that certain things are "sensitive". The complexities of this kind of thing are far greater than learning what to do in a fire fight. Further, when you come back from patrol after you friend had is leg blown off, you are not going to be thinking about whether your blog post is "sensitive". It might not carry any direct intelligence information, but if you are chatting with your wife about the horror you just experienced and describe the number and type of casualties, then the person who planned the attack knows how successful it was.
What about the picture on MySpace showing the guy and all of his buddies? The same photo is on six accounts. You now have the name of six people in the same unit. Useful military intelligence. Plus you have a picture of the inside of their compound including the entry area to the command post. Even more useful.
Experience has clearly demonstrated that allowing this kind of stuff is outright foolish.
It is not about using military resources "on the job". It's about security. The problem is that extremely few people are security conscious enough to make wise decisions when online. When a civilian is not careful, then may have the hassle of dealing with fraudulent charges on their credit card. If a Marine in Baghdad is not careful, people die. Plain and simple.
Here's a theoretical tweet:
"I have to leave at about 10PM to go on recon in Fadullah. Most of the guy in the platoon doing the patrol are okay, but Lt. Jones is incompetent."
So anyone following the tweet knows the time of the patrol, the strength and the name of one officer in the platoon. I was in army intelligence and getting just that much during an interrogation might take hours. To have someone simply give it to you is a dream come true. Some group picks up on this, knows that a platoon is doing recon and when, it is simple enough to set up an ambush, booby trap or whatever.
I'm not sure I believe your story. Police can't just randomly detain citizens, and if they did there's recourse like suing the department for violating Supreme Court rulings.
Do you only watch Fox News? I honestly cannot believe someone said that.
I would say that the USA is very much different from Germany when it comes to violence. Just look at the level of violence allowed in primetime TV in both countries and you will see that violence is an integral part of American culture.
A 1 second shot of a woman's breast is cause for a national outrage, and it is even more pathetic when you consider that it was during an event which is pure violence. The USA has it's priorities backwards.
I saw a.sig once that said "I'm European. I'm afraid of guns not boobs." When you consider the number of violent crimes per capita, the percentage of the population in prison and the recidivism rate, I think Germans and Europeans in general are doing something right.
It's not about Google, Yahoo and others posting the information they paid for. As is clearly stated in the article, it is about Google, Yahoo and others posting information they did *not* pay for.
Why is it so wrong to want to be paid for your work?
No, AP does not want "money for web sites that list or link to it's articles". The want people to pay for their work. If you have a link "AP story about earthquake in Italy", they are not going to say anything. However, provide verbatim copies of the lead paragraph you are beyond the scope of "fair use" as it has already provided the news service.
If there is a page with 20 headlines, and absolutely nothing else, I am likely to click on one or more of the links, thus going to a site that has paid for the AP feed. However, if there are 20 headlines which include the lead paragraph, I have already gained the necessary benefit without clicking the link. So the paying customer does not get the benefit of my visit, only the freeloader does.
AP says, ""This is not about defining fair use. There's a bigger economic issue at stake here that we're trying to tackle." Either companies like AP find other sources of revenue or the only thing we have left is Faux News. Since they make up everything in the backroom anyway, they don't have the the costs of sending people to war zones or areas devastated by earthquakes.
Who said it has been "acceptable"? I don't know of anyone. It has simply been tolerated. Marijuana use in Holland is tolerated and you usually don't get arrest for smoking or even selling it. However, it it is still not acceptable. AP didn't bother with the problem until now because we were not in a recession. Now we are. Newspapers are closing and so they are loosing customers. Either they get the freeloaders to pay for the work or they stop doing the work.
Besides, it is not an issue of "Re-reporting news". It is an issue of copying someone else's work, earning money by copying it and not paying for the original work. I know this is/., but please RTFA.
To so extent I might agree that my analogy is not 100% the same. However, your's is not either. I think the book would be a better one. Assume
I wrote a book and someone takes an except from it and publishes it as an article in a magazine.
Neither I nor my publisher get anything for it.
While code snippets or excerpts from books fall within the category of "fair use", I personally believe the article snippets do not. If the article contains 1000 words, then a 50 word snippet is 5%. Do you have the right to borrow my book from someone who bought it themselves and then re-print 25 contiguous page of my 500 page book? By the time I read the first 50 words of the 1000 word article, I have already gained the "news benefit" and without anyone paying for the work done. Obviously there is more to the story, but readers still have benefit from the 5% plus the aggregate site benefits, all without paying the person who actually did the work. So, it is not like "Hey, news site X is carrying this neat story! Go read it!" because the aggregation site is obviously providing more than just a headline. With the snippit the site is giving you the *intended* benefit (news) and gaining a commercial benefit themselves. AP gets nothing for their work.
Then you have the issue of sites providing links to people who have simply copied the article without paying for it. I personally think it is unethical to have a commercial benefit from that link without paying for the material. People visit the aggregation sites because they are aggregation sites. They then collect advertising income. It is even more unethical to gain commericial benefit and then hide behind the statement "I didn't provide material illegally, I just pointed you to it."
The biggest problem I see is the freetards who do not want to pay for other people's work and are the first ones to complain when someone doesn't pay them. These are usually the same group who say you *must* follow the GPL (or whatever license) but do not have to listen to others about how to treat the other person's work. (that is, they can distribute music or articles all they want) It's hypocritical to put it mildly.
I personally support the right of the record companies to prosecute people who share music to the general public, although I do not support the tactics of the RIAA. It is not your place to say the record companies are making "too much". They made an investment in a band, have to cover the advertisement and distribution costs and run the risk of the album being a flop. Is it wrong for them to make money? If you think so, then simply stop buying CDs and DVDs, and stop going to movies. If enough people did that then maybe the record companies would get the message. However, by putting music or news articles online without paying for that right, you are stealing or at least you are aiding the theft. If you download it, you *are* stealing. Period. You have no absolute right to that music. (In Germany, there is no problem with making a copy for your sister or neighbor. However, making it publicly available is illegal.)
I run an informational website for *free*. I have Google ads to help cover my costs. Is it really fair or ethical to block the ads? Although you are not paying for anything, you are actively denying me a little big to help cover my costs. Is that ethically or morally correct? Certain features are only available if you register (for *free*). Is it fair or ethical for people to publicly provide a username and password to access these features "anonymously" so you do not have to register yourself? (this *has* happened) This is worse in my mind than stealing movies or music, as you would have access to the features and information for free if you were simply willing to following my rules for *free*.
It seems like too many people believe that as long are you are not personally effected, then you should not have to pay for other people's work. I would be curious to know how many people reading this think it is OK to provide others with a usern
How many sysadmins do we have reading this? We are knowledge workers or perhaps, better yet "information workers". We are paid for not only having the information in our heads but also for processing that information into something useful (e.g. a backup concept, a Perl script, a freshly installed database.) The company we work for gets paid for providing that processed information to customers. (or at least they *want* to get paid)
How would *we* feel if our customers sold the backup concept or Perl script to someone else? Is that OK? What about cloning the hard disk with the OS and database we installed? Is that OK?
AP pays reporters to either to go get the stories or pays for already written stories. In other words, they pay for someone's knowledge and for the processing of that knowledge into a more easily usable form. How is that different from a Perl script? If we get upset because AP expects people to pay for that story they paid for, then we cannot get upset if our customer decides to make money off of that Perl script we wrote. They don't need to sell it, just implement it 1:1 on a different system.
If I wrote a book on Linux, in all likelihood the information is available for free somewhere on the Internet. I am simply processing it a more usable form. (perhaps easier to read) Since "information wants to be free", everyone should have the right to simply copy the book and give it away to whomever I like, right? Or perhaps 1000 sites provide half-page excerpts from the book and "by coincidence" a tool that will combine those excepts into a single document. That's OK because no single site it providing the entire book, right?
Let's assume you are not the one who copied it, but you simply have link to a website which contains my complete book. Perhaps that is not directly illegal, but it is not immoral? Unethical? Unfair?
On my site I do not have a copy of your Perl script or an ISO image of the hard disk with the database you installed. I just have a link to the site that does. Even if the script is available for free on *your* website, shouldn't *you* have the right to say what other people can do with it?
If we are not going to respect the right AP has to make money from their work, why should I care when *your* job is outsourced to India? Like your company when IT operations end up on Mumbai, Google is simply trying to save money. That's OK, right?
Not in today's market. Many publishers want books out there really fast, so they are willing to take anyone who can spell the product's name. All you need to do is be able to take existing documentation and put it together somewhat coherently without really understanding what it means. I just did a tech review of a book on an open source admin product and it was obvious from the examples that the author had (probably) never used the product in the real world and possible never even administered a Linux system. I am actually glad that I was not mentioned for having worked on it.
My experience with Germans is that they are usually more interested in following procedures that "getting things done". "Ordnung muss sein" (engl. "You must have order")
Slashdot Mirror
So the logical conclusion is that as long as you don't gas people then you can do anything the Nazis did because it's "not that bad".
Car taxes are a state tax (at least everywhere I have lived). Typically the money you pay for state car taxes do NOT go to pay for *city* streets. (I know of no place where this is true) Since there are typically no taxes that are directly related to building or maintaining city streets, the city must figure some way of generating revenue to pay for them. Either take the money from other taxes OR have people pay for the services they use (i.e. parking meters), because statistically people who are driving through the city (thus using said streets) are going to need to park somewhere. If in a private parking garage, the city get business taxes from them. So you have the people paying who use the service. Or people park on metered streets, again people paying for the services they use. Get it now?
So people who don't have cars should have to pay extra for those who do? Why are there tolls on roads and bridges? So that the people who use the service pay for it and those that do not are not burded with that tax liability. I would be willing to bet money you would be the first one to whine when they raise taxes to pay for things YOU don't use. The implementation might be screwed, but the idea of paying only for the services you use is a great idea.
Except for the cry babies who whine about everything.
As a pedestrian, it is genuinely difficult for me to comprehend this level of laziness.
As a lazy driver, who would rather jump in his car than walk half a mile to the store, I AGREE with you 100%. This is utter bullshit. People get things shoved up their ass and are upset because it hurts a little.
OMG!!!! Having to walk an entire block so the city gets revenue to be able to fix streets, add new traffic lights and repaint worn out markings. I cannot imagine a worse crime. Call the police! Call the national guard! Call Bill O'Reilly! If you don't like it, do something about it. Did YOU run for city council? Did YOU even vote in your last city election? Do YOU know the names of the people on the city council? Children are dying by the thousands every day because they don't have enough to eat. Slavery still exits. People who oppose the government simply disappear or only their head is found. And you people are worried about walking a fucking block?!?!?! What a bunch of cry babies!!!!
It's just a giant money grab by the city under the guise of "smart" technology. It's smart alright - smart for the city.
And just how do you suggest the cities pay for road repairs or new traffic lights? I would be willing to bet money you would be the first one to complain when there are potholes in the streets., but you want other people to have to pay for it. The problem is NOT that the city, state or federal government asking people to pay for the services people use, but rather how the money is distributed. Create laws that say parking money MUST be used ONLY for the automobile infrastructure and park usage fees are used ONLY for park services. Don't bitch about having to pay for something. Damned freetrards!
I can't believe waterboarding takes so much time.
It doesn't, depending on the subject. However, one thing the Bush administrator continually ignored is that torture very rarely works to get reliable information. Usually you get what the victim *thinks* you want to hear. You then need to corroborate using other sources.
Please forgive them they are Americans. You know the same people where most of them can't even find Iraq on a map. The same ones that think New Mexico is a foreign country. Or the where one recent vice-president said he never went to Latin America because he never studied Latin in school. They also don't realize that since the real name of the country is written in Arabic even "Iraq" is NOT the way the country is spelled, but rather a convention. As an American, there is nothing you did to pardon. What is shameful is the ethnocentricity of my fellow countrymen.
As long as you are not "representing" the US military, you have the same rights as anyone else. That is, if not in uniform, you can protest, support political candidates and so forth. Certain rights are restricted, like freedom of movement when you are ordered to go to Iraq, but it is just like any contract. If a civilian signs a contract to go to Iraq and doesn't he can be sued for damages. A soldier can end up going to jail, but that is the nature of the contract you sign. Anyone saying they have NO rights in the military does not know what they are talking about.
Define "certain information". I am really not trying to be insulting, but that is a very naive question. Each person would have to carry a 1000 page volume of the things not to talk about. You could TRY to generalized it by saying "no sensitive information", but just what is "sensitive information"? Is the fact your platoon leader is a jerk "sensitive information"? Well, it could be used as a means of gaining your trust when you "just happen" to get in a conversation with one of the workers fixing the shower. He was paid to gain your trust by using that fact. Sound far-fetched? It's standard practice and just one of many types of "social engineering".
There are flurry of tweets coming from a couple dozen people saying "I gotta sign off for today." Then 15 minutes later, someone on the outside of the compound sees a convoy of vehicles leave. The convoy arrives back several hours later and the tweets start up again. This same pattern happens over the course of a week. Even a bad intelligence analyst can say that it is likely that the tweets stop right before the unit goes out on patrol. What "sensitive information" did the tweets contain?
Military intelligence is rarely about getting the entire battle plan and quickly translating it for the generals. It is about piecing together little things. The big chunks are few and far between.
Then there is the human factor. People are not robots. People forget, people don't think that certain things are "sensitive". The complexities of this kind of thing are far greater than learning what to do in a fire fight. Further, when you come back from patrol after you friend had is leg blown off, you are not going to be thinking about whether your blog post is "sensitive". It might not carry any direct intelligence information, but if you are chatting with your wife about the horror you just experienced and describe the number and type of casualties, then the person who planned the attack knows how successful it was.
What about the picture on MySpace showing the guy and all of his buddies? The same photo is on six accounts. You now have the name of six people in the same unit. Useful military intelligence. Plus you have a picture of the inside of their compound including the entry area to the command post. Even more useful.
Experience has clearly demonstrated that allowing this kind of stuff is outright foolish.
Here's a theoretical tweet: "I have to leave at about 10PM to go on recon in Fadullah. Most of the guy in the platoon doing the patrol are okay, but Lt. Jones is incompetent."
So anyone following the tweet knows the time of the patrol, the strength and the name of one officer in the platoon. I was in army intelligence and getting just that much during an interrogation might take hours. To have someone simply give it to you is a dream come true. Some group picks up on this, knows that a platoon is doing recon and when, it is simple enough to set up an ambush, booby trap or whatever.
This is a smart move.
# cat > program.c
# !cc
What else do you need?
I'm not sure I believe your story. Police can't just randomly detain citizens, and if they did there's recourse like suing the department for violating Supreme Court rulings.
Do you only watch Fox News? I honestly cannot believe someone said that.
There was a boob on television almost every day for the last eight years (well at least until the end of January of this year).
I would say that the USA is very much different from Germany when it comes to violence. Just look at the level of violence allowed in primetime TV in both countries and you will see that violence is an integral part of American culture. A 1 second shot of a woman's breast is cause for a national outrage, and it is even more pathetic when you consider that it was during an event which is pure violence. The USA has it's priorities backwards. I saw a .sig once that said "I'm European. I'm afraid of guns not boobs." When you consider the number of violent crimes per capita, the percentage of the population in prison and the recidivism rate, I think Germans and Europeans in general are doing something right.
It's not about Google, Yahoo and others posting the information they paid for. As is clearly stated in the article, it is about Google, Yahoo and others posting information they did *not* pay for.
Why is it so wrong to want to be paid for your work?
No, AP does not want "money for web sites that list or link to it's articles". The want people to pay for their work. If you have a link "AP story about earthquake in Italy", they are not going to say anything. However, provide verbatim copies of the lead paragraph you are beyond the scope of "fair use" as it has already provided the news service.
If there is a page with 20 headlines, and absolutely nothing else, I am likely to click on one or more of the links, thus going to a site that has paid for the AP feed. However, if there are 20 headlines which include the lead paragraph, I have already gained the necessary benefit without clicking the link. So the paying customer does not get the benefit of my visit, only the freeloader does.
AP says, ""This is not about defining fair use. There's a bigger economic issue at stake here that we're trying to tackle." Either companies like AP find other sources of revenue or the only thing we have left is Faux News. Since they make up everything in the backroom anyway, they don't have the the costs of sending people to war zones or areas devastated by earthquakes.
Pay people for their work!!!
Who said it has been "acceptable"? I don't know of anyone. It has simply been tolerated. Marijuana use in Holland is tolerated and you usually don't get arrest for smoking or even selling it. However, it it is still not acceptable. AP didn't bother with the problem until now because we were not in a recession. Now we are. Newspapers are closing and so they are loosing customers. Either they get the freeloaders to pay for the work or they stop doing the work. Besides, it is not an issue of "Re-reporting news". It is an issue of copying someone else's work, earning money by copying it and not paying for the original work. I know this is /., but please RTFA.
To so extent I might agree that my analogy is not 100% the same. However, your's is not either. I think the book would be a better one. Assume I wrote a book and someone takes an except from it and publishes it as an article in a magazine. Neither I nor my publisher get anything for it.
While code snippets or excerpts from books fall within the category of "fair use", I personally believe the article snippets do not. If the article contains 1000 words, then a 50 word snippet is 5%. Do you have the right to borrow my book from someone who bought it themselves and then re-print 25 contiguous page of my 500 page book? By the time I read the first 50 words of the 1000 word article, I have already gained the "news benefit" and without anyone paying for the work done. Obviously there is more to the story, but readers still have benefit from the 5% plus the aggregate site benefits, all without paying the person who actually did the work. So, it is not like "Hey, news site X is carrying this neat story! Go read it!" because the aggregation site is obviously providing more than just a headline. With the snippit the site is giving you the *intended* benefit (news) and gaining a commercial benefit themselves. AP gets nothing for their work.
Then you have the issue of sites providing links to people who have simply copied the article without paying for it. I personally think it is unethical to have a commercial benefit from that link without paying for the material. People visit the aggregation sites because they are aggregation sites. They then collect advertising income. It is even more unethical to gain commericial benefit and then hide behind the statement "I didn't provide material illegally, I just pointed you to it."
The biggest problem I see is the freetards who do not want to pay for other people's work and are the first ones to complain when someone doesn't pay them. These are usually the same group who say you *must* follow the GPL (or whatever license) but do not have to listen to others about how to treat the other person's work. (that is, they can distribute music or articles all they want) It's hypocritical to put it mildly.
I personally support the right of the record companies to prosecute people who share music to the general public, although I do not support the tactics of the RIAA. It is not your place to say the record companies are making "too much". They made an investment in a band, have to cover the advertisement and distribution costs and run the risk of the album being a flop. Is it wrong for them to make money? If you think so, then simply stop buying CDs and DVDs, and stop going to movies. If enough people did that then maybe the record companies would get the message. However, by putting music or news articles online without paying for that right, you are stealing or at least you are aiding the theft. If you download it, you *are* stealing. Period. You have no absolute right to that music. (In Germany, there is no problem with making a copy for your sister or neighbor. However, making it publicly available is illegal.)
I run an informational website for *free*. I have Google ads to help cover my costs. Is it really fair or ethical to block the ads? Although you are not paying for anything, you are actively denying me a little big to help cover my costs. Is that ethically or morally correct? Certain features are only available if you register (for *free*). Is it fair or ethical for people to publicly provide a username and password to access these features "anonymously" so you do not have to register yourself? (this *has* happened) This is worse in my mind than stealing movies or music, as you would have access to the features and information for free if you were simply willing to following my rules for *free*.
It seems like too many people believe that as long are you are not personally effected, then you should not have to pay for other people's work. I would be curious to know how many people reading this think it is OK to provide others with a usern
How would *we* feel if our customers sold the backup concept or Perl script to someone else? Is that OK? What about cloning the hard disk with the OS and database we installed? Is that OK?
AP pays reporters to either to go get the stories or pays for already written stories. In other words, they pay for someone's knowledge and for the processing of that knowledge into a more easily usable form. How is that different from a Perl script? If we get upset because AP expects people to pay for that story they paid for, then we cannot get upset if our customer decides to make money off of that Perl script we wrote. They don't need to sell it, just implement it 1:1 on a different system.
If I wrote a book on Linux, in all likelihood the information is available for free somewhere on the Internet. I am simply processing it a more usable form. (perhaps easier to read) Since "information wants to be free", everyone should have the right to simply copy the book and give it away to whomever I like, right? Or perhaps 1000 sites provide half-page excerpts from the book and "by coincidence" a tool that will combine those excepts into a single document. That's OK because no single site it providing the entire book, right?
Let's assume you are not the one who copied it, but you simply have link to a website which contains my complete book. Perhaps that is not directly illegal, but it is not immoral? Unethical? Unfair?
On my site I do not have a copy of your Perl script or an ISO image of the hard disk with the database you installed. I just have a link to the site that does. Even if the script is available for free on *your* website, shouldn't *you* have the right to say what other people can do with it?
If we are not going to respect the right AP has to make money from their work, why should I care when *your* job is outsourced to India? Like your company when IT operations end up on Mumbai, Google is simply trying to save money. That's OK, right?
Not in today's market. Many publishers want books out there really fast, so they are willing to take anyone who can spell the product's name. All you need to do is be able to take existing documentation and put it together somewhat coherently without really understanding what it means. I just did a tech review of a book on an open source admin product and it was obvious from the examples that the author had (probably) never used the product in the real world and possible never even administered a Linux system. I am actually glad that I was not mentioned for having worked on it.
I wrote my first one primarily using vi.
My experience with Germans is that they are usually more interested in following procedures that "getting things done". "Ordnung muss sein" (engl. "You must have order")
Remember, big government is watching out for you!
Isn't that what Bush keeps telling us?
...but you also might not have some of his successes.
I guess I missed that when I went to the bathroom.