What you should do is get, or make, a key-cap puller (it looks like this
)
I find you can make one with 2 paperclips, and a ball point pen tube, with a pair of
pliers in about 5 minutes.
Then you pull the keycaps from the keyboard, fill the washroom sink with soapy water, and
wash the keycaps. Dry 'em with a paper towel, and put them back on. The whole process,
including making the keycap puller, takes about 20 minutes, and your keyboard is back in action. You can also dust out the guts better with the keycaps off.
Of course, you have to remember which keys go where...:-)
It hadn't occurred to me that people might not be associating particular record labels with the RIAA... but you're right, many people probably are not, which is why they're having the association do it for them.
I was thinking more along the lines of "It isn't just Atlantic records, all of the RIAA members are party to this..."
I read this, and I'm speechless. You actually think Visual Studio and.NET is a "butt kicking" software development environment?!?
Wow.
Silly me, I've been coding with text editors, version control, and Makefiles for over 20 years now, and I cannot stand "environments" like Visual Studio.
Yes, this case was taken to court by Atlantic Records. Atlantic Records is a member of the RIAA, and this suit
is but one piece in the ongoing RIAA campaign
to sue people for copyright infringement, apparently regardless whether they've done so or not.
To quote the RIAA presidentCary Sherman (regarding a different, but similar case):
"This is an ongoing strategy, and the way to let people know that there is a risk of consequences is to continue the program. You don't set up a speed trap for one day and stop enforcement thereafter. It has to be consistent."
The problem is, that claim makes no senses whatsoever. The IPv4 addresses are a subset of the IPv6 space -- you can get to all of the IPv4 systems from an IPv6 network.
There are two issues:
Switching protocols
Getting IPv6 addresses
You can use the IPv4 subset of the IPv6 address space, and everyone can still talk to
everyone while you convert. It's only the folks that have IPV6 addresses before the IPv4 users have migrated that become unreachable by anyone.
So the online businesses are going to want to be the last ones to switch, so that their customers don't become unable to reach them.
But anyway, IPV6 gives you access to all the same content.
Oh and can you tell me how you involuntarily cause yourself to have sex with someone [sneeze]?
get raped
be a teenager on prom night.
It's a lot easier to fight back a sneeze than to not give into the rapist with the knife to your neck...
It's very difficult for a teenager in love to resist the advances of an attractive person they have strong feelings for. This is why "Virginity Pledge' programs don't work so well, at least for reducing disease risk.
Giving someone a vaccine against a virus is not "condoning" anything.
Wearing a seatbelt is not "condoning" unsafe driving.
Putting up a lightning rod is not "condoning" thunderstorms.
Anyone who uses that reasoning is seriously confused.
Similarly, teaching kids about how their reproductive system works, and about contraception,
is not "condoning" promiscuity, any more than teaching someone about locks, safes, and keys is
"condoning" thievery.
Certainly, promiscuity provides a disease vector, both for diseases we know about, and ones we don't yet.
So does sneezing.
Humans appear to have a limited ability to resist either of these urges.
So for one we have condoms, and for the other, Kleenex(tm) (or your elbow).
Do these same people argue that we shouldn't have tissues, because you should instead fight the urge to sneeze?
Oh ye of little Faith! For those of us who lived through the Morris worm, we know that that sort of complacency will one day bite you in your more tender parts.
Back to Jr. High School for doing it the hard way!
x = 100x
0 = 100x - x --- Subtract x from both sides
0 = (100 - 1)x -- Factor a little
0 = 99x ------- Oooh! Arithmetic!
0 = x --------- Divide through by 99...
The analogy is horribly broken, because if you steal a Corvette from a dealer, they do not have the unit to sell it.
So let's say the recording industry has 150,000 copies of Brittany's Greatest Hits on the shelf, and someone makes a digital copy of same. How many copies does the recording industry have? 150,000 -- just like when they started.
So when you come up with a way to make a copy of a Corvette on a car dealer's lot, but leave the original one there on the lot, you will have an analogous situation. Otherwise you've fallen into the trap of equating copyright violations with theft, the very mistake the *IAA are trying to talk everyone into.
I couldn't help chuckling as I read the above post, as it outlines all of the things that were presented as
benefits of moving to IPv6 when it was initially released. For example:
There are several mechanisms for running IPv4 and IPv6 side by side, and that was a major part of the discussion in the IPv6 rollout early on. Medium sized chunks of the net were running IPv6 for quite a while, and were routed in and out of fairly seamlessly.
transition mechanisms were designed, long before IPv6 was adopted by the IETF. (the linked RFC is from 1995).
IPv6 designers also put in tools designed to provide for mobile endpoints, although better designs have come out since.
IPv6 provides and uses multicast addresses as part of it's initial design, and its multicast is being used successfully.
You can claim that the implementations provided weren't good enough (although I'd like to see some actual data to back that up),
but in fact the folks that did IPv6 did have all of those goals in mind when they put IPv6 together.
If you confuse/control a router between the destination and the IP address you want to hijack, you can
certainly "alias" an IP address -- just reroute the traffic. Then any files you upload/download will
appear to come from some other victim IP, but will in fact be rerouted by the misconfigured router.
The major global-warming related scientificpredictions that I saw said that tropical storms/hurricaines/typhoons/etc. would be more extreme, not
more frequent.
And if you look worldwide, rather than at just the Atlantic, they were, this last season.
The item described -- a DRM system that actually refuses to do things that are illegal, but allows for fair use, actually sounds wonderful in theory -- but I have yet to see a mechanism described, even a theoretical one, that
does that. (Implementations using/dev/psychic or as yet not constructed AI notwithstanding.)
The problem inherent in all of this is that the legality all hinges on the reason someone is making a copy of something, and knowlege of the future plans of the user. For example, it's okay to make a backup copy CD. Even two or three of them. But if you, six months later, turn around and sell them, suddenly it's illegal (not to have made the copies, but to sell them). So the backup CD's, sitting in their little jewel cases, should know to spontaneously self destruct the minute someone buys them.
Or consider that the original CD gets trashed. Shredded. Put down a garbage disposal. Now one of the backup CD's becomes, in essence, the original. So if I sell the one backup, that's actually legal -- I'm selling my only copy.
But how can the backup copy tell that the original was destroyed and that it's okay to sell the backup?
So explain to me how one implements any of that, and I'll discuss it. Otherwise, you're asking for a discussion of the most ethereal of vaporware, and itsn't worth the effort. You can
assume circuits, etc. in a new and improved CD that can measure and test anything you care to mention within a 10-mile radius, and you still can't tell in the general case.
So my claim is that your perfect DRM mechanism is in fact the least probable of all vaporware, and discussing it as if it were a possibility only lends credibility to the corporate drones who promote the concept.
I think folks are focusing too much on the patching mechanism (i.e. how do I patch 7000 machines), and missing the point of the scheduling of the upgrade (*when* should I patch each group of machines).
Take a package like Minkowsky , or other group calendar package, enter each of the groups you have an SLA with, and block out their
you-can't-do-maintenance-here windows as "meetings" for them.
Then try to schedule a "meeting" with as many of them as possible to do the upgrade, and a second meeting
with as many as possible of the remaining batch, etc.
Please stop repeating this misinformation about the halting problem. The only thing the halting problem proof proves is that you cannot write a program which correctly groups all programs into {the set of programs that halt on all inputs} versus {the set that loops forever on some inputs}. That doesn't prevent you, for example, writing one that says
"always halts", "sometimes hangs", or "I can't tell", nor does it prevent you writing one that correctly identifies
every program ever written to date into those buckets.
Or to put it another way, it says there exist programs for which you cannot prove whether they halt. But it does not say that all programs have that property, only that there must exist at least one.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you pull the keycaps from the keyboard, fill the washroom sink with soapy water, and wash the keycaps. Dry 'em with a paper towel, and put them back on. The whole process, including making the keycap puller, takes about 20 minutes, and your keyboard is back in action. You can also dust out the guts better with the keycaps off.
Of course, you have to remember which keys go where... :-)
I'm one of those folks that not only knows what @ does in vi, but uses it regularly.
But refactoring support could be worthwhile; I'll have to work on some vim macros for that. ;-)
Discretion being the better part of valor, I'll leave the politics at that we most likely disagree on lots of things.
It hadn't occurred to me that people might not be associating particular record labels with the RIAA... but you're right, many people probably are not, which is why they're having the association do it for them.
I was thinking more along the lines of "It isn't just Atlantic records, all of the RIAA members are party to this..."
Wow.
Silly me, I've been coding with text editors, version control, and Makefiles for over 20 years now, and I cannot stand "environments" like Visual Studio.
It takes all kinds, I guess...
To quote the RIAA presidentCary Sherman (regarding a different, but similar case):
There are two issues:
- Switching protocols
- Getting IPv6 addresses
You can use the IPv4 subset of the IPv6 address space, and everyone can still talk to everyone while you convert. It's only the folks that have IPV6 addresses before the IPv4 users have migrated that become unreachable by anyone.So the online businesses are going to want to be the last ones to switch, so that their customers don't become unable to reach them.
But anyway, IPV6 gives you access to all the same content.
I am not frightening ... to children, anyhow.
- get raped
- be a teenager on prom night.
It's a lot easier to fight back a sneeze than to not give into the rapist with the knife to your neck...It's very difficult for a teenager in love to resist the advances of an attractive person they have strong feelings for. This is why "Virginity Pledge' programs don't work so well, at least for reducing disease risk.
- Wearing a seatbelt is not "condoning" unsafe driving.
- Putting up a lightning rod is not "condoning" thunderstorms.
Anyone who uses that reasoning is seriously confused.Similarly, teaching kids about how their reproductive system works, and about contraception, is not "condoning" promiscuity, any more than teaching someone about locks, safes, and keys is "condoning" thievery.
Certainly, promiscuity provides a disease vector, both for diseases we know about, and ones we don't yet.
So does sneezing.
Humans appear to have a limited ability to resist either of these urges. So for one we have condoms, and for the other, Kleenex(tm) (or your elbow).
Do these same people argue that we shouldn't have tissues, because you should instead fight the urge to sneeze?
Oh ye of little Faith! For those of us who lived through the Morris worm, we know that that sort of complacency will one day bite you in your more tender parts.
That's why the phisher's MyBank.exe installs a new certficate authority in your browser certificate store...
x = 100x
0 = 100x - x --- Subtract x from both sides
0 = (100 - 1)x -- Factor a little
0 = 99x ------- Oooh! Arithmetic!
0 = x --------- Divide through by 99...
If not, too darned bad. It's the problem of whoever made the thumb drive images.
How does that qualify as "reticent", exactly?
So let's say the recording industry has 150,000 copies of Brittany's Greatest Hits on the shelf, and someone makes a digital copy of same. How many copies does the recording industry have? 150,000 -- just like when they started.
So when you come up with a way to make a copy of a Corvette on a car dealer's lot, but leave the original one there on the lot, you will have an analogous situation. Otherwise you've fallen into the trap of equating copyright violations with theft, the very mistake the *IAA are trying to talk everyone into.
After you run the backup, memove then restore that file, make sure it has the current date in it.
I've had that as a feature in my backup scripts for over 10 years...
Exactly what most people would do in building such a list of #defines...
-
There are several mechanisms for running IPv4 and IPv6 side by side, and that was a major part of the discussion in the IPv6 rollout early on. Medium sized chunks of the net were running IPv6 for quite a while, and were routed in and out of fairly seamlessly.
transition mechanisms were designed, long before IPv6 was adopted by the IETF. (the linked RFC is from 1995).
-
IPv6 designers also put in tools designed to provide for mobile endpoints, although better designs have come out since.
-
IPv6 provides and uses multicast addresses as part of it's initial design, and its multicast is being used successfully.
You can claim that the implementations provided weren't good enough (although I'd like to see some actual data to back that up), but in fact the folks that did IPv6 did have all of those goals in mind when they put IPv6 together.Oracle isn't selling to IT people; they're selling to IT peoples' managers.
It's not as improbable as one might think.
And if you look worldwide, rather than at just the Atlantic, they were, this last season.
The Atlantic didn't have many hurricanes, which is usual in an El Nino year.
The problem inherent in all of this is that the legality all hinges on the reason someone is making a copy of something, and knowlege of the future plans of the user. For example, it's okay to make a backup copy CD. Even two or three of them. But if you, six months later, turn around and sell them, suddenly it's illegal (not to have made the copies, but to sell them). So the backup CD's, sitting in their little jewel cases, should know to spontaneously self destruct the minute someone buys them.
Or consider that the original CD gets trashed. Shredded. Put down a garbage disposal. Now one of the backup CD's becomes, in essence, the original. So if I sell the one backup, that's actually legal -- I'm selling my only copy. But how can the backup copy tell that the original was destroyed and that it's okay to sell the backup?
So explain to me how one implements any of that, and I'll discuss it. Otherwise, you're asking for a discussion of the most ethereal of vaporware, and itsn't worth the effort. You can assume circuits, etc. in a new and improved CD that can measure and test anything you care to mention within a 10-mile radius, and you still can't tell in the general case.
So my claim is that your perfect DRM mechanism is in fact the least probable of all vaporware, and discussing it as if it were a possibility only lends credibility to the corporate drones who promote the concept.
Take a package like Minkowsky , or other group calendar package, enter each of the groups you have an SLA with, and block out their you-can't-do-maintenance-here windows as "meetings" for them.
Then try to schedule a "meeting" with as many of them as possible to do the upgrade, and a second meeting with as many as possible of the remaining batch, etc.
Or to put it another way, it says there exist programs for which you cannot prove whether they halt. But it does not say that all programs have that property, only that there must exist at least one.
Oh, and if you find anyone who's actually writing software that way, let me know, I may want a job there.