I swear, if you don't change "DONOT" to "DO NOT" or else put it in your.sig so I don't have to look at it, I'm going to reply to you with that same lame <Homer> joke that I think of every time I see it:)
I second that - it's like looking at files on a Windows desktop, where no matter what you name the file the first letter always ends up capitalized. Another great innovation, that.
Contrariwise, I would prefer the system to bog down and require user intervention in that case, rather than just ransomly reset. At least then the user could see the need for the reset, save important files, sync disks, etc. This is in the case of a personal workstation or a server. If it really becomes a pain the user can easily script something to reset the machine at predicable intervals.
In some cases in the telecom industry it's better to reset quickly and come back up, but I'm not sure that RH7 is being used for those sorts of things...
Scott Adams wrote in "the Dilbert Principle" (paraphased): "An employer's goal is to get as much
work out of the employee for at little pay as possible, and an employee's goal is to do as little
work for as much pay as possible."
If this is the way you look at your job, perhaps you should investigate doing something that you enjoy more.
I work outside of Chicago as a software engineer for 40-45 hours a week and paid overtime. Sure, I'm not pulling down 100K+ like some of you 80-hour folks, but on the other hand I have time to spend with my wife and time to enjoy doing what I really want to be doing with my life. And since I'm happy at home, when I go in to work I'm generally interested in being there and accomplishing my tasks there to the best of my professional capabilities.
IMHO, going for the money above all else is a huge mistake that many people make when getting out of college. Every day I'm glad I didn't go that route.
I don't see how a pricing agreement between Microsoft and an OEM has any bearing on my rights to resell the software. Price is immaterial to the discussion at hand - it's not my job to make sure that Microsoft or an OEM don't lose money due to their under-the-counter deals.
Microsoft might have something if they had a click-wrap license on the PC and if you accepted it and if click-wrap licenses are legal, but assuming you never boot the computer into Windows, never agree to any of Microsoft's licensing agreements, and resell every single bit of windows that was sold to you, you should be free and clear.
Of course, if MS has "locked" your install of Windows to your particular hardware somehow, you might not find any buyers...
Repeat after me: two-way radios. radios. radios. Where you got the idea that this somehow involves cell phones (beyond the fact that moto is also in that market) is beyond me.
The more in-depth answer is that there are both proprietary radio communications protocols as well as documented standards in both the U.S. and European markets. Standards-conformant moto radios can theoretically be replaced with equivalent Ericsson equipment (although I've never tried in practice). Even the non-documented moto protocols (at least the low-end ones, like the Talkabout radios) could probaby be reverse-engineered for interoperability by an old-school RF hacker in a day or so.
Cassette tapes (like the aforementioned Metallica) are even easier to recover, since the tape doesn't pass over exactly the same area of the head each time you record to it. At the edges of the tape are slivers of media which may be missed by subsequent writes to the tape. I haven't done this recovery, but I have heard it is quite possible.
Well, it's hardly as open-and-shut as that. The government wanted access to Mitnick's encrypted files because they thought there might be other incriminating evidence in there. Mitnick refused to turn over the password on the 5th Amendment grounds that this would be self-incrimination. Later he wanted access to the files and the government wouldn't turn them over, on the grounds that this would be evidence that he could use but the government could not, since only Mitnick could decrypt it.
I'm not sure what I would have done in his situation, but trials are supposed to operate on the principle that the evidence is available for review by all parties. It's fine with me if Mitnick didn't want to provide possible evidence against him by decrypting the files (and in fact I probably would have done the same thing in his place) but it's incorrect to then say that the government was denying him access to this evidence. The government was denying access to any evidence which would have been only available to the defendant and not to the plaintiff.
Not that I agree with everything about how the trial proceeded (especially the terms of his parole, which would make it almost impossible to live in an industrialized society), but in this case I don't see how he could have expected any different reaction from the court.
IANAL, but wouldn't lawyer-client privilege rules come into play here? Your mom can't divulge legal documents prepared for another party without their consent, can she?
Lockard ridicules the "trickle-down technology" theorem which holds
that digital machinery will eventually become cheap enough for
everybody, just like phones, electricity and cars. That, he says, is
pie-in-the-sky rhetoric that completely ignores the gateway
stratification and mal-distribution of access incorporated into Net
access and modern computing.
Just like they used to only sell cars to the very rich, or electricity to those who were close to town? These don't sound like long-standing problems to me. (Although in the case of electricity, it did take some government intervention to get it all the way out into the country. Government intervention to provide 'net access to all is no less plausible, especially if much of the world's business begins to be done over the net.)
Materiality is the definition of real communities, and virtual
communities can't replicate real ones. He writes, in fact, "... [I]t is
precisely this human need for community that is being projected onto
cyberspace and exploited, sometimes even with the best of intentions."
Well, if you can define the terms of the debate such that by definition they are irreconcilable, then why did you need to write a book about it? Community is a meeting of minds, not bodies, and the net is the closest thing yet to a real meeting of the minds. Sure, it isn't everybody's mind yet, but give it time.
I have to agree with the KatzBot on this one - this naysayer is way off-base. Access to the web will bring about "social and democratic enlightenment", it just may take a while. And it seems to me that it's moving a lot faster than any previous comparable social change.
The problem is that I'm bored and (even on a good day) fairly argumentative. So I don't consider it a waste. Especially since this thread will quickly plunge to new depths (-5 here I come):P
Are you supa-l337 now that you've pointed it out to everyone?
Nope, although I did make a slightly funnier comment than some. My goal was to be the first to point it out, thus saving everyone else the trouble. I seem to have failed, however.
If you can do a better job, take the Slash code, register a domain, and do it. Seems to have worked
for kuro5hin.
I'm not sure if I could do a better job at running/. I do know that if I had a bunch of VA/Andover's money, I could write a perl script to detect duplicate headlines (which has been going on, as you pointed out, for years) in about a half an hour. Better yet, I could look through the story queue before posting.
I'm sick and tired of the pseudo-superior dimwits who complain about every spelling goof,
grammatical error, and minor mistake Rob and Co. make. Big-time establishment media makes
screw-ups too, they just don't have the cajones or integrity to apologize for them.
Although big media does try not to repeat their mistakes. In the spirit of open software, I'm happy to point out such a mistake, on the theory that calling more attention to such a simple but noticeable bug may cause it to be fixed more quickly. Sounds like somebody's a little sensitive about user feedback...
As far as your "bet", most readers probably have better things to worry about than how many PS2s
Sony can produce. Thank you for using your low user-id arrogance to speak for everyone, though.
Hmmm. Well, the previous story about the PS2 shortage garnered about the average number of posts for a/. story, so it would appear that you are incorrect. Apparently many people are interested in the PS2 (such as yourself, of course, or otherwise you wouldn't be reading this story). I don't recall claiming to speak for everyone, although since the majority of posts to this story will be of like flavor to mine, I think it's reasonable to say that I summed up the popular sentiment quite well.
Yes. It's a duplicate story. You noticed it. Whoopie. Would you like a bowl of hot grits for
noticing it?
Hmmm. A well-reasoned and well-intentioned humorous poke at one of/.'s many foibles posted by a registered user, versus a mean-spirited and humorless response by an AC. I wonder which is really the more troll-like?
See, the concept that's causing the problem here is that I was pointing out a troll, not trolling myself. Thus, my post was not the one which should have been moderated "Troll". I even pointed that out in my post, but apparently actually reading before moderating is no longer a requirement.
Or perhaps I should have included the magic words "I'll probably get moderated down as a troll for this, but...".
In the worst case, that could happen. However, if the treaty isn't approved by the Senate, then you can still appeal the FBI/ATF/etc. actions on constitutional grounds (4th amendment, etc.) and since there is no official treaty, the Constitution would still be in effect and the executive order might be thrown out.
As long as the Senate doesn't approve the treaty, it doesn't become enforceable at the same level as the Constitution, and so you can depend on the Bill of Rights to protect you. Well, if you have good lawyers, at least.
On the contrary, your Senators are two of the 100 people in the U.S. who do have power over this, since the Senate approves treaties. So don't throw in the towel yet.
Remember,
you're only allowed to appeal if you can show new evidence or demonstrate that the last trial
was somehow unfair, so should MS lose in the Court of Appeals, they can't just say, "we want
to take it to the Supreme Court" and have it happen.
How would that be materially different than the current appeal that Microsoft is making? In a case like this, with reams of evidence and trials that last for years, there will always be something to appeal on. Whichever side loses the appeal will appeal to the Supreme Court, and they will end up hearing it (or letting the lower court's ruling stand) just as if they were to do so today.
The judicial process should only be short circuited if there's a really good reason. The
Expediting Act leaves it at the discretion of the Supreme Court. Judges tend to have a certain
amount of reverence for the system so I'd guess that the Supreme Court would be reluctant to
expedite any case. It would have to be some kind of emergency.
The really good reason is ongoing consumer harm due to a monopoly in the industry. Fast track appeals do not have to be an emergency, they just have to satisfy the conditions that it is an antitrust trial and that the Supreme Court will most likely end up hearing the case anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I swear, if you don't change "DONOT" to "DO NOT" or else put it in your .sig so I don't have to look at it, I'm going to reply to you with that same lame <Homer> joke that I think of every time I see it :)
I second that - it's like looking at files on a Windows desktop, where no matter what you name the file the first letter always ends up capitalized. Another great innovation, that.
Funny, in reading that all I could think was:
<Homer>Mmmmmm... Donots</Homer>
That's what I'd like to know :) I would guess location is the difference?
Not to quibble, but isn't crond a "long-running daemon"? Granted most of these sorts of problems have been thrashed out of cron a long time ago.
Contrariwise, I would prefer the system to bog down and require user intervention in that case, rather than just ransomly reset. At least then the user could see the need for the reset, save important files, sync disks, etc. This is in the case of a personal workstation or a server. If it really becomes a pain the user can easily script something to reset the machine at predicable intervals.
In some cases in the telecom industry it's better to reset quickly and come back up, but I'm not sure that RH7 is being used for those sorts of things...
If this is the way you look at your job, perhaps you should investigate doing something that you enjoy more.
I work outside of Chicago as a software engineer for 40-45 hours a week and paid overtime. Sure, I'm not pulling down 100K+ like some of you 80-hour folks, but on the other hand I have time to spend with my wife and time to enjoy doing what I really want to be doing with my life. And since I'm happy at home, when I go in to work I'm generally interested in being there and accomplishing my tasks there to the best of my professional capabilities.
IMHO, going for the money above all else is a huge mistake that many people make when getting out of college. Every day I'm glad I didn't go that route.
I don't see how a pricing agreement between Microsoft and an OEM has any bearing on my rights to resell the software. Price is immaterial to the discussion at hand - it's not my job to make sure that Microsoft or an OEM don't lose money due to their under-the-counter deals.
Microsoft might have something if they had a click-wrap license on the PC and if you accepted it and if click-wrap licenses are legal, but assuming you never boot the computer into Windows, never agree to any of Microsoft's licensing agreements, and resell every single bit of windows that was sold to you, you should be free and clear.
Of course, if MS has "locked" your install of Windows to your particular hardware somehow, you might not find any buyers...
Repeat after me: two-way radios. radios. radios. Where you got the idea that this somehow involves cell phones (beyond the fact that moto is also in that market) is beyond me.
The more in-depth answer is that there are both proprietary radio communications protocols as well as documented standards in both the U.S. and European markets. Standards-conformant moto radios can theoretically be replaced with equivalent Ericsson equipment (although I've never tried in practice). Even the non-documented moto protocols (at least the low-end ones, like the Talkabout radios) could probaby be reverse-engineered for interoperability by an old-school RF hacker in a day or so.
...for a sig quote that defines me to a T:
Kramer: "These big corporations, they just write it off, Jerry!"
Seinfeld looks nonplussed.
Kramer: "You know, they just take it and they write it off!"
Seinfeld (accusing): "You don't even know what that means!"
Cassette tapes (like the aforementioned Metallica) are even easier to recover, since the tape doesn't pass over exactly the same area of the head each time you record to it. At the edges of the tape are slivers of media which may be missed by subsequent writes to the tape. I haven't done this recovery, but I have heard it is quite possible.
Well, it's hardly as open-and-shut as that. The government wanted access to Mitnick's encrypted files because they thought there might be other incriminating evidence in there. Mitnick refused to turn over the password on the 5th Amendment grounds that this would be self-incrimination. Later he wanted access to the files and the government wouldn't turn them over, on the grounds that this would be evidence that he could use but the government could not, since only Mitnick could decrypt it.
I'm not sure what I would have done in his situation, but trials are supposed to operate on the principle that the evidence is available for review by all parties. It's fine with me if Mitnick didn't want to provide possible evidence against him by decrypting the files (and in fact I probably would have done the same thing in his place) but it's incorrect to then say that the government was denying him access to this evidence. The government was denying access to any evidence which would have been only available to the defendant and not to the plaintiff.
Not that I agree with everything about how the trial proceeded (especially the terms of his parole, which would make it almost impossible to live in an industrialized society), but in this case I don't see how he could have expected any different reaction from the court.
IANAL, but wouldn't lawyer-client privilege rules come into play here? Your mom can't divulge legal documents prepared for another party without their consent, can she?
Some points:
Just like they used to only sell cars to the very rich, or electricity to those who were close to town? These don't sound like long-standing problems to me. (Although in the case of electricity, it did take some government intervention to get it all the way out into the country. Government intervention to provide 'net access to all is no less plausible, especially if much of the world's business begins to be done over the net.)
Well, if you can define the terms of the debate such that by definition they are irreconcilable, then why did you need to write a book about it? Community is a meeting of minds, not bodies, and the net is the closest thing yet to a real meeting of the minds. Sure, it isn't everybody's mind yet, but give it time.
I have to agree with the KatzBot on this one - this naysayer is way off-base. Access to the web will bring about "social and democratic enlightenment", it just may take a while. And it seems to me that it's moving a lot faster than any previous comparable social change.
The problem is that I'm bored and (even on a good day) fairly argumentative. So I don't consider it a waste. Especially since this thread will quickly plunge to new depths (-5 here I come) :P
BWAAAAH HAA HA! Oh, if only I could shift the two "Funny" moderations from my post onto yours, I would.
Wow, I'm so bored @work today...
Nope, although I did make a slightly funnier comment than some. My goal was to be the first to point it out, thus saving everyone else the trouble. I seem to have failed, however.
I'm not sure if I could do a better job at running /. I do know that if I had a bunch of VA/Andover's money, I could write a perl script to detect duplicate headlines (which has been going on, as you pointed out, for years) in about a half an hour. Better yet, I could look through the story queue before posting.
Although big media does try not to repeat their mistakes. In the spirit of open software, I'm happy to point out such a mistake, on the theory that calling more attention to such a simple but noticeable bug may cause it to be fixed more quickly. Sounds like somebody's a little sensitive about user feedback...
Hmmm. Well, the previous story about the PS2 shortage garnered about the average number of posts for a /. story, so it would appear that you are incorrect. Apparently many people are interested in the PS2 (such as yourself, of course, or otherwise you wouldn't be reading this story). I don't recall claiming to speak for everyone, although since the majority of posts to this story will be of like flavor to mine, I think it's reasonable to say that I summed up the popular sentiment quite well.
Hmmm. A well-reasoned and well-intentioned humorous poke at one of /.'s many foibles posted by a registered user, versus a mean-spirited and humorless response by an AC. I wonder which is really the more troll-like?
Do you ever read /. ? 'Cause those of us that do saw this story a few hours ago.
I bet most readers would prefer to see twice as many PS2s being produced, and half as many stories about them being late to market :)
See, the concept that's causing the problem here is that I was pointing out a troll, not trolling myself. Thus, my post was not the one which should have been moderated "Troll". I even pointed that out in my post, but apparently actually reading before moderating is no longer a requirement.
Or perhaps I should have included the magic words "I'll probably get moderated down as a troll for this, but...".
Neither can you, apparently, since it's actually "TANSTAAFL". There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
- ethereal, Heinlein fan even after Starship Troopers: The Movie.
In the worst case, that could happen. However, if the treaty isn't approved by the Senate, then you can still appeal the FBI/ATF/etc. actions on constitutional grounds (4th amendment, etc.) and since there is no official treaty, the Constitution would still be in effect and the executive order might be thrown out.
As long as the Senate doesn't approve the treaty, it doesn't become enforceable at the same level as the Constitution, and so you can depend on the Bill of Rights to protect you. Well, if you have good lawyers, at least.
On the contrary, your Senators are two of the 100 people in the U.S. who do have power over this, since the Senate approves treaties. So don't throw in the towel yet.
How would that be materially different than the current appeal that Microsoft is making? In a case like this, with reams of evidence and trials that last for years, there will always be something to appeal on. Whichever side loses the appeal will appeal to the Supreme Court, and they will end up hearing it (or letting the lower court's ruling stand) just as if they were to do so today.
The really good reason is ongoing consumer harm due to a monopoly in the industry. Fast track appeals do not have to be an emergency, they just have to satisfy the conditions that it is an antitrust trial and that the Supreme Court will most likely end up hearing the case anyway.