Yes, I'm pretty sure that the courts have said that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a traffic stop on a public highway. Unfortunately, NH, may well have more restrictive laws.
I wonder whether that audio is publicly available.
IANAL
OK, if it is cheap, roll your own distro of the quality Redhat produces. If you are doing that by yourself, I expect to hear back in about ten years. Assuming that you aren't thrown out on the street because you haven't been able to pay your rent or mortgage or starve to death because you haven't earned any money and can't buy food. Yes that's right. Doing work with no income is impossible.
You completely ignored my question--and instead have insisted on repeating the same naive point you made originally. If CentOS is distributing RH's work for free to people who aren't willing to pay RH for support RH is not losing anything; The people using CentOS aren't lost sales.
Think of a webhosting company with hundreds of linux servers, who are ready to handle it all in house. And they are not willing to pay a per copy annual cost for outside support. So they were never considering RHEL. If CentOS didn't exist they would use debian or another free linux. Again, this does not constitute 100's of lost sales for RH. What it does constitute is free testing.
And if Debian were good enough to worthy of being called a usable desktop environment Ubuntu would never have taken off. What gets more downloads? Debian or Ubuntu. One is based on the other. But one is usable and the other isn't.
You don't know what you are talking about. There are plenty of quite polished, not-for-profit distos based on Debian testing. I listed some. Yeah, they might not have the marketing that Ubuntu has had, but they are quite good, and have not a few users. If you have found that none of them is usable then you really shouldn't be allowed near a computer. But I suspect you probably haven't used any of them. Frankly I find Ubuntu painful: crazy memory bloat and updates that periodically break random things.
So get your head out of your ass, you've developed brain damage from the lack of oxygen. But it sounds like perhaps it is too late. You are a fucking leeching retard already. . . .
Actually I'm not. I don't use, nor have I ever used, CentOS; I use Debian. You know, the non-commercial distro that's "not usable on the desktop".
Out of curiosity, can you show me one place where RH has made this attack on CentOS and accused them of leaching?
The difference between Oracle and CentOS is that CentOS isn't selling the same product as RH: RH is selling a professionally supported OS.
CentOS isn't.
Oracle is.
The people using CentOS are the people willing to take the risk of administering their own systems without vendor support.
but it is still giving away Redhat's product for far cheaper than it costs to create
Two issues here. First, what does it cost RH to create RHEL? Per copy I mean, not total. Copies cost nothing, per se. There is only a cost of sorts if the person opting for the free version was willing and able to pay for the pay version. (This btw, is precisely the reason that piracy is different from theft: The creator isn't deprived of what he had, and he isn't even deprived of a lost sale unless the pirate would have paid had he not been able to get it free.)
This brings us to the second point: RH's real product (in the sense of what they are selling) is a professionally supported distribution. The reason people pay for RHEL is so they have someone to call when they need it fixed. If you want someone else's ass on the line if things go south, CentOS is not competition.
For profit distros are the only reason that Linux is available to you today, unless of course you are one of only a handful of people who like to build every single piece of software from scratch from all the different project's repositories.
Guess you haven't heard of Debian (and before you write Debian stable off as not being practical for desktop users, there are plenty of not-for-profit polished desktop distros based on testing or unstable: crunchbang, atopsid, and mint-debian jump to mind, to say nothing of those of us who just run sid), or Arch, or slackware, or Gentoo.
So go back to your mother's basement in a huff and whine about people like me who are concerned when the people who actually create the work are cut off at the knees by people who make it less worthwhile to fight create the distros, fight off asshats like SCO and Oracle, and sponsor so many projects. You probably use CentOS and never paid for shite. At least my conscience is clear on that regard. I pay for my software. Keep on leeching asshole.
May I suggest that the source is what you feed the compiler. What must be distributed is the source, not all relevant information about the program--including the history of that source. So you aren't required to distribute your internal documentation of the source, even though that might be preferred for the person modifying it.
"Preferred form"--as I have always understood it-- just means, "not a dot matrix printout or punch cards"
Which posts will then be followed by posts pointing out that marketshare doesn't account for all the success that malware has had on Windows, but that MS has a few historical cases of a) making social engineering easier and b) making a successful exploit potentially more catastrophic. And maybe even a few arguing an overall moribund history of patching known holes.
Okay, Time for an almost OT rant:
Who the fuck thinks it is a good idea to put the things we use most often or what always visible on the "desktop", the first thing to be covered as soon as we start actually doing something??
Widgets/wallpapers/desktop icons/conkey/whatever are absolutely retarded ideas.
When will UI designers realize that my computer UI is not a desktop, and I do not want it to mimick limitations of physical objects.
Is it that hard to simply state "both sides of the issue" and let the readers make up their own minds
Yes, that's my whole point.
I don't think it is; I do it all the time in my research papers
When I was taught to write research papers, having a clear thesis or conclusion that the paper was written to substantiate was an essential aspect. If that was lacking, so the paper didn't take a position or form an argument, but just summarized facts, it was a glorified book report.
Yes journalists should report on a topic they don't care about.
But who decides what makes a news-worthy story? And who decides which facts about a story are news-worthy?
If I'm reporting an issue in which there are two factions involved, and as far as I'm concerned one side is just a bunch of whiny, illogical SOBs, I'm probably not going to paint them in the best light even if that is only because I don't actually understand what they stand for. The best way to get an objective idea in a debate is to read the best defense of each side written by the brightest defenders of each side. If you try to read a third party's summary of each side, you are going to get an account tainted by his view of the debate.
If I'm an editor, how do I decide what is front page material and what is to be found on page 12? When I trim an hour long--or even 5 minute--speech into 1 or 2 one-liners, how do I decide which lines to pick?
I'm just saying that there is no single sheet of pithy bullet points that are "just the facts", just like there is no single, authoritative list of a day's news-worthy stories. Even if there were (either of the two) the order you arrange them in would be significant.
or perhaps disclose their viewpoint at the start of the article
You do realize this is exactly what I was advocating?
Various scientists go through this every day. Its just that we require published scientific papers to be of a higher caliber than what Fox publishes.
You mean to tell me that scientific papers never argue for one theory over a competing theory? They just report facts with no analysis?
I think this is a great way to look at Ubuntu.
Easy to install.
Gives you a taste of what Linux offers compared to Windows (virtual desktops, no virus scanner, able to automount your USB, and yeah, your webcam works)
GREAT community for beginners.
Eventually though, I think many people who start this way realize that Ubuntu can be quite a bit buggier and hungrier than Linux needs to be, and once they are comfortable with Linux, they migrate to something else.
This is a nice ideal, but I think it is naive.
Setting aside outright propaganda or distortion, every reporter (whether a journalist or historian) writes from a perspective.
Even if he does his best to be objective, avoid commentary, and just stick to the facts his perspective will influence which facts he finds relevant.
I prefer sources of information that clearly label themselves as having a particular position; That way I know whose perspective I'm getting.
Counterintuitively, a news source with a clear opinion or party line is more objective than a new source that refuses to admit it has a perspective because the latter gives a false sense of objectivity, while the former clearly identifies what it is serving.
Of course this is setting aside cases of outright falsification and other cases of questionable journalistic integrity.
This sounds plain dumb.
If Amazon wanted to limit the size of files purely for the user experience they could . . . (wait for it) . . . impose a limit on the file size. They could even get all fancy and limit the average KB/page ratio, which might be more meaningful.
This would immediately accomplish their purpose of keeping the kindle from filling up too fast, unlike charging high rates for data.
I have no problem with a company trying to make a dime but pretending this is motivated by anything other than profit strikes me as silly.
As to the US rationing tires in WWII, it makes sense that they would do it indirectly since directly rationing tires (for individuals) is difficult: Tires have a long life and when someone needs them they generally need several at once.
Let's say they said something like, every household gets 1 new set of tires every 8 years. This wouldn't be very effective as 8 years is considerably longer than the war. So there was no serious pressure not to use tires as you would have anyway.
So if they instead did something like, you get one new tire every 2 years, then you are open to the problem of people who had 4 bald tires on their car at the beginning of the war, and six months into the war any one of those tires could blow out. Giving him one tire every 2 years isn't going to cut it.
Of course you could do something like, your tires must have less than an 1/8th of an inch of tread left before you can replace them, but unless people drive less it will only have a temporary effect on their consumption.
The most obvious way to ration tires is indirectly by restricting the miles individuals put on them, and the easiest way to do that is to ration gas. That doesn't seem to be the case on an ebook reader.
Sorry, let's try that again:
Apparently the latter.
Since classical Ethernet has no flow control, unlike Fibre Channel, FCoE requires enhancements to the Ethernet standard to support a flow control mechanism (this prevents frame loss). . . . Fibre Channel required three primary extensions to deliver the capabilities of Fibre Channel over Ethernet networks:
Encapsulation of native Fibre Channel frames into Ethernet Frames.
Extensions to the Ethernet protocol itself to enable an Ethernet fabric in which frames are not routinely lost during periods of congestion.
Mapping between Fibre Channel N_port IDs (aka FCIDs) and Ethernet MAC addresses.
Apparently the latter.
"Since classical Ethernet has no flow control, unlike Fibre Channel, FCoE requires enhancements to the Ethernet standard to support a flow control mechanism (this prevents frame loss). . . .
Fibre Channel required three primary extensions to deliver the capabilities of Fibre Channel over Ethernet networks:
-Encapsulation of native Fibre Channel frames into Ethernet Frames.
-Extensions to the Ethernet protocol itself to enable an Ethernet fabric in which frames are not routinely lost during periods of congestion.
-Mapping between Fibre Channel N_port IDs (aka FCIDs) and Ethernet MAC addresses." --Wikipedia
Regardless, Chrome *never* had a status-bar and iirc, it has a couple of users
Chrome's status bar pops up when there is something to display.
So when I mouse over a link, for example, a little blue bar pops up with the URL. If I click on the link, it says something like, "Sending request" and then "Waiting for [host name]" etc.
Sorry, didn't read your reply well, so I find that I was addressing a straw man. But it seems the point stands: They are still true possessives, contra mcgrew who appears to have been taking issue with Scalawag's calling them possessives.
For many words the OE genitive ending is -es, which in Modern English becomes 's. Old English did have genitives that did not use -es. So the fact that 'his' and 'her' didn't evolve from -es (note that 'its' did so evolve at least in a sense) is irrelevant. Look up the etymologies of his, her, their, your: All of them came from genitives whether they ended in -es or not. Moreover the etymology is hardly the issue: In Modern English--and by Modern I mean from say 1600--these words are unquestionably and universally treated grammatically as possessive genitives.
So again, what is not "true" about them?
Panel System: This is the most likely use of 3D without glasses. What happens is that a thin screen is placed in front of the TV which as the same function as glasses would. It polarizes the images and causes the right and left eye to receive different images. This would create a 3D effect without any glasses at all.
Okay, I'm confused, polarization works with glasses because the two lenses have different polarities, so each eye gets the correct image. The polarization is just used as a filter. How does polarizing the light at the source (without the glasses) get us to 3-d? Unless of course the panel is some fixed distance front and center of the viewer, so it can direct the correct image to th correct eye, and so is effectively acting as a set of glasses that you don't have to wear.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm pretty sure that the courts have said that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a traffic stop on a public highway. Unfortunately, NH, may well have more restrictive laws.
I wonder whether that audio is publicly available.
IANAL
OK, if it is cheap, roll your own distro of the quality Redhat produces. If you are doing that by yourself, I expect to hear back in about ten years. Assuming that you aren't thrown out on the street because you haven't been able to pay your rent or mortgage or starve to death because you haven't earned any money and can't buy food. Yes that's right. Doing work with no income is impossible.
You completely ignored my question--and instead have insisted on repeating the same naive point you made originally. If CentOS is distributing RH's work for free to people who aren't willing to pay RH for support RH is not losing anything; The people using CentOS aren't lost sales.
Think of a webhosting company with hundreds of linux servers, who are ready to handle it all in house. And they are not willing to pay a per copy annual cost for outside support. So they were never considering RHEL. If CentOS didn't exist they would use debian or another free linux. Again, this does not constitute 100's of lost sales for RH. What it does constitute is free testing.
And if Debian were good enough to worthy of being called a usable desktop environment Ubuntu would never have taken off. What gets more downloads? Debian or Ubuntu. One is based on the other. But one is usable and the other isn't.
You don't know what you are talking about. There are plenty of quite polished, not-for-profit distos based on Debian testing. I listed some. Yeah, they might not have the marketing that Ubuntu has had, but they are quite good, and have not a few users. If you have found that none of them is usable then you really shouldn't be allowed near a computer. But I suspect you probably haven't used any of them. Frankly I find Ubuntu painful: crazy memory bloat and updates that periodically break random things.
So get your head out of your ass, you've developed brain damage from the lack of oxygen. But it sounds like perhaps it is too late. You are a fucking leeching retard already. . . .
Actually I'm not. I don't use, nor have I ever used, CentOS; I use Debian. You know, the non-commercial distro that's "not usable on the desktop".
Out of curiosity, can you show me one place where RH has made this attack on CentOS and accused them of leaching?
The difference between Oracle and CentOS is that CentOS isn't selling the same product as RH: RH is selling a professionally supported OS.
CentOS isn't.
Oracle is.
The people using CentOS are the people willing to take the risk of administering their own systems without vendor support.
but it is still giving away Redhat's product for far cheaper than it costs to create
Two issues here. First, what does it cost RH to create RHEL? Per copy I mean, not total. Copies cost nothing, per se. There is only a cost of sorts if the person opting for the free version was willing and able to pay for the pay version. (This btw, is precisely the reason that piracy is different from theft: The creator isn't deprived of what he had, and he isn't even deprived of a lost sale unless the pirate would have paid had he not been able to get it free.)
This brings us to the second point: RH's real product (in the sense of what they are selling) is a professionally supported distribution. The reason people pay for RHEL is so they have someone to call when they need it fixed. If you want someone else's ass on the line if things go south, CentOS is not competition.
For profit distros are the only reason that Linux is available to you today, unless of course you are one of only a handful of people who like to build every single piece of software from scratch from all the different project's repositories.
Guess you haven't heard of Debian (and before you write Debian stable off as not being practical for desktop users, there are plenty of not-for-profit polished desktop distros based on testing or unstable: crunchbang, atopsid, and mint-debian jump to mind, to say nothing of those of us who just run sid), or Arch, or slackware, or Gentoo.
So go back to your mother's basement in a huff and whine about people like me who are concerned when the people who actually create the work are cut off at the knees by people who make it less worthwhile to fight create the distros, fight off asshats like SCO and Oracle, and sponsor so many projects. You probably use CentOS and never paid for shite. At least my conscience is clear on that regard. I pay for my software. Keep on leeching asshole.
Just fuck off.
May I suggest that the source is what you feed the compiler. What must be distributed is the source, not all relevant information about the program--including the history of that source. So you aren't required to distribute your internal documentation of the source, even though that might be preferred for the person modifying it.
"Preferred form"--as I have always understood it-- just means, "not a dot matrix printout or punch cards"
Deathly is not an adverb, despite modern dictionaries claiming to be so
dictionaries claiming to be what? Modern?
Oh, you meant, "despite modern dictionaries' claiming it to be such."
: P
Which posts will then be followed by posts pointing out that marketshare doesn't account for all the success that malware has had on Windows, but that MS has a few historical cases of a) making social engineering easier and b) making a successful exploit potentially more catastrophic.
And maybe even a few arguing an overall moribund history of patching known holes.
I request you humbly shove your geek license up your ass; finding the ribbon a UI nightmare does not impugn one's geek status in the least.
opps: ". . . use most often or want always visible . . . "
Okay, Time for an almost OT rant:
Who the fuck thinks it is a good idea to put the things we use most often or what always visible on the "desktop", the first thing to be covered as soon as we start actually doing something??
Widgets/wallpapers/desktop icons/conkey/whatever are absolutely retarded ideas.
When will UI designers realize that my computer UI is not a desktop, and I do not want it to mimick limitations of physical objects.
you care a hell of a lot more about how other people feel about how other people feel about their phones than I do.
Is it that hard to simply state "both sides of the issue" and let the readers make up their own minds
Yes, that's my whole point.
I don't think it is; I do it all the time in my research papers
When I was taught to write research papers, having a clear thesis or conclusion that the paper was written to substantiate was an essential aspect. If that was lacking, so the paper didn't take a position or form an argument, but just summarized facts, it was a glorified book report.
Yes journalists should report on a topic they don't care about.
But who decides what makes a news-worthy story? And who decides which facts about a story are news-worthy?
If I'm reporting an issue in which there are two factions involved, and as far as I'm concerned one side is just a bunch of whiny, illogical SOBs, I'm probably not going to paint them in the best light even if that is only because I don't actually understand what they stand for. The best way to get an objective idea in a debate is to read the best defense of each side written by the brightest defenders of each side. If you try to read a third party's summary of each side, you are going to get an account tainted by his view of the debate.
If I'm an editor, how do I decide what is front page material and what is to be found on page 12? When I trim an hour long--or even 5 minute--speech into 1 or 2 one-liners, how do I decide which lines to pick?
I'm just saying that there is no single sheet of pithy bullet points that are "just the facts", just like there is no single, authoritative list of a day's news-worthy stories. Even if there were (either of the two) the order you arrange them in would be significant.
or perhaps disclose their viewpoint at the start of the article
You do realize this is exactly what I was advocating?
Various scientists go through this every day. Its just that we require published scientific papers to be of a higher caliber than what Fox publishes.
You mean to tell me that scientific papers never argue for one theory over a competing theory? They just report facts with no analysis?
I consider it a 'gateway linux'.
I think this is a great way to look at Ubuntu.
Easy to install.
Gives you a taste of what Linux offers compared to Windows (virtual desktops, no virus scanner, able to automount your USB, and yeah, your webcam works)
GREAT community for beginners.
Eventually though, I think many people who start this way realize that Ubuntu can be quite a bit buggier and hungrier than Linux needs to be, and once they are comfortable with Linux, they migrate to something else.
This is a nice ideal, but I think it is naive.
Setting aside outright propaganda or distortion, every reporter (whether a journalist or historian) writes from a perspective. Even if he does his best to be objective, avoid commentary, and just stick to the facts his perspective will influence which facts he finds relevant.
I prefer sources of information that clearly label themselves as having a particular position; That way I know whose perspective I'm getting.
Counterintuitively, a news source with a clear opinion or party line is more objective than a new source that refuses to admit it has a perspective because the latter gives a false sense of objectivity, while the former clearly identifies what it is serving.
Of course this is setting aside cases of outright falsification and other cases of questionable journalistic integrity.
This sounds plain dumb.
If Amazon wanted to limit the size of files purely for the user experience they could . . . (wait for it) . . . impose a limit on the file size. They could even get all fancy and limit the average KB/page ratio, which might be more meaningful.
This would immediately accomplish their purpose of keeping the kindle from filling up too fast, unlike charging high rates for data. I have no problem with a company trying to make a dime but pretending this is motivated by anything other than profit strikes me as silly.
As to the US rationing tires in WWII, it makes sense that they would do it indirectly since directly rationing tires (for individuals) is difficult: Tires have a long life and when someone needs them they generally need several at once.
Let's say they said something like, every household gets 1 new set of tires every 8 years. This wouldn't be very effective as 8 years is considerably longer than the war. So there was no serious pressure not to use tires as you would have anyway.
So if they instead did something like, you get one new tire every 2 years, then you are open to the problem of people who had 4 bald tires on their car at the beginning of the war, and six months into the war any one of those tires could blow out. Giving him one tire every 2 years isn't going to cut it.
Of course you could do something like, your tires must have less than an 1/8th of an inch of tread left before you can replace them, but unless people drive less it will only have a temporary effect on their consumption.
The most obvious way to ration tires is indirectly by restricting the miles individuals put on them, and the easiest way to do that is to ration gas. That doesn't seem to be the case on an ebook reader.
I'm genuinely POed at myself for not figuring this out. It could have save me countless hours of frustration.
Apparently the latter.
Since classical Ethernet has no flow control, unlike Fibre Channel, FCoE requires enhancements to the Ethernet standard to support a flow control mechanism (this prevents frame loss). . . .
Fibre Channel required three primary extensions to deliver the capabilities of Fibre Channel over Ethernet networks:
--Wikipedia
Apparently the latter. "Since classical Ethernet has no flow control, unlike Fibre Channel, FCoE requires enhancements to the Ethernet standard to support a flow control mechanism (this prevents frame loss). . . . Fibre Channel required three primary extensions to deliver the capabilities of Fibre Channel over Ethernet networks: -Encapsulation of native Fibre Channel frames into Ethernet Frames. -Extensions to the Ethernet protocol itself to enable an Ethernet fabric in which frames are not routinely lost during periods of congestion. -Mapping between Fibre Channel N_port IDs (aka FCIDs) and Ethernet MAC addresses." --Wikipedia
Dude thanks for the belly-laugh. I needed that. ;)
Regardless, Chrome *never* had a status-bar and iirc, it has a couple of users
Chrome's status bar pops up when there is something to display.
So when I mouse over a link, for example, a little blue bar pops up with the URL. If I click on the link, it says something like, "Sending request" and then "Waiting for [host name]" etc.
Apologies.
Sorry, didn't read your reply well, so I find that I was addressing a straw man. But it seems the point stands: They are still true possessives, contra mcgrew who appears to have been taking issue with Scalawag's calling them possessives.
For many words the OE genitive ending is -es, which in Modern English becomes 's.
Old English did have genitives that did not use -es. So the fact that 'his' and 'her' didn't evolve from -es (note that 'its' did so evolve at least in a sense) is irrelevant. Look up the etymologies of his, her, their, your: All of them came from genitives whether they ended in -es or not.
Moreover the etymology is hardly the issue: In Modern English--and by Modern I mean from say 1600--these words are unquestionably and universally treated grammatically as possessive genitives.
So again, what is not "true" about them?
Pretty sure they are possessive adjectives. What isn't "true" about them?
Panel System: This is the most likely use of 3D without glasses. What happens is that a thin screen is placed in front of the TV which as the same function as glasses would. It polarizes the images and causes the right and left eye to receive different images. This would create a 3D effect without any glasses at all.
Okay, I'm confused, polarization works with glasses because the two lenses have different polarities, so each eye gets the correct image. The polarization is just used as a filter. How does polarizing the light at the source (without the glasses) get us to 3-d? Unless of course the panel is some fixed distance front and center of the viewer, so it can direct the correct image to th correct eye, and so is effectively acting as a set of glasses that you don't have to wear.