For copyright-expired stuff, sure. But for books less than seventy years old, you can't get your hands on them without the publisher's consent. And they are, for the most part, not consenting on DRM-free books.
I'm not familiar with any web filtering solutions which rely on DNS to do the filtering. The ones I've seen either use a standard HTTP proxy or a transparent proxy. If you try and request a resource by IP, they'll block it just the same.
You can set bookmarks. However, navigating the bookmark screen is slower than flipping to the page you have a post-it hanging off of. So if you go digital with your reference books, you will gain the ability for text search, but it will come at the cost of slower access to existing bookmarks.
Libraries will become meeting places and cybercafes, rather than book storage. With a tweak in the law, we could force book publishers to provide digital copies to libraries. But as it stands, DRM will eventually kill libraries in the same way cell phones killed phone booths.
If you take time to read the stories on slashdot, by the time you post you will be so far down the page nobody will ever read, reply to, or moderate your comment. Reacting to the summary is all we can reasonably expect!
Any of them will work with non-DRM books. For example, O'Reilly tech books can be purchased in non-DRM digital form. You would only have to worry about losing access to DRM books if you get them from a company that may go bankrupt or stop making ebook readers.
Personally, I never re-read books, and I consider the probability of Amazon going bankrupt to be very small, anyway. So I have no worries with buying digital books from them, and I love my ebook reader.
Fonts the same? The Kindle can do multiple fonts. It can do bold and italic. It can even do illustrations. Why are we asking this guy's opinion if he obviously has never even used the device?
Wait... you don't see why bringing a girl back to your HOUSE--where you can serve drinks and be intimate--is better than going to a theater crowded with middleschoolers? What kind of loser are you?
The term "cloud" is over-used, but a 48-core chip is certainly a good match for anyone who uses virtualization, and cloud-style data services are absolutely big users of virtualization.
Cloud computing is certainly a big deal. I recently explained to my boss that instead of spending weeks going through tickets, bureaucracy, approvals, and procurement to get a server in our own datacenter, we could go to Amazon, type the credit card number, and be up-and-running with a few clicks!
I don't know if he understood exactly what cloud computing *is*, but he knows it is important and will have a major impact on IT. So when someone mentions the word "cloud" he listens. Marketers are aware of this sort of thing, so they deliberately use these terms as liberally as possible.
The notion that something makes them nervous indicates they know shit about it in the first place.
But this is reality. We really don't "know shit" about everything we build. It's wise to take this into account; it's stupid to deny such facts and plod ahead anyway.
This is what happens when you send scientists and academics to do the work experienced engineers should be doing.
Academics don't even see failure like this as a bad thing. It's an interesting point of study, which may help them learn, etc.. Engineers just want to make shit work, so they overengineer the parts that make them nervous, do component testing ahead of time, and generally make things happen.
Like so many promising high-tech ideas, the word "cloud computing" is being over-used. Cloud computing means being able to get virtual hosting with a few clicks, and automatically scale up and down as demand changes, all while being billed by resources actually used.
Not every cluster of servers or supercomputer deserves to be called "cloud." Not everyone who runs VMware deserves to be called "cloud."
One of the more amusing bullshit-internet-debate tactics is the classic "my opponent is a plant!" This is obviously false to all readers, as plants are unable to type.
What kind of bias is motivating you to accept one person's accusation without a shred of evidence? The law does not assume guilt until proven innocent, and for a very good reason. This fact seems lost on you.
Guards are simply not proof of a "forced labor camp." If anyone could claim any place with guards is a "forced labor camp," and YOU were a DA, you would spend all your day prosecuting shopping mall operators based on the claims of bored teenagers.
When thinking, I recommend that you your brain, not your bias.
My boyscout camp had roll calls. "Gated communities" have guards and fences. Even some private schools have roll call, guards, and fences. Hell, my cushy office building has guards. These things are not, on their own, evidence of a crime.
If guards were to testify that they were trained to keep people from leaving, rather than to keep people safe from outsiders, we may have evidence of a crime. So far, though, we just have one man's unsubstantiated claims.
(BTW: the word to describe people who lack skepticism is "gullible")
it sounds like he was forced to live in a place described as similar to a prison camp
Having guards and fences is not illegal. Being "forced" to live somewhere is a crime (called "kidnapping"). There needs to be sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was kidnapped, and not staying voluntarily.
I seriously doubt they would have let him have access to a telephone
Well, if there's no evidence that he was forcibly detained, there will be no successful prosecution.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure the CoS will get a free trial according to US law. Religion is quite popular here, and the majority of the religious dislike the CoS passionately enough they may be predisposed to overlook the letter of the law. Think about black men on trial for violent crimes in the segregated South back in the day...
I have no sympathies for any particular religious group. I just hope the law is upheld and no prosecution based solely on unsupported claims is successful.
There is no law against working in a compound which has barbed wire. So that sounds like some crap to feed the media.
The $50/week pay could be grounds for him to sue them for back wages, supposing he has proof that he worked more than 10 hours per week and that they only paid him $50 during such weeks.
For the slavery charge, he would need to prove that he tried to quit/leave but was forcibly prevented from doing so. Did he call the police on such occasions?
I'm thinking he may have a hard time proving his case. Accusations alone won't do it; he'll need evidence.
Lookeee here, guys! Someone who claims to be a senior IT security "technician" who has never heard of defense in depth!
He even thinks server-side virus-scan can catch as much malware as the client-side stuff does. Guess he's never heard of behavior-based virus detection, either? And his grand security architecture posture is simply "don't use much of the internet." There's sophistication for you.
But then, he's extrapolated his advice based on a single poorly-measured datapoint. Who are we to question him?
Slashdot Mirror
For copyright-expired stuff, sure. But for books less than seventy years old, you can't get your hands on them without the publisher's consent. And they are, for the most part, not consenting on DRM-free books.
Screw that! I would just like to be able to send encrypted email to people without having to do manual key exchange first!
I'm not familiar with any web filtering solutions which rely on DNS to do the filtering. The ones I've seen either use a standard HTTP proxy or a transparent proxy. If you try and request a resource by IP, they'll block it just the same.
You can set bookmarks. However, navigating the bookmark screen is slower than flipping to the page you have a post-it hanging off of. So if you go digital with your reference books, you will gain the ability for text search, but it will come at the cost of slower access to existing bookmarks.
Libraries will become meeting places and cybercafes, rather than book storage. With a tweak in the law, we could force book publishers to provide digital copies to libraries. But as it stands, DRM will eventually kill libraries in the same way cell phones killed phone booths.
If you take time to read the stories on slashdot, by the time you post you will be so far down the page nobody will ever read, reply to, or moderate your comment. Reacting to the summary is all we can reasonably expect!
Any of them will work with non-DRM books. For example, O'Reilly tech books can be purchased in non-DRM digital form. You would only have to worry about losing access to DRM books if you get them from a company that may go bankrupt or stop making ebook readers.
Personally, I never re-read books, and I consider the probability of Amazon going bankrupt to be very small, anyway. So I have no worries with buying digital books from them, and I love my ebook reader.
Fonts the same? The Kindle can do multiple fonts. It can do bold and italic. It can even do illustrations. Why are we asking this guy's opinion if he obviously has never even used the device?
If you build it, they will read.
Nobody reads it today because it either doesn't exist or sucks.
So you didn't even read the summary. I see. A little ignorance goes a long way!
What are you, trolling? Or do you really say "hey, come over and we'll fuck?" when asking people out? Have you ever even been on a date?
Wait... you don't see why bringing a girl back to your HOUSE--where you can serve drinks and be intimate--is better than going to a theater crowded with middleschoolers? What kind of loser are you?
He's looking for something that works, not something he needs to tinker with for half an hour in the middle of his movie date.
I'm sure this is an honest mistake on your part, though. I mean, who would even consider user behavior as bizarre and alien as going on a date?
The term "cloud" is over-used, but a 48-core chip is certainly a good match for anyone who uses virtualization, and cloud-style data services are absolutely big users of virtualization.
Cloud computing is certainly a big deal. I recently explained to my boss that instead of spending weeks going through tickets, bureaucracy, approvals, and procurement to get a server in our own datacenter, we could go to Amazon, type the credit card number, and be up-and-running with a few clicks!
I don't know if he understood exactly what cloud computing *is*, but he knows it is important and will have a major impact on IT. So when someone mentions the word "cloud" he listens. Marketers are aware of this sort of thing, so they deliberately use these terms as liberally as possible.
Support costs related to "my computer's slow!" issues cost money, too.
But this is reality. We really don't "know shit" about everything we build. It's wise to take this into account; it's stupid to deny such facts and plod ahead anyway.
This is what happens when you send scientists and academics to do the work experienced engineers should be doing.
Academics don't even see failure like this as a bad thing. It's an interesting point of study, which may help them learn, etc.. Engineers just want to make shit work, so they overengineer the parts that make them nervous, do component testing ahead of time, and generally make things happen.
Like so many promising high-tech ideas, the word "cloud computing" is being over-used. Cloud computing means being able to get virtual hosting with a few clicks, and automatically scale up and down as demand changes, all while being billed by resources actually used.
Not every cluster of servers or supercomputer deserves to be called "cloud." Not everyone who runs VMware deserves to be called "cloud."
One of the more amusing bullshit-internet-debate tactics is the classic "my opponent is a plant!" This is obviously false to all readers, as plants are unable to type.
What kind of bias is motivating you to accept one person's accusation without a shred of evidence? The law does not assume guilt until proven innocent, and for a very good reason. This fact seems lost on you.
Guards are simply not proof of a "forced labor camp." If anyone could claim any place with guards is a "forced labor camp," and YOU were a DA, you would spend all your day prosecuting shopping mall operators based on the claims of bored teenagers.
When thinking, I recommend that you your brain, not your bias.
My boyscout camp had roll calls. "Gated communities" have guards and fences. Even some private schools have roll call, guards, and fences. Hell, my cushy office building has guards. These things are not, on their own, evidence of a crime.
If guards were to testify that they were trained to keep people from leaving, rather than to keep people safe from outsiders, we may have evidence of a crime. So far, though, we just have one man's unsubstantiated claims.
(BTW: the word to describe people who lack skepticism is "gullible")
Having guards and fences is not illegal. Being "forced" to live somewhere is a crime (called "kidnapping"). There needs to be sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was kidnapped, and not staying voluntarily.
Well, if there's no evidence that he was forcibly detained, there will be no successful prosecution.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure the CoS will get a free trial according to US law. Religion is quite popular here, and the majority of the religious dislike the CoS passionately enough they may be predisposed to overlook the letter of the law. Think about black men on trial for violent crimes in the segregated South back in the day...
I have no sympathies for any particular religious group. I just hope the law is upheld and no prosecution based solely on unsupported claims is successful.
Who refers to Sarbanes Oxley asn SarBox? I've only ever heard of it as "SOX." I can't imagine why the "b" would be stressed, anyway.
I know this is the internet, but we really shouldn't just go around inventing acronyms for headlines.
There is no law against working in a compound which has barbed wire. So that sounds like some crap to feed the media.
The $50/week pay could be grounds for him to sue them for back wages, supposing he has proof that he worked more than 10 hours per week and that they only paid him $50 during such weeks.
For the slavery charge, he would need to prove that he tried to quit/leave but was forcibly prevented from doing so. Did he call the police on such occasions?
I'm thinking he may have a hard time proving his case. Accusations alone won't do it; he'll need evidence.
Lookeee here, guys! Someone who claims to be a senior IT security "technician" who has never heard of defense in depth!
He even thinks server-side virus-scan can catch as much malware as the client-side stuff does. Guess he's never heard of behavior-based virus detection, either? And his grand security architecture posture is simply "don't use much of the internet." There's sophistication for you.
But then, he's extrapolated his advice based on a single poorly-measured datapoint. Who are we to question him?