If this is true, then it's unreasonable to expect them to pay the costs of the defendant -- that would only encourage defense by stonewalling.
If that is indeed what happened, then the defendant has committed some violation of judicial procedure, or disobeyed a court order, or something like that. If the plaintiff believes this to be true, they should be asking the court to order the defendant to carry out the proper steps. For example, if it is a discovery issue, where the plaintiff wants some kind of discovery from the defendant that the plaintiff is rightly justified to have, and the defendant is refusing, then the plaintiff should be asking the court for a strict order to command the defendant to provide this. And if the defendant continues to stonewall, then the plaintiff should ask the court to hold the defendant in contempt.
A plaintiff that truly believes their case is fully with merit would follow this, unless they believe there is (now) going to be some harm to them to pursue it further (like actually losing, or worse). One thing the RIAA doesn't want is to have an actual loss on record as that might cause other victims to fight back rather than roll over and hand cash over to the RIAA. This has not been a campaign by the RIAA to win lawsuits; it has been a campaign by the RIAA to bully random people on a wide enough scale to just scare people into stopping sharing.
Set the machines to pop up some spam with some attractive offer, such as a free two-week vacation at a Pacific island. They just need to redeem their offer on a specific day and place. Have the police with you at that location on that day. The police have done this sort of thing with snail mail offers.
... the AV app could just pass HTTP traffic through a local proxy, thus getting a first look at everything, without modifying the behavior or bandwidth demands of the client in the slightest.
I freely confess fairly limited understanding of this area, so I could well be wrong; but surely there is a more efficient way to do what AVG is trying to do(never mind whether or not what they are doing is OK)?
The problem with that is that it will delay the presentation of the page (or the notice that the page is something you wanted to avoid or block). AVG's tactic seems to be to pre-fetch linked content to perform this scan while the user is reading the page with the links and deciding where to click. It could even shade out links as it finds them to be bad content, or it could defer highlighting them until the content checks out as good.
I know of color schemes that do give me headaches. They generally follow the pattern of having contrast (that is, the difference between the foreground color and the background color) simultaneously in the blue spectrum and red spectrum. This results in the appearance of letters in 2 overlapping locations, rather than one joint location, due to the slight differences in focal length of human eyes, especially when that difference is exaggerated by corrective lenses not of the apochromatic type (which would be very heavy to were and cause their own issues).
The color I have found that works best is orange on green. This color pair has to be tuned so that the level of green primary in the orange is equal to the level of green in the background. This ensures that the boundary edge between foreground and background colors is limited to a single color. With the contrast being in a single color, it can remain in sharp focus regardless of the color error of the lens in the eyes or corrective lenses many people use. While red on black would maintain the same sharpness, having an added green base color increases the illumination level, causing pupils to contract to a smaller opening, increasing depth of field and improving focus and visual sharpness. Adding some blue to the base color (approximately pink on dark cyan) can also work. Just be sure that the foreground color has as much green and blue as the background color.
I won't walk into my local retail outlet and buy music unless I was able to preview it online and determine what music I like. As I see it, if they want to take away these downgraded MP3 copies, then they don't want me to know what I would like to buy in the full quality music market. There's plenty of unencumbered legal music I like out there to keep me happy if I never, ever, buy another commercial CD in my life. It's their loss if they want to lock me out.
I think that gcc should insert code to control memory leaks and process safety and the kernel should be in charge of tasking between cores.
Please limit this desire to languages like Java, Python, and Ruby. We don't need this in C. If you can't program without it, you shouldn't be programming in C.
The more cores we have the better. Provided that we can supply memory bandwidth to the device.
With 1024 cores, that is definitely going to bottleneck an external memory bus. So put the memory on the chip, instead. That would certainly be a lot fewer cores. You either have smaller boards or more chips on the board.
Next, a system on a chip (SoC) complete with 3-D accelerated graphics. And you wonder why AMD bought ATI.
When I was reading your post, I thought for a moment I was reading something I had written. Then I realized that I would have mentioned something about well-armed sheep.
Just because guns do keep people safer in certain circumstances does not mean that laws prohibiting them can't be made. Obviously the District of Columbia tried to make such a law under the belief that banning them did make people safer. And whether or not that is true is not what the Supreme Court decided. It only decided that the right is an individual right protected by the Constitution. In particular, it applies in one's home. It may be that a ban on carrying guns on the streets in DC won't be overturned (this ruling did not do that). This doesn't apply to the airlines issue.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The term "people" is also used elsewhere in the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the PEOPLE of the several States...
Amendment 1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 4.
The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 9.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.
Amendment 10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.
Amendment 17.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the PEOPLE thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the PEOPLE fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Anyone having trouble understanding what the word "people" was understood to mean by the writers of the US Constitution, Bill Of Rights, and the Seventeenth Amendment?
But making available does not imply you have to put a link for the srouce code on your website.
If you had a process where someone had to fill out a form, include a product receipt, send $5 for shipping and then the party was sent a DVD in the mail with the source code, you would be meeting the requirements of the GPL.
One of the things we need to add is SMTP over SSL. It won't prevent all snooping, but at least between 2 people that trust each other, no snooping happens on the path between.
Welcome to another series of problems created by software developers who made bad assumptions.
It's not the software developers. It's the managers that won't get daily or at least weekly data updates.
The electric company claimed they didn't offer service to a house that they were currently providing electricity to.
Give them the address of a neighbor. Ask them if that's in their database. If not, tell them that obviously the neighbor is stealing electricity. Repeat for each neighbor.
Remember, this guy was not very good with computers. But his boss, the attorney that told them not to talk to him, and perhaps others, are all incompetent and need to be taken out of government jobs, permanently.
He said that the industry (Nokia) is not yet ready to play the open source way.
The open source community is NOT ready to play the industry rules, as well.
If those industry rules include things like forcing people to buy content only from certain retailers, or lock me in to one communications provider for two years or more, then I'm not interested in playing by their rules at all. If they don't want to play by our rules, then they don't want to use our software that comes linked to those rules (hint: some software is available free without GPL... go use that or write your own).
Presumably, the Nokia phones will be able to play regular mp3s. You know, the ones that you own. So, in a way, who cares if they get some hack to work for them for free and write a crummy DRM enabled program? In another few years, the people who don't know any better will know better, and it'll be a moot point.
Or perhaps the carriers are approaching the phone manufacturers about making devices that will refuse to play anything not sold to them by the carriers or the carriers' partners, even if you legally own a copy and even if you are the composer, performer, and distributor of your own music... and Nokia doesn't want to lose out on this. FYI, this is one of the potential reasons why we need to make sure that there is at least the option for anyone to buy any phone at full price and be able to use it with any technology compatible carrier, on a month to month basis.
Carriers? You mean those companies who don't want to allow consumers the freedom of choice? The companies that want to prevent you from playing any music you have legally obtained from somewhere else (whether it was paid for, or given away for free) and want to force us to buy everything from them?
Slashdot Mirror
If this is true, then it's unreasonable to expect them to pay the costs of the defendant -- that would only encourage defense by stonewalling.
If that is indeed what happened, then the defendant has committed some violation of judicial procedure, or disobeyed a court order, or something like that. If the plaintiff believes this to be true, they should be asking the court to order the defendant to carry out the proper steps. For example, if it is a discovery issue, where the plaintiff wants some kind of discovery from the defendant that the plaintiff is rightly justified to have, and the defendant is refusing, then the plaintiff should be asking the court for a strict order to command the defendant to provide this. And if the defendant continues to stonewall, then the plaintiff should ask the court to hold the defendant in contempt.
A plaintiff that truly believes their case is fully with merit would follow this, unless they believe there is (now) going to be some harm to them to pursue it further (like actually losing, or worse). One thing the RIAA doesn't want is to have an actual loss on record as that might cause other victims to fight back rather than roll over and hand cash over to the RIAA. This has not been a campaign by the RIAA to win lawsuits; it has been a campaign by the RIAA to bully random people on a wide enough scale to just scare people into stopping sharing.
I'd go for solid brushed copper, myself.
Set the machines to pop up some spam with some attractive offer, such as a free two-week vacation at a Pacific island. They just need to redeem their offer on a specific day and place. Have the police with you at that location on that day. The police have done this sort of thing with snail mail offers.
Have you ever seen a linear spider web?
Yes. And the spider landed right on my keyboard as it came down, too.
... the AV app could just pass HTTP traffic through a local proxy, thus getting a first look at everything, without modifying the behavior or bandwidth demands of the client in the slightest.
I freely confess fairly limited understanding of this area, so I could well be wrong; but surely there is a more efficient way to do what AVG is trying to do(never mind whether or not what they are doing is OK)?
The problem with that is that it will delay the presentation of the page (or the notice that the page is something you wanted to avoid or block). AVG's tactic seems to be to pre-fetch linked content to perform this scan while the user is reading the page with the links and deciding where to click. It could even shade out links as it finds them to be bad content, or it could defer highlighting them until the content checks out as good.
I know of color schemes that do give me headaches. They generally follow the pattern of having contrast (that is, the difference between the foreground color and the background color) simultaneously in the blue spectrum and red spectrum. This results in the appearance of letters in 2 overlapping locations, rather than one joint location, due to the slight differences in focal length of human eyes, especially when that difference is exaggerated by corrective lenses not of the apochromatic type (which would be very heavy to were and cause their own issues).
The color I have found that works best is orange on green. This color pair has to be tuned so that the level of green primary in the orange is equal to the level of green in the background. This ensures that the boundary edge between foreground and background colors is limited to a single color. With the contrast being in a single color, it can remain in sharp focus regardless of the color error of the lens in the eyes or corrective lenses many people use. While red on black would maintain the same sharpness, having an added green base color increases the illumination level, causing pupils to contract to a smaller opening, increasing depth of field and improving focus and visual sharpness. Adding some blue to the base color (approximately pink on dark cyan) can also work. Just be sure that the foreground color has as much green and blue as the background color.
I won't walk into my local retail outlet and buy music unless I was able to preview it online and determine what music I like. As I see it, if they want to take away these downgraded MP3 copies, then they don't want me to know what I would like to buy in the full quality music market. There's plenty of unencumbered legal music I like out there to keep me happy if I never, ever, buy another commercial CD in my life. It's their loss if they want to lock me out.
I think that gcc should insert code to control memory leaks and process safety and the kernel should be in charge of tasking between cores.
Please limit this desire to languages like Java, Python, and Ruby. We don't need this in C. If you can't program without it, you shouldn't be programming in C.
The more cores we have the better. Provided that we can supply memory bandwidth to the device.
With 1024 cores, that is definitely going to bottleneck an external memory bus. So put the memory on the chip, instead. That would certainly be a lot fewer cores. You either have smaller boards or more chips on the board.
Next, a system on a chip (SoC) complete with 3-D accelerated graphics. And you wonder why AMD bought ATI.
When I was reading your post, I thought for a moment I was reading something I had written. Then I realized that I would have mentioned something about well-armed sheep.
Just because guns do keep people safer in certain circumstances does not mean that laws prohibiting them can't be made. Obviously the District of Columbia tried to make such a law under the belief that banning them did make people safer. And whether or not that is true is not what the Supreme Court decided. It only decided that the right is an individual right protected by the Constitution. In particular, it applies in one's home. It may be that a ban on carrying guns on the streets in DC won't be overturned (this ruling did not do that). This doesn't apply to the airlines issue.
... or Rosie O'Donnell can blame her spoon for being fat.
Amendment 2.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.The term "people" is also used elsewhere in the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the PEOPLE of the several StatesAmendment 1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Amendment 4.
The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Amendment 9.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLEAmendment 10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLEAmendment 17.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the PEOPLE thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the PEOPLE fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.Anyone having trouble understanding what the word "people" was understood to mean by the writers of the US Constitution, Bill Of Rights, and the Seventeenth Amendment?
They should teach Firefox and Opera how to play video directly. It's not much harder than displaying an image file.
Yes, it is silly. That's why it's so much fun :-)
K6BP DE KA9WGN
But making available does not imply you have to put a link for the srouce code on your website.
If you had a process where someone had to fill out a form, include a product receipt, send $5 for shipping and then the party was sent a DVD in the mail with the source code, you would be meeting the requirements of the GPL.
But what if the only form I make the source code available in is 1/2-inch 9-track 800 BPI magnetic tape?
One of the things we need to add is SMTP over SSL. It won't prevent all snooping, but at least between 2 people that trust each other, no snooping happens on the path between.
It could have been worse. You could have gotten a VoIP service with a phone number in another state.
It's not the software developers. It's the managers that won't get daily or at least weekly data updates.
The electric company claimed they didn't offer service to a house that they were currently providing electricity to.Give them the address of a neighbor. Ask them if that's in their database. If not, tell them that obviously the neighbor is stealing electricity. Repeat for each neighbor.
Name the sites! We'll morph the Agent Smith template into Guido and send over a few thousand copies.
Remember, this guy was not very good with computers. But his boss, the attorney that told them not to talk to him, and perhaps others, are all incompetent and need to be taken out of government jobs, permanently.
The open source community is NOT ready to play the industry rules, as well.
If those industry rules include things like forcing people to buy content only from certain retailers, or lock me in to one communications provider for two years or more, then I'm not interested in playing by their rules at all. If they don't want to play by our rules, then they don't want to use our software that comes linked to those rules (hint: some software is available free without GPL ... go use that or write your own).
Or perhaps the carriers are approaching the phone manufacturers about making devices that will refuse to play anything not sold to them by the carriers or the carriers' partners, even if you legally own a copy and even if you are the composer, performer, and distributor of your own music ... and Nokia doesn't want to lose out on this. FYI, this is one of the potential reasons why we need to make sure that there is at least the option for anyone to buy any phone at full price and be able to use it with any technology compatible carrier, on a month to month basis.
Carriers? You mean those companies who don't want to allow consumers the freedom of choice? The companies that want to prevent you from playing any music you have legally obtained from somewhere else (whether it was paid for, or given away for free) and want to force us to buy everything from them?