I should have formulated the last paragraph somewhat more carefully.
The business model of offsetting the cost of creation by selling as many copies as possible is no longer feasible, because everyone is able to create cheap and perfect copies for himself, thus there is no perceived value anymore in having someone else performing the copying.
The underlying problem is, that creating (nearly) perfect copies of a work used to require a high investment first in the copying machinery, be it the printing press or the vinyl press or the polycarbonate press, and then in creating the master copy, be it a proofread typesetted one or the matrix for pressing vinyls or CDs. But the actual copy, once the copying machinery was installed and the master copy created, was cheap.
Thus there was a business model in investing heavily in copying machinery and then look for works of which a large number of copies could be sold. The only risk was that one created a master copy of a work which didn't sell. Everyone was thus looking for works which were already bestselling and created their own copies of them. Because of that the copying enterprises which first started to copy a work seeked protection from competition, thus the institute of copyright (or imprimatur) was installed already at the end of the 15th century. Before one could start selling copies, one had to get the permission from the authorities to do so. Only in the 18th century, with the Statute of Anne in 1710, it was recognized that not only the people investing in copying equipment and creating master copies should profit from a work, but also the actual creators, which then could either be hired to create the work or license their own works for copying.
Now the business model was complete. It was founded on the fact that creating a single copy of a work was nearly as difficult as creating hundreds and thousands of them, thus people creating multiple copies could always undercut people creating a single copy in price, making it thus attractive for nearly everyone interested in a copy not to copy themselves, but buy a cheaper copy from a copying enterprise. And it encouraged people creating works which were easily to copy and thus being sold in large numbers. Finally a legal framework was created to fend of competitors by making it unattractive to invest heavily in copying equipment and copying exactly the same works that were already copied by others.
But this whole business model of being able to create cheaper copies than those interested in actually owning a copy is shaky, because now the investment necessary to create a single copy is less than go out shopping for a copy. Copying equipment is cheap, $100 will be sufficient, and can be used for as many works as one likes. Every copy can be a master copy. The big price advantage of the guys with the copying machines is gone. And thus also the main income stream for creators of copyable works breaks down. They had a quite strong negotational position as long as there were only a few entities able to create affordable copies, because they could sell exclusive copyrights to only one of them and were able to police all the others trying to create unlicensed copies. Now they have to basicly negotiate with each single person interested in a copy, because each person can create the copy for themselves, and policing unlicensed copies is nearly impossible.
It might be, that the business model of creating an easily copyable work and then selling as many copies as possible is gone forever, because creating copies itself is no longer a business model. There is no compelling reason anymore for the consumer to have the act of copying done by someone else, because everyone can create perfect copies for cheap.
It has probably to do with the fact, that fully blown genocide actually requires skill, while getting pregnant (yourself or getting someone else pregnant) mainly requires the absence of skills - skills one can be taught by actually being educated about sexuality.
Pre-emtive multi-tasking is not sufficient to fully control the CPU resource. It still requires support from the applications. Basicly pre-emptive multi-tasking created some kind of walled garden, where wellbehaving application were able to share the CPU, but each application was able to break out of the garden and lock the CPU. It is more or less comparable with today's sandbox in contemporary browsers, with the difference that the modern browsers have much thicker walls and security patroulling along the fences.
No. The law just requires that products have to be faultfree at the time of the sale, and it assumes, that goods which within the first six month are flawed already at the time of the sale. It further gives consumers the chance to prove that products that fail within the first two years were flawed from the begin and gives them the right to a replacement or a refund, if they are able to prove it.
The "balance of probabilities" you quote and you base your argument on is not part of the law. It is up to the courts to decide about it. I've seen decisions in Germany where faults occuring during the first two years were deemed normal tear and wear and the right for replacement or refund was denied. And many sellers (the law only decides matters between seller and buyer of a technical good, the manufacturer has nothing to do with it) have a section in their Terms and Conditions where they reserve the right to attempt up to three repairs first before replacing or refunding the good, and those have been considered within the limits of the law by the courts.
You don't even grasp the slightest bit of that law (and thus you are the one with the magical thinking). It goes like this: For two years, a consumer has the right to return a good (and either replace it with a similar product or get a refund), if it was already defective at the time it was sold. For the first six month after the sale, it is assumed, that any defect occuring was already present at the time of the sale, and the seller has to prove that the buyer didn't handle the product with care. For the remaining 18 month, it's assumed, that the product was mishandled, and then the buyer has to prove that the defect was present already at the time of the sale.
So nowhere this law assumes that products are faultfree for at least two years.
But AppleCare's warranties cover, what is already mandated by law, and the law requires that all warranties have to inform the prospective buyer about the legal protection he already has. And this is ommitted by AppleCare, thus it fraudulently sold a product to the buyer the buyer didn't really need.
Windows 95 and Windows ME aren't operating systems according to Computer Science. An operating system has to control all resources of a computer, and neither Windows 95 nor Windows ME control the CPU, both not being time sharing systems. An application can get an exclusive lock on the CPU without Windows 95 nor Windows ME being able to get the control back from the application.
But normally you don't use the sieve type of filters. Sieves tend to get clogged very easily. Normally you use a three-chamber-system. The first two chambers are connected near the bottom, the third one connects to the second chamber via a spillover. Untreated water enters the first chamber, and all swimming particles stay there. Heavier particles sink to the bottom. The water enters the second chamber via the connection and is mainly clean of any swimming particles, while still containing some heavier solid material. The water entering the third chamber via the spillover is mostly free of any particulate matter, because all the remaining particles stay in the second chamber. The third chamber then gets emptied via an outflow at the bottom.
This water can still contain micro particles which neither drift to the surface nor sink down to the bottom. Thus the water can be treated via an micro filter, e.g. a bassin with reed it enters at one site and an outflow at the other. Except for the substances soluted in the water, the water is clean and can be used for most applications.
No. I don't talk about guilty. I talk about profiteering from an illegal action, even if you are not the one organizing it. If you buy a stolen good, you have to return it to the rightful owner - and you don't get your money back.
Normally it goes like this: In every election district, where this happened, the candidate most likely to profit from it gets disqualified, and the runner-up is declared winner. Any honest candidate falling victim to it can then thank for the support by unwanted robocalls.
If he secretly videotaped a girl having sex with her boyfriend and set the video up for public viewing, how would you react? Is it ok to videotape people in their most initimate moments without their consent and then put it up for everyone to see?
No, it carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, and that's exactly what will happen. Just that he didn't videotape a girl and her boyfriend, but two men having sex.
They assume they get ideal circumstances, ie as many attempts as they want. As such their research is basically fucking worthless.
No, it isn't. It gives you a lower bound for the security of your password. And this is very worthwile. How secure is the password given an attacker who has ideal conditions to attack you?
No, it's 170000^4. It's 170000 possibilities for the first one times 170000 possibilities for the second one times 170000 possibilities for the third one times 170000 possibilities for the fourth one.
The judge found this business model to be illegal (e.g. having no legal basis to work on). So why making something illegal illegal? That's like forbidding criminality.
No. It's just a bad idea in general. One of the most important tools for the people to check for voting fraud is watching and controlling the count. Handcounting of votes provides that feature in a reliable manner. Every internet based voting devoids the public of this control mechanism.
Every system that counts votes faster than a person can watch the count is a recipe for voting fraud. And no future adding of technology can change that.
That's just Germany. In Austria for instance, the minute prices are around 1 ct/min and up to 4 ct prepaid. Most plans include about 1000 mins for free per month, and 1000 free messages (Yes, it's actually SM, because SMS stands for Short Message Service).
The problem being that US-mobile phones are located within the normal numbering plan, so there is no way for the calling party to determine if the number in question is a landline or a mobile phone. Thus a mobile user has to pay for the service of being reachable while roaming. Most european carriers have their own mobile "area codes" (which are located in the 'mobile' area), so the service of locating the called party and putting the call through is paid for by the caller.
I am not sure if it makes sense for someone with a mobile phone to have the area code of his home or business address, because the whole point of a mobile phone is to have phone service while being not in his home area.
Is it really news (though it is labelled such), if you can speak the reports synchronically?
(And yes, I know Soviet news - the only thing that changed was the name of the kolkhoz or the zavod, it was reporting about. We sometimes joked that there were never problems in the Soviet union, but their successful overcoming.)
Slashdot Mirror
No. It has happened before in April. Once in 140 years.
Now it happens in March.
Reading comprehension anyone?
I should have formulated the last paragraph somewhat more carefully.
The business model of offsetting the cost of creation by selling as many copies as possible is no longer feasible, because everyone is able to create cheap and perfect copies for himself, thus there is no perceived value anymore in having someone else performing the copying.
The underlying problem is, that creating (nearly) perfect copies of a work used to require a high investment first in the copying machinery, be it the printing press or the vinyl press or the polycarbonate press, and then in creating the master copy, be it a proofread typesetted one or the matrix for pressing vinyls or CDs. But the actual copy, once the copying machinery was installed and the master copy created, was cheap.
Thus there was a business model in investing heavily in copying machinery and then look for works of which a large number of copies could be sold. The only risk was that one created a master copy of a work which didn't sell. Everyone was thus looking for works which were already bestselling and created their own copies of them. Because of that the copying enterprises which first started to copy a work seeked protection from competition, thus the institute of copyright (or imprimatur) was installed already at the end of the 15th century. Before one could start selling copies, one had to get the permission from the authorities to do so. Only in the 18th century, with the Statute of Anne in 1710, it was recognized that not only the people investing in copying equipment and creating master copies should profit from a work, but also the actual creators, which then could either be hired to create the work or license their own works for copying.
Now the business model was complete. It was founded on the fact that creating a single copy of a work was nearly as difficult as creating hundreds and thousands of them, thus people creating multiple copies could always undercut people creating a single copy in price, making it thus attractive for nearly everyone interested in a copy not to copy themselves, but buy a cheaper copy from a copying enterprise. And it encouraged people creating works which were easily to copy and thus being sold in large numbers. Finally a legal framework was created to fend of competitors by making it unattractive to invest heavily in copying equipment and copying exactly the same works that were already copied by others.
But this whole business model of being able to create cheaper copies than those interested in actually owning a copy is shaky, because now the investment necessary to create a single copy is less than go out shopping for a copy. Copying equipment is cheap, $100 will be sufficient, and can be used for as many works as one likes. Every copy can be a master copy. The big price advantage of the guys with the copying machines is gone. And thus also the main income stream for creators of copyable works breaks down. They had a quite strong negotational position as long as there were only a few entities able to create affordable copies, because they could sell exclusive copyrights to only one of them and were able to police all the others trying to create unlicensed copies. Now they have to basicly negotiate with each single person interested in a copy, because each person can create the copy for themselves, and policing unlicensed copies is nearly impossible.
It might be, that the business model of creating an easily copyable work and then selling as many copies as possible is gone forever, because creating copies itself is no longer a business model. There is no compelling reason anymore for the consumer to have the act of copying done by someone else, because everyone can create perfect copies for cheap.
It has probably to do with the fact, that fully blown genocide actually requires skill, while getting pregnant (yourself or getting someone else pregnant) mainly requires the absence of skills - skills one can be taught by actually being educated about sexuality.
Pre-emtive multi-tasking is not sufficient to fully control the CPU resource. It still requires support from the applications. Basicly pre-emptive multi-tasking created some kind of walled garden, where wellbehaving application were able to share the CPU, but each application was able to break out of the garden and lock the CPU. It is more or less comparable with today's sandbox in contemporary browsers, with the difference that the modern browsers have much thicker walls and security patroulling along the fences.
No. The law just requires that products have to be faultfree at the time of the sale, and it assumes, that goods which within the first six month are flawed already at the time of the sale. It further gives consumers the chance to prove that products that fail within the first two years were flawed from the begin and gives them the right to a replacement or a refund, if they are able to prove it.
The "balance of probabilities" you quote and you base your argument on is not part of the law. It is up to the courts to decide about it. I've seen decisions in Germany where faults occuring during the first two years were deemed normal tear and wear and the right for replacement or refund was denied. And many sellers (the law only decides matters between seller and buyer of a technical good, the manufacturer has nothing to do with it) have a section in their Terms and Conditions where they reserve the right to attempt up to three repairs first before replacing or refunding the good, and those have been considered within the limits of the law by the courts.
You don't even grasp the slightest bit of that law (and thus you are the one with the magical thinking).
It goes like this: For two years, a consumer has the right to return a good (and either replace it with a similar product or get a refund), if it was already defective at the time it was sold. For the first six month after the sale, it is assumed, that any defect occuring was already present at the time of the sale, and the seller has to prove that the buyer didn't handle the product with care. For the remaining 18 month, it's assumed, that the product was mishandled, and then the buyer has to prove that the defect was present already at the time of the sale.
So nowhere this law assumes that products are faultfree for at least two years.
But AppleCare's warranties cover, what is already mandated by law, and the law requires that all warranties have to inform the prospective buyer about the legal protection he already has. And this is ommitted by AppleCare, thus it fraudulently sold a product to the buyer the buyer didn't really need.
Windows 95 and Windows ME aren't operating systems according to Computer Science. An operating system has to control all resources of a computer, and neither Windows 95 nor Windows ME control the CPU, both not being time sharing systems. An application can get an exclusive lock on the CPU without Windows 95 nor Windows ME being able to get the control back from the application.
But normally you don't use the sieve type of filters. Sieves tend to get clogged very easily. Normally you use a three-chamber-system. The first two chambers are connected near the bottom, the third one connects to the second chamber via a spillover. Untreated water enters the first chamber, and all swimming particles stay there. Heavier particles sink to the bottom. The water enters the second chamber via the connection and is mainly clean of any swimming particles, while still containing some heavier solid material. The water entering the third chamber via the spillover is mostly free of any particulate matter, because all the remaining particles stay in the second chamber. The third chamber then gets emptied via an outflow at the bottom.
This water can still contain micro particles which neither drift to the surface nor sink down to the bottom. Thus the water can be treated via an micro filter, e.g. a bassin with reed it enters at one site and an outflow at the other. Except for the substances soluted in the water, the water is clean and can be used for most applications.
According to my university lessons, the kernel and the drivers are the operating system, and everything else is shell and applications.
MS Windows should thus be considered a distribution (combining OS, shell and applications and an install mechanism).
No. I don't talk about guilty. I talk about profiteering from an illegal action, even if you are not the one organizing it. If you buy a stolen good, you have to return it to the rightful owner - and you don't get your money back.
You want to USE BOTH?
Normally it goes like this: In every election district, where this happened, the candidate most likely to profit from it gets disqualified, and the runner-up is declared winner. Any honest candidate falling victim to it can then thank for the support by unwanted robocalls.
If he secretly videotaped a girl having sex with her boyfriend and set the video up for public viewing, how would you react? Is it ok to videotape people in their most initimate moments without their consent and then put it up for everyone to see?
No, it carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, and that's exactly what will happen. Just that he didn't videotape a girl and her boyfriend, but two men having sex.
Because for instance, Perl can interface with C libraries? (just write the right lib.xs for your C lib.)
So who was pushing Perl, PHP or Ruby?
They assume they get ideal circumstances, ie as many attempts as they want. As such their research is basically fucking worthless.
No, it isn't. It gives you a lower bound for the security of your password. And this is very worthwile. How secure is the password given an attacker who has ideal conditions to attack you?
No, it's 170000^4. It's 170000 possibilities for the first one times 170000 possibilities for the second one times 170000 possibilities for the third one times 170000 possibilities for the fourth one.
The judge found this business model to be illegal (e.g. having no legal basis to work on). So why making something illegal illegal? That's like forbidding criminality.
No. It's just a bad idea in general.
One of the most important tools for the people to check for voting fraud is watching and controlling the count. Handcounting of votes provides that feature in a reliable manner. Every internet based voting devoids the public of this control mechanism.
Every system that counts votes faster than a person can watch the count is a recipe for voting fraud. And no future adding of technology can change that.
That's just Germany. In Austria for instance, the minute prices are around 1 ct/min and up to 4 ct prepaid. Most plans include about 1000 mins for free per month, and 1000 free messages (Yes, it's actually SM, because SMS stands for Short Message Service).
The problem being that US-mobile phones are located within the normal numbering plan, so there is no way for the calling party to determine if the number in question is a landline or a mobile phone. Thus a mobile user has to pay for the service of being reachable while roaming. Most european carriers have their own mobile "area codes" (which are located in the 'mobile' area), so the service of locating the called party and putting the call through is paid for by the caller.
I am not sure if it makes sense for someone with a mobile phone to have the area code of his home or business address, because the whole point of a mobile phone is to have phone service while being not in his home area.
Candles are a bad deal for lighting. Better to use the paraffine to power a small gasoline engine and use the eletricity.
- You know, in the Soviet union, they had crops like telephone poles!
- What, about that size?
- Nyet!
- Maybe about the same strength?
- Nyet!
- How then?
- About the same distance between each other!
Is it really news (though it is labelled such), if you can speak the reports synchronically?
(And yes, I know Soviet news - the only thing that changed was the name of the kolkhoz or the zavod, it was reporting about. We sometimes joked that there were never problems in the Soviet union, but their successful overcoming.)