I have been an intensely loyal ATT National One Rate customer for 5 years. However in the last 6 months my service in my home area has become so pathetic that with a full strength signal I am unable to make a call 9 times out of 10 because the network is overloaded.
I know the cause: it is their conversion to their new GSM network. The problem is I need nationwide covereage because of how much I travel. Looking at ATT's own maps for coverage on their new network showed there was no way I could ever consider migrating to it. Their standard response to complaints concerning their legacy network, "well sir you will have to change over eventually anyway". EVeryone I know who has go to their new network has left w/in a month for Verizon. These are folks with national, not local needs, and are based in the southwest area of the US.
So to my point: I have already left ATT for Verizon on their America's Choice plan. I am keeping my ATT account active for two reasons 1) have a voice mail telling people my temporary new number and 2) so I can grab my old number and port it to my new verizon account on Nov 24th. Then the few people who know my new number will get another call from me to change back.
Sounds like a lot of work but it is better than calling EVERYONE (creditors, business contacts, etc) with the new number. I basically only told my close friends the new number and they will be easy to tell to go back to the old one. But it saves me calling all my casual contacts.
So LNP is making my life easier, but my reason for switching was completely service related. I would have made the switch even without LNP.
Oh yeah and being that I also move every 3 years to different states I'm used to changing cell numbers so I'm kinda used to it.
Well do the math for your electricity then. I bet you find it is STILL way cheaper.
But more important there is another issue with ink jets that has been ignored so far. How fast and easy they dry up and then how much ink is spent doing a cleaning to clear out the clogged nozzles.
My Canon 5100 is simply pathetic with this. If I don't print anything for even a week it takes a cleaning to get it going. If it sits for long it will often NEVER get fully clean before I have spooged all the ink just trying to clean it.
I have spent nearly 2 cartridges worth printing no more than 10 pages.
So don't forget to factor in those costs. Looking at that I have since stopped buying ink (or even refills which seemed to dry out faster) and am just printing at work. At some point I will go ahead and buy myself a laserjet which will pay for itself in the first month of NOT PRINTING ANYTHING because the toner won't dry out.
A lot of people seem to have a problem with the fact that the "white hats" have placed code in such a manner that it will be executed on a persons machine. Laudable though the intent may be there are problems with this method.
So I was thinking, if there was a way to instead notify the user that they are infected and offer them the link to download and execute the leaner code. [shrug] obviously the hard part is notifying. Windows Messaging is turned off by a lot of folks but usually the type of folks that wouldn't catch fizzer anyway [shrug]. Is it possible to pop open their browser with a page telling them?
Anyway it would certainly seem like a less objectionable solution, if possible, than having code auto executed on their machine; even "good" code.
again that was illegal cause it was multiple companies agreeing to a fixed price, in esence acting as a cartel. But a company is well within its rights to set whatever conditions it wants in its contract as it pertains to minimum advtertised price and even sale prices.
I think the problem here is a misuse of terms. Price Fixing as everyone envisions it as in the CD case is illegal, as I said above. But there is nothing illegal about putting minimum prices into your contracts. Zwarofski crystal is a perfect example of a product you will never get from a legitimate dealer for anything other than the MSRP and sales of them a restricted to certain items (usually annual things like the xmas ornanamt snow flakes).
The key difference to consider on if "prcing antics" are legal or illegal is to look at if there is collusion involved with other competitors.
Price fixing is NOT illegal in the US (can't speak for canada) in the situation where you are contractually requiring your retailer to sell and/or advertise for no more or less than you say in the contract.
What you are thinking of is price fixing between companies which eliminates competition; that is called a cartel and requires more than a single company. But any company is perfectly within its rights to remand their product be sold for a specific price. Many companies do this to avoid commoditization of their product and to avoid price wars that lower the price into the "non-status symbol range". The argument is that retailers are still allowed to "compete" on service.
It sure does. In fact it is MORE so since the surface water is warmer than say the surface water in the arctic. But once you get down a hundred feet or more the water temp drops to a pretty consistent cool temp. It is much like going down into the dirt or up into the sky, the temp pretty much stays consistent. It is only at the surface where there are large variations.
HAHHAAH Trust me dude the Arabs drink PLENTY of beer. The only people not drinking beer in Kuwait are the Americans and the "third country nationals" also knows as the Indians, Pakistanis, etc that come there to work. I saw some of the best stock bars in a few Kuwaiti homes.
Bahrain is considered the "Las Vegas" of the Middle east where all Arabs with enough money to get there go to do all the things they aren't "supposed" to do in their own country.
And as for expats drinking in the huddled in the privacy of their own home; hardly. foc rouse there are many who adhere to the prohibition against drinking but there are just as many who don't or who do it only because to get caught would be politically or physical suidcide.
Saying all muslims don't drink is like saying all catholics abstain from pre-marital sex >;-)
[sigh] no I am not and I knew someone might say that. The poit, you know the reason we are having this discussion, was that an appartment is not protected like a hospital is. And if there is someone we feel is a legit target (if you want to talk how we decide that it is a different discussion) then there is nothing wrong with wacking them.
And while your attempt to escaltate it and say we can kill innocents without worry just because "terrorists" are using them as shields is a nice red herring. The point is, if a target (again if we want to talk about how target are determined it is a different topic) surrounds themselves with innocents it is on their head if they get hurt.
If you have a point to be made make it, but don't go throwing it out in a thread where it doesn't apply.
Well actually the difference is those unarmed soldiers are in a hostpital. Hostpitals are not supposed to be bombed under the Geneva convention. They loss their protected status if things like armed soldiers are inside it, or an ammo dump is stored right next to it.
However a terrorist is a legal military target, and an appartment is a legal military target. A terrorist inside an appartment is a legal military target.
So under the Geneva convention there is nothing wrong with striking that target. The only grey area becomes the "mandate" to make all best efforts to minimize non-combatant (that doesn't mean unarmed) casualties. The question then becomes how do you hit a legal target, in an legal structure when he always surrounds himself with non-combatants. the answer is, try your best to get him when there are as few people around him. In WW2 that meant blowing up an entire square mile of a city at a time when the residents were either gone working or at home sleeping depending which meant they wouldn't be there. Now it means putting the missle right through his window and using a warhead the has minimal destructive concussive force but instead just incinerates and suffocates everyone on that floor. To an extreme it means sending in a SOF unit to kill him.
Well thing is I did read about it otherwise I woudl have had no idea what they were talking about.
While you are right about the author getting to specifiy and thus responsible for their own bandwidth usage or lack there of.
what I was also talking about, as in I was looking at it from all three angle, is 1) joe user who might not realize to turn it off [as I said most mozilla users probably would know this] but 2) the network providers and other people on your [reader and publishers] network loop who are impacted by the increase in bandwidth bandwidth.
Just looking at the overall internet it seems like a slightly bad idea to have a feature that will increase the bandwidth overhead of unconsumed data flow.
Where in the article does it say that they have proof that they downloaded the songs? AFAIK all they know is that the songs are on their computers and available over a peer-to-peer network. Without proof that 1) the actualyl downloaded them and 2) *** they don't have a legal license to the intellectual property in question... they have no case for infingement. They only have a possible case for facilitating distribution of copyrighted works.
I'm glad you asked this question in the frame work you did. I have never understood the desire to have an integrated bowser / mail client for people (like me) who are constantly trying out different versions and brands of browsers. I found that I was continually running into problem when I tried out, and liked, a new browser but coudln't easily, if at all, convert my mail over to the new communications suite's email client. I hated outlook for all the reasons we love, and I honestly was never very happy with Eudora. For a while I tried Sara-lite but even that just left me feeling unfullfilled:)
So I finally settled on Pegasus. No problems with upgrading Pegasus versions so far (previous updates of Netscape often left me grateful I backed up my mailbox) and no worries what-so-ever now when I want to move to another browser or upgrade what I'm using to a possibly beta version. Do you want to trust your email to a beta?
so this has always left me wishing for a browser withouth email so it would reduce the clutter on the menus and reduce the memory footprint on the computer. At the least I have wanted something that was at least modular that I could turn off the various portions so they aren't loaded.
As for integration, I have no problem opening web pages from Pegasus and no problem pushing email-links over to it. All very integrated.
I do plan on checking out Pheonix soon once it goes through a revision or two more but the best parts is, I don't have to worry about my emails safety or converting it should I choose to use Pheonix:)
Is it just me or is prefetching a good way to increase the bandwidth load on the networks? I mean I can see the benefit to the immdiate user, but there IS going to be a fair amount of "unviewed" bandwidth s you might choose to only look at one view of your favorite pron star and not all 50.
Couple this with areas with bandwidth caps and pay-per-byte...
And of course there is someone setting up prefetch for something nefarious... then you get into the whole issue of having to protect, a la Outlook, against certain file types.
Yes I know of course you can turn it off, but for the folks that don't I just see this as *possibly* not a good idea in the grand scheme of things.
The only problem is that they are NOT doing that. As it even states in the article (RTFA?) there appears to be no proof that the songs on those computers are illegal (ie they own the actual CD. They also make a mention that there doesn't appear to be proof that the files displayed on the screen are actually songs. That is of course a very "lawyer" thing to say but it DOES matter in at least US courts; but it isn't like it would have been too hard to at least check a few of the songs and try to get the judge to believe that if 20 out of 200 songs are real than the other 180 are real.
But the important thing here is that they do NOT have any proof that those people are in possesion of the songs illegally. To my knowledge there is no law against posting your songs up on a network. [wait for the whole point] They could of course make a case that you are putting them up there with the express intent of facilitating piracy (ie Napster) but that isn't what the people are being charged ($$$) for since it would be a criminal charge not something they could send you a bill for.
The individuals could of course say that it was simply the easiest way for them to make their own, legally obtained music available to themselves when not at home.
No this is not what Slashdot has wanted all along. What we have wanted all along is for them to bust people who are DOWNLOADING / possesiing songs they don't have the licence to; versus the simple act of posting a legal song. Of course the "posters" who do so for profit should be shut down because no matter if they own a real licence to the music they do not have the right to distribute. That is the discriminator: you have no way to deny inent to distribute if you are engaging in the business of selling the data. Remember the rules of logic and debate in the court room are very specific compared to a conversation in a bar or a chat room. Afterall how do you think OJ got off???:)
Back to the point... what I said above would include NOT busting me for downloading Metallica, Ride The Lightening because I do own that CD but it is scratched beyond repair. I legally own the CD and I have every legal right to have the song. The only gray area is who is allowed to provide me with the replacement data. It would be understandable for the publisher to want to charge me for the costs invovled with providing me the data again but certainly NOT to charge me for another licence. The key would be once I were to become in possesion of that data again, unless they observed me getting it they would have no way to tell if I got it from my own CD or someone elses, and it wouldn't matter if they did observe because they would have to prove I denied them revenue which I did not since I am in possesion of a legal licence. So far I know of no case law or legislation that would actually make me quilty of anything if I were to get a copy of that data from another legally licenced data source (aka friends CD).
To put it simply... we want our FAIR USE RIGHTS facilitated (not expanded) by technology not abridged by it.
That is what Slashdot has wanted... or at least my interpretation of the VAST myriad of opinions that should NOT all be lumped together as, "Isn't that what SLASHDOT has wanted."
The problem I see with things like safety deposit boxes etc are the hassle of actually getting the there etc. Assuming things haven't changed since I had to worry about backing up large amounts of data, the accepted practices were things like weekly full, daily incrementals etc. Well the question then becomes efficiently and easily getting the data offsite on that scedule.
So what about mirrors? This even sounds like a biz opportunity. If you trust your data in a bank safety deposit box, why not built physical safety deposit boxes that are conneted to the internet that you can VPN into. You can choose your own encryption, or none, allow others to also mirror data there.
The actual specifics can depend on the exact needs. Maybe a box big enough for a PC that you build and put in there. Plugged into the "banks" supplied power to include power conditioning and UPS back up. Or just a server in a bank safe that is connected to hard drives actually in a safety deposit box. Make them hot swap-able so you could walk in there and remove the HD your self, just like your jewlery.
Or how about wirelessly creating mirrors at neigbors houses with the distance determined by the likelyhood of a distaster actually taking both out. Just put high gain antennas up on the roofs for good distance.
the final part of course being the need for some level of liability insurance. The nice part about that is the insurance company might just be motivated to occasionally audit the company to ensure they are using best practices for data assurance both in the physical and electronic realm. Afterall it is the Ins Co that would have to pay out for loss. There would of course have to be some good logging of traffic to ensure a user doesnt croak their data on purpose to collect on the claim.
Finally for a small collective of friends around the country you could of course all set ftp servers on your machines where each person has their own share of a specifica data drive (to avoid problems when the OS has to be hacked on) and then you could even do a form of riading so that the data is spread amounst all the drives so that if any one drive goes out then all data isn't lost. With enough redundancy you could even lose a drive and lose no data.
Having worked in a DoD office whose job it was SPECIFICALLY to foster relationships between the governement and civilian entities in doing research I would like to add this one idea.
First to set the stage: While this is geared more towards scientific research and not specifically software coding, it holds that much of the computational research done requires, duh, software code. Be that as it may, my statement is slightly more general than just that but relates to all such cooperation between Gov and Civ to produce something.
While it might seem immediatly obvious that if the government in anyway pays for something to be made than it should be considered "by the people for the people" there is something else to be considered. In many cases the government doesn't have the people, money, or equipement to do the research. In that case, whichever of those three items are missing (or we are the experts in) we will partner with civilian companies in an effort to take advantage of what they are experts in and bolster what they are deficient in. This is a VERY common occurance and I traveled to many trade shows (SEMA, CIS, etc) to try and get the word out on exactly this type of partnership.
The problem becomes that no company will get into this partnership if there isn't some way they can make some money off it. The typical agreement is that it is licensed free of charge to the government but for all other commerical uses they have an exclusive right for some given time. Typically it just revolves around a patent granted with free use for the Gov.
If this didn't happen then the governement would pay a lot more money to try and get this "thing, or in some cases simply never be able to do it cause we don't have, typically, the expertise or equipement to do it. At the same time the public will never get this "thing" because the company was never able to do it either.
Finally what happens is if the government DOES end up making this thing it is VERY expensive because we are the only ones buying it and typically from one vendor. But if we can get someone else making it for a profit and selling it to the greater public, the price scales down from the over all increase economics of scale. A perfect example of this is semi-conductors. The price of those in the early years for the government were astronomical not just because they were new but because we were the only ones buying them. As soon as commercial applications existed to increase both supply and demand, then the price drops both from volume as well as research performed to decrease production costs.
So why all this blathering, just to let you know that it isn't always in the best interestes of anyone for all governement funded research to always 100% go free as in beer. And for those that are 100% against anything looking like a patent monopoly, I will add that most contracts do include verbage to ensure fair licensing to competitors (unlike say, drug patents) to ensure a healthy diversity of sources to prevent price gouging as well as the possibility of the only supplier going belly up and supplies drying up.
You say the alliance took most of the casualties like that is a bad thing.
Ok that sounds like a troll right? Wrong. One of the most delicate lines we had / have to balance in Afganistan was the perception that we were yet another invading army in the region looking to take over. You know like the Soviets. Had we been doing all the fighting there was a very good chance that many of those alliance fighters would have started fighting us.
Now I'm not making any judgement of whether we should have been there or not, should we attack iraq or not, nor taking your bait on the bully comment. So don't bother responding along those lines because it is a debate too complicated to have on slashdot or any other non-verbal forum.
But to say that the alliance did a majority of the fighting like that was the wrong thing to have happen is just ludicrus. I'm sorry they died, but it is THEIR freedom THEY were fighting for. We helped them do something THEY wanted to do. We didn't force them to fight.
As far as AA and AAA go I would think along these lines:
Not many devices use a single battery. If they do then chances are they aren't exactly the type of device that needs extended battery life. For anything else that uses 2,4,6,8 batteries it might be a good solution for at least some of those devices with standard battery arrangements (boom boxes with 6 D's in an odd config won't be helped) to make a fuel cell pack. That is a single unit the size and general shape of say 2 AA's that would fit inside the standard compartment for say your current CD or MP3 player. They could offer both side by side and head to foot versions.
Or of course there is the option for a fuel cell power pack that is say maybe voltage selectable and has all the common DC plugs just like todays voltage adaptors. Or you could have the option to buy one that is single application specific.
but another poster also has the point right that another benefit to the industry is the ability to immediatly make completely (well slightly) redisigned products that take advantage of the higher power density; thus small form factor. Then on the slightly longer scale time frame they can start making portable products that were simply not possible with current power sources. Consider how much cell phones are held back because of power requirements. How much portable music devices are held back (in both power, size and quality) because of power requirements. PDA's, laptops, etc.
so making the statement, wake me up when you can get a fuel cell in AA AAA etc is just a red herring designed to sound more clever than everyone else by being contrary (can I acutally use that as a verb?)
Same for the Air force. In fact as a former security manager I can tell you that ALL branches of government going for a security clearance use the electronic version of the SF86 and you would have a hard time proving to someone that you have to do it hardcopy. It is a dos based program even so that it works on many legacy OS's. That would make sense hearing what I am about the Navy:)
Actually using a typewriter is not the fastest way to fill out a form. At least not in the Air Force. First you would have to get the form in hardcopy, good luck, then you would have to type it using either carbon paper or multiple copies.
Now of course the Navy has those forms easily available so my second point is the key one. As much as it SUCKS, Form Flow is still way faster for most forms I fill out (leave, travel request, and travel vouchers). Many forms are multipart forms and anything that is common (name, rank SSN, date, etc) is auto-populated.
But we now have a newer better system that 1) my office was responsible for testing and 2) has just been deployed. Form files are still being created but it is eons beyond form flow and makes a type writer look like... well I don't know what it looks like but it ain't easy that is for sure:)
Re:give away my rights?
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
WOAH WOAH WOAH there partner. I never gave you the right to spy on me. I know you have because you just described the EXACT conversation I had with my Father.
god it is so scary to see someone born in 1945 actually hold those opinions. What is even more annoying is that as a self-employed small businessman he couldn't grap the concept that there is a difference between what he does in the freemarket economy and what someone like Microsoft does; and thus why things like an anti-trust trial are warranted.
Actually, and this is obviously only my opinion though I think it really is valid and true, burning the flag is NOT a way of saying you are disappointed in the government.
Stick with me for a moment:
The flag stands for a lot of things to a lot of different people. And for some it might very well represent the government, and burning it sends a specific message. But I have a feeling that most of those people are not living in the US.
Or lets make this non-US-centric. I don't think any flag, short of the flag of dictatorships and monarchies actually represents the government in the minds of most people. It represents in many way and facets the things which that country holds dear. Pretty open ended nebulous, cumbaya (sp?) statement I know but bear with me.
Where I'm going with all this is, I do agree that burning the flag should not be illegal (in the US in this case, but also in any country). I also think that by burning that flag you are, ironically, burning the very symbol of your right to perform that act. Ok now let me go back in time and kill my father, or contemplate infinity.
So to my actual point: If you want to burn something to show your disagreement with the government consider burning something that ACTUALLY represents the government, not the form of government (the flag) but the government; you know like burn a particular congressman's campaign flier, or if it is an appointed official, burn something with the name or face on it. You get the point. But burning the flag... well... that doesn't tell me that you are disappointed with the government, but that you are disappointed with the country and what it stands for (even if it isn't practicing what it stands for [cough PATRIOT ACT cough].
Anyway that is my take on it.
Oh and PS: what moron makes the statement that freedon of expression is not the same as freedom of speech. I of course don't think you should be prevented from saying it, but neither am I prevented from thinking you're an idiot:)
Slashdot Mirror
I have been an intensely loyal ATT National One Rate customer for 5 years. However in the last 6 months my service in my home area has become so pathetic that with a full strength signal I am unable to make a call 9 times out of 10 because the network is overloaded.
I know the cause: it is their conversion to their new GSM network. The problem is I need nationwide covereage because of how much I travel. Looking at ATT's own maps for coverage on their new network showed there was no way I could ever consider migrating to it. Their standard response to complaints concerning their legacy network, "well sir you will have to change over eventually anyway". EVeryone I know who has go to their new network has left w/in a month for Verizon. These are folks with national, not local needs, and are based in the southwest area of the US.
So to my point: I have already left ATT for Verizon on their America's Choice plan. I am keeping my ATT account active for two reasons 1) have a voice mail telling people my temporary new number and 2) so I can grab my old number and port it to my new verizon account on Nov 24th. Then the few people who know my new number will get another call from me to change back.
Sounds like a lot of work but it is better than calling EVERYONE (creditors, business contacts, etc) with the new number. I basically only told my close friends the new number and they will be easy to tell to go back to the old one. But it saves me calling all my casual contacts.
So LNP is making my life easier, but my reason for switching was completely service related. I would have made the switch even without LNP.
Oh yeah and being that I also move every 3 years to different states I'm used to changing cell numbers so I'm kinda used to it.
Well do the math for your electricity then. I bet you find it is STILL way cheaper.
But more important there is another issue with ink jets that has been ignored so far. How fast and easy they dry up and then how much ink is spent doing a cleaning to clear out the clogged nozzles.
My Canon 5100 is simply pathetic with this. If I don't print anything for even a week it takes a cleaning to get it going. If it sits for long it will often NEVER get fully clean before I have spooged all the ink just trying to clean it.
I have spent nearly 2 cartridges worth printing no more than 10 pages.
So don't forget to factor in those costs. Looking at that I have since stopped buying ink (or even refills which seemed to dry out faster) and am just printing at work. At some point I will go ahead and buy myself a laserjet which will pay for itself in the first month of NOT PRINTING ANYTHING because the toner won't dry out.
A lot of people seem to have a problem with the fact that the "white hats" have placed code in such a manner that it will be executed on a persons machine. Laudable though the intent may be there are problems with this method.
So I was thinking, if there was a way to instead notify the user that they are infected and offer them the link to download and execute the leaner code. [shrug] obviously the hard part is notifying. Windows Messaging is turned off by a lot of folks but usually the type of folks that wouldn't catch fizzer anyway [shrug]. Is it possible to pop open their browser with a page telling them?
Anyway it would certainly seem like a less objectionable solution, if possible, than having code auto executed on their machine; even "good" code.
again that was illegal cause it was multiple companies agreeing to a fixed price, in esence acting as a cartel. But a company is well within its rights to set whatever conditions it wants in its contract as it pertains to minimum advtertised price and even sale prices.
I think the problem here is a misuse of terms. Price Fixing as everyone envisions it as in the CD case is illegal, as I said above. But there is nothing illegal about putting minimum prices into your contracts. Zwarofski crystal is a perfect example of a product you will never get from a legitimate dealer for anything other than the MSRP and sales of them a restricted to certain items (usually annual things like the xmas ornanamt snow flakes).
The key difference to consider on if "prcing antics" are legal or illegal is to look at if there is collusion involved with other competitors.
Price fixing is NOT illegal in the US (can't speak for canada) in the situation where you are contractually requiring your retailer to sell and/or advertise for no more or less than you say in the contract.
What you are thinking of is price fixing between companies which eliminates competition; that is called a cartel and requires more than a single company. But any company is perfectly within its rights to remand their product be sold for a specific price. Many companies do this to avoid commoditization of their product and to avoid price wars that lower the price into the "non-status symbol range". The argument is that retailers are still allowed to "compete" on service.
It sure does. In fact it is MORE so since the surface water is warmer than say the surface water in the arctic. But once you get down a hundred feet or more the water temp drops to a pretty consistent cool temp. It is much like going down into the dirt or up into the sky, the temp pretty much stays consistent. It is only at the surface where there are large variations.
HAHHAAH Trust me dude the Arabs drink PLENTY of beer. The only people not drinking beer in Kuwait are the Americans and the "third country nationals" also knows as the Indians, Pakistanis, etc that come there to work. I saw some of the best stock bars in a few Kuwaiti homes.
Bahrain is considered the "Las Vegas" of the Middle east where all Arabs with enough money to get there go to do all the things they aren't "supposed" to do in their own country.
And as for expats drinking in the huddled in the privacy of their own home; hardly. foc rouse there are many who adhere to the prohibition against drinking but there are just as many who don't or who do it only because to get caught would be politically or physical suidcide.
Saying all muslims don't drink is like saying all catholics abstain from pre-marital sex >;-)
[sigh] no I am not and I knew someone might say that. The poit, you know the reason we are having this discussion, was that an appartment is not protected like a hospital is. And if there is someone we feel is a legit target (if you want to talk how we decide that it is a different discussion) then there is nothing wrong with wacking them.
And while your attempt to escaltate it and say we can kill innocents without worry just because "terrorists" are using them as shields is a nice red herring. The point is, if a target (again if we want to talk about how target are determined it is a different topic) surrounds themselves with innocents it is on their head if they get hurt.
If you have a point to be made make it, but don't go throwing it out in a thread where it doesn't apply.
Well actually the difference is those unarmed soldiers are in a hostpital. Hostpitals are not supposed to be bombed under the Geneva convention. They loss their protected status if things like armed soldiers are inside it, or an ammo dump is stored right next to it.
However a terrorist is a legal military target, and an appartment is a legal military target. A terrorist inside an appartment is a legal military target.
So under the Geneva convention there is nothing wrong with striking that target. The only grey area becomes the "mandate" to make all best efforts to minimize non-combatant (that doesn't mean unarmed) casualties. The question then becomes how do you hit a legal target, in an legal structure when he always surrounds himself with non-combatants. the answer is, try your best to get him when there are as few people around him. In WW2 that meant blowing up an entire square mile of a city at a time when the residents were either gone working or at home sleeping depending which meant they wouldn't be there. Now it means putting the missle right through his window and using a warhead the has minimal destructive concussive force but instead just incinerates and suffocates everyone on that floor. To an extreme it means sending in a SOF unit to kill him.
Well thing is I did read about it otherwise I woudl have had no idea what they were talking about.
While you are right about the author getting to specifiy and thus responsible for their own bandwidth usage or lack there of.
what I was also talking about, as in I was looking at it from all three angle, is 1) joe user who might not realize to turn it off [as I said most mozilla users probably would know this] but 2) the network providers and other people on your [reader and publishers] network loop who are impacted by the increase in bandwidth bandwidth.
Just looking at the overall internet it seems like a slightly bad idea to have a feature that will increase the bandwidth overhead of unconsumed data flow.
Where in the article does it say that they have proof that they downloaded the songs? AFAIK all they know is that the songs are on their computers and available over a peer-to-peer network. Without proof that 1) the actualyl downloaded them and 2) *** they don't have a legal license to the intellectual property in question ... they have no case for infingement. They only have a possible case for facilitating distribution of copyrighted works.
Yes but will it burn your scrotum??
I use pegasus.
:)
:)
I'm glad you asked this question in the frame work you did. I have never understood the desire to have an integrated bowser / mail client for people (like me) who are constantly trying out different versions and brands of browsers. I found that I was continually running into problem when I tried out, and liked, a new browser but coudln't easily, if at all, convert my mail over to the new communications suite's email client. I hated outlook for all the reasons we love, and I honestly was never very happy with Eudora. For a while I tried Sara-lite but even that just left me feeling unfullfilled
So I finally settled on Pegasus. No problems with upgrading Pegasus versions so far (previous updates of Netscape often left me grateful I backed up my mailbox) and no worries what-so-ever now when I want to move to another browser or upgrade what I'm using to a possibly beta version. Do you want to trust your email to a beta?
so this has always left me wishing for a browser withouth email so it would reduce the clutter on the menus and reduce the memory footprint on the computer. At the least I have wanted something that was at least modular that I could turn off the various portions so they aren't loaded.
As for integration, I have no problem opening web pages from Pegasus and no problem pushing email-links over to it. All very integrated.
I do plan on checking out Pheonix soon once it goes through a revision or two more but the best parts is, I don't have to worry about my emails safety or converting it should I choose to use Pheonix
Is it just me or is prefetching a good way to increase the bandwidth load on the networks? I mean I can see the benefit to the immdiate user, but there IS going to be a fair amount of "unviewed" bandwidth s you might choose to only look at one view of your favorite pron star and not all 50.
...
... then you get into the whole issue of having to protect, a la Outlook, against certain file types.
Couple this with areas with bandwidth caps and pay-per-byte
And of course there is someone setting up prefetch for something nefarious
Yes I know of course you can turn it off, but for the folks that don't I just see this as *possibly* not a good idea in the grand scheme of things.
Actually they do get to keep the songs.
If you read it closely enough you will notice that it says if they 1) pay now + 2) delete the songs = they 3) only have to PAY HALF.
That sure sounds to me if they PAY IN FULL they get to keep the songs.
The only problem is that they are NOT doing that. As it even states in the article (RTFA?) there appears to be no proof that the songs on those computers are illegal (ie they own the actual CD. They also make a mention that there doesn't appear to be proof that the files displayed on the screen are actually songs. That is of course a very "lawyer" thing to say but it DOES matter in at least US courts; but it isn't like it would have been too hard to at least check a few of the songs and try to get the judge to believe that if 20 out of 200 songs are real than the other 180 are real.
:)
... what I said above would include NOT busting me for downloading Metallica, Ride The Lightening because I do own that CD but it is scratched beyond repair. I legally own the CD and I have every legal right to have the song. The only gray area is who is allowed to provide me with the replacement data. It would be understandable for the publisher to want to charge me for the costs invovled with providing me the data again but certainly NOT to charge me for another licence. The key would be once I were to become in possesion of that data again, unless they observed me getting it they would have no way to tell if I got it from my own CD or someone elses, and it wouldn't matter if they did observe because they would have to prove I denied them revenue which I did not since I am in possesion of a legal licence. So far I know of no case law or legislation that would actually make me quilty of anything if I were to get a copy of that data from another legally licenced data source (aka friends CD).
... we want our FAIR USE RIGHTS facilitated (not expanded) by technology not abridged by it.
... or at least my interpretation of the VAST myriad of opinions that should NOT all be lumped together as, "Isn't that what SLASHDOT has wanted."
But the important thing here is that they do NOT have any proof that those people are in possesion of the songs illegally. To my knowledge there is no law against posting your songs up on a network. [wait for the whole point] They could of course make a case that you are putting them up there with the express intent of facilitating piracy (ie Napster) but that isn't what the people are being charged ($$$) for since it would be a criminal charge not something they could send you a bill for.
The individuals could of course say that it was simply the easiest way for them to make their own, legally obtained music available to themselves when not at home.
No this is not what Slashdot has wanted all along. What we have wanted all along is for them to bust people who are DOWNLOADING / possesiing songs they don't have the licence to; versus the simple act of posting a legal song. Of course the "posters" who do so for profit should be shut down because no matter if they own a real licence to the music they do not have the right to distribute. That is the discriminator: you have no way to deny inent to distribute if you are engaging in the business of selling the data. Remember the rules of logic and debate in the court room are very specific compared to a conversation in a bar or a chat room. Afterall how do you think OJ got off???
Back to the point
To put it simply
That is what Slashdot has wanted
The problem I see with things like safety deposit boxes etc are the hassle of actually getting the there etc. Assuming things haven't changed since I had to worry about backing up large amounts of data, the accepted practices were things like weekly full, daily incrementals etc. Well the question then becomes efficiently and easily getting the data offsite on that scedule.
So what about mirrors? This even sounds like a biz opportunity. If you trust your data in a bank safety deposit box, why not built physical safety deposit boxes that are conneted to the internet that you can VPN into. You can choose your own encryption, or none, allow others to also mirror data there.
The actual specifics can depend on the exact needs. Maybe a box big enough for a PC that you build and put in there. Plugged into the "banks" supplied power to include power conditioning and UPS back up. Or just a server in a bank safe that is connected to hard drives actually in a safety deposit box. Make them hot swap-able so you could walk in there and remove the HD your self, just like your jewlery.
Or how about wirelessly creating mirrors at neigbors houses with the distance determined by the likelyhood of a distaster actually taking both out. Just put high gain antennas up on the roofs for good distance.
the final part of course being the need for some level of liability insurance. The nice part about that is the insurance company might just be motivated to occasionally audit the company to ensure they are using best practices for data assurance both in the physical and electronic realm. Afterall it is the Ins Co that would have to pay out for loss. There would of course have to be some good logging of traffic to ensure a user doesnt croak their data on purpose to collect on the claim.
Finally for a small collective of friends around the country you could of course all set ftp servers on your machines where each person has their own share of a specifica data drive (to avoid problems when the OS has to be hacked on) and then you could even do a form of riading so that the data is spread amounst all the drives so that if any one drive goes out then all data isn't lost. With enough redundancy you could even lose a drive and lose no data.
Having worked in a DoD office whose job it was SPECIFICALLY to foster relationships between the governement and civilian entities in doing research I would like to add this one idea.
First to set the stage: While this is geared more towards scientific research and not specifically software coding, it holds that much of the computational research done requires, duh, software code. Be that as it may, my statement is slightly more general than just that but relates to all such cooperation between Gov and Civ to produce something.
While it might seem immediatly obvious that if the government in anyway pays for something to be made than it should be considered "by the people for the people" there is something else to be considered. In many cases the government doesn't have the people, money, or equipement to do the research. In that case, whichever of those three items are missing (or we are the experts in) we will partner with civilian companies in an effort to take advantage of what they are experts in and bolster what they are deficient in. This is a VERY common occurance and I traveled to many trade shows (SEMA, CIS, etc) to try and get the word out on exactly this type of partnership.
The problem becomes that no company will get into this partnership if there isn't some way they can make some money off it. The typical agreement is that it is licensed free of charge to the government but for all other commerical uses they have an exclusive right for some given time. Typically it just revolves around a patent granted with free use for the Gov.
If this didn't happen then the governement would pay a lot more money to try and get this "thing, or in some cases simply never be able to do it cause we don't have, typically, the expertise or equipement to do it. At the same time the public will never get this "thing" because the company was never able to do it either.
Finally what happens is if the government DOES end up making this thing it is VERY expensive because we are the only ones buying it and typically from one vendor. But if we can get someone else making it for a profit and selling it to the greater public, the price scales down from the over all increase economics of scale. A perfect example of this is semi-conductors. The price of those in the early years for the government were astronomical not just because they were new but because we were the only ones buying them. As soon as commercial applications existed to increase both supply and demand, then the price drops both from volume as well as research performed to decrease production costs.
So why all this blathering, just to let you know that it isn't always in the best interestes of anyone for all governement funded research to always 100% go free as in beer. And for those that are 100% against anything looking like a patent monopoly, I will add that most contracts do include verbage to ensure fair licensing to competitors (unlike say, drug patents) to ensure a healthy diversity of sources to prevent price gouging as well as the possibility of the only supplier going belly up and supplies drying up.
You say the alliance took most of the casualties like that is a bad thing.
Ok that sounds like a troll right? Wrong. One of the most delicate lines we had / have to balance in Afganistan was the perception that we were yet another invading army in the region looking to take over. You know like the Soviets. Had we been doing all the fighting there was a very good chance that many of those alliance fighters would have started fighting us.
Now I'm not making any judgement of whether we should have been there or not, should we attack iraq or not, nor taking your bait on the bully comment. So don't bother responding along those lines because it is a debate too complicated to have on slashdot or any other non-verbal forum.
But to say that the alliance did a majority of the fighting like that was the wrong thing to have happen is just ludicrus. I'm sorry they died, but it is THEIR freedom THEY were fighting for. We helped them do something THEY wanted to do. We didn't force them to fight.
As far as AA and AAA go I would think along these lines:
Not many devices use a single battery. If they do then chances are they aren't exactly the type of device that needs extended battery life. For anything else that uses 2,4,6,8 batteries it might be a good solution for at least some of those devices with standard battery arrangements (boom boxes with 6 D's in an odd config won't be helped) to make a fuel cell pack. That is a single unit the size and general shape of say 2 AA's that would fit inside the standard compartment for say your current CD or MP3 player. They could offer both side by side and head to foot versions.
Or of course there is the option for a fuel cell power pack that is say maybe voltage selectable and has all the common DC plugs just like todays voltage adaptors. Or you could have the option to buy one that is single application specific.
but another poster also has the point right that another benefit to the industry is the ability to immediatly make completely (well slightly) redisigned products that take advantage of the higher power density; thus small form factor. Then on the slightly longer scale time frame they can start making portable products that were simply not possible with current power sources. Consider how much cell phones are held back because of power requirements. How much portable music devices are held back (in both power, size and quality) because of power requirements. PDA's, laptops, etc.
so making the statement, wake me up when you can get a fuel cell in AA AAA etc is just a red herring designed to sound more clever than everyone else by being contrary (can I acutally use that as a verb?)
Same for the Air force. In fact as a former security manager I can tell you that ALL branches of government going for a security clearance use the electronic version of the SF86 and you would have a hard time proving to someone that you have to do it hardcopy. It is a dos based program even so that it works on many legacy OS's. That would make sense hearing what I am about the Navy :)
Actually using a typewriter is not the fastest way to fill out a form. At least not in the Air Force. First you would have to get the form in hardcopy, good luck, then you would have to type it using either carbon paper or multiple copies.
... well I don't know what it looks like but it ain't easy that is for sure :)
Now of course the Navy has those forms easily available so my second point is the key one. As much as it SUCKS, Form Flow is still way faster for most forms I fill out (leave, travel request, and travel vouchers). Many forms are multipart forms and anything that is common (name, rank SSN, date, etc) is auto-populated.
But we now have a newer better system that 1) my office was responsible for testing and 2) has just been deployed. Form files are still being created but it is eons beyond form flow and makes a type writer look like
WOAH WOAH WOAH there partner. I never gave you the right to spy on me. I know you have because you just described the EXACT conversation I had with my Father.
god it is so scary to see someone born in 1945 actually hold those opinions. What is even more annoying is that as a self-employed small businessman he couldn't grap the concept that there is a difference between what he does in the freemarket economy and what someone like Microsoft does; and thus why things like an anti-trust trial are warranted.
Actually, and this is obviously only my opinion though I think it really is valid and true, burning the flag is NOT a way of saying you are disappointed in the government.
... well ... that doesn't tell me that you are disappointed with the government, but that you are disappointed with the country and what it stands for (even if it isn't practicing what it stands for [cough PATRIOT ACT cough].
:)
Stick with me for a moment:
The flag stands for a lot of things to a lot of different people. And for some it might very well represent the government, and burning it sends a specific message. But I have a feeling that most of those people are not living in the US.
Or lets make this non-US-centric. I don't think any flag, short of the flag of dictatorships and monarchies actually represents the government in the minds of most people. It represents in many way and facets the things which that country holds dear. Pretty open ended nebulous, cumbaya (sp?) statement I know but bear with me.
Where I'm going with all this is, I do agree that burning the flag should not be illegal (in the US in this case, but also in any country). I also think that by burning that flag you are, ironically, burning the very symbol of your right to perform that act. Ok now let me go back in time and kill my father, or contemplate infinity.
So to my actual point: If you want to burn something to show your disagreement with the government consider burning something that ACTUALLY represents the government, not the form of government (the flag) but the government; you know like burn a particular congressman's campaign flier, or if it is an appointed official, burn something with the name or face on it. You get the point. But burning the flag
Anyway that is my take on it.
Oh and PS: what moron makes the statement that freedon of expression is not the same as freedom of speech. I of course don't think you should be prevented from saying it, but neither am I prevented from thinking you're an idiot