Given the fact that the better quality of life and greater opportunities are in many ways a consequence of US culture
Well, that's bullshit if I've ever seen it. The very idea that the success of a country is dictated solely by it's culture (language, traditions, etc) is so bigotted I'm at a loss for words. You are, frankly, a blind, ignorant, xenophobic, close-minded ass, and are an excellent example of the types of Americans many abroad, myself included, have come to despise.
That implies a common language and similar values(because anything else would hamper communication and lead to infighting)
Tell that to Switzerland, or hell, most of the rest of Europe, which is currently outpacing the US economically (or did you not notice the plummeting US dollar?).
It sure as hell isn't natural resources (Russia beats the US there)
The ignorance is *stunning*... yes, it is, among many other factors, natural resources. Apparently you are unaware that Russia was once a superpower, just as China is, today.
or even religion
And this is just a non-sequitor... I'm dumbfounded why you even included it.
I don't see why this is such a difficult concept...
That would be because your ignorance of history is rivaled only by your ignorance of topics such as socioeconomics.
The legal doctrine is called estoppel - more specifically promissory estoppel.
Why do you think I mentioned the part about public declarations changing things?:)
And it would take a very very special sort of person make a public domain dedication (even if void) and then turn around and attempt to sue you.
That's not the issue. It's a question of risk for those using the work. Without a clear, unambiguous license, there are those who may shy away from using your work (I know the company I work for is, frankly, irrationally paranoid about developers incorporating publicly available code into our product... even with a liberal license!).
Basically, my position is that, while yes, a simple public declaration may be sufficient to relinquish your rights to a work, a clear license accompanying the work, particularly a license that's widely used and has been vetted by lawyers, is even better, as it stands on more solid legal ground.
Actually, at least according to Wikipedia, that bastion of truth and knowledge, there doesn't actually exist a legal mechanism in the United States for relinquishing to the public domain one's copyright on a work. That's not to say it can't be done, only that there is nothing codified in law regarding the topic, and as such, it should be seen as a bit of a legal gray area.
Consequently, I stand by my original statement. It's simply far clearer to just attach an extremely liberal license to one's works, and takes very little time or effort.
Just to be clear, according to the Berne convention, the minute you create a work, it's copyrighted. Period. End of story. Registering that copyright simply makes it easier to enforce, if it ever came to that.
What you *should* be doing is placing your works under the Artistic License or something similar. That will ensure that those who might wish to use your works will be able to do so without fear that you'll come along later and hand them a cease and desist ('course, if you made public statements that you won't do such a thing, that changes things, but it's still advisable to just use an open license and be done with it).
I can't find the word for it, but there I believe that in the parliamentary system, there is a point where they say, lets try this again.
In Canada it's called a vote of non-confidence, and results in an election being immediately called. However, it requires a confidence vote to occur, which typically only happens on select issues (such as the budget). But it is a handy fallback, particularly in the case of a minority government, such as that which is currently in power in Canada, as it forces the parties to cooperate to some degree (and, as a consequence, also slows them down immensely, which can be nothing but a good thing).
I'm not sure what a HDTV feed from Mars would give us.
Funny you should say that, given that Japan's latest lunar orbiter offers HD resolution.
Frankly, the comment is a little silly. Why *wouldn't* you want a larger pipe through which you could transmit larger quantities of scientific data? Given the amount of imagery and telemetry we're getting from the various probes orbiting Mars, I would think the more bandwidth the better.
Well, given it's a book review about how to perform advanced configuration of a lower-level content management framework, I would contend it's probably not of particular interest to him. That's not to say he can't, or shouldn't read the article, but he sure as hell shouldn't be surprised if the topic doesn't make much sense to him, and he definitely shouldn't complain if that's the case, and instead spend more time educating himself.
I don't think you can neatly separate out "good" and "bad" behaviors like this.
Yes. Yes you can. The question is this: is the traffic shaping being done based on the source or destination of the data? If the answer is yes, it's "bad".
After that, we're talking about shaping or blocking specific services, and that needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If they're flat out blocking legitimate services, or shaping them as to make them unusable, I would argue that's "bad". However, if they are simply shaping to improve service performance (for example, providing low latency for VoIP while sacrificing latency for bulk transfers), I would argue that's "good".
i go to the about page to learn about plone, and now not only do i not know what plone is,
Wha? The description says:
"Plone is a content management framework"
What else do you need to know. Unless, of course, you don't know what a CMS is, in which case you shouldn't be bothering with this article in the first place.
Well, while I thought the same thing you did at first, I suspect they mean that the actual data rate will be higher due to lower noise on the channel and/or other factors.
Re:Foie Gras is some nasty shit...
on
Chefs As Chemists
·
· Score: 1
just says something about the demographics of/.-ers... they tend to eat meat.
Or maybe it's because the vegans are simply ignorant regarding the production of foie gras. I know, what a crazy idea...
Personally, I think it's funny that you assumed there was some moderator bias, as opposed to conceding that the foie-haters might simply be wrong.
Funny, some people say the same thing about, say, haggis (though, admittedly, I don't mind the stuff), or any number of other "acquired" tastes (I still don't understand why people would even attempt to eat Durian, but they do).
Last I'd heard, Radiohead said they *wouldn't* release any numbers regarding the "In Rainbows" release, so I'm also rather puzzled regarding the source of this data.
Absolutely. But developing a reasonable level of skill at, say, 2D Portal, takes *far* less time than it takes to develop a reasonable level of skill at Go. Personally, I would contend that, to become satisfyingly skilled at Go such that you can play a reasonable game and feel like you might know what you're doing (the 12-7 kyu range, I'd say), you need to play for probably 6 months, fairly consistently, not to mention a bit of time working on problems. It's very much a non-trivial commitment.
IOW, the game isn't for everyone, any more than Chess is. And while the barrier of entry appears low, it really *really* isn't.:)
uses commonly available materials and requires very little resources to play and study?
I wouldn't say that at all. At minimum, learning Go requires a great deal of *time*. Heck, I know people who've played for a few years, now, and are still in the low kyus, and that's with a fair bit of time spent studying, working on tsume-go, and so forth. And if you aspire to even amateur dan-level play, you really need to find a good teacher.
That's not to say it isn't a fantastic game. But playing Go even reasonably well requires a serious commitment.
Yeah, and the telephone and cable systems have had to be regulated because of abuse.
They have to be regulated because they are natural monopolies, and as such, the free market fails in those cases. But that doesn't imply that socialization is the answer. That only means that, for example, incumbents should be obligated to make their networks (which were built using massive tax breaks which amount to public subsidization, not to mention land easements) available to competitors at low rates (which they were, until the FCC started easing those requirements).
But they're still treated differently from cable and internet because they're considered infrastructure.
That's because they are. Try to live without power or gas. You can't (or, at least, it's exceedingly difficult). Now try that with Internet access. You might discover you survive just fine without it.
It's getting increasingly difficult to function without a cell phone or an internet connection.
Bah, that's just BS. Anyone can get along just fine without either. A telephone of some kind, yeah, that's more or less a necessity, but a cell phone most *definitely* is not. And the Internet is a luxury, period. No, really, it is. Is it useful, convenient, fun, etc? Sure. But it's definitely *not* a vital service. And for those who want to use it for research or other purposes, there's always the public library.
I'm sorry, but where did you get the idea that, say, Facebook, is being frequented by teens? Last I'd heard, it's primary demographic was 18-35 year old university grads, for the most part.
Were you joking? In case you weren't, those "Free Public WiFi" peers showing up in your network browser are nothing of the sort. They're people WiFi fishing, hoping to gain access to passwords, credit card information, and so forth. Unfortunately, at least in XP (IIRC), it isn't clear whether a link is an AP or just a peer (Vista visually differentiates them).
the Internet should be thought of as infrastructure. It's comparable to roads, water, and electricity.
Funny enough, it's even more comparable to telephone and cable, and yet those aren't considered public utilities.
'course, that's not to say I disagree with you, but your analogy is, I think, far from apt. There are many reasons why one might want to socialize internet access, but it's hardly a vital utility that isn't easily managed by disparate private entities, as is the case with roads, water, and electricity (the various attempts to privatize them notwithstanding).
The box comes offline at the buffer overflow attack- NOT the privileged compromise!
When? How? Are you omnipotent? What makes you believe you can catch a non-privileged remote exploit before a local privilege escalation allows the attack to cover their tracks?
Basically, you're assuming you are a) plugging all remote exploit holes before an attacker has a chance to use them, and b) that, in the case of an exploit, you'll be able to catch it right away. Neither of these is, in my mind, a reasonable assumption.
So, running under the assumption that a remote exploit may happen, and that you may not immediately notice, it seems prudent to patch any local privilege escalation exploits, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
It would also be heavily patent encumbered.
Given the fact that the better quality of life and greater opportunities are in many ways a consequence of US culture
Well, that's bullshit if I've ever seen it. The very idea that the success of a country is dictated solely by it's culture (language, traditions, etc) is so bigotted I'm at a loss for words. You are, frankly, a blind, ignorant, xenophobic, close-minded ass, and are an excellent example of the types of Americans many abroad, myself included, have come to despise.
That implies a common language and similar values(because anything else would hamper communication and lead to infighting)
Tell that to Switzerland, or hell, most of the rest of Europe, which is currently outpacing the US economically (or did you not notice the plummeting US dollar?).
It sure as hell isn't natural resources (Russia beats the US there)
The ignorance is *stunning*... yes, it is, among many other factors, natural resources. Apparently you are unaware that Russia was once a superpower, just as China is, today.
or even religion
And this is just a non-sequitor... I'm dumbfounded why you even included it.
I don't see why this is such a difficult concept...
That would be because your ignorance of history is rivaled only by your ignorance of topics such as socioeconomics.
. It has more space to store data.
So that's the only possible metric by which to measure the two? Well, in that case backup tapes are far superior to both.
why do so many of these people go to another nation, and then try to make it the same as the one they just left?
Because they're proud of their heritage, but want a better quality of life and greater opportunities that the US supposedly offers.
Is this really hard to understand?
The legal doctrine is called estoppel - more specifically promissory estoppel.
:)
Why do you think I mentioned the part about public declarations changing things?
And it would take a very very special sort of person make a public domain dedication (even if void) and then turn around and attempt to sue you.
That's not the issue. It's a question of risk for those using the work. Without a clear, unambiguous license, there are those who may shy away from using your work (I know the company I work for is, frankly, irrationally paranoid about developers incorporating publicly available code into our product... even with a liberal license!).
Basically, my position is that, while yes, a simple public declaration may be sufficient to relinquish your rights to a work, a clear license accompanying the work, particularly a license that's widely used and has been vetted by lawyers, is even better, as it stands on more solid legal ground.
Actually, at least according to Wikipedia, that bastion of truth and knowledge, there doesn't actually exist a legal mechanism in the United States for relinquishing to the public domain one's copyright on a work. That's not to say it can't be done, only that there is nothing codified in law regarding the topic, and as such, it should be seen as a bit of a legal gray area.
Consequently, I stand by my original statement. It's simply far clearer to just attach an extremely liberal license to one's works, and takes very little time or effort.
I've never put a copyright on my works
Just to be clear, according to the Berne convention, the minute you create a work, it's copyrighted. Period. End of story. Registering that copyright simply makes it easier to enforce, if it ever came to that.
What you *should* be doing is placing your works under the Artistic License or something similar. That will ensure that those who might wish to use your works will be able to do so without fear that you'll come along later and hand them a cease and desist ('course, if you made public statements that you won't do such a thing, that changes things, but it's still advisable to just use an open license and be done with it).
I can't find the word for it, but there I believe that in the parliamentary system, there is a point where they say, lets try this again.
In Canada it's called a vote of non-confidence, and results in an election being immediately called. However, it requires a confidence vote to occur, which typically only happens on select issues (such as the budget). But it is a handy fallback, particularly in the case of a minority government, such as that which is currently in power in Canada, as it forces the parties to cooperate to some degree (and, as a consequence, also slows them down immensely, which can be nothing but a good thing).
I'm not sure what a HDTV feed from Mars would give us.
Funny you should say that, given that Japan's latest lunar orbiter offers HD resolution.
Frankly, the comment is a little silly. Why *wouldn't* you want a larger pipe through which you could transmit larger quantities of scientific data? Given the amount of imagery and telemetry we're getting from the various probes orbiting Mars, I would think the more bandwidth the better.
Well, given it's a book review about how to perform advanced configuration of a lower-level content management framework, I would contend it's probably not of particular interest to him. That's not to say he can't, or shouldn't read the article, but he sure as hell shouldn't be surprised if the topic doesn't make much sense to him, and he definitely shouldn't complain if that's the case, and instead spend more time educating himself.
Broadband is not in anyway related to the number of bits you can move in a given time. Its the opposite of baseband.
To you, maybe. To most of the world, the word is being used correctly.
Maybe you just need to deal with the idea that words may have *gasp* multiple meanings which may vary based on context! I know, shocking isn't it...
I don't think you can neatly separate out "good" and "bad" behaviors like this.
Yes. Yes you can. The question is this: is the traffic shaping being done based on the source or destination of the data? If the answer is yes, it's "bad".
After that, we're talking about shaping or blocking specific services, and that needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If they're flat out blocking legitimate services, or shaping them as to make them unusable, I would argue that's "bad". However, if they are simply shaping to improve service performance (for example, providing low latency for VoIP while sacrificing latency for bulk transfers), I would argue that's "good".
Honestly, what "gray areas" can you identify?
i go to the about page to learn about plone, and now not only do i not know what plone is,
Wha? The description says:
"Plone is a content management framework"
What else do you need to know. Unless, of course, you don't know what a CMS is, in which case you shouldn't be bothering with this article in the first place.
Well, while I thought the same thing you did at first, I suspect they mean that the actual data rate will be higher due to lower noise on the channel and/or other factors.
just says something about the demographics of /.-ers... they tend to eat meat.
Or maybe it's because the vegans are simply ignorant regarding the production of foie gras. I know, what a crazy idea...
Personally, I think it's funny that you assumed there was some moderator bias, as opposed to conceding that the foie-haters might simply be wrong.
Funny, some people say the same thing about, say, haggis (though, admittedly, I don't mind the stuff), or any number of other "acquired" tastes (I still don't understand why people would even attempt to eat Durian, but they do).
Last I'd heard, Radiohead said they *wouldn't* release any numbers regarding the "In Rainbows" release, so I'm also rather puzzled regarding the source of this data.
'course, that also could have something to do with the fact that both Amnesiac and HTTT were rather mediocre albums...
playing anything "well" is a commitment
:)
Absolutely. But developing a reasonable level of skill at, say, 2D Portal, takes *far* less time than it takes to develop a reasonable level of skill at Go. Personally, I would contend that, to become satisfyingly skilled at Go such that you can play a reasonable game and feel like you might know what you're doing (the 12-7 kyu range, I'd say), you need to play for probably 6 months, fairly consistently, not to mention a bit of time working on problems. It's very much a non-trivial commitment.
IOW, the game isn't for everyone, any more than Chess is. And while the barrier of entry appears low, it really *really* isn't.
uses commonly available materials and requires very little resources to play and study?
I wouldn't say that at all. At minimum, learning Go requires a great deal of *time*. Heck, I know people who've played for a few years, now, and are still in the low kyus, and that's with a fair bit of time spent studying, working on tsume-go, and so forth. And if you aspire to even amateur dan-level play, you really need to find a good teacher.
That's not to say it isn't a fantastic game. But playing Go even reasonably well requires a serious commitment.
Yeah, and the telephone and cable systems have had to be regulated because of abuse.
They have to be regulated because they are natural monopolies, and as such, the free market fails in those cases. But that doesn't imply that socialization is the answer. That only means that, for example, incumbents should be obligated to make their networks (which were built using massive tax breaks which amount to public subsidization, not to mention land easements) available to competitors at low rates (which they were, until the FCC started easing those requirements).
But they're still treated differently from cable and internet because they're considered infrastructure.
That's because they are. Try to live without power or gas. You can't (or, at least, it's exceedingly difficult). Now try that with Internet access. You might discover you survive just fine without it.
It's getting increasingly difficult to function without a cell phone or an internet connection.
Bah, that's just BS. Anyone can get along just fine without either. A telephone of some kind, yeah, that's more or less a necessity, but a cell phone most *definitely* is not. And the Internet is a luxury, period. No, really, it is. Is it useful, convenient, fun, etc? Sure. But it's definitely *not* a vital service. And for those who want to use it for research or other purposes, there's always the public library.
I'm sorry, but where did you get the idea that, say, Facebook, is being frequented by teens? Last I'd heard, it's primary demographic was 18-35 year old university grads, for the most part.
Were you joking? In case you weren't, those "Free Public WiFi" peers showing up in your network browser are nothing of the sort. They're people WiFi fishing, hoping to gain access to passwords, credit card information, and so forth. Unfortunately, at least in XP (IIRC), it isn't clear whether a link is an AP or just a peer (Vista visually differentiates them).
the Internet should be thought of as infrastructure. It's comparable to roads, water, and electricity.
Funny enough, it's even more comparable to telephone and cable, and yet those aren't considered public utilities.
'course, that's not to say I disagree with you, but your analogy is, I think, far from apt. There are many reasons why one might want to socialize internet access, but it's hardly a vital utility that isn't easily managed by disparate private entities, as is the case with roads, water, and electricity (the various attempts to privatize them notwithstanding).
The box comes offline at the buffer overflow attack- NOT the privileged compromise!
When? How? Are you omnipotent? What makes you believe you can catch a non-privileged remote exploit before a local privilege escalation allows the attack to cover their tracks?
Basically, you're assuming you are a) plugging all remote exploit holes before an attacker has a chance to use them, and b) that, in the case of an exploit, you'll be able to catch it right away. Neither of these is, in my mind, a reasonable assumption.
So, running under the assumption that a remote exploit may happen, and that you may not immediately notice, it seems prudent to patch any local privilege escalation exploits, as well.