But for this girl to be surprised that her little screed got out, given that she posted it in an online form available to anybody who wants to see it shows she wasn't thinking.
Maybe she was surprised that anyone from her hometown had heard of the internet?
So if you were the subject of one of these GPS trackers, and you parked in a garage on your own property, would this then be unreasonable search since they're tracking your car on your private land, in a place where you'd expect privacy?
First, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say things like the NAB and stations "own" the frequencies. Public airwaves are a tough thing to "own". To address your main point though, many frequencies are licensed to multiple users. For instance, the 2.4 GHz unlicensed spectrum also overlaps the 13cm ham band, and the ISM band.
Because it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about a nebulous topic like "Freedom" without defining how we're going to use the term in the discussion. It's important to remember that with the GPL we're discussing user freedoms, not developer or corporate or world-at-large freedoms. And as far as a user is concerned, the FSF freedoms basically cover the whole space.
Is there a problem with the FSF's definition of freedom for software users? How would you define it differently?
As I mentioned elsewhere in this article, the GPL is certainly a freedom license. Back in the day RMS identified what he considers to be the essential software freedoms, and the GPL is designed to ensure those freedoms.
The FSF freedoms:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The fact of the matter is, the GPL doesn't really promote freedom like it claims to. Sure it does. The FSF has enumerated four freedoms that it considers essential to software. The GPL is designed to ensure those freedoms.
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
90 to 95%? Given the distributed nature of bittorrent, that must have been a hard stat to determine. I'd be interested in seeing the original study, if you have a link to it.
I actually think the quality of articles on slashdot has been surprisingly high over the last 6 months or so. There was a period a while back where it got really bad, but lately it's been quite good. Every day there are a couple of interesting articles, the dupes seem to have mostly disappeared, and all the annoying people have moved to digg.
My guess is that (in the eyes of the carriers) people are unwilling to change providers just for cheaper text messages, so lowering text rates won't get them more subscribers, just less revenue from those that they have.
Is this something that a company can protect against in its corporate charter? For instance, could the charter create an ombudsman or ethics committee that is not answerable to the shareholders, and provide a mechanism for the ombudsman to override the board/shareholders on particular decisions?
"Hello?" "Hello, is this the KGB?" "Yes. What do you want?" "I`m calling to report my neighbor Yankel Rabinovich as an enemy of the State. He is hiding undeclared diamonds in his fire wood." "This will be noted." The next day, the KGB visit Rabinovich`s house. They search the shed where the fire wood is kept, break every piece of wood there, but find no diamonds. They swear at Yankel Rabinovich and leave. The phone then rings at Rabinovich`s house. "Hello, Yankel! Did the KGB come?" "Yes." "Did they chop up your firewood?" "Yes, they did." "Okay, now it`s your turn to call. I need to have my vegetable patch plowed."
This is actually exactly why FLOSS will eventually replace proprietary software. The guys who did the fork get to build their app on the labour of the pidgin folks. They've already had a release of the fork, and it took like a week. That's the beauty. FLOSS enables an ecosystem of software - if the branch is good, it will succeed. If it sucks, it will fail.
Please take a moment to email the PPF about your disappointment. It's great that this is getting attention, but we need to take action. Even sending an email to the PPF is a step. Their contact page is here: http://www.ppforum.ca/en/contactus/.
I do remember in a psych course I took they pointed out some statistics that showed that all the different "schools" of psychology are about equally effective. So while no doubt the training establishes a baseline, some of the benefit really just does come from having somebody there.
Yeah I noticed the URL issue just after hitting Submit. Turns out that their search engine uses POST for searching. Very disappointing.
My concern about running BIND locally is that there will _always_ be another patch, and unless there's somebody dedicated to keeping it patched, it's going to fall behind.
This seems like they got self-pwned, but it may actually be intentional. Think about it - the court just asserted that their EULA is valid, and that they license software, not sell it. It's exactly what they want.
If they go to Waterloo, odds are they don't have a scholarship. That's not to say that they're poor, but UW is too young and too un-endowed to have much money for scholarships. The common gripe a lot of my friends had when we were at UW was that every school but UW that we applied to offered us scholarships. UW a) can't afford to, and b) doesn't have to.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe she was surprised that anyone from her hometown had heard of the internet?
Nothing private is searched, nothing that is not publicly visible is recorded, so it only makes sense that it is legal.
Assuming the car spends 100% of its time on public property.
So if you were the subject of one of these GPS trackers, and you parked in a garage on your own property, would this then be unreasonable search since they're tracking your car on your private land, in a place where you'd expect privacy?
Couldn't they just run it as a govt-owned non-profit? Then the municipality couldn't skim off the profits.
What if he decides he doesn't need his laptop, and then something comes up and he needs a computer? It would be handy if he didn't have to go home.
First, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say things like the NAB and stations "own" the frequencies. Public airwaves are a tough thing to "own". To address your main point though, many frequencies are licensed to multiple users. For instance, the 2.4 GHz unlicensed spectrum also overlaps the 13cm ham band, and the ISM band.
The old mainline Bittorrent client was Python.
Because it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about a nebulous topic like "Freedom" without defining how we're going to use the term in the discussion. It's important to remember that with the GPL we're discussing user freedoms, not developer or corporate or world-at-large freedoms. And as far as a user is concerned, the FSF freedoms basically cover the whole space.
Is there a problem with the FSF's definition of freedom for software users? How would you define it differently?
On the topic of the "toning" myth: http://exercise.about.com/cs/weightloss/a/toning.htm
As I mentioned elsewhere in this article, the GPL is certainly a freedom license. Back in the day RMS identified what he considers to be the essential software freedoms, and the GPL is designed to ensure those freedoms.
The FSF freedoms:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
90 to 95%? Given the distributed nature of bittorrent, that must have been a hard stat to determine. I'd be interested in seeing the original study, if you have a link to it.
I actually think the quality of articles on slashdot has been surprisingly high over the last 6 months or so. There was a period a while back where it got really bad, but lately it's been quite good. Every day there are a couple of interesting articles, the dupes seem to have mostly disappeared, and all the annoying people have moved to digg.
Do you need DPI for that? If the problem is users using too much data, then throttle based on data-consumption. Who cares what's in the packets?
e.g., Based on total data transferred within the last 24 hours:
0-2 Gigs -> 12 Mbps
2-4 Gigs -> 6 Mbps
4+ Gigs -> 3 Mbps
My guess is that (in the eyes of the carriers) people are unwilling to change providers just for cheaper text messages, so lowering text rates won't get them more subscribers, just less revenue from those that they have.
Is this something that a company can protect against in its corporate charter? For instance, could the charter create an ombudsman or ethics committee that is not answerable to the shareholders, and provide a mechanism for the ombudsman to override the board/shareholders on particular decisions?
A phone rings at KGB headquarters:
"Hello?"
"Hello, is this the KGB?"
"Yes. What do you want?"
"I`m calling to report my neighbor Yankel Rabinovich as an enemy of the State. He is hiding undeclared diamonds in his fire wood."
"This will be noted."
The next day, the KGB visit Rabinovich`s house. They search the shed where the fire wood is kept, break every piece of wood there, but find no diamonds. They swear at Yankel Rabinovich and leave.
The phone then rings at Rabinovich`s house.
"Hello, Yankel! Did the KGB come?"
"Yes."
"Did they chop up your firewood?"
"Yes, they did."
"Okay, now it`s your turn to call. I need to have my vegetable patch plowed."
This is actually exactly why FLOSS will eventually replace proprietary software. The guys who did the fork get to build their app on the labour of the pidgin folks. They've already had a release of the fork, and it took like a week. That's the beauty. FLOSS enables an ecosystem of software - if the branch is good, it will succeed. If it sucks, it will fail.
Please take a moment to email the PPF about your disappointment. It's great that this is getting attention, but we need to take action. Even sending an email to the PPF is a step. Their contact page is here: http://www.ppforum.ca/en/contactus/.
I do remember in a psych course I took they pointed out some statistics that showed that all the different "schools" of psychology are about equally effective. So while no doubt the training establishes a baseline, some of the benefit really just does come from having somebody there.
Yeah I noticed the URL issue just after hitting Submit. Turns out that their search engine uses POST for searching. Very disappointing.
My concern about running BIND locally is that there will _always_ be another patch, and unless there's somebody dedicated to keeping it patched, it's going to fall behind.
Perhaps if we're worried about security issues, administrating a local copy of BIND isn't the greatest plan.
This seems like they got self-pwned, but it may actually be intentional. Think about it - the court just asserted that their EULA is valid, and that they license software, not sell it. It's exactly what they want.
Weren't on slashdot two days ago? Bell is throttling that data too.
If they go to Waterloo, odds are they don't have a scholarship. That's not to say that they're poor, but UW is too young and too un-endowed to have much money for scholarships. The common gripe a lot of my friends had when we were at UW was that every school but UW that we applied to offered us scholarships. UW a) can't afford to, and b) doesn't have to.