I decided to give OS X a shot, figure out the Apple way to do stuff.. and decided in the end that, for my basic communicaton workstation, (email, IM, a few shells... browsing).. I like it. I like it a lot. I find it easier to use and less stressful than linux. It's not that things are easier to figure out.. but that they are more consistant.
Not sure what you mean about the "no X11" part.. apple's X server not only works, but works extremely well, and works exactly as you would expect it to.. it's natively accelerated, including GLX, etc.
As this is a laptop, the sub 5 second suspend / resume is awesome (meaning from the time I open the lid, it's less than 5 seconds before the machine is completely usable)
not that I ever would have considered using linux stressful, I've been using linux hardcore for 10 years.
No, I feel that the current laws are not specific enough, because the current digital copying ideas don't fit neatly into ANY of the previous laws.
Again.. it is about who is making the copies. At it's heart, if I take the CD off your shelf, I am clearly making the copy.
If I am instructing your computer to do it remotely... it gets fuzzy. Am I responsible, as you, as the computer is yours, and hence, your responsibility.
If you took your CD rack downtown, put it up in the street, and said "Free copies" , provided the copy machines, but never actually touched any yourself, you are still clearly engaged in distribution.
If, privately, we swap a file, between friends, morally that is the same as me borrowing your CD to make a copy.
If you fire up kazaa to share with a million other people, it's not morally the same thing at all.. it's more like taking your collection down to the football stadium.
Where do you draw the line? Who knows.. but at some point people mostly agree that wide-scale distribution of others copyrighted works without permission is still wrong, even if we all like grabbing music off kazaa.
But remember one thing, despite all the nasty things we might have to say on occasion about Americans (which you should listen to once in a while... we aren't all crazy)... we are your FRIENDS, and will always been there to help any time it was really needed.... not because you are bigger and scarier, but because you are neighbors.
Right.. in other words, had he presented this to you a totally different way, everyone would have come out a winner.
Had he said "If you give me your name and address, I can enter it into the computer and you won't need to keep track of your receipt for warrantee purposes." you would have said "Gee thanks" or "No , that's okay".. rather than get in a big fight.
Most people would probably say okay...after all, there is actually a service being provided.
Re:The Privacy Commission slaps a big bank around
on
Canadian Privacy Act
·
· Score: 1
No, it's not socialist.. it's just "More" socialist than the US. We have socialist ideas...
We are not like, say, Norway. THAT is socialism.
Let's not lump everything together under one ideology.
Canada is somewhat socialist. We do have crown corporations, for some key things. Not as many as other very socialist countries, by a long shot. We have a free market, a very capitalist society, though not as extreme as the US.
Correct. IT is not necessary. However, they WILL need enough information about you to locate your credit records, or you will likely be declined. If they do have enough information to find this.. who really cares if they have your SIN or not. I'm not one to shrug off privacy... but in this case.. it ends up the same thing.
I make a point of being firm but polite about stuff like this.
It's not the clerks fault. They are paid minimum wage and told they MUST ask these questions. At the same time, they are the representative of the business you are dealing with. When the clerk at the clothing store asks me for my name and phone number, I politely decline, saying I'd just like to pay. If that clerk then gets uppity with me about it, I will very politely say I am happy to explain myself to his boss. This is not intended to get the clerk in trouble, but to make him realize my problem is not with him, but the store's policy.
My hope is that, out of this, either the clerk learns he should sell it anyway if someone declines, or the management learns that one more customer does not like their policy.
I also take issue with stores asking to search my bag on the way out of the store. I insist that they call the manager down and charge me with something, or let me go. very politely. If they had any reason at all to suspect I had pocketed something, I would be more than happy to demonstrate that I had not.. but when the reason is "Because you have a bag with you".. I will decline.
I am asked sometimes why I give the guard a hard time.. it's only his job, I'm making his day harder by not doing what he says. Too bad.. what am I supposed to do, do what anyone tells me just because it's their job?
Note that I realize that some "Membership" warehouse stores have this search in their membership policy.. I knew this going in, so their situation is different, and I don't give them trouble.
The point is, without your name, you can't look up my address or phone number in the phone book.
Remember, this applies to business.
If the business knows I'm Joe Roberts, because I told them, they can look up and record my address and phone number... that is not priveleged information.
However, I can prevent them from recording my name in the first place.
What you just said was already illegal I believe. Every bank in canada lets you opt out of sharing information with other companies.
This is not the same as sharing your information with other departments of the same bank.
THe liability clause is more likely to mean that the Bank cannot be sued becuase the money went missing... they would still have to replace the money, that's solid banking law... they are just saying you can't say "Hey, I'm suing you guys because someone stole money from my account, and I missed my car payment"
The bank has a right, and a legal requirement set by the government, to know who you are, where you live, etc.
Re:Magnusson Moss Warranty Act
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
Right on.
You just made me feel a whole lot more confident about my choice to buy a 2004 Jetta Sport 1.8T on monday... (I believe it corresponds to a GLS 1.8t in the US)...
Re:Magnusson Moss Warranty Act
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
The Act is used to cover replacement parts generally..Auto retailers used to say you could not use any parts but theirs, or it would void your warrantee. The Act makes it, I believe, that tehy would have to show how the part caused actual damage.
If you go and put in the wrong part and wreck your engine, the Act won't help you.
Also.. you will find that, despite what the article says, some manufacturers actually approve (as far as warrantee goes) some kinds of software upgrades...
Won't happen for high security.. the problem is, there is nothing tying the card to you. Anyone with a reader could, from a distance, read your RFID tag and then make their own, and wander around the building.
This is the problem with current proximity cards... from several feet away, you can clone one, without anyone knowing.
In any sharing of a file, there is an uploader and a downloader.
I do not need "legal" use to download a file off kazaa.. I don't have to have the original , or have lost it. Personal copying is permitted.
You, however, are NOT permitted to share that file with me in the first place. Distribution of copyrighted works without license is illegal.
Whether or not I am entitled to a copy does not mean it is legal for you to distribute that copy to me. If you are not a licensed distributor, you are not a licensed distributor.
The levy is based on the fact that personal copying is LEGAL, and detracts from their potential income.
Not because of piracy.. it's because of what you are already legally permitted to do.. it was a concession to the recording industry when we took away their right to prevent us from making home copies.
Yes, you could, but it becomes debatable as to who is making the copy.
In any online music exchange, there is a downloader and an uploader. Canadian law makes it out that the uploader is breaking the law, the downloader is not.
So you would be liable for every song you allowed to be sent to your friends.. adn they would be liable for everything they sent to you.
You cannot distribute unauthorized copies... but you can make them for your own personal use.
You can rip it to your computer. You cannot then share that file with others.
You can take the original media over to your friends, and let him copy it.
IT's more like "We KNOW that "audio cd-r" are specifically for copying audio, so we can tax that at the going rate.. but standard cd-r is not all for audio.. so we won't be able to get away with charging as high a levy on it.. so we'll just charge a tiny one for everyone, and it will work out".
I don't believe it is actually any seperate levy for pirating or legit copying.... it's just considered a different form of media with a different market. Which it is. In the music industry's twisted world.
but how exactly is more bandwidth going to help you deal with more seti@home calculations? The application is extremely cpu-bound.. not bandwidth-bound.... you could have infinite bandwidth, but unless you have a football stadium full of supercomputers, you aren't going to go to #23.
The testers are good for when you open up a drawer / box / bag / shoe / shelf and find a pile of batteries.. and you want to know which one is strong enough to run your latest gizmo!
Re:Not only cost, but what about security?
on
WiFi Free-For-All
·
· Score: 1
I sort of agree with you.. in fact, I definately agree about the right to expect privacy part.
However.... a few misconceptions here:
- A switched network is no protection at all against sniffing. google up 'ettercap', for one example. It is trivial to sniff conversations between machines on a switched network.
- Yes, the internet is public, however, the exposure is much less.. although I cannot be certain nobody is sniffing on my E1, or elsewhere in my office, it's a lot more likely that someone will hang out in a public gathering place to randomly sniff for interesting traffic. The risk level is increased.
Slashdot Mirror
Comes down to preference I guess.
I decided to give OS X a shot, figure out the Apple way to do stuff.. and decided in the end that, for my basic communicaton workstation, (email, IM, a few shells... browsing).. I like it. I like it a lot. I find it easier to use and less stressful than linux. It's not that things are easier to figure out.. but that they are more consistant.
Not sure what you mean about the "no X11" part.. apple's X server not only works, but works extremely well, and works exactly as you would expect it to.. it's natively accelerated, including GLX, etc.
As this is a laptop, the sub 5 second suspend / resume is awesome (meaning from the time I open the lid, it's less than 5 seconds before the machine is completely usable)
not that I ever would have considered using linux stressful, I've been using linux hardcore for 10 years.
That's why I bought an iBook.. I figured it would be a perfect linux laptop.
Then I tried OSX for the heck of it, you know, it was already installed.
And now you can pry OSX off my mac from my cold, dead hands.
No, I feel that the current laws are not specific enough, because the current digital copying ideas don't fit neatly into ANY of the previous laws.
Again.. it is about who is making the copies. At it's heart, if I take the CD off your shelf, I am clearly making the copy.
If I am instructing your computer to do it remotely... it gets fuzzy. Am I responsible, as you, as the computer is yours, and hence, your responsibility.
If you took your CD rack downtown, put it up in the street, and said "Free copies" , provided the copy machines, but never actually touched any yourself, you are still clearly engaged in distribution.
If, privately, we swap a file, between friends, morally that is the same as me borrowing your CD to make a copy.
If you fire up kazaa to share with a million other people, it's not morally the same thing at all.. it's more like taking your collection down to the football stadium.
Where do you draw the line? Who knows.. but at some point people mostly agree that wide-scale distribution of others copyrighted works without permission is still wrong, even if we all like grabbing music off kazaa.
You are allowed to develop compilers on your own, for free. Youy are also allowed to develop your own JVM for free.
You are just not allowed to use Sun's code to do it.
Whatever.
Impark should start using the Boot, or the city should charge them for the tow, and make impark go after the customers in court afterwards.
This is pretty close to the mark..
But remember one thing, despite all the nasty things we might have to say on occasion about Americans (which you should listen to once in a while... we aren't all crazy)... we are your FRIENDS, and will always been there to help any time it was really needed.... not because you are bigger and scarier, but because you are neighbors.
Right.. in other words, had he presented this to you a totally different way, everyone would have come out a winner.
.after all, there is actually a service being provided.
Had he said "If you give me your name and address, I can enter it into the computer and you won't need to keep track of your receipt for warrantee purposes." you would have said "Gee thanks" or "No , that's okay".. rather than get in a big fight.
Most people would probably say okay..
You mean these guys?
No, it's not socialist.. it's just "More" socialist than the US. We have socialist ideas...
We are not like, say, Norway. THAT is socialism.
Let's not lump everything together under one ideology.
Canada is somewhat socialist. We do have crown corporations, for some key things. Not as many as other very socialist countries, by a long shot. We have a free market, a very capitalist society, though not as extreme as the US.
Correct. IT is not necessary.
However, they WILL need enough information about you to locate your credit records, or you will likely be declined. If they do have enough information to find this.. who really cares if they have your SIN or not. I'm not one to shrug off privacy... but in this case.. it ends up the same thing.
I make a point of being firm but polite about stuff like this.
It's not the clerks fault. They are paid minimum wage and told they MUST ask these questions. At the same time, they are the representative of the business you are dealing with. When the clerk at the clothing store asks me for my name and phone number, I politely decline, saying I'd just like to pay. If that clerk then gets uppity with me about it, I will very politely say I am happy to explain myself to his boss. This is not intended to get the clerk in trouble, but to make him realize my problem is not with him, but the store's policy.
My hope is that, out of this, either the clerk learns he should sell it anyway if someone declines, or the management learns that one more customer does not like their policy.
I also take issue with stores asking to search my bag on the way out of the store. I insist that they call the manager down and charge me with something, or let me go. very politely. If they had any reason at all to suspect I had pocketed something, I would be more than happy to demonstrate that I had not.. but when the reason is "Because you have a bag with you".. I will decline.
I am asked sometimes why I give the guard a hard time.. it's only his job, I'm making his day harder by not doing what he says. Too bad.. what am I supposed to do, do what anyone tells me just because it's their job?
Note that I realize that some "Membership" warehouse stores have this search in their membership policy.. I knew this going in, so their situation is different, and I don't give them trouble.
The point is, without your name, you can't look up my address or phone number in the phone book.
Remember, this applies to business.
If the business knows I'm Joe Roberts, because I told them, they can look up and record my address and phone number... that is not priveleged information.
However, I can prevent them from recording my name in the first place.
What you just said was already illegal I believe. Every bank in canada lets you opt out of sharing information with other companies.
This is not the same as sharing your information with other departments of the same bank.
THe liability clause is more likely to mean that the Bank cannot be sued becuase the money went missing... they would still have to replace the money, that's solid banking law... they are just saying you can't say "Hey, I'm suing you guys because someone stole money from my account, and I missed my car payment"
The bank has a right, and a legal requirement set by the government, to know who you are, where you live, etc.
Right on.
You just made me feel a whole lot more confident about my choice to buy a 2004 Jetta Sport 1.8T on monday... (I believe it corresponds to a GLS 1.8t in the US)...
The Act is used to cover replacement parts generally..Auto retailers used to say you could not use any parts but theirs, or it would void your warrantee. The Act makes it, I believe, that tehy would have to show how the part caused actual damage.
If you go and put in the wrong part and wreck your engine, the Act won't help you.
Also.. you will find that, despite what the article says, some manufacturers actually approve (as far as warrantee goes) some kinds of software upgrades...
Won't happen for high security.. the problem is, there is nothing tying the card to you. Anyone with a reader could, from a distance, read your RFID tag and then make their own, and wander around the building.
This is the problem with current proximity cards... from several feet away, you can clone one, without anyone knowing.
You miss the point.
In any sharing of a file, there is an uploader and a downloader.
I do not need "legal" use to download a file off kazaa.. I don't have to have the original , or have lost it. Personal copying is permitted.
You, however, are NOT permitted to share that file with me in the first place. Distribution of copyrighted works without license is illegal.
Whether or not I am entitled to a copy does not mean it is legal for you to distribute that copy to me. If you are not a licensed distributor, you are not a licensed distributor.
The levy is based on the fact that personal copying is LEGAL, and detracts from their potential income.
Not because of piracy.. it's because of what you are already legally permitted to do.. it was a concession to the recording industry when we took away their right to prevent us from making home copies.
Yes, you could, but it becomes debatable as to who is making the copy.
In any online music exchange, there is a downloader and an uploader. Canadian law makes it out that the uploader is breaking the law, the downloader is not.
So you would be liable for every song you allowed to be sent to your friends.. adn they would be liable for everything they sent to you.
You cannot distribute unauthorized copies... but you can make them for your own personal use.
You can rip it to your computer. You cannot then share that file with others.
You can take the original media over to your friends, and let him copy it.
The law is self-limiting.
Not exactly.
IT's more like "We KNOW that "audio cd-r" are specifically for copying audio, so we can tax that at the going rate.. but standard cd-r is not all for audio.. so we won't be able to get away with charging as high a levy on it.. so we'll just charge a tiny one for everyone, and it will work out".
I don't believe it is actually any seperate levy for pirating or legit copying.... it's just considered a different form of media with a different market.
Which it is.
In the music industry's twisted world.
That quote is even more inaccurate. Legal to make a single copy for personal use?
It's specifically legal to make as MANY copies as you like for non-commercial purposes.
I like the strategy...
but how exactly is more bandwidth going to help you deal with more seti@home calculations? The application is extremely cpu-bound.. not bandwidth-bound.... you could have infinite bandwidth, but unless you have a football stadium full of supercomputers, you aren't going to go to #23.
That's why 9v batteries don't have the tester on them.
What kind of geek are you.
The testers are good for when you open up a drawer / box / bag / shoe / shelf and find a pile of batteries.. and you want to know which one is strong enough to run your latest gizmo!
I sort of agree with you.. in fact, I definately agree about the right to expect privacy part.
However.... a few misconceptions here:
- A switched network is no protection at all against sniffing. google up 'ettercap', for one example. It is trivial to sniff conversations between machines on a switched network.
- Yes, the internet is public, however, the exposure is much less.. although I cannot be certain nobody is sniffing on my E1, or elsewhere in my office, it's a lot more likely that someone will hang out in a public gathering place to randomly sniff for interesting traffic. The risk level is increased.