Take this instance (as a possiblity): mitnick downloads the source for a program, A, at company A. He posts it (as folks like him are want to do), and someone at company B sees it, recognizes it, and grabs it.
Yes, but can the government prove that something like this happened? It's not enough (or I hope to God it's not enough) to assert that he could have done it without a reasonable level of proof that he *did*. While there needs to be some formula for calculating damages, the worst-case scenario figures given by these companies is way out of whack without any proof that Mitnick enabled further distribution of the code.
Once the security surrounding a trade secret is breached, it is very difficult to prove or disprove where the information has gone.
Yes, and this fact *should* fall in Mitnick's favor, based on the wonderful principle in US justice known as the presumption of innocence. He shouldn't have to prove that the code didn't fall into the wrong hands. It's supposed to be the government's responsibility to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such a thing occurred.
I don't think National knew what to do with Cyrix. They were really only interested in the integrated stuff (witness that they are keeping the MediaGX architecture).
There were a lot of rumors floating around when they bought Cyrix that they were going to kill the dedicated processor product line, but I don't think they had the stomach to just gut the company they'd just purchased. They probably would have been better off, as having a processor company with no forward design movement really hung like an albatross around their neck.
Aside from the floating point and CPUID issues, the 6x86 architecture was pretty impressive at the time. I wonder if their failure to get the jalapeno/cayenne technology out the door was the Cyrix engineers' fault or the result of a lack of commitment on National's part?
Yes, you could have. Don't sell yourself short.;o)
A structured, "scholastic" approach like phonics isn't the only way children learn to read. I was reading long before I even got near a classroom. My parents didn't even set out to teach me to read that young, they just *read* to me.
One reason your wife (and mine) had to go through all that teacher training is because teachers have to deal with up to 30 or more students in a classroom. Teaching in an environment like that requires a teacher to constantly adjust for the different skill levels of the different students. In home schooling, you're dealing with a much smaller class size.
Your rant seems to have little to do with the prior post, aside from the fact that you see home schooling as a big threat to your wife's livelihood. No, home schooling's not for everyone. I'm a firm believer in public education. But it *can* be a viable choice for some. Don't dump your and your wife's frustrations out on the previous poster. His mother was obviously very involved with her children's education, moreso than many of the parents of my wife's students, and she should be commended, not berated.
The $49.95 box of 5.2 with 3 CDs and an installation manual is still available. From their 6.0 press release:
Red Hat Linux 6.0 has pricing options available from $39.95 to $79.95. It can also be downloaded from ftp.redhat.com immediately. A boxed version with three CDs, including one application CD, Installation Manual, Getting Started Guide, and telephone and email support. The box version will be available in select retail outlets, including Best Buy, on May 10.
Very likely. But if there weren't a limit, I guarantee you there'd be a lot more than that. Probably something like 5 trailers, two commercials, then the 5-minute long bit with the dancing popcorn box who gets tied up in the film reel and then tells everyone to shut up.
I was aware of the cliche'd status of the phrase while writing the post, but I was in a hurry and wasn't overly concerned with style. I'll save that for the writing that pays my salary.
And at least I didn't write "This is A Good Thing(tm)(c)(r)" etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum and ad nauseum. But even a priori arguments are better than ad hominems, and a posteriori is even better than that.
Cheese, the things people choose to complain about these days. As though people who don't qualify as "nerds" can't abuse the English language either...
The film must run in the largest auditorium in the complex and cannot move to a smaller room for the minimum length of the run without permission from Fox;
This is good for the viewer - you get to see the film in the best environment the theater can provide.
Minimum runs are eight or 12 weeks--depending on the market--for theaters that open the film on its May 19 release date. A four-week run is available for theaters that start playing the film five weekends later, on June 18.
If an exhibitor commits to playing the film on two or three screens in a multiplex, the film must stay on those screens for the minimum run as well;
The first may sound draconian, but it would be interesting to see what minimum runs for other large films are. Combined with the second, however, these policies prevent large multiplexes from eliminating their smaller competition in the first two weeks of the run by showing the film on all their screens for the first week or so.
In competitive zones--where more than one exhibitor has theaters--the film must play on at least three screens.
This is a bit ambiguous, but it makes the most sense if "at least three screens" means that at least three exhibitors get the film. Large theater chains often lock up exclusive exhibition contracts on big films, leaving smaller chains and independents with last month's releases. This clause provides for the money to be spread around and ensure that it doesn't all end up in, say, Edwards' Theaters' pockets.
Interlocking, which allows theaters to use one print to present a film on two screens, is prohibited;
I'd be surprised if this weren't a standard clause in most exhibitor contracts, but if it's not, it is intended here to (a) maximize rentals and (b) prevent screwups that could occur when reels get mixed up in transit from screen to screen. While (a) is open to accusations of money-grubbing, (b) is commendable from the consumer's perspective.
Exhibitors may not deduct additional security expenses from the film rental fees they charge Fox;
Not necessarily reprehensible (though I think this is worded incorrectly). Why should Fox or Lucasfilm pay for extra theater security?
Theaters are not to honor passes for the first eight weeks;
Eight weeks may be a little long, but this is fairly standard for most big films.
Payment is to be made within seven days (30-60 days is typical) for the first several weeks;
This is the most obvious example of money-grubbing. It could be argued, however, that as it's Fox's and Lucas' split of the money, they deserve to make the interest on it.
Paid on-screen advertising is prohibited for the first two weeks;
This is a good thing for the viewer.
No more than eight minutes of trailers are to run before the film. (Fox has attached 2-1/2 minutes of trailers to the beginning of the picture.);
This is another good thing.
Theaters can begin playing the two-hour, 11-minute film at 12:01 a.m. on May 19.
This is also a good thing, for both viewers and theater-owners: more showings!
Most of the rules here that don't seem to be standard exhibitor clauses are primarily geared towards optimising the viewer experience and ensuring that as many theaters as possible can get the film. If you live in or near a big city, then you may know the experience of checking your paper to see where the latest big picture is playing and finding out that it's only playing at theaters belonging to one chain, the nearest of which may be a nice 30 minute drive away.
Lucas has frequently stated that he doesn't expect this film to do that well, though it could be argued that he's trying to convince himself of that just in case it doesn't, though in his heart he knows it'll be huge. I think he also knows that there's a strong possibility of a big cultural backlash against Star Wars as a result of too much hype (which is currently being created primarily by the fan base, however).
Best Buy (at least the ones I frequent) seems to have really backed off from an initially aggressive philosophy that would have lent itself to abuses like the above. When they first opened in our area, they were pretty insistent on checking your bags at the door (this was just catching on with other retailers at the time, as well). After about two months, they'd ended that policy, and now seem to only do checks on very large purchases. In addition, the level of harrasment on the part of the clerks ("May I help you" in every aisle) has reduced dramatically as well. My one beef with them now is that they've gutted what used to be one of the best world music selections in town. Just to make room for Judith Krantz books.
Best Buy is very much a "grab it off the shelf yourself" type of store. Though every time I go in there, there are enough people in blue and yellow shirts everywhere that I'm asked at least once if I'm finding everything alright. They may not know anything, but they're cheerful about it.;o)
At Circuit City, you *have* to go through a salesperson for most products, which means if you already know what you want, you have to wait 30 minutes to get someone from the "right department" to give you the time of day. It took me an hour once to buy a VCR that I'd picked out in five minutes. Needless to say, that was the last time I've bought anything from Circuit City.
is in the eye of the beholder. And when it comes to advocates of a purely free market, superior is, by definition, the product that wins.
That's what they want you to think: "Great story"
on
The Myth of QWERTY
·
· Score: 1
See this link: http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html
For the fuller account referred to in the Economist article. It goes into more depth re: studies.
QWERTY vs. Dvorak (which I have no opinion on) aside, there is indeed, as you point out, a larger agenda behind the article (as well as the original Liebowitz paper). They have a vested interest in saying that the market works (i.e., the best solution is the one that will win in the marketplace). Liebowitz and his co-author are promoting a book on Microsoft's antitrust case.
Exactly, after then the time in CA, and AZ will be the same, because AZ has no time difference between summer, and winter, we have the same time all year round, and thanks to that it is actually same as CA in summer, so you could say that AZ keeps alternating between two time zones, because in winter it is in the Mountain Time Zone, and in Summer it is in The Pacific Time Zone.
Is that so Zonies don't have to change their watches when they come to SoCal to get away from the summer heat?;o)
Remember all those worthless AOL and MSN CD-ROMs? Now we'll have to deal with a bunch of left-over DIVXs that were worth viewing once, then get piled up in a local landfill.
Two legitimate (not April Fool's) projects are underway developing miniature fuel cells to power portable electronics. Robert Hockaday, a Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist on "entrepreneurial sabbatical," is developing a micro fuel cell for use in cellular phones. He's licensed the tech to Manhattan Scientifics (http://www.mhtx.com), and recently made a few calls on a cell phone with a pre-prototype device using alcohol as fuel. The Fraunhofer Institute in Germany (http://www.ise.fhg.de/Press_Info/PI298.html) is developing a micro fuel cell specifically for notebook computer use. They demonstrated a prototype operating for 10 hours last fall.
I loose respect for CNN in this case. Sorry. I see no REAL evidance at all that Red Hat is doing this, or going to do this. Therefore, it's FUD in my eyes. Something I thought CNN was above.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hooooboy, that's a good one.
But seriously, I think there's a difference between FUD that is intentionally flung around, and stuff that looks like FUD but is accidentally stepped in as the result of one's incompetence or ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
We've been sporadically using a 5+4 ZIP code for quite a few years now. Sporadically as in it's not mandatory, though most business mail uses it.
http://www.salon.com/contact/letters/
aleonard@salon.com
Take this instance (as a possiblity): mitnick downloads the source for a program, A, at company A. He posts it (as folks like him are want to do), and someone at company B sees it, recognizes it, and grabs it.
Yes, but can the government prove that something like this happened? It's not enough (or I hope to God it's not enough) to assert that he could have done it without a reasonable level of proof that he *did*. While there needs to be some formula for calculating damages, the worst-case scenario figures given by these companies is way out of whack without any proof that Mitnick enabled further distribution of the code.
Once the security surrounding a trade secret is breached, it is very difficult to prove or disprove where the information has gone.
Yes, and this fact *should* fall in Mitnick's favor, based on the wonderful principle in US justice known as the presumption of innocence. He shouldn't have to prove that the code didn't fall into the wrong hands. It's supposed to be the government's responsibility to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such a thing occurred.
I don't think National knew what to do with Cyrix. They were really only interested in the integrated stuff (witness that they are keeping the MediaGX architecture).
There were a lot of rumors floating around when they bought Cyrix that they were going to kill the dedicated processor product line, but I don't think they had the stomach to just gut the company they'd just purchased. They probably would have been better off, as having a processor company with no forward design movement really hung like an albatross around their neck.
Aside from the floating point and CPUID issues, the 6x86 architecture was pretty impressive at the time. I wonder if their failure to get the jalapeno/cayenne technology out the door was the Cyrix engineers' fault or the result of a lack of commitment on National's part?
Could I have taught her to read?
;o)
Yes, you could have. Don't sell yourself short.
A structured, "scholastic" approach like phonics isn't the only way children learn to read. I was reading long before I even got near a classroom. My parents didn't even set out to teach me to read that young, they just *read* to me.
One reason your wife (and mine) had to go through all that teacher training is because teachers have to deal with up to 30 or more students in a classroom. Teaching in an environment like that requires a teacher to constantly adjust for the different skill levels of the different students. In home schooling, you're dealing with a much smaller class size.
Your rant seems to have little to do with the prior post, aside from the fact that you see home schooling as a big threat to your wife's livelihood. No, home schooling's not for everyone. I'm a firm believer in public education. But it *can* be a viable choice for some. Don't dump your and your wife's frustrations out on the previous poster. His mother was obviously very involved with her children's education, moreso than many of the parents of my wife's students, and she should be commended, not berated.
Is it any coincidence that "Linux" rhymnes with "Sucks"...?
No, because it doesn't - except as a slant rhyme.
The $49.95 box of 5.2 with 3 CDs and an installation manual is still available. From their 6.0 press release:
Red Hat Linux 6.0 has pricing options available from $39.95 to $79.95. It can also be downloaded from ftp.redhat.com immediately. A boxed version with three CDs, including one application CD, Installation Manual, Getting Started Guide, and telephone and email support. The box version will be available in select retail outlets, including Best Buy, on May 10.
Very likely. But if there weren't a limit, I guarantee you there'd be a lot more than that. Probably something like 5 trailers, two commercials, then the 5-minute long bit with the dancing popcorn box who gets tied up in the film reel and then tells everyone to shut up.
I was aware of the cliche'd status of the phrase while writing the post, but I was in a hurry and wasn't overly concerned with style. I'll save that for the writing that pays my salary.
And at least I didn't write "This is A Good Thing(tm)(c)(r)" etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum and ad nauseum. But even a priori arguments are better than ad hominems, and a posteriori is even better than that.
Cheese, the things people choose to complain about these days. As though people who don't qualify as "nerds" can't abuse the English language either...
baa
baaa
Oh, bah humbug.
... listen up. Let's look at these requirements:
The film must run in the largest auditorium in the complex and cannot move to a smaller room for the minimum length of the run without permission from Fox;
This is good for the viewer - you get to see the film in the best environment the theater can provide.
Minimum runs are eight or 12 weeks--depending on the market--for theaters that open the film on its May 19 release date. A four-week run is available for theaters that start playing the film five weekends later, on June 18.
If an exhibitor commits to playing the film on two or three screens in a multiplex, the film must stay on those screens for the minimum run as well;
The first may sound draconian, but it would be interesting to see what minimum runs for other large films are. Combined with the second, however, these policies prevent large multiplexes from eliminating their smaller competition in the first two weeks of the run by showing the film on all their screens for the first week or so.
In competitive zones--where more than one exhibitor has theaters--the film must play on at least three screens.
This is a bit ambiguous, but it makes the most sense if "at least three screens" means that at least three exhibitors get the film. Large theater chains often lock up exclusive exhibition contracts on big films, leaving smaller chains and independents with last month's releases. This clause provides for the money to be spread around and ensure that it doesn't all end up in, say, Edwards' Theaters' pockets.
Interlocking, which allows theaters to use one print to present a film on two screens, is prohibited;
I'd be surprised if this weren't a standard clause in most exhibitor contracts, but if it's not, it is intended here to (a) maximize rentals and (b) prevent screwups that could occur when reels get mixed up in transit from screen to screen. While (a) is open to accusations of money-grubbing, (b) is commendable from the consumer's perspective.
Exhibitors may not deduct additional security expenses from the film rental fees they charge Fox;
Not necessarily reprehensible (though I think this is worded incorrectly). Why should Fox or Lucasfilm pay for extra theater security?
Theaters are not to honor passes for the first eight weeks;
Eight weeks may be a little long, but this is fairly standard for most big films.
Payment is to be made within seven days (30-60 days is typical) for the first several weeks;
This is the most obvious example of money-grubbing. It could be argued, however, that as it's Fox's and Lucas' split of the money, they deserve to make the interest on it.
Paid on-screen advertising is prohibited for the first two weeks;
This is a good thing for the viewer.
No more than eight minutes of trailers are to run before the film. (Fox has attached 2-1/2 minutes of trailers to the beginning of the picture.);
This is another good thing.
Theaters can begin playing the two-hour, 11-minute film at 12:01 a.m. on May 19.
This is also a good thing, for both viewers and theater-owners: more showings!
Most of the rules here that don't seem to be standard exhibitor clauses are primarily geared towards optimising the viewer experience and ensuring that as many theaters as possible can get the film. If you live in or near a big city, then you may know the experience of checking your paper to see where the latest big picture is playing and finding out that it's only playing at theaters belonging to one chain, the nearest of which may be a nice 30 minute drive away.
Lucas has frequently stated that he doesn't expect this film to do that well, though it could be argued that he's trying to convince himself of that just in case it doesn't, though in his heart he knows it'll be huge. I think he also knows that there's a strong possibility of a big cultural backlash against Star Wars as a result of too much hype (which is currently being created primarily by the fan base, however).
The clause says *no more than* eight minutes. In other words, theaters can't take advantage of the hardcore fans to load in tons of trailers.
The money probably comes from the manufacturers themselves, not from the gummint, so it's not an official tax. It's a profit sharing plan.
But "such as" doesn't always tell you where the parenthetical statement ends.
Best Buy (at least the ones I frequent) seems to have really backed off from an initially aggressive philosophy that would have lent itself to abuses like the above. When they first opened in our area, they were pretty insistent on checking your bags at the door (this was just catching on with other retailers at the time, as well). After about two months, they'd ended that policy, and now seem to only do checks on very large purchases. In addition, the level of harrasment on the part of the clerks ("May I help you" in every aisle) has reduced dramatically as well. My one beef with them now is that they've gutted what used to be one of the best world music selections in town. Just to make room for Judith Krantz books.
Best Buy is very much a "grab it off the shelf yourself" type of store. Though every time I go in there, there are enough people in blue and yellow shirts everywhere that I'm asked at least once if I'm finding everything alright. They may not know anything, but they're cheerful about it. ;o)
At Circuit City, you *have* to go through a salesperson for most products, which means if you already know what you want, you have to wait 30 minutes to get someone from the "right department" to give you the time of day. It took me an hour once to buy a VCR that I'd picked out in five minutes. Needless to say, that was the last time I've bought anything from Circuit City.
Scroll to the bottom of the article, and you'll find the link to the Liebowitz/Margolis article.
is in the eye of the beholder. And when it comes to advocates of a purely free market, superior is, by definition, the product that wins.
See this link: http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html
For the fuller account referred to in the Economist article. It goes into more depth re: studies.
QWERTY vs. Dvorak (which I have no opinion on) aside, there is indeed, as you point out, a larger agenda behind the article (as well as the original Liebowitz paper). They have a vested interest in saying that the market works (i.e., the best solution is the one that will win in the marketplace). Liebowitz and his co-author are promoting a book on Microsoft's antitrust case.
Exactly, after then the time in CA, and AZ will be the same, because AZ has no time difference between summer, and winter, we have the same time all year round, and thanks to that it is actually same as CA in summer, so you could say that AZ keeps alternating between two time zones, because in winter it is in the Mountain Time Zone, and in Summer it is in The Pacific Time Zone.
;o)
Is that so Zonies don't have to change their watches when they come to SoCal to get away from the summer heat?
Remember all those worthless AOL and MSN CD-ROMs? Now we'll have to deal with a bunch of left-over DIVXs that were worth viewing once, then get piled up in a local landfill.
Two legitimate (not April Fool's) projects are underway developing miniature fuel cells to power portable electronics. Robert Hockaday, a Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist on "entrepreneurial sabbatical," is developing a micro fuel cell for use in cellular phones. He's licensed the tech to Manhattan Scientifics (http://www.mhtx.com), and recently made a few calls on a cell phone with a pre-prototype device using alcohol as fuel. The Fraunhofer Institute in Germany (http://www.ise.fhg.de/Press_Info/PI298.html) is developing a micro fuel cell specifically for notebook computer use. They demonstrated a prototype operating for 10 hours last fall.
We don't switch over until this weekend.
I think he said he chose his *primary* OS based on his modem. As in, he has others that he also uses, but not as much.
I loose respect for CNN in this case. Sorry. I see no REAL evidance at all that Red Hat is doing this, or going to do this. Therefore, it's FUD in my eyes. Something I thought CNN was above.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hooooboy, that's a good one.
But seriously, I think there's a difference between FUD that is intentionally flung around, and stuff that looks like FUD but is accidentally stepped in as the result of one's incompetence or ignorance.