"P.S. Randal Schwartz would likely have not
been convicted if he were in Nevada. The laws
here provide for implied authorization of an
employee to access employer's systems unless
their is "clear and convincing" evidence to the
contrary."
----
Methinks you need to read Mr. Schwartz's case
a bit more carefully.
Revolutions are usually enacted by a very small
segment of society, and, as the historical record
will show you without any shadow of a doubt, are
far more likely to usher in tyranny than any kind
of freedom.
While I can appreciate you don't like the fact
that U.S. business interests are politically
active and politically effective, the extent to
which these interests are contrary to the
wellfare of the people only occurs because of
the _complacency_ of the people. By and large,
the people around you are happy with their
government.
In contrast, you hold your minority view to be
of superior value than all the plebes around you.
Disregarding the merits of this for the moment,
that's quite a bit of self-importance wrapped up
in "an ugly sack of mostly water," (with apologies
to _Star Trek_).
I've spoken many times with people who have
opinions as charged as yours. Inevitably, they're
always filled with verbal spit and vinegar, but
in truth, they are as complacent as the plebes
around them. Bluntly, they generally _are_ one
of the many plebes around them.
Which is to say, they've never written a paper
letter to a Congressman, they've never called
their Congressman, they've never visited in
person, nor volunteered for a political campaign.
The list of "nevers" for these would be
Revolutionaries is miles long.
It seems that proposing violence (to wit:
revolution) is an easier path for them than
successful political activity. You'd think that
with such passions, they'd just go buy a banner
and set up a table outside their local Vons.
But no. Forget the mere pen. Forget words. Get
guns. Yeah, that's the ticket.
"I don't think I deserved being called an
idiot for this."
----
You don't? But you called somebody an idiot
over this, don't you know. So, when referring
to people as being "without a clue," keep your
flameshield on. You're always risking finding
out who the real dummy is...
This is true for the municipal areas, but you can
still do quite well in many rural areas; as they
develop, you might even be lucky enough to get
bought out.
This is an obvious case of rules lawyerism,
where the contestent looks for loopholes in
the rules in order to exploit the game itself
instead of the spirit under which it was set
up. Why people should get upset when the other
person responds "but that is not what I meant"
when it should be perfectly obvious that they're
not going to mean that is beyond me.
It would be especially nice if these types were *not* considered, for the sake of signatures, type-identical to counterpart size-variant types
--------
Ah yes. Don't I *wish*. If I declare something
int32u, I want it to fail if someone offers an
"unsigned long". I want a different signature to
be treated as a different type.
Get a log book. Record details about all negative
customer relations incidents, including duplicate
billing, services retracted, and so forth. Then
sue. Extensive written records will trump anything
they say, and as long as you avoid acting like a
child, you'll be believed by judge and jury.
If you write a book on assassinating government
employees and then start driving by their houses,
expect to get into trouble. The behavior is
DERANGED. This man needs psychiatric help.
One of the most potent benefits of pair
programming is motivation. As one poster said
in another part of this thread, "I wouldn't like
it because we wouldn't be able to agree on which
slashdot article to read when goofing off." But
that's the point: pair programming keeps you from
goofing off.
Having used this technique in an open lab setting
before, I know it works. At our organization, we
reserve pair programming for crunch periods. It
does tend to be quite taxing.
If you'd actually read my post, you'd see I
said you really should register your copyright.
Legally, your post on/. is copyrighted, even
if not registered.
--
Sure. What I was trying to point out, however,
was that the statement "legally, your post is
copyrighted," while as a matter of written law
may be true, isn't PRAGMATICALLY true as a
matter of actionable jurisprudence. Which is to
say, all apparent written issues of law aside,
if you want to be protected by the law -- AT ALL
-- get a registered copyright.
What I'm trying to say here is that it pays to
pretend that actual registration is the ONLY
route to obtaining a copyright. This is the case,
because the registration is the only reliable
means of obtaining legal protection once you get
to court, and when playing with the big boys, your
chance of winning in court -- not whether you are
right or wrong -- is all that matters.
C//
p.s. sorry if I offended; this is a hot button of
mine if you can't tell.:)
"Yes, legally in the US, you just need to put it to a CD (floppies last about 4-5 years, CDs 20 years, mag tape 100 years) and mail it to yourself postmarked by registered mail."
--
You are propagating a dangerous myth which can
only harm those who attempt to protect themselves
in this ridiculous fashion. Using "mail it to
yourself" as a copyright protection strategy has
major pitfalls. REGISTER YOUR COPYRIGHT.
"What registration gives you is extra protections, such as the ability to collect statuatory damages up to $100,000 if the infringement is judged to be willful."\
--
Registration does more than this. It gives you
the sole protection you are likely to get under
the law as a matter of practical jurisprudence.
Any other forms of proof of copyright are not
well-regarded in courts of law.
"and not having a registered copyright, there was nothing he could do."
--
Not registering your copyright and expecting
intellectual property protection is a very big
mistake. By and large, when it comes to
enforcement, the courts favor a registered
copyright with very strong prejudice. If you
want to protect your code, register your
copyright. Registration is cheap.
"Merger" is such a euphamism. They probably
asked too much for their stock price, and
Verizon elected to NOT buy them. There's no
way this was a "merger," anyway. Verizon is
a 250,000 employee company.
Perhaps it was Garriot who made the mistake,
and EA's only cleaning up after him. It's clear
to me that if the main customer base for UO2
scavenges UO one customers, this is not a cost-
effective proposition.
I have to disagree with this. The bill is a *GOOD* bill, precisely because it's scope is so limited. Essentially what this does is enable the community to police itself, without getting into too much government big brotherism. By providing the community with a means to identify spammers, the community is aided. Those who defy identification can be hunted down by law enforcment. I really like this Bill.
C//
Re: and what of the multicore PPC?
on
Emergence of SMT
·
· Score: 1
An equivalent EV8 system should be less expensive to manufacturer, however IBM could possibly manage better economies of scale and will quite possibly out-market Alpha. Alpha and POWER4 will be competing in the same markets (HPC).
Re: and what of the multicore PPC?
on
Emergence of SMT
·
· Score: 1
The POWER4 chip is a very impressive design and a very nice chip. EV8 will be far more efficient, however. Look at the transistor/silicon cost of the chips. POWER4 is a 2-way MPU designed for 4x2 transputer-like grid assemblies. Such a configuration will be insanely fast, but surely quite bleedingly expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
"P.S. Randal Schwartz would likely have not
been convicted if he were in Nevada. The laws
here provide for implied authorization of an
employee to access employer's systems unless
their is "clear and convincing" evidence to the
contrary."
----
Methinks you need to read Mr. Schwartz's case
a bit more carefully.
C//
Revolutions are usually enacted by a very small
segment of society, and, as the historical record
will show you without any shadow of a doubt, are
far more likely to usher in tyranny than any kind
of freedom.
While I can appreciate you don't like the fact
that U.S. business interests are politically
active and politically effective, the extent to
which these interests are contrary to the
wellfare of the people only occurs because of
the _complacency_ of the people. By and large,
the people around you are happy with their
government.
In contrast, you hold your minority view to be
of superior value than all the plebes around you.
Disregarding the merits of this for the moment,
that's quite a bit of self-importance wrapped up
in "an ugly sack of mostly water," (with apologies
to _Star Trek_).
I've spoken many times with people who have
opinions as charged as yours. Inevitably, they're
always filled with verbal spit and vinegar, but
in truth, they are as complacent as the plebes
around them. Bluntly, they generally _are_ one
of the many plebes around them.
Which is to say, they've never written a paper
letter to a Congressman, they've never called
their Congressman, they've never visited in
person, nor volunteered for a political campaign.
The list of "nevers" for these would be
Revolutionaries is miles long.
It seems that proposing violence (to wit:
revolution) is an easier path for them than
successful political activity. You'd think that
with such passions, they'd just go buy a banner
and set up a table outside their local Vons.
But no. Forget the mere pen. Forget words. Get
guns. Yeah, that's the ticket.
C//
"I don't think I deserved being called an
idiot for this."
----
You don't? But you called somebody an idiot
over this, don't you know. So, when referring
to people as being "without a clue," keep your
flameshield on. You're always risking finding
out who the real dummy is...
C//
This is true for the municipal areas, but you can
still do quite well in many rural areas; as they
develop, you might even be lucky enough to get
bought out.
C//
Where'd you get this definition, BTW? Looks
like a cool reference.
In some states, you must be paid for a minimum
of two hours work if you come in. Other states
may vary. Contact your local state labor office.
C//
1970's: 1MB = $1 MILLION
2001: 1MB = $.50
A 2-million-to-one decrease.
Goodness gracious.
This is an obvious case of rules lawyerism,
where the contestent looks for loopholes in
the rules in order to exploit the game itself
instead of the spirit under which it was set
up. Why people should get upset when the other
person responds "but that is not what I meant"
when it should be perfectly obvious that they're
not going to mean that is beyond me.
C//
It would be especially nice if these types were *not* considered, for the sake of signatures, type-identical to counterpart size-variant types
--------
Ah yes. Don't I *wish*. If I declare something
int32u, I want it to fail if someone offers an
"unsigned long". I want a different signature to
be treated as a different type.
C//
A genius! A genius, I tell you! :)
Get a log book. Record details about all negative
customer relations incidents, including duplicate
billing, services retracted, and so forth. Then
sue. Extensive written records will trump anything
they say, and as long as you avoid acting like a
child, you'll be believed by judge and jury.
C//
If you write a book on assassinating government
employees and then start driving by their houses,
expect to get into trouble. The behavior is
DERANGED. This man needs psychiatric help.
C//
One of the most potent benefits of pair
programming is motivation. As one poster said
in another part of this thread, "I wouldn't like
it because we wouldn't be able to agree on which
slashdot article to read when goofing off." But
that's the point: pair programming keeps you from
goofing off.
Having used this technique in an open lab setting
before, I know it works. At our organization, we
reserve pair programming for crunch periods. It
does tend to be quite taxing.
It is, however, generally quite effective.
C//
If you'd actually read my post, you'd see I /. is copyrighted, even
:)
said you really should register your copyright.
Legally, your post on
if not registered.
--
Sure. What I was trying to point out, however,
was that the statement "legally, your post is
copyrighted," while as a matter of written law
may be true, isn't PRAGMATICALLY true as a
matter of actionable jurisprudence. Which is to
say, all apparent written issues of law aside,
if you want to be protected by the law -- AT ALL
-- get a registered copyright.
What I'm trying to say here is that it pays to
pretend that actual registration is the ONLY
route to obtaining a copyright. This is the case,
because the registration is the only reliable
means of obtaining legal protection once you get
to court, and when playing with the big boys, your
chance of winning in court -- not whether you are
right or wrong -- is all that matters.
C//
p.s. sorry if I offended; this is a hot button of
mine if you can't tell.
"Yes, legally in the US, you just need to put it to a CD (floppies last about 4-5 years, CDs 20 years, mag tape 100 years) and mail it to yourself postmarked by registered mail."
--
You are propagating a dangerous myth which can
only harm those who attempt to protect themselves
in this ridiculous fashion. Using "mail it to
yourself" as a copyright protection strategy has
major pitfalls. REGISTER YOUR COPYRIGHT.
C//
"What registration gives you is extra protections, such as the ability to collect statuatory damages up to $100,000 if the infringement is judged to be willful."\
--
Registration does more than this. It gives you
the sole protection you are likely to get under
the law as a matter of practical jurisprudence.
Any other forms of proof of copyright are not
well-regarded in courts of law.
C//
"and not having a registered copyright, there was nothing he could do."
--
Not registering your copyright and expecting
intellectual property protection is a very big
mistake. By and large, when it comes to
enforcement, the courts favor a registered
copyright with very strong prejudice. If you
want to protect your code, register your
copyright. Registration is cheap.
C//
"this is good is that it suddenly makes p2p
protocols *faster* than going to centralised
sites."
No way, bud. p2p doesn't obviate your need to
go through your ISP's headend. An ISP with a
bad headend will still suck, p2p or no.
C//
"Merger" is such a euphamism. They probably
asked too much for their stock price, and
Verizon elected to NOT buy them. There's no
way this was a "merger," anyway. Verizon is
a 250,000 employee company.
C//
Perhaps it was Garriot who made the mistake,
and EA's only cleaning up after him. It's clear
to me that if the main customer base for UO2
scavenges UO one customers, this is not a cost-
effective proposition.
C//
"(you don't have to be in California--you just have to spam someone in California)"
I'm having a hard time believing this is true. I think you probably have to be doing business in California...
C//
Uh, if it's illegal, why warn them? :)
I have to disagree with this. The bill is a *GOOD* bill, precisely because it's scope is so limited. Essentially what this does is enable the community to police itself, without getting into too much government big brotherism. By providing the community with a means to identify spammers, the community is aided. Those who defy identification can be hunted down by law enforcment. I really like this Bill.
C//
An equivalent EV8 system should be less expensive to manufacturer, however IBM could possibly manage better economies of scale and will quite possibly out-market Alpha. Alpha and POWER4 will be competing in the same markets (HPC).
The POWER4 chip is a very impressive design and a very nice chip. EV8 will be far more efficient, however. Look at the transistor/silicon cost of the chips. POWER4 is a 2-way MPU designed for 4x2 transputer-like grid assemblies. Such a configuration will be insanely fast, but surely quite bleedingly expensive.
C//