If you absolutely want to give them the domain, then tell whoever to set up their own hosting and change the A records for the website to the new host while keeping the MX records and adding an old.example.com A record for people to access the old site while you transfer data between hosting companies. In the meantime, get a new domain and start updating everyone who emails you with your new address. After a suitable time (you no longer receive email at the old address), transfer the domain to this person.
As a bonus, it means that whoever is wanting to take over the domain is going to have to prove they're going to run it for several months. If they decide that it costs too much to run, flake out, or just turn it into a porn site, you can point the A record back and find someone else.
"Anyone will be able to buy model A and model B units, uncased, at the $25 and $35 price points from launch, with a Debian or Fedora software stack," he told Tom's. "Later in the year, we intend to add a case and a polished educational software stack; we hope to squeeze the cased version into the same price point, and we expect that educational users and people who wish to use the board as a home media center will choose this package in the long term."
For values of "anyone" meaning the first 10000 people to get in before the server implodes.
Don't forget that BigCorp 1-9 all feel that their patent is SO important to the functioning of the product that they deserve a 20% cut of your gross. Each.
The world has moved on since discovering that steam can make you go forward. These days, every little thing is sufficiently complex (especially with "convergence" and having one tool that does everything plus patents on "doing X that someone else invented plus Y that someone else invented on one device") that it is covered by hundreds of patents, all of which have inventors who feel like their patent is so vital to your thing that they ought to command 2-3% of your gross.
flagged comments are listed on a page for the editors to individually review. Once there, we have two options: downmodding the comment or ignoring the report.
You're welcome to try it out, if you'd like. It's basically just around for downmodding spam and things like the racist copypastas. So far, probably 95% of the reports have been for perfectly normal comments, on which we've taken no action.
Moreover, "process" patents are almost always about "using X (that someone else invented) do Y (which X was designed to do)". If you invent the screwdriver, should I really be allowed to patent of using your screwdriver to turn screws?
I pretty much just go to local places. Even with the sales tax and the TSA line at the end of a Fry's trip, at least I'm seeing what I'm getting before I check out, and they seem to be pretty good at marking restocked boxes.
Nice try, but the government already did the end run around that. If you force them into a corner, they'll just charge your property directly. Money isn't a person or a citizen and therefore has no rights.
If they make -20,000, are you going to tax them -4,000USD and have the government return that to them?
Sure, why not. And then when I lose my job and have to spend my savings and end up poorer than I started the year, I'll have the government return that to me too.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Corporate income is paid from my post-tax income, ie, already taxed.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
While he's at it, he should look up capitation too. I give classes in it but charge $100 per head.
Yea, one of my first thoughts was "Huh, so these women are no different from the usual angry, 14yo, console-shooter kids.". Which means Google has nothing to worry about since they're all talk and no action; and they'll have forgotten about it in a month or two anyway.
one thought I had is what if you were every file is "named" in a canonical form that includes all applied tags such as someFile#a_tag#b_tag#c_tag
I had been thinking of something similar to that (actually reporting the file in "/a_tag/" as being named "b_tag/c_tag/somefile" which would preserve the file extension at the end for programs that need it, and would actually be "mostly" compatible with programs (since from the a_tag "directory" b/c/file would be a proper path) but the problem is that it would likely confuse programs which track the working directory. The program would think of itself being in "a_tag" and may not save the file back to the b_tag/c_tag/ "subdirectory", but part of the allure of the set based filesystem is that the files would be accessible without being completely specified (being able to see all of my music, or all of my music of an artist, or all in a genre or all by an artist in a genre and so on) so this is a conundrum either way.
if ownership were tracked that way it has the interesting effect of making it easy to transparently allow multiple owners of a file without groups
That's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of since I had been thinking of tags being subtractive permissions (ie an untagged file would be fully accessible, by tagging it ~Qzukk it takes away certain permissions, then by tagging it mail it took away other permissions as well, etc. In that case, tagging it ~Bob and ~Steve would mean nobody would have it), and now I see trying to set up useful group permissions this way would really be a beast. With additive permissions I had been worried about giving way more than you wanted, instead I was stuck on a system where it was impossible to give away everything you needed!
I've been thinking of a "tagging" filesystem as a backburner idea, mostly toying with ideas to make it compatible with existing programs by giving it a directory structure. Say, for instance, all my files are tagged Qzukk automatically: everything I have is in/Qzukk/ then if I want to narrow it down, my music is in/Qzukk/music/, but let's say I want all the music, that would be in/music/ or from there I could get to my music in/music/Qzukk. To prevent loops, the filesystem could disallow/music/Qzukk/music/. I originally thought some logic would be in place so that subdirectories would consist only of the unique tags of the files you can see in that folder, so you can go to/music/Qzukk/europop/ but not/music/Qzukk/inbox/, but then there would be no compatible ways of making new tags and/or easily tagging files (mkdir/music/Qzukk/jpop/; mv 01-?????????.flac/music/Qzukk/jpop/). Permissions would have to be slightly rethought, a given tag could remove permissions but not add permissions, and file access would have to have all of the tags checked (since Bob's music would appear in/music/) before letting me access them.
The biggest problem by doing it this way would be that / would have hundreds of thousands of files and every program would choke and die opening the file browser before you could select one of those subdirectory tags. Second biggest would be dealing with conflict resolution between files named the same way but tagged differently (/mail/Qzukk/mbox vs/mail/Bob/mbox) though it could be solved by showing neither unless a special tool was used to set preferred tags to handle that case, or exclude certain tags (a visibility permission could help that, in the above permission case, if/Bob/ had other user's visibility set to none, those files would not exist to me).
Slashdot Mirror
I wish rich people could commit laws. At least then we could roll back to an earlier version more easily.
And if they committed them to a decent VCS, we'd have a blame command!
Troll or not? Hard to tell. No real sarcasm. Explanation is well composed but opposite of the summary
Linux is free. Its developers are not.
the vast majority had probably already received more than enough value from their dollar.
At what point is it OK for me to steal your car since you already received more than enough value from your dollar?
why did this woman not actively support regaining our rights and dignity BEFORE she became a victim of the TSA?
She's a politician (no party affiliation required) so she was all for bigger government until it stepped on her feet.
The FCC has an obligation to have all GPS manufactures correct their lack of filtering.
So if I sell your house, you have no problem at all with it being my obligation to force you to move out?
The FCC had an obligation to not dick LightSquared around. No clue why they did, but they did. It's not the GPS makers' fault, they were there first.
I'm just not a worthwhile target
How worth it are you? As the cost of tracking goes towards zero, there are more and more profitable targets.
Just roll over, shrug their shoulders, and say "oh well"?
No, Mr. Media Giant, I expect you to die.</Goldfinger>
The hardware itself, if not patented, is simply in the Public Domain.
"The hardware itself" is almost certainly a FPGA. Verilog, VHDL, etc. are copyrightable works just like any other code.
If it's an IC of some flavor then in the USA you can protect the mask for 10 years.
If you absolutely want to give them the domain, then tell whoever to set up their own hosting and change the A records for the website to the new host while keeping the MX records and adding an old.example.com A record for people to access the old site while you transfer data between hosting companies. In the meantime, get a new domain and start updating everyone who emails you with your new address. After a suitable time (you no longer receive email at the old address), transfer the domain to this person.
As a bonus, it means that whoever is wanting to take over the domain is going to have to prove they're going to run it for several months. If they decide that it costs too much to run, flake out, or just turn it into a porn site, you can point the A record back and find someone else.
For values of "anyone" meaning the first 10000 people to get in before the server implodes.
Don't forget that BigCorp 1-9 all feel that their patent is SO important to the functioning of the product that they deserve a 20% cut of your gross. Each.
The world has moved on since discovering that steam can make you go forward. These days, every little thing is sufficiently complex (especially with "convergence" and having one tool that does everything plus patents on "doing X that someone else invented plus Y that someone else invented on one device") that it is covered by hundreds of patents, all of which have inventors who feel like their patent is so vital to your thing that they ought to command 2-3% of your gross.
A more financially responsible move would be to "INVEST" in R&D (with selection possibly based on a tender process)
Like Solyndra?
-- Soulskill
Feel free to believe it or not.
Moreover, "process" patents are almost always about "using X (that someone else invented) do Y (which X was designed to do)". If you invent the screwdriver, should I really be allowed to patent of using your screwdriver to turn screws?
_OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO_
Uh, hmm... can I buy an E?
Wondering if the FBI does background checks on Senate, Congress and Presidential candidates?
Of course not, that would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
I pretty much just go to local places. Even with the sales tax and the TSA line at the end of a Fry's trip, at least I'm seeing what I'm getting before I check out, and they seem to be pretty good at marking restocked boxes.
Nice try, but the government already did the end run around that. If you force them into a corner, they'll just charge your property directly. Money isn't a person or a citizen and therefore has no rights.
Yet another wonderful result of the war on drugs.
If they make -20,000, are you going to tax them -4,000USD and have the government return that to them?
Sure, why not. And then when I lose my job and have to spend my savings and end up poorer than I started the year, I'll have the government return that to me too.
Corporate income is paid from my post-tax income, ie, already taxed.
While he's at it, he should look up capitation too. I give classes in it but charge $100 per head.
if FB goes to zero he still has to pay back the loan.
That's the beauty of it, if FB goes to zero he'll have nothing, so he'll declare bankruptcy and not pay back the loan.
-- AC, http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2402118&cid=37239112
-- William Congreve
one thought I had is what if you were every file is "named" in a canonical form that includes all applied tags such as someFile#a_tag#b_tag#c_tag
I had been thinking of something similar to that (actually reporting the file in "/a_tag/" as being named "b_tag/c_tag/somefile" which would preserve the file extension at the end for programs that need it, and would actually be "mostly" compatible with programs (since from the a_tag "directory" b/c/file would be a proper path) but the problem is that it would likely confuse programs which track the working directory. The program would think of itself being in "a_tag" and may not save the file back to the b_tag/c_tag/ "subdirectory", but part of the allure of the set based filesystem is that the files would be accessible without being completely specified (being able to see all of my music, or all of my music of an artist, or all in a genre or all by an artist in a genre and so on) so this is a conundrum either way.
if ownership were tracked that way it has the interesting effect of making it easy to transparently allow multiple owners of a file without groups
That's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of since I had been thinking of tags being subtractive permissions (ie an untagged file would be fully accessible, by tagging it ~Qzukk it takes away certain permissions, then by tagging it mail it took away other permissions as well, etc. In that case, tagging it ~Bob and ~Steve would mean nobody would have it), and now I see trying to set up useful group permissions this way would really be a beast. With additive permissions I had been worried about giving way more than you wanted, instead I was stuck on a system where it was impossible to give away everything you needed!
I've been thinking of a "tagging" filesystem as a backburner idea, mostly toying with ideas to make it compatible with existing programs by giving it a directory structure. Say, for instance, all my files are tagged Qzukk automatically: everything I have is in /Qzukk/ then if I want to narrow it down, my music is in /Qzukk/music/, but let's say I want all the music, that would be in /music/ or from there I could get to my music in /music/Qzukk. To prevent loops, the filesystem could disallow /music/Qzukk/music/. I originally thought some logic would be in place so that subdirectories would consist only of the unique tags of the files you can see in that folder, so you can go to /music/Qzukk/europop/ but not /music/Qzukk/inbox/, but then there would be no compatible ways of making new tags and/or easily tagging files (mkdir /music/Qzukk/jpop/; mv 01-?????????.flac /music/Qzukk/jpop/). Permissions would have to be slightly rethought, a given tag could remove permissions but not add permissions, and file access would have to have all of the tags checked (since Bob's music would appear in /music/) before letting me access them.
The biggest problem by doing it this way would be that / would have hundreds of thousands of files and every program would choke and die opening the file browser before you could select one of those subdirectory tags. Second biggest would be dealing with conflict resolution between files named the same way but tagged differently (/mail/Qzukk/mbox vs /mail/Bob/mbox) though it could be solved by showing neither unless a special tool was used to set preferred tags to handle that case, or exclude certain tags (a visibility permission could help that, in the above permission case, if /Bob/ had other user's visibility set to none, those files would not exist to me).