Windows; MacOS (system 9); MacOSX; Linux on several different hardware platforms; BSD on several different hardware platforms; Solaris; Symbian; Blackberry; Windows CE/Windows Mobile; the system whose name I don't know but which runs most TV set-top boxes; Blu-Ray DVD players; JX.
The obvious exclusion is Android, which doesn't actually run Java (but for which a Java-to-local-vm translator is available).
Bonus question: Name a dozen platforms that runs Eclipse.
I'm not sure there are a dozen platforms out there that are capable of running eclipse.
Last time I checked, Gen X was composed of those born between 1962 and 1980. If you have a Journey song on your MP3 player that's not "Don't Stop Believin'", you're probably Gen X.
Hmm. I don't. But I have two Toto tracks that aren't Rosanna. Does that count?
don't both parties have to agree to a contract to make it binding?
Yes. But on the other hand, you can specify, "I'll allow you to do this, but only do it if you agree to the terms." The normal example is car parks with signs that say "vehicles parked at owner's risk." By parking your car in such a car park, you are forming a contract that prevents you from suing the owner if your car is accidentally damaged while in the car park.
So, if you don't agree to the contract, you can keep browsing as it is online for everyone to access, or does it mean that you aren't allowed to keep viewing the site unless you agree to abide by the terms they place on the website (purely from a law point of view)?
From a strict legal perspective, you are only allowed to browse a web site if you have its operator's permission to do so. Typically. This varies from state to state; the paper in question is a NY-based one, so see for example NY Penal Law 156.10:
156.10 Computer trespass.
A person is guilty of computer trespass when he knowingly uses or causes to be used a computer or computer service without authorization and:
1. he does so with an intent to commit or attempt to commit or further the commission of any felony; or
2. he thereby knowingly gains access to computer material.
Computer trespass is a class E felony.
Under normal circumstances, the mere fact that the site is online without any access restrictions is considered evidence that you have that permission. But it is entirely possible to *revoke* that permission by giving people notice that they don't have it.
But here's the interesting bit: AFAICS, the paper would have to *prove* that their visitors were aware of the terms by which they were allowed access before they could claim the contract exists. Anyone who didn't read the terms would not (in the words of the NY law) be knowingly using a computer service without authorization, and therefore would be permitted to carry on browsing anyway.
So what this would come down to is a court argument about how obvious the terms & conditions were, and whether the visitors to the site could be reasonably expected to read them. I'd personally expect the judge to only agree to the contract being enforceable if each link had bold text with the words "only click this link if you agree to our terms", or there was large-type flashing text near the top of the first page, or something similar.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice. I'm not even American, so I'm basing this on a bit of quick research and a reasonable knowledge of how common law jurisdictions operate in general, along with specific knowledge of British contract law and an understanding that in most cases US contract law is similar. YMMV. YY. Etc.
my goal was not to deceive, it was to point out that balking at $1 for a favorite game when you are implicitly willing to spend hundreds (is that better?) just to carry the thing is ridiculous
Not necessarily. Having the phone is a business expense, I can get my company to pay for one if I choose. I can't justify asking them to pay for games, though.
Napster was limited to sharing MP3 files, meaning almost all of its content was illegal. You couldn't share your Ubuntu ISOs on there, or your home-made porn (these two being the largest legal uses of other filesharing networks, I believe). Plus, because of its architecture, search requests crossed over Napster's servers. The court held that Napster could prevent infringement by not allowing searches for infringing content; they were shut down for failing to do this.
Grokster was about active steps made by the company to encourage illegal use. All the other file sharing companies have been much more wary about how they advertised their systems; Grokster openly stated that it was designed for unauthorized sharing of copyright content. The supreme court justices were very cautious in their judgment to make it clear that it was *not* the tool that was the problem, it was the *way it was marketed*.
Last I tried it, Shareaza uses the web cache scheme for its connections. Not come across the IRC idea before, I'm going to guess that was BearShare, which is the only major gnutella client I never tried.
Far as I know, if you take down the Limewire servers, the entire thing collapses. It isn't distributed like a torrernt network, and I'm pretty sure there's no peer discovery either.
Yes, there's peer discovery. And it is almost entirely distributed. The only issue is if you don't have any peers in your peer cache, you won't be able to get a connection. It's been a while since I used limewire, and I assume they've switched from their old method (have a peer at a known address, router.limewire.com, that's always available to provide addresses of other peers) to the more common 'gwebcache' services used by other gnutella clients. If that's the case, it's a simple config change to point it at a non-limewire discovery service and get an updated peer list.
I'm not convinced. I've used various file sharing networks over the years, including Gnutella, ED2K, and BitTorrent. During this period I have had 2 malware infections. You want to know where *both* of them came from? Drive-by browser exploits running in banner ads showing on thepiratebay.org.
>You *could* get the NoScript extension. It lets you disable what sites can/can't use scripting.
And from my original posting:
"(And no, NoScript doesn't cut it- too complicated for most users, not automatic, too easy to break Javascript that is actually needed, etc)."
NoScript doesn't really manage stuff, it is just a series of allow/deny logic. It requires a lot of user interaction, knowledge, and time. Most people have none of the three and would just end up "breaking" most sites. It is not the solution that I had in mind.
I'll admit I understand what it's doing so it's probably a bit easier for me than most users, but I don't see what's so hard about clicking a button and saying "allow scripting" when you need those scripts to work (which is pretty easy to tell, because if you find part of the site not working, it's an obvious guess that it depends on a script...).
I hear this argument a lot, that people have to restart their browsers once a day. Why is that a problem?
Because some of us do actual work with our browsers. At the moment I have about 30 tabs open, many of which are on password protected intranet sites, or are otherwise session-specific, and restarting the browser (even with session management) means I'll have to reopen all of these. That'd take probably 20-30 minutes out of my day, which is time I'd rather not have to spend.
My 80GB IDE disk is still chugging along just fine after 8 years.
8 years ago, your 80GB disk was an expensive high-end one. Typical disks of the era would have been around 20GB, and I sincerely doubt many people are still using those.
The point is: you only use your disks for a long period of time if you buy larger than average disks.
(Disks in my network go through a progression: they spend about 3 years as part of the RAID-1 array on the file server, which is then upgraded to a larger set and the disks are distributed to workstations; eventually, once no longer acceptable for that purpose, they may end up in a special-purpose machine, but that's rare, and will probably be even rarer in the future as special purpose machines are now generally VMs running on the file server box.)
WTF OS do you have? I have Win7 Ultimate here installed and (reaosnably) happy on a 10GB partition. In retrospect, 20GB would have been more appropriate.
NPD is a reputable source, but I'd like to see the actual study myself, rather than hearsay.
Note that it's 20% of the "consumer retail" market share. That is to say, individual people buying boxed computers from a shop. A rather large percentage of computers on the internet are purchased by companies and either (1) installed at their offices and then used by employees for personal purposes during their breaks or (2) loaned to employees to take home. This happens very rarely with Macs; in my 15 years as an IT consultant I've worked with precisely one company that installed Macs. A smaller, but still nontrivial, percentage of the sales of computers is in markets that aren't typically classified as retail: all those people who either buy components and self build, or buy from local "we sell to trade only, honest" shops, or from computer fairs are probably not included in these stats.
Also, market share != installed base. Note that if the average Mac user changes their machine every 3 years, while the average PC user only bothers upgrading every 6, that will double the market share of Macs relative to their installed base.
Slashdot Mirror
All right. I'll probably cheat and hit google before I'm done writing this.
Mac OS X
Not any more it doesn't.
http://support.apple.com/kb/dl972
Seems to be available to me.
Name a dozen platforms that runs Java.
Without googling:
Windows; MacOS (system 9); MacOSX; Linux on several different hardware platforms; BSD on several different hardware platforms; Solaris; Symbian; Blackberry; Windows CE/Windows Mobile; the system whose name I don't know but which runs most TV set-top boxes; Blu-Ray DVD players; JX.
The obvious exclusion is Android, which doesn't actually run Java (but for which a Java-to-local-vm translator is available).
Bonus question: Name a dozen platforms that runs Eclipse.
I'm not sure there are a dozen platforms out there that are capable of running eclipse.
Not all of Sun's Java code went into Harmony et. al. So, maybe.
The only noteworthy exceptions that I'm aware of are JavaME and some parts of AWT. AIUI, Android implements neither of these APIs.
Well fuck, I was born in '87 and I have four*. Should I be worried?
Depends. Were you intentionally being retro when you put them on there?
Last time I checked, Gen X was composed of those born between 1962 and 1980. If you have a Journey song on your MP3 player that's not "Don't Stop Believin'", you're probably Gen X.
Hmm. I don't. But I have two Toto tracks that aren't Rosanna. Does that count?
don't both parties have to agree to a contract to make it binding?
Yes. But on the other hand, you can specify, "I'll allow you to do this, but only do it if you agree to the terms." The normal example is car parks with signs that say "vehicles parked at owner's risk." By parking your car in such a car park, you are forming a contract that prevents you from suing the owner if your car is accidentally damaged while in the car park.
So, if you don't agree to the contract, you can keep browsing as it is online for everyone to access, or does it mean that you aren't allowed to keep viewing the site unless you agree to abide by the terms they place on the website (purely from a law point of view)?
From a strict legal perspective, you are only allowed to browse a web site if you have its operator's permission to do so. Typically. This varies from state to state; the paper in question is a NY-based one, so see for example NY Penal Law 156.10:
Under normal circumstances, the mere fact that the site is online without any access restrictions is considered evidence that you have that permission. But it is entirely possible to *revoke* that permission by giving people notice that they don't have it.
But here's the interesting bit: AFAICS, the paper would have to *prove* that their visitors were aware of the terms by which they were allowed access before they could claim the contract exists. Anyone who didn't read the terms would not (in the words of the NY law) be knowingly using a computer service without authorization, and therefore would be permitted to carry on browsing anyway.
So what this would come down to is a court argument about how obvious the terms & conditions were, and whether the visitors to the site could be reasonably expected to read them. I'd personally expect the judge to only agree to the contract being enforceable if each link had bold text with the words "only click this link if you agree to our terms", or there was large-type flashing text near the top of the first page, or something similar.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice. I'm not even American, so I'm basing this on a bit of quick research and a reasonable knowledge of how common law jurisdictions operate in general, along with specific knowledge of British contract law and an understanding that in most cases US contract law is similar. YMMV. YY. Etc.
Have you tried Halo 3 on legendary? It took me a week to finish while I was unemployed.
Pfft. Doom 2 took me over a month to finish while I was a student.
OK, didn't help that I had to do the last level about a thousand times, 'cause I didn't figure out you couldn't just shoot the boss monster to death.
my goal was not to deceive, it was to point out that balking at $1 for a favorite game when you are implicitly willing to spend hundreds (is that better?) just to carry the thing is ridiculous
Not necessarily. Having the phone is a business expense, I can get my company to pay for one if I choose. I can't justify asking them to pay for games, though.
Where was The Steve in 1993? Oh yeah, at NeXT!
Didn't you get the memo? Apple stole all their major innovations from NeXT.
If it's not a long int, it can still go to 4294967296 if it is unsigned.
GGP's post looked like Java to me. Java doesn't have unsigned ints.
Still, the fact that the value reached 31 (rather than a negative number) implies it must have been at least 4294967327, if not actually higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_calendar#Lunisolar_calendars
No, those aren't valid precedents.
Napster was limited to sharing MP3 files, meaning almost all of its content was illegal. You couldn't share your Ubuntu ISOs on there, or your home-made porn (these two being the largest legal uses of other filesharing networks, I believe). Plus, because of its architecture, search requests crossed over Napster's servers. The court held that Napster could prevent infringement by not allowing searches for infringing content; they were shut down for failing to do this.
Grokster was about active steps made by the company to encourage illegal use. All the other file sharing companies have been much more wary about how they advertised their systems; Grokster openly stated that it was designed for unauthorized sharing of copyright content. The supreme court justices were very cautious in their judgment to make it clear that it was *not* the tool that was the problem, it was the *way it was marketed*.
Last I tried it, Shareaza uses the web cache scheme for its connections. Not come across the IRC idea before, I'm going to guess that was BearShare, which is the only major gnutella client I never tried.
Far as I know, if you take down the Limewire servers, the entire thing collapses. It isn't distributed like a torrernt network, and I'm pretty sure there's no peer discovery either.
Yes, there's peer discovery. And it is almost entirely distributed. The only issue is if you don't have any peers in your peer cache, you won't be able to get a connection. It's been a while since I used limewire, and I assume they've switched from their old method (have a peer at a known address, router.limewire.com, that's always available to provide addresses of other peers) to the more common 'gwebcache' services used by other gnutella clients. If that's the case, it's a simple config change to point it at a non-limewire discovery service and get an updated peer list.
Can you help me download this Internet thing onto my computer? I have a 210MB hard disk, so there should be enough space.
I'm not convinced. I've used various file sharing networks over the years, including Gnutella, ED2K, and BitTorrent. During this period I have had 2 malware infections. You want to know where *both* of them came from? Drive-by browser exploits running in banner ads showing on thepiratebay.org.
It's immaculate, fuck-stick.
Nah, he actually meant emasculate, which means, well, lack of fuck-stick.
OK, let's try to fill according to your instructions ...
My wife / husband / significant other is longer than yours.
My d*ck is more expensive than yours.
My javascript is harder than yours.
Hmmm ... somehow doesn't work that well ... :-)
Yeah, but my significant other is more open than yours.
Oh, wait.
>You *could* get the NoScript extension. It lets you disable what sites can/can't use scripting.
And from my original posting:
"(And no, NoScript doesn't cut it- too complicated for most users, not automatic, too easy to break Javascript that is actually needed, etc)."
NoScript doesn't really manage stuff, it is just a series of allow/deny logic. It requires a lot of user interaction, knowledge, and time. Most people have none of the three and would just end up "breaking" most sites. It is not the solution that I had in mind.
I'll admit I understand what it's doing so it's probably a bit easier for me than most users, but I don't see what's so hard about clicking a button and saying "allow scripting" when you need those scripts to work (which is pretty easy to tell, because if you find part of the site not working, it's an obvious guess that it depends on a script...).
I hear this argument a lot, that people have to restart their browsers once a day. Why is that a problem?
Because some of us do actual work with our browsers. At the moment I have about 30 tabs open, many of which are on password protected intranet sites, or are otherwise session-specific, and restarting the browser (even with session management) means I'll have to reopen all of these. That'd take probably 20-30 minutes out of my day, which is time I'd rather not have to spend.
Yes, but to invalidate the claim that this is prior art, you have to be able to sell it back to get *legal* currency, e.g. US dollars. Could you?
My 80GB IDE disk is still chugging along just fine after 8 years.
8 years ago, your 80GB disk was an expensive high-end one. Typical disks of the era would have been around 20GB, and I sincerely doubt many people are still using those.
The point is: you only use your disks for a long period of time if you buy larger than average disks.
(Disks in my network go through a progression: they spend about 3 years as part of the RAID-1 array on the file server, which is then upgraded to a larger set and the disks are distributed to workstations; eventually, once no longer acceptable for that purpose, they may end up in a special-purpose machine, but that's rare, and will probably be even rarer in the future as special purpose machines are now generally VMs running on the file server box.)
64 gb SSD won't even hold my operating system
WTF OS do you have? I have Win7 Ultimate here installed and (reaosnably) happy on a 10GB partition. In retrospect, 20GB would have been more appropriate.
I want to know in the real world how long a SSD sitting on a shelf with data will last in general.
General consensus seems to be about 10 years. This data is out there, so I'm not sure why you're still waiting for it...
NPD is a reputable source, but I'd like to see the actual study myself, rather than hearsay.
Note that it's 20% of the "consumer retail" market share. That is to say, individual people buying boxed computers from a shop. A rather large percentage of computers on the internet are purchased by companies and either (1) installed at their offices and then used by employees for personal purposes during their breaks or (2) loaned to employees to take home. This happens very rarely with Macs; in my 15 years as an IT consultant I've worked with precisely one company that installed Macs. A smaller, but still nontrivial, percentage of the sales of computers is in markets that aren't typically classified as retail: all those people who either buy components and self build, or buy from local "we sell to trade only, honest" shops, or from computer fairs are probably not included in these stats.
Also, market share != installed base. Note that if the average Mac user changes their machine every 3 years, while the average PC user only bothers upgrading every 6, that will double the market share of Macs relative to their installed base.