Hmmmm... I'm not gonna say I agree with everything the US does or even the rationale used in many cases because its such a mixed bag, but it seems to me the radical nut cases in the middle east have been killing in the name of religion and hatred for much longer than the "War on Terrorism" (sic) has been going on.
Radical Wakkos (in this case assumed to be Middle Eastern) are the ones that are keen on wiping out people who disagree with them.
GP and many others are keen on wiping out people that are trying to wipe them out.
Big difference.
What's the real answer? I don't know but blaming people for striking back against the criminal element that are terrorists doesn't help.
Except that the Constitution enumerates the things that the government CAN do. If it ain't in there then we the people have not authorized the government to do it.
It seems that each project is making exclusive agreements with the libraries whose collections they are digitizing. That is "competing" by keeping the competitor out instead of real competition by doing a better job; unhealthy.
Much better and "healthier" would be each project digitizing many libraries including both projects digitizing many of the largest libraries of the world. Definitely duplication of effort but also healthy competition based on the quality of their efforts.
Actually, I think I know what they are trying to say but it did take me a while to parse it...
Originally you could only buy 3rd level names under.pro. Now they allow you to own 2nd level names that match your 3rd level name.
So, if you own JohnDoe.lawyer.pro you can also buy JohnDoe.pro. But you still can't buy lawyer.pro since that is a profession name and is controlled by the registrar.
That would be one interpretation of the GPL but would not be consistent with the FSF's own interpretation. See thier FAQ http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #InternalDistribution
Which says this about it:
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
It is a derivative work. But that is meaningless unless the company distributes the program outside the company.
So long as the company only uses this derivative work inside the company then they do not have to release their source code. As soon as they distribute it outside the company the GPL kicks in... this is only permitted if they release the complete source code under the GPL.
Actually the GPL itself is Open. Anyone can use the GPL any time they want.
But the subject at hand is file formats to which the GPL is not very aplicable. In my opinion IP law is not aplicable to file formats (in which case all file formats are Open) but my opinion doesn't count for much unless a significant majority of us enforce it against those that pervert our IP laws. (I won't hold my breath.)
If you wish to change the subject and talk about Open in the context of software then the generally agreed upon definition is the Open Source one.
It is my position that the "color" of the sheet of paper on my desk is white. I understand that there may be people whose position is that that "color" is black but I don't see any point in agreeing with them.
It was a long time ago so I can't quote it. As I recall, he release form I saw said that they could use the information in any way they deemed apropriate. That they would not disclose information from the test to anyone unless they determined the other party should have the information (basically that they could give the info to anyone they wanted). That they were not laible for any harm to me or my reputation.
It was a page and a half saying they could do anything they wanted and I couldn't hold them liable.
No way I'd sign that.
The emplayer was a retailer you'd find a majority of malls in the US.
To be fair, the man that was there to administer the polygraph was the president of his own company contracted by the retailer. He said the retailer's liability waiver was more extreme than most and showed me the standard one he uses for other clients. It still wasn't something I'd sign given how unreliable and subjective polygraphs are.
He then asked if he could do a security interview. He explained that to be asking all the same questions but without the polygraph machine. I agreed to whichever he wanted to do.:)
You don't need to refuse to take a polygraph test.
Always agree to take it. They will want you to sign a release form (they have no liability, blah, blah). Refuse to sign the release form. They will decide not to administer the polygraph test. Remind them that you are agreeing to take the polygraph test and it is they that are choosing not to administer it.
I did this with an employer many years ago. It was very funny.
Hmmm... I'm wrong. Main article refers to using "your" cd or dvd drive but they burried the "LightScribe enabled" CD or DVD drive reference in the FAQ. I guess I don't want one either.
My understanding from TFA was that you needed CD or DVD disks with a special coating and special software but that it works with any CD-R/W or DVD-+R/W drive.
It was a crappy editorial comment but not for the reasons you say. It was crappy only because it didn't say it well.
To buy something transfers ownership. That does not occur here so nothing was bought.
A software license is nothing more than a rental agreement. You pay the rent they stipulate and agree to their terms and they let you use the software that they still own. Games happen to have an perpetual rental period but most software has a yearly rental period. You break the terms of the rental agreement and they keep your money and you don't get to use their software any longer. It's as simple as that.
As for that silly car and gas thing attempt at an analogy... ugh! You couldn't have gotten it more wrong. Michael rented the car and drove it off-road and is shocked that the rental car company is taking the car back.:)
And my favorite reform is an amendment forbiding corporate involvement in politics in any way. No lobying and no contributions either directly or indirectly.
Hmmm... maybe have to forbid political involvement by any entity that is not an individual citizen.
I've got a Netgear wireless ap and firewall. It won't even remember the new password I set. Change any setting and its back to the default password. It won't even pretend to keep many other setup changes I've made. I did manage to upgrade its firmware to the latest version. It didn't help.
You can't blame the users if the damn device won't even remember the settings the user specifies. I suspect the manufacturer doesn't test anything but the default settings very well.
Any why are so many Windows programs written so poorly in this reguard? Microsoft.
Yes the default security policies of a Microsoft Windows systems allow, even encourage, a regular user to install software. Heck, the default first user for Windows XP is essentially the administrator. If Microsoft changed the default policies of Windows so that no user had administrative rights unless explicitly added and then changed all thier other software packages such as Office to allow them to be installed by the administrator for use by every user or by a user for use only by that user the system would be much more secure. It would take a while for other 3rd party software makers to fall in line though. Microsoft could simply deny them the use of the Microsoft logo unless thier software complies.
A regular user should not have administrative priveledges and should not be able to install, change, add or remove anything that would affect another user of the system.
The current Windows OS design is capable of being pretty secure in theory but until this is addressed by Microsoft it never will be secure in practice.
For most people you would be right. But not everyone sits in front of the machine to use its graphics.
I have several systems that are used to draw displays for simulators. They are set up to autologin to a restricted account and start a program (as session manager) that waits for the simulator software to connect and tell it which display to draw. The video from these systems goes through switches so it can be displayed on different devices (in different cockpits).
Being able to change the resolution without restarting X is fantastic for this situation.
I doubt these voice stress "lie detectors" are any better than the conventional polygraph tests. I participated in a study in college and found the conventional polygraph easy to beat.
Two years later while still in college I was working at a chain store in the local mall. Corporate headquarters "randomly" selected the store for polygraph testing of all employees. You can't refuse without being fired since you almost certainly agreed to polygraph tests as a condition of employment when you were hired.
When my turn came, I went in and sat down. The process was explained and I was handed some forms to sign. They basically said I wouldn't hold them responsible for any harm to me, my reputation, etc. from the test or their use of its results. It also said they could give the info to anyone they felt needed to know. I refused to sign the forms. I then held out my arm and said they have my permission to hook up the machine and proceed with the test.
That confused the hell out of them!
"I can't administer the test until you sign the form", he said. I told them that is not my problem. I aggree to the test. It is your decision to administer it or not.
They decided not to. They gave me a "security interview" instead. All the same questions but no polygraph machine. The man administering the test said that the security interview is actually more acurate because people are more relaxed and reveal more information.
Slashdot Mirror
Any violation of the rules, such as terms of service, is certainly deception. He used a bot to perform the mugging therefor deception was involved.
Hmmmm... I'm not gonna say I agree with everything the US does or even the rationale used in many cases because its such a mixed bag, but it seems to me the radical nut cases in the middle east have been killing in the name of religion and hatred for much longer than the "War on Terrorism" (sic) has been going on.
Radical Wakkos (in this case assumed to be Middle Eastern) are the ones that are keen on wiping out people who disagree with them.
GP and many others are keen on wiping out people that are trying to wipe them out.
Big difference.
What's the real answer? I don't know but blaming people for striking back against the criminal element that are terrorists doesn't help.
Except that the Constitution enumerates the things that the government CAN do. If it ain't in there then we the people have not authorized the government to do it.
"Mom! I need your ID card again to play this movie."
Actually I see it as
unhealthy competition == divisive pride
It seems that each project is making exclusive agreements with the libraries whose collections they are digitizing. That is "competing" by keeping the competitor out instead of real competition by doing a better job; unhealthy.
Much better and "healthier" would be each project digitizing many libraries including both projects digitizing many of the largest libraries of the world. Definitely duplication of effort but also healthy competition based on the quality of their efforts.
Actually, I think I know what they are trying to say but it did take me a while to parse it...
.pro. Now they allow you to own 2nd level names that match your 3rd level name.
Originally you could only buy 3rd level names under
So, if you own JohnDoe.lawyer.pro you can also buy JohnDoe.pro. But you still can't buy lawyer.pro since that is a profession name and is controlled by the registrar.
That would be one interpretation of the GPL but would not be consistent with the FSF's own interpretation. See thier FAQ http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #InternalDistribution
Which says this about it:
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
It is a derivative work. But that is meaningless unless the company distributes the program outside the company.
So long as the company only uses this derivative work inside the company then they do not have to release their source code. As soon as they distribute it outside the company the GPL kicks in... this is only permitted if they release the complete source code under the GPL.
Actually the GPL itself is Open. Anyone can use the GPL any time they want.
But the subject at hand is file formats to which the GPL is not very aplicable. In my opinion IP law is not aplicable to file formats (in which case all file formats are Open) but my opinion doesn't count for much unless a significant majority of us enforce it against those that pervert our IP laws. (I won't hold my breath.)
If you wish to change the subject and talk about Open in the context of software then the generally agreed upon definition is the Open Source one.
I don't see any degrees of Open. If everyone is always free to use it then it's Open. Otherwise it is some degree of closed.
Speaking of degrees of Open pretty much makes the term meaningless.
It is my position that the "color" of the sheet of paper on my desk is white. I understand that there may be people whose position is that that "color" is black but I don't see any point in agreeing with them.
It was a long time ago so I can't quote it. As I recall, he release form I saw said that they could use the information in any way they deemed apropriate. That they would not disclose information from the test to anyone unless they determined the other party should have the information (basically that they could give the info to anyone they wanted). That they were not laible for any harm to me or my reputation.
:)
It was a page and a half saying they could do anything they wanted and I couldn't hold them liable.
No way I'd sign that.
The emplayer was a retailer you'd find a majority of malls in the US.
To be fair, the man that was there to administer the polygraph was the president of his own company contracted by the retailer. He said the retailer's liability waiver was more extreme than most and showed me the standard one he uses for other clients. It still wasn't something I'd sign given how unreliable and subjective polygraphs are.
He then asked if he could do a security interview. He explained that to be asking all the same questions but without the polygraph machine. I agreed to whichever he wanted to do.
You don't need to refuse to take a polygraph test.
Always agree to take it. They will want you to sign a release form (they have no liability, blah, blah). Refuse to sign the release form. They will decide not to administer the polygraph test. Remind them that you are agreeing to take the polygraph test and it is they that are choosing not to administer it.
I did this with an employer many years ago. It was very funny.
Domain Name: GOOGLEZON.NET
Created on: 03-Jun-04
Expires on: 03-Jun-05
Last Updated on: 03-Jun-04
Hmmm... I'm wrong. Main article refers to using "your" cd or dvd drive but they burried the "LightScribe enabled" CD or DVD drive reference in the FAQ. I guess I don't want one either.
My understanding from TFA was that you needed CD or DVD disks with a special coating and special software but that it works with any CD-R/W or DVD-+R/W drive.
It was a crappy editorial comment but not for the reasons you say. It was crappy only because it didn't say it well.
:)
To buy something transfers ownership. That does not occur here so nothing was bought.
A software license is nothing more than a rental agreement. You pay the rent they stipulate and agree to their terms and they let you use the software that they still own. Games happen to have an perpetual rental period but most software has a yearly rental period. You break the terms of the rental agreement and they keep your money and you don't get to use their software any longer. It's as simple as that.
As for that silly car and gas thing attempt at an analogy... ugh! You couldn't have gotten it more wrong. Michael rented the car and drove it off-road and is shocked that the rental car company is taking the car back.
I'd like to try Gmail if you have any invites left.
MirthScout@cox.net
If the hand is feeding you shit, it is OK to bite it and you probably should.
>These guys ought to be tried and convicted for barratry, regardless of whether their legal counsel is this stupid or not.
Actually, if they're stupid enough to actually think that they're right, they wouldn't be guilty of barratry.
If their lawyers are that stupid, wouldn't they be guilty of malpractice?
Exactly!
And my favorite reform is an amendment forbiding corporate involvement in politics in any way. No lobying and no contributions either directly or indirectly.
Hmmm... maybe have to forbid political involvement by any entity that is not an individual citizen.
Maybe not practical but I can dream.
I've got a Netgear wireless ap and firewall.
It won't even remember the new password I set. Change any setting and its back to the default password. It won't even pretend to keep many other setup changes I've made. I did manage to upgrade its firmware to the latest version. It didn't help.
You can't blame the users if the damn device won't even remember the settings the user specifies. I suspect the manufacturer doesn't test anything but the default settings very well.
I guess I'm returning all this netgear equipment.
Yup!
Any why are so many Windows programs written so poorly in this reguard? Microsoft.
Yes the default security policies of a Microsoft Windows systems allow, even encourage, a regular user to install software. Heck, the default first user for Windows XP is essentially the administrator. If Microsoft changed the default policies of Windows so that no user had administrative rights unless explicitly added and then changed all thier other software packages such as Office to allow them to be installed by the administrator for use by every user or by a user for use only by that user the system would be much more secure. It would take a while for other 3rd party software makers to fall in line though. Microsoft could simply deny them the use of the Microsoft logo unless thier software complies.
A regular user should not have administrative priveledges and should not be able to install, change, add or remove anything that would affect another user of the system.
The current Windows OS design is capable of being pretty secure in theory but until this is addressed by Microsoft it never will be secure in practice.
For most people you would be right. But not everyone sits in front of the machine to use its graphics.
I have several systems that are used to draw displays for simulators. They are set up to autologin to a restricted account and start a program (as session manager) that waits for the simulator software to connect and tell it which display to draw. The video from these systems goes through switches so it can be displayed on different devices (in different cockpits).
Being able to change the resolution without restarting X is fantastic for this situation.
I doubt these voice stress "lie detectors" are any better than the conventional polygraph tests. I participated in a study in college and found the conventional polygraph easy to beat.
Two years later while still in college I was working at a chain store in the local mall. Corporate headquarters "randomly" selected the store for polygraph testing of all employees. You can't refuse without being fired since you almost certainly agreed to polygraph tests as a condition of employment when you were hired.
When my turn came, I went in and sat down. The process was explained and I was handed some forms to sign. They basically said I wouldn't hold them responsible for any harm to me, my reputation, etc. from the test or their use of its results. It also said they could give the info to anyone they felt needed to know. I refused to sign the forms. I then held out my arm and said they have my permission to hook up the machine and proceed with the test.
That confused the hell out of them!
"I can't administer the test until you sign the form", he said. I told them that is not my problem. I aggree to the test. It is your decision to administer it or not.
They decided not to. They gave me a "security interview" instead. All the same questions but no polygraph machine. The man administering the test said that the security interview is actually more acurate because people are more relaxed and reveal more information.