Another advantage that Forbes and The Economist have for us is their readership. Go into a CEO's office, or the home of a guy who sits on the board of a number of corporations and so forth, and you'll likely see a Forbes lying around (maybe even being read). They read about how $COMPANY deployed Linux for $TASKS and saved megabucks, and then they call up the CIO and say, "What is this Linux thing I'm reading about? Can it help us save money?"
IT drones read computer magazines and Slashdot. Powerful people read Forbes.
Netscape started the trend of making extensions to HTML which only their browser supported. It was those very extensions that led to 90% marketshare.
Microsoft was, as far as web standards are concerned, the white knight. They were the ones who submitted CSS to the W3C (and had the first semi-working implementations circa IE3). They were the ones who were pushing open web standards.
Only when IE began really eating Netscape's share (which didn't occur until long after IE4 was bundled with Win98, btw) did Netscape realize that adhering to standards was a good thing.
There's nothing stopping you, after having been found liable for failing to install the patch, to sue the company that made the software for putting you into liability's way.
Actually, the way things would likely go (and should, IMHO), is that you would take out an insurance policy which would pay any damages arising from misuse of your computer/network (spam relaying, DoS attacks, worm infections, etc.). You get sued, your insurance company pays out the damages, and you go on with life. The insurance company would run regular tests of your system (using tried and true exploits) to determine what their level of risk exposure is. Running unpatched NT4? Be prepared to pay massive amounts of insurance premiums. Running OpenBSD with bugfixes applied regularly and in the hands of a competent admin? You pay a hell of a lot less.
Insurance companies have the right to pass on liability. In other words, they can (and do, see the suit they just filed against Al Qaeda, various governments, Osama bin Laden, et al for $300 billion) sue to recover the money paid out in a claim. Insurance companies have armies of lawyers at their disposal; they generally tend to win.
I'm not a fan of Land Yachts (which I alluded to in my dismissal of the Crown Vic triplets). Give me the greater interior capacity of a GM full-size model any day.
Nothing's better than a good old full-sized GM vehicle (Ford's and Chrysler's full-size models suck ass, but then again, that could be said about their whole line). Safety (for you and others), economy, performance: it's all there.
Pet Peeve #843289: SUV drivers who whine about rollovers or shitty stopping distances.
As far as I'm concerned, the best vehicle, all things considered, is a good old full-size American sedan (I say American because the Japanese don't really compete in that segment, and the European entries are way overpriced). Examples would include:
Chevy Impala (though on the small side)
Pontiac Bonneville (especially with the supercharger!)
Olds Aurora
Buick LeSabre
Cadillac DeVille (especially the DTS)
Cadillac Seville (especially the STS)
I'd list the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car, but that's an archaic design that really can't even be called a car; as for Chrysler, I don't trust them on anything above the cloud cars (Stratus and Sebring).
There's no special code in the installer. It's exactly the same program on the download and free editions (and on any ad-free versions that might be hacked up).
Basically, DrakX (the MDK installer's X11 (default) version [it seems that text installs will not have ads]), while doing the package installation from CD or the LAN or whatever, displays, above the progress indicator, a sequence of PNGs. In past versions, they have been ads for MandrakeSoft (join the MandrakeClub, MandrakeSoft offers consulting services to businesses looking to deploy Linux, thank you for choosing Mandrake, etc.). The only difference is that some PNGs (with the same name, of course) now hold different data.
As for the screensaver, that will be trivial to disable, as it will be the GDadou screensaver (which has been included with the distribution for several versions) which just cycles through PNG files located in/usr/share/mdk/xscreensaver. Replace or delete those files and the ads change/disappear.
The boxed sets and the download edition are already different, as the boxed sets include non-Free software (Acrobat Reader etc.), while the download edition is 100% Free Software.
As a result, since there's material on the boxed set that is not legally redistributable, you can't simply make an ISO and post it (at least not legally). You could however, create your own CD images that remove all non-Free packages and edit/regenerate the various media description files to reflect this change.
Re:Now I know we love apple and hate the RIAA, but
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
It was dumb management then who didn't see the digital hub thing coming and decided to waive any rights to enter that market under the Apple brand.
Re:How utterly annoying for Apple Computer
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
Depending on what "Groovy" means in the dictionary, "Groovy Music" could be a valid trademark. The standard is whether the words in question accurately describe the product. So if you argue that "Groovy Music" is not really that groovy, you can keep the trademark.
For instance, when you get on the Mass Pike (the main line of the Pike, not the extension into Boston), you get a ticket. You turn in the ticket when you get off, and the toll is computed based on how far you travel (a rough formula is distance in miles times approximately 3.5 cents/mile with a minimum toll of 25 cents).
Barrier toll highways (a la the Garden State) substitute fairly regularly spaced toll booths charging a constant (and higher than the ticket type) rate.
In both cases, it's charging for the amount of road usage.
Proxies won't matter; the RIAA will simply go after the proxy operator. A strong legal argument could be easily made that the operator of the proxy is responsible for all traffic relayed by the proxy.
As to Freenet, that's what the RIAA wants. If they make it so that it takes a day to get a song, the casual users will disappear.
Among other things, bringing the violation of a contract into the court (it is germane to the case as the violation is admitted to as part of the defense) would be used to reflect on the character of the defendant. It would also be used to demonstrate that the defendant can't in good faith use that defense.
I suspect that MIT has a clause in their AUP stating that you're not to let others utilize your machine and that you are responsible for anything that any other person may do with the resources you've been assigned. The RIAA can trot that out and it will probably convince a judge or jury that the someone else was using my account defense is invalid. As I see it, the only real option in this case is to try to show that you were hax0red (in essence that whoever used KaZaa on that system had no permission to use it in any way shape or form).
Slashdot Mirror
Taco posted it, not michael. Slashdot editors are not a borg-like entity.
Let's see...
gamefaq.com leads to a page for gamefaqs.com... no pr0n there.
whitehouse.com is the site for a pr0n magazine which predated the internet. The act wouldn't cover that case.
As for resonatorsoft.com, it's not pr0n either.
So you're 0-3 thus far...
Another fun day for CSCF and OIT...
Another advantage that Forbes and The Economist have for us is their readership. Go into a CEO's office, or the home of a guy who sits on the board of a number of corporations and so forth, and you'll likely see a Forbes lying around (maybe even being read). They read about how $COMPANY deployed Linux for $TASKS and saved megabucks, and then they call up the CIO and say, "What is this Linux thing I'm reading about? Can it help us save money?"
IT drones read computer magazines and Slashdot. Powerful people read Forbes.
Do you remember the late 90's?
Netscape started the trend of making extensions to HTML which only their browser supported. It was those very extensions that led to 90% marketshare.
Microsoft was, as far as web standards are concerned, the white knight. They were the ones who submitted CSS to the W3C (and had the first semi-working implementations circa IE3). They were the ones who were pushing open web standards.
Only when IE began really eating Netscape's share (which didn't occur until long after IE4 was bundled with Win98, btw) did Netscape realize that adhering to standards was a good thing.
My dad's 6'10" and had pretty good luck with a late-80's Oldsmobile Eighty Eight.
Of course, it got stolen, and now he's fitting acceptably well into a late-80's Mazda 323 hatchback...
The ION, apart from being fugly, isn't that bad...
Then again, this General Motors fanboy prefers a Cadillac or a Pontiac...
There's nothing stopping you, after having been found liable for failing to install the patch, to sue the company that made the software for putting you into liability's way.
Actually, the way things would likely go (and should, IMHO), is that you would take out an insurance policy which would pay any damages arising from misuse of your computer/network (spam relaying, DoS attacks, worm infections, etc.). You get sued, your insurance company pays out the damages, and you go on with life. The insurance company would run regular tests of your system (using tried and true exploits) to determine what their level of risk exposure is. Running unpatched NT4? Be prepared to pay massive amounts of insurance premiums. Running OpenBSD with bugfixes applied regularly and in the hands of a competent admin? You pay a hell of a lot less.
Insurance companies have the right to pass on liability. In other words, they can (and do, see the suit they just filed against Al Qaeda, various governments, Osama bin Laden, et al for $300 billion) sue to recover the money paid out in a claim. Insurance companies have armies of lawyers at their disposal; they generally tend to win.
You choose to use the software. If you can't judge the risks and take adequate precautions, it's your fault.
If a trojan installs a spam spewer on your system: it's your fault.
The software on your system is an extension of you; it is acting as your agent. It's infractions are your infractions. Period.
I'm not a fan of Land Yachts (which I alluded to in my dismissal of the Crown Vic triplets). Give me the greater interior capacity of a GM full-size model any day.
Nothing's better than a good old full-sized GM vehicle (Ford's and Chrysler's full-size models suck ass, but then again, that could be said about their whole line). Safety (for you and others), economy, performance: it's all there.
Pet Peeve #843289: SUV drivers who whine about rollovers or shitty stopping distances.
As far as I'm concerned, the best vehicle, all things considered, is a good old full-size American sedan (I say American because the Japanese don't really compete in that segment, and the European entries are way overpriced). Examples would include:
I'd list the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car, but that's an archaic design that really can't even be called a car; as for Chrysler, I don't trust them on anything above the cloud cars (Stratus and Sebring).
There's no special code in the installer. It's exactly the same program on the download and free editions (and on any ad-free versions that might be hacked up).
Basically, DrakX (the MDK installer's X11 (default) version [it seems that text installs will not have ads]), while doing the package installation from CD or the LAN or whatever, displays, above the progress indicator, a sequence of PNGs. In past versions, they have been ads for MandrakeSoft (join the MandrakeClub, MandrakeSoft offers consulting services to businesses looking to deploy Linux, thank you for choosing Mandrake, etc.). The only difference is that some PNGs (with the same name, of course) now hold different data.
As for the screensaver, that will be trivial to disable, as it will be the GDadou screensaver (which has been included with the distribution for several versions) which just cycles through PNG files located in /usr/share/mdk/xscreensaver. Replace or delete those files and the ads change/disappear.
Licenses.
The boxed sets and the download edition are already different, as the boxed sets include non-Free software (Acrobat Reader etc.), while the download edition is 100% Free Software.
As a result, since there's material on the boxed set that is not legally redistributable, you can't simply make an ISO and post it (at least not legally). You could however, create your own CD images that remove all non-Free packages and edit/regenerate the various media description files to reflect this change.
It was dumb management then who didn't see the digital hub thing coming and decided to waive any rights to enter that market under the Apple brand.
Depending on what "Groovy" means in the dictionary, "Groovy Music" could be a valid trademark. The standard is whether the words in question accurately describe the product. So if you argue that "Groovy Music" is not really that groovy, you can keep the trademark.
Paul will have to settle for buying a cheaper fake leg for his wife...
I'd think the trunk of a Lincoln Town Car would be more fitting...
..from current toll-road models?
For instance, when you get on the Mass Pike (the main line of the Pike, not the extension into Boston), you get a ticket. You turn in the ticket when you get off, and the toll is computed based on how far you travel (a rough formula is distance in miles times approximately 3.5 cents/mile with a minimum toll of 25 cents).
Barrier toll highways (a la the Garden State) substitute fairly regularly spaced toll booths charging a constant (and higher than the ticket type) rate.
In both cases, it's charging for the amount of road usage.
That still doesn't change the fact that he violated the AUP by allowing someone else to use resources owned by or registered to) him.
Proxies won't matter; the RIAA will simply go after the proxy operator. A strong legal argument could be easily made that the operator of the proxy is responsible for all traffic relayed by the proxy.
As to Freenet, that's what the RIAA wants. If they make it so that it takes a day to get a song, the casual users will disappear.
Among other things, bringing the violation of a contract into the court (it is germane to the case as the violation is admitted to as part of the defense) would be used to reflect on the character of the defendant. It would also be used to demonstrate that the defendant can't in good faith use that defense.
I suspect that MIT has a clause in their AUP stating that you're not to let others utilize your machine and that you are responsible for anything that any other person may do with the resources you've been assigned. The RIAA can trot that out and it will probably convince a judge or jury that the someone else was using my account defense is invalid. As I see it, the only real option in this case is to try to show that you were hax0red (in essence that whoever used KaZaa on that system had no permission to use it in any way shape or form).
I highly agree Mr. Egg Troll. May I subscribe to your newsletter?
Because there's still more money in newspapers, and if you're the one who's responsible for selling newspapers, you've got them bent over, perhaps?