A good post, and all too accurate sadly. The post about DSL/Cable hogging is quite relevant too I thought (it certainly annoys me for many of the same reasons).
It seems it's always okay to use as much bandwidth as you possibly can or to copy media as you like, but it's not okay when it's your bandwidth or your software that's being abused.
I find it interesting that you take so hostile a tone against the plaintiff, and that you attempt to portray irrelevant details as him hiding information or attempting to be deceitful. It appeared like neither to me as I assumed them (perhaps I don't need things to be spelt out as clearly for me though and I'm just able to read between the lines).
I'm fully willing to accept there are two sides to the story and take both sides with a pinch of salt.
That said, it's incredible to suggest that there is "simply not a chance" that the legal firm decided to take on a high profile case guaranteed to generate an enormous amount of free publicity and do try and do it off the back of "some guy they found on the internet" (who they can later try arm twist into staying on board by trying to make him feel like he's "locked in" and has agreed to it all).
There is every chance the legal firm did not behave appropriately, realised they made a mistake when they couldn't arm twist the "plaintiff" into going along for the ride and are now engaged in damage limitation.
I think you'll find there are plenty of highly unscrupulous law firms who take on cases of dubious merit and cajole people into taking up legal action in order to drum up business for the legal firm (even when the plaintiff's are unsure of the merits of the case and are liable to regret it later - it's not like these guys are family solicitors and can be counted on to look after your best interests). If your in any doubt of their prevalence, sitting down in front of the TV and watching the adverts should resolve it.
To be even more explicit, the plaintiff is asserting the legal firm called him after finding his details on the internet. That ought to raise all sort of warning flags and brings the legal firms credibility in to further disrepute (it is possible that's a lie, but it would be a ridiculous thing to lie about as it's going to be reasonably easy to prove or disprove either way from call logs from the operator).
Not getting a written agreement from him was a big gaffe, but don't think for a second that that means he didn't agree to do this. Without question, he did.
No, that's exactly the question, that's what is being disputed.
In a case like this, the failure to get written agreement is in itself highly suspicious. It's not as if they are an amateur legal firm. Given the case, I can't imagine this being an 'oversight' by any credible professional organisation.
I can't even signup for a library card without signing for it, let alone take out a high profile legal case against a large corporation. You don't start issuing press statements that your taking on Apple Computer over a case involving iPod's after looking up the details of some guy on the internet and getting his verbal agreement over the phone.
I think it's far more likely the legal firm knew exactly what they were doing and were counting on the pliability of the plaintiff, and that the approach appears to have backfired (free publicity notwithstanding).
Or was ed created in an explosion of bytes at the dawn of time?
I believe it to be constructed from all the leftover bytes AT&T employees found themselves with once they were done writing Unix (hence the rather terse "interface").
Beats the alternative, which is untested software
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
The only real alternative is to provide untested software (such as an automated build - and that's assuming the automated nightly build actually succeeds in building).
Manual testing is required for releases because fully automated testing, including things like unit tests, are only useful to a limited extent.
Users are a lot more annoyed by untested software that is liable to crash, exhibit unexpected buggy behavior or trash their data, so it's a case of like it or lump it.
I suspect the root of the problem is that it's 'too hard' to track bugs that have been fixed or features which will be rolled out in the next release - most project's web sites fail to make that sort of information readily avalible in an easy to digest format.
Of course, at the end of the day if your not paying the piper, your don't get to call the tune.
I tend to have balanced views on most things, and this is no exception.
Being 'balanced' in saying something banal like "both sides were at fault" doesn't make your assertion correct.
If I create a virtual world and I give you permission use it, and - if you want to - to resell items created in it for real money and make it clear I can take it all away if I feel like it at any time, that's my right and I've done nothing wrong. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere and should not use the software. That is the stance LL take and it's made very clear.
How US law might view this is completely irrelevant to whether it was actually right or wrong, because ethically it was 100% wrong.
No it's not, LL can do this at any time they feel like it and customers are informed before they signup, in fact they are required to indicate they have specifically read and accepted the terms of service before they use the software. You did read Section 2.6 didn't you?
"However, parts of it are not derivative of the kernel -- these are the parts that were designed entirely independently from the kernel"
You replied:
If its entirely independent then it wouldnt need the kernel at all.
That's the point, it is entirely independent (it's the same binary driver as supplied for Windows users, as previously stated).
You still need a method for it to interface with the kernel if want to use it with Linux, and that's what the module is for (and it's the module that is a derivative work from GLP'd software - not the binary, which is a useable driver in it's own right, demonstrably independent of the OS).
If the "experiment" is not universally opposed, the government will find a way to take it nationwide. The more affluent areas of every city will be filled with cameras that anyone can monitor. Crime will simply be displaced to the non-CCTV areas
I have yet to be convinced this is entirely a Bad Thing(TM), pragmatically. While I'd love to live in a utopia, as the population in one of the burgeoning 'mega cities' like London grows, the number of hoodlums grows with it and it becomes something that requires greater attention (particularly in very densely populated areas).
I've read several books that describe a near-future where there are "security zones" with different crime ratings assigned to them, and different levels of corresponding insurance cover. For example, your personal property or car might only have a policy that covers theft in a level 1-3 area (areas which are relatively "low risk", as identified by crime figures and insurance companies), and if you get mugged/have your car stolen in a more violent level 4 area than your not covered if your policy doesn't include that zone. At least you'd know where you stand.
Frankly, I'd prefer to live in a gated community and can definitely see it becoming more common in the UK (as an import from the US). Those not living in somewhere like London may find the idea unappealing, but for someone who lives in the heart of a crowded city, full of crime and anti social behaviour, I'd welcome it. If I was given the option, I'd rather pay extra council tax to have a local policeman or two (or even, private security guards - as is common in the states) on the beat day in day out and dealing with bozo's causing a disturbance or public nuisance. As depressing a state of affairs as it is, it seems the only practical option if I want to be able to live in a nice area entirely free of riff-raff (morons shouting at each other in the street and fighting, loud car stereo's blasting out late at night with quite insane building shaking amounts of bass, etc.)
If areas of any town were evaluated in that manner, independently in a highly visible, well sign posted fashion, you can bet your local police department would do more to try and keep up the security rating (and actually keep crime down). People fed up with crime levels in one area could band together and improve the quality of there area (and would have some strong financial motivation to do - sadly the only common motivator that many people respond to).
I really think that the assertion that it's going to lead to "camera's in people's homes" is ludicrous. With greater advances in technology, coverage in public areas is absolutely inevitable (if the state doesn't do it, industry would sooner or later, and you can't reasonably outlaw it without trampling all over civil rights in an unmanageable way). With that in mind, having openly available "CCTV" footage is a lesser evil than none at all, or only the state having access to it IMO.
So if you saw a bunch of 18 year old stoned and scruffy white kids tooling around a poor area of London in a top end BMW you wouldn't bat an eyelid? Interesting.
The parent didn't suggest that at all. What a bizarre suggestion, you apparently didn't like the message so have tried to portray the parent as racist.
I would agree with the parent poster (or at least, assume the car was purchased with money that was the proceed's of dubious dealing). If you find this reasoning suspect, I suggest you should get on the Victoria Line and get off at Brixton sometime (a poor, and predominantly black area with through-the-roof crime rates), and do some on the ground research of your own to determine if the assertion is likely to be justified or not.
I would advise though, don't go after dark, and don't use your mobile in public though, unless your keen on getting mugged. On the plus side, if the local thugs do assault you, at least it will (probably) be to actually steal something off you (and so they will probably stop at punching you in the face), and not just because they want to put you in hospital for their own amusement (unlike teenagers in the asian communities in east London for example, or indeed any council estate kids of any origin, anywhere).
FWIW, I would also assume the 18 year old chav's (of any ethnic background) with the beemer were in possession of a stolen vehicle, given there age I would assume it's even more likely to be stolen (I doubt they are bright enough to have made enough money via serious crime to actually buy even a second hand one).
The question is, why is it that all the poor areas are filled with blacks?
Primarily because they are immigrants from poorer countries (or there parents/grandparents were), and they had no money when they came over. Despite what is perceived as high inheritance tax, most people who are moderately wealthy in the UK are so because they have inherited money from there parents/grandparents or because they have assisted financially by them (parents contributing 30,000 UKP so there kids can buy there first house, etc.). There is also the aspirational aspect - if someone's parents were relatively poor, that person is likely to settle for a lower standard of living than someone who's parents were quite wealthy.
As a result of all that, it takes a certain amount of time for members of a poorer immigrant community to get established anywhere (usually several generations).
While economic background is the primary cause, contributory factors are social (the higher instances of single parent families, for example, or the attitude towards education - particularly a failure to educate boys to a high standard, more so than girls) and, of course, out and out unfair discrimination at work (though I think this is no longer a primary barrier in the UK in the vast majority of cases, not least thanks to strong legislation outlawing all sorts of discrimination).
The solution to crime (in so far as there is one) is of course a greater level of financial equality for all, which is required to form an egalitarian society. However, we (the UK) can't, unilaterally, fix the fact that they come from poor, badly governed countries (that were even poorer before they met us) and it's unreasonable to suggest we ought to hand out the 250,000 UKP it costs for a new house in London (average house price) to everyone that comes to live here. And so, we are stuck with the status quo (and leaving it to people to haul themselves out of poverty, with a little help from the state here and there).
Refusing to discuss the topic reasonably and openly (though vague assertions of racial discrimination, rather than through rational discourse) in some silly attempt at being 'politically correct' does no one any favours - rather than resulting in language which is virtuously sympathetic the minority, it ends being far more divisive and harbouring unexpressed dissent, by discouraging people from talking openly and resolving any differences and misconceptions they may have.
If the kernel can load the module, it's because the kernels' source code, and the GNU toolchain were available to build it.
The kernel is just a shim which loads the driver, and the source is provided (which is the whole point of the approach). That means GPL compliance, cased closed.
(I should also point out don't need a specific tool chain or kernel source to write a module for a kernel, let alone a graphics driver.)
Hence the reason NVidia and ATI don't distribute kernel modules, but instead a build-system that may-or-may-not be legal
Incorrect. It's clearly legal. Suggesting that by creating a (open) shim which is able to load a binary driver (the same binary distributed for Microsoft Windows) Nvidia are suddenly "breaching the GPL" or in any way doing something illegal is nonsensical.
I would note the same basic mechanism is used by Debian, Unbuntu, Suse Red Hat and FreeBSD (ports) to handle the install of closed binaries, which are integrated at run time with GPL'd software (Debian is the only distribution of those mentioned that has gone some way to be more obtuse about the process, IIRC - and without any solid logical justification IMO).
Having a GPL'd product that interoperates with a closed source product at run time is just fine from a legal point of view, and the assertion that Kororaa are breaching the GPL in doing so is FUD and/or partisan propaganda.
To be breeching the GPL in this instance Kororaa, they'd have to be actively withholding the source for the shim (which is available elsewhere anyway, it's not as if they are going to have modified it).
Interoperating with a closed source product is no more a breech of the GLP that it would be for GLP'd software to talk to closed sourced firmware on a device, they are both linking at run time in an indistinguishable way. After all, the 'meat' of the drivers could theoretically very well be in flashable firmware on the card itself (it's just that for practical purposes, they happen not to be in this instance).
If you are going to set run time interoperability as a barrier, how on earth are you going to define that? Calls to any API that relies on or is similarly linked to closed source software (including software in the form of upgradable firmware on a device), perhaps any form of IPC call whatsoever, including any calls made via RPC interfaces or calls made using the likes of SOAP/HTTP/XML?
RMS may argue that it's a breach of the spirit of the GPL for non-GPL'd software to dynamically link with GPL'd software, which it's quite reasonable to assert, but it's illogical, unworkable and legally unenforceable to "outlaw" dynamic linking of binaries with GPL'd software, or the distribution of GPL'd software which may or may not link with other (potentially non GPL'd) binaries at run time.
People play games primarily for fun rather than for strict realism - particularly when it comes to maiming and killing other human characters - as in Hollywood movies, people tend to prefer some things to be represented in a more abstract fashion.
For the vast majority of people, things like tactics, team play, 'fun physics' and humour are more important in games than realistic deceptions of human suffering.
I find the notion that some people would like to play an accurate murder simulator (with detailed and realistic depiction's of maiming and personal injury) disturbing.
Personally, I found the gameplay in Kingpin a little disturbing (and ended up not playing it because of that) - I mean who though you might want the ability to walk up to a woman minding her own business and smack her in the face, giving her a very painful looking black eye (but without knocking her out or killing her). I wasn't expecting that and found it very creepy.
In games like GTA you can beat up people with hammers, attack prostitutes and steal there money (and then kick them repeatedly as they lie on the ground, watching the blood spurt out). It's a little sick, but the relatively poor quality of the graphics and the abstract way it's handled prevent it from being disturbing and allow it to remain over the top and appear humorous, rather than just twisted.
Courier makes for a good IMAP4rev1 standards compliant and Maildir++ supporting - if not terribly good performing - IMAP server (though I would lean towards using Dovecot in a non-production environment - YMMV), but it's really crappy MTA. Exim for one is a far the better option.
Not using something like Perl for the reporting would be as bad an idea as using courier as a full MTA - of course there are graphical reporting tools (as well as other ways of easily reporting queue usage via the CLI).
What is the reason for this? Why would you spend $1000 for high framerate?
Playable framerates (e.g. >30, more like ~60) when playing modern games with very high quality detail (which makes the experience more immersive).
Playing top dollar for a new title then playing it at 15 FPS is something that would be pretty stupid (I can't see how that would be 'fun' no matter how 'casual' a gamer you are - and if you are happy turning down the the graphics details to low end then you might as well settle for an a cheaper, older title).
People easily spend far more than that on their TV's (high end HD TV's cost 2-3+ as much as as a high end gaming system), presumably you think that's stupid too.
Do you honestly think there is no point in improving graphics beyond Quake ("Oh that's true 3D, we can stop improving now, there is no point in making the environment any more immersive)?
Could you please explain how exactly software could possibly detect Spyware without some kind of list of bad hosts / program signatures? On second thoughts, if you genuinely know how to write such software, perhaps you should keep it to yourself, you could make a lot of money.
There is no good reason to have added 'program signatures' to that, I didn't say any against them (obviously, they are eminently sensible and ought to be more widely used IMO).
I am not sure how you imagine it's possible to identify Spyware with 'a list of bad hosts' stored locally on your system. That seems a really bizarre notion to me. But then, installing Windows screen savers from dubious sources, dodgy P2P software and 'smily face' libraries is not something I'd ever do.
There are several tools and methods to do this already (aside from simply not being foolish and not downloading clearly dodgy "free" software for Windows). Lavasoft, Microsoft, Symantec and Mcafee all provide software for Windows which actively prevents Spyware from being installed, IIRC (to varying extents).
And that's without even getting started on what you can do on other operating systems!
No, that's the wrong approach entirely (a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing indeed), you can't possibly hope to keep track of all the hosts required, it's a losing battle.
The correct approach is to use better software, that blocks Spyware by design.
I also experience dubious performance with it, not to the extent it's unplayable but enough to be distracting and spoil the game, with an AMD68 FX, 2 GB DDR, 2 x 7800 GTX 256 MB and I don't run anything else in the systray (I only use Windows for games, as it's not suitable for Real Work) and yes it still has performance problems due to an inadequate engine, just like it's pre-decesor Morrowind did.
This is not due to overly aggressive FSAA, Ansiotropic filtering, multisampling or supersampling or something else that I've done to it - purely down to the implementation - in particular of the low quality 'long distance' LOD (which seems to have been 'tacked on' to makeup for the short draw distance that Morrowind suffered from). The foliage is not implemented in the most efficient way either, but I find this forgivable (as it's not a distraction to disable it and I don't find it impairs the experience much - YMMV).
It's definitely a step up, but (artwork, models and gameplay aside) the engine isn't able to provide as immersive an experience as other engines that handle large outdoor environments.
Indeed, same here - curiously I've found turning off the (very poor quality) "long distance" scenery completely resolves this - which is boggling, as it's such starkly low quality in the first place. The foliage is also something of an issue (even with 2 x 7800's and an AMD FX), but I don't mind playing with that turned off (it is quite overbearing). The downside of turning off distance draw is of course it stops drawing things at highly unrealistically short distance, which is about as equally distracting.
Decent engine performance makes all the difference to how immersive the experience is for me, it's a shame they didn't manage to get the engine right with Morrowind or Oblivion, which are otherwise the most immersive games I've ever played. On the plus side, great 3D model quality and very impressive indoor environments (and short to middle distance). drawing Just a shame about the poor quality / poor performance of the long-distance scenery. Still, having not even had the option in Morrowind, I suppose having the option is an improvement!
I think I preferred Morrowind though, the world seemed a lot more varied and the quests far more epic and I liked not having the main quest hand holding (though equally I realise a lot of people didn't like that about it). I'd buy it again if they released it with a better engine - not even having an option to set the draw distance at whatever you like (rather than some imposed overly short distance) is something I find very bemusing and frustrating.
While 20,000 USD may well be the average in your area, the average salary for the whole of the US is more like 35,000-40,000 USD. One thing Americans who haven't been abroad may not realise is just how much spending power they have, which is one of the strengths of their economy, helped by factors like economy-of-scale.
The Economist's Big Mac Index provides and interesting view of this, though I'm tempted to think it's inaccurate (not least because it costs more like 4.19 UKP rather than 3.32 UKP in many high street MD's, because they have taken to charging more than out of town stores IIRC - but also because of how much cheaper electronic goods can be and how inexpensive housing is in the US compared to the UK).
As an example (which will be a familiar story to many of us in the UK):
I purchased a HTDV recently, a Pioneer PDP-506XE. The cheapest price for this on Froogle UK is 3,100 UKP or 5,500 USD (though this is about 1,000 USD less than I paid for mine as it doesn't include stand and speakers) . This model number is not used in the US, the exact equivalent model is the "PDP-5060HD". Froogle (US) shows dealers selling it for as low as 3,500 USD.
To bring it back to the to the topic a little, one of the reasons this is possible (not the only one, but one of) is that there is a larger 'underclass' in the US in the form of very cheap migrant labour (and because there isn't a higher minimum wage or a very large and expensive to maintain welfare system to support those who haven't provided for themselves). In short the system works because it exploits some to give benefit to others.
Making the system more equitable, for example by introducing a meaningful minimum wage, would have inevitable down side of increasing the cost of goods at retail. This just doesn't seem to a choice something most Americans are willing to face - they moan about migrant workers at the same time as not really realising how great their own quality of life is, but don't seem able to acknowledge that if they shut the door to cheap labour, there will be financial consequences that might negatively impact them.
To provide a comparison, in the UK there are certainly those who moan about the influx of immigrants (some of whom critics would argue don't work - with reference to the 30% unemployment figure for men in the Muslim communities here), but most of us appreciate how much good those that come here to work do for the country by providing much needed services and absolutely welcome them.
Slashdot Mirror
A good post, and all too accurate sadly. The post about DSL/Cable hogging is quite relevant too I thought (it certainly annoys me for many of the same reasons).
It seems it's always okay to use as much bandwidth as you possibly can or to copy media as you like, but it's not okay when it's your bandwidth or your software that's being abused.
I find it interesting that you take so hostile a tone against the plaintiff, and that you attempt to portray irrelevant details as him hiding information or attempting to be deceitful. It appeared like neither to me as I assumed them (perhaps I don't need things to be spelt out as clearly for me though and I'm just able to read between the lines).
I'm fully willing to accept there are two sides to the story and take both sides with a pinch of salt.
That said, it's incredible to suggest that there is "simply not a chance" that the legal firm decided to take on a high profile case guaranteed to generate an enormous amount of free publicity and do try and do it off the back of "some guy they found on the internet" (who they can later try arm twist into staying on board by trying to make him feel like he's "locked in" and has agreed to it all).
There is every chance the legal firm did not behave appropriately, realised they made a mistake when they couldn't arm twist the "plaintiff" into going along for the ride and are now engaged in damage limitation.
I think you'll find there are plenty of highly unscrupulous law firms who take on cases of dubious merit and cajole people into taking up legal action in order to drum up business for the legal firm (even when the plaintiff's are unsure of the merits of the case and are liable to regret it later - it's not like these guys are family solicitors and can be counted on to look after your best interests). If your in any doubt of their prevalence, sitting down in front of the TV and watching the adverts should resolve it.
To be even more explicit, the plaintiff is asserting the legal firm called him after finding his details on the internet. That ought to raise all sort of warning flags and brings the legal firms credibility in to further disrepute (it is possible that's a lie, but it would be a ridiculous thing to lie about as it's going to be reasonably easy to prove or disprove either way from call logs from the operator).
Not getting a written agreement from him was a big gaffe, but don't think for a second that that means he didn't agree to do this. Without question, he did.
No, that's exactly the question, that's what is being disputed.
In a case like this, the failure to get written agreement is in itself highly suspicious. It's not as if they are an amateur legal firm. Given the case, I can't imagine this being an 'oversight' by any credible professional organisation.
I can't even signup for a library card without signing for it, let alone take out a high profile legal case against a large corporation. You don't start issuing press statements that your taking on Apple Computer over a case involving iPod's after looking up the details of some guy on the internet and getting his verbal agreement over the phone.
I think it's far more likely the legal firm knew exactly what they were doing and were counting on the pliability of the plaintiff, and that the approach appears to have backfired (free publicity notwithstanding).
Or was ed created in an explosion of bytes at the dawn of time?
I believe it to be constructed from all the leftover bytes AT&T employees found themselves with once they were done writing Unix (hence the rather terse "interface").
The only real alternative is to provide untested software (such as an automated build - and that's assuming the automated nightly build actually succeeds in building).
Manual testing is required for releases because fully automated testing, including things like unit tests, are only useful to a limited extent.
Users are a lot more annoyed by untested software that is liable to crash, exhibit unexpected buggy behavior or trash their data, so it's a case of like it or lump it.
I suspect the root of the problem is that it's 'too hard' to track bugs that have been fixed or features which will be rolled out in the next release - most project's web sites fail to make that sort of information readily avalible in an easy to digest format.
Of course, at the end of the day if your not paying the piper, your don't get to call the tune.
I tend to have balanced views on most things, and this is no exception.
Being 'balanced' in saying something banal like "both sides were at fault" doesn't make your assertion correct.
If I create a virtual world and I give you permission use it, and - if you want to - to resell items created in it for real money and make it clear I can take it all away if I feel like it at any time, that's my right and I've done nothing wrong. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere and should not use the software. That is the stance LL take and it's made very clear.
How US law might view this is completely irrelevant to whether it was actually right or wrong, because ethically it was 100% wrong.
No it's not, LL can do this at any time they feel like it and customers are informed before they signup, in fact they are required to indicate they have specifically read and accepted the terms of service before they use the software. You did read Section 2.6 didn't you?
Female /.'er? Umm...marry me?
I'm sure she's a very nice person and all... but seriously man - you'd actually date someone with six figure user ID?
You know, she's probably a Mac user who's just here for apple.slashdot.org stories.
Bloody Mac users.
--
slashdot_24818@mac.com
So this magical "shim" you talk about, can i apply the same concept to books ?
In what way is it magical, and what GPL'd books have you been reading?
?If stuck some eatra bits before and after the my Barry Manilow mp3's could i distribute the result under my own terms ?
No, because it's not software and it's not distributed under the GLP.
Back under your bridge...
And you sound thoroughly clueless, but I think that's now well established.
The parent poster is correct when he said:
"However, parts of it are not derivative of the kernel -- these are the parts that were designed entirely independently from the kernel"
You replied:
If its entirely independent then it wouldnt need the kernel at all.
That's the point, it is entirely independent (it's the same binary driver as supplied for Windows users, as previously stated).
You still need a method for it to interface with the kernel if want to use it with Linux, and that's what the module is for (and it's the module that is a derivative work from GLP'd software - not the binary, which is a useable driver in it's own right, demonstrably independent of the OS).
It's a typo (in a long post, where quite a bit was moved around to improve overall readability before posting).
It was supposed to read "the kernel module is just a shim". Other people seem to have understood that from the context though.
If the "experiment" is not universally opposed, the government will find a way to take it nationwide. The more affluent areas of every city will be filled with cameras that anyone can monitor. Crime will simply be displaced to the non-CCTV areas
I have yet to be convinced this is entirely a Bad Thing(TM), pragmatically. While I'd love to live in a utopia, as the population in one of the burgeoning 'mega cities' like London grows, the number of hoodlums grows with it and it becomes something that requires greater attention (particularly in very densely populated areas).
I've read several books that describe a near-future where there are "security zones" with different crime ratings assigned to them, and different levels of corresponding insurance cover. For example, your personal property or car might only have a policy that covers theft in a level 1-3 area (areas which are relatively "low risk", as identified by crime figures and insurance companies), and if you get mugged/have your car stolen in a more violent level 4 area than your not covered if your policy doesn't include that zone. At least you'd know where you stand.
Frankly, I'd prefer to live in a gated community and can definitely see it becoming more common in the UK (as an import from the US). Those not living in somewhere like London may find the idea unappealing, but for someone who lives in the heart of a crowded city, full of crime and anti social behaviour, I'd welcome it. If I was given the option, I'd rather pay extra council tax to have a local policeman or two (or even, private security guards - as is common in the states) on the beat day in day out and dealing with bozo's causing a disturbance or public nuisance. As depressing a state of affairs as it is, it seems the only practical option if I want to be able to live in a nice area entirely free of riff-raff (morons shouting at each other in the street and fighting, loud car stereo's blasting out late at night with quite insane building shaking amounts of bass, etc.)
If areas of any town were evaluated in that manner, independently in a highly visible, well sign posted fashion, you can bet your local police department would do more to try and keep up the security rating (and actually keep crime down). People fed up with crime levels in one area could band together and improve the quality of there area (and would have some strong financial motivation to do - sadly the only common motivator that many people respond to).
I really think that the assertion that it's going to lead to "camera's in people's homes" is ludicrous. With greater advances in technology, coverage in public areas is absolutely inevitable (if the state doesn't do it, industry would sooner or later, and you can't reasonably outlaw it without trampling all over civil rights in an unmanageable way). With that in mind, having openly available "CCTV" footage is a lesser evil than none at all, or only the state having access to it IMO.
So if you saw a bunch of 18 year old stoned and scruffy white kids tooling around a poor area of London in a top end BMW you wouldn't bat an eyelid? Interesting.
The parent didn't suggest that at all. What a bizarre suggestion, you apparently didn't like the message so have tried to portray the parent as racist.
I would agree with the parent poster (or at least, assume the car was purchased with money that was the proceed's of dubious dealing). If you find this reasoning suspect, I suggest you should get on the Victoria Line and get off at Brixton sometime (a poor, and predominantly black area with through-the-roof crime rates), and do some on the ground research of your own to determine if the assertion is likely to be justified or not.
I would advise though, don't go after dark, and don't use your mobile in public though, unless your keen on getting mugged. On the plus side, if the local thugs do assault you, at least it will (probably) be to actually steal something off you (and so they will probably stop at punching you in the face), and not just because they want to put you in hospital for their own amusement (unlike teenagers in the asian communities in east London for example, or indeed any council estate kids of any origin, anywhere).
FWIW, I would also assume the 18 year old chav's (of any ethnic background) with the beemer were in possession of a stolen vehicle, given there age I would assume it's even more likely to be stolen (I doubt they are bright enough to have made enough money via serious crime to actually buy even a second hand one).
The question is, why is it that all the poor areas are filled with blacks?
Primarily because they are immigrants from poorer countries (or there parents/grandparents were), and they had no money when they came over. Despite what is perceived as high inheritance tax, most people who are moderately wealthy in the UK are so because they have inherited money from there parents/grandparents or because they have assisted financially by them (parents contributing 30,000 UKP so there kids can buy there first house, etc.). There is also the aspirational aspect - if someone's parents were relatively poor, that person is likely to settle for a lower standard of living than someone who's parents were quite wealthy.
As a result of all that, it takes a certain amount of time for members of a poorer immigrant community to get established anywhere (usually several generations).
While economic background is the primary cause, contributory factors are social (the higher instances of single parent families, for example, or the attitude towards education - particularly a failure to educate boys to a high standard, more so than girls) and, of course, out and out unfair discrimination at work (though I think this is no longer a primary barrier in the UK in the vast majority of cases, not least thanks to strong legislation outlawing all sorts of discrimination).
The solution to crime (in so far as there is one) is of course a greater level of financial equality for all, which is required to form an egalitarian society. However, we (the UK) can't, unilaterally, fix the fact that they come from poor, badly governed countries (that were even poorer before they met us) and it's unreasonable to suggest we ought to hand out the 250,000 UKP it costs for a new house in London (average house price) to everyone that comes to live here. And so, we are stuck with the status quo (and leaving it to people to haul themselves out of poverty, with a little help from the state here and there).
Refusing to discuss the topic reasonably and openly (though vague assertions of racial discrimination, rather than through rational discourse) in some silly attempt at being 'politically correct' does no one any favours - rather than resulting in language which is virtuously sympathetic the minority, it ends being far more divisive and harbouring unexpressed dissent, by discouraging people from talking openly and resolving any differences and misconceptions they may have.
If the kernel can load the module, it's because the kernels' source code, and the GNU toolchain were available to build it.
The kernel is just a shim which loads the driver, and the source is provided (which is the whole point of the approach). That means GPL compliance, cased closed.
(I should also point out don't need a specific tool chain or kernel source to write a module for a kernel, let alone a graphics driver.)
Hence the reason NVidia and ATI don't distribute kernel modules, but instead a build-system that may-or-may-not be legal
Incorrect. It's clearly legal. Suggesting that by creating a (open) shim which is able to load a binary driver (the same binary distributed for Microsoft Windows) Nvidia are suddenly "breaching the GPL" or in any way doing something illegal is nonsensical.
I would note the same basic mechanism is used by Debian, Unbuntu, Suse Red Hat and FreeBSD (ports) to handle the install of closed binaries, which are integrated at run time with GPL'd software (Debian is the only distribution of those mentioned that has gone some way to be more obtuse about the process, IIRC - and without any solid logical justification IMO).
Having a GPL'd product that interoperates with a closed source product at run time is just fine from a legal point of view, and the assertion that Kororaa are breaching the GPL in doing so is FUD and/or partisan propaganda.
To be breeching the GPL in this instance Kororaa, they'd have to be actively withholding the source for the shim (which is available elsewhere anyway, it's not as if they are going to have modified it).
Interoperating with a closed source product is no more a breech of the GLP that it would be for GLP'd software to talk to closed sourced firmware on a device, they are both linking at run time in an indistinguishable way. After all, the 'meat' of the drivers could theoretically very well be in flashable firmware on the card itself (it's just that for practical purposes, they happen not to be in this instance).
If you are going to set run time interoperability as a barrier, how on earth are you going to define that? Calls to any API that relies on or is similarly linked to closed source software (including software in the form of upgradable firmware on a device), perhaps any form of IPC call whatsoever, including any calls made via RPC interfaces or calls made using the likes of SOAP/HTTP/XML?
RMS may argue that it's a breach of the spirit of the GPL for non-GPL'd software to dynamically link with GPL'd software, which it's quite reasonable to assert, but it's illogical, unworkable and legally unenforceable to "outlaw" dynamic linking of binaries with GPL'd software, or the distribution of GPL'd software which may or may not link with other (potentially non GPL'd) binaries at run time.
People play games primarily for fun rather than for strict realism - particularly when it comes to maiming and killing other human characters - as in Hollywood movies, people tend to prefer some things to be represented in a more abstract fashion.
For the vast majority of people, things like tactics, team play, 'fun physics' and humour are more important in games than realistic deceptions of human suffering.
I find the notion that some people would like to play an accurate murder simulator (with detailed and realistic depiction's of maiming and personal injury) disturbing.
Personally, I found the gameplay in Kingpin a little disturbing (and ended up not playing it because of that) - I mean who though you might want the ability to walk up to a woman minding her own business and smack her in the face, giving her a very painful looking black eye (but without knocking her out or killing her). I wasn't expecting that and found it very creepy.
In games like GTA you can beat up people with hammers, attack prostitutes and steal there money (and then kick them repeatedly as they lie on the ground, watching the blood spurt out). It's a little sick, but the relatively poor quality of the graphics and the abstract way it's handled prevent it from being disturbing and allow it to remain over the top and appear humorous, rather than just twisted.
Indeed!
Courier makes for a good IMAP4rev1 standards compliant and Maildir++ supporting - if not terribly good performing - IMAP server (though I would lean towards using Dovecot in a non-production environment - YMMV), but it's really crappy MTA. Exim for one is a far the better option.
Not using something like Perl for the reporting would be as bad an idea as using courier as a full MTA - of course there are graphical reporting tools (as well as other ways of easily reporting queue usage via the CLI).
What is the reason for this? Why would you spend $1000 for high framerate?
Playable framerates (e.g. >30, more like ~60) when playing modern games with very high quality detail (which makes the experience more immersive).
Playing top dollar for a new title then playing it at 15 FPS is something that would be pretty stupid (I can't see how that would be 'fun' no matter how 'casual' a gamer you are - and if you are happy turning down the the graphics details to low end then you might as well settle for an a cheaper, older title).
People easily spend far more than that on their TV's (high end HD TV's cost 2-3+ as much as as a high end gaming system), presumably you think that's stupid too.
Do you honestly think there is no point in improving graphics beyond Quake ("Oh that's true 3D, we can stop improving now, there is no point in making the environment any more immersive)?
ahem, let's try that again....
& resource=wii.jpg
http://friday.iblog.com/index.php?op=ViewResource
For those with a less vivid imagination...
Could you please explain how exactly software could possibly detect Spyware without some kind of list of bad hosts / program signatures? On second thoughts, if you genuinely know how to write such software, perhaps you should keep it to yourself, you could make a lot of money.
There is no good reason to have added 'program signatures' to that, I didn't say any against them (obviously, they are eminently sensible and ought to be more widely used IMO).
I am not sure how you imagine it's possible to identify Spyware with 'a list of bad hosts' stored locally on your system. That seems a really bizarre notion to me. But then, installing Windows screen savers from dubious sources, dodgy P2P software and 'smily face' libraries is not something I'd ever do.
There are several tools and methods to do this already (aside from simply not being foolish and not downloading clearly dodgy "free" software for Windows). Lavasoft, Microsoft, Symantec and Mcafee all provide software for Windows which actively prevents Spyware from being installed, IIRC (to varying extents).
And that's without even getting started on what you can do on other operating systems!
No, that's the wrong approach entirely (a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing indeed), you can't possibly hope to keep track of all the hosts required, it's a losing battle.
The correct approach is to use better software, that blocks Spyware by design.
Oh, awesome - an excellent excuse to dig it out again (been wanting to re-play it for ages). Thanks!
Oooh awesome, thanks for that. It never occurred to me to look for any mods that might do that (especially as it's such a new title).
I also experience dubious performance with it, not to the extent it's unplayable but enough to be distracting and spoil the game, with an AMD68 FX, 2 GB DDR, 2 x 7800 GTX 256 MB and I don't run anything else in the systray (I only use Windows for games, as it's not suitable for Real Work) and yes it still has performance problems due to an inadequate engine, just like it's pre-decesor Morrowind did.
This is not due to overly aggressive FSAA, Ansiotropic filtering, multisampling or supersampling or something else that I've done to it - purely down to the implementation - in particular of the low quality 'long distance' LOD (which seems to have been 'tacked on' to makeup for the short draw distance that Morrowind suffered from). The foliage is not implemented in the most efficient way either, but I find this forgivable (as it's not a distraction to disable it and I don't find it impairs the experience much - YMMV).
It's definitely a step up, but (artwork, models and gameplay aside) the engine isn't able to provide as immersive an experience as other engines that handle large outdoor environments.
Indeed, same here - curiously I've found turning off the (very poor quality) "long distance" scenery completely resolves this - which is boggling, as it's such starkly low quality in the first place. The foliage is also something of an issue (even with 2 x 7800's and an AMD FX), but I don't mind playing with that turned off (it is quite overbearing). The downside of turning off distance draw is of course it stops drawing things at highly unrealistically short distance, which is about as equally distracting.
Decent engine performance makes all the difference to how immersive the experience is for me, it's a shame they didn't manage to get the engine right with Morrowind or Oblivion, which are otherwise the most immersive games I've ever played. On the plus side, great 3D model quality and very impressive indoor environments (and short to middle distance). drawing Just a shame about the poor quality / poor performance of the long-distance scenery. Still, having not even had the option in Morrowind, I suppose having the option is an improvement!
I think I preferred Morrowind though, the world seemed a lot more varied and the quests far more epic and I liked not having the main quest hand holding (though equally I realise a lot of people didn't like that about it). I'd buy it again if they released it with a better engine - not even having an option to set the draw distance at whatever you like (rather than some imposed overly short distance) is something I find very bemusing and frustrating.
While 20,000 USD may well be the average in your area, the average salary for the whole of the US is more like 35,000-40,000 USD. One thing Americans who haven't been abroad may not realise is just how much spending power they have, which is one of the strengths of their economy, helped by factors like economy-of-scale.
The Economist's Big Mac Index provides and interesting view of this, though I'm tempted to think it's inaccurate (not least because it costs more like 4.19 UKP rather than 3.32 UKP in many high street MD's, because they have taken to charging more than out of town stores IIRC - but also because of how much cheaper electronic goods can be and how inexpensive housing is in the US compared to the UK).
As an example (which will be a familiar story to many of us in the UK):
I purchased a HTDV recently, a Pioneer PDP-506XE. The cheapest price for this on Froogle UK is 3,100 UKP or 5,500 USD (though this is about 1,000 USD less than I paid for mine as it doesn't include stand and speakers) . This model number is not used in the US, the exact equivalent model is the "PDP-5060HD". Froogle (US) shows dealers selling it for as low as 3,500 USD.
To bring it back to the to the topic a little, one of the reasons this is possible (not the only one, but one of) is that there is a larger 'underclass' in the US in the form of very cheap migrant labour (and because there isn't a higher minimum wage or a very large and expensive to maintain welfare system to support those who haven't provided for themselves). In short the system works because it exploits some to give benefit to others.
Making the system more equitable, for example by introducing a meaningful minimum wage, would have inevitable down side of increasing the cost of goods at retail. This just doesn't seem to a choice something most Americans are willing to face - they moan about migrant workers at the same time as not really realising how great their own quality of life is, but don't seem able to acknowledge that if they shut the door to cheap labour, there will be financial consequences that might negatively impact them.
To provide a comparison, in the UK there are certainly those who moan about the influx of immigrants (some of whom critics would argue don't work - with reference to the 30% unemployment figure for men in the Muslim communities here), but most of us appreciate how much good those that come here to work do for the country by providing much needed services and absolutely welcome them.