oops, I know it is cask (unless of course we are talking a new D&D spell to make a bottle of amotilado appear - would be a good spell to have), i've even read the story more times than I can count (friggin college classes like it).
Outlook... the worst virus spreading software ever created.
that reminds me, since I do not use outlook/express for e-mail (I use mozilla at work and opera's stuff at home) I just set my adress list to use public addresses @ microsoft.com, that way if for some reason (someone else in the family ignores one of the computer commandments and opens some virus in an attachment) it simply sends the crap to microsoft and no one else
junk snail mail is also handled by removing the postage paid self-adressed enveloped and filling it with metal scraps and placing in the mail (receivers are charged with postage) - make the spammers/virus enablers pay whenever you can.
Likewise, black holes are just an educated guess at what might be at the centre of galaxies or left behind in the wake of supernovae. For all we know, the absence of light in these areas may well be merely extremely dense clouds of cosmic dust rather than pinpoints of near-infinite gravitational power.
Black holes are not black. matter falling into the singularity give off massive amounts of energy. There have been many observations of energy emitters centered on the space where calculations should show intense enough gravity to be a black hole. Calculations also show they should emit blue light. From the event horizon in nothing escapes but A LOT of energy escapes in the space preceding it.
Plus, extremely dense dust clouds don't really destroy matter and produce the excessive amount of radiation that black holes do, nor do they have the gravitational effects on other objects on space that a black hole does.
Just curious, but how much astronomy do you actually know? there is quite a bit more substance to back it up than The Cast of Amontilado.
well then use OSCAR from here. It supports mandrake (and redhat) and scsi has the tools listed for CLIC, tested up to 128 nodes, doesn't require PXE card (though I would have to say a network switch is kinda needed for networking:) ). Has a fairly large base and good developer base.
no, it's not scale speed but real speed. Though realize he probably spent upwards of 1000 dollars to achieve that speed (with enough controll to keep it from quickly becoming 10000 small parts) though.
yes there is a minimum weight. ROAR sanctions US races (not sure about outside of US). Roar rules can be found here, I don't know the minimum weight right offhand though (and it would matter what class you are running also)
Re:If you can't make em fast...
on
Go X10 Speed Racer!
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Of course since the HPI nitro rs4 takes a.12 engine a quick search through towerhobbies shows that one can get as much a 1.2 horse power engine that weighs something like 7 ounces. Further one would see that the shell is painted lexan plastic. Putting these two things together you can easily get a nitro rs4 to hit the 50 MPH mark, indeed my nitro TC3 will nearly reach 60 MPH with a OS cv-r and a two speed clutch. So not only do you get a car that looks like it goes fast, it does go fast. (for someone that doesn't know typicall rc nitro fuel is 20% nitro methane, 20% lubricant (oils), and 60% alchohol so it's quite combustable. The two stroke engines in use typically have an effective RPM range of ~4000 idle to 35000-45000 top end for race quality motors)
No, those are pretty shitty reasons for A GOVT. PASSING LEGISLATION TO ENFORCE THEM.
Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft couldn't give a damn about the issues you stated. They want region encoding so they can charge outrageous prices and those people not have any other way to import games cheaply. By what you said thier logic, in one sentance is "well, you know someone somewhere might have a PAL tv and buy an NTSC disk: therefore we will create regions based on language/hardware and then further divide them arbitrarily (which look suspiciously based on what the price they can charge), try and force govt to enforce them all for the consumers safety!" yea right.
Region encoding is not bad in and of it self: the problem is legislation that FORCES you to abide by them. Give me one good technical reason why I should not be allowed to play, under any circumstance, a game from japan on my US console (all the technical reasons you stated have no effect on this: both ntsc, maybe I speak japanese, and I can mail order it). Techinical reason: none Thier reason: profit. They found they could not techinically force it so they have legislated it (and while they have every right to try and maximise profits govt should not pass laws only deseigned to maximise thier profit).
you pay for me heart attack because I will pay for you diabetes (or whatever problem you have). Health care isn't for the unknown, its for the god awfull expensive. Even though health care costs more than it really should it is still a very expensive proposition.
Take for example medical isotopes. Where I work produces some of them (along with californium and other fun stuff). Not only are there only a handfull places in the world capable of producing them but the power need of the reactor is the size of a small town. We pool our money together for stuff such as that - much as we pay taxes for common things that we can not individually afford but need.
In fact if you can accuratly predict medical problems the system makes even more sense as you could accuratly predict costs and therefore produce a more fair costs spread. It could also be abused much more easily: your too expensive so let us let you die. That is where govt regulations make sense - make sure costs dont run unfairly high (as your demand curve is basically straight up and down - suppliers can charge what they wish) and make sure no one falls under the cracks.
The problem with todays health care system in the US (can't say about other countries, I don't know) is that th regulations are there about falling through the craks but not really enforcing sane costs. So a drug, including r&d, production, etc , that costs 2 dollars a pill will cost 50 dollars a pill: insurance or the govt will pay for it so charge what you want. (govt will pick up your bill after you go broke, the laws only propose that you get medicine - nothing else).
even though this story is old and this is an anonymous coward I will reply. It is perfectly legal to NOT HIRE someone because of thier gun ownership. it is not legal to make employes GET RID OF thier guns. Two totally seperate issues. You can refuse to hire readheads, you can't tell all employees to die thier hair blonde on monday.
Well, I partially agree with what you say. Southwest should be required to not dicriminate to you based on your blindness. They should not have to make everything a non-blind person can do to the point where you can also. Does southwest have a phone number you can call? Yes. How easy is it for a blind person to find: I don't have the slightest idea since I don't use the software.
This reminds me of the blind guy who sued UPS because they were looking for drivers, he applied and was denied becuase he was blind. Technically under the ADA the blind guy was in the right and lost in the lower courts. Fortunatly the Supreme Court ruled that was stupid: UPS had an obligation to hire him - but not in a job he was physically incapable of doing. As long as they gave an outlet for him to be hired. Same here. Southwest should be required to sell you tickets for the same advantage as you get from the web, but they shouldn't have to make thier website so you can read it. If they did not offer the phone service Then I agree the website should be useable if it is techinically possible (which it is and it's not that expensive)
(this is OT)BTW, this is being asked from somebody who is dyslexic and therefore a HORRID speller: how does the software do with really bad spelling errors? I know I will sometimes even write/type words completely backwards. Never really thought about it in documentation I have wrote for online projects.
Unfortunatly it's not always that easy. For example, at our local gun club we had a "bubble boy" (I don't remeber the technical name) want to shoot at the range. Since I would bet a large portion here doesn't really fruequent gun clubs I will explain an important detail: they are messy. It's just a part of running one. Unfortunatly it is POSSIBLE to clean one to the point that bubble boy could shoot. Under the ADA, which he filed suit, we had to accomodate him (clean the entier range, provide some form of habitate thing for him, give him exclusive use of the club for a day). The club it self is non-profit: every penny we make is spent back into the club. It has no real assest with which to render a fine from, not enough money to clean to level he needed, and no volunteers to do so (we don't even own the land, we sub-lease from the state who leases from the federal govt). So in the end he dropped the suit though legally he could have shut us down (as complyence was not going to happen and we had no money to he could get from us).
We do have things such as wheel chair access to everything, we have had in the past one paralyzed person shoot (and they were damn good shot also) and several people with legg problems. Those types of requests in most cases are reasonable and should be inforced (ours were built well before the ADA was passed) but bubble boy was not really a good use of the law(he apperently found another club with deeper pockets to sue).
If all complience meant was what you stated above then there would be little complaint (and those cases are not really complained about - most people would tend to side with the disabled: I would). Unfortunatly the law, such as many others (federal wetlands, DMCA, etc) may or may not have had good intentions, but the end results was a VERY broad law that is used in ways the people who passed the law did not intend.
To begin with what you said is not quite true. For example if your company is large enough you must hire a certain amount of minorities. You are not allowed to not hire someone because of a disability. There are many such protected classes in hiring practices.
Though what the poster was saying isn't that I won't hire you if you own a gun but you must get rid of your guns if you work for me. Slightly different. Which is something you also can't do.
well, for starters microsoft is/was in the penalty phase - it's really out of ashcrofts hands at that point. Secondly anti-trust cases have always been hard to determine exactly what needs to be done and if it is in violation. The govt has traditionally only seen intervention in cases where not only is there a monoply and it's being abused, but that it pretty muich affects the enteir citizenry. Look at the turn of the century steel mills - rockefeller had one of the tightest monoplies ever (both vertical and horizontal) yet the govt didn't step in. On the other had AT&T was just as tight but the impact to our communications was considered of enough importance to intervene - and it still took nearly 10 years (much longer if you start counting at smaller cases trying to get them to comply) because govt should only mess with a bussiness if it REALLY has too. In fact clinton/reno prosecuting would probably be one of the earliest/fastest prosecutions of an anti-trust case in history. The whole microsoft thing is still pretty young. Allowing govt expanded powers in this area is just as scary as powers with the patriot act, just a little more subtle.
not to mention microsoft gives money to both sides of the ballot. And just because money was given doesn't mean it swayed someones mind. Look at it this way, if you had 5 billion dollars who would you give money too - people who agree with you and people who are swayed: not the crowd that hates you. Bush/Ashcroft have consistently been in favor of microsoft so it would be natural they be given money. Now if bush started his term, flatly condemed microsoft, got a bunch of money, now says they are the greatests - I would tend to be much more agreeing (clinton changed his mind more that several times conviently after donations). The key phrase in your statement is "new administration" - hating them because they like microsoft is OK (they do and have for a long time), hating them becuase microsoft gave them donations is another thing.
One thing to remeber is that ashcroft is an appointed law enforcement official. What this basically means is that it is his job to enforce the law, even when he dislikes it. I doubt ashcroft himself really give a damn about extension of copyright, and most likely the attourny doesn't either.
When attourny generals do not enforce the law (such as janet reno did not in many cases) you may get a short term goodness but the long term badness is much higer. Look at it this way, which would you rather have - a copyright law that was well defended but ruled unconstitutional or a copyright law on the books that a attourny did not prosecute that a corperation uses as a threat?. Congress passes laws, law enforcement prosecutes said laws (so criminals get punished and laws go before judicial review), and the judge upholds or overturns those laws. That's the way the system is deseigned and that's the way it works best.
lawyers regulary argue a case they feel is wrong. Especially defense attournys. In fact, as long as the defendant pleads not guilty and has maintained his innosence in private, the attourny MUST do all in his/her power to get a not guilty verdict, in the above copyright case the same is also true. In the end it makes the ruling by the judges that much stronger if both sides have good arguments.
he is still right. Linux is an OS. The Open Source movement (notice the capitol letters) is a social movement. I personally like linux, prefer open source liscenses (though I prefer openBSD liscense) but I have no particular gripe with close source. Windows is ok, though Microsoft sucks a big one because of thier business practices.
To put it another way, the phrase social movement basically implies a beleif in something (having to do with society). You can't beleive linux any more than you can beleive tree. You can beleive Open Source, which (if you go for GNU, there are of course others) means you pretty much only support linux (maybe HURD if it is ever really finished), the same as an environmentalist will most likely REALLY like trees.
And, in the end, wether or not linux is a social movement or not has nothing to do with wether it can be called bankrupt or not. KDE or GNOME aren't social movements, gimp isn't a social movement, most open source projects aren't even close to anyone arguing that they ARE a social movement - yet they have the same thing in common with linux - they have no assests, produce no money for themselfs, yet are perfectly viable and not becomming bankrupt.
probably none. On the other hand the field I work in (high performance computing) this will be a great help. Currently we are running a 500,000 processor simulation on a four node cluster, startup and running both is a pain. Remeber, on of the great things about linux is some of the neat/usefull applications being ran on it (human genome, nuclear simulations, fluid simulations). Windows is a toy and geared toward "normal" users (read very few threads not processor intensive). Linux is more of a workhorse (many threads, computationally expensive, and high uptimes). While there are exceptions to this look at advances such as this in that light. And finally, just because you won't use it compiling a kernel doesn't mean it's not needed.
well, the basic concept is sound - it's basic statistics. Unfortunatly the oppoiste of what you said could be true. Maybe they were pushed into more music buying. Maybe they were pushed toward more downloads because of RIAA heavy handedness.
What you have is two things. First sampling. In order to get the whole picture you have to depend on two things. Truthfulness of the people polled and large enough sample of them. The level of thruth is very difficult when taking peoples memory of what they have done. Sample size is easy - sample enough people. You are having trouble with wheather or not they are telling the truth. note: the lie could be unintentional, you bought 1.001 versus 1.002 cd's per year - you would not notice that number but with a large enough population it becomes signifigant. (of course since it's so small a change I could just as easily and with the same amount of authority say that people buy 1.003 vs. 1.002 - you just don't know).
And lastly, remeber with all of this correlation does not imply causation. Just because cd sales coincide with directly and perfectly with copyright invringement (which they don't, but assume for the moment they do) does not mean, nor even imply in the slightest that they are causational. Unfortunatly this goes against common sense and what people are bombaded with every day. Maybe the reduced sales cause the downloading. For example: "hey all music is crappy, they only sell pop-crappy music, so i'll download the good music off the internet that I can't find in the store". In this scenario the direct cause of the slump in sales and increase in downloading is crappy music at stores. Maybe the two have no interralation. Money is tight so music sales drop. Broadband is cheap so downloads go up. The two could just be nothing more than pure coincidence.
Basically if you only want to talk about what is provable you have no real information. As for interpreting the results, well decide weather or not the people polled are truthfull - if they are then we know, if not then your guess is just as good/valid as mine.
This would be the equivalent of you using Mickey Mouse as a "swipe" - would your editors let you do that? I bet not. While legally there is no rael difference you are talking ethically. Ethically there is a world of difference betweem using a general photo versus using specific, recognizable, and main character for profit when you did not make or own said character. (I know, i'll call my bleach "all", use a large A letter, and call it a swipe - everything will be OK because I "swiped" it!)
I don't think any of those things make the car illegal exactly. But you would be responsible for the damage caused by your mods. To summarize point by point (using what I know of tennessee law - not much):
if I want to install an impaling device on the front of the car, am I allowed to? or what about the always fun side-mounted scythe blades?
This will at least require a red rag to be tied to the end of them so other motorists can easily obtain depth perception from all angles on them.
if I want to install a 10 foot tall flagpole that will make my car 99% flip over in a turn when there's wind, can I do it? if I take my average car, install a couple thousand pounds worth of 'mods' and its braking distance shoots up fourfold, is it a problem? what about being able to evade an accident? if my 'mods' make my car drive like a barge in a river, is that ok?
Well, I suppose I have seen some form of all of those at one time so I would say it's legal.
what about if sharp pieces of my 'mod' become unglued when going over a bump at speed, take off, and shatter the windshield of whomever is following me?
This would be the same as if anything you were hauling was not securly fastened down - you are responsible for damages (even up to involutary manslaughter)
what about seatbelts? what if it rolls over?
Seatbealts are required (unless it is an antique). Rollover is worried the same as a convertable (your own damn problem, did you really think the windshield will save your puny head if the car flips?(note: the last line was not aimed at you - it is the govt's response if you die))
Mostly similar to what our other rights are supposed to be (but are increasingly not). We have the right to bear arms - not shoot people. Just because something CAN do an illegal thing, even is LIKELY to do an illegal thing doesn't make the knowlege/device illegal, only the action is illegal.
I do know that most kit cars are road legal here, it's quite a popular pastime for hot-rodders to assemble them in the area where I live.
And this is of course why things such as the DMCA make many of us so mad.
Slashdot Mirror
oops, I know it is cask (unless of course we are talking a new D&D spell to make a bottle of amotilado appear - would be a good spell to have), i've even read the story more times than I can count (friggin college classes like it).
Outlook... the worst virus spreading software ever created.
that reminds me, since I do not use outlook/express for e-mail (I use mozilla at work and opera's stuff at home) I just set my adress list to use public addresses @ microsoft.com, that way if for some reason (someone else in the family ignores one of the computer commandments and opens some virus in an attachment) it simply sends the crap to microsoft and no one else
junk snail mail is also handled by removing the postage paid self-adressed enveloped and filling it with metal scraps and placing in the mail (receivers are charged with postage) - make the spammers/virus enablers pay whenever you can.
or, then again it could be that given enough guesses someone has to be right every once and a while. Even a blind squirril finds a nut occasionally.
Likewise, black holes are just an educated guess at what might be at the centre of galaxies or left behind in the wake of supernovae. For all we know, the absence of light in these areas may well be merely extremely dense clouds of cosmic dust rather than pinpoints of near-infinite gravitational power.
Black holes are not black. matter falling into the singularity give off massive amounts of energy. There have been many observations of energy emitters centered on the space where calculations should show intense enough gravity to be a black hole. Calculations also show they should emit blue light. From the event horizon in nothing escapes but A LOT of energy escapes in the space preceding it.
Plus, extremely dense dust clouds don't really destroy matter and produce the excessive amount of radiation that black holes do, nor do they have the gravitational effects on other objects on space that a black hole does.
Just curious, but how much astronomy do you actually know? there is quite a bit more substance to back it up than The Cast of Amontilado.
probably through priceline.com's computer shatner talks about.
well then use OSCAR from here. It supports mandrake (and redhat) and scsi has the tools listed for CLIC, tested up to 128 nodes, doesn't require PXE card (though I would have to say a network switch is kinda needed for networking :) ). Has a fairly large base and good developer base.
Known to not be supported: All AMD and VIA based systems.
There goes me trying it. seems to have a fairly small set of hardware it runs on.
yea, but your latency is horrible :)
no, it's not scale speed but real speed. Though realize he probably spent upwards of 1000 dollars to achieve that speed (with enough controll to keep it from quickly becoming 10000 small parts) though.
yes there is a minimum weight. ROAR sanctions US races (not sure about outside of US). Roar rules can be found here, I don't know the minimum weight right offhand though (and it would matter what class you are running also)
Of course since the HPI nitro rs4 takes a .12 engine a quick search through towerhobbies shows that one can get as much a 1.2 horse power engine that weighs something like 7 ounces. Further one would see that the shell is painted lexan plastic. Putting these two things together you can easily get a nitro rs4 to hit the 50 MPH mark, indeed my nitro TC3 will nearly reach 60 MPH with a OS cv-r and a two speed clutch. So not only do you get a car that looks like it goes fast, it does go fast. (for someone that doesn't know typicall rc nitro fuel is 20% nitro methane, 20% lubricant (oils), and 60% alchohol so it's quite combustable. The two stroke engines in use typically have an effective RPM range of ~4000 idle to 35000-45000 top end for race quality motors)
No, those are pretty shitty reasons for A GOVT. PASSING LEGISLATION TO ENFORCE THEM.
Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft couldn't give a damn about the issues you stated. They want region encoding so they can charge outrageous prices and those people not have any other way to import games cheaply. By what you said thier logic, in one sentance is "well, you know someone somewhere might have a PAL tv and buy an NTSC disk: therefore we will create regions based on language/hardware and then further divide them arbitrarily (which look suspiciously based on what the price they can charge), try and force govt to enforce them all for the consumers safety!" yea right.
Region encoding is not bad in and of it self: the problem is legislation that FORCES you to abide by them. Give me one good technical reason why I should not be allowed to play, under any circumstance, a game from japan on my US console (all the technical reasons you stated have no effect on this: both ntsc, maybe I speak japanese, and I can mail order it). Techinical reason: none Thier reason: profit. They found they could not techinically force it so they have legislated it (and while they have every right to try and maximise profits govt should not pass laws only deseigned to maximise thier profit).
I actually put some sort of scrap metal in the envelope (from contrsuction sites). MUCH heavier and costlier to the junk mail senders.
you pay for me heart attack because I will pay for you diabetes (or whatever problem you have). Health care isn't for the unknown, its for the god awfull expensive. Even though health care costs more than it really should it is still a very expensive proposition.
Take for example medical isotopes. Where I work produces some of them (along with californium and other fun stuff). Not only are there only a handfull places in the world capable of producing them but the power need of the reactor is the size of a small town. We pool our money together for stuff such as that - much as we pay taxes for common things that we can not individually afford but need.
In fact if you can accuratly predict medical problems the system makes even more sense as you could accuratly predict costs and therefore produce a more fair costs spread. It could also be abused much more easily: your too expensive so let us let you die. That is where govt regulations make sense - make sure costs dont run unfairly high (as your demand curve is basically straight up and down - suppliers can charge what they wish) and make sure no one falls under the cracks.
The problem with todays health care system in the US (can't say about other countries, I don't know) is that th regulations are there about falling through the craks but not really enforcing sane costs. So a drug, including r&d, production, etc , that costs 2 dollars a pill will cost 50 dollars a pill: insurance or the govt will pay for it so charge what you want. (govt will pick up your bill after you go broke, the laws only propose that you get medicine - nothing else).
even though this story is old and this is an anonymous coward I will reply. It is perfectly legal to NOT HIRE someone because of thier gun ownership. it is not legal to make employes GET RID OF thier guns. Two totally seperate issues. You can refuse to hire readheads, you can't tell all employees to die thier hair blonde on monday.
Well, I partially agree with what you say. Southwest should be required to not dicriminate to you based on your blindness. They should not have to make everything a non-blind person can do to the point where you can also. Does southwest have a phone number you can call? Yes. How easy is it for a blind person to find: I don't have the slightest idea since I don't use the software.
This reminds me of the blind guy who sued UPS because they were looking for drivers, he applied and was denied becuase he was blind. Technically under the ADA the blind guy was in the right and lost in the lower courts. Fortunatly the Supreme Court ruled that was stupid: UPS had an obligation to hire him - but not in a job he was physically incapable of doing. As long as they gave an outlet for him to be hired. Same here. Southwest should be required to sell you tickets for the same advantage as you get from the web, but they shouldn't have to make thier website so you can read it. If they did not offer the phone service Then I agree the website should be useable if it is techinically possible (which it is and it's not that expensive)
(this is OT)BTW, this is being asked from somebody who is dyslexic and therefore a HORRID speller: how does the software do with really bad spelling errors? I know I will sometimes even write/type words completely backwards. Never really thought about it in documentation I have wrote for online projects.
Unfortunatly it's not always that easy. For example, at our local gun club we had a "bubble boy" (I don't remeber the technical name) want to shoot at the range. Since I would bet a large portion here doesn't really fruequent gun clubs I will explain an important detail: they are messy. It's just a part of running one. Unfortunatly it is POSSIBLE to clean one to the point that bubble boy could shoot. Under the ADA, which he filed suit, we had to accomodate him (clean the entier range, provide some form of habitate thing for him, give him exclusive use of the club for a day). The club it self is non-profit: every penny we make is spent back into the club. It has no real assest with which to render a fine from, not enough money to clean to level he needed, and no volunteers to do so (we don't even own the land, we sub-lease from the state who leases from the federal govt). So in the end he dropped the suit though legally he could have shut us down (as complyence was not going to happen and we had no money to he could get from us).
We do have things such as wheel chair access to everything, we have had in the past one paralyzed person shoot (and they were damn good shot also) and several people with legg problems. Those types of requests in most cases are reasonable and should be inforced (ours were built well before the ADA was passed) but bubble boy was not really a good use of the law(he apperently found another club with deeper pockets to sue).
If all complience meant was what you stated above then there would be little complaint (and those cases are not really complained about - most people would tend to side with the disabled: I would). Unfortunatly the law, such as many others (federal wetlands, DMCA, etc) may or may not have had good intentions, but the end results was a VERY broad law that is used in ways the people who passed the law did not intend.
To begin with what you said is not quite true. For example if your company is large enough you must hire a certain amount of minorities. You are not allowed to not hire someone because of a disability. There are many such protected classes in hiring practices.
Though what the poster was saying isn't that I won't hire you if you own a gun but you must get rid of your guns if you work for me. Slightly different. Which is something you also can't do.
well, for starters microsoft is/was in the penalty phase - it's really out of ashcrofts hands at that point. Secondly anti-trust cases have always been hard to determine exactly what needs to be done and if it is in violation. The govt has traditionally only seen intervention in cases where not only is there a monoply and it's being abused, but that it pretty muich affects the enteir citizenry. Look at the turn of the century steel mills - rockefeller had one of the tightest monoplies ever (both vertical and horizontal) yet the govt didn't step in. On the other had AT&T was just as tight but the impact to our communications was considered of enough importance to intervene - and it still took nearly 10 years (much longer if you start counting at smaller cases trying to get them to comply) because govt should only mess with a bussiness if it REALLY has too. In fact clinton/reno prosecuting would probably be one of the earliest/fastest prosecutions of an anti-trust case in history. The whole microsoft thing is still pretty young. Allowing govt expanded powers in this area is just as scary as powers with the patriot act, just a little more subtle.
not to mention microsoft gives money to both sides of the ballot. And just because money was given doesn't mean it swayed someones mind. Look at it this way, if you had 5 billion dollars who would you give money too - people who agree with you and people who are swayed: not the crowd that hates you. Bush/Ashcroft have consistently been in favor of microsoft so it would be natural they be given money. Now if bush started his term, flatly condemed microsoft, got a bunch of money, now says they are the greatests - I would tend to be much more agreeing (clinton changed his mind more that several times conviently after donations). The key phrase in your statement is "new administration" - hating them because they like microsoft is OK (they do and have for a long time), hating them becuase microsoft gave them donations is another thing.
One thing to remeber is that ashcroft is an appointed law enforcement official. What this basically means is that it is his job to enforce the law, even when he dislikes it. I doubt ashcroft himself really give a damn about extension of copyright, and most likely the attourny doesn't either.
When attourny generals do not enforce the law (such as janet reno did not in many cases) you may get a short term goodness but the long term badness is much higer. Look at it this way, which would you rather have - a copyright law that was well defended but ruled unconstitutional or a copyright law on the books that a attourny did not prosecute that a corperation uses as a threat?. Congress passes laws, law enforcement prosecutes said laws (so criminals get punished and laws go before judicial review), and the judge upholds or overturns those laws. That's the way the system is deseigned and that's the way it works best.
lawyers regulary argue a case they feel is wrong. Especially defense attournys. In fact, as long as the defendant pleads not guilty and has maintained his innosence in private, the attourny MUST do all in his/her power to get a not guilty verdict, in the above copyright case the same is also true. In the end it makes the ruling by the judges that much stronger if both sides have good arguments.
he is still right. Linux is an OS. The Open Source movement (notice the capitol letters) is a social movement. I personally like linux, prefer open source liscenses (though I prefer openBSD liscense) but I have no particular gripe with close source. Windows is ok, though Microsoft sucks a big one because of thier business practices.
To put it another way, the phrase social movement basically implies a beleif in something (having to do with society). You can't beleive linux any more than you can beleive tree. You can beleive Open Source, which (if you go for GNU, there are of course others) means you pretty much only support linux (maybe HURD if it is ever really finished), the same as an environmentalist will most likely REALLY like trees.
And, in the end, wether or not linux is a social movement or not has nothing to do with wether it can be called bankrupt or not. KDE or GNOME aren't social movements, gimp isn't a social movement, most open source projects aren't even close to anyone arguing that they ARE a social movement - yet they have the same thing in common with linux - they have no assests, produce no money for themselfs, yet are perfectly viable and not becomming bankrupt.
probably none. On the other hand the field I work in (high performance computing) this will be a great help. Currently we are running a 500,000 processor simulation on a four node cluster, startup and running both is a pain. Remeber, on of the great things about linux is some of the neat/usefull applications being ran on it (human genome, nuclear simulations, fluid simulations). Windows is a toy and geared toward "normal" users (read very few threads not processor intensive). Linux is more of a workhorse (many threads, computationally expensive, and high uptimes). While there are exceptions to this look at advances such as this in that light. And finally, just because you won't use it compiling a kernel doesn't mean it's not needed.
well, the basic concept is sound - it's basic statistics. Unfortunatly the oppoiste of what you said could be true. Maybe they were pushed into more music buying. Maybe they were pushed toward more downloads because of RIAA heavy handedness.
What you have is two things. First sampling. In order to get the whole picture you have to depend on two things. Truthfulness of the people polled and large enough sample of them. The level of thruth is very difficult when taking peoples memory of what they have done. Sample size is easy - sample enough people. You are having trouble with wheather or not they are telling the truth. note: the lie could be unintentional, you bought 1.001 versus 1.002 cd's per year - you would not notice that number but with a large enough population it becomes signifigant. (of course since it's so small a change I could just as easily and with the same amount of authority say that people buy 1.003 vs. 1.002 - you just don't know).
And lastly, remeber with all of this correlation does not imply causation. Just because cd sales coincide with directly and perfectly with copyright invringement (which they don't, but assume for the moment they do) does not mean, nor even imply in the slightest that they are causational. Unfortunatly this goes against common sense and what people are bombaded with every day. Maybe the reduced sales cause the downloading. For example: "hey all music is crappy, they only sell pop-crappy music, so i'll download the good music off the internet that I can't find in the store". In this scenario the direct cause of the slump in sales and increase in downloading is crappy music at stores. Maybe the two have no interralation. Money is tight so music sales drop. Broadband is cheap so downloads go up. The two could just be nothing more than pure coincidence.
Basically if you only want to talk about what is provable you have no real information. As for interpreting the results, well decide weather or not the people polled are truthfull - if they are then we know, if not then your guess is just as good/valid as mine.
This would be the equivalent of you using Mickey Mouse as a "swipe" - would your editors let you do that? I bet not. While legally there is no rael difference you are talking ethically. Ethically there is a world of difference betweem using a general photo versus using specific, recognizable, and main character for profit when you did not make or own said character. (I know, i'll call my bleach "all", use a large A letter, and call it a swipe - everything will be OK because I "swiped" it!)
I don't think any of those things make the car illegal exactly. But you would be responsible for the damage caused by your mods. To summarize point by point (using what I know of tennessee law - not much):
if I want to install an impaling device on the front of the car, am I allowed to? or what about the always fun side-mounted scythe blades?
This will at least require a red rag to be tied to the end of them so other motorists can easily obtain depth perception from all angles on them.
if I want to install a 10 foot tall flagpole that will make my car 99% flip over in a turn when there's wind, can I do it? if I take my average car, install a couple thousand pounds worth of 'mods' and its braking distance shoots up fourfold, is it a problem? what about being able to evade an accident? if my 'mods' make my car drive like a barge in a river, is that ok?
Well, I suppose I have seen some form of all of those at one time so I would say it's legal.
what about if sharp pieces of my 'mod' become unglued when going over a bump at speed, take off, and shatter the windshield of whomever is following me?
This would be the same as if anything you were hauling was not securly fastened down - you are responsible for damages (even up to involutary manslaughter)
what about seatbelts? what if it rolls over?
Seatbealts are required (unless it is an antique). Rollover is worried the same as a convertable (your own damn problem, did you really think the windshield will save your puny head if the car flips?(note: the last line was not aimed at you - it is the govt's response if you die))
Mostly similar to what our other rights are supposed to be (but are increasingly not). We have the right to bear arms - not shoot people. Just because something CAN do an illegal thing, even is LIKELY to do an illegal thing doesn't make the knowlege/device illegal, only the action is illegal.
I do know that most kit cars are road legal here, it's quite a popular pastime for hot-rodders to assemble them in the area where I live. And this is of course why things such as the DMCA make many of us so mad.