"Hell, they can even nail you if you're traveling at or under the speed limit, if everyone else is going faster. They call it "obstructing traffic." You're damned if you do and damned if you don't, if Smokey hasn't made his quota yet."
In practice I've NEVER seen this happen, not once, or ever heard of it ever happening where I live...
For one thing, such a ticket would be harder for a judge to stomach, even the usually horribly biased traffic court judges.
But mostly because, in any area, there are too many easy "spots" where the speed limits are artifically low as to make it too easy to not get lots of speeders.
And those tickets are rarely ever fought, and even less often sucessfully fought.
"Yes, you claim, but there will be a market for the one firm that provides cars with no speeding restrictions. Really? What if there isn't quite that much demand? What if their insurance company refuses to insure their cars? (Well, everyone else limits their speed, so your cars are obviously more liable to accidents now...)"
This is a VERY likely scenario... Insurance companies, in fact, might start offering BREAKS to rental companies who do this, and then report it to them.
Insurance companies lobby for banning radar detectors (Geico is one of the more notorious) because speeding tickets are a way they can "get away with" charging higher rates to otherwise low risk drivers.
Which is why there needs to be limits placed on what private corps can do to "enforce" law.
Why should "vigilante justice" be any more legal when done by a corp with a contract (which isn't explained to the technically ignorant, which is 90+% of the population) than by a citizen mob?
Why not buy your own radar gun and "pull over" drivers who speed, and charge them $50? How is what ACME doing any different?
There are MANY good reasons why law enforcement is the proper role of GOVERNMENT, not the private citizen or enterprise. Law enforcement should never have a profit motive, but have a MORAL motive... (this is one reason why the two law enforcement activities that ARE largely profit motive, the "drug war" and "speed trap" enforcement of unreasonable speed limits happen to be two of the LEAST moral or ethical)
Remember the Pinkerton's response to the/. uproar over their post-Columbine "geek profiling service"? Corps do NOT operate on a moral bais, but a PROFIT basis.
I'd suggest consulting a lawyer, or contacting your closest ACLU office.
Another suggestion, do ALL your coding on your own machine. If you don't have one, get one. Decent PC's can be had cheaply these days. That would make it even harder for them to claim ownership.
If they are claiming that your code is their property, and aren't paying you at least the state/federal minimum wage for it, they are violating numerous labor laws, IANAL.
I ABHOR this attitude from academia... These are the very same universities that allow their faculty to use school equipment, and even paid TIME to write papers, books, etc, which they then sell and profit from.
I'd think that a university would have a HARD time justifying that practice while telling the judge that they MUST own all code you write. Such clauses may even be illegal in your state, as it's very similar to some draconian employer NDA/non-compete/etc agreements.
And becayse you had no choice but to "agree" to it, it might even be null and void on that basis (duress).
Such clauses haven't been standing up in many places in employer/employee disputes, the fact that you are doing UNPAID (in fact, you PAY to be there) "work for hire" would, IANAL, IMO, strengthen your case.
And if you write something REALLY great, don't turn it in as work... Sit on it until you are out of school (summer break, etc).
Imagine if Bill Gates was attending college today, instead of when he did (and dropped out to form Microsoft)... His university might have claimed ownership of his BASIC program... And given today's draconian and anti-individial IP laws (which people like Gates helped create), they might even have won.
One reason why I despise people like Gates... He now tries to deny the opportunity to others to take advantage of what HE used to get to where he is.
"As has already been stated, Gartner asked end-users what they installed on their computers after they bought them. Not what was pre-installed on their computer. Implication: either Linux doesn't have the marketshare zealots want to belive, or accurately assessing server marketshare is difficult. You decide."
NOT true. Here's a quote:
""The study results indicated that in the traditional server market in the United States during the third quarter of 2000, 8.6 percent of server shipments were Linux-based systems."
So they did base it on SHIPMENTS. I'm willing to bet that most GNU/Linux servers ship with Windows, then are replaced with Linux. Also, this does not count hand built servers, of which I'd bet a large percentage are Linux servers.
As I said in my previous post, this "method" of determining how popular an OS is used by Gartner isn't any more scientific than determining the most popular video game by what cart/CD came with the system.
Since most sites deposit cookies on your PC (including most any pr0n site) because of ads, a simple method would be to set her up:
1. A "user profile" or account on a `Doze 9X or NT/2000 machine. You can then look in your cookies directory where they are identified by USER. (this directory is usually under \windows\cookies if memory serves)
2. If using a Linux/Unix box, do the same thing. Clear your cookies. Mozilla will show you the cookies accepted under edit>preferences>Privacy and Security>Cookies.
" Well thats normal/. dumbfuckness.. everything AOL or MS is evil.. they could donate $1 Billion to linux.com and they would be strewn as evil monopolists. STUPID FUCKING SLASHDOT TROLLS"
Really? As I recall, most/.'ers like Mozilla, which is a Netscape derivitave, which has developers that AOL pays...
That is a good thing AOL does, for sure, if for no other reason than to help Mozilla is to hurt M$. Remember, the enemy of your enemy is your friend...
As for Microsoft, I make no apologies. They ARE evil. Just look at what `Doze XP is going to do to people who think they are buying the greatest thing since MS Sliced Bread(tm).
XP:
1. Deliberately hurts Mp3
2. Breaks CD Burner software
3. Prevents you from upgrading your computer in an unlimited fashion without calling M$.
4. REQUIRES activation (and giving out info) to be a legal license.
5. Is a very MINOR technical upgrade from Windows 2000, which given what XP is DOING to you in #1-4, makes it a negative return. 2000 is by far the better OS.
6. Has a GUI that would make anyone outside Miss Shirley's Romper Room throw up. I much prefer KDE 2.1.
Not only that, but MS is sending out goons to call the GPL license "Un American" and to lobby for what cannot be stated as anything but the right to "embrace and extend" ANYONE'S code.
"Wow, news flash indeed.
But on the other hand, the real news is that 8.6% of all new servers sold comes with Linux pre-installed.
This is in fact good news. Its only the spindoctoring in the Gartner study that makes it look either bad or not newsworthy.
"
I think you make a great point there. Pretty much everyone who sells servers these days offers Linux. I work for one of the largest in Q/A testing, right now working on certifying their RAID cards and servers for Red Hat 7.1.
Linux is the ideal web server, and with SAMBA, an ideal file server for small and medium businesses. After all, connect ALL your users to it, no need to buy connect licenses... EVER!
Those categories represent, in raw numbers, the LARGEST bulk categories of the server market.
"Lets face it, my 16 year old sister can learn to be a windows admin from one of those tech schools that'll make you certified in 3 months. And you can pay 5 of those newbie admins for the price of one unix admin."
Yes, but any 16 year old with a cable modem and a CD burner can download a copy of any Linux distro and have a REAL, robust, scalable server OS to play with, free of charge.
And Linux is getting easier and easier to use all the time.
Plus, Linux and Unix knowledge is WORTH more in the workplace than `Doze knowledge, which is a dime a dozen. I personally am considered very valueble in my department, in a top company that is investing a BILLION dollars in Linux, simply because I am a competent superuser. I'm not even good enough to be an engineer yet (but I'm working on it, and here in Durham, NC is a great place to do it).
In my previous job, my company did a lot of contract work for the State of West Virginia, which uses the "Gartner Group's Tier" standards for all their purchases.
Many things on it were illogical, such as the blatant RAMBUS memory cheerleading, etc, despite benchmarks that proved that PC-133 SDRAM was faster on Pentium 3 systems than RAMBUS (and was cheaper).
Basically Gartner, like any company of it's type, says what it's paid to say. Why do they do this? Because they wanted to get paid. Remember when Ziff-Davis would only talk about Liuux when parroting Microsoft's "Haloween Documents"? That changed overnight when Linux companies formed and started advertising in ZD magazines.
The same will happen with Gartner when a Linux company buys their seal of approval.
As the article stated, this "study" used the flawed model of judging server OS's by what OS shipped with the system, rather than actually surveying what was actually USED on that server sold.
This is like measuring what radio station is #1 in the market by what station the radio was set to when it was sold. Or how many people buy Ashland Gasoline because that was the fuel in the car when it was sold...
Unfortunately, Gartner's flaws are not well known by the people who use them as the HOLY WRIT (usually the non-techical people in corporate and government bureaucracy).
"Remember those guys who barely made it out of your intro to [comp.sci, biology, physics, chemistry, statistics, etc]? They are now no longer referred to as 'idiot'; the proper terminology is 'your honor'"
I call them idiots when they deserve it (Kaplan, etc). Just because they sucked off some politician (figuratively speaking) to get appointed to a lifetime taxpayer paid job doesn't entitle them to being any more or less above judgement by those who employ them (taxpayers).
I find it interesting that the CONSERVATIVES (minus Rhenquist, this was a disappointment for me) voted FOR upholding the 4th Amendment, and the one true liberal ideologue on the court (LBJ appointe John Paul Stevens) wrote the dissenting opinion.
Breyer and Ginsburg, the two Clinton apointes joining the majority shocked me some, however.
This is a decision that should have been 9-0... Scary that the Bill of Rights of the Constitution was just upheld by the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote isn't it?
"eh? then why are radar guns (for detecting the speed of a vehicle) not "illegal search and seizure"?
"
I do agree that this COULD be a 4th Amendment violation, but getting it heard by a judge would be unlikely. Most traffic courts are there just to collect your money anyway (as I found out in an Ohio one once when falsely given a speeding ticket (the officer clocked the car that was passing me, then pulled us both over) even when I provided evidence that cast grave doubt on the officer's claim.
Biggest problems with this are states like VA and the DC who outlaw radar/laser detectors.
How, Constitutionally can an agent of the State search you at all and yet deny you the right to detect it?
It's great that this search with hi-tech imagers was ruled illegal, because you KNOW the next step would have been laws making the manufacture or ownership of DETECTION EQUIPMENT to detect such scans illegal.
"It isn't the keyboard which hurts me, it the damned mouse. Switched to an MS Trackball Explorer and have had 80% of my right side arm/wrist/shoulder aches disappear"
When I started playing games that were mouse controlled (Daggerfall being the one in question), my mouse hand started getting tired and aching. A mouse pad with a wrist support solved the problem immediately.
The bottom line, using proper technique prevents most, if not ALL RSI.
Carpal tunnel, IMO, is one of those ailments largely invented by the ambulance chasing plantiffs lawyers.
I've never known anyone to have it, and I've worked with computers and people who work with and on computers for 9 years now.
I'm 29. I've had a computer ever since I was 8 years old (Commodore Vic-20). I've spent an EXCESSIVE amount of time using standard keyboards, many MANY hours a day, throught childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. No evidence of carpal tunnel for me. Surely, if it were to affect anyone, it would be me.
I've used nothing but standard QWERTY keyboards, I never cared for the strange "ergonomic" Microsoft keyboard or it's many clones, as I don't care to abandon 20 years of typing expertise and re-learn a skill that is vital to my job and recreation.
IMO, as the article implied, RSI is nothing more than a "fad" condition that lawyers and "labor groups" have used as a way to go after wallets.
" THAT is why they can't charge whatever they want. Not because they couldn't get away with it- because they could, and are, and in so doing they finance ever more expansion, past what is socially useful.
"
I see this issue differently. Let the MPAA sell DVD's at whatever price they wish to, wherever they wish to. BUT, the consumer should have the right to buy his DVD's anwyhere he wishes. That means, if they are selling them for $15 in Indiana, he should be able to buy them over the net for that anywhere else in the world.
This is NOT a case of a government wanting to tell business what they can charge. It's a government questioning a system that enforces a supply monopoly that lets a cartel set prices, not the market.
For instance, if DVD sellers in the UK have to comptete with Americnan Internet mail order houses, you bet the prices will go down. Either because the retailers lower them or else the retailers DEMAND lower prices from the MPAA to compete.
It is this competition the MPAA's region scheme is there to prevent. It would be hard for the MPAA to argue that they can't afford to sell a DVD for less than $30 one place when they sell it for $15 another place.
That is how the free market works. Command markets, whether run by communist/fascist government, or by coprporate cartels, are BAD for the consumer and should be fought.
"Say you are a sysadmin. You run a mission-critical webserver. In the status quo, you receive around 40 portscans a minute. Hackers have been successful 3 times on your site. If portscans are outlawed, then the overall security of your site receives additional protection.
Practical benefits like this one should be MUCH more important than simply protecting 'liberty."
Please don't take this as a flame, but this is the same kind of flawed thinking that leads to things like anti-gun laws.
It is an extremely FALSE assumption that merly outlawing portscans will somehow reduce breaking into systems, DOS attacks, etc. Last time I checked, THOSE activities were already illegal.
To have any HOPE of effectiveness, you'd have to outlaw portscanning utilities. And give that law enough teeth to allow the stormtroopers (police) the ability to "find out who has them".
Portscanners have very PRACTICAL and good purposes you know, such as, me, as a sysadmin can use one to make sure the ports I wanted closed ARE closed... To ban portscans and portscanning means more systems will be left open and vulnerable!
Please think about the implications before so quickly giving up a liberty for the (false) promise of government guaranteed safety.
Here is the best quote on this subject:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
"Could it be that a university professor presents a more sypathetic character than the publisher of a hacker magizine? Unfortunately though it shouldn't matter it does. The first amendment was written for both. Hopefully this will all lead th the DCMA getting struck down and large corporations not getting to tell us what we can or can't publish or say"
You are right, of course. While legally everyone is guaranteed equality before the law, clearly, some are more "equal" than others.
Though Corley and 2600 had the Constitution on their side in their case, the fact that they were "hackers" led to the invlaidation of their cause in the public eye. It didn't help that the case was heard in front of a judge who had clearly made up his minde long before any evidence was presented.
Professor Felten stands a much better chance of prevailing, simply because he is a professor at one of America's most highly respected universities. No other reason. I don't feel that his case has any more or any less merit than DeCSS, except in that Felten's case is clearly speech of the kind expressed in the Constitution (because print and academic speech existed in the 1780's).
So yes, I think WHO Felten is in many ways matters more than his case. Which will be extremely difficult for the RIAA to defend against.
At best though, I don't see the DMCA being ruled Unconstitutional, but the more onerous provisions most likely will be.
"Degeneration" implies that it used to be worse. It wasn't. Frivolous lawsuits, lobbyists, influence peddling, and all that are nothing new. The same thing used to happen in Rome, Bagdad, Jerusalem, or Peking. You used to lose liberty, limb, or life if you lost. Now you usually just lose your shirt."
I'll grant you that this sort of thing has probably always happened.
However, as recently as 10-15 years ago, the number of these stupid suits was less than today. 20-30 years ago you hardly heard of such a thing.
The difference is, 10+ years ago, there used to be a lot more COMMON SENSE in the courts. Judges felt that it was part of their duty to reject out of hand obviously stupid and unreasonable claims.
Unfortunately, the last 5-10 years have seen a proliferation of stipid IP law that actually DOES threaten to make Americans slaves to commercial entites, and with the laws, more law suits.
The lawsuit industry in the last few years particularly has become a growth industry. Judges are increasingly nothing more than political hacks at best, delusional Napoleon-wannabes at worst.
What we need is a breakout of common sense. However, I'm increasingly of the opinion that common sense is misnamed because is not very common.
This claim is SO stupid as to defy all reason. But I bet there is some idiot judge who would hear it, thus costing the defendant a lot of money, when they'd done NOTHING wrong.
That is why judges NEED to be more a LOT more socially responsible than they are today, not accepting such obviously (to any person with a pulse who isn't a plantiff's lawyer or "judge" Kaplan who is breating and has a pulse) IDIOTIC claims. The judge is the first line of defense in preventing frivilous lawsuits.
Cases such as this are the stort that ruin the dignity and integrity OF the court. Maybe the black-robed wannabe Napoleons should think of that. If you ever read over some of the things the Bar actually REQUIRES of attorneys to be members, BRINGING such suits actually DOES merit disbarment! But I bet today it would never happen.
Sooner or later, when enough people have been sued (seems to me odds are almost every citizen is going to be sued by someone sooner or later), the public is going to demand reform in the courts, and it's not going to go well for the judges and lawyers. So they better start policing themselves now.
Is that we've degenerated as a civilization to the point that it can even be a QUESTION that such an idiotic, frivilous legal claim could even MAKE it to a court!
How the hell can a commercial entity "copyright" coordinates? Hell, they don't even OWN the places!
What we need are laws that punish those who FILE frivilous suits, and those who THREATEN frivilous suits. These days, the risk of being sued is so great, and the damage that can be caused by such suits are so great, why should these THREATS be treated any differently than threatening to break someone's leg?
Unfortunately, since laws are written by congressmen (who are mostly lawyers), or MORE frequently, by special interests (the American Trial Lawyers, the unprincipled cartel of ambulance chasing plantiff's lawyers is one of the MOST powerful), I don't see it happening.
" What if my business hasn't "given" the binaries to our client but merely LEASES equipment and software to them? We still own it, so it's never truly left our possession. On what basis must we give out source code? Do we have to give it out at all?"
I don't think that would fly under the GPL. My understanding isn't perfect, but I'd think letting the code leave your hands at ALL constitutes distribution. The GPL supersedes any "EULA" you may craft with your "software leasee", as your only right to modify and distribute the code at ALL comes from the GPL.
"The challenge is that he's right. There's nothing "free" about the GPL if you're a developer that doesn't have the same views as RMS and the rest of the free software movement.
I'd love to see someone on slashdot actually prove his statement wrong."
Why? Do you believe that Microsoft, et all, have some RIGHT to code that they had no part in writing? And have no obligation to allow the original authors the same right to MS code?
The GPL does NOTHING to prevent Microsoft or any other closed-source company from developing anything they want. For that matter, MS if completely free to reverse-engineer and release their own *NIX variant if they so wish.
It's MICROSOFT here who is playing the role of a whiner wanting more and more "handouts", not the GPL backers.
What the GPL DOES do is prevent a closed source company from taking your code, using it for their own purpose, then not allowing YOU to benefit from what they added to your code. It says "here, use what you want, the only catch is you have to give the next guy the same freedom YOU had".
Microsoft fears the GPL because it prevents them from taking code, and extending it in proprietary ways so as to break compatibility, then deny even the original author access to these changes. Had Keberos been GPL instead of BSD, MS coudld never have pulled their "embrace and extend" rape of what was a universal open standard when they used it in `Doze 2000.
True, the BSD license gives you absolute freedom to do with the code as you wish, in any way you wish. In and ideal world, the BSD license would be the best one. However, the GPL is more pragmatic and practical, it FORCES people to behave in an ethical manner, whereas the BSD license relies on morals and ethics of each and every user.
Microsoft fears the GPL because they cannot use GPL code without being assimilated by it. The GPL is merely a sling that is the weapon that allows David to defeat Goliath.
Actually, if we're talking diseases here, Microsoft is AIDS. Why? Once you contract AIDS there is nothing for it but expensive treatements (upgrades), while it inevitably destroys your immune system (erodes security) until you (your data) eventually die.
"Actually there is a very good reason for seatbelt laws. If you go flying through the windshield and break your neck, who pays for your million dollar medical bills? Yeah, your insurance company. And who pays for that? Everyone who has insurance. So for my sake and everyone else who drives and has to pay insurance bills, wear your god damn seatbelt."
That in itself is a slippery slope argument. Do you want the government to be outlawing things based on the probability that you may get hurt, or become a drain on the medical system? Want a VERY good argument against that?
Here goes:
For instance, there is a lifestyle out there that is EXTREMELY high risk. SO high risk, in fact, that the average life expectancy of a person who practices this is more than HALVED, because of the extreme risk of a disease for which there is no cure, and for which treatments for are extremely expensive and draining on insurance.
What lifestyle is this? The gay lifestyle. Should cops be allowed to burst into people's homes to see who they are screwing, and arrest them if they are having gay sex?
I don't belive in that. IF someone chooses a personal lifestyle that is PERSONALLY self-destructive and risky, then it's THEIR choice, and I and no one else has any business interfering. This is, after all supposed to be America..
Driving alone in your car with no seat belt endangers only yourself, and it shouldn't be the government's business.
But then, the government has a vested interest. If I die in a car wreck, I'm not paying taxes anymore to support all those do-nothing do-gooder "studies" that lead to freedom snatching like seat belt laws.
"Where do you learn independence, free-thinking, and most importantly, the real-life consequences of you decisions, not the parent consequences for your decisions?"
You know what could happen? This could be used as an excuse to push back the age of "adulthood" to 21... or 25... or 30... Or never.
One way the government can usurp the Constitution is to simply deny citizenship.
This system will create completely unfit "legal" adults at 18.
What will the consequences be? IMO, even more dumbed down adults who will be even LESS equipped to deal with stressful situations and to survive on their own than now.
Do we want to condition CHILDREN to expect to be tracked and monitored 24/7? Will this create adults who will think this sort of thing is "ok and normal" and go along with the Government tracking EVERYONE in this way?
This is freaking scary stuff! All the more scary because it's SCHOOLS who are doing this. Schools that are run by GOVERNMNET. Aren't there some serious Constitutional issues here?
Slashdot Mirror
"Hell, they can even nail you if you're traveling at or under the speed limit, if everyone else is going faster. They call it "obstructing traffic." You're damned if you do and damned if you don't, if Smokey hasn't made his quota yet."
In practice I've NEVER seen this happen, not once, or ever heard of it ever happening where I live...
For one thing, such a ticket would be harder for a judge to stomach, even the usually horribly biased traffic court judges.
But mostly because, in any area, there are too many easy "spots" where the speed limits are artifically low as to make it too easy to not get lots of speeders.
And those tickets are rarely ever fought, and even less often sucessfully fought.
"Yes, you claim, but there will be a market for the one firm that provides cars with no speeding restrictions. Really? What if there isn't quite that much demand? What if their insurance company refuses to insure their cars? (Well, everyone else limits their speed, so your cars are obviously more liable to accidents now...)"
/. uproar over their post-Columbine "geek profiling service"? Corps do NOT operate on a moral bais, but a PROFIT basis.
This is a VERY likely scenario... Insurance companies, in fact, might start offering BREAKS to rental companies who do this, and then report it to them.
Insurance companies lobby for banning radar detectors (Geico is one of the more notorious) because speeding tickets are a way they can "get away with" charging higher rates to otherwise low risk drivers.
Which is why there needs to be limits placed on what private corps can do to "enforce" law.
Why should "vigilante justice" be any more legal when done by a corp with a contract (which isn't explained to the technically ignorant, which is 90+% of the population) than by a citizen mob?
Why not buy your own radar gun and "pull over" drivers who speed, and charge them $50? How is what ACME doing any different?
There are MANY good reasons why law enforcement is the proper role of GOVERNMENT, not the private citizen or enterprise. Law enforcement should never have a profit motive, but have a MORAL motive... (this is one reason why the two law enforcement activities that ARE largely profit motive, the "drug war" and "speed trap" enforcement of unreasonable speed limits happen to be two of the LEAST moral or ethical)
Remember the Pinkerton's response to the
I'd suggest consulting a lawyer, or contacting your closest ACLU office.
Another suggestion, do ALL your coding on your own machine. If you don't have one, get one. Decent PC's can be had cheaply these days. That would make it even harder for them to claim ownership.
If they are claiming that your code is their property, and aren't paying you at least the state/federal minimum wage for it, they are violating numerous labor laws, IANAL.
I ABHOR this attitude from academia... These are the very same universities that allow their faculty to use school equipment, and even paid TIME to write papers, books, etc, which they then sell and profit from.
I'd think that a university would have a HARD time justifying that practice while telling the judge that they MUST own all code you write. Such clauses may even be illegal in your state, as it's very similar to some draconian employer NDA/non-compete/etc agreements.
And becayse you had no choice but to "agree" to it, it might even be null and void on that basis (duress).
Such clauses haven't been standing up in many places in employer/employee disputes, the fact that you are doing UNPAID (in fact, you PAY to be there) "work for hire" would, IANAL, IMO, strengthen your case.
And if you write something REALLY great, don't turn it in as work... Sit on it until you are out of school (summer break, etc).
Imagine if Bill Gates was attending college today, instead of when he did (and dropped out to form Microsoft)... His university might have claimed ownership of his BASIC program... And given today's draconian and anti-individial IP laws (which people like Gates helped create), they might even have won.
One reason why I despise people like Gates... He now tries to deny the opportunity to others to take advantage of what HE used to get to where he is.
"As has already been stated, Gartner asked end-users what they installed on their computers after they bought them. Not what was pre-installed on their computer. Implication: either Linux doesn't have the marketshare zealots want to belive, or accurately assessing server marketshare is difficult. You decide."
NOT true. Here's a quote:
""The study results indicated that in the traditional server market in the United States during the third quarter of 2000, 8.6 percent of server shipments were Linux-based systems."
So they did base it on SHIPMENTS. I'm willing to bet that most GNU/Linux servers ship with Windows, then are replaced with Linux. Also, this does not count hand built servers, of which I'd bet a large percentage are Linux servers.
As I said in my previous post, this "method" of determining how popular an OS is used by Gartner isn't any more scientific than determining the most popular video game by what cart/CD came with the system.
Since most sites deposit cookies on your PC (including most any pr0n site) because of ads, a simple method would be to set her up:
1. A "user profile" or account on a `Doze 9X or NT/2000 machine. You can then look in your cookies directory where they are identified by USER. (this directory is usually under \windows\cookies if memory serves)
2. If using a Linux/Unix box, do the same thing. Clear your cookies. Mozilla will show you the cookies accepted under edit>preferences>Privacy and Security>Cookies.
" Well thats normal /. dumbfuckness.. everything AOL or MS is evil.. they could donate $1 Billion to linux.com and they would be strewn as evil monopolists. STUPID FUCKING SLASHDOT TROLLS"
/.'ers like Mozilla, which is a Netscape derivitave, which has developers that AOL pays...
Really? As I recall, most
That is a good thing AOL does, for sure, if for no other reason than to help Mozilla is to hurt M$. Remember, the enemy of your enemy is your friend...
As for Microsoft, I make no apologies. They ARE evil. Just look at what `Doze XP is going to do to people who think they are buying the greatest thing since MS Sliced Bread(tm).
XP:
1. Deliberately hurts Mp3
2. Breaks CD Burner software
3. Prevents you from upgrading your computer in an unlimited fashion without calling M$.
4. REQUIRES activation (and giving out info) to be a legal license.
5. Is a very MINOR technical upgrade from Windows 2000, which given what XP is DOING to you in #1-4, makes it a negative return. 2000 is by far the better OS.
6. Has a GUI that would make anyone outside Miss Shirley's Romper Room throw up. I much prefer KDE 2.1.
Not only that, but MS is sending out goons to call the GPL license "Un American" and to lobby for what cannot be stated as anything but the right to "embrace and extend" ANYONE'S code.
"Wow, news flash indeed.
But on the other hand, the real news is that 8.6% of all new servers sold comes with Linux pre-installed.
This is in fact good news. Its only the spindoctoring in the Gartner study that makes it look either bad or not newsworthy.
"
I think you make a great point there. Pretty much everyone who sells servers these days offers Linux. I work for one of the largest in Q/A testing, right now working on certifying their RAID cards and servers for Red Hat 7.1.
Linux is the ideal web server, and with SAMBA, an ideal file server for small and medium businesses. After all, connect ALL your users to it, no need to buy connect licenses... EVER!
Those categories represent, in raw numbers, the LARGEST bulk categories of the server market.
"Lets face it, my 16 year old sister can learn to be a windows admin from one of those tech schools that'll make you certified in 3 months. And you can pay 5 of those newbie admins for the price of one unix admin."
Yes, but any 16 year old with a cable modem and a CD burner can download a copy of any Linux distro and have a REAL, robust, scalable server OS to play with, free of charge.
And Linux is getting easier and easier to use all the time.
Plus, Linux and Unix knowledge is WORTH more in the workplace than `Doze knowledge, which is a dime a dozen. I personally am considered very valueble in my department, in a top company that is investing a BILLION dollars in Linux, simply because I am a competent superuser. I'm not even good enough to be an engineer yet (but I'm working on it, and here in Durham, NC is a great place to do it).
In my previous job, my company did a lot of contract work for the State of West Virginia, which uses the "Gartner Group's Tier" standards for all their purchases.
Many things on it were illogical, such as the blatant RAMBUS memory cheerleading, etc, despite benchmarks that proved that PC-133 SDRAM was faster on Pentium 3 systems than RAMBUS (and was cheaper).
Basically Gartner, like any company of it's type, says what it's paid to say. Why do they do this? Because they wanted to get paid. Remember when Ziff-Davis would only talk about Liuux when parroting Microsoft's "Haloween Documents"? That changed overnight when Linux companies formed and started advertising in ZD magazines.
The same will happen with Gartner when a Linux company buys their seal of approval.
As the article stated, this "study" used the flawed model of judging server OS's by what OS shipped with the system, rather than actually surveying what was actually USED on that server sold.
This is like measuring what radio station is #1 in the market by what station the radio was set to when it was sold. Or how many people buy Ashland Gasoline because that was the fuel in the car when it was sold...
Unfortunately, Gartner's flaws are not well known by the people who use them as the HOLY WRIT (usually the non-techical people in corporate and government bureaucracy).
"Remember those guys who barely made it out of your intro to [comp.sci, biology, physics, chemistry, statistics, etc]? They are now no longer referred to as 'idiot'; the proper terminology is 'your honor'"
I call them idiots when they deserve it (Kaplan, etc). Just because they sucked off some politician (figuratively speaking) to get appointed to a lifetime taxpayer paid job doesn't entitle them to being any more or less above judgement by those who employ them (taxpayers).
I find it interesting that the CONSERVATIVES (minus Rhenquist, this was a disappointment for me) voted FOR upholding the 4th Amendment, and the one true liberal ideologue on the court (LBJ appointe John Paul Stevens) wrote the dissenting opinion.
Breyer and Ginsburg, the two Clinton apointes joining the majority shocked me some, however.
This is a decision that should have been 9-0... Scary that the Bill of Rights of the Constitution was just upheld by the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote isn't it?
"eh? then why are radar guns (for detecting the speed of a vehicle) not "illegal search and seizure"?
"
I do agree that this COULD be a 4th Amendment violation, but getting it heard by a judge would be unlikely. Most traffic courts are there just to collect your money anyway (as I found out in an Ohio one once when falsely given a speeding ticket (the officer clocked the car that was passing me, then pulled us both over) even when I provided evidence that cast grave doubt on the officer's claim.
Biggest problems with this are states like VA and the DC who outlaw radar/laser detectors.
How, Constitutionally can an agent of the State search you at all and yet deny you the right to detect it?
It's great that this search with hi-tech imagers was ruled illegal, because you KNOW the next step would have been laws making the manufacture or ownership of DETECTION EQUIPMENT to detect such scans illegal.
"It isn't the keyboard which hurts me, it the damned mouse. Switched to an MS Trackball Explorer and have had 80% of my right side arm/wrist/shoulder aches disappear"
When I started playing games that were mouse controlled (Daggerfall being the one in question), my mouse hand started getting tired and aching. A mouse pad with a wrist support solved the problem immediately.
The bottom line, using proper technique prevents most, if not ALL RSI.
Carpal tunnel, IMO, is one of those ailments largely invented by the ambulance chasing plantiffs lawyers.
I've never known anyone to have it, and I've worked with computers and people who work with and on computers for 9 years now.
I'm 29. I've had a computer ever since I was 8 years old (Commodore Vic-20). I've spent an EXCESSIVE amount of time using standard keyboards, many MANY hours a day, throught childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. No evidence of carpal tunnel for me. Surely, if it were to affect anyone, it would be me.
I've used nothing but standard QWERTY keyboards, I never cared for the strange "ergonomic" Microsoft keyboard or it's many clones, as I don't care to abandon 20 years of typing expertise and re-learn a skill that is vital to my job and recreation.
IMO, as the article implied, RSI is nothing more than a "fad" condition that lawyers and "labor groups" have used as a way to go after wallets.
" THAT is why they can't charge whatever they want. Not because they couldn't get away with it- because they could, and are, and in so doing they finance ever more expansion, past what is socially useful.
"
I see this issue differently. Let the MPAA sell DVD's at whatever price they wish to, wherever they wish to. BUT, the consumer should have the right to buy his DVD's anwyhere he wishes. That means, if they are selling them for $15 in Indiana, he should be able to buy them over the net for that anywhere else in the world.
This is NOT a case of a government wanting to tell business what they can charge. It's a government questioning a system that enforces a supply monopoly that lets a cartel set prices, not the market.
For instance, if DVD sellers in the UK have to comptete with Americnan Internet mail order houses, you bet the prices will go down. Either because the retailers lower them or else the retailers DEMAND lower prices from the MPAA to compete.
It is this competition the MPAA's region scheme is there to prevent. It would be hard for the MPAA to argue that they can't afford to sell a DVD for less than $30 one place when they sell it for $15 another place.
That is how the free market works. Command markets, whether run by communist/fascist government, or by coprporate cartels, are BAD for the consumer and should be fought.
"Say you are a sysadmin. You run a mission-critical webserver. In the status quo, you receive around 40 portscans a minute. Hackers have been successful 3 times on your site. If portscans are outlawed, then the overall security of your site receives additional protection.
Practical benefits like this one should be MUCH more important than simply protecting 'liberty."
Please don't take this as a flame, but this is the same kind of flawed thinking that leads to things like anti-gun laws.
It is an extremely FALSE assumption that merly outlawing portscans will somehow reduce breaking into systems, DOS attacks, etc. Last time I checked, THOSE activities were already illegal.
To have any HOPE of effectiveness, you'd have to outlaw portscanning utilities. And give that law enough teeth to allow the stormtroopers (police) the ability to "find out who has them".
Portscanners have very PRACTICAL and good purposes you know, such as, me, as a sysadmin can use one to make sure the ports I wanted closed ARE closed... To ban portscans and portscanning means more systems will be left open and vulnerable!
Please think about the implications before so quickly giving up a liberty for the (false) promise of government guaranteed safety.
Here is the best quote on this subject:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
"Could it be that a university professor presents a more sypathetic character than the publisher of a hacker magizine? Unfortunately though it shouldn't matter it does. The first amendment was written for both. Hopefully this will all lead th the DCMA getting struck down and large corporations not getting to tell us what we can or can't publish or say"
You are right, of course. While legally everyone is guaranteed equality before the law, clearly, some are more "equal" than others.
Though Corley and 2600 had the Constitution on their side in their case, the fact that they were "hackers" led to the invlaidation of their cause in the public eye. It didn't help that the case was heard in front of a judge who had clearly made up his minde long before any evidence was presented.
Professor Felten stands a much better chance of prevailing, simply because he is a professor at one of America's most highly respected universities. No other reason. I don't feel that his case has any more or any less merit than DeCSS, except in that Felten's case is clearly speech of the kind expressed in the Constitution (because print and academic speech existed in the 1780's).
So yes, I think WHO Felten is in many ways matters more than his case. Which will be extremely difficult for the RIAA to defend against.
At best though, I don't see the DMCA being ruled Unconstitutional, but the more onerous provisions most likely will be.
"Degeneration" implies that it used to be worse. It wasn't. Frivolous lawsuits, lobbyists, influence peddling, and all that are nothing new. The same thing used to happen in Rome, Bagdad, Jerusalem, or Peking. You used to lose liberty, limb, or life if you lost. Now you usually just lose your shirt."
I'll grant you that this sort of thing has probably always happened.
However, as recently as 10-15 years ago, the number of these stupid suits was less than today. 20-30 years ago you hardly heard of such a thing.
The difference is, 10+ years ago, there used to be a lot more COMMON SENSE in the courts. Judges felt that it was part of their duty to reject out of hand obviously stupid and unreasonable claims.
Unfortunately, the last 5-10 years have seen a proliferation of stipid IP law that actually DOES threaten to make Americans slaves to commercial entites, and with the laws, more law suits.
The lawsuit industry in the last few years particularly has become a growth industry. Judges are increasingly nothing more than political hacks at best, delusional Napoleon-wannabes at worst.
What we need is a breakout of common sense. However, I'm increasingly of the opinion that common sense is misnamed because is not very common.
This claim is SO stupid as to defy all reason. But I bet there is some idiot judge who would hear it, thus costing the defendant a lot of money, when they'd done NOTHING wrong.
That is why judges NEED to be more a LOT more socially responsible than they are today, not accepting such obviously (to any person with a pulse who isn't a plantiff's lawyer or "judge" Kaplan who is breating and has a pulse) IDIOTIC claims. The judge is the first line of defense in preventing frivilous lawsuits.
Cases such as this are the stort that ruin the dignity and integrity OF the court. Maybe the black-robed wannabe Napoleons should think of that. If you ever read over some of the things the Bar actually REQUIRES of attorneys to be members, BRINGING such suits actually DOES merit disbarment! But I bet today it would never happen.
Sooner or later, when enough people have been sued (seems to me odds are almost every citizen is going to be sued by someone sooner or later), the public is going to demand reform in the courts, and it's not going to go well for the judges and lawyers. So they better start policing themselves now.
Is that we've degenerated as a civilization to the point that it can even be a QUESTION that such an idiotic, frivilous legal claim could even MAKE it to a court!
How the hell can a commercial entity "copyright" coordinates? Hell, they don't even OWN the places!
What we need are laws that punish those who FILE frivilous suits, and those who THREATEN frivilous suits. These days, the risk of being sued is so great, and the damage that can be caused by such suits are so great, why should these THREATS be treated any differently than threatening to break someone's leg?
Unfortunately, since laws are written by congressmen (who are mostly lawyers), or MORE frequently, by special interests (the American Trial Lawyers, the unprincipled cartel of ambulance chasing plantiff's lawyers is one of the MOST powerful), I don't see it happening.
" What if my business hasn't "given" the binaries to our client but merely LEASES equipment and software to them? We still own it, so it's never truly left our possession. On what basis must we give out source code? Do we have to give it out at all?"
I don't think that would fly under the GPL. My understanding isn't perfect, but I'd think letting the code leave your hands at ALL constitutes distribution. The GPL supersedes any "EULA" you may craft with your "software leasee", as your only right to modify and distribute the code at ALL comes from the GPL.
"The challenge is that he's right. There's nothing "free" about the GPL if you're a developer that doesn't have the same views as RMS and the rest of the free software movement.
I'd love to see someone on slashdot actually prove his statement wrong."
Why? Do you believe that Microsoft, et all, have some RIGHT to code that they had no part in writing? And have no obligation to allow the original authors the same right to MS code?
The GPL does NOTHING to prevent Microsoft or any other closed-source company from developing anything they want. For that matter, MS if completely free to reverse-engineer and release their own *NIX variant if they so wish.
It's MICROSOFT here who is playing the role of a whiner wanting more and more "handouts", not the GPL backers.
What the GPL DOES do is prevent a closed source company from taking your code, using it for their own purpose, then not allowing YOU to benefit from what they added to your code. It says "here, use what you want, the only catch is you have to give the next guy the same freedom YOU had".
Microsoft fears the GPL because it prevents them from taking code, and extending it in proprietary ways so as to break compatibility, then deny even the original author access to these changes. Had Keberos been GPL instead of BSD, MS coudld never have pulled their "embrace and extend" rape of what was a universal open standard when they used it in `Doze 2000.
True, the BSD license gives you absolute freedom to do with the code as you wish, in any way you wish. In and ideal world, the BSD license would be the best one. However, the GPL is more pragmatic and practical, it FORCES people to behave in an ethical manner, whereas the BSD license relies on morals and ethics of each and every user.
Microsoft fears the GPL because they cannot use GPL code without being assimilated by it. The GPL is merely a sling that is the weapon that allows David to defeat Goliath.
"If Linux is cancer then Microsoft is Herpes"
Actually, if we're talking diseases here, Microsoft is AIDS. Why? Once you contract AIDS there is nothing for it but expensive treatements (upgrades), while it inevitably destroys your immune system (erodes security) until you (your data) eventually die.
"FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?"
;)
WHEW! I use EXT2, so I'm safe?!
"Actually there is a very good reason for seatbelt laws. If you go flying through the windshield and break your neck, who pays for your million dollar medical bills? Yeah, your insurance company. And who pays for that? Everyone who has insurance. So for my sake and everyone else who drives and has to pay insurance bills, wear your god damn seatbelt."
That in itself is a slippery slope argument. Do you want the government to be outlawing things based on the probability that you may get hurt, or become a drain on the medical system? Want a VERY good argument against that?
Here goes:
For instance, there is a lifestyle out there that is EXTREMELY high risk. SO high risk, in fact, that the average life expectancy of a person who practices this is more than HALVED, because of the extreme risk of a disease for which there is no cure, and for which treatments for are extremely expensive and draining on insurance.
What lifestyle is this? The gay lifestyle. Should cops be allowed to burst into people's homes to see who they are screwing, and arrest them if they are having gay sex?
I don't belive in that. IF someone chooses a personal lifestyle that is PERSONALLY self-destructive and risky, then it's THEIR choice, and I and no one else has any business interfering. This is, after all supposed to be America..
Driving alone in your car with no seat belt endangers only yourself, and it shouldn't be the government's business.
But then, the government has a vested interest. If I die in a car wreck, I'm not paying taxes anymore to support all those do-nothing do-gooder "studies" that lead to freedom snatching like seat belt laws.
"Where do you learn independence, free-thinking, and most importantly, the real-life consequences of you decisions, not the parent consequences for your decisions?"
You know what could happen? This could be used as an excuse to push back the age of "adulthood" to 21... or 25... or 30... Or never.
One way the government can usurp the Constitution is to simply deny citizenship.
This system will create completely unfit "legal" adults at 18.
What will the consequences be? IMO, even more dumbed down adults who will be even LESS equipped to deal with stressful situations and to survive on their own than now.
Do we want to condition CHILDREN to expect to be tracked and monitored 24/7? Will this create adults who will think this sort of thing is "ok and normal" and go along with the Government tracking EVERYONE in this way?
This is freaking scary stuff! All the more scary because it's SCHOOLS who are doing this. Schools that are run by GOVERNMNET. Aren't there some serious Constitutional issues here?