Server: Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES Basic Support $349 Standard Support $799
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS Standard Support $1499 Premium Support $2499
Client: Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS Basic Support $179 Standard Support $299
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop Proxy Starter Pack $2500 Extension Pack $3500
And this is only RedHat there are other commercial linuxes around, ranging from nokia's 770 and 880 to enterprises markets like redhat's one. So my guess is that the market is bearing linux and OSS quite well.
Bzzzzt Wrong, in Australia December is summer, not winter. By the way this summer turned out to be mild in Rio de Janeiro also, we are having few really, really hot days (40C) that we are used to.
There is the problem with loading two sets of library, a KDE guy will not want to have to load a lot of the gnome dependencies that KDE don't need and vice versa. Much of this is getting better, since both camps are agreeing in use much the same infra-structure in some parts, witch is good, so maybe in the future this will be a lesser problem.:-D
No the grandparent is suggesting that a simply "luck" based attack will succeed 1 out of 9 times. if the spammer hit your site with 100s or thousands of spam 1/9th of those would pass, witch still too much.
I made a similar algorithm for my captcha, I use an image with some, but not too much randomization, this step is only to make the spammer use a OCR witch makes things a little harder but not too much. The image has a question in the grandparents format and 6 written answers, he then proceed and asks the user to enter the nth vogal or consonant followed by another letter of the correct answer.
For instance one possible result of this scheme is :
Witch of those is a marine being? from the correct answer type the vogal number 1 and the consonant number 2 :
1) dolfin 2) Arnold Schwarzenegger 3) Garfield 4) fly 5) United States
You assume that guilt/non guilt is a black and white with no grays in between. There are several shades of gray that one person might classify as guilt (of something) while others would classify as non-guilty. What constitute a self-defense, does preemptive self-defense count? What about insanity, does temporary insanity count? There are many gray, and hopefully will aways have them, since human action and motivations are both impossible to measure in an non personal and scientific way.
The whole point is that the 'certifying authorities' have their reputations on the line, and won't certify spammers, or else they risk effectively being black-listed. If one ISP kicks out a spammer, they can/should publicise the fact, and let other ISPs know to watch out for that person/company. If you can create new certificates authorities out of the blue reputation would be useless. If it is too hard/expensive to create those then no one or few will do it and you are in the same place we are now.
Now, place Grandma in front of a Mail Client that says, in big, bold letters "This email came from WeAreNotSpammersInc.com" Can she tell where that email came from now? If she gets spam, can she hit the Big Red Button that automatically fires off a spam complaint to the certifying authority? Grandma and Grandpa do not receive too much spam, they don't have a computer you see...:-D
Just kidding, but clueless users will do clueless stuff and spammers will do bad stuff on purpose, if they the bad guys start to flood the system acusing everyone of spamming, either by sending false reports or by using compromised computers to send spam in the name of a otherwise normal person, soon every ISP will be "tainted" and have a bad reputation.
The problem with spam is not that you cannot be sure where it's from, this has already been solved by the use of SPF or other similar techniques.
Well, the government can simply abolish this so called bill of rights and regulate those anyway. Govern, by definition, has the power to do what it wants, if it does over do it people will be unsatisfied and may (or may not) revolt and overthrow it, replacing it with another govern with different goals and directives.
What I don't see is why people don't trust the govern to cut corporation power. Every time anyone says that corporations should be regulated there are a lot of people that complains and say that "the market" will regulate them, too bad they already control it to an extent where they don't need to worry about this power of controlling. Sure I can boycott Sony for their, many, blunders and attacks to their customers, but even if I could (and I can't) convince all my friends to do the same do you think I done even a dent on it's reputation? No, people don't even know that there was a root-kit, much less what a root-kit is, they don't know that they are using this disgusting "pseudo viral marketing" campaigns, and people will still buy PSPs, CDs, playstations and whatever Sony throw in the market.
The worst part is that those same enterprises are already exerting power over many governments around the world, just count how many copyrights acts are being passed all over the places and yet many people defend the corporation and say that they should continue their power escalation. I am not sure that it is even possible to revert this picture now, but I will not defend them, I believe that corporations, specially large ones, are a type of government that have a growing area of influence and as such they must have the same social obligations that governs have.
Actually there are only 10 axioms and a 11th that many people don't like (axiom of choice), so they use it only when really needed. Those axioms comes from the set theory and from that you can define all the fields of math and prove their respective axioms.
Much of what we use day to day is in fact definitions. For instance, this very basic form of math, defines the real numbers in terms of sets. 0 is defined as a set that contains no element the empty set, 1 is defined as a set that has one element that is 0, 2 contains 1 and 0 and so on, I don't know the exact details but you can define the hole math in term of sets alone, off course this was done once and it has been shown to behave the way we think it should behave so it was accepted and we went on doing the things that we usually do the way it is easier.
I have a simple, foolproof idea to help eliminate spam.
Email certification.
If you want to be able to send Certified Email (CE), you apply for Certification from the company that gives you internet connectivity. They check you out, and 'Certify' you as being a legitimate emailer (ie: not a spammer). Then, you generate a private/public key pair and give them the public one. In the headers of all your email, is their certification, and an encrypted header line that's createdusing your private key.
When email arrives at the recipients server (or this could be done at the client level, as well), the server sees the certification, and connects to the certifying server to get your public key. It attempts to decrypt the header line. If it does it marks the email as 'certified', if it cannot, it marks the email as 'uncertified', and the email client can be programmed to filter messages based on that.
Due to the public/private key cryptography, there can be no certified email spoofing. (Assuming the private keys are secure, the keys are of decent length, etc.) All emails are traceable back to the originating server. CORRECTION- all CERTIFIED emails are traceable. Anonymous email is still possible. People can still set up email servers for mailing lists without "having" to get them certified. And people can still receive non-certified mail.
What are the acceptable certifiers? Too little of them and you get a monopoly or a trust that makes the certificates too costly to buy, if you have too much of them, spammers will get them certificates and ruin the reputation of each of the certificating authorities. If the price for certification is too high no one, or very few people will certificate themselves and no one will be able to deny the uncertified mails and you get to the cituation you have now.
If an email server sends out spam, the complaints go to it's certifier. They can drop the certification, deleting the public key from their server. When this happens, ALL the email from the spamming server is now 'uncertified', and gets handled accordingly by email clients. If nothing is done, complaints go to THEIR upstream, etc. Individuals and groups can keep their own blacklists, if they wish, and anyone can choose to filter emails according to those lists.
Now, I've looked over that 'form email' that people like to post to shoot down anti-spam ideas. And nothing applies to this idea. (If something seems to apply, it's because I either left out details, or explained something wrong.) This idea does NOT need to be universally adopted, nor does it need to be adopted by everyone all at once. It's primarily a way of reliably tracing (certified) emails back to their originating server. The anti-spam part comes later: if you receive certified spam, complain and get the server un-certified. If you receive un-certified spam... well, just have your email client dump all uncertified emails in the trash. (Not nessisarilly, you could just use it's un-certifedness as a factor in filtering your email.)
You can aways discover the origin of an email, as soon as an email enters a normal SMTP server it will record the ip from witch this email has come, sure there can be a long lists of fake 'received by' headers before that but the ip from the zombie is always there.
This idea does not require anything be changed with SMTP. It simply requires a second connection be made to the certifying server. Now, before you bitch about the extra bandwidth, I'd like to remind you that, once this idea catches on, spam will be greatly reduced. This reduction will MORE than make up for the slight increase in bandwidth created in querying the certifying servers. Also, the certifying servers can set time limits on when the certifications expire, and need to be re-downloaded (kind of like DHCP leases). A 'new' company that just applied for certification might have it's certificate set to exp
Well you trust a software company that continues to have the world record of security holes, virus and all kinds of spyware, why shouldn't you trust a random person? It seems to me that most enterprises are already trusting random people not to explore their computers....:-)
The hole question is not that they have a "loader" that links the binary blob to the kernel. What they say, and Linus also agree, is that the binary blob is not based on the kernel, it is based on the windows driver and their hardware. since the binary blob is not a derived work, only the thin linker layer is, then the source for this part is not bound to the GPL.
How to prove that this binary blob has not taken any part of the kernel when it was made is a tough job to me, and that is why no one has came out and sued nvidia, yet. Besides who has the money to contract the top-of-the-line lawyer that this would need?
compounds are organic. You can connect carbons in an infinite number of ways. There are an infinite number of inorganic molecules too, but it's a much smaller infinity. <nitpick> Wrong, both are enumerable so they are the same size. </nitpick>
"People chose the GPL because it would grant them some rights and believing it would protect them against, tivo subverted the license to things that the original developers didn't want them to do. This is the treason, it might be completely legal but it is unethical and a treason to the people who had putted their sweat into the kernel and did not wish for this to happen."
If that was their belief then it's they're own failure. They dictated the license when they released their code, so if they insist on blaming someone rather than themselves, then they should point the finger at RMS. The GPL has no authority over anything unrelated to what it is licensing. Just because the developers were naive doesn't mean there was any "treason".
"This is clear a case, and in this case is not even a case of misunderstanding on the part of tivo, it is very clear that people wish to grant power to modify and run them when code is licensed with GPL, no one has any doubt in that (unless you're a tivo lawyer)."
Sorry, but you just don't get it. The Tivo hardware is not covered in any way by the GPL and there is no ambiguity in any language. Tivo granted the right to users to modify its code and use it in the manner than the GPL grants. The hardware they sell you is not governed by the GPL, however, and they are under no obligation to make the hardware compatible with the license. RMS understands that, Linus understands it, Tivo understands it, why can't you? RMS understands and that's why he, and the FSF, are writing the GPL3, and by the way why do you think I don't understand? I don't want to mess with their hardware, as much as I wished they haven't messed with GPL software. The point is that if they want a closed hardware that will not allow any unblessed software to run, then they should be developing this blessed software themselves. Using GPL software in this fashion is against the ideal of the license and the community, even though this is not worded in the text itself. Sure, the people who created the software and licensed could be labeled "naive", but in fact law and licenses is a hard matter, that can have thousands and thousands of different interpretations in an infinite number of possibilities.
This is clearly against the ideal, what good is to able to change, when you changes can't run anywhere? So that's why I call a "treason", it don't matter what is written people can understand what it is meant by creating a GPL and tivo has used what is written to go against that. It is like entering your room, witch have a "do not enter before knocking" when you're not home after knocking on the door knowing that no one would answer. The reason for post is clear, and even though you followed the instructions you went against.
Now I know that law cannot go against intent, it has to follow the words that are written, after all intention isn't always clear. I know that tivo has not committed any crime, but what is legal isn't aways what is right or moral. The acts of tivo were immoral and a treason to the ideal of the people who wrote the kernel and yes it was as lawful as one can get.
That's something that's always struck me. An omnipotent god could trivially create a zillion photons all the way up to every star in the iniverse. And in fact could create 15 billion years of fake history which would be completely indistinguishable from "real" history.
Which also means that we could also postulate that the universe came into existence 10 seconds ago, complete with this comment half written.If he created the world this way, I guess that he can't blame humans and condemn them to eternal pain and stuff in hell for believing it...;-)
God, the meta-physical prankster, "hahaha, fooled you"...
Lucky you, we're pretty hot here in the Southern hemisphere. Summer is coming!who said anything about being in the north? I live in Rio de Janeiro, the weather is not, yet, at 40C but it is very hot and humid here, this means you sweat a lot.
Designs and recipes are two different conceptual categories.
A design is what something is. A blueprint, if you want. The difficulty in deconstructing it is irrelevant. It may be very easy (a shoe), or very difficuly (a chip), but when you've reverse engineered it, you're done. That's all that there is.I don't know if I am too generalist, but to me a blueprint is a recipe that tells me where to put each ingredient (component).:-) Maybe I'm just wrong in doing it, but I don't see why the law should protect one and not the other, or vice versa.:-)
So, according to you, an entity cannot be "low paid" and "clean." That is not what I said. please re-read my post.
But I can assure you that when death is demanding a visit to your household, you will not think of the "cleanliness" you appear to crave.
I refuse to die in a hospital. Hospitals are full of sick people, and a sizable majority that are admitted, die there. A significant percentage of those that die in hospital would have survived had they stayed at home.
While I don't know if this statement is true or not, however the question you should be asking is how many people died at home that would not have died if they were in a hospital.
I eschew drugs unless as an absolute last resort, unlike so many Westerners these days who seem quite happy to self medicate with OTC concoctions at the least symptom and turn to the doctor for prescription medication to cure everything from a head-ache, insomnia, fatigue, and malaise to spoiled children, when usually all that is needed is a good diet, exercise, fresh air and hard work, and in the case of spoiled children, a firm hand.On this I agree with you.:-)
The employee has a non-disclosure blah blah blah, he would be sued to death...
I agree that something revolutionary would not be hold out, probably, but evolutionary steps are hold-out frequently. I could bet with you that apple could make now ipods with 3x more memory, wify networking and other bullet points. They hold out those bullet features, so you have a reason to upgrade.
My favorite is to just have a catchall on my domain. Then when I signup for something, I use a descriptive address plus my domain. This allows me to not only get all the mail, I know who I gave it to, and who is selling/spamming. If they start to spam, I just turn it off or dev/null all mail to that address.What I do it that I create a new email for each service, it redirects to my account and if they sell this email or start spamming me I simply delete the redirection. It is good to be able to delete a "to" instead of filtering a "from" that is easily changeable.
No they would have released the ipod of the time plus an epsilon, a tiny advantage that would put them on the front. If they simply released all their tech at once they would be in bad position when apple released an ipod witch is better than what they have the next year.:-)
Cool.:-D Very cool.:-) This works even for those super-techs running shoes with "air systems" stuff? I aways imagined those were just a marketing scheme...:-D
But this don't invalidate my reasoning, being it is easy to copy (or reverse engineer) does not make a design different from a recipe. Just think in a chip design in the place of a shoe, for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but :
Server:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES
Basic Support $349
Standard Support $799
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS
Standard Support $1499
Premium Support $2499
Client:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS
Basic Support $179
Standard Support $299
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop
Proxy Starter Pack $2500
Extension Pack $3500
And this is only RedHat there are other commercial linuxes around, ranging from nokia's 770 and 880 to enterprises markets like redhat's one. So my guess is that the market is bearing linux and OSS quite well.
Bzzzzt Wrong, in Australia December is summer, not winter. By the way this summer turned out to be mild in Rio de Janeiro also, we are having few really, really hot days (40C) that we are used to.
There is the problem with loading two sets of library, a KDE guy will not want to have to load a lot of the gnome dependencies that KDE don't need and vice versa. Much of this is getting better, since both camps are agreeing in use much the same infra-structure in some parts, witch is good, so maybe in the future this will be a lesser problem. :-D
No the grandparent is suggesting that a simply "luck" based attack will succeed 1 out of 9 times. if the spammer hit your site with 100s or thousands of spam 1/9th of those would pass, witch still too much.
I made a similar algorithm for my captcha, I use an image with some, but not too much randomization, this step is only to make the spammer use a OCR witch makes things a little harder but not too much. The image has a question in the grandparents format and 6 written answers, he then proceed and asks the user to enter the nth vogal or consonant followed by another letter of the correct answer.
For instance one possible result of this scheme is :
Witch of those is a marine being?
from the correct answer type the vogal number 1 and the consonant number 2 :
1) dolfin
2) Arnold Schwarzenegger
3) Garfield
4) fly
5) United States
You assume that guilt/non guilt is a black and white with no grays in between. There are several shades of gray that one person might classify as guilt (of something) while others would classify as non-guilty. What constitute a self-defense, does preemptive self-defense count? What about insanity, does temporary insanity count? There are many gray, and hopefully will aways have them, since human action and motivations are both impossible to measure in an non personal and scientific way.
We all know that the correct nomenclature should been "Gnu/Freax", and that is why it got renamed. :-P
Just kidding, but clueless users will do clueless stuff and spammers will do bad stuff on purpose, if they the bad guys start to flood the system acusing everyone of spamming, either by sending false reports or by using compromised computers to send spam in the name of a otherwise normal person, soon every ISP will be "tainted" and have a bad reputation.
The problem with spam is not that you cannot be sure where it's from, this has already been solved by the use of SPF or other similar techniques.
I usually use "-price" or "-buy" that I know are present in most shops. :-D
Well, the government can simply abolish this so called bill of rights and regulate those anyway. Govern, by definition, has the power to do what it wants, if it does over do it people will be unsatisfied and may (or may not) revolt and overthrow it, replacing it with another govern with different goals and directives.
What I don't see is why people don't trust the govern to cut corporation power. Every time anyone says that corporations should be regulated there are a lot of people that complains and say that "the market" will regulate them, too bad they already control it to an extent where they don't need to worry about this power of controlling. Sure I can boycott Sony for their, many, blunders and attacks to their customers, but even if I could (and I can't) convince all my friends to do the same do you think I done even a dent on it's reputation? No, people don't even know that there was a root-kit, much less what a root-kit is, they don't know that they are using this disgusting "pseudo viral marketing" campaigns, and people will still buy PSPs, CDs, playstations and whatever Sony throw in the market.
The worst part is that those same enterprises are already exerting power over many governments around the world, just count how many copyrights acts are being passed all over the places and yet many people defend the corporation and say that they should continue their power escalation. I am not sure that it is even possible to revert this picture now, but I will not defend them, I believe that corporations, specially large ones, are a type of government that have a growing area of influence and as such they must have the same social obligations that governs have.
Actually there are only 10 axioms and a 11th that many people don't like (axiom of choice), so they use it only when really needed. Those axioms comes from the set theory and from that you can define all the fields of math and prove their respective axioms.
Much of what we use day to day is in fact definitions. For instance, this very basic form of math, defines the real numbers in terms of sets. 0 is defined as a set that contains no element the empty set, 1 is defined as a set that has one element that is 0, 2 contains 1 and 0 and so on, I don't know the exact details but you can define the hole math in term of sets alone, off course this was done once and it has been shown to behave the way we think it should behave so it was accepted and we went on doing the things that we usually do the way it is easier.
I have a simple, foolproof idea to help eliminate spam.
Email certification.
If you want to be able to send Certified Email (CE), you apply for Certification from the company that gives you internet connectivity. They check you out, and 'Certify' you as being a legitimate emailer (ie: not a spammer). Then, you generate a private/public key pair and give them the public one. In the headers of all your email, is their certification, and an encrypted header line that's createdusing your private key.
When email arrives at the recipients server (or this could be done at the client level, as well), the server sees the certification, and connects to the certifying server to get your public key. It attempts to decrypt the header line. If it does it marks the email as 'certified', if it cannot, it marks the email as 'uncertified', and the email client can be programmed to filter messages based on that.
Due to the public/private key cryptography, there can be no certified email spoofing. (Assuming the private keys are secure, the keys are of decent length, etc.) All emails are traceable back to the originating server. CORRECTION- all CERTIFIED emails are traceable. Anonymous email is still possible. People can still set up email servers for mailing lists without "having" to get them certified. And people can still receive non-certified mail.
What are the acceptable certifiers? Too little of them and you get a monopoly or a trust that makes the certificates too costly to buy, if you have too much of them, spammers will get them certificates and ruin the reputation of each of the certificating authorities. If the price for certification is too high no one, or very few people will certificate themselves and no one will be able to deny the uncertified mails and you get to the cituation you have now.
If an email server sends out spam, the complaints go to it's certifier. They can drop the certification, deleting the public key from their server. When this happens, ALL the email from the spamming server is now 'uncertified', and gets handled accordingly by email clients. If nothing is done, complaints go to THEIR upstream, etc. Individuals and groups can keep their own blacklists, if they wish, and anyone can choose to filter emails according to those lists.
Now, I've looked over that 'form email' that people like to post to shoot down anti-spam ideas. And nothing applies to this idea. (If something seems to apply, it's because I either left out details, or explained something wrong.) This idea does NOT need to be universally adopted, nor does it need to be adopted by everyone all at once. It's primarily a way of reliably tracing (certified) emails back to their originating server. The anti-spam part comes later: if you receive certified spam, complain and get the server un-certified. If you receive un-certified spam... well, just have your email client dump all uncertified emails in the trash. (Not nessisarilly, you could just use it's un-certifedness as a factor in filtering your email.)
You can aways discover the origin of an email, as soon as an email enters a normal SMTP server it will record the ip from witch this email has come, sure there can be a long lists of fake 'received by' headers before that but the ip from the zombie is always there.
This idea does not require anything be changed with SMTP. It simply requires a second connection be made to the certifying server. Now, before you bitch about the extra bandwidth, I'd like to remind you that, once this idea catches on, spam will be greatly reduced. This reduction will MORE than make up for the slight increase in bandwidth created in querying the certifying servers. Also, the certifying servers can set time limits on when the certifications expire, and need to be re-downloaded (kind of like DHCP leases). A 'new' company that just applied for certification might have it's certificate set to exp
Well you trust a software company that continues to have the world record of security holes, virus and all kinds of spyware, why shouldn't you trust a random person? It seems to me that most enterprises are already trusting random people not to explore their computers.... :-)
The hole question is not that they have a "loader" that links the binary blob to the kernel. What they say, and Linus also agree, is that the binary blob is not based on the kernel, it is based on the windows driver and their hardware. since the binary blob is not a derived work, only the thin linker layer is, then the source for this part is not bound to the GPL.
How to prove that this binary blob has not taken any part of the kernel when it was made is a tough job to me, and that is why no one has came out and sued nvidia, yet. Besides who has the money to contract the top-of-the-line lawyer that this would need?
Wrong, both are enumerable so they are the same size.
</nitpick>
I think it is a good idea, but the implementation as it is now is slow and buggy. Just hope that google could do it better. :-D
Sex usually helps...
If that was their belief then it's they're own failure. They dictated the license when they released their code, so if they insist on blaming someone rather than themselves, then they should point the finger at RMS. The GPL has no authority over anything unrelated to what it is licensing. Just because the developers were naive doesn't mean there was any "treason".
"This is clear a case, and in this case is not even a case of misunderstanding on the part of tivo, it is very clear that people wish to grant power to modify and run them when code is licensed with GPL, no one has any doubt in that (unless you're a tivo lawyer)."
Sorry, but you just don't get it. The Tivo hardware is not covered in any way by the GPL and there is no ambiguity in any language. Tivo granted the right to users to modify its code and use it in the manner than the GPL grants. The hardware they sell you is not governed by the GPL, however, and they are under no obligation to make the hardware compatible with the license. RMS understands that, Linus understands it, Tivo understands it, why can't you? RMS understands and that's why he, and the FSF, are writing the GPL3, and by the way why do you think I don't understand? I don't want to mess with their hardware, as much as I wished they haven't messed with GPL software. The point is that if they want a closed hardware that will not allow any unblessed software to run, then they should be developing this blessed software themselves. Using GPL software in this fashion is against the ideal of the license and the community, even though this is not worded in the text itself. Sure, the people who created the software and licensed could be labeled "naive", but in fact law and licenses is a hard matter, that can have thousands and thousands of different interpretations in an infinite number of possibilities.
This is clearly against the ideal, what good is to able to change, when you changes can't run anywhere? So that's why I call a "treason", it don't matter what is written people can understand what it is meant by creating a GPL and tivo has used what is written to go against that. It is like entering your room, witch have a "do not enter before knocking" when you're not home after knocking on the door knowing that no one would answer. The reason for post is clear, and even though you followed the instructions you went against.
Now I know that law cannot go against intent, it has to follow the words that are written, after all intention isn't always clear. I know that tivo has not committed any crime, but what is legal isn't aways what is right or moral. The acts of tivo were immoral and a treason to the ideal of the people who wrote the kernel and yes it was as lawful as one can get.
Jimmi father is a very good lawyer, you never know...
That's something that's always struck me. An omnipotent god could trivially create a zillion photons all the way up to every star in the iniverse. And in fact could create 15 billion years of fake history which would be completely indistinguishable from "real" history.
;-)
Which also means that we could also postulate that the universe came into existence 10 seconds ago, complete with this comment half written.If he created the world this way, I guess that he can't blame humans and condemn them to eternal pain and stuff in hell for believing it...
God, the meta-physical prankster, "hahaha, fooled you"...
Lucky you, we're pretty hot here in the Southern hemisphere. Summer is coming!who said anything about being in the north? I live in Rio de Janeiro, the weather is not, yet, at 40C but it is very hot and humid here, this means you sweat a lot. Designs and recipes are two different conceptual categories.
:-) Maybe I'm just wrong in doing it, but I don't see why the law should protect one and not the other, or vice versa. :-)
A design is what something is. A blueprint, if you want. The difficulty in deconstructing it is irrelevant.
It may be very easy (a shoe), or very difficuly (a chip), but when you've reverse engineered it, you're done. That's all that there is.I don't know if I am too generalist, but to me a blueprint is a recipe that tells me where to put each ingredient (component).
So, according to you, an entity cannot be "low paid" and "clean."
:-)
That is not what I said.
please re-read my post.
But I can assure you that when death is demanding a visit to your household, you will not think of the "cleanliness" you appear to crave.
I refuse to die in a hospital. Hospitals are full of sick people, and a sizable majority that are admitted, die there. A significant percentage of those that die in hospital would have survived had they stayed at home.
While I don't know if this statement is true or not, however the question you should be asking is how many people died at home that would not have died if they were in a hospital.
I eschew drugs unless as an absolute last resort, unlike so many Westerners these days who seem quite happy to self medicate with OTC concoctions at the least symptom and turn to the doctor for prescription medication to cure everything from a head-ache, insomnia, fatigue, and malaise to spoiled children, when usually all that is needed is a good diet, exercise, fresh air and hard work, and in the case of spoiled children, a firm hand.On this I agree with you.
The employee has a non-disclosure blah blah blah, he would be sued to death...
I agree that something revolutionary would not be hold out, probably, but evolutionary steps are hold-out frequently. I could bet with you that apple could make now ipods with 3x more memory, wify networking and other bullet points. They hold out those bullet features, so you have a reason to upgrade.
My favorite is to just have a catchall on my domain. Then when I signup for something, I use a descriptive address plus my domain. This allows me to not only get all the mail, I know who I gave it to, and who is selling/spamming. If they start to spam, I just turn it off or dev/null all mail to that address.What I do it that I create a new email for each service, it redirects to my account and if they sell this email or start spamming me I simply delete the redirection. It is good to be able to delete a "to" instead of filtering a "from" that is easily changeable.
No they would have released the ipod of the time plus an epsilon, a tiny advantage that would put them on the front. If they simply released all their tech at once they would be in bad position when apple released an ipod witch is better than what they have the next year. :-)
Cool. :-D Very cool. :-) This works even for those super-techs running shoes with "air systems" stuff? I aways imagined those were just a marketing scheme... :-D
But this don't invalidate my reasoning, being it is easy to copy (or reverse engineer) does not make a design different from a recipe. Just think in a chip design in the place of a shoe, for instance.