I just think that people fail to realize how large the US government is. It is MASSIVE. To overhaul the entire government, forcing them to convert to Open Source (or ANY particular software flavor) would be a logistical nightmare. The government is de-centralized and widespread. This level of change would (I'm guessing here) be the largest single IT undertaking ever attempted... and because it would be LAW it wouldn't be an option (potentially sacrificing millions (billions?) of dollars in existing software investments).
I think cost of a few missles wouldn't be a drop in a bucket when compared to a project like this.
I'm all for using Open Source where possible, but making it a _requirement_ is a raw deal.
And where's the ROI from a missle.... I'd say that it depends on the target. That and the fact that those billions of dollars flow back into the private sector, making the "hit" on taxpayers even harder to quantify.
I'd love to see the law actually quoted. I'm not disagreeing that it exists but I'm fairly disturbed at the thought that a law like this is out there.
Personally I'm horrified that all non-secret infrastructure should be wide open for anyone to see. What good is that for Joe Sixpack? None. What good is that for Joe BlackHat? A nice roadmap of where to start poking around. DMV, Social Security, criminal records, health history, postal system records, etc. are probably considered "non-secret" (by your definition) yet these are the things that worry me the most.
Various agencies have information on me floating around in countless different ways. I want the government to be able to keep this information as secure as possible, through as many means as possible, and if that includes using closed-source software and infrastructure then so be it!
We don't live in a true democracy. Government is not required to be completely transparent. If we don't like the way things are handled we vote in new representatives. If citizens want Open-Source software in their government, by all means run for office or get a job doing system administration for a government agency. Making laws dictating vendors, licensing or source distribution is a waste of time and a distraction from more important issues.
I couldn't agree more. Restricting the government to use only open-source software is simply insane.
While I agree that the government needs a certain level of transparency, I don't think that this transparency should filter down to every level of their orgainization. Does the public have a RIGHT to know the government's network infrastructure? Does the public have a RIGHT to know what data is on every civil servant's hard drive? I think not.
Requiring complete transparency is not only highly impractical (think of the cost to the taxpayer)), but it is also unnecessary. Within the bounds of law the government should be able to do what they need to do to get their job done. If that means using Windows or Office or some other proprietary software so be it.
First, get a Certified Canadian Diamond. They are harder to find, but these diamonds are mined in Canada (which has massive diamond deposits) where labor laws are more humane. Its nearly impossible to find a Canadian diamond unless you go near the source or you have a jeweler that you trust.
Second, although they don't have Canadian diamonds (that I know of) the Shane Co. (California, Oregon, elsewhere?) will give you terrific trade-in values on other purchases for dimonds that you buy from them.
Just create a bunch of email addresses whose sole purpose is to catch SPAM to feed your own blacklist. Its great cause you don't need to worry about finding SPAM, it is automatically sent to you.
Personally I've wanted to watch movies on my PDA for a long time. I've got good eyesight (for now) and the reduced video quality would be a decent tradeoff for portability. My 60 minute train rides to work to and from work everyday would be much more enjoyable if I could pop in a movie to pass the time.
I'm sure that the resolution won't change, so the same percentage of screen real estate will get eaten. The question is whether or not the ad will cover up the programming or whether the programming will simply get resized (smaller) to make room for the ad.
1.) the right to use for any means persuant to the remaining rules 2.) the right to resell/lend the original as long as backups do not exist 3.) the right to duplicate as backup in any format 4.) the right to use the backup as long as the original is not in use
I think that would satisfy any "fair use" issues for all parties that care....
Developers get to eat (and maybe pay rent), and customers aren't tied to one vendor.
In addition the developer can get the assistance from the community at large, while the customer has equal opportunity to review the code that they are using.
This is a shining example of how to leverage Open Source and make a living at it. Find a middle-ground where the core code is usable but not so easy that a monkey in a suit can install it.... the techies can run it for free and the suits can pay for it. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
This is only slightly different than forcing telcos to retain phone records, with one exception.
Many URL's can be used to guess WHAT data you've been looking at without actually looking at the website. For example, if someone saw the URL: http://www.nakedkids.com they would assume that it was child porn and whomever looked at it should be red-flagged and investigated. Quite possibly however this site could have NOTHING to do with porn and could simply have a questionable DNS name.
Perhaps if ISPs were only allowed to track IP addresses....
Exactly. Box Office sales, while important, are a small percentage of the cash cow. VHS, DVD and merchandizing make up the vast majority of the revenue from high-end flicks.
The duplication of information isn't at stake here. What is at stake is HOW we are allowed to copy information.
What copy protection attempts to do is to limit HOW you are able to copy data. Copy protection attempts to limit you in such a way that any duplication would be too costly, too time consuming or too laborious to be attempted on a large scale. It is the copyright owner's attempt to prevent redistribution that would cause financial losses to their property.
I personally don't like the idea of draconian copy protection. I think that a lot of people are downright horrified that their livelyhood is in jeopardy and new copy protection schemes are the result of this fear. It is complete overreaction on behalf of the media industry.
At the same time, I'm not too worried though. Where there is a will, theres a way. If I want to copy data and I'm willing to spend the time/money/energy to do so, there is no 100% way to stop me.
Users transfer data, nothing more. They never "go to" a site. Users ALWAYS view data stored on their local machine. Be it on disk or in memory I cannot think of a senario where a user is not viewing data locally.
IE will be losing a significant amount of market share very soon
I doubt IE will loose much market share anytime soon. What incentive does the average Windows user have to spend the time to download any browser, especially Mozilla/Netscape? Very little. With IE built/bundled with Windows the vast majority of Windows users will simply fire up IE and start browsing.
It will take a major event to begin to unseat IE. AOL changing its engine would be one such event, as would legislation forcing Microsoft to bundle (or unbundle) various browser options. The least likely would be the "comeback" of a browser on features alone.
When someone makes information from a certain locale, the "publisher" is bound by the laws of that locale.
When someone accesses information they are bound by the laws set in the locale from which they are viewing the data.
This is no different than a US publication (local newspaper, for example) being sent to someone in China. The publisher of the US newspaper is bound by US (and State, County, City) law. The person who reads the newspaper in China is bound by Chinese laws.
The fact that the delivery medium is virtually instant shouldn't matter.
Of course all of this is worthless when you're dealing with an unrational, unlogical, totalitarian, arguably evil government.
You have now made your employer aware that you are unhappy. From this day on, your loyalty will always be in question.
Bull. You are only unhappy with your pay. This is nothing to be surprised about.
When promotion time comes around, your employer will remember who is loyal and who is not.
Yeah you decided to stay. How many other people wouldn't even tell their current employer and would bolt for the higher paying job?
When times get tough, your employer will begin the cutbacks with you.
They will if your performance doesn't warrant you pay. Make sure you're puttin' out the goods.
Accepting a counteroffer is an insult to your intelligence and a blow to your personal pride; you were bought.
We work to get paid. We are all bought.
Where is the money for the counteroffer coming from? All companies have wage and salary guidelines which must be followed. Is it your next raise early?
Why does this matter? Is your next raise 50%?
Your company will immediately start looking for a new person at a cheaper price.
If this is the case then they would have let you walk. We aren't robots, swapping people to save a buck doesn't always make sense.
The same circumstances that now cause you to consider a change will repeat themselves in the future, even if you accept a counteroffer.
Not if all other things are equal, with pay being the only difference. If you like where you work you aren't likely to want to leave again.
Statistics show that if you accept a counteroffer, the probability of voluntarily leaving in six months or being let go in one year is extremely high.
Perhaps, but in this economy the probability of ANYONE being let go within a year is pretty high. Voluntarily leaving is mute, you can do that tomorrow.
Once the word gets out, the relationship that you now enjoy with your co-workers will never be the same. You will lose the personal satisfaction of peer group acceptance.
If "word gets out" then you have a pretty crappy HR dept and manager. Your salary shouldn't be public knowledge.
What type of company do you work for if you have to threaten to resign before they will give you what you are worth?
The money-saving tightwad kind. The kind that can weather dot.burst and a sagging economy and can still afford to keep valueable employees by throwing them some extra cash when push comes to shove.
Slashdot Mirror
I just think that people fail to realize how large the US government is. It is MASSIVE. To overhaul the entire government, forcing them to convert to Open Source (or ANY particular software flavor) would be a logistical nightmare. The government is de-centralized and widespread. This level of change would (I'm guessing here) be the largest single IT undertaking ever attempted... and because it would be LAW it wouldn't be an option (potentially sacrificing millions (billions?) of dollars in existing software investments).
I think cost of a few missles wouldn't be a drop in a bucket when compared to a project like this.
I'm all for using Open Source where possible, but making it a _requirement_ is a raw deal.
And where's the ROI from a missle.... I'd say that it depends on the target. That and the fact that those billions of dollars flow back into the private sector, making the "hit" on taxpayers even harder to quantify.
I'd love to see the law actually quoted. I'm not disagreeing that it exists but I'm fairly disturbed at the thought that a law like this is out there.
Personally I'm horrified that all non-secret infrastructure should be wide open for anyone to see. What good is that for Joe Sixpack? None. What good is that for Joe BlackHat? A nice roadmap of where to start poking around. DMV, Social Security, criminal records, health history, postal system records, etc. are probably considered "non-secret" (by your definition) yet these are the things that worry me the most.
Various agencies have information on me floating around in countless different ways. I want the government to be able to keep this information as secure as possible, through as many means as possible, and if that includes using closed-source software and infrastructure then so be it!
We don't live in a true democracy. Government is not required to be completely transparent. If we don't like the way things are handled we vote in new representatives. If citizens want Open-Source software in their government, by all means run for office or get a job doing system administration for a government agency. Making laws dictating vendors, licensing or source distribution is a waste of time and a distraction from more important issues.
I couldn't agree more. Restricting the government to use only open-source software is simply insane.
While I agree that the government needs a certain level of transparency, I don't think that this transparency should filter down to every level of their orgainization. Does the public have a RIGHT to know the government's network infrastructure? Does the public have a RIGHT to know what data is on every civil servant's hard drive? I think not.
Requiring complete transparency is not only highly impractical (think of the cost to the taxpayer)), but it is also unnecessary. Within the bounds of law the government should be able to do what they need to do to get their job done. If that means using Windows or Office or some other proprietary software so be it.
First, get a Certified Canadian Diamond. They are harder to find, but these diamonds are mined in Canada (which has massive diamond deposits) where labor laws are more humane. Its nearly impossible to find a Canadian diamond unless you go near the source or you have a jeweler that you trust.
Second, although they don't have Canadian diamonds (that I know of) the Shane Co. (California, Oregon, elsewhere?) will give you terrific trade-in values on other purchases for dimonds that you buy from them.
Just create a bunch of email addresses whose sole purpose is to catch SPAM to feed your own blacklist. Its great cause you don't need to worry about finding SPAM, it is automatically sent to you.
Trident wasn't sexy, but they made decent low-end video cards. No hype, no fuss, you got what you expected... a basic, no frills video card.
They're just denying referrals from /.
Open a new browser window and you're in.
Personally I've wanted to watch movies on my PDA for a long time. I've got good eyesight (for now) and the reduced video quality would be a decent tradeoff for portability. My 60 minute train rides to work to and from work everyday would be much more enjoyable if I could pop in a movie to pass the time.
I'm sure that the resolution won't change, so the same percentage of screen real estate will get eaten. The question is whether or not the ad will cover up the programming or whether the programming will simply get resized (smaller) to make room for the ad.
You're right on. Perhaps a few modifications:
1.) the right to use for any means persuant to the remaining rules
2.) the right to resell/lend the original as long as backups do not exist
3.) the right to duplicate as backup in any format
4.) the right to use the backup as long as the original is not in use
I think that would satisfy any "fair use" issues for all parties that care....
Exactly, but this is a GOOD thing.
Developers get to eat (and maybe pay rent), and customers aren't tied to one vendor.
In addition the developer can get the assistance from the community at large, while the customer has equal opportunity to review the code that they are using.
This is a shining example of how to leverage Open Source and make a living at it. Find a middle-ground where the core code is usable but not so easy that a monkey in a suit can install it.... the techies can run it for free and the suits can pay for it. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
This is only slightly different than forcing telcos to retain phone records, with one exception.
Many URL's can be used to guess WHAT data you've been looking at without actually looking at the website. For example, if someone saw the URL: http://www.nakedkids.com they would assume that it was child porn and whomever looked at it should be red-flagged and investigated. Quite possibly however this site could have NOTHING to do with porn and could simply have a questionable DNS name.
Perhaps if ISPs were only allowed to track IP addresses....
Exactly. Box Office sales, while important, are a small percentage of the cash cow. VHS, DVD and merchandizing make up the vast majority of the revenue from high-end flicks.
Satire aside. Email them and find out
a ct
http://audiogalaxy.com/info/help_about.php3?#cont
Contacts
How do I contact someone about:
Adding my band or label to the site?
music@audiogalaxy.com
The duplication of information isn't at stake here. What is at stake is HOW we are allowed to copy information.
What copy protection attempts to do is to limit HOW you are able to copy data. Copy protection attempts to limit you in such a way that any duplication would be too costly, too time consuming or too laborious to be attempted on a large scale. It is the copyright owner's attempt to prevent redistribution that would cause financial losses to their property.
I personally don't like the idea of draconian copy protection. I think that a lot of people are downright horrified that their livelyhood is in jeopardy and new copy protection schemes are the result of this fear. It is complete overreaction on behalf of the media industry.
At the same time, I'm not too worried though. Where there is a will, theres a way. If I want to copy data and I'm willing to spend the time/money/energy to do so, there is no 100% way to stop me.
Users transfer data, nothing more. They never "go to" a site. Users ALWAYS view data stored on their local machine. Be it on disk or in memory I cannot think of a senario where a user is not viewing data locally.
IE will be losing a significant amount of market share very soon
I doubt IE will loose much market share anytime soon. What incentive does the average Windows user have to spend the time to download any browser, especially Mozilla/Netscape? Very little. With IE built/bundled with Windows the vast majority of Windows users will simply fire up IE and start browsing.
It will take a major event to begin to unseat IE. AOL changing its engine would be one such event, as would legislation forcing Microsoft to bundle (or unbundle) various browser options. The least likely would be the "comeback" of a browser on features alone.
If the publisher is IN China then it is under Chinese law. That's just common sense.
When someone makes information from a certain locale, the "publisher" is bound by the laws of that locale.
When someone accesses information they are bound by the laws set in the locale from which they are viewing the data.
This is no different than a US publication (local newspaper, for example) being sent to someone in China. The publisher of the US newspaper is bound by US (and State, County, City) law. The person who reads the newspaper in China is bound by Chinese laws.
The fact that the delivery medium is virtually instant shouldn't matter.
Of course all of this is worthless when you're dealing with an unrational, unlogical, totalitarian, arguably evil government.
I would think that you are both correct.
initially as a simple set of Perl scripts.......As more functionality was required, Rasmus wrote a much larger C implementation
You have now made your employer aware that you are unhappy. From this day on, your loyalty will always be in question.
Bull. You are only unhappy with your pay. This is nothing to be surprised about.
When promotion time comes around, your employer will remember who is loyal and who is not.
Yeah you decided to stay. How many other people wouldn't even tell their current employer and would bolt for the higher paying job?
When times get tough, your employer will begin the cutbacks with you.
They will if your performance doesn't warrant you pay. Make sure you're puttin' out the goods.
Accepting a counteroffer is an insult to your intelligence and a blow to your personal pride; you were bought.
We work to get paid. We are all bought.
Where is the money for the counteroffer coming from? All companies have wage and salary guidelines which must be followed. Is it your next raise early?
Why does this matter? Is your next raise 50%?
Your company will immediately start looking for a new person at a cheaper price.
If this is the case then they would have let you walk. We aren't robots, swapping people to save a buck doesn't always make sense.
The same circumstances that now cause you to consider a change will repeat themselves in the future, even if you accept a counteroffer.
Not if all other things are equal, with pay being the only difference. If you like where you work you aren't likely to want to leave again.
Statistics show that if you accept a counteroffer, the probability of voluntarily leaving in six months or being let go in one year is extremely high.
Perhaps, but in this economy the probability of ANYONE being let go within a year is pretty high. Voluntarily leaving is mute, you can do that tomorrow.
Once the word gets out, the relationship that you now enjoy with your co-workers will never be the same. You will lose the personal satisfaction of peer group acceptance.
If "word gets out" then you have a pretty crappy HR dept and manager. Your salary shouldn't be public knowledge.
What type of company do you work for if you have to threaten to resign before they will give you what you are worth?
The money-saving tightwad kind. The kind that can weather dot.burst and a sagging economy and can still afford to keep valueable employees by throwing them some extra cash when push comes to shove.
If every stroke was perfect would it not be a pretty short fight? Not exactly fun to watch, eh?
340*480 Color LCD
QWERTY Keyboard
Blackberry-style scroll wheel
>128MB Flash memory
PCMCIA slot
USB connector
Max 3.5"W * 6"H * 1"D dimentions (approx same size as a thick checkbook)
Integraded wireless (data + voice)
Headphone jack
Stereo sound
mp3 audio / mpeg video
TV-out
Of course this "workaround" does nothing to fix the problem. Instead it just cripples IE's ability to use gopher.
It is a little known fact that Netmeeting includes very basic remote access tools... similar to VNC-style access. XP takes this to the next level.