Actually, Windows uses a finer-grained permission set for the control panel. Limited users (not sure that she was actually running as a limited user) can open almost all control panel items and change a goodly number of them. This is totally logical, since there is no reason to lock a limited user out of changing her mouse speed or desktop background, screen resolution, keyboard preferences......
If she was running as a limited user, she would not have been able to change any essential settings even if she had read access to the control panel items containing those setting.
Not taking my hands off the keyboard is a big plus. Alt+back is 10 times faster than move hand to mouse, move mouse to menu, select item, move mouse to item.
I hate when web developers use meta-redirect tags to make it impossible to use the back button to get to the previous page because it just sends you forward again. Sometimes you can hit back fast enough to race the redirect, but that's just silly -- I shouldn't have to fight against my software. At the very minimum, put a 3 second wait on it (with a link for the impatient) or, better yet, set a cookie so that if I revisit on the way back within a short period of time it won't redirect.
Another solution occurs to me on the browser-side, the browser could just not add pages that are redirected-to to the history. That would also preserve the intuitive function of the back button.
Sorry for the off-topic rant but it just bugs the shit out of me. Carry on...
I'm almost certain that running a server would be against the ToS, and yes it is fairly easy to detect. Hmmm...incoming Port 80/443 traffic...
Verizon FIOS doesn't seem to care that I'm running port 69 for http (they block 80, meh, I can append:69 and I'm out of outrage for the time being) and 443 and 8443 for https (one for apache_mod_svn, for the inquisitive). I've gotten no complaints whatsoever, despite moving 13TB outbound over the past 6 months, according to my RRD server. If they are trying to detect and enforce TOS violations, they are doing a really poor job of it.
Judging by what you've written, you need to stay on TWC's teat for a little while longer. Mobile broadband has terrible latency, signal dropping and poor upstream bandwidth -- it's just not for your application.
... and here we have just a single anecdote about how the system did not work in one instance. If we are playing the anecdote game, I'm sure I can find a similar example where non-computerized health records lead to bad care. Of course, while the anecdote game is very effective at playing at human emotional response (we tend to assign more weight to a story that we can associate with a single person versus aggregate statistics), it's useless as an actual policy question.
Since every complicated system has failures, even the critical ones like hospitals and air traffic control, the important policy question is not whether it works in all instances, it's whether it produces overall better care than the system it's replacing and whether that improvement is worth the difference in price. If the new system actually reduces costs, then it's a good idea so long as it doesn't degrade care (since, ultimately, reduced cost means either more health care or more dollars to satisfy other wants).
I'm not going to comment on the data myself, since you should read the studies for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
PS. Of course there's no panacea for our medical problem. The question is whether EHR are better than the system we've got, not whether they represent the best possible system. The perfect is not the enemy of the good.
PPS. I have a sneaking suspicion, reading my post (yeah, some/.ers actually read their own posts before hitting submit:-P) that I will be accused of not having the proper sympathy for the guy in TFA. That's not true. I have sympathy for him as an individual, but I'm not going to let that sympathy for him cloud my judgment on the merits of a system.
For example, suppose there was a highway by you that had no center divider, just a grassy median. Suppose also, for the sake of argument, that installing a jersey barrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier will lower the injury/fatality rate in accidents by a statistically significant amount by preventing out-of-control cars from going into oncoming traffic. Now, hypothetically, someone could be in an accident where the jersey barrier caused him serious injury or death (say, by flipping his car even though they are designed to minimize that chance) where the old system would have been just fine (say, because there was no oncoming traffic at the time of the accident). Does someone that still says we have jersey barriers not have sympathy for that guy? No. His death is regrettable but because we can't make a perfect road, we have to settle for the best road we can make.
The problem is that you can point to someone that's injured (and provoke an emotional response related to his regrettable accident) but the only thing the jersey barrier proponent can do is point to the statistics that say there are fewer serious injuries since they've been installed. There's no emotional resonance to the thousands of people that travel without incident each day because they don't make a good story. "Man drives to work safely" isn't news, but because it happens much more often that "Man killed in car wreck", it's actually much more important in the grand scheme of things.
We aren't privy to all the stories where EHR made things smoother, cheaper or helped prevent calamity. Largely, these will be small victories, unsung
You would be wrong. http://www.west.net/~smith/distress.htm. This guy meets the major criterion, it's outrageous and specifically intended to cause emotional distress with no possible other motivation.
Nice paper, now tell me where it says that running costs are higher than the building costs please, because to me, it seems that the paper is about how having more cars and trucks running over a road makes maintenance more expensive:P
But that fact disputes precisely the point you were making. You said that the cost is all in the sunk capital and does not depend on traffic. I cited a paper that demonstrates that the cost does, in fact, scale with the traffic. The same sort of thing is true for ISPs -- sunk costs are large but the operational costs scale with traffic.
In 2009, you correctly note the transit bandwidth charges but these are not likely to be a significant cost to somebody like Comcast. Their bulk of their cost is *fixed* since it's the physical maintenance of their own network.
But those are the SAME COST -- physical maintenance of their own network allows them to carry other ISPs traffic and get favorable peering agreements. You can either pay transit fees OR maintain your network but either way you pay per bandwidth.
Bandwidth is like highways, the real cost is in the laying process, once you've done that, the maintenance is marginal when you compare it to the original cost.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Road maintenance over the useful life is a huge fraction of the total cost and is directly correlated with the number of vehicles that use the road, especially 18-wheelers. More trucks means more frequent maintenance which adds up very quickly.
2) Get a Gb switching hub, 2 computers, and an amp-meter. Plug the computers into the wall, plug the switch into the amp meter. Note the power usage of the switch with no load. Then set up a load where you are using 1 Mbps of traffic between the two computers, and note the Amp load. Then try 10 Mbsp, 100 Mbps, and 1000 Mbps. You'll notice that the amperage (for most switching hubs) climbs very little as you do so, and that the total power consumption is insignificant.
That's great, you've created an intranet and demonstrated it's pricing. Now, of course, try to get a peering agreement with a tier-1 ISP so that your bits can travel to and from the internet at large. Try one month at 10 Mbps and another at 1000 Mbps and see if your bill changes.
If all Time Warner customers decided one day not to check their e-mail or download a single movie, the company's costs would be no different than on a day when every customer was glued to the screen watching one YouTube video after another.
No, but if each uploaded the equivalent bandwidth of a YouTube video to a non Time Warner customer, the company's cost would be quite different. The internet is fundamentally a sender-pays system at every tier -- you can only justify peering with a large provider if you can take from him roughly as much traffic as you load onto him. You can get your peering agreement terminated pretty quickly if you dump lots on the other guy but don't take any back (see, e.g. http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/11/03/0143239.shtml?tid=230.
One day probably wouldn't be enough, but if everyone on the TW network started using their full upstream allotment 24/7, TW's peers would eventually demand renegotiation.
I do not mind paying for software, I do. I just do not like companies that rip off the open source community, then whine and complain when their proprietary code is leaked to the net and it is a crime along with prison and fines, if you touch our code. Apparently you can do anything you like with GNU software.
No, you have to follow the terms of the license that the creators voluntarily agreed to.
I want to see Cisco execs in jail like the Pirate Bay people.
Did they violate the terms of the GPL. I see their source code posted, so I don't think so....
This discussion reminds me of the scene from A Man For All Seasons (excerpted below) where the characters discuss precisely the sort of question that is here: where the law and basic morality give opposite results what is to be done. Of course, the situation is somewhat reversed: today,/. wants to make an exception in the law in order to free someone, not to put him in jail, but it's the same basic question. Do we make exceptions in the law for expediency's sake and therefore risk weakening the very thing that holds our society together or do we follow that law even though it results in a manifestly wrong result?
Perhaps it's a threshold matter, or perhaps it's because the law seemed to be quite clear that what the defendants did was illegal (if perhaps not morally wrong), but in this case it seems that we should enforce the law as the court decided it. If the people of Sweden are unhappy about the result, they can elect a parliament that will change the law and/or petition for pardon (IIRC, the king can commute the sentence).
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: God's law!
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.
William Roper: While you talk, he's gone!
Sir Thomas More: Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.
William Roper: Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do?
William Roper: Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
Sir Thomas More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
I completely believe there is fine print. Regardless, they sold it as "unlimited". Yes, 6M is a peak throughput, but there was no restrictions on WHEN nor HOW LONG I use that 6M peak throughput.
And now, due to complaints about the marketing, they are selling their capped service as a capped service. You should be very glad that they heard your original complaints!
Most enterprises stated they won't bother with Windows 7 for at least a year as they simply continue to distrust that compatibility issues won't occur with their mission-critical software...
First off, whoever edited that sentence needs to get a clue-by-four -- "distrust that issues won't occur" is just terrible English.
About the content, why would any IT person ever have to resort to "trust" anyone for their software compatibility? You'd almost think they can't grab a VM image of Windows7 and test their software to see if there are compatibility issues.
If I were a CIT and someone came up to me with this dribble, I would tell them to build a testbed and actually report on compatibility issues, possible savings, and so forth. Windows 7 probably won't be worth the money but deciding that before you actual evaluate it is madness.
You're never going to convince the private sector that investing in more capacity is a good business move. Business can't look that far into the future. They see an easy way to make more money and that's what they will go for despite the fact that it's completely irresponsible and shortsighted.
Yup. For instance, no one convinced Verizon to wire my neighborhood with fiber-optic service at a whopping cost of $800/house [1]. Then they didn't convince them to install it into my house for another whopping $700 [1] in labor and equipment. Nope, private sector would never do that. Considering I pay them $85/month, it will likely take 10-20 years to recoup their investment, I think they understand the long-term need for last-mile investment.
Of course, there are a lot of things standing in their way -- mostly in the form of localities that each have different rules and procedures from franchises and asinine requirements burying their lines and whatnot. I'm fortunate to live on a hill that's bedrock and pretty much can't be drilled (aside form the sewer, which I hear was quite difficult). Sucks not to have natural gas and it's not pretty to have utility poles with 4 wires (power, copper, coax, fiber) strung along, but we were the first to get FIOS. I talked to the installing techs (not the house install tech, the guys stringing the fiber on the poles) and they said that our town cost them significantly less time and hassle than most of the other ones he'd done.
QT doesn't need a whole bunch of wrappers and libraries to fake a windows environment, DVDFab does. End of story.
You are comparing things on two different levels of abstraction here. QT is a set of libraries that provides a certain API on which applications are built. WINE is a set of libraries that provides a different API on which some other applications are built. KDE requires the QT APIs in the same fashion that DVDFab requires the WIN32 APIS. There is no principled difference between running an application that's NIX-QT-KDE and one that's NIX-WIN32-DVDFab.
You wouldn't say that QT creates a "fake" QT environment for applications like KDE so why would you say that WINE provides a "fake" WIN32 environment for DVDFab? The application doesn't care what's underneath the API that it sees, it only wants function calls to result in the documented behavior and is agnostic about the rest. I write multi-platform OpenGL and OpenSSL code, when I call SSL_check_private_key(ssl_ptr) or gluNewQuadric() , I don't care what lower-level function is called. In fact, I'm quite happy that some kind soul has decided to hide as much of that as possible from me so I can focus on getting my actual work done.
TL;DR version: It would be a wonderful world if all the OSs have compatibility layers for all the APIs (JVM/JNI, Mono/CLR, GTK, QT, WIN32, Carbon, Cocoa...) so the application devs would write in whatever they want and computer users could run in whatever they want -- because that's what computers are for: not doing "computer stuff" but using computers to accomplish things.
PS: Saying end of story does not, contrary to popular belief, actually mean that it's the end of the story. In fact, most of the time it signals that the writer has decided that she doesn't need to logically justify her statements and is a good idea to subject them to more scrutiny.
Energy in a low power factor circuit is like a commuter: it flows into the device, then it flows back out again. The utility company needs to design its power lines to handle the rush hour flow, but you're not "using up" the energy in any sense.
Except that in on the return trip, some of those commuters fell into river and were swept out to sea. To maintain the flow, the suburbs need to generate a constant flow of replacement people for those losses (in addition to the ones that stayed in Boston). In fact, the more commuters are sent round trip, the higher the proportional losses in transit, due to the fact losses vary with the square of the current. The fact that reactive loads cause additional heat-related losses is usually considered uncontroversial in the land of EEs, but apparently not on/.
As an entirely separate matter, a utility's costs are dominated by capital costs, which are proportional to peak load since any unused capacity must still be paid down in full. In analogy-speak, the roads comprise the vast majority of the costs, so having to build a wider road to facilitate unnecessary (and, as above, wasteful) round trips means higher cost per-actual-delivered-person. The fact that the metering system is not precise enough to charge exactly in this fashion doesn't mean you don't pay for it in the long run -- it just means that the cost is spread out to everyone. The idea of "I don't pay for it directly therefore it's not my problem" doesn't fly once you think of it. Society has to pay to build that grid, whether its in the form of higher rates or larger subsidies.
Finally, I don't see any reason for hostility towards the power grid. It's chilish to insist that you have the right to take power in any fashion you want, say, by creating an arbitrarily reactive load that is both wasteful and causes systematic over-building of peak capacity in a fashion that makes power more expensive for everyone. TBH, it sounds like you want to spite the power companies instead of thinking about how we can make power less economically and environmentally costly for everyone -- e.g. how can society best satisfy everyone's needs.
Of course, I should add that CFLs are still a fantastic idea and this is a minor issue that should be handled by adding $.10 of corrective circuitry to a $2 bulb. Just don't flub your way to that conclusion!
This kind of prepared terrorist attack is nearly impossible to prevent, particularly in a reasonably free nation.
Please don't say things like that because, if true, the people of this country will almost certainly vote in factor of prevention rather than freedom. Perils of living in a democracy is the people get what they think they want.
Because Stevens was represented by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_%26_Connolly, who are the firm in DC for this sort of thing. Even with the absolute best lawyers money can buy, the prosecution still stepped all over his basic right to a fair trial. That makes me wonder how the DOJ treats regular defendants that haven't retained the best law firm in the beltway.
This is YRO (well, YR) because if the rich and powerful (and almost certainly corrupt, although it seems that he might not have been corrupt in the manner charged) cannot get a fair trial, then it's pretty damned clear than no one can.
I've spoken with a few retailers about their Netbook selection and as far as I can tell, Linux dominates based on price. Sure, I don't have hard data to back it up but 96% seems off-the-map implausible.
I think the Linux community has to accept that, even when given a nice *nix at a great price, it doesn't get the acceptance we wanted. That should be taken as constructive criticism and give impetus to figure out what the people that gave up on learning *nix need in order to bridge the gap (if at all).
A moderated forum of tutorials and guides? More help for the noobs on the forums? Training videos on the desktop? An XFCE skin that looks exactly like XP? One of the hurdles that Linux faces in development is that we don't know what the hell users want. As much as they are maligned, marketing and product-research departments are actually quite useful in getting developers the feedback they need from actual consumers and sometimes prod the devs into doing things differently.
Until we figure out what the consumers want, and how to deliver it, it won't be the year of linux on the deksotp.
Hmm, that it is so long as it can be proved to be intentional in which case it looks like max 3 years + a fine.Of course if it was a guy taking it home to work on or show his family and it got leaked (or they don't have any evidence to the contrary)...
In order to figure out whether it was intentional, they sort of have to find him first. Seems like it's quite premature to start talking about whether or not he has a defense of non-willful infringement before we know who he is.
this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job).
No, both the original leaker and any subsequent copy-makers are violation of Federal criminal law -- 18USC506(a)(1)(C), in case you want to look it up. Now, perhaps it's a stupid law to have (and I'm sure there is plenty of lively commentary on reforming copyright law, surely a good idea) but, given that it is a Federal criminal matter, FBI involvement seems unsurprising.
he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated)
Aside from doing 3 years in the slammer, the original copier is actually legally responsible for all the subsequent copies that can be proven to be contingent on his crime, that is, they would not have happened "but for" the original act. That's how tort law generally works -- we are responsible for all the consequences, direct or indirect, for our actions that would not have happened but for the tortious act.
On the train on the way home there was a guy walking through the car selling the latest X-men on DVD. I think this is the proverbial "horse already left the barn" situation.
No, they can't roll things back to the way they were, but why doesn't that imply that they shouldn't punish those responsible? This is the way it works in the vast majority of criminal cases -- we can't reverse the crime, but we can punish those responsible, keep them from victimizing anyone else and maybe even rehabilitate them so they can be normal at some point.
Now, perhaps pirating the movie shouldn't be again the law -- it's way OT to start debating reworking copyright law (as good an idea as that is) -- but it is. Given that, I don't see any reason that the FBI should not find and punish the perpetrators. Complain at Congress, if you must, I really don't see any fault on the FBI's part.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Windows uses a finer-grained permission set for the control panel. Limited users (not sure that she was actually running as a limited user) can open almost all control panel items and change a goodly number of them. This is totally logical, since there is no reason to lock a limited user out of changing her mouse speed or desktop background, screen resolution, keyboard preferences ......
If she was running as a limited user, she would not have been able to change any essential settings even if she had read access to the control panel items containing those setting.
Not taking my hands off the keyboard is a big plus. Alt+back is 10 times faster than move hand to mouse, move mouse to menu, select item, move mouse to item.
Having to go the menu is a huge PITA.
I hate when web developers use meta-redirect tags to make it impossible to use the back button to get to the previous page because it just sends you forward again. Sometimes you can hit back fast enough to race the redirect, but that's just silly -- I shouldn't have to fight against my software. At the very minimum, put a 3 second wait on it (with a link for the impatient) or, better yet, set a cookie so that if I revisit on the way back within a short period of time it won't redirect.
Another solution occurs to me on the browser-side, the browser could just not add pages that are redirected-to to the history. That would also preserve the intuitive function of the back button.
Sorry for the off-topic rant but it just bugs the shit out of me. Carry on ...
I'm almost certain that running a server would be against the ToS, and yes it is fairly easy to detect. Hmmm...incoming Port 80/443 traffic...
Verizon FIOS doesn't seem to care that I'm running port 69 for http (they block 80, meh, I can append :69 and I'm out of outrage for the time being) and 443 and 8443 for https (one for apache_mod_svn, for the inquisitive). I've gotten no complaints whatsoever, despite moving 13TB outbound over the past 6 months, according to my RRD server. If they are trying to detect and enforce TOS violations, they are doing a really poor job of it.
Judging by what you've written, you need to stay on TWC's teat for a little while longer. Mobile broadband has terrible latency, signal dropping and poor upstream bandwidth -- it's just not for your application.
... and here we have just a single anecdote about how the system did not work in one instance. If we are playing the anecdote game, I'm sure I can find a similar example where non-computerized health records lead to bad care. Of course, while the anecdote game is very effective at playing at human emotional response (we tend to assign more weight to a story that we can associate with a single person versus aggregate statistics), it's useless as an actual policy question.
Since every complicated system has failures, even the critical ones like hospitals and air traffic control, the important policy question is not whether it works in all instances, it's whether it produces overall better care than the system it's replacing and whether that improvement is worth the difference in price. If the new system actually reduces costs, then it's a good idea so long as it doesn't degrade care (since, ultimately, reduced cost means either more health care or more dollars to satisfy other wants).
I'm not going to comment on the data myself, since you should read the studies for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=7C274D08947B0625B3B540BEF2E70367.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=416400
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/348/22/2218
(PDF)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1421388
PS. Of course there's no panacea for our medical problem. The question is whether EHR are better than the system we've got, not whether they represent the best possible system. The perfect is not the enemy of the good.
PPS. I have a sneaking suspicion, reading my post (yeah, some /.ers actually read their own posts before hitting submit :-P) that I will be accused of not having the proper sympathy for the guy in TFA. That's not true. I have sympathy for him as an individual, but I'm not going to let that sympathy for him cloud my judgment on the merits of a system.
For example, suppose there was a highway by you that had no center divider, just a grassy median. Suppose also, for the sake of argument, that installing a jersey barrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier will lower the injury/fatality rate in accidents by a statistically significant amount by preventing out-of-control cars from going into oncoming traffic. Now, hypothetically, someone could be in an accident where the jersey barrier caused him serious injury or death (say, by flipping his car even though they are designed to minimize that chance) where the old system would have been just fine (say, because there was no oncoming traffic at the time of the accident). Does someone that still says we have jersey barriers not have sympathy for that guy? No. His death is regrettable but because we can't make a perfect road, we have to settle for the best road we can make.
The problem is that you can point to someone that's injured (and provoke an emotional response related to his regrettable accident) but the only thing the jersey barrier proponent can do is point to the statistics that say there are fewer serious injuries since they've been installed. There's no emotional resonance to the thousands of people that travel without incident each day because they don't make a good story. "Man drives to work safely" isn't news, but because it happens much more often that "Man killed in car wreck", it's actually much more important in the grand scheme of things.
We aren't privy to all the stories where EHR made things smoother, cheaper or helped prevent calamity. Largely, these will be small victories, unsung
You would be wrong. http://www.west.net/~smith/distress.htm. This guy meets the major criterion, it's outrageous and specifically intended to cause emotional distress with no possible other motivation.
Nice paper, now tell me where it says that running costs are higher than the building costs please, because to me, it seems that the paper is about how having more cars and trucks running over a road makes maintenance more expensive :P
But that fact disputes precisely the point you were making. You said that the cost is all in the sunk capital and does not depend on traffic. I cited a paper that demonstrates that the cost does, in fact, scale with the traffic. The same sort of thing is true for ISPs -- sunk costs are large but the operational costs scale with traffic.
In 2009, you correctly note the transit bandwidth charges but these are not likely to be a significant cost to somebody like Comcast. Their bulk of their cost is *fixed* since it's the physical maintenance of their own network.
But those are the SAME COST -- physical maintenance of their own network allows them to carry other ISPs traffic and get favorable peering agreements. You can either pay transit fees OR maintain your network but either way you pay per bandwidth.
Bandwidth is like highways, the real cost is in the laying process, once you've done that, the maintenance is marginal when you compare it to the original cost.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Road maintenance over the useful life is a huge fraction of the total cost and is directly correlated with the number of vehicles that use the road, especially 18-wheelers. More trucks means more frequent maintenance which adds up very quickly.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/vtiwps/2007_007.html
2) Get a Gb switching hub, 2 computers, and an amp-meter. Plug the computers into the wall, plug the switch into the amp meter. Note the power usage of the switch with no load. Then set up a load where you are using 1 Mbps of traffic between the two computers, and note the Amp load. Then try 10 Mbsp, 100 Mbps, and 1000 Mbps. You'll notice that the amperage (for most switching hubs) climbs very little as you do so, and that the total power consumption is insignificant.
That's great, you've created an intranet and demonstrated it's pricing. Now, of course, try to get a peering agreement with a tier-1 ISP so that your bits can travel to and from the internet at large. Try one month at 10 Mbps and another at 1000 Mbps and see if your bill changes.
If all Time Warner customers decided one day not to check their e-mail or download a single movie, the company's costs would be no different than on a day when every customer was glued to the screen watching one YouTube video after another.
No, but if each uploaded the equivalent bandwidth of a YouTube video to a non Time Warner customer, the company's cost would be quite different. The internet is fundamentally a sender-pays system at every tier -- you can only justify peering with a large provider if you can take from him roughly as much traffic as you load onto him. You can get your peering agreement terminated pretty quickly if you dump lots on the other guy but don't take any back (see, e.g. http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/11/03/0143239.shtml?tid=230.
One day probably wouldn't be enough, but if everyone on the TW network started using their full upstream allotment 24/7, TW's peers would eventually demand renegotiation.
either way, I wouldn't be surprised if Solaris went completely open source, no non-open-source Solaris
You mean we might get real (kernel) support for ZFS in Linux instead of asinine license bashing?! That's fantastic.
I do not mind paying for software, I do. I just do not like companies that rip off the open source community, then whine and complain when their proprietary code is leaked to the net and it is a crime along with prison and fines, if you touch our code. Apparently you can do anything you like with GNU software.
No, you have to follow the terms of the license that the creators voluntarily agreed to.
I want to see Cisco execs in jail like the Pirate Bay people.
Did they violate the terms of the GPL. I see their source code posted, so I don't think so ....
This discussion reminds me of the scene from A Man For All Seasons (excerpted below) where the characters discuss precisely the sort of question that is here: where the law and basic morality give opposite results what is to be done. Of course, the situation is somewhat reversed: today, /. wants to make an exception in the law in order to free someone, not to put him in jail, but it's the same basic question. Do we make exceptions in the law for expediency's sake and therefore risk weakening the very thing that holds our society together or do we follow that law even though it results in a manifestly wrong result?
Perhaps it's a threshold matter, or perhaps it's because the law seemed to be quite clear that what the defendants did was illegal (if perhaps not morally wrong), but in this case it seems that we should enforce the law as the court decided it. If the people of Sweden are unhappy about the result, they can elect a parliament that will change the law and/or petition for pardon (IIRC, the king can commute the sentence).
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: God's law!
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.
William Roper: While you talk, he's gone!
Sir Thomas More: Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.
William Roper: Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do?
William Roper: Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
Sir Thomas More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
I completely believe there is fine print. Regardless, they sold it as "unlimited". Yes, 6M is a peak throughput, but there was no restrictions on WHEN nor HOW LONG I use that 6M peak throughput.
And now, due to complaints about the marketing, they are selling their capped service as a capped service. You should be very glad that they heard your original complaints!
Most enterprises stated they won't bother with Windows 7 for at least a year as they simply continue to distrust that compatibility issues won't occur with their mission-critical software...
First off, whoever edited that sentence needs to get a clue-by-four -- "distrust that issues won't occur" is just terrible English.
About the content, why would any IT person ever have to resort to "trust" anyone for their software compatibility? You'd almost think they can't grab a VM image of Windows7 and test their software to see if there are compatibility issues.
If I were a CIT and someone came up to me with this dribble, I would tell them to build a testbed and actually report on compatibility issues, possible savings, and so forth. Windows 7 probably won't be worth the money but deciding that before you actual evaluate it is madness.
You're never going to convince the private sector that investing in more capacity is a good business move. Business can't look that far into the future. They see an easy way to make more money and that's what they will go for despite the fact that it's completely irresponsible and shortsighted.
Yup. For instance, no one convinced Verizon to wire my neighborhood with fiber-optic service at a whopping cost of $800/house [1]. Then they didn't convince them to install it into my house for another whopping $700 [1] in labor and equipment. Nope, private sector would never do that. Considering I pay them $85/month, it will likely take 10-20 years to recoup their investment, I think they understand the long-term need for last-mile investment.
Of course, there are a lot of things standing in their way -- mostly in the form of localities that each have different rules and procedures from franchises and asinine requirements burying their lines and whatnot. I'm fortunate to live on a hill that's bedrock and pretty much can't be drilled (aside form the sewer, which I hear was quite difficult). Sucks not to have natural gas and it's not pretty to have utility poles with 4 wires (power, copper, coax, fiber) strung along, but we were the first to get FIOS. I talked to the installing techs (not the house install tech, the guys stringing the fiber on the poles) and they said that our town cost them significantly less time and hassle than most of the other ones he'd done.
[1]: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/the-cost-to-offer-the-worlds-fastest-broadband-20-per-home/
QT doesn't need a whole bunch of wrappers and libraries to fake a windows environment, DVDFab does. End of story.
You are comparing things on two different levels of abstraction here. QT is a set of libraries that provides a certain API on which applications are built. WINE is a set of libraries that provides a different API on which some other applications are built. KDE requires the QT APIs in the same fashion that DVDFab requires the WIN32 APIS. There is no principled difference between running an application that's NIX-QT-KDE and one that's NIX-WIN32-DVDFab.
You wouldn't say that QT creates a "fake" QT environment for applications like KDE so why would you say that WINE provides a "fake" WIN32 environment for DVDFab? The application doesn't care what's underneath the API that it sees, it only wants function calls to result in the documented behavior and is agnostic about the rest. I write multi-platform OpenGL and OpenSSL code, when I call SSL_check_private_key(ssl_ptr) or gluNewQuadric() , I don't care what lower-level function is called. In fact, I'm quite happy that some kind soul has decided to hide as much of that as possible from me so I can focus on getting my actual work done.
TL;DR version: It would be a wonderful world if all the OSs have compatibility layers for all the APIs (JVM/JNI, Mono/CLR, GTK, QT, WIN32, Carbon, Cocoa ...) so the application devs would write in whatever they want and computer users could run in whatever they want -- because that's what computers are for: not doing "computer stuff" but using computers to accomplish things.
PS: Saying end of story does not, contrary to popular belief, actually mean that it's the end of the story. In fact, most of the time it signals that the writer has decided that she doesn't need to logically justify her statements and is a good idea to subject them to more scrutiny.
Energy in a low power factor circuit is like a commuter: it flows into the device, then it flows back out again. The utility company needs to design its power lines to handle the rush hour flow, but you're not "using up" the energy in any sense.
Except that in on the return trip, some of those commuters fell into river and were swept out to sea. To maintain the flow, the suburbs need to generate a constant flow of replacement people for those losses (in addition to the ones that stayed in Boston). In fact, the more commuters are sent round trip, the higher the proportional losses in transit, due to the fact losses vary with the square of the current. The fact that reactive loads cause additional heat-related losses is usually considered uncontroversial in the land of EEs, but apparently not on /.
As an entirely separate matter, a utility's costs are dominated by capital costs, which are proportional to peak load since any unused capacity must still be paid down in full. In analogy-speak, the roads comprise the vast majority of the costs, so having to build a wider road to facilitate unnecessary (and, as above, wasteful) round trips means higher cost per-actual-delivered-person. The fact that the metering system is not precise enough to charge exactly in this fashion doesn't mean you don't pay for it in the long run -- it just means that the cost is spread out to everyone. The idea of "I don't pay for it directly therefore it's not my problem" doesn't fly once you think of it. Society has to pay to build that grid, whether its in the form of higher rates or larger subsidies.
Finally, I don't see any reason for hostility towards the power grid. It's chilish to insist that you have the right to take power in any fashion you want, say, by creating an arbitrarily reactive load that is both wasteful and causes systematic over-building of peak capacity in a fashion that makes power more expensive for everyone. TBH, it sounds like you want to spite the power companies instead of thinking about how we can make power less economically and environmentally costly for everyone -- e.g. how can society best satisfy everyone's needs.
Of course, I should add that CFLs are still a fantastic idea and this is a minor issue that should be handled by adding $.10 of corrective circuitry to a $2 bulb. Just don't flub your way to that conclusion!
This kind of prepared terrorist attack is nearly impossible to prevent, particularly in a reasonably free nation.
Please don't say things like that because, if true, the people of this country will almost certainly vote in factor of prevention rather than freedom. Perils of living in a democracy is the people get what they think they want.
Why is this YRO?
Because Stevens was represented by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_%26_Connolly, who are the firm in DC for this sort of thing. Even with the absolute best lawyers money can buy, the prosecution still stepped all over his basic right to a fair trial. That makes me wonder how the DOJ treats regular defendants that haven't retained the best law firm in the beltway.
This is YRO (well, YR) because if the rich and powerful (and almost certainly corrupt, although it seems that he might not have been corrupt in the manner charged) cannot get a fair trial, then it's pretty damned clear than no one can.
I've spoken with a few retailers about their Netbook selection and as far as I can tell, Linux dominates based on price. Sure, I don't have hard data to back it up but 96% seems off-the-map implausible.
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/08/10/05/123253.shtml
I think the Linux community has to accept that, even when given a nice *nix at a great price, it doesn't get the acceptance we wanted. That should be taken as constructive criticism and give impetus to figure out what the people that gave up on learning *nix need in order to bridge the gap (if at all).
A moderated forum of tutorials and guides? More help for the noobs on the forums? Training videos on the desktop? An XFCE skin that looks exactly like XP? One of the hurdles that Linux faces in development is that we don't know what the hell users want. As much as they are maligned, marketing and product-research departments are actually quite useful in getting developers the feedback they need from actual consumers and sometimes prod the devs into doing things differently.
Until we figure out what the consumers want, and how to deliver it, it won't be the year of linux on the deksotp.
Hmm, that it is so long as it can be proved to be intentional in which case it looks like max 3 years + a fine.Of course if it was a guy taking it home to work on or show his family and it got leaked (or they don't have any evidence to the contrary)...
In order to figure out whether it was intentional, they sort of have to find him first. Seems like it's quite premature to start talking about whether or not he has a defense of non-willful infringement before we know who he is.
this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job).
No, both the original leaker and any subsequent copy-makers are violation of Federal criminal law -- 18USC506(a)(1)(C), in case you want to look it up. Now, perhaps it's a stupid law to have (and I'm sure there is plenty of lively commentary on reforming copyright law, surely a good idea) but, given that it is a Federal criminal matter, FBI involvement seems unsurprising.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated)
Aside from doing 3 years in the slammer, the original copier is actually legally responsible for all the subsequent copies that can be proven to be contingent on his crime, that is, they would not have happened "but for" the original act. That's how tort law generally works -- we are responsible for all the consequences, direct or indirect, for our actions that would not have happened but for the tortious act.
See, e.g.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=966380
http://www.justia.com/injury/docs/us-tort-liability-primer/expansion-of-tort-liability.html
On the train on the way home there was a guy walking through the car selling the latest X-men on DVD. I think this is the proverbial "horse already left the barn" situation.
No, they can't roll things back to the way they were, but why doesn't that imply that they shouldn't punish those responsible? This is the way it works in the vast majority of criminal cases -- we can't reverse the crime, but we can punish those responsible, keep them from victimizing anyone else and maybe even rehabilitate them so they can be normal at some point.
Now, perhaps pirating the movie shouldn't be again the law -- it's way OT to start debating reworking copyright law (as good an idea as that is) -- but it is. Given that, I don't see any reason that the FBI should not find and punish the perpetrators. Complain at Congress, if you must, I really don't see any fault on the FBI's part.