To add to the above posters, the only instance in which Microsoft might choose to not authenticate your computer when this occurred would be if you had OEM Windows XP license, because you are not allowed to install that on any other computer than the one you bought it on. In practice they were pretty lenient, but the strict terms of the XP license did cause me to avoid it in favor of Win2k.
I think the AC is saying the same thing as your link. The scalable font formats (like TrueType) are Turing complete programming languages, in the same way that postscript is. Thus those font files are often referred to as font programs or software, although that easy to misinterpret as meaning the software that renders the font files.
There may not be a Linux vs Microsoft fight, but there is definitely a Microsoft vs Linux fight. In their own words:
* OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a long term developer mindshare threat.
* OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
* They have paid for numerous "independent" studies to show that Linux and LAMP are inferior to Windows and IIS. * Leaked emails have shown them to have been funneling money to SCO via Baystar. * They continue to spread FUD about patent licensing, and have sued major Android manufacturers for patent royalties.
They clearly see this as an Us vs Them situation. We don't have to respond likewise, but it would be foolish not to acknowledge their intentions.
I tried to use it for a couple months, but more than half of the web-forms on the internet require javascript to submit properly. So I would spend all this time filling out these forms, get to the end, and either nothing happens when you click submit or you get an error. So I disable NoScript for the site, only to have the browser (or the website) clear everything that I just entered into the form, and I have to start over again.
Other sites wouldn't have working menus, others didn't have working links at all. All of this is the fault of bad developers, but regardless of who is to blame, I still have to live with it. JavaScript is too tangled up into the design of most sites to be able to disable it and not have half the web break. It isn't like plugins like flash, where you get a nice segregated box that is disabled, and everything else works like normal.
The only way I could stand to use NoScript was to Allow All, but keep the cross-site scripting protection on.
Welcome to all government procurement of any sort. We have rules to prefer small businesses over big companies. So who gets this business? Not all the existing small businesses in town who know their product, can answer questions, keep stock on hand, are a generally helpful. They can't handle the bureaucratic overhead of government procurement.
Instead we have to buy from companies created for the sole purpose of being middle men to the government, whose only benefit is their understanding of the procurement process. Bonus points if they are owned by a woman or minority. They don't keep anything in stock, and add another 2-5 days to the shipping process compared to buying direct from the manufacturer. They are even more expensive than the local shops. They don't know what their products are used for and can only regurgitate what catalog in front of them says. But since they do so little they can turn over tons of revenue with only a few employees and thus remain a "small company".
No, SuSE is one of the main reasons that Attachemate bought Novel. They have moved the SuSE headquarters back to Nuremberg Germany where it began, and the relationship with the OpenSUSE project is not expected to change.
1) Gallium3D already has the r300g driver for older Radeon 9500 - X1950 cards. 2) The HD 6000 line starts at around $150, not $300 3) This is the first release of the drivers for these cards. The performance will improve. 4) The point of Gallium3D is to make it easier to support new (DX10/11) hardware architectures that the old Mesa infrastructure didn't. So there is no point using it for very old cards that already have mesa-based drivers. 5) These new cards soon will be obscure not too many years, and it takes time to develop software. If you waited until they were already obscure, then they would be extinct by the time the driver was working well.
Now you are paying the same amount as before but they're providing you less.
The price for the DVD-only plans are $2 less than the combined plan used to be. The price for the streaming-only plan is $2 less than the combined plan used to be. The price for the DVD-only plans are less expensive than they ever were before streaming was introduced. The price for the streaming-only plan is the exact same price as the streaming-only plan has ever been. The price for the combined plan is $4 more than the old combined plan.
No possible choice of plan will get you less service for the same amount of money. Most will give you less service for less money. One choice will give you the same service for more money.
To me that is the most bizarre aspect of this price change. If what you want is just streaming or just DVD, the new plan is very inexpensive. AFAIK, it is the lowest price that Netflix has ever offered. But if you primarily use one and occasionally supplement it with the other, having to pay double the price isn't worth it. So the natural reaction of everyone I know personally, and the vast majority of posts I have seen on the internet is to drop one of the two. It is like Netflix is begging us to give them less money, and presenting it an a manner that is pissing everyone off.
What is even more mind-boggling, is that this ability to supplement one with the other is the one of the biggest advantages that Netflix has over it's competitors, and they just completely threw it out the window.
I understand that the price for streaming would have to increase over time as Netflix renegotiates deals, and the selection increases. I never expected it to be included as a freebee with the DVD service forever, just during it's teething years. But I can't believe that the average person who signs up for both DVD and streaming would use both just as much as the average person who only signs up for one or the other.
If they really believed that the majority of people would keep both plans at the higher price, then their market research people need to be fired.
The reason that Muslims and other religious people are allowed to wear head cover in driver license photographs and other situations where hats would normally not be allowed is because they have a religious belief that their heads should always be covered in public. Thus there is no way for them to comply with both their religion and the government rule that hats should not be worn.
If rarely wear the holy hat anyway, then you shouldn't have any problem not wearing it to have your photograph taken, or to enter government buildings etc.
Except that the claim that it eliminates the boundary layer was made by the regurgitator, not the paper. Here is what the paper claims:
The "Air Bearing Heat Exchanger" provides a several-fold reduction in boundary layer thickness, intrinsic immunity to heat sink fouling, and drastic reductions in noise.
That is not an impossible claim and they have data to back it up.
Again the problem is assuming that the claims made by Extreme Tech accurately represent the claims made by the researchers, when in reality the media almost never reports on engineering and science correctly.
Where I live there is only a single location in the entire city to dispose of CFL bulbs, open 8-5 on weekdays, 3 hours on Saturday. You can't say with a straight face that more than a handful of people actually bother with that.
I think having clean power signals has a lot to do with CFL lifespan. In my old apartment I replaced 5 in a year from 2 sockets. Since I have moved into my house I haven't replaced a single one in 3 years in a half-dozen sockets. Same brand(s) in both places.
If incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient, it'd be silly to have to repeal or modify a law later.
Some companies have in fact done just that, and they are now upset at the prospect of having the law revoked after having spent all that money to comply with it.
It still amazes me how many engineers on this site immediately dismiss the work of another engineer or scientist based on a summary by the media. I would have thought that smart people would realize that it is the regurgitators (I refuse to call them journalists) that don't know what they are talking about 90% of the time, not their fellow engineers.
With HTTP you have one peer - the HTTP server. With torrent you have many peers. In both cases they have access to your IP address. So it depends on how much you trust the server.
The reason they use torrent and not HTTP for stuff like this is because A) they don't want to pay for the bandwidth of serving that file to thousands of people, nor to be able to be traced to that server. B) Free HTTP sharing sites have bandwidth limits, rat people out, and are a general PITA. C) With bitorrent there is less centralization so it is harder to stop distribution of the file.
There was a lot of complaining about this when GMail was launched. Some people (myself included) refuse to use it to this day because of that reason. Until now many of these people found Yahoo to be a better alternative to GMail because it had a better privacy policy. Now they have lost that choice, and are understandably upset.
Another big difference is that GMail had this "feature" since the day it was launched. You knew exactly what you were getting into by signing up for a GMail account. Many of the folks that are complaining have been using their Yahoo account for years or decades, and will have a difficult time transitioning to another address.
Of course, it is a free service, and you get what you pay for. But at the least they could agree to not scan emails that are being forwarded or accessed via POP for advertisement purposes. They already offer these connection options, and they won't be showing any targeted ads to folks that don't use webmail anyway, so why waste cycles scanning that mail?
NASA didn't loan it. President Nixon gave it to the state governor who had it placed in a museum. Many other governors who received them just displayed it in their office. At that time no one thought these would be the last rocks to be brought back from the moon for generations to come.
Same with the rest of the Constitution - it does not need interpretation, it needs honest fucking people being judges, so they would uphold the fucking law.
That is just silly. Picking a section at random, let's look at the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What exactly is an "unreasonable" search and seizure? That is pretty damn vague language there, not black and white at all. There is no way to read and apply that without inserting some interpretation for the word unreasonable. The justices can look at common law and political essays of the time to try to determine the intent of the founding fathers; but even they had many differences of opinion on these matters, so that isn't cut-and-dry either. Furthermore, at a minimum they will still have to interpret by analogy to extend historical interpretation to circumstances that didn't exist back then. English isn't computer code. It is inherently imprecise and will always require some amount of interpretation. Your "they shouldn't interpret" rant basically boils down to "they should interpret it the same way I do".
I agree that there are some cases where I think the supreme court interpretation has gone beyond what any of the founding fathers intended, but there are far more cases where I may dislike their interpretation but recognize that it is a perfectly reasonable way to interpret the constitution; both what was written and what was intended.
And the two rates combined are still less than the tax on normal income.
This is why I want an across the board flat tax on all first time income.
I'd agree with this. Eliminate corporate income tax and tax capital gains at the same same flat rate as income. Unfortunately, every flat tax that has every been proposed eliminates taxes on capital gains, which basically makes it a "fuck the working class" tax, not a flat tax.
One of our customers upped the quality assurance requirements for our projects with them, which means that we get to have a bunch of non-technical (or worse ex-technical) management review everything we do at every stage of the process: design, implementation, change request, test plan, close-out. These people are worse than the coders about debating stupid nitpicking ideas.
There is just something about putting a bunch of people in a room for the purpose of performing a review that eliminates any sense of perspective that they might have.
Whether you do or not, the published work still counts as prior art. The main difference is when that prior art is applied. Registering your invention will make it more likely that the patent office will notice the prior art when someone else tries to patent the same idea and thus more likely for that patent to be denied. If you just publish in a public place (even a reputable journal), then the patent office probably won't see that prior art, will grant the patent, and you could be sued. Your published documentation could then be used as a prior art defense in court.
So it is a cost/risk tradeoff. You have to decide whether it is worthwhile to spend some money up front to decrease the risk of very expensive (but honestly unlikely) legal costs in the future.
If you file for a Statutory Invention Registration (or file for a patent and drop it after 18 months), then your filing will be in the USPTO database and thus more likely to be found during a prior art search for future patent applications than if it was just published in a journal.
Alternately, if you wish your invention to be in the public domain, you can file for Statutory Invention Registration. This will cause the filing to be in the USPTO database and thus more likely to be found during a prior art search for future patent applications than if it was just published in a journal.
It also still doesn't seem to open or save Office files correctly, which is really needed if you want to exchange files with other people.
I have that problem as well but it isn't restricted to OpenOffice. My GF's instructors post all their assignments and lecture notes as MS Word or Powerpoint documents. Between the two versions of MS Office we have (97 and 2007), OpenOffice 3.3 and LibreOffice 3.4, LibreOffice is the one that works the most often.
The GUI also feels kind of sluggish and outdated, but that probably comes from Java.
Slashdot Mirror
To add to the above posters, the only instance in which Microsoft might choose to not authenticate your computer when this occurred would be if you had OEM Windows XP license, because you are not allowed to install that on any other computer than the one you bought it on. In practice they were pretty lenient, but the strict terms of the XP license did cause me to avoid it in favor of Win2k.
I think the AC is saying the same thing as your link. The scalable font formats (like TrueType) are Turing complete programming languages, in the same way that postscript is. Thus those font files are often referred to as font programs or software, although that easy to misinterpret as meaning the software that renders the font files.
There may not be a Linux vs Microsoft fight, but there is definitely a Microsoft vs Linux fight. In their own words:
* OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a long term developer mindshare threat.
* OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
* They have paid for numerous "independent" studies to show that Linux and LAMP are inferior to Windows and IIS.
* Leaked emails have shown them to have been funneling money to SCO via Baystar.
* They continue to spread FUD about patent licensing, and have sued major Android manufacturers for patent royalties.
They clearly see this as an Us vs Them situation. We don't have to respond likewise, but it would be foolish not to acknowledge their intentions.
I tried to use it for a couple months, but more than half of the web-forms on the internet require javascript to submit properly. So I would spend all this time filling out these forms, get to the end, and either nothing happens when you click submit or you get an error. So I disable NoScript for the site, only to have the browser (or the website) clear everything that I just entered into the form, and I have to start over again.
Other sites wouldn't have working menus, others didn't have working links at all. All of this is the fault of bad developers, but regardless of who is to blame, I still have to live with it. JavaScript is too tangled up into the design of most sites to be able to disable it and not have half the web break. It isn't like plugins like flash, where you get a nice segregated box that is disabled, and everything else works like normal.
The only way I could stand to use NoScript was to Allow All, but keep the cross-site scripting protection on.
Welcome to all government procurement of any sort. We have rules to prefer small businesses over big companies. So who gets this business? Not all the existing small businesses in town who know their product, can answer questions, keep stock on hand, are a generally helpful. They can't handle the bureaucratic overhead of government procurement.
Instead we have to buy from companies created for the sole purpose of being middle men to the government, whose only benefit is their understanding of the procurement process. Bonus points if they are owned by a woman or minority. They don't keep anything in stock, and add another 2-5 days to the shipping process compared to buying direct from the manufacturer. They are even more expensive than the local shops. They don't know what their products are used for and can only regurgitate what catalog in front of them says. But since they do so little they can turn over tons of revenue with only a few employees and thus remain a "small company".
No, SuSE is one of the main reasons that Attachemate bought Novel. They have moved the SuSE headquarters back to Nuremberg Germany where it began, and the relationship with the OpenSUSE project is not expected to change.
1) Gallium3D already has the r300g driver for older Radeon 9500 - X1950 cards.
2) The HD 6000 line starts at around $150, not $300
3) This is the first release of the drivers for these cards. The performance will improve.
4) The point of Gallium3D is to make it easier to support new (DX10/11) hardware architectures that the old Mesa infrastructure didn't. So there is no point using it for very old cards that already have mesa-based drivers.
5) These new cards soon will be obscure not too many years, and it takes time to develop software. If you waited until they were already obscure, then they would be extinct by the time the driver was working well.
Now you are paying the same amount as before but they're providing you less.
The price for the DVD-only plans are $2 less than the combined plan used to be.
The price for the streaming-only plan is $2 less than the combined plan used to be.
The price for the DVD-only plans are less expensive than they ever were before streaming was introduced.
The price for the streaming-only plan is the exact same price as the streaming-only plan has ever been.
The price for the combined plan is $4 more than the old combined plan.
No possible choice of plan will get you less service for the same amount of money. Most will give you less service for less money. One choice will give you the same service for more money.
$7.99 is way too cheap.
To me that is the most bizarre aspect of this price change. If what you want is just streaming or just DVD, the new plan is very inexpensive. AFAIK, it is the lowest price that Netflix has ever offered. But if you primarily use one and occasionally supplement it with the other, having to pay double the price isn't worth it. So the natural reaction of everyone I know personally, and the vast majority of posts I have seen on the internet is to drop one of the two. It is like Netflix is begging us to give them less money, and presenting it an a manner that is pissing everyone off.
What is even more mind-boggling, is that this ability to supplement one with the other is the one of the biggest advantages that Netflix has over it's competitors, and they just completely threw it out the window.
I understand that the price for streaming would have to increase over time as Netflix renegotiates deals, and the selection increases. I never expected it to be included as a freebee with the DVD service forever, just during it's teething years. But I can't believe that the average person who signs up for both DVD and streaming would use both just as much as the average person who only signs up for one or the other.
If they really believed that the majority of people would keep both plans at the higher price, then their market research people need to be fired.
The reason that Muslims and other religious people are allowed to wear head cover in driver license photographs and other situations where hats would normally not be allowed is because they have a religious belief that their heads should always be covered in public. Thus there is no way for them to comply with both their religion and the government rule that hats should not be worn.
If rarely wear the holy hat anyway, then you shouldn't have any problem not wearing it to have your photograph taken, or to enter government buildings etc.
Except that the claim that it eliminates the boundary layer was made by the regurgitator, not the paper. Here is what the paper claims:
The "Air Bearing Heat Exchanger" provides a several-fold reduction in boundary layer thickness, intrinsic immunity to heat sink fouling, and drastic reductions in noise.
That is not an impossible claim and they have data to back it up.
Again the problem is assuming that the claims made by Extreme Tech accurately represent the claims made by the researchers, when in reality the media almost never reports on engineering and science correctly.
Where I live there is only a single location in the entire city to dispose of CFL bulbs, open 8-5 on weekdays, 3 hours on Saturday. You can't say with a straight face that more than a handful of people actually bother with that.
I think having clean power signals has a lot to do with CFL lifespan. In my old apartment I replaced 5 in a year from 2 sockets. Since I have moved into my house I haven't replaced a single one in 3 years in a half-dozen sockets. Same brand(s) in both places.
Seriously the first line in the article is "The so-called light bulb ban, set to begin in 2012".
why not simply ban inefficient bulbs?
That is exactly what the law does.
If incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient, it'd be silly to have to repeal or modify a law later.
Some companies have in fact done just that, and they are now upset at the prospect of having the law revoked after having spent all that money to comply with it.
It still amazes me how many engineers on this site immediately dismiss the work of another engineer or scientist based on a summary by the media. I would have thought that smart people would realize that it is the regurgitators (I refuse to call them journalists) that don't know what they are talking about 90% of the time, not their fellow engineers.
With HTTP you have one peer - the HTTP server. With torrent you have many peers. In both cases they have access to your IP address. So it depends on how much you trust the server.
The reason they use torrent and not HTTP for stuff like this is because
A) they don't want to pay for the bandwidth of serving that file to thousands of people, nor to be able to be traced to that server.
B) Free HTTP sharing sites have bandwidth limits, rat people out, and are a general PITA.
C) With bitorrent there is less centralization so it is harder to stop distribution of the file.
There was a lot of complaining about this when GMail was launched. Some people (myself included) refuse to use it to this day because of that reason. Until now many of these people found Yahoo to be a better alternative to GMail because it had a better privacy policy. Now they have lost that choice, and are understandably upset.
Another big difference is that GMail had this "feature" since the day it was launched. You knew exactly what you were getting into by signing up for a GMail account. Many of the folks that are complaining have been using their Yahoo account for years or decades, and will have a difficult time transitioning to another address.
Of course, it is a free service, and you get what you pay for. But at the least they could agree to not scan emails that are being forwarded or accessed via POP for advertisement purposes. They already offer these connection options, and they won't be showing any targeted ads to folks that don't use webmail anyway, so why waste cycles scanning that mail?
NASA didn't loan it. President Nixon gave it to the state governor who had it placed in a museum. Many other governors who received them just displayed it in their office. At that time no one thought these would be the last rocks to be brought back from the moon for generations to come.
Same with the rest of the Constitution - it does not need interpretation, it needs honest fucking people being judges, so they would uphold the fucking law.
That is just silly. Picking a section at random, let's look at the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What exactly is an "unreasonable" search and seizure? That is pretty damn vague language there, not black and white at all. There is no way to read and apply that without inserting some interpretation for the word unreasonable. The justices can look at common law and political essays of the time to try to determine the intent of the founding fathers; but even they had many differences of opinion on these matters, so that isn't cut-and-dry either. Furthermore, at a minimum they will still have to interpret by analogy to extend historical interpretation to circumstances that didn't exist back then. English isn't computer code. It is inherently imprecise and will always require some amount of interpretation. Your "they shouldn't interpret" rant basically boils down to "they should interpret it the same way I do".
I agree that there are some cases where I think the supreme court interpretation has gone beyond what any of the founding fathers intended, but there are far more cases where I may dislike their interpretation but recognize that it is a perfectly reasonable way to interpret the constitution; both what was written and what was intended.
We often tax wealth twice.
And the two rates combined are still less than the tax on normal income.
This is why I want an across the board flat tax on all first time income.
I'd agree with this. Eliminate corporate income tax and tax capital gains at the same same flat rate as income. Unfortunately, every flat tax that has every been proposed eliminates taxes on capital gains, which basically makes it a "fuck the working class" tax, not a flat tax.
One of our customers upped the quality assurance requirements for our projects with them, which means that we get to have a bunch of non-technical (or worse ex-technical) management review everything we do at every stage of the process: design, implementation, change request, test plan, close-out. These people are worse than the coders about debating stupid nitpicking ideas.
There is just something about putting a bunch of people in a room for the purpose of performing a review that eliminates any sense of perspective that they might have.
Do I HAVE to register my inventions?
Whether you do or not, the published work still counts as prior art. The main difference is when that prior art is applied. Registering your invention will make it more likely that the patent office will notice the prior art when someone else tries to patent the same idea and thus more likely for that patent to be denied. If you just publish in a public place (even a reputable journal), then the patent office probably won't see that prior art, will grant the patent, and you could be sued. Your published documentation could then be used as a prior art defense in court.
So it is a cost/risk tradeoff. You have to decide whether it is worthwhile to spend some money up front to decrease the risk of very expensive (but honestly unlikely) legal costs in the future.
If you file for a Statutory Invention Registration (or file for a patent and drop it after 18 months), then your filing will be in the USPTO database and thus more likely to be found during a prior art search for future patent applications than if it was just published in a journal.
Alternately, if you wish your invention to be in the public domain, you can file for Statutory Invention Registration. This will cause the filing to be in the USPTO database and thus more likely to be found during a prior art search for future patent applications than if it was just published in a journal.
It also still doesn't seem to open or save Office files correctly, which is really needed if you want to exchange files with other people.
I have that problem as well but it isn't restricted to OpenOffice. My GF's instructors post all their assignments and lecture notes as MS Word or Powerpoint documents. Between the two versions of MS Office we have (97 and 2007), OpenOffice 3.3 and LibreOffice 3.4, LibreOffice is the one that works the most often.
The GUI also feels kind of sluggish and outdated, but that probably comes from Java.
OpenOffice doesn't use Java for the GUI. It is just used for some database backends and wizards but that is all. Most people can safely disable it and save some memory and start-up time. And LibreOffice is working on removing much of the java code.
Since they updated the icons in later versions, I think it looks fine, but some features are still pretty hard to find.