every OS can get the serial number of the CPU or BIOS or ethernet card
I know that every (decent) OS can get the serial number. But that's very different from saying that every OS must get the serial number.
If you're suspected of pirating, they can look at your computer
In that scenario how are they going to know to suspect you of piracy in the first place? They'll have a bazillion copies of a Britney Spear song ripped by computer #123-456-789. How are they supposed to know who owns that computer?
The serial number of the computer used to encode the files would probably be good enough to find any software pirates
That means that:
The OS would have to know the serial number of the computer so it could make it available to the ripper application to embed in the file. Any OS or ripper that failed to cooperate would be illegal?
The government would have a registry that maps every computer serial number to a single person. When you sell the computer, you'd have to notify the government. What happens if you are caught using an unregistered computer?
How the heck do you think they'll be able to match this supposed "unique identifier" to an actual person? By SSN? By some sort of government registry of "unique identifiers"?
I don't know anything about superconductors, but if the magnet is moving in a circle, it is undergoing a constant acceleration towards center of the circle. That's Physics 101.
Thus, in your scenario, it seems to me that the the "boat" will quickly rub against either the superconductor or the inside surface of the glass pipe itself. The friction from this interaction will halt the boat's motion.
If you want a better example of "perpetual" circular motion, I suggest you consider a satellite in orbit.
The meat of the story is at the bottom of the article. Apparently TBS owns the rights to the movies that contain these songs. TBS is in turned owned by AOL/TW. But EMI claims that TBS cannot transfer the rights to its own parent company! The exact quote is:
"We gave them very personal use. It was non assignable."
This just seems like an argument between lawyers about the fine print in an old contract. Not really relevant to the whole IP debate. (I'm sure that won't stop the/. hordes from descending, though.<g>)
I certainly agree that in order to increase revenue, they'll have to take business away from Microsoft. However, the previous poster claimed that they plan to be successful somehow without actually growing their business! No one's going to buy their stock simply because the market they're in is shrinking.
Using Netscape to buttress your explanation is particularly humorous because neither MS nor Netscape ever made any money from selling browsers.
their goal was to use cheap software to reduce the size of the market while maintaining their absolute market position, thus increasing their relative market share
That's hilarious. Is a $50M company in a market that's worth $2B (and shrinking) somehow better than the same size company in a market worth $10B (and growing)? Instead of increasing their own revenue, their plan is to shrink everyone else's revenue!? Do please explain to us how that would increase stockholder value.
Either way, there's numerous windows (normally hidden) on a standard desktop that run as localsystem - it's possible to exploit some of them using the same techniques.
Examples, please. Having a GUI that runs with elevated privileges like this is a very bad idea. I'm surprised that there's even one such commercial product, let alone many. I credit you with uncovering this shoddy application, but I still cling to the hope that it's unusual. Am I wrong?
This is further evidence of my point. Ideologues tend to form splinter groups faster than you can count them. The last thing they want is to be associated with someone who has slightly different views. Egads!
Practically speaking, the distinction between Open Source and Free Software doesn't matter to anyone except the principals of the two groups. It's ironic -- RMS is his own worst enemy.
> he encourages people to promote GNU too, > shouldn't he be allowed to do that too?
Of course he's allowed to. The problem is that he's pissing off his allies and creating unnecessary division in his own movement. This sort of fracturing is what happens to hide-bound ideologies -- they degenerate into religious arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Of course he is. Did you not read the article? He's attempting to use his moral authority to influence the name of an OS that is not under his control.
If he had concerns about the name of this OS, he should have put those concerns in the GPL to begin with. Since he didn't, he has no business bringing the topic up again and again. He asked, the answer was no -- now it's done. Beyond that, he's just annoying people.
It's ironic -- the champion of free software doesn't understand that freedom means allowing people to say/do things that you don't agree with. Linux (the OS) has licensed the GNU software. Nothing in that license requires Linux (the OS) to have a particular name. Thus, any attempt by RMS to influence the name is based solely on a misguided sense of political correctness.
RMS's arguments may even be persuasive, but that doesn't give him the right to shove those arguments down anyone's throat.
Re:The Myth of the Employee Class
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 1
>> An Employee class breaks quite easily, as described by the >> poster at the top of this thread.
> Which "break" are you talking about? I didn't see any breakage > in my approach.
Employee breaks as a class because it doesn't handle other relevant roles that a person might play (e.g. stockholder, customer, account owner). In order to handle this, you end up with multiple inheritance (e.g. EmployeeStockholder), multiple instances for the same person, or other hacks.
>> We typically model Person and Company as subclasses of >> BusinessEntity.
> Yes, but I see no purpose in this. A customer is a customer.
No, a customer might also be an employee, a stockholder, a vendor, an astronaut, a mother, a policeman, a manager, etc. If you can't grasp this, you're missing a fundamental OO concept.
> They might start out as a small single-person business and then grow > to a company.
Are you trying to say that a person turns into a company!? I hope not.
> My approach would only require flipping an attribute somewhere, and not > *converting* from one class to another.
Who the heck would convert from one class to another? Once again, you're arguing my side of the point for me. An instance of the Person class is *always* an instance of the Person class. Ditto for the Company class. That's why we make them classes (and why Employee is not a class).
> The company may even not bother tracking whether a customer is an individual or > a company as long as they pay their bills.
But Person and Company have completely different attributes. There's no need to "track" anything. The two classes are as different as night and day (although they have a common superclass).
> "Contact" is a "role"??? I am not getting this.
No, you're certainly not. Contact is a role played by the BusinessEntity class. It's not a class of its own.
> It does not handle multi-aspect orthogonal divisions well.
I am reading your "OO is bad" site now and I'll let you know what I think afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
the idea of a dozen people in an enclosed capsule breathing recirculated air for hours doesnt sound real pleasant either
You are perhaps familiar with space travel? Seems to work okay.
-- Brian
every OS can get the serial number of the CPU or BIOS or ethernet card
I know that every (decent) OS can get the serial number. But that's very different from saying that every OS must get the serial number.
If you're suspected of pirating, they can look at your computer
In that scenario how are they going to know to suspect you of piracy in the first place? They'll have a bazillion copies of a Britney Spear song ripped by computer #123-456-789. How are they supposed to know who owns that computer?
-- Brian
That means that:
The OS would have to know the serial number of the computer so it could make it available to the ripper application to embed in the file. Any OS or ripper that failed to cooperate would be illegal?
The government would have a registry that maps every computer serial number to a single person. When you sell the computer, you'd have to notify the government. What happens if you are caught using an unregistered computer?
As I said, scary.
-- Brian
How the heck do you think they'll be able to match this supposed "unique identifier" to an actual person? By SSN? By some sort of government registry of "unique identifiers"?
That's the scary part to me.
-- Brian
Except the boat in the vacuum chamber will never work for very long (for the reason I described).
I don't know anything about superconductors, but if the magnet is moving in a circle, it is undergoing a constant acceleration towards center of the circle. That's Physics 101.
Thus, in your scenario, it seems to me that the the "boat" will quickly rub against either the superconductor or the inside surface of the glass pipe itself. The friction from this interaction will halt the boat's motion.
If you want a better example of "perpetual" circular motion, I suggest you consider a satellite in orbit.
-- Brian
We have no idea what the C# designers were thinking
Can you provide an example?
-- Brian
The meat of the story is at the bottom of the article. Apparently TBS owns the rights to the movies that contain these songs. TBS is in turned owned by AOL/TW. But EMI claims that TBS cannot transfer the rights to its own parent company! The exact quote is:
This just seems like an argument between lawyers about the fine print in an old contract. Not really relevant to the whole IP debate. (I'm sure that won't stop the /. hordes from descending, though.<g>)
-- Brian
It might be cool to type "vaccuum", but the word you're trying to use is spelled "vacuum".
-- Brian
I certainly agree that in order to increase revenue, they'll have to take business away from Microsoft. However, the previous poster claimed that they plan to be successful somehow without actually growing their business! No one's going to buy their stock simply because the market they're in is shrinking.
Using Netscape to buttress your explanation is particularly humorous because neither MS nor Netscape ever made any money from selling browsers.
-- Brian
their goal was to use cheap software to reduce the size of the market while maintaining their absolute market position, thus increasing their relative market share
That's hilarious. Is a $50M company in a market that's worth $2B (and shrinking) somehow better than the same size company in a market worth $10B (and growing)? Instead of increasing their own revenue, their plan is to shrink everyone else's revenue!? Do please explain to us how that would increase stockholder value.
-- Brian
Either way, there's numerous windows (normally hidden) on a standard desktop that run as localsystem - it's possible to exploit some of them using the same techniques.
Examples, please. Having a GUI that runs with elevated privileges like this is a very bad idea. I'm surprised that there's even one such commercial product, let alone many. I credit you with uncovering this shoddy application, but I still cling to the hope that it's unusual. Am I wrong?
-- Brian
Or just increase the mass of the Earth a smidge? (1 smidge = .02G)
Incoming asteriod is a point particle.
Diameter of the Earth is 12,000km.
Asteroid will pass within 120,000km of Earth's center (possibly less).
The question then becomes:
Choose a random point within a circle of radius 120,000km.
What is the probability that this point lies within a circle of radius 6000km?
In other words, what are the relative sizes of the two circles?
(pi * 6000^2)/(pi * 120000^2) = 0.0025 = 0.25%
-- Brian
It's a joke. A quote from Animal House.
I like how the posted story links to www.ap.org in a (lame) attempt to establish the objectivity of the report.
I'll be curious to see how many other major sites run the story.
-- Brian
Keep in mind that CNN and Netscape (which is based on Mozilla) are owned by the same company: AOL/Time-Warner.
-- Brian
It would be truly bizarre if our eyes perceived light from our Sun as anything but white.
The problem here is that you have two definitons of white:
Contains equal amounts of all colors (objective)
Appears "neutral" to human eyes (subjective)
Certainly the sun is white by the second definition. That doesn't mean it's also white by the first definition.
-- Brian
Who the heck modded this up? "One end of the key is not necessarily tied to the other end?" Hilarious.
-- Brian
This is further evidence of my point. Ideologues tend to form splinter groups faster than you can count them. The last thing they want is to be associated with someone who has slightly different views. Egads!
Practically speaking, the distinction between Open Source and Free Software doesn't matter to anyone except the principals of the two groups. It's ironic -- RMS is his own worst enemy.
-- Brian
> he encourages people to promote GNU too,
> shouldn't he be allowed to do that too?
Of course he's allowed to. The problem is that he's pissing off his allies and creating unnecessary division in his own movement. This sort of fracturing is what happens to hide-bound ideologies -- they degenerate into religious arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
-- Brian
> He's not shoving anything down anyones throat
Of course he is. Did you not read the article? He's attempting to use his moral authority to influence the name of an OS that is not under his control.
If he had concerns about the name of this OS, he should have put those concerns in the GPL to begin with. Since he didn't, he has no business bringing the topic up again and again. He asked, the answer was no -- now it's done. Beyond that, he's just annoying people.
-- Brian
It's ironic -- the champion of free software doesn't understand that freedom means allowing people to say/do things that you don't agree with. Linux (the OS) has licensed the GNU software. Nothing in that license requires Linux (the OS) to have a particular name. Thus, any attempt by RMS to influence the name is based solely on a misguided sense of political correctness.
RMS's arguments may even be persuasive, but that doesn't give him the right to shove those arguments down anyone's throat.
-- Brian
Here's a link to the top citation: Title 26, Chapter 1 subchapter - G
-- Brian
>> An Employee class breaks quite easily, as described by the
>> poster at the top of this thread.
> Which "break" are you talking about? I didn't see any breakage
> in my approach.
Employee breaks as a class because it doesn't handle other relevant roles that a person might play (e.g. stockholder, customer, account owner). In order to handle this, you end up with multiple inheritance (e.g. EmployeeStockholder), multiple instances for the same person, or other hacks.
>> We typically model Person and Company as subclasses of
>> BusinessEntity.
> Yes, but I see no purpose in this. A customer is a customer.
No, a customer might also be an employee, a stockholder, a vendor, an astronaut, a mother, a policeman, a manager, etc. If you can't grasp this, you're missing a fundamental OO concept.
> They might start out as a small single-person business and then grow
> to a company.
Are you trying to say that a person turns into a company!? I hope not.
> My approach would only require flipping an attribute somewhere, and not
> *converting* from one class to another.
Who the heck would convert from one class to another? Once again, you're arguing my side of the point for me. An instance of the Person class is *always* an instance of the Person class. Ditto for the Company class. That's why we make them classes (and why Employee is not a class).
> The company may even not bother tracking whether a customer is an individual or
> a company as long as they pay their bills.
But Person and Company have completely different attributes. There's no need to "track" anything. The two classes are as different as night and day (although they have a common superclass).
> "Contact" is a "role"??? I am not getting this.
No, you're certainly not. Contact is a role played by the BusinessEntity class. It's not a class of its own.
> It does not handle multi-aspect orthogonal divisions well.
I am reading your "OO is bad" site now and I'll let you know what I think afterwards.
-- Brian