Gee, when I went to www.dell.com to shop for a new PC, I didn't talk to anyone. Why did you? You fill in the form, send payment, and they ship you the PC, built to order. Isn't the whole point of e-business to avoid a sales staff?
But please, for the love of God, don't listen to those "real world experience" morons who say denormalization is key. That's all well and good until you've got the same information replicated to hell and gone and records start to disagree: Is the billing address 123 North Main or 1313 Mockingbird Lane? Half the invoices for this customer show one, half the other.
If your normalized tables take a performance hit, buy a bigger box. If you munge the data with replication, you're screwed.
So you disagree with my comment that this policy is crap? No, reading your post I think you agree with me on that one. Hmmm, what do you disagree with? My claim that the license forbids transfer? How can you disagree with that? It's a fact.
I don't accept software licenses, especially click-through's as legal.
Ah, I see. Well, as an individual you are probably likely to get away with violating the licenses you've leagally accepted, but that doesn't make them illegal.
a situation that amounts to extortion
"Accept our terms or don't buy our product." IANAL, but that doesn't sound like extortion to me. A bad policy, doomed to drive customers away, but not extortion.
I haven't read a Microsoft license in a while, so I can't comment. But this is clause not unusual. In the 1980s I bought a Zenith Z-100. It came with Z-DOS, a version of MS-DOS, which included a clause in its license that if I sell the computer I cannot sell Z-DOS with it; the buyer would have to buy a new copy from Zenith. I thought it was crap then, and I still think it's crap, but they're free to put such a clause in their license if you're stupid enough to accept it.
IANAL, but neither are you. I believe that any license agreement trumps public law. The law may give you a right, but you are free to sign away that right. For example, you have the right to sue me in any court, but you are free to sign an agreement with me that you will only sue me in the court of my choosing. Whether you got a fair exchange for giving up that right is your decision; apparantly, KMart thought the value of Microsoft's software was worth the license agreement, and now Microsoft's enforcing it.
Maybe I've got an evil side that sees the bad in things, but this reminds me of several stories where individuals are targeted based on their DNA. Seems like a small step from this to a poison that only activates in people with a specific DNA sequence...
OK, so where can I (legally) buy a Mac BIOS chip? The bulk of it may be off-the-shelf, but there are Apple copyright parts -- only available from Apple -- which is why you don't see any Mac clones.
This and the other cases mentioned prove it's possible to apply physical-world laws to cyberspace. Little need for new laws, if you explain the situation. Too bad other government agencies don't "get it" as easily.
After all, we are (genetically superior/favored by God/better than those other people/take your pick) so it is right and just and good that we get more than them. We are (improving the gene pool/carrying out God's plan/just taking what we are due/take your pick.)
You conveniently left off the real reasons: We are (harder working/better motivated/culturally inclined toward economic progress).
Or, just get a humble P90 box with two network cards and make an OpenBSD firewall. Just use it to pass all traffic through. You need few if any rules, you won't need NAT, or dhcpd or bind or anything. Just a small IPID randomizer between your current setup and the big, bad internet. If you can put it in or take it out without affecting anything, then it's configured correctly. Test it with Nmap to prove it works, then relax.
No -- I mean DON'T relax, you should keep up with the latest threats and remain vigilant. But you can stop worrying about Idlescan.
A lot of my Senators' constituents had an issue with this bill, but they didn't hold it up, only Helms did. Why? Campaign contributions. Do you really think WCPE is a major contributor to his campaign?
I think he's asking if anyone knows of a mail system that allows the sender to recall something after it's sent, without bothering their admin. Sounds like a great idea, I wonder if anyone makes any software like that?
You missed the point. The Court says that these protocols are not to remain trade secrets, as that perpetuates Microsoft's illegal monopoly. One of the things that makes their monopoloy illegal is the fact that Microsoft's applications developers have inside information about Microsoft's operating systems that other, non-Microsoft developers can't see.
The question here is how much Microsoft has to disclose. Do they have to make this information available to all developers, or only to some developers? What if Microsoft only made the information available to ONE other company? Is that good enough? Where do you draw the line? The problem is that the Justice Department's proposed settlement doesn't draw the line -- it lets Microsoft draw the line! Now we see where they've drawn it: Somewhere just inside that closed door over there.
Of course Microsoft understands that -- they're not idiots. The problem is the Justice Department didn't understand that (they are idiots), which is why they went along with Microsoft's absurd agreement. The question is whether the Court understands that -- let's hope the Judge groks this and at least tightens up the terms of the agreement.
On the contrary, if it happened in any real system it would be very interesting!
Easy prediction: It'll Never Happen.
on
The Coming Air Age
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It didn't happen because Igor Sikorsky couldn't make helicopters the way Henry Ford made Model Ts. The problem is that when a Model T breaks you get out and walk; when your helicopter breaks, you die.
Use Gentoo with caution. I tried Gentoo 1.0 and it didn't support my network card so I couldn't install it. A few months ago I tried 1.2 and now my network card is supported! Yippie! So I start the install and half-way through a several-hour process one of the builds breaks because some file is missing because some server is down and the install script can get the file. I tried again and again over the next few days and had the same problem. I looked at the support forums and saw I wasn't the only person with this problem, and I gave up. It's a great idea, but unlike Linux from Scratch (or almost any other distro) you are totally dependent on Gentoo and their servers.
Slashdot Mirror
If your normalized tables take a performance hit, buy a bigger box. If you munge the data with replication, you're screwed.
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
IANAL, but neither are you. I believe that any license agreement trumps public law. The law may give you a right, but you are free to sign away that right. For example, you have the right to sue me in any court, but you are free to sign an agreement with me that you will only sue me in the court of my choosing. Whether you got a fair exchange for giving up that right is your decision; apparantly, KMart thought the value of Microsoft's software was worth the license agreement, and now Microsoft's enforcing it.
Haven't you read the FAQ? You don't get mod points if you have a sense of humor.
No -- I mean DON'T relax, you should keep up with the latest threats and remain vigilant. But you can stop worrying about Idlescan.
There are three PLCs in the cabinet.
The PLC's cabinet is the one on the right.
I'd settle for a small doohickey I can use in place of a wall wart. With adjustable output voltage and multiple plugs, something like this and this.
The question here is how much Microsoft has to disclose. Do they have to make this information available to all developers, or only to some developers? What if Microsoft only made the information available to ONE other company? Is that good enough? Where do you draw the line? The problem is that the Justice Department's proposed settlement doesn't draw the line -- it lets Microsoft draw the line! Now we see where they've drawn it: Somewhere just inside that closed door over there.
Of course Microsoft understands that -- they're not idiots. The problem is the Justice Department didn't understand that (they are idiots), which is why they went along with Microsoft's absurd agreement. The question is whether the Court understands that -- let's hope the Judge groks this and at least tightens up the terms of the agreement.
"Offtopic"? Are you nuts? Thanks, Jouster -- great job preserving the site for the rest of us to see it!