NT until recently retained an OS/2 1.x subsystem (along with an equally weak POSIX subsystem), and NTFS took many design cues from HPFS, but it was never any more a fork of OS/2 than it was a fork of Windows 3.1. Its closest architectural relative is and always was VMS.
That would be AC@microsoft.com?
NTFS in NT 3.1 was obviously a derivative of the secure HPFS (HPFS386, IIRC) previously introduced. Commonalities in data structures and disk layout indicate far more than "design cues" being taken from HPFS.
NT 3.1 kernel had OS/2 error messages embedded inside of it. That was only the most obvious link, but there is no doubt that OS/2 was a parent of NT 3.1 via source code sharing. "Architectural relative" means "design cues" and in no way means that NT was not a fork of OS/2.
But why not? Microsoft had co-ownership of OS/2 so why not use that code? It would have been even more stupid to start from scratch.
Optional download is _almost_ but not quite right. The right approach is to make it possible for the user to select their own language.
You should implement the hooks for a scripting language, probably even provide some simple (whatever you prefer) default. But allow me to pick perl or an interpreted C, allow my brother to pick python, etc.
Forget the strawman argument about companies not wanting a dozen langauges. They can use their choice. If you choose for them, they have to use yours plus their choice for the rest of the solution.
It may not be popular, but windows scripting host, or something like that, is the right idea.
A slave is a human being owned (as private property) by another human being. It is the ultimate extension of the capitalist ideal of private property -- even other people can be property. Socialism (whatever flaws it may have) contests exactly these ideas of private property. Slavery is totally inconceivable in a society where there is no private property. Think about it.
I thought about it. If coming up with that is the best you can think, I hope you get educated soon.
Slavery does not require ownership by a person. Socialism makes everybody a slave to the government. Communism makes everybody a slave to the neighbor. Only capitalism as an economic system, and libertarianism as originally specified by the U.S.A. founding fathers, placed human freedom as supremely important.
Because human beings are not property unless the government says they are. If the government does not say humans are property, then any attempt to own human beings is illegal, e.g. kidnapping, and is one of if not the main reason for government -- preservation of human rights.
First, extension cords are limited to 6' by the National Electrical Code and UL. If the cord is longer than 6', it is supposed to have larger wire than what is normally provided (#14 for 15A vs. #16/18 typical extension cord).
I'd be really interested in an NEC cite for that, since I don't recall reading that in the book, handbook or explanatory documents.
And the UL bit is interesting also. Care to explain how Home Depot can sell a 50ft, 16ga, UL listed cord? (eg Model 000-HD809-543, Store SKU# 809543, Internet/Catalog #163788 for $5.97 'cause it's green, orange is less)
Maybe what you meant is that you do not want to run 15amps thru such a cord. The NEC requires permanent wiring to be at least 14ga for 15amps, or 12ga (bigger wire) for 20amps. None of these cheap cords have a 20amp plug on them. Doesn't mean they won't supply 20amp from a 20amp circuit if your equipment tries to pull it. 12ga should be fine up to 50ft or so. Any longer and I would recommend going to 10ga to reduce voltage drop.
But to stress again, an extension cord is supposed to be temporary, but exactly what that means is up to opinion.
Hehe even here in Australia there are plenty of towns with ADSL access! I know of dozens of towns around 10k people with DSL access. My city is around 100k people and we have four exchanges, all enabled. I can't believe they'd stick a city of 50k people on an exchange that isn't located near its CBD.
Never been to the Los Angeles area or Cerritos, have you...
Good luck trying to find a central business distric in Cerritos. Maybe the mall? Maybe the auto mall? Anyway, did you even see in the original post, the area of the city? And then FYI, it is surrounded on all sides by other cities. Why would the telco bother putting in a central office in every one of those little cities when they all adjoin?
Or take my situation... I'm under three miles from a DSL enabled central office in a city of about 50k. However, it is fiber from the CO to the pedestal 500ft from my house. They have been promising a DSLAM in the ped "in the next six months" for over five years. Maybe someday...
Or maybe I can get them to run fiber right to me.:-D
You gonna tell your granny to go get a 64bit machine and load suse64 on it?
Of course not. I expect the software would be preinstalled or I'd install the OS and apps for her, just like with TRSDOS, MS-DOS, Windows 95 and Windows 2000.
Of course, given the historical pace of upgrades, I won't need to worry about it for at least another year. By then she can probably just pick it up at WalMart while she's there for milk.
I guess I may just have to blow some karma to address your flawed reasoning point by offtopic point.
If they are not copying the mechanism, no one is getting hurt so it is not immoral and should not be illegal. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and it made this harmless act illegal simply as a big club.
Cracking the protection mechanism does not hurt anyone, so it is not immoral and should not be illegal. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and is just a big club.
If the content is public domain, and it gets copied, nobody is hurt and it it is not immoral and should not be illegal. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and is just a big club.
If the content is not public domain, and it gets copied, normal copyright law is violated. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and it is just yet another club.
Creating and/or distributing a tool to crack encryption hurts no one, it is not immoral and should not be illegal. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and is just a big club.
Using that tool to crack encryption on content you have a right to use hurts no one, it is not immoral and should not be illegal. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and is just a big club.
Using that tool to crack encryption on content you do not have a right to use is a violation of normal copyright law. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and is just yet another club.
Overarching conclusion: the DMCA is just a big club which has no lawful nor moral purpose and as such is not needed.
It's a little more complicated then [sic] that in this case because Adobe doesn't own the copyright on the content. They're using the DMCA to protect the distribution mechanism. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to take public domain content and package it in an ebook. Under the DMCA, cracking that ebook is illegal, even if the content is public.
The original strawman was "free ebooks" and now you worry about a distribution mechanism? Never-the-less, the DMCA is not needed for that. Even without DMCA either the mechanism is copyrighted, or the compilation of the mechanism and the content is protected, or both.
The DMCA is analogous to a law making it worse to wear sunglasses when jaywalking. Being a law does not mean it is worthwhile or that it makes sense.
The purpose of the DMCA is for situations like Adobe's ebook, where if someone cracks the encryption they'd get free ebooks. In that situation the DMCA is a Good Thing.
Nonsense.
Copying, distributing, etc. was protected by copyright prior to the DMCA and still is. The only thing DMCA changes in the equation, is the addition of extra punishment. Just like a robbery vs a robbery with a gun -- using the gun is a special condition that allows additional punishment for the illegal act of robbery even if everything else is exactly the same. The DMCA is nothing more than a club to provide additional leverage (via punishment) for copyright violations.
No problem. I'll provide all you need with a full 5yr warranty replacement with same or better drives. With a 5 year warranty they'll cost about 2x-3x the price of normal IDE drives, but that is still less than 1/2 the price of similar capacity SCSI drives.
Don't be confused if the drives look just like what you'd buy elsewhere. If you buy from me they are actually 2x as good since you pay 2x the price.
That's because the laws are written with the grand-fuzzy of 'intent' built into them. The problem isn't intent, the problem is that the laws are so vague that intent matters.
...we cannot infer intent. We must judge the potential criminal only on their actions.
"potential criminal" meaning one who is accused but not yet convicted? The problem is, intent really matters. If one is accused of killing another, should the punishment be the same
if the victim ran out in traffic on the freeway or
if the killer was drunk and crashed into the sleeping victim's bedroom or
if the killer chased down the victim until finally able to make the kill?
Of course not. Intent matters.
In this case however, no harm was done by providing a link. The harm, if any, was done by the parties providing and/or downloading copyrighted works without owning the copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe a pots line in your house can still call 911 even if your phone service is disconnected...
Do you still live in a dorm room?
In every place I've lived since moving out of the dorm, a disconnected phone meant the line was dead. No dialtone, no power, no way to call even 911.
sdb
NT until recently retained an OS/2 1.x subsystem (along with an equally weak POSIX subsystem), and NTFS took many design cues from HPFS, but it was never any more a fork of OS/2 than it was a fork of Windows 3.1. Its closest architectural relative is and always was VMS.
That would be AC@microsoft.com?
NTFS in NT 3.1 was obviously a derivative of the secure HPFS (HPFS386, IIRC) previously introduced. Commonalities in data structures and disk layout indicate far more than "design cues" being taken from HPFS.
NT 3.1 kernel had OS/2 error messages embedded inside of it. That was only the most obvious link, but there is no doubt that OS/2 was a parent of NT 3.1 via source code sharing. "Architectural relative" means "design cues" and in no way means that NT was not a fork of OS/2.
But why not? Microsoft had co-ownership of OS/2 so why not use that code? It would have been even more stupid to start from scratch.
sdb
Optional download is _almost_ but not quite right. The right approach is to make it possible for the user to select their own language.
You should implement the hooks for a scripting language, probably even provide some simple (whatever you prefer) default. But allow me to pick perl or an interpreted C, allow my brother to pick python, etc.
Forget the strawman argument about companies not wanting a dozen langauges. They can use their choice. If you choose for them, they have to use yours plus their choice for the rest of the solution.
It may not be popular, but windows scripting host, or something like that, is the right idea.
sdb
A slave is a human being owned (as private property) by another human being. It is the ultimate extension of the capitalist ideal of private property -- even other people can be property. Socialism (whatever flaws it may have) contests exactly these ideas of private property. Slavery is totally inconceivable in a society where there is no private property. Think about it.
I thought about it. If coming up with that is the best you can think, I hope you get educated soon.
Slavery does not require ownership by a person. Socialism makes everybody a slave to the government. Communism makes everybody a slave to the neighbor. Only capitalism as an economic system, and libertarianism as originally specified by the U.S.A. founding fathers, placed human freedom as supremely important.
Because human beings are not property unless the government says they are. If the government does not say humans are property, then any attempt to own human beings is illegal, e.g. kidnapping, and is one of if not the main reason for government -- preservation of human rights.
sdb
First, extension cords are limited to 6' by the National Electrical Code and UL. If the cord is longer than 6', it is supposed to have larger wire than what is normally provided (#14 for 15A vs. #16/18 typical extension cord).
I'd be really interested in an NEC cite for that, since I don't recall reading that in the book, handbook or explanatory documents.
And the UL bit is interesting also. Care to explain how Home Depot can sell a 50ft, 16ga, UL listed cord? (eg Model 000-HD809-543, Store SKU# 809543, Internet/Catalog #163788 for $5.97 'cause it's green, orange is less)
Maybe what you meant is that you do not want to run 15amps thru such a cord. The NEC requires permanent wiring to be at least 14ga for 15amps, or 12ga (bigger wire) for 20amps. None of these cheap cords have a 20amp plug on them. Doesn't mean they won't supply 20amp from a 20amp circuit if your equipment tries to pull it. 12ga should be fine up to 50ft or so. Any longer and I would recommend going to 10ga to reduce voltage drop.
But to stress again, an extension cord is supposed to be temporary, but exactly what that means is up to opinion.
sdb
Hehe even here in Australia there are plenty of towns with ADSL access! I know of dozens of towns around 10k people with DSL access. My city is around 100k people and we have four exchanges, all enabled. I can't believe they'd stick a city of 50k people on an exchange that isn't located near its CBD.
:-D
Never been to the Los Angeles area or Cerritos, have you...
Good luck trying to find a central business distric in Cerritos. Maybe the mall? Maybe the auto mall? Anyway, did you even see in the original post, the area of the city? And then FYI, it is surrounded on all sides by other cities. Why would the telco bother putting in a central office in every one of those little cities when they all adjoin?
Or take my situation... I'm under three miles from a DSL enabled central office in a city of about 50k. However, it is fiber from the CO to the pedestal 500ft from my house. They have been promising a DSLAM in the ped "in the next six months" for over five years. Maybe someday...
Or maybe I can get them to run fiber right to me.
sdb
You gonna tell your granny to go get a 64bit machine and load suse64 on it?
Of course not. I expect the software would be preinstalled or I'd install the OS and apps for her, just like with TRSDOS, MS-DOS, Windows 95 and Windows 2000.
Of course, given the historical pace of upgrades, I won't need to worry about it for at least another year. By then she can probably just pick it up at WalMart while she's there for milk.
sdb
I guess I may just have to blow some karma to address your flawed reasoning point by offtopic point.
If they are not copying the mechanism, no one is getting hurt so it is not immoral and should not be illegal. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and it made this harmless act illegal simply as a big club.
Cracking the protection mechanism does not hurt anyone, so it is not immoral and should not be illegal. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and is just a big club.
If the content is public domain, and it gets copied, nobody is hurt and it it is not immoral and should not be illegal. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and is just a big club.
If the content is not public domain, and it gets copied, normal copyright law is violated. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and it is just yet another club.
Creating and/or distributing a tool to crack encryption hurts no one, it is not immoral and should not be illegal. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and is just a big club.
Using that tool to crack encryption on content you have a right to use hurts no one, it is not immoral and should not be illegal. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and is just a big club.
Using that tool to crack encryption on content you do not have a right to use is a violation of normal copyright law. Conclusion: the DMCA is not needed and is just yet another club.
Overarching conclusion: the DMCA is just a big club which has no lawful nor moral purpose and as such is not needed.
sdb
It's a little more complicated then [sic] that in this case because Adobe doesn't own the copyright on the content. They're using the DMCA to protect the distribution mechanism. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to take public domain content and package it in an ebook. Under the DMCA, cracking that ebook is illegal, even if the content is public.
The original strawman was "free ebooks" and now you worry about a distribution mechanism? Never-the-less, the DMCA is not needed for that. Even without DMCA either the mechanism is copyrighted, or the compilation of the mechanism and the content is protected, or both.
The DMCA is analogous to a law making it worse to wear sunglasses when jaywalking. Being a law does not mean it is worthwhile or that it makes sense.
sdb
The purpose of the DMCA is for situations like Adobe's ebook, where if someone cracks the encryption they'd get free ebooks. In that situation the DMCA is a Good Thing.
Nonsense.
Copying, distributing, etc. was protected by copyright prior to the DMCA and still is. The only thing DMCA changes in the equation, is the addition of extra punishment. Just like a robbery vs a robbery with a gun -- using the gun is a special condition that allows additional punishment for the illegal act of robbery even if everything else is exactly the same. The DMCA is nothing more than a club to provide additional leverage (via punishment) for copyright violations.
sdb
please find me IDE drives with a 5 year warrenty.
No problem. I'll provide all you need with a full 5yr warranty replacement with same or better drives. With a 5 year warranty they'll cost about 2x-3x the price of normal IDE drives, but that is still less than 1/2 the price of similar capacity SCSI drives. Don't be confused if the drives look just like what you'd buy elsewhere. If you buy from me they are actually 2x as good since you pay 2x the price.
That's because the laws are written with the grand-fuzzy of 'intent' built into them. The problem isn't intent, the problem is that the laws are so vague that intent matters.
...we cannot infer intent. We must judge the potential criminal only on their actions.
"potential criminal" meaning one who is accused but not yet convicted? The problem is, intent really matters. If one is accused of killing another, should the punishment be the same
if the victim ran out in traffic on the freeway or
if the killer was drunk and crashed into the sleeping victim's bedroom or
if the killer chased down the victim until finally able to make the kill?
Of course not. Intent matters.
In this case however, no harm was done by providing a link. The harm, if any, was done by the parties providing and/or downloading copyrighted works without owning the copyright.
sdb