I dont beleive any material is actually removed, either during current data-burning, or with this label stuff - I beleive with data the laser is actually warming up a material not unlike paraffin, which flows slightly to cause a change in reflectance at that point (but not enough to change any signifigant weight distribution)
From the 'how it works' section of this story, it looks like theres a dye that just changes color (presumably from clear to grey/black), so the dye is still there, no weight change.
I'd buy the hardware and the discs, so long as the hardware *API* was open and documented, so I could expect non-proprietary software to show up eventually (actually, I'd wait until it already had)
If this catches on, I suspect the discs will eventually become commodity. And burners are all proprietary anyway (but thankfully, all seem to adhere to the same interface/API/commandset standard)
Perhaps even if he just said "Doctor X has identified the problem and found what seems to be the correct treatment, but due to the exact nature of it I'd prefer to keep the exact problem private"
His two postings from November are as detailed as they were then, and the new posting has absolutely no details at all.
Curious/.'s want to know - so what happened? Did they find a mysterious alien implant, or the right way to kill a nasty bug? All he says is that he's 'feeling better'
Oh I forgot one other group - those persons who arent terribly happy with MS, but in order to stay in business or pay the bills they must do business with one of the previous categories that includes exchanging data in MS various proprietary formats.
Their customers are obviously fools - why shouldnt they milk them for all they're worth?
There are several groups of people still using MS software - 'average consumers' who are barely even aware of the difference between a CPU and an OS, PHB's who are barely even aware of the difference between a CPU and an OS, (or employees of same who have no choice), or MS apologists who are so certain the ground MS walks on is holy that they wouldnt even consider looking at anything else, let alone actually using it and learning it. (and before anyone jumps in, I *have* experienced MS platforms - I absolutely cannot stand them and am baffled how anyone could get anything useful done using them)
Seriously, if your customers were willing to pay you outrageous prices for absolute shit, had been doing so for quite some time, and were continuing to do so without complaint, why on earth *wouldnt* you come up with new and innovative forms of absolute shit to sell them for even more money?
But if you arent allowed to use the Internet at work for non-work activities, and you do so, you are only culpable to your work.
The way the article was making it sound, if you access google from work to look up something personal, then because your workplace didnt authorize you to use the Internet for personal use, then somehow you are culpable to *google*, which from the exceprts of the law itself, is not the case.
Perhaps. But this seems to be suggesting that the operators of the websites you may have access might have some case of action against you, which I dont see.
Here is an example of how a violation might occur:
1. I access the internet pursuant to my Terms and Service Agreement with my ISP (that I agreed to but given that there are only 48 hours in a weekend, did not read]. This is the contractual instrument that allows my "access" to be "authorized".
2. Then I violate this instrument's conditions, and my access, is, at the very moment of the violation, "unauthorized".
3. And since, given that I'm probably staring at the screen, I am therefore "obtaining"... (viewing) "information from a protected computer..."
4. In theory, we have, a violation of the CFAA.
I would suggest that you are only violating it if you are not authorized to access the computer you are accessing *by the owner/operator* of that computer, regardless of wether or not you may be authorized by a network provider to use their network.
That you may not be allowed to use your employers internet connection for personal use may get you fired by your employer, but does not constitute a violation against the websites you might have accessed.
I agree that the new TLD's are stupid and meaningless, but that concept of 'domain' is something entirely different, and had nothing to do with Internet DNS.
My personal choice would be not to commit any crimes that might place me in such a situation. I was just suggesting some legitimate non-criminal reasons why a person would have a reasonable right to expect to have access to a school.
What if the person has a child in school? Are they not entitled to attend parent-teacher meetings? School events in which their child is a participant? What if their kid is sick and needs a parent to pick them up?
Their model is obnoxious - I dont want to download their stupid software (Nor do I have or use any platform its available for anyway), I just want to download music.
There is no functionaility required for finding, downloading, or playing music that requires special software.
Its like going to a Blockbuster to rent a movie, and finding that each movie is embedded into its own TV set with its own player, and you cant take it home and play it on *your* tv, with *your* player.
Ok, so I went to itunes.com, and poked around, and found all sorts of info on how great it was, and how easy, yet nowhere can I find a link to actually select music to check out with for download.
Which means this makes them realize that instead of simply assuming everyone has the same software as they do, they might actually take a moment to think and save what they want to print in something suitable.
Whoever at the FDA chose to use MS Word with the goal of guaranteeing availability of the documents in the future must have been testing too many drugs firsthand. Ten years from now, they will be lucky if they can find a version of MS Word that can open the files they are saving today, and I hope when that day comes they are faced with the tough choice of either paying $megabucks in fines, or paying $megabucks to MS to provide them a way to access the data.
For something like this *PLAIN ASCII TEXT* would have been the way to go. Machines 30 years old can read that, and machines 30 years from now should still be able to as well.
Their parliament (which I take as roughly equivlent to US congress) has just unanimously agreed to start down the road to more open standards, less proprietary software, more open source.
And here someone? (It doesnt say who) is now negotiating with MS to give them exclusively, directly in contradiction to that. The only way heads dont roll over this is if the vote was entirely bogus, and was designed to get discounts from MS, or if *LOTS* of dirty money is changing hands.
And no, data should not need to be converted to the specific format of a specific OSS package, it should be convereted to a program-neutral format, such as plain ascii text, or to standard SQL statements (which can then be inserted into or extracted from any complient SQL server). Obviously what specific formats are relevant depends greatly on what sort of data.
In any case, any sort of contract which grants MS *exclusivity* is definately not in keeping with 'we want to gradually wean off proprietary stuff and go all Open Source'
The point isnt to replace an all-MS/IE enviroment with an all-Mozilla environment - the point is for there to be a healthy ecosystem of browsers, so that there will no longer be one homogenous set of systems all vulnerable to the same attacks.
Yes, if you view of the airplane is *blocked* by an obstruction, then the RF will be blocked too. But if the reason you can't see it is because its too far away, there may still be sufficient LOS for the RF work.
Have to use a specific (presumably closed source) client?
Wired to a bank account?
Gee that wouldnt prevent anyone from making choices. People that use opensource platforms can't listen to music? How about people that dont have bank accounts?
That market will slowly push out proprietary systems, or those with DRM, as each one's protection is cracked, or the format is ignored entirely, etc.
I for one will never buy a media device that enforces any sort of DRM (unless there is some use for it that avoids the DRM functions). That includes digital TV's, DRM'ed music (online or pseudo CD), and anything else they come up with.
You are assuming that the Chinese government allows its citizens to access this site.
I would think that if they had any power to do so, slashdot would *definately* be one of the sites they would block. Way too many opinions that conflict with the official CN views.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont beleive any material is actually removed, either during current data-burning, or with this label stuff - I beleive with data the laser is actually warming up a material not unlike paraffin, which flows slightly to cause a change in reflectance at that point (but not enough to change any signifigant weight distribution)
From the 'how it works' section of this story, it looks like theres a dye that just changes color (presumably from clear to grey/black), so the dye is still there, no weight change.
I'd buy the hardware and the discs, so long as the hardware *API* was open and documented, so I could expect non-proprietary software to show up eventually (actually, I'd wait until it already had)
If this catches on, I suspect the discs will eventually become commodity. And burners are all proprietary anyway (but thankfully, all seem to adhere to the same interface/API/commandset standard)
Perhaps even if he just said "Doctor X has identified the problem and found what seems to be the correct treatment, but due to the exact nature of it I'd prefer to keep the exact problem private"
His two postings from November are as detailed as they were then, and the new posting has absolutely no details at all.
/.'s want to know - so what happened? Did they find a mysterious alien implant, or the right way to kill a nasty bug? All he says is that he's 'feeling better'
Curious
Oh I forgot one other group - those persons who arent terribly happy with MS, but in order to stay in business or pay the bills they must do business with one of the previous categories that includes exchanging data in MS various proprietary formats.
Their customers are obviously fools - why shouldnt they milk them for all they're worth?
There are several groups of people still using MS software - 'average consumers' who are barely even aware of the difference between a CPU and an OS, PHB's who are barely even aware of the difference between a CPU and an OS, (or employees of same who have no choice), or MS apologists who are so certain the ground MS walks on is holy that they wouldnt even consider looking at anything else, let alone actually using it and learning it. (and before anyone jumps in, I *have* experienced MS platforms - I absolutely cannot stand them and am baffled how anyone could get anything useful done using them)
Seriously, if your customers were willing to pay you outrageous prices for absolute shit, had been doing so for quite some time, and were continuing to do so without complaint, why on earth *wouldnt* you come up with new and innovative forms of absolute shit to sell them for even more money?
I didnt say it wasnt.
But if you arent allowed to use the Internet at work for non-work activities, and you do so, you are only culpable to your work.
The way the article was making it sound, if you access google from work to look up something personal, then because your workplace didnt authorize you to use the Internet for personal use, then somehow you are culpable to *google*, which from the exceprts of the law itself, is not the case.
Perhaps. But this seems to be suggesting that the operators of the websites you may have access might have some case of action against you, which I dont see.
I would suggest that you are only violating it if you are not authorized to access the computer you are accessing *by the owner/operator* of that computer, regardless of wether or not you may be authorized by a network provider to use their network.
That you may not be allowed to use your employers internet connection for personal use may get you fired by your employer, but does not constitute a violation against the websites you might have accessed.
What pdf? The file linked is a PNG
I agree that the new TLD's are stupid and meaningless, but that concept of 'domain' is something entirely different, and had nothing to do with Internet DNS.
My personal choice would be not to commit any crimes that might place me in such a situation. I was just suggesting some legitimate non-criminal reasons why a person would have a reasonable right to expect to have access to a school.
What if the person has a child in school? Are they not entitled to attend parent-teacher meetings? School events in which their child is a participant? What if their kid is sick and needs a parent to pick them up?
So you are both unable to recognize saracasm, *AND* unable to recognize when I point out that you are unable to recognize sarcasm?
/. readership.
So much for the average IQ of the
Uh, no. You are, for not recognizing sarcasm.
Their model is obnoxious - I dont want to download their stupid software (Nor do I have or use any platform its available for anyway), I just want to download music.
There is no functionaility required for finding, downloading, or playing music that requires special software.
Its like going to a Blockbuster to rent a movie, and finding that each movie is embedded into its own TV set with its own player, and you cant take it home and play it on *your* tv, with *your* player.
No, I have a perfectly good browser. I dont want to download any software, just music.
(Yes, I'm being sarcastic)
Ok, so I went to itunes.com, and poked around, and found all sorts of info on how great it was, and how easy, yet nowhere can I find a link to actually select music to check out with for download.
Which means this makes them realize that instead of simply assuming everyone has the same software as they do, they might actually take a moment to think and save what they want to print in something suitable.
Personally, I'd take postscript.
Whoever at the FDA chose to use MS Word with the goal of guaranteeing availability of the documents in the future must have been testing too many drugs firsthand. Ten years from now, they will be lucky if they can find a version of MS Word that can open the files they are saving today, and I hope when that day comes they are faced with the tough choice of either paying $megabucks in fines, or paying $megabucks to MS to provide them a way to access the data.
For something like this *PLAIN ASCII TEXT* would have been the way to go. Machines 30 years old can read that, and machines 30 years from now should still be able to as well.
Their parliament (which I take as roughly equivlent to US congress) has just unanimously agreed to start down the road to more open standards, less proprietary software, more open source.
And here someone? (It doesnt say who) is now negotiating with MS to give them exclusively, directly in contradiction to that. The only way heads dont roll over this is if the vote was entirely bogus, and was designed to get discounts from MS, or if *LOTS* of dirty money is changing hands.
And no, data should not need to be converted to the specific format of a specific OSS package, it should be convereted to a program-neutral format, such as plain ascii text, or to standard SQL statements (which can then be inserted into or extracted from any complient SQL server). Obviously what specific formats are relevant depends greatly on what sort of data.
In any case, any sort of contract which grants MS *exclusivity* is definately not in keeping with 'we want to gradually wean off proprietary stuff and go all Open Source'
The point isnt to replace an all-MS/IE enviroment with an all-Mozilla environment - the point is for there to be a healthy ecosystem of browsers, so that there will no longer be one homogenous set of systems all vulnerable to the same attacks.
Yes, if you view of the airplane is *blocked* by an obstruction, then the RF will be blocked too. But if the reason you can't see it is because its too far away, there may still be sufficient LOS for the RF work.
LOS can transmit over distances beyond the distance that you can see - so not necesarrily.
Have to use a specific (presumably closed source) client?
Wired to a bank account?
Gee that wouldnt prevent anyone from making choices. People that use opensource platforms can't listen to music? How about people that dont have bank accounts?
That market will slowly push out proprietary systems, or those with DRM, as each one's protection is cracked, or the format is ignored entirely, etc.
I for one will never buy a media device that enforces any sort of DRM (unless there is some use for it that avoids the DRM functions). That includes digital TV's, DRM'ed music (online or pseudo CD), and anything else they come up with.
You are assuming that the Chinese government allows its citizens to access this site.
I would think that if they had any power to do so, slashdot would *definately* be one of the sites they would block. Way too many opinions that conflict with the official CN views.