100 years ago, most kids were getting married around age 15
depending on where you lived, kids were getting married a few years younger than that.
Dying at 30 moves things along little faster.
Umm, very few people died at 30. 30 was the mean age of a bell-shaped curve. Lots of deaths when very young (less than 10) plus lots of deaths when very old (over 60) meant that the mean average of ~30 was useless as a statistical measurement.
A better explanation can be found here. Note that while in 1850, the mean average life expectancy for newborn white males is 38, but for 10 year olds, it's 58. This doesn't mean that most of them died when they were 38, it means that most died before they were 10, and the majority of people who lived beyond that made it to 60.
One of the main reasons that IBM dropped the claims is that there will be no SCOX left once the rest of the case finishes.
You have two options:
1. Hit them with 70% of your arsenal. This will take two years to complete, and you are guaranteed to win everything they have. 2. Hit them with everything, which will take five years to complete, and you are guaranteed to win everything they have.
Same reward, one just happens a *LOT* sooner. Pretty simple choice.
It may well be that from the point of view of the law they are right.
No, if his view was legally correct, why is he arguing for new laws? He wants to make illegal something that is currently legal. That's the whole point.
No, it doesn't. Perhaps you could explain why having a brain-dead sudo policy has anything to do with proper security measures? Are you suggesting that someone who *TAKES SECURITY SERIOUSLY* would do one thing correctly, but then do something even supider than allowing remote root login via SSH?
The added features of MySQL 5, if put into the context of the auto industry, would be like a car manufacturer announcing that some of their 2005 models would now come with airbags and anti-lock breaks.
Actually, it would be like a car manufacturer announcing that some of their 2005 models would come with electric starters and power steering, as options.
The "new" features are requirements for any RDMBS application. As someone else said, if you don't think integrity is a requirement, you don't need an RDMBS.
IIRC, it is only illegal in the US to distribute tools that allow the circumvention of copyright, but not to possess them (in other words, you're free to back up your DVD's as long as you create the tools to do so yourself; someone please correct me if I'm wrong)
More of a clarification than a correction:
It's not tools that 'circumvent' copyright, it's tools that circumvent a 'technological measure that effectively controls access to a coprytighted work.' And it's also illegal not just to distribute them, but to bring them into the country from outside (even for your own use), or to talk about them (as the 2600 guys found out with DeCSS), or to talk about where to find them.
So... you're allowed to backup your DVDs as long as you design and build the tools yourself, without anyone's help.
The problem with a tax is that, unless things are really elastic, the cost will just be passed onto the consumer.
How is that a problem?
The cost of disposal is already there, and we're all paying it. This would shi
I had a discussion with a gentleman from New Zealand - he says that a manufacturer has the obligation to dispose of anything it creates. The example he gave was a car - if a car dies on the side of the road and gets abandonded, the manufacturer is responsible for removal and disposal.
In a fit of devil's advocacy, I mentioned that this would just cause things to cost more, as the company will just add the cost of disposal to the initial price.
He responded that it's not like not paying makes stuff actually cost less - the cost is always there, it's just moved from the end of the lifespan to the beginning. And the consumer doesn't have to deal with disposal.
It does seem like the recording companies don't want to really sell any of their music online, but why?
Because it will destroy their distribution racket.
For a very long time, RIAA members were the only way to market your music to a global audience - this is now changing. Once most people start purchasing music online, they'll realize that they have access to a much larger catalogue than they did before, and that larger catalogue will consist of non-RIAA musicians.
Industry does not want to stick with a $.99 a song model.
Actually, industry does not want *any* downloadable music model, regarless of the price.
Why? Because it cuts into their business, which is selling shiny discs.
When people become accustomed to downloading music (and doing it legally), then the RIAA no longer has their distribution stranglehold. If you're a musician, there used to be only one way to reach a global audience - with the advent of P2P, that's no longer the case, and the RIAA is dancing as fast as they can to distract people from the truth.
They want people to think "downloading==illegal", because it opens them up to competition.
Why the hell do they allow root logins over SSH in the first place?
Any security admin worth their salt would have turned this off when it was installed - not to reduce break-ins (although it does help mitigate a weak root password), but to provide an audit trail for people who are allowed to use root.
If I burn a copy of a cd I own, and give you the copy, I'm breaking the law.
If I give you a cd I own, you burn a copy, and return the original, no law is broken.
One more (salient) point: If I come over to your house, burn a copy of your CDs using your computer, your software, and your blanks, then no law is broken either.
If I download music (legally) with a P2P program, then go into a folder so that I can listen to them. If someone else requests that music from my computer, I am not uploading it at all - my computer is, but it's doing so at the request of the downloader. It's a very important point to consider: what action am I taking to make the copy? If the answer is "none" (and it is) then no law has been broken.
When I attended the Canadian Copyright board's meetings on copyright changes, there was a guy there from a publishing house. He was vehemently opposed to anybody doing *anything* to "his" works, regardless of whether it might benefit him monetarily or not. His attitude was "it's *MINE*, and you can't have it!"
The topic was ebooks, and legal protection. The prospect of a blind person using a screen reader to read one of his ebooks absolutely horrified him, because it meant that someone is reading something from his company that wasn't being used the way he wanted it.
The core of his objection went something like "if I want blind people to read it, they should have to pay me extra to produce a version on tape."
The question "what if you could produce one version that could be used by everybody" was met with "doesn't matter, it's mine, and nobody else should be allowed to do that."
The return of "but it would be cheaper to produce one version, rather than having you spend money making separate versions for blind people, which would make you more money" was met with "doesn't matter, it's mine, and nobody else should be allowed to do that."
It seems to me that the Authors Guild has the same mentality as this publisher. They don't care that it will make them money, or that it will increase readership. All they care about is they don't want to do something, so nobody else should be allowed to do it either.
The book reports an experiment wherein men and women were asked to smell unwashed shirts of the opposite sex, and rate the attractiveness. They were then given (unlabeled) photos of the faces of people who wore the shirts, and asked to rate their attractiveness. There was a very high correlation between the ratings of "attractive"-smelling shirts and attractive looking photos.
Slashdot Mirror
100 years ago, most kids were getting married around age 15
depending on where you lived, kids were getting married a few years younger than that.
Dying at 30 moves things along little faster.
Umm, very few people died at 30. 30 was the mean age of a bell-shaped curve. Lots of deaths when very young (less than 10) plus lots of deaths when very old (over 60) meant that the mean average of ~30 was useless as a statistical measurement.
A better explanation can be found here. Note that while in 1850, the mean average life expectancy for newborn white males is 38, but for 10 year olds, it's 58. This doesn't mean that most of them died when they were 38, it means that most died before they were 10, and the majority of people who lived beyond that made it to 60.
One of the main reasons that IBM dropped the claims is that there will be no SCOX left once the rest of the case finishes.
You have two options:
1. Hit them with 70% of your arsenal. This will take two years to complete, and you are guaranteed to win everything they have.
2. Hit them with everything, which will take five years to complete, and you are guaranteed to win everything they have.
Same reward, one just happens a *LOT* sooner. Pretty simple choice.
It may well be that from the point of view of the law they are right.
No, if his view was legally correct, why is he arguing for new laws? He wants to make illegal something that is currently legal. That's the whole point.
No, it doesn't. Perhaps you could explain why having a brain-dead sudo policy has anything to do with proper security measures? Are you suggesting that someone who *TAKES SECURITY SERIOUSLY* would do one thing correctly, but then do something even supider than allowing remote root login via SSH?
Yeah, much better with a bunch of sudo-users so instead one root password you now have bunch of them.
Score -1 "Just doesn't get it"
Thanks for playing. Perhaps you should come back once you understand what I wrote?
the users currently running p2p dont want *any* $ per song models either.
Yeah, right. You have proof of this right?
Because they dont want to pay anything, although its superficial crap they dont really need.
As opposed to all the people who payed $12 for each Britney Aguilera or Five Neat Guys CDs - they really needed them, right?
Depending on the meaning of "effectively"
This has already been debunked, ad nauseum, during the 2600 DeCSS trial. "Effective" means something else to lawyers than it does to engineers.
I did test/review the check, but I never contributed anything
No, you're wrong, you *did* contribute - not code, but you contributed your time and expertise to make the product better.
Microsoft Bob.
AKA "Clippy"
The added features of MySQL 5, if put into the context of the auto industry, would be like a car manufacturer announcing that some of their 2005 models would now come with airbags and anti-lock breaks.
Actually, it would be like a car manufacturer announcing that some of their 2005 models would come with electric starters and power steering, as options.
The "new" features are requirements for any RDMBS application. As someone else said, if you don't think integrity is a requirement, you don't need an RDMBS.
IIRC, it is only illegal in the US to distribute tools that allow the circumvention of copyright, but not to possess them (in other words, you're free to back up your DVD's as long as you create the tools to do so yourself; someone please correct me if I'm wrong)
More of a clarification than a correction:
It's not tools that 'circumvent' copyright, it's tools that circumvent a 'technological measure that effectively controls access to a coprytighted work.' And it's also illegal not just to distribute them, but to bring them into the country from outside (even for your own use), or to talk about them (as the 2600 guys found out with DeCSS), or to talk about where to find them.
So... you're allowed to backup your DVDs as long as you design and build the tools yourself, without anyone's help.
The problem with a tax is that, unless things are really elastic, the cost will just be passed onto the consumer.
How is that a problem?
The cost of disposal is already there, and we're all paying it. This would shi
I had a discussion with a gentleman from New Zealand - he says that a manufacturer has the obligation to dispose of anything it creates. The example he gave was a car - if a car dies on the side of the road and gets abandonded, the manufacturer is responsible for removal and disposal.
In a fit of devil's advocacy, I mentioned that this would just cause things to cost more, as the company will just add the cost of disposal to the initial price.
He responded that it's not like not paying makes stuff actually cost less - the cost is always there, it's just moved from the end of the lifespan to the beginning. And the consumer doesn't have to deal with disposal.
It does seem like the recording companies don't want to really sell any of their music online, but why?
Because it will destroy their distribution racket.
For a very long time, RIAA members were the only way to market your music to a global audience - this is now changing. Once most people start purchasing music online, they'll realize that they have access to a much larger catalogue than they did before, and that larger catalogue will consist of non-RIAA musicians.
you need to see more norwegians if you can only think of one
:o)
Or I need to increase my knowledge of nationality of the *ILFs I have seen.
Willow wasn't a nerd, she was a geek (geeks have social skills.)
I can think of at least one Norwegian-ILF (Kristanna Loken.)
Oh, wait. NILFS. My bad.
OK.. so we all know MILFs are "Mothers I'd like to"...
What would NILFs be?
Norweigians?
"How do I put IE on linux using WINE?"
I'be been wondering about that for some time now.
Use this.
if you buy one machine, you still may need to power it off to open the case, or replace a part.
I think you don't quite understand the concept of "fault tolerant servers".
The entire point of a fault-tolerant server is that you don't have to power it off to open the case or replace a part.
IBM is only interested in selling its product, guess what their product entails.
AIX? OS/2?
Seriously, IBM has *LOTS* of products. Linux is just one of many.
Industry does not want to stick with a $.99 a song model.
Actually, industry does not want *any* downloadable music model, regarless of the price.
Why? Because it cuts into their business, which is selling shiny discs.
When people become accustomed to downloading music (and doing it legally), then the RIAA no longer has their distribution stranglehold. If you're a musician, there used to be only one way to reach a global audience - with the advent of P2P, that's no longer the case, and the RIAA is dancing as fast as they can to distract people from the truth.
They want people to think "downloading==illegal", because it opens them up to competition.
Why the hell do they allow root logins over SSH in the first place?
Any security admin worth their salt would have turned this off when it was installed - not to reduce break-ins (although it does help mitigate a weak root password), but to provide an audit trail for people who are allowed to use root.
*sigh*
If I burn a copy of a cd I own, and give you the copy, I'm breaking the law.
If I give you a cd I own, you burn a copy, and return the original, no law is broken.
One more (salient) point:
If I come over to your house, burn a copy of your CDs using your computer, your software, and your blanks, then no law is broken either.
If I download music (legally) with a P2P program, then go into a folder so that I can listen to them. If someone else requests that music from my computer, I am not uploading it at all - my computer is, but it's doing so at the request of the downloader. It's a very important point to consider: what action am I taking to make the copy? If the answer is "none" (and it is) then no law has been broken.
When I attended the Canadian Copyright board's meetings on copyright changes, there was a guy there from a publishing house. He was vehemently opposed to anybody doing *anything* to "his" works, regardless of whether it might benefit him monetarily or not. His attitude was "it's *MINE*, and you can't have it!"
The topic was ebooks, and legal protection. The prospect of a blind person using a screen reader to read one of his ebooks absolutely horrified him, because it meant that someone is reading something from his company that wasn't being used the way he wanted it.
The core of his objection went something like "if I want blind people to read it, they should have to pay me extra to produce a version on tape."
The question "what if you could produce one version that could be used by everybody" was met with "doesn't matter, it's mine, and nobody else should be allowed to do that."
The return of "but it would be cheaper to produce one version, rather than having you spend money making separate versions for blind people, which would make you more money" was met with "doesn't matter, it's mine, and nobody else should be allowed to do that."
It seems to me that the Authors Guild has the same mentality as this publisher. They don't care that it will make them money, or that it will increase readership. All they care about is they don't want to do something, so nobody else should be allowed to do it either.
Show one credible source that claims humans emit pheremones and they play a roll in human mating.
http://www.globecorner.com/t/t29/14687.php
The book reports an experiment wherein men and women were asked to smell unwashed shirts of the opposite sex, and rate the attractiveness. They were then given (unlabeled) photos of the faces of people who wore the shirts, and asked to rate their attractiveness. There was a very high correlation between the ratings of "attractive"-smelling shirts and attractive looking photos.