Actually, the article said this was for identification, not screwing up compression.
They said they are using bigger dots, because they want them to still be visible AFTER compression. If they used the normal small dots, they might be washed out by the compression, and then unusable.
Well, probably they want both, but the article didn't mention anything about screwing up the compression ratio.
The fact that it is individuals that pay the insurance premiums for their cars, and not the manufacturers, shows that it is the owners responsability, and they are choosing to cover that responsability by getting insurance.
Many companies do insure their computers, but it isn't cost effective for the average individual.
Who pays if someone steals my car and kills 40 people by running over them? (Oh, thats right, the criminal goes to jail)
This is the principle of least avoidance. The car manufacturer may or may not be able to do something (add better locks, biometrics or something). however, this might not actually fix the problem (smarter criminals) and the cost of upgrading every car is greater than the loss to society done by the breakins (You would have to improve every car, but only one car gets broken into)
The owner, could do something, but again it may or may not work.
The criminal however, can stop the crime very easily, BY NOT COMMITING IT.
--
This works for computers too. MS could (and tries to, for PR reasons) make more secure software. However the cost to make software REALLY secure is prohibitive, and might not solve the problem. I take steps to protect my computer, because it is in my best interest, but am I doing a good enough job? who knows.
Again the criminal can stop the crime, just by not commiting it.
--
This rolls over to other situations as well, like liability for accidents. If I put up a sign that says wet floor, and you step there anyway, its not my fault. You could have avoided the accident by not stepping there.
further, firestone and ford are responsable for cars that blow up and hurt people on their own. The crucial part of security is that it takes someone else to BREAK that security, intentionally. If Ford made a car that was really easy to break into, nothing would be done except they would get bad PR and people might not buy so much of them anymore. Same with MS. You could potentially sue because MS crashes, but not because someone wrote a virus for it
The greater impact of this, is that lenders and bond holders and stock holders will be less likely to invest in open source projects, because they know if it goes under, there is nothig to recover.
Nobody was "forced" into buying windows because "others" have it.
Thats like saying The gasoline companies should have to pay money to car owners because they were forced into buying a normal car insteal of a diesel car
Or that whoever invented SMTP should have to pay everyone in the world that uses email, because they forced us to use SMTP rather than CCmail or something like that.
There is a synergy involved with people using the same things. People listen to the same music, wear the same clothes, go to the same movies, and yes, even use the same OS and word proccessor.
The idea of something being open and standardized is very new. MS can not be held accountable for not following ideas that didnt exist at the time that they weren't following them.
Corel wasn't open, Wordstar wasn't open, AppleWorks wasn't open. Nobody was open. Yes, MS is the one that everyone settled on. MS "won". But you can't go back in time to punish them.
If they aren't open now, and they should be, the market will punish them all on their own.
ANI is the technology that makes touch tone phone menus work, not caller id
After you push through the tree of menus, the telemarketer (or computer system for statistics later) gets an "ANI Pop" with the information of what you typed in.
I bet high on 50% of india would choose to move to the US if we let them. Should we do that?
She would let every mexican illegal in? Nope.
Bring in the people we need for jobs, for cultural infusion, for lots of reasons, but limit it so that all americans (of any race) can get the services and support they need.
America was ofunded by immigrant, yes. But at the time the thing the country's economy needed was more immigrants. Now we need less, and so policies appropriately change.
If you dont agree with this, it would be okay to run up to Canada whenever I needed some medical attention, get it for free, and then come back. Is that okay?
Well, you cant have a class action lawsuit in reverse. So there is no wasy the people who got subpoenas can defend themselves as a group (but they could pool resources for the first one in the list to set a precident and build up case law or something)
A class action would only apply if they can show they were some way damaged by the RIAA, and since they are technically breaking the law, there probably isn't much they can show in damages.
IF they ended up being totally innocent (no illegaly shared files, which I find unlikely)I suppose a case could be made for defemation, but since everything is currently done via their online pseudonyms, unless they get their face in the paper all over the place (which would probably be their own doing, to drum up public support, not the doing of the plantiff) they dont even have that. And if they do make themselves famous, the defemation goes away.
That case would VERY VERY easily win on appeal to a superior court, especially if that stuff made it into the court transcript (it wouldnt in chambers or during a bench conference)
Well, if an error was made, it was made by the tilemaker, since some of the tiles specifically include the work kubrik.
However, the guy may be saying there is something in the adaptation, not present in the original, which is what his tiles refer to?
Adiitionally, 2001 the movie and book were created simultaniously, as a collaboration. They are however both based on Clarke's earlier work, "The Sentinel"
Due to some artistic differences, they took their names off the other media, and it is now a common misconception that the movie is an adaptation of the book.
Re:Isn't that pining for the fjords? Anyway...
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1
VB.Net is just as easy as VB, but it fixes many of the problems.
If you dont switch, you are doing yourself a great disservice
While you are quite correct, promises are very easy to make and break, thats rather the point.
For ownership of things with non physical presense (anything on a computer) the only thing that makes the object legally sellable, is the promise to delete. (Unless there is some DRM that is enforcing it)
Thats kind of the point of this. He is making a Dredd Scott Case for selling non-physical stuff
I personally think that the code should be removed, but here is an analogy that perhaps better exemplifies SCOs position.
I own a service that provides access to some information (stocks, sports scores, credit card tracking info, whatever)
Bob gets an account at my service, and writes a program that logs in under that account, and displays it with some fancy graphics, perhaps even does some significant analysis (or just displays the raw data, it doesn't really affect the argument)
Bob sells or gives this program away to the world. Or Bob distributes the source via GPL (anonymously even!)
In the first senario, I sue the pants off of Bob. In the second, I don't know who bob is.
However, I do know who you are. I tell you "hey, buy an account at my service, and you can keep using the program you got for free"
or
"keep using the program which steals from me, and I will sue you"
Yes, in this case it would be easy to identify the infringing code, and remove it. But it would also esentially be the whole program. And what about people that didnt remove it etc.
I think that explains what SCO is trying to do. Not that I think they are right. They are obviously trying to not have their code removed, so they can get the license fees, which sucks. But I don't know that it is quite illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the article said this was for identification, not screwing up compression.
They said they are using bigger dots, because they want them to still be visible AFTER compression. If they used the normal small dots, they might be washed out by the compression, and then unusable.
Well, probably they want both, but the article didn't mention anything about screwing up the compression ratio.
The fact that it is individuals that pay the insurance premiums for their cars, and not the manufacturers, shows that it is the owners responsability, and they are choosing to cover that responsability by getting insurance.
Many companies do insure their computers, but it isn't cost effective for the average individual.
Who pays if someone steals my car and kills 40 people by running over them? (Oh, thats right, the criminal goes to jail)
This is the principle of least avoidance. The car manufacturer may or may not be able to do something (add better locks, biometrics or something). however, this might not actually fix the problem (smarter criminals) and the cost of upgrading every car is greater than the loss to society done by the breakins (You would have to improve every car, but only one car gets broken into)
The owner, could do something, but again it may or may not work.
The criminal however, can stop the crime very easily, BY NOT COMMITING IT.
--
This works for computers too. MS could (and tries to, for PR reasons) make more secure software. However the cost to make software REALLY secure is prohibitive, and might not solve the problem. I take steps to protect my computer, because it is in my best interest, but am I doing a good enough job? who knows.
Again the criminal can stop the crime, just by not commiting it.
--
This rolls over to other situations as well, like liability for accidents. If I put up a sign that says wet floor, and you step there anyway, its not my fault. You could have avoided the accident by not stepping there.
Actually, both words are appropriate in this context.
He is reducing himself in value. (Depreciate)
And he is also playing himself down, and making light of himself (Deprecate)
In fact by Depreciating himself, he is also Depricating (Causing people to avoid the use of)
further, firestone and ford are responsable for cars that blow up and hurt people on their own. The crucial part of security is that it takes someone else to BREAK that security, intentionally. If Ford made a car that was really easy to break into, nothing would be done except they would get bad PR and people might not buy so much of them anymore.
Same with MS. You could potentially sue because MS crashes, but not because someone wrote a virus for it
The greater impact of this, is that lenders and bond holders and stock holders will be less likely to invest in open source projects, because they know if it goes under, there is nothig to recover.
Nobody was "forced" into buying windows because "others" have it.
Thats like saying The gasoline companies should have to pay money to car owners because they were forced into buying a normal car insteal of a diesel car
Or that whoever invented SMTP should have to pay everyone in the world that uses email, because they forced us to use SMTP rather than CCmail or something like that.
There is a synergy involved with people using the same things. People listen to the same music, wear the same clothes, go to the same movies, and yes, even use the same OS and word proccessor.
The idea of something being open and standardized is very new. MS can not be held accountable for not following ideas that didnt exist at the time that they weren't following them.
Corel wasn't open, Wordstar wasn't open, AppleWorks wasn't open. Nobody was open. Yes, MS is the one that everyone settled on. MS "won". But you can't go back in time to punish them.
If they aren't open now, and they should be, the market will punish them all on their own.
Office has an XML format already. Its pretty complex, so I dont know how "human readable" it is, but very computer readable
mp3 players toss a wrench into this, as ipods and nomads are just HDs, but they are clearly audio recording media.
The act of adding a monitor and a keyboard to the ipod should not take away its use as an audio recording media.
You didn't read what I said. Yes DTMF is what makes touch tones work.
ANI is caller ID + information collected from the phone tree. Its a message format.
By saying it is what makes phone trees work, I was not refering to the sound, but rather the information after you have pushed all the buttons.
How do I know this? I used to write telemarketing systems (and no, I am not evil, I wrote inbound systems)
ANI is the technology that makes touch tone phone menus work, not caller id
After you push through the tree of menus, the telemarketer (or computer system for statistics later) gets an "ANI Pop" with the information of what you typed in.
Im going out on a pretty wide limb and saying that Windows problems were also largely in the same boat.
ITs possible to make a secure windows system. Its possible to make a secure linux system.
ITs possible to make an insecure windows system.
Its possible to make an insecure linux system.
He isn't xenophobic.
I bet high on 50% of india would choose to move to the US if we let them. Should we do that?
She would let every mexican illegal in? Nope.
Bring in the people we need for jobs, for cultural infusion, for lots of reasons, but limit it so that all americans (of any race) can get the services and support they need.
America was ofunded by immigrant, yes. But at the time the thing the country's economy needed was more immigrants. Now we need less, and so policies appropriately change.
If you dont agree with this, it would be okay to run up to Canada whenever I needed some medical attention, get it for free, and then come back. Is that okay?
Well, you cant have a class action lawsuit in reverse. So there is no wasy the people who got subpoenas can defend themselves as a group (but they could pool resources for the first one in the list to set a precident and build up case law or something)
A class action would only apply if they can show they were some way damaged by the RIAA, and since they are technically breaking the law, there probably isn't much they can show in damages.
IF they ended up being totally innocent (no illegaly shared files, which I find unlikely)I suppose a case could be made for defemation, but since everything is currently done via their online pseudonyms, unless they get their face in the paper all over the place (which would probably be their own doing, to drum up public support, not the doing of the plantiff) they dont even have that. And if they do make themselves famous, the defemation goes away.
That case would VERY VERY easily win on appeal to a superior court, especially if that stuff made it into the court transcript (it wouldnt in chambers or during a bench conference)
Well, if an error was made, it was made by the tilemaker, since some of the tiles specifically include the work kubrik.
However, the guy may be saying there is something in the adaptation, not present in the original, which is what his tiles refer to?
Adiitionally, 2001 the movie and book were created simultaniously, as a collaboration. They are however both based on Clarke's earlier work, "The Sentinel"
Due to some artistic differences, they took their names off the other media, and it is now a common misconception that the movie is an adaptation of the book.
VB.Net is just as easy as VB, but it fixes many of the problems.
If you dont switch, you are doing yourself a great disservice
Yes, congress shall make no law...
Not "congress shall make no law, unless the law applies to MS, then its ok"
Thats what I meant. MS is afforded the same protection by the first amendment as individuals.
uh, that first amendment applies to MS too. Using linux doesnt make that any different.
well, the person sharing starts a copy that goes out into the ether, and then the person recieving makes another. then the first copy is deleted
While you are quite correct, promises are very easy to make and break, thats rather the point.
For ownership of things with non physical presense (anything on a computer) the only thing that makes the object legally sellable, is the promise to delete. (Unless there is some DRM that is enforcing it)
Thats kind of the point of this. He is making a Dredd Scott Case for selling non-physical stuff
This guy has a leg to stand on, because he promises transfer of ownership.
selling multiple times would clearly be infringement, and will land you a nice hefty fine, and if you do it enough, jail time. Thats what prevents it.
Happening to provide tools which could be combined to do something illegal is not illegal (ala napster getting used for legit purposes)
However, if the library offered to copy it FOR you, which is what napster et al DOES do in the case of pirated works, THAT would be illegal.
The act of infringement in the case of the library requires two things to take place.
1) The library lends the material.
2) The user copies the material.
In the case of filesharing, the infringement takes one action
1) The file is shared.
In order to NOT be infringement additional checks or steps would need to take place
1) User verifies that they have rights to that file in some way
2) file is shared
or
1) file is shared
2) file is deleted (and this one isn't very usefull is it?
The library alone lending the material is not against the law. The filesharing alone is. Thats the difference.
This is also why its not illegal to own a gun, (because you have to go shoot someone before its a crime), but it is illegal just to hit someone.
The library has one copy of the book. When they loan it to you, they dont have it anymore. They make you give the book back.
I personally think that the code should be removed, but here is an analogy that perhaps better exemplifies SCOs position.
I own a service that provides access to some information (stocks, sports scores, credit card tracking info, whatever)
Bob gets an account at my service, and writes a program that logs in under that account, and displays it with some fancy graphics, perhaps even does some significant analysis (or just displays the raw data, it doesn't really affect the argument)
Bob sells or gives this program away to the world.
Or Bob distributes the source via GPL (anonymously even!)
In the first senario, I sue the pants off of Bob. In the second, I don't know who bob is.
However, I do know who you are. I tell you "hey, buy an account at my service, and you can keep using the program you got for free"
or
"keep using the program which steals from me, and I will sue you"
Yes, in this case it would be easy to identify the infringing code, and remove it. But it would also esentially be the whole program. And what about people that didnt remove it etc.
I think that explains what SCO is trying to do. Not that I think they are right. They are obviously trying to not have their code removed, so they can get the license fees, which sucks. But I don't know that it is quite illegal.