If you're in a restaurant and need to make an important call the polite thing to do would be get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside and make the call.
So is it safe to say then that if you are in a restaurant and need to have an important conversation the polite thing to do is get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside to have the conversation? It is perfectly legitimate to make a phone call at normal conversational volume anywhere that a normal conversation could be held. I think what ticks of most of the cellphone bigots is that they can no longer hear both sides of the conversation. It has very little to do with the actual noise involved.
Dunno about Texas specifically, but that is what the entire class of crime is about: the intent to have sex with a child. And it's been upheld repeatedly.
Using a phrase that spans the range from below poverty to the top 3% means you have failed to successfully convey your message. Even qualifying it by adding "respectable" lacks clarity.
You do know that "asymetric cpu... was bad" doesn't mean that he hates multi CPUs. It means he thinks it's dumb to have multiple differently powered cpus.
I'd be interested in what you consider a "bit more creative"? One of the hundreds of army games? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? Creative would be not making a military game with variation on weapons....
there's no reason that each of them can't make a very respectable 5 figures a year, after expenses.
I have no idea what your idea of "very respectable" is, but I have to tell you, $10,002.13 a year doesn't sound that exciting to me. I mean I can make more than that stuffing burritos at taco bell.
The sooner the better. Just because it's Google doesn't mean we should just go ahead and believe that they will implement the "best" solution without some pressure from a competitor. It's become real clear that Google can't be trusted to stay honest without someone watching over their shoulder.
Let me ask you this. If you spent a month on a book and you felt you should be compensated for your time, what would your solution be?
I don't disagree with your position. I think that people who put work into something that is easily copied still deserve to be compensated for their work in the fashion that they so desire. I'm just pointing out that the vast majority of people here disagree with you except when it comes to information about them. Ie. they love to get stolen nudie pics of some cheerleader diddling herself. They love to get high quality software without paying. They love to get the latest gangsta rap track (or maybe the latest trance/electronica/whatever track) without having to get out their wallet. But mention that someone is trading in who they are talking to, or what they are buying they immedaitely start foaming at the mouth so hard that you can not tell the difference between them and a paint sprayer.
Stick it up in a POS PDF file? Post it on the Net and ask for donations? Give it away but charge for support?
Umm, yeah. Isn't that how Dick Stallman recommends that you recover your costs?
So let me see if I understand your problem. You are selling ebooks. That is, not producing a physical product. You want to sell multiple copies so you found a solution that added some kind of security to your documents to prevent duplication and distribution. That is, you added DRM. Now tell me again why anybody around here will give a flying fuck?
The problem you are experiencing is called cluelessness. These are not criminal cases, they are civil. Which means that your "it's technically possible that it wasn't me (if Jupiter is in Mars's house and my neighbors are part of the Illuminati and they're all out to get me and if George W. Bush brushes his teeth with his left hand but wipes his ass with his right)" theory means nothing. The burden of proof here is "more likely than not", not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead of reviling the copyright holders and their licensees, how about people stop trying to get utility for free?
32bit integer color granularity is massively degrading: if you're in extreme darkness, visually discerning the difference between #000200020003 and #000300030004 is really hard. to make the difference noticable, the system might attempt to scale the color differences, quadruple the luminocity. in 32bit integer, we get #00080008000c and #000c000c0010, but nothing in between.
So what you're saying here is that either your eyeball or your monitor can't discern the difference between x and x+1, so in fact 24 bits of displayed color information is excessive to your needs.
finally this is a PUBLIC site run by as in run by the government! The government shouldn't require one to use a certain browser without a really good reason.
The government should use it's resources as efficiently as possible. For example the government doesn't support 220 V / 50 Hz AC power in the public power grids. It would truly be a waste of money to support every possible "browser" that a citizen comes up with. If there is an available option that isn't unduly burdensome then it is completely acceptable for the government to tell you to use an option that isn't your first choice. (You might want to peruse the requirements to submit documents to the US Supreme Court...)
Microsoft already released IE7 with Google search capabilities built in. It's called Internet Explorer 7 and when you first install it, it gives you a chance to decide what search provider you want to use. And surprise-surprise Google is one of your choices.
TCP headers and UDP headers are quite different and a valid TCP header is not a valid UDP header. Bytes 5-8 of a TCP header are the sequence number. Bytes 5-6 of the UDP header are length, and 7-8 are the checksum. It seems unlikely that a UDP stack would be able to handle parsing part of a TCP sequence number as a length value.
Could you encapsulate a stream that acts like TCP inside of a stream of UDP packets? Sure. But it's not you can switch to a TCP stream as the predecessor post claimed.
You sound like you lack the social skills necessary to tell people that it consumes too much of your time to fix all your friends computers in such as fashion as to retain them as your friends. Another option you might want to consider is to help them learn to browse safely. In addition to using Solaris and Linux, I also use Windows. For years the full extent of my anti-virus was the web based scan from trend micro once in a while. I never had a problem. It is entirely due to my habits. You should be able to teach similar sorts of things to your friends, strengthen your friendship and give yourself more time to do fun things.
Having MS doesn't equate to being "sick and dieing[sic]". The disease is long term and many people can go over a decade with minimal reduction in their capabilities and independance.
Maybe the submitter doesn't understand english? Based on the PDF of the letter it appears that the RIAA investigators submitted a subpeona to AOL requesting the names and contact information of the people associated with particular IP addresses at particular times. Let us say that the investigators have evidence that a particular IP address uploaded a file to someone at a particular time. So the claim made by the RIAA has two parts:
1) a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account'... 2)...through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.
So they observed the distribution of the works in question and AOL confirmed that the defendant "owned" the IP address used. Sounds like the statement made by the RIAA lawyers is dead on.
yeah, they already scared the guy, and didn't have to pay him $150,000
Yeah, that's great corporate citizenship on Google's part. In order to avoid paying $150,000 they call law enforcement and let them spend tens of thousands of tax dollars and, likely, one- to two-hundred hours of agent, prosecutor, and judicial time to work on a case that Google has no intention of going forward with. Way to burn communual resources to advance their own bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
So is it safe to say then that if you are in a restaurant and need to have an important conversation the polite thing to do is get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside to have the conversation? It is perfectly legitimate to make a phone call at normal conversational volume anywhere that a normal conversation could be held. I think what ticks of most of the cellphone bigots is that they can no longer hear both sides of the conversation. It has very little to do with the actual noise involved.
No it's nothing like that. It is illegal to attempt to buy drugs. It's not yet actionable (civil or criminal) to attempt to download a song or movie.
Dunno about Texas specifically, but that is what the entire class of crime is about: the intent to have sex with a child. And it's been upheld repeatedly.
Using a phrase that spans the range from below poverty to the top 3% means you have failed to successfully convey your message. Even qualifying it by adding "respectable" lacks clarity.
You do know that "asymetric cpu ... was bad" doesn't mean that he hates multi CPUs. It means he thinks it's dumb to have multiple differently powered cpus.
I'd be interested in what you consider a "bit more creative"? One of the hundreds of army games? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? Creative would be not making a military game with variation on weapons....
I have no idea what your idea of "very respectable" is, but I have to tell you, $10,002.13 a year doesn't sound that exciting to me. I mean I can make more than that stuffing burritos at taco bell.
The sooner the better. Just because it's Google doesn't mean we should just go ahead and believe that they will implement the "best" solution without some pressure from a competitor. It's become real clear that Google can't be trusted to stay honest without someone watching over their shoulder.
No shit. I've had a 965 based Gigabyte board with these on it for several months now. What kind of news is this crap?
I don't disagree with your position. I think that people who put work into something that is easily copied still deserve to be compensated for their work in the fashion that they so desire. I'm just pointing out that the vast majority of people here disagree with you except when it comes to information about them. Ie. they love to get stolen nudie pics of some cheerleader diddling herself. They love to get high quality software without paying. They love to get the latest gangsta rap track (or maybe the latest trance/electronica/whatever track) without having to get out their wallet. But mention that someone is trading in who they are talking to, or what they are buying they immedaitely start foaming at the mouth so hard that you can not tell the difference between them and a paint sprayer.
Umm, yeah. Isn't that how Dick Stallman recommends that you recover your costs?
It won't get better if you pick at it.
So let me see if I understand your problem. You are selling ebooks. That is, not producing a physical product. You want to sell multiple copies so you found a solution that added some kind of security to your documents to prevent duplication and distribution. That is, you added DRM. Now tell me again why anybody around here will give a flying fuck?
I thought you were dead....
The problem you are experiencing is called cluelessness. These are not criminal cases, they are civil. Which means that your "it's technically possible that it wasn't me (if Jupiter is in Mars's house and my neighbors are part of the Illuminati and they're all out to get me and if George W. Bush brushes his teeth with his left hand but wipes his ass with his right)" theory means nothing. The burden of proof here is "more likely than not", not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead of reviling the copyright holders and their licensees, how about people stop trying to get utility for free?
So what you're saying here is that either your eyeball or your monitor can't discern the difference between x and x+1, so in fact 24 bits of displayed color information is excessive to your needs.
The government should use it's resources as efficiently as possible. For example the government doesn't support 220 V / 50 Hz AC power in the public power grids. It would truly be a waste of money to support every possible "browser" that a citizen comes up with. If there is an available option that isn't unduly burdensome then it is completely acceptable for the government to tell you to use an option that isn't your first choice. (You might want to peruse the requirements to submit documents to the US Supreme Court...)
Yahoo's predated google's. No it didn't come from a template. Google admitted it already.
Microsoft already released IE7 with Google search capabilities built in. It's called Internet Explorer 7 and when you first install it, it gives you a chance to decide what search provider you want to use. And surprise-surprise Google is one of your choices.
TCP headers and UDP headers are quite different and a valid TCP header is not a valid UDP header. Bytes 5-8 of a TCP header are the sequence number. Bytes 5-6 of the UDP header are length, and 7-8 are the checksum. It seems unlikely that a UDP stack would be able to handle parsing part of a TCP sequence number as a length value.
Could you encapsulate a stream that acts like TCP inside of a stream of UDP packets? Sure. But it's not you can switch to a TCP stream as the predecessor post claimed.
Selfish much? Like I said, "...you lack the social skills..."
You sound like you lack the social skills necessary to tell people that it consumes too much of your time to fix all your friends computers in such as fashion as to retain them as your friends. Another option you might want to consider is to help them learn to browse safely. In addition to using Solaris and Linux, I also use Windows. For years the full extent of my anti-virus was the web based scan from trend micro once in a while. I never had a problem. It is entirely due to my habits. You should be able to teach similar sorts of things to your friends, strengthen your friendship and give yourself more time to do fun things.
Having MS doesn't equate to being "sick and dieing[sic]". The disease is long term and many people can go over a decade with minimal reduction in their capabilities and independance.
Maybe the submitter doesn't understand english? Based on the PDF of the letter it appears that the RIAA investigators submitted a subpeona to AOL requesting the names and contact information of the people associated with particular IP addresses at particular times. Let us say that the investigators have evidence that a particular IP address uploaded a file to someone at a particular time. So the claim made by the RIAA has two parts:
...through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.
1) a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account'...
2)
So they observed the distribution of the works in question and AOL confirmed that the defendant "owned" the IP address used. Sounds like the statement made by the RIAA lawyers is dead on.
That's just completely wrong. OpenOffice absolutely loads it's filters via dlopen, etc. Here is a tutorial on how to build them: A link proving the AC is completely making crap up.
I think he is quoting the big corporation there:
Apache Foundation: Here you go, one webserver with java servlet engine and xml parser on the side.
Big Corporation: Thanks Apache!
Yeah, that's great corporate citizenship on Google's part. In order to avoid paying $150,000 they call law enforcement and let them spend tens of thousands of tax dollars and, likely, one- to two-hundred hours of agent, prosecutor, and judicial time to work on a case that Google has no intention of going forward with. Way to burn communual resources to advance their own bottom line.
Way to not be evil.