Yours must be defective. Mine has, bar none, the best wireless of any WiFi-enabled system I've ever used. In my kitchen, my wife's new HP laptop sees both of our access points. The Eee sees both, and 3 of the neighbors'.
Heh, I know you're exaggerating for effect, but it seems to me that a great many CS programs are in fact training kids to be CS professors (I guess professors in general tend to teach what they know) instead of instilling lots of job skills that would be useful in the real world.
Oh, you think? CS has nothing to do with job skills.
I spent half of my senior year in college learning different ways to prove algorithms correct. In my job, I have never been asked to make a single inductive proof or any kind of proof.
I do it all the time. Maybe not formally, but I definitely spend a lot of time convincing myself that functions cannot return unexpected values given any inputs they receive. Sure, it takes me longer to write a single function, but my boss likes that I can turns things out to production rapidly without major problems and that I don't spend all my time rewriting code.
Totally off-topic, but is there a FOSS equivalent of the Amiga's VistaPro software for terrain rendering? I loved playing with that program back in the day and I'd love to see it on something faster than a 68030@25MHz.
Did you sell your account or something? Again, I repeat: I exert my right to enjoy this and make wild-ass exaggerations in the vein they've been making via their proxy, the RIAA. For their sake, I hope the plaintiff's lawyers aren't the pathological liars that Sony BMG's own have been shown to be.
Internal corporate fileservers are not explicitly designed to do any such thing.
Next time I'll open with a <sarcasm> tag. Yes, those arguments are similar to what Sony BMG used against citizens via their RIAA subsidiary. Buy a new computer? Must've been hiding evidence! Hard drive seizes and needs to be replaced? Must've been hiding evidence! Don't own a computer? Must've been hiding evidence! Have files in inadvertently shared folders? Obviously must have distributed them at least 100 times.
I claim full right to be endlessly amused at the ironic comeuppance speeding their way, and to invent my own sarcastic reasons to enjoy it even more.
Nobody is accusing Sony of putting this software on a P2P network, so where would the idea of "theoretical lost sales" come from?
Sony BMG did even worse: they probably put it on a hacker "darknet" (read: internal fileserver). Since those are explicitly designed to distribute unauthorized copies of software clandestinely, they obviously must have served at least 1,000 copies for each unauthorized installation that was found.
Hanging isn't good enough. Hanging isn't good enough for the thieves.
I've personally helped start several small-town weeklies/dailies in my area (I do Websites as well, so no bias here), and although one startup over the past 5 years has folded, we've got a net gain in my county of two community newspapers over what we had in 2002.
You apparently live nowhere near me. I live in a small town and subscribe to the local afternoon daily, as well as the morning daily from a much larger city just down the highway. 90% of the "news" in the local paper is the same wire-ripped content as in the bigger paper's.
Want to see those small papers survive? Make a nice, ad-driven website with all the local content. Forget competing on world and national news content, because you just can't. Give me RSS feeds of local news and classified ads. While revenue may drop, so will costs. Seriously, tell your clients to compete where they best can - on local news.
First, I'm not necessarily pro-Amazon here, just not convinced that they're being bad guys in this one case.
Even if they're customer friendly in some sense they still aren't meeting their vision statement since they're supposed to be a place where you can by anything you want.
What if their experience with 3rd-party POD vendors was so bad that the only way they could guarantee a decent customer service was to do it themselves? Perhaps the others' quality was poor, or their turnaround time was unacceptable, or their shipping logistics couldn't scale to Amazon's level, or they were somehow else unable to meet the requirements. If that were true, I could see their case: those vendors would be the reason you couldn't buy what you wanted.
If I want a book printed on demand by someone else besides their group then they aren't going to let that happen.
Well, they obviously can't sell everything ("I'd like some of the $0.50 temporary tattoos from the vending machines at the pizza shop down the road - not ones from the same source, but from that machine in particular"). This could be their way of maximizing the chance that what you want is actually deliverable when you order it.
I've nursed a grudge against Amazon since the start of the 1-click fiasco, but I can still see how they could potentially be doing the right thing here.
Err... so if 'Anonymous' does something you like, it's them, but if they don't, it's not them.
Some nameless local person stuffs Salvation Army boxes with hundred dollar bills each Christmas. Some other nameless person shot a kid recently. Since they're both anonymous (lowercase "a"), they might be the same person.
One day I was running around with a friend of mine, and he needed to pick up a few things at the store. He lived with his grandmother to take care of her, and she needed some things too.
We rolled up to the checkout with a jar of pickles (because it looked yummy), a bottle of corn oil (to make pancakes), and a jumbo pack of Depends (for Grandma). About the time I noticed this and pointed it out to him, I suddenly remembered a compelling reason why I needed to go wait in the car.
Yup, no different from licencing fees in other areas, like APRA's "MUSIC IN THE WORKPLACE" and "Background Music" public performance licences.
Completely different. By analogy, this new scam would bill all of your customers for access to music in your business, whether or not you even had a radio.
I'd be much less repulsed by this idea if I had any belief that the fees would be distributed in a fair fashion.
I wouldn't. I don't make unauthorized copies of their crap and I don't want to be fined for doing so. There are no overriding considerations beyond me being held responsible for potential violations. Well, screw them. If this happens, I will never pay anyone for music again: not Wal-Mart, not iTunes, not Sirius, no one. If I've been convicted of taking music for free and forced to pay the price, then I'm gonna do it.
That's not what it is, it's a fee to free the ISP's from the legal responsibilities of their services being used for piracy.
What legal responsibilities? The only ISPs with any liability are the ones stupid enough to attempt content filtering, thus removing their DMCA "safe harbor" protection. The others are no more obligated than a phone company who carries an "illegal" conversation.
Unless.... Could this be Comcast's way of making sure everyone is playing on their level by making all their competitors as financially inefficient as they are?
If you owned a copy of the software, you would have full redistribution rights, among other things. Therefore, according to what you are telling us, piracy is pretty much impossible. I wonder why the RIAA is still around?
You're being intentionally daft now. I own that copy, which is not the same as saying that I own the copyright. Most other people have a grasp of the difference between the concepts; I trust that you'll be able to figure it out for yourself.
I grew up in a house with guns. There were two inviolate rules:
You could shoot them whenever you wanted to, as long as Dad was around.
Deviate from rule #1 and face a fate much worse than anything a gun could deliver.
When I was older, I had a pellet gun that I could use unsupervised. I was a teenager before I could use the rifles or shotgun without Dad being right there next to me, though.
As a consequence, I had no curiosity whatsoever about guns. They were just... there. No big deal. A gun. Yawn. It honestly never occurred to me to sneak them out because there was no need to.
If you do not agree to the license, you do not have a right to use said software.
Especially in the case of boxed, purchased software, I gained the right when I gave the store clerk money in exchange for that software. In fact, since up until the point that I click "I Agree" to some ignorable EULA I haven't even given the illusion of agreeing to anything, it's my right to hack out any objectionable code (such as that EULA dialog). That's because I own that copy of the software.
Thank you. Someone else who gets it. I'm not EULA-bound when I buy a TV, couch, CD, or book - I'll be darned if I can understand why I should be constricted when I buy software.
Now if U.S could just stop pretending and sign the Basel Convention deal which restricts the export of e-waste so the children of Guiyu wouldn't have to waste away their lives in toxic pits melting our "green" and ecologically "safe" drives.
I'm unfamiliar with that so there I'm unclear on two things:
What are the stated reasons for America not complying with it?
What would those children be doing if they weren't mining our trash? I don't mean that to sound like I don't care, but is this the difference between food and starvation, or between a new boat for the parents and not having one?
The one saving grace of asbestos is that if you leave it alone, it'll leave you alone. The real problems kick in when you start prying it loose and moving it around.
thalidomide,
Hugely useful but only when used within strict guidelines. As it turns out, one of its potential uses turned out to be a pretty bad idea so we don't use it that way anymore.
red dye #2,
I'll give you that one.
aspartame
The FDA insists that it is. Sure, it's possible that they're a wholly owned subsidiary of Searle or whoever else makes the stuff these days, but I still trust the FDA at least as much as the groups opposing it.
and Vioxx
My wife's a doctor. She has patients who beg her to find old expired samples or any other source of the stuff she might know of. Those patients know that it possibly cause them harm, but it's so effective that they're willing to take that risk. If you have rheumatoid arthritis, would you rather have 50 years of crippling agony before you or 25 years of painfree enjoyment? Regardless of your answer, a lot of people wish they could pick the latter but that's no longer available to them.
are harmless I don't begrudge them their suspicion.
I begrudge them acting to make it impossible for me to use whatever it is they're afraid of this week.
Slashdot Mirror
Yours must be defective. Mine has, bar none, the best wireless of any WiFi-enabled system I've ever used. In my kitchen, my wife's new HP laptop sees both of our access points. The Eee sees both, and 3 of the neighbors'.
Oh, you think? CS has nothing to do with job skills.
I spent half of my senior year in college learning different ways to prove algorithms correct. In my job, I have never been asked to make a single inductive proof or any kind of proof.I do it all the time. Maybe not formally, but I definitely spend a lot of time convincing myself that functions cannot return unexpected values given any inputs they receive. Sure, it takes me longer to write a single function, but my boss likes that I can turns things out to production rapidly without major problems and that I don't spend all my time rewriting code.
Totally off-topic, but is there a FOSS equivalent of the Amiga's VistaPro software for terrain rendering? I loved playing with that program back in the day and I'd love to see it on something faster than a 68030@25MHz.
Did you sell your account or something? Again, I repeat: I exert my right to enjoy this and make wild-ass exaggerations in the vein they've been making via their proxy, the RIAA. For their sake, I hope the plaintiff's lawyers aren't the pathological liars that Sony BMG's own have been shown to be.
Next time I'll open with a <sarcasm> tag. Yes, those arguments are similar to what Sony BMG used against citizens via their RIAA subsidiary. Buy a new computer? Must've been hiding evidence! Hard drive seizes and needs to be replaced? Must've been hiding evidence! Don't own a computer? Must've been hiding evidence! Have files in inadvertently shared folders? Obviously must have distributed them at least 100 times.
I claim full right to be endlessly amused at the ironic comeuppance speeding their way, and to invent my own sarcastic reasons to enjoy it even more.
Sony BMG did even worse: they probably put it on a hacker "darknet" (read: internal fileserver). Since those are explicitly designed to distribute unauthorized copies of software clandestinely, they obviously must have served at least 1,000 copies for each unauthorized installation that was found.
Hanging isn't good enough. Hanging isn't good enough for the thieves.
You apparently live nowhere near me. I live in a small town and subscribe to the local afternoon daily, as well as the morning daily from a much larger city just down the highway. 90% of the "news" in the local paper is the same wire-ripped content as in the bigger paper's.
Want to see those small papers survive? Make a nice, ad-driven website with all the local content. Forget competing on world and national news content, because you just can't. Give me RSS feeds of local news and classified ads. While revenue may drop, so will costs. Seriously, tell your clients to compete where they best can - on local news.
One word: experience. He might be a genius and doing this all on his own merits, but a 200 IQ doesn't make up for never having seen things go bad.
First, I'm not necessarily pro-Amazon here, just not convinced that they're being bad guys in this one case.
Even if they're customer friendly in some sense they still aren't meeting their vision statement since they're supposed to be a place where you can by anything you want.What if their experience with 3rd-party POD vendors was so bad that the only way they could guarantee a decent customer service was to do it themselves? Perhaps the others' quality was poor, or their turnaround time was unacceptable, or their shipping logistics couldn't scale to Amazon's level, or they were somehow else unable to meet the requirements. If that were true, I could see their case: those vendors would be the reason you couldn't buy what you wanted.
If I want a book printed on demand by someone else besides their group then they aren't going to let that happen.Well, they obviously can't sell everything ("I'd like some of the $0.50 temporary tattoos from the vending machines at the pizza shop down the road - not ones from the same source, but from that machine in particular"). This could be their way of maximizing the chance that what you want is actually deliverable when you order it.
I've nursed a grudge against Amazon since the start of the 1-click fiasco, but I can still see how they could potentially be doing the right thing here.
Some nameless local person stuffs Salvation Army boxes with hundred dollar bills each Christmas. Some other nameless person shot a kid recently. Since they're both anonymous (lowercase "a"), they might be the same person.
One day I was running around with a friend of mine, and he needed to pick up a few things at the store. He lived with his grandmother to take care of her, and she needed some things too.
We rolled up to the checkout with a jar of pickles (because it looked yummy), a bottle of corn oil (to make pancakes), and a jumbo pack of Depends (for Grandma). About the time I noticed this and pointed it out to him, I suddenly remembered a compelling reason why I needed to go wait in the car.
I haven't found the 3rd-party list yet, but was Flash also installed on the Ubuntu laptop?
I wouldn't pay that much for it.
Yes, but it didn't go over very well.
Completely different. By analogy, this new scam would bill all of your customers for access to music in your business, whether or not you even had a radio.
I wouldn't. I don't make unauthorized copies of their crap and I don't want to be fined for doing so. There are no overriding considerations beyond me being held responsible for potential violations. Well, screw them. If this happens, I will never pay anyone for music again: not Wal-Mart, not iTunes, not Sirius, no one. If I've been convicted of taking music for free and forced to pay the price, then I'm gonna do it.
What legal responsibilities? The only ISPs with any liability are the ones stupid enough to attempt content filtering, thus removing their DMCA "safe harbor" protection. The others are no more obligated than a phone company who carries an "illegal" conversation.
Unless.... Could this be Comcast's way of making sure everyone is playing on their level by making all their competitors as financially inefficient as they are?
Do I own my shoes? My car? My books? Or am I just licensing the copy I happen to possess?
You're being intentionally daft now. I own that copy, which is not the same as saying that I own the copyright. Most other people have a grasp of the difference between the concepts; I trust that you'll be able to figure it out for yourself.
<aol>me too</aol>
I grew up in a house with guns. There were two inviolate rules:
When I was older, I had a pellet gun that I could use unsupervised. I was a teenager before I could use the rifles or shotgun without Dad being right there next to me, though.
As a consequence, I had no curiosity whatsoever about guns. They were just... there. No big deal. A gun. Yawn. It honestly never occurred to me to sneak them out because there was no need to.
Especially in the case of boxed, purchased software, I gained the right when I gave the store clerk money in exchange for that software. In fact, since up until the point that I click "I Agree" to some ignorable EULA I haven't even given the illusion of agreeing to anything, it's my right to hack out any objectionable code (such as that EULA dialog). That's because I own that copy of the software.
Thank you. Someone else who gets it. I'm not EULA-bound when I buy a TV, couch, CD, or book - I'll be darned if I can understand why I should be constricted when I buy software.
Everyone knows EULAs are a joke, and this certainly isn't the only one that's impossible to comply with. Are they legally binding anywhere?
I'm unfamiliar with that so there I'm unclear on two things:
The one saving grace of asbestos is that if you leave it alone, it'll leave you alone. The real problems kick in when you start prying it loose and moving it around.
thalidomide,Hugely useful but only when used within strict guidelines. As it turns out, one of its potential uses turned out to be a pretty bad idea so we don't use it that way anymore.
red dye #2,I'll give you that one.
aspartameThe FDA insists that it is. Sure, it's possible that they're a wholly owned subsidiary of Searle or whoever else makes the stuff these days, but I still trust the FDA at least as much as the groups opposing it.
and VioxxMy wife's a doctor. She has patients who beg her to find old expired samples or any other source of the stuff she might know of. Those patients know that it possibly cause them harm, but it's so effective that they're willing to take that risk. If you have rheumatoid arthritis, would you rather have 50 years of crippling agony before you or 25 years of painfree enjoyment? Regardless of your answer, a lot of people wish they could pick the latter but that's no longer available to them.
are harmless I don't begrudge them their suspicion.I begrudge them acting to make it impossible for me to use whatever it is they're afraid of this week.