Seems fair to me. You can't Open Source MSFT components or use software that requires you to Open Source MSFT components.
That bit is reasonable, but you can't do that anyway. Even without this clause in the EULA you'd get smacked down hard and fast for even trying.
But look at these 2 clauses:
not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part.
and later in the examples of "Potentially Viral Software" :
any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models;
So you can't redistribute DLLs from the SDK with your application if you used emacs, gcc, linux or mozilla *even as tools* in the production of your application. That's the unreasonable part.
Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software.
They are deliberately trying to cloud the issue. They say that they don't want you to give away any of Microsoft's rights or try to put Microsoft under any legal obligations by distributing their SDK DLLs with "Potentially Viral Software"... but no 3rd party can change M$ licencing. Period. No one can nullify the original M$ licencing terms by re-releasing under their own licence, so it's a completely mute point. A red herring.
But then they go on to take great zeal in knocking down the straw-man they just constructed:
By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL).
Kinda like the Allchin, Balmer and Gates rants: All we want is for publically funded development to not be released under the GPL - not like that *ever* happens - but now we'll use that as a segue into a reant on the evils of the GPL.
They are really pushing their luck, obligating people to not use a competitiors dev tools (emacs, gcc etc.) in order to use their SDK (which is often needed to develop apps for their OS) sounds like leveraging their monoploly to squash competition and playing dumb about it (Huh? We just didn't want other people to take away our licencing rights... honest.)
I was refering to all Linux support - not supporting one distro vs. another - in reply to someone saying "why do they have drop Linux, if they had done it right to begin with, it would be cross platform" - which is silly since kernel space code can't be the same for Linux and Windows. Remember, the original topic is ZK dropping Linux but keeping Win - NOT ZK dropping Debian and keeping Red Hat.
The real question is what part of a VPN client is necessarily tied to a particular OS?
Is it the networking? Well, the proliferation of Sockets was supposed to make that less problematic.
The it probably has some really low level network access, like driver level stuff... which is below the TCP/IP stack and very OS dependendent.
In order to work seamlessly, your VPN would have to be kernel level, living in or below your TCP IP stack so that other applications automatically get VPN communications when they do normal network access calls.
You should note that this is not a trivial and easily a major part of ZKs development time.
One can steer away from uncessary platform dependence. It just takes a little foresight.
Not when you're writing code that runs in kernel space.
A really good buyer's agent will interview you to figure out what you're looking for and what aspects of a house are important to you and then visit every property in your targeted neighborhoods and price range and then take you to visit the best canitdates in a really efficent tour.
I tried looking at houses on my own and quicky learnd that 80% of the houses I visited were really disapointing, overpriced or not anywhere I would want to live. My agent more than earned his money in the time savings.
but I'm pretty sure that if I were to
smoke marijuana in the Netherlands (where it's legal) and then return
to the US (where it's illegal), I wouldn't be arrested.
I'm pretty sure that if I were to smoke marijuana in the US (where it's illegal) in a private place without any police officers or narcs, I wouldn't be arrested.
It's not because they couldn't arrest you, it's because they wouldn't know that you commited a crime, would have no way of proving it and in most juristictions really can't be bothered busting people for merely smoking in private (as opposed to growing or possessing large quantities).
Sure, it'll never work for the home user, but that's not what they're aiming at.
But therein lies the rub. If large companies are forced to use only the latest and greatest but smaller companies and home users can get away with using older versions, then how are the large software and hardware companies supposed to support their customers? If 40% of my customer base is using WinX but I'm only allowed to use WinX+1 then I'm pretty screwed.
Then again, I'm sure I have nothing to worry about since M$ will always licence every legacy version I could ever want in MSDN and won't ever audit me for "misusing" MSDN.
The real reason that Microsoft is 'attacking' GPL is not only because they cannot steal the code, legally, but because of their fear that the government will support GPL code. Take for example, this:
"Today, any government putting work under GPL is walling it (the work) off from commercial business,"
Which begs the question: What govenments are actually allowing public research to be released exclusively under the GPL? Are any major govenments even considering such a policy?
I don't forsee any capitalist countries doing this and I would drop dead of shock if the US adopted such a policy. After all, they would want domestic buisinesses to use the research to make a profit, create jobs, enhance the GDP and such and requiring the GPL would make this a bit more difficult (but by no means impossible). A point that could easily be beat to death in one tenth the verbiage of the Mundie speech.
Since there is little or no risk of any major govenments requiring that publically funded research be released under the GPL, the govenment research angle was just an excuse to indulge in an anti-GPL rant.
Even should RAMBust's claims to patents on SDRAM and DDR SDRAM (less likely given this case), at BEST their royalty gravy train would have not lasted any more than 3-5 years MAX.
I think that the patent would only be good till 2007, so there'd be an absolute max of 6 years. With the right licencing terms a manufacturer might be better off sucking it up for 6 years rather than go through the expense of switching technologies.
Is there any real difference between the service that Napster provides and what Google does ?
I've been pondering this lately and I think the one really big difference is that Napster is probably optimized for users that are usually off-line while Google assumes that most users will be online most of the time. So if everyone stated using Google and FTP or HTTP instead of Napster, it would be a bit of a pain because you'd have to wade through ton's of hits for people who aren't currently connected (i.e. on a dial up). I think that Napster behaves differently and keeps track of who's currently logged on so that hits will only be returned for connected users (I could be wrong though, I don't really use Napster).
How many non-techies do you know that traded MP3s before Napster? How many of them trade MP3s now without Napster?
Hmmm, interesting question. I think the masses might catch on, but it will take a few weeks. I'll have to check in on my favorite non-geeks every few weeks, to see how they're holding up .
During a visit a few weeks ago I was really taken aback by just how important Napster is to my Jr. High aged siblings. Even though they usually aren't too into using computers for more than Napster, email and AIM, they would spend endless ammounts of time brainstorming on elaborate schemes to improve their Napster experiences. And it must be just as important to the other kids in their class or they'd never admit to liking it in the first place.
With Napster's filters in full effect, the non techies that have become used to (and in the case of my 13 year old sister addicted to) the service might feel really motivated to figure out how to get the the same type of service again. Now, they all might not be able to figure it out on their own, but if at least one person per social circle figures out how to use the alternatives, they'll get the others up to speed.
I wonder why I haven't gotten the frantic "Why isn't Napster woking?!?!?" phonecall yet...
Re:Valley startup syndrome. My life in a bucket.
on
Coder on the Cross
·
· Score: 2
"They're all top priority." And, at that point, I had a too fleeting moment where I actually connected with the boss, and uttered the following words:
"Making everything top priority doesn't mean it all gets done faster."
Word! That's even better than my standard: "That's mathematically impossible, a list where everything has the same priority is an unprioritized list. I would like prioritization, if you can't give any off the top of your head, then maybe I should just use my best judgement or maybe we should meet and go over the task list in a finer granularity and work together on crafting a schedule?"
In general, selling your info to 3rd parties is a legal and common practice here in the good ol' US of A. In all but a few protected areas (i.e. medical records) there is nothing to stop companies from selling off your info to the highest bidder (well, aside from ethics, morals or common sense). In fact, our "representatives" are working with upstanding members of the "consumer data marketing industry" to remove or weaken any laws that might inhibit growth in this important sector of our economy. Honestly, did you expect any different from the humble public servants that crafted the DMCA and the UCITAs?
Maybe it's a mis-quote. Perhaps the kid said that he'd be a pot-smoking, cracking and sniffing guy (as in cracking into systems and sniffing IP packets) but the reporter, not knowing the lingo, mis-understood, and assumed that it had something to do with crack cocaine?
Then again, people sniff, smoke and shoot-up crystal meth so maybe it's possible to sniff crack? Or maybe he was talking about some sort of sexual practice?
So couldn't the radio stations stop streaming the commercials on-line while continuing to stream the content? They could set it up to stream PSAs and/or station promos instead.
In our society it's "right" and "just" for people with more money, power and beauty to treat everyone else like shit. Capitalisim is more than how we trade goods and services, it's deeply engrained in our psyche, shaping our ethics and morality.
Polls show that most people in the US feel that the govenment is mostly concerned about the interests of the wealthy, yet there is no moral outrage. Our congress critters don't give a shit about the poor, racisim, sexism and homephobia - but then the talking heads on the TV are gonna get in snit over Quake and Eminem - PUH-LEEZE!
Perhaps this is why they treat adults going postal as a totally seprate phenomea from school shootings? Seems to me that lots of people *of all ages* are shooting up the places where they feel foced to spend their days with a group of people they didn't choose. Yet the media and govenment folks keep their focus on only the youngest culprits, ignoring data on the adults, and possibly missing the big picture. I guess looking at the big picture might take the spotlight away from blaming videogames and rap, and we can't have that now can we? God fobid we have to deal with our real problems, like mental illmess and our wolf pack mentality.
I'm *still* traumatized from Algebreic Structures (abstract algebra), and I graduated 5 years ago!
Any math class where you use a set of operations and a set of formulae to solve a set of equations is a cakewalk. Yeah, you might have a problem that is many pages long, but as long as you take your time and are careful about checking your work, eventually you will get some reasonable answer.
I can't even tell you what I did in abstract algebra, I've supressed most of the memories, but I know it did not involve any actual numbers (eg. involving the digits 0-9). For the first five minutes of the first class the professor covers everything you've ever learned about set theory (eg. Venn diagrams). The remainder of the semseter is them spent trying to comprehend an endless stream of "Let [letter] be a [entity] (and let [letter] be a [entity])* then [letter][symbol]([letter][symbol])* is a [entity]; Let [letter]....." I vaugely remenber loosing my shit around the time of the "orbit" chapter.
I can't look (under the advice of my therapist) but you can, if you must:
http://www.math.niu.edu/~beachy/aaol/rings.html
http://www.math.niu.edu/~beachy/aaol/structure.h tm l
fyi, as a canadian it would be very difficult for you to comprehend just how fucked our school system is down here.
if you live in an affluent neighborhood, your children attend schools that are comparable to $10,000 a year private schools. the schools will be well funded and the results are excellent: 90% or more of the students will go on to a 4 year college, many of which are Very Good Schools (tm).
if you live in a poor neigborhood, the schools may be little more than a means of keeping kids off the streets so the seinor citizens can do their shopping without harrassment. the schools will be grossly under funded and ill-equipped to deal with the problems that come with a student body that lives in severe poverty. for example, young children tend to be dicipine problms when they don't have adaquate food. the schools may even need metal detectors. most of the students won't go on to college, and those that do will usually go to community college.
while there may be cases where affermative action would give preference to someone who is not the most qualified, remember that "not the most qualified" != "incompetent". you can have a pool of applicants, some of which are qualified and some of which are not. within the group of qualified applicants, only one can be the best, but is it always important to get the very best applicant? we usually do a cost benefit analysis where we may opt for the 2nd best drywaller if he/she is cheaper, but may opt for the very best heart surgeon we can possibly get.
schools have always been willing to admit students who don't have the best acedemic criteria if they are the child of an alumni or a great athlete or come from a really interesting background or are the child of a VIP. this is common and acepted practice and no one screams at the injustice of these students getting spaces that could be filled my smarter kids, even when these "less qualified" applicants truly are incompetent (although most schools won't admit anyone if they feel that the person truly can not do the work). Just something to bear in mind when you hear all the shrill rhetoric.
btw, i don't know the details of the MS case, but it would take more than a statistical analysis of the racial makeup of the company to mount a successful suit. 5 billion sounds high... if enough people were somehow denied enough stock options over a long enough period of time, it could add up. but my understanding is that everyone gets the most options upon hire (with a 4 year vesting schedule) and that any later bonus options would be significantly smaller. moreover, any recent MS options would be underwater.
That comment is dead on! Just because you *can* do something well does not mean that you would enjoy it.
There is nothing wrong with persuing a technical career. Really, "management track" is no more or less valid than "technical track" and I would think twice about working for managers who delude themselves into thinking that management is the natual progression for any successful career. I would also think twice about working for managment that has no concern for the career asperations for thier employees and think that it's a good idea to *force* someone to switch from a tech job to a management job. I don't see how this company can expect a good outcome from that little ploy.
The comany is obviously trying to bluff and painting themselves into a corner in the process. They are far better off with their senior IT guy than without him (or her), but they want him take the management job. But instead of accepting that not everyone want to be in management (and perhaps even realizing that there may be reasons why no one wants to do management at that company), instead they push forward with some ego-driven bluff to force the senior IT guy to do their bidding. It's a classic 1950's sitcom move ( I always think of Mr. Cogswell of the Jetsons), and a very stupid move. If they get their way, they have an unhappy, reluctant manager who may be too depressed to do a good job. If not, they are now forced to fire an otherwise excellent employee for subordination, if he doesn't leave first.
No matter what, iKantBelieve would be better off looking for a new job. It would be prudent to grin and bear it at the existing job until he/she is ready to heave on his/her own terms, but ultimately, there are other companies that would be more compatible with iKantBelieve's long term career goals.
I don't think that progressive scan helps unless you actually have a progressive scan TV . If you don't plan on owning a progressive scan TV in the near future, you could get a really nice interlaced DVD player for less than the crappiest progressive scan model.
However, if you have a progressive scan TV you *have* to get a progressive scan player. Well, you don't really have to get a progressive player, but you'd be missing out on getting the most out of your TV, it really is a better picture.
Anyway, I've recently been shopping for a progressive scan DVD and here is what I've learned: If you're gonna spend the bucks, get 3 2 pulldown - it does the best job with converting the difference in FPS between film and TV. Also, nice players will detect whether a DVD is from film or video and use a 480p algorithm for that media. The Sony S9000 is very kick ass but pricy - $1500! The Pioneer DV-37 is more reasonable at around $700. It's only around $100 bucks more than the Toshiba SD6200 but it has 3 2 pulldown and better performance. The Toshiba has a 2 disk changer, but for a DVD player I don't care too much about having a disk changer.
Oh, and Harmon Kardon is supposed to come out with a DVD50 soon that has a 5 disk changer and CDR, CDRW and MP3 support. Since it isn't out yet I can't get much info on it, but according to the experts when you get a changer you are always sacrificing quaily for convinence since the media is never as stable in a changer.
The specifc form of vote fraud used by Xavier Suarez involved "tampering with 5,000 absentee ballots".
And he is quoted as saying that he "helped fill out absentee ballot forms and enlist Republican absentee voters in Miami-Dade County." And "Dade County Republicans have a very specific expertise in getting out absentee ballots," he said. "I obviously have specific experience in this myself."
Interviewer: Mr. Bush, do you like dogs?
Bush: Sure, I like dogs. St. Bernards, German Shepherds, Maltese, I like all of them.
Anonymous Coward: I KNEW IT! HE DOESN'T LIKE PEKINGESE!
Not quite.
It would be more like this:
Interviewer: Mr. Bush, do you like domestic dogs?
Bush: Sure, I like wolves, jackals, and foxes.
Anonymous Coward: I KNEW IT! HE DOESN'T LIKE DOGS!
Just Some Guy: You AC's are being unfair to Dubya, just cuz he neglected to mention every breed of domestic dog dosn't mean he dislikes domestic dogs. Doesn't everyone keep wolves and jackals in their apartment?
You see, he was asked about minority religions and he responded with examples of Christianity, Muslemism and Judaism - the three biggest religions. That fails to answer the question. Personally, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't even realize that he wasn't answering the question. He probably thinks that Mormons and Muslims are *way* out there and that the other stuff is either too hot to touch or perhaps even a trick question (like that one about the Canadian Prime Minister). Not that that will make members of minority religions feel any better.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you taken out a licence from Microsoft to redistribute their EULA? It is their copyright, and they spent a lot of money writing it.
Fair Use. I'm allowed to quote paragraphs in order to discuss or review a text.
Seems fair to me. You can't Open Source MSFT components or use software that requires you to Open Source MSFT components.
That bit is reasonable, but you can't do that anyway. Even without this clause in the EULA you'd get smacked down hard and fast for even trying.
But look at these 2 clauses:
not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part.
and later in the examples of "Potentially Viral Software" :
any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models;
So you can't redistribute DLLs from the SDK with your application if you used emacs, gcc, linux or mozilla *even as tools* in the production of your application. That's the unreasonable part.
Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software.
... but no 3rd party can change M$ licencing. Period. No one can nullify the original M$ licencing terms by re-releasing under their own licence, so it's a completely mute point. A red herring.
... honest.)
They are deliberately trying to cloud the issue. They say that they don't want you to give away any of Microsoft's rights or try to put Microsoft under any legal obligations by distributing their SDK DLLs with "Potentially Viral Software"
But then they go on to take great zeal in knocking down the straw-man they just constructed:
By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL).
Kinda like the Allchin, Balmer and Gates rants: All we want is for publically funded development to not be released under the GPL - not like that *ever* happens - but now we'll use that as a segue into a reant on the evils of the GPL.
They are really pushing their luck, obligating people to not use a competitiors dev tools (emacs, gcc etc.) in order to use their SDK (which is often needed to develop apps for their OS) sounds like leveraging their monoploly to squash competition and playing dumb about it (Huh? We just didn't want other people to take away our licencing rights
I was refering to all Linux support - not supporting one distro vs. another - in reply to someone saying "why do they have drop Linux, if they had done it right to begin with, it would be cross platform" - which is silly since kernel space code can't be the same for Linux and Windows. Remember, the original topic is ZK dropping Linux but keeping Win - NOT ZK dropping Debian and keeping Red Hat.
The real question is what part of a VPN client is necessarily tied to a particular OS?
... which is below the TCP/IP stack and very OS dependendent.
Is it the networking? Well, the proliferation of Sockets was supposed to make that less problematic.
The it probably has some really low level network access, like driver level stuff
In order to work seamlessly, your VPN would have to be kernel level, living in or below your TCP IP stack so that other applications automatically get VPN communications when they do normal network access calls.
You should note that this is not a trivial and easily a major part of ZKs development time.
One can steer away from uncessary platform dependence. It just takes a little foresight.
Not when you're writing code that runs in kernel space.
Exactly.
A buyer's agent will do the research for you.
A really good buyer's agent will interview you to figure out what you're looking for and what aspects of a house are important to you and then visit every property in your targeted neighborhoods and price range and then take you to visit the best canitdates in a really efficent tour.
I tried looking at houses on my own and quicky learnd that 80% of the houses I visited were really disapointing, overpriced or not anywhere I would want to live. My agent more than earned his money in the time savings.
Since Qwest never answers their phone.
...)
(It's all Covad's fault! Yeah, that's the ticket
but I'm pretty sure that if I were to
smoke marijuana in the Netherlands (where it's legal) and then return
to the US (where it's illegal), I wouldn't be arrested.
I'm pretty sure that if I were to smoke marijuana in the US (where it's illegal) in a private place without any police officers or narcs, I wouldn't be arrested.
It's not because they couldn't arrest you, it's because they wouldn't know that you commited a crime, would have no way of proving it and in most juristictions really can't be bothered busting people for merely smoking in private (as opposed to growing or possessing large quantities).
Sure, it'll never work for the home user, but that's not what they're aiming at.
But therein lies the rub. If large companies are forced to use only the latest and greatest but smaller companies and home users can get away with using older versions, then how are the large software and hardware companies supposed to support their customers? If 40% of my customer base is using WinX but I'm only allowed to use WinX+1 then I'm pretty screwed.
Then again, I'm sure I have nothing to worry about since M$ will always licence every legacy version I could ever want in MSDN and won't ever audit me for "misusing" MSDN.
The real reason that Microsoft is 'attacking' GPL is not only because they cannot steal the code, legally, but because of their fear that the government will support GPL code. Take for example, this:
"Today, any government putting work under GPL is walling it (the work) off from commercial business,"
Which begs the question: What govenments are actually allowing public research to be released exclusively under the GPL? Are any major govenments even considering such a policy?
I don't forsee any capitalist countries doing this and I would drop dead of shock if the US adopted such a policy. After all, they would want domestic buisinesses to use the research to make a profit, create jobs, enhance the GDP and such and requiring the GPL would make this a bit more difficult (but by no means impossible). A point that could easily be beat to death in one tenth the verbiage of the Mundie speech.
Since there is little or no risk of any major govenments requiring that publically funded research be released under the GPL, the govenment research angle was just an excuse to indulge in an anti-GPL rant.
Even should RAMBust's claims to patents on SDRAM and DDR SDRAM (less likely given this case), at BEST their royalty gravy train would have not lasted any more than 3-5 years MAX.
I think that the patent would only be good till 2007, so there'd be an absolute max of 6 years. With the right licencing terms a manufacturer might be better off sucking it up for 6 years rather than go through the expense of switching technologies.
If they were to release the source code for Windows, there'd be absolutely no reason for anybody to buy Windows, period.
:)
Well, except that no one would be able to get that shit to compile
Is there any real difference between the service that Napster provides and what Google does ?
I've been pondering this lately and I think the one really big difference is that Napster is probably optimized for users that are usually off-line while Google assumes that most users will be online most of the time. So if everyone stated using Google and FTP or HTTP instead of Napster, it would be a bit of a pain because you'd have to wade through ton's of hits for people who aren't currently connected (i.e. on a dial up). I think that Napster behaves differently and keeps track of who's currently logged on so that hits will only be returned for connected users (I could be wrong though, I don't really use Napster).
How many non-techies do you know that traded MP3s before Napster? How many of them trade MP3s now without Napster?
Hmmm, interesting question. I think the masses might catch on, but it will take a few weeks. I'll have to check in on my favorite non-geeks every few weeks, to see how they're holding up .
During a visit a few weeks ago I was really taken aback by just how important Napster is to my Jr. High aged siblings. Even though they usually aren't too into using computers for more than Napster, email and AIM, they would spend endless ammounts of time brainstorming on elaborate schemes to improve their Napster experiences. And it must be just as important to the other kids in their class or they'd never admit to liking it in the first place.
With Napster's filters in full effect, the non techies that have become used to (and in the case of my 13 year old sister addicted to) the service might feel really motivated to figure out how to get the the same type of service again. Now, they all might not be able to figure it out on their own, but if at least one person per social circle figures out how to use the alternatives, they'll get the others up to speed.
I wonder why I haven't gotten the frantic "Why isn't Napster woking?!?!?" phonecall yet...
"They're all top priority." And, at that point, I had a too fleeting moment where I actually connected with the boss, and uttered the following words:
"Making everything top priority doesn't mean it all gets done faster."
Word! That's even better than my standard: "That's mathematically impossible, a list where everything has the same priority is an unprioritized list. I would like prioritization, if you can't give any off the top of your head, then maybe I should just use my best judgement or maybe we should meet and go over the task list in a finer granularity and work together on crafting a schedule?"
In general, selling your info to 3rd parties is a legal and common practice here in the good ol' US of A. In all but a few protected areas (i.e. medical records) there is nothing to stop companies from selling off your info to the highest bidder (well, aside from ethics, morals or common sense). In fact, our "representatives" are working with upstanding members of the "consumer data marketing industry" to remove or weaken any laws that might inhibit growth in this important sector of our economy. Honestly, did you expect any different from the humble public servants that crafted the DMCA and the UCITAs?
Then again, people sniff, smoke and shoot-up crystal meth so maybe it's possible to sniff crack? Or maybe he was talking about some sort of sexual practice?
So couldn't the radio stations stop streaming the commercials on-line while continuing to stream the content? They could set it up to stream PSAs and/or station promos instead.
Or am I missing something here?
Someone please mod this up!
In our society it's "right" and "just" for people with more money, power and beauty to treat everyone else like shit. Capitalisim is more than how we trade goods and services, it's deeply engrained in our psyche, shaping our ethics and morality.
Polls show that most people in the US feel that the govenment is mostly concerned about the interests of the wealthy, yet there is no moral outrage. Our congress critters don't give a shit about the poor, racisim, sexism and homephobia - but then the talking heads on the TV are gonna get in snit over Quake and Eminem - PUH-LEEZE!
Perhaps this is why they treat adults going postal as a totally seprate phenomea from school shootings? Seems to me that lots of people *of all ages* are shooting up the places where they feel foced to spend their days with a group of people they didn't choose. Yet the media and govenment folks keep their focus on only the youngest culprits, ignoring data on the adults, and possibly missing the big picture. I guess looking at the big picture might take the spotlight away from blaming videogames and rap, and we can't have that now can we? God fobid we have to deal with our real problems, like mental illmess and our wolf pack mentality.
If you aren't good at Math, get a CSc degree
....." I vaugely remenber loosing my shit around the time of the "orbit" chapter.
h tm l
I'm *still* traumatized from Algebreic Structures (abstract algebra), and I graduated 5 years ago!
Any math class where you use a set of operations and a set of formulae to solve a set of equations is a cakewalk. Yeah, you might have a problem that is many pages long, but as long as you take your time and are careful about checking your work, eventually you will get some reasonable answer.
I can't even tell you what I did in abstract algebra, I've supressed most of the memories, but I know it did not involve any actual numbers (eg. involving the digits 0-9). For the first five minutes of the first class the professor covers everything you've ever learned about set theory (eg. Venn diagrams). The remainder of the semseter is them spent trying to comprehend an endless stream of "Let [letter] be a [entity] (and let [letter] be a [entity])* then [letter][symbol]([letter][symbol])* is a [entity]; Let [letter]
I can't look (under the advice of my therapist) but you can, if you must:
http://www.math.niu.edu/~beachy/aaol/rings.html
http://www.math.niu.edu/~beachy/aaol/structure.
fyi, as a canadian it would be very difficult for you to comprehend just how fucked our school system is down here.
... if enough people were somehow denied enough stock options over a long enough period of time, it could add up. but my understanding is that everyone gets the most options upon hire (with a 4 year vesting schedule) and that any later bonus options would be significantly smaller. moreover, any recent MS options would be underwater.
if you live in an affluent neighborhood, your children attend schools that are comparable to $10,000 a year private schools. the schools will be well funded and the results are excellent: 90% or more of the students will go on to a 4 year college, many of which are Very Good Schools (tm).
if you live in a poor neigborhood, the schools may be little more than a means of keeping kids off the streets so the seinor citizens can do their shopping without harrassment. the schools will be grossly under funded and ill-equipped to deal with the problems that come with a student body that lives in severe poverty. for example, young children tend to be dicipine problms when they don't have adaquate food. the schools may even need metal detectors. most of the students won't go on to college, and those that do will usually go to community college.
while there may be cases where affermative action would give preference to someone who is not the most qualified, remember that "not the most qualified" != "incompetent". you can have a pool of applicants, some of which are qualified and some of which are not. within the group of qualified applicants, only one can be the best, but is it always important to get the very best applicant? we usually do a cost benefit analysis where we may opt for the 2nd best drywaller if he/she is cheaper, but may opt for the very best heart surgeon we can possibly get.
schools have always been willing to admit students who don't have the best acedemic criteria if they are the child of an alumni or a great athlete or come from a really interesting background or are the child of a VIP. this is common and acepted practice and no one screams at the injustice of these students getting spaces that could be filled my smarter kids, even when these "less qualified" applicants truly are incompetent (although most schools won't admit anyone if they feel that the person truly can not do the work). Just something to bear in mind when you hear all the shrill rhetoric.
btw, i don't know the details of the MS case, but it would take more than a statistical analysis of the racial makeup of the company to mount a successful suit. 5 billion sounds high
That comment is dead on! Just because you *can* do something well does not mean that you would enjoy it.
There is nothing wrong with persuing a technical career. Really, "management track" is no more or less valid than "technical track" and I would think twice about working for managers who delude themselves into thinking that management is the natual progression for any successful career. I would also think twice about working for managment that has no concern for the career asperations for thier employees and think that it's a good idea to *force* someone to switch from a tech job to a management job. I don't see how this company can expect a good outcome from that little ploy.
The comany is obviously trying to bluff and painting themselves into a corner in the process. They are far better off with their senior IT guy than without him (or her), but they want him take the management job. But instead of accepting that not everyone want to be in management (and perhaps even realizing that there may be reasons why no one wants to do management at that company), instead they push forward with some ego-driven bluff to force the senior IT guy to do their bidding. It's a classic 1950's sitcom move ( I always think of Mr. Cogswell of the Jetsons), and a very stupid move. If they get their way, they have an unhappy, reluctant manager who may be too depressed to do a good job. If not, they are now forced to fire an otherwise excellent employee for subordination, if he doesn't leave first.
No matter what, iKantBelieve would be better off looking for a new job. It would be prudent to grin and bear it at the existing job until he/she is ready to heave on his/her own terms, but ultimately, there are other companies that would be more compatible with iKantBelieve's long term career goals.
I don't think that progressive scan helps unless you actually have a progressive scan TV . If you don't plan on owning a progressive scan TV in the near future, you could get a really nice interlaced DVD player for less than the crappiest progressive scan model.
However, if you have a progressive scan TV you *have* to get a progressive scan player. Well, you don't really have to get a progressive player, but you'd be missing out on getting the most out of your TV, it really is a better picture.
Anyway, I've recently been shopping for a progressive scan DVD and here is what I've learned: If you're gonna spend the bucks, get 3 2 pulldown - it does the best job with converting the difference in FPS between film and TV. Also, nice players will detect whether a DVD is from film or video and use a 480p algorithm for that media. The Sony S9000 is very kick ass but pricy - $1500! The Pioneer DV-37 is more reasonable at around $700. It's only around $100 bucks more than the Toshiba SD6200 but it has 3 2 pulldown and better performance. The Toshiba has a 2 disk changer, but for a DVD player I don't care too much about having a disk changer.
Oh, and Harmon Kardon is supposed to come out with a DVD50 soon that has a 5 disk changer and CDR, CDRW and MP3 support. Since it isn't out yet I can't get much info on it, but according to the experts when you get a changer you are always sacrificing quaily for convinence since the media is never as stable in a changer.
Wait! It gets even better!
h p3?a_id=1389
The specifc form of vote fraud used by Xavier Suarez involved "tampering with 5,000 absentee ballots".
And he is quoted as saying that he "helped fill out absentee ballot forms and enlist Republican absentee voters in Miami-Dade County." And "Dade County Republicans have a very specific expertise in getting out absentee ballots," he said. "I obviously have specific experience in this myself."
From Feed:
http://www.feedmag.com/templates/daily_master.p
Bush: Sure, I like dogs. St. Bernards, German Shepherds, Maltese, I like all of them.
Anonymous Coward: I KNEW IT! HE DOESN'T LIKE PEKINGESE!
Not quite.
It would be more like this:
Interviewer: Mr. Bush, do you like domestic dogs?
Bush: Sure, I like wolves, jackals, and foxes.
Anonymous Coward: I KNEW IT! HE DOESN'T LIKE DOGS!
Just Some Guy: You AC's are being unfair to Dubya, just cuz he neglected to mention every breed of domestic dog dosn't mean he dislikes domestic dogs. Doesn't everyone keep wolves and jackals in their apartment?
You see, he was asked about minority religions and he responded with examples of Christianity, Muslemism and Judaism - the three biggest religions. That fails to answer the question. Personally, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't even realize that he wasn't answering the question. He probably thinks that Mormons and Muslims are *way* out there and that the other stuff is either too hot to touch or perhaps even a trick question (like that one about the Canadian Prime Minister). Not that that will make members of minority religions feel any better.