we try our best to mark promo CDs as such. record companies used to punch holes in the album covers of their LPs meant for promotion use or print "white label" records to distinguish them from the retail product. these days we just use sharpies to write "PROMO" on the covers, but it really is a futile effort. if you go to any mid-sized record store with a used/second-hand section, you'll still find tons of promo materials being sold.
Which may well increase the resale value. Since they are rarer than regular retail copies.
Maybe there are exceptions, but not usually. When I would do music reviews the CDs we received were VERY clearly labeled, "For Promotional Purposes Only. Not For Sale."
Just stating this dosn't make it so. IIRC there is case law that such labeling is null and void. It may also be relevent is the supplier provides a reply paid envelope for return and if CDs were solicited or unsolicited, even who the recipient is...
AFAIK there is no special exemption for something being "free". Regardless of if it's "buy one get one free", "free with...", "all you can eat" or even "given away". If this was possible sellers would soon be finding ways to abuse such exemptions.
And that just illustrates the problem with thought experiments to "prove" anything. If you can make up the numbers or handwave in anecdotes and "common sense" in as "data", you can prove any bloody thing imaginable.
E.g., Aristotle "proved" that women have (as in, are born with) less teeth than men.
Which was quite a trick considering the concept of zero didn't come of Europe until several thousand years later and the concept of a negative number of teeth would be interesting.
And that, in a nutshell, is why experimental validation is needed.
The experimental validation needed to check some of the ideas Aristotle came up with isn't exactly difficult. But no-one appears to have bothered for a long time.
First off, I am not aware of any desktop-oriented Linux distribution that ships without a preinstalled web browser, mail client and office suite.
As well as lots of other stuff which would be extra under Windows. Often integrated (or integratable) with the same management system as the core OS.
Secondly, the times when printing or using web cams under Linux was reserved for kernel hackers are long gone. The initial installation is still not as simple and accessible as it should be, but day-to-day usability is, at least in my experience, better than the hog-pog mix of HP printer applets, Epson scan software and Creative web cam managers.
Installing and using are different things. The former being something which should only happen very infrequently.
For those of us with parents who don't read English, Ubuntu has been a double blessing. The native language version of the Linux based OS is so much more available in the US than a legitimate (non-pirated) native language version of Windows.
Also language support in open source programs can often be better than in proprietary software because it tends to be done by people who know the language/dialect in question and isn't subject to corporate whims about supporting that language. Windows has a big issue even with its support of English in that expects the whole world to use "US English" whereas with Ubuntu, if you are in the EU, South Africa, India, Australia, etc you will get the spellings you expect.
Microsoft is the 800# gorilla in the room because it doesn't break backward compatibility.
Thing is that they did with Vista (together with 2008 Server and Windows 7). In that they changed the user profiles mechanism arround in all sorts of strange ways.
I am not an expert myself. However Glass does Melt, and can be fused back together, is a possibility, or the ends polished and put right next to each other...
Stuck together with a glue having similar optical properties IIRC
Why not drop an amplifier between the two parts? That way you're not syncing the cable to another piece of cable. Rather to a device in the middle?
You'd still have to dismantle the cable and clean up the fibres anyway. An anchor is not going to make any kind of clean cut. So the task of splicing an any kind of repeater is going to be just as complex as joining the cable back together. Even before you consider the problem of powering that repeater.
In Belgium what happens is that a letter is send to the provider that user X with IP Y at time Z was downloading a file that they believe to contain copyrighted material. The provider then could do several things. Basicaly 1) forward the letter or 2) ignore it.
The former costs the ISP money both in working out who they should forward it to and actually forwarding it. Whereas the latter is only going to cost the time to open the letter and do whatever they regularly do with "spam".
Next, it's expensive and time consuming to ask highly paid technicians to chase down IP logs and customer IDs, Scroggin said, noting that it's especially difficult nowadays because it's extremely easy to spoof IP addresses.
"Spoofing" may be as simple as a Bit Torrent tracker reporting some random IP addresses. Even without this happening how accurate are the methods used by the companies involved to identify IP addresses?
The current mechanism is that the site owner pays a particular CA to identify them,
There are plenty of situations where the CA couldn't do much in the way of verification in the first place. e.g. they are separated by several thousand miles.
and end-users/browsers trust any CA to identify any site (they can't know which CA the site owner actually paid).
Which is another weakness in the scheme as it now stands.
Mapping to real-world identities is a separate issue (only provided by "extended validation" or whatever certs due to browser UI issues), and is (1) rather expensive because you need people involved to look at paperwork and such and (2) mostly isn't needed, because you'll generally find IRL groups' sites by communication from those groups (eg, my electric bill has the electric company's URL printed on it, I don't need to look them up in google and then verify that I got pointed to the right place).
It would make sense to link this with existing DNS or business registration.
I've probably posted others, but I bet "everyone" is still going to leave the dozens of CA certs in their browsers, and Mozilla and friends aren't going to do the SSH style thing - warn user if the cert changes for whatever reason
Which would be the most sensible thing. Especially if the old certificate was nowhere near due to expire and the details on the new one are very different.
even if it's a valid cert.
"Valid" in this context meaning somehow connected to a CA trusted by the browser. Which in this kind of case may be less trustworthy than a self signed certificate. But guess which one Firefox 3 is going to make a song and dance about...
Minister Conroy posted a response to this question on his blog yesterday.
Basically he says that the blacklist will not be published because it will primarily contain child pornography and therefore publishing it would be equivalent to distribution of illegal material.
Which translated means "It will mostly contain perfectly legal material. But we need to prevent the world from laughing at us."
The true leader of the galaxy was in reality a man who had no idea about anything that happened outside his isolated wood cabin, and whose biggest preoccupation was keeping his cat happy.
There's the irony - most kids would have a less than average knowledge of the trivial ways to bypass their filters
The real irony is that "The Internet" is probably one of the safest activities known to man. In terms of the risk of death or injury downloading a movie is considerably safer than going to the cinema or buying a DVD from a shop. Many risks which exist in the physical world simply don't exist here. Indeed many of the things about which a big fuss is made only happen when people choose to interact in the "real world".
Almost any medical device or drug can be made dirt cheap if you throw enough safety considerations out of the window.
It's also likely to depend on exactly what those "safety" considerations are.
Or do these guys want to tell me that those $1000 also include R&D (just how many hours did they spend designing it?), biocompatibility testing (I don't think most materials used in cars undergo this by default)
Yet cars are typically sold with the idea of transporting humans.
electrical/mechanical/chemical hazard analysis, etc.
It isn't unknown for "hazard analysis" in the "first world" to be over concerned with all sorts of "freak acident" possibilities, sometimes to the point of overlooking actual risks.
It is also about going into a third world junkyard and getting a local mechanic to fix the thing when it's broken
Though it could well be that the "mechanic" and the "junkyard owner" are the same people.
The article mentions how that many of the expensive neonatal incubators end up not being used because they either don't know how to operate it, or can't fix it five years later, when it breaks down.
Even if they did know how to fix it they probably can't get the parts. If these "donations" are supplied without even operating instructions what chance has anyone got of getting hold of a service manual?
Not a problem. A small motorcycle internal combustion engine could run continuously to provide electricity via a generator. Now all that's required are babies that breathe carbon monoxide.
Or someone comes up with a low tech method to make either a power cable or an exhaust pipe:)
In the UK some are taking tires, hanging them on the speed cameras, filling the inside with gasoline, and lighting it. The gasoline burns long enough to get the tire burning, and as the tire burns, the steel belts keep it from burning itself off of the camera housing before it's been there for a considerable amount of time.
An alternative method involves reversing a suitable vehicle into the pole supporting the camera.
Slashdot Mirror
we try our best to mark promo CDs as such. record companies used to punch holes in the album covers of their LPs meant for promotion use or print "white label" records to distinguish them from the retail product. these days we just use sharpies to write "PROMO" on the covers, but it really is a futile effort. if you go to any mid-sized record store with a used/second-hand section, you'll still find tons of promo materials being sold.
Which may well increase the resale value. Since they are rarer than regular retail copies.
Maybe there are exceptions, but not usually. When I would do music reviews the CDs we received were VERY clearly labeled, "For Promotional Purposes Only. Not For Sale."
Just stating this dosn't make it so. IIRC there is case law that such labeling is null and void. It may also be relevent is the supplier provides a reply paid envelope for return and if CDs were solicited or unsolicited, even who the recipient is...
Maybe "free" isn't considered a sale...
AFAIK there is no special exemption for something being "free". Regardless of if it's "buy one get one free", "free with...", "all you can eat" or even "given away". If this was possible sellers would soon be finding ways to abuse such exemptions.
Also, is it killing jews they care about? Or is it regaining what they consider their sovereignty? Stop making palestinians out to be antisemitic.
Which is especially ironic given that all Arabs are by definition Semitic.
It really doesn't help your agenda. They probably hate all zionists but they don't hate all jews.
The strongest combination of Zionism tends actually to come from anti-Zionist Jews.
It is, actually. If the people voted for Hamas, they endorsed Hamas' platform.
If you apply the same standards to the Israelis then you have a bunch of terrorist supporters.
And that just illustrates the problem with thought experiments to "prove" anything. If you can make up the numbers or handwave in anecdotes and "common sense" in as "data", you can prove any bloody thing imaginable.
E.g., Aristotle "proved" that women have (as in, are born with) less teeth than men.
Which was quite a trick considering the concept of zero didn't come of Europe until several thousand years later and the concept of a negative number of teeth would be interesting.
And that, in a nutshell, is why experimental validation is needed.
The experimental validation needed to check some of the ideas Aristotle came up with isn't exactly difficult. But no-one appears to have bothered for a long time.
First off, I am not aware of any desktop-oriented Linux distribution that ships without a preinstalled web browser, mail client and office suite.
As well as lots of other stuff which would be extra under Windows. Often integrated (or integratable) with the same management system as the core OS.
Secondly, the times when printing or using web cams under Linux was reserved for kernel hackers are long gone. The initial installation is still not as simple and accessible as it should be, but day-to-day usability is, at least in my experience, better than the hog-pog mix of HP printer applets, Epson scan software and Creative web cam managers.
Installing and using are different things. The former being something which should only happen very infrequently.
For those of us with parents who don't read English, Ubuntu has been a double blessing. The native language version of the Linux based OS is so much more available in the US than a legitimate (non-pirated) native language version of Windows.
Also language support in open source programs can often be better than in proprietary software because it tends to be done by people who know the language/dialect in question and isn't subject to corporate whims about supporting that language.
Windows has a big issue even with its support of English in that expects the whole world to use "US English" whereas with Ubuntu, if you are in the EU, South Africa, India, Australia, etc you will get the spellings you expect.
Microsoft is the 800# gorilla in the room because it doesn't break backward compatibility.
Thing is that they did with Vista (together with 2008 Server and Windows 7). In that they changed the user profiles mechanism arround in all sorts of strange ways.
I am not an expert myself. However Glass does Melt, and can be fused back together, is a possibility, or the ends polished and put right next to each other...
Stuck together with a glue having similar optical properties IIRC
Why not drop an amplifier between the two parts? That way you're not syncing the cable to another piece of cable. Rather to a device in the middle?
You'd still have to dismantle the cable and clean up the fibres anyway. An anchor is not going to make any kind of clean cut. So the task of splicing an any kind of repeater is going to be just as complex as joining the cable back together. Even before you consider the problem of powering that repeater.
How do they repair the cables? Especially with glass fibre I wouldn't know what to do.
I would imagine by splicing each fibre and replacing the sheaths as they go.
In Belgium what happens is that a letter is send to the provider that user X with IP Y at time Z was downloading a file that they believe to contain copyrighted material. The provider then could do several things. Basicaly 1) forward the letter or 2) ignore it.
The former costs the ISP money both in working out who they should forward it to and actually forwarding it. Whereas the latter is only going to cost the time to open the letter and do whatever they regularly do with "spam".
Next, it's expensive and time consuming to ask highly paid technicians to chase down IP logs and customer IDs, Scroggin said, noting that it's especially difficult nowadays because it's extremely easy to spoof IP addresses.
"Spoofing" may be as simple as a Bit Torrent tracker reporting some random IP addresses. Even without this happening how accurate are the methods used by the companies involved to identify IP addresses?
The current mechanism is that the site owner pays a particular CA to identify them,
There are plenty of situations where the CA couldn't do much in the way of verification in the first place. e.g. they are separated by several thousand miles.
and end-users/browsers trust any CA to identify any site (they can't know which CA the site owner actually paid).
Which is another weakness in the scheme as it now stands.
Mapping to real-world identities is a separate issue (only provided by "extended validation" or whatever certs due to browser UI issues), and is (1) rather expensive because you need people involved to look at paperwork and such and (2) mostly isn't needed, because you'll generally find IRL groups' sites by communication from those groups (eg, my electric bill has the electric company's URL printed on it, I don't need to look them up in google and then verify that I got pointed to the right place).
It would make sense to link this with existing DNS or business registration.
I've probably posted others, but I bet "everyone" is still going to leave the dozens of CA certs in their browsers, and Mozilla and friends aren't going to do the SSH style thing - warn user if the cert changes for whatever reason
Which would be the most sensible thing. Especially if the old certificate was nowhere near due to expire and the details on the new one are very different.
even if it's a valid cert.
"Valid" in this context meaning somehow connected to a CA trusted by the browser. Which in this kind of case may be less trustworthy than a self signed certificate. But guess which one Firefox 3 is going to make a song and dance about...
Minister Conroy posted a response to this question on his blog yesterday.
Basically he says that the blacklist will not be published because it will primarily contain child pornography and therefore publishing it would be equivalent to distribution of illegal material.
Which translated means "It will mostly contain perfectly legal material. But we need to prevent the world from laughing at us."
The true leader of the galaxy was in reality a man who had no idea about anything that happened outside his isolated wood cabin, and whose biggest preoccupation was keeping his cat happy.
All hail the feline overlords.
There's the irony - most kids would have a less than average knowledge of the trivial ways to bypass their filters
The real irony is that "The Internet" is probably one of the safest activities known to man. In terms of the risk of death or injury downloading a movie is considerably safer than going to the cinema or buying a DVD from a shop. Many risks which exist in the physical world simply don't exist here. Indeed many of the things about which a big fuss is made only happen when people choose to interact in the "real world".
Almost any medical device or drug can be made dirt cheap if you throw enough safety considerations out of the window.
It's also likely to depend on exactly what those "safety" considerations are.
Or do these guys want to tell me that those $1000 also include R&D (just how many hours did they spend designing it?), biocompatibility testing (I don't think most materials used in cars undergo this by default)
Yet cars are typically sold with the idea of transporting humans.
electrical/mechanical/chemical hazard analysis, etc.
It isn't unknown for "hazard analysis" in the "first world" to be over concerned with all sorts of "freak acident" possibilities, sometimes to the point of overlooking actual risks.
It is also about going into a third world junkyard and getting a local mechanic to fix the thing when it's broken
Though it could well be that the "mechanic" and the "junkyard owner" are the same people.
The article mentions how that many of the expensive neonatal incubators end up not being used because they either don't know how to operate it, or can't fix it five years later, when it breaks down.
Even if they did know how to fix it they probably can't get the parts. If these "donations" are supplied without even operating instructions what chance has anyone got of getting hold of a service manual?
Not a problem. A small motorcycle internal combustion engine could run continuously to provide electricity via a generator. Now all that's required are babies that breathe carbon monoxide.
:)
Or someone comes up with a low tech method to make either a power cable or an exhaust pipe
In the UK some are taking tires, hanging them on the speed cameras, filling the inside with gasoline, and lighting it. The gasoline burns long enough to get the tire burning, and as the tire burns, the steel belts keep it from burning itself off of the camera housing before it's been there for a considerable amount of time.
An alternative method involves reversing a suitable vehicle into the pole supporting the camera.
Since the cameras are generally owned by companies and not the local authorities, I think they only thing they can do is put it on your credit report.
:)
In which case maybe protestors should find out who the directors of the company concerned are and "clone" their plates
That's just because nobody bothered to do the the same trick with the correct government or state official plates.
Or how about police cars?