Yes, the functional difference between interrupted service and undelivered service is obvious.
But the ethical difference is slim: If I have paid you for a good or service and you have accepted my cash and then fail to deliver what I paid for you have breached our agreement. If it is accidental, especially if it is for reasons beyond your control, then it is a bad thing, but certainly forgivable. But if I give you money, you accept the money and then say "Nope, I'm not going to deliver for a while because you said something I didn't like", that is as unethical as disabling a service I have paid for.
Ebook available directly from O'Reilly
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
Following the affiliate link in the review will take you to Amazon. They don't provide a Kindle version.
But if you go to O'Reilly's site you can get it in various DRM-free formats for your reader of choice.
And yeah, I would prefer the paper version of a cookbook too. I just found it ironic that the only way to get a version for your Kindle was to NOT go to Amazon.
Actually, there is a lot of work going on to bring these sorts of systems to logistics. Autonomous Logistics systems on the platforms to report back fuel, ammunition and maintenance requirements; systems to automate the flow of logistics requests both within and between services; software to tie the weapon system maintenance manuals directly to the procurement systems to automate ordering; program to improve visibility to facilitate smarter forward positioning of materiel, etc.
Some of this is fielded, but a lot of it is still under development. But don't say "never".
"Over-enthusiastic Linux activists" did not DDOS Sys-Con-- "DDOS goons" did. The "Distributed" in in Distributed Denial-of-service implies a collection of zombie PC's or otherwise compromised machines. These are not the tools of a Linux activist, but rather a DDOS enthusiast. Sure, there is some overlap between the two sets, but describing the people who can launch a DDOS on short notice as "Linux activists" rather than "DDOS goons" is like summarizing Bill Gates as "a college drop-out" or Michael Jordan as "a pretty good golfer". Both may be true, but do not reflect their dominant characteristics.
And it is not hard to "find the high ground" at all. Just look for the folks condemning O'Gara's behavior without sending death threats or starting DDOS attacks. There are lot more of us here on the high ground than down in the swamp.
Note that none of those sources says 1 billion, but the first two say 250 million in the UK based on a study, so it would not be unreasonable to assume a billion in the US. The final link reports only 100 million killed by cats, according the National Audubon society. The biggest culprit according to them? Glass windows, which kill up to 900 million birds a year.
But that last site is from "Consultants to the Wind Power Industry on birds and other wildlife issues." So they may have reason to slant things one way or another.
I have no idea why I am even reading this article, let alone posting to it.
The slippery-slope fallacy only applies if you can't show that the final premise can be reasonably derived from the initial assertion. I believe I established that it can in my original post, but let me clarify my argument.
It is reasonable to assume that if this law is passed, then the XXAA will sue Kazaa and the other services that are clearly primarily engaged in supporting copyright violation. It is also likely that they will win. This second assertion is just my opinion, but I belive it likely in face of the "reasomnable man" standard in the bill.
It is also reasonable to assume that at least some of the Kazaa users will want to continue their activities after their primary venues are gone. Some of them will almost certainly use BitTorrent.
BitTorrent is already used to facilitate the trade of copyrighted works. I can't imagine the XXAA NOT wanting to shut them down particularly after they take out the "low hanging fruit" and users start to migrate to systems that were previously primarliy legitimate.
Actually, forget the slope, you can skip right to the conclusion without involving Kazaa. Right now, case precedent to a large extent protects BitTorrent from lawsuits. If this bill passes, that precedent will be nullified and that protection lost. Some lawyer, somewhere, will be able to convince a deep-pocketed copyright holder to go after BitTorrent; it's what they do for a living! A judge is unlikely (in my layman's opinion) to deem the case completely meritless; deeming that the "reasonable person" standard should be decided by a jury. Then, win or lose, Bram and whoever else gets dragged into the case is stuck with legal costs.
Sounds reasonably fair to me. It's not an end-all "P2P is evil and must be stopped" bill. It's a method to keep out the more dangerous offenders. For example, BitTorrent should be immune to prosecution under this law because its main intended purpose is to lighten the hit on the download of new versions of legal software, specifically Linux distributions.
This bill could easily kill BitTorrent, or more specifically ruin the lives of the people who developed it. And probably will. Here's the scenario:
The RIAA/MPAA first goes after Kazaa and other software and services of that sort. Once they take out the easy targets, they will inevitably start going after the more innocent software. They more or less have to, or the users booted from Kazaa will just use the next easiest system. Eventually, they are bound to get to BitTorrent.
Now, BitTorrent has plenty of non-infringing users; certainly a higher percentage than Kazaa. But there would be sufficient grounds to bring a case, and a judge is probably not going to throw out a case that hinges on what a "reasonable person would find". That's exactly the sort of decision that it, in theory, best made by a jury. Once it makes it to a jury trial, the developers start to run into real legal costs and probably go broke even if they win. And winning is not a foregone conclusion; counting on a jury to reasonable apply a reasonable person standard is definitely a crapshoot.
Come on, we have seen this dozens of times. The big fish don't have to win the lawsuits they bring to crush the little fish. Previously, BitTorrent's protection came from case law decided when a big fish went after, say, a medium fish that fought back and won. If this bill becomes law, it will nullify that protection. I hope the BitTorrent developers aren't from the US!
So, what happens if I have an unsecured wifi in my house & my neighbor has one in their house? Is all this stuff going to start discovering each other? If I have the new airGizmo, is my stereo going to start playing tunes from their iPod?
Rendezvous will only find devices on the same network. If the wifi networks are unsecured, you and your neighbor certainly could join each others networks, but that doesn't mean you have to.
Although now that I think about it, if both of your DHCP servers were down you might join the same adhoc network and see each others Rendezvous goodies...
It makes little difference; if you both have unsecured networks, you can already access each others devices. All that Rendezvous does in this case is save you an nmap.
I don't need Apple's own SuperDrives any more to use iDVD
Where do you get that? The iDVD web page still has a "*Burning DVDs requires an Apple SuperDrive." footnote. I would not feel at all ripped off about having to pay for future revisions of iLife if they added this feature.
Just another anecdote about Weather Underground... I started using it when I saw that it was what the folks at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) use. Those folks know their weather. I now pay the $5/year to avoid the ads; this also gets you forecasts and/or severe weather alerts by email.
SuperDrive is only available on the Powerbooks, plus dual monitor support instead of just mirroring. My wife cares about the first feature, I care about the second, so I guess we are saving our pennies a bit longer.
The Segway does have a battery guage, and is also designed to safely shut down when the battery goes beneath a certain level.
My guess is that they tested this feature on either fresh or properly maintained batteries. Once It got out in the real world and people started abusing the batteries (letting them run all the way down, etc), the batteries no longer performed as the software expected. The battery probably falls from "somewhat low" to "dump you on your butt" too quickly.
I volunteered to do the software upgrade on ours (my companies). No go, but at least I will get to watch the tech and see what this thing looks like inside.
My understanding is that EMTALA only applies if one has "entered into "provider agreements" under which they will accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program for services provided to beneficiaries of that program." (From this page).
In other words, if you want the government's money, you play by the government's rules. That isn't slavery. I realize that you are apparently a doctor, not a lawyer, but the principle is pretty simple.
Unfortunately, they did have to do this. If they had released honest benchmarks, that show the G5's to be even slightly slower than the fastest Intel/AMD platform, the headlines in todays computer rags would be:
FASTEST MACS STILL SLOWER THAN INTEL
Neither consumers nor the press is as enlightened as you regarding the relative unimportance of raw performance in these days of abundant CPU power.
That's why I try to advise them to make better life choices.
"You know, you could probably make the same money working retail, and it is probably healthier than sitting around all day calling people. And I'm SURE it is much better for your karma. Do you WANT to come back in your next life as a vole?"
Oddly, they seem to respond to this by hanging up without a thank you. Future voles, all of 'em.
Combine this with the fact that SCO is still selling their Linux products here, even after claiming that they pulled it off the market. So they are still distributing it under the GPL (which is the only way they ALLOWED to distribute it), right now. They continue to distribute it even after becoming aware of SCO IP in the kernel. IANAL; but if I were I'm sure I would find this pretty useful in a case against them, since it kills the "we didn't know that our recently acquired UNIX IP was in the kernel, and we pulled it off the market as soon as we did" defense.
Mods, I think the parent post deserves another bump.
Most companies do not have near the pull on IBM that SCO does, because IBM does need to use some intellectual property that SCO has a very clear claim to-- the parts of SVR4 that are in AIX. If SCO manages to get a judge to affirm that IBM can't ship any more AIX after their current license expires in June, IBM has big problems.
That's why SCO has the balls to file a lawsuit they will probably eventually lose; they have serious torque over IBM via the licensing for AIX. Few other companies have that going for them, so IBM could buy SCO (or worse, settle before resolving the larger Linux issues) without setting a precedent that many other companies could use.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the functional difference between interrupted service and undelivered service is obvious. But the ethical difference is slim: If I have paid you for a good or service and you have accepted my cash and then fail to deliver what I paid for you have breached our agreement. If it is accidental, especially if it is for reasons beyond your control, then it is a bad thing, but certainly forgivable. But if I give you money, you accept the money and then say "Nope, I'm not going to deliver for a while because you said something I didn't like", that is as unethical as disabling a service I have paid for.
Following the affiliate link in the review will take you to Amazon. They don't provide a Kindle version. But if you go to O'Reilly's site you can get it in various DRM-free formats for your reader of choice. And yeah, I would prefer the paper version of a cookbook too. I just found it ironic that the only way to get a version for your Kindle was to NOT go to Amazon.
Actually, there is a lot of work going on to bring these sorts of systems to logistics. Autonomous Logistics systems on the platforms to report back fuel, ammunition and maintenance requirements; systems to automate the flow of logistics requests both within and between services; software to tie the weapon system maintenance manuals directly to the procurement systems to automate ordering; program to improve visibility to facilitate smarter forward positioning of materiel, etc.
Some of this is fielded, but a lot of it is still under development. But don't say "never".
Okay, "less finage", Grammar Boy.
"Over-enthusiastic Linux activists" did not DDOS Sys-Con-- "DDOS goons" did. The "Distributed" in in Distributed Denial-of-service implies a collection of zombie PC's or otherwise compromised machines. These are not the tools of a Linux activist, but rather a DDOS enthusiast. Sure, there is some overlap between the two sets, but describing the people who can launch a DDOS on short notice as "Linux activists" rather than "DDOS goons" is like summarizing Bill Gates as "a college drop-out" or Michael Jordan as "a pretty good golfer". Both may be true, but do not reflect their dominant characteristics.
And it is not hard to "find the high ground" at all. Just look for the folks condemning O'Gara's behavior without sending death threats or starting DDOS attacks. There are lot more of us here on the high ground than down in the swamp.
Particularly because you live in Wisconsin!
Obi Wan lied to you. PDF IS your father.
Advertisers take note.
here and here.
But this is my favorite: What Kills Bird.
Note that none of those sources says 1 billion, but the first two say 250 million in the UK based on a study, so it would not be unreasonable to assume a billion in the US. The final link reports only 100 million killed by cats, according the National Audubon society. The biggest culprit according to them? Glass windows, which kill up to 900 million birds a year.
But that last site is from "Consultants to the Wind Power Industry on birds and other wildlife issues." So they may have reason to slant things one way or another.
I have no idea why I am even reading this article, let alone posting to it.
It is reasonable to assume that if this law is passed, then the XXAA will sue Kazaa and the other services that are clearly primarily engaged in supporting copyright violation. It is also likely that they will win. This second assertion is just my opinion, but I belive it likely in face of the "reasomnable man" standard in the bill.
It is also reasonable to assume that at least some of the Kazaa users will want to continue their activities after their primary venues are gone. Some of them will almost certainly use BitTorrent.
BitTorrent is already used to facilitate the trade of copyrighted works. I can't imagine the XXAA NOT wanting to shut them down particularly after they take out the "low hanging fruit" and users start to migrate to systems that were previously primarliy legitimate.
Actually, forget the slope, you can skip right to the conclusion without involving Kazaa. Right now, case precedent to a large extent protects BitTorrent from lawsuits. If this bill passes, that precedent will be nullified and that protection lost. Some lawyer, somewhere, will be able to convince a deep-pocketed copyright holder to go after BitTorrent; it's what they do for a living! A judge is unlikely (in my layman's opinion) to deem the case completely meritless; deeming that the "reasonable person" standard should be decided by a jury. Then, win or lose, Bram and whoever else gets dragged into the case is stuck with legal costs.
This bill could easily kill BitTorrent, or more specifically ruin the lives of the people who developed it. And probably will. Here's the scenario:
The RIAA/MPAA first goes after Kazaa and other software and services of that sort. Once they take out the easy targets, they will inevitably start going after the more innocent software. They more or less have to, or the users booted from Kazaa will just use the next easiest system. Eventually, they are bound to get to BitTorrent.
Now, BitTorrent has plenty of non-infringing users; certainly a higher percentage than Kazaa. But there would be sufficient grounds to bring a case, and a judge is probably not going to throw out a case that hinges on what a "reasonable person would find". That's exactly the sort of decision that it, in theory, best made by a jury. Once it makes it to a jury trial, the developers start to run into real legal costs and probably go broke even if they win. And winning is not a foregone conclusion; counting on a jury to reasonable apply a reasonable person standard is definitely a crapshoot.
Come on, we have seen this dozens of times. The big fish don't have to win the lawsuits they bring to crush the little fish. Previously, BitTorrent's protection came from case law decided when a big fish went after, say, a medium fish that fought back and won. If this bill becomes law, it will nullify that protection. I hope the BitTorrent developers aren't from the US!
Rendezvous will only find devices on the same network. If the wifi networks are unsecured, you and your neighbor certainly could join each others networks, but that doesn't mean you have to.
Although now that I think about it, if both of your DHCP servers were down you might join the same adhoc network and see each others Rendezvous goodies...
It makes little difference; if you both have unsecured networks, you can already access each others devices. All that Rendezvous does in this case is save you an nmap.
You made that up! Everyone knows there is no February 29th!
Where do you get that? The iDVD web page still has a "*Burning DVDs requires an Apple SuperDrive." footnote. I would not feel at all ripped off about having to pay for future revisions of iLife if they added this feature.
For a partial solution, see SynCE.
No affiliation, just a satisfied yadda yadda.
SuperDrive is only available on the Powerbooks, plus dual monitor support instead of just mirroring. My wife cares about the first feature, I care about the second, so I guess we are saving our pennies a bit longer.
My guess is that they tested this feature on either fresh or properly maintained batteries. Once It got out in the real world and people started abusing the batteries (letting them run all the way down, etc), the batteries no longer performed as the software expected. The battery probably falls from "somewhat low" to "dump you on your butt" too quickly.
I volunteered to do the software upgrade on ours (my companies). No go, but at least I will get to watch the tech and see what this thing looks like inside.
My understanding is that EMTALA only applies if one has "entered into "provider agreements" under which they will accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program for services provided to beneficiaries of that program." (From this page).
In other words, if you want the government's money, you play by the government's rules. That isn't slavery. I realize that you are apparently a doctor, not a lawyer, but the principle is pretty simple.
Read your first line.
Read your second line.
Does not the second contradict the first? It sounds like he has come up with not one, but two ways to "ship" the product.
FASTEST MACS STILL SLOWER THAN INTEL
Neither consumers nor the press is as enlightened as you regarding the relative unimportance of raw performance in these days of abundant CPU power.
Wow. I had no idea that was still there in modern Windowses. I'm tempted to type g=c800:5 to see if it will low level format my disk. But I won't.
"You know, you could probably make the same money working retail, and it is probably healthier than sitting around all day calling people. And I'm SURE it is much better for your karma. Do you WANT to come back in your next life as a vole?"
Oddly, they seem to respond to this by hanging up without a thank you. Future voles, all of 'em.
Mods, I think the parent post deserves another bump.
That's why SCO has the balls to file a lawsuit they will probably eventually lose; they have serious torque over IBM via the licensing for AIX. Few other companies have that going for them, so IBM could buy SCO (or worse, settle before resolving the larger Linux issues) without setting a precedent that many other companies could use.