I get the argument about my unlicensed copy of Win2K Pro not actually costing Microsoft anything, but are you really denying that supporting unlicensed copies (which is what this article is about) doesn't cost Microsoft anything?
The argument about your unlicensed copy of Win2K Pro not actually costing Microsoft anything was what my post was about. As I stated, I agree that Microsoft has every right to not support pirated copies (or legal copies, for that matter. It costs them bandwidth after all.)
Microsoft doesn't necessarily lose money on unlicensed copies of Windows that do not make use of their update download service. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but their assumption that every unauthorized copy is a lost sale is incorrect.
I wonder what has changed from the 1960's-80's and today. Why is it today most companies don't want to offer health insurance or pensions, or make people pay into their own private funds. What has changed?
Nowadays they actually have to pay the pensions that they promised, and they realize that they can't. So in addition to jumping through various hoops (such as declaring bankruptcy) to avoid paying the pensions that 40 years ago they committed to paying, they're doing their best to avoid making new pension "commitments".
It's just too hard to compete with companies that don't have huge amounts of pension overhead. Requiring every company in the country to have huge amounts of pension overhead isn't a solution, because then companies outside the country would eat our lunch.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the citizens of some other state voting themselves up some government-mandated pension benefits, because that's a state matter, not a federal matter. Ideally, there will be at least one state in the union for me to live in that doesn't.
Screwing things up is easy to do in a short amount of time.
Getting things done is harder, but sometimes, things can be improved simply by identifying who is screwing things up and firing them or promoting them into another department.
The wrongs that would ensue if illegally obtained evidence is allowed to be used are the same as the wrongs that are created by illegally obtained evidence.
If by "the wrongs that are created by illegally obtained evidence" you mean the results of a crime (say, the wrong created by a handgun fired at the cashier of a liquor store during the course of an armed robbery, resulting in the cashier's death); then I would argue that the wrongs are not the same at all.
If that's what I'd meant, that's what I'd say.:) "Wrongs created by illegally obtained evidence" looks like it refers to breaking the law during the course of evidence-gathering.
See your sibling poster: "wrongs that are created by illegally obtained evidence" was supposed to be "wrongs that are created by throwing out illegally obtained evidence."
The thinking runs that any wrongs that are created by illegally obtained evidence is outweighed by the wrongs that would result from abuses that would ensue if illegally obtained evidence was allowed to be used.
I think you've just described the same thing twice. The wrongs that would ensue if illegally obtained evidence is allowed to be used are the same as the wrongs that are created by illegally obtained evidence.
So...wait. Are you really trying to say I don't have the right to be free from religion?
If it were possible to be "free from religion," then we could talk about whether or not it's a right.
Taking it a step farther, it's not even possible, in a heterogenous democratic society, to be free from the effects of other peoples' religions. The beliefs of the voting population affect what laws get made. The only way to be free of the effects of other peoples' religions would be to live in a homogenous society where everybody shares your religion (or lack of religion.)
I agree. I live in a small (pop. 50K) town in Idaho; however, I work for a HUGE "business casual" corporation that set up shop here. I have gauged ear lobes and tats on my arm and the back of my calf. I've never had anyone give me flack for either.
I've been running Linux on my desktop full time for a couple of months now, and it's been a very positive experience.
Whether your grandmother has difficulty installing her new sound card or not doesn't affect my experience.
It's plausible to say that self-administering a Linux desktop requires some amount of expertise and willingness to delve into config files on occasion. For those of us who have that ability and willingness, Linux on the desktop works great.
Re:5.4 amd64 is seriously broken thread-wise
on
FreeBSD 5.4 Review
·
· Score: 1
yes, technically EM64T is the equivalent of x86-64.
it might not be as microarchitecturally efficient, but it is 100% compatible (as far as i know).
There are small differences. The ubuntu apt repository gives me the option of installing an amd64-generic kernel, an amd64-k8 kernel and an amd64-xeon kernel.
You can even go one better: make the paper record machine readable, and use an electronic tallying system like the ones already in use to count the paper votes as they come in. Then compare the two electronic results at the end of the night, and if there's a discrepancy, you know that you need to investigate.
It's important too to have the machines made by different groups, and to be sure that they meet all the usual requirements for security and whatnot.
This method would be more expensive, but it would provide a check against one electronic voting machine provider who gives erroneous results. It also leaves you with the paper trail at the end of the day that you can count by hand if you suspect that both voting machines are inaccurate.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Wouldn't putting it in the public domain be better for reference implementations like that?
Probably. Other than the copyright notice, what's the difference between the BSD license and the public domain?
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
A GNU license creates a situation where developers cannot merge published code with their proprietary code
No, that situation is created by existing copyright law. The GPL chooses to not address that situation.
Yes, the RIAA targets uploaders. But how do you differentiate uploaders from downloaders on a P2P network where you become an uploader (of specific chunks) the moment you start downloading? And when you finish downloading the file, most people leave it shared by default and you are now an uploader?
Their answer is simple: everybody in that scenario is an uploader.
I don't care how good picture and sound quality are, f2f won't be replaced. No amount of video wizardry can replace flesh and blood...
In my experience, cheap videoconferencing technology isn't about replacing flesh and blood, it's about replacing the telephone, or replacing no contact at all. A videoconference has lots more personal contact than a teleconference or no conference at all.
It should also be noted that the person claiming controvesy is also charging $49.00 for the "research" he has written. Do people buy these things?
Well, if a small fraction of people actually buy things that are advertised by spam, then maybe a small fraction of people are willing to pay $49 for a web article.
I have to admit that I'm tempted to throw up a site with a couple essays just to see if anybody would actually pay me $49 to read them.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument about your unlicensed copy of Win2K Pro not actually costing Microsoft anything was what my post was about. As I stated, I agree that Microsoft has every right to not support pirated copies (or legal copies, for that matter. It costs them bandwidth after all.)
Microsoft doesn't necessarily lose money on unlicensed copies of Windows that do not make use of their update download service. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but their assumption that every unauthorized copy is a lost sale is incorrect.
We do?
Cite?
(I don't disagree with the rest of your post.)
Do you mean to imply that someone who thinks NAT and firewalls are a good idea is an idiot? (I realize that's not what you actually said.)
Nowadays they actually have to pay the pensions that they promised, and they realize that they can't. So in addition to jumping through various hoops (such as declaring bankruptcy) to avoid paying the pensions that 40 years ago they committed to paying, they're doing their best to avoid making new pension "commitments".
It's just too hard to compete with companies that don't have huge amounts of pension overhead. Requiring every company in the country to have huge amounts of pension overhead isn't a solution, because then companies outside the country would eat our lunch.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the citizens of some other state voting themselves up some government-mandated pension benefits, because that's a state matter, not a federal matter. Ideally, there will be at least one state in the union for me to live in that doesn't.
You must be new here.
(Hint to mods: this is funny, because it consists of a slashdot cliché. Those are always funny.)
Getting things done is harder, but sometimes, things can be improved simply by identifying who is screwing things up and firing them or promoting them into another department.
If that's what I'd meant, that's what I'd say. :) "Wrongs created by illegally obtained evidence" looks like it refers to breaking the law during the course of evidence-gathering.
See your sibling poster: "wrongs that are created by illegally obtained evidence" was supposed to be "wrongs that are created by throwing out illegally obtained evidence."
I think you've just described the same thing twice. The wrongs that would ensue if illegally obtained evidence is allowed to be used are the same as the wrongs that are created by illegally obtained evidence.
It's been great.
Why do you assume that the previous poster assumes that IM keeps logs?
How would a division of regular troops fit on it?
Or get there, for that matter?
No, regular troops would be insufficient. It would require naval or airborne troops of some sort.
If somebody's willing to violate someone else's human rights, then they're probably willing to violate someone else's copy rights.
If it were possible to be "free from religion," then we could talk about whether or not it's a right.
Taking it a step farther, it's not even possible, in a heterogenous democratic society, to be free from the effects of other peoples' religions. The beliefs of the voting population affect what laws get made. The only way to be free of the effects of other peoples' religions would be to live in a homogenous society where everybody shares your religion (or lack of religion.)
Maybe they're afraid of you.
I've been running Linux on my desktop full time for a couple of months now, and it's been a very positive experience.
Whether your grandmother has difficulty installing her new sound card or not doesn't affect my experience.
It's plausible to say that self-administering a Linux desktop requires some amount of expertise and willingness to delve into config files on occasion. For those of us who have that ability and willingness, Linux on the desktop works great.
it might not be as microarchitecturally efficient, but it is 100% compatible (as far as i know).
There are small differences. The ubuntu apt repository gives me the option of installing an amd64-generic kernel, an amd64-k8 kernel and an amd64-xeon kernel.
It's important too to have the machines made by different groups, and to be sure that they meet all the usual requirements for security and whatnot.
This method would be more expensive, but it would provide a check against one electronic voting machine provider who gives erroneous results. It also leaves you with the paper trail at the end of the day that you can count by hand if you suspect that both voting machines are inaccurate.
Probably. Other than the copyright notice, what's the difference between the BSD license and the public domain?
No, that situation is created by existing copyright law. The GPL chooses to not address that situation.
No, that's not necessarily ok either.
Their answer is simple: everybody in that scenario is an uploader.
In my experience, cheap videoconferencing technology isn't about replacing flesh and blood, it's about replacing the telephone, or replacing no contact at all. A videoconference has lots more personal contact than a teleconference or no conference at all.
Could you clarify that? I'm not seeing it from your numbers:
Laptop hda: 36.20 MB/sec
Laptop hdc: 33.52 MB/sec
Server hda: 44.51 MB/sec
Server hdb: 33.91 MB/sec
If your server hdb is the brand-new Maxtor drive, that's an improvement of only about 7%.
In contrast, the server hda drive is 23% faster than the laptop hda. (And I'm no expert, but 44 MB/sec sounds pretty good for a hard disk.)
Well, if a small fraction of people actually buy things that are advertised by spam, then maybe a small fraction of people are willing to pay $49 for a web article.
I have to admit that I'm tempted to throw up a site with a couple essays just to see if anybody would actually pay me $49 to read them.
Since I quoted properly, and you complained anyway, proper quoting is clearly insufficient.