...Disney, Viacom, or Time Warner sounds like a real public service to me. Seems improbable, though. More likely they would make some of the pay services of whatever outfit they bought free to their subscribers. That might squeak y the antitrust "regulators", as well as actually being commercially feasible.
And if I don't give up, and we go to trial? And the judge finds out what you did? Are you really willing to risk it? Even if it doesn't come out for years?
> What's to keep me (aside from non-technical disciplinary stuff) from > downloading documents that have unfavorable rulings to patet troll companies, > then modifying them to make it look like the precident is different, and > uploading them to RECAP?
a) Lawyers will only use unofficial sources like RECAP for research. Material that they intend to use in court will be downloaded from PACER and thus you will be caught.
b) Judges have no reason not to use PACER for everything since they don't pay the fees and do need to be sure they are looking at official versions. Thus you will be caught again.
However, this will encourage lawyers on small budgets to do much more wide-ranging research, will allow penurious litigants to have access to court records, and allow the general public to more easily follow cases.
PACER gets its fee for every page downloaded from it. The material is public domain. You could go down to the courthouse, photograph the pages, and put them up on the Web without paying a penny. This project reduces the load on PACER in proportion to the reduction in PACER revenue. What's wrong with that? And why do you assume that only the rich need Federal court documents?
> Even if we have a perfect kernel, it won't insulate us from bugs in the > software running on top of that kernel, so do we really gain much?
Since a kernel crash kills all your applications and background processes, kills your network connection, requires you to reboot, and can scribble anywhere on the disk, yes.
...(all running Windows for AR of course) a few clever hackers will make themselves invisible [1]. A system that can add to reality can subtract from it as well.
[1] Except to old people, but everyone knows they hallucinate.
Almost all of your users are going to either use trivial passwords, write their passwords down, or forget them. They can no more remember complex passwords than they can multiply three digit numbers in their heads. You are proposing to fire them for failing to do the impossible.
Instead encourage them to do so and teach them to properly manage them. There are many possibilities: password-safe programs, little black books to be kept in the user's wallet, lockable desk drawers, elctronic one-time pads . . . (even post-it notes on monitors in some circumstances). First, however, you must accept that the average user is never going to memorize any password more complex than a minor variation on the name of his favorite pet. Get that idea out of your head.
> Content can be delivered electronically cheaply, but its delivery is > currently expensive because a handful of companies have cornered the > delivery.
Nonsense. Computers and bandwidth are cheap and the software is free. You can get hosting for your site for as little as $5/month. Any musician who wants to can put his stuff up on the Web and deliver away at whatever price he sees fit to charge.
He has a contract with Amazon. Evidently it does not require Amazon to provide him with information on Kindle users who subscribe to his paper through Amazon. Now he wants to renegotiate the contract. Maybe he will get what he wants and maybe he won't but he isn't "entitled" to it unless the contract says so.
Slashdot Mirror
...Disney, Viacom, or Time Warner sounds like a real public service to me. Seems improbable, though. More likely they would make some of the pay services of whatever outfit they bought free to their subscribers. That might squeak y the antitrust "regulators", as well as actually being commercially feasible.
> "What would an earthquake feel like from an airplane?"
It wouldn't unless the airplane was on the ground. Whyever would anyone think it would?
> Microsoft is planning to build "Microsoft PC" products that are Microsoft
> Software+Hardware.
We can only hope they are that stupid.
And if I don't give up, and we go to trial? And the judge finds out what you did? Are you really willing to risk it? Even if it doesn't come out for years?
> What's to keep me (aside from non-technical disciplinary stuff) from
> downloading documents that have unfavorable rulings to patet troll companies,
> then modifying them to make it look like the precident is different, and
> uploading them to RECAP?
a) Lawyers will only use unofficial sources like RECAP for research. Material that they intend to use in court will be downloaded from PACER and thus you will be caught.
b) Judges have no reason not to use PACER for everything since they don't pay the fees and do need to be sure they are looking at official versions. Thus you will be caught again.
However, this will encourage lawyers on small budgets to do much more wide-ranging research, will allow penurious litigants to have access to court records, and allow the general public to more easily follow cases.
PACER gets its fee for every page downloaded from it. The material is public domain. You could go down to the courthouse, photograph the pages, and put them up on the Web without paying a penny. This project reduces the load on PACER in proportion to the reduction in PACER revenue. What's wrong with that? And why do you assume that only the rich need Federal court documents?
You also want a "hold harmless and indemnify" clause in the contract. It will cost you.
> Even if we have a perfect kernel, it won't insulate us from bugs in the
> software running on top of that kernel, so do we really gain much?
Since a kernel crash kills all your applications and background processes, kills your network connection, requires you to reboot, and can scribble anywhere on the disk, yes.
"Beware of bugs in the above code. I have only proven it correct, not tested it."
"90%"? Polyanna.
> Likely there will be no repercussions whatever.
Right. You'll whine and whine, but you'll keep right on buying the stuff.
> Go here [macromedia.com] to see all the flash cookies... ...that Adobe wants you to see (and that their buggy software can detect).
...(all running Windows for AR of course) a few clever hackers will make themselves invisible [1]. A system that can add to reality can subtract from it as well.
[1] Except to old people, but everyone knows they hallucinate.
Here you go.
n/t
IT is dead. Windmills are the future. At least, this week. Next week it may be back to biofuels.
Only half the time.
Almost all of your users are going to either use trivial passwords, write their passwords down, or forget them. They can no more remember complex passwords than they can multiply three digit numbers in their heads. You are proposing to fire them for failing to do the impossible.
> Then you'll find them in people's wallets...
Which is, in most cases, a fine place for them to be.
Instead encourage them to do so and teach them to properly manage them. There are many possibilities: password-safe programs, little black books to be kept in the user's wallet, lockable desk drawers, elctronic one-time pads . . . (even post-it notes on monitors in some circumstances). First, however, you must accept that the average user is never going to memorize any password more complex than a minor variation on the name of his favorite pet. Get that idea out of your head.
Fortunately, there are a few that can't have it.
> Anyway, seen from an economic sense, can't decide whom to support.
What to "support"? It appears to be a private dispute over the terms of a private contract between two private companies.
> Content can be delivered electronically cheaply, but its delivery is
> currently expensive because a handful of companies have cornered the
> delivery.
Nonsense. Computers and bandwidth are cheap and the software is free. You can get hosting for your site for as little as $5/month. Any musician who wants to can put his stuff up on the Web and deliver away at whatever price he sees fit to charge.
He has a contract with Amazon. Evidently it does not require Amazon to provide him with information on Kindle users who subscribe to his paper through Amazon. Now he wants to renegotiate the contract. Maybe he will get what he wants and maybe he won't but he isn't "entitled" to it unless the contract says so.
He says he wants info on Kindle users who subscribe to his paper via Amazon. Not quite "hand over user info for all Kindle users".