This is sensible. The sum of swap and real memory should exceed the largest amount of virtual memory you ever expect to need. On Linux it is desireable (but not necessary) to always have a little swap.
> The first 20 pages of the decision, which are all about legal standing, jurisdiction, > and overbreadth, made my eyes glaze over.
So legal stuff makes your eyes glaze over and yet you are going to give us your legal opinion. Right.
> I'm not analyzing those at all except to point out that on most of those issues, the > lower court came to exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the Virginia Supreme > Court, and there is no reason to think that the higher court is any more likely to be > "The first 20 pages of the decision, which are all about legal standing, jurisdiction, and overbreadth, made my eyes glaze over. I'm not analyzing those at all except to point out that on most of those issues, the lower court came to exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the Virginia Supreme Court, and there is no reason to think that the higher court is any more likely to be "correct" than the lower court (even granting the assumption that there is an objectively "correct" answer to these questions). correct" than the lower court (even granting the assumption that there is an > objectively "correct" answer to these questions).
The Virginia Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on matters of Virginia state law. Where Virginia state law is concerned what the Virginia Supreme Court says is "objectively correct".
If the court had upheld the conviction then the defendant could appeal to Federal court on the grounds that the law violates the First Amendment. However, since the court overturned the conviction the state has no grounds for an appeal to Federal court because there is no Federal question.
I agree that there may be flaws in the court's reasoning, but the nearest thing to an appeal is for the state to ask the Virginia Supreme Court to re-hear the case.
> Are we in an unusual zone so we get unusual results?
If the universe is large enough there could be many such zones. If perhaps 10% of the mass in the universe is in such zones our being in one would not be particularly improbable.
We need not be at the exact center. Closer to the center than to the edge would probably suffice.
Nor does ours need to be the only bubble: there could be billions of them. Thus we need not be unique: just not quite average (but then, being perfectly average would itself be unlikely).
> Say they launched the DOS from Sweden and took out all the devices in the first hop, > that doesn't mean, everyone else in the world will not be able to reach me.
In fact all it means is that they've DOSed themselves and maybe a couple of neighbors.
(Note: I am commenting on SL1200MKII's comment, not on the subject of the purported attact.)
As long as these "cloud" services remain incompatible there is no "cloud": just a bunch of competing timesharing services. There will be no "cloud" until you can switch your "excess load" from one provider to another with complete transparency.
> Suing the original developers might be an option.
Not if they were employees of the company now trying to use the code. In the US an employer's only recourse against an imcompetent employee is to fire him.
> This is flat out negligence.
Yes, the company was negligent in allowing this to happen. Perhaps some managers need to be fired.
> By threating to do so, these developers might be willing "find" the missing source > code.
I saw nothing in the article about deliberate malicious sabotage. That's what you have to be prepared to prove.
> I think this is one instance in which the FSF should go for a little more than > compliance. (I would really love to see GMU sue Reuters on behalf of the FSF > for a cash settlement.)
Whatever gave you the idea that the FSF owns the copyright on MySQL?
Have you read the license? I see nothing in it that would not be enforceable under UCC provided that the university agreed to it and I doubt that they could convincingly claim they didn't even in a UCC state. GMU isn't some clueless consumer clicking "Agree" after being confused by the legalese.
While they are probably better off with a jury for the reasons you give it's a pretty weak reed. Yes, they do stand a better chance of confusing a jury than a judge but the other side has lawyers too and the issues aren't all that complicated.
Slashdot Mirror
> ...the void would need to be large enough to encompass many galaxies.
Yes. Many clusters of galaxies, in fact.
Unless you have unusual requirements (which you should have told HP about) that should work fine.
This is sensible. The sum of swap and real memory should exceed the largest amount of virtual memory you ever expect to need. On Linux it is desireable (but not necessary) to always have a little swap.
Or maybe they will call it the Black Cloud. Will it indicate a crash with the Blue Cloud of Death?
If a galaxy is too far away to see any Ia supernovae in then we no data on its distance, not incorrect data.
Type Ia supernovae (which are identifiable by their spectra) are all of the same intrinsic brightness.
> ...our known universe is a vacuum bubble in the matter?
No. We live in a region (an extremely arge region) where matter is slightly less dense than average. There may be many other such regions.
> ...it overturns other assumptions...
Which ones?
> Is that our world is nothing more than a quark in another world
The notion that the world is a subatomic particle in a larger universe goes back to 1930's science fiction.
> The first 20 pages of the decision, which are all about legal standing, jurisdiction,
> and overbreadth, made my eyes glaze over.
So legal stuff makes your eyes glaze over and yet you are going to give us your legal opinion. Right.
> I'm not analyzing those at all except to point out that on most of those issues, the
> lower court came to exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the Virginia Supreme
> Court, and there is no reason to think that the higher court is any more likely to be
> "The first 20 pages of the decision, which are all about legal standing, jurisdiction, and overbreadth, made my eyes glaze over. I'm not analyzing those at all except to point out that on most of those issues, the lower court came to exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the Virginia Supreme Court, and there is no reason to think that the higher court is any more likely to be "correct" than the lower court (even granting the assumption that there is an objectively "correct" answer to these questions). correct" than the lower court (even granting the assumption that there is an
> objectively "correct" answer to these questions).
The Virginia Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on matters of Virginia state law. Where Virginia state law is concerned what the Virginia Supreme Court says is "objectively correct".
If the court had upheld the conviction then the defendant could appeal to Federal court on the grounds that the law violates the First Amendment. However, since the court overturned the conviction the state has no grounds for an appeal to Federal court because there is no Federal question.
I agree that there may be flaws in the court's reasoning, but the nearest thing to an appeal is for the state to ask the Virginia Supreme Court to re-hear the case.
> ...which may enable the state to win on appeal.
This is the Virginia state supreme court ruling against Virginia state law. Just who do you think they are going to appeal to?
You've got it exactly backwards.
Much larger. Much, much larger. Much, much, much larger.
> Are we in an unusual zone so we get unusual results?
If the universe is large enough there could be many such zones. If perhaps 10% of the mass in the universe is in such zones our being in one would not be particularly improbable.
We need not be at the exact center. Closer to the center than to the edge would probably suffice.
Nor does ours need to be the only bubble: there could be billions of them. Thus we need not be unique: just not quite average (but then, being perfectly average would itself be unlikely).
It has never been demonstrated that very many of these systems are on the Internet. Let's see some evidence that they are before we panic.
> Say they launched the DOS from Sweden and took out all the devices in the first hop,
> that doesn't mean, everyone else in the world will not be able to reach me.
In fact all it means is that they've DOSed themselves and maybe a couple of neighbors.
(Note: I am commenting on SL1200MKII's comment, not on the subject of the purported attact.)
"Timesharing service" is available.
They want their timesharing back.
As long as these "cloud" services remain incompatible there is no "cloud": just a bunch of competing timesharing services. There will be no "cloud" until you can switch your "excess load" from one provider to another with complete transparency.
I'm not holding my breath.
> Suing the original developers might be an option.
Not if they were employees of the company now trying to use the code. In the US an employer's only recourse against an imcompetent employee is to fire him.
> This is flat out negligence.
Yes, the company was negligent in allowing this to happen. Perhaps some managers need to be fired.
> By threating to do so, these developers might be willing "find" the missing source
> code.
I saw nothing in the article about deliberate malicious sabotage. That's what you have to be prepared to prove.
> Jesus, if you need a button to make sure your networking devices are configured
> correctly, I truly hope you don't actually manage a network.
Then you truly hope that most of those who do manage networks didn't. And so do I.
> I think this is one instance in which the FSF should go for a little more than
> compliance. (I would really love to see GMU sue Reuters on behalf of the FSF
> for a cash settlement.)
Whatever gave you the idea that the FSF owns the copyright on MySQL?
Have you read the license? I see nothing in it that would not be enforceable under UCC provided that the university agreed to it and I doubt that they could convincingly claim they didn't even in a UCC state. GMU isn't some clueless consumer clicking "Agree" after being confused by the legalese.
While they are probably better off with a jury for the reasons you give it's a pretty weak reed. Yes, they do stand a better chance of confusing a jury than a judge but the other side has lawyers too and the issues aren't all that complicated.
> I wonder why they don't ask google to stop using their trademark?
Because Google is not infringing it. A trademark is not a copyright.