Either that or he drives on typical US roads where the speed limit is set to 85th percentile. A 55 is safe at 65, a 65 is safe at 75. There is a good reason why people drive 75 on most 65s, and that is because it's the limit you can consistently drive at without doing anything special.
The difference between clean record and "bad record" is clean record probably gets people upset by driving so slow, and "bad record" drove in areas where the people who run the police dept. prefer to give tickets than fight crime.
BTW, issuing tickets is about the most unsafe job a cop can have. You have to worry about chasing someone, then after you pull them over, you have to hope they don't try to hurt/kill you, and the whole time you get to worry about getting hit by other traffic. Can't forget the amount of driving hazard a marked car creates for everyone else, either. People slamming on brakes suddenly, the massive block of traffic, and the immediate and substantial increase in speed the moment the cruiser is out of sight. Real fun, and defintely not worth it to curb the horrendous criminal activity that driving a little faster really is.
You're very silly. This wouldn't work at all, and is unnecessary. It is already illegal to assault or murder someone. Enforce what is already there and things work much better. Also, mandatory minimum is a ridiculous idea for sentancing someone. Now that means a jury gets to decide if you broke the law, if the law should apply, but also whether you deserve the minimum sentance. Great idea, now people will go free because a five year sentance, or a murder 2/3 charge is too much.
You system would simply force people to run from the police at every opportunity, and not to bother getting a license but drive anyway. Much like they do now and for similar reasons.
You don't and you don't need to. The point here is to put the content in the most useful form. If you simply put it in HTML, and follow the spec, you "magically" have a document that can be read on any platform, by blind and low-vision people, easily parsable by computers, etc. Locking the content into PDF makes it needlessly more difficult to access and severely limits any for of alternative display or reading.
Just remembered the other thing that got to me about Java. One of the reasons I don't want to install Java on my desktops.
Because of everything running through the VM, by installing a JRE you lose some of the control over a corporate desktop. People can run all sorts of wonderful things that you don't want them to. You let the VM run, or you don't, so you don't even get control of what applications can now be executed on your machines.
As from the summary: "It seems a decision based largely on practical considerations -- and with a disregard for the consequences for both the rest of the free and open source software (FOSS) communities and the future of OpenOffice.org itself."
Problem is that Java is not a practical requirement. Many systems do not having Java already installed. For example, Windows, the largest potential market for OOo, does not ship with Java. Now you have to convince the user to download OOo, and then to go and download Java, and then properly install them both, and in the right order. If the screw up, things mysteriously don't work right, and OOo is garbage in the user's opinion.
If they wanted to do something practical, they could clean up their build tree, name things cleanly, and code uniformly. As an example, if they wanted Base to be Java, then fine code out the whole thing in Java. But to have Writer partially in Java and partially in C++ is quite annoying, and needlessly makes things bigger, slower, and more complicated.
I choose the best language from the set of languages that I know for a given job. I stick with that lanaguage for the project, or I code it over from the beginning in a different language. This is because doing otherwise makes your code harder to maintain, and much harder for someone else to work with to add features.
Any kernel revision. You've been able to enable swap on files instead of partitions for a very long time. I used to do that on my 486 when I was running out of memory+swap. Temporarily "dd" a file and start swapping to it.
They're the same for the paging file. Linux usually uses a partition for swap memory, though. The rationale is that it won't get fragmented and it doesn't need to deal with the VFS subsystem, so it's a little faster.
I was thinking they should spend more time making the browser not crash all the time, take less than 10 seconds to start on a 2.6GHz machine w/ 512MB RAM, perhaps not screw up horribly and stay resident after exiting the GUI.
After that, work can get done to fix the installer, and then make the installation customizable so that you can have corporate rollouts and silent installs. Maybe they can learn to use the standard installation formats that some OS' offer (like MSI on Windows).
Then work can start on making the GUI not ass slow, and perhaps the occassional native UI element. After that they can look into how to stop independantly themeing the app, and use the OS built in theme functionality.
And just in case anyone insists it's just me and this is the best piece of software ever: This is very common. Most people have this problem. Everyone I've met that uses Firefox has these problems.
Nah, you're full of it. Universities had been on the 'net for a long time by 1990. We already had UNIX out there running things. BSD had been around since 1984, and running on the Internet. Just because the WWW didn't happen until 1990 doesn't make the Internet nothing until then. I was using the Internet right around this time, too, so I don't see how Al Gore made it happen. It hadn't been called ARPANET for a while, either.
Gore had very little to do with Internet development. All he did was get things through Congress to get schools to link up with the Internet. Most engineering and tech schools already did this.
Your examples aren't compatible. You should say that if you didn't want spam, should your ISP have to expend additional resources to filter it for you.
The State is forcing a company to change it's business operations due to a morality legislation. The government isn't supposed to be in the business of what's okay for citizens to see. This is what the free market is good for: if this was a popular enough request, ISP's would market it as an optional service.
What this is, instead, is a State legislature with an agenda.
Maybe not, but as if ISP's didn't have a hard enough time trying to get common carrier status, this kinda screws them in Utah.
It's a stupid law that abuses government power. If an ISP wanted to offer this, then they would offer it. It really is something that should be done on the customer side, regardless. If people wanted something like this, they could use a service like AOL that has it built in. For everybody else, they can use something else that's reasonably priced.
You don't have to hack anything. Use one of the very large number of proxy services out there. Use Google caches, get your friend to run a proxy, run one on a school computer, etc, etc, etc. Kids find ways around most things and this will be no different. Now ISP's in Utah will just have to waste money by being forced to do this against their will.
That's what I mean, though. If there isn't DRM, and you aren't distributing copywritten content, then the DMCA wouldn't apply in this case, right?
By this process, you don't get the DRM'ed content, you get audio that you can play back without any special key, etc. So where would the DMCA copy-restriction enforcement come into play?
True enough... I posted about that somewhere else but to paraphrase:
This workaround prevents the DRM from being put in place. As a result, I think you can exercise your Fair Use rights without breaking the letter of the DMCA.
That's how I interpret this... if I'm wrong, show me, I will be better for it.:) (Seriously!)
You'd be correct if the companies were trying to serve with customers and workers. This is not the point of a company at all! They exist to serve stockholders and gain profits. The best means to maximise this is to pay your employees the least and charge the customers the most.
It doesn't really matter if they want to sell it that way or not. Prior to the horrible DMCA, it was perfectly legal to do what was necessary to break that encryption to allow your exercise your Fair Use rights.
When you purchase the content, you gain "LEGAL RIGHTS" to the content. What they intend is irrelevant; they made a sale and now I get to manipulate my property. I don't get to replicate it and hand it out, but I get to use it privately how I would like. This is completely about a corporation excercising control over a product after the sale has been completed.
This isn't "Information wants to be free", either, but "We want to be able to exercise our rights". I wouldn't want my music to be locked to myself and my unique device. I want to be able to move it, to sell it to someone else, etc. These are all legal rights, save for getting around the DRM. Well fine, if the DRM doesn't get put in place, then there wasn't DRM to work around. Problem temporarily solved without circumventing DMCA.
Now to get the DMCA thrown out and civility returned to the land.
Your comment on the music companies is absolutely correct. That is the problem, of course. We have rights guaranteed to us through the Constitution and through US and State code. In the case of Fair Use, this would be Federal code. These companies are attempting to prevent their customers from exercising these legally guaranteed rights, and that's a problem.
You're also right, unfortunately, about hte rest of the world only caring about getting their crap conveniently and nothing more. It's a real shame that they don't care about the foundations of their government and legal structure... how and why they came to exist. It would be wonderful if more people would stand up and try to fix things.
The offer shouldn't be either pay and deal with the restriction of rights, or STFU. Of course companies would love that: it gets them more profits.
As is said so many times, vote people that listen to the populace instead some artificial entity. Write your Congress-critters. Do *something* other than just accept things the way they are.
I've had a bunch of old 1GB Seagates die on me (Seagrate was nickname). I've had a *lot* of WD drives between 4GB and 60GB die.
I've had Maxtor's give me trouble with errors, but they were overheating. Better airflow fixed the problem. One of my acquaintances had trouble with a pile of 250GB Maxtors drives: heat related. He had them completely die on him though... spindles siezed.
Never had anything else die without good reason. Some newer Seagate SCSI drives died after four years of 24/7 operation, but that's expected.
Maxtor: Good luck, but they run hot and this can cause failures if you don't compensate
WD: Used to be wonderful, up to around 1.2GB. Then they got very unreliable. Seem to be fine now.
Quantum: Same as WD, but only to around 500MB.
Connor: Seemed fine, haven't seen one since 486's.
Seagate: Old drives were junk (I'm talking largely XT systems and 1GB IDE drives), new drives are great.
Fujitsu: Fine
Hitachi: Fine
IBM: Real IBM drives were good, Hitachi produced were good, WD produced were junk.
Micropolis: Haven't seen one of these in a very long time, but they were fine when I did.
Various other vendors: Crap in my experience. Especially this one Indian vendor that made single platter drives in 1/3" chassis (I can't remember the name). Had failed sectors on each one of them inside a month.
On modern systems it's not really an issue. Drives seek fast enough for it not to be noticable, and have sufficient memory to rarely need swap.
It used to be enough of an issue that in OS/2's HPFS all the FS structures were located in the middle of the partition to speed up access. It was a discernable gain in performance.
For 1 - the police could conceivably make a deal, it would just carry little legal weight. They could agree that they would not arrest and force charges if he cooperated.
Entrapment is generally only something that an agent of the state (ie: police) can do. I can encourage you to steal, but if you do it, it's your fault. If anything, I would be an accomplice even if I was the person to report you. If the police impersonated a store employee and said to go ahead and grab something and run out, that they weren't looking and they hate the place - then they encouraged you to break a law, and hence, entrapped you. Generally, it is when they urge someone to commit a crime they wouldn't have necessarily done without the intervention.
No, but it may be enough to throw out this particular case. Just because copyrighted material is available does not give you the right to then redistribute the material.
However, since the APB placed that material on a known distribution center, they should be responsible for the distribution. Perhaps this in effect means that they will be found to have authorized it for those particular items in this one incident. Perhaps only that they participated in an unauthorized distribution as the responsible party and are the party that would need to be prosecuted for those items.
It would not be found in the public domain unless they released it in such a way that they would seem to have disclaimed their rights under copyright law. Or if the highest court decided differently after it gets appealed that far.
They did support many different architectures. In addition to x86, they used to support MIPS, PowerPC, and Alpha. At one point NT was also ported to SPARC. They have WinCE support for various arch's, too, such as x86, ARM, MIPS, or SHx. WinXP Embedded dropped everything save for x86.
Their trend is to support other arch's just long enough to get third party products on their OS. Then drop support for everything except x86.
Curtailing of freedom is not worth convenience or temporary security. That's why things were put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was felt that they were necessary to keep the government in line, and allow citizens power and protection to deal with it if something went wrong.
Having the option to investigate your genetic predisposition is different from having the state abridge your freedoms due to those tendancies. The state show know as little as possible about the populace, as they have no reason to know much about them. If you have done nothing, then you have no reason to be watched or suspected. This is very unlike the popular fallacy that the innocent have nothing to hide. In fact, the innocent have as much to hide as the guilty: anything they want to.
Legitimate reason to own a.50 weapon? Special police forces and military personnelle have them. I also think you should be allowed to have tanks and fighter jets. Notice I didn't say "use", but only "have". If a revolution became necessary, that "having" would be quite useful.
Much like police carrying guns is not so they can shoot someone; it's so hopefully someone will be intimidated into surrendering. If the citizens are well armed, the state (and criminals) will have to think twice about screwing with the populace.
Or you could do it how it's really done. Charge the highest possible price that the market will bear, whether or not you make it cheaper.
Example: cost to develop software is $600,000. Production, shiopping, advertising is $1,500,000. Sale price is 50$. Volume to cover costs is 42,000 units. You know you'll sell at least 350,000 units. (I'm assuming a decently popular video game genre.) You've made $17,500,000 in revenue and $15,300,000 in profit. After 40% taxes, you have $9,945,000 in real profit. You could have likely sold another 100,000 units if you priced at 30$ instead of 50$, but at 30$ the end result is only $6,840,000.
Slashdot Mirror
Either that or he drives on typical US roads where the speed limit is set to 85th percentile. A 55 is safe at 65, a 65 is safe at 75. There is a good reason why people drive 75 on most 65s, and that is because it's the limit you can consistently drive at without doing anything special.
The difference between clean record and "bad record" is clean record probably gets people upset by driving so slow, and "bad record" drove in areas where the people who run the police dept. prefer to give tickets than fight crime.
BTW, issuing tickets is about the most unsafe job a cop can have. You have to worry about chasing someone, then after you pull them over, you have to hope they don't try to hurt/kill you, and the whole time you get to worry about getting hit by other traffic. Can't forget the amount of driving hazard a marked car creates for everyone else, either. People slamming on brakes suddenly, the massive block of traffic, and the immediate and substantial increase in speed the moment the cruiser is out of sight. Real fun, and defintely not worth it to curb the horrendous criminal activity that driving a little faster really is.
You're very silly. This wouldn't work at all, and is unnecessary. It is already illegal to assault or murder someone. Enforce what is already there and things work much better. Also, mandatory minimum is a ridiculous idea for sentancing someone. Now that means a jury gets to decide if you broke the law, if the law should apply, but also whether you deserve the minimum sentance. Great idea, now people will go free because a five year sentance, or a murder 2/3 charge is too much.
You system would simply force people to run from the police at every opportunity, and not to bother getting a license but drive anyway. Much like they do now and for similar reasons.
You don't and you don't need to. The point here is to put the content in the most useful form. If you simply put it in HTML, and follow the spec, you "magically" have a document that can be read on any platform, by blind and low-vision people, easily parsable by computers, etc. Locking the content into PDF makes it needlessly more difficult to access and severely limits any for of alternative display or reading.
Just remembered the other thing that got to me about Java. One of the reasons I don't want to install Java on my desktops.
Because of everything running through the VM, by installing a JRE you lose some of the control over a corporate desktop. People can run all sorts of wonderful things that you don't want them to. You let the VM run, or you don't, so you don't even get control of what applications can now be executed on your machines.
As from the summary: "It seems a decision based largely on practical considerations -- and with a disregard for the consequences for both the rest of the free and open source software (FOSS) communities and the future of OpenOffice.org itself."
Problem is that Java is not a practical requirement. Many systems do not having Java already installed. For example, Windows, the largest potential market for OOo, does not ship with Java. Now you have to convince the user to download OOo, and then to go and download Java, and then properly install them both, and in the right order. If the screw up, things mysteriously don't work right, and OOo is garbage in the user's opinion.
If they wanted to do something practical, they could clean up their build tree, name things cleanly, and code uniformly. As an example, if they wanted Base to be Java, then fine code out the whole thing in Java. But to have Writer partially in Java and partially in C++ is quite annoying, and needlessly makes things bigger, slower, and more complicated.
I choose the best language from the set of languages that I know for a given job. I stick with that lanaguage for the project, or I code it over from the beginning in a different language. This is because doing otherwise makes your code harder to maintain, and much harder for someone else to work with to add features.
Any kernel revision. You've been able to enable swap on files instead of partitions for a very long time. I used to do that on my 486 when I was running out of memory+swap. Temporarily "dd" a file and start swapping to it.
They're the same for the paging file. Linux usually uses a partition for swap memory, though. The rationale is that it won't get fragmented and it doesn't need to deal with the VFS subsystem, so it's a little faster.
I was thinking they should spend more time making the browser not crash all the time, take less than 10 seconds to start on a 2.6GHz machine w/ 512MB RAM, perhaps not screw up horribly and stay resident after exiting the GUI.
After that, work can get done to fix the installer, and then make the installation customizable so that you can have corporate rollouts and silent installs. Maybe they can learn to use the standard installation formats that some OS' offer (like MSI on Windows).
Then work can start on making the GUI not ass slow, and perhaps the occassional native UI element. After that they can look into how to stop independantly themeing the app, and use the OS built in theme functionality.
And just in case anyone insists it's just me and this is the best piece of software ever: This is very common. Most people have this problem. Everyone I've met that uses Firefox has these problems.
Nah, you're full of it. Universities had been on the 'net for a long time by 1990. We already had UNIX out there running things. BSD had been around since 1984, and running on the Internet. Just because the WWW didn't happen until 1990 doesn't make the Internet nothing until then. I was using the Internet right around this time, too, so I don't see how Al Gore made it happen. It hadn't been called ARPANET for a while, either.
Gore had very little to do with Internet development. All he did was get things through Congress to get schools to link up with the Internet. Most engineering and tech schools already did this.
Your examples aren't compatible. You should say that if you didn't want spam, should your ISP have to expend additional resources to filter it for you.
The State is forcing a company to change it's business operations due to a morality legislation. The government isn't supposed to be in the business of what's okay for citizens to see. This is what the free market is good for: if this was a popular enough request, ISP's would market it as an optional service.
What this is, instead, is a State legislature with an agenda.
Maybe not, but as if ISP's didn't have a hard enough time trying to get common carrier status, this kinda screws them in Utah.
It's a stupid law that abuses government power. If an ISP wanted to offer this, then they would offer it. It really is something that should be done on the customer side, regardless. If people wanted something like this, they could use a service like AOL that has it built in. For everybody else, they can use something else that's reasonably priced.
You don't have to hack anything. Use one of the very large number of proxy services out there. Use Google caches, get your friend to run a proxy, run one on a school computer, etc, etc, etc. Kids find ways around most things and this will be no different. Now ISP's in Utah will just have to waste money by being forced to do this against their will.
That's what I mean, though. If there isn't DRM, and you aren't distributing copywritten content, then the DMCA wouldn't apply in this case, right?
By this process, you don't get the DRM'ed content, you get audio that you can play back without any special key, etc. So where would the DMCA copy-restriction enforcement come into play?
True enough... I posted about that somewhere else but to paraphrase:
:) (Seriously!)
This workaround prevents the DRM from being put in place. As a result, I think you can exercise your Fair Use rights without breaking the letter of the DMCA.
That's how I interpret this... if I'm wrong, show me, I will be better for it.
You'd be correct if the companies were trying to serve with customers and workers. This is not the point of a company at all! They exist to serve stockholders and gain profits. The best means to maximise this is to pay your employees the least and charge the customers the most.
It doesn't really matter if they want to sell it that way or not. Prior to the horrible DMCA, it was perfectly legal to do what was necessary to break that encryption to allow your exercise your Fair Use rights.
When you purchase the content, you gain "LEGAL RIGHTS" to the content. What they intend is irrelevant; they made a sale and now I get to manipulate my property. I don't get to replicate it and hand it out, but I get to use it privately how I would like. This is completely about a corporation excercising control over a product after the sale has been completed.
This isn't "Information wants to be free", either, but "We want to be able to exercise our rights". I wouldn't want my music to be locked to myself and my unique device. I want to be able to move it, to sell it to someone else, etc. These are all legal rights, save for getting around the DRM. Well fine, if the DRM doesn't get put in place, then there wasn't DRM to work around. Problem temporarily solved without circumventing DMCA.
Now to get the DMCA thrown out and civility returned to the land.
Your comment on the music companies is absolutely correct. That is the problem, of course. We have rights guaranteed to us through the Constitution and through US and State code. In the case of Fair Use, this would be Federal code. These companies are attempting to prevent their customers from exercising these legally guaranteed rights, and that's a problem.
You're also right, unfortunately, about hte rest of the world only caring about getting their crap conveniently and nothing more. It's a real shame that they don't care about the foundations of their government and legal structure... how and why they came to exist. It would be wonderful if more people would stand up and try to fix things.
The offer shouldn't be either pay and deal with the restriction of rights, or STFU. Of course companies would love that: it gets them more profits.
As is said so many times, vote people that listen to the populace instead some artificial entity. Write your Congress-critters. Do *something* other than just accept things the way they are.
I've had a bunch of old 1GB Seagates die on me (Seagrate was nickname). I've had a *lot* of WD drives between 4GB and 60GB die.
I've had Maxtor's give me trouble with errors, but they were overheating. Better airflow fixed the problem. One of my acquaintances had trouble with a pile of 250GB Maxtors drives: heat related. He had them completely die on him though... spindles siezed.
Never had anything else die without good reason. Some newer Seagate SCSI drives died after four years of 24/7 operation, but that's expected.
Maxtor: Good luck, but they run hot and this can cause failures if you don't compensate
WD: Used to be wonderful, up to around 1.2GB. Then they got very unreliable. Seem to be fine now.
Quantum: Same as WD, but only to around 500MB.
Connor: Seemed fine, haven't seen one since 486's.
Seagate: Old drives were junk (I'm talking largely XT systems and 1GB IDE drives), new drives are great.
Fujitsu: Fine
Hitachi: Fine
IBM: Real IBM drives were good, Hitachi produced were good, WD produced were junk.
Micropolis: Haven't seen one of these in a very long time, but they were fine when I did.
Various other vendors: Crap in my experience. Especially this one Indian vendor that made single platter drives in 1/3" chassis (I can't remember the name). Had failed sectors on each one of them inside a month.
On modern systems it's not really an issue. Drives seek fast enough for it not to be noticable, and have sufficient memory to rarely need swap.
It used to be enough of an issue that in OS/2's HPFS all the FS structures were located in the middle of the partition to speed up access. It was a discernable gain in performance.
For 1 - the police could conceivably make a deal, it would just carry little legal weight. They could agree that they would not arrest and force charges if he cooperated.
Entrapment is generally only something that an agent of the state (ie: police) can do. I can encourage you to steal, but if you do it, it's your fault. If anything, I would be an accomplice even if I was the person to report you. If the police impersonated a store employee and said to go ahead and grab something and run out, that they weren't looking and they hate the place - then they encouraged you to break a law, and hence, entrapped you. Generally, it is when they urge someone to commit a crime they wouldn't have necessarily done without the intervention.
No, but it may be enough to throw out this particular case. Just because copyrighted material is available does not give you the right to then redistribute the material.
However, since the APB placed that material on a known distribution center, they should be responsible for the distribution. Perhaps this in effect means that they will be found to have authorized it for those particular items in this one incident. Perhaps only that they participated in an unauthorized distribution as the responsible party and are the party that would need to be prosecuted for those items.
It would not be found in the public domain unless they released it in such a way that they would seem to have disclaimed their rights under copyright law. Or if the highest court decided differently after it gets appealed that far.
They did support many different architectures. In addition to x86, they used to support MIPS, PowerPC, and Alpha. At one point NT was also ported to SPARC. They have WinCE support for various arch's, too, such as x86, ARM, MIPS, or SHx. WinXP Embedded dropped everything save for x86.
Their trend is to support other arch's just long enough to get third party products on their OS. Then drop support for everything except x86.
Yes, that's true. Ban everything that might conceivibly be used to injure someone. Sigh.
Curtailing of freedom is not worth convenience or temporary security. That's why things were put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was felt that they were necessary to keep the government in line, and allow citizens power and protection to deal with it if something went wrong.
.50 weapon? Special police forces and military personnelle have them. I also think you should be allowed to have tanks and fighter jets. Notice I didn't say "use", but only "have". If a revolution became necessary, that "having" would be quite useful.
Having the option to investigate your genetic predisposition is different from having the state abridge your freedoms due to those tendancies. The state show know as little as possible about the populace, as they have no reason to know much about them. If you have done nothing, then you have no reason to be watched or suspected. This is very unlike the popular fallacy that the innocent have nothing to hide. In fact, the innocent have as much to hide as the guilty: anything they want to.
Legitimate reason to own a
Much like police carrying guns is not so they can shoot someone; it's so hopefully someone will be intimidated into surrendering. If the citizens are well armed, the state (and criminals) will have to think twice about screwing with the populace.
Or you could do it how it's really done. Charge the highest possible price that the market will bear, whether or not you make it cheaper.
Example: cost to develop software is $600,000. Production, shiopping, advertising is $1,500,000. Sale price is 50$. Volume to cover costs is 42,000 units. You know you'll sell at least 350,000 units. (I'm assuming a decently popular video game genre.) You've made $17,500,000 in revenue and $15,300,000 in profit. After 40% taxes, you have $9,945,000 in real profit. You could have likely sold another 100,000 units if you priced at 30$ instead of 50$, but at 30$ the end result is only $6,840,000.