Emacs (or vi, for the enlightened) is fine if you do little bitty websites. It's even fine if you want to php your website. But if you are only one of several people who provide content, a large number of whom are (*gasp*) writers or graphic designers by trade, and think that PHP is what ravers use to stay up all night long, Emacs and vi won't cut it. Now, this is a development. Not as big of a development as when it is actually ready, but still a development.
EULAs often make the problem very clear: many (not all) EULAs for software, and even some for hardware, make it a violation of the EULA to post benchmarks, reviews or to even use the product in benchmarks and/or reviews. This would mean, in a perfect world for manufacturers/ISVs/whatever, that you can only review selected products, and only in an environment set up by the creator of the product. In a way, reviews could be considered marketing, and the "consistent" and "coherent" image of the product is something that product creators will want desperately to control.
My problem is this. The EULA creates a set of conditions which is more restrictive than regular copyright law, but in order to argue that the EULA's provisions are contrary to case and codified copyright law, and therefore invalid, you open a very, very nasty case of worms which makes SCO's GPL complaints appear quite valid. It is clearly legal to review products, post satires, perform academic research and publish the results of that research, on items which are covered by Federal Copyright law*. It is wholly unclear if "click-wrap" and other "buy before you read" EULAs are valid on their face for the purposes of covered exemptions under copyright law, which would make (many, not all) instances of reviews of released products impossible, unless they were provided by the product creator.
I don't think we can have it both ways. If the GPL is valid on its face, and disagreeing with its terms means you cannot use GPLed software, then EULAs are valid on their face, and you cannot post reviews of a product which forbids such reviews in its EULA (if you want to continue using the product). I hope someone can post a convincing argument that we can have our GPL and eat the EULAs, too. I am sure there are some out there
*: Of course, the DMCA might have something to say about that...
I don't understand why anybody would want to change bash to tcsh.
I grew up on tcsh, and csh before it (IIRC, csh was the default login shell in SunOS 5.0). Darnit, I like tcsh. Aliases work like they ought to, and setting shell variables is straightforward and intuitive. I think bash is just a bad shell dream, and replace it as my login shell everywhere it shows up.YMMV, but I get 100 mpg out of tcsh, where I only get 60 mpg out of bash.
Most Linux patches don't require reboots. Most kernel patches do, however, especially if your new kernel is up-level (say, from RH's 2.4.9-31 to 2.4.20-20.7). And, since you'd have to re-compile some of your drivers, and re-run mkinitrd, that's as good a time as any to double-check that you've applied your apache, php, perl, mysql, cvs, and other application patches, patched the source for all your built apps, and triple-checked your boot scripts.
Actively defending the trademark would be served by suing the organizations which used the trademark in an infringing fashion. Google isn't doing that here; if anyone is, it would be those who created the text ads. Google is not responsible for the infringement, and that makes the ruling untenable.
Trademark owner only? That would certainly seem to invalidate ads by organizations which have a license to use the trademark (so, then, my franchise McDonald's couldn't have a text ad on Google [given that this logic gets accepted by courts in the US] because all I do is license the marks, I don't own them). Even if the search phrase is trademarked, and the text ad(s) in question aren't using the mark legally, the responsibility for the Ad should be on the shoulders of the ad-maker, not the agent who displays it. This is a universally stupid decision.
I would buy that argument if the Visa hadn't arrived in the mail even though she didn't sign the application, nor actually submitted it herself. The evidence is all circumstantial, but so are fingerprints and DNA evidence, and these carry a considerable amount of weight in court.
Actually, that's not quite right, the tomato analogy.
It works if modified thusly: Burger King sells you a Burger with Tomato(es) on it, and their license for you to consume the burger includes provisions for returning the tomoato(es) if you find it disgusting, or if you don't agree to their license terms for consuming the tomato(es) (perhaps the license requires you to stand in your boxers at the exit and sing the "Burger King's Tomatoes are yummy!" song). Since you find it disgusting, you choose to return it; however, the Burger King franchise from which you have bought (but not yet consumed) the burger tells you that you have to contact Tomato-Queen (who sells all of the tomatoes that Burger King puts on its burgers) to get a refund for the tomato. Then, in contacting Tomato-Queen Headquarters, they inform you that they cannot refund it, because the license agreement requires you to take it to the individual restraunt to get a refund. The restraunt then requires you to return the entire burger, not just the tomatoes. Oh, also, you have to thrown in that every other burger-maker uses Tomato-Queen tomatoes in their burgers, none of them sell Tomato-free burgers, and all have the same agreements in place.
The problem with the EULA for MS OSes requires that you return the OS, without agreeing to the EULA, to the place where you bought the entire system, and most of them won't allow you to get a refund for MS OSes because they still have to pay Microsoft even if they don't sell Windows on the computer. Also, even though you do have some choices in hardware, they are really pretty much limited to either a Macintosh or an IBM-compatible PC. If you can't use a Mac (because you don't like them, or can't afford to re-purchase any applications you already own, perhaps), you are very nearly stuck with buying an OS you won't run, don't agree to the license terms for, but have no real recourse against!
I don't buy it in the least. Apple Records makes music. Apple Computer makes computers. iTunes is incidental, and cannot be construed to constitute a violation of Apple Records' trademark.
The original lawsuit was untenable on its face, and should have been dismissed outright. Now, Apple Records wants to capitalize on its inability to keep up with the real world.
I agree (mostly)... but, instead of the Cordless Optical mouse, I use the Cordless Trackman Wheel. I've used the Cordless Trackman ever since it first came out, back in 1997 (IIRC). I find that the thumb trackball is a lot more precise even than the Wacom tablet w/pen that I have, possibly because years of caffeine ingestion have made the muscles in my forearm twitch like a disembodied lizard's tail.
No, you're right. That's expecting too much. I was (still am) just angry that Apple hasn't moved on the 15" PB in quite a long time (in this world, anyway), and that they've probably lost quite a few customers because of it.
One of my potential-pb-buying friends runs RedHat on his current (Intel) laptop, and was really excited about the possibility of getting a 15" PB with decent specs (and OS X, of course)... but, he's concluded that there are several Intel-based Laptops with better specs in the same price range as the middle PB, and is now officially tired of waiting on that PB to catch up. I don't think I can get him to hold out any longer; same with a handful of other friends who run Winblows on their laptops.
They should have had a G5 Powerbook at WWDC. They are taking way, way too long to get the PB line upgraded. I personally know several people who have been putting off buying PC laptops waiting for new Powerbooks, but they've already told me that they won't wait any longer. Lost sales, all because they're slow on the uptake. Let's get with it Apple!!!
That was how I learned to type. My junior year in college, I decided that I wasn't keeping pace on IRC like I would have preferred. I went to Office Max and bought a little book on typing, made I guess for new secretaries or receptionists or something, just a little plastic-ring-bound book about 25 pages long. I sat with my fingers on the home keys, made a consious effort to type each letter with the "correct" finger, and after about two months I was touch-typing about 80 WPM.
To the original question-poster I say: touch typing has made my coding better, and faster, especially since I got good at getting to the []{}; keys. Making ; a force-of-habit from touch-typing rather than trying to think one character at a time, and forgetting the ; makes a world of difference to me:)
I don't know about that. Commercial "interest" might very well be easier to muster than public support, but in most cases commercial "interest" == profit, and profit from space exploration simply doesn't exist... not yet. Although there are probably things one can gain income from the efforts to explore space (physically, mechanically, optically, or otherwise), they are vastly inferior in quantity and profit potential to the amount of R & D that must be spent on them.
Simply put: if you want a space program, it's got to be funded by the government. Businesses see no way to make money, and therefore aren't all that interested.
scan for the viruses in question (weekly, maybe a little more often early then less often later in the semester)
when you detect a virus, block that machine's port on their switch (you are using switches, right?)
when they complain, tell them why, and what they must do to get network access back. Have a CD available with the patch so you don't need to re-enable their switch port until after they've cleaned up.
If they re-install windows later, and are re-infected, repeat 1-3. This is what we do at work (admittedly, a major corporation who may have a lot more money for network equipment and personnel), and it works quite well.
Not at all true. If willpower were all it took, addiction wouldn't exist. Addictions simply cannot be stopped, broken, willed away just by having more "willpower"... talk to any competent doctor, social worker, or psychiatrist, and find out for yourself. There is a responsibility issue involved: the person who is addicted needs help, and in an ideal world seeks it. Yes, an addict exhibits behaviors that need to be stopped, and they need to take responsibility for their addictions, but it's not quite as easy as you seem to think it is.
There may be a few people who stopped taking heroin cold-turkey, and without so much as a shrug and a "well, that wasn't what I expected," but a damned sight few of them. Remember that the escapism addict gets a mind-altering experience from their addiction, and that can be just as hard to get rid of as the heroin high.
People who would be addicted to Everquest are addicits, anyway. Blaming the developer and distributor for the psychological problems of the player places the blame in the wrong place.
Since when have MREs come with heaters? When I was in the Army, we had to use the exhaust grille of our M1A1s to heat our meals rejected by ethopians. You guys have it so easy.:P
It's funny you mention that... I find that to be the prime example of the world's best UI. There's nothing else you need to know about the Claymore itself. Setting the fuses for it requires slightly more information, but if you are the grunt installing it, you need zero additional information to place the mine correctly. That is perfect.
And, it is also entirely possible that other players will have awful seasons, and so his position relative to the mean could increase even though his statistics the next year are worse than the year before.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. How do you get your head through doors?
Emacs (or vi, for the enlightened) is fine if you do little bitty websites. It's even fine if you want to php your website. But if you are only one of several people who provide content, a large number of whom are (*gasp*) writers or graphic designers by trade, and think that PHP is what ravers use to stay up all night long, Emacs and vi won't cut it. Now, this is a development. Not as big of a development as when it is actually ready, but still a development.
EULAs often make the problem very clear: many (not all) EULAs for software, and even some for hardware, make it a violation of the EULA to post benchmarks, reviews or to even use the product in benchmarks and/or reviews. This would mean, in a perfect world for manufacturers/ISVs/whatever, that you can only review selected products, and only in an environment set up by the creator of the product. In a way, reviews could be considered marketing, and the "consistent" and "coherent" image of the product is something that product creators will want desperately to control.
...
My problem is this. The EULA creates a set of conditions which is more restrictive than regular copyright law, but in order to argue that the EULA's provisions are contrary to case and codified copyright law, and therefore invalid, you open a very, very nasty case of worms which makes SCO's GPL complaints appear quite valid. It is clearly legal to review products, post satires, perform academic research and publish the results of that research, on items which are covered by Federal Copyright law*. It is wholly unclear if "click-wrap" and other "buy before you read" EULAs are valid on their face for the purposes of covered exemptions under copyright law, which would make (many, not all) instances of reviews of released products impossible, unless they were provided by the product creator.
I don't think we can have it both ways. If the GPL is valid on its face, and disagreeing with its terms means you cannot use GPLed software, then EULAs are valid on their face, and you cannot post reviews of a product which forbids such reviews in its EULA (if you want to continue using the product). I hope someone can post a convincing argument that we can have our GPL and eat the EULAs, too. I am sure there are some out there
*: Of course, the DMCA might have something to say about that
Actually, SunOS 5 is co-equivilent with Solaris 2, but it actually reported itself as SunOS 5.x.x when you logged in.
I don't understand why anybody would want to change bash to tcsh.
I grew up on tcsh, and csh before it (IIRC, csh was the default login shell in SunOS 5.0). Darnit, I like tcsh. Aliases work like they ought to, and setting shell variables is straightforward and intuitive. I think bash is just a bad shell dream, and replace it as my login shell everywhere it shows up.YMMV, but I get 100 mpg out of tcsh, where I only get 60 mpg out of bash.
Most Linux patches don't require reboots. Most kernel patches do, however, especially if your new kernel is up-level (say, from RH's 2.4.9-31 to 2.4.20-20.7). And, since you'd have to re-compile some of your drivers, and re-run mkinitrd, that's as good a time as any to double-check that you've applied your apache, php, perl, mysql, cvs, and other application patches, patched the source for all your built apps, and triple-checked your boot scripts.
Actively defending the trademark would be served by suing the organizations which used the trademark in an infringing fashion. Google isn't doing that here; if anyone is, it would be those who created the text ads. Google is not responsible for the infringement, and that makes the ruling untenable.
Trademark owner only? That would certainly seem to invalidate ads by organizations which have a license to use the trademark (so, then, my franchise McDonald's couldn't have a text ad on Google [given that this logic gets accepted by courts in the US] because all I do is license the marks, I don't own them). Even if the search phrase is trademarked, and the text ad(s) in question aren't using the mark legally, the responsibility for the Ad should be on the shoulders of the ad-maker, not the agent who displays it. This is a universally stupid decision.
I would buy that argument if the Visa hadn't arrived in the mail even though she didn't sign the application, nor actually submitted it herself. The evidence is all circumstantial, but so are fingerprints and DNA evidence, and these carry a considerable amount of weight in court.
Oh, come on now! It's not Lashsay Otday if we don't have at least a 1-in-6 duplicated story ratio.
Actually, that's not quite right, the tomato analogy.
It works if modified thusly: Burger King sells you a Burger with Tomato(es) on it, and their license for you to consume the burger includes provisions for returning the tomoato(es) if you find it disgusting, or if you don't agree to their license terms for consuming the tomato(es) (perhaps the license requires you to stand in your boxers at the exit and sing the "Burger King's Tomatoes are yummy!" song). Since you find it disgusting, you choose to return it; however, the Burger King franchise from which you have bought (but not yet consumed) the burger tells you that you have to contact Tomato-Queen (who sells all of the tomatoes that Burger King puts on its burgers) to get a refund for the tomato. Then, in contacting Tomato-Queen Headquarters, they inform you that they cannot refund it, because the license agreement requires you to take it to the individual restraunt to get a refund. The restraunt then requires you to return the entire burger, not just the tomatoes. Oh, also, you have to thrown in that every other burger-maker uses Tomato-Queen tomatoes in their burgers, none of them sell Tomato-free burgers, and all have the same agreements in place.
The problem with the EULA for MS OSes requires that you return the OS, without agreeing to the EULA, to the place where you bought the entire system, and most of them won't allow you to get a refund for MS OSes because they still have to pay Microsoft even if they don't sell Windows on the computer. Also, even though you do have some choices in hardware, they are really pretty much limited to either a Macintosh or an IBM-compatible PC. If you can't use a Mac (because you don't like them, or can't afford to re-purchase any applications you already own, perhaps), you are very nearly stuck with buying an OS you won't run, don't agree to the license terms for, but have no real recourse against!
I don't buy it in the least. Apple Records makes music. Apple Computer makes computers. iTunes is incidental, and cannot be construed to constitute a violation of Apple Records' trademark.
The original lawsuit was untenable on its face, and should have been dismissed outright. Now, Apple Records wants to capitalize on its inability to keep up with the real world.
I guess that would be not the "Cordless" but the Trackman I started using in 1997. I even previewed the damned post! *sigh*
I agree (mostly) ... but, instead of the Cordless Optical mouse, I use the Cordless Trackman Wheel. I've used the Cordless Trackman ever since it first came out, back in 1997 (IIRC). I find that the thumb trackball is a lot more precise even than the Wacom tablet w/pen that I have, possibly because years of caffeine ingestion have made the muscles in my forearm twitch like a disembodied lizard's tail.
No, you're right. That's expecting too much. I was (still am) just angry that Apple hasn't moved on the 15" PB in quite a long time (in this world, anyway), and that they've probably lost quite a few customers because of it.
... but, he's concluded that there are several Intel-based Laptops with better specs in the same price range as the middle PB, and is now officially tired of waiting on that PB to catch up. I don't think I can get him to hold out any longer; same with a handful of other friends who run Winblows on their laptops.
One of my potential-pb-buying friends runs RedHat on his current (Intel) laptop, and was really excited about the possibility of getting a 15" PB with decent specs (and OS X, of course)
They should have had a G5 Powerbook at WWDC. They are taking way, way too long to get the PB line upgraded. I personally know several people who have been putting off buying PC laptops waiting for new Powerbooks, but they've already told me that they won't wait any longer. Lost sales, all because they're slow on the uptake. Let's get with it Apple!!!
Being able to type faster than you can think is not a Good Thing when programming
You can't possibly type faster than you can think. The human brain can think at 250+ words per minute. You can't even talk that fast.
That was how I learned to type. My junior year in college, I decided that I wasn't keeping pace on IRC like I would have preferred. I went to Office Max and bought a little book on typing, made I guess for new secretaries or receptionists or something, just a little plastic-ring-bound book about 25 pages long. I sat with my fingers on the home keys, made a consious effort to type each letter with the "correct" finger, and after about two months I was touch-typing about 80 WPM.
:)
To the original question-poster I say: touch typing has made my coding better, and faster, especially since I got good at getting to the []{}; keys. Making ; a force-of-habit from touch-typing rather than trying to think one character at a time, and forgetting the ; makes a world of difference to me
I don't know about that. Commercial "interest" might very well be easier to muster than public support, but in most cases commercial "interest" == profit, and profit from space exploration simply doesn't exist ... not yet. Although there are probably things one can gain income from the efforts to explore space (physically, mechanically, optically, or otherwise), they are vastly inferior in quantity and profit potential to the amount of R & D that must be spent on them.
Simply put: if you want a space program, it's got to be funded by the government. Businesses see no way to make money, and therefore aren't all that interested.
If they re-install windows later, and are re-infected, repeat 1-3. This is what we do at work (admittedly, a major corporation who may have a lot more money for network equipment and personnel), and it works quite well.
Not at all true. If willpower were all it took, addiction wouldn't exist. Addictions simply cannot be stopped, broken, willed away just by having more "willpower" ... talk to any competent doctor, social worker, or psychiatrist, and find out for yourself. There is a responsibility issue involved: the person who is addicted needs help, and in an ideal world seeks it. Yes, an addict exhibits behaviors that need to be stopped, and they need to take responsibility for their addictions, but it's not quite as easy as you seem to think it is.
There may be a few people who stopped taking heroin cold-turkey, and without so much as a shrug and a "well, that wasn't what I expected," but a damned sight few of them. Remember that the escapism addict gets a mind-altering experience from their addiction, and that can be just as hard to get rid of as the heroin high.
People who would be addicted to Everquest are addicits, anyway. Blaming the developer and distributor for the psychological problems of the player places the blame in the wrong place.
Since when have MREs come with heaters? When I was in the Army, we had to use the exhaust grille of our M1A1s to heat our meals rejected by ethopians. You guys have it so easy. :P
It's funny you mention that ... I find that to be the prime example of the world's best UI. There's nothing else you need to know about the Claymore itself. Setting the fuses for it requires slightly more information, but if you are the grunt installing it, you need zero additional information to place the mine correctly. That is perfect.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool tcsh user. I hate bash. I bash bash.
I could care less what Apple does with the shell. Any Mac developer worth his or her salt can keep tcsh as their shell.
Apple can have my tcsh when they pry it from my cold, crinkled, 90-year-old arthritic hands.
And, it is also entirely possible that other players will have awful seasons, and so his position relative to the mean could increase even though his statistics the next year are worse than the year before.