Hey Attorney Einstein, it isn't slander if one prefaces the statement as "a hunch". Libel requires that the statement be implied as fact, "a hunch" by definition is not a fact.
For example, I have a "hunch" that you are a complete moron. I don't "know" you are, but my gut tells me you are.
Even more so, the AG is a public figure; and as such open to much more than a private citizen; I suppose you'd have to prove actual malice vice just saying something nasty about a politician..
Suing the ex would get the court's attention enough that they could make a legal ruling, issue a restraining order/C&D, as well as direct Yahoo to remove the page. He, however, is a low-life with nothing to take in a settlement.
Yahoo has the money. I'm not saying this particular person decided to sue because of the money, but you can damn well bet the lawyers who got involved told her she could get a big payout from Yahoo - millions of dollars. The obvious incentive for the attorneys is to take a 50% (or whatever it is) cut of whatever she gets.
While YAHOO did not have to remove it per the CDA; they apparently promised to remove it and then didn't resulting in a possible breach of contract and hence the suit. If YAHOO indeed said they'd pull it and then didn't I would not find it unreasonable for them to assume some liability over results of leaving it up longer.
As a side note, she should have gone after the ex as well; IMHO. Not for cash, but to get a court to order him not post the material again and take existing copies down. That way she'd have something to give hosting sites to bolster her argument to remove the material.
As a side note, if she was underage when the pictures were taken then a child pornography compliant would be a nice way to say "Thank you for bring my friend." If she was of legal age; then could the lack of a model release possibly grounds for a DMCA take down notice?
Dear Sir,
I am a minister in the Office of Software. A recent license audit has uncovered $1.6 billion (ONE BILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND USD) of software licenses in an account at the ministry.
The account was for a project that was killed in a planning accident on the way to implementation. Since there was no next project for the licenses the licenses have gone unclaimed. I am asking your assitance in getting the licenses out of my country.
As teh minister I can certify you as the regestered lincense owner. For your troubles I will give you 20% of teh licenses.
If you are interested in this offer please reply.
'Spoken like one of those OSS trolls that keep saying: "It's OSS, if you don't like it, fix it yourself"
'If a restaurant serves something not up to standards, most people won't go in to the restaurant kitchen and tell the chef how to fix it, nor do they start a new restaurant.'
And you've spoken line one of those proprietary trolls who doesn't grok the *actual benefit of open source. Based on the rest of your post, you're not one; but this touches a nerve with me because I feel that cooking/restaurants are a *great way to introduce the free software paradigm to people.
To carry your restaurant analogy further:
Once someone finds a restaurant that meets their needs they no longer have the need to build their own sandwich. Sure they can; but why bother if what they get works and it frees them up to do other things?
Linux is a great OS and OSS a great idea; but the notion that people will adopt it because it is open and they can fix stuff on their own ultimately hinders it's wider adoption. That's fine, and I realize that many people who use Linux don't care if it stays in a niche or not. however, those who expect people to adopt it based on philosophical, rather than practical, grounds are wrong.
Finally, why should a company expend R&D resources to improve Linux on a netbook when their competitors can simply grab the distribution and use it? Unless you wrap proprietary software around OSS you essentially are subsidizing you competitors. Given the slim margins on netbooks I can see why many companies would shy away from doing that. BSD would be a better choice from a competitive standpoint.
When did You last used Linux?
People don't know that Linux has a better support for hardware than Vista or Win7. On ubuntu I could use my old scanner out of the box (even 2 years ago) but on Vista I had to search the net.
If users aren't aware of that then it is a Linux issue since it will slow adoption.
I admit that Linux has some problems with some certain hardware but that is the problem of the hardware manufacturers not Linux because they don't let the developers to port their drivers to other OSes than windows.
That is a Linux problem because user's don't care why something doesn't work; just that it doesn't work. If they can't get their shiny Linux based netbook to work with their hardware then they will return it for a Windows version.
The idea that users will prefer Linux because it is open, free, or not an MS product is not very applicable to most buyer of hardware; if Linux growth is a goal it needs to address the average users needs and expectations.
Well, as somebody with an engineering degree, I know that we were taught that we were responsible for designs produced using software products. So, for example, if one used structural design software to design a building, and that software gave erroneous results, you are to blame, and not the software.
The real blame, ultimately lies with the deepest pockets.
1) Get a lawyer, one who specializes in buyouts. You need advice from an expert who is not emotionally attached to the deal or company.
2)Megacorp's offer to buy means they are interested in what you do; and right now buying you is cheaper / faster than doing it themselves or buying someone else. However, if you decide not to sell they have the resources to continue to develop the idea. You need to ask yourself - can they beat us in the marketplace? The answer is probably yes; especially since you can't afford to dedicate the money needed for a prolonged market battle.
3)Sell. Having money gives you options if the idea fails. It, in essence, buys the freedom to chose what to do if you get enough.
4)Always leave open the possibility of buying back the idea. Just because Megacorp thinks it fits in with their strategy today doesn't mean they will tomorrow; in the mean time you've used their money to get the idea off the ground.
In short, selling cuts your risk and gives you a lot of upside. While you may not get the really big bucks that you would if you DIY and it take off; the experience of doing such a thing in a Megacorp will make you very marketable since you've now proven yourself.
Maybe I'm just insufficiently wealthy, or insufficiently internet addicted; but is 13 dollars for what is essentially five hours of DSL actually exciting?
I've routinely paid that much per day for access at hotels while traveling on business. For me, it was a cost of doing business. Now that I've gotten Boingo my costs are reduced dramatically at Boingo hotspot locations (~10/month). Beats tethering my Treo or iPhone.
while it may be aimed at the business passenger it's still only two or three drinks on a transatlantic flight so I suspect you'll see more passengers spring for it; especially those with kids who'll spend the entire flight on chat with friends and not be bugging their parents. "OMG I'm on a plane"
That would be a bad assumption. Google "Richard Gariott space" and you'll get a long list of news articles on his visit to the ISS, topped by an official web site for the event. He launched on Oct. 12 and returned to Earth Oct. 23.
Google Owen K and you get his dad - making them teh first father / son pair to fly into space and both did it to space stations. (Skylab and ISS)
This guy doesn't work directly for the government. I'll assume its cost plus work that he's doing, so Rockwell charges his hours directly back to the government. However, they don't charge his hourly rate, they charge Rockwells hourly rate for his job position, which is more than his personal calculated take home (or Rockwell would be making no money on his work). So the real losers here would seemingly be Rockwell as they have to pay him out of their pool of money and the $0.02/hr would come out of their profits.
If its not cost plus then this is even more confusing as Rockwell is working to a contract dollar value and any extra pay again would come out of their profits. The accounting doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Unless this is some special case in which the numbers of people it would affect would seem pretty small.
It really comes down to what a contractor can charge the government for on a contract; not what the individual gets paid. The contractor can calculate an hourly rate for each job category (using 2080 hours/year) and then every hour anyone in that category bills gets an associated cost charge to the project. The contractor then gets paid for those costs.
It's a way to let a contract where you don't know what it will take to complete the job. The government takes the cost risk so that contractors don't bid extremely high to cover all contingencies.
Which gets back to the real question - why was this ignored? Easy answer - because contractors make more money with the smaller factor so they don't want to give up those dollars. I doubt very many elected officials will want to piss off major campaign contributors. The employees doesn't magically get more money for working on a cost plus contract, if they did the contractors wouldn't care; and the small amount adds up over hundreds of thousands of hours.
I use a Mac and went with a Bluetooth mouse after using a USB one with a Mac and PC.
I tried the Mighty Mouse but did not like it, mainly because I prefer the multiple button design common on PC mice.
I use a MS Bluetooth Mouse 5000 - which I like because it is small and hence easy to carry around. I really don't miss any of the more advanced features some mice have since I mostly use it for browsing (page forward / back) and Office tasks which don't need a lot of buttons in general use.
Why bluetooth? No need for dongles - I use the mouse and my Targus pointer concurrently to run presentations and don't have two dongles to connect. Plus, there no dongle to lose if I forget to remove it from the PC (sometimes I use someone else's PC to run a presentation); although you will have to pair the mouse and need a PC with Bluetooth to be able to use it on someone else's PC.
The problem with having your data in the cloud is NOT just that your data is out there, but the way you use it is as well. If gmail fails I only not only use my emails themselves, but all my settings. What settings? Oh okay, but imagine a spreadsheet, you can copy out the data, but for complex spreadsheets the setup/layout/whatever is often more valuable then the data. If I loose that because I can't run the computations myself, then I am in deep shit. That is what he is warning about.
If you aren't backing up what you have on gmail and other remote services the problem is not with the remote service provider model but with your risk management process. Gmail lets you use POP to get mail; so why not periodically d/l your gmail and archive it?
That is, he believes every computer user is enough of a hacker to compile and run all the software they will ever need.
Yes! I mean, what the fuck is he thinking?! I'm not a damned hacker who can type a document in OpenOffice and save it to - of ALL PLACES - my LOCAL machine!
This man should have a haircut and shave mandated by law enforcement!
Ok. I am south american and I have worked for years both in the computer industry and as a social worker. Now let me see if I am getting this straight: You are telling me that some web 2.0 companies can't make a profit from developing countries while cellphone companies sell millions and millions of shiny new cellphones and cellphones lines to poor people? And you tell me it is not the companies' fault? Mmmmm... I may be wrong, but could it be that sitting there in their air conditioned offices is not getting them a clear picture on how to make businesses in different cultures?
Simple. Completely different business models. Once the very expensive infrastructure is in place, the costs of new users is low; there is no real bandwidth limit since most people don't use every tower all the time and you can simply drop calls if you get overloaded; plus people pay in advance for the service and the phone. No pay? No service. You have a high startup cost with relatively low marginal costs for each additional user; plus you can limit service to profitable areas (or get government to subsidize unprofitable ones as well as the early build out of the infrastructure).
Web companies, OTOH, don't have low marginal costs as each additional user cost real money for bandwidth; and they don't get paid for the bandwidth nor can they control where their sites are streamed nor who accesses them; at least not as easy as a cell phone company can. So their only real choice is to cut access to unprofitable regions.
I'm sure they'd love to sell millions and millions of shiny new webphones and charge monthly fees but until they can their need to look at what makes them money and cut their loses.
RMS is right of course. Software as a service is not free and one should always be at guard while using them.
Having said that, it is also important to realize that general public does not care, if its free. If you just ask them, "Do not use it." It does not help the cause. Shouldn't you instead try to educate them and warn them of the pitfalls ?
The world is not black and white. And software as a service is here to stay. When would RMS realize that ?
The problem is that RMS is a zealot on a mission; and zealots never let things like reality intrude on that. While they can accomplish many things; they often begin to harm the very things they worked hard to bring about. To them, compromise is simply not an option; and will rail against those who do. Meanwhile, people who actually want to do things and understand that building lasting things requires compromise and viewing the current situation as it is, not as they want it to be as an important part of reaching their longer term goals. In addition, many supporters of a movement don't always have the same end point in mind; even if they agree with many of the concepts. That of course, is anathema to the zealots who insist their is only "One True Way."
In the end, the zealots are forgotten and the world and their cause moves ahead without them.
Well it is a bit unprofessional. As a backup company they should keep the backup on hand for a period of time (probably 6 months) before deleting it. I mean at least then you can charge for several months of service at once and possibly a graveyard fee, that is dusting off the backups of your backups to get the data accessible. You might come off as a bit of an asshole but at least you'll have saved the day.
While that may be a good idea in general it can also cause problems as well; unless what they do is specifically called out in the contract.
For example:
If the owner assumed the information was deleted when the account was canceled; if they discover you kept the data they may get upset and decide to sue.
If they cancel and you still have the data and they get involved in litigation you may then get dragged in and have to provide the data. Who pays for the recovery? Or, if you delete at some later date you might be in trouble for "obstructing Justice" if criminal acts are involved.
You don't delete it for some period of time after the contract expires; but for some reason you lose the data. Who's responsible for recovering it?
Far fetched? Maybe. But why risk it. Delete it when the contract expires and move on. Why take the risk?
In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.
Perhaps, but if it were my daughter I'd spend every penny I had suing anyone who posted those pictures into bankruptcy. As I (barely) recall CA law they have some pretty strong "right to publicity" laws to protect the use of people's images. While that is designed to allow heirs to control the use of famous, no dead, relatives and profit from their fame; perhaps it could be used in such a situation.
Just because you can do better things doesn't mean you have to let assholes continue to be assholes.
Anyone has the right to charge whatever price they want for any product or service they are selling. If you don't like it, don't pay it. It's as simple as that.
Yeah, I know you'll mod me down for this, it seems to happen every time I point out an utterly obvious truth.
Welcome to/., where the concepts of economics are as rarely understood, or proper;y applied, as a date.
And tell me, just what part of UNITED STATES LAW has any power in GERMANY, or are you so blinded with rage that you failed to read and comprehend the summary or the article?
Actually, given treaty agreements and the international nature of many companies a lot of US law could have power in Germany. Whether that is right or wrong is another story.
Of course, the OP asked in BRD had a law similar to the MMWA; not that it applied in BRD.
The CRDM's are driven in from the bottom, which means they're not passively safe (ie a drive system (albeit accumulators) have to function for them to operate in event of a trip demand). PWR's rods fall in under gravity in the event of a trip demand.
BWR rods have, as a backup to scram accumulators, reactor pressure to drive them in. So as long as the reactor is at power the rods will be driven in. If it is shutdown, rod position is immaterial at that point in any design.
Also, I'll think you'll find that the active core (ie rods) aren't at any point fully steam covered during power operation - it's a two-phase (ie water and steam mix) situation. The steam is generated within the bulk coolant and separated off using the steam seperators above the core.
True, but I was referring to emergency operations
BWRs are a nasty nasty design - who on earth would want a contaminated turbine? That's not to say PWR's are perfect but BWRs should be confined to history asap!
Let's see - natural circulation in the A and SBWR, no steam generators to fail and require replacement; for starters.
Each design has strengths and weaknesses, but both are proven technology. The Pebble Bed deign is very interesting as well.
(Boiling Water Reactos have an) advantage that uncovering fuel rods does not automatically lead to clad failure (in fact a portion is not covered by water during power operation as it turns water into steam); even a fully uncovered core could be steam cooled to prevent meltdown.
Uncovering our fuel doesn't necessarily lead to cladding failure either, though it's something we only encounter in accident scenarios on the simulator. We can get acceptable (non-damaging) core exit thermocouple readings with much of our fuel uncovered.
Obviously it's not our preferred method of cooling the core, but it's not a guaranteed meltdown either.
Good point, I should have clarified that a BWR could almost completely uncover the core without clad failure; as I recall from my operational days.
I'm guessing BWR fuel isn't terribly different from ours, but perhaps you know a bit more. Is it stacks of 3/8" diameter uranium pellets clad in zircaloy?
Aside from that, thank for the additional info.
I don't remember the exact construction but it was not all that different.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey Attorney Einstein, it isn't slander if one prefaces the statement as "a hunch". Libel requires that the statement be implied as fact, "a hunch" by definition is not a fact. For example, I have a "hunch" that you are a complete moron. I don't "know" you are, but my gut tells me you are.
Even more so, the AG is a public figure; and as such open to much more than a private citizen; I suppose you'd have to prove actual malice vice just saying something nasty about a politician..
Suing the ex would get the court's attention enough that they could make a legal ruling, issue a restraining order/C&D, as well as direct Yahoo to remove the page. He, however, is a low-life with nothing to take in a settlement. Yahoo has the money. I'm not saying this particular person decided to sue because of the money, but you can damn well bet the lawyers who got involved told her she could get a big payout from Yahoo - millions of dollars. The obvious incentive for the attorneys is to take a 50% (or whatever it is) cut of whatever she gets.
While YAHOO did not have to remove it per the CDA; they apparently promised to remove it and then didn't resulting in a possible breach of contract and hence the suit. If YAHOO indeed said they'd pull it and then didn't I would not find it unreasonable for them to assume some liability over results of leaving it up longer.
As a side note, she should have gone after the ex as well; IMHO. Not for cash, but to get a court to order him not post the material again and take existing copies down. That way she'd have something to give hosting sites to bolster her argument to remove the material.
As a side note, if she was underage when the pictures were taken then a child pornography compliant would be a nice way to say "Thank you for bring my friend." If she was of legal age; then could the lack of a model release possibly grounds for a DMCA take down notice?
You fuckers, always working for cheap!
Looking at someone's computer is a 6-pack of _good_ beer for me. Fixing it is negotiable, but usually involves a couple of nights with their wife!
Be careful what you charge. You haven't seen some of my friends wives. They'd break their computer just to get you to take care of their wives...
Dear Sir, I am a minister in the Office of Software. A recent license audit has uncovered $1.6 billion (ONE BILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND USD) of software licenses in an account at the ministry. The account was for a project that was killed in a planning accident on the way to implementation. Since there was no next project for the licenses the licenses have gone unclaimed. I am asking your assitance in getting the licenses out of my country. As teh minister I can certify you as the regestered lincense owner. For your troubles I will give you 20% of teh licenses. If you are interested in this offer please reply.
'Spoken like one of those OSS trolls that keep saying: "It's OSS, if you don't like it, fix it yourself" 'If a restaurant serves something not up to standards, most people won't go in to the restaurant kitchen and tell the chef how to fix it, nor do they start a new restaurant.'
And you've spoken line one of those proprietary trolls who doesn't grok the *actual benefit of open source. Based on the rest of your post, you're not one; but this touches a nerve with me because I feel that cooking/restaurants are a *great way to introduce the free software paradigm to people.
To carry your restaurant analogy further:
Once someone finds a restaurant that meets their needs they no longer have the need to build their own sandwich. Sure they can; but why bother if what they get works and it frees them up to do other things?
Linux is a great OS and OSS a great idea; but the notion that people will adopt it because it is open and they can fix stuff on their own ultimately hinders it's wider adoption. That's fine, and I realize that many people who use Linux don't care if it stays in a niche or not. however, those who expect people to adopt it based on philosophical, rather than practical, grounds are wrong.
Finally, why should a company expend R&D resources to improve Linux on a netbook when their competitors can simply grab the distribution and use it? Unless you wrap proprietary software around OSS you essentially are subsidizing you competitors. Given the slim margins on netbooks I can see why many companies would shy away from doing that. BSD would be a better choice from a competitive standpoint.
When did You last used Linux? People don't know that Linux has a better support for hardware than Vista or Win7. On ubuntu I could use my old scanner out of the box (even 2 years ago) but on Vista I had to search the net.
If users aren't aware of that then it is a Linux issue since it will slow adoption.
I admit that Linux has some problems with some certain hardware but that is the problem of the hardware manufacturers not Linux because they don't let the developers to port their drivers to other OSes than windows.
That is a Linux problem because user's don't care why something doesn't work; just that it doesn't work. If they can't get their shiny Linux based netbook to work with their hardware then they will return it for a Windows version.
The idea that users will prefer Linux because it is open, free, or not an MS product is not very applicable to most buyer of hardware; if Linux growth is a goal it needs to address the average users needs and expectations.
Printing copies of the books. You can pay someone to write them but you still need to get copies into the students' hands.
Electronic distribution - aside from the initial cost; replacing lost / damages readers would be an ongoing cost and nightmare.
So when/if I find such a device on my car it belongs to me doesn't it? And I'm not giving it back. And I'm not paying any bill they send me.
Better yet, stick it on a truck, preferably one traveling over the road; or leave it on a city bus or subway.
Well, as somebody with an engineering degree, I know that we were taught that we were responsible for designs produced using software products. So, for example, if one used structural design software to design a building, and that software gave erroneous results, you are to blame, and not the software.
The real blame, ultimately lies with the deepest pockets.
1) Get a lawyer, one who specializes in buyouts. You need advice from an expert who is not emotionally attached to the deal or company.
2)Megacorp's offer to buy means they are interested in what you do; and right now buying you is cheaper / faster than doing it themselves or buying someone else. However, if you decide not to sell they have the resources to continue to develop the idea. You need to ask yourself - can they beat us in the marketplace? The answer is probably yes; especially since you can't afford to dedicate the money needed for a prolonged market battle.
3)Sell. Having money gives you options if the idea fails. It, in essence, buys the freedom to chose what to do if you get enough.
4)Always leave open the possibility of buying back the idea. Just because Megacorp thinks it fits in with their strategy today doesn't mean they will tomorrow; in the mean time you've used their money to get the idea off the ground.
In short, selling cuts your risk and gives you a lot of upside. While you may not get the really big bucks that you would if you DIY and it take off; the experience of doing such a thing in a Megacorp will make you very marketable since you've now proven yourself.
Maybe I'm just insufficiently wealthy, or insufficiently internet addicted; but is 13 dollars for what is essentially five hours of DSL actually exciting?
I've routinely paid that much per day for access at hotels while traveling on business. For me, it was a cost of doing business. Now that I've gotten Boingo my costs are reduced dramatically at Boingo hotspot locations (~10/month). Beats tethering my Treo or iPhone.
while it may be aimed at the business passenger it's still only two or three drinks on a transatlantic flight so I suspect you'll see more passengers spring for it; especially those with kids who'll spend the entire flight on chat with friends and not be bugging their parents. "OMG I'm on a plane"
That would be a bad assumption. Google "Richard Gariott space" and you'll get a long list of news articles on his visit to the ISS, topped by an official web site for the event. He launched on Oct. 12 and returned to Earth Oct. 23.
Google Owen K and you get his dad - making them teh first father / son pair to fly into space and both did it to space stations. (Skylab and ISS)
This guy doesn't work directly for the government. I'll assume its cost plus work that he's doing, so Rockwell charges his hours directly back to the government. However, they don't charge his hourly rate, they charge Rockwells hourly rate for his job position, which is more than his personal calculated take home (or Rockwell would be making no money on his work). So the real losers here would seemingly be Rockwell as they have to pay him out of their pool of money and the $0.02/hr would come out of their profits.
If its not cost plus then this is even more confusing as Rockwell is working to a contract dollar value and any extra pay again would come out of their profits. The accounting doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Unless this is some special case in which the numbers of people it would affect would seem pretty small.
It really comes down to what a contractor can charge the government for on a contract; not what the individual gets paid. The contractor can calculate an hourly rate for each job category (using 2080 hours /year) and then every hour anyone in that category bills gets an associated cost charge to the project. The contractor then gets paid for those costs.
It's a way to let a contract where you don't know what it will take to complete the job. The government takes the cost risk so that contractors don't bid extremely high to cover all contingencies.
Which gets back to the real question - why was this ignored? Easy answer - because contractors make more money with the smaller factor so they don't want to give up those dollars. I doubt very many elected officials will want to piss off major campaign contributors. The employees doesn't magically get more money for working on a cost plus contract, if they did the contractors wouldn't care; and the small amount adds up over hundreds of thousands of hours.
As always, follow the money.
I use a Mac and went with a Bluetooth mouse after using a USB one with a Mac and PC.
I tried the Mighty Mouse but did not like it, mainly because I prefer the multiple button design common on PC mice.
I use a MS Bluetooth Mouse 5000 - which I like because it is small and hence easy to carry around. I really don't miss any of the more advanced features some mice have since I mostly use it for browsing (page forward / back) and Office tasks which don't need a lot of buttons in general use.
Why bluetooth? No need for dongles - I use the mouse and my Targus pointer concurrently to run presentations and don't have two dongles to connect. Plus, there no dongle to lose if I forget to remove it from the PC (sometimes I use someone else's PC to run a presentation); although you will have to pair the mouse and need a PC with Bluetooth to be able to use it on someone else's PC.
The problem with having your data in the cloud is NOT just that your data is out there, but the way you use it is as well. If gmail fails I only not only use my emails themselves, but all my settings. What settings? Oh okay, but imagine a spreadsheet, you can copy out the data, but for complex spreadsheets the setup/layout/whatever is often more valuable then the data. If I loose that because I can't run the computations myself, then I am in deep shit. That is what he is warning about.
If you aren't backing up what you have on gmail and other remote services the problem is not with the remote service provider model but with your risk management process. Gmail lets you use POP to get mail; so why not periodically d/l your gmail and archive it?
That is, he believes every computer user is enough of a hacker to compile and run all the software they will ever need.
Yes! I mean, what the fuck is he thinking?! I'm not a damned hacker who can type a document in OpenOffice and save it to - of ALL PLACES - my LOCAL machine!
This man should have a haircut and shave mandated by law enforcement!
Talk about fallacies...
Didn't you mean follicles?
Ok. I am south american and I have worked for years both in the computer industry and as a social worker. Now let me see if I am getting this straight: You are telling me that some web 2.0 companies can't make a profit from developing countries while cellphone companies sell millions and millions of shiny new cellphones and cellphones lines to poor people? And you tell me it is not the companies' fault? Mmmmm... I may be wrong, but could it be that sitting there in their air conditioned offices is not getting them a clear picture on how to make businesses in different cultures?
Simple. Completely different business models. Once the very expensive infrastructure is in place, the costs of new users is low; there is no real bandwidth limit since most people don't use every tower all the time and you can simply drop calls if you get overloaded; plus people pay in advance for the service and the phone. No pay? No service. You have a high startup cost with relatively low marginal costs for each additional user; plus you can limit service to profitable areas (or get government to subsidize unprofitable ones as well as the early build out of the infrastructure).
Web companies, OTOH, don't have low marginal costs as each additional user cost real money for bandwidth; and they don't get paid for the bandwidth nor can they control where their sites are streamed nor who accesses them; at least not as easy as a cell phone company can. So their only real choice is to cut access to unprofitable regions.
I'm sure they'd love to sell millions and millions of shiny new webphones and charge monthly fees but until they can their need to look at what makes them money and cut their loses.
Running the code yourself doesn't prevent that, you know, even if you have access to the source code.
It lets you do something about it.
If you really want to understand RMS's position all you need to know is the story of the jammed printer.
Any time a question comes up in your mind about what would stallman do - just ask yourself how the parable of the jammed printer applies.
Don't use Xerox printers?
RMS is right of course. Software as a service is not free and one should always be at guard while using them. Having said that, it is also important to realize that general public does not care, if its free. If you just ask them, "Do not use it." It does not help the cause. Shouldn't you instead try to educate them and warn them of the pitfalls ? The world is not black and white. And software as a service is here to stay. When would RMS realize that ?
The problem is that RMS is a zealot on a mission; and zealots never let things like reality intrude on that. While they can accomplish many things; they often begin to harm the very things they worked hard to bring about. To them, compromise is simply not an option; and will rail against those who do. Meanwhile, people who actually want to do things and understand that building lasting things requires compromise and viewing the current situation as it is, not as they want it to be as an important part of reaching their longer term goals. In addition, many supporters of a movement don't always have the same end point in mind; even if they agree with many of the concepts. That of course, is anathema to the zealots who insist their is only "One True Way."
In the end, the zealots are forgotten and the world and their cause moves ahead without them.
Well it is a bit unprofessional. As a backup company they should keep the backup on hand for a period of time (probably 6 months) before deleting it. I mean at least then you can charge for several months of service at once and possibly a graveyard fee, that is dusting off the backups of your backups to get the data accessible. You might come off as a bit of an asshole but at least you'll have saved the day.
While that may be a good idea in general it can also cause problems as well; unless what they do is specifically called out in the contract.
For example:
If the owner assumed the information was deleted when the account was canceled; if they discover you kept the data they may get upset and decide to sue.
If they cancel and you still have the data and they get involved in litigation you may then get dragged in and have to provide the data. Who pays for the recovery? Or, if you delete at some later date you might be in trouble for "obstructing Justice" if criminal acts are involved.
You don't delete it for some period of time after the contract expires; but for some reason you lose the data. Who's responsible for recovering it?
Far fetched? Maybe. But why risk it. Delete it when the contract expires and move on. Why take the risk?
In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.
Perhaps, but if it were my daughter I'd spend every penny I had suing anyone who posted those pictures into bankruptcy. As I (barely) recall CA law they have some pretty strong "right to publicity" laws to protect the use of people's images. While that is designed to allow heirs to control the use of famous, no dead, relatives and profit from their fame; perhaps it could be used in such a situation.
Just because you can do better things doesn't mean you have to let assholes continue to be assholes.
Anyone has the right to charge whatever price they want for any product or service they are selling. If you don't like it, don't pay it. It's as simple as that.
Yeah, I know you'll mod me down for this, it seems to happen every time I point out an utterly obvious truth.
Welcome to /., where the concepts of economics are as rarely understood, or proper;y applied, as a date.
And tell me, just what part of UNITED STATES LAW has any power in GERMANY, or are you so blinded with rage that you failed to read and comprehend the summary or the article?
Actually, given treaty agreements and the international nature of many companies a lot of US law could have power in Germany. Whether that is right or wrong is another story.
Of course, the OP asked in BRD had a law similar to the MMWA; not that it applied in BRD.
Hmmm. Two things with that.
The CRDM's are driven in from the bottom, which means they're not passively safe (ie a drive system (albeit accumulators) have to function for them to operate in event of a trip demand). PWR's rods fall in under gravity in the event of a trip demand.
BWR rods have, as a backup to scram accumulators, reactor pressure to drive them in. So as long as the reactor is at power the rods will be driven in. If it is shutdown, rod position is immaterial at that point in any design.
Also, I'll think you'll find that the active core (ie rods) aren't at any point fully steam covered during power operation - it's a two-phase (ie water and steam mix) situation. The steam is generated within the bulk coolant and separated off using the steam seperators above the core.
True, but I was referring to emergency operations
BWRs are a nasty nasty design - who on earth would want a contaminated turbine? That's not to say PWR's are perfect but BWRs should be confined to history asap!
Let's see - natural circulation in the A and SBWR, no steam generators to fail and require replacement; for starters.
Each design has strengths and weaknesses, but both are proven technology. The Pebble Bed deign is very interesting as well.
Uncovering our fuel doesn't necessarily lead to cladding failure either, though it's something we only encounter in accident scenarios on the simulator. We can get acceptable (non-damaging) core exit thermocouple readings with much of our fuel uncovered.
Obviously it's not our preferred method of cooling the core, but it's not a guaranteed meltdown either.
Good point, I should have clarified that a BWR could almost completely uncover the core without clad failure; as I recall from my operational days.
I'm guessing BWR fuel isn't terribly different from ours, but perhaps you know a bit more. Is it stacks of 3/8" diameter uranium pellets clad in zircaloy?
Aside from that, thank for the additional info.
I don't remember the exact construction but it was not all that different.