Ok, you can't send em back, and the gov't says they aren't legal here. Why not a third destination?
Perhaps because it's illegal to export from EUA goods illegal on EUA. The material was already on EUA, technically it was delivered and it's on the importer's responsibility.
Email was developed before this form of data-monetization was considered and with the intent that it would be used by serious researchers rather than idiot consumers.
Being that the reason no single Internet company (but one) does something *serious* to get rid of SPAM and other email annoyances.
Everybody wants to be next Big Thing to connect people (and gain access to their privacy), and a good, reliable and usable email would hurt such initiative.
We can see now that big money doesn't want such a decentralized, relatively private system to exist, hence the development of systems like Gmail which works much differently from the original email system design.
Yep, this is the one exception I mentioned above. At least, we have a "de facto" working email solution. But the privacy is gone nevertheless.
So you're saying that Facebook loses when sells the daily answer to "what are guys between 20-25yr old that are male caucasian and like hot girls are buying"?
No. I'm saying Facebook would loose money it provides an API that allow any third party to miner the database to answer that question. Please read the GP.
Why can't there be an API for social networks? Kind of like email, where everyone follows the same set of rules?
Because there's no money on sharing information.
All the customer's activities generates data that are stored and cross analysed with other people's interactions. How exactly this data is useful it's beyond me, but I guess Facebook is full of smarter guys that know what to do with it.
Sharing this information will allow third partners to take access to some (if not all) of these data, and then Facebook will lose its monopoly on such data.
its quickly reaching the point where the FOSS part will be about as useful as the FOSS on a TiVo since none of the applications will actually run without major rewrites, which of course nobody is gonna do.
So you're bitching because Google is doing something that nobody else's gonna do?
The Google's problem is on another level (too much control over so many data on too few hands).
The source is there - get it, modify it, ????, profit. You don't want to modify it because you don't know how to do it, and don't wanna to spend money paying someone else to do it? No problem, really. But stop bitching about how Google is not helping you making money for free.
It's their servers you're using when you use Google Applications. You're free to setup your own servers and write your own APPs.
Eclipse is very good. The Android plugin is a piece of sh*t.
I did some C++ development on Eclipse, and I found it nice. Doing JavaSE, of course, is very good also (but some functionalities for JavaEE needs some serious work). But a lot of the best Eclipse funcionalities are trimmed to Java development, I never had to do refactoring on C++ code using it.
I did a lot of jobs using Visual Studio 6.0 a long time ago, that was very limited - but once you fill the gaps with the proper plugins, the fact is that that thing used to work fine. 2005 was ok to me, but I didn't too much development on it (I leaved the job at that time).
Things started to change on 2010 (I jumped over the 2008). Opening a legacy project on your Solution is almost a russian roulette - you never know what that damned thing will decide to merge with your other projects. Man, what a mess it does sometimes.
The last prick it played on us was last week. From nothing (we thing that was some automatic update) the compiling started to fail on linking ("invalid COFF format" or something). No problem, as MS already published a fix
But the fix "fixed" something that broke compile time (no big deal, but hell....) and was a huge pain in the ass to install.
Again, no (really) big deal, but this is exactly the kind of problem that my employer claims to avoid by using Microsoft, instead of doing development using Linux - that it's a bitch to install and configure, but once it starts to work, it works and that's it.
It's one thing to convince the non-programmer, general computer user to keep using mediocre tools, it's a whole other story to try and get developers to do the same.
You, obviously, don't have to earn your living using Visual Studio.
Man, I give up accounting all the wasted hours that thing inflicts me with stupid, annoying and everlasting bugsw "features". The last update to VS2010 was a pain in the ass to install.
However the proper way to do this is to generate code as data pages and then change them to execution pages, don't know if that's allowed by SELinux though.
Proper, but perhaps wasteful. Sometimes you can just generate the target code from a template instead of having every single possible combination pre-made on the code segment.
With the computers we have nowadays one can think he have the luxury to do that, but huge desktop computers are not the only (or even the main) target of such codecs anymore.
The Atom 330, for example (and if memory serves me right - it's some time since I did some low level embedded development) has a tiny pool of static memory inside the chip running at the kernel's speed mapped into a fixed address on the address space. And that is the only memory you can use to make that thing do CODECs properly (such code on the "ordinary" memory just can't do the task).
Everybody and the neighbor's dog wants to use that memory for some time critical tasks, so you must shrink your code using every single dirty trick you know (and yet some more you will have to learn).
But why would the audio decoder be implementing its own JIT?
It should already be a native decoder.
It's just a wild guess, but..
Some time ago I wrote a little faster low level disk read routine for a classic computer, and I ended up needing to write self modifying code in order to extract that last CPU cycle of performance - every single cycle counts, as reading the disk is a (real) time critical task, and I was decoding GCR bytes WHILE reading it from disk, instead of reading the CGR data into a buffer and then going to decode it into another.
One of the messier and ugliest self-modifying code I ever wrote, but it was the only way I manage to do that darn thing.
Perhaps the CODEC mentioned in TFA faced some similar problem.
How we can call "business" the relationship between Fedora and persons A and B?
I would say that if it's a restricted exports country, Fedora should not be helping B use Fedora in the first place.
Being a freely available linux distribution, how you think Fedora could prevent this? It's a freely distribution after all. Anyone and the neighbor's dog can download it and reupload it to anyone in the world.
And why is A contributing if it's illegal for him to receive any benefit from it?
Because he have plenty of time and wants to learn something in order to get a better job?
Because he's a american "felon" that had to leave his country because he dared to blow a whistle?
Because he's a genius that will never be allowed to leave the country?
Or, probably the most common reason: because he wants to?
The point here was not about whether a country should be restricted or not. The point is: should the U.S. be able to stop a for-profit company from contributing to the well-being of a restricted exports country?
The question is irrelevant because we don't even decided *how* any open source company can prevent someone to get the source code without throwing the License through the window - what would, mind you, make then a company that loose the right to distribute the very same code.
What leave us with the paradox to solve: how a Open Source Company can enforce such laws and keep being a Open Source Company?
Humm... Microsoft, it's you behind such laws? =P
And make no mistake: open source or not, Redhat is a for-profit company.
A company is a company. A License is a License. I don't see how the "for-profit" part is relevant.
I don't know about there, but here, to "Authenticate" a copy of some legal document it's enough to bring the original to the Legal Register Office and ask them to copy *and* certificate that their copy is faithful to the original.
It's up to the Legal Register Office to verify the document's authenticity, as they're responsible in cause of fraud.
And it's not an expensive action. 1/90 of the minimum monthly wage around here. But it's kind of a pain in the ass, as you have to leave work to go there.
Of course, I could go to the Court in order to force someone to give back what's mine. And guess what? The bastard will have to pay the legal fees if I won.
And that's is the stalling step on Apple. There's other legal ways to prove ownership. You don't need a Court Order to get what's yours, unless there's a dispute. And when a dispute, the loosing part should pay the bills.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, you can't send em back, and the gov't says they aren't legal here. Why not a third destination?
Perhaps because it's illegal to export from EUA goods illegal on EUA. The material was already on EUA, technically it was delivered and it's on the importer's responsibility.
(IANAL, by the way - I may be wrong)
Nobody purchasing a $15 Prada bag confuses it with the real one either -- but it hurts Prada sales and weakens their brand.
Yep. Now please pinpoint us where the multimeter has the brand "Fluke" on it.
Email was developed before this form of data-monetization was considered and with the intent that it would be used by serious researchers rather than idiot consumers.
Being that the reason no single Internet company (but one) does something *serious* to get rid of SPAM and other email annoyances.
Everybody wants to be next Big Thing to connect people (and gain access to their privacy), and a good, reliable and usable email would hurt such initiative.
We can see now that big money doesn't want such a decentralized, relatively private system to exist, hence the development of systems like Gmail which works much differently from the original email system design.
Yep, this is the one exception I mentioned above. At least, we have a "de facto" working email solution. But the privacy is gone nevertheless.
Why limit our choices to only Two Evils?
Because I'm an inveterate optimist!! :-)|
Maybe just spray the entire area with a strong defoliant, like Agent Orange or something even more nasty.
The damned thing must dissolve the leafs and dead trees into something that doesn't catches fire.
Email is harder to mine.
There's no reliable cross-linking, there's no "Like" button. You cant count how many times it was read.
And, moreover, you can't prevent third parties to read it (and do the same you are doing) once the sender clicks on the send button.
Data is important and valuable, but it can only be sell if nobody else's have it.
So you're saying that Facebook loses when sells the daily answer to "what are guys between 20-25yr old that are male caucasian and like hot girls are buying"?
No. I'm saying Facebook would loose money it provides an API that allow any third party to miner the database to answer that question. Please read the GP.
Why can't there be an API for social networks? Kind of like email, where everyone follows the same set of rules?
Because there's no money on sharing information.
All the customer's activities generates data that are stored and cross analysed with other people's interactions. How exactly this data is useful it's beyond me, but I guess Facebook is full of smarter guys that know what to do with it.
Sharing this information will allow third partners to take access to some (if not all) of these data, and then Facebook will lose its monopoly on such data.
The smoke spreading is not linear to the size of the fire - the more the heat, stronger and stronger hot air will go up.
Hundreds of sequential (and mutually exclusive) small fireworks will spread smoke in a smaller area.
Not a good solution, I know. But probably the lesser of two evils.
Controlled, man initiated fires can be the solution.
Problem is: who will do the task, and how to keep it controlled?
And yet, the area to be safely burnt at one time can be so small that the time needed to carry on the task can be impracticable.
The last prick it played
I see you did not feel the need to correct this line :)
Yep. It had hurt our feelings deeply. One colleague of mine took 2 days to be back on his seat at work. =D
(damn, I was certain I had type 'prank'... I don't know if this Freudian slip is mine or automatic corrector's ... =P)
its quickly reaching the point where the FOSS part will be about as useful as the FOSS on a TiVo since none of the applications will actually run without major rewrites, which of course nobody is gonna do.
So you're bitching because Google is doing something that nobody else's gonna do?
The Google's problem is on another level (too much control over so many data on too few hands).
The source is there - get it, modify it, ????, profit. You don't want to modify it because you don't know how to do it, and don't wanna to spend money paying someone else to do it? No problem, really. But stop bitching about how Google is not helping you making money for free.
It's their servers you're using when you use Google Applications. You're free to setup your own servers and write your own APPs.
Don't be a cheap bastard. Buy a DAT tape driver!
Where I wrote
you never know what that damned thing will decide to merge with your other projects
Please read
you never know what that damned thing will decide to merge with your other projects' configurations
instead.
XCode is not bad, but is not good neither.
If all you ever used in your life was XCode, you will probably be happy with it as it does the job.
But I found the thing.. weird... to use. I ended up doing C/C++ development on Eclipse on the MacOS - but I don't do COCOA apps (neither iOS).
Eclipse is very good. The Android plugin is a piece of sh*t.
I did some C++ development on Eclipse, and I found it nice. Doing JavaSE, of course, is very good also (but some functionalities for JavaEE needs some serious work). But a lot of the best Eclipse funcionalities are trimmed to Java development, I never had to do refactoring on C++ code using it.
I did a lot of jobs using Visual Studio 6.0 a long time ago, that was very limited - but once you fill the gaps with the proper plugins, the fact is that that thing used to work fine. 2005 was ok to me, but I didn't too much development on it (I leaved the job at that time).
Things started to change on 2010 (I jumped over the 2008). Opening a legacy project on your Solution is almost a russian roulette - you never know what that damned thing will decide to merge with your other projects. Man, what a mess it does sometimes.
The last prick it played on us was last week. From nothing (we thing that was some automatic update) the compiling started to fail on linking ("invalid COFF format" or something). No problem, as MS already published a fix
But the fix "fixed" something that broke compile time (no big deal, but hell....) and was a huge pain in the ass to install.
Again, no (really) big deal, but this is exactly the kind of problem that my employer claims to avoid by using Microsoft, instead of doing development using Linux - that it's a bitch to install and configure, but once it starts to work, it works and that's it.
It's one thing to convince the non-programmer, general computer user to keep using mediocre tools, it's a whole other story to try and get developers to do the same.
You, obviously, don't have to earn your living using Visual Studio.
Man, I give up accounting all the wasted hours that thing inflicts me with stupid, annoying and everlasting bugsw "features". The last update to VS2010 was a pain in the ass to install.
... job admission forms fail to protected candidates to burn themselves by bad grammar.
(thanks god Slashdot fails too, as some of you can easily note by my already traditional bad grammar)
Chuck Norris beats them all.
However the proper way to do this is to generate code as data pages and then change them to execution pages, don't know if that's allowed by SELinux though.
Proper, but perhaps wasteful. Sometimes you can just generate the target code from a template instead of having every single possible combination pre-made on the code segment.
With the computers we have nowadays one can think he have the luxury to do that, but huge desktop computers are not the only (or even the main) target of such codecs anymore.
The Atom 330, for example (and if memory serves me right - it's some time since I did some low level embedded development) has a tiny pool of static memory inside the chip running at the kernel's speed mapped into a fixed address on the address space. And that is the only memory you can use to make that thing do CODECs properly (such code on the "ordinary" memory just can't do the task).
Everybody and the neighbor's dog wants to use that memory for some time critical tasks, so you must shrink your code using every single dirty trick you know (and yet some more you will have to learn).
But why would the audio decoder be implementing its own JIT?
It should already be a native decoder.
It's just a wild guess, but..
Some time ago I wrote a little faster low level disk read routine for a classic computer, and I ended up needing to write self modifying code in order to extract that last CPU cycle of performance - every single cycle counts, as reading the disk is a (real) time critical task, and I was decoding GCR bytes WHILE reading it from disk, instead of reading the CGR data into a buffer and then going to decode it into another.
One of the messier and ugliest self-modifying code I ever wrote, but it was the only way I manage to do that darn thing.
Perhaps the CODEC mentioned in TFA faced some similar problem.
As it should, by the way.
You should not handle government software in the same way you do the pop and mom's store's.
thanks for the correction. And for proving it that its not a non sequitur.
Some of the stupider people on the world excels on grammars, did you know? They're fascinated to rules, and some of them choose grammars.
ok. Let's play "what if".
How we can call "business" the relationship between Fedora and persons A and B?
I would say that if it's a restricted exports country, Fedora should not be helping B use Fedora in the first place.
Being a freely available linux distribution, how you think Fedora could prevent this? It's a freely distribution after all. Anyone and the neighbor's dog can download it and reupload it to anyone in the world.
And why is A contributing if it's illegal for him to receive any benefit from it?
Because he have plenty of time and wants to learn something in order to get a better job?
Because he's a american "felon" that had to leave his country because he dared to blow a whistle?
Because he's a genius that will never be allowed to leave the country?
Or, probably the most common reason: because he wants to?
The point here was not about whether a country should be restricted or not. The point is: should the U.S. be able to stop a for-profit company from contributing to the well-being of a restricted exports country?
The question is irrelevant because we don't even decided *how* any open source company can prevent someone to get the source code without throwing the License through the window - what would, mind you, make then a company that loose the right to distribute the very same code.
What leave us with the paradox to solve: how a Open Source Company can enforce such laws and keep being a Open Source Company?
Humm... Microsoft, it's you behind such laws? =P
And make no mistake: open source or not, Redhat is a for-profit company.
A company is a company. A License is a License. I don't see how the "for-profit" part is relevant.
Just a common development day.
It's precisely for this reason the bug tracking systems has 're-opened' status.
I don't know about there, but here, to "Authenticate" a copy of some legal document it's enough to bring the original to the Legal Register Office and ask them to copy *and* certificate that their copy is faithful to the original.
It's up to the Legal Register Office to verify the document's authenticity, as they're responsible in cause of fraud.
And it's not an expensive action. 1/90 of the minimum monthly wage around here. But it's kind of a pain in the ass, as you have to leave work to go there.
Of course, I could go to the Court in order to force someone to give back what's mine. And guess what? The bastard will have to pay the legal fees if I won.
And that's is the stalling step on Apple. There's other legal ways to prove ownership. You don't need a Court Order to get what's yours, unless there's a dispute. And when a dispute, the loosing part should pay the bills.