That's a complete myth: a watched pot actually boils *faster* than an unobserved one.
Yep... It worked!. First I filled a pot with water, then I set the stove to high. It took almost 5 minutes before I heard it boiling.
Then, I turned off the stove and waited for the water to stop boiling. When I turned the stove back on. I couldn't believe my eyes. As I watched, the water started boiling almost immediately. We're talking almosst a 30-1 difference here! Do you have any idea how much energy this could save????
Gotta go, the guys in the white coats are back!
I'm not sure that the question here is bandwidth.. I'm guessing that it's more like knowing how to do all the work you want with Linux and not wanting to have to learn how to do it on a Cisco too. On the other hand, the notes about the fact that it's the bandwith that's gonna kill you compared to the cost of a router also apply to the cost of training someone to use the router. I think that it might be quite worth it to get a Cisco and get yourself sent off to a Cisco course.
You can still put a Linux box (or four) on the inside of the router and the rest of the firewalling at your leisure.
So have them paying you to cover the benefits that you had when you were a regular employee... make sure that it's explicitly covered in the contract with your company. Perhaps they could even put into the contract that "anybody working for your company primarily on this contract will (subject to agreement) recieve benefits as if they were a company employee".
Yhe state can't sue your employer for something that you're recieving.
Does anybody have an ISO of SCO Linux from after Feb, 2003? I'd like to have a copy running on one of my boxes when I call them to find out about their licenses. The source RPMS would also be useful. (I guess I could always load an update source RPM from their website).
I would have thought that Quantum uncertainty would have made it obvious that time doesn't have definite intervals. It's pretty much the same argument to say that you don't know exactly where something is at a specific 'moment' in time as it is to say that you can't specifically determint the 'moment' at which it was exactly there.
If only it managed 32k it would make a wonderful replacement for MIDI cables.
With a little bit of work, I'm sure that I could hack togethere a ZigBee/MIDI bridge. It's not like MIDI needs 32K, that just happens to be the standard. As long as the messages going over the air don't exceed 20K (minus overhead), it should work just fine..
The best place to understands the concepts behind (for example) Algebra is to go to your local University and find out what the first year Honors Math texts are. (at the U of Alberta, at least), Honors math was intended for people going into PhDs, and so they tended to explain why something is being done, rather than just how. You might find the same sort of attitude in honors physics and Chemistry texts, as well.
It can be a defence, but I don't think either ignorance of the law or the facts can be a defence for SCO. Not only do they clearly know which code they're claiming is theirs, but they're the only ones who have that full knowledge. They've stated that they don't want to give the Linux community an opportunity to identify and remove the code, and they're apparently still distribuing the supposedly tainted code.
Let me add a couple of small facts to show why shooting out the window was excused.
Your updated analogy is interesting and might get you excused (it still might not). Unfortunately, it doesn't really apply to the SCO case. To make it apply to the SCO case, you'd have to add a couple of facts, like:
It wasn't a random stranger who got shot, it was your wife.
You recently took out a $10M insurance policy on her.
The window you shot through doesn't open and the glass is intact.
[SCO's refusal to allow removal of their claimed code]... indicates an implicit acceptance of it's continued distribution.
Anything that is still in there is explicitly licensed. They can't now claim that they didn't know about it.
What I was talking about is any of the code that was in Linux before they identified it and that they may have removed from their distributions prior to launching the lawsuits. Had they been reasonably dilligent about attempting the public identification and removal of that code, then they might have been able to go after people who have continued to use the impugned code.
As things stand, they've shot themselves in the foot even on that.
When a congressperson is faced with the task of representing 600,000 people on issues ranging from cheese handouts to the international space station, is it even possible for this person do their job competently?
Having given some thought to this question (as a result of running for the Green Party), my conclusion was that an elected rep really needs to deal with things at the systemic level, as opposed to the personal level.
While it is often tempting (and even satisfying) to solve a problem for a single person (usually someone in the news), there's really no time to resolve the issues around johnny's bleeding nose -- unless you chunk up to dealing with the leakage from the chemical plant that's causing nosebleeds for Johnny and the 800 kids in his neighbourhood.
To the extent to which you can come up with a systemic solution and show that there is widespread system wide support for your solution, you're more likely to get the attention of an elected rep (or at least a 'good' one).
Cheaper than Pocket PCs would be palm pilots... At about $100~$200 each, they'd be much cheaper than most other flat display systems, and they can be rigged up for either InfraRed Wireless or wired (RS/232 or USB, depending).
Prediction: Big Blue will 0wn their dumb asses, at which point....
Yeah, well some people figure that this was SCO's intention from word go. Annoy IBM so much that they decide buying the company out is cheaper than dealing with a court case and the resulting FUD.
Nothing prevents them from gathering the evidence and not telling the spammer they are doing so.
You mean like laws?
IANAL, and I don't know the laws around the FTC, but my guess is that they're bound by rules that were written for the 'protection' of the 'big boys' that the FTC normally ends up investingating (stock brokers etc.) -- I.e. they probably do have rules that require them to notify someone that an investigation is going against them. Did you ever wonder why companies like Enron, Microsoft and MCI end up announcing that they're being investigated? Where would they get this information, if not from the body investigating them?
This is almost acceptable when you're investigating a company like Enron or MCI -- the worst that they can do is go bankrupt durint the process, or clean up the practice that they're being investigated for. When that happens, you've still got the abiity to charge them (and/or their executives) for practices previous to the notification.
With spammers, on the other hand, notification that they're being investigated causes them to simply close up shop (or, at least, the front that's being investigated) and open up under another name, somewhere else. Even if you manage to find sufficient evidence of previous activity, by the time that happens they've already disappeared and all of the identity trails have run cold.
The 'secret investigation' rights that the FTC are asking for seem to be a good bit less than what (say) the Seattle Police Department might have the rights to do. They're basically asking that they don't have to go knock on a suspected spammer's door and effectively tell them to close shop and hide the evidence -- at least for long enough to allow the FTC to gather some of that evidence.
I've got some questions about it. Among other things, From what little I know of the NDA so far, the comments of the 'independent' analysts already goes beyond what the NDA for the general public allows. If my initial observation is true, then I'd say that it might be a sign that they are actually friendly to SCO, and not just independent analysts looking at the code (I.E. they were given a different NDA than we might get because SCO was expecting positive comments from them).
Back when IBM came out with the original PC and PC-XT, they owned the business computer market. People bought IBM just for the name, and the knowledge that they always gave good support, and you KNEW that an IBM PC was going to be IBM compatible.
When the '286 came out, IBM came out with the AT. It was less compatible with the XT than most other clones, but it had a worse problem. The hard drives often died after a few months.
Problem is, the AT came with a 60 or 90 day warrenty.... Just short enough that it didn't cover the dead disks.. IBM's reaction: It's not in warranty, we're not responsible.
As a result of this, people started buying clones -- better compatability, disks that lasted more than a few months and often a 1 or 2 year warranty. A friend of mine was selling clones back then. He was happy as a pig in sh*t about this. That's when IBM's strangle hold on the PC market got pried from their greedy little hands.
Unfortunately, it fell into Microsoft's lap as a result, and they ended up being not a whole lot better.
Of course, if the code is classified, then presumably they will only provide the binaries to folks with the appropriate security clearance.
If they ue off-the-shelf GPL code, then distributing the source wouldn't release anything restricted -- other than letting people know that the bomb-tracker 2000 is running on Linux Kernel 2.4.18.
If they're actually modifying the software, then they're doing something which wouldn't normally be possible with proprietary systems, anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
an AC poster complains about somebody not having any easy way to contact him/her.
Duh!. didn't even provide an email address like " samuel att bcgreen doot commie ".
I mean, who else is going to know what it's like?
And it's so,,,, so... Douglas Adams.
Yep... It worked!. First I filled a pot with water, then I set the stove to high. It took almost 5 minutes before I heard it boiling.
Then, I turned off the stove and waited for the water to stop boiling. When I turned the stove back on. I couldn't believe my eyes. As I watched, the water started boiling almost immediately. We're talking almosst a 30-1 difference here! Do you have any idea how much energy this could save???? Gotta go, the guys in the white coats are back!
You can still put a Linux box (or four) on the inside of the router and the rest of the firewalling at your leisure.
'Nuff said.
Yhe state can't sue your employer for something that you're recieving.
I don't think that that's it. I've been on a vegetarian diet for more than a decade and I, uhm....
Damn. I forgot what I was going to say.
30% Funny
30% Offtopic
20% Troll
The FSF is using PGP signatures to verify the MD5 sums. Why they're not just using detached PGP signatures directly, I don't know.
Does anybody have an ISO of SCO Linux from after Feb, 2003? I'd like to have a copy running on one of my boxes when I call them to find out about their licenses. The source RPMS would also be useful. (I guess I could always load an update source RPM from their website).
I would have thought that Quantum uncertainty would have made it obvious that time doesn't have definite intervals. It's pretty much the same argument to say that you don't know exactly where something is at a specific 'moment' in time as it is to say that you can't specifically determint the 'moment' at which it was exactly there.
With a little bit of work, I'm sure that I could hack togethere a ZigBee/MIDI bridge. It's not like MIDI needs 32K, that just happens to be the standard. As long as the messages going over the air don't exceed 20K (minus overhead), it should work just fine..
The best place to understands the concepts behind (for example) Algebra is to go to your local University and find out what the first year Honors Math texts are. (at the U of Alberta, at least), Honors math was intended for people going into PhDs, and so they tended to explain why something is being done, rather than just how. You might find the same sort of attitude in honors physics and Chemistry texts, as well.
Wouldn't you know it... we manage to implement the 3rd law of robotics before we get around to the first two.
It can be a defence, but I don't think either ignorance of the law or the facts can be a defence for SCO. Not only do they clearly know which code they're claiming is theirs, but they're the only ones who have that full knowledge. They've stated that they don't want to give the Linux community an opportunity to identify and remove the code, and they're apparently still distribuing the supposedly tainted code.
Your updated analogy is interesting and might get you excused (it still might not). Unfortunately, it doesn't really apply to the SCO case. To make it apply to the SCO case, you'd have to add a couple of facts, like:
Anything that is still in there is explicitly licensed. They can't now claim that they didn't know about it.
What I was talking about is any of the code that was in Linux before they identified it and that they may have removed from their distributions prior to launching the lawsuits. Had they been reasonably dilligent about attempting the public identification and removal of that code, then they might have been able to go after people who have continued to use the impugned code.
As things stand, they've shot themselves in the foot even on that.
Having given some thought to this question (as a result of running for the Green Party), my conclusion was that an elected rep really needs to deal with things at the systemic level, as opposed to the personal level.
While it is often tempting (and even satisfying) to solve a problem for a single person (usually someone in the news), there's really no time to resolve the issues around johnny's bleeding nose -- unless you chunk up to dealing with the leakage from the chemical plant that's causing nosebleeds for Johnny and the 800 kids in his neighbourhood.
To the extent to which you can come up with a systemic solution and show that there is widespread system wide support for your solution, you're more likely to get the attention of an elected rep (or at least a 'good' one).
That'll really cut down on your virus problems.
Cheaper than Pocket PCs would be palm pilots... At about $100~$200 each, they'd be much cheaper than most other flat display systems, and they can be rigged up for either InfraRed Wireless or wired (RS/232 or USB, depending).
Yeah, well some people figure that this was SCO's intention from word go. Annoy IBM so much that they decide buying the company out is cheaper than dealing with a court case and the resulting FUD.
You mean like laws?
IANAL, and I don't know the laws around the FTC, but my guess is that they're bound by rules that were written for the 'protection' of the 'big boys' that the FTC normally ends up investingating (stock brokers etc.) -- I.e. they probably do have rules that require them to notify someone that an investigation is going against them. Did you ever wonder why companies like Enron, Microsoft and MCI end up announcing that they're being investigated? Where would they get this information, if not from the body investigating them?
This is almost acceptable when you're investigating a company like Enron or MCI -- the worst that they can do is go bankrupt durint the process, or clean up the practice that they're being investigated for. When that happens, you've still got the abiity to charge them (and/or their executives) for practices previous to the notification.
With spammers, on the other hand, notification that they're being investigated causes them to simply close up shop (or, at least, the front that's being investigated) and open up under another name, somewhere else. Even if you manage to find sufficient evidence of previous activity, by the time that happens they've already disappeared and all of the identity trails have run cold.
The 'secret investigation' rights that the FTC are asking for seem to be a good bit less than what (say) the Seattle Police Department might have the rights to do. They're basically asking that they don't have to go knock on a suspected spammer's door and effectively tell them to close shop and hide the evidence -- at least for long enough to allow the FTC to gather some of that evidence.
I've got some questions about it. Among other things, From what little I know of the NDA so far, the comments of the 'independent' analysts already goes beyond what the NDA for the general public allows. If my initial observation is true, then I'd say that it might be a sign that they are actually friendly to SCO, and not just independent analysts looking at the code (I.E. they were given a different NDA than we might get because SCO was expecting positive comments from them).
When the '286 came out, IBM came out with the AT. It was less compatible with the XT than most other clones, but it had a worse problem. The hard drives often died after a few months.
Problem is, the AT came with a 60 or 90 day warrenty.... Just short enough that it didn't cover the dead disks.. IBM's reaction: It's not in warranty, we're not responsible.
As a result of this, people started buying clones -- better compatability, disks that lasted more than a few months and often a 1 or 2 year warranty. A friend of mine was selling clones back then. He was happy as a pig in sh*t about this. That's when IBM's strangle hold on the PC market got pried from their greedy little hands.
Unfortunately, it fell into Microsoft's lap as a result, and they ended up being not a whole lot better.
If they ue off-the-shelf GPL code, then distributing the source wouldn't release anything restricted -- other than letting people know that the bomb-tracker 2000 is running on Linux Kernel 2.4.18.
If they're actually modifying the software, then they're doing something which wouldn't normally be possible with proprietary systems, anyways.