If I recall, one of the features of ACE is that the images you distribute can be disabled or expire based upon some criteria. So you can not only give a contractor a VM that has access to your corporate VPN, and maybe even has some of your corporate software/source code/whatever on it, but that whole VM can stop working when that contract expires.
I'm not sure how simple that is to do if you're just distributing your own VM images.
The Semen Washer listing doesn't make sense at all. Oh no, the job involves handling test tubes with semen in them and processing it through machinery! What the hell is dirty about that? And how is it any "dirtier" than doing the same thing with blood or urine?
The volunteer that cleans the dog kennels at the animal shelter has a dirtier job than that!
Not everywhere. Where I live in Chicago the mailperson does not pick up mail at your home. This was a big surprise to me after moving out here from California where we always just left mail to be picked up in our mailbox. But in contrast my wife the chicago native had never heard that in some places the mailperson will pick up your outgoing mail from your house.
Except for, you know, the idea that we should be free to do whatever the hell we want, so long as we're not harming others. I know freedom (and liberalism) in general is out of favour these days, but still...
Those are cultural and social ideals, and not necessarily shared by all other cultures. While in the US and a few other countries we theoretically aspire to the ideal that that freedom and liberty are more important than peace and public order, not all other cultures feel the way we do.
And most importantly, they are not required to. Sovereign nations have the right to live under their own ideals (within reasonable limits of egregious crimes against humanity, of course) even if they disagree with ours.
In a perfect free-market society, the remedies one needs would cost less, because they wouldn't be patented, being thus manufactured by lots of companies.
Except that it costs millions if not billions to research and bring a drug to market, so nobody would do it because as soon as they spent all that, a dozen other companies start duplicating their work for a minute manufacturing cost eliminating any possibility of ever recouping the investment.
Now, if somehow drug research costs drop to near-zero, perhaps because there is no legal requirement for safety testing, every few years another thalidomide hits the market. When we're lucky, it's a drug that shows its terrible effects right away. For the drugs that take years for the effects to develop, society is potentially crippled decades later. Of course, since there's no laws about honesty in advertising, the companies making said drugs can just keep denying it. Every citizen is required to be an expert in pharmacology to interpret for themselves the volumes of contradictory data, some coming from real scientists (presuming they exist) and other false data being released by the drug companies to deny any blame. Not to mention all the competing companies releasing false research about competitor's drugs.
We may or may not be able to get this information reliably across the country though, because since there is no regulation of broadcasting, whoever can build the most powerful transmitter owns the airwaves.
that would be a unique situation where a billion persons (those who have internet access, mainly) can listen freely to music and where, potentially one billion persons can make a donation. I don't know if it would lower or raise artists income. I don't think anyone can know for sure.
Sure they could. There is *not* *one* *single* *thing* stopping any artist from doing that right now. There are even at least a few who are doing just that, I believe.
None of which I have any problem with. Because the artist still made the personal choice to distribute their work like that. This is completely different from someone who wants to control the copying of their work and people just copy it without their permission anyway. It's also wholly separate from the issue of whether major labels are evil (they are) and whether they screw over their artists (they do). But you could eliminate every existing label today and tomorrow artists would still have the right to control their copyrights if they so desired.
And, on a side note, I think it is normal, if no one is willing to support an artist, that he can't make a living out of his creations.
You are absolutely right, as long as you include "support" to mean "downloading all of their songs and listening to them regularly". The problem is only people who like the songs, pay for an ipod to play them on, pay for the computer to download them, pay for the ISP to connect them to the internet to perform the download, and yet would never in a million years pay the person who actually created the song, because somehow charging for *that* is wrong.
I'm sure all artists would love to return to the days when artists of all stripes travelled from town to town hoping to eke out maybe at least a meal or two before moving on, and then died penniless and destitute leaving behind nothing for their families, except for the rare few that managed to milk the patronage of some rich old person.
Really, it's a win-win for everyone. Well, except the artists, but the rest of us get free shit, so fuck them!
I mean, sure, back in the days when artists had to perform live to get paid at all, it wasn't possible to make copies of music, so anyone who wanted to hear it *had* to go see it live. I'm sure we're not living in a world today where billions of people listen to recordings of music that they will never in their entire lives go see a live performance of.
Oh, wait, I'm pretty sure we are. I go to live shows a fair amount, and whenever I talk about them afterwards with friends and acquaintances I'm struck by how few of them ever even consider going to a live show, especially the adults. Many of them will comment how music obsessed I must be because I sometimes go to as many as two shows in a month.
I think the real reason some people hate the major labels is that the labels are fucking over the artists so much, when clearly fucking over the artists is a right reserved for the people.
I've even seem a VMWare Vmotion demonstration where a guest machine BSOD'd and you could still seamlessly move that guest machine across different VMWare servers, essentially moving the BSOD around.
Not sure what the practical point is, but it was amusing.
Seriously, though. This is the kind of information that I try to show to the 'OMG WORLD IS GOING TO END IN TEN YEARS' crowd, but they never seem to want to look at it objectively. The earth has had some really hot periods - it hs also had some really cold periods - all BEFORE mankind started to add their marginal extra amount of pollutants into the air.
Yes, but those periods also had a tendency to kill off large percentages of human and animal life.
Seems to me that's something we should be concerned about, regardless of what causes it. But what do I know?
Passionate music lovers do enjoy having a physical object that represents a link between them and the band they love. More than that there is a massive amount of street cred in owning and listening to vinyl, it's just cool.
The only way these statements could have less credibility is if they mentioned dilithium crystals. I'm a very passionate music lover. That means I love the *music*, not psycho-babble about physical attachments or "having street cred".
Seriously, if concerns over "Street cred" ever enter your mind for any reason, you are a poser, pure and simple.
To be sure, such categores of information as "news", "science", and "educational programming" are of immense, value, but any wise observer of history will be aware that market forces will recognize this value and favor production of these types of information accordingly.
Just the opposite, banks have been pushing for *more* online contact and less snail mail. I still get paper statements mailed from Wells Fargo and every time I check my account online I get a big ad page urging me to switch to paperless online statements.
Email alerts from banks can be very useful as well. Such as alerts of low balance or overdraft, or even unusual activity. If someone pulled a bunch of money out of my account and I don't hear about it till I get a letter in the mail days letter, by that time I'd be lucky to have anything left, and probably several days of bounced payments to go along with it.
I learned BASIC first as a child, like a lot of people, then in college I went to Pascal, where I had to actually learn how to do things "right" then moved on to Fortran, C, etc.
It's pure bolognium that someone who has learned basic first can't be taught good programming. The fact that BASIC teaches bad habits doesn't make correcting those habits impossible. Correcting bad habits is practically what much teaching is for.
If only DirecTV-branded DVRs weren't total pieces of shit in terms of usability. I've got the DirecTV DVR in the basement and a DirecTivo upstairs. Every time I use the DirecTV model I am forced to content with how horrible it is. Response time to button presses is awful, navigating to find shows is awful, figuring out why something didn't record that should have is awful. It even reboots itself sometimes while I'm watching it. The wife uses it when working out and she hates it too. I'm *this close* to just getting a free standalone Tivo and wiring it to a regular DirecTV receiver and throwing the DirecTV DVR out. There's more to the value of a product than a checklist of alleged features.
Also, I notice among the features you left off were features with any similarity to TivoToGo. You know, that functionality that you won't allow to run on my DirecTivo even though it would work. I wonder why that is?
Indeed. The first places to get cable over internet were not the big cities. I knew people in the suburbs getting cable internet when my cable in San Jose still had a big A/B switch that I had to physically use to watch certain channels.
I believe modern nuclear subs can exist underwater for as long as their food supplies last. I'm not sure off the top of my head what the longest recorded period for a sub to stay submerged is, but my understanding is they can self-supply everything the crew needs to survive except food and sanity.
I suspect the problem is that there are a lot of differences between surviving underwater and surviving on mars. In the water you have an effectively infinite supply of drinking water and oxygen, two things likely in fairly short supply on mars. (Still, I would like to see something like SeaLab happen. Hopefully without the insane Captain.)
Now that I think about it, I wonder how subs maintain the correct atmosphere ratios. Sure you can get oxygen out of sea water, but that's only around 30% of the normal atmosphere. What about the 70% nitrogen?
It's easy to sit here and say Google already pays to be connected to Level3 or Cogent and I already pay to be connected to Charter. But what if I and a hundred thousand others all of a sudden start downloading a few 1 gig movies from a legitimate commercial provider every other night between 6 and 10pm? How can they support that? What kind of buildout to the headends and COs is required by the cable and telephone operators to support this massive surge in use that isn't compatible with their current pricing and service delivery model?
They do what all companies do. They charge more if their competition allows it, or they change their business model, or they increase their efficiency, or they go out of business for being unable to meet the needs of their consumers.
Google's telco is entirely free to charge Google more if it needs to. My telco is entirely free to charge me more if it needs to. They are not free to set up an infinite number of toll bridges in between me and Google.
This all started from someone claiming that they have "the right" to mail delivery.
So to put things more simply, do you believe that "the people" have "the right" to delivery of all email or USPS mail? The constitution doesn't say they don't, so therefore they do? Of course, doesn't Comcast have the right to not deliver all email? The constitution doesn't say they don't, so they have that right too?
If it is a *right*, then government must be prepared to defend that right and any business or person that infringed that right would be guilty of civil rights violations, no?
We could be talking at cross purposes of what "rights" means. The dictionary lists it as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something". I don't see that anyone has a moral or legal entitlement to have their forwarded email delivered by their ISP, barring it being included in a binding contract. I personally would not patronize an ISP that chose to act as Comcast apparently does. But this seems to be more of a free market situation to me than a question of rights.
Though I guess if you see something as a moral entitlement, you could believe it is a right despite their being no actual government protections of that right. You could believe you are morally entitled to pilot your dirigible through downtown Chicago, but you're probably not going to be allowed to. I don't believe Comcast has any moral obligations in this regard, but others obviously may disagree.
Yes, and? If you want to point me to a state that has labelled delivery of USPS mail as a "Right", please do. That would only make it an official right in that state, of course, not in the country. And it would have nothing to do with delivery of email, which the courts have pretty firmly established by now that it doesn't enjoy the same protections as USPS mail.
If you're implying it means that the USPS Mail Service or email delivery is a "power reserved to the people" you've got some fancy footwork to do. Amendment X would mean that a person who wishes to set up a delivery business or an ISP has the right to do so. It implies nothing that said business is obligated to deliver all packages or emails from anyone to anyone. The business is free to do as it wills within the laws of it's locale, state, and country.
Receiving US postal mail is not a "right". It is not listed in the Bill of Rights and to my knowledge the Courts have not interpreted mail service as an inalienable right. There are, however, Federal laws with regard to USPS mail and interfering with same. I'm not aware of any such laws governing a mandate that all emails be delivered as addressed, or that ISPs can not trap/divert email as they see fit. There would probably be implications in privacy law to publishing customer emails or the like. But I'm not aware of any criminal penalties that can be levied against an ISP that fails to deliver email.
A better example would be, does UPS have the right to not send packages from some senders? Yes, as a private organization they do. Likewise, Comcast as a private organization has the "right" to do anything they wish within the law and within the terms of their contracts. Customers have the right to not continue to purchase services from Comcast if Comcast's policies are unacceptable. (And they certainly are to me, thus I am not a Comcast customer.)
Slashdot Mirror
If I recall, one of the features of ACE is that the images you distribute can be disabled or expire based upon some criteria. So you can not only give a contractor a VM that has access to your corporate VPN, and maybe even has some of your corporate software/source code/whatever on it, but that whole VM can stop working when that contract expires.
I'm not sure how simple that is to do if you're just distributing your own VM images.
So who taught us? Chat rooms and message boards aren't exactly new.
I agree about the branded sets, but Duplo bricks are what gets a lot of toddlers started in the lego world.
The Semen Washer listing doesn't make sense at all. Oh no, the job involves handling test tubes with semen in them and processing it through machinery! What the hell is dirty about that? And how is it any "dirtier" than doing the same thing with blood or urine?
The volunteer that cleans the dog kennels at the animal shelter has a dirtier job than that!
PCs are commodities now, and commodity prices shift all the time. Just be glad you're not buying pork bellies.
Not everywhere. Where I live in Chicago the mailperson does not pick up mail at your home. This was a big surprise to me after moving out here from California where we always just left mail to be picked up in our mailbox. But in contrast my wife the chicago native had never heard that in some places the mailperson will pick up your outgoing mail from your house.
Those are cultural and social ideals, and not necessarily shared by all other cultures. While in the US and a few other countries we theoretically aspire to the ideal that that freedom and liberty are more important than peace and public order, not all other cultures feel the way we do.
And most importantly, they are not required to. Sovereign nations have the right to live under their own ideals (within reasonable limits of egregious crimes against humanity, of course) even if they disagree with ours.
I've used a Taxi Wallet for years. (I prefer keeping my wallet in a front pocket.)
f ts_Under__50SV200?Args=
http://www.magellans.com/store/Games___Gifts___Gi
Except that it costs millions if not billions to research and bring a drug to market, so nobody would do it because as soon as they spent all that, a dozen other companies start duplicating their work for a minute manufacturing cost eliminating any possibility of ever recouping the investment.
Now, if somehow drug research costs drop to near-zero, perhaps because there is no legal requirement for safety testing, every few years another thalidomide hits the market. When we're lucky, it's a drug that shows its terrible effects right away. For the drugs that take years for the effects to develop, society is potentially crippled decades later. Of course, since there's no laws about honesty in advertising, the companies making said drugs can just keep denying it. Every citizen is required to be an expert in pharmacology to interpret for themselves the volumes of contradictory data, some coming from real scientists (presuming they exist) and other false data being released by the drug companies to deny any blame. Not to mention all the competing companies releasing false research about competitor's drugs.
We may or may not be able to get this information reliably across the country though, because since there is no regulation of broadcasting, whoever can build the most powerful transmitter owns the airwaves.
Sure they could. There is *not* *one* *single* *thing* stopping any artist from doing that right now. There are even at least a few who are doing just that, I believe.
None of which I have any problem with. Because the artist still made the personal choice to distribute their work like that. This is completely different from someone who wants to control the copying of their work and people just copy it without their permission anyway. It's also wholly separate from the issue of whether major labels are evil (they are) and whether they screw over their artists (they do). But you could eliminate every existing label today and tomorrow artists would still have the right to control their copyrights if they so desired.
You are absolutely right, as long as you include "support" to mean "downloading all of their songs and listening to them regularly". The problem is only people who like the songs, pay for an ipod to play them on, pay for the computer to download them, pay for the ISP to connect them to the internet to perform the download, and yet would never in a million years pay the person who actually created the song, because somehow charging for *that* is wrong.
I'm sure all artists would love to return to the days when artists of all stripes travelled from town to town hoping to eke out maybe at least a meal or two before moving on, and then died penniless and destitute leaving behind nothing for their families, except for the rare few that managed to milk the patronage of some rich old person.
Really, it's a win-win for everyone. Well, except the artists, but the rest of us get free shit, so fuck them!
I mean, sure, back in the days when artists had to perform live to get paid at all, it wasn't possible to make copies of music, so anyone who wanted to hear it *had* to go see it live. I'm sure we're not living in a world today where billions of people listen to recordings of music that they will never in their entire lives go see a live performance of.
Oh, wait, I'm pretty sure we are. I go to live shows a fair amount, and whenever I talk about them afterwards with friends and acquaintances I'm struck by how few of them ever even consider going to a live show, especially the adults. Many of them will comment how music obsessed I must be because I sometimes go to as many as two shows in a month.
I think the real reason some people hate the major labels is that the labels are fucking over the artists so much, when clearly fucking over the artists is a right reserved for the people.
I've even seem a VMWare Vmotion demonstration where a guest machine BSOD'd and you could still seamlessly move that guest machine across different VMWare servers, essentially moving the BSOD around.
Not sure what the practical point is, but it was amusing.
Yes, but those periods also had a tendency to kill off large percentages of human and animal life.
Seems to me that's something we should be concerned about, regardless of what causes it. But what do I know?
The only way these statements could have less credibility is if they mentioned dilithium crystals. I'm a very passionate music lover. That means I love the *music*, not psycho-babble about physical attachments or "having street cred".
Seriously, if concerns over "Street cred" ever enter your mind for any reason, you are a poser, pure and simple.
Seriously, what color is the sky on your planet?
Just the opposite, banks have been pushing for *more* online contact and less snail mail. I still get paper statements mailed from Wells Fargo and every time I check my account online I get a big ad page urging me to switch to paperless online statements.
Email alerts from banks can be very useful as well. Such as alerts of low balance or overdraft, or even unusual activity. If someone pulled a bunch of money out of my account and I don't hear about it till I get a letter in the mail days letter, by that time I'd be lucky to have anything left, and probably several days of bounced payments to go along with it.
I learned BASIC first as a child, like a lot of people, then in college I went to Pascal, where I had to actually learn how to do things "right" then moved on to Fortran, C, etc.
It's pure bolognium that someone who has learned basic first can't be taught good programming. The fact that BASIC teaches bad habits doesn't make correcting those habits impossible. Correcting bad habits is practically what much teaching is for.
If only DirecTV-branded DVRs weren't total pieces of shit in terms of usability. I've got the DirecTV DVR in the basement and a DirecTivo upstairs. Every time I use the DirecTV model I am forced to content with how horrible it is. Response time to button presses is awful, navigating to find shows is awful, figuring out why something didn't record that should have is awful. It even reboots itself sometimes while I'm watching it. The wife uses it when working out and she hates it too. I'm *this close* to just getting a free standalone Tivo and wiring it to a regular DirecTV receiver and throwing the DirecTV DVR out. There's more to the value of a product than a checklist of alleged features.
Also, I notice among the features you left off were features with any similarity to TivoToGo. You know, that functionality that you won't allow to run on my DirecTivo even though it would work. I wonder why that is?
Indeed. The first places to get cable over internet were not the big cities. I knew people in the suburbs getting cable internet when my cable in San Jose still had a big A/B switch that I had to physically use to watch certain channels.
I believe modern nuclear subs can exist underwater for as long as their food supplies last. I'm not sure off the top of my head what the longest recorded period for a sub to stay submerged is, but my understanding is they can self-supply everything the crew needs to survive except food and sanity.
I suspect the problem is that there are a lot of differences between surviving underwater and surviving on mars. In the water you have an effectively infinite supply of drinking water and oxygen, two things likely in fairly short supply on mars. (Still, I would like to see something like SeaLab happen. Hopefully without the insane Captain.)
Now that I think about it, I wonder how subs maintain the correct atmosphere ratios. Sure you can get oxygen out of sea water, but that's only around 30% of the normal atmosphere. What about the 70% nitrogen?
They do what all companies do. They charge more if their competition allows it, or they change their business model, or they increase their efficiency, or they go out of business for being unable to meet the needs of their consumers.
Google's telco is entirely free to charge Google more if it needs to. My telco is entirely free to charge me more if it needs to. They are not free to set up an infinite number of toll bridges in between me and Google.
He's right, digital culture *is* hard to understand. He should make a wiki to explain it.
This all started from someone claiming that they have "the right" to mail delivery.
So to put things more simply, do you believe that "the people" have "the right" to delivery of all email or USPS mail? The constitution doesn't say they don't, so therefore they do? Of course, doesn't Comcast have the right to not deliver all email? The constitution doesn't say they don't, so they have that right too?
If it is a *right*, then government must be prepared to defend that right and any business or person that infringed that right would be guilty of civil rights violations, no?
We could be talking at cross purposes of what "rights" means. The dictionary lists it as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something". I don't see that anyone has a moral or legal entitlement to have their forwarded email delivered by their ISP, barring it being included in a binding contract. I personally would not patronize an ISP that chose to act as Comcast apparently does. But this seems to be more of a free market situation to me than a question of rights.
Though I guess if you see something as a moral entitlement, you could believe it is a right despite their being no actual government protections of that right. You could believe you are morally entitled to pilot your dirigible through downtown Chicago, but you're probably not going to be allowed to. I don't believe Comcast has any moral obligations in this regard, but others obviously may disagree.
Yes, and? If you want to point me to a state that has labelled delivery of USPS mail as a "Right", please do. That would only make it an official right in that state, of course, not in the country. And it would have nothing to do with delivery of email, which the courts have pretty firmly established by now that it doesn't enjoy the same protections as USPS mail.
If you're implying it means that the USPS Mail Service or email delivery is a "power reserved to the people" you've got some fancy footwork to do. Amendment X would mean that a person who wishes to set up a delivery business or an ISP has the right to do so. It implies nothing that said business is obligated to deliver all packages or emails from anyone to anyone. The business is free to do as it wills within the laws of it's locale, state, and country.
Receiving US postal mail is not a "right". It is not listed in the Bill of Rights and to my knowledge the Courts have not interpreted mail service as an inalienable right. There are, however, Federal laws with regard to USPS mail and interfering with same. I'm not aware of any such laws governing a mandate that all emails be delivered as addressed, or that ISPs can not trap/divert email as they see fit. There would probably be implications in privacy law to publishing customer emails or the like. But I'm not aware of any criminal penalties that can be levied against an ISP that fails to deliver email.
A better example would be, does UPS have the right to not send packages from some senders? Yes, as a private organization they do. Likewise, Comcast as a private organization has the "right" to do anything they wish within the law and within the terms of their contracts. Customers have the right to not continue to purchase services from Comcast if Comcast's policies are unacceptable. (And they certainly are to me, thus I am not a Comcast customer.)