Software vendors will have no incentive to put negative labels on their products; even if it's the law, they'll find some loopholes to avoid the labels. Instead, they would have more incentive to use labels that are positive. Instead of making a vendors say, "Yes, I use spyware," it makes more sense to award well-behaved programs a positive seal of approval which means, "This software uses no spyware, is uninstallable, etc."
A good company realizes that employees have various non-work-related obligations they need to do during the day. A smart company realizes that if it lets people do those non-work things during the work day, they'll stay at work longer. (If it doesn't permit these non-work tasks, employees will leave early -- even sneak out -- to get them done.)
I used to work for a great company that bought dinner every night for every employee who worked past 7:00pm. This not only boosted moral (and impressed job candidates), but also it kept people in the office several hours longer for a mere $10 dinner. Smart company. Win-win situation.
Bottom line: keep your employees happy, and don't interfere with their personal lives, and they work harder. Impose stupid restrictions and watch morale disintegrate.
This argument assumes that the employees are responsible people. (If they aren't, the company has worse problems than a few cell phone calls.)
I maintain an open source software project. Before signing my agreement, I negotiated with my employer to exclude my open source project from their intellectual property agreement. They were OK with it.
I also write books, and my employer has been happy to disclaim ownership in the material as long as it doesn't enter into their business space.
It varies by employer of course. My previous employer took 4 months to make these kinds of decisions; my current one turns them around in a day.
Hell, I don't even care about an address book: give me a cell phone that actually gets calls through as reliably as wired phone systems, 99.9% of the time with excellent clarity. The rest is window dressing.
Not wrong, just not unique. Sure there are other products that share features with the Squeezebox. But most other products mentioned by the other posters work with local storage only.
"I'd contend that researchers & scientists in general would be quite silly to site an electronic-only resource in their publications..."
Given that the peer-review process for a journal article can take several years, there might not be a non-electronic reference for what you want to cite.
10. Call everybody on it.
9. Use it to pick lottery numbers.
8. Send $1 to the first person on the list, then add your name to the
bottom and forward it to 10 friends.
7. Same as above, but put your name at the top of the list.
6. Tell John Ashcroft it's a list of suspected terrorists.
5. Create the ultimate uncrackable password: echo `cat donotcalllist`
4. Reduce the national deficit by selling it back to the telemarketers
for a pretty penny.
3. Register every phone number as a new Internet domain (212-555-1234.com)
to help thwart Verisign.
2. Filter it through the Unix command "tr aeiou eioua" and remark how
everybody's names look Swedish.
1. Turn in the bastards to the RIAA.
"AllowUsers you@your_ip_address" doesn't do what you might think it does. As written, it looks like it says something about a remote user. It doesn't.
It is better explained as "AllowUsers localAccount@remote_ip_address".
It means: "Allow SSH connections from anybody at remote_ip_address to connect to localAccount." (Of course the remote user still must authenticate successfully.)
The syntax unfortunately looks like it specifies a remote user. It doesn't. It defines a relationship between a remote IP address and a local user.
Let's ignore the usual liberal ignorance in using the word "neoconservative" to vilify anyone who supported the liberation of Iraq...
And let's ignore your own ignorance in using the word "liberal" to vilify anybody who disagrees with you.
Liberating Iraq? I thought we were defending the world from weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait, I forgot they changed the story when they didn't find any, and hoped nobody would notice.
Those of us who used to read "Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators" novels in our childhood have known about this effect since 1964, when The Secret of Terror Castle was published.
The story is about a supposedly haunted castle where nobody can spend the night without fleeing in terror. Guess what was responsible? (Hint: there was a huge pipe organ in the castle.)
For anyone unfamiliar with the "Three Investigators" series of books, it's about trio of teens, sponsored by Alfred Hitchcock, who investigate mysteries. Similar to the Hardy Boys, but I remember liking it better.
Slashdot Mirror
Software vendors will have no incentive to put negative labels on their products; even if it's the law, they'll find some loopholes to avoid the labels. Instead, they would have more incentive to use labels that are positive. Instead of making a vendors say, "Yes, I use spyware," it makes more sense to award well-behaved programs a positive seal of approval which means, "This software uses no spyware, is uninstallable, etc."
Actually what Bush said was, "All Americans should pony up for broadband."
I used to work for a great company that bought dinner every night for every employee who worked past 7:00pm. This not only boosted moral (and impressed job candidates), but also it kept people in the office several hours longer for a mere $10 dinner. Smart company. Win-win situation.
Bottom line: keep your employees happy, and don't interfere with their personal lives, and they work harder. Impose stupid restrictions and watch morale disintegrate.
This argument assumes that the employees are responsible people. (If they aren't, the company has worse problems than a few cell phone calls.)
BLAZEMONGER, d00d!!!!!
Ridiculous. Why would they want to force upgrades to Windows ME?
The mice will be furious!
No, -3, Conjurist.
I also write books, and my employer has been happy to disclaim ownership in the material as long as it doesn't enter into their business space.
It varies by employer of course. My previous employer took 4 months to make these kinds of decisions; my current one turns them around in a day.
Hell, I don't even care about an address book: give me a cell phone that actually gets calls through as reliably as wired phone systems, 99.9% of the time with excellent clarity. The rest is window dressing.
Not wrong, just not unique. Sure there are other products that share features with the Squeezebox. But most other products mentioned by the other posters work with local storage only.
- Unlimited storage (on the server PC). Some folks have more than 20GB of music (legitimately purchased even)
- Ability to stream MP3s to multiple Squeezeboxes from a single server, centralizing your music collection
Given that the peer-review process for a journal article can take several years, there might not be a non-electronic reference for what you want to cite.
Ah, scientists have discovered George Bush's attention span.
Too bad that 6 hours after they turn it on, all those model mailboxes will be overflowing with spam.
Or maybe they'll wipe us all out, in which case it won't matter.
Hey, can I borrow your card? I need to buy some napalm and illegal drugs.
Hey, BLAZE ON, d00d! Visit my BLAZEMONGER WEB SITE for more nostalgia....
10. Call everybody on it.
9. Use it to pick lottery numbers.
8. Send $1 to the first person on the list, then add your name to the bottom and forward it to 10 friends.
7. Same as above, but put your name at the top of the list.
6. Tell John Ashcroft it's a list of suspected terrorists.
5. Create the ultimate uncrackable password: echo `cat donotcalllist`
4. Reduce the national deficit by selling it back to the telemarketers for a pretty penny.
3. Register every phone number as a new Internet domain (212-555-1234.com) to help thwart Verisign.
2. Filter it through the Unix command "tr aeiou eioua" and remark how everybody's names look Swedish.
1. Turn in the bastards to the RIAA.
But it DOES run "BLAZEMONGER P2P EDITION," which serves out not only EVERY FILE ON THE PLANET, but also HARDWARE, LIVE GOATS, and FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS!
It is better explained as "AllowUsers localAccount@remote_ip_address". It means: "Allow SSH connections from anybody at remote_ip_address to connect to localAccount." (Of course the remote user still must authenticate successfully.)
The syntax unfortunately looks like it specifies a remote user. It doesn't. It defines a relationship between a remote IP address and a local user.
Trust me, I wrote the book. :-)
Yeah, until the day that all web sites require IE.
And let's ignore your own ignorance in using the word "liberal" to vilify anybody who disagrees with you.
Liberating Iraq? I thought we were defending the world from weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait, I forgot they changed the story when they didn't find any, and hoped nobody would notice.
Sadly, psychological research would probably disagree with you. Most people don't go far up the ladder of moral reasoning.
"But your Honor, the user CONSENTED to install my virus, by willingly opening that infected email."
The story is about a supposedly haunted castle where nobody can spend the night without fleeing in terror. Guess what was responsible? (Hint: there was a huge pipe organ in the castle.)
For anyone unfamiliar with the "Three Investigators" series of books, it's about trio of teens, sponsored by Alfred Hitchcock, who investigate mysteries. Similar to the Hardy Boys, but I remember liking it better.