They cant call themselves a telephone company or say that they sell a telephone service, because that places them under regulations and laws which cover EXACTLY this sort of thing mentioned in the article. Of course, there is a downside in that they are required to provide 911 services etc and other things that cost them money.
As I said in another post in this story, the matter of regulation swings both ways. It protects you while costing you a little more money. This is one of those events that points that out.
So he wants to give up the potential of carrying out an illegal act over one of these services, does that really mean he shouldnt deserve liberty at all? What about the right to drive a motor vehicle in any way, method and place he wants? What about driving after having a few to drink? Hes given up those rights so he is a little more secure in the fact that so has everyone else. The right to kill someone? Again, hes given up that right so he is a little more secure in the fact that its less likely to happen to him. The ability to carry a concealled weapon? Ditto.
Perversly, EVERYONE gives up a peice of their liberty for security by living within the law. Does this mean everyone should not be granted security or liberty? This is his choice, and that quote (by which ever idiot president said it) actually means very little. There are laws, Vonage is jsut reminding you that they exist.
Everytime a story appears on slashdot about VoiP companies coming under the same regulations as Telecoms companies, theres a huge outcry basically along the lines of 'hey, leave OUR cheap and easy service alone' and most people miss these small points like the Telecoms company is not allowed to listen to your calls without a warrant. Unregulated means PRECISELY that. The Door swings both ways.
Gun manufacturers do NOT advertise their products based on the fact it can kill people, they just dont as it would be corporate suicide for them. Quite a few p2p applications advertise themselves based on the fact you can get copyrighted material without paying the requested fee. Kazaa does this both withs its free version and its pay for premier version (where material is preselected for quality etc).
If you started seeing advertising saying 'Hey homey, want to deal with that bloke whoes been banging your girl? Buy a Smith and Wesson and make it permanent!' THEN you can make that arguement, but until then, please refrain. P2P applications pride and sell themselves on being able to illegally provide copyrighted material, gun manufacturers dont pride themselves on being able to illegally provide death. Both have alternative legal uses, but only one sells based on those uses.
Never mind, discovered the reason. 'width' in CSS is the content width, not the boundry width. IE takes it to be the boundry width, while gecko correctly interpretes it.
Ok, genuinely interested in a reply to this gecko question (Please dont take this as a troll, its bugged me for a while and I want to see if theres a valid reason for it).
the gecko engine pushes the right hand edge of the 'meow' div off the right side of the viewing area. This doesnt happen in IE and seems to be an artifact of the 'padding: 5px;', which convinces the gecko engine that I want the div to be MORE than 100% in width (width+padding in this case). Now, to me the padding should be contained within the width, not increase the width arbitrarily, as its padding the contents of the div from the edge of the div (the internal boundry), and margin can be used to increase the external boundry of the container. What padding seems to be doing in this case is increase the external boundry of the container, which is what margin should be doing.
Is there any legitimate reason it does this? Is there some obscure clause in the standards which says that padding shouldnt be contained within the set boundries of the container?
Nah, screen doesnt really help when its other machines you want the sessions to connect to (and you dont want them all origionating from the unix system). I actually use screen heavily for other reasons tho.
Well, it wasnt in the writeup and it isnt immediately obvious on your website (and I cant decide if your first paragraph is based in sarcasm or not:P)
I did say I didnt want to be nasty, and that included belittling your effort, I was merely pointing out that we couldnt know for sure that the turn around was swift (and I will take your word for the time scale given, and its pretty impressive anyway).
A question, if you will: Are there any plans to include tabbed window sessions in putty? I routinely have 20 or so putty sessions open, and it fills up my taskbar fairly quickly:( Id love a KDE Kterm like solution or something that groups the windows into a container window. Would you accept the code if someone else were to do it?
US Copyright laws Fair Use clauses do not support complete copying of copyrighted goods, only computer software has an exemption to allow you to back it up. Fair use clauses give you the power to use small, insignificant portions of the copyrighted material in other works, eg quoted sources.
As you state, the copyright owner DOES NOT have to make it easy or able for you to exercise fair use clauses. I dont see the fair use in giving copies out to 9 other people, thats not fair use, thats distribution.
so its always assuring that the devs have a quick turn around on fixes (especially with free software), that kind of dedication is appreciated
Not meaning to be nasty to the putty team, but theres no verifiable date of discovery of this bug, and the last release was 2003. This bug could have been known to the team 6 months ago, and only fixed now:).
Anyone know of any third party tool to 'collect and group' windows in a container window, as I would dearly love to have my 15 or so putty windows act like how KDEs Kterm handles multiple sessions. Basically, when are they going to implement tabbed sessions in putty?:)
Thats because the history books gloss over stuff like that (just the same as the history taught in the UK dont mention brutality in India and other commonwealth countries). For example:
1954 Guatemala. US Government trained and backed exiles under the command and support of US military invades and overthrows current government. US Marines put into country to support exiles.
1962 Panama. US Government puts troops into Panama against the wishes of that countries government. Results in over 1000 Panamanians being shot by US troops.
1965 Dominican Republic. US Government puts troops into the country during democratic elections when it becomes apparent that the pro US government was about to fall.
1969 Cambodia. Despite never having declared war on the country, the US government drops bombs and puts troops into Cambodia after CIA intelligence suggests the NVA was using Cambodia as a supply route.
1970 Oman. US Government puts troops into the country to support an Iranian invasion.
1971 Laos. US government commands South Vietnamese invasion and puts troops in upon request of SV commanders.
1973 Chile. US government puts troops into Chile to support and train rebels looking to depose democratically elected president.
1976 Angola. US government puts troops into country to support and train South African backed rebels.
1981 Nicaragua. US Government puts troops into country to support and train exiled militants. US Government received a UN resolution for this, citing the US as being a 'State sponser of terrorism', the only country to be labeled as such to date.
1983 Grenada. US Government puts troops into country to overthrow current government.
1987 Iran. US Government intervenes on the side of Iraq, puts troops into Iran for 6 weeks. US Naval and bombing of Iran continues for a year.
1989 Panama. US Government overthrows Nationalist government.
1994 Haiti. US Government reinstates Haitian president who was ousted 3 years previously by the people and the military. Troops put into the country. (US Government forces this president to quit in 2003, there was no democratic elections between the reinstatement and his departure for a second time).
Not really, first I state the reason the US thought they did it, and the reason they publically stated, then I state the real reason they did it. The two are complimentry to each other, they felt a soviet occupied europe was a threat BECAUSE of the soviet way of life. They protected europe BECAUSE they felt the Soviet way of life would lead to a Soviet occupied Europe, which would pose a threat for the US.
Im of an uncertain mind as to whether the arms race was a good move on the US part, as they never thought to wonder what would happen if they won the arms race. Well, the Soviets would have been developing their own versions of the same weapons the US were developing, but noone thought what would happen when the USSR overspent itself, other than the USSR would implode (hopefully, either that or a war). So now we have the situation where the USSR did implode, and we have large amounts of nuclear material missing, weapons missing, scientists underpaid and willing to work for whomever can pay them. Its a mess which will only get worse.
Its not like the USSR would have gone "ok, hey you won, lets make sure nothing untoward happens now with everything we created.". No, what actually happened was the economy imploded, and people just upped and left their positions because they needed to find jobs which put food on the table. Entire military regiments deserted, nuclear missile silos were left unguarded, weapons labs were left open, and in one case a soviet nuclear sub was left moored to a bridge, its crew just left it.
Im not sure if your last statement was sarcastic or not, so I will hold comment until you clarify:)
On to the an interesting piece of history, the Cold War. First, the US saved West Berlin. Without the massive airlift effort in the face of the Soviet blockade, the people of West Berlin would have had the option of starving to death or surrendering to the Soviets. Zooming back a little further, it should be realized that the US spent the entire Cold War acting in the defense of democracy. It is naïve to think that the rest of Europe could have held back the Soviet Union on its own. Hell, half of Europe was already taken, and you can be certain they at least wanted the rest of Germany.
Yay, American distortion of the truth yet again. During the Berlin Airlift, flights were flown from 9 airfields into Berlin (mainly landing at Templehoff airport and Gatow RAF airfield - I lived at the latter in the 1980s). 6 of those airfields were in the British sector of western germany, dispatching mainly British aircraft carrying mainly British supplies. The US made up just slightly less than half of the effort right up until the last few months of the effort, when Truman authorised a 200% increase in the effort on the American side, right before the Soviets capitulated and reopened supply routes.
Also something to think about is the fact that the US was NOT 'protecting' Europe out of altruistic feelings, it simply saw that a Soviet occupied Europe would pose a huge and imminent threat to the US if the Soviets ever decided to attack. Thus the effort and monetory value put into 'protecting' Europe made sense because it was infact protecting the US. Its interesting to note that if you look at history from the late 1940s to now with a objective eye, the US comes out as more aggressive than the USSR. It was the US hatred of the Soviet way of life that fueled the cold war. Fair enough, Soviet Russia may not have been a non evil country, but the arms race was born more out of the US view of the Soviet thinking than of Soviet aggression.
It wasnt defective until it broke, and it broke because of an external influence. The unit is cheap BECAUSE it doesnt have expensive features, such as dual firmware etc. Would you call it defective because it doesnt have a built in surge protector?
Im not the parent you replied to, but here are some interesting stats:
Fatal 737 crashes - 52
Fatal 747 crashes - 27
Fatal 757 crashes - 8
Fatal 767 crashes - 6
Fatal 777 crashes - 0
Fatal A300 crashes - 9
Fatal A310 crashes - 5
Fatal A320 crashes - 5
Fatal A330 crashes - 0
Fatal A340 crashes - 0
The 9 A300 crashes include the Israeli raid on entebbe (planes had been hijacked), aircraft shot down by a surface to air missile from the American naval vessel U.S.S. Vincenne, and a number of hijackings. Indeed most of the incidents on there resulted from reduced visibility or crew error, although I do conceed that these figures are only for fatal incidents (and a couple of the A300 incidents werent even crashes, but where hijackers killed passengers), but none seem to be from flight systems failure.
The earliest 747 fatal incident is dated 1974, and the earliest A300 fatal incident is dated 1976, whereas the earliest 737 fatal incident is 1972. A comparable number of A300s to the 737 have been sold and been in service, which is more than the 747.
I had problems with this form of backup once the tarballs got over the max file size limit of the filesystem, so I moved to rsync over ssh, all remotely done. It now takes about 3 hours to fully back up everything, and when I want to restore a file I dont have to untar the backup.
The supermarket across from our offices (UK) recently replaced two cashier positions with 6 self scan positions. They have one cashier attending these 6, not to take money but just to help people, and the volume of people that go through them is fantastic. When I pop in for lunch, I have the option of waiting in line for a cashier, or go through a self scan. The self scan positions always seem to be busy, but you never seem to have to wait for one to free up, they are that much quicker, and the transaction is faster as well.
I got to speak to the technician who services them a few weeks back, and he said each position on average dealt with 150% more traffic during a day than the cashier it replaced. They are doing so well, he said they are looking at putting in more positions. Oh, and they run on WindowsNT4:)
True, but point me to a business which doesnt do the same? "oh no, our world is crumbling because we lost 1p profit last year!! sound the bells, run out the mainsail!!":)
I agree that sometimes some of the sentances passed or fines demanded are a little high for what essentially amounts to eating leftovers out of a restaraunts garbage can (thats how low I view the quality of most downloads:) ).
Depends how much space he wants, i have a spare 2GB (or 4GB, cant remember) 2.5" hard disk going spare atm. Yes, new ones are going to set you back $130 (for 30GB i bet) but since hes looking at much lower capacities in his 'alternative' method of operation, why would he turn his nose up at 2gb second hand.
You are obligated to pay for it, but you are also allowed to request your money back and state reasons why. My point was supposed to be that you cant walk into a resteraunt and order something off the menu "to see if you like it before you order it for real", unless the resteraunt allows you to do this, and most do not.
Im sorry if my origional comment was misleading, I do not expect someone to hunker up money for any old crap, but in this world there is are few "try before you buy" offers like the one people try to pass off with downloading movies and music.
And nothing else can, can it? I really wish people would stop trying to legitimise copyright infringement everytime the MPAA or the RIAA announces record profits/takings/box office sales. If you dont want to pay the fare, dont partake in the reward, its as simple as that.
Some points commonly made:
Ive watched it once (twice, three times) at the cinema, Im now downloading it because I want to watch it again. What is it that makes people think they have a right to not pay for a viewing of a film when thats the only legal way for the general public to view it? It doesnt matter how many times youve paid to see it so far, the offer is still "pay and see", not "pay and see, and see, and see, and see." THAT offer comes out when its on DVD.
I want to see if its any good before I spend money IF you go into a resteraunt, do you refuse to pay just because you didnt like what you ordered off the menu? No, and if you did the resteraunt owner would be calling the police! You go someplace else, you dont go back to that resteraunt, you order something else off the menu, or all of the above! Its called 'voting with your feet or money', and that is what you should do with movies, dont view another one by that director/produce/whoever.
I cant afford to see it in the cinema/buy the DVD. Auuh diddums. Read a book, they are cheaper and you can get more enjoyment out of them. I cant afford caviar or champagne, but I make do. I cant afford to go to the cinema everytime a new film comes out, so I paid out for a lovefilm subscription (UK version of netflix, theres also webflix and blockbuster doing similiar deals in the UK - 20 a month for 4 or 5 dvds at a time unlimited rentals). I now enjoy a new film pretty much every night when I want to, and I usually get new DVD releases sent to me the day they are out.
Theres no way that increased takings announced by the MPAA can legitmise downloading of copyrighted material, sorry but thats the way it is. The only person who can legitimise it is the MPAA or copyright holder themselves, and until that happens Im afraid you are in the cold. Unless you request a major copyright change through the government.
And don't tell me it's just because MS is a bigger target. Linux runs between 35%-40% of the worlds servers
Yes SERVERS. Servers dont tend to have stupid users with email clients on them running whatever they are told to by the email message, which is exactly how this (and many before it) spread. Thats the difference here.
(Yes I know Linux is more proactively secure, but its security still doesnt protect from user stupidity. And before anyone says that users wouldnt be stupid to chmod permissions or untar a tgz with permissions retained, think about the recent worm that required users to enter a freaking password to unzip and run it. That one got around fairly well.)
Slashdot Mirror
They cant call themselves a telephone company or say that they sell a telephone service, because that places them under regulations and laws which cover EXACTLY this sort of thing mentioned in the article. Of course, there is a downside in that they are required to provide 911 services etc and other things that cost them money.
As I said in another post in this story, the matter of regulation swings both ways. It protects you while costing you a little more money. This is one of those events that points that out.
So he wants to give up the potential of carrying out an illegal act over one of these services, does that really mean he shouldnt deserve liberty at all? What about the right to drive a motor vehicle in any way, method and place he wants? What about driving after having a few to drink? Hes given up those rights so he is a little more secure in the fact that so has everyone else. The right to kill someone? Again, hes given up that right so he is a little more secure in the fact that its less likely to happen to him. The ability to carry a concealled weapon? Ditto.
Perversly, EVERYONE gives up a peice of their liberty for security by living within the law. Does this mean everyone should not be granted security or liberty? This is his choice, and that quote (by which ever idiot president said it) actually means very little. There are laws, Vonage is jsut reminding you that they exist.
Everytime a story appears on slashdot about VoiP companies coming under the same regulations as Telecoms companies, theres a huge outcry basically along the lines of 'hey, leave OUR cheap and easy service alone' and most people miss these small points like the Telecoms company is not allowed to listen to your calls without a warrant. Unregulated means PRECISELY that. The Door swings both ways.
Ive posted this before, Ill post it again:
Gun manufacturers do NOT advertise their products based on the fact it can kill people, they just dont as it would be corporate suicide for them. Quite a few p2p applications advertise themselves based on the fact you can get copyrighted material without paying the requested fee. Kazaa does this both withs its free version and its pay for premier version (where material is preselected for quality etc).
If you started seeing advertising saying 'Hey homey, want to deal with that bloke whoes been banging your girl? Buy a Smith and Wesson and make it permanent!' THEN you can make that arguement, but until then, please refrain. P2P applications pride and sell themselves on being able to illegally provide copyrighted material, gun manufacturers dont pride themselves on being able to illegally provide death. Both have alternative legal uses, but only one sells based on those uses.
Never mind, discovered the reason. 'width' in CSS is the content width, not the boundry width. IE takes it to be the boundry width, while gecko correctly interpretes it.
When using the following code:the gecko engine pushes the right hand edge of the 'meow' div off the right side of the viewing area. This doesnt happen in IE and seems to be an artifact of the 'padding: 5px;', which convinces the gecko engine that I want the div to be MORE than 100% in width (width+padding in this case). Now, to me the padding should be contained within the width, not increase the width arbitrarily, as its padding the contents of the div from the edge of the div (the internal boundry), and margin can be used to increase the external boundry of the container. What padding seems to be doing in this case is increase the external boundry of the container, which is what margin should be doing.
Is there any legitimate reason it does this? Is there some obscure clause in the standards which says that padding shouldnt be contained within the set boundries of the container?
Nah, screen doesnt really help when its other machines you want the sessions to connect to (and you dont want them all origionating from the unix system). I actually use screen heavily for other reasons tho.
Well, it wasnt in the writeup and it isnt immediately obvious on your website (and I cant decide if your first paragraph is based in sarcasm or not :P)
:( Id love a KDE Kterm like solution or something that groups the windows into a container window. Would you accept the code if someone else were to do it?
I did say I didnt want to be nasty, and that included belittling your effort, I was merely pointing out that we couldnt know for sure that the turn around was swift (and I will take your word for the time scale given, and its pretty impressive anyway).
A question, if you will: Are there any plans to include tabbed window sessions in putty? I routinely have 20 or so putty sessions open, and it fills up my taskbar fairly quickly
Only to the customers it distributed it to. It does not protect Redhat, Gentoo, Kernel.org etc etc.
That is ludicrously overkill :P You could cut it down by installing KDE within Cygwin, and use it natively. But thats still overkill :P
so its always assuring that the devs have a quick turn around on fixes (especially with free software), that kind of dedication is appreciated
Not meaning to be nasty to the putty team, but theres no verifiable date of discovery of this bug, and the last release was 2003. This bug could have been known to the team 6 months ago, and only fixed now :).
Anyone know of any third party tool to 'collect and group' windows in a container window, as I would dearly love to have my 15 or so putty windows act like how KDEs Kterm handles multiple sessions. Basically, when are they going to implement tabbed sessions in putty? :)
Thats because the history books gloss over stuff like that (just the same as the history taught in the UK dont mention brutality in India and other commonwealth countries). For example:
1954 Guatemala. US Government trained and backed exiles under the command and support of US military invades and overthrows current government. US Marines put into country to support exiles.
1962 Panama. US Government puts troops into Panama against the wishes of that countries government. Results in over 1000 Panamanians being shot by US troops.
1965 Dominican Republic. US Government puts troops into the country during democratic elections when it becomes apparent that the pro US government was about to fall.
1969 Cambodia. Despite never having declared war on the country, the US government drops bombs and puts troops into Cambodia after CIA intelligence suggests the NVA was using Cambodia as a supply route.
1970 Oman. US Government puts troops into the country to support an Iranian invasion.
1971 Laos. US government commands South Vietnamese invasion and puts troops in upon request of SV commanders.
1973 Chile. US government puts troops into Chile to support and train rebels looking to depose democratically elected president.
1976 Angola. US government puts troops into country to support and train South African backed rebels.
1981 Nicaragua. US Government puts troops into country to support and train exiled militants. US Government received a UN resolution for this, citing the US as being a 'State sponser of terrorism', the only country to be labeled as such to date.
1983 Grenada. US Government puts troops into country to overthrow current government.
1987 Iran. US Government intervenes on the side of Iraq, puts troops into Iran for 6 weeks. US Naval and bombing of Iran continues for a year.
1989 Panama. US Government overthrows Nationalist government.
1994 Haiti. US Government reinstates Haitian president who was ousted 3 years previously by the people and the military. Troops put into the country. (US Government forces this president to quit in 2003, there was no democratic elections between the reinstatement and his departure for a second time).
That is a complete and utter contradiction
Not really, first I state the reason the US thought they did it, and the reason they publically stated, then I state the real reason they did it. The two are complimentry to each other, they felt a soviet occupied europe was a threat BECAUSE of the soviet way of life. They protected europe BECAUSE they felt the Soviet way of life would lead to a Soviet occupied Europe, which would pose a threat for the US.
Im of an uncertain mind as to whether the arms race was a good move on the US part, as they never thought to wonder what would happen if they won the arms race. Well, the Soviets would have been developing their own versions of the same weapons the US were developing, but noone thought what would happen when the USSR overspent itself, other than the USSR would implode (hopefully, either that or a war). So now we have the situation where the USSR did implode, and we have large amounts of nuclear material missing, weapons missing, scientists underpaid and willing to work for whomever can pay them. Its a mess which will only get worse.
Its not like the USSR would have gone "ok, hey you won, lets make sure nothing untoward happens now with everything we created.". No, what actually happened was the economy imploded, and people just upped and left their positions because they needed to find jobs which put food on the table. Entire military regiments deserted, nuclear missile silos were left unguarded, weapons labs were left open, and in one case a soviet nuclear sub was left moored to a bridge, its crew just left it.
Im not sure if your last statement was sarcastic or not, so I will hold comment until you clarify :)
On to the an interesting piece of history, the Cold War. First, the US saved West Berlin. Without the massive airlift effort in the face of the Soviet blockade, the people of West Berlin would have had the option of starving to death or surrendering to the Soviets. Zooming back a little further, it should be realized that the US spent the entire Cold War acting in the defense of democracy. It is naïve to think that the rest of Europe could have held back the Soviet Union on its own. Hell, half of Europe was already taken, and you can be certain they at least wanted the rest of Germany.
Yay, American distortion of the truth yet again. During the Berlin Airlift, flights were flown from 9 airfields into Berlin (mainly landing at Templehoff airport and Gatow RAF airfield - I lived at the latter in the 1980s). 6 of those airfields were in the British sector of western germany, dispatching mainly British aircraft carrying mainly British supplies. The US made up just slightly less than half of the effort right up until the last few months of the effort, when Truman authorised a 200% increase in the effort on the American side, right before the Soviets capitulated and reopened supply routes.
Also something to think about is the fact that the US was NOT 'protecting' Europe out of altruistic feelings, it simply saw that a Soviet occupied Europe would pose a huge and imminent threat to the US if the Soviets ever decided to attack. Thus the effort and monetory value put into 'protecting' Europe made sense because it was infact protecting the US. Its interesting to note that if you look at history from the late 1940s to now with a objective eye, the US comes out as more aggressive than the USSR. It was the US hatred of the Soviet way of life that fueled the cold war. Fair enough, Soviet Russia may not have been a non evil country, but the arms race was born more out of the US view of the Soviet thinking than of Soviet aggression.
It wasnt defective until it broke, and it broke because of an external influence. The unit is cheap BECAUSE it doesnt have expensive features, such as dual firmware etc. Would you call it defective because it doesnt have a built in surge protector?
- Fatal 737 crashes - 52
- Fatal 747 crashes - 27
- Fatal 757 crashes - 8
- Fatal 767 crashes - 6
- Fatal 777 crashes - 0
- Fatal A300 crashes - 9
- Fatal A310 crashes - 5
- Fatal A320 crashes - 5
- Fatal A330 crashes - 0
- Fatal A340 crashes - 0
The 9 A300 crashes include the Israeli raid on entebbe (planes had been hijacked), aircraft shot down by a surface to air missile from the American naval vessel U.S.S. Vincenne, and a number of hijackings. Indeed most of the incidents on there resulted from reduced visibility or crew error, although I do conceed that these figures are only for fatal incidents (and a couple of the A300 incidents werent even crashes, but where hijackers killed passengers), but none seem to be from flight systems failure.The earliest 747 fatal incident is dated 1974, and the earliest A300 fatal incident is dated 1976, whereas the earliest 737 fatal incident is 1972. A comparable number of A300s to the 737 have been sold and been in service, which is more than the 747.
Source of figures: Air Safe
I steal music and I'm proud of it!
Im sorry, but with that statement I class you no better than them.
I had problems with this form of backup once the tarballs got over the max file size limit of the filesystem, so I moved to rsync over ssh, all remotely done. It now takes about 3 hours to fully back up everything, and when I want to restore a file I dont have to untar the backup.
The supermarket across from our offices (UK) recently replaced two cashier positions with 6 self scan positions. They have one cashier attending these 6, not to take money but just to help people, and the volume of people that go through them is fantastic. When I pop in for lunch, I have the option of waiting in line for a cashier, or go through a self scan. The self scan positions always seem to be busy, but you never seem to have to wait for one to free up, they are that much quicker, and the transaction is faster as well.
:)
I got to speak to the technician who services them a few weeks back, and he said each position on average dealt with 150% more traffic during a day than the cashier it replaced. They are doing so well, he said they are looking at putting in more positions. Oh, and they run on WindowsNT4
True, but point me to a business which doesnt do the same? "oh no, our world is crumbling because we lost 1p profit last year!! sound the bells, run out the mainsail!!" :)
:) ).
I agree that sometimes some of the sentances passed or fines demanded are a little high for what essentially amounts to eating leftovers out of a restaraunts garbage can (thats how low I view the quality of most downloads
Depends how much space he wants, i have a spare 2GB (or 4GB, cant remember) 2.5" hard disk going spare atm. Yes, new ones are going to set you back $130 (for 30GB i bet) but since hes looking at much lower capacities in his 'alternative' method of operation, why would he turn his nose up at 2gb second hand.
You are obligated to pay for it, but you are also allowed to request your money back and state reasons why. My point was supposed to be that you cant walk into a resteraunt and order something off the menu "to see if you like it before you order it for real", unless the resteraunt allows you to do this, and most do not.
Im sorry if my origional comment was misleading, I do not expect someone to hunker up money for any old crap, but in this world there is are few "try before you buy" offers like the one people try to pass off with downloading movies and music.
Some points commonly made:
Theres no way that increased takings announced by the MPAA can legitmise downloading of copyrighted material, sorry but thats the way it is. The only person who can legitimise it is the MPAA or copyright holder themselves, and until that happens Im afraid you are in the cold. Unless you request a major copyright change through the government.
And don't tell me it's just because MS is a bigger target. Linux runs between 35%-40% of the worlds servers
Yes SERVERS. Servers dont tend to have stupid users with email clients on them running whatever they are told to by the email message, which is exactly how this (and many before it) spread. Thats the difference here.
(Yes I know Linux is more proactively secure, but its security still doesnt protect from user stupidity. And before anyone says that users wouldnt be stupid to chmod permissions or untar a tgz with permissions retained, think about the recent worm that required users to enter a freaking password to unzip and run it. That one got around fairly well.)