I looked at MIT 4 years ago and was not very impressed at all. Sure from a prestige standpoint once you get your MIT degree people will always be impressed but the feeling I got when I went to visit was that they didn't really give a shit about undergrads because they're not bringing in research money. It was like they weren't even trying to sell the school. Maybe they didn't think they needed to but one info session there was all it took to convince my not to apply.
First they were using a promo video that was at least 10-15 years old, that contained more than a few inuendos about parties and drinking that seemed a little bit out of place since it was a few years after Scott Kreuger's death. Also they were bragging about how the president of Bose Stereo taught a class there every year while the speaker system buzzed the entire hour and a half the presentation lasted. The school might have a ton of resources available but I would rather be at a school where professors actually cared about their students.
looking back, I definitely made the right choice. I'm confident that got more out of my education here at Notre Dame than I would have at MIT and had a lot more fun doing it too.
I have a funny feeling that even if they wanted to, it's dangerously close to running afoul of federal wiretap law. I'm not sure whether changing the TOS without notice can constitute the permission of a party to record the transmission. IANAL
that's just the cost of storage, there are also issues of actually implementing a system to do the logging on all the servers in such a way that doesn't degrade performance and logging in such a way that is actually usefull. I highly doubt that they'd be able to search through thousands of flat text files on hundreds of servers very quickly or efficiently.
that's only if the object absorbs the light, which this shielding apparenlty doesn't do. There's still the whole problem about it needing to be microscopic to work for visible light though.
Well it's not always the case that profit is an inverse function of risk. The ideal situation though is one with no risk and tons and tons of profit. Dell obviously has a fairly low threshold of acceptable risk, otherwise they'd probably either be switching vendors to AMD or would be offering both depending on which deal would be sweeter.
Basic economics, you lower the price relying on more people to end up buying. Even though you might be making less money per unit if the conditions are right you'll be moving more units and making greater profit overall. That is all assuming profit is a % of the total cost and not a static amount tacked on to the end price.
I'm sure the bean counters went over every aspect of both scenarios and determined that sticking with Intel would yeild the most profit at the lowest risk.
our engineering week festivities are culminating tomorrow with the *unoffical* engineering keg race. the teams are divided by disciplines, and there's even a trophy.
According to the link in the grandparent post, if the trademark is approved there will be a period of time that other parties may oppose the granting of trademark. So even if the UPTO were to have its head up its ass like it usually does the MAME guys will have a chance to notify them of their oversight before Foley can sue them.
More like they know that the FUD value of SCO at this point is near zero and all they wanted was for SCO to do their dirty work by proxy. It makes no sense for them to come in and take over SCO because it doesn't strengthen their position any.
Since you bring up monopolistic practices, MS couldn't take over SCO even if they wanted to because it would be a clear violation of anti-trust laws and probably a violation of the DOJ settlement.
Why would MS touch it with a 10-foot poll? They got enough negative press for orchestrating the BayStar deal, there's no way in hell they want anything to do with SCO at this point. What's probably going to happen is Canopy will carve out any useful IP and resources from SCO and form yet another company while it leaves SCO as a litigation company. then another Canopy company will buy out SCO, initiating the new change of control procedure which gives Darl & co. a set of nice golden parachutes and they walk away from the mess with all the investor's cash.
What I want to know is how illegal this whole racket was...
I'm at Notre Dame, they just replaced all the old Solaris boxes in almost all the Engineering labs with x86 Linux boxes(RHEL for those who care) and a few windows boxes for CAD/MAYA. I think the only Macs in the building belong to professors as their desktop machines/laptops.
I'm not really sure what the mods are thinking marking this funny. All the branches of the military recruit CS and other tech/engineering undergrads heavily. We're not talking having geeks enlist and serve on the front lines but having them run the complex communication network, weapon systems and other advanced technologies.
Pretty much so long as DRM isn't built completely into every part of the hardware, lifting the content will be trivial. The signal has to be decrypted at some point in order to view it so if the encryption is too strong they'll just copy it off the wire on the way to the TV or by probing the connecitons in the device. It's a cat and mouse game the movie industry is always going to lose; pirates and those wishing to use their digital content without restriction are always going to be attacking the weakest point in the process.
The problem is that Novell isn't sure they actually own all the copyrights to UNIX, they just know that SCO doesn't. Novell is most likely trying to avoid having to touch the ATT vs BSDi case and settlement if at all possible since that could potentially let a lot of the UNIX source out into the public domain or at the very least take away some of the copyrights from Novell.
If that's true, Microsoft would still have to figure out if it's worth it to sue. with a company like Meijer who probably has a large pack of rabid lawyers (it's a grocery store, pretty good target for consumer suits) and the fact that this causes very little actual damage to Microsoft, it'd probably end up being more expensive to sue.
besides, it's free marketing; Halo2 is on the front page of slashdot again...
part of the standard allows you to pick and choose what information you share with whom. granted you'll still be giving all your information to one identification provider but you get to say what of that information is available to any company you want to link the login to. I'm not sure how to go about giving phony information other than having a bogus account though.
actually despite what the person who posted this article implies, LA is not a monolithic sign on like Passport. LA basically provides a protocol for a person's identity to be authenticated via a third party and the token from that third party server passed to different sites that trust the third party. The standard does not however stipulate that there can be only one company capable of identity verification, but rather lets sites choose who they trust the information from.
is that the courts found that video games DO qualify as protected speech. This is a very good thing because it sets a precedent that will make banning/restricting games much harder.
not exactly, if they were pulling an SCO they'd be claiming that every search engine in the world is in violation and anyone who uses a seach engine must pay them a licensing fee per search;)
Slashdot Mirror
First they were using a promo video that was at least 10-15 years old, that contained more than a few inuendos about parties and drinking that seemed a little bit out of place since it was a few years after Scott Kreuger's death. Also they were bragging about how the president of Bose Stereo taught a class there every year while the speaker system buzzed the entire hour and a half the presentation lasted. The school might have a ton of resources available but I would rather be at a school where professors actually cared about their students.
looking back, I definitely made the right choice. I'm confident that got more out of my education here at Notre Dame than I would have at MIT and had a lot more fun doing it too.
I'm pretty sure that's only if the company is defrauding the government though.
I have a funny feeling that even if they wanted to, it's dangerously close to running afoul of federal wiretap law. I'm not sure whether changing the TOS without notice can constitute the permission of a party to record the transmission. IANAL
that's just the cost of storage, there are also issues of actually implementing a system to do the logging on all the servers in such a way that doesn't degrade performance and logging in such a way that is actually usefull. I highly doubt that they'd be able to search through thousands of flat text files on hundreds of servers very quickly or efficiently.
that's only if the object absorbs the light, which this shielding apparenlty doesn't do. There's still the whole problem about it needing to be microscopic to work for visible light though.
Well it's not always the case that profit is an inverse function of risk. The ideal situation though is one with no risk and tons and tons of profit. Dell obviously has a fairly low threshold of acceptable risk, otherwise they'd probably either be switching vendors to AMD or would be offering both depending on which deal would be sweeter.
I'm sure the bean counters went over every aspect of both scenarios and determined that sticking with Intel would yeild the most profit at the lowest risk.
Go Irish
According to the link in the grandparent post, if the trademark is approved there will be a period of time that other parties may oppose the granting of trademark. So even if the UPTO were to have its head up its ass like it usually does the MAME guys will have a chance to notify them of their oversight before Foley can sue them.
I bet the Romans are going to be pissed about this...
I guess you're right. Only one investor left.
way to use complete sentences, ass
Since you bring up monopolistic practices, MS couldn't take over SCO even if they wanted to because it would be a clear violation of anti-trust laws and probably a violation of the DOJ settlement.
What I want to know is how illegal this whole racket was...
I'm at Notre Dame, they just replaced all the old Solaris boxes in almost all the Engineering labs with x86 Linux boxes(RHEL for those who care) and a few windows boxes for CAD/MAYA. I think the only Macs in the building belong to professors as their desktop machines/laptops.
I'm not really sure what the mods are thinking marking this funny. All the branches of the military recruit CS and other tech/engineering undergrads heavily. We're not talking having geeks enlist and serve on the front lines but having them run the complex communication network, weapon systems and other advanced technologies.
Pretty much so long as DRM isn't built completely into every part of the hardware, lifting the content will be trivial. The signal has to be decrypted at some point in order to view it so if the encryption is too strong they'll just copy it off the wire on the way to the TV or by probing the connecitons in the device. It's a cat and mouse game the movie industry is always going to lose; pirates and those wishing to use their digital content without restriction are always going to be attacking the weakest point in the process.
The problem is that Novell isn't sure they actually own all the copyrights to UNIX, they just know that SCO doesn't. Novell is most likely trying to avoid having to touch the ATT vs BSDi case and settlement if at all possible since that could potentially let a lot of the UNIX source out into the public domain or at the very least take away some of the copyrights from Novell.
besides, it's free marketing; Halo2 is on the front page of slashdot again...
that's only grad school though.
part of the standard allows you to pick and choose what information you share with whom. granted you'll still be giving all your information to one identification provider but you get to say what of that information is available to any company you want to link the login to. I'm not sure how to go about giving phony information other than having a bogus account though.
actually despite what the person who posted this article implies, LA is not a monolithic sign on like Passport. LA basically provides a protocol for a person's identity to be authenticated via a third party and the token from that third party server passed to different sites that trust the third party. The standard does not however stipulate that there can be only one company capable of identity verification, but rather lets sites choose who they trust the information from.
well if you're smoking pot it's true that you pass out before you can get a lethal dose into your bloodstream. but ingesting THC it's possible to OD
is that the courts found that video games DO qualify as protected speech. This is a very good thing because it sets a precedent that will make banning/restricting games much harder.
come on, everyone knows that pot makes you drive better....
</sarcasm>
not exactly, if they were pulling an SCO they'd be claiming that every search engine in the world is in violation and anyone who uses a seach engine must pay them a licensing fee per search ;)