Sadly, this may backfire. I know many people who assume that systems with high-uptime are bad, because they think you have to reboot every so often to "clean things out". Granted, these are PHB type people, but they are the ones who make the decisions about where the money goes.
Personally, I'd think it's be a nobrainer to spend less on the hardware and more on the admin (you get alot more use out of a good admin than you do out of one box, no matter how good it is), but they don't ask me:(
I've never heard this one, but it makes some sense to me - he's correct, that any right you enjoy for the duration of your life is unlimited as far as you're concerned. And it's a reasonable argument that your hiers shouldn't profit from your work at the expense of society, as they didn't have any effect on the creation of it (social contract implicit in copyright law).
As for old people... well, I don't know about you, but very few of the very elderly people I know careed a great deal about aquiring wealth - if they already had it, there was no point in getting more, and if they didn't it was too late. They were more interested in preparing a legacy, and a great work of art certainly is that.
I think it's a fallacy that you need long term copyright to get people to create, anyway - in fact, it's obviously false. It's astonishingly difficult to make any real amount of money by creating art, unless you're willing to sign all those rights over to a corporation, who are the only entities that really gain from long term copyrights.
I wish I could find the quote, but it's quitting time and I need to get home. It's from the head of the USPTO, and it's something to the effect that a properly worded patent for a flying machine would cover both helicopters and airplanes, and that the USPTO would grant such a patent. Thats pretty much all I think I need to say about that.
I can't speak for the specific Amazon one, but I'll take some time to read it this weekend. I should point out that "where the cookies are stored" isn't controllable by the server, and combining single item orders into multi-item ones is hardly non-intuitive.
Main problem I have with software patents: Software doesn't DO anything. It's a description, a set of instructions, that can spur the proper machine to do something. Software patents, when taken to the logical extremes, cover all possible implementations of the process they describe, which certainly stifles innovation and upsets the the social contract on which patents are founded (imo, I suppose).
What you're describing is an implementation of a one-time pad system. This is slightly different than the ones I know and may not be secure, but it's almost quitting time and I don't feel like looking anything up.
Here's the short version of my argument on what should and should not be patentable: You can patent any new invention which is a physical implementation of a device, new being subject to the existing standards of non-obviousness, etc. None of this crap about patenting processe. You don't patent "a way of propelling a ground vehicle", you patent "this engine right here", and "this specific drivetrain". And you can't patent an idea, either, you must have a working implementation. Anyone but me remember the (probably apocyphal) stories about Graham Bell and that other guy racing to the patent office to patent the telephone first? Would have never happened in todays world, because one of them would have patented "a means of communicating over a wire" long before they had a working implementation. No more submarine patents!
By this standard, code would not be patentable, although task-specific firmware would be - assuming you custom design all the silicon.
This would mean that anyone can implement your process - they just can't implement it in exactly the same way as you do. If your process is such that it can only be implemented one way... well, thats a reason to write your patents as specifically as possible.
There's a large difference between an actual BUG, and you just not knowing how to make something work. I don't get all bent out of shape about bugs in C because my Perl code doesn't compile. If you're happy learn how stuff works in IE, and only in IE, and leave it at that, thats fine, but don't blame it on bugs in Mozilla (unless it's documented to work that way, and it doesn't)
Something you might want to consider - complaints like yours (and mine) are mainly when using VIA based chipsets. Try an SiS chipset instead, before writing off AMD totally.
I've got that same one and no end of troubles with it. One thing that helped me was DOWNGRADING the VIA 4 in 1 drivers.
And soon, soon! I get my Tyan Thunder *drool*
Using monopoly power to prevent anyone else from entering that competion is illegal - that's what at issue here. It's not about how they got the monopoly, or if the OEMs want to back out now, or any of that. It's pure and simple: Did MS, once they gained an OS monopoly, use that power to prevent people from bringing competing products to market?
This is actually one of the greatest disservices done to shakespeare in the schools, and it's why everyone hates it. Shakespeare was not an author, he was a playright, and plays are meant to be acted, not read. Reading shakespeare and then writing a 10 page dissertation on it for your intro to lit class isn't going to teach you anything about shakespeare, and deriding someone who's only read it and never seen it, and in fact assumes that reading is the appropriate way of experiencing it, is perfectly vald.
Time dilation under stress is a pretty common thing. I know that when my car spun out, I had pleny of time to realize what was happening, go over my drivers ed traning, realize that it was to late to do much to control the spin, and brace for the impact. Elapsed time? Righ around a second.
I'd have to say the Oracle 91 website on the oracle website is the biggest - ran across it the other day looking for oracle 8i documentation - and they claim, in writing, that the oracle database can survive total physical failure of the server it's running on! Now, after thinking about it for a second, they probably mean that it can prevent data corruption and loss, but the way it's worded certainly makes it sound like Oracle is some magic application that can stay up even when it's hardware is destroyed. They also claim that it can't be broken by user error.
For the testing to be meaningful, you need to be able to check and compare it with what you get at the other end - So they need SOMETHING recording the data, at both ends.
See, I thought that might have been it, but then I was like, nah, thats stupid, and it's hardly an insult, so it doesn't really make sense in the context of the post....
No company, or industry deserves to make a profit. They must EARN profit. This is a core belief of the free market system we all love so much.
Sadly, in recent years we have moved steadliy from a free market to one where you have no right to profit, UNLESS you've been succcessful for a while. It's not just in the US, either - do some research on how NAFTA has been playing out (Hint: It has a clause in it thats being user by companies to claim the RIGHT to return on investment. Successfully, no less)
If they aren't taking a loss, at least a loss from the previous year (which they aren't, although it would be circumstantial proof at best), then they aren't being hurt. By definition.
You're correct, but the argument here is more that a rush is ALWAYS the most effective strategy, assuming you can micromanage fast enough. Meaning, basically, no matter how good you are, the only way you can win is by making more units faster and attacking first.
I'm not really a big RTS gamer (frankly, I suck at them), but these are the complaints I hear most often. A "fun" game is one in which there is more than 1 viable strategy.
To expand your chess comparison... what if you play real-time chess? Then if someone can move that bishop and queen out faster than you can move that pawn up, you'd always lose to a rush. (Even this is flawed, since in chess it's alot easier/more efficent to defend than attack, and thats not the case in most RTS games - the opposite, in fact)
I believe, legally speaking, that a "sale" is any time when you exchange something for consideration, in any form. So I don't think you can get away with any "Donate 50 bucks to the Peter Daly Beer Fund and get a FREE cd-rom!" tricks. But maybe you can, I'm no damn lawyer.
No person may knowingly apply to a copyrighted work, that has been distributed to the public, a security measure that uses a standard security technology in violation of the encoding rules adopted under section 3.
The obvious intention here is so that you can't make a (legit) copy, but remove the DRM (if only to make it more convenient, much as I no-CD crack my legally purchased games so I don't need to swap) However, it seems to me that this would also prevent people from applying DRM to something that wasn't originally distributed that way. Wouldn't this mean that all exisiting content couldn't be DRMed, unless it was re-released that way by the original copyright holder? And even then, they can't remove legal rights to existing content(well, media companies can't, software perhaps via the EULA), so you could always aquire your media from an older, non-DRMed source, which could not, legally, have DRM applied to it, ever!
I know a suprising amount of people with low end machines hooked up to really fat pipes - broadband is generally considered a smaller cost than a new, high end computer (~$200 setup/modem/etc for broadband, ~$800-1000 for a new machine). Alot of these people, while not "power gamers", do play alot of counterstrike, half-life, quake 2, etc.
I'm curious.. did they actually provide a security update, or was it a "buy the new version" sort of thing? If the second, I'm willing to give admins alot more slack when it comes to have an open system - upgrading to a new verion of something important like a mail server is not cheap, either in money or in time. Especially not at a goverment agency where every dollar has to be approved by 5 different committees.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'd think it's be a nobrainer to spend less on the hardware and more on the admin (you get alot more use out of a good admin than you do out of one box, no matter how good it is), but they don't ask me :(
As for old people... well, I don't know about you, but very few of the very elderly people I know careed a great deal about aquiring wealth - if they already had it, there was no point in getting more, and if they didn't it was too late. They were more interested in preparing a legacy, and a great work of art certainly is that.
I think it's a fallacy that you need long term copyright to get people to create, anyway - in fact, it's obviously false. It's astonishingly difficult to make any real amount of money by creating art, unless you're willing to sign all those rights over to a corporation, who are the only entities that really gain from long term copyrights.
I can't speak for the specific Amazon one, but I'll take some time to read it this weekend. I should point out that "where the cookies are stored" isn't controllable by the server, and combining single item orders into multi-item ones is hardly non-intuitive.
Main problem I have with software patents: Software doesn't DO anything. It's a description, a set of instructions, that can spur the proper machine to do something. Software patents, when taken to the logical extremes, cover all possible implementations of the process they describe, which certainly stifles innovation and upsets the the social contract on which patents are founded (imo, I suppose).
What you're describing is an implementation of a one-time pad system. This is slightly different than the ones I know and may not be secure, but it's almost quitting time and I don't feel like looking anything up.
Nobody (at least nobody with any knowledge in the field) ever said that 1024 bit encryption was unbreakable.
By this standard, code would not be patentable, although task-specific firmware would be - assuming you custom design all the silicon.
This would mean that anyone can implement your process - they just can't implement it in exactly the same way as you do. If your process is such that it can only be implemented one way... well, thats a reason to write your patents as specifically as possible.
There's a large difference between an actual BUG, and you just not knowing how to make something work. I don't get all bent out of shape about bugs in C because my Perl code doesn't compile. If you're happy learn how stuff works in IE, and only in IE, and leave it at that, thats fine, but don't blame it on bugs in Mozilla (unless it's documented to work that way, and it doesn't)
Something you might want to consider - complaints like yours (and mine) are mainly when using VIA based chipsets. Try an SiS chipset instead, before writing off AMD totally.
I've got that same one and no end of troubles with it. One thing that helped me was DOWNGRADING the VIA 4 in 1 drivers.
And soon, soon! I get my Tyan Thunder *drool*
You know, "market development fund" sounds an awful lot like payola to me. Isn't that illegal, or is it just for the music industy?
Using monopoly power to prevent anyone else from entering that competion is illegal - that's what at issue here. It's not about how they got the monopoly, or if the OEMs want to back out now, or any of that. It's pure and simple: Did MS, once they gained an OS monopoly, use that power to prevent people from bringing competing products to market?
This is actually one of the greatest disservices done to shakespeare in the schools, and it's why everyone hates it. Shakespeare was not an author, he was a playright, and plays are meant to be acted, not read. Reading shakespeare and then writing a 10 page dissertation on it for your intro to lit class isn't going to teach you anything about shakespeare, and deriding someone who's only read it and never seen it, and in fact assumes that reading is the appropriate way of experiencing it, is perfectly vald.
Time dilation under stress is a pretty common thing. I know that when my car spun out, I had pleny of time to realize what was happening, go over my drivers ed traning, realize that it was to late to do much to control the spin, and brace for the impact. Elapsed time? Righ around a second.
Erm, no. The general figure given is 20 times slower, although to an end user that's probably sufficent for most apps to "feel" the same speed.
I'd have to say the Oracle 91 website on the oracle website is the biggest - ran across it the other day looking for oracle 8i documentation - and they claim, in writing, that the oracle database can survive total physical failure of the server it's running on! Now, after thinking about it for a second, they probably mean that it can prevent data corruption and loss, but the way it's worded certainly makes it sound like Oracle is some magic application that can stay up even when it's hardware is destroyed. They also claim that it can't be broken by user error.
For the testing to be meaningful, you need to be able to check and compare it with what you get at the other end - So they need SOMETHING recording the data, at both ends.
See, I thought that might have been it, but then I was like, nah, thats stupid, and it's hardly an insult, so it doesn't really make sense in the context of the post....
Sadly, in recent years we have moved steadliy from a free market to one where you have no right to profit, UNLESS you've been succcessful for a while. It's not just in the US, either - do some research on how NAFTA has been playing out (Hint: It has a clause in it thats being user by companies to claim the RIGHT to return on investment. Successfully, no less)
If they aren't taking a loss, at least a loss from the previous year (which they aren't, although it would be circumstantial proof at best), then they aren't being hurt. By definition.
I'm not really a big RTS gamer (frankly, I suck at them), but these are the complaints I hear most often. A "fun" game is one in which there is more than 1 viable strategy.
To expand your chess comparison... what if you play real-time chess? Then if someone can move that bishop and queen out faster than you can move that pawn up, you'd always lose to a rush. (Even this is flawed, since in chess it's alot easier/more efficent to defend than attack, and thats not the case in most RTS games - the opposite, in fact)
I could have sworn it was L. Ron Hubbard. Is there some sort of anti-scientology jab there I'm missing?
I believe, legally speaking, that a "sale" is any time when you exchange something for consideration, in any form. So I don't think you can get away with any "Donate 50 bucks to the Peter Daly Beer Fund and get a FREE cd-rom!" tricks. But maybe you can, I'm no damn lawyer.
The obvious intention here is so that you can't make a (legit) copy, but remove the DRM (if only to make it more convenient, much as I no-CD crack my legally purchased games so I don't need to swap) However, it seems to me that this would also prevent people from applying DRM to something that wasn't originally distributed that way. Wouldn't this mean that all exisiting content couldn't be DRMed, unless it was re-released that way by the original copyright holder? And even then, they can't remove legal rights to existing content(well, media companies can't, software perhaps via the EULA), so you could always aquire your media from an older, non-DRMed source, which could not, legally, have DRM applied to it, ever!
I know a suprising amount of people with low end machines hooked up to really fat pipes - broadband is generally considered a smaller cost than a new, high end computer (~$200 setup/modem/etc for broadband, ~$800-1000 for a new machine). Alot of these people, while not "power gamers", do play alot of counterstrike, half-life, quake 2, etc.
I'm curious.. did they actually provide a security update, or was it a "buy the new version" sort of thing? If the second, I'm willing to give admins alot more slack when it comes to have an open system - upgrading to a new verion of something important like a mail server is not cheap, either in money or in time. Especially not at a goverment agency where every dollar has to be approved by 5 different committees.
Buying up the really smart engineers that your much larger competitor is arrogantly ignoring is good buisness sense :)