If you knew how much hassle I've had with American software that always defaults to MDY dates, and somtimes can't be changed, you might excuse my getting a dig in. If Americans spent a few minutes to consider that their way isn't the only way of doing things, a lot of problems could be avoided, and I'm not just talking about software.
Dutch and Germans use this weird way for numbers. To say 86 (and thus stay on topic) you say in Dutch 6 and eighty.
If that freaks you, try French. 95 is "quatre-vingt-quinze", literally "four twenties (plus) fifteen". And let's not go into Roman numerals, though in the early years of the millennium they're nicely compact, in this year MMVI AD, compared to my birth year of MCMLVIII.
I imagine it's like the poster said above - in english, when you speak the date, you say, "It's August the 2nd, 2006." Thus, compressing it into a shorter format, you write 8/2/2006, or 8/2/06.
You say "twenty past three" but write "3:20".
Anyway, the rest of the world is acutely aware of the US style, as it's embedded in so much software, and sometimes impossible to change.
Just curious...how many places do it d/m/y vs. m/d/y. I'd never seen the d/m/y thing till a couple of years ago....
Basically, everywhere except the USA. You don't get out much do you?
If you do plan on travelling, also note that in the rest of the world we use degrees Celsius for temperature -- 30 degrees is hot, not cold, so pack appropriately. But most surprising of all, not everyone in the world speaks English!
But surely you don't need to slow down very much in order to reach an orbit that will eventually reach the Sun? Once it's out of Earth orbit, do we care how long it takes to spiral in?
You don't "spiral in", not in less than billions of years anyway. We'd be in a lot of trouble if they did.... Basically, in space you go around in orbit forever until you hit something. Unfortunately, if it's in a near-Earth orbit, that something could be us. I haven't run the numbers, but you do have to make a large change in speed to change your orbit to one that intersects with the sun. But you can take your time and use a more efficient, though weaker, rocket, than you need to launch from Earth.
Earth satellites DO eventually "spiral in" and crash, because of friction with the upper atmosphere, but once you're more than a couple of hundred miles up, that's negligible.
"Going down into a gravity well is just as hard as going up, unless you have atmospheric friction to help you slow down".
Why do we need to slow down? If we impact the Sun squarely, I doubt if any human-size load is going to make it out the other side, no matter how fast it's travelling.
You have to slow down otherwise you'll stay in orbit (near Earth).
Going down into a gravity well is just as hard as going up, unless you have atmospheric friction to help you slow down.
Only if you're in an orbit in the first place. If aren't orbiting the gravity well, going down into it is just a matter of free fall.
"Free fall" is an orbit. You need a method of braking.
Great idea, once you get it to the top of the Earth's gravity well. Then it's downhill all the way
Going down into a gravity well is just as hard as going up, unless you have atmospheric friction to help you slow down.
Whether you use rockets or a beanstalk, this is a BAD idea. There is hardly a worse disaster that could occur in any other method of disposal than an explosion that disperses radioactive waste all through the atmosphere. People are dying today from 1950s fallout.
It's a political problem; no one wants it "in their backyard". But who would want it flying over their heads?
Obviously the police in this case acting ridiculously
We can't tell from this story. The submitter simply said they'd been "climbing" the tree, omitting any mention of damage. The police said the tree had been "stripped" of its branches, and that there had been similar vandalism in the area. The parents say "my kid is having nightmares after being in the same cell a murderer was in". Everyone has an agenda; no one is telling the whole truth. It would have been nice to have at least a photo of the damn tree. If it had truly been severely damaged, it wouldn't prove the kids did it, but they'd have some explainng to do at least.
But are you willing to go to court to be the test case over it?
Of course not; we've all heard of BSA "Audits", and such. You don't pick arguments with an 800 pound gorilla. That's a separate issue from whether it's legal. Similar to the RIAA suits; hardly any of which have gone to trial because it's just too huge a risk to go to trial, even if you win you know they'll just appeal and continue to harass you forever.
If by "right thing" they wanted to steer well clear of getting into legal trouble
I think they'd be perfectly safe with an OEM version (with an uncompromised serial number); MS is not auditing home users, the absolutely worst case scenario is they'd have to pay an upgrade (sidegrade?) to a Home version or whatever.
But like many others here, my advice to "fix" it would be to spend a little more and get a Mac Mini. Perfect for domestic users who aren't deeply into gaming.
Only if they are clueless. Frankly, I'd be scared shitless that I'd have to deliver 1,000,000 computers for $1,000,000 when they costed me $1,500,000 to build.
Ignoring the grammar, and the factor of 100 you're presumably out; where in TFA does it state the delivery price? The "$100 laptop" is a slogan, as much as "one laptop per child", not a catalogue price. When it comes to drawing up contracts, the actual numbers will reflect real costs. Negoponte has already said the first generations will likely be closer to $150.
I never sign a copy of the GPL when I use GPL licensed software, but I'm still covered by the terms. Or would you argue that because I didn't sign anything, I don't have to follow the GPL?
The GPL is about publishing; and it gives you ADDITIONAL rights over and above copyright. So you can not accept it, but then you're governed by ordinary copyright, and you basically can't use and certainly can't distribute the software at all.
Repeat after me: "use constitutes acceptance"
Since written contracts have been found to not be binding because they were unreasonable in taking away normal rights, I think this is again something that corporate lawyers tell you is the law. Or do you have a non-MS source for this "rule"?
Amazing that a Good Thing gets turned into a big-brother or privacy issue just because it's Microsoft.
Much as I distrust MS, in this case I see nothing to be concerned about. The headline "Microsoft Adds Risky System-Wide Undelete to Vista" is just flamebait. A while ago I used Roxio Goback, which seems to have similar functionality; very useful for recovering from some software that spontaneously corrupted data. Now bought by Symantec, so I can't feel great sympathy for them though MS is stealing their lunch.
l it. I can give a toyota dealer money for a prius, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to take a camry off the lot instead.
Why does everyone here use car analogies? Anyway, what's happening is you're giving the Toyota dealer money for a Prius AND TAKING A PRIUS. What you do with the Prius once you've paid is none of their business.
This is an example of contract law
IFF the end-user had actually SIGNED a contract. And I must take any legal advice from MSDN with a grain of salt.
That's a great idea, except for one thing. It's not any more legal than running the pirate version.
Of course it is. If you've PAID MICROSOFT for it, then it's legal. You may not be in full compliance if you laid all the details out to to MS; but as far as I know, that's not actually breaking a law. If so, which one? (MS regulations aren't laws.) As for MS claiming you can't transfer licences, that seems to be something you are explicitly allowed to do under the law of many countries, certainly in Europe.
Well, Timothy does when he recycles them for his Slashbacks. But otherwise, no. If you feel like it, you can email their "hotline" at daddypants@slashdot.org, which is supposedly to the editor on duty. I used to do that, occasionally they would fix errors, but mostly they ignored them, or Malda would respond with some snarky comment. If you do, you might suggest they link to the actual press release, with several illustrations, rather than the dumbed down and truncated USA Today version.
You can still photograph pictures of copyrighted buildings, statues, etc. if it's for your own use. If you start selling them, you might run into a problem, but taking a picture is perfectly legal.
You can publish and sell them. You created the photo, not the architect; the photo's copyright belongs to the photographer regardless of what it's of. See The Photographer's Right: "Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations." The architectural plans are copyright, not the building itself, and certainly not an image of the building taken by someone else. I'm unsure of how one could copyright a statue or building, though anything is possible these days. A few iconic buildings have their images trademarked, but that's an entirely different matter, and not common.
How can the police be sure that the photos aren't going to be used to identify police officers for later revenge attacks?
They can't. So like the military, the police can now pre-emptively arrest someone because he might be planning an attack? It seems more likely the cops on the scene thought the guy was a buddy of those they were arresting and not disposed to treat him with respect.
Hey, yeah, and why did the Australian Mel Gibson play an American cop all those times, too?
He was born and lived in the USA until he was 12. So, as an Australian, I can cheerfully disown him, at least all the movies he made after he left Australia.
But there have always been lots of real Australians working in Hollywood, going back to Errol Flynn. They just tnd to be good at doing accents.
A large part of law enforcement is digging through all available information from the comfort of your desk, rather than carpet-bombing potential suspects
Did I suggest carpet bombing as an alternative? I think legwork is the only likely method. Real terrorists don't live their lives online, you might fill up Gitmo with idiots who spouted "Jihad" on some website. Osama gave up using his satellite phone years ago, they're well aware the NSA is snooping on every form of telephone or Internet communication. My point is that of course you do have to search the information available, but that's insufficient, it's more important to go out into the real world.
And having the customer identify herself protects her against that how? If it was actually a safety issue, it'd have a big warning sticker on it, like the idiotic warnings on hand tools "DO NOT CUT HAND OFF", "PAINT: DO NOT DRINK", etc; and none of those items require an ID to buy (so far).
The compulsory "Homeland Security" link makes me think of the story about a drunk who was crawling about on the sidewalk under a lamppost late one night. A Police Officer came up to him and inquired, "What are you doing?"
The drunk replied, "I'm looking for my car keys."
The Officer looked around in the lamplight, then asked the drunk, "I don't see any car keys. Are you sure you lost them here?"
The drunk replied, "No, I lost them over there", and pointed to an area of the sidewalk deep in shadow.
The policeman then asked, "Well, if you lost them over there, why are you looking over here?"
The drunk looked at him and said, "Because the light is better over here."
Searching for terrorists by datamining from the comfort of your cubicle is about as likely to be successful.
It strikes me that the whole outsourcing issue could have been stopped in its tracks if Western governments had taken the opportunity to "reign in" the corporations much more than they have done.
The "outsourcing issue" started about 30 years ago when manufacturing jobs started to move to Asia. Do you advocate action to save blue-collar jobs, or just white?
The logical solution, therefore, should have been additional taxation on the corporations by government - very simply, each nation works out how much profit a company makes in their country (i.e. how much money it takes out) and compares it to how much money it spends on employing people
Companies structure themselves to minimise taxes. They'd just move the profits to another country. Besides which, ther are many legitimate businesses with a small staff and large profits which would be caught by your plan -- financial services, for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
If you knew how much hassle I've had with American software that always defaults to MDY dates, and somtimes can't be changed, you might excuse my getting a dig in. If Americans spent a few minutes to consider that their way isn't the only way of doing things, a lot of problems could be avoided, and I'm not just talking about software.
If that freaks you, try French. 95 is "quatre-vingt-quinze", literally "four twenties (plus) fifteen". And let's not go into Roman numerals, though in the early years of the millennium they're nicely compact, in this year MMVI AD, compared to my birth year of MCMLVIII.
You say "twenty past three" but write "3:20".
Anyway, the rest of the world is acutely aware of the US style, as it's embedded in so much software, and sometimes impossible to change.
Basically, everywhere except the USA. You don't get out much do you?
If you do plan on travelling, also note that in the rest of the world we use degrees Celsius for temperature -- 30 degrees is hot, not cold, so pack appropriately. But most surprising of all, not everyone in the world speaks English!
You don't "spiral in", not in less than billions of years anyway. We'd be in a lot of trouble if they did.... Basically, in space you go around in orbit forever until you hit something. Unfortunately, if it's in a near-Earth orbit, that something could be us. I haven't run the numbers, but you do have to make a large change in speed to change your orbit to one that intersects with the sun. But you can take your time and use a more efficient, though weaker, rocket, than you need to launch from Earth.
Earth satellites DO eventually "spiral in" and crash, because of friction with the upper atmosphere, but once you're more than a couple of hundred miles up, that's negligible.
Why do we need to slow down? If we impact the Sun squarely, I doubt if any human-size load is going to make it out the other side, no matter how fast it's travelling.
You have to slow down otherwise you'll stay in orbit (near Earth).
Only if you're in an orbit in the first place. If aren't orbiting the gravity well, going down into it is just a matter of free fall.
"Free fall" is an orbit. You need a method of braking.
Going down into a gravity well is just as hard as going up, unless you have atmospheric friction to help you slow down.
Whether you use rockets or a beanstalk, this is a BAD idea. There is hardly a worse disaster that could occur in any other method of disposal than an explosion that disperses radioactive waste all through the atmosphere. People are dying today from 1950s fallout.
It's a political problem; no one wants it "in their backyard". But who would want it flying over their heads?
Please, someone mod this "funny" (for lack of an "idiotic" option).
We can't tell from this story. The submitter simply said they'd been "climbing" the tree, omitting any mention of damage. The police said the tree had been "stripped" of its branches, and that there had been similar vandalism in the area. The parents say "my kid is having nightmares after being in the same cell a murderer was in". Everyone has an agenda; no one is telling the whole truth. It would have been nice to have at least a photo of the damn tree. If it had truly been severely damaged, it wouldn't prove the kids did it, but they'd have some explainng to do at least.
Of course not; we've all heard of BSA "Audits", and such. You don't pick arguments with an 800 pound gorilla. That's a separate issue from whether it's legal. Similar to the RIAA suits; hardly any of which have gone to trial because it's just too huge a risk to go to trial, even if you win you know they'll just appeal and continue to harass you forever.
If by "right thing" they wanted to steer well clear of getting into legal trouble
I think they'd be perfectly safe with an OEM version (with an uncompromised serial number); MS is not auditing home users, the absolutely worst case scenario is they'd have to pay an upgrade (sidegrade?) to a Home version or whatever.
But like many others here, my advice to "fix" it would be to spend a little more and get a Mac Mini. Perfect for domestic users who aren't deeply into gaming.
Ignoring the grammar, and the factor of 100 you're presumably out; where in TFA does it state the delivery price? The "$100 laptop" is a slogan, as much as "one laptop per child", not a catalogue price. When it comes to drawing up contracts, the actual numbers will reflect real costs. Negoponte has already said the first generations will likely be closer to $150.
The GPL is about publishing; and it gives you ADDITIONAL rights over and above copyright. So you can not accept it, but then you're governed by ordinary copyright, and you basically can't use and certainly can't distribute the software at all.
Repeat after me: "use constitutes acceptance"
Since written contracts have been found to not be binding because they were unreasonable in taking away normal rights, I think this is again something that corporate lawyers tell you is the law. Or do you have a non-MS source for this "rule"?
Much as I distrust MS, in this case I see nothing to be concerned about. The headline "Microsoft Adds Risky System-Wide Undelete to Vista" is just flamebait. A while ago I used Roxio Goback, which seems to have similar functionality; very useful for recovering from some software that spontaneously corrupted data. Now bought by Symantec, so I can't feel great sympathy for them though MS is stealing their lunch.
Why does everyone here use car analogies? Anyway, what's happening is you're giving the Toyota dealer money for a Prius AND TAKING A PRIUS. What you do with the Prius once you've paid is none of their business.
This is an example of contract law
IFF the end-user had actually SIGNED a contract. And I must take any legal advice from MSDN with a grain of salt.
Of course it is. If you've PAID MICROSOFT for it, then it's legal. You may not be in full compliance if you laid all the details out to to MS; but as far as I know, that's not actually breaking a law. If so, which one? (MS regulations aren't laws.) As for MS claiming you can't transfer licences, that seems to be something you are explicitly allowed to do under the law of many countries, certainly in Europe.
That was my point.
Well, Timothy does when he recycles them for his Slashbacks. But otherwise, no. If you feel like it, you can email their "hotline" at daddypants@slashdot.org, which is supposedly to the editor on duty. I used to do that, occasionally they would fix errors, but mostly they ignored them, or Malda would respond with some snarky comment. If you do, you might suggest they link to the actual press release, with several illustrations, rather than the dumbed down and truncated USA Today version.
You can publish and sell them. You created the photo, not the architect; the photo's copyright belongs to the photographer regardless of what it's of. See The Photographer's Right: "Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations." The architectural plans are copyright, not the building itself, and certainly not an image of the building taken by someone else. I'm unsure of how one could copyright a statue or building, though anything is possible these days. A few iconic buildings have their images trademarked, but that's an entirely different matter, and not common.
They can't. So like the military, the police can now pre-emptively arrest someone because he might be planning an attack? It seems more likely the cops on the scene thought the guy was a buddy of those they were arresting and not disposed to treat him with respect.
He was born and lived in the USA until he was 12. So, as an Australian, I can cheerfully disown him, at least all the movies he made after he left Australia.
But there have always been lots of real Australians working in Hollywood, going back to Errol Flynn. They just tnd to be good at doing accents.
Did I suggest carpet bombing as an alternative? I think legwork is the only likely method. Real terrorists don't live their lives online, you might fill up Gitmo with idiots who spouted "Jihad" on some website. Osama gave up using his satellite phone years ago, they're well aware the NSA is snooping on every form of telephone or Internet communication. My point is that of course you do have to search the information available, but that's insufficient, it's more important to go out into the real world.
And having the customer identify herself protects her against that how? If it was actually a safety issue, it'd have a big warning sticker on it, like the idiotic warnings on hand tools "DO NOT CUT HAND OFF", "PAINT: DO NOT DRINK", etc; and none of those items require an ID to buy (so far).
The drunk replied, "I'm looking for my car keys."
The Officer looked around in the lamplight, then asked the drunk, "I don't see any car keys. Are you sure you lost them here?"
The drunk replied, "No, I lost them over there", and pointed to an area of the sidewalk deep in shadow.
The policeman then asked, "Well, if you lost them over there, why are you looking over here?"
The drunk looked at him and said, "Because the light is better over here."
Searching for terrorists by datamining from the comfort of your cubicle is about as likely to be successful.
The "outsourcing issue" started about 30 years ago when manufacturing jobs started to move to Asia. Do you advocate action to save blue-collar jobs, or just white? The logical solution, therefore, should have been additional taxation on the corporations by government - very simply, each nation works out how much profit a company makes in their country (i.e. how much money it takes out) and compares it to how much money it spends on employing people
Companies structure themselves to minimise taxes. They'd just move the profits to another country. Besides which, ther are many legitimate businesses with a small staff and large profits which would be caught by your plan -- financial services, for instance.