Note that the 5 licenses only apply to computers owned by the same family and in the same house. If you read the license it does not cover, for example, a Mac owned by a child who has gone to university (or, at least, didn't last time I read the license, which was about two years ago - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this).
It explicitly includes a Mac owned by a child who lives on-campus at a university. However, I doubt the Apple Police are going to come after anyone because they live in off-campus housing but still use their parents' family pack license.
Metabolism is complicated, but there's only so much variation possible. For one person to have a metabolism 3 to 4 times more efficient than someone else's (without the second person having an obvious problem) isn't possible.
I know people who just have a high metabolism and are very thin and eats 3 to 4 times the calories I do with the same level of exercise. While If I break the rules just a little bit the pounds come right back.
No, you don't, unless they're on speed or something. I guarantee you're counting something wrong, probably everything. Most likely you're underestimating your own calorie intake. You're probably overestimating theirs, too, and getting exercise levels wrong.
Lets not lie, the RIAA lawyers are VERY good; they have won a lot of cases and have a lot of experience in and out of court.
Claiming RIAA lawyers are good because they have won a lot of cases (really settlements) is like claiming a thief is good because he's wrested many a lollipop from a child. Obtaining settlements through extortion ("pay us $3000 or we'll ruin you, and even if you win it'll cost you more") is not the same as winning cases in court.
Hanlon's Razor is a special case or application of Ockham's Razor. For both, it's important to keep in mind the qualifications. If a member of the political opposition is found dead with two bullet wounds to the back of the head and a gun with no fingerprints on it next to the body, the simplest explanation is NOT suicide (despite the extra "entity" that murder requires) and incompetence is NOT the best explanation for the killing.
Whether the fact that all the books removed "just happened" to be in a category which is often a target for censorship is enough to rule that incompetence is an inadequate explanation is a matter of opinion; it's certainly not a clear application of the Razor.
furthermore, simply using a western paradigm to judge an eastern paradigm is also simply wrong.
Why, are Koreans somehow fundamentally different from Americans and other westerners? Assuming it is unjust (not merely illegal or unconstitutional, but fundamentally unjust) for an American to be jailed for saying unflattering but true things about his government, how can it be just for a Korean to be jailed for saying unlattering but true things about his government? And does the same apply for North and South? Should South Koreans refuse to judge Kim Jong Il for his actions, because he's on the other side of the 38th parallel?
Trying to respond to the Mac vs. PC ads is playing right into Apple's ad agency's hands. All doing that does is remind people of their ad. And if you do it badly (like MS did... of course I didn't RTFA so I haven't seen the Linux entrant) it makes you look really bad in comparison. Find another angle.
If you think that was extensive quoting, you've clearly never read (nor lifted a paper copy of) Atlas Shrugged. A quote large enough to be extensive would probably crash Slashdot.
At the advice of another comment I saw on/. a year or so ago I'm running a honeypot, with three static ports (one of them 22) and 4 roving ports. Establishing a TCP connection to any of them causes your IP to be instantly added to an iptables blacklist.
So if you forget to add the port to the ssh command, you'd lock yourself out. Not such a good idea IMO.
After getting compromised a few years back (weak password on an account I'd forgotten about), I run keys only, a different key for each host I access from (including my laptop), and allow only specific accounts access. So far, so good. If I ever needed access from someplace where I couldn't have my laptop or even transfer the key, I'd need to come up with something else, though.
I'm really fscking tired of hearing about attacks, and having law enforcement not appear anywhere in the conversation or articles. If people were systematically making physical keys and trying them on people's houses, you better believe the police would be involved. How is this any different?
The only thing law enforcement is good for is punishing people for violations against powerful people which require a serious stretch of existing law to justify, and being the dog-in-the-manger by punishing anyone who actually fights back. They're not interested in stopping actual attacks on ordinary people.
LiPos have already taken over in some areas (many laptops, cell phones, and radio-controlled hobby items), but they still "vent with flame" and catch fire when abused. LiFePO4 cells don't, but they have lower voltage and energy density than LiPo, and I don't think there's a polymer version of those yet.
I have insisted and obtained, however, that an explicit patent covenant be inserted, to the effect to exclude from any patent concern all who don't distribute the compiled version of the software and to those who compile it only for internal purposes without direct commercial exploitation.
That renders the patents nearly irrelevant, completely so for general purpose computers. There's nothing to prevent a commercial exploiter from distributing the source code to their customers, along with a compiler and a one-step process for compiling it. Nor for any Linux distro to do essentially the same -- create an "mpeg-mxm" package which requires mpeg-mxm-source and gcc and automagically compiles the package. Even Apple and Microsoft could do it. I'm not sure why this would be acceptable to the MPEG group.
There simply is no way to effectively control "object code" without also controlling source code. Not only can source code be translated into object code, it can be executed directly by an interpreter. Then what is your patent doing?
As for the dodge of claiming "a machine-readable medium containing the instructions to execute this nonpatentable algorithm"... I wonder if they've realized that they've claimed any computer-readable medium containing the patent description itself...
An industrial lawnmower is a good start, but they really need to adapt this thing to a combine before next November. Nothing says Halloween like a driverless combine headed right at you.
Far as I could tell, the source for the claim that Saddam was forced to watch the movie at all, let alone over and over again, is the South Park creators, who say they have it on "pretty good information".
A comedian, of course, would never make something up just because it was funny.
They're likely to find from this that they lose 100% of their PDF revenue (after all, they're not selling them anymore) yet will see zero increase in revenue for their printed editions to compensate.
Plenty of people who either a) Prefer digital to paper or b) Wanted the instant gratification of a download
probably would have bought the PDF copy, either because they figured it would be dishonest to get an unauthorized copy when a just-as-good legit one was available, or because it was actually easier and safer to get the legit one.
Very few of them, and essentially none of those who were downloading unauthorized versions anyway, will switch to buying printed copies. Instead, they'll switch to unauthorized versions. The people scanning the printed copies will continue doing so, making unauthorized versions easily available. It will be a little bit harder for them... but not enough to matter.
Ah, the state of corporate America these days. When the options boil down to - spending 20 minutes of a computer analysts time to put a proper robots.txt file up or spend tens of thousands of dollars to drag another company into court - and you pick the latter option?
What's the real motive here?
Putting up robots.txt doesn't solve the problem. That gets them off Google and the other aggregators, but doesn't get them what they want, which is either
1) To prevent Google and the other aggregators from aggregating at all (otherwise, having everyone but themselves on Google is pretty much corporate suicide) or 2) To force Google to both aggregate AND to pay them for it.
Unfortunately for them, 2) pretty much requires legislative action. Even if they were to get the courts to declare aggregation to be copyright infringement, Google could just cut a deal with the smarter and/or more hungry papers to aggregate their stuff for free, leaving the whiners out in the cold with neither direct revenue nor eyeballs.
Slashdot Mirror
It explicitly includes a Mac owned by a child who lives on-campus at a university. However, I doubt the Apple Police are going to come after anyone because they live in off-campus housing but still use their parents' family pack license.
So now they're trying to figure out a way to regulate new technologies out of existence before they've even been conceived of? Such progress....
Hmm. A real publication of the Blame-America-First brigade, or has adequacy.org merely found a new home?
Metabolism is complicated, but there's only so much variation possible. For one person to have a metabolism 3 to 4 times more efficient than someone else's (without the second person having an obvious problem) isn't possible.
No, you don't, unless they're on speed or something. I guarantee you're counting something wrong, probably everything. Most likely you're underestimating your own calorie intake. You're probably overestimating theirs, too, and getting exercise levels wrong.
Standing up for yourself in court leads to nothing but an anonymous jail cell.
Claiming RIAA lawyers are good because they have won a lot of cases (really settlements) is like claiming a thief is good because he's wrested many a lollipop from a child. Obtaining settlements through extortion ("pay us $3000 or we'll ruin you, and even if you win it'll cost you more") is not the same as winning cases in court.
Also brother Carlos involved in many shady business dealings and sister in law Gabrielle a total bitch.
Hanlon's Razor is a special case or application of Ockham's Razor. For both, it's important to keep in mind the qualifications. If a member of the political opposition is found dead with two bullet wounds to the back of the head and a gun with no fingerprints on it next to the body, the simplest explanation is NOT suicide (despite the extra "entity" that murder requires) and incompetence is NOT the best explanation for the killing.
Whether the fact that all the books removed "just happened" to be in a category which is often a target for censorship is enough to rule that incompetence is an inadequate explanation is a matter of opinion; it's certainly not a clear application of the Razor.
Why, are Koreans somehow fundamentally different from Americans and other westerners? Assuming it is unjust (not merely illegal or unconstitutional, but fundamentally unjust) for an American to be jailed for saying unflattering but true things about his government, how can it be just for a Korean to be jailed for saying unlattering but true things about his government? And does the same apply for North and South? Should South Koreans refuse to judge Kim Jong Il for his actions, because he's on the other side of the 38th parallel?
Trying to respond to the Mac vs. PC ads is playing right into Apple's ad agency's hands. All doing that does is remind people of their ad. And if you do it badly (like MS did... of course I didn't RTFA so I haven't seen the Linux entrant) it makes you look really bad in comparison. Find another angle.
If you think that was extensive quoting, you've clearly never read (nor lifted a paper copy of) Atlas Shrugged. A quote large enough to be extensive would probably crash Slashdot.
But wouldn't this be covered under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986?
So if you forget to add the port to the ssh command, you'd lock yourself out. Not such a good idea IMO.
After getting compromised a few years back (weak password on an account I'd forgotten about), I run keys only, a different key for each host I access from (including my laptop), and allow only specific accounts access. So far, so good. If I ever needed access from someplace where I couldn't have my laptop or even transfer the key, I'd need to come up with something else, though.
The only thing law enforcement is good for is punishing people for violations against powerful people which require a serious stretch of existing law to justify, and being the dog-in-the-manger by punishing anyone who actually fights back. They're not interested in stopping actual attacks on ordinary people.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like to thank the British for their support on behalf of the "Pro-Western Islamic groups".
If they could just make a big enough arm that could throw hard enough, they wouldn't need a rocket.
LiPos have already taken over in some areas (many laptops, cell phones, and radio-controlled hobby items), but they still "vent with flame" and catch fire when abused. LiFePO4 cells don't, but they have lower voltage and energy density than LiPo, and I don't think there's a polymer version of those yet.
I can name 5: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter. (yeah, I'm a pessimist)
Unfortunately, you have to declare the revenue, not the profit; business expenses on illegal income aren't deductible.
That renders the patents nearly irrelevant, completely so for general purpose computers. There's nothing to prevent a commercial exploiter from distributing the source code to their customers, along with a compiler and a one-step process for compiling it. Nor for any Linux distro to do essentially the same -- create an "mpeg-mxm" package which requires mpeg-mxm-source and gcc and automagically compiles the package. Even Apple and Microsoft could do it. I'm not sure why this would be acceptable to the MPEG group. There simply is no way to effectively control "object code" without also controlling source code. Not only can source code be translated into object code, it can be executed directly by an interpreter. Then what is your patent doing? As for the dodge of claiming "a machine-readable medium containing the instructions to execute this nonpatentable algorithm"... I wonder if they've realized that they've claimed any computer-readable medium containing the patent description itself...
An industrial lawnmower is a good start, but they really need to adapt this thing to a combine before next November. Nothing says Halloween like a driverless combine headed right at you.
Far as I could tell, the source for the claim that Saddam was forced to watch the movie at all, let alone over and over again, is the South Park creators, who say they have it on "pretty good information".
A comedian, of course, would never make something up just because it was funny.
Exactly. Old options were
1) Buy printed copy
2) Buy PDF copy
3) download unauthorized copy
Plenty of people who either
a) Prefer digital to paper or
b) Wanted the instant gratification of a download
probably would have bought the PDF copy, either because they figured it would be dishonest to get an unauthorized copy when a just-as-good legit one was available, or because it was actually easier and safer to get the legit one.
Very few of them, and essentially none of those who were downloading unauthorized versions anyway, will switch to buying printed copies. Instead, they'll switch to unauthorized versions. The people scanning the printed copies will continue doing so, making unauthorized versions easily available. It will be a little bit harder for them... but not enough to matter.
Putting up robots.txt doesn't solve the problem. That gets them off Google and the other aggregators, but doesn't get them what they want, which is either
1) To prevent Google and the other aggregators from aggregating at all (otherwise, having everyone but themselves on Google is pretty much corporate suicide)
or
2) To force Google to both aggregate AND to pay them for it.
Unfortunately for them, 2) pretty much requires legislative action. Even if they were to get the courts to declare aggregation to be copyright infringement, Google could just cut a deal with the smarter and/or more hungry papers to aggregate their stuff for free, leaving the whiners out in the cold with neither direct revenue nor eyeballs.