Have we learned nothing from the recent "too big to fail" mess? I realize IBM is already too big to fail, but do we want to let them add to it? Sun failing would be fine for the market. Lots of small companies would jump in to take its place. Sun being bought by IBM would stifle the marketplace and would exert far too much control.
AIG was only "too big to fail" because their failure would have more or less automatically triggered a cascade of failures across the financial system (worse than already happened), when all their paper became worthless. That doesn't apply to IBM; were they to fail, their assets would end up being sold off piecemeal rather than simply cease to exist.
If Sun fails, IBM just picks up what it wants at auction anyway.
On the plus side, crap consumer routers have a nasty habit of dropping dead every 18 months, so you can deal with legacy hardware by just waiting.
Zyxel P334W and Netgear WAB102 dual-band access point. Both have been going for years, though I have had to replace the Netgear power brick twice, both times after electrical storms.
I doubt I'd need a new router for IPV6, either. I'd need a new modem/bridge from my ISP, and then I'd live dangerously and run on the Real Internet, with no NAT (actually I almost am now; a couple of my boxes are 1:1 NAT). Except my wife's PC, which I'd probably handle temporarily by routing it through my Linux box.
If an art gallery purchases a piece of artwork, "Madonna on the Rocks" for example, and charges entry fees to view them, do they give a portion of that money to Leonardo's estate (if there is one)? Does the gallery purchase the work outright, or is it just licensed?
DaVinci died long enough ago that his "Madonna on the Rocks" is actually out of copyright. However, it doesn't matter in the United States. While the copyright owner has the right to control public display, that right is (partially) exhausted with respect to any particular copy he sells (17 USC 109(c)). So if the gallery or museum or whatever purchases the artwork outright, they can show the work to whoever they want, charge whatever they want, and the artist can't legally say boo about it.
This may differ in other countries. Even the DaVinci case might; I've heard that there's an organization in Europe purporting to control the rights to images of the old masters.
They are also ignorant of the fact that the right of free speech does not protect you from the consequences of exercising it, never has and (hopefully) never will.
Good News, Citizens. Your Fearless Leader has announced that henceforth, you shall have Free Speech. However, one of the consequences of speaking out against your dear Fearless Leader will be imprisonment followed by execution. So use your Free Speech responsibly!
The RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
So how big a hydraulic press would it take to fit the entire RIAA in? Is anyone taking donations to construct one?
Wait attempting to acquire/read, let alone posting, of CLASSIFIED documentation is illegal?
This case was in Germany. But since you seem to be in the USA, here's some information on a landmark case about publishing leaked classified information:
Summary: The New York Times and Washington Post published the so-called "Pentagon Papers", illegally leaked to them by Daniel Ellsberg. The government sought and obtained an injunction against further publication, but the Supreme Court overturned the injunction 6-3.
I have to ask because i don't know. If some secret document from the CIA was leaked onto wikileaks, how quick and how hard would the CIA ask for a retraction ? Do we know ? Did this happen ?
If they have any sense, they'll refuse to confirm or deny if it was even a real document. Once it's leaked, it's leaked, whether or not it's retracted. It can't be unleaked.
Of course, expecting government agencies to be sensible is silly.
Not american "companies own your ass" laws, not british "we want to be american" laws, but dutch laws.
As an American, I want to point out that actually, Britain is currently in the lead in oppressive laws among nominally free nations. We're still in second place, but Australia is coming on strong.
Some products have this ability built into the system to test the integrity of the backup by reading the files off the backup media and checksuming them vs the original files.
Anything man can create, man can fsck up. Someone motivated enough could not only set up the system to silently corrupt the backups, but modify the testing system to report "OK" anyway. Set up the system, wait one full backup cycle, nuke the original, and the target is hosed.
Most backup solutions are designed to protect against accidental data loss, not a determined attacker. Though bugs which subtly corrupt things until they ultimately screw them up altogether sometimes do a convincing imitation of a determined attacker.
I'm sorry sir, we only allow stillsuits during opening night for Dune re-showings. I'm going to have to ask you to relieve yourself now and open the release valve here in the lobby.
Sure thing, boss. Could you move just a little to the left? Perfect! Fwooosh... (gotta love the newfangled "pressure flush" stillsuits)
The first problem is the limit on continuations, which was flagrantly in violation of statute.
Which is too bad, because using continuations to update a patent to cover the state-of-the-art while maintaining a past priority date is a favorite patent troll tactic.
So most of my applications will have fewer than the 5/25 claim limit
It's hard for me to see why that one is procedural rather than substantive.
Nope, when you live under someones roof you play by their rules. It might be kindof a dick move, but it's their API and they have every right to control how it's used.
No, they damn well don't. No more than Microsoft has to tell me which WIN32 calls I can make, or Intel can tell me which 386 instuctions I can call. The right to control use is NOT one of the copryight holder's exclusive rights.
It's been known for a long time that quite often the only way to get the government to actually listen to its citizens is to stage some form of peaceful mass protest. That's why that right is protected in the US Bill of Rights.
Sorry. The system adapts, and (in the US, if not in NZ) it adapted to the tactic of peaceful mass protests some time ago. They no longer are a viable means of affecting the system.
I'm **his** slave if he doesn't pull his fair share.
Hardly. He's not demanding you do a thing. You, on the other hand, are demanding he be "as productive as possible". It's pretty clear who is the slave and who is the slavedriver there. BTW, WTF are you doing wasting time on Slashdot? Get back to being productive!
It just seems like it'd be easier now to find out the spam mail servers and block everything that comes from them.
That's what he did. He just did it in an automated way by feeding the spammers addresses which, when used, would cause the automatic blacklisting of the host which used them.
...but how many of those items were NOT counterfeits, but merely real items that the trademark owner wants to illegitimately prevent from being legitimately resold? Like that GAP promotional CD a while back.
Since when does Bill Gates actually have any kind of skills?!?
He has three undeniable ones
1) Crashing computers (no, not Windows -- the way he got a lot of free computer time back in the '70s) 2) Getting the best of IBM in a licensing deal. 3) Achieving world domination.
What I want to know is, when did bonuses become mandatory? That's not a bonus. It's an obligation.
Bonuses are often mandatory. They just aren't unconditional. If I'm a salesman and my contract states I'll be paid $30,000/year, plus 10% commission, plus an extra $5,000 if I sell more than $100,000 in a quarter, that $5,000 is a bonus -- but it's still mandatory, in that if I sold the $100,000 the company is required to pay it.
It's simple. The company that agreed to pay them that can't afford to pay them that. A new entity (the government) came in which is not bound by those contracts.
That would be true if the government was the receiver for the bankrupt AIG. They're not; they kept AIG out of bankruptcy, specifically in order to maintain its obligation to pay certain contracts (the credit default swaps).
Slashdot Mirror
The Eugene transcript reminds me of John Henry on "The Sarah Connor Chronicles".
The Elbot transcript was really good, but I don't think the judge managed to get it off its "rails".
AIG was only "too big to fail" because their failure would have more or less automatically triggered a cascade of failures across the financial system (worse than already happened), when all their paper became worthless. That doesn't apply to IBM; were they to fail, their assets would end up being sold off piecemeal rather than simply cease to exist.
If Sun fails, IBM just picks up what it wants at auction anyway.
Zyxel P334W and Netgear WAB102 dual-band access point. Both have been going for years, though I have had to replace the Netgear power brick twice, both times after electrical storms.
I doubt I'd need a new router for IPV6, either. I'd need a new modem/bridge from my ISP, and then I'd live dangerously and run on the Real Internet, with no NAT (actually I almost am now; a couple of my boxes are 1:1 NAT). Except my wife's PC, which I'd probably handle temporarily by routing it through my Linux box.
I'd probably need new wireless gear, though.
DaVinci died long enough ago that his "Madonna on the Rocks" is actually out of copyright. However, it doesn't matter in the United States. While the copyright owner has the right to control public display, that right is (partially) exhausted with respect to any particular copy he sells (17 USC 109(c)). So if the gallery or museum or whatever purchases the artwork outright, they can show the work to whoever they want, charge whatever they want, and the artist can't legally say boo about it.
This may differ in other countries. Even the DaVinci case might; I've heard that there's an organization in Europe purporting to control the rights to images of the old masters.
Usual disclaimer applies. IANAL.
Good News, Citizens. Your Fearless Leader has announced that henceforth, you shall have Free Speech. However, one of the consequences of speaking out against your dear Fearless Leader will be imprisonment followed by execution. So use your Free Speech responsibly!
So how big a hydraulic press would it take to fit the entire RIAA in? Is anyone taking donations to construct one?
Yes. By stepping up the crackdowns. Ain't positive feedback grand?
This case was in Germany. But since you seem to be in the USA, here's some information on a landmark case about publishing leaked classified information:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/
Summary: The New York Times and Washington Post published the so-called "Pentagon Papers", illegally leaked to them by Daniel Ellsberg. The government sought and obtained an injunction against further publication, but the Supreme Court overturned the injunction 6-3.
If they have any sense, they'll refuse to confirm or deny if it was even a real document. Once it's leaked, it's leaked, whether or not it's retracted. It can't be unleaked.
Of course, expecting government agencies to be sensible is silly.
As an American, I want to point out that actually, Britain is currently in the lead in oppressive laws among nominally free nations. We're still in second place, but Australia is coming on strong.
Anything man can create, man can fsck up. Someone motivated enough could not only set up the system to silently corrupt the backups, but modify the testing system to report "OK" anyway. Set up the system, wait one full backup cycle, nuke the original, and the target is hosed.
Most backup solutions are designed to protect against accidental data loss, not a determined attacker. Though bugs which subtly corrupt things until they ultimately screw them up altogether sometimes do a convincing imitation of a determined attacker.
Yeah, jails are totally insecure; they're full of criminals.
Sure thing, boss. Could you move just a little to the left? Perfect! Fwooosh... (gotta love the newfangled "pressure flush" stillsuits)
Which is too bad, because using continuations to update a patent to cover the state-of-the-art while maintaining a past priority date is a favorite patent troll tactic.
It's hard for me to see why that one is procedural rather than substantive.
"U.S. law" states no such thing. Most state laws state no such thing; most anti-gridlock rules are municipal ordinances.
And even many of the anti-gridlock laws make exceptions for turning.
No, they damn well don't. No more than Microsoft has to tell me which WIN32 calls I can make, or Intel can tell me which 386 instuctions I can call. The right to control use is NOT one of the copryight holder's exclusive rights.
Sorry. The system adapts, and (in the US, if not in NZ) it adapted to the tactic of peaceful mass protests some time ago. They no longer are a viable means of affecting the system.
Hardly. He's not demanding you do a thing. You, on the other hand, are demanding he be "as productive as possible". It's pretty clear who is the slave and who is the slavedriver there. BTW, WTF are you doing wasting time on Slashdot? Get back to being productive!
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but if not, you've just asserted that the original poster is rightfully your slave.
That's what he did. He just did it in an automated way by feeding the spammers addresses which, when used, would cause the automatic blacklisting of the host which used them.
You have the number right but not the manufacturer. The MacBook Pro uses NVidia GeForce 9600M or 9400M, not Intel.
...but how many of those items were NOT counterfeits, but merely real items that the trademark owner wants to illegitimately prevent from being legitimately resold? Like that GAP promotional CD a while back.
He has three undeniable ones
1) Crashing computers (no, not Windows -- the way he got a lot of free computer time back in the '70s)
2) Getting the best of IBM in a licensing deal.
3) Achieving world domination.
Bonuses are often mandatory. They just aren't unconditional. If I'm a salesman and my contract states I'll be paid $30,000/year, plus 10% commission, plus an extra $5,000 if I sell more than $100,000 in a quarter, that $5,000 is a bonus -- but it's still mandatory, in that if I sold the $100,000 the company is required to pay it.
That would be true if the government was the receiver for the bankrupt AIG. They're not; they kept AIG out of bankruptcy, specifically in order to maintain its obligation to pay certain contracts (the credit default swaps).