The sweet girl from procurements with the pink-laced keds gets caught selling toner cartridges on E-bay which she stole from your office printer and she tells the boss that she didn't know it was from there because you gave it to her and when they go to investigate they find some work documents on your personal USB key drive that you needed to move files to another computer in a department with a printer that still had toner along with a file full of MP3s and spreadsheet full of numbers you'd been toying with to see if it's feasible to start your own competing business.
Consider it not so much for considering as much as for just plain interpreting it... aside from the fact it's a multi-runon (I think) sentence and it's a hundred words (give or take), I'm not sure what it's saying.
Allow me to interpret. Basically what happened to this poor guy is
The printer in his department was out of toner, so
He used his personal USB key drive to copy files to another department's computer (i.e. sneakernet); he then printed the documents on that department's printer
The reason the printer was out of toner was that someone from procurements -- identified as a "sweet girl with pink-laced Keds" -- was stealing them and selling them on eBay
Said "sweet girl" fingered (the implication is "falsely") our protaganist as the source for the toner cartridges, and denied knowing they were stolen from his department's printer
The company investigated and found out about the work documents on the personal USB key (presumably a policy violation)
The personal USB key also contained MP3s (probably also a policy violation) and a spreadsheet which he had made up investigating the feasibility of starting up a competing business (definitely something to be fired over). It's implied the company investigators found these too.
Just not his day.
So the sentence may have been difficult to decipher, but it did pack a lot of information into a small space. Perhaps one day we'll be welcoming our intuitive stream-of-consciousness interpreting overlords?
An incandescent bulb has a CRI of 100. You can't get better color rendering than that. The best fluorescents hit 91, but most are nowhere near that. The quality from an incandescant is simply better, no "allegedly" about it. And that's without getting into flicker, buzz, warm-up time, and the other fluorescent disadvantages.
As for toilets, there was no better tech or cheaper manufacturing. The government simply required toilets which used less water per flush, so we got toilets which don't self-clean as well, often require multiple flushes, and clog more often. We were forced to trade efficacy for efficiency. It was a poor trade.
The Antykithera mechanism shows what happens when there is no patent law - the technology and science for making geared computers for complex calculations was so well hidden that it was totally lost and forgotten
Or perhaps it wasn't due to lack of patents. Without the printing press, written records of such technology would be rare, patent or no patent. Perhaps the full plans of the mechanism were filed in the Royal Library at Alexandria, and were later destroyed.
If "emotiflags" is a new term, Microsoft is free to trademark it. The "invention" they describe isn't new. See the "X-Face" tag and similar items. Using X-Face for emoticons is described in a Usenet post on March 26, 2001:
U-238 decays to Thorium-234 by alpha emission, not beta. If it underwent beta decay it would produce Np-238 which would then decay to Pu-238, and plutonium would be a lot more common than it is.
The most dangerous thing about Jarts, IMO, is if you got one caught up in a tree and then tried to shake it down. Aerodynamics means it'll come point down, and Murphy's law guarantees that it's aimed right for your head.
The mini-hammock was apparently just plain defective. Without the spreader bars it's more like a mini-net. The illustration in the ad seemed to show spreader bars.
DU would be OK as a terror weapon (because people are ignorant) but almost useless in causing actual harm. It's too dense to remain aerosolized. Once it's on the ground or in the water table it would slightly increase the amount of radon in the environment. "Yield to Islam, heathen dogs, or we'll slightly increase the rate of lung cancer in your cities over the next few decades" just falls flat as a threat.
Hogwash! The real reason MS wants this is to keep things like FairUse4WMV from reading encryption keys to strip off the DRM.
That's a good (if paranoid) thought, but (and I probably shouldn't say this, because they might not have thought of it) it won't make an insurmountable difference for reading encryption keys. While brute-forcing the key space of an encryption algorithm may be infeasible, trying every possible "key" within the address space of a process isn't. Of course, MS will try to prevent untrusted (by them, not by you) programs from accessing trusted program's address space to stop that sort of attack.
The pirate groups require anonymity because what they do is illegal. They have zero accountability because they're anonymous. Sony Music doesn't require anonymity because it owns the law, and has zero accountability because they own the law. So where's the difference to me again?
Are they good people? The pirate groups, I don't know. Sony Music? Definitely not.
That's only the case if the C headers involved are copyrighted -- actually, it's only the case if the compiled code generated by the C headers is copyrighted.
That is, suppose you CAN copyright a header consisting of
Code which uses that header doesn't contain any of that -- it just contains numbers. That is, it contains uncopyrightable information, like "1 is the number for UDP", not the (arguably) copyrightable presentation of that information in the headers.
... is anyone can make their own. I just finished one based on Ubuntu Edgy. It's more hardware and configuration specific, though -- it installs MythTV 0.20 as a combined system, the pcHDTV-5500 drivers, the nvidia driver, and LIRC. It also pre-configures MythTV with the pcHDTV-5500 card.
Probably because there aren't any actual copyright violations. The theory that a binary kernel module loaded into a GPL kernel is a copyright violation depends on one of two things
1a) Loading the kernel module into the kernel creates a derivative work of "kernel plus module" and 1b) The act of creating that derivative work requires that the module in question be placed under the GPL.
or
2) Using kernel interfaces makes the module itself a derivative work of the kernel.
1b) is simply wrong; the GPL allows non-GPL derivative works which aren't distributed or published. Either 2) or 1a) (or both) might be accepted by a court, but they'd be an absolute disaster if they were. If 2) were accepted, then by the same taken, any software written for Windows would be considered a derivative work of Windows (and subject to Microsoft's terms and conditions). If 1a) were accepted, then Microsoft would have the legal right to dictate which programs (or drivers, if you really think kernel versus userspace makes a difference) a user runs on his Windows system. Neither of those is something anyone who supports free software should want, support, or rely on as a basis for copyright violation claims.
Power losses over long distances of wiring are actually greater for AC, not DC. Which is one reason DC transmission is used in some cases. The existence of very efficient choppers and rectifiers means that the overwhelming advantages AC had in the early 20th century no longer hold true. But inertia will keep most of the system using AC for a long time, unless some advancement produces an overwhelming advantage for DC generation and distribution.
It's not a matter of fraud. It's a matter of Apple not having distribution rights for the music in Costa Rica. It would be copyright infringement for them to distribute the songs to Costa Rica.
There are practices (such as selling goods below cost, called "dumping" when foreign companies do it) which are legal for US companies that are not legal for non-US companies exporting their products to the US, so it isn't surprising that non-US companies get charged for such practices more often.
It's a double standard, but it's one which is set out in law.
...that he's a Republican. At least he's continuing in the fine tradition of stifling free speech that has marked his career in the Senate (McCain-Feingold, anyone)?
Anyway, I believe it is time for me to cry "I told you so". I said on-line registration requirements for sex offenders would be abused to stifle freedom of speech, and sure enough here it is in the very same bill which would set up those registration requirements. Social networking sites would be _required_ to remove web pages of registered sex offenders. No, no violation of the First Amendment there.
I think Norman spent too much time in Korea. Koreans do seem to like gratuituous complexity -- flashing lights, extra buttons, animated web pages, etc. But to most Americans that looks garish and/or bewildering. It's not that simplicity is out; it's that he's been spending his time in a place where simplicity was never in. This is why only LG has a refrigerator with a built-in television.
But that's a matter of simple aesthetics. When it comes to function, he's right; people do want lots of features and controls (even if they never use any, and they're hidden from view). Case in point: I bought a dishwasher a few years ago. It has a sensor to determine when the dishes are clean, so you can just put it in sensor mode and go. The salesman (definitely an appliance geek) told me that even in the regular and heavy wash modes, it still used the sensor and would shorten or lengthen the wash as appropriate. So, I asked, why not just have the one button? His answer was that they tried that a few years ago, but nobody bought them.
Lots of visible controls: Not simple, good in Korea, not so good in the US Hidden controls: aesthetically simple, good (in the US). Few controls: Perceived as low-end, not going to do well in either place.
Sure, the copyright enters the public domain after n years, but then a museum or gallery or monopolistic corporation buys the artwork and claims it as their intellectual property, so you can't take photos or publish it without paying them. Even if the original artist's been dead for centuries.
Just try taking photos in an art gallery in front of a security guard if you don't believe me...
They can effectively prevent you from taking the photos by denying you access to the object they own; that has nothing to do with copyright or intellectual property, that has to do with ordinary property rights. But once you have those photos (even if you technically committed tresspass to get them), you can do whatever the heck you want with them. And, worse for the monopolistic corporation, if THEY make photos and sell them, anyone has the right to copy the photos; no new copyright is created, at least in the United States. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library _v._Corel_Corp. (or the case it discusses if you don't trust Wikipedia)
Since you haven't yet been modded Troll, I'll reply...It would make little difference to Torvalds and Stallman if the copyright on Linux and GNU tools ran out in 50 years. So 50 years from now people could use Linux 2.6.18 without restriction.... do you really think it's going to matter to anyone but a few retrocomputing fans? Linux 24.9.12 will still be under copyright, since it will contain copyrightable works produced in the interim.
It's not just a matter of being coerced. Suppose that before Megan's law and all the rest, you committed some minor offense like public urination or "flashing" or whatever. You pled guilty, paid your fine, and were done with it. 10 years later the government passes a new law classifying that crime as a reportable sex offense, and now you're forced to register as a sex offender, denied by law and by practice a whole range of professions, kicked off Internet sites as the result of government action, etc. That's additional punishment following conviction, the very definition of an ex post facto law set out in one of the oldest precedents in the US judicial system. Yet the Supreme Court found this to acceptable.
(BTW, to the person who modded my original post "Troll" -- "Troll" doesn't mean "I disagree".)
Slashdot Mirror
...no one knows you're a dog. Until you start bragging about your scent-tracking superiority, then you've given away the game.
Allow me to interpret. Basically what happened to this poor guy is
Just not his day.
So the sentence may have been difficult to decipher, but it did pack a lot of information into a small space. Perhaps one day we'll be welcoming our intuitive stream-of-consciousness interpreting overlords?
An incandescent bulb has a CRI of 100. You can't get better color rendering than that. The best fluorescents hit 91, but most are nowhere near that. The quality from an incandescant is simply better, no "allegedly" about it. And that's without getting into flicker, buzz, warm-up time, and the other fluorescent disadvantages.
As for toilets, there was no better tech or cheaper manufacturing. The government simply required toilets which used less water per flush, so we got toilets which don't self-clean as well, often require multiple flushes, and clog more often. We were forced to trade efficacy for efficiency. It was a poor trade.
If "emotiflags" is a new term, Microsoft is free to trademark it. The "invention" they describe isn't new. See the "X-Face" tag and similar items. Using X-Face for emoticons is described in a Usenet post on March 26, 2001:
e rs/browse_frm/thread/632ce023cca28fc4/f13f050b2057 44b0?lnk=st&q=X-face+emoticon&rnum=2&hl=en#f13f050 b205744b0
http://groups.google.com/group/news.software.read
(and I've seen it in other places; that was just the first one I found in a google search)
I'll be posting information about it on the pchdtv-5500 forum shortly.
U-238 decays to Thorium-234 by alpha emission, not beta. If it underwent beta decay it would produce Np-238 which would then decay to Pu-238, and plutonium would be a lot more common than it is.
The most dangerous thing about Jarts, IMO, is if you got one caught up in a tree and then tried to shake it down. Aerodynamics means it'll come point down, and Murphy's law guarantees that it's aimed right for your head.
The mini-hammock was apparently just plain defective. Without the spreader bars it's more like a mini-net. The illustration in the ad seemed to show spreader bars.
DU would be OK as a terror weapon (because people are ignorant) but almost useless in causing actual harm. It's too dense to remain aerosolized. Once it's on the ground or in the water table it would slightly increase the amount of radon in the environment. "Yield to Islam, heathen dogs, or we'll slightly increase the rate of lung cancer in your cities over the next few decades" just falls flat as a threat.
The pirate groups require anonymity because what they do is illegal. They have zero accountability because they're anonymous. Sony Music doesn't require anonymity because it owns the law, and has zero accountability because they own the law. So where's the difference to me again?
Are they good people? The pirate groups, I don't know. Sony Music? Definitely not.
That's only the case if the C headers involved are copyrighted -- actually, it's only the case if the compiled code generated by the C headers is copyrighted.
That is, suppose you CAN copyright a header consisting of
enum{
IPPROTO_NONE,
IPPROTO_UDP,
IPPROTO_TCP,
IPPROTO_HDCP
} IPPROTO_ENUM
Code which uses that header doesn't contain any of that -- it just contains numbers. That is, it contains uncopyrightable information, like "1 is the number for UDP", not the (arguably) copyrightable presentation of that information in the headers.
... is anyone can make their own. I just finished one based on Ubuntu Edgy. It's more hardware and configuration specific, though -- it installs MythTV 0.20 as a combined system, the pcHDTV-5500 drivers, the nvidia driver, and LIRC. It also pre-configures MythTV with the pcHDTV-5500 card.
Probably because there aren't any actual copyright violations. The theory that a binary kernel module loaded into a GPL kernel is a copyright violation depends on one of two things
1a) Loading the kernel module into the kernel creates a derivative work of "kernel plus module" and
1b) The act of creating that derivative work requires that the module in question be placed under the GPL.
or
2) Using kernel interfaces makes the module itself a derivative work of the kernel.
1b) is simply wrong; the GPL allows non-GPL derivative works which aren't distributed or published. Either 2) or 1a) (or both) might be accepted by a court, but they'd be an absolute disaster if they were. If 2) were accepted, then by the same taken, any software written for Windows would be considered a derivative work of Windows (and subject to Microsoft's terms and conditions). If 1a) were accepted, then Microsoft would have the legal right to dictate which programs (or drivers, if you really think kernel versus userspace makes a difference) a user runs on his Windows system. Neither of those is something anyone who supports free software should want, support, or rely on as a basis for copyright violation claims.
Yep, because a law mandating something always means that something will happen.
Power losses over long distances of wiring are actually greater for AC, not DC. Which is one reason DC transmission is used in some cases. The existence of very efficient choppers and rectifiers means that the overwhelming advantages AC had in the early 20th century no longer hold true. But inertia will keep most of the system using AC for a long time, unless some advancement produces an overwhelming advantage for DC generation and distribution.
It's not a matter of fraud. It's a matter of Apple not having distribution rights for the music in Costa Rica. It would be copyright infringement for them to distribute the songs to Costa Rica.
There are practices (such as selling goods below cost, called "dumping" when foreign companies do it) which are legal for US companies that are not legal for non-US companies exporting their products to the US, so it isn't surprising that non-US companies get charged for such practices more often.
It's a double standard, but it's one which is set out in law.
...that he's a Republican. At least he's continuing in the fine tradition of stifling free speech that has marked his career in the Senate (McCain-Feingold, anyone)?
Anyway, I believe it is time for me to cry "I told you so". I said on-line registration requirements for sex offenders would be abused to stifle freedom of speech, and sure enough here it is in the very same bill which would set up those registration requirements. Social networking sites would be _required_ to remove web pages of registered sex offenders. No, no violation of the First Amendment there.
I think Norman spent too much time in Korea. Koreans do seem to like gratuituous complexity -- flashing lights, extra buttons, animated web pages, etc. But to most Americans that looks garish and/or bewildering. It's not that simplicity is out; it's that he's been spending his time in a place where simplicity was never in. This is why only LG has a refrigerator with a built-in television.
But that's a matter of simple aesthetics. When it comes to function, he's right; people do want lots of features and controls (even if they never use any, and they're hidden from view). Case in point: I bought a dishwasher a few years ago. It has a sensor to determine when the dishes are clean, so you can just put it in sensor mode and go. The salesman (definitely an appliance geek) told me that even in the regular and heavy wash modes, it still used the sensor and would shorten or lengthen the wash as appropriate. So, I asked, why not just have the one button? His answer was that they tried that a few years ago, but nobody bought them.
Lots of visible controls: Not simple, good in Korea, not so good in the US
Hidden controls: aesthetically simple, good (in the US).
Few controls: Perceived as low-end, not going to do well in either place.
Since you haven't yet been modded Troll, I'll reply...It would make little difference to Torvalds and Stallman if the copyright on Linux and GNU tools ran out in 50 years. So 50 years from now people could use Linux 2.6.18 without restriction.... do you really think it's going to matter to anyone but a few retrocomputing fans? Linux 24.9.12 will still be under copyright, since it will contain copyrightable works produced in the interim.
It's not just a matter of being coerced. Suppose that before Megan's law and all the rest, you committed some minor offense like public urination or "flashing" or whatever. You pled guilty, paid your fine, and were done with it. 10 years later the government passes a new law classifying that crime as a reportable sex offense, and now you're forced to register as a sex offender, denied by law and by practice a whole range of professions, kicked off Internet sites as the result of government action, etc. That's additional punishment following conviction, the very definition of an ex post facto law set out in one of the oldest precedents in the US judicial system. Yet the Supreme Court found this to acceptable.
(BTW, to the person who modded my original post "Troll" -- "Troll" doesn't mean "I disagree".)