Note that many post offices within a medium to large city do not have general delivery, and mail addressed to these zip codes will either be forwarded to the Main Post Office or returned to sender.
If a US Post Office doesn't have "General Delivery". Do try and call "Mailbox, Etc." That's a private company that rents out mailboxes in many American cities, and I would almost be sure they do this kind of thing (thought, obviously don't take my word for it, you should call them first).
As a last resort, you should use a nice hotel for this kind of thing, most nice hotels will hold mail, messages, faxes, and valuables for a long time before you arrive -- as long as you have a reservation for at least one night with them. In fact, I know someone who's an importer/exporter who does that for his business. Everywhere he goes, he stays one night at the Hilton or at some other expensive hotel, this way he can furnish his clients with their address and number. And he also sends out any letters and faxes in batches as soon as he arrives there, this way he'll use their notepad stationary and their fax stationary, and he'll have the staff at the hotel send his stuff from the hotel's mail room and fax machine. And of course, the rest of the time that he's abroad, he'll usually stay at the cheapest places he can afford for the rest of the time.
Below are a couple of names for it (in the US it's called "General Delivery" -- and the mail can be kept for up to one month). Also if you're in the US, you may want to have UPS or FedEx do it, and have it delivered to a US Post Office, they're usually more reliable than the United States Post Office -- but UPS or FedEx probably won't hold a package for very long (if for some reason, you're delayed). That's why I am suggesting that you have those services deliver it to a US Post Office instead of their own office. Also, note that there may be one Post Office near each International Airport which is open 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
Poste restante (French, trans. post which remains) is a service where the post office holds mail until the recipient calls for it. It is a common destination for mail for people who are visiting a particular location and have no need, or no way, of having mail delivered directly to their place of residence at that time.
Mail is addressed to POSTE RESTANTE (or TO BE CALLED FOR), which is written after the full name of the recipient (as appears on the identification to be presented ie. the passport, if abroad), then the name and full address of the destination post office, thus:--
Mr. John Smith
Poste Restante
Islington Post Office
116 Upper Street
Islington
London N1 1AE
If only addressed to a town name, for example POSTE RESTANTE, LONDON (there are currently 115 crown offices in LONDON[1]) mail will go to the closest main post office branch.
The sender should also include their return address. In the United Kingdom, the Royal Mail holds mail posted from within the UK for two weeks, whereas mail posted from abroad is normally held for one month, if the recipient is at sea however, it will be held for two months. Where mail is not collected within that time, it will be returned to the sender, or if there is no sender indicated, will be treated as undeliverable. If the sender would like uncollected mail returned sooner, they can indicate this on the envelope. Timescales vary from country to country according to local practice.
In the United States, the US Postal Service uses the term general delivery and reserves the term poste restante for international mail sent to general delivery. Mail is addressed as follows:--
Mrs. Jane Q. Smith
General Delivery
Washington DC 20090-9999
In the ZIP+4 code, the add-on code for general delivery is 9999. The main post office in a community will hold such mail for up to 30 days. This may be a different post office from where oversized packages and registered mail are held for any particular zip code. Note that many post offices within a medium to large city do not have general delivery, and mail addressed to these zip codes will either be forwarded to the Main Post Office or returned to sender.
If you fear people like Osama Bin Laden more than you fear people like Henry Merritt "Hank" Paulson Jr., IMO you're brain dead stupid.
In other words, you're either with us, or one of them, type of thinking.
Thankfully, you can count on me, I fear every stereotype. Muslims, terrorists, jocks, bankers, or you, you guys are all pretty much the same to me.
Since you are on slashdot, you are likely working on a technical field, and you are thus aware that technical terms are most useful when they are properly defined. The definition of open source promulgated by the OSI is well established by now, and sticking to it aids communication. It seems rather counter-productive to argue against a useful technical definition on the basis that without the definition, the same words could be interpreted as something more vague, especially when the vague purpose can be communicated by saying that the source is available.
Ok. Let's call what Microsoft is doing "Sole Source", or just "Sole Sourcing". And let Microsoft argue against that by saying that it's an *open* "Sole Source" license. This is a much more accurate definition in my opinion than just saying that their license is not "open source". Sole Source is already an existing term with the correct definition from the get go.
When describing it, you could just bring up the hypothetical example of a fictitious company called Blue Hat, Blue Hat would have written/purchased their unix-like operating system from scratch, but seeing what CentOS did to Red Hat -- Blue Hat only opened their code and only accepted code from others under the condition of a "Sole Source" license. So the entire code base, on Blue Hat's repository that third party developers were willing to "Sole Source" on top Blue Hat, is "Sole Sourced" as well.
This pretty much guarantees that when CentOS tries to copy the code from Blue Hat or any of its applications, it can't anymore, because then in order to use it -- it would have to rebrand it completely (because it's not permitted to use the Blue Hat trademark), and in order to rebrand it completely -- it would have to break the "Sole Source" agreement of remaining on top of Blue Hat (because it wouldn't be on top of Blue Hat if it wasn't called Blue Hat anymore). So in the end, Blue Hat wins with this arrangement. It wouldn't matter what kind of product you built, or what device/server your software would end up running on, if you sole source your project -- that project will only be able to run on Blue Hat PCs, or Blue Hat cell phones, or Blue Hat Zunes, otherwise Blue Hat would probably sue you.
There was no "open source", capitals or not, regarding software until the Open Source Definition. If you look through past material, you can only find a few uses of the words together regarding software at all, with no consistent meaning.
Open Source is what is defined by the Open Source Definition.
Bruce, It sounds like you're making a circular argument: We defined "open source" as one sole definition/one sole meaning (before there used to be multiple unofficial inconsistent definitions/meanings of "open source"), therefore our official definition must be its sole definition/sole meaning now?
A number of microsoft dweebs and/or campaigners would like to have it otherwise. But then Microsoft would like to have a lot of things. It's called corporate totalitarianism. Bruce
I am dweeb, yes. A microsoft dweeb? I don't think so. It's not that I disagree with you that Microsoft is trying for a major land grab by creating this license and pushing it on whoever it can, I do think that it is. It's just that I disagree with your logic here that you guys own the phrase "open source" when it was already in use and had multiple meanings already well before you got a hold of it.
No. Money controls media. Media makes us *think* money is speech. Ergo, money is a form of thought-control, not speech.
The thing is, the government has already granted limited monopolies over our air waves. So it effectively took what was ours, and nobodies, consolidated, centralized it, made it scarce, and sold it back to only a limited few -- in exchange for money. This is the real reason people think money is free speech. It's because it was sold for money. If the American government had sold our speech to only people with green eyes, or to people with a particular military rank, or to people from a particular political party, you can be sure that many people would be associating free speech with green eyes, with that particular military rank, or people from that particular political party.
It becomes a self-reinforcing system to make free speech scarce, and then to keep on calling it "free speech" anyway over those same air waves. After all, who are people going to believe? Me, or what's shown repeatedly on TV, or what's shown repeatedly on your friends/classmates/teachers/parents TVs?
Here is a better description from Squeak.org (Smalltalk)
Sophie is a digital media assembly tool to combine images, text, video, and audio into a single multimedia document such as slideshows, presentations and annotated videos.
If any of you played with Squeak, you should see that even if you exclude the code from Sophie -- Squeak already has most of the multimedia functionality described above (and really, like many Squeak applications I've seen, Sophie really doesn't try to advertise the fact that it's built on top of Squeak, otherwise people would know how freakishly easy it would be to just add a dash or two of minor functionality and repackage the entire image as something completely new).
In any case, I wish good luck to the Bulgarian developers. And I hope that they were selected for their skills/experience, and not just because they were the lowest bidders. And of course, I wish good luck to the OpenSophie developers as well. When someone starts investing money into trying to copying your work, it's actually a very good sign (even if it does not feel that way at first). It can only lend credibility to your product/community.
You guys should not be pissed off about this, not that I can tell you what to feel and what not to feel. But any modicum of success that the other project garners (which is still a long ways off -- even if they still retain the original name) will only propel your own project forward and into the limelight. And if anything, desensitize yourself to the jealousy, fantasize about their success, and should they do something better than you -- do not be afraid to learn from them (instead of rationalizing your own false sense of superiority and coming up with all kinds of reasons of why they're worse than you). Chances are. If your project is worth funding/cloning. These guys won't be the first, nor the last, to try to clone it. So position yourself as the leader of that emerging niche, encourage others to clone your project, encourage others to enter the market, and position yourself early on as the main evangelists/authors/speakers/teachers for that incoming crowd of new competitors and that new expanding audience of users/customers/clients/investors/press that will inevitably come along with them.
He said his reaction time from playing video games was what helped him, and he really does believe that.
So it wasn't the jolt of adrenaline, or the fact that he was becoming a more experienced driver, or the fact that he's of a particular astrological sign. It must be video games. That's the only explanation. If he believes that, then it it must be true.
The games' developer, San Francisco-based Posit Science, will track the total number of hours these drivers play. Then the group's accident rates will be compared to a control group of people who do not play the games.
I wonder how the 'control group' gets selected. I would hate to be part of the control group of old geezers who first opt-in into this program, and then open eagerly their video game packet -- only to find it's 10 hours of Matlock tv -- that I'm required to watch instead.
..the treatment model that accompanied the behavioral theory - i.e. "stop fucking people you aren't married/monogamous with" - would have had a better THEORETICAL societal outcome than the current treatment model.
I added the word "THEORETICAL" because most good theories have a better societal outcome IN THEORY (after all, why else would people come up with them). For instance, the communist redistribution of wealth theory sounds like it would have had a better societal THEORETICAL outcome than capitalism (if it weren't for those communist leaders and those pesky people that destroyed the communist system with their own personal selfishness and corruption). And for instance, I'm sure that the Sarah Palin Birth Control Method would have a better THEORETICAL societal outcome as a whole (if it weren't for those pesky drug-using, pregnant-alcohol-drinking, and ungrateful-irresponsible selfish Alaskan teenagers).
Never leave your laptop on top of your car when carrying other things home!
Never plug in a laptop, or a usb memory stick, that you just found lying somewhere in a parking lot (or on top of some car). Aside from the normal legal risks of taking something that is not yours. A perv could be watching your every move. Your identity could get stolen the next time you buy something online. And last, but not least, you could be unwittingly letting a known trojan getting inside your home-network (or your work-network -- making you a serious security-breach for your employer -- and the potential fall guy for anything that trojan decides to do on it).
Using that logic, the only way that someone can report you for an offense is if he (or she) admits to being turned on by your kiddie porn? Woh!?!?
This would be problematic because according to this mini-documentary BBC series done in conjunction with the Kinsey Institute. 100% of women will be turned on unwittingly by pretty much anything, even two monkeys having sex on a video screen (while most men don't get that). So if your photo clerk at Walgreens is going to be a woman, then you might get judged very harshly there.
Before some of you mod me as a troll for stating wildly unconventional wisdom, and a seemingly insulting general statement, do try to look at those videos before making your pronouncements, look at the third one especially (that one has the bit about the monkeys), they're all posted on google video, with their links on the page I just referenced. And do note that the documentary itself is not the study itself. A much larger sample size was actually used for each study than for the actual documentary (that part is explained in the first video).
People like Edward Demings, or companies like Toyota, recommend that you don't use individual incentive programs. They claim that individual incentive programs create strife and promote distrust between employees. And they also claim that gaining the approval of your colleagues, or getting a boost to your ego, or working for your team, can be far more effective incentives in the long run than just getting some individual monetary reward.
I don't remember all the incentives Toyota used for inventions, but one was paint color for instance. All the devices invented by their engineers were painted with one strip of one color. And all the devices invented by their floor factory workers were painted with a stripe of green (for instance, the factory workers made themselves chairs that looked much more like an amusement park ride than factory chairs, they were suspended from tracks, that allowed them to work at different elevations and to move quickly from car to car).
"By child pornography, I mean adult porn with children. A picture of a thirty-year-old man naked != porn. Picture af ten-year-old naked != porn. Picture of either of said persons engaging in sexual acts or behaving provocatively = porn. "
Yes, but since you're probably not one of the Finnish policemen in charge of this black list, nor are you one of the highly trained Kmart/Walgreens photo clerk employees, your definition of what "child porn" is -- probably highly suspect.
William Kelly was arrested in Maryland in 1987 after dropping off a roll of film that included shots his 10-year-old daughter and younger children had taken of each other nude.
David Urban in 1989 took photos of his wife and 15-month-old grandson, both nude, as she was giving him a bath. Kmart turned him in and he was convicted by a Missouri court (later overturned).
A gay adult couple in Florida decided to shave their bodies and snap their lovemaking, convincing a Walgreens clerk that one of them was a child. They are suing the Fort Lauderdale police.
More recently, Cynthia Stewart turned in bath-time pictures of her 8-year-old daughter to a Fuji film processing lab in Oberlin, Ohio. The lab contacted the local police, who found the pictures "over the line" and arrested the mother for, among other things, snapping in the same frame with her daughter a showerhead, which the prosecution apparently planned to relate somehow to hints of masturbation.
"That again: child running about naked on beach - NOT PORN. Child having sex or being filmed in a way intended to arouse the viewer - IS PORN, therefore far beyond questionable content. "
Sure, but that has yet to be proven. This guy for instance has already received personal threats against him because his site is listed as a "child porn web site", and yet he doesn't have a single picture on his site -- he only compiled a list of web sites that were banned by this list (he simply used a scanner to obtain that information, and it turns out that 99% of those web sites listed do not contain child pornography according to him). Should he put in jail because of this so-called "questionable content"? Should he be branded as a sexual predator and a child porn peddler because of this personal expose?
You're going to have to cite sources on the 'requirement' and 'federal law' claims. Many companies buy satellite imagery from Russian companies, so what exactly is this law and who is the burden on?
I wonder how many russian satellites have good coverage of the United States. Geostationary satellites wouldn't have good coverage (at least for map-making of the United States, since they're following the equator and would view the United States at an angle). The russian satellites on the Molnya orbit wouldn't have very good coverage either (at least for anything Naval in the United States, scroll down to see their coverage map, besides they're very high and probably wouldn't get good detailed pictures)
Now, I don't doubt that the russians have many low altitudes geosynchronous satellites that are designed especially to have good coverage of the United States, but I wouldn't be surprised if those satellites are mostly military spy satellites (of Russia, France, or wherever), and that due to the military purpose of those satellites, that their images don't get sold on the public open market yet.
In any case, here is a newsletter from google talking about their sources for imagery.
[...]
Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes - even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.
The next step is processing the imagery. We scan the film using scanners capable of over 1800 DPI (dots per inch) or 14 microns. Then we take the digital imagery through a series of stages such as color balancing and warping to produce the final mosaic for the entire area.
We update the imagery as quickly as we can collect and process it, then add layers of information - things like country and state borders and the names of roads, schools, and parks -- to make it more useful. This information comes from multiple sources: commercial providers, local government agencies, public domain collections, private individuals, national and even international governments. Right now, Google Earth has hundreds of terabytes of geographic data, and it's growing larger every day. And that's not counting the extraordinary "open source" projects people have built to enhance it.
Yes, some parts of the world are still blurry. But in the ten years since the idea for the project was planted, the momentum behind it has only grown exponentially.
Are you sure Oracle documentation is the final word on Oracle's TO_CHAR() and TO_DATE() functions? Please try a few examples and see the gaping holes. You are not sure why a certain formatting raises an error and why something you expect doesn't. Microsoft is no better. Their whole ODBC spec is random rambling. It is not as precise as a spec ought to be.
That's why my favorite non-FOSS online documentation is on Macromedia (now Adobe).
For instance, their docs on CFML certainly aren't perfect, but at least you can leave a comment, or read the comments of others, at the bottom of those very same documentation pages, thereby exposing a documentation quirk or a difficulty really quickly.
Now I'm not familiar with the Oracle documentation, but with Microsoft, you can comment on the documentation right away, and you can even say if the documentation was helpful to you or not, but your comment doesn't appear on the documentation page itself, so you have no idea if your comment will even be read or not, and you have no idea if someone is even going to bother correcting/clarifying the documentation page. And so with Microsoft, you usually end up googling around for even more information to supplement the official MS documentation.
Didn't the WTO rule that online gambling is legal, and doesn't that trump this? Also, isn't the domain name registrar outside the law? I could be wrong, but this ruiling is rediculous.
The WTO ruled that, and then they allowed for retaliatory trade action to be taken against the US. In other words, some US industries will be hurt by what Kentucky did. Those industries will complain to the Federal government. And then, the Federal government will come down hard on Kentucky.
That being said, if those online casinos are indeed committing fraud against the people in Kentucky, then the WTO will probably allow the US to take retaliatory trade actions against the countries hosting those casinos. A casino that doesn't pay its winners is not good for trade. It makes the entire online gambling industry look bad.
The biggest problem with this, is between 78% and 80% of people told to act suspiciously can fool the system into believing they are intending to commit crime,
Besides, this sounds like it was phrased as a challenge. How many of those people do you think started doing jumping-jacks in front of those devices? How many of those people started acting like some crazy homeless person that just got out of some asylum? And what about the remaining 20% to 22% people who failed to get detected, are those people morons or something? And what about the 2% margin of error, did those 2% get detected and then run away before the machine could catch them? Or did they fail to remember the instructions that were given to them? In either case, I congratulate those 2% for having eluded both the machines and the people leading this study.
Anyway, acting and behaving are two very different things. One is a caricature, and one is not. If anything, this kind of test would only be reinforcing the false perceptions people already have about criminals/terrorists. We don't need that. If you want to make good machines, train them on good data at the very least. And if you can't get good training data, work on something else -- get yourself another job.
A better test would have been to randomly assign a one hundred bill and a couple of razor blades to a couple of people out of a larger pool of candidates, and to tell them that the metal detectors were broken, and that if they could go through security without getting stopped, that they would be able to keep the money. Such a test would still be absurd, because it really couldn't replicate the pressures that a real criminal/terrorist would be feeling trying to get through, but it would still be far less absurd than this original so-called 'study' was.
...the US government will obtain access and use that to pursue a student - an under US law they can force you to reveal the keys.
And by the way, assuming that the student is using PGP encryption, the student in question would have to be located in (or visiting) the US in order for the US government to have this kind leverage on him. They can't force people outside their jurisdiction (special brown-skin individuals kidnapped by the CIA excepted of course).
But usually speaking, it's the country where one is located that is the most dangerous to that individual, it's usually not the countries abroad where you would have happened to stash your email, since generally speaking -- those countries can't even arrest you (a couple of exceptions excepted of course).
We already do - there is no reason to use GMail, everyone has a free account accessible via IMAP, POP and Webmail. However some people prefer GMail because they are used to it. Sure, if you are really determined you can set up a forwarding chain to get you email to GMail but at that point the University no longer has responsibility and you will be personally liable.
Is there really? Even if I want to email an attachment of 40 MB? Most email systems I've seen don't handle very large attachment very well. I know this sounds like an edge case, but you'd be surprised how often this makes people get a gmail account just for that purpose.
They are not worried about someone hacking into the system and stealing personal, private information (that can happen to files in an office) which is all encryption prevents. What they are worried about is that the US government will obtain access and use that to pursue a student - an under US law they can force you to reveal the keys. If that happens the student can probably sue the University for breach of privacy.
They can sue. Anybody can sue, but will they win?
This sounds like anti-american scaremongering (not that we don't deserve it, we do, we sort of elected the guy, so we deserve anything we get, but...).
If a school doesn't force its students to use gmail (and I am assuming that your school doesn't force your students to use gmail, since your talk is of banning the use of gmail completely), then it's the student making the choice whether they will use gmail -- or not. You shouldn't be responsible for their choices. For instance, when a student gives you a traditional snail mail -- mailing address in the US, or let's say they give you some mailing address in Ethiopia, because they're going to be spending a summer (or a year) there. The exact same thing could happen there too, their privacy could get violated. Why would you be responsible for that?
Also, I think individuals are the best people equipped to judge in what country (or what jurisdiction) they want their emails to be stored in. For instance, if I lived in Canada, I probably would want my email to be stored abroad, and even in the US in some cases (after all, even Canada has some crazy laws, idiocy is not a monopoly of the US). However since I live the US, it probably wouldn't be such a bad idea to keep my emails on some company's server abroad (for instance, not knowing anything about the law, I would speculate that this would probably make it more difficult for a divorce lawyer in an at-fault state to read all my webmail).
It's the same reason why Rosie O'Donnell could have gotten in a lawsuit with Donald Trump. She said that he went bankrupt. He filed no bankruptcy proceeding. Because bankruptcy is a legal device, and she was falsely claiming it, she was breaking slander, in that case (was on TV when she said it: library-books-libel)
Donald Trump did go bankrupt. It just wasn't a personal bankruptcy. It was one of his companies going bankrupt (this was the second time a company of his, where he had the controlling interest, went bankrupt). Here are more details. Donald Trump lost a lot in that deal. He was allowed to keep a controlling interest (a smaller one) in the company only if he gave up all the rights of his name and likeness to his casino and only if he paid back 55 million dollars (which was only a tiny fraction of what his company was out to creditors).
And his company did file for Chapter 11, so the paperwork is there. It's just that Donald Trump, just like a two-year old, is lying and playing with the semantics -- it wasn't me -- it was my company.
What happens if you can figure it out but your friend who took the photo and uploaded it can't?
Ask that friend to remove your name, remove the picture, or mark the picture private, or delist your 'friend' as a friend from your profile.
But since this is no guarantee, you should just take that picture of you getting wasted and participating in a gangbang, include it as part of your application (just in case they're too lazy to google you), and just apply to the best 'party school' in your State instead -- those guys will be delighted to have you.
Business class accounts get you a number of things, like static IPs and such, but one of them is no bandwidth cap.
Many residential DSL accounts give you the same thing, a static IP with no bandwidth cap and a reliable service, and do not cost as much.
If you want a nice cheap price and a fast link, you need to be willing to share with others and that means not running it at full capacity all the time.
No, no. If you want that, you only need to do your research, shop around, and keep on shopping around once in a while. For instance, my first internet provider used to be AOL, it was both the most expensive (they used to charge me by the minute) and the most restrictive in terms of bandwidth and speed. Your assumption that providers maintain all the same level of service is flawed. It pays to shop around. Usually the best providers are the ones that don't have the largest advertising budgets. Those providers cater to the customers that do their research, so they do not have to waste most of their revenue on ads.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, I just caught that last part (for the US).
If a US Post Office doesn't have "General Delivery". Do try and call "Mailbox, Etc." That's a private company that rents out mailboxes in many American cities, and I would almost be sure they do this kind of thing (thought, obviously don't take my word for it, you should call them first).
As a last resort, you should use a nice hotel for this kind of thing, most nice hotels will hold mail, messages, faxes, and valuables for a long time before you arrive -- as long as you have a reservation for at least one night with them. In fact, I know someone who's an importer/exporter who does that for his business. Everywhere he goes, he stays one night at the Hilton or at some other expensive hotel, this way he can furnish his clients with their address and number. And he also sends out any letters and faxes in batches as soon as he arrives there, this way he'll use their notepad stationary and their fax stationary, and he'll have the staff at the hotel send his stuff from the hotel's mail room and fax machine. And of course, the rest of the time that he's abroad, he'll usually stay at the cheapest places he can afford for the rest of the time.
Below are a couple of names for it (in the US it's called "General Delivery" -- and the mail can be kept for up to one month). Also if you're in the US, you may want to have UPS or FedEx do it, and have it delivered to a US Post Office, they're usually more reliable than the United States Post Office -- but UPS or FedEx probably won't hold a package for very long (if for some reason, you're delayed). That's why I am suggesting that you have those services deliver it to a US Post Office instead of their own office. Also, note that there may be one Post Office near each International Airport which is open 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
In other words, you're either with us, or one of them, type of thinking. Thankfully, you can count on me, I fear every stereotype. Muslims, terrorists, jocks, bankers, or you, you guys are all pretty much the same to me.
Ok. Let's call what Microsoft is doing "Sole Source", or just "Sole Sourcing". And let Microsoft argue against that by saying that it's an *open* "Sole Source" license. This is a much more accurate definition in my opinion than just saying that their license is not "open source". Sole Source is already an existing term with the correct definition from the get go.
When describing it, you could just bring up the hypothetical example of a fictitious company called Blue Hat, Blue Hat would have written/purchased their unix-like operating system from scratch, but seeing what CentOS did to Red Hat -- Blue Hat only opened their code and only accepted code from others under the condition of a "Sole Source" license. So the entire code base, on Blue Hat's repository that third party developers were willing to "Sole Source" on top Blue Hat, is "Sole Sourced" as well.
This pretty much guarantees that when CentOS tries to copy the code from Blue Hat or any of its applications, it can't anymore, because then in order to use it -- it would have to rebrand it completely (because it's not permitted to use the Blue Hat trademark), and in order to rebrand it completely -- it would have to break the "Sole Source" agreement of remaining on top of Blue Hat (because it wouldn't be on top of Blue Hat if it wasn't called Blue Hat anymore). So in the end, Blue Hat wins with this arrangement. It wouldn't matter what kind of product you built, or what device/server your software would end up running on, if you sole source your project -- that project will only be able to run on Blue Hat PCs, or Blue Hat cell phones, or Blue Hat Zunes, otherwise Blue Hat would probably sue you.
Bruce, It sounds like you're making a circular argument: We defined "open source" as one sole definition/one sole meaning (before there used to be multiple unofficial inconsistent definitions/meanings of "open source"), therefore our official definition must be its sole definition/sole meaning now?
I am dweeb, yes. A microsoft dweeb? I don't think so. It's not that I disagree with you that Microsoft is trying for a major land grab by creating this license and pushing it on whoever it can, I do think that it is. It's just that I disagree with your logic here that you guys own the phrase "open source" when it was already in use and had multiple meanings already well before you got a hold of it.
No. Money controls media. Media makes us *think* money is speech. Ergo, money is a form of thought-control, not speech.
The thing is, the government has already granted limited monopolies over our air waves. So it effectively took what was ours, and nobodies, consolidated, centralized it, made it scarce, and sold it back to only a limited few -- in exchange for money. This is the real reason people think money is free speech. It's because it was sold for money. If the American government had sold our speech to only people with green eyes, or to people with a particular military rank, or to people from a particular political party, you can be sure that many people would be associating free speech with green eyes, with that particular military rank, or people from that particular political party.
It becomes a self-reinforcing system to make free speech scarce, and then to keep on calling it "free speech" anyway over those same air waves. After all, who are people going to believe? Me, or what's shown repeatedly on TV, or what's shown repeatedly on your friends/classmates/teachers/parents TVs?
Here is a better description from Squeak.org (Smalltalk)
If any of you played with Squeak, you should see that even if you exclude the code from Sophie -- Squeak already has most of the multimedia functionality described above (and really, like many Squeak applications I've seen, Sophie really doesn't try to advertise the fact that it's built on top of Squeak, otherwise people would know how freakishly easy it would be to just add a dash or two of minor functionality and repackage the entire image as something completely new).
In any case, I wish good luck to the Bulgarian developers. And I hope that they were selected for their skills/experience, and not just because they were the lowest bidders. And of course, I wish good luck to the OpenSophie developers as well. When someone starts investing money into trying to copying your work, it's actually a very good sign (even if it does not feel that way at first). It can only lend credibility to your product/community.
You guys should not be pissed off about this, not that I can tell you what to feel and what not to feel. But any modicum of success that the other project garners (which is still a long ways off -- even if they still retain the original name) will only propel your own project forward and into the limelight. And if anything, desensitize yourself to the jealousy, fantasize about their success, and should they do something better than you -- do not be afraid to learn from them (instead of rationalizing your own false sense of superiority and coming up with all kinds of reasons of why they're worse than you). Chances are. If your project is worth funding/cloning. These guys won't be the first, nor the last, to try to clone it. So position yourself as the leader of that emerging niche, encourage others to clone your project, encourage others to enter the market, and position yourself early on as the main evangelists/authors/speakers/teachers for that incoming crowd of new competitors and that new expanding audience of users/customers/clients/investors/press that will inevitably come along with them.
So it wasn't the jolt of adrenaline, or the fact that he was becoming a more experienced driver, or the fact that he's of a particular astrological sign. It must be video games. That's the only explanation. If he believes that, then it it must be true.
I wonder how the 'control group' gets selected. I would hate to be part of the control group of old geezers who first opt-in into this program, and then open eagerly their video game packet -- only to find it's 10 hours of Matlock tv -- that I'm required to watch instead.
There you go, I corrected that for you.
I added the word "THEORETICAL" because most good theories have a better societal outcome IN THEORY (after all, why else would people come up with them). For instance, the communist redistribution of wealth theory sounds like it would have had a better societal THEORETICAL outcome than capitalism (if it weren't for those communist leaders and those pesky people that destroyed the communist system with their own personal selfishness and corruption). And for instance, I'm sure that the Sarah Palin Birth Control Method would have a better THEORETICAL societal outcome as a whole (if it weren't for those pesky drug-using, pregnant-alcohol-drinking, and ungrateful-irresponsible selfish Alaskan teenagers).
Never plug in a laptop, or a usb memory stick, that you just found lying somewhere in a parking lot (or on top of some car). Aside from the normal legal risks of taking something that is not yours. A perv could be watching your every move. Your identity could get stolen the next time you buy something online. And last, but not least, you could be unwittingly letting a known trojan getting inside your home-network (or your work-network -- making you a serious security-breach for your employer -- and the potential fall guy for anything that trojan decides to do on it).
If anybody should be selling limited monopolies to common English words, we should be the ones doing it. The Canadians don't own the Internet. We do.
What arrogance!
This would be problematic because according to this mini-documentary BBC series done in conjunction with the Kinsey Institute. 100% of women will be turned on unwittingly by pretty much anything, even two monkeys having sex on a video screen (while most men don't get that). So if your photo clerk at Walgreens is going to be a woman, then you might get judged very harshly there.
Before some of you mod me as a troll for stating wildly unconventional wisdom, and a seemingly insulting general statement, do try to look at those videos before making your pronouncements, look at the third one especially (that one has the bit about the monkeys), they're all posted on google video, with their links on the page I just referenced. And do note that the documentary itself is not the study itself. A much larger sample size was actually used for each study than for the actual documentary (that part is explained in the first video).
People like Edward Demings, or companies like Toyota, recommend that you don't use individual incentive programs. They claim that individual incentive programs create strife and promote distrust between employees. And they also claim that gaining the approval of your colleagues, or getting a boost to your ego, or working for your team, can be far more effective incentives in the long run than just getting some individual monetary reward.
I don't remember all the incentives Toyota used for inventions, but one was paint color for instance. All the devices invented by their engineers were painted with one strip of one color. And all the devices invented by their floor factory workers were painted with a stripe of green (for instance, the factory workers made themselves chairs that looked much more like an amusement park ride than factory chairs, they were suspended from tracks, that allowed them to work at different elevations and to move quickly from car to car).
Yes, but since you're probably not one of the Finnish policemen in charge of this black list, nor are you one of the highly trained Kmart/Walgreens photo clerk employees, your definition of what "child porn" is -- probably highly suspect.
.
Sure, but that has yet to be proven. This guy for instance has already received personal threats against him because his site is listed as a "child porn web site", and yet he doesn't have a single picture on his site -- he only compiled a list of web sites that were banned by this list (he simply used a scanner to obtain that information, and it turns out that 99% of those web sites listed do not contain child pornography according to him). Should he put in jail because of this so-called "questionable content"? Should he be branded as a sexual predator and a child porn peddler because of this personal expose?
Puts the expression "naval gazing" in an entirely new context.
I wonder how many russian satellites have good coverage of the United States. Geostationary satellites wouldn't have good coverage (at least for map-making of the United States, since they're following the equator and would view the United States at an angle). The russian satellites on the Molnya orbit wouldn't have very good coverage either (at least for anything Naval in the United States, scroll down to see their coverage map, besides they're very high and probably wouldn't get good detailed pictures)
Now, I don't doubt that the russians have many low altitudes geosynchronous satellites that are designed especially to have good coverage of the United States, but I wouldn't be surprised if those satellites are mostly military spy satellites (of Russia, France, or wherever), and that due to the military purpose of those satellites, that their images don't get sold on the public open market yet.
In any case, here is a newsletter from google talking about their sources for imagery.
That's why my favorite non-FOSS online documentation is on Macromedia (now Adobe).
For instance, their docs on CFML certainly aren't perfect, but at least you can leave a comment, or read the comments of others, at the bottom of those very same documentation pages, thereby exposing a documentation quirk or a difficulty really quickly.
Now I'm not familiar with the Oracle documentation, but with Microsoft, you can comment on the documentation right away, and you can even say if the documentation was helpful to you or not, but your comment doesn't appear on the documentation page itself, so you have no idea if your comment will even be read or not, and you have no idea if someone is even going to bother correcting/clarifying the documentation page. And so with Microsoft, you usually end up googling around for even more information to supplement the official MS documentation.
The WTO ruled that, and then they allowed for retaliatory trade action to be taken against the US. In other words, some US industries will be hurt by what Kentucky did. Those industries will complain to the Federal government. And then, the Federal government will come down hard on Kentucky.
That being said, if those online casinos are indeed committing fraud against the people in Kentucky, then the WTO will probably allow the US to take retaliatory trade actions against the countries hosting those casinos. A casino that doesn't pay its winners is not good for trade. It makes the entire online gambling industry look bad.
Besides, this sounds like it was phrased as a challenge. How many of those people do you think started doing jumping-jacks in front of those devices? How many of those people started acting like some crazy homeless person that just got out of some asylum? And what about the remaining 20% to 22% people who failed to get detected, are those people morons or something? And what about the 2% margin of error, did those 2% get detected and then run away before the machine could catch them? Or did they fail to remember the instructions that were given to them? In either case, I congratulate those 2% for having eluded both the machines and the people leading this study.
Anyway, acting and behaving are two very different things. One is a caricature, and one is not. If anything, this kind of test would only be reinforcing the false perceptions people already have about criminals/terrorists. We don't need that. If you want to make good machines, train them on good data at the very least. And if you can't get good training data, work on something else -- get yourself another job.
A better test would have been to randomly assign a one hundred bill and a couple of razor blades to a couple of people out of a larger pool of candidates, and to tell them that the metal detectors were broken, and that if they could go through security without getting stopped, that they would be able to keep the money. Such a test would still be absurd, because it really couldn't replicate the pressures that a real criminal/terrorist would be feeling trying to get through, but it would still be far less absurd than this original so-called 'study' was.
And by the way, assuming that the student is using PGP encryption, the student in question would have to be located in (or visiting) the US in order for the US government to have this kind leverage on him. They can't force people outside their jurisdiction (special brown-skin individuals kidnapped by the CIA excepted of course).
But usually speaking, it's the country where one is located that is the most dangerous to that individual, it's usually not the countries abroad where you would have happened to stash your email, since generally speaking -- those countries can't even arrest you (a couple of exceptions excepted of course).
Is there really? Even if I want to email an attachment of 40 MB? Most email systems I've seen don't handle very large attachment very well. I know this sounds like an edge case, but you'd be surprised how often this makes people get a gmail account just for that purpose.
They can sue. Anybody can sue, but will they win?
This sounds like anti-american scaremongering (not that we don't deserve it, we do, we sort of elected the guy, so we deserve anything we get, but...).
If a school doesn't force its students to use gmail (and I am assuming that your school doesn't force your students to use gmail, since your talk is of banning the use of gmail completely), then it's the student making the choice whether they will use gmail -- or not. You shouldn't be responsible for their choices. For instance, when a student gives you a traditional snail mail -- mailing address in the US, or let's say they give you some mailing address in Ethiopia, because they're going to be spending a summer (or a year) there. The exact same thing could happen there too, their privacy could get violated. Why would you be responsible for that?
Also, I think individuals are the best people equipped to judge in what country (or what jurisdiction) they want their emails to be stored in. For instance, if I lived in Canada, I probably would want my email to be stored abroad, and even in the US in some cases (after all, even Canada has some crazy laws, idiocy is not a monopoly of the US). However since I live the US, it probably wouldn't be such a bad idea to keep my emails on some company's server abroad (for instance, not knowing anything about the law, I would speculate that this would probably make it more difficult for a divorce lawyer in an at-fault state to read all my webmail).
Donald Trump did go bankrupt. It just wasn't a personal bankruptcy. It was one of his companies going bankrupt (this was the second time a company of his, where he had the controlling interest, went bankrupt). Here are more details. Donald Trump lost a lot in that deal. He was allowed to keep a controlling interest (a smaller one) in the company only if he gave up all the rights of his name and likeness to his casino and only if he paid back 55 million dollars (which was only a tiny fraction of what his company was out to creditors).
And his company did file for Chapter 11, so the paperwork is there. It's just that Donald Trump, just like a two-year old, is lying and playing with the semantics -- it wasn't me -- it was my company.
Ask that friend to remove your name, remove the picture, or mark the picture private, or delist your 'friend' as a friend from your profile.
But since this is no guarantee, you should just take that picture of you getting wasted and participating in a gangbang, include it as part of your application (just in case they're too lazy to google you), and just apply to the best 'party school' in your State instead -- those guys will be delighted to have you.
Many residential DSL accounts give you the same thing, a static IP with no bandwidth cap and a reliable service, and do not cost as much.
No, no. If you want that, you only need to do your research, shop around, and keep on shopping around once in a while. For instance, my first internet provider used to be AOL, it was both the most expensive (they used to charge me by the minute) and the most restrictive in terms of bandwidth and speed. Your assumption that providers maintain all the same level of service is flawed. It pays to shop around. Usually the best providers are the ones that don't have the largest advertising budgets. Those providers cater to the customers that do their research, so they do not have to waste most of their revenue on ads.