If you're lucky, it'll only remain restricted to PCs. My entire extended family expects me to fix every problem with any sort of electronic device that they have, be it an alarm clock, an answering machine, or a computer. Most of the time, particularly when dealing with a computer problem, the answer is so simple that they could easily figure it out themselves, but since they never bother to learn it themselves in the first place, they end up having to call me multiple times about such things as how to find "Save as..." on the file menu.
Of course, your family might expect you to repair stuff for free, but you can and should request a fee if you don't know the client personally.
If you look at a blue ball through the edge of a prism and it looks red, is the ball still blue? I think so.
But what if the ball itself were the prism? In your analogy, an external object is modifying the perceived color of an object, whereas the sky itself contains particles that modify its appearance.
Nevertheless, I agree with you: the sky isn't actually blue because it doesn't always reflect only blue light. In this sense, it doesn't really have a color at all.
I understand that they want to get a point across, but blocking *.*.*.* is a very bad way of doing it. This'd probably break the default and current configurations on thousands of systems relying on SPEWS for blacklisting.
They should ALLOW *.*.*.* instead, which would allow anything that depended upon SPEWS to operate as it would if SPEWS simply didn't exist. Since SPEWS doesn't exist anymore, that would make perfect sense.
Blocking *.*.*.* is a way to get people to stop using the server very quickly, though.
I agree that that's probably the only way to completely stop spam (And spammers'll probably find a way around that, too), but to do that to the entire internet would take years. I'd compare it to the IPv6 switch.
If SCO somehow manages to pull off a win in court (Which is highly unlikely, especially considering that they've based their latest case on a misreading of copyright law), all the developers would have to do is remove the "infringing" code from the 2.4 kernel and replace it with new code. People who absolutely need a working Linux system the day after the case might switch to 2.2, but this won't really affect most users.
That is, if SCO ever plans on showing the code to the public.
No, but you do have this clause, which may be useful against SCO:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
If SCO denies that the GPL is binding, they have no rights to distribute any GPLed software, since distribution is only permitted through acceptance of the license in its entirety. Of course, they could still use it themselves within SCO, since there seems to be no clause prohibiting use.
While a lot of the games are just ports of other games, the fact that the GBA is portable gives them a renewed appeal. Sequels may also benefit by association. If someone liked playing the original game in a series, they'll probably assume that the GBA sequel is just like the original, but portable.
Supposedly, one of the later 2.5 kernel patches introduced agpgart support for the Radeon IGP. I did manage to get agpgart to detect the ATI Northbridge on my HP Pavilion in 2.6.0-test2 (Something I couldn't do in 2.4.20-9), but I still couldn't get the DRI driver to work. I haven't played with it too much, but it seems that it may work with some tweaking in 2.6 kernels.
Against a large and diverse enough DDoS, all the sysadmins in the world together can't deal with it. Microsoft did all that they really could do: remove the target address from the internet, so that the pings never reach their server in the first place. Of course, all it takes is a new variant of the worm targetting windowsupdate.microsoft.com to recreate the problem all over again - and unlike windowsupdate.com, Windows systems use windowsupdate.microsoft.com.
That's the equivalent of requiring TVs to have an option that disables commercials. Software developers make their money from deals with the spyware companies. Yes, it's the developer's fault for making a deal with a spyware company in the first place, but you can't just mandate them to give their software away for free without any possibility of compensation against their will. What would likely happen if software is forced to install without spyware components is that the developers would begin charging for previously free software.
There's actually a bill that, if passed, will mandate special labelling of copy protected CDs. There also seems to be a DMCA modification stuck in at the end permitting circumventation of copy protection for fair use and scientific research.
I've had nothing but success with Rayovac NiMH batteries. I also like the rechargable alcalines, but one of those exploded on me a while back for seemingly no reason, so I tend to avoid them whenever I can find NiMHs.
My question is-- what took IBM so long to do this? Or are their lawyers that slow?
I think that IBM was hoping SCO'd slowly die under the legal costs and uncertainty, but they seemed to have realized that SCO is able to spread an amazing amount of FUD given time and uncertainty, some of which is bound to hurt IBM. Whatever the case may be, I believe that the delay was deliberate.
That's a bad example, but you do have the right idea. If someone uses a library computer to download music, is the library responsible? Of course not; the user is. The RIAA, however, has never understood this, preferring from day one to go after the toolmakers rather than the users.
Not to mention all you need to do to reset any BIOS password is change a jumper. Granted, that might be a bit hard to do behind someone's back, but it's still possible.
Any one person would have my respect as much as an institution for standing up for his rights, though I speak only for myself, not for the poster of the grandparent post or anyone else. The only difference I see is that an institution is capable of creating a much larger stir by refusing to bow to the RIAA's bullying than one person is, and would probably be more likely to succeed, due to money, reputation, etc.
Thus the lower prices. Now that Microsoft has to seriously compete, they're dropping prices and will probably improve the quality of their software. Capitalism is a rather nice thing when it works.
Many proposed laws require that ADV: be in the subject line of the email. There are a lot of people who think that'd give too much leeway to spammers so long as they used ADV:, including Spamhaus.org, but I don't really see the problem - I'd just block all email with ADV: in the subject.
Also remember that spammers haven't shown much concern about following the law. When you're virtually anonymous to all but your ISP (*cough* Better SMTP protocol *cough*), you tend to have this "they can't catch me" attitude.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're lucky, it'll only remain restricted to PCs. My entire extended family expects me to fix every problem with any sort of electronic device that they have, be it an alarm clock, an answering machine, or a computer. Most of the time, particularly when dealing with a computer problem, the answer is so simple that they could easily figure it out themselves, but since they never bother to learn it themselves in the first place, they end up having to call me multiple times about such things as how to find "Save as..." on the file menu. Of course, your family might expect you to repair stuff for free, but you can and should request a fee if you don't know the client personally.
Remember those weblinks you used to get from strangers on ICQ? This is hardly a new and emerging trend.
Or just hold down shift when the CD-ROM drive closes. That'll disable autorun for that particular instance.
Nevertheless, I agree with you: the sky isn't actually blue because it doesn't always reflect only blue light. In this sense, it doesn't really have a color at all.
"You're either with us or against us"
I understand that they want to get a point across, but blocking *.*.*.* is a very bad way of doing it. This'd probably break the default and current configurations on thousands of systems relying on SPEWS for blacklisting. They should ALLOW *.*.*.* instead, which would allow anything that depended upon SPEWS to operate as it would if SPEWS simply didn't exist. Since SPEWS doesn't exist anymore, that would make perfect sense.
Blocking *.*.*.* is a way to get people to stop using the server very quickly, though.
I agree that that's probably the only way to completely stop spam (And spammers'll probably find a way around that, too), but to do that to the entire internet would take years. I'd compare it to the IPv6 switch.
If SCO somehow manages to pull off a win in court (Which is highly unlikely, especially considering that they've based their latest case on a misreading of copyright law), all the developers would have to do is remove the "infringing" code from the 2.4 kernel and replace it with new code. People who absolutely need a working Linux system the day after the case might switch to 2.2, but this won't really affect most users.
That is, if SCO ever plans on showing the code to the public.
While a lot of the games are just ports of other games, the fact that the GBA is portable gives them a renewed appeal. Sequels may also benefit by association. If someone liked playing the original game in a series, they'll probably assume that the GBA sequel is just like the original, but portable.
Supposedly, one of the later 2.5 kernel patches introduced agpgart support for the Radeon IGP. I did manage to get agpgart to detect the ATI Northbridge on my HP Pavilion in 2.6.0-test2 (Something I couldn't do in 2.4.20-9), but I still couldn't get the DRI driver to work. I haven't played with it too much, but it seems that it may work with some tweaking in 2.6 kernels.
Against a large and diverse enough DDoS, all the sysadmins in the world together can't deal with it. Microsoft did all that they really could do: remove the target address from the internet, so that the pings never reach their server in the first place. Of course, all it takes is a new variant of the worm targetting windowsupdate.microsoft.com to recreate the problem all over again - and unlike windowsupdate.com, Windows systems use windowsupdate.microsoft.com.
My laptop's touchpad supported this for about two years now.
That's the equivalent of requiring TVs to have an option that disables commercials. Software developers make their money from deals with the spyware companies. Yes, it's the developer's fault for making a deal with a spyware company in the first place, but you can't just mandate them to give their software away for free without any possibility of compensation against their will. What would likely happen if software is forced to install without spyware components is that the developers would begin charging for previously free software.
There's actually a bill that, if passed, will mandate special labelling of copy protected CDs. There also seems to be a DMCA modification stuck in at the end permitting circumventation of copy protection for fair use and scientific research.
I've had nothing but success with Rayovac NiMH batteries. I also like the rechargable alcalines, but one of those exploded on me a while back for seemingly no reason, so I tend to avoid them whenever I can find NiMHs.
That's a bad example, but you do have the right idea. If someone uses a library computer to download music, is the library responsible? Of course not; the user is. The RIAA, however, has never understood this, preferring from day one to go after the toolmakers rather than the users.
There's also no guarantee that draconian DMCA-like laws exist in other countries for the RIAA to sue under. I pity those in Iraq - I heard a while back that Hillary Rosen is helping write Iraq's new copyright law.
Not to mention all you need to do to reset any BIOS password is change a jumper. Granted, that might be a bit hard to do behind someone's back, but it's still possible.
Any one person would have my respect as much as an institution for standing up for his rights, though I speak only for myself, not for the poster of the grandparent post or anyone else. The only difference I see is that an institution is capable of creating a much larger stir by refusing to bow to the RIAA's bullying than one person is, and would probably be more likely to succeed, due to money, reputation, etc.
Sounds very much like The Transparent Society, though I don't know where the idea actually originated from.
Thus the lower prices. Now that Microsoft has to seriously compete, they're dropping prices and will probably improve the quality of their software. Capitalism is a rather nice thing when it works.
Also remember that spammers haven't shown much concern about following the law. When you're virtually anonymous to all but your ISP (*cough* Better SMTP protocol *cough*), you tend to have this "they can't catch me" attitude.