Quite right. Beats the heck out of carpet-bombing an entire city--because then you're not talking about a handful of civilian casualties, you're talking about thousands.
Nowadays, the modifications for the JDAMs, which are GPS-refits for normal bombs, are only about US$2000 apiece; which isn't much, compared to the cost of a laser-guided bomb. Yes, the development costs were high; but the US military's environmental footprint is smaller as a result, because they don't have to drop as many bombs to achieve the same objective.
Could they declare classified a pice of GPL software for "national security reasons".
Yes, but they couldn't tell you what piece of GPL software they classified, or else they'd have to kill you.:)
Seriously, classifying software should be allowable under the GPL as far as I understand it--they're not distributing any "proprietary" copies of the software, so there's no concern regarding distribution of the source.
The outcome of this war is certain. The only question is, how many Iraqis and how many Americans will die in the process? Good software is part of the key to preserving lives on both sides: the sooner the war ends, the fewer lives will be lost; and good software (along with good hardware and good training) will shorten the length of the war.
Finally, consider that the work on government programs won't be used only in Iraq. That's just where we need it at the moment. Should the US find itself fighting North Korea, the same software and hardware and training is going to save lives there as well.
I don't agree with the concept of invading Iraq. But I do believe in saving lives; and I think that contributing to government software efforts will help us toward that end.
Then again, maybe the man was a visionary. If we could devise this sort of social exam, maybe we could use it to cure overpopulation? Seriously, does the world need people who can't be distinguished from machines?
Call this flamebait if you want to; but if you like your privacy, your best option is not to run Windows in the first place. Granted, MS' behavior here is sleazy. . . but that's nothing new from Microsoft. And if Microsoft can't get to your data, someone else can probably get to it through one of Microsoft's myriad security holes.
This is kinda a non-issue. Yeah, it's despicable; but it's kinda like a weatherman saying there's a 100% chance of rain while it's pouring out, and you mutter to yourself, "You don't say. . !"
Actually, it looks like an Afghan is a native of Afghanistan and a blanket. An Afghani, in contrast, is a native of Afghanistan and their unit of currency.
If Sears spams me, then it's invading an arbitrary boundary wherein the Internet stops and my PC begins. That boundary, at the physical level at least, is the lan/modem connection to my PC. At that point, I should have the right to deny access to my property as I see fit.
Given that, both the Sears spam and the **AA trespasses are violations of my property rights. Sears has trespassed upon my PC to give me unwanted mail, for which I have to pay costs for both delivery and storage. The **AA has trespassed upon my PC to examine the contents of my hard drive, much as a petty thief might examine the contents of my dresser in search of valuables.
There's no double standard here, only a fervent (and admittedly fanatical at times) wish to have to ourselves the sanctity of our PCs. Just because we connect to the internet, doesn't mean we should have to give up our privacy and our property.
Incidentally: How does "if it serves my interests, then that's what I want" not describe both spammers and the RIAA to a "T"? At least privacy and property rights have Constitutional protection, in the United States anyway.
It's a shame someone modded this as a troll. I think it's close to correct; but Bezos' patent is a symptom of the problem, not the ultimate cause of it.
Microsoft is requiring users who want the IRM functionality to be running Windows Server 2003, Microsoft Passport and a special Client Access License (CAL).
<sarcasm> And this will be Kosher, because we all know that Microsoft Passports are fully secure. </sarcasm>
Seriously, ideaological difference aside: Fix what's broken before you try to build new features on top of it!
My money's on CD-RW drives replacing the floppy disk drive. They're under $100 for most models now; CDs are cheaper to produce than floppies; and CDs hold about 500 times more information.
Good point. ISPs have traditionally been protected as content providers, similar to (if I recall correctly) telephone networks. It's not the ISP's responsibility to block access to content that's not on their servers; at least, it hasn't been, traditionally. I'm hoping this ISP will take the matter to a higher court and get the ruling overturned. ..
Where is the clause within the First Amendment that states, "We only meant to cover political speech"? Where is the Supreme Court ruling that says, "Sorry, Picasso and Dali and anyone who might have pissed off some Bible-thumping ninny with nothing better to do; but the First Amendment doesn't cover you, it only covers us"?
You may be able to argue about where the First Amendment ends and "obscene" (and therefore unprotected) expression begins; but to argue with a straight face that the Constitution does not protect cultural and private expression as well as political speech is downright ignorant.
'Course, upon doing some more reading (ie., RTFAing): if they're talking about blocking child porn, I kinda wish 'em luck.
The slippery slope is, when you let government decide to block a website because it is outside the realm of protected speech, you have to make sure it doesn't start blocking websites just because the speech might not be protected, or because it doesn't agree with the party line of whomever's in the government at the time.
You can't claim the Tenth Amendment without claiming the First. A state's rights do not include limiting the citizen's rights as listed in the other nine amendments.
If I recall, this is exactly what the nineteen hijackers of 9/11 did; at least insofar as drinking beer, attending strip clubs, shaving their beards, etc. This sort of instruction was also found in the al Qaeda training manuals our folks found in Afghanistan. They know what the stereotypical terrorist is, too, and they strive to avoid that.
"Giving out information" has always been able to get you in trouble, if said information is classified or was a trade secret. The only difference now is, giving out information can land you in jail if it costs another corporation a certain amount of money. . . but really, that's nothing new either.
Canada's a state? That's news to them, I'm sure. ..
Oh, and incidentally: only the ignorant claim the United States is a democracy. A little education in American government makes clear, the United States is a representative republic.
I'm glad you actually got a good deal out of it. I'm still fighting them, six months later, because they insist on billing me (over $100) for using the "free" long distance. Apparently the local service has to be connected before you actually benefit from the free long-distance service; but they neglected to mention that when I switched to them. And afterward, they said it would be three weeks, then (three weeks later) six weeks, before they could have the local service installed.
Fuck 'em, I say. Though I do find amusing the "suspension notice" that tells me they've suspended my long distance service. Stupid schmucks don't seem to realized I switched back to Sprint three months ago and have had continuous long-distance service since!
Slashdot Mirror
Quite right. Beats the heck out of carpet-bombing an entire city--because then you're not talking about a handful of civilian casualties, you're talking about thousands.
Nowadays, the modifications for the JDAMs, which are GPS-refits for normal bombs, are only about US$2000 apiece; which isn't much, compared to the cost of a laser-guided bomb. Yes, the development costs were high; but the US military's environmental footprint is smaller as a result, because they don't have to drop as many bombs to achieve the same objective.
Could they declare classified a pice of GPL software for "national security reasons".
Yes, but they couldn't tell you what piece of GPL software they classified, or else they'd have to kill you. :)
Seriously, classifying software should be allowable under the GPL as far as I understand it--they're not distributing any "proprietary" copies of the software, so there's no concern regarding distribution of the source.
The outcome of this war is certain. The only question is, how many Iraqis and how many Americans will die in the process? Good software is part of the key to preserving lives on both sides: the sooner the war ends, the fewer lives will be lost; and good software (along with good hardware and good training) will shorten the length of the war.
Finally, consider that the work on government programs won't be used only in Iraq. That's just where we need it at the moment. Should the US find itself fighting North Korea, the same software and hardware and training is going to save lives there as well.
I don't agree with the concept of invading Iraq. But I do believe in saving lives; and I think that contributing to government software efforts will help us toward that end.
Then again, maybe the man was a visionary. If we could devise this sort of social exam, maybe we could use it to cure overpopulation? Seriously, does the world need people who can't be distinguished from machines?
In fact we even found instances where people had literally cut and pasted our code, comments and all!
This seems like it would be a clear violation of copyright, without the need to resort to a patent tort. I'm no lawyer, though.
Call this flamebait if you want to; but if you like your privacy, your best option is not to run Windows in the first place. Granted, MS' behavior here is sleazy. . . but that's nothing new from Microsoft. And if Microsoft can't get to your data, someone else can probably get to it through one of Microsoft's myriad security holes.
This is kinda a non-issue. Yeah, it's despicable; but it's kinda like a weatherman saying there's a 100% chance of rain while it's pouring out, and you mutter to yourself, "You don't say. . !"
Actually, it looks like an Afghan is a native of Afghanistan and a blanket. An Afghani, in contrast, is a native of Afghanistan and their unit of currency.
D'oh!
Natives of Afghanistan are Afghanis. An Afghan is a blanket. :)
Good point, but you're missing something:
If Sears spams me, then it's invading an arbitrary boundary wherein the Internet stops and my PC begins. That boundary, at the physical level at least, is the lan/modem connection to my PC. At that point, I should have the right to deny access to my property as I see fit.
Given that, both the Sears spam and the **AA trespasses are violations of my property rights. Sears has trespassed upon my PC to give me unwanted mail, for which I have to pay costs for both delivery and storage. The **AA has trespassed upon my PC to examine the contents of my hard drive, much as a petty thief might examine the contents of my dresser in search of valuables.
There's no double standard here, only a fervent (and admittedly fanatical at times) wish to have to ourselves the sanctity of our PCs. Just because we connect to the internet, doesn't mean we should have to give up our privacy and our property.
Incidentally: How does "if it serves my interests, then that's what I want" not describe both spammers and the RIAA to a "T"? At least privacy and property rights have Constitutional protection, in the United States anyway.
It's a shame someone modded this as a troll. I think it's close to correct; but Bezos' patent is a symptom of the problem, not the ultimate cause of it.
This article should be, "from the no-shit-sherlock dept."
Microsoft is requiring users who want the IRM functionality to be running Windows Server 2003, Microsoft Passport and a special Client Access License (CAL).
<sarcasm> And this will be Kosher, because we all know that Microsoft Passports are fully secure. </sarcasm>
Seriously, ideaological difference aside: Fix what's broken before you try to build new features on top of it!
The hell? This isn't informative--without any sort of formatting, it's painful!
ORA-20665: insufficient money to execute patented SQL command
(I'd post a SQL Server equivalent, but I don't know SQL Server.)
My money's on CD-RW drives replacing the floppy disk drive. They're under $100 for most models now; CDs are cheaper to produce than floppies; and CDs hold about 500 times more information.
Good point. ISPs have traditionally been protected as content providers, similar to (if I recall correctly) telephone networks. It's not the ISP's responsibility to block access to content that's not on their servers; at least, it hasn't been, traditionally. I'm hoping this ISP will take the matter to a higher court and get the ruling overturned. . .
And you base this opinion on what, exactly?
Where is the clause within the First Amendment that states, "We only meant to cover political speech"? Where is the Supreme Court ruling that says, "Sorry, Picasso and Dali and anyone who might have pissed off some Bible-thumping ninny with nothing better to do; but the First Amendment doesn't cover you, it only covers us"?
You may be able to argue about where the First Amendment ends and "obscene" (and therefore unprotected) expression begins; but to argue with a straight face that the Constitution does not protect cultural and private expression as well as political speech is downright ignorant.
'Course, upon doing some more reading (ie., RTFAing): if they're talking about blocking child porn, I kinda wish 'em luck.
The slippery slope is, when you let government decide to block a website because it is outside the realm of protected speech, you have to make sure it doesn't start blocking websites just because the speech might not be protected, or because it doesn't agree with the party line of whomever's in the government at the time.
You can't claim the Tenth Amendment without claiming the First. A state's rights do not include limiting the citizen's rights as listed in the other nine amendments.
If I recall, this is exactly what the nineteen hijackers of 9/11 did; at least insofar as drinking beer, attending strip clubs, shaving their beards, etc. This sort of instruction was also found in the al Qaeda training manuals our folks found in Afghanistan. They know what the stereotypical terrorist is, too, and they strive to avoid that.
I'm not sure that airlines serve meals with any sort of meat, nevermind pork!
Maybe he'd give up the rights if we gave him his stapler back?
"Giving out information" has always been able to get you in trouble, if said information is classified or was a trade secret. The only difference now is, giving out information can land you in jail if it costs another corporation a certain amount of money. . . but really, that's nothing new either.
Canada's a state? That's news to them, I'm sure. . .
Oh, and incidentally: only the ignorant claim the United States is a democracy. A little education in American government makes clear, the United States is a representative republic.
I'm glad you actually got a good deal out of it. I'm still fighting them, six months later, because they insist on billing me (over $100) for using the "free" long distance. Apparently the local service has to be connected before you actually benefit from the free long-distance service; but they neglected to mention that when I switched to them. And afterward, they said it would be three weeks, then (three weeks later) six weeks, before they could have the local service installed.
Fuck 'em, I say. Though I do find amusing the "suspension notice" that tells me they've suspended my long distance service. Stupid schmucks don't seem to realized I switched back to Sprint three months ago and have had continuous long-distance service since!