I am quoting from memory, but here's the situation in a nutshell: That's been tried, the core of the issue was that Mozilla included non-free(as per Debian's DFSG) images along with Firefox, presenting Debian with the two following options: 1) Not distributing Firefox 2) Finding a way to distribute Firefox without the offending image
They picked two, which caused the uproar, which caused the request from Mozilla not to use the Firefox name if the non-free images weren't there. Debian said "We'll fork and use a new name".
I wasn't at the justify stage even though, just that this is where the focus of popular attention is. In "ideas-as-property" corporations hare the most to lose from most proposed changes that don't involve draconian DRM and practically a negation of what fair use rights have been in place since there have been fair use laws. In the environmental area, very few private individuals can affect the environment the way a corporation or large group of individuals can.
Now, to clarify my earlier point, I wanted to enhance that this new focus of popular attention might indicate, finally, that the population finally wants some pretty deep and broad reform of the laws attendant to corporations, through two areas where you can't hurt bystander individuals as much. When I harm one individual, it's not the same as when I harm, individually, 1000 shareholders of a corporation, or even the two owners of a local mom and pop store. In the eyes of the law, the last two cases, while I may be harming their personal bank accounts, I am still acting against a corporation. This is an important difference, and it should stay that way too.
Now keep in mind, some private individuals have more resources than some small corporations. But because you cannot choose to stop being part of a private invidual, like you can for a corporation, the repercussions are certainly different. I find it interesting you mention "justify" though, since that's been a sort of meme for the ideas-as-property fight. Tell Joe Public you're changing the copyright law and it only hurts Disney, and he might cheer. Tell him your changes affects the book royalties from the Dalai-Lama(I'm making an example up, trying to find a LIVING private individual who might have had writings 50 years ago, and who might be known to Joe Public), and you'll get quite a different reaction.
And yet the environment laws, and copyright, are both individuals vs corporations, while civil rights were individual vs individual. It appears we are reaching an almost "cyberpunk-like" level of corporation vs individual conflict of rights and interests.
Given latency and loss of packets on wireless, I'll respectfully say I'm keeping my wired connexion. It's far from sufficient for anything where interactive duplex communication is happening. Of course, given the fact that right now, cellular is attacking most of those issues, and at least vs telcos, they have a more business-friendly pricing model, maybe the telcos need to diversify anyways.
It's always been known that my right to free speech usually stops before it collides with your rights(in general). The various laws you mention are all there to protect those rights(yes yours too). You could even say a lawyer advising a client from saying anything, despite the client's protests, is the lawyer trying to use the right not to impugn yourself against the client's own right to free speech(ok, you have to work for it, but you still can). "Free speech" is certainly free in comparison with autocratic rule, but it's a long way from "unfettered". In keeping with the history of political speech though, any speech where a topic cannot be unilatrally banned is usually "free", just not "Free".
It does contribute to fighting open source, any way you look at it. I'm using a tap driver from the openvpn project, it isn't signed, and I don't know for sure, but I don't remember openvpn being a commercial entity. However, I'm not current enough in vista to know if they couldn't just get out of the kernel, and move to user-space for the required features.
The linux kernel and debian's solution to that is modularity. You get smaller groups, where more motivated individuals can express their own wants. That the smaller groups have something in common, that allows them to agree on things is what brings the larger group together, but the people on say, the network drivers in the kernel, or apache on debian, do not "necessarily" touch the same code as the sysfs bunch, or the xorg package. You might say their solution is not a better groupthink, but a better division of the problem, and application of the divide and conquer rule. P.S. the problem is not individuality, per se, but different definitions of "right" the larger the group gets.
They wield that power because they garnered the trust of those admins, directly(those who use them knowingly, as I do) or indirectly(those who just know adding the three letters XBL or SBL to their spamassassin config, in the proper line is a good thing). Why are they being punished? Because they make it easy to reduce your spam level. The spammers want to keep this as hard as possible. Since the spammers are engaged in commercial activity, and spamhaus is not, they get a postive prejudice from courts, as a rule. Since the spammer is apparently US-based, he's also getting a double-positive-prejudice. I think, should this prejudice be proven(I realize this is non-trivial) the judge should recuse himself, retroactively to hearing the case, if not found guilty of the appropriate crime(I am not in the US, so I don't know the peculiarities, but this prejudice, I find particularly objectionable in this case.
,N boosts range, for one(I haven't finished reading the spec yet). Let's also keep in mind, that just because you, as an individual user, doesn't see a difference, doesn't mean someone running an AP with more than 10 users at a time on it, won't see a difference(interference/contention for channels, etc...). The spec is the same for all users of wireless, not just home users. Yes it has speed, that doesn't mean that's the only thing the new draft spec brings to the table.
I'm surprised Google isn't running off 48V DC power supplies already, which, from what the documentation has shown me, already exhibit some of these savings... On the other hand, it might have to do with Google's policy to use as much off-the-shelf equipment as possible, which 48V is not(iirc), so unless the "off-the-shelf-standard" changes, google might be in a position that they have to either break their own rules, or pay for following them.
Considering the number of servers google has, I'm surprised they haven't made 48V mandatory, just for the durability factor though. Converting to DC outside the pc also reduces noise, vibration, and allows bigger, heftier, more efficient conversion IMO, it also leaves more room inside for what the server does best, process data.
IANAL nor a Debian Developer, but as a Debian user I seem to remember that Debian has a non-free "tree" of packages, since "main" has to be DFSG-compatible. In fact, no package can be in main if its dependencies are non-DFSG. The DFSG's restrictions reads in many ways like cliff notes of someone reading the GPL(the GPL seems longer and more legalese), and explicitly approve the artistic, BSD and GPL licenses. I'm thinking the CDDL isn't just GPL-incompatible, but is also violates the DFSG, but again IANAL(although I read the thread linked from the article and they seem to agree with me). Back on your question about how licensing would make things incompatible, it only matters when, like Debian, you distribute the whole thing, with a charter and/or some agreement that all the licenses meet a specific set of criteria. It wouldn't stop say, Novell or Mandriva, which, I believe, operate under no licensing restrictions other than the licenses themselves.
The right is being abused, not "taken away". If it was taken away, other companies would be able to ask you for the same info EA is getting and get! (FROM YOU) since you'd have lost the right to protect that information(which is nonsensical). As for inalienable, in this particular case, IANAL but I believe it stands that you can not be made to lose it. An alienable right, would be freedom of movement, if you commit a serious enough crime, your right can be alienated from you(as in taken away). That doesn't make that particular freedom less important, but it does highlight how some more abstract rights are harder to transfer, or just make no sense to transfer. In this case, your right to protect YOUR privacy is not taken from you, however, by not reading the EULA from EA Games, you are failing to protect it: - They are doing things the average slashdot reader can safely assume you don't want them to do with your personal information, like transfer it to a third party without your written consent(as an example, I'm not saying they haven't disclaimed they would do such a thing). - Your right to protect your privacy from other "offenders" is unaltered. - If another person doesn't mind giving away their private information to them under these terms, noone's rights are violated.
However it clearly is above and beyond most socially accepted norms of conduct with private information and especially credit card numbers.
Because in both cases the VM stands for virtual machine. If people would call virtualization "Virtual Hardware"(well anything that doesn't start with M would be good), the confusion might not exist.
A web of trust will work only until someone you trust's computer gets subverted. The zombie network you mentioned doesn't happen by itself. Now the smaller, more technically proficient web of trust, the less likely it is to be subverted, but it's still vulnerable to someone you trust having their computer hijacked.
Rekall and Bond (building object network databases) are two products that might interest you. Alpha V5 is not open source, but it can certainly compete with filemaker in terms of scalability since version 7(it can use, among other things, mysql directly)
However, why doesn't the poster just start over, covering exactly what database/application needs are there, and start from there. Very few business environment develop continuously(except software developers/service providers), and those have people whose job it is to do so, as well as the correct support personnel(analysts, database, architecture, etc...).
The LAMP(I include perl/python/ruby in the "P") and LAPP(postgres) seems particularly suitable in most environments where casual developing occurs, as the "time to first hello world" can be quite short, and developing for the web, despite its drawbacks, offers flexibility rarely matched elsewhere, partly due to design client/server from the start.
You should check if the windows machines try(and most likely fail) to update dns info regarding themselves. It's the default setting as far as I can determine, and it's a royal pain in the ass for anyone not running a to-spec, windows-from-dns-up microsoft-stamped shop.
I'm wondering just how many of the "cookies" turned off people are of the enlightened variety, and how many are using security programs(think antispyware) who actively disable known ad-based cookies, and similar usage-tracking methods(like webbugs).
Wouldn't that explain the change, and the worry of the ad companies, without having to explain why the masses we know and loved changed their hats on "it's too hard, do it for me" issues like security, privacy and efficiency.
For a busy site, I've often seen a ratio of 1 concurrently logged on user for every five or six "users". YMMV. In this case, a 35000 (approx.) concurrent user would kill a very hefty database server in no time flat, without 1) impressive tuning 2) considerable one-machine hardware 3) consistent design choices Again, your mileage may vary
Abortion occurs before birth, so those instincts do not get called into play. The equivalent you have in mind would be "have the baby, then kill it" Talk about protecting people from the consequences of their own actions.
It would help Microsoft if there was a "large" piece of code they could point to, that was a reimplement of older code from scratch, and point to the numbers related to how much improvement Microsoft got out of it...
Right now Microsoft is trying to push a framework that's said (not just by Microsoft) to be better than what they had before, but very few of those people actually
*) put a single app through similar processes for a full lifecycle yet(that's perhaps normal since.NET is so new) however, the real cost of software is maintenance, so the numbers we want have to do with how easy it is to rewrite large swatches of code. Not just write a new app, and see how maintainable it is, but see a badly written app, and know how easy/hard it is to rewrite.
*) Did anything but start a new app using a new, clean process and report that it did work
Hearing that Microsoft isn't eating their own dogfood in this context is more than a little suspicious about how maintainable that code is. Having backwards-incompatible versions of the engine is equally scary, knowing:
*) Microsoft has a history of backwards-compatibility in software that dates back several releases
*) Microsoft is writing.NET, so they know more about it than almost anyone else
*) If Microsoft's SDK isn't version compatible, it means that individual 3rd party developers will have fits trying to get everyone to play nice, a known problem that.NET's managed code approach was supposed to fix.
That Microsoft didn't respect their promise shouldn't surprise us that much(it's a hard problem), but those of us who develop or support applications for Microsoft's.NET despite our best judgement need to make sure people know about Microsoft letting us down, again, or else we will be bearing the blame(or charging someone for a workaround to a Microsoft bug, which is actually the same thing). When 3D Widget Manager for Avalon needs.NET 1.1 and Skintheme Facelift for.NET requires 1.1, what will you do? Coexist both versions? That means that you have to support people with one version, and that's different from those with both.
Refusing to install means your app will be the one discriminated against...(unless your name is Microsoft Office, but that's an extreme case) Installing and trusting to backwards compatibility means higher support costs, which.NET was supposed to lower.
Quite the Catch-22. The dll-hell bug is what most 3rd parties want to avoid, AND why most 3rd parties require basically "out of the box" configurations, often stating "not supported" even in oxymoronic cases.
If Microsoft's "0ut of the box" config included.NET 2.0(or 2.1 or whatever), then third parties will be well-advised to build on it, but until then, they are spending their money, to enrich Microsoft, to their own detriment.
Slashdot Mirror
I am quoting from memory, but here's the situation in a nutshell:
That's been tried, the core of the issue was that Mozilla included non-free(as per Debian's DFSG) images along with Firefox, presenting Debian with the two following options:
1) Not distributing Firefox
2) Finding a way to distribute Firefox without the offending image
They picked two, which caused the uproar, which caused the request from Mozilla not to use the Firefox name if the non-free images weren't there. Debian said "We'll fork and use a new name".
I wasn't at the justify stage even though, just that this is where the focus of popular attention is. In "ideas-as-property" corporations hare the most to lose from most proposed changes that don't involve draconian DRM and practically a negation of what fair use rights have been in place since there have been fair use laws. In the environmental area, very few private individuals can affect the environment the way a corporation or large group of individuals can.
Now, to clarify my earlier point, I wanted to enhance that this new focus of popular attention might indicate, finally, that the population finally wants some pretty deep and broad reform of the laws attendant to corporations, through two areas where you can't hurt bystander individuals as much. When I harm one individual, it's not the same as when I harm, individually, 1000 shareholders of a corporation, or even the two owners of a local mom and pop store. In the eyes of the law, the last two cases, while I may be harming their personal bank accounts, I am still acting against a corporation. This is an important difference, and it should stay that way too.
Now keep in mind, some private individuals have more resources than some small corporations. But because you cannot choose to stop being part of a private invidual, like you can for a corporation, the repercussions are certainly different. I find it interesting you mention "justify" though, since that's been a sort of meme for the ideas-as-property fight. Tell Joe Public you're changing the copyright law and it only hurts Disney, and he might cheer. Tell him your changes affects the book royalties from the Dalai-Lama(I'm making an example up, trying to find a LIVING private individual who might have had writings 50 years ago, and who might be known to Joe Public), and you'll get quite a different reaction.
Since he sent a zero check for a zero balance, wouldn't that be dividing...
zero by zero?
And yet the environment laws, and copyright, are both individuals vs corporations, while civil rights were individual vs individual. It appears we are reaching an almost "cyberpunk-like" level of corporation vs individual conflict of rights and interests.
Given latency and loss of packets on wireless, I'll respectfully say I'm keeping my wired connexion. It's far from sufficient for anything where interactive duplex communication is happening. Of course, given the fact that right now, cellular is attacking most of those issues, and at least vs telcos, they have a more business-friendly pricing model, maybe the telcos need to diversify anyways.
It's always been known that my right to free speech usually stops before it collides with your rights(in general). The various laws you mention are all there to protect those rights(yes yours too). You could even say a lawyer advising a client from saying anything, despite the client's protests, is the lawyer trying to use the right not to impugn yourself against the client's own right to free speech(ok, you have to work for it, but you still can). "Free speech" is certainly free in comparison with autocratic rule, but it's a long way from "unfettered". In keeping with the history of political speech though, any speech where a topic cannot be unilatrally banned is usually "free", just not "Free".
It does contribute to fighting open source, any way you look at it. I'm using a tap driver from the openvpn project, it isn't signed, and I don't know for sure, but I don't remember openvpn being a commercial entity. However, I'm not current enough in vista to know if they couldn't just get out of the kernel, and move to user-space for the required features.
The linux kernel and debian's solution to that is modularity. You get smaller groups, where more motivated individuals can express their own wants. That the smaller groups have something in common, that allows them to agree on things is what brings the larger group together, but the people on say, the network drivers in the kernel, or apache on debian, do not "necessarily" touch the same code as the sysfs bunch, or the xorg package. You might say their solution is not a better groupthink, but a better division of the problem, and application of the divide and conquer rule. P.S. the problem is not individuality, per se, but different definitions of "right" the larger the group gets.
They wield that power because they garnered the trust of those admins, directly(those who use them knowingly, as I do) or indirectly(those who just know adding the three letters XBL or SBL to their spamassassin config, in the proper line is a good thing). Why are they being punished? Because they make it easy to reduce your spam level. The spammers want to keep this as hard as possible.
Since the spammers are engaged in commercial activity, and spamhaus is not, they get a postive prejudice from courts, as a rule. Since the spammer is apparently US-based, he's also getting a double-positive-prejudice. I think, should this prejudice be proven(I realize this is non-trivial) the judge should recuse himself, retroactively to hearing the case, if not found guilty of the appropriate crime(I am not in the US, so I don't know the peculiarities, but this prejudice, I find particularly objectionable in this case.
,N boosts range, for one(I haven't finished reading the spec yet).
Let's also keep in mind, that just because you, as an individual user, doesn't see a difference, doesn't mean someone running an AP with more than 10 users at a time on it, won't see a difference(interference/contention for channels, etc...). The spec is the same for all users of wireless, not just home users. Yes it has speed, that doesn't mean that's the only thing the new draft spec brings to the table.
Just why do I think the terms "pro-quality" and "affordable" don't mix?
IMO, "pro-quality" means: having this be less good than your competitor's means you don't eat. "Affordable" well seems to be a little less picky.
I'm surprised Google isn't running off 48V DC power supplies already, which, from what the documentation has shown me, already exhibit some of these savings...
On the other hand, it might have to do with Google's policy to use as much off-the-shelf equipment as possible, which 48V is not(iirc), so unless the "off-the-shelf-standard" changes, google might be in a position that they have to either break their own rules, or pay for following them.
Considering the number of servers google has, I'm surprised they haven't made 48V mandatory, just for the durability factor though. Converting to DC outside the pc also reduces noise, vibration, and allows bigger, heftier, more efficient conversion IMO, it also leaves more room inside for what the server does best, process data.
IANAL nor a Debian Developer, but as a Debian user I seem to remember that Debian has a non-free "tree" of packages, since "main" has to be DFSG-compatible. In fact, no package can be in main if its dependencies are non-DFSG. The DFSG's restrictions reads in many ways like cliff notes of someone reading the GPL(the GPL seems longer and more legalese), and explicitly approve the artistic, BSD and GPL licenses. I'm thinking the CDDL isn't just GPL-incompatible, but is also violates the DFSG, but again IANAL(although I read the thread linked from the article and they seem to agree with me). Back on your question about how licensing would make things incompatible, it only matters when, like Debian, you distribute the whole thing, with a charter and/or some agreement that all the licenses meet a specific set of criteria. It wouldn't stop say, Novell or Mandriva, which, I believe, operate under no licensing restrictions other than the licenses themselves.
Look at it this way:
he doesn't want to deal with journalists, trying to deny them a story.
Nobody told him that was impossible.
They bug him anyways.
Just because he is more famous for refusing the award doesn't make it his fault. It could be the journalists not wanting to let go of the story.
The right is being abused, not "taken away".
If it was taken away, other companies would be able to ask you for the same info EA is getting and get! (FROM YOU) since you'd have lost the right to protect that information(which is nonsensical). As for inalienable, in this particular case, IANAL but I believe it stands that you can not be made to lose it. An alienable right, would be freedom of movement, if you commit a serious enough crime, your right can be alienated from you(as in taken away). That doesn't make that particular freedom less important, but it does highlight how some more abstract rights are harder to transfer, or just make no sense to transfer. In this case, your right to protect YOUR privacy is not taken from you, however, by not reading the EULA from EA Games, you are failing to protect it:
- They are doing things the average slashdot reader can safely assume you don't want them to do with your personal information, like transfer it to a third party without your written consent(as an example, I'm not saying they haven't disclaimed they would do such a thing).
- Your right to protect your privacy from other "offenders" is unaltered.
- If another person doesn't mind giving away their private information to them under these terms, noone's rights are violated.
However it clearly is above and beyond most socially accepted norms of conduct with private information and especially credit card numbers.
Because in both cases the VM stands for virtual machine.
If people would call virtualization "Virtual Hardware"(well anything that doesn't start with M would be good), the confusion might not exist.
A web of trust will work only until someone you trust's computer gets subverted. The zombie network you mentioned doesn't happen by itself. Now the smaller, more technically proficient web of trust, the less likely it is to be subverted, but it's still vulnerable to someone you trust having their computer hijacked.
actually it is a big deal, since the insurance company, by making you deal with the courts are in effect
1) making you pay for having someone else force them to respect their contract with you
2) if you are lucky, they will at most, pay court fees, plus the amount in the contract
There is no punitive damage for trying to get out of the contract or making it difficult for you to get the money you're owed.
Rekall
and
Bond (building object network databases) are two products that might interest you.
Alpha V5 is not open source, but it can certainly compete with filemaker in terms of scalability since version 7(it can use, among other things, mysql directly)
However, why doesn't the poster just start over, covering exactly what database/application needs are there, and start from there. Very few business environment develop continuously(except software developers/service providers), and those have people whose job it is to do so, as well as the correct support personnel(analysts, database, architecture, etc...).
The LAMP(I include perl/python/ruby in the "P") and LAPP(postgres) seems particularly suitable in most environments where casual developing occurs, as the "time to first hello world" can be quite short, and developing for the web, despite its drawbacks, offers flexibility rarely matched elsewhere, partly due to design client/server from the start.
I'm not sure why, but to repair an XFS filesystem, fsck is a no-go, you need xfsrepair.
You should check if the windows machines try(and most likely fail) to update dns info regarding themselves. It's the default setting as far as I can determine, and it's a royal pain in the ass for anyone not running a to-spec, windows-from-dns-up microsoft-stamped shop.
I'm wondering just how many of the "cookies" turned off people are of the enlightened variety, and how many are using security programs(think antispyware) who actively disable known ad-based cookies, and similar usage-tracking methods(like webbugs).
Wouldn't that explain the change, and the worry of the ad companies, without having to explain why the masses we know and loved changed their hats on "it's too hard, do it for me" issues like security, privacy and efficiency.
For a busy site, I've often seen a ratio of 1 concurrently logged on user for every five or six "users". YMMV. In this case, a 35000 (approx.) concurrent user would kill a very hefty database server in no time flat, without
1) impressive tuning
2) considerable one-machine hardware
3) consistent design choices
Again, your mileage may vary
Abortion occurs before birth, so those instincts do not get called into play. The equivalent you have in mind would be "have the baby, then kill it"
Talk about protecting people from the consequences of their own actions.
It would help Microsoft if there was a "large" piece of code they could point to, that was a reimplement of older code from scratch, and point to the numbers related to how much improvement Microsoft got out of it...
.NET is so new) however, the real cost of software is maintenance, so the numbers we want have to do with how easy it is to rewrite large swatches of code. Not just write a new app, and see how maintainable it is, but see a badly written app, and know how easy/hard it is to rewrite.
.NET, so they know more about it than almost anyone else
.NET's managed code approach was supposed to fix.
.NET despite our best judgement need to make sure people know about Microsoft letting us down, again, or else we will be bearing the blame(or charging someone for a workaround to a Microsoft bug, which is actually the same thing). When 3D Widget Manager for Avalon needs .NET 1.1 and Skintheme Facelift for .NET requires 1.1, what will you do?
.NET was supposed to lower.
.NET 2.0(or 2.1 or whatever), then third parties will be well-advised to build on it, but until then, they are spending their money, to enrich Microsoft, to their own detriment.
Right now Microsoft is trying to push a framework that's said (not just by Microsoft) to be better than what they had before, but very few of those people actually
*) put a single app through similar processes for a full lifecycle yet(that's perhaps normal since
*) Did anything but start a new app using a new, clean process and report that it did work
Hearing that Microsoft isn't eating their own dogfood in this context is more than a little suspicious about how maintainable that code is. Having backwards-incompatible versions of the engine is equally scary, knowing:
*) Microsoft has a history of backwards-compatibility in software that dates back several releases
*) Microsoft is writing
*) If Microsoft's SDK isn't version compatible, it means that individual 3rd party developers will have fits trying to get everyone to play nice, a known problem that
That Microsoft didn't respect their promise shouldn't surprise us that much(it's a hard problem), but those of us who develop or support applications for Microsoft's
Coexist both versions? That means that you have to support people with one version, and that's different from those with both.
Refusing to install means your app will be the one discriminated against...(unless your name is Microsoft Office, but that's an extreme case) Installing and trusting to backwards compatibility means higher support costs, which
Quite the Catch-22. The dll-hell bug is what most 3rd parties want to avoid, AND why most 3rd parties require basically "out of the box" configurations, often stating "not supported" even in oxymoronic cases.
If Microsoft's "0ut of the box" config included