That's chemically pure water... you can't get it through filtering, you need distillation or electrolysis (and burn hydrogen back again).
A system that would generate enough FAST enough(well ok you can store some in a plastic, chemically inert tank) would be quite expensive, especially in any place where electricity costs are non-trivial(if you know a place where they are trivial, I'd consider moving there).
then how come, humans go crazy within 20 seconds of being bitten?
that's social comment on how violence is inherent in humans, and learned in animals, except when warranted by survival. Of course, it could also be something they forgot to cut out of the movie...
somewhere between posting in the wrong window and slashcode posting a comment on the wrong story I'm sure. Although you're free to add subtlety if you wish
1) Whether or not it has commercial value, I don't believe the commercial is the point here(we give patents, trademarks, etc...) to encourage people to innovate for the greater good.
2) It enhances the idea that whatever the person did, was think of it first, and should benefit the most from it... As a reward for being the first
3) It reduces the emphasis on those ideas being sellable, hoardable property... The RIAA(or any other lawyer-box) wouldn't be so able to stifle other's innovations if it couldn't hoard the innovations of others, but had to invent them first. It's fine for an author to make millions from writing a book, or a singer for doing the same thing for their musical qualities and performance on stage, but letting them sell it? I can see a foundation as an heir to their copyrights(one per artist) as one thing... but I certainly object to commercial companies of any kind buying up rights left and right, and reducing distribution... Those II either artistic or technical, are limited rights given to encourage contribution to the public domain. Those limited rights should default after some period, to all of us. And yes, that means we should already own Mickey.
More like getting an uniformed court to say that any and all Linux violates their IP, and they can sue at will. I wonder if they said they would not sue CURRENT SCO clients... But keep a reserve to sue anyone who'd let a support contract with SCO terminate.
1) you use everyone else's excess capacity 2) you don't pay for your use, and you don't get a surcharge if you use a lot 3) there is noone to control "goalkeepers" to prevent you from being flooded by the network in any way not thought of by the initial protocol designers 4) the use of this network is not subject to restrictions of political speech
so a) this network is spammer haven b) DOS DDOS and other floods are to be expected c) you don't have any "point of contact" to reach in case the network is flooding you, just buy a new card d) use of the network during an election can break democracy through creative flooding, if enough people have it
IANAL
You forgot one detail:
IBM is a service company
Microsoft does everything in its power not to be in any way associated with selling services, and everything to be associated with selling a license to use a product...
An IBM client can expect IBM to indemnify him if IBM is in tort... Microsoft already tells you when you click-through, that you must indemnify them, if you look at them sideways
There is nothing wrong about a society telling its young what allows the society to survive, what's wrong is making it sound like they're learning history... Methinks renaming history classes something else, perhaps "Americana" would probably be more honest, intellectually, at least in NA...
The media are already too big not to offer the same rehashed content over and over again... and yet they want to merge...
Note that authors and other content providers usually work in small teams that can fit in most small board rooms (a large-sized university class could hold anywhere from 5 to 15 TEAMS in comfort...)
Yet the content owners want to merge their teams of lawyer to sue everyone else more effectively. They also happen to become the corporate equivalent of "unions" when negotiating contracts with the content providers...
And our governments don't fine them a million for each time they think about merging instead of providing exciting, valuable content for which most of us would pay...
in my experience(here in QC, Canada), the most expensive DSL has always been the ILEC, except for the "two months at half price promotion", while resellers don't charge you for goodies you don't use, so end up being cheaper... Besides, if the ILEC can do that, there won't be resellers for very long, and you can see prices going up in the long run... Short version, Telstra decided to shaft its RESELLER, and this client just happened to be in the way, and when the client moaned, they decided he was siding with the reseller...
third party? this is an attempt to buy off a witness in the suit their reseller(iiNet) SHOULD bring against them for unfair competition...
After all, iiNet has an agreement to provide a service for iiNet to resale, which they removed to keep this client to itself, THEN when the client acted like it noticed the difference, they terminated it(and they'd rather this client go to another provider than allow him to go back to iiNet... see comment about 140 other providers... although how many of those are telstra resellers in that area, I wonder...)
And yet people agree to it, to get the grant... SBC didn't get caught being a monopoly "recently" so it might be able to get away with this (for now) but why is a convicted criminal like microsoft so little hindered in its operations?
1) shareholders... not all of them are large... and some are pension funds... don't want to punish the few to punish the guilty
2) jobs... software is one of those few jobs that have only recently begun to move away from places like the US, so the gvmt sees little point in sanctioning workers to punish the guilty... can you say hostages?
mail programs don't use it by default, hence grannies and other "limited computer literacy" persons don't use it which means isps which cater to those don't bother to make it a policy to ENFORCE authentication for mail...(more tech support and more cpu use on mail servers) To make authentication work, you will have to make it mandatory... except for same-host mailing lists and automated processes(X-to-mail gateways, ticketing systems, etc...)
Why do you think we have so many problems with spam? The spammers put enough money in the system to skew it..../me wonders if google, overture and other pay-for-search entities are behind the antispam movement, to limit competition for commercial entities' advertising
wouldn't a sign of good faith, and a way to prove their intentions be for Microsoft to NOT provide any of those licenses, but provide the cash for licenses and for people to install software instead? (AND let the charities install what they want, period)
It would prevent accusations of favoritism, cutting mindshare, etc... Of course, it increases Microsoft revenue by ZERO, its marketplace only in places where the people hired would choose Microsoft products, increases customer's choices for charities, which usually have very few, and few people to investigate what they are...
I predict that Microsoft would rather be caught bribing a judge of the supreme court(or some other gross corporate violation of the law) than do this exact, simple, fortright thing...
something else SAP is getting, that I didn't see commented on... Just getting the mysql coders to RPM/DEB/PKG the software, and distribute it would probably help sapdb(not because it's hard to compile, but because packages integrate the software into the distro, and track dependencies for you, as well as providing defaults, and helpful systems administration things like startup scripts and logrotation, well the GOOD packaging systems do)
While only reading the headline, and not the exchange, I was sure the winner was going to be the Internet, although the change in name from "ARPANET" to "Internet" might disqualify it in some minds...
After all, the whole of the network, per se, was never to my knowledge, entirely offline all at once(although my memories of the first Great Internet Worm are dim, and might be misleading) and if one has a broad view of "application" wouldn't the tcp/ip suite of protocols and the protocols built on them conceivable as a single application or set of applications, whose person is to communicate(aka exchange information, whose value is arbitrary) ?
You forgot the replication and transactional aspects of it... What happens if a transaction fails on one member of a cluster, but not another, do you report success or failure? That's the problem with using this kind of proxy architecture, once you "commit" transaction on server 1, if it fails on server 2, how do you rollback server 1? you can't... it's already committed... (I won't go into the atomicity of how you would rollback a commited, non-atomic change because another server failed, to keep them in check, nor how that might mean you might have to stop accepting transactions until the discrepancy is resolved)
None of this is covered by LVS, which is a fine product, it just doesn't apply to the right area of the problem(there's more to database clustering than connection redundancy).
Slashdot Mirror
That's chemically pure water... you can't get it through filtering, you need distillation or electrolysis (and burn hydrogen back again).
A system that would generate enough FAST enough(well ok you can store some in a plastic, chemically inert tank) would be quite expensive, especially in any place where electricity costs are non-trivial(if you know a place where they are trivial, I'd consider moving there).
that's social comment on how violence is inherent in humans, and learned in animals, except when warranted by survival.
Of course, it could also be something they forgot to cut out of the movie...
somewhere between posting in the wrong window and slashcode posting a comment on the wrong story I'm sure. Although you're free to add subtlety if you wish
since HP supports debian GNU/Linux on blades, I can't wait to see them preload it on a desktop
*only half Irony*
1) Whether or not it has commercial value, I don't believe the commercial is the point here(we give patents, trademarks, etc...) to encourage people to innovate for the greater good.
2) It enhances the idea that whatever the person did, was think of it first, and should benefit the most from it... As a reward for being the first
3) It reduces the emphasis on those ideas being sellable, hoardable property... The RIAA(or any other lawyer-box) wouldn't be so able to stifle other's innovations if it couldn't hoard the innovations of others, but had to invent them first. It's fine for an author to make millions from writing a book, or a singer for doing the same thing for their musical qualities and performance on stage, but letting them sell it? I can see a foundation as an heir to their copyrights(one per artist) as one thing... but I certainly object to commercial companies of any kind buying up rights left and right, and reducing distribution... Those II either artistic or technical, are limited rights given to encourage contribution to the public domain. Those limited rights should default after some period, to all of us. And yes, that means we should already own Mickey.
More like getting an uniformed court to say that any and all Linux violates their IP, and they can sue at will. I wonder if they said they would not sue CURRENT SCO clients... But keep a reserve to sue anyone who'd let a support contract with SCO terminate.
I still choose to call a not-for profit community of citizens that does what you say an ISP...
we have a network were
1) you use everyone else's excess capacity
2) you don't pay for your use, and you don't get a surcharge if you use a lot
3) there is noone to control "goalkeepers" to prevent you from being flooded by the network in any way not thought of by the initial protocol designers
4) the use of this network is not subject to restrictions of political speech
so
a) this network is spammer haven
b) DOS DDOS and other floods are to be expected
c) you don't have any "point of contact" to reach in case the network is flooding you, just buy a new card
d) use of the network during an election can break democracy through creative flooding, if enough people have it
Have I summarized it correctly?
IANAL
You forgot one detail:
IBM is a service company
Microsoft does everything in its power not to be in any way associated with selling services, and everything to be associated with selling a license to use a product...
An IBM client can expect IBM to indemnify him if IBM is in tort... Microsoft already tells you when you click-through, that you must indemnify them, if you look at them sideways
seems the content is on a server not meant for this kind of bursty traffic
There is nothing wrong about a society telling its young what allows the society to survive, what's wrong is making it sound like they're learning history...
Methinks renaming history classes something else, perhaps "Americana" would probably be more honest, intellectually, at least in NA...
It was also an acronym for
8 235.shtm l
Sanford University Network
which the company was started from...
Now IANAL, but trademarking the initials of your whole name is common, probably accepted practice...
Now microsoft just needs to figure out what Windows is an acronym for...
google.com site:slashdot Stanford University Network
yields, among other things
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/09/163
The media are already too big not to offer the same rehashed content over and over again... and yet they want to merge...
Note that authors and other content providers usually work in small teams that can fit in most small board rooms (a large-sized university class could hold anywhere from 5 to 15 TEAMS in comfort...)
Yet the content owners want to merge their teams of lawyer to sue everyone else more effectively. They also happen to become the corporate equivalent of "unions" when negotiating contracts with the content providers...
And our governments don't fine them a million for each time they think about merging instead of providing exciting, valuable content for which most of us would pay...
in my experience(here in QC, Canada), the most expensive DSL has always been the ILEC, except for the "two months at half price promotion", while resellers don't charge you for goodies you don't use, so end up being cheaper...
Besides, if the ILEC can do that, there won't be resellers for very long, and you can see prices going up in the long run...
Short version, Telstra decided to shaft its RESELLER, and this client just happened to be in the way, and when the client moaned, they decided he was siding with the reseller...
third party? this is an attempt to buy off a witness in the suit their reseller(iiNet) SHOULD bring against them for unfair competition...
After all, iiNet has an agreement to provide a service for iiNet to resale, which they removed to keep this client to itself, THEN when the client acted like it noticed the difference, they terminated it(and they'd rather this client go to another provider than allow him to go back to iiNet... see comment about 140 other providers... although how many of those are telstra resellers in that area, I wonder...)
And yet people agree to it, to get the grant...
... can you say hostages?
SBC didn't get caught being a monopoly "recently" so it might be able to get away with this (for now)
but why is a convicted criminal like microsoft so little hindered in its operations?
1) shareholders... not all of them are large... and some are pension funds... don't want to punish the few to punish the guilty
2) jobs... software is one of those few jobs that have only recently begun to move away from places like the US, so the gvmt sees little point in sanctioning workers to punish the guilty
mail programs don't use it by default, hence grannies and other "limited computer literacy" persons don't use it
which means isps which cater to those don't bother to make it a policy to ENFORCE authentication for mail...(more tech support and more cpu use on mail servers)
To make authentication work, you will have to make it mandatory... except for same-host mailing lists and automated processes(X-to-mail gateways, ticketing systems, etc...)
>Challenge/response is patented.
/me wonders if google, overture and other pay-for-search entities are behind the antispam movement, to limit competition for commercial entities' advertising
Yes it is, despite prior art.
Why do you think we have so many problems with spam?
The spammers put enough money in the system to skew it....
wouldn't a sign of good faith, and a way to prove their intentions be for Microsoft to NOT provide any of those licenses, but provide the cash for licenses and for people to install software instead?
(AND let the charities install what they want, period)
It would prevent accusations of favoritism, cutting mindshare, etc...
Of course, it increases Microsoft revenue by ZERO, its marketplace only in places where the people hired would choose Microsoft products, increases customer's choices for charities, which usually have very few, and few people to investigate what they are...
I predict that Microsoft would rather be caught bribing a judge of the supreme court(or some other gross corporate violation of the law) than do this exact, simple, fortright thing...
something else SAP is getting, that I didn't see commented on...
Just getting the mysql coders to RPM/DEB/PKG the software, and distribute it would probably help sapdb(not because it's hard to compile, but because packages integrate the software into the distro, and track dependencies for you, as well as providing defaults, and helpful systems administration things like startup scripts and logrotation, well the GOOD packaging systems do)
I'm not sure I like the idea that you're not sure about the validity, from a security standpoint, of the concept, but you've already patented it
the way the corporations are going it at, unless the "people" complain loud enough, pop-up blockers(and tivo anti-ad technologies) will be illegal.
Our silence is the corporation's excuse to charge us, let us ROAR, and charge THEM!
You would end up processing the body of the message twice with one test each, which would be computationally harder than one system doing two tests...
While only reading the headline, and not the exchange, I was sure the winner was going to be the Internet, although the change in name from "ARPANET" to "Internet" might disqualify it in some minds...
After all, the whole of the network, per se, was never to my knowledge, entirely offline all at once(although my memories of the first Great Internet Worm are dim, and might be misleading) and if one has a broad view of "application" wouldn't the tcp/ip suite of protocols and the protocols built on them conceivable as a single application or set of applications, whose person is to communicate(aka exchange information, whose value is arbitrary) ?
Thoughts on this, if constructive, appreciated
You forgot the replication and transactional aspects of it...
What happens if a transaction fails on one member of a cluster, but not another, do you report success or failure?
That's the problem with using this kind of proxy architecture, once you "commit" transaction on server 1, if it fails on server 2, how do you rollback server 1? you can't... it's already committed...
(I won't go into the atomicity of how you would rollback a commited, non-atomic change because another server failed, to keep them in check, nor how that might mean you might have to stop accepting transactions until the discrepancy is resolved)
None of this is covered by LVS, which is a fine product, it just doesn't apply to the right area of the problem(there's more to database clustering than connection redundancy).