Nice. But it would be even nicer if it integrated into the renderer to actually turn those plain text links into clickable links - marking them and then selecting an option from the context menu is hardly more efficient than copying and pasting into a new tab.
Oh, come on, six months is nothing. There are trivial bugs in Mozilla, for example, that haven't been fixed in six *years*...
Just give it some time. With luck, your grandkids will see this feature implemented.:)
If they "achieved an agreement", as the article blurb says, then it's probably more a case of "we agree to not sue you for doing this" than a case of "we don't have a say in this matter because we're not part of the government in any way" ("we" referring to the content associations in questions).
Reading the article seems to support this, more or less. The law in question seems to have provisions that allow "scientific and cultural use" despite copyright restrictions, and the latest version of the law allows for arrangements between the content industry and others to allow this to happen even when there are copy protections in place.
It still would be a good idea to write your MP if you're living in Germany, of course, but not because of this specific agreement. Rather, you should write to them to express your concern about the lack of control of the EU by the people there is - Germany has no real choice but to establish a national law to reflect the EU directive in question, after all, and that is not a good thing, considering that there is little if any influence on the EU and its politics by voters.
Why not use one of the new PS2 models for that? They're at least as small (smaller, in fact, I think, but I'd have to check that), cheaper, allow you to use a TV instead of a monitor (cheaper again), and the controllers look more futuristic than your average mouse and keyboard, too. Not to mention that it would probably be easier to build a controller into the steering wheel of your car.
I doubt being able to lay off employees was the only reason why Oracle bought PeopleSoft. They may be ruthless unethical greedy bastards, but that would be nonsensical.
I wasn't calling him anything at all, myself - the "virus writer" part was just a quote (which I had hoped would be clear from the indenting and italicising), and, for that matter, a quote from that very guy himself.
Maybe he is no virus writer if you really look at the facts (although I doubt it), but he's calling himself one, so don't beat *me* up over it.:)
You've got a good point there.:) That being said, I could understand it if someone said "I quit because the atmosphere is aggressive and edgy and I don't want to work in an environment like that". But saying "I quit because it's Oracle now"? That's silly.:)
They have all the legal protection that the laws already offer. For example, things like "copying this piece of software without our permission" go without saying - you don't need an EULA for that.
And, FWIW, one could argue that these things are enough, too. I don't sign an EULA or a similar document when I buy a new car, so why would it be an absolute necessity when I install a new piece of software that probably cost less than 1% of what my new car cost?
Yes, one might argue that cars and software are different and that software really does not become your property and that you only acquire a license to use it, but I'm not really sure that's as valid a point of view as the software industry would like to make everyone think, either. If I go into a store and buy a boxed copy of - say - the newest game or office application or whatever, then shouldn't that be enough to allow me to rightfully use that software? I don't quite see why I still have to agree to any further licenses - and not just shrink-wrap licenses that I can't read before buying and opening the box, either. Even if the license is printed on the back of the box - the real contract is between me and the store that I bought the box from, and I don't think anyone honestly wants to believe that the hundred bucks I just shelled out are for the cardboard box, the (physical) CDs and the printed manual only. What I'm really paying for is the right to use the software, and the contract I have that gives me that right is with the store, so I think one could really reasonably argue that EULAs are not legally binding, ever.
IANAL, of course, but that's what common sense tells me.
Other employees said they would rather be sacked than work for Oracle.
Hmmm. It may be just me, but that seems like a rather stupid attitude to me - do you really want to give up your job, your projects and everything just because your CEO suddenly has a different name? It's not like there's another dot-com bubble exactly; these days, if you have a decent (and well-paying) job in the IT industry, you should probably try to keep it.
Of course, it just may be that those who say these things already know or at least suspect that they're the ones who'll be fired, anyway, so maybe they're just trying to save their faces and make a better impression on future employers. "I quit" sounds much better than "I was fired", and "I quit for ethical reasons" sounds even better, because it implies that you so good that you can afford to choose jobs based on these things alone.
That's debatable, and depending on what database you use, having more than one database server (or pool of database servers) in different physical locations that are kept in sync at all times is definitely possible. I'm not sure whether MySQL allows this, but I think if you have a site that has nearly 6 million users, more than 100000 of which are paying you for the service you provide (I'm one of those, one might add), then you really should look into doing just that - or at least I hope the LJ people will do now (I don't really want to blame them for the problem).
That being said, I think you didn't quite understand what I was trying to say. I really don't care whether they have "plenty of backup power", "plenty of generator capacity" and "top-of-the-line big datacenter grade stuff" (which really sounds more like a collection of buzzwords than anything else, anyway). If a wiring fault (of whatever kind) can bring up the entire UPS system as well as the "generator capacity behind that" and all other safeguards they supposedly had in place as well, then it's just worthless and a waste of money - a UPS is supposed to be an *uninterrupted* power supply.
And while I admit that it's not possible to guard against *all* problems, saying that the colo facility is "one of the most solid in the state" and supposedly can't be taken offline by something "short of a direct strike from a comet" is just silly when a "wiring failure" can bring down the whole thing, and even more so when it's not the first time that happens.
Really, this just stinks of an attitude that's all too prevalent in parts of the IT industry - just piecing together the components of a reliable system won't necessarily give you one, and if you can't build one properly, then don't go advertising that you have one. Don't you think the fact that the LJ people are now planning to buy their own UPS equipment to use on top of the facility's should tell you something?
Oh, and regarding six nines of uptime - I don't think you actually realize for how little downtime that actually would allow. It's about 30 seconds per year, and Livejournal has been down for at least 16 hours, which corresponds to an uptime of about 99.8% - only two nines left. They probably (hopefully!) won't fall down to one, but things are bad enough as it is, and I, at least, fully blame Internap for that (and, again, I'm a paying user on LJ, so I reserve the right to do just that. ^_~)
Still - if you're providing hosting, especially for large customers that probably pay quite a bunch of good money, then you should have decent UPS systems in place, and if one man *can* control that, then it probably is the CEO.
Now, you might say that they *do* have good systems, but quite honestly, I don't think that's the case. The point of an UPS is, after all, not that it can sit there and look pretty and enable you to tell customers how great your company is and how well-prepared you are for all eventualities; its point is to get the job done and provide backup power in case there is a power outage, for as long as is necessary until the main problem that led to the power outage in the first place can be fixed.
It's still entirely possible that you can't ultimately do something about the whole thing, of course - if the whole power grid in the state you're in goes down for a week or something like that, then you can't really blame the hosting company.
But when it's not something like that, well... I, at least, do expect a UPS that allows me to run my sites without having to shut them down, then. If that's not possible, then either the UPS is not good enough (because it doesn't last for as long as necessary to allow the tech guys to fix the problem), or the tech guys aren't (because they aren't able to fix the problem before the UPS goes down, too). And in either case, I'd definitely consider switching to a different (read: better) hoster, *especially* when something like this happens more than once (in the case of Livejournal, it's the second time already).
Slashdot Mirror
*nods* Maybe we should just file a request for enhancement on bugzilla...
:)
But then, considering how slow these guys are even when it comes to fixing *actual* bugs, it's probably not worth it.
Nice. But it would be even nicer if it integrated into the renderer to actually turn those plain text links into clickable links - marking them and then selecting an option from the context menu is hardly more efficient than copying and pasting into a new tab.
Have you ever heard of Linux? :) As for the hard drive, yes, you're right. I was probably thinking of the xbox there.
Oh, come on, six months is nothing. There are trivial bugs in Mozilla, for example, that haven't been fixed in six *years*... Just give it some time. With luck, your grandkids will see this feature implemented. :)
If they "achieved an agreement", as the article blurb says, then it's probably more a case of "we agree to not sue you for doing this" than a case of "we don't have a say in this matter because we're not part of the government in any way" ("we" referring to the content associations in questions). Reading the article seems to support this, more or less. The law in question seems to have provisions that allow "scientific and cultural use" despite copyright restrictions, and the latest version of the law allows for arrangements between the content industry and others to allow this to happen even when there are copy protections in place. It still would be a good idea to write your MP if you're living in Germany, of course, but not because of this specific agreement. Rather, you should write to them to express your concern about the lack of control of the EU by the people there is - Germany has no real choice but to establish a national law to reflect the EU directive in question, after all, and that is not a good thing, considering that there is little if any influence on the EU and its politics by voters.
Why not use one of the new PS2 models for that? They're at least as small (smaller, in fact, I think, but I'd have to check that), cheaper, allow you to use a TV instead of a monitor (cheaper again), and the controllers look more futuristic than your average mouse and keyboard, too. Not to mention that it would probably be easier to build a controller into the steering wheel of your car.
Write one.
But we already have an extensible language.
I doubt being able to lay off employees was the only reason why Oracle bought PeopleSoft. They may be ruthless unethical greedy bastards, but that would be nonsensical.
OK, thanks for the clarification then. :)
Yeah, but you can't compare virus writers to M$. Virus writers have *some* ethics at least. ;)
I wasn't calling him anything at all, myself - the "virus writer" part was just a quote (which I had hoped would be clear from the indenting and italicising), and, for that matter, a quote from that very guy himself. Maybe he is no virus writer if you really look at the facts (although I doubt it), but he's calling himself one, so don't beat *me* up over it. :)
He's got a point there, but still, that stinks of "create a problem, then sell the solution".
You've got a good point there. :) That being said, I could understand it if someone said "I quit because the atmosphere is aggressive and edgy and I don't want to work in an environment like that". But saying "I quit because it's Oracle now"? That's silly. :)
They have all the legal protection that the laws already offer. For example, things like "copying this piece of software without our permission" go without saying - you don't need an EULA for that.
And, FWIW, one could argue that these things are enough, too. I don't sign an EULA or a similar document when I buy a new car, so why would it be an absolute necessity when I install a new piece of software that probably cost less than 1% of what my new car cost?
Yes, one might argue that cars and software are different and that software really does not become your property and that you only acquire a license to use it, but I'm not really sure that's as valid a point of view as the software industry would like to make everyone think, either. If I go into a store and buy a boxed copy of - say - the newest game or office application or whatever, then shouldn't that be enough to allow me to rightfully use that software? I don't quite see why I still have to agree to any further licenses - and not just shrink-wrap licenses that I can't read before buying and opening the box, either. Even if the license is printed on the back of the box - the real contract is between me and the store that I bought the box from, and I don't think anyone honestly wants to believe that the hundred bucks I just shelled out are for the cardboard box, the (physical) CDs and the printed manual only. What I'm really paying for is the right to use the software, and the contract I have that gives me that right is with the store, so I think one could really reasonably argue that EULAs are not legally binding, ever.
IANAL, of course, but that's what common sense tells me.
It's because they all get hired by Google these days. :)
Hmmm. It may be just me, but that seems like a rather stupid attitude to me - do you really want to give up your job, your projects and everything just because your CEO suddenly has a different name? It's not like there's another dot-com bubble exactly; these days, if you have a decent (and well-paying) job in the IT industry, you should probably try to keep it.
Of course, it just may be that those who say these things already know or at least suspect that they're the ones who'll be fired, anyway, so maybe they're just trying to save their faces and make a better impression on future employers. "I quit" sounds much better than "I was fired", and "I quit for ethical reasons" sounds even better, because it implies that you so good that you can afford to choose jobs based on these things alone.
This is slashdot - what do you expect? :)
Then don't use it - nobody's forcing you to. And if it's taking up space on the CD that you'd rather use for something else, then just remove it...
Oh, yeah, it *can* happen, but it shouldn't - and in particular, it shouldn't happen more than once.
That's debatable, and depending on what database you use, having more than one database server (or pool of database servers) in different physical locations that are kept in sync at all times is definitely possible. I'm not sure whether MySQL allows this, but I think if you have a site that has nearly 6 million users, more than 100000 of which are paying you for the service you provide (I'm one of those, one might add), then you really should look into doing just that - or at least I hope the LJ people will do now (I don't really want to blame them for the problem).
That being said, I think you didn't quite understand what I was trying to say. I really don't care whether they have "plenty of backup power", "plenty of generator capacity" and "top-of-the-line big datacenter grade stuff" (which really sounds more like a collection of buzzwords than anything else, anyway). If a wiring fault (of whatever kind) can bring up the entire UPS system as well as the "generator capacity behind that" and all other safeguards they supposedly had in place as well, then it's just worthless and a waste of money - a UPS is supposed to be an *uninterrupted* power supply.
And while I admit that it's not possible to guard against *all* problems, saying that the colo facility is "one of the most solid in the state" and supposedly can't be taken offline by something "short of a direct strike from a comet" is just silly when a "wiring failure" can bring down the whole thing, and even more so when it's not the first time that happens.
Really, this just stinks of an attitude that's all too prevalent in parts of the IT industry - just piecing together the components of a reliable system won't necessarily give you one, and if you can't build one properly, then don't go advertising that you have one. Don't you think the fact that the LJ people are now planning to buy their own UPS equipment to use on top of the facility's should tell you something?
Oh, and regarding six nines of uptime - I don't think you actually realize for how little downtime that actually would allow. It's about 30 seconds per year, and Livejournal has been down for at least 16 hours, which corresponds to an uptime of about 99.8% - only two nines left. They probably (hopefully!) won't fall down to one, but things are bad enough as it is, and I, at least, fully blame Internap for that (and, again, I'm a paying user on LJ, so I reserve the right to do just that. ^_~)
No. It's necessary eye-candy. ;)
Still - if you're providing hosting, especially for large customers that probably pay quite a bunch of good money, then you should have decent UPS systems in place, and if one man *can* control that, then it probably is the CEO.
Now, you might say that they *do* have good systems, but quite honestly, I don't think that's the case. The point of an UPS is, after all, not that it can sit there and look pretty and enable you to tell customers how great your company is and how well-prepared you are for all eventualities; its point is to get the job done and provide backup power in case there is a power outage, for as long as is necessary until the main problem that led to the power outage in the first place can be fixed.
It's still entirely possible that you can't ultimately do something about the whole thing, of course - if the whole power grid in the state you're in goes down for a week or something like that, then you can't really blame the hosting company.
But when it's not something like that, well... I, at least, do expect a UPS that allows me to run my sites without having to shut them down, then. If that's not possible, then either the UPS is not good enough (because it doesn't last for as long as necessary to allow the tech guys to fix the problem), or the tech guys aren't (because they aren't able to fix the problem before the UPS goes down, too). And in either case, I'd definitely consider switching to a different (read: better) hoster, *especially* when something like this happens more than once (in the case of Livejournal, it's the second time already).
Doesn't *every* toaster use infrared beams to toast bread?
Thanks. Wow, that's quite a bit...