When the IT overlords run into a security threat, they respond to it by shutting down the ability of others to do their job, without any thought for how that could negatively impact the mission. Their mentality is to save the IT infrastructure at all costs, even if there is nothing classified on that particular network.
Things that are relatively simple for industry are a major headache for people that work for or are in the military. Say for example that you have a failed component in the field and you want to send some high res pictures back to the office responsible for the engineering for investigation. The first choice would probably be email... nope, server blocks large files and many files with certain extensions (we cannot even send/receive zip files). How about an FTP or shared website? Nope, no such thing for sharing amongst wings in multiple commands exists. Snail Mail? Will take 3 months and you're fighting a war now. End result...files are passed via non-military email accounts. Pictures are brought into work on a thumb drive. It was the path of least resistance and people need to get shit done.
It is nice to see that they have come to an agreement on this. I think it is a win for authors, Google, and readers/consumers. I can say from my own personal experience that Google's Literature search has come in useful in finding books. Furthermore, since the application gave me just enough information to know if the book would be useful for the topic I was researching. This then caused me to either purchase the book or, in the case of very expensive technical literature, caused me to borrow it from a library, which indirectly increases demand for the book.
Right, but then you are not using Gmail as an internet application and therefore not relying on "cloud computing". I think the GP was in general targeting his criticism toward all of the cloud computing advocates who think it is best to allow someone else to store your data and provide your applications.
Just going to throw this out there for anyone who does not want to go to all the effort of getting even with Walmart. If you want to save the music you purchased from Walmart, just use fairuse4wm. I have used it with Walmart songs for several years.
chicago2016.org already contains an official site, so I cannot understand why they have to have the.com site as well. I am not a fan of domain squatters, but I am only for kicking someone off of their domain when there is blatant demonstrated abuse of the system and when no other alternatives are available. This does not appear to be the case here.
And in support of what your saying, lets not forget the bigger goal here. This education is supposed to prepare the students for a future in which they are going to get a job and become productive members of society. I just do not see how anybody is going to produce something useful and put food on the table by studying creationism.
As a country that is falling behind in math and science, this is not the kind of crap that we need to be teaching kids.
So the question is... Does she really believe this crap? or is she just sucking up to her base?
If she is just sucking up to her base, then this is not that big a deal to me. That is what politicians do. But, if she is another one of these nut jobs that believes that this crap should really be taught as if it is science, then I am very scared.
I think that most courts would disagree with your definition of adaptation, and I do believe that really does come down to the terms and validity of the EULA.
copyright essentially forbids distribution of material without first getting the copyright holders permission. The GPL is what allows you to distribute GPL covered works. It removes restrictions that would otherwise be in place by default through copyrights. EULAs are quite another thing. They are a completely and utterly unagreed to contract that is presented to you after you have already purchased a copy of software. They do not grant you any freedoms from the copyright holder, instead, they try to place further restriction upon you that were not previously in place.
This of course has no relation to whether Psystar is infringing copyright or not. I just do not think you are drawing a fair comparison between the GPL, which is clearly a valid license, and boxed EULAs, most of which are not.
The practice can be seen as anti-competitive. Apple sold the software to Psystar and then claim that this created an agreement wherein Psystar agreed to certain previously undisclosed rules in which Psystar is only allowed to install the software on hardware purchased from Apple... It is a stretch that this would happen, but I believe that is the parents argument.
I think I speak for many geeks when I say that we do not like Apple primarily because they are so good at marketing and a following of devoted users whom are allowing their love for the company cloud their judgement when it comes to evaluating the quality and value of Apple products.
Apple has decent products, but they are not as magnificent as many of the devoted users claim them to be, especially if you look at the value that they are offering.
If one were to conduct a no-bullshit trade study before making purchases of phones, music players, laptops, desktops, or operating systems, then Apple would sell a lot less products.
Rio devices with 32 MB of memory must have been roughly 4 years old by the time the iPod came out. Apple may have had the best product the day that the iPod first hit the shelves, but other companies had similar products already in the development pipeline and have quickly caught up and in my opinion, quickly surpassed the iPod in terms of overall quality and value.
I love the CLR, but there is some merit to what the grandparent was trolling. If the Mono teams spreads itself too thin and takes on too much "Microsoft copying" work, then the quality of the work will suffer. From my point of view, I do not see the huge appeal of winforms. Gtk# already provides cross platform user interface for Mono and does not come with the drawback of having to keep up with a moving target. I would honestly rather see a good quality Qt wrapper for.NET/Mono than WinForms because I have more faith and trust in Trolltech than Microsoft.
I would like to see the Mono team concentrate on the copying only the "core" functionality which will not change much and then continue to build off of existing open source software.
The intended consequence of this legislation is to back schools into a corner and force them to buy shitty subscription services like Ruckus and pass the cost onto students and taxpayers. You support this and call other people "nutjobs"?
Personally, I would rather not pay for schools to become music distributors.
Good thing this legislation is practically unenforceable.
The FCC is mostly an interpretive arm of government, with *limited* ability to extend and enforce *existing* law. The cannot create new law out of whole cloth.
Yes, but the war powers act and Global War on Terror allows for the FCC to make their own laws targeted at specific organizations. At least that is the way I intpret it... or am I thinking of something else?
Depends on what you mean by "it" and "create". In order to have a reasonable debate on what is an appropriate IP protection, we have to first come to consensus on the reality of the situation. The simple fact is that nothing is being created and therefore the thing you refer to as "it" does not exist. The creation of "it" is dependent on IP protection existing in the first place.
From my point of view "it" does not exist. IP protectionism is a restriction on what people are allowed to do or say and has no ties to actual property.
I am not saying that IP law is not justified, because I believe that society can benefit from it, however, I believe we need to do away with the notion that it is an entitlement and look at things from the perspective of what is best for society as a whole.
This battle was being fought long before the internet came along. They could also be using this opportunity to be giving clear guidance on what constitutes fair-use, which is desperately needed, but they clearly do not care about that.
You can if you want to, but if your smart you will teach children the minutia they need to perform well on their standardized tests. That way, no child is left behind... in their ability to perform well on standardized tests.
The applications are not using up most of it. Just their share. If twenty people are sending bits over a line, then the bandwidth can be divided up evenly between the twenty. If two of these people are torrent users downloading 4Gb files and they remain online until peak hours when the number of user jumps to 200 people, then they should only get 0.5% of the total bandwidth. If we kick them offline, then there are still 198 "normal" users on the line and it is still congested at peak hours.
The problem for most users is the amount of available bandwidth at peak hours. If some guy is sucking up tons of bandwidth at non-peak hours, then he is not hurting anybody. It is not like we can take the unused bandwidth from non-peak hours and use it during peak hours.
The telecoms have not been able to follow through on their bandwidth promises during peak hours and they have managed to push the blame onto someone else. Now that people have bought into that excuse, they are going to try to make a few extra bucks off of it.
Quite honestly, I have no problem with people who use more of a service getting charged more, if that is your business model. The phone companies have been charging for long-distance by the minute for years. But if we are going to start charging on a per bit basis, then shouldn't I, as a person who sends fewer bits, get a lower price? Or at least get to carry my bits over to another month? See, they want to treat each customer different based on what benefits them the most, and if it were not for their monopoly positions, they would not be able to get away with this.
Slashdot Mirror
When the IT overlords run into a security threat, they respond to it by shutting down the ability of others to do their job, without any thought for how that could negatively impact the mission. Their mentality is to save the IT infrastructure at all costs, even if there is nothing classified on that particular network.
Things that are relatively simple for industry are a major headache for people that work for or are in the military. Say for example that you have a failed component in the field and you want to send some high res pictures back to the office responsible for the engineering for investigation. The first choice would probably be email... nope, server blocks large files and many files with certain extensions (we cannot even send/receive zip files). How about an FTP or shared website? Nope, no such thing for sharing amongst wings in multiple commands exists. Snail Mail? Will take 3 months and you're fighting a war now. End result...files are passed via non-military email accounts. Pictures are brought into work on a thumb drive. It was the path of least resistance and people need to get shit done.
It is nice to see that they have come to an agreement on this. I think it is a win for authors, Google, and readers/consumers. I can say from my own personal experience that Google's Literature search has come in useful in finding books. Furthermore, since the application gave me just enough information to know if the book would be useful for the topic I was researching. This then caused me to either purchase the book or, in the case of very expensive technical literature, caused me to borrow it from a library, which indirectly increases demand for the book.
The subprime money was backed by property. Adding shiny metals into the equation does not fix the problem.
Right, but then you are not using Gmail as an internet application and therefore not relying on "cloud computing". I think the GP was in general targeting his criticism toward all of the cloud computing advocates who think it is best to allow someone else to store your data and provide your applications.
Just going to throw this out there for anyone who does not want to go to all the effort of getting even with Walmart. If you want to save the music you purchased from Walmart, just use fairuse4wm. I have used it with Walmart songs for several years.
chicago2016.org already contains an official site, so I cannot understand why they have to have the .com site as well. I am not a fan of domain squatters, but I am only for kicking someone off of their domain when there is blatant demonstrated abuse of the system and when no other alternatives are available. This does not appear to be the case here.
Okay, what serious government business was conducted on this account?
Hopefully he will learn a lesson and next time just take advantage of his privileged access and make some money. Most people would.
As a country that is falling behind in math and science, this is not the kind of crap that we need to be teaching kids.
If she is just sucking up to her base, then this is not that big a deal to me. That is what politicians do. But, if she is another one of these nut jobs that believes that this crap should really be taught as if it is science, then I am very scared.
I think that most courts would disagree with your definition of adaptation, and I do believe that really does come down to the terms and validity of the EULA.
This of course has no relation to whether Psystar is infringing copyright or not. I just do not think you are drawing a fair comparison between the GPL, which is clearly a valid license, and boxed EULAs, most of which are not.
The practice can be seen as anti-competitive. Apple sold the software to Psystar and then claim that this created an agreement wherein Psystar agreed to certain previously undisclosed rules in which Psystar is only allowed to install the software on hardware purchased from Apple... It is a stretch that this would happen, but I believe that is the parents argument.
Good Point... At least Apple is open about giving you a piece of shit.
I would think that their previous practice of back-dating options would turn off many investors. Oh-well.
Apple has decent products, but they are not as magnificent as many of the devoted users claim them to be, especially if you look at the value that they are offering.
If one were to conduct a no-bullshit trade study before making purchases of phones, music players, laptops, desktops, or operating systems, then Apple would sell a lot less products.
Rio devices with 32 MB of memory must have been roughly 4 years old by the time the iPod came out. Apple may have had the best product the day that the iPod first hit the shelves, but other companies had similar products already in the development pipeline and have quickly caught up and in my opinion, quickly surpassed the iPod in terms of overall quality and value.
I would like to see the Mono team concentrate on the copying only the "core" functionality which will not change much and then continue to build off of existing open source software.
Personally, I would rather not pay for schools to become music distributors.
Good thing this legislation is practically unenforceable.
Colleges should comply by putting up links to free legal music downloads. There you go, an alternative to illegal music downloads.
The FCC is mostly an interpretive arm of government, with *limited* ability to extend and enforce *existing* law. The cannot create new law out of whole cloth.
Yes, but the war powers act and Global War on Terror allows for the FCC to make their own laws targeted at specific organizations. At least that is the way I intpret it... or am I thinking of something else?
From my point of view "it" does not exist. IP protectionism is a restriction on what people are allowed to do or say and has no ties to actual property.
I am not saying that IP law is not justified, because I believe that society can benefit from it, however, I believe we need to do away with the notion that it is an entitlement and look at things from the perspective of what is best for society as a whole.
This battle was being fought long before the internet came along. They could also be using this opportunity to be giving clear guidance on what constitutes fair-use, which is desperately needed, but they clearly do not care about that.
You can if you want to, but if your smart you will teach children the minutia they need to perform well on their standardized tests. That way, no child is left behind... in their ability to perform well on standardized tests.
The problem for most users is the amount of available bandwidth at peak hours. If some guy is sucking up tons of bandwidth at non-peak hours, then he is not hurting anybody. It is not like we can take the unused bandwidth from non-peak hours and use it during peak hours.
The telecoms have not been able to follow through on their bandwidth promises during peak hours and they have managed to push the blame onto someone else. Now that people have bought into that excuse, they are going to try to make a few extra bucks off of it.
Quite honestly, I have no problem with people who use more of a service getting charged more, if that is your business model. The phone companies have been charging for long-distance by the minute for years. But if we are going to start charging on a per bit basis, then shouldn't I, as a person who sends fewer bits, get a lower price? Or at least get to carry my bits over to another month? See, they want to treat each customer different based on what benefits them the most, and if it were not for their monopoly positions, they would not be able to get away with this.