I was always taught that anything you publish needs to be presented so that it can be REPEATED by others in the field. Otherwise, you are wasting your time because your work is not verifiable.
Possibly because BSD has their own timeline? It seems to me that the OpenBSD guy was working to reach a deadline that would be beneficial to their MUTUAL customers. Adaptec did not seem to be in a hurry to support their customers. It is their choice, just like it is OpenBSD's choice not to bother supporting a companies hardware. What is amazing is that everyone seems to think that the BSD should bend over backwards for Adaptec and not the other way around. If they lose support of major OSes (opensource or not), they are going to regret not bending over backwards for their customers.
The US Government did not do that. Individuals and companies from the US may have applied the pressure, but the US govt. is not going to start a trade war with a European country over a law which we do not even have in our own country.
TaxCut and Turbo Tax do not assume responsibility for calculation errors. Your personal accountant is not responsible for his calculation errors neither. At least that is what I am told by the accountants I know.
That is Ebay's position of course. They do not want to be accountable for anything that they do not have to. However, I am not the one providing all the search services, bid tracking services, bidder id assignment.
Of course the user does get the ability to choose many of the auction rules like reserve price, time, and starting bid price but you can usually set those rules with a traditional auctioneer before he sells your stuff. I think that it is a shared responsibility and that it is so different from traditional auctions that the standard laws should not apply.
Fraud occurs on ebay but if poeple have brain 1 they would realize that they are taking a risk in sending money to someone that they have never met. Ebay cannot guarantee the authenticity of every seller, and it is the fact that the average Joe can unload their junk to someone else that wants it that makes it the great site that it is.
Trolltech has spoken out openly against SCO/Canopy and have regretted that SCO sits on their board. However, there is not a lot that they can do about that. Trolltech makes great software and releasing it as GPL helps to ensure the growth of "free" software more than something that is LGPL by forcing derived works to also be GPL. The name "lesser" GPL is used by gnu.org to convey the meaning that "It does less to protect the users freedom" (from their website).
These days you can choose from either QPL or GPL licensed Qt.
"I am very pleased to see that Qt is now available under the GPL," said Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation. "This is a big win for free software and a great gift from Trolltech to the community."
There are not a lot of differences between blogger and journalist other than a paycheck. The fact that one is more amatuerish should not make a difference. I also do not understand your logic for how someone could protect themselves by blogging. If you do not publish the information you won't get in trouble in the first place. Otherwise how would anyone know that you HAVE the information to subpoena?
Corps will not sell Wifi access because they cannot restrict access very well. The fact that they are forced to use wired networks so that they can implement their desired artificial restrictions results in additional overhead. On the whole, the community implementing wifi can be much cheaper on the whole.
Sorry, I wasn't replying to the article, I was replying to you. The parent to your original post gave some examples of protocols. You asserted that these are significantly different from p2p protocols and non-p2p protocols and that p2p have unique qualities. I am saying that the qualities that you say make p2p unique are not the case at all. The only one of your three criteria that instant messaging would meet is that it is difficult to track file-sharing, it is not very good for mass distribution of copyrighted material. FTP by comparison is much better for mass distribution and is more popular for illegal file distribution. FTP is non-p2p yet meets two of your criteria, while IM is p2p yet meets only one of your criteria.
I think you have to demonstrate that P2P has higher VALUE than over-protection of copyrights. More appropriate questions would therefore ask how much is this infringment actually hurting media producers (1 item copied =! 1 less sale) versus how much will restrictions hurt future opportunities created through open peer-2-peer.
he mentioned those certain ones it seems to me because the are familiar and old. However there are a LOT of apps that are peer-2-peer that are used for non-infringing purposes. Any type of instant messenger can be peer-2-peer. Video Conferencing software. Online Games are peer-2-peer. Business software that enhances work sharing like Groove is peer-2-peer.
Pentagon Wars -vs- Inmates Running the Asylum
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 1
What I do not like from what I have seen of this book is that it seems to place all the blame for increasing featurism on the developer. In my actual experience however this is not the case. Requirements creep is usually caused by users/managers requesting more features. When the developement cost and time increase and the product has decreased stability, reliability, and useability, everyone is left thinking "Where did we go wrong here?" The book is right in the fact that unnecessary/additional requirements cause lots of problems. It just is not always the developers fault. I think the movie "Pentagon Wars" portrays a more accurate picture of how this is in the real world.
Sure, but what is to stop the corporation from just advertising on behalf of the candidate without donating money? In the end, there is always a loophole.
The good news is that I believe punitive damages are handed out by a jury and I find it hard to believe that a jury would side heavily with the MPAA given that you would have a VERY hard time finding a jury where the majority of poeple have NEVER commited copyright infringement. I think the majority of individuals would be sympathetic towards the defendants and may see the prosecution as the aggressor and defendant as the victim in this case.
You are thinking of "criminal" suits in which punishment and fines are handed out. The MPAA is engaged in Civil suits which are not aimed at punishing the downloaders but recouping the damage caused by the downloaders. MPAA is claiming that a download caused them $150,000 in damage. This is extremely excessive. The downloaders could still face additional criminal punishment for their acts like fine or jail time.
If you are using Windows Media Player and IE under Wine and you have paid for a Windows XP CD, should MS go out of their way to ensure that you cannot automatically update this software on Wine? The assumption is that you DO have windows and are running portions of the packaged applications like IE under Wine and since you own Windows they probably should not block you from using windows update.
Put scanner near someones pocket and charge $24 or record credit card number (depending on how you wish to rip ther person off). No signature necessary nor decryption necessary. You do not have to "break" anything.
Why is the technology even necessary given the risk? How much harder is swiping versus hovering the card over the scanner, aside from a fraction of a second of your time, what do you gain? The hardest part in either case is just getting the card out of your wallet.
From a risk standpoint using these cards would be a poor decision on anybody's part. You gain basically nothing except for the coolness factor, and you put yourself at additional risk of fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
I was always taught that anything you publish needs to be presented so that it can be REPEATED by others in the field. Otherwise, you are wasting your time because your work is not verifiable.
Possibly because BSD has their own timeline? It seems to me that the OpenBSD guy was working to reach a deadline that would be beneficial to their MUTUAL customers. Adaptec did not seem to be in a hurry to support their customers. It is their choice, just like it is OpenBSD's choice not to bother supporting a companies hardware. What is amazing is that everyone seems to think that the BSD should bend over backwards for Adaptec and not the other way around. If they lose support of major OSes (opensource or not), they are going to regret not bending over backwards for their customers.
The US Government did not do that. Individuals and companies from the US may have applied the pressure, but the US govt. is not going to start a trade war with a European country over a law which we do not even have in our own country.
TaxCut and Turbo Tax do not assume responsibility for calculation errors. Your personal accountant is not responsible for his calculation errors neither. At least that is what I am told by the accountants I know.
Do you expect the critics not to be debunked when they are merely spreading misinformation and FUD?
Of course the user does get the ability to choose many of the auction rules like reserve price, time, and starting bid price but you can usually set those rules with a traditional auctioneer before he sells your stuff. I think that it is a shared responsibility and that it is so different from traditional auctions that the standard laws should not apply.
Fraud occurs on ebay but if poeple have brain 1 they would realize that they are taking a risk in sending money to someone that they have never met. Ebay cannot guarantee the authenticity of every seller, and it is the fact that the average Joe can unload their junk to someone else that wants it that makes it the great site that it is.
Trolltech has spoken out openly against SCO/Canopy and have regretted that SCO sits on their board. However, there is not a lot that they can do about that. Trolltech makes great software and releasing it as GPL helps to ensure the growth of "free" software more than something that is LGPL by forcing derived works to also be GPL. The name "lesser" GPL is used by gnu.org to convey the meaning that "It does less to protect the users freedom" (from their website).
Qt is GPL. That is all that matters. It is every bit as free as GTK or Gnome.
There are not a lot of differences between blogger and journalist other than a paycheck. The fact that one is more amatuerish should not make a difference. I also do not understand your logic for how someone could protect themselves by blogging. If you do not publish the information you won't get in trouble in the first place. Otherwise how would anyone know that you HAVE the information to subpoena?
he could have chosen to not fight it and just disclose the source.
Corps will not sell Wifi access because they cannot restrict access very well. The fact that they are forced to use wired networks so that they can implement their desired artificial restrictions results in additional overhead. On the whole, the community implementing wifi can be much cheaper on the whole.
What do you do when you need to access a website that can only be accessed through through flash?
Sorry, I wasn't replying to the article, I was replying to you. The parent to your original post gave some examples of protocols. You asserted that these are significantly different from p2p protocols and non-p2p protocols and that p2p have unique qualities. I am saying that the qualities that you say make p2p unique are not the case at all. The only one of your three criteria that instant messaging would meet is that it is difficult to track file-sharing, it is not very good for mass distribution of copyrighted material. FTP by comparison is much better for mass distribution and is more popular for illegal file distribution. FTP is non-p2p yet meets two of your criteria, while IM is p2p yet meets only one of your criteria.
I think you have to demonstrate that P2P has higher VALUE than over-protection of copyrights. More appropriate questions would therefore ask how much is this infringment actually hurting media producers (1 item copied =! 1 less sale) versus how much will restrictions hurt future opportunities created through open peer-2-peer.
Instant messaging
he mentioned those certain ones it seems to me because the are familiar and old. However there are a LOT of apps that are peer-2-peer that are used for non-infringing purposes. Any type of instant messenger can be peer-2-peer. Video Conferencing software. Online Games are peer-2-peer. Business software that enhances work sharing like Groove is peer-2-peer.
What I do not like from what I have seen of this book is that it seems to place all the blame for increasing featurism on the developer. In my actual experience however this is not the case. Requirements creep is usually caused by users/managers requesting more features. When the developement cost and time increase and the product has decreased stability, reliability, and useability, everyone is left thinking "Where did we go wrong here?" The book is right in the fact that unnecessary/additional requirements cause lots of problems. It just is not always the developers fault. I think the movie "Pentagon Wars" portrays a more accurate picture of how this is in the real world.
Sure, but what is to stop the corporation from just advertising on behalf of the candidate without donating money? In the end, there is always a loophole.
The good news is that I believe punitive damages are handed out by a jury and I find it hard to believe that a jury would side heavily with the MPAA given that you would have a VERY hard time finding a jury where the majority of poeple have NEVER commited copyright infringement. I think the majority of individuals would be sympathetic towards the defendants and may see the prosecution as the aggressor and defendant as the victim in this case.
You are thinking of "criminal" suits in which punishment and fines are handed out. The MPAA is engaged in Civil suits which are not aimed at punishing the downloaders but recouping the damage caused by the downloaders. MPAA is claiming that a download caused them $150,000 in damage. This is extremely excessive. The downloaders could still face additional criminal punishment for their acts like fine or jail time.
If you are using Windows Media Player and IE under Wine and you have paid for a Windows XP CD, should MS go out of their way to ensure that you cannot automatically update this software on Wine? The assumption is that you DO have windows and are running portions of the packaged applications like IE under Wine and since you own Windows they probably should not block you from using windows update.
If you expect this type of phone call to be "quick", then you are in for a rude awakening.
Why is the technology even necessary given the risk? How much harder is swiping versus hovering the card over the scanner, aside from a fraction of a second of your time, what do you gain? The hardest part in either case is just getting the card out of your wallet.
From a risk standpoint using these cards would be a poor decision on anybody's part. You gain basically nothing except for the coolness factor, and you put yourself at additional risk of fraud.