There is no way you will ever get rid of the phantom bidders.
Most power sellers probably do not use phantom bidders. They probably have a network of people that are in the same business as them bid on the items. I have known several different instances of this, especially in collectibles.
I bid up your collectibles, and you bid up mine. If we win the auction, we just don't worry about it. If the item is worth enough, the vig to EBay is just paid, and the item is re-auctioned later, of it isn't worth paying the vig on, you wait several days, complain to EBay that the buyer never sent you a check, and offer it to the second highest bidder.
This type of thing is next to impossible to prove, and only gets harder as the web of associates gets bigger. That is why collusion is illegal, and you never hear about it. It happens all the time, but it is hard to catch, and harder to prove.
This is as insightful as saying that it is the greatest security device ever.
What did we learn about always and never in taking tests? They are almost never the right answer.
There is no such thing as perfect security. Obscurity isn't any different. To say it doesn't work at all is a little naive.
Quite a bit of information theory is based on knowing that there is something to know. I can learn a lot about you just by knowing that you have secrets, and who you share them with. If I can figure out how to keep this obscured, I have just increased my security on more peg. If you don't know there is a lock to pick, that is even better than having the brand new biometric lock installed, I keep my finger attached to my body longer.
A lock by itself sucks.
Cryptography is only as strong as the intelligence of the people that leave the plaintext around on their hard disk.
Obscurity has its place in a good security scheme, its place.
I can't believe this hasn't had the crap flamed out of it, let alone get a +2.
Obscurity isn't a great security model. I am not going to say that it has no place in security either.
Just because I am the only one that knows that I XOr'd my message with the umteenth row in a pascal triangle, doesn't mean that someone won't be able to see the pattern, or use other attacks to figure it out.
It does make a good, but vulnerable, security system a little better, but shouldn't be the main part of your security system, or even a major part.
Was that the long arm of American law, or the deep pockets of the movie studios?
I think it was NL copyright law, judiciously enforced after the appropriate application of incentives from the film companies. Wasn't he charged where he lived?
What are copyright treaties, and what sorts of provisions do they make generally?
Point taken, but the difference here is he was never tried or convicted of having a crappy pet store. They aren't publishing facts, they are publishing opinions.
He is suing for libel, defamation, or slander.
And yes, if you print the opionions of someone else with the intent to cause them problems, then you can be sued.
Did google intend to cause him problems?
That is what the courts are there for. The fact that they published (is linking publishing? another discussion altogether, and that pesky cache clouds things considerably) the story gives him grounds for suit. He will more than likely lose, but only after having cost Google a lot of legal expenses.
So his scheme appears to be "Which is cheaper, pay the settlement or pay the legal fees?"
The fact that he is (has) forcing advertisment as part of the settlment gives me a reason to believe that he honestly thinks he was wronged, and this is a matter of principle to him (not (just?) money). Almost as bad as a holy war.
I am not sure, but I would suggest that the reason they mention the OS at all, is that the people that might actually buy these products might be concerned about what OS it is compatible with.
I can't see too many technically savvy people buying these. The guy that is looking for something to soup up his computer, and acutally asks the guys at Best Buy (that don't work on commission, so feel free to ask questions) for advice.
Maybe "gotten worse" is uncalled for, but it isn't all peaches and cream there either. The violence may not be state sponsored anymore, but still exists. These and other things I have read are what I was refering to. If they aren't true depictions of life in South Africa, I would like to be enlightened. I understand a lot of things have gotten better, but that doesn't mean it is the greatest place on earth to live.
When you think of all the people that say "What do you need to encrypt stuff for, if you aren't doing anything wrong" and the best thing you can come up with is "Do you send everyone postcards?", think of this.
One of the main reasons the entire world should be involved in strong, government free crypto is for nations that systematically deprive their citizens of basic human rights. And I am not talking about your right to fly without being frisked.
South Africa has long been known for its obscene treatment of people, and it hasn't gotten any better since Mandella took over. If anything it has gotten worse.
People need to be able to send out cries for help without those cries bringing down even more heat. Human rights workers are probably the most legitimate users of crypto, but until everyone uses crypto to send love notes, grocery lists, and the like, these messages and the people that send them, will stick out like sore thumbs.
The only thing I cry about is how stupid I was for buying something that some undereducated corner cutting developers product.
The only thing I yell at the developers of a platform about are depricated fucntions, and even then not loudly. I get so mad when a function I start to rely on gets depricated. Then, as soon as I find out it was depricated, I have to do the math, do I go replace it now, costing my clients money up front, or do I wait until the depreciated function is actually removed, and then charge on the backend. Justify it now, or have a crunch situation that I can obviously blame on someone else later.
But I have never heard anyone complain about MS undocumented API's that I gave credence to. It definitly isn't a mainstream complaint. And if anyone (MS propoent or opponent) complains about an undocumented API changing, they deserve a swift kick in the pants, and whatever else they get.
No one uses this phrase with shrink wrapped products, really.
Most people that use this are talking about custom, internal, projects. And those cost quite a bit. OSS doesn't even come into this equation.
I don't think Alan Cox is going to manage my project to develop the Account Management System for the bank down the street. I don't think I will hold my breath until Linus writes the CICS screens for the insurance companies claims entry systems. I don't think there will be multitudes of people standing in line to write the hospitals admitance data entry application.
And I don't see any consumer waiting on little johnny to get home from school, and decide he will work on the embedded software to run a dialysis machine, or write the software drivers for the modem in the ATM machine since they weren't provided by the manufacturor.
More money, by a very large amount, is spent on custom, in house development, than on shrinkwrapped MS office. OSS won't save anybody time or money in this part of the real world.
If there are no motives, then there is no organization. Every organization has to have stated motives, otherwise they are just a bunch of people milling about, and not an organization.
That motive might be to make money, to promote communism, or to get high. Whatever the motive, that is what the people organize around (notice how organize sounds a lot like organization).
And people attribute a motive to FSF, because FSF, and Stallman specifically, keep harping on this issue. I don't think it is petty, but it is borish.
He wants credit for work that he did. Since he doesn't believe in property rights, this is all he has. If we got rid of copyright law altogether (which he wants), then the GPL would go away, and no one would ever know Stallman, or have to hear his name again, except when he tries to correct someone.
Stallman, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Do you want to maintain rights to your IP, or not?
This demonstrates that GNU tools and components aren't necesary for linux, at all. Because you can say it, everyone can say it.
Sure the tools may be widely used for linux systems, but not required.
RMS, and the rest of the FSF can take this particular gripe, and cram it. I am sick of listening to the same old whiney drivle. I will never say the two together.
GNU made tools and subsystems that were quite useful in the linux creation, but they weren't the only compiler or tools. Just the most accessible to the creator.
Linus wasn't a Free Software crusader when he started, from everything I have read (obviously I can't speak for him). He just grabbed the tools that would allow him to do his weekend project.
Are we going to start saying Motorolla/IBM/Apple G4?
On the flip side of the argument, how many movies, or games, or other content have all the different production companies listed somewhere in the titles.
give a whole new meaning to "The Sims", and peoples apparet addiction to it.
It is one thing to let a computer simulation run, but actually building a guy to use your bathroom that you built, with toilet paper (dispenser) that you built. That borders on insane, way past geek.
Now, put some mindstorm guts in the guy, hook it up to "The Sims Online", and interact with someone elses world.
Yet an actual historically aware post gets labeled Troll.
I love this moderation system. Something based on nothing but supposition and strong sentiment gets an informative, something based on history gets a troll.
The attack wasn't aimed at Bush. It was aimed at western civilization as a whole. The same things that make us a target for attacks about being arrogant (uneducated spite at our icon status) make us a target for people attacking the icon.
If you are a Black muslim, he is very anti-racist. Just don't ask him what he thinks of whites, Christians, or Jews.
I don't know the story fully, but neither of you showed support for your claims. If I claim to be anti-racist, and print decisivly anti-Jewish slants on all my articles, one might draw the conclusion that I was anti-semitic. Do they claim to be anti-racist? Do they back it up with well rounded journalism? Do they not really say, but it is obvious by their well rounded journalism?
"I am not racist, I had a black friend once." -Anonymous
I like that line about similar efforts by Microsoft.
That is their whole argument for the low total cost of ownership of NT/2000/XP, isn't it. That anyone can run it, so you don't need a sys admin.
Even if I can plug in a printer, and the network knows its there, or add disks, or whatever, who is going to add users? Who is going to design the security policies/system? This is mostly what a sys admin does, with the hardware and resource problems being the monotony that keeps him loathing his job.
Even if someone else takes up the now reduced task of system administration, there will still be a system administrator. It just may be a president/sysadmin, or a CIO/sysadmin.
And then what happens when the automated management doesn't manage properly?
I think XP/NT is about as far removed from human intervention as you can get, really. Maybe slightly more automation in the hardware department, but not a whole lot else, unless I am missing something.
There is no real distinction between hacker and cracker.
The tools, tricks, and procedures used by one are used by the other. The original hackers were the original crackers. It was fun to break into things (be it your radio, your telephone, your telephone network, or someones computer system). Well whats the fun in just being there if no one knows you were there. This is where data stealing, or defacing came in. All the way back when the hack/crack was as simple as making a score board say MIT, when they didn't have a sports team, let alone being involved in the specific contest.
To you and me, it is obvious where a prank ends, and malicious intent begins. To the person that has to clean up the prank, it is all malicious. So to you an me, there is a distinction between hacker and cracker, but to the laymen, they are the same. Not because they don't know any better, but because to them the outcome is the same. And now with the DMCA and the like, the line is clearer.
And before someone says kernel hacker, the prankster hacker is where the term originated. So if anyone is using the term incorrectly, they are probably the ones that should get the chastising. Kernel hacking is such a small and specific subset of the word, it isn't what the term was created for, nor does it truly represent the standard.
I have never tried the Atkins diet, but know several people who have "tried" the Atkins diet.
Every one of them does exactly the same thing. They tell me all about it, in painful detail, reciting virtually the entire book to me.
Always detailing that you slowly work your way back up to a healthy amount of carbs.
Then after the first two weeks of no carbs, they take to eating meat all week except one binge day. The binge day they eat candy, pizza, pour sugar down their throat. Then they roll around in fat and meat for the rest of the week, extolling the virtues of Atkins as they drink a glass of bacon drippings and mock the rest of the nutritin world.
This is not the Atkins diet. Just because you read a book written by Atkins, and misquote it to justify how you are living, doesn't mean you are on the Atkins diet.
What I want to see is a real study of real people actually on different diets (1 being the actual Atkins diet, not how most people tend to practice it.) I hate nutritionists that argue experimental data with common wisdom, or even arguing that high protien is bad because some other diet is good.
I think both DC and Marvel had a paper and pencil game loosely based on them.
They both had very similar (from a high level view point, don't flame me with the exact differences).
You created new characters with sets of powers, each having a cost. You paid for these costs with selecting weaknesses.
The most fun characters to play had really whacked out weaknesses. Picture building Superman, but having no balance, or orientation problems. Flying to save the day, and suddenly, wham, right into the ground.
I did in fact install the.net framework just last night, and although it has some tools to develop, it doesn't have everything you need.
VS.Net, and the.net framework are two seperate entities.
And although I admit I stated some inaccuracies, my point was that what.Net means is ambiguous at best. What most people mean when discussing.Net is the environment that your program will run in.
And whatever MS wants to think about the future, currently it is middleware, and IS a replacement for java, and even has been marketed as a better java than java.
And on a completely seperate rant, what were they thinking. Reading the C#.Net book from MS Press, they start ranting on DLL Hell and how they fixed it. They created it. Talk about pissing down your back and telling you its raining.
The whole idea of assemblies is absolutely stupid, and the only way it makes sense, is when you just accept what MS tells you, and accept that its the way of the future, so you have to do it, so everyone will do it, so it will be the only way to do things, so it is obviously the right thing to do.
Even if I compile to native code, I have to have distribute the assembly. WTF is that about.
We already know that the climate of the earth has never changed since the beginning of time. That is until the last 50 years or so, when man has started to burn fossil fuels and using hair spray.
This is totally unbelievable. The climate change is totally man caused, and we are the only people that can change it.
I can talk to people. I sit behind a door. You do not have the right to walk in and talk to me. I can give friends explicit permission to enter without knocking. You may see them just walk in, and think you have that right, but you don't.
Stated differently, I might have a nice fountain soda machine in my house. I can provide that service to myself for when I am working outside. I can also provide an FTP server to myself for transfering work to home, etc. In neither of these situations is it even remotly reasonable to assume that is a public service, even though the public could easily access either one.
Just because I don't lock my door, or my ftp server, doesn't make it public.
Now, p2p networks tend not to be based on explicit permission, so you may have some sort of argument, except he has no reason to believe that I am running p2p software until he in fact probes the port. And just because I am running p2p software doesn't mean I intend it for public consumption. This argument starts to get hard to make, but not impossible, and not any less reasonable. I would be stupid to use something like a p2p server for sending work home, but that is certainly my right.
As to why his analogy was weak, it isn't breaking and entering unless, in fact, I have broken some lock. Unlawful entry is a lot different, and burglary different still. Bringing the two analogies together, you can walk into my house if the door is unlocked. You don't have the right to be there, but you haven't broken a law yet. When I ask you to leave, you have to immediately, or you are guilty of trespassing. If I tell you never to come back, it is trespassing, and possibly unlawful entry. We simply don't go walking into people's houses based on social contract, not wanting to get shot, and not wanting to get arrested, and the crime established after the fact.
How do they know what I have made public before they probe them?
The federal law says that they have to cause damage via unauthorized, or under-authorized access, or intend to cause damage to be guilty of federal computer fraud crimes.
My question is, does intending to make me spend money defending myself constitute intending to cause damage?
If they haven't modified anything GPL, then they CAN'T violate the GPL.
If the basis of the distro is security and configuration scripts slapped around the outside of the normal kernel, then there is nothing to fear.
And since this was my understanding of what the distro was supposed to be, they can't be violating the GPL. If they give you a piece of GPL'ed software, they can't keep you from distributing it.
They can keep you, with an NDA from distributing their distribution, with all the proprietary products slapped around it. They can keep you from spilling the beans as to exactly what little tools they have produced.
This is not to say they havn't, but the simple fact of an NDA and a closed beta doesn't even begin to smell of a GPL violation when you take into account what you already know of the companies involved, and what they have already stated their goals to be.
But lets accuse 'em anyway, just cause we already hate 'em. We can always apologize later, and claim absence of malice.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no way you will ever get rid of the phantom bidders.
Most power sellers probably do not use phantom bidders. They probably have a network of people that are in the same business as them bid on the items. I have known several different instances of this, especially in collectibles.
I bid up your collectibles, and you bid up mine. If we win the auction, we just don't worry about it. If the item is worth enough, the vig to EBay is just paid, and the item is re-auctioned later, of it isn't worth paying the vig on, you wait several days, complain to EBay that the buyer never sent you a check, and offer it to the second highest bidder.
This type of thing is next to impossible to prove, and only gets harder as the web of associates gets bigger. That is why collusion is illegal, and you never hear about it. It happens all the time, but it is hard to catch, and harder to prove.
This is as insightful as saying that it is the greatest security device ever.
What did we learn about always and never in taking tests? They are almost never the right answer.
There is no such thing as perfect security. Obscurity isn't any different. To say it doesn't work at all is a little naive.
Quite a bit of information theory is based on knowing that there is something to know. I can learn a lot about you just by knowing that you have secrets, and who you share them with. If I can figure out how to keep this obscured, I have just increased my security on more peg. If you don't know there is a lock to pick, that is even better than having the brand new biometric lock installed, I keep my finger attached to my body longer.
A lock by itself sucks.
Cryptography is only as strong as the intelligence of the people that leave the plaintext around on their hard disk.
Obscurity has its place in a good security scheme, its place.
I can't believe this hasn't had the crap flamed out of it, let alone get a +2.
Obscurity isn't a great security model. I am not going to say that it has no place in security either.
Just because I am the only one that knows that I XOr'd my message with the umteenth row in a pascal triangle, doesn't mean that someone won't be able to see the pattern, or use other attacks to figure it out.
It does make a good, but vulnerable, security system a little better, but shouldn't be the main part of your security system, or even a major part.
Was that the long arm of American law, or the deep pockets of the movie studios?
I think it was NL copyright law, judiciously enforced after the appropriate application of incentives from the film companies. Wasn't he charged where he lived?
What are copyright treaties, and what sorts of provisions do they make generally?
Point taken, but the difference here is he was never tried or convicted of having a crappy pet store. They aren't publishing facts, they are publishing opinions.
He is suing for libel, defamation, or slander.
And yes, if you print the opionions of someone else with the intent to cause them problems, then you can be sued.
Did google intend to cause him problems?
That is what the courts are there for. The fact that they published (is linking publishing? another discussion altogether, and that pesky cache clouds things considerably) the story gives him grounds for suit. He will more than likely lose, but only after having cost Google a lot of legal expenses.
So his scheme appears to be "Which is cheaper, pay the settlement or pay the legal fees?"
The fact that he is (has) forcing advertisment as part of the settlment gives me a reason to believe that he honestly thinks he was wronged, and this is a matter of principle to him (not (just?) money). Almost as bad as a holy war.
I am not sure, but I would suggest that the reason they mention the OS at all, is that the people that might actually buy these products might be concerned about what OS it is compatible with.
I can't see too many technically savvy people buying these. The guy that is looking for something to soup up his computer, and acutally asks the guys at Best Buy (that don't work on commission, so feel free to ask questions) for advice.
No more torturing or beatings?
Maybe "gotten worse" is uncalled for, but it isn't all peaches and cream there either. The violence may not be state sponsored anymore, but still exists. These and other things I have read are what I was refering to. If they aren't true depictions of life in South Africa, I would like to be enlightened. I understand a lot of things have gotten better, but that doesn't mean it is the greatest place on earth to live.
When you think of all the people that say "What do you need to encrypt stuff for, if you aren't doing anything wrong" and the best thing you can come up with is "Do you send everyone postcards?", think of this.
One of the main reasons the entire world should be involved in strong, government free crypto is for nations that systematically deprive their citizens of basic human rights. And I am not talking about your right to fly without being frisked.
South Africa has long been known for its obscene treatment of people, and it hasn't gotten any better since Mandella took over. If anything it has gotten worse.
People need to be able to send out cries for help without those cries bringing down even more heat. Human rights workers are probably the most legitimate users of crypto, but until everyone uses crypto to send love notes, grocery lists, and the like, these messages and the people that send them, will stick out like sore thumbs.
The only thing I cry about is how stupid I was for buying something that some undereducated corner cutting developers product.
The only thing I yell at the developers of a platform about are depricated fucntions, and even then not loudly. I get so mad when a function I start to rely on gets depricated. Then, as soon as I find out it was depricated, I have to do the math, do I go replace it now, costing my clients money up front, or do I wait until the depreciated function is actually removed, and then charge on the backend. Justify it now, or have a crunch situation that I can obviously blame on someone else later.
But I have never heard anyone complain about MS undocumented API's that I gave credence to. It definitly isn't a mainstream complaint. And if anyone (MS propoent or opponent) complains about an undocumented API changing, they deserve a swift kick in the pants, and whatever else they get.
No one uses this phrase with shrink wrapped products, really.
Most people that use this are talking about custom, internal, projects. And those cost quite a bit. OSS doesn't even come into this equation.
I don't think Alan Cox is going to manage my project to develop the Account Management System for the bank down the street. I don't think I will hold my breath until Linus writes the CICS screens for the insurance companies claims entry systems. I don't think there will be multitudes of people standing in line to write the hospitals admitance data entry application.
And I don't see any consumer waiting on little johnny to get home from school, and decide he will work on the embedded software to run a dialysis machine, or write the software drivers for the modem in the ATM machine since they weren't provided by the manufacturor.
More money, by a very large amount, is spent on custom, in house development, than on shrinkwrapped MS office. OSS won't save anybody time or money in this part of the real world.
If there are no motives, then there is no organization. Every organization has to have stated motives, otherwise they are just a bunch of people milling about, and not an organization.
That motive might be to make money, to promote communism, or to get high. Whatever the motive, that is what the people organize around (notice how organize sounds a lot like organization).
And people attribute a motive to FSF, because FSF, and Stallman specifically, keep harping on this issue. I don't think it is petty, but it is borish.
He wants credit for work that he did. Since he doesn't believe in property rights, this is all he has. If we got rid of copyright law altogether (which he wants), then the GPL would go away, and no one would ever know Stallman, or have to hear his name again, except when he tries to correct someone.
Stallman, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Do you want to maintain rights to your IP, or not?
This demonstrates that GNU tools and components aren't necesary for linux, at all. Because you can say it, everyone can say it.
Sure the tools may be widely used for linux systems, but not required.
RMS, and the rest of the FSF can take this particular gripe, and cram it. I am sick of listening to the same old whiney drivle. I will never say the two together.
But I don't say "My ACDelco/THX/Craftsman Chevy"
GNU made tools and subsystems that were quite useful in the linux creation, but they weren't the only compiler or tools. Just the most accessible to the creator.
Linus wasn't a Free Software crusader when he started, from everything I have read (obviously I can't speak for him). He just grabbed the tools that would allow him to do his weekend project.
Are we going to start saying Motorolla/IBM/Apple G4?
On the flip side of the argument, how many movies, or games, or other content have all the different production companies listed somewhere in the titles.
give a whole new meaning to "The Sims", and peoples apparet addiction to it.
It is one thing to let a computer simulation run, but actually building a guy to use your bathroom that you built, with toilet paper (dispenser) that you built. That borders on insane, way past geek.
Now, put some mindstorm guts in the guy, hook it up to "The Sims Online", and interact with someone elses world.
Always gets at least +2 Informative.
Yet an actual historically aware post gets labeled Troll.
I love this moderation system. Something based on nothing but supposition and strong sentiment gets an informative, something based on history gets a troll.
The attack wasn't aimed at Bush. It was aimed at western civilization as a whole. The same things that make us a target for attacks about being arrogant (uneducated spite at our icon status) make us a target for people attacking the icon.
If you are a Black muslim, he is very anti-racist. Just don't ask him what he thinks of whites, Christians, or Jews.
I don't know the story fully, but neither of you showed support for your claims. If I claim to be anti-racist, and print decisivly anti-Jewish slants on all my articles, one might draw the conclusion that I was anti-semitic. Do they claim to be anti-racist? Do they back it up with well rounded journalism? Do they not really say, but it is obvious by their well rounded journalism?
"I am not racist, I had a black friend once."
-Anonymous
I like that line about similar efforts by Microsoft.
That is their whole argument for the low total cost of ownership of NT/2000/XP, isn't it. That anyone can run it, so you don't need a sys admin.
Even if I can plug in a printer, and the network knows its there, or add disks, or whatever, who is going to add users? Who is going to design the security policies/system? This is mostly what a sys admin does, with the hardware and resource problems being the monotony that keeps him loathing his job.
Even if someone else takes up the now reduced task of system administration, there will still be a system administrator. It just may be a president/sysadmin, or a CIO/sysadmin.
And then what happens when the automated management doesn't manage properly?
I think XP/NT is about as far removed from human intervention as you can get, really. Maybe slightly more automation in the hardware department, but not a whole lot else, unless I am missing something.
There is no real distinction between hacker and cracker.
The tools, tricks, and procedures used by one are used by the other. The original hackers were the original crackers. It was fun to break into things (be it your radio, your telephone, your telephone network, or someones computer system). Well whats the fun in just being there if no one knows you were there. This is where data stealing, or defacing came in. All the way back when the hack/crack was as simple as making a score board say MIT, when they didn't have a sports team, let alone being involved in the specific contest.
To you and me, it is obvious where a prank ends, and malicious intent begins. To the person that has to clean up the prank, it is all malicious. So to you an me, there is a distinction between hacker and cracker, but to the laymen, they are the same. Not because they don't know any better, but because to them the outcome is the same. And now with the DMCA and the like, the line is clearer.
And before someone says kernel hacker, the prankster hacker is where the term originated. So if anyone is using the term incorrectly, they are probably the ones that should get the chastising. Kernel hacking is such a small and specific subset of the word, it isn't what the term was created for, nor does it truly represent the standard.
I have never tried the Atkins diet, but know several people who have "tried" the Atkins diet.
Every one of them does exactly the same thing. They tell me all about it, in painful detail, reciting virtually the entire book to me.
Always detailing that you slowly work your way back up to a healthy amount of carbs.
Then after the first two weeks of no carbs, they take to eating meat all week except one binge day. The binge day they eat candy, pizza, pour sugar down their throat. Then they roll around in fat and meat for the rest of the week, extolling the virtues of Atkins as they drink a glass of bacon drippings and mock the rest of the nutritin world.
This is not the Atkins diet. Just because you read a book written by Atkins, and misquote it to justify how you are living, doesn't mean you are on the Atkins diet.
What I want to see is a real study of real people actually on different diets (1 being the actual Atkins diet, not how most people tend to practice it.) I hate nutritionists that argue experimental data with common wisdom, or even arguing that high protien is bad because some other diet is good.
I think both DC and Marvel had a paper and pencil game loosely based on them.
They both had very similar (from a high level view point, don't flame me with the exact differences).
You created new characters with sets of powers, each having a cost. You paid for these costs with selecting weaknesses.
The most fun characters to play had really whacked out weaknesses. Picture building Superman, but having no balance, or orientation problems. Flying to save the day, and suddenly, wham, right into the ground.
I did in fact install the .net framework just last night, and although it has some tools to develop, it doesn't have everything you need.
.net framework are two seperate entities.
.Net means is ambiguous at best. What most people mean when discussing .Net is the environment that your program will run in.
VS.Net, and the
And although I admit I stated some inaccuracies, my point was that what
And whatever MS wants to think about the future, currently it is middleware, and IS a replacement for java, and even has been marketed as a better java than java.
And on a completely seperate rant, what were they thinking. Reading the C#.Net book from MS Press, they start ranting on DLL Hell and how they fixed it. They created it. Talk about pissing down your back and telling you its raining.
The whole idea of assemblies is absolutely stupid, and the only way it makes sense, is when you just accept what MS tells you, and accept that its the way of the future, so you have to do it, so everyone will do it, so it will be the only way to do things, so it is obviously the right thing to do.
Even if I compile to native code, I have to have distribute the assembly. WTF is that about.
We already know that the climate of the earth has never changed since the beginning of time. That is until the last 50 years or so, when man has started to burn fossil fuels and using hair spray.
This is totally unbelievable. The climate change is totally man caused, and we are the only people that can change it.
His was weak, but so is yours.
I can talk to people. I sit behind a door. You do not have the right to walk in and talk to me. I can give friends explicit permission to enter without knocking. You may see them just walk in, and think you have that right, but you don't.
Stated differently, I might have a nice fountain soda machine in my house. I can provide that service to myself for when I am working outside. I can also provide an FTP server to myself for transfering work to home, etc. In neither of these situations is it even remotly reasonable to assume that is a public service, even though the public could easily access either one.
Just because I don't lock my door, or my ftp server, doesn't make it public.
Now, p2p networks tend not to be based on explicit permission, so you may have some sort of argument, except he has no reason to believe that I am running p2p software until he in fact probes the port. And just because I am running p2p software doesn't mean I intend it for public consumption. This argument starts to get hard to make, but not impossible, and not any less reasonable. I would be stupid to use something like a p2p server for sending work home, but that is certainly my right.
As to why his analogy was weak, it isn't breaking and entering unless, in fact, I have broken some lock. Unlawful entry is a lot different, and burglary different still. Bringing the two analogies together, you can walk into my house if the door is unlocked. You don't have the right to be there, but you haven't broken a law yet. When I ask you to leave, you have to immediately, or you are guilty of trespassing. If I tell you never to come back, it is trespassing, and possibly unlawful entry. We simply don't go walking into people's houses based on social contract, not wanting to get shot, and not wanting to get arrested, and the crime established after the fact.
How do they know what I have made public before they probe them?
The federal law says that they have to cause damage via unauthorized, or under-authorized access, or intend to cause damage to be guilty of federal computer fraud crimes.
My question is, does intending to make me spend money defending myself constitute intending to cause damage?
Why have proof or anything like that.
If they haven't modified anything GPL, then they CAN'T violate the GPL.
If the basis of the distro is security and configuration scripts slapped around the outside of the normal kernel, then there is nothing to fear.
And since this was my understanding of what the distro was supposed to be, they can't be violating the GPL. If they give you a piece of GPL'ed software, they can't keep you from distributing it.
They can keep you, with an NDA from distributing their distribution, with all the proprietary products slapped around it. They can keep you from spilling the beans as to exactly what little tools they have produced.
This is not to say they havn't, but the simple fact of an NDA and a closed beta doesn't even begin to smell of a GPL violation when you take into account what you already know of the companies involved, and what they have already stated their goals to be.
But lets accuse 'em anyway, just cause we already hate 'em. We can always apologize later, and claim absence of malice.