I'm afraid it doesn't work that way... If you have a monitor that hooks up to a high-level networking interface, you need to include a good processor on the thing.
In year 201x, the processor will be the least of your worries. Heck, just spray some smart nano chips on the back of your hand and you'll have a monitor...
I'm going to beg to differ here, the human eyes are bandwidth limited. The difference between 20 million pixels and 40 million pixels and 100 and 1000hz mean nothing to the eye. VNC is already an example of a monitor over a network and it runs vary acceptably TODAY !
A 3D graphics processor is nothing but a specialized chunk o hardware that multiplies vectors, does clipping, and shades into a buffer and a zbuffer. The only thing interesting to the eyes is the contents of the buffer, if those bits can be delivered at 30fps, you're done, 75fps is the limit of perception for 99% of the population. Heck, most people (80%) still run their monitors at 800x600 at 60Hz. The only thing that might hurt is latentcy but even there, to *most* people a latentcy of 100msec is just about imperceptable and that's an eternity on most modern LANs today - I get ping times of 0.5 msec to an old 100Mhz P1 !
Between Florida and California I get ping times of 100msec today on my DSL line. I think network connected monitors will end up being the norm. DARN ! The ozzee predition #1 - monitors will connect directly to the network by 2010 !
23 thousand streams of 24bit x 1600*1200pix x 75hz uncompressed
1.5k byte packets at 670 million/sec
2 billion x 50 byte packets per sec
port scan all ports on all IPv4 addresses in 20 minutes
Every US resident downloads Metallical's new track in 30 minutes of my http server
And this will all be available at Fry's for a $50 NIC and $30 cable ? When ? I'll hold off buying any new network HW 'till then:^)
Seriously, there are some significant implications here. For 1, you won't need a monitor connected directly to the "fast video card" to get the next fancy 3D graphics features. Memory bandwidth and network bandwidth will be similar meaning that clustered NUMA systems will be interesting. Some of the design decisions we deal with today have been because getting the person close to the computer to improve the experience was a critical factor will disappear.
Allow it so that tabulation is available to any certified tabulator and make it so there are at least 3 of them.
To avoid having information defrauded, at election time, each voter is given a new random for each election but bounded by the number of valid voters. A voter is allowed to change their vote at any time prior to the election close time. The vote is simultaneously cast at all the tabulators. Each tabulator is not allowed to give any data that correlates voter number to vote, not even in an aggregate way. Essentially, aggregators have a random list of numbers. Each tabulator is required to publish the random voter number list of actual voters. If the independant tabulator random voter list do not match, between tabulators then somthing is wrong and electoral officials step in to investigate the discrepancy.
The mapping from voter number to voter authentication is done by the electoral office. Both the voter and the tabulators to not know the mapping. The electoral office will not know how the voter cast their vote, only the tabulators will have that information. Votes can be cast by the internet or at polling booths.
I can go on with more but it's essential to say that this a system based on openness and can be independantly verified.
Okay, so we all can agree that the patent process is fucked up in the extreme, but do any slashdotters out there have any ideas as to how to fix it?
Let's see:
Abolish software patents.
Patent only implementations - not ideas (like it should be and was until recently).
Make it so that patent holders can't extort infringers.
Define "obvious" a little more clearly. Many of these patents are "clearly" obvious but still make it through the courts.
If 2 or more people invent essentially the same thing without knowledge of the other, allow all of them to hold a valid patent. (sort of goes with obvious).
I can go on and on with different alternatives. The point is that patents are there to FOSTER innovation and now their used mainly for extortion. I would vote strongly to elimitate software patents altogether and push "open source" concepts as the method of fostering innovation. However there are certain large corps with huge monopolies and well paid lobby to prevent such a thing.
I agree. You have to do something, if your copyrights are actually being infringed. However, from what I understand, SCO is walking a very thin line.
The "smell test" comes in stinking on this one.
It may logically be a fine line as you discuss, but if you imagine SCO in front of a jury saying 'We never meant it !', they're going to look awfully bad. So, while I think you're right, it's actually more relevant to take them to task to make them tell you which side of the fine line they're legally on.
And think about it, if SCO ever writes back to you, the letter is going to be a collector's item!
I seem to be getting 1000's of emails from "automatically generated Delivery Status Notification" messages from emails never sent by "us".
Could everyone please nuke the bounces for these emails, they're more annoying than the worm itself, at least I can nuke the worm in my filters, but these DSN's are coming in with all kinds of formats and they are harder to filter because we really do want the legitimate ones.
However, if you are a copyright holder and SCO has shipped products with your code and it's licenced to SCO under the GPL you are at undeniable risk here of loosing your copyright rights if you do nothing. One argument SCO could use against you is that you knew and you did/said nothing and so you defaulted on your rights. The main point I was getting to is that a copyright holder should seriously consider putting SCO on notice officially - in writing. You can write the letter without getting into details of "b)" (remedies) - it's enough that you say you are considering appropriate remedies and you will be demanding "appropriate action" as you see fit.
You're right on IBM though. They have played their hand flawlessly so far. SCO heads will roll. I have no idea why their stock jumped up today but there are likely going to be a whole lot of unhappy investors.
..seems like they are compliant to me for that piece of software.
As for their compliance, it's actually unclear when the company publically announces that they don't respect the GPL. AFAICT, the declaration of intent to disregard an agreement is in itself a violation of the agreement. I would never enter into an agreement with anyone who would sign paper but talk about how they disregard the agreement. By doing nothing at this point, you are doing just that. The SAMBA folks should have demanded a retraction of SCO's statments and otherwise threatened SCO with "termination" of the license if they did not comply. I know I just added new FUD - how do you terminate a GPL license - who cares. If it ended up in front of a jury and the copyright holer said "SCO declared publically that they will not honour the GPL, so I as a copyright holder declared publically that SCO had better revoke that declaration othewise I threaten to revoke their GPL license", any jury would say that was a totally reasonable response.
If Microsoft truly engaged SCO to do this, which I REALLY doubt. (I think Microsoft got squeezed by SCO before - DOS/antitrust rulings etc, that they just figured they are stretched too thin right now, so giving SO whatever they wanted was likely a more painful but easier alternative.) This whole thing is going to become Microsoft's worst nightmare. There is no such thing as bad publicity. The raising of Linux in the minds of corps is now even more pervasive. You and I know that the FUD wave will come washing back in the size of a tidal wave once SCO is dead. (by dead I mean when the consensus from those who have no clue -the majority- is that they cannot win.) Unbelievable as it may be, there are many who think SCO have a chance, I only wish they would all talk to me, I have large piles of stock in a whole bunch of internet start-ups I'd like to offer them:-)
It's sad to see SCO crater like this, I used to think they were OK. Now I won't touch them ever.
Send a cease and desist letter explaining that you have Copyright to code that is being shipped by SCO and that given they have publically violated the terms of this license and that you demand them to stop shipping any further products. Lift the wording directly off pertinent parts of their own legal documents against IBM.
a) Don't explain what the violating code is. (that comes in a subsequent letter - if it ever gets there.) Make sure however that they HAVE shipped any product with your code.
b) Request damages. Take the working directly off pertinent parts of their public demands on companies using Linux products. Don't justify it but make it so you could argue in front of a Judge with a straight face. (remeber that RIAA is suing downloaders minimum $750 for $1 songs and up to $150,000 PER SONG so you don't need to dilly dally too much to justify 6 or 7 digit figures - or even 9 digit figues if you take their own example against IBM.)
c) Place a time frame in which they must respond by and make it very clear what you think they must do (stop shipping all products - because they all infringe by.. (give them the exact same time frame they gave IBM - to the day).
Cite relevant copyright law.
Make the letter as official looking as possible. If you have a brother in law who's an attourny, see if you could somehow have it sent by that office, just to add some pepper.
Send it FedEx next day air and have it signed for.
Wait the appropriate time.
2 thing could happen -
1) they may (likely) not
respond at all. If this happens you should send another letter indicating that their lack of response now forces you to take legal action and that they now have xx days to respond before you WILL take steps for legal action and that you will also be suing for costs and injunctive relief.
2) They do respond. It will likely be a brush off. "We own yadda yadda..", that's fine, they just gave you evidence for your court hearing. They acknowledged they got your letter, they dismiss all claims against them which you can now in turn use against them in exactly the same way as they used against Linux - ooh spooky. At this time you send another letter refuting all their claims (especially any asking for evidence unless they sign a really onerous NDA) and threaten to subpoena all their code to validate your claim.
Now is where you give them some breathing room. Tell them if they are prepared to:
Remove the company officers... maybe
Renounce all this nonsense they have said.
... make a list...
That you would be prepared to negotiate a nominal settlement. Basically you need to seem to be preparing a case making it look like you're a reasonable person. You really DONT want to file legal action just yet. The response (if any) you get from this letter will be more ammo for you case.
NOW you're ready to file.
For starters, this is where you really need to talk to an attorney and do lots and lots of research. Talk to a number of attorneys, take the letter with you. Most attorneys would love to spend a few minutes chewing the fat on somthing like this. Go to a legal library, find relevant cases etc and file the papers yourself. If their smart, the first thing that SCO will do is ask to settle because legally you are right. But since smart cells are in short supply at SCO nowadays you may find youself dragged into a nasty counter-suit. If you and 1000 others actually get this far you can consider that you have already won. There is NO way a company like SCO would ever be able to pay the costs of dealing with so many legal actions - most of which they are likely to loose. However, you may be the only guy doing this so you might find yourself in hot water - but you may actually win.
Oooh - 220v ooh deadly ooh.. y'all have no idea what you talk about...
Now, the FACTS for all the people posting bad advice - North American 220v is still only 110v (2phase) to ground or neutral. 220v is basically the potential difference between the 2 active phases. In other words, you are no more likely going to be killed by a North American 220v outlet (to ground) than you are 110v outlet to ground. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT ?
Now, as to the danger: China, Australia, New Zealand... EUROPE all supply 220v or 240v to the home as general purpose outlets. Most of these countries use 380v or 415v between the phases (3 phase). It's not the potential difference that kills you (only), it's if you touch the wires when they're turned on, 110v or 220v !
As some people allude to, using large guage wires of different metals causes all kinds of bad news and you had better know what you're doing but this is only for REALLY big panels. Most panels still use simple brass and copper junctions. Make sure you know what you're doing if you go there.
So, pulling 220v at 20 amps is no more dangerous as pulling 2 110v wires at 20 amps.
The most important point : IF YOU HAD TO ASK/. YOU'RE IN BUG TRUBBEL IF YOU DO IT YERSELF.
Advice in negotiating with your electrical contractor : Ask first now much it will cost to pull a 110v outlet. GET A PRICE. Then ask how much it will cost to pull a 220v outlet. If the price is more that 20% higher loose the contractor. Contractors regularly charge WAY more than they should for 220v work because they are "buisness rates".
Disclaimer - all voltages cited above are RMS (root mean square)- peak votages are normally 1.4x (sqrt(2)) higher.
Cost of a 1 day North America NE power failure - Priceless
This is just plain really bad management. Call it deregulation, call it whatever. What happened today is AVOIDABLE with proper management and investments.
The costs associated with the failure in management here may outweigh the costs of even 9/11. What irks me even more, is that this is NOT THE FIRST TIME this has happened to New York.
Whom ever is managing this system is going to be fired. The entire management chain of all the companines involved will be wiped clean (or shuffled around to make it look like their fired).
Of course, it's going to be played by the politicians and press as, "Oh dear, how unfortunate, a fire, a lightning strike, a <PICK YOUR FAVOUTITE EXCUSE>. Can you spell SNOW job ?
BTW - the hospitals had better get prepared because 9 months from now a certain wing is going to get very busy !
I ususally build my own boxes but I was in a time crunch and so I said - fine, let's save time and run down to Frys and get a box say around 700 bucks ! You know, the traditional hunt it down lassoo with the Visa throw it in the back and off we go.
It was a HPaq, reliable brand right ? WinXP etc. Oh 3 weeks later the machine dies. Power supply is dead, D.E.A.D. dead. Door stops had more use. Ok ok ok, &*(t happens, it's cool, send it back to Frys and get a replacement - No joy, OUT of production, no more HPaq's in stock. Ok ok ok - no problem lets get a.... Frys PC ! Great, lassoo that puppy install all the software, great !.... NOT, 24 hours later machine crashes hard registry all messed up, re-install a BUNCH a software.
So the next day I go out and order all the parts to make 2 systems - MSI K7D dual AMD's 1Gig ECC ram.... you know the drill. Installed RH9, loaded VMWARE, Win2k and all the apps - apart from a bug in the USB mouse or keyboard driver, not sure what, it's been rock solid.
Had I gone down this built it yourself path first I would have saved oodles o time. So much for ready built, name brand boxen.
I have built over 20 boxes and have had far more success that I did with the off the shelf stuff.
YMMV, comments are mine, only mine, not that of anyone else, and you'd be a fool to do what I do yadda yadda....
I think you will find that many who appear to be extroverts have learned to appear that way but by some of the indicators are actually introverts.
I actually have worked with you and while you are possibly a more "classic" introvert you have learned to appear and do things that would normally be associated with an extrovert. Hence this may be why that introvert test you see is possibly skewed.
There are so many more dimensions to personality than just introvert/extrovert and some of the insights you see on this dimension have parallels in others.
There are other clinical conditions that have overwhelming effects on people and how to best work with them. Dyslexia is a HUGE factor as over 30-40% of people in the computer related disciplines are dyslexic to some degree and many don't even realize it. A lexic persona has extraordinarily different ways of processing information that a dyslexic one and many times what is obvious to one is black magic to another.
Top these off with ADD, Aspergers and a few others and you already have a wild mix of personalities which quite frankly keeps it all the more interesting.
Also, you probably would not have appreciated this book had you read it when you were 20. It's only after the grief you allude to that you understand that this is very important for being able to work more effectively with others.
The one warning I have is that many people who realize the new "tricks" work well with people often make the mistake of applying the tool disregarding all other dimensions. It's the old "To a carpenter, all problems look like nails". This single dimensional thinking can get you into more trouble.
Since when has SCO demonstrated ANY interest in the truth ? This is just more fodder for the SCO FUD machine.
The best thing we could all do is ingnore SCO and boycot them into oblivion and discuss the matter no further than we absolutly need to. While this document may be interesting, it's nothing extraordinary in that we have not already read it all before.
SCO has embarked on a truly extraordinary path of self destruction and they will get their wish. Let us not be the ones to prolong their demise.
SCO is dead. I predict it will not last 18months, even if they are right and there is SCO code in Linux. You don't get too far in buisness by sueing your customers. Example: RIAA will find out here too - I am NEVER going to buy a piece of music from the affiliates of the RIAA. I will never listen to radio stations that plays songs from affiliates of the RIAA. Like I will never buy software from SCO.
If Microsoft starts getting litigious with it's customers (virtually all Linux users are also Windows users) it will suffer the same fate.
Bill, listen here - don't even hint at litigation with Linux users, just create better solutions where you can for a good price - heck start the Microsoft Linux distro and charge what you charge for WinXP ! Add some proprietary database and a few extra tools and you'll grab 90% of the "free software" market. If however, you feel like killing MS, then start suing or even barely hint at sueing your customers.
This could be interesting. Help the RIAA, get blacklisted from the internet. You could start somthing like SPEWS, but for the RIAA/MPAA. Simply put, if any evidence is provided, simply shut down the IP's, not just from the web server but from my entire network. I take the SPEWS list and regularly stuff it into ipchains to remove spammers. If I decide to simply refuse to carry your packets as a protest of the RIAA/MPAA behaviour then that's up to me.
The only thing is, once you're black-listed there's no coming back.... It could get ugly.
Another alternative is to only allow white list IP's to access a narrow range of services. That way you can operate you own private network of trusted users and share entertaining but non infringing material.
If you are right, the FTC would like to hear from you I am sure. SCO really deserves an audit, after all, it's in the SCO investors' interest to make sure that SCO is not inflating the situation.
Does this latest act cross the line on and start violating the GPL ? It smells like it does and I think it's a clear violation. If that's true, should GPL holders start filing a class action against SCO because they are now violating the GPL in a blatant fashion ?
I thought there was a law between separation of religion and programming ?
Yep, there is a neat way to do this. There is a discussion on comp.std.c++ that is discussing this now. It may have some holes but for the performance hungry, this may be the correct way to do this.
... Boost's smart pointers do what you want. Take a look at the intrusive_ptr template.
Would not this mean that every time you pass one of these things you will need to increment and decrement the reference count and possibly multple times ? No thanks.
OK, things have changed. This code did not compile with earlier compilers. Hmm, I still would like to it to be different but this may be ok for how I do things. Hmm, may it was multimaps that I was having trouble with...
Slashdot Mirror
In year 201x, the processor will be the least of your worries. Heck, just spray some smart nano chips on the back of your hand and you'll have a monitor ...
I'm going to beg to differ here, the human eyes are bandwidth limited. The difference between 20 million pixels and 40 million pixels and 100 and 1000hz mean nothing to the eye. VNC is already an example of a monitor over a network and it runs vary acceptably TODAY !
A 3D graphics processor is nothing but a specialized chunk o hardware that multiplies vectors, does clipping, and shades into a buffer and a zbuffer. The only thing interesting to the eyes is the contents of the buffer, if those bits can be delivered at 30fps, you're done, 75fps is the limit of perception for 99% of the population. Heck, most people (80%) still run their monitors at 800x600 at 60Hz. The only thing that might hurt is latentcy but even there, to *most* people a latentcy of 100msec is just about imperceptable and that's an eternity on most modern LANs today - I get ping times of 0.5 msec to an old 100Mhz P1 ! Between Florida and California I get ping times of 100msec today on my DSL line. I think network connected monitors will end up being the norm. DARN ! The ozzee predition #1 - monitors will connect directly to the network by 2010 !
10Tb/s means
5 million 2Mb/sec compressed video streams
Copy a 250GB drive in 1/4sec
23 thousand streams of 24bit x 1600*1200pix x 75hz uncompressed
1.5k byte packets at 670 million/sec
2 billion x 50 byte packets per sec
port scan all ports on all IPv4 addresses in 20 minutes
Every US resident downloads Metallical's new track in 30 minutes of my http server
And this will all be available at Fry's for a $50 NIC and $30 cable ? When ? I'll hold off buying any new network HW 'till then :^)
Seriously, there are some significant implications here. For 1, you won't need a monitor connected directly to the "fast video card" to get the next fancy 3D graphics features. Memory bandwidth and network bandwidth will be similar meaning that clustered NUMA systems will be interesting. Some of the design decisions we deal with today have been because getting the person close to the computer to improve the experience was a critical factor will disappear.
I second that. Cheap - but trouble.
Allow it so that tabulation is available to any certified tabulator and make it so there are at least 3 of them.
To avoid having information defrauded, at election time, each voter is given a new random for each election but bounded by the number of valid voters. A voter is allowed to change their vote at any time prior to the election close time. The vote is simultaneously cast at all the tabulators. Each tabulator is not allowed to give any data that correlates voter number to vote, not even in an aggregate way. Essentially, aggregators have a random list of numbers. Each tabulator is required to publish the random voter number list of actual voters. If the independant tabulator random voter list do not match, between tabulators then somthing is wrong and electoral officials step in to investigate the discrepancy. The mapping from voter number to voter authentication is done by the electoral office. Both the voter and the tabulators to not know the mapping. The electoral office will not know how the voter cast their vote, only the tabulators will have that information. Votes can be cast by the internet or at polling booths.
I can go on with more but it's essential to say that this a system based on openness and can be independantly verified.
Let's see:
Abolish software patents.
Patent only implementations - not ideas (like it should be and was until recently).
Make it so that patent holders can't extort infringers.
Define "obvious" a little more clearly. Many of these patents are "clearly" obvious but still make it through the courts.
If 2 or more people invent essentially the same thing without knowledge of the other, allow all of them to hold a valid patent. (sort of goes with obvious).
I can go on and on with different alternatives. The point is that patents are there to FOSTER innovation and now their used mainly for extortion. I would vote strongly to elimitate software patents altogether and push "open source" concepts as the method of fostering innovation. However there are certain large corps with huge monopolies and well paid lobby to prevent such a thing.
The "smell test" comes in stinking on this one.
It may logically be a fine line as you discuss, but if you imagine SCO in front of a jury saying 'We never meant it !', they're going to look awfully bad. So, while I think you're right, it's actually more relevant to take them to task to make them tell you which side of the fine line they're legally on.
And think about it, if SCO ever writes back to you, the letter is going to be a collector's item!
I seem to be getting 1000's of emails from "automatically generated Delivery Status Notification" messages from emails never sent by "us".
Could everyone please nuke the bounces for these emails, they're more annoying than the worm itself, at least I can nuke the worm in my filters, but these DSN's are coming in with all kinds of formats and they are harder to filter because we really do want the legitimate ones.
You are right, I am no lawyer.
However, if you are a copyright holder and SCO has shipped products with your code and it's licenced to SCO under the GPL you are at undeniable risk here of loosing your copyright rights if you do nothing. One argument SCO could use against you is that you knew and you did/said nothing and so you defaulted on your rights. The main point I was getting to is that a copyright holder should seriously consider putting SCO on notice officially - in writing. You can write the letter without getting into details of "b)" (remedies) - it's enough that you say you are considering appropriate remedies and you will be demanding "appropriate action" as you see fit.
You're right on IBM though. They have played their hand flawlessly so far. SCO heads will roll. I have no idea why their stock jumped up today but there are likely going to be a whole lot of unhappy investors.
As for their compliance, it's actually unclear when the company publically announces that they don't respect the GPL. AFAICT, the declaration of intent to disregard an agreement is in itself a violation of the agreement. I would never enter into an agreement with anyone who would sign paper but talk about how they disregard the agreement. By doing nothing at this point, you are doing just that. The SAMBA folks should have demanded a retraction of SCO's statments and otherwise threatened SCO with "termination" of the license if they did not comply. I know I just added new FUD - how do you terminate a GPL license - who cares. If it ended up in front of a jury and the copyright holer said "SCO declared publically that they will not honour the GPL, so I as a copyright holder declared publically that SCO had better revoke that declaration othewise I threaten to revoke their GPL license", any jury would say that was a totally reasonable response.
If Microsoft truly engaged SCO to do this, which I REALLY doubt. (I think Microsoft got squeezed by SCO before - DOS/antitrust rulings etc, that they just figured they are stretched too thin right now, so giving SO whatever they wanted was likely a more painful but easier alternative.) This whole thing is going to become Microsoft's worst nightmare. There is no such thing as bad publicity. The raising of Linux in the minds of corps is now even more pervasive. You and I know that the FUD wave will come washing back in the size of a tidal wave once SCO is dead. (by dead I mean when the consensus from those who have no clue -the majority- is that they cannot win.) Unbelievable as it may be, there are many who think SCO have a chance, I only wish they would all talk to me, I have large piles of stock in a whole bunch of internet start-ups I'd like to offer them :-)
It's sad to see SCO crater like this, I used to think they were OK. Now I won't touch them ever.
Process should go like this.
Send a cease and desist letter explaining that you have Copyright to code that is being shipped by SCO and that given they have publically violated the terms of this license and that you demand them to stop shipping any further products. Lift the wording directly off pertinent parts of their own legal documents against IBM.
a) Don't explain what the violating code is. (that comes in a subsequent letter - if it ever gets there.) Make sure however that they HAVE shipped any product with your code.
b) Request damages. Take the working directly off pertinent parts of their public demands on companies using Linux products. Don't justify it but make it so you could argue in front of a Judge with a straight face. (remeber that RIAA is suing downloaders minimum $750 for $1 songs and up to $150,000 PER SONG so you don't need to dilly dally too much to justify 6 or 7 digit figures - or even 9 digit figues if you take their own example against IBM.)
c) Place a time frame in which they must respond by and make it very clear what you think they must do (stop shipping all products - because they all infringe by .. (give them the exact same time frame they gave IBM - to the day).
Cite relevant copyright law.
Make the letter as official looking as possible. If you have a brother in law who's an attourny, see if you could somehow have it sent by that office, just to add some pepper.
Send it FedEx next day air and have it signed for.
Wait the appropriate time.
2 thing could happen -
1) they may (likely) not respond at all. If this happens you should send another letter indicating that their lack of response now forces you to take legal action and that they now have xx days to respond before you WILL take steps for legal action and that you will also be suing for costs and injunctive relief.
2) They do respond. It will likely be a brush off. "We own yadda yadda ..", that's fine, they just gave you evidence for your court hearing. They acknowledged they got your letter, they dismiss all claims against them which you can now in turn use against them in exactly the same way as they used against Linux - ooh spooky. At this time you send another letter refuting all their claims (especially any asking for evidence unless they sign a really onerous NDA) and threaten to subpoena all their code to validate your claim.
Now is where you give them some breathing room. Tell them if they are prepared to:
Remove the company officers ... maybe
Renounce all this nonsense they have said.
That you would be prepared to negotiate a nominal settlement. Basically you need to seem to be preparing a case making it look like you're a reasonable person. You really DONT want to file legal action just yet. The response (if any) you get from this letter will be more ammo for you case.
NOW you're ready to file.
For starters, this is where you really need to talk to an attorney and do lots and lots of research. Talk to a number of attorneys, take the letter with you. Most attorneys would love to spend a few minutes chewing the fat on somthing like this. Go to a legal library, find relevant cases etc and file the papers yourself. If their smart, the first thing that SCO will do is ask to settle because legally you are right. But since smart cells are in short supply at SCO nowadays you may find youself dragged into a nasty counter-suit. If you and 1000 others actually get this far you can consider that you have already won. There is NO way a company like SCO would ever be able to pay the costs of dealing with so many legal actions - most of which they are likely to loose. However, you may be the only guy doing this so you might find yourself in hot water - but you may actually win.
.... This is how to handle SCO.
Very simple:
SGI Market CAP: $----230Mil
IBM Market CAP: $143,700Mil
If they win, they could own SGI! Now what would be more scary for their investors ? Owning SGI or loosing the lawsiut ?
Oooh - 220v ooh deadly ooh .. y'all have no idea what you talk about ...
Now, the FACTS for all the people posting bad advice - North American 220v is still only 110v (2phase) to ground or neutral. 220v is basically the potential difference between the 2 active phases. In other words, you are no more likely going to be killed by a North American 220v outlet (to ground) than you are 110v outlet to ground. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT ?
Now, as to the danger: China, Australia, New Zealand ... EUROPE all supply 220v or 240v to the home as general purpose outlets. Most of these countries use 380v or 415v between the phases (3 phase). It's not the potential difference that kills you (only), it's if you touch the wires when they're turned on, 110v or 220v !
As some people allude to, using large guage wires of different metals causes all kinds of bad news and you had better know what you're doing but this is only for REALLY big panels. Most panels still use simple brass and copper junctions. Make sure you know what you're doing if you go there.
So, pulling 220v at 20 amps is no more dangerous as pulling 2 110v wires at 20 amps.
The most important point : IF YOU HAD TO ASK /. YOU'RE IN BUG TRUBBEL IF YOU DO IT YERSELF.
Advice in negotiating with your electrical contractor : Ask first now much it will cost to pull a 110v outlet. GET A PRICE. Then ask how much it will cost to pull a 220v outlet. If the price is more that 20% higher loose the contractor. Contractors regularly charge WAY more than they should for 220v work because they are "buisness rates".
Disclaimer - all voltages cited above are RMS (root mean square)- peak votages are normally 1.4x (sqrt(2)) higher.
Cost of a 1 day North America NE power failure - Priceless
This is just plain really bad management. Call it deregulation, call it whatever. What happened today is AVOIDABLE with proper management and investments.
The costs associated with the failure in management here may outweigh the costs of even 9/11. What irks me even more, is that this is NOT THE FIRST TIME this has happened to New York.
Whom ever is managing this system is going to be fired. The entire management chain of all the companines involved will be wiped clean (or shuffled around to make it look like their fired).
Of course, it's going to be played by the politicians and press as, "Oh dear, how unfortunate, a fire, a lightning strike, a <PICK YOUR FAVOUTITE EXCUSE>. Can you spell SNOW job ?
BTW - the hospitals had better get prepared because 9 months from now a certain wing is going to get very busy !
I'm not paranoid, they're just out to get me.
Well, I've done that too :*) Just not recentlty.
I ususally build my own boxes but I was in a time crunch and so I said - fine, let's save time and run down to Frys and get a box say around 700 bucks ! You know, the traditional hunt it down lassoo with the Visa throw it in the back and off we go.
It was a HPaq, reliable brand right ? WinXP etc. Oh 3 weeks later the machine dies. Power supply is dead, D.E.A.D. dead. Door stops had more use. Ok ok ok, &*(t happens, it's cool, send it back to Frys and get a replacement - No joy, OUT of production, no more HPaq's in stock. Ok ok ok - no problem lets get a .... Frys PC ! Great, lassoo that puppy install all the software, great ! .... NOT, 24 hours later machine crashes hard registry all messed up, re-install a BUNCH a software.
So the next day I go out and order all the parts to make 2 systems - MSI K7D dual AMD's 1Gig ECC ram .... you know the drill. Installed RH9, loaded VMWARE, Win2k and all the apps - apart from a bug in the USB mouse or keyboard driver, not sure what, it's been rock solid.
Had I gone down this built it yourself path first I would have saved oodles o time. So much for ready built, name brand boxen.
I have built over 20 boxes and have had far more success that I did with the off the shelf stuff.
YMMV, comments are mine, only mine, not that of anyone else, and you'd be a fool to do what I do yadda yadda ....
Thanks for taking the time on this review.
I think you will find that many who appear to be extroverts have learned to appear that way but by some of the indicators are actually introverts.
I actually have worked with you and while you are possibly a more "classic" introvert you have learned to appear and do things that would normally be associated with an extrovert. Hence this may be why that introvert test you see is possibly skewed.
There are so many more dimensions to personality than just introvert/extrovert and some of the insights you see on this dimension have parallels in others.
There are other clinical conditions that have overwhelming effects on people and how to best work with them. Dyslexia is a HUGE factor as over 30-40% of people in the computer related disciplines are dyslexic to some degree and many don't even realize it. A lexic persona has extraordinarily different ways of processing information that a dyslexic one and many times what is obvious to one is black magic to another. Top these off with ADD, Aspergers and a few others and you already have a wild mix of personalities which quite frankly keeps it all the more interesting.
Also, you probably would not have appreciated this book had you read it when you were 20. It's only after the grief you allude to that you understand that this is very important for being able to work more effectively with others.
The one warning I have is that many people who realize the new "tricks" work well with people often make the mistake of applying the tool disregarding all other dimensions. It's the old "To a carpenter, all problems look like nails". This single dimensional thinking can get you into more trouble.
Glad to hear you're doing well.
O
Since when has SCO demonstrated ANY interest in the truth ? This is just more fodder for the SCO FUD machine.
The best thing we could all do is ingnore SCO and boycot them into oblivion and discuss the matter no further than we absolutly need to. While this document may be interesting, it's nothing extraordinary in that we have not already read it all before.
SCO has embarked on a truly extraordinary path of self destruction and they will get their wish. Let us not be the ones to prolong their demise.
If billg wants to start FUD wars, he will loose.
SCO is dead. I predict it will not last 18months, even if they are right and there is SCO code in Linux. You don't get too far in buisness by sueing your customers. Example: RIAA will find out here too - I am NEVER going to buy a piece of music from the affiliates of the RIAA. I will never listen to radio stations that plays songs from affiliates of the RIAA. Like I will never buy software from SCO.
If Microsoft starts getting litigious with it's customers (virtually all Linux users are also Windows users) it will suffer the same fate.
Bill, listen here - don't even hint at litigation with Linux users, just create better solutions where you can for a good price - heck start the Microsoft Linux distro and charge what you charge for WinXP ! Add some proprietary database and a few extra tools and you'll grab 90% of the "free software" market. If however, you feel like killing MS, then start suing or even barely hint at sueing your customers.
This could be interesting. Help the RIAA, get blacklisted from the internet. You could start somthing like SPEWS, but for the RIAA/MPAA. Simply put, if any evidence is provided, simply shut down the IP's, not just from the web server but from my entire network. I take the SPEWS list and regularly stuff it into ipchains to remove spammers. If I decide to simply refuse to carry your packets as a protest of the RIAA/MPAA behaviour then that's up to me.
The only thing is, once you're black-listed there's no coming back.... It could get ugly.
Another alternative is to only allow white list IP's to access a narrow range of services. That way you can operate you own private network of trusted users and share entertaining but non infringing material.
If you are right, the FTC would like to hear from you I am sure. SCO really deserves an audit, after all, it's in the SCO investors' interest to make sure that SCO is not inflating the situation.
Does this latest act cross the line on and start violating the GPL ? It smells like it does and I think it's a clear violation. If that's true, should GPL holders start filing a class action against SCO because they are now violating the GPL in a blatant fashion ?
Are you mad? This is slashdot.
There has to be a joker in every group.
I thought there was a law between separation of religion and programming ?
Yep, there is a neat way to do this. There is a discussion on comp.std.c++ that is discussing this now. It may have some holes but for the performance hungry, this may be the correct way to do this.
Would not this mean that every time you pass one of these things you will need to increment and decrement the reference count and possibly multple times ? No thanks.
OK, things have changed. This code did not compile with earlier compilers. Hmm, I still would like to it to be different but this may be ok for how I do things. Hmm, may it was multimaps that I was having trouble with ...
Anyway, I eat my words.
#include <algorithm>
#include <list>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
struct foo
{
foo(list<foo>& c)
: container(&c)
{
cout << "making " << (int)(this) << endl;
}
foo( const foo & other )
: container( other.container )
{
cout << "making " << (int)(this) << endl;
}
bool operator <( const foo & rhs)
{
return this < & rhs;
}
bool operator ==( const foo & rhs)
{
return this == & rhs;
}
void remove()
{
container->erase(i);
}
~foo()
{
cout << "killing " << (int)(this) << endl;
}
list<foo>* container;
list<foo>::iterator i;
};
int main()
{
list<foo> container;
container.push_front( container );
( * container.begin() ).i = container.begin();
container.push_front( container );
( * container.begin() ).i = container.begin();
list<foo>::iterator x = container.begin();
container.push_front( container );
( * container.begin() ).i = container.begin();
x->remove();
}
An efficient way to support objects like COM.