What is your reasoning for this statement, TFA mentions no such fact. Instead it claims that Amazon's argument was that a subsidiary owned the facility. However, the real issue is that the facility wasn't a point of sale. So Amazon, if it can get to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a good argument that Texas' actions violated the Commerce Clause.
If Texas prevails, it could mean that states claiming that USPS, FedEx, and UPS are agents of Amazon and therefore Amazon owes sales tax because those three companies have presences in each state might have a shot.
So, I wouldn't count peek and poke statements as hacking assembly. And even though I had one at the time, 1991 was not the year of the Commodore 64. 1991 was the year of the x486 (or Amiga 3000, take your pic).
On the other hand, the poster was a bit petulant, although the article isn't all bad, and it isn't all good. The article had a focus on vendors needing to encode to H.264 for flash (meaning double encoding if they also want WebM) which was kind of odd, since you can code a flash container for any video format.
Not an hour before getting to court, an hour before getting picked for a specific jury. The difference is that they question you during the selection process to see what it is you know (to a greater or lesser extent, and usually not individually). Anything after that point is something new they don't know you know.
You are normally asked whether you know that type of information (although they might go too broad and ask if you're a doctor, instead of asking if you have knowledge of rape trauma). If you do, you are normally dismissed. If this does not happen, that's the fault of the lawyers. This is true for most types of technical knowledge related to a case.
The maintenance on 4 year old workstations tends to be higher than on new workstations. An older workstation will most likely use more power than a new workstation. From there it's just ROI analysis.
An alternate would be to drop any maintenance on old workstations, and purchase new ones as replacement, so that over time the company would move to new workstations (with the exception of the one guy whose workstation will never die even after 20 years, but you'll be able to get rid of it once he retires).
It seems to me that you are trying to be sarcastic, but that is a valid statement. Unless you have a meaningful definition of cloud which excludes Email and Web Hosting (i.e. Apache/IIS).
In the US there isn't really that bright a line between libel and satire. What is acceptable is modified by its believability and also by the status of the person.
If a person is locally or nationally famous, you can frequently use their name and likeness in a pardoy without modification (not that many people do that, typical usage does change their name or likeness).
Further, if the accusation is completely unbeliveable by the average person that knows about them, then that's not actionable either.
Now, if the page was belivable, then if no modification was made to his likeness (i.e. it was believable enough that a concerned parent might try to get the police involved), then it's libel.
BTW, I believe libel is a civil offense not a crime.
</Standard IANAL claim>
According to the link, the original source of the graph was http://nstars.nau.edu/nau_nstars/multi_search_start.php. From here it is possible to do a search by distance and have stars within a range returned. Searching for the range of 0 to 24.53 parsecs gave 2539 results. Also, the other sextuplet system that is closer is somewehre around 50 lightyears away.
It depends on how you cook the statistic, if 100% of the "raging pirate's" programs were pirated (including the OS, just for thoroughness) and 0% of the other people's programs were pirated that would be 0.1% of people that had pirated programs. If you say that "raging pirate" has 8,400 programs installed, and that the other people only have 100 programs each, then you can say that 41% of programs are pirated even though only 0.1% of the people are pirating. It also implies that 0.1% of the people have 41% of the programs, which may or may not be true IRL.
There was a three year period between 1995 and 1997 where some works passed into the public domain due to copyright expiration (falling under the 75 year term of the Copyright Act of 1976), prior to that it was 1975 (under the 28 or 56 year terms of the Copyright Act of 1909). The next time something might fall out is in 2018 (under the 95 year term of the Copyright Act of 1998).
The problem becomes space in the data center. I don't know about you, but we're trying to cram Petabytes into existing computer rooms and coming up short. Plus you don't address Tier 2 or Tier 3 storage which tends to be on SATA or near-line SAS both of which have the ridiculous size problem. Calling 15,000 RPM fast in the datacenter is also misleading because those are the speeds we've been at for a few years now, 10GB iSCSI (or FCoE, which bypasses the collison problem) is about to render that untenable. The current solution tends toward storage virtualization (in this case virtualization means excessive amounts of high-speed cache in front of controllers and less control on where controllers allocate space). The future is most likely some kind of grid technology (like XIV from IBM). Where any blcok is on two random drives in the array, and only the controller knows where. This means that drive rebuilds become subject to swarm speeds (since there is an equal chance that it is pulling data from every other drive in the tower).
They also have the goal of requiring inventors to publish exactly how something works. Allowing others to reproduce it and make improvements on it. The thought was that without the limited-time monopoly, inventors would hoard their findings and never publish, preventing other people from improving existing inventions.
Section 1.10.32 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC
"Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?"
1914 translation by H. Rackham
"But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?"
<unreferenced half-rememberd fact>Yes, but most statutory damages laws are written with the thought that the defendants will be small companies or corporations (in the case of copyright, the black marketers that run it as a business).</unreferenced half-remembered fact><br> <opinion>Applying the same statutes to individuals is wrong and does not serve the common good.</opinion><br>As to perjury, both sides could probably be investigated for that -- she had her Hard-drive replaced after the alleged infringement, but testified it was replaced before the alleged infrigement; the defense has submitted techincal testimony that is factually incorrect in some cases (mostly concerning the nature of associating IPs with individuals, also concerning the methods they use for gathering information).<br> <rant>It hasn't seemed to happen yet, but I wish someone would argue that metadata that is transmitted in IP packets is not data that is freely accessible (In fact the opposite has been cited by the defense). Seriously, the way the court documents read it's like "Well, they were sending us IP packets so when we cracked them open we got the IP address just like every user can." as if every user knew how to do this, and could do it without special (special in this case is relative as depending on the OS, the software may be built in) software. I think the closest analogy might be whatever laws concern the use of caller ID numbers to identify someone, which may in fact be weak (i.e. anything generated by the caller id is freely usable in court), I admit I haven't looked it up</rant>
The United States v. Lopez case was cited in the GP's article as an example of the Sumpreme court at the time being more willing to reign in Congress when it overstepped constitutional bounds. So, if Eldred v. Ashcroft was held later it would have less chance of success than when it was originally tried (using United States v Lopez and similar cases as a measuring stick of the Court's attitude towards allowing Congress more power).
It must be a California Thing, I remember that the Blues Brothers managed to jump their car 160 miles with it being damaged (they started the chase in Illinois, ended up going off of a bridge in Milwaukee, passed part of the milwaukee skyline, passed part of the chicago skyline, somehow U-turned in midair, landed back in Milwaukee, and continued the chase in Chicago).
Slashdot Mirror
What is your reasoning for this statement, TFA mentions no such fact. Instead it claims that Amazon's argument was that a subsidiary owned the facility. However, the real issue is that the facility wasn't a point of sale. So Amazon, if it can get to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a good argument that Texas' actions violated the Commerce Clause. If Texas prevails, it could mean that states claiming that USPS, FedEx, and UPS are agents of Amazon and therefore Amazon owes sales tax because those three companies have presences in each state might have a shot.
I believe the parent is referring to the box the system came in, which would have advertisement of OtherOS (presumably, I don't have one).
No, that's the NY Post, the NY Times is the MSNBC of print.
Alternately, The Washington Times:FoxNews::Washington Post:MSNBC
So, I wouldn't count peek and poke statements as hacking assembly. And even though I had one at the time, 1991 was not the year of the Commodore 64. 1991 was the year of the x486 (or Amiga 3000, take your pic).
On the other hand, the poster was a bit petulant, although the article isn't all bad, and it isn't all good. The article had a focus on vendors needing to encode to H.264 for flash (meaning double encoding if they also want WebM) which was kind of odd, since you can code a flash container for any video format.
Not an hour before getting to court, an hour before getting picked for a specific jury. The difference is that they question you during the selection process to see what it is you know (to a greater or lesser extent, and usually not individually). Anything after that point is something new they don't know you know.
You are normally asked whether you know that type of information (although they might go too broad and ask if you're a doctor, instead of asking if you have knowledge of rape trauma). If you do, you are normally dismissed. If this does not happen, that's the fault of the lawyers. This is true for most types of technical knowledge related to a case.
The maintenance on 4 year old workstations tends to be higher than on new workstations. An older workstation will most likely use more power than a new workstation. From there it's just ROI analysis. An alternate would be to drop any maintenance on old workstations, and purchase new ones as replacement, so that over time the company would move to new workstations (with the exception of the one guy whose workstation will never die even after 20 years, but you'll be able to get rid of it once he retires).
It seems to me that you are trying to be sarcastic, but that is a valid statement. Unless you have a meaningful definition of cloud which excludes Email and Web Hosting (i.e. Apache/IIS).
But it's even with the nVidia 570, and costs $20 more...
I did, twice.
No, but mindfully punching keys is work.
In the US there isn't really that bright a line between libel and satire. What is acceptable is modified by its believability and also by the status of the person.
If a person is locally or nationally famous, you can frequently use their name and likeness in a pardoy without modification (not that many people do that, typical usage does change their name or likeness).
Further, if the accusation is completely unbeliveable by the average person that knows about them, then that's not actionable either.
Now, if the page was belivable, then if no modification was made to his likeness (i.e. it was believable enough that a concerned parent might try to get the police involved), then it's libel.
BTW, I believe libel is a civil offense not a crime.
</Standard IANAL claim>
According to the link, the original source of the graph was http://nstars.nau.edu/nau_nstars/multi_search_start.php. From here it is possible to do a search by distance and have stars within a range returned. Searching for the range of 0 to 24.53 parsecs gave 2539 results. Also, the other sextuplet system that is closer is somewehre around 50 lightyears away.
It depends on how you cook the statistic, if 100% of the "raging pirate's" programs were pirated (including the OS, just for thoroughness) and 0% of the other people's programs were pirated that would be 0.1% of people that had pirated programs. If you say that "raging pirate" has 8,400 programs installed, and that the other people only have 100 programs each, then you can say that 41% of programs are pirated even though only 0.1% of the people are pirating. It also implies that 0.1% of the people have 41% of the programs, which may or may not be true IRL.
There was a three year period between 1995 and 1997 where some works passed into the public domain due to copyright expiration (falling under the 75 year term of the Copyright Act of 1976), prior to that it was 1975 (under the 28 or 56 year terms of the Copyright Act of 1909). The next time something might fall out is in 2018 (under the 95 year term of the Copyright Act of 1998).
The problem becomes space in the data center. I don't know about you, but we're trying to cram Petabytes into existing computer rooms and coming up short. Plus you don't address Tier 2 or Tier 3 storage which tends to be on SATA or near-line SAS both of which have the ridiculous size problem. Calling 15,000 RPM fast in the datacenter is also misleading because those are the speeds we've been at for a few years now, 10GB iSCSI (or FCoE, which bypasses the collison problem) is about to render that untenable. The current solution tends toward storage virtualization (in this case virtualization means excessive amounts of high-speed cache in front of controllers and less control on where controllers allocate space). The future is most likely some kind of grid technology (like XIV from IBM). Where any blcok is on two random drives in the array, and only the controller knows where. This means that drive rebuilds become subject to swarm speeds (since there is an equal chance that it is pulling data from every other drive in the tower).
They also have the goal of requiring inventors to publish exactly how something works. Allowing others to reproduce it and make improvements on it. The thought was that without the limited-time monopoly, inventors would hoard their findings and never publish, preventing other people from improving existing inventions.
Only 75% of Complete Warrior was reprinted material (from the 3.0 fighter splat book, Sword and Fist if I remember correctly).
<unreferenced half-rememberd fact>Yes, but most statutory damages laws are written with the thought that the defendants will be small companies or corporations (in the case of copyright, the black marketers that run it as a business).</unreferenced half-remembered fact><br> <opinion>Applying the same statutes to individuals is wrong and does not serve the common good.</opinion><br>As to perjury, both sides could probably be investigated for that -- she had her Hard-drive replaced after the alleged infringement, but testified it was replaced before the alleged infrigement; the defense has submitted techincal testimony that is factually incorrect in some cases (mostly concerning the nature of associating IPs with individuals, also concerning the methods they use for gathering information).<br>
<rant>It hasn't seemed to happen yet, but I wish someone would argue that metadata that is transmitted in IP packets is not data that is freely accessible (In fact the opposite has been cited by the defense). Seriously, the way the court documents read it's like "Well, they were sending us IP packets so when we cracked them open we got the IP address just like every user can." as if every user knew how to do this, and could do it without special (special in this case is relative as depending on the OS, the software may be built in) software. I think the closest analogy might be whatever laws concern the use of caller ID numbers to identify someone, which may in fact be weak (i.e. anything generated by the caller id is freely usable in court), I admit I haven't looked it up</rant>
I appologize about the excessive parentheses
Way way off topic, but what you're referring to is probably a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_mask.
The United States v. Lopez case was cited in the GP's article as an example of the Sumpreme court at the time being more willing to reign in Congress when it overstepped constitutional bounds. So, if Eldred v. Ashcroft was held later it would have less chance of success than when it was originally tried (using United States v Lopez and similar cases as a measuring stick of the Court's attitude towards allowing Congress more power).
It must be a California Thing, I remember that the Blues Brothers managed to jump their car 160 miles with it being damaged (they started the chase in Illinois, ended up going off of a bridge in Milwaukee, passed part of the milwaukee skyline, passed part of the chicago skyline, somehow U-turned in midair, landed back in Milwaukee, and continued the chase in Chicago).
The correct comparison here would be:
DOS - Core OS - Linux
Windows 95 - GUI Shell - X Windows
Although I'm not sure that is entirely accurate.
Everybody is ignoring Windows NT 5.2 (Server 2003 in 2003). Also Windows NT 6.0 includes Server 2008 as well as Vista.