You're still thinking the proprietary world. Why not install RedHat on both machines? Why would you want a dev environment to be different from the production one? The only limitations would be on any Non-GPL software that may be included with the Redhat install, but I don't think they do that.
You aren't a strict creationist, though. "God working through Evolution" is a way many religious people reconcile science with their beliefs. "True" creationists reject scientific proof on grounds like you see in this article in favor of their beliefs, roughly along the lines of "See, this one thing wasn't known 100%! That means that scientists are lying bastards and you can't trust them with anything, but God has never lied, and he created you!"
The flash cards themselves are very robust against physical abuse, but what about time? Are they prone to electron migration or anything like that over 25 years? I can't find any research on it after some quick googling, but I'd be worried about putting all my eggs in that basket and finding that NAND or NOR memory tends to bit-flip after 10 years or so...
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but it's a dessicant bag that you want, not an ANTI-dessicant bag. An anti-dessicant bag would do the opposite of what you want.
Secondly, if a dessicant bag gets soggy, that would mean that your capsule wasn't sealed as well as you thought, so it wouldn't matter that much whether you had one or not. A small dessicant bag is plenty for a relatively large volume of air, until you start getting to where you're exchanging that air from inside the container to outside of it.
...right. OSHA totally rates mineral oil mist as a 1 (slightly flammable). Mineral oil is even used commonly in HV transformers, which reach MUCH higher temperatures than will be experienced by even malfunctioning computer parts.
That's the problem. You don't get to see the EULA BEFORE you purchase it. You have no information in the matter, therefore, the EULA should have no force.
I can't sell you a car and after you give me your money, say "Oh, BTW, you can only fill it with gas at my gas station down the street". That's what an EULA attempts to do, and it isn't conscionable. The only way it should be enforceable is if you knew of that condition BEFORE the purchase.
USB 2 theoretically supplies up to 500mA at 5V at the controller. It gets less as you start adding hubs (which is why many hubs are powered). The USB ports that don't work with the drive probably don't supply enough current to run the drive. The Y adapter isn't to speed up USB 1.0 connections, but just to give the drive enough power to spin up. If you look closely, one of the cables in the Y is thicker than the other. The thicker one is the data cable, the thinner one is supplementary power.
No, Blackberries just require the full 500mA that a USB port will provide. Most USB ports won't switch to this automatically without a driver. I haven't had a problem with any wall wart I've ever used for it, but I'll trust you've found one that supplies less than 500mA. To charge a Blackberry on Linux, there's a toolset called "barry" which contains bcharge, which detects the port that the Blackberry is connected to and switches it to 500mA, and poof, it starts charging.
The MiniUSB devices that really have problems are the Motorola ones. I have yet to find one that doesn't have some kind of proprietary crap. My SLVR, and my wife's Q (she just got rid of it in favor of a T-Mobile Dash) both refuse to charge on non-Motorola wall-warts.
You're an imbecile. In your first example, the BRAND of diesel doesn't matter. A car running on diesel is comparable to a PC based on a PowerPC chip (if we're sticking with analogies). There's no reason you can't put any OS on it, it's just some OS's will work TECHNICALLY, and others won't. Same with the fuel. The Apple OS technically works on Psystar's machines, otherwise they wouldn't sell it.
Your second example is a great example of hitting a strawman out of the park. Well, kinda... your "example" really doesn't make any sense to a native English speaker. I'm assuming you meant something along the lines of a manufacturer sells expensive wheels, and you expect them to support it running on a cardboard box. That doesn't mean they WON'T work with whatever you want, just that you can't expect the manufacturer to support it. No one is expecting Apple to support OSX running on Psystar's machines. If you do, Apple is perfectly right in telling you to go screw yourself.
This whole debacle is about EULA's, and the assumption that by simply writing one you gain rights over and above what is granted to you by law. Psystar is contesting that, as the EULA can't be entered into legally as a contract due to the way that the product is presented and sold, therefore things should default back to the traditional right of first sale and other principles that have existed for ages.
Get a clue, junior. Don't make noise while the adults are talking;)
It's NOT more secure, though. It's simply very slightly easier. It encourages people to use plaintext HTTP instead of HTTPS for communication except with people who can afford root certificates. Do you really think it's better using NO encryption or authentication than to use self-signed encryption that is authenticated on every subsequent access? If you do, I certainly hope you aren't in the security biz.
There's no small-claims court in Canada? I know that we have that here in the US, and it's great for smaller sums. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get a lawsuit started, and you can generally represent yourself fairly well.
That's why we do drive-level encryption. We have enough data that's sensitive for our clients that we just encrypt the heck out of everything. Both the convenience of not needing to shuttle gigabytes of data through a VPN, and the security of knowing someone will have to work pretty hard to get into the machine, if it's at all possible for someone short of government-level access to drive decryption keys and such.
Comcast just started blocking port 25 in all directions for me. I'm looking for a new ISP just because of that. They want you to use 587, which basically means that there are no mail servers on the Internet which can connect to your machine. I talked to their tech support, and they're just as incompetent as ever. I used to be happy with the service, but ever since we got our DVR and it won't record Top Gear, I'm over it.
Copyright is a right that is allowed by society to allow a creator to profit from their work for a limited time. The point is that people that couldn't profit from their work if it was instantly copied would now be encouraged to create. Progress of the useful arts and all that.
And yes, I DO deem you lazy if you want to keep making money off of something you created years ago. You had the chance to profit then, and now society should get paid for the rights it gave you. If you want to keep making money, keep making new things. If you want to give your kids something, save and invest your money wisely. Copyright as it is simply stagnates culture, because as we have it now nothing can build on what came before. Look at Disney... look how much public domain they pulled from (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Pinnochio, etc.), and have now locked up. Imagine how much more our culture could have if it properly rolled over into public domain, so that people can do the exact same things with Disney's movies that Disney did to the previous work. Same with these games. Same with anything that's a creative work. A limited time to profit, and even if it's popular, it should return to the society that enabled it through copyright. Especially if it's popular.
I don't think there's a problem with making it illegal to sell other people's copyrighted works. What I'm annoyed with is the length of copyright. There's no reason for copyright to still apply to the games of this system. Nintendo has more than profited from it, and new products like this are actually wanted developments. But how many other products like it exist? Are there ANY that are "blessed" by the various game manufacturers that are "infringed" on?
I don't think DS games should be out of copyright yet. I think that there's still time to profit from them. But I do think that NES development is over and done with, and the creators have moved on to other things. They should NOT be paid for things that they no longer create. Copyright should not be a license to print money, as it is now. It should be a license to make new things without fear of being ripped off immediately, and that's it.
I'd love to do nothing and make money from it too. Wouldn't everyone? The purpose of copyright isn't to make anyone who creates something popular rich, though. It's to make society as a whole richer, and encourage people who create things to make new things. You know, progressing things, rather than keeping them the same.
If you were still creating games, I'd say you deserve to get reimbursed for your work and contribution to society. As it is, you think you should be reimbursed for being a lazy asshole who did some work once, and thinks you should get paid for it forever. I don't care WHAT media is created, there should be a limit on the amount of time you can profit from it, and then society gets it, because after all, society is the one who gave you copyright in the first place, and gave you the opportunity to profit from it at all.
That's a very silly metric for copyright. Because all that'll happen is that a company will produce one of everything they own (it doesn't cost much to burn a CD) each year, pretend to sell it, and sit on the copyright until they can sue someone over it. Not to mention, how can you tell that something would then be out of copyright? There's no easy way for someone to say "aha, this isn't being used any more!".
The only sane solution is that copyright should be for a fixed, short term so that the creator can make money off of their initial work, then it should go into the public domain. The creator should keep working making new things if they want to keep making money past copyright.
Just because they're still profiting off of it should have no bearing on whether it's still under copyright or not.
Copyright should be to advance society, not the producers of content. Copyright gives a limited monopoly on things you create, in order to enrich society as a whole. Using it as the gravy train it has become will do nothing but lock more and more of our public domain culture up in new copyright interpretations (cf. Disney)
So... you're saying that artists should actually have to work and have some skill to get paid, rather than just be paid simply for calling themselves artists and making something? And there are sometimes politics involved? Say it ain't so!
Yes, I would have have paid to see a sculpture exhibition. And other art exhibitions. It's not unheard of.
Slashdot Mirror
Jump starting the universe at any point has a name: Last Thursdayism. It's not even worth thinking about, since there's nothing you can do about it ;)
You're still thinking the proprietary world. Why not install RedHat on both machines? Why would you want a dev environment to be different from the production one? The only limitations would be on any Non-GPL software that may be included with the Redhat install, but I don't think they do that.
You aren't a strict creationist, though. "God working through Evolution" is a way many religious people reconcile science with their beliefs. "True" creationists reject scientific proof on grounds like you see in this article in favor of their beliefs, roughly along the lines of "See, this one thing wasn't known 100%! That means that scientists are lying bastards and you can't trust them with anything, but God has never lied, and he created you!"
Sounds like you need to find a better data center.
If only we had some kind of Scalable Vector Graphic that would allow us to do logos and such, that was a W3C standard... ahhh, but to dream.
Why don't we worry about supporting existing standards, instead of making new ones that are useless?
Or even:
4. Life arises somewhere else, and is transported to Earth and Mars by a known mechanism
The flash cards themselves are very robust against physical abuse, but what about time? Are they prone to electron migration or anything like that over 25 years? I can't find any research on it after some quick googling, but I'd be worried about putting all my eggs in that basket and finding that NAND or NOR memory tends to bit-flip after 10 years or so...
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but it's a dessicant bag that you want, not an ANTI-dessicant bag. An anti-dessicant bag would do the opposite of what you want.
Secondly, if a dessicant bag gets soggy, that would mean that your capsule wasn't sealed as well as you thought, so it wouldn't matter that much whether you had one or not. A small dessicant bag is plenty for a relatively large volume of air, until you start getting to where you're exchanging that air from inside the container to outside of it.
Why is SQL Server even included in what God intended? ;)
...right. OSHA totally rates mineral oil mist as a 1 (slightly flammable). Mineral oil is even used commonly in HV transformers, which reach MUCH higher temperatures than will be experienced by even malfunctioning computer parts.
That's the problem. You don't get to see the EULA BEFORE you purchase it. You have no information in the matter, therefore, the EULA should have no force.
I can't sell you a car and after you give me your money, say "Oh, BTW, you can only fill it with gas at my gas station down the street". That's what an EULA attempts to do, and it isn't conscionable. The only way it should be enforceable is if you knew of that condition BEFORE the purchase.
Don't forget Colorado. Red state, but we're paying more than we're getting back, only slightly less than New York.
Easterners need to stop thinking they're somehow special, or are "suffering for everyone else".
USB 2 theoretically supplies up to 500mA at 5V at the controller. It gets less as you start adding hubs (which is why many hubs are powered). The USB ports that don't work with the drive probably don't supply enough current to run the drive. The Y adapter isn't to speed up USB 1.0 connections, but just to give the drive enough power to spin up. If you look closely, one of the cables in the Y is thicker than the other. The thicker one is the data cable, the thinner one is supplementary power.
No, Blackberries just require the full 500mA that a USB port will provide. Most USB ports won't switch to this automatically without a driver. I haven't had a problem with any wall wart I've ever used for it, but I'll trust you've found one that supplies less than 500mA. To charge a Blackberry on Linux, there's a toolset called "barry" which contains bcharge, which detects the port that the Blackberry is connected to and switches it to 500mA, and poof, it starts charging.
The MiniUSB devices that really have problems are the Motorola ones. I have yet to find one that doesn't have some kind of proprietary crap. My SLVR, and my wife's Q (she just got rid of it in favor of a T-Mobile Dash) both refuse to charge on non-Motorola wall-warts.
You're an imbecile. In your first example, the BRAND of diesel doesn't matter. A car running on diesel is comparable to a PC based on a PowerPC chip (if we're sticking with analogies). There's no reason you can't put any OS on it, it's just some OS's will work TECHNICALLY, and others won't. Same with the fuel. The Apple OS technically works on Psystar's machines, otherwise they wouldn't sell it.
Your second example is a great example of hitting a strawman out of the park. Well, kinda... your "example" really doesn't make any sense to a native English speaker. I'm assuming you meant something along the lines of a manufacturer sells expensive wheels, and you expect them to support it running on a cardboard box. That doesn't mean they WON'T work with whatever you want, just that you can't expect the manufacturer to support it. No one is expecting Apple to support OSX running on Psystar's machines. If you do, Apple is perfectly right in telling you to go screw yourself.
This whole debacle is about EULA's, and the assumption that by simply writing one you gain rights over and above what is granted to you by law. Psystar is contesting that, as the EULA can't be entered into legally as a contract due to the way that the product is presented and sold, therefore things should default back to the traditional right of first sale and other principles that have existed for ages.
Get a clue, junior. Don't make noise while the adults are talking ;)
It's NOT more secure, though. It's simply very slightly easier. It encourages people to use plaintext HTTP instead of HTTPS for communication except with people who can afford root certificates. Do you really think it's better using NO encryption or authentication than to use self-signed encryption that is authenticated on every subsequent access? If you do, I certainly hope you aren't in the security biz.
There's no small-claims court in Canada? I know that we have that here in the US, and it's great for smaller sums. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get a lawsuit started, and you can generally represent yourself fairly well.
That's why we do drive-level encryption. We have enough data that's sensitive for our clients that we just encrypt the heck out of everything. Both the convenience of not needing to shuttle gigabytes of data through a VPN, and the security of knowing someone will have to work pretty hard to get into the machine, if it's at all possible for someone short of government-level access to drive decryption keys and such.
Comcast just started blocking port 25 in all directions for me. I'm looking for a new ISP just because of that. They want you to use 587, which basically means that there are no mail servers on the Internet which can connect to your machine. I talked to their tech support, and they're just as incompetent as ever. I used to be happy with the service, but ever since we got our DVR and it won't record Top Gear, I'm over it.
Copyright is a right that is allowed by society to allow a creator to profit from their work for a limited time. The point is that people that couldn't profit from their work if it was instantly copied would now be encouraged to create. Progress of the useful arts and all that.
And yes, I DO deem you lazy if you want to keep making money off of something you created years ago. You had the chance to profit then, and now society should get paid for the rights it gave you. If you want to keep making money, keep making new things. If you want to give your kids something, save and invest your money wisely. Copyright as it is simply stagnates culture, because as we have it now nothing can build on what came before. Look at Disney... look how much public domain they pulled from (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Pinnochio, etc.), and have now locked up. Imagine how much more our culture could have if it properly rolled over into public domain, so that people can do the exact same things with Disney's movies that Disney did to the previous work. Same with these games. Same with anything that's a creative work. A limited time to profit, and even if it's popular, it should return to the society that enabled it through copyright. Especially if it's popular.
I don't think there's a problem with making it illegal to sell other people's copyrighted works. What I'm annoyed with is the length of copyright. There's no reason for copyright to still apply to the games of this system. Nintendo has more than profited from it, and new products like this are actually wanted developments. But how many other products like it exist? Are there ANY that are "blessed" by the various game manufacturers that are "infringed" on?
I don't think DS games should be out of copyright yet. I think that there's still time to profit from them. But I do think that NES development is over and done with, and the creators have moved on to other things. They should NOT be paid for things that they no longer create. Copyright should not be a license to print money, as it is now. It should be a license to make new things without fear of being ripped off immediately, and that's it.
I'd love to do nothing and make money from it too. Wouldn't everyone? The purpose of copyright isn't to make anyone who creates something popular rich, though. It's to make society as a whole richer, and encourage people who create things to make new things. You know, progressing things, rather than keeping them the same.
If you were still creating games, I'd say you deserve to get reimbursed for your work and contribution to society. As it is, you think you should be reimbursed for being a lazy asshole who did some work once, and thinks you should get paid for it forever. I don't care WHAT media is created, there should be a limit on the amount of time you can profit from it, and then society gets it, because after all, society is the one who gave you copyright in the first place, and gave you the opportunity to profit from it at all.
That's a very silly metric for copyright. Because all that'll happen is that a company will produce one of everything they own (it doesn't cost much to burn a CD) each year, pretend to sell it, and sit on the copyright until they can sue someone over it. Not to mention, how can you tell that something would then be out of copyright? There's no easy way for someone to say "aha, this isn't being used any more!".
The only sane solution is that copyright should be for a fixed, short term so that the creator can make money off of their initial work, then it should go into the public domain. The creator should keep working making new things if they want to keep making money past copyright.
Just because they're still profiting off of it should have no bearing on whether it's still under copyright or not.
Copyright should be to advance society, not the producers of content. Copyright gives a limited monopoly on things you create, in order to enrich society as a whole. Using it as the gravy train it has become will do nothing but lock more and more of our public domain culture up in new copyright interpretations (cf. Disney)
So... you're saying that artists should actually have to work and have some skill to get paid, rather than just be paid simply for calling themselves artists and making something? And there are sometimes politics involved? Say it ain't so!
Yes, I would have have paid to see a sculpture exhibition. And other art exhibitions. It's not unheard of.