They are no way interested in reducing the number of patents they want to obtain every year. They are getting the most patents in any given year, and ofcourse by definition they must be getting the most number of frivolous patents also in any given year.
What crack are you smoking? Just because they get the most patents in no way shape or form means they get the most frivolous patents. To claim that is "by definition" is idiotic. Suppose we have 100,000 patents filed a year, 30% of which are "frivolous", giving us 30,000 frivolous patents. Suppose IBM files 60% of the patents. There is absolutely NO conclusion that you can draw from that data alone. None at all. Assuming IBM is as likely to file frivolous patents as every other filer (a pretty tenuous assumption), THEN you can conclude it is likely that IBM filed more frivolous patents than anyone else. But that requires assumptions on your part. Pretty far from "obviously by definition".
The world would be a smarter place if a basic statisics course was required of everyone...
The first case is clearly entrapment. Read my post carefully. If the police officer approaches you, it is probably entrapment. If you approach him, it proably isn't.
The second case is not entrapment because the police officer didn't give you the marijuana. If the guy who gave it to you was acting on behalf of the police, and wasn't prosecuted himself, then it would be entrapment. (Don't accept drugs from strangers...)
I'm not saying it's right. It's just not the police's fault. There is nothing to keep you from turning the other guy in.
If they were busting the sites for the warez which they uploaded, then that would be planting evidence. If they were busting them for the other warez, then that would NOT be evidence planting. Get your terminology correct.
I don't know about Swedish law, but under American law providing servers and warez would probably be considered entrapment. (Entrapment is not as simple as many people think.)
Here is an example: If a police officer sells someone 1 kg of marijuana, and then turn around and arrest them, and they have 2kgs of marijuana, then that is not planting evidence. It might be entrapment, but it depends.
If on the other hand, a police officer plants 1 kg of marijuana, and then busts them for having 2 kgs of marijuana, it is evidence planting. (Likely the arrest would be thrown out, because the police likely couldn't prove they didn't plant all of the marijuana)
If a police officer sells someone marijuana, and then busts them for posession, then it is probably entrapment (but there are exceptions).
If a police officer sells someone marijuana after being propositioned, then it is NOT entrapment.
The important legal difference is that private copies are legal in Germany. Again: In Germany, I can take a DVD, CD, video, whatever, and rip a copy for my own private use. Of course, if I start distributing that copy or screen it in a public place etc. they get to throw the book at me, and will do so very, very hard.
In America, private copies are not only legal, they are a right. Under the generally accepted interpretations of Fair Use (As established in the Copyright Act of 1976), everybody is entitled to copy works for their private use. The big difference being that we don't have to pay for this right when we buy copiers or scanners or computer, we pay the additional value that the market places on this right when we buy the copyrighted good itself. Doesn't that make sense? Why should I pay a tax when I buy a scanner if I only scan in my own personal photos? Doesn't it make sense to pay more when I buy the copyrighted items themselves?
Now, when I buy a computer, I have paid for that private copy, so industry can just go shove a bratwurst up their Po, with mustard.
Once again, why does it make sense to pay for that right by paying a set tax on an item that is indirectly related to the copying? A computer is unnecessary for copying, but the copyrighted work is essential. So, basically, you are paying for that right to copy well more than once. You are paying whenever you buy a computer, a scanner or a copier. In America, you pay for that right only once, when you buy the work itself.
As somebody who has lived in Germany for a while let me say that German law for the most part is a very sane, logical, and balanced system that almost across the board is superior to the 18th Century money-comes-first atavism that the U.S. is forced to suffer through.
That "18th Century money-comes-first atavism" is the belief that above all else, the preservation of private property is essential. It seems to me that the US understands its economics a little better than Germany, whose economy has one of the slowest growth rates of any European countries. No one benefits when the economy doesn't work, not even Socialist countries. Look back at what happened in the Weimar Republic for a history lesson in bad German Economics.
Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored the badly destroyed electric grid in only three months. Some six months after Bush declared an end to major hostilities, a much more ambitious and costly American effort has yet to get to that point.
Yes, it is pretty amazing what you can do when you hold a gun to someone's head. Literally. Or maybe you forgot. This was a man whose son would grab women off the street and rape them. He tortured people by the thousands, for no good reason.
I think that if you had to seriously worry about your entire family "disappearing" because you didn't meet an impossible schedule, you would meet it too.
I am afraid that you do not understand the subject matter. These terms would be parts of parole, not Contempt of Court. Parole is basically the prisoner trading hard time for external life, with extreme restrictions.
Contempt of court (in the American System) has two forms of occurence and two forms of punishment. There are Direct (telling the judge to go fuck himself) and Indirect (disobeying a court ordered moratorium on proceedings) forms. The punishment can be either Criminal (jail time) or Civil (removal from the courtroom). Civil punishment ceases once compliance with the judge's orders are met, and Criminal punishment requires a trial, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I really don't see too much room for "pure arbitrariness", because Judges who act improperly can be censured, and federal judges can be impeached. Local judges are typically elected officials, so they have the same responsibilities to the public as say the sheriff, who has far more power.
I am sorry that you seem to think that it opens the door to "pure arbitrariness", but doesn't giving any position of power do the same? I would hope that we have enough faith in the judicial system that this small bit of power isn't so abused as to be to a net deficit?
You clearly don't understand basic statistics. I suggest you go drop in a Freshman stats course some time, it might be educational.
Correlation simply means there is an association. You are 99% confident that the positive effect E-Voting had on the Bush vote is XX +- X%, or you KNOW that X% of the up swing in Bush votes can be explained by whether or not there were E-Voting machines, but you are NOT 99% confident that there is a correlation. That makes absolutely no sense.
This data doesn't use any exit polls. This data is comparing the past elections to the current one. Your comment is irrelevant in this context.
As an aside, isn't it possible that this is actually evidence of past Democratic fraud? If a Democratic county goes 90% to Gore rather then the expected 75%, who will notice? It's a good way of padding the margins. Maybe the electronic voting machines were invulnerable to the traditional methods of fraud, and that is why the results are statistically significant?
That case is completely irrelevant to the issue. It simply states that privacy on a COMPANY PROVIDED network does not exist. As it shouldn't; if it uses business resources it should have a business use.
If I leave a message for you in your internal company mailbox, I don't expect it to be kept private. This ruling just extended that common sense to E-mail.
What that ruling did NOT do was say anything about email privacy on the internet at large. I suggest you read that link a little bit closer, as well as the original disclaimer at the bottom of the letter and see what it really says, not what you WANT it to say.
That's not the point. I know they are in no way or shape binding, however, it shows the clients (who presumably receive emails) that the professional at least looks like he cares about their privacy. It's just standard courtesy.
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
I don't see anything in there that suggests that there is any punishment or liability to not following the instructions. That's like saying I have a "please wipe your shoes before you come in" sign on my house or a bumper sticker that asks drivers to be considerate. That fact that no contract has been made and there are no legally binding situations doesn't make me look like a moron.
Give me a break. Sure it sounds like Nintendo is barking up the wrong tree, but let's not just beat up on them for no reason.
the email they received was unsolicited and therefore SPAM
That may be your way of looking at spam, but that is unacceptable for most people. Say your Uncle Sal, whom you haven't spoken with in 10 years because he lives on the other side of the country, happens across your email, say on a University board or something. Is his email Spam?
that stupid ass disclaimer on the email just makes the sender look like a moron.
That "stupid ass disclaimer" is SOP for most professionals such as lawyers, doctors, accountants and anyone who deals with confidential messages. It doesn't make him look like a moron, in fact he would look like an asshole if he DIDN'T have it on there. All the email I receive from doctors or lawyers (and my IT company specializes in the Health Care Industry) have a very similar disclaimer on them. It's just an automatic signature.
"As a Texan, I have to say that is a totally false and highly partisan mischaracterization of the situation prior to the Republican's abusive redistricting."
Ok, then how do you reconcile the fact that a majority of Texans voted Republican, yet a majority of the US Reps. were Democrat? Last time I checked, the 53% majority enjoyed by the Democrats was a hell of a lot farther from the 39.1% they received in the Presidential campaign then the 65% majority the Republicans would receive from the best case scenario as a result of the redistricting is from their 60%. (All stats in that last statement have been referenced somewhere else in my post, find them.)
Who's being partisan now? Oh, and by the way, I'm not a Republican. I plan on voting for Badnarik.
If anyone doubted/.'s slant, this parent is proof of it.
You are quoting the World Socialist Website as a source? I post a link to a nonpartisan website that has undisputable graphs and figures and maps and your rebuttal is based on something you got off of the WORLD SOCIALIST WEBSITE???
Wow, I don't know what to say.
Don't you think the editorialising on that page probably has just a little bit of an agenda?
Here is a hint:
Anything discussing the recent Texas gerrymandering that has absolutely no reference to 1991 is biased. For the reasons I pointed out above, that nice little bit of gerrymandering is essential to understanding the radical changes made.
The BBC is talking about this as if this were the Republicans in Texas coming out of the blue and just turning this on the Democrats. What a load of shit.
For those of you who don't remember, or don't care, Texas was a Democrat state a rather short period of time ago (about 20 years). Most of the uproar is from the Republicans trying to reverse the grossly partisan gerrymandering that took place just a little while ago to keep the Republicans from coming to power.
The Texas Constitution requires new boundaries to be drawn every 10 years. In 1991, the last redistricting, both the Senate and the House were strongly controlled by Democrats ( 77% in the Senate and 62 % in the House). http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/rema nual/tx.htm That explains very well with maps what exactly happened in 1991, and even further back.
Take my area for example. US District 21 extends from San Antonio all the way to El Paso, making it one of the largest districts in Texas. This was created to make a very strong Republican District so that the rest of the districts in the area could feed off of the Democrats.
Even though the Bexar County Area is about 65% Republican, our representation in the state legislature is 70% Democrat. And one of those 3 Republicans is a moderate.
Another interesting fact is that while it is illegal to redistrict based on race, it is perfectly legal to do it based on Political Parties.
What makes this a story is that Bush's hometown paper endorsed him in 2000.
No, what makes this sad is that you seem to think that Crawford, TX is Bush's hometown.
George Walker Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut. Yes, Connecticut went to Gore/Lieberman in 2000. Of course, New England leans a little to the left of center, and Lieberman was also from Connecticut and in fact was a Senator from there.
Don't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of your trolling.
I have to go to sleep, but it seems to me that the answer to #17 is binary 10. There are (Base 10) 2 "1"s in the numbers between (Base 2) 10 and 0 (ie 0 1 10).
For those who didn't get to read the page, #17 went something like this:
Consider a function that, given a whole number n, returns the number of 1's in the numbers between 0 and n. E.g. f(13) = 6. Notice f(1) = 1. Find the next larger n such that f(n) = n.
Actually, it doesn't appear that the EULA (included later) covers the redistribution of the OS Components included with this release. IANAL, and I would like one to comment on this, but since there is no EULA when you download directly from Microsoft.com, only disclaimers, doesn't this mean that distributing the file from a an FTP server is as legal as downloading it from Microsoft?
After all, why should it be any different legally (with the exception of liability, of which Microsoft avows none) what I do with it, if I got it legally from the Microsoft site, which didn't place any restrictions on my download?
Isn't this the same as pushing the SP2 to my workstations?
Now, if it turns out that Microsoft included someone else's IP (aka patent infringement) in this release, then you would be liable if you didn't get it from Microsoft. Food for thought.
(Forgot to use HTML tags, and hit Submit instead of preview.)
The one on MSDN includes debugging symbols and the new.NET Framework. The network Install Version (Full for Slipstreaming/deployment) is about 266 MB. It's checksums are:
The one on MSDN includes debugging symbols and the new.NET Framework. The network Install Version (Full for Slipstreaming/deployment) is about 266 MB. It's checksums are:
MD5 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7
SHA1 33A8FEF60D48AE1F2C4FEEA27111AF5CECA3C4F6
CRC32 046F12B1
The Sum for the MSDN version is:
MD5 94276421fa963122a4e434d3b14fdc01
It seems like this new DragonFLy BSD project could become very interesting. I have been wondering for a while what their exact purpose was for the split, and I think I like it. Their goal of implementing cleaner and more scalable structures sounds like a worthy one, even if it is a long tem goal.
Who knows, someday the BSD world might break up lke this:
OpenBSD is for Routers and firewalls
NetBSD is for XBox/Toaster/microwave/everything else =P
FreeBSD is for Servers
and
DragonBSD is for SSI Supercomputers or other highly scalable systems.
Slashdot Mirror
What crack are you smoking? Just because they get the most patents in no way shape or form means they get the most frivolous patents. To claim that is "by definition" is idiotic. Suppose we have 100,000 patents filed a year, 30% of which are "frivolous", giving us 30,000 frivolous patents. Suppose IBM files 60% of the patents. There is absolutely NO conclusion that you can draw from that data alone. None at all. Assuming IBM is as likely to file frivolous patents as every other filer (a pretty tenuous assumption), THEN you can conclude it is likely that IBM filed more frivolous patents than anyone else. But that requires assumptions on your part. Pretty far from "obviously by definition".
The world would be a smarter place if a basic statisics course was required of everyone...
I have been wondering for a long time now. What article was that in? Thank you.
I'd like to see where it says that. I find that highly unlikely, at least as you said it.
The first case is clearly entrapment. Read my post carefully. If the police officer approaches you, it is probably entrapment. If you approach him, it proably isn't.
The second case is not entrapment because the police officer didn't give you the marijuana. If the guy who gave it to you was acting on behalf of the police, and wasn't prosecuted himself, then it would be entrapment. (Don't accept drugs from strangers...)
I'm not saying it's right. It's just not the police's fault. There is nothing to keep you from turning the other guy in.
If they were busting the sites for the warez which they uploaded, then that would be planting evidence. If they were busting them for the other warez, then that would NOT be evidence planting. Get your terminology correct.
I don't know about Swedish law, but under American law providing servers and warez would probably be considered entrapment. (Entrapment is not as simple as many people think.)
Here is an example:
If a police officer sells someone 1 kg of marijuana, and then turn around and arrest them, and they have 2kgs of marijuana, then that is not planting evidence. It might be entrapment, but it depends.
If on the other hand, a police officer plants 1 kg of marijuana, and then busts them for having 2 kgs of marijuana, it is evidence planting. (Likely the arrest would be thrown out, because the police likely couldn't prove they didn't plant all of the marijuana)
If a police officer sells someone marijuana, and then busts them for posession, then it is probably entrapment (but there are exceptions).
If a police officer sells someone marijuana after being propositioned, then it is NOT entrapment.
IANAL, so YMMV.
Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm sure moderation will let me know.
;)
You must be new here...
The important legal difference is that private copies are legal in Germany. Again: In Germany, I can take a DVD, CD, video, whatever, and rip a copy for my own private use. Of course, if I start distributing that copy or screen it in a public place etc. they get to throw the book at me, and will do so very, very hard.
In America, private copies are not only legal, they are a right. Under the generally accepted interpretations of Fair Use (As established in the Copyright Act of 1976), everybody is entitled to copy works for their private use. The big difference being that we don't have to pay for this right when we buy copiers or scanners or computer, we pay the additional value that the market places on this right when we buy the copyrighted good itself. Doesn't that make sense? Why should I pay a tax when I buy a scanner if I only scan in my own personal photos? Doesn't it make sense to pay more when I buy the copyrighted items themselves?
Now, when I buy a computer, I have paid for that private copy, so industry can just go shove a bratwurst up their Po, with mustard.
Once again, why does it make sense to pay for that right by paying a set tax on an item that is indirectly related to the copying? A computer is unnecessary for copying, but the copyrighted work is essential. So, basically, you are paying for that right to copy well more than once. You are paying whenever you buy a computer, a scanner or a copier. In America, you pay for that right only once, when you buy the work itself.
As somebody who has lived in Germany for a while let me say that German law for the most part is a very sane, logical, and balanced system that almost across the board is superior to the 18th Century money-comes-first atavism that the U.S. is forced to suffer through.
That "18th Century money-comes-first atavism" is the belief that above all else, the preservation of private property is essential. It seems to me that the US understands its economics a little better than Germany, whose economy has one of the slowest growth rates of any European countries. No one benefits when the economy doesn't work, not even Socialist countries. Look back at what happened in the Weimar Republic for a history lesson in bad German Economics.
Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored the badly destroyed electric grid in only three months. Some six months after Bush declared an end to major hostilities, a much more ambitious and costly American effort has yet to get to that point.
Yes, it is pretty amazing what you can do when you hold a gun to someone's head. Literally. Or maybe you forgot. This was a man whose son would grab women off the street and rape them. He tortured people by the thousands, for no good reason.
I think that if you had to seriously worry about your entire family "disappearing" because you didn't meet an impossible schedule, you would meet it too.
I am afraid that you do not understand the subject matter. These terms would be parts of parole, not Contempt of Court. Parole is basically the prisoner trading hard time for external life, with extreme restrictions.
Contempt of court (in the American System) has two forms of occurence and two forms of punishment. There are Direct (telling the judge to go fuck himself) and Indirect (disobeying a court ordered moratorium on proceedings) forms. The punishment can be either Criminal (jail time) or Civil (removal from the courtroom). Civil punishment ceases once compliance with the judge's orders are met, and Criminal punishment requires a trial, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I really don't see too much room for "pure arbitrariness", because Judges who act improperly can be censured, and federal judges can be impeached. Local judges are typically elected officials, so they have the same responsibilities to the public as say the sheriff, who has far more power.
I am sorry that you seem to think that it opens the door to "pure arbitrariness", but doesn't giving any position of power do the same? I would hope that we have enough faith in the judicial system that this small bit of power isn't so abused as to be to a net deficit?
You clearly don't understand basic statistics. I suggest you go drop in a Freshman stats course some time, it might be educational.
Correlation simply means there is an association. You are 99% confident that the positive effect E-Voting had on the Bush vote is XX +- X%, or you KNOW that X% of the up swing in Bush votes can be explained by whether or not there were E-Voting machines, but you are NOT 99% confident that there is a correlation. That makes absolutely no sense.
This data doesn't use any exit polls. This data is comparing the past elections to the current one. Your comment is irrelevant in this context.
As an aside, isn't it possible that this is actually evidence of past Democratic fraud? If a Democratic county goes 90% to Gore rather then the expected 75%, who will notice? It's a good way of padding the margins. Maybe the electronic voting machines were invulnerable to the traditional methods of fraud, and that is why the results are statistically significant?
That case is completely irrelevant to the issue. It simply states that privacy on a COMPANY PROVIDED network does not exist. As it shouldn't; if it uses business resources it should have a business use.
If I leave a message for you in your internal company mailbox, I don't expect it to be kept private. This ruling just extended that common sense to E-mail.
What that ruling did NOT do was say anything about email privacy on the internet at large. I suggest you read that link a little bit closer, as well as the original disclaimer at the bottom of the letter and see what it really says, not what you WANT it to say.
That's not the point. I know they are in no way or shape binding, however, it shows the clients (who presumably receive emails) that the professional at least looks like he cares about their privacy. It's just standard courtesy.
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
I don't see anything in there that suggests that there is any punishment or liability to not following the instructions. That's like saying I have a "please wipe your shoes before you come in" sign on my house or a bumper sticker that asks drivers to be considerate. That fact that no contract has been made and there are no legally binding situations doesn't make me look like a moron.
Give me a break. Sure it sounds like Nintendo is barking up the wrong tree, but let's not just beat up on them for no reason.
the email they received was unsolicited and therefore SPAM
That may be your way of looking at spam, but that is unacceptable for most people. Say your Uncle Sal, whom you haven't spoken with in 10 years because he lives on the other side of the country, happens across your email, say on a University board or something. Is his email Spam?
that stupid ass disclaimer on the email just makes the sender look like a moron.
That "stupid ass disclaimer" is SOP for most professionals such as lawyers, doctors, accountants and anyone who deals with confidential messages. It doesn't make him look like a moron, in fact he would look like an asshole if he DIDN'T have it on there. All the email I receive from doctors or lawyers (and my IT company specializes in the Health Care Industry) have a very similar disclaimer on them. It's just an automatic signature.
What in the hell are you talking about? What the hell is "NewMax"?
So you don't think there is something seriously wrong when a majority opinion is represented by a minority of congressmen?
The comment about one of the 3 Republicans was to show that even the 30% Republican minority was really more like 25%, an even grosser injustice.
"So the map was drawn by a nonpartisan panel of federal judges, based on the 2000 Census figures"
/.'s slant, this parent is proof of it.
That is not totally true, and quite misleading. First of all, two of the Judges on the 3 judge panel were Democrat appointments.
Second, the judge's drew up their own House map, but accepted the Senate map.
Third, They approved the new map that the BBC is reporting on.
Fourth, even though Texas voted more then 60% Republican in 2000, 17 out of our 32 seats went to Democrats.( Before U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall of Rockwall switched to the Republican Party.)
"As a Texan, I have to say that is a totally false and highly partisan mischaracterization of the situation prior to the Republican's abusive redistricting."
Ok, then how do you reconcile the fact that a majority of Texans voted Republican, yet a majority of the US Reps. were Democrat? Last time I checked, the 53% majority enjoyed by the Democrats was a hell of a lot farther from the 39.1% they received in the Presidential campaign then the 65% majority the Republicans would receive from the best case scenario as a result of the redistricting is from their 60%. (All stats in that last statement have been referenced somewhere else in my post, find them.)
Who's being partisan now? Oh, and by the way, I'm not a Republican. I plan on voting for Badnarik.
If anyone doubted
You are quoting the World Socialist Website as a source? I post a link to a nonpartisan website that has undisputable graphs and figures and maps and your rebuttal is based on something you got off of the WORLD SOCIALIST WEBSITE???
Wow, I don't know what to say.
Don't you think the editorialising on that page probably has just a little bit of an agenda?
Here is a hint:
Anything discussing the recent Texas gerrymandering that has absolutely no reference to 1991 is biased. For the reasons I pointed out above, that nice little bit of gerrymandering is essential to understanding the radical changes made.
The BBC is talking about this as if this were the Republicans in Texas coming out of the blue and just turning this on the Democrats. What a load of shit.
a nual/tx.htm
For those of you who don't remember, or don't care, Texas was a Democrat state a rather short period of time ago (about 20 years). Most of the uproar is from the Republicans trying to reverse the grossly partisan gerrymandering that took place just a little while ago to keep the Republicans from coming to power.
The Texas Constitution requires new boundaries to be drawn every 10 years. In 1991, the last redistricting, both the Senate and the House were strongly controlled by Democrats ( 77% in the Senate and 62 % in the House). http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/rem
That explains very well with maps what exactly happened in 1991, and even further back.
Take my area for example. US District 21 extends from San Antonio all the way to El Paso, making it one of the largest districts in Texas. This was created to make a very strong Republican District so that the rest of the districts in the area could feed off of the Democrats.
Even though the Bexar County Area is about 65% Republican, our representation in the state legislature is 70% Democrat. And one of those 3 Republicans is a moderate.
Another interesting fact is that while it is illegal to redistrict based on race, it is perfectly legal to do it based on Political Parties.
What makes this a story is that Bush's hometown paper endorsed him in 2000.
No, what makes this sad is that you seem to think that Crawford, TX is Bush's hometown.
George Walker Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut. Yes, Connecticut went to Gore/Lieberman in 2000. Of course, New England leans a little to the left of center, and Lieberman was also from Connecticut and in fact was a Senator from there.
Don't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of your trolling.
Moderators, at least CTFL (click the fscking links), even if you don't RTFA. eNIC is a VeriSign Corporation (see http://www.enic.cc/).
As far as I can tell, they are justing grabbing free business off of this service, and deserve to be shamed. How is this different from SiteFinder?
I have to go to sleep, but it seems to me that the answer to #17 is binary 10. There are (Base 10) 2 "1"s in the numbers between (Base 2) 10 and 0 (ie 0 1 10).
For those who didn't get to read the page, #17 went something like this:
Consider a function that, given a whole number n, returns the number of 1's in the numbers between 0 and n. E.g. f(13) = 6. Notice f(1) = 1. Find the next larger n such that f(n) = n.
Actually, it doesn't appear that the EULA (included later) covers the redistribution of the OS Components included with this release. IANAL, and I would like one to comment on this, but since there is no EULA when you download directly from Microsoft.com, only disclaimers, doesn't this mean that distributing the file from a an FTP server is as legal as downloading it from Microsoft?
After all, why should it be any different legally (with the exception of liability, of which Microsoft avows none) what I do with it, if I got it legally from the Microsoft site, which didn't place any restrictions on my download?
Isn't this the same as pushing the SP2 to my workstations?
Now, if it turns out that Microsoft included someone else's IP (aka patent infringement) in this release, then you would be liable if you didn't get it from Microsoft. Food for thought.
(Forgot to use HTML tags, and hit Submit instead of preview.)
.NET Framework. The network Install Version (Full for Slipstreaming/deployment) is about 266 MB. It's checksums are:
The one on MSDN includes debugging symbols and the new
MD5 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7
SHA1 33A8FEF60D48AE1F2C4FEEA27111AF5CECA3C4F6
CRC32 046F12B1 The Sum for the MSDN version is:
MD5 94276421fa963122a4e434d3b14fdc01
The one on MSDN includes debugging symbols and the new .NET Framework. The network Install Version (Full for Slipstreaming/deployment) is about 266 MB. It's checksums are:
MD5 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7
SHA1 33A8FEF60D48AE1F2C4FEEA27111AF5CECA3C4F6
CRC32 046F12B1
The Sum for the MSDN version is:
MD5 94276421fa963122a4e434d3b14fdc01
It seems like this new DragonFLy BSD project could become very interesting. I have been wondering for a while what their exact purpose was for the split, and I think I like it. Their goal of implementing cleaner and more scalable structures sounds like a worthy one, even if it is a long tem goal.
Who knows, someday the BSD world might break up lke this:
OpenBSD is for Routers and firewalls
NetBSD is for XBox/Toaster/microwave/everything else =P
FreeBSD is for Servers
and
DragonBSD is for SSI Supercomputers or other highly scalable systems.