The product is not generally available - the current moment is "prerelease". That this reviewer has it is direct evidence of bias.
An OS platform is a complex product. Unless it's totally pathetic it takes time to examine. We must fit it into an evolved environment with lots of legacy hardware and software. You don't just drop everything and roll it out based on a clearly biased prerelease review.
Microsoft always makes deals that LOOK like great deals for their partners. And then there's always a term in the details for some unlikely contingency that miraculously comes true that allows them to eat their partner. It would be interesting if it weren't the same show over and over.
The journey is long. The risks are great. The cost is obscene. The prize is nothing less than ownership outright of the moon and all that lies beyond, to the end of the universe. Someone will go.
BTW, it takes remarkably little delta-v to tip an asteroid just a hair closer to the larger asteroid, to bring it closer in a successive orbit to another gravity well and so without further action to put it where you want it. Such a facility will actually be required if we mine the asteroids, used in the preventive sense. It requires only precise measurement and accurate prediction, a gentle push and a LOT of patience.
The only way to sustain any interest in space exploration is what you call "stunts".
Marketing managed to sell a billion licenses of Vista to people who, for the most part, have no intention of using it. I'm sure if they tried a good marketing team could come up with a way to drive interest in space exploration.
Beyond the earth is wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. Fields strewn with diamonds, entire moons made of hydrocarbon, lands to take dominion of to make Alexander the Great appear an insignificant tribal chief. But the people who take ownership of the realms beyond the sky will send men, not robots.
Agree. For VM image files you may want to consider something else. The new PCIe attach ssd cards come in sizes to 1TB and have IOPS over 250,000. Streaming is likewise fast, and latency is very low. Which is nice.
The point of a good idea is that it provides some benefit you desire if implemented. I've found that the fastest way to get the implementation of my best IT ideas is just to post them here. Six months or a year later, There's a product review and I browse over to Newegg and buy the product. Everybody wins!
Don't just paste whole pages of your talking points into the box. Tease it out a little. "Feature 1 is cool, but I really like feature 2." Save features 3-8 for the inevitable subthread. And log in - you can't accumulate 'karma' if you are not logged in. Seriously - use a little art. Don't just mail it in.
It is funny that people assume that open source means more secure. It means more potential for security, since you can undertake an enormous, in-depth code review, but given the amount of code in some projects (the Linux kernel, Apache, etc.), that is not something that is likely to happen.
Just because you're not doing it, don't presuppose that nobody is. The code review of all the major pieces is ongoing, extensive and in-depth. It's done for a lot of reasons: motivated self interest on the part of organizations with large user bases (NSA,.mil, governments, large corporates), product development (all the commercial vendors), security professionals (for experience props) and others.
Stuff does occasionally get through, but it's almost always pointed out and fixed right away.
One downside of commercial software is that code audits can only be done by two groups: the vendor and the black hats.
I hope more people at slashdot would recognize the way that copyright supports the creation of media.
We have more experience with the evils of which he spoke than he did. Intellectual property monstrosities have risen up and gained political power. They demand as their stated purpose nothing less than that no work ever fall from expired copyright into public domain again. They are as much at fault in their own undoing as The Pirate Bay.
No. You should read the article I linked. It's very long, but it's a good read.
There already was a copyright law, and it allowed 14 years - a term which was considered reasonable and which has been determined to be optimal. The law he was arguing against proposed the life of the author plus 25 years. It was modified to conform to his recommendation of a longer than 14 but finite and predictable length of 42 years from publication, no extensions, no consideration for the longevity of the author. It was made law in England, and then by treaty in most of the rest of the world, and remained the law until 1976 (over 130 years).
It was only until 1976, and more regrettably 1998 that the law he was arguing against was adopted in the US.
Under the current law works published in 1923 will not expire from copyright until 2019 at the earliest, or much later in others. It's reasonable to expect that copyright will be extended yet again before this date, and so on in perpetuity, rendering copyright essentially eternal. This so defeats the social contract of copyright, so defeats the stated purpose of the "promotion of progress" and is so obviously an unfair law that people simply will not comply with it. Since they're already getting in the habit of breaking the copyright law, the don't bother with subtle niceties like discriminating between ebooks of 1984 and a prerelease movie.
And so... the outcome he warned against was avoided in his lifetime. He did a good service to his nation and the world. Because we've ignored his warning we find ourselves in our current state. That's what make this thread "done in one".
This is what happens when we don't read the link and then try to speak on the topic. We embarass ourselves. To wit:
I should note that Macaulay's position, slightly modified, did become the basis of copyright law in the English speaking world. And remained so (at least in the US) for a century and a half--until, on a day of infamy just a few years ago, the Walt Disney Corporation and their stooges in Congress got the law changed to the modern law, which extends copyright for a truly absurd period of time. Which--those who forget history are doomed to repeat it--is a return to the position advocated by Macaulay's (now long forgotten) opponent in the debate.
It's a troll. Thomas McCaulay's speech was effective and the amendments to the law under consideration were adopted. The era of endless copyrights didn't begin until 1976 and we are only now realizing what damage it's done. The various copyright extension acts also retroactively protect works already produced - which could not in any way serve the "promote progress" goal.
Oh, and Thomas MaCaulay was a Brit was speaking in the British House of Commons about a British law. He was renowned for his eloquent and thoughtful speeches. He later traveled, wrote the History of England and other works, was made Baron Macaulay and eventually of course, died.
There was a great deal of progress made before the invention of IP law. Humans are compelled by their natures to create and learn the creations of others and improve upon them. This is called progress.
Some time ago it was commonly agreed (with some dissent) that to reward creation with a monopoly on the use of that creation might accellerate progress, which is a social good.
I've seen some research to suggest that the optimal term for this monopoly is around 12-14 years. Any longer than that and the monopoly's benefit decreases until eventually it even prevents the natural flow of progress.
But that's moot. The creation of IP as a construct as a side evect creates rapacious corporate monstrosities. Their greed cannot be sated and the only way to kill them is to abandon the experiment and abolish the monopoly.
The same section of the Constitution that delegates to Congress the power to grant copyrights and patents also grants to Congress the authority to declare war. In both cases it does not compel Congress to do so.
Your presumption that the violation of copyright in some way guarantees harm done to the holder of the copyright is an interesting and novel economic theory. Have you got a citation you would like to share?
I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
And I've set systems like that up. They work fine.
But I don't run Windows Server at home so I put together a corruption of LTSP that PXE boots to a menu, and you choose the image to download using Clonezilla, the diagnostic OS to run live, or it defaults to a thin client session on the server for guests.
Slashdot Mirror
It goes on and on my friends. Darl started it seven years ago, how it stops noone will ever know because ... (Repeat)
Blog center blues?
The product is not generally available - the current moment is "prerelease". That this reviewer has it is direct evidence of bias.
An OS platform is a complex product. Unless it's totally pathetic it takes time to examine. We must fit it into an evolved environment with lots of legacy hardware and software. You don't just drop everything and roll it out based on a clearly biased prerelease review.
You WILL pay his fee.
Microsoft always makes deals that LOOK like great deals for their partners. And then there's always a term in the details for some unlikely contingency that miraculously comes true that allows them to eat their partner. It would be interesting if it weren't the same show over and over.
It's not even out yet and it's sold 200M licenses. How could it fail?
I've tried the betas a few times and they're not bad. I'm still reserving judgment on the thing itself until I actually see it.
From installation to wipe in an average of ten days. A pioneering achievement.
As for the rest of this prerelease hype, I'll believe it when I see it.
The journey is long. The risks are great. The cost is obscene. The prize is nothing less than ownership outright of the moon and all that lies beyond, to the end of the universe. Someone will go.
BTW, it takes remarkably little delta-v to tip an asteroid just a hair closer to the larger asteroid, to bring it closer in a successive orbit to another gravity well and so without further action to put it where you want it. Such a facility will actually be required if we mine the asteroids, used in the preventive sense. It requires only precise measurement and accurate prediction, a gentle push and a LOT of patience.
The only way to sustain any interest in space exploration is what you call "stunts".
Marketing managed to sell a billion licenses of Vista to people who, for the most part, have no intention of using it. I'm sure if they tried a good marketing team could come up with a way to drive interest in space exploration.
Beyond the earth is wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. Fields strewn with diamonds, entire moons made of hydrocarbon, lands to take dominion of to make Alexander the Great appear an insignificant tribal chief. But the people who take ownership of the realms beyond the sky will send men, not robots.
Was to get a guy named Bill more sex from his wife. Clippy was Melinda's idea, as was Bob.
Are these humans lawyers, music industry executives, or Microsoft programmers? Context is key.
An album hasn't turned a profit in twenty years. Otherwise they would have to pay royalties to the artists, which would ruin their business model.
Agree. For VM image files you may want to consider something else. The new PCIe attach ssd cards come in sizes to 1TB and have IOPS over 250,000. Streaming is likewise fast, and latency is very low. Which is nice.
The point of a good idea is that it provides some benefit you desire if implemented. I've found that the fastest way to get the implementation of my best IT ideas is just to post them here. Six months or a year later, There's a product review and I browse over to Newegg and buy the product. Everybody wins!
Don't just paste whole pages of your talking points into the box. Tease it out a little. "Feature 1 is cool, but I really like feature 2." Save features 3-8 for the inevitable subthread. And log in - you can't accumulate 'karma' if you are not logged in. Seriously - use a little art. Don't just mail it in.
Once they have been granted suffrage and not before.
It is funny that people assume that open source means more secure. It means more potential for security, since you can undertake an enormous, in-depth code review, but given the amount of code in some projects (the Linux kernel, Apache, etc.), that is not something that is likely to happen.
Just because you're not doing it, don't presuppose that nobody is. The code review of all the major pieces is ongoing, extensive and in-depth. It's done for a lot of reasons: motivated self interest on the part of organizations with large user bases (NSA, .mil, governments, large corporates), product development (all the commercial vendors), security professionals (for experience props) and others.
Stuff does occasionally get through, but it's almost always pointed out and fixed right away.
One downside of commercial software is that code audits can only be done by two groups: the vendor and the black hats.
I hope more people at slashdot would recognize the way that copyright supports the creation of media.
We have more experience with the evils of which he spoke than he did. Intellectual property monstrosities have risen up and gained political power. They demand as their stated purpose nothing less than that no work ever fall from expired copyright into public domain again. They are as much at fault in their own undoing as The Pirate Bay.
No. You should read the article I linked. It's very long, but it's a good read.
There already was a copyright law, and it allowed 14 years - a term which was considered reasonable and which has been determined to be optimal. The law he was arguing against proposed the life of the author plus 25 years. It was modified to conform to his recommendation of a longer than 14 but finite and predictable length of 42 years from publication, no extensions, no consideration for the longevity of the author. It was made law in England, and then by treaty in most of the rest of the world, and remained the law until 1976 (over 130 years).
It was only until 1976, and more regrettably 1998 that the law he was arguing against was adopted in the US.
Under the current law works published in 1923 will not expire from copyright until 2019 at the earliest, or much later in others. It's reasonable to expect that copyright will be extended yet again before this date, and so on in perpetuity, rendering copyright essentially eternal. This so defeats the social contract of copyright, so defeats the stated purpose of the "promotion of progress" and is so obviously an unfair law that people simply will not comply with it. Since they're already getting in the habit of breaking the copyright law, the don't bother with subtle niceties like discriminating between ebooks of 1984 and a prerelease movie.
And so... the outcome he warned against was avoided in his lifetime. He did a good service to his nation and the world. Because we've ignored his warning we find ourselves in our current state. That's what make this thread "done in one".
and he was 100% wrong in his predictions.
This is what happens when we don't read the link and then try to speak on the topic. We embarass ourselves. To wit:
I should note that Macaulay's position, slightly modified, did become the basis of copyright law in the English speaking world. And remained so (at least in the US) for a century and a half--until, on a day of infamy just a few years ago, the Walt Disney Corporation and their stooges in Congress got the law changed to the modern law, which extends copyright for a truly absurd period of time. Which--those who forget history are doomed to repeat it--is a return to the position advocated by Macaulay's (now long forgotten) opponent in the debate.
- Eric Flint
Shame, shame.
It's a troll. Thomas McCaulay's speech was effective and the amendments to the law under consideration were adopted. The era of endless copyrights didn't begin until 1976 and we are only now realizing what damage it's done. The various copyright extension acts also retroactively protect works already produced - which could not in any way serve the "promote progress" goal.
Oh, and Thomas MaCaulay was a Brit was speaking in the British House of Commons about a British law. He was renowned for his eloquent and thoughtful speeches. He later traveled, wrote the History of England and other works, was made Baron Macaulay and eventually of course, died.
There was a great deal of progress made before the invention of IP law. Humans are compelled by their natures to create and learn the creations of others and improve upon them. This is called progress.
Some time ago it was commonly agreed (with some dissent) that to reward creation with a monopoly on the use of that creation might accellerate progress, which is a social good.
I've seen some research to suggest that the optimal term for this monopoly is around 12-14 years. Any longer than that and the monopoly's benefit decreases until eventually it even prevents the natural flow of progress.
But that's moot. The creation of IP as a construct as a side evect creates rapacious corporate monstrosities. Their greed cannot be sated and the only way to kill them is to abandon the experiment and abolish the monopoly.
The same section of the Constitution that delegates to Congress the power to grant copyrights and patents also grants to Congress the authority to declare war. In both cases it does not compel Congress to do so.
Your presumption that the violation of copyright in some way guarantees harm done to the holder of the copyright is an interesting and novel economic theory. Have you got a citation you would like to share?
I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
- Thomas McCauley on copyright, 1841.
And I've set systems like that up. They work fine.
But I don't run Windows Server at home so I put together a corruption of LTSP that PXE boots to a menu, and you choose the image to download using Clonezilla, the diagnostic OS to run live, or it defaults to a thin client session on the server for guests.
Some people collect lint...