Well, I thought that he was over-careful until I got to this part of the article:
I don't do it because I think someone is going to go through my trash to reassemble bits of my research notes.
He may well be correct, but, given he is an "independent researcher, consultant, and writer specializing in Windows security", I have my doubts that someone would want to make the effort of reassembling his shredded notes.
We recently added some extra memory to a colleague's laptop. It's a recent machine with a Celeron D CPU (somewhere around 2.5GHz, I think) running XP (could not get all the drivers for Win2K).
It had 256MB (but with 64MB dedicated to graphics) and ran slow as a dog. Slower, really. It was awful. It ran much slower than his prior laptop with 800MHz CPU (Win2k and 512MB)
We added 512MB and the difference was absolutely amazing. It booted so quickly that we asked each other if it had really finished booting.
So, I really don't believe 256MB for Longhorn will be acceptable in any meaningful way.
Either you did not read my post properly or you don't understand the GPL
My point is that if the author and the copyright holder are one and the same person, there is nothing that binds the author to the GPL.
The GPL binds people or entities that receive GPL code. If you receive GPL code and want to modify and redistribute it, then you have requirements. However, if what you ship under the GPL is entirely your own work then you are not bound by the GPL.
Think about it for a moment: who could sue? Only the copyright holder -- would he sue himself?
1) I obtain a GPL'd binary from author A.
2) Author A then stops distributing under the GPL
At this point I am still entitled to the source code for the specific version of the binary that I received under the GPL
Actually, you may not be -- if the code was written without the use of any GPL code from other authors, then the author, when distributing under the GPL is not bound by the GPL.
I have been lead to understand that drives don't typically fail because their platters got hot.
From personal experience I can tell you that drives can sometime get unreliable while hot, but be OK once cooled again. I have some drives in cheap removable trays -- the trays have their own fan and sometimes these fans fail.
I recently dealt with a case where one tray fan failed and the drive got hot enough to discolor the plastic tray, and cause all kinds of errors from the drive; yet, once the tray is replaced, the drives now seem to work -- mostly.
The article is quite true in pointing out that open source in general and Firefox/Mozilla specifically are not invulnerable to security issues. However, the argument in the article is based upon an unstated and false premise:
That security issues in IE are actually fixed!
There are countless issues in IE that have never been fixed, thus a single 6-month period when more vulerabilities were discovered in Mozilla is mostly irrelevent. What counts is how many vulnerabilities exist at any point in time.
OK, I know it's not quite that simple: more problems means more downloads, means more users won't actually have the latest version, but still, the article's premise is flawed because of unpatched bugs in IE.
(i) law enforcement authorities in the investigation of suspected legal violations, and (ii) and system administrators at other Internet service providers or other network or computing facilities in order to enforce this Policy.
Sounds like the subscriber doesn't have a chance, once the copyright cops get involved.
Exactly which of the 2 groups of people is the RIAA a part?
Ah, how cute. The Ad Hominem Tu Quoque logical fallacy.
No, I think the argument style you are looking for is "strawman" -- and it was you who used it. I merely pointed out some history relating to the OP, I did not relate this to Bonch's argument -- you, apparently, related this history to the argument put forward by Bonch: now why would that be?
Update: 06/30 15:42 GMT by T: This article has been pulled; the Spider-Man 2 review which appeared here was reposted without credit or permission from chud. (Read it in its original context.) We welcome original feature-length articles, but not plagiarism.
Because the proposed legislation is that the ISPs must "offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list". In other words, it becomes the customer's choice whether the sites are available or not.
It's hard to see how that would violate the first amendment.
If I read this article correctly, it requires the target to respond to TCP packets. Now, a stateful firewall is likely to prevent such repsonses ever being sent if they are unsolicited, so unless such a system were installed in every ISP or at Akamai's servers, or similar(and used connections initiated by the clients) it is not going to work.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't do it because I think someone is going to go through my trash to reassemble bits of my research notes.
He may well be correct, but, given he is an "independent researcher, consultant, and writer specializing in Windows security", I have my doubts that someone would want to make the effort of reassembling his shredded notes.
We recently added some extra memory to a colleague's laptop. It's a recent machine with a Celeron D CPU (somewhere around 2.5GHz, I think) running XP (could not get all the drivers for Win2K).
It had 256MB (but with 64MB dedicated to graphics) and ran slow as a dog. Slower, really. It was awful. It ran much slower than his prior laptop with 800MHz CPU (Win2k and 512MB)
We added 512MB and the difference was absolutely amazing. It booted so quickly that we asked each other if it had really finished booting.
So, I really don't believe 256MB for Longhorn will be acceptable in any meaningful way.
My point is that if the author and the copyright holder are one and the same person, there is nothing that binds the author to the GPL.
The GPL binds people or entities that receive GPL code. If you receive GPL code and want to modify and redistribute it, then you have requirements. However, if what you ship under the GPL is entirely your own work then you are not bound by the GPL.
Think about it for a moment: who could sue? Only the copyright holder -- would he sue himself?
Perhaps it is the "Linux" and "Apache" in the website's title that is causing the low ranking by MSN.
If you look more deeply, you will see that he ran another test using 1000 words and the results were almost identical.
Now, to fully understand if that is significant, one needs to know the variance within the results, but still -- 1000 results is pretty good number.
While one website is hardly proof, seach for "scosource" on Google and on MSN, then see where "scosource.com" appears in the results.
If your premise were correct, you would see scosource.com highly ranked by MSN, and lower on Google. In fact the reverse is true.
From personal experience I can tell you that drives can sometime get unreliable while hot, but be OK once cooled again. I have some drives in cheap removable trays -- the trays have their own fan and sometimes these fans fail.
I recently dealt with a case where one tray fan failed and the drive got hot enough to discolor the plastic tray, and cause all kinds of errors from the drive; yet, once the tray is replaced, the drives now seem to work -- mostly.
And why is this relevent? Isn't there atmosphere inside all manned spacecraft?
That security issues in IE are actually fixed!
There are countless issues in IE that have never been fixed, thus a single 6-month period when more vulerabilities were discovered in Mozilla is mostly irrelevent. What counts is how many vulnerabilities exist at any point in time.
OK, I know it's not quite that simple: more problems means more downloads, means more users won't actually have the latest version, but still, the article's premise is flawed because of unpatched bugs in IE.
I haven't noticed the problem myself, but that is probably because I run my own DNS server.
No problem to solve for my home network!
Here is the section on disclosure and it is pretty hard to see how this allows disclosure to the RIAA.
from a registrar with a huge flash header on their home page?
Yes, but the car dealer or manufacturer did not try to change the terms of the deal after you got your car home.
That's why you are entitled to a refund: because in order to use the Windows s/w, you are required to agree to extra restrictions on your purchase.
Don't some states (eg. Arizona) have different policies regarding DST (ie. AZ does not respect DST)?
It all depends on lattitude. The further south one goes the less difference between summer and winter.
Come on, you could, at least, make sure that your own criticism is spelled correctly.
As opposed to action, such as..... awarding most favored nation status and allowing China to join the WTO.
In stunning news Friday, /. editors vowed to stop posting dupes.
No, I think the argument style you are looking for is "strawman" -- and it was you who used it. I merely pointed out some history relating to the OP, I did not relate this to Bonch's argument -- you, apparently, related this history to the argument put forward by Bonch: now why would that be?
Note the updated text:
What a shocker: NY state court decides that non-resident should pay NY tax.
If this stands, companies will simply employ tele-commuters from TX or some other state with no state income tax.
It's hard to see how that would violate the first amendment.
If I read this article correctly, it requires the target to respond to TCP packets. Now, a stateful firewall is likely to prevent such repsonses ever being sent if they are unsolicited, so unless such a system were installed in every ISP or at Akamai's servers, or similar(and used connections initiated by the clients) it is not going to work.