This sort of thing is common in RFCs too. "Clients MUST implement this feature; clients MUST NOT implement this feature; clients SHOULD implement this feature."
That's just to emphasize the very specific meaning the phrases have been given. Just like legal documents might use Client to mean Client as defined in great detail earlier, as opposed to client which is any old client (I suppose).
Interesting, I didn't realize a jury has this much leeway in interpreting a case. Sounds like a bad idea to me to be honest - how are you supposed to abide by the law if that law is determined at trial-time? But thanks for the pointers.
You need to make your mind up. If you think we shouldn't be ignoring P2P, then you are saying it should be a crime, because it's perfectly obvious that if it shouldn't be a crime then we should be ignoring it.
No. You can't decide for yourself what should and shouldn't be a crime, and ignore the ones you think shouldn't be. That's what the law is for. It's a form of unvigilante unjustice that's just as bogus as vigilante justice, and is what seperates civilisation from anarchy.
"One may be willing to DL an old bubble-gum tune from the late sixties, or early seventies, but one may not be interested enough to cough up cash for it."
I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount for a tune if I can then find it easily (no p2p hassle), and it's DRM-free (or DRM-poor). One of the 'blocking factors' seems to be online payment is still very tricky to do cheaply/easily/securely. (Yes this is seperate from all the IP/DRM issues.)
We pay taxes to maintain an army and police force. You're just talking about "taking the law into your own hands" - which I would think of as democracy, but gun types seem to think of as armed revolution. Words fail me.
If there ever was a time for US citizens (I'm not one) to rebel against the US government, it is now. I wish they would;)
The argument Google would use is that they're just going a step further in having a publicly available cache.
But that isn't true. When you go to the Google cache, you see out-of-date representations of Web pages. A real cache would never have an out-of-date copy in it, because with every request it would check to see if the page had been updated since the previous caching. Google's cache doesn't do that.
Neither do proxy caches, or all browser caches. They just go by expiry time.
How is out-of-dateness change your argument about copyright violation anyway?
Okay. But, if that is true, it can't be the whole story, because his implementation has been very successful.
I agree. Maybe saying 'disasters' was a bit strong, because I didn't mean failure; as you say both are outrageously successful. I meant that some design decisions in html and http make things a lot tricker now. The ratio of amount-of-extra-thought-not-put-into-it-then to amount-of-extra-usefulness-and-longetivity-it-woul d-have-now is very large. That's why I said ill-conceived disasters, despite it's current success; html and http are both very outdated now, after a mere, what is it, 15 years in operation. Opposing examples: dns, tcp, smtp (ignoring the spam problem that was very difficult to foresee). Two examples:
html is very difficult to parse. especially with extensions like javascript, java, flash, and activex it has become an 'information sink' - information can only be retrieved by a human with a web browser. if the content of the html page was easier to parse (as opposed to the mess that is the markup), it would be easier to make search engines much better, and it would be easier to display html on all kinds of devices, instead of just web browsers on pc's.
the hard-codedness of a document location (server)in an url. I explained this a bit more in another comment.
FWIW I don't think your comment deserved to be marked as a troll.
Thank you, I'm pleased someone realized this, despite my original terseness.
Well, I'm glad someone agrees with me.. We both got modded troll for our trouble though.
I didn't explain myself very well, but that takes so much time and a nasty comment without explanation can be right:)
OK I'll state my major complaint with http. The URL's contain server names. (Locations.) Instead of services. This makes it necessary to do redundancy and load-balancing at the IP level, which isn't possible to do perfectly, and expensive, etc., and difficult to do wide-area. Just a fraction more intelligence on the client side would have improved the situation a zillionfold. Now we're stuck with it.
I've tried to look for this, but so far have found only sources that charge for this information, and not even in very high (time) resolution.. I've love to know more about this too.
I've been following http://opengov.media.mit.edu/ for a year or more, and it was a brilliant initiative, and pretty smart way to go about things. Sadly updates weren't coming much lately, then the website slowed/disappeared, now I see " opengov is not currently maintained.".. Bummer, I wish this project would be done elsewhere.
With monolithic kernels like Linux there's a modest gain with multiple processors. There's significant overhead from switching tasks among them. With microkernels, each component of the kernel can run more independantly in each processor, providing better gains (at least potentially).
Even though I'd like to agree with you because I think microkernels are a better design, your posting shows a certain amount of uninformnedness of how (modern) monolithic SMP kernels work, such as Linux and FreeBSD. All CPU's can be in the kernel at the same time, and mutexes are used to ensure conflicts don't arise. More primitive monolithic SMP kernels, such as NetBSD, just use one Giant (as it's called) mutex protecting the entire kernel, letting just one CPU into kernel space at a a time.
So microkernels will be able to run more than one system process at the same time, but monolithic kernels have kernel threads too.
Through my unauthorised site to accept donations i did not raise no money nore did no one donate to the site
Am I just overly-skeptical... or is this claim quite hard to believe?
It is. It's also extremely atricious English (dobule negatives). I try not to be irritated by grammar/spelling errors, but people writing in such a phonetic
Neanderthal way as
Slashdot Mirror
ultimatewswordofpower or.. sword of realultimatepower?
That's just to emphasize the very specific meaning the phrases have been given. Just like legal documents might use Client to mean Client as defined in great detail earlier, as opposed to client which is any old client (I suppose).
Interesting, I didn't realize a jury has this much leeway in interpreting a case. Sounds like a bad idea to me to be honest - how are you supposed to abide by the law if that law is determined at trial-time? But thanks for the pointers.
No. You can't decide for yourself what should and shouldn't be a crime, and ignore the ones you think shouldn't be. That's what the law is for. It's a form of unvigilante unjustice that's just as bogus as vigilante justice, and is what seperates civilisation from anarchy.
I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount for a tune if I can then find it easily (no p2p hassle), and it's DRM-free (or DRM-poor). One of the 'blocking factors' seems to be online payment is still very tricky to do cheaply/easily/securely. (Yes this is seperate from all the IP/DRM issues.)
Take a look at: http://www.eros-os.org/ which is a modern (re)implementation of many of KeyKOS's ideas. Fantastic ideas.
rather THAN damnit
please continue
Only as long as that old thing is still around..
If there ever was a time for US citizens (I'm not one) to rebel against the US government, it is now. I wish they would ;)
How is out-of-dateness change your argument about copyright violation anyway?
I think parent was trying to be funny.. :) I thought it was pretty funny.
- - --POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT -- - - My favourite line in the entire series.. "No more Mr. Nice Gaius!"
Are you aware this is slashdot you are posting your reasoned, level-headed and thoughtful post to?
Hm, what funny looking headers:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Connection: close
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:41:42 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
MicrosoftOfficeWebServer: 5.0_Pub
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
X-AspNet-Version: 1.1.4322
Cache-Control: public, max-age=79911
Expires: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:53:34 GMT
Last-Modified: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:40:14 GMT
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Length: 40525
(that 'MicrosoftOfficeWebServer')
How does pillaging Iraq protect yourself?
I agree. Maybe saying 'disasters' was a bit strong, because I didn't mean failure; as you say both are outrageously successful. I meant that some design decisions in html and http make things a lot tricker now. The ratio of amount-of-extra-thought-not-put-into-it-then to amount-of-extra-usefulness-and-longetivity-it-woul d-have-now is very large. That's why I said ill-conceived disasters, despite it's current success; html and http are both very outdated now, after a mere, what is it, 15 years in operation. Opposing examples: dns, tcp, smtp (ignoring the spam problem that was very difficult to foresee). Two examples:
FWIW I don't think your comment deserved to be marked as a troll.
Thank you, I'm pleased someone realized this, despite my original terseness.
I didn't explain myself very well, but that takes so much time and a nasty comment without explanation can be right :)
OK I'll state my major complaint with http. The URL's contain server names. (Locations.) Instead of services. This makes it necessary to do redundancy and load-balancing at the IP level, which isn't possible to do perfectly, and expensive, etc., and difficult to do wide-area. Just a fraction more intelligence on the client side would have improved the situation a zillionfold. Now we're stuck with it.
I think HTTP and HTML are both ill-conceived disasters.. a messy yet simplistic protocol and an awful markup language.
I've tried to look for this, but so far have found only sources that charge for this information, and not even in very high (time) resolution.. I've love to know more about this too.
What a bloody stupid idea.
* Slashdot editors are abusive. We all remember The Post.
Anyone know what he's talking about here?
I've been following http://opengov.media.mit.edu/ for a year or more, and it was a brilliant initiative, and pretty smart way to go about things. Sadly updates weren't coming much lately, then the website slowed/disappeared, now I see " opengov is not currently maintained." .. Bummer, I wish this project would be done elsewhere.
Even though I'd like to agree with you because I think microkernels are a better design, your posting shows a certain amount of uninformnedness of how (modern) monolithic SMP kernels work, such as Linux and FreeBSD. All CPU's can be in the kernel at the same time, and mutexes are used to ensure conflicts don't arise. More primitive monolithic SMP kernels, such as NetBSD, just use one Giant (as it's called) mutex protecting the entire kernel, letting just one CPU into kernel space at a a time.
So microkernels will be able to run more than one system process at the same time, but monolithic kernels have kernel threads too.
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.