I use Opera, which is already known to support existing HTML standards pretty completely and accurately.
I still frequently run into web sites built by clueless authors who feel a need to do a browser check, and finding it's not IE or Firefox (or sometimes Netscape!), think it is their duty to inform me that their sites only work with "modern" or "updated" browsers. Feh. By and large, that immediately sends me to the site of a competitor if it's a commercial site I'm visiting.
When will web authors get a clue, and start coding to standards and not implementations. (fuck it if IE breaks because they don't do things correctly)? A properly written web site should never need to do a browser check.
"digital audio recording medium," as defined by the act, only refers to _audio_ CD-Rs. These are special recordable CDs made to work in audio CD recorders, which will not record onto standard data CD-Rs (audio CD-Rs will also work in standard computer CD-R drives).
These audio CD-Rs are a bit harder to find, and a bit more expensive than standard data CD-Rs, because you indirectly pay a tax on them to the recording industry (it's collected at the wholesale level).
So, the Bush twins _might_ not be subject to copyright prosecution. OTOH, they do have GW's genes, so they're likely too stupid to know all of that, and probably used data CD-Rs, opening themselves up to prosecution.
they haven't (proven that event horizons exist). I'll paraphrase my earlier response, maybe repetition will help you learn. We have observed objects which exhibit behavior consistent with what we would expect from observing an event horizon. I expect that the paper which is the subject of this discussion explains how their black-hole-like-object-without-an-event-horizon can also exhibit the observed behavior.
we haven't (seen any black holes). You can't "see" a black hole (that's why they're named as they are). We have observed the effects of things which match our expectation of the effects a black hole would cause. I assume the authors of this paper explain how their black-hole-like-object-which-isn't-a-black-hole can cause the same effects.
if I'm not mistaken (derivative works). Doesn't the GPL allows you to make all the derivative works you want without restriction (i.e. with confidential/proprietary code, for your own use), just no distribution? I don't see how distributing a virgin source file, along with a separate patch file (which is logically just info on how to link the code, not the linking itself, which can only occur in a binary), constitutes a "derivative work."
if you read the bill, it's nothing like the EU privacy laws. The EU laws protect a person's privacy, requiring their permission to disclose personal information (among other things).
The US bill does nothing to prevent a corporation from deliberately disclosing whatever they want to whomever they want - it's focused exclusively on securing those transactions from third parties.
The law is summed up in this paragraph:
A covered entity shall develop, implement, maintain, and enforce a written program for the security of sensitive personal information the entity collects, maintains, sells, transfers, or disposes of, containing administrative, technical, and physical safeguards
I have a thing about my Social Security number - I only give it to those who require it to fulfill legal mandates. That includes my employer, who has decided (without my permission, and despite my express denial) to give it to a health care provider. This proposed law does nothing to prevent that.
I want them to be prevented from "selling or transferring" my confidential information, without my voluntary consent (no consent as a condition of employment, etc.).
Thank you for the informative response, it was much better than the other "no" one.
If I understand things correctly, it is possible for users to legally compile the Linux kernel and ZFS together, the sources may even be distributed together as long as there are no pre-linked binaries (ready to run). That should make it possible for a distribution to compile ZFS support into the kernel at install time (i.e. by the user, for their own use, not for distribution).
hold the copyright to the Linux kernel? It seems to me that he must, as everyone seems to agree that he has control over what license it is issued under (see discussions of GPL v2 vs. v3). If the kernel copyright is not entirely held by Linus, then he would have to get unanimous consent to make any change (impossible?), if he at some point wanted to move to GPL3, right?
So, if he controls the copyright, he can place it under a "GPL plus you're allowed to link ZFS" license. Where's the problem?
Lilly claims that Jobs' recent discussion of Safari on Windows is an attempt to create a duopoly of browsers (IE and Safari), with Firefox and the rest on the outside looking in.
I feel that Mozilla is trying to do the same thing to Lynx.
that doesn't imply taking resources away from real crime, or having the public spend money prosecuting themselves. simply make copying for non-commercial, personal use legal. That would instantly eliminate that "hundreds of billions" in crime. Problem solved.
that when someone calls me and says "Hi, this is John Smith," I will not be able to use that info to figure out that he's John Smith without violating Microsoft's patent? (Ditto when someone I know well says "Hi, it's me.")
Perhaps you can point to the specification which would allow it to be used by other operating systems. If I have a dual-boot system, does the specification allow it to keep info for each? If so, how is it determined which OS gets use of how much of this memory?
1) "several kilometers" from a land station is not the "high seas." (The US claims a 12 mile territorial limit)
2) 802.11 is a bidirectional link. How do you propose that a ship communicate with shore unless the shore station also uses an increased EIRP?
The military has their own frequencies which they can use for (relatively) unencumbered communications. When they use the ISM bands used by 802.11, they are bound to the same limits as the rest of us (legally).
from the FCC, since there is a legal limit on EIRP for 802.11. I strongly suspect that any means of increasing range to "several kilometers" would violate that limit.
Note that this is a mobile application which is limited by the FCC to 1W EIRP (fixed applications get 6db more).
Of course, this is all related to terrorists and homeland security, so laws don't apply.
The person in question is NOT a "Nortel board member." He is on the Board of Directors of Blade Network Technologies, the company which issued the press release. It's perfectly reasonable for a member of a company's Board of Directors to call the CEO and tell them they disagree with a decision, it no doubt happens quite frequently, since that's part of what the BoD does.
Now, that particular board member is also an employee of Nortel (Vice President of Business Development, according the BoD bio), but that does not mean that he was speaking from that capacity.
It's really pretty stupid to issue a press release which disses a company with which one of your board members has an outside relationship. Whoever approved that press release (Director of IT?) should have known that 2 of 4 members of his own company's board, including the CEO, had strong ties to the company he was dissing. The reaction shouldn't be unexpected.
I obviously meant "proprietary" in the practical sense. CD/DVD, etc. are well documented and have a high level of compatibility across a large selection of manufacturers, both for media and recorders/readers. Haven't the early patents on CDs (which were introduced to the market in the early 1980's) expired? CD-R was introduced in 1988, so even those patents may have expired (or will shortly), at which point the format will no longer be proprietary, even in the pedantic sense.
In any case, CD and DVD technologies are sufficiently documented to the public that a reader could be made at any time in the future, if needed. Such cannot be said about the storage solution being discussed, which is not publically documented, so a user must rely entirely upon a single private manufacturer for ongoing support.
that their "50 year" life is any more accurate than the "100 year" life given for recordable DVDs? You just claimed that DVD lifetime is overstated by 10x.
Write once does not imply that the content cannot be damaged, or even that the media can't be written to further, only that it cannot be written with useful information (e.g. it may be possible to change bits from 0 to 1, but not the reverse).
Why do you think storing a few $18K readers would have better results in a obtaining a working device 50 years later than simply storing a number of hard drives? MTBF is based on power-on hours, and hardware is hardware. You offer nothing to back up your implication that (unpowered, properly stored) HDD's have short lifetimes.
for a high density archival format, but I can't see where this even comes close.
The manufacturer rates it at 50 year archival life, with no specifics about how that number was derived (is that an average? guaranteed for every piece of media? until an error rate of "x" is encountered? under what storage conditions?).
It's a proprietary solution, from a single startup company - what are the odds that a reader is going to exist in 50 years? Note that the manufacturer specifically warns of a lack of backward compatibility when they state "Drive is backward read compatible for three generations; 18-24 months between generations." Having an archive of data which is inaccessible doesn't get you much.
For verification, ask for the matching credit card name and number, or write to the billing address, etc. However you were getting paid, there is some form of verified contact. (Unless you weren't getting paid, in which case nuke them, or you were billing their ex-employee's private credit card, in which case that person still "owned" the site and you shouldn't be giving the caller access).
Slashdot Mirror
because the sun doesn't rise, the horizon sets. HTH! HAND!
I use Opera, which is already known to support existing HTML standards pretty completely and accurately.
I still frequently run into web sites built by clueless authors who feel a need to do a browser check, and finding it's not IE or Firefox (or sometimes Netscape!), think it is their duty to inform me that their sites only work with "modern" or "updated" browsers. Feh. By and large, that immediately sends me to the site of a competitor if it's a commercial site I'm visiting.
When will web authors get a clue, and start coding to standards and not implementations. (fuck it if IE breaks because they don't do things correctly)? A properly written web site should never need to do a browser check.
"digital audio recording medium," as defined by the act, only refers to _audio_ CD-Rs. These are special recordable CDs made to work in audio CD recorders, which will not record onto standard data CD-Rs (audio CD-Rs will also work in standard computer CD-R drives).
These audio CD-Rs are a bit harder to find, and a bit more expensive than standard data CD-Rs, because you indirectly pay a tax on them to the recording industry (it's collected at the wholesale level).
So, the Bush twins _might_ not be subject to copyright prosecution. OTOH, they do have GW's genes, so they're likely too stupid to know all of that, and probably used data CD-Rs, opening themselves up to prosecution.
they haven't (proven that event horizons exist). I'll paraphrase my earlier response, maybe repetition will help you learn. We have observed objects which exhibit behavior consistent with what we would expect from observing an event horizon. I expect that the paper which is the subject of this discussion explains how their black-hole-like-object-without-an-event-horizon can also exhibit the observed behavior.
we haven't (seen any black holes). You can't "see" a black hole (that's why they're named as they are). We have observed the effects of things which match our expectation of the effects a black hole would cause. I assume the authors of this paper explain how their black-hole-like-object-which-isn't-a-black-hole can cause the same effects.
if I'm not mistaken (derivative works). Doesn't the GPL allows you to make all the derivative works you want without restriction (i.e. with confidential/proprietary code, for your own use), just no distribution? I don't see how distributing a virgin source file, along with a separate patch file (which is logically just info on how to link the code, not the linking itself, which can only occur in a binary), constitutes a "derivative work."
what "patch" is for? (i.e. distribute virgin source code, along with scripts and diffs which can fix/compile everything).
The US bill does nothing to prevent a corporation from deliberately disclosing whatever they want to whomever they want - it's focused exclusively on securing those transactions from third parties.
The law is summed up in this paragraph:
I have a thing about my Social Security number - I only give it to those who require it to fulfill legal mandates. That includes my employer, who has decided (without my permission, and despite my express denial) to give it to a health care provider. This proposed law does nothing to prevent that.
I want them to be prevented from "selling or transferring" my confidential information, without my voluntary consent (no consent as a condition of employment, etc.).
Thank you for the informative response, it was much better than the other "no" one.
If I understand things correctly, it is possible for users to legally compile the Linux kernel and ZFS together, the sources may even be distributed together as long as there are no pre-linked binaries (ready to run). That should make it possible for a distribution to compile ZFS support into the kernel at install time (i.e. by the user, for their own use, not for distribution).
hold the copyright to the Linux kernel? It seems to me that he must, as everyone seems to agree that he has control over what license it is issued under (see discussions of GPL v2 vs. v3). If the kernel copyright is not entirely held by Linus, then he would have to get unanimous consent to make any change (impossible?), if he at some point wanted to move to GPL3, right?
So, if he controls the copyright, he can place it under a "GPL plus you're allowed to link ZFS" license. Where's the problem?
there is no reason that a resident of another state, or even another city (taxpayers, all), should bear the burden for a bad local decision.
that doesn't imply taking resources away from real crime, or having the public spend money prosecuting themselves. simply make copying for non-commercial, personal use legal. That would instantly eliminate that "hundreds of billions" in crime. Problem solved.
that when someone calls me and says "Hi, this is John Smith," I will not be able to use that info to figure out that he's John Smith without violating Microsoft's patent? (Ditto when someone I know well says "Hi, it's me.")
It's interesting that Intel themselves calls it an "entirely new system innovation for Windows Vista PCs..." and says that it "Works on Windows Vista only."
Perhaps you can point to the specification which would allow it to be used by other operating systems. If I have a dual-boot system, does the specification allow it to keep info for each? If so, how is it determined which OS gets use of how much of this memory?
Here's a link to RFC 3514, for those wondering about this.
both a toilet and a urinal. Then there is no need to move the seat, ever. 100% efficient.
2 Tebibytes should be enough for anyone.
1) "several kilometers" from a land station is not the "high seas." (The US claims a 12 mile territorial limit)
2) 802.11 is a bidirectional link. How do you propose that a ship communicate with shore unless the shore station also uses an increased EIRP?
The military has their own frequencies which they can use for (relatively) unencumbered communications. When they use the ISM bands used by 802.11, they are bound to the same limits as the rest of us (legally).
from the FCC, since there is a legal limit on EIRP for 802.11. I strongly suspect that any means of increasing range to "several kilometers" would violate that limit.
Note that this is a mobile application which is limited by the FCC to 1W EIRP (fixed applications get 6db more).
Of course, this is all related to terrorists and homeland security, so laws don't apply.
The summary and article are both incorrect.
The person in question is NOT a "Nortel board member." He is on the Board of Directors of Blade Network Technologies, the company which issued the press release. It's perfectly reasonable for a member of a company's Board of Directors to call the CEO and tell them they disagree with a decision, it no doubt happens quite frequently, since that's part of what the BoD does.
Now, that particular board member is also an employee of Nortel (Vice President of Business Development, according the BoD bio), but that does not mean that he was speaking from that capacity.
It's really pretty stupid to issue a press release which disses a company with which one of your board members has an outside relationship. Whoever approved that press release (Director of IT?) should have known that 2 of 4 members of his own company's board, including the CEO, had strong ties to the company he was dissing. The reaction shouldn't be unexpected.
I obviously meant "proprietary" in the practical sense. CD/DVD, etc. are well documented and have a high level of compatibility across a large selection of manufacturers, both for media and recorders/readers.
Haven't the early patents on CDs (which were introduced to the market in the early 1980's) expired? CD-R was introduced in 1988, so even those patents may have expired (or will shortly), at which point the format will no longer be proprietary, even in the pedantic sense.
In any case, CD and DVD technologies are sufficiently documented to the public that a reader could be made at any time in the future, if needed. Such cannot be said about the storage solution being discussed, which is not publically documented, so a user must rely entirely upon a single private manufacturer for ongoing support.
that their "50 year" life is any more accurate than the "100 year" life given for recordable DVDs? You just claimed that DVD lifetime is overstated by 10x.
Write once does not imply that the content cannot be damaged, or even that the media can't be written to further, only that it cannot be written with useful information (e.g. it may be possible to change bits from 0 to 1, but not the reverse).
Why do you think storing a few $18K readers would have better results in a obtaining a working device 50 years later than simply storing a number of hard drives? MTBF is based on power-on hours, and hardware is hardware. You offer nothing to back up your implication that (unpowered, properly stored) HDD's have short lifetimes.
for a high density archival format, but I can't see where this even comes close.
The manufacturer rates it at 50 year archival life, with no specifics about how that number was derived (is that an average? guaranteed for every piece of media? until an error rate of "x" is encountered? under what storage conditions?).
It's a proprietary solution, from a single startup company - what are the odds that a reader is going to exist in 50 years? Note that the manufacturer specifically warns of a lack of backward compatibility when they state "Drive is backward read compatible for three generations; 18-24 months between generations." Having an archive of data which is inaccessible doesn't get you much.
The web host was getting paid, weren't they?
For verification, ask for the matching credit card name and number, or write to the billing address, etc. However you were getting paid, there is some form of verified contact. (Unless you weren't getting paid, in which case nuke them, or you were billing their ex-employee's private credit card, in which case that person still "owned" the site and you shouldn't be giving the caller access).