The Google executive in question disappeared from the surface of the Earth.
The first rule of the Googleplex is: you don't talk about the Googleplex. The second rule of the Googleplex is: you DON'T TALK about the Googleplex. Byotch.
Not so fast! Off the top of my head, there is a lot of stuff that still uses FAT: SD-Card, USB sticks, most of the little thingie you stick into a cell phone, a digital camera, and use in embedded systems. Basically everything that can emulate (and does emulate) a floppy disk And what about real floppy disks themselves?
FAT has got a lot of problems, but it's convenient, simple to implement, and relatively stable. And most of the systems in use today can read and write to it (Linux, BSD, Solaris, Windows, MacOS, you name it), so it is also convenient for quickly transferring data from those small thingamajigs into you main PeeCee.
So yeah, FAT is here to stay. It does not do a lot, but what it does, it does well. And that's why rejecting the FAT patent in Germany is Good News(tm).
If only OpenBSD were suitable for anything beyond a firewall.
Which simply proves you have never user OpenBSD for anything: I have an OpenBSD 4.0 machine on my desk that I use everyday. That machine is a cheap second-hand Dell laptop with a Celeron 1Ghz and 128MB of RAM (it has been upgraded to 384MB recently). It works perfectly, and allows me to listen to music while surfing the web (Firefox), reading email (Sylpheed), programming (shell, Perl, Python & C, with vim) and controlling distant servers through OpenSSH and ClusterSSH. I have even controlled Solaris 10 installations through a serial cable and Minicom with this machine.
With 128MB of RAM, it used to swap a lot. With the recent RAM upgrade, it performs like a charm, and has never let me down so far. So, OpenBSD, only for firewalls? I don't think so. That little Dell laptop was the perfect machine (and my only machine!) when I was flat broke and I don't think it would have worked as well with a Linux distribution. OpenBSD has a lot of strengths, and security and firewalling are not the only ones...
Man, this is Slahdot. Please don't post that kind of joke. I am still traumatized by this goatse guy, you know. I mean, I have nightmares at night, sometimes I cry for no reason and everything. And the mental image of Rob Enderle... You don't want to know.
Yes, that France is not really a country of Law is well known... What I have not seen before, is anyone considering this to be an advantage...
I believe it's called "civil disobedience" to you. Look it up in a dictionary sometimes.
And, of course, being a Country Of Law, like, oh, the U.S.A. has its advantages, right? Let's see... Patriot Act, DMCA, Presidential Signing Statements, Unlawful NSA wiretapping, Unlawful Renditions, Guantanamo Detention Centre, Eminent Domain, etc. Need I say more? A true "Country of Law", indeed. And can I throw in a little thing about School Boards voting against Darwinian Evolution? Pretty please?
I am always amazed by the fantasy some (if not most) Americans live in when it comes to their country. Sure, France has its problems, its stupid laws and crooked (not to mention retarded) politicians. But the U.S.A. a country of law? Oh, Please. Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
Now, be a nice little boy and call me back when the US Army, finally reverts to respecting the Geneva Convention, and the US Dept of Justice actually enforces this by putting generals and CIA directors under scrutiny, mmmmmKay? (Hint: Hell. Frozen. Over.)
I see... A bit touchy on the subject of Republicans, are we?;-)
Racial riots were extremely localized and not too dangerous or disruptive [unless you lived in the neighbourhood, that is]. And French people have got a strong tendency -- Bob bless them -- to blithely ignore stupid laws and legal decisions such as this one when it suits them.
Finally, the penalties for most of these laws are freely set by the judge. Which means you could go away scot-free if you have the luck of finding yourself in front of a leftist French Judge. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster have mercy of you if you happen to be in front of a Conservative Judge, though.
IANAL, and I am certainly not a French Lawyer, but yes... I believe you could be prosecuted for not helping a victim of police violence...
On the other hand, given the circumstances, you could probably count on the leniency of the French Court...:-)
If I remember well, not helping another person when your own life and safety are in danger cannot be used as a cause for a prosecution. But I need to check that out. I honestly don't think that would be too much of a problem (but I may be wrong).
If that's any comfort to you, if you are a witness of police violence and try to intervene, you usually end up being a victim of police violence yourself. Same if you try to film said police violence.
There is no need to use this decision of the French Constitutional Council. As I have posted elsewhere, most of the videos you mention could already be prosecuted under French Law. For instance, bum wars could be considered as inciting violence and disorder or even as being accomplice to assault and battery.
It makes the decision in question that much more stupid.
I have posted this a bit earlier in the same discussion, but, yes, it would be possible to appeal this decision of the French Constitutional Council all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. This Court has the power to overturn all national decisions on matters of Human Rights, and free speech/free flow of information would definitely fall into its mandate.
Of course, it would take years of legal fight to reach the European Court. And legal fees are not exactly cheap in France...
This is an entirely different question. A video of a violent act that is broadcast over the Internet, by someone who witnessed a crime but did not act, would be considered as a "crime" (misdemeanor?) in France.
On the other hand, evidence from video cameras, whether operated by a professional journalist or not, are considred as admissible in a court of law. If I remember well (my Law School years are far behind me...), a video is not considered as a "full" proof, since the video could have been tampered or altered. On the other hand, a video is definitely admissible, as long as the person filming had no time to react or was not an accomplice in the violence.
The problem is, of course, that with this new decision, the Constitutional Council opens a way to prosecute people who witnessed police violence and/or abuses and then decide to broadcast/upload the video over the Internet, without going to a court or to the police first. This is clearly designed to stifle dissent and the flow of information over the Internet.
Except CCTV operators in France are considered at best, member of the law-enforcement community, or, at worst, people who have received an authorization to operate the CCTV equipement. Just in case you don't understand what that means: they are allowed to film and act on what they could see on the CCTV monitors.
Besides, they are not allowed to sell CCTV tapes, or broadcast them on the Internet. They'll be prosecuted if they do. France has got some pretty strong privacy laws like that. Furthermore, the fact CCTV cameras are in operation, for example in a mall, must be clearly advertised at the entrance of the mall itself. So, CCTV operators are not considered journalist in any way, only as people who are providing some sort of security to the general public.
The French Constitutional Council has a position similar to the U.S. Supreme Court, except it only rules to decide whether or not a law is constitutional (respects the French Constitution of the Vth Republic, Human Rights, etc).
Another difference with the U.S. Supreme Court is that it can actually be seized (by Members of Parliament) before a law is voted on by Parliament itself. For instance, if some people introduce a law saying Linux is illegal and should be banned, it is highly possible that the Constitutional Council would be seized by MPs sympathetic to Linux. It is therefore, considered as the guardian of the Constitution and of Human Rights.
On the other hand, it is sad to note that its evolution has also mimicked the recent evolution of the U.S. Supreme Court: President Jacques Chirac has packed the Constitutional Council with conservative (sometimes ultra-conservatives) judges, people who can be extremely authoritarian (by French standards -- they would be considered as dangerous lefties in the U.S.) and sympathetic to his positions. And these positions probably include a lot of censorship of the Internet.
So, IMHO, it's not a surprise this stupid law is now passed in France. The ultimate appeal, of course, would be for a French Citizen to bring his/her case to the European Court of Human Rights, which could overturn the Constitutional Council decision as well as any and all court decision on such a matter. But that would probably take years of hard legal work, with all legal fees you can imagine.
Yes, this is bad news. As a French citizen, I am personally ashamed the Constitutional Council has taken such a position, especially since, as you mentioned, "happy slapping" videos could already be prosecuted under French Law as not helping someone in danger (Good Samaritan Law?), or even as being an accomplice to assault and battery. In France, if you see something, you have to do something!
In short: stupid, stupid, stupid. And shameful, to boot.
Remaining on Earth is the same as becoming extinct, the sun won't last forever. The choices should be: colonize or die, and never quit colonizing.
If I remember well, the Sun won't go bust for another couple of billion years. So, if that's the only problem we are facing, we still have a little while to go...
Buying Microsoft Office = expensive. Using Google Apps = US$ X per year. Downloading Open Office = free, except for the bandwidth (which you need to connect to Google Apps anyway).
If I was in charge of a small company, I know what that company would use... and what solution would be the best to preserve it from our friends at the SPA.
The guy is working for Dell, which uses Microsoft products only (surprise, surprise).
Because Dell uses Microsoft products exclusively, you run into all kind of problems and compatibility issues (surprise, surprise).
In other words: "I blame Linux, because the company I work for is too lazy, or too stubborn, or just plain too stupid to use standard-compliant software, instead of being a Microsoft-only shop". Yeah, right. Microsoft Excel and Power Point and Word run into all kind of problems when you try to use their files under Open Office. That's not a surprise, it's a Microsoft policy and it is exactly designed to lock the competition (Linux or others) out. And, guess what? It works!
A little bit like the poor South Koreans that used Windows for everything and are now stuck with a new OS (Microsoft Vista) that is incompatible with the ActiveX encryption utilities that are used by... well, 90%+ of the population.
What this article reveals (beyond the obvious FUD) is precisely that Linux is not the problem: Microsoft is the problem, as well as its closed standards and its closed filed formats. End of story.
The company I work for, as a sysadmin, has put Mantis in place in order to keep track of just about everything, from bug fixes to feature request to system, network and software management. It works very well, and allows the system group to be on top of users requests. Highly recommended.
Wikipedia already has a credibility problem, but this?
Anonymous leaking of materials that may be totally unverified? I can already the giant wooshing sound of lawyers descending on this poor thing for defamation.
Besides, what's the point of such a site if countries like China and Iran can censor it by building a "Great Firewall" around their little corner of the Internet?
Oh, and by the way, thanks for posting all of your plans on the Internet before the site even goes live. Dumb script kiddies everywhere are going to blast your poor site as soon as it shows up.
Slashdot Mirror
The Google executive in question disappeared from the surface of the Earth.
The first rule of the Googleplex is: you don't talk about the Googleplex.
The second rule of the Googleplex is: you DON'T TALK about the Googleplex. Byotch.
(Or course this is said tongue-in-cheek)...
Whoa!
Not so fast! Off the top of my head, there is a lot of stuff that still uses FAT: SD-Card, USB sticks, most of the little thingie you stick into a cell phone, a digital camera, and use in embedded systems. Basically everything that can emulate (and does emulate) a floppy disk And what about real floppy disks themselves?
FAT has got a lot of problems, but it's convenient, simple to implement, and relatively stable. And most of the systems in use today can read and write to it (Linux, BSD, Solaris, Windows, MacOS, you name it), so it is also convenient for quickly transferring data from those small thingamajigs into you main PeeCee.
So yeah, FAT is here to stay. It does not do a lot, but what it does, it does well. And that's why rejecting the FAT patent in Germany is Good News(tm).
Which simply proves you have never user OpenBSD for anything: I have an OpenBSD 4.0 machine on my desk that I use everyday. That machine is a cheap second-hand Dell laptop with a Celeron 1Ghz and 128MB of RAM (it has been upgraded to 384MB recently). It works perfectly, and allows me to listen to music while surfing the web (Firefox), reading email (Sylpheed), programming (shell, Perl, Python & C, with vim) and controlling distant servers through OpenSSH and ClusterSSH. I have even controlled Solaris 10 installations through a serial cable and Minicom with this machine.
With 128MB of RAM, it used to swap a lot. With the recent RAM upgrade, it performs like a charm, and has never let me down so far. So, OpenBSD, only for firewalls? I don't think so. That little Dell laptop was the perfect machine (and my only machine!) when I was flat broke and I don't think it would have worked as well with a Linux distribution. OpenBSD has a lot of strengths, and security and firewalling are not the only ones...
Hmmm... As long as their servers are secure, Ubuntu is as good a choice as any other.
You said it yourself: it's a good distro for individuals new to Linux.
Actually, now that you mention it, I was talking about web sites in France.
I know, I know, RTFA and RTF summary and all that. All my apologies.
Most leftie blog (and just plain lefties) are Linux/Free Software users. Most right-wing people I know are Windows users.
Then again, this is a country where most governement departments are switching to Linux, so...
Man, this is Slahdot. Please don't post that kind of joke. I am still traumatized by this goatse guy, you know. I mean, I have nightmares at night, sometimes I cry for no reason and everything. And the mental image of Rob Enderle... You don't want to know.
I believe it's called "civil disobedience" to you. Look it up in a dictionary sometimes.
And, of course, being a Country Of Law, like, oh, the U.S.A. has its advantages, right? Let's see... Patriot Act, DMCA, Presidential Signing Statements, Unlawful NSA wiretapping, Unlawful Renditions, Guantanamo Detention Centre, Eminent Domain, etc. Need I say more? A true "Country of Law", indeed. And can I throw in a little thing about School Boards voting against Darwinian Evolution? Pretty please?
I am always amazed by the fantasy some (if not most) Americans live in when it comes to their country. Sure, France has its problems, its stupid laws and crooked (not to mention retarded) politicians. But the U.S.A. a country of law? Oh, Please. Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
Now, be a nice little boy and call me back when the US Army, finally reverts to respecting the Geneva Convention, and the US Dept of Justice actually enforces this by putting generals and CIA directors under scrutiny, mmmmmKay? (Hint: Hell. Frozen. Over.)
Unlikely.
I see... A bit touchy on the subject of Republicans, are we? ;-)
Racial riots were extremely localized and not too dangerous or disruptive [unless you lived in the neighbourhood, that is]. And French people have got a strong tendency -- Bob bless them -- to blithely ignore stupid laws and legal decisions such as this one when it suits them.
Finally, the penalties for most of these laws are freely set by the judge. Which means you could go away scot-free if you have the luck of finding yourself in front of a leftist French Judge. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster have mercy of you if you happen to be in front of a Conservative Judge, though.
IANAL, and I am certainly not a French Lawyer, but yes... I believe you could be prosecuted for not helping a victim of police violence...
On the other hand, given the circumstances, you could probably count on the leniency of the French Court...
If I remember well, not helping another person when your own life and safety are in danger cannot be used as a cause for a prosecution. But I need to check that out. I honestly don't think that would be too much of a problem (but I may be wrong).
If that's any comfort to you, if you are a witness of police violence and try to intervene, you usually end up being a victim of police violence yourself. Same if you try to film said police violence.
There is no need to use this decision of the French Constitutional Council. As I have posted elsewhere, most of the videos you mention could already be prosecuted under French Law. For instance, bum wars could be considered as inciting violence and disorder or even as being accomplice to assault and battery.
It makes the decision in question that much more stupid.
I have posted this a bit earlier in the same discussion, but, yes, it would be possible to appeal this decision of the French Constitutional Council all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. This Court has the power to overturn all national decisions on matters of Human Rights, and free speech/free flow of information would definitely fall into its mandate.
Of course, it would take years of legal fight to reach the European Court. And legal fees are not exactly cheap in France...
Sports cameramen are considered as "journalists" in France. So they are exempt.
Someone who filmed Zidane's headbutt from the sidelines on a cell phone could be prosecuted, though.
This is an entirely different question. A video of a violent act that is broadcast over the Internet, by someone who witnessed a crime but did not act, would be considered as a "crime" (misdemeanor?) in France.
On the other hand, evidence from video cameras, whether operated by a professional journalist or not, are considred as admissible in a court of law. If I remember well (my Law School years are far behind me...), a video is not considered as a "full" proof, since the video could have been tampered or altered. On the other hand, a video is definitely admissible, as long as the person filming had no time to react or was not an accomplice in the violence.
The problem is, of course, that with this new decision, the Constitutional Council opens a way to prosecute people who witnessed police violence and/or abuses and then decide to broadcast/upload the video over the Internet, without going to a court or to the police first. This is clearly designed to stifle dissent and the flow of information over the Internet.
Except CCTV operators in France are considered at best, member of the law-enforcement community, or, at worst, people who have received an authorization to operate the CCTV equipement. Just in case you don't understand what that means: they are allowed to film and act on what they could see on the CCTV monitors.
Besides, they are not allowed to sell CCTV tapes, or broadcast them on the Internet. They'll be prosecuted if they do. France has got some pretty strong privacy laws like that. Furthermore, the fact CCTV cameras are in operation, for example in a mall, must be clearly advertised at the entrance of the mall itself. So, CCTV operators are not considered journalist in any way, only as people who are providing some sort of security to the general public.
Ha ha ha.
Except our Conservatives are just as stupid as your Republicans [and the French governement is a Conservative one at the moment].
Oh, wait, they don't start wars for oil. I guess that makes them a bit better than the U.S. Republicans. Just a bit.
The French Constitutional Council has a position similar to the U.S. Supreme Court, except it only rules to decide whether or not a law is constitutional (respects the French Constitution of the Vth Republic, Human Rights, etc).
Another difference with the U.S. Supreme Court is that it can actually be seized (by Members of Parliament) before a law is voted on by Parliament itself. For instance, if some people introduce a law saying Linux is illegal and should be banned, it is highly possible that the Constitutional Council would be seized by MPs sympathetic to Linux. It is therefore, considered as the guardian of the Constitution and of Human Rights.
On the other hand, it is sad to note that its evolution has also mimicked the recent evolution of the U.S. Supreme Court: President Jacques Chirac has packed the Constitutional Council with conservative (sometimes ultra-conservatives) judges, people who can be extremely authoritarian (by French standards -- they would be considered as dangerous lefties in the U.S.) and sympathetic to his positions. And these positions probably include a lot of censorship of the Internet.
So, IMHO, it's not a surprise this stupid law is now passed in France. The ultimate appeal, of course, would be for a French Citizen to bring his/her case to the European Court of Human Rights, which could overturn the Constitutional Council decision as well as any and all court decision on such a matter. But that would probably take years of hard legal work, with all legal fees you can imagine.
Yes, this is bad news. As a French citizen, I am personally ashamed the Constitutional Council has taken such a position, especially since, as you mentioned, "happy slapping" videos could already be prosecuted under French Law as not helping someone in danger (Good Samaritan Law?), or even as being an accomplice to assault and battery. In France, if you see something, you have to do something!
In short: stupid, stupid, stupid. And shameful, to boot.
I should have guessed...
Yep, The Man is still on top of things.
This change is covered in the glibc-zoneinfo-2.3.6-noarch-7_slack11.0.tgz package, which you can fetch from most Slackware mirrors.
Just thought I'd drop that tidbit of information if there is another Slackware user around here...
If I remember well, the Sun won't go bust for another couple of billion years. So, if that's the only problem we are facing, we still have a little while to go...
Buying Microsoft Office = expensive.
Using Google Apps = US$ X per year.
Downloading Open Office = free, except for the bandwidth (which you need to connect to Google Apps anyway).
If I was in charge of a small company, I know what that company would use... and what solution would be the best to preserve it from our friends at the SPA.
In other words: "I blame Linux, because the company I work for is too lazy, or too stubborn, or just plain too stupid to use standard-compliant software , instead of being a Microsoft-only shop". Yeah, right. Microsoft Excel and Power Point and Word run into all kind of problems when you try to use their files under Open Office. That's not a surprise, it's a Microsoft policy and it is exactly designed to lock the competition (Linux or others) out. And, guess what? It works!
A little bit like the poor South Koreans that used Windows for everything and are now stuck with a new OS (Microsoft Vista) that is incompatible with the ActiveX encryption utilities that are used by... well, 90%+ of the population.
What this article reveals (beyond the obvious FUD) is precisely that Linux is not the problem: Microsoft is the problem, as well as its closed standards and its closed filed formats . End of story.
The company I work for, as a sysadmin, has put Mantis in place in order to keep track of just about everything, from bug fixes to feature request to system, network and software management. It works very well, and allows the system group to be on top of users requests. Highly recommended.
Wikipedia already has a credibility problem, but this?
Anonymous leaking of materials that may be totally unverified? I can already the giant wooshing sound of lawyers descending on this poor thing for defamation.
Besides, what's the point of such a site if countries like China and Iran can censor it by building a "Great Firewall" around their little corner of the Internet?
Oh, and by the way, thanks for posting all of your plans on the Internet before the site even goes live. Dumb script kiddies everywhere are going to blast your poor site as soon as it shows up.