Not true. It will have low humidity, but not zero. However, if the air around the computer is heated from the computer itself, I would be surprised to see any condensation. Low humidity air being heated should be able to hold more water not less. Condensation happens from moisture in warm air coming into contact with cool or cold air. This would be the opposite of what is happening in the freezer. As someone else mentioned, different thermal expansion rates of the computer hardware is probably more of an issue than humidity.
Bottom line, shop for equipment built for the job. If you have a need for this now, it is a very, very good bet that someone has done the same or similar before. I'll guarantee that you aren't the first person to have a need to run computer equipment in low temperatures. You've heard this before, and now, once again: "Don't re-invent the wheel."
For example, in a past life, we needed a gas analyzer shed full of, well, gas analyzers (Gas Chromatography TCD/Mass Spec, associated remote computers, etc.) that would pull in and analyze gas from several process lines. It was basically an insulated hut that sat outside in what could be as low as minus 50 degree celcius temperatures (not counting the bullshit windchill people like to brag with). And yes, it had heaters in it to make sure a the inside temperature was at least around plus 5 degrees C. This is the first time we needed something like this, but yes, there were several suppliers with that kind of experience available who were able to provide bids for the work. Even though it was the first time for us, we weren't breaking new ground.:-)
I believe you are thinking too small. The OP mentioned the word warehouse. I doubt even several computers would make much of a difference in heat load. I have seen warehouse freezers the size of football fields. There is likely greater heat impact from people opening doors and gaps in insulation in an area that size than from computers. Even in a small warehouse.
This is why we "first world countries like America, Canada, most of Europe, etc. should restrict trade with countries that don't provide for the same level of labour and environmental laws as us. Most of the problems encountered by "third world" workers is due to the greed for *cheap* gadgets in the first world. So much greed that we turn a blind eye to where our goods come from. e.g. the ubiquitus example of the $100.00 tennis shoe that cost $0.50 to make in some Indonesian sweat shop by child labour.
I agree... especially since many times security will no longer allow you to lock your luggage so that it can be searched after you check it in (if need be). Because of this I am way more concerned about theives. It is not uncommon to hear about something being stolen by unscrupulous baggage handlers. A laptop is a prime target. On the other hand, if they ban laptop from carry on again, and for say, a few months... well by that time, all the unscrupulous baggage handlers will already have good laptops...
This might be American or North American only (at least one of the credit bureaus cover Canada and the U.S.). I would hazard a guess that other countries have different credit bureaus and different rules.
Occasionally I see stuff like this in the real world. For example, at a bar I was in once, the debit machine which received input from the cash register had a difference of 1 cent from the bill calculated in the register. I asked them what was up with that. They said something like "yeah, that happens every once in a while". To me it seemed obvious that whoever did the coding for the interface didn't have a clue about floating point rounding errors. So I tend to agree with the grandparent post... it seems floating point rounding errors are not always obvious to some programmers. I really can't fathom how someone who is supposed to be a professional doesn't understand how their tools work... or why they don't care to.
... is that when they do have a security 'fix', they force you to update by downloading the entire suite... they don't have differential patches. I personally get sick and tired of having to download around 100 MBytes of app, uninstall the original, and re-install the new. Granted on my Linux box the package updater will do all three, but the updater takes forever to download the files. Quite frankly it is a pain in the ass. Sometimes I delay installing an update because of it (sometimes quite a while). Other than OO, I really am pretty diligent about updating my systems, so I can imagine there are those who just won't bother updating OO at all. I would think this is especially for those who are still on dial-up where a 100 meg download can take many, many hours.
In my opinion, if they want to say they get fixes out quickly, I can call bullshit. Just because you have the code complete doesn't mean the fix is complete. It still needs to be distributed to all the installations. If this is not done because the process is so onerous, then you can't say the fix is released faster than M$. As much as dislike monopolies, they do make the update process a lot less painful.
In case it gets/.'d (this comment is buried down enough that maybe it won't but just in case... that said, there is a very old photo on the site of actual Inuit kayaks as well):
The Inuit invented the kayak, a one person boat used for hunting and transportation, and propelled by a double-bladed paddle. Inuit and Aleuts used driftwood or whalebone to make a light framework, and covered it with stretched skins, made watertight with whale fat.
Kayak means "hunter's boat" and it is perfect for hunting on the water. It's almost silent, making it easy to sneak up behind prey. If a white cloth is draped in front, the animals might be fooled into thinking that it is a drifting piece of ice.
These traditional "one man" boats were usually just that - "made to measure" for just one man's size and weight. When a person had fallen into the water or died from kayak hunting, it was often said that he had borrowed someone else's kayak, and didn't have the same sense of balance.
Hunters wore a sealskin "annuraaq" to keep water from getting into the boat (the origin of the modern name "anorak" for a waterproof cover). The hood and wrists were tightly tied, and it was long enough to be tied around the cockpit. So how did they get out if they capsized? Simple. They didn't.
It was considered suicide to come out of the boat. There was no protection from the icy cold water, no buoyancy in heavy skin clothing, and... who knew how to swim? If you rolled over, you had to know how to roll right back up!
From my understanding, kayaks originated with the Inuit people of the far north (arctic ocean). None of the Inuit kayaks I have seen (in person or in photos/films) look anything like a canoe. They are all closed topped with an opening for the kayaker.
Speed cameras have not been proven to reduce speed and prevent crashes (except perhaps initially in the short term), they just make money for the local government... a cash cow. Having real police or traffic enforcement out there to enforce the speed limit does. Also, in every place I have lived (four provinces in Canada and three states in the U.S.A., you didn't loose points on your license for photo radar tickets (since they can't prove you were driving your car), only for tickets issued when an enforcement officer tickets you. Also, your auto/motorbike insurance was not affected by photo radar tickets for the same reason... at least in the U.S. and anywhere with private insurance (not sure how over-priced government monopoly insurance like in British Columbia works). I think insurance rate increases have more of an effect on deterring speeding (or the threat of a ticket causing a rate increase) than does anything.
An interesting note: in Missouri, you can often get a "moving violation" (e.g. a speeding ticket) reduced to a non-moving violation (equivalent to a parking ticket) if you pay a lawyer to argue some 'thing' and also pay the fine. The lawyer usually charge $75 or $100 dollars. The cost more than offsets the insurance rate increase you would get for the "moving violation". Don't ask me the details of how or why it works, I just know that it does. No I never got caught so didn't need the service, but I had several friends who did. It is also why lawyers and some businesses advertise their services so much for these kind of traffic offences. It explains the formula one speeds on the highways there!
I still wouldn't want a nuclear bomb going off above my town. What's the point of a 1960's erra household funding NORAD with their taxes to 'protect me' when I could be killed by friendly fire. In this case 'fire' is the most appropriate metaphor.:-) The radiation would also be a great hazard. From what I understand, most people involved in the project in the thought it a crazy idea anyway.
"Top" lists are always like this since our collective memory is relatively short term. The shorter it's been since we saw a movie, the better we remember it. Also, as someone pointed out, maybe once we get older, we have a higher critical standard.
I think these "top" lists should only give the options for movies older than say 5 (or maybe 10) years. This would let us get over the rosey glow we have of the movie and judge it for what it is. For example, (note, I haven't seen this yet but I now am looking for it) the goup The Monkees made a movie called "Head" (Jack Nicholson of all people was one of the producers). When it came out, everyone hated it. This was because the people who liked The Monkees went to see it and it wasn't at all what they expected. The band for their own reasons broke from the mold the record companies made for them and they did their own thing. Their fans, expecting the record company shaped image, didn't 'get' the movie. On the other hand, the people that might have liked it didn't go to see it because they too had the record company vision of The Monkees, and didn't think they would like it. After 10 or 20 years, apparently "Head" had a better critical acceptance since the people watching it then didn't have any (or less) precconcieved notions on the band. 'Best of' should be later. (I just read about the later critiques on "Head", so now I am interested in watching the movie! It might still suck (to me), but now it made me think... at least a little:-)
There are many times I don't see a movie for 5 or 10 after it came out because at first glance I didn't think I would like it. Fight Club is one that comes to mind. I think it is a good movie... now that I watched it.;-)
Canada was involved from the beginning. As a matter of fact there is a Canadian counterpart to Cheyenne Mountain near North Bay, Ontario. It is buried about 200 metres into the solid granite of the Canadian Shield bedrock which makes up the geology of the area. There are American military personnel permanently working there, just as Canadian military work in Cheyenne Mountain.
The likely attack of Soviet bombers or missiles is over the pole. This was especially true during the late 1950's (when NORAD was formed), and probably continued to be the direction of most threat during the cold war. So most of the radar stations watching for this are in Canada. The famous early version was the DEW line (Distant Early Warning) of radar stations.
SCARY FACT!!!: Canada once had NUCLEAR TIPPED BOMARC ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILES to be used against Soviet bombers in the event of war. They were a purchased in part to move them further north (so that when they exploded after firing at Soviet bombers, it would be in the Arctic instead of say, over Winnipeg, Calgary or Edmonton if they were fired from the U.S.A.) and as an additional replacement for the ignorant John Diefenbaker's incompetent handling of Canada's defense when he canceled the Avro Arrow (a very advanced intercepter fighter whose speed was projected to eventually top Mach 3 and had the first fly-by-wire avionics).
Nope, I'm sure that this is just an accident by a company that spends its off hours petting little baby chickens and bunnies.
Just announced, Microsoft, a known petter of baby chickens and bunnies has just announced the signing if Larry Flint. Said a Microsoft spokesperson, as a lover of chickens, we thought Larry might be a good, errr, fit.
What about if you spend a lot of time (a year or two) to develop a piece of software and try to sell it since you need to eat and pay rent. Then someone comes along and starts selling your software for his own profit (he can as long as he gives away the source code say). Now you lose revenue because he sells it for less maybe... you still lose revenue even if he sells it for the same because he is cutting into your market. Then a lot of people start doin this, and now you have to get a job at a proprietary software company because this model only works if you build big enterprise software apps that people will pay for support contracts on. *** The point is, whether they lock up the code or not you are still subsidizing they guy who is taking your open source code and selling it.
But in the end, who cares if they lock it up? As long as they give out your source code. If you don't want them to use it, then don't give it away.
Personally I think BSD or Apache are more altruistic and realistic. Contribute to a free and open code base that others can use as they wish, with far less restrictions than the GPL. They give away the code and don't ask anything of the recipient other than ask them to contribute if they want to. If you want to give stuff away and feel that you are helping a greater good, then do that. I am beginning to thnk that the GPL is like giving money for a Christmas gift or whatever your choice holdiday is, and telling the recipient they are only allowed to spend it in one place. If you really want to give stuff away, don't have strings attached to it.
If I get it, the new version puts more restrictions on combining proprietary and open source code libraries. Is this not correct? If it is, how would this affect applications/companies like MySQL? Don't they have two versions (if I am not mistaken), a GPL version and a commercial version. They are in business to make money. Will this prevent them from releasing their RDBMS for free under the GPL (or vice versa, prevent them from releasing a closed source version)? Even if MySQL might not work this way, are there any open source applications that could be killed off by this/like this? Would something like GNUv3 scare Sun from Open Sourcing Java, or would they use their own licence? If so, would that license be incompatible with GNUv3 and prevent people using it with open source projects? What about the Apache license... will they be compatible? Will it be compatible with BSD projects or create a rift?
I'm just curious about the broader ramifications. Most of the meaningful open source code base is contributed to by people working for private companies (the Linux kernel, Open Office, etc... I know I will be slagged for not including several hundred examples). Might this affect how they operate and reduce their contribution? Can anyone provide some insight into this aspect?
Contact the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commision... although sometimes known as the Canadian Roadblock to Communications!). In this case this is something they help with. By the way, up till recently and maybe even now, Telus was on a kind of watch list and warned to start improving customer satisfaction. This was due to an overwhelming amount of customer complaints.
I understand your point, but I think it points out rather, how fucked up our society is. If someone is falsely accused of something, it should be seen as that. As well, the person should have right to sue for damages in this sort of case. And the person making the false accusation should be punished to deter this from happening. However, I still stand by my first post. If the system isn't open, for everyone, it is then open for abuse.
I think Roger Moore manipulates things for his own profit, but his movies are entertaining... and he did make a point I agree with, somehow we seem to be breeding a society were fear and distrust are dominant... maybe this is why we no longer trust someone who is falsely accused. Witch hunt anyone? Pick someone you hate and accuse them of sexual harassment.
Closed police practices don't help alleviate an atmosphere of fear and distrust (see one of the posts in this thread... why don't they lock their back door any more?).
The original poster was asking the question: why would anyone other than the person being arrested have any reason to need to know the charges against them?
If you had half a brain, you would see that what I was referring, is that openness in the process of law is imporatant to more than just the person beign arrested. Everyone needs to be able to see into it or we start down a sippery slope to where the government decides what is best for us. The first step is to not tell the public what someone is being arrested for... But remember folks, don't question the powers that be or you are not patriotic and are evil! We can only fight terrorism by taking away constitutional rights.
And to answer your question, if you RDFA, you would see that this is a case in point. Someone was arrested, and the FBI refused to tell anyone why. In fact, from TFA, it even appears that they don't even want to acknowledge who they arrested... just that they arrested someone.
I got in contact with a spokesperson for the FBI's New York field office, who confirmed that the FBI had executed one arrest warrant without incident at around 4 p.m. ET today at the Hotel Pennsylvania where HOPE Six is behind held. The FBI agent said the agency would not release any more information about the arrest, and that the information was sealed until Monday when Rambam is expected to make an initial appearance in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Hardly an open system.
Dude, I hate the terrorists (like those causing the problems in Afghanistan and Lebanon... Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rove are to blame for Iraq) as much as anyone. But I don't believe that allowing the police to do *anything* in secrecy is a good idea. If they arrest someone, we should *all* know the charges... right away. We fought WWII to prevent regimes with secret police etc from taking over, we stood on guard for 50 years against the Soviets to prevent this, we should not allow it here.
And as for the people in Guantanamo Bay: They were taken in Afghanistan. If they were not Afghani nationals, there might be some merrit to keeping in them in Cuba... as long as the system is open. I wonder why we don't ask the Afghanis what they want to do with them? From everything I heard, justice for captured Taliban (at the hands of the new Afghan government) is rather swift and final. And frankly, you may be surprised to hear, I think it is a just justice. I just don't like, can't tolerate, closed systems where the police think they don't need to tell people what is going on. I especially hate it when the goverment is complicit in it.
That's right, now move along, nothing to see... and if you bother us, we'll arrest you too... and know one will know why... heh! heh! heh! heh!
Scary thought isn't it? Police arresting people and we aren't supposed to know what they are arrested for. Secret detention and secret charges are not very different from secret trials or secret detention. The way things are going, if the police were allowed to detain people without telling anyone why, it wouldn't be long before they would detain people without telling anyone they detained them. Then we would be at the level of mid-1970s South or Central America were people were being "disappeared." A little paranod... yeah I know. But what do you expect when the government is trying everything it can do to get around constitutional rights and allowing searches without oversight, etc.
Personally, although *maybe* Habeas Corpus is for the prisoner's sake alone... I think it helps protect society from police being able to abuse their position. i.e. No secret charges. Some would argue that the present administration's policy is trying to go the other way.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. It will have low humidity, but not zero. However, if the air around the computer is heated from the computer itself, I would be surprised to see any condensation. Low humidity air being heated should be able to hold more water not less. Condensation happens from moisture in warm air coming into contact with cool or cold air. This would be the opposite of what is happening in the freezer. As someone else mentioned, different thermal expansion rates of the computer hardware is probably more of an issue than humidity.
Bottom line, shop for equipment built for the job. If you have a need for this now, it is a very, very good bet that someone has done the same or similar before. I'll guarantee that you aren't the first person to have a need to run computer equipment in low temperatures. You've heard this before, and now, once again: "Don't re-invent the wheel."
For example, in a past life, we needed a gas analyzer shed full of, well, gas analyzers (Gas Chromatography TCD/Mass Spec, associated remote computers, etc.) that would pull in and analyze gas from several process lines. It was basically an insulated hut that sat outside in what could be as low as minus 50 degree celcius temperatures (not counting the bullshit windchill people like to brag with). And yes, it had heaters in it to make sure a the inside temperature was at least around plus 5 degrees C. This is the first time we needed something like this, but yes, there were several suppliers with that kind of experience available who were able to provide bids for the work. Even though it was the first time for us, we weren't breaking new ground. :-)
I believe you are thinking too small. The OP mentioned the word warehouse. I doubt even several computers would make much of a difference in heat load. I have seen warehouse freezers the size of football fields. There is likely greater heat impact from people opening doors and gaps in insulation in an area that size than from computers. Even in a small warehouse.
This is why we "first world countries like America, Canada, most of Europe, etc. should restrict trade with countries that don't provide for the same level of labour and environmental laws as us. Most of the problems encountered by "third world" workers is due to the greed for *cheap* gadgets in the first world. So much greed that we turn a blind eye to where our goods come from. e.g. the ubiquitus example of the $100.00 tennis shoe that cost $0.50 to make in some Indonesian sweat shop by child labour.
But you are drunk, right?
I agree... especially since many times security will no longer allow you to lock your luggage so that it can be searched after you check it in (if need be). Because of this I am way more concerned about theives. It is not uncommon to hear about something being stolen by unscrupulous baggage handlers. A laptop is a prime target. On the other hand, if they ban laptop from carry on again, and for say, a few months... well by that time, all the unscrupulous baggage handlers will already have good laptops...
This might be American or North American only (at least one of the credit bureaus cover Canada and the U.S.). I would hazard a guess that other countries have different credit bureaus and different rules.
Occasionally I see stuff like this in the real world. For example, at a bar I was in once, the debit machine which received input from the cash register had a difference of 1 cent from the bill calculated in the register. I asked them what was up with that. They said something like "yeah, that happens every once in a while". To me it seemed obvious that whoever did the coding for the interface didn't have a clue about floating point rounding errors. So I tend to agree with the grandparent post... it seems floating point rounding errors are not always obvious to some programmers. I really can't fathom how someone who is supposed to be a professional doesn't understand how their tools work... or why they don't care to.
... is that when they do have a security 'fix', they force you to update by downloading the entire suite... they don't have differential patches. I personally get sick and tired of having to download around 100 MBytes of app, uninstall the original, and re-install the new. Granted on my Linux box the package updater will do all three, but the updater takes forever to download the files. Quite frankly it is a pain in the ass. Sometimes I delay installing an update because of it (sometimes quite a while). Other than OO, I really am pretty diligent about updating my systems, so I can imagine there are those who just won't bother updating OO at all. I would think this is especially for those who are still on dial-up where a 100 meg download can take many, many hours.
In my opinion, if they want to say they get fixes out quickly, I can call bullshit. Just because you have the code complete doesn't mean the fix is complete. It still needs to be distributed to all the installations. If this is not done because the process is so onerous, then you can't say the fix is released faster than M$. As much as dislike monopolies, they do make the update process a lot less painful.
That said, it is a pretty decent office suite.
The original kayaks were built for hunting whales and seals in the Arctic Ocean... not in rivers.
Further, check this article on Inuit Kayaks out. out.
In case it gets /.'d (this comment is buried down enough that maybe it won't but just in case... that said, there is a very old photo on the site of actual Inuit kayaks as well):
From my understanding, kayaks originated with the Inuit people of the far north (arctic ocean). None of the Inuit kayaks I have seen (in person or in photos/films) look anything like a canoe. They are all closed topped with an opening for the kayaker.
too funny
Speed cameras have not been proven to reduce speed and prevent crashes (except perhaps initially in the short term), they just make money for the local government... a cash cow. Having real police or traffic enforcement out there to enforce the speed limit does. Also, in every place I have lived (four provinces in Canada and three states in the U.S.A., you didn't loose points on your license for photo radar tickets (since they can't prove you were driving your car), only for tickets issued when an enforcement officer tickets you. Also, your auto/motorbike insurance was not affected by photo radar tickets for the same reason... at least in the U.S. and anywhere with private insurance (not sure how over-priced government monopoly insurance like in British Columbia works). I think insurance rate increases have more of an effect on deterring speeding (or the threat of a ticket causing a rate increase) than does anything.
An interesting note: in Missouri, you can often get a "moving violation" (e.g. a speeding ticket) reduced to a non-moving violation (equivalent to a parking ticket) if you pay a lawyer to argue some 'thing' and also pay the fine. The lawyer usually charge $75 or $100 dollars. The cost more than offsets the insurance rate increase you would get for the "moving violation". Don't ask me the details of how or why it works, I just know that it does. No I never got caught so didn't need the service, but I had several friends who did. It is also why lawyers and some businesses advertise their services so much for these kind of traffic offences. It explains the formula one speeds on the highways there!
I still wouldn't want a nuclear bomb going off above my town. What's the point of a 1960's erra household funding NORAD with their taxes to 'protect me' when I could be killed by friendly fire. In this case 'fire' is the most appropriate metaphor. :-) The radiation would also be a great hazard. From what I understand, most people involved in the project in the thought it a crazy idea anyway.
"Top" lists are always like this since our collective memory is relatively short term. The shorter it's been since we saw a movie, the better we remember it. Also, as someone pointed out, maybe once we get older, we have a higher critical standard.
I think these "top" lists should only give the options for movies older than say 5 (or maybe 10) years. This would let us get over the rosey glow we have of the movie and judge it for what it is. For example, (note, I haven't seen this yet but I now am looking for it) the goup The Monkees made a movie called "Head" (Jack Nicholson of all people was one of the producers). When it came out, everyone hated it. This was because the people who liked The Monkees went to see it and it wasn't at all what they expected. The band for their own reasons broke from the mold the record companies made for them and they did their own thing. Their fans, expecting the record company shaped image, didn't 'get' the movie. On the other hand, the people that might have liked it didn't go to see it because they too had the record company vision of The Monkees, and didn't think they would like it. After 10 or 20 years, apparently "Head" had a better critical acceptance since the people watching it then didn't have any (or less) precconcieved notions on the band. 'Best of' should be later. (I just read about the later critiques on "Head", so now I am interested in watching the movie! It might still suck (to me), but now it made me think... at least a little :-)
There are many times I don't see a movie for 5 or 10 after it came out because at first glance I didn't think I would like it. Fight Club is one that comes to mind. I think it is a good movie... now that I watched it. ;-)
As stated: NORAD == *North American* Aerospace Defense
Canada was involved from the beginning. As a matter of fact there is a Canadian counterpart to Cheyenne Mountain near North Bay, Ontario. It is buried about 200 metres into the solid granite of the Canadian Shield bedrock which makes up the geology of the area. There are American military personnel permanently working there, just as Canadian military work in Cheyenne Mountain.
The likely attack of Soviet bombers or missiles is over the pole. This was especially true during the late 1950's (when NORAD was formed), and probably continued to be the direction of most threat during the cold war. So most of the radar stations watching for this are in Canada. The famous early version was the DEW line (Distant Early Warning) of radar stations.
SCARY FACT!!!: Canada once had NUCLEAR TIPPED BOMARC ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILES to be used against Soviet bombers in the event of war. They were a purchased in part to move them further north (so that when they exploded after firing at Soviet bombers, it would be in the Arctic instead of say, over Winnipeg, Calgary or Edmonton if they were fired from the U.S.A.) and as an additional replacement for the ignorant John Diefenbaker's incompetent handling of Canada's defense when he canceled the Avro Arrow (a very advanced intercepter fighter whose speed was projected to eventually top Mach 3 and had the first fly-by-wire avionics).
Just announced, Microsoft, a known petter of baby chickens and bunnies has just announced the signing if Larry Flint. Said a Microsoft spokesperson, as a lover of chickens, we thought Larry might be a good, errr, fit.
Exactly... I prefer old fashoned money! ;-)
What about if you spend a lot of time (a year or two) to develop a piece of software and try to sell it since you need to eat and pay rent. Then someone comes along and starts selling your software for his own profit (he can as long as he gives away the source code say). Now you lose revenue because he sells it for less maybe... you still lose revenue even if he sells it for the same because he is cutting into your market. Then a lot of people start doin this, and now you have to get a job at a proprietary software company because this model only works if you build big enterprise software apps that people will pay for support contracts on. *** The point is, whether they lock up the code or not you are still subsidizing they guy who is taking your open source code and selling it.
But in the end, who cares if they lock it up? As long as they give out your source code. If you don't want them to use it, then don't give it away.
Personally I think BSD or Apache are more altruistic and realistic. Contribute to a free and open code base that others can use as they wish, with far less restrictions than the GPL. They give away the code and don't ask anything of the recipient other than ask them to contribute if they want to. If you want to give stuff away and feel that you are helping a greater good, then do that. I am beginning to thnk that the GPL is like giving money for a Christmas gift or whatever your choice holdiday is, and telling the recipient they are only allowed to spend it in one place. If you really want to give stuff away, don't have strings attached to it.
If I get it, the new version puts more restrictions on combining proprietary and open source code libraries. Is this not correct? If it is, how would this affect applications/companies like MySQL? Don't they have two versions (if I am not mistaken), a GPL version and a commercial version. They are in business to make money. Will this prevent them from releasing their RDBMS for free under the GPL (or vice versa, prevent them from releasing a closed source version)? Even if MySQL might not work this way, are there any open source applications that could be killed off by this/like this? Would something like GNUv3 scare Sun from Open Sourcing Java, or would they use their own licence? If so, would that license be incompatible with GNUv3 and prevent people using it with open source projects? What about the Apache license... will they be compatible? Will it be compatible with BSD projects or create a rift?
I'm just curious about the broader ramifications. Most of the meaningful open source code base is contributed to by people working for private companies (the Linux kernel, Open Office, etc... I know I will be slagged for not including several hundred examples). Might this affect how they operate and reduce their contribution? Can anyone provide some insight into this aspect?
Contact the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commision... although sometimes known as the Canadian Roadblock to Communications!). In this case this is something they help with. By the way, up till recently and maybe even now, Telus was on a kind of watch list and warned to start improving customer satisfaction. This was due to an overwhelming amount of customer complaints.
I understand your point, but I think it points out rather, how fucked up our society is. If someone is falsely accused of something, it should be seen as that. As well, the person should have right to sue for damages in this sort of case. And the person making the false accusation should be punished to deter this from happening. However, I still stand by my first post. If the system isn't open, for everyone, it is then open for abuse.
I think Roger Moore manipulates things for his own profit, but his movies are entertaining... and he did make a point I agree with, somehow we seem to be breeding a society were fear and distrust are dominant... maybe this is why we no longer trust someone who is falsely accused. Witch hunt anyone? Pick someone you hate and accuse them of sexual harassment.
Closed police practices don't help alleviate an atmosphere of fear and distrust (see one of the posts in this thread... why don't they lock their back door any more?).The original poster was asking the question: why would anyone other than the person being arrested have any reason to need to know the charges against them?
If you had half a brain, you would see that what I was referring, is that openness in the process of law is imporatant to more than just the person beign arrested. Everyone needs to be able to see into it or we start down a sippery slope to where the government decides what is best for us. The first step is to not tell the public what someone is being arrested for... But remember folks, don't question the powers that be or you are not patriotic and are evil! We can only fight terrorism by taking away constitutional rights.
And to answer your question, if you RDFA, you would see that this is a case in point. Someone was arrested, and the FBI refused to tell anyone why. In fact, from TFA, it even appears that they don't even want to acknowledge who they arrested... just that they arrested someone.
Hardly an open system.
Dude, I hate the terrorists (like those causing the problems in Afghanistan and Lebanon... Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rove are to blame for Iraq) as much as anyone. But I don't believe that allowing the police to do *anything* in secrecy is a good idea. If they arrest someone, we should *all* know the charges... right away. We fought WWII to prevent regimes with secret police etc from taking over, we stood on guard for 50 years against the Soviets to prevent this, we should not allow it here.
And as for the people in Guantanamo Bay: They were taken in Afghanistan. If they were not Afghani nationals, there might be some merrit to keeping in them in Cuba... as long as the system is open. I wonder why we don't ask the Afghanis what they want to do with them? From everything I heard, justice for captured Taliban (at the hands of the new Afghan government) is rather swift and final. And frankly, you may be surprised to hear, I think it is a just justice. I just don't like, can't tolerate, closed systems where the police think they don't need to tell people what is going on. I especially hate it when the goverment is complicit in it.
That's right, now move along, nothing to see... and if you bother us, we'll arrest you too... and know one will know why... heh! heh! heh! heh!
Scary thought isn't it? Police arresting people and we aren't supposed to know what they are arrested for. Secret detention and secret charges are not very different from secret trials or secret detention. The way things are going, if the police were allowed to detain people without telling anyone why, it wouldn't be long before they would detain people without telling anyone they detained them. Then we would be at the level of mid-1970s South or Central America were people were being "disappeared." A little paranod... yeah I know. But what do you expect when the government is trying everything it can do to get around constitutional rights and allowing searches without oversight, etc.
Personally, although *maybe* Habeas Corpus is for the prisoner's sake alone... I think it helps protect society from police being able to abuse their position. i.e. No secret charges. Some would argue that the present administration's policy is trying to go the other way.
IANAL... yadda yadda yadda