gnu is going to have to release GNW: gnu's not windows, that way MS can follow by releasing MSNW: MicroSoft's not Windows
keeping the holy war joke from another poster, they will obv include emacs and vii... but they are clearly going to have to introduce their own entry into that holy war too so that it can be a complete trio.
On a more serious note does this mean that the previously scrapped "longhorn power console update" dealie that got the axe is going to finally get put back in?
as a linux user and fan who's ditched windows; i hate to say it but I think that is a very wise move on their part. there are many times in the workplace where as much as I prefer linux, windows on the whole would provide me w/ an easier solution if not for the lack of a decent command line interface. Yes i could install cygwin, but there is ugliness to it and i have yet to see a good ultra easy way to launch the term. that and when i installed cygwin's X component (and registered it into my env so that it would work) it broke my windows emacs install. and vm's just arent the same thing for this purpose. What are the problems that it can resolve that I'm having in linux?
work machine is a laptop 1. display switching (take with a grain of salt because I'm running under compizfusion w/xgl which presents a problem for this issue) i have a widescreen panel attatched to the laptop that i use for display expansion. problem is that if x/xgl is started when im not connected to the display, even when i plug it in i cant change my resolution live (using xrandr/resapplet) to the 'right' resolution. i could go from 1400x1050 to 2800x1050 instead of 3360x1050 (which sadly is not 3050 as it should be for a 1400x1050 + a 1680x1050). when i have started docked and was at the higher resolution i seem to have to switch from compiz to metacity to do the res change and then restart compiz (not restart x) to go back up to full res if i have to undock ( i seem to be able to safely reduce the res down from 3360->1400). if i dont its a lop sided coin toss and more times than not it crashes X and i end up having to reboot. also i have yet to get the vga out to work to connect to a projector if i dont boot connected to it... again these issues are probably because of xgl more than anything else.. (this is on a thinkpad t60p with firegl mv5250... if you have a fix i'd love the hear it:-)
2. mice so i bought a wireless usb mouse to plugin to the laptop; problem is its moving "way too fast" on the screen.. if i lower the speed it doesnt affect that mouse only, it seems to slow down both the touchpad/stick as well; which becomes a problem when i undock. lately the speed change doesnt seem to do anything.. the other problem ive run into is getting all of the buttons recognized; i've got everything working except for the horizontal tilt on the tilt wheel. dunno why, but it isn't even getting reported down to xev. dunno why, i think it has to do with the the synaptics touchpad/stick and the wireless mouse (logitech vxrevo) all getting dumped onto the same 'device' from/dev.... and yes ive googled around for this i speculate id have better luck on a desktop.
a. what about people without cell phones? b. what about people who don't have text message plans? c. wouldnt it just be inevitable for them to have a bot handle that too?
d. maybe they should just go back to the invite system, cut the number of invites WAY down and when you want more invites you have to send them some form or something; should make it really easy to find a scewed pyramid of "invitations"
There is something to be said for inventing / creating something and having the right to profit from it. The problem with this idea is that you could easily run into a situation where small guy comes up with amazing invention; but in 10 years someone outbids him for it because he doesn't have enough money to pay the taxes on it at the value he really believes it to be worth.. also this auction thing, the owner is just bidding how much "extra tax hes going to pay" where as the "new buyer" has to pay the full amount to the current owner and then pay taxes on it? would i pay myself to keep the thing? or are you suggesting that the government gets to make off with more money for my "property." I paid taxes on it when I bought it, and call me a liberal but I think its utter bull crap for me to have to keep paying tax on it after that. Do you have to pay taxes every year for your computers and clothes and sofas? well why should I pay tax on my X every year just because my X is nicer than yours is
example? the barry bonds record breaking ball was sold because the guy who caught it couldnt afford the taxes that he would have had to pay to keep it. after all the ball isnt really "worth" anything until it is sold. it doesnt exactly pay him dividend balls every day. This isn't quite as true for IP, they at least pay dividends... if the technology catches on fast enough. Software patents only have a 17 year life to begin with. seems short enough to me.. copyrights on the other hand
Also I think its pretty absurd that you could be sued for infringement/licensing fees by someone who did a "hostile patent buyout" over you for some IP who used to be paying YOU licensing fees. What I'm supposed to forget something I patented/wrote it and had the rights to it for over 10 years? I think this is a little different from when you invent something at work and your company takes the rights; there its a. expected and b. pretty much what they are paying you for in a way in the first place.
For copyright it does present a little bit more of an interesting situation.. but they already can be bought and sold. you want something make the person in offer. It seems to break someone's rights to personal property by forcibly reauctioning off their possessions. If the analogy is to make it more like "physical property" than you shouldn't be including an action that would probably be ruled unconstitutional towards personal property... the only group who gets to steal like that is the government, and the method is called eminant domain and thats bad enough already
think about it, with this example scenario: bob buys a limited edition widget in 1990 when it comes out because a he likes it and he thinks it might be worth something someday fast forward 30 years later when bob's widget is in short supply because most have been destoryed or consumed. bob loves his widget but he's just a middle class guy who makes 70k a year. Donald, a wealthy multimillionare finds out the bob has one of the few remaining 1990LEW's that still is in good condition.. Donald makes an offer to Bob for it for several million dollars; which is more than Bob paid for it, and more than Bob is actually worth (Widget aside). Bob says no I don't want you money I like my widget just fine and I won't sell it for any price. Donald says hmm I don't like this I want your crap now. Donald cries to lobbyists and his local government until they decide that they will forcibly reauction off bob's widget. donald who has much more money than bob out bids him, and gives the money he bid to bob, and drives off with his car. bob's pissed because he poured his time effort and care into that car for years for him to enjoy, not for some rich guy to steal for him.
yes its trite and its not ip, but the point is if that hap'd i'd bet you bob would find a lawyer and go up a level courtwise to challenge the constitutionality of that... and when you try changing it for ip the problem will be that people with a l
given this statement, how do i not come to the immediate conclusion that the "towers" are irrelevant.. if your cellphone is turned off its going to be doing the exact same thing regardless of what the carrier is doing. if as you suggest its a signal eminating from the cellphone it self then what does the "carriers" state have to do with anything?
if its dependant upon the carrier, i don't see how pulling the battery and storing beneath lots of crap isn't going to do a good enough job; otherwise wouldn't it be insanely easy to recover lost / stolen cell phones?
if they are that concerned about being found perhaps having a cell phone isnt such a good idea; isnt there going to be some registration ifnormation somewhere or just the ole random dial until you get the taliban answering machine lol?
"hi you've reached the taliban, we're out hunting infidels or hiding from you, please leave a message after the beep and we'll get right back to you.. unless you are an infidel we are hunting down. Have a nice day:-)"
common sense and decency were on the stock market they'd be way up today.... thats the most refreshing legal thing ive read since amazon had some 1 click patents overturned (albeit partially) several months ago
That pron sites arent to blame, and arent even the primary target to blaim. Call it a hunch; but I have a feeling that millions more people connecting to the internet and needing ips, and poorly distributed addresses (in terms of address class) also plays a very large factor. The number of addresses available hasn't changed; just the consumption of them. It seems like a similar problem to the domain names as well; there are plenty more of them that are being wasted on cynbersquatters, typosquatters, and 'blank pages' that are just serving ads and adsense and circular links to more of the same. The adult sites may take a large amount of them but then again you could also argue that the pron sites played a larger role in the expansion of web bandwidth and expansion than many other things. Perhaps the pron sites are gettign more out of control, but so are the bogus prescription drug sites, adult friend sites, 'shopping' sites, and other random garbage that I couldn't even begin to explain.
I would imagine that to some extent the dominant forces with the most financial interest in current IP address control probably also are playing some role in the hinderance of IPv6 because the increased address space will devalue existing IP's (whatever value that might be), allows for a power shuffle, etc.
Reminds me a lot of the "phone number" problem occuring in america, where the consumption of numbers has gone way up since the cellphone became mainstream and it feels like new area codes are constantly added such that you can almost never make a 7digit call, but more and more always a 10digit.
wow... how the heck did i miss that? I think I will do just that.. except i may have to steal someone elses roommates organs since I dont have a roommate:-)
i could have sworn the parent was +5 insightful which incited my response:-P or not..
DFS was not even remotely created by MS or vista. its similar to AFS except there is more than one, more robust than nfs, and unix based. But sure go ahead and try to give microsoft credit for it.. this is the most uninformative thing I have read all year. Windows XP can also mount NFS, AFS, and DFS drives... as can unix and linux and osX.
AMEN, once consoles roughly caught up (snes) the real draw for me was pinball which wasn't available enough. the south park pinball game, as well as the super mario world pinball game were amazing but unfortunately exceedingly rare it seemed. the problem is that little kids today just arent as enticed by skeeball and the tickets that go along with it as we were. the only other good thing in arcades is usually the gun games, but they are so over priced its hardly worth it. i dont even bother with the racing games because they are so over priced its insulting.
for what its worth i mentioned those; in doing so i mentioned that those are constant to every car. whether you paid 1 dollar for it or 100,000. my point was that the car doesnt charge you an extra 5cents everytime I shift into 6th gear (or 5th) and I don't have to pay extra to make the cd player play a cd, or pay a fee if i bring it to service at a non-dealer.
yes they have a bunch of different plans, just like every other phone has. they are all data plans, and as such cost more than non data plans. and they are all significantly more expensive then non-data plans. All I was trying to say there is that if you are going to compare it to a 'crappy phone' that doesn't have a data plan you have to figure that into the total cost because the phone is unusable without it, and the cost is not uniform. I have the same problem with cable/tv/internet advertisements that advertise one price but charge you a significantly different price that you can't avoid paying. I can add up gas costs myself they arent that hard to estimate and they are fixed by the market not by the car company. insurance i can get quotes for and though dependant of the car are independant because there are a wealth of options. and you can get it from just about any company.
i didnt come up with the car analogy, that was responding the grand parents usage of it which you probably didnt read.
- another poster described his use of the internet on his phone, and yes its handy. I've done it myself on rare critical occasion, I just had to pay for the whole minute or two of airtime that I used. again its something that for me just isn't needed. Verizon's GPS is pretty good, but for an extra 10bucks a month I just wasn't interested esp since I'll often be using my headset in the car to talk to someone else. I wanted a gps i bought a tomtom.
If I lived in NYC or Boston, etc, and I didn't have a car and spent a large amount of time commuting on the train and such yes i would probably end up getting a smartphone. would it be an iPhone? not necessarily I'd probably check out another option first. Does a high schooler need it? not so much. does joe average office worker who doesn't live in the city need it? probably not so much. would they enjoy it? probably.
trying to tell someone which luxury would be best for them is a pretty silly game. different people prefer, care about and will pay for different things. some people will go to a stripjoint, and others are happy using the internet for free, and still others pay subscriptions to watch a variety of other things. one mans everyday work item is another mans luxury item is another mans toilet paper. enjoy
except that many people spend a lot more than 30 minutes a day in the car. and even if you dont on average; chances are you will take a road trip in it and spend 5+hours in a single sitting. also, if you buy a piece of crap you can easily spend more on fixing it, or buying another piece of crap in the near future. its not an absurd amount of money either.
there is a major difference though. if you dont also pay another seperate subscription fee for the internet and all that crap the iphone is useless. so its not just 400 anymore...
also how often do you really use your cell phone everyday? I use mine in place of a land line, and not counting calls to my girlfriend i doubt i spend 30 minutes on the thing per day. I'm not going to spend 400 on a phone that does crap I don't need it to do because I have other things that do those things for me. Also the iphone isn't significantly better than many other phones out there now. You are trying to say that the iphone is a bentley to the blackberry curve being an acura and a razr (v3m) being a hyundai. the reality couldnt be further from the truth.
what do you spend so much time on your phone doing anyhow? 'browing the internet?' oh see I have this thing called a computer in the form of a laptop that I use when I'm at work or at home. So i cant check my email while i walk from my office to my car and while i drive home? this is a problem how? "i listen to music" oh see i just listen via my laptop/mp3 player at work and my car stereo when i drive and my home stereo when im at home.
most people Benefit from having a good cell phone more so than a good car? That part is interesting and I might agree; the problem is that you dont define what a good car or a good cell phone is. If you ask me a good cell phone is one that has reasonably good battery life, gets good reception, has plan condusive to my usage patterns, and allows me to use a headset (wired or bluetooth) with it. I don't care if it is color, plays music, makes toast, goes on the internet, plays games, etc. I care that it has good audio quality for phone calls. I would also argue that pretty much every phone out there meets this already. If I didn't have a digital camera, didnt have an mp3 player, and felt like I really needed to engage endlessly in text messages and browsing the net from my phone, sure its a good option. Other than that its just luxury crap. A better analogy would have been comparing someone spending 40K or more on a car. That's the person who should shutup.
Buying a 20K honda accord that will likely last 10+ years wihtout needing a major repair can be a decent investment for someone coming out of college (not that your car is or should be considered as such, its an asset by definition but more often its a liability). and the difference between a 20K car and a 40k one can be a bit more pronounced. even a 14K car and a 20K car can be significant. you seem to toss those out as trivial and undetectable... i'm pretty sure you will notice the difference between a ford focus and toyota camry/honda accord, and if not today then when the ford dies in 4 years you'll notice the difference.
The other difference is lifetime, the 20K car is expected to live > 6 years, I'd expect it to live more than 8 maybe 10+ the iphone is definately not expected to live that long because a. there is no market for it when you are done with it in 2-4 years and b. because something else will come along and replace it.
I would instead redirect your argument at headphones. You'll pay 400 for iphone, who knows what for your ipod and your music and your stereo, but you wont pay even 50 bucks for a remotely non garbage pair of headphones? (realistically i would say 100$ but I'll start at 50, plus most people are going to want that same pair to be 'bad enough' to be able to use at the gym or running. Or mattresses, you only spend 8 hours a day or more lying on it. But your concern is over a cell phone.
not sure that you will like it; I'm not sure that I like it either, but the good reason is because they have the right to buy a domain name, and the money to pay for it.
For the very reason that typosquatting is effective at making money, its also valuable for the actual owner to use to prevent losses by typosquatting and to make it easier to find their site. Since there isn't a cap on number of domains you can own afaik its left to a personal decision whether you should be efficient and preserve webspace for others or to utilize finances to take up more real estate.
It's sorta like asking why build a one story store that has X floorspace when you could build a two (or more) story builiding, providing the same amount of space (or more) spread out in floors which will save some land space that could be used for other stores / parking / whatever. its complicated for one, and second: people feel like theres less risk. much higher chance for single point of failure in the tall building than the long short one.
according to your own post it IS not, it WILL be. call me an english nazi, or call me a technicallity nazi i dont care... id prefer soup nazi tho.
the point is that they are not backwards compatible. it will end up supporting "most" but not all.
If we started judging things by what they will be, then DukeNukemForever would be a fanstastic game we've all played.. Granted I have an unlimited amount of additional faith in the python team and that this will occur and occur ahead of schedule (as opposed to vaporwear of the year for over a decade). but the point is if its truly backwards compatible its a quick yes no answer with no details needed. thats what compatibility is. Compatibility is not supporting most feaures and not others. If we used that definition then websites that I blatantly can't use (ABC.com to watch a show online) could be called Linux Compatible... with a couple asterisks stating that x and y and z arent supported yet.
take this all with a grain of salt, as I'm not sure exactly what will and won't be supported; if its just some arcane feature that isnt supported than they are probably just being over cautious on naming.. but I'd prefer our software world not turn into a tv commercial with a 20 second long legal mumbo jumbo disclosure line raced through after every announcement:-)
ianal (but then again neither are you) downloading copyrighted material that you don't have the rights to possess and which you aren't using for fair use is NOT legal. However because proving this is exceedingly more complicated the MAFIAA is being intelligent and focusing on the prosecution of uploaders. This works better because A. you never have the right to upload (share) the content with others even if you own the CD. B. if they stop all the providers then there wont be anyone to download from.
This is a large misconception that ignorant people keep trying to make. If you download a movie for example so that you can edit a small clip of it to use in some presentation or in some fair usage manner thats legal. If you were to simply download to be able to watch it (and you don't actually own the DVD) then you are breaking the law. Whether its considered theft or copyright infringement is debatable. But again without doing some research (who you are and what you own, etc, verifying what you did with the material) the MAFIAA can't really do anything. Trying to do that at a mass scale is quiet difficult, and they would be hard pressed to get a warrant to search you. Where as some of their john doe's have worked now, they would never get them in this case because a judge can quickly say there is no evidence to support or deny that a criminal act has been performed by the accused. At least in the current form there is no question of illegal activity only to the identity of the perpetrator.
The fact that they aren't going to use this means to prosecute the action doesn't make it anyless illegal. Suicide is illegal too, but how many people who commit that crime end up in jail or even arrested?
except they have to fine for you breaking the law. you stole it you didnt buy it. If i go steal a 100$ item from store X do you think store X will drop the charges if I simply pay 100$ after the fact? NO they wont; if they did that then theyd be encouraging me to steal anything i would actually purchase. Worst case scenario I get caught and I pay them the money I would have paid them.. they tag on things like arrests, and jailtime and tarnishing your record and additional fines and legal fees to deter the behavior. Thats pretty normal. Tacking on 1.5million not so normal
Here's my take on it: MAFIAA loves to advertise in the cinema "would you steal a wallet? would you steal a cd? would you steal cardboard box? etc..." ok if you want to equate these things whats the punishment for stealing CD X from a physical store? Oh you mean its less than a hundred thousand let alone a million? So how do you justify your punishment for the same crime....
they will respond its a different kind of crime, stealing a CD is theft, but downloading and uploading is a copyright violation which is entirely different as far as law is concerned. (and i'd be inclined to agree sadly) Ok but if you want to say that you are going to have to throw out your other campaign, and actually follow the same rules that everyone else has to in uncovering copyright violations. heres a new line of q's for yah
"would you photocopy a page or two from a library book without writing to the author and bringing authorization forms filled out in triplicate?" "would you transcribe a song by ear becuase you enjoy it and post the tab on the internet?" "would you resummarize a summary of the news by someone else and present it as "nightly news"?" "would share a recipe with a friend that you read in a cookbook you bought and that you like?"
There thats a much better picture of what you are actually comparing don't you think?
It seems to me they are trying to use laws of theft to prosecute copyright violations. Granted I'm still a supporter of copyright law, sorry I am a software developer. If I cant control my work its hard to make money. But why can't they go to some more intelligent less invasive means for copyright protection that have been effective for software? Software copyright protection generally doesnt give a crap if you are running windows or linux or mac or an electronic watermellon. Ok it might not work on the latter; that aside the mechanisms are somewhat seperate from the content.
The other problem i see is they force you to buy something and then hamper your rights to use what you purchase. Oh you cant play that wmv drm'd file on linux... oh you cant play that itunes store audio file on a Zplayer or on linux... Oh you arent really allowed to copy music files from your ipod to your computer (except you sorta are) but by the way we also arent going to let you redownload lost purchases from us unless you send us an email and ask real nice.
i bought years upon years ago, ive installed and unintalled it on every machine ive gone through since (primary machines) never had a problem because of the copyright protection scheme. never had a problem where i couldnt install it because a hard drive it was installed on died without being deauthorized. you know what else? i felt compelled not to give it to others because of that. that and it was cheap self created fun (as opposed to big publisher).. i think the game was like 10-20 bucks maybe? granted games today are a bit more... but maybe thats part of the problem. If the market isnt willing to pay the price, they wont. wow thats a really cruddy ending to this rambling...
thats a little further off than you think. by day some of my work involves that specific technology, and its making its rounds in the stock market at the moment. there are still tricky bits to it. Not the least of which are things like the split brain problem, and keeping packet orderings deterministic the whole way... you will also eventually lose some of the speed you gain in UDP by not checking for things such as this, but in some sense with todays processors id rather my machine be the bottleneck than the internet.
the other catch 22 is that lots of places dont like udp... when I was at RPI I got an email from an IT admin who was "concerned" by the number of udp packets I had been sending and recieving. accusing me of being infected of a virus (funny since I was running redhat7.3 primarily at the time) or some malicious activity and wanted to place a temp ban on my access. My response of course was that A. I'm a comp sci student taking net prog and we had a UDP based assignment. B. there are these things called games that use UDP. blah blah blah someone pointed out that 95% of the people on the list were people taking net prog blah blah blah I got unbanned:-)
you would want and deserve compensation, that is not questioned. But your compensation has no valid reason, legal need or neccesiity to come at A's expense. The discount store wronged you and they are the ones who have to compensate you not A, be it by giving you a different tv, giving you your money back plus some extra or whatever. If it is a "store" than they should have other items to give you.
What damage is moved? The primary victim is A not C. And if A has "already repurchased and replaced" then A can choose to take his old thing back or keep the replacements, in which case for at least 1 C there will be stuff available.
If B doesn't have enough money to pay for the reversed sale that how could B convincingly purport to be a legitimate seller of the item? furthermore the item stolen from A cant simultaneously (usually) be sold a C D E and F; there are other A's .
What if the "item" was a house that A built... B pretended to be a real estate agent and sold you the house while A was on vacation after A refused to let B sell it. C buys it from B. This doesn't make C the owner because it wasnt B's to sell and C's to buy regardless of what C thought or knew.. let's say for a moment that C is in the house the next day measuring to replace furniture when A comes home and calls the cops. Are you actually suggessting that the house is C's now? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
Furthermore that A should have the right to purchase it at market value from C? Just give C his money back and send him on his way; and if there isnt money to give back then C should have been more careful about whom he gave such a substantial amount to.
"But what you not realizing is that there are two or more rightful owners" is utterly incorrect. There is ONE rightful and only one rightful owner, A. B can't transfer ownership of something B doesn't own to someone else. When did A stop owning it? Step back and look at the picture from an independant view. A owns item. B steals said item (owner is still A). B sells item to C. (possessor is C, but A is still owner) C can believe C owns it but the reality is that A still owns it. Cops come by and inform C that the item was stolen from A... C realizes that the items owner is A. Knowledge or the lack there of Of the identity of the owner doesnt change the identity of the owner. Granting ownership to C transfers the theft from B to C and victimizes A again.
C's knowledge and belief of the legitmacy of the sale has no impact on whether or not the sale is valid, and has no impact on the owner of the sale. This isnt a subjective question that varies on perspective. Given the total information there is one answer. 2+2=4, this is not quantum mechanics, the heissenberg principle doesnt apply, your knowledge that 2+2=4 doesnt change the results of the equation and make it 5. It doesn't matter if you can add subtract, read write or paint, believe in god or believe in a all-knowing happy watermellon spirit. They have no impact on 2+2 equalling four, and they have no impact on the ownership of the item.
The only thing C's knowledge does is establish whether or not C contributed to/committed a crime as well.
then tough shit for C; he should have made sure that B had the right to sell him the car. Namely that B had a pink slip and a valid title and registration. C didn't perform due diligence. Secondly this doesn't punish C; C didn't have a car prior to 'trying to buy' this one, and won't have one still. C just has to go buy another car. It's not A's problem that C doesn't have a car, or whether C needs one or not. Its irrelevant. The car was not B's to sell, and not C's to buy. A gets his car back from B. C gets his money back from B. B goes to jail doesnt collect 200$ and doesn't pass go.
C is neither punished nor rewarded because the reality is the only harm to C was deception. C is reverted back to the reality C existed in prior to engaging in this "false" sale. The ONLY harm that came to C is that C's time was wasted. Giving A the car back resolves A's problem, in doing so C's only "harm" is the money that could then be seen as stolen from C by B. B returns C what C paid for car. As for punitive punishments thats for the civil courts and a whole other crap shoot.
Yes but the problem is a chain of responsibility thing if you step back. If programmers adhered to standards then the engines wouldn't have to keep all of the legacy hooks lying around to catch everything else...
once you force the source to be consistently valid, then you can move on to improving the rendering engines. although both need to occur a little bit at the same time.
I agree there is no easy finger pointing; the browser is as much a problem still as the code itself..
My larger problem is that the internet isn't and shouldn't be "microsoft's"; I guess for the first time as I think about this stuff i realize what the browser wars REALLY were about. when they occurred i didnt get it; i just fig'd ok who cares which free browser i'm using if they both do the same thing; all of the analogies ever made in the case were about radios in your car and crap like that....
but its really much more simple and sinister. Its not just that MS puts their radio in your car for free by default and makes it hard to take out; worse is that they create and distribute products that create content which only works in "their" radio. Furthermore they won't offer you their radio unless you buy a car from someone who has agreed to buy everything else of theirs... thats the problem.
By doing this they put a major foot up the rear end of the potential for other operating systems.... As long as MS doesn't create "IE" for linux (not that that is really what i want) they impede on linux or anyother OS from coming around simply by the blockade on the internet.... anyone want to reopen this case and or find a way to force MS to produce internet explorer for linux? again its not that id rather run that then firefox; but the mere fact that they "can't" further demonstrates a potentially unrealized part of the "browser wars monopolistic practices suit" stuff.
again I personally have no interest in it especially as I'd rather see people use things like OO.o; but perhaps this should extend to 'forcing' ms to produce Office for linux; As long as the OS maker is also a Software Maker i dont think it will ever be the case that they cant and wont create new features in the OS that only they can take advantage of.
or you could just code to standards to begin with... then it would work wherever. This isn't like programming an application in C to run on linux or windows and needing complicated macros to ensure that the right libraries and api's (system calls) are used. This is a freaking XML document. If you actually wrote it properly it would work EVERYWHERE; there is no "porting it to work on mozilla/firefox".
Its a lot like hard coding type sizes in a c program; you could write " int a = (int *)malloc(4);" becuase on your platform ints are size 4... but if you wrote the damn thing properly the first time, using the sizeof operator to get the size of an int, it would work EVERYWHERE.
so it boots fast... what are you going to do with it next hmm? I betcha it wont support itunes.... I can make a linux partition that boots really fast too, only i dont need anything fancy to do it. problem is no one gives a crap because they won't be able to use their "familiar" applications and all that jazz....
although if this rallies support from stupid consumers we can blindside them later when we reveal that..... drum roll... this is pretty much linux
limiting bandwidth alone is stupid; does it really matter whether I download 500MB in 5 minutes at 12am, or the 5 hours from 11pm-4am? no. what they need is to look at your average bandwidth and at the same time your total content. no one cares if you download a couple 500K files at speeds of 1MB per second because you pose no load.
They say 5% use 95% of the bandwidth? I would agree, live in a fraternity house with 20-40 guys and you quickly find that thanks to 2-4 of them the houses bandwidth is chewed to nothing such that ssh to an on campus server is effectively impossible, all so that they can leave some stpid torrent or p2p open to download stupid crap... take the next step, show the stats that demonstrate this, identity the people who are causing this problem and change their pay structure. If they use 95% of the bandwidth they should be paying 95% of it.... this won't happen of course because the providers realize that on perhaps 80% or more users are vastly under using their bandwidth, and the discounts given to them would eat away at the providers profits. Its a double edged sword; the providers wont guarantee bandwidth for residential customers and as a result they cant guarentee bandwidth. Read that again if it doesnt sink in.
the dillemma is that as much as I want that 5% to be slapped across the face, and kicked off the network; after they are gone someone else will be the new 'pig'... i would far prefer and it would be far more in all parties interests for the isp to do some shaping or management on the network to dynamically cap the pigs bandwidth during times of congestion. in essense, you shouldnt be able to "go over the limit" and this shouldnt be enforced by shutting off your bandwidth completely either. The only way they will get around this is if they guarentee bandwidth and charge for usage as opposed to happy flat rates. and kick them off the network or charge them more. OR better yet use some traffic shaping to ensure that under load bandwidth is balanced.
look im a fan of ron paul; which is surprising to some because normally I vote democrat... the key reason being he's actually a republican where as the republicans who generally surface from the party arent republicans in actuality. that aside; how can you say he's doing well? The people coming in thrd or fourth aren't doing well either.
this highlights again the reason that we should convert to runoff elections; to actually capture what the people want and credit those who dont win an election properly. People may say "a vote for RP is a vote that could be better used to push X over Y" and the problem is that then RP or whoever loses out.
Slashdot Mirror
gnu is going to have to release GNW: gnu's not windows, that way MS can follow by releasing MSNW: MicroSoft's not Windows
:-)
/dev.... and yes ive googled around for this i speculate id have better luck on a desktop.
keeping the holy war joke from another poster, they will obv include emacs and vii... but they are clearly going to have to introduce their own entry into that holy war too so that it can be a complete trio.
On a more serious note does this mean that the previously scrapped "longhorn power console update" dealie that got the axe is going to finally get put back in?
as a linux user and fan who's ditched windows; i hate to say it but I think that is a very wise move on their part. there are many times in the workplace where as much as I prefer linux, windows on the whole would provide me w/ an easier solution if not for the lack of a decent command line interface. Yes i could install cygwin, but there is ugliness to it and i have yet to see a good ultra easy way to launch the term. that and when i installed cygwin's X component (and registered it into my env so that it would work) it broke my windows emacs install. and vm's just arent the same thing for this purpose. What are the problems that it can resolve that I'm having in linux?
work machine is a laptop
1. display switching (take with a grain of salt because I'm running under compizfusion w/xgl which presents a problem for this issue)
i have a widescreen panel attatched to the laptop that i use for display expansion. problem is that if x/xgl is started when im not connected to the display, even when i plug it in i cant change my resolution live (using xrandr/resapplet) to the 'right' resolution. i could go from 1400x1050 to 2800x1050 instead of 3360x1050 (which sadly is not 3050 as it should be for a 1400x1050 + a 1680x1050). when i have started docked and was at the higher resolution i seem to have to switch from compiz to metacity to do the res change and then restart compiz (not restart x) to go back up to full res if i have to undock ( i seem to be able to safely reduce the res down from 3360->1400). if i dont its a lop sided coin toss and more times than not it crashes X and i end up having to reboot. also i have yet to get the vga out to work to connect to a projector if i dont boot connected to it... again these issues are probably because of xgl more than anything else.. (this is on a thinkpad t60p with firegl mv5250... if you have a fix i'd love the hear it
2. mice
so i bought a wireless usb mouse to plugin to the laptop; problem is its moving "way too fast" on the screen.. if i lower the speed it doesnt affect that mouse only, it seems to slow down both the touchpad/stick as well; which becomes a problem when i undock. lately the speed change doesnt seem to do anything.. the other problem ive run into is getting all of the buttons recognized; i've got everything working except for the horizontal tilt on the tilt wheel. dunno why, but it isn't even getting reported down to xev. dunno why, i think it has to do with the the synaptics touchpad/stick and the wireless mouse (logitech vxrevo) all getting dumped onto the same 'device' from
a. what about people without cell phones?
b. what about people who don't have text message plans?
c. wouldnt it just be inevitable for them to have a bot handle that too?
d. maybe they should just go back to the invite system, cut the number of invites WAY down and when you want more invites you have to send them some form or something; should make it really easy to find a scewed pyramid of "invitations"
There is something to be said for inventing / creating something and having the right to profit from it. The problem with this idea is that you could easily run into a situation where small guy comes up with amazing invention; but in 10 years someone outbids him for it because he doesn't have enough money to pay the taxes on it at the value he really believes it to be worth.. also this auction thing, the owner is just bidding how much "extra tax hes going to pay" where as the "new buyer" has to pay the full amount to the current owner and then pay taxes on it? would i pay myself to keep the thing? or are you suggesting that the government gets to make off with more money for my "property." I paid taxes on it when I bought it, and call me a liberal but I think its utter bull crap for me to have to keep paying tax on it after that. Do you have to pay taxes every year for your computers and clothes and sofas? well why should I pay tax on my X every year just because my X is nicer than yours is
/licensing fees by someone who did a "hostile patent buyout" over you for some IP who used to be paying YOU licensing fees. What I'm supposed to forget something I patented /wrote it and had the rights to it for over 10 years? I think this is a little different from when you invent something at work and your company takes the rights; there its a. expected and b. pretty much what they are paying you for in a way in the first place.
example? the barry bonds record breaking ball was sold because the guy who caught it couldnt afford the taxes that he would have had to pay to keep it. after all the ball isnt really "worth" anything until it is sold. it doesnt exactly pay him dividend balls every day. This isn't quite as true for IP, they at least pay dividends... if the technology catches on fast enough. Software patents only have a 17 year life to begin with. seems short enough to me.. copyrights on the other hand
Also I think its pretty absurd that you could be sued for infringement
For copyright it does present a little bit more of an interesting situation.. but they already can be bought and sold. you want something make the person in offer. It seems to break someone's rights to personal property by forcibly reauctioning off their possessions. If the analogy is to make it more like "physical property" than you shouldn't be including an action that would probably be ruled unconstitutional towards personal property... the only group who gets to steal like that is the government, and the method is called eminant domain and thats bad enough already
think about it, with this example scenario:
bob buys a limited edition widget in 1990 when it comes out because a he likes it and he thinks it might be worth something someday fast forward 30 years later when bob's widget is in short supply because most have been destoryed or consumed. bob loves his widget but he's just a middle class guy who makes 70k a year. Donald, a wealthy multimillionare finds out the bob has one of the few remaining 1990LEW's that still is in good condition.. Donald makes an offer to Bob for it for several million dollars; which is more than Bob paid for it, and more than Bob is actually worth (Widget aside). Bob says no I don't want you money I like my widget just fine and I won't sell it for any price. Donald says hmm I don't like this I want your crap now. Donald cries to lobbyists and his local government until they decide that they will forcibly reauction off bob's widget. donald who has much more money than bob out bids him, and gives the money he bid to bob, and drives off with his car. bob's pissed because he poured his time effort and care into that car for years for him to enjoy, not for some rich guy to steal for him.
yes its trite and its not ip, but the point is if that hap'd i'd bet you bob would find a lawyer and go up a level courtwise to challenge the constitutionality of that... and when you try changing it for ip the problem will be that people with a l
given this statement, how do i not come to the immediate conclusion that the "towers" are irrelevant.. if your cellphone is turned off its going to be doing the exact same thing regardless of what the carrier is doing. if as you suggest its a signal eminating from the cellphone it self then what does the "carriers" state have to do with anything?
:-)"
if its dependant upon the carrier, i don't see how pulling the battery and storing beneath lots of crap isn't going to do a good enough job; otherwise wouldn't it be insanely easy to recover lost / stolen cell phones?
if they are that concerned about being found perhaps having a cell phone isnt such a good idea; isnt there going to be some registration ifnormation somewhere or just the ole random dial until you get the taliban answering machine lol?
"hi you've reached the taliban, we're out hunting infidels or hiding from you, please leave a message after the beep and we'll get right back to you.. unless you are an infidel we are hunting down. Have a nice day
lol
common sense and decency were on the stock market they'd be way up today.... thats the most refreshing legal thing ive read since amazon had some 1 click patents overturned (albeit partially) several months ago
w00t
That pron sites arent to blame, and arent even the primary target to blaim. Call it a hunch; but I have a feeling that millions more people connecting to the internet and needing ips, and poorly distributed addresses (in terms of address class) also plays a very large factor. The number of addresses available hasn't changed; just the consumption of them. It seems like a similar problem to the domain names as well; there are plenty more of them that are being wasted on cynbersquatters, typosquatters, and 'blank pages' that are just serving ads and adsense and circular links to more of the same. The adult sites may take a large amount of them but then again you could also argue that the pron sites played a larger role in the expansion of web bandwidth and expansion than many other things. Perhaps the pron sites are gettign more out of control, but so are the bogus prescription drug sites, adult friend sites, 'shopping' sites, and other random garbage that I couldn't even begin to explain.
I would imagine that to some extent the dominant forces with the most financial interest in current IP address control probably also are playing some role in the hinderance of IPv6 because the increased address space will devalue existing IP's (whatever value that might be), allows for a power shuffle, etc.
Reminds me a lot of the "phone number" problem occuring in america, where the consumption of numbers has gone way up since the cellphone became mainstream and it feels like new area codes are constantly added such that you can almost never make a 7digit call, but more and more always a 10digit.
wow... how the heck did i miss that? :-)
:-P or not..
I think I will do just that.. except i may have to steal someone elses roommates organs since I dont have a roommate
i could have sworn the parent was +5 insightful which incited my response
DFS was not even remotely created by MS or vista. its similar to AFS except there is more than one, more robust than nfs, and unix based. But sure go ahead and try to give microsoft credit for it.. this is the most uninformative thing I have read all year. Windows XP can also mount NFS, AFS, and DFS drives... as can unix and linux and osX.
AMEN, once consoles roughly caught up (snes) the real draw for me was pinball which wasn't available enough. the south park pinball game, as well as the super mario world pinball game were amazing but unfortunately exceedingly rare it seemed. the problem is that little kids today just arent as enticed by skeeball and the tickets that go along with it as we were. the only other good thing in arcades is usually the gun games, but they are so over priced its hardly worth it. i dont even bother with the racing games because they are so over priced its insulting.
this doesn't measure the security of the OS
/*
it measures the stupidity of the user
your program can be a one liner on any of the machines.
just a freaking script that says "delete *.*"
or you coudl see who has passwordless sudo and go sudo rm
and that will do on any *nix pretty much
again we are testing the OS not the STUPID USER AT THE WHEEL
for what its worth i mentioned those; in doing so i mentioned that those are constant to every car. whether you paid 1 dollar for it or 100,000. my point was that the car doesnt charge you an extra 5cents everytime I shift into 6th gear (or 5th) and I don't have to pay extra to make the cd player play a cd, or pay a fee if i bring it to service at a non-dealer.
yes they have a bunch of different plans, just like every other phone has. they are all data plans, and as such cost more than non data plans. and they are all significantly more expensive then non-data plans. All I was trying to say there is that if you are going to compare it to a 'crappy phone' that doesn't have a data plan you have to figure that into the total cost because the phone is unusable without it, and the cost is not uniform. I have the same problem with cable/tv/internet advertisements that advertise one price but charge you a significantly different price that you can't avoid paying. I can add up gas costs myself they arent that hard to estimate and they are fixed by the market not by the car company. insurance i can get quotes for and though dependant of the car are independant because there are a wealth of options. and you can get it from just about any company.
i didnt come up with the car analogy, that was responding the grand parents usage of it which you probably didnt read.
- another poster described his use of the internet on his phone, and yes its handy. I've done it myself on rare critical occasion, I just had to pay for the whole minute or two of airtime that I used. again its something that for me just isn't needed. Verizon's GPS is pretty good, but for an extra 10bucks a month I just wasn't interested esp since I'll often be using my headset in the car to talk to someone else. I wanted a gps i bought a tomtom.
If I lived in NYC or Boston, etc, and I didn't have a car and spent a large amount of time commuting on the train and such yes i would probably end up getting a smartphone. would it be an iPhone? not necessarily I'd probably check out another option first. Does a high schooler need it? not so much. does joe average office worker who doesn't live in the city need it? probably not so much. would they enjoy it? probably.
trying to tell someone which luxury would be best for them is a pretty silly game. different people prefer, care about and will pay for different things. some people will go to a stripjoint, and others are happy using the internet for free, and still others pay subscriptions to watch a variety of other things. one mans everyday work item is another mans luxury item is another mans toilet paper. enjoy
except that many people spend a lot more than 30 minutes a day in the car. and even if you dont on average; chances are you will take a road trip in it and spend 5+hours in a single sitting. also, if you buy a piece of crap you can easily spend more on fixing it, or buying another piece of crap in the near future. its not an absurd amount of money either.
there is a major difference though. if you dont also pay another seperate subscription fee for the internet and all that crap the iphone is useless. so its not just 400 anymore...
also how often do you really use your cell phone everyday? I use mine in place of a land line, and not counting calls to my girlfriend i doubt i spend 30 minutes on the thing per day. I'm not going to spend 400 on a phone that does crap I don't need it to
do because I have other things that do those things for me. Also the iphone isn't significantly better than many other phones out there now. You are trying to say that the iphone is a bentley to the blackberry curve being an acura and a razr (v3m) being a hyundai. the reality couldnt be further from the truth.
what do you spend so much time on your phone doing anyhow? 'browing the internet?' oh see I have this thing called a computer in the form of a laptop that I use when I'm at work or at home. So i cant check my email while i walk from my office to my car and while i drive home? this is a problem how? "i listen to music" oh see i just listen via my laptop/mp3 player at work and my car stereo when i drive and my home stereo when im at home.
most people Benefit from having a good cell phone more so than a good car? That part is interesting and I might agree; the problem is that you dont define what a good car or a good cell phone is. If you ask me a good cell phone is one that has reasonably good battery life, gets good reception, has plan condusive to my usage patterns, and allows me to use a headset (wired or bluetooth) with it. I don't care if it is color, plays music, makes toast, goes on the internet, plays games, etc. I care that it has good audio quality for phone calls. I would also argue that pretty much every phone out there meets this already. If I didn't have a digital camera, didnt have an mp3 player, and felt like I really needed to engage endlessly in text messages and browsing the net from my phone, sure its a good option. Other than that its just luxury crap. A better analogy would have been comparing someone spending 40K or more on a car. That's the person who should shutup.
Buying a 20K honda accord that will likely last 10+ years wihtout needing a major repair can be a decent investment for someone coming out of college (not that your car is or should be considered as such, its an asset by definition but more often its a liability).
and the difference between a 20K car and a 40k one can be a bit more pronounced. even a 14K car and a 20K car can be significant. you seem to toss those out as trivial and undetectable... i'm pretty sure you will notice the difference between a ford focus and toyota camry/honda accord, and if not today then when the ford dies in 4 years you'll notice the difference.
The other difference is lifetime, the 20K car is expected to live > 6 years, I'd expect it to live more than 8 maybe 10+
the iphone is definately not expected to live that long because a. there is no market for it when you are done with it in 2-4 years and b. because something else will come along and replace it.
I would instead redirect your argument at headphones. You'll pay 400 for iphone, who knows what for your ipod and your music and your stereo, but you wont pay even 50 bucks for a remotely non garbage pair of headphones? (realistically i would say 100$ but I'll start at 50, plus most people are going to want that same pair to be 'bad enough' to be able to use at the gym or running. Or mattresses, you only spend 8 hours a day or more lying on it. But your concern is over a cell phone.
my biggest gripe is "the difference
not sure that you will like it; I'm not sure that I like it either,
but the good reason is because they have the right to buy a domain name, and the money to pay for it.
For the very reason that typosquatting is effective at making money, its also valuable for the actual owner to use to prevent losses by typosquatting and to make it easier to find their site. Since there isn't a cap on number of domains you can own afaik its left to a personal decision whether you should be efficient and preserve webspace for others or to utilize finances to take up more real estate.
It's sorta like asking why build a one story store that has X floorspace when you could build a two (or more) story builiding, providing the same amount of space (or more) spread out in floors which will save some land space that could be used for other stores / parking / whatever. its complicated for one, and second: people feel like theres less risk. much higher chance for single point of failure in the tall building than the long short one.
according to your own post it IS not, it WILL be. call me an english nazi, or call me a technicallity nazi i dont care... id prefer soup nazi tho.
:-)
the point is that they are not backwards compatible. it will end up supporting "most" but not all.
If we started judging things by what they will be, then DukeNukemForever would be a fanstastic game we've all played.. Granted I have an unlimited amount of additional faith in the python team and that this will occur and occur ahead of schedule (as opposed to vaporwear of the year for over a decade). but the point is if its truly backwards compatible its a quick yes no answer with no details needed. thats what compatibility is. Compatibility is not supporting most feaures and not others. If we used that definition then websites that I blatantly can't use (ABC.com to watch a show online) could be called Linux Compatible... with a couple asterisks stating that x and y and z arent supported yet.
take this all with a grain of salt, as I'm not sure exactly what will and won't be supported; if its just some arcane feature that isnt supported than they are probably just being over cautious on naming.. but I'd prefer our software world not turn into a tv commercial with a 20 second long legal mumbo jumbo disclosure line raced through after every announcement
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
ianal (but then again neither are you) downloading copyrighted material that you don't have the rights to possess and which you aren't using for fair use is NOT legal. However because proving this is exceedingly more complicated the MAFIAA is being intelligent and focusing on the prosecution of uploaders. This works better because A. you never have the right to upload (share) the content with others even if you own the CD. B. if they stop all the providers then there wont be anyone to download from.
This is a large misconception that ignorant people keep trying to make. If you download a movie for example so that you can edit a small clip of it to use in some presentation or in some fair usage manner thats legal. If you were to simply download to be able to watch it (and you don't actually own the DVD) then you are breaking the law. Whether its considered theft or copyright infringement is debatable. But again without doing some research (who you are and what you own, etc, verifying what you did with the material) the MAFIAA can't really do anything. Trying to do that at a mass scale is quiet difficult, and they would be hard pressed to get a warrant to search you. Where as some of their john doe's have worked now, they would never get them in this case because a judge can quickly say there is no evidence to support or deny that a criminal act has been performed by the accused. At least in the current form there is no question of illegal activity only to the identity of the perpetrator.
The fact that they aren't going to use this means to prosecute the action doesn't make it anyless illegal. Suicide is illegal too, but how many people who commit that crime end up in jail or even arrested?
except they have to fine for you breaking the law. you stole it you didnt buy it. If i go steal a 100$ item from store X do you think store X will drop the charges if I simply pay 100$ after the fact? NO they wont; if they did that then theyd be encouraging me to steal anything i would actually purchase. Worst case scenario I get caught and I pay them the money I would have paid them.. they tag on things like arrests, and jailtime and tarnishing your record and additional fines and legal fees to deter the behavior. Thats pretty normal. Tacking on 1.5million not so normal
Here's my take on it: MAFIAA loves to advertise in the cinema "would you steal a wallet? would you steal a cd? would you steal cardboard box? etc..." ok if you want to equate these things whats the punishment for stealing CD X from a physical store? Oh you mean its less than a hundred thousand let alone a million? So how do you justify your punishment for the same crime....
they will respond its a different kind of crime, stealing a CD is theft, but downloading and uploading is a copyright violation which is entirely different as far as law is concerned. (and i'd be inclined to agree sadly) Ok but if you want to say that you are going to have to throw out your other campaign, and actually follow the same rules that everyone else has to in uncovering copyright violations. heres a new line of q's for yah
"would you photocopy a page or two from a library book without writing to the author and bringing authorization forms filled out in triplicate?"
"would you transcribe a song by ear becuase you enjoy it and post the tab on the internet?"
"would you resummarize a summary of the news by someone else and present it as "nightly news"?"
"would share a recipe with a friend that you read in a cookbook you bought and that you like?"
There thats a much better picture of what you are actually comparing don't you think?
It seems to me they are trying to use laws of theft to prosecute copyright violations. Granted I'm still a supporter of copyright law, sorry I am a software developer. If I cant control my work its hard to make money. But why can't they go to some more intelligent less invasive means for copyright protection that have been effective for software? Software copyright protection generally doesnt give a crap if you are running windows or linux or mac or an electronic watermellon. Ok it might not work on the latter; that aside the mechanisms are somewhat seperate from the content.
The other problem i see is they force you to buy something and then hamper your rights to use what you purchase. Oh you cant play that wmv drm'd file on linux... oh you cant play that itunes store audio file on a Zplayer or on linux... Oh you arent really allowed to copy music files from your ipod to your computer (except you sorta are) but by the way we also arent going to let you redownload lost purchases from us unless you send us an email and ask real nice.
i bought years upon years ago, ive installed and unintalled it on every machine ive gone through since (primary machines) never had a problem because of the copyright protection scheme. never had a problem where i couldnt install it because a hard drive it was installed on died without being deauthorized. you know what else? i felt compelled not to give it to others because of that. that and it was cheap self created fun (as opposed to big publisher).. i think the game was like 10-20 bucks maybe? granted games today are a bit more... but maybe thats part of the problem. If the market isnt willing to pay the price, they wont. wow thats a really cruddy ending to this rambling...
thats a little further off than you think. by day some of my work involves that specific technology, and its making its rounds in the stock market at the moment. there are still tricky bits to it. Not the least of which are things like the split brain problem, and keeping packet orderings deterministic the whole way... you will also eventually lose some of the speed you gain in UDP by not checking for things such as this, but in some sense with todays processors id rather my machine be the bottleneck than the internet.
:-)
the other catch 22 is that lots of places dont like udp... when I was at RPI I got an email from an IT admin who was "concerned" by the number of udp packets I had been sending and recieving. accusing me of being infected of a virus (funny since I was running redhat7.3 primarily at the time) or some malicious activity and wanted to place a temp ban on my access. My response of course was that A. I'm a comp sci student taking net prog and we had a UDP based assignment. B. there are these things called games that use UDP. blah blah blah someone pointed out that 95% of the people on the list were people taking net prog blah blah blah I got unbanned
you would want and deserve compensation, that is not questioned. But your compensation has no valid reason, legal need or neccesiity to come at A's expense. The discount store wronged you and they are the ones who have to compensate you not A, be it by giving you a different tv, giving you your money back plus some extra or whatever. If it is a "store" than they should have other items to give you.
/committed a crime as well.
What damage is moved? The primary victim is A not C. And if A has "already repurchased and replaced" then A can choose to take his old thing back or keep the replacements, in which case for at least 1 C there will be stuff available.
If B doesn't have enough money to pay for the reversed sale that how could B convincingly purport to be a legitimate seller of the item? furthermore the item stolen from A cant simultaneously (usually) be sold a C D E and F; there are other A's .
What if the "item" was a house that A built... B pretended to be a real estate agent and sold you the house while A was on vacation after A refused to let B sell it. C buys it from B. This doesn't make C the owner because it wasnt B's to sell and C's to buy regardless of what C thought or knew.. let's say for a moment that C is in the house the next day measuring to replace furniture when A comes home and calls the cops. Are you actually suggessting that the house is C's now? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
Furthermore that A should have the right to purchase it at market value from C? Just give C his money back and send him on his way; and if there isnt money to give back then C should have been more careful about whom he gave such a substantial amount to.
"But what you not realizing is that there are two or more rightful owners" is utterly incorrect. There is ONE rightful and only one rightful owner, A. B can't transfer ownership of something B doesn't own to someone else. When did A stop owning it? Step back and look at the picture from an independant view. A owns item. B steals said item (owner is still A). B sells item to C. (possessor is C, but A is still owner) C can believe C owns it but the reality is that A still owns it. Cops come by and inform C that the item was stolen from A... C realizes that the items owner is A. Knowledge or the lack there of Of the identity of the owner doesnt change the identity of the owner. Granting ownership to C transfers the theft from B to C and victimizes A again.
C's knowledge and belief of the legitmacy of the sale has no impact on whether or not the sale is valid, and has no impact on the owner of the sale. This isnt a subjective question that varies on perspective. Given the total information there is one answer. 2+2=4, this is not quantum mechanics, the heissenberg principle doesnt apply, your knowledge that 2+2=4 doesnt change the results of the equation and make it 5. It doesn't matter if you can add subtract, read write or paint, believe in god or believe in a all-knowing happy watermellon spirit. They have no impact on 2+2 equalling four, and they have no impact on the ownership of the item.
The only thing C's knowledge does is establish whether or not C contributed to
then tough shit for C; he should have made sure that B had the right to sell him the car. Namely that B had a pink slip and a valid title and registration. C didn't perform due diligence. Secondly this doesn't punish C; C didn't have a car prior to 'trying to buy' this one, and won't have one still. C just has to go buy another car. It's not A's problem that C doesn't have a car, or whether C needs one or not. Its irrelevant. The car was not B's to sell, and not C's to buy. A gets his car back from B. C gets his money back from B. B goes to jail doesnt collect 200$ and doesn't pass go.
C is neither punished nor rewarded because the reality is the only harm to C was deception. C is reverted back to the reality C existed in prior to engaging in this "false" sale. The ONLY harm that came to C is that C's time was wasted. Giving A the car back resolves A's problem, in doing so C's only "harm" is the money that could then be seen as stolen from C by B. B returns C what C paid for car. As for punitive punishments thats for the civil courts and a whole other crap shoot.
Yes but the problem is a chain of responsibility thing if you step back.
If programmers adhered to standards then the engines wouldn't have to keep all of the legacy hooks lying around to catch everything else...
once you force the source to be consistently valid, then you can move on to improving the rendering engines. although both need to occur a little bit at the same time.
I agree there is no easy finger pointing; the browser is as much a problem still as the code itself..
My larger problem is that the internet isn't and shouldn't be "microsoft's"; I guess for the first time as I think about this stuff i realize what the browser wars REALLY were about. when they occurred i didnt get it; i just fig'd ok who cares which free browser i'm using if they both do the same thing; all of the analogies ever made in the case were about radios in your car and crap like that....
but its really much more simple and sinister. Its not just that MS puts their radio in your car for free by default and makes it hard to take out; worse is that they create and distribute products that create content which only works in "their" radio. Furthermore they won't offer you their radio unless you buy a car from someone who has agreed to buy everything else of theirs... thats the problem.
By doing this they put a major foot up the rear end of the potential for other operating systems.... As long as MS doesn't create "IE" for linux (not that that is really what i want) they impede on linux or anyother OS from coming around simply by the blockade on the internet.... anyone want to reopen this case and or find a way to force MS to produce internet explorer for linux? again its not that id rather run that then firefox; but the mere fact that they "can't" further demonstrates a potentially unrealized part of the "browser wars monopolistic practices suit" stuff.
again I personally have no interest in it especially as I'd rather see people use things like OO.o; but perhaps this should extend to 'forcing' ms to produce Office for linux; As long as the OS maker is also a Software Maker i dont think it will ever be the case that they cant and wont create new features in the OS that only they can take advantage of.
or you could just code to standards to begin with... then it would work wherever. This isn't like programming an application in C to run on linux or windows and needing complicated macros to ensure that the right libraries and api's (system calls) are used. This is a freaking XML document. If you actually wrote it properly it would work EVERYWHERE; there is no "porting it to work on mozilla/firefox".
Its a lot like hard coding type sizes in a c program; you could write " int a = (int *)malloc(4);" becuase on your platform ints are size 4... but if you wrote the damn thing properly the first time, using the sizeof operator to get the size of an int, it would work EVERYWHERE.
hows he a fundie from texas? and how is that any different from huckabee or bush?
so it boots fast... what are you going to do with it next hmm? I betcha it wont support itunes....
..... drum roll... this is pretty much linux
I can make a linux partition that boots really fast too, only i dont need anything fancy to do it. problem is no one gives a crap because they won't be able to use their "familiar" applications and all that jazz....
although if this rallies support from stupid consumers we can blindside them later when we reveal that
limiting bandwidth alone is stupid; does it really matter whether I download 500MB in 5 minutes at 12am, or the 5 hours from 11pm-4am? no.
what they need is to look at your average bandwidth and at the same time your total content. no one cares if you download a couple 500K files at speeds of 1MB per second because you pose no load.
They say 5% use 95% of the bandwidth? I would agree, live in a fraternity house with 20-40 guys and you quickly find that thanks to 2-4 of them the houses bandwidth is chewed to nothing such that ssh to an on campus server is effectively impossible, all so that they can leave some stpid torrent or p2p open to download stupid crap... take the next step, show the stats that demonstrate this, identity the people who are causing this problem and change their pay structure. If they use 95% of the bandwidth they should be paying 95% of it.... this won't happen of course because the providers realize that on perhaps 80% or more users are vastly under using their bandwidth, and the discounts given to them would eat away at the providers profits. Its a double edged sword; the providers wont guarantee bandwidth for residential customers and as a result they cant guarentee bandwidth. Read that again if it doesnt sink in.
the dillemma is that as much as I want that 5% to be slapped across the face, and kicked off the network; after they are gone someone else will be the new 'pig'... i would far prefer and it would be far more in all parties interests for the isp to do some shaping or management on the network to dynamically cap the pigs bandwidth during times of congestion. in essense, you shouldnt be able to "go over the limit" and this shouldnt be enforced by shutting off your bandwidth completely either.
The only way they will get around this is if they guarentee bandwidth and charge for usage as opposed to happy flat rates.
and kick them off the network or charge them more.
OR better yet use some traffic shaping to ensure that under load bandwidth is balanced.
look im a fan of ron paul; which is surprising to some because normally I vote democrat... the key reason being he's actually a republican where as the republicans who generally surface from the party arent republicans in actuality. that aside; how can you say he's doing well? The people coming in thrd or fourth aren't doing well either.
this highlights again the reason that we should convert to runoff elections; to actually capture what the people want and credit those who dont win an election properly. People may say "a vote for RP is a vote that could be better used to push X over Y" and the problem is that then RP or whoever loses out.