I could also see this being a boon for business. Often when I'm on the phone with someone, I like to pull up all of our email coorespondance. They could do a "spokewheel" implementation: each person would be an axle and various spokes would link to business contact info, personal information, photos of them, etc. Think calling a client, having it pop up and asking "Oh, how was your son's birthday last week?" Again, ideal implementation.
Of course, there are commercial programs that have been doing things like this for years now. ACT! is an example I can come up with, and I suspect there are many more.
A funny idea maybe, but I think the last thing that will entice corporate types or consumers considering open source alternatives is seeing a bunch of geeks burning effigies on the news.
Of course, neither the article nor the grand-parent claim that anybody actually had 10.5 million songs in their hub... they both just say that 40 petabytes is equivalent to the space required to store 10.5 million songs.
Even then, this 10.5 million songs is an inaccurate figure, as 10.5 million songs * 4MB/song = 40 TERAbytes.
Well, i agree with you thats its too complicated on the client side, at least from your description of setup on an XP machine... Ive only set up wifi on macs, and WEP on OS X definitely passes the "my mom can do it" test.
On the standard modem/router/access point that came free with my DSL service, WEP comes enabled by default, and specifies a default 40-bit password. This password is printed on the bottom of the router, and is (hopefully!) unique for each unit. For this unit, the customer doesnt even have to dig into the router to set up WEP, and to connect from a client its nothing more than typing the name and WEP password. That doesnt seem to complicated to me, and is secure enough for home use.
Of course, for the savvy, the router allows you to change the key value and size, providing even more security for those who want it.
I know Albertson's in my town has a check box on the form you fill out to get a "Savings Club" card which basically says, "I dont want you to have my personal information, but Id like a card anyways." You check that box, and you dont have to give them anything else, and they give a card, with discounts and everything. Works for me. A real class act, that place.
When public backlash fomented and bit him in the ass after no weapons showed up, he just changed the tune. "Its okay that theres no WMD, he was a terrible dictator."
It makes plenty of sense, since this administration has this neat little trick of getting the media and American people to embrace every lie they pose as the absolute, god-fearing moral truth.
I for one have no trust in an administration who changes its reasoning for war within less than a year of invasion. Not that I had any trust in them in the first place.
Am I the only one who reads this as "If we don't suspect you of a crime, you have less rights than if we do?"
The right in question is the right to avoid self-incrimination. When you are suspected of a crime, naming yourself could be considered self-incrimination. When you are not suspected of a crime, the Supreme Court now says it is not possible to incriminate yourself through naming yourself, so refusing to name yourself does not fall within your Fifth Amendment rights.
Keep in mind that there is no explicit right to anonymity in the Constitution, nor any right to not name yourself. Also keep in mind that right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia doesnt even believe the right to privacy is granted by the Constitution.
is the second provision just to prevent that ruling form being ruled unconstititional as per fifth amendment?
A ruling of the Supreme Court cannot be "ruled unconstitutional." They can, however, be overturned, but only by the Supreme Court. They have a general policy of not overstepping the context of the case in rulings; since the case in question did not involve a crime suspect, they dont specify what happens if he was a suspect. Essentially, the issue of forcing crime suspects to reveal their name was not relevant to the case they were deciding on, so they give a "maybe, maybe not" answer.
I never bought any of the analogies of open-source to communism or socialism, or libertarianism for that matter.
(Commun|social|marx)ism refer to all-encompassing economic systems. Open-source is simply a way of distributing software, which doesnt make much sense beyond than that. Open source computer hardware? medical insurance? bread? No.
There is no such "collective public ownership of the means of production" in open source. Sorry, but nobody here owns gcc or perl, etc., unless you are FSF, or Wall, respectively. The public does not own open source software, but the owners (the copyright holders) have graciously decided to give it to whoever accepts the terms of its license.
Comparisons to economic systems really just open the door to anti-OSS FUD, in my opinion.
deprive smart companies (Sony & Nintendo) of their only source of income
Going to have to call you on that--Sony definitely has solid revenue coming from their various enterprises, particularly hardware and media sales. And don't forget, Sony is a weighty member of the RIAA. Sometimes I feel like slashdot forgets that fact...
i have studied latin a bit, and "lingua franca" is indeed is latin, and italian at the same time. they are very similar languages, at least in the sense that they share numerous cognates.
But i guess the real question is, did the expression originate from the Roman Empire, or from Italy. Cursory Google research seems to indicate the latter.
In my experience, if you are doing something like ssh, dialup is almost intolerably laggy. And X windows is just out of the question over dialup.
Plus, Ive found that dialup isnt just slower, its less reliable, and cant be shared as easily as broadband. I cant recall how many times my old dialup connection dropped spontaneously while I was happily coding away in a remote machine. A dropped connection doesnt matter so much for http/pop/smtp, but for ssh its pretty damn annoying.
If being forced to levy fees for their opened-up interface specs is such a big win for Microsoft, don't you think they would have done it without the EU telling them to?
What nobody really seems to fully understand about this issue is that downloading metallica/family guy/whatnot off of the internet is not theft. It is a violation of copyright law. You are not a thief, at least not for using a P2P app to get music and movies. You are a pirate. They are completely different in both legal and moral terms.
Remember those ads they used to air, with Britney Spears comparing P2P filesharing to stealing CDs from a music store? Those were complete bullshit, because in the latter case, nothing is being copied, you are just walking out with physical property owned by the store. That is theft. P2P is not. In fact, if we were to take the US legal code from the early 1800s, when American copyright law was practically nonexistent, and use it today, filesharing would be completely legal, but stealing CDs would remain illegal.
The fundamental problem is that filesharers are violating the RIAA's exclusive right to make and/or sell copies of a given work. That's what all the debate and lawsuits are really about. Although there may be various editing, production, advertising, etc. costs involved in producing the __original__ work, those are not being "stolen" by anyone. Indeed, these costs are typically remunerated by exercise of the exclusive rights to copying and distribution of the work (ie selling CDs).
I still think the problem with RSS is the name. It sounds stupid. Let's all call it 'Speed Feed'. Cheesy rhyming will help the non techno elite remember it, and this is a technology that needs to be more widely deployed.
Oh yeah, because MP3 and XML are such unmemorable technical names for useful technologies, they could never become overused technology buzzwords.
Most non technical people would serve in a jury are not really paying attention, so I can't believe its to "poisen the jury pool", as you would expect with OJ, etc
I've noticed a few posts mentioning a jury involved with the SCO case. It should be pointed out that in the US justice system, as with many other nation's systems, civil cases, such as SCO's present litigation, are not tried by a jury, but only by a judge. OJ was a criminal case, hence the jury. Thus in the present case there is no jury to "poison."
On the other hand, there's enough legal education and know-how in the system right now (most Senators and a sizeable # of Congressmen are either lawyers or have been in service for a number of years) to have been able to make the decision that its unconstitutional and not even bothered to vote for or sign it in the first place.
If all decisions on Capitol Hill were made using legal education and know-how, there would be no need for courts, nor elections, nor any other democratic checks on government.
The PATRIOT Act is very clearly an opportunely timed power grab by the federal government seeking to severely limit civil liberties. All this, to impose its naive vision of a white-washed, "good-Christian" America.
Don't think for a minute that everyone who voted for the PATRIOT Act believed it constitutional. They just figured they could get away with it regardless.
So you place your utmost, unwavering faith in
TheLaw?
The Law gets it wrong sometimes, as evidenced by both vehement opposition to legislation like the DMCA and PATRIOT Act here on slashdot as well as the concept of judicial review.
I hate fax spam as much as anyone, but there are two sides to every issue, even those involving The Law. I too think fax.com is wrong on this issue, but i recognize their right to disagree with me/you/lawyers/the government.
What they're doing is equally as legal as selling heroin
except that nobody will put you in jail for sending junk faxes. and, in moral terms, if those mean anything anymore, heroin is a lot worse than sending faxes.
stating that junk fax == selling heroin gets an insightful mod?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, there are commercial programs that have been doing things like this for years now. ACT! is an example I can come up with, and I suspect there are many more.
A funny idea maybe, but I think the last thing that will entice corporate types or consumers considering open source alternatives is seeing a bunch of geeks burning effigies on the news.
Dude, did you really just say that??
Of course, neither the article nor the grand-parent claim that anybody actually had 10.5 million songs in their hub... they both just say that 40 petabytes is equivalent to the space required to store 10.5 million songs.
Even then, this 10.5 million songs is an inaccurate figure, as 10.5 million songs * 4MB/song = 40 TERAbytes.
Well, i agree with you thats its too complicated on the client side, at least from your description of setup on an XP machine... Ive only set up wifi on macs, and WEP on OS X definitely passes the "my mom can do it" test.
Of course, for the savvy, the router allows you to change the key value and size, providing even more security for those who want it.
I know Albertson's in my town has a check box on the form you fill out to get a "Savings Club" card which basically says, "I dont want you to have my personal information, but Id like a card anyways." You check that box, and you dont have to give them anything else, and they give a card, with discounts and everything. Works for me. A real class act, that place.
This is just DeVry rehashed. Im sure its great for some, but as many others have noted, dont try to call it computer science.
What good is this when we already have Linspire's lsongs?
Isn't that all the more reason to invade over there for oil? Setup a US-friendly government, and watch American oil profits from the region balloon?
For an excuse to invade.
When public backlash fomented and bit him in the ass after no weapons showed up, he just changed the tune. "Its okay that theres no WMD, he was a terrible dictator."
It makes plenty of sense, since this administration has this neat little trick of getting the media and American people to embrace every lie they pose as the absolute, god-fearing moral truth.
I for one have no trust in an administration who changes its reasoning for war within less than a year of invasion. Not that I had any trust in them in the first place.
The right in question is the right to avoid self-incrimination. When you are suspected of a crime, naming yourself could be considered self-incrimination. When you are not suspected of a crime, the Supreme Court now says it is not possible to incriminate yourself through naming yourself, so refusing to name yourself does not fall within your Fifth Amendment rights.
Keep in mind that there is no explicit right to anonymity in the Constitution, nor any right to not name yourself. Also keep in mind that right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia doesnt even believe the right to privacy is granted by the Constitution.
is the second provision just to prevent that ruling form being ruled unconstititional as per fifth amendment?
A ruling of the Supreme Court cannot be "ruled unconstitutional." They can, however, be overturned, but only by the Supreme Court. They have a general policy of not overstepping the context of the case in rulings; since the case in question did not involve a crime suspect, they dont specify what happens if he was a suspect. Essentially, the issue of forcing crime suspects to reveal their name was not relevant to the case they were deciding on, so they give a "maybe, maybe not" answer.
W. Richard Stevens' "Unix Network Programming Volume 1." Really-- a genuine page turner. Ive opened that one up at slow parties before.
- (Commun|social|marx)ism refer to all-encompassing economic systems. Open-source is simply a way of distributing software, which doesnt make much sense beyond than that. Open source computer hardware? medical insurance? bread? No.
- There is no such "collective public ownership of the means of production" in open source. Sorry, but nobody here owns gcc or perl, etc., unless you are FSF, or Wall, respectively. The public does not own open source software, but the owners (the copyright holders) have graciously decided to give it to whoever accepts the terms of its license.
Comparisons to economic systems really just open the door to anti-OSS FUD, in my opinion.My ~2.19 yen
Going to have to call you on that--Sony definitely has solid revenue coming from their various enterprises, particularly hardware and media sales. And don't forget, Sony is a weighty member of the RIAA. Sometimes I feel like slashdot forgets that fact...
But i guess the real question is, did the expression originate from the Roman Empire, or from Italy. Cursory Google research seems to indicate the latter.
Uh... no?
Plus, Ive found that dialup isnt just slower, its less reliable, and cant be shared as easily as broadband. I cant recall how many times my old dialup connection dropped spontaneously while I was happily coding away in a remote machine. A dropped connection doesnt matter so much for http/pop/smtp, but for ssh its pretty damn annoying.
Windows had (and has) Quicktime. That's really the core of iTunes' main functionality.
If being forced to levy fees for their opened-up interface specs is such a big win for Microsoft, don't you think they would have done it without the EU telling them to?
Remember those ads they used to air, with Britney Spears comparing P2P filesharing to stealing CDs from a music store? Those were complete bullshit, because in the latter case, nothing is being copied, you are just walking out with physical property owned by the store. That is theft. P2P is not. In fact, if we were to take the US legal code from the early 1800s, when American copyright law was practically nonexistent, and use it today, filesharing would be completely legal, but stealing CDs would remain illegal.
The fundamental problem is that filesharers are violating the RIAA's exclusive right to make and/or sell copies of a given work. That's what all the debate and lawsuits are really about. Although there may be various editing, production, advertising, etc. costs involved in producing the __original__ work, those are not being "stolen" by anyone. Indeed, these costs are typically remunerated by exercise of the exclusive rights to copying and distribution of the work (ie selling CDs).
If all decisions on Capitol Hill were made using legal education and know-how, there would be no need for courts, nor elections, nor any other democratic checks on government.
The PATRIOT Act is very clearly an opportunely timed power grab by the federal government seeking to severely limit civil liberties. All this, to impose its naive vision of a white-washed, "good-Christian" America.
Don't think for a minute that everyone who voted for the PATRIOT Act believed it constitutional. They just figured they could get away with it regardless.
The side The Law is on.
So you place your utmost, unwavering faith in The Law?
The Law gets it wrong sometimes, as evidenced by both vehement opposition to legislation like the DMCA and PATRIOT Act here on slashdot as well as the concept of judicial review.
I hate fax spam as much as anyone, but there are two sides to every issue, even those involving The Law. I too think fax.com is wrong on this issue, but i recognize their right to disagree with me/you/lawyers/the government.
What they're doing is equally as legal as selling heroin
except that nobody will put you in jail for sending junk faxes. and, in moral terms, if those mean anything anymore, heroin is a lot worse than sending faxes.
stating that junk fax == selling heroin gets an insightful mod?