That's not correct. The cost is the same if they brush their teeth or learn a new system. With the military, it's a fixed cost...for the most part...most military people just do busy work when not at war.
...have they really fixed all of those bugs in such a short period of time?
Based on their previous track record for older versions of GTK+, it will be another year or two before the code base stabalizes. And if you report a bug to them, they'll probably tell you to fix it your self or wait for the 3.x series.
I will tell you that 75% of the people I treated weren't rioting when they were clubbed by police.
Yes, but once that stuff starts, it's time to take your toys and go home. By remaining, you are a passive participant and in many cases, the sheep help fuel the fire with their presense and vocal rhymes. If a protest turns into a riot, you either leave immediately or you lick your wounds without complaint when it's all over.
Fair? Perhaps, perhaps not, but there is a greater good at risk for society.
"The Internet Browser shouldn't be a product bought and sold in the marketplace. It's a very basic product at its heart, and should be included with PCs to begin with."
I agree with you, however, if another vendor wants to offer their own browser intergrated with Windows, then they should be allowed to do so. They are not. Furthermore, like it or not, IE is NOT FREE!!! You've paid for it several times over. Windows should cost about $30.00 (retail) and their high end versions should cost $50-70 (retail) if they were not a monopoly. Take whatever you paid for windows, subtract that amount and that's what you paid for IE!!!! This is a fact that was brought out during the trial. The fact is, the OS should be dirt cheap if competition existed. But it doesn't so they've bundled not only applications but the price as such and they brain washed the masses into believing that they are getting all this software for free. Get real! Get a grip on reality!
How many huge companies do you know that can give away a sigificant application and remain in business. Hint, look at the.com bust for proof of this concept. Fact is, IE is and never has been free!!!! If you didn't realize this, then you need to kick your self because you've been suckered BIG TIME!
It's possible to remove the browser. Everyone knows that. The problem is, how do you deal with all the programs that rely on the MS HTML rendering engine that's ASSUMED to be in every version of Windows by many programs?
LOL! I guess they'll be forced to so what every other vender that's been pinched by Mircosoft in the past has had to do. Suck it up, grin, support it.
I personally have no problem with them having to work a little like they've made just about every software company that supports the Win32 platform.
The tears are just running down my face...booo hooo...bo...hoo....
"That's the way good software gets designed. So if you pull out a piece it won't run"
That's the way good buildings are designed. So if you pull out a piece, it all falls down. Hopefully, a) they'll never design buildings and b) if they do, no one ever wants to redecorate.
This has been an announcement from your local safety group.
People seem to forget that one of the intents to encourage dynamic linking of proprietary components is to ensure that you are never at the mercy of that vender. Should you later decide that you can write the foobar library that your GPL application makes use of, all you need to do is provide your own library and now you have a working copy again which is free of proprietary code.
Basically the concept is this. If you make a reference to someone else's book within your own, that's legal. If on the other hand, you write a new chapter at the beging and end of someone else's book, that's illegal. That's exactly what static linking does.
Dynamic linking should be encouraged where ever possible. It protects the users of GPL and the creators of their respective code.
To say that it is circular and obtuse logic is an understatement and clearly not within the spirit of what was placed on paper. Cry all you like, the intent is rather obvious and this generally carries significant weight when being reviewed by a court.
Using your logic, one is encouraged to break the law as there is no penalty which was CLEARLY not the intension. Rather, it's intent (which is equally clear) is to restrict your freedom once you've decided to spit on the GPL. This only makes sense as it's quid pro quo. That is, since the violator has decided illegally to restrict everyone else's rights to what should be freely available, which flies in the face of the intent of GPL, it in turn, ensures the violator has no rights which forces you back to the table greatly weakened.
This comment is sadly a joke. Most LAN games are not going to have complex routing issues. What routing issues do you think the average single or dual hub network is going to have??? Do you think they develop their games around the idea that at 5:00pm Corporate America suddenly turns into Blizzard Central? Of course they don't. Secondly, the networking overhead is not going to be detectable for your average game on a LAN unless it's a total peice of crap game. If TCP is good enough for WAN based multi-player gaming, it's certainly good enough for LAN play!!!!! At best, assuming sane implementations for both protocols, you *may* see differences of a few ms per PACKET and even still, I seriously doubt you'll even find that much of a difference!
Simply put, use of IPX is certainly for nothing more than restricting user options and control or just maybe, they have this old IPX networking library laying around that works and they'd simply not rewrite it unless they had too. Meaning? They might of been trying to save time and money and it have nothing to do with control or technical merits of the protocol. As for your assertion that IPX has bandwidth guarantees, please back that statement up. That's pretty hard to do when a) it's going over ethernet and b) the os can commit to the application all day long at what it thinks it can deliver over the wire but it really has no say at all, otherwise, a single IPX station could bring down a whole IPX network (that is, one computer says, all the network bandwidth is mine...go find your own). The words, "ya right!" come to mind. How would it control this with other types of network activity on the wire? After all, when it's all said and done, it's the wire activity that counts!
End point, you're statement is completely without merit and makes no sense. If you do have games which support multiple protocols on the same OS and one is notibly faster than the other, it more likely it is reflective of nothing more than one was optimized and the other was extremly poorly implemented, or both.
Actually, they function as a clearing house. While I don't know if that distinction is enough to prevent them from legally being in the domain of bank-hood, it is a distinction nonetheless.
For credit card processing, clearing houses do not have to be a bank though often they are required to be sponcered by one.
I've slept some since I was actively involved in that industry (so memory may suffer) and regs may of certainly changes. Nonetheless, take this with a grain of salt.
Anyone else think it odd that GamePC is reviewing this? Do ANY gamers run Xeons?
Yes and it shows as they had little technical information and failed to provide a worthy review on how programs and OS's may better use this technology. Basically it said if you're already using 100% of your CPU you're not going to get another CPU out of this. Last I heard, a CPU can only provide 100%. Surprise. I personally was not very surprised to read that, however, they could of tested many other situations to see how well it performed, that is, cases where less than 100% was being used as is often the case on workstations and servers. Let's face it, if your production server is constantly at 100%, you need a new work load or a new server (unless it's purely a computational server whereby, I believe the technology assertions seems to imply that this is not it's targeted mode of operation). Pretty much the same goes for workstations too. So in that regard, the test was pretty much worthless as it was completely unreflective of how the technology might actually get used in the real world.
Was anyone really surprised that 1 != 2? A side from the author, I know I certainly was not. And that, I think is why they certainly were not qualified to perform a meaningful benchmark with this technology.
There are many issues which the article did not address at all. For example, I would of loved to known how it effected system latency. For example, if over all performance is (-1-2%), and process latency has been improved by say 5%-10%, for workstation users, this may be a worth-while trade off.
Also, the article seems to push very hard for raw CPU performance. Allow me to clarify. While Intel does seem to indicate that performance boosts can be achieved, I didn't really read it to mean that total aggregate CPU performance would be gained or if it is, certainly not by much. Let me put it like this. It smells like this technology is geared to help out systems which normally run 80%-90% of their total CPU whereby HyperThreading would allow for effient use of the difference while requiring only common SMP application support.
Also, I didn't read that HyperThreading was geared to be directly taken advantage of by Linux or Win platforms. I suspect that there are significant OS opimizations that can be made for more intelligent scheduling and improved processor affinity. Here, I can see that processor affinity may make significant differences in overall performance. While Win's CPU affinity is only slightly better than that of Linux's current scheduler, I'm hoping that significant affinity improvments will go a long way toward addressing possible shortfalls with this technology. As such, it certainly would of been interesting to see how well Linux did with the new O(1)-scheduler in development as it has many optimizations which specifically address better CPU affinity. Plus, if the scheduler can make the distinction between virtual CPUs and it's associated owner, I can see that it may make sense to allow for processor bias between physical and virtual CPU's within a scheduler. After all, if a process is to migrate, it would seemingly (best guess here) make sense to allow it to migrate to a virtual self first before it migrates to another CPU entirely. If a process is currently executing on a physical CPU, does it make sense to allow it to migrate to a virtual CPU on a physically different CPU? I'm guessing that would make for a significant performance hit. How would it perform is process migration were only allowed to occur to it's own virtual CPU? I'd certainly like to know.
By allowing the scheduler to make intelligent migration and accordingly biased decisions, I'm guessing that any OS may be able to make significant performance in-roads while using the HyperThreading technology. As such, I'm guessing that more significant performance gains can be achieved by having the OS HyperThreading aware rather than attempting to heavily optimize at the application level. With proper OS support, I'm guessing that little more than simply SMP application support will place this technology in a completely different light.
Ok, I cannot figure out how the hell the DMCA would apply here.
Well, for sake of argument, let's say it does. There is no provision for them to, "immediately cease the importation, distribution and sale of the Flash Advance Linker and turn over your remaining stock to Nintendo." I must say, however, if Nintendo really does want them, I imagine they'd be free to purchase the entire stock. Likewise, if their claim does have merit, the courts will ensure that U.S. Customs prevents any additional shipments. Telling someone not to order just because, holds zero legal merit.
Since Nintendo isn't a law enforcement agency they have no ground to stand on here, certainly not in the US. Simply ignore it or contact your legal represenative so he can tell you to ignore it. The sole purpose of this letter is to bring about fear. If they truely have legal legs here, the letter would of been from U.S. Customs or their attorney (*maybe* they have grounds to stand of if it came from an attorney). Also note, the letter sent doesn't even appear to of been sent from their attorney, rather, it looks like it's an in house copier department.
Lastly, the DCMA still requires court involvement prior to it being inforced. I noticed that they failed to make any such legal reference that their claim has been up held by a legal U.S. court.
Seeing as the Americans have a terrible history when it comes to target acquisition and targetting, even with 'smart' bombs which were meant to be fool-proof, only striking down the enemy (not Chinese Embassy).
Except the US military has some of the highest hit ratios and lowest collateral damage ratios of any military unit in the world. They have since the Gulf War. Ya, mistakes happen and they make for wonder stories on CNN, however, it doesn't change the fact that as long as humans are in the equation, mistakes will happen. This is the human factor and not a military or weapons factor. That a side, I don't think you're speaking very well informed.
Not to mention it was specifically stated that they didn't want to use the BSD style license as they felt it was hurting the project. Wow. What a concept. People believe that the BSD license may be hurting their efforts. Last I read, they wanted to use a license which prevented these entities from taking the WINE project and not contributing back to it. Doesn't sounds like they want to be very BSD to me. In fact, sounds like the BSD concept is the root of the desired license change.
Get over it. A license is a license. Just because you may or may not have a personal opinion on a license one way or another doesn't mean the rest of the world will share your opinion. In fact, it seems the Wine team feels poorly about using a BSD style license. Go figure.
Lastly, GPL does not have negative connotations unless you've been feeding at the Microsoft camp lately. The concept behind GPL code is simple. Either you get it or you don't. Either you want to contribute back or you don't. There is nothing negative about it other than they simply don't want you stealing other people's efforts unless you're going to return your efforts for the good of all. So basically you are saying that companies don't like GPL code because they can't legally steal it? Sounds like an ethics check is in order.
Yes, but the document hasn't been destroyed, rather, the accessibility of said document has been restricted. Furthermore, what happens if a document expires after an investigation has started? If you didn't make best effort to maintain a copy, are you now accountable? I don't have any problem coming up with gray areas that I certainly would not want to be held to.
While I hear what you're saying, it just doesn't sound like firm ground to me.
And if you use this system for which law enforcement access is required whereby the emails are no longer available will you now be charged with interference of an investigation? Dustruction of evidence? Failure to co-operate in an investigation?
I doubt there is currently much a legal-leg to stand here to prevent your self from being raked over one way or another.
Please keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer, however, these seem like the obvious paths law enforcemet would go to ensure these systems don't prohibit their ability to investigate.
Funny you say that. As I understand it, most Microsoft employees are stockholders. In fact, just about every employee is offered some form of stock compensation in order to keep base pay down.
I wonder what the percent break out would look like.
Heck, I have a DVD player in pieces in my basement because I'm curious how it works--but under no circumstance will that allow the manufacturer to come into my house to see if I've broken a copyright protection mechanism. Once I start selling chips, though.... all bets are off.
So if I create a mod chip for my car and resale my technology, you're telling me that the manufacturer is due some profit from my efforts even though it was developed completely without their help? That's insane! What if I develope an IR to RF converter for my Sony remote control which I developed without any of Sony's help. Should Sony get a peice of the pie? Of course not. If I state that these devices function with with a Sony system and a Pontiac car (common practice on many items commonly available from most stores), in what way am I violating their trademarks or patents? Since this goes on every day with cars and many other goods, in what way is this any different for a gaming console. Last I heard, Ford, Chevy, Pontiac, etc., have not lost their trademarks nor had their patients violated by these systems. The car metaphore is very close to home as it modifies the car's operation to function in a manner different than comes from the manufacurer. So what's the issue. This is no way shape or form, constitutes a patent or trademark violation. In fact, last I heard (uncomfirmed), Sony is in violation of internation trade laws by placing the zoning logic into their devices (as is every electronic device which has restrictive zoning logic).
As for the ruling that the concept is illegal, there is clearly LOTS of prior cases which invalidate the courts ruling, clear and simple! Simply put, the judge is a moron. Based on his assertion allow for only a slight extension of his logic, if I purchase a book from another country and it is locally available from another publisher, I've now violated copyright. That's insane. When will these judges realize that just because the word "computer" or "electronic" is used it doesn't somehow invalidate logic or all other laws based on simular technologies.
What are you babbling about? VSS creates 26 directories from "a" to "z" and then creates hundreds and thousands of files in them. Yeah, totally brain-dead implementation IMO.
Hmmm. That's interesting. I last used MSVSS years ago and it was certainly not like this. Sounds like significant changes have been put in place. While I no longer clearly remember what files were being sent I do distintly remember having conversations about using a Jet database with the support personal and that corruption was common place.
Well, hopefully I won't have to every worry about learning the current state of the technology...:)
First, I'd like to say thanks for the information on Oracle. That's a very interesting route that I'd not considered before. Very interesting indeed.
As for the optimizer issues associated with updated statistics, I guess I would like to expand on this slightly. Most people don't realize that many optimizers have hard and arbitrary thresholds for determining the best possible algorithmic data path. This is why it is very important to understand not only your data distribution but the nature of the delta of your data distribution. Also key is is the understanding of how multiple indexes will effect the optimizer's (especially if multiple index types are supported by the RDBMS in question) output. Common causes for negative query performance is slight distribution statistical changes which hit an arbitrary threshold causing another data path to be recommended by the optimizer. Thusly the significance of Oracle being able to pin query plans can be profound.
Because of these issues, my self and several other DBA's do not advocate blindly updating statistics simply for the sake of doing so. First of all, if your data distribution tends not to vary, this can result in nothing more than a waste of time. Furthermore, if your data distribution tends to vary only slightly, you'd better understand these trends as it's very possible timely and updated statistics may work against you depending on where you were within your trend's cycle.
While I knew about the pinned query plans on Oracle, I didn't know about the planned server tuning hints. Abilities (assuming I understood you correctly) like this can go a long way toward addressing the issues I've raised about query optimizers.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like RieserFS with extra META data.
The costs of retraining and reconfiguring...
That's not correct. The cost is the same if they brush their teeth or learn a new system. With the military, it's a fixed cost...for the most part...most military people just do busy work when not at war.
...have they really fixed all of those bugs in such a short period of time?
Based on their previous track record for older versions of GTK+, it will be another year or two before the code base stabalizes. And if you report a bug to them, they'll probably tell you to fix it your self or wait for the 3.x series.
I will tell you that 75% of the people I treated weren't rioting when they were clubbed by police.
Yes, but once that stuff starts, it's time to take your toys and go home. By remaining, you are a passive participant and in many cases, the sheep help fuel the fire with their presense and vocal rhymes. If a protest turns into a riot, you either leave immediately or you lick your wounds without complaint when it's all over.
Fair? Perhaps, perhaps not, but there is a greater good at risk for society.
"The Internet Browser shouldn't be a product bought and sold in the marketplace. It's a very basic product at its heart, and should be included with PCs to begin with."
.com bust for proof of this concept. Fact is, IE is and never has been free!!!! If you didn't realize this, then you need to kick your self because you've been suckered BIG TIME!
I agree with you, however, if another vendor wants to offer their own browser intergrated with Windows, then they should be allowed to do so. They are not. Furthermore, like it or not, IE is NOT FREE!!! You've paid for it several times over. Windows should cost about $30.00 (retail) and their high end versions should cost $50-70 (retail) if they were not a monopoly. Take whatever you paid for windows, subtract that amount and that's what you paid for IE!!!! This is a fact that was brought out during the trial. The fact is, the OS should be dirt cheap if competition existed. But it doesn't so they've bundled not only applications but the price as such and they brain washed the masses into believing that they are getting all this software for free. Get real! Get a grip on reality!
How many huge companies do you know that can give away a sigificant application and remain in business. Hint, look at the
It's possible to remove the browser. Everyone knows that. The problem is, how do you deal with all the programs that rely on the MS HTML rendering engine that's ASSUMED to be in every version of Windows by many programs?
LOL! I guess they'll be forced to so what every other vender that's been pinched by Mircosoft in the past has had to do. Suck it up, grin, support it.
I personally have no problem with them having to work a little like they've made just about every software company that supports the Win32 platform.
The tears are just running down my face...booo hooo...bo...hoo....
"That's the way good software gets designed. So if you pull out a piece it won't run"
That's the way good buildings are designed. So if you pull out a piece, it all falls down. Hopefully, a) they'll never design buildings and b) if they do, no one ever wants to redecorate.
This has been an announcement from your local safety group.
:)
People seem to forget that one of the intents to encourage dynamic linking of proprietary components is to ensure that you are never at the mercy of that vender. Should you later decide that you can write the foobar library that your GPL application makes use of, all you need to do is provide your own library and now you have a working copy again which is free of proprietary code.
Basically the concept is this. If you make a reference to someone else's book within your own, that's legal. If on the other hand, you write a new chapter at the beging and end of someone else's book, that's illegal. That's exactly what static linking does.
Dynamic linking should be encouraged where ever possible. It protects the users of GPL and the creators of their respective code.
To say that it is circular and obtuse logic is an understatement and clearly not within the spirit of what was placed on paper. Cry all you like, the intent is rather obvious and this generally carries significant weight when being reviewed by a court.
Using your logic, one is encouraged to break the law as there is no penalty which was CLEARLY not the intension. Rather, it's intent (which is equally clear) is to restrict your freedom once you've decided to spit on the GPL. This only makes sense as it's quid pro quo. That is, since the violator has decided illegally to restrict everyone else's rights to what should be freely available, which flies in the face of the intent of GPL, it in turn, ensures the violator has no rights which forces you back to the table greatly weakened.
Except that it's invalidated by section 4 once they were in violation of it. This is why they would need to be forgiven.
Like it or not, that's one of the reasons of why the license works. If you violate it, you lose all rights to use/redistribute.
This comment is sadly a joke. Most LAN games are not going to have complex routing issues. What routing issues do you think the average single or dual hub network is going to have??? Do you think they develop their games around the idea that at 5:00pm Corporate America suddenly turns into Blizzard Central? Of course they don't. Secondly, the networking overhead is not going to be detectable for your average game on a LAN unless it's a total peice of crap game. If TCP is good enough for WAN based multi-player gaming, it's certainly good enough for LAN play!!!!! At best, assuming sane implementations for both protocols, you *may* see differences of a few ms per PACKET and even still, I seriously doubt you'll even find that much of a difference!
Simply put, use of IPX is certainly for nothing more than restricting user options and control or just maybe, they have this old IPX networking library laying around that works and they'd simply not rewrite it unless they had too. Meaning? They might of been trying to save time and money and it have nothing to do with control or technical merits of the protocol. As for your assertion that IPX has bandwidth guarantees, please back that statement up. That's pretty hard to do when a) it's going over ethernet and b) the os can commit to the application all day long at what it thinks it can deliver over the wire but it really has no say at all, otherwise, a single IPX station could bring down a whole IPX network (that is, one computer says, all the network bandwidth is mine...go find your own). The words, "ya right!" come to mind. How would it control this with other types of network activity on the wire? After all, when it's all said and done, it's the wire activity that counts!
End point, you're statement is completely without merit and makes no sense. If you do have games which support multiple protocols on the same OS and one is notibly faster than the other, it more likely it is reflective of nothing more than one was optimized and the other was extremly poorly implemented, or both.
It's really as simple as that.
Actually a boot is a poor place to put it. Can you say land mine. Also, hand, arm, leg and foot injuries are far more common than one would think.
Considering he's extra dumb for not simply doing a charge back and reviewing the invoice. He deserves what he got.
Actually, they function as a clearing house. While I don't know if that distinction is enough to prevent them from legally being in the domain of bank-hood, it is a distinction nonetheless.
For credit card processing, clearing houses do not have to be a bank though often they are required to be sponcered by one.
I've slept some since I was actively involved in that industry (so memory may suffer) and regs may of certainly changes. Nonetheless, take this with a grain of salt.
Anyone else think it odd that GamePC is reviewing this? Do ANY gamers run Xeons?
Yes and it shows as they had little technical information and failed to provide a worthy review on how programs and OS's may better use this technology. Basically it said if you're already using 100% of your CPU you're not going to get another CPU out of this. Last I heard, a CPU can only provide 100%. Surprise. I personally was not very surprised to read that, however, they could of tested many other situations to see how well it performed, that is, cases where less than 100% was being used as is often the case on workstations and servers. Let's face it, if your production server is constantly at 100%, you need a new work load or a new server (unless it's purely a computational server whereby, I believe the technology assertions seems to imply that this is not it's targeted mode of operation). Pretty much the same goes for workstations too. So in that regard, the test was pretty much worthless as it was completely unreflective of how the technology might actually get used in the real world.
Was anyone really surprised that 1 != 2? A side from the author, I know I certainly was not. And that, I think is why they certainly were not qualified to perform a meaningful benchmark with this technology.
There are many issues which the article did not address at all. For example, I would of loved to known how it effected system latency. For example, if over all performance is (-1-2%), and process latency has been improved by say 5%-10%, for workstation users, this may be a worth-while trade off.
Also, the article seems to push very hard for raw CPU performance. Allow me to clarify. While Intel does seem to indicate that performance boosts can be achieved, I didn't really read it to mean that total aggregate CPU performance would be gained or if it is, certainly not by much. Let me put it like this. It smells like this technology is geared to help out systems which normally run 80%-90% of their total CPU whereby HyperThreading would allow for effient use of the difference while requiring only common SMP application support.
Also, I didn't read that HyperThreading was geared to be directly taken advantage of by Linux or Win platforms. I suspect that there are significant OS opimizations that can be made for more intelligent scheduling and improved processor affinity. Here, I can see that processor affinity may make significant differences in overall performance. While Win's CPU affinity is only slightly better than that of Linux's current scheduler, I'm hoping that significant affinity improvments will go a long way toward addressing possible shortfalls with this technology. As such, it certainly would of been interesting to see how well Linux did with the new O(1)-scheduler in development as it has many optimizations which specifically address better CPU affinity. Plus, if the scheduler can make the distinction between virtual CPUs and it's associated owner, I can see that it may make sense to allow for processor bias between physical and virtual CPU's within a scheduler. After all, if a process is to migrate, it would seemingly (best guess here) make sense to allow it to migrate to a virtual self first before it migrates to another CPU entirely. If a process is currently executing on a physical CPU, does it make sense to allow it to migrate to a virtual CPU on a physically different CPU? I'm guessing that would make for a significant performance hit. How would it perform is process migration were only allowed to occur to it's own virtual CPU? I'd certainly like to know.
By allowing the scheduler to make intelligent migration and accordingly biased decisions, I'm guessing that any OS may be able to make significant performance in-roads while using the HyperThreading technology. As such, I'm guessing that more significant performance gains can be achieved by having the OS HyperThreading aware rather than attempting to heavily optimize at the application level. With proper OS support, I'm guessing that little more than simply SMP application support will place this technology in a completely different light.
Ok, I cannot figure out how the hell the DMCA would apply here.
Well, for sake of argument, let's say it does. There is no provision for them to, "immediately cease the importation, distribution and sale of the Flash Advance Linker and turn over your remaining stock to Nintendo." I must say, however, if Nintendo really does want them, I imagine they'd be free to purchase the entire stock. Likewise, if their claim does have merit, the courts will ensure that U.S. Customs prevents any additional shipments. Telling someone not to order just because, holds zero legal merit.
Since Nintendo isn't a law enforcement agency they have no ground to stand on here, certainly not in the US. Simply ignore it or contact your legal represenative so he can tell you to ignore it. The sole purpose of this letter is to bring about fear. If they truely have legal legs here, the letter would of been from U.S. Customs or their attorney (*maybe* they have grounds to stand of if it came from an attorney). Also note, the letter sent doesn't even appear to of been sent from their attorney, rather, it looks like it's an in house copier department.
Lastly, the DCMA still requires court involvement prior to it being inforced. I noticed that they failed to make any such legal reference that their claim has been up held by a legal U.S. court.
Sounds like corporate FUD.
Seeing as the Americans have a terrible history when it comes to target acquisition and targetting, even with 'smart' bombs which were meant to be fool-proof, only striking down the enemy (not Chinese Embassy).
Except the US military has some of the highest hit ratios and lowest collateral damage ratios of any military unit in the world. They have since the Gulf War. Ya, mistakes happen and they make for wonder stories on CNN, however, it doesn't change the fact that as long as humans are in the equation, mistakes will happen. This is the human factor and not a military or weapons factor. That a side, I don't think you're speaking very well informed.
Not to mention it was specifically stated that they didn't want to use the BSD style license as they felt it was hurting the project. Wow. What a concept. People believe that the BSD license may be hurting their efforts. Last I read, they wanted to use a license which prevented these entities from taking the WINE project and not contributing back to it. Doesn't sounds like they want to be very BSD to me. In fact, sounds like the BSD concept is the root of the desired license change.
Get over it. A license is a license. Just because you may or may not have a personal opinion on a license one way or another doesn't mean the rest of the world will share your opinion. In fact, it seems the Wine team feels poorly about using a BSD style license. Go figure.
Lastly, GPL does not have negative connotations unless you've been feeding at the Microsoft camp lately. The concept behind GPL code is simple. Either you get it or you don't. Either you want to contribute back or you don't. There is nothing negative about it other than they simply don't want you stealing other people's efforts unless you're going to return your efforts for the good of all. So basically you are saying that companies don't like GPL code because they can't legally steal it? Sounds like an ethics check is in order.
Yes, but the document hasn't been destroyed, rather, the accessibility of said document has been restricted. Furthermore, what happens if a document expires after an investigation has started? If you didn't make best effort to maintain a copy, are you now accountable? I don't have any problem coming up with gray areas that I certainly would not want to be held to.
While I hear what you're saying, it just doesn't sound like firm ground to me.
And if you use this system for which law enforcement access is required whereby the emails are no longer available will you now be charged with interference of an investigation? Dustruction of evidence? Failure to co-operate in an investigation?
I doubt there is currently much a legal-leg to stand here to prevent your self from being raked over one way or another.
Please keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer, however, these seem like the obvious paths law enforcemet would go to ensure these systems don't prohibit their ability to investigate.
Funny you say that. As I understand it, most Microsoft employees are stockholders. In fact, just about every employee is offered some form of stock compensation in order to keep base pay down.
I wonder what the percent break out would look like.
Heck, I have a DVD player in pieces in my basement because I'm curious how it works--but under no circumstance will that allow the manufacturer to come into my house to see if I've broken a copyright protection mechanism. Once I start selling chips, though.... all bets are off.
So if I create a mod chip for my car and resale my technology, you're telling me that the manufacturer is due some profit from my efforts even though it was developed completely without their help? That's insane! What if I develope an IR to RF converter for my Sony remote control which I developed without any of Sony's help. Should Sony get a peice of the pie? Of course not. If I state that these devices function with with a Sony system and a Pontiac car (common practice on many items commonly available from most stores), in what way am I violating their trademarks or patents? Since this goes on every day with cars and many other goods, in what way is this any different for a gaming console. Last I heard, Ford, Chevy, Pontiac, etc., have not lost their trademarks nor had their patients violated by these systems. The car metaphore is very close to home as it modifies the car's operation to function in a manner different than comes from the manufacurer. So what's the issue. This is no way shape or form, constitutes a patent or trademark violation. In fact, last I heard (uncomfirmed), Sony is in violation of internation trade laws by placing the zoning logic into their devices (as is every electronic device which has restrictive zoning logic).
As for the ruling that the concept is illegal, there is clearly LOTS of prior cases which invalidate the courts ruling, clear and simple! Simply put, the judge is a moron. Based on his assertion allow for only a slight extension of his logic, if I purchase a book from another country and it is locally available from another publisher, I've now violated copyright. That's insane. When will these judges realize that just because the word "computer" or "electronic" is used it doesn't somehow invalidate logic or all other laws based on simular technologies.
What are you babbling about? VSS creates 26 directories from "a" to "z" and then creates hundreds and thousands of files in them. Yeah, totally brain-dead implementation IMO.
:)
Hmmm. That's interesting. I last used MSVSS years ago and it was certainly not like this. Sounds like significant changes have been put in place. While I no longer clearly remember what files were being sent I do distintly remember having conversations about using a Jet database with the support personal and that corruption was common place.
Well, hopefully I won't have to every worry about learning the current state of the technology...
First, I'd like to say thanks for the information on Oracle. That's a very interesting route that I'd not considered before. Very interesting indeed.
As for the optimizer issues associated with updated statistics, I guess I would like to expand on this slightly. Most people don't realize that many optimizers have hard and arbitrary thresholds for determining the best possible algorithmic data path. This is why it is very important to understand not only your data distribution but the nature of the delta of your data distribution. Also key is is the understanding of how multiple indexes will effect the optimizer's (especially if multiple index types are supported by the RDBMS in question) output. Common causes for negative query performance is slight distribution statistical changes which hit an arbitrary threshold causing another data path to be recommended by the optimizer. Thusly the significance of Oracle being able to pin query plans can be profound.
Because of these issues, my self and several other DBA's do not advocate blindly updating statistics simply for the sake of doing so. First of all, if your data distribution tends not to vary, this can result in nothing more than a waste of time. Furthermore, if your data distribution tends to vary only slightly, you'd better understand these trends as it's very possible timely and updated statistics may work against you depending on where you were within your trend's cycle.
While I knew about the pinned query plans on Oracle, I didn't know about the planned server tuning hints. Abilities (assuming I understood you correctly) like this can go a long way toward addressing the issues I've raised about query optimizers.
In short, know your database AND your data!