People tend to think of the yellow light as the margin of error in the system. THIS IS NOT TRUE. At any point where the light is yellow, there may be a vehicle in the intersection. Some drivers will misjudge the length of even a reasonable yellow light. The real margin of error is the period of time when all lights are red. My opinion, this should be 1-2 seconds. Too long causes congestion. Too short allows reckless speeders to cause accidents.
(1-2 seconds is NOT going to add significantly to congestion. If it does, you have other traffic flow design problems)
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I've never hired a lawyer, but I would expect each client to sign a contract. I mean, these are lawyers we're talking about here! It would be very easy for a slick lawyer to include a clause placing responsibility for this payment on the client.
Again, I suspect the client will wind-up paying it anyway!
No. The copyright holder is not bound by the GPL. The copyright holder is bound by copyright law. Other people who have copies are bound by the GPL (and copyright law).
The issue at hand here is really if: he can give people permission to redistribute using the code, and then change his mind after they've already received it under that agreement. If I had a copy, then he has already given me permission to redistribute without checking with him. He's now saying that only he can give permission to redistribute. What if I never check with him? He didn't require me to before. How am I expected to know? Am I bound by his new decession, or may I argue that I have received permission and am relying on it?
The "three years" clause that you mentioned only applies to someone distributing a binary without the source.
There is nothing in the GPL that says that he is obligated to do anything once he has released the code. He may cease to distribute entirely; he may distribute under a different licence of his choosing. The only question is: does copyright law allow him to revoke such a permission once granted?
Being young, I haven't paid close attention to elections before the y2k fiasco. My impression, though, is that problems here have been slowly growing worse, but nobody had any reason to care. People didn't know because it wasn't reported. When and where it was brought up, the people willing to talk about problems were seen as paranoid; there clearly weren't problems with the outcomes. Then presidential elections got way too close for comfort, and hysteria broke loose. Throw Diebold into the mix now, and you have chaos. And Diebold isn't the only shifty electronic-election-device peddler in the mix either.
And why does the world put up with Microsoft in the business environment? Probably for similar reasons why we are willing to use Diebold malware. It's available; it seems to work; It's sold by a "big" company; etc.
What scares me is how exactly the nation seems to be polarized between the two parties, starting with y2k. It almost seems to be by design. I just can't find a rational reason for someone to influence a split of this kind to occur.
So my point is: If you've never heard of problems, don't let yourself believe that they don't exist. Find them now before they become real problems!
That was impressive, to be sure. The thing is, it wasn't _as_ impressive as they made it out to be. They used a low power crossbow, and the bolts were made of a weak metal of some kind. They went out of their way to avoid showing what did and what did not scratch the screen. It was a marketing presentation, what did you expect? I'd be very suprized if they didn't have other trickery in place as well.
I know what Gerrymandering is and how it works. Thanks for the link but I just don't see it as a problem.
So, riddle me this: do you still represent your constituents when you pick them instead of them picking you? Sure they still vote for you, but your party picked them to vote for you. And what about those people who are stuck in a gerrymander that leans the other way (unnaturally)? Do they even have a representative at all?
Well, first, what really makes the difference? I mean they did get the votes.
I'm trying to decide if you didn't read my post, or didn't understand it.
Now, I don't see that as the situation at all. Over half the eligible voters don't register and only a small portion of the ones that do actually turn up. If the districts were drawn in a way that these non-participating people got someone they don't like into office, then they would simply participate and it would be over for them. You have to remember that we aren't getting everyone turning out to vote in every election. It would be a different story if everyone eligible would vote but it simply isn't the case.
You seem to think that people don't vote because they don't care... Either outcome would be just fine with them. That's typically false. People don't vote because they don't believe it will help them. Both candidates are lairs, and it isn't going to impact the non-voter's daily life in a good way regardless of candidate... So they think (and thus, don't vote).
I think you're setting up a straw man argument, whether you know it or not. Potential voters are the people who are capable of voting and who are capable of being convinced to vote. Nobody else are voters (or potential voters). Everybody else is irrelevant to this discussion. Greater "voter turnout" would be nice, true. But again, it's irrelevant here.
Gerrymandering happens when politicians in office draw boundaries around potential voters; nothing more, nothing less.
So even if we had truly arbitrary districts drawn that took no consideration to party affiliation we would have several factors that remain the truth. There will be people not represented in their views but they don't care enough about the one in office to do anything about it.
You mean non-voters? Of course they aren't represented! They didn't vote! They wouldn't have voted regardless, whether the district is gerrymandered or not. These people are a non-issue except in extremely rare cases.
The people and parties in office at the time of the redistricting will likely stay in office unless they have done something else to piss people off.
Gerrymandering makes this worse. Granted it would still happen, but it would be a fairer set of incumbents in office.
And finally, unless you actually try to split them, you won't get districts that doesn't favor one party over another.
This is painful to try to disect. Please proof-read.
Reverse gerrymandering? Who wants that? That's not beneficial to the politicians or the voters.
There is a reason the part in power is in power that goes above Gerrymandering. It is either that the majority of people support them, they were their and name recognition as well as the general feeling of "if it's not broke worse then the fix" then don't fix it, and probably to most important reason, for what ever reason, the people that can get them out of office don't even bother showing up to make a change. This means that even if they don't like the current situation, they either don't dislike it enough to do something about it or they don't like the alternative even worse.
This is hard to follow. Between missing letters, missing words, missing punctuation, misspelled words, incorrect grammar, and run-on sentences, I only believe I know what you mean.
You clearly haven't thought much about gerrymandering. While I agree that redistricting happens due to population growth, the question is how it occurs. Yes, some boundaries look arbitrary to account for population centers, but that only serves to give the politicians the excuse they need. Often they do not even look for this excuse. They simply assume they will get away with it.
If you take a city with a very high number of democrats and split it between two districts you go from one district that votes very strongly blue, to two districts that vote comfortably blue. Likewise you can take two districts that both vote lightly blue, and move the boundaries "arbitrarily" so that they are shaped funny. Now you have one district that is comfortably red, and another that is strongly blue. Both parties play this game following every census in almost every state. (And yes, I really wish the word "both" would be inappropriate here.)
So, riddle me this: do you still represent your constituents when you pick them instead of them picking you? Sure they still vote for you, but your party picked them to vote for you. And what about those people who are stuck in a gerrymander that leans the other way (unnaturally)? Do they even have a representative at all?
Sorry, as long as the "Environmentally friendly" movement is underway, we'll need to endure the "fake green" thing. We can't have our cake and eat it too, apparently.
It's actually an outgrowth of the "me too" syndrome. As long as being environmentally friendly is cool, pretending to be environmentally friendly will be cool too.
Sliding glass door. Seriously. Good ones will block almost all of the sound, and management will still see it as one room, not two. As little as you really need to, you can still keep an eye on the equipment. I've seen this done once to great effect.
This also will keep you from freezing to death because of the AC. (And do make sure it has good AC. Those servers will thank you.)
And regarding Lt. Col. Bush's "He was just doing his job" defense, I'd like to note that that defense hasn't been recognized in law since at least Nuremburg.
I call. This has been recognized as a valid defense, in very limited cases. I am not a lawyer. Find one to give you examples. If you have every reason to believe that your actions are lawful, and under the direction of your employer, you're not likely to be prosecuted at all.
On the international level, look at South Africa's "reconciliation" following apartheid.
To partially answer your question, typical file systems are an example of a hierarchical database (FAT32, ext3, NTFS, etc.). I believe m$ was planning on adding some relational database features on top of NTFS (most "databases" today are relational) and rename it WinFS. I still don't have a good idea as to exactly what they were planning to do. It may have simply been that they were planning on adding more alternate data streams and indexing them for searches.
There have been a number of similar patterns within computing. Memory and Hard disk densities come to mind. While memory density may also be linked to transistors, hdd density is not.
I think the question was valid. While it wont be "Moore's Law" technically, it may well follow a predictable exponential trend.
And why would the FSF be able to chase them down? I was under the impression that Ubuntu (or their developers) held the copyright. Sure the FSF owns the GPL, but they do not own software licenced with it. The FSF can do nothing if the copyright owners do not invite them to be involved.
But there's no scenario under which the RIAA comes out of it better because of the Judge's signing the order to show cause.
IANAL, and I don't know the details surounding this order. I can, however imagine this being a good thing on appeal (which is what I think the judge is thinking of). This wouldn't be a huge advantage for the RIAA, just one thing that could otherwise come back around to bite them later.
Again, this is my own ignorant opinion. Feel free to refute it.
It certainly could be used. I'm given to understand that judges will take into acount foreign cases, to a lesser extent. Importance in precidence is a function of proximity (politically speaking) and authoritativeness of the court.
IANAL
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
(as long as you use mean "hope" as you said, and not "expect")
(also, as long as you do not imply "all people", just "many people")
That sounds like a place where traffic cameras are called for.
People tend to think of the yellow light as the margin of error in the system. THIS IS NOT TRUE. At any point where the light is yellow, there may be a vehicle in the intersection. Some drivers will misjudge the length of even a reasonable yellow light. The real margin of error is the period of time when all lights are red. My opinion, this should be 1-2 seconds. Too long causes congestion. Too short allows reckless speeders to cause accidents.
(1-2 seconds is NOT going to add significantly to congestion. If it does, you have other traffic flow design problems)
Debian, like most distros, is what you want it to be. Debian is used regularly as a server OS.
I doubt they have X installed on these machines.
Uh, yeah. No duh?
I would have enjoyed Slashdot at 13.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I've never hired a lawyer, but I would expect each client to sign a contract. I mean, these are lawyers we're talking about here! It would be very easy for a slick lawyer to include a clause placing responsibility for this payment on the client.
Again, I suspect the client will wind-up paying it anyway!
No. The copyright holder is not bound by the GPL.
The copyright holder is bound by copyright law.
Other people who have copies are bound by the GPL (and copyright law).
The issue at hand here is really if: he can give people permission to redistribute using the code, and then change his mind after they've already received it under that agreement. If I had a copy, then he has already given me permission to redistribute without checking with him. He's now saying that only he can give permission to redistribute. What if I never check with him? He didn't require me to before. How am I expected to know? Am I bound by his new decession, or may I argue that I have received permission and am relying on it?
The "three years" clause that you mentioned only applies to someone distributing a binary without the source.
There is nothing in the GPL that says that he is obligated to do anything once he has released the code. He may cease to distribute entirely; he may distribute under a different licence of his choosing. The only question is: does copyright law allow him to revoke such a permission once granted?
IANAL
Being young, I haven't paid close attention to elections before the y2k fiasco. My impression, though, is that problems here have been slowly growing worse, but nobody had any reason to care. People didn't know because it wasn't reported. When and where it was brought up, the people willing to talk about problems were seen as paranoid; there clearly weren't problems with the outcomes. Then presidential elections got way too close for comfort, and hysteria broke loose. Throw Diebold into the mix now, and you have chaos. And Diebold isn't the only shifty electronic-election-device peddler in the mix either.
And why does the world put up with Microsoft in the business environment? Probably for similar reasons why we are willing to use Diebold malware. It's available; it seems to work; It's sold by a "big" company; etc.
What scares me is how exactly the nation seems to be polarized between the two parties, starting with y2k. It almost seems to be by design. I just can't find a rational reason for someone to influence a split of this kind to occur.
So my point is: If you've never heard of problems, don't let yourself believe that they don't exist. Find them now before they become real problems!
As said by an AC. That's even funnier!
Nah, too much effort, putting it in a script/modifying permissions and all.
sudo rm -rf /
(presuming Ubuntu or other "friendly" distributions)
That was impressive, to be sure. The thing is, it wasn't _as_ impressive as they made it out to be. They used a low power crossbow, and the bolts were made of a weak metal of some kind. They went out of their way to avoid showing what did and what did not scratch the screen. It was a marketing presentation, what did you expect? I'd be very suprized if they didn't have other trickery in place as well.
I can see that you're trying to be funny, but I can't tell if you're making a joke on topic or not.
I'm trying to decide if you didn't read my post, or didn't understand it.
You seem to think that people don't vote because they don't care... Either outcome would be just fine with them. That's typically false. People don't vote because they don't believe it will help them. Both candidates are lairs, and it isn't going to impact the non-voter's daily life in a good way regardless of candidate... So they think (and thus, don't vote).
I think you're setting up a straw man argument, whether you know it or not. Potential voters are the people who are capable of voting and who are capable of being convinced to vote. Nobody else are voters (or potential voters). Everybody else is irrelevant to this discussion. Greater "voter turnout" would be nice, true. But again, it's irrelevant here.
Gerrymandering happens when politicians in office draw boundaries around potential voters; nothing more, nothing less.
You mean non-voters? Of course they aren't represented! They didn't vote! They wouldn't have voted regardless, whether the district is gerrymandered or not. These people are a non-issue except in extremely rare cases.
Gerrymandering makes this worse. Granted it would still happen, but it would be a fairer set of incumbents in office.
This is painful to try to disect. Please proof-read.
Reverse gerrymandering? Who wants that? That's not beneficial to the politicians or the voters.
This is hard to follow. Between missing letters, missing words, missing punctuation, misspelled words, incorrect grammar, and run-on sentences, I only believe I know what you mean.
You clearly haven't thought much about gerrymandering. While I agree that redistricting happens due to population growth, the question is how it occurs. Yes, some boundaries look arbitrary to account for population centers, but that only serves to give the politicians the excuse they need. Often they do not even look for this excuse. They simply assume they will get away with it.
If you take a city with a very high number of democrats and split it between two districts you go from one district that votes very strongly blue, to two districts that vote comfortably blue. Likewise you can take two districts that both vote lightly blue, and move the boundaries "arbitrarily" so that they are shaped funny. Now you have one district that is comfortably red, and another that is strongly blue. Both parties play this game following every census in almost every state. (And yes, I really wish the word "both" would be inappropriate here.)
So, riddle me this: do you still represent your constituents when you pick them instead of them picking you? Sure they still vote for you, but your party picked them to vote for you. And what about those people who are stuck in a gerrymander that leans the other way (unnaturally)? Do they even have a representative at all?
Sorry, as long as the "Environmentally friendly" movement is underway, we'll need to endure the "fake green" thing. We can't have our cake and eat it too, apparently.
It's actually an outgrowth of the "me too" syndrome. As long as being environmentally friendly is cool, pretending to be environmentally friendly will be cool too.
Sliding glass door. Seriously. Good ones will block almost all of the sound, and management will still see it as one room, not two. As little as you really need to, you can still keep an eye on the equipment. I've seen this done once to great effect.
This also will keep you from freezing to death because of the AC.
(And do make sure it has good AC. Those servers will thank you.)
Yeah, and so were some of the early pyramids, as I recall.
Give the guy a break.
I second this.
By law, the computer repair shop I work for must offer the replaced part back to the customer.
I call. This has been recognized as a valid defense, in very limited cases. I am not a lawyer. Find one to give you examples. If you have every reason to believe that your actions are lawful, and under the direction of your employer, you're not likely to be prosecuted at all.
On the international level, look at South Africa's "reconciliation" following apartheid.
To partially answer your question, typical file systems are an example of a hierarchical database (FAT32, ext3, NTFS, etc.). I believe m$ was planning on adding some relational database features on top of NTFS (most "databases" today are relational) and rename it WinFS. I still don't have a good idea as to exactly what they were planning to do. It may have simply been that they were planning on adding more alternate data streams and indexing them for searches.
If someone really knows, feel free to fill us in.
Yes.
There have been a number of similar patterns within computing. Memory and Hard disk densities come to mind. While memory density may also be linked to transistors, hdd density is not.
I think the question was valid. While it wont be "Moore's Law" technically, it may well follow a predictable exponential trend.
And why would the FSF be able to chase them down? I was under the impression that Ubuntu (or their developers) held the copyright. Sure the FSF owns the GPL, but they do not own software licenced with it. The FSF can do nothing if the copyright owners do not invite them to be involved.
Again, this is my own ignorant opinion. Feel free to refute it.
It certainly could be used. I'm given to understand that judges will take into acount foreign cases, to a lesser extent. Importance in precidence is a function of proximity (politically speaking) and authoritativeness of the court. IANAL