One major problem with having handguns on aircraft is that a stray shot could depressurize the cabin, no matter who makes it. Additionally, in a confined space such as an airplane, a gun may not be the most useful weapon, anyway.
Also, note that the "extra" packages that are installed on PCs are generally not competing with anything MS provides. You won't see an office suite or a development studio on there, but you will see all sorts of crap (based on the last time I bought an off the shelf compaq PC)... AOL, broadband, dialup, etc sort of software.
The only thing I didn't try is CTRL+ALT+DEL to escape out.
CtrlAltDel seems exactly the way to foil this.
90% impossible to escape from it once its running
Look, it is either impossible, or possible. It can't be some fraction impossible. Even if you mean that 90% of users can't get out, those 10% that can are the same ones who would be messing up the system anyway.
if you ever need full windows, just boot off a boot disk and edit the shell line back
If you can boot off a boot disk, so can they. This whole system of using 98 seems useless to me. 2k and XP with their stronger acess controls are a much better way to go.
In space, for example. People on commercial space ventures will need air, and they will have to pay for it. We pay for food and shelter, this would just be another "essential" that would need to be budgeted for.
Does PSU make you pay for internet/network acess? Or do you get a refund for using you cable modem instead?
Re:Not my area of expertise (legal or IP)
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Congress cannot "overrule" a supreme court decision. They can use logic or recent evidence to convince the USC justices that the "substantial non-infringing uses" test is no longer a good test, and they can even try for a constitutional amendment if they really want to. But simple law-making cannot force the court to reverse itself here.
Fractions are also quite nice if you are working on paper without a calculator.
2/3 * 1/4 * 5/8 = (2*1*5)/(3*4*8) = 10/56 = 5/28
vs
.666> *.24 *.625 = a lot of messy algorithmic multiplication you can't easily just do in your head.
Decimal is nicer for addition though.
That is part of the benifit of it being GPL'd. While the government is "involved" in the production of the software, once it has been released, the only way they have more control over it than anyone else is that they own the copyright. And DRM under GPL liscensing is impractical enought to be funny.
When Dennis wrote the C compiler, he had to design the language and write it in assembly, niether of which your class had to do. I think it might have even been harder than writing the OS, seeing as he at least then had C to write it in.
Ahh, a duplicate post for a duplicate story. How fitting.
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD?
on
Stallman vs Ken Brown
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Usually arguments about "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux" are nearly pointless, but in this case they matter. Linus wrote most of Linux-the-kernel but not most of Linux-the-operating-system. Brown takes advantage of most people thinking of "Linux" as Linux-the-operating-system to make people think that Linux couldn't possibly have written "Linux" in six months. This is a prime example of equivocation .
I agree with you, but I can't let that comment about Tandy slide.
Tandy was RadioShack's house-brand for computers. The computers in every RadioShack accross the US that manage the inventory are Tandy. With Tandy, RadioShack took a third approach, changing the parameters of the question. They withdrew from the copycat market and innovated not by making better technology, but by finding a better use for their current technology. Sure, they've dropped off the radar for home-computer buyers, but they still make all the POS systems that RadioShack uses.
Assiging copyright doesn't do any good, as a disgruntled employee submitting proprietary code to a project can write that he/she is assigning copyright as easily as not.
Case 1: I give you bob's car. He gets mad, sues.
Case 2: I give you bob's car, along with a made-up title to it. He gets mad, sues.
"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: [bulleted list of considerations]"
This list doesn't give guidelines for the prospective fair-use user, but instead supplies factors for a court to consider. These factors are not very useful of themselves, because court decisions have clarified them very much. I agree with your last point, though.
The Copyright Act itself permits "fair use" but does not specify what qualifies. That has historically been up to the courts to decide, based on the specific situation. The guidelines on the linked-to North Carolina Board of Education website are just that, guidelines. They have been culled from court decisions and organized so as to be useful to the teachers and students. The thread-started couldn't link to "some actual legal document" because there is no such document defining "fair use"
"300 feet by 300ft, would it still be possible to focus the light to a 1cm point"
Pick a unit system and stick with it!
Anyway, a lense can be made to focus as accurately as you want (or far more accurately than 1 cm, at least) but the problem here is really that plexiglass is not very rigid, and a 100x100 meter lense that bends out of shape is not very useful.
As for the increase in temperature, the poster's lense is around 1 square meter. Your improved lense is around 10,000 square meters. If you do manage to keep the focal area to 1 square centimeter, then the energy concentrated by the lense is 10,000 times greater, and if there were not problems with heat dissipation, the temperature could be made that high.
I think part of the idea is that currently custom software is both defined and exempt from tax (unlike prepackaged retail software) and one possibility here is that they would eliminate the distinction and take their 6.25%.
I wrote a letter to my congressman expressing my typically slashdotial intrests in fair-use of encrypted material. He responded:
Dear ----:
Thank you for your letter regarding and the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act and the Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations (BALANCE) Act I appreciate your interest in these bills.
The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, H.R. 107, was introduced by Representative Rick Boucher on (D-VA) on January 7, 2003. It was referred to the House Energy and Commerce and the House Judiciary committees. The BALANCE Act, H.R 1066, was introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) on March 4, 2003. Both pieces of legislation are awaiting action in these committees of jurisdiction.
I agree with you that consumers have an important interest in utilizing copyrighted works in a fair, non-infringing manner and that copyright law ought to incorporate such legitimate interests as part of our national public policy. During consideration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, I battled to balance the interests of both copyright holders and consumers. For instance, I successfully included provisions in that Act enhancing consumer privacy rights to increase legal protections for authorized use of copyrighted works for educational use.
Since considering the DMCRA, I have become increasingly concerned that certain content industry actions, as well as some current copyright law provisions, may adversely affect the ability of consumers to engage in legitimate use of copyrighted works or to otherwise enjoy the benefits and versatility of new technology. As Congress considers these issues in the coming year, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind, and I will work hard to ensure that technology policy enhances consumer welfare in each area and is appropriately balanced with the legitimate interests of rights holders.
There are parts which strongly indicate a form letter, such as the reference to the BALANCE act, but he seems generally disposed to common-sense.
Slashdot Mirror
The picture of the blue "e" is just as much IE's as the name "Internet Explorer"
Wouldn't it depend on the caliber of the bullet? Perhaps a 500mm bullet would do?
One major problem with having handguns on aircraft is that a stray shot could depressurize the cabin, no matter who makes it. Additionally, in a confined space such as an airplane, a gun may not be the most useful weapon, anyway.
AOL does not compete with MSN?
It wouldn't be too hard to remove the floppy and cdrom drives.
CtrlAltDel seems exactly the way to foil this.
90% impossible to escape from it once its running
Look, it is either impossible, or possible. It can't be some fraction impossible. Even if you mean that 90% of users can't get out, those 10% that can are the same ones who would be messing up the system anyway.
if you ever need full windows, just boot off a boot disk and edit the shell line back
If you can boot off a boot disk, so can they. This whole system of using 98 seems useless to me. 2k and XP with their stronger acess controls are a much better way to go.
Perhaps the term you want is "workaround"
In space, for example. People on commercial space ventures will need air, and they will have to pay for it. We pay for food and shelter, this would just be another "essential" that would need to be budgeted for.
Does PSU make you pay for internet/network acess? Or do you get a refund for using you cable modem instead?
Congress cannot "overrule" a supreme court decision. They can use logic or recent evidence to convince the USC justices that the "substantial non-infringing uses" test is no longer a good test, and they can even try for a constitutional amendment if they really want to. But simple law-making cannot force the court to reverse itself here.
Man, you've not met ed. Ed is the standard editor.
Fractions are also quite nice if you are working on paper without a calculator.
.666> * .24 * .625 = a lot of messy algorithmic multiplication you can't easily just do in your head.
2/3 * 1/4 * 5/8 = (2*1*5)/(3*4*8) = 10/56 = 5/28
vs
Decimal is nicer for addition though.
What about SELinux? I belive the NSA paid for its development and it is GPL'd.
That is part of the benifit of it being GPL'd. While the government is "involved" in the production of the software, once it has been released, the only way they have more control over it than anyone else is that they own the copyright. And DRM under GPL liscensing is impractical enought to be funny.
When Dennis wrote the C compiler, he had to design the language and write it in assembly, niether of which your class had to do. I think it might have even been harder than writing the OS, seeing as he at least then had C to write it in.
Ahh, a duplicate post for a duplicate story. How fitting.
Usually arguments about "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux" are nearly pointless, but in this case they matter. Linus wrote most of Linux-the-kernel but not most of Linux-the-operating-system. Brown takes advantage of most people thinking of "Linux" as Linux-the-operating-system to make people think that Linux couldn't possibly have written "Linux" in six months. This is a prime example of equivocation .
Not Sherlock Homes, but this sounds a lot like "The Purloined Letter" by Edgar Allen Poe.
I agree with you, but I can't let that comment about Tandy slide.
Tandy was RadioShack's house-brand for computers. The computers in every RadioShack accross the US that manage the inventory are Tandy. With Tandy, RadioShack took a third approach, changing the parameters of the question. They withdrew from the copycat market and innovated not by making better technology, but by finding a better use for their current technology. Sure, they've dropped off the radar for home-computer buyers, but they still make all the POS systems that RadioShack uses.
Assiging copyright doesn't do any good, as a disgruntled employee submitting proprietary code to a project can write that he/she is assigning copyright as easily as not.
Case 1: I give you bob's car. He gets mad, sues.
Case 2: I give you bob's car, along with a made-up title to it. He gets mad, sues.
"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: [bulleted list of considerations]"
This list doesn't give guidelines for the prospective fair-use user, but instead supplies factors for a court to consider. These factors are not very useful of themselves, because court decisions have clarified them very much. I agree with your last point, though.
The Copyright Act itself permits "fair use" but does not specify what qualifies. That has historically been up to the courts to decide, based on the specific situation. The guidelines on the linked-to North Carolina Board of Education website are just that, guidelines. They have been culled from court decisions and organized so as to be useful to the teachers and students. The thread-started couldn't link to "some actual legal document" because there is no such document defining "fair use"
"300 feet by 300ft, would it still be possible to focus the light to a 1cm point"
Pick a unit system and stick with it!
Anyway, a lense can be made to focus as accurately as you want (or far more accurately than 1 cm, at least) but the problem here is really that plexiglass is not very rigid, and a 100x100 meter lense that bends out of shape is not very useful.
As for the increase in temperature, the poster's lense is around 1 square meter. Your improved lense is around 10,000 square meters. If you do manage to keep the focal area to 1 square centimeter, then the energy concentrated by the lense is 10,000 times greater, and if there were not problems with heat dissipation, the temperature could be made that high.
I think part of the idea is that currently custom software is both defined and exempt from tax (unlike prepackaged retail software) and one possibility here is that they would eliminate the distinction and take their 6.25%.
There are parts which strongly indicate a form letter, such as the reference to the BALANCE act, but he seems generally disposed to common-sense.