This reminds me of when Data talks about how he records everything that he sees, and what his maximum storage capacity is. I always wondered "What compression algorithms does he use for all that? At what frame rate does he record it?" I think Google will create Data before they create Skynet. After all, they've already taken the first step
Every time this issue comes up I ask the same question: "How come a fansub group can record the show, sub it, and distribute it in 48 hours while it takes the company 3-5 years to do the same thing?" I understand that it takes time to create DVDs and find distributors and ship them overseas and such. Bu the timelines are ridiculous. If it took 3 months then I could understand. But I watch most anime as a fansub years before a watered-down English dub is available on Cartoon Network, and even more years pass before a subtitled DVD is out. By the time it is on DVD, I'm going "oh yeah, I remember that one! And usually, the fansub is still better."
It seems to me that this is cartel-style control along the lines of region protection. The companies forcably delay a cheap and easy process for years, then complain when the fans can meet the demand themselves faster than the copyright holders. And the Japanese companies are finding themselves in the same situation as the RIAA/MPAA in that now they are going to have to start battling their own best customers.
They need to start rewarding the whistle blowers instead of punishing them. Not a week goes by on Slashdot where someone isn't fired, sued, or arrested for revealing a security breach. I worked at a company where I found credit card numbers on a public share folder, and after the moron who put them there refused to do anything, I took it to the company security head. Instead of taking me into a dark room and asking me why I was browsing the public share folders, I was given an award and $50 gift certificate. That's good security.
Managed languages should have a a delete statement that acts like an assert. It tells the GC that this object should be deleted now, and the GC looks at the object and throws an exception if there are any references to the object. It doesn't have to actually delete at the point, but it is a way for the programmer to ask the CLR "Are there any other places that reference this object? If so, I want to know about them so I can fix them"
Instead, there are $5,000 tools that try their best to guess what objects are supposed to be deleted, and come up with tons of false positives and things.
On a related note to this, it sounds like their particular problem was with C# events holding objects. There are various people who have made weak-reference events that prevent this problem in the first place. It is rare that you want an object to be held alive just because there is an event on it.
This is rumor spread by an AC who wants to imply that Linux isn't good enough. And telling us to "take this with a heaping dose of salt" doesn't make it worthy of being modded-up. Go tell Steve Ballmer that if he wants to pay you to post here, at least register for an account and delete it the next day. This subtle anti-Linux, anti-Mac, anonymous posters have become more common over the last two weeks.
So? Very, very few people do upgrades on their computers nowadays. But the reason people do not upgrade desktops is because they have gotten so cheap that it isn't worth it. But since a laptop is 2-3x the cost of a desktop, laptops are worth upgrading.
The cost of the energy used to make the product is included of the price. If that new TV costs $500, then you know they used less than $500 worth of energy to build it. Since parts & labor are usually the most expensive part of a device, the energy cost is probably very small. But you can use the $500 as the upper-bound of the energy cost.
Blocking a port is definitely not a neutral thing to do. It isn't part of any spam filtering, security, or traffic rule. Blocking a port is like saying you can't dial a "7" because someone with a "7" in their phone number did something bad. That is definitely not included by any of the examples listed in the parent posts.
Phone companies can still stop telemarketers, phone threats, war dialers, fraudulent marketing, and other forms of phone abuse. They don't really want to, but they can. Especially if they are using obscene amounts of resources like spammers and DOSers do. I don't think being a common carrier would present a problem for this type of stuff. Worst-case it would require some laws to clarify (or some dumb spammer to actually sue an ISP).
And BTW, judging from most Slashdot posters, everyone does want ISPs to be common carriers.
designed a refrigeration system that might be able to keep a robotic rover going for as long as 50 Earth days Unfortunately, the refrigeration system only lasts 10 days. So the refrigeration system will have a refrigeration system which will make it last for 50 days. Unfortunately, that refrigeration system will only last 10 days. So NASA will construct a refrigeration system refrigeration system refrigeration system, which will make the refrigeration system refrigeration system last 50 days. Unfortunately, THAT refrigeration system will only last 10 days...
I've never seen an IT job without a non-compete requirement in the last 13 years of my career. Only 2 of the IT Jobs I've held required a non-complete. That's in about the same range of time as you mentioned. I signed the first one. The second one I refused, and stood my ground, and they let me on without signing it. Ironically, that last one was with a California company and I work from Maryland, and both states refuse to enforce those clauses. So it was silly that they even tried.
Neither of those non-competes said anything as awful as what the article submitter mentioned -- actually holding claim to inventions created after you leave the company. And both non-competes specifically mentioned that the inventions must apply to the field that the company works in.
1...develop a plan for offering alternatives to 2 illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of in- 3 tellectual property as well as a plan to explore tech- 4 nology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activ- 5 ity...
I'm reading the linked PDF file, and I don't see anything about requiring colleges to do anything to P2P sharing. The closest I can find is section 487 which says that colleges must list P2P file sharing in their policies about illegal activities. It's kinda unclear because the bill lists modifications to the existing 1965 bill with stuff like "insert an 'and' and delete the semicolon then add the word 'P2P file sharing'..." But I don't see anything that says they must take any particular action on file sharing. What they added seems completely pointless B.S. There's already a lot about copyright in the bill, but 99% of it is about illegally copying educational materials.
Can someone clarify this for me? Where is the section we should be concerned about?
I remember writing some software for Windows NT and the logo requirements stated this even then. So that's almost 10 years ago. But the logo requirements also said similarly stupid things like that your application must be an ActiveX control or container, which made no sense. So I suspect the logo requirements are just ignored these days.
I do know, however, that the Vista logo requirements for this are being followed. I think that is because Vista just plain doesn't work with apps that try writing to those folders. My company just certified an app and they finally stopped writing stuff to C:\Program Files\appname. Stupidly though, they still write it there if the system is Windows XP/2003.:-( (I don't work on the client app, I absolve myself of responsibility for that one).
I think it would be a great boon to the planet if we could eliminate roads. It would make the world prettier, safer, and more friendly to non-humans. I've heard the road system referred to as a "giant chainsaw" that chops up anything that gets in its path. So what about moving large parts of the the road system underground instead of into the air?
This is one of those areas where computer game software is a pain in the neck. On Windows, I have yet to install a game that didn't put the save files in with the game files. Hence, you must run as admin and the game save files don't backup. I remember complaining about this 5 years ago when XP came-out and nothing has changed.
The term "spatial" is B.S. If I pick up a folder on my desk named "Documents" and I drag it on top of another folder named "Documents" then both folders are there. It neither merges, nor replaces. If I wanted a "spacial" setup I would not have bought a computer, I wold have bought a filing cabinet.
Suppose I snuck into AT&T's data centers (or made a deal with the CEO) and installed a device to record phone conversations and have them sent to me. Once I was discovered, I would be arrested, charged with various crimes, and sent to prison. So would the relevant persons at AT&T. However, if the president does this, then he is censured, criticized, and the Senate threatens to hold hearings on the matter.
The problem is that the law and the constitution don't apply to the president. They are supposed to, and we all pretend they do, but that requires someone to have the guts to walk into the white house with a police officer, read the president his Miranda rights, and place him in handcuffs. But that doesn't happen.
It seems like there is a sort of unwritten law between the 3 branches of government that you are not supposed to actually violate the law or the constitution, because that messes up the balance of power. But this president called everyone's bluff. And now the legislature has realized that they are too scared or weak to actually take the next step and arrest the guy or impeach him. So really, they gave away their power. Bush is now dictator.
Your example is no different than what the parent asked. It sounds like you are saying that the prosecution has no right to discovery just because they cannot yet prove that someone in the house did it. That's the entire point of discovery: to get that information.
Prosecution: "Yes your honor, I found a bloody glove with Joe's DNA all over it, and his wife's blood, and he was at the scene, and his fingerprints are there, and they were overheard having an argument, and their is a rotting smell coming from the closet. We ask for discovery to go through the closet and look for a body." Defense: "But isn't it possible that their doctor secretly obtained their blood, DNA samples, and fingerprints, and forged the entire thing, then went into their house and yelled a lot, then placed it on the glove and put a rotting birthday cake in the closet?" Prosecution: "Could be..." Judge: "Well, then the prosecution cannot look into the closet."
Wow, I didn't realize all that had changed. The 64-bit thing is good to know. I'm amazed that everyone I know has a 64-bit PC with a 32-bit Windows on it. It's so silly.
Just curious, why were you so excited to tell me I'm wrong, and act like a doof about it "Is it inconceivable that you're wrong?" I was just asking a question. Sheesh.
What changed so fundamentally in Leopard that is causing these incompatibilities? I thought Leopard was mainly changes to Finder and bundled apps, nothing core to the kernel that would cause apps to be unable to print or interfere with video. Does anyone know if there is some common cause to these issues?
IANAL. The U. of Oregon is right that the IP address is insufficient to identify the infringer. But I don't think that is a valid reason to deny a subpoena. Currently, the RIAA knows the alleged infringement came from university. If they can subpoena information that reduces that down to 2 likely suspects, then that is perfectly valid. The fact that this evidence alone cannot identify the individual precisely doesn't mean that they don't have a case.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of when Data talks about how he records everything that he sees, and what his maximum storage capacity is. I always wondered "What compression algorithms does he use for all that? At what frame rate does he record it?" I think Google will create Data before they create Skynet. After all, they've already taken the first step
Every time this issue comes up I ask the same question: "How come a fansub group can record the show, sub it, and distribute it in 48 hours while it takes the company 3-5 years to do the same thing?" I understand that it takes time to create DVDs and find distributors and ship them overseas and such. Bu the timelines are ridiculous. If it took 3 months then I could understand. But I watch most anime as a fansub years before a watered-down English dub is available on Cartoon Network, and even more years pass before a subtitled DVD is out. By the time it is on DVD, I'm going "oh yeah, I remember that one! And usually, the fansub is still better."
It seems to me that this is cartel-style control along the lines of region protection. The companies forcably delay a cheap and easy process for years, then complain when the fans can meet the demand themselves faster than the copyright holders. And the Japanese companies are finding themselves in the same situation as the RIAA/MPAA in that now they are going to have to start battling their own best customers.
They need to start rewarding the whistle blowers instead of punishing them. Not a week goes by on Slashdot where someone isn't fired, sued, or arrested for revealing a security breach. I worked at a company where I found credit card numbers on a public share folder, and after the moron who put them there refused to do anything, I took it to the company security head. Instead of taking me into a dark room and asking me why I was browsing the public share folders, I was given an award and $50 gift certificate. That's good security.
Managed languages should have a a delete statement that acts like an assert. It tells the GC that this object should be deleted now, and the GC looks at the object and throws an exception if there are any references to the object. It doesn't have to actually delete at the point, but it is a way for the programmer to ask the CLR "Are there any other places that reference this object? If so, I want to know about them so I can fix them"
Instead, there are $5,000 tools that try their best to guess what objects are supposed to be deleted, and come up with tons of false positives and things.
On a related note to this, it sounds like their particular problem was with C# events holding objects. There are various people who have made weak-reference events that prevent this problem in the first place. It is rare that you want an object to be held alive just because there is an event on it.
I call FUD.
This is rumor spread by an AC who wants to imply that Linux isn't good enough. And telling us to "take this with a heaping dose of salt" doesn't make it worthy of being modded-up. Go tell Steve Ballmer that if he wants to pay you to post here, at least register for an account and delete it the next day. This subtle anti-Linux, anti-Mac, anonymous posters have become more common over the last two weeks.
The cost of the energy used to make the product is included of the price. If that new TV costs $500, then you know they used less than $500 worth of energy to build it. Since parts & labor are usually the most expensive part of a device, the energy cost is probably very small. But you can use the $500 as the upper-bound of the energy cost.
Somebody mod the AC up -- This is the only answer that actually pertains to the U.K. and demonstrates knowledge of the relevant laws.
Blocking a port is definitely not a neutral thing to do. It isn't part of any spam filtering, security, or traffic rule. Blocking a port is like saying you can't dial a "7" because someone with a "7" in their phone number did something bad. That is definitely not included by any of the examples listed in the parent posts.
Phone companies can still stop telemarketers, phone threats, war dialers, fraudulent marketing, and other forms of phone abuse. They don't really want to, but they can. Especially if they are using obscene amounts of resources like spammers and DOSers do. I don't think being a common carrier would present a problem for this type of stuff. Worst-case it would require some laws to clarify (or some dumb spammer to actually sue an ISP).
And BTW, judging from most Slashdot posters, everyone does want ISPs to be common carriers.
Can't a court order someone to provide a physical key as part of a subpoena or a warrant? Why does law treat encryption keys differently?
Neither of those non-competes said anything as awful as what the article submitter mentioned -- actually holding claim to inventions created after you leave the company. And both non-competes specifically mentioned that the inventions must apply to the field that the company works in.
Section 494:
I'm reading the linked PDF file, and I don't see anything about requiring colleges to do anything to P2P sharing. The closest I can find is section 487 which says that colleges must list P2P file sharing in their policies about illegal activities. It's kinda unclear because the bill lists modifications to the existing 1965 bill with stuff like "insert an 'and' and delete the semicolon then add the word 'P2P file sharing' ..." But I don't see anything that says they must take any particular action on file sharing. What they added seems completely pointless B.S. There's already a lot about copyright in the bill, but 99% of it is about illegally copying educational materials.
Can someone clarify this for me? Where is the section we should be concerned about?
I remember writing some software for Windows NT and the logo requirements stated this even then. So that's almost 10 years ago. But the logo requirements also said similarly stupid things like that your application must be an ActiveX control or container, which made no sense. So I suspect the logo requirements are just ignored these days.
:-( (I don't work on the client app, I absolve myself of responsibility for that one).
I do know, however, that the Vista logo requirements for this are being followed. I think that is because Vista just plain doesn't work with apps that try writing to those folders. My company just certified an app and they finally stopped writing stuff to C:\Program Files\appname. Stupidly though, they still write it there if the system is Windows XP/2003.
I think it would be a great boon to the planet if we could eliminate roads. It would make the world prettier, safer, and more friendly to non-humans. I've heard the road system referred to as a "giant chainsaw" that chops up anything that gets in its path. So what about moving large parts of the the road system underground instead of into the air?
We already have.
This is one of those areas where computer game software is a pain in the neck. On Windows, I have yet to install a game that didn't put the save files in with the game files. Hence, you must run as admin and the game save files don't backup. I remember complaining about this 5 years ago when XP came-out and nothing has changed.
The term "spatial" is B.S. If I pick up a folder on my desk named "Documents" and I drag it on top of another folder named "Documents" then both folders are there. It neither merges, nor replaces. If I wanted a "spacial" setup I would not have bought a computer, I wold have bought a filing cabinet.
IMHO, here's why.
Suppose I snuck into AT&T's data centers (or made a deal with the CEO) and installed a device to record phone conversations and have them sent to me. Once I was discovered, I would be arrested, charged with various crimes, and sent to prison. So would the relevant persons at AT&T. However, if the president does this, then he is censured, criticized, and the Senate threatens to hold hearings on the matter.
The problem is that the law and the constitution don't apply to the president. They are supposed to, and we all pretend they do, but that requires someone to have the guts to walk into the white house with a police officer, read the president his Miranda rights, and place him in handcuffs. But that doesn't happen.
It seems like there is a sort of unwritten law between the 3 branches of government that you are not supposed to actually violate the law or the constitution, because that messes up the balance of power. But this president called everyone's bluff. And now the legislature has realized that they are too scared or weak to actually take the next step and arrest the guy or impeach him. So really, they gave away their power. Bush is now dictator.
Your example is no different than what the parent asked. It sounds like you are saying that the prosecution has no right to discovery just because they cannot yet prove that someone in the house did it. That's the entire point of discovery: to get that information.
Prosecution: "Yes your honor, I found a bloody glove with Joe's DNA all over it, and his wife's blood, and he was at the scene, and his fingerprints are there, and they were overheard having an argument, and their is a rotting smell coming from the closet. We ask for discovery to go through the closet and look for a body."
Defense: "But isn't it possible that their doctor secretly obtained their blood, DNA samples, and fingerprints, and forged the entire thing, then went into their house and yelled a lot, then placed it on the glove and put a rotting birthday cake in the closet?"
Prosecution: "Could be..."
Judge: "Well, then the prosecution cannot look into the closet."
That's silly.
Wow, I didn't realize all that had changed. The 64-bit thing is good to know. I'm amazed that everyone I know has a 64-bit PC with a 32-bit Windows on it. It's so silly.
Just curious, why were you so excited to tell me I'm wrong, and act like a doof about it "Is it inconceivable that you're wrong?" I was just asking a question. Sheesh.
What changed so fundamentally in Leopard that is causing these incompatibilities? I thought Leopard was mainly changes to Finder and bundled apps, nothing core to the kernel that would cause apps to be unable to print or interfere with video. Does anyone know if there is some common cause to these issues?
IANAL.
The U. of Oregon is right that the IP address is insufficient to identify the infringer. But I don't think that is a valid reason to deny a subpoena. Currently, the RIAA knows the alleged infringement came from university. If they can subpoena information that reduces that down to 2 likely suspects, then that is perfectly valid. The fact that this evidence alone cannot identify the individual precisely doesn't mean that they don't have a case.