While that may be true, creating ran easy to use desktop machine to get you to into the could will still be important. I can't see Linux cedeing that territory as uninteresting. If anything, (but again unlikely) Linux would gain as commerical competitors cede the territory as uninteresting, forcing desktop makers to fend for themselves regarding the software environment.
Of course the desktop will be relevant in 5 years, because it's still the most convenient way to get serious crative work done (writing, coding, school work, artistic projects). I'd hate to see what would happen to the quality of kids' school reports if they wrote them on smartphones.
I understand what you're saying about the term "local medical culture." It felt stilted as I was writing it, but I used to to be inline with the summary.
Because if the anonymous posters are a competitor (or paid shills for a competitor) then it may make sense to sue them, while if they're actual customers it probably doesn't. I would hope that the court realizes the importance of following up after the identities of the posters are revealed to determine whether there's a sensible issue once the identities are known.
And you'll note that the appeals court didn't use this standard to say anonymous comments about a dirty Donut shop are worthy of a lawsuit, they used it to say that it's really not worthy of a lawsuit, so yes the court made a sensible decision here. They had to articulate a standard so they could use the standard.
But if they're reading the articles and loosely republishing them, then isn't their expression of those facts a deriviative work of the AP's expression of those facts? (That's copyrightable otherwise your software wouldn't be.)
If they're reading the AP's articles, then altering them, why doesn't the AP have a copyright claim that the AHI's articles are derivative works of the AP's?
Interesting... this prompted me to go look for the In Re: Bilski appeal to the supreme court.
This Rambus decision has docket number 08-694, and Bilski has docket number 08-964. (Both about important patent issues affecting the computer industry). What are the odds of me making a typo and finding another important patent case.
Actually cross-site request forgery is the result of the idea that you can hyperlink from anywhere to anywhere and get the same cookies no matter where you're linking from. That flaw is inherent to the concept of the web. It has very little to do with a specific browser.
Well, tell me what kind of new internet we're talking about and then we can have an intelligent discussion about it. There's a lot that can be done without sacrificing anonymity and freedoms that would help make a more secure internet. One example might be to get sensitive transactions (like purchases or online banking) out of HTTP and out of your web browser, and into a more purpose-built protocol. This could eliminate important dangers like cross-site request forgery and cross-site scripting. I await what other examples people can suggest.
I agree that CSS/DHTML windowless popups are annoying, but they're 10 times better than window-based popups, which float on top of unrelated programs, multiply like randy rabbits, and don't go away when you close the site that brought them into existance. So your popup-blocking software hasn't been rendered completely ineffective by these things.
Or just block adimpact.com in your/etc/hosts file (if you're smart enough). They want to sell it as a "hosted web application" and therein lies its vulnerability.
It's economics. The three-app version is the same cheap version the were selling dirt cheap in piracy-ridden countries to try and undercut the pirate market. They don't want the cheap version to be full-featured, so they don't undercut their higher priced sales of the more full-featuerd version. This is called an anti-feature, and they use it to make you pay more money.
It's a similar case with fair trade coffee. A farmer of fair trade coffee gets paid twice as much as a farmer of regular coffee (and the coffee tastes the same), but the difference in price that has to be passed on to consumers is only a few cents per cup. Why do you have to pay twice as much for the fair-trade coffee at your coffee shop? Because fair trade coffee is just a way for the consumer to say "I'm willing to pay more money to get nothing."
I (as a CS PhD student) do actually care about open access. You have no idea how many times I run into a dead end trying to look something up and end up following a trail of breadcrumbs into a Springer journal. It's a major pain in the butt to go through my university library to track down the article, when I'm not even sure if it's useful yet. So yeah, open access is a good thing.
Debian's bug tracking system (see bugs.debian.org) is probably a bit difficult to learn all of the useful features it has, but I find it's one of the best. It can:
* Operate entirely by email, without needing logins and the like.
* Anyone can subscribe to any bug they find interesting.
* Users can assign any "usertags" they like to a bug, to keep track of cross-cutting concerns, or to get summaries of an arbitrary collection of bugs on one page.
* Keep track of bugs forwarded upstream and automatically update the bug status at home (to fixed-upstream) when the upstream bug is fixed.
* Keep track of which bugs block which other bugs.
They were always advertising the Zune saying "Music the way it wants to be"... note their complete lack of consumer centricisim. They weren't advertising "Music the way you want it to be".
I have become an expert at telling people that their computer is slow because they're using twice as much RAM as their computer has, and therefore swapping badly. I usually tell them that they need 4 times as much RAM as they have.
So relatime would only update the atime if it was older than the mtime or the ctime. In other words, relatime can only tell you whether the program has been used since it was last upgraded.
Ubuntu presents much lower voting percentages (quoted) than Debian. "Votes" are known to be highly inaccurate becuase it depends on atime, which can be disabled (noatime) or updated artificially from popcon's perspective by backup software. I wonder whether this is some systematic thing such as Ubuntu defaulting to mounting drives with noatime.
Slashdot Mirror
While that may be true, creating ran easy to use desktop machine to get you to into the could will still be important. I can't see Linux cedeing that territory as uninteresting. If anything, (but again unlikely) Linux would gain as commerical competitors cede the territory as uninteresting, forcing desktop makers to fend for themselves regarding the software environment.
Of course the desktop will be relevant in 5 years, because it's still the most convenient way to get serious crative work done (writing, coding, school work, artistic projects). I'd hate to see what would happen to the quality of kids' school reports if they wrote them on smartphones.
Learn all of the features of the language, then take a solemn oath not to use them in production code.
You're wrong when you say there's no choice for Wifi without a cell phone. There's the N810, and all sorts of netbooks.
A librarian is probably querying a lot, not just pulling up information from predefined bookmarks. I'm sure a keyboard will be greatly appreciated.
I understand what you're saying about the term "local medical culture." It felt stilted as I was writing it, but I used to to be inline with the summary.
Because if the anonymous posters are a competitor (or paid shills for a competitor) then it may make sense to sue them, while if they're actual customers it probably doesn't. I would hope that the court realizes the importance of following up after the identities of the posters are revealed to determine whether there's a sensible issue once the identities are known.
And you'll note that the appeals court didn't use this standard to say anonymous comments about a dirty Donut shop are worthy of a lawsuit, they used it to say that it's really not worthy of a lawsuit, so yes the court made a sensible decision here. They had to articulate a standard so they could use the standard.
But annual checkups may be based more on local medical culture than scientific benefit, and so we're right back at square one, where we need to know what offers appreciable benefit.
But if they're reading the articles and loosely republishing them, then isn't their expression of those facts a deriviative work of the AP's expression of those facts? (That's copyrightable otherwise your software wouldn't be.)
If they're reading the AP's articles, then altering them, why doesn't the AP have a copyright claim that the AHI's articles are derivative works of the AP's?
Interesting... this prompted me to go look for the In Re: Bilski appeal to the supreme court.
This Rambus decision has docket number 08-694, and Bilski has docket number 08-964. (Both about important patent issues affecting the computer industry).
What are the odds of me making a typo and finding another important patent case.
Actually cross-site request forgery is the result of the idea that you can hyperlink from anywhere to anywhere and get the same cookies no matter where you're linking from. That flaw is inherent to the concept of the web. It has very little to do with a specific browser.
Well, tell me what kind of new internet we're talking about and then we can have an intelligent discussion about it. There's a lot that can be done without sacrificing anonymity and freedoms that would help make a more secure internet. One example might be to get sensitive transactions (like purchases or online banking) out of HTTP and out of your web browser, and into a more purpose-built protocol. This could eliminate important dangers like cross-site request forgery and cross-site scripting. I await what other examples people can suggest.
I agree that CSS/DHTML windowless popups are annoying, but they're 10 times better than window-based popups, which float on top of unrelated programs, multiply like randy rabbits, and don't go away when you close the site that brought them into existance. So your popup-blocking software hasn't been rendered completely ineffective by these things.
Or just block adimpact.com in your /etc/hosts file (if you're smart enough). They want to sell it as a "hosted web application" and therein lies its vulnerability.
I have access to a lot, but not SpringerLink.
It's economics. The three-app version is the same cheap version the were selling dirt cheap in piracy-ridden countries to try and undercut the pirate market. They don't want the cheap version to be full-featured, so they don't undercut their higher priced sales of the more full-featuerd version. This is called an anti-feature, and they use it to make you pay more money.
It's a similar case with fair trade coffee. A farmer of fair trade coffee gets paid twice as much as a farmer of regular coffee (and the coffee tastes the same), but the difference in price that has to be passed on to consumers is only a few cents per cup. Why do you have to pay twice as much for the fair-trade coffee at your coffee shop? Because fair trade coffee is just a way for the consumer to say "I'm willing to pay more money to get nothing."
I (as a CS PhD student) do actually care about open access. You have no idea how many times I run into a dead end trying to look something up and end up following a trail of breadcrumbs into a Springer journal. It's a major pain in the butt to go through my university library to track down the article, when I'm not even sure if it's useful yet. So yeah, open access is a good thing.
It's probably an easy patch when debbugs is deployed at the OP's site.
Debian's bug tracking system (see bugs.debian.org) is probably a bit difficult to learn all of the useful features it has, but I find it's one of the best. It can:
* Operate entirely by email, without needing logins and the like.
* Anyone can subscribe to any bug they find interesting.
* Users can assign any "usertags" they like to a bug, to keep track of cross-cutting concerns, or to get summaries of an arbitrary collection of bugs on one page.
* Keep track of bugs forwarded upstream and automatically update the bug status at home (to fixed-upstream) when the upstream bug is fixed.
* Keep track of which bugs block which other bugs.
They were always advertising the Zune saying "Music the way it wants to be"... note their complete lack of consumer centricisim. They weren't advertising "Music the way you want it to be".
I have become an expert at telling people that their computer is slow because they're using twice as much RAM as their computer has, and therefore swapping badly. I usually tell them that they need 4 times as much RAM as they have.
I think this is not your problem.
C-m jrbkcbj.e .brgid yr oycjt ,cyd mf "<>PYFv
(Translation: I'm convinced enough to stick with my QWERTY.)
So relatime would only update the atime if it was older than the mtime or the ctime. In other words, relatime can only tell you whether the program has been used since it was last upgraded.
Ubuntu presents much lower voting percentages (quoted) than Debian. "Votes" are known to be highly inaccurate becuase it depends on atime, which can be disabled (noatime) or updated artificially from popcon's perspective by backup software. I wonder whether this is some systematic thing such as Ubuntu defaulting to mounting drives with noatime.
These issues are discussed at Debian bug 298760.