Unless you pay with cash, ALWAYS, giving false information for these cards does absolutely zero.
Using a database, it is trivial to link cash register transactions (what was bought, including the card number used to apply discounts) with methods of payment for same.
In other words, linking what you bought and what card was used with your credit (or debit) card number gives the retailer all the information they need and destroys the anonymity of your purchases.
If you're not paying with cash, you might as well just use your real information on those cards...at least you might get a coupon or two in the mail that way, because you certainly aren't fooling anyone.
Let's just figure out a way to use software like this for a use like http://www.akamai.com/ [akamai.com].. Mirroring the web and all of its content (legal or illegal) on the web would make all of our lives easier:-)
Sounds great, but one big problem I see is that bandwidth (real, robust, guaranteed bandwidth) costs money. A lot of money.
I spent over a year working as a sys-admin for a company (since gone bust) that was doing the same thing as Akamai (and according to third-party performance measurements, doing it better). Our bandwidth costs were outrageous. Granted, that was 2000-2001, and prices have gone down since then for bandwidth, but the cost is still high.
I'd rather see us develop a BitTorrent that was completely anonymous, with encrypted traffic. I'm not sure how this would work...I'm thinking that in addition to spreading out the actual content over many computers, you would do the same thing for the.torrent files, but in such a way that it would be impossible to point to any particular IP address and say "this IP address distributed this torrent".
They would be able to see the traffic, but it would be encrypted. Much like using an anonymizer proxy with SSL for HTTP traffic.
I think the thrust of the article wasn't "we're surprised that plants mutated" but "its cool that these farmers that the government says are ignorant clods with no intelligence are actually practicing fairly sophisticated cloning techniques, all under the radar".
Sure, plants can mutate, but the article talks about how FAST they've mutated. In other words, they had help, and the help likely came from the farmers via an "underground" market for clones of the resistant plants.
The other poster keeps repeating, over and over, that if there's "no signed contract" the agreement is not binding. That if he doesn't sign a contract with the software company, he can do whatever he wants. I disagree.
My point is that the GPL does not require such a signed contract, only an action on the part of the licensee, to be binding. Right?
If the GPL is binding without a signed contract, by virtue of an action taken by the licensee (in this case distribution), why is another license (such as the Intuit license I mentioned previously) not binding as well based on an action taken by the licensee (in this case opening the sleeve containing the CD after the licensee has been warned that doing so constitutes acceptance of the license)?
GPL: no signed contract, prospective licensee warned ahead of time that taking action constitutes acceptance of the license, binding license if the licensee takes such action
Other license: no signed contract, prospective licensee warned ahead of time that taking action constitutes acceptance of the license, but NOT binding if the licensee takes such action
Either licenses can be binding without requiring a signed contract, or they can't. Which?
Strange...you say one thing, but then you say another.
First, licenses don't mean anything, they're not binding, because you haven't signed anything.
But then you say the GPL provides a license, yet nobody has to sign anything to use GPL'd software, or copy it, or distribute it, as long as they meet its conditions. So if I don't have to sign anything, then the GPL isn't binding.
Which is it?
If the GPL can say that distributing a GPL'd work constitutes acceptance of the license, and the license is binding, how can that be? There's no contract.
You can own an idea, just not exclusively. But you can exclusively own the particular implementation of an idea.
YOU'RE confusing a sale of property with a license to use the implementation of an idea.
Your hammer example only works if I sell you a hammer, or a TV, or a car. Hammers, TVs, and cars aren't copyrighted. Software vendors aren't selling you their products...they're selling you a LICENSE to use their products. Fundamental difference.
"No, a license is only in effect if I sign a contract changing the sale into a limited license."
Then the GPL, the MPL, and every other open source license, is invalid. That makes WhiteBox Linux illegal.
Because a sale is a sale unless there are signed contracts and consideration given and received.
Take the GPL, for example. Consideration is given and received. No signed agreement (and no transaction of money) necessary. For more info, read clause #1. The consideration given is the right to "copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium.". One of the considerations received by the FSF is the agreement that "you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
If something is published (according to the 1976 Copyright Act):
"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
Note the clause "by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending."
A software license is not a transfer of ownership.
You're hung up on the phrase "buying a copy" and that isn't what you do when you "buy" (most) software.
Let's see...looking at the box for Intuit's TurboTax (its just what I have handy):
"Copyright 2003 Intuit Inc. All rights reserved. This software product is provided under a limited warranty, and your use of this software is governed by the terms of the Software License and Services Agreement presented during installation. You may obtain an advance copy of the Software License and Services Agreement at [URL]."
They're not "selling you a copy of TurboTax"...they're letting you use (license) TurboTax, which they own, and they're specifying the terms, one of which is you paying for the owner's distribution costs. The fact that there's a disk in the box with a copy of TurboTax on it is just a convenience, not a transfer of ownership. Even the GPL allows you to charge for distribution.
If you don't like the terms of their license, don't accept the license. There's no requirement on you to complete a transaction, either, since you can get the license without any transaction. There's no bait and switch. It's no different than the GPL or any other license. When you buy a license, you are buying the license, not the thing being licensed.
If I do not reproduce their copyrighted code I violate no law unless I signed a confidentiality agreement swearing to preserve their Trade Secrets.
By accepting their license, you accept the terms of their license. One of those terms can be "you cannot reverse engineer the binary code". If a license requires a signed contract, then groups like the FSF wouldn't be able to sue GPL infringers, because there'd be no signed contract. Yet by downloading, installing, and using GNU Linux, I am bound by the GPL. But I never signed anything! So I'm not bound by the license, right?
You don't "buy a copy of software". You license a copy of software, and licenses have terms. Whether you are ever penalized for violating those terms is up to the licensor.
Most software licenses are limited licenses...the GPL, Creative Commons, Intuit's license, etc. There's no special requirement that you "sign a contract changing the sale into a limited license".
All well and good, but when you "buy" Windows XP in a store, you aren't buying Windows XP, you're buying a LICENSE to use Windows XP in binary form. Huge difference.
I haven't looked at my Windows XP box in a couple years, and the shrinkwrap is long gone, but as a I recall, the stipulation that you are buying a license to use the software application in binary form and NOT the software application itself (in which case you'd be getting the source) is clearly stated on the box/wrapper. Before you purchase it.
If it isn't, it is clearly stated on the disk sleeve inside the package. If you don't agree, don't open the disk. If the disk sleeve is unopened, you can return it to the store, no harm done. Thus, by breaking the seal on the disk, you are agreeing to the terms. If you don't agree to the terms, do not break the seal.
Compiling source code and selling it isn't a way to keep you from using it as you wish, it is a way to protect one's intellectual property. An algorithm is intellectual property...if you decompile a company's code, determine one of their algorithms, and then broadcast it (you said "discuss") to the world, you're diluting their intellectual property. Thus, you're diluting the value of their asset, and that is definitely something you can't do without repercussions, UCC or not.
I am not required to give you every detail of a product when I sell or license it to you. If you want every detail, you are welcome to contact me to negotiate a special license or contract for yourself (MSFT will show you their source if you pay them and agree to their terms). If I was, you'd get the driver code when you bought an ATi card, or the ROM code for every chip inside when you bought a TV. That doesn't happen, because a company isn't required to give it to you just because you bought a product that uses it from them. You don't own the technology inside the TV, you own the IMPLEMENTATION of the technology in that TV.
There's a huge difference between purchasing a product and licensing a product. Purchasing a copy of Windows XP would probably cost a couple billion dollars or more. Licensing a copy of Windows XP costs about $150 and comes with restrictions.
Not to mention the taint factor...if you decompile your copy of Windows XP and read the results, and you are a developer, your future work is forever tainted by Microsoft's intellectual property.
Go ahead, decompile whatever you like. To me, considering the unencumbered alternatives to something like Windows XP that are available, it isn't worth it.
Salon.com, the BBC, The Nation, and more proved 4 years ago, with real evidence, that the chaos in Florida was deliberately caused by the Governor's office (President Bush's brother is the Governor) in cahoots with Katherine Harris.
They did this by eliminating tens of thousands of names of legitimate voters, people who were legally allowed to vote, from the voter registration lists. These people were refused their legal right to vote by state and county election workers on direct instruction from Katherine Harris' office.
The margin of Bush's "victory" in Florida was a few hundred votes...the number of people prevented from voting was TENS of thousands...it is a virtual certainty that percentage of those people would have voted for Gore, especially since the vast majority of the people on those lists were African-American (traditionally Democrats) and Hispanic.
Incidentally, the company that handled the voter registration "scrub" lists for Florida is a subsidiary of a company backed by powerful Republicans, including billionaire Ken Langone.
Hot tip for you: the Dems are just as bad. You think they're perfect little angels without any skeletons to hide or dirty tricks of their own? Wake up.
Be realistic, if you were in a high stakes competition to "win", you would also say things like "I want to crush the opposition". That's just human nature. It doesn't automatically equal evil.
Agreed!! There is no difference between a Democrat and a Republican..proven by the near-deadlock of the last two elections.
If there was a clear difference, it would be easy for that party to deliver that message, and if people agreed, they would support it by a larger majority.
If they're not happy, they should have voted. If they didn't vote, it doesn't matter if they're happy or not...they obviously don't wish to participate, so why should we care how they feel?
Almost...a notary is NOT testifying that you wrote something down on such and such a date.
A notary is ONLY testifying that you are who you say you are when you sign the document. Where the document came from, when you wrote it, etc. are not things a notary handles.
http://www.sdsos.gov/notaries/sevenconc.htm
- A notarization does not prove truthfulness of the contents of a document, nor validate a document and render it legal.
- A notarization provides verification of a document signer's willingness to sign, his competence to sign, and that the signer is, indeed, the person identified by the signature.
Who said anything like that? Not me. I'm not even sure you understand what rsync is...I've never heard of a "rsync volume".
The poster said they use DFS to "save bandwidth" because they have servers in 38 locations and want users in remote locations to have local copies. Or at least, that's how I read the post.
You're telling me that I can't export a samba share called "/HomeDir" from the server in Branch Office X to my users in Branch Office X, and then use rsync to keep the files on the server at Branch Office X current with the files somewhere else, like the server at HeadQuarters?
Why does there have to be a 1-to-1 relationship between what you can do with Linux and what you can do with Windows?
Have you considered that "DFS" might be a solution looking for a problem?
For example, from the DFS FAQ (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/techin fo/overview/dfsfaq.mspx):
For example, if you have marketing files on multiple servers in a domain, you can use DFS to make it appear as though all of the marketing files are on a single server.
So why would you have marketing files on multiple servers in a domain? This is a symptom of a larger organizational problem: the balkanization (if you will) of storage by most companies. The way most companies solve their storage problems is by buying another server, typically with a couple hundred GB of storage.
Then they have issues like "Susie, if you need the marketing files from 2002, they're on the server called HARPO, but if you want the ones from 2003, they're on GROUCHO because HARPO ran out of space. And the 2004 files are on MOE. Or maybe CURLY, I can't remember, ask the help desk."
The issue isn't "Linux doesn't have DFS", the issue is "most companies manage storage (and knowledge) poorly".
Many corporate storage problems are a result of poor workflow, poor process management, and an insatiable need by most management grunts to cover their asses by saving EVERYTHING no matter what instead of assessing what really needs to be saved, and organizing it in a way that makes sense to the organization.
The solution to the problem isn't "use Windows because it has DFS and UNIX doesn't" but "disconnect storage from processing". Don't buy more disk by buying another server...just buy more disk, or better yet, figure out why you're using so much disk and solve THAT problem instead.
It is easy to get caught in the "server == disk" trap, because you have companies like Dell selling "servers" for $1000. That's great for the short-term, but the long-term costs go up, up, and up as complexity increases and the need to have more admins to manage that complexity increases along with it.
The long term solution is to understand that you will ALWAYS want more disk, and plan accordingly by buying a "real" server that can accept external arrays, etc. or better yet, buying a filer solution from Hitachi, Network Appliance, or similar. The short term cost will be higher, but its just hardware so you can depreciate it anyway, and the long term costs will be tremendously lower. And your DR (disaster recovery) processes will be much cleaner and more robust.
In the spirit of Ballmer's e-mail, the TCO on a filer solution is much lower than a corresponding TCO for managing several, or dozens, or hundreds of servers, each with a couple hundred gigs of storage on it (not to mention server OS licensing costs, archiving software costs, etc).
Heck, if an organization is REALLY smart, they won't even use Explorer-style file management...they'll have an intranet where people search for what they want in a browser, with the results coming from a DB and all they do is click on the "download" link which retrieves the file for them. They never, ever have to know where the physical file even resides.
When will companies learn that phone numbers are no longer sure-fire ways to qualify new customers?
Many people don't have land lines and use mobile phones instead. Still others use VoIP services like Vonage, where they can have any phone number they like regardless of physical location.
I'm both of the above...a mobile phone via my employer, and VoIP. Asking me for my "phone number" as a way to pinpoint the location of my residence is meaningless.
Yes, I understand all that, and the answer is simple: if this business model were to actually come about, then choose the provider who uses open source to provide their service instead of closed source.
Isn't that the point of all that we're doing with F/OSS? To make it easy and cheap for people to have large amounts of computing productivity?
There are devices that cannot be tampered with without destroying the device it self (an iButton is one such device).
People don't control the client now, yet that hasn't stopped them from using public terminals in airports, cafes, etc.
All I'm saying is, is that there's no reason such a model couldn't be built that provides such a service and still protects everyone's privacy and other concerns. I'd like to build one, that's for sure, and if I had the backing, I would, and it would end up being a helluva lot cheaper and more helpful to the world at large than anything Redmond decides to do.
Take a deep breath and repeat this phrase many times until it sinks in: public key encryption.
Let the Feds "search through all that data"...if my data is encrypted with my 2048-bit key, they'll be waiting for the results a REALLY long time.
If my data isn't encrypted, then shame on me.
All you would need is a simple flash memory device with your private key on it. Only you know your passwords and passphrases. Thus, you could put anything you wanted on that big server in the sky and never worry.
True on both counts...the SpringBoard modules had to be physically attached, and you could only attach one at a time. They did only work with Handspring devices.
At the time, there was only one PDA (not counting Psion or Sharp): Palm. There were no PocketPCs. So the SpringBoard idea had a wide-open chance of making it...the only competition were the Palms, and this was when Palms were still niche items.
I think people didn't like the fact that you had to carry multiple modules around. I really think the big "gotcha" with the whole PDA/sub-notebook/personal computing device market is that people want a device that does everything. All at once, without any dongles or plug-ins or whatever. And there's just no way to get this, for various reasons like weight, heat, power consumption and cost factor.
I had a Bluetooth phone, and a Bluetooth-compatible laptop. Bluetooth just didn't "click" with me...I don't understand the attraction of it at all, and didn't find a single use for it the year or so I had the phone, so it is hard for me get enthused about having a bunch of modules laying around that are "chatting" with each other and in turn chatting with the main mothership PDA.
One thing? SSH. More? VNC. Still more?
on
Palmtop Nirvana?
·
· Score: 1
personal finance, expense tracking
note taking
auto repair and mileage tracking
...and lots more. Lots.
Everyone isn't linear/serial. Some of us are parallel, and still more of us are massively parallel.
The point, in many cases, with a PDA is not "put something in here to remember it later" but is "collect information to be used later".
For example...I want to know, for my taxes, the deductions I'm allowed for using my vehicle for business. I could write everything down on a pad of paper, and then at the end of the year, I could input everything into a spreadsheet (hope there aren't any errors!) and get the numbers I need. Or, I could collect the data at the point its created (the car) and automatically have a running total, any day of the year. This then feeds into all sorts of decisions...say I see a used car in September that I might want to buy...how do I know if it makes financial sense without knowing exactly how much my current vehicle is costing me? Then, at the end of the year, a couple clicks and my deductions pop right into my tax program.
That's just one small example.
Handspring had this years ago (the SpringBoard format). You could even buy the SpringBoard hardware development kit ($129 I think) and develop your own modules.
You can still find Handspring Visors that take the SpringBoard module format on eBay and other places.
They discontinued the format because nobody bought them.
Built-in keyboard, like Zaurus or Tungsten C. Pecking at a screen makes me want to kill someone.
Built-in WiFi, 802.11b, at least 50 ft range. Screw Bluetooth.
64MB usable RAM, w/ expansion slot
Stereo headphone jack
Windows, Mac, and Linux compatible. USB sync (WiFi sync would be awesome)
IrDA
Under $250. Might consider as high as $300.
No phone or other cellular BS. No camera.
Preferably w/o MSFT OS, but I'm willing to bend if the other features I seek are there.
So far, the closest thing I've found is a used/open box/blemished Palm Tungsten C for about $275 from overstock.com. With only a 30-day warranty and lots of reports on the net of failing units, poor WiFi range, and screen problems, its not an option I am seriously considering.
Slashdot Mirror
LaPorte is in Indiana, not Michigan. That's why the clerk was asking Indianapolis if the vote could be certified.
Unless you pay with cash, ALWAYS, giving false information for these cards does absolutely zero.
Using a database, it is trivial to link cash register transactions (what was bought, including the card number used to apply discounts) with methods of payment for same.
In other words, linking what you bought and what card was used with your credit (or debit) card number gives the retailer all the information they need and destroys the anonymity of your purchases.
If you're not paying with cash, you might as well just use your real information on those cards...at least you might get a coupon or two in the mail that way, because you certainly aren't fooling anyone.
Let's just figure out a way to use software like this for a use like http://www.akamai.com/ [akamai.com].. Mirroring the web and all of its content (legal or illegal) on the web would make all of our lives easier :-)
.torrent files, but in such a way that it would be impossible to point to any particular IP address and say "this IP address distributed this torrent".
Sounds great, but one big problem I see is that bandwidth (real, robust, guaranteed bandwidth) costs money. A lot of money.
I spent over a year working as a sys-admin for a company (since gone bust) that was doing the same thing as Akamai (and according to third-party performance measurements, doing it better). Our bandwidth costs were outrageous. Granted, that was 2000-2001, and prices have gone down since then for bandwidth, but the cost is still high.
I'd rather see us develop a BitTorrent that was completely anonymous, with encrypted traffic. I'm not sure how this would work...I'm thinking that in addition to spreading out the actual content over many computers, you would do the same thing for the
They would be able to see the traffic, but it would be encrypted. Much like using an anonymizer proxy with SSL for HTTP traffic.
Maybe similar in some ways to the Publius project http://publius.cdt.org/publius.html
I think the thrust of the article wasn't "we're surprised that plants mutated" but "its cool that these farmers that the government says are ignorant clods with no intelligence are actually practicing fairly sophisticated cloning techniques, all under the radar".
Sure, plants can mutate, but the article talks about how FAST they've mutated. In other words, they had help, and the help likely came from the farmers via an "underground" market for clones of the resistant plants.
The other poster keeps repeating, over and over, that if there's "no signed contract" the agreement is not binding. That if he doesn't sign a contract with the software company, he can do whatever he wants. I disagree.
My point is that the GPL does not require such a signed contract, only an action on the part of the licensee, to be binding. Right?
If the GPL is binding without a signed contract, by virtue of an action taken by the licensee (in this case distribution), why is another license (such as the Intuit license I mentioned previously) not binding as well based on an action taken by the licensee (in this case opening the sleeve containing the CD after the licensee has been warned that doing so constitutes acceptance of the license)?
GPL: no signed contract, prospective licensee warned ahead of time that taking action constitutes acceptance of the license, binding license if the licensee takes such action
Other license: no signed contract, prospective licensee warned ahead of time that taking action constitutes acceptance of the license, but NOT binding if the licensee takes such action
Either licenses can be binding without requiring a signed contract, or they can't. Which?
Strange...you say one thing, but then you say another.
First, licenses don't mean anything, they're not binding, because you haven't signed anything.
But then you say the GPL provides a license, yet nobody has to sign anything to use GPL'd software, or copy it, or distribute it, as long as they meet its conditions. So if I don't have to sign anything, then the GPL isn't binding.
Which is it?
If the GPL can say that distributing a GPL'd work constitutes acceptance of the license, and the license is binding, how can that be? There's no contract.
Which is it?
I'm on the reality track. No doubt.
You can own an idea, just not exclusively. But you can exclusively own the particular implementation of an idea.
YOU'RE confusing a sale of property with a license to use the implementation of an idea.
Your hammer example only works if I sell you a hammer, or a TV, or a car. Hammers, TVs, and cars aren't copyrighted. Software vendors aren't selling you their products...they're selling you a LICENSE to use their products. Fundamental difference.
"No, a license is only in effect if I sign a contract changing the sale into a limited license."
Then the GPL, the MPL, and every other open source license, is invalid. That makes WhiteBox Linux illegal.
Because a sale is a sale unless there are signed contracts and consideration given and received.
Take the GPL, for example. Consideration is given and received. No signed agreement (and no transaction of money) necessary. For more info, read clause #1. The consideration given is the right to "copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium.". One of the considerations received by the FSF is the agreement that "you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
If something is published (according to the 1976 Copyright Act):
"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
Note the clause "by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending."
A software license is not a transfer of ownership.
You're hung up on the phrase "buying a copy" and that isn't what you do when you "buy" (most) software.
Let's see...looking at the box for Intuit's TurboTax (its just what I have handy):
"Copyright 2003 Intuit Inc. All rights reserved. This software product is provided under a limited warranty, and your use of this software is governed by the terms of the Software License and Services Agreement presented during installation. You may obtain an advance copy of the Software License and Services Agreement at [URL]."
They're not "selling you a copy of TurboTax"...they're letting you use (license) TurboTax, which they own, and they're specifying the terms, one of which is you paying for the owner's distribution costs. The fact that there's a disk in the box with a copy of TurboTax on it is just a convenience, not a transfer of ownership. Even the GPL allows you to charge for distribution.
If you don't like the terms of their license, don't accept the license. There's no requirement on you to complete a transaction, either, since you can get the license without any transaction. There's no bait and switch. It's no different than the GPL or any other license. When you buy a license, you are buying the license, not the thing being licensed.
If I do not reproduce their copyrighted code I violate no law unless I signed a confidentiality agreement swearing to preserve their Trade Secrets.
By accepting their license, you accept the terms of their license. One of those terms can be "you cannot reverse engineer the binary code". If a license requires a signed contract, then groups like the FSF wouldn't be able to sue GPL infringers, because there'd be no signed contract. Yet by downloading, installing, and using GNU Linux, I am bound by the GPL. But I never signed anything! So I'm not bound by the license, right?
You don't "buy a copy of software". You license a copy of software, and licenses have terms. Whether you are ever penalized for violating those terms is up to the licensor.
Most software licenses are limited licenses...the GPL, Creative Commons, Intuit's license, etc. There's no special requirement that you "sign a contract changing the sale into a limited license".
All well and good, but when you "buy" Windows XP in a store, you aren't buying Windows XP, you're buying a LICENSE to use Windows XP in binary form. Huge difference.
I haven't looked at my Windows XP box in a couple years, and the shrinkwrap is long gone, but as a I recall, the stipulation that you are buying a license to use the software application in binary form and NOT the software application itself (in which case you'd be getting the source) is clearly stated on the box/wrapper. Before you purchase it.
If it isn't, it is clearly stated on the disk sleeve inside the package. If you don't agree, don't open the disk. If the disk sleeve is unopened, you can return it to the store, no harm done. Thus, by breaking the seal on the disk, you are agreeing to the terms. If you don't agree to the terms, do not break the seal.
Compiling source code and selling it isn't a way to keep you from using it as you wish, it is a way to protect one's intellectual property. An algorithm is intellectual property...if you decompile a company's code, determine one of their algorithms, and then broadcast it (you said "discuss") to the world, you're diluting their intellectual property. Thus, you're diluting the value of their asset, and that is definitely something you can't do without repercussions, UCC or not.
I am not required to give you every detail of a product when I sell or license it to you. If you want every detail, you are welcome to contact me to negotiate a special license or contract for yourself (MSFT will show you their source if you pay them and agree to their terms). If I was, you'd get the driver code when you bought an ATi card, or the ROM code for every chip inside when you bought a TV. That doesn't happen, because a company isn't required to give it to you just because you bought a product that uses it from them. You don't own the technology inside the TV, you own the IMPLEMENTATION of the technology in that TV.
There's a huge difference between purchasing a product and licensing a product. Purchasing a copy of Windows XP would probably cost a couple billion dollars or more. Licensing a copy of Windows XP costs about $150 and comes with restrictions.
Not to mention the taint factor...if you decompile your copy of Windows XP and read the results, and you are a developer, your future work is forever tainted by Microsoft's intellectual property.
Go ahead, decompile whatever you like. To me, considering the unencumbered alternatives to something like Windows XP that are available, it isn't worth it.
Only if a boat flies and an airplane floats.
"so called stolen elections"?
o w= 2
You don't pay attention, do you?
Salon.com, the BBC, The Nation, and more proved 4 years ago, with real evidence, that the chaos in Florida was deliberately caused by the Governor's office (President Bush's brother is the Governor) in cahoots with Katherine Harris.
They did this by eliminating tens of thousands of names of legitimate voters, people who were legally allowed to vote, from the voter registration lists. These people were refused their legal right to vote by state and county election workers on direct instruction from Katherine Harris' office.
The margin of Bush's "victory" in Florida was a few hundred votes...the number of people prevented from voting was TENS of thousands...it is a virtual certainty that percentage of those people would have voted for Gore, especially since the vast majority of the people on those lists were African-American (traditionally Democrats) and Hispanic.
Incidentally, the company that handled the voter registration "scrub" lists for Florida is a subsidiary of a company backed by powerful Republicans, including billionaire Ken Langone.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=74&r
So yeah, the election actually was stolen. No "so called" about it.
Do yourself a favor and do some research.
Please spare us the BS. "GOP dirty tricks"???
Hot tip for you: the Dems are just as bad. You think they're perfect little angels without any skeletons to hide or dirty tricks of their own? Wake up.
Be realistic, if you were in a high stakes competition to "win", you would also say things like "I want to crush the opposition". That's just human nature. It doesn't automatically equal evil.
Agreed!! There is no difference between a Democrat and a Republican..proven by the near-deadlock of the last two elections.
If there was a clear difference, it would be easy for that party to deliver that message, and if people agreed, they would support it by a larger majority.
If they're not happy, they should have voted. If they didn't vote, it doesn't matter if they're happy or not...they obviously don't wish to participate, so why should we care how they feel?
Almost...a notary is NOT testifying that you wrote something down on such and such a date.
A notary is ONLY testifying that you are who you say you are when you sign the document. Where the document came from, when you wrote it, etc. are not things a notary handles.
http://www.sdsos.gov/notaries/sevenconc.htm
- A notarization does not prove truthfulness of the contents of a document, nor validate a document and render it legal.
- A notarization provides verification of a document signer's willingness to sign, his competence to sign, and that the signer is, indeed, the person identified by the signature.
Who said anything like that? Not me. I'm not even sure you understand what rsync is...I've never heard of a "rsync volume".
The poster said they use DFS to "save bandwidth" because they have servers in 38 locations and want users in remote locations to have local copies. Or at least, that's how I read the post.
You're telling me that I can't export a samba share called "/HomeDir" from the server in Branch Office X to my users in Branch Office X, and then use rsync to keep the files on the server at Branch Office X current with the files somewhere else, like the server at HeadQuarters?
rsync handles a situation like yours easily.
Why does there have to be a 1-to-1 relationship between what you can do with Linux and what you can do with Windows?
n fo/overview/dfsfaq.mspx):
Have you considered that "DFS" might be a solution looking for a problem?
For example, from the DFS FAQ (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/techi
For example, if you have marketing files on multiple servers in a domain, you can use DFS to make it appear as though all of the marketing files are on a single server.
So why would you have marketing files on multiple servers in a domain? This is a symptom of a larger organizational problem: the balkanization (if you will) of storage by most companies. The way most companies solve their storage problems is by buying another server, typically with a couple hundred GB of storage.
Then they have issues like "Susie, if you need the marketing files from 2002, they're on the server called HARPO, but if you want the ones from 2003, they're on GROUCHO because HARPO ran out of space. And the 2004 files are on MOE. Or maybe CURLY, I can't remember, ask the help desk."
The issue isn't "Linux doesn't have DFS", the issue is "most companies manage storage (and knowledge) poorly".
Many corporate storage problems are a result of poor workflow, poor process management, and an insatiable need by most management grunts to cover their asses by saving EVERYTHING no matter what instead of assessing what really needs to be saved, and organizing it in a way that makes sense to the organization.
The solution to the problem isn't "use Windows because it has DFS and UNIX doesn't" but "disconnect storage from processing". Don't buy more disk by buying another server...just buy more disk, or better yet, figure out why you're using so much disk and solve THAT problem instead.
It is easy to get caught in the "server == disk" trap, because you have companies like Dell selling "servers" for $1000. That's great for the short-term, but the long-term costs go up, up, and up as complexity increases and the need to have more admins to manage that complexity increases along with it.
The long term solution is to understand that you will ALWAYS want more disk, and plan accordingly by buying a "real" server that can accept external arrays, etc. or better yet, buying a filer solution from Hitachi, Network Appliance, or similar. The short term cost will be higher, but its just hardware so you can depreciate it anyway, and the long term costs will be tremendously lower. And your DR (disaster recovery) processes will be much cleaner and more robust.
In the spirit of Ballmer's e-mail, the TCO on a filer solution is much lower than a corresponding TCO for managing several, or dozens, or hundreds of servers, each with a couple hundred gigs of storage on it (not to mention server OS licensing costs, archiving software costs, etc).
Heck, if an organization is REALLY smart, they won't even use Explorer-style file management...they'll have an intranet where people search for what they want in a browser, with the results coming from a DB and all they do is click on the "download" link which retrieves the file for them. They never, ever have to know where the physical file even resides.
When will companies learn that phone numbers are no longer sure-fire ways to qualify new customers?
Many people don't have land lines and use mobile phones instead. Still others use VoIP services like Vonage, where they can have any phone number they like regardless of physical location.
I'm both of the above...a mobile phone via my employer, and VoIP. Asking me for my "phone number" as a way to pinpoint the location of my residence is meaningless.
Yes, I understand all that, and the answer is simple: if this business model were to actually come about, then choose the provider who uses open source to provide their service instead of closed source.
Isn't that the point of all that we're doing with F/OSS? To make it easy and cheap for people to have large amounts of computing productivity?
There are devices that cannot be tampered with without destroying the device it self (an iButton is one such device).
People don't control the client now, yet that hasn't stopped them from using public terminals in airports, cafes, etc.
All I'm saying is, is that there's no reason such a model couldn't be built that provides such a service and still protects everyone's privacy and other concerns. I'd like to build one, that's for sure, and if I had the backing, I would, and it would end up being a helluva lot cheaper and more helpful to the world at large than anything Redmond decides to do.
Take a deep breath and repeat this phrase many times until it sinks in: public key encryption.
Let the Feds "search through all that data"...if my data is encrypted with my 2048-bit key, they'll be waiting for the results a REALLY long time.
If my data isn't encrypted, then shame on me.
All you would need is a simple flash memory device with your private key on it. Only you know your passwords and passphrases. Thus, you could put anything you wanted on that big server in the sky and never worry.
At the time, there was only one PDA (not counting Psion or Sharp): Palm. There were no PocketPCs. So the SpringBoard idea had a wide-open chance of making it...the only competition were the Palms, and this was when Palms were still niche items.
I think people didn't like the fact that you had to carry multiple modules around. I really think the big "gotcha" with the whole PDA/sub-notebook/personal computing device market is that people want a device that does everything. All at once, without any dongles or plug-ins or whatever. And there's just no way to get this, for various reasons like weight, heat, power consumption and cost factor.
I had a Bluetooth phone, and a Bluetooth-compatible laptop. Bluetooth just didn't "click" with me...I don't understand the attraction of it at all, and didn't find a single use for it the year or so I had the phone, so it is hard for me get enthused about having a bunch of modules laying around that are "chatting" with each other and in turn chatting with the main mothership PDA.
Everyone isn't linear/serial. Some of us are parallel, and still more of us are massively parallel.
The point, in many cases, with a PDA is not "put something in here to remember it later" but is "collect information to be used later".
For example...I want to know, for my taxes, the deductions I'm allowed for using my vehicle for business. I could write everything down on a pad of paper, and then at the end of the year, I could input everything into a spreadsheet (hope there aren't any errors!) and get the numbers I need. Or, I could collect the data at the point its created (the car) and automatically have a running total, any day of the year. This then feeds into all sorts of decisions...say I see a used car in September that I might want to buy...how do I know if it makes financial sense without knowing exactly how much my current vehicle is costing me? Then, at the end of the year, a couple clicks and my deductions pop right into my tax program. That's just one small example.
Handspring SpringBoard modules.
Handspring had this years ago (the SpringBoard format). You could even buy the SpringBoard hardware development kit ($129 I think) and develop your own modules.
You can still find Handspring Visors that take the SpringBoard module format on eBay and other places.
They discontinued the format because nobody bought them.
So far, the closest thing I've found is a used/open box/blemished Palm Tungsten C for about $275 from overstock.com. With only a 30-day warranty and lots of reports on the net of failing units, poor WiFi range, and screen problems, its not an option I am seriously considering.