I still love the ability to replace in-use libraries. The only problems that ever crop up are when you dynamically load another library, and that library disappears (Windows doesn't help here, either), or its API changes (although usually that results in a new library name, so you still get the old one). If you still have a library loaded when it gets deleted, you maintain a filehandle to it so its disk space is not reclaimed or reused. Shut down all applications still loading the old library, and then the disk space gets reclaimed.
I've updated X.org at least a couple times since the last time I restarted my X server. So I have a bunch of old libraries still sitting on my disk with no way to refer to them (well, there are ways to get them back involving funky lsof/proc tricks, but let's not go there). Nothing will overwrite them. But, when I feel I have the time, I can shut down all my X apps, restart my X server, and free up all that space. But I don't need to take down mysql, apache, or anything not X-based to do so.
I don't get how anyone could consider this a bad idea. The only times it falls over is when people don't follow convention (change your library number when changing APIs!), or in cases that Windows will fall over, too (dynamically loading libraries that don't exist anymore - although that usually doesn't crash as hopefully most people catch the error return and handle it). Otherwise, it maximises the uptime of your server, so that you only need to restart programs that actually use your library when you want to.
(PS - thanks for this thread - it answers a question my wife posed - why her windows machine rebooted overnight when she was in the middle of sorting digital photos to send to be printed, and there was no power outage.)
Re:Obligatory Planet of the Apes
on
The Human Mutation
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think all the secularists/humanists are misreading the OPs comment. It's not about God, per se. It's the concept of the abstract. To be able to understand the concept of a possibility of something that cannot be universally sensed. To have the capacity to understand concepts beyond one's own experiences. Another example may be "black hole" or "quantum theory" or "the Jewish Holocaust" - although the last one actually happened, those alive today probably weren't there to experience it, yet we can pass down the information about it, and individuals are free to decide that it is real, it's a myth (see: the Iranian President), or remain undecided about its veracity as history.
Apparently, the first mod was correct - Flamebait is much more appropriate than Insightful. Because copyright doesn't protect ideas (that's patents - and utterly irrelevant) - it protects, for lack of a better word, implementations. The idea that a child wizard is the most powerful wizard in all the contemporary wizarding world isn't protected by copyright - JKR's text describing that fantasy is. The idea that notes in a certain order can be harmonious isn't protected by copyright - Bach's rendition would be, except it has expired. But the Toronto Symphony Orchestra's performance of that music still can be under copyright (it's an implementation of a licensed work [as licensed as need be]).
I get a couple of memes from/. on these topics: patents are evil (even moreso if it's software patents), with the most moderate concept that non-experts in the USPTO are granting patents for obvious, non-novel ideas - completely irrelevant to the original topic (only here as a rebuttal to your comment); and copyrights are annoying/Disney is evil. It's the latter meme that the OP is arguing as hypocrisy. By the time FLOSS software is actually not covered by copyright anymore, under the current Disney extention of copyright, it really will be useless - there'll have been 100-200 versions of it since then, or it will have died from neglect. If we had a shorter copyright (say a silly-short one of five years), it'd be possible, even likely (if short enough) that someone would go back to expired open source code, take the code, integrate it into their closed-source software, and maintain it for themselves. In this way, Disney may be doing FLOSS a bit of a favour - albeit a bit overextended for our purposes.
Works even better if you can get that clock in the bottom-right to blink "12:00"... the judge will just say "yeah, my VCR does that, too" and dismiss the case.
I thought about the same... until I got an HD TV. And a digital amp. And, in my experience, the HD cable TV outstrips the DVD video. And the DVD video makes me cringe to watch SD cable. (The DVD audio, however, blows the HD audio away, but I think that's my HD PVR which isn't giving me digital audio, while my DVD player does give me digital audio.)
I'll be trying to convince the CFO to get a next-gen DVD player (Blue-Ray or HD, depending on who "wins") as soon as they become reasonable in price.
Can you actually give up your rights legally when under duress? If your professor is threatening to fail you for not giving up your copyright to your paper, is that not duress? IANAL, but it seems like a reasonable defense to me.
IANAL (I didn't even follow the case), but it would appear to me that Napster was largely about trading copyrighted files in their entirety that weren't owned by whoever was seeding it (music, video, whatever), while YouTube is largely about trading copyrighted files that are owned by whoever put them online (or otherwise fall under fair-use laws). It may be as much about intent and purpose as activity. YouTube also made an effort to take down files that copyright owners claim were posted illegally - further proving intent to be above board with everything, not to mention actually following the DMCA law.
Actually, I would expect Walmart to continue to dictate to the manufacturers just as they do today, even if SCOTUS were to overturn this. Walmart has shown its willingness to cut out manufacturers that don't toe the Walmart line in the past - don't think that just because the manufacturers may gain the legal right to negotiate a price point with their retailers that they will suddenly have power over Walmart.
Let those price-leveling overlords try. Walmart will still crush them.
Of course, then I wonder which side/. will take - the evil manufacturers trying to gouge the end-customer, or the evil Walmart trying to shepherd all consumers into its (very large) walls, crushing all opposition.
Really, manufacturers who deal with Walmart will not bother forcing their other retailers to a fixed point because, as much as they like the volume that Walmart does, they don't particularly want to have a single retail outlet (Walmart) who will then have even more power to dictate to them. It's only premium manufacturers that may care about the outcome of this case.
(And I'm not sure what the laws are like in other countries - so we may see spam advertising for "cheap Canadian iPods!!!!" soon if SCOTUS does overturn it.)
Er...? You've disabled IIS. The OS detects an incoming request on port 80. It enables IIS. Attacker leaves behind malware. IIS goes back down.
Other than that, I like your idea. If, for example, when it detected a service was needed, it popped up a nice dialog box saying something like, "Windows has detected an incoming request on port 80. is currently disabled. Enable? [ ] Don't ask this again. [Yes] [No]". And then, here's an important bit, if no response is detected within 30 seconds, assume "No", and continue. And log this in the system log. Maybe even email it to the user so they see it. (The email wouldn't happen for requests that were marked "Don't ask this again".)
I'm pretty sure a similar concept on Linux could apply - even if there's no user interface, just logging what comes in. In fact, I suspect some people have already set up iptables or ipchains or whatever to do exactly that: log all "intrusion" attempts. With a bit of work, I'm sure that some ports could be emailed (say, by default), with some trivial manner of masking ports (analogous to the "Don't ask this again" from above) to not receive notices about that port anymore. Possibly with netmasks - email me if someone comes in on 443 from 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0, but not anyone else (ignore https requests from the internet completely).
In fact, I'm pretty sure someone has something like this already... probably on sourceforge by now;-)
I don't know why not - IBM offers most of their products for download over the internet... from a secure password-protected site. And we're not just talking about $700 here, we're talking about everything, from $500 to $50,000. Log in with your password, and whatever you've purchased is there.
That said, I somehow doubt they use credit cards;-)
You're right and, what you didn't address, doesn't take away from my point. What I meant to say, and failed utterly miserably (so miserably as to have been misleading), is that the government is not supposed to hand out consequences for your speech. That doesn't prevent Obama's campaign (aka "not government") from sanctioning the individual for actions deemed unbecoming to the association as a whole. Nor does it mean you have to agree with Obama's campaign to fire the guy. It just means that there is no criminality or unconstitutionalness going on here.
Note: where to get some of this from is simply a google search for "first amendment history" - I found this intro to be informative, and even mentions the "shouting 'fire' in a theater" concept.
Actually, your constitution does not guarantee you freedom of all speech, but that which it does guarantee, it further guarantees no consequences.
That speech that is free is only speech that talks negative of the government (positive speech having never been threatened). And the normal consequences of that speech, being jailed, fined, or killed, are guaranteed not to occur (or, as much of a guarantee that the government can normally give - anyone attempting to confine you, take your money, or kill you, just because of such speech would be guilty of an offense and liable for jail time themselves).
It's not the speech that got the maker of this video in trouble. It's the association they had with the Barack campaign. While there are guarantees of freedom of association, it works both ways: the Barack campaign has chosen not to associate with him. They are perfectly free to do that. What would be illegal is for the government (any branch) to force that disassociation.
I'm betting that they're using Lotus Notes. 7 days' retention seems a bit excessive for your average Notes server - so they must have a super-powerful Notes server to manage that much data.
The "space" is not that big of a concern, really. When LaTeX and GROFF were formulated, 640K was significant amounts of memory, and a 10MB hard disk was luxury. Space was important. Not so much anymore: 256-512MB RAM is standard, with 1-1.5GB not being unreasonable on a desktop, with 100's of GB of disk space. I know, "bandwidth" is still a somewhat limiting factor - but that's starting to die as a limitation, too. That all said, for the on-disk/transferable format, remember that at least the OO format is gzipped. Those repeating 16-character tags compress really nicely when gzipped.
However, I think this thread is really missing IBM's point. It's not that Microsoft's "standard" is horrible (which it is), it's that having competing "standards" will detract from the whole idea of having the standard: interoperability. Microsoft is attempting to subvert the standards process to be able to claim that MS Word complies with open standards while still making it nearly impossible for others to do so, which maintains Microsoft's lock on the word processor market. IBM is opposed to that as it will impede the ability for anyone relying on these open standards to reduce lock-in to actually meet their requirements. (Of course, it also impedes Lotus' ability to penetrate those markets, as well as OOo, AbiWord, KWord, and lots of others.)
Slashdot Mirror
Because my car's CD-MP3 player doesn't play MP3s on DVDs.
(That'd be sweet... 4.7GB of MP3s - could drive across North America and never hear the same song twice...)
I still love the ability to replace in-use libraries. The only problems that ever crop up are when you dynamically load another library, and that library disappears (Windows doesn't help here, either), or its API changes (although usually that results in a new library name, so you still get the old one). If you still have a library loaded when it gets deleted, you maintain a filehandle to it so its disk space is not reclaimed or reused. Shut down all applications still loading the old library, and then the disk space gets reclaimed.
I've updated X.org at least a couple times since the last time I restarted my X server. So I have a bunch of old libraries still sitting on my disk with no way to refer to them (well, there are ways to get them back involving funky lsof/proc tricks, but let's not go there). Nothing will overwrite them. But, when I feel I have the time, I can shut down all my X apps, restart my X server, and free up all that space. But I don't need to take down mysql, apache, or anything not X-based to do so.
I don't get how anyone could consider this a bad idea. The only times it falls over is when people don't follow convention (change your library number when changing APIs!), or in cases that Windows will fall over, too (dynamically loading libraries that don't exist anymore - although that usually doesn't crash as hopefully most people catch the error return and handle it). Otherwise, it maximises the uptime of your server, so that you only need to restart programs that actually use your library when you want to.
(PS - thanks for this thread - it answers a question my wife posed - why her windows machine rebooted overnight when she was in the middle of sorting digital photos to send to be printed, and there was no power outage.)
I think all the secularists/humanists are misreading the OPs comment. It's not about God, per se. It's the concept of the abstract. To be able to understand the concept of a possibility of something that cannot be universally sensed. To have the capacity to understand concepts beyond one's own experiences. Another example may be "black hole" or "quantum theory" or "the Jewish Holocaust" - although the last one actually happened, those alive today probably weren't there to experience it, yet we can pass down the information about it, and individuals are free to decide that it is real, it's a myth (see: the Iranian President), or remain undecided about its veracity as history.
Apparently, the first mod was correct - Flamebait is much more appropriate than Insightful. Because copyright doesn't protect ideas (that's patents - and utterly irrelevant) - it protects, for lack of a better word, implementations. The idea that a child wizard is the most powerful wizard in all the contemporary wizarding world isn't protected by copyright - JKR's text describing that fantasy is. The idea that notes in a certain order can be harmonious isn't protected by copyright - Bach's rendition would be, except it has expired. But the Toronto Symphony Orchestra's performance of that music still can be under copyright (it's an implementation of a licensed work [as licensed as need be]).
I get a couple of memes from /. on these topics: patents are evil (even moreso if it's software patents), with the most moderate concept that non-experts in the USPTO are granting patents for obvious, non-novel ideas - completely irrelevant to the original topic (only here as a rebuttal to your comment); and copyrights are annoying/Disney is evil. It's the latter meme that the OP is arguing as hypocrisy. By the time FLOSS software is actually not covered by copyright anymore, under the current Disney extention of copyright, it really will be useless - there'll have been 100-200 versions of it since then, or it will have died from neglect. If we had a shorter copyright (say a silly-short one of five years), it'd be possible, even likely (if short enough) that someone would go back to expired open source code, take the code, integrate it into their closed-source software, and maintain it for themselves. In this way, Disney may be doing FLOSS a bit of a favour - albeit a bit overextended for our purposes.
Don't get yer panties in such a knot. I think the OP was referring to someone else.
Why not just use "rename"?
I'm actually thinking of something just a bit more complex: Not that I have a use for something like that, mind you...Works even better if you can get that clock in the bottom-right to blink "12:00"... the judge will just say "yeah, my VCR does that, too" and dismiss the case.
I thought about the same ... until I got an HD TV. And a digital amp. And, in my experience, the HD cable TV outstrips the DVD video. And the DVD video makes me cringe to watch SD cable. (The DVD audio, however, blows the HD audio away, but I think that's my HD PVR which isn't giving me digital audio, while my DVD player does give me digital audio.)
I'll be trying to convince the CFO to get a next-gen DVD player (Blue-Ray or HD, depending on who "wins") as soon as they become reasonable in price.
That's why I generally ignore the speaker when I have the slides. That cuts it down to just one variant of the data, increasing comprehension. :-)
I just recently bought a shiny, new HDTV. So, mark me down on your list of who'll really miss them.
Can you actually give up your rights legally when under duress? If your professor is threatening to fail you for not giving up your copyright to your paper, is that not duress? IANAL, but it seems like a reasonable defense to me.
Oh, I don't know about that... have you ever USED Oracle?
:-)
IANAL (I didn't even follow the case), but it would appear to me that Napster was largely about trading copyrighted files in their entirety that weren't owned by whoever was seeding it (music, video, whatever), while YouTube is largely about trading copyrighted files that are owned by whoever put them online (or otherwise fall under fair-use laws). It may be as much about intent and purpose as activity. YouTube also made an effort to take down files that copyright owners claim were posted illegally - further proving intent to be above board with everything, not to mention actually following the DMCA law.
Actually, I would expect Walmart to continue to dictate to the manufacturers just as they do today, even if SCOTUS were to overturn this. Walmart has shown its willingness to cut out manufacturers that don't toe the Walmart line in the past - don't think that just because the manufacturers may gain the legal right to negotiate a price point with their retailers that they will suddenly have power over Walmart.
Let those price-leveling overlords try. Walmart will still crush them.
Of course, then I wonder which side /. will take - the evil manufacturers trying to gouge the end-customer, or the evil Walmart trying to shepherd all consumers into its (very large) walls, crushing all opposition.
Really, manufacturers who deal with Walmart will not bother forcing their other retailers to a fixed point because, as much as they like the volume that Walmart does, they don't particularly want to have a single retail outlet (Walmart) who will then have even more power to dictate to them. It's only premium manufacturers that may care about the outcome of this case.
(And I'm not sure what the laws are like in other countries - so we may see spam advertising for "cheap Canadian iPods!!!!" soon if SCOTUS does overturn it.)
Er...? You've disabled IIS. The OS detects an incoming request on port 80. It enables IIS. Attacker leaves behind malware. IIS goes back down.
Other than that, I like your idea. If, for example, when it detected a service was needed, it popped up a nice dialog box saying something like, "Windows has detected an incoming request on port 80. is currently disabled. Enable? [ ] Don't ask this again. [Yes] [No]". And then, here's an important bit, if no response is detected within 30 seconds, assume "No", and continue. And log this in the system log. Maybe even email it to the user so they see it. (The email wouldn't happen for requests that were marked "Don't ask this again".)
I'm pretty sure a similar concept on Linux could apply - even if there's no user interface, just logging what comes in. In fact, I suspect some people have already set up iptables or ipchains or whatever to do exactly that: log all "intrusion" attempts. With a bit of work, I'm sure that some ports could be emailed (say, by default), with some trivial manner of masking ports (analogous to the "Don't ask this again" from above) to not receive notices about that port anymore. Possibly with netmasks - email me if someone comes in on 443 from 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0, but not anyone else (ignore https requests from the internet completely).
In fact, I'm pretty sure someone has something like this already ... probably on sourceforge by now ;-)
Well, in N. America, we would, anyway.
I don't know why not - IBM offers most of their products for download over the internet... from a secure password-protected site. And we're not just talking about $700 here, we're talking about everything, from $500 to $50,000. Log in with your password, and whatever you've purchased is there.
That said, I somehow doubt they use credit cards ;-)
You're right and, what you didn't address, doesn't take away from my point. What I meant to say, and failed utterly miserably (so miserably as to have been misleading), is that the government is not supposed to hand out consequences for your speech. That doesn't prevent Obama's campaign (aka "not government") from sanctioning the individual for actions deemed unbecoming to the association as a whole. Nor does it mean you have to agree with Obama's campaign to fire the guy. It just means that there is no criminality or unconstitutionalness going on here.
Note: where to get some of this from is simply a google search for "first amendment history" - I found this intro to be informative, and even mentions the "shouting 'fire' in a theater" concept.
Actually, your constitution does not guarantee you freedom of all speech, but that which it does guarantee, it further guarantees no consequences.
That speech that is free is only speech that talks negative of the government (positive speech having never been threatened). And the normal consequences of that speech, being jailed, fined, or killed, are guaranteed not to occur (or, as much of a guarantee that the government can normally give - anyone attempting to confine you, take your money, or kill you, just because of such speech would be guilty of an offense and liable for jail time themselves).
It's not the speech that got the maker of this video in trouble. It's the association they had with the Barack campaign. While there are guarantees of freedom of association, it works both ways: the Barack campaign has chosen not to associate with him. They are perfectly free to do that. What would be illegal is for the government (any branch) to force that disassociation.
I'm betting that they're using Lotus Notes. 7 days' retention seems a bit excessive for your average Notes server - so they must have a super-powerful Notes server to manage that much data.
Uh, that's Mennonite (or Luddite) , not Mormon .
There are ads here?
I'd hate to be part of that QA department...
Of course, it's now completely moot...
The "space" is not that big of a concern, really. When LaTeX and GROFF were formulated, 640K was significant amounts of memory, and a 10MB hard disk was luxury. Space was important. Not so much anymore: 256-512MB RAM is standard, with 1-1.5GB not being unreasonable on a desktop, with 100's of GB of disk space. I know, "bandwidth" is still a somewhat limiting factor - but that's starting to die as a limitation, too. That all said, for the on-disk/transferable format, remember that at least the OO format is gzipped. Those repeating 16-character tags compress really nicely when gzipped.
However, I think this thread is really missing IBM's point. It's not that Microsoft's "standard" is horrible (which it is), it's that having competing "standards" will detract from the whole idea of having the standard: interoperability. Microsoft is attempting to subvert the standards process to be able to claim that MS Word complies with open standards while still making it nearly impossible for others to do so, which maintains Microsoft's lock on the word processor market. IBM is opposed to that as it will impede the ability for anyone relying on these open standards to reduce lock-in to actually meet their requirements. (Of course, it also impedes Lotus' ability to penetrate those markets, as well as OOo, AbiWord, KWord, and lots of others.)