Do you have any examples of which.ca domains are being used by Cardiff? If I recall correctly,.ca has fairly strict citizenship/residency requirements to use the.ca TLD.
I think PDA's are cool, but no matter how much I want to like them, they just aren't useful.
I think it depends on your lifestyle. If you are a very active person I think that they would be useful. If your schedule every day is "Get up. Go to work. Come home. Eat dinner. Watch TV." you aren't going to get much benefit from it. When I was working, that was pretty much my routine. However, when I was looking for a job, it would have been useful to keep track of my daily goals, interviews, informational meetings, etc. Now that I have found a job, my lifestle will probably go back to the previous routine.
However, a couple of people have Palms and they both love them. My girlfriend is a very active person and she uses it to keep organized. She used to keep her phone book in her purse and it was probably worth it to her just for that feature since it is lighter and smaller. She also uses it to record appointments, her grocery list, and various other to do lists. On top of that, we use it to record what movies we want to rent and who paid last. It makes it a lot more efficient to go to the video store.
My friend uses it to store measurements. Then, when he's in a store, he doesn't need to wonder if a particular piece of furniture will fit or not since he already has the measurements in his Palm.
Specifically, I consider it unethical and an abuse to invoke the legal system in a civil dispute, without first doing a fair minded attempt to settle the issue privately.
IANAL and, more specifically, I am not an American. But, from my experience of watching court TV and my own experience in Canada, I think you have a legal requirement to mitigate (reduce the effect of) the damages.
The proposal -- if you've read it -- is only for bringing the Criminal Code up to date for the Internet for criminal suspects. This isn't to spy on Joe Average User. It's about gathering evidence on criminal suspects. You would still need to get authorization from a judge, solicitor general, etc. to execute a "search warrant" on your Internet communications.
This is an interesting analogy but what we have to remember is that SuSE and Red Hat are companies. You may not be able to kill Linux but if these companies can't maintain (and hopefully grow) their revenues, they won't survive.
It described how there were forty times more deaths from rollover accidents where the (Firestone) tires didn't fail than when they did but the media didn't tend to report this.
It also describes one of the original SUVs, the Ford Bronco II. Shortly after it came out in 1983 Ford was being sued because it tended to roll over. Ford's engineers recommended that they make the Bronco II two inches wider but hey refused to do this because it would have delayed the production date. It was not until the the 2002 model of the Ford Explorer came out that they did this. Ironically, it wasn't for safetly reasons but to give more room on the interior.
I just renewed my subscription to Linux Journal. A month later, I had two magazines in my mailbox. In other words, they created a new subscription instead of renewing it.
I called their toll-free number and the problem turned out that the address was spelled slightly differently on the two accounts. They rectified it and gave me two extra months to compensate for the double issues. They were very professional and helpful. It took all of five minutes.
The point they are making is that most users are more familiar with their existing IM clients than they are with IRC.
While most of the popular IMs connect to their own proprietary chat systems--ICQ uses the ICQ protocol, for example--Mozilla's chat client, Chatzilla, connects to the IRC (Internet Relay Chat) network. Unfortunately, IRC client apps aren't very user friendly, and the same goes for Chatzilla.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Face facts: If you pay for cable modem service and start adding splitters and/or cables to run to your TV, you are stealing the service. You physically added something to their cable system so that you could get a service that you did not pay for.
By this logic, if I had cable and wanted to connect multiple TV's to it, I would be stealing service. Some cable companies actually believe this and charge you for every outlet. I just don't happen to buy into it.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 1
I live in Canada and the cable company was charging me $10 extra because I didn't have cable. I was getting basic cable for this but only because they didn't install a trap.
Then, two years ago they said I had to sign up or they would disconnect the cable. Since then, Rogers and Shaw have swapped infrastructure and Shaw dropped the $10 surcharge. But they still haven't disconnected my cable.
If they disconnected my cable, I would probably switch to ADSL since it's five dollars cheaper. So, they would end up losing nearly five hundred dollars a year instead of gaining the two- to three- hundred dollars they would get from making me pay for cable.
The other point I would like to make is that the cable company doesn't generally own the programs they are broadcasting. Their costs are in the infrastructure, not the intellectual property. In other words, it costs them roughly the same to provide me with either the most basic service or the most comprehensive. The infrastructure is already paid for.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 1
The article was about paying for cable modem service and splitting off basic cable television service that you never paid for.
If you didn't pay for it, they shouldn't give it to you for free. They can easily stop people from receiving the free channels by filtering it out.
Congratulations, you've just described a function header. The only reason to include that kind of info in comments is if you are using some automatic documentation tool like javadoc--which is a *very* good reason, but a waste of time and space otherwise.
I disagree. Even if you don't have a javadoc-style tool -- I admit it's better if you do -- it's good to have function headers. If there's a function header, I can see what promises and requirements a function has without having to read the function or trying to track down some external documentation that may not even exist.
Google ranks pages with more links to them higher than pages with fewer links. There will be a bias against a newly created page because it will have no links to it.
Doubt is reasonable if you have a reason for it. So, if I doubt that you commited a crime because I believe your alibi then that's reasonable doubt. If I don't have a reason for it, then it's unreasonable.
If the sensor clocks you at that speed and you were going that speed you would probably be convicted. However, if you can come up with an alibi -- you weren't in your car, your car was stolen, the sensor has an 80% failure rate -- then you should be able to construct reasonable doubt. The sensor is good enough to convict you on its own but not necessarily in the face of contrary evidence.
It was very clear from the context of the entire thread that he wants references to the FSF expunged from the kernel documentation, which, like it or not, is a very political stance for him to be taking.
Maybe so. I haven't had a chance to track down the thread yet. However, if the FSF is taking this odious position that they should have some say in what a product is called if it contains software from the GNU project, I can understand why he is doing this.
[I have] tended toward the more pragmatic view on things myself (though my own recent experiences with Blender, and the arguments of both sides, are changing that stance somewhat. More so as I watch all of this unfold).
What is "Blender"? Animal, Mineral, or Vegetable? Do you care to expand on this?
I must admit I lost most of my respect for Linus when he made that comment. He claims not to want to be political, but then he takes very political stances on questions like that, actively steering people away from the one organization to which he owes his fame and much of his career.
What he actually said was:
... [T]he whole notion of "free software" has very little to do with the kernel, please just link to some open source site. One of the more neutral ones is
"http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html", for example.
Linus has always favoured pragmatic reasons over idealogical ones. In this case, all he was doing was trying to avoid referencing a highly political organization, the FSF, in favour of a more neutral one.
It would be a relatively simple matter to deny all access to sites in a certain TLD, as opposed to trying to find all of the 'naughty' sites and block each individual one. I think that's the point here.
Exactly. Parents who want to block their kids from seeing the sites can easily filter it out. Those who want to see the sites or don't care can choose not to filter.
The Vancouver International Film Festival has an interesting way around this. Most of films they show are unrated. However, to get in to a movie you have to purchase a membership for $1. Since they won't show the film to anyone but their members, it makes it a private screening for legal purposes.
If someone enters my place and plants a camera, I believe that every State has a dozen or so laws that the perpetrator can be charged with (breaking and entry, illegal entry, etc), that is if the cops bother to stop writing speeding tickets long enough to catch the criminal. Don't forget all of the civil charges.
Then why does the article say this:
Landrieu said she wrote the bill after hearing from Wilson, a Monroe, Louisiana, homemaker who found hidden video cameras above her bed and in her shower nearly four years ago.
Wilson found she could not pursue criminal charges against the voyeur because secret video taping, unlike audio surveillance, is illegal in only a handful of states.
I don't know why she wouldn't be able to pursue charges for break and entry; I don't know enough about her situation. Perhaps there were burden of proof issues. Did anyone see the movie?
Let me say this loudly to make it clear: IT'S NOT UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE MORALITY.Maybe I don't mind my children seeing nude women, I don't see a huge problem with them seeing playboy...
But this bill doesn't stop your kids from seeing Playboy. All it does is change the TLD. Can you get to.net sites in your browser? Then why wouldn't you (or your kids) be able to get a.prn site.
This is just an Internet zoning regulation and I think it makes a lot of sense. We use zoning in municipal government so that someone doesn't build a pig farm or a steel mill next to your condo. All this does is allow those that want to to filter on the TLD.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any examples of which .ca domains are being used by Cardiff? If I recall correctly, .ca has fairly strict citizenship/residency requirements to use the .ca TLD.
I think PDA's are cool, but no matter how much I want to like them, they just aren't useful.
I think it depends on your lifestyle. If you are a very active person I think that they would be useful. If your schedule every day is "Get up. Go to work. Come home. Eat dinner. Watch TV." you aren't going to get much benefit from it. When I was working, that was pretty much my routine. However, when I was looking for a job, it would have been useful to keep track of my daily goals, interviews, informational meetings, etc. Now that I have found a job, my lifestle will probably go back to the previous routine.
However, a couple of people have Palms and they both love them. My girlfriend is a very active person and she uses it to keep organized. She used to keep her phone book in her purse and it was probably worth it to her just for that feature since it is lighter and smaller. She also uses it to record appointments, her grocery list, and various other to do lists. On top of that, we use it to record what movies we want to rent and who paid last. It makes it a lot more efficient to go to the video store.
My friend uses it to store measurements. Then, when he's in a store, he doesn't need to wonder if a particular piece of furniture will fit or not since he already has the measurements in his Palm.
Specifically, I consider it unethical and an abuse to invoke the legal system in a civil dispute, without first doing a fair minded attempt to settle the issue privately.
IANAL and, more specifically, I am not an American. But, from my experience of watching court TV and my own experience in Canada, I think you have a legal requirement to mitigate (reduce the effect of) the damages.
The proposal -- if you've read it -- is only for bringing the Criminal Code up to date for the Internet for criminal suspects. This isn't to spy on Joe Average User. It's about gathering evidence on criminal suspects. You would still need to get authorization from a judge, solicitor general, etc. to execute a "search warrant" on your Internet communications.
This is an interesting analogy but what we have to remember is that SuSE and Red Hat are companies. You may not be able to kill Linux but if these companies can't maintain (and hopefully grow) their revenues, they won't survive.
Usually it is the submitter, not the staff, who write the headlines.
Frontline had a good documentary on SUV rollovers a while back.
It described how there were forty times more deaths from rollover accidents where the (Firestone) tires didn't fail than when they did but the media didn't tend to report this.
It also describes one of the original SUVs, the Ford Bronco II. Shortly after it came out in 1983 Ford was being sued because it tended to roll over. Ford's engineers recommended that they make the Bronco II two inches wider but hey refused to do this because it would have delayed the production date. It was not until the the 2002 model of the Ford Explorer came out that they did this. Ironically, it wasn't for safetly reasons but to give more room on the interior.
When was this?
I just renewed my subscription to Linux Journal. A month later, I had two magazines in my mailbox. In other words, they created a new subscription instead of renewing it.
I called their toll-free number and the problem turned out that the address was spelled slightly differently on the two accounts. They rectified it and gave me two extra months to compensate for the double issues. They were very professional and helpful. It took all of five minutes.
Face facts: If you pay for cable modem service and start adding splitters and/or cables to run to your TV, you are stealing the service. You physically added something to their cable system so that you could get a service that you did not pay for.
By this logic, if I had cable and wanted to connect multiple TV's to it, I would be stealing service. Some cable companies actually believe this and charge you for every outlet. I just don't happen to buy into it.
I live in Canada and the cable company was charging me $10 extra because I didn't have cable. I was getting basic cable for this but only because they didn't install a trap.
Then, two years ago they said I had to sign up or they would disconnect the cable. Since then, Rogers and Shaw have swapped infrastructure and Shaw dropped the $10 surcharge. But they still haven't disconnected my cable.
If they disconnected my cable, I would probably switch to ADSL since it's five dollars cheaper. So, they would end up losing nearly five hundred dollars a year instead of gaining the two- to three- hundred dollars they would get from making me pay for cable.
The other point I would like to make is that the cable company doesn't generally own the programs they are broadcasting. Their costs are in the infrastructure, not the intellectual property. In other words, it costs them roughly the same to provide me with either the most basic service or the most comprehensive. The infrastructure is already paid for.
The article was about paying for cable modem service and splitting off basic cable television service that you never paid for.
If you didn't pay for it, they shouldn't give it to you for free. They can easily stop people from receiving the free channels by filtering it out.
Congratulations, you've just described a function header. The only reason to include that kind of info in comments is if you are using some automatic documentation tool like javadoc--which is a *very* good reason, but a waste of time and space otherwise.
I disagree. Even if you don't have a javadoc-style tool -- I admit it's better if you do -- it's good to have function headers. If there's a function header, I can see what promises and requirements a function has without having to read the function or trying to track down some external documentation that may not even exist.
Yeah, it wouldn't prevent googlebombing. You would have to use it in conjunction with some other algorithm to prevent that.
Google ranks pages with more links to them higher than pages with fewer links. There will be a bias against a newly created page because it will have no links to it.
At what point is a doubt unreasonable?
Doubt is reasonable if you have a reason for it. So, if I doubt that you commited a crime because I believe your alibi then that's reasonable doubt. If I don't have a reason for it, then it's unreasonable.
If the sensor clocks you at that speed and you were going that speed you would probably be convicted. However, if you can come up with an alibi -- you weren't in your car, your car was stolen, the sensor has an 80% failure rate -- then you should be able to construct reasonable doubt. The sensor is good enough to convict you on its own but not necessarily in the face of contrary evidence.
It was very clear from the context of the entire thread that he wants references to the FSF expunged from the kernel documentation, which, like it or not, is a very political stance for him to be taking.
Maybe so. I haven't had a chance to track down the thread yet. However, if the FSF is taking this odious position that they should have some say in what a product is called if it contains software from the GNU project, I can understand why he is doing this.
[I have] tended toward the more pragmatic view on things myself (though my own recent experiences with Blender, and the arguments of both sides, are changing that stance somewhat. More so as I watch all of this unfold).
What is "Blender"? Animal, Mineral, or Vegetable? Do you care to expand on this?
What he actually said was:
Linus has always favoured pragmatic reasons over idealogical ones. In this case, all he was doing was trying to avoid referencing a highly political organization, the FSF, in favour of a more neutral one.
I know! Let's just call it "GPLIX"!
How about Lignux? You could still pronounce it "Linux" (the "g" would be silent in this case as opposed to the un-silent "g" in GNU)
It would be a relatively simple matter to deny all access to sites in a certain TLD, as opposed to trying to find all of the 'naughty' sites and block each individual one. I think that's the point here.
Exactly. Parents who want to block their kids from seeing the sites can easily filter it out. Those who want to see the sites or don't care can choose not to filter.
The Vancouver International Film Festival has an interesting way around this. Most of films they show are unrated. However, to get in to a movie you have to purchase a membership for $1. Since they won't show the film to anyone but their members, it makes it a private screening for legal purposes.
Then why does the article say this:
I don't know why she wouldn't be able to pursue charges for break and entry; I don't know enough about her situation. Perhaps there were burden of proof issues. Did anyone see the movie?
Let me say this loudly to make it clear: IT'S NOT UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO LEGISLATE MORALITY.Maybe I don't mind my children seeing nude women, I don't see a huge problem with them seeing playboy...
.net sites in your browser? Then why wouldn't you (or your kids) be able to get a .prn site.
But this bill doesn't stop your kids from seeing Playboy. All it does is change the TLD. Can you get to
This is just an Internet zoning regulation and I think it makes a lot of sense. We use zoning in municipal government so that someone doesn't build a pig farm or a steel mill next to your condo. All this does is allow those that want to to filter on the TLD.
I think that is a bad tld. .adult would be better. This isnt DOS.
.xxx. Everyone knows what that means and it would work even if it was DOS.
Or even