I understand that Google employees can read my emails in gmail, but I have reason to expect that the contents won't go any further.
That is where the judge gets the interpretation that there is no expectation of privacy. If you understand that Google employees can read your email in gmail, then you don't expect that your emails are private.
However, having dealt with mail server issues with Yahoo! I have to explicitly give their staff permission to read an e-mail in my account, and even specify which e-mail and where to find it - this in response to a help ticket. So I would argue that there is reasonable expectations of privacy even in that circumstance - that the reasonable expectation of privacy even precludes company employees of the ISP from reading the e-mails without explicit permission to do so.
but an ISP-hosted email account, currently, does have full access to the content, with your tacit approval.
I don't know where that "tacit approval" is supposed to have come from. They have approval because they technically have the capability to view my email? Landlords often have keys to the apartment, but that doesn't mean they have approval to enter. Is there something in the EULAs for most of these businesses that says, "We can read your email for any reason?" That wouldn't surprise me.
IANAL, but....Well, that' s not quite accurate - your Mail Provider (ISP, Yahoo!, etc.) while they do have full access to the content of the e-mail; they only have permission to deliver it. Really, you are not giving them any more permission to the e-mail than the USPS has to your postal mail; only difference is you are handing the e-mail server its native format - open text, like giving a courier an unsealed letter for delivery. Though you are not giving the courier permission to read the letter even though it is unsealed, you are expecting them and giving them enough permission to deliver it with an implicit trust that they will not read the letter. E-mail is no different. And while IANAL, I would be very surprised if this was not overturned.
...is that if they keep it, it'll create Antitrust issues for them. So the suggestion is to sell it.
Except, that's isn't exactly a good idea right now either. After all, they sold it to Sun for $1 Billion USD. What would it say if it Oracle/Sun sold it for less - even $900 Million USD? That MySQL wasn't worth $1 Billion USD; which would not be good PR for the F/OSS community, likely run afoul of Antitrust issues (for the PR reasons - especially if Oracle/Sun went - "see it mustn't have been all that good since we couldn't get what we paid for it"), but at least Oracle/Sun would get a tax write off on the difference.
So then, why not kill two birds with one stone - spin MySQL off as its own company. Make it a non-profit (MySQL Foundation) or something; keep a seat or two of the board, and let the community fill the rest. Oracle could get very good PR for doing so too.
Pictures/Images/Figures: seem to be fully embedded and unable to edit from within Word
Scripting: OO uses a number of languages, but Word/Excel/etc. only understand VBA which OO doesn't use.
For the most part I can do some pretty good stuff in OO; and Word has an easier time dealing with some.doc files when generates from OO than from itself - namely, when you start inserting page breaks between sections. Now if I can only figure out how to do an odd/even page in OOWriter...
You need to look at the naming schemes in Apache and other webservers. They can often redirect using the same IP address and using different hostname. You can always recommend using "www.foo.com" and "www.secure.foo.com" (or whatever) as well towards that end.
I think you missed the point. Apple switched to BSD because it gained them something in a reasonable term.
OS9 was good, but it wasn't going to take them to the future. Fortunately for Apple, Steve Jobs created NeXT and built NextStep after they booted him from Apple. When they brought him back (circa 1996), they did so through buying NeXT. Jobs then threw ought the next version of MacOS that was in the works (big failure project for Apple), and took NeXTStep and renamed it Mac OSX.
It had nothing to do with convenience for Apple at the time other than they needed a new OS. But it was Job's foresight that brought it to the table.
Apple also went out of their way to ensure their license (AAPL) was Open Source Compliant, and have done a fine job working with the Open Source Community, including maintaining CUPS and several other projects.
Apple looked at the same problem that Nokia is looking at and decided that since they had an operating system in house already, it made more sense to just modify it then modifying someone else's open operating system. It's worked for them and it is not self evident that making a different choice would have worked out better.
But remember, Apple didn't just use their own stuff - they took an open source project (FreeBSD) and built their stuff on top of it; in the process they created two more projects - Darwin and OpenDarwin - to encapsulate the open source nature of the underlying system.
Why did this work for Apple? B/c it let them build off a base system that worked pretty much everywhere, and focus on the quality and other aspects of the system their users care about instead of having to worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it. They can instead let the community do that and focus on what they do best; providing back when they modify the underlying system.
Open source makes less sense when your software is your product. Microsoft is understandably reluctant to release their source code. It is not self evident that Microsoft would benefit from opening up its products. In fact, most would agrue that the opposite is self evident.
It could if they did it right. Apple did it right. Microsoft could follow suit. The likelihood of Microsoft doing so at least anytime in the near future is near zero. Windows built on a Unix/Linux platform could be done very well; and a lot of the little details that keep being problematic for Microsoft would likely go away - e.g. security, firewalls, etc. It would also allow Microsoft, like Apple, to focus on what they do best; though they have likely lost track of what that is.
If Microsoft focused on the right part of the stack (e.g. understanding business needs, custom software enhancements, adding support to open source projects, and providing support contracts), then they could very well be a strong distribution/competitor in the open source market. But they would have to drastically change their business model and self-perception - and that won't happen until at least Balmer leaves, if not a CEO or two after him.
Virtual hosting requires looking at the client-supplied host header value in that GET/POST. In order to return the right SSL certificate we need that host header value to determine which site's cert to serve. But we can't get at that host header value until the SSL negotiation has completed. So virtual hosting for HTTPS on a single IP is simply not possible at present due to this catch-22.
Wrong. You can setup an https port on any port you like. The 'https' just tells it to use the Secure HTTP protocol as opposed to the HTTP protocol. It'll still honor and work with ports other than 443. Just specify the port in the URL.
Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?"
There is and never will be such a thing as a machine without the possibility for error. And you'll never get around the old adage/rule - If it can happen, it will. How often it occurs it the key; and while we should always aim to make an error-less machine, it is an impossibility and we can only achieve it by make the occurrence of such errors as few and far between as possible.
After all, an error-prone human must be involved to make the machine; even if that machine made another machine a human was still involved at some point to make the original. Thus there will always be the possibility for errors. Even if, as demonstrated by the Matrix, iRobot, and many others, the machines make that error on purpose to save humanity - it is still an error.
Qt is okay for networking applications, but in my experience Boost has much, much better performance, not to mention better support for things like multicast without creating some hacks. Qt ends up using a lot of Qt specific classes internally to create buffers and network functions, so it ends up being slower than Boost which seems to act more as a wrapper than anything.
But does Boost provide behind the scenes threading?
One of the things I've noticed with Qt is that they went out of their way to make the best possible performance. There's a lot of Qt classes (such as QTcpSocket) that implement threading behind the scenes so the performance is really hard to impact your application with (not impossible but a lot harder).
Additionally, while there are a lot of things you do need to use the Qt classes for, it's typically very easy to convert many of those classes to and from C++ STL. Nearly all classes that have an STL equivalent have a function to convert the class to that STL equivalent or to to be initialized by an STL equivalent.
Furthermore, you can easily intermix Qt Signals/Slots with other Signal/Slots implementations - such as the version provided by Boost. If you use the standard terminology then Qt will gladly use the third party Signals/Slots mechanisms itself; otherwise, you can use a couple macros (Q_SLOTS, Q_SIGNALS) to specify that you always want these signals/slots to be run via the Qt Signals/Slots.
Honestly, I can't say that any other API platform has so much provided and so many methods for working with language native and third party mechanisms.
The only thing that took a little getting use to was: (i) using a lot of pointers without having to keep track of quite all of them since the Qt Object Meta-systems does a lot of the cleanup for you (so long as the QObject has been parented), and (ii) Signals/Slots across threads requires a special QThread class implementation that only has signals with an internal class instance that has the signals/slots you would normally expect. Otherwise, Qt is the most intuitive, well documented, platform agnostic, and high performing framework out there.
Well, if they can offer a setting to have all MS apps, revert to at least a choice of classic menus and turning off the fucking 'ribbon' crap, I'd celebrate a little, and at least upgrade for that reason alone.
Actually, I've heard that Windows 7 further refines the ribbon into a string, for which there will be a different one for each edition with different operations optimized as easy. The grand unified one, the "super string" for Ultimate, is still in development, as top scientists haven't yet figured out how to make a string theory that would make all operations easy.
Be careful - you might give String Theory some substance...
Old cars make us smile not for being better cars, but because they are rare, and a 59 Bel-Air is one of the rarer of the rare.
You're assuming that GM and the IIHS crashed an original car that could still be driven. They probably did the cheaper of:
1: Buy a beat-up Bel-Air that would never drive again, but whose body was in good condition.
2: Buy a rebuilt Bel-Air using original specs but modern parts
3: Just build one for test purpsoses.
Agreed - which also lends - was the steel used up to the same specs as what would have been used in the original ones off the assembly line, or was it the cheaper, lighter, more bendable stuff we use for cars now? If the car was not 100% identical to what would have rolled off the assembly line in 1958/1959 (since they start production in the prior year), and the frame had not been stressed in any way already (e.g. it was in an accident, etc.), then it's not a fair test as far as what the video shows.
There were a lot of vehicles from that era and earlier where the vehicles would have survived an accident intact - but the passengers would not, having been thrown around in the vehicle upon impact. Typically stronger steels were used, and designs were such that the vehicles were like tanks - but without passenger restraints it killed the passengers any way.
How does that work? In a proprietary project if your boss says "do this" you either do it or find another job. In an open source project you could just flame the hell out of the guy that told you on the public mailing list and carry on working on something else.
And in a proprietary project if customers want something fixed they can threaten to not pay which in even the most incompetent company will tend to make your boss tell you to fix it. In open source that mechanism does not exist.
In proprietary, customers care about whether the software works - not how clean the code-base is. And most managers could careless until a technical person explains how it will save them money in the long run - and even then, they may care more about the quarterly budget than saving money in the long term (especially given how most organizations are so quarterly focused right now).
So in all odds, even if you are given the assignment, you will also be given 100 other higher priority things that your manager would push to get done - even when they fly in the face of refactoring and saving money in the long run. Often, the managers that do push for the reorg get fired or get the project moved from them b/c they were not meeting their quarterly and their manager cared more about the quarterly.
Yeah, it sucks. But in the end, the customer knows no different since all they see is the working binary at the end.
Doesn't anyone where find it quite odd that this is a representative from Oregon - one of the most government-get-out-of-my-ass-leave-me-alone states in the union?
Hold a joint party - officially it's a Win7 party; install Win7 on the 15-20 laptops (to satisfy the commitment), then install your favorite Linux Distro over it; and hand out Linux to everyone coming.
Then, sell your copy of Win7 on ebay, or Slotheby'sAuction.
Amazon's policy is that it will help locate a missing Kindle only if the company is contacted by a police officer bearing a subpoena. Mr. Borgese, who lives in Manhattan, questions whether hunting down a $300 e-book reader would rank as a priority for the New York Police Department."
Perhaps the better policy would be to require the user to provide (i) a copy of the police report, and (ii) contact information for verfication - may be even provide a FAX number that the user may have the police fax the information to them. (I would also argue the cost of the FAX should be charged to the person requesting it - which should only be a few dollars, at least in the US; and not the responsibility of the police to cover.)
Of course, you ask why?
The primary problem for Amazon is liability. They don't want some random person calling in and requesting someone else's device be disabled, and then get sued for the wrong thing. The current policy protects them against that, but it fails to enable users to make valid causes since it would require a subpoena, which is not easy to come by for that purpose - not only would the police officer involved have to care enough, but so would a prosecutor since it is the prosecutor (not the police) that must get the subpoena from the judge.
On the other hand, if they require just the police report, then something is filed. The owner can request a copy be sent to Amazon (or whoever) and communicate the information with Amazon. If they filed the report and they did not own the device, or have any reason to - then they are liable under the law for filing a false police report - Amazon may have to reactivate the device in such a case, but the legal system would provide all the documentation necessary, and the owner would likely be able to after it without much problem. Amazon (or whoever) is covered; and would have sufficient documentation to show they only acted upon lawful information, so a lawsuit would likely only cost them a little in terms of filing, should one happens. Regardless of what they do - one will happen eventually; and it's just a matter of how they have their bases covered.
So I do agree that Amazon (et. al) needs to cover their legal bases in some manner and should do so using lawful information (e.g. the subpoena or a police report), but the device owner should have some recourse as well, recourse that a standard and verifiable police report would provide.
That saiod, document it's inventor dates, and copies of original information and maikl them to your self.
NO. A postmark is not a notarized date. You could very easily mail an empty envelope to yourself, unsealed, and then seal it up.
To establish that you have something at a specific date, find someone who's a notary in your state who doesn't know you, and pay them the $1 to notarize it. Or just keep good records.
Most banks, at least in the US, can provide notary service at a low cost; and to notarize something you have to be a registered notary, no just some smuck you don't know.
This just in from MSNBC.com (1:06 p.m. ET, Thursday)
European Union regulators applied the brakes Thursday, launching a formal antitrust probe that shatters Oracle's goal of completing the acquisition this summer. The U.S. Department of Justice has already approved the deal.
Who here still thinks the European Commission is just a "neutral party" and not, to quote the summary, "seems to get off on abusing American firms"?
It seems odd how they are dragging their feet like this, especially after the U.S. DOJ already provided approval. We're just talking about the merger of two companies - why create an anti-monopoly investigation for that?
Because it involves one of the biggest Database producers (Oracle) and one of the most common cheap, Open Source Database products (MySQL), and there is valid concern that Oracle will try to undercut MySQL in order to boost its namesake product that customers pay a hefty sum for.
Granted, the original MySQL developers have pretty much already left Sun and forked MySQL (MariaDB, etc.); but it still remains a concern.
The problem is that when computers get to that point, they won't do what you want, they'll do what *they* (and the people who made them) want.
I think that is one of the big hurdles for Linux adaption in mainstream society. People don't want an O(1) scheduler. They don't want nifty commands. They don't to fiddle with things. They just want it to work with the least effort on their part.
Ironically, most major Linux distributions provide exactly that - the least effort to system maintenance, hiding the things users' really don't care about and providing what they do. uBuntu is very good about it; and I'd imaging RHEL and SLES are too.
P.S. I always wondered why Novell choose to go with SLES - it's just so easy to say as "sleaze" and doesn't make a good pnuemonic impression.
writtenCount should match strlen(buffer), which should match (bufferSize-1). The "%*s" guarantees that only that number of characters will at most be written for that string - you could also specify a specific width too I think. Any how, that gives you far better predictability of the output string since you know 100% for sure what the input will be.
And if strlen() wasn't available - you can implement it yourself:
SCO will likely be gone long before this ever gets settled.
While I dont want SCO to win, I hope the end result is nothing to do with SCO running out of money.
I like that the little guy can sue the big company, they just happen to be wrong in this case.
IBM has maintained all along that there was NO infringing code.
I hope that is how IBM wins, it might help stop some of the FUD that has been spread.
Agreed - b/c otherwise even if Daryl is sitting in jail you'll still never hear the end of how it was all IBM/Novell/etc fault, and all the other stuff he's said throughout this process that has turned out to be blatantly false but still gets printed by his cohorts, who will continue to do so until the courts make it very clear otherwise (and probably even then).
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that Google employees can read my emails in gmail, but I have reason to expect that the contents won't go any further.
That is where the judge gets the interpretation that there is no expectation of privacy. If you understand that Google employees can read your email in gmail, then you don't expect that your emails are private.
However, having dealt with mail server issues with Yahoo! I have to explicitly give their staff permission to read an e-mail in my account, and even specify which e-mail and where to find it - this in response to a help ticket. So I would argue that there is reasonable expectations of privacy even in that circumstance - that the reasonable expectation of privacy even precludes company employees of the ISP from reading the e-mails without explicit permission to do so.
IANAL, but....Well, that' s not quite accurate - your Mail Provider (ISP, Yahoo!, etc.) while they do have full access to the content of the e-mail; they only have permission to deliver it. Really, you are not giving them any more permission to the e-mail than the USPS has to your postal mail; only difference is you are handing the e-mail server its native format - open text, like giving a courier an unsealed letter for delivery. Though you are not giving the courier permission to read the letter even though it is unsealed, you are expecting them and giving them enough permission to deliver it with an implicit trust that they will not read the letter. E-mail is no different. And while IANAL, I would be very surprised if this was not overturned.
OST is a PST just used for the cached data instead of the authoritative data. All the limits, issues, etc. of PST also exist with OST.
...is that if they keep it, it'll create Antitrust issues for them. So the suggestion is to sell it.
Except, that's isn't exactly a good idea right now either. After all, they sold it to Sun for $1 Billion USD. What would it say if it Oracle/Sun sold it for less - even $900 Million USD? That MySQL wasn't worth $1 Billion USD; which would not be good PR for the F/OSS community, likely run afoul of Antitrust issues (for the PR reasons - especially if Oracle/Sun went - "see it mustn't have been all that good since we couldn't get what we paid for it"), but at least Oracle/Sun would get a tax write off on the difference.
So then, why not kill two birds with one stone - spin MySQL off as its own company. Make it a non-profit (MySQL Foundation) or something; keep a seat or two of the board, and let the community fill the rest. Oracle could get very good PR for doing so too.
For the most part I can do some pretty good stuff in OO; and Word has an easier time dealing with some .doc files when generates from OO than from itself - namely, when you start inserting page breaks between sections. Now if I can only figure out how to do an odd/even page in OOWriter...
You need to look at the naming schemes in Apache and other webservers. They can often redirect using the same IP address and using different hostname. You can always recommend using "www.foo.com" and "www.secure.foo.com" (or whatever) as well towards that end.
OS9 was good, but it wasn't going to take them to the future. Fortunately for Apple, Steve Jobs created NeXT and built NextStep after they booted him from Apple. When they brought him back (circa 1996), they did so through buying NeXT. Jobs then threw ought the next version of MacOS that was in the works (big failure project for Apple), and took NeXTStep and renamed it Mac OSX.
It had nothing to do with convenience for Apple at the time other than they needed a new OS. But it was Job's foresight that brought it to the table.
Apple also went out of their way to ensure their license (AAPL) was Open Source Compliant, and have done a fine job working with the Open Source Community, including maintaining CUPS and several other projects.
But remember, Apple didn't just use their own stuff - they took an open source project (FreeBSD) and built their stuff on top of it; in the process they created two more projects - Darwin and OpenDarwin - to encapsulate the open source nature of the underlying system.
Why did this work for Apple? B/c it let them build off a base system that worked pretty much everywhere, and focus on the quality and other aspects of the system their users care about instead of having to worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it. They can instead let the community do that and focus on what they do best; providing back when they modify the underlying system.
It could if they did it right. Apple did it right. Microsoft could follow suit. The likelihood of Microsoft doing so at least anytime in the near future is near zero. Windows built on a Unix/Linux platform could be done very well; and a lot of the little details that keep being problematic for Microsoft would likely go away - e.g. security, firewalls, etc. It would also allow Microsoft, like Apple, to focus on what they do best; though they have likely lost track of what that is.
If Microsoft focused on the right part of the stack (e.g. understanding business needs, custom software enhancements, adding support to open source projects, and providing support contracts), then they could very well be a strong distribution/competitor in the open source market. But they would have to drastically change their business model and self-perception - and that won't happen until at least Balmer leaves, if not a CEO or two after him.
Wrong. You can setup an https port on any port you like. The 'https' just tells it to use the Secure HTTP protocol as opposed to the HTTP protocol. It'll still honor and work with ports other than 443. Just specify the port in the URL.
There is and never will be such a thing as a machine without the possibility for error. And you'll never get around the old adage/rule - If it can happen, it will. How often it occurs it the key; and while we should always aim to make an error-less machine, it is an impossibility and we can only achieve it by make the occurrence of such errors as few and far between as possible.
After all, an error-prone human must be involved to make the machine; even if that machine made another machine a human was still involved at some point to make the original. Thus there will always be the possibility for errors. Even if, as demonstrated by the Matrix, iRobot, and many others, the machines make that error on purpose to save humanity - it is still an error.
Qt is okay for networking applications, but in my experience Boost has much, much better performance, not to mention better support for things like multicast without creating some hacks. Qt ends up using a lot of Qt specific classes internally to create buffers and network functions, so it ends up being slower than Boost which seems to act more as a wrapper than anything.
But does Boost provide behind the scenes threading?
One of the things I've noticed with Qt is that they went out of their way to make the best possible performance. There's a lot of Qt classes (such as QTcpSocket) that implement threading behind the scenes so the performance is really hard to impact your application with (not impossible but a lot harder).
Additionally, while there are a lot of things you do need to use the Qt classes for, it's typically very easy to convert many of those classes to and from C++ STL. Nearly all classes that have an STL equivalent have a function to convert the class to that STL equivalent or to to be initialized by an STL equivalent.
Furthermore, you can easily intermix Qt Signals/Slots with other Signal/Slots implementations - such as the version provided by Boost. If you use the standard terminology then Qt will gladly use the third party Signals/Slots mechanisms itself; otherwise, you can use a couple macros (Q_SLOTS, Q_SIGNALS) to specify that you always want these signals/slots to be run via the Qt Signals/Slots.
Honestly, I can't say that any other API platform has so much provided and so many methods for working with language native and third party mechanisms.
The only thing that took a little getting use to was: (i) using a lot of pointers without having to keep track of quite all of them since the Qt Object Meta-systems does a lot of the cleanup for you (so long as the QObject has been parented), and (ii) Signals/Slots across threads requires a special QThread class implementation that only has signals with an internal class instance that has the signals/slots you would normally expect. Otherwise, Qt is the most intuitive, well documented, platform agnostic, and high performing framework out there.
You need to go watch the classics...
Spaceballs
Spaceballs Quotes
YouTube - They've Gone Plaid!
YouTube - Ludicrous Speed
Actually, I've heard that Windows 7 further refines the ribbon into a string, for which there will be a different one for each edition with different operations optimized as easy. The grand unified one, the "super string" for Ultimate, is still in development, as top scientists haven't yet figured out how to make a string theory that would make all operations easy.
Be careful - you might give String Theory some substance...
Old cars make us smile not for being better cars, but because they are rare, and a 59 Bel-Air is one of the rarer of the rare.
You're assuming that GM and the IIHS crashed an original car that could still be driven. They probably did the cheaper of:
1: Buy a beat-up Bel-Air that would never drive again, but whose body was in good condition. 2: Buy a rebuilt Bel-Air using original specs but modern parts 3: Just build one for test purpsoses.
Agreed - which also lends - was the steel used up to the same specs as what would have been used in the original ones off the assembly line, or was it the cheaper, lighter, more bendable stuff we use for cars now? If the car was not 100% identical to what would have rolled off the assembly line in 1958/1959 (since they start production in the prior year), and the frame had not been stressed in any way already (e.g. it was in an accident, etc.), then it's not a fair test as far as what the video shows.
There were a lot of vehicles from that era and earlier where the vehicles would have survived an accident intact - but the passengers would not, having been thrown around in the vehicle upon impact. Typically stronger steels were used, and designs were such that the vehicles were like tanks - but without passenger restraints it killed the passengers any way.
Just saying...
How does that work? In a proprietary project if your boss says "do this" you either do it or find another job. In an open source project you could just flame the hell out of the guy that told you on the public mailing list and carry on working on something else.
And in a proprietary project if customers want something fixed they can threaten to not pay which in even the most incompetent company will tend to make your boss tell you to fix it. In open source that mechanism does not exist.
In proprietary, customers care about whether the software works - not how clean the code-base is. And most managers could careless until a technical person explains how it will save them money in the long run - and even then, they may care more about the quarterly budget than saving money in the long term (especially given how most organizations are so quarterly focused right now).
So in all odds, even if you are given the assignment, you will also be given 100 other higher priority things that your manager would push to get done - even when they fly in the face of refactoring and saving money in the long run. Often, the managers that do push for the reorg get fired or get the project moved from them b/c they were not meeting their quarterly and their manager cared more about the quarterly.
Yeah, it sucks. But in the end, the customer knows no different since all they see is the working binary at the end.
Doesn't anyone where find it quite odd that this is a representative from Oregon - one of the most government-get-out-of-my-ass-leave-me-alone states in the union?
Hold a joint party - officially it's a Win7 party; install Win7 on the 15-20 laptops (to satisfy the commitment), then install your favorite Linux Distro over it; and hand out Linux to everyone coming. Then, sell your copy of Win7 on ebay, or Slotheby's Auction.
Perhaps the better policy would be to require the user to provide (i) a copy of the police report, and (ii) contact information for verfication - may be even provide a FAX number that the user may have the police fax the information to them. (I would also argue the cost of the FAX should be charged to the person requesting it - which should only be a few dollars, at least in the US; and not the responsibility of the police to cover.)
Of course, you ask why?
The primary problem for Amazon is liability. They don't want some random person calling in and requesting someone else's device be disabled, and then get sued for the wrong thing. The current policy protects them against that, but it fails to enable users to make valid causes since it would require a subpoena, which is not easy to come by for that purpose - not only would the police officer involved have to care enough, but so would a prosecutor since it is the prosecutor (not the police) that must get the subpoena from the judge.
On the other hand, if they require just the police report, then something is filed. The owner can request a copy be sent to Amazon (or whoever) and communicate the information with Amazon. If they filed the report and they did not own the device, or have any reason to - then they are liable under the law for filing a false police report - Amazon may have to reactivate the device in such a case, but the legal system would provide all the documentation necessary, and the owner would likely be able to after it without much problem. Amazon (or whoever) is covered; and would have sufficient documentation to show they only acted upon lawful information, so a lawsuit would likely only cost them a little in terms of filing, should one happens. Regardless of what they do - one will happen eventually; and it's just a matter of how they have their bases covered.
So I do agree that Amazon (et. al) needs to cover their legal bases in some manner and should do so using lawful information (e.g. the subpoena or a police report), but the device owner should have some recourse as well, recourse that a standard and verifiable police report would provide.
That saiod, document it's inventor dates, and copies of original information and maikl them to your self.
NO. A postmark is not a notarized date. You could very easily mail an empty envelope to yourself, unsealed, and then seal it up.
To establish that you have something at a specific date, find someone who's a notary in your state who doesn't know you, and pay them the $1 to notarize it. Or just keep good records.
Most banks, at least in the US, can provide notary service at a low cost; and to notarize something you have to be a registered notary, no just some smuck you don't know.
Riiiiight. I'm off-topic. Okay then - read this:
This just in from MSNBC.com (1:06 p.m. ET, Thursday)
European Union regulators applied the brakes Thursday, launching a formal antitrust probe that shatters Oracle's goal of completing the acquisition this summer. The U.S. Department of Justice has already approved the deal.
Who here still thinks the European Commission is just a "neutral party" and not, to quote the summary, "seems to get off on abusing American firms"?
It seems odd how they are dragging their feet like this, especially after the U.S. DOJ already provided approval. We're just talking about the merger of two companies - why create an anti-monopoly investigation for that?
Because it involves one of the biggest Database producers (Oracle) and one of the most common cheap, Open Source Database products (MySQL), and there is valid concern that Oracle will try to undercut MySQL in order to boost its namesake product that customers pay a hefty sum for. Granted, the original MySQL developers have pretty much already left Sun and forked MySQL (MariaDB, etc.); but it still remains a concern.
... As calculated by the original Pentium FPU
Corrected it for you.
The problem is that when computers get to that point, they won't do what you want, they'll do what *they* (and the people who made them) want.
I think that is one of the big hurdles for Linux adaption in mainstream society. People don't want an O(1) scheduler. They don't want nifty commands. They don't to fiddle with things. They just want it to work with the least effort on their part.
Ironically, most major Linux distributions provide exactly that - the least effort to system maintenance, hiding the things users' really don't care about and providing what they do. uBuntu is very good about it; and I'd imaging RHEL and SLES are too.
P.S. I always wondered why Novell choose to go with SLES - it's just so easy to say as "sleaze" and doesn't make a good pnuemonic impression.
If 'snprintf()' wasn't available, what makes you think that 'vsnprintf()' would have been?
writtenCount should match strlen(buffer), which should match (bufferSize-1). The "%*s" guarantees that only that number of characters will at most be written for that string - you could also specify a specific width too I think. Any how, that gives you far better predictability of the output string since you know 100% for sure what the input will be.
And if strlen() wasn't available - you can implement it yourself:
SCO will likely be gone long before this ever gets settled.
While I dont want SCO to win, I hope the end result is nothing to do with SCO running out of money. I like that the little guy can sue the big company, they just happen to be wrong in this case.
IBM has maintained all along that there was NO infringing code.
I hope that is how IBM wins, it might help stop some of the FUD that has been spread.
Agreed - b/c otherwise even if Daryl is sitting in jail you'll still never hear the end of how it was all IBM/Novell/etc fault, and all the other stuff he's said throughout this process that has turned out to be blatantly false but still gets printed by his cohorts, who will continue to do so until the courts make it very clear otherwise (and probably even then).