Again: your whole argument of counting mining death (workers working in the mine) and comparing them with civilian deaths (people living nearby a plant) makes no sense.
So, you assign value to some human life, and not to others?
You compare 3rd world mines with first world power plants. Why don't you google for the last mine accident in germany and how many died there (and how long that was ago)?
People die in mining accidents in the USA too, a First world country. And you are using Chernobyl, a Second world power plant as your only example.
Why don't you dare that conclusion but proclaim nuclear is "save" when we clearly see: it is not?
Where is it clear that nuclear power is dangerous? It has risk, yes. But they can be contained by proper engineering and staff (TMI). If the USSR built a skyscraper, put 250k people in it and dynamited the bottom of the structure - would you conclude that all skyscapers are unsafe and should be banned? (I'm not suggesting that Chernobyl was intentionally sabotaged, but it was the faults of its engineers and staff that led to the catastrophe.)
Easy to say, but unless you don't want electricity - what alternative do you propose? Until a viable large-scale renewable energy source evolves, it really comes down to choosing the best of the bad options. And before you jump to solar, for example, don't forget to include the waste produced by mining for minerals and producing the solar panels in your analysis.
My two cents...I can do the same thing with text using a nifty CSS a:hover {font size +3}...not that hard...(and not it's not meant to actually work the way written).
Is it really that copyright-able just because they are graphics...come on.
Yes, doing business with that 4 letter name, I would by default, have a service mark of it. If you can make a check out to it, and I can cash said check...it's pretty legally recognizable.
That being said in more depth than before, the point was never of whether or not I had a case. It's that I (the little guy) can't get this cyber-squatter (read: big guy) to stop without paying a huge lawyer's bill. It is similar to this case (article), but the roles are reversed, and the little guy still loses...
Since it is a sole proprietership utilizing my family name, I'm not required to file for a fictisious business name.
If you read your own response, you'll see they mention the words, "service mark". Now, what do you think that might be?
The second I do business as that name, it becomes legally recognizable. Perhaps a more well-rounded education in the matters of the world would suite you well, my friend.
The part you quoted was never meant to prove it, but take a look at the UDRP and see if "selling for profit" is one of the criteria.
And what if you bought it because, for some reason unfathomable, you decided that you must have it?
I wouldn't be able to buy it because you already own it, so you said in your example. Enter the UDRP. The reason unfathomable? Well, it's my business's name...is that unfathomable to you?
Does that prove I was simply squatting on the domain name?
Owning a domain name does not prove you are squatting...google for a definition, then if you actually saw this site you might understand.
Or does squatting only apply for "good" domain names being sold?
Again, please find yourself a definition of cyber-squatting and read the UDRP
Besides, by my understanding a 4 letter domain name isn't by default squatting unless a registered trademark exists and the current owner of the domain name is looking to profit directly or indirectly from the trademark
Use an open mind and scrounge up some intelligence, read the UDRP and ICANN's stance/definition of cyber-squatting and legitamate use for domain names...you might also want to check out how many other short domain names are used by cyber-squatters...they tended to buy those up a while ago to sell for profit (read the UDRP if you think that is a good reason to retain ownership of a disputed domain name).
I never said it was default. What i was saying is that they were in violation of ICANN's policies. Please go read the Uniform Domain-Name
Dispute-Resolution Policy before you type about something you obviously don't understand.
with an open mind, follow me on this one...i have a sole proprietership with a long name. the acronym for this name (4 letters) has been registered to a company using a p.o. box in taiwan. the site, as it is now, is completely useless and irrelevant to the domain name.
In order for me to do what iTunes did, I would have to pay over a grand in lawyer's fees to have my case heard.
My only other option would be to pay them around $1300 (proving they are only 'squatting' it for profit in potential resale--also against ICANN's guidelines.
So spend a grand and gamble on my case being upheld, or just pay these guys to continue in their infesting of the internet.
Seriously, is it so hard to see that these types of things are worse than spammers and the like? At least spam can be deleted or blocked, these people are using valuable resources indefinitely (what cybersquatter doesn't use domain locking)....so before you think this is just a case of corporate guy vs. little guy, think of a few other situations that might happen to exist in this place called the internet
I just checked out the PuTTY website, and on the downoad page all I seem to read is "Security Hole", "Security Hole", "Security Hole". Given that it seems to use encryption, I have to wonder....
I have a cap at 3.5 Mb/s. the/s part implies a speed of some sort, actually an amount over a given length of time. 3.5megabits every second. I can't go over that, it's capped. I also have a loose cap on monthly GB, but that's variable depending on who they want to send threatening letters to that month....
I'd recommend Snort or an IDS of some type. Sorting through the logs (pretty easy with some knowledge of them and sql commands) you could easy generate a count of a specific alert (port scans). I have a catch-all rule that looks for SYN packets and specify some specific ports as well.
And when was the last time your hard drive manufacturer-labeled "80GB" hard drive actually proved to be able to hold 80GB of data?
It's not a question of the giga part, everyone knows the metric system by now (I hope)
Here's the important part you were ignoring: --- Hard drive manufacturer: One GigaByte = 1000 bytes Software/everyone else: One GigaByte = 1024 bytes --- I'm pretty sure this is what the parent was referring to.
I'm just saying that it's meaningless to ask for forgivness if you're not really sorry for your actions
This is what I'm saying too, I would hate to worship a God that didn't care what I had done as long as I said (not mean) "I'm Sorry" when faced with the prospect of spending eternity in Hell.
not dispositive when it means the difference between being code-legal or not? Let alone meaning the difference between a long slow burn of your house before the FD gets there or a quick and hot burn that leaves you with ashes?
I should know better than to feed a troll, but Christianity is based on the principle that ALL OF US are sinners and Jesus was the only 'human' truly free of sin.
The original question was, "Should Dual Cores Require Dual Licenses?"
There is no should or shouldn't. Sure there is, can't you see it? It's part of the question up for discussion
As Oracle sees it, they're right. As they see it, they're right.
In the end, there's not really the notion of right or wrong.
With your type of thinking, we should not have Slashdot, or any open forum for discussion. Everything that is, is. Everything that is not, is not.
This all seems rather ignorant to me.
Discussing is to see different people's views on the topic at hand. There always is a should or shouldn't. If you remove that, then there is no discussion.
If you simply say, "The contract says blahblahblah so it is", then there is no discussion. The question isn't what is in the contact, but what it should be. Whatever reasons you rationalize as to why it should or shouldn't is up to you, that's why it's an open forum...Your 'Insightful' comment does nothing but inhibit the conversation. Clearly if the contact says they have to pay, they have to pay. But the question is whether or not they should have to. (read:read the question).
As far as the quesion goes, I can't see why you have to pay more for using an additional processor. Do you have to pay more when increasing RAM? Overclocking your CPU? The number of users ultimately stays the same and the size of the DBs wouldn't change, this is what licensing should be focused around, IMHO.
let's just say time is certainly being wasted. you're better than me (it takes intelligence to repeat someone else's thoughts) so let's move on, shall we?
Clearly you like arguing for argument's sake. Read the title of this thread and what this article is about and tell me it doesn't have anything to do with deep-linking.
I thought you had a good idea, but I guess you took offense to that. Did you read your post, I really don't have time to highlight your own words for you--but if you read it you might stumble upon the part where you say JavaScript is unreliable. (I actually said the same thing in the parent to your reply, if you'll see - so it's odd that you're arguing that as well).
Well, my point is (if you read this thread) that it would seem what you call "most people" isn't too many people at all. And that the "average person" seems to be "deep-linking" to the picture instead (even if you are using JavaScript or some other method).
I'm fairly certain that is the point of this entire thread in the first place, but I would just be speculating.
I admit the last thing you said actually has some merit to it, and that most people will not dig into the source to find the real location and link/download it that way.
I disagree that it's hard to stop right-clicking.
So what is your point of mentioning the JavaScript method(s) if it is not only to make my point? Your suggestion isn't stopping Right-clicking at all, it's merely changing what image they are (not think they are) clicking on. I hate the be nit-picky, but in this context it's a pretty big difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Or were you confused why things with "Google" in their titles are at the top of the list when you search for "Google"?
It was Stock and cash, valued at $65 million...not just cash.
Again: your whole argument of counting mining death (workers working in the mine) and comparing them with civilian deaths (people living nearby a plant) makes no sense.
So, you assign value to some human life, and not to others?
You compare 3rd world mines with first world power plants. Why don't you google for the last mine accident in germany and how many died there (and how long that was ago)?
People die in mining accidents in the USA too, a First world country. And you are using Chernobyl, a Second world power plant as your only example.
Why don't you dare that conclusion but proclaim nuclear is "save" when we clearly see: it is not?
Where is it clear that nuclear power is dangerous? It has risk, yes. But they can be contained by proper engineering and staff (TMI). If the USSR built a skyscraper, put 250k people in it and dynamited the bottom of the structure - would you conclude that all skyscapers are unsafe and should be banned? (I'm not suggesting that Chernobyl was intentionally sabotaged, but it was the faults of its engineers and staff that led to the catastrophe.)
Easy to say, but unless you don't want electricity - what alternative do you propose? Until a viable large-scale renewable energy source evolves, it really comes down to choosing the best of the bad options. And before you jump to solar, for example, don't forget to include the waste produced by mining for minerals and producing the solar panels in your analysis.
they have definitions for the malware - so I guess Microsoft doesn't have to patch the hole if it can be detected ?!
But why would you think they want you to upgrade, when even the most 'advanced' version is vulnerable?
This one works for me at 2:46am est u.s.
My two cents...I can do the same thing with text using a nifty CSS a:hover {font size +3}...not that hard...(and not it's not meant to actually work the way written).
Is it really that copyright-able just because they are graphics...come on.
Yes, doing business with that 4 letter name, I would by default, have a service mark of it. If you can make a check out to it, and I can cash said check...it's pretty legally recognizable.
That being said in more depth than before, the point was never of whether or not I had a case. It's that I (the little guy) can't get this cyber-squatter (read: big guy) to stop without paying a huge lawyer's bill. It is similar to this case (article), but the roles are reversed, and the little guy still loses...
You were never one of the smart kids, were you?
Since it is a sole proprietership utilizing my family name, I'm not required to file for a fictisious business name.
If you read your own response, you'll see they mention the words, "service mark". Now, what do you think that might be?
The second I do business as that name, it becomes legally recognizable. Perhaps a more well-rounded education in the matters of the world would suite you well, my friend.
It doesn't prove that they're squatting
The part you quoted was never meant to prove it, but take a look at the UDRP and see if "selling for profit" is one of the criteria.
And what if you bought it because, for some reason unfathomable, you decided that you must have it?
I wouldn't be able to buy it because you already own it, so you said in your example.
Enter the UDRP. The reason unfathomable? Well, it's my business's name...is that unfathomable to you?
Does that prove I was simply squatting on the domain name?
Owning a domain name does not prove you are squatting...google for a definition, then if you actually saw this site you might understand.
Or does squatting only apply for "good" domain names being sold?
Again, please find yourself a definition of cyber-squatting and read the UDRP
Besides, by my understanding a 4 letter domain name isn't by default squatting unless a registered trademark exists and the current owner of the domain name is looking to profit directly or indirectly from the trademark
Use an open mind and scrounge up some intelligence, read the UDRP and ICANN's stance/definition of cyber-squatting and legitamate use for domain names...you might also want to check out how many other short domain names are used by cyber-squatters...they tended to buy those up a while ago to sell for profit (read the UDRP if you think that is a good reason to retain ownership of a disputed domain name).
I never said it was default. What i was saying is that they were in violation of ICANN's policies. Please go read the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy before you type about something you obviously don't understand.
with an open mind, follow me on this one...i have a sole proprietership with a long name. the acronym for this name (4 letters) has been registered to a company using a p.o. box in taiwan. the site, as it is now, is completely useless and irrelevant to the domain name.
In order for me to do what iTunes did, I would have to pay over a grand in lawyer's fees to have my case heard.
My only other option would be to pay them around $1300 (proving they are only 'squatting' it for profit in potential resale--also against ICANN's guidelines.
So spend a grand and gamble on my case being upheld, or just pay these guys to continue in their infesting of the internet.
Seriously, is it so hard to see that these types of things are worse than spammers and the like? At least spam can be deleted or blocked, these people are using valuable resources indefinitely (what cybersquatter doesn't use domain locking)....so before you think this is just a case of corporate guy vs. little guy, think of a few other situations that might happen to exist in this place called the internet
I just checked out the PuTTY website, and on the downoad page all I seem to read is "Security Hole", "Security Hole", "Security Hole". Given that it seems to use encryption, I have to wonder....
I have a cap at 3.5 Mb/s. the /s part implies a speed of some sort, actually an amount over a given length of time. 3.5megabits every second. I can't go over that, it's capped. I also have a loose cap on monthly GB, but that's variable depending on who they want to send threatening letters to that month....
I'd recommend Snort or an IDS of some type. Sorting through the logs (pretty easy with some knowledge of them and sql commands) you could easy generate a count of a specific alert (port scans). I have a catch-all rule that looks for SYN packets and specify some specific ports as well.
whether you're a hard drive manufacturer or not
And when was the last time your hard drive manufacturer-labeled "80GB" hard drive actually proved to be able to hold 80GB of data?
It's not a question of the giga part, everyone knows the metric system by now (I hope)
Here's the important part you were ignoring:
---
Hard drive manufacturer: One GigaByte = 1000 bytes
Software/everyone else: One GigaByte = 1024 bytes
---
I'm pretty sure this is what the parent was referring to.
I'm just saying that it's meaningless to ask for forgivness if you're not really sorry for your actions
This is what I'm saying too, I would hate to worship a God that didn't care what I had done as long as I said (not mean) "I'm Sorry" when faced with the prospect of spending eternity in Hell.
not dispositive when it means the difference between being code-legal or not? Let alone meaning the difference between a long slow burn of your house before the FD gets there or a quick and hot burn that leaves you with ashes?
I should know better than to feed a troll, but Christianity is based on the principle that ALL OF US are sinners and Jesus was the only 'human' truly free of sin.
I can go to confession and get away with it.
Too bad you just said you couldn't just instantly decide to ask forgiveness and get away with it...
Sounds like E-Z Pass to me...don't see why something like this wouldn't work for CA.
What a contradictory post!
The original question was, "Should Dual Cores Require Dual Licenses?"
There is no should or shouldn't.
Sure there is, can't you see it? It's part of the question up for discussion
As Oracle sees it, they're right.
As they see it, they're right.
In the end, there's not really the notion of right or wrong.
With your type of thinking, we should not have Slashdot, or any open forum for discussion. Everything that is, is. Everything that is not, is not.
This all seems rather ignorant to me.
Discussing is to see different people's views on the topic at hand. There always is a should or shouldn't. If you remove that, then there is no discussion.
If you simply say, "The contract says blahblahblah so it is", then there is no discussion. The question isn't what is in the contact, but what it should be. Whatever reasons you rationalize as to why it should or shouldn't is up to you, that's why it's an open forum...Your 'Insightful' comment does nothing but inhibit the conversation. Clearly if the contact says they have to pay, they have to pay. But the question is whether or not they should have to. (read:read the question).
As far as the quesion goes, I can't see why you have to pay more for using an additional processor. Do you have to pay more when increasing RAM? Overclocking your CPU? The number of users ultimately stays the same and the size of the DBs wouldn't change, this is what licensing should be focused around, IMHO.
let's just say time is certainly being wasted. you're better than me (it takes intelligence to repeat someone else's thoughts) so let's move on, shall we?
Clearly you like arguing for argument's sake. Read the title of this thread and what this article is about and tell me it doesn't have anything to do with deep-linking.
I thought you had a good idea, but I guess you took offense to that. Did you read your post, I really don't have time to highlight your own words for you--but if you read it you might stumble upon the part where you say JavaScript is unreliable. (I actually said the same thing in the parent to your reply, if you'll see - so it's odd that you're arguing that as well).
Well, my point is (if you read this thread) that it would seem what you call "most people" isn't too many people at all. And that the "average person" seems to be "deep-linking" to the picture instead (even if you are using JavaScript or some other method).
I'm fairly certain that is the point of this entire thread in the first place, but I would just be speculating.
I admit the last thing you said actually has some merit to it, and that most people will not dig into the source to find the real location and link/download it that way.
I disagree that it's hard to stop right-clicking.
So what is your point of mentioning the JavaScript method(s) if it is not only to make my point?
Your suggestion isn't stopping Right-clicking at all, it's merely changing what image they are (not think they are) clicking on. I hate the be nit-picky, but in this context it's a pretty big difference.