I never understood why Webster didn't replace 'lose' with 'looze' while he was busy mangling, sorry, standardising the English language - I suspect you Americans would have much less trouble with the word if he had.
Incidentally, my favourite example of this nugget is the IIS 6.0 restart dialogue, warning me that I will 'loose' all current sessions if I proceed. I guess it could technically be correct...
If these things happen, your free ubuntu starts to wither and die.
In my opinion, this attitude is a perversion of the ideals behind the creation of the GPL. The purpose of the license, as I understand it, wasn't to ensure that an army of paid developers were incessently toiling away to provide you with free software, it was to ensure that when said army disappeared, you had the source code and weren't left with unmaintainable binaries. There appears to be this persistent assumption that GPL == evil multinationals being forced to spend their ill-gotten gains providing free stuff to hobbyists. But maybe I'm wrong and that's exactly what the GPL's meant to do these days.
What specific facts does she gets wrong in her reporting?
Well, Novell appears to have had an 'edition' of OpenOffice.org included in Novell Linux Desktop for some time (which has incorporated, among other things, support for VBA macros), so "There will be a Novell edition" has incorrect tense. I also have doubts that building translator plugins (and contributing back the code) qualifies as a fork - I'd call this a mischaracterisation, although I acknowledge others may choose to differ.
That said, I don't believe there are substantial errors of fact in Groklaw's reporting, however I do believe it to be so embellished with opinion and speculation that it barely qualifies as reporting. You've repeatedly called groklaw a blog, and sadly that's exactly what I think it has become. No, no news outlets are completely free of bias, but they're supposed to at least make an effort to identify and remove it. PJ describes herself as a journalist, and this is poor journalism.
As I understand it, Boot Camp only supports XP Pro, not 2000 (or 2003) Server. However, you should be able to run IIS on XP. Under this solution you could not run OS X simultaneously, and there's not much advantage to having the Apple hardware over anything else.
Parallels will let you run 2000 server if you want - see here for supported guest OSs. I'm not sure how you would configure network access to the virtual host, but I'm sure it can be done. I guess this could be an option if you desperately need to run IIS plus OS X services and only have a budget for one server, though personally I wouldn't recommend it.
Hmm - dictionary.com says 'Origin unknown'. Merriam-Webster says 'Probably from Welsh'. I'm not sure you can unequivocally label this an ethnic slur - at worst, it was one in the distant past.
Strict liability for copyright infringement was not required by the US FTA, was not mentioned in any of the public submissions that I'm aware of, was not one of the stated goals of copyright reform, and has no precedent internationally. The first anyone knew about it was when the draft legislation was released. There was something like a week to get public submissions in to the Senate committee - it caught a lot of stakeholders on the hop.
To suggest that families will be fined for making a video of themselves singing "Happy Birthday" is just absurd.
Maybe they won't, but the point is that they could do this under the legislation as it is currently drafted, and the AG is refusing to remove strict liability criminal provisions against individuals in a non-commercial context - he's effectively just saying "trust me".
Strictly speaking, the copyright infringments covered have always been illegal; what the proposed changes are doing are making them 'strict liability'. IANAL, but as I understand it this means you can be held criminally liable even if you didn't intend or weren't aware you were breaking the law. The theory behind it is that police should be able to issue on-the-spot fines without having to arrest & push it through the courts. There are no guidelines in existence (yet) that explain to us how the laws will be applied, but given the breadth of the legislation regarding infringement at present (eg 'possession of recording device' etc), the potential for abuse is high.
As far as I can tell from the article, it started out as an IT procurement project, in which case regional divisions do make (a small amount of) sense. As soon as it became obvious that the scope had drastically increased, the project should have been canned and restarted, however I'm more than willing to bet that the scope was fairly nebulously defined from the outset. Certainly the article does not clearly state what problems the project was attempting to solve other than "We need the best technology in our health service".
Scaling up the uranium mines is the main problem in the scenario I am talking about.
The high uranium price is already having an effect on mine & exploration activity. I find it difficult to believe that building or expanding a uranium mine is significantly slower/more difficult than building or expanding a coal mine; certainly they're no more complex than the average gold mine as I understand it. Yes, processing (enrichment) capacity would need to be scaled up.
I could care less if we burned coal 100% for 10 years, if at the end of the 10 years, we had Fusion.
Find me someone who's going to guarantee ubiquitous deployment of fusion reactors in 10 years and you can have your coal.
Standardised testing is fantastic for ensuring that students are taught how to score well in standardised tests. I'm not going to opine on whether being highly skilled at taking standardised tests is in the students' best interests.
I personally think the concept is flawed. The whole groupthink 'vote for your dream app' approach rewards flashy, well-pitched ideas that may or may not result in a saleable or useful app.
I also think it trivialises the rest of the application development process by only focusing on ideas. If you read some of the app descriptions, you get a good picture of how the author started the contest with the kernel of what's probably a decent idea, then embarked headlong on an MSWord-worthy feature bloating exercise with nary a thought of what will sell & what it will cost to build. Real application development involves trade-offs and targeted feature sets, not pie-in-the-sky thought experiments.
But I could just be bitter because Desktop Wars was voted out - I would have bought that one.
The word 'demerger' is quite commonly used in business, in Australia at least. Verbing it appears to be valid as well, if you dig through the link below.
The licensees were cherry-picking the high-margin, high end graphics/DTP workstation sales and leaving Apple the low margin base models. We consumers (if by consumer you mean home user) did not get cheap, mass-produced clones as Apple intended.
This proverb is usually said to indicate inherited intelligence and cleverness. The English equivalent is "The son of a duck is a floater". The literal translation is "The son the goose is a good swimmer".
How would the considerations be different? An ISP provides a service which, whilst it has many legitimate uses, can be used to violate an individual's privacy. What steps do ISPs take to ensure web pages served from their address block or hosted servers (or information from their whois service, or emails sent via their relay etc) do not contain inappropriate information?
Also, I was visiting a website the other day and was informed that my computer was broadcasting an IP address to the internet! Surely that's partly my ISPs fault.
Actually, now that I've read TFA (gauche, I know), the CEO is quoted as saying "Jigsaw doesn't touch non-business information with a 10-foot pole", lists examples of the type of information not accepted, and relates a circumstance in which inappropriate information was removed. So, yes.
If that's what it costs, then that's what the local providers should be charging. Make no mistake, the consumer will be paying the additional costs anyway (through higher prices at the hypothetical iTunes Movie Store), it's only a question of how obvious those costs are going to be.
A few other problems that should be considered:
The price local providers can charge the content providers (with a reasonable expectation that they will pay) will be based on their size & market clout, so larger local providers with more subscribers will be able to offer a far greater 'content subsidy' to consumers than smaller providers. Is this good for competition?
Can content providers differentiate prices based on your local provider? If I go to buy a movie, can Apple slap a surcharge (call it a 'delivery charge' - that's what it is) on the purchase of the movie because my provider charges Apple so much for priority traffic? Can Google show me more ads & less results, or charge a higher per-click fee to advertisers based on local provider charges?
What happens in other countries - do overseas companies automatically get dumped in the 'low-priority' bin? Do consumers in other countries pay higher prices to content providers (than they are paying now) to compensate for additional costs incurred by that provider within the US?
At the end of the day, this problem is caused by the local providers not charging enough to cover the service that they've promised to their customers, should usage change as expected. I'm not sure I see another way out other than moving to metered/capped usage charging models.
I don't support DRM for many reasons, but to pretend that my ability to make exact digital duplicates of a CD (or DVD or what have you) and distribute those copies to anybody in the world with a 'net connection is somehow akin to what I could do similarly with VHS tapes or cassettes is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.
I think this is a furphy. Copying music or movies from people on the 'net is exactly like copying cassette tapes or VHS; it only differs by the quantity of copying allegedly taking place. The content owners' argument is that this quantity crosses some sort of magical tipping point that will suddenly cause the entire entertainment industry to become unprofitable. Note that we currently only have their opinion on that.
Incidentally, although it's certainly technically feasible, I don't think I've ever seen an 'exact digital duplicate of a CD' shared via p2p applications - they are invariably (and often quite considerably) lower quality compressed versions.
How does the court know that you didn't, in a panic, destroy evidence that would have proved you were innocent of the murder? How does the court know that you didn't destroy evidence of an unrelated crime, or possibly just an embarrassing collection of tibetan yak bestiality porn?
Surely different rules would apply to criminal as opposed to civil cases (like this one). I wouldn't think the argument: "evidence appears to have been destroyed, therefore the court must assume you're guilty", could possibly stand up in a murder trial.
I have to agree with that, although I'd add that the Telstra share price, future fund issues & the very real possibility of Australia ending up with inadequate infrastructure, lead me to believe there'll be increasing pressure on Helen Coonan to cut a deal with the ACCC.
Also, as I understand it, the sticking point wasn't just the price of wholesale access to the fibre, it was the wholesale pricing difference (cross-subsidy) between city & regional areas. Given the retail costs have to be the same regardless of location, Telstra were rightly concerned their competitors would cherry-pick the more profitable city customers and leave the loss-making regional customers to them. This was meant to be addressed via a city wholesale surcharge to ensure regional customers were sufficiently subsidised, but they couldn't agree on the value of that surcharge.
Slashdot Mirror
So how do you certify those are the bits you shipped when you're shipping source code?
I never understood why Webster didn't replace 'lose' with 'looze' while he was busy mangling, sorry, standardising the English language - I suspect you Americans would have much less trouble with the word if he had.
Incidentally, my favourite example of this nugget is the IIS 6.0 restart dialogue, warning me that I will 'loose' all current sessions if I proceed. I guess it could technically be correct...
In my opinion, this attitude is a perversion of the ideals behind the creation of the GPL. The purpose of the license, as I understand it, wasn't to ensure that an army of paid developers were incessently toiling away to provide you with free software, it was to ensure that when said army disappeared, you had the source code and weren't left with unmaintainable binaries. There appears to be this persistent assumption that GPL == evil multinationals being forced to spend their ill-gotten gains providing free stuff to hobbyists. But maybe I'm wrong and that's exactly what the GPL's meant to do these days.
Well, Novell appears to have had an 'edition' of OpenOffice.org included in Novell Linux Desktop for some time (which has incorporated, among other things, support for VBA macros), so "There will be a Novell edition" has incorrect tense. I also have doubts that building translator plugins (and contributing back the code) qualifies as a fork - I'd call this a mischaracterisation, although I acknowledge others may choose to differ.
That said, I don't believe there are substantial errors of fact in Groklaw's reporting, however I do believe it to be so embellished with opinion and speculation that it barely qualifies as reporting. You've repeatedly called groklaw a blog, and sadly that's exactly what I think it has become. No, no news outlets are completely free of bias, but they're supposed to at least make an effort to identify and remove it. PJ describes herself as a journalist, and this is poor journalism.
Windows. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whether that's a feature or a bug. :)
As I understand it, Boot Camp only supports XP Pro, not 2000 (or 2003) Server. However, you should be able to run IIS on XP. Under this solution you could not run OS X simultaneously, and there's not much advantage to having the Apple hardware over anything else.
Parallels will let you run 2000 server if you want - see here for supported guest OSs. I'm not sure how you would configure network access to the virtual host, but I'm sure it can be done. I guess this could be an option if you desperately need to run IIS plus OS X services and only have a budget for one server, though personally I wouldn't recommend it.
Hmm - dictionary.com says 'Origin unknown'. Merriam-Webster says 'Probably from Welsh'. I'm not sure you can unequivocally label this an ethnic slur - at worst, it was one in the distant past.
Strict liability for copyright infringement was not required by the US FTA, was not mentioned in any of the public submissions that I'm aware of, was not one of the stated goals of copyright reform, and has no precedent internationally. The first anyone knew about it was when the draft legislation was released. There was something like a week to get public submissions in to the Senate committee - it caught a lot of stakeholders on the hop.
Maybe they won't, but the point is that they could do this under the legislation as it is currently drafted, and the AG is refusing to remove strict liability criminal provisions against individuals in a non-commercial context - he's effectively just saying "trust me".
Strictly speaking, the copyright infringments covered have always been illegal; what the proposed changes are doing are making them 'strict liability'. IANAL, but as I understand it this means you can be held criminally liable even if you didn't intend or weren't aware you were breaking the law. The theory behind it is that police should be able to issue on-the-spot fines without having to arrest & push it through the courts. There are no guidelines in existence (yet) that explain to us how the laws will be applied, but given the breadth of the legislation regarding infringement at present (eg 'possession of recording device' etc), the potential for abuse is high.
Kim Weatherall's blog has a much better explanation of why the legislation is bad.
As far as I can tell from the article, it started out as an IT procurement project, in which case regional divisions do make (a small amount of) sense. As soon as it became obvious that the scope had drastically increased, the project should have been canned and restarted, however I'm more than willing to bet that the scope was fairly nebulously defined from the outset. Certainly the article does not clearly state what problems the project was attempting to solve other than "We need the best technology in our health service".
The high uranium price is already having an effect on mine & exploration activity. I find it difficult to believe that building or expanding a uranium mine is significantly slower/more difficult than building or expanding a coal mine; certainly they're no more complex than the average gold mine as I understand it. Yes, processing (enrichment) capacity would need to be scaled up.
Find me someone who's going to guarantee ubiquitous deployment of fusion reactors in 10 years and you can have your coal.
Standardised testing is fantastic for ensuring that students are taught how to score well in standardised tests. I'm not going to opine on whether being highly skilled at taking standardised tests is in the students' best interests.
Um... I think we all have ancestors that were not human as we tend to think of it.
I also think it trivialises the rest of the application development process by only focusing on ideas. If you read some of the app descriptions, you get a good picture of how the author started the contest with the kernel of what's probably a decent idea, then embarked headlong on an MSWord-worthy feature bloating exercise with nary a thought of what will sell & what it will cost to build. Real application development involves trade-offs and targeted feature sets, not pie-in-the-sky thought experiments.
But I could just be bitter because Desktop Wars was voted out - I would have bought that one.
Demergers page on Australian Tax Office website
The licensees were cherry-picking the high-margin, high end graphics/DTP workstation sales and leaving Apple the low margin base models. We consumers (if by consumer you mean home user) did not get cheap, mass-produced clones as Apple intended.
How would the considerations be different? An ISP provides a service which, whilst it has many legitimate uses, can be used to violate an individual's privacy. What steps do ISPs take to ensure web pages served from their address block or hosted servers (or information from their whois service, or emails sent via their relay etc) do not contain inappropriate information?
Also, I was visiting a website the other day and was informed that my computer was broadcasting an IP address to the internet! Surely that's partly my ISPs fault.
Actually, now that I've read TFA (gauche, I know), the CEO is quoted as saying "Jigsaw doesn't touch non-business information with a 10-foot pole", lists examples of the type of information not accepted, and relates a circumstance in which inappropriate information was removed. So, yes.
Is it Jigsaw's responsibility to police how people use their service?
Now answer again, pretending that Jigsaw is an ISP or a filesharing software developer.
A few other problems that should be considered:
- The price local providers can charge the content providers (with a reasonable expectation that they will pay) will be based on their size & market clout, so larger local providers with more subscribers will be able to offer a far greater 'content subsidy' to consumers than smaller providers. Is this good for competition?
- Can content providers differentiate prices based on your local provider? If I go to buy a movie, can Apple slap a surcharge (call it a 'delivery charge' - that's what it is) on the purchase of the movie because my provider charges Apple so much for priority traffic? Can Google show me more ads & less results, or charge a higher per-click fee to advertisers based on local provider charges?
- What happens in other countries - do overseas companies automatically get dumped in the 'low-priority' bin? Do consumers in other countries pay higher prices to content providers (than they are paying now) to compensate for additional costs incurred by that provider within the US?
At the end of the day, this problem is caused by the local providers not charging enough to cover the service that they've promised to their customers, should usage change as expected. I'm not sure I see another way out other than moving to metered/capped usage charging models.I think this is a furphy. Copying music or movies from people on the 'net is exactly like copying cassette tapes or VHS; it only differs by the quantity of copying allegedly taking place. The content owners' argument is that this quantity crosses some sort of magical tipping point that will suddenly cause the entire entertainment industry to become unprofitable. Note that we currently only have their opinion on that.
Incidentally, although it's certainly technically feasible, I don't think I've ever seen an 'exact digital duplicate of a CD' shared via p2p applications - they are invariably (and often quite considerably) lower quality compressed versions.
Surely different rules would apply to criminal as opposed to civil cases (like this one). I wouldn't think the argument: "evidence appears to have been destroyed, therefore the court must assume you're guilty", could possibly stand up in a murder trial.
I have to agree with that, although I'd add that the Telstra share price, future fund issues & the very real possibility of Australia ending up with inadequate infrastructure, lead me to believe there'll be increasing pressure on Helen Coonan to cut a deal with the ACCC.
Also, as I understand it, the sticking point wasn't just the price of wholesale access to the fibre, it was the wholesale pricing difference (cross-subsidy) between city & regional areas. Given the retail costs have to be the same regardless of location, Telstra were rightly concerned their competitors would cherry-pick the more profitable city customers and leave the loss-making regional customers to them. This was meant to be addressed via a city wholesale surcharge to ensure regional customers were sufficiently subsidised, but they couldn't agree on the value of that surcharge.