"The gp poster didn't say anything about making the source available though."
But even then, his claim was illegal nevertheless. The illegal point was not he was repacking and reselling it (which may or may not be illegal depending on how he managed the source code). The illegal point was "and sell it as my own product". It is illegal to claim authorship of anything you in fact didn't produced yourself. You can repack and commercially distribute Emacs if you want to (under the terms of the GPL) but you can never claim that you wrote Emacs (well, somebody would say that such a claim would not only be illegal but somehow masochist too, but that's another issue).
"EULAs and the GPL are completely and totally different! One is a company telling you what you may or may not do with their software (aka a license), and one is an independant developer telling you what you may or may not do with their software (aka a license)."
Well, they are completely different in fact: and EULA is an end USER license agreement, while the GPL doesn't deal on how do you USE the software at all. On the other hand, an EULA is an END user license agreement ("end" meaning the user is at the end of the distribution chain, when no further distribution is expected or allowed) while the GPL is everything about how do you FURTHER DISTRIBUTE the program. On the third hand (yes, I'm third handed, so what?) an EULA is an end user LICENSE AGREEMENT -where if you don't agree you can't have even a look at the software, while the GPL doesn't even try to REACH AN AGREEMENT with you -you are free to disagree and still use the software in whatever way you want.
So you see? EULA is an acrostic made up of four words. Three out of four of them mean exactly the opposite than in the GPL: is not "end", is not "user", and it is not "license"; all the EULA and the GPL have in common is that they both are "agreements".
"Don't believe me? The replies to this post will (try to) explain why I'm sure."
...the system went on-line on August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn, at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 am, eastern time, August 29th. It then decided our fate in a microsecond: extermination.
Why on hell? For one, it wouldn't be www.microsoft.com but com/microsoft/www. For second, assuming equivalent to current expansions, it would be "www" the one to expand to microsoft/www or com/microsoft/www, exactly like now. I really don't see where the "prefixes for alternate searchs" in your example come from.
"There's also the scenario of trying to access a site that hosts lots of different people's stuff that uses a wildcarded DNS- say the dns works but the site is down"
You are not going to test for all those users stuff at a time, do you? I don't see how can a browser expend more time waiting for http://www.example.com/~givenuser than on http://com/example/www/~givenuser. Again the only doubt is knowing wich is the "real server" that holds the content since, having the same semantics about domains and resources, 'a priori' the real host could be com, com/example, com/example/www or even com/example/www/~givenuser. Of course that you would trick out by having standard answers for "keep trying downside" and "here it goes". You only have latency problems *on the resolving process* when you can't reach the nameservers, quite exactly like now.
"OK lets say you try to do stuff in parallel, and display the first document that is successfully fetched"
You assume that the "document" can be on various different sites (even overlapping) but that the DNS won't help you telling where exactly the resource is. You either intermingle protocol and resolution (then the answer comes when it comes and you are deemed to timeout once per tried nameserver *on a single leaf level* -just like now) or you let each other on their side, exactly like now, and then it wil work -well, just like now maybe with the proper adition of some SRV glue http://com/example/www/~someguy, you said? My cache says HTTP server(s) for that name can be found on this IP (and this and this one)", or "I don't know, but you can ask those guys donwside the lane".
"Sure you can put "don't recurse" stuff on the DNS servers, but in real life, the people who run the webservers often have little authority and control over the DNS servers."
So usually, when the manager for the website at www.example.com asks example.com's hostmaster to add a registy for www he usually chooses an IP address out of his hat and the hell with the PHB if it ends up at www.playboy.com instead, is it?
"Run the DNS server on the webserver? Despite what some people may like, not every web server be allowed to run an authoritative DNS server on it"
*Current* implementation doesn't need to do so. Future implementation *might* integrate DNS and data server in a way that makes it the easier way to go, just like *usually* you can find an IMAP server just along with a POP server, simply because it's so easy if nothing else.
"nor is it likely that the DNS delegation be correctly done in enough cases for people to say "this system is viable"."
There are always control nazis that will say so, of course. But how many DNS server are *already*? I bet you'll find in the millions. Whatever nightmare that might happen with delegations in the future should have happened *already*. And remember: either top-down or down-top there will be always above your head able to cut the flux if you don't behave. We have spam because
"http:com/example/blah/sub/foo Now that's very nice in "dreamland" where the speed of light is infinite and everything is perfect. But in the real world, what domain name should the browser try in order to get the IP address to connect to?"
Do you know a single word about DNS? I don't think so.
First: we are talking about names, not service resources, so the basic example is looking for com.example.blah.sub.foo, which is just exactly the same than foo.sub.blah.example.com regarding its recursive search path: you either need to recourse for the whole path or you will recieve an answer in the middle via a high level authoritative server or by caching.
Second: regarding services, maybe the SRV-like registers would have seen the light instead of being more or less the DNS curiosity they are today.
So the *real* example: 1) http://www.example.com/some/path: you local resolver looks for com authoritatives; they either know the answer or point you to example.com authoritatives which, in turn, will tell you who www.example.com is, and then, it and only it will serve you the/some/path http resource. 2) http://com/example/www/some/path. Your resolver will ask authoritatives for com wich will either know the right answer or will point you to http://com/example, wich in turn will know the answer or point you to http://com/example/www autoritatives which in turn will tell you the answer or point you to http://com/example/www/some authoritatives (if, for instance all http://com/example/* or even all http://com/* pages "live" within a single server that's what the service will tell you, no need to recurse more deeply. If all but http://com/someespecificresource, well, I think you can imagine what will happen: a question for http://com/someespecificresource/somethingelse will recieve a "keep trying" answer instead of a "you win the prize" one).
I think even you will see that's exactly the same currently DNS does, no change here. But now you can do some nice tricks, like via SRV-like records return at any time either the authoritatives for the next hierachy level *or* the IP address for the resource *or* even directly the searched contents (in this case the expected HTML page, or an open conection to the SMTP server or whatever).
In no case there are more latencies than currently and it certainly would make more sense and would potentially open the door to some very interesting things (that they are interesting gives prove the fact that they are actually dirtly done: like having an Apache in retroproxy mode to serve a group of pages that in reality are "living" on a different server -things like this would naturally grow out of a completly left-to-right hierarchy with some afordable changes to the protocol).
"In the XXth century orchestras playing classical music got *bigger*, not smaller. The demands of the likes of Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Mahler and many ohers (and here, I mean many, if you don't know them is not our fault)."
Yes, I'm well aware of them. Still, trying to compare number of mass known "classic" composers, or their economical weigth with that of pop music is simply ridicoulous. It's almost like trying to debunk my argument because, it's false there are not carriage builders, so the car industry have not "eaten" them.
"Classical music perfromances and composition are alive and well to this day"
Compared to what? Not compared to the SXIX and first years of SXX where almost every mid-class home had a violin or a piano and almost every bar and coffe shop had live music. You mentioned the neoclassics and vanguards. Are you arguing they are not the last ones from a lost era? They are. It's just obvious that current Stravinsky is named Lennon, and even then, the more you advance in the SXX, the less weight for composers and the more for showmen.
"most towns in civilized countries will have at least one decent orchestra"
True. But you will have about 20, 30 sessions a year while pop music will be sounding 24x7 all the year.
"which in many ocassions pulls more people to concerts tha a professsional sports team does to matches."
Too hot on your argument, don't you think so? There will be more people on just one match in such given city than in the whole concert season.
That's the beauty of globalisation: big corporations can go to China to produce at Chinese wages and sell at first world prices. But beware, oh you petty consumer if you try to go to China to buy at chinese prices! That's (obviously) illegal.
"My guess would be because, due to wage/currency/other differences between the two locations, the average cost of a CD would be lower in order for it to sell at all. "
Economics 101: you don't sell the cheapest you can; you sell as expensive as you can go with.
"On the other, property rights should be respected"
Can I "unsmell" your fart once out of you? Once you shoot it out is not your fart anymore. Once you make something *public* is yours no more than your farts (you still created them, but they are not yours).
"The vibrancy of British music depends on a fair return on the investments that allow British talent to shine. [...] This decision is an important step in ensuring that British music has a bright future."
Humm... are really William Croft, Orlando Gibbons or Henry Purcell in such real need of the British phonographic industry for their "fair return of investments"? Wait, maybe they were not thinking about them as examples of the "bright English music talents" but more about Robbie Williams?
Well, I'd say a music industry that would bring us more Purcells and less Williams would be brighter regarding English talent, but maybe Virgin et al. won't share my point of views about "talent" after all...
"Okay, let's flash forward to the future and see how that works out."
It's awesome how anybody wants to "flash forward" to a future that neither knows nor can make their arguments strong with when they can look at a past that can be known for sure.
I don't know how the future will look like, but I know there have been dozens of undisputable bussiness that just were flooded away by the waves of time and technology and noone misses them now (carriage builders; horse traders; water or ice street sellers; wandering surgeons and dentists; pedlars... I could go all day long), so I don't see how it could be any different with any current profession or bussiness model that today seems to be strongly stablished.
"My long-winded point being that record companies, however corrupt they may be, are a necessary evil of the world."
They are needed no more than people selling ice on the streets, and in fact much less. Till the beginning of the XX century you had that kind of music... you know, about forty minutes per piece instead of three, up to one hundred musicians on the scenario instead of a quartet, almost no singing superstars, but chores on the dozens when one of those pieces required them... They got some names, like Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner... That industry was simply killed once the phonographic industry "saw the light" -they were able to get vast ammounts of money with what was no more than promotional media when firstly introduced, making use of professionals that needed much lower expertise levels and that were mostly marketing-driven instead of proficiency-based, so they were easily "created" out of a marketing lab. Well, they managed to have almost obscene benefits for almost a century out of it, but their time has passed and we will miss all those new rock star bands that won't be no more than our current symphonic composers that are no more.
Even in the worst case scenario where all current music standards just disappear, do you really miss the Bachs, Behetovens or Mozarts that have not been in the twenty century because the bussiness model pushed by RIAA asociates worked against them? I don't think so: when you want that kind of music you just go with Bach, Behetoven or Mozart canned or live perfomances and that's all. Then, if there're no more Led Zeppelin, The Beatles or Britney Spears, because technology or market trends go everywhere else, so what? You still will be able to listen to them if you really want it, for free, out of the Net just saying -maybe, oh, how great old days that passed away, just like when you find yourself playing with an air sword after watching -again, Excalibur.
Just remember that on a free market, really no bussiness is essential or non-reemplazable.
"Otherwise their carbon ends up in houses and furniture, and buried under the ground (where it can turn into oil and coal after a few million years)"
I don't think you understand why Amazonic soild is so delicate and sensible to deforestation: it's because it is very thin. And it is very thin because almost all raw material returns into the living cycle. While it tends to be true that mild climate woods "kidnap" Carbon and bury it, that's not true for the most proliphic ones: those from the tropical belts.
"Trees are the ultimate renewable resource because the more you harvest, the more area you have to replant them."
Except it takes centuries for a natural ecosystem to become a mature forest. And even then, it can be avoided by even not so big disturbing influences: quite a big part of the USA territory went almost untouched for thousand of years and even then just a single big mammal (bison) avoided it to reach a mature forest state.
"The U.S. only accounts for 24% of the world's carbon emissions."
And you have the guts to say "only"? 5% of the world population produces 25% of the world's carbon emissions and you say "only"?
"The U.S. also accounts for 28% of the world's economic production. In other words, the rest of the world is less efficient than the U.S. at producing value per ton of CO2 released."
Yeah, of course. Bad luck they are for the most part developing countries struggling to reach profitability, a state the USA passed away about a century ago.
"Europe is by far more efficient and the U.S. should try to learn from them" but these attempts to paint the U.S. as the sole bogeyman are horribly misguided"
See? Even you recognize that first world countries can and should achieve far better than the USA.
"but these attempts to paint the U.S. as the sole bogeyman are horribly misguided. If the U.S. were to disappear overnight, by the time the world economy grew back to the level it's at today, there would be more CO2 emissions than before the U.S. disappeared!"
*That's* not only a straw but even stupid. Were USA to disappear tomorrow, who do you think would take world leadership? Cambodya, Brazil? It would be Europe, the country that -on your own record knows how to do it better for the money. Even China or Japan would find that they should play by European rules or loose the now (due to USA being no more) one an only big market to sell their goods.
"there are several developed nations who are right up there with the U.S."
There are several *tiny* developed nations (thus hardly meaningful) who are right up there with USA. The nearest truly comparable on this list are Canada and Australia, and they both are *below* USA levels.
"Finally, in terms of forest and protected forest, the U.S. has far more than all of Europe combined, nearly 1.7x as much in terms of area"
That's true. Bad luck that USA average population density is 31 inhabitants/km while European Union is 112 inhabitants/km. That is population density is 350% higher in Europe, and still USA only manages to have 70% more "free land" used in forests.
You can take the way you want, but it is a *fact* USA is the biggest ponderate culprit about current worldwide situation. It is not that plans like Kyoto wants to put the highest load on USA shoulders; it is that *any* reasonalbe worlwide plan will put the highest load on USA, not because some world hathre to USA success but because they are in fact the country in the world where the most work must be done. First control your CO^2 emissions to European levels (you see, it's perfectly doable: Europe already does it), only then look for the next major offender (Canada and Australia, most probably). What USA is currently doing is simply undefensible; don't be surprised USA doesn't find any sympathy on this (too).
"Clever, but a non-sequitir. I imagine your +4 rating has more to do with your historical reference and playing to the anti-american-they'll-get-theirs-someday crowd then you actually having a point."
Or else, maybe those that rated the post understood it better than you. Just thing for your mind: Were the previous poster said "Finland plants thousands of trees a year so I don't see why the rest of the world can't do the same" I'd answer the same, so there goes your "anti-american" interpretation.
"Trees are a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested"
So what?
1) A mature forest is an ecosystem that goes far, far beyond "a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested". 2) In too many situations the people exploiting the lands are not those that have to live with the disaster coming later, but big fortunes rich enough to have a hard grip on those third world or in-development countries' governments (and do you know why they are third world or in-development countries? Exactly: because first world have already harvested their own forests for the most part -still it seems that it is countries like Brazil or Cambodya the ones that must take the hard part of the reforesting effort). 3) Even if were the natural population of the land the ones taking advantage of the forests, they are, again, third party or in-development countries with many more pressing needs than expending money on sustainable forest management. For instance, paying debt interests that point back to first world countries like USA.
All in all, saying "If USA can do it I don't see why the rest of the world can't" shows an utterly misrepresentation of the world and the situation of 2 out of every 3 people living on it -just exactly the kind of misconception that got Marie Antoinette missing the point why poor people were raging for bread... at Versailles there were no bread for a day, they would take cake!
"Unless, of course, your opinion is that the rest of the world is too stupid and impatient to treat wood like any other crop."
Statistically, the rest of the world is at the verge of dying from famine.
"No, we have police to keep the population obedient to the will and whim of the political elite."
And then we have ballots to keep the political elite obedient to the will and whim of the population.
"As opposed to the government who is run by people who could not be trusted to maintain law abiding composure?"
There's an advantage in government: they are less. Do you know why there are computer firewalls? Because we cannot trust on the security of all the computers on a LAN. But then, we cannot trust the security of the firewalls either -but at least, they are less to have an eye on.
"The reason we have [big fortunes and corporations], at least the dominant reason historically, is so a small group of elites can control a large group of non-elites. Generally on the basis of crackpot rationales like [liberalism] or that dad was [an oil tycoon].
If you happen to fancy yourself one of those elites, imposing your opinions on the lesser life forms is just good, common sense and anyone who doesn't see it that way is obviously just a bit too average to have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion. I can see how an idea like that would go over pretty well in [USA]."
"was the problem with MySQL the database software itself, the hardware used, or was the problem with how the schema was designed and/or the application code?"
Does it really matter? Some senior architects pointed out to the MySQL guy, since they fired. Either those seniors had no clue (in this case that Fortune 100 have more serious problems), or it was the MySQL guy in fact the one to blame (well, on a corporate environment things are never so black-and-white, but it's good enough for a first approach).
Now, I think you have your points but still, don't understand the issue. Let's see this way. You are on the HR department trying to fill a position; you have two hundred resumes and you know from previous experiencies that around ten out of those two hundred will quite fit the post. You start doing a first cleaning: you go for those with proper certifications, past experiencie and the like; in half an hour you have detected a very suitable candidate. Maybe one of those without certifications is very good for the post; maybe one of those without previous experience is a genious. Are you going to loose another four or five hour to know? Surely not: in half an hour you have a perfectly suitable candidate, so to the hell with the other 199 resumes. Will you loose a better candidate from time to time? Probably yes. Will you get the best possible candidate? Probably not, but you *always* will get a fairly good candidate on record time: that's efficency and it's a very good quality on a corporate environment.
Again with MySQL: it's *very* adecuate the saying from the previous poster about it being banned on his corporation on the basis that it is the database of those that don't have a clue. Is it true? Statistically yes. Maybe because it's "too easy to start with", maybe because it made up a strong niche coupled to PHP (which is quite the same: the language for those that don't have a clue). Is it just? probably not. Can there exist the case where a good DBA would make up a good data backend out of it? Probably yes but, efficiency-wise, who cares? Am I going to risk millions on a database I know the one that recommends it doesn't have a clue more times than not when I have a way to efficiently discriminate good DBAs from regular (or bad) ones when using a different tool (say, Oracle) and I do have demonstrable experience on such an environment? No way, sir, no way.
"but you would care to back it up with actual helpful data in any way?"
The point is that he doesn't need to back it up nothing! He is a senior architect who can point to a proven track record of success on -say, Oracle or maybe Postgres or Firebird. He has no need at all to change successfull procedures or tools. It's *you*, the newby, the one that must prove beyond doubt the virtues of the new tool that wants a piece of the cake, not him.
1) The idea of her coming to your home more or less the best half a year (by your comment that would be on summer) is not to be disregarded. We did just this with my grandma for her last decade or so (while we got her in winter not in summer). If she's like my grandma, she will be hesistant at least on the beginning (she won't want to be an overload on you and she will feel more free on her own village, that she knows as she knows her friends, her shops, etc.) -of course, your mileage my vary: it is not the same moving an old person about 100 miles, by car, and traveling on my father's car (as it was our case) than trying to move from the other side of the world (not only much more expensive but much more travel time too), by airplane and maybe alone. 2) While my mother is not in the other side of the world, she is still 300 miles away, and his daughter and my sister is some 1500 miles away, so I installed her an old PC of mine with Linux and KDE, Kopete, big icons on the desktop for the three/four apps she will use (kopete for IM, digiKam to manage her digital photocamera, a cards game I found she liked mainly for practising her ability with the mouse and lowering the "frightening effect" on "new technologies" a bit, etc.) and I make sysadmin for her through the net. In your case I'd mix that case with an old client of mine that I installed an VPN device with Linux too.
So my advice:
Buy an Asus Pundit-like box (a short form factor, noisiless, Linux-compatible PC) with a cheap video camera known to work with Linux, install Debian, be sure to configure hardware sensors and what not, and work a bit on the usability side (as I told you, use KDE, some big icons -double click an icon or click and move can be a challenge for old people). Be sure she has a broadband connection with a fixed IP you know in advance (it'll make things easier) and configure the box locally at leisure. Once it's done send the box to Japan (in my case I am in Spain and sent it to Argentina) and have her Fujitsu son install the hardware for her. If you did your homework properly it will be a case of plug-n-play (as it was on my Argentinian case). From now on, you will have complete access to her box for maintenance ("ssh -XC" will result in a terribly useful tool) and she will be deligthed with the experience.
For an A-grade, you will configure things like cron-apt and write some short scripts and rrd-tools so you will stay informed about how the hardware is behaving (it's awesome how many hardware failures you can prevent in advance by just look at how evolutions hard-disk status, CPU temperature and internal fan speeds).
For an AA-grade you will use some tool (sorry, I don't remember the name, have a look at it on Freshmeat) to make a live-CD from the installed OS (it won't take too much space if you are just a bit careful) once you configured it and previously to send it to Japan, so it can be taken as a rescue-CD your Fujitsu brother-in-law can use in case of catastrophic hardware failure.
It really worked for me, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for you.
"For me, God must not be something quantifiable by man or its not a God really"
Then you should either abandon all hope of reaching any rational knowledge of the physical world or just accept God doesn't exist for any practical meaning of the verb "to exist".
"A major issue in all these discussions is that we focus on the USA media being flawed or the UK. Is this because they are more transparent than the others."
No. It is because there are quite other countries were the "flawness level" is not yet that of the USA. Yes, you are too focused: there's a whole world outta USA, UK and Rusia. There's Spain, and France, and Finland an Denmark and a whole lot of others, and they are more transparent than Rusia too, and not so flawed as the big media from the States (yet).
"The Logical Fallacy is that people take this to make the message wrong since it came from a known Liar."
It's a logical fallacy *if* you take the part for the whole. It was *your* point that this was a case of killing the messenger which clearly it was not: previous poster only said that he just didn't gave credit to news on a given tabloid because he knew it to be unreputable. And he is quite right doing so.
And about the rest of the comment, what was the phrase from The Promised Bride? I don't think "logical fallacy" means what you think it means (while you bring some cases that *are* in fact logical fallacies: 'petitio a principii', 'non sequitur' and 'post hoc, propter hoc', mainly).
"The media tells you something in fact"
It is not a logical fallacy, then; it's just an utter lie. Awake: it's not that (USA) media incurred on a logical fallacy; it's that they were either knownling lying or being lied by USA Government. You can use perfect logic and still reach the wrong conclusions if you are feed with false principles.
"And its also a logicial fallacy to think that since we have not seen GOD written in the stars, there is no God."
That's certainly not a logical fallacy but an epistemologic requirement rised both from Occam's razor ('entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem') and Hume's economy principle ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). In other words, I won't say God doesn't exist (I think you mean the hebraic one -Yahveh/God/Alah, don't you? Or were you talking about FSM?), but I'll do say that there exists God as much as there's the cow that jumps over the Moon (hey, the fact that we still didn't see the cow jumping over the Moon doesn't mean we won't see it tomorrow, does it?).
"You are attacking the messenger and not the message"
When the messenger is known to be unreputable, it's quite savvy to discredit the message and let it on hold till more trustable sources can be questioned.
"Example: If Hitler said 3+5 is 8, you would say its WRONG because HITLER said it"
That's doubly stupid. On one hand, do you think Hitler would give too much credit on the report of an English spy (which doesn't know he has been discovered) about where or when the big alley invasion will take place? Yes, the messenger reputation renders *quite* a lot on the credibility of the message. On the other hand, nobody would say the affirmation "3+5=8" to be false because it came from Hitler's mounth... because Hitler is known to be an assassin son of the bitch with terrible racial prejudices but *not* to be mathematically challenged (and because of the fact you already made your opinion about the "3+5=8" assertion by other means you trust to be reputable, but just forget about this now). Just try yourself:
-Would you trust Hitler if he told you Canary Islands are worth visiting on summer? -Would you trust Hitler if he told you jews are infrahuman? (and now the most interest) -Would you trust Hitler if he told you jews are pretty good guys after all?
See? There's nothing wrong with Hitler talking about pretty islands since, as far as we know there were nothing wrong about his perceptions on landscapes, but you couldn't trust him about jews, even if he talked about them in good terms because we know too good this is not an issue we can confy him any credit at (hummm... now he says jews are good guys? Surely he is concealing something). When you know the messenger it's quite intelligent to take advantage of such knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
"The gp poster didn't say anything about making the source available though."
But even then, his claim was illegal nevertheless. The illegal point was not he was repacking and reselling it (which may or may not be illegal depending on how he managed the source code). The illegal point was "and sell it as my own product". It is illegal to claim authorship of anything you in fact didn't produced yourself. You can repack and commercially distribute Emacs if you want to (under the terms of the GPL) but you can never claim that you wrote Emacs (well, somebody would say that such a claim would not only be illegal but somehow masochist too, but that's another issue).
"EULAs and the GPL are completely and totally different! One is a company telling you what you may or may not do with their software (aka a license), and one is an independant developer telling you what you may or may not do with their software (aka a license)."
Well, they are completely different in fact: and EULA is an end USER license agreement, while the GPL doesn't deal on how do you USE the software at all. On the other hand, an EULA is an END user license agreement ("end" meaning the user is at the end of the distribution chain, when no further distribution is expected or allowed) while the GPL is everything about how do you FURTHER DISTRIBUTE the program. On the third hand (yes, I'm third handed, so what?) an EULA is an end user LICENSE AGREEMENT -where if you don't agree you can't have even a look at the software, while the GPL doesn't even try to REACH AN AGREEMENT with you -you are free to disagree and still use the software in whatever way you want.
So you see? EULA is an acrostic made up of four words. Three out of four of them mean exactly the opposite than in the GPL: is not "end", is not "user", and it is not "license"; all the EULA and the GPL have in common is that they both are "agreements".
"Don't believe me? The replies to this post will (try to) explain why I'm sure."
Your bet.
"who will put that security in place?"
Why, indian engineers we get on green cards, of course. After the job is done, we bury them alive within the datacenter.
We already used that trick on our pyramids.
"it would be nice to have some of the guesswork taken out of things. Then document it in a similar fashion. :-)"
It has been done for years, Mr. lymond01: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
...the system went on-line on August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn, at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 am, eastern time, August 29th. It then decided our fate in a microsecond: extermination.
"And remember after that times out, with the "New Berners" approach you will have to try to fetch:
http://foo.www.microsoft.com:82/bar/com/baz
http://bar.foo.www.microsoft.com:82/com/baz
http://com.bar.foo.www.microsoft.com:82/baz
http://baz.com.bar.foo.www.microsoft.com:82/
And only after all that should the browser give up."
Why on hell? For one, it wouldn't be www.microsoft.com but com/microsoft/www. For second, assuming equivalent to current expansions, it would be "www" the one to expand to microsoft/www or com/microsoft/www, exactly like now. I really don't see where the "prefixes for alternate searchs" in your example come from.
"There's also the scenario of trying to access a site that hosts lots of different people's stuff that uses a wildcarded DNS- say the dns works but the site is down"
You are not going to test for all those users stuff at a time, do you? I don't see how can a browser expend more time waiting for http://www.example.com/~givenuser than on http://com/example/www/~givenuser. Again the only doubt is knowing wich is the "real server" that holds the content since, having the same semantics about domains and resources, 'a priori' the real host could be com, com/example, com/example/www or even com/example/www/~givenuser. Of course that you would trick out by having standard answers for "keep trying downside" and "here it goes". You only have latency problems *on the resolving process* when you can't reach the nameservers, quite exactly like now.
"OK lets say you try to do stuff in parallel, and display the first document that is successfully fetched"
You assume that the "document" can be on various different sites (even overlapping) but that the DNS won't help you telling where exactly the resource is. You either intermingle protocol and resolution (then the answer comes when it comes and you are deemed to timeout once per tried nameserver *on a single leaf level* -just like now) or you let each other on their side, exactly like now, and then it wil work -well, just like now maybe with the proper adition of some SRV glue http://com/example/www/~someguy, you said? My cache says HTTP server(s) for that name can be found on this IP (and this and this one)", or "I don't know, but you can ask those guys donwside the lane".
"Sure you can put "don't recurse" stuff on the DNS servers, but in real life, the people who run the webservers often have little authority and control over the DNS servers."
So usually, when the manager for the website at www.example.com asks example.com's hostmaster to add a registy for www he usually chooses an IP address out of his hat and the hell with the PHB if it ends up at www.playboy.com instead, is it?
"Run the DNS server on the webserver? Despite what some people may like, not every web server be allowed to run an authoritative DNS server on it"
*Current* implementation doesn't need to do so. Future implementation *might* integrate DNS and data server in a way that makes it the easier way to go, just like *usually* you can find an IMAP server just along with a POP server, simply because it's so easy if nothing else.
"nor is it likely that the DNS delegation be correctly done in enough cases for people to say "this system is viable"."
There are always control nazis that will say so, of course. But how many DNS server are *already*? I bet you'll find in the millions. Whatever nightmare that might happen with delegations in the future should have happened *already*. And remember: either top-down or down-top there will be always above your head able to cut the flux if you don't behave. We have spam because
"http:com/example/blah/sub/foo
/some/path http resource.
Now that's very nice in "dreamland" where the speed of light is infinite and everything is perfect.
But in the real world, what domain name should the browser try in order to get the IP address to connect to?"
Do you know a single word about DNS? I don't think so.
First: we are talking about names, not service resources, so the basic example is looking for com.example.blah.sub.foo, which is just exactly the same than foo.sub.blah.example.com regarding its recursive search path: you either need to recourse for the whole path or you will recieve an answer in the middle via a high level authoritative server or by caching.
Second: regarding services, maybe the SRV-like registers would have seen the light instead of being more or less the DNS curiosity they are today.
So the *real* example:
1) http://www.example.com/some/path: you local resolver looks for com authoritatives; they either know the answer or point you to example.com authoritatives which, in turn, will tell you who www.example.com is, and then, it and only it will serve you the
2) http://com/example/www/some/path. Your resolver will ask authoritatives for com wich will either know the right answer or will point you to http://com/example, wich in turn will know the answer or point you to http://com/example/www autoritatives which in turn will tell you the answer or point you to http://com/example/www/some authoritatives (if, for instance all http://com/example/* or even all http://com/* pages "live" within a single server that's what the service will tell you, no need to recurse more deeply. If all but http://com/someespecificresource, well, I think you can imagine what will happen: a question for http://com/someespecificresource/somethingelse will recieve a "keep trying" answer instead of a "you win the prize" one).
I think even you will see that's exactly the same currently DNS does, no change here. But now you can do some nice tricks, like via SRV-like records return at any time either the authoritatives for the next hierachy level *or* the IP address for the resource *or* even directly the searched contents (in this case the expected HTML page, or an open conection to the SMTP server or whatever).
In no case there are more latencies than currently and it certainly would make more sense and would potentially open the door to some very interesting things (that they are interesting gives prove the fact that they are actually dirtly done: like having an Apache in retroproxy mode to serve a group of pages that in reality are "living" on a different server -things like this would naturally grow out of a completly left-to-right hierarchy with some afordable changes to the protocol).
"In the XXth century orchestras playing classical music got *bigger*, not smaller. The demands of the likes of Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Mahler and many ohers (and here, I mean many, if you don't know them is not our fault)."
Yes, I'm well aware of them. Still, trying to compare number of mass known "classic" composers, or their economical weigth with that of pop music is simply ridicoulous. It's almost like trying to debunk my argument because, it's false there are not carriage builders, so the car industry have not "eaten" them.
"Classical music perfromances and composition are alive and well to this day"
Compared to what? Not compared to the SXIX and first years of SXX where almost every mid-class home had a violin or a piano and almost every bar and coffe shop had live music. You mentioned the neoclassics and vanguards. Are you arguing they are not the last ones from a lost era? They are. It's just obvious that current Stravinsky is named Lennon, and even then, the more you advance in the SXX, the less weight for composers and the more for showmen.
"most towns in civilized countries will have at least one decent orchestra"
True. But you will have about 20, 30 sessions a year while pop music will be sounding 24x7 all the year.
"which in many ocassions pulls more people to concerts tha a professsional sports team does to matches."
Too hot on your argument, don't you think so? There will be more people on just one match in such given city than in the whole concert season.
That's the beauty of globalisation: big corporations can go to China to produce at Chinese wages and sell at first world prices. But beware, oh you petty consumer if you try to go to China to buy at chinese prices! That's (obviously) illegal.
"My guess would be because, due to wage/currency/other differences between the two locations, the average cost of a CD would be lower in order for it to sell at all. "
Economics 101: you don't sell the cheapest you can; you sell as expensive as you can go with.
"On the other, property rights should be respected"
Can I "unsmell" your fart once out of you? Once you shoot it out is not your fart anymore. Once you make something *public* is yours no more than your farts (you still created them, but they are not yours).
"The vibrancy of British music depends on a fair return on the investments that allow British talent to shine.
[...] This decision is an important step in ensuring that British music has a bright future."
Humm... are really William Croft, Orlando Gibbons or Henry Purcell in such real need of the British phonographic industry for their "fair return of investments"? Wait, maybe they were not thinking about them as examples of the "bright English music talents" but more about Robbie Williams?
Well, I'd say a music industry that would bring us more Purcells and less Williams would be brighter regarding English talent, but maybe Virgin et al. won't share my point of views about "talent" after all...
"Okay, let's flash forward to the future and see how that works out."
It's awesome how anybody wants to "flash forward" to a future that neither knows nor can make their arguments strong with when they can look at a past that can be known for sure.
I don't know how the future will look like, but I know there have been dozens of undisputable bussiness that just were flooded away by the waves of time and technology and noone misses them now (carriage builders; horse traders; water or ice street sellers; wandering surgeons and dentists; pedlars... I could go all day long), so I don't see how it could be any different with any current profession or bussiness model that today seems to be strongly stablished.
"My long-winded point being that record companies, however corrupt they may be, are a necessary evil of the world."
They are needed no more than people selling ice on the streets, and in fact much less. Till the beginning of the XX century you had that kind of music... you know, about forty minutes per piece instead of three, up to one hundred musicians on the scenario instead of a quartet, almost no singing superstars, but chores on the dozens when one of those pieces required them... They got some names, like Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner... That industry was simply killed once the phonographic industry "saw the light" -they were able to get vast ammounts of money with what was no more than promotional media when firstly introduced, making use of professionals that needed much lower expertise levels and that were mostly marketing-driven instead of proficiency-based, so they were easily "created" out of a marketing lab. Well, they managed to have almost obscene benefits for almost a century out of it, but their time has passed and we will miss all those new rock star bands that won't be no more than our current symphonic composers that are no more.
Even in the worst case scenario where all current music standards just disappear, do you really miss the Bachs, Behetovens or Mozarts that have not been in the twenty century because the bussiness model pushed by RIAA asociates worked against them? I don't think so: when you want that kind of music you just go with Bach, Behetoven or Mozart canned or live perfomances and that's all. Then, if there're no more Led Zeppelin, The Beatles or Britney Spears, because technology or market trends go everywhere else, so what? You still will be able to listen to them if you really want it, for free, out of the Net just saying -maybe, oh, how great old days that passed away, just like when you find yourself playing with an air sword after watching -again, Excalibur.
Just remember that on a free market, really no bussiness is essential or non-reemplazable.
"Actually, she never said any such thing."
Of course not. If for no other reason, because she didn't speak English.
"Otherwise their carbon ends up in houses and furniture, and buried under the ground (where it can turn into oil and coal after a few million years)"
I don't think you understand why Amazonic soild is so delicate and sensible to deforestation: it's because it is very thin. And it is very thin because almost all raw material returns into the living cycle. While it tends to be true that mild climate woods "kidnap" Carbon and bury it, that's not true for the most proliphic ones: those from the tropical belts.
"Trees are the ultimate renewable resource because the more you harvest, the more area you have to replant them."
Except it takes centuries for a natural ecosystem to become a mature forest. And even then, it can be avoided by even not so big disturbing influences: quite a big part of the USA territory went almost untouched for thousand of years and even then just a single big mammal (bison) avoided it to reach a mature forest state.
"The U.S. only accounts for 24% of the world's carbon emissions."
And you have the guts to say "only"? 5% of the world population produces 25% of the world's carbon emissions and you say "only"?
"The U.S. also accounts for 28% of the world's economic production. In other words, the rest of the world is less efficient than the U.S. at producing value per ton of CO2 released."
Yeah, of course. Bad luck they are for the most part developing countries struggling to reach profitability, a state the USA passed away about a century ago.
"Europe is by far more efficient and the U.S. should try to learn from them" but these attempts to paint the U.S. as the sole bogeyman are horribly misguided"
See? Even you recognize that first world countries can and should achieve far better than the USA.
"but these attempts to paint the U.S. as the sole bogeyman are horribly misguided. If the U.S. were to disappear overnight, by the time the world economy grew back to the level it's at today, there would be more CO2 emissions than before the U.S. disappeared!"
*That's* not only a straw but even stupid. Were USA to disappear tomorrow, who do you think would take world leadership? Cambodya, Brazil? It would be Europe, the country that -on your own record knows how to do it better for the money. Even China or Japan would find that they should play by European rules or loose the now (due to USA being no more) one an only big market to sell their goods.
"there are several developed nations who are right up there with the U.S."
There are several *tiny* developed nations (thus hardly meaningful) who are right up there with USA. The nearest truly comparable on this list are Canada and Australia, and they both are *below* USA levels.
"Finally, in terms of forest and protected forest, the U.S. has far more than all of Europe combined, nearly 1.7x as much in terms of area"
That's true. Bad luck that USA average population density is 31 inhabitants/km while European Union is 112 inhabitants/km. That is population density is 350% higher in Europe, and still USA only manages to have 70% more "free land" used in forests.
You can take the way you want, but it is a *fact* USA is the biggest ponderate culprit about current worldwide situation. It is not that plans like Kyoto wants to put the highest load on USA shoulders; it is that *any* reasonalbe worlwide plan will put the highest load on USA, not because some world hathre to USA success but because they are in fact the country in the world where the most work must be done. First control your CO^2 emissions to European levels (you see, it's perfectly doable: Europe already does it), only then look for the next major offender (Canada and Australia, most probably). What USA is currently doing is simply undefensible; don't be surprised USA doesn't find any sympathy on this (too).
"Clever, but a non-sequitir. I imagine your +4 rating has more to do with your historical reference and playing to the anti-american-they'll-get-theirs-someday crowd then you actually having a point."
Or else, maybe those that rated the post understood it better than you. Just thing for your mind: Were the previous poster said "Finland plants thousands of trees a year so I don't see why the rest of the world can't do the same" I'd answer the same, so there goes your "anti-american" interpretation.
"Trees are a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested"
So what?
1) A mature forest is an ecosystem that goes far, far beyond "a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested".
2) In too many situations the people exploiting the lands are not those that have to live with the disaster coming later, but big fortunes rich enough to have a hard grip on those third world or in-development countries' governments (and do you know why they are third world or in-development countries? Exactly: because first world have already harvested their own forests for the most part -still it seems that it is countries like Brazil or Cambodya the ones that must take the hard part of the reforesting effort).
3) Even if were the natural population of the land the ones taking advantage of the forests, they are, again, third party or in-development countries with many more pressing needs than expending money on sustainable forest management. For instance, paying debt interests that point back to first world countries like USA.
All in all, saying "If USA can do it I don't see why the rest of the world can't" shows an utterly misrepresentation of the world and the situation of 2 out of every 3 people living on it -just exactly the kind of misconception that got Marie Antoinette missing the point why poor people were raging for bread... at Versailles there were no bread for a day, they would take cake!
"Unless, of course, your opinion is that the rest of the world is too stupid and impatient to treat wood like any other crop."
Statistically, the rest of the world is at the verge of dying from famine.
"No, we have police to keep the population obedient to the will and whim of the political elite."
And then we have ballots to keep the political elite obedient to the will and whim of the population.
"As opposed to the government who is run by people who could not be trusted to maintain law abiding composure?"
There's an advantage in government: they are less. Do you know why there are computer firewalls? Because we cannot trust on the security of all the computers on a LAN. But then, we cannot trust the security of the firewalls either -but at least, they are less to have an eye on.
"The reason we have [big fortunes and corporations], at least the dominant reason historically, is so a small group of elites can control a large group of non-elites. Generally on the basis of crackpot rationales like [liberalism] or that dad was [an oil tycoon].
If you happen to fancy yourself one of those elites, imposing your opinions on the lesser life forms is just good, common sense and anyone who doesn't see it that way is obviously just a bit too average to have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion. I can see how an idea like that would go over pretty well in [USA]."
"North Americans plant billions of trees each year. There is no reason why the rest of the world can't do the same."
This somehow remembers me some cute Maire Antoinette saying on pre-revolution days: "if there's no bread, let them eat cake!"
Please, remember how Marie Antoinette ended.
"was the problem with MySQL the database software itself, the hardware used, or was the problem with how the schema was designed and/or the application code?"
Does it really matter? Some senior architects pointed out to the MySQL guy, since they fired. Either those seniors had no clue (in this case that Fortune 100 have more serious problems), or it was the MySQL guy in fact the one to blame (well, on a corporate environment things are never so black-and-white, but it's good enough for a first approach).
Now, I think you have your points but still, don't understand the issue. Let's see this way. You are on the HR department trying to fill a position; you have two hundred resumes and you know from previous experiencies that around ten out of those two hundred will quite fit the post. You start doing a first cleaning: you go for those with proper certifications, past experiencie and the like; in half an hour you have detected a very suitable candidate. Maybe one of those without certifications is very good for the post; maybe one of those without previous experience is a genious. Are you going to loose another four or five hour to know? Surely not: in half an hour you have a perfectly suitable candidate, so to the hell with the other 199 resumes. Will you loose a better candidate from time to time? Probably yes. Will you get the best possible candidate? Probably not, but you *always* will get a fairly good candidate on record time: that's efficency and it's a very good quality on a corporate environment.
Again with MySQL: it's *very* adecuate the saying from the previous poster about it being banned on his corporation on the basis that it is the database of those that don't have a clue. Is it true? Statistically yes. Maybe because it's "too easy to start with", maybe because it made up a strong niche coupled to PHP (which is quite the same: the language for those that don't have a clue). Is it just? probably not. Can there exist the case where a good DBA would make up a good data backend out of it? Probably yes but, efficiency-wise, who cares? Am I going to risk millions on a database I know the one that recommends it doesn't have a clue more times than not when I have a way to efficiently discriminate good DBAs from regular (or bad) ones when using a different tool (say, Oracle) and I do have demonstrable experience on such an environment? No way, sir, no way.
"but you would care to back it up with actual helpful data in any way?"
The point is that he doesn't need to back it up nothing! He is a senior architect who can point to a proven track record of success on -say, Oracle or maybe Postgres or Firebird. He has no need at all to change successfull procedures or tools. It's *you*, the newby, the one that must prove beyond doubt the virtues of the new tool that wants a piece of the cake, not him.
I'll tell you my two examples:
1) The idea of her coming to your home more or less the best half a year (by your comment that would be on summer) is not to be disregarded. We did just this with my grandma for her last decade or so (while we got her in winter not in summer). If she's like my grandma, she will be hesistant at least on the beginning (she won't want to be an overload on you and she will feel more free on her own village, that she knows as she knows her friends, her shops, etc.) -of course, your mileage my vary: it is not the same moving an old person about 100 miles, by car, and traveling on my father's car (as it was our case) than trying to move from the other side of the world (not only much more expensive but much more travel time too), by airplane and maybe alone.
2) While my mother is not in the other side of the world, she is still 300 miles away, and his daughter and my sister is some 1500 miles away, so I installed her an old PC of mine with Linux and KDE, Kopete, big icons on the desktop for the three/four apps she will use (kopete for IM, digiKam to manage her digital photocamera, a cards game I found she liked mainly for practising her ability with the mouse and lowering the "frightening effect" on "new technologies" a bit, etc.) and I make sysadmin for her through the net. In your case I'd mix that case with an old client of mine that I installed an VPN device with Linux too.
So my advice:
Buy an Asus Pundit-like box (a short form factor, noisiless, Linux-compatible PC) with a cheap video camera known to work with Linux, install Debian, be sure to configure hardware sensors and what not, and work a bit on the usability side (as I told you, use KDE, some big icons -double click an icon or click and move can be a challenge for old people). Be sure she has a broadband connection with a fixed IP you know in advance (it'll make things easier) and configure the box locally at leisure. Once it's done send the box to Japan (in my case I am in Spain and sent it to Argentina) and have her Fujitsu son install the hardware for her. If you did your homework properly it will be a case of plug-n-play (as it was on my Argentinian case). From now on, you will have complete access to her box for maintenance ("ssh -XC" will result in a terribly useful tool) and she will be deligthed with the experience.
For an A-grade, you will configure things like cron-apt and write some short scripts and rrd-tools so you will stay informed about how the hardware is behaving (it's awesome how many hardware failures you can prevent in advance by just look at how evolutions hard-disk status, CPU temperature and internal fan speeds).
For an AA-grade you will use some tool (sorry, I don't remember the name, have a look at it on Freshmeat) to make a live-CD from the installed OS (it won't take too much space if you are just a bit careful) once you configured it and previously to send it to Japan, so it can be taken as a rescue-CD your Fujitsu brother-in-law can use in case of catastrophic hardware failure.
It really worked for me, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for you.
"For me, God must not be something quantifiable by man or its not a God really"
Then you should either abandon all hope of reaching any rational knowledge of the physical world or just accept God doesn't exist for any practical meaning of the verb "to exist".
"A major issue in all these discussions is that we focus on the USA media being flawed or the UK. Is this because they are more transparent than the others."
No. It is because there are quite other countries were the "flawness level" is not yet that of the USA. Yes, you are too focused: there's a whole world outta USA, UK and Rusia. There's Spain, and France, and Finland an Denmark and a whole lot of others, and they are more transparent than Rusia too, and not so flawed as the big media from the States (yet).
"The Logical Fallacy is that people take this to make the message wrong since it came from a known Liar."
It's a logical fallacy *if* you take the part for the whole. It was *your* point that this was a case of killing the messenger which clearly it was not: previous poster only said that he just didn't gave credit to news on a given tabloid because he knew it to be unreputable. And he is quite right doing so.
And about the rest of the comment, what was the phrase from The Promised Bride? I don't think "logical fallacy" means what you think it means (while you bring some cases that *are* in fact logical fallacies: 'petitio a principii', 'non sequitur' and 'post hoc, propter hoc', mainly).
"The media tells you something in fact"
It is not a logical fallacy, then; it's just an utter lie. Awake: it's not that (USA) media incurred on a logical fallacy; it's that they were either knownling lying or being lied by USA Government. You can use perfect logic and still reach the wrong conclusions if you are feed with false principles.
"And its also a logicial fallacy to think that since we have not seen GOD written in the stars, there is no God."
That's certainly not a logical fallacy but an epistemologic requirement rised both from Occam's razor ('entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem') and Hume's economy principle ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). In other words, I won't say God doesn't exist (I think you mean the hebraic one -Yahveh/God/Alah, don't you? Or were you talking about FSM?), but I'll do say that there exists God as much as there's the cow that jumps over the Moon (hey, the fact that we still didn't see the cow jumping over the Moon doesn't mean we won't see it tomorrow, does it?).
"You are attacking the messenger and not the message"
When the messenger is known to be unreputable, it's quite savvy to discredit the message and let it on hold till more trustable sources can be questioned.
"Example: If Hitler said 3+5 is 8, you would say its WRONG because HITLER said it"
That's doubly stupid. On one hand, do you think Hitler would give too much credit on the report of an English spy (which doesn't know he has been discovered) about where or when the big alley invasion will take place? Yes, the messenger reputation renders *quite* a lot on the credibility of the message. On the other hand, nobody would say the affirmation "3+5=8" to be false because it came from Hitler's mounth... because Hitler is known to be an assassin son of the bitch with terrible racial prejudices but *not* to be mathematically challenged (and because of the fact you already made your opinion about the "3+5=8" assertion by other means you trust to be reputable, but just forget about this now). Just try yourself:
-Would you trust Hitler if he told you Canary Islands are worth visiting on summer?
-Would you trust Hitler if he told you jews are infrahuman?
(and now the most interest)
-Would you trust Hitler if he told you jews are pretty good guys after all?
See? There's nothing wrong with Hitler talking about pretty islands since, as far as we know there were nothing wrong about his perceptions on landscapes, but you couldn't trust him about jews, even if he talked about them in good terms because we know too good this is not an issue we can confy him any credit at (hummm... now he says jews are good guys? Surely he is concealing something). When you know the messenger it's quite intelligent to take advantage of such knowledge.
"Fair use permits the copying of an entire work only where it is necessary for critique."
Like, say, in a forum where people can exchange ideas in a hierarchical manner about a text offered than can furtherly cited?
Oh, wait...