True that - some people never touch IP addresses, some of us use them daily, and some - like me - use them a few times a week. The last time I used an IP address instead of a domain name was two days ago to log in to my router and add a laptop to the mac filtering table. Before that? SSH'ing to a work machine that we purposely have not given a domain name. Sure, I could edit/etc/hosts to give names to these places, but at the same time I do not have trouble with a couple of IP addresses every now and then.
Which is why every residential Internet user is having to use NAT to connect more than one device to their always-on Internet connection.
Um, thats not really a problem. Home NATs bring with them lots of features that help people who don't know much about networking. Also, most ISPs only give you one IP anyway, especially for residential use, unless you want to pay for an extra IP, which means buying another line from your ISP. NATs are how ISPs can say "Only use this address for one device" and turn a blind eye to the fact that you might have 6 computers on your single device line.
We don't have a problem, then, at the moment. IPv6 has great potential to help us in the future, but there is no immediate threat to the tubes as it stands with IPv4.
Think also, though, about the need for people to grow and maintain the drugs "Made in the USA" if we legalized. Thats a lot of jobs right there, not to mention what a better adoption of hemp as a base material for things like fabrics, plastics and rope, among other things - this too, would create jobs. If the gov't stands to gain more from the legalization of certain drugs than to continue the war, that money can also go to fund public works projects and a slew of other plans that would, all in all, create more jobs, including for those people displaced by the end of the war. And, while nobody likes to have their job taken away, sometimes things have to get a little shaky and unstable to achieve great success - of course, if you told me that and that my job would be taken away, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, so I shouldn't really be talking on an end that I have no experience with.
Yep, millionaires needed - or even better, top-level politician millionaires. Essentially, you need someone with more combined power than the American Medical Association, who reported that the use of cannabis was found to be safe in most regards and that it shouldn't be outlawed, but oh look their testimony was completely disregarded. Sadly, the war on drugs doesn't rely on the law, rather the law is really a pretty face on the underhanded tactics and bribes to keep drugs illegal.
I would agree that its about money in certain respects - the people on top are benefiting - a war on drugs helps their campaign because people are scared of what they don't know, and instead of learning they hear their gov't say "SAY NO TO DRUGS!" "Why?" "BECAUSE THEIR EEEEEVIL!" Then, the politician says "I promise to eradicate drugs in the SCHOOLS, in the STREETS, and in the HOME." The crowd goes "baa". And while these people receive support for the war, the taxpayers foot the bill for the war on drugs when it comes to housing inmates, fueling law-enforcement, and giving up what, at one time, were basic freedoms.
This isn't just costly on the monetary level; the war on drugs has cost many Americans more than money can pay for (I mean, a multi-million dollar settlement for the loss of a loved one due to "covert" LSD research by the CIA is a lot, but no amount of money can bring back someone you lost to poor judgment on anyone's part).
I hate the feeling that I can't choose to use a drug less harmful than alcohol and less physically addictive than chocolate because someone in the 30s had a vested interest in keeping cannabis out of America - which has totally worked, by the way, the war that costs taxpayers BILLIONS over the last 40 years, because you know, there is no pot in America today.
Also, from wikipedia's War on Drugs article:
"A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy â" $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs)"
I, for one, would love taxed and legal drugs. I feel bad that the gov't can't burn down with me, I'm sure they've confiscated plenty of cool bongs and buds over the years.
The war on drugs makes a lot of money GO AWAY. There is no way that anyone is making money from the war on drugs except maybe sellers, and even they don't make much. If you're in a good position of dealing drugs, chances are your day will come and your arrest will lead to much of that ill-gotten $$$ being taken away. On the other side, law enforcement and gov't only lose money fighting the war on drugs. Prison space, personnel to staff these prisons, paying law enforcement agencies to crack down on drugs, SWAT teams, raids, propaganda, etc. The gov't would only stand to benefit from lifting of some prohibition - mainly the taxed and controlled sale of marijuana. I don't agree with lifting prohibition on some other drugs, like cocaine, heroine, and some psychedelics, at least not without proper "training" or preparation. Still, there isn't much good to spending tons of taxpayer money to keep drugs illegal, and we lose more lives to improper (or complete lack of) knowledge about drugs. I know more people who have had bad experiences on drugs because no one told them HOW TO USE THEM PROPERLY who were not deterred from trying them by the "war." All D.A.R.E. did for me was teach me what drugs looked like and gave me a neat bumper sticker (still rockin' it too, from the 80's. Ungh).
Well, that would be an issue - you see, it is an upgrade, you are only "allowed" to install it as an upgrade to a previous version of OSX, which means you should already have OSX and Apple hardware or you are in violation of the agreement.
Anyone trying to claim that that is not tying by every definition is the one doing the serious stretching of the imagination.
Illegal tying conditions:
1. There must be two separate products or services.
Check
2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).
Check
3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.
Nope
4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.
Check-ish
Point 3 is the one to look at - the seller, Apple, doesn't have that kind of power - free alternatives to OSX are widely available, and though you have to purchase OSX with an Apple machine, it doesn't restrict you from installing Linux or Windows (not free, but you can still run it on x86 macs). Thus, a tying claim would likely fail. Thanks to GarryPatterson for posting something similar in another Slashdot article pertaining to the Pystar case.
Gotta say, I always like your posts - well informed and supported. It would definitely make sense that M$ could be behind Pystar, or at least be a supporting party. But, then again, Pystar would only help Microsoft indirectly, no? More OS X sales doesn't translate to more Windows sales, obviously, it just hurts Apple's ability to say "Only Apple can do that!" And still, Pystar doesn't have but maybe a gangrenous leg to stand on in this legal battle, right? OSX is licensed ONLY for Apple hardware and not sold as a standalone product, and you can't really call what they are doing monopoly activity without doing some serious stretching of the imagination - as noted by PJ - so I'm not sure what will get accomplished here other than Apple will get a slightly negative viewing by a small portion of the population that doesn't bother to read the news, just the headlines and hearsay...M$ is the perfect company to buy into FUD tactics.
I have been playing less aggressively, but I feel like these kinds of things should be going through more rigorous testing if it has gotten this out of hand. It is just like the slew of complaints with the first batch of 360 wired guitars for Rock Band - utter shit in the strum bar. Someone, somewhere in QA must have been strumming down the whole time, never realizing that strumming up with anything more than a feather touch would result in an extra strum, or no strum registered at all.
It feels like quality IS that bad, IMHO. I recently purchased Rock Band from a local Target and within two weeks our kick was in four pieces. Another month past that and the yellow drum pad is dead as a doornail. Not happy with the failing equipment, but so far EA has been making good on replacing our parts in a timely manor - we got the new kick within a week of filing a complaint, and I've yet to send off about the pad, but I'm going to have to play a lot more cautiously once we're out of warranty, which is soon.
I mean, either way it is ABC doing the news here, and it seems that their ACTION branding means "We won't link to the other article we ran about this, and we will omit information that would cause/. readers to tag this !missing."
Kirk Shireman, deputy shuttle program manager, says that while only one spider is visible, that doesn't mean the other is missing. 'We don't believe he has escaped the payload. I am sure we will find him spinning a web somewhere in the next few days.'"
This is why I don't trust any form of "Action" news.
I've heard it one too many times, which is >= 1 times. I pretty much give up at that point - once the click starts, your drive quickly begins to stop:(
I don't know that I agree with your spam-tax, primarily because you are going to see a lot of upset customers - A LOT - who will feel as if their ISP has shafted them with shady "you didn't know it but we're charging you for having an infected computer" practices. BUT, it wouldn't hurt ISPs to require user systems to pass a set of tests before getting online. Of course, that also raises questions and concerns - my reply would be "I paid for it now let me online!" ISPs hate it when you get irate - they hate it even more when you threaten to cancel service (could save you $60~$100 a year!)
I really really think that they'll run into the "no bots" issues presented in many games' terms. Of course, they could make a MMO for their AI bots to play on and not ever bother people playing real games.
For sure! My "operating systems" professor was a n00b to the *NIX and wouldn't ever tab completion. Unfortunately, this was even worse because it meant that no one in the class - and most of them were pretty new to things other than Windows - would learn this helpful trick either. He also didn't do code indentation very well - using notepad.exe just makes it worse
Slashdot Mirror
True that - some people never touch IP addresses, some of us use them daily, and some - like me - use them a few times a week. The last time I used an IP address instead of a domain name was two days ago to log in to my router and add a laptop to the mac filtering table. Before that? SSH'ing to a work machine that we purposely have not given a domain name. Sure, I could edit /etc/hosts to give names to these places, but at the same time I do not have trouble with a couple of IP addresses every now and then.
Um, thats not really a problem. Home NATs bring with them lots of features that help people who don't know much about networking. Also, most ISPs only give you one IP anyway, especially for residential use, unless you want to pay for an extra IP, which means buying another line from your ISP. NATs are how ISPs can say "Only use this address for one device" and turn a blind eye to the fact that you might have 6 computers on your single device line.
We don't have a problem, then, at the moment. IPv6 has great potential to help us in the future, but there is no immediate threat to the tubes as it stands with IPv4.
Think also, though, about the need for people to grow and maintain the drugs "Made in the USA" if we legalized. Thats a lot of jobs right there, not to mention what a better adoption of hemp as a base material for things like fabrics, plastics and rope, among other things - this too, would create jobs. If the gov't stands to gain more from the legalization of certain drugs than to continue the war, that money can also go to fund public works projects and a slew of other plans that would, all in all, create more jobs, including for those people displaced by the end of the war. And, while nobody likes to have their job taken away, sometimes things have to get a little shaky and unstable to achieve great success - of course, if you told me that and that my job would be taken away, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, so I shouldn't really be talking on an end that I have no experience with.
Yep, millionaires needed - or even better, top-level politician millionaires. Essentially, you need someone with more combined power than the American Medical Association, who reported that the use of cannabis was found to be safe in most regards and that it shouldn't be outlawed, but oh look their testimony was completely disregarded. Sadly, the war on drugs doesn't rely on the law, rather the law is really a pretty face on the underhanded tactics and bribes to keep drugs illegal.
Also, just have to RE to your subject line: How can I hold my breath? I'm about to cough my face off here!
This isn't just costly on the monetary level; the war on drugs has cost many Americans more than money can pay for (I mean, a multi-million dollar settlement for the loss of a loved one due to "covert" LSD research by the CIA is a lot, but no amount of money can bring back someone you lost to poor judgment on anyone's part).
I hate the feeling that I can't choose to use a drug less harmful than alcohol and less physically addictive than chocolate because someone in the 30s had a vested interest in keeping cannabis out of America - which has totally worked, by the way, the war that costs taxpayers BILLIONS over the last 40 years, because you know, there is no pot in America today.
Also, from wikipedia's War on Drugs article:
"A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy â" $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs)"
I, for one, would love taxed and legal drugs. I feel bad that the gov't can't burn down with me, I'm sure they've confiscated plenty of cool bongs and buds over the years.
The war on drugs makes a lot of money GO AWAY. There is no way that anyone is making money from the war on drugs except maybe sellers, and even they don't make much. If you're in a good position of dealing drugs, chances are your day will come and your arrest will lead to much of that ill-gotten $$$ being taken away. On the other side, law enforcement and gov't only lose money fighting the war on drugs. Prison space, personnel to staff these prisons, paying law enforcement agencies to crack down on drugs, SWAT teams, raids, propaganda, etc. The gov't would only stand to benefit from lifting of some prohibition - mainly the taxed and controlled sale of marijuana. I don't agree with lifting prohibition on some other drugs, like cocaine, heroine, and some psychedelics, at least not without proper "training" or preparation. Still, there isn't much good to spending tons of taxpayer money to keep drugs illegal, and we lose more lives to improper (or complete lack of) knowledge about drugs. I know more people who have had bad experiences on drugs because no one told them HOW TO USE THEM PROPERLY who were not deterred from trying them by the "war." All D.A.R.E. did for me was teach me what drugs looked like and gave me a neat bumper sticker (still rockin' it too, from the 80's. Ungh).
ARE YOU SMOKING YET?
Without ALL of those, no one else stands a chance. I mean, look at Silverlight - its a bomb. A crude bomb.
The software is tied, yes, but not in a way that prevents you from choosing to use other software later.
How else does one upgrade their OSX 10.4 to 10.5?
Well, that would be an issue - you see, it is an upgrade, you are only "allowed" to install it as an upgrade to a previous version of OSX, which means you should already have OSX and Apple hardware or you are in violation of the agreement.
Anyone trying to claim that that is not tying by every definition is the one doing the serious stretching of the imagination.
Illegal tying conditions:
1. There must be two separate products or services.
Check
2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).
Check
3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.
Nope
4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.
Check-ish
Point 3 is the one to look at - the seller, Apple, doesn't have that kind of power - free alternatives to OSX are widely available, and though you have to purchase OSX with an Apple machine, it doesn't restrict you from installing Linux or Windows (not free, but you can still run it on x86 macs). Thus, a tying claim would likely fail. Thanks to GarryPatterson for posting something similar in another Slashdot article pertaining to the Pystar case.
Gotta say, I always like your posts - well informed and supported. It would definitely make sense that M$ could be behind Pystar, or at least be a supporting party. But, then again, Pystar would only help Microsoft indirectly, no? More OS X sales doesn't translate to more Windows sales, obviously, it just hurts Apple's ability to say "Only Apple can do that!" And still, Pystar doesn't have but maybe a gangrenous leg to stand on in this legal battle, right? OSX is licensed ONLY for Apple hardware and not sold as a standalone product, and you can't really call what they are doing monopoly activity without doing some serious stretching of the imagination - as noted by PJ - so I'm not sure what will get accomplished here other than Apple will get a slightly negative viewing by a small portion of the population that doesn't bother to read the news, just the headlines and hearsay...M$ is the perfect company to buy into FUD tactics.
If so, the Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
I have been playing less aggressively, but I feel like these kinds of things should be going through more rigorous testing if it has gotten this out of hand. It is just like the slew of complaints with the first batch of 360 wired guitars for Rock Band - utter shit in the strum bar. Someone, somewhere in QA must have been strumming down the whole time, never realizing that strumming up with anything more than a feather touch would result in an extra strum, or no strum registered at all.
It feels like quality IS that bad, IMHO. I recently purchased Rock Band from a local Target and within two weeks our kick was in four pieces. Another month past that and the yellow drum pad is dead as a doornail. Not happy with the failing equipment, but so far EA has been making good on replacing our parts in a timely manor - we got the new kick within a week of filing a complaint, and I've yet to send off about the pad, but I'm going to have to play a lot more cautiously once we're out of warranty, which is soon.
I mean, either way it is ABC doing the news here, and it seems that their ACTION branding means "We won't link to the other article we ran about this, and we will omit information that would cause /. readers to tag this !missing."
From the more detailed article: "
Kirk Shireman, deputy shuttle program manager, says that while only one spider is visible, that doesn't mean the other is missing. 'We don't believe he has escaped the payload. I am sure we will find him spinning a web somewhere in the next few days.'"
This is why I don't trust any form of "Action" news.
I've heard it one too many times, which is >= 1 times. I pretty much give up at that point - once the click starts, your drive quickly begins to stop :(
I don't know that I agree with your spam-tax, primarily because you are going to see a lot of upset customers - A LOT - who will feel as if their ISP has shafted them with shady "you didn't know it but we're charging you for having an infected computer" practices. BUT, it wouldn't hurt ISPs to require user systems to pass a set of tests before getting online. Of course, that also raises questions and concerns - my reply would be "I paid for it now let me online!" ISPs hate it when you get irate - they hate it even more when you threaten to cancel service (could save you $60~$100 a year!)
I really really think that they'll run into the "no bots" issues presented in many games' terms. Of course, they could make a MMO for their AI bots to play on and not ever bother people playing real games.
My fucking whites!
Someone else mod this guy +1 something - I can't find "Funderrated."
Wow, I've always been a big "fg" fan, but I never knew that you could bg something as well. Thank you much!
For sure! My "operating systems" professor was a n00b to the *NIX and wouldn't ever tab completion. Unfortunately, this was even worse because it meant that no one in the class - and most of them were pretty new to things other than Windows - would learn this helpful trick either. He also didn't do code indentation very well - using notepad.exe just makes it worse
Hah, screencapped for posterity (0 is a post!) http://i38.tinypic.com/dr8gzn.jpg