Indeed. When you buy a car - you own it, not the blueprints for the model. When you buy a book - you own it, not the rights to the text. When you buy a SW package - you may or may not own it, but not the rights to the actual code (unless specified).
The SW isn't "in your possession" in a typical commercial EULA. What you get is a "licence" to use the software, under certain conditions. You don't own the SW after you buy it. In a sense, the GPL is the same, as you don't "own" the SW either (the copyright remains with the author(s)); the difference is what you're allowed to do with it.
Incorrect.
Under a EULA, you own neither the SW (that you paid for) nor the copyright.
Under the GPL, you do own the SW. You can re-sell it, give it away, install it on all of your computers, use it while disclosing benchmark test results of the.NET Framework to third parties without Microsoft's prior written approval, etc. After all - it's yours.
What you cannot do is violate copyright law. You cannot distribute the SW without the copyright holder's permission. Same as you cannot scan, OCR, reprint and resell copies of John Grisham's latest novel. There are some other restrictions under copyright law but you got the idea.
What the GPL brings to the table is a way to copyright holder to automatically grant permissions or waivers, provided that you abide by certain rules.
In a way, the GPL says: if you provide the source code (etc, etc) then you have permission to do some things that copyright laws usually restrict you from doing. If you don't - well, enjoy using the SW however you see fit, as long as you don't violate any laws, including copyright law.
EULA says: yours is mine and I'll dictate how you use it. GPL says: your is yours, do whatever is legal with it and, if you play nice, I'll even waive some of my legal rights and permit you to do what the law usually forbids.
Spam is a global problem, you cannot control it with local laws.
What recourse has a person in Canada who receives spam from a Ukrainian company, sent through an open relay in Brazil and pointing him to a web site in China?
> 1) Israel is a close ally of the US, we always exchange intelligence data with them. (emphasis mine)
Right on the first count, wrong on the second. The US exchanges intelligence data with Israel when it is deemed to benefit US interests.
> 2) Torture is legal in israel.
Torture is illegal in israel.
On 6 September 1999, a nine-judge panel of the Israeli Supreme Court unanimously outlawed using methods of physical force in interrogations.
Previously, the use of physical force in interrogations was used in "ticking bomb" cases, i.e., "when it is necessary to immediately save life from a concrete danger of a serious attack, and no other reasonable course exists to achieve this result."
> 3) Israelis have lots of experience torturing arabs. they know what makes the arab tick, they have lots of insight into the arab psycology.
Bullshit.
> 4) They don't like arabs.
Yet More Bullshit. Israelis don't "like" terrorists, suicide bombers included. Most Israelis don't like people who support terrorists. Some Israelis don't like Arabs in general but then, some US citizens don't like them as well, it is an issue with individual people.
> No, the copyright holder can't tell me what I can and can't do with teh work. It's called the doctrine of first sale (look it up) they loose control over it after they sell it to me. [...] However I am free do what I please with the peice I bought. I can alter it, deface it, destroy it, resell it, just not copy it.
Since the software industry has already found a way to circumvent the doctrine of first sale, what makes you so sure that the content industry will not adopt the practice?
> Once you sell something it becomes the property of the purchaser. [...] You sell all control over everything else when you sell the work. If you insist people watch it your way, don't sell it, play it in carefully controlled environments.
However, I will not be surprised if, in 20 years, the planet's only super power, bowing to the unrelenting pressure of corporate interests, will declare content-sans-DRM a weapon of international terrorism and threaten to nuke any country that does not outlaw it.
And while I hold the podium, please allow me to offer several quotations from Lord Acton:
- Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority.
- There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means.
- Property is not a sacred right. When a rich man becomes poor it is a misfortune, it is not a moral evil.
- Everything secret degenerates; nothing is safe that does not bear discussion and publicity.
- The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.
>Yeah, instead I live in fear that the CRTC will kick me off the air for a lack of Canadian content,
Do you own a national broadcasting station? Wow...
>and that they'll break down my door for deciding I prefer to watch foreign satellite TV.
Not enforced. Now if you try to sell equipment to watch foreign sattelite that's a different matter.
> Oh, and I have to live in fear that I'll get busted for swearing on my cellphone
Hmmm... I missed that one. Care to provide a link?
> or accidentally downloading hate speech.
Ever visited a site that popped up a porn banner? If the subject is under 18, you can be charged with child-porn possession (even though you can legally have sex with them, the age of concent is 14).
> Them's the laws, I didn't make 'em. Fortunately, thank God, the swearing and hate speech laws aren't enforced too often. The other two are all the time, though.
The first one only affects broadcasting and the second one is not enforced.
A chessboard is 8x8, meaning 64 spaces. However, each space can contain a pawn, a rook, a bishop, a knight, a king or a queen of either colour. The best estimate for the number of states the board can be in is 2.99x1041.
Not all of these states are reachable by legal moves, though. The number of reachable states is still vast, but far smaller than the number of total states, and far harder to calculate.
According to this article, The number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be 10^40, and the number of different legal games that can be played is estimated to be 10^120.
>I am looking for the new RAH/Piers Anthony/Roger Zelazny/Weis & Hickman etc..., of the world. I have read just about everything I could find on King Aurthur, all of the Dragon Lance stuff and all or most of the 'old school' hardcore. I don't know, I have maybe 4000 books at home, most of them Scifi/SF.
Personally, I dislike the Weis & Hickman novels, especially the DragonLance series. They read like a script of a D&D campaign, they put too much emphasis on "special effects" while neglecting the basics (like character development, internal consistency, etc.)
Piers Anthony had some very interesting ideas but I felt that the series that I read quickly became repetetive or degenerated into punfests. Maybe it was intentional but I found it tiresome.
Zelazly is a different matter. I read most of his books and liked most of what I read. I especially enjoyed "Eye of Cat".
>I am looking for some new stuff. I haven't bought any kind of book other than techie for more than 2 years. I just keep reading the ones that I have over and over and over. What are you guys reading? If it is a series, please list ALL of the books in it!
It is hard to give a recommendation, as our tastes differ, but I'll tell you what works for me.
Start with the familiar then expand and branch out.
You've mentioned Zelazny. Have you read his non-Amber books as well? Some of them are as good or even better.
Most readers are familiar with the hard SF of Larry Niven. However, he also wrote some interesting fantasy stories (try "The Time of the Warlock", etc.) Being a hard SF writer, he does not cut corners in making his universes internally consistent.
You've probably read Asimov. Why don't you try his popular science books? Even though they contain only the "science" part (without the "fiction"), they are still a most enjoyable reading material. And if you happen to learn something from them, consider it an added bonus. There's a list here
Also, there are several good authors that wrote some SF/fantasy but it is not their only (or even main) focus. Read some of the SF writings of Ray Bradbury (start with "The Martian Chronicles") and if you like his style read his other fiction. Try the same approach with Kurt Vonnegut's work.
Effective Java is the best second book for learning to program well in Java. The best first book is Thinking in Java by Bruce Eckel, which is just out in its third edition.
You forgot to mention that most of Bruce Eckel's books are available online in a variety of formats, for free.
We're getting more and more off topic here. I understand your position (even if I may disagree with some of your numbers.)
Getting back to the source of the argument, I still maintain that when a lawyer or a law firm reaps an 8-figure sum in commissions on a high-profile case, they didn't "work hard to earn that money" in the sense that their work/profit ratio was negligible.
It is a problem in the American legal system that justice comes with a high price tag.
I Never claimed that they were all in that age bracket, just that the article said that those that were, got better paying jobs (on the average) than the older ones. 62% of their jobs were in the private sector with a median salary of 90K.
> Actually, thing have gotten much worse.
Beg your pardon? Let's look at the full quote: "This 28th consecutive report documents the first decrease in the employment rate of new law graduates since 1993, with a figure of 90% of graduates for whom employment status was known. This compares with a figure of 91.5% for the prior year, and is evidence of the effect of the general economic downturn on the employment market for new law school graduates."
Much worse? Please! Name one other sector that has it better. Also, comparing the 2002 report and the 2001 report shows that the median salary of lawyers' first jobs in the private sector rose from 80K to 90K.
> Salaries were inflated SKY HIGH due to the tech bubble
The "tech bubble" burst around April 2000. Please compare the pre-burst 2/2000 survey with the post-burst 2/2001 survey and the middle-of-economic-slowdown 2/2002 survey.
> such, that $125 is going to be the intro level salary for SPECIALIZED lawyers a looong time.
Please explain how can a lawyer fresh out of law school be SPECIALIZED? Please explain why, in your opinion, lawyers' salaries are different from the salaries of other people, which have fallen since 2000.
> In addition there have been a great number of layoffs and not too many golden parachutes. For example, Dechert's DC office let go of 9 first years (Right before their christmas party, no less!) this past December. And there has been belt tightening all around.
Nine? Wow... Now for some perspective: Nortel has announced a total of 52,000 layoffs in the 18 months prior to September 2002. Lucent has turfed 50,910 and Motorola Inc. 42,910.
The bottom line is: in Feb 2002, 90% of law school graduates of 2001 were employed. 57.8% of them obtained their first job in private practice.
> But lets not forget that the $125 is for specialized LARGE FIRM lawyers ONLY.
Recent graduates are not "specialized". Also, the article states: "Although salaries at large firms generally did not increase beyond the $125,000 level, the increasing frequency of salaries at this level widened the salary differential between private and public sector jobs." (emphasis mine)
Even if ignore the $125K figure, the $90K median in private practice is still impressive.
> Also, they work 60-80 hours a week!
Source please!
According to this article: "The typical Philadelphia lawyer works about 51 hours per week". Another article (sorry, lost the source) describes lawyers that are expected to generate 2000 billable hours/year as being severely overworked.
Also, the fact that lawyers bill their clients for X hours, does not mean that they actually worked that amount of time.
> To recap- 1- they are graduates who are probably older than you who are NOT KIDS
According to the survey, most of the best paid ones are.
> they are not fresh out of college, they are fresh out of LAW school
Not being a native English speaker, I thought that the term "college" could be applied to law school as well. Would the term "fresh out of university" be more acceptable?
> with another 100k+ debt, who will have to work at least 60 hours a week.
Source please!
>If they have it so great- why aren't YOU going to law school?!
What makes you think that my personal reasons for not going to law school have any bearing on the facts of the case?
Now let's look at the latest study from 2001-2002.
A summary is available here and a PDF with more info and charts is here.
Some interesting points from the summary:
* Of those graduates whose employment status was known, 90% were employed as of February 15, 2002
Remember, we are talking about the Class of 2001. 90% got employed fresh out of college. During a recession. Not bad, eh?
* Of graduates known to be employed, 57.8% obtained their first job in a law firm. Employment in business was 11.3% and Public service jobs accounted for 27.6%
The lawyers we're talking about are in the first group. Let's see what the article says about them...
* 62% of employed graduates age 20-25 entered private practice and private sector medians are higher - $90,000 in private practice
We are talking about kids (age 20-25) fresh out of college, earning $80K on their first job in 2001/2002. I wonder how hat compares to B.Sc. geeks...
* About 71% of the 29,118 jobs for which timing of offer was reported were obtained before graduation. One in six jobs was obtained after graduation but before bar results; the remaining 12% were obtained after bar results were issued.
Everybody loves them.
And now, the punchline:
Although salaries at large firms generally did not increase beyond the $125,000 level, the increasing frequency of salaries at this level widened the salary differential between private and public sector jobs. (emphasis mine)
Fresh out of college, during an economic downturn... Poor kids!
>Isn't this how a blacklist is supposed to work? I thought the idea was precisely to annoy the honest users, such that they complain to the ISP. If the users know that they are blacklisted because of a spammer, they are likely to either leave the ISP or pressure it to turn the spammer off. It's not nice, but the intent is to get results.
Isn't this how terrorism is supposed to work? I thought the idea was precisely to intimidate the innocent civilians, such that they pressure their government. If the civilians know that they are attached because of the actions of their government, they are likely to either emigrate or pressure their government to change its policy. It's not nice, but the intent is to get results.
I heard that DirectTV is very aggressive with their ECM. A friend told me he had to "perform maintanence" on his card almost daily.
What I don;t understand is - with all the effort that goes into hacking the satellite signals, how come nobody succeeded in producing cards that just work (in the same manner that "legal" cards do)?
Asking Slashdot will likely generate a lot of dumb ideas that won't fly legally, but it also at times generates the occasional 5-Insightful that contains the idea that neither you nor your lawyer would have thought of.
Unfortunately, a large number of "5-Insightful" comments on/. should have been "-5 Dead Wrong".
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed.
When you buy a car - you own it, not the blueprints for the model.
When you buy a book - you own it, not the rights to the text.
When you buy a SW package - you may or may not own it, but not the rights to the actual code (unless specified).
The SW isn't "in your possession" in a typical commercial EULA. What you get is a "licence" to use the software, under certain conditions. You don't own the SW after you buy it.
.NET Framework to third parties without Microsoft's prior written approval, etc. After all - it's yours.
In a sense, the GPL is the same, as you don't "own" the SW either (the copyright remains with the author(s)); the difference is what you're allowed to do with it.
Incorrect.
Under a EULA, you own neither the SW (that you paid for) nor the copyright.
Under the GPL, you do own the SW. You can re-sell it, give it away, install it on all of your computers, use it while disclosing benchmark test results of the
What you cannot do is violate copyright law. You cannot distribute the SW without the copyright holder's permission. Same as you cannot scan, OCR, reprint and resell copies of John Grisham's latest novel. There are some other restrictions under copyright law but you got the idea.
What the GPL brings to the table is a way to copyright holder to automatically grant permissions or waivers, provided that you abide by certain rules.
In a way, the GPL says: if you provide the source code (etc, etc) then you have permission to do some things that copyright laws usually restrict you from doing. If you don't - well, enjoy using the SW however you see fit, as long as you don't violate any laws, including copyright law.
EULA says: yours is mine and I'll dictate how you use it.
GPL says: your is yours, do whatever is legal with it and, if you play nice, I'll even waive some of my legal rights and permit you to do what the law usually forbids.
Not even remotely similar.
Spam is a global problem, you cannot control it with local laws.
What recourse has a person in Canada who receives spam from a Ukrainian company, sent through an open relay in Brazil and pointing him to a web site in China?
How will you attempt to prevent it?
> 1) Israel is a close ally of the US, we always exchange intelligence data with them. (emphasis mine)
Right on the first count, wrong on the second. The US exchanges intelligence data with Israel when it is deemed to benefit US interests.
> 2) Torture is legal in israel.
Torture is illegal in israel.
On 6 September 1999, a nine-judge panel of the Israeli Supreme Court unanimously outlawed using methods of physical force in interrogations.
Previously, the use of physical force in interrogations was used in "ticking bomb" cases, i.e., "when it is necessary to immediately save life from a concrete danger of a serious attack, and no other reasonable course exists to achieve this result."
> 3) Israelis have lots of experience torturing arabs. they know what makes the arab tick, they have lots of insight into the arab psycology.
Bullshit.
> 4) They don't like arabs.
Yet More Bullshit. Israelis don't "like" terrorists, suicide bombers included. Most Israelis don't like people who support terrorists. Some Israelis don't like Arabs in general but then, some US citizens don't like them as well, it is an issue with individual people.
> No, the copyright holder can't tell me what I can and can't do with teh work. It's called the doctrine of first sale (look it up) they loose control over it after they sell it to me. [...]
However I am free do what I please with the peice I bought. I can alter it, deface it, destroy it, resell it, just not copy it.
Since the software industry has already found a way to circumvent the doctrine of first sale, what makes you so sure that the content industry will not adopt the practice?
> Once you sell something it becomes the property of the purchaser. [...]
You sell all control over everything else when you sell the work. If you insist people watch it your way, don't sell it, play it in carefully controlled environments.
Or lisense it under an EULA.
However, I will not be surprised if, in 20 years, the planet's only super power, bowing to the unrelenting pressure of corporate interests, will declare content-sans-DRM a weapon of international terrorism and threaten to nuke any country that does not outlaw it.
And while I hold the podium, please allow me to offer several quotations from Lord Acton:
- Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority.
- There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means.
- Property is not a sacred right. When a rich man becomes poor it is a misfortune, it is not a moral evil.
- Everything secret degenerates; nothing is safe that does not bear discussion and publicity.
- The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.
>Yeah, instead I live in fear that the CRTC will kick me off the air for a lack of Canadian content,
Do you own a national broadcasting station? Wow...
>and that they'll break down my door for deciding I prefer to watch foreign satellite TV.
Not enforced. Now if you try to sell equipment to watch foreign sattelite that's a different matter.
> Oh, and I have to live in fear that I'll get busted for swearing on my cellphone
Hmmm... I missed that one. Care to provide a link?
> or accidentally downloading hate speech.
Ever visited a site that popped up a porn banner? If the subject is under 18, you can be charged with child-porn possession (even though you can legally have sex with them, the age of concent is 14).
> Them's the laws, I didn't make 'em. Fortunately, thank God, the swearing and hate speech laws aren't enforced too often. The other two are all the time, though.
The first one only affects broadcasting and the second one is not enforced.
According to this article, The number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be 10^40, and the number of different legal games that can be played is estimated to be 10^120.
Using postmaster@<upstream ISP> is more effective.
As usual, Google comes to the rescue.
Please raise hell.
>I am looking for the new RAH/Piers Anthony/Roger Zelazny/Weis & Hickman etc..., of the world. I have read just about everything I could find on King Aurthur, all of the Dragon Lance stuff and all or most of the 'old school' hardcore. I don't know, I have maybe 4000 books at home, most of them Scifi/SF.
Personally, I dislike the Weis & Hickman novels, especially the DragonLance series. They read like a script of a D&D campaign, they put too much emphasis on "special effects" while neglecting the basics (like character development, internal consistency, etc.)
Piers Anthony had some very interesting ideas but I felt that the series that I read quickly became repetetive or degenerated into punfests. Maybe it was intentional but I found it tiresome.
Zelazly is a different matter. I read most of his books and liked most of what I read. I especially enjoyed "Eye of Cat".
>I am looking for some new stuff. I haven't bought any kind of book other than techie for more than 2 years. I just keep reading the ones that I have over and over and over. What are you guys reading? If it is a series, please list ALL of the books in it!
It is hard to give a recommendation, as our tastes differ, but I'll tell you what works for me.
Start with the familiar then expand and branch out.
You've mentioned Zelazny. Have you read his non-Amber books as well? Some of them are as good or even better.
Most readers are familiar with the hard SF of Larry Niven. However, he also wrote some interesting fantasy stories (try "The Time of the Warlock", etc.) Being a hard SF writer, he does not cut corners in making his universes internally consistent.
You've probably read Asimov. Why don't you try his popular science books? Even though they contain only the "science" part (without the "fiction"), they are still a most enjoyable reading material. And if you happen to learn something from them, consider it an added bonus. There's a list here
Also, there are several good authors that wrote some SF/fantasy but it is not their only (or even main) focus.
Read some of the SF writings of Ray Bradbury (start with "The Martian Chronicles") and if you like his style read his other fiction.
Try the same approach with Kurt Vonnegut's work.
Effective Java is the best second book for learning to program well in Java. The best first book is Thinking in Java by Bruce Eckel, which is just out in its third edition.
You forgot to mention that most of Bruce Eckel's books are available online in a variety of formats, for free.
mekkab,
We're getting more and more off topic here. I understand your position (even if I may disagree with some of your numbers.)
Getting back to the source of the argument, I still maintain that when a lawyer or a law firm reaps an 8-figure sum in commissions on a high-profile case, they didn't "work hard to earn that money" in the sense that their work/profit ratio was negligible.
It is a problem in the American legal system that justice comes with a high price tag.
Over and out.
> Fist off these are NOT all kids who are 20-25.
I Never claimed that they were all in that age bracket, just that the article said that those that were, got better paying jobs (on the average) than the older ones. 62% of their jobs were in the private sector with a median salary of 90K.
> Actually, thing have gotten much worse.
Beg your pardon? Let's look at the full quote:
"This 28th consecutive report documents the first decrease in the employment rate of new law graduates since 1993, with a figure of 90% of graduates for whom employment status was known. This compares with a figure of 91.5% for the prior year, and is evidence of the effect of the general economic downturn on the employment market for new law school graduates."
Much worse? Please! Name one other sector that has it better.
Also, comparing the 2002 report and the 2001 report shows that the median salary of lawyers' first jobs in the private sector rose from 80K to 90K.
> Salaries were inflated SKY HIGH due to the tech bubble
The "tech bubble" burst around April 2000. Please compare the pre-burst 2/2000 survey with the post-burst 2/2001 survey and the middle-of-economic-slowdown 2/2002 survey.
> such, that $125 is going to be the intro level salary for SPECIALIZED lawyers a looong time.
Please explain how can a lawyer fresh out of law school be SPECIALIZED?
Please explain why, in your opinion, lawyers' salaries are different from the salaries of other people, which have fallen since 2000.
> In addition there have been a great number of layoffs and not too many golden parachutes.
For example, Dechert's DC office let go of 9 first years (Right before their christmas party, no less!) this past December. And there has been belt tightening all around.
Nine? Wow... Now for some perspective:
Nortel has announced a total of 52,000 layoffs in the 18 months prior to September 2002. Lucent has turfed 50,910 and Motorola Inc. 42,910.
The bottom line is: in Feb 2002, 90% of law school graduates of 2001 were employed. 57.8% of them obtained their first job in private practice.
> But lets not forget that the $125 is for specialized LARGE FIRM lawyers ONLY.
Recent graduates are not "specialized". Also, the article states:
"Although salaries at large firms generally did not increase beyond the $125,000 level, the increasing frequency of salaries at this level widened the salary differential between private and public sector jobs." (emphasis mine)
Even if ignore the $125K figure, the $90K median in private practice is still impressive.
> Also, they work 60-80 hours a week!
Source please!
According to this article: "The typical Philadelphia lawyer works about 51 hours per week".
Another article (sorry, lost the source) describes lawyers that are expected to generate 2000 billable hours/year as being severely overworked.
Also, the fact that lawyers bill their clients for X hours, does not mean that they actually worked that amount of time.
> To recap- 1- they are graduates who are probably older than you who are NOT KIDS
According to the survey, most of the best paid ones are.
> they are not fresh out of college, they are fresh out of LAW school
Not being a native English speaker, I thought that the term "college" could be applied to law school as well. Would the term "fresh out of university" be more acceptable?
> with another 100k+ debt, who will have to work at least 60 hours a week.
Source please!
>If they have it so great- why aren't YOU going to law school?!
What makes you think that my personal reasons for not going to law school have any bearing on the facts of the case?
Now let's look at the latest study from 2001-2002.
A summary is available here and a PDF with more info and charts is here.
Some interesting points from the summary:
* Of those graduates whose employment status was known, 90% were employed as of February 15, 2002
Remember, we are talking about the Class of 2001. 90% got employed fresh out of college. During a recession. Not bad, eh?
* Of graduates known to be employed, 57.8% obtained their first job in a law firm. Employment in business was 11.3% and Public service jobs accounted for 27.6%
The lawyers we're talking about are in the first group. Let's see what the article says about them...
* 62% of employed graduates age 20-25 entered private practice and private sector medians are higher - $90,000 in private practice
We are talking about kids (age 20-25) fresh out of college, earning $80K on their first job in 2001/2002. I wonder how hat compares to B.Sc. geeks...
* About 71% of the 29,118 jobs for which timing of offer was reported were obtained before graduation. One in six jobs was obtained after graduation but before bar results; the remaining 12% were obtained after bar results were issued.
Everybody loves them.
And now, the punchline:
Although salaries at large firms generally did not increase beyond the $125,000 level, the increasing frequency of salaries at this level widened the salary differential between private and public sector jobs. (emphasis mine)
Fresh out of college, during an economic downturn... Poor kids!
>Isn't this how a blacklist is supposed to work? I thought the idea was precisely to annoy the honest users, such that they complain to the ISP. If the users know that they are blacklisted because of a spammer, they are likely to either leave the ISP or pressure it to turn the spammer off. It's not nice, but the intent is to get results.
Isn't this how terrorism is supposed to work? I thought the idea was precisely to intimidate the innocent civilians, such that they pressure their government. If the civilians know that they are attached because of the actions of their government, they are likely to either emigrate or pressure their government to change its policy. It's not nice, but the intent is to get results.
I heard that DirectTV is very aggressive with their ECM.
A friend told me he had to "perform maintanence" on his card almost daily.
What I don;t understand is - with all the effort that goes into hacking the satellite signals, how come nobody succeeded in producing cards that just work (in the same manner that "legal" cards do)?
>I can see the day where an automated system can automatically flag and/or ticket you for exceeding the speed limit
How will they prove that you were the driver and not a passenger?
How will they prove that you were in the possession of the cell phone at the time?
"I lent the phone to my son who does not drive, so he must have hitched a ride with one of the neighbours"
> Oh joy. Yet ANOTHER person that can't grasp the difference between bits and bytes.
/. moderation system, where the LCD(*) rules the day!
The sad part is that it was moderated "4 Insightful".
Hurrah for the
(*) Lowest Common Denominator.
> I was holding out for the P800 until I was able to get the T68i on Amazon for $25
:-(
How come we don't get deals like that in Canada?
I still need to browse some sites that use Active/X. Are there any "alternative" browsers that support them?
Asking Slashdot will likely generate a lot of dumb ideas that won't fly legally, but it also at times generates the occasional 5-Insightful that contains the idea that neither you nor your lawyer would have thought of.
/. should have been "-5 Dead Wrong".
Unfortunately, a large number of "5-Insightful" comments on
Voting is a lousy way to arrive at the truth.
My one and only assertion was that a system that has sustained a country for 277 years can not be broken.
Ergo, any country that existed more than 277 years has a non-broken system?
Have you considered the possibility that a country may be "sustained" in spite of its (broken) system and not because it?
Broken? Something that has built and sustained a nation of 300 million for 277 years is broken?
Then, according to your logic, something that has built and sustained a nation of 1.28 billions for some thousands of years is clearly superior.