...So to be clear, private colleges (not all) *can* and do stifle free speech and are exempt from many parts of Title XIV or free speech restrictions... FIRE concentrating on large public institutions makes perfect sense because it affects far more people than private institutions and they shouldn't even be *thinking* of doing stuff like this, yet do anyway.
The top school in the list is a private school, so that's simply not the case.
He didn't say they concentrated exclusively on public institutions. He said that they concentrated on public institutions because they could not implement "speech" restrictions in the way that private institutions could.
While Mount St. Mary's is a private, Catholic institution, it makes promises of free speech and academic freedom to its community that it is morally and legally obligated to uphold -- promises it broke in firing the faculty members.
If you, as a private institution, chose to make a contractual commitment to free speech, then yes, someone like a faculty member who is party to that contract can go after you for violating free speech. And other entities can lend support to those people and/or criticize hypocrisy.
If you don't make such a commitment, you are far more insulated from legal action than any public institution.
I'd say it's useful wherever you currently use wifi under artificial lighting.
Sure it is. Is your designated wifi use area positioned under a single artificial light? Because mine is neither designated nor illuminable by a single light.
Imagine an access point with this technology. Now imagine that you need an access point for every room where you want a connection. Now consider that this technology might not work so well with reflected light, and may need more than one access point in a single room to maintain a line of sight, say when you have recessed floodlights.
Access points can be cheap, but they're not as cheap as LED floodlights, even after years of availability (802.11n), much less the new hotness (802.11ac) . More to the point, I don't have to worry about patching my LED floodlights or having the manufacturer helpfully patching my lights to remove things like third party compatibility (looking at you, Philips Hue). I have a pair of 2.4GHz APs that do what I need them to do, and I'm not included to update them further because 5GHz signal propagation blows in my house and would require even more access points. Limiting everything to near-line-of-sight is not an improvement (60GHz technology -- really? Wired ethernet is that evil?).
Honestly you really need to read closer. IS it really they can't afford it or they can't afford it after thinking they need to increase profits by 25%. You really cant believe anything out of the mouths of the executives because they believe they are entitled to record profits and will word it as they are losing money..... losing imaginary money they want.
If I'm on a month-to-month contract and decide that you're not paying me enough, I quit at the end of the month. Whether I'm making or losing money has nothing to do with whether I can or not. Similarly, even if they've decided that they're merely not making enough money, they are only obligated to fulfill the terms of their contract and then it's adios.
You can question the motives all that you want, but neither side can force the other to continue to deal. If they don't want to sell to you at the old price, your choice is to pay the new price or walk.
Please, tell this practicing IP attorney how copyright works...
If you have say a piece of code licensed for non-commercial use
The GPL says nothing about commercial versus non-commercial use.
you can't just write a wrapper and say my commercial use application talks to a wrapper, you can't just write a wrapper and say my commercial use application talks to a wrapper the wrapper talks to your code so the terms don't apply.
See my previous sentence. You're also talking about a user restriction, not an obligation to license derivative works under a particular license if they are distributed to others.
Instead it relies on a sleight of hand where the user is creating the illegal derivate through assembling bits that were acquired legally using a prepared script.
But the GPLv1-v3 licenses do not restrict the creation of derivative works at all. Those licenses restrict how you can distribute derivative works. Unless the user distributes the product of the prepared script, there's no violation.
That is hardly slight of hand -- now you're arguing that RMS wanted to control how individual users could use code on their own machines. Which is hilarious, because that's excatly opposite his stated goal.
If if you argue that the script is a derivative work, the ZFS code is a separate work developed apart from the kernel and the script. The GPL cannot touch the ZFS code and, by its own terms, does not control how the user privately uses the GPL code, whether in combination with other GPLed code, CDDL-licensed code, or Nvidia's super-proprietary and non-free driver code.
Just like you can acquire a bunch of legal chemicals, start a meth lab and end up with an illegal product.
he's picking his file system so that he complies with Copyright Law. why would you have an issue with that? i also don't understand why a Corporation (Canonical) would encourage people to ignore Copyright Law.
Identify the copyright violation:
"This problem is being worked around by providing the kernel facilities through a separate kernel module, a technical solution for a legal problem that is also being employed by vendors and distributors of proprietary hardware drivers."
The GPL does not autmatically apply to anything that touches the kernel. It only applies to derivative works of a GPLed work. If they write a GPLed wrapper that is a derivative of both the kernel and the ZFS sources and chose to dual license it, then there's no need for the ZFS sources to be GPL licensed -- merely the wrapper. No GPL-code-inspired modifications, no GPL-defined derivatie work and no GPL licensing requirement. (So sad.)
For a group which worships the copyright hack that the GPL represents, it's odd that so many become so blind and incensed by anyone who dares to come up with a couter-hack to overcome some of the license's more idiotic features (i.e., it's open source, but it's not pure, GPL-certified open source, so you can't use it with our stuff). The only case that comes close to supporting GPL proponents' borg-like interpretation of the term "derviate work" is the Oracle v. Google fiasco. If that's the company that you want to keep, don't expect sympathy from me.
it would seem that's not okay, but where to draw the line? Who draws the line?
So, instead, ethicists and lawmakers draw the line waaaaaaaay over there, pretend that they didn't draw a line at all, and ask "who draws the line" without admitting that they are who and the line has already been drawn -- in the most useless way possible.
Eventually the governed get tired of it and junk the lot. Case in point, contraception.
The more you learn about him, the more you realize he was just lucky; he saw e=mc2 from Olinto de Pretto and he coasted for the rest of his life on that.
E=mc^2 was derived from special relativity, not the basis of special relativity. Einstein becase famous because of his theories of relativity, not because of E=mc^2. If you paid more attention to physics and less attention to pop-science, perhaps you'd begin to understand.
I'm not quite sure why you broke out into an inane babbling rant, but the rebuttal article on ZDNet is failed apologism because even the author admits he has no idea what information Microsoft is collecting. He's assuming (because he trusts MS, you see) that the data is anonymized and only used for this or that, but notice how many times he says "possibly", "could", etc.? It's all speculation.
No, it is not. It is a successful critique of the claim that there were "thousands" of attempts to contact Microsoft to allegedly report nasty telemetry data, when at least 2/3rds were not telemetry data. That's a significant fact to the rest of us.
TFA: of all, 602 connection attempts were to 192.168.1.255, using UDP port 137. That's the broadcast address where Windows computers on a local network announce their presence and look for other network computers using the NetBIOS Name Service. It's perfectly normal traffic.
If you can't even figure out that non-routable broadcast traffic cannot report information back to Microsoft, why should we accept the Forbes speculation while rejecting the ZDnet non-speculation concerning that broadcast traffic, similar DNS lookups to a local router, etc.? If the frequency of the supposed attempts was unimportant, then why was it the focus of so much of the reporting?
Don't accuse others of "insane babbling rants" when you not only have no idea what Microsoft is collecting, but actively refuse knowledge of what is going over the wire. The ZDnet author didn't extend much trust to Microsoft, but simply reported that the huge number reported in connection with the telemetry issue was primarily sensationalistic claptrap.
TFA: And yes, there is certainly some telemetry data in there. * * * But we don't know, because Mr. Crust didn't actually do any traffic analysis.
So do some, instead of engaging in your own chicken-little-like repetition of others' insane babbling rants.
Uh, the Jetta TDI gets 62mpg in practice (someone did a 5,000+-mile trip going counterclockwise, west across the northern U.S. and then east along the southern U.S), while its gasoline counterpart boasts 32mpg on the highway and 27mpg in the city.
1. You're citing MPG from a Volkswagon diesel car? Can we turn off most emissions controls on the gasoline engine too, or is that considered cheating?
2. You're comparing someone's hypermileing adventures in a TDI on low roll resistance tires to EPA estimates for a 2.0L normally-aspirated, automatic transmission model. That's not remotely apples-to-apples. The EPA numbers are 45/36/31 for a Jetta TDI automatic, and the 1.8L turbo has better numbers than you're reporting with 20% more HP than the TDI (180 hp; 37/29/25). So, again, the comparison is crap.
3. Texas fuel cost is also almost half that of California's. 5 cent/kWh electricity is the same as $1.80 regular gas on a cost-per-MJ basis.
Why don't you pick one state, one set of roughly equivalent cars, and one style of driving instead of making crazy claims that not only can you halve operating costs by driving a diesel (no, you can't), but drop them by 87% by driving electric (again, no, you can't).
While diesel is more efficient and electric even moreso, the difference is not nearly so large as you claim. In the meantime, diesel has self-evident problems with particulates and particulate emissions controls, and electric has the minor problem that you cannot deliver that much power to that many people over the existing grid. Once penetration hits 5-10%, you're not going to get 5 cent/kHr electricity anymore if only because of the transmission costs increases that you will see for the next several decades. Many places already risk brownouts on extremely hot or cold days, and now you want to add loads that make AC and electric resistive heating look like someone left their lights on in comparison.
The Tesla car has higher instantaneous torque and a flat torque curve. The cost for me to drive 300 miles on gasoline is around $25 now; on biofuel, it's around $35; on diesel, it's around $12; on electricity, it's $3. Battery storage loses less energy in conversion than biofuel chemical storage. Electric cars are less complex and require less maintenance than reciprocating piston engines. Superior power, performance, durability, longevity, and cost doesn't seem inferior.
The only way that diesel costs half as much as gasoline on a cost/trip basis is if you treat the whacky CA fuels market as the boundaries of your universe, with $2.60/gal reg and $2.40/gal ULSD.
In most of the US, you're looking at $1.50/gal reg and $2.10/gal ULSD, and then that difference goes away. An engine that has 25% higher energy efficiency running on a fuel that has 10% greater volumetric energy density cannot overcome a fuel that costs 35% more per volume.
In the rest of the universe, you also amortize the cost of the vehicle that gets you there and add it to the energy cost. A vehicle that costs 3-4x as much makes much of that difference go away as well.
BTW: At CA electricity and gas prices you're claiming that a 100% efficient Tesla, consuming only 62MJ of electricity, will make that trip, but a gasoline powered car would require 1180MJ to make the same trip. That is a 5% fuel-to-travel efficiency, not the 14-30% that is known.
It's a little bit on the bullshit side to claim they had a "brief period of success in the early 2000's"... they're still a company with multi-billion dollar revenues.
A blog post by Rod Matthews, VP of Storage at Barracuda gives the usual business doublespeak excuse.
You'd rather they simply posted "Take this job [order] and shove it, we ain't working here no more..."?
How about "assaf08 offered us a promotion and 50% more money so here's our 3 months notice..."?
Finally, there's "A monkey could do this job and our skills are being wasted, so before you outsource us to China we are so out of here..."
"[W]e have begun a process to focus our resources on our most strategic initiatives and to drive more innovation and faster growth within those products" is not doublespeak, it means that you are 1. not strategic 2. technologically stuck in the '00s and 3. a black pit of cheapitude. It's not doublespeak, it's an overly polite way to tell you not to let the door hit your ass on the way out.
I don't think "logic bomb" means what the submitter thinks it means (the stories don't use that term). These were trojans.
I think it means exactly what the submitter thinks it means, and is right.
The first two "multihacks" contained a time-triggered change that caused the user to get banned. It's unclear whether the third only activated when joining an online game or instead unconditionally did something that was only checked by Valve when going online.
Either you don't realize that most of those fall within the definition or you're quibbling about a server-implemented ban versus client-side data deletion. I certainly wouldn't agree with the latter point. I'm also not going to criticize the summary because one of the three might not have been triggered by a condition.
It was a trojan in the sense that any disguised payload, whether logic bomb, RAT, etc., is a trojan. The terms "logic bomb" and "trojan" are not mutually exclusive. Especially where the downloaders intentionally sought out the program and most of its functionality.
I fully expect to replace my laptop more frequently than every 6 years.
Then you are, literally, an idiot.
I'm trying this on an eight year old laptop with a dual core, 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 processor and a Geforce 9800 GTS. Full HD screen. It can run any app I need it to. It can run most of the games I'm interested. If I really want power, I use my desktop.
For the last two year's I've debated myself about once per quarter because a shiny new laptop would be neat. Yet every time I decide that what my $800-1200 would by is not enough improvement to be worth the money.
No, the days of the 3-5 year laptop replacement cycle are gone. You can stretch out far, far longer and not be running an antique.
Notice that it isn't the government acting against him, it is his professional organization.
Lawyer here. You're wrong. The professional organization has no power to discipline or sanction. It actually is the government acting against him.
In most states, lawyer discipline is a bizarre private-court hybrid. A private, bar-association-related disciplinary committe screens the complaint to see if it has potential merit. If it does, the issue becomes public and is referred up. An office of disciplinary counsel will also perform the same function.
After that, everything gets handled by a quasi-judicial body -- a board of professional conduct, an office of disciplinary counsel, or what have you -- that is made up of attorneys appointed or employed by the state's highest court. It's a trial-like process. If you don't respond, it's not good for you. Quasi-trial. Quasi-appeal.
If things go poorly (for the lawer), the determination (actually a recommendation) is referred to the state's highest court. That court makes a determination based upon the recommendation, and any objections by the lawyer, and metes out any discipline.
Summary is this: the "professional organization" can go fly a kite. You do not have to be a member to practice, it has virtually no power over your ability to practice, and its principal use is for education, referrals, networking, and lobbying.
The quasi-judical review body is no joke. The referral to the Supreme Court of [insert state name here] is really no joke. And that body, my friend, is definitely the government.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but the type of node that you describe does not need dual integrated 10Gb Ethernet network connections and 14 SATA III ports. The dual 10Gb ethernet ports alone indicate a a combination of high I/O throughput and redundancy, not merely an application node.
So, let me get this straight, you want to choose to do what you want without somebody else dictating something at you......but you're dictating to somebody else how they should license code that they wrote?
And if they don't license their code exactly like you dictated to them to do, it's 'tyranny'?
Let me ask you: Do hypocrites understand irony or not?
How did GP "dictate" to somebody else how they should license code? Are there legal consequences if they chose to ignore the instructions? Jail? Fines? A refusal to fulfill some obligation that is owned unless the licensor bows GP's will?
Or have you simply decided that advocacy is a dictat because you need it to be one?
I think you have no real understanding of the meaning of the words dictate, hypocrite, and irony. I thkn that you are merely throwing those words around because you have no better argument to make.
Obviously your town hasn't yet been infested with mega-churches. Those have at least one gymnasium. It's just down the hall from the coffee bar, past the giant child-care facility, and around the corner from the logo-wear t-shirt kiosk, the artisan bakery, and the acupuncture practice. Jesus isn't the savior anymore, he's the CEO of a retail empire.
Or "infested" with church-run schools. You'd never find gymnasiums in church-run schools. Which oddly, around here, tend to be on the same grounds as the church itself.
BTW, mega-churches exist because people want them. It's a bit presumptuous of you to claim that your town has been infested simply because a facility doesn't cater to your point of view.
It's 95 years for corporate authors. Individual authors are life plus 70. If the author died in 2004, then the copyright will expire in 2074.
No, it's really not. You can't apply the terms established by the October 1976 copyright act, with subsequent extensions, to works published before that date. You get to apply the terms established by the 1909 copyright act, with subsequent extensions. It's all horribly complex, but...
For a work registered or first published in the US between 1923 and 1963, and renewed, the term is indeed 95 years after the publication date.
If you have ever had to care for aged parents or aunts or uncles or grandparents, you quickly realize many can get along just fine as long as the little details of life can be managed for them. You have a choice, you can buy in-home care to do this for you.
...or you can, you know, visit them at least once a week and take a peek in the fridge? Of course there are going to be edge cases where said parents/in-laws live out-of-state, but in the vast majority of cases it would be no big deal to stop by and sort the little stuff out, if it's truly the case that it's all they need done.
... or you can do both, and actually show up with the groceries they need, instead of turning around to leave for another trip to the grocery store after your in-person peek. Check at that odd moment that you think about it but can't go over, check when you're already out shopping, check when bad weather is pending and a call will do unless they turn out to need something but don't have the heart to tell you.
The "nobody on Slashdot should do anything differently than I do, and if they do they're morally bankrupt" attitude around here is truly annoying. Your post didn't go that far, but it shows some of the same lack of investment in viewing technological conveniences as something other than all-or-nothing.
Completely fed up with this BS. I don't need a fridge that can slice dice and wash my laundry. I want it to keep my food cold and ice frozen and be dependable doing so.
If only there were downmarket models, and downmarket manufacturers, that would let you purchase such a device. Oh wait, Samsung still sells many such refrigerators as well, and lest we forget, Whirlpool, Frigidaire, Amana...
Repeat after me, "my preferences are not everyone's preferences; my wants do not define the universe of possible wants."
How did we ever get a community where a vocal minority of males behave in the most boorish, misogynistic, objectifying manner toward women? I have a theory: "It's unfortunately the case that software development in general and Open Source communities are frequented by males who have social development issues>..."
Because when you state it in a way that implies all men in open source projects are not being to nice to women, it's grossly offensive.
I deny your premise. When it's read by people with unbelievably poor reading comprehension, or who are are spoiling to be offended no matter how it is stated, it's grossly offensive. When read by people with a competent grasp of English, it does not imply that, and it's not offensive.
Unfortunately for you, I am a vocal minority of males who frequents Slashdot... and I calling you out for being in one or both of these categories demonstrates my social development issues. By your process I must be "all men," and ipso facto you have no choice but to agree.
I predict that you'll think that that's offensive. I also predict that I will not care.
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't say they concentrated exclusively on public institutions. He said that they concentrated on public institutions because they could not implement "speech" restrictions in the way that private institutions could.
If you, as a private institution, chose to make a contractual commitment to free speech, then yes, someone like a faculty member who is party to that contract can go after you for violating free speech. And other entities can lend support to those people and/or criticize hypocrisy.
If you don't make such a commitment, you are far more insulated from legal action than any public institution.
So yes, "it" basically is the case.
Sure it is. Is your designated wifi use area positioned under a single artificial light? Because mine is neither designated nor illuminable by a single light.
Imagine an access point with this technology. Now imagine that you need an access point for every room where you want a connection. Now consider that this technology might not work so well with reflected light, and may need more than one access point in a single room to maintain a line of sight, say when you have recessed floodlights.
Access points can be cheap, but they're not as cheap as LED floodlights, even after years of availability (802.11n), much less the new hotness (802.11ac) . More to the point, I don't have to worry about patching my LED floodlights or having the manufacturer helpfully patching my lights to remove things like third party compatibility (looking at you, Philips Hue). I have a pair of 2.4GHz APs that do what I need them to do, and I'm not included to update them further because 5GHz signal propagation blows in my house and would require even more access points. Limiting everything to near-line-of-sight is not an improvement (60GHz technology -- really? Wired ethernet is that evil?).
If I'm on a month-to-month contract and decide that you're not paying me enough, I quit at the end of the month. Whether I'm making or losing money has nothing to do with whether I can or not. Similarly, even if they've decided that they're merely not making enough money, they are only obligated to fulfill the terms of their contract and then it's adios.
You can question the motives all that you want, but neither side can force the other to continue to deal. If they don't want to sell to you at the old price, your choice is to pay the new price or walk.
Please, tell this practicing IP attorney how copyright works...
The GPL says nothing about commercial versus non-commercial use.
See my previous sentence. You're also talking about a user restriction, not an obligation to license derivative works under a particular license if they are distributed to others.
But the GPLv1-v3 licenses do not restrict the creation of derivative works at all. Those licenses restrict how you can distribute derivative works. Unless the user distributes the product of the prepared script, there's no violation.
That is hardly slight of hand -- now you're arguing that RMS wanted to control how individual users could use code on their own machines. Which is hilarious, because that's excatly opposite his stated goal.
If if you argue that the script is a derivative work, the ZFS code is a separate work developed apart from the kernel and the script. The GPL cannot touch the ZFS code and, by its own terms, does not control how the user privately uses the GPL code, whether in combination with other GPLed code, CDDL-licensed code, or Nvidia's super-proprietary and non-free driver code.
Bad analogy is bad. Film at 11.
Identify the copyright violation:
"This problem is being worked around by providing the kernel facilities through a separate kernel module, a technical solution for a legal problem that is also being employed by vendors and distributors of proprietary hardware drivers."
The GPL does not autmatically apply to anything that touches the kernel. It only applies to derivative works of a GPLed work. If they write a GPLed wrapper that is a derivative of both the kernel and the ZFS sources and chose to dual license it, then there's no need for the ZFS sources to be GPL licensed -- merely the wrapper. No GPL-code-inspired modifications, no GPL-defined derivatie work and no GPL licensing requirement. (So sad.)
For a group which worships the copyright hack that the GPL represents, it's odd that so many become so blind and incensed by anyone who dares to come up with a couter-hack to overcome some of the license's more idiotic features (i.e., it's open source, but it's not pure, GPL-certified open source, so you can't use it with our stuff). The only case that comes close to supporting GPL proponents' borg-like interpretation of the term "derviate work" is the Oracle v. Google fiasco. If that's the company that you want to keep, don't expect sympathy from me.
So, instead, ethicists and lawmakers draw the line waaaaaaaay over there, pretend that they didn't draw a line at all, and ask "who draws the line" without admitting that they are who and the line has already been drawn -- in the most useless way possible.
Eventually the governed get tired of it and junk the lot. Case in point, contraception.
E=mc^2 was derived from special relativity, not the basis of special relativity. Einstein becase famous because of his theories of relativity, not because of E=mc^2. If you paid more attention to physics and less attention to pop-science, perhaps you'd begin to understand.
No, it is not. It is a successful critique of the claim that there were "thousands" of attempts to contact Microsoft to allegedly report nasty telemetry data, when at least 2/3rds were not telemetry data. That's a significant fact to the rest of us.
If you can't even figure out that non-routable broadcast traffic cannot report information back to Microsoft, why should we accept the Forbes speculation while rejecting the ZDnet non-speculation concerning that broadcast traffic, similar DNS lookups to a local router, etc.? If the frequency of the supposed attempts was unimportant, then why was it the focus of so much of the reporting?
Don't accuse others of "insane babbling rants" when you not only have no idea what Microsoft is collecting, but actively refuse knowledge of what is going over the wire. The ZDnet author didn't extend much trust to Microsoft, but simply reported that the huge number reported in connection with the telemetry issue was primarily sensationalistic claptrap.
So do some, instead of engaging in your own chicken-little-like repetition of others' insane babbling rants.
1. You're citing MPG from a Volkswagon diesel car? Can we turn off most emissions controls on the gasoline engine too, or is that considered cheating?
2. You're comparing someone's hypermileing adventures in a TDI on low roll resistance tires to EPA estimates for a 2.0L normally-aspirated, automatic transmission model. That's not remotely apples-to-apples. The EPA numbers are 45/36/31 for a Jetta TDI automatic, and the 1.8L turbo has better numbers than you're reporting with 20% more HP than the TDI (180 hp; 37/29/25). So, again, the comparison is crap.
3. Texas fuel cost is also almost half that of California's. 5 cent/kWh electricity is the same as $1.80 regular gas on a cost-per-MJ basis.
Why don't you pick one state, one set of roughly equivalent cars, and one style of driving instead of making crazy claims that not only can you halve operating costs by driving a diesel (no, you can't), but drop them by 87% by driving electric (again, no, you can't).
While diesel is more efficient and electric even moreso, the difference is not nearly so large as you claim. In the meantime, diesel has self-evident problems with particulates and particulate emissions controls, and electric has the minor problem that you cannot deliver that much power to that many people over the existing grid. Once penetration hits 5-10%, you're not going to get 5 cent/kHr electricity anymore if only because of the transmission costs increases that you will see for the next several decades. Many places already risk brownouts on extremely hot or cold days, and now you want to add loads that make AC and electric resistive heating look like someone left their lights on in comparison.
The only way that diesel costs half as much as gasoline on a cost/trip basis is if you treat the whacky CA fuels market as the boundaries of your universe, with $2.60/gal reg and $2.40/gal ULSD.
In most of the US, you're looking at $1.50/gal reg and $2.10/gal ULSD, and then that difference goes away. An engine that has 25% higher energy efficiency running on a fuel that has 10% greater volumetric energy density cannot overcome a fuel that costs 35% more per volume.
In the rest of the universe, you also amortize the cost of the vehicle that gets you there and add it to the energy cost. A vehicle that costs 3-4x as much makes much of that difference go away as well.
BTW: At CA electricity and gas prices you're claiming that a 100% efficient Tesla, consuming only 62MJ of electricity, will make that trip, but a gasoline powered car would require 1180MJ to make the same trip. That is a 5% fuel-to-travel efficiency, not the 14-30% that is known.
All in all, your figures are crap.
Yeah! They're losing money on almost every sale, but they're making it up through volume...
You'd rather they simply posted "Take this job [order] and shove it, we ain't working here no more..."?
How about "assaf08 offered us a promotion and 50% more money so here's our 3 months notice..."?
Finally, there's "A monkey could do this job and our skills are being wasted, so before you outsource us to China we are so out of here..."
"[W]e have begun a process to focus our resources on our most strategic initiatives and to drive more innovation and faster growth within those products" is not doublespeak, it means that you are 1. not strategic 2. technologically stuck in the '00s and 3. a black pit of cheapitude. It's not doublespeak, it's an overly polite way to tell you not to let the door hit your ass on the way out.
I think it means exactly what the submitter thinks it means, and is right.
The first two "multihacks" contained a time-triggered change that caused the user to get banned. It's unclear whether the third only activated when joining an online game or instead unconditionally did something that was only checked by Valve when going online.
Either you don't realize that most of those fall within the definition or you're quibbling about a server-implemented ban versus client-side data deletion. I certainly wouldn't agree with the latter point. I'm also not going to criticize the summary because one of the three might not have been triggered by a condition.
It was a trojan in the sense that any disguised payload, whether logic bomb, RAT, etc., is a trojan. The terms "logic bomb" and "trojan" are not mutually exclusive. Especially where the downloaders intentionally sought out the program and most of its functionality.
Then you are, literally, an idiot.
I'm trying this on an eight year old laptop with a dual core, 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 processor and a Geforce 9800 GTS. Full HD screen. It can run any app I need it to. It can run most of the games I'm interested. If I really want power, I use my desktop.
For the last two year's I've debated myself about once per quarter because a shiny new laptop would be neat. Yet every time I decide that what my $800-1200 would by is not enough improvement to be worth the money.
No, the days of the 3-5 year laptop replacement cycle are gone. You can stretch out far, far longer and not be running an antique.
Lawyer here. You're wrong. The professional organization has no power to discipline or sanction. It actually is the government acting against him.
In most states, lawyer discipline is a bizarre private-court hybrid. A private, bar-association-related disciplinary committe screens the complaint to see if it has potential merit. If it does, the issue becomes public and is referred up. An office of disciplinary counsel will also perform the same function.
After that, everything gets handled by a quasi-judicial body -- a board of professional conduct, an office of disciplinary counsel, or what have you -- that is made up of attorneys appointed or employed by the state's highest court. It's a trial-like process. If you don't respond, it's not good for you. Quasi-trial. Quasi-appeal.
If things go poorly (for the lawer), the determination (actually a recommendation) is referred to the state's highest court. That court makes a determination based upon the recommendation, and any objections by the lawyer, and metes out any discipline.
Summary is this: the "professional organization" can go fly a kite. You do not have to be a member to practice, it has virtually no power over your ability to practice, and its principal use is for education, referrals, networking, and lobbying.
The quasi-judical review body is no joke. The referral to the Supreme Court of [insert state name here] is really no joke. And that body, my friend, is definitely the government.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but the type of node that you describe does not need dual integrated 10Gb Ethernet network connections and 14 SATA III ports. The dual 10Gb ethernet ports alone indicate a a combination of high I/O throughput and redundancy, not merely an application node.
Storage controllers tend to be x8 devices, meaning that you'd have to have 2 x8 expansion slots to enable redundant controllers in your small box.
Rumor has it that redundant controllers is, indeed, a thing in that market.
How did GP "dictate" to somebody else how they should license code? Are there legal consequences if they chose to ignore the instructions? Jail? Fines? A refusal to fulfill some obligation that is owned unless the licensor bows GP's will?
Or have you simply decided that advocacy is a dictat because you need it to be one?
I think you have no real understanding of the meaning of the words dictate, hypocrite, and irony. I thkn that you are merely throwing those words around because you have no better argument to make.
Or "infested" with church-run schools. You'd never find gymnasiums in church-run schools. Which oddly, around here, tend to be on the same grounds as the church itself.
BTW, mega-churches exist because people want them. It's a bit presumptuous of you to claim that your town has been infested simply because a facility doesn't cater to your point of view.
Congratulations. You've now demonstrated why every carrier was guilty of engaging in an unfair and deceptive trade practice.
If it's impossible, don't advertise that you're doing it.
Just to clarify, I shouldn't have used "that date." The 1976 Copyright Act took effect on 1/1/78.
No, it's really not. You can't apply the terms established by the October 1976 copyright act, with subsequent extensions, to works published before that date. You get to apply the terms established by the 1909 copyright act, with subsequent extensions. It's all horribly complex, but...
For a work registered or first published in the US between 1923 and 1963, and renewed, the term is indeed 95 years after the publication date.
Lawyer ouuuuuuut...
The "nobody on Slashdot should do anything differently than I do, and if they do they're morally bankrupt" attitude around here is truly annoying. Your post didn't go that far, but it shows some of the same lack of investment in viewing technological conveniences as something other than all-or-nothing.
If only there were downmarket models, and downmarket manufacturers, that would let you purchase such a device. Oh wait, Samsung still sells many such refrigerators as well, and lest we forget, Whirlpool, Frigidaire, Amana...
Repeat after me, "my preferences are not everyone's preferences; my wants do not define the universe of possible wants."
I deny your premise. When it's read by people with unbelievably poor reading comprehension, or who are are spoiling to be offended no matter how it is stated, it's grossly offensive. When read by people with a competent grasp of English, it does not imply that, and it's not offensive.
Unfortunately for you, I am a vocal minority of males who frequents Slashdot... and I calling you out for being in one or both of these categories demonstrates my social development issues. By your process I must be "all men," and ipso facto you have no choice but to agree.
I predict that you'll think that that's offensive. I also predict that I will not care.