Actually, that's his whole argument at the end: you guys [Microsoft] can beat any copyright lawsuits...heck, copyright lawyers are nothing to the anti-trust folks, and you beat them. Forget what the lawyers are saying and make the product your customers want.
He's actually appealing to the money-making side of Microsoft, to get them to make a product that will sell. I suspect that this is about the only tack that has any chance of succeeding at a place like MS.
About long as it takes someone to take the video and audio out and plug those back in to their video/audio in ports. Play once (pray for no buffering errors) and record.
To paraphrase an earlier poster: viva la analog hole!
isn't this just an application of the travelling salesman problem? I thought that problem was NP...isn't it? If someone's found a cool way to solve it, care to share a link?
They also have to: - offer multiple language support, and give the voter the choice of language - offer assisted voting (text-to-speech or super-size font). - Be physically and logically secure from local and remote tampering with the votes. - Include auditable trails for all actions taken by the application. - permit a voter to only vote once (which you mentioned), but not allow vote counters to determine how a given voter cast their ballot.
There are others, but that's the few I could think of off the top of my head. When you add all these requirements in, writing the code is most certainly *not* trivial.
I've already done the modify-9.2.2-ebuild-to install-9.2.3 bit. That's how portage knows that Bind is there at all on my machine.
The problem is, 9.2.2 is the most recent version by portage's knowledge, and it keeps trying to downgrade it (which means I can't just blindly "emerge world", or portage will downgrade bind).
An AC responded earlier stating that apparently there's some compile problem with 9.2.3 (can't say I've ever heard anyone complain about it, and I know lots of folks using 9.2.3), which has the gentoo folks marking 9.2.3 as unusable. Since it's not clear to me what the compile problems are (I've not seen any), I can't help solve them.
No. I'm running BIND because I want "delegate only" zones. When the other DNS servers can handle Verisign's obnoxiousness gracefully like that, then I'll look at moving. Until then, BIND stays on my DNS server.
(ps: If there are any Gentoo folks reading, please get Bind 9.2.3 into portage properly. I got it installed on my machine by hand just fine, but emerge keeps trying to downgrade it to 9.2.2. That makes me unhappy.)
Yeah, but that clause won't fly in court for a medical device. You can't market something publically with the claim "this will work, and is appropriate for a life-critical system" and then disclaim in the contract "no, it won't work, and isn't appropriate." If it was marketed as a device suited for life-critical operations, it will be treated that way in court, no matter what the EULA says.
There's also a lot of question as to whether EULAs are truly legally binding, and I sincerely doubt that a clause like that would stand up to a court challenge.
There's a concept called "fitness for purpose" that I think applies here. If you used bicycle tires on a car, for whatever reason (price being an obvious one), if you then got hurt in your car, you'd have no one to blame but yourself. Bike tires aren't fit for use on a car.
By the same logic, if you used a cheap, home-user piece of crap for a life-critical operation, you deserve to be sued into oblivion, since it wasn't designed for something critical. Personal firewalls like this Linksys thing are not suited for life-critical use, and everyone who knows what the hell they're doing should realize that.
If you use a piece of software that is sold as "fit for this purpose" (like, using windows-embedded health monitoring devices) and it fails due to a poor design, then you're right on...the vendor of that device should be sued.
Competition in WHAT? The point of IANA is to be the one authoritative source for IPv4 and v6 allocations. You can't have competition in whether an entry is in a database...it either is, or it isn't. Whoever has the authority to allocate IPs is immediately in a monopoly position.
In fact, for IP allocation, there *must* be a monopoly party keeping track of the central database, because the net was designed with the assumption that IPs would be organizationally unique. If you have two different parties both claiming authority over 111.22.44.2, who wins? How do you route that? (note: yes, you can do anycast, but that's still one organization claiming the IP...when two competing orgs claim the same block, you have problems.)
Competition for IANA's tasks would be incredibly stupid.
or you could replace the hysteria over weather with hysteria about war, call it "1984", and buy it at your local bookstore/rent it at your local BlockBuster.
How long did it take to get internet email accepted as a commonly used service?
Once people had access to it, signifigantly less than 10 years. Sure, email was around for a long time before it took off, but that's a function of access to the Internet, not a function of the usability or functionality of email.
Email signing has been around for just as long easy access to email, if not longer. Once there was easy access to email, it took off in popularity. Email signing, which has been freely available that whole time, did not. There's a reason for that.
You know, people have been saying that for almost a decade now. Face it: digitally signed email isn't working. Key management is a pain in the ass, the bootstrapping necessary to check user's keys is a mess, and it doesn't really gain you that much in the end. We've had 10 years to get signed email working, and it didn't happen. Time to find another way (whether it's this SPF or something else is a point for argument).
News flash: they don't care if you can break it. They care that they can arrest you (or sue you) if you break it. To them, these are just like locks on your house: sure, someone can pick the lock...but picking the lock on someone else's house is illegal, and is grounds for the cops to come after you.
This is all about putting a legal framework in place to enforce controls on "content". Whether the controls are technically effective is completely beside the point. As long as they can get you wrapped into the legal system for sidestepping them, that's all that matters.
By the way, try Capoeira - Brazilian martial arts which combines self-defence and dance!
You know, there's a Capoeira school near me, and each time I see them practice, it just looks like they're pointing their butts at each other. They come out into the ring, turn around, and look between their legs at the other person, then dance around a bit. It really looks like a hugely exaggerated version of "da butt."
I'm sure there's got to be more to it than that, but I've seen 3 or 4 of their demos, and they do the same thing each time. Is this normal Capoeira, or are these folks just...weird?
My wife eyed me curiously. "Have you been drinking those weird drinks?" she asked. A goofy, out-of-context smile on my face provided the answer.
"You know, I think I like you better after you drink those things," she said. "They make you a better person." I will analyze this statement closely for the next several months.
That's because that particular soldier was in a special court martial, because he agreed to testify against the others (just like a plea bargain in regular courts).
The other soldiers are in regular courts martial, which do not have the 1-year limitation.
Gotta start somewhere, and with someone. They've only got so many agents and prosecutors. Given that the vast majority of spam comes from a small number of people (approx 200, last time I saw), jailing 50 of those would put a huge dent in the spam problem. Also, once they've nailed a couple of these guys, they'll have court precedents that they can point to for the other cases, to make them run faster.
If the FBI can pull this off, I think it'd be great.
Well, sort of. The DoC has assigned this task to ICANN. The DoC does not regulate VeriSign directly....ICANN does, under the authority delegated to it by the DoC.
Sadly, that *is* ICANN. At least, they think so. Their original mandate was to handle the Name and Number (IP) allocations (hence the two N's in their acronym). It's grown a bit, though, as the ICANN board has pushed the bounds of their mandate.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's his whole argument at the end: you guys [Microsoft] can beat any copyright lawsuits...heck, copyright lawyers are nothing to the anti-trust folks, and you beat them. Forget what the lawyers are saying and make the product your customers want.
He's actually appealing to the money-making side of Microsoft, to get them to make a product that will sell. I suspect that this is about the only tack that has any chance of succeeding at a place like MS.
I shudder to think of the impact of power becoming "airborne". I like being *outside* the Farraday cage of my microwave, thank you.
About long as it takes someone to take the video and audio out and plug those back in to their video/audio in ports. Play once (pray for no buffering errors) and record.
To paraphrase an earlier poster: viva la analog hole!
isn't this just an application of the travelling salesman problem? I thought that problem was NP...isn't it? If someone's found a cool way to solve it, care to share a link?
No, that is not all they have to do.
They also have to:
- offer multiple language support, and give the voter the choice of language
- offer assisted voting (text-to-speech or super-size font).
- Be physically and logically secure from local and remote tampering with the votes.
- Include auditable trails for all actions taken by the application.
- permit a voter to only vote once (which you mentioned), but not allow vote counters to determine how a given voter cast their ballot.
There are others, but that's the few I could think of off the top of my head. When you add all these requirements in, writing the code is most certainly *not* trivial.
Your system relies on two groups (consumers and artists) behaving well and selflessly. There's no evidence that either one will actually do so.
I've already done the modify-9.2.2-ebuild-to install-9.2.3 bit. That's how portage knows that Bind is there at all on my machine.
The problem is, 9.2.2 is the most recent version by portage's knowledge, and it keeps trying to downgrade it (which means I can't just blindly "emerge world", or portage will downgrade bind).
An AC responded earlier stating that apparently there's some compile problem with 9.2.3 (can't say I've ever heard anyone complain about it, and I know lots of folks using 9.2.3), which has the gentoo folks marking 9.2.3 as unusable. Since it's not clear to me what the compile problems are (I've not seen any), I can't help solve them.
No. I'm running BIND because I want "delegate only" zones. When the other DNS servers can handle Verisign's obnoxiousness gracefully like that, then I'll look at moving. Until then, BIND stays on my DNS server.
(ps: If there are any Gentoo folks reading, please get Bind 9.2.3 into portage properly. I got it installed on my machine by hand just fine, but emerge keeps trying to downgrade it to 9.2.2. That makes me unhappy.)
Yeah, but that clause won't fly in court for a medical device. You can't market something publically with the claim "this will work, and is appropriate for a life-critical system" and then disclaim in the contract "no, it won't work, and isn't appropriate." If it was marketed as a device suited for life-critical operations, it will be treated that way in court, no matter what the EULA says.
There's also a lot of question as to whether EULAs are truly legally binding, and I sincerely doubt that a clause like that would stand up to a court challenge.
There's a concept called "fitness for purpose" that I think applies here. If you used bicycle tires on a car, for whatever reason (price being an obvious one), if you then got hurt in your car, you'd have no one to blame but yourself. Bike tires aren't fit for use on a car.
By the same logic, if you used a cheap, home-user piece of crap for a life-critical operation, you deserve to be sued into oblivion, since it wasn't designed for something critical. Personal firewalls like this Linksys thing are not suited for life-critical use, and everyone who knows what the hell they're doing should realize that.
If you use a piece of software that is sold as "fit for this purpose" (like, using windows-embedded health monitoring devices) and it fails due to a poor design, then you're right on...the vendor of that device should be sued.
And if you start "vogue"-ing, you get...what? poetry? (or is that...ahem...Vogue-on poetry?)
Aaron
If you have to ask, you probably don't want those mental images. Really.
Competition in WHAT? The point of IANA is to be the one authoritative source for IPv4 and v6 allocations. You can't have competition in whether an entry is in a database...it either is, or it isn't. Whoever has the authority to allocate IPs is immediately in a monopoly position.
In fact, for IP allocation, there *must* be a monopoly party keeping track of the central database, because the net was designed with the assumption that IPs would be organizationally unique. If you have two different parties both claiming authority over 111.22.44.2, who wins? How do you route that? (note: yes, you can do anycast, but that's still one organization claiming the IP...when two competing orgs claim the same block, you have problems.)
Competition for IANA's tasks would be incredibly stupid.
or you could replace the hysteria over weather with hysteria about war, call it "1984", and buy it at your local bookstore/rent it at your local BlockBuster.
Once people had access to it, signifigantly less than 10 years. Sure, email was around for a long time before it took off, but that's a function of access to the Internet, not a function of the usability or functionality of email.
Email signing has been around for just as long easy access to email, if not longer. Once there was easy access to email, it took off in popularity. Email signing, which has been freely available that whole time, did not. There's a reason for that.
You know, people have been saying that for almost a decade now. Face it: digitally signed email isn't working. Key management is a pain in the ass, the bootstrapping necessary to check user's keys is a mess, and it doesn't really gain you that much in the end. We've had 10 years to get signed email working, and it didn't happen. Time to find another way (whether it's this SPF or something else is a point for argument).
News flash: they don't care if you can break it. They care that they can arrest you (or sue you) if you break it. To them, these are just like locks on your house: sure, someone can pick the lock...but picking the lock on someone else's house is illegal, and is grounds for the cops to come after you.
This is all about putting a legal framework in place to enforce controls on "content". Whether the controls are technically effective is completely beside the point. As long as they can get you wrapped into the legal system for sidestepping them, that's all that matters.
You know, there's a Capoeira school near me, and each time I see them practice, it just looks like they're pointing their butts at each other. They come out into the ring, turn around, and look between their legs at the other person, then dance around a bit. It really looks like a hugely exaggerated version of "da butt."
I'm sure there's got to be more to it than that, but I've seen 3 or 4 of their demos, and they do the same thing each time. Is this normal Capoeira, or are these folks just...weird?
That's because that particular soldier was in a special court martial, because he agreed to testify against the others (just like a plea bargain in regular courts).
The other soldiers are in regular courts martial, which do not have the 1-year limitation.
Gotta start somewhere, and with someone. They've only got so many agents and prosecutors. Given that the vast majority of spam comes from a small number of people (approx 200, last time I saw), jailing 50 of those would put a huge dent in the spam problem. Also, once they've nailed a couple of these guys, they'll have court precedents that they can point to for the other cases, to make them run faster.
If the FBI can pull this off, I think it'd be great.
Well, sort of. The DoC has assigned this task to ICANN. The DoC does not regulate VeriSign directly....ICANN does, under the authority delegated to it by the DoC.
Sadly, that *is* ICANN. At least, they think so. Their original mandate was to handle the Name and Number (IP) allocations (hence the two N's in their acronym). It's grown a bit, though, as the ICANN board has pushed the bounds of their mandate.
once I read that, this whole damn thing sprang up:
Act 1: The highway.
Scene 1: Intro
into musical number: Hoppin into history
Scene 2: The side of the road
musical number: where is my lovely lass?
Scene 3: a sighting of the lovely lass across the way.
Scene 4: our hero decides to cross the road
Scene 5: musical number: dodgin' cars!
Act 2: The Median
Scene 1: Our hero rests, and swears to never drive again.
Scene 2: We meet the snake (musical number: I ssseee you!)
Scene 3: We look over the river: the lovely lass is moving.
Act 3: The River
Scene 1: Our hero meets a turtle (musical number: take a ride on me)
Scene 2: Our hero rides a log (musical number: Logs ain't so bad...)
Scene 3: The Log Sinks!
Scene 4: Our hero meets his lovely lass. (musical number: You're better than a fly!)
Curtain.
It almost writes itself.
Congratulations, you just gave vegetarians another reason to feel better about themselves.