In 3rd or 4th (1990ish) grade we had an amazing computer teacher, started out just drawing cool designs, then learned more, and ended up making a digital clock from scratch, meaning I had to create procedure to draw the numbers and a control program to trigger the process with time delays.
I am no the poster from above, but I believe point #1 is not so much a reply to your post, but more a point on the case in general. As I understand the plan of attack by SCO they had to theories they wanted to argue simultaneously here:
1. That the APA did transfer the copyrights, this argument was basically that they appeared to be included in the list of included assets meanwhile completely ignoring the fact that they were explicitly excluded in the list of assets which would not be transfered.
and
2. That even if they were not included in the APA it didn't matter because the people involved in the deal THOUGHT they were being transfered.
IMHO point #1 was meant to be a contradiction of SCO's strategy #2 and not so much an addressing of your point.
The difference is that I am sure the majority of the profit for Porsche or Ferrari still come from the cars, while in the case of the NFL the vast vast vast majority of the profit comes from licensing of merchandise and advertising. By keeping ticket prices low and by doing things like going after people trying to resell their tickets for high profits they preserver the illusion that they actually want to make it possible for "regular fans" to go to the games. The reality is not that they don't want them to come but that they really do not have a vested interest one way or the other as long as those fans keep buying jerseys, watching games on TV, etc.
No they are not which I think was the point the poster was trying to make. They are college athletes they are forbidden to make any money for playing in the NCAA. Now they are usually playing in the hopes of making it to a professional sporting league so they can become millionaires, but this is something that is only going to happen to a very small percentage of them.
The title of this summary is horribly misleading...now I know this is slashdot so no one RTFA, but I happend across it by other means this morning, the ruling was not that having an open WAP is probable cause for kiddy porn, the ruling was that an open WAP was no defense against a finding of probable cause.
In this case they found that kiddy porn had been sent to someone else from this guys IP, they used this fact as probable cause to search his room were they found cd's full of kiddy porn.
So this is not saying that the police can barge into someones house just because the have an open WAP, it is saying that if someone has an open WAP and something illegal is done via that open WAP then the police have probably cause to search the location of the WAP and I think this is perfectly reasonable, we are talking about probably cause here not conviction, I would have a problem if someone was convicted on just the evidence of a IP address period regardless of the presence of an open WAP, but I do not have a problem with this being considered cause.
In a somewhat applicable analogy it is like getting a warrant to search an apartment after witnesses claim a man in that apartment had shot someone on the street, true the man might not be the apartment owner, but the fact that part of the crime did happen in the apartment is certainly probably cause to search the apartment.
While the people at cnet may be sold on the iPhone, the vast majority of people buying phones are not sold on anything more expensive than free. The iPhone is going to be sitting toward the top of the premium phone market, I would say the jury is still very much on whether it will succeed period never mind whether it will be able to kill other devices.
Using the PDA market as an example here is just dishonest because the segment of the population that was using PDAs was already pre-disposed to a more advanced and integrated device, this is simply not what the majority of phone users really want to do.
Except the change ISPs argument holds no water. My entire state has one choice for good broadband, the local cable company that's it. Hopefully that will be changing soon, but for the time being I have no other options besides giving up and switching to dial-up.
The argument that capitalism will naturally correct any injustices the providers for upon users has to concede that for the vast majority of users in the United States there is no vibrant broadband market. This situation can change, but the cost implementing a high speed network over a huge geographic area is high and the only people who look like they are expanding this market are the ones already in it.
Took a while for the article to load but I am just astounded at how completely and utterly irrelevant it is. I mean I had low expectations going into the thing after reading some of the comments, but I was not prepared for that.
Points one-five
One: Is Linux a Myth?
I guess he has a problem with the fact that the word Linux has become associated with a lot of different things. This isn't really talking positively or negatively about anything the whole thing is a discussion on how you aught to compare Linux distros to other OS's and not just some fussy concept that is Linux. Are there really IT people out there who think of Linux in this manner? As some kind of warm fuzzy enigma that can heal all the worlds ills?
Two: Is Linux Secure? This was by far my favorite one, this had NOTHING to do with Linux security at all. It basically amounted to physical security is all that matters anyway so it doesn't matter whether Linux is secure or not because no matter how secure it is the users can still screw it up by printing out account numbers and giving out info over the phone. While this is all very true physical security and teach users good security practices is a good idea, implying that security of the system itself is unimportant is foolish. It may be easier to get one users credit card number with a phishing scam than to steal a whole database of them, but the payoff from the database is MUCH higher and the idea that the database theft risk should be ignored is ridiculous.
Three: Do Communes Work? I thought maybe this might be a good point but sadly no it was really just a discussion of the GPL 3.0.
Four: Is Linux Pro-Developer, or Pro-You? This was another great one Linux is bad because it will lower the costs your department spends on things other than bodies and apparently that is bad because your worth to the company is directly proportional to how much money your department spends. Maybe to solve this problem departments that decide to adopt Linux should enact a strict Cross only pen policy. That way the can get the benefits of Linux while avoiding the danger of lowering costs.
Is Linux is "Open"? (no five here, not sure why) This section had nothing to do with whether Linux was open or not instead it was w whiny rant one how people are too critical of his writings. I'm sorry Rob maybe if you could actually follow a topic with details in the body that actually apply to your headings people would find them to be more reasonable.
No it is still a bad analogy because your entire justification was just describes what the term hybrid means.
'anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds'
That is one definition of a hybrid which is essentially what you just described the addition of a car only makes a muddled analogy as the car part of a hybrid car has no relationship to a hybrid hard drive only the hybrid part does.
But we are not talking about speech which is attempting to deprive people of their rights if we were, this type of speech is already restricted by slander, libel, stalking, etc laws. We are talking about an enhancement to that definition to include speech which makes people feel bad, and I think adding high self esteem to our list of rights is one step too far.
And besides if you made it a right, isn't the bullier's self esteem often boosted by the bullying? So wouldn't we get a conflict of interest there? How do we determine which person's right to self esteem is more important?
I also do not think hate speech or racial slurs should be immune from first amendment protection. The fact that a certain type of speech is distasteful and disgusting to me and in the cases you mention to the majority of the population does not give me or anyone else the right to ban it.
For the same reason I feel that Hate Crime modifiers to things like murder and assault are wrong because they attempt to legislate and punish people for their thoughts rather than for their actions. And before someone decides this makes me pro-hate crime you need to remember that defining something as a hate crime is only an enhancement of something that we as society already consider to be a crime. So what's wrong with prosecuting people for the actions they performed rather than the thoughts in their head when they performed them?
Well if we are talking about slander/libel (libel here right as it's written) then there are already laws that cover it, and instituting laws which protect us from bullying are therefor unnecessary. The thing which gets me about this issue is that it comes dangerously close to outlaw being mean to people. Now do I support being 'mean' to others? No not really, but I also realize that we live in the real world and trying to legislate that everyone be nice to everyone else or that no ones feeling ever get hurt is something that I don't think many people really want if they think about it. I mean really haven't we had enough books/movies in the subject to make us realize a world without any bad things at all is only a possibility when we give up the things that make us individuals.
Why is it not free speech? Because it offends you? By that argument evolution and creationism should also be outlawed because they both offend many more people than bullying.
I can't think of any reason why bullying shouldn't be protected by the first amendment. Did you mean to say I love the Bill of Rights as long as it only protects the kind of speech I like? That's what it sounds like to me.
Does bullying effectively add to any kind of political decent? Probably not. But I fail to see how it even comes close to the standards we set for situations in which free speech can be restricted.
What just Fox? For us Cox Cable in Rhode Island we don't get FOX or CBS, Verizon just got approval to do TV on their FIOS network in my area, their sample channel line ups include both those channel so I am hoping they are not as horrendous as Cox, I don't see how it's possible that they could be, but some companies just seem to have a way of rising to that challenge to provide the absolute shittiest service possible, here's hoping Verizon is not one of them.
In most cases maybe, but this season in an attempt to stop people from downloading shows from BT Fox released the first four episodes on DVD the Tuesday after they aired. As often happens some people got their hands on these DVDs and the shows were available more than a week before they aired.
I think Fox just feels spited because the whole point of releasing them early was to combat BT distribution and all it actually did was make BT a more attractive method of getting the shows because they were there early.
The $500 and $600 prices are with the incentive already applied, you can only get it for that price if you buy it with a two year agreement with Cindular.
What does that have to do with anything? From the intro to your post I was expecting some refute to the claim that Starbucks pays higher than market value for their coffee. Instead you offered a bunch of proof of the fact that the average Ethiopian is poor. How is that Starbuck's fault? They are not responsible for the welfare of the Ethiopian people, they do appear to be trying to help, but to use the fact that Ethiopians are poor as 'proof' of Starbucks not being socially responsible seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Well I see your argument has shifted somewhat here no longer is it that most car stereos can display IPod tracks on the screen. Now it is most new cars have a stereo option available which can do this. Well there certainly I agree, but unfortunately that is not what was said.
It is off on two points first it goes and makes an assumption never made by the original post that we are talking about new cars. I will concede such an assumption could probably be implied by the ridiculousness of the claim otherwise. Second we have the assumption that not only is an option available but that MOST people choose the higher priced stereo with iPod integration. Sorry I just see absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.
And on a side note I find the end of your response slightly strange. My only issue was the assumption that MOST stereo head units support iPod integration with track text. I do not find iPod control in a head unit to be a distasteful idea and am slightly amused that you would think I do. I have not see any units whose interface I think comes up to the level of the iPod, but I do not find the concept to be distasteful and actually think it is a good idea, I am only refuting the pervasiveness of the technology not the merit.
Bullshit stays, followed the link and I don't see anything but a list of manufactures, which support iPod integration of some sort, no percents, no mention of track listings on the display. Assuming I would not follow the link is probably playing the odds, but this time I took the two seconds required to find absolutely no evidence to refute the bullshit call.
> Ability to hook it into most cars and display track info on the dashboard.
I call bullshit on this one. Show one shred of evidence to back this ridiculous claim up.
I will grant that some car stereos can display iPod song info while no stereos (that I know of) can display Zune info, but making the claim that most car stereos can do it is ludicrous.
So your suggestion would be to screw the 90% so your 10% works better? At some point you need to say I have x number of buttons these x options are going to be the most useful so I am going to include these x options and the 10% or whatever of the population that wants another option is just going to have to do it manually.
Slashdot Mirror
In 3rd or 4th (1990ish) grade we had an amazing computer teacher, started out just drawing cool designs, then learned more, and ended up making a digital clock from scratch, meaning I had to create procedure to draw the numbers and a control program to trigger the process with time delays.
I am no the poster from above, but I believe point #1 is not so much a reply to your post, but more a point on the case in general. As I understand the plan of attack by SCO they had to theories they wanted to argue simultaneously here:
1. That the APA did transfer the copyrights, this argument was basically that they appeared to be included in the list of included assets meanwhile completely ignoring the fact that they were explicitly excluded in the list of assets which would not be transfered.
and
2. That even if they were not included in the APA it didn't matter because the people involved in the deal THOUGHT they were being transfered.
IMHO point #1 was meant to be a contradiction of SCO's strategy #2 and not so much an addressing of your point.
The difference is that I am sure the majority of the profit for Porsche or Ferrari still come from the cars, while in the case of the NFL the vast vast vast majority of the profit comes from licensing of merchandise and advertising. By keeping ticket prices low and by doing things like going after people trying to resell their tickets for high profits they preserver the illusion that they actually want to make it possible for "regular fans" to go to the games. The reality is not that they don't want them to come but that they really do not have a vested interest one way or the other as long as those fans keep buying jerseys, watching games on TV, etc.
No they are not which I think was the point the poster was trying to make. They are college athletes they are forbidden to make any money for playing in the NCAA. Now they are usually playing in the hopes of making it to a professional sporting league so they can become millionaires, but this is something that is only going to happen to a very small percentage of them.
The title of this summary is horribly misleading...now I know this is slashdot so no one RTFA, but I happend across it by other means this morning, the ruling was not that having an open WAP is probable cause for kiddy porn, the ruling was that an open WAP was no defense against a finding of probable cause.
In this case they found that kiddy porn had been sent to someone else from this guys IP, they used this fact as probable cause to search his room were they found cd's full of kiddy porn.
So this is not saying that the police can barge into someones house just because the have an open WAP, it is saying that if someone has an open WAP and something illegal is done via that open WAP then the police have probably cause to search the location of the WAP and I think this is perfectly reasonable, we are talking about probably cause here not conviction, I would have a problem if someone was convicted on just the evidence of a IP address period regardless of the presence of an open WAP, but I do not have a problem with this being considered cause.
In a somewhat applicable analogy it is like getting a warrant to search an apartment after witnesses claim a man in that apartment had shot someone on the street, true the man might not be the apartment owner, but the fact that part of the crime did happen in the apartment is certainly probably cause to search the apartment.
While the people at cnet may be sold on the iPhone, the vast majority of people buying phones are not sold on anything more expensive than free. The iPhone is going to be sitting toward the top of the premium phone market, I would say the jury is still very much on whether it will succeed period never mind whether it will be able to kill other devices.
Using the PDA market as an example here is just dishonest because the segment of the population that was using PDAs was already pre-disposed to a more advanced and integrated device, this is simply not what the majority of phone users really want to do.
Except the change ISPs argument holds no water. My entire state has one choice for good broadband, the local cable company that's it. Hopefully that will be changing soon, but for the time being I have no other options besides giving up and switching to dial-up.
The argument that capitalism will naturally correct any injustices the providers for upon users has to concede that for the vast majority of users in the United States there is no vibrant broadband market. This situation can change, but the cost implementing a high speed network over a huge geographic area is high and the only people who look like they are expanding this market are the ones already in it.
As much as it pains me to say this and trust me it's painful, I think you have actually made a good point there.
Damn you!
Took a while for the article to load but I am just astounded at how completely and utterly irrelevant it is. I mean I had low expectations going into the thing after reading some of the comments, but I was not prepared for that.
Points one-five
One: Is Linux a Myth?
I guess he has a problem with the fact that the word Linux has become associated with a lot of different things. This isn't really talking positively or negatively about anything the whole thing is a discussion on how you aught to compare Linux distros to other OS's and not just some fussy concept that is Linux. Are there really IT people out there who think of Linux in this manner? As some kind of warm fuzzy enigma that can heal all the worlds ills?
Two: Is Linux Secure?
This was by far my favorite one, this had NOTHING to do with Linux security at all. It basically amounted to physical security is all that matters anyway so it doesn't matter whether Linux is secure or not because no matter how secure it is the users can still screw it up by printing out account numbers and giving out info over the phone. While this is all very true physical security and teach users good security practices is a good idea, implying that security of the system itself is unimportant is foolish. It may be easier to get one users credit card number with a phishing scam than to steal a whole database of them, but the payoff from the database is MUCH higher and the idea that the database theft risk should be ignored is ridiculous.
Three: Do Communes Work?
I thought maybe this might be a good point but sadly no it was really just a discussion of the GPL 3.0.
Four: Is Linux Pro-Developer, or Pro-You?
This was another great one Linux is bad because it will lower the costs your department spends on things other than bodies and apparently that is bad because your worth to the company is directly proportional to how much money your department spends. Maybe to solve this problem departments that decide to adopt Linux should enact a strict Cross only pen policy. That way the can get the benefits of Linux while avoiding the danger of lowering costs.
Is Linux is "Open"? (no five here, not sure why)
This section had nothing to do with whether Linux was open or not instead it was w whiny rant one how people are too critical of his writings. I'm sorry Rob maybe if you could actually follow a topic with details in the body that actually apply to your headings people would find them to be more reasonable.
No it is still a bad analogy because your entire justification was just describes what the term hybrid means.
'anything derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of elements of different or incongruous kinds'
That is one definition of a hybrid which is essentially what you just described the addition of a car only makes a muddled analogy as the car part of a hybrid car has no relationship to a hybrid hard drive only the hybrid part does.
So this scheme is safe as long as not many people buy his software...
But we are not talking about speech which is attempting to deprive people of their rights if we were, this type of speech is already restricted by slander, libel, stalking, etc laws. We are talking about an enhancement to that definition to include speech which makes people feel bad, and I think adding high self esteem to our list of rights is one step too far.
And besides if you made it a right, isn't the bullier's self esteem often boosted by the bullying? So wouldn't we get a conflict of interest there? How do we determine which person's right to self esteem is more important?
I also do not think hate speech or racial slurs should be immune from first amendment protection. The fact that a certain type of speech is distasteful and disgusting to me and in the cases you mention to the majority of the population does not give me or anyone else the right to ban it.
For the same reason I feel that Hate Crime modifiers to things like murder and assault are wrong because they attempt to legislate and punish people for their thoughts rather than for their actions. And before someone decides this makes me pro-hate crime you need to remember that defining something as a hate crime is only an enhancement of something that we as society already consider to be a crime. So what's wrong with prosecuting people for the actions they performed rather than the thoughts in their head when they performed them?
Well if we are talking about slander/libel (libel here right as it's written) then there are already laws that cover it, and instituting laws which protect us from bullying are therefor unnecessary. The thing which gets me about this issue is that it comes dangerously close to outlaw being mean to people. Now do I support being 'mean' to others? No not really, but I also realize that we live in the real world and trying to legislate that everyone be nice to everyone else or that no ones feeling ever get hurt is something that I don't think many people really want if they think about it. I mean really haven't we had enough books/movies in the subject to make us realize a world without any bad things at all is only a possibility when we give up the things that make us individuals.
Why is it not free speech? Because it offends you? By that argument evolution and creationism should also be outlawed because they both offend many more people than bullying.
I can't think of any reason why bullying shouldn't be protected by the first amendment. Did you mean to say I love the Bill of Rights as long as it only protects the kind of speech I like? That's what it sounds like to me.
Does bullying effectively add to any kind of political decent? Probably not. But I fail to see how it even comes close to the standards we set for situations in which free speech can be restricted.
What just Fox? For us Cox Cable in Rhode Island we don't get FOX or CBS, Verizon just got approval to do TV on their FIOS network in my area, their sample channel line ups include both those channel so I am hoping they are not as horrendous as Cox, I don't see how it's possible that they could be, but some companies just seem to have a way of rising to that challenge to provide the absolute shittiest service possible, here's hoping Verizon is not one of them.
In most cases maybe, but this season in an attempt to stop people from downloading shows from BT Fox released the first four episodes on DVD the Tuesday after they aired. As often happens some people got their hands on these DVDs and the shows were available more than a week before they aired.
I think Fox just feels spited because the whole point of releasing them early was to combat BT distribution and all it actually did was make BT a more attractive method of getting the shows because they were there early.
The $500 and $600 prices are with the incentive already applied, you can only get it for that price if you buy it with a two year agreement with Cindular.
What does that have to do with anything? From the intro to your post I was expecting some refute to the claim that Starbucks pays higher than market value for their coffee. Instead you offered a bunch of proof of the fact that the average Ethiopian is poor. How is that Starbuck's fault? They are not responsible for the welfare of the Ethiopian people, they do appear to be trying to help, but to use the fact that Ethiopians are poor as 'proof' of Starbucks not being socially responsible seems to be a bit of a stretch.
What kind of idiot would mod this informative? Please tell me that was a mistake.
Well I see your argument has shifted somewhat here no longer is it that most car stereos can display IPod tracks on the screen. Now it is most new cars have a stereo option available which can do this. Well there certainly I agree, but unfortunately that is not what was said.
It is off on two points first it goes and makes an assumption never made by the original post that we are talking about new cars. I will concede such an assumption could probably be implied by the ridiculousness of the claim otherwise. Second we have the assumption that not only is an option available but that MOST people choose the higher priced stereo with iPod integration. Sorry I just see absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.
And on a side note I find the end of your response slightly strange. My only issue was the assumption that MOST stereo head units support iPod integration with track text. I do not find iPod control in a head unit to be a distasteful idea and am slightly amused that you would think I do. I have not see any units whose interface I think comes up to the level of the iPod, but I do not find the concept to be distasteful and actually think it is a good idea, I am only refuting the pervasiveness of the technology not the merit.
Bullshit stays, followed the link and I don't see anything but a list of manufactures, which support iPod integration of some sort, no percents, no mention of track listings on the display. Assuming I would not follow the link is probably playing the odds, but this time I took the two seconds required to find absolutely no evidence to refute the bullshit call.
> Ability to hook it into most cars and display track info on the dashboard. I call bullshit on this one. Show one shred of evidence to back this ridiculous claim up. I will grant that some car stereos can display iPod song info while no stereos (that I know of) can display Zune info, but making the claim that most car stereos can do it is ludicrous.
So your suggestion would be to screw the 90% so your 10% works better? At some point you need to say I have x number of buttons these x options are going to be the most useful so I am going to include these x options and the 10% or whatever of the population that wants another option is just going to have to do it manually.