I can't speak for everyone else, but I was answering questions and testing bugs until 11am. Then I was very tired and got a couple of hours of sleep.
The Infrastructure team was trying to migrate several of the websites over to a new server about the same time as 4.0 was released. After some brief downtime, everything pulled through. Due to a perfect storm of problems during the previous two days, the server upgrades were delayed all the way until release day (oops!)
If you grabbed 3.6.5 this morning, you didn't miss a new release on that branch -- 3.6.5 came out on Jan 30th, and 3.6.6 won't come out until the 2nd week of April. The 4.0.0.3 release is working pretty well, running into a few bugs and issues, but we're working to iron those out as quickly as possible.
You're completely missing the idea of copyright as applied to a paper.
Please do enlighten us!
The work that is copyrighted is the paper itself, not the research described within. You can build your research on the results of others absolutely normally - and that's what Newton meant. Read, do research based on it, write a new paper.
Sure, writing new papers is one possibliity. But it's not the only way to collaborate.
Fair use makes it even possible to cite the parts you want to discuss, if necessary. I can't really think of anything more you could ask for, anything "more free".
Fair use is a defense, not a right. It's not perfect, and it can be messy to defend in court (or so the lawyers tell me). Why wouldn't some scientists want to make their research and their ideas *even more* accessible to those who wish to remix them and/or use short/long excerpts?
On the other hand, building your paper on someone else's paper by just modyfing the relevant parts is not in any way helpful for science - and that's the definition of derivative work here.
What are the "relevant parts"? And are you certain that no useful science can come from borrowing data/charts/text from an existing paper beyond what Fair use would allow?
Example: I write a 100 page paper about monkey butts. Let's say it's about hair color and distribution. I include a lot of really useful pictures of monkey butts and graphs of the statistics thereof.
Someone else wants to write a new paper about monkey butts and realizes that they could use all of my existing charts and pictures as their data and come to some new and very interesting conclusions. Their paper is about cancerous growths, and it's not a critique of my paper, so they can't just suck up my data, pictures, and prepared charts and claim Fair use.
If my paper were under CC-BY-ND, they would probably be SOL. Let's say that I had since died (bad monkey stew), so they couldn't ask me for permission.
If, however, my paper were under CC-BY-SA, then they would be able to re-use all of my lovely scientific shit.
In fact, if you do something like this, you're a lousy, lazy scientist - if you can fit your results into an existing paper like that, you probably haven't done anything new and worth reading.
Or maybe the original scientist missed something? Or maybe there's a new, novel way to use his reasearch and copyrighted materials? (see above)
ND-free licenses are extremely useful for code, potentially useful in art, but worthless in science. There's no value added here.
When someone talks about "value-added" in terms of science, it raises a red flag for me. Why does science have to be about "adding value"? Sure, there are a lot of people and a lot of companies that do a lot of hard science, and bully for them. But I don't have to argue that all of them should eschew the ND clause, I just have to show that some scientists have valid reasons for avoiding it.
Seriously? You consider only completely open or completely closed position as non-hypocritical? What you're saying is just pseudophilosophical mumbo-jumbo, based on a fundamentalist understanding of "information wants to be free".
Any half-open or half-closed position seems like a very hard position to argue. Bright lines, as any lawyer will tell you, are easy: Everything falls neatly to one side or the other. As I stated above in my answer, perhaps the "No Derivatives" clause actually legally accomplishes something quite different from its generic meaning in everyday English, and so some classes of "derivative works" of a paper marked ND are actually allowed. My point is that it is sad that the term is named "No Derivatives" when a scientist seems interested (if not intent) upon sharing their work with the world at large via an "Open Acces
You WANT people to use your stuff. You WANT them to build on it. And then you want them to write their own TEXT and publish that.
Why shouldn't a peer of yours re-use some of your paper, if some of it (maybe some words...maybe some paragraphs) support their theses as well? With correct attribution, can't you share in his work/glory, just as derivative patents do?
I can understand that if there's a specific assignment for a class or some specific degree program in which the purpose of the exercise is for people to compose their own work from scratch then re-using excerpts or pieces from other's works might be contrary to those specific goals. But just because we've followed certain (non-)collaborative paths in science for centuries doesn't mean that we need to continue in that fashion.
What you don't want is for somebody who does not build on your work to take your paper, jumble it around until it makes no sense and is completely wrong, and then claim that YOU wrote that mess.
I understand the argument, but can someone please provide concrete examples of what is okay and what is nokay? What does it mean for someone to "build on your work" ? How much of your paper, data, or ideas may they quote?
I don't understand how someone can take someone else's work and turn it into something that "makes no sense" and "is completely wrong", unless they fundamentally misattribute or misquote the person. Can someone please provide an example of a paper that X wrote that was then perverted by Y until it was "completely wrong" ?
If ND is so important for content creators, why don't we see random programmers out there taking the Linux kernel, "jumbling it around until it makes no sense," and then publishing a derivative work in some fashion that defames/harms Linus and the rest of the kernel devs?
And just think about public domain works! What if someone were to take a paper written by my grandfather pre-1923 and twist its words into something "completely wrong" -- what recourse would his heirs have from that?
All science is derivative. CC-BY-ND is already a huge improvement over the old situation where the copyright is owned by the publisher and the contents behind a paywall.
Sure, CC-BY-ND might be an improvement over the draconian control exercised by the publishers in the past. But so would nearly any license change. Your statement doesn't say anything about whether CC-BY-ND is any better or worse than CC-BY-SA.
Why must Share-Alike be tied to the No-Commercial and No-Derivatives clauses?
CC-BY-SA seems like a fair compromise in a world in which some scientists don't share.
Maybe ND doesn't actually prevent any scientists from building on top of one's research, but I think the idea of labeling your research as "ND" is pretty anti-social. If you don't want other people to use your stuff, then fine, don't show it to anyone. Why would anyone submit a paper to an "Open Access" journal, and then label their paper as "No Derivatives." Newton saw as far as he could because he was standing on the shoulders of Derivatives...or giants. You know, derivative giants.
The arguments I've heard in favor of ND go something along the lines of "If people can create derivative works of mine, then they'll twist my work around and make me look like Hitler."
Sure. But imagine if I wrote a paper with the following paragraph:
Humans around the age of two will eat anything they can find on the ground. Dirt, rocks, garbage -- even bugs.
Someone can easily mis-paraphrase that sentence as "Humans..will eat anything... Dirt, rocks, garbage -- even bugs." So I really don't see a big draw for the ND clause. It just seems like a cop-out.
It's pretty close to 1% of the whole population of the nation, including newborns and the elderly.
Okay, sure, but do both of those groups have suffrage? (I can see the get-out-the-vote campaigns for the babies....free teething rings for all!)
- 1% of americans would be around 3 million people. Would you sign a petition that REQUIRED 3 million signatures?
Sure, if it was aimed at a useful result like "Don't let the telcos off the hook for helping the NSA violate the 4th Ammendment," or "Reform copyright law so it doesn't last forever minus a day". To be honest, a fair number of the petitions on the Whitehouse's petition site (that have passed the required bar to receive a response) concern issues that are interesting and relevant to most Americans. It's just that 5 or 500 petitions to legalize marijuana aren't going to do a damn thing, because the President doesn't have the political clout or the personal motivation to "make it so".
It sounds like this petition mechanism might actually effect real change -- the kind of change that political parties over on this side of the Atlantic promise up and down the campaign trail, but which, if it ever materializes, doesn't pack quite the same punch as promised -- and for that, I am quite envious of you Finns.
OP wrote (and I quote) "there are rules preventing 18+ games from being sown on TV before 22:30"
Given that your nick translates as "crazy" I didn't expect such a serious reply, but it's possible the humor is an English nuance that doesn't translate well. I'm sorry if English is not your first language.
In France, there are rules preventing 18+ games from being sown on TV before 22:30.
No, no, no -- you're confusing that rule with the one about adult movies -- you know, "no sowing of seed before 22:30". With the 18+ games, they're just concerned about people downloading them. Or as the Internet Buckaneers call it, "reaping what is sown on TV."
(also, what 18+ games are shown on TV? is that like naked soccer or something?)
Also: http://linux.dell.com/ currently redirects to their non-user-editable Linux Engineering wiki. They really should make it easy to get from there to the page selling the Sputnik laptop. Because yes, hackers often just guess urls for common services instead of bothering with a search engine.
GPL does NOT, I repeat, does NOT require PUBLIC release of derivative works. It only requires disclosure to the actual users of the software.
It is perfectly legal to create a derivative work of a GPL work and release the source code to the product users under NDA, forbidding public disclosure.
Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis. If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to license-violation@fsf.org. If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.
If someone writes a program that facilitates the creation and retrieval of information, how can the program not be protected under the rule that “information is speech”? It seems that if we take the Sorrell approach, no software will ever be regulable—all software will be protected speech.
The code (and output) might both be considered protected speech.
The famous antitrust judgment finding Microsoft liable for excluding Netscape from Windows would have come out the other way, dismissed as inconsistent with Microsoft’s First Amendment right to convey information as it wishes. Apple’s wish to exclude disfavored books from the iPad eBook reader, or banish Adobe Flash from its iPhone browser, would simply be Apple’s speech.
But in both of these cases we're talking about monopolies -- either market-wide or specific to a particular device.
If consumers had the ability to jailbreak their Apple hardware and install whatever they wanted on there, or move any content OFF of there (SCOTUS is chewing on First Sale doctrine @now), then Apple's right to protection under Ammendment numero uno wouldn't give them carte blanche to get up in our business and do the hokey pokey all over our consumer rights.
The Netscape/Microsoft deal is a little more tricky, because unlike with Apple, Microsoft really did have a tremendous monoploy in the market at that time. In essence, Microsoft got to define the firmament, the earth, and everything inbetween. There wasn't any viable way to interact with computer-using consumers without building on top of Windows, and MS had/has complete control of that software. But even if the 1st ammendment does give MS more leeway on how it leverages its OS APIs to give preferential treatment to in-house applications, that wouldn't preclude the courts from recognizing the validity of other entities to reverse-engineer software and hardware for compatibility.
In short, greater freedoms for corporations under the 1st ammendment must be matched by greater freedoms for consumers and competitors under compatibility, reverse-engineering, and data freedom laws. More flexibility is great as long as the benefits are felt by all players in the game.
This is basically the digital equivalent of "show your work" on a math test. If you want to see how well the students are grasping certain concepts, tell them to include an audio track in which they describe what they're doing and *why* -- e.g. "lightening this layer now because I did *blah blah* and messed it up previously".
Anyone who is good enough to fake the screencast convincingly probably doesn't need this class. And if you're really concerned about people using a ringer to do their work, have an in-person exam for each student at the end of the term. You won't need more than 10 min each. Tailor each test to the skills demonstrated in their videos -- that way if someone got a hotshot to tear through the work for them, in person you can easily see if they don't know, say, how to use keyboard shortcuts to invert a selection, etc..
But actually, is someone going to try to patent the shit (read: actual shit) that comes out of the oceans? Because I think that they really might try...
The ".pdf" on the end of the link didn't mark it well enough for you?
I don't usually hover over each link in a/. summary to inspect it before clicking it. Emails caught in my spam folder? Yeah, probably a good idea. Vetted (well, theoretically) links on/. I usually trust enough to just click-away.
And what browsers in common use don't easily show PDFs?
Firefox is working on it right now, but it looks like they're targeting FF18, which is currently scheduled to move to beta on Nov 19th.
I believe that Chrom{e|ium} has some support, but I haven't seen it (might not be configured on default installs).
Intel has some of the best (the best?) fabs in the world, and has chips that use a smaller process than what other companies are pushing out, right? So why can't they make a small, power-efficient chip that can at least meet (if not beat) the offerings from ARM and the licenses?
To put it another way, Wikipedia tells me that ARM Holdings has 2,000 employees and a revenue of about 490 million pounds (in 2011). Intel has 100,000 employees and a 2011 revenue of 54 billion dollars (about 34 billion pounds). How hard is Intel really trying to get a foothold in this market?
Easy question: How many smartphones are shipping right now with an Intel chip in them? Or to make it easier for you, can you name a currently-shipping smartphone that *doesn't* run on an ARM chip, without googling it?
Another metric: Can you think of any form factor of computer (laptop, netbook, desktop, server, game console, smartphone, dumbphone, tv, settop box, etc...) in which x86 marketshare has increased in the last 5 years? (I think apple's ppc -> intel move was 2006, so no dice there:P )
Representative Paul Broun (Georgia Republican) said that evolution, embryology and The Big Bang Theory are 'lies straight from the pit of hell'
If he doesn't like The Big Bang Theory, CBS tells me that he can see 2.5 Men afterwards, or the Veep Debates after that....or does he think that Vice Presidents are all full of lies straight from the pit of hell, too?
Yes, this is cool, but I can't go out to Barnes and Noble and pick up a copy of this week's magazine and expect to find some fun electronics inside.
Entertainment Weekly is only producing 1,000 of these digital advertising-enhanced issues, so if you want a nearly free smartphone that, with a good deal of nudging, actually works, you better run, not walk, to your nearest newsstand.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean the Harlem Shake, not The Harlem Shuffle...
I can't speak for everyone else, but I was answering questions and testing bugs until 11am. Then I was very tired and got a couple of hours of sleep.
The Infrastructure team was trying to migrate several of the websites over to a new server about the same time as 4.0 was released. After some brief downtime, everything pulled through. Due to a perfect storm of problems during the previous two days, the server upgrades were delayed all the way until release day (oops!)
If you grabbed 3.6.5 this morning, you didn't miss a new release on that branch -- 3.6.5 came out on Jan 30th, and 3.6.6 won't come out until the 2nd week of April. The 4.0.0.3 release is working pretty well, running into a few bugs and issues, but we're working to iron those out as quickly as possible.
Feel free to Ask questions or Report a bug if and when the fancy strikes you.
First $699 to SCO back in 2003, now £140lbs to Microsoft for Windows Write..I mean MS-Office for GNU/Linux.
What did we say about impulse purchases with your allowance?
You're completely missing the idea of copyright as applied to a paper.
Please do enlighten us!
The work that is copyrighted is the paper itself, not the research described within. You can build your research on the results of others absolutely normally - and that's what Newton meant. Read, do research based on it, write a new paper.
Sure, writing new papers is one possibliity. But it's not the only way to collaborate.
Fair use makes it even possible to cite the parts you want to discuss, if necessary. I can't really think of anything more you could ask for, anything "more free".
Fair use is a defense, not a right. It's not perfect, and it can be messy to defend in court (or so the lawyers tell me). Why wouldn't some scientists want to make their research and their ideas *even more* accessible to those who wish to remix them and/or use short/long excerpts?
On the other hand, building your paper on someone else's paper by just modyfing the relevant parts is not in any way helpful for science - and that's the definition of derivative work here.
What are the "relevant parts"? And are you certain that no useful science can come from borrowing data/charts/text from an existing paper beyond what Fair use would allow?
Example: I write a 100 page paper about monkey butts. Let's say it's about hair color and distribution. I include a lot of really useful pictures of monkey butts and graphs of the statistics thereof.
Someone else wants to write a new paper about monkey butts and realizes that they could use all of my existing charts and pictures as their data and come to some new and very interesting conclusions. Their paper is about cancerous growths, and it's not a critique of my paper, so they can't just suck up my data, pictures, and prepared charts and claim Fair use.
If my paper were under CC-BY-ND, they would probably be SOL. Let's say that I had since died (bad monkey stew), so they couldn't ask me for permission.
If, however, my paper were under CC-BY-SA, then they would be able to re-use all of my lovely scientific shit.
In fact, if you do something like this, you're a lousy, lazy scientist - if you can fit your results into an existing paper like that, you probably haven't done anything new and worth reading.
Or maybe the original scientist missed something? Or maybe there's a new, novel way to use his reasearch and copyrighted materials? (see above)
ND-free licenses are extremely useful for code, potentially useful in art, but worthless in science. There's no value added here.
When someone talks about "value-added" in terms of science, it raises a red flag for me. Why does science have to be about "adding value"? Sure, there are a lot of people and a lot of companies that do a lot of hard science, and bully for them. But I don't have to argue that all of them should eschew the ND clause, I just have to show that some scientists have valid reasons for avoiding it.
Seriously? You consider only completely open or completely closed position as non-hypocritical? What you're saying is just pseudophilosophical mumbo-jumbo, based on a fundamentalist understanding of "information wants to be free".
Any half-open or half-closed position seems like a very hard position to argue. Bright lines, as any lawyer will tell you, are easy: Everything falls neatly to one side or the other. As I stated above in my answer, perhaps the "No Derivatives" clause actually legally accomplishes something quite different from its generic meaning in everyday English, and so some classes of "derivative works" of a paper marked ND are actually allowed. My point is that it is sad that the term is named "No Derivatives" when a scientist seems interested (if not intent) upon sharing their work with the world at large via an "Open Acces
You misunderstand.
You WANT people to use your stuff. You WANT them to build on it. And then you want them to write their own TEXT and publish that.
Why shouldn't a peer of yours re-use some of your paper, if some of it (maybe some words...maybe some paragraphs) support their theses as well? With correct attribution, can't you share in his work/glory, just as derivative patents do?
I can understand that if there's a specific assignment for a class or some specific degree program in which the purpose of the exercise is for people to compose their own work from scratch then re-using excerpts or pieces from other's works might be contrary to those specific goals. But just because we've followed certain (non-)collaborative paths in science for centuries doesn't mean that we need to continue in that fashion.
What you don't want is for somebody who does not build on your work to take your paper, jumble it around until it makes no sense and is completely wrong, and then claim that YOU wrote that mess.
I understand the argument, but can someone please provide concrete examples of what is okay and what is nokay? What does it mean for someone to "build on your work" ? How much of your paper, data, or ideas may they quote?
I don't understand how someone can take someone else's work and turn it into something that "makes no sense" and "is completely wrong", unless they fundamentally misattribute or misquote the person. Can someone please provide an example of a paper that X wrote that was then perverted by Y until it was "completely wrong" ?
If ND is so important for content creators, why don't we see random programmers out there taking the Linux kernel, "jumbling it around until it makes no sense," and then publishing a derivative work in some fashion that defames/harms Linus and the rest of the kernel devs?
And just think about public domain works! What if someone were to take a paper written by my grandfather pre-1923 and twist its words into something "completely wrong" -- what recourse would his heirs have from that?
All science is derivative. CC-BY-ND is already a huge improvement over the old situation where the copyright is owned by the publisher and the contents behind a paywall.
Sure, CC-BY-ND might be an improvement over the draconian control exercised by the publishers in the past. But so would nearly any license change. Your statement doesn't say anything about whether CC-BY-ND is any better or worse than CC-BY-SA.
Why must Share-Alike be tied to the No-Commercial and No-Derivatives clauses?
CC-BY-SA seems like a fair compromise in a world in which some scientists don't share.
Maybe ND doesn't actually prevent any scientists from building on top of one's research, but I think the idea of labeling your research as "ND" is pretty anti-social. If you don't want other people to use your stuff, then fine, don't show it to anyone. Why would anyone submit a paper to an "Open Access" journal, and then label their paper as "No Derivatives." Newton saw as far as he could because he was standing on the shoulders of Derivatives...or giants. You know, derivative giants.
The arguments I've heard in favor of ND go something along the lines of "If people can create derivative works of mine, then they'll twist my work around and make me look like Hitler."
Sure. But imagine if I wrote a paper with the following paragraph:
Someone can easily mis-paraphrase that sentence as "Humans..will eat anything... Dirt, rocks, garbage -- even bugs." So I really don't see a big draw for the ND clause. It just seems like a cop-out.
It's pretty close to 1% of the whole population of the nation, including newborns and the elderly.
Okay, sure, but do both of those groups have suffrage? (I can see the get-out-the-vote campaigns for the babies....free teething rings for all!)
- 1% of americans would be around 3 million people. Would you sign a petition that REQUIRED 3 million signatures?
Sure, if it was aimed at a useful result like "Don't let the telcos off the hook for helping the NSA violate the 4th Ammendment," or "Reform copyright law so it doesn't last forever minus a day". To be honest, a fair number of the petitions on the Whitehouse's petition site (that have passed the required bar to receive a response) concern issues that are interesting and relevant to most Americans. It's just that 5 or 500 petitions to legalize marijuana aren't going to do a damn thing, because the President doesn't have the political clout or the personal motivation to "make it so".
It sounds like this petition mechanism might actually effect real change -- the kind of change that political parties over on this side of the Atlantic promise up and down the campaign trail, but which, if it ever materializes, doesn't pack quite the same punch as promised -- and for that, I am quite envious of you Finns.
let us be the judge... :-)
Oy! Right where it hurts!
Don't ask me why I remember the name.....why can't I remember useful information, like my girlfriend's phone number?
< insert witty song about geeky stuff here >
Or something like that. Although online, it's probably more like "don't look a goatse in the..."
Well, you get the picture.
OP wrote (and I quote) "there are rules preventing 18+ games from being sown on TV before 22:30"
Given that your nick translates as "crazy" I didn't expect such a serious reply, but it's possible the humor is an English nuance that doesn't translate well. I'm sorry if English is not your first language.
In France, there are rules preventing 18+ games from being sown on TV before 22:30.
No, no, no -- you're confusing that rule with the one about adult movies -- you know, "no sowing of seed before 22:30". With the 18+ games, they're just concerned about people downloading them. Or as the Internet Buckaneers call it, "reaping what is sown on TV."
(also, what 18+ games are shown on TV? is that like naked soccer or something?)
Here it is: http://content.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/d/campaigns/xps-linux-laptop.aspx
Heh... that space-related url says "Enterprise D" :-)
This one works, too: http://dell.com/sputnik
Also: http://linux.dell.com/ currently redirects to their non-user-editable Linux Engineering wiki. They really should make it easy to get from there to the page selling the Sputnik laptop. Because yes, hackers often just guess urls for common services instead of bothering with a search engine.
GPL does NOT, I repeat, does NOT require PUBLIC release of derivative works. It only requires disclosure to the actual users of the software.
It is perfectly legal to create a derivative work of a GPL work and release the source code to the product users under NDA, forbidding public disclosure.
Let's look at the FAQ for the GPL...
Does The GPL Allow NDA?
Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis. If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to license-violation@fsf.org. If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.
If someone writes a program that facilitates the creation and retrieval of information, how can the program not be protected under the rule that “information is speech”? It seems that if we take the Sorrell approach, no software will ever be regulable—all software will be protected speech.
The code (and output) might both be considered protected speech.
The famous antitrust judgment finding Microsoft liable for excluding Netscape from Windows would have come out the other way, dismissed as inconsistent with Microsoft’s First Amendment right to convey information as it wishes. Apple’s wish to exclude disfavored books from the iPad eBook reader, or banish Adobe Flash from its iPhone browser, would simply be Apple’s speech.
But in both of these cases we're talking about monopolies -- either market-wide or specific to a particular device.
If consumers had the ability to jailbreak their Apple hardware and install whatever they wanted on there, or move any content OFF of there (SCOTUS is chewing on First Sale doctrine @now), then Apple's right to protection under Ammendment numero uno wouldn't give them carte blanche to get up in our business and do the hokey pokey all over our consumer rights.
The Netscape/Microsoft deal is a little more tricky, because unlike with Apple, Microsoft really did have a tremendous monoploy in the market at that time. In essence, Microsoft got to define the firmament, the earth, and everything inbetween. There wasn't any viable way to interact with computer-using consumers without building on top of Windows, and MS had/has complete control of that software. But even if the 1st ammendment does give MS more leeway on how it leverages its OS APIs to give preferential treatment to in-house applications, that wouldn't preclude the courts from recognizing the validity of other entities to reverse-engineer software and hardware for compatibility.
In short, greater freedoms for corporations under the 1st ammendment must be matched by greater freedoms for consumers and competitors under compatibility, reverse-engineering, and data freedom laws. More flexibility is great as long as the benefits are felt by all players in the game.
This is basically the digital equivalent of "show your work" on a math test. If you want to see how well the students are grasping certain concepts, tell them to include an audio track in which they describe what they're doing and *why* -- e.g. "lightening this layer now because I did *blah blah* and messed it up previously".
Anyone who is good enough to fake the screencast convincingly probably doesn't need this class. And if you're really concerned about people using a ringer to do their work, have an in-person exam for each student at the end of the term. You won't need more than 10 min each. Tailor each test to the skills demonstrated in their videos -- that way if someone got a hotshot to tear through the work for them, in person you can easily see if they don't know, say, how to use keyboard shortcuts to invert a selection, etc..
Sorry, was I being too cynical there?
But actually, is someone going to try to patent the shit (read: actual shit) that comes out of the oceans? Because I think that they really might try...
The ".pdf" on the end of the link didn't mark it well enough for you?
I don't usually hover over each link in a /. summary to inspect it before clicking it. Emails caught in my spam folder? Yeah, probably a good idea. Vetted (well, theoretically) links on /. I usually trust enough to just click-away.
And what browsers in common use don't easily show PDFs?
Firefox is working on it right now, but it looks like they're targeting FF18, which is currently scheduled to move to beta on Nov 19th.
I believe that Chrom{e|ium} has some support, but I haven't seen it (might not be configured on default installs).
Editors: Please mark all links to PDFs (and any other content that is not easily digested by browsers)
Intel has some of the best (the best?) fabs in the world, and has chips that use a smaller process than what other companies are pushing out, right? So why can't they make a small, power-efficient chip that can at least meet (if not beat) the offerings from ARM and the licenses?
To put it another way, Wikipedia tells me that ARM Holdings has 2,000 employees and a revenue of about 490 million pounds (in 2011). Intel has 100,000 employees and a 2011 revenue of 54 billion dollars (about 34 billion pounds). How hard is Intel really trying to get a foothold in this market?
Easy question: How many smartphones are shipping right now with an Intel chip in them? Or to make it easier for you, can you name a currently-shipping smartphone that *doesn't* run on an ARM chip, without googling it?
Another metric: Can you think of any form factor of computer (laptop, netbook, desktop, server, game console, smartphone, dumbphone, tv, settop box, etc...) in which x86 marketshare has increased in the last 5 years? (I think apple's ppc -> intel move was 2006, so no dice there :P )
Representative Paul Broun (Georgia Republican) said that evolution, embryology and The Big Bang Theory are 'lies straight from the pit of hell'
If he doesn't like The Big Bang Theory, CBS tells me that he can see 2.5 Men afterwards, or the Veep Debates after that. ...or does he think that Vice Presidents are all full of lies straight from the pit of hell, too?
It would be like buying a monitor that would only stream video from approved devices.
I see what you did there!
Yes, this is cool, but I can't go out to Barnes and Noble and pick up a copy of this week's magazine and expect to find some fun electronics inside.
More info from original source @ mashable