Some people are dangers to themselves or others, and I'm all for them being put somewhere they can be watched. Hopefully they come in by themselves, sometimes we need to pull them off the street ourselves. This man is apparently one of those people. (Whether or not he actually is is another debate, but we have no basis to challenge it.)
But those people are not criminals. They have whatever rights they would normally have, with the sole exception of not being allowed to wander around freely. (And, sometimes, they're not allowed things that could be used to harm themselves or others, but he doesn't appear to be violent or suicidal, and an ebook hardly qualifies.)
I'm thinking the pilot episode of every TV show ought to be available for free. I can't see any downside.
People who watch the pilot and hate it would do exactly the same thing when it came on TV, so we're talking about microscopic advertising dollars lost here. (How much can you sell ads for for a pilot anyway?)
All the other stuff is good. The novelty, at least at first, generates buzz. In fact, you can generate buzz before a network commits, which puts you in a much better bargaining position. (And, before the contract with the network is signed, it's much easier, legally, to distribute it.)
And you can keep it out there, to suck people into buying DVDs and watching reruns and whatnot.
Now, with the BBC, it's a little different, but the BBC wants Americans to watch its shows also...it can then sell them BBC America, and reruns to air on various PBS stations, and DVDs...
Coors Light isn't a beer, you loon, it's flavored water trading on their soft drink brand, 'Coors'.
Re:Is the objective of GNU/Linux to recreate Windo
on
NeroLinux vs. K3b
·
· Score: 1
I agree about Nero on Windows. Yesterday, I was burning a bunch of near identical CDs, each consisting of 2 350 meg files. So I'd do the burn, return to Nero, delete the files, drag the next two in there, rename the volume, and burn again. Simple, right?
Nope...some of the time deleting the two files would use enough CPU as to cause my music to pause for a good two seconds. WTF? It's not even actually deleting the file, it's just deleting a reference to them! (And the other half of the time, it deleted them instantly with no problem.)
There isn't a single post on this page, at least above you, complaining that NeroLinux isn't open source. (Althougha few suggest it might be better coded if it was open source.)
However, there are plenty of posts complaining that it isn't needed, because we already have a perfectly good CD burning application.
Saying 'I don't really see the market for this, I already can burn CDs fine' isn't exactly the same as proclaiming 'This Software is Not Free, and Thus Is Evil'.
Re:CSS3? Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 1
I think a more realistic goal would be Microsoft figuring out how to turn off CSS support, so at least it wouldn't fuck things up anymore.
They aren't actually the last. The gun went off, everyone sprinted down the road, crossed the finish line at nearly the same time, except for Microsoft, which decided to move to Akron and sell vinyl siding or something instead of finishing the race.
To be the last in a competition, Microsoft would have to fucking cross the finish line. They're not even last until then!
I don't know in what universe Firefox couldn't support this. If you access html files via a file system, you can only get to what you can get to. It's not like programs need to be specifically programmed to respect file permissions.
Now, if people are talking about using domain passwords via NTLM, which doesn't really have anything to do with 'ACLs' per se, FF can do this just like IE.
In fact, it does it in a saner way than IE, sometimes...in IE, sometimes you need to specify in what domain you're logging into, whereas FF seems to be able to figure it out. I.e., on IE you can get prompted to login as 'username', when in reality you sometimes have to change that to 'DOMAIN\username', whereas in Firefox you're also prompted to log in as 'username' and it works. (And the the rest of the time both IE and Firefox prompt you to login as 'DOMAIN\username', which works.)
Presumable FF is using whatever server you used when you logged into Windows. But I'm not going to call that an advantage until I can figure out exactly when and how it does this and IE doesn't, though.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
There is a lower limit on copyrightability, and it's 'The work must be long enough to be creative'. The reason that you can't copyright one line of code is obvious:
17 1 102 (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Almost all single lines of software are doing a single process. You cannot protect that process, and the expression of that process is defined by the rules of grammar. All you can copyright in software is the expression of how you put things together, you can't copyright 'char *str;'. (Yes, yes, you can string a bunch of things on a single line, but the idea that copyright would somehow care about where you put carriage returns is a bit silly. You can't copyright a single 'item' of code, however it's laid out.)
As for several lines of code, like I said, it's fuzzy. It depends on how creative the orignal was. A for() loop that merely went through an array and exited when it found a non-empty item wouldn't be that creative at all.
WRT to software, the 'rules' are all scrambled. Copyright infringement is proven using something that isn't, in fact, subject, to copyright...things like variable and function names. It's perfectly legal to copy someone's function name and all their variables. It's not legal to take how they expressed doing the function and use that same expression, even if your syntax is completely different and all the names differ.
I.e, something that's copyrightable in software would be, say, Duff's Device, or doing while(1) around your entire program. (Assuming you managed to think of those yourself.) Not Hello World, which has the 'creativity' of 'start program, output text, exit'.
Use of copyrighted things is automatically permitted. The only thing restricted by copyright is copying. (And public performances, which only applies to video, audio, and performing art copyrights, not software or image copyrights.)
Or have you been brainwashed by all the EULAs out there into thinking we need permission to run software?
It's not that simple. There is a certain amount of work require to hold a copyright. Changing a single line of code probably does not give you copyright ownership in the finished product.
No one's quite sure what the lower limit is, though. Rule of thumb is four lines before you can be considered to have any copyright at all.
No one is representing anyone. These letters are to notify companies distributing GPL software that they are, in fact, distributing GPL software, and under the GPL there are certain things they have to do, unless they have some other agreement with the copyright holder.
It's no more worrying than me walking up to someone painting a mural with Mickey Mouse on it and going 'You know, you need permission from Disney to do that.'. It's not 'representation' of Disney, it's simply a statement of fact.
And I think you're making quite a leap to assume they don't contact at least one copyright holder of each product to make sure there isn't an independent agreement already in place. I don't see anything to support that.
You've basically got it. This has been happening a while, and there are whole popular sites that have vanished from google because people have 'walked of' with them.
What's really nasty is when your completely innocent redirect to my site goes away, and no one can find my site at all until a reindex, especially since after it's reindexed it will have no pagerank to start with. The whole thing is completely absurd and very damaging to people who care about pagerank.
And while it's nasty pagerank-system abusers who get all the press, quite a few people have legitimate pageranks and have based their business off that. If there are 1,000 people selling widgets for 5 dollars, and you've carefully build an informative site about widgets so people will link to you and find your widgets to buy, this kind of attack can kill your business, especially when you went with the 'provide content' model instead of 'buy ads' to pull customers in.
Also, google punishes identical content. If, say, 50 people 302 redirect to one site, that site will go down in the rating. (Or, rather, whoever randomly was selected as the 'real' site will go down. Although note they'll have gotten all the pagerank of the original, so 'down' is relative.)
Google letting itself be tricked is silly, it should treat external 302s as links, or, even better, treat them as if the page linking to the 302 page had linked to the content itself. I don't know why people were using them instead of 301 redirects, which don't have this problem and are slightly more correct...the content, is indeed, permanently at that location. (Even though it never was at the old location, and you knew it when you linked to it.)
Yes, and you're also abiding by the terms of the Magna Carta, as in, you're not violating them.
The point was you don't need to agree to the terms of the GPL if you just use the software. And hence having to run use by legal is pretty idiotic. It's like running the use of an extension cord by legal...there are no circustances where use could affect anything, legally.
Slashdot Mirror
Abandon Microsoft the first time they abandon you. Fool you once, shame on Microsoft, fool you twice, shame on you.
No, he doesn't even have to do that. All he has to do is give 'the company' the source code, and he can treat that as a single entity.
Some people are dangers to themselves or others, and I'm all for them being put somewhere they can be watched. Hopefully they come in by themselves, sometimes we need to pull them off the street ourselves. This man is apparently one of those people. (Whether or not he actually is is another debate, but we have no basis to challenge it.)
But those people are not criminals. They have whatever rights they would normally have, with the sole exception of not being allowed to wander around freely. (And, sometimes, they're not allowed things that could be used to harm themselves or others, but he doesn't appear to be violent or suicidal, and an ebook hardly qualifies.)
You're biased against falsehoods, aren't you?
Well, maybe if you can find them, you can ask them personally, instead of just randomly trolling.
People who watch the pilot and hate it would do exactly the same thing when it came on TV, so we're talking about microscopic advertising dollars lost here. (How much can you sell ads for for a pilot anyway?)
All the other stuff is good. The novelty, at least at first, generates buzz. In fact, you can generate buzz before a network commits, which puts you in a much better bargaining position. (And, before the contract with the network is signed, it's much easier, legally, to distribute it.)
And you can keep it out there, to suck people into buying DVDs and watching reruns and whatnot.
Now, with the BBC, it's a little different, but the BBC wants Americans to watch its shows also...it can then sell them BBC America, and reruns to air on various PBS stations, and DVDs...
Hey, don't go blaming us for everything...Sony is Japanese, not American.
Remember when we complained about our governments putting the best interests of our companies ahead of people? Ah, good times...
Coors Light isn't a beer, you loon, it's flavored water trading on their soft drink brand, 'Coors'.
Nope...some of the time deleting the two files would use enough CPU as to cause my music to pause for a good two seconds. WTF? It's not even actually deleting the file, it's just deleting a reference to them! (And the other half of the time, it deleted them instantly with no problem.)
However, there are plenty of posts complaining that it isn't needed, because we already have a perfectly good CD burning application.
Saying 'I don't really see the market for this, I already can burn CDs fine' isn't exactly the same as proclaiming 'This Software is Not Free, and Thus Is Evil'.
I think a more realistic goal would be Microsoft figuring out how to turn off CSS support, so at least it wouldn't fuck things up anymore.
To be the last in a competition, Microsoft would have to fucking cross the finish line. They're not even last until then!
Now, if people are talking about using domain passwords via NTLM, which doesn't really have anything to do with 'ACLs' per se, FF can do this just like IE.
In fact, it does it in a saner way than IE, sometimes...in IE, sometimes you need to specify in what domain you're logging into, whereas FF seems to be able to figure it out. I.e., on IE you can get prompted to login as 'username', when in reality you sometimes have to change that to 'DOMAIN\username', whereas in Firefox you're also prompted to log in as 'username' and it works. (And the the rest of the time both IE and Firefox prompt you to login as 'DOMAIN\username', which works.)
Presumable FF is using whatever server you used when you logged into Windows. But I'm not going to call that an advantage until I can figure out exactly when and how it does this and IE doesn't, though.
Isn't IE6 also six years old?
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
Because copying software enough to run it is explicitly allowed by copyright law since 1990 or so.
17 1 102 (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Almost all single lines of software are doing a single process. You cannot protect that process, and the expression of that process is defined by the rules of grammar. All you can copyright in software is the expression of how you put things together, you can't copyright 'char *str;'. (Yes, yes, you can string a bunch of things on a single line, but the idea that copyright would somehow care about where you put carriage returns is a bit silly. You can't copyright a single 'item' of code, however it's laid out.)
As for several lines of code, like I said, it's fuzzy. It depends on how creative the orignal was. A for() loop that merely went through an array and exited when it found a non-empty item wouldn't be that creative at all.
WRT to software, the 'rules' are all scrambled. Copyright infringement is proven using something that isn't, in fact, subject, to copyright...things like variable and function names. It's perfectly legal to copy someone's function name and all their variables. It's not legal to take how they expressed doing the function and use that same expression, even if your syntax is completely different and all the names differ.
I.e, something that's copyrightable in software would be, say, Duff's Device, or doing while(1) around your entire program. (Assuming you managed to think of those yourself.) Not Hello World, which has the 'creativity' of 'start program, output text, exit'.
If you don't agree with it, you can use GPL software, you just can't distribute it. So I don't know what your point is.
Use of copyrighted things is automatically permitted. The only thing restricted by copyright is copying. (And public performances, which only applies to video, audio, and performing art copyrights, not software or image copyrights.)
Or have you been brainwashed by all the EULAs out there into thinking we need permission to run software?
No one's quite sure what the lower limit is, though. Rule of thumb is four lines before you can be considered to have any copyright at all.
It's no more worrying than me walking up to someone painting a mural with Mickey Mouse on it and going 'You know, you need permission from Disney to do that.'. It's not 'representation' of Disney, it's simply a statement of fact.
And I think you're making quite a leap to assume they don't contact at least one copyright holder of each product to make sure there isn't an independent agreement already in place. I don't see anything to support that.
Man, I've been here years and I missed the 'offical complaints' pages. Where is that? Do we all vote on it or something?
What's really nasty is when your completely innocent redirect to my site goes away, and no one can find my site at all until a reindex, especially since after it's reindexed it will have no pagerank to start with. The whole thing is completely absurd and very damaging to people who care about pagerank.
And while it's nasty pagerank-system abusers who get all the press, quite a few people have legitimate pageranks and have based their business off that. If there are 1,000 people selling widgets for 5 dollars, and you've carefully build an informative site about widgets so people will link to you and find your widgets to buy, this kind of attack can kill your business, especially when you went with the 'provide content' model instead of 'buy ads' to pull customers in.
Also, google punishes identical content. If, say, 50 people 302 redirect to one site, that site will go down in the rating. (Or, rather, whoever randomly was selected as the 'real' site will go down. Although note they'll have gotten all the pagerank of the original, so 'down' is relative.)
Google letting itself be tricked is silly, it should treat external 302s as links, or, even better, treat them as if the page linking to the 302 page had linked to the content itself. I don't know why people were using them instead of 301 redirects, which don't have this problem and are slightly more correct...the content, is indeed, permanently at that location. (Even though it never was at the old location, and you knew it when you linked to it.)
The point was you don't need to agree to the terms of the GPL if you just use the software. And hence having to run use by legal is pretty idiotic. It's like running the use of an extension cord by legal...there are no circustances where use could affect anything, legally.