If the API header files are protected by copyright, then Linux infringes on Novel's Unix copyrights. The SCO IBM litigation teaches us that this is not so.
When accounts payable gives the WTF call to the receiving dept and the receiving dept confirms delivery, many companies will assume the bill is legit and pay it.
No, accounts payable don't care that the goods have been delivered even if the supplier can show a valid PO. All they want to know is who authorised the PO so that someone with sufficient authority in that department can authorise the invoice for payment.
It is much like the Obama healthcare "public" option. Publicly funded services will swamp privately funded ones and eventually the private ones will disappear. Yes, Fox News in the UK is threatened in this way by the BBC as insurance companies will be under Obamacare's public option.
There are two fallacies here, one is the public funding leads to government control and the other is the public and private funding can not coexist. The UK experience plainly shows the contrary.
Both the BBC and the NHS are publicly funded but they both have their own constitutions, charters and governing bodies which control them independently of the government of the day. The British might chose to elect a government that decides to override these protections. Similarly the US might chose to elect a government that on the one hand overrides the constitutional protections of the press, or on the other hand one that decides to create some form of public health care.
The idea that the NHS would drive out private practice in health care was the fear of many doctors when the service was set up, but over the sixty years of its existence this simply has not happened. Health care in the UK remains a mixture of private and public provision. There is co-operation between the two sectors.
The position in broadcasting is even stronger. While the BBC started as a state monopoly broadcaster this is no longer the case. Independent commercial radio and television stations have had a long existence in the terrestrial broadcasting and have expanded further with the onset of digital. Ironically Sky a Murdoch company was until the recent onset of Freesat the sole supplier of digital satellite broadcaster for the UK. Companies have set up profitable healthy businesses in this space despite the presence of the BBC.
The BBC acts as a quality control (In both news and programming) so they can't get away with a Fox News style TV show.
We are privileged in the UK to be able to receive Fox News. I guess that is the price we pay for giving BSkyB control of the UK TV satellites. Perhaps if more people watched it support for the BBC would go up.
Yes you can un-subscribe, you just stop paying the license fee and if they ask why tell them you no longer have any equipment capable of receiving broadcast television. Easier to claim this if you remove any satellite or terrestrial antennae. You can event continue to use iPlayer with non-l;ive content. What you can not do is opt to pay only BSkyBs fee.
You can at the moment but Murdoch senior has announced that he intends to charge for all his online news sites. Murdoch junior realises that this strategy will only be successful if other news sources follow along. This plainly won't happen with the BBC so their unwelcome completion needs to be eliminated by political means.
It's not a privacy surcharge. It's perfectly possible to pay for an oyster card in cash, not register it. They can still track where you card has been, but depending on your level of paranoia you can get the deposit refunded regularly and get another.
"NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE IS IMPLIED. USE THIS SOFTWARE AT YOUR OWN RISK" or some combination of that. Even my home server says that every time I SSH into it.
There is no reason that a legislature cannot pass a law saying that this disclaimer is contrary to public policy and won't be respected in the courts.
Indeed. In Finland, just about all such disclaimers are totally worthless. In particular consumer rights are defined in law and can only be extended by warranties, never reduced by disclaimers. Some rights can't even be signed away.
and of course because of this all software sold in Finland is free of bugs.
It's the nature of paintings that you have to be there to see them, a photograph of a painting printed on paper or canvas, or, even less, reproduced on a screen is not the same thing at all, no matter how skilful or creative the photographer. That said, if you want to see a reproduction of the one of the NPG paintings you can visit their web site. They are making this level of access (and prints from their photographs) available to anyone. Their complaint is that they don't want other people making this offer.
In a sane world the compromise of licensing medium resolution versions under a CC attribution license would meet both parties needs increasing access to the pictures and traffic and revenue to the NPG.
Have you read this? It only covers people who have a Verisign issued certificate, and only against Verisign's errors, issuing a faulty certificate, incorrectly revoking a certificate or exposing Verisign's private keys. Don't see anywhere, that it would cover a consumer (or even a certificate owner) against a MITM attack like this.
Too hard for me. Where is the source code and what is the license? The downloads from https://forge.continuent.org/frs/?group_id=26 dont contain source and the svn repoistory svn://svn.forge.continuent.org/svnroot/treplicator does not work with my svn client or the browser link on the gforge page.
Dan is clearly right, technology is the solution. All the *AA have to do is use technology to indelibly mark their IP, and only their IP, while allowing for fair use. Once they have solved this problem it will be simple for ISPs to remove their content and no one else's. With $6bn at stake a year I'm sure the MPAA will quickly solve this minor technological issue.
So, in order to improve airport security you give "vast amounts" of classified data about airport security to a collection of grad students to input into a program that produces allegedly randomized output.
Yes, I see nothing wrong with that; I'd never have thought to do it that way, smart really smart
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I'll play that stupid game for you, just stop hitting my partner/child/pet with your $5 cryptanalysis wrench/rubber hose/baseball bat.
If your disaster recovery plan depends on tapes stored in your server room it is already a disaster.
If the API header files are protected by copyright, then Linux infringes on Novel's Unix copyrights. The SCO IBM litigation teaches us that this is not so.
Subtlety while helpful is frequently over rated.
A vivid imagination and a sense of humour, particularly as regard to irony helps too.
Some of it will do useful work on the way but ultimately all of it will decay to heat. Sad but true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb2kBFqrZx8&feature=related
Sorry, no. Property crimes are not inherently violent crimes..
No, but blowing things up is inherently violent.
When accounts payable gives the WTF call to the receiving dept and the receiving dept confirms delivery, many companies will assume the bill is legit and pay it.
No, accounts payable don't care that the goods have been delivered even if the supplier can show a valid PO. All they want to know is who authorised the PO so that someone with sufficient authority in that department can authorise the invoice for payment.
Yes, but with adverts as you complained above, if you were in the UK there would be no adverts.
Last I checked Wyoming was in America and outside of the BBC's public service remit.
The BBC is essentially an arm of the government.
...
It is much like the Obama healthcare "public" option. Publicly funded services will swamp privately funded ones and eventually the private ones will disappear. Yes, Fox News in the UK is threatened in this way by the BBC as insurance companies will be under Obamacare's public option.
There are two fallacies here, one is the public funding leads to government control and the other is the public and private funding can not coexist. The UK experience plainly shows the contrary.
Both the BBC and the NHS are publicly funded but they both have their own constitutions, charters and governing bodies which control them independently of the government of the day. The British might chose to elect a government that decides to override these protections. Similarly the US might chose to elect a government that on the one hand overrides the constitutional protections of the press, or on the other hand one that decides to create some form of public health care.
The idea that the NHS would drive out private practice in health care was the fear of many doctors when the service was set up, but over the sixty years of its existence this simply has not happened. Health care in the UK remains a mixture of private and public provision. There is co-operation between the two sectors.
The position in broadcasting is even stronger. While the BBC started as a state monopoly broadcaster this is no longer the case. Independent commercial radio and television stations have had a long existence in the terrestrial broadcasting and have expanded further with the onset of digital. Ironically Sky a Murdoch company was until the recent onset of Freesat the sole supplier of digital satellite broadcaster for the UK. Companies have set up profitable healthy businesses in this space despite the presence of the BBC.
The BBC acts as a quality control (In both news and programming) so they can't get away with a Fox News style TV show.
We are privileged in the UK to be able to receive Fox News. I guess that is the price we pay for giving BSkyB control of the UK TV satellites. Perhaps if more people watched it support for the BBC would go up.
Yes you can un-subscribe, you just stop paying the license fee and if they ask why tell them you no longer have any equipment capable of receiving broadcast television. Easier to claim this if you remove any satellite or terrestrial antennae. You can event continue to use iPlayer with non-l;ive content. What you can not do is opt to pay only BSkyBs fee.
They are honest about it, you just forgot that you were not in the UK
I can read Murdoch's newspapers free online
You can at the moment but Murdoch senior has announced that he intends to charge for all his online news sites. Murdoch junior realises that this strategy will only be successful if other news sources follow along. This plainly won't happen with the BBC so their unwelcome completion needs to be eliminated by political means.
It's not a privacy surcharge. It's perfectly possible to pay for an oyster card in cash, not register it. They can still track where you card has been, but depending on your level of paranoia you can get the deposit refunded regularly and get another.
You are right to the extent that you say you are not a lawyer, beyond that no.
"NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE IS IMPLIED. USE THIS SOFTWARE AT YOUR OWN RISK" or some combination of that. Even my home server says that every time I SSH into it.
There is no reason that a legislature cannot pass a law saying that this disclaimer is contrary to public policy and won't be respected in the courts.
Indeed. In Finland, just about all such disclaimers are totally worthless. In particular consumer rights are defined in law and can only be extended by warranties, never reduced by disclaimers. Some rights can't even be signed away.
and of course because of this all software sold in Finland is free of bugs.
It's the nature of paintings that you have to be there to see them, a photograph of a painting printed on paper or canvas, or, even less, reproduced on a screen is not the same thing at all, no matter how skilful or creative the photographer. That said, if you want to see a reproduction of the one of the NPG paintings you can visit their web site. They are making this level of access (and prints from their photographs) available to anyone. Their complaint is that they don't want other people making this offer.
In a sane world the compromise of licensing medium resolution versions under a CC attribution license would meet both parties needs increasing access to the pictures and traffic and revenue to the NPG.
Do you have any idea what the QA procedure would be for a release of baking software?
The QA cycle on it alone would be 6-12 months. Then you would need 6-12 months to roll it out to all the ATMs globally.
Better not longer QA is needed.
Have you read this? It only covers people who have a Verisign issued certificate, and only against Verisign's errors, issuing a faulty certificate, incorrectly revoking a certificate or exposing Verisign's private keys. Don't see anywhere, that it would cover a consumer (or even a certificate owner) against a MITM attack like this.
Too hard for me. Where is the source code and what is the license? The downloads from https://forge.continuent.org/frs/?group_id=26 dont contain source and the svn repoistory svn://svn.forge.continuent.org/svnroot/treplicator does not work with my svn client or the browser link on the gforge page.
STJM is just too unpronouncable to fly
Dan is clearly right, technology is the solution. All the *AA have to do is use technology to indelibly mark their IP, and only their IP, while allowing for fair use. Once they have solved this problem it will be simple for ISPs to remove their content and no one else's. With $6bn at stake a year I'm sure the MPAA will quickly solve this minor technological issue.
So, in order to improve airport security you give "vast amounts" of classified data about airport security to a collection of grad students to input into a program that produces allegedly randomized output. Yes, I see nothing wrong with that; I'd never have thought to do it that way, smart really smart