Like free television broadcast content supported financially by advertising, much of the content on the Internet today is distributed free to end-users for an indirect exchange of advertisement revenue. When a user loads an ad-driven copyrighted website, he produces a copy of the work due to the inherent architecture of the Internet. If this user is using Adblock to screen out annoying advertisements, he is creating an unauthorized derivative work analogous to skipping television commercials. By the letter of copyright law, this practice would most likely be seen as an infringing use.
Except that I'm not redistributing this supposed derivative work, now am I? (This bit was copied for the purposes of critique under the fair use doctrine.)
Right, that is what I meant. I expected them to be able to make any changes necessary to the driver (if at all needed between 10 minor versions) and stick it in 2.6.22 with all relevant other patches. Now if as Bruce Perens suggests below the reason is a binary-only network driver, then that's a problem in its own right. Then you'd have expected the Ubuntu guys to shop around for a replacement mainboard, one who's NIC is well supported.
But you're right as well on using the old kernel with the new release.
Bill Gates arrives at Heaven's gates and St. Peter tells him that he really doesn't know what to do with Bill. "I mean on one hand you've helped get computers into many homes, but on the other hand you released Windows. I'll give you the choice, heaven or hell?"
Bill thinks about this and asks to be shown both places to make an informed decision on the matter. And so Peter takes him to heaven, replete with clouds, angels, harps and what not. Bill barely manages to stifle a yawn before St. Peter takes him to hell, a fabulous beach with babes playing around. "I've decided I want you to send me to hell," Bill announces.
So a few weeks later St. Peter looks up Bill to see how he's doing. Gates is strung up against a cave passage somewhere, demons all around him whipping and branding him. "And Bill, enjoying yourself?"
Bill grimaces and says: "This isn't what you promised me!"
"Ah," says St. Peter, "you're right. That was the demo."
The article itself doesn't mention a lot more than the summary. What really puzzles me is this part: "and no upgrades past breezy due to problems with the network cards and later kernels."
Which is why paying for the size of the file makes sense. Choose the song, choose the format and bitrate, then pay for the resulting size? With more and more labels dropping DRM, FLAC starts to look like a sensible option to offer on checkout.
Concerning Java, Dr. Stroustrup says "Java isn't platform independent; it is a platform. Like Windows, it is a proprietary commercial platform. That is, you can write programs for Windows/Intel or Java/JVM, and in each case you are writing code for a platform owned by a single corporation and tweaked for the commercial benefit of that corporation." - shouldn't this count for a Flamebait at this point, that Java is Free Sourced? The implementation of the runtime is now Free Sourced, yes. But as to the platform itself, how open is that?
Just asking, since I haven't paid enough attention to Java to know the answer to it. While the JDK and JRE being Free Sourced is great, I think the point Dr. Stroustrup made was more in regards to the process by which the language and standard library itself (i.e. platform) are extended. If that's an open process these days then yes, it's an outdated gripe.
Would it match up if you assumed petrol would rise in cost by about 25% (as an example), year over year? Just saying you won't be able to rely on your cheap fuel prices forever.
Indeed, software patents are granted on such trivial and/or broad concepts that it may very well be that "Hello World" turns out to be covered by at least a dozen. Even if you wanted to do "due diligence" and research patents, something which could later work against you if "willful infringement" is claimed in a lawsuit, that doesn't make patents exactly easy to search for.
Just look at how many of them are worded like: "A method and apparatus for...". Quite!
Then throw in different ways of phrasing concepts, so that when you're looking for "browser" the IP lawyer in question thought it a good idea to call it "method and apparatus for accessing and displaying information which may be hosted locally, and where said information may be indexed, and in fact we have about 300 other 'claims' to sell you."
Since 'Mutually Assured Destruction' doesn't work when defending against a patent troll (they don't produce anything that can infringe your patents), maybe it would be a start to limit the maximum amount of awarded damages to $5M (for example.) If a patent of a legitimate inventor is ever infringed by some big business, the settlement is more than enough for them to retire and continue inventing if they so choose. Wouldn't it however remove the incentive for trolls, spending easily as much as $5M in the hopes of getting awarded $200M?
They're using an integrated circuit to read the voltage differentials, instead of the more common 'clock + voltage comparator'. So yes, I would say this falls under prior art, being that their chip does pretty much what the gameport logic has done since its introduction. And if it doesn't fail on prior art, it fails on the 'obvious' clause.
In fact, it makes watching a cricket match absolutely riveting in comparison. And with cricket there's always the possibility of a spaceship landing to unload a bunch of robots in search of the trophy... which is probably the reason why people watch it, just in case it happens when they do.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe it's his cat that buys the things near the check out counter.
Now for a case mod that includes this, then have it controlled by a minor Linux kernel update... that should satisfy everyone.
Here's the press release it links to. Sadly both the article and the press release are from February 2006...
I'll be sure to replace it with Vogon Poetry on the next update. Thanks for the head's up.
Right, that is what I meant. I expected them to be able to make any changes necessary to the driver (if at all needed between 10 minor versions) and stick it in 2.6.22 with all relevant other patches. Now if as Bruce Perens suggests below the reason is a binary-only network driver, then that's a problem in its own right. Then you'd have expected the Ubuntu guys to shop around for a replacement mainboard, one who's NIC is well supported.
But you're right as well on using the old kernel with the new release.
Reminds me of that Bill Gates joke:
Bill Gates arrives at Heaven's gates and St. Peter tells him that he really doesn't know what to do with Bill. "I mean on one hand you've helped get computers into many homes, but on the other hand you released Windows. I'll give you the choice, heaven or hell?"
Bill thinks about this and asks to be shown both places to make an informed decision on the matter. And so Peter takes him to heaven, replete with clouds, angels, harps and what not. Bill barely manages to stifle a yawn before St. Peter takes him to hell, a fabulous beach with babes playing around. "I've decided I want you to send me to hell," Bill announces.
So a few weeks later St. Peter looks up Bill to see how he's doing. Gates is strung up against a cave passage somewhere, demons all around him whipping and branding him. "And Bill, enjoying yourself?"
Bill grimaces and says: "This isn't what you promised me!"
"Ah," says St. Peter, "you're right. That was the demo."
The article itself doesn't mention a lot more than the summary. What really puzzles me is this part: "and no upgrades past breezy due to problems with the network cards and later kernels."
From the Breezy Badger release notes: Linux 2.6.12.6
So how come there's a problem in getting that driver going under 2.6.22 (for example)?
Which makes film advertisements along the line of "From the Producers of [insert name here]" all the more puzzling. Who cares?
From what I understand they've prepaid their lawyers to the tune of $33M. I'm not sure where I read it, could be either here or Groklaw.
And the worst of it is that they're not even giving you Milk+ to go with it. ;)
Still, brand recognition is one thing, but when you have built a serious aversion to said brand what good is it?
Which is why paying for the size of the file makes sense. Choose the song, choose the format and bitrate, then pay for the resulting size? With more and more labels dropping DRM, FLAC starts to look like a sensible option to offer on checkout.
They've been showing them ads for 3 years in a row? Poor sods.
Just asking, since I haven't paid enough attention to Java to know the answer to it. While the JDK and JRE being Free Sourced is great, I think the point Dr. Stroustrup made was more in regards to the process by which the language and standard library itself (i.e. platform) are extended. If that's an open process these days then yes, it's an outdated gripe.
Would it match up if you assumed petrol would rise in cost by about 25% (as an example), year over year? Just saying you won't be able to rely on your cheap fuel prices forever.
Indeed, software patents are granted on such trivial and/or broad concepts that it may very well be that "Hello World" turns out to be covered by at least a dozen. Even if you wanted to do "due diligence" and research patents, something which could later work against you if "willful infringement" is claimed in a lawsuit, that doesn't make patents exactly easy to search for.
...". Quite!
Just look at how many of them are worded like: "A method and apparatus for
Then throw in different ways of phrasing concepts, so that when you're looking for "browser" the IP lawyer in question thought it a good idea to call it "method and apparatus for accessing and displaying information which may be hosted locally, and where said information may be indexed, and in fact we have about 300 other 'claims' to sell you."
The first thing I thought of reading this was Psychohistory.
Speaking of cats, I've long suspected Kitten Huffing to be the explanation for Ballmer's love for developers (and chair throwing.)
So if you pour cola into the thing, will it run "ever better? (tm)" ;)
Low-paid professional hatchet men at the NFL who are probably going to need an Alka-Seltzer now?
I couldn't find an article on the company in question to link it to, and couldn't be bothered to write one?
Since 'Mutually Assured Destruction' doesn't work when defending against a patent troll (they don't produce anything that can infringe your patents), maybe it would be a start to limit the maximum amount of awarded damages to $5M (for example.) If a patent of a legitimate inventor is ever infringed by some big business, the settlement is more than enough for them to retire and continue inventing if they so choose. Wouldn't it however remove the incentive for trolls, spending easily as much as $5M in the hopes of getting awarded $200M?
Then as an encore someone might be able to convince USPTO there isn't such a thing as software patents. Good reading materials: An industry at risk, So Small a Town, So Many Patent Suits
How long until a /.er adds them to the list?
They're using an integrated circuit to read the voltage differentials, instead of the more common 'clock + voltage comparator'. So yes, I would say this falls under prior art, being that their chip does pretty much what the gameport logic has done since its introduction. And if it doesn't fail on prior art, it fails on the 'obvious' clause.
In fact, it makes watching a cricket match absolutely riveting in comparison. And with cricket there's always the possibility of a spaceship landing to unload a bunch of robots in search of the trophy... which is probably the reason why people watch it, just in case it happens when they do.