Stevie makes a boatload of cash doing the programming she loves, and she's not some dumb bimbo hoping that somehow nude modeling will get her into an acting career
Actually she's a bit more like John Romero's ho, and it's kind of pitiful. There are many (ok, not that many) women in the gaming industry more talented than she. She's not a programmer by the way, she's a level designer. I think it would be much more commendable to feature smart woman who wasn't sleeping with her boss and with breast implants. And yes, I still looked at all of her pictures.
I think the world needs an automated agent that will scour the web for porn and retrieve pictures that meet certain criteria. For example, maybe today I am feeling the need for red-headed dominatrices wearing glasses. Perhaps tomorrow I will want to look at busty Asian women who are tied up. There are already methods to automatically detect pornographic content in pictures, just make it more advanced and embed it in an agent. The world will thank you!
Pretty cool. I know the renderer is available on Linux, and I have heard rumors of the whole shebang. You can have desktop machines running OS X and an farm of Linux boxes rendering. If only they had an alpha compile...
I will be working at a very large company in Silicon Valley, which seems to treat its employess well. My contract specifically states that anything I come up with that wasn't done with company property, on company time, or using company knowledge is my own. I believe there is also no non-complete clause, which is good since such clauses are illegal in California. Of course I wouldn't be able to take confidential knowledge with me on my next job, but that's only reasonable.
I think you can always find someone to agree to an overly restrictive contract, but those people probably won't be the best and the brightest, they could always go find a better deal. I know I wouldn't take a job with a company offering such a contract, or at least ammend the contract before signing.
Someboyd copied the text out of MS's PDF file and pasted into the Slashdot comment field. You really think that's 'fair use'?
So you didn't read my original post at all, did you? No one is arguing that there was one post that was a copyright violation. The question of fair use didn't even come up. It is not a simple issue, and slashdot shouldn't do anything without taking time to get legal advice.
We have a particularly obnoxious clause in our contracts here that state that any source code we produce while in the employ of the company becomes their intellectual property.
If you are in California this may not be legal, you might want to look into it. A better choice however would be to quit and tell them that the clause is ridiculous, which it is. If they want to own your off-hours they should pay you for it. I was sure that the company I am going to work for when I graduate did not have that clause in my contract. Otherwise I would have looked elsewhere.
Err, isn't this the other way around? Since unix clients don't require the extended info, they can authenticate against an nt server just fine, but not the other way around (because they _do_ need the extra info).
A new study has found that there were no increases in the occurence of cancer to residents of three mile island. Check out this link and scroll down a bit to item 3.
Besides a stomach ache, there is some risk of cancer from vinyl chloride, though as the link says the migration of VC from PVC is essentially zero. It is bad to manufacture though.
Untrue. That would be a "derivative work" and would be still protected by the original copyright.
I doubt it would be infringement if you took the plot and completely rewrote it, but it depends on how much you took from the original. Probably a better example to my point would be if an accounting method was described in a book, I could write my own book describing the same accounting method, and anyone would be free to use the method. I believe this was an actual case around 1900. Copyright cannot protect anything other than specific expression, not ideas.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on this topic on both sides. I've read responses on several weblogs and many Here's my take on what happened: MS makes a legal change to a publicly useable standard. MS clients can log in using standard Kerberos servers, but standard clients cannot get MS authentification. People get pissed and accuse MS of monopolistic practices. MS gets a ton of heat from press and public, so it decides to release the spec, but as a trade secret. Anyone with a clue about what a trade secret is would have to suspect that either MS's lawyers are incompetent, or they were trying to taint the field so no one could legally implement MS's version without breaking the law. I believe IBM did the same with the PC BIOS standard and Compaq looked long and hard to find untainted engineers.
Now the spec was posted ONCE on slashdot, along with several posts explaining a standard way of opening self-extracting exe's. MS demands the removal of the copyrighted post, as well as the ones explaining how to open the exe and some that only refer to legal consequences of the spec's release.
Now slashdot must decide what to do. If it removes the copyrighted post but not the others it could lose any claim to common carrier status, thus making it legally responsible for anything posted. If it removes the other posts it would open the floodgates for other companies to have any post removed that they don't like.
Trade secrets are meant to protect companies from employees giving away internal documents or signing an NDA and then blabbing. It does not stop reverse engineering. MS has tried to manipulate a trade secret into a patent: "We'll tell everyone about it but not let anyone implement it!" It doesn't work that way. Trade secrets must be vigorously guarded to remain trade secrets. It is getting a bit fuzzy with the Internet because judges don't want people stealing secrets and posting it on a newsgroup in order to instantly invalidate the trade secret status, although that did happen in a Scientology case.
For corporate apologists out there, MS's EULA is fundamentally different than the GPL. The GPL gives the licensee certain rights & responsibilities regarding redistribution of a work. MS's EULA tries to stop you from discussing the facts of the contents. Copyright only covers a specific expression. I could rewrite a book, copying the plot, and it would be legal. The GPL doesn't stop you from discussing the algorithms contained, or even from implementing said algorithms. MS tried to overstep copyright law and trade secret law, and now it's getting what it deserves.
If I was MS I would have just sat on the spec and not released it at all. The small clamor was nothing like this and it would have died down. I think the Samba guys are skilled enough to reverse engineer without MS's document.
Thanks for reading, I could go on a bit about the DMCA and IP law, but I won't.
I too owned the Soyo 6Y-BB, until it unceremoniously died on me. As far as I could tell it was the only AT Slot 1 board out there, but I heard it wasn't completely reliable. Of course my hard drive died a month after so maybe I was cursed. Nonetheless I bought a Soyo 6BA+III, along with an ATX case, and it has been rock solid with my poor celeron 300A o/c'ed to 450, unlike the 6BB. Unfortunately the cheapo case I bought at Fry's to go with it doesn't allow my cards to plug in completely when the case is assembled! So I am stuck with the guts of my computer hanging out all over. Not that I care much, other than the fact that I will occasionally drop things on the mobo and freeze the computer, and I have nightmarish visions of snapping all the cards off while they are plugged in.
My advice: buy a good ATX case and don't sweat it - the power will go on.
This pointless rant brought to you by caffeine & codeine! (It's not fun to be sick during finals)
If I clone Free Agent, I have just done a great service to the free software community: one less instance of Windows being loaded.
I've been using pine for a couple of years, but I used free agent for a long time. It is a great news reader. Luckily it runs great under WINE. I remember having to re-register it, but other than that it ran fine. Check it out.
Metallica's list contained only the names of people that were offerring their songs on Napster. Whether or not you searched for it is irrelevant
But Napster automatically offers your downloads to others immediately. Even if you accidently clicked on a Metallica song and canceled it right away, it could look like you have a Metallica song shared.
Someone should do a pseudo clean room reverse engineer of the spec. Have someone read the spec without seeing the license agreement, have them relate the spec to another author, and have that author do a write up and post it as a feature on slashdot. The reson the author shouldn't read the spec is to ensure that he is 'clean'. Copyright doesn't cover facts, only expression, so I don't see how this could be illegal.
Of course the samba guys will probably reverse engineer the method by watching the packets fly across the network. Real men don't need documentation!
I hear it is only possible to register.us domains in a wierd regional scheme. So a school in Los Angeles, California would be: something.k12.la.ca.us Which is pretty horrible. Otherwise I would register help.us, or pay.us, or lick.us.
I prefer fuck.mil, fuck.gov and fuck.edu. Oh, and Fuck-yankees.com is not registered.
Somebody has their panties in a twist. I believe the original poster was making light of the phonetic resemblance of "eu" to "you", especially in certain accents.
and it's only a certain way of encoding to that file format which was covered by Fraunhoffer
My impression of the patent is that it is broad enough to cover ANY usable method of encoding MP3. This is fairly common and in fact just about all the mpeg formats are patented up the wazoo, which is why there are a bunch of crazy cross-licensing contracts and demand for "reasonable cost of lisence".
From another post: So Eli may have a patent on the cotton gin, but he can _not_ patent "a device to extract threads from cotton".
Unless of course this is in the digital domain, in which case one only has to provide vague details of implementation, not any code (equivalent of mechanical schematics).
there is most definitely a better way to present equations: TeX
I agree TeX is the only reasonable solution for creating equation laden documents. But TeX isn't a viewable format in itself (except for Knuth maybe). Comparing it to PDF is comparing apples to crays. You can publish TeX to HTML, PDF, PS, DVI, etc. I think the best option of those is PDF. I know the xxx.lanl.gov pre-print archives all of the papers in TeX, then generates viewable output on the fly.
Why am I going on about this? I don't want to write my stupid ass papers.
Slashdot Mirror
Stevie makes a boatload of cash doing the programming she loves, and she's not some dumb bimbo hoping that somehow nude modeling will get her into an acting career
Actually she's a bit more like John Romero's ho, and it's kind of pitiful. There are many (ok, not that many) women in the gaming industry more talented than she. She's not a programmer by the way, she's a level designer. I think it would be much more commendable to feature smart woman who wasn't sleeping with her boss and with breast implants. And yes, I still looked at all of her pictures.
I think the world needs an automated agent that will scour the web for porn and retrieve pictures that meet certain criteria. For example, maybe today I am feeling the need for red-headed dominatrices wearing glasses. Perhaps tomorrow I will want to look at busty Asian women who are tied up. There are already methods to automatically detect pornographic content in pictures, just make it more advanced and embed it in an agent. The world will thank you!
Pretty cool. I know the renderer is available on Linux, and I have heard rumors of the whole shebang. You can have desktop machines running OS X and an farm of Linux boxes rendering. If only they had an alpha compile...
I will be working at a very large company in Silicon Valley, which seems to treat its employess well. My contract specifically states that anything I come up with that wasn't done with company property, on company time, or using company knowledge is my own. I believe there is also no non-complete clause, which is good since such clauses are illegal in California. Of course I wouldn't be able to take confidential knowledge with me on my next job, but that's only reasonable.
I think you can always find someone to agree to an overly restrictive contract, but those people probably won't be the best and the brightest, they could always go find a better deal. I know I wouldn't take a job with a company offering such a contract, or at least ammend the contract before signing.
I heard there are these new fangled thing called 'ANSI C' and POSIX. You might want to look into them.
Someboyd copied the text out of MS's PDF file and pasted into the Slashdot comment field. You really think that's 'fair use'?
So you didn't read my original post at all, did you? No one is arguing that there was one post that was a copyright violation. The question of fair use didn't even come up. It is not a simple issue, and slashdot shouldn't do anything without taking time to get legal advice.
We have a particularly obnoxious clause in our contracts here that state that any source code we produce while in the employ of the company becomes their intellectual property.
If you are in California this may not be legal, you might want to look into it. A better choice however would be to quit and tell them that the clause is ridiculous, which it is. If they want to own your off-hours they should pay you for it. I was sure that the company I am going to work for when I graduate did not have that clause in my contract. Otherwise I would have looked elsewhere.
cherenkov radiation, which if you happen see in air, dont bother running youll be dead soon anyway.
Wouldn't this be cherenkov radiation due to the particles passing through the liquid in your eyes? Pretty scary, although I bet it would look neat.
Err, isn't this the other way around? Since unix clients don't require the extended info, they can authenticate against an nt server just fine, but not the other way around (because they _do_ need the extra info).
You're right, there's a blurb about it here
A new study has found that there were no increases in the occurence of cancer to residents of three mile island. Check out this link and scroll down a bit to item 3.
I can eat PVC and nothing bad will happen to me.
Besides a stomach ache, there is some risk of cancer from vinyl chloride, though as the link says the migration of VC from PVC is essentially zero. It is bad to manufacture though.
Untrue. That would be a "derivative work" and would be still protected by the original copyright.
I doubt it would be infringement if you took the plot and completely rewrote it, but it depends on how much you took from the original. Probably a better example to my point would be if an accounting method was described in a book, I could write my own book describing the same accounting method, and anyone would be free to use the method. I believe this was an actual case around 1900. Copyright cannot protect anything other than specific expression, not ideas.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on this topic on both sides. I've read responses on several weblogs and many Here's my take on what happened: MS makes a legal change to a publicly useable standard. MS clients can log in using standard Kerberos servers, but standard clients cannot get MS authentification. People get pissed and accuse MS of monopolistic practices. MS gets a ton of heat from press and public, so it decides to release the spec, but as a trade secret. Anyone with a clue about what a trade secret is would have to suspect that either MS's lawyers are incompetent, or they were trying to taint the field so no one could legally implement MS's version without breaking the law. I believe IBM did the same with the PC BIOS standard and Compaq looked long and hard to find untainted engineers.
Now the spec was posted ONCE on slashdot, along with several posts explaining a standard way of opening self-extracting exe's. MS demands the removal of the copyrighted post, as well as the ones explaining how to open the exe and some that only refer to legal consequences of the spec's release.
Now slashdot must decide what to do. If it removes the copyrighted post but not the others it could lose any claim to common carrier status, thus making it legally responsible for anything posted. If it removes the other posts it would open the floodgates for other companies to have any post removed that they don't like.
Trade secrets are meant to protect companies from employees giving away internal documents or signing an NDA and then blabbing. It does not stop reverse engineering. MS has tried to manipulate a trade secret into a patent: "We'll tell everyone about it but not let anyone implement it!" It doesn't work that way. Trade secrets must be vigorously guarded to remain trade secrets. It is getting a bit fuzzy with the Internet because judges don't want people stealing secrets and posting it on a newsgroup in order to instantly invalidate the trade secret status, although that did happen in a Scientology case.
For corporate apologists out there, MS's EULA is fundamentally different than the GPL. The GPL gives the licensee certain rights & responsibilities regarding redistribution of a work. MS's EULA tries to stop you from discussing the facts of the contents. Copyright only covers a specific expression. I could rewrite a book, copying the plot, and it would be legal. The GPL doesn't stop you from discussing the algorithms contained, or even from implementing said algorithms. MS tried to overstep copyright law and trade secret law, and now it's getting what it deserves.
If I was MS I would have just sat on the spec and not released it at all. The small clamor was nothing like this and it would have died down. I think the Samba guys are skilled enough to reverse engineer without MS's document.
Thanks for reading, I could go on a bit about the DMCA and IP law, but I won't.
I too owned the Soyo 6Y-BB, until it unceremoniously died on me. As far as I could tell it was the only AT Slot 1 board out there, but I heard it wasn't completely reliable. Of course my hard drive died a month after so maybe I was cursed. Nonetheless I bought a Soyo 6BA+III, along with an ATX case, and it has been rock solid with my poor celeron 300A o/c'ed to 450, unlike the 6BB. Unfortunately the cheapo case I bought at Fry's to go with it doesn't allow my cards to plug in completely when the case is assembled! So I am stuck with the guts of my computer hanging out all over. Not that I care much, other than the fact that I will occasionally drop things on the mobo and freeze the computer, and I have nightmarish visions of snapping all the cards off while they are plugged in.
My advice: buy a good ATX case and don't sweat it - the power will go on.
This pointless rant brought to you by caffeine & codeine! (It's not fun to be sick during finals)
I tried to email you but then I ran out of stack space. If only my MUA was tail recursive!
Woohoo! Separate that interface from the implementation! If only every application did that, then the world would be a better place.
Thank You.
If I clone Free Agent, I have just done a great service to the free software community: one less instance of Windows being loaded.
I've been using pine for a couple of years, but I used free agent for a long time. It is a great news reader. Luckily it runs great under WINE. I remember having to re-register it, but other than that it ran fine. Check it out.
Metallica's list contained only the names of people that were offerring their songs on Napster. Whether or not you searched for it is irrelevant
But Napster automatically offers your downloads to others immediately. Even if you accidently clicked on a Metallica song and canceled it right away, it could look like you have a Metallica song shared.
Someone should do a pseudo clean room reverse engineer of the spec. Have someone read the spec without seeing the license agreement, have them relate the spec to another author, and have that author do a write up and post it as a feature on slashdot. The reson the author shouldn't read the spec is to ensure that he is 'clean'. Copyright doesn't cover facts, only expression, so I don't see how this could be illegal.
Of course the samba guys will probably reverse engineer the method by watching the packets fly across the network. Real men don't need documentation!
Is it possible to register a .us domain?
.us domains in a wierd regional scheme. So a school in Los Angeles, California would be: something.k12.la.ca.us Which is pretty horrible. Otherwise I would register help.us, or pay.us, or lick.us.
I hear it is only possible to register
I prefer fuck.mil, fuck.gov and fuck.edu. Oh, and Fuck-yankees.com is not registered.
Somebody has their panties in a twist. I believe the original poster was making light of the phonetic resemblance of "eu" to "you", especially in certain accents.
Imagine the outrage if a developer moved to Russia (or name your loophole) and began putting GPL'ed code into his products.
Except that the GPL specifically precludes closed patches, while the Fraunhofer license didn't. So it's not a similar case, is it?
and it's only a certain way of encoding to that file format which was covered by Fraunhoffer
My impression of the patent is that it is broad enough to cover ANY usable method of encoding MP3. This is fairly common and in fact just about all the mpeg formats are patented up the wazoo, which is why there are a bunch of crazy cross-licensing contracts and demand for "reasonable cost of lisence".
From another post: So Eli may have a patent on the cotton gin, but he can _not_ patent "a device to extract threads from cotton".
Unless of course this is in the digital domain, in which case one only has to provide vague details of implementation, not any code (equivalent of mechanical schematics).
Thank you.
there is most definitely a better way to present equations: TeX
I agree TeX is the only reasonable solution for creating equation laden documents. But TeX isn't a viewable format in itself (except for Knuth maybe). Comparing it to PDF is comparing apples to crays. You can publish TeX to HTML, PDF, PS, DVI, etc. I think the best option of those is PDF. I know the xxx.lanl.gov pre-print archives all of the papers in TeX, then generates viewable output on the fly.
Why am I going on about this? I don't want to write my stupid ass papers.
Why not just use OpenFirmware ?
Maybe Intel engineers had a bad experience with Pascal in school.