Want it to work in Snow Leopard? Ditch the Canon software entirely and buy a copy of VueScan. It talks to the hardware directly and works just fine with my LIDE 30 (and it's compatible with lots of other scanners, too).
Sadly, Canon is utterly incompetent when it comes to keeping drivers up-to-date. They presumably are hoping to force you to go out and buy a new scanner every three or four years. That's okay if you're a business that depends on the scanner and wants better quality on an ongoing basis. For normal people who scan something every couple of years, it's outrageous. So when this one dies, I've already decided I'll be replacing it with a scanner made by somebody other than Canon.
It's really a shame. I absolutely love their cameras and camcorders, and their photo printers are pretty solid, too. But I won't be touching their scanners again unless they show signs of changing their ways. Fool me once....
With net neutrality you only have one option for internet access: untampered internet. With net neutrality you will have many options, some with peer2peer tampering some without.
Odd, right now, most of the country has many options for internet access, all heavily tampered with. Almost all the exceptions I've seen have been business class service, and even some of those are heavily tampered with. And in many places, you can't get business class service at a residence. Show me all those options and I'll stop laughing at your naïveté. As long as your only options are all tampered with, losing all those "options" in favor of unfettered access seems like a pretty clear improvement.
Censorship is censorship. It hardly matters WHY they are censoring.
Sure it matters. It's hardly wrong to censor posts that violate the terms of use for a message board. In this case, term #2(3) says that posts should be either technical questions, solutions, or constructive feedback about a product. I suspect many of the threads were nothing but whining, which is neither constructive feedback nor a technical question or answer....
The front page of a message board is a finite resource. People trying to help tend to read the first page, maybe the second, and that's about it. If people clog the boards with dozens of active threads that just complain without providing solutions or information that might help the manufacturer track down a problem, those noise threads end up burying real questions from people who are actually trying to get help with specific, solvable issues, at which point the entire board becomes useless.
Bottom line: if you really feel the need to complain on the forums, post in one of the existing threads. Don't waste the limited front page space with more threads about the same subject. Creating tons of new threads on the subject is abusing the board, and I'm fine with Apple thinning the herd when that happens....
The ballistics might not match the gun. The fingerprints might be from the thief's mother. I could go on and on. If you are going to go through that much trouble then wouldn't it be easier just to off the fucker and bury him in a ditch 500 miles away in the middle of a national forest, tens of miles from any path?
Not nearly as much fun. Besides, it really doesn't matter if the find the person guilty or not. What matters is that he's not home that night. And that they get a search warrant for the house, during which time they'll no doubt find other stolen stuff.
That said, if your goal is to truly set the douchebag up for murder, I did leave out a few steps.... Fingerprints matching his mother? Easy enough to avoid. Just observe who touched the knob last prior to taking the prints. Ballistics? See part 2 of the social engineering series: Gaining Access to a Crime Scene Investigation and part 3: Planting Evidence for Dummies.
Or you could hide ten kilos of pot under the fender. Either way, the steps are remarkably similar up until the last two or three. You still want fake prints all over it.
I mean what's the point of such a long and convoluted plan with so many points of failure?
Four reasons:
If, after the statute of limitations runs out, you decide to write a book about it, you could make a fortune.
It's so unbelievably implausible that nobody will believe the guy was set up.
It's so insanely implausible that even if somebody believes the guy was set up, they would never in a million years believe it could have been an ordinary civilian.
What's the fun in screwing with somebody if you can't at least enjoy coming up with a ridiculously convoluted plan to make it happen?
Step 2: Use social engineering techniques as needed to obtain the direct telephone number for the wire center for the city in question.
Step 3: Call the wire center using a telephone from work (where caller ID is blocked) and use social engineering techniques, pretending to be from another part of the company (claim to be calling from the NOC in another state trying to track down rogue BGP packets from the specified IP number) and request that they disable the circuit. At some point, casually ask what circuit ID they disabled so that you can properly fill out the work order after the fact.
Step 4: Have another person call at the same time (preferably female) and ask them if [your fake name] had reached them about the aforementioned problem while you are still on the phone. This instills a sense of urgency.
Step 5: Upon obtaining the circuit ID, wait a day. Then use a similar social engineering technique (call until you get a different person) and tell them you're a line worker out in the field and you're trying to trace down a problem with incoming calls on circuit [insert circuit ID here]. Tell them that it's an E911 call center and you really need things fixed urgently, but you don't have the direct dial phone number associated with that circuit ID. Obtain the phone number for the circuit.
Step 6: Using a reverse number lookup, determine the street address of the person in question.
Step 7: Drive to the address in question.
Step 8: Lift the prints from the person's doorknob.
Step 9: Construct a negative impression using photoresist on copper.
Step 10: Construct a positive using gelatin or silicone.
Step 11: Wait for a murder to occur. Use social engineering techniques to find out the model of handgun used.
Step 12: Purchase a similar model of handgun and file off the serial numbers.
Step 13: Use the gelatin fingertips to leave conspicuous fingerprints on the weapon, fire it several times, then leave it in the thief's car.
Step 14: Place an anonymous tip call from a pay phone near the house (use gloves), then leave the city for a few days.
Step 15: Wait for the police to arrest the thief.
Step 16: Break into the person's house that night and take your stolen laptop back.
Then on the other, other hand there was this one teacher who had a question on a test "What makes things stay on the ground?" My little brother answered "gravity" and was promptly graded wrong. Upon inquiry, we discovered that the correct answer was air pressure. C'est la vie.
Wow. Just... wow. I hope your little brother pointed out that air pressure on the shuttle is the same as air pressure on Earth, give or take, yet strangely enough, things float around quite nicely.:-)
That's sort of what I was thinking, except minus the comedy bit. The same argument could be made for a lot of horrible things, e.g. it's good for boys to get beaten and girls to get molested because there are scumbags out there who would try to do that to them when they're adults. The argument for bad teachers is a specious argument, as the logical extension of such an argument readily demonstrates.
The fact of the matter is that kids already deal with plenty of people who are incompetent and hard to get along with. They deal with their siblings, their friends, etc., all of whom can be stubborn and wrong at times. They'll learn how to deal with that just fine without having teachers who don't know what they're talking about. By the time they're teenagers, they will inevitably learn to challenge authority and push boundaries anyway without that "help".
Last I heard, Microsoft was also hardcore about the smartphone market.
No, no, you misunderstood them. What they said was that they have hardcore on smartphones. In other words, they are allowing hardcore porn to be made available on their smartphones. It was their response to iPhone's content policies. Had nothing to do with actually being serious about the product.
Those sorts of problems usually indicate a baseband crash. On most modern phones, you have a separate baseband processor that handles cellular traffic. If the baseband processor crashes due to bugs in the baseband firmware, the baseband processor must be reset. Putting a phone into airplane mode shuts off the baseband hardware, and disabling airport mode turns the hardware back on again. This has the effect of rebooting the baseband hardware and resetting it to a known good state.
The real questions in my mind are:
Why us the baseband firmware almost invariably such crap to begin with? Do the chip manufacturers not test these things before they ship them?
Why don't the baseband hardware vendors expose enough state information via their communication bus so that the cell phone's main OS can determine that the baseband is hopelessly wedged and power cycle the baseband hardware automatically without user intervention....
It doesn't really matter. Headers almost certainly cannot be copyrighted anyway. A header file is really no different than a phone book. It is a purely factual description of an interface. Phone books were held to not be copyrightable in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. In that case, the court ruled that although creative aspects of a collection of facts can be copyrighted (which facts to include, the order and style of the information, etc.), the facts themselves are facts and cannot be copyrighted.
An interface definition is a fact. There is only one interface definition that correctly describes a given interface. Change even one letter (not including comments) and code written against that interface will not compile without modification (unless you're doing something funky with C preprocessor macros, but even then, what the compiler eventually sees must be identical). Therefore a header is nothing more than a collection of facts. So long as the organization of the header is substantively different from the organization of the original header and the new header does not contain any non-paraphrased comments from the original, it is unlikely that copyright violation has occurred.
And Sega v. Accolade seems to support that assessment, along with several other reverse engineering cases.
Re:More corporate BS
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Information wants to be free generally refers to libre, not gratis. The basic definition is that it's prohibitively difficult to keep things secret as technology progresses.
Actually, the original statement was referring to free as in beer, not free as in not secret. The original argument boils down to:
On the one hand, it costs money to create something. Information wants to be expensive.
On the other hand, if technology continues to get cheaper and cheaper, that makes it possible for a lot of people to create similar pieces of information and distribute them for less and less money. As a result, there will always be someone willing to create it for less money, so information wants to be free.
The "libre" variant of it is a much weaker argument. It boils down to:
If I have information I want to keep secret, that information wants to be private.
If I tell my friends and they share it on Facebook, that information wants to be liberated....
So technology makes it easier for people to make your embarrassing thoughts, words, and deeds available to people who you don't want to know about them. That doesn't really mean that the information wants to be spread around everywhere, though. It is still perfectly possible, even in a technological society, to avoid that information exposure. Just remember two rules:
What is done in public is public.
What is done in private is private unless/until you involve other people (and thus make it public).
And keep those rules in mind when you're deciding whether or not you're going to go to that 4/20 party or get drunk and dance topless on the bar in front of the Girls Gone Wild cameras or give your social security number to somebody who doesn't really need it or tell your deepest, darkest secret to all your friends. If you pay attention to those two rules, your private information won't want to be free any more than it would be in an earlier stage of technological evolution.
In short, it isn't true that all information wants to be liberated. It's more accurate to say that as technology advances, the divide between private and public information is further eroded. Occasionally this might mean that some private information falls into the chasm due to apathy, but far more frequently, this means that public information is really public and is much harder to pull back to the private side once exposed. It also means that people tend to be a lot more guarded about their most private information, which means that the truly private information wants even less to be liberated, and on the average, it's a wash.
Problem is that I doubt any of the commercial UNIX vendors or BSDs would touch LGPL in their kernel, either. Doubly so if its v3. Maybe if you could make it purely a plug-in that just links against the kernel, you *might* be able to get some of them to ship LGPL v2 (hard to say) as long as you state that you have no intention of ever moving to v3. Having a loadable filesystem would greatly complicate booting, however, forcing a boot != root environment, which is pretty ugly.
Now you could make it dual-licensed with LGPL and the Mozilla Public License. That might be palatable.
Yup. I was about to post the same thing. It was done so long ago that the patents are expired already. I'll be interested to see who challenges this bogus patent first.
My point is that it's impossible to police these things because internal division profits and losses are not reported to the IRS or any other outside body. Thus, there's no real way to solve this except by filing a lawsuit every time they use these tactics so long as those contracts can be written at all. (And maybe even then.)
That said, if you really need to push around artificial money to account for your projects, that screams "lack of leadership" to me. You're supposed to be acting like one company, not like a bunch of piglets each competing to suckle more from your mother's teat. If a company truly feels the need to do such heavy-duty accounting so that people can keep track of what's happening, that's generally a sign that the company is too big, and no amount of accounting can keep a company that size from becoming bloated and inefficient.
Agreed. If anything, it's the reverse. Heavily duplicated data indicates that the file hasn't been modified in an eternity. Such files are less likely than average to ever be accessed again. What you want on fast storage are:
Recently modified blocks. Blocks modified recently tend to be part of active projects that the user is working on right now. Thus, recently modified files are the ones that you would most commonly expect to see modified in the near future. A good way to handle this is by using much of the fast storage as a write-back cache, lazily writing the data out to slower storage when the system is idle, and evicting clean blocks as needed in a least-recently-used (LRU) fashion or similar.
Properly identified "hot files"---files that are frequently read and/or written as part of the boot process, launch of commonly used apps and tools, etc. The degree of duplication among snapshots depends on how frequently you update your OS and whether the OS vendor tends to modify those particular files. As such, the number of duplicates is not a good metric for these. You pretty much just have to figure this out by the usual statistical means.
Word of caution: you should probably specifically exclude paging files from your hot files algorithm. Swapping to flash is generally considered to be a Bad Idea (tm), and those are usually the hottest files on a system....
I wish I had the cash to make an open source (GPL or BSD license preferably) bounty for the following in a filesystem/LVM replacement, since ZFS isn't going to be going past Sun hardware these days:
...list of requirements...
To which I would add:
12. BSD-licensed. What's really needed is a robust filesystem that's ubiquitous---a filesystem that is supported across operating system platforms--- and let's face it, no GPL-licensed filesystem will ever darken the door of any OS except Linux, at least not as part of the OS. Even the *BSDs won't touch a GPLed filesystem except as a from-scratch rewrite. Forget about commercial UNIX vendors. And although you can gain partial support through little tricks like FUSE, such workarounds will never be as fast, as reliable, or as integrated into the whole user experience as a native filesystem would be.
There's little point in taking any filesystem beyond academic research into a production-quality filesystem if the resulting disks can't be moved from one machine to another without forcing users to being a single-OS shop. Most of the real world doesn't consist of single-OS shops. In fact, an ideal next-gen filesystem would integrate SAN capabilities at the filesystem level so that disks could not just be moved, but actively shared between boxes running Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, etc. That's just not likely to happen unless you choose a much more open license than the GPL.
Don't get me wrong, I've written and licensed code under the GPL. There's nothing inherently wrong with the GPL for tools/utilities, GUI apps, and other end-user bits. For libraries, filesystems, drivers, and other code that is tightly coupled with the OS or software built on top of it, however, the GPL is really a rather poor choice. It sends the message, true or not, that you care more about dogma than interoperability, which is generally not a good thing. Ask me why I don't run either btrfs or ZFS.... It's the license.
In this particular case of Harry Potter, what WB appears to have done is borrowed the money to make Order of the Phoenix at a high rate of interest, and is paying off its note so slowly that the negative cost of the film keeps going up relative to the revenue. What isn't mentioned is that Warner Bros. probably borrowed the money from AOL Time-Warner, it's parent, in the first place.:)
Does the state they're incorporated in not have usury laws for commercial loans?
What they are doing is setting up a separate corporation for each movie. The corporation is the one that makes contracts with the actors/directors/whoever. Then the studio charges the corporation a (bankrupting, in this case) amount for distributing the movie. Much more than actually distributing the movie cost, but of course the corporation pays it, and ends up making no profit on the movie. The studio still has to pay taxes.
So what you're saying, then, is that the Hollywood film studios are committing perjury every time they claim to own the copyright of those movies? Seems like the copyright is really held by those shell companies, legally speaking, in which case it would have to be considered an asset of value, and the company must dispose of it in a proper bankruptcy proceeding, then use the money to pay its creditors (the actors and actresses). Otherwise, that's fraud. That said, I haven't read these contracts, so I suppose they might be doing something sneaky there. Interesting thought, though.
Ideally, no company should ever be allowed to bill a division of itself under any circumstances. Any staff employed by the company is already part of the normal operating cost of the company, and therefore, by definition, not an expense specific to any particular project. If a project would cause a division to be overworked and have to bring in more people, the correct answer is, "No," at which point the requesting division would have to decide if it was important enough to hire someone themselves. And in the case of contractors hired by one division to do contract work for another, there's no good reason for the middleman, so the contractors should be paid directly by the requesting division instead.
Fundamentally, a contract between two parts of the same company cannot be an arms length transaction. It simply isn't possible. The sooner we acknowledge that as a society and refuse to allow companies to sign contracts with themselves, the sooner we'll be able to put these ridiculously abusive business practices behind us.
Fourth year, You'll be at 2 times the average work load. This is so that when your boss comes down Friday at 4:55 pm and says "Holy Gosh Darn Crap, the server room has smoke coming out of it" you can go "No problem chief, I'll have it up before anyone is in on Monday, I better get that raise I asked for".
Sounds like your college is run by people with no significant grasp of reality. Yes, bosses occasionally ask you to pull all-nighters or all-weekenders, but that happens occasionally. If it's happening continuously, then that's a sign that this is a job for first-year college grads that they don't expect you to actually stay in for very long before moving on to a real job. Either that or the company is in a death spiral. Either way, you don't want to stay there.
For a school to pull that on a continuous basis isn't preparing you for the real world. It's preparing you to go postal and shoot up the campus. Just saying. An 80 hour week is simply unsustainable for more than about two or three weeks at a time, whether you're talking about a workplace or a college. You're going to spend, at minimum:
1 hour per day traveling between classes, etc.
2 hours per day eating.
45 minutes per day on personal hygiene.
8 hours per day sleeping.
half an hour per day waking up.
half an hour per day going to sleep.
That's 12 hours and 45 minutes, which leaves 11 hours, 15 minutes MAXIMUM that you can usefully use. An 80 hour week requires 11 hours, 26 minutes on average per day. So it simply can't be done without cutting into something that's actually critical for your health and well being, and that's if you don't take a single minute to just relax and enjoy life, don't attend any sort of religious institution, aren't in any fraternity or sorority, don't get any actual exercise beyond walking to/from class, etc. In short it's very unhealthy.
Over long periods of time, such insane levels of work lead to serious mental health problems. If your school is truly working you 80 hours per week, you should contact a mental health professional and have them do a study on your school's population. I suspect you'll find higher than normal rates of anger management problems, severe inability to concentrate due to sleep deprivation, and a significantly elevated rate of depression and suicidal thoughts. It simply is not healthy to work people that hard over an extended period of time. It's so unhealthy that nearly every civilized country in the world (except the U.S.) has laws limiting work hours to significantly less than that.
And it's not just unhealthy in the short term. College is a critical time in people's lives for creating new social relationships. For most people, their first thirteen years of education was spent with mostly the same people. College is the first time that they break away from that, and it is critical that they have sufficient time during all four years to get used to making new friends quickly. It's going to happen when they move from job to job later in life, and if they aren't prepared to handle that, it can be socially damaging, even devastating. When you lose a job, your whole social network goes away. Preparing students for that is at least as important as any academic information that they can impart---maybe even more important. The social learning will still be useful in twenty years, long after any detailed technical knowledge has become dated and stale.
Also a substantial percentage of marriages occur because of people meeting in college. With an 80-hour instruction week, such socialization becomes nonexistent, leading to even further elevated rates of depression in graduates down the road. The lack of adequate time to socialize also results in those graduates having a hard time with social interaction after they graduate simply due to not having socialized much for four years. This further exacerbates the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Want it to work in Snow Leopard? Ditch the Canon software entirely and buy a copy of VueScan. It talks to the hardware directly and works just fine with my LIDE 30 (and it's compatible with lots of other scanners, too).
Sadly, Canon is utterly incompetent when it comes to keeping drivers up-to-date. They presumably are hoping to force you to go out and buy a new scanner every three or four years. That's okay if you're a business that depends on the scanner and wants better quality on an ongoing basis. For normal people who scan something every couple of years, it's outrageous. So when this one dies, I've already decided I'll be replacing it with a scanner made by somebody other than Canon.
It's really a shame. I absolutely love their cameras and camcorders, and their photo printers are pretty solid, too. But I won't be touching their scanners again unless they show signs of changing their ways. Fool me once....
Odd, right now, most of the country has many options for internet access, all heavily tampered with. Almost all the exceptions I've seen have been business class service, and even some of those are heavily tampered with. And in many places, you can't get business class service at a residence. Show me all those options and I'll stop laughing at your naïveté. As long as your only options are all tampered with, losing all those "options" in favor of unfettered access seems like a pretty clear improvement.
So you're okay with me posting the ASCII art version of goatse on your blog, right? A thousand times? On every page? Just making sure.
Sure it matters. It's hardly wrong to censor posts that violate the terms of use for a message board. In this case, term #2(3) says that posts should be either technical questions, solutions, or constructive feedback about a product. I suspect many of the threads were nothing but whining, which is neither constructive feedback nor a technical question or answer....
The front page of a message board is a finite resource. People trying to help tend to read the first page, maybe the second, and that's about it. If people clog the boards with dozens of active threads that just complain without providing solutions or information that might help the manufacturer track down a problem, those noise threads end up burying real questions from people who are actually trying to get help with specific, solvable issues, at which point the entire board becomes useless.
Bottom line: if you really feel the need to complain on the forums, post in one of the existing threads. Don't waste the limited front page space with more threads about the same subject. Creating tons of new threads on the subject is abusing the board, and I'm fine with Apple thinning the herd when that happens....
Not nearly as much fun. Besides, it really doesn't matter if the find the person guilty or not. What matters is that he's not home that night. And that they get a search warrant for the house, during which time they'll no doubt find other stolen stuff.
That said, if your goal is to truly set the douchebag up for murder, I did leave out a few steps.... Fingerprints matching his mother? Easy enough to avoid. Just observe who touched the knob last prior to taking the prints. Ballistics? See part 2 of the social engineering series: Gaining Access to a Crime Scene Investigation and part 3: Planting Evidence for Dummies.
Or you could hide ten kilos of pot under the fender. Either way, the steps are remarkably similar up until the last two or three. You still want fake prints all over it.
Four reasons:
Close.
Step 1: Use whois to find out the owning ISP.
Step 2: Use social engineering techniques as needed to obtain the direct telephone number for the wire center for the city in question.
Step 3: Call the wire center using a telephone from work (where caller ID is blocked) and use social engineering techniques, pretending to be from another part of the company (claim to be calling from the NOC in another state trying to track down rogue BGP packets from the specified IP number) and request that they disable the circuit. At some point, casually ask what circuit ID they disabled so that you can properly fill out the work order after the fact.
Step 4: Have another person call at the same time (preferably female) and ask them if [your fake name] had reached them about the aforementioned problem while you are still on the phone. This instills a sense of urgency.
Step 5: Upon obtaining the circuit ID, wait a day. Then use a similar social engineering technique (call until you get a different person) and tell them you're a line worker out in the field and you're trying to trace down a problem with incoming calls on circuit [insert circuit ID here]. Tell them that it's an E911 call center and you really need things fixed urgently, but you don't have the direct dial phone number associated with that circuit ID. Obtain the phone number for the circuit.
Step 6: Using a reverse number lookup, determine the street address of the person in question.
Step 7: Drive to the address in question.
Step 8: Lift the prints from the person's doorknob.
Step 9: Construct a negative impression using photoresist on copper.
Step 10: Construct a positive using gelatin or silicone.
Step 11: Wait for a murder to occur. Use social engineering techniques to find out the model of handgun used.
Step 12: Purchase a similar model of handgun and file off the serial numbers.
Step 13: Use the gelatin fingertips to leave conspicuous fingerprints on the weapon, fire it several times, then leave it in the thief's car.
Step 14: Place an anonymous tip call from a pay phone near the house (use gloves), then leave the city for a few days.
Step 15: Wait for the police to arrest the thief.
Step 16: Break into the person's house that night and take your stolen laptop back.
Now that is how it's done.
Wow. Just... wow. I hope your little brother pointed out that air pressure on the shuttle is the same as air pressure on Earth, give or take, yet strangely enough, things float around quite nicely. :-)
That's sort of what I was thinking, except minus the comedy bit. The same argument could be made for a lot of horrible things, e.g. it's good for boys to get beaten and girls to get molested because there are scumbags out there who would try to do that to them when they're adults. The argument for bad teachers is a specious argument, as the logical extension of such an argument readily demonstrates.
The fact of the matter is that kids already deal with plenty of people who are incompetent and hard to get along with. They deal with their siblings, their friends, etc., all of whom can be stubborn and wrong at times. They'll learn how to deal with that just fine without having teachers who don't know what they're talking about. By the time they're teenagers, they will inevitably learn to challenge authority and push boundaries anyway without that "help".
No, no, you misunderstood them. What they said was that they have hardcore on smartphones. In other words, they are allowing hardcore porn to be made available on their smartphones. It was their response to iPhone's content policies. Had nothing to do with actually being serious about the product.
Err.. is. Wow, correcting typos half asleep is also not a good idea.
Err... why does.... Wow, typing half asleep is not a good idea.
Those sorts of problems usually indicate a baseband crash. On most modern phones, you have a separate baseband processor that handles cellular traffic. If the baseband processor crashes due to bugs in the baseband firmware, the baseband processor must be reset. Putting a phone into airplane mode shuts off the baseband hardware, and disabling airport mode turns the hardware back on again. This has the effect of rebooting the baseband hardware and resetting it to a known good state.
The real questions in my mind are:
*shrugs*
It doesn't really matter. Headers almost certainly cannot be copyrighted anyway. A header file is really no different than a phone book. It is a purely factual description of an interface. Phone books were held to not be copyrightable in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. In that case, the court ruled that although creative aspects of a collection of facts can be copyrighted (which facts to include, the order and style of the information, etc.), the facts themselves are facts and cannot be copyrighted.
An interface definition is a fact. There is only one interface definition that correctly describes a given interface. Change even one letter (not including comments) and code written against that interface will not compile without modification (unless you're doing something funky with C preprocessor macros, but even then, what the compiler eventually sees must be identical). Therefore a header is nothing more than a collection of facts. So long as the organization of the header is substantively different from the organization of the original header and the new header does not contain any non-paraphrased comments from the original, it is unlikely that copyright violation has occurred.
And Sega v. Accolade seems to support that assessment, along with several other reverse engineering cases.
Actually, the original statement was referring to free as in beer, not free as in not secret. The original argument boils down to:
The "libre" variant of it is a much weaker argument. It boils down to:
So technology makes it easier for people to make your embarrassing thoughts, words, and deeds available to people who you don't want to know about them. That doesn't really mean that the information wants to be spread around everywhere, though. It is still perfectly possible, even in a technological society, to avoid that information exposure. Just remember two rules:
And keep those rules in mind when you're deciding whether or not you're going to go to that 4/20 party or get drunk and dance topless on the bar in front of the Girls Gone Wild cameras or give your social security number to somebody who doesn't really need it or tell your deepest, darkest secret to all your friends. If you pay attention to those two rules, your private information won't want to be free any more than it would be in an earlier stage of technological evolution.
In short, it isn't true that all information wants to be liberated. It's more accurate to say that as technology advances, the divide between private and public information is further eroded. Occasionally this might mean that some private information falls into the chasm due to apathy, but far more frequently, this means that public information is really public and is much harder to pull back to the private side once exposed. It also means that people tend to be a lot more guarded about their most private information, which means that the truly private information wants even less to be liberated, and on the average, it's a wash.
Problem is that I doubt any of the commercial UNIX vendors or BSDs would touch LGPL in their kernel, either. Doubly so if its v3. Maybe if you could make it purely a plug-in that just links against the kernel, you *might* be able to get some of them to ship LGPL v2 (hard to say) as long as you state that you have no intention of ever moving to v3. Having a loadable filesystem would greatly complicate booting, however, forcing a boot != root environment, which is pretty ugly.
Now you could make it dual-licensed with LGPL and the Mozilla Public License. That might be palatable.
I want to apply for a patent on a device that combines an erasable ballpoint pen, a pencil, an eraser, and a safety razor into a single device.
Ooh. Even better. A tattoo inker and a safety razor.
Ooh. Even better. An electric razor and a vibrator.
*Slams head repeatedly into a wall*
Get out, terrible ideas! Get out!
Yup. I was about to post the same thing. It was done so long ago that the patents are expired already. I'll be interested to see who challenges this bogus patent first.
My point is that it's impossible to police these things because internal division profits and losses are not reported to the IRS or any other outside body. Thus, there's no real way to solve this except by filing a lawsuit every time they use these tactics so long as those contracts can be written at all. (And maybe even then.)
That said, if you really need to push around artificial money to account for your projects, that screams "lack of leadership" to me. You're supposed to be acting like one company, not like a bunch of piglets each competing to suckle more from your mother's teat. If a company truly feels the need to do such heavy-duty accounting so that people can keep track of what's happening, that's generally a sign that the company is too big, and no amount of accounting can keep a company that size from becoming bloated and inefficient.
Agreed. If anything, it's the reverse. Heavily duplicated data indicates that the file hasn't been modified in an eternity. Such files are less likely than average to ever be accessed again. What you want on fast storage are:
Word of caution: you should probably specifically exclude paging files from your hot files algorithm. Swapping to flash is generally considered to be a Bad Idea (tm), and those are usually the hottest files on a system....
To which I would add:
12. BSD-licensed. What's really needed is a robust filesystem that's ubiquitous---a filesystem that is supported across operating system platforms--- and let's face it, no GPL-licensed filesystem will ever darken the door of any OS except Linux, at least not as part of the OS. Even the *BSDs won't touch a GPLed filesystem except as a from-scratch rewrite. Forget about commercial UNIX vendors. And although you can gain partial support through little tricks like FUSE, such workarounds will never be as fast, as reliable, or as integrated into the whole user experience as a native filesystem would be.
There's little point in taking any filesystem beyond academic research into a production-quality filesystem if the resulting disks can't be moved from one machine to another without forcing users to being a single-OS shop. Most of the real world doesn't consist of single-OS shops. In fact, an ideal next-gen filesystem would integrate SAN capabilities at the filesystem level so that disks could not just be moved, but actively shared between boxes running Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, etc. That's just not likely to happen unless you choose a much more open license than the GPL.
Don't get me wrong, I've written and licensed code under the GPL. There's nothing inherently wrong with the GPL for tools/utilities, GUI apps, and other end-user bits. For libraries, filesystems, drivers, and other code that is tightly coupled with the OS or software built on top of it, however, the GPL is really a rather poor choice. It sends the message, true or not, that you care more about dogma than interoperability, which is generally not a good thing. Ask me why I don't run either btrfs or ZFS.... It's the license.
Does the state they're incorporated in not have usury laws for commercial loans?
So what you're saying, then, is that the Hollywood film studios are committing perjury every time they claim to own the copyright of those movies? Seems like the copyright is really held by those shell companies, legally speaking, in which case it would have to be considered an asset of value, and the company must dispose of it in a proper bankruptcy proceeding, then use the money to pay its creditors (the actors and actresses). Otherwise, that's fraud. That said, I haven't read these contracts, so I suppose they might be doing something sneaky there. Interesting thought, though.
Ideally, no company should ever be allowed to bill a division of itself under any circumstances. Any staff employed by the company is already part of the normal operating cost of the company, and therefore, by definition, not an expense specific to any particular project. If a project would cause a division to be overworked and have to bring in more people, the correct answer is, "No," at which point the requesting division would have to decide if it was important enough to hire someone themselves. And in the case of contractors hired by one division to do contract work for another, there's no good reason for the middleman, so the contractors should be paid directly by the requesting division instead.
Fundamentally, a contract between two parts of the same company cannot be an arms length transaction. It simply isn't possible. The sooner we acknowledge that as a society and refuse to allow companies to sign contracts with themselves, the sooner we'll be able to put these ridiculously abusive business practices behind us.
Sounds like your college is run by people with no significant grasp of reality. Yes, bosses occasionally ask you to pull all-nighters or all-weekenders, but that happens occasionally. If it's happening continuously, then that's a sign that this is a job for first-year college grads that they don't expect you to actually stay in for very long before moving on to a real job. Either that or the company is in a death spiral. Either way, you don't want to stay there.
For a school to pull that on a continuous basis isn't preparing you for the real world. It's preparing you to go postal and shoot up the campus. Just saying. An 80 hour week is simply unsustainable for more than about two or three weeks at a time, whether you're talking about a workplace or a college. You're going to spend, at minimum:
That's 12 hours and 45 minutes, which leaves 11 hours, 15 minutes MAXIMUM that you can usefully use. An 80 hour week requires 11 hours, 26 minutes on average per day. So it simply can't be done without cutting into something that's actually critical for your health and well being, and that's if you don't take a single minute to just relax and enjoy life, don't attend any sort of religious institution, aren't in any fraternity or sorority, don't get any actual exercise beyond walking to/from class, etc. In short it's very unhealthy.
Over long periods of time, such insane levels of work lead to serious mental health problems. If your school is truly working you 80 hours per week, you should contact a mental health professional and have them do a study on your school's population. I suspect you'll find higher than normal rates of anger management problems, severe inability to concentrate due to sleep deprivation, and a significantly elevated rate of depression and suicidal thoughts. It simply is not healthy to work people that hard over an extended period of time. It's so unhealthy that nearly every civilized country in the world (except the U.S.) has laws limiting work hours to significantly less than that.
And it's not just unhealthy in the short term. College is a critical time in people's lives for creating new social relationships. For most people, their first thirteen years of education was spent with mostly the same people. College is the first time that they break away from that, and it is critical that they have sufficient time during all four years to get used to making new friends quickly. It's going to happen when they move from job to job later in life, and if they aren't prepared to handle that, it can be socially damaging, even devastating. When you lose a job, your whole social network goes away. Preparing students for that is at least as important as any academic information that they can impart---maybe even more important. The social learning will still be useful in twenty years, long after any detailed technical knowledge has become dated and stale.
Also a substantial percentage of marriages occur because of people meeting in college. With an 80-hour instruction week, such socialization becomes nonexistent, leading to even further elevated rates of depression in graduates down the road. The lack of adequate time to socialize also results in those graduates having a hard time with social interaction after they graduate simply due to not having socialized much for four years. This further exacerbates the problem.
Finally, such
If 42 is the answer, then clearly 2B | ~2B is not the question. Perhaps (2B & ~1 ) or (2B-1)....