Well, as far as I can tell the two biggies are IPv6 support and Dynamic DNS, although they do have something called IXFR listed - anyone got any idea what that might be?
Thank God for that. I was wondering how long it would take them to catch on to the fact that creating a markup "standard" that doesn't have a one-to-one translation to XHTML/HTML is a Bad Idea...
"We're doing some forensic review of the hard drive and determining what is there," Eaton said. "After we finish that review, we will evaluate the amount of substance he was distributing."
Sheesh, you'd think he was a crack dealer or something. What I wanna know is why the cops don't seize the servers of GPL violators, if they're so concerned about copyright violations;)
On another note, am I correct in recalling that the police in the US aren't allowed to seize a TV from a residence because it's the main method for obtaining public information? Would there be any chance of getting a ruling like that on PCs? (God knows I get a lot more information from my PC than I do from my TV...)
Hi Donald. Just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for the tulip drivers - I've been using Tulip cards since I started with Linux, and I've never had a problem that couldn't be solved by downloading the latest version. Thanks again for all your work.
Well, I wouldn't say that it's because it's a SVO language; there's a bit more to it than that. I think the major points that cause trouble for automatic JE/EJ translation are that Japanese prefers the use of intransitive verbs over the passive voice, and the fact that omission of the subject (and/or topic) is a lot more common in Japanese. Most translation software that I've seen doesn't manage to convert a Japanese sentence without a subject into an English sentence with a pronoun (he/she/it/they), which gives major lossage.
If the one with most money wins, we've lost already. On the other hand, I don't care whether we're taken seriously by these organizations or not (in fact, I'd prefer that we not be taken seriously - it makes it easier to get things done before they realize what's going on). I know it's irresponsible, but their stupid lawsuits are just another form of DoS - so let's repay them in kind.
Digital[randomcharacter]Convergence doesn't care about your name, address or whatever. All they want to know is which scanner was used for a particular lookup. That gives them a huge database of purchase info that they can then sell to other faceless corporations for big bucks.
That's strange - this is from the RIAA's own site:
Owning a CD means you own one copy of the music, and the U.S. record industry believes you should be able to make whatever personal use you choose. For example, you may make a compilation recording (on tape or on a CD) to use in the car or while exercising.
I guess this contradiction between the RIAA's own page and the comment they submitted to the Library of Congress should be interpreted to say, "Yeah, go ahead and rip those CDs - we're not worried, 'cause when the DMCA comes into effect we're gonna make sure that you can't do it anymore".
Yes, I realize that. That's why I said "...through the methods you give", i.e., sending letters to Congresspeople, staging demonstrations, writing to the Library of Congress, etc.
This is from the comment made by such illustrious organizations as the American Film Marketing Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America:
B. Archival/back-up copying
Section 117(a)(2), which allows the owner of a copy of a computer program to make an archival copy of it without the permission of the copyright owner under certain conditions, is a narrow exception to the exclusive reproduction right. Under no circumstances does section 117(a)(2) allow the
creation of "back-up copies" of works such as sound recordings, music, audio-visual works, or databases. As at least two initial round submitters have pointed out, many pirates and distributors of pirate software products have actively disseminated misleading statements about this provision in order to give their operations a false air of legitimacy, see Interactive Digital Software Association at 5-6; SIIA at 3-4.
If I read this correctly, wouldn't this forbid the ripping of CDs, let alone the copying of MP3s based on those ripped tracks to a player that you own?
Please remember that around half of "typical Slashdot readers" can't comment on the DMCA through the methods you give because they don't live in the US.
OK, all you script kiddies (and I know you're out there), drop that copy of Back Orifice and do something useful for a change. Here's the hitlist, courtesy of the most self-serving piece of arrogant crap I've seen for a long time:
American Film Marketing Association
Association of American Publishers
Business Software Alliance
Interactive Digital Software Association
Motion Picture Association of America
National Music Publishers' Association
Recording Industry Association of America
Let me put it this way - the number of lawyers registered in the state of California alone is greater than the number of lawyers in the whole of Japan, although the population of the U.S. is only double that of Japan.
Thus it is an altogether more difficult kind of
document to interpret in terms of what it forces upon you. The idea that you can retroactively forfeit your rights under a license looks to me to be completely absurd.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - "the GPL is hard to understand because it forces you to forfeit your rights"? What rights would those be, exactly?
The `viral' nature of the GPL arises because you are expected to slap the GPL license on work other than your own.
I see nowhere in the GPL that requires you to apply it to work other than your own. In fact, it's impossible to apply it to work other than your own - only the copyright holder can do that. What you're probably thinking is, "But wait! If I use GPL'd code in my own code, the copyright holder of the GPL'd code is thereby forcing me to release my work under the GPL!" If you really see the GPL in that way, here's a tip - don't use any GPL'd code in your own programs. There, problem solved. No-one's forcing you to use the source to free software.
...my own understanding, and the understanding of many others before this brouhaha emerged...
Speak for yourself, please. I'm sure those "many others" can speak up if they feel the need to without you putting words in their mouths.
I just realized, but perhaps you grabbed it from the mirror (you were using a mirror, weren't you?) while it was still updating. The file size could have appeared as the "final" size, even though rsync (or whatever the kernel mirrors use) was still transferring the file. A truncated file could easily have resulted in the error message you got.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, it's not frozen (at least not tonight) - I lost another two points to karma "half-life" decay today (down to 65 now... almost there!)
Well, as far as I can tell the two biggies are IPv6 support and Dynamic DNS, although they do have something called IXFR listed - anyone got any idea what that might be?
Easy. Pick up your TV and throw it at someone. If it hits them, it becomes the instrument of an assault ;)
Thank God for that. I was wondering how long it would take them to catch on to the fact that creating a markup "standard" that doesn't have a one-to-one translation to XHTML/HTML is a Bad Idea...
So real I'm getting goosebumps... (seriously)
I love the last line:
;)
"We're doing some forensic review of the hard drive and determining what is there," Eaton said. "After we finish that review, we will evaluate the amount of substance he was distributing."
Sheesh, you'd think he was a crack dealer or something. What I wanna know is why the cops don't seize the servers of GPL violators, if they're so concerned about copyright violations
On another note, am I correct in recalling that the police in the US aren't allowed to seize a TV from a residence because it's the main method for obtaining public information? Would there be any chance of getting a ruling like that on PCs? (God knows I get a lot more information from my PC than I do from my TV...)
No, no, it's his halberd.
Then again, it might be his cap (as in hat).
Or he might have left out a "niu", so it could be "My yak is called Bootsie."
Though why he'd want to call any of them (cat, hair, cap or yak) Bootie is beyond me...
Hi Donald. Just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for the tulip drivers - I've been using Tulip cards since I started with Linux, and I've never had a problem that couldn't be solved by downloading the latest version. Thanks again for all your work.
Must...proofread...s/SVO/SOV/g
Well, I wouldn't say that it's because it's a SVO language; there's a bit more to it than that. I think the major points that cause trouble for automatic JE/EJ translation are that Japanese prefers the use of intransitive verbs over the passive voice, and the fact that omission of the subject (and/or topic) is a lot more common in Japanese. Most translation software that I've seen doesn't manage to convert a Japanese sentence without a subject into an English sentence with a pronoun (he/she/it/they), which gives major lossage.
You can buy the Lukis in Akihabara for 18,800 yen (about $US160); it can display JPEGs from SmartMedia.
If the one with most money wins, we've lost already. On the other hand, I don't care whether we're taken seriously by these organizations or not (in fact, I'd prefer that we not be taken seriously - it makes it easier to get things done before they realize what's going on). I know it's irresponsible, but their stupid lawsuits are just another form of DoS - so let's repay them in kind.
Not a bad idea (although, unlike in the US, the EFF isn't a "charity", so you get no tax breaks, no matching of donations by your employer, etc.).
Digital[randomcharacter]Convergence doesn't care about your name, address or whatever. All they want to know is which scanner was used for a particular lookup. That gives them a huge database of purchase info that they can then sell to other faceless corporations for big bucks.
That's strange - this is from the RIAA's own site:
Owning a CD means you own one copy of the music, and the U.S. record industry believes you should be able to make whatever personal use you choose. For example, you may make a compilation recording (on tape or on a CD) to use in the car or while exercising.
I guess this contradiction between the RIAA's own page and the comment they submitted to the Library of Congress should be interpreted to say, "Yeah, go ahead and rip those CDs - we're not worried, 'cause when the DMCA comes into effect we're gonna make sure that you can't do it anymore".
Yes, I realize that. That's why I said "...through the methods you give", i.e., sending letters to Congresspeople, staging demonstrations, writing to the Library of Congress, etc.
This is from the comment made by such illustrious organizations as the American Film Marketing Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America:
B. Archival/back-up copying
Section 117(a)(2), which allows the owner of a copy of a computer program to make an archival copy of it without the permission of the copyright owner under certain conditions, is a narrow exception to the exclusive reproduction right. Under no circumstances does section 117(a)(2) allow the
creation of "back-up copies" of works such as sound recordings, music, audio-visual works, or databases. As at least two initial round submitters have pointed out, many pirates and distributors of pirate software products have actively disseminated misleading statements about this provision in order to give their operations a false air of legitimacy, see Interactive Digital Software Association at 5-6; SIIA at 3-4.
If I read this correctly, wouldn't this forbid the ripping of CDs, let alone the copying of MP3s based on those ripped tracks to a player that you own?
Please remember that around half of "typical Slashdot readers" can't comment on the DMCA through the methods you give because they don't live in the US.
OK, all you script kiddies (and I know you're out there), drop that copy of Back Orifice and do something useful for a change. Here's the hitlist, courtesy of the most self-serving piece of arrogant crap I've seen for a long time:
American Film Marketing Association
Association of American Publishers
Business Software Alliance
Interactive Digital Software Association
Motion Picture Association of America
National Music Publishers' Association
Recording Industry Association of America
To paraphrase RMS, "Go get 'em, trolls!"
For media, yes, but not for the devices needed to use them...
Let me put it this way - the number of lawyers registered in the state of California alone is greater than the number of lawyers in the whole of Japan, although the population of the U.S. is only double that of Japan.
My current list of boycotted organizations:
Amazon.com (Stupid patents)
RIAA (Stupid executives)
MPAA (Stupid movies)
Microsoft (Stupid software)
This just added:
Germany (Stupid laws)
If we keep on going on like this, soon I'll have to lock myself in my house and keep my eyes shut...
Thus it is an altogether more difficult kind of
...my own understanding, and the understanding of many others before this brouhaha emerged...
document to interpret in terms of what it forces upon you. The idea that you can retroactively forfeit your rights under a license looks to me to be completely absurd.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - "the GPL is hard to understand because it forces you to forfeit your rights"? What rights would those be, exactly?
The `viral' nature of the GPL arises because you are expected to slap the GPL license on work other than your own.
I see nowhere in the GPL that requires you to apply it to work other than your own. In fact, it's impossible to apply it to work other than your own - only the copyright holder can do that. What you're probably thinking is, "But wait! If I use GPL'd code in my own code, the copyright holder of the GPL'd code is thereby forcing me to release my work under the GPL!" If you really see the GPL in that way, here's a tip - don't use any GPL'd code in your own programs. There, problem solved. No-one's forcing you to use the source to free software.
Speak for yourself, please. I'm sure those "many others" can speak up if they feel the need to without you putting words in their mouths.
Well, yes. Isn't it always?
I just realized, but perhaps you grabbed it from the mirror (you were using a mirror, weren't you?) while it was still updating. The file size could have appeared as the "final" size, even though rsync (or whatever the kernel mirrors use) was still transferring the file. A truncated file could easily have resulted in the error message you got.