Firefox lets you add keyword searches (so does Opera, don't think Chrome does). Just go to https://www.google.com/ (annoyingly https://google.com/ redirects to http://www.google.com/ right click in the search box and click add keyword search. I've tested and confirmed that this will use SSL.
Now, I've used both Debian and Ubuntu quite a bit, and don't want to get into which is better, but when it comes to naming conventions you can't really point to either one as being good or professional. Debian uses Toy Story characters for christ sake. And yes, I know they're 'codenames' not release names, but the GP's point is unaffected by this; when you're in Debian forums people constantly refer to the codename. The only reason that Debian names are any easier to remember is because they don't change for 5 years.
Try reading what you quoted again. Does it say "they limit sales to two per credit card" or does it say "they limit sales to two per customer". Or does each of your 6 or 7 credit cards have a different name on it?
It's not complicated. There is a two per person limit. They kept track of how many a person bought by their credit card. It's not illegal or against Apple policy to sell your iPad, it is against their policy to buy 200 iPads and open up a store selling them in a country where it's not yet available.
bookmark this. now you never have to go through the agony of googling a bunch of stupid animal names again. think of what you can do with all that free time.
Yea, I'm a little confused there as well. I think the idea is that the 2nd axle requires very little power. He discusses this a bit at 7 minutes in, and basically you could power the bottom axle by a very small electric motor, kinetic energy system or something along those lines. Obviously you'll have a loss of efficiency on the 2nd source of power, but since it's so much smaller the gains in efficiency on the main engine should, in theory, outweigh that loss.
Seconded. I've got a Mini9, hadn't used Ubuntu in a while before I got it. Something seemed off, and by off I mean crappy, couldn't figure out what it was until I ran apt-get dist-upgrade and it insisted that there were no upgrades, even though I was running 8.04 and 9.04 had already come out. Went poking around and found that apt was pointing to ubuntu.dell.com instead of ubuntu.com for packages. To make life even better, Dell hadn't touched their repos since they launched the Mini9. Eventually reformatted with Kubuntu Netbook Remix and the thing ran 100 times better.
jEsUs FuCkInG cHrIsT AdMiT yOu'Re WrOnG rAtHeR tHaN mAkE aN oBnOxIoUs Ac PoSt AbOuT sOmEtHiNg IrReLaVaNt. FoR tHe ReCoRd I kNoW hOw To UsE tHe ShIfT kEy QuItE wElL, i'M jUsT lAzY. iF yOu AcTuAlLy CaN't ReAd AlL lOwErCaSe YoU'rE a FuCkInG mOrOn.
what the hell are you talking about? you said android is just linux, not custom linux. i pointed out that it is somewhat customized, and now (i think) you're claiming that android is NOT linux if i follow your horrendous analogy. wouldn't that refute your original point more than my response?
either way the analogy is absolutely atrocious, since the situations could not be more different. android is currently a customized version of the kernel, which still takes in new changes from upstream but is not merging all of it's changes back. apache took over for ncsa httpd since it was being abandoned by ncsa, so there was nowhere to merge back up to and nothing to get new changes from.
first off dude, it's quantumplacet, not planet. second, i think you're still a little of on derivative works, and it is a bit of a murky area. you mention in your last sentence there "I don't see anything in copyright code specifically prohibiting the distribution of derivative works". That's not entirely true. Derivative works that are sufficiently original and transformative can actually qualify for their own copyright, and thus it would be illegal for the copyright holder of the original, or anyone else, to distribute it. however, the bar for a derivative work is quite a bit higher than the bar for an original work to claim copyright. as for the question of a derivative that does not contain any of the original work, i don't think there is any relevant case law since such a concept doesn't really make sense outside of the world of computers, but if it went to court I'm not sure how much it would matter. even if the patch contained none of the original code, it's still dependent on it, and thus still derivative, and I don't think it would qualify for copyright (ignoring of course the DCMA violation that would make the conversation moot to begin with).
i don't think fair use is that relevant here. fair use allows you to use someone else's copyrighted materials, but it does not a grant you a new copyright on what you create when you do. even if the DMCA never existed, and myth's crack was considered fair use, it still wouldn't grant them a copyright to it with which they could sue rockstar for violating, it would only protect them from being sued by rockstar.
and you're confusing the terms of the specific GPL license with actual copyright law. I will admit my explanation was oversimplified, but yours is basically wrong. myth's work on the code was almost certainly an unauthorized derivative work since it would fail to meet the necessary originality requirements. as such, no copyright is attached, and technically yes, anyone could release myth's code, but since the actual executable file contains rockstars code and myths code intermingled in a way that they can only really be released together, rockstar would be the only one legally allowed to distribute it.
when you create an unauthorized derivative work, the copyright for your derivative is owned by the creator of the original. Assuming that Myth's crack was in fact an unauthorized derivative work, which it almost certainly was, no new copyright was created, instead the derivative work is still covered by Rockstar's copyright on the original, and Rockstar can do with it what they please.
just because they usually distribute a new exe instead of a patch doesn't really change anything. Unless they wrote the new exe from scratch, which I highly doubt, it's still an unauthorized derivative work, and thus Rockstar owns the copyright to it.
umm, he released The Green Mile serialized, and serialized novels have been around for a few hundred years. The book you're referring to is The Plant, but the experiment there was not serialization, it was some weird bastardization of the honor system where 75% of readers had to pay for him to keep writing.
nowhere did he say it would hurt apple as a company, or give google a competitive edge. what he did say, and that it you made no attempt to refute, is that it would hurt apple's and microsoft's attempts to push proprietary codecs as standard.
*sigh* no. It's not illegal and he wasn't charged with "trying to sell his kids on CL." The title contradicts the body.
title says 'accused' not charged with, and the summary does state what he was actually charged with. And are you honestly claiming that it would not have been illegal if he had been trying to sell his kids on craigslist?
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox lets you add keyword searches (so does Opera, don't think Chrome does). Just go to https://www.google.com/ (annoyingly https://google.com/ redirects to http://www.google.com/ right click in the search box and click add keyword search. I've tested and confirmed that this will use SSL.
Now, I've used both Debian and Ubuntu quite a bit, and don't want to get into which is better, but when it comes to naming conventions you can't really point to either one as being good or professional. Debian uses Toy Story characters for christ sake. And yes, I know they're 'codenames' not release names, but the GP's point is unaffected by this; when you're in Debian forums people constantly refer to the codename. The only reason that Debian names are any easier to remember is because they don't change for 5 years.
Try reading what you quoted again. Does it say "they limit sales to two per credit card" or does it say "they limit sales to two per customer". Or does each of your 6 or 7 credit cards have a different name on it?
It's not complicated. There is a two per person limit. They kept track of how many a person bought by their credit card. It's not illegal or against Apple policy to sell your iPad, it is against their policy to buy 200 iPads and open up a store selling them in a country where it's not yet available.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
bookmark this. now you never have to go through the agony of googling a bunch of stupid animal names again. think of what you can do with all that free time.
RTFA. MIT was one one of several teams working on new designs, the others were all commercial airplane manufacturers, including Boeing.
Yea, I'm a little confused there as well. I think the idea is that the 2nd axle requires very little power. He discusses this a bit at 7 minutes in, and basically you could power the bottom axle by a very small electric motor, kinetic energy system or something along those lines. Obviously you'll have a loss of efficiency on the 2nd source of power, but since it's so much smaller the gains in efficiency on the main engine should, in theory, outweigh that loss.
Seconded. I've got a Mini9, hadn't used Ubuntu in a while before I got it. Something seemed off, and by off I mean crappy, couldn't figure out what it was until I ran apt-get dist-upgrade and it insisted that there were no upgrades, even though I was running 8.04 and 9.04 had already come out. Went poking around and found that apt was pointing to ubuntu.dell.com instead of ubuntu.com for packages. To make life even better, Dell hadn't touched their repos since they launched the Mini9. Eventually reformatted with Kubuntu Netbook Remix and the thing ran 100 times better.
Telling an American to do something because Europe's been doing it is like telling a Toyota to stop because you hit the brake?
Exactly, who cares about gas mileage or hauling capacity when buying a truck, everyone knows that the grill is the most important factor.
jEsUs FuCkInG cHrIsT AdMiT yOu'Re WrOnG rAtHeR tHaN mAkE aN oBnOxIoUs Ac PoSt AbOuT sOmEtHiNg IrReLaVaNt. FoR tHe ReCoRd I kNoW hOw To UsE tHe ShIfT kEy QuItE wElL, i'M jUsT lAzY. iF yOu AcTuAlLy CaN't ReAd AlL lOwErCaSe YoU'rE a FuCkInG mOrOn.
what the hell are you talking about? you said android is just linux, not custom linux. i pointed out that it is somewhat customized, and now (i think) you're claiming that android is NOT linux if i follow your horrendous analogy. wouldn't that refute your original point more than my response?
either way the analogy is absolutely atrocious, since the situations could not be more different. android is currently a customized version of the kernel, which still takes in new changes from upstream but is not merging all of it's changes back. apache took over for ncsa httpd since it was being abandoned by ncsa, so there was nowhere to merge back up to and nothing to get new changes from.
actually, considering Android has made kernel changes that have not been merged upstream, I would consider it a "custom linux".
first off dude, it's quantumplacet, not planet. second, i think you're still a little of on derivative works, and it is a bit of a murky area. you mention in your last sentence there "I don't see anything in copyright code specifically prohibiting the distribution of derivative works". That's not entirely true. Derivative works that are sufficiently original and transformative can actually qualify for their own copyright, and thus it would be illegal for the copyright holder of the original, or anyone else, to distribute it. however, the bar for a derivative work is quite a bit higher than the bar for an original work to claim copyright. as for the question of a derivative that does not contain any of the original work, i don't think there is any relevant case law since such a concept doesn't really make sense outside of the world of computers, but if it went to court I'm not sure how much it would matter. even if the patch contained none of the original code, it's still dependent on it, and thus still derivative, and I don't think it would qualify for copyright (ignoring of course the DCMA violation that would make the conversation moot to begin with).
i don't think fair use is that relevant here. fair use allows you to use someone else's copyrighted materials, but it does not a grant you a new copyright on what you create when you do. even if the DMCA never existed, and myth's crack was considered fair use, it still wouldn't grant them a copyright to it with which they could sue rockstar for violating, it would only protect them from being sued by rockstar.
and you're confusing the terms of the specific GPL license with actual copyright law. I will admit my explanation was oversimplified, but yours is basically wrong. myth's work on the code was almost certainly an unauthorized derivative work since it would fail to meet the necessary originality requirements. as such, no copyright is attached, and technically yes, anyone could release myth's code, but since the actual executable file contains rockstars code and myths code intermingled in a way that they can only really be released together, rockstar would be the only one legally allowed to distribute it.
when you create an unauthorized derivative work, the copyright for your derivative is owned by the creator of the original. Assuming that Myth's crack was in fact an unauthorized derivative work, which it almost certainly was, no new copyright was created, instead the derivative work is still covered by Rockstar's copyright on the original, and Rockstar can do with it what they please.
just because they usually distribute a new exe instead of a patch doesn't really change anything. Unless they wrote the new exe from scratch, which I highly doubt, it's still an unauthorized derivative work, and thus Rockstar owns the copyright to it.
From TFA:
Flash runs on more than 800 million mobile phones, manufactured by all the top 20 handset makers except Apple.
As far as I know, Flash runs on zero million phones right now. FlashLite runs on a few, but certainly not 800 million.
If that's how it "actually works" then it doesn't work. The dude made two grand; The Plant made several hundred thousand and was a failure.
umm, he released The Green Mile serialized, and serialized novels have been around for a few hundred years. The book you're referring to is The Plant, but the experiment there was not serialization, it was some weird bastardization of the honor system where 75% of readers had to pay for him to keep writing.
Anybody who then purchases that title legitimately from that first owner cannot access the same content, content WHICH IS ON THE DISC
really, the servers that host online multiplayer games are on the disc? that's an impressive disc.
nowhere did he say it would hurt apple as a company, or give google a competitive edge. what he did say, and that it you made no attempt to refute, is that it would hurt apple's and microsoft's attempts to push proprietary codecs as standard.
along those same lines: facts are apolitical, but any given interpretation of those facts is unlikely to be as unbiased.
*sigh* no. It's not illegal and he wasn't charged with "trying to sell his kids on CL." The title contradicts the body.
title says 'accused' not charged with, and the summary does state what he was actually charged with. And are you honestly claiming that it would not have been illegal if he had been trying to sell his kids on craigslist?