I can see how you could have misunderstood that on first glance, but it is obvious that Stephen Hawking is playing the role of "Very III" in the new movie "Hospital". "Very III" is a zany medbot with a heart of gold(literally, who knew that common gold would be the material needed to stabilize cold fusion?) and Hawking will be providing the voice work.
I'm not saying that I necessarily agree, but I think they are considering this from a parent's viewpoint. They are stating that a newborn child's life is less important than the mother's, but once you are nearing the end of your life, your child's life at that point has become more valuable. It is really a tough call, and noone should ever need to make that decision, but there have to be some circumstances where there were no other options and someone has to make that decision, your self/spouse or your child.
And all it needs to do it is increase your boot time by about threefold, use several hundred megs of system memory, scan your files at a glacial pace, and nag at you every 5 seconds that "everything is OK" or "Your subscription is about to expire". Oh, did I mention it comes with an taskbar toolbar so you can tell that it is still working in-between the pop-ups? All for the low, low price of $59.99 a year*.
Sincerely, Symantec Software "Where good software goes to die a slow painful death"
*For new customers only, you can get the first 6 months for just 1 first-born child!!
Mod parent up. Every argument against the GPL that I have seen boils down to the above.
To summarize, if you do not want to abide by the license the copyright owner gives to their software, then you can: attempt to buy it from them under a different license, use different code under a license you agree with, or write it yourself. It is the same with closed source. By releasing their code under the GPL, they are giving you those options plus the option to use and modify the code for free as long as you comply with the license(which only applies to distribution). With BSD type licensed software, you are pretty much free to do whatever with it.
Flashblock is fantastic and comes highly recommended. For Youtube specifically, I would still recommend the greasemonkey script I linked earlier. It defaults you to the HD version, resizes the video object to match 720p resolution, and if you change autoplay to false it starts buffering the video but waits for you to click play.
I hate this as well, and use a greasemonkey script to stop that behavior. Turning this off by default would drastically reduce rick-rolling and might even improve their bandwidth. Or, if they don't mind using the same bandwidth, they could start buffering the video upon page load. This would improve user experience for those with low bandwidth so that they don't have as much stuttering.
Seriously, its like he thinks the internet is just a big dumptruck. Everyone knows that it is a series of tubes. All those lawyers would clog the tubes. It might take one of my staff a whole day to send me an internet again.
If I live in an ugly-looking neighborhood, and I'm applying for a job elsewhere, I don't want the potential employer to Google the home address from my job application, see a bunch of run-down houses, and reject the application for that reason.
And whats to stop them from driving down the street your house is on and doing the same thing? What if they know the area and don't need to check it out? You are talking about a problem of discrimination that is not solved by not allowing Google to take pictures of residential streets for Streetview.
Google Street View and many other technologies undermine that by making it harder for me to conceal facts about myself that, by societal standards, I'm justified to conceal.
If you want to conceal the side of your property facing a public street, then get a fence. Your neighborhood could also organize to make the street privately maintained and gated. You have given no justifiable reason to restrict another entity's rights.
This would make the most sense(and I made a similar comment in a previous article about the CSIRO-Buffalo Tech case), but from what I gather from other posts that is not how it works in the real world(or at least in the US). In order to design and manufacture chips for OEMs to use, they should be required to obtain special licensing that transfers downstream. That way, Broadcom would pay the license, and then Buffalo or Linksys or whoever can make a wireless card using the chip without having to pay yet another license for the same part. Then, Dell or HP would not need to pay yet another license for the chip in the wireless card that they are including in the computers they sell.
However, it seems the way it currently works, you could theoretically be sued for selling a used Dell on eBay with a wireless card in it. Obviously that wouldn't be worth the effort, but what about someone selling used systems in bulk?
Seriously, wtf? I understand that there needs to be a password reset mechanism on the physical box, or the password kept in escrow in case a rogue sysadmin gets fired and exacts their revenge. But giving EVERY user privileges to su just seems retarded and a huge breech of security. I can see no good reason whatsoever for allowing any user to su. Users locking other users from access when they shouldn't is a disciplinary problem, not a technical one. This is akin to a bank manager locking all of the assistant managers out of the vault requiring all access to go through him. If those assistants need access to the vault to complete their job, they should go over the manager's head to get him disciplined or fired. They shouldn't crack open the vault with explosives (patching the kernel to gain access). Hmm, I think that analogy needs more car, anyone have a better one?
I agree. My statement is a reflection of the current state of affairs. It should be none of their business. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty" and similar protections from the government? It seems like the government is slowly shifting toward a dictatorship and it scares the shit out of me. This is not a anti-republican(though many of the big steps were taken under Bush) or anti-democrat rant. Both sides are yanking our rights out from under us under the guise of "stopping terrorism", "saving the children", and the "war on drugs".
I never said that I feel it is immoral. However, having a VPN account with a website full of "illegal" materials might put you under suspicion with the authorities. However, if the number of users grows large enough, it likely wouldn't be worth pursuing.
I believe you are thinking of mp3.com. Napster was found liable of the following:
(1) That its users were directly infringing the plaintiff's copyright; (2) That Napster was liable for contributory infringement of the plaintiff's copyright; and (3) That Napster was liable for vicarious infringement of the plaintiff's copyright.
While I'm not condoning copyright infringement here (which, while you can be sued for it, is not the same as theft because it does not actually deprive them of anything tangible, "possible sales" are not a tangible thing to be stolen, otherwise it would be illegal for a company to compete with another company), with a subscription service, you do not get to keep the files. If you cancel your subscription, those files are deactivated unless you remove the DRM. Removing the DRM is illegal according to the DMCA, and might actually get you in more trouble than copyright infringement. While being on the moral and legal high ground by not downloading and/or distributing copyrighted materials is noble indeed and may be worth the restrictions and cost of a subscription service, it is certainly not the same. BTW, IANAL.
Well, they were able to torture and imprison you without trial for "terrorist activities". They are able to take your laptop away for having encryption at a border search. I'd say that, realistically, they could probably have a warrant issued(or would just illegally search and seize) against you for having a VPN account with a web site filled with "illegal" material. Just because they shouldn't doesn't mean they won't.
Sounds like VIA would be the real winner here, assuming they have an x86_64 license. Both AMD and Intel would be unable to produce chips (well intel would only have 32-bit chips and their own 64-bit tech, itanium I think).
Slashdot Mirror
I can see how you could have misunderstood that on first glance, but it is obvious that Stephen Hawking is playing the role of "Very III" in the new movie "Hospital". "Very III" is a zany medbot with a heart of gold(literally, who knew that common gold would be the material needed to stabilize cold fusion?) and Hawking will be providing the voice work.
I'm not saying that I necessarily agree, but I think they are considering this from a parent's viewpoint. They are stating that a newborn child's life is less important than the mother's, but once you are nearing the end of your life, your child's life at that point has become more valuable. It is really a tough call, and noone should ever need to make that decision, but there have to be some circumstances where there were no other options and someone has to make that decision, your self/spouse or your child.
And all it needs to do it is increase your boot time by about threefold, use several hundred megs of system memory, scan your files at a glacial pace, and nag at you every 5 seconds that "everything is OK" or "Your subscription is about to expire". Oh, did I mention it comes with an taskbar toolbar so you can tell that it is still working in-between the pop-ups? All for the low, low price of $59.99 a year*.
Sincerely,
Symantec Software
"Where good software goes to die a slow painful death"
*For new customers only, you can get the first 6 months for just 1 first-born child!!
And an ID10T (eye-dee-one-zero-tee) error when explaining it to them over the phone.
Mod parent up. Every argument against the GPL that I have seen boils down to the above.
To summarize, if you do not want to abide by the license the copyright owner gives to their software, then you can: attempt to buy it from them under a different license, use different code under a license you agree with, or write it yourself. It is the same with closed source. By releasing their code under the GPL, they are giving you those options plus the option to use and modify the code for free as long as you comply with the license(which only applies to distribution). With BSD type licensed software, you are pretty much free to do whatever with it.
The book's worth reading. Prior to disneyfication, Bambi kicks righteous ass when he grows up.
Wouldn't have been a fawn at that point, would he?
Flashblock is fantastic and comes highly recommended. For Youtube specifically, I would still recommend the greasemonkey script I linked earlier. It defaults you to the HD version, resizes the video object to match 720p resolution, and if you change autoplay to false it starts buffering the video but waits for you to click play.
I'd rather not think about it.
How the hell did a screencap of my mom's computer end up there, and who made it?!?!
I hate this as well, and use a greasemonkey script to stop that behavior. Turning this off by default would drastically reduce rick-rolling and might even improve their bandwidth. Or, if they don't mind using the same bandwidth, they could start buffering the video upon page load. This would improve user experience for those with low bandwidth so that they don't have as much stuttering.
/dev/random might be a little more fun.
Seriously, its like he thinks the internet is just a big dumptruck. Everyone knows that it is a series of tubes. All those lawyers would clog the tubes. It might take one of my staff a whole day to send me an internet again.
Sincerely,
Ted Stevens, former Senator
If I live in an ugly-looking neighborhood, and I'm applying for a job elsewhere, I don't want the potential employer to Google the home address from my job application, see a bunch of run-down houses, and reject the application for that reason.
And whats to stop them from driving down the street your house is on and doing the same thing? What if they know the area and don't need to check it out? You are talking about a problem of discrimination that is not solved by not allowing Google to take pictures of residential streets for Streetview.
Google Street View and many other technologies undermine that by making it harder for me to conceal facts about myself that, by societal standards, I'm justified to conceal.
If you want to conceal the side of your property facing a public street, then get a fence. Your neighborhood could also organize to make the street privately maintained and gated. You have given no justifiable reason to restrict another entity's rights.
This would make the most sense(and I made a similar comment in a previous article about the CSIRO-Buffalo Tech case), but from what I gather from other posts that is not how it works in the real world(or at least in the US). In order to design and manufacture chips for OEMs to use, they should be required to obtain special licensing that transfers downstream. That way, Broadcom would pay the license, and then Buffalo or Linksys or whoever can make a wireless card using the chip without having to pay yet another license for the same part. Then, Dell or HP would not need to pay yet another license for the chip in the wireless card that they are including in the computers they sell.
However, it seems the way it currently works, you could theoretically be sued for selling a used Dell on eBay with a wireless card in it. Obviously that wouldn't be worth the effort, but what about someone selling used systems in bulk?
Seriously, wtf? I understand that there needs to be a password reset mechanism on the physical box, or the password kept in escrow in case a rogue sysadmin gets fired and exacts their revenge. But giving EVERY user privileges to su just seems retarded and a huge breech of security. I can see no good reason whatsoever for allowing any user to su. Users locking other users from access when they shouldn't is a disciplinary problem, not a technical one. This is akin to a bank manager locking all of the assistant managers out of the vault requiring all access to go through him. If those assistants need access to the vault to complete their job, they should go over the manager's head to get him disciplined or fired. They shouldn't crack open the vault with explosives (patching the kernel to gain access). Hmm, I think that analogy needs more car, anyone have a better one?
I agree. My statement is a reflection of the current state of affairs. It should be none of their business. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty" and similar protections from the government? It seems like the government is slowly shifting toward a dictatorship and it scares the shit out of me. This is not a anti-republican(though many of the big steps were taken under Bush) or anti-democrat rant. Both sides are yanking our rights out from under us under the guise of "stopping terrorism", "saving the children", and the "war on drugs".
I never said that I feel it is immoral. However, having a VPN account with a website full of "illegal" materials might put you under suspicion with the authorities. However, if the number of users grows large enough, it likely wouldn't be worth pursuing.
Excellent point, thanks. The scary thing is that Sweden seems to be looking to make copyright enforcement more strict as a result of all of this.
I believe you are thinking of mp3.com. Napster was found liable of the following:
(1) That its users were directly infringing the plaintiff's copyright; (2) That Napster was liable for contributory infringement of the plaintiff's copyright; and (3) That Napster was liable for vicarious infringement of the plaintiff's copyright.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Legal_challenges
Good point, and I can only hope that it does come true. However, I remain skeptical as things are not looking good:
Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA
While I'm not condoning copyright infringement here (which, while you can be sued for it, is not the same as theft because it does not actually deprive them of anything tangible, "possible sales" are not a tangible thing to be stolen, otherwise it would be illegal for a company to compete with another company), with a subscription service, you do not get to keep the files. If you cancel your subscription, those files are deactivated unless you remove the DRM. Removing the DRM is illegal according to the DMCA, and might actually get you in more trouble than copyright infringement. While being on the moral and legal high ground by not downloading and/or distributing copyrighted materials is noble indeed and may be worth the restrictions and cost of a subscription service, it is certainly not the same. BTW, IANAL.
Well, they were able to torture and imprison you without trial for "terrorist activities". They are able to take your laptop away for having encryption at a border search. I'd say that, realistically, they could probably have a warrant issued(or would just illegally search and seize) against you for having a VPN account with a web site filled with "illegal" material. Just because they shouldn't doesn't mean they won't.
Sounds like VIA would be the real winner here, assuming they have an x86_64 license. Both AMD and Intel would be unable to produce chips (well intel would only have 32-bit chips and their own 64-bit tech, itanium I think).
Yes, because overseas, anonymous VPN accounts are totally new and have never been used before for nefarious purposes...
Tell that to the old Napster.