Blaming your actions and choices n prior choices made by someone else is just plain immature and reeks of the "Well *he* started it..." line that virtually every parent has heard from their kids when trying to diffuse a situation involving them with another child.
I'm just somewhat surprised that someone who apparently hasn't grasped the concept of personal accountability has a good enough work ethic to even get a job where they would have the ability to do what he did.
Actually, that timed set of subtitles is a translation of the verbal audio, and as such a derivative work... you need permission from the copyright holder for that unless fair use can be determined to apply. If you are making money for it, then it cannot possibly be fair use.
Actually, the Obamas went on vacation over a week *before* Trump made that accusation.
I'm not saying Trump wasn't wiretapped in 2016, but the notion that the Obama administration or the former president, in particular, had anything to do with it rests on pretty shaky ground, if you ask me.
That's not considered a vulnerability in chip/pin. It can be mitigated by safe practices such as being aware of your surroundings enough to realize that someone is looking over your shoulder. Given that the key pads are often covered and only really visible from about the point of view of the person entering the code, a shoulder peeper would have to in pretty close proximity, close enough to typically be considered invasive of personal space. Barring a disability tthere is little reason to not be able to secure your own surroundings before entering the pin.
As far as I'm aware, the fundamental idea behind breaking chip/pin is to exploit the fallback system to bypass the need to actually know the pin and make the system believe that it fell back to signature based authentication. it seems me that similar vulnerabilities would exist here.
The guy is no longer president, what administration are they talking about? To the best of my knowledge, since leaving office, Barack Obama seems to be taking a bit of a breather from politics for at least the time being. Sounds like baseless finger-pointing, if you ask me.
As has been already described above, the freedom that the GPL offers is that the amount of freedom that anyone has is never reduced... you suggest that you can make a non-free version without reducing the freeom because you allege that the free version is available somewhere... but what if you either already own or buy out the infrastructure that was being used to distribute it? You didn't own the original copyright, but if you control the communication infrastructure by which the author provided it to you, then you have the means to prevent further distribution of the original, and while that may be unethical, it certainly isn't illegal. Nothing in the BSD license stops you from preventing other people from accessing the content where you got it from, so it leaves a loophole with which companies or people wiht sufficient resources can still reduce the amount of freedom that people have with the work without violating any copyright law, while the GPL ensures that reducing any amount of freedom of the work results in a copyright violation. While you might still be able to suffocate a GPL work in the same way, you would not legally be able to make any copies of the work or create derivative works without infringing on copyright, so there can be no net benefit for anyone to do so.
Copyright says that unless fair use is deterrmined to apply (and derivative works are *never* fair use), you can't make a copy of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL does not change that, it simply grants such permission to anyone who agrees to its terms. Yes, the GPL limits what you can do, but in fact copyright has already done that anyways, so your limitations are actually no greater under the GPL than they would be on a non-free work. The GPL only ensures that you pass along the same freedoms that you were given to those that you distribute it to. Nothing more, nothing less.
It wouldn't be a mistake to release a work under the GPL if the author still did not want others to make derivative works without permission. Given that they didn't release the source code at all, that is likely to be the case..
The GPL does not change copyright law.... you always need permission from the copyright holder of a work to copy it, and the GPL does not change that. The GPL outlines the prerequisites a person is expected to adhere to in order to gain such permission. If you are the sole copyright holder, you can GPL your own work and still make closed-source derivative works of it, since you cannot infringe upon your own copyright. If you are not the only copyright holder, then of course, you cannot do this, because to copy the work you still need permission from all of the copyright holders, and without contacting each one individually and obtaining specific permission to copy the work under different terms, the terms of the GPL would apply by default.
I'm guessing from your post that you just haven't realized that this article is talking about haptic devices that you physically wear on your person while using VR... if you aren't wearing them, you don't get any physical sensation, so this tech would be pretty useless at achieving what you are describing. Haptic devices are not a new thing... the somewhat novel aspect here is how they are being used in VR. Nothing more. To do what you were suggesting would need tech that could wirelessly stimulate the muscles of people remotely, which while certainly imaginable, is something so far removed from this that it's senseless to suggest that what this article was talking about could somehow suggest its feasibility.
Perhaps... but I think it is unlikely that singularity level AI and humans would be competing for the same sorts of things, so I don' t think that would apply.
But it does *not* leave them with the same amount of *actual* control they were legally entitled to. That is what is being taken.... whether you want to argue that they ever actually had this control or are actually entitled to have this type of control is moot. In this way, copyright is simply a kind of legal extension to the natural right of control over one's work that they would have if they never published at all. It only works if everyone agrees to participate in it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value to the rights holder, and doesn't mean that infringing on it takes away some of the control that the rights holder was supposed to have had.
Better yet, the time has come for people to recognise that ratings on sites like IMDB do not necessarily reflect the views of people who might have even ever seen the movie in question, but may also be part of an deliberate effort to misrepresent it (either positively or negatively) by a group of people who have a common agenda with respect to the work, and should be taken with a sufficiently large grain of salt.
Whether the tights holder "should" retain control or not is irrelevant. If you copy without permission then you are taking away some of the control the they were legally entitled to by virtue of having the copyright. Whether this legal entitlement equates to a morally justified entitlement is another matter, and does not change what is being taken
I would expect by making the air dryer by taking moisture out, you would probably also proportionally increase the rate at which water evaporates into it, so if enough people used these, I could totally see a consequence being a lower amount of rainfall overall. While this is not directly problematic for us, being able to extract all of the water that we need from the atmosphere, (and not a problem for the atmosphere, since it will get re-evaporated), this could be a very big problem for plant life which depends on rainfall to thrive, and so by virtue of the food chain may impact us very adversely.
Indeed... and a driverless truck wouldn't decide to just start to change into your lane when you are behind its cab but still beside its trailer on a two-lane city road.
Lighten up.... it's just a website.... The cheat code has nothing to do with the currency.
And it's not like the cheat code being there stops the web site from being useful for people that wanted to seriously look at the information. Meanwhile, the easter egg is a reminder for those that encountered it that those that work at the mint aren't afraid to have a little fun at the same time as they deliver informative content.
And for the record, yes.... Canadians *DO* have a history of not trying to take ourselves too seriously. That doesn't mean we can't or won't be serious when the stakes are high, but it also means that we know that if you try to take everything in life with absolute solemnity, you are just going to a grim and brooding mess that doesn't know how to actually enjoy life before it is gone.
Actually I had the dimensions reversed but I only realized after hitting submit. A4 is slightly narrower and taller but it still definitely fits in most North American binders just fine.
I can only assume that the surgery required to remove that stick from your anal cavity was unsuccessful. How unfortunate that you appear to have become acclimated to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Blaming your actions and choices n prior choices made by someone else is just plain immature and reeks of the "Well *he* started it..." line that virtually every parent has heard from their kids when trying to diffuse a situation involving them with another child.
I'm just somewhat surprised that someone who apparently hasn't grasped the concept of personal accountability has a good enough work ethic to even get a job where they would have the ability to do what he did.
Actually, that timed set of subtitles is a translation of the verbal audio, and as such a derivative work... you need permission from the copyright holder for that unless fair use can be determined to apply. If you are making money for it, then it cannot possibly be fair use.
Irrelevant... it is still a derivative work.
Actually, the Obamas went on vacation over a week *before* Trump made that accusation.
I'm not saying Trump wasn't wiretapped in 2016, but the notion that the Obama administration or the former president, in particular, had anything to do with it rests on pretty shaky ground, if you ask me.
That's not considered a vulnerability in chip/pin. It can be mitigated by safe practices such as being aware of your surroundings enough to realize that someone is looking over your shoulder. Given that the key pads are often covered and only really visible from about the point of view of the person entering the code, a shoulder peeper would have to in pretty close proximity, close enough to typically be considered invasive of personal space. Barring a disability tthere is little reason to not be able to secure your own surroundings before entering the pin.
As far as I'm aware, the fundamental idea behind breaking chip/pin is to exploit the fallback system to bypass the need to actually know the pin and make the system believe that it fell back to signature based authentication. it seems me that similar vulnerabilities would exist here.
The guy is no longer president, what administration are they talking about? To the best of my knowledge, since leaving office, Barack Obama seems to be taking a bit of a breather from politics for at least the time being. Sounds like baseless finger-pointing, if you ask me.
No. Only a little less than half of that
Touche. Yes, my bad for overgeneralizing.
As has been already described above, the freedom that the GPL offers is that the amount of freedom that anyone has is never reduced... you suggest that you can make a non-free version without reducing the freeom because you allege that the free version is available somewhere... but what if you either already own or buy out the infrastructure that was being used to distribute it? You didn't own the original copyright, but if you control the communication infrastructure by which the author provided it to you, then you have the means to prevent further distribution of the original, and while that may be unethical, it certainly isn't illegal. Nothing in the BSD license stops you from preventing other people from accessing the content where you got it from, so it leaves a loophole with which companies or people wiht sufficient resources can still reduce the amount of freedom that people have with the work without violating any copyright law, while the GPL ensures that reducing any amount of freedom of the work results in a copyright violation. While you might still be able to suffocate a GPL work in the same way, you would not legally be able to make any copies of the work or create derivative works without infringing on copyright, so there can be no net benefit for anyone to do so.
Copyright says that unless fair use is deterrmined to apply (and derivative works are *never* fair use), you can't make a copy of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL does not change that, it simply grants such permission to anyone who agrees to its terms. Yes, the GPL limits what you can do, but in fact copyright has already done that anyways, so your limitations are actually no greater under the GPL than they would be on a non-free work. The GPL only ensures that you pass along the same freedoms that you were given to those that you distribute it to. Nothing more, nothing less.
It wouldn't be a mistake to release a work under the GPL if the author still did not want others to make derivative works without permission. Given that they didn't release the source code at all, that is likely to be the case..
The GPL does not change copyright law.... you always need permission from the copyright holder of a work to copy it, and the GPL does not change that. The GPL outlines the prerequisites a person is expected to adhere to in order to gain such permission. If you are the sole copyright holder, you can GPL your own work and still make closed-source derivative works of it, since you cannot infringe upon your own copyright. If you are not the only copyright holder, then of course, you cannot do this, because to copy the work you still need permission from all of the copyright holders, and without contacting each one individually and obtaining specific permission to copy the work under different terms, the terms of the GPL would apply by default.
I'm guessing from your post that you just haven't realized that this article is talking about haptic devices that you physically wear on your person while using VR... if you aren't wearing them, you don't get any physical sensation, so this tech would be pretty useless at achieving what you are describing. Haptic devices are not a new thing... the somewhat novel aspect here is how they are being used in VR. Nothing more. To do what you were suggesting would need tech that could wirelessly stimulate the muscles of people remotely, which while certainly imaginable, is something so far removed from this that it's senseless to suggest that what this article was talking about could somehow suggest its feasibility.
Perhaps... but I think it is unlikely that singularity level AI and humans would be competing for the same sorts of things, so I don' t think that would apply.
But it does *not* leave them with the same amount of *actual* control they were legally entitled to. That is what is being taken.... whether you want to argue that they ever actually had this control or are actually entitled to have this type of control is moot. In this way, copyright is simply a kind of legal extension to the natural right of control over one's work that they would have if they never published at all. It only works if everyone agrees to participate in it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value to the rights holder, and doesn't mean that infringing on it takes away some of the control that the rights holder was supposed to have had.
Better yet, the time has come for people to recognise that ratings on sites like IMDB do not necessarily reflect the views of people who might have even ever seen the movie in question, but may also be part of an deliberate effort to misrepresent it (either positively or negatively) by a group of people who have a common agenda with respect to the work, and should be taken with a sufficiently large grain of salt.
Why? Consider there are numerous forms of life on this planet... it is evident that the more intelligent species can coexist with the lesser.
There is no reason to presume that the singularity would represent humanity's extinction.
Whether the tights holder "should" retain control or not is irrelevant. If you copy without permission then you are taking away some of the control the they were legally entitled to by virtue of having the copyright. Whether this legal entitlement equates to a morally justified entitlement is another matter, and does not change what is being taken
I would expect by making the air dryer by taking moisture out, you would probably also proportionally increase the rate at which water evaporates into it, so if enough people used these, I could totally see a consequence being a lower amount of rainfall overall. While this is not directly problematic for us, being able to extract all of the water that we need from the atmosphere, (and not a problem for the atmosphere, since it will get re-evaporated), this could be a very big problem for plant life which depends on rainfall to thrive, and so by virtue of the food chain may impact us very adversely.
Indeed... and a driverless truck wouldn't decide to just start to change into your lane when you are behind its cab but still beside its trailer on a two-lane city road.
Damn scary sometimes, those truck drivers.
At least bus drivers shoulder check.
Copying copyrighted content without permission does take something away from somebody else: the control.
Lighten up.... it's just a website.... The cheat code has nothing to do with the currency.
And it's not like the cheat code being there stops the web site from being useful for people that wanted to seriously look at the information. Meanwhile, the easter egg is a reminder for those that encountered it that those that work at the mint aren't afraid to have a little fun at the same time as they deliver informative content.
And for the record, yes.... Canadians *DO* have a history of not trying to take ourselves too seriously. That doesn't mean we can't or won't be serious when the stakes are high, but it also means that we know that if you try to take everything in life with absolute solemnity, you are just going to a grim and brooding mess that doesn't know how to actually enjoy life before it is gone.
Pretty spiffy. Which cell phone?
Actually I had the dimensions reversed but I only realized after hitting submit. A4 is slightly narrower and taller but it still definitely fits in most North American binders just fine.
I can only assume that the surgery required to remove that stick from your anal cavity was unsuccessful. How unfortunate that you appear to have become acclimated to it.