Granted... the number of times I've driven somebody who was legally blind anyplace I can count on my fingers. I don't know how many times I use a cell phone while driving.
But I only ever use voice-activated bluetooth while driving. If something I heard on the phone even started to divert my attention from driving, I would be rapidly finding a place to pull over.... telling the person on the other end I would call them back, if necessary.
I was already pissed that my existing car had an ipod-only connection
Apparently, however, it did not piss you off enough to not actually buy the car in the first place. This is like being pissed off that the Hummer you bought won't fit into the motorcycle parking spots that you used to use.
Hands free phones are no more inherently distracting than a passenger in the car. Ever driven somebody who was blind someplace? The conversation flow identical to being on a cell phone.
Some people drive better with a quart of booze in them
Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to support this, or are you just talking out of your ass?
I would sorely love to see any study that tried to show how, in certain people, having alcohol in their system actually reduces their reaction times.
No argument about your dangerous driver position, however.
In foreign countries, I have seen breathalyzers in bars
I've heard of this too, and I think it's the about the dumbest idea in the world. If you think you need to check your alcohol level before you drive, then you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place. Whether or not one falls within the legal limit is entirely irrelevant - if you think you might have been drinking enough that you shouldn't be driving, then why would you think that your driving will be any different than somebody who is *JUST* over the legal limit? Either give your keys to somebody you trust, or take a cab. It won't kill anybody, while driving after drinking could.
True... but if Canadians know that it is not permitted, then they will realize that any robocalls they get concerning such matters should not be trusted. They will further immediately know that they should report the call to the RCMP.
My complaint wasn't about lack of successful software, I was complaing about calling something a standard when nobody is really particularly close to following it yet.
Copyright was created to help ensure steady profits from a published work
This is incorrect. Copyright was created to give people incentive to publish in the first place, so that society could benefit from a continual influx of new published works.
Sadly, this is not what many people think of copyright today.
I expect to see the first complete C++11 compiler sometime in 2012
I expect to see the first complete C++11 compiler sometime after I see the apocalypse.
Oh right... I guess that would be December 2012, wouldn't it?:)
Seriously... while a lot of compilers implement some of the features, I really don't think there's a hope in hell of seeing any real progression to adopting the standard. With C, the standard developed around what many compilers were already doing... ditto with the original C++ spec. But C++11 describes a standard that absolutely nobody has ever got anywhere close to, so I don't imagine that there's going to be a lot of drive to adopt it.
Before the invention of the printing press, creators had some level of assurance that their works would not be widely copied by unauthorized parties by virtue of the fact that copying was so tedious and error prone, that the sheer difficulties involved in making a copy kept unauthorized copies from being problematic for creators.
After the printing press was developed, things shifted somewhat. Creators still wanted the exclusivity that they formerly had, and would be inclined to self-censor, only releasing portions of their works, or distributing only to very small groups of people so that they could retain the control they formerly enjoyed. The concept of copyright was developed so that creators could publish widely, and continue have some assurance that their works would not be copied without authorization, whikle society as a whole could be enriched by the ongoing publication of new works.
So ultimately, copyright was created as an incentive to publish. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less. It may also allow the holder to generate a profit if their work is sufficiently in demand, but this is more of a consequence of the way the exclusivity that copyright offers affects supply and demand in a capitalistic society.
The incentive to publish is important because with an ongoing influx of new published works, society gets to benefit from them, becoming a culturally rich and diverse civilization.
It's worth noting that even most people who currently release their works for free still actively choose to *not* put their works into public domain - clearly the concept of the exclusivity that copyright offers is important to creators, even today.
Do away with copyright, and we will return to the days shortly after the invention of the printing press and prior to the invention of copyright, where most of the good creators will tend to self-censor, and not release their works publicly at all. The general public's only alternatives for content would be stuff that was funded by philanthropists or the government, which would not be terribly likely to have a diverse range of topics, or will simply face an eternal deluge of public-domain cat videos on Youtube, and otherwise advertisement-laden content.
...they will lose their jobs for not publishing frequently enough.
and
The move is part of a wider cost-cutting plans designed to pay for new buildings and refurbishment to the university.
So what is the real reason? Are they being fired for not doing their job properly, or are they being laid off as a cost-saving measure? There is a world of difference between these two, since in some jurisdictions the former reason may cause delays in unemployment benefits while an investigation confirms that they were not discharged for ethical misconduct (which could make them ineligible for any unemployment benefits), while the latter simply means that the university will not be hiring replacements anytime soon (and they can receive unemployment benefits normally).
If you ask me, this really smells like somebody at the university was wanting to lay them off anyways for purposes of cutting back costs, and felt like they needed a less selfish-sounding reason or something.
Regardless, however... it's still very strange that both such reasons are mentioned.
No... it's more like really only the rabid RMS fanbois call it that.
The rest of us call it "Linux". It's no more really called "Gnu/Linux", than the system I used at University was really called "Gnu/AIX" simply because of all the Gnu software that was installed... or Cygwin is called "Gnu/Cygwin", because of all the Gnu software that comes installed with it.
The genie is out of the bottle. The version that people have downloaded will be eternally freely available and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. You might modify future versions of the product, but unless the future version adds significant value to the product, it will not dillute the availability of the other version (and even then, it still might not change things).
If you add DRM, somebody, somewhere, will take it as some sort of personal challenge to strip it, so... in a nutshell, you are hooped. You cannot stop piracy, and it is futile to even try.
About the only thing you might be able to do is, when you create a new version of the software (that adds significant value to the product), create a process at your location that automatically makes a complete custom build (as in, a custom build from source) for each and every customer, so that each unique copy of the software that each customer gets is somehow distinctive from every other customer's copy. Keep the details of what you do a secret... but make it pervasive, and make it complex - ideally extending in some way through every file that is part of your software.
If (or, more probably, when) a pirated version does turn up on some pirate web site somewhere, you could then download it yourself and check to see which customer the pirated version corresponds to (perhaps starting by comparing md5 hashes to narrow down the choices, and then to cover the remote possibility of md5 hash collisions, comparing the pirated version with each individual potential matching customer's build). This won't stop pirated copies from appearing, but it will at least give you tools to find the customer who initially copied the software illegally. Since your software is so expensive, it's a reasonable bet that the customer would be in a position to pay restitution. Even then, however, there is the possibility that none will match, so this still isn't a guarantee, but I think it's the best shot you might have.
The first time I saw the iBooks splash screen of an empty bookshelf after I had loaded some books onto the device, which coincidently was shortly after having done an update on the firmware, I panicked, thinking that I had lost all the stuff I had loaded into it.
I'd hardly say that have about a dozen or so different orthogonal layers in a PDF qualifies as merely saving a few milliseconds to create a single new PDF file... more like saving creating about a thousand of them. Granted, I don't use them all, but the publisher can't exactly be faulted for not knowing in advance exactly which layer combinations different people are going to want to have displayed.
And hey... I'm not a big of Adobe myself, but please...if anyone's going to suggest that I stop using Reader, give me another option that still allows me to utilize the PDF's that I *DO* use, and I'll certainly be willing to give it a try. If the alternative genuinely does properly handle all the pdf files that I use, then I'd be only to happy to make the switch. I have plenty of reasons to dislike Adobe already... they just aren't enough to make me want to lose access to the pdf documents that I have that use features which require it.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted... the number of times I've driven somebody who was legally blind anyplace I can count on my fingers. I don't know how many times I use a cell phone while driving.
But I only ever use voice-activated bluetooth while driving. If something I heard on the phone even started to divert my attention from driving, I would be rapidly finding a place to pull over.... telling the person on the other end I would call them back, if necessary.
... of what Siri is. BBT, Season 5, episode 14 clips
Apparently, however, it did not piss you off enough to not actually buy the car in the first place. This is like being pissed off that the Hummer you bought won't fit into the motorcycle parking spots that you used to use.
Hands free phones are no more inherently distracting than a passenger in the car. Ever driven somebody who was blind someplace? The conversation flow identical to being on a cell phone.
Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to support this, or are you just talking out of your ass?
I would sorely love to see any study that tried to show how, in certain people, having alcohol in their system actually reduces their reaction times.
No argument about your dangerous driver position, however.
I've heard of this too, and I think it's the about the dumbest idea in the world. If you think you need to check your alcohol level before you drive, then you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place. Whether or not one falls within the legal limit is entirely irrelevant - if you think you might have been drinking enough that you shouldn't be driving, then why would you think that your driving will be any different than somebody who is *JUST* over the legal limit? Either give your keys to somebody you trust, or take a cab. It won't kill anybody, while driving after drinking could.
Almost all free software, including both BSD and GPL software, is copyrighted. Copyright has *nothing* to do with profits.
Are they essentially claiming a copyright on a subset of reality?
If so, then wow. Just, wow.
Indeed... although I expect the GP poster probably meant tens of thousands of acres.
Not all... but at least some.
True... but if Canadians know that it is not permitted, then they will realize that any robocalls they get concerning such matters should not be trusted. They will further immediately know that they should report the call to the RCMP.
My complaint wasn't about lack of successful software, I was complaing about calling something a standard when nobody is really particularly close to following it yet.
Indeed... more of it than what I thought. Thanks for the link
But the concurrency stuff still seems quite far from being fully supported.
This is incorrect. Copyright was created to give people incentive to publish in the first place, so that society could benefit from a continual influx of new published works.
Sadly, this is not what many people think of copyright today.
FTA
I expect to see the first complete C++11 compiler sometime after I see the apocalypse.
Oh right... I guess that would be December 2012, wouldn't it? :)
Seriously... while a lot of compilers implement some of the features, I really don't think there's a hope in hell of seeing any real progression to adopting the standard. With C, the standard developed around what many compilers were already doing... ditto with the original C++ spec. But C++11 describes a standard that absolutely nobody has ever got anywhere close to, so I don't imagine that there's going to be a lot of drive to adopt it.
You misunderstand the point of copyright.
Before the invention of the printing press, creators had some level of assurance that their works would not be widely copied by unauthorized parties by virtue of the fact that copying was so tedious and error prone, that the sheer difficulties involved in making a copy kept unauthorized copies from being problematic for creators.
After the printing press was developed, things shifted somewhat. Creators still wanted the exclusivity that they formerly had, and would be inclined to self-censor, only releasing portions of their works, or distributing only to very small groups of people so that they could retain the control they formerly enjoyed. The concept of copyright was developed so that creators could publish widely, and continue have some assurance that their works would not be copied without authorization, whikle society as a whole could be enriched by the ongoing publication of new works.
So ultimately, copyright was created as an incentive to publish. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less. It may also allow the holder to generate a profit if their work is sufficiently in demand, but this is more of a consequence of the way the exclusivity that copyright offers affects supply and demand in a capitalistic society.
The incentive to publish is important because with an ongoing influx of new published works, society gets to benefit from them, becoming a culturally rich and diverse civilization.
It's worth noting that even most people who currently release their works for free still actively choose to *not* put their works into public domain - clearly the concept of the exclusivity that copyright offers is important to creators, even today.
Do away with copyright, and we will return to the days shortly after the invention of the printing press and prior to the invention of copyright, where most of the good creators will tend to self-censor, and not release their works publicly at all. The general public's only alternatives for content would be stuff that was funded by philanthropists or the government, which would not be terribly likely to have a diverse range of topics, or will simply face an eternal deluge of public-domain cat videos on Youtube, and otherwise advertisement-laden content.
But why does it seem like there is a disproportionately high percentage of these scams with Nigerian origin?
That levy is for private copying only. It does not in any way, shape, or form, legitimize piracy.
Compare
and
So what is the real reason? Are they being fired for not doing their job properly, or are they being laid off as a cost-saving measure? There is a world of difference between these two, since in some jurisdictions the former reason may cause delays in unemployment benefits while an investigation confirms that they were not discharged for ethical misconduct (which could make them ineligible for any unemployment benefits), while the latter simply means that the university will not be hiring replacements anytime soon (and they can receive unemployment benefits normally).
If you ask me, this really smells like somebody at the university was wanting to lay them off anyways for purposes of cutting back costs, and felt like they needed a less selfish-sounding reason or something.
Regardless, however... it's still very strange that both such reasons are mentioned.
According to the Gnu website, "Gnu" in this context is prounced with a hard G, and is not silent.
No... it's more like really only the rabid RMS fanbois call it that.
The rest of us call it "Linux". It's no more really called "Gnu/Linux", than the system I used at University was really called "Gnu/AIX" simply because of all the Gnu software that was installed... or Cygwin is called "Gnu/Cygwin", because of all the Gnu software that comes installed with it.
Will we end up with a 96,000 mile super-strong elevator cable effectively wrapping itself around the planet 4 times?
The genie is out of the bottle. The version that people have downloaded will be eternally freely available and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. You might modify future versions of the product, but unless the future version adds significant value to the product, it will not dillute the availability of the other version (and even then, it still might not change things).
If you add DRM, somebody, somewhere, will take it as some sort of personal challenge to strip it, so... in a nutshell, you are hooped. You cannot stop piracy, and it is futile to even try.
About the only thing you might be able to do is, when you create a new version of the software (that adds significant value to the product), create a process at your location that automatically makes a complete custom build (as in, a custom build from source) for each and every customer, so that each unique copy of the software that each customer gets is somehow distinctive from every other customer's copy. Keep the details of what you do a secret... but make it pervasive, and make it complex - ideally extending in some way through every file that is part of your software.
If (or, more probably, when) a pirated version does turn up on some pirate web site somewhere, you could then download it yourself and check to see which customer the pirated version corresponds to (perhaps starting by comparing md5 hashes to narrow down the choices, and then to cover the remote possibility of md5 hash collisions, comparing the pirated version with each individual potential matching customer's build). This won't stop pirated copies from appearing, but it will at least give you tools to find the customer who initially copied the software illegally. Since your software is so expensive, it's a reasonable bet that the customer would be in a position to pay restitution. Even then, however, there is the possibility that none will match, so this still isn't a guarantee, but I think it's the best shot you might have.
The first time I saw the iBooks splash screen of an empty bookshelf after I had loaded some books onto the device, which coincidently was shortly after having done an update on the firmware, I panicked, thinking that I had lost all the stuff I had loaded into it.
I'd hardly say that have about a dozen or so different orthogonal layers in a PDF qualifies as merely saving a few milliseconds to create a single new PDF file... more like saving creating about a thousand of them. Granted, I don't use them all, but the publisher can't exactly be faulted for not knowing in advance exactly which layer combinations different people are going to want to have displayed.
And hey... I'm not a big of Adobe myself, but please...if anyone's going to suggest that I stop using Reader, give me another option that still allows me to utilize the PDF's that I *DO* use, and I'll certainly be willing to give it a try. If the alternative genuinely does properly handle all the pdf files that I use, then I'd be only to happy to make the switch. I have plenty of reasons to dislike Adobe already... they just aren't enough to make me want to lose access to the pdf documents that I have that use features which require it.
What I meant to type was "... I have several PDF's that utilize Adobe's PDF layers..." missed a rather crucial word there.