I do not know... but not knowing how to implement an alternative doesn't mean that this is right.
Besides, as I said... how likely are they to take those experts seriously who will appear to have metaphorically "taken their bat and ball, and gone home", just because they didn't get their way?
Theaters will often have announce "no passes" on their listings for any new releases that are expected or (have been already shown) to be big draws. This does not apply to paid passes, of course... it typically only applies to the sort of passes that are offered as promotional material during special events, or the type of passes that you sometimes get with a cereal box.
Will SOPA affect the usage of the internet for people outside of the USA, but where a recursive DNS query might happen to travel through it (for example, somebody in mexico finding a domain that is based in Canada, or vice versa)?
It's been suggested that people who utilize DNSSEC can simply ignore SOPA, because SOPA explicitly states that nobody is required to make significant changes to their software or facilities to comply with it. Will organizations that use DNSSEC be later dragged into court for "enabling" copyright infringement? Will free software start to also suffer a similar fate?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to additional legislation that will require ISP's to prohibit their users from utilizing foreign DNS servers?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to censorship by IP address, when blocking domain names has been shown to be ineffective? And if so, owing to the lack of available IPv4 address space that can potentially make it inconvenient for somebody to bypass such censorship by switching IP's, will this create delays in supporting widespread IPv6 adoption, where the availability of trillions of IP addresses would make it arguably easier to bypass such censorship?
In the event of catastrophe, which has now happened to me 4 times in the last 5 years, I've been able to simply wipe the C: drive and start over (100% of my user data, including all user software settings, is always on drive D, and does not get affected by the reformat, so the only thing I have to do afterwards is reinstall the actual programs, which I have CD's for).
Today, you can't buy a computer with the disks for the OS. I've tried... stores simply do not have them, and are unwilling to get them in or offer them. While they have this so-called "recovery disk" creation software that allows you to use a couple of DVD's and make an image of your computer, the problem I have with this is that this image will include all the bloatware that comes bundled with the computer. All I want to do when I re-install windows is install *WINDOWS*.
I realize I'm not a typical customer... but that doesn't mean I wouldn't *BE* a customer if places would actually be accommodating to what my demands for a computer are.
Will it piss off a lot of people? Of course it will... but most people are not going to understand or even want to understand what the underlying reason is that these companies might have for objecting to the bill in the first place. To some, it might simply appear like they might be trying to manipulate the government into passing (or not passing) laws which only affect specific corporate interests, since so few people understand how important concepts like end-to-end communication actually are. The government could conceivably redirect all anger directed at them squarely at the companies that are conspiring to pull this off... and might even be able to swing convincing people that the companies are being the bad guys here. Indeed, a responsible government would have an obligation driven by their responsibility to *NOT* alter their policies simply in light of this proposed blackout - just as certainly as they would have an obligation to not surrender to ransom demands by any group of people who are objecting to particular government policies. The US government is considering SOPA because they are completely clueless, and do not understand how it will break the Internet. What is Google's, Amazon's, and Facebook's excuse? Retaliating against an unjust law with an even greater injustice that only hurts completely innocent or indifferent parties is not the answer.
I do not advocate SOPA for an instant... but this sort of proposed retaliation is just wrong. The government must be made to listen to the reasoning of how SOPA breaks some things that are very fundamental operating principles of the Internet. If they will not listen to experts telling them this now, how seriously are they liable to take those experts when they metaphorically take their bat and ball and go home, acting all too conspicuously like spoiled children who are only angry that they are not getting their way.
Will SOPA affect the usage of the internet for people outside of the USA, but where a recursive DNS query might happen to travel through it (for example, somebody in mexico finding a domain that is based in Canada, or vice versa)?
It's been suggested that people who utilize DNSSEC can simply ignore SOPA, because SOPA explicitly states that nobody is required to make significant changes to their software or facilities to comply with it. Will organizations that use DNSSEC be later dragged into court for "enabling" copyright infringement?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to additional legislation that will require ISP's to prohibit their users from utilizing foreign DNS servers?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to censorship by IP address, when blocking domain names has been shown to be ineffective? And if so, owing to the lack of available IPv4 address space that can potentially make it inconvenient for somebody to bypass such censorship by switching IP's, will this create delays in widespread IPv6 adoption, where the availability of trillions of IP addresses would make it easier to bypass such censorship?
Will all the people who download infringing content, when the person sharing it ends up having to pay their license fees, receive the same support they would as if the downloaders had bought a licensed copy directly from the original provider of the content?
How hard is it to sandbox a visit to a URL? Malicious or not, nothing is going to get out if the sandbox is properly designed... and it's not like it's hard to do, it just requires a bit of forethought and planning.
Being in Israel awaiting the return of Jesus might make them zealots, or, as you put it, fanatics... I don't see how that makes them fundamentalist, unless you perceive the two terms as synonymous. I would suggest that fundamentalists are those that represent the core ideals behind the religion, the most significant probably being belief in the absolute authenticity of their scriptures, and ongoing endeavoring to practice its values. Considering their actions speak questionably to with regards to this extremely fundamental principle to no small measure (since their scriptures state that nobody on earth knows or will ever know in advance when Jesus will return) , I really can't see how you can call them fundamentalist. Even the article you linked to on the subject does not use that term, and paints them as much more of a outlier movement within Christianity, rather than being representative of Christianity as a whole.
That's not a fundamentalist Christian group. Not anywhere even close. If you had labelled them a fringe group, which is much closer to what they evidently actually are, your comment probably would have been the subject of less criticism.
Use of a tow-truck to steal vehicles is not that commonly employed. Mostly owing to the amount of time that it takes to properly hook up a vehicle to a tow truck, the likelihood of discovery is exponentially higher. Although the action might appear innocuous to quite a few people, there is a huge risk of being questioned or even photographed, and a thief risks having to deal with both situations. Cars on private property can only be legitimately be towed with consent of the owner of the vehicle, or else by consent of the owner of the property, and proof of such authorization might be requested by someone who sees a car being hooked up. This is problematic for thieves who might want to employ such a technique... they are taking a 15 minute gamble that nobody who works there or sees them will care what they are doing. Finally, to discourage property owners from profiting from thefts on their own property, if a host of thefts from one particular place occur in too short a time, the owner of that place is probably going to be facing something just short of an inquisition to confirm that he or she is not somehow party to the thefts. In fact, I actually know one store owner who once was questioned about an unusual number of car thefts (not towed... just ordinary thefts) on his property, and he ended up having to invest in security cameras, which I had heard actually immediately made a differences in the number of car thefts happening there.
To the best of my knowledge, the engine-kill anti-theft device has never been circumvented by any thief who did not have legitimate keys to the car in the first place.
...the license is granting rights to the people they distribute to - ie customer
Actually, the license is granting rights to anyone who might want to redistribute the software, or create a derivative work. The GPL is not an end-user license.
GPL software is copyrighted. By default, that means that nobody can legally copy it (fair use notwithstanding) without any sort of explicit permission from the copyright holder (or agencies authorized by the copyright holder). The GPL explicitly grants permission to anyone to copy the work (and to create and distribute derivative works) *AS LONG AS* its provisions are abided by, and thus acts as written permission to do several things that, in absence of such a license, would have constituted a copyright violation. If a person does not abide by the constraints of the GPL, then they would not have had any permission to copy the work (or create and distribute a derivative work) in the first place, and would therefore be committing a copyright violation by doing so.
"Claiming it's their own might be a copyright violation"
Actually, it's plagiarism. The only time plagiarism is not illegal is if the amount copied and the purpose of the copy would have collectively fallen under the "fair use" umbrella.
If you are licensing your software under the GPL, then you are granting permission to everyone who abides by its terms to create derivative works of your software and distribute them however they desire, including selling them. The provisions of the GPL require only that one not charge any additional fees for the source code itself beyond, perhaps, material costs that might be involved in sending that code to them. They further are not under any obligation to distribute the source code to anyone who does not also receive a binary.
So they've made a derivative work of your GPL product, and as long as they provide the source code at no additional charge to anyone that they send their work to, and it is covered under the same license, then... well... that's what the GPL licenses them to do in the first place. If you wanted to piss the company off, and kill their business model, you could, if you really wanted to, purchase the license from them to obtain their modifications.... and because it must be GPL'd you could safely merge their derivative work into the main distribution tree and distribute it for free, and end up competing directly with them. In fact, actually, anyone even could do this... not just you. Of course, this is the chief reason why a lot of companies dislike the GPL in the first place, because they perceive it as "viral".
Slashdot Mirror
I do not know... but not knowing how to implement an alternative doesn't mean that this is right.
Besides, as I said... how likely are they to take those experts seriously who will appear to have metaphorically "taken their bat and ball, and gone home", just because they didn't get their way?
Theaters will often have announce "no passes" on their listings for any new releases that are expected or (have been already shown) to be big draws. This does not apply to paid passes, of course... it typically only applies to the sort of passes that are offered as promotional material during special events, or the type of passes that you sometimes get with a cereal box.
Will SOPA affect the usage of the internet for people outside of the USA, but where a recursive DNS query might happen to travel through it (for example, somebody in mexico finding a domain that is based in Canada, or vice versa)?
It's been suggested that people who utilize DNSSEC can simply ignore SOPA, because SOPA explicitly states that nobody is required to make significant changes to their software or facilities to comply with it. Will organizations that use DNSSEC be later dragged into court for "enabling" copyright infringement? Will free software start to also suffer a similar fate?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to additional legislation that will require ISP's to prohibit their users from utilizing foreign DNS servers?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to censorship by IP address, when blocking domain names has been shown to be ineffective? And if so, owing to the lack of available IPv4 address space that can potentially make it inconvenient for somebody to bypass such censorship by switching IP's, will this create delays in supporting widespread IPv6 adoption, where the availability of trillions of IP addresses would make it arguably easier to bypass such censorship?
In the event of catastrophe, which has now happened to me 4 times in the last 5 years, I've been able to simply wipe the C: drive and start over (100% of my user data, including all user software settings, is always on drive D, and does not get affected by the reformat, so the only thing I have to do afterwards is reinstall the actual programs, which I have CD's for).
Today, you can't buy a computer with the disks for the OS. I've tried... stores simply do not have them, and are unwilling to get them in or offer them. While they have this so-called "recovery disk" creation software that allows you to use a couple of DVD's and make an image of your computer, the problem I have with this is that this image will include all the bloatware that comes bundled with the computer. All I want to do when I re-install windows is install *WINDOWS*.
I realize I'm not a typical customer... but that doesn't mean I wouldn't *BE* a customer if places would actually be accommodating to what my demands for a computer are.
Will it piss off a lot of people? Of course it will... but most people are not going to understand or even want to understand what the underlying reason is that these companies might have for objecting to the bill in the first place. To some, it might simply appear like they might be trying to manipulate the government into passing (or not passing) laws which only affect specific corporate interests, since so few people understand how important concepts like end-to-end communication actually are. The government could conceivably redirect all anger directed at them squarely at the companies that are conspiring to pull this off... and might even be able to swing convincing people that the companies are being the bad guys here. Indeed, a responsible government would have an obligation driven by their responsibility to *NOT* alter their policies simply in light of this proposed blackout - just as certainly as they would have an obligation to not surrender to ransom demands by any group of people who are objecting to particular government policies. The US government is considering SOPA because they are completely clueless, and do not understand how it will break the Internet. What is Google's, Amazon's, and Facebook's excuse? Retaliating against an unjust law with an even greater injustice that only hurts completely innocent or indifferent parties is not the answer.
I do not advocate SOPA for an instant... but this sort of proposed retaliation is just wrong. The government must be made to listen to the reasoning of how SOPA breaks some things that are very fundamental operating principles of the Internet. If they will not listen to experts telling them this now, how seriously are they liable to take those experts when they metaphorically take their bat and ball and go home, acting all too conspicuously like spoiled children who are only angry that they are not getting their way.
Will SOPA affect the usage of the internet for people outside of the USA, but where a recursive DNS query might happen to travel through it (for example, somebody in mexico finding a domain that is based in Canada, or vice versa)?
It's been suggested that people who utilize DNSSEC can simply ignore SOPA, because SOPA explicitly states that nobody is required to make significant changes to their software or facilities to comply with it. Will organizations that use DNSSEC be later dragged into court for "enabling" copyright infringement?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to additional legislation that will require ISP's to prohibit their users from utilizing foreign DNS servers?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to censorship by IP address, when blocking domain names has been shown to be ineffective? And if so, owing to the lack of available IPv4 address space that can potentially make it inconvenient for somebody to bypass such censorship by switching IP's, will this create delays in widespread IPv6 adoption, where the availability of trillions of IP addresses would make it easier to bypass such censorship?
Will all the people who download infringing content, when the person sharing it ends up having to pay their license fees, receive the same support they would as if the downloaders had bought a licensed copy directly from the original provider of the content?
But this is slashdot. Who actually *reads* the articles?
I can't be the only one who immediately thought of the Apple 2c case when seeing the phone.
Yeah, but dev apps expire, and are a headache if you want an application to be permanently used.
And if not, one is compelled to wonder how they are getting their app onto a device that *ISN'T* on the app store...
Is their iPad jailbroken?
It was my understanding that apes do not possess any actual language.
If the planet is earth-like at all, it has, or at least had at one point, some amount of wate on it, by any remotely sane definition of "earth like".
How hard is it to sandbox a visit to a URL? Malicious or not, nothing is going to get out if the sandbox is properly designed... and it's not like it's hard to do, it just requires a bit of forethought and planning.
Being in Israel awaiting the return of Jesus might make them zealots, or, as you put it, fanatics... I don't see how that makes them fundamentalist, unless you perceive the two terms as synonymous. I would suggest that fundamentalists are those that represent the core ideals behind the religion, the most significant probably being belief in the absolute authenticity of their scriptures, and ongoing endeavoring to practice its values. Considering their actions speak questionably to with regards to this extremely fundamental principle to no small measure (since their scriptures state that nobody on earth knows or will ever know in advance when Jesus will return) , I really can't see how you can call them fundamentalist. Even the article you linked to on the subject does not use that term, and paints them as much more of a outlier movement within Christianity, rather than being representative of Christianity as a whole.
That's not a fundamentalist Christian group. Not anywhere even close. If you had labelled them a fringe group, which is much closer to what they evidently actually are, your comment probably would have been the subject of less criticism.
How do you drive away with a car equipped with an engine-kill system unless you have stolen the keys as well?
Use of a tow-truck to steal vehicles is not that commonly employed. Mostly owing to the amount of time that it takes to properly hook up a vehicle to a tow truck, the likelihood of discovery is exponentially higher. Although the action might appear innocuous to quite a few people, there is a huge risk of being questioned or even photographed, and a thief risks having to deal with both situations. Cars on private property can only be legitimately be towed with consent of the owner of the vehicle, or else by consent of the owner of the property, and proof of such authorization might be requested by someone who sees a car being hooked up. This is problematic for thieves who might want to employ such a technique... they are taking a 15 minute gamble that nobody who works there or sees them will care what they are doing. Finally, to discourage property owners from profiting from thefts on their own property, if a host of thefts from one particular place occur in too short a time, the owner of that place is probably going to be facing something just short of an inquisition to confirm that he or she is not somehow party to the thefts. In fact, I actually know one store owner who once was questioned about an unusual number of car thefts (not towed... just ordinary thefts) on his property, and he ended up having to invest in security cameras, which I had heard actually immediately made a differences in the number of car thefts happening there.
To the best of my knowledge, the engine-kill anti-theft device has never been circumvented by any thief who did not have legitimate keys to the car in the first place.
Actually, she just elected to have it wrapped... I don't know if she got to pick the wrapping paper.
Should I take this as anecdotal evidence that the notion of accurately predicting religion based on type of wrapping paper used is bogus?
Because that's what my wife selected last year when she bought me a gift from Amazon one year.
I really can't see any religion being tied to that
Actually, the license is granting rights to anyone who might want to redistribute the software, or create a derivative work. The GPL is not an end-user license.
GPL software is copyrighted. By default, that means that nobody can legally copy it (fair use notwithstanding) without any sort of explicit permission from the copyright holder (or agencies authorized by the copyright holder). The GPL explicitly grants permission to anyone to copy the work (and to create and distribute derivative works) *AS LONG AS* its provisions are abided by, and thus acts as written permission to do several things that, in absence of such a license, would have constituted a copyright violation. If a person does not abide by the constraints of the GPL, then they would not have had any permission to copy the work (or create and distribute a derivative work) in the first place, and would therefore be committing a copyright violation by doing so.
"Claiming it's their own might be a copyright violation"
Actually, it's plagiarism. The only time plagiarism is not illegal is if the amount copied and the purpose of the copy would have collectively fallen under the "fair use" umbrella.
If you are licensing your software under the GPL, then you are granting permission to everyone who abides by its terms to create derivative works of your software and distribute them however they desire, including selling them. The provisions of the GPL require only that one not charge any additional fees for the source code itself beyond, perhaps, material costs that might be involved in sending that code to them. They further are not under any obligation to distribute the source code to anyone who does not also receive a binary.
So they've made a derivative work of your GPL product, and as long as they provide the source code at no additional charge to anyone that they send their work to, and it is covered under the same license, then... well... that's what the GPL licenses them to do in the first place. If you wanted to piss the company off, and kill their business model, you could, if you really wanted to, purchase the license from them to obtain their modifications.... and because it must be GPL'd you could safely merge their derivative work into the main distribution tree and distribute it for free, and end up competing directly with them. In fact, actually, anyone even could do this... not just you. Of course, this is the chief reason why a lot of companies dislike the GPL in the first place, because they perceive it as "viral".