Now take the exemple of the man who appeared on a picture walking out of a strip club with his face recognizable in hi-def. A bit embarrassing.
If you don't want people to know what you're doing, don't do it in public...
Sure, it would be embarrassing, but it's not something you can (legally) be fired for, and if your wife/gf gets mad at you for it, well then you shouldn't have been there in the first place, should you?
Near the end of the hour-long presentation, a participant raised her hand and asked, "So I can use this software for free?" Even after an hour, F/OSS still did not quite make sense to her.
Name one other thing that people produce that can be used and copied for free.
It's not so much that she didn't get it, as that it no doubt sounded too good to be true, so she felt that she had to make sure that she hadn't missed something. Much like the "free" benefits my company offers its employees, that you have to pay tax on. They're free, unless you count taking home less money because of them as a cost...
People are used to paying for stuff. People are used to "money off" offers, and "buy one get one free" offers, and "free (for a limited time)" offers, they're not used to "free and it always will be honest you'll never have to pay anything if you don't want to there really isn't a catch" offers.
But if you give that doughnut to person C, saying nothing at all, and they give it to person D, then
1) I wouldn't say that you gave it to person D 2) It would more closely match the actual situation - assuming you don't submit a list of how you wish your tax money to be spent with your tax returns, etc
Not that I'm disputing that you indirectly pay their salaries, just that the relationship is rather less direct than your example.
Google "many worlds theory". Just because a word is given a certain meaning at one point in time doesn't mean that that meaning still stands as we increase our understanding of the (possible) nature of reality.
We don't have a word for "the whole of space that we could theoretically physically visit if we could just travel for enough time, without ever having to leave the four-dimensional space that we commonly consider to be 'reality'" other than "universe". Also, see definition 2 of "universe" in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary.
Did 20th Century Fox get permission to simulate the destruction of the White House for Independence Day?
I don't know. Did they? I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if they did run the idea past the White House press office.
On the other hand though it doesn't really matter, as the White House is most definitely a public building. I suspect Manchester Cathedrel is actually owned by the church, and therefore private. (Remember that just because a building is open to the public, doesn't make it a public building - shops being the obvious example) Whether or not that gives the church the legal grounds to complain I don't know.
I can see why people don't like it and might complain about it, but it sounds to me that the validity of a legal case is shaky.
Fine, so they sue and lose. If this was the church against a private individual I might be a little more concerned, but it isn't, and Sony has plenty enough resources to defend itself. If nothing else, this might at least create precedence to guide people in similar situations in the future (whichever way it goes).
Well, the OP did say they take up 56kbps; getting that down to 30kbps is roughly a factor of 2 compression which isn't that bad.
In other words, 30kbps doesn't sound too excessive to me (although I'm not a networking or VoIP specialist). Given that even my crappy ADSL over a poor phone line manages 440kbps upstream, I really don't see that as a problem. In fact, even if it wasn't compressed at all, my connection should theoretically be able to handle at least 6 simultaneous connections (allowing for overhead).
You'd packet shape to reduce the impact of other apps on VoIP, not to reduce the impact of VoIP on the network. Of course, you might packet shape to reduce the impact of VoIP on your profits...
It's the fault of the PDF reader that the entire browser freezes while a single tab opens a PDF?
It's the reader that's freezing, true, but that shouldn't render the rest of the browser unusable, and it wouldn't if the browser was properly threaded.
While I sympathise with your rant, the OP was talking about AOL users specifically and deliberately opting to receive mail, then when they later decide that they no longer want it, tagging it as spam rather than cancelling their subscription.
He's not talking about or defending spammers or companies that bury opt-in check-boxes way down a registration page (and I've seen them a good screen or more below the submit button). He's talking about lazy, idiot users misusing the spam controls.
I recently had to install Oracle Application Server on a SuSe 9 box. One required step was to apply a patch to correct an issue related to IPv6 entries in/etc/hosts. (The patch modifed the hosts file, not the Oracle binaries)
According to this definition it can be. In fact, there's nothing in that definition that indicates that the reasonably-common scientific sense of the word to mean "having mass" is correct.
(And besides come on, *everyone* who isn't a scientist uses "massive" to mean "very big"...)
A number of rootkits have been created for Linux, as well as a number of worms (see eg this Sophos description of one - which incidentally took 10 seconds on google to find...).
There may not be very many active ones, and certainly the number that exist is dwarfed by the number for Windows, but don't think for one second that there aren't any. Just a couple of months ago a friend of mine had a Linux server he was running rooted by a remote exploit.
I know of at least one company's software that has a similar clause in its EULA to the Visual Studio one, and they don't do even the slightest protection of their fully documented APIs. Nevertheless, using them would violate the EULA if I wasn't licensed to do so.
Similarly, you can download Oracle's database from their website and install the full Enterprise Edition with no restrictions whatsoever. The files available for download are the same ones you get on physical install media they ship to you.
What you can't do is use it for anything other than evaluation or development purposes. There's nothing technically preventing you - no licence key or similar - you're just not allowed to. If they catch you, you're in a heap of trouble.
The point being that as with so many other things, just because you are able to do something, doesn't mean you have the right to do it. That's something that a lot of people seem to forget.
Again, it comes down to the balance of probabilities - sure, they didn't prove that anyone else downloaded the files, but in all fairness it's far more likely that other people did, than they just happened to be the one and only person that did.
This isn't a criminal case remember, it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt" (although personally, I don't think that would be a reasonable doubt to be honest, but IANAL, etc)
They can try to play the victim all they want now that the loophole is being closed, but informed people will have no sympathy for them.
It's a financial report. While I haven't read it, I don't think the intention is to play the victim; IANAL (obviously), but surely a company is required to disclose anything that they are aware of that may adversely affect future profitability? I would be very surprised if not disclosing it wouldn't open them up to the possibility of being sued by the shareholders. (Assuming they're publicly-owned, of course)
That said, I don't have a lot of sympathy either; you use someone else's stuff, you've got to be prepared for the day when things may change in a way that adversely affects you.
The point is that people tend to proclaim that the GPL protects the freedom of the users, as though that includes almost everyone (everyone who doesn't want to ignore or violate the GPL, in fact). In reality, the people who benefit from the full protection of the GPL is a rather smaller subset; those without the skill, time and/or money to modify the code (or hire someone to do it) effectively do not gain a number of those rights, as they cannot exercise them.
That's not to say it's a bad thing, they still have more rights than they would normally have, it's just not quite as good a thing as many people here make it out to be.
Let us not forget the God also supposedly created the snake (and apparently made it either evil or possessed of free will and a twisted sense of humor... not to mention speech) let it loose in his childrens' paradise!
I was under the impression that the snake was actually Satan in disguise. Mind that this is based on a several years old memory of reading Paradise Lost, and while Milton may have been a student of theology, I most certainly am not.
There are currently no OS X viruses in the wild that can attack a Mac in a meaningful way (there is a proof-of-concept one that requires the user to install it). Compare that to the tens of thousands of Windows OS viruses and worms exploiting security holes without requiring the user.
Tens of thousands? Bull. There may be tens of thousands of viruses that target Windows, but the vast majority of them require user intervention. That's not to say that they're not a problem, but the assertion that there are tens of thousands that exploit holes and do not require any action on the part of the user is simply a lie.
It doesn't matter how long it takes to patch an exploit, as long as it is patched before it's used in a virus or other attack on a system... Given that, I'd say that Apple has an excellent track record when it comes to patching vulnerabilities.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, I think. The point is that the vendor has no idea how long it'll be before that attack is released into the wild. It could be years, it could never happen, or it could be tomorrow. Given *that*, unless you push a fix out as soon as possible (given proper QA, etc) then you cannot possibly be said to have an excellent track record for *patching* vulnerabilities; you've merely been very lucky.
For that matter, is there anything in the Bible that even implies that the seven days are contiguous? Hypothetically speaking, could they not be seven "work periods" spread over several billion years?
I'm no believer, but I do sometimes think that people on both sides take the whole "7 days" thing far too literally.
What happens when a better way than the "known standard" comes around. Are we supposed to wait for some updated standard then updated hardware for that standard but by then don't you think some part of that standard will be obsolete?
In this case, DX10 (well, strictly D3D10) *is* the standard you're talking about. Waiting for a better way would involve waiting for D3D11 or similar. That's not what the OP's talking about.
Yes, there are some stark exceptions where a different driver can have substantial impact, but this is often the game developer's fault as much as the hardware developer.
I don't know about games, but I remember NVidia being caught cheating at 3DMark a couple of years ago. They released a driver that deliberately cut corners when it detected that that benchmark was being run, massively improving the framerate.
That's not so easy with games, but quite often optimisations can be made when you code for a specific case that can't (or shouldn't, for performance reasons) be made when coding more generally. I wouldn't put it past either vendor to tweak their drivers for say Half Life 3 at the expense of other, less hyped titles.
Because their large corporate customers demanded it, as it's much easier to schedule testing and roll out of patches if they come out on a regular schedule than if they're drip-fed as and when they're actually ready. Don't forget that some teams are managing literally thousands of desktops.
You can't blame MS for this one, they actually listened to their customers and gave them what they wanted.
I could walk into a museum, take photos of all the art, get it printed with (this painting was by....) and then sell/give away those photos. Why would anyone pay full price when I can sell them a (fully credited) version for far less?
No offence, but that's a really, really bad example. Art galleries and museums already do essentially that, and lots of people buy them. Some people still buy hand-painted reproductions, and the extremely wealthy few buy the originals. Each "higher grade" brings its own unique qualities, making it more (or less) desirable to those that can afford it.
If I were a billionaire, would I want a well-taken photograph of The Scream, or the original?
(That's assuming you mean the original when you ask why people would pay full price. Your example is flawed anyway, as the museum would still be at liberty to prevent photography on its premises, that has nothing to do with copyright law)
Slashdot Mirror
Now take the exemple of the man who appeared on a picture walking out of a strip club with his face recognizable in hi-def. A bit embarrassing.
If you don't want people to know what you're doing, don't do it in public...
Sure, it would be embarrassing, but it's not something you can (legally) be fired for, and if your wife/gf gets mad at you for it, well then you shouldn't have been there in the first place, should you?
Near the end of the hour-long presentation, a participant raised her hand and asked, "So I can use this software for free?" Even after an hour, F/OSS still did not quite make sense to her.
Name one other thing that people produce that can be used and copied for free.
It's not so much that she didn't get it, as that it no doubt sounded too good to be true, so she felt that she had to make sure that she hadn't missed something. Much like the "free" benefits my company offers its employees, that you have to pay tax on. They're free, unless you count taking home less money because of them as a cost...
People are used to paying for stuff. People are used to "money off" offers, and "buy one get one free" offers, and "free (for a limited time)" offers, they're not used to "free and it always will be honest you'll never have to pay anything if you don't want to there really isn't a catch" offers.
But if you give that doughnut to person C, saying nothing at all, and they give it to person D, then
1) I wouldn't say that you gave it to person D
2) It would more closely match the actual situation - assuming you don't submit a list of how you wish your tax money to be spent with your tax returns, etc
Not that I'm disputing that you indirectly pay their salaries, just that the relationship is rather less direct than your example.
So at least here, privacy isn't an option for smoking, assuming you have a job.
Or you could just control yourself and your habit enough to wait until you get home before smoking. It's your choice.
Google "many worlds theory". Just because a word is given a certain meaning at one point in time doesn't mean that that meaning still stands as we increase our understanding of the (possible) nature of reality.
We don't have a word for "the whole of space that we could theoretically physically visit if we could just travel for enough time, without ever having to leave the four-dimensional space that we commonly consider to be 'reality'" other than "universe". Also, see definition 2 of "universe" in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary.
That's utterly laughable. Of course it had nothing at all to do with Napster or Kazaa, it was all those disgusting filth-mongers...
Did 20th Century Fox get permission to simulate the destruction of the White House for Independence Day?
I don't know. Did they? I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if they did run the idea past the White House press office.
On the other hand though it doesn't really matter, as the White House is most definitely a public building. I suspect Manchester Cathedrel is actually owned by the church, and therefore private. (Remember that just because a building is open to the public, doesn't make it a public building - shops being the obvious example) Whether or not that gives the church the legal grounds to complain I don't know.
I can see why people don't like it and might complain about it, but it sounds to me that the validity of a legal case is shaky.
Fine, so they sue and lose. If this was the church against a private individual I might be a little more concerned, but it isn't, and Sony has plenty enough resources to defend itself. If nothing else, this might at least create precedence to guide people in similar situations in the future (whichever way it goes).
Well, the OP did say they take up 56kbps; getting that down to 30kbps is roughly a factor of 2 compression which isn't that bad.
In other words, 30kbps doesn't sound too excessive to me (although I'm not a networking or VoIP specialist). Given that even my crappy ADSL over a poor phone line manages 440kbps upstream, I really don't see that as a problem. In fact, even if it wasn't compressed at all, my connection should theoretically be able to handle at least 6 simultaneous connections (allowing for overhead).
You'd packet shape to reduce the impact of other apps on VoIP, not to reduce the impact of VoIP on the network. Of course, you might packet shape to reduce the impact of VoIP on your profits...
It's the fault of the PDF reader that the entire browser freezes while a single tab opens a PDF?
It's the reader that's freezing, true, but that shouldn't render the rest of the browser unusable, and it wouldn't if the browser was properly threaded.
While I sympathise with your rant, the OP was talking about AOL users specifically and deliberately opting to receive mail, then when they later decide that they no longer want it, tagging it as spam rather than cancelling their subscription.
He's not talking about or defending spammers or companies that bury opt-in check-boxes way down a registration page (and I've seen them a good screen or more below the submit button). He's talking about lazy, idiot users misusing the spam controls.
I recently had to install Oracle Application Server on a SuSe 9 box. One required step was to apply a patch to correct an issue related to IPv6 entries in /etc/hosts. (The patch modifed the hosts file, not the Oracle binaries)
According to this definition it can be. In fact, there's nothing in that definition that indicates that the reasonably-common scientific sense of the word to mean "having mass" is correct.
(And besides come on, *everyone* who isn't a scientist uses "massive" to mean "very big"...)
A number of rootkits have been created for Linux, as well as a number of worms (see eg this Sophos description of one - which incidentally took 10 seconds on google to find...).
There may not be very many active ones, and certainly the number that exist is dwarfed by the number for Windows, but don't think for one second that there aren't any. Just a couple of months ago a friend of mine had a Linux server he was running rooted by a remote exploit.
I know of at least one company's software that has a similar clause in its EULA to the Visual Studio one, and they don't do even the slightest protection of their fully documented APIs. Nevertheless, using them would violate the EULA if I wasn't licensed to do so.
Similarly, you can download Oracle's database from their website and install the full Enterprise Edition with no restrictions whatsoever. The files available for download are the same ones you get on physical install media they ship to you.
What you can't do is use it for anything other than evaluation or development purposes. There's nothing technically preventing you - no licence key or similar - you're just not allowed to. If they catch you, you're in a heap of trouble.
The point being that as with so many other things, just because you are able to do something, doesn't mean you have the right to do it. That's something that a lot of people seem to forget.
Again, it comes down to the balance of probabilities - sure, they didn't prove that anyone else downloaded the files, but in all fairness it's far more likely that other people did, than they just happened to be the one and only person that did.
This isn't a criminal case remember, it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt" (although personally, I don't think that would be a reasonable doubt to be honest, but IANAL, etc)
As I read the summary on the front page, what should be the fortune in one of the boxes on the right?
What PROGRAM are they watching?
What program indeed?
They can try to play the victim all they want now that the loophole is being closed, but informed people will have no sympathy for them.
It's a financial report. While I haven't read it, I don't think the intention is to play the victim; IANAL (obviously), but surely a company is required to disclose anything that they are aware of that may adversely affect future profitability? I would be very surprised if not disclosing it wouldn't open them up to the possibility of being sued by the shareholders. (Assuming they're publicly-owned, of course)
That said, I don't have a lot of sympathy either; you use someone else's stuff, you've got to be prepared for the day when things may change in a way that adversely affects you.
The point is that people tend to proclaim that the GPL protects the freedom of the users, as though that includes almost everyone (everyone who doesn't want to ignore or violate the GPL, in fact). In reality, the people who benefit from the full protection of the GPL is a rather smaller subset; those without the skill, time and/or money to modify the code (or hire someone to do it) effectively do not gain a number of those rights, as they cannot exercise them.
That's not to say it's a bad thing, they still have more rights than they would normally have, it's just not quite as good a thing as many people here make it out to be.
Let us not forget the God also supposedly created the snake (and apparently made it either evil or possessed of free will and a twisted sense of humor... not to mention speech) let it loose in his childrens' paradise!
I was under the impression that the snake was actually Satan in disguise. Mind that this is based on a several years old memory of reading Paradise Lost, and while Milton may have been a student of theology, I most certainly am not.
There are currently no OS X viruses in the wild that can attack a Mac in a meaningful way (there is a proof-of-concept one that requires the user to install it). Compare that to the tens of thousands of Windows OS viruses and worms exploiting security holes without requiring the user.
Tens of thousands? Bull. There may be tens of thousands of viruses that target Windows, but the vast majority of them require user intervention. That's not to say that they're not a problem, but the assertion that there are tens of thousands that exploit holes and do not require any action on the part of the user is simply a lie.
It doesn't matter how long it takes to patch an exploit, as long as it is patched before it's used in a virus or other attack on a system... Given that, I'd say that Apple has an excellent track record when it comes to patching vulnerabilities.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, I think. The point is that the vendor has no idea how long it'll be before that attack is released into the wild. It could be years, it could never happen, or it could be tomorrow. Given *that*, unless you push a fix out as soon as possible (given proper QA, etc) then you cannot possibly be said to have an excellent track record for *patching* vulnerabilities; you've merely been very lucky.
For that matter, is there anything in the Bible that even implies that the seven days are contiguous? Hypothetically speaking, could they not be seven "work periods" spread over several billion years?
I'm no believer, but I do sometimes think that people on both sides take the whole "7 days" thing far too literally.
And when every search engine collects similar data from their users and uses it in similar ways, do you simply stop using search engines?
What happens when a better way than the "known standard" comes around. Are we supposed to wait for some updated standard then updated hardware for that standard but by then don't you think some part of that standard will be obsolete?
In this case, DX10 (well, strictly D3D10) *is* the standard you're talking about. Waiting for a better way would involve waiting for D3D11 or similar. That's not what the OP's talking about.
Yes, there are some stark exceptions where a different driver can have substantial impact, but this is often the game developer's fault as much as the hardware developer.
I don't know about games, but I remember NVidia being caught cheating at 3DMark a couple of years ago. They released a driver that deliberately cut corners when it detected that that benchmark was being run, massively improving the framerate.
That's not so easy with games, but quite often optimisations can be made when you code for a specific case that can't (or shouldn't, for performance reasons) be made when coding more generally. I wouldn't put it past either vendor to tweak their drivers for say Half Life 3 at the expense of other, less hyped titles.
Because their large corporate customers demanded it, as it's much easier to schedule testing and roll out of patches if they come out on a regular schedule than if they're drip-fed as and when they're actually ready. Don't forget that some teams are managing literally thousands of desktops.
You can't blame MS for this one, they actually listened to their customers and gave them what they wanted.
I could walk into a museum, take photos of all the art, get it printed with (this painting was by....) and then sell/give away those photos. Why would anyone pay full price when I can sell them a (fully credited) version for far less?
No offence, but that's a really, really bad example. Art galleries and museums already do essentially that, and lots of people buy them. Some people still buy hand-painted reproductions, and the extremely wealthy few buy the originals. Each "higher grade" brings its own unique qualities, making it more (or less) desirable to those that can afford it.
If I were a billionaire, would I want a well-taken photograph of The Scream, or the original?
(That's assuming you mean the original when you ask why people would pay full price. Your example is flawed anyway, as the museum would still be at liberty to prevent photography on its premises, that has nothing to do with copyright law)