Is this MS saying "We're sick of all your complaints about incorrect rtranslations, so we're going to let you do your own translations, so we don't have to pay these translators any more."
MSS: Microsoft Support, how can I help you? Non-US User: Hi, there are three buttons on this dialogue box I'm getting which translate to "Next", "Yes" and "Ok". How do I know which one to press? MSS: I'm sorry, we don't support foreign language issues. Please call your local technical support and talk to your translation team.
Releasing my code under a BSD-style licence does not allow me to merge derivative code. It is up to the person who makes the derivative to choose whether I am allowed to merge their changes back into my codebase. That was my point
BSD licences have no "right to merge", GPL does. That's the copyleft difference.
GPL focuses on getting the best code out there and available for use by all.
What the GPL actually does is provide a Right to Merge. If someone forks your codebase, you can merge any changes you like back into your version. That's what BSD and similar licences don't allow.
Yes and if enough people start calling the sky green, then we'd have to change the dictionary. Would it be right? Would it cause anything other than confusion?
I've got nothing against the evolution of language, but this particular evolution has emotive overtones that are not justified, and I think it's worth fighting against it.
Intellectual property is a misnomer. Copyright infringement is not theft, nor is it "piracy".
Some dictionaries may have picked up on this dysphemism, but that doesn't make it accurate.
It is certainly not an accurate description of the activity, and personally, I consider it a blatant usage of linguistic psychological manipulation. Making copies of copyrighted or patented works is not even in the same category as piracy.
One is a crime of violence, the other is a breach of a government-granted monopoly.
Are we thinking beings, or are we sheep? Don't let a wealthy minority force you to think the way they want you to. Resist their self-serving manipulations.
You are talking about copyright infringement, not piracy.
Piracy is when you illegally board a ship at sea by force and take either the entire ship or the cargo. It usually involves violence, and often death to the crew of the ship being boarded.
Not really the same as having a copy made of a piece of art, is it?
No copyright owner or agent for same has ever sued an individual in Australia for making any kind of copy for personal use. The legislation has never been tested in court. It may well fail against Common Law fair use rights.
The fact that it has never been tested must give you some idea of the Australian music and film industries' level of confidence that it would be upheld. As long as they never test it, they can continue to claim that it is illegal to tape shows off the TV, rip CDs to MP3, etc, etc.
Don't believe everything the Copyright Council says.
Yes, maintaining your own car is certainly not too difficult, as long as you buy that set of spanners (wrenches) and learn to recognise the difference between a worn timing chain and one that will last another 20,000 kms or so, etc, etc. Personally, I just couldn't be stuffed. The only way my cars get decent maintenance is by taking them to a shop for regular servicing. I couldn't be arsed to work on them myself. Hell, I have enough trouble remembering to check the oil levels!
In practice, compulsory voting means eligible voters must attend a polling place, have their name crossed off the list of voters, accept ballot papers and lodge them in a ballot box. They do not actually have to fill out the ballot papers. If ballot papers are not filled out correctly, they are set aside as 'informal'.
So even by that, you could have been fined for what you did. Also note that it says "In practice". That's because, since votes are secret, there's no way to know if you have marked your ballot paper correctly.
Future voting technologies may not allow informal votes at all.
The ACT has already trialled an electronic voting mechanism which had no way of voting informally. A friend of mine mentioned it as a flaw in the system, but it isn't, really. It's just enforcing that part of the law.
Lobbying and protesting have some effect, sure. But any politician who hears that you voted, or intend to vote informally is going to ignore anything you say from then on.
You have a way to have an effect on the government. It's called an election. If you choose not to vote, then you're throwing away your franchise. Everyone who votes gets to decide how your taxes are spent.
The fact that you can get away with something doesn't stop it being illegal.
Personally, I agree with compulsory voting, so I don't care. I don't understand why anyone would want to not vote. It's throwing away your right to complain about the government.
Anyone who truly believes that compulsory voting is wrong should not rely on unenforcability. It may not always be unenforcable. Electronic voting machines can quite easily prevent you from voting informally, and if the AEC could reduce its costs enough to make chasing down those who aren't on the roles fit into their budget, they may well choose to do so.
Australians living overseas are a special case, and no, they don't have to vote. I did mention making your best effort.
Fair rights laws are covered by Common Law in Australia, not the constitution.
Interestingly, a lot of things that our laws say you cannot do (such as things covered by the US Betamax case) have never been tested in Australian courts. Is taping a TV illegal? According to the legislation, yes it is. Would the legislation hold up against Common Law? We don't know.
Actually, voting is compulsory. It is simply unenforceable. For that matter, voting informally is against the law. Legally, you must do all in your power to cast a valid, formal vote.
Registering to vote is also compulsory. You can't just decide not to vote without breaking the law.
Will you be prosecuted for avoiding being on the electoral role? Probably not. Will you be prosecuting for voting informally? Definitely not, since there's no way they can know.
Not that electronic/internet voting mechanisms being designed for Australia do not allow for an informal vote.
Putting aside the onanism of having your own name placed in such works, the concept of not only having a "personalised" version of Romeo & Juliet, but changing the ending into a happy one is something that I certainly consider disrespectful.
Well, it shouldn't take that long, but anyway, I'd be more than happy to pay for a n electronic copy. Hell, I've already bought about four paper copies over the years.
They can track it when you're not making a call, because when a phone is switched on, it regularly talks to the local cells, both the find out which one has the best signal, and to tell the network that it's there for incoming calls.
If you actually turn the phone off, though, it stops transmitting.
At least on every phone I've ever owned. The only battery charge still used is to keep the clock going.
I always have my mobile phone with me, but I only turn it on for about an hour each day at the most, to check for messages. If I need to make a call, I've got it, and it's got all the phone numbers I should be remembering.
Of course, my phone is a PDA, so it does a lot more than that, too. That just makes it easier to remember to take it with me.
Ah, so you're one of those people who believe that humans are innately evil and violent, and it is only the moralising touch of society that stops us from beating each other's brains out for a cookie.
How sad. I don't believe it myself. Look at other primates.
Personally, I think there are other ways of teaching respect and tolerance to your children than sitting them down in front of Sesame Street. How about talking to them? Invite the local "mexican" kids over for "play dates" when your child is too young to see any difference.
Not that Sesame Street is evil or anything; I watched it as a kid, and I haven't become a homocidal maniac or anything. Turning off the TV was one of the best decisions I ever made, though. I only use my TV for watching DVDs and videos, these days.
Except that the basis of this court case is not really the GPL, but rather on a peculiar definition of "derived works".
SCO are saying that code IBM wrote and included with AIX cannot be used outside AIX without SCO's permission, even when all the AT&T code is excised. They are claiming their copyright to be even more "viral" than the GPL!
Most customers don't care about the format
on
No WMA for HP iPod
·
· Score: 1
Which is exactly the reason to support as many formats as possible. Most people buying a new computer with XP are going to rip their CDs using Windows Media Player, thus getting WMAs. It's sad, but true.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this MS saying "We're sick of all your complaints about incorrect rtranslations, so we're going to let you do your own translations, so we don't have to pay these translators any more."
MSS: Microsoft Support, how can I help you?
Non-US User: Hi, there are three buttons on this dialogue box I'm getting which translate to "Next", "Yes" and "Ok". How do I know which one to press?
MSS: I'm sorry, we don't support foreign language issues. Please call your local technical support and talk to your translation team.
Releasing my code under a BSD-style licence does not allow me to merge derivative code. It is up to the person who makes the derivative to choose whether I am allowed to merge their changes back into my codebase. That was my point
BSD licences have no "right to merge", GPL does. That's the copyleft difference.
GPL focuses on getting the best code out there and available for use by all.
What the GPL actually does is provide a Right to Merge. If someone forks your codebase, you can merge any changes you like back into your version. That's what BSD and similar licences don't allow.
Yes and if enough people start calling the sky green, then we'd have to change the dictionary. Would it be right? Would it cause anything other than confusion?
I've got nothing against the evolution of language, but this particular evolution has emotive overtones that are not justified, and I think it's worth fighting against it.
Intellectual property is a misnomer. Copyright infringement is not theft, nor is it "piracy".
Some dictionaries may have picked up on this dysphemism, but that doesn't make it accurate.
It is certainly not an accurate description of the activity, and personally, I consider it a blatant usage of linguistic psychological manipulation. Making copies of copyrighted or patented works is not even in the same category as piracy.
One is a crime of violence, the other is a breach of a government-granted monopoly.
Are we thinking beings, or are we sheep? Don't let a wealthy minority force you to think the way they want you to. Resist their self-serving manipulations.
You are talking about copyright infringement, not piracy.
Piracy is when you illegally board a ship at sea by force and take either the entire ship or the cargo. It usually involves violence, and often death to the crew of the ship being boarded.
Not really the same as having a copy made of a piece of art, is it?
No copyright owner or agent for same has ever sued an individual in Australia for making any kind of copy for personal use. The legislation has never been tested in court. It may well fail against Common Law fair use rights.
The fact that it has never been tested must give you some idea of the Australian music and film industries' level of confidence that it would be upheld. As long as they never test it, they can continue to claim that it is illegal to tape shows off the TV, rip CDs to MP3, etc, etc.
Don't believe everything the Copyright Council says.
It's rather telling that the high volume trading days have changed from being ups to downs.
Yes, maintaining your own car is certainly not too difficult, as long as you buy that set of spanners (wrenches) and learn to recognise the difference between a worn timing chain and one that will last another 20,000 kms or so, etc, etc. Personally, I just couldn't be stuffed. The only way my cars get decent maintenance is by taking them to a shop for regular servicing. I couldn't be arsed to work on them myself. Hell, I have enough trouble remembering to check the oil levels!
I've got other things to do with my spare time.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/liac/hot_top
So even by that, you could have been fined for what you did. Also note that it says "In practice". That's because, since votes are secret, there's no way to know if you have marked your ballot paper correctly.
Future voting technologies may not allow informal votes at all.
The ACT has already trialled an electronic voting mechanism which had no way of voting informally. A friend of mine mentioned it as a flaw in the system, but it isn't, really. It's just enforcing that part of the law.
You don't have a duty to show up, you have a duty to vote.
Lobbying and protesting have some effect, sure. But any politician who hears that you voted, or intend to vote informally is going to ignore anything you say from then on.
You have a way to have an effect on the government. It's called an election. If you choose not to vote, then you're throwing away your franchise. Everyone who votes gets to decide how your taxes are spent.
The fact that you can get away with something doesn't stop it being illegal.
Personally, I agree with compulsory voting, so I don't care. I don't understand why anyone would want to not vote. It's throwing away your right to complain about the government.
Anyone who truly believes that compulsory voting is wrong should not rely on unenforcability. It may not always be unenforcable. Electronic voting machines can quite easily prevent you from voting informally, and if the AEC could reduce its costs enough to make chasing down those who aren't on the roles fit into their budget, they may well choose to do so.
Australians living overseas are a special case, and no, they don't have to vote. I did mention making your best effort.
Oh, I agree completely. I detest what they did to Kipling.
Fair rights laws are covered by Common Law in Australia, not the constitution.
Interestingly, a lot of things that our laws say you cannot do (such as things covered by the US Betamax case) have never been tested in Australian courts. Is taping a TV illegal? According to the legislation, yes it is. Would the legislation hold up against Common Law? We don't know.
Actually, voting is compulsory. It is simply unenforceable. For that matter, voting informally is against the law. Legally, you must do all in your power to cast a valid, formal vote.
Registering to vote is also compulsory. You can't just decide not to vote without breaking the law.
Will you be prosecuted for avoiding being on the electoral role? Probably not. Will you be prosecuting for voting informally? Definitely not, since there's no way they can know.
Not that electronic/internet voting mechanisms being designed for Australia do not allow for an informal vote.
Putting aside the onanism of having your own name placed in such works, the concept of not only having a "personalised" version of Romeo & Juliet, but changing the ending into a happy one is something that I certainly consider disrespectful.
Well, it shouldn't take that long, but anyway, I'd be more than happy to pay for a n electronic copy. Hell, I've already bought about four paper copies over the years.
I haven't been able to find LoTR as an e-book.
They can track it when you're not making a call, because when a phone is switched on, it regularly talks to the local cells, both the find out which one has the best signal, and to tell the network that it's there for incoming calls.
If you actually turn the phone off, though, it stops transmitting.
At least on every phone I've ever owned. The only battery charge still used is to keep the clock going.
I always have my mobile phone with me, but I only turn it on for about an hour each day at the most, to check for messages. If I need to make a call, I've got it, and it's got all the phone numbers I should be remembering.
Of course, my phone is a PDA, so it does a lot more than that, too. That just makes it easier to remember to take it with me.
Ah, so you're one of those people who believe that humans are innately evil and violent, and it is only the moralising touch of society that stops us from beating each other's brains out for a cookie.
How sad. I don't believe it myself. Look at other primates.
Personally, I think there are other ways of teaching respect and tolerance to your children than sitting them down in front of Sesame Street. How about talking to them? Invite the local "mexican" kids over for "play dates" when your child is too young to see any difference.
Not that Sesame Street is evil or anything; I watched it as a kid, and I haven't become a homocidal maniac or anything. Turning off the TV was one of the best decisions I ever made, though. I only use my TV for watching DVDs and videos, these days.
Except that the basis of this court case is not really the GPL, but rather on a peculiar definition of "derived works".
SCO are saying that code IBM wrote and included with AIX cannot be used outside AIX without SCO's permission, even when all the AT&T code is excised. They are claiming their copyright to be even more "viral" than the GPL!
That June 12 "SCO" message makes no sense.
Which is exactly the reason to support as many formats as possible. Most people buying a new computer with XP are going to rip their CDs using Windows Media Player, thus getting WMAs. It's sad, but true.