I have a CDPD Cell Modem for my Linux Laptop (Sierra Wireless Air Card in a Mitsubishi Amity with 4 hr battery -- 3 lbs!). It ain't got nowhere near the bandwith needed for MP3s or Real Audio and the latency is huge. But it works for reading mail and lynxing around the net. Plus I can use it on the train as long as we're not in the tunnel under the East River.
Not [everyone needs|has the ability|necessarially wants] to write device drivers. Your elitism is showing.
Corporate programmers need tools for their platform of choice. Interoperability is less of an issue. This promotes linux in the Corporate world. This is a Good Thing (TM) because a bigger market means more Linux-friendly SW and HW to choose from.
Not everyone is a free software fanatic. I [have paid & will pay] for quality software on my OS of choice.
This may be offtopic, but even stuff that says "requires Windows" (like my Sierra Wireless Aircard cellular modem) dosn't always. If the package had said "OSI Ceritfied" as well, I would have been much less worried about buying one and signing up for a one year contract with Bell Atlantic Mobile without knowing that I had the wherewithall to get it to work.
How about a flag flapping in the wind with holes shot through it?
Re:Morons, care to comment?
on
DIVX is dead
·
· Score: 1
But those few months of not wasting my time driving to Ballbusters just so I could pay them their highway robbery late fees and stand in line to deal with their fake friendly rental droids certainly was nice.
You know, if you return the movie on time, you don't pay a late fee.
If voice input was integral to a device, the killer apps would make it easy to use by taking advantage of that rather than just carrying along the CLI. If the directory were graphically displayed, you would use Up, Down, Back and Enter (and maybe Parent and Root). Yes, the CLI is powerful and I feel at home ther, but I do not think that I would want to control an Itsy with one.
If company X releases their source under the GPL, can they still sell commercial rights to that same source to company Y?
Generally speaking, a copyright holder may release his product under several different licenses including GPL.
Case #2: If others have submitted small patches throughout the source, via the GPL, can company A still sell that source?
That depends on the conditions that the copyright holders have made on the submission of patches. If they have clearly stated that they reserve the right to include submitted patches in commercial products, and you have submitted under those conditions, they have probably protected themselves against claims of infringement. OTOH, if you have clearly stated in your submission that your patch may only be released in a GPLed form, you have probably protected your rights up front. Anything else is a grey area that the courts would have to sort out.
Let's make it a little more controversial--let's say those small patches make up only 1% of the source, but were very essential bug fixes that the original authors may have never caught. Say two of the patches made it so the program would not crash in an SMP environment. What then?
I'm not sure how the damages in copyright infringement, assuming you have cleared the preceeding hurdle and demonstrated an infringement, are determined. Whether they are the commercial value of the infringing item, which I have heard claimed in similar discussions. The value of the patch independant of the work it modifies is probably very small.
I don't think that damages of 1% of either the gross or net proceeds of the commercial product would be upheld.
A Linux worm would not need to exploit a security hole if all it needs is a user's priviledges to perpetuate itself and if it can arrange somehow to get itself executed. A user can send mail. If the mail can find a way to run a script, it can just call mail and it might actually get delivered on enough systems to make the worm propagate. The Linux desktop is growing in terms of sophistication and interoperability. The hooks that a worm needs to take advantage of are probably already present in KDE and/or Gnome or being added as we speak. I've already seen Netscape use mailcap in ways that I hadn't expected. We should expect to see Linux worms if Linux grows beyond a certain critical size.
We are blessed with a variety of packages. A worm that works on KDE might not work with Gnome. The variety of desktop environments and mail tools in Linux is a strength not a weakness.
This discussion seems to be spreading massive disinformation.
Scanning Usenet Postings: The ruling does not require Demon or anyone to scan Usenet postings for potentially damaging information. When they recieve a complaint that they are currently carring a defamitory posting, they need to remove it from their servers. They don't need to remove it from servers woldwide. In fact, if the victim of the forgery is a customer of theirs (as was in this case, I believe) I think that they have an obligation to help him send out a cancel for the message if he can't do it himself for whatever reason.
Web Postings: This is not a web case. Certainly Demon can't be held responsible for web pages hosted elsewhere. There is nothing in the ruling which would suggest thatthey are. For pages hosted by Demon, they will probably have to at least investigate complaints of libel on pages they host. This is potentially chilling if I can get a web page pulled just be claiming that I am being defamed by it.
Slashdot:/. is hosted in the US. Someone in the UK trying to apply their law to a posting on/. is up a creek. US law applies to Slashdot. OTOH, a case could be made under US law that/. is a publisher of at least some of the material. If Rob gets a complaint that a posting on his system is libellous, he's got to take that serious and at least investigate and yank the posting if that is likely. (Note to self: replace prior sentance with actual legal opinion.)
Look at the Nikon page. "High speed continuous shooting of up to 2 frames per second." "Aperture and Shutter Priority exposure modes for creative control." There's also a link on the page for more detailed specifications.
But because there are no barriers to entry, there should be more competition in the Linux support market and thus the market will be efficient. If you can only go to the vendor for support, you have to pay what the vendor charges.
I read the first decision all the way to the bottom. A few points follow.
This is a preliminary ruling on an acceptable defense. The key fact is that the guy informed Demon of a libelous post. Most of the other cases were against providers who merely hosted a message and were not advised of it's libelous nature. While notification is probably not sufficient to establish liability in the US, the UK is different. It is more important that ISPs have legal rules and safe harbors that they can rely on to limit their liability. If this case defines those for the UK, then it will go a long way toward having a reliable Internet.
The second point is that the judge gives away that he dosn't think that the case is going to result in a substancial judgement if the plaintiffs win.
In the old days of core memory, you could take down a computer by throwing a handful of iron filings into the core. Not it'll only take common table salt.
Why does hitting clear the input field on the submit page? Is this a secret way of getting back at vi users?
Fine, GCC is general purpose software. It should be open source. Similarly the MRI software being hosted on a Linux OS. But I seriously doubt if the MRI application itself is open source. It's possible, but I doubt it.
In my own field of Insurance, there aren't enough qualified programmers to support OS software for this industry. There also isn't enough glory to get anyone in OS interested. From this I conclude that OS software specific to my industry will never exist.
From Linux Today -- No DSL on Linux from BellSouth
on
Feature: Getting DSL
·
· Score: 1
I saw this link over on Linux Today. Bell South refuses to install DSL for a Linux user after telling him they would. Lots of weasel words from BS on how Linux is "incompatible" with DHCP.
Red Connect had information on their website that running personal servers was allowed. The web site also seems to indicate that a static IP address is supplied.
I could go with the SDSL (synchronous i.e. same speed in either direction) from my current ISP, but the cost is 4x the Redconnect price.
So I've been on the Red waiting list for 6 months now.
I support Open Source as much as the next guy, but OS can not tackle every area of software development that is needed in our economy. Would you want to trust your life to Open Source software in Medical Equiptment? Specialized software is best acquired with support from a knoledgable vendor.
You're talking as if Government were some monolithic boogeyman who is out to stick it to the little guy. There are several layers of government in our system. This draft has been proposed by a committee of representatives from the states. If a draft passes the committee, it will have to be acted upon by the state legislatures. Business has the money to pay lobbyists to write and promote this legislation. We have to power to let our disapproval be known to our Governors and legislatures. Use it.
This is a state by state operation. Even if Washington State rolls over for their software publishers, other states can make it illegal or economically irrational to license software under UCITA because it is against public policy. They can further stop the effect of this law by extending consumer protection statutes to all purchases who are not the position to negotiate terms and conditions of the license.
Haven't you ever seen a shrinkwrap term that states that the licence will be interpreted under the laws of state X? This is how the law, even if passed by only a few states, will influence most software purchases. Individual states can not disallow these clauses because that would be regulation of interstate commerce which is explicitly reserved to the Feds. ObDisclaimer: IANAL and all that.
Re:Is destroying MS worth the inconvience to us al
on
IBM & Microsoft Rift
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, but the harm to consumers is entirely speculative. Do you understand the Fear part of FUD? Microsoft pricing is predatory, the constomer always gets the short end of the stick when dealing with Micros~1. How could we be worse off?
The article that I read in the NY Times had some countervailing opinion. The size of the decrease is at the limits of the resolution of the measuring technique. We also don't know enough about natural variation in the size of telomeres to tell if the decrease is stastically significant.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a CDPD Cell Modem for my Linux Laptop (Sierra Wireless Air Card in a Mitsubishi Amity with 4 hr battery -- 3 lbs!). It ain't got nowhere near the bandwith needed for MP3s or Real Audio and the latency is huge. But it works for reading mail and lynxing around the net. Plus I can use it on the train as long as we're not in the tunnel under the East River.
Not [everyone needs|has the ability|necessarially wants] to write device drivers. Your elitism is showing.
Corporate programmers need tools for their platform of choice. Interoperability is less of an issue. This promotes linux in the Corporate world. This is a Good Thing (TM) because a bigger market means more Linux-friendly SW and HW to choose from.
Not everyone is a free software fanatic. I [have paid & will pay] for quality software on my OS of choice.
Now go away.
This may be offtopic, but even stuff that says "requires Windows" (like my Sierra Wireless Aircard cellular modem) dosn't always. If the package had said "OSI Ceritfied" as well, I would have been much less worried about buying one and signing up for a one year contract with Bell Atlantic Mobile without knowing that I had the wherewithall to get it to work.
How about a flag flapping in the wind with holes shot through it?
But those few months of not wasting my time driving to Ballbusters just so I could pay them their highway robbery late fees and stand in line to deal with their fake friendly rental droids certainly was nice.
You know, if you return the movie on time, you don't pay a late fee.
If voice input was integral to a device, the killer apps would make it easy to use by taking advantage of that rather than just carrying along the CLI. If the directory were graphically displayed, you would use Up, Down, Back and Enter (and maybe Parent and Root). Yes, the CLI is powerful and I feel at home ther, but I do not think that I would want to control an Itsy with one.
If company X releases their source under the GPL, can they still sell commercial rights to that same source to company Y?
Generally speaking, a copyright holder may release his product under several different licenses including GPL.
Case #2: If others have submitted small patches throughout the source, via the GPL, can company A still sell that source?
That depends on the conditions that the copyright holders have made on the submission of patches. If they have clearly stated that they reserve the right to include submitted patches in commercial products, and you have submitted under those conditions, they have probably protected themselves against claims of infringement. OTOH, if you have clearly stated in your submission that your patch may only be released in a GPLed form, you have probably protected your rights up front. Anything else is a grey area that the courts would have to sort out.
Let's make it a little more controversial--let's say those small patches make up only 1% of the source, but were very essential bug fixes that the original authors may have never caught. Say two of the patches made it so the program would not crash in an SMP environment. What then?
I'm not sure how the damages in copyright infringement, assuming you have cleared the preceeding hurdle and demonstrated an infringement, are determined. Whether they are the commercial value of the infringing item, which I have heard claimed in similar discussions. The value of the patch independant of the work it modifies is probably very small.
I don't think that damages of 1% of either the gross or net proceeds of the commercial product would be upheld.
But I could be wrong. IANAL and all that.
A Linux worm would not need to exploit a security hole if all it needs is a user's priviledges to perpetuate itself and if it can arrange somehow to get itself executed. A user can send mail. If the mail can find a way to run a script, it can just call mail and it might actually get delivered on enough systems to make the worm propagate. The Linux desktop is growing in terms of sophistication and interoperability. The hooks that a worm needs to take advantage of are probably already present in KDE and/or Gnome or being added as we speak. I've already seen Netscape use mailcap in ways that I hadn't expected. We should expect to see Linux worms if Linux grows beyond a certain critical size.
We are blessed with a variety of packages. A worm that works on KDE might not work with Gnome. The variety of desktop environments and mail tools in Linux is a strength not a weakness.
This discussion seems to be spreading massive disinformation.
/. is hosted in the US. Someone in the UK trying to apply their law to a posting on /. is up a creek. US law applies to Slashdot. OTOH, a case could be made under US law that /. is a publisher of at least some of the material. If Rob gets a complaint that a posting on his system is libellous, he's got to take that serious and at least investigate and yank the posting if that is likely. (Note to self: replace prior sentance with actual legal opinion.)
Scanning Usenet Postings: The ruling does not require Demon or anyone to scan Usenet postings for potentially damaging information. When they recieve a complaint that they are currently carring a defamitory posting, they need to remove it from their servers. They don't need to remove it from servers woldwide. In fact, if the victim of the forgery is a customer of theirs (as was in this case, I believe) I think that they have an obligation to help him send out a cancel for the message if he can't do it himself for whatever reason.
Web Postings: This is not a web case. Certainly Demon can't be held responsible for web pages hosted elsewhere. There is nothing in the ruling which would suggest thatthey are. For pages hosted by Demon, they will probably have to at least investigate complaints of libel on pages they host. This is potentially chilling if I can get a web page pulled just be claiming that I am being defamed by it.
Slashdot:
Look at the Nikon page. "High speed continuous shooting of up to 2 frames per second." "Aperture and Shutter Priority exposure modes for creative control." There's also a link on the page for more detailed specifications.
I hope at least that they're getting the same answer from each client.
"vast knowledge"? I think you're half right.
But because there are no barriers to entry, there should be more competition in the Linux support market and thus the market will be efficient. If you can only go to the vendor for support, you have to pay what the vendor charges.
moreover, have you heard about the conspiracy of john glen and others when they first walked on the moon that they did see aliens?
Except John Glenn never went to the moon.
I read the first decision all the way to the bottom. A few points follow.
This is a preliminary ruling on an acceptable defense. The key fact is that the guy informed Demon of a libelous post. Most of the other cases were against providers who merely hosted a message and were not advised of it's libelous nature. While notification is probably not sufficient to establish liability in the US, the UK is different. It is more important that ISPs have legal rules and safe harbors that they can rely on to limit their liability. If this case defines those for the UK, then it will go a long way toward having a reliable Internet.
The second point is that the judge gives away that he dosn't think that the case is going to result in a substancial judgement if the plaintiffs win.
In the old days of core memory, you could take down a computer by throwing a handful of iron filings into the core. Not it'll only take common table salt.
Why does hitting clear the input field on the submit page? Is this a secret way of getting back at vi users?
Fine, GCC is general purpose software. It should be open source. Similarly the MRI software being hosted on a Linux OS. But I seriously doubt if the MRI application itself is open source. It's possible, but I doubt it.
In my own field of Insurance, there aren't enough qualified programmers to support OS software for this industry. There also isn't enough glory to get anyone in OS interested. From this I conclude that OS software specific to my industry will never exist.
I saw this link over on Linux Today. Bell South refuses to install DSL for a Linux user after telling him they would. Lots of weasel words from BS on how Linux is "incompatible" with DHCP.
Red Connect had information on their website that running personal servers was allowed. The web site also seems to indicate that a static IP address is supplied.
I could go with the SDSL (synchronous i.e. same speed in either direction) from my current ISP, but the cost is 4x the Redconnect price.
So I've been on the Red waiting list for 6 months now.
I support Open Source as much as the next guy, but OS can not tackle every area of software development that is needed in our economy. Would you want to trust your life to Open Source software in Medical Equiptment? Specialized software is best acquired with support from a knoledgable vendor.
You're talking as if Government were some monolithic boogeyman who is out to stick it to the little guy. There are several layers of government in our system. This draft has been proposed by a committee of representatives from the states. If a draft passes the committee, it will have to be acted upon by the state legislatures. Business has the money to pay lobbyists to write and promote this legislation. We have to power to let our disapproval be known to our Governors and legislatures. Use it.
This is a state by state operation. Even if Washington State rolls over for their software publishers, other states can make it illegal or economically irrational to license software under UCITA because it is against public policy. They can further stop the effect of this law by extending consumer protection statutes to all purchases who are not the position to negotiate terms and conditions of the license.
Haven't you ever seen a shrinkwrap term that states that the licence will be interpreted under the laws of state X? This is how the law, even if passed by only a few states, will influence most software purchases. Individual states can not disallow these clauses because that would be regulation of interstate commerce which is explicitly reserved to the Feds. ObDisclaimer: IANAL and all that.
I'm sorry, but the harm to consumers is entirely speculative. Do you understand the Fear part of FUD? Microsoft pricing is predatory, the constomer always gets the short end of the stick when dealing with Micros~1. How could we be worse off?
> 1) how do you get an object inside a warp bubble?
Two words: Klein Bottle.
Now If I could only find the fine Irish Whisky I poured in there.
The article that I read in the NY Times had some countervailing opinion. The size of the decrease is at the limits of the resolution of the measuring technique. We also don't know enough about natural variation in the size of telomeres to tell if the decrease is stastically significant.