I disagree with you on a few points. Yes fake Nikes and fake cigarettes are destroyed by customs. But this is aimed at profiteering from the import of these counterfeit goods. However if I go on holiday and buy a fake watch, fake Nike shoes, and counterfeit CDs on the street and bring them back with me, customs generally don't seize the goods.
If someone hands me a photocopied book, whoever made the copy violated the copyright, not me. I have no problem taking the copy and reading it, and even letting a friend read it too. I would, however, not be okay with making more copies and selling them (and I probably wouldn't give them away either).
I think the Chagall institute (or the French law) is completely out of line when it comes to counterfeit paintings. That's nothing like copyright infringement. Misrepresenting the work of art that's a copy of the original is wrong, but the fact that it exists is not.
Microsoft certainly wants you to use cloud login, but it's not required. Granted they don't make it easy, but during install there is link to click to tell it to use a local username and password only. And you can decouple your login from your cloud login as well after the fact.
No they couldn't sue her over the use of the font. Fonts are not copyrightable, which means that the shape of the letters is not copyrightable. If someone makes a nice new font and sells it, there's nothing stopping someone from making a font that looks very similar to it.
The issue I see here is one of trademark (IE the Google wordmark), not font.
Except that wouldn't such a passive protest result is all manner of criminal charges? "Go slow" might work in other areas of employment, but in IT such things are likely going to be construed as hacking or violating computer security, in which the law has been dramatically strengthened in recent years. What a mess.
As other poster said, Ghostery blocks and configures locally. It doesn't rely on a service, and you don't have to synchronize between machines. Ghostery can do that if you create a login, but that's completely optional. And if it becomes not the case (like when the Readability plugin jumped shark), it can be forked. I'm not giving anyone any information when I change settings.
Furthermore Ghostery's defaults are very simple and when first turned on almost all users just block all ad trackers with one click.
Anyway until Ghostery is forked, so far it's relatively safe to be used. Safer than not using it anyway.
I always wonder why sites need so many trackers. I've seen sights that served up more than a dozen tracker scripts. I wouldn't doubt if the actual content was dwarfed by the tracker scripts. Several times sites have failed to load because a tracker script was slow to download. Thank goodness for Ghostery. Running Ghostery is a real eye opener, to say nothing of a requirement for safe web browsing in my opinion.
I also will be running on 100% renewable energy by 2035. Why not... sounds reasonable. Surely 20 years is enough for someone somewhere to invent something that will make it all work for me. I just have to sit back and wait for the innovation to roll in. And maybe I can get the government to pass a law to legislate it all into existence. And maybe repeal some of those pesky laws of physics.
Alaska and Northern Canada will be some of the very first places to see the more extreme effects of warming. In fact already the ice roads are less stable than they used to be, which will eventually have a huge impact on the ability to operate mines and other economic activities in the far North. To say nothing of the natives who are finding the drastic changes very damaging their their livelihoods.
Oh I agree with you. Emoji are useles and a waste of time and I refuse to use them. I am glad I can disable them on the Android keyboards I use. If I need a smiley face the good old:) works for me.
Maybe it's the ublock add-on, but I have never once seen an ad on Youtube on any of my computers, and not even on my tablet for that matter. I'm not totally sure why. Lately I've taken to watching youtube using mpv or youtube-dl, as the experience is just better on my more anemic computers (neither flash nor html5 video works well for me). I guess we'll see how youtube-dl handles these new forced ads.
Something similar was described in Greg Bear's most famous work, Eon. The residents of The Way had holographic projectors that would "pict" emoticons and other imagery while they were speaking and communicating.
This is only partially true. Gnome is only tied to Linux out of laziness on the part of the gnome developers. Non systemd stuff is all still there but is bit rotting. Architecturally there's no reason gnome cannot run on other kernels and operating systems. Also subsystems of systemd like udev can be implemented on other systems. There's even a project to bring some parts of systemd to BSD to support Gnome development.
I've been dreaming for years of a display that's full color, high resolution (print quality, 300 dpi at least), fast unlike e-ink, and completely 100% reflective. Like the page of a magazine. From cars with their now ubiquitos center console screens to farm machines would be ideal uses of such a screen. Heck I'd prefer watching TV and movies on a large, reflective screen in a well-lit room. Perhaps even photo editing on a such a screen would be useful as the image could look just like the print final copy.
I had high hopes for the several transflective technologies that came and went over the years like Pixel Qi. Too bad they never panned out, though for some applications grey scale in the sunlight would be okay.
We can dream. I'm not hopeful, but it sure would be awesome for so many applications.
Except that you are in control of your own creation. As long as you own the copyright you are free to license your code to whomever you want under whatever terms you want, the GPL notwithstanding. This idea you lose control of your own creation when you use the GPL is at best a half-truth. It's certainly not true for any of my projects. And some projects that want to retain control require copyright to be assigned to them for any patches contributed, but I think this is unpopular.
Linux' copyrights are now owned by so many different people that indeed you can say Linus no longer has control, at least in a copyright sense. Linux could never be relicensed under the GPLv3, for example, and Linus explicitly removed the section from the original GPLv2 that stated you as an end user of the code could apply any later GPL license to the code, locking it to the GPLv2 forever, Tivoization notwithstanding.
I can't tell if you are trolling, trying to be funny, or if you are serious. I feel compelled to respond, though, as this sort of FUD has to stop because the last part of your statement, that no one ever contributes from a company is patently untrue with the GPL and Linux.
Yes companies that don't understand the GPL and just want to take code like they can from BSD or MIT fear the GPL. And from what I can see, companies that fear the GPL are the ones that would like to simply take the free code without any cost to them.
These days most of Linux' development is funded by and contributed to by corporations that use and invest in Linux. They understand the GPL, or at least tolerate it as the cost of business, and how it levels the playing field for all contributors. Competing companies can contribute to Linux without fear that their work will be used in an unfair way against them by another company.
This isn't to say a BSD project could engender such contribution from so many different corporate entities. It's just that these more relaxed licenses do nothing to restrict a company from taking what they want and wrapping it up into a nice proprietary, closed product, so you will have at least some parasitic corporate users, with not recourse for the developers.
The GPL may not be appropriate for many projects, and Redux' choice not to use it is understandable (they chose MIT), but for Linux, being a very large, multi-corporation affair, the GPL is not only appropriate, it's made Linux what it is today. The so-called viral nature of the GPL is what protects it from corporate interest, keeps it open, and keeps the playing field level for the various contributors and interested companies while being steadily improved by all interested parties.
It's true that the modified GPLv2 that the Linux kernel uses has loopholes in it, and has been taken advantage of by some (Tivo!), but overall it's been a good choice.
Had Linux been BSD, or MIT, I just don't think it would be as big or successful as it has been, and so widely contributed to by many competing companies. The BSD and MIT licenses lend themselves to widespread adoption and use without fear of any copyright repercussion. However nothing in them prevents companies from taking the code they want for their own proprietary purposes, never to release it back to the community for mutual benefit.
I am not saying Redux should not be MIT -licensed. I'm just saying their criticism of Linux using the GPL is debatable.
Except that you'll need those fires put out so you can go live there when major cities in Florida are uninhabitable. We have thousands of square miles of wilderness that you can come live in.
I have, actually. I know a couple. These two in particular are some of the most honest, loyal, trustworthy people I know. They enjoy legal minutia, but they also enjoy putting things proper and right. And they like to help people. They agree there are lots of legal things we're required to do (and pay them for) that are pretty silly. But they don't make the laws; politicians do.
I'm confused by Apple's (and slashdotters') response to this whole thing. I can't see that Apple is in the right here. This case has nothing to do with the actual encryption. There's no back door we're talking about here. Turning off the device wiping safety feature is something Apple can do without affecting anyone else. If the worry is that the government would keep this firmware and use it on anyone's phone, well, they apparently have the power to compel this anyway. And Apple has always had the power to do that. I don't see this as a privacy and security issue above and beyond the status quo. If the question was either, can you crack this encryption for us, or can you add a backdoor to the encryption, then the answer is clearly and legitimately no and a court could have to accept the first and be convinced of the second: it's not physically possible to crack good encryption, and it's a bad idea for everyone add a back door.
But as to the question, "can Apple disable the bad passcode wiping function?" yes they absolutely can. Hence the court order. Apple cannot say this is impossible for them to do. Hence by refusing to comply they are clearly in contempt of court. Will be interesting to hear how they plan to battle this out in the courts (and why they would want to).
I am clearly missing something here.
After all is said and done I doubt the FBI will find much of value on the phone. I'll be the first to admit good, old fashioned detective work is still the key these days, though law enforcement apparently wants things to be quicker and easier electronically.
Solenoids can be driven with PWM. This is commonly used in hydraulics. Granted response time is slower on a hydraulic spool but I'm sure pwm would still work for this application.
Haha you're right about conformant, although it appears to be an obsolete word. Performant, however, is definitely made up. I do know that much. And it's made its appearance on the internet mainly in the last 10 years or so, though I suspect it's been used in the past, much like the "irregardless" non-word.
Oh wonderful. Another new made-up word. The AC's summary could and should have simply said, "NVIDIA has drivers that conform to the Vulkan spec." Why the need to make up a new word?
I've noticed the related, made-up word, "performant" has become common lately. English is a messed up language as it is. Let's not make it even worse!
I post this in the finest of our Slashdot traditions.
Releasing 3.14 might have fixed Gnome issues, but it sure made things crappy for the other desktops on CentOS or RHEL7. Now a lot of formerly useful gnome apps that were used in other desktops like Mate or Cinnamon just look like garbage with client-side decorations in these other environments. At best they don't fit in anymore and at worst they look like rubbish as not all gtk3 themes' CSD works that well.
It's looking like Mint's Xapps push is a good thing because the Gnome 3 apps, many of which were used in Cinnamon, are rubbish now in these other desktops. I'm sure they look fine in Gnome itself, though client-side window decorations are a real step backwards in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with you on a few points. Yes fake Nikes and fake cigarettes are destroyed by customs. But this is aimed at profiteering from the import of these counterfeit goods. However if I go on holiday and buy a fake watch, fake Nike shoes, and counterfeit CDs on the street and bring them back with me, customs generally don't seize the goods.
If someone hands me a photocopied book, whoever made the copy violated the copyright, not me. I have no problem taking the copy and reading it, and even letting a friend read it too. I would, however, not be okay with making more copies and selling them (and I probably wouldn't give them away either).
I think the Chagall institute (or the French law) is completely out of line when it comes to counterfeit paintings. That's nothing like copyright infringement. Misrepresenting the work of art that's a copy of the original is wrong, but the fact that it exists is not.
Microsoft certainly wants you to use cloud login, but it's not required. Granted they don't make it easy, but during install there is link to click to tell it to use a local username and password only. And you can decouple your login from your cloud login as well after the fact.
http://www.networkworld.com/ar...
http://www.howtogeek.com/23054...
The write is from the University of Ottawa, not Harvard. Just so you know.
No they couldn't sue her over the use of the font. Fonts are not copyrightable, which means that the shape of the letters is not copyrightable. If someone makes a nice new font and sells it, there's nothing stopping someone from making a font that looks very similar to it.
The issue I see here is one of trademark (IE the Google wordmark), not font.
Except that wouldn't such a passive protest result is all manner of criminal charges? "Go slow" might work in other areas of employment, but in IT such things are likely going to be construed as hacking or violating computer security, in which the law has been dramatically strengthened in recent years. What a mess.
As other poster said, Ghostery blocks and configures locally. It doesn't rely on a service, and you don't have to synchronize between machines. Ghostery can do that if you create a login, but that's completely optional. And if it becomes not the case (like when the Readability plugin jumped shark), it can be forked. I'm not giving anyone any information when I change settings.
Furthermore Ghostery's defaults are very simple and when first turned on almost all users just block all ad trackers with one click.
Anyway until Ghostery is forked, so far it's relatively safe to be used. Safer than not using it anyway.
I always wonder why sites need so many trackers. I've seen sights that served up more than a dozen tracker scripts. I wouldn't doubt if the actual content was dwarfed by the tracker scripts. Several times sites have failed to load because a tracker script was slow to download. Thank goodness for Ghostery. Running Ghostery is a real eye opener, to say nothing of a requirement for safe web browsing in my opinion.
I also will be running on 100% renewable energy by 2035. Why not... sounds reasonable. Surely 20 years is enough for someone somewhere to invent something that will make it all work for me. I just have to sit back and wait for the innovation to roll in. And maybe I can get the government to pass a law to legislate it all into existence. And maybe repeal some of those pesky laws of physics.
Some Alaskans have a very different opinion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...
Alaska and Northern Canada will be some of the very first places to see the more extreme effects of warming. In fact already the ice roads are less stable than they used to be, which will eventually have a huge impact on the ability to operate mines and other economic activities in the far North. To say nothing of the natives who are finding the drastic changes very damaging their their livelihoods.
Oh I agree with you. Emoji are useles and a waste of time and I refuse to use them. I am glad I can disable them on the Android keyboards I use. If I need a smiley face the good old :) works for me.
Maybe it's the ublock add-on, but I have never once seen an ad on Youtube on any of my computers, and not even on my tablet for that matter. I'm not totally sure why. Lately I've taken to watching youtube using mpv or youtube-dl, as the experience is just better on my more anemic computers (neither flash nor html5 video works well for me). I guess we'll see how youtube-dl handles these new forced ads.
Something similar was described in Greg Bear's most famous work, Eon. The residents of The Way had holographic projectors that would "pict" emoticons and other imagery while they were speaking and communicating.
This is only partially true. Gnome is only tied to Linux out of laziness on the part of the gnome developers. Non systemd stuff is all still there but is bit rotting. Architecturally there's no reason gnome cannot run on other kernels and operating systems. Also subsystems of systemd like udev can be implemented on other systems. There's even a project to bring some parts of systemd to BSD to support Gnome development.
I've been dreaming for years of a display that's full color, high resolution (print quality, 300 dpi at least), fast unlike e-ink, and completely 100% reflective. Like the page of a magazine. From cars with their now ubiquitos center console screens to farm machines would be ideal uses of such a screen. Heck I'd prefer watching TV and movies on a large, reflective screen in a well-lit room. Perhaps even photo editing on a such a screen would be useful as the image could look just like the print final copy.
I had high hopes for the several transflective technologies that came and went over the years like Pixel Qi. Too bad they never panned out, though for some applications grey scale in the sunlight would be okay.
We can dream. I'm not hopeful, but it sure would be awesome for so many applications.
Except that you are in control of your own creation. As long as you own the copyright you are free to license your code to whomever you want under whatever terms you want, the GPL notwithstanding. This idea you lose control of your own creation when you use the GPL is at best a half-truth. It's certainly not true for any of my projects. And some projects that want to retain control require copyright to be assigned to them for any patches contributed, but I think this is unpopular.
Linux' copyrights are now owned by so many different people that indeed you can say Linus no longer has control, at least in a copyright sense. Linux could never be relicensed under the GPLv3, for example, and Linus explicitly removed the section from the original GPLv2 that stated you as an end user of the code could apply any later GPL license to the code, locking it to the GPLv2 forever, Tivoization notwithstanding.
Good to know! I hoped that was the case!
I can't tell if you are trolling, trying to be funny, or if you are serious. I feel compelled to respond, though, as this sort of FUD has to stop because the last part of your statement, that no one ever contributes from a company is patently untrue with the GPL and Linux.
Yes companies that don't understand the GPL and just want to take code like they can from BSD or MIT fear the GPL. And from what I can see, companies that fear the GPL are the ones that would like to simply take the free code without any cost to them.
These days most of Linux' development is funded by and contributed to by corporations that use and invest in Linux. They understand the GPL, or at least tolerate it as the cost of business, and how it levels the playing field for all contributors. Competing companies can contribute to Linux without fear that their work will be used in an unfair way against them by another company.
This isn't to say a BSD project could engender such contribution from so many different corporate entities. It's just that these more relaxed licenses do nothing to restrict a company from taking what they want and wrapping it up into a nice proprietary, closed product, so you will have at least some parasitic corporate users, with not recourse for the developers.
The GPL may not be appropriate for many projects, and Redux' choice not to use it is understandable (they chose MIT), but for Linux, being a very large, multi-corporation affair, the GPL is not only appropriate, it's made Linux what it is today. The so-called viral nature of the GPL is what protects it from corporate interest, keeps it open, and keeps the playing field level for the various contributors and interested companies while being steadily improved by all interested parties.
It's true that the modified GPLv2 that the Linux kernel uses has loopholes in it, and has been taken advantage of by some (Tivo!), but overall it's been a good choice.
Had Linux been BSD, or MIT, I just don't think it would be as big or successful as it has been, and so widely contributed to by many competing companies. The BSD and MIT licenses lend themselves to widespread adoption and use without fear of any copyright repercussion. However nothing in them prevents companies from taking the code they want for their own proprietary purposes, never to release it back to the community for mutual benefit.
I am not saying Redux should not be MIT -licensed. I'm just saying their criticism of Linux using the GPL is debatable.
Except that you'll need those fires put out so you can go live there when major cities in Florida are uninhabitable. We have thousands of square miles of wilderness that you can come live in.
I have, actually. I know a couple. These two in particular are some of the most honest, loyal, trustworthy people I know. They enjoy legal minutia, but they also enjoy putting things proper and right. And they like to help people. They agree there are lots of legal things we're required to do (and pay them for) that are pretty silly. But they don't make the laws; politicians do.
I'm confused by Apple's (and slashdotters') response to this whole thing. I can't see that Apple is in the right here. This case has nothing to do with the actual encryption. There's no back door we're talking about here. Turning off the device wiping safety feature is something Apple can do without affecting anyone else. If the worry is that the government would keep this firmware and use it on anyone's phone, well, they apparently have the power to compel this anyway. And Apple has always had the power to do that. I don't see this as a privacy and security issue above and beyond the status quo. If the question was either, can you crack this encryption for us, or can you add a backdoor to the encryption, then the answer is clearly and legitimately no and a court could have to accept the first and be convinced of the second: it's not physically possible to crack good encryption, and it's a bad idea for everyone add a back door.
But as to the question, "can Apple disable the bad passcode wiping function?" yes they absolutely can. Hence the court order. Apple cannot say this is impossible for them to do. Hence by refusing to comply they are clearly in contempt of court. Will be interesting to hear how they plan to battle this out in the courts (and why they would want to).
I am clearly missing something here.
After all is said and done I doubt the FBI will find much of value on the phone. I'll be the first to admit good, old fashioned detective work is still the key these days, though law enforcement apparently wants things to be quicker and easier electronically.
Solenoids can be driven with PWM. This is commonly used in hydraulics. Granted response time is slower on a hydraulic spool but I'm sure pwm would still work for this application.
Haha you're right about conformant, although it appears to be an obsolete word. Performant, however, is definitely made up. I do know that much. And it's made its appearance on the internet mainly in the last 10 years or so, though I suspect it's been used in the past, much like the "irregardless" non-word.
Oh wonderful. Another new made-up word. The AC's summary could and should have simply said, "NVIDIA has drivers that conform to the Vulkan spec." Why the need to make up a new word?
I've noticed the related, made-up word, "performant" has become common lately. English is a messed up language as it is. Let's not make it even worse!
I post this in the finest of our Slashdot traditions.
Releasing 3.14 might have fixed Gnome issues, but it sure made things crappy for the other desktops on CentOS or RHEL7. Now a lot of formerly useful gnome apps that were used in other desktops like Mate or Cinnamon just look like garbage with client-side decorations in these other environments. At best they don't fit in anymore and at worst they look like rubbish as not all gtk3 themes' CSD works that well.
It's looking like Mint's Xapps push is a good thing because the Gnome 3 apps, many of which were used in Cinnamon, are rubbish now in these other desktops. I'm sure they look fine in Gnome itself, though client-side window decorations are a real step backwards in my opinion.