If I receive it under the terms that I may distribute it under either the GPL or the BSD license, then I have certainly been given that right. If I have been told that I must distribute it under both simultaneously, there may be some issues with compatibility.
The problem is that the BSD license adds restrictions that the GPL itself does not include. Ergo, a BSD-licensed bit of code cannot be changed to a GPL-licensed bit of code without violating one of the licenses.
Just because it works differently from what you're expecting, doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Admittedly, I haven't used NetBSD much at all, but FreeBSD works quite well and it works consistently.
Maybe you're confused because GNU has added features over the years, and BSD has added different ones?
I do think that Apple is missing a great piece of the market by not offering a lower end Mac Pro, but generally speaking, there are always trade-offs in whatever off-the-shelf PC you decide to buy.
Dell typically uses crappy mainboards, and the expandability is highly limited. Apple either gives you highly reduced expandability (iMac,Mini series), crappy graphics (Mini), or a high price tag and more power than most people need (Pro.) But the truth is, most people don't need a KVM or the internal expandability that you crave. For these people, a Mac is a perfectly suitable option. Other people just run OS X illegally, or they deal with Windows.
Of course Embassy officials have something to hide. In fact this raises a superb example of one of the legitimate, and useful, needs for Tor. Yeah, because a VPN to the homeland wouldn't work better.
I do, but I don't think that Apple did anything wrong in this case. Really, it's the price gouging that I have a problem with.
The only thing Apple really could have done was become more intrusive when the phone uses data. A Vista-like "Are you sure you want to check your mail?" every time would have prevented this. Doing so while roaming might even be a sane default.
But realistically, the default settings of the iPhone do not cause this behavior. This guy turned on background e-mail checking, then forgot or didn't know how to turn off his iPhone (which means that he didn't read the manual that came with it.) He holds the most culpabililty by far.
I may be confused, but I think the poster was referring to closing a flip phone when he said "shut your phone." This does not normally turn the phone off--normally it puts it into some sort of sleep/suspend mode from which it can still make data transactions and receive calls.
The iPhone isn't targetted at business people, while Blackberries and WM phones are. Also, Apple's schtick is making things that "just work."
That said, I think this is a load of bull. I think the guy knew what he was doing, but didn't realize how much it would cost, and now he's trying to skip out on the bill.
I haven't worked with Django, but from my experience, these types of frameworks are quite complicated and have a moderate-to-steep learning curve. Realistically, once you get familiar with them, they should speed up your development time tremendously (sometimes at the expense of things like scalability or reliability, of course.)
My understanding is that Django/Rails/CakePHP are fairly different from Zope/Plone, both in design goals and implementation. I wouldn't expect experience in one to help with the other.
That's actually quite an astute observation. I wish that I had mod points for you.
Ruby on Rails suffers from this tremendously. It's like a language which has Ruby-like syntax, but all of the clever tricks they use really separate it from Ruby itself (which, minus the lack of true threading, is a pretty neat language.)
The biggest problem is not the front end, but the back. When I last looked at RoR, it simply couldn't talk to multiple databases. This means that, as sites get larger, you need more and more database power, but you're going to be limited to a single machine.
There are more rights than simply attribution that one might be concerned with. Modification is certainly one. Incorporation into another work is another (I might not want a posting of mine with my name on it to be included in a greater series of works if I disagree with the ideas or have a moral problem with the greater work, for example.)
If you want to prevent someone from *profiting* from your work, well, I can't see how requiring you to register it first is either unreasonable or burdensome. It's probably a point on which we'll have to disagree. That said, I also think that copyright is far too long, and most of my ideas shouldn't sound too unreasonable in a shorter copyright term (28 years, for example.)
If you had to register your forum posts, would you stop posting? I bet that you would not. Therefore, it harms everyone, including all the little guys, to not have your posts in the public domain so that everyone can freely use them. You, specifically, might not be as well off (though balance that against your benefit in being able to use everyone else's posts), but copyright is about the public good overall, not whether particular authors benefit. I might, though generally speaking, I don't care to have my forum posts copyrighted, anyway, as long as no one else claims copyright over them. I'd be more likely to stop blogging, as my blog contains impressions of products, my own musings on situations, and critiques, etc. I won't claim to be particularly good or anything like that, but you can damned well bet that if a corporation wanted to publish my work, I would want the credit.
Things change fast on the Internet. Software patches come out in rapid succession, blogs are updated often multiple times per day. It's infeasible to copyright everything that might some day be worth something, and if I don't, someone else might reap the rewards from my work. That's not a situation I'd enjoy being in.
The point which was in between the lines is that most people who post in blogs aren't going to copyright their material Automatic copyright grants them some form of protection. They have a recourse if they want to fight someone who is using their content without permission. Corporation's latest bubble-gum pop idol soundtrack is going to be explicitly copyrighted anyway (they don't rely on automatic copyright, you know.) The only people that automatic copyright helps are those people who wouldn't have the time or money to copyright their work. Amateur bloggers fit this category perfectly. Filing for copyright on every post they make would simply take up too much time, and it would slow down the blog (because you can't post it until you copyright it, or you risk losing it.)
Every little guy's blog is probably worth next to nothing, even if it is very compelling Regardless, if a big media company wants to use it, they have to pay. There was a story on here not long ago about a guy, Youtube, Viacom, and Viacom using his work in one of their shows. This is exactly the sort of case that automatic copyright helps with.
Also, the flood of blogs certainly means that/most/ of them (by percent) are probably worthless to big media, but certainly not all of them.
and I would argue that if you put it on the internet, it's public domain and you've voided automatically, any right to it Why do you treat the Internet differently from every other medium?
This is an interesting point. From 1978 until about 1994, automatic copyright was not needed in the least.
But what about now? Now, when anyone with an Internet connection and a voice can become a publisher? All those blog posts are copyrighted, you know. If I write something fantastic and compelling in my blog, anyone who wants to reuse it has to get permission. That includes the megacorps.
Automatic copyright should actually help the little people of today more than it hurts them.
Right. The person to whom you replied seemed to want logic put into the database. A database is meant to hold data. Interpretation of the data is left to the program using the database.
It's actually more overhead to not take the snapshot! From http://www.tech-recipes.com/solaris_system_adminis tration_tips1434.html:
The reason that snapshots add no overhead in CPU load is because of the way that ZFS writes changes in data to the disk. ZFS writes its data in units called blocks (which are dynamically sized up to 128KB). When the data in an existing block is changed, ZFS writes the data to a new block on disk before it releases the old block. However, when a shapshot exists for the filesystem, the old block is not released. Instead, it remains as part of the snapshot. Therefore, the only increases in disk space used for snapshots are in keeping around old blocks.
It doesn't have to. Take Microsoft's shadow copies ("Previous Versions") for example. While a drive may have a certain amount of the disk available for shadowing, that amount is not a hard reserved amount. If the disk space is needed for live data, the oldest shadow copies are sacrificed (the space reclaimed). Sure, backups result in slightly higher processor and throughput overhead, but isn't it great knowing that databases backed up hot are being backed up in a consistent state? Isn't it wonderful that your mail server's mail store is being backed up hot in a consistent state? I haven't read up on shadow copies, but if it is exactly as you say, it's a worthless backup scheme. I need to know that my backup is there--I don't want to hope that I didn't use up too much of my drive space for the backup to exist.
If it uses a hard threshold and keeps soft (disposable) backups beyond that, it'd be/somewhat/ okay, but it still feels weird to me. Prayer should not be a part of disaster recovery (though it too often is.)
They may want this, but they're going to have to support at least most of the drivers that Linux supports (and almost all of the ones for current hardware.) I'd be running OpenSolaris right now if it had better SATA driver support. Unfortunately, that's a dealbreaker for me.
Slashdot Mirror
If I receive it under the terms that I may distribute it under either the GPL or the BSD license, then I have certainly been given that right. If I have been told that I must distribute it under both simultaneously, there may be some issues with compatibility.
The problem is that the BSD license adds restrictions that the GPL itself does not include. Ergo, a BSD-licensed bit of code cannot be changed to a GPL-licensed bit of code without violating one of the licenses.
It also means that other companies might follow suit, if this helps ATI's bottom line. My next graphics card will be ATI-based for this very reason.
Just because it works differently from what you're expecting, doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Admittedly, I haven't used NetBSD much at all, but FreeBSD works quite well and it works consistently.
Maybe you're confused because GNU has added features over the years, and BSD has added different ones?
I do think that Apple is missing a great piece of the market by not offering a lower end Mac Pro, but generally speaking, there are always trade-offs in whatever off-the-shelf PC you decide to buy.
Dell typically uses crappy mainboards, and the expandability is highly limited. Apple either gives you highly reduced expandability (iMac,Mini series), crappy graphics (Mini), or a high price tag and more power than most people need (Pro.) But the truth is, most people don't need a KVM or the internal expandability that you crave. For these people, a Mac is a perfectly suitable option. Other people just run OS X illegally, or they deal with Windows.
How many times have Ubuntu users been bitten by an update which locked them out of X or worse, out of their machine entirely?
It's happened at least 3 times to me. I'm capable of fixing it, however. Are most people?
I do, but I don't think that Apple did anything wrong in this case. Really, it's the price gouging that I have a problem with.
The only thing Apple really could have done was become more intrusive when the phone uses data. A Vista-like "Are you sure you want to check your mail?" every time would have prevented this. Doing so while roaming might even be a sane default.
But realistically, the default settings of the iPhone do not cause this behavior. This guy turned on background e-mail checking, then forgot or didn't know how to turn off his iPhone (which means that he didn't read the manual that came with it.) He holds the most culpabililty by far.
I may be confused, but I think the poster was referring to closing a flip phone when he said "shut your phone." This does not normally turn the phone off--normally it puts it into some sort of sleep/suspend mode from which it can still make data transactions and receive calls.
The iPhone isn't targetted at business people, while Blackberries and WM phones are. Also, Apple's schtick is making things that "just work."
That said, I think this is a load of bull. I think the guy knew what he was doing, but didn't realize how much it would cost, and now he's trying to skip out on the bill.
It's hardly AT&T's fault that this person didn't read the manual. Honestly, what ever happened to personal responsibility?
You can pull the battery.
This is one issue with this phone that I think is really crappy, though.
I haven't worked with Django, but from my experience, these types of frameworks are quite complicated and have a moderate-to-steep learning curve. Realistically, once you get familiar with them, they should speed up your development time tremendously (sometimes at the expense of things like scalability or reliability, of course.)
My understanding is that Django/Rails/CakePHP are fairly different from Zope/Plone, both in design goals and implementation. I wouldn't expect experience in one to help with the other.
That's actually quite an astute observation. I wish that I had mod points for you.
Ruby on Rails suffers from this tremendously. It's like a language which has Ruby-like syntax, but all of the clever tricks they use really separate it from Ruby itself (which, minus the lack of true threading, is a pretty neat language.)
The biggest problem is not the front end, but the back. When I last looked at RoR, it simply couldn't talk to multiple databases. This means that, as sites get larger, you need more and more database power, but you're going to be limited to a single machine.
http://www.jonathanboutelle.com/mt/archives/2007/04/scaling_rails_t.html has more information.
That article also discusses an extension that handles multiple databases, but I have no idea how well it works.
Things change fast on the Internet. Software patches come out in rapid succession, blogs are updated often multiple times per day. It's infeasible to copyright everything that might some day be worth something, and if I don't, someone else might reap the rewards from my work. That's not a situation I'd enjoy being in.
Don't argue that with me--argue it with the person to whom I originally responded. I think that the length of copyright is simply abhorrent.
Well, realistically, Fair Use is a defense against copyright violation, and it's something that the MLB could easily claim, and probably easily win.
Also, the flood of blogs certainly means that
This is an interesting point. From 1978 until about 1994, automatic copyright was not needed in the least.
But what about now? Now, when anyone with an Internet connection and a voice can become a publisher? All those blog posts are copyrighted, you know. If I write something fantastic and compelling in my blog, anyone who wants to reuse it has to get permission. That includes the megacorps.
Automatic copyright should actually help the little people of today more than it hurts them.
Right. The person to whom you replied seemed to want logic put into the database. A database is meant to hold data. Interpretation of the data is left to the program using the database.
If it uses a hard threshold and keeps soft (disposable) backups beyond that, it'd be
They may want this, but they're going to have to support at least most of the drivers that Linux supports (and almost all of the ones for current hardware.) I'd be running OpenSolaris right now if it had better SATA driver support. Unfortunately, that's a dealbreaker for me.