In fact, that's not true. They obtained an injunction preventing the original authors from distributing it, and preventing 3 mirror sites form redistributing it. The ruling was that they had to explicitly list anyone they wanted to enjoin, and mail them a copy of the injunction via certified mail. The case was never determined by a judge, as it was settled before a decision could be reached. Furthermore, the injunctions were based upon the principle that the software itself was illegal and had no right to exist. No person distributing it was legally allowed to for this reason. It had nothing to do with revocation of a license.
The GPL tries to protect the freedom of end users, at the cost of the freedom of third party developers. Unfortunately, I don't think it's a fair tradeoff -- what rights did the end user have to the third party's changes to begin with?
I like the BSD license over the GPL. I think it's mostly the simplicity, frankly.
But the question isn't about what rights a user has to third party changes. The question is what rights the third party had to use the original code. And the answer is "none, unless they agree to make their distributed changes available." Once that agreement is made, it follows quite obviously that the end user has a right to the code.
Except that with BSD, the original, unaltered source is still available. If a company, say, takes the BSD networking stack and incorporates it into their proprietary, closed-source product, any user can still go out and get the original BSD networking stack. Most analogies in these arguments imply that overall freedom is somehow reduced by BSD, but that's not true.
Another good example. Though it seems fairly unlikely that someone would steal something just to donate it to the Salvation Army, I guess it could happen. Since the donation isn't a sale, I wonder if that part of it would even be affected by the law. When I've donated, I usually just toss it in the bin outside that's there specifically for that purpose. Never even interact with a person.
Replace pawn shop with any store dealing in used goods. Around here, we have local shops that buy and sell computers, video games, consoles, books, music, etc. They're not properly pawn shops (which are regulated by other, fairly similar laws regarding identity in transactions) but they operate in the way that most people think of when they talk about pawn shops.
This doesn't really affect that. They were still required to collect tax before, and they'll find out that someone isn't doing that exactly the same way as before--stings. Under-the-table cash transactions could occur before and after the law.
This law will never affect person-to-person transactions. It's targeted at stores which sell used goods. And realistically, it's targeting those stores purchasing used goods from people. The "problem" they are solving is the classic fence situation. Someone steals a computer, sells it to a pawn shop for cash, and takes off. The lawmakers want a paper trail so that they can catch the thief.
Pretty much the same in the US. Ostensibly, you can't go to prison for failing to repay debt. However judges are starting to issue court orders for people to repay debts, and if the subject of the order doesn't, they're disobeying a court order. That is punishable with jail time.
So practically, it wouldn't matter.
Frankly, transactions and debt are well-understood legal situations that all of the armchair lawyers on Slashdot don't understand. They think you can treat the law like a computer, and bend the meaning of the rules based on strict, careful wordings. The truth is, judges and juries are people who understand what debt is, and know that when I buy a CD at Best Buy, I'm not incurring debt with Best Buy at any point in the transaction (unless I use a Best Buy charge card.)
Legally, the question would be when the item becomes property of the purchaser. I'm pretty sure every jury in the country would agree that it happens simultaneously with the exchange of funds, or after payment was made.
The researchers place a phone with custom software near a desktop keyboard. The custom software records vibrations from the desktop keyboard using the phone's accelerometers. Using statistical analysis, they can decode the vibrations to figure out what was typed on the desktop keyboard. They wouldn't have to use a phone--it's just a cheap, convenient source of commodity accelerometers. They could just as easily put custom hardware (with accelerometers) on the desktop and sniff in exactly the same manner.
They aren't sniffing what you type on the phone. They're using the phone to sniff what you type on your desktop keyboard. The type of keyboard you use on the phone is completely irrelevant.
Bringing up the title bar is an interesting one, because the title bar is almost completely useless on Chrome. From the perspective of a flowing design, it definitely belongs on the tab. However the tab is too small for the title to be useful.
The comments from entitled commenters are exactly why companies aren't more forthcoming about their decision-making processes. Companies that are silent on such matters don't get bad press. If the bug report hadn't been locked and no one had explained that this was a feature that would never be implemented, the current hubub wouldn't have happened and the only people likely to notice or care would be the 187 people who commented on the bug report. Now Google's on the front page of Slashdot again doing something that has the appearance of being closed (in reality, most open-source projects reject bug reports, and a good portion of them reject patches that implement desired functionality. How many times was Xen rejected from the Linux kernel? Years, though it was admittedly finally accepted.)
They didn't ignore the users. They addressed the users. They just didn't implement the requested change. They explained why not, and also why they were locking the bug.
There's admission that a large number of people want the feature. I don't know if that's a large percentage of their userbase or not. They might obviously say "no" to feature requests with only one or two users, but this many?
At the same time, most people use the mouse with their right hand or thumb. The left hand is free to rest on the keyboard, ready to do things or use left-handed keyboard shortcuts. Personally, I never click tabs unless I'm reordering them. The vast majority of the time, I ctrl-tab. That said, I never click on the location bar. I always ctrl-l or cmd-l and start typing--the keyboard shortcut saves time because I'm going to have to start typing anyway.
So strictly speaking, you're right. I click tabs more often than I click in the location bar. But for me, they're both minimal.
But almost all of Chrome is open source. I think you lose some of the default plugins and tracking. So in a sense, they are operating as a charity--providing most of the code they wrote as an open source project (you don't get Flash player, and I think you don't get the PDF viewer.)
Yeah. There's obviously something wrong with Firefox, because too many users complain about the speed. But it's not reproducible, and plenty of people don't have the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that TRIM isn't supported in RAID5. Not sure about other RAID levels. I would expect that you'd be able to RAID1 just fine, though.
In fact, that's not true. They obtained an injunction preventing the original authors from distributing it, and preventing 3 mirror sites form redistributing it. The ruling was that they had to explicitly list anyone they wanted to enjoin, and mail them a copy of the injunction via certified mail. The case was never determined by a judge, as it was settled before a decision could be reached. Furthermore, the injunctions were based upon the principle that the software itself was illegal and had no right to exist. No person distributing it was legally allowed to for this reason. It had nothing to do with revocation of a license.
See, this comment thread is kinda like the BSD license. You're welcome to ignore it.
If it was the GPL, you'd be forced to take part, and to get others to take part.
It's all simple, really.
The GPL tries to protect the freedom of end users, at the cost of the freedom of third party developers. Unfortunately, I don't think it's a fair tradeoff -- what rights did the end user have to the third party's changes to begin with?
I like the BSD license over the GPL. I think it's mostly the simplicity, frankly.
But the question isn't about what rights a user has to third party changes. The question is what rights the third party had to use the original code. And the answer is "none, unless they agree to make their distributed changes available." Once that agreement is made, it follows quite obviously that the end user has a right to the code.
Except that with BSD, the original, unaltered source is still available. If a company, say, takes the BSD networking stack and incorporates it into their proprietary, closed-source product, any user can still go out and get the original BSD networking stack. Most analogies in these arguments imply that overall freedom is somehow reduced by BSD, but that's not true.
Another good example. Though it seems fairly unlikely that someone would steal something just to donate it to the Salvation Army, I guess it could happen. Since the donation isn't a sale, I wonder if that part of it would even be affected by the law. When I've donated, I usually just toss it in the bin outside that's there specifically for that purpose. Never even interact with a person.
Replace pawn shop with any store dealing in used goods. Around here, we have local shops that buy and sell computers, video games, consoles, books, music, etc. They're not properly pawn shops (which are regulated by other, fairly similar laws regarding identity in transactions) but they operate in the way that most people think of when they talk about pawn shops.
This doesn't really affect that. They were still required to collect tax before, and they'll find out that someone isn't doing that exactly the same way as before--stings. Under-the-table cash transactions could occur before and after the law.
This law will never affect person-to-person transactions. It's targeted at stores which sell used goods. And realistically, it's targeting those stores purchasing used goods from people. The "problem" they are solving is the classic fence situation. Someone steals a computer, sells it to a pawn shop for cash, and takes off. The lawmakers want a paper trail so that they can catch the thief.
Pretty much the same in the US. Ostensibly, you can't go to prison for failing to repay debt. However judges are starting to issue court orders for people to repay debts, and if the subject of the order doesn't, they're disobeying a court order. That is punishable with jail time.
So practically, it wouldn't matter.
Frankly, transactions and debt are well-understood legal situations that all of the armchair lawyers on Slashdot don't understand. They think you can treat the law like a computer, and bend the meaning of the rules based on strict, careful wordings. The truth is, judges and juries are people who understand what debt is, and know that when I buy a CD at Best Buy, I'm not incurring debt with Best Buy at any point in the transaction (unless I use a Best Buy charge card.)
Legally, the question would be when the item becomes property of the purchaser. I'm pretty sure every jury in the country would agree that it happens simultaneously with the exchange of funds, or after payment was made.
Ah, I didn't realize that. Thanks.
Amusingly, they did put in a nod to HAL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mNcnj2l6RE#t=5m35s
The researchers place a phone with custom software near a desktop keyboard. The custom software records vibrations from the desktop keyboard using the phone's accelerometers. Using statistical analysis, they can decode the vibrations to figure out what was typed on the desktop keyboard. They wouldn't have to use a phone--it's just a cheap, convenient source of commodity accelerometers. They could just as easily put custom hardware (with accelerometers) on the desktop and sniff in exactly the same manner.
They aren't sniffing what you type on the phone. They're using the phone to sniff what you type on your desktop keyboard. The type of keyboard you use on the phone is completely irrelevant.
You should try reading past the first sentence.
Bringing up the title bar is an interesting one, because the title bar is almost completely useless on Chrome. From the perspective of a flowing design, it definitely belongs on the tab. However the tab is too small for the title to be useful.
The comments from entitled commenters are exactly why companies aren't more forthcoming about their decision-making processes. Companies that are silent on such matters don't get bad press. If the bug report hadn't been locked and no one had explained that this was a feature that would never be implemented, the current hubub wouldn't have happened and the only people likely to notice or care would be the 187 people who commented on the bug report. Now Google's on the front page of Slashdot again doing something that has the appearance of being closed (in reality, most open-source projects reject bug reports, and a good portion of them reject patches that implement desired functionality. How many times was Xen rejected from the Linux kernel? Years, though it was admittedly finally accepted.)
They didn't ignore the users. They addressed the users. They just didn't implement the requested change. They explained why not, and also why they were locking the bug.
Words have meaning.
There's admission that a large number of people want the feature. I don't know if that's a large percentage of their userbase or not. They might obviously say "no" to feature requests with only one or two users, but this many?
The question is where to draw the line.
At the same time, most people use the mouse with their right hand or thumb. The left hand is free to rest on the keyboard, ready to do things or use left-handed keyboard shortcuts. Personally, I never click tabs unless I'm reordering them. The vast majority of the time, I ctrl-tab. That said, I never click on the location bar. I always ctrl-l or cmd-l and start typing--the keyboard shortcut saves time because I'm going to have to start typing anyway.
So strictly speaking, you're right. I click tabs more often than I click in the location bar. But for me, they're both minimal.
But almost all of Chrome is open source. I think you lose some of the default plugins and tracking. So in a sense, they are operating as a charity--providing most of the code they wrote as an open source project (you don't get Flash player, and I think you don't get the PDF viewer.)
Yeah. There's obviously something wrong with Firefox, because too many users complain about the speed. But it's not reproducible, and plenty of people don't have the problem.
Where can I download SWYPE for my desktop?
Did you even read the summary? Or the headline?
I knew someone who gave away free wireless ethernet cables with purchase of a wifi card. Until it became too much trouble to explain the empty boxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_emulator
That may help you understand.