Actually, the advertisers decide what gets put for a keyword (that and the frequency ads are clicked, along with the price advertisers are willing to pay).
I've run a few ads, and it costs me about $1.50-$3.00/click for the ads i ran.
I make damned sure that I am relevant, and what I think someone is looking for, because that money should not be wasted.
The Dutch (I believe it was) have ships that do something similar (I don't know the specifics actually, but they suck in oil and water, and spit out water).
They were not used as it is illegal to dump the water back if it is contaminated, and the ships are not perfect.
Laws against half-assed cleanup have an un-intended consequence. I wonder if honest reports of the actual amount leaking could have gotten these in quicker.
A cop I saw crested about 3 little rolling hills in front of be stopped at the peak of the hill nest hill he was still there, I passed him at like 15 miles an hour and he pulled me over.
Apparently he slammed on the breaks and radared me. Didn't give a ticket though, just told me to stop driving like an asshole in his state (he did actually radar me, or was a very good guesser, as he pinned my speed, I assume he knew it would hold up though, radaring from the middle of the road, and that he really just wanted me to not drive like that).
Distribution most certainly does fall under copyright law. If I make a copy of a disc and pass it on, the license still applies.
But if I make make a copy of software and give it to you, you can distribute it however you want, as long as I give it to you legally. Retailers of boxed copies are not beholden to any license that hinges on copyright, which would include the GPL. I know the GPL claims that retail sales count as conveying when reading their license (based on the words used), but if you are not copying it then you do not need to worry about it. Just as I can resell a used game or book, without any interference from the rights holder.
Also, section 6 of the GPL appears to be pretty clear. There are 3 instances I read where one does not need to be prepared to distribute the source themself:
1)section 6 e deals with P2P distribution, and if source is readily available, then you don't need to worry yourself about it, just include.nfo with a link
2) 6 c deals with receiving a physical copy with no source, but a written offer (note only for a physical copy), and then distributing your copy non-commercially, the original offer can be passed along instead.
3) 6 d deals with allowing a third party to distribute the source, but only if it is in the same place and location (linked from the same webpage appears to count) as the original
6d perhaps works for that situation, but the fact that the example is all about network servers makes is difficult, I would take it as you would need to offer the corresponding source on a CD that you have, and be turned down. The fact that it recipient makes the copy confuses things IMO.
in V2, the written offer was more transferable in 3 c (still non-commercial, but not limited to physical media reception only).
One of the right you must show them is regarding receiving the copy from you.
Did you make the copy? then technically yes, you do.
This clause protects the code if a company goes out of business. If you purchased the copy or had it sent to you, and did not install it, then you are clear. The GPL gave you the right to do such, and therefore you are bound. I know they are trying real hard to not use up too much space, but I think Linux ISO's should have the source in a giant tar.gz on them, just to make distribution easier. Or at least have that option available as a DVD.
(what? you think everyone who passes on GPL software has to host the source themselves?).
To be in compliance they better be (or at least giving it to those that ask). This of course is limited to those making copies of the software, for if you are simply passing on CDs/DVDs without making a copy, then you don't need to comply with GPL, as you do not need it to be in compliance with copyright law.
No, because Apple needs the GPL to be allowed to make the copies of someone elses copyrighted material.
Though Walmart does distribute the software, they are not making copies, so they do not need the GPL to prevent them from being in violation of copyright law.
Since they are not doing anything that triggers the privileges of the license (making copies) they are not required to have a give.
Apple on the other-hand is copying copyrighted code, this makes them in violation of the law. The only way to not be in violation of the law is to comply with the license, or get a new license from the people whose work they are profiting from copying.
Apple will need to host the code, and make a note somewhere that it is available. Then they will be compliant.
They will then probably actually check licenses vs just function i guess? not sure.
Apple's infringement was for profit, but in their defense it was not willful, they were lied to by the developer, that very well could have committed a fraud by claiming to have rights they didn't have. I would think if Apple pulled the App immediately they would be pretty clear.
If I fraudulently posted a closed source app as my own to iTunes, I would think it would have a similar infection.
Not to be dense, but would this simpley make the way a category is defined essentially a field type using CCK?
So I could essentially create a content type of taxonomy, and define it using the category field type, making it work more the way i originally claimed it did?
Also, with CCK being integrated into core, it could very well move in that direction I would guess.
It would be nice I guess to be able to treat a taxonomy page or display page as a node and augment it with CCK (I know I mess around more than I would like trying to get the Term pages to display as i want), but I don't think the distinction between them and content is purely artificial.
I guess i really just need more imagination though, as the everything engine description did not really help me out.
Another thing I like about Drupal is that it doesn't feel like I am fighting it too much (second paragraph of this reply not withstanding).
Is that why the default menu options created for adding content are in a menu called "Create Content"?
That was a complaint about joomla, in Drupal it is all content (though i guess not users, themes, or modules). I don't know what purpose the theme or module would have as a node though.
With Drupal I guess it's more that all content is content which make me like it, more than everything is a node.
Re:yet another book on a specific aspect of drupal
on
Drupal 6 Attachment Views
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Using Drupal did a good job of bringing a lot of it together for me.
I only have limited experience with it and joomla (we'll say about your 300 hrs in each), but my feeling with Drupal is the opposite of yours.
I feel that everything is connected ion a way that makes things awesome, where Joomla it was all over the place.
I love how in Drupal everything is simply a node, so I can create products to sell, and using views make some decent categories, create a side-bar with top sellers, create an news feed of new products, etc.
With CCK I can make content that is quite detailed, and using views I can display it however I want (on a map, in a hot list in the side bar, as blurbs in a blog kind-of style, a tagcloud of most popular keywords, an image slide show etc.).
All of this is integrated quite well I think, and it allows for a module adding functionality to add it to everything, since in the end, it is all just nodes.
I haven't used wordpress at all, but to contrast with Joomla, where when I install a map component, I am creating maps, not content.
When i used a store module, I am creating products, not content.
Yes there is a lot to drupal, but attachment views extend the functionality that does not exist in other systems, certainly not in a way that allows you to work with ALL of the content of a site in a consistent interface.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the advertisers decide what gets put for a keyword (that and the frequency ads are clicked, along with the price advertisers are willing to pay).
I've run a few ads, and it costs me about $1.50-$3.00 /click for the ads i ran.
I make damned sure that I am relevant, and what I think someone is looking for, because that money should not be wasted.
Oil and sealife...
The Dutch (I believe it was) have ships that do something similar (I don't know the specifics actually, but they suck in oil and water, and spit out water).
They were not used as it is illegal to dump the water back if it is contaminated, and the ships are not perfect.
Miraculously, I don't appear to be totally full of shit:
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-oil-spill-response-team-standby-us-oil-disaster
Laws against half-assed cleanup have an un-intended consequence. I wonder if honest reports of the actual amount leaking could have gotten these in quicker.
this would have certainly gotten him coverage in the press at least.
I was driving a "little" too fast once.
A cop I saw crested about 3 little rolling hills in front of be stopped at the peak of the hill nest hill he was still there, I passed him at like 15 miles an hour and he pulled me over.
Apparently he slammed on the breaks and radared me. Didn't give a ticket though, just told me to stop driving like an asshole in his state (he did actually radar me, or was a very good guesser, as he pinned my speed, I assume he knew it would hold up though, radaring from the middle of the road, and that he really just wanted me to not drive like that).
Maybe the Aussies are just terrible drivers, and the space is reliably there.
Where I am, you'll be either blocking another lane waiting for a gap, or forcing yourself in. I have never seen 60+ feet in that situation.
http://www.freeciv.net/ is fairly playable.
As far as high kick goes, I found the Dogfish Fort quite enjoyable (YMMV Though).
My favorite of theirs is the Squall IPA which I believe is essentially the 90 Minute, but unfiltered.
I'm pretty sure OLPC developed their screen, not that it took off anywhere else though
So your saying that the infringer being given a zero cost option aside from infringement charges is worse than having no zero cost recourse?
It sounds to me like the GPL is offering a cure to the infection of illegally copying something, and is really more like antibiotics.
Distribution most certainly does fall under copyright law. If I make a copy of a disc and pass it on, the license still applies.
But if I make make a copy of software and give it to you, you can distribute it however you want, as long as I give it to you legally. Retailers of boxed copies are not beholden to any license that hinges on copyright, which would include the GPL. I know the GPL claims that retail sales count as conveying when reading their license (based on the words used), but if you are not copying it then you do not need to worry about it. Just as I can resell a used game or book, without any interference from the rights holder.
Also, section 6 of the GPL appears to be pretty clear. There are 3 instances I read where one does not need to be prepared to distribute the source themself:
1)section 6 e deals with P2P distribution, and if source is readily available, then you don't need to worry yourself about it, just include .nfo with a link
2) 6 c deals with receiving a physical copy with no source, but a written offer (note only for a physical copy), and then distributing your copy non-commercially, the original offer can be passed along instead.
3) 6 d deals with allowing a third party to distribute the source, but only if it is in the same place and location (linked from the same webpage appears to count) as the original
6d perhaps works for that situation, but the fact that the example is all about network servers makes is difficult, I would take it as you would need to offer the corresponding source on a CD that you have, and be turned down. The fact that it recipient makes the copy confuses things IMO.
in V2, the written offer was more transferable in 3 c (still non-commercial, but not limited to physical media reception only).
One of the right you must show them is regarding receiving the copy from you.
Did you make the copy? then technically yes, you do.
This clause protects the code if a company goes out of business. If you purchased the copy or had it sent to you, and did not install it, then you are clear. The GPL gave you the right to do such, and therefore you are bound. I know they are trying real hard to not use up too much space, but I think Linux ISO's should have the source in a giant tar.gz on them, just to make distribution easier. Or at least have that option available as a DVD.
(what? you think everyone who passes on GPL software has to host the source themselves?).
To be in compliance they better be (or at least giving it to those that ask). This of course is limited to those making copies of the software, for if you are simply passing on CDs/DVDs without making a copy, then you don't need to comply with GPL, as you do not need it to be in compliance with copyright law.
No, because Apple needs the GPL to be allowed to make the copies of someone elses copyrighted material.
Though Walmart does distribute the software, they are not making copies, so they do not need the GPL to prevent them from being in violation of copyright law.
Since they are not doing anything that triggers the privileges of the license (making copies) they are not required to have a give.
Apple on the other-hand is copying copyrighted code, this makes them in violation of the law. The only way to not be in violation of the law is to comply with the license, or get a new license from the people whose work they are profiting from copying.
So your completely anti-copyright then?
I don't know how someone making a copy, and collecting money for it is actually a third party, but I guess they could be.
It didn't "infect" anything.
There was no clean code "infected" I imagine.
Apple will need to host the code, and make a note somewhere that it is available. Then they will be compliant.
They will then probably actually check licenses vs just function i guess? not sure.
Apple's infringement was for profit, but in their defense it was not willful, they were lied to by the developer, that very well could have committed a fraud by claiming to have rights they didn't have. I would think if Apple pulled the App immediately they would be pretty clear.
If I fraudulently posted a closed source app as my own to iTunes, I would think it would have a similar infection.
Not to be dense, but would this simpley make the way a category is defined essentially a field type using CCK?
So I could essentially create a content type of taxonomy, and define it using the category field type, making it work more the way i originally claimed it did?
Also, with CCK being integrated into core, it could very well move in that direction I would guess.
But is a category really a piece of content?
It would be nice I guess to be able to treat a taxonomy page or display page as a node and augment it with CCK (I know I mess around more than I would like trying to get the Term pages to display as i want), but I don't think the distinction between them and content is purely artificial.
I guess i really just need more imagination though, as the everything engine description did not really help me out.
Another thing I like about Drupal is that it doesn't feel like I am fighting it too much (second paragraph of this reply not withstanding).
Is that why the default menu options created for adding content are in a menu called "Create Content"?
That was a complaint about joomla, in Drupal it is all content (though i guess not users, themes, or modules). I don't know what purpose the theme or module would have as a node though.
With Drupal I guess it's more that all content is content which make me like it, more than everything is a node.
I believe if your PIN is stolen you have less protections (e.g. from a hard hacked atm).
Additionally even having your account at zero for a period is a pretty big inconvenience.
God I hope to be modded down, thanks.
Using Drupal did a good job of bringing a lot of it together for me.
I only have limited experience with it and joomla (we'll say about your 300 hrs in each), but my feeling with Drupal is the opposite of yours.
I feel that everything is connected ion a way that makes things awesome, where Joomla it was all over the place.
I love how in Drupal everything is simply a node, so I can create products to sell, and using views make some decent categories, create a side-bar with top sellers, create an news feed of new products, etc.
With CCK I can make content that is quite detailed, and using views I can display it however I want (on a map, in a hot list in the side bar, as blurbs in a blog kind-of style, a tagcloud of most popular keywords, an image slide show etc.).
All of this is integrated quite well I think, and it allows for a module adding functionality to add it to everything, since in the end, it is all just nodes.
I haven't used wordpress at all, but to contrast with Joomla, where when I install a map component, I am creating maps, not content.
When i used a store module, I am creating products, not content.
Yes there is a lot to drupal, but attachment views extend the functionality that does not exist in other systems, certainly not in a way that allows you to work with ALL of the content of a site in a consistent interface.
though maybe I just drank the kool-aid...
Swap space can easily outpace that though.
Though I suspect default settings in operating systems will trend towards not doing such.
Yeah, because the mpaa isn't for searching laptops for all media files. They are so pro privacy.
You missed the fine print, where they cancel it and come after everyone.