Ahem.. IANAL but with a college reading level and knowledge of software development, I can understand the GPL top-to-bottom. All I'm saying is that if you thought you needed a lawyer to understand the GPL, maybe you didn't read it very carefully. The preamble pretty much says it all -- unlike many types of legal documentation, the GPL is totally "above the table". There is no hidden motivation or restrictions because it is laid out for all to see in the introduction, and the rest just deals with details relevant to specific actions of software developers and distributors.
GPL is not quite as simple as the BSD license. But it provides more protection to programmers who wish to write free code which will perpetually be available, in all its incarnations, for use by the free software community. Proprietary companies (and their paying users) can benefit from BSD-licensed free software but they rarely or never give anything back to the free software community. Short sighted proprietary companies don't care about the needs of the free software people, who have helped by providing technology without asking for money. They don't care because customers of their non-free software, who have helped by providing money, are more important to them.
An ideal exchange entirely within the free software community is voluntary: technology for technology (and market share), not technology for money. This has been proven to create some incredible innovation. Services and convenience are more appropriate to exchange for money, rather than technology. The BSD license carries the idea of technology for nothing except recognition of your name, and the idea that there's lots of technology out there to be had. This is true and good, but is not aggressive enough to provide a protected alternate to huge pro-monopoly companies -- if a BSD'd product is a threat (all that diversity couldn't mean... competition?!) the important parts of its technology can just be swallowed, whereas the GPL is very hard for proprietary companies to swallow.
IANAL, but I believe that the user doesn't need to be able to *rebuild* your app against a newer version of the LGPL'd code. Dynamically linking to the LGPL'd library, so that the end user can just "drop in" a new version without rebuilding is good enough.
kind of like GNU's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix...
The idea is that the patch is automatically GPLed because it is based on a GPLed product.
IANAL, but..
In this circumstance, you can relicense v0.1 to whoever you want with whatever terms you want. You hold the copyright = you can license it however you want. But since 0.2 includes code which is not yours -- code which is implicitly copyrighted by another person -- there are three ways I can think of that you could relicense 0.2 with non-GPL terms:
1. obtain copyright from the author of the modifications so that you hold the copyright on the whole source code. now you can license it however you like.
2. rerelease the product under a non-viral license such as BSD to the person who implemented the patch, and have them implement their patch based on the BSD-licensed product and rerelease under the same license to you, now you can change the licensing terms when you redistribute it. (there was probably a simpler way to say that)
3. pay someone to do a clean-room implementation of the patch based on your 0.1 source code, and have them assign the copyright. (you can't do this because presumably you've already seen the patch)
The reason that you've got to do one of these things is that, presumably, the author of the patch wanted his patch to work on GPL software. Not BSD software or public domain or proprietary software, but GPL. You can't change how his code is used without permission. He may either assign his copyright or rerelease the same patch for the same product with a different license, or you may refrain from using the code.
Actually, my first digital PCS cell phone cost $100 almost two years ago (now costs $50) on month to month with no signup/disconnect fees. Service is available in major metro areas in the U.S, but in rural areas, it's pretty useless (although dual mode PCS+cellular phones are also available).
I doubt that local law enforcement can listen on these effortlessly because of the relatively expensive equipment required. But it's not encrypted, and if the feds are listening, there's little I can do about it.
The somewhat nice thing is that it's probably just as easy for a gov't agency to legally tap as a land line, but it's more difficult to do so illegally because of the decoding equipment involved.
Oh, give him a break.. it's a tough world out there, consisting mostly of people who think they're really different from each other but seem to be almost the same. Can't blame him for trying to be a little different by talking in the 3rd person. It's easily readable.
Although I can and have blamed him for disregarding grammar, spelling and capitalization -- these things make a difference in how easy the message is to read, and when wrong, piss people off.
Let me provide this recommendation: if you are not going to answer those types of posts, just don't. If someone wants to flame you over the way you type or whatever, just understand why and let it go. I don't know why you encourage them, a *LOT*.
I don't mind that you want to refer to yourself in the third person, but you should really make an effort to write properly. Spelling, grammar and capitalization might not seem important since we can still (mostly) understand what you're saying. But it would make your posts easier to read and more professional looking if you paid attention to them.
It is not very hard to spell check and make sure you capitalize properly, even if you do have trouble with grammar. Perhaps English is not your first language or you have a learning disability which makes it difficult to form sentences. However, even if that's true, it's no excuse for sloppy spelling and lack of capitalization. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to take the extra time to do this.
Re:Lemme get this straight...
on
The Factoid
·
· Score: 1
The idea is that the devices themselves will transmit a block of information as well. So if you run across someone else who has one, you'll swap factoids, as it were.
The problem with cutting old growth redwood rain forests is that they are near impossible to reforest properly. There are many responsible logging companies who can maintain their properties. But it is extremely difficult to regrow parts of a clearcut rain forest, when the trees there were hundreds of years old and the company is extremely impatient to make short term profits.
Regardless of why you were asked for your ID for a cop, you apparently were not detained or arrested, simply asked for identification. I don't see what the big deal is if the cop did not harass you in any way.
Most likely, there was a "suspiscious person on foot" recently reported in this suburban or urban area (am I right about the area?). This is rather common and in my time as a police aide I heard this type of call frequently. For instance, a resident might look out the window and see someone trying door handles on parked cars. Anyone on foot around that neighborhood would be ID'd if they came anywhere close to the description, regardless of whether or not they were acting suspiciously when spotted by the officer. Of course he can't do anything to you for possibly being a person who was alleged to have been seen acting in a suspiscious manner, but he can get your ID and contact you later if it turns out a more serious crime was going on.
It would be no surprise if the government was checking up on you, if you communicate with foreign nationals or antiestablishment groups or if you are involved with illegal drugs. HOWEVER, the problem is that a cop asking who you are doesn't look like very serious surveillance to me -- if you were really being watched by professional government observers, a cop who was involved in the least would have known who you were in the first place and not had to ask.
But if you're really paranoid, maybe he was playing double agent and trying to let you know *they* are on to you;)
Let me guess, you're probably not a computer programmer?
"A manager went to the master programmer and showed him the requirements document for a new application. The manager asked the master: 'How long will it take to design this system if I assign five programmers to it?'
'It will take one year,' said the master promptly.
'But we need this system immediately, or even sooner! How long will it take if I assign ten programmers to it?'
The master programmer frowned. 'In that case, it will take two years.'
'And what if I assign a hundred programmers to it?'
The master programmer shrugged. 'Then the design will never be completed,' he said."
Well, okay, you're right. You almost convinced me to join and support the standards groups. And I should have been more specific about which part of the IEEE I was talking about. But whether or not to join wasn't at issue, since I didn't want to *have* to join them in order to read an article posted on/.
>Well, if you don't block slashdot, then if I >post a list of porno sites and some dirty jokes >in the comments section, kids will be able to >see it. Isn't that a failure on the >part of your software?
Not as I see it. Kids don't usually look for that type of thing on SlashDot, as far as I know. And SmartFilter doesn't block pages just because of porn links -- instead, the sites linked to are listed in the Sex category. Dirty jokes are sometimes in assorted categories because of sexy material (Sex category) or insulting racist/sexist (Hate Speech category) or disgusting (Extreme category) content, but when SmartFilter occasionally needs to add dirty jokes sites to the list, search engines can find many new ones. No need to focus on blocking already-moderated public forums.
The opinions expressed in this email may or may not represent the views of Secure Computing Corporation or its affiliates. I'm on a smoke break right now, except I'm posting on SlashDot instead of having a cigarette.
On top of all that from my previous post, and even though the high end commercial censorship software is often not as bad as anti-censorship groups tend to think, I still don't support American libraries or schools being required to have filtering software to protect children (in order to get needed federal funding). It's just obviously not fair to place uncalled for restrictions like that on returning taxpayer money to the community.
I do think that community standards ought to be able to dictate children being restricted from accessing some material from a public library. And some filtering products provide acceptable quality where local citizens want to limit public access to net porn. But the federal government is not part of my community. In fact it mostly isn't even in the same state as me -- so they shouldn't be setting standards for acceptable behavior here and using taxpayer money to do it.
Disclosure: I am an employee of Secure Computing Corporation, the makers of SmartFilter. The opinions in this letter may not represent the views of my employer, but I'm not lying either.
You are right when you say that filtering is done broadly. For instance, even though the content on the hundreds of pages at hustler.com changes all the time, the entire site is blocked in the sex category without reviewing its content regularly. However, we do frequently review sites that are already listed, usually based on customer feedback. Mormon.com was recently blocked.. because it used to be a sex site, until the Mormon church purchased it and called us up to have the listing changed (not deleted though, it's now in our politics and religion category -- something which employers may decide not to allow during business hours).
But you are incorrect when you state that the censoring is done by computer. We have a staff of humans who review most of the sites that are blocked, placing them in 27 different categories including sex -- no computer program we know of is capable of doing this. We also have an AI which catches only the most obvious porno sites, acting in an extremely conservative manner (basically, knowing how dumb it is and leaving tough decisions up to humans). Such an AI would not cause this comments page to be listed (even though you said fuck, huh huhuh...) because it doesn't "look like" a sex site (that shouldn't violate my NDA:) ) We tested it for months and as soon as it makes just ONE bad call, we'll take it offline and make it more conservative. So far all the miscategorizations have been by humans, but nobody's perfect.
Slashdot -- because of its computer and Internet related content and up to the minute industry news -- is exempt from being blocked by SmartFilter according to our guidelines, unless the local sysadmins add it themselves. So are almost all ISP's (though sections of the sites may be blocked).
Some of our competitors use other methods to list sites, including word searches and links to naughty sites. We may use methods like these to get lists of URLs, but we don't enter those into our product without checking them extensively.
Secure Computing's SmartFilter blocked most major mirrors of the Starr report and some newspaper articles containing lurid excerpts of it. It was listed in their "Sex-related" category soon after it was released. The report fit their strict guidelines for inclusion, and when some customers complained, they were given a list of URLs which they could exempt on their systems.
... except that most corporate filtering software restricts which Internet servers you can connect to by using a proxy server, and doesn't actually pay much attention to the content. There are large databases of categorized sites which can be restricted by the sysadmin for assorted reasons.
Re:What 64 bit hardware?
on
Linus @BALUG
·
· Score: 1
Regarding the products on your web site, I for one would pay $$$ to the author for an 'official copy' of a linux video editing suite on CD. I just won't pay for a license to use it. It looks like the work that you're doing is good stuff, but I certainly hope you plan to open it up. You could GPL older versions, like Aladdin Software, or release a limited GPL edition (although you wouldn't be able to incorporate user mods into the main dual-license tree without the users assigning copyright on their code)..
Besides, another proprietary video editing suite will be competing with a number of rather large companies, since production people often pick the operating system based on what editing product they'll be using. A GPL'd version of the same wouldn't really compete with them -- but it would have a fighting chance at replacing them.
My Psion 3a works great as a portable VT100 too. I am going to use it as the console for the box I'm putting in my car. No working TCP/IP support on the S3 series, but that's what the Linux host is for.
I use the GPL'd "Nfsc" file-server and vt100-emulator ver 5.4. X/Y-modem don't work right in this version, but I can NFS mount the S3a's ramdisk and memory cards with a provided client!
but if you borrow A COPY OF someone's source code, they still have it for the time that you borrowed it. which is equivalent to borrowing a taxi only if you are borrowing A COPY of that taxi.
There is a Kilgore Trout in Vonnegut books, as I understand it (never read em), and a musical group of the same name. There is a clothing seller known as Kilgour Trout in Cleveland and a town named Kilgour somewhere or other.
Also, D.M. Kilgour studied the effects of high temperatures on fish in 1985 and B.G. Kilgour studied bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems.
Please don't do this. Just because you have a lot of extra bandwidth to spare doesn't mean every link between yours and the target does, too. Most of the people who would actually incur damages if you do something like this are innocent.
Is this bit of information exposure too much for you to pay? Perhaps you'd prefer punching in your credit card number. Besides, the stupid robot dog is kind of cute, actually, if not $2500 worth of cute.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem.. IANAL but with a college reading level and knowledge of software development, I can understand the GPL top-to-bottom. All I'm saying is that if you thought you needed a lawyer to understand the GPL, maybe you didn't read it very carefully. The preamble pretty much says it all -- unlike many types of legal documentation, the GPL is totally "above the table". There is no hidden motivation or restrictions because it is laid out for all to see in the introduction, and the rest just deals with details relevant to specific actions of software developers and distributors.
GPL is not quite as simple as the BSD license. But it provides more protection to programmers who wish to write free code which will perpetually be available, in all its incarnations, for use by the free software community. Proprietary companies (and their paying users) can benefit from BSD-licensed free software but they rarely or never give anything back to the free software community. Short sighted proprietary companies don't care about the needs of the free software people, who have helped by providing technology without asking for money. They don't care because customers of their non-free software, who have helped by providing money, are more important to them.
An ideal exchange entirely within the free software community is voluntary: technology for technology (and market share), not technology for money. This has been proven to create some incredible innovation. Services and convenience are more appropriate to exchange for money, rather than technology. The BSD license carries the idea of technology for nothing except recognition of your name, and the idea that there's lots of technology out there to be had. This is true and good, but is not aggressive enough to provide a protected alternate to huge pro-monopoly companies -- if a BSD'd product is a threat (all that diversity couldn't mean... competition?!) the important parts of its technology can just be swallowed, whereas the GPL is very hard for proprietary companies to swallow.
Regarding LGPL'd code..
IANAL, but I believe that the user doesn't need to be able to *rebuild* your app against a newer version of the LGPL'd code. Dynamically linking to the LGPL'd library, so that the end user can just "drop in" a new version without rebuilding is good enough.
kind of like GNU's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix's Not Unix...
agh, I nearly overflowed my stack!
The idea is that the patch is automatically GPLed because it is based on a GPLed product.
IANAL, but..
In this circumstance, you can relicense v0.1 to whoever you want with whatever terms you want. You hold the copyright = you can license it however you want. But since 0.2 includes code which is not yours -- code which is implicitly copyrighted by another person -- there are three ways I can think of that you could relicense 0.2 with non-GPL terms:
1. obtain copyright from the author of the modifications so that you hold the copyright on the whole source code. now you can license it however you like.
2. rerelease the product under a non-viral license such as BSD to the person who implemented the patch, and have them implement their patch based on the BSD-licensed product and rerelease under the same license to you, now you can change the licensing terms when you redistribute it. (there was probably a simpler way to say that)
3. pay someone to do a clean-room implementation of the patch based on your 0.1 source code, and have them assign the copyright. (you can't do this because presumably you've already seen the patch)
The reason that you've got to do one of these things is that, presumably, the author of the patch wanted his patch to work on GPL software. Not BSD software or public domain or proprietary software, but GPL. You can't change how his code is used without permission. He may either assign his copyright or rerelease the same patch for the same product with a different license, or you may refrain from using the code.
Actually, my first digital PCS cell phone cost $100 almost two years ago (now costs $50) on month to month with no signup/disconnect fees. Service is available in major metro areas in the U.S, but in rural areas, it's pretty useless (although dual mode PCS+cellular phones are also available).
I doubt that local law enforcement can listen on these effortlessly because of the relatively expensive equipment required. But it's not encrypted, and if the feds are listening, there's little I can do about it.
The somewhat nice thing is that it's probably just as easy for a gov't agency to legally tap as a land line, but it's more difficult to do so illegally because of the decoding equipment involved.
Oh, give him a break.. it's a tough world out there, consisting mostly of people who think they're really different from each other but seem to be almost the same. Can't blame him for trying to be a little different by talking in the 3rd person. It's easily readable.
Although I can and have blamed him for disregarding grammar, spelling and capitalization -- these things make a difference in how easy the message is to read, and when wrong, piss people off.
Dave-o-rama,
Let me provide this recommendation: if you are not going to answer those types of posts, just don't. If someone wants to flame you over the way you type or whatever, just understand why and let it go. I don't know why you encourage them, a *LOT*.
I don't mind that you want to refer to yourself in the third person, but you should really make an effort to write properly. Spelling, grammar and capitalization might not seem important since we can still (mostly) understand what you're saying. But it would make your posts easier to read and more professional looking if you paid attention to them.
It is not very hard to spell check and make sure you capitalize properly, even if you do have trouble with grammar. Perhaps English is not your first language or you have a learning disability which makes it difficult to form sentences. However, even if that's true, it's no excuse for sloppy spelling and lack of capitalization. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to take the extra time to do this.
The idea is that the devices themselves will transmit a block of information as well. So if you run across someone else who has one, you'll swap factoids, as it were.
The problem with cutting old growth redwood rain forests is that they are near impossible to reforest properly. There are many responsible logging companies who can maintain their properties. But it is extremely difficult to regrow parts of a clearcut rain forest, when the trees there were hundreds of years old and the company is extremely impatient to make short term profits.
Regardless of why you were asked for your ID for a cop, you apparently were not detained or arrested, simply asked for identification. I don't see what the big deal is if the cop did not harass you in any way.
;)
Most likely, there was a "suspiscious person on foot" recently reported in this suburban or urban area (am I right about the area?). This is rather common and in my time as a police aide I heard this type of call frequently. For instance, a resident might look out the window and see someone trying door handles on parked cars. Anyone on foot around that neighborhood would be ID'd if they came anywhere close to the description, regardless of whether or not they were acting suspiciously when spotted by the officer. Of course he can't do anything to you for possibly being a person who was alleged to have been seen acting in a suspiscious manner, but he can get your ID and contact you later if it turns out a more serious crime was going on.
It would be no surprise if the government was checking up on you, if you communicate with foreign nationals or antiestablishment groups or if you are involved with illegal drugs. HOWEVER, the problem is that a cop asking who you are doesn't look like very serious surveillance to me -- if you were really being watched by professional government observers, a cop who was involved in the least would have known who you were in the first place and not had to ask.
But if you're really paranoid, maybe he was playing double agent and trying to let you know *they* are on to you
Oh, I think Gates might have had a run in with the law here or there..
Let me guess, you're probably not a computer programmer?
"A manager went to the master programmer and showed him the requirements document for a new application. The manager asked the master: 'How long will it take to design this system if I assign five programmers to it?'
'It will take one year,' said the master promptly.
'But we need this system immediately, or even sooner! How long will it take if I assign ten programmers to it?'
The master programmer frowned. 'In that case, it will take two years.'
'And what if I assign a hundred programmers to it?'
The master programmer shrugged. 'Then the design will never be completed,' he said."
(from The Tao of Programming by Geoffrey James)
Well, okay, you're right. You almost convinced me to join and support the standards groups. And I should have been more specific about which part of the IEEE I was talking about. But whether or not to join wasn't at issue, since I didn't want to *have* to join them in order to read an article posted on /.
>Well, if you don't block slashdot, then if I
>post a list of porno sites and some dirty jokes
>in the comments section, kids will be able to
>see it. Isn't that a failure on the
>part of your software?
Not as I see it. Kids don't usually look for that type of thing on SlashDot, as far as I know. And SmartFilter doesn't block pages just because of porn links -- instead, the sites linked to are listed in the Sex category. Dirty jokes are sometimes in assorted categories because of sexy material (Sex category) or insulting racist/sexist (Hate Speech category) or disgusting (Extreme category) content, but when SmartFilter occasionally needs to add dirty jokes sites to the list, search engines can find many new ones. No need to focus on blocking already-moderated public forums.
The opinions expressed in this email may or may not represent the views of Secure Computing Corporation or its affiliates. I'm on a smoke break right now, except I'm posting on SlashDot instead of having a cigarette.
On top of all that from my previous post, and even though the high end commercial censorship software is often not as bad as anti-censorship groups tend to think, I still don't support American libraries or schools being required to have filtering software to protect children (in order to get needed federal funding). It's just obviously not fair to place uncalled for restrictions like that on returning taxpayer money to the community.
I do think that community standards ought to be able to dictate children being restricted from accessing some material from a public library. And some filtering products provide acceptable quality where local citizens want to limit public access to net porn. But the federal government is not part of my community. In fact it mostly isn't even in the same state as me -- so they shouldn't be setting standards for acceptable behavior here and using taxpayer money to do it.
(this message does in fact coincidentally represent the official view of my employer, Secure Computing Corporation)
Disclosure: I am an employee of Secure Computing Corporation, the makers of SmartFilter. The opinions in this letter may not represent the views of my employer, but I'm not lying either.
:) ) We tested it for months and as soon as it makes just ONE bad call, we'll take it offline and make it more conservative. So far all the miscategorizations have been by humans, but nobody's perfect.
You are right when you say that filtering is done broadly. For instance, even though the content on the hundreds of pages at hustler.com changes all the time, the entire site is blocked in the sex category without reviewing its content regularly. However, we do frequently review sites that are already listed, usually based on customer feedback. Mormon.com was recently blocked.. because it used to be a sex site, until the Mormon church purchased it and called us up to have the listing changed (not deleted though, it's now in our politics and religion category -- something which employers may decide not to allow during business hours).
But you are incorrect when you state that the censoring is done by computer. We have a staff of humans who review most of the sites that are blocked, placing them in 27 different categories including sex -- no computer program we know of is capable of doing this. We also have an AI which catches only the most obvious porno sites, acting in an extremely conservative manner (basically, knowing how dumb it is and leaving tough decisions up to humans). Such an AI would not cause this comments page to be listed (even though you said fuck, huh huhuh...) because it doesn't "look like" a sex site (that shouldn't violate my NDA
Slashdot -- because of its computer and Internet related content and up to the minute industry news -- is exempt from being blocked by SmartFilter according to our guidelines, unless the local sysadmins add it themselves. So are almost all ISP's (though sections of the sites may be blocked).
Some of our competitors use other methods to list sites, including word searches and links to naughty sites. We may use methods like these to get lists of URLs, but we don't enter those into our product without checking them extensively.
Secure Computing's SmartFilter blocked most major mirrors of the Starr report and some newspaper articles containing lurid excerpts of it. It was listed in their "Sex-related" category soon after it was released. The report fit their strict guidelines for inclusion, and when some customers complained, they were given a list of URLs which they could exempt on their systems.
... except that most corporate filtering software restricts which Internet servers you can connect to by using a proxy server, and doesn't actually pay much attention to the content. There are large databases of categorized sites which can be restricted by the sysadmin for assorted reasons.
Regarding the products on your web site, I for one would pay $$$ to the author for an 'official copy' of a linux video editing suite on CD. I just won't pay for a license to use it. It looks like the work that you're doing is good stuff, but I certainly hope you plan to open it up. You could GPL older versions, like Aladdin Software, or release a limited GPL edition (although you wouldn't be able to incorporate user mods into the main dual-license tree without the users assigning copyright on their code)..
Besides, another proprietary video editing suite will be competing with a number of rather large companies, since production people often pick the operating system based on what editing product they'll be using. A GPL'd version of the same wouldn't really compete with them -- but it would have a fighting chance at replacing them.
My Psion 3a works great as a portable VT100 too. I am going to use it as the console for the box I'm putting in my car. No working TCP/IP support on the S3 series, but that's what the Linux host is for.
I use the GPL'd "Nfsc" file-server and vt100-emulator ver 5.4. X/Y-modem don't work right in this version, but I can NFS mount the S3a's ramdisk and memory cards with a provided client!
but if you borrow A COPY OF someone's source code, they still have it for the time that you borrowed it. which is equivalent to borrowing a taxi only if you are borrowing A COPY of that taxi.
There is a Kilgore Trout in Vonnegut books, as I understand it (never read em), and a musical group of the same name. There is a clothing seller known as Kilgour Trout in Cleveland and a town named Kilgour somewhere or other.
:)
Also, D.M. Kilgour studied the effects of high temperatures on fish in 1985 and B.G. Kilgour studied bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems.
Who's to say what the reference is, really?
Please don't do this. Just because you have a lot of extra bandwidth to spare doesn't mean every link between yours and the target does, too. Most of the people who would actually incur damages if you do something like this are innocent.
Is this bit of information exposure too much for you to pay? Perhaps you'd prefer punching in your credit card number. Besides, the stupid robot dog is kind of cute, actually, if not $2500 worth of cute.