Each process is placed in a sandbox to protect your security and privacy.
Jails/partitions, or just chroot? What, on Windows?
Or do you mean the javascript engine is a separate instance (because it's a separate process) so they're sandboxed from each other because they're in different processes. Which is a good thing, but describing it as putting each PROCESS in a sandbox is misleading as hell.
There are already some navigational features that can be placed on to the browser, such as browsing to the last and next page (NOT back and forward), or one folder up, but nobody seems to care about that besides Opera. (as far as i know)
That's PRECISELY what I mean by paying attention to what's inside the browser window.
OK, I'm looking at Google Chrome next to Safari next to Camino. I have to look at a picture of Chrome because it doesn't run on the Mac.
They all have the same number of horizontal rows of elements. The biggest difference between them is that the ones in Chrome take up more vertical space than the ones in Safari and Camino. I have the option in Safari and Comino of displying a bookmark bar, but I've turned that off.
You can merge the address and search boxes into one box without creating a custom GUI that doesn't look or work like anything else in the computer.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "having the tabs and window buttons on separate vertical lines". The tab layout is pretty much the same for both.
What I see in Chrome is a window with just about the same number of visual elements, and slightly more complex controls. It's hardly revolutionary, it's just chrome for chrome's sake. Well named, that.
You mean completely useless and pointless things around the content like favorite & history menus and tabs too, right?
No, I mean like the "awesome bar" and XUL and Google Toolbars and putting the tabs in weird places.
I use Camino in preference to Firefox or Chrome or Safari on OS X, because it's just got conventional native OS widgets and menus, and runs faster with less overhead than any of the "big names".
People love their colors and themes.
Themes, yes. Skinnable applications, no. The place for color and theme management is in the window system and GUI framework, so that when I select a different theme all my applications change to match. In fact it's the skinnable applications, the ones that DON'T just use native OS widgets, that need to be individually customized and themed using that application's unique and gratuitously incompatible skinning technology.
Like makali says: Whenever a programmer thinks, "Hey, skins, what a cool idea", their computer's speakers should create some sort of cock-shaped soundwave and plunge it repeatedly through their skulls.
I too am fully in support of this proposed audio-cock technology.
I wouldn't. I'd dump most of the custom GUI features in Chrome and Firefox, and quit screwing around with the stuff around the browser window. It's the stuff inside the browser window that you actually care about, not whether the icons are grey metal or jello blue.
In order to mark userspace code non-executable, the kernel would have to do a task switch on every system call, which flushes the TLB and degrades performance.
And here I was assuming the kernel did that anyway. I guess things have changed a bit since the PDP-11.
Why on earth would the kernel have the execute bit set on its mapping of pages in userspace? What is the purpose for having the capability of executing code in userspace from the kernel?
The problem is that when they have to make decisions that involve ANY kind of general scientific knowledge they pull some real cockups. Most people may not need to know, individually, but unless most people have a solid background in science the ones who unexpectedly need to have one... won't. And then they do things like passing laws that are impossible to enforce.
This is where you retain copyright in your work even if you use their skins.
The skin texture you upload to Second Life does not include their skins, and if you do something to create content that IS derivative (say, you apply a tattoo to their skins AND rip the resulting combined texture) you do not have the right to use it outside the Second Life service.
Linden Labs is not granting you any rights over derivative works of their content.
They do, elsewhere, in the GPLed client, but this principle applied just as much before the GPL release, and any derivative works involving the GPLed distribution are subject to the GPL... but the content you created, if it does not combine it with their content, is still 100% yours.
The article does not involve copyright issues, it involves the theoretical creation of property rights in virtual items.
My point is that despite the implication otherwise, the article does not apply in any way to user created content in Second Life. The only relevance to Second Life is for land trading (the Bragg case I mentioned).
GCC doesn't have a specific license, just the regular GPL. The GPL explicitly does not state whether the output of a program is a derived work.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
When you upload a PNG texture to Second Life, and it converts it to JPEG 2000, that doesn't make the resulting image a derivative work. When you upload and compile a script, that doesn't make it a derivative work. The parameters describing prims are simply geometric operations on curves swept through space, those parameters are not a derivative work. I suppose if you use textures from the texture library built in to the application you'd be making a derivative work, but that's a special case, not the general case.
I agree that Second Life's decision not to require a copyright grant is unusual among 3d environments, but that's not because Linden Lab grants you any rights, it's because Linden Lab does not require you to give away your rights in the process of registering with Second Life. This sounds like quibbling, but it is an important and significant legal distinction.
And yes, people have actually made that very same argument that compiling using someone's compiler grants the compiler's company the copyright in your program.
That argument is only valid in the case where the output is a derived work of the runtime library. For that to be the case, the runtime has to meet certain requirements. The Bison parser skeleton may meet those./lib/crt0.o doesn't.
This is not entirely accurate. Linden Labs has a copyright in its virtual world. This includes the underlying code, any fictional story lines it creates, the names of land masses it creates, and the images it creates. This arguable includes the tools needed for modifying this world.
By your logic, Mac OS X is GPLed because it was compiled by gcc.
Second Life grants its users the right to copyright their creations.
This is neither true nor relevant to the situation described in SL.
* In US law, you have a copyright in your creations when you create them, unless you grant that copyright to another. The Terms of Service in Sony's "Little Big World" state that to access the service you have to give up your rights in what you create, YOU grant YOUR rights TO Sony. The terms of Service in SL grant Linden Labs a right to your creations... Linden Labs isn't granting you anything... they are merely limiting the rights you grant them in the Terms of Service.
* The grant allows Linden Lab to use your works within the SL service. What they do with those rights is to set up a mini-economy based on a permissions model that controls the copying and transfer of objects in the game. The mechanism of duplicating objects in SL does not depend on a bug in the permissions system, but on the realities of copy protection in the real world... what you're doing is the equivalent of taping a song from the radio and selling copies of that tape out of the back of your car. The applicability of the law in this situation is clear, and it doesn't matter whether the so-called virtual property consists of two minutes of music or two megabytes of texture files.
This paper's analysis only applies to a situation where either (a) the content of the virtual world is only created by the game developer, or (b) where the terms of service require a transfer of copyright to the game developer. It's completely irrelevant to content in SL where real-life copyright laws are in play.
There is an analogy in SL, ownership of virtual land, but the existing case law is at best unsettled (Bragg vs Linden Lab).
This has been done. The English-language Wikipedia, at this point, is a summary of all worthwhile human knowledge.
At least all worthwhile human knowledge of interest to SF fans, Warcraft guild leaders, and antique computer collectors.
If you're looking for information on an Apple II clone from 1984, you're good to go... you got details on slots and card cages and everything. If you're looking for information about a hot air balloon from 2005, you're not going to be so lucky.
One poster above mentioned adding ISBN numbers to an article, and apparently an evil, faceless editor reverted his edits, making him/sadface. What was not mentioned was whether they actually asked in the discussion page first if they may add these numbers in order to enrich the article, which would make the motives behind the edit known (and the account/IP for the comment and edit are the same, therefore anyone conducting an edit review can known the motivation for the edit).
How exactly would adding ISBN to an article be anything but an improvement? Are they violating NPoV or something? Is this defending Dewey Decimal against the evil ISBN virus? Or does the page have an alpha:numeric ratio quota they're violating?
Like the Australian "Liberal Party"? That's the (2009) conservative party in Australia, but it was named back when "liberal" had connotations of free enterprise.
A century ago the conservatives were conservationists, protecting the wilderness from those progressives who wanted to cut down the trees and rip up the hills for their mines and smokey factories.
Go back about a century and "conservatives" were setting up the national park system and "liberals" were all for industrialization and free enterprise.
Obviously many people here will think this is very strange that those questions can not be answered, because to people here it is basic knowledge. Hate to burst your bubble, but it isn't for the generic public.
The energy comes from converting the potential energy stored in the magnetic field into kinetic energy of motion (and then to kinetic energy of vibration, and then to heat).
If the PLEX isn't resellable what the hell is the story about?
Quote: "A PLEX is essentially an in-game item that represents 30 days of game time. They can be traded or given to other players, bought and resold. Once an EVE Online player has a PLEX in his or her possession, all they need to do is right click and credit those 30 days to their account."
Those people who think they might be able to corner a market and get rich from their monopoly want you to use the BSD so that they can steal your code to use in their monopoly.
This article isn't about the Eclipse guys saying "hey, we want you to use X" (BTW, it's the Apache license, not BSD, they use), it's about the eclipse guys saying "hey, we want to use X ourselves". But that doesn't fit into your scare tactics so well.
Slashdot Mirror
Each process is placed in a sandbox to protect your security and privacy.
Jails/partitions, or just chroot? What, on Windows?
Or do you mean the javascript engine is a separate instance (because it's a separate process) so they're sandboxed from each other because they're in different processes. Which is a good thing, but describing it as putting each PROCESS in a sandbox is misleading as hell.
Themes, yes, they are eye-candy, but let the "shiny" lovers have their colors and funky icons, it causes no harm at all.
It adds overhead and complexity, the enemy of reliability and performance.
I'll let jwz explain it.
There are already some navigational features that can be placed on to the browser, such as browsing to the last and next page (NOT back and forward), or one folder up, but nobody seems to care about that besides Opera. (as far as i know)
That's PRECISELY what I mean by paying attention to what's inside the browser window.
OK, I'm looking at Google Chrome next to Safari next to Camino. I have to look at a picture of Chrome because it doesn't run on the Mac.
They all have the same number of horizontal rows of elements. The biggest difference between them is that the ones in Chrome take up more vertical space than the ones in Safari and Camino. I have the option in Safari and Comino of displying a bookmark bar, but I've turned that off.
You can merge the address and search boxes into one box without creating a custom GUI that doesn't look or work like anything else in the computer.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "having the tabs and window buttons on separate vertical lines". The tab layout is pretty much the same for both.
What I see in Chrome is a window with just about the same number of visual elements, and slightly more complex controls. It's hardly revolutionary, it's just chrome for chrome's sake. Well named, that.
You mean completely useless and pointless things around the content like favorite & history menus and tabs too, right?
No, I mean like the "awesome bar" and XUL and Google Toolbars and putting the tabs in weird places.
I use Camino in preference to Firefox or Chrome or Safari on OS X, because it's just got conventional native OS widgets and menus, and runs faster with less overhead than any of the "big names".
People love their colors and themes.
Themes, yes. Skinnable applications, no. The place for color and theme management is in the window system and GUI framework, so that when I select a different theme all my applications change to match. In fact it's the skinnable applications, the ones that DON'T just use native OS widgets, that need to be individually customized and themed using that application's unique and gratuitously incompatible skinning technology.
Like makali says: Whenever a programmer thinks, "Hey, skins, what a cool idea", their computer's speakers should create some sort of cock-shaped soundwave and plunge it repeatedly through their skulls.
I too am fully in support of this proposed audio-cock technology.
I'd build a browser more like... Chrome.
I wouldn't. I'd dump most of the custom GUI features in Chrome and Firefox, and quit screwing around with the stuff around the browser window. It's the stuff inside the browser window that you actually care about, not whether the icons are grey metal or jello blue.
Informative.
In order to mark userspace code non-executable, the kernel would have to do a task switch on every system call, which flushes the TLB and degrades performance.
And here I was assuming the kernel did that anyway. I guess things have changed a bit since the PDP-11.
Aren't there about for zillion great free IM applications out there already? Why would someone use this one? What is the specific draw?
Why on earth would the kernel have the execute bit set on its mapping of pages in userspace? What is the purpose for having the capability of executing code in userspace from the kernel?
The problem is that when they have to make decisions that involve ANY kind of general scientific knowledge they pull some real cockups. Most people may not need to know, individually, but unless most people have a solid background in science the ones who unexpectedly need to have one... won't. And then they do things like passing laws that are impossible to enforce.
How about Whigs and Tories?
This is where you retain copyright in your work even if you use their skins.
The skin texture you upload to Second Life does not include their skins, and if you do something to create content that IS derivative (say, you apply a tattoo to their skins AND rip the resulting combined texture) you do not have the right to use it outside the Second Life service.
Linden Labs is not granting you any rights over derivative works of their content.
They do, elsewhere, in the GPLed client, but this principle applied just as much before the GPL release, and any derivative works involving the GPLed distribution are subject to the GPL... but the content you created, if it does not combine it with their content, is still 100% yours.
The article does not involve copyright issues, it involves the theoretical creation of property rights in virtual items.
My point is that despite the implication otherwise, the article does not apply in any way to user created content in Second Life. The only relevance to Second Life is for land trading (the Bragg case I mentioned).
GCC doesn't have a specific license, just the regular GPL. The GPL explicitly does not state whether the output of a program is a derived work.
When you upload a PNG texture to Second Life, and it converts it to JPEG 2000, that doesn't make the resulting image a derivative work. When you upload and compile a script, that doesn't make it a derivative work. The parameters describing prims are simply geometric operations on curves swept through space, those parameters are not a derivative work. I suppose if you use textures from the texture library built in to the application you'd be making a derivative work, but that's a special case, not the general case.
I agree that Second Life's decision not to require a copyright grant is unusual among 3d environments, but that's not because Linden Lab grants you any rights, it's because Linden Lab does not require you to give away your rights in the process of registering with Second Life. This sounds like quibbling, but it is an important and significant legal distinction.
And yes, people have actually made that very same argument that compiling using someone's compiler grants the compiler's company the copyright in your program.
That argument is only valid in the case where the output is a derived work of the runtime library. For that to be the case, the runtime has to meet certain requirements. The Bison parser skeleton may meet those. /lib/crt0.o doesn't.
This is not entirely accurate. Linden Labs has a copyright in its virtual world. This includes the underlying code, any fictional story lines it creates, the names of land masses it creates, and the images it creates. This arguable includes the tools needed for modifying this world.
By your logic, Mac OS X is GPLed because it was compiled by gcc.
Second Life grants its users the right to copyright their creations.
This is neither true nor relevant to the situation described in SL.
* In US law, you have a copyright in your creations when you create them, unless you grant that copyright to another. The Terms of Service in Sony's "Little Big World" state that to access the service you have to give up your rights in what you create, YOU grant YOUR rights TO Sony. The terms of Service in SL grant Linden Labs a right to your creations... Linden Labs isn't granting you anything... they are merely limiting the rights you grant them in the Terms of Service.
* The grant allows Linden Lab to use your works within the SL service. What they do with those rights is to set up a mini-economy based on a permissions model that controls the copying and transfer of objects in the game. The mechanism of duplicating objects in SL does not depend on a bug in the permissions system, but on the realities of copy protection in the real world... what you're doing is the equivalent of taping a song from the radio and selling copies of that tape out of the back of your car. The applicability of the law in this situation is clear, and it doesn't matter whether the so-called virtual property consists of two minutes of music or two megabytes of texture files.
This paper's analysis only applies to a situation where either (a) the content of the virtual world is only created by the game developer, or (b) where the terms of service require a transfer of copyright to the game developer. It's completely irrelevant to content in SL where real-life copyright laws are in play.
There is an analogy in SL, ownership of virtual land, but the existing case law is at best unsettled (Bragg vs Linden Lab).
This has been done. The English-language Wikipedia, at this point, is a summary of all worthwhile human knowledge.
At least all worthwhile human knowledge of interest to SF fans, Warcraft guild leaders, and antique computer collectors.
If you're looking for information on an Apple II clone from 1984, you're good to go... you got details on slots and card cages and everything. If you're looking for information about a hot air balloon from 2005, you're not going to be so lucky.
One poster above mentioned adding ISBN numbers to an article, and apparently an evil, faceless editor reverted his edits, making him /sadface. What was not mentioned was whether they actually asked in the discussion page first if they may add these numbers in order to enrich the article, which would make the motives behind the edit known (and the account/IP for the comment and edit are the same, therefore anyone conducting an edit review can known the motivation for the edit).
How exactly would adding ISBN to an article be anything but an improvement? Are they violating NPoV or something? Is this defending Dewey Decimal against the evil ISBN virus? Or does the page have an alpha:numeric ratio quota they're violating?
You are Greg Bear and I claim my budget Omphalos in Green Idaho and artificial Tourette's Syndrome.
You are referring to political parties
Like the Australian "Liberal Party"? That's the (2009) conservative party in Australia, but it was named back when "liberal" had connotations of free enterprise.
A century ago the conservatives were conservationists, protecting the wilderness from those progressives who wanted to cut down the trees and rip up the hills for their mines and smokey factories.
Go back about a century and "conservatives" were setting up the national park system and "liberals" were all for industrialization and free enterprise.
Obviously many people here will think this is very strange that those questions can not be answered, because to people here it is basic knowledge. Hate to burst your bubble, but it isn't for the generic public.
Yes. That's the problem.
The energy comes from converting the potential energy stored in the magnetic field into kinetic energy of motion (and then to kinetic energy of vibration, and then to heat).
If the PLEX isn't resellable what the hell is the story about?
Quote: "A PLEX is essentially an in-game item that represents 30 days of game time. They can be traded or given to other players, bought and resold. Once an EVE Online player has a PLEX in his or her possession, all they need to do is right click and credit those 30 days to their account."
Those people who think they might be able to corner a market and get rich from their monopoly want you to use the BSD so that they can steal your code to use in their monopoly.
This article isn't about the Eclipse guys saying "hey, we want you to use X" (BTW, it's the Apache license, not BSD, they use), it's about the eclipse guys saying "hey, we want to use X ourselves". But that doesn't fit into your scare tactics so well.