One-handed Dvorak takes advantage of the fact that you have four fingers to type with, and is meant for touch-typing. (Hence all the vowels are clumped together.) Dvorak is limited by the physical hardware (i.e. they can't create a new physical key).
ATOMIK is designed for typing with one appendage, and is designed for hunt-and-peck. It is not limited by the physical location of keys. (Hence it has five rows of letters.)
"Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software.
The open-source and free software licences do not create any obligations for Microsoft nor do they try to grant rights or immunities to Microsoft's intellectual property. So this doesn't apply.
They are only mentioned in an example, and (IANAL) examples cannot be legally binding (especially if they are incorrect). They just want to spread more FUD.
In addition, the example that they use is that "Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software." It doesn't prohibit, e.g. using "Publicly Available Software" to edit programs that you write. Just that you can't distribute programs linked to software that would require you to distribute all the source code, and linked to their library at the same time. This isn't anything new, because if you did that, you'd be violating the licence of the open-source/free-software library that you're using.
Re:Before you dismiss this out of 'hand' . . .
on
KDE Gesture Control
·
· Score: 1
Not just for the hard of hearing. Other people could use it too.
It might look wierd for someone to be flailing his/her arms in front of a computer, but for those who know it, ASL is probably more natural and easier than typing, since it operates with words rather than letters.
ASL is one of those things that I've wanted to learn for a long time (and that I think everyone should learn). If my computer could do this, it would give me more incentive to learn it.;-)
I believe it would be useful to compare code to something older and more "accepted" by the general public: mathematics.
IIRC, Fermat said that he found a "beautiful" proof of his famous last theorem. Often, mathematicians will talk about elegant proofs. Yet for a non-mathematician, mathematical proofs and formulas are complete nonsense.
I've wondered about this, and can't the same argument be applied to broadcasting (radio/tv)? If a song is broadcast from a radio station, everyone can theoretically record the song.
I believe that would be covered under fair use (time shifting), as long as the recording is for personal use only. Your scheme of getting people around the world to record songs I think may be OK too, but IANAL. I don't think that record companies really have much of a problem with radio, though, because recording off of radio is generally lower quality than buying a CD.
Innocent until proven guilty is a concept of criminal law. Civil law is based on a preponderance of evidence. The side that is the most convincing wins, there's no requirement for either side prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ah, yes. I remember that from the OJ case. Of course, I would expect that if the plaintifs cannot point to a single user who is that is infringing on copyright, they wouldn't have much of a case.
Well, I would assume that by putting a work on the web, a company/individual implicitly grants permission to people to download for viewing. Copying with permission doesn't infringe on copyrights.
As for cache-ing, etc., that's covered by the common carrier limitations of the DMCA.
Photography can be infringing, if it's not covered by fair use. Same with recording a concert (copyright applies to anything that can be/em> fixed...) The way it would probably work with photography is that you would own the copyright of the photograph, and so could prevent others from distributing it. But because the photograph contains a copyrighted work, the owner of that work can prevent you from distributing the photograph.
Does that mean that Linus T. is responsible for every little skr1pt k1dd13 who hacks a website using linux?
No, because Linus cannot police nor control the actions of Linux users. And he doesn't derive any financial benefit from their hack^H^H^H^Hcracking.
Are the makers of pantyhose liable for bank robberies, because they are fully aware that robbers use thier products for concealment?
You don't need knowledge for vicarious liability. That's just for contributory infringement. As for vicarious liability, again, pantyhose makers cannot police nor control the actions of their users.
But then, these aren't even copyright issues, so none of this really applies.
There seems to be a slight error in the article. In order to defend based on "No direct infringer," you don't need to prove that every user falls within statutory exception. You just need to prevent the prosecutors from proving that there is someone in violation. (Innocent until proven guilty.) In other words, for every user that the prosecution points to, show that that person is covered by fair use (or is the copyright holder.)
People don't really care what runs on their handhelds. As long as it lets them use a calendar, play games, and sync with their desktop. If HP picks Linux, it will gain the advantage of not having to pay for their OS. Plus they get the goodwill (hence the money) of many geeks without compromising the mainstream market.
Man, I used to think that all those English manuals from Japanese/Taiwanese companies were just a bunch of random words thrown together, but now I know: they use Babelfish!
Oh my goodness. Did anyone else notice how WRONG they got the Nautilus interface? They have an arrow pointing to the zoom dial, and say that that's the user ability selector. Then they have an arrow pointing at an icon with no emblems, and say that it's an example of emblems. Then they go and say that icons can be scaled because they're vector-based (bitmapped icons can be scaled too). They have an example of a thumbnail in that shot (top-left corner of the window), but don't bother pointing it out. And they have an arrow pointing at a Netscape icon, and go and talk about (what sounds to me like) Eazel services.
I was thinking that the article was a semi-decent piece, but after seeing that, I just couldn't help but think what else they got wrong.
TeX is a typesetting language. LaTeX (IMHO) is a big step towards being more content-based. For myself, I rarely ever think about presentation when editing a LaTeX documnent, except when my equations are too big for one line. Yes, LaTeX does have a bunch of layout stuff in it (mostly because of TeX, I think), but then, it's hard to write without any thought as to layout.
My only complaint about it is that its POP3 retrieval seems to be quite slow - about a second or so per message. And seeing as I get close to two hundred messages from the Debian lists each day, it gets to be a pain. And gnus doesn't seem to work nice with its IMAP.
I set up my keyboard to use the Dvorak layout, and didn't change the key caps around. It's better, because a lot of people know how to touch-type on QWERTY, but most people don't even know about the existence of the Dvorak layout. Here's "su":
# og
and "cat/etc/passwd":
# jay z.yjzlaoo,e
I don't think that it really works that well, though. It just slows them down and really annoys them.
PowerX isn't part of the PowerPC family. PowerPC was based loosely on IBM's Power architecture. Then IBM came out with the Power2 and Power3 architectures (based on its Power architectune) which are not 100% compatible with PowerPC. They do, however share many common instructions between them, but there are PowerPC instructions that won't work on a Power CPU, and there are Power instructions that won't work on a PowerPC. (see the GCC info page for more info.)
I've heard that IBM has been working on a Linux port for their 64-bit PowerX machines. They already have a port for their 32-bit machines.
BTW, Debian also has a PPC port.
Re:Not quite, otherwise you prove P=NP
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
But this just proves that P is a subset of NP, which everyone has known for a long time. (Actually it just follows by the definitions of P and NP.)
Slashdot Mirror
Quite different.
One-handed Dvorak takes advantage of the fact that you have four fingers to type with, and is meant for touch-typing. (Hence all the vowels are clumped together.) Dvorak is limited by the physical hardware (i.e. they can't create a new physical key).
ATOMIK is designed for typing with one appendage, and is designed for hunt-and-peck. It is not limited by the physical location of keys. (Hence it has five rows of letters.)
Send them a bug report. That's why they put it up on AlphaWorks.
This is a keyboard for YOUR Palm/Visor/Workpad. You know, that little device that you take wherever you go?
So will you be able to use the same keyboard at home as you do at work and at school? Yes! Because you're typing into the same device!
This is only a problem if you have fifty different PDA's that you actively use. (And if that's a problem for you, I can help: give me some of them.)
Pffft. Doubtfully. Most people would probably spend most of their day hitting "Reload" to see if it's finally up yet.
Hmm.
Yet this comment gets moderated as Informative, and Insightful. Makes you wonder if the moderators even bother to read the articles.
He he. But note that they avoided listing the BSD licence as one of the forbidden licences.
The open-source and free software licences do not create any obligations for Microsoft nor do they try to grant rights or immunities to Microsoft's intellectual property. So this doesn't apply.
They are only mentioned in an example, and (IANAL) examples cannot be legally binding (especially if they are incorrect). They just want to spread more FUD.
In addition, the example that they use is that "Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software." It doesn't prohibit, e.g. using "Publicly Available Software" to edit programs that you write. Just that you can't distribute programs linked to software that would require you to distribute all the source code, and linked to their library at the same time. This isn't anything new, because if you did that, you'd be violating the licence of the open-source/free-software library that you're using.
Not just for the hard of hearing. Other people could use it too.
It might look wierd for someone to be flailing his/her arms in front of a computer, but for those who know it, ASL is probably more natural and easier than typing, since it operates with words rather than letters.
ASL is one of those things that I've wanted to learn for a long time (and that I think everyone should learn). If my computer could do this, it would give me more incentive to learn it. ;-)
I believe it would be useful to compare code to something older and more "accepted" by the general public: mathematics.
IIRC, Fermat said that he found a "beautiful" proof of his famous last theorem. Often, mathematicians will talk about elegant proofs. Yet for a non-mathematician, mathematical proofs and formulas are complete nonsense.
I believe that would be covered under fair use (time shifting), as long as the recording is for personal use only. Your scheme of getting people around the world to record songs I think may be OK too, but IANAL. I don't think that record companies really have much of a problem with radio, though, because recording off of radio is generally lower quality than buying a CD.
Ah, yes. I remember that from the OJ case. Of course, I would expect that if the plaintifs cannot point to a single user who is that is infringing on copyright, they wouldn't have much of a case.
Well, I would assume that by putting a work on the web, a company/individual implicitly grants permission to people to download for viewing. Copying with permission doesn't infringe on copyrights.
As for cache-ing, etc., that's covered by the common carrier limitations of the DMCA.
Photography can be infringing, if it's not covered by fair use. Same with recording a concert (copyright applies to anything that can be/em> fixed...) The way it would probably work with photography is that you would own the copyright of the photograph, and so could prevent others from distributing it. But because the photograph contains a copyrighted work, the owner of that work can prevent you from distributing the photograph.
IANAL
No, because Linus cannot police nor control the actions of Linux users. And he doesn't derive any financial benefit from their hack^H^H^H^Hcracking.
You don't need knowledge for vicarious liability. That's just for contributory infringement. As for vicarious liability, again, pantyhose makers cannot police nor control the actions of their users.
But then, these aren't even copyright issues, so none of this really applies.
Oh, and IANAL. And I'm Canadian.
People don't really care what runs on their handhelds. As long as it lets them use a calendar, play games, and sync with their desktop. If HP picks Linux, it will gain the advantage of not having to pay for their OS. Plus they get the goodwill (hence the money) of many geeks without compromising the mainstream market.
Summary of your post: the ends justify the means.
Man, I used to think that all those English manuals from Japanese/Taiwanese companies were just a bunch of random words thrown together, but now I know: they use Babelfish!
They seem to be mixing up patents and trade secrets. Reverse engineering doesn't help them get around patents, and I don't think DeCSS was patented.
I was thinking that the article was a semi-decent piece, but after seeing that, I just couldn't help but think what else they got wrong.
TeX is a typesetting language. LaTeX (IMHO) is a big step towards being more content-based. For myself, I rarely ever think about presentation when editing a LaTeX documnent, except when my equations are too big for one line. Yes, LaTeX does have a bunch of layout stuff in it (mostly because of TeX, I think), but then, it's hard to write without any thought as to layout.
My only complaint about it is that its POP3 retrieval seems to be quite slow - about a second or so per message. And seeing as I get close to two hundred messages from the Debian lists each day, it gets to be a pain. And gnus doesn't seem to work nice with its IMAP.
I set up my keyboard to use the Dvorak layout, and didn't change the key caps around. It's better, because a lot of people know how to touch-type on QWERTY, but most people don't even know about the existence of the Dvorak layout. Here's "su":
/etc/passwd":
# og
and "cat
# jay z.yjzlaoo,e
I don't think that it really works that well, though. It just slows them down and really annoys them.
PowerX isn't part of the PowerPC family. PowerPC was based loosely on IBM's Power architecture. Then IBM came out with the Power2 and Power3 architectures (based on its Power architectune) which are not 100% compatible with PowerPC. They do, however share many common instructions between them, but there are PowerPC instructions that won't work on a Power CPU, and there are Power instructions that won't work on a PowerPC. (see the GCC info page for more info.)
I've heard that IBM has been working on a Linux port for their 64-bit PowerX machines. They already have a port for their 32-bit machines.
BTW, Debian also has a PPC port.
But this just proves that P is a subset of NP, which everyone has known for a long time. (Actually it just follows by the definitions of P and NP.)
Of course, jail is also illegal, as it will become the place most used to trade hacking tips.