Strictly speaking, payment for a copy of a work is not an "agreement," it's an exchange. Most copyrighted works (books, CDs, DVDs etc.) are sold under license with no provision for redistribution. First sale doctrine applies for these items.
Software is usually sold under different terms. There is a difference between EULAs and a licenses. A EULA is a contract (agreement) concerning a license, but a license does not have to be part of a contract. Does that make sense?
That will only happen if the original developers relicense their new program version to close-source license or a restrictive license like GPL.
No, I mean they can keep the license the same (BSD or the like) and still not give you any code.
Just because the license permits them to give you changes doesn't compel them to give you the new code. They can distribute their binaries without source if they feel like it.
Not entirely correct - the copyright on the original code still belongs to the original authors, who have granted you rights to use it.
An alternative scenario is that you base your derivative work on someone else's BSD code, and they modify their project later so that your code no longer works with their new binaries.
If they don't want to give you the source for the new version, nothing under BSD requires them to give you that code. You are stuck with the older version forever, if that's what the original authors want. In this case, GPL is better (for you) than BSD.
Using lots of symbols, that require me to do a two-key combination, slow me down.
Now I'm supposed to use Unicode? Is that guy insane?
How am I supposed to type out unicode expressions on my keyboard, without typing in the whole 4 digit number?
The obvious solution, if an ugly one, is to use escape sequences or symbolic entities like in TeX.
If you want to use theta as a variable, type something like "\theta = 20" etc. Having a symbolic name for each Unicode character, expressible in ASCII, would be prerequisite.
A pain in the ass? Maybe, but the pluses it offers may make it worthwhile.
There is also the idea that no one noticed it for 70+ years because it up until now we didn't recognize what it was. In 1983, if we saw that footage,well, we wouldn't really know what was on the film and not give it a second thought. No we've come to a point in time where we recognize what she is doing. ...
Now in 2010, some one sees the footage. It would be a whole different story, because now we know what technology that looks like she is using. ie. sign language. We could see what she was saying so to speak. So we come to a point in time where we realize she is using something that didn't exist in 1928. Our 1983 selves, would have know way to know she was a time traveler.
Yep. And obviously, if time travel were possible, someone from >2010 would have known about this footage, and gone back in time and prevented her from walking in front of the camera with the phone!
Er, I mean WILL go back in time... Will have gone..? Will be going to went..? Dang.:-/
Of course I've heard of VMWare, but for business purposes I have to stay on the squeaky-clean side of the Mac OS X EULA. So I only run Mac apps on Apple hardware.
The license is a contract. A contract is a memorial of an understanding between two parties. One party cannot be the sole arbiter of the interpretation of the license.
Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. A contract is a contract, whereas a license is... well, a license.
The terms of licensing are set solely by the copyright holder. The only 'understanding' between the licensor and licensee is 'take it or leave it.'
I've said it once, so I'll repeat again: solar is a joke... The LAWS of PHYSICS do NOT enable us to harvest enough power from the sun, where that power is actually needed, to meet the world's existing let-alone growing energy needs. Solar has its purpose in specific and local/regional use-cases, but not as a general energy source.
Remember, those solar collection estimates are based on current photovoltaic technologies and their current efficiency. There are already some experimental solar technologies that are at least 2x as efficient as existing cells, and one company is on the verge of producing solar shingles that can be used on any roof where regular shingles are used.
Still, you're right that the laws of physics impose an upper limit on what we can collect - you can't get more out than you take in ( > 100% efficiency). But if NYC were able to collect just 10% of the solar energy falling on its land area, that comes to about 750,000,000 sq. m x 500W/day = 375,000 MW. The city uses about 12 MW in electricity every day, so there's plenty of energy available even if gas and oil were to be replaced with electrics.
There are really only 3 true sources of energy that we can use - solar, geothermal, and nuclear. All the other alternatives are converted solar energy. Relying on solar evaporation to power wind + hydro, or putting it through photosynthesis and harvesting the biomass is inevitably going to be less efficient than just converting it directly to electricity.
Think of solar, geothermal and nuclear as our "income" and fossil fuels as the "trust fund" we've been burning through. Sooner or later the surplus will disappear and we will have to live within our means. If 5kW/day is all we get, then that's all we can spend.
Petroleum is really convenient in terms of an energy source, but we have a whole lot of others. That means, when push comes to shove, we can find other ways of doing things
We have alternatives for each of the things oil can do, but unfortunately there is nothing else that can do everything that oil can do.
I've always been curious as to exactly how the copyright holders expect the content providers to determine if any given piece of content is copyrighted or authorized. Is there an algorithm that can distinguish between an original copyrighted work and a fair-use derivative for audio or video?
It's pretty simple by the letter of the law - the person or persons making the copy bear the responsibility of verifying that they have the right to make that copy.
It gets hazy in a digital world where a site like YouTube can provide an unattended mechanism that allows users to upload material that they may or may not hold copyright on.
Am I making the copy when I hit "upload" or is YouTube making the copy when they accept the data and store it on their servers? Are users making copies when they download, or is the server making a copy when transmitting it?
Slashdot Mirror
I loved the Amiga, but it didn't beat the Mac in market share, even in the '80s.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/5
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/6
Strictly speaking, payment for a copy of a work is not an "agreement," it's an exchange. Most copyrighted works (books, CDs, DVDs etc.) are sold under license with no provision for redistribution. First sale doctrine applies for these items.
Software is usually sold under different terms. There is a difference between EULAs and a licenses. A EULA is a contract (agreement) concerning a license, but a license does not have to be part of a contract. Does that make sense?
I haven't actually done any Qt programming myself, but the demos I've seen were nice.
It looks like it has bindings for other languages than C++ :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(framework)#Bindings
Actually, he has about half as much as Bill Gates, but your point still stands. He knows what he's doing.
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list
Can't you use Qt to build your GUIs? It's available on Windows, Linux, Mac OS and mobile platforms.
Scala runs on top of Java anyway.
No, I mean they can keep the license the same (BSD or the like) and still not give you any code.
Just because the license permits them to give you changes doesn't compel them to give you the new code. They can distribute their binaries without source if they feel like it.
Not entirely correct - the copyright on the original code still belongs to the original authors, who have granted you rights to use it.
An alternative scenario is that you base your derivative work on someone else's BSD code, and they modify their project later so that your code no longer works with their new binaries.
If they don't want to give you the source for the new version, nothing under BSD requires them to give you that code. You are stuck with the older version forever, if that's what the original authors want. In this case, GPL is better (for you) than BSD.
The obvious solution, if an ugly one, is to use escape sequences or symbolic entities like in TeX.
If you want to use theta as a variable, type something like "\theta = 20" etc. Having a symbolic name for each Unicode character, expressible in ASCII, would be prerequisite.
A pain in the ass? Maybe, but the pluses it offers may make it worthwhile.
Yep. And obviously, if time travel were possible, someone from >2010 would have known about this footage, and gone back in time and prevented her from walking in front of the camera with the phone!
Er, I mean WILL go back in time... Will have gone..? Will be going to went..? Dang. :-/
Of course I've heard of VMWare, but for business purposes I have to stay on the squeaky-clean side of the Mac OS X EULA. So I only run Mac apps on Apple hardware.
"License: 4) n. a private grant"
"Contract: 1) n. an agreement..."
The difference is right there in front of your eyes.
Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. A contract is a contract, whereas a license is... well, a license.
The terms of licensing are set solely by the copyright holder. The only 'understanding' between the licensor and licensee is 'take it or leave it.'
Really? I bought a MacBook Pro for three reasons:
People complain about the price of Apple hardware, but to me it's like getting 3 computers in 1.
Can they predict series of concentric circles emanating from a red dot?
Once the red dot appears, it's too late for the little rows of human figures.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prophesy
> Toyota was the only manufacturer that didn't put the brakes on the deal.
Toyota doesn't put the brakes on ANYTHING.
It's archaic but perfectly legitimate...
Hamlet: "I am become bitter through ill-met experience."
"Vext the dim sea: I am become a name," Alfred Lord Tennyson's Ulysses
"I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me," Book of Corinthians 2, 12:11, KJV
"I am become /dev/null, the destroyer of data."
Arthur Dent: "I said it's not so much an afterlife; more a sort of après vie."
Zaphod: "Yeah, and don't you wish you hadn't?"
Oops, sorry to reply to my own post - but I meant to write that NYC uses about 12,000 MW per day, not 12 MW!
Remember, those solar collection estimates are based on current photovoltaic technologies and their current efficiency. There are already some experimental solar technologies that are at least 2x as efficient as existing cells, and one company is on the verge of producing solar shingles that can be used on any roof where regular shingles are used.
Still, you're right that the laws of physics impose an upper limit on what we can collect - you can't get more out than you take in ( > 100% efficiency). But if NYC were able to collect just 10% of the solar energy falling on its land area, that comes to about 750,000,000 sq. m x 500W/day = 375,000 MW. The city uses about 12 MW in electricity every day, so there's plenty of energy available even if gas and oil were to be replaced with electrics.
There are really only 3 true sources of energy that we can use - solar, geothermal, and nuclear. All the other alternatives are converted solar energy. Relying on solar evaporation to power wind + hydro, or putting it through photosynthesis and harvesting the biomass is inevitably going to be less efficient than just converting it directly to electricity.
Think of solar, geothermal and nuclear as our "income" and fossil fuels as the "trust fund" we've been burning through. Sooner or later the surplus will disappear and we will have to live within our means. If 5kW/day is all we get, then that's all we can spend.
We have alternatives for each of the things oil can do, but unfortunately there is nothing else that can do everything that oil can do.
> The emphasis is on Fiction these days. I miss Isaac.
Asimov or Newton? :)
It's pretty simple by the letter of the law - the person or persons making the copy bear the responsibility of verifying that they have the right to make that copy.
It gets hazy in a digital world where a site like YouTube can provide an unattended mechanism that allows users to upload material that they may or may not hold copyright on.
Am I making the copy when I hit "upload" or is YouTube making the copy when they accept the data and store it on their servers? Are users making copies when they download, or is the server making a copy when transmitting it?
As John Hodgman put it on the Daily Show, "a better metaphor might be, oh, I don't know, off the top of my head, a NET? ...or an INTER-NET?"
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-19-2006/net-neutrality-act