A copyright owner could log on to one of these services, download a piece of the work, and get an IP address, a time, and a block of the file: evidence that a piece of the copyrighted work has been distributed.
Your message has been found to contain small portions (one octet each) of thousands of copyrighted works. We will be contacting you with settlement information shortly.
Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?
How does it being for a particular OS take away a user's freedom to use it or modify it to work standalone? Or do you think that all GPL software shouldn't require any OS, or any hardware at all? Sounds like you think the GPL is a "make whatever I don't like a violation" license.
So he's basically saying that before copyright was well-defined in law, it was enforced in the social space by almost everyone, particularly buyers, but that turning it into law would cause the social-sphere version to disappear and for common people to stop caring about its enforcement?
in the hope of taking advantage of cheaper electricity rates
I'm all for cheaper electricity, but at least in my city, I don't have to pay for rates; the electric company sends them to me annually for free, printed on a piece of paper.
a "rave" (defined as playing amplified music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats," during the night).
(1): "a 75% more efficient light" would mean an increase to 175% or original, a factor of 1.75 times better.
Wouldn't that be merely 0.75 times better? With your version, if it were a "0% more efficient light", you'd be wording it as "a factor of 1.0 times better".
(2): "reducing by 75%" means a factor of 4 better.
If power weren't reduced, you'd be wording it "a factor of 1 better". But this one is tricky as factor of N implies a fraction of 1/N, so we can't just say "a factor of 3 better", as the fraction is 1/4.
(3): "increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times" means a 2.75 time increase, a factor of 2.75
In this case, the original is wrong as you point out, but then you compound the same error again! An increase of 2.75 times means it goes from 1 to 1+2.75=3.75. It is true that an increase from 1 to 2.75 is a factor of 2.75, but the only an increase by a factor of 0.75. Again, if it had no increase from 1.0 to 1.0, then there would be a factor of 1.0 between them, and thus an increase by a factor of 0.
: "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.
(4)A factor of 3. An increase from 1.0 to 3.0 (1.0+1.0*2) is a factor of 3, an increase by a factor of 2.
In all of the above, the thing that's forgotten is that the word "increase", "more", "better", etc. means that there's an implicit 1.0 added. "I increased my stock of shells by 1", "I added 10% to my stock of shells", "I have 10% more shells". All of these involve my current shell stock being added to by the amount mentioned.
I'd always thought it would be a neat idea to roll auto insurance in at the gas pump. No more uninsured drivers, plus it would be an incentive to reduce driving.
It would be great for ensuring people against damage I do with my push lawn mower sometimes. Currently they have to pay out of their pocket!
Why would anyone think that paying by the mile would reduce the amount I'm driving? I don't go on long jaunts around the town just for the hell of it, I go because I need to get somewhere, or pick something up.
But surely you do make regular high-level planning decisions that could increase/decrease your amount of driving. If you knew your driving rate was greater than currently, you might plan more combined trips, etc. Then again, you might already consider driving a very high cost and reduce trips as much as possible.
It was amazing how easy it is to crack a WEP connection. On average I took less than 10 minutes to crack a WEP wireless. Over 40% of people(at least around here), still use this totally insecure encryption method.
It seems like a bad idea to use WEP over having a totally open connection, because if someone cracks it and then commits an illegal act through your connection, you'll have a tougher time arguing that it wasn't you who did it than if you had an open connection.
Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases, but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.
And? The article is about how/why they have a consistent release schedule. Since Linux already has a different process, why should BSD adopt the same? If a consistent, stable release schedule is important, use BSD. If Linux is better for your needs use it.
An airplane has 100 seats. The airline sells 200 seats. The airline complains when 200 people show up because, clearly, the airplane has only 100 seats and the airline's hands are tied in the matter.
No, it's the ticketholders which complain that they don't all get seats on their scheduled plane, even though the terms for the ticket state that they don't have a guaranteed seat at a particular time. Apparently a significant portion of tickets aren't used for the stated flight, so if all tickets guaranteed a seat, there would be many empty seats on most flights and thus tickets would cost more.
It's the same with an ISP; they can guarantee bandwidth at a high cost, or provide a lower-cost conenction that has high bandwidth on average, but not always. With the guaranteed model even if everyone goes from just checking e-mail one day to constantly downloading video the next, there will be no problems since the ISP guarantees the bandwidth. With the non-guaranteed model, such a change would initially result in very low speeds for everyone until the ISP upgraded its capacity, which would require higher bills for everyone. There's no way around this. The point of traffic shaping is reduce the need for bandwidth upgrades by keeping important services fast and degrading less-important ones like movie downloads. This benefits users by allowing a lower bill.
They deliver mail to (nearly) every address in the US 6 days a week, and will even come to check for outgoing if you don't have any incoming.
Maybe in your city, but not mine. Every week I get a few pieces of mail meant for the block down, same house number, some of it not junk mail either. I always wonder how much of my main I don't get. And they don't pick up outgoing mail every day either (I'm not talking about holidays either).
I get so sick of the mentality that just because the government intervenes that it MUST be bad. The government is capable of intervening in a non-biased non-special-interest based manner. In a way that benefits us all.
The reason it can't keep it up, if it ever achieves it for a short while, is because it doesn't have the profit-or-die constraint that private entities have in the free market. The closest is voting, but that's too removed and coarse a feedback mechanism, and it's corrupted by lobbying/bribes. In the free market, companies constantly get feedback in a form that cannot be ignored without resulting in consequences.
What, you're saying there's an inherent tradeoff between giving developers full freedom and ensuring end-user freedom?!? But seriously, one other distinction is that the GPL relies on copyright law, while BSD-style licenses are basically what all code would be under were there no copyright (put another way, BSD-style is basically equivalent to public domain).
I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about pumping pollution into the air, too. The volume of pollution pumped out of factories vs the volume of the atmosphere, it'd never be significant. What do you know - as more people started jumping on the bandwagon, new technology found new ways to pump out pollution. If we invest heavily in wind farms, new technology will come along to extract more energy in less land footprint.
The difference is that pollution accumulates, while the wind dissipates pretty quickly. And hell, putting up a large structure probably blocks more wind (turns it into heat and sound) than a turbine could. Also, is anyone really concerned that having solar collectors on the ground is going to disrupt things as compared to having the sun hit the ground instead?!?
It seems that the APA is the latest group that needs to do some reading on why security through obscurity just doesn't work.
This is different, becuase it's for the potential patient's benefit not to see these. Security through obscurity would be about protecting something of the APA. If a patient wants to screw up the usefulness of a test for himself in the future, so be it.
I apply science every day. For example, I'm using a piece of software that claims to do X and Y, and I believe it at first. But I get indications it's not really doing that, that my problems are not due to other complexities, but because it's not actually doing X and Y. So I pause my main task and start running experiments to find out what it really does. At that point, I have a clearer model of what's really going on, and know how to further refine it if necessary. This process tends to form a growing island of certainty in my mind, separate from the mere claims the software makes. (This particular example involved a program to customize low-level video output parameters.)
Greed isn't the problem, as that's here to stay, and in fact the free market capitalizes on that to drive efficiency. The problem is governments constantly expanding their intrusion on the free market, giving unequal advantages to those who direct their intrusion. Physical property? Check. Imaginary property? In your dreams! End of problem.
Federal contractors got the cash. But sneak a peek [...] behind the Dashboard, and you'll see that some individuals also helped bring it to life with their free software.
The contractors got paid for their labor. They took these components and put them together. This is exactly what free software is about, making the information technology free (since it's infinitely copyable) and charging people for the labor, which is never free or infinite.
So "swearing provides more pain tolerance than repeating a neutral chant". How about swearing versus yelling "oh wow ow!" or just general non-verbal screaming? If they have trouble finding participants, they can just grab a few politicians and/or lawyers against their will...
Disable CSS for the site, or just block c.fsdn.com. Makes viewing the site a fucking breeze, with almost instant loading and rendering, even on ancient browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
Your message has been found to contain small portions (one octet each) of thousands of copyrighted works. We will be contacting you with settlement information shortly.
How does it being for a particular OS take away a user's freedom to use it or modify it to work standalone? Or do you think that all GPL software shouldn't require any OS, or any hardware at all? Sounds like you think the GPL is a "make whatever I don't like a violation" license.
So he's basically saying that before copyright was well-defined in law, it was enforced in the social space by almost everyone, particularly buyers, but that turning it into law would cause the social-sphere version to disappear and for common people to stop caring about its enforcement?
I'm all for cheaper electricity, but at least in my city, I don't have to pay for rates; the electric company sends them to me annually for free, printed on a piece of paper.
What if they aren't playing trance music?
Wouldn't that be merely 0.75 times better? With your version, if it were a "0% more efficient light", you'd be wording it as "a factor of 1.0 times better".
If power weren't reduced, you'd be wording it "a factor of 1 better". But this one is tricky as factor of N implies a fraction of 1/N, so we can't just say "a factor of 3 better", as the fraction is 1/4.
In this case, the original is wrong as you point out, but then you compound the same error again! An increase of 2.75 times means it goes from 1 to 1+2.75=3.75. It is true that an increase from 1 to 2.75 is a factor of 2.75, but the only an increase by a factor of 0.75. Again, if it had no increase from 1.0 to 1.0, then there would be a factor of 1.0 between them, and thus an increase by a factor of 0.
(4)A factor of 3. An increase from 1.0 to 3.0 (1.0+1.0*2) is a factor of 3, an increase by a factor of 2. In all of the above, the thing that's forgotten is that the word "increase", "more", "better", etc. means that there's an implicit 1.0 added. "I increased my stock of shells by 1", "I added 10% to my stock of shells", "I have 10% more shells". All of these involve my current shell stock being added to by the amount mentioned.
It would be great for ensuring people against damage I do with my push lawn mower sometimes. Currently they have to pay out of their pocket!
But surely you do make regular high-level planning decisions that could increase/decrease your amount of driving. If you knew your driving rate was greater than currently, you might plan more combined trips, etc. Then again, you might already consider driving a very high cost and reduce trips as much as possible.
Depends on how long a phone extension cable you have for your land line. I've never found more than a few hundred feet...
You forgot scare quotes around property.
It seems like a bad idea to use WEP over having a totally open connection, because if someone cracks it and then commits an illegal act through your connection, you'll have a tougher time arguing that it wasn't you who did it than if you had an open connection.
And? The article is about how/why they have a consistent release schedule. Since Linux already has a different process, why should BSD adopt the same? If a consistent, stable release schedule is important, use BSD. If Linux is better for your needs use it.
No, it's the ticketholders which complain that they don't all get seats on their scheduled plane, even though the terms for the ticket state that they don't have a guaranteed seat at a particular time. Apparently a significant portion of tickets aren't used for the stated flight, so if all tickets guaranteed a seat, there would be many empty seats on most flights and thus tickets would cost more.
It's the same with an ISP; they can guarantee bandwidth at a high cost, or provide a lower-cost conenction that has high bandwidth on average, but not always. With the guaranteed model even if everyone goes from just checking e-mail one day to constantly downloading video the next, there will be no problems since the ISP guarantees the bandwidth. With the non-guaranteed model, such a change would initially result in very low speeds for everyone until the ISP upgraded its capacity, which would require higher bills for everyone. There's no way around this. The point of traffic shaping is reduce the need for bandwidth upgrades by keeping important services fast and degrading less-important ones like movie downloads. This benefits users by allowing a lower bill.
Hell, if this guy can get out of a $23,148,855, uh etc. charge, surely I can get out of a measly $10,000 charge.
Maybe in your city, but not mine. Every week I get a few pieces of mail meant for the block down, same house number, some of it not junk mail either. I always wonder how much of my main I don't get. And they don't pick up outgoing mail every day either (I'm not talking about holidays either).
The reason it can't keep it up, if it ever achieves it for a short while, is because it doesn't have the profit-or-die constraint that private entities have in the free market. The closest is voting, but that's too removed and coarse a feedback mechanism, and it's corrupted by lobbying/bribes. In the free market, companies constantly get feedback in a form that cannot be ignored without resulting in consequences.
What, you're saying there's an inherent tradeoff between giving developers full freedom and ensuring end-user freedom?!? But seriously, one other distinction is that the GPL relies on copyright law, while BSD-style licenses are basically what all code would be under were there no copyright (put another way, BSD-style is basically equivalent to public domain).
The difference is that pollution accumulates, while the wind dissipates pretty quickly. And hell, putting up a large structure probably blocks more wind (turns it into heat and sound) than a turbine could. Also, is anyone really concerned that having solar collectors on the ground is going to disrupt things as compared to having the sun hit the ground instead?!?
This is different, becuase it's for the potential patient's benefit not to see these. Security through obscurity would be about protecting something of the APA. If a patient wants to screw up the usefulness of a test for himself in the future, so be it.
I apply science every day. For example, I'm using a piece of software that claims to do X and Y, and I believe it at first. But I get indications it's not really doing that, that my problems are not due to other complexities, but because it's not actually doing X and Y. So I pause my main task and start running experiments to find out what it really does. At that point, I have a clearer model of what's really going on, and know how to further refine it if necessary. This process tends to form a growing island of certainty in my mind, separate from the mere claims the software makes. (This particular example involved a program to customize low-level video output parameters.)
Greed isn't the problem, as that's here to stay, and in fact the free market capitalizes on that to drive efficiency. The problem is governments constantly expanding their intrusion on the free market, giving unequal advantages to those who direct their intrusion. Physical property? Check. Imaginary property? In your dreams! End of problem.
If his Oracle were any good, he wouldn't even need to speculate!
The contractors got paid for their labor. They took these components and put them together. This is exactly what free software is about, making the information technology free (since it's infinitely copyable) and charging people for the labor, which is never free or infinite.
So "swearing provides more pain tolerance than repeating a neutral chant". How about swearing versus yelling "oh wow ow!" or just general non-verbal screaming? If they have trouble finding participants, they can just grab a few politicians and/or lawyers against their will...
Disable CSS for the site, or just block c.fsdn.com. Makes viewing the site a fucking breeze, with almost instant loading and rendering, even on ancient browsers.