If the company doesn't release the source, you're less-likely to get user improvements (think OpenWRT for example), or product life extension after the company abandons it. The GPL is useful even to non-programmers, because they can still benefit from what programmers do and share with everyone using the device.
i think that would be covered by "...to give anyone who possesses the object code..."
if you distribute the object code, you're obligated to give it to ANYONE who posessess the object code, no matter how they obtained it.
But... isn't it the obligation of the person who gave YOU the code to provide the source? So if a company sells tablet to X, with offer for source, then X gives object code to Y, it seems it's X's obligation to give Y the source code, not the company. At the very least, the company may not have the resources to give it to everyone X gives the object code to, only to X.
Fraud involves deception. He didn't even contact the copyright holders, so how could he have deceived them?
Duplicating copyrighted material is both counterfeiting and infringing.
A counterfeit is something made to fool people into believing it's the real thing. If his sales showed pictures of DVD-Rs with Sharpie writing on them, for example, it would be clear that they were not the originals, and thus they would not be counterfeits. If, on the other hand, he printed the CDs to look like the originals, and printed up cases/boxes, and described then on his auction page as the real thing, then they would be counterfeit. It's all about whether the buyer knows that they are not official.
Agreed, infringement a crime is ridiculous, but if this guy sold counterfeit goods, I'm more apt to call it a crime, since he was defrauding everyone he sold to. If this is the case, then they thought they were getting a legal copy of the program, with whatever support the publisher provides, but then ended up with an illegitimate copy that they couldn't even resell legally.
The exposure was my first thought as well, but from an electrical standpoint. A solar cell is just a diode with a large junction area, as I understand it, and most semiconductors are light-sensitive, so it didn't seem you'd want them exposed to intense light that causes currents to be generated throughout the circuit. But here they put the traditional circuitry on a layer below the solar cell. Still, as you note, the solar panel is so small that it generates very little power. If you increased its area, you'd increase the area of the underlying layer as well, which seems it'd increase its cost. Sure, it wouldn't have circuitry in the entire area, so the defect rate wouldn't scale as badly as it does for normal large chips, but it still seems it'd be cheaper to just use a separate solar panel of whatever size is needed. Maybe this would have a really specialized use.
Why do corporate apologists keep saying this crap? Censorship does not mean "action by the government," it just means that materials deemed inappropriate are not allowed to be published.
Who other than the government (or other entity who can use force) can prevent something from getting published? Oh, you didn't mean that it couldn't be published at all, just by a particular publisher. That waters it down quite a bit, doesn't it?
[governments] have the power to enforce that censorship by throwing your body into jail, or sucking money out of your wallet (fines). Neither amazon nor any other corporation has that kind of power.
Exactly. The latter can merely prevent you from accessing said material really conveniently using the services they provide.
Just wait, one way you'll not only be able to load 10 items on a page, but it'll scroll if they don't all fit on screen! I can't wait until that's possible.
I'd sure as hell not pay for the privilege of being babysat. Good thing one can sit in on classes. I guess it's not ironic that doing so is free, since they aren't having to hire people to babysit you in that case.
Colleges should make it so that a student who wants to learn can do so without undue distraction by other students, using whatever tools help him. They should not waste time trying to get students who don't want to learn to learn; as long as they are not distracting those who do want to learn, they should be ignored. This applies to people goofing off in class, or cheating, or whatever; no disruption, don't waste resources on them.
Clearly the guy was a nut, so it wasn't Frogger that was the cause. But if it were a game I didn't like, then I think it would have been the game's fault, and it would need to be removed from the shelves.
Maybe when this is all over, we can achieve our ultimate goal of putting a warning label on Tetris.
In fact, make the kids hand the money over themselves, and tell them that every time they want to sing something they have to give money away. Maybe if it gets ridiculous enough people will notice.
If what I've been told is true, then it's the only right thing to do, otherwise the kids would be stealing whenever they sung. They should know that stealing is wrong, since it deprives people of their belongings.
What would have happened if we had a clear unambiguous warning of the sub-prime crisis a year before it happened?
Maybe something like Y2K, where the efforts that avoided major problems are written off as unnecessary, and thus the warning is seen as having been false?
Thus do we generate page views and 'user generated content'. The article does not even need to really exist, as all this will still occur as well as others pointing out the lack of article!
I have a strong faith in this "article", and don't need proof to believe in its existence. How can all these commenters be wrong? Now, I need to interpret the writings of this summarizer who has been directly contacted by the article, and form an opinion as to what the article really means.
The interesting bit comes when the simulation reaches the point that the computer simulation started. The computers then have to simulate themselves running the simulation.
And this isn't just an academic point. If their predictions are of any value, they will be incorporated into major decisions made, and thus will be critical for the simulator to predict.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't associate the original BASIC with the joy of programming. Line numbers were a major headache. (Amiga) BASIC with C-style block structuring was getting there, but it was still slow as hell. It wasn't until C that I could say I experienced joy of programming. With that, code ran about as fast as it could, and I could structure things very freely. This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s.
As a liberal, I can play this argument too: It starts with short-term tax cuts to stimulate spending after a recession. Then later on the short-term has become a decade and then permanent. And the cuts go deeper, and deeper. Then comes a deficit commission and Social Security and unemployment insurance is gone
And that would be a bad thing, letting people get private insurance and invest for retirement?
Yep. The whole summary reeks of "those are the bad guys. We're the good guys, and you should think like us because we are correct. If you scrutinize anything we say, we'll brand you the bad guys and ignore you."
if they have the bad habit of using the same password everywhere...
That's the problem. A server operator should ideally only have to manage access to his server. If he somehow leaks username-password pairs, then he should simply have to ensure that nobody gains unauthorized access to those accounts. Putting passwords used ELSEWHERE is just asking for trouble. For some reason I think about published interfaces to modules, and people using them in ways not documented, then having their code break when this undocumented behavior changes. Here the undocumented behavior is that your password won't get leaked. All the server operator should have to guarantee is that your ACCOUNT doesn't have unauthorized access. So even if your password is leaked, he can ensure that. But if you used your password for information that compromises accounts on other machines, you made the error. Just my thought on this matter.
So you believe that because something is healthy to have brushed on one's teeth and then spit out, it must therefore be healthy to ingest with every drink of water? Do you advocate drinking soap as well?
If an accessory, say a compressor for air conditioning or power steering, requires x amount of horsepower to do it's job when driven by a belt, changing it to an all electric component will still require x amount of horsepower to do the same amount of work. You'll just need a larger alternator which will be harder to spin (require more horsepower) when there is the additional electrical load on it.
Yes, assuming devices with no inefficiencies. When you factor those in, you find that electric wins, because it gives you more flexibility in the designs and what speeds you operate each device at (including the engine).
Slashdot Mirror
If the company doesn't release the source, you're less-likely to get user improvements (think OpenWRT for example), or product life extension after the company abandons it. The GPL is useful even to non-programmers, because they can still benefit from what programmers do and share with everyone using the device.
But... isn't it the obligation of the person who gave YOU the code to provide the source? So if a company sells tablet to X, with offer for source, then X gives object code to Y, it seems it's X's obligation to give Y the source code, not the company. At the very least, the company may not have the resources to give it to everyone X gives the object code to, only to X.
Fraud involves deception. He didn't even contact the copyright holders, so how could he have deceived them?
A counterfeit is something made to fool people into believing it's the real thing. If his sales showed pictures of DVD-Rs with Sharpie writing on them, for example, it would be clear that they were not the originals, and thus they would not be counterfeits. If, on the other hand, he printed the CDs to look like the originals, and printed up cases/boxes, and described then on his auction page as the real thing, then they would be counterfeit. It's all about whether the buyer knows that they are not official.
Agreed, infringement a crime is ridiculous, but if this guy sold counterfeit goods, I'm more apt to call it a crime, since he was defrauding everyone he sold to. If this is the case, then they thought they were getting a legal copy of the program, with whatever support the publisher provides, but then ended up with an illegitimate copy that they couldn't even resell legally.
The exposure was my first thought as well, but from an electrical standpoint. A solar cell is just a diode with a large junction area, as I understand it, and most semiconductors are light-sensitive, so it didn't seem you'd want them exposed to intense light that causes currents to be generated throughout the circuit. But here they put the traditional circuitry on a layer below the solar cell. Still, as you note, the solar panel is so small that it generates very little power. If you increased its area, you'd increase the area of the underlying layer as well, which seems it'd increase its cost. Sure, it wouldn't have circuitry in the entire area, so the defect rate wouldn't scale as badly as it does for normal large chips, but it still seems it'd be cheaper to just use a separate solar panel of whatever size is needed. Maybe this would have a really specialized use.
Who other than the government (or other entity who can use force) can prevent something from getting published? Oh, you didn't mean that it couldn't be published at all, just by a particular publisher. That waters it down quite a bit, doesn't it?
Exactly. The latter can merely prevent you from accessing said material really conveniently using the services they provide.
Just wait, one way you'll not only be able to load 10 items on a page, but it'll scroll if they don't all fit on screen! I can't wait until that's possible.
I'd sure as hell not pay for the privilege of being babysat. Good thing one can sit in on classes. I guess it's not ironic that doing so is free, since they aren't having to hire people to babysit you in that case.
Even put all together on one page, I want those two minutes of my life back. I second the recommendation to skip to the Daily WTF.
Colleges should make it so that a student who wants to learn can do so without undue distraction by other students, using whatever tools help him. They should not waste time trying to get students who don't want to learn to learn; as long as they are not distracting those who do want to learn, they should be ignored. This applies to people goofing off in class, or cheating, or whatever; no disruption, don't waste resources on them.
Nintendo had a 3D system way back as well.
Sort of like this?
If what I've been told is true, then it's the only right thing to do, otherwise the kids would be stealing whenever they sung. They should know that stealing is wrong, since it deprives people of their belongings.
Maybe something like Y2K, where the efforts that avoided major problems are written off as unnecessary, and thus the warning is seen as having been false?
Mods must be having a bad day to knock down a joke post. I guess they figured I was knocking religion or something. Lame.
I have a strong faith in this "article", and don't need proof to believe in its existence. How can all these commenters be wrong? Now, I need to interpret the writings of this summarizer who has been directly contacted by the article, and form an opinion as to what the article really means.
And this isn't just an academic point. If their predictions are of any value, they will be incorporated into major decisions made, and thus will be critical for the simulator to predict.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't associate the original BASIC with the joy of programming. Line numbers were a major headache. (Amiga) BASIC with C-style block structuring was getting there, but it was still slow as hell. It wasn't until C that I could say I experienced joy of programming. With that, code ran about as fast as it could, and I could structure things very freely. This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s.
And that would be a bad thing, letting people get private insurance and invest for retirement?
Now why would washability be of concern to the average Slashdot reader? Dammit, mom's calling, have to cut this short.
Yep. The whole summary reeks of "those are the bad guys. We're the good guys, and you should think like us because we are correct. If you scrutinize anything we say, we'll brand you the bad guys and ignore you."
That's the problem. A server operator should ideally only have to manage access to his server. If he somehow leaks username-password pairs, then he should simply have to ensure that nobody gains unauthorized access to those accounts. Putting passwords used ELSEWHERE is just asking for trouble. For some reason I think about published interfaces to modules, and people using them in ways not documented, then having their code break when this undocumented behavior changes. Here the undocumented behavior is that your password won't get leaked. All the server operator should have to guarantee is that your ACCOUNT doesn't have unauthorized access. So even if your password is leaked, he can ensure that. But if you used your password for information that compromises accounts on other machines, you made the error. Just my thought on this matter.
So you believe that because something is healthy to have brushed on one's teeth and then spit out, it must therefore be healthy to ingest with every drink of water? Do you advocate drinking soap as well?
Yes, assuming devices with no inefficiencies. When you factor those in, you find that electric wins, because it gives you more flexibility in the designs and what speeds you operate each device at (including the engine).