I heard about a 6-legged mutant emerging from the rubble named Earthquake-Man. He causes earthquakes and Tsunami just by staring at the ground or the water for a few seconds; the longer the stare, the more powerful and larger the quake.
Word has it, he was last seen a few hours ago wandering around asking for directions to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.
Maybe. But TW could stomp all over channels' streams without running afoul of any proposed net neutrality regulation.
Network neutrality merely provides that TW doesn't inspect customers' traffic and give different treatment based on the type of network service used.
Network neutrality doesn't say a provider can't have data caps for users,
or that a provider cannot have network congestion at its peering/transit links,
when the connection between the customers and the ISP's own servers is uncongested
(due to larger backbone pipes inside the ISP network than the amount of bandwidth from peering arrangements to communicate with other providers).
Yeah, but the guy didn't sell it... the dumb retailer said they mixed up units that they had repaired with brand new units they were selling.
Most Slashdotters would not be comfortable sending PC hardware in for repair, probably, without wiping/transferring the hard drive contents.
It could have been any one of us who sold their laptop to some guy who sells laptops at an IT fair in Singapore!
The real lesson is to computer buyers, and people getting service done on their computer.
Don't send your computer in for repair... at least not to a shop that also sells PCs.
Imagine if there were no documents found on it..... he would have been fooled into thinking he got a new computer, when he got a used one and paid the new item price for it?
This is a monetary win for the store, since they sold something as 'new' which commands a premium over what it's worth.
An unscrupulous/shady retailer might do that intentionally, and it raises lots of suspicions here. They would eventually get caught (as they did here), and naturally, an excuse could be expected. I suppose the question will be.... does this repeat?
If not, then maybe the excuse was legit. If it does repeat or the retailer vanishes/changes names suddenly, it will look more and more suspicious to the public.
The retailer came up with an excuse, but I really wonder.....
Was it shrink-wrapped too?
How the hell do you mix up a unit you are repairing for someone with your new product?
"Oops...sorry your computer we were repairing? Sorry, we lost it... sold it to some random stranger"
"The worker didn't notice he was pulling the computer from a stack of units being repaired that were not in original boxes, and he thought the 'repair ticket' taped to it was just a random piece of trash, so threw it away before giving PC to the buyer."
Here, you can buy a "brand new one" from us, and we'll give you 25% off and waive the repair charges, to make up for us losing your used one, or we'll give you a use one from our (*cough* [banged up lemons sent in for repair]) pile, we'll even throw in a free copy of [Bloatware/Trialware] 2011.
but the meter for your time spend making long distance phone calls from you land line isn't. Neither is the meter tracking how much time you spend on a cell phone call.
But they can back up the readings of "long distance phone calls" by producing CDRs of the inter-LATA/Toll calls/Paid feature activations; every individual call made always has to be recorded date, time, duration, calling party, called party, originators billing DN, IDT, CRV, terminators billing DN, ODT, CRV, identification of providers' physical circuits used for the call, Caller ID status, ETC., which can be matched with records kept by the call's terminating provider -- if they lied, they could eventually be caught.
Not that billing errors are impossible.. it's just that as long as your phone line doesn't get crossed with someone else's,
there are definitive records to fallback to, which could be reviewed by the carrier to fix it, or subpoena'd by the court.
It's not like electricity where "the number reading" is the only thing that can establish your usage.
And it's accurate, unless you can prove something is wrong with its readings.
Hm... I just wonder how long it will be before someone makes an inexpensive network appliance containing a TV tuner, you
just plug in to your cable, and comes with a free iPhone app to stream ANY channel locally at LAN performance,
or remotely (from anywhere), by using your WAN...
And how long before that functionality gets integrated by major DVR manufacturers....
This would let you get all channels. Not just the few Time warner is streaming.
It's not like you absolutely need the cable providers doing this to have it.
Are the Cable channels forgetting that the courts have ruledDVR as a service is not a copyright violation?
Specifically Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings: Remote DVR Does Not Violate Copyright Protections Afforded to Television Program Copyright Holders
If the apps don't share a walled garden you have a lot complexity with intra app communications and signaling. Integration of applications is a major selling point. Just think about making drag and drop work between walled gardens.
Intra app communications get provided by a framework. Of course the OS itself can pierce walled gardens.
Much like the way when you are securing computer networks with a network "air gap",
it is possible you can put an indirectly connected proxy server in each isolated network for web access.
I don't think we'll see inter-app communications completely disappear if MacOS is locked down; however, I think we'll see them more limited to "approved" frameworks.... exactly what apps are allowed to pass between each other may have to go through a broker that imposes certain restrictions.
I'm thinking content providers / new application providers will be demanding DRM / Trusted computing technology that goes as far as ensuring an application can secure its files (at OS level) against unapproved access.
Windows 7 is getting there already on trusted computing. Apple may have to lock MacOS down more to compete, for fear content providers will start making "Windows only content" and shun MacOS (due to not having sufficient OS-level "security" to meet publishers demands)
We are working with the provider of the Illini-Alert service to implement additional security features in the program to prevent this type of error.'"
A security feature is not what you need.
I predict in a few years we'll never hear the truth about how "the employee was hurriedly trying to send a message to alert the students about the shooter.......
BUT couldn't get the message out due to a new security feature implemented in the Illini-Alert service,
requiring knowledge of a manager's password. The manager was either (choose one): [unavailable at the time, OR unable to properly enter the password] before the shooter stormed in the room and blasted the pair of them."
You need an auditing function to make sure the person who causes the message to be sent is accountable,
proper training, AND a reasonable precaution to ensure they won't do it accidentally, while ensuring you don't make it any harder to do so,
or do anything that will make the authorities unable to send a message; extravagant security features have that risk, especially
if implemented improperly.
And given their track record of having an unconfirmed "submit" button right by a safe button.... I wouldn't hold hopes too high.
Either the user was doing it wrong, or the design is flawwed.
Except that there isn't anything stopping them from streaming directly to the consumer. If they do it better, more seamlessly than TWC people will get it directly.
Time warner can stop them, by not providing a sufficiently high quality internet connection, for the streaming to be successful. They could limit the longevity of a connection (so you can't watch a long program uninterrupted), shape certain bandwidth, or give the channels poor access to TW's network.
People streaming significant amount of Television will be using a lot of bandwidth (probably beyond the capabilities of their own internet connections, if everyone does it), so TW can discourage by capping internet usage... E.g. Verizon-style 2GB per month cap.
Time warner cable internet can provide much better access to their own streams, since they themselves are streaming it -- the stream data doesn't need to cross congested transit links (to other providers they pay for limited amounts of transit internet access needs)
The cable operator could also block/disrupt the channels' websites, or demand they pay for the ability to use their customers' internet connections.
So why don't they just sue (or I dunno, maybe just ask) to have monitoring hooks for Nielsen built into the iPad software? How does Nielsen monitor usage these days? I imagine they are way past the "Fill out this journal every time you watch TV and we'll pay you $1/week" days.
They don't have "just one thing" to do it. Most Nielsen households just get the "television diary" in the mail, where they are asked to journal their TV watching. Sent to random households. I see no reason this would be any different for iPad users, they would just need to adjust the questionnaire at most.
Other Nielsen households are randomly selected to get a special "nielsen box" installed on their TV for longer periods of time.
The Nielsen box is essentially an appliance that is hooked up to the TV's video inputs, and the Cable/Satellite box's output is hooked to the Nielsen box's inputs, so the Nielsen box monitors what signal is being transmitted to the TV.
The Nielsen box is also hooked up to one of the TV's speaker outputs, so they can detect if the volume has been muted.
Anyways... this being all bespoke hardware... I see no reason the 'nielsen' TV box couldn't just as easily be converted into a passive sniffer box you plug in between your cable modem and your PC/router.
They're trying to preserve theoretical income they don't have yet.
Time warner is a middle man. The channels want to bypass the middle man and sell streaming content over their (Time warner) internet connection to end users for retail price (instead of discounted prices you sell to a middle man at), while still charging Time warner high prices deliver the same channels to the same subscribers' TV.
I'm sure the applications for court orders to take down the information from the American Scientists website, Slashdot, and Twitter
are already being prepared... or will be, if the lawyers know about the postings.
We don't know, because we haven't been informed yet about how poorly they handled the breach and failed to tell anyone about it.
We won't learn about it until the bad guy is widely abusing their bogus cert for man-in-the-middle attacks, and a security researcher happens to be a person attacked by it.
including things like the shell, were all on another layer which wasn't. Their applications, including things like IIS were incompatible with their security model. That strategy is a mess.
There is no requirement that all 'locked down apps' share the same walled garden.
NT's failure wasn't an inherent failure.
And sometimes the perception of high security is better than being perfectly secure against every theoretical attack.
Especially when you are trying to sell a product.
Raising the bar for security attackers much higher is almost as good as making security attacks impossible.
The criminals will go after easier targets. Like the human using the hardened devices (e.g. Phishing).
"Relatively low amounts" in Japan. "Vanishingly small" amounts elsewhere. Yeah, they're really sensationally hyping this one up./sarcasm
It turns out that "vanishingly small" amounts are all that are required to have serious long-term health consequences for a number of people.
When they say "levels are too low for there to be a public health risk"; they are making a statistical argument -- if a few thousand people get cancer in a few years, or their children have birth defects 20 years later when they're an adult, that's not considered a "significant public health risk".
For example to maintain security they don't allow interpreters. That kills VBA which is needed or office. It kills Applescript which their general end users do use and take advantage of.
I assume they'll build a walled garden for Office, and allow some form of macros inside that walled garden.
Signing code is complex, which makes the compile -> test -> debug cycle hard. For iOS that isn't a huge problem because you can run emulators on OSX, so you don't sign until late alpha / early beta? But what do you emulate OSX on?
Yeah.. i'm sure if they do it, they'll sell a more expensive machine or software to developers that isn't locked down.
Folks with luxurious needs will just pay more... including artists who need scripting/macros for their professional production work
Every author included that statement its section 9 of the GPLv2. The options under the GPL are
Not true. Congrats again for failing to actually read the GPL.
The GPL only offers later versions if the author stated you may use any later version, OR if the author failed to state a version number.
The kernel itself is a good example of a program that may only be distributed under the GPL version 2.
Distribution under any other version of the GPL than stated by the copyright owner as allowed would be copyright infringement.
[...] Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
The GPLv2 says accordingly:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
And regardless the license of the Linux kernel clearly allows linking with the syscall interface:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
That is merely someone's statement to try to ease certain people's concerns.
It's not part of the license the Linux kernel is distributed under.
The kernel definitely contains GPL code where the developer did not agree to such a statement.
That phase is merely a restriction of 'what copyright is being claimed' in the copyright statement, as in what components are being declared to be licensed.
The claim it in no way prevents a court from finding that a piece of software is legally a derivative work, if the software is distributed with the kernel and interfaces with the kernel through system calls.
In fact... the developers wouldn't even want that. The syscall interface can easily provide a way of including proprietary code in the kernel. One way of accomplishing that is by defining some proprietary system calls.
Distribute the kernel source which only has the source code to the 'proprietary system calls'
which happen to allow a closed-source application to do things to the kernel that normally can
only be done in the kernel...
For example... they might have a custom syscall for loading a chunk of compiled code in (e.g. a guerilla 'kernel module')
That's not the case at all. They are fully comptable, and the conjoined work becomes GPLv3.
FALSE. If you did the research, and read the licenses, or at least the FAQ, you would learn something:
Q: Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
A: No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.
The ONLY exception is if the author included a statement in the source code that allows you to distribute their code under any future version of the GPL (which they sometimes do), but that would not be because the licenses were compatible -- that would be because the author gave the FSF a blank check to offer new licenses that may be used with the code.
They may accept tablets being limited but already their is a bit of a backlash. No way will it be accepted on computers.
Don't you see what will happen?
Computers will go away. Tablets will eventually be all there is from Apple, perhaps.
They'll make at first an iMac that you can pick up and use as a tablet.
E.g. Keyboard and mouse are already wireless.
Just unplug the charging cable and take it out of its stand, and it's automatically an iPad, fully locked down as all their tablets are.
Plug it back in and it'll be a full blown Mac again.
Maybe that's it for now.... but eventually, the full blown OS and the Tablet OS become one and the same (gradually), fully locked down.
The GPLv3 conflicts with this strategy, so git rid of all GPLv3 software ASAP to ensure the userbase breaks their attachment with it... by the time anyone realizes what's going on, it will be too late.
The light pollution arguments given by some Amateur Astronomers are kind of like the anti-broadband over power line arguments given by Amateur Radio operators. Except Amateur astronomy doesn't seem to have any benefits other than claims of 'fun/enjoyment' by the Amateur astronomy community.
Of course... I seen no 'right to fun/enjoyment' clause in the constitution. If it's your property sure, but there's no right to fun/enjoyment of your choice, of community places like the sky.
Light pollution has many health effects, to the degree that I would wonder whether it should be legally classified as a disturbance of the peace
People live in closed structures. If you have windows on your closed structure, and don't shade them, it was your choice.
just because it's audible from your property doesn't make it yours, nor does it mean you can control it, so that means that anybody can turn up their speakers as high as they want
No. Loud noise requires unreasonable measures to suppress.
Light pollution can be easily suppressed by not looking up, or any basic shelter can block light.
Suppressing sound is hard.
Sound is not in the sky... sound is on the ground. Sound you can hear is actually consisting of
mechanical vibrations going through your property.
Whereas light is just something you see reflected from deep up in the sky.
It's kind of like complaining about what's going on in the Ocean, because you have beachfront property.
You're tired of trawlers coming by, because they make annoying waves.
You can avoid the sky without any expense. I know lots of people who never leave the basement. No worries about light pollution down there.
I'm not sure how it's even legal. Did the Samba team get all the contributors permission before switching to GPL 3?
The standard GPL boilerplate says "version 2 of the license or any later version".
Later versions of the license allow you to change the boilerplate to "version 3 of the license or any later version"
Developers can remove the "any later version" part, but did the Samba devs?
If they did, and they didn't surrender/assign copyright, it's possible a p****'d off Samba dev (if there are any)
could cease-and-decist letter the project, I suppose, and possibly ultimately sue.
They would have to be a very significant contributor or be able to claim other changes were a derivative work, otherwise, the Samba project leadership could just remove the code and claim it no longer infringes.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard about a 6-legged mutant emerging from the rubble named Earthquake-Man. He causes earthquakes and Tsunami just by staring at the ground or the water for a few seconds; the longer the stare, the more powerful and larger the quake.
Word has it, he was last seen a few hours ago wandering around asking for directions to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.
And all of that is why we want net neutrality.
Maybe. But TW could stomp all over channels' streams without running afoul of any proposed net neutrality regulation.
Network neutrality merely provides that TW doesn't inspect customers' traffic and give different treatment based on the type of network service used.
Network neutrality doesn't say a provider can't have data caps for users, or that a provider cannot have network congestion at its peering/transit links, when the connection between the customers and the ISP's own servers is uncongested (due to larger backbone pipes inside the ISP network than the amount of bandwidth from peering arrangements to communicate with other providers).
How does Nielsen monitor usage these days?
Most of the Year = People Meters
During Sweeps Periods; Journals sent out.
Yeah, but the guy didn't sell it... the dumb retailer said they mixed up units that they had repaired with brand new units they were selling.
Most Slashdotters would not be comfortable sending PC hardware in for repair, probably, without wiping/transferring the hard drive contents.
It could have been any one of us who sold their laptop to some guy who sells laptops at an IT fair in Singapore!
The real lesson is to computer buyers, and people getting service done on their computer.
Don't send your computer in for repair... at least not to a shop that also sells PCs.
Imagine if there were no documents found on it..... he would have been fooled into thinking he got a new computer, when he got a used one and paid the new item price for it? This is a monetary win for the store, since they sold something as 'new' which commands a premium over what it's worth.
An unscrupulous/shady retailer might do that intentionally, and it raises lots of suspicions here. They would eventually get caught (as they did here), and naturally, an excuse could be expected. I suppose the question will be.... does this repeat? If not, then maybe the excuse was legit. If it does repeat or the retailer vanishes/changes names suddenly, it will look more and more suspicious to the public.
The retailer came up with an excuse, but I really wonder..... Was it shrink-wrapped too?
How the hell do you mix up a unit you are repairing for someone with your new product?
"Oops...sorry your computer we were repairing? Sorry, we lost it... sold it to some random stranger" "The worker didn't notice he was pulling the computer from a stack of units being repaired that were not in original boxes, and he thought the 'repair ticket' taped to it was just a random piece of trash, so threw it away before giving PC to the buyer."
Here, you can buy a "brand new one" from us, and we'll give you 25% off and waive the repair charges, to make up for us losing your used one, or we'll give you a use one from our (*cough* [banged up lemons sent in for repair]) pile, we'll even throw in a free copy of [Bloatware/Trialware] 2011.
Who the fuck are Expensify? What, if any, notable things have they accomplished?
Some company who claims to want to hire "the world's best programmers"
But it's a farce. They want to hire "the best programmers that have never touched .NET"
Because apparently the CEO has touched .NET and found something he decided was McDonalds-like.
But also, that means the CEO would not hire himself, but I guess that's OK.
And the bill came back... the very next day. ....
We thought it was a goner,
but the bill came back...
It just wouldn't stay away.
but the meter for your time spend making long distance phone calls from you land line isn't. Neither is the meter tracking how much time you spend on a cell phone call.
But they can back up the readings of "long distance phone calls" by producing CDRs of the inter-LATA/Toll calls/Paid feature activations; every individual call made always has to be recorded date, time, duration, calling party, called party, originators billing DN, IDT, CRV, terminators billing DN, ODT, CRV, identification of providers' physical circuits used for the call, Caller ID status, ETC., which can be matched with records kept by the call's terminating provider -- if they lied, they could eventually be caught.
Not that billing errors are impossible.. it's just that as long as your phone line doesn't get crossed with someone else's, there are definitive records to fallback to, which could be reviewed by the carrier to fix it, or subpoena'd by the court.
It's not like electricity where "the number reading" is the only thing that can establish your usage. And it's accurate, unless you can prove something is wrong with its readings.
Hm... I just wonder how long it will be before someone makes an inexpensive network appliance containing a TV tuner, you just plug in to your cable, and comes with a free iPhone app to stream ANY channel locally at LAN performance, or remotely (from anywhere), by using your WAN...
And how long before that functionality gets integrated by major DVR manufacturers....
This would let you get all channels. Not just the few Time warner is streaming. It's not like you absolutely need the cable providers doing this to have it.
Are the Cable channels forgetting that the courts have ruled DVR as a service is not a copyright violation? Specifically Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings: Remote DVR Does Not Violate Copyright Protections Afforded to Television Program Copyright Holders
If the apps don't share a walled garden you have a lot complexity with intra app communications and signaling. Integration of applications is a major selling point. Just think about making drag and drop work between walled gardens.
Intra app communications get provided by a framework. Of course the OS itself can pierce walled gardens. Much like the way when you are securing computer networks with a network "air gap", it is possible you can put an indirectly connected proxy server in each isolated network for web access.
I don't think we'll see inter-app communications completely disappear if MacOS is locked down; however, I think we'll see them more limited to "approved" frameworks.... exactly what apps are allowed to pass between each other may have to go through a broker that imposes certain restrictions.
I'm thinking content providers / new application providers will be demanding DRM / Trusted computing technology that goes as far as ensuring an application can secure its files (at OS level) against unapproved access.
Windows 7 is getting there already on trusted computing. Apple may have to lock MacOS down more to compete, for fear content providers will start making "Windows only content" and shun MacOS (due to not having sufficient OS-level "security" to meet publishers demands)
We are working with the provider of the Illini-Alert service to implement additional security features in the program to prevent this type of error.'"
A security feature is not what you need.
I predict in a few years we'll never hear the truth about how "the employee was hurriedly trying to send a message to alert the students about the shooter....... BUT couldn't get the message out due to a new security feature implemented in the Illini-Alert service, requiring knowledge of a manager's password. The manager was either (choose one): [unavailable at the time, OR unable to properly enter the password] before the shooter stormed in the room and blasted the pair of them."
You need an auditing function to make sure the person who causes the message to be sent is accountable, proper training, AND a reasonable precaution to ensure they won't do it accidentally, while ensuring you don't make it any harder to do so, or do anything that will make the authorities unable to send a message; extravagant security features have that risk, especially if implemented improperly.
And given their track record of having an unconfirmed "submit" button right by a safe button.... I wouldn't hold hopes too high. Either the user was doing it wrong, or the design is flawwed.
Except that there isn't anything stopping them from streaming directly to the consumer. If they do it better, more seamlessly than TWC people will get it directly.
Time warner can stop them, by not providing a sufficiently high quality internet connection, for the streaming to be successful. They could limit the longevity of a connection (so you can't watch a long program uninterrupted), shape certain bandwidth, or give the channels poor access to TW's network.
People streaming significant amount of Television will be using a lot of bandwidth (probably beyond the capabilities of their own internet connections, if everyone does it), so TW can discourage by capping internet usage... E.g. Verizon-style 2GB per month cap.
Time warner cable internet can provide much better access to their own streams, since they themselves are streaming it -- the stream data doesn't need to cross congested transit links (to other providers they pay for limited amounts of transit internet access needs)
The cable operator could also block/disrupt the channels' websites, or demand they pay for the ability to use their customers' internet connections.
So why don't they just sue (or I dunno, maybe just ask) to have monitoring hooks for Nielsen built into the iPad software? How does Nielsen monitor usage these days? I imagine they are way past the "Fill out this journal every time you watch TV and we'll pay you $1/week" days.
They don't have "just one thing" to do it. Most Nielsen households just get the "television diary" in the mail, where they are asked to journal their TV watching. Sent to random households. I see no reason this would be any different for iPad users, they would just need to adjust the questionnaire at most.
Other Nielsen households are randomly selected to get a special "nielsen box" installed on their TV for longer periods of time.
The Nielsen box is essentially an appliance that is hooked up to the TV's video inputs, and the Cable/Satellite box's output is hooked to the Nielsen box's inputs, so the Nielsen box monitors what signal is being transmitted to the TV. The Nielsen box is also hooked up to one of the TV's speaker outputs, so they can detect if the volume has been muted.
Anyways... this being all bespoke hardware... I see no reason the 'nielsen' TV box couldn't just as easily be converted into a passive sniffer box you plug in between your cable modem and your PC/router.
To monitor which streams you are pulling...
They're trying to preserve theoretical income they don't have yet.
Time warner is a middle man. The channels want to bypass the middle man and sell streaming content over their (Time warner) internet connection to end users for retail price (instead of discounted prices you sell to a middle man at), while still charging Time warner high prices deliver the same channels to the same subscribers' TV.
I'm sure the applications for court orders to take down the information from the American Scientists website, Slashdot, and Twitter are already being prepared... or will be, if the lawyers know about the postings.
How many others would do that?
We don't know, because we haven't been informed yet about how poorly they handled the breach and failed to tell anyone about it.
We won't learn about it until the bad guy is widely abusing their bogus cert for man-in-the-middle attacks, and a security researcher happens to be a person attacked by it.
including things like the shell, were all on another layer which wasn't. Their applications, including things like IIS were incompatible with their security model. That strategy is a mess.
There is no requirement that all 'locked down apps' share the same walled garden.
NT's failure wasn't an inherent failure.
And sometimes the perception of high security is better than being perfectly secure against every theoretical attack. Especially when you are trying to sell a product.
Raising the bar for security attackers much higher is almost as good as making security attacks impossible.
The criminals will go after easier targets. Like the human using the hardened devices (e.g. Phishing).
"Relatively low amounts" in Japan. "Vanishingly small" amounts elsewhere. Yeah, they're really sensationally hyping this one up. /sarcasm
It turns out that "vanishingly small" amounts are all that are required to have serious long-term health consequences for a number of people.
When they say "levels are too low for there to be a public health risk"; they are making a statistical argument -- if a few thousand people get cancer in a few years, or their children have birth defects 20 years later when they're an adult, that's not considered a "significant public health risk".
For example to maintain security they don't allow interpreters. That kills VBA which is needed or office. It kills Applescript which their general end users do use and take advantage of.
I assume they'll build a walled garden for Office, and allow some form of macros inside that walled garden.
Signing code is complex, which makes the compile -> test -> debug cycle hard. For iOS that isn't a huge problem because you can run emulators on OSX, so you don't sign until late alpha / early beta? But what do you emulate OSX on?
Yeah.. i'm sure if they do it, they'll sell a more expensive machine or software to developers that isn't locked down.
Folks with luxurious needs will just pay more... including artists who need scripting/macros for their professional production work
Or they migth allow limited scripting
Every author included that statement its section 9 of the GPLv2. The options under the GPL are
Not true. Congrats again for failing to actually read the GPL. The GPL only offers later versions if the author stated you may use any later version, OR if the author failed to state a version number. The kernel itself is a good example of a program that may only be distributed under the GPL version 2. Distribution under any other version of the GPL than stated by the copyright owner as allowed would be copyright infringement.
The GPLv2 says accordingly:
And regardless the license of the Linux kernel clearly allows linking with the syscall interface:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
That is merely someone's statement to try to ease certain people's concerns. It's not part of the license the Linux kernel is distributed under. The kernel definitely contains GPL code where the developer did not agree to such a statement.
That phase is merely a restriction of 'what copyright is being claimed' in the copyright statement, as in what components are being declared to be licensed.
The claim it in no way prevents a court from finding that a piece of software is legally a derivative work, if the software is distributed with the kernel and interfaces with the kernel through system calls.
In fact... the developers wouldn't even want that. The syscall interface can easily provide a way of including proprietary code in the kernel. One way of accomplishing that is by defining some proprietary system calls.
Distribute the kernel source which only has the source code to the 'proprietary system calls' which happen to allow a closed-source application to do things to the kernel that normally can only be done in the kernel...
For example... they might have a custom syscall for loading a chunk of compiled code in (e.g. a guerilla 'kernel module')
That's not the case at all. They are fully comptable, and the conjoined work becomes GPLv3.
FALSE. If you did the research, and read the licenses, or at least the FAQ, you would learn something:
Q: Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
A: No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.
The ONLY exception is if the author included a statement in the source code that allows you to distribute their code under any future version of the GPL (which they sometimes do), but that would not be because the licenses were compatible -- that would be because the author gave the FSF a blank check to offer new licenses that may be used with the code.
They may accept tablets being limited but already their is a bit of a backlash. No way will it be accepted on computers.
Don't you see what will happen?
Computers will go away. Tablets will eventually be all there is from Apple, perhaps.
They'll make at first an iMac that you can pick up and use as a tablet.
E.g. Keyboard and mouse are already wireless.
Just unplug the charging cable and take it out of its stand, and it's automatically an iPad, fully locked down as all their tablets are.
Plug it back in and it'll be a full blown Mac again.
Maybe that's it for now.... but eventually, the full blown OS and the Tablet OS become one and the same (gradually), fully locked down.
The GPLv3 conflicts with this strategy, so git rid of all GPLv3 software ASAP to ensure the userbase breaks their attachment with it... by the time anyone realizes what's going on, it will be too late.
Their rights to do what?
The GPLv2 is not compatible with the GPLv3. If any code is under the GPLv3, you cannot use any GPLv2 code in the software.
The light pollution arguments given by some Amateur Astronomers are kind of like the anti-broadband over power line arguments given by Amateur Radio operators. Except Amateur astronomy doesn't seem to have any benefits other than claims of 'fun/enjoyment' by the Amateur astronomy community. Of course... I seen no 'right to fun/enjoyment' clause in the constitution. If it's your property sure, but there's no right to fun/enjoyment of your choice, of community places like the sky.
Light pollution has many health effects, to the degree that I would wonder whether it should be legally classified as a disturbance of the peace
People live in closed structures. If you have windows on your closed structure, and don't shade them, it was your choice.
just because it's audible from your property doesn't make it yours, nor does it mean you can control it, so that means that anybody can turn up their speakers as high as they want
No. Loud noise requires unreasonable measures to suppress. Light pollution can be easily suppressed by not looking up, or any basic shelter can block light. Suppressing sound is hard.
Sound is not in the sky... sound is on the ground. Sound you can hear is actually consisting of mechanical vibrations going through your property.
Whereas light is just something you see reflected from deep up in the sky.
It's kind of like complaining about what's going on in the Ocean, because you have beachfront property. You're tired of trawlers coming by, because they make annoying waves.
You can avoid the sky without any expense. I know lots of people who never leave the basement. No worries about light pollution down there.
I'm not sure how it's even legal. Did the Samba team get all the contributors permission before switching to GPL 3?
The standard GPL boilerplate says "version 2 of the license or any later version". Later versions of the license allow you to change the boilerplate to "version 3 of the license or any later version"
Developers can remove the "any later version" part, but did the Samba devs?
If they did, and they didn't surrender/assign copyright, it's possible a p****'d off Samba dev (if there are any) could cease-and-decist letter the project, I suppose, and possibly ultimately sue.
They would have to be a very significant contributor or be able to claim other changes were a derivative work, otherwise, the Samba project leadership could just remove the code and claim it no longer infringes.