The gathering was not a protest rally.
And the reason for removal was nothing to do with anything being a "protest". The removal was due to the mere mention of china.
The purpose of that specific event everyone was gathered there for was a reception celebrating the release of that book.
And they had obtained use of the room from the UN ahead of the time for that purpose.
The issue was not that the book "protested" chinese internet filtering, but that it reports on the facts of it.
Also, the officials were unable to point to any rules being violated, only:
5. Did ONI ask for clarification of the rules?
ONI partners asked repeatedly to see any rules or regulations governing this act. They did not give us any, only referring to the "objections of a member state."
7. What was the full text of the poster?
The section of the poster in question read:
"Internet censorship and surveillance are increasing in democratic countries as well as in authoritarian states. The first generation of controls, typified by China's "Great Firewall," are being replaced by more sophisticated techniques that go beyond mere denial of information and aim to normalize (or even legalize) a climate of control. These next generation techniques include strategically timed distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, targeted malware, surveillance at key points of the Internet's infrastructure, take-down notices, and stringent terms of usage policies. Their aim is to shape and limit the national information environment. Access Controlled reports on these new trends in information control and their implications for the global Internet commons."
That there's no question as to who owns the materials, and teachers freely gave them away in the past.
It was obvious that they belonged to the teachers. If they had belonged to the school, the teacher would have no right to give them away.
Fast forward to today... some teacher decides to sell theirs instead of giving it away.
Suddenly leading some school officials to raise questions over who owns material developed for public school classrooms.
What's happening is greed and jealously at its finest: as soon as a teacher is perceived to possibly be profiting off a certain lesson plan, the school officials want to find any means they can to get their mits on the action, either to demand a cut, take the profits wholesale, or penalize the teachers, so they aren't profiting compared to the school officials.
Pure greed at play.
Teachers aren't paid to make lesson plans: they don't draft or write them in the classroom while they're teaching. Lesson plans aren't required to do the job of teaching.
Although some type of basic outline might be required, it's distinct from the detailed lesson plans teachers develop.
They require a lot of work to develop into anything useful that someone else would want.
Drafting these plans is generally done at home, or on break, using the teacher's own resources, while they aren't teaching: teachers need to plan ahead to do an effective job, and sometimes collaborate with other teachers possibly in the local community, but possibly quite remote distances away.
While they use the lesson plans at whatever school they teach at, it doesn't mean the plans are developed specifically for a certain classroom, or specifically for a public school classroom.
Nor does this imply any right of ownership to the school.
It's like hiring some guy at geeksquad to fix your computer, and when they do it, insisting you own the rights to the guy's personal notes/cheat sheet he developed regarding what things to check in what order, etc, etc.
Essentially: your employee's personal plans that they developed for their own purposes, to help them do the job you hired them to do better.
You don't own those, unless you made developing those plans a condition of their employment, part of the exchange of goods, and paid them for all time and resources spent in developing those plans.
Yes... when it comes to matters the US government is concerned about, the UN has often acted as an extension of the USG in the past.
However, it does not appear one can really say the US government opposes internet censorship or utilizing technical means to control people.
All signs point to a politically strong faction of the US government openly supporting censorship, even towards requiring ISPs proliferate (otherwise scarce) technical measures that are capable of suppressing speech.
The question should be did Psystar buy only 1 copy total... or did they buy an initial copy to prepare the systems with, and then buy another copy for each computer they had installed the SW on ?
Well, some enterprises will participate in Enterprise licensing, for products that offer it.
MS Windows is a good example, and there are significant advantages, like no need for annoying activation, in using a VL version of the software.
But not all SW products provide an Enterprise licensing option, and they still get imaged.
Usually no changes will be made to the license settings in the product itself for each system deployed -- just image the system, run script to assign name, join domain, and you're done.
Sometimes, however, there will be AV / anti-malware / security products used, especially (for example), that volume licensing and license servers are not available for.
In this case, I believe it's very common to just stick it on the image, deploy all computers from this image, without bothering to so much as change serial numbers on each system deployed.
But just keep the necessary number of licenses on file.
I think most computer manufacturers (such as Dell)
get special OEM pricing and use scripting to deploy unique serial numbers on all software, however.
Psystar distributing every system with the same SN# would definitely be an issue as it could break OS maker copy protections (distributing to the general public is a bit different than deploying inside an enterprise).
Oh wait... Apple OS products don't have any serial numbers......
Yes, but right now a big part of the value proposition of a Mac is the Mac OS.
If you ask me, I think they should partner with an outside company and make a $500 version of Mac OS called PCOS (instead of MacOS), and dog names instead of cat names, that can be installed on an ordinary PC, but requires a CD Key and Win-style Activation for installs/upgrades.
Basically, because of the BSD underpinnings, there's pretty wide hardware support for the underlying kernel.
And the PC software market for a Windows competitor is probably much larger than the market for Apple's products.
Also, by limiting the features available in the PC version of the OS, they would have an upsell path.
For example: PCOS = great for virus-free web surfing, but no multi-monitor support, very limited/no ability to install third-party software.
You get basic functions like Safari, iTunes, maybe Firefox, some "approved" apps (which have to be validated by the OS maker), but if you want third-party software, upgrade to a Mac.
Making multiple copies of something is not illegal; only they way that Psystar had done it was. I can make multiple copies of my CDs for backup purposes. I can also transfer my music from a CD to my MP3 player for the sake of portability. These are fair uses. The law would not consider me making hundreds of copies and putting them on my friends machines likely to be legal.
Maybe not, but it's typically done.
Corporations' IT departments typically image all PCs from a common image.
After buying enough copies of all the software to have the equivalent of 1 purchased program for each program on the standard image per PC.
For example, if they load the image onto 100 PCs, and Program X is one of the programs, they buy 100 copies of Program X.
So they have installed the same number of copies of the software that they purchased.
That's not too bad... 10^6 request / 86400 = about 12 clicks per second.
And approximately 100 kilobytes per second, if each request is 8K.
It would fill up a T1, and using memcache to cache the most active mappings is a must, but it's not a massive amount of bandwidth.
I think the bigger concern is the size of the mapping database and your ability to perform the DB lookups quickly.
Over time, you can expect the database to get pretty large.
If you use a simple alphanumeric db key for your tiny links that your DB is indexed by, you do a hash lookup every time, and it's really cheap to construct the proper redirect, too.
I'd probably use Berkeley DB, CDB, or GDBM for the DB of mappings, and statistics about which mappings are most commonly requested, plus a large memcache pool to cache the 10 million or so most frequently asked for db key -> (table id,rowid) mappings.
Oh yeah... and once a link's in the DB, when a new link is requested to be made, I want to return back the same key, if the URL is already in the DB, so a basic search should be executed for that.
Plus some normalization, such as trailing slash removal.
I don't see companies wanting to hand over their domain name management to a third party, too much loss of control.
But probably the ultimate poison pill..
Create two companies: one privately held holding company with no debts. Just one asset: a domain name.
One publicly held URL shortening company that pays to rent the domain name. A monthly fee to cover management costs and renewal fees of the domain name, plus money for taxes, paying the board, and ensuring self-sufficiency of the holding company.
Has a contract they can renew forever, unless the board of the holding company votes to cancel it.
But the contract has a clause in it that can cause the agreement to be terminated if the URL shortening company gets bought out..
Requires the URL shortening company deliver all database backups and copies of all site code, software, admin scripts, etc to the holding company at frequent intervals.
And some rules that say what kind of service has to be provided by the URL shortening company, in addition to any other services provided with the domain, how the service can work, that all mappings must be kept forever, and provides a SLA (if a creditor shuts down some services and makes the service slow, fails to fix bugs, or fails to deliver continuous backups to the holding company, the agreement ends).
So if a creditor ever takes over operation of the URL shortening company, they have to follow very stringent rules, and continue to meet the SLA at all times, or the holding company can cancel their use of the domain immediately, and rent it out to another company.
I wonder if the IRS says that internet domain names depreciate. That would be funny (G)
Unless they are going bankrupt already, or
the creditors have a secured debt, and the domain name is the collateral/security for that debt,
If they don't, then 301works' claim to the domain would be a prior claim, since they have secured an agreement that requires the URL shortening service to continue working, and a specific asset is named in securing that agreement is the domain name.
In other words: it depends on the terms of the agreement with 301works.
In a bankruptcy preceding, the party with the prior claim is normally the one they signed an agreement to deliver the asset to.
For example: if I buy something from an online retailer or mail order catalog, and they enter into bankruptcy after they received my payment for the item, but before they shipped the product... their creditors' don't get to repossess the item I have purchased, my claim comes before theirs, since my payment to purchase the item is a prior claim that I have.
And they have to send me the item, or a refund before they pay other creditors whose debts they defaulted on after my claim was raised.
The key difference: creditors that have a claim to a specific prior claim to a certain asset are at an advantage to the ones that don't.
Since specific cash to pay for the item in exchange for a certain service was provided by me, I have the prior claim to that cash.
Banks and investors that provided unsecured loans, or weren't a trading partner, have to wait in line, according to the priority of creditors.
Juries don't decide one little bit of what the law is, and they don't need to understand it. All they do need to understand is what the JUDGE says
Sure they do. A fundamental principle behind the right to a jury trial is that juries judge both the facts and the law, in order to render a just verdict.
Juries have a right to disregard the law or the judge's opinion about the law, it's referred to as jury nullification. Juries in the US have the right to render a verdict of innocent, even when the facts show they violated the letter of the law as the judge put it.
And may take into account opinion's of the general public, media reports about the case, etc.
Nullification is one of the ways assured by the US constitution for the public to express opposition to an unwanted piece of legislation, and it's fundamental both to the jury system and to the republic and democracy of the US.
Juries of people drawn at random are more likely to render a just verdict, than judges and political figures who are easily corrupted and have undue bias to follow well-established practice than just practice.
When the cops are investigating you they'll check on your phone records, which include cell tower logs of data you were transmitting and where you were when sending data.
A low-tech possibility: give a friend access to your FB account and have them make the updates for you from a computer you normally use.
They would take one look at the CURL User-Agent field from the HTTP request from Facebook's HTTP Access_log and know that you faked it.
They're likely to require your hard drive to verify the alibi, and i'm sure your bash history will be inspected.
The more technically savvy you are, the more likely they are to believe you could have faked or automated the update.
You're better off with an alibi that requires you to have answered a captcha to prove your whereabouts.
Typing an e-mail is good, if info is in it that could have not been known prior to the killing.
Participating in a chat room discussion with other people might be a sturdier alibi.
Posting on slashdot, if your post adds significant info, and it's clearly a reply to a post that was made by someone else.
Maybe someone could make a web-based service called myalibi.com or something, that would continuously ask the user to answer captchas and submit biometric data to prove that they are there.
Be useful for people afraid of being falsely accused of a crime.
They ship you an appliance, such as a mouse with a fingerprint reader. While you are using the computer they are generating a continuous stream of data that proves your location.
It's pretty anal to suggest a convicted killer may be not an asshole.
Given the common definition of asshole:
A jerk; an inappropriately or objectionably mean, inconsiderate, contemptible, obnoxious, intrusive, or rude person
I would say that killing someone is a tad bit inconsiderate and objectionably mean.
It's also a pretty rude act
It's also opinion. You cannot be found to have committed libel for libel by expressing an opinion, only by expressing that something is a fact, and that thing you are expressing as a fact sounds plausible like it could be true, but you negligently or maliciously included it.
Since the meaning of the word asshole is by definition opinion: whether you believe someone is acting in an inconsiderate way or not, is a matter of opinion, not fact. You cannot have committed libel.
The articles just say 'an actor' and didn't name the person killed. They therefore haven't referenced their names in respect to any specific killings, only stated that the people who finished their jail time are suing Wikipedia.
Indeed, if true, that would be a GPL violation.
Distribution upon request is acceptable, provided section (3) of the GPL is met, which provides the option:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
However it doesn't mean the part of the source code you got under the GPL.
The requirement is to distribute complete source code of the entire modified package based on GPL code.
That would mean all code in the app, including compilation scripts.
And (in the case of the GPLv3), any encryption keys required to install a modified copy of code.
For example, instead of writing your games in C and paying Apple to sell them on the app store, you could write your game in BASIC and deliver them through the C64 emulator.
Unless the emulator provides a way for you to load BASIC programs from unsigned user files you can provide outside the emulator into the environment, this is useless.
As far as I know, the only files the app would let you load are ones in the app, that you bought.
Users aren't too likely to hand-key the program listing for a C64 game every time they want to play. Buying an iPhone app from the app store doesn't require you to key in the app's source listing every time you want to run.
(which could be set to ARM instructions)
It's a C64 emulator... as far as I know, there are no ARM instructions on the C64.
As for possible bugs... well, any app can have those.
Unless there's a 'LOAD xxx' command that allows the user to actually load external files they created on their iphone into the basic interpreter, it's kind of academic.
I suppose given the possibility to invoke ARM instructions from inside a C64 emulator (somehow), someone could make a BASIC program that would serve as a glorified bootstrap, whose sole purpose is to boot ARM code that was compiled for the iPhone using the normal SDK.
Slashdot Mirror
The gathering was not a protest rally. And the reason for removal was nothing to do with anything being a "protest". The removal was due to the mere mention of china.
The purpose of that specific event everyone was gathered there for was a reception celebrating the release of that book.
And they had obtained use of the room from the UN ahead of the time for that purpose.
The issue was not that the book "protested" chinese internet filtering, but that it reports on the facts of it.
Also, the officials were unable to point to any rules being violated, only:
Work for hire does not apply when developing the work is: not within the scope of employment, and not specifically ordered or commissioned.
The teaching is specifically ordered, but not the lesson plan.
In many cases, teachers develop lesson plans far in advance, far outside the scope of any commissioning.
Even in advance of actually being employed.
That there's no question as to who owns the materials, and teachers freely gave them away in the past. It was obvious that they belonged to the teachers. If they had belonged to the school, the teacher would have no right to give them away.
Fast forward to today... some teacher decides to sell theirs instead of giving it away. Suddenly leading some school officials to raise questions over who owns material developed for public school classrooms.
What's happening is greed and jealously at its finest: as soon as a teacher is perceived to possibly be profiting off a certain lesson plan, the school officials want to find any means they can to get their mits on the action, either to demand a cut, take the profits wholesale, or penalize the teachers, so they aren't profiting compared to the school officials.
Pure greed at play.
Teachers aren't paid to make lesson plans: they don't draft or write them in the classroom while they're teaching. Lesson plans aren't required to do the job of teaching. Although some type of basic outline might be required, it's distinct from the detailed lesson plans teachers develop.
They require a lot of work to develop into anything useful that someone else would want. Drafting these plans is generally done at home, or on break, using the teacher's own resources, while they aren't teaching: teachers need to plan ahead to do an effective job, and sometimes collaborate with other teachers possibly in the local community, but possibly quite remote distances away.
While they use the lesson plans at whatever school they teach at, it doesn't mean the plans are developed specifically for a certain classroom, or specifically for a public school classroom.
Nor does this imply any right of ownership to the school.
It's like hiring some guy at geeksquad to fix your computer, and when they do it, insisting you own the rights to the guy's personal notes/cheat sheet he developed regarding what things to check in what order, etc, etc.
Essentially: your employee's personal plans that they developed for their own purposes, to help them do the job you hired them to do better.
You don't own those, unless you made developing those plans a condition of their employment, part of the exchange of goods, and paid them for all time and resources spent in developing those plans.
Not really.. it's not robust competition from MS. It's a special temporary deal to try to dissuade them from going to free sw.
Once they're using MS sw, they'll be locked in pretty quickly and can't switch, the price will shoot right back up immediately.
Yes... when it comes to matters the US government is concerned about, the UN has often acted as an extension of the USG in the past.
However, it does not appear one can really say the US government opposes internet censorship or utilizing technical means to control people.
All signs point to a politically strong faction of the US government openly supporting censorship, even towards requiring ISPs proliferate (otherwise scarce) technical measures that are capable of suppressing speech.
Examples: Congress may Require ISPs to block certain fraud sites, CIPA, COPA, Communications Decency Act, Executive Order 13233, the 1943 Surprise Hurricane (and the major loss of lives that resulted from the US Government's censorship of critical Forecast info), California Assembly Bills 1792, 1793 restricting the sale of violent video games, both signed into law
That the UN itself has become an arm of the chinese government, in censoring anti-censorship advocates.
Maybe they'd be too paranoid to have full trust in it.. but if it's all they can get...
Also, the built-in GPS could be used as a twitter tool, with software that automatically posts updates based on location.. such as
"Typing away at Xyz park" or "Qrs national library" etc etc...
IOW, they could also market themselves as a social network tool... saving the microblogger some typing by having a machine take care of it :)
If they happen to see some Weed in a passenger's bag, or some narcotics in their checked luggage, they have to ignore it and let them through now?
It doesn't pose any danger to aircraft security.
The question should be did Psystar buy only 1 copy total... or did they buy an initial copy to prepare the systems with, and then buy another copy for each computer they had installed the SW on ?
Well, some enterprises will participate in Enterprise licensing, for products that offer it. MS Windows is a good example, and there are significant advantages, like no need for annoying activation, in using a VL version of the software.
But not all SW products provide an Enterprise licensing option, and they still get imaged. Usually no changes will be made to the license settings in the product itself for each system deployed -- just image the system, run script to assign name, join domain, and you're done.
Sometimes, however, there will be AV / anti-malware / security products used, especially (for example), that volume licensing and license servers are not available for.
In this case, I believe it's very common to just stick it on the image, deploy all computers from this image, without bothering to so much as change serial numbers on each system deployed.
But just keep the necessary number of licenses on file.
I think most computer manufacturers (such as Dell) get special OEM pricing and use scripting to deploy unique serial numbers on all software, however.
Psystar distributing every system with the same SN# would definitely be an issue as it could break OS maker copy protections (distributing to the general public is a bit different than deploying inside an enterprise).
Oh wait... Apple OS products don't have any serial numbers......
Being statistically rigorous is so painful hardly anyone does it anyways.
It's just a lot more convenient to take causality directly from the statistic. It's close enough to right to work a good bit of the time.
Only nerds would bother requiring rigor before drafting laws/regulations in response...
Yes, but right now a big part of the value proposition of a Mac is the Mac OS.
If you ask me, I think they should partner with an outside company and make a $500 version of Mac OS called PCOS (instead of MacOS), and dog names instead of cat names, that can be installed on an ordinary PC, but requires a CD Key and Win-style Activation for installs/upgrades.
Basically, because of the BSD underpinnings, there's pretty wide hardware support for the underlying kernel.
And the PC software market for a Windows competitor is probably much larger than the market for Apple's products.
Also, by limiting the features available in the PC version of the OS, they would have an upsell path.
For example: PCOS = great for virus-free web surfing, but no multi-monitor support, very limited/no ability to install third-party software.
You get basic functions like Safari, iTunes, maybe Firefox, some "approved" apps (which have to be validated by the OS maker), but if you want third-party software, upgrade to a Mac.
Maybe not, but it's typically done.
Corporations' IT departments typically image all PCs from a common image.
After buying enough copies of all the software to have the equivalent of 1 purchased program for each program on the standard image per PC.
For example, if they load the image onto 100 PCs, and Program X is one of the programs, they buy 100 copies of Program X.
So they have installed the same number of copies of the software that they purchased.
That's not too bad... 10^6 request / 86400 = about 12 clicks per second.
And approximately 100 kilobytes per second, if each request is 8K. It would fill up a T1, and using memcache to cache the most active mappings is a must, but it's not a massive amount of bandwidth.
I think the bigger concern is the size of the mapping database and your ability to perform the DB lookups quickly.
Over time, you can expect the database to get pretty large.
If you use a simple alphanumeric db key for your tiny links that your DB is indexed by, you do a hash lookup every time, and it's really cheap to construct the proper redirect, too.
I'd probably use Berkeley DB, CDB, or GDBM for the DB of mappings, and statistics about which mappings are most commonly requested, plus a large memcache pool to cache the 10 million or so most frequently asked for db key -> (table id,rowid) mappings.
Oh yeah... and once a link's in the DB, when a new link is requested to be made, I want to return back the same key, if the URL is already in the DB, so a basic search should be executed for that.
Plus some normalization, such as trailing slash removal.
[/.1 #30101886 @1444076]
The ultimate way to shorten a link is to use a 'referer' as an info source.
So... "/." means slashdot.org, "1" for first link, #(postid) @(article id)
Just use a simple mnemonic for popular websites.
TW1#123456789
Would mean the first link given in a status update on twitter status update #123456789
WP5:Linux#325825456
Would reference the 5th link given on revision 325825456 of the Linux article on Wikipedia.
etc...
I don't see companies wanting to hand over their domain name management to a third party, too much loss of control.
But probably the ultimate poison pill..
Create two companies: one privately held holding company with no debts. Just one asset: a domain name.
One publicly held URL shortening company that pays to rent the domain name. A monthly fee to cover management costs and renewal fees of the domain name, plus money for taxes, paying the board, and ensuring self-sufficiency of the holding company.
Has a contract they can renew forever, unless the board of the holding company votes to cancel it.
But the contract has a clause in it that can cause the agreement to be terminated if the URL shortening company gets bought out..
Requires the URL shortening company deliver all database backups and copies of all site code, software, admin scripts, etc to the holding company at frequent intervals.
And some rules that say what kind of service has to be provided by the URL shortening company, in addition to any other services provided with the domain, how the service can work, that all mappings must be kept forever, and provides a SLA (if a creditor shuts down some services and makes the service slow, fails to fix bugs, or fails to deliver continuous backups to the holding company, the agreement ends).
So if a creditor ever takes over operation of the URL shortening company, they have to follow very stringent rules, and continue to meet the SLA at all times, or the holding company can cancel their use of the domain immediately, and rent it out to another company.
I wonder if the IRS says that internet domain names depreciate. That would be funny (G)
Unless they are going bankrupt already, or the creditors have a secured debt, and the domain name is the collateral/security for that debt,
If they don't, then 301works' claim to the domain would be a prior claim, since they have secured an agreement that requires the URL shortening service to continue working, and a specific asset is named in securing that agreement is the domain name.
In other words: it depends on the terms of the agreement with 301works.
In a bankruptcy preceding, the party with the prior claim is normally the one they signed an agreement to deliver the asset to.
For example: if I buy something from an online retailer or mail order catalog, and they enter into bankruptcy after they received my payment for the item, but before they shipped the product... their creditors' don't get to repossess the item I have purchased, my claim comes before theirs, since my payment to purchase the item is a prior claim that I have.
And they have to send me the item, or a refund before they pay other creditors whose debts they defaulted on after my claim was raised.
The key difference: creditors that have a claim to a specific prior claim to a certain asset are at an advantage to the ones that don't.
Since specific cash to pay for the item in exchange for a certain service was provided by me, I have the prior claim to that cash.
Banks and investors that provided unsecured loans, or weren't a trading partner, have to wait in line, according to the priority of creditors.
Juries don't decide one little bit of what the law is, and they don't need to understand it. All they do need to understand is what the JUDGE says
Sure they do. A fundamental principle behind the right to a jury trial is that juries judge both the facts and the law, in order to render a just verdict.
Juries have a right to disregard the law or the judge's opinion about the law, it's referred to as jury nullification. Juries in the US have the right to render a verdict of innocent, even when the facts show they violated the letter of the law as the judge put it.
And may take into account opinion's of the general public, media reports about the case, etc.
Nullification is one of the ways assured by the US constitution for the public to express opposition to an unwanted piece of legislation, and it's fundamental both to the jury system and to the republic and democracy of the US.
Juries of people drawn at random are more likely to render a just verdict, than judges and political figures who are easily corrupted and have undue bias to follow well-established practice than just practice.
The average facebook user doesn't have enough knowledge to setup a VPN or HTTP proxy.
The lawyers can do nothing but rely on experts to verify that the other possibilities are unlikely for the person.
No, not epic fail. WIN
When the cops are investigating you they'll check on your phone records, which include cell tower logs of data you were transmitting and where you were when sending data.
A low-tech possibility: give a friend access to your FB account and have them make the updates for you from a computer you normally use.
They would take one look at the CURL User-Agent field from the HTTP request from Facebook's HTTP Access_log and know that you faked it.
They're likely to require your hard drive to verify the alibi, and i'm sure your bash history will be inspected.
The more technically savvy you are, the more likely they are to believe you could have faked or automated the update.
You're better off with an alibi that requires you to have answered a captcha to prove your whereabouts.
Typing an e-mail is good, if info is in it that could have not been known prior to the killing.
Participating in a chat room discussion with other people might be a sturdier alibi.
Posting on slashdot, if your post adds significant info, and it's clearly a reply to a post that was made by someone else.
Maybe someone could make a web-based service called myalibi.com or something, that would continuously ask the user to answer captchas and submit biometric data to prove that they are there.
Be useful for people afraid of being falsely accused of a crime.
They ship you an appliance, such as a mouse with a fingerprint reader. While you are using the computer they are generating a continuous stream of data that proves your location.
It's pretty anal to suggest a convicted killer may be not an asshole.
Given the common definition of asshole: A jerk; an inappropriately or objectionably mean, inconsiderate, contemptible, obnoxious, intrusive, or rude person
I would say that killing someone is a tad bit inconsiderate and objectionably mean.
It's also a pretty rude act
It's also opinion. You cannot be found to have committed libel for libel by expressing an opinion, only by expressing that something is a fact, and that thing you are expressing as a fact sounds plausible like it could be true, but you negligently or maliciously included it.
Since the meaning of the word asshole is by definition opinion: whether you believe someone is acting in an inconsiderate way or not, is a matter of opinion, not fact. You cannot have committed libel.
The articles just say 'an actor' and didn't name the person killed. They therefore haven't referenced their names in respect to any specific killings, only stated that the people who finished their jail time are suing Wikipedia.
Indeed, if true, that would be a GPL violation. Distribution upon request is acceptable, provided section (3) of the GPL is met, which provides the option:
However it doesn't mean the part of the source code you got under the GPL. The requirement is to distribute complete source code of the entire modified package based on GPL code.
That would mean all code in the app, including compilation scripts.
And (in the case of the GPLv3), any encryption keys required to install a modified copy of code.
For example, instead of writing your games in C and paying Apple to sell them on the app store, you could write your game in BASIC and deliver them through the C64 emulator.
Unless the emulator provides a way for you to load BASIC programs from unsigned user files you can provide outside the emulator into the environment, this is useless. As far as I know, the only files the app would let you load are ones in the app, that you bought.
Users aren't too likely to hand-key the program listing for a C64 game every time they want to play. Buying an iPhone app from the app store doesn't require you to key in the app's source listing every time you want to run.
(which could be set to ARM instructions)
It's a C64 emulator... as far as I know, there are no ARM instructions on the C64.
As for possible bugs... well, any app can have those.
Unless there's a 'LOAD xxx' command that allows the user to actually load external files they created on their iphone into the basic interpreter, it's kind of academic.
I suppose given the possibility to invoke ARM instructions from inside a C64 emulator (somehow), someone could make a BASIC program that would serve as a glorified bootstrap, whose sole purpose is to boot ARM code that was compiled for the iPhone using the normal SDK.
They were so massively overpriced... I wonder how many of the 35,000 actually sent in all the payments?
Also, if they were shutdown... I wonder why their site, http: //www. bluehippo .com/default.asp
still works...