Well, each 15 second piece is probably fair use on the basis of this being a non-profit use of so small a segment as to have no discernable effect on the original work. Collecting them all together is quite possibly a copyright violation though.
No, the guy didn't do anything wrong. He did something a little strange though. Why is he downloading files at a rate so much faster than he could possibly read them? Is there some secret government information that he's noticed that shouldn't be available to him? Might as well check the guy out, If I was the Fed who noticed this, I'd feel pretty stupid if the guy did turn out to be doing something illegal that an basic background investigation could have uncovered.
As it turns out, he was harmless, and the FBI dropped it. How was the FBI to determine this without at least doing a cursory check?
Yes. It's quite comprehensible. It's possibly illogical. It does rather assume that someone will decide to buy two nVidia cards rather than one to supplement an existing ATI card, which doesn't seem all that likely. I'd be inclined to go without PhysX until I needed a new card in that situation, and I suspect I'm not alone in that opinion.
Seems that they made something because the press think they need photos of a component for which photos reveal nothing. i.e it's a photo. This sort of thing happens at just about every single conference.
Who's been harmed? You've seen photos of something that only looks like the product that you might buy and don't care a jot about the appearance of?
Someone will understand the law and be willing to explain it. Someone else will be able to produce diffs. Maybe some people are altruistic enough to provide this for free.
Where's the problem in publishing? Nothing to be gained in not publishing.
There's a reason virtually all trains use electric motors (even most diesels). Electric motors are really good! They're small, cheap, lightweight, high torque, reliable - better than ICE in most respects. Batteries are a problem. They're big, expensive, and charging takes time.
Yes. If you publish a statement that someone is a liar and a thief, that's presumed to be false unless the publisher can prove otherwise. The media is also required to presume innocence. Although that's not the major problem with the libel laws. The scope of "publishing" is. You can sue the writer, the editor, the actual publisher, the distributor or even the local shop that sells the publication. In the case of websites, you can also sue the ISP, and possibly any other ISP that provides access to the website (case law is not absolutely clear here but does point this way).
But you only need it for 2 years before you've gained on the deal. The main light (CFL) in my living room has lasted since I moved in, 3 years ago. And most organisations will factor in the lifetime cost (including cost of changing the bulbs) when purchasing lightbulbs.
I agree. Your solution is better if you want two PCs.
It does seem a little superfluous to have two PCs if you want a netbook and a low end PC. Aside from cost, there's the extra disadvantage of having to transfer files. I'm surprised there isn't an all in one package available with monitor/USB hub/DVD drive and wireless keyboard/mouse all in one package (or do I just not know what to Google for?).
You'll possibly want a DVD drive as well as mouse and kb. For most people, adding extra components is a nuisance. Adding a monitor means you're paying for a built in monitor that you don't need, and a keyboard and DVD drive aren't free.
For less than the price of my netbook, I can get a space saving unit with twice the RAM and Hard Disk space, better graphics and a DVD rewriter. And Vista (Ok, most of us might be happier with XP, but consumers want the newest, most modern OS).
It was a twofer. MS weaseled out of punishment for license violation ( GPL ) and at the same time just shat in the kernel maintainers' collective pocket.
Following the terms of the licence isn't weaseling out of anything. They have no obligation to do anything other than abide by the terms of the GPL, which they have done.
The maintainers have no obligation to burn up hours coding and supporting someone else's abandonware.
Don't then. MS will probably provide patches and support to their customers and provide source for the patches. It doesn't make a jot of difference to MS whether they're compliant with the Linux coding standards. They just want their software to run Linux well.
A computer-implemented network-based system that facilitates management of data, comprising:
a computer-implemented context component of the network-based system for capturing context information associated with user-defined data created by user interaction of a user in a first context of the network-based system, the context component dynamically storing the context information in metadata associated with the user-defined data, the user-defined data and metadata stored on a storage component of the network-based system; and
a computer-implemented tracking component of the network-based system for tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context of the network-based system and dynamically updating the stored metadata based on the change, wherein the user accesses the data from the second context.
Not quite sure what all that means. My legalese isn't all that good, but I think it's actually a patent on something entirely different.
Why are you so keen on protecting Microsoft? Unlike Microsoft, Google's software makes most of our lives much better every single day.
I'm not. I'm simply agreeing with them.
What difference does it make what Google's software (which is just another search engine, and Windows has comparable influence on my life) does? They could have cured world hunger for all the difference it makes. I still have reservations about them making what should be a simple business deal into a class action settlement.
Lots of people have non business reasons for being concerned - organisations such as the EFF who are concerned that this will result in Google being able to effectively disregard parts of the GFDL, or authors who, for whatever reason, believe that buying from Google is not the way they want their work distributed.
And is Google's deal also going to explicitly allow Microsoft and Amazon the same rights that Google gets? Surely this would be even more beneficial to everyone in the world.
With corporations - I simply don't believe that a corporation has ethics. Google are concerned with their public image so they're not going to be overtly evil, but their respect for privacy isn't exactly great, and their handling of this disagreement is pretty sneaky. They're doing something fully aware that it may violate copyright, but carry on anyway, because it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
That's not how it works. The description is just a description of what a patent is for. There can be a hundred different methods to associate a piece of data with multiple categories, and each one can be patented separately.
Now it may be that every single one of these is obvious and therefore non-patentable but you can't make that determination from the title.
Of course the court does. It's about the arguments, not who makes them. This is a fundamental point of adversarial debate. Whether this argument comes from Microsoft or Mr. Spock, doesn't make any difference.
Besides, why shouldn't Microsoft make a complaint? Are you saying they don't have the protection of the law that they're subject to? That seems a remarkable one sided and unfair legal system.
I'm a bit worried about that lack of scepticism displayed by some people. If it was MS or a company we hadn't heard of, people would be a lot less trusting.
Far too many people seem to ignore the detail that Google is a private company which has making money as a primary objective, and providing services is mainly a means to an end.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, each 15 second piece is probably fair use on the basis of this being a non-profit use of so small a segment as to have no discernable effect on the original work. Collecting them all together is quite possibly a copyright violation though.
The noble gases can, logically be considered as having either 8 or zero electrons in the outer shell, so could go to the next period.
Honestly though, a basic rectangular table does the job perfectly adequately.
No, the guy didn't do anything wrong. He did something a little strange though. Why is he downloading files at a rate so much faster than he could possibly read them? Is there some secret government information that he's noticed that shouldn't be available to him? Might as well check the guy out, If I was the Fed who noticed this, I'd feel pretty stupid if the guy did turn out to be doing something illegal that an basic background investigation could have uncovered.
As it turns out, he was harmless, and the FBI dropped it. How was the FBI to determine this without at least doing a cursory check?
Yes. It's quite comprehensible. It's possibly illogical. It does rather assume that someone will decide to buy two nVidia cards rather than one to supplement an existing ATI card, which doesn't seem all that likely. I'd be inclined to go without PhysX until I needed a new card in that situation, and I suspect I'm not alone in that opinion.
Seems that they made something because the press think they need photos of a component for which photos reveal nothing. i.e it's a photo. This sort of thing happens at just about every single conference.
Who's been harmed? You've seen photos of something that only looks like the product that you might buy and don't care a jot about the appearance of?
Someone will understand the law and be willing to explain it. Someone else will be able to produce diffs. Maybe some people are altruistic enough to provide this for free.
Where's the problem in publishing? Nothing to be gained in not publishing.
That would be the problem.
There's a reason virtually all trains use electric motors (even most diesels). Electric motors are really good! They're small, cheap, lightweight, high torque, reliable - better than ICE in most respects. Batteries are a problem. They're big, expensive, and charging takes time.
Doom didn't use this method for its multiplayer game.
Yes. If you publish a statement that someone is a liar and a thief, that's presumed to be false unless the publisher can prove otherwise. The media is also required to presume innocence. Although that's not the major problem with the libel laws. The scope of "publishing" is. You can sue the writer, the editor, the actual publisher, the distributor or even the local shop that sells the publication. In the case of websites, you can also sue the ISP, and possibly any other ISP that provides access to the website (case law is not absolutely clear here but does point this way).
My point was quite clear. You are simply being deliberately dense.
Yet two people misunderstood.
Perhaps you weren't as clear as you suspected.
Your mom drilled it into your head, when she asked if you'd jump off a bridge if all of your friends are.
Well, would you?.
The only thing you know from your reasoning is an anecdotal story that people don't follow the crowd. One that appears to be demonstrably false.
Can you expand on this? I understand the terminology (sort of) but not quite sure why we need this.
But you only need it for 2 years before you've gained on the deal. The main light (CFL) in my living room has lasted since I moved in, 3 years ago. And most organisations will factor in the lifetime cost (including cost of changing the bulbs) when purchasing lightbulbs.
Yes, you misunderstand... I was agreeing with you. You just need a single netbook and a base-station that you can plug it into.
I agree. Your solution is better if you want two PCs.
It does seem a little superfluous to have two PCs if you want a netbook and a low end PC. Aside from cost, there's the extra disadvantage of having to transfer files. I'm surprised there isn't an all in one package available with monitor/USB hub/DVD drive and wireless keyboard/mouse all in one package (or do I just not know what to Google for?).
You'll possibly want a DVD drive as well as mouse and kb. For most people, adding extra components is a nuisance. Adding a monitor means you're paying for a built in monitor that you don't need, and a keyboard and DVD drive aren't free.
For less than the price of my netbook, I can get a space saving unit with twice the RAM and Hard Disk space, better graphics and a DVD rewriter. And Vista (Ok, most of us might be happier with XP, but consumers want the newest, most modern OS).
It was a twofer. MS weaseled out of punishment for license violation ( GPL ) and at the same time just shat in the kernel maintainers' collective pocket.
Following the terms of the licence isn't weaseling out of anything. They have no obligation to do anything other than abide by the terms of the GPL, which they have done.
The maintainers have no obligation to burn up hours coding and supporting someone else's abandonware.
Don't then. MS will probably provide patches and support to their customers and provide source for the patches. It doesn't make a jot of difference to MS whether they're compliant with the Linux coding standards. They just want their software to run Linux well.
Not quite sure what all that means. My legalese isn't all that good, but I think it's actually a patent on something entirely different.
Why are you so keen on protecting Microsoft? Unlike Microsoft, Google's software makes most of our lives much better every single day.
I'm not. I'm simply agreeing with them.
What difference does it make what Google's software (which is just another search engine, and Windows has comparable influence on my life) does? They could have cured world hunger for all the difference it makes. I still have reservations about them making what should be a simple business deal into a class action settlement.
They're doing it because it makes them money.
Lots of people have non business reasons for being concerned - organisations such as the EFF who are concerned that this will result in Google being able to effectively disregard parts of the GFDL, or authors who, for whatever reason, believe that buying from Google is not the way they want their work distributed.
And is Google's deal also going to explicitly allow Microsoft and Amazon the same rights that Google gets? Surely this would be even more beneficial to everyone in the world.
With people - fine.
With corporations - I simply don't believe that a corporation has ethics. Google are concerned with their public image so they're not going to be overtly evil, but their respect for privacy isn't exactly great, and their handling of this disagreement is pretty sneaky. They're doing something fully aware that it may violate copyright, but carry on anyway, because it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
That's not how it works. The description is just a description of what a patent is for. There can be a hundred different methods to associate a piece of data with multiple categories, and each one can be patented separately.
Now it may be that every single one of these is obvious and therefore non-patentable but you can't make that determination from the title.
Of course the court does. It's about the arguments, not who makes them. This is a fundamental point of adversarial debate. Whether this argument comes from Microsoft or Mr. Spock, doesn't make any difference.
Besides, why shouldn't Microsoft make a complaint? Are you saying they don't have the protection of the law that they're subject to? That seems a remarkable one sided and unfair legal system.
To an extent, yes.
I'm not sure I'm too happy about any of those either.
I'm a bit worried about that lack of scepticism displayed by some people. If it was MS or a company we hadn't heard of, people would be a lot less trusting.
Far too many people seem to ignore the detail that Google is a private company which has making money as a primary objective, and providing services is mainly a means to an end.