Seems to me, if you're unsure of your abilities, you should start on a smaller project with less visibility than FireFox
There's no reason not to try. Your fixes will either work or they won't. If they don't, you've bitten off more than you can chew, so you abandon them. Wasted a bit of time, but you know your limits. If they do work then you've pushed yourself, improved yourself and proven to yourself that you're that good. And helped the project along.
Always having a rescue shuttle available would be useful, but which probably isn't practical, since there are now only three Shuttles.
I wonder. A shuttle surely doesn't have to be on the pad and fuelled up. It just needs to be in one piece and launchable. They need to do this anyway for the next mission. It should be okay.
The only downside is it would slow down the rate that they can launch shuttles. They would have to have 2 in service per launch and only have one being refitted at the time.
Well, I suppose I could have pointed out that he's been a bit of a one trick pony. He produced an OS, before that an OS, and before that a programming language (which essentially served the same purpose as an OS for the Altair), but I was in a contrary sort of mood.
Some things should be combined, others shouldn't. For example, I'd quite like my TiVO, TV and satellite decoder to be combined, but I quite like a separate DVD player. My stereo should be separate from both of these. In fact, I want several of those. I'd quite like to play video games on their own TV, but that requires a lot of space, so I'll keep my PS2 near my TV. My telephone I keep in a different room from my TV, and the same goes for my microwave oven.
But Bill's philosophy is rather outdated. I remember reading someone talking about "convergence" several years ago, and talking about how it was going out of date. He gave an analogy with electric motors.
When the electric motor was a newish invention, there was an idea that it would be used in a lot of labour saving devices. But motors were expensive, so they thought that people would buy a single motor, and install it into each machine when they needed it. What happened instead was that the price of motors went down, and all the new devices had one permanantly installed.
A similar situation has happened with computers. Most applications don't need the power of a Pentium 4 or the complexity of a desktop OS. Embedded software and a slower processor is more than enough for most applications, and can be bought as separate components. Even a 1MHz CPU can potentially do 1 million operations per second.
A space programme is an investment. Just like Apollo, there will be a lot of spin off technologies.
A space programme is also a public works programme. It requires a very large staff. This means that most of the money invested will remain in India(I'm not totally sure about the economics of this. Ask an economist). The ent result is that they spend more money buying stuff (hopefully from other indians) increasing the overall wealth.
If you think my view of the situation and the situation you describe are the same then I'll clarify. Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's helpful for my understanding to make my view on this as clear as possible at any rate.
The whole purpose and intent of creating those links was to make it easier for people to breach copyright.
This is clearly different from your situation, because while you know people are going to do illegal things, you don't know who they are, and can't reasonably assume it will be all of them, or even most of them.
Yes it shouuld. Tou write british english, youu just add a u after every o. And replace all youur z's with s. You alsou prounouuce Z as "zed", but since we never use that letter whou cares?;)
Well, yes, but shouldn't we also assume that there is at least one car thief who hasn't already worked this out? He now knows exactly how to steal cars.
Consult a lawyer. It probably would be a crime though. It's still machine readable. You are after all aiding and abetting. As other people have pointed out in this thread, it probably depends on intent.
Don't be an idiot. Linkification does not exist to facilitate copyright infringement. The line of text (assuming it links to an infringing file) does. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
It's a line of text with very specific formatting which is designed to be machine readable and operable on in a specific way.
Let's review: Software is expression. It is speech. Which is why you can copyright it.
Indeed it is. Software is also a device. It is a mechanism. The fact that it exists in the form of binary data stored electronically does not make it substantially different from a more tangible machine such as an engine.
Telling someone the location of something, even using software for the communication, is fully protected First Amendment speech.
Perhaps. Providing someone with a mechanism to commit a crime with the intention of facilitating a crime is not protected under the first ammendment.
But lets look at it this way - You knew that by telling him this, he would obtain some pirated software. If you dodn't tell him, he would be unable to. You made no attempt to prevent him from doing so. Sounds like you could conceivably have behaved in a more morally upstanding way.
No. But I think that's another matter entirely. If he was truly an innocent party who had a totally neutral site that had the links added by another person, then it's not all that reasonable to hold him responsible.
Actually, I can see a number of problems with the whole case, but if we're assuming that distribution of copyrighted material costs the industry a certain amount, and he deliberately assisted, then really he should be stopped.
If you disagree with those assumptions then fair enough, but that's another argument.
That's a good point. I'll certainly concede that it would be technically possible for his to link to files without actually being aware that the files had changed. Unlikely in this case, but I can see how it's quite feasable that the nature of a site could change.
I guess inention is what's important, and it should be up to the court to prove intent.
No, a parallel argument would assume that the basic premise is true - i.e. that providing information about the location of illegal material should be a crime. This is not what the case was about. It's about assisting the acquisition
You've never taken any courses in philosophical logic, have you.
In this case, his situation would not be illegal whereas linking to illegal mp3s is. The fact that a vaguely similar situation is not illegal does not change this. Look at the case on its own merits.
Why did he link to mp3s? Was it simply a case of him feeling that it was a fascinating bit of information? No, of course not. He linked to them so that other people could download them. That's the fucking point of linking to files.
Ask a lawyer. But as far as I can see, it still has a functional component. Yes, you need to copy and paste it, but thats kind of trivial with the computer still dong most of the work.
An analogy is intended to clarify the situation. What you've done is created a overcomplicated contrived situation as an attempt to prove an assumed argument.
An analogy - in general - can't be used to prove anything because it is by it's nature a metaphor. i.e. a different situation.
He linked to the files knowing they were illegal, and in doing so provided a mechanism for others to download them. He was facilitating copyright infringement. A link is more than just a line of text. It is a functional component of the internet.
In England, a 5 pound coin exists, but I don't know if anyone has ever made a transaction with one. They're usually comemorative coins, of interest to collectors.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the link to the SX-64 if you're interested Impressive stuff.
Seems to me, if you're unsure of your abilities, you should start on a smaller project with less visibility than FireFox
There's no reason not to try. Your fixes will either work or they won't. If they don't, you've bitten off more than you can chew, so you abandon them. Wasted a bit of time, but you know your limits. If they do work then you've pushed yourself, improved yourself and proven to yourself that you're that good. And helped the project along.
I saw a hack where someone had put a PC into a portable Commodore 64 case. I think he even connected the the C64 ports logically.
Always having a rescue shuttle available would be useful, but which probably isn't practical, since there are now only three Shuttles.
I wonder. A shuttle surely doesn't have to be on the pad and fuelled up. It just needs to be in one piece and launchable. They need to do this anyway for the next mission. It should be okay.
The only downside is it would slow down the rate that they can launch shuttles. They would have to have 2 in service per launch and only have one being refitted at the time.
Well, I suppose I could have pointed out that he's been a bit of a one trick pony. He produced an OS, before that an OS, and before that a programming language (which essentially served the same purpose as an OS for the Altair), but I was in a contrary sort of mood.
Yes. He set up the company that now has a stranglehold on the market.
Some things should be combined, others shouldn't. For example, I'd quite like my TiVO, TV and satellite decoder to be combined, but I quite like a separate DVD player. My stereo should be separate from both of these. In fact, I want several of those. I'd quite like to play video games on their own TV, but that requires a lot of space, so I'll keep my PS2 near my TV. My telephone I keep in a different room from my TV, and the same goes for my microwave oven.
But Bill's philosophy is rather outdated. I remember reading someone talking about "convergence" several years ago, and talking about how it was going out of date. He gave an analogy with electric motors.
When the electric motor was a newish invention, there was an idea that it would be used in a lot of labour saving devices. But motors were expensive, so they thought that people would buy a single motor, and install it into each machine when they needed it. What happened instead was that the price of motors went down, and all the new devices had one permanantly installed.
A similar situation has happened with computers. Most applications don't need the power of a Pentium 4 or the complexity of a desktop OS. Embedded software and a slower processor is more than enough for most applications, and can be bought as separate components. Even a 1MHz CPU can potentially do 1 million operations per second.
This is helping.
A space programme is an investment. Just like Apollo, there will be a lot of spin off technologies.
A space programme is also a public works programme. It requires a very large staff. This means that most of the money invested will remain in India(I'm not totally sure about the economics of this. Ask an economist). The ent result is that they spend more money buying stuff (hopefully from other indians) increasing the overall wealth.
If you think my view of the situation and the situation you describe are the same then I'll clarify. Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's helpful for my understanding to make my view on this as clear as possible at any rate.
The whole purpose and intent of creating those links was to make it easier for people to breach copyright.
This is clearly different from your situation, because while you know people are going to do illegal things, you don't know who they are, and can't reasonably assume it will be all of them, or even most of them.
Yes it shouuld. Tou write british english, youu just add a u after every o. And replace all youur z's with s. You alsou prounouuce Z as "zed", but since we never use that letter whou cares? ;)
Well, yes, but shouldn't we also assume that there is at least one car thief who hasn't already worked this out? He now knows exactly how to steal cars.
Perhaps, but is it illegal?
Probably.
Should everything that is not "morally upstanding" be illegal?
At the moment, I'm thinking yes. At least if affects other people.
Consult a lawyer. It probably would be a crime though. It's still machine readable. You are after all aiding and abetting. As other people have pointed out in this thread, it probably depends on intent.
Don't be an idiot. Linkification does not exist to facilitate copyright infringement. The line of text (assuming it links to an infringing file) does. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
A link is just a line of text,
It's a line of text with very specific formatting which is designed to be machine readable and operable on in a specific way.
Let's review: Software is expression. It is speech. Which is why you can copyright it.
Indeed it is. Software is also a device. It is a mechanism. The fact that it exists in the form of binary data stored electronically does not make it substantially different from a more tangible machine such as an engine.
Telling someone the location of something, even using software for the communication, is fully protected First Amendment speech.
Perhaps. Providing someone with a mechanism to commit a crime with the intention of facilitating a crime is not protected under the first ammendment.
Possibly. It depends on the specific merits.
But lets look at it this way - You knew that by telling him this, he would obtain some pirated software. If you dodn't tell him, he would be unable to. You made no attempt to prevent him from doing so. Sounds like you could conceivably have behaved in a more morally upstanding way.
All the is required for creating a parallel argument is one that will reduce to an equivalent set of statements in first order predicate calculus.
Well, what do I know? I've never taken a course in philosophy. But regardless, that analogy failed in this requirement.
No. But I think that's another matter entirely. If he was truly an innocent party who had a totally neutral site that had the links added by another person, then it's not all that reasonable to hold him responsible.
Actually, I can see a number of problems with the whole case, but if we're assuming that distribution of copyrighted material costs the industry a certain amount, and he deliberately assisted, then really he should be stopped.
If you disagree with those assumptions then fair enough, but that's another argument.
That's a good point. I'll certainly concede that it would be technically possible for his to link to files without actually being aware that the files had changed. Unlikely in this case, but I can see how it's quite feasable that the nature of a site could change.
I guess inention is what's important, and it should be up to the court to prove intent.
Yes, it can. It's called a parallel argument.
No, a parallel argument would assume that the basic premise is true - i.e. that providing information about the location of illegal material should be a crime. This is not what the case was about. It's about assisting the acquisition
You've never taken any courses in philosophical logic, have you.
Nope. Have you?
It's not accurate. It is a different situation.
In this case, his situation would not be illegal whereas linking to illegal mp3s is. The fact that a vaguely similar situation is not illegal does not change this. Look at the case on its own merits.
Why did he link to mp3s? Was it simply a case of him feeling that it was a fascinating bit of information? No, of course not. He linked to them so that other people could download them. That's the fucking point of linking to files.
Dunno. Doubt it. Try it.
Ask a lawyer. But as far as I can see, it still has a functional component. Yes, you need to copy and paste it, but thats kind of trivial with the computer still dong most of the work.
Huh?
An analogy is intended to clarify the situation. What you've done is created a overcomplicated contrived situation as an attempt to prove an assumed argument.
An analogy - in general - can't be used to prove anything because it is by it's nature a metaphor. i.e. a different situation.
He linked to the files knowing they were illegal, and in doing so provided a mechanism for others to download them. He was facilitating copyright infringement. A link is more than just a line of text. It is a functional component of the internet.
In England, a 5 pound coin exists, but I don't know if anyone has ever made a transaction with one. They're usually comemorative coins, of interest to collectors.