I haven't seen any "god damn it, pay attention!" propaganda.
There was this sort of, a while back. It was aimed at teenagers though, not cell phone users. It would start out like a typical commercial marketing to teenagers, a bunch of kids driving in a car goofing around, and then wham something would slam into them or they would slam into something. Really pretty unnerving because it was so unexpected.
I think we are in agreement, with one clarification:
I could take the BSD source unmodified and release it under the GPL, or any license I wanted. Anyone who got it from me would have to abide by the GPL, but anyone could also go get the BSD licensed version from the government, as you said, so the GPL doesn't matter too much practically, unless I modify the code.
I'm not opposed to the government forcing the BSD license... I think anything is better than the current situation.
Try it and see, if you havn't already. Convincing the browser what the name of the PDF should be, and getting Acrobat to use that same name is the hard part. Someone else suggested mod_rewrite, and that will probably work for that, but there are still some other issues with certain browsers.
As for PDFs, you can't simply stream them as-is.
It works fine without optimization of any sort, as long as I point the browser at a file on disk and don't try to do it from a script. I will look into that though, it sounds useful.
DLJDirect -> CSFBDirect -> harrisdirect.com my broker...
If you can keep up with thier constant buyouts and name changing, they were always really responsive. I complained that their navbar had flaky javascript on it that was totally unnecessary, and in a week it was gone. Other than that, they always were very compatible with any browser I wanted to use, which is pretty nice considering it's a pretty complex online trading platform.
firstunion.com....
Sometimes good, sometimes bad... They change their code so often, it's a tossup as to whether your browser will make it past the signin screen. I've mostly had problems logging in, if I can get logged in, things usually work fine. One thing that is bad is if you don't set your browser to auto-accept all cookies, the site will constantly screw your session up, even if you manually accept the cookies. At least it used to. As I said, they change their code a lot.
Simply mimic those headers (substituting the proper filename and size etc), and the browser will happily prompt the user to download.
I agree with the other guy. I tried and tried and tried to get this to work without writing the files out to disk, but there is no way that works with 100% of the browsers out there.
I do it hundreds of times a day with inline JPGs that are dynamically generated, but for some reason I have not found a method that reliably works with PDFs that can cause Acrobat to come up 100% of the time... and I even did what you said, telnet to port 80 and grab a static PDF to see what the difference between my headers and the static file's headers were...
And there was no difference!
I have no idea why streaming a PDF or other non-inline data is so flaky to generalize between platforms, it just is!
If you want to try it, just set up a small test server to generate PDFs with ghostscript or something and feed it to a PHP script that is writing the headers, then test it in many different browsers, including IE5.5 and AOL and other freaky ones. You will be surprised.
You are correct though, about getting a file to the customer. It's harder than it should be!
I'm generating PDFs to send dynamically. I've done the same thing with inline jpgs for ages now, without having to save them to disk in any way, shape, or form.
Browsers don't like HTTP redirects. It doesn't always work. IE5.5 is seriously broken unless you have a certain set of patches installed. Opera 6.0 Linux freaks out. Mozilla mostly handles stuff right.
Eventually I had to do something like you did, generate the file and put it on a directly accessible filesystem, which is very inefficient compared to just streaming the data out, and potentially a lot less secure.
Why can't browsers get their act together with dymanic content generated for external plugins? It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to fix... Mozilla already has it mostly right.
I'm not sure what your rant was about, but it didn't seem to have much to do with Keynes.
I'm Libertarian... If the government would follow Keynes actual advice, and only maintain a deficit during times of extreme economic downturn, and promptly pay the debt back, I wouldn't have a problem with it. That's not how it works out though.
The distinction between "use" and "redistribution" is not one that RMS made up. It is written into the copyright laws. The open source definition only prevents restrictions on what falls under normal "use", not those activities which fall under "redistribution", as defined by copyright.
Basically, if you could do it with a work released under the sole terms "All Rights Reserved", then it is "use". Any activity that would violate "All Rights Reserved", would fall under redistribution, and therefore necessitates the agreement to the terms of the GPL.
If you restrict use, you must do it through other means than copyright law, namely contract law and EULAs. Copyright laws only give you the rights to control duplication and distribution. Putting terms on redistribution is excersizing solely the powers given to you through copyright law. Putting terms on "use" is above and beyond the rights you have under copyright law.
I think you are confused. You can release other people's BSD code under whatever license you want. That is why the GPL was created, because the BSD does not require you give the people you distribute BSD code to the same rights you had.
You are correct, you don't own the copyright, and you must comply with the BSD in acknologeding the copyright holder, but that doesn't prevent you from taking every piece of BSD code out there and distributing it under whatever license you want.
A dielectric material is a substance that is a poor conductor of electricity, but an efficient supporter of electrostatic fields. If the flow of current between opposite electric charge poles is kept to a minimum while the electrostatic lines of flux are not impeded or interrupted, an electrostatic field can store energy. This property is useful in capacitors, especially at radio frequencies. Dielectric materials are also used in the construction of radio-frequency transmission lines.
Do you really want tons of stray capacitance in the pins of your chips? (Hint: You don't, unless you like signal ringing).
With five different fan models from four different manufacturers, there is no real way of comparing one to another,
How about actual meansurements, not just what it says on the box? Isn't that the whole point of reviews?
Also, in my experience, a lot of the heat sensing fans have completely unrealistic heat sensors. I had one brand of heat sensing fan that would always run at full speed, unless I shot the heat sensor with canned air upside down and froze it (so cold it iced up). In other words the heat sensor is often just a gimmick.
People have also complained that antec power supplies with heat sensing fans almost never run the fans at full speed, even when the PS is putting out air hotter than they would care for it to put out. So there is the other extreme too, heat sensors that run the fan slower than you would want.
Well, hopefully the author will read this thread and get some ideas on how he can improve his reviewer skills, because this article as it is, is pretty useless.
Just to say you did something a lot of other people haven't.
Installing a manufactured product that someone else built doesn't seem to be very much of a hobby to me. I guess it's a hobby if you can call something like car audio a hobby. Spending lots of money to show off seems to be the real hobby in those cases.
A little high, for reference a T1 can download about 450 GByte a month running all the time full out.
This runs about $2 a GByte for a $900 a month T1. Major ISPs get bandwidth a lot cheaper than single T1 prices.
I wouldn't mind paying $2 per GByte at home... the only issue is traffic you didn't authorize, like DoS attacks. That is a fatal flaw in almost all metered plans.
There must be consideration (both parties must gain something or force some new obligation on the other party).
IANAL - Have taken some business law classes. Not legal advice - Not FDIC Insured - May Lose Value.
It's for this same reason that EULAs on free-of-charge software cannot be enforced, unless you are giving them some consideration (like agreeing to look at their ads).
This makes this case even more complicated, since the spam company could argue that "in exchange for the good and valuable consideration of the right to run the program, you agree to let us use your good and valuable consideration of the right to use the contacts in your address book for marketing purposes" A clear exchange of consideration!
This may even apply to some free-speech software licenses that include restrictions above and beyond simply terms of copyright licensure, i.e. restrictions on non-distribution related use. Most free-speech licenses don't have such clauses, but a couple do.
In any case, this isn't simple, but I hope to god it is illegal somehow, or becomes so in the near future.
I see nothing wrong with recommending the default use of BSD.
But, why should the company who wrote the software for the government get to exclusive benefit from the software by selling it elsewhere? The software was ultimately paid for with taxpayer money.
Putting restrictions on contractors is nothing new for the government. One obnoxious example is that any company that wants to get almost any government contract must have a drug testing program in place. Even if they don't care about their employees personal lives, they are forced to do it.
Requiring that work paid for with public money remain free for use by the public in general is a much less intrusive requirement.
Note the emphasis above. Even if they are required to BSD/GPL works completely paid for by the government, they are still the experts for the software, it does not deprive them of all future benefits, only the exclusivity that closed source restrictive licenses require.
I could understand a company wanting to build off of their existing closed source technology to create a product to meet the government specifications. In cases like that, it becomes less clear.
I do however strongly believe that any work that is 100% paid for by public money should remain in the hands of the public. In those cases, the contractor is closer to an employee than they are a seperate company.
I've modded you up enough times to respect your opinion.
Heh. thanks. I'm coming up on 3000 messages... whew... that's a lot. The last thousand has flown by too. Seems like yesterday I hit 2000. I really need to get out more or something.
If you can honestly look at this picture [stanford.edu] and tell me that the blur that stretches all the way into the computer monitor is part of the lego case, I'll believe you.
Really, to me it doesn't look like it extends into the monitor. It kinda does at first glance, but if you look at the other monitors, the whole shot isn't particularly sharp.
As far as why... you got me too. Maybe someone from Stanford will read this thread and explain more.
My post was also intended to be anecdotal. Note the words "I know very few"... as in people I know personally.
I never intended to imply you meant your argument to hold any scientific or logical merit. I only meant my message as a general warning against such arguments that people often do make, along the same lines as yours, but assert them as a valid argument. You took my message way too personally, it wasn't meant to be.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming that is using mod_rewrite to make the script look like a PDF filename wise?
But did they also include having another person in the car and having a conversation with them?
Are we to erect a soundproof barrier around the driver to block out passengers now?
I haven't seen any "god damn it, pay attention!" propaganda.
There was this sort of, a while back. It was aimed at teenagers though, not cell phone users. It would start out like a typical commercial marketing to teenagers, a bunch of kids driving in a car goofing around, and then wham something would slam into them or they would slam into something. Really pretty unnerving because it was so unexpected.
I don't get what they want to do here.
Why is bluetooth built into a car any better from just using a normal wired or wireless hands-free set?
That picture is messed up too. Maybe if that guy wasn't driving on the wrong side of the road there wouldn't be so many safety hazards.
I think we are in agreement, with one clarification:
I could take the BSD source unmodified and release it under the GPL, or any license I wanted. Anyone who got it from me would have to abide by the GPL, but anyone could also go get the BSD licensed version from the government, as you said, so the GPL doesn't matter too much practically, unless I modify the code.
I'm not opposed to the government forcing the BSD license... I think anything is better than the current situation.
Try it and see, if you havn't already. Convincing the browser what the name of the PDF should be, and getting Acrobat to use that same name is the hard part. Someone else suggested mod_rewrite, and that will probably work for that, but there are still some other issues with certain browsers.
As for PDFs, you can't simply stream them as-is.
It works fine without optimization of any sort, as long as I point the browser at a file on disk and don't try to do it from a script. I will look into that though, it sounds useful.
DLJDirect -> CSFBDirect -> harrisdirect.com my broker...
If you can keep up with thier constant buyouts and name changing, they were always really responsive. I complained that their navbar had flaky javascript on it that was totally unnecessary, and in a week it was gone. Other than that, they always were very compatible with any browser I wanted to use, which is pretty nice considering it's a pretty complex online trading platform.
firstunion.com....
Sometimes good, sometimes bad... They change their code so often, it's a tossup as to whether your browser will make it past the signin screen. I've mostly had problems logging in, if I can get logged in, things usually work fine. One thing that is bad is if you don't set your browser to auto-accept all cookies, the site will constantly screw your session up, even if you manually accept the cookies. At least it used to. As I said, they change their code a lot.
Simply mimic those headers (substituting the proper filename and size etc), and the browser will happily prompt the user to download.
I agree with the other guy. I tried and tried and tried to get this to work without writing the files out to disk, but there is no way that works with 100% of the browsers out there.
I do it hundreds of times a day with inline JPGs that are dynamically generated, but for some reason I have not found a method that reliably works with PDFs that can cause Acrobat to come up 100% of the time... and I even did what you said, telnet to port 80 and grab a static PDF to see what the difference between my headers and the static file's headers were...
And there was no difference!
I have no idea why streaming a PDF or other non-inline data is so flaky to generalize between platforms, it just is!
If you want to try it, just set up a small test server to generate PDFs with ghostscript or something and feed it to a PHP script that is writing the headers, then test it in many different browsers, including IE5.5 and AOL and other freaky ones. You will be surprised.
You are correct though, about getting a file to the customer. It's harder than it should be!
I'm generating PDFs to send dynamically. I've done the same thing with inline jpgs for ages now, without having to save them to disk in any way, shape, or form.
Browsers don't like HTTP redirects. It doesn't always work. IE5.5 is seriously broken unless you have a certain set of patches installed. Opera 6.0 Linux freaks out. Mozilla mostly handles stuff right.
Eventually I had to do something like you did, generate the file and put it on a directly accessible filesystem, which is very inefficient compared to just streaming the data out, and potentially a lot less secure.
Why can't browsers get their act together with dymanic content generated for external plugins? It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to fix... Mozilla already has it mostly right.
4 million a year? My company spent more on that just implementing one database last year, which isnt even all that business critical.
You work for California don't you?
I'm not sure what your rant was about, but it didn't seem to have much to do with Keynes.
I'm Libertarian... If the government would follow Keynes actual advice, and only maintain a deficit during times of extreme economic downturn, and promptly pay the debt back, I wouldn't have a problem with it. That's not how it works out though.
The distinction between "use" and "redistribution" is not one that RMS made up. It is written into the copyright laws. The open source definition only prevents restrictions on what falls under normal "use", not those activities which fall under "redistribution", as defined by copyright.
Basically, if you could do it with a work released under the sole terms "All Rights Reserved", then it is "use". Any activity that would violate "All Rights Reserved", would fall under redistribution, and therefore necessitates the agreement to the terms of the GPL.
If you restrict use, you must do it through other means than copyright law, namely contract law and EULAs. Copyright laws only give you the rights to control duplication and distribution. Putting terms on redistribution is excersizing solely the powers given to you through copyright law. Putting terms on "use" is above and beyond the rights you have under copyright law.
No license at all creates ambiguity. It is generally assumed that in absence of a copyright notice, "All Rights Reserved" applies.
I think you are confused. You can release other people's BSD code under whatever license you want. That is why the GPL was created, because the BSD does not require you give the people you distribute BSD code to the same rights you had.
You are correct, you don't own the copyright, and you must comply with the BSD in acknologeding the copyright holder, but that doesn't prevent you from taking every piece of BSD code out there and distributing it under whatever license you want.
Do you know what a dielectric is?
_ gc i211945,00.html
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9
A dielectric material is a substance that is a poor conductor of electricity, but an efficient supporter of electrostatic fields. If the flow of current between opposite electric charge poles is kept to a minimum while the electrostatic lines of flux are not impeded or interrupted, an electrostatic field can store energy. This property is useful in capacitors, especially at radio frequencies. Dielectric materials are also used in the construction of radio-frequency transmission lines.
Do you really want tons of stray capacitance in the pins of your chips? (Hint: You don't, unless you like signal ringing).
With five different fan models from four different manufacturers, there is no real way of comparing one to another,
How about actual meansurements, not just what it says on the box? Isn't that the whole point of reviews?
Also, in my experience, a lot of the heat sensing fans have completely unrealistic heat sensors. I had one brand of heat sensing fan that would always run at full speed, unless I shot the heat sensor with canned air upside down and froze it (so cold it iced up). In other words the heat sensor is often just a gimmick.
People have also complained that antec power supplies with heat sensing fans almost never run the fans at full speed, even when the PS is putting out air hotter than they would care for it to put out. So there is the other extreme too, heat sensors that run the fan slower than you would want.
Well, hopefully the author will read this thread and get some ideas on how he can improve his reviewer skills, because this article as it is, is pretty useless.
Just to say you did something a lot of other people haven't.
Installing a manufactured product that someone else built doesn't seem to be very much of a hobby to me. I guess it's a hobby if you can call something like car audio a hobby. Spending lots of money to show off seems to be the real hobby in those cases.
The worst part is they only got this thing up to 3.3Ghz, that's 500 extra Mhz.
Quite a lot of work, money, and mess for 17% more CPU performance. In a month or two they can probably just buy an official 3.3Ghz chip.
You also are instructed to fill all the pin holes in the motherboard socket with thermal grease as well.
What a mess. Just don't try this with arctic silver.
20 bucks for 3 GB
A little high, for reference a T1 can download about 450 GByte a month running all the time full out.
This runs about $2 a GByte for a $900 a month T1. Major ISPs get bandwidth a lot cheaper than single T1 prices.
I wouldn't mind paying $2 per GByte at home... the only issue is traffic you didn't authorize, like DoS attacks. That is a fatal flaw in almost all metered plans.
You forgot the http in the link in your sig. It doesn't work.
There must be consideration (both parties must gain something or force some new obligation on the other party).
IANAL - Have taken some business law classes. Not legal advice - Not FDIC Insured - May Lose Value.
It's for this same reason that EULAs on free-of-charge software cannot be enforced, unless you are giving them some consideration (like agreeing to look at their ads).
This makes this case even more complicated, since the spam company could argue that "in exchange for the good and valuable consideration of the right to run the program, you agree to let us use your good and valuable consideration of the right to use the contacts in your address book for marketing purposes" A clear exchange of consideration!
This may even apply to some free-speech software licenses that include restrictions above and beyond simply terms of copyright licensure, i.e. restrictions on non-distribution related use. Most free-speech licenses don't have such clauses, but a couple do.
In any case, this isn't simple, but I hope to god it is illegal somehow, or becomes so in the near future.
I see nothing wrong with recommending the default use of BSD.
But, why should the company who wrote the software for the government get to exclusive benefit from the software by selling it elsewhere? The software was ultimately paid for with taxpayer money.
Putting restrictions on contractors is nothing new for the government. One obnoxious example is that any company that wants to get almost any government contract must have a drug testing program in place. Even if they don't care about their employees personal lives, they are forced to do it.
Requiring that work paid for with public money remain free for use by the public in general is a much less intrusive requirement.
Note the emphasis above. Even if they are required to BSD/GPL works completely paid for by the government, they are still the experts for the software, it does not deprive them of all future benefits, only the exclusivity that closed source restrictive licenses require.
I could understand a company wanting to build off of their existing closed source technology to create a product to meet the government specifications. In cases like that, it becomes less clear.
I do however strongly believe that any work that is 100% paid for by public money should remain in the hands of the public. In those cases, the contractor is closer to an employee than they are a seperate company.
I've modded you up enough times to respect your opinion.
Heh. thanks. I'm coming up on 3000 messages... whew... that's a lot. The last thousand has flown by too. Seems like yesterday I hit 2000. I really need to get out more or something.
If you can honestly look at this picture [stanford.edu] and tell me that the blur that stretches all the way into the computer monitor is part of the lego case, I'll believe you.
Really, to me it doesn't look like it extends into the monitor. It kinda does at first glance, but if you look at the other monitors, the whole shot isn't particularly sharp.
As far as why... you got me too. Maybe someone from Stanford will read this thread and explain more.
My post was also intended to be anecdotal. Note the words "I know very few"... as in people I know personally.
I never intended to imply you meant your argument to hold any scientific or logical merit. I only meant my message as a general warning against such arguments that people often do make, along the same lines as yours, but assert them as a valid argument. You took my message way too personally, it wasn't meant to be.