The police are going to investigate the calls and that would lead back to him. The numbnut was effectively calling the police on himself. What a freakin' genius!
is that once programmers work out these licences are incompatible they will simply not combine them.
With management, sales and supervisors you can point out that two things they want are contradictory or mutually exclusive and they'll still want you to deliver both things.;P
This could explain why the people in front of me in ATM queues always take so long.
I'd always assumed they were incompetant morons. Perhaps they are just security concious and are waiting 15 seconds before typing their pin in case a camera is recording.
The cases aren't really the same though. Mandrake (the distro) has traded using symbols etc that could relate to Mandrake the magician and magic generally. While comics and software are two different areas there is (and especially was) a common theme used in the branding of both Mandrakes. Similarly if I were to write a comic where the superhero could clone things I don't think I'd get away with calling the comic "Xerox" as my character would clearly be trading off Xerox's reputation in copying.
A slightly different case in Australia surrounds the Harry Potter name as used on clothing in Australia. Time Warner lost that one in part because the clothing brand name came first and also because people wouldn't percieve there to be a link between the clothing range and the Harry Potter character.
There is nothing against giving credit where credit is due. I'm sure that all the distributions currently distributing XFree86 already do so. My Redhat installations has an XFree86 manpage with a lengthy "Authors" section for example.
As such I think common courtesy is being shown. It is the licence change that is changing it from common courtesy to something requiring legal interpretation and strict observance that makes it an burden.
I wonder who exactly isn't giving credit where credit is due. If all the major distributions are bundling it with reasonable documentation anyway then what is the point? It's like "copy-controlled" cds in that it has the unpleasant side-effect of placing undue burden on those who up till now have been doing the right thing anyway.
No. The core Gnome libraries (including GTK) are licensed as LGPL, which allows for this case. That particular issue is a red herring.
You can't just get around linking a GPL incompatible library to a GPL program by having an LGPL library between them. The LGPL isn't any different than the GPL on this matter anyway.
The reason it isn't a problem is because of the "major component of an operating system" exception.
However, that may only apply to people distributing GNOME for Solaris seperate from Solaris. If Sun distribute Solaris and GNOME together they may well be in violation.
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
As I read it, if GPL GNOME executables that depend on Suns proprietary components "accompany" each other on the same distribution the exception doesn't apply.
What was the explosion called?
on
Comic Book Physics
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Flaming'el?
Sounds a bit like my super power
on
Comic Book Physics
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I'm invisible to attractive women.
As spys/superheros/supervillains always seem to have attractive women as their offsiders I'd be the perfect person to infiltrate their lair.
But as you pointed out, what reason would they want a jpg for? They can't index it without it being in the context of a page. Perhaps it is a bit of a waste of bandwidth but people using direct image urls is probably fairly rare in practice.
Google probably doesn't know it's a jpg until it has requested it and determined its mimetype. Once it finds that out it presumably just offers a fallback advert method.
Similarly there would be no point in it requesting the jpg for it's search engine purposes either. Even for image search it needs the context of a page to categorise the image rather than the image itself.
If you want untargeted ads you can have them. A user specifically has to ask for those type of ads to be turned on and Opera tells them up front exactly what it will send and won't send.
Opera empowers users to make their own educated decisions. If that puts them in the place in your mind as crooks and criminals I can only imagine it's because your mind is so tiny that there's not much capacity in there for proper filing.
a) Mediapartners-google does check robots.txt b) Opera always has the name "Opera" in it's UA string, even when masquerading as IE. c) Mediapartners-google doesn't feed the Google search engine. It is only used for Google adverts.
I said Opera doesn't "send such urls" to Google.
Specifically the post I was replying to talked about pages that are the result of form submissions.
The page I linked to states Opera does not send:
URLs with CGI arguments (E.g: http://www.example.com?formsdata)
The google mediapartners bot which will look at pages for the purposes of advertising such as in Opera is different and seperate from the bot that adds pages to Google's search database. The mediapartners bot does not feed the Google search engine.
Look in mobile phone and embedded space. This is the growth market for web browsers and also happens to be where Opera is kicking major arse and Microsofts lockin on the desktop counts for very little (and in some ways even helps Opera, as many phone companies are naturally fearful of letting MS own the platform).
Lock Stock just recycled the idea. The cam probably wouldn't even be that successful these days as banks are more faceless. In the old days when you actually had to queue up and physically hand the check to a girl at the counter it would be much more intimidating than simply shoving it in a hole in the wall for some unknown person to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Take a reasonably useful product.
2) Add bloat and adverts.
3) Loss!
So implementing your own widgets isn't something that inherantly slows down a browser and it does have a variety of positive aspects.
The police are going to investigate the calls and that would lead back to him. The numbnut was effectively calling the police on himself. What a freakin' genius!
is that once programmers work out these licences are incompatible they will simply not combine them.
;P
With management, sales and supervisors you can point out that two things they want are contradictory or mutually exclusive and they'll still want you to deliver both things.
This could explain why the people in front of me in ATM queues always take so long.
I'd always assumed they were incompetant morons. Perhaps they are just security concious and are waiting 15 seconds before typing their pin in case a camera is recording.
I wonder if Google has anything. Oooh, what a fucking surprise, it does! And with "Dudley Hiibel" being such a common name too.....
The cases aren't really the same though. Mandrake (the distro) has traded using symbols etc that could relate to Mandrake the magician and magic generally. While comics and software are two different areas there is (and especially was) a common theme used in the branding of both Mandrakes. Similarly if I were to write a comic where the superhero could clone things I don't think I'd get away with calling the comic "Xerox" as my character would clearly be trading off Xerox's reputation in copying.
A slightly different case in Australia surrounds the Harry Potter name as used on clothing in Australia. Time Warner lost that one in part because the clothing brand name came first and also because people wouldn't percieve there to be a link between the clothing range and the Harry Potter character.
Sounds similar and for an added bonus the logo can be a duck baring it's arse in the direction of a magician.
There is nothing against giving credit where credit is due. I'm sure that all the distributions currently distributing XFree86 already do so. My Redhat installations has an XFree86 manpage with a lengthy "Authors" section for example.
As such I think common courtesy is being shown. It is the licence change that is changing it from common courtesy to something requiring legal interpretation and strict observance that makes it an burden.
I wonder who exactly isn't giving credit where credit is due. If all the major distributions are bundling it with reasonable documentation anyway then what is the point? It's like "copy-controlled" cds in that it has the unpleasant side-effect of placing undue burden on those who up till now have been doing the right thing anyway.
The reason it isn't a problem is because of the "major component of an operating system" exception.
However, that may only apply to people distributing GNOME for Solaris seperate from Solaris.
If Sun distribute Solaris and GNOME together they may well be in violation. As I read it, if GPL GNOME executables that depend on Suns proprietary components "accompany" each other on the same distribution the exception doesn't apply.
Flaming'el?
I'm invisible to attractive women.
As spys/superheros/supervillains always seem to have attractive women as their offsiders I'd be the perfect person to infiltrate their lair.
Insightful I reckon.
But as you pointed out, what reason would they want a jpg for? They can't index it without it being in the context of a page. Perhaps it is a bit of a waste of bandwidth but people using direct image urls is probably fairly rare in practice.
Google probably doesn't know it's a jpg until it has requested it and determined its mimetype. Once it finds that out it presumably just offers a fallback advert method.
Similarly there would be no point in it requesting the jpg for it's search engine purposes either. Even for image search it needs the context of a page to categorise the image rather than the image itself.
If you want untargeted ads you can have them.
A user specifically has to ask for those type of ads to be turned on and Opera tells them up front exactly what it will send and won't send.
Opera empowers users to make their own educated decisions. If that puts them in the place in your mind as crooks and criminals I can only imagine it's because your mind is so tiny that there's not much capacity in there for proper filing.
a) Mediapartners-google does check robots.txt
b) Opera always has the name "Opera" in it's UA string, even when masquerading as IE.
c) Mediapartners-google doesn't feed the Google search engine. It is only used for Google adverts.
And your's definately wouldn't be considered "good"!
Opera doesn't even send such urls to Google.
The google mediapartners bot which will look at pages for the purposes of advertising such as in Opera is different and seperate from the bot that adds pages to Google's search database. The mediapartners bot does not feed the Google search engine.
Look in mobile phone and embedded space. This is the growth market for web browsers and also happens to be where Opera is kicking major arse and Microsofts lockin on the desktop counts for very little (and in some ways even helps Opera, as many phone companies are naturally fearful of letting MS own the platform).
is fairly dull and doesn't really mention such grand concepts as freedom.
Lock Stock just recycled the idea. The cam probably wouldn't even be that successful these days as banks are more faceless. In the old days when you actually had to queue up and physically hand the check to a girl at the counter it would be much more intimidating than simply shoving it in a hole in the wall for some unknown person to deal with.