We're talking about sports betting. If the games are rigged (and there have been cases where they have been), then it's a HUGE deal, and completely unrelated to internet sports betting.
With sports betting you know the odds before you make the bet. There's no way the house can "cheat" because it's based solely on who handicaps the game better (or in many cases, blind luck.. like a major crash in NASCAR takes out the top 10 drivers.. even the worst driver can win). The real risk in online sportsbooks is that the book disappears and takes your money with them.
Online casinos are a different story, and those can't be trusted at all. Online poker is a little more trustworthy, but there are also cheating scenarios there too, and the house has an advantage to see more "drama hands" because they generate bigger pots and larger rakes.
But it's not cheaper. It's about the same price. If you pay $245 for a processor and $100 for motherboard it's the same as paying $199 for the processor and $150 for the motherboard.
The average person who won't notice a speed difference isn't going to be buying $250 processors anyways, they'll be buying $50 processors and $85 motherboards.
Yours is the first interpretation of that i've read over the years with this particular meaning. That tells me that it's not "distinctly implied".
Code does not "touch the programmer". That's a patently ridiculous claim, and I see no evidence that this is what he meant.
It's clear to me that he meant what everyone else who uses the term "viral" means (The term was created by BSD advocates to describe the GPL, by the way). That when GPL code touches non-GPL code, the only way to distribute said combination is to "infect" the non-GPL code and make that GPL as well.
The BSD camp invented this term because they were rightfully upset that code they wrote and released under the BSD license was being coopoted by GPL developers and turned into GPL only code, preventing them from making use of any changes the GPL developers created.
While the BSD license allows this, and in most cases, a BSD developer doesn't care.. The case of GPL annoys them because GPL advocates claim the GPL is "more free" than BSD, yet at the same time locking the code away in such a way that the BSD developers can't make use of it. They consider it hypocricy.
Basically it goes like this:
BSD Developer: "Our code is Free. You can do whatever you want with it"
GPL Developer: "Thanks, but our code is even more Free."
BSD Developer: "Then why can't I use the changes you made to my code in my program?"
GPL Developer: "Because our code is "Free-er-er" than yours"
The motherboard is a little more expensive, but DDR3 isn't.. you can get 6GB matched sets for $99. And Intel is coming out with consumer i7 chipsets very soon which will bring down the motherboard price significantly.
$199 is pretty much Microcenters everyday price.. they treat it like a sale, but it's been that way for well over a month and shows no sign of changing.
Actually, the Core i7 920 is the sweet spot.. $199 and it blows everything out of the water. X58 Motherboards are more expensive but that is going to change very soon as Intel releases new consumer level i7 chipsets.
I really don't understand why anyone would buy the Phenom.. At $245 it's $46 more expensive than the Core i7 920 and performs significantly worse. The 965 isn't listed there, but 955 is, and it's passmark rating is 3,571 while the i7 920 is rated at 5,440. And that's not even considering the fact that you are using triple channel memory access versus dual channel, etc..
Granted, you can get AM3 motherboards cheaper than X58 boards, but Intel is coming out with more consumer i7 chipsets very soon.
A solution might have been to lobby strenuously for the abolition of software techniques or for the reform of how they are granted in the U.S.
Ok, so you put all your eggs in that basket. And it fails. Then what? You're completely vulnerable to all the patents out there because you've not been building up your own arsenal.
TomTom has been shaking down other map and GPS customers for quite some time. They sued Toyota a few years back, for instance, and have had several lawsuits with Garmin and others.
By TomTom's own admission, they had been "engaged in talks with Microsoft for more than year" over patents, and the fact that TomTom was able to file their own patent suit within a couple weeks shows that TomTom clearly head the suit ready to fire.
"usually". Not always. My point is simply that the original author claimed it was "free from abuse by those who want to take and not give anything back". That's simply not true.
Software is worth whatever someone will pay for it. There is no fraud involved in charging whatever someone will pay.
And the GPL puts no limit on what you may charge. The section you quote above is in regard to the fee for transfering a copy of the source code (upon written request). It is not a requirement for how much you can sell the binary for (with the source).
Many businesses pay in excess of $1,000,000 for custom software.
I'm not referring ot simply filing off the serial numbers. I'm talking about investing many 1000's of man hours of development work into something that could be considered a derivitive work of a GPL'd application.
Prior to MS releasing the code under the GPL, they had not submitted the drivers to the kernel. It was only after they GPL'd it that they did this. I'm not really sure what your point is.
The claim is that MS used GPL'd code in their drivers and were forced to GPL it because they were "caught", but that's simply not true.
Also, I'm a bit confused.. where exactly did MS claim that GPLing some drivers would force them to GPL every bit of code they ever wrote?
If they did not, in fact, say that... one might want to be more careful about who one calls a liar.
The GPL does not guarantee that someone has to give you anything back. In fact, there is no reciprocation requirement at all.
I can, for example, take your GPL'd work, make some changes, then sell it to my customer. I am required, by the rules of the GPL, to give my customer the source, and they are allowed to do whatever they want, including give it to others, but if they paid $1,000,000 for it, chances are they're not going to do that. You have no right to demand the changes I made, or even a copy of the program from me.
This is a common myth around the GPL, that it enforces a reciprocation agreement. It doesn't. In fact, licenses that have such agreements are not compatible with the GPL.
For a 'far worse' standard it seems to me that it got a lot more right than ODF did.
It's impossible for anyone to create an interoperable ODF document strictly by the standard as it is today (and has been for 5 years). The only way to make compatible documents is to reverse engineer the code of OOo or some other interoperable implementation.
You might want to check your facts, and not repeat hearsay.
Microsoft did not use GPL'd code in their Linux drivers, however they did use kernel interfaces marked as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. There is much controversy in the kernel community on whether or not kernel modules are considered "derivitive works", especially since the Linux kernel itself disclaims this. The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is a way for kernel module developers to say "I would like for only GPL'd code to use me", but so far there is no legal consensus on whether or not this is required or not.
They weren't required to GPL their code, they did because it was the right thing to do. They could have left it the way it was, and someone could have tried to sue.. but it's unclear whether or not they would have a case.
Actually, it wasn't until the W3C abandonded XHTML 2 that HTML5 became clear that it would be the successor. I think Microsoft was banking on the W3C (which they are a member of), and ignored WHATWG because there was no clear indication that it would ever be a real standard.
Can you point to a single patent application with mutually exclusive claims? I've never seen one.
No, each claim does not stand on it's own, because in most cases those claims are built upon prior patents owned by others. They're merely one step in the chain of claims that lead to a patent. All the claims have to be true to be patentable.
If your reasoning were correct, no patent would be valid because most are written like this:
Claim 1: A foo bar. Claim 2: A foo bar (as in claim 1) with foozle skins. Claim 3: A foo bar with foozle skins (as in claims 1 and 2) with green thingamajobs.
Now, if each item stands on it's own, that would be 3 patents, and if claim 1 were invalid, claims 2 and 3 would be invalid because they're based on them.
I fail to understand what your point is. Yes, patent claims are written general to specific, but you have to take ALL the claims into account, not just the general ones (which will obviously fall under the "duh, that's prior art" category).
Patents are like an onion, and you can only patent the entire onion, not just the inner bits.
Maybe because you didn't bother to actually read the patent and are going on the inaccurate summary?
99% of the people on slashdot seem to be completely ignorant of how patents actually work, yet aren't afraid to criticize them based on their lack of understanding. You're one of them, most likley.
Patents have to be taken as a whole, for all the claims.. not just one or two of them. Yes, nearly all patents are based on other patented or non-patented ideas, it's the combination of claims that make it unique.
Well, as I wrote in another post, it turns out it wasn't a GPL violation at all. They simply mis-marked their export symbols as GPL only, which was a bit of a connundrum because the driver itself wasn't GPL.
Instead of recompiling the driver with the correct export markings, they decided to GPL the code, which they didn't have to do.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about sports betting. If the games are rigged (and there have been cases where they have been), then it's a HUGE deal, and completely unrelated to internet sports betting.
With sports betting you know the odds before you make the bet. There's no way the house can "cheat" because it's based solely on who handicaps the game better (or in many cases, blind luck.. like a major crash in NASCAR takes out the top 10 drivers.. even the worst driver can win). The real risk in online sportsbooks is that the book disappears and takes your money with them.
Online casinos are a different story, and those can't be trusted at all. Online poker is a little more trustworthy, but there are also cheating scenarios there too, and the house has an advantage to see more "drama hands" because they generate bigger pots and larger rakes.
But it's not cheaper. It's about the same price. If you pay $245 for a processor and $100 for motherboard it's the same as paying $199 for the processor and $150 for the motherboard.
The average person who won't notice a speed difference isn't going to be buying $250 processors anyways, they'll be buying $50 processors and $85 motherboards.
Really? Explain this then.
http://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/news.php?NewsID=3651
Yours is the first interpretation of that i've read over the years with this particular meaning. That tells me that it's not "distinctly implied".
Code does not "touch the programmer". That's a patently ridiculous claim, and I see no evidence that this is what he meant.
It's clear to me that he meant what everyone else who uses the term "viral" means (The term was created by BSD advocates to describe the GPL, by the way). That when GPL code touches non-GPL code, the only way to distribute said combination is to "infect" the non-GPL code and make that GPL as well.
The BSD camp invented this term because they were rightfully upset that code they wrote and released under the BSD license was being coopoted by GPL developers and turned into GPL only code, preventing them from making use of any changes the GPL developers created.
While the BSD license allows this, and in most cases, a BSD developer doesn't care.. The case of GPL annoys them because GPL advocates claim the GPL is "more free" than BSD, yet at the same time locking the code away in such a way that the BSD developers can't make use of it. They consider it hypocricy.
Basically it goes like this:
BSD Developer: "Our code is Free. You can do whatever you want with it"
GPL Developer: "Thanks, but our code is even more Free."
BSD Developer: "Then why can't I use the changes you made to my code in my program?"
GPL Developer: "Because our code is "Free-er-er" than yours"
BSD Developer: Fuck you!
Megahertz mean nothing. The i7 920 is almost 2x faster than the 965 at various benchmarks.
The motherboard is a little more expensive, but DDR3 isn't.. you can get 6GB matched sets for $99. And Intel is coming out with consumer i7 chipsets very soon which will bring down the motherboard price significantly.
$199 is pretty much Microcenters everyday price.. they treat it like a sale, but it's been that way for well over a month and shows no sign of changing.
Actually, the Core i7 920 is the sweet spot.. $199 and it blows everything out of the water. X58 Motherboards are more expensive but that is going to change very soon as Intel releases new consumer level i7 chipsets.
I really don't understand why anyone would buy the Phenom.. At $245 it's $46 more expensive than the Core i7 920 and performs significantly worse. The 965 isn't listed there, but 955 is, and it's passmark rating is 3,571 while the i7 920 is rated at 5,440. And that's not even considering the fact that you are using triple channel memory access versus dual channel, etc..
Granted, you can get AM3 motherboards cheaper than X58 boards, but Intel is coming out with more consumer i7 chipsets very soon.
He didn't say that.
He said:
"Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches"
That's not "everything you write".
The Mozilla Public License is just such a license (or it used to be, haven't looked at it recently)
A solution might have been to lobby strenuously for the abolition of software techniques or for the reform of how they are granted in the U.S.
Ok, so you put all your eggs in that basket. And it fails. Then what? You're completely vulnerable to all the patents out there because you've not been building up your own arsenal.
That worked out pretty well for Tibet, didn't it?
TomTom has been shaking down other map and GPS customers for quite some time. They sued Toyota a few years back, for instance, and have had several lawsuits with Garmin and others.
By TomTom's own admission, they had been "engaged in talks with Microsoft for more than year" over patents, and the fact that TomTom was able to file their own patent suit within a couple weeks shows that TomTom clearly head the suit ready to fire.
"usually". Not always. My point is simply that the original author claimed it was "free from abuse by those who want to take and not give anything back". That's simply not true.
Software is worth whatever someone will pay for it. There is no fraud involved in charging whatever someone will pay.
And the GPL puts no limit on what you may charge. The section you quote above is in regard to the fee for transfering a copy of the source code (upon written request). It is not a requirement for how much you can sell the binary for (with the source).
Many businesses pay in excess of $1,000,000 for custom software.
I'm not referring ot simply filing off the serial numbers. I'm talking about investing many 1000's of man hours of development work into something that could be considered a derivitive work of a GPL'd application.
They might. Or, they might consider the code to be critical to their business and not want their competitors to have it.
The point is, the GPL does not guarantee what many people seem to think it guarantees, particularly in the "must give changes back" situation.
Prior to MS releasing the code under the GPL, they had not submitted the drivers to the kernel. It was only after they GPL'd it that they did this. I'm not really sure what your point is.
The claim is that MS used GPL'd code in their drivers and were forced to GPL it because they were "caught", but that's simply not true.
Also, I'm a bit confused.. where exactly did MS claim that GPLing some drivers would force them to GPL every bit of code they ever wrote?
If they did not, in fact, say that... one might want to be more careful about who one calls a liar.
The GPL does not guarantee that someone has to give you anything back. In fact, there is no reciprocation requirement at all.
I can, for example, take your GPL'd work, make some changes, then sell it to my customer. I am required, by the rules of the GPL, to give my customer the source, and they are allowed to do whatever they want, including give it to others, but if they paid $1,000,000 for it, chances are they're not going to do that. You have no right to demand the changes I made, or even a copy of the program from me.
This is a common myth around the GPL, that it enforces a reciprocation agreement. It doesn't. In fact, licenses that have such agreements are not compatible with the GPL.
For a 'far worse' standard it seems to me that it got a lot more right than ODF did.
It's impossible for anyone to create an interoperable ODF document strictly by the standard as it is today (and has been for 5 years). The only way to make compatible documents is to reverse engineer the code of OOo or some other interoperable implementation.
How is that "far better"?
You might want to check your facts, and not repeat hearsay.
Microsoft did not use GPL'd code in their Linux drivers, however they did use kernel interfaces marked as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. There is much controversy in the kernel community on whether or not kernel modules are considered "derivitive works", especially since the Linux kernel itself disclaims this. The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is a way for kernel module developers to say "I would like for only GPL'd code to use me", but so far there is no legal consensus on whether or not this is required or not.
They weren't required to GPL their code, they did because it was the right thing to do. They could have left it the way it was, and someone could have tried to sue.. but it's unclear whether or not they would have a case.
Actually, it wasn't until the W3C abandonded XHTML 2 that HTML5 became clear that it would be the successor. I think Microsoft was banking on the W3C (which they are a member of), and ignored WHATWG because there was no clear indication that it would ever be a real standard.
Can you point to a single patent application with mutually exclusive claims? I've never seen one.
No, each claim does not stand on it's own, because in most cases those claims are built upon prior patents owned by others. They're merely one step in the chain of claims that lead to a patent. All the claims have to be true to be patentable.
If your reasoning were correct, no patent would be valid because most are written like this:
Claim 1: A foo bar.
Claim 2: A foo bar (as in claim 1) with foozle skins.
Claim 3: A foo bar with foozle skins (as in claims 1 and 2) with green thingamajobs.
Now, if each item stands on it's own, that would be 3 patents, and if claim 1 were invalid, claims 2 and 3 would be invalid because they're based on them.
I fail to understand what your point is. Yes, patent claims are written general to specific, but you have to take ALL the claims into account, not just the general ones (which will obviously fall under the "duh, that's prior art" category).
Patents are like an onion, and you can only patent the entire onion, not just the inner bits.
Maybe because you didn't bother to actually read the patent and are going on the inaccurate summary?
99% of the people on slashdot seem to be completely ignorant of how patents actually work, yet aren't afraid to criticize them based on their lack of understanding. You're one of them, most likley.
Patents have to be taken as a whole, for all the claims.. not just one or two of them. Yes, nearly all patents are based on other patented or non-patented ideas, it's the combination of claims that make it unique.
Well, as I wrote in another post, it turns out it wasn't a GPL violation at all. They simply mis-marked their export symbols as GPL only, which was a bit of a connundrum because the driver itself wasn't GPL.
Instead of recompiling the driver with the correct export markings, they decided to GPL the code, which they didn't have to do.