It contains a no-source.o file 3 megabytes in size with an obfuscated symbol table, and a bunch of.c files to link that file to the kernel and require kernel headers to compile.
That's interesting. In my view, I'm not really sure what to make of that. It clearly violates the spirit and intention of the GPL and as such, if it's it NOT against copyright law, it should be. People should remember if they don't want to GPL their code, don't distribute other peoples GPL code. That simple. Nothing forced them to distribute binaries with kernel headers.
How many times do you download an installer and the security dialog drops down asking you to enter your username and password to complete the install so that it can write to the/Applications directory?
Personally, never. I don't run installers on OS X, unless I know for a FACT that it's something I need to do (bought software, from the store). If I download it and it doesn't unstuff into an Application, I delete it and move on to another piece of software. Of course though, I have the benifit of knowing installers are 100% unecissary in OS X, most people don't. Apple should be more clear on that.
"If I were the expert witness in such a case, my finding would be that distribution of instructions that are intended to commit an act remotely is tantamount to commission of the act non-remotely. I think my side would win."
I think that would be a total warping of copyright and a bit extremist. It would be no different than publishing a book that violated none of wizards copyrights or trademarks on D&D that specificied a new class creation. Clearly one would need to understand D&D rules and have access to copyrighted texts outside of the publishers domain to make use of it. In fact, it would be a requirement. But, I'm one of those people who think there is nothing special about the internet or software when it comes to applying standard law.
But, I actually wasn't asking that. I was more asking if Nvidia merely linked to objects they didn't distribute or if they used header includes and compiled them in, then distributed that.
Wow, I thought my was obvious in it's sincerity and I still get talked down to. A simple yes or a no would have sufficed. I know what an include is, I know how it gets compiled into someone elses code.
To address this issue, because you still being unclear. Let's say you don't distribute "stealcode.o" at all. In fact, the only thing you distribute is you own self written binary with all includes in the source written by yourself or you have a proper distributation license for them. You merely mention, if a person wants to use your software, they need to download init.c, change it's name to stealcode.c and compile it, then clearly you have never violated their copyright, since you have never distributed their code. Is this the case here, or did the source have "include stealcode.h" in it?
""The security certificate was issued by a company that is not trusted."
While that read likes perfect valid english to me, knowing things that are irrelevant to my daily life and all, most people would NEVER understand that statement.
A clearer statement like "It is probable that a VIRUS is trying to install on your computer, do you want to STOP this VIRUS from installing" with a "yes" and "no" for the check box with "yes" the default.
"compiled driver includes code written and copyrighted by other people."
Perhaps I am mistaken, but it appears you have contradicted yourself. You wrote:
"even though nVidia wrote the whole thing. It incorporates a significant amount of copyrighted information on kernel internals that it must connect to."
Though this is completly unclear, if nVida wrote the whole thing, they didn't include someone elses source code. Are you saying, by this, that nVidia had a whole bunch of kernel includes in their driver, which made the binary include copyrighted code?
"It's important to identify that this is not a Sun JRE thing, but a user error thing!"
Don't blame the user, when it is clearly a bad software issue. This stuff doesn't happen on my Mac.
Bad software includes a poorly designed interface that obscure and hard to understand yes or no questions and has "Ok" and "Cancel" to choose from, while at the same time, making the most secure option the default.
If such a category of software exists, the GPL needs to be completely rewritten. If you own the full copyright to a piece of software, as in you wrote every single line of code, you should be able to distribute it anyway you want.
"It doesn't access them through the normal system call interface"
Unless it specifically relies on "include kernel.c" to compile, resulting in a binary they don't have the fully copyright for, I don't see this as relevent.
Now sysadmins can listen to chill-out music while repairing mission-critical workstations!
Actually, they can't, the submitter is wrong. When the iPod is mounted as a harddrive, it stops working and puts up a message asking you not to disconnect it from the computer. At least mine does.
In all honesty, I really don't understand all of this bickering about the new movies. Have you seen Return of the Jedi, Ewoks, annoying little sh*ts, with their stupid little feel good dancing. How about the predicable way everyone gets out of a bad situation in the old movies, time and time again. If people re-watched the originals with the same critical eye they had for the new ones, they would hate them too.
They are just movies, a lot of fun to watch, fun plot, and cult classics in their own right, but please don't put them on a pedestal.
Having seen and enjoyed all of the Star Wars movies, I'm surprised by this. The nature of the epic does require a betral by Anakin and a hunting down of the Jedis, I assume it's this part that makes it a higher rating. Perhaps Lucas decided to show a little more than the misty red that Darth Maul got when he was chopped in half as Anakin begins his move to the Dark Side. I really don't seen it being necissary for the story line.
You make a lot of statements here as a reply to half a sentence statement.
" smug little luddite like yourself posts: why isn't a phone just a phone and a word processor just a typewriter?...Who are you to tell me I shouldn't have that? Who are you to say a very successful company hasn't done their market research?"
The grandparent post didn't say, imply or suggest anything like you read into his statement. It seems you have taken the idea that someone somewhere doesn't need a hard-drive in their phone as a ad hem attack against you.
1. Copyright isn't property 2. RIAA or any other similiar entity doesn't have any copyrights to the music they are sueing on the behalf of
That being said, if you are "sharing" you files and the person who holds the copyright to that media doesn't like it, don't be surprised when you end up in court. They have the right to distribute it, not you.
It has been suggested one of the main reasons crime fell starting in the early nineties has nothing to do with sociological or governmental change.
You remember a little known rule in 1973 called Roe Vs Wade. It's the one that declared that out lawing abortion violated the constitution. People conceived after that ruling would have been born in late 73 early 74, making them around 18 yrs. old in late 91 early 92.
There are those who disagree with the results and they are by no means conclusive, I merely raise it to show that problems are NEVER one dimensional. Holistic views are difficult to obtain.
Just because the results of the study aren't mentally convient, doesn't mean they are true.
While, personally, I have played may a violent video games, I know the difference between reality and games, as do most adolescents, I do see a point in the argument.
Psychologically, it boils down to desensitization. Same thing happens with movies, TV, jokes, news, you name it. With video games, it becomes much more personal. It's not someone else doing the killing, it's you.
I can't remember the reference, though I do recall it being a comedian, it can help shed light on it. The example given about violence and movies talked about all the kids leaving a kung fu movie kicking and punching at each other. It is worth noting that pretty much none, if any at all, went on to break someone's neck because of any movie they saw. One movie (or pick your random media) at a time, people have become emotionally less sensitive to seeing people die or hurt.
Why do Europeans allow a non-elected commission to determine economic policy? It makes no sense to me that a state would agree to hand out such important matters that, in my mind anyhow, require representation to do. Personally, I don't give crap about software patents, I'm more amazed the EU is run like this.
Google already sells search appliances. Perhaps this is a market they want to tap into further. Operating systems are not just for playing video games on.
"Europe is not a federation like the US, where States really have not much power compared to the federal power"
This really depends on what your definition of power is. Europeans are often surprised when they come to the US to find out that on a very practical level, an individual state is very much like a country.
A federated Europe, with a united military, econimic system, and single diplomatic voice wouldn't that far off from what the US is and still leave each "country" free to have it's own laws.
"Bin Laden isn't after a theocracy. What do you mean by that? He doesn't want a government run like Iran. He'd be supportive of a legitimate government with Sharia law."
Sharia law is religous law, indistiguishable from a theocracy, even if it's based in a constitutional republic. It inherently excludes any moderist from being in the goverment, limiting the it to those who agree with Sharia law.
"You're correct that Bin Laden focused mainly on the US troops in Saudi Arabia, but he did mention the Israelis as part of the crusader/zionist enemy he spoke of. I think he mentioned the Palestinians"
For the most part, i think it would be fair to say he merely paid lip service to the palestinians. He's intereted in the holy sites, primarily. In palestine, Al Aqsa mosque specifically.
"The RIAA is not a monopoly. They do not produce anything (although their members do), and so can not be a monopoly. They are a cartel. Not that that's any better..."
Monopolistic collusion is still illegal, which is the basis of their tactics. No need for symantic games, they are a monolopy.
"Palestinian oppression was one of Bin Laden's main stated reasons he declared war on America"
While as a card carrying member of Amnesty International that symphatize with the palenstian plight, this is factually incorrect. Up till about 2000 or so (if iirc post 9/11), the Palestinian's weren't even in the picture. American troops on Saudi soil. This goes all the way back to Bin Laden asking the Saudis to let him remove Hussein from Kwait. Next thing you know, Americans are in the holy land. This is pretty well documented.
His goal are pure and simple, an united theocratic islamic state. Starting with the Saudis.
Let me tell you a secret. People have simple and short memories. Structured sound bites is the way things are remembered. If you pay close enough attention, you can see it at work all around you.
Boss: "Why should I go with Apple, Microsoft will pay me for my lost data?"
Peon: "Sir, they will give you $5"
Boss: "Shutup boy, that's so wrong as to be stupid."
Remember, the "absurd" is ignored, the "favorable" is repeated.
You are forgetting that once all of it has been burned and deposited as sut into the atmosphere, we will have nothing left to burn. You NEED to take the waste of the burning and turn it into something can be burned again. The only truely renewable energy source available is the sun.
It's a matter of volume, not that it happens. Given a population of 6+ billion, it wouldn't take long to strip the Earth by burning everything so that we can have internal combustion engines.
Slashdot Mirror
It contains a no-source .o file 3 megabytes in size with an obfuscated symbol table, and a bunch of .c files to link that file to the kernel and require kernel headers to compile.
That's interesting. In my view, I'm not really sure what to make of that. It clearly violates the spirit and intention of the GPL and as such, if it's it NOT against copyright law, it should be. People should remember if they don't want to GPL their code, don't distribute other peoples GPL code. That simple. Nothing forced them to distribute binaries with kernel headers.
How many times do you download an installer and the security dialog drops down asking you to enter your username and password to complete the install so that it can write to the /Applications directory?
Personally, never. I don't run installers on OS X, unless I know for a FACT that it's something I need to do (bought software, from the store). If I download it and it doesn't unstuff into an Application, I delete it and move on to another piece of software. Of course though, I have the benifit of knowing installers are 100% unecissary in OS X, most people don't. Apple should be more clear on that.
"If I were the expert witness in such a case, my finding would be that distribution of instructions that are intended to commit an act remotely is tantamount to commission of the act non-remotely. I think my side would win."
I think that would be a total warping of copyright and a bit extremist. It would be no different than publishing a book that violated none of wizards copyrights or trademarks on D&D that specificied a new class creation. Clearly one would need to understand D&D rules and have access to copyrighted texts outside of the publishers domain to make use of it. In fact, it would be a requirement. But, I'm one of those people who think there is nothing special about the internet or software when it comes to applying standard law.
But, I actually wasn't asking that. I was more asking if Nvidia merely linked to objects they didn't distribute or if they used header includes and compiled them in, then distributed that.
Wow, I thought my was obvious in it's sincerity and I still get talked down to. A simple yes or a no would have sufficed. I know what an include is, I know how it gets compiled into someone elses code.
To address this issue, because you still being unclear. Let's say you don't distribute "stealcode.o" at all. In fact, the only thing you distribute is you own self written binary with all includes in the source written by yourself or you have a proper distributation license for them. You merely mention, if a person wants to use your software, they need to download init.c, change it's name to stealcode.c and compile it, then clearly you have never violated their copyright, since you have never distributed their code. Is this the case here, or did the source have "include stealcode.h" in it?
""The security certificate was issued by a company that is not trusted."
While that read likes perfect valid english to me, knowing things that are irrelevant to my daily life and all, most people would NEVER understand that statement.
A clearer statement like "It is probable that a VIRUS is trying to install on your computer, do you want to STOP this VIRUS from installing" with a "yes" and "no" for the check box with "yes" the default.
"compiled driver includes code written and copyrighted by other people."
Perhaps I am mistaken, but it appears you have contradicted yourself. You wrote:
"even though nVidia wrote the whole thing. It incorporates a significant amount of copyrighted information on kernel internals that it must connect to."
Though this is completly unclear, if nVida wrote the whole thing, they didn't include someone elses source code. Are you saying, by this, that nVidia had a whole bunch of kernel includes in their driver, which made the binary include copyrighted code?
"It's important to identify that this is not a Sun JRE thing, but a user error thing!"
Don't blame the user, when it is clearly a bad software issue. This stuff doesn't happen on my Mac.
Bad software includes a poorly designed interface that obscure and hard to understand yes or no questions and has "Ok" and "Cancel" to choose from, while at the same time, making the most secure option the default.
"unauthorized derived work"
If such a category of software exists, the GPL needs to be completely rewritten. If you own the full copyright to a piece of software, as in you wrote every single line of code, you should be able to distribute it anyway you want.
"It doesn't access them through the normal system call interface"
Unless it specifically relies on "include kernel.c" to compile, resulting in a binary they don't have the fully copyright for, I don't see this as relevent.
Now sysadmins can listen to chill-out music while repairing mission-critical workstations!
Actually, they can't, the submitter is wrong. When the iPod is mounted as a harddrive, it stops working and puts up a message asking you not to disconnect it from the computer. At least mine does.
In all honesty, I really don't understand all of this bickering about the new movies. Have you seen Return of the Jedi, Ewoks, annoying little sh*ts, with their stupid little feel good dancing. How about the predicable way everyone gets out of a bad situation in the old movies, time and time again. If people re-watched the originals with the same critical eye they had for the new ones, they would hate them too.
They are just movies, a lot of fun to watch, fun plot, and cult classics in their own right, but please don't put them on a pedestal.
Having seen and enjoyed all of the Star Wars movies, I'm surprised by this. The nature of the epic does require a betral by Anakin and a hunting down of the Jedis, I assume it's this part that makes it a higher rating. Perhaps Lucas decided to show a little more than the misty red that Darth Maul got when he was chopped in half as Anakin begins his move to the Dark Side. I really don't seen it being necissary for the story line.
You make a lot of statements here as a reply to half a sentence statement.
...Who are you to tell me I shouldn't have that? Who are you to say a very successful company hasn't done their market research?"
" smug little luddite like yourself posts: why isn't a phone just a phone and a word processor just a typewriter?
The grandparent post didn't say, imply or suggest anything like you read into his statement. It seems you have taken the idea that someone somewhere doesn't need a hard-drive in their phone as a ad hem attack against you.
Fundamentally, I agree. To a point.
1. Copyright isn't property
2. RIAA or any other similiar entity doesn't have any copyrights to the music they are sueing on the behalf of
That being said, if you are "sharing" you files and the person who holds the copyright to that media doesn't like it, don't be surprised when you end up in court. They have the right to distribute it, not you.
It has been suggested one of the main reasons crime fell starting in the early nineties has nothing to do with sociological or governmental change.
You remember a little known rule in 1973 called Roe Vs Wade. It's the one that declared that out lawing abortion violated the constitution. People conceived after that ruling would have been born in late 73 early 74, making them around 18 yrs. old in late 91 early 92.
There are those who disagree with the results and they are by no means conclusive, I merely raise it to show that problems are NEVER one dimensional. Holistic views are difficult to obtain.
Your statement is a non-sequitur.
Just because the results of the study aren't mentally convient, doesn't mean they are true.
While, personally, I have played may a violent video games, I know the difference between reality and games, as do most adolescents, I do see a point in the argument.
Psychologically, it boils down to desensitization. Same thing happens with movies, TV, jokes, news, you name it. With video games, it becomes much more personal. It's not someone else doing the killing, it's you.
I can't remember the reference, though I do recall it being a comedian, it can help shed light on it. The example given about violence and movies talked about all the kids leaving a kung fu movie kicking and punching at each other. It is worth noting that pretty much none, if any at all, went on to break someone's neck because of any movie they saw. One movie (or pick your random media) at a time, people have become emotionally less sensitive to seeing people die or hurt.
Why do Europeans allow a non-elected commission to determine economic policy? It makes no sense to me that a state would agree to hand out such important matters that, in my mind anyhow, require representation to do. Personally, I don't give crap about software patents, I'm more amazed the EU is run like this.
Where would an operating system fit in there?
Google already sells search appliances. Perhaps this is a market they want to tap into further. Operating systems are not just for playing video games on.
"Europe is not a federation like the US, where States really have not much power compared to the federal power"
This really depends on what your definition of power is. Europeans are often surprised when they come to the US to find out that on a very practical level, an individual state is very much like a country.
A federated Europe, with a united military, econimic system, and single diplomatic voice wouldn't that far off from what the US is and still leave each "country" free to have it's own laws.
"Bin Laden isn't after a theocracy. What do you mean by that? He doesn't want a government run like Iran. He'd be supportive of a legitimate government with Sharia law."
Sharia law is religous law, indistiguishable from a theocracy, even if it's based in a constitutional republic. It inherently excludes any moderist from being in the goverment, limiting the it to those who agree with Sharia law.
"You're correct that Bin Laden focused mainly on the US troops in Saudi Arabia, but he did mention the Israelis as part of the crusader/zionist enemy he spoke of. I think he mentioned the Palestinians"
For the most part, i think it would be fair to say he merely paid lip service to the palestinians. He's intereted in the holy sites, primarily. In palestine, Al Aqsa mosque specifically.
"The RIAA is not a monopoly. They do not produce anything (although their members do), and so can not be a monopoly. They are a cartel. Not that that's any better..."
Monopolistic collusion is still illegal, which is the basis of their tactics. No need for symantic games, they are a monolopy.
"Palestinian oppression was one of Bin Laden's main stated reasons he declared war on America"
While as a card carrying member of Amnesty International that symphatize with the palenstian plight, this is factually incorrect. Up till about 2000 or so (if iirc post 9/11), the Palestinian's weren't even in the picture. American troops on Saudi soil. This goes all the way back to Bin Laden asking the Saudis to let him remove Hussein from Kwait. Next thing you know, Americans are in the holy land. This is pretty well documented.
His goal are pure and simple, an united theocratic islamic state. Starting with the Saudis.
Let me tell you a secret. People have simple and short memories. Structured sound bites is the way things are remembered. If you pay close enough attention, you can see it at work all around you.
Boss: "Why should I go with Apple, Microsoft will pay me for my lost data?"
Peon: "Sir, they will give you $5"
Boss: "Shutup boy, that's so wrong as to be stupid."
Remember, the "absurd" is ignored, the "favorable" is repeated.
There is one set of constituents who are quite obviously directly affected by the broadcast flag issue, hardware manufacturers.
Oh, and consumer rights aren't in the picture at all. I see. I feel so enlighted.
You are forgetting that once all of it has been burned and deposited as sut into the atmosphere, we will have nothing left to burn. You NEED to take the waste of the burning and turn it into something can be burned again. The only truely renewable energy source available is the sun.
It's a matter of volume, not that it happens. Given a population of 6+ billion, it wouldn't take long to strip the Earth by burning everything so that we can have internal combustion engines.