"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837
This situation is exactly the kind of thing that Andrew Jackson was speaking of, give the government enough time and it will keep working to take away our liberties.
Unfortunatly, I am getting tired of having the same things come up over and over and over...
This may be local to SE Michigan, but I have been using "My Photographer" for family photos. They charge a reasonable price for the sitting, an OK price for the enlargements/prints, and for a couple of bucks, will give you a CD with your "originals" on it. (before they went digital, they would sell you the negatives.)
In my case, not currently being a Radiohead fan, I might download the album to see if I enjoy it. If so, I can go back (or go out) and pay for it.
On the other-hand, if I find I don't really like it, I can delete the file, they haven't lost anything, as I wouldn't have bought the album anyway. (Radiohead just isn't on my radar. If I have heard their music, I am not aware of it by name, and therefore wouldn't be buying any of it.)
Interesting articles (particularly the item that it takes 15 minutes after finishing the call before the effect on driving reduces) but there are more recent studies that show that talking with ANYONE, even a passenger in the car, is just as bad as using a handsfree cell phone.
So while it is obvious that having a handsfree device is better than occupying your hand with the cellphone (don't get me started about people who smoke while driving), unless you completly separate the driver from the passengers you haven't solved the problem. Even then, I often talk with my wife (in person or on the handsfree cellphone) to help keep myself awake on cross country drives, so I am not sure that would be an improvement.
I have a gen3 iPod. Remember, the one with no "buttons", only the touch sensitive areas on its face. Note that Apple moved away from this design fairly quickly to go to the click wheel. While I am sure that part of the change was to gain real estate by combining the rev/menu/play/ff controls into the volume "wheel", it also improves the usability.
One of my pet peeves with my Gen3 iPod is that it is hard to hold on to. Unless you constantly move the hold switch to turn the sensors on and off, you can't wrap your hand around it without accidently pressing things. (In my case, usually the ff which is close to the right edge.) While accidently shifting the volume due to touch isn't that big of a problem (you have to slide your touch for it to change anyway), what is annoying is when you keep changing the song because you happened to brush the ff sensor area. Because the click wheel (or other buttons) require you to actually apply some amount of pressure to activate the switch, this becomes less of a problem; one can hold the device without inadvertant presses, as long as you don't squeeze it.
I don't remember how the iPhone gets around this, as I have only played with it for 10 minutes at the AT&T store, but I suppose that gaining the ability to have everything in one device would outweigh this problem, as much of the time the device would be in a different mode anyway.
The big problem I see with this will be if lack of demand means that it will become more difficult to "build your own" to get a box with the specs you really want.
But even in my own experience, I find myself looking more at the ads for the latest laptop, rather than reading the specs on the motherboards.
I do have fond memories of browsing computer shopper (back when it was large format and over 1 inch thick).
If someone updates their license and you don't like/can't comply with it then don't distribute it - stick with the older version of the software.
But that's the rub, what about when you can't stay with the older version. For example, when a security bug is found. Either you change to the new licence with the fix, or you have to debug it yourself (and thereby fork the code).
Any bets on what any future version of GCC and the rest of the GNU toolchain will be licenced under?
I am sure that this will all shake out in the end. The question is only how much damage will be done in the process? Hopefully, very little, but one never knows.
Ahh, I hadn't read it that way. (the choice being between the two article authors.) I read it as being between Stallman "the zealot", and the Forbes author.
But I guess that betrays my (mixed) attitude toward Stallman. While I think that the Forbes article was a bit hard on Stallman's history, I fear it may be spot-on regarding the direction that he is going currently, with GPL3.
I just wish that something like the relation between GPL2 and LGPL could have been done for GPL3; allowing them to more peacfully coexist. That the GPL3 doesn't appear to be compatible with GPL2 bothers me. The confusion and wasted effort that would be caused by forking to a GPL3 (FSF) vs GPL2 (somebody else) version of all the GNU tools would be a d*mn shame. If fears about being able to offer a proprietary product that can run alongside (not include) GPLed code cause free operating systems to remain second class citizens, it will be a trajedy.
Is the Forbes article FUD? Yes. Are the points being made still valid? Perhaps.
I agree that software patents have the opportunity to kill free software. We just have to be careful that we don't do the job ourselves first.
So basically you get to choose between the linux zealot, and a writer who is obviously fairly hostile towards Stallman's ideas.
Which is an interesting typo, considering that Stallman has nothing to do with Linux, and that the article is about GPLv3, which Linus has said Linux will have nothing to do with.
I think the grandparent poster was saying that, even if one doesn't get "specs", open SOURCE drivers (vs. redistributable binaries) can still provide something to work from. Granted, having complete documentation would be even better, but if the choice is to have
most drivers unavailable or binary only, and only a few open and documented,
versus having source for everything (but lacking documentation for many items),
I hate to tell you but this is also the case if you find gold or oil on your property in the US. (although it may not be the govt who owns it) You would have to check your specific titling/deed for the property, but most of them specifically exclude "mineral rights".
I am sure that the prevalance this sort of thing varies from one locality to another, but the concept is the same wherever. The mineral rights do not necessarily go with the ownership of the surface of the land.
make those who benefit the most in our society bear the burden for taking care of the least among us
I admit to not remembering the exact percentages, but as I recall something like 90% of federal tax dollars are collected from the top 5% of the country.
Personally, I would love to be in that group of taxpayers supporting the rest of you (as long as it means that I have that level of income to go with it).
An "emergency path" that required less votes to close down debate, but could only produce laws valid for the remainder of that legislative body's term
Nice idea, but I forsee one problem, the next congress would probably just pass, as the first order of business, an "emergency laws extension act", which would extend all previously enacted emergency laws.
Think of this another way, if I started a non profit and started having a COMDEX trade show, or a USENIX show, I probably should be sued.
In this case the two shows may or may-not have been independantly created, but CMP still is required by trademark law to take action against others using their trademark (is the same field), or they lose the right to that mark. And a cease and desist doesn't really hurt anyone, except for whatever promotional materials etc. have to be redone.
Perhaps they were showing some of the "adult" anime, making the pump useful for... uh... I suppose it would depend on whether the viewer was male or female....
My guess is that in this case the client would have infringed the EULA by hiring the company to do something that the client "agreed" not to do. The deep pockets principle (as well as visibility) still gets the company sued, until they are able to deflect it to the "client".
While I will admit that there is a time and a place for style markup in e-mail, (I generally don't like it. Give me plain text e-mail, please!) I abhore externally linked e-mail content and disable it whenever I can.
Such external links are what make mail-bugs possible and promote receiving additional spam. (look joe, we got a live one!)
Slashdot Mirror
New Mexico spaceport, You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.
This situation is exactly the kind of thing that Andrew Jackson was speaking of, give the government enough time and it will keep working to take away our liberties.
Unfortunatly, I am getting tired of having the same things come up over and over and over...
This article at the San Francisco Chronicle doesn't tell me exactly what is going on, but apparently there is the potential for 7 of 10 search results to return malware.
My mother heard about this on the TV news, but the above was all I could find. Anyone else have any more detail?
This may be local to SE Michigan, but I have been using "My Photographer" for family photos. They charge a reasonable price for the sitting, an OK price for the enlargements/prints, and for a couple of bucks, will give you a CD with your "originals" on it. (before they went digital, they would sell you the negatives.)
In my case, not currently being a Radiohead fan, I might download the album to see if I enjoy it. If so, I can go back (or go out) and pay for it.
On the other-hand, if I find I don't really like it, I can delete the file, they haven't lost anything, as I wouldn't have bought the album anyway. (Radiohead just isn't on my radar. If I have heard their music, I am not aware of it by name, and therefore wouldn't be buying any of it.)
Hmmm ... "BitTornado"..... I envision something that makes a giant sucking sound, while scrambling all your bits.
(Actually, I like it!)
Interesting articles (particularly the item that it takes 15 minutes after finishing the call before the effect on driving reduces) but there are more recent studies that show that talking with ANYONE, even a passenger in the car, is just as bad as using a handsfree cell phone.
So while it is obvious that having a handsfree device is better than occupying your hand with the cellphone (don't get me started about people who smoke while driving), unless you completly separate the driver from the passengers you haven't solved the problem. Even then, I often talk with my wife (in person or on the handsfree cellphone) to help keep myself awake on cross country drives, so I am not sure that would be an improvement.
One of my pet peeves with my Gen3 iPod is that it is hard to hold on to. Unless you constantly move the hold switch to turn the sensors on and off, you can't wrap your hand around it without accidently pressing things. (In my case, usually the ff which is close to the right edge.) While accidently shifting the volume due to touch isn't that big of a problem (you have to slide your touch for it to change anyway), what is annoying is when you keep changing the song because you happened to brush the ff sensor area. Because the click wheel (or other buttons) require you to actually apply some amount of pressure to activate the switch, this becomes less of a problem; one can hold the device without inadvertant presses, as long as you don't squeeze it.
I don't remember how the iPhone gets around this, as I have only played with it for 10 minutes at the AT&T store, but I suppose that gaining the ability to have everything in one device would outweigh this problem, as much of the time the device would be in a different mode anyway.
The big problem I see with this will be if lack of demand means that it will become more difficult to "build your own" to get a box with the specs you really want.
But even in my own experience, I find myself looking more at the ads for the latest laptop, rather than reading the specs on the motherboards.
I do have fond memories of browsing computer shopper (back when it was large format and over 1 inch thick).
Could a shareholder (or several) demand that MS take action, and thus expose the Patents claimed?
As I recall, with Back Orifice, this could be done on MS windows years ago. ;-)
But that's the rub, what about when you can't stay with the older version. For example, when a security bug is found. Either you change to the new licence with the fix, or you have to debug it yourself (and thereby fork the code).
Any bets on what any future version of GCC and the rest of the GNU toolchain will be licenced under?
I am sure that this will all shake out in the end. The question is only how much damage will be done in the process? Hopefully, very little, but one never knows.
Ahh, I hadn't read it that way. (the choice being between the two article authors.) I read it as being between Stallman "the zealot", and the Forbes author.
But I guess that betrays my (mixed) attitude toward Stallman. While I think that the Forbes article was a bit hard on Stallman's history, I fear it may be spot-on regarding the direction that he is going currently, with GPL3.
I just wish that something like the relation between GPL2 and LGPL could have been done for GPL3; allowing them to more peacfully coexist. That the GPL3 doesn't appear to be compatible with GPL2 bothers me. The confusion and wasted effort that would be caused by forking to a GPL3 (FSF) vs GPL2 (somebody else) version of all the GNU tools would be a d*mn shame. If fears about being able to offer a proprietary product that can run alongside (not include) GPLed code cause free operating systems to remain second class citizens, it will be a trajedy.
Is the Forbes article FUD? Yes.
Are the points being made still valid? Perhaps.
I agree that software patents have the opportunity to kill free software. We just have to be careful that we don't do the job ourselves first.
Not that I've seen a personal firewall that was that fine grained. (If you have, reply and let me know. Thanks)
Hmm... I just noticed that I am posting in HTML... ... ... At least I limit it to turning on italics.
- most drivers unavailable or binary only, and only a few open and documented,
- versus having source for everything (but lacking documentation for many items),
the second option would be better.Actually I think he meant "by the Coronas." In other words, They are stealing Apple's beer.
But seriously, on the flip side, I would think that not being able to execute those VBA viral/trojan/etc. macros would be a good thing.
Hey, some people enjoy that sort of thing (being interrogated, tortured, etc.). Please try to keep an open mind. ;-)
I hate to tell you but this is also the case if you find gold or oil on your property in the US. (although it may not be the govt who owns it) You would have to check your specific titling/deed for the property, but most of them specifically exclude "mineral rights".
I am sure that the prevalance this sort of thing varies from one locality to another, but the concept is the same wherever. The mineral rights do not necessarily go with the ownership of the surface of the land.
I admit to not remembering the exact percentages, but as I recall something like 90% of federal tax dollars are collected from the top 5% of the country.
Personally, I would love to be in that group of taxpayers supporting the rest of you (as long as it means that I have that level of income to go with it).
Nice idea, but I forsee one problem, the next congress would probably just pass, as the first order of business, an "emergency laws extension act", which would extend all previously enacted emergency laws.
Think of this another way, if I started a non profit and started having a COMDEX trade show, or a USENIX show, I probably should be sued.
In this case the two shows may or may-not have been independantly created, but CMP still is required by trademark law to take action against others using their trademark (is the same field), or they lose the right to that mark. And a cease and desist doesn't really hurt anyone, except for whatever promotional materials etc. have to be redone.
Perhaps they were showing some of the "adult" anime, making the pump useful for... uh... I suppose it would depend on whether the viewer was male or female....
My guess is that in this case the client would have infringed the EULA by hiring the company to do something that the client "agreed" not to do. The deep pockets principle (as well as visibility) still gets the company sued, until they are able to deflect it to the "client".
Standard Disclaimer applies: IANaL
While I will admit that there is a time and a place for style markup in e-mail, (I generally don't like it. Give me plain text e-mail, please!) I abhore externally linked e-mail content and disable it whenever I can.
Such external links are what make mail-bugs possible and promote receiving additional spam. (look joe, we got a live one!)
Grrrrr.....