You must file off the trademarks because trademarks aren't covered by copyright licenses. File off those trademarks, and you get to do whatever you want with your media, you can even put it up for public download, again, see CentOS. The trademarked items you must remove are Red Hat's logo and and name, none of which is covered by that GPL clause you cite.
[Red Hat sells Red Hat Enterprise Linux]... under a restrictive license.
They empathically do no such thing. The source for RHEL is available from their website. You can compile and use it for your own purposes as you see fit, even redistribute it if you file off the Red Hat trademarks (vide CentOS).
Heck, even if you buy the software from Red Hat, you get to install as many copies as you like from the media.
What you apparently are confused with is that Red Hat will refuse to help you if you have problems if you have more copies installed than you bought a support contract for.
She apparently circulated an e-mail that was critical of ID -- although state regulations require her not to have any opinion 'on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.
This requirement of neutrality does not impede a factual opinion on the scientific basis of a theory to be taught in schools as part of the science curriculum. If it isn't scientific, any criticism that it isn't is an opinion on which an educational agency must not remain neutral.
This is the same pitfall as the press redefining objectivity as publishing outright nuttery and lies without criticism.
Here's another tip: the ampersand is also an HTML entity, so the spaces are redundant, just use the & entity. Like this: < is < > is >. View the source of this post for details.
Can you imagine *any* lawyer reading Slashdot for information?
I can: Ray Beckerman, aka NewYorkCountryLawyer.
And he has used Slashdot as an information source, e.g. his Ask Slashdot for leads into questions to pose a RIAA expert witness.
I don't think however that Ray takes everything here on first sight. I do imagine he does checking on the leads he gets here. Still, he is an active participant in copyright discussions.
So, does this mean that the girl who pinched me in the 2nd grade (and I have several witnesses) can be brought before the Hague Tribunal and charged with torture?
Don't be so fucking stupid. If she were to repeatedly cause you pain (e.g., pinch you), so as to compel a behavourial change in you, then yes, this is torture. If she were to do so as an agent of the State, then hell yes, it is torture.
And as for throwing away the rights of law-abiding citizens, that is the whole idea of limiting State use of force against people: you never know when you are going to be the one on the receiving end of the force being used. Remember: as long as your guilt is not proven in a court of law, you are to be assumed a law-abiding citizen. Now here's a little thought experiment: do cops get to taser you before or after you have been in court?
We still don't understand whether (or why) autism is on the rise,
Hypothesis: because more and more the outliers of human behaviour are being medicalised, turned into a syndrome. Active kids? ADHD, put 'em on Ritalin. Slightly excentric with communications difficulties? Call 'em Aspergers or borderline autistic.
This is merely a thought fed by media attention on these 'syndromes'. I may be wrong, I haven't done a study, but I think it is worth looking at how our view on what constitutes normal behaviour can be skewed.
As for the people so labeled, there are surely folks who do have actual problems that need a diagnosis of the above type. I strongly suspect though that these particular examples are massively overdiagnosed, and even if not, that most sufferers don't need medical attention, but a society that is more tolerant of behaviour differing from a very narrow norm. The medicalisation of their problems inhibits the latter solution though.
Whatsupposed strawman? I point out that someone with classical music training may well be able to hear the difference between lossless and lossy compression on a classical piece, and you bring up a comparison with audioph00l-targeted gold-plated cables. How in the world you imagine that that is not a strawman defies logic.
And your supporting argument is an unscientific study by Maximum PC? A study that did not even include classical music?
I take back the tin ear comment. It is obvious that there is another reason for your stupid comment: you're an idiot.
Are you kidding? Do you still believe that line that the abuses are the work of individuals and not officially sanctioned?
How does this stack up against e.g. General Abizaid threatening reprisals against the civilian population of Iraq for insurgent actions (as referenced in this Slashdot discussion)? Germans were sentenced to the gallows for that in Nuremberg. What has been done to General Abizaid?
The Lord Chamberlain's Men were formed by Shakespeare (among others, of course). Do you not think you'd need to have had some success before you can attract the attention of a patron? Or do you subscribe to the school of thought that Shakespeare's genius came fullborn into the world the minute he officially incorporated his company under the Lord Chamberlain's patronage? Note that there are contemporary allusions to Shakespeare from before the founding of that particular company.
You're stretching. Shakespeare is at least an example that can create some doubt about your categorical statement, if he isn't a refutal outright.
And you make yet another generalisation. Plenty of actors got by just fine without patronage in Elizabethan England. The theatre was about the most popular form of mass entertainment, and one could live very well on the takings alone. In fact, that's what the Lord Chamberlain's men did. The takings from the Globe was what they lived on, not the courtly performances. And the royal patronage did nothing to stop 'pirate' editions of their work. Funny, this is exactly in line with what is alleged: that Shakespeare was succesful without needing copyright. Your patronage argument is a red herring, in fact.
What you do not see before copyright is the professional artist of lower or middle class origins who is willing and able to challege the establishment, the man who can make a decent living in a craft he loves. The man who can build an estate for his family solely on his creative endeavours.
Like the son of an illiterate craftsman who becomes one of the country's most popular artists, earning the modern equivalent of millions?
Yes, I do mean Shakespeare. You seem to forget that he was of humble lower-middle class origins, a country bumpkin from Warwickshire, and became popular as an actor and playwright long before he got royal patronage.
(e.g. you don't want 128kbps for classical, probably 192 and up). There are of course people who'll insist they can tell the difference etc.
Hell no. If you have had any amount of classical music training, lossy compression is immediately recognisable. And over a decent set of earplugs, I can tell the difference just fine. Hence why my classical is all encoded in FLAC.
As a long-time cat owner, coming from a family of farmers on my grandfather's side, I can state with surety that cats are lousy ratters, precisely because rats don't have a fear reflex with regards to cats. A cornered mouse will become paralysed with fear, a cornered rat will fight. And cats being solitary predators, have evolved a very fine sense of self-preservation; they will usually not attack prey that shows signs of fighting, as any wound may become a debilitating liability (bite wounds tend to fester) with no pack to take care of you in the meantime.
Try this on a cat while playing with a piece of string: swing the string towards the cat, and the cat will shrink back. The cat attacks once string swings away.
The primary fighters against rats among the domesticated species are terrier dogs. There is a reason for this.
Yes, the iPhone turned out really well...compared to phones released two generations ago. The touch screen is nice, the design is Apple's usual high standard, but otherwise, compared to even Nokia's smartphone offerings, it sucks.
In the final reckoning, its judges that define hate speech. And they have tended to come down on the side of free expression. Outright Nazism has problems, but it's a bit hard to maintainn that an ideology that basically says 'gas all undesirables' is not inciting violence. Those that manage to cloak their Neo-Nazi sympathies a little better tend to get off though, even though judges may decide that calling them Neo-Nazis is not defamatory.
It still sounds a slight bit better than 'Free Speech Zones' to this European.
The problem is that Googling for any kind of terms throws up various right-wing blogs, instead of a working definition. Close as I can tell from the daily practice around me is that judges interpret actual criminal hate speech as outright incitement to acts of violence against population groups. Now, as incitement to violence is a crime in and of itself, hate speech laws are merely a way of more precisely defining what counts as incitement. I'd love to leave that definition to precedent, but unfortunately politicians looking for an easy way to score electoral points do not agree with me.
Regardless, the EU practice of passing anti-hate-speech laws is not so stifling of free expression as it appears in the first place. It is rather hard to advocate Nazism, and at the same time try to make the point that you're not calling for outright violence against Untermenschen, as genocide of undesirables is the very core of Nazism in the first place. So forgive me if I lack compassion for the brownshirt blogs, which are the ones making the most noise about this issue, together with some naive Americans who seem to think that Nazism is merely a less mainstream expression of neo-conservatism.
The one example in Dutch jurisprudence is Hans Janmaat, who purportedly got slapped with a fine for saying 'The Netherlands is full'. What his defenders tend to leave out is that he said this to great acclaim at a Neo-Nazi rally, and that was why he was fined. Theo van Gogh on the other hand, got off scott free after insulting a Jewish writer for whoring out his victim complex. These two examples may give you an idea of actual EU practice on hate speech, at least in one country. Germany is a little more paranoid, but given historical circumstances (actual Nazis in power, and the Allies pressing for anti-Nazi laws after the occupation) this is understandable.
While I do agree that Buffy Season 6 contains some of the best episodes (including "Once More..."), it suffers from lack of focus. While all preceding seasons had a logical arc leading up to a confrontation with the 'Big Bad', season 6 was hampered by the laughably inept Trio being set up as the Big Bad. Sorry, but they don't hold up a candle to The Master, Angelus and Adam.
There's also the character assassination of Jonathan. Come on, season 5 shows him as a quite powerful sorceror in his own right, only to reduce him to a doormat in Season 6.
Not to mention Joss' red-shirting of Tara. I understand he wanted to make Willow go off the deep end, but the way he chose was so arbitrary and against all conventions of drama, that he really destroys the suspension of disbelief. This is something of a weak spot of his apparently, witness what he did to Wash in Serenity.
Nope, season 6 ranks as a so-so season, together with season 4.
For me, as a user/sysadmin it wouldn't necessarily had to have been XML. From a programmer's standpoint however, parsing XML is a known issue, with known, well-debugged parsers already available, and XML can handle more intricate data structures than simple key-value pairs in a flat hierarchy. So developer-wise, I can understand the choices made.
As for human readable, yes, the gconf XML is nicely canonicalized, and the elements and their content are generally self-explanatory. There are a few things in there that look like that abomination that is Microsoft's Class UUIDs though.
Overall, gconf solves some issues that are hard in simple text, while bringing up some of its own. You win some, you lose some. But to state that it's a Registry copy merely because of the UI of the default editing tool is, sorry to say, bloody stupid.
Hmmm. All seperate directories and files. Not a single monolithic file.
Let's look at one of those files, shall we?
cat.gconf/apps/evolution/mail/%gconf.xml
Hmm, human-readable XML, not binary data.
The only thing GConf and the Registry have in common is that the default editor tool presents all settings in a hierarchical tree. So stop talking bollocks, OK?
Use XP for a year, then go back to win2k, and tell me honestly that you don't miss anything.
I used XP for two years, and installed w2k on our game machine slighly less than a year ago, and I miss two things:
Win2k can't handle certain characters in user profiles. This is a mess when you install SecuROM protected games, as its default directory contains characters that Win2k can't handle. Win2k errors on logging out, as it can't write back the profile to the file server. Maybe some Samba tweaks help, but XP handles this just fine.
Software that does an explicit version check (certain games).
Overall, I lack very little functionality. I could even install the games from point 2 if I hacked up the registry, as the libraries and drivers installed are otherwise compatible. Meanwhile, I do have a cleaner, leaner OS, with no activation bullshit as a bonus.
Slashdot Mirror
You must file off the trademarks because trademarks aren't covered by copyright licenses. File off those trademarks, and you get to do whatever you want with your media, you can even put it up for public download, again, see CentOS. The trademarked items you must remove are Red Hat's logo and and name, none of which is covered by that GPL clause you cite.
Now stop being a stupid twit in public.
MartThey empathically do no such thing. The source for RHEL is available from their website. You can compile and use it for your own purposes as you see fit, even redistribute it if you file off the Red Hat trademarks (vide CentOS).
Heck, even if you buy the software from Red Hat, you get to install as many copies as you like from the media.
What you apparently are confused with is that Red Hat will refuse to help you if you have problems if you have more copies installed than you bought a support contract for.
MartWrong emphasis.
This requirement of neutrality does not impede a factual opinion on the scientific basis of a theory to be taught in schools as part of the science curriculum. If it isn't scientific, any criticism that it isn't is an opinion on which an educational agency must not remain neutral.
This is the same pitfall as the press redefining objectivity as publishing outright nuttery and lies without criticism.
MartHere's another tip: the ampersand is also an HTML entity, so the spaces are redundant, just use the & entity. Like this: < is < > is >. View the source of this post for details.
I can: Ray Beckerman, aka NewYorkCountryLawyer.
And he has used Slashdot as an information source, e.g. his Ask Slashdot for leads into questions to pose a RIAA expert witness.
I don't think however that Ray takes everything here on first sight. I do imagine he does checking on the leads he gets here. Still, he is an active participant in copyright discussions.
MartQuote me where I advocated that, and then we may have a civilised discussion. If you're going to persist in strawmen, sod off back under your rock.
MartDon't be so fucking stupid. If she were to repeatedly cause you pain (e.g., pinch you), so as to compel a behavourial change in you, then yes, this is torture. If she were to do so as an agent of the State, then hell yes, it is torture.
And as for throwing away the rights of law-abiding citizens, that is the whole idea of limiting State use of force against people: you never know when you are going to be the one on the receiving end of the force being used. Remember: as long as your guilt is not proven in a court of law, you are to be assumed a law-abiding citizen. Now here's a little thought experiment: do cops get to taser you before or after you have been in court?
MartHypothesis: because more and more the outliers of human behaviour are being medicalised, turned into a syndrome. Active kids? ADHD, put 'em on Ritalin. Slightly excentric with communications difficulties? Call 'em Aspergers or borderline autistic.
This is merely a thought fed by media attention on these 'syndromes'. I may be wrong, I haven't done a study, but I think it is worth looking at how our view on what constitutes normal behaviour can be skewed.
As for the people so labeled, there are surely folks who do have actual problems that need a diagnosis of the above type. I strongly suspect though that these particular examples are massively overdiagnosed, and even if not, that most sufferers don't need medical attention, but a society that is more tolerant of behaviour differing from a very narrow norm. The medicalisation of their problems inhibits the latter solution though.
MartWhat supposed strawman? I point out that someone with classical music training may well be able to hear the difference between lossless and lossy compression on a classical piece, and you bring up a comparison with audioph00l-targeted gold-plated cables. How in the world you imagine that that is not a strawman defies logic.
And your supporting argument is an unscientific study by Maximum PC? A study that did not even include classical music?
I take back the tin ear comment. It is obvious that there is another reason for your stupid comment: you're an idiot.
MartAre you kidding? Do you still believe that line that the abuses are the work of individuals and not officially sanctioned?
How does this stack up against e.g. General Abizaid threatening reprisals against the civilian population of Iraq for insurgent actions (as referenced in this Slashdot discussion)? Germans were sentenced to the gallows for that in Nuremberg. What has been done to General Abizaid?
MartThe Lord Chamberlain's Men were formed by Shakespeare (among others, of course). Do you not think you'd need to have had some success before you can attract the attention of a patron? Or do you subscribe to the school of thought that Shakespeare's genius came fullborn into the world the minute he officially incorporated his company under the Lord Chamberlain's patronage? Note that there are contemporary allusions to Shakespeare from before the founding of that particular company.
You're stretching. Shakespeare is at least an example that can create some doubt about your categorical statement, if he isn't a refutal outright.
And you make yet another generalisation. Plenty of actors got by just fine without patronage in Elizabethan England. The theatre was about the most popular form of mass entertainment, and one could live very well on the takings alone. In fact, that's what the Lord Chamberlain's men did. The takings from the Globe was what they lived on, not the courtly performances. And the royal patronage did nothing to stop 'pirate' editions of their work. Funny, this is exactly in line with what is alleged: that Shakespeare was succesful without needing copyright. Your patronage argument is a red herring, in fact.
MartLike the son of an illiterate craftsman who becomes one of the country's most popular artists, earning the modern equivalent of millions?
Yes, I do mean Shakespeare. You seem to forget that he was of humble lower-middle class origins, a country bumpkin from Warwickshire, and became popular as an actor and playwright long before he got royal patronage.
MartAnd from the fact that you have to resort to a strawman I deduce that you have no argument, aside from having a tin ear.
MartHell no. If you have had any amount of classical music training, lossy compression is immediately recognisable. And over a decent set of earplugs, I can tell the difference just fine. Hence why my classical is all encoded in FLAC.
MartAs a long-time cat owner, coming from a family of farmers on my grandfather's side, I can state with surety that cats are lousy ratters, precisely because rats don't have a fear reflex with regards to cats. A cornered mouse will become paralysed with fear, a cornered rat will fight. And cats being solitary predators, have evolved a very fine sense of self-preservation; they will usually not attack prey that shows signs of fighting, as any wound may become a debilitating liability (bite wounds tend to fester) with no pack to take care of you in the meantime.
Try this on a cat while playing with a piece of string: swing the string towards the cat, and the cat will shrink back. The cat attacks once string swings away.
The primary fighters against rats among the domesticated species are terrier dogs. There is a reason for this.
MartYes, the iPhone turned out really well...compared to phones released two generations ago. The touch screen is nice, the design is Apple's usual high standard, but otherwise, compared to even Nokia's smartphone offerings, it sucks.
MartIn the final reckoning, its judges that define hate speech. And they have tended to come down on the side of free expression. Outright Nazism has problems, but it's a bit hard to maintainn that an ideology that basically says 'gas all undesirables' is not inciting violence. Those that manage to cloak their Neo-Nazi sympathies a little better tend to get off though, even though judges may decide that calling them Neo-Nazis is not defamatory.
It still sounds a slight bit better than 'Free Speech Zones' to this European.
MartThe problem is that Googling for any kind of terms throws up various right-wing blogs, instead of a working definition. Close as I can tell from the daily practice around me is that judges interpret actual criminal hate speech as outright incitement to acts of violence against population groups. Now, as incitement to violence is a crime in and of itself, hate speech laws are merely a way of more precisely defining what counts as incitement. I'd love to leave that definition to precedent, but unfortunately politicians looking for an easy way to score electoral points do not agree with me.
Regardless, the EU practice of passing anti-hate-speech laws is not so stifling of free expression as it appears in the first place. It is rather hard to advocate Nazism, and at the same time try to make the point that you're not calling for outright violence against Untermenschen, as genocide of undesirables is the very core of Nazism in the first place. So forgive me if I lack compassion for the brownshirt blogs, which are the ones making the most noise about this issue, together with some naive Americans who seem to think that Nazism is merely a less mainstream expression of neo-conservatism.
The one example in Dutch jurisprudence is Hans Janmaat, who purportedly got slapped with a fine for saying 'The Netherlands is full'. What his defenders tend to leave out is that he said this to great acclaim at a Neo-Nazi rally, and that was why he was fined. Theo van Gogh on the other hand, got off scott free after insulting a Jewish writer for whoring out his victim complex. These two examples may give you an idea of actual EU practice on hate speech, at least in one country. Germany is a little more paranoid, but given historical circumstances (actual Nazis in power, and the Allies pressing for anti-Nazi laws after the occupation) this is understandable.
MartWhile I do agree that Buffy Season 6 contains some of the best episodes (including "Once More..."), it suffers from lack of focus. While all preceding seasons had a logical arc leading up to a confrontation with the 'Big Bad', season 6 was hampered by the laughably inept Trio being set up as the Big Bad. Sorry, but they don't hold up a candle to The Master, Angelus and Adam.
There's also the character assassination of Jonathan. Come on, season 5 shows him as a quite powerful sorceror in his own right, only to reduce him to a doormat in Season 6.
Not to mention Joss' red-shirting of Tara. I understand he wanted to make Willow go off the deep end, but the way he chose was so arbitrary and against all conventions of drama, that he really destroys the suspension of disbelief. This is something of a weak spot of his apparently, witness what he did to Wash in Serenity.
Nope, season 6 ranks as a so-so season, together with season 4.
MartWhat you propose has already been implemented: the Common DOM API for Java applets.
MartFor me, as a user/sysadmin it wouldn't necessarily had to have been XML. From a programmer's standpoint however, parsing XML is a known issue, with known, well-debugged parsers already available, and XML can handle more intricate data structures than simple key-value pairs in a flat hierarchy. So developer-wise, I can understand the choices made.
As for human readable, yes, the gconf XML is nicely canonicalized, and the elements and their content are generally self-explanatory. There are a few things in there that look like that abomination that is Microsoft's Class UUIDs though.
Overall, gconf solves some issues that are hard in simple text, while bringing up some of its own. You win some, you lose some. But to state that it's a Registry copy merely because of the UI of the default editing tool is, sorry to say, bloody stupid.
MartPresentation != Design.
Come back when you have a clue, OK?
MartLet me see:
ls -R .gconf
Hmmm. All seperate directories and files. Not a single monolithic file.
Let's look at one of those files, shall we?
cat .gconf/apps/evolution/mail/%gconf.xml
Hmm, human-readable XML, not binary data.
The only thing GConf and the Registry have in common is that the default editor tool presents all settings in a hierarchical tree. So stop talking bollocks, OK?
MartOut of curiousity: for what reasons are the vast majority of abortions performed then? You seem to know, so can you shed some light on this?
MartI used XP for two years, and installed w2k on our game machine slighly less than a year ago, and I miss two things:
Overall, I lack very little functionality. I could even install the games from point 2 if I hacked up the registry, as the libraries and drivers installed are otherwise compatible. Meanwhile, I do have a cleaner, leaner OS, with no activation bullshit as a bonus.
Mart