This only applies to a single resolution. So on a zomg-hueg resolution what you see is a nutshell on top of a football, a postage stamp in the middle of an A4 sheet.
I remember back in the nineties when scalability across resolutions was a desirable goal of web design. I guess it didn't stick.
Your mistake is in assuming that the user is a passive consumer. This would seem to be just your conforming to the ideas pushed by the proprietary software industry, which has sought for the past four decades to make the users of their products as passive and helpless as possible.
Your other mistake is in assuming that because far less than one percent of users make noises about wanting to modify the source code of whatever, that 99% don't want to.
The interesting thing is, though: why would you want the FSF to not make noises about things like this? Would you perhaps like all users to be passive and helpless? Or is this an "open source"-like compromise proposal, where the FSF makes exceptions to their principles in exchange of vaguely defined and ultimately useless "credibility".
Well, I guess that's what one gets for distrusting the FSF.
Linus is apparently vulnerable to close friends whispering things in his ear. Take Larry McVoy for instance: far as I know, mr. Torvalds supported BitKeeper until McVoy terminated the free license; that is to say, Linus was perfectly fine with all the competition-restricting license details and the use of proprietary software to manage a Free Software project. And if you remember, back in 0.x and 1.x days, things like sound card drivers for Linux used to be proprietary, for-pay software!
I wouldn't be surprised if his original rejection of the "or later" licensing model had come from some other "friend" of his. Influence is a curious thing after all, especially in the case of a person whose principles and strength of character are lacking.
Of course you can combine LVM with XFS, JFS or ext3 and have the same damn features. You can have shrinking with reiserfs, and dynamic enlarging with any of these filesystems.
Jeez, I don't get why people fap so hard over ZFS. Is it the FreeBSD crowd with their infectious frothing at the mouth again? Or macfags with their BSD AIDS?
Well yes, that's the market idealist's view. Market idealism falls over and breaks in three on its first encounter with a fluffy ol' feather.
The real deal is that more often than not, non-competes are applied with a breadth that cannot be described as anything but abusive. In general an US-style non-competition agreement bars one from practicing his profession at any company other than the one that the person happens to be working at. Thus the employee is restricted from applying e.g. market forces to gain things such as higher pay: a switch of companies means a switch of careers unless the employer happens to go under for good and doesn't get bought out.
Of course the practice tends to spread. Any company that does not require a non-compete of all employees soon finds itself in a worse position in labour negotiations. Therefore there's no realistic chance to "just find a contract that doesn't involve a NCA": chances are that within a state that permits them every company abuses them in exactly the same manner.
And just so you know, this is one of the reasons why Europe laughs at the US. The right to profession is basically enshrined in every EU member country's contract law. Only extremely specific and time-limited forms of non-competition agreement are permitted, such as concerning a company's existing clients for up to six months after resignation (or immediately after termination).
This makes perfect sense. Imaging is imaging, whether it's done by eye and brush and paint, a camera, an eye and a mouse or a 3D imaging device. So the copyright mechanic is intuitively entirely the same regardless of the applied technology.
This could be a two-edged sword â" companies that produce goods may not be able to stop modelers from imaging those products, but modelers may not be able to prevent others from copying their work.
This sounds like a win-win situation to me! Damn, people, do you have to be all "it's mine, so I get to let it fall to ruin and forbid you from using it, just because I can" all the time?
Mandating that proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances.
Until proven, there is no massive copyright infringement in a case against an individual. Indeed, it would be rather curious to accuse an individual of "massive" copyright infringement; that would require tens of thousands of instances by a casual reading.
Heck, seeding that much over BitTorrent with a one megabit upstream would take years.
No wonder the MAFIAA would be more comfortable with being able to make accusations without having any proof.
I heard they can grow out of it though. Apparently this requires a companion of the same species and appropriate gender... so it's a coin toss really unless the birds are sexed from a blood sample or something. Screeching from absence of people sounds like a spoiled brat though.
It's weird in a way, because compared to budgies african greys seem very slow and calm, even docile. Yet the budgie doesn't throw a tantrum or act like a princess. (they do bite to get a reaction though.) Perhaps it's about ways of expressing oneself: even imitating budgies don't ask for anything via bird noises, preferring to shake things around to make noise instead.
There's many different approaches. Bruteforcing even a 128-bit AES key will still take more time than life on Earth has, even given Moore's observation on semiconductor density.
However, bruteforcing a passphrase usually takes considerably less time.
Bruteforcing an interrogation subject can be very quick indeed.
On the other hand, many people avoid informing themselves at all costs. Hallucinations offer a world that is more compatible with their gut reactions after all. As we can see from the grandparent, where the poster is all "I'm not sure what conveyance means and maybe it means something else than distribution so it's clearly bad and evil and wrong and communism and our precious bodily fluids!!!".
It's a shame really. I'd like to think these people were doing it on purpose, but it's really not that.
No. Licenses that restrict field-of-use (i.e. "no use in the arms industry", "no commercial use", "no use in baby mulching machines", "no use in companies where a CEO was named Bill") were considered and strongly rejected by the FSF. Such licenses are not considered Free software licenses as defined by the FSF.
As the Free Software Foundation is currently the most credible party offering a definition of what is and is not a Free Software license (and you can find the lists on the gnu.org website), it is very unlikely indeed that there would be any spate of licenses differentiated by restrictions on field-of-use.
(unless you subscribe to the BSD wanker version of "use", i.e. redistribution, which is basically one big fucking rhetorical crock of shit.)
Compelled? There is no such thing. You most definitely are free to not distribute any software licensed under any of the various GPL licenses published by the FSF.
To reiterate, there is no compulsion here. If the lunch is not free enough for you, you can simply walk off. You are not being oppressed.
Slashdot Mirror
Must've been cut by razor blades.
I came.
I saw.
And I had to clean it up. Damn your bones.
They do have alt attributes in their image tags, you know. That makes all the difference in the world for sight-restricted people.
This only applies to a single resolution. So on a zomg-hueg resolution what you see is a nutshell on top of a football, a postage stamp in the middle of an A4 sheet.
I remember back in the nineties when scalability across resolutions was a desirable goal of web design. I guess it didn't stick.
Your mistake is in assuming that the user is a passive consumer. This would seem to be just your conforming to the ideas pushed by the proprietary software industry, which has sought for the past four decades to make the users of their products as passive and helpless as possible.
Your other mistake is in assuming that because far less than one percent of users make noises about wanting to modify the source code of whatever, that 99% don't want to.
The interesting thing is, though: why would you want the FSF to not make noises about things like this? Would you perhaps like all users to be passive and helpless? Or is this an "open source"-like compromise proposal, where the FSF makes exceptions to their principles in exchange of vaguely defined and ultimately useless "credibility".
It's another case of "security research by press release, you can have the details in X months. in the mean time, I'll pump the PR wires".
Show us the code, or pipe the fuck down you attention whore.
Now what the hell is a "physical instruction"?
Muddled thinking detected.
You'd also want a Configureconfigure.
Just saying.
Well, I guess that's what one gets for distrusting the FSF.
Linus is apparently vulnerable to close friends whispering things in his ear. Take Larry McVoy for instance: far as I know, mr. Torvalds supported BitKeeper until McVoy terminated the free license; that is to say, Linus was perfectly fine with all the competition-restricting license details and the use of proprietary software to manage a Free Software project. And if you remember, back in 0.x and 1.x days, things like sound card drivers for Linux used to be proprietary, for-pay software!
I wouldn't be surprised if his original rejection of the "or later" licensing model had come from some other "friend" of his. Influence is a curious thing after all, especially in the case of a person whose principles and strength of character are lacking.
Of course you can combine LVM with XFS, JFS or ext3 and have the same damn features. You can have shrinking with reiserfs, and dynamic enlarging with any of these filesystems.
Jeez, I don't get why people fap so hard over ZFS. Is it the FreeBSD crowd with their infectious frothing at the mouth again? Or macfags with their BSD AIDS?
I'd do it myself but have already posted in this discussion.
Well yes, that's the market idealist's view. Market idealism falls over and breaks in three on its first encounter with a fluffy ol' feather.
The real deal is that more often than not, non-competes are applied with a breadth that cannot be described as anything but abusive. In general an US-style non-competition agreement bars one from practicing his profession at any company other than the one that the person happens to be working at. Thus the employee is restricted from applying e.g. market forces to gain things such as higher pay: a switch of companies means a switch of careers unless the employer happens to go under for good and doesn't get bought out.
Of course the practice tends to spread. Any company that does not require a non-compete of all employees soon finds itself in a worse position in labour negotiations. Therefore there's no realistic chance to "just find a contract that doesn't involve a NCA": chances are that within a state that permits them every company abuses them in exactly the same manner.
And just so you know, this is one of the reasons why Europe laughs at the US. The right to profession is basically enshrined in every EU member country's contract law. Only extremely specific and time-limited forms of non-competition agreement are permitted, such as concerning a company's existing clients for up to six months after resignation (or immediately after termination).
This makes perfect sense. Imaging is imaging, whether it's done by eye and brush and paint, a camera, an eye and a mouse or a 3D imaging device. So the copyright mechanic is intuitively entirely the same regardless of the applied technology.
This sounds like a win-win situation to me! Damn, people, do you have to be all "it's mine, so I get to let it fall to ruin and forbid you from using it, just because I can" all the time?
Well I guess sarcasm really is a dead art these days.
Wow, AC's friend says so. Just, wow.
This is a shock.
I'll start burning them niggers right away.
Until proven, there is no massive copyright infringement in a case against an individual. Indeed, it would be rather curious to accuse an individual of "massive" copyright infringement; that would require tens of thousands of instances by a casual reading.
Heck, seeding that much over BitTorrent with a one megabit upstream would take years.
No wonder the MAFIAA would be more comfortable with being able to make accusations without having any proof.
I heard they can grow out of it though. Apparently this requires a companion of the same species and appropriate gender... so it's a coin toss really unless the birds are sexed from a blood sample or something. Screeching from absence of people sounds like a spoiled brat though.
It's weird in a way, because compared to budgies african greys seem very slow and calm, even docile. Yet the budgie doesn't throw a tantrum or act like a princess. (they do bite to get a reaction though.) Perhaps it's about ways of expressing oneself: even imitating budgies don't ask for anything via bird noises, preferring to shake things around to make noise instead.
C'mon, Ug, everything taste like T-rex. Everyone know that. Even Ig know that, and Ig stupid as monolith.
Yeah. African greys.
The smarts of a five year old kid, and the attitude of a three year old kid. For sixty years.
Fuck, out of mod points. I would have given this the much-needed "+1, Underrated" otherwise.
There's many different approaches. Bruteforcing even a 128-bit AES key will still take more time than life on Earth has, even given Moore's observation on semiconductor density.
However, bruteforcing a passphrase usually takes considerably less time.
Bruteforcing an interrogation subject can be very quick indeed.
On the other hand, many people avoid informing themselves at all costs. Hallucinations offer a world that is more compatible with their gut reactions after all. As we can see from the grandparent, where the poster is all "I'm not sure what conveyance means and maybe it means something else than distribution so it's clearly bad and evil and wrong and communism and our precious bodily fluids!!!".
It's a shame really. I'd like to think these people were doing it on purpose, but it's really not that.
No. Licenses that restrict field-of-use (i.e. "no use in the arms industry", "no commercial use", "no use in baby mulching machines", "no use in companies where a CEO was named Bill") were considered and strongly rejected by the FSF. Such licenses are not considered Free software licenses as defined by the FSF.
As the Free Software Foundation is currently the most credible party offering a definition of what is and is not a Free Software license (and you can find the lists on the gnu.org website), it is very unlikely indeed that there would be any spate of licenses differentiated by restrictions on field-of-use.
(unless you subscribe to the BSD wanker version of "use", i.e. redistribution, which is basically one big fucking rhetorical crock of shit.)
Compelled? There is no such thing. You most definitely are free to not distribute any software licensed under any of the various GPL licenses published by the FSF.
To reiterate, there is no compulsion here. If the lunch is not free enough for you, you can simply walk off. You are not being oppressed.