Maybe I'm not getting something, but the first part of that quote makes exception for recording devices and media:
manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device (e.g. an iPod with no music on it), digital audio recording medium (e.g. a blank CD), analog recording device (e.g. a tape recorder), analog recording medium (e.g. a blank tape)
None of the above apply because the CD wasn't blank. It contained music, and the distribution of the music is what is infringing.
The last part makes exception for fair use:
use by a consumer... to make digital music recordings or analog musical recordings
The consumer didn't just make recordings, they distributed said recordings. Distribution is not part of the fair use exception and they are therefore infringing.
I have to agree, I'm the second of two though, and while my brother always did better in school, my scores on SAT and IQ tests were 5-10% higher than his. I just didn't care about what they were teaching in school because I already learned the stuff by reading his schoolbooks.
OK, just went back and read the article (go figure)...
Kristensen, of Norway's National Institute of Occupational Health, and Bjerkedal, of the Norwegian Armed Forces Medical Services, studied the IQ test results of 241,310 Norwegian men drafted into the armed forces between 1967 and 1976. All were aged 18 or 19 at the time.
The average IQ of first-born men was 103.2, they found.
Second-born men averaged 101.2, but second-born men whose older sibling died in infancy scored 102.9.
And for third-borns, the average was 100.0. But if both older siblings died young, the third-born score rose to 102.6.
At no point do they actually tie the first born from a family with the second born from the same family. It might be that first born sons were the ones that got sent to college and were exempt (not sure if college was an exemption in Norway as it was in the US), whether they were more intelligent or not. It could be the first born sons were more financially capable of fleeing the country. It might be that the first born sons were too old to be drafted. And what about all the first born men who didn't die in infancy, but died at an older age doing something incredibly stupid? It could also be that on average, second sons are more intelligent, but "only sons" are MUCH more intelligent than average and therefore skew the average. There are all kinds of reasons that the study can easily be called flawed and account for the 2% difference.
Blisters appear when delamination occurs close to the outermost surface of an object, not from physical decay.
This does not only have to be caused by friction at the outermost surface, but can be caused by anything that stresses the binding layer to failure.
A blister need not be filled with gases.
A blister need not "pop" in order to be a blister.
"...in a vacuum..." implies in a vacuum, and therefore there was "no air" (or any other gases for that matter) to cause friction in my fake definition either.
You assume I don't have a physics background when in fact I do, and therefore you assume that I do not know that there is no force of friction through "air" for my fictitious object.
You did not read the +5 funny mod and get a clue that this was in fact supposed to be FUNNY.
You aren't able to imagine how fast something would have to travel in a vacuum to gain friction from the surrounding gases that, due to the vacuum it is traveling in, aren't there.
So, you are saying they shouldn't use FOSS code because it has a dubious history, they should use a closed source package that was built on FOSS code that has a dubious history. Did I miss something there?
I highly believe that I and other FOSS community members will do this (for free even) if Dell would like us to. That's what we do, write code for free, or more closely, write free code for free. Some of us get paid money to write code, but most of us just do it because we enjoy doing it and our payment is someone telling us we did a good job. Money is nice, because it gets you cool things that you can use to spend your time interacting with, but FOSS is cool because it gets you cool people that you can spend your time interacting with.
The FOSS community (and I am one of them) have been waiting a LONG time for Dell to start selling Linux native systems. What Dell doesn't realize, is we are more than happy to help write any diagnostic software they need. They just need to learn how to utilize the FOSS community better. . .
Dell, if you tell us the checks you want to have made, we will write the software for you. If you want our help though, then it needs to be a win-win situation, and you need to support the physical hardware you sell us.
Re:Hey you missed the *bad* news!
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
I never meant to say that it didn't govern distribution, and perhaps that sentence could have been a little more clearly stated. However, I just took it for granted that the code was being distributed since it was a part of the system that was being Tivoized. Therefore, any changes to the code would also need to be made available. If you could please give me a circumstance where a piece of code is part of a Tivoized solution, and yet not distributed with said system, then I'll be more than happy to say you are correct. However, at this point you just seem petty.
Re:Hey you missed the *bad* news!
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
If they are distributing the software w/ the Tivoized hardware, they are distributing it, and therefore have to release any modifications.
Re:Hey you missed the *bad* news!
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
I think you are missing a small piece of a point. If they take your GPLv3 software, they still have to release any modifications back to the community. If they Tivoize a piece of hardware that is running your code, the only thing that it prevents is changing the code on THAT piece of equipment. You and others are still able to take their modifications to your code and install them on your own hardware with or without any additional modifications.
Umm, the same way he picks wheat to drive - a Chevy Aveo, or a Kia Sportage, a Hyundai Sonata, a Porsche 911 Carrara, or a used Jeep Wrangler, or...?
I know that was a typo, and I am a HUGE Linux fan (I've been using Linux almost exclusively for 12 years), but that is still funny.
First, he picks the wheat, then he grinds the wheat and makes a nice mash, then he ferments the mash, then he distills it and creates a nice ethanol that he can use to power his Chevy Aveo...
That isn't how I see it. I liken the software I write to my children. A BSD license is like me saying you can do anything you want to with my child including enslaving him and making him work for your own personal profit. Or perhaps more like using my child to help you create your own child that you will then enslave for your own profit. I do not want my children or their children or their children's children to be enslaved. I am saying that if you want to enslave a child, go create one from scratch, and leave my child alone. You are free to do that. However, if you feel that my child is the best at performing a certain task, and you want to have my child help you perform that task, then you have to promise not to enslave him, or use him to create slaves. To me, the GPL is more free than BSD as is forces freedom to exist from generation to generation. To me, the whole "BSD is more free because it allows anybody to do anything with your code" is akin to "Country Xyzpdq is more free because it allows anybody to do anything with anybody". That argument falls short pretty quickly when people start going around taking your stuff or killing your friends or family. And no, I'm not comparing BSD enthusiast to thieves or killers, only pointing out what I consider to be the silliness of the argument.
I'm also not getting what you mean by "[The GPL] actually takes away a lot of freedom..." How so? If I license my code under the GPL, you and anybody else are free to do whatever the GPL states you are allowed to do with the limitations of what the GPL states you are not allowed to do. Without the GPL, you aren't allowed to do anything with my code at all. In other words, just because I choose to license my code to you under terms other than the GPL doesn't make that license automatically BSD. And if I don't license it to you at all, then you can even look at it.
As far as technical excellence goes, what license one uses has nothing to do with ones proficiency at programming. And if you are truly interested in finding the most technically excellent (man this is starting to remind me of Bill and Ted) way to write your piece of software, I would think you would want to know how it is improved in the future by Company X, something the GPL forces them to let you know if they plan to redistribute it. Therefore, it could be argued that those who use licenses like the GPL are really the ones that are truly interested in technical excellence as they want to see a better way to do what they set out to do if anybody ever figures one out.
I think the GP was referring to the fact that if the first amendment protections extended to privacy laws, they would be "contrary to the Constitution" in that they would be limiting the right of a party to speak openly about any of these private matters which they currently cannot.
Re:If you think that is evil
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Is that what that guy meant when he said in his interview he was doing "volunteer research into the sexual habits of endanger water foul"?
Lobbying is a legal occupation that pays somewhere in the high-6-figure to low-7-figure range. Bribery and extortion are crimes that often result in prison time and heavy fines and occur when the lobbyist attempts to lobby with insufficient funding. Other than that, there's not much difference.
Most often, the second factor is "security questions", like "what city were you born in?" and "what's your favorite restaurant?"
That isn't two-factor authentication. That is something you know and something else you know. Two-factor requires something you now, and something you have (a smart card, onetime password, RSA SecurID fob, etc.). (Not blaming you, simply pointing out how lame most businesses are).
What they are saying is that the hovercopter (for lack of a better term) has the rotors protected and can bump into things and still fly. What it basically is is a small inverted squarish bowl with a fan on top that forces air down and around the sides. The fan is protected and therefore, more stable. It is controlled with fins that direct the downward air in various directions for steering. This isn't being designed for movement of people or cargo, but rather as a means to carry a small camera for recon missions. (think the small machines sent out by Skynet in the Terminator movies).
Yes, but the ash quickly (on a long term scale) falls to earth. The green house gases do not. Thus, soon after an eruption, the temp might drop, but on a long term, the effect increases temperature.
Please propose a scientifically reasonable solution as to what is causing global warming if it's not human based, and one that's consistent with 100,000+ years of earth temperature variations along with CO2 levels and solar activity, data of which we do have.
Volcanic activity. Every time a volcano erupts it spews more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire history of man-made pollution (more by several orders of magnitude). We have had MANY volcanic eruptions in the past 30 years. Go figure that the earth is on a warming trend. I don't believe there is ANYTHING that we can do to stop global warming (remember, 500 years ago we were afraid the entire earth was going to freeze).
HOWEVER, I also believe we should stop polluting the Earth simply because pollution is ugly and not good for us. Stop wasting tax dollars or even personal money trying to prove global warming is caused by people and start spending some money cleaning up the mess we've made as a people to date. Take the money that would go toward this research and put it toward lobbying for stricter environmental laws. Or, if you are on the other side of the issue, put it toward actually making the world cleaner. The whole argument over the cause of GW is stupid. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a climatologist to know that pollution is bad for you. It doesn't take a marine biologist to see the effects of pollution on our waterways and oceans.
We as Americans drive around in huge SUV's or HEMI equipped sports cars and then have a fit if someone lights up a cigarette 50 feet away. We individually dump hundreds of pounds of fertilizer on our yards so they will be greener than our neighbors, and never stop to think about how this trickles down to our waterways causing algae blooms that kill off our fish and the wildlife that survive on them. We fight tooth and nail to keep nuclear power plants from being built nearby, but don't ever think to turn off the lights/TV/computer or turn down the AC/water heater or do anything else to save energy. We want more and more, and then complain about the smoke and smog created from all the coal that is used to power it.
Does it really require that global warming is caused by humans to convince us to look at our actions and fix them? Personally, I'm not as worried about the warmer Earth as I am about the hard to breath in Earth. And the longer we argue over what the cause of global warming is, the longer it will be before our efforts are put towards coming up with a solution to the pollution problem. Go to any big city in the world and take a deep breath. That should be enough to convince anyone that we need to do something now.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you want it to be a train wreck of conspiracy theories?
By abusing the PATRIOT Act, they are risking having it taken away
Then I, for one, say keep abusing it!!!
Maybe I'm not getting something, but the first part of that quote makes exception for recording devices and media:
... to make digital music recordings or analog musical recordings
manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device (e.g. an iPod with no music on it), digital audio recording medium (e.g. a blank CD), analog recording device (e.g. a tape recorder), analog recording medium (e.g. a blank tape)
None of the above apply because the CD wasn't blank. It contained music, and the distribution of the music is what is infringing.
The last part makes exception for fair use:
use by a consumer
The consumer didn't just make recordings, they distributed said recordings. Distribution is not part of the fair use exception and they are therefore infringing.
I have to agree, I'm the second of two though, and while my brother always did better in school, my scores on SAT and IQ tests were 5-10% higher than his. I just didn't care about what they were teaching in school because I already learned the stuff by reading his schoolbooks.
OK, just went back and read the article (go figure)...
Kristensen, of Norway's National Institute of Occupational Health, and Bjerkedal, of the Norwegian Armed Forces Medical Services, studied the IQ test results of 241,310 Norwegian men drafted into the armed forces between 1967 and 1976. All were aged 18 or 19 at the time.
The average IQ of first-born men was 103.2, they found.
Second-born men averaged 101.2, but second-born men whose older sibling died in infancy scored 102.9.
And for third-borns, the average was 100.0. But if both older siblings died young, the third-born score rose to 102.6.
At no point do they actually tie the first born from a family with the second born from the same family. It might be that first born sons were the ones that got sent to college and were exempt (not sure if college was an exemption in Norway as it was in the US), whether they were more intelligent or not. It could be the first born sons were more financially capable of fleeing the country. It might be that the first born sons were too old to be drafted. And what about all the first born men who didn't die in infancy, but died at an older age doing something incredibly stupid? It could also be that on average, second sons are more intelligent, but "only sons" are MUCH more intelligent than average and therefore skew the average. There are all kinds of reasons that the study can easily be called flawed and account for the 2% difference.
It's the speed at which an object in a vacuum must travel to spontaneously get blisters to appear on its surface. What did you think it meant?
I'm the last one to defend Microsoft, but that is an exploit for version 5. The question was since version 5 (i.e. version 6).
So, you are saying they shouldn't use FOSS code because it has a dubious history, they should use a closed source package that was built on FOSS code that has a dubious history. Did I miss something there?
No, he'll just buy them and integrate them into the next version of Windows.
I highly believe that I and other FOSS community members will do this (for free even) if Dell would like us to. That's what we do, write code for free, or more closely, write free code for free. Some of us get paid money to write code, but most of us just do it because we enjoy doing it and our payment is someone telling us we did a good job. Money is nice, because it gets you cool things that you can use to spend your time interacting with, but FOSS is cool because it gets you cool people that you can spend your time interacting with.
You aren't one of them. Go buy some toys.
The FOSS community (and I am one of them) have been waiting a LONG time for Dell to start selling Linux native systems. What Dell doesn't realize, is we are more than happy to help write any diagnostic software they need. They just need to learn how to utilize the FOSS community better. . .
Dell, if you tell us the checks you want to have made, we will write the software for you. If you want our help though, then it needs to be a win-win situation, and you need to support the physical hardware you sell us.
I never meant to say that it didn't govern distribution, and perhaps that sentence could have been a little more clearly stated. However, I just took it for granted that the code was being distributed since it was a part of the system that was being Tivoized. Therefore, any changes to the code would also need to be made available. If you could please give me a circumstance where a piece of code is part of a Tivoized solution, and yet not distributed with said system, then I'll be more than happy to say you are correct. However, at this point you just seem petty.
If they are distributing the software w/ the Tivoized hardware, they are distributing it, and therefore have to release any modifications.
I think you are missing a small piece of a point. If they take your GPLv3 software, they still have to release any modifications back to the community. If they Tivoize a piece of hardware that is running your code, the only thing that it prevents is changing the code on THAT piece of equipment. You and others are still able to take their modifications to your code and install them on your own hardware with or without any additional modifications.
Umm, the same way he picks wheat to drive - a Chevy Aveo, or a Kia Sportage, a Hyundai Sonata, a Porsche 911 Carrara, or a used Jeep Wrangler, or ...?
I know that was a typo, and I am a HUGE Linux fan (I've been using Linux almost exclusively for 12 years), but that is still funny.
First, he picks the wheat, then he grinds the wheat and makes a nice mash, then he ferments the mash, then he distills it and creates a nice ethanol that he can use to power his Chevy Aveo...
Reminds me of the first time I got X working.
That isn't how I see it. I liken the software I write to my children. A BSD license is like me saying you can do anything you want to with my child including enslaving him and making him work for your own personal profit. Or perhaps more like using my child to help you create your own child that you will then enslave for your own profit. I do not want my children or their children or their children's children to be enslaved. I am saying that if you want to enslave a child, go create one from scratch, and leave my child alone. You are free to do that. However, if you feel that my child is the best at performing a certain task, and you want to have my child help you perform that task, then you have to promise not to enslave him, or use him to create slaves. To me, the GPL is more free than BSD as is forces freedom to exist from generation to generation. To me, the whole "BSD is more free because it allows anybody to do anything with your code" is akin to "Country Xyzpdq is more free because it allows anybody to do anything with anybody". That argument falls short pretty quickly when people start going around taking your stuff or killing your friends or family. And no, I'm not comparing BSD enthusiast to thieves or killers, only pointing out what I consider to be the silliness of the argument.
I'm also not getting what you mean by "[The GPL] actually takes away a lot of freedom..." How so? If I license my code under the GPL, you and anybody else are free to do whatever the GPL states you are allowed to do with the limitations of what the GPL states you are not allowed to do. Without the GPL, you aren't allowed to do anything with my code at all. In other words, just because I choose to license my code to you under terms other than the GPL doesn't make that license automatically BSD. And if I don't license it to you at all, then you can even look at it.
As far as technical excellence goes, what license one uses has nothing to do with ones proficiency at programming. And if you are truly interested in finding the most technically excellent (man this is starting to remind me of Bill and Ted) way to write your piece of software, I would think you would want to know how it is improved in the future by Company X, something the GPL forces them to let you know if they plan to redistribute it. Therefore, it could be argued that those who use licenses like the GPL are really the ones that are truly interested in technical excellence as they want to see a better way to do what they set out to do if anybody ever figures one out.
I think the GP was referring to the fact that if the first amendment protections extended to privacy laws, they would be "contrary to the Constitution" in that they would be limiting the right of a party to speak openly about any of these private matters which they currently cannot.
Is that what that guy meant when he said in his interview he was doing "volunteer research into the sexual habits of endanger water foul"?
No:
Lobbying is a legal occupation that pays somewhere in the high-6-figure to low-7-figure range. Bribery and extortion are crimes that often result in prison time and heavy fines and occur when the lobbyist attempts to lobby with insufficient funding. Other than that, there's not much difference.
Most often, the second factor is "security questions", like "what city were you born in?" and "what's your favorite restaurant?"
That isn't two-factor authentication. That is something you know and something else you know. Two-factor requires something you now, and something you have (a smart card, onetime password, RSA SecurID fob, etc.). (Not blaming you, simply pointing out how lame most businesses are).
What they are saying is that the hovercopter (for lack of a better term) has the rotors protected and can bump into things and still fly. What it basically is is a small inverted squarish bowl with a fan on top that forces air down and around the sides. The fan is protected and therefore, more stable. It is controlled with fins that direct the downward air in various directions for steering. This isn't being designed for movement of people or cargo, but rather as a means to carry a small camera for recon missions. (think the small machines sent out by Skynet in the Terminator movies).
Yes, but the ash quickly (on a long term scale) falls to earth. The green house gases do not. Thus, soon after an eruption, the temp might drop, but on a long term, the effect increases temperature.
Please propose a scientifically reasonable solution as to what is causing global warming if it's not human based, and one that's consistent with 100,000+ years of earth temperature variations along with CO2 levels and solar activity, data of which we do have.
Volcanic activity. Every time a volcano erupts it spews more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire history of man-made pollution (more by several orders of magnitude). We have had MANY volcanic eruptions in the past 30 years. Go figure that the earth is on a warming trend. I don't believe there is ANYTHING that we can do to stop global warming (remember, 500 years ago we were afraid the entire earth was going to freeze).
HOWEVER, I also believe we should stop polluting the Earth simply because pollution is ugly and not good for us. Stop wasting tax dollars or even personal money trying to prove global warming is caused by people and start spending some money cleaning up the mess we've made as a people to date. Take the money that would go toward this research and put it toward lobbying for stricter environmental laws. Or, if you are on the other side of the issue, put it toward actually making the world cleaner. The whole argument over the cause of GW is stupid. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a climatologist to know that pollution is bad for you. It doesn't take a marine biologist to see the effects of pollution on our waterways and oceans.
We as Americans drive around in huge SUV's or HEMI equipped sports cars and then have a fit if someone lights up a cigarette 50 feet away. We individually dump hundreds of pounds of fertilizer on our yards so they will be greener than our neighbors, and never stop to think about how this trickles down to our waterways causing algae blooms that kill off our fish and the wildlife that survive on them. We fight tooth and nail to keep nuclear power plants from being built nearby, but don't ever think to turn off the lights/TV/computer or turn down the AC/water heater or do anything else to save energy. We want more and more, and then complain about the smoke and smog created from all the coal that is used to power it.
Does it really require that global warming is caused by humans to convince us to look at our actions and fix them? Personally, I'm not as worried about the warmer Earth as I am about the hard to breath in Earth. And the longer we argue over what the cause of global warming is, the longer it will be before our efforts are put towards coming up with a solution to the pollution problem. Go to any big city in the world and take a deep breath. That should be enough to convince anyone that we need to do something now.
I believe it would be very easy to get them all together to reform the patent system.
And by "reform" I mean extending it to 150 years plus the life of the patent holder. Similar to copyright. What did you mean?
Well, living in your parents' basement isn't exactly going to get your wife to want to get wild.