Say "it turns out it's hard to automate things people regard as simple. People carry an enormous amount of context and consult it without ever being aware of doing so. Telling a computer how to do what you do as naturally as walking means identifying every neuron, every muscle, getting every detail right, or the whole thing falls over. Once the work's done, once it's understood and specified to the level of detail computers need to operate properly, there's immense value in that,and then somebody wants it to hop or skip or pirouette. The problem is, the technical details bore most people right out of their skulls, and a lot of the tasks better suited for computers than people are _already_ boring. But for people who like code, just like people who like math or politics or whatever, the details of how all the parts are put together, how they all operate together, it's just fascinating. Even some of the tiny little parts are fascinating all on their own when getting the most out of them starts to matter."
There are. One of them is a greedy and abusive minority sucking in the ignorant with lies.
as with any "open access" to a resource
Network bandwidth isn't open access.
The challenge for an ISP or telco is to strike that balance between reasonable pricing and protecting the reasonable majority from a handful of excessive users
That's not a challenge for anyone. Congestion avoidance is a solved problem, an automated algorithm, _the_ automated algorithm that picks what to send or drop next. If "excessive users" are interfering with anybody else, causing that interference was an explicit choice by the ISP.
This is the confusion the FBI et al. are capitalizing on. A physical lock that's more expensive to break than the value of what it's protecting would be absurd.
I really don't think his value to humanity consists of him spending his airtime talking about what self-entitled theocrats and oligarchs and warlords and just plain kleptocrats want him to talk about. I think his value to humanity consists of him spending his airtime talking about what they _don't_ want him to talk about, because he's one of the few people who actually know that stuff first-hand.
A person is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his voluntary act
[Technically,] cases that involve negligence or reckless disregard for safety [...] are NOT "murder"
Yes, they are. The line between manslaughter and murder is "behaves in a way that shows extreme, reckless disregard for life and results in the victim's death".
Apparently AMD's hardware absolutely rocks on the next-gen architectures like those two, and Vulkan being directly based on Mantle can't hurt even a teensy bit.
AMD being the king-of-the-hill for VR would make a world my ooooh-goody-competition-means-good-prices little heart is just piiiiining for.
Gee, so the heavy pirating didn't start until he started smearing shit on the deal, hmmm, hmm hmm hmmmm.
Seems people's sense of fairness doesn't always match the laws, and if CEOs and copyright self-entitlers can get away with it, maybe there's a bit too much glass around for anybody to start complaining. There's nothing in that aphorism about who built the house.
There needs to be a pre-emptory "fair use" counterclaim that (a) leaves the claimed-infringing material up and (b) puts the issue of fair use in front of a magistrate within madeupnumberten days unless the claimant abandons the DMCA claim. The magistrate can decide whether or not a respondent versed in case law would have a reasonable expectation of winning. *expectation*. Loser pays a madeupnumber$500 fee for forcing the decision, plus up to some similar amount in actual costs. Anyone with amounts in arrears is denied access to this procedure. Most importantly: loser can force the issue to trial, can establish precedent in case law so in the future people _can_ reasonably expect a particular result.
Well, sure, if we very, very carefully, look only where you want us to look, it looks like you've got a case for something here.
Unfortunately for your argument, OS X is not BSD licensed. OS X is Cocoa. You can't name anything anyone regards as an OS X application that doesn't need Cocoa, and Cocoa is locked up tighter than Fort Meade. If you open an OS X programming guide, take an OS X programming class, attend an OS X developer's conference or seminar, use the interface of any OS X application or tool, it's Cocoa. Cocoa is not BSD licensed. OS X is not BSD-licensed. Apple is not making money off the FreeBSD part of OS X, they're making money off the Cocoa part, and more power to'em.
IBM, on the other hand, sells and supports Linux systems. Oracle sells and supports their own Linux distro.
Google -- Android's little-to-no more Linux than OS X is FreeBSD, so what was your point about people choosing BSD licensed innards?
Google? Red Hat? IBM? Oracle, even? All deal in major linux-based platforms for big bucks. I don't think your characterizations and hypotheticals even pass the laugh test.
You can only offer the GPL on code for which you hold copyright. The conditions you're stipulating in the GPL, the restrictions, are on the distribution of your software. Others can still distribute their own software on any terms they like, they just can't distribute your software except on terms you like. They can't add pennies to the vault and then treat the vault as if it were their own.
The GPL doesn't impose restrictions, not unless you regard being granted less than the maximum conceivable license as a denial of something you had some right to expect.
Slashdot Mirror
Say "it turns out it's hard to automate things people regard as simple. People carry an enormous amount of context and consult it without ever being aware of doing so. Telling a computer how to do what you do as naturally as walking means identifying every neuron, every muscle, getting every detail right, or the whole thing falls over. Once the work's done, once it's understood and specified to the level of detail computers need to operate properly, there's immense value in that,and then somebody wants it to hop or skip or pirouette. The problem is, the technical details bore most people right out of their skulls, and a lot of the tasks better suited for computers than people are _already_ boring. But for people who like code, just like people who like math or politics or whatever, the details of how all the parts are put together, how they all operate together, it's just fascinating. Even some of the tiny little parts are fascinating all on their own when getting the most out of them starts to matter."
I think you've got monopoly-busting confused with something else.
And that's the extent of their opposition?
I think the standard metaphorical creature for "ignorant and braying noise in ways that make intelligent conversation difficult" is not mythical.
Maybe there are two sides to this argument
There are. One of them is a greedy and abusive minority sucking in the ignorant with lies.
as with any "open access" to a resource
Network bandwidth isn't open access.
The challenge for an ISP or telco is to strike that balance between reasonable pricing and protecting the reasonable majority from a handful of excessive users
That's not a challenge for anyone. Congestion avoidance is a solved problem, an automated algorithm, _the_ automated algorithm that picks what to send or drop next. If "excessive users" are interfering with anybody else, causing that interference was an explicit choice by the ISP.
This is the confusion the FBI et al. are capitalizing on. A physical lock that's more expensive to break than the value of what it's protecting would be absurd.
So long as you confine yourself to copying the index of the book and taking out the page numbers and every entry that isn't a proper noun, go for it.
You don't have to use it that way.
But only the foreign ones.
I really don't think his value to humanity consists of him spending his airtime talking about what self-entitled theocrats and oligarchs and warlords and just plain kleptocrats want him to talk about. I think his value to humanity consists of him spending his airtime talking about what they _don't_ want him to talk about, because he's one of the few people who actually know that stuff first-hand.
All bases are base 10 in their own eyes. Special enough for you?
They're not. Those proofs permit the companies to do what would otherwise be illegal. They don't require the companies to break their product line.
Murder requires intent to kill
A person is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his voluntary act
[Technically,] cases that involve negligence or reckless disregard for safety [...] are NOT "murder"
Yes, they are. The line between manslaughter and murder is "behaves in a way that shows extreme, reckless disregard for life and results in the victim's death".
Apparently AMD's hardware absolutely rocks on the next-gen architectures like those two, and Vulkan being directly based on Mantle can't hurt even a teensy bit.
AMD being the king-of-the-hill for VR would make a world my ooooh-goody-competition-means-good-prices little heart is just piiiiining for.
Except they haven't done it.
Gee, so the heavy pirating didn't start until he started smearing shit on the deal, hmmm, hmm hmm hmmmm.
Seems people's sense of fairness doesn't always match the laws, and if CEOs and copyright self-entitlers can get away with it, maybe there's a bit too much glass around for anybody to start complaining. There's nothing in that aphorism about who built the house.
There needs to be a pre-emptory "fair use" counterclaim that (a) leaves the claimed-infringing material up and (b) puts the issue of fair use in front of a magistrate within madeupnumberten days unless the claimant abandons the DMCA claim. The magistrate can decide whether or not a respondent versed in case law would have a reasonable expectation of winning. *expectation*. Loser pays a madeupnumber$500 fee for forcing the decision, plus up to some similar amount in actual costs. Anyone with amounts in arrears is denied access to this procedure. Most importantly: loser can force the issue to trial, can establish precedent in case law so in the future people _can_ reasonably expect a particular result.
Yay for the personal blocklist.
What about an F-14?
You can do that now.
Well, no, not quite. It's an F-16.
Selective much?
Well, sure, if we very, very carefully, look only where you want us to look, it looks like you've got a case for something here.
Unfortunately for your argument, OS X is not BSD licensed. OS X is Cocoa. You can't name anything anyone regards as an OS X application that doesn't need Cocoa, and Cocoa is locked up tighter than Fort Meade. If you open an OS X programming guide, take an OS X programming class, attend an OS X developer's conference or seminar, use the interface of any OS X application or tool, it's Cocoa. Cocoa is not BSD licensed. OS X is not BSD-licensed. Apple is not making money off the FreeBSD part of OS X, they're making money off the Cocoa part, and more power to'em.
IBM, on the other hand, sells and supports Linux systems. Oracle sells and supports their own Linux distro.
Google -- Android's little-to-no more Linux than OS X is FreeBSD, so what was your point about people choosing BSD licensed innards?
Oh, yeah: "wrong".
Google? Red Hat? IBM? Oracle, even? All deal in major linux-based platforms for big bucks. I don't think your characterizations and hypotheticals even pass the laugh test.
You can only offer the GPL on code for which you hold copyright. The conditions you're stipulating in the GPL, the restrictions, are on the distribution of your software. Others can still distribute their own software on any terms they like, they just can't distribute your software except on terms you like. They can't add pennies to the vault and then treat the vault as if it were their own.
The GPL doesn't impose restrictions, not unless you regard being granted less than the maximum conceivable license as a denial of something you had some right to expect.
Time to present a limited set of fonts and plugins to untrusted urls?
You can use win-plus and -minus to zoom in and out, and win-esc to end, if you didn't know that, try it.