It might be nice to include a method on the object your iterator returns to test if the stack matches a given XPath. That'd make your code really simple if you just wanted a few things out of a complex document. I guess a full XPath implementation would be a bit of a chore, but you could get most of the gain with just a small subset of the spec.
Microsoft would not benefit from Open Sourcing its software, but it will try to give its customers some of the benefits of Open Source where practical.
Microsoft does not want parts of the "intellectual commons" to be GPL'd, particularly government funded basic research. The would rather preserve the "important tradition of commercial companies having the opportunity to benefit from and apply this public knowledge."
I don't see anywhere that they object to GNU software in general. Their points are both quite reasonable. I can't imagine Microsoft being more profitable after Open Sourcing their software. I agree that the intellectual commons should be unencumbered, though I am more concerned about patent restrictions on it.
I don't think Microsoft was complaining at all about the prices private entities decide to charge for their work. They find the price of GPL code too high, so they don't use it. I find the price of Microsoft code too high, so I don't use it. Microsoft licenses their code how they like, and so do I. We both have the opportunity to tell our government how we'd like them to handle the works they produce for us.
it is the terms under which you can use/copy/modify GPLed software.
No, the GPL is the terms under which you can copy/modify GPLed software. The GPL grants additional rights beyond what you would get to, say, a newspaper. If you don't agree to the GPL, you may not distribute copies of the work. However, you may still use it in any way you like, just as you may use a newspaper.
The "info" is not GPL'd, only the source code. I don't see any legal reason why Be couldn't have studied the GPL'd code and written hardware specs. Then developers that had never even seen the GPL'd code could write drivers.
You do realize that current law forbids this, don't you? Transcribed lyrics fall under the general category of derivative works. They fit right alongside public performances of songs, modified versions of Free Software, translations of texts into other languages, and maybe even translation of CD recordings into other formats. Are you saying that you have no problems with people distributing any derivitave works, or do you think copyright should cover more than just a particular recording?
Reality - the unwatermarked data has to exist in memory somewhere. It's inherently insecure. And all the claims that the scheme was cracked are falsehoods?
This would be true if the data were encrypted, as with CSS. However, watermarks are not encryption. Watermarks are just an identifying mark on the music which is difficult to remove and doesn't affect the sound quality too much. They are not inherently insecure, but designing a highly secure watermark system with minimal loss to sound quality is not an easy problem.
Here's an excellent
introduction for anyone curious about evolution. I think pretty much everyone inclined to debate evolution, on either side, could benefit by reading it.
That's true, but normal porn is copyrighted. Neither software nor porn copyright holders are in the habit of authorizing the posting of their IP to usenet.
Some people own music on older media and wish to listen to it in mp3. Is there some ethical difference between ripping a song off of a cd you own and downloading an mp3 of a song on a casette you own?
Actually, this doesn't do what you want. If your directory has 'a.txt', it will do 'mv a a.txt.html', not 'mv a.txt a.html'. What you wanted was 'for i in *.txt; do mv "$i" "${i%%.txt}.html"; done' Sometimes a buggy one-liner is harmless, but sometimes it can really muck things up:(. The lesson: don't operate heavy scripts under the influence, or sick with the flu.
your post might be insightful. In reality, however, google does not log click-throughs. The links you click go straight to where they say they do. It's possible that they log which pages in their cache are accessed, but I doubt this contributes to a pages rank. As explained on their site, google ranks pages based on which sites link to where.
It may be true that as google indexes more newbie home pages, the average quality of the links it sees is going down, but that's another issue.
But if they're legal then there's a market and we have a stronger mechanism to feed their production - so more motivation for abusers to harm children. Not good.
Not necessarily. If only noncommercial distribution (say p2p file sharing) were allowed, it should be possible to destroy the market. I don't see how anyone could profit from producing kiddie porn under that kind of scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a good idea.
It might be nice to include a method on the object your iterator returns to test if the stack matches a given XPath. That'd make your code really simple if you just wanted a few things out of a complex document. I guess a full XPath implementation would be a bit of a chore, but you could get most of the gain with just a small subset of the spec.
-
Microsoft would not benefit from Open Sourcing its software, but it will try to give its customers some of the benefits of Open Source where practical.
-
Microsoft does not want parts of the "intellectual commons" to be GPL'd, particularly government funded basic research. The would rather preserve the "important tradition of commercial companies having the opportunity to benefit from and apply this public knowledge."
I don't see anywhere that they object to GNU software in general. Their points are both quite reasonable. I can't imagine Microsoft being more profitable after Open Sourcing their software. I agree that the intellectual commons should be unencumbered, though I am more concerned about patent restrictions on it.I don't think Microsoft was complaining at all about the prices private entities decide to charge for their work. They find the price of GPL code too high, so they don't use it. I find the price of Microsoft code too high, so I don't use it. Microsoft licenses their code how they like, and so do I. We both have the opportunity to tell our government how we'd like them to handle the works they produce for us.
No, the GPL is the terms under which you can copy/modify GPLed software. The GPL grants additional rights beyond what you would get to, say, a newspaper. If you don't agree to the GPL, you may not distribute copies of the work. However, you may still use it in any way you like, just as you may use a newspaper.
The "info" is not GPL'd, only the source code. I don't see any legal reason why Be couldn't have studied the GPL'd code and written hardware specs. Then developers that had never even seen the GPL'd code could write drivers.
You do realize that current law forbids this, don't you? Transcribed lyrics fall under the general category of derivative works. They fit right alongside public performances of songs, modified versions of Free Software, translations of texts into other languages, and maybe even translation of CD recordings into other formats. Are you saying that you have no problems with people distributing any derivitave works, or do you think copyright should cover more than just a particular recording?
Unfortunately, that wouldn't protect against OS bugs like the one the poster was worried about...
This would be true if the data were encrypted, as with CSS. However, watermarks are not encryption. Watermarks are just an identifying mark on the music which is difficult to remove and doesn't affect the sound quality too much. They are not inherently insecure, but designing a highly secure watermark system with minimal loss to sound quality is not an easy problem.
Couldn't tell if you were serious, but anyway, that argument ignores the fact that the earth is really, really big.
Here's an excellent introduction for anyone curious about evolution. I think pretty much everyone inclined to debate evolution, on either side, could benefit by reading it.
That's true, but normal porn is copyrighted. Neither software nor porn copyright holders are in the habit of authorizing the posting of their IP to usenet.
Some people own music on older media and wish to listen to it in mp3. Is there some ethical difference between ripping a song off of a cd you own and downloading an mp3 of a song on a casette you own?
Actually, this doesn't do what you want. If your directory has 'a.txt', it will do 'mv a a.txt.html', not 'mv a.txt a.html'. What you wanted was 'for i in *.txt; do mv "$i" "${i%%.txt}.html"; done' Sometimes a buggy one-liner is harmless, but sometimes it can really muck things up :(. The lesson: don't operate heavy scripts under the influence, or sick with the flu.
If you're looking for something like kwrite with good support for HTML+PHP, you might give SciTE a try. It seems to fit your wish list pretty well.
It may be true that as google indexes more newbie home pages, the average quality of the links it sees is going down, but that's another issue.
Not necessarily. If only noncommercial distribution (say p2p file sharing) were allowed, it should be possible to destroy the market. I don't see how anyone could profit from producing kiddie porn under that kind of scheme.