I'd just like to know, why not keep it. As a lot of people has said, disk is cheap. And though it might not happen very often, one of those old mails may contain an important bit of information that I lost (phone number, small util, advice on some rare problem etc). Keeping the mails also helps when searching for the stuff you get, since they provide you with context.
And as far as the realism goes, there is nothing like high-traffic mailing-lists to fill your mailboxes (and what you don't have time to read now, might be what saves your hide tommorow).
In the article (the one in pdf) they state, under the heading of "First Sale Doctrine - Physical property only", that this is mostly to prevent copyright law from messing up property law. And my impression was that they suggested keeping it, for physical embodiments of works.
So first sale would still apply to books, cds, dvds and other tangible objects, while works you get in pure (digital) form cannot be passed on, since there is no embodiment to sell.
I'm just guessing here, but the antipatterns are likely of the same origin as the patterns you ask for, the experience of a lot of good programmers. You are right in stating that there are many ways to get it wrong, but it is my impression that there are errors that are made more often than others. If this book does capture these common errors and point out where they failed and why, then I think it could be very useful.
What I'm saying is; don't look at the individual errors, look at the common traits in many related errors. Just like a pattern is not a solution to one specific problem, but what's common among many good solutions to many problems.
No matter how hashing influences the uniqueness of the fingerprint, the fact still stands that once someone has a print of your thumb, they can impersonate you as far as thumb-reading machines are concerned.
Therefore fingerprints, and by extrapolation all forms of biometric ID, should at most be used as a convinient replacement for a username/cardnumber, which much be backed by a password/pin/other secret which can be changed as needed.
I might be mistaken, since I'm not from the US, but as far as I recall, copyright is something you have, not something you apply for. But I seem to recall something about being able to register ones works, possibly with the library of congress (somebody tell me if I'm on track).
But unless I'm wrong you have the copyright on anything you create, so it's just a matter for the courts when there are violations.
Btw, my comment was mostly due to the trademark part of the question, simply couldn't help myself.
DNS maps from names to adresses, and adresses have services on one or more ports. You could perhaps use this as a stopgap measure until IPv6 is in place, but how on earth does it relate to making new TLDs?
And then there is the fact that new TLDs are "supported" in the current DNS protocol, while these "new records" would need to be implemented in all DNS clients wishing to use them.
If you read the GPL, which you link to, you will find that paragraph 5 states:
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
I might be way off, but As far as I can tell, that clause allows me to ignore the GPL, as long as I don't want or need the permissions it gives me. And those are for distributing and modifying, not using. You got the right to use the software when it was given to you.
That would be a caddy, and although I lack firsthand knowledge I believe the key point was a slit, like on a floppy disc, where the laser could see the disc.
At any rate most cd cases have a colored base, and no provisions for turning the cd inside, so I'm afraid your idea has a few fatal flaws...
I'm deeply deeply sorry for pointing out what a lot of people have already said, but you seem to not get it.
They made their content available as a HTML-file, freely downloadable from their website (or used software (databases or whatever) to achieve the same).
As such their file has an URL/URI, which identifies it. Excactly like a title/page reference identifies a piece of information in a book/magazine.
The other site told their visitors about this URL in the standard way, by means of a hyperlink.
That's all that happened!
No copying was done by the linking site, only refering.
If the paper does not want to have random, deep, links into their site, then they can have their server check wether people have been there before, and act accordingly.
Anything else would be to ask the web to change, just because they don't like the form it has.
Or would you also like authors to ask permission before refering to other books? It's the same thing, really. It's just done on a computer.
Again, sorry for restating this, but I needed to say it.
You are not saving the Office license, you are saving the Windows license. WINE (in this case the CrossOver version of WINE) replaces Windows, but you still need Office to run Office. Codeweavers are not (to the best of my knowledge) bootlegging Office. And the only things MS can sue about are any EULA restrictions that may bar you from using Office without Windows. But then they would risk having those clauses declared unenforcable.
Well, if I have to run my apps inside a browser or some terminal window,then it's not network transparency. I want all of my apps to look, feel and act the same, wether they are local or remote (speed will of cause differ between local and remote, so I can't get total transparency). The only apps where I think any difference is justified is games and video, networks supporting that remote (not sending the video then decoding it, decoding and then sending it) are still somewhat out of my pricerange. And even in that area I hope we will get more transparency.
I second that. Network transparency is what makes this mozilla run on my work box (shitty w2k setup, doesn't work right with win32 moz). And at home too, it's just so nice to have all of the programs on the same desktop, no matter where they are running.
And just so you know, UT runs quite well under linux, if you can find the patch (Loki made it, it just requires an ordinary windows UT disc).
well, not that I do that regularlly, but mail can be checked on the server, so maybe you never download the mail. Nobody can tell, that it was you and not your mail-client that deleted it unread, right of the server. Not that I care, don't think we'll get that kind of rules here in Denmark, for a while anyway.;-)
Well, this sounds nice and all, but have you considered the resulting need for additional cpu-power in routers, or just getting routers upgraded to understand this protocol (just look at IPv6). Not trying to put you down, just pointing out some problems.
It shouldn't be any easier than doing the same to a regular keyboard. After all, you're not "sending" stuff between the "keyboard" and the reciever, the reciever "sees" where your fingers go.
Sure, nice, but don't you need to be me, to get to my password. It's called permissions. And if you run some binary package from someone you don't trust, then good luck to you.
Absolutely true, I did not consider included versions of zlib, but for the few packages where it is not just an option to use the included one, I expect an update to come along. What I was fixing was the packages that link the _system_ zlib statically. Fixing other versions might even be more tricky, since there would be a reason for not just using the zlib on the system.
So to elaborate you also have to get updated sources befor recompiling (just didn't think of it, since it happens automagically).
Slashdot Mirror
I'd just like to know, why not keep it. As a lot of people has said, disk is cheap. And though it might not happen very often, one of those old mails may contain an important bit of information that I lost (phone number, small util, advice on some rare problem etc). Keeping the mails also helps when searching for the stuff you get, since they provide you with context.
And as far as the realism goes, there is nothing like high-traffic mailing-lists to fill your mailboxes (and what you don't have time to read now, might be what saves your hide tommorow).
In the article (the one in pdf) they state, under the heading of "First Sale Doctrine - Physical property only", that this is mostly to prevent copyright law from messing up property law. And my impression was that they suggested keeping it, for physical embodiments of works.
So first sale would still apply to books, cds, dvds and other tangible objects, while works you get in pure (digital) form cannot be passed on, since there is no embodiment to sell.
I got hit by that one too.
I'm just guessing here, but the antipatterns are likely of the same origin as the patterns you ask for, the experience of a lot of good programmers. You are right in stating that there are many ways to get it wrong, but it is my impression that there are errors that are made more often than others. If this book does capture these common errors and point out where they failed and why, then I think it could be very useful.
What I'm saying is; don't look at the individual errors, look at the common traits in many related errors. Just like a pattern is not a solution to one specific problem, but what's common among many good solutions to many problems.
No matter how hashing influences the uniqueness of the fingerprint, the fact still stands that once someone has a print of your thumb, they can impersonate you as far as thumb-reading machines are concerned.
Therefore fingerprints, and by extrapolation all forms of biometric ID, should at most be used as a convinient replacement for a username/cardnumber, which much be backed by a password/pin/other secret which can be changed as needed.
I might be mistaken, since I'm not from the US, but as far as I recall, copyright is something you have, not something you apply for. But I seem to recall something about being able to register ones works, possibly with the library of congress (somebody tell me if I'm on track).
But unless I'm wrong you have the copyright on anything you create, so it's just a matter for the courts when there are violations.
Btw, my comment was mostly due to the trademark part of the question, simply couldn't help myself.
Since it says US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) I'd guess you are.
How excactly?
DNS maps from names to adresses, and adresses have services on one or more ports. You could perhaps use this as a stopgap measure until IPv6 is in place, but how on earth does it relate to making new TLDs?
And then there is the fact that new TLDs are "supported" in the current DNS protocol, while these "new records" would need to be implemented in all DNS clients wishing to use them.
I might be way off, but As far as I can tell, that clause allows me to ignore the GPL, as long as I don't want or need the permissions it gives me. And those are for distributing and modifying, not using. You got the right to use the software when it was given to you.
That's how I read it anyway.
That would be a caddy, and although I lack firsthand knowledge I believe the key point was a slit, like on a floppy disc, where the laser could see the disc.
At any rate most cd cases have a colored base, and no provisions for turning the cd inside, so I'm afraid your idea has a few fatal flaws...
Jesus, are these guys for real??? A license to link??? ROTFLOL
That's all that happened!
No copying was done by the linking site, only refering.
If the paper does not want to have random, deep, links into their site, then they can have their server check wether people have been there before, and act accordingly.
Anything else would be to ask the web to change, just because they don't like the form it has.
Or would you also like authors to ask permission before refering to other books? It's the same thing, really. It's just done on a computer.
Again, sorry for restating this, but I needed to say it.
as the other poster said, it's a way to describe teaching. I first saw it in Terry Pratchetts The Science of Discworld. An excelent book by the way.
Ooops... violating. Or in violation of. Just goes to show that you shouldn't comment in a hurry.
No, they are not stealing. They may be violation copyright law. But they are not stealing.
How about trying an up to date link for BeFS?
BeFS-driver
And why do you care about my [domain] tags? I like them, OK!
You are not saving the Office license, you are saving the Windows license. WINE (in this case the CrossOver version of WINE) replaces Windows, but you still need Office to run Office. Codeweavers are not (to the best of my knowledge) bootlegging Office. And the only things MS can sue about are any EULA restrictions that may bar you from using Office without Windows. But then they would risk having those clauses declared unenforcable.
Well, if I have to run my apps inside a browser or some terminal window,then it's not network transparency. I want all of my apps to look, feel and act the same, wether they are local or remote (speed will of cause differ between local and remote, so I can't get total transparency). The only apps where I think any difference is justified is games and video, networks supporting that remote (not sending the video then decoding it, decoding and then sending it) are still somewhat out of my pricerange. And even in that area I hope we will get more transparency.
I second that. Network transparency is what makes this mozilla run on my work box (shitty w2k setup, doesn't work right with win32 moz). And at home too, it's just so nice to have all of the programs on the same desktop, no matter where they are running.
And just so you know, UT runs quite well under linux, if you can find the patch (Loki made it, it just requires an ordinary windows UT disc).
well, not that I do that regularlly, but mail can be checked on the server, so maybe you never download the mail. Nobody can tell, that it was you and not your mail-client that deleted it unread, right of the server. Not that I care, don't think we'll get that kind of rules here in Denmark, for a while anyway. ;-)
Well, this sounds nice and all, but have you considered the resulting need for additional cpu-power in routers, or just getting routers upgraded to understand this protocol (just look at IPv6). Not trying to put you down, just pointing out some problems.
It shouldn't be any easier than doing the same to a regular keyboard. After all, you're not "sending" stuff between the "keyboard" and the reciever, the reciever "sees" where your fingers go.
Sure, nice, but don't you need to be me, to get to my password. It's called permissions. And if you run some binary package from someone you don't trust, then good luck to you.
Absolutely true, I did not consider included versions of zlib, but for the few packages where it is not just an option to use the included one, I expect an update to come along. What I was fixing was the packages that link the _system_ zlib statically. Fixing other versions might even be more tricky, since there would be a reason for not just using the zlib on the system.
So to elaborate you also have to get updated sources befor recompiling (just didn't think of it, since it happens automagically).
Does it really matter. Any proper system should be able to rebuild completly from source, catching ALL statically linked binaries.