It's bricked if you flash a bad ROM BIOS image and now you can't even turn the thing on.
You mean you can't turn it on. The factory can. Now, do you see how that might also apply to 90%+ of Windows users who encounter this problem? Someone can fix their machines. They can't. From the user's point of view, they have a brick.
I don't need the MPAA to provide what the CD already does; it's the license that requires that. I think you need to go and read what the GPL version 2 actually says, without prejudice as to what you expect it to say, or to how it's commonly interpreted. The majority of distributors violate it, IME.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
If you modify one line, then you have to make the entire source available, or offer to do so. If you do anything else, then your right to distribute is terminated. Just because it's not universally enforced doesn't mean that it's OK to pick and choose compliance.
They would have to supply the source code to people that bought the game.
True.
They don't have to supply it everybody,
False.
They can charge for the source,
True.
but no more then they charged for the game itself.
False.
Please - just stop. Please stop spouting such utter claptrap about a license that you have either not read or not understood. It's not that long, or hard to comprehend. The power to not look like an utter fool is within you. Just. Read. The. License.
Bollocks, mate. In 1997, maybe. In 2007, you can do it with off-the-shelf workflow solutions. OK, weeks, rather than days, but not years like the BBC have taken.
Try to think in terms of the effect on the recipient, not the medium. ASCII wastes a bit. CDs waste 3 or 4 bits. It's worse then mp3/wma/ogg compression. Now, get sucking, bitch. I like slow, then fast.
Because when every corporation offers the same take-it-or-leave-it boilerplate "we own all your output" contracts, and form an effective cartel, then the creators get collectively screwed and don't actually have any "choice" at all. Don't take it from me; ask all the striking script-writers how they feel about the "choice" on offer.
I can watch swathes of (DRMd) content running in Windows Media Player inside my browser, with nothing further to install.
Except that the BBC intends to make iPlayer cross-platform, while Microsoft has not yet announced any plan to release Windows Media Player for Linux.
Yes, I'm sure that it "intends" to, at some point in the future, and at further cost to itself. Good intentions and a dollar will buy you a twinkie. Right now though, the iPlayer is a second rate solution to a problem that the BBC chose to create.
I can watch swathes of (DRMd) content running in Windows Media Player inside my browser, with nothing further to install. Total cost to ITV - the DRM key. Time to market: 0 days.
Still, I'm sure a lot of consultants got some very nice expenses-lunches out of designing the iPlayer.
So you are telling me that a company cannot be an "author"?
No, I didn't say that. I think the Constitution did. Why do you hate the Constitution with such a passion? You seem very excited. I think They might be monitoring your transmissions. You don't want Them to put you on a List. Perhaps you should have a lie down.
Yes, you're right; CDs are far worse than mp3/wma/ogg, as they take up 16 bits worth of space, but only (de facto) give you 12 or 13 bits of range. I'm glad we agree that I'm so awesomely right. You need to get in line to suck my dick though; there's plenty of other respondents who have to gargle on it first as penance for being technically correct while ignoring the critical word "effectively".
There is no reason that the word author cannot be interpreted to mean corporation.
"Cannot" and "should not" are different things. Corporations do not create; individuals do. My issue is with rewarding creativity with boilerplate flat rate, no-royalty salary. It does not incentivise the actual creator to produce better work. For a perfect example, I'm typing this while I should be writing software, but as I get paid the same either way, what's my incentive to do so?
Think carefully about what you should currently be doing before you answer.
They should be, but that's distinct from boilerplate "work for hire" employment contracts that oblige creators to hand over all their work for a fixed rate. Progress is best served - as the Constitution says - by incentivising the actual individual creator to produce the best possible work. It's a fine distinction, but if all creative work was freelance (or royaltied), then output and quality would tend to rise. When you get paid the same either way, what's the incentive to progress the useful arts?
In short: you have no idea what the common English word "effectively" means, and so need to get in the long, long line of nerds who absolutely need to suck my dick as penance for being so technically right, and yet so utterly, mindblowingly wrong in every way that matters.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean you can't turn it on. The factory can. Now, do you see how that might also apply to 90%+ of Windows users who encounter this problem? Someone can fix their machines. They can't. From the user's point of view, they have a brick.
Sigh. Given that Meucci actually used his invention on a daily basis to speak with his wife, and demonstrated it in public six years before Bell got his patent, I think that's pretty much the dumbest fucking claim I've seen on Slashdot in years - and you're up against some stiff competition.
If you can't afford a cellphone, then you need to work harder at your day job: making buggy whips.
FYI: The Give One Get One cost is $400 per pair, not $200.
I don't need the MPAA to provide what the CD already does; it's the license that requires that. I think you need to go and read what the GPL version 2 actually says, without prejudice as to what you expect it to say, or to how it's commonly interpreted. The majority of distributors violate it, IME.
If you modify one line, then you have to make the entire source available, or offer to do so. If you do anything else, then your right to distribute is terminated. Just because it's not universally enforced doesn't mean that it's OK to pick and choose compliance.
[Mod +1, funny]
True.
False.
True.
False.
Please - just stop. Please stop spouting such utter claptrap about a license that you have either not read or not understood. It's not that long, or hard to comprehend. The power to not look like an utter fool is within you. Just. Read. The. License.
In other news, 95% of drivers agree with the proposition that the guy in front of them should have taken the bus.
Now do you see the POWAH inherent in that knowledge?
Assuming 100 x 53 yards, it's 63.38 times the size of a Blue Whale, or 264.93 times the size of a London double-decker bus.
Optimal vs average?
Bollocks, mate. In 1997, maybe. In 2007, you can do it with off-the-shelf workflow solutions. OK, weeks, rather than days, but not years like the BBC have taken.
Ewoks = Colonial irregular freedom fighters, Imperial troopers = British Redcoats. Why do you hate America?
Lots of tongue, and I want a good clean swallow, you cheap whore.
Try to think in terms of the effect on the recipient, not the medium. ASCII wastes a bit. CDs waste 3 or 4 bits. It's worse then mp3/wma/ogg compression. Now, get sucking, bitch. I like slow, then fast.
Because when every corporation offers the same take-it-or-leave-it boilerplate "we own all your output" contracts, and form an effective cartel, then the creators get collectively screwed and don't actually have any "choice" at all. Don't take it from me; ask all the striking script-writers how they feel about the "choice" on offer.
Yes, I'm sure that it "intends" to, at some point in the future, and at further cost to itself. Good intentions and a dollar will buy you a twinkie. Right now though, the iPlayer is a second rate solution to a problem that the BBC chose to create.
I can watch swathes of (DRMd) content running in Windows Media Player inside my browser, with nothing further to install. Total cost to ITV - the DRM key. Time to market: 0 days.
Still, I'm sure a lot of consultants got some very nice expenses-lunches out of designing the iPlayer.
No, I didn't say that. I think the Constitution did. Why do you hate the Constitution with such a passion? You seem very excited. I think They might be monitoring your transmissions. You don't want Them to put you on a List. Perhaps you should have a lie down.
Yes, you're right; CDs are far worse than mp3/wma/ogg, as they take up 16 bits worth of space, but only (de facto) give you 12 or 13 bits of range. I'm glad we agree that I'm so awesomely right. You need to get in line to suck my dick though; there's plenty of other respondents who have to gargle on it first as penance for being technically correct while ignoring the critical word "effectively".
"Cannot" and "should not" are different things. Corporations do not create; individuals do. My issue is with rewarding creativity with boilerplate flat rate, no-royalty salary. It does not incentivise the actual creator to produce better work. For a perfect example, I'm typing this while I should be writing software, but as I get paid the same either way, what's my incentive to do so?
Think carefully about what you should currently be doing before you answer.
They should be, but that's distinct from boilerplate "work for hire" employment contracts that oblige creators to hand over all their work for a fixed rate. Progress is best served - as the Constitution says - by incentivising the actual individual creator to produce the best possible work. It's a fine distinction, but if all creative work was freelance (or royaltied), then output and quality would tend to rise. When you get paid the same either way, what's the incentive to progress the useful arts?
I accept your point, but my answer is based on a literal reading, not a mis-reading.
In short: you have no idea what the common English word "effectively" means, and so need to get in the long, long line of nerds who absolutely need to suck my dick as penance for being so technically right, and yet so utterly, mindblowingly wrong in every way that matters.