Ie, retain, *everything*... absolutely *everything*, why should email/*doc* be an acceptable domain, where, one can simply erase data under dubious circumstances ?
*Everything* is a lot. Do you want every revision of your swap file to be backed up?
On the other hand, every email you send does seem like a reasonable requirement. But what if your email contains a URL. Should you be required to back up that version of the web page?
R calls them "packages", not "plugins". If you search for "R plugins" you find a lot of non-R stuff, but if you search for "R packages" you find what you're looking for.
I don't have the Java source code, but here's an extract from the Delphi 5 license:
"You acknowledge that the Software in source code form remains a confidential trade secret of Inprise and/or its suppliers and therefore you agree not to modify the Software or attempt to reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation."
So you could probably get away with patches to your own copy of the source (because that's probably fair use, and in any case Borland would never know about it), but you certainly couldn't set up a shop to provide ongoing updates to it under this license. Maybe current Borland licenses are more generous, but I doubt it.
In this year, the project managed to conclude more than 25 amicable agreements, two preliminary injunctions and one court order.
This really could have a reverse affect. What I do not see here is "We try to work with companies to find a suitable path to bring them into GPL compliance". What I do see is the GPL version of scare tactics and lawsuits.
Amicable agreements sound, um, amicable. I imagine if companies want to comply, these guys will help them to work out how.
e-TeX is specifically designed to be a successor to TeX. It is currently the default engine in MikTeX, a commonly used TeX package on Windows.
Is it TeX? No, it's a successor: "The aims of the project are to perpetuate and develop the spirit and philosophy of TeX, whilst respecting Knuth's wish that TeX should remain frozen."
It's described fairly clearly when you read the help files on proxy bidding, so I doubt this will hold up in court. I'm looking at it from all sides and can't really find fault with eBay. You agreed to use their system, they described how the proxy bidding works (including what happens if you place a new maximum bid), so I can't see that there is really anything heinous going on. There is no manipulation, it's all above board for once.
I think a crucial part of the lawsuit is that the email Ebay sends to encourage the high bidder to raise his maximum doesn't mention that it will also raise his bid. Quoting the Internetnews article:
"When bidders reach their maximum bids, they get an automated e-mail confirmation that they're the highest bidder. But it includes the warning, 'Important: You are one bid away from being outbid. If another user places a bid, you will not win. To increase your chances of winning, enter your highest maximum bid.'
The bidder would assume that his bid would only be raised again if someone outbid him. However, in some cases, the system automatically increases the bidder's already high bid by enough to meet the minimum increment."
No, they're the local CFL team, not a university team.
But seriously...the effort required to sidestep spam (click it into your junk box) is actually far slighter than the effort required to sidestep a solicitor's phone call or turn away a caller in the flesh. If a salesman is going to bug me, please let him (oh, please) send me an email instead of telephoning me at home!
The point is that it's so much cheaper to bug you by email, that a spammer can bug 100,000 people with the effort it takes a phone solicitor to bug you. Turning it around, this means that with the effort it takes one phone solicitor to call you, 100,000 spammers can send you mail.
As part of the course, we studied Mersenne primes. At the time, I was dabbling in x86 assembler, and I decided to write a program to calculate the then largest known Mersenne prime number: 2^31 - 1, which worked out to 65,050 digits.
I don't think it actually did bring back those memories. 2^31-1 is 2147483647. You're thinking of Mersenne prime 31, which is 2^216091 - 1.
But I can't even get Skype to give me that level of service! It's not that they make the process long and painful, they don't have any process at all.
And remember, this is when I want to give them money. So extrapolate to a situation where I want to get something fixed. It doesn't bear thinking about.
I wouldn't get one of those phones just for Skype use, because I'd be afraid of getting cut off by Skype's incompetence.
Right now you can call out from Skype to a regular phone, as long as you have a credit with them to cover the low cost of the call. But there is apparently *no way* for me to give them any credit! They won't accept my credit card, they won't accept Paypal, they won't accept a cheque in the mail. They refer me to Moneybookers, who won't accept my credit card, won't accept Paypal, and won't accept a cheque in the mail.
Skype is fine as a free service (for as long as that lasts), but they haven't a clue when it comes to supporting customers. It's not as though *wanting to give them money* is an exotic request.
Make no mistake, if you are for competition and keeping government out of competition with private industry, you are not for this proposal.
How does that follow? It isn't going to be government employees who build or deploy this sort of thing; it'll almost certainly be contracted out.
Furthermore, there's no need for it to be a monopoly: it will probably have limited bandwidth, and anyone who wants to offer better service can compete by trying to sell it to the municipality at the times contracts are tendered, or by selling it to individuals at any time. There's no need for every access point to belong to the same provider, so there could be small scale competition among providers.
This is more of a case of a group of users banding together to buy in bulk in a competitive marketplace, rather than something that is anti-competitive.
I think it would be reasonable to guess that a 15-17 year old would have an income such that investing $3000 per year would take up pretty much all of it.
On the other hand, a 30-65 year old would likely have average earnings of $30000 or more.
So we're talking about 100% of income for 3 years, or less than 10% for 35 years. Pretty much the same amount of pain, but the late starter comes out ahead (unless you assume an unrealistically high return, like 10%).
Yes, investing early is better than investing late, but income also tends to arrive late, and you can't invest money you don't have.
I think better advice than "Invest $3000 a year when you're a teenager" is "Don't waste your money on crap. Invest what you can, when you can."
I'd rather not make it personal, but rest assured, I was in no-wise suggesting that all (or even a majority) of OSS supporters think that way; I'm all for OSS myself. My comments were based on comments I've seen elsewhere on Slashdot from time to time posted by some individuals who would do away with IP and copyrights in their entirety (I've seen them).
Okay, sure, I believe that there are some people who post such things to Slashdot. But I don't think many people take them particularly seriously, and you shouldn't, either. But neither should you worry about "making it personal" by pointing to some of their posts. If they posted something, they shouldn't mind someone disagreeing with it.
Many people who completely reject the idea of intellectual property (not all) aren't really communists as Mr. Gates would propose, but in fact, radical left-wing anarchists. They despise authority in any form that it comes in; that is why such things as IP and copyrights are hated so much. The idea of God introduces a supreme authority, so they hate him even more.
Who are these people? Most open source advocates believe in copyright. They may argue about the details (e.g. limits on copyright terms), but I can't think of anyone who matches the description you wrote.
I'd rather have the RIAA or similar breathing down the necks of people who break the law than having to pay so some schmuch can download stuff without paying for it.
And I'd rather have the right to make copies of recordings without worrying about paying for them. Making copies of a friend's recording for my own use is a reasonable thing to want to do; why should I be breaking a law when I do it?
The good thing about the levy is that I don't need to pay for songs that I download and then overwrite. Does the ITMS give refunds when you decide you don't like the song any more?
"Digital sharing of copyrighted music in countries which put a tax on CD-Rs, MP3 players, etc. is effectively legal, since you're paying for the priviledge of doing so whether you actually are or not."
Not correct. There might be laws on the book of that country which allow copying under a certain set of circumstances, but the existence of a tarrif or levy does not in itself make piracy legal.
That's right, but in Canada there is a law on the books (the Copyright Act) which does make copying of music for private use legal. I don't understand why anyone would agree to a levy without this, but with it, a levy seems like a good compromise.
what happens when the interceptor hit "nucular" missiles above or near our coasts? Wouldnt there still be fallouts?
If the incoming missile managed to detonate, there would be lots of fallout, but nuclear bombs are fairly delicate things, so chances are it wouldn't. In that case there would still be a little radioactivity from the radioactive parts of the bomb, but not very much. Nuclear reactions create outputs that are a lot more radioactive than the inputs.
Slashdot Mirror
Ie, retain, *everything*... absolutely *everything*, why should email/*doc* be an acceptable domain, where, one can simply erase data under dubious circumstances ?
*Everything* is a lot. Do you want every revision of your swap file to be backed up?
On the other hand, every email you send does seem like a reasonable requirement. But what if your email contains a URL. Should you be required to back up that version of the web page?
R calls them "packages", not "plugins". If you search for "R plugins" you find a lot of non-R stuff, but if you search for "R packages" you find what you're looking for.
I don't have the Java source code, but here's an extract from the Delphi 5 license:
"You acknowledge that the Software in source code form remains a confidential trade secret of Inprise and/or its suppliers and therefore you agree not to modify the Software or
attempt to reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation."
So you could probably get away with patches to your own copy of the source (because that's probably fair use, and in any case Borland would never know about it), but you certainly couldn't set up a shop to provide ongoing updates to it under this license. Maybe current Borland licenses are more generous, but I doubt it.
If you notice, he actually offered a settelement of $6250 (or soemthing like it), but why? If he really did nothing wrong?
He offered to let the spammers pay him $6250 instead of the full amount allowed under the Oklahoma law. He didn't offer to pay them anything.
I like Delphi a lot, but both Java and Delphi are just as proprietary as VB, and support could be just as capriciously withdrawn.
In this year, the project managed to conclude more than 25 amicable agreements, two preliminary injunctions and one court order.
This really could have a reverse affect. What I do not see here is "We try to work with companies to find a suitable path to bring them into GPL compliance". What I do see is the GPL version of scare tactics and lawsuits.
Amicable agreements sound, um, amicable. I imagine if companies want to comply, these guys will help them to work out how.
e-TeX is specifically designed to be a successor to TeX. It is currently the default engine in MikTeX, a commonly used TeX package on Windows.
Is it TeX? No, it's a successor: "The aims of the project are to perpetuate and develop the spirit and philosophy of TeX, whilst respecting Knuth's wish that TeX should remain frozen."
You didn't even Read The Fucking Summery . . . . there is a forum spellchecker available
SUMMARY! SUMMARY! SUMMARY!
Maybe you should use it.
If you're going to correct someone, you had better make damned sure that your post has no errors.
Can the spell checker find misuses of real words?
I never complain about summary spelling in summery weather.
It's described fairly clearly when you read the help files on proxy bidding, so I doubt this will hold up in court. I'm looking at it from all sides and can't really find fault with eBay. You agreed to use their system, they described how the proxy bidding works (including what happens if you place a new maximum bid), so I can't see that there is really anything heinous going on. There is no manipulation, it's all above board for once.
I think a crucial part of the lawsuit is that the email Ebay sends to encourage the high bidder to raise his maximum doesn't mention that it will also raise his bid. Quoting the Internetnews article:
"When bidders reach their maximum bids, they get an automated e-mail confirmation that they're the highest bidder. But it includes the warning, 'Important: You are one bid away from being outbid. If another user places a bid, you will not win. To increase your chances of winning, enter your highest maximum bid.'
The bidder would assume that his bid would only be raised again if someone outbid him. However, in some cases, the system automatically increases the bidder's already high bid by enough to meet the minimum increment."
~to these red-blooded football players' defense~
They are university affiliates, after all.
No, they're the local CFL team, not a university team.
But seriously...the effort required to sidestep spam (click it into your junk box) is actually far slighter than the effort required to sidestep a solicitor's phone call or turn away a caller in the flesh. If a salesman is going to bug me, please let him (oh, please) send me an email instead of telephoning me at home!
The point is that it's so much cheaper to bug you by email, that a spammer can bug 100,000 people with the effort it takes a phone solicitor to bug you. Turning it around, this means that with the effort it takes one phone solicitor to call you, 100,000 spammers can send you mail.
As part of the course, we studied Mersenne primes. At the time, I was dabbling in x86 assembler, and I decided to write a program to calculate the then largest known Mersenne prime number: 2^31 - 1, which worked out to 65,050 digits.
I don't think it actually did bring back those memories. 2^31-1 is 2147483647. You're thinking of Mersenne prime 31, which is 2^216091 - 1.
But I can't even get Skype to give me that level of service! It's not that they make the process long and painful, they don't have any process at all.
And remember, this is when I want to give them money. So extrapolate to a situation where I want to get something fixed. It doesn't bear thinking about.
I wouldn't get one of those phones just for Skype use, because I'd be afraid of getting cut off by Skype's incompetence.
Right now you can call out from Skype to a regular phone, as long as you have a credit with them to cover the low cost of the call. But there is apparently *no way* for me to give them any credit! They won't accept my credit card, they won't accept Paypal, they won't accept a cheque in the mail. They refer me to Moneybookers, who won't accept my credit card, won't accept Paypal, and won't accept a cheque in the mail.
Skype is fine as a free service (for as long as that lasts), but they haven't a clue when it comes to supporting customers. It's not as though *wanting to give them money* is an exotic request.
The National Research Council of Canada is a federal government department, very influential in their own minds (but maybe not in anyone else's).
Can't tell you anything about the others.
Try Googling:
COTS = Commercial Off-The-Shelf
I think CMM = Capability Maturity Model, but I still have no idea what it means.
ERP = (probably) Enterprise Resource Planning
OSS = Open Source Software (but you probably knew that...)
Make no mistake, if you are for competition and keeping government out of competition with private industry, you are not for this proposal.
How does that follow? It isn't going to be government employees who build or deploy this sort of thing; it'll almost certainly be contracted out.
Furthermore, there's no need for it to be a monopoly: it will probably have limited bandwidth, and anyone who wants to offer better service can compete by trying to sell it to the municipality at the times contracts are tendered, or by selling it to individuals at any time. There's no need for every access point to belong to the same provider, so there could be small scale competition among providers.
This is more of a case of a group of users banding together to buy in bulk in a competitive marketplace, rather than something that is anti-competitive.
I think it would be reasonable to guess that a 15-17 year old would have an income such that investing $3000 per year would take up pretty much all of it.
On the other hand, a 30-65 year old would likely have average earnings of $30000 or more.
So we're talking about 100% of income for 3 years, or less than 10% for 35 years. Pretty much the same amount of pain, but the late starter comes out ahead (unless you assume an unrealistically high return, like 10%).
Yes, investing early is better than investing late, but income also tends to arrive late, and you can't invest money you don't have.
I think better advice than "Invest $3000 a year when you're a teenager" is "Don't waste your money on crap. Invest what you can, when you can."
The principle is the same regardless of the interest rate.
Well, actually it's not. At a 7% interest rate the one who started at age 30 comes out quite a bit ahead.
I'd rather not make it personal, but rest assured, I was in no-wise suggesting that all (or even a majority) of OSS supporters think that way; I'm all for OSS myself. My comments were based on comments I've seen elsewhere on Slashdot from time to time posted by some individuals who would do away with IP and copyrights in their entirety (I've seen them).
Okay, sure, I believe that there are some people who post such things to Slashdot. But I don't think many people take them particularly seriously, and you shouldn't, either. But neither should you worry about "making it personal" by pointing to some of their posts. If they posted something, they shouldn't mind someone disagreeing with it.
Many people who completely reject the idea of intellectual property (not all) aren't really communists as Mr. Gates would propose, but in fact, radical left-wing anarchists. They despise authority in any form that it comes in; that is why such things as IP and copyrights are hated so much. The idea of God introduces a supreme authority, so they hate him even more.
Who are these people? Most open source advocates believe in copyright. They may argue about the details (e.g. limits on copyright terms), but I can't think of anyone who matches the description you wrote.
Name some names.
You can read the Act yourself (I did provide a link), but I don't see any restriction on the type of media.
I'd rather have the RIAA or similar breathing down the necks of people who break the law than having to pay so some schmuch can download stuff without paying for it.
And I'd rather have the right to make copies of recordings without worrying about paying for them. Making copies of a friend's recording for my own use is a reasonable thing to want to do; why should I be breaking a law when I do it?
The good thing about the levy is that I don't need to pay for songs that I download and then overwrite. Does the ITMS give refunds when you decide you don't like the song any more?
"Digital sharing of copyrighted music in countries which put a tax on CD-Rs, MP3 players, etc. is effectively legal, since you're paying for the priviledge of doing so whether you actually are or not."
Not correct. There might be laws on the book of that country which allow copying under a certain set of circumstances, but the existence of a tarrif or levy does not in itself make piracy legal.
That's right, but in Canada there is a law on the books (the Copyright Act) which does make copying of music for private use legal. I don't understand why anyone would agree to a levy without this, but with it, a levy seems like a good compromise.
what happens when the interceptor hit "nucular" missiles above or near our coasts? Wouldnt there still be fallouts?
If the incoming missile managed to detonate, there would be lots of fallout, but nuclear bombs are fairly delicate things, so chances are it wouldn't. In that case there would still be a little radioactivity from the radioactive parts of the bomb, but not very much. Nuclear reactions create outputs that are a lot more radioactive than the inputs.
i set up a filter to block anything that has the word "unsuscribe" in it.
The misspelling is brilliant. How did you think of that?