It's about a jumping ball and you had to collect keys for locks. The ball jumped up and down all the time and you where able to direct the ball left and right. I don't remember its name, but maybe one of you know it?
I guess what I'm trying to say, badly, is that whereas before computer sales were being boosted by technological progress, that as that progress slows or becomes less relevant to people's needs then that boosting effect has diminished bringing us to a more normal pattern of sales. I wouldn't see it as sales being impeded, more of them falling into a normal pattern. It's obviously just a matter of perspective though.
I probably wont buy a new machine until the current one dies. How is that not impeding sales?
It just seems like the normal course of things to me. I won't buy a new microwave oven until that dies either. Is that impeding sales of microwave ovens? Is the fact that I already have a screwdriver impeding sales of screwdrivers? If you want to look at it that way then I guess it is. It just seems weird to want to look at it like that.
My fastest machine is an AMD Athlon 800Mhz. I dont do the gaming thing very often, and I honestly feel like the machine performs quite sufficiently for me. I have the money to upgrade, but its simply not a priority for me.
Sure, but is it really reasonable to say that that is "impeding" sales?
You could say the same about old television sets continuing to function or old books still being readable or old doors still allowing, or restricting, access to buildings.
It just seems a weird way of looking at things to say that older stuff continuing to work is "impeding sales" of new stuff. Is a lack of earthquakes impeding sales of new homes? I guess you can say it does but... I wouldn't.
QinetiQ stands to make £150,000 to £2 million per station
That's quite some gap.
Makes perfect sense if the £150,000 is the figure given by the government and £2 million is the fugure arrived at by everyone else. The government lives in a dream land when it comes to the figures that they think everyone else will believe. It's almost like they WANT to destroy any credibility they have left.
With separate accounts, any web site owner can log into any other web site you have an account on.
But they don't know which sites you have accounts on.
With one account, they don't get your password.
But one web site owner gets not only your password but also a list of all the web sites you connect to (because they all connect to his site) and in some of these schemes he also gets info like you credit card number.
Okay, I have some sympathy with the employer here but would need more information, ideally to see the interview, to know whether I'd side with them or the employee.
Your position, however, I think is dead wrong. You seem to be saying that political or philosophical expression is limited to naming a political party, or possibly to identifying yourself with something that is a policy of a political party. I don't think that's supportable.
Up almost to the end of the article I was thinking that the employer was in the right, because I was taking it that they were firing him for either a history of, or a stated intent to, act in breach of copyright laws. A person who does that is a clear risk to their business.
However, the statement from Tribal Group, however (which may not completely reflect their views on this matter):
"Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate."
seems to suggest that he was fired for his expression of a political opinion. That would be unacceptable, and as far as I can see it would also be contrary to law.
I'd still need to have more information to decide who I think is right here. One quote form the employer isn't enough. But I'm sure your party-centric way of looking at it is wrong. I shouldn't need to have the agreement of a political party in order for my political views to be protected.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I don't understand what point you're trying to make and I don't feel like I'm making any progress, so I won't bother posting further on this. Thanks for the discussion anyway.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
That's not completely true. If I was granted the right by the person/company who owns the code, I could incorporate.
The same holds true for GPL software. The point is, the GPL doesn't rely on force or "ruling with an iron fist" any more than other licenses do. If the copyright holder gives you separate permission not to abide by any restrictions then you have that separate permission but I still don't see how that addresses the issue.
You asked "And since when does ruling with an iron fist get you anywhere?", as far as I can tell your own answer is that it gets you somewhere when you're a proprietary software developer, but not otherwise.
You went on to say "Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does." but again, you seem to feel that isn't true of licensing in general, just of the GPL. Why?
The GPL is trying to use licensing to force the world into the GNU foundations narrow viewpoint. Proprietary software does not do this.
How not? The BSA and its member companies have views on software licensing. They'll happily tell you all about it. Their licenses enforce those views. Copyright law as a whole enforces one particular viewpoint, author control, the GPL and other licenses then impose the conditions of the authors. How is the viewpoint of the GPL narrower than that of the licence for Quicken?
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
If I were to work on GPL licensed software, I no longer have the right to choose how I license my software.
Yes, of course, just like if you decided to incorporate proprietary code into your own software. Copyright law requires that you can only distribute someone else's code subject to whatever conditions they place on it.
I don't think that answers my question. you were saying (if I understood correctly) that using force, i.e. legal licensing terms, doesn't get you anywhere and you should convince people to use the code the way you want instead. I was asking whether you apply this to proprietary software licenses or only to the GPL. Do you think all software licensors should give up on force?
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
And since when does ruling with an iron fist get you anywhere? Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does.
Out of interest, do you apply this reasoning to proprietary software licenses too? Do you feel they should give up on police and the courts and the whole legal framework and just try to persuade everyone to limit what they do with the software without force, or do you only apply this to GPL?
Guy says, "I don't want Software Kit Y, because Nikon refuses to give me permission to change it, give it away, tell other people they can give it away, whatever." He says this with much righteous indignation.
That sounds like a consumer specifying what they want from a product and expressing why they aren't happy with a particular option. Don't see your problem.
Guy is asking Nikon to waive all their property and moral rights. Why? Because he just wants them to, I guess.
Nikon are asking him to buy their product rather than their competitors'. Why? Because they just want him to, I guess.
There is nothing wrong with a potential customer saying "I won't buy this because it tastes foul / is too expensive / I don't like the name / it doesn't come with source code" or anything else they want that it doesn't give. Unless you exile yourself from society completely then this is something you're going to have to learn to live with. Nikon don't have to listen, of course.
What they are saying is that even if it's more dangerous, it's worth it to them to get places faster.
If the risk was solely to the driver then that would be acceptable and I would agree with you that they're entitled to make that decision. In reality, of course, the driver is risking the lives of people who haven't agreed that their lives are worth risking in order that the driver can get places faster. The driver risks lives of people who do drive safely or who don't drive at all. It is entirely legitimate for the government to regulate this activity in the interests of those people, just as with any other activity that is dangerous to others.
are they seriously saying that the leaking of product information (against a contract) is the same thing as being a whistle blower against illegal actions by companies like worldcom.
No they are not. Nor are they saying that "Apple's DNA is innovation, and protection of trade secrets is crucial to [their] success."
They are quoting both sides in a case that they're reporting on.
How did he get access to the BitKeeper functionality such that he was able to attempt to reverse engineer it? I say he did only because of BitKeeper's goodwill.
So how did Bit Mover's goodwill towards him manifest itself? I really don't understand why you're so reluctant to go into detail about this goodwill that they showed towards him.
Copyright law doesn't cover use of the software - only distribution.
Copyright law covers public performance. If they were to go down this route they would probably try to base it off of public performance rights. The legal position would almost certainly be unclear until such time as case law develops concerning public performance of software.
...from one country to another, the country I bomb can't touch me?
It's understandable for the target country to pursue you, and for a missile I wouldn't be surprised if they're willing to break some rules to do so.
However, if your own country doesn't see fit to make the action illegal then I can see no reason for them to extradite you for an act they themselves permit. Similarly, if there are laws against it in the home country then I can see no reason why they should extradite one of their own people rather than having them tried under their own laws. Apart from anything else, extradition to a foreign jurisdiction is a pretty extreme action imposed upon someone deemed to be innocent untless proven guilty.
The question is: is this a natural warming trend, as observed 500-1000 years ago, is this human-induced or is it a combination of the two.
The most likely answer is that it's a combination, so the disagreement boils down to where you place the division of responsibility.
The questions should be:
1. Is it a problem for us?
2. Is there anything we can do about it?
Finding out what caused it, whether us or something else, helps to answer those questions but it shouldn't be a matter of "oh, it's going to cause terrible things but we didn't do it so who cares" or "oh, it's completely harmless and self correcting but we caused it so let's agonise about it".
"Placing division of responsibility" just sounds silly.
Slashdot Mirror
It's about a jumping ball and you had to collect keys for locks. The ball jumped up and down all the time and you where able to direct the ball left and right. I don't remember its name, but maybe one of you know it?
Possibly Bounder, and/or its sequel Rebounder.
Sorry, but what percentage of energy is used for lighting? It must be tiny.
And most of it is probably in offices where the lights are on all day regardless of sunlight or DST.
I guess what I'm trying to say, badly, is that whereas before computer sales were being boosted by technological progress, that as that progress slows or becomes less relevant to people's needs then that boosting effect has diminished bringing us to a more normal pattern of sales. I wouldn't see it as sales being impeded, more of them falling into a normal pattern. It's obviously just a matter of perspective though.
I probably wont buy a new machine until the current one dies. How is that not impeding sales?
It just seems like the normal course of things to me. I won't buy a new microwave oven until that dies either. Is that impeding sales of microwave ovens? Is the fact that I already have a screwdriver impeding sales of screwdrivers? If you want to look at it that way then I guess it is. It just seems weird to want to look at it like that.
My fastest machine is an AMD Athlon 800Mhz. I dont do the gaming thing very often, and I honestly feel like the machine performs quite sufficiently for me. I have the money to upgrade, but its simply not a priority for me.
Sure, but is it really reasonable to say that that is "impeding" sales?
You could say the same about old television sets continuing to function or old books still being readable or old doors still allowing, or restricting, access to buildings.
It just seems a weird way of looking at things to say that older stuff continuing to work is "impeding sales" of new stuff. Is a lack of earthquakes impeding sales of new homes? I guess you can say it does but... I wouldn't.
QinetiQ stands to make £150,000 to £2 million per station
That's quite some gap.
Makes perfect sense if the £150,000 is the figure given by the government and £2 million is the fugure arrived at by everyone else. The government lives in a dream land when it comes to the figures that they think everyone else will believe. It's almost like they WANT to destroy any credibility they have left.
With separate accounts, any web site owner can log into any other web site you have an account on.
But they don't know which sites you have accounts on.
With one account, they don't get your password.
But one web site owner gets not only your password but also a list of all the web sites you connect to (because they all connect to his site) and in some of these schemes he also gets info like you credit card number.
Your position, however, I think is dead wrong. You seem to be saying that political or philosophical expression is limited to naming a political party, or possibly to identifying yourself with something that is a policy of a political party. I don't think that's supportable.
Up almost to the end of the article I was thinking that the employer was in the right, because I was taking it that they were firing him for either a history of, or a stated intent to, act in breach of copyright laws. A person who does that is a clear risk to their business.
However, the statement from Tribal Group, however (which may not completely reflect their views on this matter):
seems to suggest that he was fired for his expression of a political opinion. That would be unacceptable, and as far as I can see it would also be contrary to law.
I'd still need to have more information to decide who I think is right here. One quote form the employer isn't enough. But I'm sure your party-centric way of looking at it is wrong. I shouldn't need to have the agreement of a political party in order for my political views to be protected.
Okay, I don't understand what point you're trying to make and I don't feel like I'm making any progress, so I won't bother posting further on this. Thanks for the discussion anyway.
That's not completely true. If I was granted the right by the person/company who owns the code, I could incorporate.
The same holds true for GPL software. The point is, the GPL doesn't rely on force or "ruling with an iron fist" any more than other licenses do. If the copyright holder gives you separate permission not to abide by any restrictions then you have that separate permission but I still don't see how that addresses the issue.
You asked "And since when does ruling with an iron fist get you anywhere?", as far as I can tell your own answer is that it gets you somewhere when you're a proprietary software developer, but not otherwise.
You went on to say "Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does." but again, you seem to feel that isn't true of licensing in general, just of the GPL. Why?
The GPL is trying to use licensing to force the world into the GNU foundations narrow viewpoint. Proprietary software does not do this.
How not? The BSA and its member companies have views on software licensing. They'll happily tell you all about it. Their licenses enforce those views. Copyright law as a whole enforces one particular viewpoint, author control, the GPL and other licenses then impose the conditions of the authors. How is the viewpoint of the GPL narrower than that of the licence for Quicken?
If I were to work on GPL licensed software, I no longer have the right to choose how I license my software.
Yes, of course, just like if you decided to incorporate proprietary code into your own software. Copyright law requires that you can only distribute someone else's code subject to whatever conditions they place on it.
I don't think that answers my question. you were saying (if I understood correctly) that using force, i.e. legal licensing terms, doesn't get you anywhere and you should convince people to use the code the way you want instead. I was asking whether you apply this to proprietary software licenses or only to the GPL. Do you think all software licensors should give up on force?
And since when does ruling with an iron fist get you anywhere? Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does.
Out of interest, do you apply this reasoning to proprietary software licenses too? Do you feel they should give up on police and the courts and the whole legal framework and just try to persuade everyone to limit what they do with the software without force, or do you only apply this to GPL?
and because political, social and economic reforms have opened up science to a class beyond the professional dilletante.
To be fair, patents are arguably one of those economic reforms.
Guy says, "I don't want Software Kit Y, because Nikon refuses to give me permission to change it, give it away, tell other people they can give it away, whatever." He says this with much righteous indignation.
That sounds like a consumer specifying what they want from a product and expressing why they aren't happy with a particular option. Don't see your problem.
Guy is asking Nikon to waive all their property and moral rights. Why? Because he just wants them to, I guess.
Nikon are asking him to buy their product rather than their competitors'. Why? Because they just want him to, I guess.
There is nothing wrong with a potential customer saying "I won't buy this because it tastes foul / is too expensive / I don't like the name / it doesn't come with source code" or anything else they want that it doesn't give. Unless you exile yourself from society completely then this is something you're going to have to learn to live with. Nikon don't have to listen, of course.
What they are saying is that even if it's more dangerous, it's worth it to them to get places faster.
If the risk was solely to the driver then that would be acceptable and I would agree with you that they're entitled to make that decision. In reality, of course, the driver is risking the lives of people who haven't agreed that their lives are worth risking in order that the driver can get places faster. The driver risks lives of people who do drive safely or who don't drive at all. It is entirely legitimate for the government to regulate this activity in the interests of those people, just as with any other activity that is dangerous to others.
are they seriously saying that the leaking of product information (against a contract) is the same thing as being a whistle blower against illegal actions by companies like worldcom.
No they are not. Nor are they saying that "Apple's DNA is innovation, and protection of trade secrets is crucial to [their] success."
They are quoting both sides in a case that they're reporting on.
How did he get access to the BitKeeper functionality such that he was able to attempt to reverse engineer it? I say he did only because of BitKeeper's goodwill.
So how did Bit Mover's goodwill towards him manifest itself? I really don't understand why you're so reluctant to go into detail about this goodwill that they showed towards him.
I didn't know he'd worked on the kernel at all, I will bow to your superior knowledge.
I'm going to disagree with you. It is immoral to reverse engineer while relying on the goodwill of the people you are reverse engineering.
In what way was Tridge relying on the goodwill of Bit Mover? This is the first time I've even heard there was any goodwill towards him.
Copyright law doesn't cover use of the software - only distribution.
Copyright law covers public performance. If they were to go down this route they would probably try to base it off of public performance rights. The legal position would almost certainly be unclear until such time as case law develops concerning public performance of software.
When was it abnormal to have both a computer and a console?
Round about Commodore 64 time.
...from one country to another, the country I bomb can't touch me?
It's understandable for the target country to pursue you, and for a missile I wouldn't be surprised if they're willing to break some rules to do so.
However, if your own country doesn't see fit to make the action illegal then I can see no reason for them to extradite you for an act they themselves permit. Similarly, if there are laws against it in the home country then I can see no reason why they should extradite one of their own people rather than having them tried under their own laws. Apart from anything else, extradition to a foreign jurisdiction is a pretty extreme action imposed upon someone deemed to be innocent untless proven guilty.
More of a flame than flamebait, but certainly not showing themselves as the voice of reason.
FFIIs statement was much better. While still being highly critical of the decisions it avoids personal abuse.
Most Christians hold that Jesus is God. Arabs certainly don't believe that.
That's a pretty sweeping statement about a massive ethnic grouping. Possibly you mean to say "Moslems".
The question is: is this a natural warming trend, as observed 500-1000 years ago, is this human-induced or is it a combination of the two.
The most likely answer is that it's a combination, so the disagreement boils down to where you place the division of responsibility.
The questions should be:
1. Is it a problem for us?
2. Is there anything we can do about it?
Finding out what caused it, whether us or something else, helps to answer those questions but it shouldn't be a matter of "oh, it's going to cause terrible things but we didn't do it so who cares" or "oh, it's completely harmless and self correcting but we caused it so let's agonise about it".
"Placing division of responsibility" just sounds silly.