Driving is a privilege and a responsability. Too many people kill and maim too many other people because they can't behave responsably.
It might not be a bad idea if the only situations where people could gain or lose a driving licence were actually related to driving. Yet you have situations of people self evidently a menace to others on the road keeping licences and people having them confiscated over issues unrelated to driving. Let alone when did a bank acount or a bottle of beer become a car? The point of the document is to demonstrate that the holder has an acceptable competance in driving the types of motor vehicles indicated.
It happens in every country, and many times isn't intentional. A seemingly benign act of translation can change the flavor of something just by the nature of finding words in a different language to express foreign concepts.
It dosn't even always need to be translated. There is plenty of US idiom which dosn't make much sense to the rest of the English speaking world. With things such as "Dawn Summers is too young to drink coffee" it's hard to see how translation could help much anyway.
Apart, from the opening motorcycle chase, everything in the movie is big, your talking about massive riots (one of the themes of the movies is about society tearing itself apart), a military crackdown, and a climax where one of the leads turns into a hugh bloated mess.
The expensive bits to do live action are things like riots, actors need paying, they also need costumes and makeup. All too easily you end up with trick shots to make it look like 20 people are several hundred.
What i like about Anime is that the author/director person can do whatever they want and achieve impossbile camera angels if they wanted.
Or shots where you'd have to stop half way through and physically move the camera crew.
Anime is a great medium for storytelling, and cheaper too? ( i dont know how much it costs to produce an anime, but you dont have to pay for location permits and the such, and travel expenses)
Also such things as special effects and non human characters don't cost cost extra. Nor are they limited by available technology or even the ability of actors to wear makeup.
Kinda funny how the same people who ignore Microsoft EULAs turn around and whine like little girls when they think the GPL is being "stretched" or even slightly mis-interpreted.
An EULA is a different kind of entity from the GPL. The GPL is a copyright licence, no different conceptually from an agreement between an author and a publisher to publish a book. An EULA attempts to cover how you can use a program. Whereas the GPL applies to distributing a program. IIRC it explicitally states that using programs is outside its scope.
The only way arround this would be (in my opinion, and i happens that IANAL) to pay this beta testers for testing the product ($1 would be ok) and treat them like hired personel.
The only other way would be to have this $99 be to buy stock/shares in the company. Which again could be argued to change the action from distribution to a third party to an internal transfer between different parts of the same "corporate person".
There is no devine right to the idea that a specific business model is sensible even viable. There are plenty of businesses where any actual product is very cheap. Most likely they are actually selling a service, even a brand name.
When he does release the source, then we'll drop it. No hard feelings. We're not in it to ruin his company, his image, or his product.
Which would be "us" being very generous. In terms of the letter of the law this company would have to petition every copyright holder for a new licence.
They own the copyright. They are under no obligation to keep betas, etc. under the GPL.
Except they don't own copyright on anything they didn't write from scratch themselves. The vast bulk of their product is either unmodified GPL code or obvious derivatives of GPL code.
I mean, say I am working on a piece of code, based on GPL stuff. Say it's for internal use only within my office. I think we all agree that using it on my company's computers only is not distributing it. Now let's say I want to send a copy to Joe because I value Joe's input into UI design, so I send a binary to my pal Joe. AM I now obligated to give Joe source?
The only relevent issue would be the question "is Joe part of the same corporate entity as you?".
I don't think so. I am not distributing my new work. I am merely SHOWING it to joe so he can give me feedback.
If you send Joe the program then you are distributing it. If you sent him a few screen shots or even a 3 hour video showing it being used then you are "merely showing it to Joe". It really dosn't matter how, even why, you distributed it. Dosn't even matter if you intended to distribute it to someone, maybe you sent it to Jane by mistake...
Then this will become the new way to skirt GPL: grab other peoples' GPLed code; modify it somewhat to add some functionality; sell it for a year or so all the time claiming that its not "final" yet; and then release the source.
The problem with this business model is that it is based on copyright infringment (or if you prefer "software piracy"). Also copyright infringement is usually considered more of a serious problem if the infringer is doing this commercially, especially if they are making more money than the copyright holder.
Don't forget though, that the GPL allows him to charge a "distribution fee", which the license doesn't even say must be reasonable.
This applies only to the binary. There are specific on how much you can charge if choose to distribute the source separatly. In this situation you can only charge what it actually costs you.
I can make modifications to any GPLed software, not release the final software but use it internally at my company with how-many-I-desire copies installed without breaking GPL.
In order for this to be "internal" you must be part of the relevent entity.
I don't see much difference between internal usage and an internal beta program.
Unless paying the fee makes the beta testers either employees of or shareholders in the company then there is no way this can be called "internal usage". This looks far more like a supplier/customer type situation...
You do realize that there is a lot more signal analysis going on in an 802.11b (why do people call it "wi-fi"?) card than a winmodem -- it isn't just a direct linear function of the bandwidth, which is only about 200 times as much CPU time. 802.11b will be a *pain*.
Also the performance hit isn't just in terms of CPU time it also affects the scheduling.
How many average internet users today would be able to tell where there personal information had been leaked? Not many, because they give it out in so many place.
One way of finding out where leaks are is to give different information to each source. This is the same technique companies have been using to track advertisment response for decades.
Having a canceled account doesn't mean they're going to refrain from using your information, on the contrary. You should first edit your contact information, you should post your favorite politician's contact information, then you should cancel your account.
Will this send the correct message; that "privacy policies" are meaningless without statutory obligations? Alternativly you could use ficticious, but plausable addresses and telephone numbers of public phones.
My cards were never lost, and I've only ever made a couple of transactions using them over the phone, but I'd used them to buy many items online. It seems reasonable to guess that my details were probably stolen on the net.
Actually the most likely possibility is internal fraud from your credit card issuer. Or someone getting hold of the recipt from any transaction.
Ummm, speaking as a resident of a country with hardly any guns (England) maybe if you didn't sell so many
Except that making anything illegal is hardly a barrier to criminals getting hold of it. If someone is seriously considering shooting people they are unlikely to be detered by not being able to get a legal firearm to do so.
Run your own IRC server, or convince a friend to do so, and allow only SSL connections. Unreal, a popular ircd, supports SSL connections (port 994 by default).
Unless you then do everything as a DCC chat. This will only encrypt the client-server connection. It won't necessarily protect the server-server connections or help if the server itself is hacked.
The other options include "don't try to fix something that isn't broken." This is pretty much the standard 'slow news day' Internet horror story which CNN|the BBC | Fox | Time |whoever comes out with once or twice a year.
This is dated April 10th, how can it possibly be a "slow news day" when there is a war going on?
The problem that needs to be fixed is the ease with which people's IDs can be stolen, thanks to lots of personal data being stored on various insecure systems. I mean, you know, there are people out there buying things over the web using Visa cards from IE, to webservers running IIS... sorry, folks, Billy was lying: Windows (well, Win 9x), and IE/Outlook/IIS are NOT safe at any speed.
This is barking up the wrong tree too. Since the most likely way of credit card numbers being stolen fron an e-comerce site is internal fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Driving is a privilege and a responsability. Too many people kill and maim too many other people because they can't behave responsably.
It might not be a bad idea if the only situations where people could gain or lose a driving licence were actually related to driving. Yet you have situations of people self evidently a menace to others on the road keeping licences and people having them confiscated over issues unrelated to driving.
Let alone when did a bank acount or a bottle of beer become a car? The point of the document is to demonstrate that the holder has an acceptable competance in driving the types of motor vehicles indicated.
It happens in every country, and many times isn't intentional. A seemingly benign act of translation can change the flavor of something just by the nature of finding words in a different language to express foreign concepts.
It dosn't even always need to be translated. There is plenty of US idiom which dosn't make much sense to the rest of the English speaking world. With things such as "Dawn Summers is too young to drink coffee" it's hard to see how translation could help much anyway.
Apart, from the opening motorcycle chase, everything in the movie is big, your talking about massive riots (one of the themes of the movies is about society tearing itself apart), a military crackdown, and a climax where one of the leads turns into a hugh bloated mess.
The expensive bits to do live action are things like riots, actors need paying, they also need costumes and makeup. All too easily you end up with trick shots to make it look like 20 people are several hundred.
Even when they have an orginal ideas the muck it up. Look at Starship Trooper. Good story horrible movie. Just had too mant bugs in it. ;)
That's the problem, the book was never really about the bugs. It's really the story of the central character's life.
What's the deal? Why does Hollywood have to take every worthwhile piece of art and ruin it?
Partly because there are only a finite number of really good story ideas. Also there are Hollywood stereotypes when it comes to movie making.
What i like about Anime is that the author/director person can do whatever they want and achieve impossbile camera angels if they wanted.
Or shots where you'd have to stop half way through and physically move the camera crew.
Anime is a great medium for storytelling, and cheaper too? ( i dont know how much it costs to produce an anime, but you dont have to pay for location permits and the such, and travel expenses)
Also such things as special effects and non human characters don't cost cost extra. Nor are they limited by available technology or even the ability of actors to wear makeup.
Kinda funny how the same people who ignore Microsoft EULAs turn around and whine like little girls when they think the GPL is being "stretched" or even slightly mis-interpreted.
An EULA is a different kind of entity from the GPL.
The GPL is a copyright licence, no different conceptually from an agreement between an author and a publisher to publish a book.
An EULA attempts to cover how you can use a program. Whereas the GPL applies to distributing a program. IIRC it explicitally states that using programs is outside its scope.
The only way arround this would be (in my opinion, and i happens that IANAL) to pay this beta testers for testing the product ($1 would be ok) and treat them like hired personel.
The only other way would be to have this $99 be to buy stock/shares in the company. Which again could be argued to change the action from distribution to a third party to an internal transfer between different parts of the same "corporate person".
The first part of the statement was "let them". I believe it was directed at the copyright holders. It's not a big deal.
IIRC copyright law grants copyright holders the right to decide if this is a "big deal" or not.
If you are selling software, GPL is no good.
There is no devine right to the idea that a specific business model is sensible even viable.
There are plenty of businesses where any actual product is very cheap. Most likely they are actually selling a service, even a brand name.
When he does release the source, then we'll drop it. No hard feelings. We're not in it to ruin his company, his image, or his product.
Which would be "us" being very generous. In terms of the letter of the law this company would have to petition every copyright holder for a new licence.
They own the copyright. They are under no obligation to keep betas, etc. under the GPL.
Except they don't own copyright on anything they didn't write from scratch themselves. The vast bulk of their product is either unmodified GPL code or obvious derivatives of GPL code.
If you distribute it to someone under the GPL, you are granting them an irrevocable license to further distribute it.
Except that the licence can be revoked. If the person who the software is distributed to fails to comply with the terms.
I mean, say I am working on a piece of code, based on GPL stuff. Say it's for internal use only within my office. I think we all agree that using it on my company's computers only is not distributing it. Now let's say I want to send a copy to Joe because I value Joe's input into UI design, so I send a binary to my pal Joe. AM I now obligated to give Joe source?
The only relevent issue would be the question "is Joe part of the same corporate entity as you?".
I don't think so. I am not distributing my new work. I am merely SHOWING it to joe so he can give me feedback.
If you send Joe the program then you are distributing it. If you sent him a few screen shots or even a 3 hour video showing it being used then you are "merely showing it to Joe". It really dosn't matter how, even why, you distributed it. Dosn't even matter if you intended to distribute it to someone, maybe you sent it to Jane by mistake...
The only real issue IMO is whether some delay is acceptable between releasing the binary and the source, particularly for betas
The GPL makes no special mention of "betas".
Then this will become the new way to skirt GPL: grab other peoples' GPLed code; modify it somewhat to add some functionality; sell it for a year or so all the time claiming that its not "final" yet; and then release the source.
The problem with this business model is that it is based on copyright infringment (or if you prefer "software piracy"). Also copyright infringement is usually considered more of a serious problem if the infringer is doing this commercially, especially if they are making more money than the copyright holder.
Don't forget though, that the GPL allows him to charge a "distribution fee", which the license doesn't even say must be reasonable.
This applies only to the binary. There are specific on how much you can charge if choose to distribute the source separatly. In this situation you can only charge what it actually costs you.
I can make modifications to any GPLed software, not release the final software but use it internally at my company with how-many-I-desire copies installed without breaking GPL.
In order for this to be "internal" you must be part of the relevent entity.
I don't see much difference between internal usage and an internal beta program.
Unless paying the fee makes the beta testers either employees of or shareholders in the company then there is no way this can be called "internal usage". This looks far more like a supplier/customer type situation...
You do realize that there is a lot more signal analysis going on in an 802.11b (why do people call it "wi-fi"?) card than a winmodem -- it isn't just a direct linear function of the bandwidth, which is only about 200 times as much CPU time. 802.11b will be a *pain*.
Also the performance hit isn't just in terms of CPU time it also affects the scheduling.
How many average internet users today would be able to tell where there personal information had been leaked? Not many, because they give it out in so many place.
One way of finding out where leaks are is to give different information to each source. This is the same technique companies have been using to track advertisment response for decades.
Having a canceled account doesn't mean they're going to refrain from using your information, on the contrary. You should first edit your contact information, you should post your favorite politician's contact information, then you should cancel your account.
Will this send the correct message; that "privacy policies" are meaningless without statutory obligations? Alternativly you could use ficticious, but plausable addresses and telephone numbers of public phones.
My cards were never lost, and I've only ever made a couple of transactions using them over the phone, but I'd used them to buy many items online. It seems reasonable to guess that my details were probably stolen on the net.
Actually the most likely possibility is internal fraud from your credit card issuer. Or someone getting hold of the recipt from any transaction.
Ummm, speaking as a resident of a country with hardly any guns (England) maybe if you didn't sell so many
Except that making anything illegal is hardly a barrier to criminals getting hold of it. If someone is seriously considering shooting people they are unlikely to be detered by not being able to get a legal firearm to do so.
Run your own IRC server, or convince a friend to do so, and allow only SSL connections. Unreal, a popular ircd, supports SSL connections (port 994 by default).
Unless you then do everything as a DCC chat. This will only encrypt the client-server connection. It won't necessarily protect the server-server connections or help if the server itself is hacked.
The other options include "don't try to fix something that isn't broken." This is pretty much the standard 'slow news day' Internet horror story which CNN|the BBC | Fox | Time |whoever comes out with once or twice a year.
This is dated April 10th, how can it possibly be a "slow news day" when there is a war going on?
The problem that needs to be fixed is the ease with which people's IDs can be stolen, thanks to lots of personal data being stored on various insecure systems. I mean, you know, there are people out there buying things over the web using Visa cards from IE, to webservers running IIS... sorry, folks, Billy was lying: Windows (well, Win 9x), and IE/Outlook/IIS are NOT safe at any speed.
This is barking up the wrong tree too. Since the most likely way of credit card numbers being stolen fron an e-comerce site is internal fraud.