For Linux users, even back to the early 1990s, S3 has been a synonym for "don't buy this graphics card".
"For Linux users"? I've never heard of any Windows user intentionally buying one, either... the ones who've heard of S3 know them as the company which once marketed a "3D decelerator", a card so slow that a new computer would be better off with software rendering.
Possibly they will make it so it will be illegal if there's an intent which of course will be all the battle.
They'd better make "intent" part of the law, as hard as that is to judge. Otherwise the internet won't be very useful, not after they take all the search engines away.
Of course, "intent" will likely end up being judged by people who don't understand the internet to begin with, meaning it won't help as much as it should. "A web search engine? My kid showed me how to use the Goggle, that looked okay. Innocent!" "A peer-to-peer search engine? I heard peer-to-peer is evil! Guilty!"
Could we get a Democratic challenger to go up against her?
One-candidate general elections are a blatant display of dysfunctional government; I don't see why people don't realize how bad one-candidate primary elections are. A district shouldn't have to flip from Democrat to Republican or back before it can kick a bad incumbent out of office.
What exploits in the real economy? This exploit was only possible because in a computer game the wealth generated was pretending to correspond to something real, but in actuality was just numbers in a centrally-controled system that can be incremented and decremented out of thin air.
The extent of this God person's attempts to get around the Wikipedia guidelines are mind-boggling, but I still haven't found anything about God that didn't look like it was rooted in self-promotion. Many of these authors are even brazen enough to admit it, and they claim that every single one of the other authors is another of God's children too. Unless someone can find a secondary source about God that wasn't written by God or by some "sock-puppet" God created, I'm afraid all those Wikipedia articles are going to have to be deleted for lack of notability.
For example, in calculating a bank balance of $13,000.81, deliberately risking getting the "13" incorrect is fraud that risks $13,000 in damages and $1,000,000 in statutory penalties, and risking getting the "81" incorrect is fraud that only risks $0.81 in damages and $1,000,000 in statutory penalties. Surely saving a couple watt-microseconds is worth that!
Ancient history. AMD got into the x86 market in the 80's when the USG required multiple sources for many components
You know, in hindsight, keeping up this policy would have been a vastly more effective way of reigning in Microsoft than that ineffectual antitrust suit.
Why mess with a launch and guidance system able to withstand launch and reentry stresses when you could just build a Fat Man and put it in the back of a van?
Because the former can go from "mere deterrent" to "enemy city exploding" in an hour, can't be countered without even more advanced technology, and gives you deterrence value for decades. The latter can go from "act of war that we'd better hope nobody discovers" to "enemy port city exploding" in days, doesn't work well if the enemy is on heightened enough alert to search or blockade approaching vans and ships, can't be demonstrated without actually committing an act of war, and so is relatively useless as a deterrent. Vans may be the delivery system of choice for terrorists planning surprise attacks, but nations hoping to commit other acts of war without reprisal are going to want nuclear weapons that can be effectively brandished without being used.
Not that I'm accusing Iran of plotting wars; the same deterrence tactics for a nation that wants to get away with an invasion apply even more strongly one that is just afraid of being invaded.
So enighten us as to the current available techniques to screen for this perfect god-like individual with no negative recessive traits.
Take a population of individuals with negative and positive genes at the same allele, discard the double-recessives, interbreed the rest. Kind of cruel (especially when the recessives are bad enough that nature beats you to the "discard" step), but we regularly do worse to non-extinct animals.
Oh, wait, you wanted the current available techniques? Those involve recombinant DNA rather than millenia-old animal husbandry skills, but they're worth a look if you've got less time and more money to spend on the process.
You can also fill us in on how you would "tweak" billions of base pairs to arrive at this perfect animal. Why, we would never have get old or sick ever again!
Yeah, the idea that we could some day "sequence" or even "recombine" genes sounds like pure fantasy!... You picked the screen name "Vernor Vinge" for the irony value, huh?
Client software and bots are exactly the same as dress code and club rules.
I agree entirely. Too bad this judge doesn't.
If I sell outfits that don't conform to a club's dress code, the club should be allowed to kick out anyone wearing them. But it should not be allowed to sue me for making a product that someone else is using to break club rules.
Because it is the public version of their software that developers have worked on most currently. It's just not the version you want new users to pick up.
The only version mentioned on their home page is 8.04 LTS, and that is in the link to a press release.
That's a good idea; if your only knowledge of Ubuntu releases comes from their press releases, the Long Term Support version is the safest option. (see also: Red Hat Enterprise Linux, etc)
On their downloads page they list 8.04 and 8.10, and call the latter "the latest version".
What, do you think they're denying that newer code exists? Trying to trick people into thinking they stopped development after 8.10? No, they're using "the latest version" as shorthand for "the latest version intended for average users".
On a project I work on we call a year-old tarball "the latest version", despite the fact that the real latest version is obviously the stuff we checked in to revision control this morning. People who really want and are able to use the latest bleeding edge stuff can figure out how to get it; people who need something more well tested should be pointed to that instead, not an alpha release announced with no unusual warnings and called "4.0".
Having the headers isnt the issue, its the linking stage that creates a dependency on the GPL'ed work and therefore makes it a derivative work.
Oh, that's certainly true - the combination of a GPL'ed work and anything else linked together is a derived work, which you can't redistribute without providing source code that's all under a GPL-compatible license.
So don't redistribute it. Just give out your own work, alone, not linked to the GPL'ed work. Problem solved. I can take two DVDs and create a derived work of both of them by appending one to the end of the other, interleaving scenes, etc.; that doesn't mean the publishers are violating eah others' copyrights by distributing them separately.
No, the current version of Ubuntu is "Jaunty Jackalope Alpha 3", and it can be found in the "Test Releases" section of their webpages under the URL http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/ surrounded by boldfaced warnings like "This is still an alpha release. Do not install it on production machines."
That's the right way to release snapshots of alpha software.
Computer programs pose unique problems for the application of the "idea/expression distinction" that determines the extent of copyright protection. To the extent that there are many possible ways of accomplishing a given task or fulfilling a particular market demand, the programmer's choice of program structure and design may be highly creative and idiosyncratic. However, computer programs are, in essence, utilitarian articles - articles that accomplish tasks. As such, they contain many logical, structural, and visual display elements that are dictated by the function to be performed, by considerations of efficiency, or by external factors such as compatibility requirements and industry demands. Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1241, 1253-56 (2d Cir. 1992) ("CAI"). In some circumstances, even the exact set of commands used by the programmer is deemed functional rather than creative for purposes of copyright. "[W]hen specific instructions, even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount to infringement."
Even if the header file can't be legally copied verbatim, you can write a new header file that's API-compatible and not be infringing. Good thing, too, or the Wine folks would be in some serious trouble.
If that was the case, there wouldn't be any complaints, because then they wouldn't be getting paid less.
"Give us your motivated, your rich, your comfortable elites yearning to raise our average wages"? Somehow that doesn't quite sound correct.
But one of the other replies hit it on the nose: you can't compare H1B workers to immigrants if they're planning and required to leave rather than immigrate permanently.
For extra credit, do it in the style of Phil Hartman's "Newsradio" character:
Hand over a copy. "Here's one you can take right now!" And another copy. "This one you can tear up later." Put another on her desk. "Here's one for the Hamptons." Pull out another copy. "This one I like. I keep." Throw another copy to the floor. "This one displeases me."
Many individuals who study warfare have hypothesized that Pearl Harbor would not have happened if the oil embargo against Japan had never been issued prior.
Awww... and I'm sure China, Manchuria, Korea, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Australia, etc. would have just been dying to tell us how grateful they were that we had continued selling Japan most of the fuel it's military needed, ensuring peace in our time.
Fly by wire planes? I hate to break it to you, but outside of the occasional ultralight (which would have trouble damaging a car, let alone causing mass destruction), fly by wire doesn't exist.
"One of the A300-600 and A310's notable innovations had been the introduction of electrical signalling on secondary flight controls, replacing the web of cables and pulleys tradionally used. Béteille wanted to take this evolution further with the next Airbus aircraft - to computer-driven digital "fly-by-wire", in which the deflections of the flying control surfaces on the wing and tail are no longer driven directly by the pilots' controls, but by a computer which calculates exactly which control surface deflections are needed to make the aircraft respond as the pilot wishes... The A320's fly-by-wire technology was not only a way of improving flight controls and reducing weight..."
"The flight-control system for the 777 airplane is different from those on other Boeing airplane designs. Rather than have the airplane rely on cables to move the ailerons, elevator, and rudder, Boeing designed the 777 with fly-by-wire technology. As a result, the 777 uses wires to carry electrical signals from the pilot control wheel, column, and pedals to a primary flight computer."
You don't want to make too many custom characters (or you miss out on the great dialogues between the premade characters in BGII), and that means some of your players will have to sit back and watch for the first half hour of gameplay until you've built a full party, but the remaining dozens (hundreds) of hours of the games are possibly the most fun you can have in multiplayer cooperative gaming.
That's just talking about the basic games, too. I had no idea there were active modding communities until I read this thread. It's a shame Slashdot has no "+1 Earned Deep Gratitude" score option...
Suppose my problem is to find another problem for which there is no solution. Does my problem have a solution, or not? And either way, how does that affect your claim?;-)
The "Space Elevators are unstable! The concept is doomed!" Slashdot summary would have been much more thrilling if there wasn't a link to the "Space Elevators are tricky! There might still need to be tiny final orbital adjustments!" New Scientist article, and even that would have been more exciting than the "Space Elevator dynamics is modeled by these stable but undamped equations! Sending multiple payloads up in the right phase causes the minor Coriolis-induced wobbles to cancel out!" Acta Astronautica article.
You people with your damn hyperlinks are ruining journalism. It's getting so a guy can't even wait breathlessly for the News At 11 anymore to find out what common household product might be Killing Our Children.
And why is it clearer to explain it that way than just state peak bandwidth and total cap?
Either way is fine. I think expressing the total cap as ["constant", "average", whatever] bandwidth makes the overselling ratio clearer. But I'd be just as happy if every advertisement for "unlimited internet" had to say "100GB/month" or whatever the cap was instead.
Actually, I'd be happier if it was "100GB/30 days", which instead of cutting you off cold turkey just throttled you back to dialup speeds until your rolling usage total dropped again. And I'd be happiest if they managed to do so in a way that didn't count "unsolicited" packets toward the total. But my own ISP has been fine so far, and even the problem ISPs can fix things one problem at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
For Linux users, even back to the early 1990s, S3 has been a synonym for "don't buy this graphics card".
"For Linux users"? I've never heard of any Windows user intentionally buying one, either... the ones who've heard of S3 know them as the company which once marketed a "3D decelerator", a card so slow that a new computer would be better off with software rendering.
Possibly they will make it so it will be illegal if there's an intent which of course will be all the battle.
They'd better make "intent" part of the law, as hard as that is to judge. Otherwise the internet won't be very useful, not after they take all the search engines away.
Of course, "intent" will likely end up being judged by people who don't understand the internet to begin with, meaning it won't help as much as it should. "A web search engine? My kid showed me how to use the Goggle, that looked okay. Innocent!" "A peer-to-peer search engine? I heard peer-to-peer is evil! Guilty!"
Could we get a Democratic challenger to go up against her?
One-candidate general elections are a blatant display of dysfunctional government; I don't see why people don't realize how bad one-candidate primary elections are. A district shouldn't have to flip from Democrat to Republican or back before it can kick a bad incumbent out of office.
What exploits in the real economy? This exploit was only possible because in a computer game the wealth generated was pretending to correspond to something real, but in actuality was just numbers in a centrally-controled system that can be incremented and decremented out of thin air.
</irony>
Huh? I certainly thought that God had enough published secondary source material to qualify as notable by now. Even a best selling book, I've heard.
But then I looked deeper. It turns out that the authors of that book claimed to be working for God; in some passages they were even just taking dictation! I'm sorry, God, but autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.
The extent of this God person's attempts to get around the Wikipedia guidelines are mind-boggling, but I still haven't found anything about God that didn't look like it was rooted in self-promotion. Many of these authors are even brazen enough to admit it, and they claim that every single one of the other authors is another of God's children too. Unless someone can find a secondary source about God that wasn't written by God or by some "sock-puppet" God created, I'm afraid all those Wikipedia articles are going to have to be deleted for lack of notability.
For example, in calculating a bank balance of $13,000.81, deliberately risking getting the "13" incorrect is fraud that risks $13,000 in damages and $1,000,000 in statutory penalties, and risking getting the "81" incorrect is fraud that only risks $0.81 in damages and $1,000,000 in statutory penalties. Surely saving a couple watt-microseconds is worth that!
Ancient history. AMD got into the x86 market in the 80's when the USG required multiple sources for many components
You know, in hindsight, keeping up this policy would have been a vastly more effective way of reigning in Microsoft than that ineffectual antitrust suit.
Why mess with a launch and guidance system able to withstand launch and reentry stresses when you could just build a Fat Man and put it in the back of a van?
Because the former can go from "mere deterrent" to "enemy city exploding" in an hour, can't be countered without even more advanced technology, and gives you deterrence value for decades. The latter can go from "act of war that we'd better hope nobody discovers" to "enemy port city exploding" in days, doesn't work well if the enemy is on heightened enough alert to search or blockade approaching vans and ships, can't be demonstrated without actually committing an act of war, and so is relatively useless as a deterrent. Vans may be the delivery system of choice for terrorists planning surprise attacks, but nations hoping to commit other acts of war without reprisal are going to want nuclear weapons that can be effectively brandished without being used.
Not that I'm accusing Iran of plotting wars; the same deterrence tactics for a nation that wants to get away with an invasion apply even more strongly one that is just afraid of being invaded.
So enighten us as to the current available techniques to screen for this perfect god-like individual with no negative recessive traits.
Take a population of individuals with negative and positive genes at the same allele, discard the double-recessives, interbreed the rest. Kind of cruel (especially when the recessives are bad enough that nature beats you to the "discard" step), but we regularly do worse to non-extinct animals.
Oh, wait, you wanted the current available techniques? Those involve recombinant DNA rather than millenia-old animal husbandry skills, but they're worth a look if you've got less time and more money to spend on the process.
You can also fill us in on how you would "tweak" billions of base pairs to arrive at this perfect animal. Why, we would never have get old or sick ever again!
Yeah, the idea that we could some day "sequence" or even "recombine" genes sounds like pure fantasy! ... You picked the screen name "Vernor Vinge" for the irony value, huh?
Client software and bots are exactly the same as dress code and club rules.
I agree entirely. Too bad this judge doesn't.
If I sell outfits that don't conform to a club's dress code, the club should be allowed to kick out anyone wearing them. But it should not be allowed to sue me for making a product that someone else is using to break club rules.
How can you call that their current version?
Because it is the public version of their software that developers have worked on most currently. It's just not the version you want new users to pick up.
The only version mentioned on their home page is 8.04 LTS, and that is in the link to a press release.
That's a good idea; if your only knowledge of Ubuntu releases comes from their press releases, the Long Term Support version is the safest option. (see also: Red Hat Enterprise Linux, etc)
On their downloads page they list 8.04 and 8.10, and call the latter "the latest version".
What, do you think they're denying that newer code exists? Trying to trick people into thinking they stopped development after 8.10? No, they're using "the latest version" as shorthand for "the latest version intended for average users".
On a project I work on we call a year-old tarball "the latest version", despite the fact that the real latest version is obviously the stuff we checked in to revision control this morning. People who really want and are able to use the latest bleeding edge stuff can figure out how to get it; people who need something more well tested should be pointed to that instead, not an alpha release announced with no unusual warnings and called "4.0".
Having the headers isnt the issue, its the linking stage that creates a dependency on the GPL'ed work and therefore makes it a derivative work.
Oh, that's certainly true - the combination of a GPL'ed work and anything else linked together is a derived work, which you can't redistribute without providing source code that's all under a GPL-compatible license.
So don't redistribute it. Just give out your own work, alone, not linked to the GPL'ed work. Problem solved. I can take two DVDs and create a derived work of both of them by appending one to the end of the other, interleaving scenes, etc.; that doesn't mean the publishers are violating eah others' copyrights by distributing them separately.
The current version of Ubuntu is 8.10.
No, the current version of Ubuntu is "Jaunty Jackalope Alpha 3", and it can be found in the "Test Releases" section of their webpages under the URL http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/ surrounded by boldfaced warnings like "This is still an alpha release. Do not install it on production machines."
That's the right way to release snapshots of alpha software.
A plugin uses the host application's API. It is, therefore a derived work.
From Sega V. Accolade:
Computer programs pose unique problems for the application of the "idea/expression distinction" that determines the extent of copyright protection. To the extent that there are many possible ways of accomplishing a given task or fulfilling a particular market demand, the programmer's choice of program structure and design may be highly creative and idiosyncratic. However, computer programs are, in essence, utilitarian articles - articles that accomplish tasks. As such, they contain many logical, structural, and visual display elements that are dictated by the function to be performed, by considerations of efficiency, or by external factors such as compatibility requirements and industry demands. Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1241, 1253-56 (2d Cir. 1992) ("CAI"). In some circumstances, even the exact set of commands used by the programmer is deemed functional rather than creative for purposes of copyright. "[W]hen specific instructions, even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount to infringement."
Even if the header file can't be legally copied verbatim, you can write a new header file that's API-compatible and not be infringing. Good thing, too, or the Wine folks would be in some serious trouble.
If that was the case, there wouldn't be any complaints, because then they wouldn't be getting paid less.
"Give us your motivated, your rich, your comfortable elites yearning to raise our average wages"? Somehow that doesn't quite sound correct.
But one of the other replies hit it on the nose: you can't compare H1B workers to immigrants if they're planning and required to leave rather than immigrate permanently.
For extra credit, do it in the style of Phil Hartman's "Newsradio" character:
Hand over a copy.
"Here's one you can take right now!"
And another copy.
"This one you can tear up later."
Put another on her desk.
"Here's one for the Hamptons."
Pull out another copy.
"This one I like. I keep."
Throw another copy to the floor.
"This one displeases me."
But then how will I describe it when more than one virus infects my boxen?
Many individuals who study warfare have hypothesized that Pearl Harbor would not have happened if the oil embargo against Japan had never been issued prior.
Awww... and I'm sure China, Manchuria, Korea, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Australia, etc. would have just been dying to tell us how grateful they were that we had continued selling Japan most of the fuel it's military needed, ensuring peace in our time.
Fly by wire planes? I hate to break it to you, but outside of the occasional ultralight (which would have trouble damaging a car, let alone causing mass destruction), fly by wire doesn't exist.
"One of the A300-600 and A310's notable innovations had been the introduction of electrical signalling on secondary flight controls, replacing the web of cables and pulleys tradionally used. Béteille wanted to take this evolution further with the next Airbus aircraft - to computer-driven digital "fly-by-wire", in which the deflections of the flying control surfaces on the wing and tail are no longer driven directly by the pilots' controls, but by a computer which calculates exactly which control surface deflections are needed to make the aircraft respond as the pilot wishes ... The A320's fly-by-wire technology was not only a way of improving flight controls and reducing weight..."
"The flight-control system for the 777 airplane is different from those on other Boeing airplane designs. Rather than have the airplane rely on cables to move the ailerons, elevator, and rudder, Boeing designed the 777 with fly-by-wire technology. As a result, the 777 uses wires to carry electrical signals from the pilot control wheel, column, and pedals to a primary flight computer."
You don't want to make too many custom characters (or you miss out on the great dialogues between the premade characters in BGII), and that means some of your players will have to sit back and watch for the first half hour of gameplay until you've built a full party, but the remaining dozens (hundreds) of hours of the games are possibly the most fun you can have in multiplayer cooperative gaming.
That's just talking about the basic games, too. I had no idea there were active modding communities until I read this thread. It's a shame Slashdot has no "+1 Earned Deep Gratitude" score option...
Technology is improving all the time. Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist
Do you think he realizes that peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic are based on this "technology" stuff too?
Of course there is always a solution...
Suppose my problem is to find another problem for which there is no solution. Does my problem have a solution, or not? And either way, how does that affect your claim? ;-)
The "Space Elevators are unstable! The concept is doomed!" Slashdot summary would have been much more thrilling if there wasn't a link to the "Space Elevators are tricky! There might still need to be tiny final orbital adjustments!" New Scientist article, and even that would have been more exciting than the "Space Elevator dynamics is modeled by these stable but undamped equations! Sending multiple payloads up in the right phase causes the minor Coriolis-induced wobbles to cancel out!" Acta Astronautica article.
You people with your damn hyperlinks are ruining journalism. It's getting so a guy can't even wait breathlessly for the News At 11 anymore to find out what common household product might be Killing Our Children.
Just curious, but why would you want bigger countries coming into smaller countries and telling them who they can and can't kill?
Throwing my best wild guess out there: concern for innocent people getting killed?
And why is it clearer to explain it that way than just state peak bandwidth and total cap?
Either way is fine. I think expressing the total cap as ["constant", "average", whatever] bandwidth makes the overselling ratio clearer. But I'd be just as happy if every advertisement for "unlimited internet" had to say "100GB/month" or whatever the cap was instead.
Actually, I'd be happier if it was "100GB/30 days", which instead of cutting you off cold turkey just throttled you back to dialup speeds until your rolling usage total dropped again. And I'd be happiest if they managed to do so in a way that didn't count "unsolicited" packets toward the total. But my own ISP has been fine so far, and even the problem ISPs can fix things one problem at a time.