> Intel is just not going the extra step to allow Linux > compatibility.
Unlike Windows, Linux does not require that cpu manufacturers take any extra steps for compatibility. If this thing is not fully compatible with the X86 instruction set Intel should just say so. In that case it will just be another architecture for Linux to be ported to. No big deal: it runs on dozens already.
This patch however also ignores this same element of the spec, in that no matter what the user may or may not of done, there will be a "mechanism outside the user's control" (the Apache server) which decides on what they want the preference to be.
DNT is purely advisory. Advertisers who want to ignore it are going to configure their servers to do so. If it is too hard to do so with Apache they'll use somthing else.
...because "it's what everyone is doing", with no need to gather information and/or make choices. No system that depends on rational behavior and requires thought will ever be popular with more than a minority. That's no reason not to do it, though. Just don't expect to displace FaceBook.
But can you do anything actually useful with one? Seems like a poorly thought out idea to me. I see no good reason why anything in a URI should ever be rendered or executed.
"Buying a license" is not "media" at all. It is purchasing permission to do something, in this case make a copy.
The electrons that deliver the purchase aren't physical media.
What do you think they are, metaphysical? Of course they are physical: they embody an ephemeral (but physical) copy.
You use them to create your local permanent copy. Which you own.
If they don't sell songs, but instead sell licenses...
They sell you a license which grants you permission to create one (physical) copy. You own that (physical) copy and have the right to sell it. You do not own the right to create additional (physical) copies. Your copy is on your 'pod and you don't want to sell it? Tough. Putting it there was your choice.
I should still be able to sell/transfer the non-transferable licenses. Why? Because a contract may not violate law.
And what law might that be?
And the law allows me to resell my items without getting Ford's permission, and the person who buys it may still drive it without re-licensing it from Ford.
And the law allows you to resell your (physical) copy of the song. It does not permit you to create additional (physical) copies. The (non-physical) right to do so is exclusive to the copyright owner. That is what copyright is all about.
The digital confuses the judges...
No. It confuses you. Copyright is about the intangible right to create tangible copies. Judges understand this.
There is a lot wrong with copyright (excessive duration, criminal penalties, statutory damages...) but the confused ranting about nonphysical copies I see here with tiresome frequency do not contribute to solutions.
> If they ever start selling (as opposed to licensing) files...
They sell you the right to create one (1) copy on your (physical) media. The media is your property and you are free to dispose of it as you wish, copy and all[1]. What you are not free to do is make more copies, just as you would not be free to make more copies of a vinyl record.
[1] Unless you have entered into a contract with them in which you agreed to limits on your right to transfer your copy, in which case they might be able to sue you for breach of contract (not for copyright infringement, though).
Bullshit. He owns the copies on his 'pod and can transfer it to whoever the hell he wants. What he does not own is the right to create more copies. That is what he needs a license for and that is what copyright is about.
...that a very long life means a very long period of infirmity? The "infirmities of old age" are what kill old people. The only we are going to be able to substantially extend lifespans is by eliminating them.
You had to go and ruin it, didn't you? I was planning to get rich off this. Couldn't you have kept quiet at least until I had a couple of million in "seed money"?
BTW CO2 should precipitate (very slowly) from air at 1 atmosphere below about -140C. I don't think my sunshades could get Antarctica that cold but don't tell the congressmen until after the "feasibility study" is funded, ok?
How do you propose placing orbiting shades over Antarctica?
Not "over" Antarctica: that would be useless even if possible. Between the Sun and Antarctica. Think about the geometry. A number of shades would be required, of course, with their orbits taking them in and out of position. They'd probably have to be pivoted or louvered somehow so as to not shade other parts of they planet when out of position.
That's not to say the left (or center or whatever direction you choose) doesn't have its own dogma. But, then, most if it seems a lot less ignorant and a lot less harmful.
Slashdot Mirror
Much. Or at all when comparing across cultures and languages.
> Intel is just not going the extra step to allow Linux
> compatibility.
Unlike Windows, Linux does not require that cpu manufacturers take any extra steps for compatibility. If this thing is not fully compatible with the X86 instruction set Intel should just say so. In that case it will just be another architecture for Linux to be ported to. No big deal: it runs on dozens already.
DNT is purely advisory. Advertisers who want to ignore it are going to configure their servers to do so. If it is too hard to do so with Apache they'll use somthing else.
Amazing! That's almost two years!! How can they stand to use anything so ancient?
...useless and silly.
...file suit against the malware authors and then subpoena LeakID's records to identify them.
...because "it's what everyone is doing", with no need to gather information and/or make choices. No system that depends on rational behavior and requires thought will ever be popular with more than a minority. That's no reason not to do it, though. Just don't expect to displace FaceBook.
Yes. They also need basic math and physics skills. They don't get those either.
Quackery.
...the BOM.
> You can do a lot with a data URI
But can you do anything actually useful with one? Seems like a poorly thought out idea to me. I see no good reason why anything in a URI should ever be rendered or executed.
> ...you would have to be pretty stupid...
So it only works on half the population.
Well, he did say that it should prove palatable to most readers. "Most readers" watch TV, read bestsellers, watch movies...
Hadn't most of us dealt with this sort of superficially deep question by the end of our sophomore years?
Oh. Wait.
"Buying a license" is not "media" at all. It is purchasing permission to do something, in this case make a copy.
What do you think they are, metaphysical? Of course they are physical: they embody an ephemeral (but physical) copy. You use them to create your local permanent copy. Which you own.
They sell you a license which grants you permission to create one (physical) copy. You own that (physical) copy and have the right to sell it. You do not own the right to create additional (physical) copies. Your copy is on your 'pod and you don't want to sell it? Tough. Putting it there was your choice.
And what law might that be?
And the law allows you to resell your (physical) copy of the song. It does not permit you to create additional (physical) copies. The (non-physical) right to do so is exclusive to the copyright owner. That is what copyright is all about.
No. It confuses you. Copyright is about the intangible right to create tangible copies. Judges understand this.
There is a lot wrong with copyright (excessive duration, criminal penalties, statutory damages...) but the confused ranting about nonphysical copies I see here with tiresome frequency do not contribute to solutions.
> ...non-physical media...
That is a nonsense phrase.
> If they ever start selling (as opposed to licensing) files...
They sell you the right to create one (1) copy on your (physical) media. The media is your property and you are free to dispose of it as you wish, copy and all[1]. What you are not free to do is make more copies, just as you would not be free to make more copies of a vinyl record.
[1] Unless you have entered into a contract with them in which you agreed to limits on your right to transfer your copy, in which case they might be able to sue you for breach of contract (not for copyright infringement, though).
Bullshit. He owns the copies on his 'pod and can transfer it to whoever the hell he wants. What he does not own is the right to create more copies. That is what he needs a license for and that is what copyright is about.
Thank you, Linus.
n/t
Somebody ought to try that someday...
...that a very long life means a very long period of infirmity?
The "infirmities of old age" are what kill old people. The only we are going to be able to substantially extend lifespans is by eliminating them.
> Two words: partial pressure.
You had to go and ruin it, didn't you? I was planning to get rich off this. Couldn't you have kept quiet at least until I had a couple of million in "seed money"?
BTW CO2 should precipitate (very slowly) from air at 1 atmosphere below about -140C. I don't think my sunshades could get Antarctica that cold but don't tell the congressmen until after the "feasibility study" is funded, ok?
Not "over" Antarctica: that would be useless even if possible. Between the Sun and Antarctica. Think about the geometry. A number of shades would be required, of course, with their orbits taking them in and out of position. They'd probably have to be pivoted or louvered somehow so as to not shade other parts of they planet when out of position.
Except in this case it's "They told me not to let you do that, Dave."
In other words, you're a liberal.