If they pay the guy $20,000 per year instead of the $40,000 that the citizen would make, they save $60,000 over the three years. I doubt that it costs more than that to get an H1B.
Re:I'm not sure how accurate this statement is.
on
MRAM in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
And if suspending to disk is not popular now (I don't know anyone who does it for desktop systems
Now you do.
Booting via hibernate in windows seems 10 times faster than normal booting, and having those windows still up is a nice thing. Don't do it at work cause I run Linux, but at home it works great.
I can't wait til I can use the 2.6 kernel and this functionality. I just hope the distro makers integrate this functionality nicely.
Which is about 5% of the whole world, which is made up mostly of Windows users. So not as frequently as you seem to think.
And guess what, you're wrong about file extensions in UNIX land. People use them, and they use them often. They may not be 3 character Windows standard, but they do use them and often.
If the language about linking is removed, the GPL is meaningless.
Why? Perhaps simply removing wouldn't work, but replacing it with clearer language would be nice.
Why not talk about usage and inclusion of code (either binary or source)? If I don't want people to dynamically link against my library, then I GPL the headers as well as the code itself. Then, in order to dynamically link against them, users have to include some portion of the information in the header.
As for what the FSF has to do with this discussion, a large amount of GPLed code is owned by them,
Really? You're kidding me. I didn't know that.
and many other authors will look to them for interpretation of the GPL.
Since the FSF isn't the judge who is going to hear my case, I don't really care about their interpretation.
And so far, you haven't responded to my initial question, which was about what would *legally* (not just what people would probably do) happen in the case of GPLed plugin to a commercial software package.
If you specifically designed your application to dynamically link to a GPLed shared library, then yes, you should be releasing your code under the GPL. Noone is forcing you to use that library if you do not like the terms of the license.
Honestly, are you reading the posts and making sure that you know what I'm talking about? I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where a plugin author UNKNOWN TO ME tells my application to link to a GPLed plugin.
it is not your problem according to the way the FSF interprets the license.
What does the FSF have to do with this discussion? Other than RMS wrote the GPL, nothing. If I go to court, it will be with the copyright holder, not the FSF.
A court may decide otherwise,
Exactly.
How about removing the language that talks about specifically about "linking", which was shortsighted in the first place?
Yes, of course it's ridiculous, that was the point. I was trying to make the point that you're saying that dynamic linking is exactly the same when it comes to the GPL as static linking. Which just isn't true....the author should use a different license...
Well, maybe he should, but what if he uses the GPL? My commercial app is voluntarily linking to a library that is GPLed. If this is no different from simply static linking to the library (plugin) (by your statement) then why shouldn't I be forced to use the GPL on my commercial app?
Whether the linking is static or shared does not make a difference, linking is still linking.
True, but there are significant differences that matter. In order for me to dynamically link to a library, I don't have to actually even see any code other than a header file. If the header file is GPLed then you might have a point. However, if only the actual code is GPLed, then there isn't a problem since I don't even touch it if I dynamically link.
However, with static linking, I am in effect making a copy of the library that I link to when I compile, so this certainly falls under whatever license exists.
The truth is, the idea that the difference between static and dynamic linking is too subtle and complicated to be used in a discussion like this. Especially when there are other ways than just these to connect to a "library".
I'll give you what-if. My commercial app has a plugin system. I use dynamic linking to implement this system. Plugins are really just dynamically linkable libraries that my program scans for and links to. Now some OSS programmer writes a plugin for my app, and places it under the GPL. Now since my app links to this plugin, by your logic, I should be required to release my code under the GPL.
Defining licenses based on complex computer operation mechanisms is a bad idea.
No serious interpretation of fair use extends it to include unlimited anonymous unauthorized copying, and it's just this sort of "but it's fair use" thinking that is going to get more people sued.
Arguing that unlimited anonymous copying over Kazaa is fair use isn't ever going to go anywhere.
Um, where did I say that? Where did the parent poster say that? I don't think that anyone could argue that Kazaa is fair use. What's your point?
Fair use is fair use, as defined by the LAW. Interpretation is simply opinion. And when it comes to the law, the only opinion that counts is that of the judges.
It's a common misconception, but "Stanford University Libraries" isn't a branch of the government, and certainly isn't Congress or the Courts, so their interpretation of the law really doesn't matter.
Numerous lawyers and other groups (some even sponsored by congress) have come up with guidelines for interpreting fair use, but none of them are legally binding. Copyright holders are notorious for being restrictive, while normal people are notorious for wanting to retain their rights.
Generally, lawmakers set out the laws, and stuff like focussing on what "fair use" is is left up to the courts to decide based on the law (hence why case law aka common law is so important, it sets the precedent. So, if the courts decide that doing X with P2P does not constitute fair use, then chances are every other case will follow suit). So it all really depends on how these early cases turn out.
Except this is a real pain in the ass. How am I supposed to know my fair use rights? Go read 4000 pages of court cases that might have something to do with it? That's ridiculous.
When it comes to individuals, the law should be simple enough that a layman can understand what is legal and what isn't. I shouldn't have to consult a lawyer every time I want to pee.
When the fair use doctrine was written, it didn't take into account the amount of copying that would even be possible. Nobody thought that sharing some file with a million of your closest friends would be so easy. Fair use rights need to clarified and laid out in law, not in the courts.
And what makes you think what is said on Slashdot makes a rip of difference to the fight between IBM and SCO, or even between Linux distributions and SCO. I seriously doubt anyone at Slashdot, particularly not the readers, are in any way involved in these lawsuits except as interested outsiders.
I don't know if they are, but the lawyers *should* be reading slashdot comments on SCO stories. Yes, 99% of all/. comments are useless drivel, but every once in a while, some one makes a very insightful point. As it is with any court case, the winner is often determined by how well the lawyer construes his argument. Often times, lawyers (in all their wisdom), don't think of all the arguments.
The house can do anything they want. They own the building, they own the cards, and they probably own the people enforcing things too.
No, they can't. Conspiracy theories aside, much of what a casino does is regulated by the gaming board in whatever region they operate in. I don't know if marked cards are illegal, but many things are.
Also, in most places, the rules of the game must be cleary understood between the parties. The casino secretly using marked cards, would be one of those things that the gaming board would frown on.
Plants have mitochondria too. Except that they're not quite the same as human mitochondria. Human mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is chock full of genes. There isn't much "junk" DNA to be found. However, plant mtDNA is chock full of stuff no one knows what to do with. Why the difference? Not yet known...
Government funded projects should use BSD style licenses. All of them. Everything the government creates should be available to everyone, regardless of what they want to do with it. "Everyone" paid for it, so "everyone" should be able to use it however they want.
Sometimes, I don't see why folks complain that MS used some government source code in a product. If they want it to become a standard, then everyone needs to be able to freely integrate it into their systems, including commercial interests.
Their forumns are the best damn way to get useful information out there. There are a couple techs that are assigned to answer questions, so that questions get answered, but there is also the wealth of other users that are experiencing the same problem that can help, or at least back you up when the company says you're smoking crack.
And since it's semi-official, you know that the issues that you're bringing up are heard by the company.
Not to mention the fact that I can search the archives. I've never had many problems with Matrox cards that I couldn't get help for.
Contrast this to my recent experience with ATI, which seems to think that covering up any and all problems people have with their cards is a good idea. Dammit, I just want to know if someone else has had problems with such-and-such MB combo!
Linux was that 'hammer', you'd have to adjust its head, lock the handle on, use it, and rust-proof it once you're done.
Except for the rust-proof part, sounds like an electric drill. The complexity of using a tool is directly proportional to the complexity of the tool. A hammer is a hunk of metal connected to a piece of wood or metal. That's it. A computer is complex machine.
My blood boils when I hear people say, "A computer is just tool." As if it really wasn't any more useful than a hammer. The truth is, it's one of the most powerful tools of our society. With power comes responsibility. I don't care how easy it is to mount a CD in windows, doing more complex things than this with any system takes some brains and training.
Even the usage of a hammer requires a couple minutes of training. Why do people think that a computer, one of the powerful tools in existence, should require no training to use *effectively*.
It may not be intuitive, but it isn't inconsistent.
He didn't say it was inconsistent. He said it isn't consistently used. Which is true. It would be nice if folks who write installers would actually put stuff where it's supposed to go. Some folks seem to think that their stuff is so important that it should all go in/bin, or they don't understand the hierarchy and put all their stuff in a subdirectory of/usr/local/bin, or/usr/bin, or/opt.
Besides, with a good packaging system, the installed locations of your software are kept out of users' sight.
Why don't we just put everything in a directory called/everything? A good packaging system should simply take of everything, right? I'll tell you why, because a good packaging system doesn't exist. I love Debian as much as the next guy, but it has it's problems too. Ever try to install a obscure PERL module?
I can't help but think, though, that such a book will be scorned and insulted. The authors will be accused of being idiots who don't know how to RTFM. Many of the big linux annoyances around being mentioned here aren't going to be solved in a day.
1. Dependency problems. Yes, I know about Debian and Gentoo. Progress is being made, but installing non-standard software still never seems to work right. And even stuff that is packaged sometimes has dependency problems.
2. "Eject my damn CD" syndrome. I don't care if I get errors. Stuff that likes to hold open lots of files (like konq) needs to be ready to recover when some file or mount simply disappears. If joes-shitty-script crashes on me because I force eject the CD, then fine, but my "explorer" window should stay open and fail gracefully. How about when I press the eject button, it runs a script that goes and find programs using the drive and asks me if I want to kill them?
These problem is that these annoyances are both rooted in system architecture designs. You're not going to fix them in a day.
As soon as you sold it to Joe, it ceased to be purely your music. He gave you money, and you gave him music. He lost money, you gained money. He gained music, you lost WHAT?
Why do you think that somehow you should still have *absolute* control over what you sold him?
All information is based on the work of others. Modern musicians don't seem to understand that thousands of years of musicians are responsible for what they are able to do. Did you come up with polyphany? Then why are you using it? Did you ask first?
It takes a LOT of effort to create new and unique soundbytes, hits and signatur rifts.
It's not as unique as you think. Can you guarantee that you aren't influenced by other musicians? Are you sure that the rift you just came up with isn't really based on something you heard the other night in the subway? Shouldn't you be compensating that guy?
When wireless networking is just used at home or at a single company, then there isn't a problem, but when you start getting multiple groups competing for the same areas, then the government needs to step in. The radio waves are public property, even over PGE ballpark.
I read your post. I thought I understood your post. It sounded to me like you were trusting the client to tell you what browser it was runnning, and filtering out users based on that information. If that isn't what you meant, then you weren't very clear about it.
And yes, I know that user-agent strings do nothing to help secure web apps. That was *my* point.
If other browsers don't disable the function properly, who knows what pages they could get to outside of the designated process flow?
The point is the no matter how hard you try, you really don't know what browser your users are running. Let me repeat it. Unless I misunderstood you, you're depending on the client-side implementation of something for your security.
This is a *bad* thing. And if you don't understand why, then you won't have to remind me to fire you as a security programmer.
Slashdot Mirror
If they pay the guy $20,000 per year instead of the $40,000 that the citizen would make, they save $60,000 over the three years. I doubt that it costs more than that to get an H1B.
See: Metamoderation
And if suspending to disk is not popular now (I don't know anyone who does it for desktop systems
Now you do.
Booting via hibernate in windows seems 10 times faster than normal booting, and having those windows still up is a nice thing. Don't do it at work cause I run Linux, but at home it works great.
I can't wait til I can use the 2.6 kernel and this functionality. I just hope the distro makers integrate this functionality nicely.
Which is about 5% of the whole world, which is made up mostly of Windows users. So not as frequently as you seem to think.
And guess what, you're wrong about file extensions in UNIX land. People use them, and they use them often. They may not be 3 character Windows standard, but they do use them and often.
If the language about linking is removed, the GPL is meaningless.
Why? Perhaps simply removing wouldn't work, but replacing it with clearer language would be nice.
Why not talk about usage and inclusion of code (either binary or source)? If I don't want people to dynamically link against my library, then I GPL the headers as well as the code itself. Then, in order to dynamically link against them, users have to include some portion of the information in the header.
As for what the FSF has to do with this discussion, a large amount of GPLed code is owned by them,
Really? You're kidding me. I didn't know that.
and many other authors will look to them for interpretation of the GPL.
Since the FSF isn't the judge who is going to hear my case, I don't really care about their interpretation.
And so far, you haven't responded to my initial question, which was about what would *legally* (not just what people would probably do) happen in the case of GPLed plugin to a commercial software package.
If you specifically designed your application to dynamically link to a GPLed shared library, then yes, you should be releasing your code under the GPL. Noone is forcing you to use that library if you do not like the terms of the license.
Honestly, are you reading the posts and making sure that you know what I'm talking about? I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where a plugin author UNKNOWN TO ME tells my application to link to a GPLed plugin.
it is not your problem according to the way the FSF interprets the license.
What does the FSF have to do with this discussion? Other than RMS wrote the GPL, nothing. If I go to court, it will be with the copyright holder, not the FSF.
A court may decide otherwise,
Exactly.
How about removing the language that talks about specifically about "linking", which was shortsighted in the first place?
No, that is ridiculous.
...the author should use a different license...
Yes, of course it's ridiculous, that was the point. I was trying to make the point that you're saying that dynamic linking is exactly the same when it comes to the GPL as static linking. Which just isn't true.
Well, maybe he should, but what if he uses the GPL? My commercial app is voluntarily linking to a library that is GPLed. If this is no different from simply static linking to the library (plugin) (by your statement) then why shouldn't I be forced to use the GPL on my commercial app?
Whether the linking is static or shared does not make a difference, linking is still linking.
True, but there are significant differences that matter. In order for me to dynamically link to a library, I don't have to actually even see any code other than a header file. If the header file is GPLed then you might have a point. However, if only the actual code is GPLed, then there isn't a problem since I don't even touch it if I dynamically link.
However, with static linking, I am in effect making a copy of the library that I link to when I compile, so this certainly falls under whatever license exists.
The truth is, the idea that the difference between static and dynamic linking is too subtle and complicated to be used in a discussion like this. Especially when there are other ways than just these to connect to a "library".
I'll give you what-if. My commercial app has a plugin system. I use dynamic linking to implement this system. Plugins are really just dynamically linkable libraries that my program scans for and links to. Now some OSS programmer writes a plugin for my app, and places it under the GPL. Now since my app links to this plugin, by your logic, I should be required to release my code under the GPL.
Defining licenses based on complex computer operation mechanisms is a bad idea.
No serious interpretation of fair use extends it to include unlimited anonymous unauthorized copying, and it's just this sort of "but it's fair use" thinking that is going to get more people sued.
Arguing that unlimited anonymous copying over Kazaa is fair use isn't ever going to go anywhere.
Um, where did I say that? Where did the parent poster say that? I don't think that anyone could argue that Kazaa is fair use. What's your point?
Fair use is fair use, as defined by the LAW. Interpretation is simply opinion. And when it comes to the law, the only opinion that counts is that of the judges.
It's a common misconception, but "Stanford University Libraries" isn't a branch of the government, and certainly isn't Congress or the Courts, so their interpretation of the law really doesn't matter.
Numerous lawyers and other groups (some even sponsored by congress) have come up with guidelines for interpreting fair use, but none of them are legally binding. Copyright holders are notorious for being restrictive, while normal people are notorious for wanting to retain their rights.
Generally, lawmakers set out the laws, and stuff like focussing on what "fair use" is is left up to the courts to decide based on the law (hence why case law aka common law is so important, it sets the precedent. So, if the courts decide that doing X with P2P does not constitute fair use, then chances are every other case will follow suit). So it all really depends on how these early cases turn out.
Except this is a real pain in the ass. How am I supposed to know my fair use rights? Go read 4000 pages of court cases that might have something to do with it? That's ridiculous.
When it comes to individuals, the law should be simple enough that a layman can understand what is legal and what isn't. I shouldn't have to consult a lawyer every time I want to pee.
When the fair use doctrine was written, it didn't take into account the amount of copying that would even be possible. Nobody thought that sharing some file with a million of your closest friends would be so easy. Fair use rights need to clarified and laid out in law, not in the courts.
And what makes you think what is said on Slashdot makes a rip of difference to the fight between IBM and SCO, or even between Linux distributions and SCO. I seriously doubt anyone at Slashdot, particularly not the readers, are in any way involved in these lawsuits except as interested outsiders.
/. comments are useless drivel, but every once in a while, some one makes a very insightful point. As it is with any court case, the winner is often determined by how well the lawyer construes his argument. Often times, lawyers (in all their wisdom), don't think of all the arguments.
I don't know if they are, but the lawyers *should* be reading slashdot comments on SCO stories. Yes, 99% of all
Think of it as distributed arguments.
The house can do anything they want. They own the building, they own the cards, and they probably own the people enforcing things too.
No, they can't. Conspiracy theories aside, much of what a casino does is regulated by the gaming board in whatever region they operate in. I don't know if marked cards are illegal, but many things are.
Also, in most places, the rules of the game must be cleary understood between the parties. The casino secretly using marked cards, would be one of those things that the gaming board would frown on.
Plants have mitochondria too. Except that they're not quite the same as human mitochondria. Human mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is chock full of genes. There isn't much "junk" DNA to be found. However, plant mtDNA is chock full of stuff no one knows what to do with. Why the difference? Not yet known...
Perhaps slashcode could actually add it for you?
Government funded projects should use BSD style licenses. All of them. Everything the government creates should be available to everyone, regardless of what they want to do with it. "Everyone" paid for it, so "everyone" should be able to use it however they want.
Sometimes, I don't see why folks complain that MS used some government source code in a product. If they want it to become a standard, then everyone needs to be able to freely integrate it into their systems, including commercial interests.
One word.
Matrox
Their forumns are the best damn way to get useful information out there. There are a couple techs that are assigned to answer questions, so that questions get answered, but there is also the wealth of other users that are experiencing the same problem that can help, or at least back you up when the company says you're smoking crack.
And since it's semi-official, you know that the issues that you're bringing up are heard by the company.
Not to mention the fact that I can search the archives. I've never had many problems with Matrox cards that I couldn't get help for.
Contrast this to my recent experience with ATI, which seems to think that covering up any and all problems people have with their cards is a good idea. Dammit, I just want to know if someone else has had problems with such-and-such MB combo!
Actually, it happens once a month.
It's called the Full Moon.
Kinda goes against the parent posters argument.
Linux was that 'hammer', you'd have to adjust its head, lock the handle on, use it, and rust-proof it once you're done.
Except for the rust-proof part, sounds like an electric drill. The complexity of using a tool is directly proportional to the complexity of the tool. A hammer is a hunk of metal connected to a piece of wood or metal. That's it. A computer is complex machine.
My blood boils when I hear people say, "A computer is just tool." As if it really wasn't any more useful than a hammer. The truth is, it's one of the most powerful tools of our society. With power comes responsibility. I don't care how easy it is to mount a CD in windows, doing more complex things than this with any system takes some brains and training.
Even the usage of a hammer requires a couple minutes of training. Why do people think that a computer, one of the powerful tools in existence, should require no training to use *effectively*.
It may not be intuitive, but it isn't inconsistent.
/bin, or they don't understand the hierarchy and put all their stuff in a subdirectory of /usr/local/bin, or /usr/bin, or /opt.
/everything? A good packaging system should simply take of everything, right? I'll tell you why, because a good packaging system doesn't exist. I love Debian as much as the next guy, but it has it's problems too. Ever try to install a obscure PERL module?
He didn't say it was inconsistent. He said it isn't consistently used. Which is true. It would be nice if folks who write installers would actually put stuff where it's supposed to go. Some folks seem to think that their stuff is so important that it should all go in
Besides, with a good packaging system, the installed locations of your software are kept out of users' sight.
Why don't we just put everything in a directory called
I can't help but think, though, that such a book will be scorned and insulted. The authors will be accused of being idiots who don't know how to RTFM. Many of the big linux annoyances around being mentioned here aren't going to be solved in a day.
1. Dependency problems. Yes, I know about Debian and Gentoo. Progress is being made, but installing non-standard software still never seems to work right. And even stuff that is packaged sometimes has dependency problems.
2. "Eject my damn CD" syndrome. I don't care if I get errors. Stuff that likes to hold open lots of files (like konq) needs to be ready to recover when some file or mount simply disappears. If joes-shitty-script crashes on me because I force eject the CD, then fine, but my "explorer" window should stay open and fail gracefully. How about when I press the eject button, it runs a script that goes and find programs using the drive and asks me if I want to kill them?
These problem is that these annoyances are both rooted in system architecture designs. You're not going to fix them in a day.
run arbitrary code on your system
Arbitrary code? This is the first valid argument against flash I have seen. Can you back it up?
every Joe's right to use my music
As soon as you sold it to Joe, it ceased to be purely your music. He gave you money, and you gave him music. He lost money, you gained money. He gained music, you lost WHAT?
Why do you think that somehow you should still have *absolute* control over what you sold him?
All information is based on the work of others. Modern musicians don't seem to understand that thousands of years of musicians are responsible for what they are able to do. Did you come up with polyphany? Then why are you using it? Did you ask first?
It takes a LOT of effort to create new and unique soundbytes, hits and signatur rifts.
It's not as unique as you think. Can you guarantee that you aren't influenced by other musicians? Are you sure that the rift you just came up with isn't really based on something you heard the other night in the subway? Shouldn't you be compensating that guy?
When wireless networking is just used at home or at a single company, then there isn't a problem, but when you start getting multiple groups competing for the same areas, then the government needs to step in. The radio waves are public property, even over PGE ballpark.
I read your post. I thought I understood your post. It sounded to me like you were trusting the client to tell you what browser it was runnning, and filtering out users based on that information. If that isn't what you meant, then you weren't very clear about it.
And yes, I know that user-agent strings do nothing to help secure web apps. That was *my* point.
If other browsers don't disable the function properly, who knows what pages they could get to outside of the designated process flow?
The point is the no matter how hard you try, you really don't know what browser your users are running. Let me repeat it. Unless I misunderstood you, you're depending on the client-side implementation of something for your security.
This is a *bad* thing. And if you don't understand why, then you won't have to remind me to fire you as a security programmer.