I actually read the article when it was in the submission queue and minused it for being stupid.
They talk about using it for rainy season and snowstorms and such, but those are the times you're better off with a "kid on a bike" - or even a St. Bernard.
First, those things just won't fly in heavy storms.
Second, even if they did. rainstorms play heck with the radio signal.
Third, what's to stop someone from intercepting it (either hijack the radio signal, or just suspend a net in its' path)
But the reason for having a database password in more conventional systems is that the database server is separate from the application and therefore can't assume that it's trusted without some sort of authentication. If the database is integrated there's no need for a password in the first place.
That really needs to be tagged "whatcouldpossiblygowrong".
You might want to look at the original post, and RTFA (a href=http://opalang.org/#slides=1>in particular, this slide). The "application" is a single executable, containing everything needed to run, including the data store. An additional problem is that the resulting application is itself a server, not code called by a server, so each instance of your app needs to have it's own port. Not very useful at all compared to today's setups:
The following command line distributes 6 instances of Hello, chat on albertson, with user jeff. Each instance will be listening to a port between 7000 et 7005 included.
So unless you control the physical server, including the right to run stand-alone executable content as well as use ports outside of the standard ones, forget it.
Oh please, you're just being difficult. If you want an entirely closed-source application, you can pay them the licensing fee. If you want to go the open source route, but don't want to reveal your passwords, don't put them in the source code: store them in the database.
And how, pray tell, are you supposed to get the password out of the database without the password?
So in other words, yes, you have to release the user name and password, since it's part of the source and compiled into the binary, and the AGPLv3 requires that it all be released.
The GNUstapo strikes again. Last week it was FUD to try to get people to encourage Linux to move to the AGPLv3, which would kill Android on mobile devices, and now this. No thanks. Keep chipping away at the various freedoms - you just end up making the *BSDs look better and better.
Under Kubuntu and Gentoo, I've had to kill knotify4 twice a day to keep the OS usable; under OpenSuse, that was not a problem. Maybe you could try some other distros.
Unfortunately, this IS opensuse, and it's the same problem. knotify4 is a pig. There are a few other issues that don't help.
The data repository, which currently has no name, is being developed for an unnamed customer,
It's the tech equivalent of Prince - it's "the data repository with no name." We can denote it with some sort of unicode glyph that slashdot will mangle.
And of course it has amazingly fast read speeds - if each drive has a 32 meg cache, that's 6.4 terabytes just for the cache.
a woman who has the emotional ability to have an abortion has something wrong with her.
A woman who has the emotional strength to make her own decisions despite other people attempting to impose their religious values on them has something right with her. Forcing someone to carry a fetus to term is slavery, and giving birth is then literally "slave labour."
FTFY.
We don't live in a perfect world. The women who decide to have abortions are acutely aware of that. They don't intentionally get pregnant so they can "experience the joys of abortion and the opprobrium of others."
I stuck with KDE 4x until the last updates, which made everything so sloooow that I'm posting this using LXDE instead. knotify4 is just one of many resource hogs.
It's insane that a desktop like KDE can kill a multi-core machine. Even Vista runs faster on the same box - which really was the last straw for me.
Everything Old is New Again: Lessons from Dodge v. Ford Motor Company
M. Todd Henderson
University of Chicago - Law School
December 2007
U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 373
Abstract: There is much more to Dodge v. Ford Motor Company than meets the eye. Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn't that interesting.
But Dodge is a part of the corporate law canon because it is about much more than this. This essays shows that what the Michigan Supreme Court did was actually an elegant solution to a complex legal and policy issue. The history of case and the parties also shows how many prominent aspects of corporate law and practice have long and under-appreciated histories.
Henry Ford failed twice as an entrepreneur before finding success with the Ford Motor Company. His failures, which he blamed on meddling investors, presaged not only his conflict with the Dodges, but also show the importance of allocating and exercising control rights deftly. The history demonstrates how modern techniques for allocating control rights separately from economic rights would have helped the parties avoid costly and acrimonious litigation. Perhaps most interestingly, however, the back-story of the case shows that it is not clear at all that the parties wanted to avoid litigation. Both the Dodges and Henry Ford used the legal process as a tool in what was at base a business dispute. To paraphrase von Clauswitz, litigation is business by other means. The history of this case provides a prototypical example and also shows an example of how courts can resolve disputes well in these cases.
This essay also shows how practices common today in venture capital transactions, corporate reorganizations, and other areas of corporate law and practice appear vividly in the back-story of this case. Many seemingly new ideas are not, and examining their historical roots can help us better understand them and their place in our modern understanding of corporate law.
Homosexuality was actually a part of the DSM as a mental illness, but was taken out.
It was only taken out in response to intensive lobbying. Some resisted the change because, being in the closet themselves, they didn't want to do anything that could possibly lead to them being outed. Others resisted because of religious beliefs. Still others believe to this day that it's a mental illness or defect that can be cured. These three sub-groups are the same types of sub-groups we see trying to keep other gender/sexual issues pathologized, from gencer-variant behaviour to transsexuality.
All this is just a subset of many other groups who try to put negative connotations on others behaviour. A classic example is abortion - many oppose a woman's right to abortion because putting up a good front will help keep others from questioning whether they have had one or more abortions, others oppose it because they want to impose their religious beliefs on all women, and still others believe that people who want abortions are "sub-human baby-killers."
The site in question is atari2600.org. Go to the source - the US Patent and Trademark Office and do a search on Atari 2600 and you'll see that the registration of the words "Atari 2600" was canceled almost 2 decades ago. Anyone is free to use the term.
Word Mark ATARI 2600 Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 009. US 026 038. G & S: HOME AND BUSINESS COMPUTERS; COMPUTER HARDWARE, NAMELY, CENTRAL PROCESSORS, PRINTERS, TERMINALS, KEYBOARDS, DISK DRIVES, MANUALLY OPERABLE MULTI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIOMETERS; FLOPPY AND HARD DISKS; COMPUTER PROGRAMS RECORDED ON DISKS FOR HOME, SCHOOL AND BUSINESS USE. FIRST USE: 19770600. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19770600
(CANCELLED) IC 028. US 022 023 038. G & S: VIDEO-GAME MACHINES FOR HOME USE; COMPUTER GAME PROGRAMS. FIRST USE: 19770600. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19770600 Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS Design Search Code 15.05.03 - Computer (desktop); Computer terminal; Laptop computer; Monitors, computer (without keyboards) Serial Number 73704210 Filing Date December 31, 1987 Current Filing Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Published for Opposition October 4, 1988 Registration Number 1520637 Registration Date January 17, 1989 Owner (REGISTRANT) ATARI CORPORATION CORPORATION NEVADA 1196 BORREGAS AVENUE SUNNYVALE CALIFORNIA 940083427 Attorney of Record JAMES E. SIEGEL Prior Registrations 1221509 Description of Mark THE MARK CONSISTS OF THE LOCATION OF THE WORD "ATARI" AND DESIGN THE NUMERAL "2600", HOWEVER THE DOTTED LINES MERELY SERVE TO SHOW THE POSITION OF THE MARK ON THE GOODS. Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator DEAD Cancellation Date July 24, 1995
Either someone else already successfully opposed it, or they didn't pay their fees in a timely manner. "It's dead, Jim!"
Not everyone is going to show symptoms from an h.pylori infection. Those that do, and are treated with antibiotics, are cured of their ulcers. Ulcers have nothing to do with stress, except that they may make the host more likely to suffer consequences of an infection because stress negatively impacts their immune system.
As one doctor told me, "anyone who trusts psychiatrists needs to have their head examined."
You could read Jon Ronson's Psychopath Test for a small insight into the way the people behind the categorisation process simply make shit up and grow the criteria for inclusion to a category like they're pulling rabbits out of a hat stuffed with millions of rabbits.
Of course they're doing this - it's entirely expected behaviour. After all, the more people they can mis-diagnose, the more $$$$.
They have to make up for all the revenue they lost with previous false claims that ulcers were caused by a neurosis or stress, that gays and lesbians are sick and can be cured, that cross-gender behaviour in children can be cured by physically and psychologically abusing kids and calling it "reparative therapy".
Money, money, money, always money, it's a rich shrinks world.
There is not "exactly one license". That would contradict the plain reading of the first words of section 6, which states "Each time". Each time the person receives a copy, they automatically get a license from the licensor. Not "they get a license if they don't have one already."
As will proprietary software products, it's quite possible to have multiple licenses (such as buying 10 copies of a compiler at retail). It's still the same program, so your argument that there is exactly one program has no basis whatsoever in the real world. Each copy comes with its own license grant, just like proprietary software that isn't licensed under a volume contract (as opposed to a license).
Additionally, since a license is a one-way stipulation by the licensor, any clauses in doubt have to be interpreted against the stipulator and in favour of the recipient. In such cases, the plain reading favours the recipient, and the plain reading is quite clear - "Every time they receive a copy they are automatically granted a license."
Further, equity comes into play if there is a disagreement that can't be settled by statute. And the recipient of the code has a right in equity to rely on the representations made in the license, specifically the "each time" of section 6. Past performance under section 4 cannot be used as a permanent bar, since there is no mention of the word "permanent" anywhere. Licenses can be terminated and then subsequently revived, either by agreement with the licensor, or by the grant of a new license to cover the old copy, or, as per section 6, the grant of a new license to cover a new copy.
This doesn't mean that old infractions go away - the new license doesn't "clean up" or "whitewash" previous infractions. It is only good going forward, with the new copy of the code. Previous infractions need to be dealt with by agreement with the copyright holder, as happens now.
Finally, it is a principle of law that any terms must be interpreted so as to have an effect. The clauses in section 6 automatically granting a license each time a recipient gets a copy can only have an effect if a new license is in fact granted for each copy.
Anything else is FUD, same as the article claiming that termination is permanent. Show me ONE mention of the word "permanent" in the GPLv2 license. Hint - there isn't any.
Too bad clause 0 refers to licensees, as in "Each licensee is addressed as "you". The gpl is not a contract, but a license. And the licensing information is also inaccurate:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
First, section 5 is not even true. We saw this with the linux kernel headers FUD - not all parts of a program are subject to copyright, and those that aren't, anyone can copy, modify, or distribute. In other words, you can modify the program by stripping out the parts covered by copyright and do what you want, despite it being a "work based on the Program."
Only copyrightable elements are protected by copyright - not necessarily every portion of the program.
Second, as a license, it is a grant of permission for the Program as you received it. The copyright itself doesn't grant you a license - the copyright grants the owner of the copyright the right to grant licenses. If you voilate the license, sure, it's terminated... but that doesn't stop you from getting a new license, the same as any other program. If the author grants you a license after your rights are terminated, then you once again have the right to copy, modify and distribute the program - and section 6 does exactly that - every time you receive a copy of the program, you automatically receive a license. Not "you automatically receive a license unless you have previously violated the license."
You are free to accept the license that automatically comes with a subsequent copy - "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."
So, someone who was in violation can cure the violation, and they can get a new license simply by receiving a new copy of the Program. The licensor, according to the license (it is not contract, and doesn't require an agreement with the licensor) simply cannot forbid this. Copyright law is not the same as contract law.
If the GPL were a contract, you might have a leg to stand on. It isn't. It is a unilateral grant of permissions under copyright law. As long as you have that grant (and the new copy gives it so long as you are not currently in violation - if you are in violation, the new license also terminates as soon as you get it), then that's the end of the story.
Yes, that IS how the law works - subsequent clauses modify prior clauses. This whole stupidity surrounding the GPLv2 is getting to the point where I'm tempted to revert everything I write to the original BSD "Announce" license. It seems that most of the people who are suckered into the GPL 3 license don't understand the modern world.
Your example is easily refuted. If you are blacklisted from an establishment, and they subsequently grant yo a new invitation to enter, you do indeed have permission to enter.
It's the same with section 6 of the GPL. It's a new copy, and you automatically receive a license for that particular copy from the licensor.
Fix any violations before you get your new copy and license, and nobody should complain, since you are fully compliant.
If section 4 terminated your rights to a previous copy, that doesn't extend to the new copy, unless you continue to violate the license. If you're currently in compliance, you have every right to depend on the part that reads "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein".
Each copy is separately licensed. Download a copy, burn it to 5 CDs, give the CDs to 5 friends, and erase the original. Where is your license? It is GONE! Without a copy of the software, you don't have a license. Your 5 friends all received licenses from the original author or his/her assignee - not from you.
Or are you going to claim that you still have "a license to the program", even though you don't have a copy of the software? That concept makes zero sense.
Alternative scenario - download the program, and copy it to 5 different laptops. Someone violates the terms on ONE laptop. Do all of the laptops suddenly become unlicensed? No. There's no magical "quantum entanglement spooky action at a distance between the copies", because nobody received their license from anyone except the original licensor. There is no "chain of licenses." Each time the program is distributed, "the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program".
You're trying to deny the reality of section 6 - that every time someone receives a new copy, they also receive a license for that copy. Yes, it's for "the program" - the program being the copy they downloaded, not some mythical copy sitting a thousand miles away.
Each time a recipient downloads a new copy, they automatically get a new instance of the license for that software - not ALL GPL software. The GPLv2 license does not exist in a vacuum - it licenses the specific copy you receive. This is why, if someone falls afoul of the GPL on one piece of software, say "Foobinator", they can still copy, modify and distribute "Frobinator Deluxe".
Section six of the GPLv2 makes it clear the license is conferred along with the copy. The two cannot be separated.
So, Sony falls afoul of the license and can no longer distribute. They fix the problem, download a new copy, receive a new license, problem solved.
Slashdot Mirror
Click on the header to sort by date/time, then delete the most recent?
Crap.
Same as other crowdsourcing.
I actually read the article when it was in the submission queue and minused it for being stupid.
They talk about using it for rainy season and snowstorms and such, but those are the times you're better off with a "kid on a bike" - or even a St. Bernard.
First, those things just won't fly in heavy storms.
Second, even if they did. rainstorms play heck with the radio signal.
Third, what's to stop someone from intercepting it (either hijack the radio signal, or just suspend a net in its' path)
Fourth - shotgun target practice.
That really needs to be tagged "whatcouldpossiblygowrong".
Sorrt for the tyo, but it doesn't change the fact that the FSF post is anti-Android FUD.
http://opalang.org/resources/book/index.html#_setting_up_storage
So unless you control the physical server, including the right to run stand-alone executable content as well as use ports outside of the standard ones, forget it.
And how, pray tell, are you supposed to get the password out of the database without the password?
perl?
The GNUstapo strikes again. Last week it was FUD to try to get people to encourage Linux to move to the AGPLv3, which would kill Android on mobile devices, and now this. No thanks. Keep chipping away at the various freedoms - you just end up making the *BSDs look better and better.
Compete with Amazon.com! "Prices? We're miles below them!" Oops - too late - someone else already took it (back in 1999).
It's under a few miles of rock. Here, let me fix that for you.
"Hamza? They couldn't come up with something more igneous?"
Try the fish!
Unfortunately, this IS opensuse, and it's the same problem. knotify4 is a pig. There are a few other issues that don't help.
FTFS:
It's the tech equivalent of Prince - it's "the data repository with no name." We can denote it with some sort of unicode glyph that slashdot will mangle.
And of course it has amazingly fast read speeds - if each drive has a 32 meg cache, that's 6.4 terabytes just for the cache.
BTW, it's for the ^@#%^&^+++NO CARRIER
I stuck with KDE 4x until the last updates, which made everything so sloooow that I'm posting this using LXDE instead. knotify4 is just one of many resource hogs.
It's insane that a desktop like KDE can kill a multi-core machine. Even Vista runs faster on the same box - which really was the last straw for me.
[citation required]
Counter-citation
It was only taken out in response to intensive lobbying. Some resisted the change because, being in the closet themselves, they didn't want to do anything that could possibly lead to them being outed. Others resisted because of religious beliefs. Still others believe to this day that it's a mental illness or defect that can be cured. These three sub-groups are the same types of sub-groups we see trying to keep other gender/sexual issues pathologized, from gencer-variant behaviour to transsexuality.
All this is just a subset of many other groups who try to put negative connotations on others behaviour. A classic example is abortion - many oppose a woman's right to abortion because putting up a good front will help keep others from questioning whether they have had one or more abortions, others oppose it because they want to impose their religious beliefs on all women, and still others believe that people who want abortions are "sub-human baby-killers."
Plus Ãa change, plus c'est la mÃme chose.
Either someone else already successfully opposed it, or they didn't pay their fees in a timely manner. "It's dead, Jim!"
As one doctor told me, "anyone who trusts psychiatrists needs to have their head examined."
Of course they're doing this - it's entirely expected behaviour. After all, the more people they can mis-diagnose, the more $$$$.
They have to make up for all the revenue they lost with previous false claims that ulcers were caused by a neurosis or stress, that gays and lesbians are sick and can be cured, that cross-gender behaviour in children can be cured by physically and psychologically abusing kids and calling it "reparative therapy".
Money, money, money, always money, it's a rich shrinks world.
As will proprietary software products, it's quite possible to have multiple licenses (such as buying 10 copies of a compiler at retail). It's still the same program, so your argument that there is exactly one program has no basis whatsoever in the real world. Each copy comes with its own license grant, just like proprietary software that isn't licensed under a volume contract (as opposed to a license).
Additionally, since a license is a one-way stipulation by the licensor, any clauses in doubt have to be interpreted against the stipulator and in favour of the recipient. In such cases, the plain reading favours the recipient, and the plain reading is quite clear - "Every time they receive a copy they are automatically granted a license."
Further, equity comes into play if there is a disagreement that can't be settled by statute. And the recipient of the code has a right in equity to rely on the representations made in the license, specifically the "each time" of section 6. Past performance under section 4 cannot be used as a permanent bar, since there is no mention of the word "permanent" anywhere. Licenses can be terminated and then subsequently revived, either by agreement with the licensor, or by the grant of a new license to cover the old copy, or, as per section 6, the grant of a new license to cover a new copy.
This doesn't mean that old infractions go away - the new license doesn't "clean up" or "whitewash" previous infractions. It is only good going forward, with the new copy of the code. Previous infractions need to be dealt with by agreement with the copyright holder, as happens now.
Finally, it is a principle of law that any terms must be interpreted so as to have an effect. The clauses in section 6 automatically granting a license each time a recipient gets a copy can only have an effect if a new license is in fact granted for each copy.
Anything else is FUD, same as the article claiming that termination is permanent. Show me ONE mention of the word "permanent" in the GPLv2 license. Hint - there isn't any.
First, section 5 is not even true. We saw this with the linux kernel headers FUD - not all parts of a program are subject to copyright, and those that aren't, anyone can copy, modify, or distribute. In other words, you can modify the program by stripping out the parts covered by copyright and do what you want, despite it being a "work based on the Program."
Only copyrightable elements are protected by copyright - not necessarily every portion of the program.
Second, as a license, it is a grant of permission for the Program as you received it. The copyright itself doesn't grant you a license - the copyright grants the owner of the copyright the right to grant licenses. If you voilate the license, sure, it's terminated ... but that doesn't stop you from getting a new license, the same as any other program. If the author grants you a license after your rights are terminated, then you once again have the right to copy, modify and distribute the program - and section 6 does exactly that - every time you receive a copy of the program, you automatically receive a license. Not "you automatically receive a license unless you have previously violated the license."
You are free to accept the license that automatically comes with a subsequent copy - "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."
So, someone who was in violation can cure the violation, and they can get a new license simply by receiving a new copy of the Program. The licensor, according to the license (it is not contract, and doesn't require an agreement with the licensor) simply cannot forbid this. Copyright law is not the same as contract law.
If the GPL were a contract, you might have a leg to stand on. It isn't. It is a unilateral grant of permissions under copyright law. As long as you have that grant (and the new copy gives it so long as you are not currently in violation - if you are in violation, the new license also terminates as soon as you get it), then that's the end of the story.
Yes, that IS how the law works - subsequent clauses modify prior clauses. This whole stupidity surrounding the GPLv2 is getting to the point where I'm tempted to revert everything I write to the original BSD "Announce" license. It seems that most of the people who are suckered into the GPL 3 license don't understand the modern world.
It's the same with section 6 of the GPL. It's a new copy, and you automatically receive a license for that particular copy from the licensor.
Fix any violations before you get your new copy and license, and nobody should complain, since you are fully compliant.
If section 4 terminated your rights to a previous copy, that doesn't extend to the new copy, unless you continue to violate the license. If you're currently in compliance, you have every right to depend on the part that reads "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein".
Or are you going to claim that you still have "a license to the program", even though you don't have a copy of the software? That concept makes zero sense.
Alternative scenario - download the program, and copy it to 5 different laptops. Someone violates the terms on ONE laptop. Do all of the laptops suddenly become unlicensed? No. There's no magical "quantum entanglement spooky action at a distance between the copies", because nobody received their license from anyone except the original licensor. There is no "chain of licenses." Each time the program is distributed, "the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program".
You're trying to deny the reality of section 6 - that every time someone receives a new copy, they also receive a license for that copy. Yes, it's for "the program" - the program being the copy they downloaded, not some mythical copy sitting a thousand miles away.
Section six of the GPLv2 makes it clear the license is conferred along with the copy. The two cannot be separated.
So, Sony falls afoul of the license and can no longer distribute. They fix the problem, download a new copy, receive a new license, problem solved.
How hard is that to understand?