Our hearts, if we had any, would go out to the family for their loss and our loss of revenue. We had decided to temporarily suspend, pending our passing and at least one of our staff avoiding burning in hell forever and thus limiting our ability to get a hearing before the ultimate judge, the productive, for us, settlement discussions we were having with the family. Mr. S had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, who now will claim his stepfather was actually a rap and techno fan and downloading MP3s for his 8 track, and we were in the process settling with him shortly before he decided to suspend the settlement talks indefinitely. Out of an abundance of sensitivity to the tons of negative publicity we were getting, we have elected to drop this particular case like a hot potato.
They call it a 'no military use' modified version of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
Actually, I'd call it a no research use since most research can be used to harm human beings; the converse is to argue "that our research doesn't hurt it's the application of the research..." which opens the door to military use.
Personally adding terms is a bad idea - either you make it free for all or you keep it proprietary. Sooner or later someone will add in a clause that prevents you from using the software as you like which is directly opposite the goals of the GPL. If their software uses an GPL's code they did not right then tehir restriction is void anyway since it violates the license of the underlying code.
"One major loss to them was hearing losses. The addition of a few minor changes could have nearly silenced the factory."
For a few cents you can buy earplugs at the drugstore. No need to beg your employer to do something. If you lose your hearing, there's nobody to blame but yourself.
While I agree fully with you (I'm not the OP, BTW), every industrial site I have seen has disposable earplug station positioned around the plant; most also give employees reusable ones as well. Same thing with hardhats. Many also provide or give a cash allowance to buy safety shoes. Those things are so cheap, easy, and effective that it's considered a normal business practice; and quite possibly an OSHA requirement.
While the percentages look good, the actual numbers are much different. Let's suppose for every 100 people, 1 is a criminal / terrorist/smuggler. Using this,
85% catch rate - You'll have 1 real person caught 85% of the time - =.85 8 % false positives - 8 innocents pulled aside per 100 = 8 Total checked - 8.85
Total id for further review = 8.85 of with on average.85 will be a terrorist / criminal - 8.85 -.85/8.9 = 90% of the people stopped will be innocent - so the guard is faced with the sisituation where he/she knows the detector is usually wrong - I wonder how hard it is for a real bad guy to talk themselves out of the situation.
Of course, the real ratio of bad guy to innocent is probably much lower than 1 per hundred - making the test even harder.
While I think a profiling / biometric approach is better than the search everyone badly approach it needs to be well understood and part of a more complete way to screen passengers. Two bios - one at the entrance to the airport and another for boarding may be a better start.
That's the trouble - low FR look good until you see their impact on the total population identified as positive.
aving worked as RN in a large factory which had Lost Time Injuries approximately every 3 days.... and which could have saved a fortune if modest changes had been made, I have discussed this with management.
The motivation of the management who makes the decisions is one of control and temper. It really does make sense to make things safer. This factory could have saved about $100,000 a week had it improved safety. They just didn't want to do it. You see a worker was only paid about $50,000 a year and as such these people didn't cost management enough to be worth anything to them.
I watched the expensive management employees get protected while the workers got nothing. This was a tire factory. They made $1,350,000 a day even with this injury expense. It may be strange to some but actually the workers were too cheap to be worth anything. The loss of a life about every year or so was an acceptable cost to management. So what if you pay off the family with a damage claim of $500,000 or so. Blow it off. These people are worthless in the eyes of management...
Saving $5,200,000 a year simply didn't enter their mind as worth that much effort. I proposed that we use the medical data to extract which machines should be fixed. I offered to observe the machines and look at what was going on. They had no interest. One major loss to them was hearing losses. The addition of a few minor changes could have nearly silenced the factory. They couldn't care less. Another major loss was loss of hands and fingers and intermittently a person in a machine. Simple design changes in jobs would have improved production and saved lifes. They didn't care because it might "bother" their situation. It was an attitude that the "Free Trade" advocates refuse to recognize. Burried in the true motivations of many rich persons is a hatred of other social classes and a view that they are property not people. This is why they will not embrace safety technology.
Your numbers don't make sense - $100,00 is about 1% of a weeks take (per your numbers) which is usually enough to get a company take notice; which is why I doubt your numbers. Either they are wrong or the required changes were so expensive as to be unaffordable - so when you say:
One major loss to them was hearing losses. The addition of a few minor changes could have nearly silenced the factory.
I have to wonder - silencing an industrial environment is not easy nor cheap - which is why wearing proper hearing protection is generally the best fix (and enforceable as well).
Then again, your last paragraph shows where you are coming from - I sense you had an agenda that was not well received and probably not realistic nor practical.
How about this, then: you ask a guy (me!) if it would be possible to install windows XP on your pentium 233MHz with 32MB of ram for a fee. The guy (me!) says, "sure, no problem", plugs an extra 128MB of ram on the machine, installs windows (after a long time;) and removes the 128MB of ram. Now, windows will not run on that computer, because the minimum ram required for windows is 64MB. Would you pay the guy (me!)? You asked for the software to be installed and, by your definition, it is. I could even go as far as saying I "installed" windows on a powerPC-based macintosh by your logic, by just perfoming an installation on a PC and copying the files over to the mac.
Now, where I (and hopefully others) come from, it would be obvious to anyone that the guy screwed you up, because it is only obvious that if you asked for a windows installation it's because you intend to run said copy of windows. But maybe this is just me...
Your example has no relevance to whether or not the GPL requires modified code to be capable of running on the original hardware. You performed tasks to do an install then undid modifications required to install, which is different from modifying code and then expecting it to work.
Also, let's not forget that the GPL includes a preamble explaining the spirit of the license, which is "to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users"; it also mentions that "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights."
So, even if this specific portion of the GPL is not written in legalese, it is part of the license and is open to interpretation in order to clarify dubious issues (such as this one we are discussing). And do you really believe that actively preventing the user from running a modified version of the software on the hardware in which the distributor installed it does not qualify as breaching the "restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights"? There would be a lot of talk on a court, sure, but in the end, if the lawyers are competent, I could bet what the outcome would be. The new GPL is supposed to simplify the talking, it does not add anything really new in this regard.
Well, IANAL, but as I recall specific generally trumps vague in a contract. Even so, TIVO has not impacted your "...your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users" since you can still do that - even the preamble doesn't say squat about the ability to run modified software on the hardware it shipped with. It's about your ability to get the source and change it anyway you want and then it's up to you to get it to run; you could build non-keyed hardware and run your modified software. As a side note, once it's modified TIVO should no longer be obligated to allow access to their network with the moded software.
So yes, I do think that not ensuing modified code runs does not breach your rights under the GPL - you can get the source, change it, build hardware that runs it, redistribute your modified code; even create a TIVO competitor - so I'd say you enjoyed the same rights as TIVO did when the decided to use GPL code.
Interestingly enough, the GPL does address this type of issue:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
So as long as the key checking is done separate from the GPL's code then they are on full compliance with the GPL, IMHO.
If you really believe what you wrote, any GPL V2 code can never be released under V3 since that would limit rights by adding new restrictions that did not exist under v2.
I wish I could mod you up. To expand on the topic, coops are very common, some examples include: -Credit unions -Insurance compaines -Religous communes -Rural coops, including telephone, electric, water and sewer coops. -Mutual benefit corps. such as fraternal organizations.
What is blowing the minds of many of the posters is the concept that there is no strict hierarchy of control. There seems be be a propensity of some people to disbelieve that anything can get done without a strict military/fascist type table of order.
Yet all of your commercial examples have a hierarchy and control structure - Coops and Mutual Companies have boards, CEO's, managers, etc. to run things - individuals (whether owners or employees) can't just decide the direction they want to go and go do it - unlike open source software where anyone can add , modify etc. without anyone else's permission.
The hierarchy exists to decide how to allocate a companies resources to achieve stated goals. Even if everyone has a say, somebody needs to decide what ultimately gets done; allocate resources, monitor progress and ensure the right skills are applied to the right work.
Some are more democratic or allow more freedom to chose a direction (often the case with consulting partnerships where the intellectual capital is the main driver of value) but ultimately some group decides what does and doesn't get done. When others don't like it, the "fork" the company and start their own; especially if it's a company where the value is in the employee's knowledge - eventually some decide they are better of on their own than as part of a group (usually because someone else is getting more money than they are so they decide to go it alone.)
You: "Just what it says - it does not say that you must provide the necessary information to execute, install, or compile a modified work"
GPL: "plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" Me: Question is does a key count as part of those scripts. I think so. But IANAL.
And I don't because it excludes "and execution" as a condition of license - which to me is significant because programs are compiled; installed, and executed; you could argue that the original license writers should understand that distinction and therefore did not include it - as further evidenced by later changing the terms to include it. But, then again, IANAL either.
You: "An interesting side question is if you release a GPL 3 version of previous GPL v2 code are you restricting the rights of subsequent users since it now includes more restrictive DRM requirements"/.: Not a question, of course you can't. Thats why some use "GPL2 or any later", then you can use whatever FSF calls GPL. If that is missing, only GPL2 is valid, or agreement of all the authors. (Learned on/. , again IANAL).
But even then someone might argue that you can't exclusively GPL3 it because the original allowed for 2 or later; so to avoid restricting the rights further you must also allow redistribution of the code under 2 regardless of whether you also release it under 3; i.e does the "no more restrictive" clause trump "2 or later?" IANAL as previously stated.
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means..."
What do you think "an executable work" means?
Just what it says - it does not say that you must provide the necessary information to execute, install, or compile a modified work. You want to extend the GPL to hardware which the current license does not require.
An executable work, BTW, runs on its own, unmodified and is supplied by the distributer; it specifically is not the ability to execute any derived work from the original.
You clearly don't like that but that doesn't change the terms of the license.
An interesting side question is if you release a GPL 3 version of previous GPL v2 code are you restricting the rights of subsequent users since it now includes more restrictive DRM requirements; thus it would violate the GPL to release code under the GPL.
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have."
And they have - you can modify it and redistribute as you see fit; which is the rights they were given. No where in the GPL does it require you ensure modified copies are executable on type of hardware; including that which it current uses.
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
I think that is clear enough, even in legal speak. You have to supply anything to build a working program. Understanding "modifications" in any other way makes no sense. Except, maybe, if you are a lawyer. The only problem is they missed "DRM-keys" because they did not exists then. Which gives Tivo a nice gray area.
Nothing in that statement requires inclusion of information needed to run a modified version - only the original; and as you point out there is no mention of keys needed to actually execute, the only requirement is what is needed to compile and install; and you still:
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it"
TIVO has not prevented you from doing that. You can modify the program to your heart's content.
You want to expand the GPL to add rights the original user did not have - information needed to make a modified copy that is still executable on specific hardware - as you pointed out, the GPL in fact specifically states that is not required:
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have."
The software-part not. Of course that means "on this tivo", not on something else.
But that is not required by the GPL - nowhere in the license does it require that modified software be able to run on an embedded (or any other) platform. If you think it does then I submit your smoking something, not I.
You might want it to be that way but it certainly is not part of the license and that is all that TIVO needs to comply with to be able to use the software.
Can you fix broken tivo-hardware? Yes. Can you fix broken tivo-software? No.
Sure you can - you just can't run it on the existing hardware.
BTW the argument about running it on something else is related. Imagine you buy something and when it breaks the dealer says: Well buy another one, which you can repair.
Except you are saying "I made changes to this thing I bought and now it won't work so you sold me something defective."
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable [emphasis mine].
Now, the distributor gave me a binary compiled and installed on a piece of hardware. If I cannot compile and install it on that same hardware (note that "install" implies being able to run; if I can't run it, I didn't really install it, I just copied it), then I did not receive at least part of "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable"; this part is the signing key. Either they have to give me their key or (much more reasonable) give me a way to make the device accept my key.
This is where we disagree - the ability to install is different from the ability to run a specific piece of code. It installs, but the hardware will not allow it to execute because it does not match the originally installed piece of code; and the GPL does not require execution only installation, so they are in compliance with the license.
THere's a difference between having to make my code work and them preventing any code not coming from them from working. In the first case I know the risks, and if I fuck up the hardware its my fault. In the second, my rights as owner of the hardware are being removed.
No, they have no obligation to ensure or facilitate code that they do not create runs. If you don't like that don't buy the product.
And the GPL can easily be extended to hardware- thats what the GPLv3 does. It ensures that if you use GPLed code in your hardware product, that the user must maintain the right to modify the code. It protects the principles of Free Software that the GPL was created for. If the hardware maker wants to take away my rights as a user, they can write their own damn software to do it with.
Which is why companies should not use it. If v3 should also ensure those restrictions are not added to any code previously released under an earlier version since to do so would limited authors ability to control how their code is distributed since it would impose limitations that they had not imposed.
Its not the same at all. I buy Tivo hardware. I have the right to use it as I wish, since I own the hardware. A hardware mechanism that stops it from booting if unsigned prevents me from utilizing my rights as an owner. If the code Tivo uses is GPLed I'm being denied my rights twice- not only my rights as a hardware owner, but my rights under the GPL.
The system works as delivered - TIVO has met it its obligation to provide a product that work as advertised; your argument would say that if Windows won't run a a Linux box you bought the at you are being deprived of the right to use the hardware as you see fit.. You are free to modify the hardware to make it run if you can - but no where does the GPL require a company to support modified versions on their hardware. The GPL only applies to the software - it can't be extended to hardware (or other programs) because the creators of the software have no rights to the hardware design - they didn't do it. That's like saying the manufacturer of a computer can change the GPL license because it runs on their BIOS - they are separate things with separate copyright owners who get to decide how it can be used.
They give you the code; once you change it it's your job to make it work.
Nope. Stop lying or start studying religion and history.
Islam recognizes both Judaism and Christianity as true religions, per Quran they are considered people of the book and should be treated as Muslims.
So no, you are just plain wrong. There are misguided people in the middle east who dislikes the US invasion and there was people who disliked the crusader invasion, but there has never in the history of Islam been a sentiment to "destroy the west".
First of all, there is no one Islamic consensus - some (the Shia)believe the 16th Caliph is in hiding and will return to create an Islamic Caliphate right before the end times. There beliefs in dynastic succession from the Prophet results in an Inman's ability to issue a fatwa that has to be carried out.
Sunni's don't hold the same beliefs in dynastic succession but that the Holy Quran and writings about how the Prophet lived his life should guide Muslims; and that an Inman can issue a fatwa but it is up to the individual to decide if to follow it. The Wahabbi's add to this belief a desire to establish Islamic law as the supreme rule (since it is God's law and man can't do better)and that Muslims who do not follow Islamic law are not real Muslims and hence the proscription against attacking Muslims is not valid. The ties between them and the Saudi royal family are based on political considerations - the Wahabbi's ignore the rulers n on-Islamic lifestyles and support them in exchange for money; eventually they will turn on them once they believe they can overthrow them and establish a Islamic state in Saudi Arabia.
It's isn't as simple as the west vs them; or to destroy the west but rather establish Islamic law over the earth - just as fundies in the US would like rule by the Bible (such as the Puritans did in MA).
How could this be misplaced! This is arguably one of the greatest human accomplishments ever!
Actually it's not that hard to see this happening. Unless someone was specifically tasked with saving it it probably went into a pile of stuff to "save." After a few moves you forget what was to be saved and why. Should they have realized the historic value? Probably, but a lot of other stuff was happening at the same time and the tapes may have simply been lost in the shuffle. NASA cleans house periodically, I remember when you could go to Goddard and get blueprints, pictures, and parts of sounding rockets if you asked since they would throw that stuff out to make space for newer stuff. The engineers would take you to their offices (it helped to know one of them but aletter would yield pictures and prints as well) and let you rummage through the files to get what you wanted. A real cool time to be interested in rocketry; and I still have my Javelin / Nike Tomahawk / Aerobee pictures and Aerobee blueprints. Not sure where I put the despin module pieces.
Use a port replicator (for extra cash) or firewire - they key for me is portability; a jump drive would allow file transfer and connecting camera memory as needed.
Wasn't the point of not putting an optical drive in the machine to save money, in the original poster's estimation? Why not just buy a tablet with an optical drive in it? Of course, I know you can attach an external device, but that's not the point. If you spent more money the tablet could be another device altogether now couldn't it?
And yes, something more Newton-ish (I owned one) would definitely be more of what the $599 price point would get you. But, PDAs (even souped up tablet-esque ones) that aren't cell phones these days are slowly dying out.
Bottom line... we'll have to wait and see. I don't think Apple will get into the tablet market. It would be nice if they did, given the niche markets they thrive in, but I don't think it's going to happen. I am human. I've been wrong before, but seems highly unlikely given the current general landscape and the specific product focus of Apple.
By making an optical drive (and other options) separate items they can keep the cost of the device low while still allowing for expansion if desired; plus users could use existing optical drives / USB devices if they want.
The Newton was a great device (I also owned one and played with a 2k for a few months) and a MacOS tablet with HWR and the ability to run mac programs would be a worthy successor; especially if it was slimmer and lighter than most notebooks. Add in the ability to boot to a video / music player on instantly on power up instead of MacOS and decent battery life and you'd have a great tool for travelers.
I agree that we probably won't see anything like it soon...
Drop the optical drive? How will you install the OS?
Use a prot replicator (for extra cash) or firewire - they key for me is portability; a jump drive would allow file transfer and conencting camera memory as needed.
Use a slower processor? Who would buy it?
Depends - I would not buy one to try to do video editing but would use one to run Office while I travel - battery life, weight and price are more important than raw speed; so a slower but low power intel chip would be fine. Add in wifi and and a PC-Card slot and I'd be good to go.
A $500 tablet would in many ways be a natural follow-on to the Newton - use it as a mobile tool and then transfer the files to a Mac or PC if you need to do heavy lifting. MacOS would give access to enough software that I'd ditch my PC laptop.
If I can make X dollars running plant A or X+Y running B and not A; guess what I'd do?
risk overbuilding and driving down prices as a result - not a smart business move.
And herein lies the problem. Neither regulation nor the free market will change this fundamental mathematical equation. Regulation or not, if nobody wants to break the gravy train and build more plants so that people can get the electricity they need, then I'm out of ideas. You got any?
Profit is what breaks the gravy train - once companies see they can make an acceptable profit by building a plant, they will. That's what drove the building of merchant (non0utility owned plants) a few years back. Competition works but too often politicians and others want to "fix" problems and only mess things up.
They problem is that it is a lot easier to build a manufacturing plant than site a power plant - people don't like transmission lines; you need to be near a fuel source (or build a nuke); all of which adds uncertainty and raises the required return to make it a worthwhile investment.
This isn't just a CA issue, the rise in natural gas prices and rising demand for electricity is going to force some rethinking of our energy supply strateg y - to the point where we will see licensing and construction started on a new nuke plant in the US within 5 years.
They weren't permitted to own and operate plants
At least part of that's explained, though corporations have had centuries of experience flaunting regulations. Why didn't the board of directors of California Transmission, Inc. simply erect California Generation, Inc? It worked well enough for Custer Battles, who even made their new companies operate out of the same address when the military banned them from contracting with them.
As regulated entity the transmission companies can't simply create a new company and build plants - the regulators would be very concerned that the regulated side was being used to subsidize or otherwise prop up the unregulated side; plus they'd be accused of using the plants to drive up prices every time there was a spike in the price.
The root of the problem was the CA legislature's attempt to have it both ways - reduce electric prices to consumers, and force the generators to bear the pricing risks.
As for Custer Battles; government contracting is a whole different beast than operating a regulated utility.
The assumption keeps being made that Circuit City hasn't actually been authorized to do this.
I'd like to know where that assumption comes from.
Great point - CC could easily strike a deal with the studios to pay them a per copy fee for each ripped DVD. They are a major retail outlet and neither side benefits from a long legal battle. The copies quality is probably less than the DVD so there is less potential for reburning it to a DVD. The real challenge is preventing copying rips to multiple iPODs. Of course, they could watermark the copy so if it gets spread beyond casual swaps they could ID the original owner. The studios and CC will also get data on the demand for such copies which can open the door to other ventures. I wouldn't be surprised to see a pre-ripped movie station in the not so distant future.
The margins must be huge - they actual ripping station can't be that expensive and the marginal cost of each rip is small. Heck, they may even have a hardrive to save popular rips to cut down on the time it takes to make a copy.
f you're proposing that simply turning off service to paying customers is a viable method of "controlling demand" then I'd hate to live in your little world. If demand for airline flights got too high, would you rather drop a few out of the sky or build more airplanes? Maybe if too many people were shipping packages for Christmas, a few could wind up in some ditch somewhere without a problem?
No - my point was that the politicians setup the system for failure - they needed to keep a pricing mechanism in place to make the system work. Markets will do this naturally - in the absence of price controls in the old USSR shortages and lines took the place of price to match supply and demand.
Now clearly, capping consumer prices to prevent using price to control demand didn't help matters. But even if the government had not done so, I fail to see how that would have stopped Enron from faking supply shortages or shutting down generating plants in order to drive up the price of electricity. It probably would have prolonged the situation, since they'd have been able to soak the entire population of California instead of just driving the transmitters bankrupt.
The companies acted just like the politicians set them up to act. If I can make X dollars running plant A or X+Y running B and not A; guess what I'd do? CA's transmission system played a role as well - it's design is such that only a limited amount of power can be wheeled in.
In this, we can see the parallels with the current gasoline situation here. Despite record profits, the oil companies just can't seem to afford to build refineries that don't poison the neighborhood or blow up and kill everyone, not that the regulations they whine about seem to be stopping them from doing either at their existing plants. Why should they, anyways? If they spend their money to increase supply, the gravy train stops since by limiting supply, they make the most money for doing the least amount of work.
They also plan long term - there is no assurance that the current situation will continue and they risk overbuilding and driving down prices as a result - not a smart business move.
If you want a real solution, you should ask why the transmitters chose to go out of business instead of building their own power plants to replace the plants that Enron was running incompetently. Faced with losing business entirely to plants that weren't being shut down at random, they'd have shaped up pretty quick.
They weren't permitted to own and operate plants - the legislature (an a broad group of special interests) wanted to take that away from the evil utility and introduce competition. They wouldn't even let them enter into long term supply contracts; no the politicians knew what is best and that was to force companies to buy on the spot market and to pay whatever the cost was for the last kw. The transmission companies wanted a reliable supply at predictable prices but the politicians made sure they couldn't do that.
Enron and others figured out how to use the rules established by the CA legislature to their own benefit - had they been a little more careful they would have gotten away with it.
AIR, Enron actually ran few plants in the US - they were trading electricity; not generating it. That's why they were able to drive up prices by using trades to force higher priced plants online.
Of course, the politicians could not say they screwed up - it had to be the evil corporations that took advantage of CA.
Looking around online, I could get 7 acres of land in california for under a million dollars, put a plant square in the middle and have a nice little buffer zone around the edge. Buy land from a farmer and you could probably get it cheaper, with a bonus for your liability insurance if the only thing your plant can kill is a handful of cows and chickens, but then you'd be facing transmission issues to get the power into town.
Build a powerplant in CA? And run transmission lines? Good luck with that one.
Slashdot Mirror
Never heard of someone confessing to something they didn't do.. that just sounds insane. :|
Yes, that is why insane people are known to do it from time to time.
We call teh politicians. they ofetn claim to have done soemthing they really didn't, like invent the internet; or declare mission accomplished.
the statement translated to
Our hearts, if we had any, would go out to the family for their loss and our loss of revenue. We had decided to temporarily suspend, pending our passing and at least one of our staff avoiding burning in hell forever and thus limiting our ability to get a hearing before the ultimate judge, the productive, for us, settlement discussions we were having with the family. Mr. S had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, who now will claim his stepfather was actually a rap and techno fan and downloading MP3s for his 8 track, and we were in the process settling with him shortly before he decided to suspend the settlement talks indefinitely. Out of an abundance of sensitivity to the tons of negative publicity we were getting, we have elected to drop this particular case like a hot potato.
They call it a 'no military use' modified version of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
..." which opens the door to military use.
Actually, I'd call it a no research use since most research can be used to harm human beings; the converse is to argue "that our research doesn't hurt it's the application of the research
Personally adding terms is a bad idea - either you make it free for all or you keep it proprietary. Sooner or later someone will add in a clause that prevents you from using the software as you like which is directly opposite the goals of the GPL. If their software uses an GPL's code they did not right then tehir restriction is void anyway since it violates the license of the underlying code.
Have any of them actually read I, Robot?
Why read when you can watch the movie?
- R Daniel Oliver
"One major loss to them was hearing losses. The addition of a few minor changes could have nearly silenced the factory."
For a few cents you can buy earplugs at the drugstore. No need to beg your employer to do something. If you lose your hearing, there's nobody to blame but yourself.
While I agree fully with you (I'm not the OP, BTW), every industrial site I have seen has disposable earplug station positioned around the plant; most also give employees reusable ones as well. Same thing with hardhats. Many also provide or give a cash allowance to buy safety shoes. Those things are so cheap, easy, and effective that it's considered a normal business practice; and quite possibly an OSHA requirement.
While the percentages look good, the actual numbers are much different. Let's suppose for every 100 people, 1 is a criminal / terrorist/smuggler. Using this,
.85 will be a terrorist / criminal - 8.85 - .85/8.9 = 90% of the people stopped will be innocent - so the guard is faced with the sisituation where he /she knows the detector is usually wrong - I wonder how hard it is for a real bad guy to talk themselves out of the situation.
85% catch rate - You'll have 1 real person caught 85% of the time - =.85
8 % false positives - 8 innocents pulled aside per 100 = 8
Total checked - 8.85
Total id for further review = 8.85 of with on average
Of course, the real ratio of bad guy to innocent is probably much lower than 1 per hundred - making the test even harder.
While I think a profiling / biometric approach is better than the search everyone badly approach it needs to be well understood and part of a more complete way to screen passengers. Two bios - one at the entrance to the airport and another for boarding may be a better start.
That's the trouble - low FR look good until you see their impact on the total population identified as positive.
aving worked as RN in a large factory which had Lost Time Injuries approximately every 3 days.... and which could have saved a fortune if modest changes had been made, I have discussed this with management.
The motivation of the management who makes the decisions is one of control and temper. It really does make sense to make things safer. This factory could have saved about $100,000 a week had it improved safety. They just didn't want to do it. You see a worker was only paid about $50,000 a year and as such these people didn't cost management enough to be worth anything to them.
I watched the expensive management employees get protected while the workers got nothing. This was a tire factory. They made $1,350,000 a day even with this injury expense. It may be strange to some but actually the workers were too cheap to be worth anything. The loss of a life about every year or so was an acceptable cost to management. So what if you pay off the family with a damage claim of $500,000 or so. Blow it off. These people are worthless in the eyes of management...
Saving $5,200,000 a year simply didn't enter their mind as worth that much effort. I proposed that we use the medical data to extract which machines should be fixed. I offered to observe the machines and look at what was going on. They had no interest. One major loss to them was hearing losses. The addition of a few minor changes could have nearly silenced the factory. They couldn't care less. Another major loss was loss of hands and fingers and intermittently a person in a machine. Simple design changes in jobs would have improved production and saved lifes. They didn't care because it might "bother" their situation. It was an attitude that the "Free Trade" advocates refuse to recognize. Burried in the true motivations of many rich persons is a hatred of other social classes and a view that they are property not people. This is why they will not embrace safety technology.
Your numbers don't make sense - $100,00 is about 1% of a weeks take (per your numbers) which is usually enough to get a company take notice; which is why I doubt your numbers. Either they are wrong or the required changes were so expensive as to be unaffordable - so when you say:
One major loss to them was hearing losses. The addition of a few minor changes could have nearly silenced the factory.
I have to wonder - silencing an industrial environment is not easy nor cheap - which is why wearing proper hearing protection is generally the best fix (and enforceable as well).
Then again, your last paragraph shows where you are coming from - I sense you had an agenda that was not well received and probably not realistic nor practical.
How about this, then: you ask a guy (me!) if it would be possible to install windows XP on your pentium 233MHz with 32MB of ram for a fee. The guy (me!) says, "sure, no problem", plugs an extra 128MB of ram on the machine, installs windows (after a long time ;) and removes the 128MB of ram. Now, windows will not run on that computer, because the minimum ram required for windows is 64MB. Would you pay the guy (me!)? You asked for the software to be installed and, by your definition, it is. I could even go as far as saying I "installed" windows on a powerPC-based macintosh by your logic, by just perfoming an installation on a PC and copying the files over to the mac.
Now, where I (and hopefully others) come from, it would be obvious to anyone that the guy screwed you up, because it is only obvious that if you asked for a windows installation it's because you intend to run said copy of windows. But maybe this is just me...
Your example has no relevance to whether or not the GPL requires modified code to be capable of running on the original hardware. You performed tasks to do an install then undid modifications required to install, which is different from modifying code and then expecting it to work.
Also, let's not forget that the GPL includes a preamble explaining the spirit of the license, which is "to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users"; it also mentions that "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights."
So, even if this specific portion of the GPL is not written in legalese, it is part of the license and is open to interpretation in order to clarify dubious issues (such as this one we are discussing). And do you really believe that actively preventing the user from running a modified version of the software on the hardware in which the distributor installed it does not qualify as breaching the "restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights"? There would be a lot of talk on a court, sure, but in the end, if the lawyers are competent, I could bet what the outcome would be. The new GPL is supposed to simplify the talking, it does not add anything really new in this regard.
Well, IANAL, but as I recall specific generally trumps vague in a contract. Even so, TIVO has not impacted your "...your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users" since you can still do that - even the preamble doesn't say squat about the ability to run modified software on the hardware it shipped with. It's about your ability to get the source and change it anyway you want and then it's up to you to get it to run; you could build non-keyed hardware and run your modified software. As a side note, once it's modified TIVO should no longer be obligated to allow access to their network with the moded software.
So yes, I do think that not ensuing modified code runs does not breach your rights under the GPL - you can get the source, change it, build hardware that runs it, redistribute your modified code; even create a TIVO competitor - so I'd say you enjoyed the same rights as TIVO did when the decided to use GPL code.
Interestingly enough, the GPL does address this type of issue:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.
So as long as the key checking is done separate from the GPL's code then they are on full compliance with the GPL, IMHO.
If you really believe what you wrote, any GPL V2 code can never be released under V3 since that would limit rights by adding new restrictions that did not exist under v2.
I wish I could mod you up. To expand on the topic, coops are very common, some examples include:
-Credit unions
-Insurance compaines
-Religous communes
-Rural coops, including telephone, electric, water and sewer coops.
-Mutual benefit corps. such as fraternal organizations.
What is blowing the minds of many of the posters is the concept that there is no strict hierarchy of control. There seems be be a propensity of some people to disbelieve that anything can get done without a strict military/fascist type table of order.
Yet all of your commercial examples have a hierarchy and control structure - Coops and Mutual Companies have boards, CEO's, managers, etc. to run things - individuals (whether owners or employees) can't just decide the direction they want to go and go do it - unlike open source software where anyone can add , modify etc. without anyone else's permission.
The hierarchy exists to decide how to allocate a companies resources to achieve stated goals. Even if everyone has a say, somebody needs to decide what ultimately gets done; allocate resources, monitor progress and ensure the right skills are applied to the right work.
Some are more democratic or allow more freedom to chose a direction (often the case with consulting partnerships where the intellectual capital is the main driver of value) but ultimately some group decides what does and doesn't get done. When others don't like it, the "fork" the company and start their own; especially if it's a company where the value is in the employee's knowledge - eventually some decide they are better of on their own than as part of a group (usually because someone else is getting more money than they are so they decide to go it alone.)
You: "Just what it says - it does not say that you must provide the necessary information to execute, install, or compile a modified work"
/.: Not a question, of course you can't. Thats why some use "GPL2 or any later", then you can use whatever FSF calls GPL. If that is missing, only GPL2 is valid, or agreement of all the authors. (Learned on /. , again IANAL).
GPL: "plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable"
Me: Question is does a key count as part of those scripts. I think so. But IANAL.
And I don't because it excludes "and execution" as a condition of license - which to me is significant because programs are compiled; installed, and executed; you could argue that the original license writers should understand that distinction and therefore did not include it - as further evidenced by later changing the terms to include it. But, then again, IANAL either.
You: "An interesting side question is if you release a GPL 3 version of previous GPL v2 code are you restricting the rights of subsequent users since it now includes more restrictive DRM requirements"
But even then someone might argue that you can't exclusively GPL3 it because the original allowed for 2 or later; so to avoid restricting the rights further you must also allow redistribution of the code under 2 regardless of whether you also release it under 3; i.e does the "no more restrictive" clause trump "2 or later?" IANAL as previously stated.
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means ..."
What do you think "an executable work" means?
Just what it says - it does not say that you must provide the necessary information to execute, install, or compile a modified work. You want to extend the GPL to hardware which the current license does not require.
An executable work, BTW, runs on its own, unmodified and is supplied by the distributer; it specifically is not the ability to execute any derived work from the original.
You clearly don't like that but that doesn't change the terms of the license.
An interesting side question is if you release a GPL 3 version of previous GPL v2 code are you restricting the rights of subsequent users since it now includes more restrictive DRM requirements; thus it would violate the GPL to release code under the GPL.
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have."
And they have - you can modify it and redistribute as you see fit; which is the rights they were given. No where in the GPL does it require you ensure modified copies are executable on type of hardware; including that which it current uses.
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
I think that is clear enough, even in legal speak. You have to supply anything to build a working program. Understanding "modifications" in any other way makes no sense. Except, maybe, if you are a lawyer.
The only problem is they missed "DRM-keys" because they did not exists then. Which gives Tivo a nice gray area.
Nothing in that statement requires inclusion of information needed to run a modified version - only the original; and as you point out there is no mention of keys needed to actually execute, the only requirement is what is needed to compile and install; and you still:
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it"
TIVO has not prevented you from doing that. You can modify the program to your heart's content.
You want to expand the GPL to add rights the original user did not have - information needed to make a modified copy that is still executable on specific hardware - as you pointed out, the GPL in fact specifically states that is not required:
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have."
The software-part not.
Of course that means "on this tivo", not on something else.
But that is not required by the GPL - nowhere in the license does it require that modified software be able to run on an embedded (or any other) platform.
If you think it does then I submit your smoking something, not I.
You might want it to be that way but it certainly is not part of the license and that is all that TIVO needs to comply with to be able to use the software.
Can you fix broken tivo-hardware? Yes.
Can you fix broken tivo-software? No.
Sure you can - you just can't run it on the existing hardware.
BTW the argument about running it on something else is related.
Imagine you buy something and when it breaks the dealer says: Well buy another one, which you can repair.
Except you are saying "I made changes to this thing I bought and now it won't work so you sold me something defective."
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable [emphasis mine].
Now, the distributor gave me a binary compiled and installed on a piece of hardware. If I cannot compile and install it on that same hardware (note that "install" implies being able to run; if I can't run it, I didn't really install it, I just copied it), then I did not receive at least part of "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable"; this part is the signing key. Either they have to give me their key or (much more reasonable) give me a way to make the device accept my key.
This is where we disagree - the ability to install is different from the ability to run a specific piece of code. It installs, but the hardware will not allow it to execute because it does not match the originally installed piece of code; and the GPL does not require execution only installation, so they are in compliance with the license.
"TIVO has met it its obligation to provide a product that work as advertised"
That product has to advertise "GPL, this are your freedoms". So it does not work as it (should) advertise.
Can you get the source? Yes
Can you modify without restriction? Yes
They've met their GPL obligations. No where do tehy say "you can modify our software and it will work on our boxes."
THere's a difference between having to make my code work and them preventing any code not coming from them from working. In the first case I know the risks, and if I fuck up the hardware its my fault. In the second, my rights as owner of the hardware are being removed.
No, they have no obligation to ensure or facilitate code that they do not create runs. If you don't like that don't buy the product.
And the GPL can easily be extended to hardware- thats what the GPLv3 does. It ensures that if you use GPLed code in your hardware product, that the user must maintain the right to modify the code. It protects the principles of Free Software that the GPL was created for. If the hardware maker wants to take away my rights as a user, they can write their own damn software to do it with.
Which is why companies should not use it. If v3 should also ensure those restrictions are not added to any code previously released under an earlier version since to do so would limited authors ability to control how their code is distributed since it would impose limitations that they had not imposed.
Its not the same at all. I buy Tivo hardware. I have the right to use it as I wish, since I own the hardware. A hardware mechanism that stops it from booting if unsigned prevents me from utilizing my rights as an owner. If the code Tivo uses is GPLed I'm being denied my rights twice- not only my rights as a hardware owner, but my rights under the GPL.
The system works as delivered - TIVO has met it its obligation to provide a product that work as advertised; your argument would say that if Windows won't run a a Linux box you bought the at you are being deprived of the right to use the hardware as you see fit.. You are free to modify the hardware to make it run if you can - but no where does the GPL require a company to support modified versions on their hardware.
The GPL only applies to the software - it can't be extended to hardware (or other programs) because the creators of the software have no rights to the hardware design - they didn't do it. That's like saying the manufacturer of a computer can change the GPL license because it runs on their BIOS - they are separate things with separate copyright owners who get to decide how it can be used.
They give you the code; once you change it it's your job to make it work.
Nope. Stop lying or start studying religion and history.
Islam recognizes both Judaism and Christianity as true religions, per Quran they are considered people of the book and should be treated as Muslims.
So no, you are just plain wrong. There are misguided people in the middle east who dislikes the US invasion and there was people who disliked the crusader invasion, but there has never in the history of Islam been a sentiment to "destroy the west".
First of all, there is no one Islamic consensus - some (the Shia)believe the 16th Caliph is in hiding and will return to create an Islamic Caliphate right before the end times. There beliefs in dynastic succession from the Prophet results in an Inman's ability to issue a fatwa that has to be carried out.
Sunni's don't hold the same beliefs in dynastic succession but that the Holy Quran and writings about how the Prophet lived his life should guide Muslims; and that an Inman can issue a fatwa but it is up to the individual to decide if to follow it. The Wahabbi's add to this belief a desire to establish Islamic law as the supreme rule (since it is God's law and man can't do better)and that Muslims who do not follow Islamic law are not real Muslims and hence the proscription against attacking Muslims is not valid. The ties between them and the Saudi royal family are based on political considerations - the Wahabbi's ignore the rulers n on-Islamic lifestyles and support them in exchange for money; eventually they will turn on them once they believe they can overthrow them and establish a Islamic state in Saudi Arabia.
It's isn't as simple as the west vs them; or to destroy the west but rather establish Islamic law over the earth - just as fundies in the US would like rule by the Bible (such as the Puritans did in MA).
How could this be misplaced! This is arguably one of the greatest human accomplishments ever!
Actually it's not that hard to see this happening. Unless someone was specifically tasked with saving it it probably went into a pile of stuff to "save." After a few moves you forget what was to be saved and why. Should they have realized the historic value? Probably, but a lot of other stuff was happening at the same time and the tapes may have simply been lost in the shuffle. NASA cleans house periodically, I remember when you could go to Goddard and get blueprints, pictures, and parts of sounding rockets if you asked since they would throw that stuff out to make space for newer stuff. The engineers would take you to their offices (it helped to know one of them but aletter would yield pictures and prints as well) and let you rummage through the files to get what you wanted. A real cool time to be interested in rocketry; and I still have my Javelin / Nike Tomahawk / Aerobee pictures and Aerobee blueprints. Not sure where I put the despin module pieces.
Use a port replicator (for extra cash) or firewire - they key for me is portability; a jump drive would allow file transfer and connecting camera memory as needed.
... we'll have to wait and see. I don't think Apple will get into the tablet market. It would be nice if they did, given the niche markets they thrive in, but I don't think it's going to happen. I am human. I've been wrong before, but seems highly unlikely given the current general landscape and the specific product focus of Apple.
Wasn't the point of not putting an optical drive in the machine to save money, in the original poster's estimation? Why not just buy a tablet with an optical drive in it? Of course, I know you can attach an external device, but that's not the point. If you spent more money the tablet could be another device altogether now couldn't it?
And yes, something more Newton-ish (I owned one) would definitely be more of what the $599 price point would get you. But, PDAs (even souped up tablet-esque ones) that aren't cell phones these days are slowly dying out.
Bottom line
By making an optical drive (and other options) separate items they can keep the cost of the device low while still allowing for expansion if desired; plus users could use existing optical drives / USB devices if they want.
The Newton was a great device (I also owned one and played with a 2k for a few months) and a MacOS tablet with HWR and the ability to run mac programs would be a worthy successor; especially if it was slimmer and lighter than most notebooks. Add in the ability to boot to a video / music player on instantly on power up instead of MacOS and decent battery life and you'd have a great tool for travelers.
I agree that we probably won't see anything like it soon...
Drop the optical drive? How will you install the OS?
Use a prot replicator (for extra cash) or firewire - they key for me is portability; a jump drive would allow file transfer and conencting camera memory as needed.
Use a slower processor? Who would buy it?
Depends - I would not buy one to try to do video editing but would use one to run Office while I travel - battery life, weight and price are more important than raw speed; so a slower but low power intel chip would be fine. Add in wifi and and a PC-Card slot and I'd be good to go.
A $500 tablet would in many ways be a natural follow-on to the Newton - use it as a mobile tool and then transfer the files to a Mac or PC if you need to do heavy lifting. MacOS would give access to enough software that I'd ditch my PC laptop.
If I can make X dollars running plant A or X+Y running B and not A; guess what I'd do?
risk overbuilding and driving down prices as a result - not a smart business move.
And herein lies the problem. Neither regulation nor the free market will change this fundamental mathematical equation. Regulation or not, if nobody wants to break the gravy train and build more plants so that people can get the electricity they need, then I'm out of ideas. You got any?
Profit is what breaks the gravy train - once companies see they can make an acceptable profit by building a plant, they will. That's what drove the building of merchant (non0utility owned plants) a few years back. Competition works but too often politicians and others want to "fix" problems and only mess things up.
They problem is that it is a lot easier to build a manufacturing plant than site a power plant - people don't like transmission lines; you need to be near a fuel source (or build a nuke); all of which adds uncertainty and raises the required return to make it a worthwhile investment.
This isn't just a CA issue, the rise in natural gas prices and rising demand for electricity is going to force some rethinking of our energy supply strateg y - to the point where we will see licensing and construction started on a new nuke plant in the US within 5 years.
They weren't permitted to own and operate plants
At least part of that's explained, though corporations have had centuries of experience flaunting regulations. Why didn't the board of directors of California Transmission, Inc. simply erect California Generation, Inc? It worked well enough for Custer Battles, who even made their new companies operate out of the same address when the military banned them from contracting with them.
As regulated entity the transmission companies can't simply create a new company and build plants - the regulators would be very concerned that the regulated side was being used to subsidize or otherwise prop up the unregulated side; plus they'd be accused of using the plants to drive up prices every time there was a spike in the price.
The root of the problem was the CA legislature's attempt to have it both ways - reduce electric prices to consumers, and force the generators to bear the pricing risks.
As for Custer Battles; government contracting is a whole different beast than operating a regulated utility.
The assumption keeps being made that Circuit City hasn't actually been authorized to do this.
I'd like to know where that assumption comes from.
Great point - CC could easily strike a deal with the studios to pay them a per copy fee for each ripped DVD. They are a major retail outlet and neither side benefits from a long legal battle. The copies quality is probably less than the DVD so there is less potential for reburning it to a DVD. The real challenge is preventing copying rips to multiple iPODs. Of course, they could watermark the copy so if it gets spread beyond casual swaps they could ID the original owner. The studios and CC will also get data on the demand for such copies which can open the door to other ventures. I wouldn't be surprised to see a pre-ripped movie station in the not so distant future.
The margins must be huge - they actual ripping station can't be that expensive and the marginal cost of each rip is small. Heck, they may even have a hardrive to save popular rips to cut down on the time it takes to make a copy.
f you're proposing that simply turning off service to paying customers is a viable method of "controlling demand" then I'd hate to live in your little world. If demand for airline flights got too high, would you rather drop a few out of the sky or build more airplanes? Maybe if too many people were shipping packages for Christmas, a few could wind up in some ditch somewhere without a problem?
No - my point was that the politicians setup the system for failure - they needed to keep a pricing mechanism in place to make the system work. Markets will do this naturally - in the absence of price controls in the old USSR shortages and lines took the place of price to match supply and demand.
Now clearly, capping consumer prices to prevent using price to control demand didn't help matters. But even if the government had not done so, I fail to see how that would have stopped Enron from faking supply shortages or shutting down generating plants in order to drive up the price of electricity. It probably would have prolonged the situation, since they'd have been able to soak the entire population of California instead of just driving the transmitters bankrupt.
The companies acted just like the politicians set them up to act. If I can make X dollars running plant A or X+Y running B and not A; guess what I'd do? CA's transmission system played a role as well - it's design is such that only a limited amount of power can be wheeled in.
In this, we can see the parallels with the current gasoline situation here. Despite record profits, the oil companies just can't seem to afford to build refineries that don't poison the neighborhood or blow up and kill everyone, not that the regulations they whine about seem to be stopping them from doing either at their existing plants. Why should they, anyways? If they spend their money to increase supply, the gravy train stops since by limiting supply, they make the most money for doing the least amount of work.
They also plan long term - there is no assurance that the current situation will continue and they risk overbuilding and driving down prices as a result - not a smart business move.
If you want a real solution, you should ask why the transmitters chose to go out of business instead of building their own power plants to replace the plants that Enron was running incompetently. Faced with losing business entirely to plants that weren't being shut down at random, they'd have shaped up pretty quick.
They weren't permitted to own and operate plants - the legislature (an a broad group of special interests) wanted to take that away from the evil utility and introduce competition. They wouldn't even let them enter into long term supply contracts; no the politicians knew what is best and that was to force companies to buy on the spot market and to pay whatever the cost was for the last kw. The transmission companies wanted a reliable supply at predictable prices but the politicians made sure they couldn't do that.
Enron and others figured out how to use the rules established by the CA legislature to their own benefit - had they been a little more careful they would have gotten away with it.
AIR, Enron actually ran few plants in the US - they were trading electricity; not generating it. That's why they were able to drive up prices by using trades to force higher priced plants online.
Of course, the politicians could not say they screwed up - it had to be the evil corporations that took advantage of CA.
Looking around online, I could get 7 acres of land in california for under a million dollars, put a plant square in the middle and have a nice little buffer zone around the edge. Buy land from a farmer and you could probably get it cheaper, with a bonus for your liability insurance if the only thing your plant can kill is a handful of cows and chickens, but then you'd be facing transmission issues to get the power into town.
Build a powerplant in CA? And run transmission lines? Good luck with that one.