Likewise, it could be construed or implied that the IP addresses were not in fact addresses of customers, but of the ISP itself, used for internal operations. Then the ISP is a legitimate potential defendant. Naturally, in most cases it would be easy to state the remote likelihood of a download or hosting actually being done by the ISP, but it is not obvious in all cases. Likewise, in most accident cases where a subpoena is considered, the actual likelihood of the rental agency being at fault is minimal. If they would actually be liable, it will probably be due to reasons of renting the car to someone obviously unsuitable rather than maintenance negligence
Subscriber and internal IP addresses can in most cases be differentiated by address block or routing trace, and if they thought they were ISP internal addresses they would name the ISP as defendant not issue John Doe subpoenas to find a defendant.
The big difference is that the ISP is protected in law from liability for the customer actions in question here, therefore there is no way they are a potential defendant, whereas there are a whole bunch of reasons the car rental agency might be.
The GPLv3 isn't entirely clear on this, but I suspect "ceasing all violation" might mean that you have to honor the terms of license for existing distribution. Otherwise you could violate for a while, make your profit and be clear 60 days after.
Not the way copyright (or patent) law usually works AFAIK. You can get damages for prior violations, and prevent distribution or force compliance with terms for the future.
Forcibly recalling and changing stuff that is already sold would be very unusual and probably a legal minefield, since there is a lot of potential collateral damage to good faith purchasers. Even if it's "just" a matter of releasing code+keys that may not be possible - if the code has been (wrongly) mixed with other licenced code, the violator may not have the rights to release the whole. Same goes for keys which may be subject of other licensing agreements (e.g. with content providers).
Just because the GPL says "you must do X to have licence to distribute" doesn't grant you legal carte blanche to do "X" without considering other copyrights patents contracts etc. It means that if you are unable to do "X" then you are unable to distribute the GPLed code, and that is what a court would enforce.
> there is an actionable claim here for a license violation.
Sounds like the license violation has already been cured - if they have stopped distributing the software and removed from existing installations best they can with updates.
If they haven't acutally stopped distributing, then the copyright holder could sue them to get them to either a) come into compliance or b) stop distributing. Looks like we know what they will do, since they've already gone down that route.
Question is, is it worth suing them to get them to really remove the software (if is still really there) that they already removed from users (unless you jump through some hoops) ?
Wind power is renewable, the "fuel" is completely free, but collecting the wind and turning it into usable power is not free. Turbines have to be built, maintained, replaced at end of lfe, land to site them needs to be bought or rented etc. Overall, wind is often more expensive (and has to be subsidised as a result), at least per unit of electricity generated, than oil/gas at current prices.
Audi A8 4.2 TDI. 37.2 combined mpg, UK (>30 uS). [ No, I don't have one of those - it's just an example ]
My 7 seater is a Ford Galaxy, the seats are all full sized (you can swap seats in row 2 &3). New model of that is 49.6 combined mpg, UK. I have an older one which is closer to VW Sharan (same platform) if you want to lookup new model specs (current model 50+ mpg, UK). These cars are renouned for getting good real-world mpg - you can get the theoretical numbers without fancy hypermiling (in fact the passenger seat tends to regard my driving as "aggressive":-) ).
e.g. 4.2L V8, 350hp, 0-60 in under 6s, top speed hitting the limiter at 155, all wheel drive... and >30 mpg (US) - ie. meeting CAFE without needing to pretend to be a truck.
What more do you need ? Of course, our cars go round corners properly as well, but you don't need that in the US:-)
I have driven US cars, in the US, and personally I found them pretty uninspiring in terms of performance. If there was anything "powerful" under the hood, it was crippled by the rest of it, particularly the gearboxes.
Both minivans and SUVs were developed to get around the CAFE standards because there was a demand for vehicles that if they were under the CAFE standards would have made it impossible for the auto manufacturers to meet those standards
That "impossible" is not an engineering impossible, but rather a political / can't-be-bothered type of impossible.
Elsewhere in the world where CAFE-type standards were set a lot higher than the US and without the big loophole (eg. Europe, Japan) there doesn't seem to be any problem satisfying the demand for family vehicles - and median household sizes are pretty similar in EU and US (around 2.5), so family car demand will be also. I have a large 7-seater (7 adult seats not 5+2kid-sized) that you'd probably call "station wagon" or maybe "minivan". It does 50mpg, fully loaded - that's over 40mpg in US gallons.
Since that would be the large end of the station-wagons, and CAFE is average across the smaller more efficient cars as well, and CAFE standard was 27.5mpg (without using the light-truck loophole), what on earth was the problem ?
It sure wasn't the US companies being backwards in engineering knowledge - that car of mine is a Ford, and right now I could go out here and buy a Ford with better mpg & CO2 than a Prius. Not in America though, oh no, these cars are strictly not-for-US-market.
So why does Ford continue to sell the US market inefficient rebadged 1970s stuff ? Because they can, because low US CAFE targets allow them to, and because it makes more profit without needing to invest any money in modernising their US factories or technology.
Nothing to do with "impossible" and everything to do with "why bother when we can make more money using a loophole to sell old cheap inefficient stuff".
Actually, it's the quants who invent and play with the ever-more-complex financial "instruments" that built the bubble and the collapse.
The suits employed the quants, believed in their numbers, banked the "profits" and paid out big bonuses to get them to do more - but the quants and the traders were the ones who built the illusion.
I knew people who went into that as a career - they had PhDs, some were maths but some were (guess what, yes...) engineering, and they weren't suits.
> We often hear the "less loss of life than a conventional ground invasion" argument, but that's a somewhat new twist.
Not really - at least I've heard it plenty times before.
The usual comparison is the firebombing of Tokyo, which _did_ kill more people (100k+) than the nukes - at least immediate casualties. Many people died months/years/decades later from the nukes, which take most estimates over the Tokyo figure - on the other hand, some historians think the Tokyo figure was way underestimated. See wikipedia for statistics and images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
In the abscence of nukes, how many cities would the US have firebombed like Tokyo, and how many civillians would have died, before the Japanese either surrendered or the US went in on the ground ? - impossible to say, but it _could_ easily have been more than the nuke death toll.
If I understand you right, they originally _did_ take "pragmatic" approach to 4-clause BSD, i.e. ignoring the advertising clause on the basis that it couldn't be enforced, and on that basis stating that 4-clase BSD was compatible with (L)GPL.
GLibc was one of the places I recall where 4-clause BSD code was used.
Later, someone (Alan Cox, I think) acutally got legal advice that contradicted the FSF position, and I think there was then some sort of effort to purge the 4-clause BSD code.
Performance (acceleration) on a low end to mid range car is near the same - or not too far off to make it undriveable... the VW Dasher did 12 seconds 0-60, or 19 with the diesel engine. Not bad for almost FIFTY mpg.
I'd be happy with a bit better performance, and say... 35-45mpg (instead of 40-57mpg) highway... but the car companies seem to have forgotten how to do that...
VW haven't forgotten. I have a ten yr old golf that gets 60+mpg (UK = 50+ US mpg) highway mileage (in real life, tank to tank on long trips) and does 0-60 in about 12s. Looking at the new ones today, I could get 60+ mpg(US), 9.3secs 0-60 and more than 30% extra HP.
The problem is that if you are in the US, you probably can't buy these cars. Someone a few years ago decided that americans didn't want to buy them, so they aren't designed for US regs (or US regs are designed to exclude them in favour of Hummers, depending on who you believe).
The engineers haven't forgotten how to build what you want (if you are in the US) - marketing (and politics) told them you didn't want it.
A pure EV using even (relatively) cheap batteries today can suffice for your day to day commuter, recharging at night at home. For long trips trips, there is this concept, the range extending generator trailer.
Trouble is those gensets give worse mpg, and most likely pollute a lot more, than a proper standard IC car engine. The mileage quoted on your example is about half what I get on long trips. I could do my commute with an EV, but doing the long trips with a genset at that mpg would burn almost as much fuel as I do for _all_ my mileage right now. Plus I've got to tow which is a PITA (lower speed limits, extra parking space required, etc.).
The other major problem with EVs is not so much the "5min" charging infrastructure, but even getting the 12hr charging. Many people don't have off street parking - I don't - and it tends to be that way in densely populated areas, exactly where EVs would be best. Running wires from the house down/across the street is not feasible (or safe or legal). You _need_ the very fast charge points at petrol stations, _or_ you _need_ slow charge points basically every street parking and car park. Currently we have neither, and a big chicken and egg problem with the infrastructure and the vehicles.
I could run two cars - EV for the commute, conventional for the long trips, but then again the fixed costs (insurance, maintenance etc.) will burn more than I'd save on fuel, before we even get to depreciation. Plus I use another scarce parking space on the street.
Waiting for the three hundred mile range on batteries and five minute recharge option, that I see people saying all the time, means they really aren't interested in them
Or we're interested and have run the numbers every which way and it just doesn't add up.
EVs may make sense for some people, but currently I am not convinced they work for many. It's easy to find stats to make it sound like they should: "90% of car journeys are under Xmiles" - but there's lies, damned lies, etc.
If 90% of your car journeys are under 10miles, you can cover 90% of your needs with an EV, right ? But if the other 10% of your journeys are 70% of your mileage, what % of your needs would the EV really cover ?
Most automatic transmissions contain clutches - it's how the gears are selected. Disengage all the clutches and you are in... neutral. You can coast an automatic in neutral. So you still have a redundant control pathway to control your speed (to a stop) in the event that throttle control is lost.
Even the Prius has a neutral - although it seems to be difficult to find for some drivers.
With this new box and no clutch, you have only a "powered neutral", effectively a particular throttle position.
Throttle stuck ? - stamp on the clutch (and the brake) no problem.
This device has a "powered neutral" determined by getting two input shafts spinning at precisely the same speed - otherwise you are moving. You aren't going to manage that manually so you are likely looking at some form of electronic (+ software) implemented "neutral" switch. You'd better be worrying about how long before _that_ goes wrong - because it's going to be fun controlling the car when it does (without a clutch, remember).
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise, it could be construed or implied that the IP addresses were not in fact addresses of customers, but of the ISP itself, used for internal operations. Then the ISP is a legitimate potential defendant. Naturally, in most cases it would be easy to state the remote likelihood of a download or hosting actually being done by the ISP, but it is not obvious in all cases. Likewise, in most accident cases where a subpoena is considered, the actual likelihood of the rental agency being at fault is minimal. If they would actually be liable, it will probably be due to reasons of renting the car to someone obviously unsuitable rather than maintenance negligence
Subscriber and internal IP addresses can in most cases be differentiated by address block or routing trace, and if they thought they were ISP internal addresses they would name the ISP as defendant not issue John Doe subpoenas to find a defendant.
The big difference is that the ISP is protected in law from liability for the customer actions in question here, therefore there is no way they are a potential defendant, whereas there are a whole bunch of reasons the car rental agency might be.
No, it won't
The memory chipas are surrounded with a large chunk thermal mass insulator and a thick steel outer covering for imapact & pressure resistance
The whole thing will sink like a brick
The GPLv3 isn't entirely clear on this, but I suspect "ceasing all violation" might mean that you have to honor the terms of license for existing distribution. Otherwise you could violate for a while, make your profit and be clear 60 days after.
Not the way copyright (or patent) law usually works AFAIK. You can get damages for prior violations, and prevent distribution or force compliance with terms for the future.
Forcibly recalling and changing stuff that is already sold would be very unusual and probably a legal minefield, since there is a lot of potential collateral damage to good faith purchasers. Even if it's "just" a matter of releasing code+keys that may not be possible - if the code has been (wrongly) mixed with other licenced code, the violator may not have the rights to release the whole. Same goes for keys which may be subject of other licensing agreements (e.g. with content providers).
Just because the GPL says "you must do X to have licence to distribute" doesn't grant you legal carte blanche to do "X" without considering other copyrights patents contracts etc. It means that if you are unable to do "X" then you are unable to distribute the GPLed code, and that is what a court would enforce.
> there is an actionable claim here for a license violation.
Sounds like the license violation has already been cured - if they have stopped distributing the software and removed from existing installations best they can with updates.
If they haven't acutally stopped distributing, then the copyright holder could sue them to get them to either a) come into compliance or b) stop distributing. Looks like we know what they will do, since they've already gone down that route.
Question is, is it worth suing them to get them to really remove the software (if is still really there) that they already removed from users (unless you jump through some hoops) ?
By 'major players' you mean Apple. One company does not a trend start.
Yeah, can't see Apple capable of starting a trend really.
That touchscreen pinch-zoom phone thingy never took off, and those big tablet things are just dead in the water - no one's copying them.
Renewable != Free
Wind power is renewable, the "fuel" is completely free, but collecting the wind and turning it into usable power is not free. Turbines have to be built, maintained, replaced at end of lfe, land to site them needs to be bought or rented etc. Overall, wind is often more expensive (and has to be subsidised as a result), at least per unit of electricity generated, than oil/gas at current prices.
Wikileaks
The allegation is inclusion of a side-channel in the crypto algorithm for leakage of key bits.
If you know about crypto coding, you'll know instantly why that would be easy to hide and hard to find.
If you don't, then any explanation is likely to be as much gibberish to you as the code would be.
Audi A8 4.2 TDI. 37.2 combined mpg, UK (>30 uS). [ No, I don't have one of those - it's just an example ]
My 7 seater is a Ford Galaxy, the seats are all full sized (you can swap seats in row 2 &3). New model of that is 49.6 combined mpg, UK. I have an older one which is closer to VW Sharan (same platform) if you want to lookup new model specs (current model 50+ mpg, UK). These cars are renouned for getting good real-world mpg - you can get the theoretical numbers without fancy hypermiling (in fact the passenger seat tends to regard my driving as "aggressive" :-) ).
http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Galaxy/FuelEconomyAndCO2Emissions
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/sharan-nf/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption
http://www.audi.co.uk/new-cars/a8/a8/specifications.html
Rest of the world says: been there done that.
e.g. 4.2L V8, 350hp, 0-60 in under 6s, top speed hitting the limiter at 155, all wheel drive ... and >30 mpg (US) - ie. meeting CAFE without needing to pretend to be a truck.
What more do you need ? Of course, our cars go round corners properly as well, but you don't need that in the US :-)
I have driven US cars, in the US, and personally I found them pretty uninspiring in terms of performance. If there was anything "powerful" under the hood, it was crippled by the rest of it, particularly the gearboxes.
Both minivans and SUVs were developed to get around the CAFE standards because there was a demand for vehicles that if they were under the CAFE standards would have made it impossible for the auto manufacturers to meet those standards
That "impossible" is not an engineering impossible, but rather a political / can't-be-bothered type of impossible.
Elsewhere in the world where CAFE-type standards were set a lot higher than the US and without the big loophole (eg. Europe, Japan) there doesn't seem to be any problem satisfying the demand for family vehicles - and median household sizes are pretty similar in EU and US (around 2.5), so family car demand will be also. I have a large 7-seater (7 adult seats not 5+2kid-sized) that you'd probably call "station wagon" or maybe "minivan". It does 50mpg, fully loaded - that's over 40mpg in US gallons.
Since that would be the large end of the station-wagons, and CAFE is average across the smaller more efficient cars as well, and CAFE standard was 27.5mpg (without using the light-truck loophole), what on earth was the problem ?
It sure wasn't the US companies being backwards in engineering knowledge - that car of mine is a Ford, and right now I could go out here and buy a Ford with better mpg & CO2 than a Prius. Not in America though, oh no, these cars are strictly not-for-US-market.
So why does Ford continue to sell the US market inefficient rebadged 1970s stuff ? Because they can, because low US CAFE targets allow them to, and because it makes more profit without needing to invest any money in modernising their US factories or technology.
Nothing to do with "impossible" and everything to do with "why bother when we can make more money using a loophole to sell old cheap inefficient stuff".
*girlfriend*
*wife*
Note (and beware) the difference...
More importantly, will it minimise the porn window when the wife enters the room behind you ?
> it takes a lot of technical intelligence to create an altitude sensitive bomb from scratch
no it doesn't, it's straightforward to think of five different ways in about ten minutes, any half decent engineer would be able to...
oh. :-)
Actually, it's the quants who invent and play with the ever-more-complex financial "instruments" that built the bubble and the collapse.
The suits employed the quants, believed in their numbers, banked the "profits" and paid out big bonuses to get them to do more - but the quants and the traders were the ones who built the illusion.
I knew people who went into that as a career - they had PhDs, some were maths but some were (guess what, yes...) engineering, and they weren't suits.
> We often hear the "less loss of life than a conventional ground invasion" argument, but that's a somewhat new twist.
Not really - at least I've heard it plenty times before.
The usual comparison is the firebombing of Tokyo, which _did_ kill more people (100k+) than the nukes - at least immediate casualties. Many people died months/years/decades later from the nukes, which take most estimates over the Tokyo figure - on the other hand, some historians think the Tokyo figure was way underestimated. See wikipedia for statistics and images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
In the abscence of nukes, how many cities would the US have firebombed like Tokyo, and how many civillians would have died, before the Japanese either surrendered or the US went in on the ground ? - impossible to say, but it _could_ easily have been more than the nuke death toll.
If I understand you right, they originally _did_ take "pragmatic" approach to 4-clause BSD, i.e. ignoring the advertising clause on the basis that it couldn't be enforced, and on that basis stating that 4-clase BSD was compatible with (L)GPL.
GLibc was one of the places I recall where 4-clause BSD code was used.
Later, someone (Alan Cox, I think) acutally got legal advice that contradicted the FSF position, and I think there was then some sort of effort to purge the 4-clause BSD code.
Not sure that's correct.
Nottingham tram is dedicated only at the ends / outskirts - all the central part is on road and shared with cars.
Sheffield I don't know as well, but it definitely has some long stretches along shared roads.
Manchester I believe runs on roads in the centre (but has converted old rail lines - on the outskirts).
Edinburgh has definitely dug up a road, but whether it will ever get trams running on it is anyones guess.
What other major ones are there ?
Yes, but the university is paid on the basis of the students it keeps and passes, not the ones it gets rid of and fails - so guess what happens...
Your question is unanswerable as it is based on a false premise.
This is /.
You don't have a girlfriend.
Performance (acceleration) on a low end to mid range car is near the same - or not too far off to make it undriveable... the VW Dasher did 12 seconds 0-60, or 19 with the diesel engine. Not bad for almost FIFTY mpg.
I'd be happy with a bit better performance, and say... 35-45mpg (instead of 40-57mpg) highway... but the car companies seem to have forgotten how to do that...
VW haven't forgotten. I have a ten yr old golf that gets 60+mpg (UK = 50+ US mpg) highway mileage (in real life, tank to tank on long trips) and does 0-60 in about 12s. Looking at the new ones today, I could get 60+ mpg(US), 9.3secs 0-60 and more than 30% extra HP.
The problem is that if you are in the US, you probably can't buy these cars. Someone a few years ago decided that americans didn't want to buy them, so they aren't designed for US regs (or US regs are designed to exclude them in favour of Hummers, depending on who you believe).
The engineers haven't forgotten how to build what you want (if you are in the US) - marketing (and politics) told them you didn't want it.
A pure EV using even (relatively) cheap batteries today can suffice for your day to day commuter, recharging at night at home. For long trips trips, there is this concept, the range extending generator trailer.
Trouble is those gensets give worse mpg, and most likely pollute a lot more, than a proper standard IC car engine. The mileage quoted on your example is about half what I get on long trips. I could do my commute with an EV, but doing the long trips with a genset at that mpg would burn almost as much fuel as I do for _all_ my mileage right now. Plus I've got to tow which is a PITA (lower speed limits, extra parking space required, etc.).
The other major problem with EVs is not so much the "5min" charging infrastructure, but even getting the 12hr charging. Many people don't have off street parking - I don't - and it tends to be that way in densely populated areas, exactly where EVs would be best. Running wires from the house down/across the street is not feasible (or safe or legal). You _need_ the very fast charge points at petrol stations, _or_ you _need_ slow charge points basically every street parking and car park. Currently we have neither, and a big chicken and egg problem with the infrastructure and the vehicles.
I could run two cars - EV for the commute, conventional for the long trips, but then again the fixed costs (insurance, maintenance etc.) will burn more than I'd save on fuel, before we even get to depreciation. Plus I use another scarce parking space on the street.
Waiting for the three hundred mile range on batteries and five minute recharge option, that I see people saying all the time, means they really aren't interested in them
Or we're interested and have run the numbers every which way and it just doesn't add up.
EVs may make sense for some people, but currently I am not convinced they work for many. It's easy to find stats to make it sound like they should: "90% of car journeys are under Xmiles" - but there's lies, damned lies, etc.
If 90% of your car journeys are under 10miles, you can cover 90% of your needs with an EV, right ?
But if the other 10% of your journeys are 70% of your mileage, what % of your needs would the EV really cover ?
As ever, YMMV.
And I've seen woodworm...
Most automatic transmissions contain clutches - it's how the gears are selected. Disengage all the clutches and you are in... neutral. You can coast an automatic in neutral. So you still have a redundant control pathway to control your speed (to a stop) in the event that throttle control is lost.
Even the Prius has a neutral - although it seems to be difficult to find for some drivers.
With this new box and no clutch, you have only a "powered neutral", effectively a particular throttle position.
It also removes a redundant control method.
Throttle stuck ? - stamp on the clutch (and the brake) no problem.
This device has a "powered neutral" determined by getting two input shafts spinning at precisely the same speed - otherwise you are moving. You aren't going to manage that manually so you are likely looking at some form of electronic (+ software) implemented "neutral" switch. You'd better be worrying about how long before _that_ goes wrong - because it's going to be fun controlling the car when it does (without a clutch, remember).