In my case, it's because I don't care if I lose the data. They're rips of DVDs/CDs that I own, so 1 DVD represents 5minutes of time. In a lot of the RAID setups, if you lose a disk, you lose the entire RAID. In others, if you lose the card/motherboard, you lose the entire RAID.
In that situation, the frustration represented by losing the entire array when a disk (or card) bites the dust is a lot higher than the performance benefits, or the supposed reliability benefit.
Remember, in a consumer environment it can take _weeks_ to replace a drive under warranty.
Heck, I use drive failures as a method of culling media on the server.:)
However, we are talking about the specific accusation of a GPL violation by Sothink. By delivering the source code, Sothink is in compliance with the license.
No it doesn't. It requires that you ship the offer of code with the binary.
We are talking about this specific instance.
In general, you are strictly correct. However, in this case, the source code is shipped with the release since plugins are source deliveries, therefore they are compliant.
Sure it does. You must both advertise to the downstream user their rights under the license,
and in some circumstances the No Warranty text
should be shown. This is Term 1, it's not
exactly buried in the text.
Since they are shipping source code with their plugin, and the complainant themselves states that the files are unchanged, they again, are compliant. The advertising clauses in BSD 1.0 and the AFSL are very different, requiring the use of the software to be mentioned in any marketing materials. _THAT_ is an advertising clause.
There is no statement that their closed source plugin makes use of the GPL code. All we have so far is a developer complaining that their code was used without attribution. Something that the GPL does not require. It requires several things, but advertising where you got the code is not one of them.
All Firefox users are absolutely fine to use a
mix of GPL and non GPL plugins at run time.
What they can't do is redistribute the things
together as a single monolithic program to
others without relicensing the entire package
as GPL. The GPL has to do with redistribution,
not use. (ie the "copy" in "copyright")
The act of creating a running image of a software program is considered copying under current US statute and case law. This is why there is an argument around Linux closed-source drivers. If you talk to the FSF, they say that's a GPL violation. If you talk to Linus, he says that it's fine, with a specific exception to the GPL.
The FSF sharply disagrees. "If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms...you couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it, whether dynamically or statically," FSF attorney Eben Moglen said in a January interview.
So, running software makes a copy, therefore is covered by the license. Since the license is the GPL, everything in the running image must also be GPLed. Congratulations you've just committed a copyright violation. This was covered in MAI Systems Corp. v Peak Computing. The law was later changed to cover copies made for maintenance. However, it still does not cover the violation made during execution.
GPL requires that you ship code with the delivery, and that the package is licensed under a GPL acceptable license. That's _it_. It does not require you to perform any advertising, nor acknowledge where the code came from. You want attribution? Use the old BSD license, or the new Apache one, not the GPL.
I would say that plugin address spaces aren't kept separate (thus avoiding the issue entirely) is a Firefox _bug_ (or perhaps it's designed that way on purpose), rather than any GPL violation.
So far, nothing in the summary (nor any of the articles) points out the GPL violation.
Additionally, if you're saying that plugins that are GPL'ed can't coexist with plugins that aren't GPL'ed, that's an interesting statement. If that were true, I would hope that the GPL is _banned_ as an acceptable plugin license in order to prevent all Firefox users from being copyright violators.
Bell Canada is in hot water with their wholesale ISP customers because they are throttling the bandwidth from the cabinets/COs upstream. However, they are throttling both their own retail subscribers _and_ these ISP resellers. Personally, I see this as a commercial issue between the ISPs and Bell. The ISPs should have SLAs that document precisely how much bandwidth they are allowed to peak at.
However, ISPs, instead of negotiating, running their own wire, or buying their own DSLAMs have gone lobbying. They tried the regulator, who told them to get lost. They've managed to convince a lot of customers that Bell is being anti-competitive and against "Net Neutrality" by throttling. Remember, Bell applies the same shaping to their own customers.
So, everyone is hoping that this means that the Liberals are against this throttling. However, I can't see how it would have any bearing on that, since all subscribers are throttled the same.
Net Neutrality is a complex issue - where are you allowed to throttle, how are you allowed to throttle, are you allowed QoS, preferential feeds over a common connection, preferential feeds over independent connections. What's the difference between a VPN on one wire and a separate wire? Are you allowed to host local mirrors of high traffic sites? Are you allowed to charge fees for that hosting? If you're a VoIP provider as well as the ISP, are you allowed to provide preferential services? If you offer DTV, how about then? What makes a cable TV provider able to give preferential treatment to cable TV channels, but an ISP can't do it for Internet TV?
This was purely a publicity stunt without any real substance behind it. Particularly since Canada has a minority government and could be voted down at any point in time. Heck, they managed to get mentioned on slashdot - talk about hitting the target market!
I saw the same thing in New Zealand. During the election, the opposition minister was quoting as saying that the copyright legislation was stupid, and that he didn't know why he voted for it. As soon as they got in, NZ had S92A, three strikes and you're disconnected without appeal or evidence.
Devices which aggregate themselves as a striped array behind a single eSATA/SATA interface. While the individual device may not be able to pump out enough data, they can in aggregate.
Ah, I see MAI was gotten around by a specific exception for software repair. However, according to Wikipedia, it seems that copying a program into RAM for execution is still creating a copy for which you need a license?
It doesn't matter who asks you to make the copy, you have to have permission to do it. That includes executing licensed software on customer premises. The act of running software creates a copy, which the person performing the execution needs to have permission to make.
I'm not familiar with any law changes or follow-on case law, so I don't know how it stands now.
These guys have botnets, and with networks like Tor, you can't limit access to one IP. Besides, if you've got captcha that is being attacked, to limit them by IP, you need to send them all through a single location to perform the detection, completely breaking your load balancing. It becomes a DoS target.
Basically, the attacker has more machines, more IP addresses and more time than the target.
Even if I only have one machine, that's fine, I attack 10 or 100 sites instead of just yours. Or, I use a network like Tor and select random out proxies. The only problem? All of my compatriots will be doing the same.
The target won't see any real decrease in attacks, they will only lose all of their corporate customers who are unable to access the network from home (or dorms, or school, or libraries).
The problem is already easily parallelised. If it takes you 10s to fill in a form, and it isn't using any CPU (you're sleeping), then run a couple of thousand attempts in parallel. You get the _exact_ same throughput as you do if they are all run serially.
For batch processes, latency isn't really an issue, it just means you need to do more transactions at once.
You forgot the rest of the information (from the same link):
In a few OECD countries local and regional
income taxes are quite significant. In Sweden
the typical top rate of provincial and local
income taxes is 31.7%, which means it exceeds
the 25% income tax rate levied by central
government.
The graph is probably more accurate, use the "all-in" rate.
The problem is that you can commit crimes without even intending to. If you are going through a proxy as a matter of course, any spurious law breaking (hacked a phone anyone) instantly gets an extra 25%, perhaps even making it worthwhile to chase you.
Everyone breaks the law, even if it is just spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking. It just isn't worth the effort to chase you yet. However, we're making it cheaper to chase you every year. At some point, the graphs will intersect, and then the definition of "sophistication" will become incredibly important to you.
With a basic knowledge composed of just having read the wikipedia page on connectionalism, I have to ask...
Why wouldn't it be Turing complete? A distributed system of FSMs would (to me) appear to be easily converted into a single FSM, so what's so special about connectionalist models of the brain?
92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.
The bits that are interesting are:
1) The definition of ISP is anyone who provides access to anyone else - libraries, schools, businesses are all ISPs. 2) There is no definition of "repeat offender" 3) There is no definition of what is an acceptable policy. 4) There is no punishment for fraudulent complaints.
which is a 4 strikes and you're out policy, with no ability to have the evidence tested in court.
Now, initially the TCF policy stated that you could challenge the complaint and that would be the end of it - it was up to the copyright holder to pursue you further. However, the RIANZ then came back and said that they wanted to be the sole determiner of guilt.
This law starts from the assumption that if the RIANZ says you are guilty of violating copyright, then you _are_ guilty, and you get a warning. Collect 4, and your internet connection is removed. Since they have to remove the connection of repeat offenders, it could be reasonable to expect to not be able to get another one (ref: Google and "Wise Beard Man": http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=605 ).
S92C, which covers hosts, is even stronger, you don't get any warnings. You have to pull the content, or you lose your connection instantly.
Mr Smith, when asked, considers the Prince vs Baby video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ ) as well as linking to the video to be a violation of copyright, and worthy of a notice and violation letter.
There are several reasons that power generators (of any kind) want accurate weather reports.
1) Thermal generation: They have consents that limit the temperature of their waste water. If the temperature exceeds a certain temperature, they can't shed it fast enough, lowering their generation capacity. 2) Wind generation: If the wind is too low, you don't generate. If it's too high, again, you don't generate. During the two points there is a curve indicating the amount of power you will generate. 3) Hydro: The rain you will receive needs to be rationed over the season. No rain in the forecast, you can't generate as much power.
It's all about forecasting how much power you can generate. These providers all have contracts to provide a fixed amount of power to their customers. If they cannot meet that obligation, they have to purchase it from other providers. The sooner they know if they will have to buy on the wholesale market, the cheaper it is for them.
Otherwise, they have to be even more cautious, since the power generation from hydro and wind can be bursty. This limits their ability to supply power to those requiring guaranteed power delivery.
10k extra over the life of a car. My car's 14 years old. That 4k savings up front? It's a great deal, the extra $400/yr would be lost in the noise.
$300 dollars savings on something that's going to be obsolete in 5 years? Again good deal. at 17c/kwh, it takes a lot of hours of watching to use up that $300. Let's say a plasma uses 50% more power than an LCD. At the high-end, plasma's seem to use 400w.
I thought Cygnus was bought by Red Hat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat
On November 15, 1999, Red Hat acquired Cygnus
Solutions.
Ah, this is "Cygnus Systems"... I can see where there might be a small bit of confusion there.
Slashdot Mirror
In my case, it's because I don't care if I lose the data. They're rips of DVDs/CDs that I own, so 1 DVD represents 5minutes of time. In a lot of the RAID setups, if you lose a disk, you lose the entire RAID. In others, if you lose the card/motherboard, you lose the entire RAID.
In that situation, the frustration represented by losing the entire array when a disk (or card) bites the dust is a lot higher than the performance benefits, or the supposed reliability benefit.
Remember, in a consumer environment it can take _weeks_ to replace a drive under warranty.
Heck, I use drive failures as a method of culling media on the server. :)
However, we are talking about the specific accusation of a GPL violation by Sothink. By delivering the source code, Sothink is in compliance with the license.
They don't have to provide an offer as well.
We are talking about this specific instance.
In general, you are strictly correct. However, in this case, the source code is shipped with the release since plugins are source deliveries, therefore they are compliant.
Since they are shipping source code with their plugin, and the complainant themselves states that the files are unchanged, they again, are compliant. The advertising clauses in BSD 1.0 and the AFSL are very different, requiring the use of the software to be mentioned in any marketing materials. _THAT_ is an advertising clause.
There is no statement that their closed source plugin makes use of the GPL code. All we have so far is a developer complaining that their code was used without attribution. Something that the GPL does not require. It requires several things, but advertising where you got the code is not one of them.
The act of creating a running image of a software program is considered copying under current US statute and case law. This is why there is an argument around Linux closed-source drivers. If you talk to the FSF, they say that's a GPL violation. If you talk to Linus, he says that it's fine, with a specific exception to the GPL.
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,39352584,00.htm
So, running software makes a copy, therefore is covered by the license. Since the license is the GPL, everything in the running image must also be GPLed. Congratulations you've just committed a copyright violation. This was covered in MAI Systems Corp. v Peak Computing. The law was later changed to cover copies made for maintenance. However, it still does not cover the violation made during execution.
GPL requires that you ship code with the delivery, and that the package is licensed under a GPL acceptable license. That's _it_. It does not require you to perform any advertising, nor acknowledge where the code came from. You want attribution? Use the old BSD license, or the new Apache one, not the GPL.
I would say that plugin address spaces aren't kept separate (thus avoiding the issue entirely) is a Firefox _bug_ (or perhaps it's designed that way on purpose), rather than any GPL violation.
So far, nothing in the summary (nor any of the articles) points out the GPL violation.
Additionally, if you're saying that plugins that are GPL'ed can't coexist with plugins that aren't GPL'ed, that's an interesting statement. If that were true, I would hope that the GPL is _banned_ as an acceptable plugin license in order to prevent all Firefox users from being copyright violators.
DSLAMs are neither expensive nor long-term.
They are US$20/port, and available in small configurations (20 ports).
So, it costs them US$600 to buy a DSLAM, which pays for itself from _one_ subscriber rather quickly.
Bell Canada is in hot water with their wholesale ISP customers because they are throttling the bandwidth from the cabinets/COs upstream. However, they are throttling both their own retail subscribers _and_ these ISP resellers. Personally, I see this as a commercial issue between the ISPs and Bell. The ISPs should have SLAs that document precisely how much bandwidth they are allowed to peak at.
However, ISPs, instead of negotiating, running their own wire, or buying their own DSLAMs have gone lobbying. They tried the regulator, who told them to get lost. They've managed to convince a lot of customers that Bell is being anti-competitive and against "Net Neutrality" by throttling. Remember, Bell applies the same shaping to their own customers.
So, everyone is hoping that this means that the Liberals are against this throttling. However, I can't see how it would have any bearing on that, since all subscribers are throttled the same.
Net Neutrality is a complex issue - where are you allowed to throttle, how are you allowed to throttle, are you allowed QoS, preferential feeds over a common connection, preferential feeds over independent connections. What's the difference between a VPN on one wire and a separate wire? Are you allowed to host local mirrors of high traffic sites? Are you allowed to charge fees for that hosting? If you're a VoIP provider as well as the ISP, are you allowed to provide preferential services? If you offer DTV, how about then? What makes a cable TV provider able to give preferential treatment to cable TV channels, but an ISP can't do it for Internet TV?
This was purely a publicity stunt without any real substance behind it. Particularly since Canada has a minority government and could be voted down at any point in time. Heck, they managed to get mentioned on slashdot - talk about hitting the target market!
I saw the same thing in New Zealand. During the election, the opposition minister was quoting as saying that the copyright legislation was stupid, and that he didn't know why he voted for it. As soon as they got in, NZ had S92A, three strikes and you're disconnected without appeal or evidence.
Devices which aggregate themselves as a striped array behind a single eSATA/SATA interface. While the individual device may not be able to pump out enough data, they can in aggregate.
Ah, I see MAI was gotten around by a specific exception for software repair. However, according to Wikipedia, it seems that copying a program into RAM for execution is still creating a copy for which you need a license?
That's because transitory copies have been handled by the courts (for software) already.
I remember a case where someone providing maintenance was charged with copyright infringement while running software on a customer site...
Ah, there it is. MAI Systems Corp. v Peak Computer, Inc.
http://www.badsoftware.com/y2ksspa.htm
It doesn't matter who asks you to make the copy, you have to have permission to do it. That includes executing licensed software on customer premises. The act of running software creates a copy, which the person performing the execution needs to have permission to make.
I'm not familiar with any law changes or follow-on case law, so I don't know how it stands now.
It depends on the sport. Baseball has a video portal.
I think you're getting confused between copyright and patents. Copyrights on software are very much allowed (and alive) in Canada.
There isn't much law on software _patents_ in Canada, with Google showing 1 case - the patent was thrown out because it was an equation in software.
http://www.jurisdiction.com/dmc0003.htm
http://users.trytel.com/~pbkerr/computer.html
These guys have botnets, and with networks like Tor, you can't limit access to one IP. Besides, if you've got captcha that is being attacked, to limit them by IP, you need to send them all through a single location to perform the detection, completely breaking your load balancing. It becomes a DoS target.
Basically, the attacker has more machines, more IP addresses and more time than the target.
Even if I only have one machine, that's fine, I attack 10 or 100 sites instead of just yours. Or, I use a network like Tor and select random out proxies. The only problem? All of my compatriots will be doing the same.
The target won't see any real decrease in attacks, they will only lose all of their corporate customers who are unable to access the network from home (or dorms, or school, or libraries).
The problem is already easily parallelised. If it takes you 10s to fill in a form, and it isn't using any CPU (you're sleeping), then run a couple of thousand attempts in parallel. You get the _exact_ same throughput as you do if they are all run serially.
For batch processes, latency isn't really an issue, it just means you need to do more transactions at once.
You forgot the rest of the information (from the same link):
In a few OECD countries local and regional
income taxes are quite significant. In Sweden
the typical top rate of provincial and local
income taxes is 31.7%, which means it exceeds
the 25% income tax rate levied by central
government.
The graph is probably more accurate, use the "all-in" rate.
The problem is that you can commit crimes without even intending to. If you are going through a proxy as a matter of course, any spurious law breaking (hacked a phone anyone) instantly gets an extra 25%, perhaps even making it worthwhile to chase you.
Everyone breaks the law, even if it is just spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking. It just isn't worth the effort to chase you yet. However, we're making it cheaper to chase you every year. At some point, the graphs will intersect, and then the definition of "sophistication" will become incredibly important to you.
Every telco that I know of uses a transparent proxy to improve performance.
There are proxies on the receiving end too.
Heck, proxies usually make things _easier_ for law enforcement, they tend to keep logs that they can get at without letting the target know.
Oh, I get it, they're against private ownership of proxies.
That's fine, ban the proxy!
With a basic knowledge composed of just having read the wikipedia page on connectionalism, I have to ask...
Why wouldn't it be Turing complete? A distributed system of FSMs would (to me) appear to be easily converted into a single FSM, so what's so special about connectionalist models of the brain?
That is how I read it. In fact, that's what the blog says:
The potential consequence of attacks on SMM
might include SMM rootkits [9], hypervisor
compromises [8], or OS kernel protection
bypassing [2].
If you get root on any VM on the system, you can take control of the system, not just the VM.
It's important to know the actual text of the legislation:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html
92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers
(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.
(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.
The bits that are interesting are:
1) The definition of ISP is anyone who provides access to anyone else - libraries, schools, businesses are all ISPs.
2) There is no definition of "repeat offender"
3) There is no definition of what is an acceptable policy.
4) There is no punishment for fraudulent complaints.
Add to that the TCF (large ISPs) draft policy:
http://tinyurl.com/tcf-draft-pdf
which is a 4 strikes and you're out policy, with no ability to have the evidence tested in court.
Now, initially the TCF policy stated that you could challenge the complaint and that would be the end of it - it was up to the copyright holder to pursue you further. However, the RIANZ then came back and said that they wanted to be the sole determiner of guilt.
This law starts from the assumption that if the RIANZ says you are guilty of violating copyright, then you _are_ guilty, and you get a warning. Collect 4, and your internet connection is removed. Since they have to remove the connection of repeat offenders, it could be reasonable to expect to not be able to get another one (ref: Google and "Wise Beard Man": http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=605 ).
S92C, which covers hosts, is even stronger, you don't get any warnings. You have to pull the content, or you lose your connection instantly.
Mr Smith, when asked, considers the Prince vs Baby video (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ
) as well as linking to the video to be a violation of copyright, and worthy of a notice and violation letter.
There was a slashdot style Q&A with Mr Smi on a New Zealand IT forum:
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=95&topicid=30765
Mobile phone companies are looking to do exactly this to HTTPS traffic transiting the GPRS network:
http://blog.masabi.com/2009/01/how-do-transcoders-affect-https.html
It won't be long before ISPs that provide dial-up connections do the same with their "web accelerator" products.
Oh, and Opera Mini does this as a matter of course.
There are several reasons that power generators (of any kind) want accurate weather reports.
1) Thermal generation: They have consents that limit the temperature of their waste water. If the temperature exceeds a certain temperature, they can't shed it fast enough, lowering their generation capacity.
2) Wind generation: If the wind is too low, you don't generate. If it's too high, again, you don't generate. During the two points there is a curve indicating the amount of power you will generate.
3) Hydro: The rain you will receive needs to be rationed over the season. No rain in the forecast, you can't generate as much power.
It's all about forecasting how much power you can generate. These providers all have contracts to provide a fixed amount of power to their customers. If they cannot meet that obligation, they have to purchase it from other providers. The sooner they know if they will have to buy on the wholesale market, the cheaper it is for them.
Otherwise, they have to be even more cautious, since the power generation from hydro and wind can be bursty. This limits their ability to supply power to those requiring guaranteed power delivery.
The answer is, "not very much"
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html
That's because people value time highly.
10k extra over the life of a car. My car's 14 years old. That 4k savings up front? It's a great deal, the extra $400/yr would be lost in the noise.
$300 dollars savings on something that's going to be obsolete in 5 years? Again good deal. at 17c/kwh, it takes a lot of hours of watching to use up that $300. Let's say a plasma uses 50% more power than an LCD. At the high-end, plasma's seem to use 400w.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html
US$300/0.17c = 1765kwh
Extra power needed for plasma = 200wh per hour
1765kwh * 1000 = 1765000wh / 200wh = 8825 hours.
or, about 4 years of 40 hours a week of viewing.
I thought Cygnus was bought by Red Hat? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat On November 15, 1999, Red Hat acquired Cygnus Solutions. Ah, this is "Cygnus Systems"... I can see where there might be a small bit of confusion there.