The definition of "derivative work" in US copyright law can be found in 17 USC 101 [cornell.edu] plus case law with which I am not very familiar because I'm not a copyright lawyer.
So tell me: do you or do you not claim to be able to tell me that the EuroTV module is creating a derivative work?
Also: are you or are you not always this pedantic with informal english?
I have difficulty buying that re-formatting a UI is ``creating a derivative work''.
I mean: if I write a GUI on top of mount (say), is that a derivative work? Can Sun prosecute me if I port it to their OS (which I assume has a proprietary mount)?
Users complain because we think they're idiots? Then they'd better show that they're not. And complaining about how they can't learn new software is not going to cut it---that's the kind of stuff got them in trouble to begin with.
Reputable? Maybe. But, then again, this is the country where Dems can say tax cuts aren't a stimulus and that'll be reported as if it were a valid statement. (Hint: there is not one credible school of economics that doesn't consider tax cuts an economic stimulus).
Windows Update and Automatic Update are GREAT for those guys! They keep Windows easily protected! How is that any different than people running Linux that automatically update themselves? Besides, I betcha my dad can set up Automatic Update in Windows, but I doubt he can set up a Linux box to do it!
I'm glad you're so enthusiastic!!!
Seriously, though: how easy is it to find Windows Update? I don't know, but I'd betcha the average user couldn't do it (at least not without help).
Furthermore, by the time Linux is as mature as Windows (i.e., has been developed with ordinary users in mind for as long as Windows has) I guarantee you there will be a cute little button somewhere: automatically update. And, those updates won't require a reboot. So, Windows really should be farther along than it is, given the time it's been in progress.
Tell your theory to all of the Mexicans illegally crossing the border to the US every day. They're just trying to get to where the better paying jobs are, no?
I think they understand the theory perfectly. That's why they're doing what the theory recomends:)
In reality, there are laws and limitations to moving and working internationally.
And a bloody pity that is, too. It's not healthy to give one side in capital/labor negotiations that much additional flexibility.
And no, I don't think restricting capital's movement is the answer, partly because mobility == freedom, and partly because it's not really possible to restrict capital's movement when it really needs to move (remember, the owners of capital have the money to evade many restrictions the government might throw at them).
Actually, it's very easy to factor prime numbers. Now, mind you, the algorithm has a pre-condition that the numbers actually are prime, but that's another matter.
Try it again. In seven tries, I got four nans and three 0s.
Re:Linux games vs. shareware stuff for Win
on
25 Best Linux Games
·
· Score: 1
This may be obvious, but: see the numbers in the squares? Those tell you how many mines there are in the adjacent squares. So, if you have a `3' next to exactly three uncovered squares, all of those are mines. I find it's helpful to right-click on squares you're sure are mines, just to help keep track.
I leave it to you to figure out all the neat theorems that follow from this, except two:
1. In general, if you have a `1' with only one or two uncovered adjacent squares, the odds of hitting a mine are better away from the square than adjoining it. So, I usually click randomly until I see a `1', then follow that in either direction diagonally until I hit some open space.
2. In the following pattern: 1# 2# 1#
(`#'s are covered squares), the top and bottom squares are mines, provided the `2' isn't touching any other covered squares.
Proof: we know, by assumption, that there are at least two mines in the three indicated squares. So, we have the following possible combinations: (1) mine-mine-blank, (2) mine-blank-mine, (3) blank-mine-mine. We want to prove the situation is (2). To do this, observe that (1) makes the top `1' sit next to two mines, which is impossible, and likewise for (3) and the bottom `1'. So, (2) must be the case. q.e.d.
That's provided as an example of the sort of reasoning that underlies minesweeper.
by which he means ``the media always consults experts some people consider liberal on issues like homelessnee''
Actually, I would see that translation as an indication that you are the type of person who will twist anything that a media person says into an indication of bias.
Ok, let me clarify: no conservative considers ``homelessness'' a liberal issue. They consider the way the media covers that issue liberal, and they consider the experts the media always goes to on that issue liberal.
Btw., w.r.t the rest of your post: that's irrelevant, unless you're trying to argue that because you disagree with conservatives, the media shouldn't present their views.
Also w.r.t your ``Conservative code for wasting money on poor people'' comment: I'm glad you think you know what conservatives think better than we do. I hope that idea makes you feel good, because it doesn't help you win us over to your side.
When one of the major network anchors (I forget which one) explains charges of bias by saying (paraphrase) ``It happens that the media always spends time on issues some people consider liberal, like homelessness''---by which he means ``the media always consults experts some people consider liberal on issues like homelessnee''---you don't think that is in itself an indication of bias?
Put more simply, there are two sides to the homelessness issue: one side insists the answer is to pump more government money into helping homeless people, the other side insists the answer is to take the governments foot a little off the neck of buisiness (their mental imagery) and let buisinesses create jobs. The media spends almost all its time discussing the issue talking about the first side, and almost no time talking about the second side.
Btw., if you want evidence, read Bias by Bernard Goldberg, especially the section on CBS' treatment of Forbes' flat tax plan as one of the ``Ten Wackiest Ideas of 1996'' or something like that---don't have the book on me right now.
Or perhaps they are just not liberal from my perspective.
This is what always amuses me when the big 3 network anchors try to defend themselves from charges of liberal bias. They always just end up showing how subtle and unconcious that bias is.
Considering we're commenting on an article about Journalists complaining about the opinions of activists masquerading as grassroot opinions in the letters to the editor, I think a comment about an activist masquerading as grassroot is on topic.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably a union make-work requirement.
So tell me: do you or do you not claim to be able to tell me that the EuroTV module is creating a derivative work?
Also: are you or are you not always this pedantic with informal english?
I have difficulty buying that re-formatting a UI is ``creating a derivative work''.
I mean: if I write a GUI on top of mount (say), is that a derivative work? Can Sun prosecute me if I port it to their OS (which I assume has a proprietary mount)?
BTW, you want to have as many ^Hs as characters in the word you're replacing.
Are suggesting it may have been taken down by aliens?
Users complain because we think they're idiots? Then they'd better show that they're not. And complaining about how they can't learn new software is not going to cut it---that's the kind of stuff got them in trouble to begin with.
Why do you bring this up? Just ill-wishing against IT people?
Reputable? Maybe. But, then again, this is the country where Dems can say tax cuts aren't a stimulus and that'll be reported as if it were a valid statement. (Hint: there is not one credible school of economics that doesn't consider tax cuts an economic stimulus).
People don't care if you're Christian? Try posting a comment to /. that's skeptical of evolution.
I'm glad you're so enthusiastic!!!
Seriously, though: how easy is it to find Windows Update? I don't know, but I'd betcha the average user couldn't do it (at least not without help).
Furthermore, by the time Linux is as mature as Windows (i.e., has been developed with ordinary users in mind for as long as Windows has) I guarantee you there will be a cute little button somewhere: automatically update. And, those updates won't require a reboot. So, Windows really should be farther along than it is, given the time it's been in progress.
What about the poor desktop user just running whatever came on the box? I thought Windows was supposed to be good for those guys.
And how many sites were actually compromised because of this?
M$ has a security hole, and half the Internet is affected.
Apache has a security hole, and the first thing anybody hears of it is when the patch is released.
I still think we'd be better off if everybody used whatever model Apache is using.
But how often does this actually happen?
In any case, given that most software used on Linux is source-available, patches will be donated before M$ would change anything.
I think they understand the theory perfectly. That's why they're doing what the theory recomends
And a bloody pity that is, too. It's not healthy to give one side in capital/labor negotiations that much additional flexibility.
And no, I don't think restricting capital's movement is the answer, partly because mobility == freedom, and partly because it's not really possible to restrict capital's movement when it really needs to move (remember, the owners of capital have the money to evade many restrictions the government might throw at them).
The same reason people there take those jobs (i.e., appearantly there are no other jobs)?
Actually, it's very easy to factor prime numbers. Now, mind you, the algorithm has a pre-condition that the numbers actually are prime, but that's another matter.
... If you're concerned about jobs moving overseas, why don't you follow them there?.
Try it again. In seven tries, I got four nans and three 0s.
This may be obvious, but: see the numbers in the squares? Those tell you how many mines there are in the adjacent squares. So, if you have a `3' next to exactly three uncovered squares, all of those are mines. I find it's helpful to right-click on squares you're sure are mines, just to help keep track.
I leave it to you to figure out all the neat theorems that follow from this, except two:
1. In general, if you have a `1' with only one or two uncovered adjacent squares, the odds of hitting a mine are better away from the square than adjoining it. So, I usually click randomly until I see a `1', then follow that in either direction diagonally until I hit some open space.
2. In the following pattern:
1#
2#
1#
(`#'s are covered squares), the top and bottom squares are mines, provided the `2' isn't touching any other covered squares.
Proof: we know, by assumption, that there are at least two mines in the three indicated squares. So, we have the following possible combinations: (1) mine-mine-blank, (2) mine-blank-mine, (3) blank-mine-mine. We want to prove the situation is (2). To do this, observe that (1) makes the top `1' sit next to two mines, which is impossible, and likewise for (3) and the bottom `1'. So, (2) must be the case. q.e.d.
That's provided as an example of the sort of reasoning that underlies minesweeper.
Why do you say *cough*qmail*cough*?
Or at least that's Eliza's comment.
So are both of yours.
Ok, let me clarify: no conservative considers ``homelessness'' a liberal issue. They consider the way the media covers that issue liberal, and they consider the experts the media always goes to on that issue liberal.
Btw., w.r.t the rest of your post: that's irrelevant, unless you're trying to argue that because you disagree with conservatives, the media shouldn't present their views.
Also w.r.t your ``Conservative code for wasting money on poor people'' comment: I'm glad you think you know what conservatives think better than we do. I hope that idea makes you feel good, because it doesn't help you win us over to your side.
When one of the major network anchors (I forget which one) explains charges of bias by saying (paraphrase) ``It happens that the media always spends time on issues some people consider liberal, like homelessness''---by which he means ``the media always consults experts some people consider liberal on issues like homelessnee''---you don't think that is in itself an indication of bias?
Put more simply, there are two sides to the homelessness issue: one side insists the answer is to pump more government money into helping homeless people, the other side insists the answer is to take the governments foot a little off the neck of buisiness (their mental imagery) and let buisinesses create jobs. The media spends almost all its time discussing the issue talking about the first side, and almost no time talking about the second side.
Btw., if you want evidence, read Bias by Bernard Goldberg, especially the section on CBS' treatment of Forbes' flat tax plan as one of the ``Ten Wackiest Ideas of 1996'' or something like that---don't have the book on me right now.
This is what always amuses me when the big 3 network anchors try to defend themselves from charges of liberal bias. They always just end up showing how subtle and unconcious that bias is.
Considering we're commenting on an article about Journalists complaining about the opinions of activists masquerading as grassroot opinions in the letters to the editor, I think a comment about an activist masquerading as grassroot is on topic.