Canonical can't be held responsible for somebody else's screw-up. If Canonical distributes GRUB consistent with the GPL3, then there responsibility is done. If somebody else screws up by distributing GRUB in a non-conformant way, then all they can do is ask canonical to distribute their private key to get the manufacturer's bacon out of the fire. Canonical would then be free to laugh at them.
It seems to me that Canonical is missing the bigger piece -- which is that the vibrancy of Ubuntu depends on the wider vibrancy of Linux. If Ubuntu jumps into Microsoft's lifeboat and leaves the rest of the GNU/Linux community to sink or swim, Canonical is ultimately slitting their own throat slowly.
Trusting Microsoft over the FSF seems foolhardy at best.
It's not so much whether or not they need more data do do that, as do they need that much more data to provide cheaper more reliable power. For more reliable power, they really don't need real-time consumption data past the substation level. I'm guessing that they installed smart metres there a long time ago.
To give you cheaper power based on the time of your usage, they really only need your usage at a granularity of 2-4 readings a day, not 2-60 readings per hour. With a high enough granularity of data about your power usage, they can figure out all sorts of things, -- possibly including things like how often you use your computer when it's on, whether you turn it off at night, whether you shower or bathe, and even what nights your girl/boyfriend comes over.
Then there's how they mess with time-based usage... Let's say that they currently just charge a flat $.10/KWhr So they figure out that businesses use 75% of their power between 6am and 6pm, and homes the other way round -- so they charge businesses $.15/KWhr during the day and $.3/KWhr in the evenings -- and residences the other way round. -- for an "average" of $.09/KWhr. This seems like cozy savings until you realize that your average bill just went up by 12% because they played a numbers game with your usage.
I worked in a university Biochemistry lab many years ago, and some of the girls in the labs on our floor were HOT. One was a page 3 girl -- and she wasn't even the hottest girl on the floor.
Now, they did wear proper 'lab' gear when at work, but outside of the lab, they wore whatever they wanted.. and if they wanted to look hot... they did.
If you want a video of hot female scientists, just find some, do some real interviews with them and splice the pieces together. Not only will you have hot babes talking about science, you'll probably have something that real girls will listen to.
Religious and ideological site users (and designers) are much less likely to be technologically savy.
Click here if you love jesus! is pretty likely to get a good number of hits on a religious site -- similarly for Obama haters (or lovers). It's a reflex action that will get these people in some really hot water.
Porn site users, on the other hand, are a bit more jaded.
Release it with an Affero license. That way, they'll be able to use the software and make money off of it, but they'll then have to make it available to everybody else (and, thus, "Spread the wealth").
It's not just the asshole who demands your Facebook login that gets charged with counselling a felony. You can also go after the asshole who set the policy (usually further up the food chain). Now that should get the attention of legal (especially if it was legal who set the policy).
The thing about 'Roundup Ready' soy beans is that what makes them valuable is that they're resistant to the herbicide roundup. This means that you can spray a farm full of these beans with roundup, which will kill the weeds but leave the GM plants alive.
Now Monsanto is suing organic farmers for 'using' plants with 'monsanto's genes' in them. The thing is that: organic farmers can't make use of the 'patented' genes because they can't use herbicides. In other words, Monsanto is suing them -- not because they're using Monsanto's patented capability, but rather just because they're (re)planting seeds that happen to be contaminated with Monsanto DNA.
Then the farmers, not having billions of dollars of patent income an a pack of on-salary lawyers to back them up,
sell their Farms to Monsanto (at a loss?) rather than pay hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars to defend themselves.
or get a teeny network-capable external drive, and run a wire to it somewhere in your ceiling/walls. Unless they take the time to trace the wires, they won't know that it's there. If they're smart enough to (know to) trace your wire, they should really have another job.
Once you run power and 'net to the beastie, you can nail the wall shut behind it, so it'll be pretty difficult for someone to figure out where it is.... or you can use an old laptop for the whole kaboodle (which will provide a few minutes of backup, even if the batteries are mostly dead 5 years later). That way you can even get pictures of the thieves walking out with your valuables.
I've had enough with Microsoft's anti-competitive cheating (essentially), astro-turfing, stomping on competitors and even allies -- not to mention their incessant attacks on Free software and the Open Source realm. Google may have their problems, but they have it within their culture to at least try to do the right thing by their user base.
I wouldn't want to see an internet where Microsoft had the controlling share of the search market. I've had enough of them attempting to destroy the market while they controlled the desktop (and I'm still dealing with that).
I use Microsoft's products where it's appropriate and/or necessary, but avoid them where it's anything close to a judgement call. I'm certainly not going to help them gain a new monopoly where they don't currently have one. Keeping them hungry is probably good for the competitive environment.
Force them to put a prominent acknowledgement whenever they modify a woman's body image, or a health warning when the model is more than one sigma below 'normal' weight.
I can't remember who it is that said that "the answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship", but I agree. In this case it would be to allow them to use whatever image they want, but force them to acknowledge what they're doing
Marilyn would have be fine today, for the things she was good for in her day. Appealing to men. The women addressed in the 'anorexia' advertisements are more often found in magazines featuring fashion and/or lifestyle for women. In Marilyn's ere there was less of a discrepancy between the two.
Would this solve the anorexia problem... hellefino. It would it more fun to flip through my wife's mags when I am stranded in the car waiting for her.
The thing is that these women's mag ads have a pretence that being sickeningly (literally) thin is going to get you your man -- when, in your example, the precise opposite seems to be true. I suggest that what most men find 'healthy' to be sexy, and overly thin isn't that healthy.
First of all -- pound for pound, being underweight is less healthy than being overweight. Consider: If you're 150 pounds overweight, it's likely to cut 20 years off of your life. If you'[re 150 pounds underweight, you're probably already dead and your skeleton picked clean. At some point, being under weight got a lot more unhealthy than being over weight.
And, in terms of looks, consider that Marilyn Munroe would never get past the reception desk of most talent agencies today -- yet she's still considered one of the sexiest women of the 20th century.
This has been a peve of mine for a while, and I actuallybelieve that the unhealthy obsession with being thin is costing us on both sides of the equation. If you get yourself artificially thin enough to fit the media view of 'normal', then you're unhealthy. If on the other hand, you give up trying to be the unhealthy 'normal', then you're at risk of becoming obese. Getting the press back on track with celebrating 'normal' as beautiful would probably be good for the health of almost everybody involved.
I'd sue them for copyright appropriation, and probably unjust enrichment. The video is your copyright. Using it to make money without your permission is appropriation. It would be good to turn the tables on these people. They definitely seem to have asked for it in this case.
Note: IANAL.. You should definitely talk to a lawyer before taking this on. A class action suit is possible, if you can find more people suffering from this kind of misappropriation.
I worked for the Computer Graphics lab at the University of British Columbia in 1992, and we had one machine we called Brutus. It had about 4 boards of memory (each larger than a desktop morherboard) in it for a total of 380Megabytes of ram. When I mentioned that I worked with a machine with 380Meg of memory, most people would go "ooooh, that's a really big hard drive!".
Nevermind..
(( The PC with 4Meg of ram, running OS/2 was considered a toy even though it was more than most normal people had on their desktop. ))
Grab it at the screen. Hold the screen against your chest, and your hands around the bottom of the screen.
about 80% of the weight is in the glass in the front of the screen, and the rest of the monitor will balance properly. It's kinda counter-intuitive.but it works.
I started moving 30" screens around in the late '80s when they cost a few thousand dollars. Never had to pay for dropping one.
I still have a 32" CRT TV,..... It's 150 lbs of poorly-balanced, somewhat fragile dead weight. One person cannot carry it anywhere, at least nobody I've seen has figured out how.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that Canonical is missing the bigger piece -- which is that the vibrancy of Ubuntu depends on the wider vibrancy of Linux. If Ubuntu jumps into Microsoft's lifeboat and leaves the rest of the GNU/Linux community to sink or swim, Canonical is ultimately slitting their own throat slowly.
Trusting Microsoft over the FSF seems foolhardy at best.
That would be 18minutes / 64.
I.e. somebody slipped a few bits in setting the rhythm for the show timing.
To give you cheaper power based on the time of your usage, they really only need your usage at a granularity of 2-4 readings a day, not 2-60 readings per hour. With a high enough granularity of data about your power usage, they can figure out all sorts of things, -- possibly including things like how often you use your computer when it's on, whether you turn it off at night, whether you shower or bathe, and even what nights your girl/boyfriend comes over.
Then there's how they mess with time-based usage... Let's say that they currently just charge a flat $.10/KWhr So they figure out that businesses use 75% of their power between 6am and 6pm, and homes the other way round -- so they charge businesses $.15 /KWhr during the day and $.3/KWhr in the evenings -- and residences the other way round. -- for an "average" of $.09/KWhr. This seems like cozy savings until you realize that your average bill just went up by 12% because they played a numbers game with your usage.
Now, they did wear proper 'lab' gear when at work, but outside of the lab, they wore whatever they wanted .. and if they wanted to look hot ... they did.
If you want a video of hot female scientists, just find some, do some real interviews with them and splice the pieces together. Not only will you have hot babes talking about science, you'll probably have something that real girls will listen to.
Hopefully it will never be patented.
I clicked your link & now my computer is running funny ... I went back and clicked it 10 more times to be sure.
Oh, relax! According to my 'remote administration tools', your computer is doing just fine.
Click here if you love jesus! is pretty likely to get a good number of hits on a religious site -- similarly for Obama haters (or lovers). It's a reflex action that will get these people in some really hot water.
Porn site users, on the other hand, are a bit more jaded.
Most malware authors prefer anonymity. If we know who you are, you're not going to get much more than one shot at selling malware on our platform.
Release it with an Affero license. That way, they'll be able to use the software and make money off of it, but they'll then have to make it available to everybody else (and, thus, "Spread the wealth").
It's not just the asshole who demands your Facebook login that gets charged with counselling a felony. You can also go after the asshole who set the policy (usually further up the food chain). Now that should get the attention of legal (especially if it was legal who set the policy).
Now Monsanto is suing organic farmers for 'using' plants with 'monsanto's genes' in them. The thing is that: organic farmers can't make use of the 'patented' genes because they can't use herbicides. In other words, Monsanto is suing them -- not because they're using Monsanto's patented capability, but rather just because they're (re)planting seeds that happen to be contaminated with Monsanto DNA.
Then the farmers, not having billions of dollars of patent income an a pack of on-salary lawyers to back them up, sell their Farms to Monsanto (at a loss?) rather than pay hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars to defend themselves.
Once you run power and 'net to the beastie, you can nail the wall shut behind it, so it'll be pretty difficult for someone to figure out where it is. ... or you can use an old laptop for the whole kaboodle (which will provide a few minutes of backup, even if the batteries are mostly dead 5 years later). That way you can even get pictures of the thieves walking out with your valuables.
And visually - without deep inspection - it looked like a pretty good fake! Why wasn't this story on /.? :)
Because too many slashdot readers looked at the video, went "nice fake", and went on to other interesting things?
I wouldn't want to see an internet where Microsoft had the controlling share of the search market. I've had enough of them attempting to destroy the market while they controlled the desktop (and I'm still dealing with that).
I use Microsoft's products where it's appropriate and/or necessary, but avoid them where it's anything close to a judgement call. I'm certainly not going to help them gain a new monopoly where they don't currently have one. Keeping them hungry is probably good for the competitive environment.
The point still stands, in either case, that losing weight is more unhealthy than gaining it.
I can't remember who it is that said that "the answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship", but I agree. In this case it would be to allow them to use whatever image they want, but force them to acknowledge what they're doing
Emaciated? Hardly boss, ......
Marilyn would have be fine today, for the things she was good for in her day. Appealing to men. The women addressed in the 'anorexia' advertisements are more often found in magazines featuring fashion and/or lifestyle for women. In Marilyn's ere there was less of a discrepancy between the two.
Would this solve the anorexia problem... hellefino. It would it more fun to flip through my wife's mags when I am stranded in the car waiting for her.
The thing is that these women's mag ads have a pretence that being sickeningly (literally) thin is going to get you your man -- when, in your example, the precise opposite seems to be true. I suggest that what most men find 'healthy' to be sexy, and overly thin isn't that healthy.
And, in terms of looks, consider that Marilyn Munroe would never get past the reception desk of most talent agencies today -- yet she's still considered one of the sexiest women of the 20th century.
This has been a peve of mine for a while, and I actuallybelieve that the unhealthy obsession with being thin is costing us on both sides of the equation. If you get yourself artificially thin enough to fit the media view of 'normal', then you're unhealthy. If on the other hand, you give up trying to be the unhealthy 'normal', then you're at risk of becoming obese. Getting the press back on track with celebrating 'normal' as beautiful would probably be good for the health of almost everybody involved.
It's really true of just about anything based on the cloud system.
Unless the 'artist' is "God", in which case the copyright is indefinite (presuming that you're not an atheist).
Note: IANAL.. You should definitely talk to a lawyer before taking this on. A class action suit is possible, if you can find more people suffering from this kind of misappropriation.
Nevermind..
(( The PC with 4Meg of ram, running OS/2 was considered a toy even though it was more than most normal people had on their desktop. ))
I would have modded that comment insightful, not funny.
I started moving 30" screens around in the late '80s when they cost a few thousand dollars. Never had to pay for dropping one.
I still have a 32" CRT TV, ..... It's 150 lbs of poorly-balanced, somewhat fragile dead weight. One person cannot carry it anywhere, at least nobody I've seen has figured out how.
If you now pretty much need a passport in order to efficiently travel across the country, then it's now become an effective right, not a privilege.