Under the GPL, Apple become the party burdened with ensuring the license is fulfilled, as they are the distributor - so yes, the license is to blame. There is no scope in the GPL for Apple to be anything other than the distributor, there is no allowance for an agent model, or a silent party (who holds no liability) acting as an enabler between the recipient and the originator.
And as this wasn't even duscussed during GPL v3 talks, yes it is a problem with the license - a deliberate one. The FSF and Gnu want to put entities like Apple into this position.
Not always, for some things certainly but more often than not you could buy devices straight after the keynote, as stores then opened. More often it was things like the iPad, iPhone etc which had a delay, but I've bought laptops on the same day.
I'm "getting at" *your* opinion about what Linus is supposedly talking about - why should Nvidia give a toss what the projects goals and visions are, that has nothing to do with them providing support for their products (or not) on that platform. Some people seem to think that Nvidia should not only support the project (Linux) but the philosophies as well - why should they? It's not their vision or goal.
Actually, the common consensus on that seems to be "it depends on how its delivered". If its delivered to the business address and the business is responsible for internal dissemination, the business can open all mail as . If its delivered directly to you and not the business, then they can not.
This is absolutely no different at all to recording all phone calls into and out of the building - many companies do that, and its never been seen as an issue in the light that the submitter is trying to make this out to be.
I wouldn't be surprised if your employer also had the right to open all mail, parcels and packages you have delivered to your place of work as well. Or send, for that matter.
I'm away from the desktop right now so I cant post citations, but I can think of several cases where removal of or tampering with a condom without consent for that particular action has been successfully prosecuted as rape in the UK, so no there isn't a fundamental issue of differing interpretations here at all.
Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:
The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.
With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.
In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”
Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”
One important note as to that last charge. Assange’s attorneys contended that SW’s consent to the continuation of unprotected intercourse after she awoke to find Assange penetrating her rendered the entire encounter consensual. The judges rejected that argument, declaring that “the fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.” It was his alleged initial penetration, they ruled, that constituted rape, and consent to non-consensual intercourse cannot be obtained retroactively.
Uhm, what? He doesnt need to have committed any crimes in the UK to be extradited - the country requesting extradition just needs a valid warrant.
Otherwise you could commit a crime in one country and flee to any other country in the world - and it quite obviously doesnt work like that...
Also, check out the complaints made against him, its more complex than you (and incidentally most people against hte extradition in these stories comments) seem to believe it is - they didnt consent to have bare sex, thats part of the complaints made.
The judges themselves said they were unlawful under UK law:
Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:
The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.
With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.
In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”
Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”
Not all types of discrimination are criminal - only the ones defined in criminal law. This is not defined in criminal law as discrimination. And neither should it be.
And if the company supplying it really cared, they could include the girls iPad in the list of 100 devices they are allowed to locally sign and distribute for.
If its missing something it was sold with, it doesn't matter if it was hardware or software - you think NewEgg have the ability to put the recovery partition back?
No, Im not saying that in the least - but if the recovery partition is missing, I highly doubt NewEgg would accept it as a return as its missing something it was sold with.
They wouldnt accept it back if it was missing the hard disk, or a memory stick, or some keys off the keyboard, so why would they accept it back if the recovery partition had been trashed?
I agree, they should wipe the disk. However, what if in the course of installing Linux, she removed the hidden Windows recovery partition (something I did way back when I installed Linux on my Thinkpad R31)? If Lenovo don't ship recovery disks with their computers (no idea, I havent ever bought a Lenovo) then NewEgg might have a point in that the system she is returning is not similar to the system she received.
So basically you are trying to claim that some versions of AOL and Compuserve would have been illegal under "Net Neutrality", as not all of their offerings were full internet access...?
How is your example any different than anything currently? Quality of connection degrades as ISPs move away from dial up and websites get too heavy, so you move to their new 512K adsl servic, which is fine for a year or so before sites get heavier and heavier and your quality of connection degrades, so you upgrade to the new 2MBit service....
2G mobile Internet to 3G mobile internet to 4G....
The problem is, even passwords that would have been considered "non-standard" 5 years ago is now easily crackable - according to GRC, a password I used 5 years ago consisting of ten characters, alpha numeric, mixed case and a symbol would take just an hour or so to crack. That was quite eye opening.
As I understand it, the dance routine, music, girls and words were supplied by the NDC, not Microsoft - they were apparently quite surprised when it happened!
Slashdot Mirror
Under the GPL, Apple become the party burdened with ensuring the license is fulfilled, as they are the distributor - so yes, the license is to blame. There is no scope in the GPL for Apple to be anything other than the distributor, there is no allowance for an agent model, or a silent party (who holds no liability) acting as an enabler between the recipient and the originator.
And as this wasn't even duscussed during GPL v3 talks, yes it is a problem with the license - a deliberate one. The FSF and Gnu want to put entities like Apple into this position.
Not always, for some things certainly but more often than not you could buy devices straight after the keynote, as stores then opened. More often it was things like the iPad, iPhone etc which had a delay, but I've bought laptops on the same day.
Go back and read your own post - I'm responding to your points, not the videos.
I'm "getting at" *your* opinion about what Linus is supposedly talking about - why should Nvidia give a toss what the projects goals and visions are, that has nothing to do with them providing support for their products (or not) on that platform. Some people seem to think that Nvidia should not only support the project (Linux) but the philosophies as well - why should they? It's not their vision or goal.
Why should Nvidia subscribe to the projects "goals and visions"? Thats the projects concern, not theirs.
Actually, the common consensus on that seems to be "it depends on how its delivered". If its delivered to the business address and the business is responsible for internal dissemination, the business can open all mail as . If its delivered directly to you and not the business, then they can not.
This is absolutely no different at all to recording all phone calls into and out of the building - many companies do that, and its never been seen as an issue in the light that the submitter is trying to make this out to be.
I wouldn't be surprised if your employer also had the right to open all mail, parcels and packages you have delivered to your place of work as well. Or send, for that matter.
I'm away from the desktop right now so I cant post citations, but I can think of several cases where removal of or tampering with a condom without consent for that particular action has been successfully prosecuted as rape in the UK, so no there isn't a fundamental issue of differing interpretations here at all.
British Judges have already said in their ruling that all four complaints would be unlawful under English law.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf
Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:
The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.
With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.
In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”
Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”
One important note as to that last charge. Assange’s attorneys contended that SW’s consent to the continuation of unprotected intercourse after she awoke to find Assange penetrating her rendered the entire encounter consensual. The judges rejected that argument, declaring that “the fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.” It was his alleged initial penetration, they ruled, that constituted rape, and consent to non-consensual intercourse cannot be obtained retroactively.
http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/
Uhm, what? He doesnt need to have committed any crimes in the UK to be extradited - the country requesting extradition just needs a valid warrant.
Otherwise you could commit a crime in one country and flee to any other country in the world - and it quite obviously doesnt work like that...
Also, check out the complaints made against him, its more complex than you (and incidentally most people against hte extradition in these stories comments) seem to believe it is - they didnt consent to have bare sex, thats part of the complaints made.
The judges themselves said they were unlawful under UK law:
Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:
The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.
With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.
In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”
Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”
From http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/
Judgement mentioned in the article, direct from the UK Judiciary website - http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf
So does the UK...
Why should they open themselves up to potential litigation tho?
They could always successfully defend themselves in court and resolve the issue.
How much more complete do you want, other than the links on this page to the review guidelines?
https://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html
Not all types of discrimination are criminal - only the ones defined in criminal law. This is not defined in criminal law as discrimination. And neither should it be.
And if the company supplying it really cared, they could include the girls iPad in the list of 100 devices they are allowed to locally sign and distribute for.
If its missing something it was sold with, it doesn't matter if it was hardware or software - you think NewEgg have the ability to put the recovery partition back?
It might be user writable space, but it was sold with X, and being returned without X.
This would be more like if you removed the software from your car radio before returning it...
No, Im not saying that in the least - but if the recovery partition is missing, I highly doubt NewEgg would accept it as a return as its missing something it was sold with.
They wouldnt accept it back if it was missing the hard disk, or a memory stick, or some keys off the keyboard, so why would they accept it back if the recovery partition had been trashed?
I agree, they should wipe the disk. However, what if in the course of installing Linux, she removed the hidden Windows recovery partition (something I did way back when I installed Linux on my Thinkpad R31)? If Lenovo don't ship recovery disks with their computers (no idea, I havent ever bought a Lenovo) then NewEgg might have a point in that the system she is returning is not similar to the system she received.
So basically you are trying to claim that some versions of AOL and Compuserve would have been illegal under "Net Neutrality", as not all of their offerings were full internet access...?
How is your example any different than anything currently? Quality of connection degrades as ISPs move away from dial up and websites get too heavy, so you move to their new 512K adsl servic, which is fine for a year or so before sites get heavier and heavier and your quality of connection degrades, so you upgrade to the new 2MBit service....
2G mobile Internet to 3G mobile internet to 4G....
The problem is, even passwords that would have been considered "non-standard" 5 years ago is now easily crackable - according to GRC, a password I used 5 years ago consisting of ten characters, alpha numeric, mixed case and a symbol would take just an hour or so to crack. That was quite eye opening.
So what next?
As I understand it, the dance routine, music, girls and words were supplied by the NDC, not Microsoft - they were apparently quite surprised when it happened!