Sometimes the videocard can be silly if you use HDMI. I have a NVidia card that allows me only to use 1920x1080i if I use HDMI but with D-SUB and DVI can use the panels native 1920x1200 resolution. Another card I have works ok if you use one display but if you use two the second display can only be 1920x1080i, unless I use D-SUB when it goes all they way up to 1920x1200 (after some tweaking).
Also my Macbook, Macbook pro and old G4 Powermac connected via DVI-HDMI adapter to my plasma-tv all give different resolution options and none support the TVs native resolution.
The laptop might not be able to support more than 128MB of RAM as it is an old laptop. I have many that only support max of 24MB RAM and one that does support 64MB but then will crash on Linux if you enable PCMCIA support but works on Windows 98.
You dont need to have 100% of the market to be consider a monopoly. Microsoft (with Windows and Office) is very much an effective monopoly in many countries.
But there is harm. As long as IE is not very standards compliant but is bundled by a company with monopoly on desktop operating systems, it will force web developers to either use more money/time to created pages that work on IE and other browsers or just create IE compatible pages and make the other browsers try to emulate IE or fail to render pages correctly (or even worse, not work at all).
They'll just have to design their OS so that the browser can be switched. Almost all other OSes can do this so it cannot be that hard to do. And as long as Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems in EU, they do need to be very careful when bundling software to Windows (and probably Office too). If Microsoft doesn't like the laws in the EU, they don't have to do business there. There are other countries to do business with.
eh - if they somehow force MS to make IE standards compliant, then that also means that MS can sue the bejeebus out of all the other browser manufacturers when their browser has an issue with some standard...they all have issues.
Not really. Well, they can always sue, but if EU does sues MS and forces them to make IE standards compliant it doesn't mean that other browsers should be compliant also. Not until we have a EU directive for applications that claim to be www-browsers.
Basically Opera is suing to try and get some money, simply because their browser, for all that it is, costs $40 to buy, when IE and FireFox are free (IE technically since it comes with Windows).
First, Opera hasn't sued anybody, they've filed a antitrust complaint. Complitely different. Also Opera doesn't cost anyting, it is free, only the mobilephone/PDA version costs something.
Fuck the EU. MS should pull all their licenses from every EU country, then force the EU to help them sue those that don't relinquish their licenses. Let's see how functional the EU is after that.
Ah, that would be a great day. Though it would take about a year to "pull" MS licenses from EU, and that is only for those companies that pay annual fee for using MS products. Everybody else can use their MS products as long as they want, only thing MS can do is not to sell new licenses.
I am sure that Microsoft wouldn't mind to lose such a small market as Europe.
Actually sharing is very legal. I am allowed to make a copy from original audio CDs and give the copy to my friends. I am also allowed to loan audio CDs from library and copy it for my personal use. It doesn't matter if the copyright owner likes it or not.
I don't think it really matter if you modify it or not. If you distribute the binary, you must also offer to give out the source and you cannot just point people to a 3rd party site to get the source. See this article for more related info: http://www.linux.com/articles/55285
I think all GPL'ed code should be sold at some minimal price, say like 100yen, that way, if the engineer A wanted to use the GPL code, he would have to get someone to purchase it and at that point management perhaps might read the license and even forward it to the lawyers.
One part of the cost comes from SMS gateways which happen to be (atleast some years back when I played with them) rather expensive. The license cost per year was outrageus and was based on how many messages per second you wanted to be able to deliver.
I don't know much about D&D, played it 15 years ago. Why would 'forgery' and 'use rope' be rubbish skills? Both skills in RealLife(tm) do require some proficiency to be used effectively.
The difference ofcourse is that in Google's case, the files are streamed, thus continuing the service would require more resources than just a DRM authentication service. But instead of refunds, Google should have allowed users to download the videos and perhaps, if required by content owners, put some "traditional" DRM on them, eg. Playsforsure or whatnot.
Actually, GPLish thing could still be around even without copyrights, just turn it to NDA. Without copyright you are allowed to copy the binary program, but unless you agree to the NDA, you wont be given the source code. And the NDA would force you to give similar rights as GPL gives to the users who get your binary.
I often download more than 200+ torrents simultaneously on my 400MHz Powermac G4 and only time I notice any major slowdown is when preallocating the files and then after download when the files are being rechecked. When downloading faster than 5MB/s the Mac does get sluggish but that is just because the poor old harddisk is too slow (when it is seeking between those 200 torrents).
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the videocard can be silly if you use HDMI. I have a NVidia card that allows me only to use 1920x1080i if I use HDMI but with D-SUB and DVI can use the panels native 1920x1200 resolution. Another card I have works ok if you use one display but if you use two the second display can only be 1920x1080i, unless I use D-SUB when it goes all they way up to 1920x1200 (after some tweaking).
Also my Macbook, Macbook pro and old G4 Powermac connected via DVI-HDMI adapter to my plasma-tv all give different resolution options and none support the TVs native resolution.
4L/100km is about 59 furlongs per pint.
Maybe it is an audiobook??
The laptop might not be able to support more than 128MB of RAM as it is an old laptop. I have many that only support max of 24MB RAM and one that does support 64MB but then will crash on Linux if you enable PCMCIA support but works on Windows 98.
You dont need to have 100% of the market to be consider a monopoly. Microsoft (with Windows and Office) is very much an effective monopoly in many countries.
But there is harm. As long as IE is not very standards compliant but is bundled by a company with monopoly on desktop operating systems, it will force web developers to either use more money/time to created pages that work on IE and other browsers or just create IE compatible pages and make the other browsers try to emulate IE or fail to render pages correctly (or even worse, not work at all).
They'll just have to design their OS so that the browser can be switched. Almost all other OSes can do this so it cannot be that hard to do. And as long as Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems in EU, they do need to be very careful when bundling software to Windows (and probably Office too). If Microsoft doesn't like the laws in the EU, they don't have to do business there. There are other countries to do business with.
I recall using Zmodem or Ymodem to download my browsers. And Trumpet Winsock I copied from school's computers.
I would gladly use WinXPProN if I could torrent one.
Not really. Well, they can always sue, but if EU does sues MS and forces them to make IE standards compliant it doesn't mean that other browsers should be compliant also. Not until we have a EU directive for applications that claim to be www-browsers.
First, Opera hasn't sued anybody, they've filed a antitrust complaint. Complitely different. Also Opera doesn't cost anyting, it is free, only the mobilephone/PDA version costs something.
Ah, that would be a great day. Though it would take about a year to "pull" MS licenses from EU, and that is only for those companies that pay annual fee for using MS products. Everybody else can use their MS products as long as they want, only thing MS can do is not to sell new licenses.
I am sure that Microsoft wouldn't mind to lose such a small market as Europe.
Oh, and I was talking about Finnish copyright law, but I am glad US law seems to have atleast some of the same freedoms we enjoy.
Actually sharing is very legal. I am allowed to make a copy from original audio CDs and give the copy to my friends. I am also allowed to loan audio CDs from library and copy it for my personal use. It doesn't matter if the copyright owner likes it or not.
You mean humans as in Americans or are you talking about some random tribe somewhere in Amazon or Africa?
I don't think it really matter if you modify it or not. If you distribute the binary, you must also offer to give out the source and you cannot just point people to a 3rd party site to get the source. See this article for more related info: http://www.linux.com/articles/55285
I think all GPL'ed code should be sold at some minimal price, say like 100yen, that way, if the engineer A wanted to use the GPL code, he would have to get someone to purchase it and at that point management perhaps might read the license and even forward it to the lawyers.
I don't read the articles that are linked from Slashdot, I just click on the link to see the pretty pictures and banners.
One part of the cost comes from SMS gateways which happen to be (atleast some years back when I played with them) rather expensive. The license cost per year was outrageus and was based on how many messages per second you wanted to be able to deliver.
I recall that at some point people were porting Linux to 8086 but I don't know what happened to that project.
Is that unlimited or "unlimited"?
I don't know much about D&D, played it 15 years ago. Why would 'forgery' and 'use rope' be rubbish skills? Both skills in RealLife(tm) do require some proficiency to be used effectively.
Third stage is faulty which activates just before making a backup.
The difference ofcourse is that in Google's case, the files are streamed, thus continuing the service would require more resources than just a DRM authentication service. But instead of refunds, Google should have allowed users to download the videos and perhaps, if required by content owners, put some "traditional" DRM on them, eg. Playsforsure or whatnot.
Actually, GPLish thing could still be around even without copyrights, just turn it to NDA. Without copyright you are allowed to copy the binary program, but unless you agree to the NDA, you wont be given the source code. And the NDA would force you to give similar rights as GPL gives to the users who get your binary.
I often download more than 200+ torrents simultaneously on my 400MHz Powermac G4 and only time I notice any major slowdown is when preallocating the files and then after download when the files are being rechecked. When downloading faster than 5MB/s the Mac does get sluggish but that is just because the poor old harddisk is too slow (when it is seeking between those 200 torrents).
How about normal glasses? And seeing is overrated anyways :)