This is a reasonable argument against every single form of worker protection there is. Think really hard about whether or not you want to take the position that employment should be controlled soley by the free market.
Thats because your logic doesn't support your conclusions.
Smoking in the workplace is physically and psychologically harming to anyone who doesn't smoke. There's no reasonable way the ability to withstand smoke (ie, not be bothered by it) can be consided a neccesary condition of working.
Certainly saying that "they can always work somewhere else" is moronic, unless you WANT someone to call you on it.
Here's a question for you: If I wanted to masturbate in your bar, would you mind? Would you throw me out? How about calling the police if I persist? Why? How is any more or less obnoxious than smoking? How about if I choose to keep a bucket of urine at my table instead of an ashtray?
The intelligence that was wrong was not the fact that there (are|may be|whatever) WMD in Iraq. As you say, it hasn't been proven that there are, nor can it be proven that there aren't (logical fallacy and all that). The intelligence about the scope and capability of Iraqs chemical and nuclear program was wrong (well, either it was wrong, or it was overstated by the administration. I'm going to give the administration the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were reasonably presenting evidence that they had reason to believe was correct).
Basically:
Assertation: You have 900 black cats
My refutation: There might be a cat or two hidden, but since you came into my house you haven't seen 900 cats, nor litter boxes for 900 cats.
The clearest proof that Iraq's state of readiness with regards to it's WMD programs doesn't match what Colin Powell presented to the UN, not what GWB and other White House and Pentagon officals said in press releases/confrences is that WMD were not used against US troops.
That does not preclude there being a program. But it certainly wasn't at the level that we thought it was. (Or that the administration said it was. Benefit of the doubt, again).
There actually still has not been any strong evidence release to prove it. Everyone knows it's true, because everyone has said it so many times. Now, I like to think that if it were someone else, that the information would have come out - at least in the probes of the CIA after 9/11. But who knows.
And besides, maybe our intelligence saying it was Osama was wrong. Our intelligence about the WMD in Iraq was wrong, and we said that enough times that "everyone knew it" also.
Viagra actually has a stimulating effect on women. You can't get it perscribed by a doctor since it's not FDA approved for female use, which is probably why women who're interested in it get it from shady sites like this one.
It wouldn't be the first time a start up didn't check things out in detail... In any case, while they may (almost certainly would not) have arbitrary claim, as you say, the fact that company no longer exists and that some, at least, of the code is still around may have other consequences. Whats the term for copyright in Russia? Do you have to file for extensions? Etc.
Just as a matter of clarity, DRM is a SUBSET of encryption. Encrypting email is not DRM. It's encryption. An encryption method for email that prevented the recipient from forwarding it would be DRM. Not all encryption is DRM, but DRM neccesarily involves encryption.
If I had to put a technical term on DRM, I'd say "an encryption method that attempts to extend control past the point of decryption", meaning that DRM, rather than simply protecting data in transit, attempts to protect it even after it's been (nominally) decrypted.
That doesn't mean that DRM is innately bad, but claiming that it's not because it's just like encryption isn't true. It certainly IS true that DRM has at least the potential for far extending the rights of others, preventing you from doing things that you have a legal right to be able to do. Whether or not thats a reasonable compromise is up to you, of course.
Actually, sure. It's the act of downloading it that's the violation, not the act of using it. And while you WOULD be liable for damages, any customers you were hosting on that machine wouldn't be.
It's actually VERY relevent, especially if, as you say, Russian copyright law is so permissive. Russian employees working in Russia wouldn't be bound by American copyright laws. I'm not sure why you think local laws wouldn't apply here - after all, thats why corporations outsource things like production to third world countries. If only the laws of the country they incorporate in applied, they'd have to pay American minimum wage. Companies incorporate in Delware because thats where you have to sue them and thats who governs things like thier paperwork and taxes. It doesn't have anything to do with being able to ignore local laws in other places, or being able to extend laws to places where they don't exist.
I don't see how you could sell ownership of the code more than once. The owner can license it to third parties (interesting question: if the company you license, say, a library from goes bankrupt, does your license go poof when ownership is sold to someone else?). By definition, copyright is an exclusive right.
If it was operating in the Soviet Union, though, then Soviet contract and copyright law would have some say here - I don't know how international law like this works. Don't you have to have a shell company in the other country, or something?
Thats not a filesystem. That's a file. For a filesystem, you need a way of mapping locations on disk to files, so you know where your file is whe you want it. You want to know how many files you have, so you can tell which bytes are files and which aren't. The index that stores all these things is sometimes called a FAT - a file allocation table. Your proposed "filesystem", besides not working, also means that these special CF cards with the Forth filesystem for cameras wouldn't interoperate with any other CF device, especially ones with more complicated file system needs.
Re:Unlimited storage support by using FORTH!
on
4Gb CF Card Announced
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
CF cards are used for more than cameras. If you want anything else to be able to read your pictures, you need to have a standard way of representing the files on the card. Suprisingly, we call this a "filesystem". If you want every camera to have it's own proprietary storage that only that camera can use, and can only be read by a special hardware adapter with special software, then by all means, then by all means, keep pushing the use of Forth(!?) as way of writing files.
Law isn't inherently complex the way the human body or physics is. We've made it complex by allowing it to grow in that fashion. Part of the reason is the growing size of our society, but part and parcel of that is the growing obscurity of the legal profession. The fact that it's evolved it's own highly specific language is a good example of that.
Basically, the legal system should be simple enough for your average well educated layman to understand without the need for a dedicated expert. It'd be cool if the human body and the laws of physics were that simple too, but thats not something that we have any control over. The legal system we actually do. In theory.
I shouldn't have to have an attorney to keep me out of trouble. You shouldn't need 6 years of schooling to understand law. There shouldn't be a need for a profession based on the manipulation of law at all. In a perfect world, people would be well educated enough that we could live together and our court system could work without hinging on minutae.
Large IO sets are much more bound by memory IO than CPU. Performing many calculations on a small set of data (so that the memory IO doesn't matter) is a pretty rare task.
(Oh, and there's no fucking point complaing about whatever a mod chose to do - I don't care about it, and don't control it, and the moderator who did it won't see it. Metamod if you care about crap like that)
Thats exactly the point, as some other people in this thread have mentioned - there's alot more to getting good performance out something that just passing -arch=pentium4 -O3 to your kernel. Of course they didn't go seeking out special gentoo kernels. They used the stock one IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. They didn't patch the Mandrake or Debian kernels, either (Mandrakes stock kernel doesn't not have the interactivity patches). Gentoo, when used in the normal case (ie, someone who follows the instructions), will not have noticably better performance for most tasks. So there you go.
Any gentoo baiting you seem to read from the article is certainly in your perceptions. There no "bias" against gentoo. They don't jump up and down yelling about how much gentoo sucks.
You're right, I don't, and neither does anyone else. Even in your case, memory IO is likely to be as much of a bottleneck as the CPU, if not more. One of the reasons the new Mac walks over PCs in Photoshop benchmarks is massive memory bandwidth.
The "difference" was a hardware fault in a cable. They mentioned it as a reminder that it's important to be aware that even nominally identical hardware can have hidden differences (like failures). I'm sure the cable they replaced (did they eventually replace it and get DMA working?) would have been the same cable the others used.
The key points to recognize from the article are: a) GNUmeric's performance sucks (8 minutes to open a file? I won't even think about the other version...) and b) that the CPU is not a signifigant bottleneck in modern systems. We all knew that. It's one reason why so many people are happy with binary packages, because the speed increase from saving some cycles generally isn't worth the extra time you lose compiling (as seen, in many cases it makes 0 difference).
I would have liked to see some tests with things that are more CPU than IO bound, but, realistically, how often do you do those things in the normal case?
If the main reason is to use portage for the convenience (same reason many people use debian), maybe they need to expand portage to support binary packages.
the GPL is not a contract, than by not agreeing to it you are granted standard copyright fair use laws.
This is exactly correct. The GPL only extends those rights, it does not attempt to restrict them. This is a major point of the GPL, and one of the reasons most lawyers consider it pretty much legally unchallengable. You "agree" to the GPL by distributing software under it. If you don't do this, it's not binding and has no effect on you. You're limited by the normal extent of copyright law.
I'm not clear on how the limitation of liability works in this context, but I know that you don't have to agree to a limitation of liability, only be presented with it. On the other hand, the extent to which you can legally disclaim liability is pretty limited, and I think it's another one of those things that the software industry (including free software this time) are all kinda averting thier eyes from.
In my case, it's never described as such, the only way in which it acts as an EULA is that the installer won't finish unless you check "I Agree". I seriously doubt this would be considered legally binding, especially since the displayed license clearly states that you need not accept it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a reasonable argument against every single form of worker protection there is. Think really hard about whether or not you want to take the position that employment should be controlled soley by the free market.
Smoking in the workplace is physically and psychologically harming to anyone who doesn't smoke. There's no reasonable way the ability to withstand smoke (ie, not be bothered by it) can be consided a neccesary condition of working.
Certainly saying that "they can always work somewhere else" is moronic, unless you WANT someone to call you on it.
Here's a question for you: If I wanted to masturbate in your bar, would you mind? Would you throw me out? How about calling the police if I persist? Why? How is any more or less obnoxious than smoking? How about if I choose to keep a bucket of urine at my table instead of an ashtray?
You know that the government does this in response to public opinion, right? It's not like theres some guy who just gets to decide these things.
Basically:
Assertation: You have 900 black cats
My refutation: There might be a cat or two hidden, but since you came into my house you haven't seen 900 cats, nor litter boxes for 900 cats.
The clearest proof that Iraq's state of readiness with regards to it's WMD programs doesn't match what Colin Powell presented to the UN, not what GWB and other White House and Pentagon officals said in press releases/confrences is that WMD were not used against US troops.
That does not preclude there being a program. But it certainly wasn't at the level that we thought it was. (Or that the administration said it was. Benefit of the doubt, again).
And besides, maybe our intelligence saying it was Osama was wrong. Our intelligence about the WMD in Iraq was wrong, and we said that enough times that "everyone knew it" also.
Sadly, thats less than a 6th of the money they're wanting from IBM.
Viagra actually has a stimulating effect on women. You can't get it perscribed by a doctor since it's not FDA approved for female use, which is probably why women who're interested in it get it from shady sites like this one.
It wouldn't be the first time a start up didn't check things out in detail... In any case, while they may (almost certainly would not) have arbitrary claim, as you say, the fact that company no longer exists and that some, at least, of the code is still around may have other consequences. Whats the term for copyright in Russia? Do you have to file for extensions? Etc.
If I had to put a technical term on DRM, I'd say "an encryption method that attempts to extend control past the point of decryption", meaning that DRM, rather than simply protecting data in transit, attempts to protect it even after it's been (nominally) decrypted.
That doesn't mean that DRM is innately bad, but claiming that it's not because it's just like encryption isn't true. It certainly IS true that DRM has at least the potential for far extending the rights of others, preventing you from doing things that you have a legal right to be able to do. Whether or not thats a reasonable compromise is up to you, of course.
Actually, sure. It's the act of downloading it that's the violation, not the act of using it. And while you WOULD be liable for damages, any customers you were hosting on that machine wouldn't be.
It's actually VERY relevent, especially if, as you say, Russian copyright law is so permissive. Russian employees working in Russia wouldn't be bound by American copyright laws. I'm not sure why you think local laws wouldn't apply here - after all, thats why corporations outsource things like production to third world countries. If only the laws of the country they incorporate in applied, they'd have to pay American minimum wage. Companies incorporate in Delware because thats where you have to sue them and thats who governs things like thier paperwork and taxes. It doesn't have anything to do with being able to ignore local laws in other places, or being able to extend laws to places where they don't exist.
I don't see how you could sell ownership of the code more than once. The owner can license it to third parties (interesting question: if the company you license, say, a library from goes bankrupt, does your license go poof when ownership is sold to someone else?). By definition, copyright is an exclusive right.
If it was operating in the Soviet Union, though, then Soviet contract and copyright law would have some say here - I don't know how international law like this works. Don't you have to have a shell company in the other country, or something?
Thats not a filesystem. That's a file. For a filesystem, you need a way of mapping locations on disk to files, so you know where your file is whe you want it. You want to know how many files you have, so you can tell which bytes are files and which aren't. The index that stores all these things is sometimes called a FAT - a file allocation table. Your proposed "filesystem", besides not working, also means that these special CF cards with the Forth filesystem for cameras wouldn't interoperate with any other CF device, especially ones with more complicated file system needs.
CF cards are used for more than cameras. If you want anything else to be able to read your pictures, you need to have a standard way of representing the files on the card. Suprisingly, we call this a "filesystem". If you want every camera to have it's own proprietary storage that only that camera can use, and can only be read by a special hardware adapter with special software, then by all means, then by all means, keep pushing the use of Forth(!?) as way of writing files.
Basically, the legal system should be simple enough for your average well educated layman to understand without the need for a dedicated expert. It'd be cool if the human body and the laws of physics were that simple too, but thats not something that we have any control over. The legal system we actually do. In theory.
I shouldn't have to have an attorney to keep me out of trouble. You shouldn't need 6 years of schooling to understand law. There shouldn't be a need for a profession based on the manipulation of law at all. In a perfect world, people would be well educated enough that we could live together and our court system could work without hinging on minutae.
Large IO sets are much more bound by memory IO than CPU. Performing many calculations on a small set of data (so that the memory IO doesn't matter) is a pretty rare task.
(Oh, and there's no fucking point complaing about whatever a mod chose to do - I don't care about it, and don't control it, and the moderator who did it won't see it. Metamod if you care about crap like that)
Any gentoo baiting you seem to read from the article is certainly in your perceptions. There no "bias" against gentoo. They don't jump up and down yelling about how much gentoo sucks.
You're right, I don't, and neither does anyone else. Even in your case, memory IO is likely to be as much of a bottleneck as the CPU, if not more. One of the reasons the new Mac walks over PCs in Photoshop benchmarks is massive memory bandwidth.
The "difference" was a hardware fault in a cable. They mentioned it as a reminder that it's important to be aware that even nominally identical hardware can have hidden differences (like failures). I'm sure the cable they replaced (did they eventually replace it and get DMA working?) would have been the same cable the others used.
I would have liked to see some tests with things that are more CPU than IO bound, but, realistically, how often do you do those things in the normal case?
If the main reason is to use portage for the convenience (same reason many people use debian), maybe they need to expand portage to support binary packages.
This is exactly correct. The GPL only extends those rights, it does not attempt to restrict them. This is a major point of the GPL, and one of the reasons most lawyers consider it pretty much legally unchallengable. You "agree" to the GPL by distributing software under it. If you don't do this, it's not binding and has no effect on you. You're limited by the normal extent of copyright law.
I'm not clear on how the limitation of liability works in this context, but I know that you don't have to agree to a limitation of liability, only be presented with it. On the other hand, the extent to which you can legally disclaim liability is pretty limited, and I think it's another one of those things that the software industry (including free software this time) are all kinda averting thier eyes from.
In my case, it's never described as such, the only way in which it acts as an EULA is that the installer won't finish unless you check "I Agree". I seriously doubt this would be considered legally binding, especially since the displayed license clearly states that you need not accept it.
Why is it that free tools/libraries for game development are usually(often) cross platform, but commercial ones aren't? This puzzles me.