There is a simple solution. Don't have a cell phone.
That's not as easy as it used to be. When's the last time you saw a phone booth or a pay phone? There are a couple left in the city where I live, but not many. So, what happens when you have an emergency or your car breaks down and you need to call AAA? With the demise of pay phones, cell phones are no longer a luxury, they are a necessity.
That's not cheating. That's the way the game is supposed to be played. It's a game of quick thinking, reflexes, and fast movement. If it weren't, then there'd be no rps champions since it would be purely a game of random chance, like flipping a coin. But there are rps tournaments, and many players who are clearly better than others. Late decisions and quick movements are part of the game. Now, you could argue it's "cheating" since a robot has a clear advantage over a human for quick thinking and movements, but that's really no more cheating than a supercomputer beating a human at chess.
As Apple's devices are locked and the company isn't allowed to deal with Iranian carriers, her cousin couldn't use the device even if they sold it to her.
Read the article. She was trying to buy an iPad, not an iPhone. They can connect to the Internet via a standard WiFi connection.
Homosexuality is illegal in Iran, so it should be illegal for Iranians to buy iPads.
No. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is a trade restriction based on the fact that Iran is allegedly developing nuclear weapons, and has also funded certain groups labeled as terrorist organizations. Technology found in products like iPads could be used for military or terrorist purposes, and that is the reason for these trade restrictions. This is not a surprising story: as someone who has worked in technology sales before, I know there are very serious regulations (with very severe penalties if not followed) involving sales of technology (even personal computers) to countries on these trade restriction lists. The store employee had no choice: he was obeying the law.
A computer can't have rights any more than a hammer can. Not unless it's sentient, it's a tool that does what you tell it to.
If Moore's law continues, by 2030, computers will have exceeded the capacity of the human brain. 2030 is not as far away as you might think. Many of us will still be alive then. It might not be too soon to start thinking about computer rights. Probably too soon to legislate them, but not to soon to think about them.
That's what public key cryptography is for. The bug doesn't have to be a secret if it's designed to only be triggered by an attack signed by the right secret key.
Ummm, bugs aren't designed. By definition, they occur as a result of a mistake. You may be confusing bugs with vulnerabilities. And I'm not sure that putting deliberate vulnerabilities in our infrastructure systems is a good idea, even if they are protected by public key cryptosystems.
True, many of the hiking trails in New Mexico have signs warning that rodents may be carrying the plague. What surprises me, though, is the man is in critical condition. I thought the plague was easily treatable with antibiotics today. Is this a new antibiotic resistant strain?
A variety of things. I have a HeadRoom headphone amp that I typically use with portable devices. My SR80 headphones sounded great with all of them (obviously better with better equipment, but still beat any other headphones I tried), and my SR80i's sound terrible with anything I've plugged them into.
I used to have a pair of Grado SR60 and Grado SR80 headphones and I loved them both, especially the SR80. But after about 15 years of heavy use, both of them finally wore out, so I was forced to buy a new pair. I was disappointed to find the SR60 and SR80 are no longer available having been replaced by the newer SR60i and SR80i. So I bought a pair of the SR80i, hoping they would be as good as the old SR80.
Never in my life have I been more disappointed by a purchase. Not only do they not sound as good as the SR80, but they are some of the worst sounding headphones I have ever tried. Gone are the rich midrange and awesome bass, and there is a really nasty resonance at the high end, which gives the music an unpleasant "snarly" quality. (This was especially disappointing as the SR60/80 were known for their remarkably flat frequency response.) These headphones quite literally give me a headache every time I try to use them: I just can't seem to get the volume right. When the volume is too low, the music sounds lifeless and hollow, when the volume higher, the treble screams in my ear, quite literally giving me a pounding headache that lasts well into the next day. This is really sad, as the Grado SR80 used to be by far my favorite headphones. I'm now looking for new headphones, and I'll never buy anything from Grado ever again.
So, are there any recommendations for headphones that sound like the old Grado SR80's?
To be fair, I've not heard the SR60i, but if it's anything like the SR80i, avoid it like the plague.
No No No. The copyrighted material is the library implementation. It comes with terms of use (the GPL). If you don't comply to those terms (release the source for that which uses it), your license to use the library is revoked.
Except that Stallman himself has said that the GPL is not a usage license, but rather a redistribution license. If you don't want to redistribute GPL code, you're not bound by the GPL. What's at issue here is whether or not you have created a derivative work when you write code that links dynamically to a user installed GPL'd library.
You're misunderstanding the licensing issue with GPLed libraries. The licensing issue is that by linking against the GPLed library, you are using the actual GPLed code as part of your product, not just the headers, thus making your code a derivative work of that GPLed code because it depends on that code for correct operation.
You're missing my point. I'm talking about distributing code that links either dynamically to user-installed GPL libraries, or even source code which the user compiles (which you don't want to release under GPL, but rather, say, BSD or some other license.) So you won't be actually distributing the GPL libraries at all.
If what you mean to say is that you've created a derivative work by writing code that links to these libraries, that is equivalent to saying that the APIs that the libraries implement is copyrightable. I.e. writing code that meets the API specifications for a specific set of libraries is creating a derivative work is equivalent to saying the APIs enjoy copyright protection. There's no difference. This is what the judge rejected.
Note that when pressed on the issue, the FSF will waffle on the "dynamic linking" point. I think they understand it would only hold up in court under some specific circumstances. So few libs are GPL that it is hardly an issue.
I have heard disagreeing positions from GPL advocates on that very point of dynamic linking to libraries which the user installs separately. And I don't think there are so few libraries that are GPL'd. It is a very significant point.
Wine's safe. And everything else associated with it.
Keep in mind two things: First, this is a district court judge. Surely he won't have the final say on an issue of this import. It will most likely be decided at the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court level.
The other interesting thing is how this could affect the GPL. As I understand it, the difference between the GPL and say, the LGPL, is that if you write code that uses GPL libraries, your source code must also be GPL'd, even if you don't distribute those libraries with your code. (i.e. your installation instructions direct users to download and install the libraries themselves.) The way it works is, your code is written to the API specified by those libraries and you are therefore bound by the license terms of those libraries. If API's are not covered by copyright, then you wouldn't be bound by those license terms, and so effectively there's no difference between the GPL and the LGPL.
Wait - Is this article saying they paid a whole $99 bucks to get their bootloader signed?
$99 bucks is a hell of a lot of money, when you consider that many desktop PCs sell for $700 and less. It's about the cost of a Windows OEM license. Why should you have to pay that much for a free operating system?
Punching someone in the stomach is assault, not bullying, and I assume that they already have laws for that.
Actually bullying and assault are the same thing. What I object to most about all this cyber-bullying nonsense is the attempt to redefine the word "bullying" to include insults as well. Back when I went to school, bullies were students who beat up other students. People who shouted insults were known as jerks.
Zuckerberg is pretty much forced to sell his shares in order to pay his income taxes. He doesn't actually have a whole lot of cash; his wealth is in his shares of Facebook. But after the IPO, the value of all those shares is taxable income, so he has no choice but to sell shares. If he waits until tax time to sell them, and if the value has fallen enough, he might not have enough money to pay his taxes at all, which would put him in a very awkward position.
I can't believe how low the teaching level must've got if a machine receives better outcomes than a teacher. Or how low the assessment of learning...
Did you say the same thing about human chess players when computers started beating the world champions? Maybe it isn't that teachers have gotten worse, but that computers and instructional software have gotten better.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a simple solution. Don't have a cell phone.
That's not as easy as it used to be. When's the last time you saw a phone booth or a pay phone? There are a couple left in the city where I live, but not many. So, what happens when you have an emergency or your car breaks down and you need to call AAA? With the demise of pay phones, cell phones are no longer a luxury, they are a necessity.
I'm so glad that the password I use everywhere, "peanut", is not on that list. I must be perfectly safe then right?
Yep. You should be. My universal password, gandalf, should be safe as well.
Let me guess... English isn't the the submitter's first language. Can't the editors at least clean that up a bit?
So it cheats.
That's not cheating. That's the way the game is supposed to be played. It's a game of quick thinking, reflexes, and fast movement. If it weren't, then there'd be no rps champions since it would be purely a game of random chance, like flipping a coin. But there are rps tournaments, and many players who are clearly better than others. Late decisions and quick movements are part of the game. Now, you could argue it's "cheating" since a robot has a clear advantage over a human for quick thinking and movements, but that's really no more cheating than a supercomputer beating a human at chess.
As Apple's devices are locked and the company isn't allowed to deal with Iranian carriers, her cousin couldn't use the device even if they sold it to her.
Read the article. She was trying to buy an iPad, not an iPhone. They can connect to the Internet via a standard WiFi connection.
Show me benchmarks vs Oracle, PostgreSQL or SQLServer. Spare me the comparison with MySQL or some other toy.
I think the reason the comparison to MySQL is appropriate is that this database is supposed to be MySQL compatible.
Homosexuality is illegal in Iran, so it should be illegal for Iranians to buy iPads.
No. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is a trade restriction based on the fact that Iran is allegedly developing nuclear weapons, and has also funded certain groups labeled as terrorist organizations. Technology found in products like iPads could be used for military or terrorist purposes, and that is the reason for these trade restrictions. This is not a surprising story: as someone who has worked in technology sales before, I know there are very serious regulations (with very severe penalties if not followed) involving sales of technology (even personal computers) to countries on these trade restriction lists. The store employee had no choice: he was obeying the law.
Privacy-violating nudity scans.
We already have technology for that: Backscatter X-ray and millimeter wave scanners. You can find them in most major airports.
A computer can't have rights any more than a hammer can. Not unless it's sentient, it's a tool that does what you tell it to.
If Moore's law continues, by 2030, computers will have exceeded the capacity of the human brain. 2030 is not as far away as you might think. Many of us will still be alive then. It might not be too soon to start thinking about computer rights. Probably too soon to legislate them, but not to soon to think about them.
So where did this concept of an almost theme-park like torture camp 'hell' come from?
Dante.
That's what public key cryptography is for. The bug doesn't have to be a secret if it's designed to only be triggered by an attack signed by the right secret key.
Ummm, bugs aren't designed. By definition, they occur as a result of a mistake. You may be confusing bugs with vulnerabilities. And I'm not sure that putting deliberate vulnerabilities in our infrastructure systems is a good idea, even if they are protected by public key cryptosystems.
True, many of the hiking trails in New Mexico have signs warning that rodents may be carrying the plague. What surprises me, though, is the man is in critical condition. I thought the plague was easily treatable with antibiotics today. Is this a new antibiotic resistant strain?
Also get some hair or other random DNA from the floor of the local barber shop, nail parlor, etc.
Hair on the floor of the barber shop has been cut, which is useless for DNA testing. You need a hair pulled out by the root to collect DNA.
what are you driving your headphones with anyway?
A variety of things. I have a HeadRoom headphone amp that I typically use with portable devices. My SR80 headphones sounded great with all of them (obviously better with better equipment, but still beat any other headphones I tried), and my SR80i's sound terrible with anything I've plugged them into.
I used to have a pair of Grado SR60 and Grado SR80 headphones and I loved them both, especially the SR80. But after about 15 years of heavy use, both of them finally wore out, so I was forced to buy a new pair. I was disappointed to find the SR60 and SR80 are no longer available having been replaced by the newer SR60i and SR80i. So I bought a pair of the SR80i, hoping they would be as good as the old SR80.
Never in my life have I been more disappointed by a purchase. Not only do they not sound as good as the SR80, but they are some of the worst sounding headphones I have ever tried. Gone are the rich midrange and awesome bass, and there is a really nasty resonance at the high end, which gives the music an unpleasant "snarly" quality. (This was especially disappointing as the SR60/80 were known for their remarkably flat frequency response.) These headphones quite literally give me a headache every time I try to use them: I just can't seem to get the volume right. When the volume is too low, the music sounds lifeless and hollow, when the volume higher, the treble screams in my ear, quite literally giving me a pounding headache that lasts well into the next day. This is really sad, as the Grado SR80 used to be by far my favorite headphones. I'm now looking for new headphones, and I'll never buy anything from Grado ever again.
So, are there any recommendations for headphones that sound like the old Grado SR80's?
To be fair, I've not heard the SR60i, but if it's anything like the SR80i, avoid it like the plague.
Privacy laws protecting the victim and his family would make a beheading video illegal.
In which country? Can you provide some specifics?
No No No. The copyrighted material is the library implementation. It comes with terms of use (the GPL). If you don't comply to those terms (release the source for that which uses it), your license to use the library is revoked.
Except that Stallman himself has said that the GPL is not a usage license, but rather a redistribution license. If you don't want to redistribute GPL code, you're not bound by the GPL. What's at issue here is whether or not you have created a derivative work when you write code that links dynamically to a user installed GPL'd library.
You're misunderstanding the licensing issue with GPLed libraries. The licensing issue is that by linking against the GPLed library, you are using the actual GPLed code as part of your product, not just the headers, thus making your code a derivative work of that GPLed code because it depends on that code for correct operation.
You're missing my point. I'm talking about distributing code that links either dynamically to user-installed GPL libraries, or even source code which the user compiles (which you don't want to release under GPL, but rather, say, BSD or some other license.) So you won't be actually distributing the GPL libraries at all.
If what you mean to say is that you've created a derivative work by writing code that links to these libraries, that is equivalent to saying that the APIs that the libraries implement is copyrightable. I.e. writing code that meets the API specifications for a specific set of libraries is creating a derivative work is equivalent to saying the APIs enjoy copyright protection. There's no difference. This is what the judge rejected.
Note that when pressed on the issue, the FSF will waffle on the "dynamic linking" point. I think they understand it would only hold up in court under some specific circumstances. So few libs are GPL that it is hardly an issue.
I have heard disagreeing positions from GPL advocates on that very point of dynamic linking to libraries which the user installs separately. And I don't think there are so few libraries that are GPL'd. It is a very significant point.
Wine's safe. And everything else associated with it.
Keep in mind two things: First, this is a district court judge. Surely he won't have the final say on an issue of this import. It will most likely be decided at the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court level.
The other interesting thing is how this could affect the GPL. As I understand it, the difference between the GPL and say, the LGPL, is that if you write code that uses GPL libraries, your source code must also be GPL'd, even if you don't distribute those libraries with your code. (i.e. your installation instructions direct users to download and install the libraries themselves.) The way it works is, your code is written to the API specified by those libraries and you are therefore bound by the license terms of those libraries. If API's are not covered by copyright, then you wouldn't be bound by those license terms, and so effectively there's no difference between the GPL and the LGPL.
Wait - Is this article saying they paid a whole $99 bucks to get their bootloader signed?
$99 bucks is a hell of a lot of money, when you consider that many desktop PCs sell for $700 and less. It's about the cost of a Windows OEM license. Why should you have to pay that much for a free operating system?
Punching someone in the stomach is assault, not bullying, and I assume that they already have laws for that.
Actually bullying and assault are the same thing. What I object to most about all this cyber-bullying nonsense is the attempt to redefine the word "bullying" to include insults as well. Back when I went to school, bullies were students who beat up other students. People who shouted insults were known as jerks.
And if you listen carefully you can hear the teacher say "Bush was a shitty president".
Actually, I think the teacher said "Bush was a sitting president."
Why would u buy?
Zuckerberg is pretty much forced to sell his shares in order to pay his income taxes. He doesn't actually have a whole lot of cash; his wealth is in his shares of Facebook. But after the IPO, the value of all those shares is taxable income, so he has no choice but to sell shares. If he waits until tax time to sell them, and if the value has fallen enough, he might not have enough money to pay his taxes at all, which would put him in a very awkward position.
I can't believe how low the teaching level must've got if a machine receives better outcomes than a teacher. Or how low the assessment of learning...
Did you say the same thing about human chess players when computers started beating the world champions? Maybe it isn't that teachers have gotten worse, but that computers and instructional software have gotten better.