That seems like a strange argument. Of course you're right that the exact sources required for building the HTC code need to be available; the GP claims that the Android resellers don't modify kernel source, which may or may not be true. If that's true, however, I don't see why it would matter who hosts the code.
For all we know Google has an agreement with the resellers that they will host the sources for the vanilla kernel. I'm sure HTC could make an agreement with another party -- say, github, or sourceforge -- to host the sources, so why not Google. What if sources.htc.com pointed to a Google server, would that be any different?
The relevant entry of the GPLv2, 3b) reads "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange". (3a is when you distribute the binary with the source, 3c is irrelevant for commercial redistribution.)
I agree that they are good enough to work okay for most people. But I don't see the big issue with buying a HSF if it's not bundled. Either way, you're paying for one.
And it's not just relevant for overclocking. Heat sink performance is usefully measured in terms of the amount of airflow required to keep level temperatures under load. If you're overclocking, you can get a higher overclock without using a more noisy fan. I'm not overclocking, but I like being able to run the fan at less than 1000 rpm, which is fairly quiet. (Also, I don't think the stock HSF would have fit in my case.)
Again, this is something they could have done already. I'm not sure what kind of refunds they're supposed to deny, though. Lots of people buy boxed CPUs and then use after market coolers (because the boxed HSF sucks). I have a few Intel HSFs lying around because I couldn't get a "bulk" CPU without a cooler; I'd prefer it if Intel stopped bundling a useless heat sink.
Getting into the desktop enthusiast heatsink/fan market right now would be a fairly bizarre move for Intel to make. Even if they used some sort of DRM to force people to use their stuff, I doubt there is a lot of money in it and it'll result in a lot of anger and hate among the people you're trying to sell to. If they're that sure of their own position, they could simply jack up prices for new CPUs.
Huh? Installation error also applies to the "boxed" coolers. It's not like they sold them already mounted on the mainboard. However, damaging a CPU when installing the HSF has been fairly rare for a while now, since the advent of improved mounting mechanisms, integrated heat spreaders and CPUs with thermal throttles.
Like I care. Not only is my bike unattractive enough to discourage stealing, it was also cheap enough that I can replace it many, many times for the price of a similar new bike.
Not sure why you're bringing patents into this. Patents are pretty much orthogonal to copyright. E.g. whether or not they own the patents involved in CUPS has no bearing on whether they can "close-source" it, ie. release a version of CUPS with a different software license. They can do that, if they own all the copyright involved in CUPS; though this wouldn't affect any previous releases, which would remain open-sourced. Again, they could do that even if they did not own any patents and indeed even if someone else owned patents relating to CUPS.
Furthermore, a version of Webkit/Webcore that was forked from KHTML is by definition not it's own implementation. They have no choice with respects to the license, they may only redistribute their fork under the same license (if they didn't redistribute, they could do whatever the hell they wanted). Of course, they could at a later have re-engineered a new version Webkit/Webcore completely from scratch, by different people, which they could license any way they want. I don't think that's what they did, though. Iteratively replacing stuff doesn't count, even if the Webkit/Webcore of today has no resemblance with the original KHTML, it remains a derived work bound by the original license for redistribution. (Webkit and Webcore were conflated in previous posts. Webkit is a superset of Webcore and JavaScriptCore, which are Apple's KHTML and KJS forks, respectively.)
I'm sure there'll be a new nightly version to upgrade to at that point. Probably with a triple-digit version number. But anyway, I wasn't all that serious.
But I haven't seen any epic flamewars about Chrome's url/search bar, either. Probably because people consciously switch to Chrome/Chromium because they want all that stuff.
Haha, so it seems like they decided to get rid of the initial "http://" in displayed urls as well as the trailing / on root urls. That is, if you're on the regular Slashdot home page, the full string displayed in the url bar is just slashdot.org. Copy-and-paste it somewhere and you still get http://slashdot.org/, though. Other protocols (including https) still include the protocol part.
Well, obviously I was talking about standalone use, whether on-the-road, on the couch or at the desktop. But a netbook with a big screen attached still doesn't make for a good workstation, certainly not if you try to use modern software.
Note that it's not just the display size, but really the resolution. I'm more or less fine with 10", though I think I slightly prefer the 12" my previous subnotebook had, but it's the right ball park. Anything much bigger than 12" simply isn't mobile anymore, IMO, it's too heavy to lug around, too big to use on the road and, really, just not sexy. (The 13.3 subnotebooks, e.g. Acer Timeline 1810TZ or the MBA 13, might be a decent compromise.) But I'd like at least 1440xSomething on a 10-12" display. Having a higher resolution doesn't really drive up the weight or the power requirements, either, though obviously it does increase the prize.
I wasn't ragging on them, though, I've got one myself. I've got a powerful desktop at home for doing the heavy lifting, and I needed something portable and long-lasting and something which wouldn't give me am aneurysm when I drop it off a table, into a puddle or if it's stolen. But I went into it knowing that this wouldn't be a good device for serious software development or using the gimp.
Anyone with a longer than, say, 2 years upgrade cycle, would find the netbook specs to be an upgrade over their present full size laptop...
Hardly. Atom is slow. That's not to say you can't do work with them: many people who work with computers use them for the most trivial of tasks, light word processing, email, stuff like that. But beyond that, you'll hit the limits of a what a netbook can do very quickly, both because of the agonizing speeds and because of the limited resolution. The latter might be the bigger deal breaker: I can wait for stuff to finish (even if I hate it), but doing work in such a cramped environment seems almost impossible after using a large display (or even multiple).
I guess there ought to be a way to tell a browser to connect to an IP but also send a host header. Maybe http://thepiratebay.org$94.71.107.15/whatever?
Acceding for the moment that what you claim for US cities is correct, the fact that there are other places on the planet where it does not apply seems to indicate that either urban planners have already solved the problem, or, more likely, that it's not primarily an issue of urban planning.
Well it's a matter of usage. Sure, using "one" sounds weird now, but if people used it consistently in the manner of an impersonal pronoun (without the ambiguity of "you"), it would cease to be weird. Of course, one can't force those things, and, ambiguous or not, impersonal "you" works and sounds all right.
I took a few English/German translation classes in university, and the German "man" was one of those things where one invariably had to take a closer look at the sentence. Sometimes "you" lead to misunderstandings and "one" sounded weird -- occasionally a tough call if it's just one's own impression -- so one had to re-arrange the whole phrase. FWIW, German also has an (informal/coll.) impersonal "you", though it's used much less frequently.
Oh, so you're making up high numbers to support your argument. That's not very nerdy. But I guess since you have license to define words that won't be a problem for long.
Your post is full of assertions and half-truths. Of course it's technically possible to collect (face,name) pairs, but whether it's economically viable is hardly clear and is not a fixed proposition. It might be viable one day (because it's legal and/or people want it) and non-viable the other (because it's illegal and/or people don't want it anymore, for whatever reason). You're giving up the fight without a struggle, before it's even really started yet.
And, regardless, not everything that's technically and economically viable gets done, or if done, amounts to anything of importance. Collecting face data was being done before Facebook (or other big names) were doing it, but nobody cared, because it's only a big deal if somebody like Facebook with its insane network effects is backing it.
Calling the exchange of your data for access of other peoples data a fair trade is arbitrary: you can argue that it's the price to pay right now, but there's nothing inherently fair about it. There's nothing inherently fair about paying 1 EUR for organic milk, either, but at least that's a price established in a well-known and relatively transparent process, with non-surprising consequences for both sides.
Oh yeah and then that hogwash on getting rid of privacy for great justice and fighting oppression. I'm sure knowing your peers masturbatory habits will be very useful when someone shoves a gun in your face. Drivel.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems like a strange argument. Of course you're right that the exact sources required for building the HTC code need to be available; the GP claims that the Android resellers don't modify kernel source, which may or may not be true. If that's true, however, I don't see why it would matter who hosts the code.
For all we know Google has an agreement with the resellers that they will host the sources for the vanilla kernel. I'm sure HTC could make an agreement with another party -- say, github, or sourceforge -- to host the sources, so why not Google. What if sources.htc.com pointed to a Google server, would that be any different?
The relevant entry of the GPLv2, 3b) reads "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange". (3a is when you distribute the binary with the source, 3c is irrelevant for commercial redistribution.)
I agree that they are good enough to work okay for most people. But I don't see the big issue with buying a HSF if it's not bundled. Either way, you're paying for one.
And it's not just relevant for overclocking. Heat sink performance is usefully measured in terms of the amount of airflow required to keep level temperatures under load. If you're overclocking, you can get a higher overclock without using a more noisy fan. I'm not overclocking, but I like being able to run the fan at less than 1000 rpm, which is fairly quiet. (Also, I don't think the stock HSF would have fit in my case.)
From my experience, that much is true if you've seen a single episode.
Again, this is something they could have done already. I'm not sure what kind of refunds they're supposed to deny, though. Lots of people buy boxed CPUs and then use after market coolers (because the boxed HSF sucks). I have a few Intel HSFs lying around because I couldn't get a "bulk" CPU without a cooler; I'd prefer it if Intel stopped bundling a useless heat sink.
Getting into the desktop enthusiast heatsink/fan market right now would be a fairly bizarre move for Intel to make. Even if they used some sort of DRM to force people to use their stuff, I doubt there is a lot of money in it and it'll result in a lot of anger and hate among the people you're trying to sell to. If they're that sure of their own position, they could simply jack up prices for new CPUs.
Huh? Installation error also applies to the "boxed" coolers. It's not like they sold them already mounted on the mainboard. However, damaging a CPU when installing the HSF has been fairly rare for a while now, since the advent of improved mounting mechanisms, integrated heat spreaders and CPUs with thermal throttles.
Like I care. Not only is my bike unattractive enough to discourage stealing, it was also cheap enough that I can replace it many, many times for the price of a similar new bike.
I bought a used bike.
Additional benefit: I can leave it outside in the city all the time without worrying about it being stolen.
Not sure why you're bringing patents into this. Patents are pretty much orthogonal to copyright. E.g. whether or not they own the patents involved in CUPS has no bearing on whether they can "close-source" it, ie. release a version of CUPS with a different software license. They can do that, if they own all the copyright involved in CUPS; though this wouldn't affect any previous releases, which would remain open-sourced. Again, they could do that even if they did not own any patents and indeed even if someone else owned patents relating to CUPS.
Furthermore, a version of Webkit/Webcore that was forked from KHTML is by definition not it's own implementation. They have no choice with respects to the license, they may only redistribute their fork under the same license (if they didn't redistribute, they could do whatever the hell they wanted). Of course, they could at a later have re-engineered a new version Webkit/Webcore completely from scratch, by different people, which they could license any way they want. I don't think that's what they did, though. Iteratively replacing stuff doesn't count, even if the Webkit/Webcore of today has no resemblance with the original KHTML, it remains a derived work bound by the original license for redistribution. (Webkit and Webcore were conflated in previous posts. Webkit is a superset of Webcore and JavaScriptCore, which are Apple's KHTML and KJS forks, respectively.)
I'm sure there'll be a new nightly version to upgrade to at that point. Probably with a triple-digit version number. But anyway, I wasn't all that serious.
I'll be happy if I'm proven wrong.
But I haven't seen any epic flamewars about Chrome's url/search bar, either. Probably because people consciously switch to Chrome/Chromium because they want all that stuff.
Haha, so it seems like they decided to get rid of the initial "http://" in displayed urls as well as the trailing / on root urls. That is, if you're on the regular Slashdot home page, the full string displayed in the url bar is just slashdot.org. Copy-and-paste it somewhere and you still get http://slashdot.org/, though. Other protocols (including https) still include the protocol part.
Here's the associated ticket: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=665580
There will be many flame wars over this when Firefox 8 is more widely distributed.
Just installed it. Works fine, and I guess it is faster. One obscure addon doesn't work, but all the others work fine when forced to run.
And the program icon is much nicer looking, too. That fox was getting old.
Gasland was pretty good, I also recommend a recent This American Life episode on fracking: Game Changer.
You have a point, but there was no need to make an ass of yourself by making it into a silly semantics discussion.
Well if you allow 13.3in, Sony will sell you a Vaio Z with a fairly impressive 1920 x 1080... for a price.
Well, obviously I was talking about standalone use, whether on-the-road, on the couch or at the desktop. But a netbook with a big screen attached still doesn't make for a good workstation, certainly not if you try to use modern software.
Note that it's not just the display size, but really the resolution. I'm more or less fine with 10", though I think I slightly prefer the 12" my previous subnotebook had, but it's the right ball park. Anything much bigger than 12" simply isn't mobile anymore, IMO, it's too heavy to lug around, too big to use on the road and, really, just not sexy. (The 13.3 subnotebooks, e.g. Acer Timeline 1810TZ or the MBA 13, might be a decent compromise.) But I'd like at least 1440xSomething on a 10-12" display. Having a higher resolution doesn't really drive up the weight or the power requirements, either, though obviously it does increase the prize.
I wasn't ragging on them, though, I've got one myself. I've got a powerful desktop at home for doing the heavy lifting, and I needed something portable and long-lasting and something which wouldn't give me am aneurysm when I drop it off a table, into a puddle or if it's stolen. But I went into it knowing that this wouldn't be a good device for serious software development or using the gimp.
Anyone with a longer than, say, 2 years upgrade cycle, would find the netbook specs to be an upgrade over their present full size laptop...
Hardly. Atom is slow. That's not to say you can't do work with them: many people who work with computers use them for the most trivial of tasks, light word processing, email, stuff like that. But beyond that, you'll hit the limits of a what a netbook can do very quickly, both because of the agonizing speeds and because of the limited resolution. The latter might be the bigger deal breaker: I can wait for stuff to finish (even if I hate it), but doing work in such a cramped environment seems almost impossible after using a large display (or even multiple).
I guess there ought to be a way to tell a browser to connect to an IP but also send a host header. Maybe http://thepiratebay.org$94.71.107.15/whatever?
That sure is a lot of typing for a mediocre joke.
The new idea turned out to be a lot more viable than the opposite approach: Build Your Own Grenade, Hold It Like a Camera
Acceding for the moment that what you claim for US cities is correct, the fact that there are other places on the planet where it does not apply seems to indicate that either urban planners have already solved the problem, or, more likely, that it's not primarily an issue of urban planning.
Well it's a matter of usage. Sure, using "one" sounds weird now, but if people used it consistently in the manner of an impersonal pronoun (without the ambiguity of "you"), it would cease to be weird. Of course, one can't force those things, and, ambiguous or not, impersonal "you" works and sounds all right.
I took a few English/German translation classes in university, and the German "man" was one of those things where one invariably had to take a closer look at the sentence. Sometimes "you" lead to misunderstandings and "one" sounded weird -- occasionally a tough call if it's just one's own impression -- so one had to re-arrange the whole phrase. FWIW, German also has an (informal/coll.) impersonal "you", though it's used much less frequently.
Oh, so you're making up high numbers to support your argument. That's not very nerdy. But I guess since you have license to define words that won't be a problem for long.
Your post is full of assertions and half-truths. Of course it's technically possible to collect (face,name) pairs, but whether it's economically viable is hardly clear and is not a fixed proposition. It might be viable one day (because it's legal and/or people want it) and non-viable the other (because it's illegal and/or people don't want it anymore, for whatever reason). You're giving up the fight without a struggle, before it's even really started yet.
And, regardless, not everything that's technically and economically viable gets done, or if done, amounts to anything of importance. Collecting face data was being done before Facebook (or other big names) were doing it, but nobody cared, because it's only a big deal if somebody like Facebook with its insane network effects is backing it.
Calling the exchange of your data for access of other peoples data a fair trade is arbitrary: you can argue that it's the price to pay right now, but there's nothing inherently fair about it. There's nothing inherently fair about paying 1 EUR for organic milk, either, but at least that's a price established in a well-known and relatively transparent process, with non-surprising consequences for both sides.
Oh yeah and then that hogwash on getting rid of privacy for great justice and fighting oppression. I'm sure knowing your peers masturbatory habits will be very useful when someone shoves a gun in your face. Drivel.
Daily Mail, Gizmodo, pretty much the same thing.