What are you talking about? I think it's far more likely that "libraries" will get corrupt in Windows than Linux.
Until they are able to do all of that by themselves, Linux is not as easy to use or install as Windows apparently is.
From the people I've had to help install Windows, I don't think there'd be a lot of people running it if it didn't come pre-installed when they bought their computers.
If you want easy to install, get Ubuntu. They have automatic updates and you can pick from a huge library of free software to easily install. The only problem is finding the right apps for you since there are so many, but they cost nothing to install and try out.
This asteroid has been known about since 2004. The odds of it striking earth have been changed several times, the last time in October 2006 when the odds were actually decreased. What's the story here again?
If you read more than the first sentence of the first paragraph in section 3.2, you would see where they said they didn't include this data due to its "proprietary" nature.
A price was agreed upon by both parties. If anyone is not being moral it's the person at Amazon who has decided to change the terms of the deal after the transaction has been completed.
That is not true. The price agreed upon by Amazon was buy one, get one free. The consumer supposedly knew that also as the $0 total didn't show up until checkout, so the consumer agreed on that price as well when putting the items in their cart. A computer glitch made the price that was charged something other than one Amazon agreed upon and what the customer should have known the price to be.
As of now, the agreement does not violate the GPL. That is because the specific patents and what are covered are not listed. Microsoft has not asserted patent claims against the Linux kernel yet. Since the license is so vague, it is either 1) FUD or 2) a license for patents in Mono or some other project that Novell is distributing.
If Microsoft sues someone over patents they claim in the Linux Kernel, and then Novell points to its patent protection as coverage, then it would be a violation.
There is a reason for DRM, even if it inherently flawed in design: to keep the average Joe buying your stuff.
Very true, but not just to keep the average Joe from making illegal copies. It also prevents the average Joe from doing other things with your product, or from making backup copies. Media eventually goes bad. If an average Joe has his media go bad, he must go buy another copy. Without DRM he could make a copy himself. Without DRM, the average Joe could rip a movie to his computer or media center computer (MythTV, Windows Media Center, Sage TV, or other) and watch it anytime he wants without having to find the media. Wihout DRM the average Joe could probably even (or buy a program to) remove the 10 minutes of commercials that Disney DVDs force you to watch before watching your movie. Without DRM it would be easy for a media center appliance to record HD TV shows, as the supreme court decided in Sony v. Betamax that citizens had a fair use right to do (I know it's possible, but there are heavy restrictions especially on encrypted cable content when you need a CableCARD).
DRM is all about control. If you want to do something else with the movie you bought (that fair use says you should be able to do with it), the studio wants money for it. The problem is, they do not innovate in those areas and the control is so tight that these things really aren't available, the studios couldn't make money from them because people rightly don't think they should pay with them, and therefore there is neither supply nor demand. DRM may protect movies from some illegal copying, but for the most part I believe it stifles innovation in the hardware and application arena and leads to a much poorer experience. Take the Tivo Series 3 (HD) for instance. The Series 2 had the ability to link multiple units in the house so you could not only record multiple shows, but watch them from any unit and even link them to your computer and download shows to portable players like the iPod or store shows on your computer. With the Series 3 that is all gone because of CableCARD. In order to license the CableCARD specifications, Tivo had to do away with all of that. The Series 3 even includes a cutting-edge eSATA port for adding an external hard drive, which is nice since HD shows take up A LOT of space. Guess what... That is disabled because CableCARD wouldn't allow it. I would have two Tivo Series 3 in my house right now if it had the functionality of the Series 2 and the eSATA port worked.
If media companies had their way, you would not only have to buy the media, but you would have to pay every time you watched it. They tried to do that with DIVX (Digital Video Express, not the DivX codec). Consumers didn't want that and now it's gone. Not only that but they would probably like to charge you extra for viewing the "bonus features" and using extra functionality like chapter skip, pause, and rewinding. If media companies had their way, your house would be fitted with microphones and your would have money deducted from your account every time you sung a copyrighted song in your shower. Media companies have fought against nearly every new technology that has come along since they couldn't control it, even if it made them more money. Examples: Radio, Tape Recorders, Video Tapes, MP3. They haven't fought against Blu-ray and HD-DVD because they actually made protections and restrictions stronger, and because it would force people that have already purchased DVDs to spend more money to upgrade for high-definition. Back when people started playing music on the radio, media companies fought against it. It turned out that radio exposure vastly increased the sales of their albums. It didn't matter, they want money from every avenue available. They initially fought against tape recorders, then ended up turning it into a huge business. They fought against video tapes, even though the video tape rental business and sales lead to record profits. They fought ag
Everyone here is missing the context. YouTube has been banning anti-Muslim videos much more often than anti-Christian videos because the anti-Muslim videos have been MUCH more offensive and racist.
What do those videos have to do with this one? This was simply a video that showed an English translation of passages from the Qur'an. In my opinion it could almost be used to try and get people to convert to Islam. A lot of the passages reminded me of a preacher giving a sermon on revelations to get people to convert to Christianity so they won't burn in hell... If I had not been viewing it in context of this article, which said it was pulled for being anti-Islam, that is what I would have thought.
Or he's Bill Clinton (That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.). I guess the reporter could have flubbed it, but when you say "salary", that doesn't include hidden costs to the employer like matching social security and taxes or insurance. So if the reporter accurately heard and reported the term salary (which is the normal term used to describe such a thing), then it is lying.
As Gates said, these are highly paid, highly qualified individuals. Salaries for these jobs at Microsoft start at about $100,000 a year.
As for the "there's no way those were bombs" people....
From what I understand it was a board of LED's with something along the lines of a D sized battery. Who says it would have been trying to blow up the building? What would a D cell battery sized package of ricin, nerve gas, or some other equally nasty chemical do if released under several bridges simultaneously during, oh, say, rush hour.
Ad companies doing crap like this need to expect the "worst possible public response", which is what they got. Now, on the other hand, they probably love this as it got far more attention than people saying "Oh look a light up sign with that pixel guy from ATHF..." would have garnered.
If that is the case, I'm quite surprised that anyone is blown up in Iraq by IEDs. Why don't the drivers just avoid the bright flashing lights on the bombs? If you wanted to deliver a toxin or blow something up, I think it would be advantageous to either A) release it immediately or B) hide it so the police won't find and diffuse it. Funny how this went on in other cities for two weeks without any similar incidences. It's my believe that this was the 'perfect storm' of overreaction. You have 1) someone stupid enough to report it to the cops, 2) cops stupid enough to think it's a bomb, 3) their bosses stupid enough to call the bomb squad, and 4) everyone stupid enough to do this several times after the first one was found to be just a circuit board, batteries, and LEDs.
That may be true for more reasons than Microsoft protecting their image. The "Patriot Act" allows the government to go over records and forces the people involved to remain silent about it. I don't see why it (or some other law) couldn't force Microsoft to implement a backdoor and also require them not to tell the public. The FBI could have already searched your house while you weren't home and gone through your library, bank and credit card records, and you would never know about it unless they brought a case against you and decided to use any evidence they found.
1. The FSF has absolutely no control over Novell's distribution of Linux. None at all. Zero.
The first part is unconditionally, unequivocally untrue. As the copyright holders in part of the Linux kernel, Novell has the right to distribute it ONLY because the FSF (and other copyright holders) have licensed them to do so via the GPL. Therefore the FSF does in fact have a great deal of control over Novell's distribution of Linux. Novell must distribute under the GPL, or they must secure a separate license from all the copyright holders of Linux contributors. If he is saying that the FSF cannot stop Novell from distributing Linux as long as they abide by the GPL, that is true.
It doesn't matter a whit how much Stallman hates the Microsoft/Novell deal. It's legal. It's legit. It's in full compliance with the GPL.
That is the case, for now. As soon as Microsoft alleges patent infringement in Linux GPL code and sues someone, that ceases to be the case. The GPL specifically states that patents must be licensed for free use by everyone or not licensed at all. By sublicensing Microsoft's patents for their customers, Novell is violating that clause and risks having their rights under the GPL terminated. It is specifically because Novell is licensing those patents for their customers' use that is a problem, if the patents were licensed for Novell's internal use that wouldn't be an issue since USE of software covered by the GPL is unrestricted. And don't be fooled by the deal not being drawn up as a 'license'. A license is indeed what it is. License is a legal term for rights being given to another, calling it a 'covenant not to sue' does not change what it is.
What is going on in Boston? Whose call was it to shut down traffic and detonate these with the bomb squad? Does anyone thing a bomb (usually not supposed to be found until it explodes) would have bright LED lights to make it stand out? Some idiotic statements:
"It's a hoax _ and it's not funny," said Gov. Deval Patrick.
If they think it is a hoax, they should look up the definition of the word. This wasn't intended to deceive or defraud anyone. The JEL people better not film their commercials in Boston (the ones with the chalk outlines representing smoking deaths) or the police would think a WMD had already gone off and evacuate the city!
"The packages in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger," Turner said in a statement. It said the devices have been in place for two to three weeks in 10 cities: Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Ore., Austin, Texas, San Francisco and Philadelphia.
The Department of Homeland Security said there are no credible reports of other devices being found elsewhere in the country.
Of course they don't. The reason? No one else in the country is stupid enough to report these to the Department of Homeland Security! Flickr has pictures and comments from two weeks ago showing that they have been in place. I don't know who in the chain overreaction is most responsible, but they should all be held accountable for wasting people's time.
And I was trying for a bare-bones comparison, because anything beyond bare-bones is equally unpredictable; what do you want to test - database access ? How can you possibly tell what it is you're waiting for ? Well, in my experience, you're waiting for network latency, no matter what you program your client in. I want the bare-bones comparison precisely because it tells me what I can expect in terms of primary throughput from a webserver.
Maybe you should look at an actual benchmark instead of assuming servlets would be slow. Yes, it depends on the platform, JDK, and servlet container. Resin with the IBM JDK did 510 'Hello, world' pages per second while mod_perl/Apache did only 324. The 'Hello, world' servlet even been mod_php on Apache's static page rate of 497 requests per second. With a 'Hello, world' implementation, you really have to look at the web server overhead. Where did you think the overhead was going to be in writing to a stream? What made you assume a servlet would be slower? It really depends on how the web server performs.
So if I then do something closed and proprietary with said public domain code, what's to stop you suing me for violation of your GPLing of same code?
The copyright in a derivative work belongs with the creator of the derivative work as a whole, but only to the extent that it is original. You own the copyright on your changes and I own the copyright on my changes. The original code is still in the public domain. You cannot sue me since I don't have your changes in mine and I can't sue you because you don't have my changes in yours. If we merge our changes into a single derivative work, then we both own copyright in that derivative work. Creating a derivative work cannot be used to extend the copyright or to gain control over public domain works.
The guy came up with a unique way of handling RF on a silicon chip and filed a patent for it. The technique is in no way particular to bluetooth, or required for bluetooth. There are other applications for for his patent (UWB, Cell Phones, or 802.11 networking maybe?), and there are other ways to create devices that work according to the bluetooth standard.
The foundation that manages the patent did not know that these products were infringing on the patent. To find out, they probably had to take a scanning electron microscope to the chip and reverse-engineer it. A certain bluetooth chip manufacturer has decided to use his patented RF-on-silicon design for their chips because it works well. Should they not have to pay him a fee for using his patented ideas?
1) Net Neutrality means backbone network providers cannot charge content providers to supply them with preferred service
2) See #1
It doesn't prevent individuals from anything, it doesn't force you to receive all traffic at the same speed for instance. I don't think it would even prevent your ISP or network backbone providers from prioritizing certain types of traffic. They just can't charge content providers for preferred service. This levels the playing field for content providers, so my personal website would be able to be delivered just as well as google's for instance.
The university didn't patent bluetooth per se, but a certain way of doing something. Maybe it was the particular design of the radio antenna on a chip, which may be able to be done several ways. All bluetooth devices don't necessarily infringe on the patent.
And if you follow Microsoft's thinking, they could go after any company that has bought any bluetooth hardware, not just the manufacturers or distributors.
With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?
Imagine if police could search anyone's car and house whenever they wanted. Imagine they could also force you to answer questions without a lawyer and torture you. Imagine they could also lock someone up indefinitely without allowing them to contact anyone and with no right to ever even have a trial. We could even force everyone to be implanted with RFID tags and install readers on every corner, every building entrance, every light post, and every vehicle. That way here we could have instantly seen exactly who was around when the crime took place, cameras are inaccurate. That would seriously cut down on crime and be more effective than just cameras. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against suspending people's rights? The end justifies the means, eh?
The intelligence behind a robot would be in two things: its programming and its data. The data stored is what differentiates one AI from another. Any database should be given the same rights, the fact that it resides in a robot should have nothing to do with it. I'd give my own system rights, but one external drive is a bum that just listens to music all day and the other if a pervert!
[...]
Current flu vaccines focus on two proteins on the surface of the virus. However, these constantly mutate in a bid to fool the immune system, making it impossible for vaccine manufacturers to keep up with the creation of each new strain. The universal vaccines focus on a different protein called M2, which has barely changed during the last 100 years."
So they create a new vaccine every year, and the next year the virus has different proteins. What do they think will happen when they produce a vaccine for this other protein?:)
Slashdot Mirror
a->b, a->c does not mean that b->c
For instance:
NFL Players are people.
People are women and men.
NFL Players are women and men.
I'm not saying there aren't bad cops by any means, just point out that it isn't good logic.
If you want easy to install, get Ubuntu. They have automatic updates and you can pick from a huge library of free software to easily install. The only problem is finding the right apps for you since there are so many, but they cost nothing to install and try out.
And what desktop perchance did you install with Linux that made it so easy to use?
This asteroid has been known about since 2004. The odds of it striking earth have been changed several times, the last time in October 2006 when the odds were actually decreased. What's the story here again?
Buy now and in 30 years you could own prime Nevada beach-front property!
If you read more than the first sentence of the first paragraph in section 3.2, you would see where they said they didn't include this data due to its "proprietary" nature.
As of now, the agreement does not violate the GPL. That is because the specific patents and what are covered are not listed. Microsoft has not asserted patent claims against the Linux kernel yet. Since the license is so vague, it is either 1) FUD or 2) a license for patents in Mono or some other project that Novell is distributing.
If Microsoft sues someone over patents they claim in the Linux Kernel, and then Novell points to its patent protection as coverage, then it would be a violation.
Very true, but not just to keep the average Joe from making illegal copies. It also prevents the average Joe from doing other things with your product, or from making backup copies. Media eventually goes bad. If an average Joe has his media go bad, he must go buy another copy. Without DRM he could make a copy himself. Without DRM, the average Joe could rip a movie to his computer or media center computer (MythTV, Windows Media Center, Sage TV, or other) and watch it anytime he wants without having to find the media. Wihout DRM the average Joe could probably even (or buy a program to) remove the 10 minutes of commercials that Disney DVDs force you to watch before watching your movie. Without DRM it would be easy for a media center appliance to record HD TV shows, as the supreme court decided in Sony v. Betamax that citizens had a fair use right to do (I know it's possible, but there are heavy restrictions especially on encrypted cable content when you need a CableCARD).
DRM is all about control. If you want to do something else with the movie you bought (that fair use says you should be able to do with it), the studio wants money for it. The problem is, they do not innovate in those areas and the control is so tight that these things really aren't available, the studios couldn't make money from them because people rightly don't think they should pay with them, and therefore there is neither supply nor demand. DRM may protect movies from some illegal copying, but for the most part I believe it stifles innovation in the hardware and application arena and leads to a much poorer experience. Take the Tivo Series 3 (HD) for instance. The Series 2 had the ability to link multiple units in the house so you could not only record multiple shows, but watch them from any unit and even link them to your computer and download shows to portable players like the iPod or store shows on your computer. With the Series 3 that is all gone because of CableCARD. In order to license the CableCARD specifications, Tivo had to do away with all of that. The Series 3 even includes a cutting-edge eSATA port for adding an external hard drive, which is nice since HD shows take up A LOT of space. Guess what... That is disabled because CableCARD wouldn't allow it. I would have two Tivo Series 3 in my house right now if it had the functionality of the Series 2 and the eSATA port worked.
If media companies had their way, you would not only have to buy the media, but you would have to pay every time you watched it. They tried to do that with DIVX (Digital Video Express, not the DivX codec). Consumers didn't want that and now it's gone. Not only that but they would probably like to charge you extra for viewing the "bonus features" and using extra functionality like chapter skip, pause, and rewinding. If media companies had their way, your house would be fitted with microphones and your would have money deducted from your account every time you sung a copyrighted song in your shower. Media companies have fought against nearly every new technology that has come along since they couldn't control it, even if it made them more money. Examples: Radio, Tape Recorders, Video Tapes, MP3. They haven't fought against Blu-ray and HD-DVD because they actually made protections and restrictions stronger, and because it would force people that have already purchased DVDs to spend more money to upgrade for high-definition. Back when people started playing music on the radio, media companies fought against it. It turned out that radio exposure vastly increased the sales of their albums. It didn't matter, they want money from every avenue available. They initially fought against tape recorders, then ended up turning it into a huge business. They fought against video tapes, even though the video tape rental business and sales lead to record profits. They fought ag
Now the authorities assume my grandma is going to hijack the plane with her little bottle of perfume and they confiscate it.
Now the Boston police made asses out of themselves by assuming LED displays were bombs. Never assume.
The first part is unconditionally, unequivocally untrue. As the copyright holders in part of the Linux kernel, Novell has the right to distribute it ONLY because the FSF (and other copyright holders) have licensed them to do so via the GPL. Therefore the FSF does in fact have a great deal of control over Novell's distribution of Linux. Novell must distribute under the GPL, or they must secure a separate license from all the copyright holders of Linux contributors. If he is saying that the FSF cannot stop Novell from distributing Linux as long as they abide by the GPL, that is true.
That is the case, for now. As soon as Microsoft alleges patent infringement in Linux GPL code and sues someone, that ceases to be the case. The GPL specifically states that patents must be licensed for free use by everyone or not licensed at all. By sublicensing Microsoft's patents for their customers, Novell is violating that clause and risks having their rights under the GPL terminated. It is specifically because Novell is licensing those patents for their customers' use that is a problem, if the patents were licensed for Novell's internal use that wouldn't be an issue since USE of software covered by the GPL is unrestricted. And don't be fooled by the deal not being drawn up as a 'license'. A license is indeed what it is. License is a legal term for rights being given to another, calling it a 'covenant not to sue' does not change what it is.
Maybe you should look at an actual benchmark instead of assuming servlets would be slow. Yes, it depends on the platform, JDK, and servlet container. Resin with the IBM JDK did 510 'Hello, world' pages per second while mod_perl/Apache did only 324. The 'Hello, world' servlet even been mod_php on Apache's static page rate of 497 requests per second. With a 'Hello, world' implementation, you really have to look at the web server overhead. Where did you think the overhead was going to be in writing to a stream? What made you assume a servlet would be slower? It really depends on how the web server performs.
The copyright in a derivative work belongs with the creator of the derivative work as a whole, but only to the extent that it is original. You own the copyright on your changes and I own the copyright on my changes. The original code is still in the public domain. You cannot sue me since I don't have your changes in mine and I can't sue you because you don't have my changes in yours. If we merge our changes into a single derivative work, then we both own copyright in that derivative work. Creating a derivative work cannot be used to extend the copyright or to gain control over public domain works.
Even space isn't a perfect vacuum. There are a few hydrogen atoms per 10 cm^3 even in deep intergalactic space.
The foundation that manages the patent did not know that these products were infringing on the patent. To find out, they probably had to take a scanning electron microscope to the chip and reverse-engineer it. A certain bluetooth chip manufacturer has decided to use his patented RF-on-silicon design for their chips because it works well. Should they not have to pay him a fee for using his patented ideas?
1) Net Neutrality means backbone network providers cannot charge content providers to supply them with preferred service 2) See #1 It doesn't prevent individuals from anything, it doesn't force you to receive all traffic at the same speed for instance. I don't think it would even prevent your ISP or network backbone providers from prioritizing certain types of traffic. They just can't charge content providers for preferred service. This levels the playing field for content providers, so my personal website would be able to be delivered just as well as google's for instance.
And if you follow Microsoft's thinking, they could go after any company that has bought any bluetooth hardware, not just the manufacturers or distributors.
The intelligence behind a robot would be in two things: its programming and its data. The data stored is what differentiates one AI from another. Any database should be given the same rights, the fact that it resides in a robot should have nothing to do with it. I'd give my own system rights, but one external drive is a bum that just listens to music all day and the other if a pervert!