Whether Intel is "keeping pace with AMD" depends of course on whether you want SMP or not. As far as I know, there is currently one chipset out that supports SMP for AMD chips, and it's rather subpar - performance with two CPUs is generally about 20% to 30% faster than performance with one CPU. When you do SMP with P4s, on the other hand, performance with two CPUs is generally about 80% faster than performance with one.
1. Allowing redistribution in binary form is already allowing derivative works - the original is distributed only in source form.
That to me is a reason to read the license as *not* allowing derivative works. If it allowed derivative works in general, there would be no reason to grant permission to distribute one particular class of derivative works (binaries). But since it explicitly does grant such permission, one might assume that any other derivative works for which such permission was not granted remain disallowed.
What the SCOTUS seems to be saying is basically that putting something in a database over the internet is different from putting something in a library or electronic database accessable only when physically in person at a terminal, and requires additional permission from the copyright holder. This seems like it could work against attempts some libraries have been musing to make material available over the internet - this ruling means that to do so they'd have to pay an additional fee to the copyright holder, which is probably beyond their means and would thus lead to the dropping of any such plans.
I'm not so sure about that. Depending on how it's formatted, it could be argued that the original mail is being presented unaltered, and an ad is being displayed *in addition to* the email. I don't see how making it text is different than displaying an ad banner in the window or something.
Note that ISPs already *do* alter messages as they travel, adding on Received: headers and the like.
This is assuming of course that you didn't give them prior permission to insert their junk, as you most likely would have done. Yahoo's free webmail for example inserts a line at the top and bottom of the mail, but this is perfectly legal because it is authorized in the agreement in which you get the free email account of the first place. I don't see anything wrong with this really - if you really don't want the ads, pay for a service without them.
If it was just VA employees perhaps, but it's the VA DNS guy. I think when the VA DNS guy is listed as a DNS contact for a domain, you can pretty reasonably assume it's a VA domain.
And in this particular case, it is owned by VA. "Propaganda" is Bowie J. Poag's project, formerly hosted by VA. He moved the project after strong disagreements with them, but they still retain control of everything else that was in Propaganda's name, like that domain.
Perhaps you should ask Bowie J. Poag (former propaganda.themes.org guy, and still the PROPAGANDA graphics guy) about the goodwill VA had when they fucked him over. You'll probably have to catch him when he pisses on the grave of VA though.
The fact that they explicitly state that the license you grant them to use your work is non-exclusive means that you're free to also license others to use your work under other licenses (such as the GPL). If they had claimed an exclusive license to use your work, then you would not have been able to do so (as their license would be the only one allowed), but that doesn't appear to be the case.
So the short answer is yes, you can GPL your work.
Yeah, Houston is damn cheap. I know some people who pay around $900 for a 3-bedroom apartment in Austin though. The rates near the UT campus are abnormally high due to high demand from 50,000 students, but the rates in the rest of Austin are reasonable. Not as cheap as Houston ($900 vs. $500 or $600), but not $1400 either.
"Layed off workers living in San Jose should work at McDonald's to make ends meet"
Trust me, if you're working at McDonald's in Silicon Valley, you'd still be in a homeless shelter, believe that. Your time is much better spent looking for a decent job either in Silicon Valley or somewhere else.
I agree, this should be revised to "move to somewhere with a sane cost of living and work at McDonald's to make ends meet." I have a friend who's doing just that in Houston, working fast-food to pay for an $800/month 3-room apartment.
Sure, it's not high-class living, but it's not a homeless shelter either. And jobs in fast food are really damn easy to find.
Except that "software engineers" and "hardware engineers" are far more than merely "techies" who work in software and hardware, respectively. The term "engineer" denotes an understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the field. If someone calls themselves a "hardware engineer," I expect them to be able to design at least some simple circuitry and explain to me how a CPU works internally. Someone who can build computers from components is certainly not a hardware engineer.
I am confused by the bad review given this movie by CmdrTaco and other critics. Giving a bad review to Angelina Jolie is simply baffling to me. How is this possible?
I don't think that's likely. AOL bundles IE with its service in return for Microsoft bundling AOL's software (and an icon in a prominent place on the default desktop) with its operating systems.
AOL and Microsoft might fight little battles over other things, but that particular informal agreement is too important to them to risk. You might see AOL attacking Windows Media Player and bundling Winamp instead, but you won't see AOL dumping IE - the little spot on the default Windows install is too valuable for them to do that (and conversely, having IE bundled with AOL is too valuable to Microsoft for them to dump the AOL icon/software in favor of MSN software).
But then again I use Opera v5.11 on Win98, and it doesn't go down in flames, so the OS remains stable.
Re:"same treaty process that gave us the DMCA dept
on
Harm From The Hague
·
· Score: 2
Hrm, I wasn't aware of that. Judging by the US's stance on these issues though I'd imagine that they wanted to pass a DMCA-like law anyway, and pushed for the WIPO so every else would have to pass it as well. I severely doubt the US passed the DMCA grudgingly only to comply with the treaty (usually if the US doesn't like treaties it just ignores them).
"same treaty process that gave us the DMCA dept."
on
Harm From The Hague
·
· Score: 2
You do realize that the DMCA is a US law, not a treaty, don't you?
I don't see how that's hypocritical. What we're talking about here is opposition to forcing US courts to enforce foreign laws, or forcing say German courts to enforce US laws. Having US courts enforce US laws, even if against non-US companies, is not the same thing, and is done by nearly all countries (take for example France's attempt to enforce its censorship laws against the US main branch of Yahoo).
Yes. And I don't know about you, but I rarely ever actually see toilet paper ads, and when I do they sure as hell don't talk about how they have "superior wiping ability" or "keep your shit from staining your underwear" or anything else analogous to the damn tampon ads.
Now IE isn't good on as many platforms as Opera and Mozilla are, but it's certainly not worthless on non-MS platforms. The Mac version of IE in particular is even better than the Windows version.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether Intel is "keeping pace with AMD" depends of course on whether you want SMP or not. As far as I know, there is currently one chipset out that supports SMP for AMD chips, and it's rather subpar - performance with two CPUs is generally about 20% to 30% faster than performance with one CPU. When you do SMP with P4s, on the other hand, performance with two CPUs is generally about 80% faster than performance with one.
1. Allowing redistribution in binary form is already allowing derivative works - the original is distributed only in source form.
That to me is a reason to read the license as *not* allowing derivative works. If it allowed derivative works in general, there would be no reason to grant permission to distribute one particular class of derivative works (binaries). But since it explicitly does grant such permission, one might assume that any other derivative works for which such permission was not granted remain disallowed.
What the SCOTUS seems to be saying is basically that putting something in a database over the internet is different from putting something in a library or electronic database accessable only when physically in person at a terminal, and requires additional permission from the copyright holder. This seems like it could work against attempts some libraries have been musing to make material available over the internet - this ruling means that to do so they'd have to pay an additional fee to the copyright holder, which is probably beyond their means and would thus lead to the dropping of any such plans.
I'm not so sure about that. Depending on how it's formatted, it could be argued that the original mail is being presented unaltered, and an ad is being displayed *in addition to* the email. I don't see how making it text is different than displaying an ad banner in the window or something.
Note that ISPs already *do* alter messages as they travel, adding on Received: headers and the like.
This is assuming of course that you didn't give them prior permission to insert their junk, as you most likely would have done. Yahoo's free webmail for example inserts a line at the top and bottom of the mail, but this is perfectly legal because it is authorized in the agreement in which you get the free email account of the first place. I don't see anything wrong with this really - if you really don't want the ads, pay for a service without them.
nothing is funnier when user friendly does it.
Faster than on windows? On Windows quake renders faster than the refresh rate of my monitor, so I don't see how it's possible to go faster.
If it was just VA employees perhaps, but it's the VA DNS guy. I think when the VA DNS guy is listed as a DNS contact for a domain, you can pretty reasonably assume it's a VA domain.
And in this particular case, it is owned by VA. "Propaganda" is Bowie J. Poag's project, formerly hosted by VA. He moved the project after strong disagreements with them, but they still retain control of everything else that was in Propaganda's name, like that domain.
Perhaps you should ask Bowie J. Poag (former propaganda.themes.org guy, and still the PROPAGANDA graphics guy) about the goodwill VA had when they fucked him over. You'll probably have to catch him when he pisses on the grave of VA though.
I assume you meant "set up us."
The fact that they explicitly state that the license you grant them to use your work is non-exclusive means that you're free to also license others to use your work under other licenses (such as the GPL). If they had claimed an exclusive license to use your work, then you would not have been able to do so (as their license would be the only one allowed), but that doesn't appear to be the case.
So the short answer is yes, you can GPL your work.
Err, I meant 3-room (1 living room, 2 bedrooms), not 3-bedroom. =P
Yeah, Houston is damn cheap. I know some people who pay around $900 for a 3-bedroom apartment in Austin though. The rates near the UT campus are abnormally high due to high demand from 50,000 students, but the rates in the rest of Austin are reasonable. Not as cheap as Houston ($900 vs. $500 or $600), but not $1400 either.
-delirium
"Layed off workers living in San Jose should work at McDonald's to make ends meet"
Trust me, if you're working at McDonald's in Silicon Valley, you'd still be in a homeless shelter, believe that. Your time is much better spent looking for a decent job either in Silicon Valley or somewhere else.
I agree, this should be revised to "move to somewhere with a sane cost of living and work at McDonald's to make ends meet." I have a friend who's doing just that in Houston, working fast-food to pay for an $800/month 3-room apartment.
Sure, it's not high-class living, but it's not a homeless shelter either. And jobs in fast food are really damn easy to find.
Except that "software engineers" and "hardware engineers" are far more than merely "techies" who work in software and hardware, respectively. The term "engineer" denotes an understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the field. If someone calls themselves a "hardware engineer," I expect them to be able to design at least some simple circuitry and explain to me how a CPU works internally. Someone who can build computers from components is certainly not a hardware engineer.
I am confused by the bad review given this movie by CmdrTaco and other critics. Giving a bad review to Angelina Jolie is simply baffling to me. How is this possible?
I don't think that's likely. AOL bundles IE with its service in return for Microsoft bundling AOL's software (and an icon in a prominent place on the default desktop) with its operating systems.
AOL and Microsoft might fight little battles over other things, but that particular informal agreement is too important to them to risk. You might see AOL attacking Windows Media Player and bundling Winamp instead, but you won't see AOL dumping IE - the little spot on the default Windows install is too valuable for them to do that (and conversely, having IE bundled with AOL is too valuable to Microsoft for them to dump the AOL icon/software in favor of MSN software).
Actually the latest versions of Ogg Vorbis are quite competative in quality per filesize, especially with variable bitrate.
Well at least Katz's prediction that Suck would either have to change or die was correct.
But then again I use Opera v5.11 on Win98, and it doesn't go down in flames, so the OS remains stable.
Hrm, I wasn't aware of that. Judging by the US's stance on these issues though I'd imagine that they wanted to pass a DMCA-like law anyway, and pushed for the WIPO so every else would have to pass it as well. I severely doubt the US passed the DMCA grudgingly only to comply with the treaty (usually if the US doesn't like treaties it just ignores them).
You do realize that the DMCA is a US law, not a treaty, don't you?
I don't see how that's hypocritical. What we're talking about here is opposition to forcing US courts to enforce foreign laws, or forcing say German courts to enforce US laws. Having US courts enforce US laws, even if against non-US companies, is not the same thing, and is done by nearly all countries (take for example France's attempt to enforce its censorship laws against the US main branch of Yahoo).
Yes. And I don't know about you, but I rarely ever actually see toilet paper ads, and when I do they sure as hell don't talk about how they have "superior wiping ability" or "keep your shit from staining your underwear" or anything else analogous to the damn tampon ads.
IE is worthless on anything but MS platforms.
Now IE isn't good on as many platforms as Opera and Mozilla are, but it's certainly not worthless on non-MS platforms. The Mac version of IE in particular is even better than the Windows version.