In the end, I think YouTube is no different then a web hosting company offering free space, so long as you put up with their ads.
You will notice that Viacom is not calling GoogleTube a content host. They are referring to them as a content provider. If all they did was to host then they would be well in the clear. But they don't. They also provide the links. You don't just download content from GoogleTube. You go there to find it. Small but significant difference.
They will respond, saying that to reveal the precise code they are talking about would jeopardize their legal strategy.
I'm probably wrong, but by vaguely claiming that Linux infringes on their patents, without specifying what patents are infringed upon, aren't they are running a very real risk of losing any rights of claim? Isn't the concept of laches applicable here?
With Balmer running around making such claims, they are in essence admitting that they have known of these issues (assuming they actually exist) for some time, and deliberately delayed taking action.
The slashdot summary says "Microsoft immediately responded by saying their reckless ways are endangering the security of Windows users and that they will disable this hack quickly."
But the article reads differently. "Microsoft representatives didn't immediately respond to calls seeking comment on Authentium's move. O'Donnell said that Authentium has informed Microsoft of its work, and that the software company asked it to abandon the tactic and wait for its new APIs..."
In the case of fire or theft, hopefully you had insurance, so you will get replacements anyway. Of course, the insurance company will probably want proof as well.
A friend of mine was in that position recently. They managed to find a recent photograph of their living room, clearly showing their CD collection sitting in some stand alone CD racks. That was enough to keep the insurance company happy.
How about providing each/. user with the means to remove submitter information from the head of any subsequent stories from a given submitter. Replace it with Anonymous Coward, or Cowboy Neals Pet Goat, or something... It might help prevent negative comments about such a submitter reaching the critical mass required to "swamp out the real discussion."
I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes.
Wouldn't it be the person actually doing the research who is granted permissions under the provisions of fair use? This is required for them to use excerpts of copyright works in presenting the results of their research.
Google is not scanning books for research. They are not presenting results derived from research. They are doing it to provide a tool to those are, for commercial gain.
Not quite. The battery in a motor vehicle serves a single purpose. To start the engine. Once started, it's not required. You can even remove the battery if you like, once the engines running.
The real question is the output from the running car can generate enough electricity to keep the battery charged.
Yep. The pupose of the charging system is twofold. Firstly, it powers *all* the vehicle electrics when the engine is running, and secondly, it charges the battery. If the total load applied exceeds the maximum output of the alternator, the battery will need to make up the shortfall. I hope you auto club membership is paid up.
... when you could just stop it from running too far away in the first place.
Have a battery operated unit fixed to the dogs collar that emits a sound wave (where the frequency is painful for the dog to listen too) if the dog gets too far away from a second unit carried by the dogs owner. The greater the distance, the greater the intensity of the sound emmitted.
I'm not sure which Australia you're living in, but my Australia has a 28 year record low unemployment level.
You are correct. The current situation here in Australia is one of short supply, especially with respect to skilled workers. Many businesses are taking on anyone they can get regardless of skill levels. The resource sector especially (mining etc...) has boomed here, and the money on offer has drawn people away from many trades.
It's been openly stated by many employers (who can't get enough people) that anyone who genuinely wants to work will find a job if they look. The only people who can't find a job at the moment are those who don't want one (and there's plenty of those).
It's a great time to be living here down in Oz.:-)
I have a Slackware 7.1 CD and three CDs for Mandrake 7.2 here, that were purchased from a retail linux shop when they were 'current'. In Perth, Western Australia. They had a good range of boxed sets, linux games, and paraphanalia as well, but made most of their money from custom hardware/software solutions using linux. The shop front was closed down eventually so they could concentrate on their core business and work from home.
If the object is a redundant orbiter, then it's not within Mar's atmosphere, and is therefore not, by definition, flying. Which would mean that the original parent poster has a good point.
The car had a computer interface, and it was telling them... well, I don't know what it was telling them...
I spent ten years between 1988 and 1998 working as an apprentice and technician for automotive dealerships in Australia.
Early generations of onboard diagnostic systems were relatively simple. Access to the codes that were generated by signals responding in an odd manner or operating outide of tolerance was usually a simple matter of bridging a connection somewhere and using an LED in series with a resistor to read them, or some other similar manner. I have books, produced by third parties, full of the codes that are generated by the hundreds of vehicles out there. Access to these codes has never been a problem.
Later generations have changed all that. The diagnostics now have some very cool abilities like the ability to monitor and record multiple IO signals in realtime. This in turn requires the use of the manufacturers own diagnostic equipment which also doubles as the code reader. Generally speaking, simple methods to access those codes are no longer provided except where the manufacturers are required to.
One thing however has not changed, and that is what the codes tell us. They are nothing more than a compass that points the technician in a direction. Specific parts of the system still requires thorough testing to locate the actual cause any problems. If a code is registered that identifies a particular sensor input as faulty, the fault itself may well lie somewhere in the system other than in the sensor itself.
Ok, whats that supposed to do? I typed it all into a script, logged in as root, made the file executable and then tried to run it. I keep on getting the following output.
"What are you doing, Dave? I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that..."
"Stefan Pettersson, technical manager for IBM's Lotus division in Sweden, said that there will be a Java client of Lotus Notes some time during the second half of 2004. This means that the first "native" Notes client to run under Linux will soon be available."
But of course you should be able have the right to call an idea your own and have it recognized as such.
But if I should come up with the same idea through my own research whilst being completely unaware of yours, I shouldn't have the right to call my idea my own and have it recognised as such?
It should cut both ways or not at all.
Re:impossible to do honest work
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
The sad reality is that auto repair is very expensive work, and the places must cheat you just to make ends meet, less they charge higher rates, and steer away customers, and go out of business.
Hi. I'm a Comp Sys Eng/Comp Sci double degree student at an Australian university. Before returning to study as a mature age student, I worked in the automotive industry as a mechanic for 11 years, and a service advisor for 1 year. And you sir, are full of shit. I had 5 mod points distributed throughout this story, ready to submit, but I can't let this one go without commenting.
There are plenty of people in the auto mechanical repair industry who do a damn good job, people who are proud of the workmanship they offer, and the quality service they provide. Your right that automotive repairs are expensive, but that is to be expected since quality people attract good wages. The very best never stay in the industry long. They go on to better things.
If your father couldn't make ends meet, then the reason is simple. He is either a poor businessman, or he really doesn't know the industry, and never bothered to study the trends. To state that the reason for his failure is that everyone else cheats and that he was one of the only honest workshops around is nothing more than a cop-out. Yes, there are crooks in every industry, and automotive repairs are no exception. But in the automotive repair industry itself, the crooks are the exception, and not the norm. I spent 12 years in it. I should know.
In regards to the main story, I'd like to post an example of how a simple and seemingly safe engine modification can cause an engine to disintegrate. This is a real-life example that has caused verhicle owners to have warranty claims for an engine rebuild rejected. It is not a construct of my imagination.
The vehicle in question is a twin sequential turbocharged model that sells for a premium well above the price of your average family saloon. The engine has an induction system that sources intake air from in front of the vehicle. Some customers were replacing the air cleaner with an aftermarket high-flow unit that worked by removing part of the air cleaner casing. This infortunately meant that the intake air was sourced from under the bonnet instead, and with twin turbochargers installed this was significantly hotter than the engine was engineered to allow for.
At high speeds/high loads the mixtures would lean out in a manner that the control system couldn't compensate for and the excessive combustion temps and lean mixtures caused the engines to self destruct. We had a service bulletin distributed by the manufacturer instructing us that any warranty claims resulting from a vehicle fitted with a similar unit that developed such a problem (it is easy to identify the cause when you strip the engine down) would be rejected.
Now consider for a moment that a similar occurance *could* result from a tech fiend remapping the ignition/fuel systems in the control unit.
New vehicle warranties are intended to cover the vehicle as it was delivered from the factory. They are not intended to cover issues that may arise as a result of non-approved modifications done at the behest of the owner. If you modify your vehicle, you assume responsibility for any consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end, I think YouTube is no different then a web hosting company offering free space, so long as you put up with their ads.
You will notice that Viacom is not calling GoogleTube a content host. They are referring to them as a content provider. If all they did was to host then they would be well in the clear. But they don't. They also provide the links. You don't just download content from GoogleTube. You go there to find it. Small but significant difference.
They will respond, saying that to reveal the precise code they are talking about would jeopardize their legal strategy.
I'm probably wrong, but by vaguely claiming that Linux infringes on their patents, without specifying what patents are infringed upon, aren't they are running a very real risk of losing any rights of claim? Isn't the concept of laches applicable here?
With Balmer running around making such claims, they are in essence admitting that they have known of these issues (assuming they actually exist) for some time, and deliberately delayed taking action.
Obligatory IANAL.
The underlying reason is progestogen. (progestin in females taking birth control. ).
Quote from the study: "... none had used oral or other hormonal contraceptives within the last three months."
It's all in how you interperate things.
"You Rights Online" and "Your Online Rights" are not one and the same.
There's a difference.
The slashdot summary says "Microsoft immediately responded by saying their reckless ways are endangering the security of Windows users and that they will disable this hack quickly."
..."
But the article reads differently. "Microsoft representatives didn't immediately respond to calls seeking comment on Authentium's move. O'Donnell said that Authentium has informed Microsoft of its work, and that the software company asked it to abandon the tactic and wait for its new APIs
Too bad we don't have a way of keeping the Earth in the same orbit/on the same axis of rotation.
Too bad we don't have a way of controlling the Earth's orbit. Then we could move it a little bit further out to offset global warming.
In the case of fire or theft, hopefully you had insurance, so you will get replacements anyway. Of course, the insurance company will probably want proof as well.
A friend of mine was in that position recently. They managed to find a recent photograph of their living room, clearly showing their CD collection sitting in some stand alone CD racks. That was enough to keep the insurance company happy.
Raise your hand if you're going to return your player if/when it's recalled.
Does one finger count?
How about providing each /. user with the means to remove submitter information from the head of any subsequent stories from a given submitter. Replace it with Anonymous Coward, or Cowboy Neals Pet Goat, or something ... It might help prevent negative comments about such a submitter reaching the critical mass required to "swamp out the real discussion."
I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes.
Wouldn't it be the person actually doing the research who is granted permissions under the provisions of fair use? This is required for them to use excerpts of copyright works in presenting the results of their research.
Google is not scanning books for research. They are not presenting results derived from research. They are doing it to provide a tool to those are, for commercial gain.
RTFM sates that the power is from the battery.
Not quite. The battery in a motor vehicle serves a single purpose. To start the engine. Once started, it's not required. You can even remove the battery if you like, once the engines running.
The real question is the output from the running car can generate enough electricity to keep the battery charged.
Yep. The pupose of the charging system is twofold. Firstly, it powers *all* the vehicle electrics when the engine is running, and secondly, it charges the battery. If the total load applied exceeds the maximum output of the alternator, the battery will need to make up the shortfall. I hope you auto club membership is paid up.
... when you could just stop it from running too far away in the first place.
Have a battery operated unit fixed to the dogs collar that emits a sound wave (where the frequency is painful for the dog to listen too) if the dog gets too far away from a second unit carried by the dogs owner. The greater the distance, the greater the intensity of the sound emmitted.
Dogs are fast learners.
I'm not sure which Australia you're living in, but my Australia has a 28 year record low unemployment level.
...) has boomed here, and the money on offer has drawn people away from many trades.
:-)
You are correct. The current situation here in Australia is one of short supply, especially with respect to skilled workers. Many businesses are taking on anyone they can get regardless of skill levels. The resource sector especially (mining etc
It's been openly stated by many employers (who can't get enough people) that anyone who genuinely wants to work will find a job if they look. The only people who can't find a job at the moment are those who don't want one (and there's plenty of those).
It's a great time to be living here down in Oz.
I have a Slackware 7.1 CD and three CDs for Mandrake 7.2 here, that were purchased from a retail linux shop when they were 'current'. In Perth, Western Australia. They had a good range of boxed sets, linux games, and paraphanalia as well, but made most of their money from custom hardware/software solutions using linux. The shop front was closed down eventually so they could concentrate on their core business and work from home.
This is not funny. I am sick and tired of people making jokes about Australian people being convicts.
Funny it might not be, at least to a subset of Australians, but in context to the current topic, it's ironic at least.
Here is a person who in America, would be locked up, a criminal if you will. But here in Australia, he is free.
Here in Oz it's rare for us not to know who's won by Saturday night ...
There was one particular federal election d few years back where the winning party was known prior to the close of voting in Western Australia.
Unidentified Flying Object?
If the object is a redundant orbiter, then it's not within Mar's atmosphere, and is therefore not, by definition, flying. Which would mean that the original parent poster has a good point.
The car had a computer interface, and it was telling them... well, I don't know what it was telling them ...
I spent ten years between 1988 and 1998 working as an apprentice and technician for automotive dealerships in Australia.
Early generations of onboard diagnostic systems were relatively simple. Access to the codes that were generated by signals responding in an odd manner or operating outide of tolerance was usually a simple matter of bridging a connection somewhere and using an LED in series with a resistor to read them, or some other similar manner. I have books, produced by third parties, full of the codes that are generated by the hundreds of vehicles out there. Access to these codes has never been a problem.
Later generations have changed all that. The diagnostics now have some very cool abilities like the ability to monitor and record multiple IO signals in realtime. This in turn requires the use of the manufacturers own diagnostic equipment which also doubles as the code reader. Generally speaking, simple methods to access those codes are no longer provided except where the manufacturers are required to.
One thing however has not changed, and that is what the codes tell us. They are nothing more than a compass that points the technician in a direction. Specific parts of the system still requires thorough testing to locate the actual cause any problems. If a code is registered that identifies a particular sensor input as faulty, the fault itself may well lie somewhere in the system other than in the sensor itself.
... THE SCO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
define: mark out (limits, boundary), fix or show clearly the outline of, state precisely what is comprised in or meant by
Nowhere within the agreement do they *define* the SCO intellectual property that they claim is in Linux.
This page on LWN might be the one your thinking about. It's been referenced several times here on /. as well as Groklaw.
Ok, whats that supposed to do? I typed it all into a script, logged in as root, made the file executable and then tried to run it. I keep on getting the following output.
"What are you doing, Dave? I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that..."
Cheers. Dave.
The code is a trade secret ...
Not any more.
From the article linked in the story ...
"Stefan Pettersson, technical manager for IBM's Lotus division in Sweden, said that there will be a Java client of Lotus Notes some time during the second half of 2004. This means that the first "native" Notes client to run under Linux will soon be available."
But of course you should be able have the right to call an idea your own and have it recognized as such.
But if I should come up with the same idea through my own research whilst being completely unaware of yours, I shouldn't have the right to call my idea my own and have it recognised as such?
It should cut both ways or not at all.
The sad reality is that auto repair is very expensive work, and the places must cheat you just to make ends meet, less they charge higher rates, and steer away customers, and go out of business.
Hi. I'm a Comp Sys Eng/Comp Sci double degree student at an Australian university. Before returning to study as a mature age student, I worked in the automotive industry as a mechanic for 11 years, and a service advisor for 1 year. And you sir, are full of shit. I had 5 mod points distributed throughout this story, ready to submit, but I can't let this one go without commenting.
There are plenty of people in the auto mechanical repair industry who do a damn good job, people who are proud of the workmanship they offer, and the quality service they provide. Your right that automotive repairs are expensive, but that is to be expected since quality people attract good wages. The very best never stay in the industry long. They go on to better things.
If your father couldn't make ends meet, then the reason is simple. He is either a poor businessman, or he really doesn't know the industry, and never bothered to study the trends. To state that the reason for his failure is that everyone else cheats and that he was one of the only honest workshops around is nothing more than a cop-out. Yes, there are crooks in every industry, and automotive repairs are no exception. But in the automotive repair industry itself, the crooks are the exception, and not the norm. I spent 12 years in it. I should know.
In regards to the main story, I'd like to post an example of how a simple and seemingly safe engine modification can cause an engine to disintegrate. This is a real-life example that has caused verhicle owners to have warranty claims for an engine rebuild rejected. It is not a construct of my imagination.
The vehicle in question is a twin sequential turbocharged model that sells for a premium well above the price of your average family saloon. The engine has an induction system that sources intake air from in front of the vehicle. Some customers were replacing the air cleaner with an aftermarket high-flow unit that worked by removing part of the air cleaner casing. This infortunately meant that the intake air was sourced from under the bonnet instead, and with twin turbochargers installed this was significantly hotter than the engine was engineered to allow for.
At high speeds/high loads the mixtures would lean out in a manner that the control system couldn't compensate for and the excessive combustion temps and lean mixtures caused the engines to self destruct. We had a service bulletin distributed by the manufacturer instructing us that any warranty claims resulting from a vehicle fitted with a similar unit that developed such a problem (it is easy to identify the cause when you strip the engine down) would be rejected.
Now consider for a moment that a similar occurance *could* result from a tech fiend remapping the ignition/fuel systems in the control unit.
New vehicle warranties are intended to cover the vehicle as it was delivered from the factory. They are not intended to cover issues that may arise as a result of non-approved modifications done at the behest of the owner. If you modify your vehicle, you assume responsibility for any consequences.