Now if he just happened to be getting paid 40000CAD for a 40000USD(53339CAD) job, that's the fault of his employer or the job market, not the fault of the currency system.
You can say similar things about different regions that use the same currency but have different costs of living. For a job where I currently live (Western NY), I would be paid significantly less than I would in NYC. But then again, I don't have to pay $7 for a cheeseburger.
OK, say you have two people with the same job at the same company. One works in the Canadian office, one works in the US office. If the US employee got paid 40000USD/yr, are you saying that the Canadian would be paid 40000CAD? If so, would the person in the Japanese branch make 40000JPY (equivalent to 363.61USD)?
>Whats your source on that dude?
My source on that is the current exchange rate between USD and CAD. 1USD ~= 1.33CAD (www.xe.com). So if the canadian worker was truly paid the same, the number of dollars he was getting would be 33% more. Now if he just happened to be getting paid 40000CAD for a 40000USD(53339CAD) job, that's the fault of his employer or the job market, not the fault of the currency system.
What does the exchange rate have to do with anything? That's how currency works. A CD might cost you 20CAD while it would be 15USD, but your job would also pay you 33% more in CAD than USD.
Just like how things in Japan aren't expensive just because thay cost millions of yen.
Now if you wanted to talk about Canadian sales tax, that's a whole different story.
My college has a really neat solution to this. When you first put your computer on the network, you get a 10.21.*.* address. They have firewalled the 10.21 address space such that it can only access the public IP registration page, Windows Update, and the campus FTP server with virus removal tools. When you register your computer to get a public IP, the registration page uses some activex nonsense to scan your computer for blaster or nachia, and only gives you a public address if you're clean. The reg page doesnt' work on non-Windows machines, but then you won't be affected by the viruses and you can just call them up with your MAC address and they register you. They also have a program that scans everyone's port 135 to see if they are unpatched. This runs about once an hour. If you're unpatched, you're thrown back into 10.21 until you patch and they do their next scan.
What I was mainly getting at was that only the entity that has the rights to the code can change the licensing on that code. The GPL doesn't "force itself" on the surrounding code. That is simply a path that can be chosen.
Now as far as "getting sued and everyone walks away happy," it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis: Will I lose more on profits if my software can now be freely distributed under the GPL, or will I lose more on damages in a lawsuit (or can I just remove the code and the GPL people will be nice to me)? It really depends on the size of the lawsuit if any, the size of the company (Is this your only product and you need it to survive, or are you IBM and you can really do without the revenue), and how hard it is to remove the GPL code.
It is a choice, thus it does not impinge on the rights of the owner of the rest of the code that isn't covered under the GPL. The GPL grants you the right to make your software all GPL and avoid a lawsuit. RMS could have left that out of the GPL, and then your only choice would be to remove the code and pay damages. So how does granting copyright infringers something above and beyond make the GPL unenforceable?
(not that you were arguing that it is unenforceable, but that was what I was defending against)
This is one of the most common misunderstandings of the GPL. Proprietary code isn't just magically GPL'ed by having GPL'ed code added to it (and being distributed, etc...). That wouldn't be legally enforceable by any means. When a proprietary software vendor has GPL'ed code in their products, they have two choices:
1. They can GPL the rest of the code. 2. They can be sued for copyright infringement.
Because of Option 2, the proprietary vendor can still have a proprietary license on the code that is theirs.
Option 1 is just commonly thought of as the only way out, as it is sometimes the easy way out.
Option 1 can't be the only option, because only the holder of the rights to the code can determine licensing conditions to that code. When an entity exercises Option 1, the entity itself explicitly changes the license to GPL in exchange for not getting sued.
Option 1 is actually a nice little way for an entity to avoid getting sued, and is not any more "viral" than any other software license would be if you had leaked code. If Entity A's proprietary code was shown to have leaked into Entity B's system, Entity B's only option would be to pay damages to Entity A.
There is no such thing as giving implicit consent for your code to become GPL'ed by putting GPL'ed code into it (and distributing it, etc). That's along the same lines as saying that click-wrap licenses and SiteFinder's TOS are legally enforceable.
Upon initial inspection, it looks like the tops of the H might converge to become an A, especially since it looks like they took a bite out of the background between the A/H and the U. However, if you look at the second H and the U, you'll see that the tips of the lateral lines curve in, but there is no background distortion (on the second H and the right side of the U). I would also think that they would have made the side lines of the A start curving in lower than they do. Your point is taken, however. It shouldn't have to be this much work.
"BaffleText uses non-English character strings like "inchem" and "scotter" to defend against dictionary-driven attacks."
The caption indicates that the second image was created using BaffleText. If you don't try to make words out of the letters, it is obvious that the message is:
Slashdot Mirror
Where was this in the FA? I'm interested in the technical details, but I can't seem to find any.
No, just a few pixels. I see that happening on laptops all the time. Darn wireless hackers.
Read the last line of my post.
Here, i'll make it convenient:
Now if he just happened to be getting paid 40000CAD for a 40000USD(53339CAD) job, that's the fault of his employer or the job market, not the fault of the currency system.
You can say similar things about different regions that use the same currency but have different costs of living. For a job where I currently live (Western NY), I would be paid significantly less than I would in NYC. But then again, I don't have to pay $7 for a cheeseburger.
OK, say you have two people with the same job at the same company. One works in the Canadian office, one works in the US office. If the US employee got paid 40000USD/yr, are you saying that the Canadian would be paid 40000CAD? If so, would the person in the Japanese branch make 40000JPY (equivalent to 363.61USD)?
>Whats your source on that dude?
My source on that is the current exchange rate between USD and CAD. 1USD ~= 1.33CAD (www.xe.com). So if the canadian worker was truly paid the same, the number of dollars he was getting would be 33% more.
Now if he just happened to be getting paid 40000CAD for a 40000USD(53339CAD) job, that's the fault of his employer or the job market, not the fault of the currency system.
What does the exchange rate have to do with anything? That's how currency works. A CD might cost you 20CAD while it would be 15USD, but your job would also pay you 33% more in CAD than USD.
Just like how things in Japan aren't expensive just because thay cost millions of yen.
Now if you wanted to talk about Canadian sales tax, that's a whole different story.
Um... don't you have the choice to go to the store and buy CD's? Or do they mark everything except BNL and Moxy Fruevous as "Import"?
Especially when the editors make the headline BLATANTLY WRONG.
My college has a really neat solution to this. When you first put your computer on the network, you get a 10.21.*.* address. They have firewalled the 10.21 address space such that it can only access the public IP registration page, Windows Update, and the campus FTP server with virus removal tools. When you register your computer to get a public IP, the registration page uses some activex nonsense to scan your computer for blaster or nachia, and only gives you a public address if you're clean. The reg page doesnt' work on non-Windows machines, but then you won't be affected by the viruses and you can just call them up with your MAC address and they register you.
They also have a program that scans everyone's port 135 to see if they are unpatched. This runs about once an hour. If you're unpatched, you're thrown back into 10.21 until you patch and they do their next scan.
From the article:
Issues more likely to occur with at least moderate impact & how addressed:
English-only web page
can be addressed by service operator
End-user error reporting
software update required
Spam filtering
filter update required
Automated HTTP tools
software update required
Resolvers with non-DNS fallback
software update required
Using DNS to check domain availability for registration purposes
software update required
Email delivery
most issues can be addressed by service operator
In other words, "Not our problem."
Isn't this the whole reason DirectX came along? I remember trying to get games to work in the DOS days, is that what we're reverting to?
indeed
What I was mainly getting at was that only the entity that has the rights to the code can change the licensing on that code. The GPL doesn't "force itself" on the surrounding code. That is simply a path that can be chosen.
Now as far as "getting sued and everyone walks away happy," it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis: Will I lose more on profits if my software can now be freely distributed under the GPL, or will I lose more on damages in a lawsuit (or can I just remove the code and the GPL people will be nice to me)? It really depends on the size of the lawsuit if any, the size of the company (Is this your only product and you need it to survive, or are you IBM and you can really do without the revenue), and how hard it is to remove the GPL code.
It is a choice, thus it does not impinge on the rights of the owner of the rest of the code that isn't covered under the GPL.
The GPL grants you the right to make your software all GPL and avoid a lawsuit. RMS could have left that out of the GPL, and then your only choice would be to remove the code and pay damages. So how does granting copyright infringers something above and beyond make the GPL unenforceable?
(not that you were arguing that it is unenforceable, but that was what I was defending against)
That's getting into some dangerous logic there. If someone pays you to do something, that doesn't absolve you of having moral conscience.
***WARNING: logic taken to a ridiculous extreme below***
Using that logic, it would be moral for a hitman to kill people, cause it was really the fault of the person who hired him.
that's absolute BS. The GPL doesn't make any claims about property rights.
The poster never said anything about the GPL. He was talking about RMS's logic. The GPL isn't the only thing he ever did you know.
If it tramples some other right, as the viral nature of the GPL might, it can be found to be unenforceable.
Except that the GPL doesn't trample any other right. See my earlier post.
This is one of the most common misunderstandings of the GPL. Proprietary code isn't just magically GPL'ed by having GPL'ed code added to it (and being distributed, etc...). That wouldn't be legally enforceable by any means. When a proprietary software vendor has GPL'ed code in their products, they have two choices:
1. They can GPL the rest of the code.
2. They can be sued for copyright infringement.
Because of Option 2, the proprietary vendor can still have a proprietary license on the code that is theirs.
Option 1 is just commonly thought of as the only way out, as it is sometimes the easy way out.
Option 1 can't be the only option, because only the holder of the rights to the code can determine licensing conditions to that code. When an entity exercises Option 1, the entity itself explicitly changes the license to GPL in exchange for not getting sued.
Option 1 is actually a nice little way for an entity to avoid getting sued, and is not any more "viral" than any other software license would be if you had leaked code. If Entity A's proprietary code was shown to have leaked into Entity B's system, Entity B's only option would be to pay damages to Entity A.
There is no such thing as giving implicit consent for your code to become GPL'ed by putting GPL'ed code into it (and distributing it, etc). That's along the same lines as saying that click-wrap licenses and SiteFinder's TOS are legally enforceable.
More innocent victims.
Alright "sql rob", how about hooking them up to a third um... "DB" machine of some sort?
Also, on the third line, no letters have any chunks taken out of them as in line 2, they're just inverted based on the background.
Upon initial inspection, it looks like the tops of the H might converge to become an A, especially since it looks like they took a bite out of the background between the A/H and the U. However, if you look at the second H and the U, you'll see that the tips of the lateral lines curve in, but there is no background distortion (on the second H and the right side of the U). I would also think that they would have made the side lines of the A start curving in lower than they do.
Your point is taken, however. It shouldn't have to be this much work.
But really? How long until you can mod stories?
Read the rest of the article.
"BaffleText uses non-English character strings like "inchem" and "scotter" to defend against dictionary-driven attacks."
The caption indicates that the second image was created using BaffleText. If you don't try to make words out of the letters, it is obvious that the message is:
NVIRGIE
ODVIOUSE
HURCHES
You forget what country you're talking about.
Don't you mean Lance Bass sends you?
Of course there are no posts, everyone on slashdot reads the article before even thinking about posting.
Yeah, I'll get a toughbook and enjoy my 5 inches of screen for a miserably long time.