Well fuck, Unity is supposed to use double the RAM (16 GB according to you) of GNOME now, so how comes it runs like a screen space saving dream on my 2 GB Eeepc?
Apparently, it is common practice to create a new public/private key pair for every incoming transaction. In other words, everybody knows all the transactions, but the transactions are only tied to one-off public/private key pairs that are not tied to any identity.
You'd either have to sign them over to your main account, or consolidate into one of the temps to make a payment bigger than one incoming transactions, make your payment from an array of accounts. The patterns should build up pretty fast and a few transaction records of who shipped goods to whom could probably narrow it down quite quickly.
Ina sufficiently distributed network a local majority would be enough. Imagine isolating a cluster of machines by using a zombie network (DDOS the exit nodes that aren't zombies) and then use the same network to overpower the isolated cluster. Open the gates and let bogus, contradictory records spread across the network.
Well, that assumes people actually upgrade their clients (likely, despite claims to the opposite the developers effectively are a central authority, most people will blindly upgrade) instead of forking and finding ways to profit from only being able to transfer significant quantities. So instead of using bitcoin directly, you'd entrust it to one of the major holders who would deal with mass transfers with other holders and so on. A banking system if you will.
Let's pretend for a moment that no other digital currencies will be created - bitcoin will be it.
Let's pretend there will, be. Whoops, the whole notion of stability because of limited supply just went out of the window as people are transferring half of their assets to bitgold.
Deflation, the transfer of wealth from people who are actively generating wealth right now to people who are sitting on a resource is much, much worse. Losing by not doing vs winning by not doing. Can you spot which one is sustainable?
That or pyramid. "If you get in now and keep your bitcoins they are going to be worth a fortune once everyone else gets on the bandwagon". We will do in our economies with this rent seeking (I want to get rich just for having stuff) and tax dogging (undermine the basic infrastructure that you add value on top, why not, worked for Greece!) behavior.
DRM isn't just encryption. It's encryption that tries to withhold the decryption key from the user (while still having it on the device) or prevent the user from copying even when they do have the decryption key. Neither of those can work in a completely open system, though the first one can be done with removing hardware from the users control and doing the magic there, but that is hardly 'open'.
People are not repeat not prescribing themselves exotic antibiotics that everything and its mom is not already resistant to, but they are trying to get them cheaper from other countries because their insurance will cover only part (or none!) of the cost.
Why bother buying antibiotics that don't do anything in the first place? That's right, because you are full of it.
Apparently the statistics or how few people have ever been killed don't matter much to an insurance company facing the prospect of paying fro relocating a few thousand (or tens, or hundreds thereof) people and continuous monitoring and cleanup for a few decades...
Take a look at the pollution in China around the factories that produce the components for wind and solar plants sometime...
I doubt they are in area all of their own for one. But if you are going to bring China's environmental "control" into this, then Chernobyl is a representative sample of any nuclear plant as well.
You must be so careful every step of the way it really is just the way that it is. For a huge company it must be much worse.
I suspect it's actually much easier, you only have to be careful if you might step onto something big. And 'big' just isn't the same for a huge company as for a small one.
They have not stopped releasing GPL updates. They have said coming soon.
I think you missed a "permanently" there, otherwise those are contradicting statements.
For all we know they are doing a code review of the documentation of the code.
This can undoubtedly be done after license obligations have been fulfilled.
That doesn't mean that they don't need to release the code but at this point the name calling and accusations of wrong doing are not going to help.
You shouldn't be reading accusations into factual statements. They have not released, yet are obligated to are not accusations. Speculating on reasons for why it hasn't happened (I've seen a lot of "surely, someones on vacation") or that it will happen shortly are much closer to "accusations" then level headed criticism of release practices. If code release wasn't an afterthought, instead of an integral part of the release cycle, like it should be if your product uses copyleft code, this wouldn't be happening. It doesn't need to be pretty, just ready to be released at the same time as the binaries.
And I don't want to hear anything along the lines of "money first", they wouldn't release products without appropriate warning labels or up to date commercial code licenses, this shouldn't be treated any differently just because FLOSS developers are nice when it comes to compliance.
A blogger (and numerous commenters here) are reading some sort of bizarre nefarious plot by Apple into what is, most likely, a simple resource issue with the wrong person being out on vacation for a week or two, compounded by the fairly rapid build & deploy they needed to do to address the "tracking" issues that recently caused such a stir.
No, you are reading "some sort of bizarre nefarious plot" into the (original) blog post and comments such as mine. I'm saying that Apple is handling this badly, not that they are trying to pull something shady. You don't delay your commercial obligations or product releases because "someone is on vacation". FLOSS license compliance should be part of the binary release process, not an afterthought because the community is nice about such things.
For instance if I upload a new version of the binary before I upload the new version of the source then is someone in violation?
You might be. If it turns to "upload at some point" you certainly will be (unless you hold all the copyrights that is), whether or not a copyright holder chooses to do anything about it is a separate matter.
Honestly this is right now just a tempest in a teapot. Are the CoreWebkit devs upset? The FSF? RMS?
So far not that I have seen. This is a blogger stirring the pot to bet clicks and so many on Slashdot have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
They might or might not be, this doesn't change Apple's obligations one bit and there is no reason to make up bullshit excuses why a company of their size can't comply as well as a hobbyist developer. They should be better, not worse. And the original source for this (the blog article linked to is pretty crappy, thanks reader submissions) is Harald Welte of gpl-violations.org, he's doing it because he cares about compliance, not because his blog generates revenue.
Only to somebody who doesn't understand how contracts work, and only to somebody who reads it as if it were "plain english" - which it is not.
That might be relevant if it was a contract, it isn't in the US.
This paragraph clearly states that a delay between receiving the object code & receiving access to the source constitutes compliance - you cannot receive the written offer to supply the source without having already received the object code, and if you have only received a "written offer" to supply the source, then you do not have access to the source when you receive the object code.
It clearly states that there has to be a written offer as well, if Apple doesn't have one (and I have seen no evidence therefore, few companies choose this option) then none of 'd' applies to them.
If you really think Apple is in violation, then take them to court. I see no evidence that the FSF, or the WebKit developers, or any other person is trying to take Apple to court over this to claim they are in violation - if we're to believe that they're constant and willfully violating their obligations, then isn't it in the best interests of the FSF and other FOSS advocates to take them to court to establish a clear precedent in court which can be used to force them to comply with what you claim their obligations are?
Only the copyright holders can do it, and no, it isn't in the best interests of the FSF (I'm not aware of them holding any webkit copyrights anyway) or anyone else who cares about software freedom to pursue cases like this in courts. Most FLOSS advocates prefer conformance to punishment, whether it is achieved through back stage work by lawyers or public shaming is just details. Note that I'm not calling for anyone to sue Apple, I'm pointing out that there is no reason to defended them on this, they are on the wrong side of the license and should fix things, not have the community make excuses for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Well fuck, Unity is supposed to use double the RAM (16 GB according to you) of GNOME now, so how comes it runs like a screen space saving dream on my 2 GB Eeepc?
People stuck with wmaker or openbox. Context, use it.
Good time to be a wmaker and openbox user... Just use plain old console, if you are not going to move forward at least do it with style.
You'd either have to sign them over to your main account, or consolidate into one of the temps to make a payment bigger than one incoming transactions, make your payment from an array of accounts. The patterns should build up pretty fast and a few transaction records of who shipped goods to whom could probably narrow it down quite quickly.
Ina sufficiently distributed network a local majority would be enough. Imagine isolating a cluster of machines by using a zombie network (DDOS the exit nodes that aren't zombies) and then use the same network to overpower the isolated cluster. Open the gates and let bogus, contradictory records spread across the network.
If they ever try to consolidate it would be quite easy to piece it together. A lot of accounts with little in them doesn't buy much.
You might as well just let it expand indefinitely at that point, either way the "limited" selling point has gone down the drain.
Well, that assumes people actually upgrade their clients (likely, despite claims to the opposite the developers effectively are a central authority, most people will blindly upgrade) instead of forking and finding ways to profit from only being able to transfer significant quantities. So instead of using bitcoin directly, you'd entrust it to one of the major holders who would deal with mass transfers with other holders and so on. A banking system if you will.
Let's pretend there will, be. Whoops, the whole notion of stability because of limited supply just went out of the window as people are transferring half of their assets to bitgold.
The Monopoly Mint is not claiming that Monopoly dollars are stable because of the worth of the paper.
Deflation, the transfer of wealth from people who are actively generating wealth right now to people who are sitting on a resource is much, much worse. Losing by not doing vs winning by not doing. Can you spot which one is sustainable?
That or pyramid. "If you get in now and keep your bitcoins they are going to be worth a fortune once everyone else gets on the bandwagon". We will do in our economies with this rent seeking (I want to get rich just for having stuff) and tax dogging (undermine the basic infrastructure that you add value on top, why not, worked for Greece!) behavior.
DRM isn't just encryption. It's encryption that tries to withhold the decryption key from the user (while still having it on the device) or prevent the user from copying even when they do have the decryption key. Neither of those can work in a completely open system, though the first one can be done with removing hardware from the users control and doing the magic there, but that is hardly 'open'.
Antibiotic-resistant strains are not an in-your-face problem. That doesn't make it any less serious. Show me research, not anecdotes.
Why bother buying antibiotics that don't do anything in the first place? That's right, because you are full of it.
Of course! Insurance companies are well known for their emotionally guided business decision.
I can agree to reasonable forms of popyright, patents and trademark but IP is intellectual poverty.
Unfortunately "replacing" isn't rolled into "cheap power".
Apparently the statistics or how few people have ever been killed don't matter much to an insurance company facing the prospect of paying fro relocating a few thousand (or tens, or hundreds thereof) people and continuous monitoring and cleanup for a few decades...
I doubt they are in area all of their own for one. But if you are going to bring China's environmental "control" into this, then Chernobyl is a representative sample of any nuclear plant as well.
Not to mention that losing a huge power plant leads to massive power shortages.
I suspect it's actually much easier, you only have to be careful if you might step onto something big. And 'big' just isn't the same for a huge company as for a small one.
I think you missed a "permanently" there, otherwise those are contradicting statements.
This can undoubtedly be done after license obligations have been fulfilled.
You shouldn't be reading accusations into factual statements. They have not released, yet are obligated to are not accusations. Speculating on reasons for why it hasn't happened (I've seen a lot of "surely, someones on vacation") or that it will happen shortly are much closer to "accusations" then level headed criticism of release practices. If code release wasn't an afterthought, instead of an integral part of the release cycle, like it should be if your product uses copyleft code, this wouldn't be happening. It doesn't need to be pretty, just ready to be released at the same time as the binaries.
And I don't want to hear anything along the lines of "money first", they wouldn't release products without appropriate warning labels or up to date commercial code licenses, this shouldn't be treated any differently just because FLOSS developers are nice when it comes to compliance.
No, you are reading "some sort of bizarre nefarious plot" into the (original) blog post and comments such as mine. I'm saying that Apple is handling this badly, not that they are trying to pull something shady. You don't delay your commercial obligations or product releases because "someone is on vacation". FLOSS license compliance should be part of the binary release process, not an afterthought because the community is nice about such things.
You might be. If it turns to "upload at some point" you certainly will be (unless you hold all the copyrights that is), whether or not a copyright holder chooses to do anything about it is a separate matter.
They might or might not be, this doesn't change Apple's obligations one bit and there is no reason to make up bullshit excuses why a company of their size can't comply as well as a hobbyist developer. They should be better, not worse. And the original source for this (the blog article linked to is pretty crappy, thanks reader submissions) is Harald Welte of gpl-violations.org, he's doing it because he cares about compliance, not because his blog generates revenue.
That might be relevant if it was a contract, it isn't in the US.
It clearly states that there has to be a written offer as well, if Apple doesn't have one (and I have seen no evidence therefore, few companies choose this option) then none of 'd' applies to them.
Only the copyright holders can do it, and no, it isn't in the best interests of the FSF (I'm not aware of them holding any webkit copyrights anyway) or anyone else who cares about software freedom to pursue cases like this in courts. Most FLOSS advocates prefer conformance to punishment, whether it is achieved through back stage work by lawyers or public shaming is just details. Note that I'm not calling for anyone to sue Apple, I'm pointing out that there is no reason to defended them on this, they are on the wrong side of the license and should fix things, not have the community make excuses for them.