So... you're staying that if I want to sell a game I bought on steam, I should lie to valve or beg them really hard to let me sell something I bought, or jump through hoops creating new accounts for every game before I buy them, and then absorb the reduced resale price from the risk of getting "caught", and ignore those ToS terms with a wink and a nudge...
Ok, ok, I think you've convinced us, steam isn't so great. I get it. Take it easy.
but I could theoretically 'give' or 'sell' my Steam account to someone else, without any hassle from Steam, so I'm not sure how histrionic we need to be.
Steam has put out notices in the past that in the event that the steam network was to go away they would push an update removing the need to auth on the client so that it wouldn't stop working..
Notices where, exactly? In the terms of service? In the license agreements? Is the source code in escrow?
You're right the bob owns the work he commissioned, but you're forgetting that in the US, Bob needed Alice's permission to produce the derivative work in the first place. If Alice didn't grant Bob that permission any other way, and IF there's no law or anything that says Alice implicitly granted Bob rights to make derivatives of her own copyrighted work by choosing to work for him, then the only way bob had permission to produce that derivative work was by accepting the terms of the GPL.
That is all hypothetical, however. The GPLv3 explicitly grants people the right to produce "private" derivative works (section 2, paragraph 2) and I believe GPLv2 said you can instead accept the terms of a later GPL if you want to.
There's a big difference that you totally miss between platform specific quirks that arise for technical decisions and quirks that arise from a vendor saying "I want people to do what I tell them to do" and creating technical and legal quirks solely to make that happen.
The H.264 consortium wants widespread adoption, and they've priced it accordingly.
For now, maybe. If that were the only long-term goal wouldn't they have made it not require licensing at all? That would have quickly solved the theora vs h264 dispute for HTML5 and gotten more support from Firefox.
This is offtopic, but I've been wanting to ask this and you say you're in the USAF...
Why does the helicopter in this video just orbit the area of interest in a circle, even when doing so puts the helicopter on the wrong side of a building and out of view of what they're shooting at? Since it is a helicopter, why don't they just hover in one spot or move back in forth in a convenient area that allows them to keep seeing their targets?
What do you do? Suggest an immediate upgrade to IE8? No-go. It breaks the mission critical application. Suggest bringing the app up to speed? Takes time.
Fire the incompetent morons who wrote said application in the first place. That's a start, at least.
you can get software once installs breaks your computer and makes it unusable. DRM is a security feature of the system.
No. DRM has nothing to do with that. The purpose of DRM is to remove some amount of your control over your own computer and give it to someone else. It has nothing to do with keeping hostile code under your control. It is kind of the opposite of that.
On two toyotas I've owned you can shift between neutral and drive at any time and without hitting the button on the shifter. I have done so at accident a couple times before (at least once on the freeway) and nothing bad happened. I let off the gas, shifted back in to drive (at speed) and everything was fine.
That depends entirely on your definition of "permission". I would say an open AP is more like an "open house" sign on the front lawn, not just an open door.
You could chalk this up to a user interface problem though... either Apple would need to provide more than one way to close an app (kill or background), or you'd need to push "stop" in your Pandora app before you close (background) it.
It isn't that much of a problem. On Android, for instance, apps that are actually doing something in the background add a little icon to the status bar. You can pull down the status bar to see their status and switch to them (i.e. progress bar and ETA for a download will be in here).
Practical? On your phone?
Sure. I just did it last week. What's so shocking about that?
The iPhone does this too...
Ah. Well, you can't generalize that to any app & content though (i.e. my browser downloading something in the background).
I continue to question just how important
And I don't really get the rest of this... this stuff is important for me. Yes, in a smartphone. To each their own. You never know what tasks users and third party developers might come up with, so I don't really get why the restriction (and special allowances for music or whatever) instead of choice is a good thing.
How had China been very good to Cisco up to that point if (at that time) China wasn't buying much of Cisco's stuff and Cisco wasn't manufacturing in China either?
Slashdot Mirror
How did you get that to work? I have a 2070N and if I sent it postscript or use a generic postscript driver in CUPS it prints garbage.
You sure about that?
"We're all afuck." (== "we're fucked")?
I think auto mechanics like openable hoods as well.
3 days ago.
And an openable hood.
So... you're staying that if I want to sell a game I bought on steam, I should lie to valve or beg them really hard to let me sell something I bought, or jump through hoops creating new accounts for every game before I buy them, and then absorb the reduced resale price from the risk of getting "caught", and ignore those ToS terms with a wink and a nudge...
Ok, ok, I think you've convinced us, steam isn't so great. I get it. Take it easy.
Are you sure about that? Steam themselves say:
Notices where, exactly? In the terms of service? In the license agreements? Is the source code in escrow?
...Yes, that's what I said.
You're right the bob owns the work he commissioned, but you're forgetting that in the US, Bob needed Alice's permission to produce the derivative work in the first place. If Alice didn't grant Bob that permission any other way, and IF there's no law or anything that says Alice implicitly granted Bob rights to make derivatives of her own copyrighted work by choosing to work for him, then the only way bob had permission to produce that derivative work was by accepting the terms of the GPL.
That is all hypothetical, however. The GPLv3 explicitly grants people the right to produce "private" derivative works (section 2, paragraph 2) and I believe GPLv2 said you can instead accept the terms of a later GPL if you want to.
Yes it can.
There's a big difference that you totally miss between platform specific quirks that arise for technical decisions and quirks that arise from a vendor saying "I want people to do what I tell them to do" and creating technical and legal quirks solely to make that happen.
Even if there doesn't exist a single large corporation or govenment that can run their network that well, that doesn't mean those aren't broken.
For now, maybe. If that were the only long-term goal wouldn't they have made it not require licensing at all? That would have quickly solved the theora vs h264 dispute for HTML5 and gotten more support from Firefox.
This is offtopic, but I've been wanting to ask this and you say you're in the USAF...
Why does the helicopter in this video just orbit the area of interest in a circle, even when doing so puts the helicopter on the wrong side of a building and out of view of what they're shooting at? Since it is a helicopter, why don't they just hover in one spot or move back in forth in a convenient area that allows them to keep seeing their targets?
Fire the incompetent morons who wrote said application in the first place. That's a start, at least.
Oops, I misread that. Sorry.
No. DRM has nothing to do with that. The purpose of DRM is to remove some amount of your control over your own computer and give it to someone else. It has nothing to do with keeping hostile code under your control. It is kind of the opposite of that.
What about directional antennas to have any given AP hear fewer clients?
On two toyotas I've owned you can shift between neutral and drive at any time and without hitting the button on the shifter. I have done so at accident a couple times before (at least once on the freeway) and nothing bad happened. I let off the gas, shifted back in to drive (at speed) and everything was fine.
That depends entirely on your definition of "permission". I would say an open AP is more like an "open house" sign on the front lawn, not just an open door.
It isn't that much of a problem. On Android, for instance, apps that are actually doing something in the background add a little icon to the status bar. You can pull down the status bar to see their status and switch to them (i.e. progress bar and ETA for a download will be in here).
Sure. I just did it last week. What's so shocking about that?
Ah. Well, you can't generalize that to any app & content though (i.e. my browser downloading something in the background).
And I don't really get the rest of this... this stuff is important for me. Yes, in a smartphone. To each their own. You never know what tasks users and third party developers might come up with, so I don't really get why the restriction (and special allowances for music or whatever) instead of choice is a good thing.
A few real-world examples of things I've done with my Andriod phone:
Listening to music while playing a game
Running an SSH client for a port forward while web browsing through said forward.
Downloading updates while texting
How had China been very good to Cisco up to that point if (at that time) China wasn't buying much of Cisco's stuff and Cisco wasn't manufacturing in China either?