Imagine really thin clients. I mean, real thin, like ~1mm thin and credit-card sized. Open up for a qwerty keyboard + touchscreen, a full suite of apps in your wallet over 3G.
Desktops are cool but when you're on the move smaller is better. Laptops are bulky and unwieldy, but nowadays I consider leaving my netbook at home and traveling with my Android phone only - and it's still pretty big for a phone.
Misconception? Maybe in the US. GP post states this is common in most countries. I can confirm some. The four fair use clauses are US-specific. Other countries have very different rules, and often "personal use" is perfectly legal. So, the misconception may be only common with US file sharers. With the others, it's not a misconception.
Are we talking about a nuclear bomb or a thermonuclear one?
Are you sure the 250 kiloton was just a standard heavy metals fission device, not a hydrogen bomb? Because 1 kiloton is a very adequate power of a simple, rugged, rudimentary nuclear bomb.
And remember, Penumbra in the game comes with a coupon code reducing the price of the 3-part Penumbra bundle on the developer's site from $20 to $5. So $5 for both sequels.
Guy B turns the tiny proggy into a huge application of which the original is maybe 1% of functionality. He has all the copyright on the remaining 99% of the code. Nope, can't de-GPL. Worse, he can't even rewrite the remaining 1% now to remove GPL. The rest of the application contracted GPL from that piece virally.
Guy A writes a nice small program. He releases it under GPL, then promptly dies under a bus. Now guy B takes over the development. Nope, he can't revoke GPL.
The whole gist of "changing the license" is possible only if you're the original author and didn't use contributions or other GPL code in your project: you hold a "closeware" app and two branches: proprietary and GPL. You don't develop any of the branches only the closeware, and just branch out new versions. (in practice there is no 3 code bases... but you can't relicense 3rd party contributions to your GPL codebase as proprietary.)
Yes, still - 1. -YOU- decide which version you give the employer, unless they asked for non-GPL one explicitly. You can retroactively decide which one was that. They can't retroactively request you to change. 2. If your work is derivative of other GPL'd works, you don't have any unlicensed versions. 3. If you received any community contributions, they were to GPL'd version. 4. Even then the snapshot from the moment your employer first asked you for continued development can be released as GPL.
and besides, them being an educational institution means them withholding the data from the public goes against being funded from the public money.
But they MUST keep the code GPL, because it's based on GPL code. GPL clearly states even the owner of copyright on given work can't remove GPL from it.
By hiring you to continue to work on a GPL'd code, they set themselves up for it. The code still IS GPL.
The worst they can do is to keep it "closeware", e.g. GPL code used only internally, never distributed at all. But if even one copy ever "leaks", it's out in the wild and free for all.
Why not violet, which is below the lowest wavelength a TV can emit (blue), and still visible to human eye? Why not a white, a RGBW setup equivalent to CMYK? The yellow you get by mixing red and green is pretty good already...
Currently, the road police in my country is authorized to check legality of GPS software you use in your car, then confiscate the device if you can't prove legality of the software. And Maverick is precisely a GPS software.
An entry "installed" in the App Store pretty much proves the purchase. A series of random email exchanges - not necessarily so. Sure I'd get out of this unharmed in the end, but after how long...? When would I get my phone back? Few months is a very optimistic outlook.
...run a dedicated map server for iPhone world map application? Dedicated servers may be an option for standard multiplayer PC games. Not for embedded apps...
There's still one more problem: if your app is server-based, you need to maintain 10x as much bandwidth and CPU power to keep it running if the pirates use it too. Yeah, a distraction. A very serious distraction.
Android market supposedly suffers badly from piracy. Boo hoo hoo evil pirates, not giving money to developers who deserve them.
I downloaded Maverick Lite recently. I decided it's a cool app and wanted to buy the full version. Until then I was puzzled by lack of paid apps in the market. Now I saw "Maverick Pro" not found. I checked, double checked and found: Only 12 countries support paid apps and mine is not one of them. I checked, Maverick Pro was only available through Android Market, not any other online store of Android apps.
I faced two options: 1. download a torrent of paid apps for Android, and install the.apk from SD card. 2. root the phone (voiding warranty), install "market-enabler", back-up the current SIM Id, spoof it with ID of one of providers that offer paid apps, then purchase the app from app store.
Guess which one I choose... The second one. Yep, I hacked my phone and purchased the app legally.
Sure over 90% of your -players- pirated the game. That's clear. Now what percent of your -potential customers- pirated the game? Because from that 90% likely less than 10% would buy the game if they couldn't download it. The rest would simply "do without".
It's not about blocking, it's about limit. DNS requests/replies are by nature very short - there's not much data to be transferred. So you can reliably believe if someone is transferring more than a kilobyte of data per packet on DNS port, they are performing some kind of DoS. You just restrict maximum packet size and everything is dandy. Then a new version of the protocol comes that has more overhead and suddenly valid requests are longer than 1K. Oops.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it ate the two left angle braces. "<<" Interestingly, it displayed them in the preview just fine.
a very basic question - name the macro:
#define MACRO(x,y) ((x)&=~(1L(y)))
It's a very common idiom in embedded C.
I wonder how many of them could do it...
If you know Java, pointers in C will be black magic to you.
Imagine really thin clients. I mean, real thin, like ~1mm thin and credit-card sized. Open up for a qwerty keyboard + touchscreen, a full suite of apps in your wallet over 3G.
Desktops are cool but when you're on the move smaller is better. Laptops are bulky and unwieldy, but nowadays I consider leaving my netbook at home and traveling with my Android phone only - and it's still pretty big for a phone.
Misconception? Maybe in the US.
GP post states this is common in most countries. I can confirm some. The four fair use clauses are US-specific. Other countries have very different rules, and often "personal use" is perfectly legal. So, the misconception may be only common with US file sharers. With the others, it's not a misconception.
Are we talking about a nuclear bomb or a thermonuclear one?
Are you sure the 250 kiloton was just a standard heavy metals fission device, not a hydrogen bomb? Because 1 kiloton is a very adequate power of a simple, rugged, rudimentary nuclear bomb.
And remember, Penumbra in the game comes with a coupon code reducing the price of the 3-part Penumbra bundle on the developer's site from $20 to $5. So $5 for both sequels.
Guy B turns the tiny proggy into a huge application of which the original is maybe 1% of functionality.
He has all the copyright on the remaining 99% of the code. Nope, can't de-GPL.
Worse, he can't even rewrite the remaining 1% now to remove GPL. The rest of the application contracted GPL from that piece virally.
Wait, am I violating their copyright on a code they keep in violation of license they got that code under?
If I steal a bag of cocaine from a drug dealer, can the drug dealer ask the Police for help in recovering the stolen property?
...or derivatives of GPL versions.
Guy A writes a nice small program. He releases it under GPL, then promptly dies under a bus. Now guy B takes over the development. Nope, he can't revoke GPL.
The whole gist of "changing the license" is possible only if you're the original author and didn't use contributions or other GPL code in your project: you hold a "closeware" app and two branches: proprietary and GPL. You don't develop any of the branches only the closeware, and just branch out new versions. (in practice there is no 3 code bases... but you can't relicense 3rd party contributions to your GPL codebase as proprietary.)
Yes, still -
1. -YOU- decide which version you give the employer, unless they asked for non-GPL one explicitly. You can retroactively decide which one was that. They can't retroactively request you to change.
2. If your work is derivative of other GPL'd works, you don't have any unlicensed versions.
3. If you received any community contributions, they were to GPL'd version.
4. Even then the snapshot from the moment your employer first asked you for continued development can be released as GPL.
and besides, them being an educational institution means them withholding the data from the public goes against being funded from the public money.
But they MUST keep the code GPL, because it's based on GPL code.
GPL clearly states even the owner of copyright on given work can't remove GPL from it.
By hiring you to continue to work on a GPL'd code, they set themselves up for it. The code still IS GPL.
The worst they can do is to keep it "closeware", e.g. GPL code used only internally, never distributed at all. But if even one copy ever "leaks", it's out in the wild and free for all.
nah... you underestimate them.
1111-1111-1111-1112
also, plain old XOR (with OTP white noise key the size of the cryptogram) remains unbroken.
Why not violet, which is below the lowest wavelength a TV can emit (blue), and still visible to human eye?
Why not a white, a RGBW setup equivalent to CMYK?
The yellow you get by mixing red and green is pretty good already...
EFF?
...and you're not obligated to return the stolen property, just pay the fine of 70% of black market value of stolen wares...
Amputee porn... yuck! Must be removed!
...and try to explain it to BSA.
Currently, the road police in my country is authorized to check legality of GPS software you use in your car, then confiscate the device if you can't prove legality of the software. And Maverick is precisely a GPS software.
An entry "installed" in the App Store pretty much proves the purchase. A series of random email exchanges - not necessarily so. Sure I'd get out of this unharmed in the end, but after how long...? When would I get my phone back? Few months is a very optimistic outlook.
...run a dedicated map server for iPhone world map application?
Dedicated servers may be an option for standard multiplayer PC games. Not for embedded apps...
There's still one more problem: if your app is server-based, you need to maintain 10x as much bandwidth and CPU power to keep it running if the pirates use it too. Yeah, a distraction. A very serious distraction.
Android market supposedly suffers badly from piracy. Boo hoo hoo evil pirates, not giving money to developers who deserve them.
I downloaded Maverick Lite recently. I decided it's a cool app and wanted to buy the full version.
Until then I was puzzled by lack of paid apps in the market. Now I saw "Maverick Pro" not found.
I checked, double checked and found:
Only 12 countries support paid apps and mine is not one of them. I checked, Maverick Pro was only available through Android Market, not any other online store of Android apps.
I faced two options: .apk from SD card.
1. download a torrent of paid apps for Android, and install the
2. root the phone (voiding warranty), install "market-enabler", back-up the current SIM Id, spoof it with ID of one of providers that offer paid apps, then purchase the app from app store.
Guess which one I choose...
The second one. Yep, I hacked my phone and purchased the app legally.
Sure over 90% of your -players- pirated the game. That's clear.
Now what percent of your -potential customers- pirated the game?
Because from that 90% likely less than 10% would buy the game if they couldn't download it. The rest would simply "do without".
It doesn't matter who votes.
It matters who writes the candidates lists.
It's not about blocking, it's about limit. DNS requests/replies are by nature very short - there's not much data to be transferred. So you can reliably believe if someone is transferring more than a kilobyte of data per packet on DNS port, they are performing some kind of DoS. You just restrict maximum packet size and everything is dandy. Then a new version of the protocol comes that has more overhead and suddenly valid requests are longer than 1K. Oops.