Don't compare copying to theft. When you steal a car, the person it used to belong to no longer has the use of that car. That is theft. When you make a copy of a movie, the person it used to belong to still has the use of it. That is not by any stretchg of the imagination the same thing as theft. True, they can't make money by selling it to you anymore, because you've already got it; but if you couldn't have got it free / cheap, then you probably would gone without rather than bought it.
It's just standard free-market capitalism at work. Punters are prepared to risk a certain amount of money for a product without a guarantee, on the probability that the saving from not lining the pockets of the movie industry fatcats will be worth it. Independent distributors know this and aren't afraid to work it.
Take a look from a different angle for a while..... Photocopiers, scanners and printers are everywhere, but absolutely nobody is putting pirate copies of popular newspapers on the internet, nor do street vendors sell poor-quality photocopies of bestselling novels. Why? Because where the printed word is concerned, it costs less to buy The Real Thing than to make a copy.
Neglecting the amount it takes to pay for the performance being recorded, it costs less to manufacture stamped media than burned media. If the movie studios simply reduced their prices so as to compete directly with bootlegs, they would sell more product: after all, one generally has more recourse against a proper retail sale recorded through the books all the way, than some fly-by-night who has nothing to lose by letting customers down.
it WOULD be much nicer if my cheapie little NAT router would let me set static IP's to go with the port forwarding rules...
Just get an old PC -- anything with >16MB of RAM, 1GB of disk space and two ethernet cards will do -- stick Linux on it, and use that to do your NAT. Have the router just pass everything straight through -- use it as though it were an ADSL-to-ethernet converter -- and use the Linux box to do all the donkey work.
You can also watch it almost any time of the day or night on UK Gold, Britain's third-favourite "repeats" station {ITV and BBC1 are the first two!} but be sure to record it because there are so many bloody adverts on satellite {except the movie stations, which do show films mostly uninterrupted except for talking over the credits, and of course the BBC themselves}.
Any self-respecting real-life "British person" would spell "generalise" and so forth properly, i.e. with an S. And they'd probably say "I'm a Brit" or "I'm a Briton" or "I'm from Britain" or "I'm British"..... not "I'm a British person". It just somehow doesn't sound right. Oh, and they would show their.uk e-mail address too!
In most countries, you have certain statutory rights which are sacrosanct and cannot be abridged by contract. If you attempt to sign away such rights, you get to keep them anyway. EULAs such as Microsoft's insist that you should waive certain of your statutory rights. Also, since a software licence is so one-sided, its enforceability is questionable.
The GPL does nothing to take away your statutory rights. Instead, it grants you privileges according to certain conditions. Whatever the likes of RMS may say, there is no law that says you have to make your source code available. Access to the source code is ex gratia. Nothing in the GPL is legally questionable except the fact that it is still technically one-sided. However, anyone who rightfully acquires a piece of GPL'ed software retains the right to use it, so it looks as though your statutory rights are unaffected.
Therein lies the crucial difference between EULA and GPL. Basically, if the GPL is found to be invalid, then every EULA is also automaticaly invalid.
<outrageous analogy>Suppose, in the course of trespassing on someone else's land, Linus shot and killed a Siberian tiger -- a protected species -- in self-defence. In a separate incident, Bill went trespassing on someone's land and shot and killed another Siberian tiger "just for shits and giggles". Now the courts might well rule that Linus' defence -- that the tiger would have killed him -- was valid; but they might also rule that he should never have been there in the first place, particularly if the landowner had posted "beware of the tiger" signs and otherwise followed all regulations concerning dangerous animals, therefore the offence of killing a protected species would be prosecutable in law.
If Linus gets off with the tiger murder, he will of course still be liable for civil damages, since trespass is a civil offence. But Bill's case still has a crucial weakness, because Bill is not able to claim self-defence. On the other hand, if Linus goes down for killing the tiger, then this damages Bill's case irrepairably.</outrageous analogy>
Microsoft et al do not want to see the GPL tested in court, because a ruling either way would at least cast doubt on the credibility of their own end user licence agreements even if it did not blow them clean out of the water.
If the GPL does come to court, SCO will gain nothing even if it is found invalid. The Linux Kernel 3.0 will just have to be released into the Public Domain. Then at least the National Libraries of the world will be able to see that its code is not being misappropriated. Microsoft et al would also be badly damaged, because there is no way that an EULA could be enforceable if the GPL is unenforceable.
I think SCO is the equivalent of the cliche'd crazed gunman backed into a corner with a hostage and enough ammo to take out more than a few cops on the way down -- and the only way they stand the ghost of a chance of getting away alive is for someone else to choose to avoid the showdown. Unfortunately for SCO, the hostage happens to be a thoroughly unpleasant criminal for whom bullet holes would be privately regarded by many people as an improvement, were it not for the fact that they are technically under-age.....
It is not, never has been and never could be illegal to give permission for someone to use your copyrighted work. Some might think it slightly unusual to grant permission on such a wide basis just out of the goodness of one's heart, but that is a matter for individual copyright holders.
What might be open to question is the revocability of such permission if the licensee breaches the conditions of the licence. However, the licence can only be breached by committing a deliberate act, and it would be next to impossible to prove that KISS had inadvertently breached it.
My guess is that if someone were to misappropriate GPL'ed software, the courts would rule that the copyright in the modified version belongs to the original copyright holders, who would then have the right to distribute that modified source code under the GPL. Ignore the GPL for a moment - we need to look at cases where someone has unlawfully distributed modified versions of "ordinary" copyrighted software {without the GPL} to determine what would be likely to happen.
If permission once granted is revocable, then plain old copyright law applies, exactly as though KISS were selling modified versions of Windows without permission from Microsoft. And if permission once granted is not revocable, then every EULA is invalid. That's why nobody wants to test the GPL in court. Either way, it jeopardises the whole concept of payware.
That is indeed what I was alluding to. Now KDE and Qt no longer require anything in the "traditional" X11 server, there is a real possibility of someone creating a lean, mean, lightweight display system which sacrifices X's generality of purpose for plain and simple speed in a single situation: running one display on a desktop machine with a known architecture.
Let's face it, X's configurability is a bit of a double-edged sword. XF86Config-4 is an absolute 'mare, and anyone who says different is either lying or an ex-Amiga hacker;-) Most people don't use the half of what it can do. A directly-rendered desktop environment could be just the ticket to get Linux some credibility.
Exactly..... better integration between KDE and GNOME can only be good for both parties. It's a win-win situation, but it doesn't stop anyone wanting a bigger win for their side!
Novell might be doing the wise thing by sitting on the fence for awhile. They will be continuing to fund GNOME through Ximian while KDE gets attention from paid-for distributions such as Lindows and Xandros. Even if they choose just to cream off the best bits for SUSE, the beauty is that none of the effort is really wasted -- it just stimulates competition between developers. When the initial bugs get worked out, the product of GNOME/KDE integration may well be something special. Also, now KDE has been compiled for MacOSX, that paves the way for the "ground-up" replacement for X11 everyone seems to have been threatening -- there will actually be an application to run on top of it! It will be interesting in the least to see what comes out of that.
The carbon dioxide emitted by a forest fire was already there before the trees started growing. All green plants -- from mighty redwoods to tiny algae -- are made principally from carbon, which they get by taking carbon dioxide from the air, leaving behind oxygen for animals to breathe. There is carbon in soil, but not much of that ends up in plants {otherwise how do you explain hydroponics?} Most plants have a fairly short growing cycle {trees are a bit of an exception, but we get much more of our oxygen from short-life plants than from trees}. In any case, young and fast-growing plants use more carbon dioxide than established ones. It is actually beneficial for big, old trees to go on fire and make room for smaller, fast-growing trees and plants {which will greedily lap up the carbon dioxide left by their ancestors}. Over the lifetime of a tree, the levels of plant-sourced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only fluctuate about a mean -- from a trough when it is growing, to a peak when it is burned.
Carbon dioxide originating from fossil fuels is another matter, since the carbon whence it came has been locked away underground for millions of years, and releasing it will increase the level in the atmosphere.
I wonder if this might have something to do with manufacturers' reluctance to give out specs for kit like printers, scanners &c. so open source drivers can be written? It would make sense from the manufacturer's point of view that any anti-counterfeiting measures be implemented in software rather than hardware, but the disadvantage is that software is much more vulnerable to tinkering -- unless it is heavily obfuscated to deter all but the hard core, and simple poor build quality will ensure that by the time someone has cracked it, there won't be enough working hardware samples to warrant releasing an open source driver.
Of course, one has to ask why this was ever done in the first place. Why should the law-abiding majority have to put up with a technology that
will give too many false negatives to seriously affect attempted counterfeiting
will give too many false positives to not impact on legitimate uses
will hog precious system resources and increase the likelihood of system crashes
can be readily defeated by someone with a clue {not every piece of equipment or software is made by big corporations.....}
Are gestures like this part of the payoff with which corporations are buying the law? Adobe incorporate anti-currency-counterfeiting measures in return for a blind eye being turned to Microsoft's outrageous anti-competitive actions?
I know, it was more about proof of concept than anything else. I do not use any closed-source software myself -- I have long maintained that if they aren't prepared to show me the source code then they must have something to hide, and now they have damn well gone and proved it.
I agree with your point, though. Making subjective decisions is a human being's job. Blindly obeying instructions without question is a machine's job. In any case, for a computer to attempt to decide what I may or may not print, without being given sufficient information to determine whether or not such printing is likely to cause harm to a human, is probably a violation of Asimov's Second Law, not that anybody is enforcing same:-)
Place a banknote in position on a scanner and arrange it so you can muck about with the electronics in the bottom half and not risk moving the note. Open up the scanner and disconnect the common terminals of the green and blue LEDs, leaving only the reds. Scan your note -- the resulting image will be in shades of red only. Disconnect the red LEDs and connect up the green ones, scan and repeat with the blue ones.
You now have three separate images of the banknote with just the red, green and blue bits -- in other words, where not to put the cyan, magenta and yellow inks respectively. Change the shades of green {needs cyan and yellow} to shades of blue {cyan and magenta}, and the shades of blue to green, and superimpose the three images. Remember the note didn't move between scans {did it?}, so they will line up automatically. You now have a distorted colour image of a banknote.
To print it out, you need to modify an ink cartridge by flushing it out with solvent, then refilling the magenta inkwell with yellow ink and the yellow inkwell with magenta ink. This will cause blue to print as green and green to print as blue. Red {magenta and yellow} and black {all three colours, or a colour in its own right} will not be affected by these switcheroonie shenanighans, of course.
Just put it in your cgi-bin directory, and access it through a service known to use a cache..... Look for a line with $ENV{'HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR'} in it. Of course if you had access to configure the cache you probably could keep the server from getting your details.
Every access to a web server is logged, look in your own/var/log/httpd/access.log if you have one. If the file being served up by the server is executable, the server runs it, feeding in various environment variables and any submitted form contents, and sends the output from the script to the client. The script must send a header saying for itself what form this output takes - all this takes place transparently, and the script file can even have a.htm or.jpg extension, since non-lame operating systems actually look at a file to determine what type of file it is, rather than blindly assuming what type of file is just by looking at the extension.
Hate to rain on your parade, but the GNOME foot is quite obviously bare, and bare feet don't smell -- unless they have recently been liberated from {especially sockless} shoes. Shoe odour is the product of bacterial breakdown of dead skin, perspiration and material from the inside of your shoes / socks. If you go barefoot all the time, your perspiration evaporates, your dead skin blows away, there are no lining materials and so the bacteria go hungry -- thereby not producing smelly waste products. Just ten minutes after de-shoeing, the smell is gone from your feet {but still in your shoes.....}
Also, most people clean their feet much more often than they clean their shoes -- and I know for a fact that when I go out and about in bare feet, I tend to watch my step a lot better then when I wear shoes..... presumably I'm not the only one..... so I would say shoes are more likely than bare feet to bring in something nasty on them.
Paragraph 7.10 says "Nothing in this Agreement grants to Licensee the right to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer or dispose of a Software Product in whole or in part".
The Law of the Land, however, does grant you the right to sell, lease or otherwise transfer or dispose of your own property -- and, in countries where democracy is taken seriously, makes it a criminal offence for anyone to pretend that you do not have such a right.
No one is holding a gun to your head, or in any other way forcing you to use my software in the first place; should you choose to use it, you may stop doing so at any time
They say the same things about cigarettes and other addictive drugs. The point is that if you start using software you are likely to become dependent on it without noticing it -- until you try to give up. That's how it goes with nicotine, and how it goes with heroin. "Go on, have a drag on this! It'll make you look sexy!" No gun, sure, but there doesn't need to be in the beginning..... by the time you've learned not to cough your guts out, your body is already chemically dependent upon the nicotine and the baccy barons own you.
[t]here's nothing unethical about me choosing not to give you the source of a program I wrote. You have no right to demand that I involutarily surrender to you the fruits of my labors.
I am suggesting that it is absolutely unethical for you not to share your work with others, and that the fruits of any human being's labour belong to all of humanity -- not just the person that did the work.
Yes, I do. If I become dependent upon the software and only you have the source code, then I become dependent upon you to maintain and improve it -- I cannot do these things myself, and I cannot hire another person to do them for me. If I become dependent upon software where I have access to the source, then even if I am not capable of working on it myself, at least I can be reasonably sure that I can find someone willing to do the job for the right price. And, crucially, I retain the option of learning to do it for myself.
It is this idea of dependence on another entity that makes closed-source software so abhorrent. If I can never do it for myself, then I am not free. I bake my own bread, and I grow my own vegetables. I could generate my own electricity but it works out cheaper just to keep feeding the meter. But I would never be able to write a programme to parse Microsoft's proprietary files -- not for want of programming ability nor equipment, but simply because of one company's pig-headed refusal to let me. This is what enrages me so about the closed-source world.
The moral might well be "don't get dependent on software", but access to the source code can only lower anyone's level of dependence on a particular piece of software simply by permitting the creation of choice.
It worked fine in Mozilla Firebird, so I'm guessing that it's a KDE thingie.
The blocked email doesn't count against my bandwidth any more than if I didn't block it - it's on a server which is not physically on my premises. When I do get my own mail servers, I won't just be using disposable addresses - I'll use entire disposable virtual hosts. Like anything_you_like@my_patch_for_this_month.myowndom ain.co.uk
instead.....
I wrote a swear word filter once for an Internet message board {thinking if you're in my cgi-bin directory, which is private property, it's reasonable for me to expect you to obey my rules} and that deliberately changed "w**kel rotary engine" and "sc**thorpe" back after the initial munging {it only checked for one other word, and I couldn't find a single "clean" word with those letters in it}. It did mean you couldn't type "sc**thorpe" without it changing to "Scunthorpe", but who is ever going to want do that?
My e-mail address came out as "undefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefined" in Konqueror. I guess you can't get much more obfuscated than that!
Anyway, not every client has JavaScript enabled. That's why I wrote something server-side: SpamJavelin - it puts trace digits into your virtually-hosted {anything_you_like_before_the_at_sign@mypatch.myis p.co.uk} e-mail address to indicate where and when it was picked up. You then know the IP address used by whoever found your email address {and the time of day, in case it was a dynamically-assigned one} and can take action against them for violations of your T&Cs {"Spam is charged at $2000 per byte"} or just block anything being sent to that address.
I am becoming more and more convinced, however, that the best way to avoid spam is to avoid e-mail. I find that I can contact my colleagues on the other side of the office simply by speaking a little louder.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't compare copying to theft. When you steal a car, the person it used to belong to no longer has the use of that car. That is theft. When you make a copy of a movie, the person it used to belong to still has the use of it. That is not by any stretchg of the imagination the same thing as theft. True, they can't make money by selling it to you anymore, because you've already got it; but if you couldn't have got it free / cheap, then you probably would gone without rather than bought it.
..... Photocopiers, scanners and printers are everywhere, but absolutely nobody is putting pirate copies of popular newspapers on the internet, nor do street vendors sell poor-quality photocopies of bestselling novels. Why? Because where the printed word is concerned, it costs less to buy The Real Thing than to make a copy.
It's just standard free-market capitalism at work. Punters are prepared to risk a certain amount of money for a product without a guarantee, on the probability that the saving from not lining the pockets of the movie industry fatcats will be worth it. Independent distributors know this and aren't afraid to work it.
Take a look from a different angle for a while
Neglecting the amount it takes to pay for the performance being recorded, it costs less to manufacture stamped media than burned media. If the movie studios simply reduced their prices so as to compete directly with bootlegs, they would sell more product: after all, one generally has more recourse against a proper retail sale recorded through the books all the way, than some fly-by-night who has nothing to lose by letting customers down.
Qui tu appelles Francais?
..... je me suis decouvert!
Oh, merde
You can also watch it almost any time of the day or night on UK Gold, Britain's third-favourite "repeats" station {ITV and BBC1 are the first two!} but be sure to record it because there are so many bloody adverts on satellite {except the movie stations, which do show films mostly uninterrupted except for talking over the credits, and of course the BBC themselves}.
but if you multiply 6 by 9 in triskadecimal {base 13}, you do get 42.
Whether or not this is of any significance is -- to borrow a quote from one of the best textbooks -- left as an exercise for the reader.
I suspect a foreign impostor!
..... not "I'm a British person". It just somehow doesn't sound right. Oh, and they would show their .uk e-mail address too!
Any self-respecting real-life "British person" would spell "generalise" and so forth properly, i.e. with an S. And they'd probably say "I'm a Brit" or "I'm a Briton" or "I'm from Britain" or "I'm British"
In most countries, you have certain statutory rights which are sacrosanct and cannot be abridged by contract. If you attempt to sign away such rights, you get to keep them anyway. EULAs such as Microsoft's insist that you should waive certain of your statutory rights. Also, since a software licence is so one-sided, its enforceability is questionable.
.....
The GPL does nothing to take away your statutory rights. Instead, it grants you privileges according to certain conditions. Whatever the likes of RMS may say, there is no law that says you have to make your source code available. Access to the source code is ex gratia. Nothing in the GPL is legally questionable except the fact that it is still technically one-sided. However, anyone who rightfully acquires a piece of GPL'ed software retains the right to use it, so it looks as though your statutory rights are unaffected.
Therein lies the crucial difference between EULA and GPL. Basically, if the GPL is found to be invalid, then every EULA is also automaticaly invalid.
<outrageous analogy>Suppose, in the course of trespassing on someone else's land, Linus shot and killed a Siberian tiger -- a protected species -- in self-defence. In a separate incident, Bill went trespassing on someone's land and shot and killed another Siberian tiger "just for shits and giggles". Now the courts might well rule that Linus' defence -- that the tiger would have killed him -- was valid; but they might also rule that he should never have been there in the first place, particularly if the landowner had posted "beware of the tiger" signs and otherwise followed all regulations concerning dangerous animals, therefore the offence of killing a protected species would be prosecutable in law.
If Linus gets off with the tiger murder, he will of course still be liable for civil damages, since trespass is a civil offence. But Bill's case still has a crucial weakness, because Bill is not able to claim self-defence. On the other hand, if Linus goes down for killing the tiger, then this damages Bill's case irrepairably.</outrageous analogy>
Microsoft et al do not want to see the GPL tested in court, because a ruling either way would at least cast doubt on the credibility of their own end user licence agreements even if it did not blow them clean out of the water.
If the GPL does come to court, SCO will gain nothing even if it is found invalid. The Linux Kernel 3.0 will just have to be released into the Public Domain. Then at least the National Libraries of the world will be able to see that its code is not being misappropriated. Microsoft et al would also be badly damaged, because there is no way that an EULA could be enforceable if the GPL is unenforceable.
I think SCO is the equivalent of the cliche'd crazed gunman backed into a corner with a hostage and enough ammo to take out more than a few cops on the way down -- and the only way they stand the ghost of a chance of getting away alive is for someone else to choose to avoid the showdown. Unfortunately for SCO, the hostage happens to be a thoroughly unpleasant criminal for whom bullet holes would be privately regarded by many people as an improvement, were it not for the fact that they are technically under-age
It is not, never has been and never could be illegal to give permission for someone to use your copyrighted work. Some might think it slightly unusual to grant permission on such a wide basis just out of the goodness of one's heart, but that is a matter for individual copyright holders.
What might be open to question is the revocability of such permission if the licensee breaches the conditions of the licence. However, the licence can only be breached by committing a deliberate act, and it would be next to impossible to prove that KISS had inadvertently breached it.
My guess is that if someone were to misappropriate GPL'ed software, the courts would rule that the copyright in the modified version belongs to the original copyright holders, who would then have the right to distribute that modified source code under the GPL. Ignore the GPL for a moment - we need to look at cases where someone has unlawfully distributed modified versions of "ordinary" copyrighted software {without the GPL} to determine what would be likely to happen.
If permission once granted is revocable, then plain old copyright law applies, exactly as though KISS were selling modified versions of Windows without permission from Microsoft. And if permission once granted is not revocable, then every EULA is invalid. That's why nobody wants to test the GPL in court. Either way, it jeopardises the whole concept of payware.
That is indeed what I was alluding to. Now KDE and Qt no longer require anything in the "traditional" X11 server, there is a real possibility of someone creating a lean, mean, lightweight display system which sacrifices X's generality of purpose for plain and simple speed in a single situation: running one display on a desktop machine with a known architecture.
;-) Most people don't use the half of what it can do. A directly-rendered desktop environment could be just the ticket to get Linux some credibility.
Let's face it, X's configurability is a bit of a double-edged sword. XF86Config-4 is an absolute 'mare, and anyone who says different is either lying or an ex-Amiga hacker
Exactly ..... better integration between KDE and GNOME can only be good for both parties. It's a win-win situation, but it doesn't stop anyone wanting a bigger win for their side!
Novell might be doing the wise thing by sitting on the fence for awhile. They will be continuing to fund GNOME through Ximian while KDE gets attention from paid-for distributions such as Lindows and Xandros. Even if they choose just to cream off the best bits for SUSE, the beauty is that none of the effort is really wasted -- it just stimulates competition between developers. When the initial bugs get worked out, the product of GNOME/KDE integration may well be something special. Also, now KDE has been compiled for MacOSX, that paves the way for the "ground-up" replacement for X11 everyone seems to have been threatening -- there will actually be an application to run on top of it! It will be interesting in the least to see what comes out of that.
The carbon dioxide emitted by a forest fire was already there before the trees started growing. All green plants -- from mighty redwoods to tiny algae -- are made principally from carbon, which they get by taking carbon dioxide from the air, leaving behind oxygen for animals to breathe. There is carbon in soil, but not much of that ends up in plants {otherwise how do you explain hydroponics?} Most plants have a fairly short growing cycle {trees are a bit of an exception, but we get much more of our oxygen from short-life plants than from trees}. In any case, young and fast-growing plants use more carbon dioxide than established ones. It is actually beneficial for big, old trees to go on fire and make room for smaller, fast-growing trees and plants {which will greedily lap up the carbon dioxide left by their ancestors}. Over the lifetime of a tree, the levels of plant-sourced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only fluctuate about a mean -- from a trough when it is growing, to a peak when it is burned.
Carbon dioxide originating from fossil fuels is another matter, since the carbon whence it came has been locked away underground for millions of years, and releasing it will increase the level in the atmosphere.
Of course, one has to ask why this was ever done in the first place. Why should the law-abiding majority have to put up with a technology that
- will give too many false negatives to seriously affect attempted counterfeiting
- will give too many false positives to not impact on legitimate uses
- will hog precious system resources and increase the likelihood of system crashes
- can be readily defeated by someone with a clue {not every piece of equipment or software is made by big corporations
.....}
Are gestures like this part of the payoff with which corporations are buying the law? Adobe incorporate anti-currency-counterfeiting measures in return for a blind eye being turned to Microsoft's outrageous anti-competitive actions?I know, it was more about proof of concept than anything else. I do not use any closed-source software myself -- I have long maintained that if they aren't prepared to show me the source code then they must have something to hide, and now they have damn well gone and proved it.
:-)
I agree with your point, though. Making subjective decisions is a human being's job. Blindly obeying instructions without question is a machine's job. In any case, for a computer to attempt to decide what I may or may not print, without being given sufficient information to determine whether or not such printing is likely to cause harm to a human, is probably a violation of Asimov's Second Law, not that anybody is enforcing same
Place a banknote in position on a scanner and arrange it so you can muck about with the electronics in the bottom half and not risk moving the note. Open up the scanner and disconnect the common terminals of the green and blue LEDs, leaving only the reds. Scan your note -- the resulting image will be in shades of red only. Disconnect the red LEDs and connect up the green ones, scan and repeat with the blue ones.
You now have three separate images of the banknote with just the red, green and blue bits -- in other words, where not to put the cyan, magenta and yellow inks respectively. Change the shades of green {needs cyan and yellow} to shades of blue {cyan and magenta}, and the shades of blue to green, and superimpose the three images. Remember the note didn't move between scans {did it?}, so they will line up automatically. You now have a distorted colour image of a banknote.
To print it out, you need to modify an ink cartridge by flushing it out with solvent, then refilling the magenta inkwell with yellow ink and the yellow inkwell with magenta ink. This will cause blue to print as green and green to print as blue. Red {magenta and yellow} and black {all three colours, or a colour in its own right} will not be affected by these switcheroonie shenanighans, of course.
HTML rendering is turned off by default in Kmail.
/var/log/httpd/access.log if you have one. If the file being served up by the server is executable, the server runs it, feeding in various environment variables and any submitted form contents, and sends the output from the script to the client. The script must send a header saying for itself what form this output takes - all this takes place transparently, and the script file can even have a .htm or .jpg extension, since non-lame operating systems actually look at a file to determine what type of file it is, rather than blindly assuming what type of file is just by looking at the extension.
Every access to a web server is logged, look in your own
Hate to rain on your parade, but the GNOME foot is quite obviously bare, and bare feet don't smell -- unless they have recently been liberated from {especially sockless} shoes. Shoe odour is the product of bacterial breakdown of dead skin, perspiration and material from the inside of your shoes / socks. If you go barefoot all the time, your perspiration evaporates, your dead skin blows away, there are no lining materials and so the bacteria go hungry -- thereby not producing smelly waste products. Just ten minutes after de-shoeing, the smell is gone from your feet {but still in your shoes .....}
..... presumably I'm not the only one ..... so I would say shoes are more likely than bare feet to bring in something nasty on them.
Also, most people clean their feet much more often than they clean their shoes -- and I know for a fact that when I go out and about in bare feet, I tend to watch my step a lot better then when I wear shoes
Paragraph 7.10 says "Nothing in this Agreement grants to Licensee the right to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer or dispose of a Software Product in whole or in part".
The Law of the Land, however, does grant you the right to sell, lease or otherwise transfer or dispose of your own property -- and, in countries where democracy is taken seriously, makes it a criminal offence for anyone to pretend that you do not have such a right.
Yes, I do. If I become dependent upon the software and only you have the source code, then I become dependent upon you to maintain and improve it -- I cannot do these things myself, and I cannot hire another person to do them for me. If I become dependent upon software where I have access to the source, then even if I am not capable of working on it myself, at least I can be reasonably sure that I can find someone willing to do the job for the right price. And, crucially, I retain the option of learning to do it for myself.
It is this idea of dependence on another entity that makes closed-source software so abhorrent. If I can never do it for myself, then I am not free. I bake my own bread, and I grow my own vegetables. I could generate my own electricity but it works out cheaper just to keep feeding the meter. But I would never be able to write a programme to parse Microsoft's proprietary files -- not for want of programming ability nor equipment, but simply because of one company's pig-headed refusal to let me. This is what enrages me so about the closed-source world.
The moral might well be "don't get dependent on software", but access to the source code can only lower anyone's level of dependence on a particular piece of software simply by permitting the creation of choice.
Non-free software is morally unacceptable in the same way, and for the same reasons, as slavery is morally unacceptable.
It worked fine in Mozilla Firebird, so I'm guessing that it's a KDE thingie.
m ain.co.uk
instead .....
The blocked email doesn't count against my bandwidth any more than if I didn't block it - it's on a server which is not physically on my premises. When I do get my own mail servers, I won't just be using disposable addresses - I'll use entire disposable virtual hosts. Like anything_you_like@my_patch_for_this_month.myowndo
"virii" would be the plural of "virius".
"virus" is originally a stuff-noun, not a thing-noun, so it doesn't really have a plural.
I wrote a swear word filter once for an Internet message board {thinking if you're in my cgi-bin directory, which is private property, it's reasonable for me to expect you to obey my rules} and that deliberately changed "w**kel rotary engine" and "sc**thorpe" back after the initial munging {it only checked for one other word, and I couldn't find a single "clean" word with those letters in it}. It did mean you couldn't type "sc**thorpe" without it changing to "Scunthorpe", but who is ever going to want do that?
My e-mail address came out as "undefinedundefinedundefinedundefinedundefined" in Konqueror. I guess you can't get much more obfuscated than that!
s p.co.uk} e-mail address to indicate where and when it was picked up. You then know the IP address used by whoever found your email address {and the time of day, in case it was a dynamically-assigned one} and can take action against them for violations of your T&Cs {"Spam is charged at $2000 per byte"} or just block anything being sent to that address.
Anyway, not every client has JavaScript enabled. That's why I wrote something server-side: SpamJavelin - it puts trace digits into your virtually-hosted {anything_you_like_before_the_at_sign@mypatch.myi
I am becoming more and more convinced, however, that the best way to avoid spam is to avoid e-mail. I find that I can contact my colleagues on the other side of the office simply by speaking a little louder.