Lih-tox's "ls then rm" script is a better idea than rm -i anyway, because rm -i asks for confirmation for each file separately while his script (apparently) asks about all the files at once.
On a side note, does anyone know a good individual tool, or maybe two tools (one for DVD-ripping the other for transcoding) for iPod video?
Just for ripping DVDs to the iPod, Handbrake (as another poster mentioned) is good, but Instant Handbrake (which is the same program, but with appropriate settings for the iPod hard-coded.
I wouldn't be so sure about that... unlike CD ripping, which existed in iTunes long before the music store was opened, Apple is already pushing paid, DRM'd, movie downloads. From Apple's perspective, adding DVD ripping is not just unnecessary (because people accept iTunes as-is), but counterproductive (because it would cut into the iTunes store movie revenue).
Re:What about re-authorizing downloaded content?
on
The Elite's Sour Side
·
· Score: 1
As many Xbox 360 owners know, when you purchase something from Marketplace, it gets authorized to your gamertag and your console (not the hard drive). This means that if you replace the console but keep the hard drive, you'll need to be logged into Xbox Live to use any of that purchased content. Microsoft acknowledges the problem but hasn't provided a convenient solution for everyone yet.
Sounds to me like those people will learn a hard lesson about the difference between actually owning something (i.e., having full control over it) and thinking that they "own" something when they still require somebody else's permission to use it.
...and they slowly convert the XBox into a "Family PC".
Note that there would still be a key difference between that and a real PC: it would be locked-down with DRM, require Microsoft's permission to run third-party code, etc. In other words, a disaster.
Then again, it's not as if MS isn't trying to achieve that disaster with real PCs too, by infecting them with Treacherous Computing...
I don't know why the rest of you from doing so too...
Damnit! Nothing like mixing two completely different sentences together. That should have either read "I don't know why the rest of you can't do it too" or "I don't know what keeps the rest of you from doing so too."
I'm an English major and that's pretty much all we do in my classes. If people were cheating I'd have encountered it at least once by now, and I haven't.
Anybody who's an English major presumably wants to be one because they enjoy writing (due to the "do you want fries with that?" job prospects). Therefore, they wouldn't want to cheat anyway. In contrast, the types of majors that people who care about money rather than the subject go into, like management, probably have a much higher incidence of cheating.
It's copying the entire work, and it's doing it for commercial purposes.... And how is this at all the same as Google's book search?
Google book search also copies the entire work, and does it for commercial (advertising) purposes.
I'm not sure why I had different initial opinions in the two cases (for Google but against Turnitin), but I have to admit the cases are pretty damn similar.
But, I doubt it'll ever connect into the main grid. There are huge security issues there.
Only if you give a shit about Linden Labs' business model. Given that I don't, I see no reason why there couldn't exist a Second Life-like service distributed like HTTP or Jabber. I was trying to convey that idea in my original post; I guess I didn't make it clear enough.
SL isn't much of a game in that sense, but it's a neat Internet-based platform for many different types of content. It's basically a big chatroom in a user-generated 3D environment.
The only problem is that, unlike IRC, it's proprietary and centralized. Having an open-source client is great and all, but I'd much rather hear about them making an open-source server and distributed network so that anyone could actually host their part of the Second Life "world."
What Linux needs is ONE universal clipboard. Just ONE. It shouldn't be part of Gnome, KDE, Xfce or even X11. It should be a system service.
If we're going to have a "universal" clipboard, I'd want it to work in BSD and OS X (GUI and command-line) and Cygwin and Windows too. Therefore, even being a system service isn't enough; it needs to be part of POSIX!
Sure it is, but is there going to be some sort of can't-miss, "gotta have that YESTERDAY!" type of change on the horizon? Most of the GNU project seems to have gelled into relative stability...
Actually, development of GCC is fairly active. I don't follow it all that closely, but there's work being done adding support for new languages, adding support for new standards of old languages (e.g. Fortran 90, C99, etc.), and creating better optimizations (e.g. for multi-core CPUs).
...gelled into relative stability (excepting the HURD, of course)
Oh, HURD has "gelled" too... it's just gelled into a permanently unfinished state. : (
The whole question of a loophole seems to be already answered by the fact that this license is version 3 of the GPL.
Right: the GPL v3 isn't going to fix TiVo's abuse of the loophole in v2, because it's already too late. That's exactly the problem I was talking about, and why it's best to make sure there aren't any loopholes left in v3, so there can't be any more abuses! Is that really that hard for you to understand?
So this would prevent me from porting a GPLv3 app to a closed-source operating system?
Certainly not! What it would prevent is you porting a GPLv3 app to a "Trusted [sic]" operating system that refuses to run binaries that are not cryptographically signed unless all users have the ability to sign the binary.
For example:
Porting a GPLv3 app to (closed-source but not "Trusted [sic]") Windows XP is perfectly OK.
Porting a GPLv3 app which is not itself "Trusted [sic]" to (closed-source and "Trusted [sic]") Windows Vista is perfectly OK.
Porting a GPLv3 app which is itself "Trusted [sic]" to Windows Vista and making the signing key public so that users can make their modified binaries "Trusted [sic]" also is perfectly OK.
Porting a GPLv3 app which is itself "Trusted [sic]" to Windows Vista and not making the key public is not OK.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.
And there you have it: if your system prevents you from changing the software and running it on that same system, then it is no longer Free because you no longer have freedom #1, the ability to modify the software for your own use. As the quote says, access to the source code is necessary for this, but it's not sufficient. What is necessary and sufficient is access to the source code and the ability to run the modified version!
some major projects... in no special order examples are WINE, KDE, QT, Java and Firefox, GCC, Gnome (I assume we will have a LGPLv3, too)
GCC is the biggie there; since it's an official GNU project (which means its copyright is owned by the FSF) you know it's going to become GPL v3 as soon as the license is ready.
It appears that the only way to fix that particular loophole would be to change the following:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Instead of having to do only one of the three things, option 2 needs to be made mandatory.
Either that, or argue that the middle-man didn't really count as part of the act of "distribution," and therefore the author still has an obligation to make the source code available to the end user. I certainly hope a court would rule this way, although IANAL so I don't know whether it would or not.
<offtopic>Slashdot needs to allow HTML markup to have attributes -- the list I quoted is supposed to be numbered with lower-case letters, not numbers.</offtopic>
Not to mention that it's actually important to get this right. If there's a bug in the code you released, you simply fix the bug and everything's fine. If there's a big fat loophole in the license you released, you're screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
Lih-tox's "ls then rm" script is a better idea than rm -i anyway, because rm -i asks for confirmation for each file separately while his script (apparently) asks about all the files at once.
Or just hit up-arrow C-a M-d, which are EMACS-style keybindings that work by default.
(C-a moves to the beginning of the line and M-d deletes the word to the right of the cursor.)
I would say that those (poor, misguided) students still think it's the bubble, and that CS is a high-dollar major.
Nah, that was true during the dot-com bubble. Nowadays seems to be all about management (which is why you see all the ads for MBA programs).
Just for ripping DVDs to the iPod, Handbrake (as another poster mentioned) is good, but Instant Handbrake (which is the same program, but with appropriate settings for the iPod hard-coded.
I wouldn't be so sure about that... unlike CD ripping, which existed in iTunes long before the music store was opened, Apple is already pushing paid, DRM'd, movie downloads. From Apple's perspective, adding DVD ripping is not just unnecessary (because people accept iTunes as-is), but counterproductive (because it would cut into the iTunes store movie revenue).
Sounds to me like those people will learn a hard lesson about the difference between actually owning something (i.e., having full control over it) and thinking that they "own" something when they still require somebody else's permission to use it.
Note that there would still be a key difference between that and a real PC: it would be locked-down with DRM, require Microsoft's permission to run third-party code, etc. In other words, a disaster.
Then again, it's not as if MS isn't trying to achieve that disaster with real PCs too, by infecting them with Treacherous Computing...
Damnit! Nothing like mixing two completely different sentences together. That should have either read "I don't know why the rest of you can't do it too" or "I don't know what keeps the rest of you from doing so too."
Easy solution: stop being Microsoft's customer! Some of us figured this out long ago; I don't know why the rest of you from doing so too...
Of course, all that's irrelevant because this case concerns public high schools, not universities.
Anybody who's an English major presumably wants to be one because they enjoy writing (due to the "do you want fries with that?" job prospects). Therefore, they wouldn't want to cheat anyway. In contrast, the types of majors that people who care about money rather than the subject go into, like management, probably have a much higher incidence of cheating.
Google book search also copies the entire work, and does it for commercial (advertising) purposes.
I'm not sure why I had different initial opinions in the two cases (for Google but against Turnitin), but I have to admit the cases are pretty damn similar.
Only if you give a shit about Linden Labs' business model. Given that I don't, I see no reason why there couldn't exist a Second Life-like service distributed like HTTP or Jabber. I was trying to convey that idea in my original post; I guess I didn't make it clear enough.
The only problem is that, unlike IRC, it's proprietary and centralized. Having an open-source client is great and all, but I'd much rather hear about them making an open-source server and distributed network so that anyone could actually host their part of the Second Life "world."
Holy crap, it all makes sense now!
If we're going to have a "universal" clipboard, I'd want it to work in BSD and OS X (GUI and command-line) and Cygwin and Windows too. Therefore, even being a system service isn't enough; it needs to be part of POSIX!
Actually, development of GCC is fairly active. I don't follow it all that closely, but there's work being done adding support for new languages, adding support for new standards of old languages (e.g. Fortran 90, C99, etc.), and creating better optimizations (e.g. for multi-core CPUs).
Oh, HURD has "gelled" too... it's just gelled into a permanently unfinished state. : (
Right: the GPL v3 isn't going to fix TiVo's abuse of the loophole in v2, because it's already too late. That's exactly the problem I was talking about, and why it's best to make sure there aren't any loopholes left in v3, so there can't be any more abuses! Is that really that hard for you to understand?
Certainly not! What it would prevent is you porting a GPLv3 app to a "Trusted [sic]" operating system that refuses to run binaries that are not cryptographically signed unless all users have the ability to sign the binary.
For example:
Get it?
Let's take a look at the definition of Free Software (emphasis added):
And there you have it: if your system prevents you from changing the software and running it on that same system, then it is no longer Free because you no longer have freedom #1, the ability to modify the software for your own use. As the quote says, access to the source code is necessary for this, but it's not sufficient. What is necessary and sufficient is access to the source code and the ability to run the modified version!
GCC is the biggie there; since it's an official GNU project (which means its copyright is owned by the FSF) you know it's going to become GPL v3 as soon as the license is ready.
: (
It appears that the only way to fix that particular loophole would be to change the following:
Instead of having to do only one of the three things, option 2 needs to be made mandatory.
Either that, or argue that the middle-man didn't really count as part of the act of "distribution," and therefore the author still has an obligation to make the source code available to the end user. I certainly hope a court would rule this way, although IANAL so I don't know whether it would or not.
<offtopic>Slashdot needs to allow HTML markup to have attributes -- the list I quoted is supposed to be numbered with lower-case letters, not numbers.</offtopic>
Not to mention that it's actually important to get this right. If there's a bug in the code you released, you simply fix the bug and everything's fine. If there's a big fat loophole in the license you released, you're screwed.
What, you mean the end of lying about "virgin births" and people rising from the dead?
(Well, somebody had to say it!)