Looks like Reddit's systems weren't ready for the leap second. It been down since around midnight (UTC). You'd think a site as big as that would be ready for such an event.
In Germany and many other countries in the EU it is specifically forbidden to intentionally connect to a wireless network of which you are not the proprietor or have access rights to, let alone record its traffic. It doesn't matter if the network is unsecured or not. It is simply not allowed. Nothing magical about it.
I'd love to know how you configured that setup? I have tried that with KDE 4.3 using two Nvidia cards (each dual-DVI capable) and connecting three monitors but TwinView doesn't natively allow for more than two monitors. What it does seem to allow is for one of the "twin views" to be composed of two xinerama screens though. It then puts that xinerama dual-screen together with the regular screen as TwinView. But that screws up the screen borders, i.e. maximising a window on the xinerama dual-screen gets stretched over both monitors.
I'm just surprised he and Whedon are still talking after Firefly...
Why would you say that? It's not like Whedon one day simply decided "screw this show, let's fire everybody." It was FOX who cancelled Firefly in a fit of pure stupidity or malice (not sure) and it had been hard on everyone involved. I don't recall hearing of bad blood between Whedon and Fillion, so seriously, what do you mean?
Sqlite [...] has bindings to just about every imaginable language. Except for C++. No quality object-oriented library there. By quality I mean comparable to libpqxx. It's too bad.
my 3rd Gen, 4.5 year old beast is has the battery life of a mouse. A mouse with no batteries. You know, replacement batteries are available from a great number of sources for about $20 (Amazon, Ebay,...). The installation of such a battery looks taunting at first but it is really no big deal. The worst that can happen is that you scratch or dent the case, which probably happened more than once anyway, considering you've had yours for over four years now.
My trusty old 10GB 3rd generation iPod runs fine on the fourth or fifth replacement battery.
Yes. "A whole nation based on the principle of saying one thing, and doing another." And apart from not being able to form a coherent sentence you seem to have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to European countries.
I meant "personal data" as in "the stuff you have on your hard disk", not the kind of personal data that identifies you as the individual you are. The former kind belongs to you, the latter kind is needed for all the things you mentioned.
That's why there are still laws and regulations in place that forbid Amazon to share your credit card details with anyone else. Laws that are there to protect our privacy.
Also note that this has nothing to do with DRM the way it is used, and the topic of this article. Namely to have your customers spend money on some digital data or "product" (such as videos, music, documents) and then, after they bought it, impose restrictions on how and when they may use it, and try to enforce these restrictions by means of DRM. The "information wants to be free movement" is against that kind of customer treatment and, again, has nothing to do with your personal data (either on your hard disk or in your passport).
No. Your personal data is noone's business except yours. You have the right for your personal data to stay your personal data. The "Information wants to be free movement" as you call it has nothing to do with protecting your privacy and is certainly not at odds with anything on that matter.
The whole DRM-idea is about "sharing" data (documents, music, video,...), but with the sharer imposing usage restrictions on the shared data. That's where "information wants to be free".
Is something like injecting additional information or tying a song to a name/IP address-combination even possible when the format in which they are selling the songs is MP3? Wouldn't it require a media player that knows about this heading or trailing garbage in the file in order to be able to play it? MP3 as such doesn't support stuff like that, so I am not sure how they would pull this off, technically.
Frankly, I bought this card because it advertised it's Linux compatibility. If I had known the actual extent of it's "compatibility" (no Linux Wireless Extension support), I would have given it a pass. Sadly, just because the manufacturer says it's "Linux-compatible" doesn't make it so. Write some half-assed driver for the card, pack it together with some half-assed configuration program an label it "compatible". Bah.
Shopping for hardware is one of the most tedious tasks for any Linux user, especially when it comes to wireless cards. I've searched my ass off quite a few times in the past years and found http://linux-wless.passys.nl/query_hostif.php very helpful recently. I mostly try to go for an Atheros chipset (although they don't provide a free software, or even open source, driver, just a pre-compiled kernel module), always worked very well in the past.
Finding good Linux-supported hardware is difficult and requires you to spend hours researching.
Did you know that when an academic writes a paper, to get it published, they have to surrender the copyright to the academic journal? After that, they can't even give copies away. If someone wants to see it, they're supposed to point them to the journal publisher where they can "buy" reprints.
(IANAL) Fortunately, it works that way only in the US (and countries with similar "extreme" copyright laws). In many European countries you cannot give away the rights to your own creation. We also distinguish between "exploitation rights" (i.e. the right to copy or distribute and the like) and the "intellectual property", if that's the term best describing the German word "Urheberrecht". You can give licenses to others or partially extend your exploitation rights to others, but you can't _not_ be the one who keeps every right to your creation.
So any journal that you submit an article to gets the right to print it, but you always keep the right to distribute copies of your article yourself.
Now it's too bad that so many major journals are US-based (although Springer is or was German if I'm not mistaken).
Probably feeding a troll here, but "Feisty Fawn" is the code name for the project that is officially called "Ubuntu 7.04". Just like Windows Vista was dubbed "Longhorn" for the longest time. Read up a little before posting crap.
They need protected, not babysat. It wasn't like Apple was hiding what the terms of buying music were. It's written on the website. If a consumer doesn't want to read them then that isn't Apple's fault. They offer a service, if the consumer doesn't want the service then they can go elsewhere.
It doesn't work just like that.
Just because Apple, or whoever else, declares this and that in their terms of service it doesn't mean that the law of a given country doesn't apply. And, further, just because the legislative and judiciary are always behind the technological possibilities in this "digital age" or ours doesn't mean that they won't catch up and stop the big companies from doing what they want with their customers.
Just like in this case. In the EU e-commerce law grants customers the right to return anything they bought in an online shop ("e-commerce") and get their money back. That didn't exactly apply to online music stores before only because the law was too specific (or not specific enough, depends on how you look at it), and that's probably going to change. I welcome it.
Here in the EU the consumer comes first.
In a somewhat related matter: when you look at EULAs from Microsoft (or Novell, or RedHat) you can see a number of paragraphs that try to take away all kinds of rights from the customer that are in fact granted by law, like the right to benchmark a system and publish the results, the right to install the software on more than one computer or the right to re-sell your (legally purchased) copy of the software. Just because they formulate something in a way that's difficult to comprehend and won't be read by the majority of customers doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. That's why we have (consumer protection) laws.
Re:You're in public == you have no privacy
on
Windows Live and Privacy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I can't speak to other country's laws, but aparently YOU can't speak to the US's.
Right; I assumed most western countries had compatible copyright laws when it comes to individuals (not speaking about copy protection, DRM and other such things). I can, of course, only speak for my country (Austria).
Are they recognizable by most people: if not, then you're pretty much in the clear
That's right, that's the basis for all of it. As long as you can't be clearly identified it's not "your picture" and your cannot claim the right to your own picture. Meaning as soon as you can be identified it is a picture of you, to which only you have the copyright.
2. Are they a focal point of the photograph, or just incidental? If they're just incidental, you're pretty much in the clear (e.g. if you take a picture of a beach, some random dude who happens to be in the photograph usually can't do anything)
I don't think that's true. If that dude can be clearly identified he has the right to that picture and you are not allowed to do anything with it without his consent.
3. Even if you don't pass the first two points, there's still a fairly wide variety of things that you can do with photos. For instance, if they are being used for news purposes, you can't do anything. If they're being used in an art exhibit, you probably can't do anything.
Someone putting your picture in an exhibition without you having agreed to that is clearly unlawful. It's the same with news reports. Anecdotal evidence, backed up by the code of law: Just this summer my girlfriend had a photo exhibition and they needed the written permission from every person photographed to be able to use their picture.
Our law is pretty clear on those matters, the only exception made is when your picture is needed for administrative, court procedures and the like.
Can't really believe it to be much different in the US. But I may be wrong.
The television news and sports broadcasts in Austria must be pretty boring, then.
They are. But that's not the reason.
When you go to a football game in a stadium, or when you buy a ticket for a game, you accept the house rules. Those rules generally say, among other things, that your picture may be taken by television cameras and broadcast live, or later. When you get interviewed by the news on current events or whatever you also agree to them broadcasting your picture, if they choose so. If you find yourself on a news report and haven't allowed them to take your picture you are well within your rights to sue. Not many people do that, however.
Re:You're in public == you have no privacy
on
Windows Live and Privacy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
And of course you are dead wrong. Otherwise no one could take a picture in public without getting releases from everyone that might be in the frame.
I am wrong in that a person's consent is needed to photograph her. It's not.
What is needed is the person's expressed consent to do anything with that photograph that would in any way involve "the public". It's in your countries copyright law (assuming you're from somewhere in the US or Europe, or many other democratic countries), and generally called "the right to your own picture" or some such. Look it up. 78 in my country's code (Austria).
Now, using someone's image for profit -- that's a different kettle o' fish.
As long as you keep the photographs you made of people without asking their permission to do anything with them under your bed you're fine. Anything else, be it for someone's profit or not, would be unlawful.
Being in public does, in democratic countries, not mean you give up all your personal rights. Far from it.
Of course/everybody/ has the right/not/ to be photographed in public (or private) without consenting to it. Look it up in your country's civil law (unless you are from North Korea or so).
Photographing the neighbourhood on the other hand is generally not unlawful.
No, the Scouring of the Shire was not filmed at all (apart from the few scenes Frodo sees in the Mirror of Galadriel). Christopher Lee was pissed because in the regular release (i.e. non-Extended Edition on DVD) all of his already little screen time was cut, which covered Grima murdering Saruman in Isengard when the Fellowship (or what's left of it) visit him after the Ents attacked.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like Reddit's systems weren't ready for the leap second. It been down since around midnight (UTC). You'd think a site as big as that would be ready for such an event.
Absolutely correct, and good analogy
No, absolutely incorrect. The law in Germany and other EU countries explicitly forbids accessing computer networks you have no permission to access.
In Germany and many other countries in the EU it is specifically forbidden to intentionally connect to a wireless network of which you are not the proprietor or have access rights to, let alone record its traffic. It doesn't matter if the network is unsecured or not. It is simply not allowed. Nothing magical about it.
I'd love to know how you configured that setup? I have tried that with KDE 4.3 using two Nvidia cards (each dual-DVI capable) and connecting three monitors but TwinView doesn't natively allow for more than two monitors. What it does seem to allow is for one of the "twin views" to be composed of two xinerama screens though. It then puts that xinerama dual-screen together with the regular screen as TwinView. But that screws up the screen borders, i.e. maximising a window on the xinerama dual-screen gets stretched over both monitors.
What did you do?
You mean "This [OS] is problematic."
I'm just surprised he and Whedon are still talking after Firefly...
Why would you say that? It's not like Whedon one day simply decided "screw this show, let's fire everybody." It was FOX who cancelled Firefly in a fit of pure stupidity or malice (not sure) and it had been hard on everyone involved. I don't recall hearing of bad blood between Whedon and Fillion, so seriously, what do you mean?
My trusty old 10GB 3rd generation iPod runs fine on the fourth or fifth replacement battery.
Yes. "A whole nation based on the principle of saying one thing, and doing another." And apart from not being able to form a coherent sentence you seem to have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to European countries.
I meant "personal data" as in "the stuff you have on your hard disk", not the kind of personal data that identifies you as the individual you are. The former kind belongs to you, the latter kind is needed for all the things you mentioned.
That's why there are still laws and regulations in place that forbid Amazon to share your credit card details with anyone else. Laws that are there to protect our privacy.
Also note that this has nothing to do with DRM the way it is used, and the topic of this article. Namely to have your customers spend money on some digital data or "product" (such as videos, music, documents) and then, after they bought it, impose restrictions on how and when they may use it, and try to enforce these restrictions by means of DRM. The "information wants to be free movement" is against that kind of customer treatment and, again, has nothing to do with your personal data (either on your hard disk or in your passport).
No. Your personal data is noone's business except yours. You have the right for your personal data to stay your personal data. The "Information wants to be free movement" as you call it has nothing to do with protecting your privacy and is certainly not at odds with anything on that matter.
...), but with the sharer imposing usage restrictions on the shared data. That's where "information wants to be free".
The whole DRM-idea is about "sharing" data (documents, music, video,
Is something like injecting additional information or tying a song to a name/IP address-combination even possible when the format in which they are selling the songs is MP3? Wouldn't it require a media player that knows about this heading or trailing garbage in the file in order to be able to play it? MP3 as such doesn't support stuff like that, so I am not sure how they would pull this off, technically.
Shopping for hardware is one of the most tedious tasks for any Linux user, especially when it comes to wireless cards. I've searched my ass off quite a few times in the past years and found http://linux-wless.passys.nl/query_hostif.php very helpful recently. I mostly try to go for an Atheros chipset (although they don't provide a free software, or even open source, driver, just a pre-compiled kernel module), always worked very well in the past.
Finding good Linux-supported hardware is difficult and requires you to spend hours researching.
Did you know that when an academic writes a paper, to get it published, they have to surrender the copyright to the academic journal? After that, they can't even give copies away. If someone wants to see it, they're supposed to point them to the journal publisher where they can "buy" reprints.
(IANAL) Fortunately, it works that way only in the US (and countries with similar "extreme" copyright laws). In many European countries you cannot give away the rights to your own creation. We also distinguish between "exploitation rights" (i.e. the right to copy or distribute and the like) and the "intellectual property", if that's the term best describing the German word "Urheberrecht". You can give licenses to others or partially extend your exploitation rights to others, but you can't _not_ be the one who keeps every right to your creation.
So any journal that you submit an article to gets the right to print it, but you always keep the right to distribute copies of your article yourself.
Now it's too bad that so many major journals are US-based (although Springer is or was German if I'm not mistaken).
Probably feeding a troll here, but "Feisty Fawn" is the code name for the project that is officially called "Ubuntu 7.04". Just like Windows Vista was dubbed "Longhorn" for the longest time. Read up a little before posting crap.
They need protected, not babysat. It wasn't like Apple was hiding what the terms of buying music were. It's written on the website. If a consumer doesn't want to read them then that isn't Apple's fault. They offer a service, if the consumer doesn't want the service then they can go elsewhere.
It doesn't work just like that.
Just because Apple, or whoever else, declares this and that in their terms of service it doesn't mean that the law of a given country doesn't apply. And, further, just because the legislative and judiciary are always behind the technological possibilities in this "digital age" or ours doesn't mean that they won't catch up and stop the big companies from doing what they want with their customers.
Just like in this case. In the EU e-commerce law grants customers the right to return anything they bought in an online shop ("e-commerce") and get their money back. That didn't exactly apply to online music stores before only because the law was too specific (or not specific enough, depends on how you look at it), and that's probably going to change. I welcome it.
Here in the EU the consumer comes first.
In a somewhat related matter: when you look at EULAs from Microsoft (or Novell, or RedHat) you can see a number of paragraphs that try to take away all kinds of rights from the customer that are in fact granted by law, like the right to benchmark a system and publish the results, the right to install the software on more than one computer or the right to re-sell your (legally purchased) copy of the software. Just because they formulate something in a way that's difficult to comprehend and won't be read by the majority of customers doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. That's why we have (consumer protection) laws.
I couldn't agree more.
I can't speak to other country's laws, but aparently YOU can't speak to the US's.
Right; I assumed most western countries had compatible copyright laws when it comes to individuals (not speaking about copy protection, DRM and other such things). I can, of course, only speak for my country (Austria).
Are they recognizable by most people: if not, then you're pretty much in the clear
That's right, that's the basis for all of it. As long as you can't be clearly identified it's not "your picture" and your cannot claim the right to your own picture. Meaning as soon as you can be identified it is a picture of you, to which only you have the copyright.
2. Are they a focal point of the photograph, or just incidental? If they're just incidental, you're pretty much in the clear (e.g. if you take a picture of a beach, some random dude who happens to be in the photograph usually can't do anything)
I don't think that's true. If that dude can be clearly identified he has the right to that picture and you are not allowed to do anything with it without his consent.
3. Even if you don't pass the first two points, there's still a fairly wide variety of things that you can do with photos. For instance, if they are being used for news purposes, you can't do anything. If they're being used in an art exhibit, you probably can't do anything.
Someone putting your picture in an exhibition without you having agreed to that is clearly unlawful. It's the same with news reports. Anecdotal evidence, backed up by the code of law: Just this summer my girlfriend had a photo exhibition and they needed the written permission from every person photographed to be able to use their picture.
Our law is pretty clear on those matters, the only exception made is when your picture is needed for administrative, court procedures and the like.
Can't really believe it to be much different in the US. But I may be wrong.
The television news and sports broadcasts in Austria must be pretty boring, then.
They are. But that's not the reason.
When you go to a football game in a stadium, or when you buy a ticket for a game, you accept the house rules. Those rules generally say, among other things, that your picture may be taken by television cameras and broadcast live, or later. When you get interviewed by the news on current events or whatever you also agree to them broadcasting your picture, if they choose so. If you find yourself on a news report and haven't allowed them to take your picture you are well within your rights to sue. Not many people do that, however.
And of course you are dead wrong. Otherwise no one could take a picture in public without getting releases from everyone that might be in the frame.
I am wrong in that a person's consent is needed to photograph her. It's not.
What is needed is the person's expressed consent to do anything with that photograph that would in any way involve "the public". It's in your countries copyright law (assuming you're from somewhere in the US or Europe, or many other democratic countries), and generally called "the right to your own picture" or some such. Look it up. 78 in my country's code (Austria).
Now, using someone's image for profit -- that's a different kettle o' fish.
As long as you keep the photographs you made of people without asking their permission to do anything with them under your bed you're fine. Anything else, be it for someone's profit or not, would be unlawful.
Being in public does, in democratic countries, not mean you give up all your personal rights. Far from it.
Of course /everybody/ has the right /not/ to be photographed in public (or private) without consenting to it. Look it up in your country's civil law (unless you are from North Korea or so).
Photographing the neighbourhood on the other hand is generally not unlawful.
No, the Scouring of the Shire was not filmed at all (apart from the few scenes Frodo sees in the Mirror of Galadriel). Christopher Lee was pissed because in the regular release (i.e. non-Extended Edition on DVD) all of his already little screen time was cut, which covered Grima murdering Saruman in Isengard when the Fellowship (or what's left of it) visit him after the Ents attacked.
http://www.glyphweb.com/Arda/returnoftheking.html
Evolution I get, but what's half-baked about Kmail?