Come on, this is why we have patents. The purpose is to create an incentive for people to take ideas, clearly document them, then publish them for others to use. The incentive is either they will pay you to use them now, or you can keep anyone from using your idea for a limited time. After that limited time, everyone gets to use your well documented idea for free.
This is the public good arguement of patents, I agree with it. The only way these guys become patent millionaires is if the company can pay them millions for the idea, and still end up with a profit themselves.
at least on their aircraft, that nothing within the 'consumer bandwidth' can affect the installed electronics
Their, not all. They might even be only refering to their aircraft as the one they are personally working on. Why take the risk? I really don't see what the issue is, it is a little annoying, like them turning off the in flight music half an hour before landing.
I can't think of anything worse than contributing to anything and finding out it's being used to kill a few more civilians or conscripts as part of the current stampede.
I can, what about contributing to something and finding out that because of some clause in the license it can't be used to prevent or at least minimize the death of many more civilians, conscripts or others. Recently there are many people on both sides of the debate. I can't imagine open source software being usable to many people if they need a hundred people with different opinions to agree that their actions are acceptable.
This is why the GPL specifically does not allow discrimination against a group. If agreeing to political causes is a requirement to use OSS it becomes quite unfree. Even MS lets their competitors use their software.
A proper analysis accounts for this, I should have said disproportionate, not most.
If you take 10 mile drives, and 5 miles is "close". You would expect half the accidents to happen close to home. If 2/3rd happen close to home this would be disproportionate, and is what I meant.
What about if it rains, would that provide enough to short it out? If it isn't warmed up, it won't help.
A short piece of metal should be able to give a nice path for the electricity, then it wouldn't run through the attacker. What if the attacker wears a normal jacket and leather gloves? This probaly won't penetrate.
This will probaly just give the user a false sense of security.
Sorry, the alternate renderers aren't more efficient. They are just optimized for the expected environment.
If you expect a certain situation to exist, you can skip lots of the other stuff you do and get it done faster, easier or with less effort. You could say you are more efficient, but basically you just cut out lots of what you do.
This is why people get in more car accidents close to home, they make many assumptions, ie nobody drives here, or there isn't anyone around that corner. and they don't look. Generally this results in optimized performance, no time wasted being careful.
If it doesn't work right, it isn't efficient, cause you're left with garbage.
Well, someone at Trend Macro has come up with a roject lan to ass through a new change.
You just missed it, too bad.
Carrier protection
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But then when you start filtering data on content, you are not an impartial conduit. You might then be taking responsiblity for the content you do let through. I think ISPs are more scared of that than spam.
ISP's should let you opt out of their default mail filtering policy, then these spammers lose a big part of the arguement. Either opt in spam filtering and opt in bulk email. or Opt out spam filtering and opt out bulk emial.
Making a Statement
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
An officer of a company should not make a statement without ensuring it is correct. Or taking reasonable means to ensure it is correct. When a specific claim is made, like this there are a few options. 1. No statement at this time, or no comment. 2. Suggest that this didn't happen. This is against our standard policies. 3. Investigate the statement, and then comment on it's accuracy. 4. Say we did no such thing, without checking. This is reckless, and a responsible person should not do so.
I know it sounds weaselish, but you MUST not make a statement when you do not have the information to justify it. You can get in a lot of trouble for lying.
one is GPL and the other is a commercial/proprietary license which also states that works derived from its code cannot be licensed under another license.
Ask the authors to relicense their code. If someone asked me to relicense my code to a different license or with an exception to allow linking, and the intent matches my origional intent, I would permit it.
This is hard to prove, the RIAA makes crazy claims all the time. They don't get judgements that large.
It is much easier to just claim copyright violations and a fine.
Actual losses could be the total number of units sold minus the first person, as they could have all gotten the product legally. Number of people who purchased an equivalent product. A Business that had to license or develop an alternative product.
Everyone lost. We could have ALL (minus 1) had the benefit of this software for free. The very first person would have to purchase it, but then could freely redistribute to the world. By locking out the GPL we all lost use of this software, we also lost the ability to improve the software. Anyone who wanted a feature that was not added lost out.
decent programmers who choose to give their work away should not be taken advantage of.
Sure they should, they gave it away!
Now those who license it under the GPL did NOT give it away and should have their license respected.
Back before my time the BSD license said you had to display the credits. Some little company (AT&T wasn't it) didn't want to play by the rules, I wonder how that turned out? The old BSD license was very close to giving it away, much closer then the GPL, and courts ruled it was enforcable. I would be surprised if the GPL was any less valid.
Someone needs to take a course, or read a book on Design of experiments.
Then he could have gotten the same information with many fewer test runs. Also you could end up with interaction effects, which is nice. Maybe two settings have a greater or lesser effect.
Lets see, move gas to car. Burn gas(moderately efficient) vs Move gas to power plant, run turbine (efficient), generate electricity (low efficiency), transmit to car (ok), recharge battery (generally ok), turn electric motor (a little more efficient then a gas engine, depending on duty cycle).
I think that it might be a slight improvement, but mostly it is a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
I also again question the longevity of the car, more waste comes from the production of the vehicle then its tailpipe emissions anyway.
Take a quick look at efficiencies, the generation of electricity is quite inefficient, and hurts the overall efficiency of the system.
So we are going to use electric cars. Big toxic batteries. They have no tailpipe emissions, but where does that power come from? Power plants, oil, nuclear, coal, solar, wind, hydro which one will generate the extra. I bet that the wind isn't gonna start blowing harder, and the sun isn't burning brighter, and the water won't flow faster. Moving the source of the pollution doesn't really change much. The only benefit of these vehicles is they might be more efficient with the energy they do have, but they aren't a zero environmental cost. If they don't have the 10 year life of a conventional small car they might have an even bigger impact then the other new cars being sold today.
Value to the purchaser should be higher then the value to the seller, that is how a free market exchange can happen. And it can be profitable for both sides.
According to SCO's story, they cannot have released the Linux kernel under the GPL legitimately, since it was a derivative work of their own, unlicensed code, and other people's works. They licensed their own code under the GPL by that logic. It wasn't unlicensed, they owned it, and they distributed it under the GPL, what's the problem?
The songwriter/lyricist writes the song, that is possibly their entire work. That is why they get royalties for the performance, even broadcast, where the performing artist does not.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, this is why we have patents.
The purpose is to create an incentive for people to take ideas, clearly document them, then publish them for others to use.
The incentive is either they will pay you to use them now, or you can keep anyone from using your idea for a limited time.
After that limited time, everyone gets to use your well documented idea for free.
This is the public good arguement of patents, I agree with it. The only way these guys become patent millionaires is if the company can pay them millions for the idea, and still end up with a profit themselves.
Maybe we should just use formats based on open standards. Then the actual software people use is irrelevant.
at least on their aircraft, that nothing within the 'consumer bandwidth' can affect the installed electronics
Their, not all.
They might even be only refering to their aircraft as the one they are personally working on.
Why take the risk?
I really don't see what the issue is, it is a little annoying, like them turning off the in flight music half an hour before landing.
I can't think of anything worse than contributing to anything and finding out it's being used to kill a few more civilians or conscripts as part of the current stampede.
I can, what about contributing to something and finding out that because of some clause in the license it can't be used to prevent or at least minimize the death of many more civilians, conscripts or others.
Recently there are many people on both sides of the debate. I can't imagine open source software being usable to many people if they need a hundred people with different opinions to agree that their actions are acceptable.
This is why the GPL specifically does not allow discrimination against a group. If agreeing to political causes is a requirement to use OSS it becomes quite unfree. Even MS lets their competitors use their software.
I don't have data, but this statement has been repeated so much, by so many people I thought it was accepted as fact.
Like no two fingerprints are the same. Or no two snowflakes are the same.
There is no proof of such uniqueness, but it is generally accepted as fact.
A proper analysis accounts for this, I should have said disproportionate, not most.
If you take 10 mile drives, and 5 miles is "close". You would expect half the accidents to happen close to home.
If 2/3rd happen close to home this would be disproportionate, and is what I meant.
What about if it rains, would that provide enough to short it out?
If it isn't warmed up, it won't help.
A short piece of metal should be able to give a nice path for the electricity, then it wouldn't run through the attacker.
What if the attacker wears a normal jacket and leather gloves? This probaly won't penetrate.
This will probaly just give the user a false sense of security.
Sorry, the alternate renderers aren't more efficient. They are just optimized for the expected environment.
If you expect a certain situation to exist, you can skip lots of the other stuff you do and get it done faster, easier or with less effort. You could say you are more efficient, but basically you just cut out lots of what you do.
This is why people get in more car accidents close to home, they make many assumptions, ie nobody drives here, or there isn't anyone around that corner. and they don't look. Generally this results in optimized performance, no time wasted being careful.
If it doesn't work right, it isn't efficient, cause you're left with garbage.
Well, someone at Trend Macro has come up with a roject lan to ass through a new change.
You just missed it, too bad.
But then when you start filtering data on content, you are not an impartial conduit.
You might then be taking responsiblity for the content you do let through.
I think ISPs are more scared of that than spam.
ISP's should let you opt out of their default mail filtering policy, then these spammers lose a big part of the arguement.
Either opt in spam filtering and opt in bulk email.
or
Opt out spam filtering and opt out bulk emial.
An officer of a company should not make a statement without ensuring it is correct. Or taking reasonable means to ensure it is correct.
When a specific claim is made, like this there are a few options.
1. No statement at this time, or no comment.
2. Suggest that this didn't happen. This is against our standard policies.
3. Investigate the statement, and then comment on it's accuracy.
4. Say we did no such thing, without checking. This is reckless, and a responsible person should not do so.
I know it sounds weaselish, but you MUST not make a statement when you do not have the information to justify it. You can get in a lot of trouble for lying.
one is GPL and the other is a commercial/proprietary license which also states that works derived from its code cannot be licensed under another license.
Ask the authors to relicense their code. If someone asked me to relicense my code to a different license or with an exception to allow linking, and the intent matches my origional intent, I would permit it.
This is hard to prove, the RIAA makes crazy claims all the time. They don't get judgements that large.
It is much easier to just claim copyright violations and a fine.
Actual losses could be the total number of units sold minus the first person, as they could have all gotten the product legally.
Number of people who purchased an equivalent product.
A Business that had to license or develop an alternative product.
I think those are justified, but IANAL
Everyone lost.
We could have ALL (minus 1) had the benefit of this software for free.
The very first person would have to purchase it, but then could freely redistribute to the world.
By locking out the GPL we all lost use of this software, we also lost the ability to improve the software.
Anyone who wanted a feature that was not added lost out.
decent programmers who choose to give their work away should not be taken advantage of.
Sure they should, they gave it away!
Now those who license it under the GPL did NOT give it away and should have their license respected.
Back before my time the BSD license said you had to display the credits. Some little company (AT&T wasn't it) didn't want to play by the rules, I wonder how that turned out?
The old BSD license was very close to giving it away, much closer then the GPL, and courts ruled it was enforcable. I would be surprised if the GPL was any less valid.
Someone needs to take a course, or read a book on Design of experiments.
Then he could have gotten the same information with many fewer test runs.
Also you could end up with interaction effects, which is nice. Maybe two settings have a greater or lesser effect.
MS is licensing, not buying.
The headline of both articles clearly says so.
How much more efficient?
Total efficiency?
Lets see, move gas to car. Burn gas(moderately efficient)
vs
Move gas to power plant, run turbine (efficient), generate electricity (low efficiency), transmit to car (ok), recharge battery (generally ok), turn electric motor (a little more efficient then a gas engine, depending on duty cycle).
I think that it might be a slight improvement, but mostly it is a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
I also again question the longevity of the car, more waste comes from the production of the vehicle then its tailpipe emissions anyway.
Take a quick look at efficiencies, the generation of electricity is quite inefficient, and hurts the overall efficiency of the system.
So we are going to use electric cars.
Big toxic batteries.
They have no tailpipe emissions, but where does that power come from?
Power plants, oil, nuclear, coal, solar, wind, hydro which one will generate the extra. I bet that the wind isn't gonna start blowing harder, and the sun isn't burning brighter, and the water won't flow faster.
Moving the source of the pollution doesn't really change much. The only benefit of these vehicles is they might be more efficient with the energy they do have, but they aren't a zero environmental cost. If they don't have the 10 year life of a conventional small car they might have an even bigger impact then the other new cars being sold today.
My bank charges a transaction fee for using my debit card.
My plan gives me 10 free transactions a month, one is to pay my credit card.
I use my credit card for almost everything.
Food, Gas, movies.
Why deal with any change, just use plastic.
No fees, no worrying if you have enough on you.
Interest rate? Pay it off when the statement is due. If you don't have the money, you wouldn't have been able to pay cash anyway.
Value to the purchaser should be higher then the value to the seller, that is how a free market exchange can happen. And it can be profitable for both sides.
According to SCO's story, they cannot have released the Linux kernel under the GPL legitimately, since it was a derivative work of their own, unlicensed code, and other people's works.
They licensed their own code under the GPL by that logic. It wasn't unlicensed, they owned it, and they distributed it under the GPL, what's the problem?
It is called dumping.
It would be hard to prove giving permission to use has a cost above $0.
You can freely use the above statement. Didn't cost me much to do that did it?
The songwriter/lyricist writes the song, that is possibly their entire work.
That is why they get royalties for the performance, even broadcast, where the performing artist does not.