Playing Games you don't understand.
on
Spammers Busted
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Many people throw away money like these irrevocable drivers license, Nigerian bank scams, the stock market bubble.
The people doing this are trying to cheat, and beat the system, playing games they don't quite understand.
They deserve to lose their money.
If you try to steal millions from the people of Nigeria, I hope you DO lose your money. If you want to get an irrevocable license so you can keep drinking and driving and killing people I hope you lose your money (among other penalties). If you go and throw every penny you have at some complex financial system you can't possibly understand hoping to make a quick buck, you get what you deserve.
People need to take responsiblity for their own actions.
That being said, fraud isn't acceptable and should be punished. But a reasonable person should be able to tell these are scams.
Thanks for the link. and to quote it "some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party" Companies partnered with Real can send you stuff, that is a benefit. They got something out of it, your permission.
He CLEARLY states the customer is the Motherboard designer. They buy their product. Of course making sure their product works well for the end user is important. If their BIOS doesn't satisfy the system builders, or end users, the motherboard manufacturer wont' be happy either.
They are using the point you agreed to accept this stuff. I think this would be a contract of sorts.
If someone makes a deceptive contract to fool you into accepting it, it may not be valid.
This was a large issue with informed consent, and I think this issue was brought when people were electing to risky medical procedures because they didn't fully understand the risks.
I shred all personal documents (and junk mail and crap) to make it more difficult if someone wanted my personal information. It isn't foolproof, but it doe smake me a harder target, which is all I want. (Two men are in the woods, they run into an enraged bear, one of them takes off running, the other says "what are you doing, you can't outrun the bear". The first replies "The bear? I only have to outrun you")
Secondly anyone can copy my CC number, you just need to look at the card, perhaps take a picture. I rely on the fraud protection to protect me.
It isn't perfect, or even secure, but I think if I put enough barriers up, it might just be troublesome enough for people to avoid.
The reseller was hired to perform a service, they didn't perform it and caused the customer to lose their domain. The reseller should reimburse their customer for the loss and damage.
The other group purchased the domain, which was freely available, they did nothing wrong. The registrar who released the name did nothing wrong, they also operated under their standard rules.
I am a bit of an optimist, so obviously my view is coloured.
I think most people want to do whatever they do well. They want to do a good job, be productive and have a positive impact.
Many times the security at a location (Bouncers, Security guards, Police, Military, or receptionist) won't let you pass with a bribe, they want to do a good job. Although I think it is much more rare that they'd deny you access for something reasonable. I have to use the restroom, forgot my coat, is my gf/wife/friend in there, have you seen Mr Smith, he said he'd meet me.
That is the point, you can get this useful information even if it shouldn't be given out depending on your approach, which is the point that he is trying to convey.
I learn to understand how the forms fit together, and how actions impact my tax bill.
I know my taxes are right, I know where and what and why I'm paying what I am paying. Contrary to popular belief the system isn't that nonsensical, and the instruction booklets give you a nice step by step explanation of EVERYTHING.
I also telefile (Canadian phone thing), takes about 15 minutes to file, and it's free.
The direct deposit payment has been in the account within a few (1-3) weeks for everyone I know who used it.
Lets suppose much baldness is cause by a gene, please neglect the obviousness of my idea.
Method to predict future baldness. Look for gene XXX in subject, if found, they will become bald. Analyse biological relatives for baldness, if many are bald, the subject will likely become bald. Baldness genes are in masturbatory semen, if the father watches too much pornography, the subject will have a higher likeliehood of baldness.
These "methods for detecting baldness", depend on the discovered science. But that does not mean they are not methods for doing something.
Discovery is a vauge term, and patent law doesn't state you can't patent discoveries, it defines what you may patent.
This is an important distinction. If they patented the gene, it is already existing naturally, there is no reasonable infringement.
If they patented the procedure to detect the gene, they shoul get the benefit of their research (assuming it is a valid patent).
If they patented the gene as a method to predict cancer, then the arguement is quite murky. Finding cancer by looking for it is obvious. Finding cancer by looking for other unrelated factors is probaly a valid patent.
If this gene sequence is related to cancer (causative or a result of) then it is related to the having of cancer (like cough due to cold).
What is stopping the companies from putting the best of everything on one card?
Money. There is still a limited market for high end video cards.
Complexity. It is much easier to run through a simplistic GPU at high speed (and higher memory speed), or use a slower speed, but more powerful GPU. Doing both is more difficult (RISC vs CISC anyone)
Interesting. The Austrailian court ruled that posting on a website was publication in all viewable locations. The US court that a website is passive and not directed at any particular audience.
If you distribute GPL code under terms other then those the GPL allows you are committing a copyright violation.
If you don't agree to the GPL definition of derivative work, you wouldn't have accepted the redistribution license and to redistribute would be a GPL violation.
If a court rules that distributing something or part of something without the copyright owners permission is legal, we would have an interesting situation.
I truely hope that a judge won't rule that "I only copied a small part of their work" is a valid defense.
Some people argue that inclusion of the header files makes something a derivative. This is utter nonsense.
I am one of those people who disagree. If you MUST include GPL licensed code (ie the header file in question) to make the binary you wish to distribute, you have created a (partially) derivative work.
If you don't agree with the GPL restrictions on distribution, don't distribute GPL code, or any part of it.
To distribute a work, with the included GPL code would require licensing under the GPL.
If you distribute your work without any GPL code, it would not be required to license it under the GPL.
If for that code to be made usable, it MUST use/include/integrate some portion of GPL licenced source or binary it is in some way a derivative work when that GPL code is included.
If you include a GPL header file, it has integrated GPL code into that work.
If you wish to distribute it without any GPL code at all you wouldn't be bound, and the user could compile it themselves. The distribute under GPL clause only comes into play IF you distribute the GPL code, don't distribute it, you don't have to agree to it.
You mean the big bad MS is developing all sorts of technology. Some of it just copying features found before in other operating systems.
Does it really surprise anyone that MS knows about other operating systems, Bash, Perl and Python.
The things they list in this post are good useful tools, it should be obvious that they would look to implement them now that clustering is becomming a larger concern. Admin by GUI works for a handful of computers, but when you start dealing with many, you need something else, and MS is going to provide that.
This just shows they are acting more serious about providing Enterprise Solutions.
No it isn't getting around the GPL. It is making a new product (documentation) and selling that normally. This is similar to many books or training manuals. You could always write your own documentation for that same open source (or closed source) software.
Not surprisingly RMS had made an essay years ago on why free software needs free documentation.
I didn't see the SNL appearance, I was suggesting that it could just be that they didn't manipulate the sound much then, or did too much, or they had an off day, whatever.
Generally I find a live show doesn't have the precise sound of a studio recording, but there is a lot more emotion and fun in a good performance. I don't think this generally makes it on the tape.
When you give a tax deductible donation you aren't getting any money back. You just don't pay tax on the portion you are giving away.
You don't immediately not pay tax on the donation, it get summed up at the end of the year so you might see a return. But that is just because you overpaid your taxes throughout the year.
Myself I take it as an easy way to bump up my charitable contributions bye 30-40% since it is pre tax money.
Slashdot Mirror
Many people throw away money like these irrevocable drivers license, Nigerian bank scams, the stock market bubble.
The people doing this are trying to cheat, and beat the system, playing games they don't quite understand.
They deserve to lose their money.
If you try to steal millions from the people of Nigeria, I hope you DO lose your money.
If you want to get an irrevocable license so you can keep drinking and driving and killing people I hope you lose your money (among other penalties).
If you go and throw every penny you have at some complex financial system you can't possibly understand hoping to make a quick buck, you get what you deserve.
People need to take responsiblity for their own actions.
That being said, fraud isn't acceptable and should be punished. But a reasonable person should be able to tell these are scams.
Thanks for the link.
and to quote it
"some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party"
Companies partnered with Real can send you stuff, that is a benefit.
They got something out of it, your permission.
He CLEARLY states the customer is the Motherboard designer.
They buy their product. Of course making sure their product works well for the end user is important. If their BIOS doesn't satisfy the system builders, or end users, the motherboard manufacturer wont' be happy either.
They are using the point you agreed to accept this stuff. I think this would be a contract of sorts.
If someone makes a deceptive contract to fool you into accepting it, it may not be valid.
This was a large issue with informed consent, and I think this issue was brought when people were electing to risky medical procedures because they didn't fully understand the risks.
Okay, I'll bite.
I shred all personal documents (and junk mail and crap) to make it more difficult if someone wanted my personal information. It isn't foolproof, but it doe smake me a harder target, which is all I want.
(Two men are in the woods, they run into an enraged bear, one of them takes off running, the other says "what are you doing, you can't outrun the bear". The first replies "The bear? I only have to outrun you")
Secondly anyone can copy my CC number, you just need to look at the card, perhaps take a picture. I rely on the fraud protection to protect me.
It isn't perfect, or even secure, but I think if I put enough barriers up, it might just be troublesome enough for people to avoid.
The reseller was hired to perform a service, they didn't perform it and caused the customer to lose their domain. The reseller should reimburse their customer for the loss and damage.
The other group purchased the domain, which was freely available, they did nothing wrong.
The registrar who released the name did nothing wrong, they also operated under their standard rules.
I am a bit of an optimist, so obviously my view is coloured.
I think most people want to do whatever they do well. They want to do a good job, be productive and have a positive impact.
Many times the security at a location (Bouncers, Security guards, Police, Military, or receptionist) won't let you pass with a bribe, they want to do a good job.
Although I think it is much more rare that they'd deny you access for something reasonable. I have to use the restroom, forgot my coat, is my gf/wife/friend in there, have you seen Mr Smith, he said he'd meet me.
That is the point, you can get this useful information even if it shouldn't be given out depending on your approach, which is the point that he is trying to convey.
I don't get this.
They are made because MS is selling their license for a closed product at a low price.
While they sell an "Open Standard" which is closed (by patents) for a high price.
Seems like they're both selling effectively closed solutions for money, they're just pissed MS is cheaper.
Paper and Pencil work well for me.
It's free.
I learn to understand how the forms fit together, and how actions impact my tax bill.
I know my taxes are right, I know where and what and why I'm paying what I am paying.
Contrary to popular belief the system isn't that nonsensical, and the instruction booklets give you a nice step by step explanation of EVERYTHING.
I also telefile (Canadian phone thing), takes about 15 minutes to file, and it's free.
The direct deposit payment has been in the account within a few (1-3) weeks for everyone I know who used it.
You can patent a method.
Lets suppose much baldness is cause by a gene, please neglect the obviousness of my idea.
Method to predict future baldness.
Look for gene XXX in subject, if found, they will become bald.
Analyse biological relatives for baldness, if many are bald, the subject will likely become bald.
Baldness genes are in masturbatory semen, if the father watches too much pornography, the subject will have a higher likeliehood of baldness.
These "methods for detecting baldness", depend on the discovered science. But that does not mean they are not methods for doing something.
Discovery is a vauge term, and patent law doesn't state you can't patent discoveries, it defines what you may patent.
This is an important distinction.
If they patented the gene, it is already existing naturally, there is no reasonable infringement.
If they patented the procedure to detect the gene, they shoul get the benefit of their research (assuming it is a valid patent).
If they patented the gene as a method to predict cancer, then the arguement is quite murky. Finding cancer by looking for it is obvious. Finding cancer by looking for other unrelated factors is probaly a valid patent.
If this gene sequence is related to cancer (causative or a result of) then it is related to the having of cancer (like cough due to cold).
Maybe they just have a good patent lawyer.
What is stopping the companies from putting the best of everything on one card?
Money.
There is still a limited market for high end video cards.
Complexity.
It is much easier to run through a simplistic GPU at high speed (and higher memory speed), or use a slower speed, but more powerful GPU. Doing both is more difficult (RISC vs CISC anyone)
Geforce FX scored 209 FPS in Quake 3 (1600x1200x32)
while the Radeon 9700 Pro attained only 147fps
So what they are saying is that even at a ridiculous resolution, either card is capable of a higher framerate than your monitor, and your eyes.
Interesting.
The Austrailian court ruled that posting on a website was publication in all viewable locations.
The US court that a website is passive and not directed at any particular audience.
I like the US decision, it makes more sense.
But then you couldn't redistribute the code. Unless you make an agreement to the contrary you have no right to distribute it.
If you distribute GPL code under terms other then those the GPL allows you are committing a copyright violation.
If you don't agree to the GPL definition of derivative work, you wouldn't have accepted the redistribution license and to redistribute would be a GPL violation.
If a court rules that distributing something or part of something without the copyright owners permission is legal, we would have an interesting situation.
I truely hope that a judge won't rule that "I only copied a small part of their work" is a valid defense.
Some people argue that inclusion of the header files makes something a derivative. This is utter nonsense.
I am one of those people who disagree.
If you MUST include GPL licensed code (ie the header file in question) to make the binary you wish to distribute, you have created a (partially) derivative work.
If you don't agree with the GPL restrictions on distribution, don't distribute GPL code, or any part of it.
To distribute a work, with the included GPL code would require licensing under the GPL.
If you distribute your work without any GPL code, it would not be required to license it under the GPL.
If for that code to be made usable, it MUST use/include/integrate some portion of GPL licenced source or binary it is in some way a derivative work when that GPL code is included.
If you include a GPL header file, it has integrated GPL code into that work.
If you wish to distribute it without any GPL code at all you wouldn't be bound, and the user could compile it themselves. The distribute under GPL clause only comes into play IF you distribute the GPL code, don't distribute it, you don't have to agree to it.
Pick an enjoyable job you like.
There is nothing worse then the dread of going into a place you hate every day.
The second part is to live the non work life you want. Pursue things that interest you and are fun. Life isn't all work.
You mean the big bad MS is developing all sorts of technology. Some of it just copying features found before in other operating systems.
Does it really surprise anyone that MS knows about other operating systems, Bash, Perl and Python.
The things they list in this post are good useful tools, it should be obvious that they would look to implement them now that clustering is becomming a larger concern. Admin by GUI works for a handful of computers, but when you start dealing with many, you need something else, and MS is going to provide that.
This just shows they are acting more serious about providing Enterprise Solutions.
No it isn't getting around the GPL. It is making a new product (documentation) and selling that normally. This is similar to many books or training manuals.
You could always write your own documentation for that same open source (or closed source) software.
Not surprisingly RMS had made an essay years ago on why free software needs free documentation.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
I said lots of bands sound "crappy" live.
I didn't see the SNL appearance, I was suggesting that it could just be that they didn't manipulate the sound much then, or did too much, or they had an off day, whatever.
Generally I find a live show doesn't have the precise sound of a studio recording, but there is a lot more emotion and fun in a good performance. I don't think this generally makes it on the tape.
What is the problem.
Music is more then the sum of the components, and also varies with your personal taste.
Lots of bands sound "crappy" live compared to the polished studio music, but there is much more to a performance then the sound.
Are you sure that you don't just prefer charities that create software that you personally benefit from?
Are yuo sure you don't just prefer charities that give you a warm fuzzy feeling?
We do things for our own reasons, in a free society you're allowed to.
Why don't you work to fix the law?
When you give a tax deductible donation you aren't getting any money back. You just don't pay tax on the portion you are giving away.
You don't immediately not pay tax on the donation, it get summed up at the end of the year so you might see a return. But that is just because you overpaid your taxes throughout the year.
Myself I take it as an easy way to bump up my charitable contributions bye 30-40% since it is pre tax money.