I've seen this story on other sites, and it really pisses me off. She didn't do anything other than just build something off already-published instructions. I'm not impressed. At all. Anyone could build one of these in an afternoon. It's harder to assemble a coffee table from IKEA.
In fact, I'd definitely say it was by far the least impressive out of all the winning projects. At least the other ones involved some sort of thought.
The wii ends up costing as much as the PS3 if you actually want to buy one. The only places taking any orders for it at the "retail price" only sell it with a bunch of extra shit.
It's not that it doesn't come with a keyboard and mouse, it's just optional. You can still select the option when you buy it (although, they want $700 for the cheapest monitor, making it more expensive than an iMac)
Well, i'm probably on the Right side, and I think that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Although, it doesn't have anything to do with abortion rights, I just think it's unconstitutional. (then again, federal laws forbidding abortion would also be unconstitutional).
I guess I wasn't looking at it from that direction, but if MS improved the stack, then it doesn't improve any other products. If the stack was GPL, it would improve everything else that used it as well.
I'd definitely like to see a license written somewhere inbetween the GPL and the BSD license - where the code is free to use in closed source, but changes to the code must be given to the original author. I don't know how/if it could be done legally, since the border can be kind of vague (the line between incorporation into a separate work, which would be allowed, and improvement of the code in the context of its original use)
Well, if it's as accurate as he claims, you could just aim it at the couch - if you miss, it wouldn't do any damage. It would actually also not be shaking up the beer, similar to the physics demonstration where you try to break an egg by throwing it at a suspended bedsheet.
I dunno. I've asked around on warez channels, and nobody has even bothered to download Vista for free. Piracy isn't not just not the problem, it isn't even helping where it has in the past - people won't even use it for FREE.
BSD licensing allows everybody to improve their products (look at the current MS TCP/IP stack) and has the possibility of making all products better.
How has MS improving their TCP/IP stack improved any other products? It doesn't allow anybody to improve their products if they don't have to release their modifications.
1) The GPL does grant additional freedom over standard copyright. In a straight copyright, nobody has the freedom to use the code in any application.
2) The developer is at a disadvantage because the code became part of a closed source product. The point of creating code under the GPL is in a sense to receive payment in the form of services rather than money, in two ways: First, If another person decides to improve your code, you receive "payment" in the form of improvement. If you released code, and someone improves it and sells it as closed source, you do not gain the use of the improvements in your own code. Second, if someone incorporates your code in a completely different project, your "payment" is the free use of the new project. A lot of people who develop GPL code probably use a GPL operating system, and it does them no good if someone uses it in a closed-source Windows app.
Although the GPL "forbids" it, it's probably not a copyright violation to link to a library, it's a copyright violation to distribute a library, so if you were to distribute a closed-source program that uses a library, you wouldn't be able to provide the library. This only applies to dynamically linked libraries, obviously. Statically linked libraries are definitely a copyright violation.
This specific case has not been tested in court, but Galoob v. Nintendo seems to set a precedent.
As for the irony, to link to the libraries included with Windows, each user has to have purchased a license for the libraries - by purchasing Windows.
I don't see how working harder makes you a better teacher, though. (Well, working more). Supposedly, you've already mastered the material you're teaching, you just have to find an effective way to teach it. Once you've come up with an effective way to teach the material, there's not much left to do. You only have the students for one year, it's not like they're going to notice that you already told some joke last year.
I've heard this a lot, and I'm genuinely curious: has anyone ever actually done a study to figure out how going first affects negotiations and haggling?
Sounds like a game called "Poker". You may have heard of it, I hear it's becoming popular.
Well, I'm an idiot. I had a domain name that someone asked me if I'd sell. I never got around to putting up the site that I had planned to, so I just gave it away. (drunkreport.com:)
Then again, the guy actually put up a site and keeps it updated, so I guess he put a lot more into it, than I did just by thinking of the name first.
Well, I have a Master's in Chemistry, and I'm considering teaching, for a few reasons totally unrelated to those that I've seen here, and a few that have already been mentioned.
1. You can be a high school teacher anywhere. I'm finding that almost all pharmaceutical research labs are in the Northeast US. When I graduate, I'll look for research jobs, but I wouldn't take 99% of them because I'd rather be dead than live there. 2. You get three months a year off. I've never really gotten over losing my summers to work. I could take a two month vacation to another hemisphere, not just blow a bunch of money in Vegas over a week. 3. It's a subject that can be made incredibly boring or interesting, depending on the teacher. 4. Bureaucracy aside, it's an easy job. Coming up with lesson plans might be rough for the first year, but they can be reused.
The biggest problem with going into teaching is that if I do decide I don't like it, it will probably be very hard to get back into research afterwards. It'll depend on how tired I am of grad school - I could do a postdoc, and being a professor allows you to return to pharmaceutical research.
That said, I'd rather that there were some research jobs in Florida. There are a few in California, but I'm not sure if I could take the government out there.
When a parody takes that package and makes a minor alteration in order to dilute or destroy the original message, it ruins the future returns of the consortium's investment. Isn't that (at least in principle) what copyright law exists to prevent?
No, copyright law exists to prevent the design for being used on a website to advertise, say, Vegemite. Or, even to parody Vegemite. However, using the design for the specific purpose of making a comment about the original site is fair use.
Slashdot Mirror
Instructions
I've seen this story on other sites, and it really pisses me off. She didn't do anything other than just build something off already-published instructions. I'm not impressed. At all. Anyone could build one of these in an afternoon. It's harder to assemble a coffee table from IKEA.
In fact, I'd definitely say it was by far the least impressive out of all the winning projects. At least the other ones involved some sort of thought.
There is no breakthrough here. Instructions to build this instrument are freely available.
The wii ends up costing as much as the PS3 if you actually want to buy one. The only places taking any orders for it at the "retail price" only sell it with a bunch of extra shit.
It's not that it doesn't come with a keyboard and mouse, it's just optional. You can still select the option when you buy it (although, they want $700 for the cheapest monitor, making it more expensive than an iMac)
Libertarians are conservatives who don't go to church.
Well, i'm probably on the Right side, and I think that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Although, it doesn't have anything to do with abortion rights, I just think it's unconstitutional. (then again, federal laws forbidding abortion would also be unconstitutional).
I guess I wasn't looking at it from that direction, but if MS improved the stack, then it doesn't improve any other products. If the stack was GPL, it would improve everything else that used it as well.
I'd definitely like to see a license written somewhere inbetween the GPL and the BSD license - where the code is free to use in closed source, but changes to the code must be given to the original author. I don't know how/if it could be done legally, since the border can be kind of vague (the line between incorporation into a separate work, which would be allowed, and improvement of the code in the context of its original use)
If you're going to do that, why not just get the warez version?
Well, if it's as accurate as he claims, you could just aim it at the couch - if you miss, it wouldn't do any damage. It would actually also not be shaking up the beer, similar to the physics demonstration where you try to break an egg by throwing it at a suspended bedsheet.
A smart boozer would just get a bottle of whiskey, since one is usually enough.
I dunno. I've asked around on warez channels, and nobody has even bothered to download Vista for free. Piracy isn't not just not the problem, it isn't even helping where it has in the past - people won't even use it for FREE.
BSD licensing allows everybody to improve their products (look at the current MS TCP/IP stack) and has the possibility of making all products better.
How has MS improving their TCP/IP stack improved any other products? It doesn't allow anybody to improve their products if they don't have to release their modifications.
1) The GPL does grant additional freedom over standard copyright. In a straight copyright, nobody has the freedom to use the code in any application.
2) The developer is at a disadvantage because the code became part of a closed source product. The point of creating code under the GPL is in a sense to receive payment in the form of services rather than money, in two ways: First, If another person decides to improve your code, you receive "payment" in the form of improvement. If you released code, and someone improves it and sells it as closed source, you do not gain the use of the improvements in your own code. Second, if someone incorporates your code in a completely different project, your "payment" is the free use of the new project. A lot of people who develop GPL code probably use a GPL operating system, and it does them no good if someone uses it in a closed-source Windows app.
Although the GPL "forbids" it, it's probably not a copyright violation to link to a library, it's a copyright violation to distribute a library, so if you were to distribute a closed-source program that uses a library, you wouldn't be able to provide the library. This only applies to dynamically linked libraries, obviously. Statically linked libraries are definitely a copyright violation.
This specific case has not been tested in court, but Galoob v. Nintendo seems to set a precedent.
As for the irony, to link to the libraries included with Windows, each user has to have purchased a license for the libraries - by purchasing Windows.
How many people wear diapers when they drive so they do not have to pull over?
I dunno, but I'm a guy, so I just piss in an empty Snapple bottle.
I don't see how working harder makes you a better teacher, though. (Well, working more). Supposedly, you've already mastered the material you're teaching, you just have to find an effective way to teach it. Once you've come up with an effective way to teach the material, there's not much left to do. You only have the students for one year, it's not like they're going to notice that you already told some joke last year.
Maybe you could forward it to the Chinese equivalent of salary.com.
http://www.salary.com
"Wow, I'm way overpaid... tech jobs only pay an average $1091/year!"
I've heard this a lot, and I'm genuinely curious: has anyone ever actually done a study to figure out how going first affects negotiations and haggling?
Sounds like a game called "Poker". You may have heard of it, I hear it's becoming popular.
Well, I'm an idiot. I had a domain name that someone asked me if I'd sell. I never got around to putting up the site that I had planned to, so I just gave it away. (drunkreport.com :)
Then again, the guy actually put up a site and keeps it updated, so I guess he put a lot more into it, than I did just by thinking of the name first.
Well, I have a Master's in Chemistry, and I'm considering teaching, for a few reasons totally unrelated to those that I've seen here, and a few that have already been mentioned.
1. You can be a high school teacher anywhere. I'm finding that almost all pharmaceutical research labs are in the Northeast US. When I graduate, I'll look for research jobs, but I wouldn't take 99% of them because I'd rather be dead than live there.
2. You get three months a year off. I've never really gotten over losing my summers to work. I could take a two month vacation to another hemisphere, not just blow a bunch of money in Vegas over a week.
3. It's a subject that can be made incredibly boring or interesting, depending on the teacher.
4. Bureaucracy aside, it's an easy job. Coming up with lesson plans might be rough for the first year, but they can be reused.
The biggest problem with going into teaching is that if I do decide I don't like it, it will probably be very hard to get back into research afterwards. It'll depend on how tired I am of grad school - I could do a postdoc, and being a professor allows you to return to pharmaceutical research.
That said, I'd rather that there were some research jobs in Florida. There are a few in California, but I'm not sure if I could take the government out there.
When a parody takes that package and makes a minor alteration in order to dilute or destroy the original message, it ruins the future returns of the consortium's investment. Isn't that (at least in principle) what copyright law exists to prevent?
No, copyright law exists to prevent the design for being used on a website to advertise, say, Vegemite. Or, even to parody Vegemite. However, using the design for the specific purpose of making a comment about the original site is fair use.
He's also the only Republican senator I know of who admits partying with Satan.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0195051/
Hey, it's not our fault that she deserves to die.
We apologize, but www.puretracks.com is not available for Mac OS.
Unless you're among the majority of people who don't use the iTunes store and copy their songs off a CD.