Copyright provides a fairly big hammer if somebody chooses to be a bozo and, say, start a competing business by first duplicating as much of your web work as he can get.
By itself, laws cannot prevent acts, but they permit enforcement (people generally being happier with their police and other authorities if these officers appear to be acting in accordance with laws produced through some due process, rather than imperial edict or personal whim), and thus can provide some deterrent value. Combine this with a fairly large number of institutions -- like, I'd suspect, pretty much any business, government agency or university -- that have policies against either violating laws in general or copyright in particular, and there's a fair bit of (post facto) teeth.
Could a schmuck rip off all your work? Yes. But that clearly risks sanctions that wouldn't happen w/o both copyright law and an enforcement system, so any schmuck who's considering ripping off your work and making a business out of it has to consider the consequences.
And somehow I don't see many beserk "distributions of passion" occuring where pure emotional surges cause unthinking violations of copyright...
If you stole a single CD, that's theft -- a criminal offense.
If you chose to DUPLICATE AND DISTRIBUTE its contents, and make money doing so, without permission, that's copyright infringement, a completely different civil offense. It doesn't matter whether it's to legal holders, because it's YOUR (the distributor's) action that matters here. Illegally providing a service to somebody who legally (arguably) could do the same (rip MP3s of a CD he owns, barring terms that say he can't) is still illegal.
Or, to put it other terms -- I could, say, give an 18-yr-old some money to buy me a 6-pack, but in a state w/ a drinking age of 21 and pretty strict laws on possession, that 18-yr-old would be vulnerable to an arrest for possession. It doesn't matter that the end-user would be me, and that it'd be perfectly legal for me to have gotten the 6-pack myself; it's illegal for the 18-yr-old to do so. To make it closer to MPPP, worsen the 18-yr-old's case by having him or her make frequent beer runs, earning money when doing so.
Also, keep in mind that MPPP as a company currently has a market cap greater than than half a billion, with a fairly substantial amount of cash. It seems appropriate to punish a company harshly for apparently believing that it had the right to violate IP laws just because it suits their business model...
Hrmm. If they (MPAA) were really sincere about wanting to allow time-shifting, they'd have to come up with a method that allowed it, but somehow tied the recording to the individual unit, or owner (in the latter case, a removable smart-card or something like that) or something -- for instance, using strong encryption on the stream of data. The problem then boils down to mass-producing individual keys and getting folks to toss out their old VCRs and any other recording media (TV tuner card? Hrm.)
FWIW, the Iraqi government under Saddam has been known to use chemical weapons against its Kurdish population, and Hussein ain't exactly gone yet. Nasty stuff; he's probably hated by a LOT of people (Kurds, Shiites, various neighboring states, supporters of officials he's purged, etc...), but he still appears to be backed by the core of his army. At the end of the day, that counts for a LOT.
Fuel-air explosives aren't quite as nasty (they only result in people cooking from the heat, dying from pressure waves, or suffocating from lack of non-burned O2) but Russia has been reported to have used 'im in the taking of Grozny. That's not exactly a civillian-friendly (or standard police-issue) weapon, either, but ISTR that the Chechen campaign increased Putin's popularity, not decreased it. And it's an internal matter (at least from the view of the major powers)...
On Gandhi, I believe he's been quoted (e.g. autobio, translated by Mahadev Desai, Public Affairs Press '48) as serverly criticizing the British for denying Indians arms, as that naturally leads to a severe imbalance of power. AFAIK he didn't rule out violence completely, recognizing that at some point you may have to use it...
If they don't list things in detail, then they have to fall back on things like "reasonable person" or "community" standards. Even reasonable people have different standards on many ideas, and unreasonable people will test them.
This translates to litigation, because those phrases WILL be challenged in courts and every claim countered. Specifying, say, the exact minimum standards for a chocolate-chip cookie (military issue) may seem silly, but it prevents a manufacturer from trying to rip off people by providing what might be called substandard by some, but not by others. By making laws extremely detailed, many such actions become pointless because the potential loopholes and debating points are removed.
As for another poster's comments on understanding laws -- people aren't normally required to understand them all. Most of us, for instance, might not care that much about the the exact safety standards of a fire code, as long as we're sure that they have been judged reasonable by people who DO spend much of their time studying such, and as long as they're enforced. If I have no involvement in shipping agricultural products across borders, the exact details of inspections and what must, should or cannot be done via produce from, say, Chile or Uruguay does not interest me beyond having some second-hand level of confidence that the laws are reasonable.
Even lawyers specialize -- patent law, for instance, which should be coupled with an area of expertise such as a specialization in a particular field of science. Criminal law isn't that relevant to a divorce specialist beyond the basics; nor, for the most part, are the details that relevant to most of us along as it aligns closely with our intuition (e.g. if I believe that murder is wrong and do not plan on it, then whether or not a state differentiates between murder with a firearm versus murder via arsenic or motor vehicle isn't that crucial to me as long as any such differences are not absurd -- like murder by car resulting in only 5-10 while the others lead to a mandatory death penalty. Likewise, a strangely arbitrary law -- say, if it were illegal to drive on Mondays, Wednesdays or Fridays with an odd-numbered license plate -- WOULD deserve dissemination, consideration and explanation (e.g. reducing traffic, and if even-numbered plates had a similar restriction on the Tue-Thu-Sat).
Percentage-wise, that does not appear to be a viable option unless BOTH major parties fragment simultaneously. You'd pretty much have to hope that environmentalists flee Dems to go Green (more than slightly unlikely), and that pro-abortion GOPers break with their leaders (delegates in both parties being a tad more extreme than the rank and file).
If only one is split ala Bull Moose, the other sweeps.
If neither splits, then there simply aren't enough truly independent votes to win major office -- in particular, the Big Prize of the chap who gets to appoint federal judges...
Hrm. CA law isn't clear that in-state purchases should get sales tax? I'm pretty sure that here in PA, purchases in PA from PA pay tax regardless of the method used (online or no) -- and I've had onliners charge me sales tax when they have a presence in this state.
* As for companies moving out of state...
Do they have a Use Tax? IIRC, some states require a Use Tax for many out-of-state purchases... it may be poorly enforced, but it's on the books already.
We don't hire serial killers to catch serial killers, do we? Nor need a psychiatrist BE bipolar to understand the condition...
And would you argue, say, that the folks auditing code for OpenBSD (and those in similar projects) do NOT know about computer security, simply because they don't break into other folks systems without their consent? That'd be one approach, but they use their judgement. One could train for a rifle competition by targetting pedestrians, but it's far more appropriate, if less challenging, to practice on a range with paper targets. That's discretion.
Getting convicted of a serious crime demonstrates a profound lack of judgement or discretion. I see no reason why a company should trust, let alone ever hire, somebody who utterly lacks such traits.
It's probably the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that specifies that harsher rules apply to monopolies. Few companies can claim to dominate their industries as much as MS -- professional sports leagues come to mind, and to lesser extents Intel (FTC already looked at 'em, and they've got real competition), Cisco (perhaps?), and such.
ISTR that most folks get their news from local TV news crews. They aren't that bound to the networks. I doubt ABC really cares whether WTAE covers a missing person report or a church dedication, for instance; perhaps if the locals specialized in gore and nudity the networks might, but otherwise...
The local news programs, at least here, cover almost entirely purely local issues. Some do "World in a Minute"-type overviews, but those are pretty much read-the-headline/show-a-photo deals.
The overall content as far as a network would be concerned is pretty much nil. And, not quite coincidentally, those who get their news chiefly from local news progs are, IIRC, less likely to be clueful about politics and such (versus, say, national newspaper readers and so forth)...
My bad. Scrolling upwards a bit suggests it comes from "The Tao of Programming". I've never read that, but it's probably been excerpted and propagated many times, explaining why it's familiar...
If you're married, would you mind if your wife were seduced by your best friend, but did not change her status regarding you? You're not losing anything...
I'm remind of the following story probably somewhere in a fortune file or wherever (unfortunately, I've never seen an attribution), that suggests your definition should be more broad... Many of you have probably seen it already, but it bears repeating.
There once was a man who went to a computer trade show. Each day as he entered, the man told the guard at the door:
"I am a great thief, renowned for my feats of shoplifting. Be forewarned, for this trade show shall not escape me unplundered."
This speech disturbed the guard greatly, because there were millions of dollars of computer equipment inside, so he watched the man carefully. But the man merely wandered from booth to booth, humming quietly to himself.
When the man left, the guard took him aside and searched his clothes, but nothing was to be found.
On the next day of the trade show, the man returned and chided the guard, saying, "I escaped with a vast booty yesterday, but today will be even better." So the guard watched him ever more closely, but to no avail.
On the final day of the trade show, the guard could restrain his curiosity no longer. "Sir Thief," he said, "I am so perplexed, I cannot live in peace. Please enlighten me. What is it that you are stealing?"
The man smiled. "I am stealing ideas," he said.
Some intangibles -- control, ideas, affections, and so forth -- are extremely valuable.
Since graphics aren't mentioned there, the default status of 'copyrighted' applies, just as it's the default with all other not-specifically-licensed creative work. Free license has to be explicitly granted.
I think that in certain cases, design IS what's critical. Form follows function...
Take wire services or anything else that's syndicated -- real-time stock quotes, you name it. Lots of sites can receive the same *content*, so one way to distinguish between two would be presentation and access methods.
In the case of wire reports, if somebody came up with a clean interface that permitted keyword filtering and displayed reports in real-time, perhaps archived briefly in a hierarchical structure (so later you can check out, say, sports scores all in one list, and news regarding the Taliban in another, and so forth), that's a LOT of value added compared to taking the exact same content and simply displaying the whole unfiltered, unsorted mess in an always-growing web page.
The context -- wire reports -- is exactly the same, but the design has been altered significantly. The owner of the first site has a definite interest in being first, and in NOT having his every added feature cloned instantly... while he morally (and, IIRC, legally) may lack the right to stop others doing similar things independently, he shouldn't have to tolerate other sites using his exact design derived from his work if he so chooses.
It is, if memory serves, still infringement to copy images and other creative work if it's not "fair use", regardless of whether money is made or much effort exerted or what not. "Free speech" should not not come into it because it's not a censorship issue per se, but ownership -- specifically, control.
How much control should an author have over his work? Need there be an implicit contract between end user and creator, such as offered via copyright law?
Currently, "fair use" covers such things like parody, and excerpts for review and research purposes... it does not include wholesale duplication for general use. Walking into a B&N with a laptop and scanner, and digitizing books, is NOT going to make them happy, and arguably is neither fair use in the legal sense, nor right in terms of morality.
Note that if you DO want people to be able to imitate your site, you're free to place a less-restrictive copyright like GPL or BSD on it, or otherwise release it into the public domain. Otherwise, normal copyright applies (i.e. most copying except fair use, like (presumably) caching/rendering, is infringement).
After I leave the uni system (being a student complicates IP issues) I'm probably free to distribute programs that I write independently with the proviso that if you use it for more than 30 days, you're obligated to send me a photograph of a squirrel in the wild, if I so choose. I might be able to require instead the consumption of a PB-and-J sandwich every 6 months, but I suspect that such a clause could be disallowed as pointless and unenforceable. Or, I could take an Open Source approach and opt for an Artistic license, or BSD, or GPL, or a variant of the MIT/X Consortium license, or even fire-and-forget ala public domain.
Since a) nobody would be obligated to use my code, b) they weren't dependent on it before (since it didn't exist, so obviously they got along without it), and c) it's a creative work, not, say, a communal, pre-existing resource (like air),I'd prefer this to "all information must be free", as the latter unilaterally imposes a harsh, universal contract upon all creators...
Legally, I'm not sure they can monitor workplace phone (voice, not modem) communications -- ISTR that some law prohibits this, but it's worded in such a way that it doesn't extend to network data communications.
Quite so. I wonder if anybody sells USENET archives on CD for cheap (e.g. comp.os.linux.setup might be especially relevant); something like that, plus a decent interface to grep, might be quite helpful to users.
It's been a while since I built a kernel, but if memory serves, you can build off the previous configuration if you
a) patch the kernel rather than unpacking a full new.tgz (or probably just copying.config to the new directory)
Employees realize that if they sign a confidentiality agreement, they're obliged to abide by it? That, frankly, their legally binding word should NOT be broken on a whim without expecting consequences?
Intel might, perhaps, be largely correct in thinking that (if they indeed do).
How many casual computer users have the time and motivation to learn about computer architecture? Concepts like cache latency, pipeline depth, and superscalar architecture haven't really flooded lunchtime conversation, methinks.
The MHz rating is an easy number to check; it's heavily advertised (machines labelled as "800 MHz Pentium II", with PII pretty much being a brand (and denoting IBM-type versus Mac-type)) and it's probably what a lot of folks observe.
These same folks probably won't buy a 1.13 GHz machine as soon as it comes out, but when the prices are lowered on 800MHz machines and slower models, they may still use MHz to compare.
They're adding an access method, not taking it away.
The dental students CAN STILL BUY REAL BOOKS. That's CHOICE. Perhaps many will buy VBs; perhaps many will not.
It's not worth complaining about unless it's mandatory, which it is NOT yet. To do so is roughly akin to complaining about the invention of fire just because it MIGHT be used for harm -- namely, alarmism; 'tis but crying wolf.
If they DO show intent to make it mandatory, then by all means protest to your heart's content. If the program is expanded against the wishes of dental students, THEN there is a problem. But not yet.
They're putting their cost at $4,200 total over four years, versus $3,000 for the physical books.
And your VitalBooks are NOT deactivated if you pay for all four years; they're STILL searchable and fully functional aside from no longer receiving updates.
It's not a book. It's software -- searchable, upgradeable content, with all the implications such as the culture of EULAs (There's no real legal r`eason, AFAIK, why a book can't be shipped with a EULA; it's just not particularly useful to do so given that beyond photocopying the book or plagiarising there's not much "wrong" that can be done with it).
In a data structures/basic programming course, if templates are covered, the choice of compiler can be VERY particular. How Visual C++ 5.0 deals with templates seems to differ from how gcc/g++ 2.95 deals with templates which seems to differ from how gcc/g++ 2.7.2 deals with templates and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright provides a fairly big hammer if somebody chooses to be a bozo and, say, start a competing business by first duplicating as much of your web work as he can get.
By itself, laws cannot prevent acts, but they permit enforcement (people generally being happier with their police and other authorities if these officers appear to be acting in accordance with laws produced through some due process, rather than imperial edict or personal whim), and thus can provide some deterrent value. Combine this with a fairly large number of institutions -- like, I'd suspect, pretty much any business, government agency or university -- that have policies against either violating laws in general or copyright in particular, and there's a fair bit of (post facto) teeth.
Could a schmuck rip off all your work? Yes. But that clearly risks sanctions that wouldn't happen w/o both copyright law and an enforcement system, so any schmuck who's considering ripping off your work and making a business out of it has to consider the consequences.
And somehow I don't see many beserk "distributions of passion" occuring where pure emotional surges cause unthinking violations of copyright...
If you stole a single CD, that's theft -- a criminal offense.
If you chose to DUPLICATE AND DISTRIBUTE its contents, and make money doing so, without permission, that's copyright infringement, a completely different civil offense. It doesn't matter whether it's to legal holders, because it's YOUR (the distributor's) action that matters here. Illegally providing a service to somebody who legally (arguably) could do the same (rip MP3s of a CD he owns, barring terms that say he can't) is still illegal.
Or, to put it other terms -- I could, say, give an 18-yr-old some money to buy me a 6-pack, but in a state w/ a drinking age of 21 and pretty strict laws on possession, that 18-yr-old would be vulnerable to an arrest for possession. It doesn't matter that the end-user would be me, and that it'd be perfectly legal for me to have gotten the 6-pack myself; it's illegal for the 18-yr-old to do so. To make it closer to MPPP, worsen the 18-yr-old's case by having him or her make frequent beer runs, earning money when doing so.
Also, keep in mind that MPPP as a company currently has a market cap greater than than half a billion, with a fairly substantial amount of cash. It seems appropriate to punish a company harshly for apparently believing that it had the right to violate IP laws just because it suits their business model...
Hrmm. If they (MPAA) were really sincere about wanting to allow time-shifting, they'd have to come up with a method that allowed it, but somehow tied the recording to the individual unit, or owner (in the latter case, a removable smart-card or something like that) or something -- for instance, using strong encryption on the stream of data. The problem then boils down to mass-producing individual keys and getting folks to toss out their old VCRs and any other recording media (TV tuner card? Hrm.)
FWIW, the Iraqi government under Saddam has been known to use chemical weapons against its Kurdish population, and Hussein ain't exactly gone yet. Nasty stuff; he's probably hated by a LOT of people (Kurds, Shiites, various neighboring states, supporters of officials he's purged, etc...), but he still appears to be backed by the core of his army. At the end of the day, that counts for a LOT.
Fuel-air explosives aren't quite as nasty (they only result in people cooking from the heat, dying from pressure waves, or suffocating from lack of non-burned O2) but Russia has been reported to have used 'im in the taking of Grozny. That's not exactly a civillian-friendly (or standard police-issue) weapon, either, but ISTR that the Chechen campaign increased Putin's popularity, not decreased it. And it's an internal matter (at least from the view of the major powers)...
On Gandhi, I believe he's been quoted (e.g. autobio, translated by Mahadev Desai, Public Affairs Press '48) as serverly criticizing the British for denying Indians arms, as that naturally leads to a severe imbalance of power. AFAIK he didn't rule out violence completely, recognizing that at some point you may have to use it...
If they don't list things in detail, then they have to fall back on things like "reasonable person" or "community" standards. Even reasonable people have different standards on many ideas, and unreasonable people will test them.
This translates to litigation, because those phrases WILL be challenged in courts and every claim countered. Specifying, say, the exact minimum standards for a chocolate-chip cookie (military issue) may seem silly, but it prevents a manufacturer from trying to rip off people by providing what might be called substandard by some, but not by others. By making laws extremely detailed, many such actions become pointless because the potential loopholes and debating points are removed.
As for another poster's comments on understanding laws -- people aren't normally required to understand them all. Most of us, for instance, might not care that much about the the exact safety standards of a fire code, as long as we're sure that they have been judged reasonable by people who DO spend much of their time studying such, and as long as they're enforced. If I have no involvement in shipping agricultural products across borders, the exact details of inspections and what must, should or cannot be done via produce from, say, Chile or Uruguay does not interest me beyond having some second-hand level of confidence that the laws are reasonable.
Even lawyers specialize -- patent law, for instance, which should be coupled with an area of expertise such as a specialization in a particular field of science. Criminal law isn't that relevant to a divorce specialist beyond the basics; nor, for the most part, are the details that relevant to most of us along as it aligns closely with our intuition (e.g. if I believe that murder is wrong and do not plan on it, then whether or not a state differentiates between murder with a firearm versus murder via arsenic or motor vehicle isn't that crucial to me as long as any such differences are not absurd -- like murder by car resulting in only 5-10 while the others lead to a mandatory death penalty. Likewise, a strangely arbitrary law -- say, if it were illegal to drive on Mondays, Wednesdays or Fridays with an odd-numbered license plate -- WOULD deserve dissemination, consideration and explanation (e.g. reducing traffic, and if even-numbered plates had a similar restriction on the Tue-Thu-Sat).
Percentage-wise, that does not appear to be a viable option unless BOTH major parties fragment simultaneously. You'd pretty much have to hope that environmentalists flee Dems to go Green (more than slightly unlikely), and that pro-abortion GOPers break with their leaders (delegates in both parties being a tad more extreme than the rank and file).
If only one is split ala Bull Moose, the other sweeps.
If neither splits, then there simply aren't enough truly independent votes to win major office -- in particular, the Big Prize of the chap who gets to appoint federal judges...
Hm. An obvious Q:
Was this different under prior administrations, or commissioners?
* The article suggests that it's a clarification.
Hrm. CA law isn't clear that in-state purchases should get sales tax? I'm pretty sure that here in PA, purchases in PA from PA pay tax regardless of the method used (online or no) -- and I've had onliners charge me sales tax when they have a presence in this state.
* As for companies moving out of state...
Do they have a Use Tax? IIRC, some states require a Use Tax for many out-of-state purchases... it may be poorly enforced, but it's on the books already.
We don't hire serial killers to catch serial killers, do we? Nor need a psychiatrist BE bipolar to understand the condition...
And would you argue, say, that the folks auditing code for OpenBSD (and those in similar projects) do NOT know about computer security, simply because they don't break into other folks systems without their consent? That'd be one approach, but they use their judgement. One could train for a rifle competition by targetting pedestrians, but it's far more appropriate, if less challenging, to practice on a range with paper targets. That's discretion.
Getting convicted of a serious crime demonstrates a profound lack of judgement or discretion. I see no reason why a company should trust, let alone ever hire, somebody who utterly lacks such traits.
*shrug*
It's probably the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that specifies that harsher rules apply to monopolies. Few companies can claim to dominate their industries as much as MS -- professional sports leagues come to mind, and to lesser extents Intel (FTC already looked at 'em, and they've got real competition), Cisco (perhaps?), and such.
ISTR that most folks get their news from local TV news crews. They aren't that bound to the networks. I doubt ABC really cares whether WTAE covers a missing person report or a church dedication, for instance; perhaps if the locals specialized in gore and nudity the networks might, but otherwise...
The local news programs, at least here, cover almost entirely purely local issues. Some do "World in a Minute"-type overviews, but those are pretty much read-the-headline/show-a-photo deals.
The overall content as far as a network would be concerned is pretty much nil. And, not quite coincidentally, those who get their news chiefly from local news progs are, IIRC, less likely to be clueful about politics and such (versus, say, national newspaper readers and so forth)...
My bad. Scrolling upwards a bit suggests it comes from "The Tao of Programming". I've never read that, but it's probably been excerpted and propagated many times, explaining why it's familiar...
If you're married, would you mind if your wife were seduced by your best friend, but did not change her status regarding you? You're not losing anything...
I'm remind of the following story probably somewhere in a fortune file or wherever (unfortunately, I've never seen an attribution), that suggests your definition should be more broad... Many of you have probably seen it already, but it bears repeating.
This version found here, again unattributed.
There once was a man who went to a computer trade show. Each day as he entered, the man told the guard at the door:
"I am a great thief, renowned for my feats of shoplifting. Be forewarned, for this trade show shall not escape me unplundered."
This speech disturbed the guard greatly, because there were millions of dollars of computer equipment inside, so he watched the man carefully. But the man merely wandered from booth to booth, humming quietly to himself.
When the man left, the guard took him aside and searched his clothes, but nothing was to be found.
On the next day of the trade show, the man returned and chided the guard, saying, "I escaped with a vast booty yesterday, but today will be even better." So the guard watched him ever more closely, but to no avail.
On the final day of the trade show, the guard could restrain his curiosity no longer. "Sir Thief," he said, "I am so perplexed, I cannot live in peace. Please enlighten me. What is it that you are stealing?"
The man smiled. "I am stealing ideas," he said.
Some intangibles -- control, ideas, affections, and so forth -- are extremely valuable.
Since graphics aren't mentioned there, the default status of 'copyrighted' applies, just as it's the default with all other not-specifically-licensed creative work. Free license has to be explicitly granted.
I think that in certain cases, design IS what's critical. Form follows function...
Take wire services or anything else that's syndicated -- real-time stock quotes, you name it. Lots of sites can receive the same *content*, so one way to distinguish between two would be presentation and access methods.
In the case of wire reports, if somebody came up with a clean interface that permitted keyword filtering and displayed reports in real-time, perhaps archived briefly in a hierarchical structure (so later you can check out, say, sports scores all in one list, and news regarding the Taliban in another, and so forth), that's a LOT of value added compared to taking the exact same content and simply displaying the whole unfiltered, unsorted mess in an always-growing web page.
The context -- wire reports -- is exactly the same, but the design has been altered significantly. The owner of the first site has a definite interest in being first, and in NOT having his every added feature cloned instantly... while he morally (and, IIRC, legally) may lack the right to stop others doing similar things independently, he shouldn't have to tolerate other sites using his exact design derived from his work if he so chooses.
It is, if memory serves, still infringement to copy images and other creative work if it's not "fair use", regardless of whether money is made or much effort exerted or what not. "Free speech" should not not come into it because it's not a censorship issue per se, but ownership -- specifically, control.
How much control should an author have over his work? Need there be an implicit contract between end user and creator, such as offered via copyright law?
Currently, "fair use" covers such things like parody, and excerpts for review and research purposes... it does not include wholesale duplication for general use. Walking into a B&N with a laptop and scanner, and digitizing books, is NOT going to make them happy, and arguably is neither fair use in the legal sense, nor right in terms of morality.
Note that if you DO want people to be able to imitate your site, you're free to place a less-restrictive copyright like GPL or BSD on it, or otherwise release it into the public domain. Otherwise, normal copyright applies (i.e. most copying except fair use, like (presumably) caching/rendering, is infringement).
After I leave the uni system (being a student complicates IP issues) I'm probably free to distribute programs that I write independently with the proviso that if you use it for more than 30 days, you're obligated to send me a photograph of a squirrel in the wild, if I so choose. I might be able to require instead the consumption of a PB-and-J sandwich every 6 months, but I suspect that such a clause could be disallowed as pointless and unenforceable. Or, I could take an Open Source approach and opt for an Artistic license, or BSD, or GPL, or a variant of the MIT/X Consortium license, or even fire-and-forget ala public domain.
Since a) nobody would be obligated to use my code, b) they weren't dependent on it before (since it didn't exist, so obviously they got along without it), and c) it's a creative work, not, say, a communal, pre-existing resource (like air),I'd prefer this to "all information must be free", as the latter unilaterally imposes a harsh, universal contract upon all creators...
Try linux.aureal.com. Aureal's seems basically kaput, but the web site ain't dead yet, and the 1.0.5 drivers work for some things.
Unfortunately, I believe the Loki library (SDL, IIRC) is one of the things it won't work with. It's pretty hit or miss.
Legally, I'm not sure they can monitor workplace phone (voice, not modem) communications -- ISTR that some law prohibits this, but it's worded in such a way that it doesn't extend to network data communications.
Quite so. I wonder if anybody sells USENET archives on CD for cheap (e.g. comp.os.linux.setup might be especially relevant); something like that, plus a decent interface to grep, might be quite helpful to users.
.tgz (or probably just copying .config to the new directory)
It's been a while since I built a kernel, but if memory serves, you can build off the previous configuration if you
a) patch the kernel rather than unpacking a full new
and
b) 'make oldconfig'
How about
Door 4:
Employees realize that if they sign a confidentiality agreement, they're obliged to abide by it? That, frankly, their legally binding word should NOT be broken on a whim without expecting consequences?
Intel might, perhaps, be largely correct in thinking that (if they indeed do).
How many casual computer users have the time and motivation to learn about computer architecture? Concepts like cache latency, pipeline depth, and superscalar architecture haven't really flooded lunchtime conversation, methinks.
The MHz rating is an easy number to check; it's heavily advertised (machines labelled as "800 MHz Pentium II", with PII pretty much being a brand (and denoting IBM-type versus Mac-type)) and it's probably what a lot of folks observe.
These same folks probably won't buy a 1.13 GHz machine as soon as it comes out, but when the prices are lowered on 800MHz machines and slower models, they may still use MHz to compare.
Sigh.
They're adding an access method, not taking it away.
The dental students CAN STILL BUY REAL BOOKS. That's CHOICE. Perhaps many will buy VBs; perhaps many will not.
It's not worth complaining about unless it's mandatory, which it is NOT yet. To do so is roughly akin to complaining about the invention of fire just because it MIGHT be used for harm -- namely, alarmism; 'tis but crying wolf.
If they DO show intent to make it mandatory, then by all means protest to your heart's content. If the program is expanded against the wishes of dental students, THEN there is a problem. But not yet.
They're putting their cost at $4,200 total over four years, versus $3,000 for the physical books.
And your VitalBooks are NOT deactivated if you pay for all four years; they're STILL searchable and fully functional aside from no longer receiving updates.
It's not a book. It's software -- searchable, upgradeable content, with all the implications such as the culture of EULAs (There's no real legal r`eason, AFAIK, why a book can't be shipped with a EULA; it's just not particularly useful to do so given that beyond photocopying the book or plagiarising there's not much "wrong" that can be done with it).
Templates.
;-)
In a data structures/basic programming course, if templates are covered, the choice of compiler can be VERY particular. How Visual C++ 5.0 deals with templates seems to differ from how gcc/g++ 2.95 deals with templates which seems to differ from how gcc/g++ 2.7.2 deals with templates and so on.
Let the nightmares begin!