A tablet with a keyboard isn't a notebook, it's a tablet with a keyboard.
Say you have a first computer with 8 GB of RAM and a permanently attached keyboard capable of folding around behind its screen, and a second computer with 8 GB of RAM and a clip-on keyboard that the user can detach. What is the key difference between these computers that is relevant to their usability?
Pinebook has only 2GB of RAM, which is [...] fucking worthless in a laptop.
From 2002 to 2006, 32-bit operating systems shipped on new desktop and laptop PCs, and they tended to come with 1 GB to 2 GB of RAM. Were desktop and laptop PCs made in 2002 to 2006 likewise "fucking worthless"? Or what fundamental thing about computing has changed since then, other than the increasing aggressiveness of web analytics and adtech to eat RAM while continuously tracking viewers' browsing?
Some legal systems have a tort called "defamation of title" or "slander of title". Recklessly claiming you own copyright in someone else's work looks like a case of defamation of title. Which EU member states' legal systems have this?
The other big difference is the requirement to ensure unavailability of unlicensed works based on information provided about works.
And that's a big question mark. How does the directive define "relevant and necessary information"? Is it just URLs and hashes, as seen in notices of claimed infringement pursuant to 17 USC 512? Or is a copyright owner permitted to say "block anything that looks like these keyframes and sounds like this recording"? The latter would require a counterpart to YouTube's Content ID.
as it turns out, complying with the GDPR is not hard or costly for most sites, and for many it takes no effort at all.
I thought it required businesses outside the EU that serve the EU, such as US-based toy sellers that ship to the EU, to hire a representative pursuant to GDPR article 27 at a substantial cost per year, even if they don't do anything dodgy with users' personal data and otherwise comply.
Two examples of "COTS ARM-based laptops" are a Pinebook and an Android tablet with keyboard running Termux or GNURoot. Perhaps one reason they haven't become more popular is that they can't run the occasional Wine application.
Those decisions rely on finding the word "affects" in the Interstate Commerce clause.
The actual text is "To regulate commerce [...] among the several states". The court in Wickard interpreted "regulate" to include "protect from unfair intrastate competition".
Weed grown in California and consumed in California is constitutionally outside the jurisdiction of the DEA because no matter what Congress says, the butterfly effect does not expand the ICC into a general warrant to regulate anything that might remotely impact interstate commerce.
In Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, the US Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion. Even plants grown for personal use theoretically compete in the market with plants sold interstate.
I'm actually surprised that more phone makers don't take advantage of this. A SIM has a good amount of room to not just store stuff securely
But no SIM is included with a Wi-Fi-only tablet, and device manufacturers may not want to confuse their customers with different feature sets between the two.
US copyright law, 17 USC 512, requires service providers to terminate the accounts of a "repeat infringer." YouTube's strike system is intended to satisfy this requirement.
Twenty years ago, what would have been superior to Flash for making things like All Your Base, Hatt-baby, Hyakugojyuuichi, Badger Badger Badger, Weebl and Bob, Homestar Runner, and everything on Newgrounds? Consider that many people still had 0.05 Mbps Internet at the time.
I guess the penalty of competing in an unrecognized discipline of fencing was ineligibility for recognition of your club's activity by your country's governing body of fencing.
APT has referred to Debian's package manager since 1998 or thereabouts. The earliest public citation for "advanced persistent threat" I can find in a cursory search is from US Air Force Colonel Greg Rattray in 2006.
The same way you prove anything else in a civil suit: preponderance of evidence. As a defendant in district court accused of copyright infringement and relying on rights granted under the GPL for your defense, the burden of proof would be on you for proving that what you distributed is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." This burden is greater if what you distribute resembles object code more than "the preferred form of" other well-known works in the industry. Had you provided the tool and internal maps in the original distribution, it's likely that you would never have been sued in the first place.
That would reduce their customer base for the product. They wouldn't do that.
If a company makes a web application Chromium-only, users will do one of two things:
A. Quit B. Install Opera, Vivaldi, Chrome, or an Electron-based desktop application in order to retain access to their contacts who use the service
If the cost reduction of no longer catering to Firefox exceeds the revenue reduction attributable to those who choose option A over option B, then going Chromium-only and recommending option B to Firefox users makes business sense.
They support linux, and other popular operating systems anyways.
Yet the Linux version of Skype, Slack, or Discord takes just as much RAM as running a second web browser: roughly 300 MB. In fact, it takes even more if you use more than one such Electron app, as each one has its own copy of Chromium, none of which share memory. People with multiple computers may toss GNU/Linux on a secondary machine that has already been maxed out at 2 GB or 4 GB of RAM, and on a machine with that little RAM, 300 MB here and 300 MB there add up quickly. A Raspberry Pi single-board computer has even less RAM than that.
There is not anything about web dev that would actually push them to want to lock it to a browser.
Other than not having to deal with A. things that work differently between Gecko and Blink or B. revenue loss and instability due to content blocking and modification extensions in Firefox Addons that Google has chosen not to carry in Chrome Web Store.
Due to the complexities U.S. Congress has thrown into the copyright legislation, with retroactive term extension, etc.
Though the United States has extended the term of copyright in the past, term extensions do not restore U.S. copyright to works whose copyright has already expired. Anything* published before 1924 is in the public domain. In addition, the Authors Guild opposes the next extension that Disney might beg for and in fact wants the 1998 extension repealed.
* Except sound recordings, which were subject to a patchwork of state copyright laws with a flat expiry in 2067 but are now subject to the CLASSICS Act.
Many news sites let you have a few free articles every month. The number gets reset if you clear your cookies, but if you read in incognito mode, you start fresh every time. Taking this into account, I've hit one news site that simply blocks incognito mode.
Was it MIT Technology Review? If so, I think it was testing for existence of third-party analytics/advertising ID cookies, not any file system API. I don't use incognito per se, but I have encountered that message while using Firefox built-in tracking protection, which blocks URLs known to be involved in cross-site interest gathering. (It uses the same list as the Disconnect extension.)
I'll be happy if this breaks their block.
If a paywalled site doesn't detect a third-party analytics/advertising ID cookie, it may require the user to log in through Facebook, Google, Twitter, GitHub, or the like so that such a cookie can be dropped.
If I want to play video games, I sit down in front of my large 4k TV and start up a console.
This works provided the game you want to try is made for the console you own. A developer may release a game on PC and Android first in order to build financial stability for a port to your console.
Provide the source code to your "auto-de-obfuscator" and auto-minifier, including any "internal maps" it uses, along with the program in obfuscated form. Once you've done so, the obfuscated form is indeed source code.
Is an app that doesn't work on your machine at all because it's made for a different OS superior to an Electron app? For example: If you use a Mac, is a Windows-only app superior to an Electron app? Or if you use a Windows PC or X11/Linux PC, is a Mac-only app superior to an Electron app?
Who cares if skype embeds a sucky browser, or not? How does that affect users who are intentionally using a browser?
If the desktop version of Skype and the web version of Skype share code, the supermajority usage share of Chromium discourages Microsoft from making the web version of Skype compatible with anything but Chromium.
Slashdot Mirror
A tablet with a keyboard isn't a notebook, it's a tablet with a keyboard.
Say you have a first computer with 8 GB of RAM and a permanently attached keyboard capable of folding around behind its screen, and a second computer with 8 GB of RAM and a clip-on keyboard that the user can detach. What is the key difference between these computers that is relevant to their usability?
Pinebook has only 2GB of RAM, which is [...] fucking worthless in a laptop.
From 2002 to 2006, 32-bit operating systems shipped on new desktop and laptop PCs, and they tended to come with 1 GB to 2 GB of RAM. Were desktop and laptop PCs made in 2002 to 2006 likewise "fucking worthless"? Or what fundamental thing about computing has changed since then, other than the increasing aggressiveness of web analytics and adtech to eat RAM while continuously tracking viewers' browsing?
Wouldn't Article 13 (or hypothetical foreign counterparts) make your web hosting service liable for your infringement?
And FINES for FALSE TAKEDOWNs
Some legal systems have a tort called "defamation of title" or "slander of title". Recklessly claiming you own copyright in someone else's work looks like a case of defamation of title. Which EU member states' legal systems have this?
The other big difference is the requirement to ensure unavailability of unlicensed works based on information provided about works.
And that's a big question mark. How does the directive define "relevant and necessary information"? Is it just URLs and hashes, as seen in notices of claimed infringement pursuant to 17 USC 512? Or is a copyright owner permitted to say "block anything that looks like these keyframes and sounds like this recording"? The latter would require a counterpart to YouTube's Content ID.
as it turns out, complying with the GDPR is not hard or costly for most sites, and for many it takes no effort at all.
I thought it required businesses outside the EU that serve the EU, such as US-based toy sellers that ship to the EU, to hire a representative pursuant to GDPR article 27 at a substantial cost per year, even if they don't do anything dodgy with users' personal data and otherwise comply.
Two examples of "COTS ARM-based laptops" are a Pinebook and an Android tablet with keyboard running Termux or GNURoot. Perhaps one reason they haven't become more popular is that they can't run the occasional Wine application.
Those decisions rely on finding the word "affects" in the Interstate Commerce clause.
The actual text is "To regulate commerce [...] among the several states". The court in Wickard interpreted "regulate" to include "protect from unfair intrastate competition".
Weed grown in California and consumed in California is constitutionally outside the jurisdiction of the DEA because no matter what Congress says, the butterfly effect does not expand the ICC into a general warrant to regulate anything that might remotely impact interstate commerce.
In Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, the US Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion. Even plants grown for personal use theoretically compete in the market with plants sold interstate.
I'm actually surprised that more phone makers don't take advantage of this. A SIM has a good amount of room to not just store stuff securely
But no SIM is included with a Wi-Fi-only tablet, and device manufacturers may not want to confuse their customers with different feature sets between the two.
US copyright law, 17 USC 512, requires service providers to terminate the accounts of a "repeat infringer." YouTube's strike system is intended to satisfy this requirement.
Flash has been dangerous to run for 20 years
Twenty years ago, what would have been superior to Flash for making things like All Your Base, Hatt-baby, Hyakugojyuuichi, Badger Badger Badger, Weebl and Bob, Homestar Runner, and everything on Newgrounds? Consider that many people still had 0.05 Mbps Internet at the time.
I guess the penalty of competing in an unrecognized discipline of fencing was ineligibility for recognition of your club's activity by your country's governing body of fencing.
You can find My Little Pony products in any toy store: Walmart, Target, or wherever.
What does this have to do with the studios suing Omniverse?
A long shot, but here's a try:
If both the charges against President Trump and the charges against Omniverse are true, who would be penalized more?
any technical interviewer worth their salt should be able to go to Github and verify that you are the person who committed the code you claim to own.
Is it a black mark if your public repositories are on GitLab instead of GitHub?
It's pretty hard to avoid Azure or GitHub if you work in computer software.
APT has referred to Debian's package manager since 1998 or thereabouts. The earliest public citation for "advanced persistent threat" I can find in a cursory search is from US Air Force Colonel Greg Rattray in 2006.
The same way you prove anything else in a civil suit: preponderance of evidence. As a defendant in district court accused of copyright infringement and relying on rights granted under the GPL for your defense, the burden of proof would be on you for proving that what you distributed is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." This burden is greater if what you distribute resembles object code more than "the preferred form of" other well-known works in the industry. Had you provided the tool and internal maps in the original distribution, it's likely that you would never have been sued in the first place.
That would reduce their customer base for the product. They wouldn't do that.
If a company makes a web application Chromium-only, users will do one of two things:
A. Quit
B. Install Opera, Vivaldi, Chrome, or an Electron-based desktop application in order to retain access to their contacts who use the service
If the cost reduction of no longer catering to Firefox exceeds the revenue reduction attributable to those who choose option A over option B, then going Chromium-only and recommending option B to Firefox users makes business sense.
They support linux, and other popular operating systems anyways.
Yet the Linux version of Skype, Slack, or Discord takes just as much RAM as running a second web browser: roughly 300 MB. In fact, it takes even more if you use more than one such Electron app, as each one has its own copy of Chromium, none of which share memory. People with multiple computers may toss GNU/Linux on a secondary machine that has already been maxed out at 2 GB or 4 GB of RAM, and on a machine with that little RAM, 300 MB here and 300 MB there add up quickly. A Raspberry Pi single-board computer has even less RAM than that.
There is not anything about web dev that would actually push them to want to lock it to a browser.
Other than not having to deal with A. things that work differently between Gecko and Blink or B. revenue loss and instability due to content blocking and modification extensions in Firefox Addons that Google has chosen not to carry in Chrome Web Store.
Due to the complexities U.S. Congress has thrown into the copyright legislation, with retroactive term extension, etc.
Though the United States has extended the term of copyright in the past, term extensions do not restore U.S. copyright to works whose copyright has already expired. Anything* published before 1924 is in the public domain. In addition, the Authors Guild opposes the next extension that Disney might beg for and in fact wants the 1998 extension repealed.
* Except sound recordings, which were subject to a patchwork of state copyright laws with a flat expiry in 2067 but are now subject to the CLASSICS Act.
Many news sites let you have a few free articles every month. The number gets reset if you clear your cookies, but if you read in incognito mode, you start fresh every time. Taking this into account, I've hit one news site that simply blocks incognito mode.
Was it MIT Technology Review? If so, I think it was testing for existence of third-party analytics/advertising ID cookies, not any file system API. I don't use incognito per se, but I have encountered that message while using Firefox built-in tracking protection, which blocks URLs known to be involved in cross-site interest gathering. (It uses the same list as the Disconnect extension.)
I'll be happy if this breaks their block.
If a paywalled site doesn't detect a third-party analytics/advertising ID cookie, it may require the user to log in through Facebook, Google, Twitter, GitHub, or the like so that such a cookie can be dropped.
If I want to play video games, I sit down in front of my large 4k TV and start up a console.
This works provided the game you want to try is made for the console you own. A developer may release a game on PC and Android first in order to build financial stability for a port to your console.
Provide the source code to your "auto-de-obfuscator" and auto-minifier, including any "internal maps" it uses, along with the program in obfuscated form. Once you've done so, the obfuscated form is indeed source code.
Is an app that doesn't work on your machine at all because it's made for a different OS superior to an Electron app? For example: If you use a Mac, is a Windows-only app superior to an Electron app? Or if you use a Windows PC or X11/Linux PC, is a Mac-only app superior to an Electron app?
Who cares if skype embeds a sucky browser, or not? How does that affect users who are intentionally using a browser?
If the desktop version of Skype and the web version of Skype share code, the supermajority usage share of Chromium discourages Microsoft from making the web version of Skype compatible with anything but Chromium.