I can currently run it on non-jailbroken iDevices until Stallman Nazi's get the Apps pulled over GPL v3 , this is not a limitation from Apple this is a limitation on GPL v3 and the Stallman Nazi's. "concept behind GPL is to always ensure that the end user has the freedom to hack this code, and apple doesn't want it."
Now you're just losing it completely. Where are "Stallman's Nazis" going to get it 'pulled from'? If you've jailbroken the whole point is you can put any software from anywhere on it, you're no longer confined to Apple's walled garden app store. "Stallman's Nazis" have no way to know where or how you are using the software (and no interest in this legally or otherwise since you are *using* not *distributing*.). Also, you seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that licensing under GPL 3 does not give Stallman or the FSF *any* standing to take *any* legal action relating to this software unless the copyright had been assigned to the FSF, which it has *not* been in this case.
And no matter how often you repeat this stuff, you can't escape from the fact that Apple bans many non-GPL apps from the app store for many reasons, often totally arbitrary, so Apple is the real limit on your freedom, not the GPL.
The rest of your comment is a bit incoherent but seems to be saying that actively trying to prevent you from running modified code is exactly the same as not facilitating it (by providing hardware etc.). You should try to understand that asserting that two different but related concepts are exactly the same does not make it so.
You keep repeating this stuff, it doesn't get any more true. *APPLE* is preventing you via its locked-down platform from installing the software you want. Proof that it's *not* the GPL that's the issue is that Apple disallows all sorts of non-GPL software from the App store for all sorts of reasons. I expect you still blame the GPL for that as well?
Oh, and by the way, you don't have the "right to enjoy the hard work and efforts of many" on *your* terms - it's *their* software and *they* have the right to set the distribution terms.
I have to do more work because GPL grants me freedom... awesome. No, you have to more work because you bought a locked-down device which actively prevents you from installing the software you want. Do you also blame the writers of the many 'censored' apps when you can't download them? You've chosen a walled garden policed by Apple. Live with it or Jailbreak, don't try to shift the blame.
I feel locked in when standards are not supported. On windows side I just have to mention HTML, but there are more examples. On open source system, I just have to say MPEG.
Huh? Surely you're not trying to imply that it's in anyway difficult to *play* (or transcode to/from) mpeg files in Linux, when support for these and all common music and video formats is typically a couple of clicks away in a new Linux install. Or are you referring to editing these files? Maybe to the fact that a lot of people think the current Linux video editors are inadequete? But then that's a video editing issue, not specifically an mpeg issue. Or do you mean that you don't dare install mpeg support in Linux because it *might* violate some software patent? If it that's then you really shouldn't run any software at all because it all probably violates someone's crappy patent.
The issue with tracking where you go isn't the use of free or proprietary software in the cell phone. The tracking is done thanks to the fact that your provider knows what cell tower you are connected to. I don't see how this issue could be solved, even with a fully free software phone.
True to some extent, but you *could* be sure with free software that it was only connecting to the cell towers exactly when *you* wanted it to. You could program it to automatically go offline/online depending on your current gps coordinates. You could limit which cell towers it connected to in order to make triangulating your position significantly inaccurate and possibly worthless (e.g "connect to lowest signal strength above minimum threshold (rather than highest signal strength)"). You could trade off convenience against traceability to an extend that you control. You could do all these things without personally having the technical knowledge since the software being open would allow others to add these functions even if the original phone software didn't allow such functions and had no suitable API for them.
It's interesting to note that both in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, formerly a single communist dictatorship, the largest political party (by votes and seats) is a democratic socialist party. So how 'violently opposed' to socialism (as opposed to dictatorship) are they?
Perhaps your definition of 'real socialism' is actually a definition of 'communist dictatorship', and people in Europe understand the difference between democratic socialists and communist dictators? And I do realize a lot of the communist dictatorships called themselves socialists, but that's not what we (Europeans) called them.
Just curious why you feel it isn't something that you feel should be legislated at all under libertarian views.
Not trying to speak for the original poster, but from a libertarian perspective the argument could be based on the following: A libertarian principle would be that laws should be kept to the bare minimum, and the only way to do this is to try to reduce the law to the basic consensus that 'virtually everyone' agrees on. So 95%+ would agree with the principle that actively killing someone (with obvious exceptions like self defence etc.) from the time they are born to the time they die by other causes is wrong and should be illegal. However, in the case of unborn children/embryos/foetuses there is no such consensus and a libertarian would maybe recognize that even if they believe abortion is murder, half the population disagree, they have the right to this opinion and this clear divide on the essentially philosophical question of when life begins makes it an unsuitable issue for law and one for individual conscience instead.
Who ensures quality? Part of the supposed value in iTunes and Androids marketplace is that the applications are submitted, reviewed, and only added if they are up to snuff.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Apple app store only did vetting for malware and contravention of Apple 'guidelines' e.g. adult content etc. Apart from that, I thought you could put pretty much any old crap up (i.e. no quality control as such).
With furniture, cars, etc, I think that 325,000 can be hit by many people.
Which is still no big deal for most people. If you have £350,000 only the £25,000 excess gets taxed. So if that's split between two children they get a £170,000 inheritance instead of £175,000.
Also, in many cases the following applies:
Since October 2007, married couples and registered civil partners can effectively increase the threshold on their estate when the second partner dies - to as much as £650,000 in 2010-11. Their executors or personal representatives must transfer the first spouse or civil partner’s unused Inheritance Tax threshold or ‘nil rate band’ to the second spouse or civil partner when they die.
I know that Ubuntu *used to* have the key combination of Ctrl+Alt+Backspace (Ctrl+Shift+Backspace?) that would restart X, but they disabled it. It only takes 5 minutes to reenable, though.
5 minutes? more like 30 seconds.
Anyhow, what's wrong with the new default key combination AltGr+PrtScr+K?
I think the reason Ubuntu instructs the user to reboot is that relatively few Ubuntu users would understand that they don't need to reboot, they "just" need to manually restart services A, B, and C, kill Gnome, and then log in again...
If you look at the detailed output from (say) synaptic or whatever tool you use to do the updates, you can see that quite frequently the updates are packaged to automatically stop and restart affected services, including the network, and a reboot is avoided. I assume that the line is drawn at anything which needs the gui restarting, since in those cases it's going to involve any open gui applications being closed/reopened and in that case it's more user-friendly for this to be done at a time of the user's choosing and simpler to just set a 'restart required' flag.
It makes no sense for Mozilla to cater to the infinitesimally small proportion of users who somehow need simultaneous A/V recording and web browsing on the same machine.
The GP didn't say any of the A/V recording they did was professional and justified expensive equipment, second PCs etc. I perform *amateur, home* A/V recording on my PC while web browsing - e.g. converting old audio cassettes to flac files. It's not a a disaster if it happens, but I don't want 'glitching' in my recordings. Currently I can browse freely and run various other software without any problems. I don't want the browser to be so 'greedy' that it grabs 100% of both my cores and causes sound glitches just to get an nearly imperceptible speed up. Converting analogue media to digital in this way (for example) is done by more than an "infinitesimally small proportion of users". You might have a point if it currently wasn't possible to do reliable a/v recording of some sorts on a basic PC while browsing; but it is.
Bittorrent only works because you can access hundreds of peers at the same time.
Nearly all the torrents I participate in have less than 10 peers and work just fine. I also get the impression from the stats etc. that I see that most people have their upload speeds set to a reasonable fraction of their ISP's limit.
Still, maybe it varies heavily with the nature of the torrent content...
Why cut off a major business tool and supply of soothing porn and entertainment?
That's not even the biggest issue. In a heavily-internet dependant nation like the US 'turning off the internet' will let everybody who doesn't know or believe it already that the shit has *really* hit the fan and is the best way to turn a crisis into a catastrophe by creating mass-panic. It's like the nuclear option - if you have to use it, it's probably too late and you've already failed.
I'll fess up and say I modded too hastily, immediately realized I was wrong and am posting to undo. Would be nice to be able to undo an individual mistaken mod (say within a couple of minutes), but I'll try to not jump the gun in future.
The point is that we've *already* had (or nearly had) the digital rollout (i.e. nearly everyone's got the kit, but analogue is not fully switched off yet) *without* encryption support on most equipment. People would be absolutely furious if all the kit had to be replaced or augmented *almost immediately* for encryption support. In other words, it is *not* a politically realistic course.
"A spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, confirmed Mr Vaizey's plan to talk to ISPs about setting up an age verification scheme to govern access to pornographic sites."
Age verification in order to view adult content means by default you would be blocked and get a censored connection unless you verify your age, i.e. register in some way. This is exactly what I said.
Ed Vaizey is the culture minister and this is his direct responsibility. It's quite clearly not "the pet project of a few MPs" but being proposed at the highest level.
Yes, that's a bright idea. 30 million+ freeview boxes and 20 million+ freeview TVs and 10 million + freeview recorders with no decryption capabilities go in the waste bin/require additional converter box. The few thousand people with top-upTV boxes might be OK.
I think you've got a rose tinted view of the current government. What they are doing is removing some of the worst anti-civil liberty excesses of the previous government, while coming up with whole new proposals to attack our freedom, which may well end up being even worse. For an example consider that they are now actively looking into by default supplying everyone with a censored internet connection 'suitable for children', and you would have to register with your ISP to get the 'adult' internet. I *hope* that this will get dropped as impractical (the ISPs massively oppose this new role for them) but the fact that they are seriously considering this is at least as sinister as the now abandoned id cards, and could turn out a whole lot worse.
Tripled is wrong, but your graph does not in any way prove this. Why start in 1960? Levels were probably around 250ppm before the industrial revolution started; this is probably a good baseline to start with for AGW purposes.
You know what you just did with a 64 bit kernel? You cut your on-chip cache in HALF.
This is complete rubbish. 64-bit code does *not* take twice the space of 32-bit code. It varies from instruction to instruction, depending on whether the instruction involves direct reference to a 64 bit value or not. The overall size of typical 64-bit code is not much larger than its 32-bit equivalent (maybe 20%ish).
This is wrong. A "clean room" is not required to write code "from scratch". Otherwise we wouldn't have any unburdened code.
In the general case of a random person or company writing a 'functional clone' of another person or company's product there is no issue, because there is no evidence the 'cloner' saw or referred to the original code. In this case it is known that the company and its developers have viewed the original source and are by default 'tainted', in the same way that a Wine programmer could be 'tainted' if they had seen relevant windows source through one of MS's source viewing facilities. Here's Wine's comments on this matter: See http://wiki.winehq.org/DeveloperFaq#head-fed5011434f62ae1a88baebfb8193a37ea795101
Being tainted does not *automatically* make 'functional clone' code you produce a derivative work, but it goes half way - combine taintedness with sufficient similarity in enough code points in the clone code and you've pretty much made your case. Without the taint (i.e. with no evidence that the developer ever saw the relevant original code), it's much easier to defend against a derivative work accusation on grounds such as that you just coded in the obvious way, and you are much less likely to accidentally include some telling code similarities.
2) The whole thing is written from scratch for Windows. No MTR code is used.
If this is true, it must have been done in 'clean room' fashion without reference to the original code (apart from external interfaces) otherwise it could still be a derivative work. But your lawyers should know this.
Slashdot Mirror
I can currently run it on non-jailbroken iDevices until Stallman Nazi's get the Apps pulled over GPL v3 , this is not a limitation from Apple this is a limitation on GPL v3 and the Stallman Nazi's. "concept behind GPL is to always ensure that the end user has the freedom to hack this code, and apple doesn't want it."
Now you're just losing it completely. Where are "Stallman's Nazis" going to get it 'pulled from'? If you've jailbroken the whole point is you can put any software from anywhere on it, you're no longer confined to Apple's walled garden app store. "Stallman's Nazis" have no way to know where or how you are using the software (and no interest in this legally or otherwise since you are *using* not *distributing*.).
Also, you seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that licensing under GPL 3 does not give Stallman or the FSF *any* standing to take *any* legal action relating to this software unless the copyright had been assigned to the FSF, which it has *not* been in this case.
And no matter how often you repeat this stuff, you can't escape from the fact that Apple bans many non-GPL apps from the app store for many reasons, often totally arbitrary, so Apple is the real limit on your freedom, not the GPL.
The rest of your comment is a bit incoherent but seems to be saying that actively trying to prevent you from running modified code is exactly the same as not facilitating it (by providing hardware etc.). You should try to understand that asserting that two different but related concepts are exactly the same does not make it so.
You keep repeating this stuff, it doesn't get any more true. *APPLE* is preventing you via its locked-down platform from installing the software you want. Proof that it's *not* the GPL that's the issue is that Apple disallows all sorts of non-GPL software from the App store for all sorts of reasons. I expect you still blame the GPL for that as well?
Oh, and by the way, you don't have the "right to enjoy the hard work and efforts of many" on *your* terms - it's *their* software and *they* have the right to set the distribution terms.
I have to do more work because GPL grants me freedom ... awesome.
No, you have to more work because you bought a locked-down device which actively prevents you from installing the software you want. Do you also blame the writers of the many 'censored' apps when you can't download them? You've chosen a walled garden policed by Apple. Live with it or Jailbreak, don't try to shift the blame.
I feel locked in when standards are not supported. On windows side I just have to mention HTML, but there are more examples. On open source system, I just have to say MPEG.
Huh? Surely you're not trying to imply that it's in anyway difficult to *play* (or transcode to/from) mpeg files in Linux, when support for these and all common music and video formats is typically a couple of clicks away in a new Linux install.
Or are you referring to editing these files? Maybe to the fact that a lot of people think the current Linux video editors are inadequete? But then that's a video editing issue, not specifically an mpeg issue.
Or do you mean that you don't dare install mpeg support in Linux because it *might* violate some software patent? If it that's then you really shouldn't run any software at all because it all probably violates someone's crappy patent.
The issue with tracking where you go isn't the use of free or proprietary software in the cell phone. The tracking is done thanks to the fact that your provider knows what cell tower you are connected to. I don't see how this issue could be solved, even with a fully free software phone.
True to some extent, but you *could* be sure with free software that it was only connecting to the cell towers exactly when *you* wanted it to.
You could program it to automatically go offline/online depending on your current gps coordinates.
You could limit which cell towers it connected to in order to make triangulating your position significantly inaccurate and possibly worthless (e.g "connect to lowest signal strength above minimum threshold (rather than highest signal strength)").
You could trade off convenience against traceability to an extend that you control.
You could do all these things without personally having the technical knowledge since the software being open would allow others to add these functions even if the original phone software didn't allow such functions and had no suitable API for them.
Just be a bit patient...
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/news/55
It's interesting to note that both in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, formerly a single communist dictatorship, the largest political party (by votes and seats) is a democratic socialist party. So how 'violently opposed' to socialism (as opposed to dictatorship) are they?
Perhaps your definition of 'real socialism' is actually a definition of 'communist dictatorship', and people in Europe understand the difference between democratic socialists and communist dictators? And I do realize a lot of the communist dictatorships called themselves socialists, but that's not what we (Europeans) called them.
Just curious why you feel it isn't something that you feel should be legislated at all under libertarian views.
Not trying to speak for the original poster, but from a libertarian perspective the argument could be based on the following:
A libertarian principle would be that laws should be kept to the bare minimum, and the only way to do this is to try to reduce the law to the basic consensus that 'virtually everyone' agrees on.
So 95%+ would agree with the principle that actively killing someone (with obvious exceptions like self defence etc.) from the time they are born to the time they die by other causes is wrong and should be illegal.
However, in the case of unborn children/embryos/foetuses there is no such consensus and a libertarian would maybe recognize that even if they believe abortion is murder, half the population disagree, they have the right to this opinion and this clear divide on the essentially philosophical question of when life begins makes it an unsuitable issue for law and one for individual conscience instead.
Who ensures quality? Part of the supposed value in iTunes and Androids marketplace is that the applications are submitted, reviewed, and only added if they are up to snuff.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Apple app store only did vetting for malware and contravention of Apple 'guidelines' e.g. adult content etc. Apart from that, I thought you could put pretty much any old crap up (i.e. no quality control as such).
With furniture, cars, etc, I think that 325,000 can be hit by many people.
Which is still no big deal for most people. If you have £350,000 only the £25,000 excess gets taxed. So if that's split between two children they get a £170,000 inheritance instead of £175,000.
Also, in many cases the following applies:
Since October 2007, married couples and registered civil partners can effectively increase the threshold on their estate when the second partner dies - to as much as £650,000 in 2010-11. Their executors or personal representatives must transfer the first spouse or civil partner’s unused Inheritance Tax threshold or ‘nil rate band’ to the second spouse or civil partner when they die.
Ref: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/inheritancetax/intro/basics.htm
I know that Ubuntu *used to* have the key combination of Ctrl+Alt+Backspace (Ctrl+Shift+Backspace?) that would restart X, but they disabled it. It only takes 5 minutes to reenable, though.
5 minutes? more like 30 seconds.
Anyhow, what's wrong with the new default key combination AltGr+PrtScr+K?
I think the reason Ubuntu instructs the user to reboot is that relatively few Ubuntu users would understand that they don't need to reboot, they "just" need to manually restart services A, B, and C, kill Gnome, and then log in again...
If you look at the detailed output from (say) synaptic or whatever tool you use to do the updates, you can see that quite frequently the updates are packaged to automatically stop and restart affected services, including the network, and a reboot is avoided.
I assume that the line is drawn at anything which needs the gui restarting, since in those cases it's going to involve any open gui applications being closed/reopened and in that case it's more user-friendly for this to be done at a time of the user's choosing and simpler to just set a 'restart required' flag.
It makes no sense for Mozilla to cater to the infinitesimally small proportion of users who somehow need simultaneous A/V recording and web browsing on the same machine.
The GP didn't say any of the A/V recording they did was professional and justified expensive equipment, second PCs etc.
I perform *amateur, home* A/V recording on my PC while web browsing - e.g. converting old audio cassettes to flac files. It's not a a disaster if it happens, but I don't want 'glitching' in my recordings. Currently I can browse freely and run various other software without any problems. I don't want the browser to be so 'greedy' that it grabs 100% of both my cores and causes sound glitches just to get an nearly imperceptible speed up.
Converting analogue media to digital in this way (for example) is done by more than an "infinitesimally small proportion of users".
You might have a point if it currently wasn't possible to do reliable a/v recording of some sorts on a basic PC while browsing; but it is.
Bittorrent only works because you can access hundreds of peers at the same time.
Nearly all the torrents I participate in have less than 10 peers and work just fine. I also get the impression from the stats etc. that I see that most people have their upload speeds set to a reasonable fraction of their ISP's limit.
Still, maybe it varies heavily with the nature of the torrent content...
Why cut off a major business tool and supply of soothing porn and entertainment?
That's not even the biggest issue. In a heavily-internet dependant nation like the US 'turning off the internet' will let everybody who doesn't know or believe it already that the shit has *really* hit the fan and is the best way to turn a crisis into a catastrophe by creating mass-panic. It's like the nuclear option - if you have to use it, it's probably too late and you've already failed.
It would probably be a boon to the WINE project, if nothing else.
Not really...
You're forbidden from working on Wine if you've ever seen Windows source code:
http://wiki.winehq.org/DeveloperFaq#head-fed5011434f62ae1a88baebfb8193a37ea795101
I'll fess up and say I modded too hastily, immediately realized I was wrong and am posting to undo.
Would be nice to be able to undo an individual mistaken mod (say within a couple of minutes), but I'll try to not jump the gun in future.
The point is that we've *already* had (or nearly had) the digital rollout (i.e. nearly everyone's got the kit, but analogue is not fully switched off yet) *without* encryption support on most equipment. People would be absolutely furious if all the kit had to be replaced or augmented *almost immediately* for encryption support. In other words, it is *not* a politically realistic course.
You see, what you've mentioned here is actually wrong.
There's nothing to suggest this is being seriously considered by the government as a whole, only that it's the pet project of a couple of MPs
Citation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063
"A spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, confirmed Mr Vaizey's plan to talk to ISPs about setting up an age verification scheme to govern access to pornographic sites."
Age verification in order to view adult content means by default you would be blocked and get a censored connection unless you verify your age, i.e. register in some way. This is exactly what I said.
Ed Vaizey is the culture minister and this is his direct responsibility. It's quite clearly not "the pet project of a few MPs" but being proposed at the highest level.
Encrypt the signal and save a lot of money,
Yes, that's a bright idea. 30 million+ freeview boxes and 20 million+ freeview TVs and 10 million + freeview recorders with no decryption capabilities go in the waste bin/require additional converter box. The few thousand people with top-upTV boxes might be OK.
Or phase it it over the next 20 years?
I think you've got a rose tinted view of the current government. What they are doing is removing some of the worst anti-civil liberty excesses of the previous government, while coming up with whole new proposals to attack our freedom, which may well end up being even worse.
For an example consider that they are now actively looking into by default supplying everyone with a censored internet connection 'suitable for children', and you would have to register with your ISP to get the 'adult' internet.
I *hope* that this will get dropped as impractical (the ISPs massively oppose this new role for them) but the fact that they are seriously considering this is at least as sinister as the now abandoned id cards, and could turn out a whole lot worse.
Tripled is wrong, but your graph does not in any way prove this. Why start in 1960?
Levels were probably around 250ppm before the industrial revolution started; this is probably a good baseline to start with for AGW purposes.
You know what you just did with a 64 bit kernel? You cut your on-chip cache in HALF.
This is complete rubbish. 64-bit code does *not* take twice the space of 32-bit code. It varies from instruction to instruction, depending on whether the instruction involves direct reference to a 64 bit value or not. The overall size of typical 64-bit code is not much larger than its 32-bit equivalent (maybe 20%ish).
This is wrong. A "clean room" is not required to write code "from scratch". Otherwise we wouldn't have any unburdened code.
In the general case of a random person or company writing a 'functional clone' of another person or company's product there is no issue, because there is no evidence the 'cloner' saw or referred to the original code.
In this case it is known that the company and its developers have viewed the original source and are by default 'tainted', in the same way that a Wine programmer could be 'tainted' if they had seen relevant windows source through one of MS's source viewing facilities.
Here's Wine's comments on this matter:
See http://wiki.winehq.org/DeveloperFaq#head-fed5011434f62ae1a88baebfb8193a37ea795101
Being tainted does not *automatically* make 'functional clone' code you produce a derivative work, but it goes half way - combine taintedness with sufficient similarity in enough code points in the clone code and you've pretty much made your case. Without the taint (i.e. with no evidence that the developer ever saw the relevant original code), it's much easier to defend against a derivative work accusation on grounds such as that you just coded in the obvious way, and you are much less likely to accidentally include some telling code similarities.
2) The whole thing is written from scratch for Windows. No MTR code is used.
If this is true, it must have been done in 'clean room' fashion without reference to the original code (apart from external interfaces) otherwise it could still be a derivative work. But your lawyers should know this.