Their suit against IBM is based largely on trade secret missappropriation. So it is very relevant, should any of those "trade secrets" turn out to be in that code.
Read what I wrote - and what you quoted. I didn't say this was good or acceptable. I just pointed out that the "$4" scare was very wrong and way out of proportion to the actual state of affairs. And looking at the original document, I see my conversion was too high as well; it's closer to $0.25 or so. It is also in line with the charges already levied on video tapes and cassettes.
Again, I really, _really_, dislike this kind of levy. That does not absolve us from the imperative to stick with the facts, however.
Thing is, throwing out inaccurate, over-the-top interpretations of things like this only serves to damage the opposition to it. If we can't discuss the facts (rather than a demonized misrepresentation), we will not be taken seriously, and that will only undermine efforts to change the proposal for the better.
This is not a good law, to be sure, but the blurb at the top is just plain wrong.
Most of it is just a codification of what we already know - you may not copy copyrighted works other than for specific, well-defined purposes (research, private copies and so on). And no, file trading networks are _not_ outlawed in any way, shape or form (the press release from the justice ministry was misleading on that issue).
The thing that can rile people is that you aren't allowed to break copy protection. Well, actually reading the proposal, the picture is not as clear.
First, any content holder _must_ provide a way for disabled to access the media (it could be by sending a different version to those asking for it, for example). Also, breaking protection on documents and the like in the public area is allowed (courts that want some material for a court case, for instance).
But, and here what's interesting: the law only protects protection mechanisms that are _solely_ for hindering copying.
* It does explicitly _not_ protect stuff like region coding on DVD:s (they have that as an example in the text). You are _always_ allowed to break stuff to make use of the media in intended ways, and as DVD:s are meant to be played, region coding has no protection.
* When one mechanism is used for copy protection, and has as a consequence that intended use is hindered, it no longer has protection. Intended use trumps protection in other words. So DeCSS is likely perfectly legal to use.
* The law explicitly does _not_ require device manufacturers (or OS writers) to include support for any copy protection mechanism. Media giants can thus not stop the sale of players that do not include some protection scheme. Nobody can ask for operating systems to include DRM.
Oh, and $4 for blank media? I suggest somebody brush up on their mathematics: the suggestion is about $0.4 - still too much (and gives rise to the question if you haven't actually paid for the right to make a copy of something on the media), but it's nowhere near the outrage implied in the blurb.
So, the law is not good, but it is not the kind of disaster people here seem to think it is either. With some adjustments (not making private copies a permissive right), it is quite livable.
Control groups? Reproducible results? It sort of sounds like you think science has to be empirical or it isn't science (and yes, I agree that reproducibility is importent, it just isn't the same issue for theoretical work).
Well, many people who attend such things work with the technology, and are sent to the thing by their company. For this kind of conference, where the 'enthusiast factor' is fairly high, people can also be students (school's out by now), or interested hobbyists taking a few days of their vacation to go.
For academic conferences, just about everybody is a researcher, many (if not most) have a paper to present, and their university usually pays at least part of the cost. And if they don't, well, publishing is the name of the game, so chances are you will be going on your own money anyway.
Re:Does Phoenix/Firebird support tabbed homepages?
on
Mozilla 1.4RC2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I always have homepage not set; I usually leave the browser running overnight.
What I do under Firebird is to have a bookmark folder on the status bar with all my morning links, and just middle click on the folder, which loads all the bookmarks as tabs. Very convenient.
Actually, critical looks at the airplane industry show that Airbus and Boeing (and the other, smaller outfits) all receive about as much backing - economical and otherwise - from their governments. The form of backing differs slightly, but the amounts are about the same (which is one reason no government has made a big fuss about it - they're all in the same boat).
The problem for Boeing is of course that the new Airbus models offer similar savings, and is substantially further along in orders and deployment. THe droves have so far failed to materialize.
Many of those older aircraft are too expensive to fly today. Factor in the cost of bringing those planes up to scratch, retrofitting them to comply with steadily tighter emissions and noise regulations, the higher fuel consumption, and the added costs for each plane type you have in service (you need pilots and mechanics current in each aircraft type, for instance). It turns out it's cheaper to buy new planes instead.
Most of those aircraft will never fly again./Janne
Nobody would dispute you about that - though several other countries also built early internetworks independent of the arpanet within a few years of its birth. Once the net was extended outside the US, it plugged in to plenty of existing networks already built - it wasn't a case of the technology flowing out from the US to the rest of the world.
And again, nobody would dispute that the 80% figure is understandable from a historical perspective; when IP adresses started to be doled out, nobody envisioned a net of anything like the size we have today. That does not alter the facts, however: many countries _are_ feeling an adress crunch far more than the US, and are consequently substantially further ahead in transition to ipv6.
What we need to do now is to not repeat our earlier mistakes. IP6 addresses probably should be assigned to country NICs in proportion to their total and estimated future population, not to their current number of connected nodes. There should probably also be a substantial number of adresses held in reserve for various purposes (moon and/or mars bases, space stations and satellites, underwater bases, high-altitude autonomous flyers and what have you). There are lots of adressess available; no need to be stingy.
Um, no. It's all about the service contract, not the software. If you aren't compliant, then your service sontract with redhat is invalid. You can happily continue to use the software all you want, but you're not entitled to their corporate support anymore.
As GPL does not say anything about service and support, there is no conflict whatsoever.
The news is somebody worrying about the redhat EULA and taking their interpretation to FSF for an opinion. The comment by michael is just that - a comment, not a retraction or whatever.
Vitamin D is present in the milk fat. Modern-day people don't want their milk that fat, so milk is usually reduced. To compensate for the loss of vitamin D, it is added back in.
I believe (though I do not have the numbers to back it up) that at least dogs are relatively homogenous as well, compared to chimpanzees.
As a clarification: species that aren't living in "clusters" (troops, family units or whatever), do not have the same need to distinguish between themselves. Plenty of group-living species (many birdflocks come to mind) do not need to identify most individuals either. And many species that are living in groups and need to identify individuals do so by smell (or by sound), not by visual appearance. It would be interesting to see if, for instance wolves or lions have as variegated smell signatures as we have facial configurations. No idea on how to go about that, though.
More likely, you would give the milk to children (who aren't intolerant). Those children that developed intolerance later would have access to the food source for longer than the others, and live longer (in times of food shortages at least).
Besides, cheese is low enough in lactose that even people with just a slightly higher tolerance could eat it without too much adverse effects. And in some African populations, there are consequently a tradition of making cheese but not drinking the milk directly (other than for children), and their level of tolerance is at an intermediate level.
There seems to be a direct correlation between a) lactose tolerance and domestication of cattle; and b) lactose tolerance and mean annual sunlight at the site.
The first one is pretty easy to explain - those that can avail themselves of that byproduct will have a better chance in times of need. The second one is very likely due to the fact that absent sunlight, milk is one of very few natural sources of vitamin D. If you try to eke out a living at 60 degrees north, drinking milk or not doing so can mean the difference between life and death.
That we don't see the differences is likely one part of the answer - people that have never been exposed to members of a different regional group of humans do have trouble seeing differences between them as well (though that is likely more and more uncommon as modern media exposes just about everybody to the diversity available).
More important, our great variance is due to the fact that we use facial characteristics as an identifying badge - there is plenty of selection pressure to vary this. Chimps may not (I do not know this for certain) ascribe nearly as large a weight to facial features in identifying others. There is no selection pressure to vary this, and thus it all settles in a common optimum.
Well, there are other factors as well. Normally, that troop will outbreed quite a lot with other troops, which will keep it diverse and smother out much of the randomness.
But if there are only on the order of hundreds of individuals available, small random effects will start to have an impact. Not every individual will reproduce equally effectively, even if they are genetically equally viable - due to accidents, and other random effects, you will tend to get an inverse power-law like distribution with small numbers oif individuals. So, in that troupe of 2k individuals, maybe twenty to fifty of them will in reality be the progenitors of the majority of the offspring - others will have caught a disease, or be infertile, or have their children all die early, or have a falling out with their partner or whatever.
By the time the population is large enough that individual chance is smothered out, the individuals will in practice all stem from a small subpopulation of those that were available at that earlier time.
Umm, the register isn't exactly a Paragon of Truthful Virtue, you know. In a sense, they're a perfect representative of British news - the picture isn't exactlty fake, and the facts aren't technically wrong, but you inevitably come away with an impression of the events that has very little to do with what actually happened.
Of course collaboration is possible; the bickering and acrimony we see is possible precisely because we already are so intertwined. It's like family squabbles - they can get so bad precisely because the participants have so much in common.
What I think people in europe react to (at least here in Sweden - no idea about France), is that american nationalism and patriotism is so over the top. It's "My country, right or wrong", and any kind of critizism or attempt to set facts straight, no matter how correct or warranted, is taken as a personal attack. I also think europeans may be more sensitive to that sort of thing because we've been there, done that, got the memorials. Nationalism was a continent-wide sport for several hundred years here, with the world wars just the last and most emphatic disasters that resulted. We know what results this sentiment can bring, and are pretty wary of it.
No, it won't weigh much - as long as you discount the one and a half metric ton of food and water (assuming you have equipment to recycle your urine) and the air purifying system you need to survive to the end of the trip. That will be _really_ easy to sneak aboard. And, of course, with a launch and propellant system that dimensioned down to the pound, adding close to two tons of extra cargo may have a slight effect on the success of the mission...
On the other hand, having a second outfit offering services around the JBoss framework can be seen as a good thing by the customers. They can get quotes from more than one place, and there is the assurance that even if one of them folds, the other is still there, able to pick up the work.
Indeed, if these guys are smart, they will do a deal with each other making such a thing formal. Both outfits can then show their customers that they have a ready backup plan for them in case something would happen to the firm.
Slashdot Mirror
Their suit against IBM is based largely on trade secret missappropriation. So it is very relevant, should any of those "trade secrets" turn out to be in that code.
Read what I wrote - and what you quoted. I didn't say this was good or acceptable. I just pointed out that the "$4" scare was very wrong and way out of proportion to the actual state of affairs. And looking at the original document, I see my conversion was too high as well; it's closer to $0.25 or so. It is also in line with the charges already levied on video tapes and cassettes.
Again, I really, _really_, dislike this kind of levy. That does not absolve us from the imperative to stick with the facts, however.
Thing is, throwing out inaccurate, over-the-top interpretations of things like this only serves to damage the opposition to it. If we can't discuss the facts (rather than a demonized misrepresentation), we will not be taken seriously, and that will only undermine efforts to change the proposal for the better.
This is not a good law, to be sure, but the blurb at the top is just plain wrong.
Most of it is just a codification of what we already know - you may not copy copyrighted works other than for specific, well-defined purposes (research, private copies and so on). And no, file trading networks are _not_ outlawed in any way, shape or form (the press release from the justice ministry was misleading on that issue).
The thing that can rile people is that you aren't allowed to break copy protection. Well, actually reading the proposal, the picture is not as clear.
First, any content holder _must_ provide a way for disabled to access the media (it could be by sending a different version to those asking for it, for example). Also, breaking protection on documents and the like in the public area is allowed (courts that want some material for a court case, for instance).
But, and here what's interesting: the law only protects protection mechanisms that are _solely_ for hindering copying.
* It does explicitly _not_ protect stuff like region coding on DVD:s (they have that as an example in the text). You are _always_ allowed to break stuff to make use of the media in intended ways, and as DVD:s are meant to be played, region coding has no protection.
* When one mechanism is used for copy protection, and has as a consequence that intended use is hindered, it no longer has protection. Intended use trumps protection in other words. So DeCSS is likely perfectly legal to use.
* The law explicitly does _not_ require device manufacturers (or OS writers) to include support for any copy protection mechanism. Media giants can thus not stop the sale of players that do not include some protection scheme. Nobody can ask for operating systems to include DRM.
Oh, and $4 for blank media? I suggest somebody brush up on their mathematics: the suggestion is about $0.4 - still too much (and gives rise to the question if you haven't actually paid for the right to make a copy of something on the media), but it's nowhere near the outrage implied in the blurb.
So, the law is not good, but it is not the kind of disaster people here seem to think it is either. With some adjustments (not making private copies a permissive right), it is quite livable.
Control groups? Reproducible results? It sort of sounds like you think science has to be empirical or it isn't science (and yes, I agree that reproducibility is importent, it just isn't the same issue for theoretical work).
Well, many people who attend such things work with the technology, and are sent to the thing by their company. For this kind of conference, where the 'enthusiast factor' is fairly high, people can also be students (school's out by now), or interested hobbyists taking a few days of their vacation to go.
For academic conferences, just about everybody is a researcher, many (if not most) have a paper to present, and their university usually pays at least part of the cost. And if they don't, well, publishing is the name of the game, so chances are you will be going on your own money anyway.
I always have homepage not set; I usually leave the browser running overnight.
What I do under Firebird is to have a bookmark folder on the status bar with all my morning links, and just middle click on the folder, which loads all the bookmarks as tabs. Very convenient.
And don't forget that all OS features are really cardboard cutouts since "nobody will know the difference!" /Janne
Actually, critical looks at the airplane industry show that Airbus and Boeing (and the other, smaller outfits) all receive about as much backing - economical and otherwise - from their governments. The form of backing differs slightly, but the amounts are about the same (which is one reason no government has made a big fuss about it - they're all in the same boat).
And last time I looked, Airbus was profitable.
The problem for Boeing is of course that the new Airbus models offer similar savings, and is substantially further along in orders and deployment. THe droves have so far failed to materialize.
Many of those older aircraft are too expensive to fly today. Factor in the cost of bringing those planes up to scratch, retrofitting them to comply with steadily tighter emissions and noise regulations, the higher fuel consumption, and the added costs for each plane type you have in service (you need pilots and mechanics current in each aircraft type, for instance). It turns out it's cheaper to buy new planes instead.
/Janne
Most of those aircraft will never fly again.
Nobody would dispute you about that - though several other countries also built early internetworks independent of the arpanet within a few years of its birth. Once the net was extended outside the US, it plugged in to plenty of existing networks already built - it wasn't a case of the technology flowing out from the US to the rest of the world.
And again, nobody would dispute that the 80% figure is understandable from a historical perspective; when IP adresses started to be doled out, nobody envisioned a net of anything like the size we have today. That does not alter the facts, however: many countries _are_ feeling an adress crunch far more than the US, and are consequently substantially further ahead in transition to ipv6.
What we need to do now is to not repeat our earlier mistakes. IP6 addresses probably should be assigned to country NICs in proportion to their total and estimated future population, not to their current number of connected nodes. There should probably also be a substantial number of adresses held in reserve for various purposes (moon and/or mars bases, space stations and satellites, underwater bases, high-altitude autonomous flyers and what have you). There are lots of adressess available; no need to be stingy.
You must not use the software - or the service agreement is void. Nothing else.
Um, no. It's all about the service contract, not the software. If you aren't compliant, then your service sontract with redhat is invalid. You can happily continue to use the software all you want, but you're not entitled to their corporate support anymore.
As GPL does not say anything about service and support, there is no conflict whatsoever.
The news is somebody worrying about the redhat EULA and taking their interpretation to FSF for an opinion. The comment by michael is just that - a comment, not a retraction or whatever.
Vitamin D is present in the milk fat. Modern-day people don't want their milk that fat, so milk is usually reduced. To compensate for the loss of vitamin D, it is added back in.
I believe (though I do not have the numbers to back it up) that at least dogs are relatively homogenous as well, compared to chimpanzees.
As a clarification: species that aren't living in "clusters" (troops, family units or whatever), do not have the same need to distinguish between themselves. Plenty of group-living species (many birdflocks come to mind) do not need to identify most individuals either. And many species that are living in groups and need to identify individuals do so by smell (or by sound), not by visual appearance. It would be interesting to see if, for instance wolves or lions have as variegated smell signatures as we have facial configurations. No idea on how to go about that, though.
More likely, you would give the milk to children (who aren't intolerant). Those children that developed intolerance later would have access to the food source for longer than the others, and live longer (in times of food shortages at least).
Besides, cheese is low enough in lactose that even people with just a slightly higher tolerance could eat it without too much adverse effects. And in some African populations, there are consequently a tradition of making cheese but not drinking the milk directly (other than for children), and their level of tolerance is at an intermediate level.
There seems to be a direct correlation between a) lactose tolerance and domestication of cattle; and b) lactose tolerance and mean annual sunlight at the site.
The first one is pretty easy to explain - those that can avail themselves of that byproduct will have a better chance in times of need. The second one is very likely due to the fact that absent sunlight, milk is one of very few natural sources of vitamin D. If you try to eke out a living at 60 degrees north, drinking milk or not doing so can mean the difference between life and death.
That we don't see the differences is likely one part of the answer - people that have never been exposed to members of a different regional group of humans do have trouble seeing differences between them as well (though that is likely more and more uncommon as modern media exposes just about everybody to the diversity available).
More important, our great variance is due to the fact that we use facial characteristics as an identifying badge - there is plenty of selection pressure to vary this. Chimps may not (I do not know this for certain) ascribe nearly as large a weight to facial features in identifying others. There is no selection pressure to vary this, and thus it all settles in a common optimum.
Well, there are other factors as well. Normally, that troop will outbreed quite a lot with other troops, which will keep it diverse and smother out much of the randomness.
But if there are only on the order of hundreds of individuals available, small random effects will start to have an impact. Not every individual will reproduce equally effectively, even if they are genetically equally viable - due to accidents, and other random effects, you will tend to get an inverse power-law like distribution with small numbers oif individuals. So, in that troupe of 2k individuals, maybe twenty to fifty of them will in reality be the progenitors of the majority of the offspring - others will have caught a disease, or be infertile, or have their children all die early, or have a falling out with their partner or whatever.
By the time the population is large enough that individual chance is smothered out, the individuals will in practice all stem from a small subpopulation of those that were available at that earlier time.
Umm, the register isn't exactly a Paragon of Truthful Virtue, you know. In a sense, they're a perfect representative of British news - the picture isn't exactlty fake, and the facts aren't technically wrong, but you inevitably come away with an impression of the events that has very little to do with what actually happened.
Of course collaboration is possible; the bickering and acrimony we see is possible precisely because we already are so intertwined. It's like family squabbles - they can get so bad precisely because the participants have so much in common.
What I think people in europe react to (at least here in Sweden - no idea about France), is that american nationalism and patriotism is so over the top. It's "My country, right or wrong", and any kind of critizism or attempt to set facts straight, no matter how correct or warranted, is taken as a personal attack. I also think europeans may be more sensitive to that sort of thing because we've been there, done that, got the memorials. Nationalism was a continent-wide sport for several hundred years here, with the world wars just the last and most emphatic disasters that resulted. We know what results this sentiment can bring, and are pretty wary of it.
No, it won't weigh much - as long as you discount the one and a half metric ton of food and water (assuming you have equipment to recycle your urine) and the air purifying system you need to survive to the end of the trip. That will be _really_ easy to sneak aboard. And, of course, with a launch and propellant system that dimensioned down to the pound, adding close to two tons of extra cargo may have a slight effect on the success of the mission...
I never had you guys down as nationalist but I have been disapointed by many of the recent comments on /.
You never saw americans as nationalist? You must already have been on Mars for the past few years then.
On the other hand, having a second outfit offering services around the JBoss framework can be seen as a good thing by the customers. They can get quotes from more than one place, and there is the assurance that even if one of them folds, the other is still there, able to pick up the work.
Indeed, if these guys are smart, they will do a deal with each other making such a thing formal. Both outfits can then show their customers that they have a ready backup plan for them in case something would happen to the firm.