Just disable cookies in the browser by default. Or make them session cookies, that's a good enough second best.
What's the government supposed to do next, make it illegal for anyone to download a virus?
Honestly, some people won't be satisfied until the government publishes a 500 page manual on how to wipe your ass and makes it illegal to do it in any other way.
I read of some study, yes peer reviewed and in a respected journal, which showed some small amount of heating in cells. Presumably, since heat shock proteins come into play as temperatures rise, and since bodies try to maintain a stable temperature, this is not a welcome heating, and there may be adverse reactions to it.
I have no references. I think it was in the last year or so.
Isn't that one of the laws of thermodynamics? Not all the energy would be reabsorbed, correct? And that excess, no matter how small... well, it would be enough for lawyers if not doctors.
If the grantee violates the GPL, the granter is NO LONGER granting redistribution rights, and the ex-grantee's continued redistribution falls back on standard copyright law.
Repeat after me. Violation of the GPL terminates your redistribution rights and it falls back to a standard copyright violation. The 1998 precedent has no bearing whatsoever because you are violating copyright law.
The GPL gives you distribution rights provided you pass on those same distribution rights. The GPL does not give absolute irrevocable distribution rights. As soon as you violate the terms of the license, you lose those conditionally-granted distribution rights yourself, and it devolves back into a normal copyright case.
What the heck is so hard to understand about that?
The beauty of the GPL lies in its supremely elegant hack of using copyright to fight copyright. The ONLY way the GPL can fail is if copyright itself is declared null and void. If there are ANY flaws in the GPL, those EXTRA redistribution rights would automatically be cancelled. The GPL grants EXTRA rights, and if it fails, those extra rights die with it.
"I give you permission to pass around this program based on my copyrighted work, provided that you tell everyone you pass it to that they have this same right under the same conditions to a copy of the source code."
"OK."
"Hey, Joe just said you refused to give him the source code to that program."
"Yup."
"Bingo, you no longer have any rights to redistribute the program based on my source code."
Haven't RTFA yet, but if mass is not the huge problem it is with rockets, maybe surround the passengers with a meter of water, or whatever it takes. If coming down is faster, for instance in capsules instead of crawling down the space elevator, or if down capsules are faster than up capsules, maybe the water could be cargo for the orbital endpoint of the space elevator.
The heads in these kinds of disk drives are literally aerodynamically designed to rely on the air to fly them at the right height over the platter. The platter's spinning drags air with it, so creating enough wind for the heads.
The specs for disk drives specify a maximum operating altitude, something like 15,000 feet. They won't work in a vacuum.
I think the frictional losses in disk drives are significant. Look at how much power is used by drives -- that's not the electronics, and I don't think the seek arm uses that much because it is so light. But I have never seen an actual breakdown of seek arm vs spin motor. I do know that the spin motors suck up a lot of power. There have been advances in bearings, but aero drag can't be reduced.
The GPL governs the conditions under which you can distribute software. It has nothing to do with just using it. However, it does mean that you can demand certain rights from wherever you got the software, because by distributing it, they agreed to give you access to the source code. It might also be useful for the user to understand that there is no warranty.
But yes, you can ignore the GPL in order to use software. It is a license to distribute, not to use (or to kill!).
distinction between enemy combatants sincerely interested in attacking a foreign country, and someone who is either a citizen or resident alien
Would that the Bushies could! There have been, I believe, two US citizens in Guantanomo, and Bush has made it crystal clear that he thinks he has the power to send US citizens there without being hindered by the courts or Congress or even common decency. Independent reports suggest that most of the Guantanomo prisoners are innocents picked up either because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because someone with a personal grudge dropped anonymous hints. Such is to be expected when the process of law is denied.
Besides which, the only logical rationale for keeping the prisoners there, out of touch with any decent legal system to protect the innocent, is to torture information out of them or to keep them out of circulation. Torture has been shown to produce unreliable info; the only other reason is to exact revenge, which is not a particularly noble goal, certainly not mine, and a sorry goal for any government. As for keeping them out of circulation, a standard legal process would serve just as well.
Guantanomo has no purpose other than to make the Bushies look like they are doing something useful.
... back when credit cards were still something of a rarity, at least rare enough that most had annual charges...
I signed up with some bank that had free credit cards, both VISA and M/C. Everything was fine for a year or so, when they announced that if I used the credit cards after a certain date, they would charge me a $15 annual fee. So I cut them up and threw them away.
Some time later, they sent me a statement including a $15 charge for the annual fee. This continued for several months until my complaints eventually made it into the system, and the bills stopped. Then a month or two later, they started up again, but this time showing a $15 credit. I supposed I had actually gotten two complaints into the system and two retractions of the $15 charge. Figuring it would do no good to complain, that they would eventually figure it out on their own, I ignored the continued credit bills.
And at the end of the year, they sent me a check for $15.
I also once complained to Pac Bell, or maybe it was still ATT back then, about a payphone that had gobble coins without any service, and they sent me some pitiful small check, like 15 cents.
Roland contributes to slashdot by providing links to informative news for nerds, stuff that matters, but all you have contributed is a slam on someone useful.
Roland did. I guess if you think he's despicable, it tells us more about you than him, since while he posted the link, you just posted flamebait.
Do you live for these moments? Roland apparently spends a lot of time online looking for interesting news to tell slashdot readers; you spend a lot of time online flaming Roland for doing so.
I wonder which one contributes more to slashdot...
There is no answer. What is so hard to understand about that? The case law is unsettled; he said that. This is not about simple murder, kidnapping, etc, this is about laws which are changinga ll the time, as fast as the *AA can push their changes and keep things changing. Until the *AA stop changing things, he can't answer the question. So yes, the answer could be summarized as "stay squeaky clean", but any other answer would be wrong.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Even simple murder, kidnapping, etc, aren't simple. Look how many different kinds of murder there are: various degrees of murder, of mansalughter, voluntary, involuntary, willful, whatever. And that is law which is mostly settled. How can you possibly expect new law to be as well settled?
Reality is that unless you stay squeaky clean, they can amke a case against anybody they want under whatever corner they have pushed the law into; and even then, if they lie, they can make your life miserable.
He said the law is unsettled. What part of unsettled do you not understand? I was glad to see this answer; IANAL of course, but from everything I have read, the *AA have been doing their best to grab as much law as they can for their side, piece by piece, step by step, and until they go over the edge, the law is unsettled.
It's very simple. There is no answer until the *AA stop moving the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Just disable cookies in the browser by default. Or make them session cookies, that's a good enough second best.
What's the government supposed to do next, make it illegal for anyone to download a virus?
Honestly, some people won't be satisfied until the government publishes a 500 page manual on how to wipe your ass and makes it illegal to do it in any other way.
I read of some study, yes peer reviewed and in a respected journal, which showed some small amount of heating in cells. Presumably, since heat shock proteins come into play as temperatures rise, and since bodies try to maintain a stable temperature, this is not a welcome heating, and there may be adverse reactions to it.
I have no references. I think it was in the last year or so.
Isn't that one of the laws of thermodynamics? Not all the energy would be reabsorbed, correct? And that excess, no matter how small ... well, it would be enough for lawyers if not doctors.
You have to agree to the GPL to distribute the software. The GPL explicitly states you can use the software without agreeing to the GPL.
The GPL is not in perpuity. It is not irrevocable. It is not forever, permanent, starched, or non-trans-fat.
If they violate the GPL, they lose that protection.
Your right to sue them is only forfeit as long as they are following the license.
Duh.
If they violate the license, they lose that protection.
Duh.
It falls back on copyright with no protection from the now-violated license.
Duh.
Duh.
Duh.
If the grantee violates the GPL, the granter is NO LONGER granting redistribution rights, and the ex-grantee's continued redistribution falls back on standard copyright law.
Repeat after me. Violation of the GPL terminates your redistribution rights and it falls back to a standard copyright violation. The 1998 precedent has no bearing whatsoever because you are violating copyright law.
Keeriminy it's simple.
The GPL gives you distribution rights provided you pass on those same distribution rights. The GPL does not give absolute irrevocable distribution rights. As soon as you violate the terms of the license, you lose those conditionally-granted distribution rights yourself, and it devolves back into a normal copyright case.
What the heck is so hard to understand about that?
The beauty of the GPL lies in its supremely elegant hack of using copyright to fight copyright. The ONLY way the GPL can fail is if copyright itself is declared null and void. If there are ANY flaws in the GPL, those EXTRA redistribution rights would automatically be cancelled. The GPL grants EXTRA rights, and if it fails, those extra rights die with it.
"I give you permission to pass around this program based on my copyrighted work, provided that you tell everyone you pass it to that they have this same right under the same conditions to a copy of the source code."
"OK."
"Hey, Joe just said you refused to give him the source code to that program."
"Yup."
"Bingo, you no longer have any rights to redistribute the program based on my source code."
Pretty damn simple.
Haven't RTFA yet, but if mass is not the huge problem it is with rockets, maybe surround the passengers with a meter of water, or whatever it takes. If coming down is faster, for instance in capsules instead of crawling down the space elevator, or if down capsules are faster than up capsules, maybe the water could be cargo for the orbital endpoint of the space elevator.
Now I will go RTFA.
None of this gratitude nonsense. We paid for an argument, and that's what you'll give us, or we want our money back.
So take that!
Wholly mackerel, that's decades, centuries even, in internet time!
/..
I wonder how they will factor that in, or if that is indeed part of the study.
I should RTFA, but this is
The heads in these kinds of disk drives are literally aerodynamically designed to rely on the air to fly them at the right height over the platter. The platter's spinning drags air with it, so creating enough wind for the heads.
The specs for disk drives specify a maximum operating altitude, something like 15,000 feet. They won't work in a vacuum.
I think the frictional losses in disk drives are significant. Look at how much power is used by drives -- that's not the electronics, and I don't think the seek arm uses that much because it is so light. But I have never seen an actual breakdown of seek arm vs spin motor. I do know that the spin motors suck up a lot of power. There have been advances in bearings, but aero drag can't be reduced.
I always kinda liked the idea that I get to live in the future just by staying alive.
The GPL governs the conditions under which you can distribute software. It has nothing to do with just using it. However, it does mean that you can demand certain rights from wherever you got the software, because by distributing it, they agreed to give you access to the source code. It might also be useful for the user to understand that there is no warranty.
But yes, you can ignore the GPL in order to use software. It is a license to distribute, not to use (or to kill!).
distinction between enemy combatants sincerely interested in attacking a foreign country, and someone who is either a citizen or resident alien
Would that the Bushies could! There have been, I believe, two US citizens in Guantanomo, and Bush has made it crystal clear that he thinks he has the power to send US citizens there without being hindered by the courts or Congress or even common decency. Independent reports suggest that most of the Guantanomo prisoners are innocents picked up either because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because someone with a personal grudge dropped anonymous hints. Such is to be expected when the process of law is denied.
Besides which, the only logical rationale for keeping the prisoners there, out of touch with any decent legal system to protect the innocent, is to torture information out of them or to keep them out of circulation. Torture has been shown to produce unreliable info; the only other reason is to exact revenge, which is not a particularly noble goal, certainly not mine, and a sorry goal for any government. As for keeping them out of circulation, a standard legal process would serve just as well.
Guantanomo has no purpose other than to make the Bushies look like they are doing something useful.
I think he was stretching the point
... back when credit cards were still something of a rarity, at least rare enough that most had annual charges ...
I signed up with some bank that had free credit cards, both VISA and M/C. Everything was fine for a year or so, when they announced that if I used the credit cards after a certain date, they would charge me a $15 annual fee. So I cut them up and threw them away.
Some time later, they sent me a statement including a $15 charge for the annual fee. This continued for several months until my complaints eventually made it into the system, and the bills stopped. Then a month or two later, they started up again, but this time showing a $15 credit. I supposed I had actually gotten two complaints into the system and two retractions of the $15 charge. Figuring it would do no good to complain, that they would eventually figure it out on their own, I ignored the continued credit bills.
And at the end of the year, they sent me a check for $15.
I also once complained to Pac Bell, or maybe it was still ATT back then, about a payphone that had gobble coins without any service, and they sent me some pitiful small check, like 15 cents.
The friction from rising thru the atmosphere would leave a significant signature for all to see.
Roland contributes to slashdot by providing links to informative news for nerds, stuff that matters, but all you have contributed is a slam on someone useful.
Good work. Go to Digg, it fits you.
Roland did. I guess if you think he's despicable, it tells us more about you than him, since while he posted the link, you just posted flamebait.
...
Do you live for these moments? Roland apparently spends a lot of time online looking for interesting news to tell slashdot readers; you spend a lot of time online flaming Roland for doing so.
I wonder which one contributes more to slashdot
I just posted a link to that and then found yours when scrolling down. You beat me!
Arrrrrrrr! you scurvy dog!
Real Programmers are named Mel
There is no answer. What is so hard to understand about that? The case law is unsettled; he said that. This is not about simple murder, kidnapping, etc, this is about laws which are changinga ll the time, as fast as the *AA can push their changes and keep things changing. Until the *AA stop changing things, he can't answer the question. So yes, the answer could be summarized as "stay squeaky clean", but any other answer would be wrong.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Even simple murder, kidnapping, etc, aren't simple. Look how many different kinds of murder there are: various degrees of murder, of mansalughter, voluntary, involuntary, willful, whatever. And that is law which is mostly settled. How can you possibly expect new law to be as well settled?
Reality is that unless you stay squeaky clean, they can amke a case against anybody they want under whatever corner they have pushed the law into; and even then, if they lie, they can make your life miserable.
He said the law is unsettled. What part of unsettled do you not understand? I was glad to see this answer; IANAL of course, but from everything I have read, the *AA have been doing their best to grab as much law as they can for their side, piece by piece, step by step, and until they go over the edge, the law is unsettled.
It's very simple. There is no answer until the *AA stop moving the answer.