A iPod, Wii controller or any similar device would never pass the reliability tests require by the black boxes.
Remember they need to survive the aircraft blowing up, than smashing in to the water and sinking and it must still operate perfectly. Ensuring that it works in tough conditions like that is expensive.
It looks quite obvious that its no threat with just a quick glance. I cant imagine any gun shaped objects inside it either (hell do they make a gun that thin?).
They dont need to know what it is - they only need to know that its not a thread. Asking him to turn it on would suffice.
They didnt strip out a lot of the unused resources. Many of the original game files are still in there even when they arent used. It doesnt take a genius to realise that many of the graphics and sounds are identical as well.
It appears like they did rewrite the code but its still a blatant copy. They based it from the original swf, they didnt start from scratch.
We are talking about executable code here, not file formats. A GPLed program specifically cannot have non-GPLed code linked to it.
NDISWrapper doesnt load a file. It executes it, linking it to its self.
Here is a relevant quote from the GPL FAQ:
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.
In this case, the binary blob drivers are essentially plugins. They are dynamically linked to GPLed code and then executed.
The GPL only applies to programs, not data which is why its fine to open.doc files and talk to non-free programs via fork, exec, TCP/IP, etc...
NDISWrapper deals with Window's binary blob drivers. That, under anyone's definition, means nothing GPLed can touch them.
NDISWrapper tried calling its self GPL while exposing all of Linux's GPLed interfaces to the binary blobs. A very straight forward violation.
Personally I never liked NDISWrapper. I use Linux to get away from Windows. I dont want their drivers running on my system.
Many people use it even when there are superior native drivers. Its been portrayed as a quick fix so if your hardware doesnt work out of the box, just use NDISWrapper.
I only tried it last week for the first time. I needed to view a powerpoint. Took me ages to find the bloody slide show button. In every other Powerpoint it was a nice simple button in the corner of the window.
The same could be said about Linux. Different yes but once you get used to it, you'll notice the benefits.
The difference between your statement and mine? Yours is marketing crap.:) With Microsoft its *not* the case. They'll change it for the next version as well.
The difference is that Firefox is predictable. If it doesnt support something then it will do nothing.
IE on the other hand does whatever some guy at Microsoft thought would be cool at the time. Its not predictable and often it contradicts the standards.
Slashdot Mirror
A iPod, Wii controller or any similar device would never pass the reliability tests require by the black boxes.
Remember they need to survive the aircraft blowing up, than smashing in to the water and sinking and it must still operate perfectly.
Ensuring that it works in tough conditions like that is expensive.
It probably sent it through the web interface, not SMTP.
Yeah remote controlled cars with weapons is cool.
:)
Automated remote controlled cars is freaking awesome.
A whole new field of malfunctions can occur.
It looks quite obvious that its no threat with just a quick glance.
I cant imagine any gun shaped objects inside it either (hell do they make a gun that thin?).
They dont need to know what it is - they only need to know that its not a thread.
Asking him to turn it on would suffice.
Dude? It was a laptop. GP is correct in his assessment.
You need to check out http://code.google.com/more/ some time.
They open source a *massive* quantity of their code and APIs.
No, the frightening thing is that the person who is proposing it is in a position of power.
Do you Americans go to the zoo and grab all the monkeys and put them in government?
Honestly.
But what about the terrorists? :P
It doesnt have to make any sense.
Just as long as the important people look like they are doing something.
You obviously didnt RTFA.
They didnt strip out a lot of the unused resources.
Many of the original game files are still in there even when they arent used.
It doesnt take a genius to realise that many of the graphics and sounds are identical as well.
It appears like they did rewrite the code but its still a blatant copy.
They based it from the original swf, they didnt start from scratch.
And still encryption only means a hour or two before your connected.
I'm surprised about how much saved.
Thats a very significant saving.
The casting was perfect but the plot didnt live up to expectations.
:)
The theme song was brilliant though.
I couldnt have imagined a better song for it.
Its a *gold* brick for heavens sakes. :P
There is no point in bashing your brains out unless its made out of gold!
That is correct. I'm a Aussie and I've only read the 'true' British version. :)
:)
It uses 'fuck'.
If it was for those reasons, what does the American version use in book 4?
You know what bit I'm talking about.
We are talking about America here. Voting boxes are mostly empty.
I'm from Australia where they are always full and voting makes a difference.
Um...They have the blueprints.
Why cant they just remove the DRM?
You've never been overseas then?
I cant honestly say I've been in a basement in a home.
I'm a Aussie. No basements here.
A GPLed program specifically cannot have non-GPLed code linked to it.
NDISWrapper doesnt load a file. It executes it, linking it to its self.
Here is a relevant quote from the GPL FAQ:
In this case, the binary blob drivers are essentially plugins.
They are dynamically linked to GPLed code and then executed.
The GPL only applies to programs, not data which is why its fine to open
As you can see, this is a very clear cut case.
Thats *exactly* the problem.
Hell my oldish Pentium 4 starts coughing with some flash ads and videos.
What chance does a little iPhone have?
An example which I've personally encountered:
The AT76c503a is a 802.11b usb wifi chipset.
Until it was merged in to the kernel, you had to install it from a package (on Gentoo anyway).
Once the package was installed, it worked out of the box and its quite a nice driver.
No packet injection but it can do most other things.
A little bit of Googling to figure out what driver you need vs using NDISWrapper?
No contest there. Googling is fine.
That driver is now merged in to the kernel btw so its now out of the box.
NDISWrapper deals with Window's binary blob drivers.
That, under anyone's definition, means nothing GPLed can touch them.
NDISWrapper tried calling its self GPL while exposing all of Linux's GPLed interfaces to the binary blobs.
A very straight forward violation.
Personally I never liked NDISWrapper.
I use Linux to get away from Windows. I dont want their drivers running on my system.
Many people use it even when there are superior native drivers.
Its been portrayed as a quick fix so if your hardware doesnt work out of the box, just use NDISWrapper.
It *did* kill productivity. Mine at least.
:)
I only tried it last week for the first time. I needed to view a powerpoint.
Took me ages to find the bloody slide show button.
In every other Powerpoint it was a nice simple button in the corner of the window.
The same could be said about Linux.
Different yes but once you get used to it, you'll notice the benefits.
The difference between your statement and mine? Yours is marketing crap.
With Microsoft its *not* the case. They'll change it for the next version as well.
I'm more of a realist. It all boils down to the same thing though.
The difference is that Firefox is predictable.
If it doesnt support something then it will do nothing.
IE on the other hand does whatever some guy at Microsoft thought would be cool at the time.
Its not predictable and often it contradicts the standards.
With a screen that small, I'd be going for quantity over quality.