Millions of people find they aren't addicted to things that a small percentage of other people have addictions to. Film at 11.
I mean common the point of the addiction stories were never to necessarily to say everyone will become addicted to them and they should carry a surgeon general's warning or something. The point is that a small percentage of people have a problem with the game and it's something we have to learn how to recognize and help those people who need it. Ignoring the problem because the (likely) majority of the playing population doesn't have this problem solves nothing
The summary says they were distributed in Hong Kong, which is a part of China.
The summary say the 'mishap' happended in Hong Kong not that they were distributed there. Which I read to mean Hong Kong was where the virus was loaded.
I would be really surprised if I could not get the range to 1 km if you gave me a kilowatt transmitter and a good directional antenna with a 10m diameter.
I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't work heck I would be surprised if it did. Even if you can manage to induce enough current without frying (or tripping internal protection) the thing to have the unit send a signal the output would be so small (we are probably talking 4-5mW) it would fall to the same level or lower then background noise very very fast. Even the best antenna cannot magically remove background noise from a signal.
Really what you are proposing is like trying to hear a wisper between to people next to the speakers at a rock concert. Even the best microphones in the world cannot pull out the music and noise bouncing around the area.
RFID and Bluetooth Antennas are external and can be modified by users and manufactures for extra range. That is not the case for these devices as the antenna is on the die of the chip. It doesn't mean that you may be able to get 5mm out of the thing in a faraday cage but if you think you are going to get meters out of it I wouldn't hold my breath.
If they are going to make it so that you have to be 1mm away to read the signal, then why not just make a contact point and do away with the wireless function all together.
Simple answer is that contacts can be pretty unreliable in a dirty environment. Even in a clean environment without a way to lock the contacts of the reader to the device the contacts will "bounce" due to a lack of constant resistance and capacitance between the contacts of the reader and the device.
These are running fedora which has very few viruses for it anyway, moreover it is a special form of fedora, which might not be vulnerable to all the viruses which linux anyway (and whose going to write viruses for these kids computers anyway, there is no money nor respect in it). So I worry about sticking virus protection in the MBR and kernel for fear that it itself might cause more issues and problems than if it was just left "open".
But at the same time they are distributing these things to kids; most often the authors of viruses. Couple with that to the kids whom would see hundreds if not thousands of these laptops daily it's a pretty tempting target. I wouldn't write off viruses yet.
If they use the GPLd version, they must also distribute their software GPL.
If they link against the cygwin dll then and only then would they require their software to be GPLed. However simply using the GPLed cygwin does force you to GPL your code.
Redhat's $170 offering is for a year of support 30 days of which have phone support, afterwards it is done over email and the web. I would say that 335 extra days of support is worth a least $20.
One would have to look at every PCI express, PCI/PCI-X and AGP card made to determine if -/+12V are used as the spec requires the voltage. I would assume if they added it to the PCI express spec it is used quite a bit. I know I would be lost without it on many of my communication based designs that require noise immunity.
Using them in various arcane ways, I craft, say, a dozen chocolate chip cookies, the likes of which anyone would pay $.25 and think it was a good deal. So, we started out with about a dollar's worth of goods, and ended up with something like three dollars worth of cookies. There's now two more dollars worth of value in the economy, and it's all mine.
That would be true only if your skill and time you put into making those cookies is worthless. If someone is willing to pay for the cookies they obviously feel the your time is worth compensation otherwise they would not have and they would have made their own cookies.
Both companies will be making similar products at similar cost (using cheap labour etc). Apple has to maintain profitability on the iPod since it's a core Apple product, whereas Microsoft can afford to sell at cost or maybe a small loss in order to put strain on Apple. I would have thought this was illegal, but since it's standard practice in the console industry I'm not so sure.
It is illegal it's called "dumping". The difference between video game consoles and this is the intent, video games consoles make their money back through the licensing of games and to make the unit more affordable to the user. Dumping on the other hand is done mainly to hurt a competitor.
I am sure it may have meaning to you and those whom have seen you tell people to label it as such but otherwise it sounds a lot like non-sense. How about tagging it with something with clear meaning even to those who don't know what pigpile means such as like "blog-spam".
We aren't talking about this case we are talking about GPL in general and in particular the US legal system. I am not aware how Israel handles abstraction filtration comparison, etc. Granted in a contract case because the license is an American one the Israeli court should look at American law and is likely to differ from that only in the case that Israeli law forbids it.
exactly how is the per-person Federal debt such a burden on the middle class?
Debt of any kind discourages foreign investment lowering the value of the currency. This leads to higher prices in trade goods as it takes more money to equal the value of another currency. There are certainly other factors at play here but it's no coincidence that the value of the dollar has been dropping constantly over the past years.
The GPL is a Copyright license and not an end user license; it relies solely on copyright law.
That is correct, and the individual is distributing the GPLed software so he has clearly accepted the agreement.
Interfaces and data structures aren't covered by copyright because they are classed as facts. Ref Abstraction Filteration Comparison.
Nice try:
"The Fifth Circuit first held that only literal copying of elements of a computer program could be considered an infringement, [1] then it simply recognized that non-literal elements of computer programs "such as structure sequence and organization" may be copyrightable, [2] and then applied the abstraction-filtration-comparison test to conclude that copyright protection could in principle exist in input and output formats and used interfaces as long as these formats were not dictated by external requirements. [3] The court found that the expressive nature of such interfaces outweighed their utilitarian function."
[1] Plains Cotton Co-Op v. Goodpasture Computer Service, 1 USPQ2d 1635 (1987). In fact, the case can also be looked at as a case where the Court simply refused to give protection to features that it regarded as having been dictated by externalities of the situation.
[2] Kepner-Tregoe Inc. v. Leadership Software Inc., 29 USPQ2d 1747 (1994).
[3] Engineering Dynamics Inc. v. Structural Software Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1641 (1994). Input formats were also found
Data structures are the 3rd level of abstraction, only after direct copying of the source code so you are going to have a hard time proving the court thinks of them as facts.
When you dynamically link the only thing you copy is the interfaces and data structures.
That may be the case in the compiled output but at runtime which is the intended outcome that is not the case, statically linked and dynamically linked apps are functionally the same.
So, if I distribute a dynamically linked application without the required libraries the application that I am distributing contains no copyrightable data from the GPL library.
If you ignore the 5th circuit's ruling perhaps but I am sure that will bite you in the ass. However he is not doing that he is distributing the library with his application which effectively makes it part of the same application to the user and likely the court.
In that case how can a copyright license cover something which hasn't violated copyright?
We should probably believe the FSF since it's their license.
That's the one reason you shouldn't belive the FSF, they have an agenda and there not going to say you can do something they don't like even if you can.
Wouldn't you think that GPL would be designed to fulfill their agenda if it is indeed written by them? It would be counterproductive if it doesn't fit their agenda. Secondly they provide the only information available written by legal experts (i.e. can legally practice law) readily available that I can find at least, forgive me if I hold the opinion of professionals in higher regard then random forum posts. Though if you can opinions by other lawyers I would love to see them.
Right so you knock wikipedia then all of a sudden some guys post on a forum becomes gospel?
No, I'm saying that people that look at the problem all seem to find a loop hole in the GPL when it comes to dynamic linking, people who don't look at the problem and belive the fsf stick the the fsf line.
First of all a single person's post is not a consensus, it's clearly not that if this issue is in debate. Regardless, the guy didn't even say that he simply claimed its legality is in question and that until a case comes along to prove it either way you should act with caution whatever you believe. Of course if you posted the whole paragraph instead of the snippet it would have been far more obvious.
The reason I mention "Abstraction Filtration Comparison" is because it's the test used for a derived work, and the GPL only talks about derived works because that's all you can cover using copyright law. (The only regerence to linking is after the end of the terms of the GPL)
The reason I smacked down your mention of abstraction filtration comparison is because it is only used when the origin is in dispute. The abstraction filtration comparison test does not mitigate damages. Again the origin is not in dispute here he has the library on his web page in which he re-releases under GPL.
In this case if they statically linked against a GPL app or library then there's a problem, and if they distributed a closed source library or application with a GPL library then there's a problem. If they dynamically linked then the GPL will probably fall down.
The problem I see with that is functionally static and dynamic linking are the same when the application is placed in user memory since it is clear that the author intended that to happen and furthermore needed that to happen for it's operation the court will likely look at that as the intended out come and probably rule it no different then a statically linked app. If your software depends on a library such that the proper operation of the program will cease without it the app is derived from the library plain and simple. If he did not distribute the library a case could be made he didn't agree with GPL.
The quote is a definition unless you disagree that that is what dynamic linking is, and even if you did as it's intended to clarifiy the subject rather then prove it, being from wikipedia means nothing. What matters is FSF's take on the issue which is the second quote.
2: the words we believe
We should probably believe the FSF since it's their license.
3: It's Free Software Foundation retoric.
It's their license that they wrote. The license itself is their "rhetoric" to argue that a document showing the intent of the license is any less valuable then the license itself is foolish. Both would be taken into consideration on the case. Until a court rules upon this everything, by your standards (including your forum quote below), is rhetoric.
and belive is the correct word, the Law (or I know) uses Abstraction Filteration Comparison.
That would be "Abstraction Filtration Comparison" test is a determination if infringement took place when there is a dispute to the origin of code within a software program. There is no dispute here just an issue of contract; the author of the infringing program acknowledges using the code from the Jin Chess client. This test is unnecessary.
'For example, technologies like dynamic linking and distributed object computing are often not interpreted as creating derived works. In contrast to these more traditional views, the GPL and its originators, the Free Software Foundation (FSF), propose viewpoints that they open admit push interpretation of copyright law to extremes.'
Right so you knock wikipedia then all of a sudden some guys post on a forum becomes gospel? Regardless he doesn't say the GPL's viral aspects end with dynamic linking he explicitly says it does argues; but without a case to back up there is no guarantee that that part of the license will hold up in a court of law. That of course is one mans opinion.
I, like half the people on slashdot, used to work tech support in a call center. I had a shocking number of old ladies "swearing like sailors" because we couldn't put their technical problems in terms that people still living in the 1940s can understand.
I have also worked in support in an ISP and had very little problem helping these people by keeping jargon to a minimum and offering fee based onsite service if they cannot follow instructions. This problem exists with anyone who is not computer literate, the problem is that age (over the point where exposure in school is mandatory) is not an indication of computer literacy. The worst people from my experience are families with teens and the 20-30 groups which accounted the largest TOS violations, virus problems and generally abusive behavior. There is nothing worse then some asshole that after 3 months of massive data overage finally catches a worm that starts spamming people ignoring repeated requests to remove the worm and when the account is finally put their account on hold only then do they call up screaming as they threaten to have their lawyer file a lawsuit for hindering their god given right to pornography.
Regardless how does requiring someone under 70 in attendance mitigate support requirements?
I'd call *much* higher probability of tech support needs for an ISP to be the direct equivalent of an insurance company discriminating against the age group with a *much* higher probability of filing insurance claims. Sure, the insurance claims are more important, but that's just because insurance companies work in a life and death industry, while ISPs don't.So really, it's not unfair age discrimination on the part of the ISP unless you consider higher premiums for young drivers unfair as well. Which I don't, personally.
Even if you had some sort of proof older people use support more, the problem is the ISP is not selling support they are selling internet access. Support is not required in order to use the internet; it's a convenience that the ISPs offer customers. Insurance is the product and the liability of younger drivers is higher, this is not about younger people being charged more for talking on the phone longer to agents when buying insurance, it is the product being sold costing more plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Millions of people find they aren't addicted to things that a small percentage of other people have addictions to. Film at 11. I mean common the point of the addiction stories were never to necessarily to say everyone will become addicted to them and they should carry a surgeon general's warning or something. The point is that a small percentage of people have a problem with the game and it's something we have to learn how to recognize and help those people who need it. Ignoring the problem because the (likely) majority of the playing population doesn't have this problem solves nothing
Millitary ships have had Nuclear powerplants for years this isn't exactly new other then being bigger.
RFID and Bluetooth Antennas are external and can be modified by users and manufactures for extra range. That is not the case for these devices as the antenna is on the die of the chip. It doesn't mean that you may be able to get 5mm out of the thing in a faraday cage but if you think you are going to get meters out of it I wouldn't hold my breath.
Redhat's $170 offering is for a year of support 30 days of which have phone support, afterwards it is done over email and the web. I would say that 335 extra days of support is worth a least $20.
One would have to look at every PCI express, PCI/PCI-X and AGP card made to determine if -/+12V are used as the spec requires the voltage. I would assume if they added it to the PCI express spec it is used quite a bit. I know I would be lost without it on many of my communication based designs that require noise immunity.
Here you go: Top left
Having used one of these air doesn't come out of these things anywhere near as fast as a fan of the same size.
Me too, for a second reading that I though I might have got drunk one night an subscribed or something.
I am sure it may have meaning to you and those whom have seen you tell people to label it as such but otherwise it sounds a lot like non-sense. How about tagging it with something with clear meaning even to those who don't know what pigpile means such as like "blog-spam".
We aren't talking about this case we are talking about GPL in general and in particular the US legal system. I am not aware how Israel handles abstraction filtration comparison, etc. Granted in a contract case because the license is an American one the Israeli court should look at American law and is likely to differ from that only in the case that Israeli law forbids it.
"The Fifth Circuit first held that only literal copying of elements of a computer program could be considered an infringement, [1] then it simply recognized that non-literal elements of computer programs "such as structure sequence and organization" may be copyrightable, [2] and then applied the abstraction-filtration-comparison test to conclude that copyright protection could in principle exist in input and output formats and used interfaces as long as these formats were not dictated by external requirements. [3] The court found that the expressive nature of such interfaces outweighed their utilitarian function." [1] Plains Cotton Co-Op v. Goodpasture Computer Service, 1 USPQ2d 1635 (1987). In fact, the case can also be looked at as a case where the Court simply refused to give protection to features that it regarded as having been dictated by externalities of the situation. [2] Kepner-Tregoe Inc. v. Leadership Software Inc., 29 USPQ2d 1747 (1994). [3] Engineering Dynamics Inc. v. Structural Software Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1641 (1994). Input formats were also found Data structures are the 3rd level of abstraction, only after direct copying of the source code so you are going to have a hard time proving the court thinks of them as facts.
That may be the case in the compiled output but at runtime which is the intended outcome that is not the case, statically linked and dynamically linked apps are functionally the same.
If you ignore the 5th circuit's ruling perhaps but I am sure that will bite you in the ass. However he is not doing that he is distributing the library with his application which effectively makes it part of the same application to the user and likely the court.
It does violate copyright.
First of all a single person's post is not a consensus, it's clearly not that if this issue is in debate. Regardless, the guy didn't even say that he simply claimed its legality is in question and that until a case comes along to prove it either way you should act with caution whatever you believe. Of course if you posted the whole paragraph instead of the snippet it would have been far more obvious.
The reason I smacked down your mention of abstraction filtration comparison is because it is only used when the origin is in dispute. The abstraction filtration comparison test does not mitigate damages. Again the origin is not in dispute here he has the library on his web page in which he re-releases under GPL.
The problem I see with that is functionally static and dynamic linking are the same when the application is placed in user memory since it is clear that the author intended that to happen and furthermore needed that to happen for it's operation the court will likely look at that as the intended out come and probably rule it no different then a statically linked app. If your software depends on a library such that the proper operation of the program will cease without it the app is derived from the library plain and simple. If he did not distribute the library a case could be made he didn't agree with GPL.
We should probably believe the FSF since it's their license.
It's their license that they wrote. The license itself is their "rhetoric" to argue that a document showing the intent of the license is any less valuable then the license itself is foolish. Both would be taken into consideration on the case. Until a court rules upon this everything, by your standards (including your forum quote below), is rhetoric.
That would be "Abstraction Filtration Comparison" test is a determination if infringement took place when there is a dispute to the origin of code within a software program. There is no dispute here just an issue of contract; the author of the infringing program acknowledges using the code from the Jin Chess client. This test is unnecessary.
Right so you knock wikipedia then all of a sudden some guys post on a forum becomes gospel? Regardless he doesn't say the GPL's viral aspects end with dynamic linking he explicitly says it does argues; but without a case to back up there is no guarantee that that part of the license will hold up in a court of law. That of course is one mans opinion.
http://www.oslawblog.com/2005/01/dynamic-linking-
Regardless how does requiring someone under 70 in attendance mitigate support requirements?
Even if you had some sort of proof older people use support more, the problem is the ISP is not selling support they are selling internet access. Support is not required in order to use the internet; it's a convenience that the ISPs offer customers. Insurance is the product and the liability of younger drivers is higher, this is not about younger people being charged more for talking on the phone longer to agents when buying insurance, it is the product being sold costing more plain and simple.