I doubt many people expect their money to be spent immediately. Much better for the Debian team to keep a nice cushion in case of a major problem than to suddenly say "Shits, we ran out of money. Now what do we do?"
Even if it's only more consistent with itself, that's a step up.
Right now, IE has a lot of bugs that make no sense. Something will work in one way, but a small change will make it work completely differently. This is a pain in the ass for developers.
While a better designed document might not save the world, I believe it would help the President (Bush or otherwise) to quickly and more effectively discard the facts and act the way he would have otherwise.
Also, Invention Studio (or something like that) was awsome when I was younger. The one where you could build big conveyer-belt type things to move mice around.
When you link an executable against a library, you're still not including the GPLed library - just it's file name (eg, libgtk+-2.0.so). Somebody else could come along, create a stand-in GTK+ library, and let your program run against that.
That's what happens in a lot of cases with fonts. The original creater of the document may have used GPL fonts, he's only violating the GPL if he includes the fonts in the document in such a way that they are unextractable.
Most documents (eg, OpenOffice and MS Office formats) simply say which font to use. They do not actually include the font itself. This is no different from an IDE including a little "Created in XXXX" comment in the source code.
If it were a format that actually included the font itself, but just applied the saved font to the text, the point still stands. Distributing the document at all would distribute the code for the font.
If you were going to take the GPL-ed font, use it in a document, and then print the document, then you might be distributing without source code. But if it's being used for intra-company memos, this action still doesn't violate the GPL. If you were using it in something like a promotional flyer, then the GPL has been violated - but HOW would you possibly know?
It seems like the only way this part could be violated would be practically undetectable.
Using a GPL-ed font in a document would be just like using a GPL-ed IDE, I would think. Why would the license of the tools affect the license of the finished product?
They treat customers like people, rather than disposable tissues. I don't play DAoC any more because I simply didn't have the time, but it was really fun. I would start again in a heartbeat if it wouldn't kill my grades.
...the user is the largest security hole. Either you can restrict them to where they can't do their job, or somebody can get them to reveal their u/p for a candy bar.
Sony in push to outflank PS2 mods Andrew Colley MARCH 15, 2005 SONY Computer Entertainment Australia is planning a new legal bid to outlaw PlayStation modification chips following recent changes to federal copyright laws.
The devices override copy control mechanisms Sony builds into its consoles to block the use of pirated games and DVDs encoded for players built to operate in other regions.
Launching the Gran Turismo 4 game in Sydney last week, SCEA managing director Michael Ephraim said the company had instructed its lawyers to prepare a new court challenge to the legality of the devices.
The case would be based on amendments to the Copyright Act flowing from the US Free Trade Agreement in January, he said.
Sony's lawyers were preparing the case in anticipation of a High Court appeal overturning a decision in its favour, based on previous laws, handed down by the full bench of the Federal Court in July 2003.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr Ephraim said "the company would take more steps to crack down on street-level piracy in the second half of the year.
"We will wait for the outcome of the Stevens case.
However, Mr Ephraim said, "the world has changed a lot".
"So we will continue our fight against chipping on the PS2."
SCEA has engaged in a long series of legal manoeuvres to outlaw the chips since 2002 when it took legal action against backyard mod chip supplier, Eddy Stevens, in the Federal Court.
Sony asked the court to interpret parts of the Copyright Act outlawing the devices that circumvent copy protection mechanisms to include mod chips that Mr Stevens was selling.
However, Justice Ronald Sackville ruled in favour of Mr Stevens after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission intervened in the case.
The competition watchdog argued that Sony was using the copy control mechanism to erect artificial trade barriers between Australian consumers and overseas games and DVD markets.
Sony eventually won its case on appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court in July 2003. However, on February 8 Mr Stevens appealed to the High Court to overturn the decision.
Mr Stevens's legal representative, Gadens Lawyers, said the High Court had not set a date to give its decision.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to, when switching between programs. If you didn't store the contents of the registers, only one program could be executed at a time.
I doubt many people expect their money to be spent immediately. Much better for the Debian team to keep a nice cushion in case of a major problem than to suddenly say "Shits, we ran out of money. Now what do we do?"
It won't. It will keep random passers by from reading your tax returns.
for the daleks this has been forty years and still no clear look at anything but the travel machine.
Yes there was.
Even if it's only more consistent with itself, that's a step up.
Right now, IE has a lot of bugs that make no sense. Something will work in one way, but a small change will make it work completely differently. This is a pain in the ass for developers.
While a better designed document might not save the world, I believe it would help the President (Bush or otherwise) to quickly and more effectively discard the facts and act the way he would have otherwise.
Since when is chu chu rocket a twitch puzzle?
Also, Invention Studio (or something like that) was awsome when I was younger. The one where you could build big conveyer-belt type things to move mice around.
When you link an executable against a library, you're still not including the GPLed library - just it's file name (eg, libgtk+-2.0.so). Somebody else could come along, create a stand-in GTK+ library, and let your program run against that.
That's what happens in a lot of cases with fonts. The original creater of the document may have used GPL fonts, he's only violating the GPL if he includes the fonts in the document in such a way that they are unextractable.
Most documents (eg, OpenOffice and MS Office formats) simply say which font to use. They do not actually include the font itself. This is no different from an IDE including a little "Created in XXXX" comment in the source code.
If it were a format that actually included the font itself, but just applied the saved font to the text, the point still stands. Distributing the document at all would distribute the code for the font.
If you were going to take the GPL-ed font, use it in a document, and then print the document, then you might be distributing without source code. But if it's being used for intra-company memos, this action still doesn't violate the GPL. If you were using it in something like a promotional flyer, then the GPL has been violated - but HOW would you possibly know?
It seems like the only way this part could be violated would be practically undetectable.
Using a GPL-ed font in a document would be just like using a GPL-ed IDE, I would think. Why would the license of the tools affect the license of the finished product?
No, OSS has security flaws. The difference is that they are fixed.
Just how do you plan to get broadband out to the middle of the country? It's much more profitable for ISPs to hit the coasts and large cities.
Does that mean you have a 0-bit sense of humour?
Cheque is how it's spelled in the UK. From "Windoze", "DeatRat" and "PeeCee", the GP apparently goes to elementary school in the UK.
They treat customers like people, rather than disposable tissues. I don't play DAoC any more because I simply didn't have the time, but it was really fun. I would start again in a heartbeat if it wouldn't kill my grades.
Well, why don't you either buy a multi-region DVD player, or change the region on one you already own?
Wow, how many scientists will do that today?
This is boring. Make them funny
It's April Fool's day, not April Fool's morning.
I think /. sodded up the less-than sign and headers.
With other distros, you have to learn how it works very fast when it breaks. With Gentoo, you have to learn at your own pace when installing.
Here it is:
2 -13
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-1
It will work for anything that can set a backround. That said, yours is cooler - it has the monitor brackets included.
...the user is the largest security hole. Either you can restrict them to where they can't do their job, or somebody can get them to reveal their u/p for a candy bar.
Here's the text:
Sony in push to outflank PS2 mods
Andrew Colley
MARCH 15, 2005
SONY Computer Entertainment Australia is planning a new legal bid to outlaw PlayStation modification chips following recent changes to federal copyright laws.
The devices override copy control mechanisms Sony builds into its consoles to block the use of pirated games and DVDs encoded for players built to operate in other regions.
Launching the Gran Turismo 4 game in Sydney last week, SCEA managing director Michael Ephraim said the company had instructed its lawyers to prepare a new court challenge to the legality of the devices.
The case would be based on amendments to the Copyright Act flowing from the US Free Trade Agreement in January, he said.
Sony's lawyers were preparing the case in anticipation of a High Court appeal overturning a decision in its favour, based on previous laws, handed down by the full bench of the Federal Court in July 2003.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr Ephraim said "the company would take more steps to crack down on street-level piracy in the second half of the year.
"We will wait for the outcome of the Stevens case.
However, Mr Ephraim said, "the world has changed a lot".
"So we will continue our fight against chipping on the PS2."
SCEA has engaged in a long series of legal manoeuvres to outlaw the chips since 2002 when it took legal action against backyard mod chip supplier, Eddy Stevens, in the Federal Court.
Sony asked the court to interpret parts of the Copyright Act outlawing the devices that circumvent copy protection mechanisms to include mod chips that Mr Stevens was selling.
However, Justice Ronald Sackville ruled in favour of Mr Stevens after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission intervened in the case.
The competition watchdog argued that Sony was using the copy control mechanism to erect artificial trade barriers between Australian consumers and overseas games and DVD markets.
Sony eventually won its case on appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court in July 2003. However, on February 8 Mr Stevens appealed to the High Court to overturn the decision.
Mr Stevens's legal representative, Gadens Lawyers, said the High Court had not set a date to give its decision.