The media just latches on to "downloading music" for some reason--either as scare tactics, pressure from the RIAA to spin it this way, whatever.
You forgot the simplest of explanations: Plain, utter, boundless stupidity. Do you know why killing a critical investigative journalist is punished much more severly than regular murder? Because they're on the list of endangered species.
Actually, GPS (and for sure Galileo too) can decrease its precision or even its availability in certain regions. Of course the effect will be rather coarse, but it would be sufficient to effectively turn off GPS over Europe, while leaving the US unaffected. (And the same vice versa with Galileo.)
Blasphemy! Burn the heretic and his unholy scribblings at the stake! Oh, ye cursed, ye fool! You'll have worse things to worry about than dependency hell. May Saint Ignucius have mercy on yer wicked soul.
This limit is at 250kph, or about 156mph. They are not legally obliged to limit the speed of their cars, but they're doing it as part of a voluntary self-regulation agreement with other producers. If a customer does want to go even faster, the chip is easy to remove or override (dunno how they do it exactly).
And thus far, there is no general speed limit on German highways ("Autobahnen"). On many Autobahn sections, there are specific limits, but on other sections, you're allowed to go as fast as your car manages to, and even faster than 250kph.
The analogy to chips is somewhat flawed, though, since you can hardly harm other people by overclocking your PC, as opposed to driving too fast.
The only reason I can see for preventing overclocking is to stop resellers selling systems with overclocked chips in to cut costs. You could prevent that by having the BIOS display a big warning message saying "This system is overclocked and may be unstable - phone Intel now" to alert normal users.
They would require agreements with all BIOS vendors to do that (somebody pointed out that resellers could hack the BIOS but that's illegal - they would be asking for trouble). However, I think it's Intel's own fault that vendors can overclock and advertise the chips with the new clockrates. After all, they are correct about the increased clockrates, so Intel has no legal resort. If I sell processor which Intel gave a 1.6GHz rating overclocked to 2GHz and advertise them as 2GHz processors, Intel may protest, but they are processors running at 2GHz.
Compare that to AMD, who are in a better position with their rating numbers. Since they're a part of the processor name, you can't just sell an overlocked "Athlon XP 2400+" as an "Athlon XP 2800+", since that would constitute outright fraud. And no vendor would use the clockrate to advertise AMD processors, since even overclocked it's not higher than the corresponding rating number.
You're right - Iraqis (currently) don't care about licenses. But what about copy-protection mechanisms? Didn't Microsoft say that XPSP2 will not install on pirated machines? Linux doesn't come with this sort of restriction.
Of course you can point us to a DirectShow-compliant RealVideo and RealAudio codec? And of course WMP will auto-download filters for Ogg Vorbis, XviD and Sorenson (the old QuickTime video codec)?
Not necessarily. If it contributes to Linux's growth, it may make them more likely especially if there is a peformance disadvantage associated with WineX (relative to native Linux games, not Windows). And if there isn't, then at least it makes ports less necessary.
Microsoft did ask the wxWindows developers to rename their project, stating that pepole might confuse it with Microsoft Windows, and there wasn't much of a fuss about it. Ok, but then that may partly be owed to the fact that MS paid them a monetary compensation.
The content lobby will just counter with a Copying Unceasingly Nurtures Terrorism (CUNT) or an Unlawful Replication Gives Al-Qaeda lots of Yen (URGAY) act. Linking copyright violations to child abuse and even terrorism is en vogue, and as long as this kind of manipulation can be used for profit, they won't cease to try. Anyway, I hope this one does make it through.
The exemption is for source code in general (as opposed to binaries). So you can ship $DISTRO with the full kernel and gpg sources, as long as you include neither cryptoloop nor gpg in binary form. It's a rather strange law...
That's why I preferred Farscape. It actually had, like, characters, and none of them were unequivocally good or evil. Well, except Scorpius.:-) Most notably, the three "heroes" (John Crichton, Aeryn & D'Argo) all had their inner conflicts and undiscovered facets, always good for a surprise. IMO, the Star Trek characters are too easily understood and too predictable.
Real ISPs come and go, you are not in college forever, and you dont keep the same job forever. However, you CAN keep one of these "second-rate" email addresses indefinitely.
Yes, but you can also get your own Internet domain for very little money and keep it even if your service provider goes bust.
What I mean to say is that the FSF's says that claims that software is free in the sense that the user has freedom to use it as he chooses. However, they follow this, with a definition that allows people to restrict this freedom.
And the user does have all these freedoms, including the right to modify the software. But she/he/it doesn't have unlimited rights of redistributing it (since if SHIT does, SHIT must make the source code available to the recipient, too). Any way, giving copies away is not what a user does, but a distributor. The point that a distributor may also be a user is incredibly irrelevant.
It's no secret. "The GPL is free" is dogma. Lots of people know it, but the Linux zealots carry on bleating about how Linux is free.
As long as miserable trolls like you can't come up with a better definition of "free software", it is, so put up or shut up. Here's my proposal: If it includes any restrictions beyond public domain code, it's not free. That would make both the BSDL and the GPL non-free. Do you like that definition better?
Well, I'm using the FSF's definition of free, which implies that the user is free to do what they want with it. Except, the user is not. Hence the FSF have redefined "free" for political reasons.
No, you redefined "user" for political/ideological reasons. If you're copying & pasting GPL code, you're not a mere user any more, you're a developer. In the same way as you're no longer just a listener, but a musician, if you include other people's samples in your own songs. Get it into your thick skull or don't, but avoid embarassing yourself any further.
Not really, since Microsoft and 95% of their corporate audience understand "free" to mean "as in beer".
Btw, even if free is understood as in free speech, why should a mere user like e.g. Munich care about copyleft? If anything, copyleft just ensures that corporations that do work on the source code, like e.g. IBM, will make their improvements available for free. That's a plus for Linux, not BSD.
Slashdot Mirror
The media just latches on to "downloading music" for some reason--either as scare tactics, pressure from the RIAA to spin it this way, whatever.
You forgot the simplest of explanations: Plain, utter, boundless stupidity. Do you know why killing a critical investigative journalist is punished much more severly than regular murder? Because they're on the list of endangered species.
Actually, GPS (and for sure Galileo too) can decrease its precision or even its availability in certain regions. Of course the effect will be rather coarse, but it would be sufficient to effectively turn off GPS over Europe, while leaving the US unaffected. (And the same vice versa with Galileo.)
Damn! You convinced me! Pray tell, is there anything that isn't the Frenchs' fault???
Funny, how international law suddenly matters when it's in favor of US interests.
Blasphemy! Burn the heretic and his unholy scribblings at the stake! Oh, ye cursed, ye fool! You'll have worse things to worry about than dependency hell. May Saint Ignucius have mercy on yer wicked soul.
Alexis de Torquemada
Chief Inquisitor
This limit is at 250kph, or about 156mph. They are not legally obliged to limit the speed of their cars, but they're doing it as part of a voluntary self-regulation agreement with other producers. If a customer does want to go even faster, the chip is easy to remove or override (dunno how they do it exactly).
And thus far, there is no general speed limit on German highways ("Autobahnen"). On many Autobahn sections, there are specific limits, but on other sections, you're allowed to go as fast as your car manages to, and even faster than 250kph.
The analogy to chips is somewhat flawed, though, since you can hardly harm other people by overclocking your PC, as opposed to driving too fast.
A few good fans, and my temperature is about 107F right now.
You need to see a doctor. Quick!
Don't worry, when the Bush government finally privatizes air, many people will not be able to afford breathing.
The only reason I can see for preventing overclocking is to stop resellers selling systems with overclocked chips in to cut costs. You could prevent that by having the BIOS display a big warning message saying "This system is overclocked and may be unstable - phone Intel now" to alert normal users.
They would require agreements with all BIOS vendors to do that (somebody pointed out that resellers could hack the BIOS but that's illegal - they would be asking for trouble). However, I think it's Intel's own fault that vendors can overclock and advertise the chips with the new clockrates. After all, they are correct about the increased clockrates, so Intel has no legal resort. If I sell processor which Intel gave a 1.6GHz rating overclocked to 2GHz and advertise them as 2GHz processors, Intel may protest, but they are processors running at 2GHz.
Compare that to AMD, who are in a better position with their rating numbers. Since they're a part of the processor name, you can't just sell an overlocked "Athlon XP 2400+" as an "Athlon XP 2800+", since that would constitute outright fraud. And no vendor would use the clockrate to advertise AMD processors, since even overclocked it's not higher than the corresponding rating number.
Microsoft is not an evil company, it's a company. Period.
Microsoft is not an evil corporation, it's a corporation. "Evil corporation" is a tautology...
You're right - Iraqis (currently) don't care about licenses. But what about copy-protection mechanisms? Didn't Microsoft say that XPSP2 will not install on pirated machines? Linux doesn't come with this sort of restriction.
Of course you can point us to a DirectShow-compliant RealVideo and RealAudio codec? And of course WMP will auto-download filters for Ogg Vorbis, XviD and Sorenson (the old QuickTime video codec)?
Not necessarily. If it contributes to Linux's growth, it may make them more likely especially if there is a peformance disadvantage associated with WineX (relative to native Linux games, not Windows). And if there isn't, then at least it makes ports less necessary.
Microsoft did ask the wxWindows developers to rename their project, stating that pepole might confuse it with Microsoft Windows, and there wasn't much of a fuss about it. Ok, but then that may partly be owed to the fact that MS paid them a monetary compensation.
You would have written "You know your in trouble" instead?
If they reveal his identity, he's going to need bulletproof clothing as well.
The content lobby will just counter with a Copying Unceasingly Nurtures Terrorism (CUNT) or an Unlawful Replication Gives Al-Qaeda lots of Yen (URGAY) act. Linking copyright violations to child abuse and even terrorism is en vogue, and as long as this kind of manipulation can be used for profit, they won't cease to try. Anyway, I hope this one does make it through.
The exemption is for source code in general (as opposed to binaries). So you can ship $DISTRO with the full kernel and gpg sources, as long as you include neither cryptoloop nor gpg in binary form. It's a rather strange law...
That's why I preferred Farscape. It actually had, like, characters, and none of them were unequivocally good or evil. Well, except Scorpius. :-) Most notably, the three "heroes" (John Crichton, Aeryn & D'Argo) all had their inner conflicts and undiscovered facets, always good for a surprise. IMO, the Star Trek characters are too easily understood and too predictable.
No, but Microsoft is scared that this may be the proverbial crack in the dam. We'll have to see.
Real ISPs come and go, you are not in college forever, and you dont keep the same job forever. However, you CAN keep one of these "second-rate" email addresses indefinitely.
Yes, but you can also get your own Internet domain for very little money and keep it even if your service provider goes bust.
What I mean to say is that the FSF's says that claims that software is free in the sense that the user has freedom to use it as he chooses. However, they follow this, with a definition that allows people to restrict this freedom.
And the user does have all these freedoms, including the right to modify the software. But she/he/it doesn't have unlimited rights of redistributing it (since if SHIT does, SHIT must make the source code available to the recipient, too). Any way, giving copies away is not what a user does, but a distributor. The point that a distributor may also be a user is incredibly irrelevant.
It's no secret. "The GPL is free" is dogma. Lots of people know it, but the Linux zealots carry on bleating about how Linux is free.
As long as miserable trolls like you can't come up with a better definition of "free software", it is, so put up or shut up. Here's my proposal: If it includes any restrictions beyond public domain code, it's not free. That would make both the BSDL and the GPL non-free. Do you like that definition better?
Well, I'm using the FSF's definition of free, which implies that the user is free to do what they want with it. Except, the user is not. Hence the FSF have redefined "free" for political reasons.
No, you redefined "user" for political/ideological reasons. If you're copying & pasting GPL code, you're not a mere user any more, you're a developer. In the same way as you're no longer just a listener, but a musician, if you include other people's samples in your own songs. Get it into your thick skull or don't, but avoid embarassing yourself any further.
Not really, since Microsoft and 95% of their corporate audience understand "free" to mean "as in beer".
Btw, even if free is understood as in free speech, why should a mere user like e.g. Munich care about copyleft? If anything, copyleft just ensures that corporations that do work on the source code, like e.g. IBM, will make their improvements available for free. That's a plus for Linux, not BSD.