And a good number of slashdotters (programmers) put out more intellectual "property" each than ten artists. Believe it or not, we have something to lose in this too. However, it's worth it to see DRM and horrendous laws like the DMCA gone. Copyright holders have all the power they need to protect their stuff without merging corporate power with government power.
Don't think for a minute that solving problems doesn't require creativity.
Oh, and by the way "merging corporate power with government power" is the definition of fascism.
Craigslist isn't bound by a contract between two other parties, the question here is does the plaintiff have the right to the data in question.
They would need to claim the right under criminal law, or possibly trademark/copyright law. They can't claim it under the criminal since they aren't the State.
If I gave a copy of my keys to a friend, and it later appeared on craigslist, would I have the right to the name of the seller? The property wasn't stolen, and I have no particular rights attached to that key. AFAIK my only recourse would be to change the locks.
With millions of dollars in revenue, they can hardly afford not to have lawyers.
They should have shown up, they took a chance for good PR and turned it into really bad PR.
Whether the Academy had any right to that information has no bearing on this, they should have shown up to court and fought. Now anybody who wants their data will just file a suit.
(I assume your mother was unconscious or unable to make the decision)
It was your father's decision to make, not the government's. Legally it would currently be his decision to make because he was in the best position to know what your mother (whose decision it would normally) would want. What if there had been almost no chance that the baby would survive either, I can think of a very simple case where this might happen: severe trauma to the abdomen, complicated by the pregnancy. How if she were only a few months along, and the only way for her to survive was to deliver the baby immediately, long before there was any chance of being able to survive outside the womb? That would certainly be an abortion.
Sometimes there's a grey area, sometimes there's no question that the mother cannot live and be pregnant.
The point is the government shouldn't be making these decisions.
This also leads down another slippery slope: if the fetus is protected then certainly with the known dangers no woman should be allowed to drink while pregnant. Except: Women don't always know, therefore, if they even could be pregnant, they shouldn't be allowed to do anything that might harm the fetus. If they do, clearly they should be charged with assault/endangering the welfare of a child/etc.
Then of course there are the issues of a pregnancy from rape or abuse.
There's one case of abortion that all pro-lifers don't like, but that isn't the only one that exists.
Here's another: the mother has a 1% chance of living, the fetus is 1 month premature. The fetus may or may not survive if delivery is induced. The mother needs medication that will kill the fetus (e.g. chemotherapy, radiation for cancer) in order to live.
The chances of both living are higher if delivery is induced, but, if it could kill the fetus, is it abortion?
Outlaw a medical procedure and you tie the hands of every physician and patient. You might prevent them from intervening to save both lives because doing nothing puts the doctor in less legal danger.
When you create an absolute law, you must take into account all of the.001% cases. This was my point, a lot of laws have unintended consequences because they sound good to one group or another. Leaving aside the entire pro-life/pro-choice debate, you have to take a lot of other cases into account.
How about the various form of twinning that occur, which in rare cases leads to one twin actually becoming part of the other, and needing to be removed so that the fully grown twin can live? That other twin (which cannot survive in any scenario) is human, and it is its own entity.
Here's another case: A woman who with a serious medical condition becomes pregnant. She cannot survive to bring the child to term, and the child will not survive. Can an abortion be performed then? Saving one life instead of killing both of them?
Also, keep in mind, especially in the second case, it is rarely a 100% certainty. There is always a small chance that both will live. Would you require that a woman with a 1% chance of surviving take that chance? Why is that your decision to make? Why is that anyone's choice but her own?
How about all of the embryos that for one reason or another are destroyed by the body itself? Should we be trying to protect those as well? Should we spend money on protecting the "unborn" instead of say, cancer research?
Those embryos are just as much "potential individuals" as all of the children that don't exist because not every fertile human is continually having sex.
Actually, it gives any user of the software the right to demand the source code, unless the creator of the code gives them a separate license, which he/she/they didn't.
Actually I think the ATI Mobility series is virtually an integrated card, with no memory of its own.
However, I wasn't trying to bash Apple (if you'll read above, I've been using Macs for a long time). I merely was responding to a comment that there is a WoW client for Mac, and yet I use a Windows laptop for it.
The GMA 950 is optimized for video playback, not 3d acceleration. To the Macbook's credit, it is quieter and cooler than the Windows machine.
I bought the Macbook for its size, and at the time I played no games at all. A 13.3" mac with a real video card would have me sold, but they haven't released one yet.
Ironically, the best system for playing WoW would probably be the rebuilt server, with a 2.4GHz conroe, a real Nvidia card with 256MB RAM and of course several 7200RPM drives. The Windows WoW client also runs on Linux I hear.
I tried that, but my macbook (Core 2, but GMA 950) gets about half the FPS of the Windows laptop with a Turion 64 and an ATI Mobility card. (23 fps vs 45 fps)
I usually use quick mode on an "blank" drive, I could swear it worked on ext3 partitions as well. As I said, I believe the difference is whether the partition is zeroed first. Otherwise, it just needs to create the FS tables.
I don't like NTFS either, but I do regularly run computers with all three OSs (Mac mostly for work (developer), Windows for home (WoW), and a Linux server). I think the slowest format is either HFS+ or ext3, I've certainly seen ext3 be quite slow. So long as you use the "quick" option for NTFS formats it is quite fast. Of course, with all the grahpic goodies everything on Macs seems slow, but it's also hard to time how long it takes.
And no, I'm not a switcheur nor a noob. I've used/owned Macs since System 7, I've been using Linux for 8 years now, and I started with DOS 5 on an 80286, and ran every Windows and Mac version from then to current.
XFS is a fast format, ext3 takes a few minutes depending on the size of the partition, and NTFS is a few seconds in quick mode. Quick format has been there for quite a while (even DOS) and without it I always assumed format was zeroing the partition, which is slow of course.
As stated elsewhere in this discussion, the issue is really that a lot of applications aren't written such that they work properly under these conditions. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple software for Windows didn't work correctly when installed as non-admin.
(I have a macbook, and use Linux all the time). On OS X you can run applications from anywhere, with a few exceptions. On Linux, unless your application needs a kernel module, you can install it in your own home directory. GNU Autoconf is virtually built for this, I have a site config for autoconf on the Linux machines at work, I can run./configure && make && make install and it installs to my ~/local directory. With the right environs set (LD_LIBARRY_PATH for instance) I can install/run anything without ever needing an admin. It's actually one of the reasons I like Unix-systems (especially Linux) so much, the idea that a user can do anything so long as it doesn't change things for other users isn't just an idea, it's ignrained into the OS.
Just as an example, last week I discovered our installations of perl didn't have DBI::mysql, I installed the module locally and it works just fine.
Or maybe he was looking at where they live, and didn't need to get to the level of species to do that. Most people know what a species is, english has a large vocabulary, there is no need to assume the person meant something other than what they said.
The problem is that Apple is making it harder for people, and hoping that people won't bother to uncheck the box and will end up with yet more bloat on their computer. What they're doing is probably illegal, but I'm a software engineer and the engineer that set that to true should have known that most people probably weren't interested in the download, and that some would be worried that not installing would cause something else to break. That engineer should have set the default to what the user probably wanted (no install) rather than what s/he wanted.
It comes down to the fact that Apple as a whole has done something that the user probably didn't want, and that they are trying to take advantage of the lack of knowledge on the part of many Windows users (iTunes comes preinstalled on some computers).
Having flashing, moving ads is not essential for any site. Lots of sites choose to make it that way, and that's why a lot of people install ad blockers. Anyone trying to make money loses all credibility when they piss of their customers.
It's not the mining conditions that is concerning with diamonds, but the trade conditions. The diamonds are sold to fund warlords in Africa. Other gems and items may fund unsavory groups as well, but diamonds are the best known for it.
Personally, my objection isn't just to there "blood diamonds" but to diamond prices in general. Diamonds are not as rare as DeBeers would have you believe, the price is entirely artificial.
Even Kernel modules don't need to be GPLed, look at the Nvidia and ATI drivers, for instance. Neither of them are wholly open-source, just a small kernel interface (that has to be compiled against your specific kernel anyway). I doubt Nvidia or ATI would have released such drivers without having their ducks in a row. I don't think anyone is going to challenge the legality of linking a closed-source module against the kernel either.
Also, I think if you absolutely have to you can avoid releasing your source code if you stop distributing the binaries. That is, you can keep violating the GPL until you are caught, and then you have to stop the offensive behavior by either releasing the source or ceasing to release the binaries.
Not if you have a Macbook (yes, I have a Core 2 Duo) the practical limit there in 3GB! The limit is not imposed by Windows, it's imposed by 32-bit systems.
You can return to the U.S. with only a birth certificate. People around here were very concerned when they heard passports might be required, but it hasn't happened yet. (btw - this is Rochester, NY).
Slashdot Mirror
And a good number of slashdotters (programmers) put out more intellectual "property" each than ten artists. Believe it or not, we have something to lose in this too. However, it's worth it to see DRM and horrendous laws like the DMCA gone. Copyright holders have all the power they need to protect their stuff without merging corporate power with government power.
Don't think for a minute that solving problems doesn't require creativity.
Oh, and by the way "merging corporate power with government power" is the definition of fascism.
Craigslist isn't bound by a contract between two other parties, the question here is does the plaintiff have the right to the data in question.
They would need to claim the right under criminal law, or possibly trademark/copyright law. They can't claim it under the criminal since they aren't the State.
If I gave a copy of my keys to a friend, and it later appeared on craigslist, would I have the right to the name of the seller? The property wasn't stolen, and I have no particular rights attached to that key. AFAIK my only recourse would be to change the locks.
With millions of dollars in revenue, they can hardly afford not to have lawyers.
They should have shown up, they took a chance for good PR and turned it into really bad PR.
Whether the Academy had any right to that information has no bearing on this, they should have shown up to court and fought. Now anybody who wants their data will just file a suit.
They can also decide not to let their kids go to the video game store in the first place.
(I assume your mother was unconscious or unable to make the decision)
It was your father's decision to make, not the government's. Legally it would currently be his decision to make because he was in the best position to know what your mother (whose decision it would normally) would want. What if there had been almost no chance that the baby would survive either, I can think of a very simple case where this might happen: severe trauma to the abdomen, complicated by the pregnancy. How if she were only a few months along, and the only way for her to survive was to deliver the baby immediately, long before there was any chance of being able to survive outside the womb? That would certainly be an abortion.
Sometimes there's a grey area, sometimes there's no question that the mother cannot live and be pregnant.
The point is the government shouldn't be making these decisions.
This also leads down another slippery slope: if the fetus is protected then certainly with the known dangers no woman should be allowed to drink while pregnant. Except: Women don't always know, therefore, if they even could be pregnant, they shouldn't be allowed to do anything that might harm the fetus. If they do, clearly they should be charged with assault/endangering the welfare of a child/etc.
Then of course there are the issues of a pregnancy from rape or abuse.
There's one case of abortion that all pro-lifers don't like, but that isn't the only one that exists.
Here's another: the mother has a 1% chance of living, the fetus is 1 month premature. The fetus may or may not survive if delivery is induced. The mother needs medication that will kill the fetus (e.g. chemotherapy, radiation for cancer) in order to live.
The chances of both living are higher if delivery is induced, but, if it could kill the fetus, is it abortion?
Outlaw a medical procedure and you tie the hands of every physician and patient. You might prevent them from intervening to save both lives because doing nothing puts the doctor in less legal danger.
When you create an absolute law, you must take into account all of the .001% cases. This was my point, a lot of laws have unintended consequences because they sound good to one group or another. Leaving aside the entire pro-life/pro-choice debate, you have to take a lot of other cases into account.
How about the various form of twinning that occur, which in rare cases leads to one twin actually becoming part of the other, and needing to be removed so that the fully grown twin can live? That other twin (which cannot survive in any scenario) is human, and it is its own entity.
Here's another case: A woman who with a serious medical condition becomes pregnant. She cannot survive to bring the child to term, and the child will not survive. Can an abortion be performed then? Saving one life instead of killing both of them?
Also, keep in mind, especially in the second case, it is rarely a 100% certainty. There is always a small chance that both will live. Would you require that a woman with a 1% chance of surviving take that chance? Why is that your decision to make? Why is that anyone's choice but her own?
How about all of the embryos that for one reason or another are destroyed by the body itself? Should we be trying to protect those as well? Should we spend money on protecting the "unborn" instead of say, cancer research?
Those embryos are just as much "potential individuals" as all of the children that don't exist because not every fertile human is continually having sex.
Actually, it gives any user of the software the right to demand the source code, unless the creator of the code gives them a separate license, which he/she/they didn't.
Leopard is universal...
Actually I think the ATI Mobility series is virtually an integrated card, with no memory of its own.
However, I wasn't trying to bash Apple (if you'll read above, I've been using Macs for a long time). I merely was responding to a comment that there is a WoW client for Mac, and yet I use a Windows laptop for it.
The GMA 950 is optimized for video playback, not 3d acceleration. To the Macbook's credit, it is quieter and cooler than the Windows machine.
I bought the Macbook for its size, and at the time I played no games at all. A 13.3" mac with a real video card would have me sold, but they haven't released one yet.
Ironically, the best system for playing WoW would probably be the rebuilt server, with a 2.4GHz conroe, a real Nvidia card with 256MB RAM and of course several 7200RPM drives. The Windows WoW client also runs on Linux I hear.
I tried that, but my macbook (Core 2, but GMA 950) gets about half the FPS of the Windows laptop with a Turion 64 and an ATI Mobility card. (23 fps vs 45 fps)
I usually use quick mode on an "blank" drive, I could swear it worked on ext3 partitions as well. As I said, I believe the difference is whether the partition is zeroed first. Otherwise, it just needs to create the FS tables.
I don't like NTFS either, but I do regularly run computers with all three OSs (Mac mostly for work (developer), Windows for home (WoW), and a Linux server). I think the slowest format is either HFS+ or ext3, I've certainly seen ext3 be quite slow. So long as you use the "quick" option for NTFS formats it is quite fast. Of course, with all the grahpic goodies everything on Macs seems slow, but it's also hard to time how long it takes.
And no, I'm not a switcheur nor a noob. I've used/owned Macs since System 7, I've been using Linux for 8 years now, and I started with DOS 5 on an 80286, and ran every Windows and Mac version from then to current.
XFS is a fast format, ext3 takes a few minutes depending on the size of the partition, and NTFS is a few seconds in quick mode. Quick format has been there for quite a while (even DOS) and without it I always assumed format was zeroing the partition, which is slow of course.
As stated elsewhere in this discussion, the issue is really that a lot of applications aren't written such that they work properly under these conditions. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple software for Windows didn't work correctly when installed as non-admin.
(I have a macbook, and use Linux all the time). On OS X you can run applications from anywhere, with a few exceptions. On Linux, unless your application needs a kernel module, you can install it in your own home directory. GNU Autoconf is virtually built for this, I have a site config for autoconf on the Linux machines at work, I can run ./configure && make && make install and it installs to my ~/local directory. With the right environs set (LD_LIBARRY_PATH for instance) I can install/run anything without ever needing an admin. It's actually one of the reasons I like Unix-systems (especially Linux) so much, the idea that a user can do anything so long as it doesn't change things for other users isn't just an idea, it's ignrained into the OS.
Just as an example, last week I discovered our installations of perl didn't have DBI::mysql, I installed the module locally and it works just fine.
Cite an example where there was a question over the voting practices in on of the IEEE 802.11x standards.
Linux is not a standard, just like Windows NT is not a standard, it's software.
Or maybe he was looking at where they live, and didn't need to get to the level of species to do that. Most people know what a species is, english has a large vocabulary, there is no need to assume the person meant something other than what they said.
(Note: I'm posting this from my Macbook)
The problem is that Apple is making it harder for people, and hoping that people won't bother to uncheck the box and will end up with yet more bloat on their computer. What they're doing is probably illegal, but I'm a software engineer and the engineer that set that to true should have known that most people probably weren't interested in the download, and that some would be worried that not installing would cause something else to break. That engineer should have set the default to what the user probably wanted (no install) rather than what s/he wanted.
It comes down to the fact that Apple as a whole has done something that the user probably didn't want, and that they are trying to take advantage of the lack of knowledge on the part of many Windows users (iTunes comes preinstalled on some computers).
Having flashing, moving ads is not essential for any site. Lots of sites choose to make it that way, and that's why a lot of people install ad blockers. Anyone trying to make money loses all credibility when they piss of their customers.
It's not the mining conditions that is concerning with diamonds, but the trade conditions. The diamonds are sold to fund warlords in Africa. Other gems and items may fund unsavory groups as well, but diamonds are the best known for it.
Personally, my objection isn't just to there "blood diamonds" but to diamond prices in general. Diamonds are not as rare as DeBeers would have you believe, the price is entirely artificial.
Even Kernel modules don't need to be GPLed, look at the Nvidia and ATI drivers, for instance. Neither of them are wholly open-source, just a small kernel interface (that has to be compiled against your specific kernel anyway). I doubt Nvidia or ATI would have released such drivers without having their ducks in a row. I don't think anyone is going to challenge the legality of linking a closed-source module against the kernel either.
Also, I think if you absolutely have to you can avoid releasing your source code if you stop distributing the binaries. That is, you can keep violating the GPL until you are caught, and then you have to stop the offensive behavior by either releasing the source or ceasing to release the binaries.
I'm sure all developers at Ubuntu and OpenOffice.org are so angry that I am taking their hard work for free.
Not if you have a Macbook (yes, I have a Core 2 Duo) the practical limit there in 3GB! The limit is not imposed by Windows, it's imposed by 32-bit systems.
Except for battery life.
You can return to the U.S. with only a birth certificate. People around here were very concerned when they heard passports might be required, but it hasn't happened yet. (btw - this is Rochester, NY).