There will always be someone who will claim to be able to tell the difference, and as long as that someone is as crazy as the average audiophile you'll see companies trying to develop 1200 dpi displays that you can wear on your wrist.
How can they do that, given the license the source is released under?
Which license? The Apache 2.0?
"6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file."
Or would you be refering to the GPL 2 (i.e. Linux kernel source)? I'd quote from it, but it doesn't even mention trademarks.
You know what? I live in Canada. At this point, it's a bit of a toss-up who I'd like to see go down harder; the telecom carriers or the Quebec separatists. So if it means Google gets to do some arm twisting and fucks over the carriers... I can live with that. If they can do something about the separatists, too... wow. Just wow.
Besides, let's face it, anyone in the OSS community who isn't aware that Android is Google's baby and would be surprised by such a move...
It would be much more open (in a FSF "free software" sense)... it just means the carriers (and device makers) wouldn't be able to hang off Google marketing coattails.
It's a short hand for "install the build somewhere". Something which many in the latest crop of Android devices aren't too friendly about. If Google really wanted to equate Android with "open", they'd stop allowing the use of the Android trademark by manufacturers and carriers who lock down devices that way...
Having a single technical lead across a company as diverse as Microsoft possibly is a bad thing
... unless a major corporate goal is to keep your entire product line tied together, or at least to certain consistent money makers. Having someone responsible for that at a technical level isn't necessarily a bad idea, then.
I said "a little more protected", not invulnerable. If it makes them think twice or is enough for a judge to hold up a warrant or, heck, it's enough to generate some publicity over it, then it's better than nothing.
More likely, Young just doesn't give a shit. The kinds of people he's afraid of are just going to sniff his passwords from his brain through a weak point in his tinfoil hat, so why pay extra for security or reliability.
Using virtual hosting might be intentional. A lot of people don't particularly like them. Including agencies of the US government. By running their site on a shared box with hundreds (thousands?) of others, they're a little more protected against the infamous "just take the whole server" attack. Also, it gives them more money to allocate to bandwidth costs, which as I understand it are pretty high.
I've been continuously tracking Debian testing for one of me development systems for something like five, maybe six years now; if you think a Ubuntu upgrade once per year is messy, you might want to rethink this approach. testing is where you see major toolchain updates (i.e. gcc, perl, python, etc), system service changes, and oddball stuff like hda => sda (years ago, but it left a lot of unbootable boxes behind). Any "apt-get update" can bring a new surprise...
> if I get a gmarks extension on my firefox I can > keep my bookmarls synchronized on Chrome AND Firefox?
It's a Firefox extension (based around Google Notebook as a storage backend), so probably not. But I don't use Chrome; there may be a way to make it work.
> You can leave your car unlocked with the keys > in it, and if someone takes it, its still theft.
You can leave your can unlocked with the keys in it, and if someone takes it, abandons it, it gets ticketed, then towed, impounded, and after the legal wait period for you to reclaim it, then it gets auctioned off as abandoned property... it's still theft, sure, but you're not getting it back; the person who buys it at the auction has legal title.
Property law in the real world is a bit more complicated than "it was mine, you have it, I want it, you have to give it back".
> I'm pretty sure you would have failed anatomy in vet school.
I'm pretty sure you didn't take the two seconds necessary to Google "microchip migration". They move within the body. They also can get damaged or they can be outright defective. I'd hope that the UK has at least has settled on one type of chip and reader, but at least here in north america we do have a situation where some readers have trouble getting the codes from some brands of chips, if they can detect them at all. Microchips are great, but you're a fool if you lose your dog and you assume you'll get it back because it was chipped.
> But what if the back yard was fenced in? [The article didn't say.]
It doesn't mean the dog didn't escape. Many dogs can, for example, climb chainlink fence without trouble. I've watched my little terrier mix fly out of a 48" tall exercise pen. A sufficiently bored or motivated dog can get out of damn near any enclosure you'll find on the average home.
> To be more blunt - if it was definitely theft (even if not by the > current "owners"), then does your approach change?
Not really. The problem isn't that it was stolen or escaped, the problem is that he doesn't really know, didn't know at the time, and is going to have some difficulty convincing others that he does know. If he SAW someone stealing his dog, he might have gotten a bit more interest from the police, assuming he'd called them immediately (didn't read like her did). As it is, the conversation with the police would bog down pretty well at the "how do you know it was stolen" question.
He's calling it "theft". But he WASN'T THERE when his dog disappeared. His excuse for calling it theft is that the lead was unclipped. These things open for a lot of reasons. Weak ones can be forced, if it was dirty it might not have closed completely, etc.
He's going to call this in to the police, and the first thing they're going to ask is "are you sure it was stolen", and "dunno, the lead was unclipped" is about as good as "no".
> if I wanted my pet back, I'd report it as > stolen and get the legal ball rolling.
Not quite that simple. The dogs lead was disconnected and the dog disappeared... that doesn't mean theft, that could also mean the dog opened the lead (not beyond the ability of a bored Jack Russell terrier) and ran off. If the dog got picked up and put into the pound, then a whole set of laws about abandonment and/or strays come into effect and usually after a short waiting period the dog legally becomes county property and can be adopted out. The chain of ownership ends there.
Now, you might argue that the pound would have found the chip and contacted the owner. In practice, finding a chip on a dog can depend on the ability of the person looking. Microchips _move_ within the body, and it's not uncommon for some people to only check the neck and miss a chip which migrated down to the elbow.
In other words, it's not enough for him to just _say_ it's stolen and assume everyone will help. He's probably going to have an uphill battle unless he can convince the police to open a case and treat it as a theft rather than an escape. Even then, if the dog was processed through an animal shelter then the chain of ownership could no longer exist; the new owners would have legal backing.
Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if he hadn't left the dog tied up unattended in his yard...
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt there's some secret law saying you're not allowed to enjoy your ball check.
> The entire point of VoIP on an iPad is
> to make it into a hilariously gigantic phone.
I don't think the N-Gage is going to let go of that title so easily...
> Can you tell the difference?
There will always be someone who will claim to be able to tell the difference, and as long as that someone is as crazy as the average audiophile you'll see companies trying to develop 1200 dpi displays that you can wear on your wrist.
I kinda like your proposal, but don't you think it's a bit too limited? I mean, why just war?
Which license? The Apache 2.0?
"6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file."
Or would you be refering to the GPL 2 (i.e. Linux kernel source)? I'd quote from it, but it doesn't even mention trademarks.
Yep.
You know what? I live in Canada. At this point, it's a bit of a toss-up who I'd like to see go down harder; the telecom carriers or the Quebec separatists. So if it means Google gets to do some arm twisting and fucks over the carriers... I can live with that. If they can do something about the separatists, too... wow. Just wow.
Besides, let's face it, anyone in the OSS community who isn't aware that Android is Google's baby and would be surprised by such a move...
It would be much more open (in a FSF "free software" sense)... it just means the carriers (and device makers) wouldn't be able to hang off Google marketing coattails.
It's a short hand for "install the build somewhere". Something which many in the latest crop of Android devices aren't too friendly about. If Google really wanted to equate Android with "open", they'd stop allowing the use of the Android trademark by manufacturers and carriers who lock down devices that way...
Hate to get all Stallman on you, but any definition of open that doesn't include "make install" is rather weak.
> Wait, I'm confused. Is Mark a gigolo or a paedophile?
Well, he got in bed with Microsoft...
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to find an eye-wash station to purge that image.
"Their search engine sucks."
"They gave us a lot of money"
"They're rich and desperate. Ka-ching!"
> They were writing a wysiwyg plugin so that may have now arrived.
Apparently it has, and it's good enough that we've had non-technical users ask for TWiki by name.
I think you're reading a lot into someone's attempt at +5 Funny...
There's some truth to it, though... for a lot of elderly dogs, a warm bed, steady meals and the occasional car ride is pretty good living.
I said "a little more protected", not invulnerable. If it makes them think twice or is enough for a judge to hold up a warrant or, heck, it's enough to generate some publicity over it, then it's better than nothing.
More likely, Young just doesn't give a shit. The kinds of people he's afraid of are just going to sniff his passwords from his brain through a weak point in his tinfoil hat, so why pay extra for security or reliability.
Using virtual hosting might be intentional. A lot of people don't particularly like them. Including agencies of the US government. By running their site on a shared box with hundreds (thousands?) of others, they're a little more protected against the infamous "just take the whole server" attack. Also, it gives them more money to allocate to bandwidth costs, which as I understand it are pretty high.
I've been continuously tracking Debian testing for one of me development systems for something like five, maybe six years now; if you think a Ubuntu upgrade once per year is messy, you might want to rethink this approach. testing is where you see major toolchain updates (i.e. gcc, perl, python, etc), system service changes, and oddball stuff like hda => sda (years ago, but it left a lot of unbootable boxes behind). Any "apt-get update" can bring a new surprise...
> if I get a gmarks extension on my firefox I can
> keep my bookmarls synchronized on Chrome AND Firefox?
It's a Firefox extension (based around Google Notebook as a storage backend), so probably not. But I don't use Chrome; there may be a way to make it work.
I use Gmarks (Firefox extension) for this. Works pretty well if you don't mind the combination of Firefox and Google.
> You can leave your car unlocked with the keys
> in it, and if someone takes it, its still theft.
You can leave your can unlocked with the keys in it, and if someone takes it, abandons it, it gets ticketed, then towed, impounded, and after the legal wait period for you to reclaim it, then it gets auctioned off as abandoned property... it's still theft, sure, but you're not getting it back; the person who buys it at the auction has legal title.
Property law in the real world is a bit more complicated than "it was mine, you have it, I want it, you have to give it back".
> I'm pretty sure you would have failed anatomy in vet school.
I'm pretty sure you didn't take the two seconds necessary to Google "microchip migration". They move within the body. They also can get damaged or they can be outright defective. I'd hope that the UK has at least has settled on one type of chip and reader, but at least here in north america we do have a situation where some readers have trouble getting the codes from some brands of chips, if they can detect them at all. Microchips are great, but you're a fool if you lose your dog and you assume you'll get it back because it was chipped.
> But what if the back yard was fenced in? [The article didn't say.]
It doesn't mean the dog didn't escape. Many dogs can, for example, climb chainlink fence without trouble. I've watched my little terrier mix fly out of a 48" tall exercise pen. A sufficiently bored or motivated dog can get out of damn near any enclosure you'll find on the average home.
> To be more blunt - if it was definitely theft (even if not by the
> current "owners"), then does your approach change?
Not really. The problem isn't that it was stolen or escaped, the problem is that he doesn't really know, didn't know at the time, and is going to have some difficulty convincing others that he does know. If he SAW someone stealing his dog, he might have gotten a bit more interest from the police, assuming he'd called them immediately (didn't read like her did). As it is, the conversation with the police would bog down pretty well at the "how do you know it was stolen" question.
> that's a poor reason.
That's a perfectly good reason.
He's calling it "theft". But he WASN'T THERE when his dog disappeared. His excuse for calling it theft is that the lead was unclipped. These things open for a lot of reasons. Weak ones can be forced, if it was dirty it might not have closed completely, etc.
He's going to call this in to the police, and the first thing they're going to ask is "are you sure it was stolen", and "dunno, the lead was unclipped" is about as good as "no".
> if I wanted my pet back, I'd report it as
> stolen and get the legal ball rolling.
Not quite that simple. The dogs lead was disconnected and the dog disappeared... that doesn't mean theft, that could also mean the dog opened the lead (not beyond the ability of a bored Jack Russell terrier) and ran off. If the dog got picked up and put into the pound, then a whole set of laws about abandonment and/or strays come into effect and usually after a short waiting period the dog legally becomes county property and can be adopted out. The chain of ownership ends there.
Now, you might argue that the pound would have found the chip and contacted the owner. In practice, finding a chip on a dog can depend on the ability of the person looking. Microchips _move_ within the body, and it's not uncommon for some people to only check the neck and miss a chip which migrated down to the elbow.
In other words, it's not enough for him to just _say_ it's stolen and assume everyone will help. He's probably going to have an uphill battle unless he can convince the police to open a case and treat it as a theft rather than an escape. Even then, if the dog was processed through an animal shelter then the chain of ownership could no longer exist; the new owners would have legal backing.
Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if he hadn't left the dog tied up unattended in his yard...
What if you sue the horse for escaping through the open barn doors? That'll totally deter the other horses from trying the same thing.