FireFox deployment is trivial on all those platforms. For example: ssh root@redhat.workstation.work.com yum install firefox for Redhat Linux 5. On the Mac (OS X): scp FireFox.app root@macosx.workstation.work.com:/Applications. On Windows, use SMS/Altiris/whatever you already use. Heck, neither Linux or Mac require you to "install" it at all if all you machines are setup with a common share for applications.
If you want to add your own add-ons, bookmarks, etc. Obviously you've got to drop your custom stuff in the appropriate folders and package them, and yes, Windows is the most difficult and time consuming platform to do it on, but it's Windows -- deployment on Windows is a primary concern on that platform precisely because it is (comparatively) so difficult to do (well, and reliably, anyway).
The ONLY two reasons that FF doesn't supplant IE are: IE is already installed and is generally considered good enough that it's not worth any effort, regardless how small, to install FF (and chances are your user will do it anyway if they care and you let them), and FF doesn't support ActiveX (there are still people that have ActiveX-based apps). There's also a somewhat smaller issue of some sites depending on IE-specific JavaScript, HTML, or CSS-behavior. Using FF seems to only be an issue if you're plagued by poorly implemented web-apps that work under some version of IE and nothing else. FWIW - We have several vendors that have XUL-based apps that only run in FF too.
This post is copyrighted. By virtue of posting in the forum, I am granting license to slashdot.org to distribute a copy of it to those that browse the site, and I even have an a priori understanding that Google crawls, caches, and indexes this site so, by posting hear, I accept that this copyrighted editorial will be copied and possibly be redistributed by them as well. So, they too have been granted - albeit not explicitly - a license to distribute my work. Very good, I'm comfortable with this.
But here's the wrinkle. How does AT&T propose to understand whether or not this is copyrighted or public domain (perhaps my words are a transcript of an address given 200 years ago and are now in the public domain)? How can they know who is licensed to copy and distribute the work? How do they know the terms and conditions under which I've granted limited rights to my work to others? Moreover, how can they distinguish between my fair-use of a non-original work, and one that's not fair-use when the judgement regarding fair use happens a posteriori the use taking place and a complaint being filed with the court? Hmm...
The short answer is that they simply can't. There's simply no technological method to do so. But in attempting to, they publicly assert that it's not only feasible but that they have the means to do so. Dumb. They'll end up being held liable for permitting and abetting infringement the first time someone takes issue with another party's use of their work because AT&T said they could and would stop it but didn't. Any you know what, I bet AT&T's got much deeper pockets to rifle through than that mom that posted a clip from her kid's birthday party with everyone singing "Happy Birthday to You" (copyright 1935, AOL Time Warner -- expires 2030).
A CC licensee can't revoke use at all, obviously. Nor can the CC licensor, since, in using the CC license, they've granted others the right to distribute under the same terms as they've received their copy. The terms are irrevocable once two parties have accepted the terms (which one party does by providing the work under the auspices of the license, and the second party by receiving it in the same manner).
So, the CC license is irrevocable, and it's general (not specific to an individual). The right to continue to distribute the work under the original terms is transferred, and as part of it not only the right, but the obligation to grant the recipient to redistribute under the same terms.
This is an entirely different subject from the notion of model releases - which is another issue that affects CC and non-CC works in precisely the same manner.
The biggest issue with CC is that it's proving a work was licensed under any terms without a signed agreement (or receipt) is difficult. If I were to use a work commercially, I'd make sure I'd have some sort of documentation (perhaps a screenshot) that you found a CC license for the work. For non-commercial uses, I don't see why you'd bother. For a non-commercial work, it should be sufficient to stop using the work and indicate that you, in good faith, believed the work to be CC-licensed and yourself in compliance (I suspect you'd need to be specific about how you came to reach the conclusion).
It's not a matter of relicensing a copyrighted work. All works are copyright until they are explicitly placed into, or statutorily pass into the public domain. Licenses don't apply to public domain works since no license is ever required for something in the public domain.
A Creative Commons license can only be applied, therefore to a copyrighted work. Further, the license does not waive the copyright or place the work into the public domain. The copyright is fully intact.
His argument that you can game the license by licensing the work, then revoking the license doesn't hold either. Once the work has been licensed under Creative Commons, the license is good indefinitely so long as its terms are met. You could decide to license the work under other terms later, of course, but the Creative Commons license would persist (you can't alter the terms after the terms are agreed upon and accepted by both parties). In the case of most of the licenses, you couldn't effectively terminate the licenses either. Once you've given permission for others to distribute a work under the same license terms, you've effectively passed on the authority to license the work under those terms. Even if you don't want to distribute the work under a CC license anymore, you've already granted the right for others to do so and can't revoke that right until they violate the terms of the license.
If someone takes a work that they don't have copyright to and distributes under a CC license, this is not "relicensing". That's simple fraud. There's no problem there, you would do the same thing as you would if someone took a non-CC work and distributed indicating it was in the public domain: namely sue the initial violator for willful infringement and any other parties distributing copies (generally speaking, if the court finds a party copied a work in good faith believing it to be public domain or licensed and halts distribution after notification, that party will generally be let off the hook).
There's nothing wrong with Creative Commons that isn't wrong with the implementation of copyrights in general (particularly in the USA). The same problems exist with all other licensing schemes as well.
When I attended Georgia Tech (some time ago) they had computer programming classes for biologists, chemists, and physicists (at the time, Pascal and FORTRAN), but CS students where expected to pick up languages on their own as requisite self-study for their course work.
As a bioinformatics student (prior to its formalization as an area of study), I had learned C, C++, PERL, Postscript, Pascal, SQL, FORTRAN, Matlab, Java (started with 1.0), Python (very early on), Tcl, LISP and a few application-specific programming languages. I even had some exposure to Objective-C (NeXT). While a class clearly included code examples and some exposition on the languages themselves, the classes focused on concepts with minimal focus on the language.
Now I work in an environment where I am considered a research scientist and many of my colleagues are software developers of one sort or another. I do, however, write lots of code for various forms of data analysis, visualization, data integration and process automation, etc. A popular topic for the developers is the apparent mish-mash of languages and applications I use in my work. Where they tend to focus on a particular language or toolset (VB.Net, or Java mainly), I use whatever seems appropriate to the task. I look at it the same as the hand and power tools I have at home, I use whatever best fits the application (hammer > screwdriver for driving nails), and I have no qualms about seeking out a new tool if nothing I have seems appropriate.
The polyglot approach has its plusses an minuses. On the plus side, I find it far more efficient and myself more productive, and it's easy to strike the appropriate balances for performance, stability, ease of application, etc. On the minus side, not all of my work is fully accessible to people that don't have a more diverse background in programming. On the other hand, the work I do is sufficiently specialized in bioinformatics that anyone who'd take it up would necessarily have to be similarly schooled to make heads or tails of it (most of the developers we have work on information management systems, which are more widely accessible problems).
Teaching Java is not in itself a problem. However, it'd be foolish to believe that Java programming skills equate to computer science knowledge in and of themselves. It would seem to me the actual languages are not as relevent as the underlying knowledge that would bring clarity to why there are so many languages are and how their differences represent attempts to address specific problems. With that, it would seem that a survey of languages would be in order, with further study for the generalist, or language focus for the specialist in a sub-discipline.
The Sony Reader, is a better device for display, form-factor, battery life, format support (like PDF) and ergonomics, but lacks the cellular component. The Kindle is chunky, lots of buttons, smaller screen, etc. I wouldn't by either though since they are still fairly costly and both have crappy software (some of which is necessary to operate it, but still buggy).
The next version of the Sony Reader has the possibility to be great, but Sony will complicate it rather than refine it and won't come up with a reasonable DRM scheme (which, iTunes, despite it's wrinkles, is perhaps the most palatable today).
While you're generally correct, the third item is not correct. The BSA is a duly designated representative of the copyright holders with power of attorney to prosecute infringement claims. So, that part is perfectly legitimate (under US law, anyway). It's no different than hiring a private law firm to do the same thing.
Also, the BSA doesn't impose fines. The propose settlements (as they are empowered to do by their member companies). Again, this is as legitimate in the USA. In the USA, if there was a copyright infringement, the law permits the copyright holder to seek statutory damages up to $150,000 per incident. They are not obligated to license the software to you, and purchasing a license wouldn't absolve or indemnify the infringer with regard to the prior infringement.
The argument that you could ignore the BSA on the grounds that it isn't the copyright holder is baseless, because the BSA is a valid agent of the copyright holder.
The argument that you could simply come into compliance and that would eliminate any liability for prior infringement is also incorrect. The liability remains until it's legally settled -- either by out-of-court settlement or as the result of going to court (which could incur much higher costs and damages).
Also, I'd point out that users of software from BSA-affiliated companies generally agree as part of the license to submit to audits on demand as a condition of the license.
Using proprietary commercial software is a huge legal and fiscal liability for a company. If the company cannot devote sufficient resources to dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's to be 100% certain it's compliant, it probably shouldn't touch the stuff. Clearly, certain software will be necessary for certain businesses, but it behooves those companies to familiarize themselves with the issue and absorb the costs as part of the cost of doing business.
Two things, really. A power supply where the individual outputs are switchable via USB (go to sleep, printers, USB hubs, etc shut off) -- at the very least that cuts power to all outputs when one output's load drops (i.e., the computer turning off cuts power to everything else plugged into the switch). The other thing I'm looking for is a single higher-efficiency power adapter that would replace the multitudinous little bricks with a multi-output brick.
Put those things together and you could easily drop power consumption 30-50% in a setup like that.
Ask a lawyer since the legality will depend on your locale. Generally speaking, most states have some pretty strict limits about those sort of things.
My previous employer had a non-compete agreement, but their feeling on the subject was that it couldn't be enforcable unless the employee was duly compensated for not competing. So, the agreement stated that for a period of 1 year after leaving your position you were supposed to notify them of any offers of new employment and they had the option of countering with a 10% premium over the value of the other offer (e.g., they paid you not to work for that company) for up to 1 year. They didn't have any particular issues with patents and so on, but if it were demonstrable that something you or your new company patented was based on their technology, they no doubt would have good grounds for suing.
My guess would be that those terms would be unenforcable -- particularly the patent part because it would put you in the position of having to divulge the technological developments of a third party to them for review, which you probably could not legally do.
I never saw the blue screen, but I know better than to use a hack like APE.
For me, upgrading went with only one hitch: for no apparent reason, Leopard changed the name of my printer from "HP Photosmart 8200 series" to "HP Photosmart 8250". From the standpoint of the system, it made no difference, but from the standpoint of other systems in the house that were printing through my machine, they got confused because the queue had been renamed. Easy to fix, but an annoyance all the same.
Aesthetics are too subjective to consider anything but a minor annoyance -- the visual changes are pretty minor (actually, the untextured background to menus is a big plus for me).
As far as new features go, everything appears to work precisely as one would hope.
Novell can't veto the sale. What they can do is take their ball (the UNIX business) and go home. Presumably a purchaser would take this into account (and, perhaps, offer repayment on the monies due to them). I bet that a buyer could make the sale contingent on Novell agreeing to accept 50-cents on the dollar for what they are owed by SCO if it was guaranteed and all legal activities stop. If Novell didn't agree, the company would otherwise not buy and SCO would litigate away all potential cash.
Yes. I regularly experience transfer rates of 45 kBps on Comcast, but if I go to preferences and turn off filesharing, it jumps up to 800 kBps (just HTTP from Blizzard).
Not 1984... The patent was filed in 1987. IIRC, by that time X had already implemented the ability to associate a window with a particular display or desktop (which, at the time, was equivalent). Amiga's Intuition also provided a mechanism to do this (in their parlance, "screens") in 1985.
Namely, the patent covers what UNIX users know as "sticky" windows -- that is, a window that would appear in the same location on all desktop views (real or virtual is not clearly and consistently stated in the patent itself).
Here we have an interesting issue. X explicitly contained a feature to address this issue with the notion that someone else would find it useful in the future, but didn't provide (right a way) a window manager that actually used it (as opposed to the Amiga situation where it was technically possible but they obviously hand't thought about using the framework that way). So, if X designed a product that was planned to allow implementation of the feature listed in this patent, 3 years prior to the patent filing, but never implemented an application to exposed the ability to the end-user until after the patent was filed, is it really prior art?
There are three companies that I have to deal with for issues related to hardware problems, ironically both for home and work (large biotech): Dell, HP, and Apple.
If I'm calling related to an issue with a system at work: HP is the least responsive (they are our companie's "preferred" vendor) and Dell and Apple are both excellent (for Dell, we purchase the highest level of support and, for Apple, we just have standard AppleCare).
If I'm calling related to an issue with a system at home: HP is more or less worthless, Dell is onerous but, if you persist for long enough they general fix whatever the issue is. Apple has proven to be quite good. Actually, I'd give Apple some additional points because, despite a large segment of their user-base being non-technical, they don't treat you like a computer-neophyte and they seem quite comfortable listening to a problem and rationally troubleshooting it with you rather than adhering to a script.
Since someone mentioned forums: Dell does sometimes respond to users in their forums directly, and even usefully. Typically, they are people with technical acumen. HP, not so much. Apple's forums are user-only and you never see any posts from employees. That said, the majority of useful content on all of them is user-submitted responses to questions. The users are invariably more candid, concise, and correct with their responses.
Strictly speaking it's not illegal copying or copyright infringement until a determination is made in he court that the activity is infringing. Prior to that, it is alleged copyright infringement or unauthorized copying (which is not necessarily illegal or infringing in its own right, at least in the USA).
They're worried about the advertisement being removed and being able to resell the content. Of course, the advertisement revenu is somewhat of a Red Herring, since the model already presumes all the revenue stems from the initial broadcast or rebroadcast (i.e., the cost is based on viewership for the time slot; so the advertiser's bought the attention of the estimated number of viewers).
They're also worried that Internet availability undermines their availability to sell advertising for rebroadcasts and might impact packaged sale of shows on DVD. There's a better argument for that.
I think that, increasingly, but removing their shows from Internet distribution they're undercutting exposue of their properties to a wide audience. There's plenty of opportunity to capitalize on content without adhereing to an onerous in-broadcast advertising model.
... and that's really the crux of the matter. Every picture you take, every letter you write, every story you tell, whatever you create is copyrighted -- by you. You have every right in the world to distribute your creations and you expect to. When you browse a company's web-site, you are receiving images and content that are, ostensibly, copyrighted by them which they also freely distribute so that you can view them on your own computer.
The key is not that a work is copyrighted, but rather that the distribution occurs without the permission of the copyright holder. There's where it gets sticky. The ISP knows you are exchanging copyrighted works because everything is copyrighted. What the indutry is asking for is that the ISP identify specific chunks of data for which the distribution constitutes infringement. But how can the ISP know whether infringement is taking place?
For something to be infringing, they will need to know whether or not the sender of the content is the copyright holder, a licensee for the content with permission to redistribute (like iTunes), the terms under which the content may be distributed (only if fee collected and DRM in place), whether those terms are met (valid credit card number used / the user hasn't implemented a hack to remove DRM), whether the copyright has expired (there are still some copyrights that expire), or whether the distribution constitutes an exception to copyright protection (such as a "fair use" under US law). How can the ISP possibly know these things?
Well, they can't possibly distinguish (doubly so if the content is encrypted). Some of those things can only be answered by a court.
Nevermind it being an unnecessary burden on ISPs or a violation of their customers, the ISP is simply unable to know the legal context in which data is distributed and whether it may constitute infringement. Any accusation of that sort would necessarily need to be vetted through the approriate legal authority, not the ISP.
I suspect that, like carnivore and similar systems before it, the bulk of the users of the system are individuals from outside the US. At one time, there was considerable concern generated by the observation that the majority (large majority) of wiretaps were being executed by foreign nationals (frequently eastern Europe, but also Asia) exploiting flaws in the design of the systems that allow any knowledgable person with network access to tap a phone line. I'm guessing that this is probably still the case.
Should it be that easy? It seems to me that the intelligence community ought to heed the old adage: if you don't want people to see your bollocks, don't drop your drawers in the middle of Main street.
The DMCA covers copyrighted works, not thrid party contracts. Does the DMCA control access to a work (in the copyright sense)? No, the mechanism in place enforces a contract term between other parties. It restricts access to a service, not "the work".
Neither copyright nor the DMCA exist to prop-up ill-conceived get-rich-quick schemes (well, the DMCA is, but it's also probably not constitutional).
Interesting, but since Clara Barton didn't possess the rights, how could she dispossess them. Keep in mind that she borrowed the red cross logo from the International Red Cross, which had, at that point, already been using it for 33 years. Barton certainly had permission to use the logo, but did she have the right to exclusive license the mark of another organization? The International Red Cross may object to J&J's claim.
The Red Cross, as an organization, was founded in Geneva in 1863 by the Societe Genevoise d'Utilite Publique. The following year, the organization held the Geneva Convention for the "Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field". At that convention, in 1864, the Red Cross adopted the inverse of the Swiss national flag, a red cross on a field of white, as the official emblem of the organization -- at that time known as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The American Red Cross was founded in 1881 with the aim of endorsing US becoming party to the Geneva Convention (which it did in 1882) and extended the ICRC mission to the USA. In doing so, the adopted they adopted the logo of the ICRC (with their approval). Johnson & Johnson adopted the red cross logo in part, because the symbol of a red cross on a field of white had already become synonymous with treating the sick, since, at that point, the logo had already been used in that capacity for 24 years and had become familiar with it through the ARC's activity in treating civil war soldiers.
J&J is being foolish. The suit will cost them their trademark.
Every post on Slashdot is copyrighted -- it's a creative form of expression in a fixed medium (namely bits on a disk somewhere). Yet here they are... How can that be? It's because the posters are granting a public license to view their work, implicitly by placing it in a public forum.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the content flowing through AT&T's networks are copyrighted. It's not sufficient that a work is copyrighted, but rather that the exchange itself is a violation of copyright. But how can the computer know? If you have a license to the work through some asset purchase, it's not infringing; if you have a license agreement that grants certain rights to obtain/distribute copies, it's not infringement; if you are using the content for academic research, the purpose of criticism, or in parody, it's not infringing. So, how is their computer system to know, a priori, of the legal arrangements, or your intent to use a work? What if you live in a jurisdiction that doesn't recognize the copyright (e.g., it may be public domain because the copyright expired in your jurisdiction).
The point is that it's technically not feasible to police copyrights. AT&T may be inerefering with network traffic on behalf of a third party for fun and profit, but they are most certainly not protecting copyrights. It's a little disingenuous.
I'm not saying Monsanto isn't evil, what big company isn't, but at least the R&D people have no desire to mess with the environment. You mention ADM as being less evil, but I think if you look into the matter you'll find ADM considerably more sinister (they got Nixon to go to China for a reason) and influential with the US government. Monsanto is very much beholden to ADM.
Monsanto's chemical division split off decades ago, the company that is now Monsanto is a seed and glyphosate company. It's the most successful of about a 1/2 dozen of producers of GMO seeds.
I've never hear any evidence of GMO corn causing elevated levels of liver damage in rats (it does cause some when consumed in quantity, but so does non-GMO corn -- both have ANFs). I don't know of any incidence in the literature that makes a claim that it has an effect on animal's immune systems either (I've heard that from anti-GMO activists, but never seen it supported).
As far as antibiotics -- I thought the main reason that people had an issue with this was because the animals aren't sick but still get them. Those against chronically dosing agricultural animals with antibiotics don't claim the animals have weak immune systems, they are claiming it's unnecessary and risks producing antibiotic resistant strains of infectious bacteria, or that people will consume antibiotics given to the animal (and produce antibiotic resistant strains of human-infecting bacteria). There's at least something to that (albeit, it's not nearly as problematic as you might think). Farmers give antibiotics to the animals, by the way, not because the animals have weakened immune systems, but because chronic dosing yields suppression of immune responses that diminish yield (a chicken using up calories to fight bacterial infections can't use those calories ot build muscle mass, for instance -- especially important when you raise the animals in high density farms).
Monsanto doesn't sell any pesticide, just an herbicide (that they sell a resistance trait for). They do sell plants that express Bt toxin (a popular insecticide derived from soil bacteria widely used in organic farming) in their leaves and stems, though. In case you are wondering, Bt is only toxic to animals with alkaline guts (e.g., herbivorous insects).
You're right about Monsanto wanting to lock up the seed market. That's for certain. But they only do so in highly profitable industrialized agriculture. Organic (who won't have them), subsistence, and 3rd world agriculture isn't really affected.
Also, I'd add that GMO plants, for better or worse, probably can't be considered "near universally rejected". More GMO acres are planted than not. At least 5 years ago, >99% of the commercially produced soy in the USA was of one or another GMO variety (though only about 40% from Monsanto). I believe Canada produced more GMO canola than the US does, though.
The first transgenic crops appeared in US supermarkets in 1993 (tomatos).
Really, the true test is: can anyone attribute ill effects to the consumption of the crops. Many people have looked into it (there's lots of scientific literature from the US and elsewhere), but no statistical evidence exists (yet) to substantiate it. It doesn't mean that health risks don't exist, but it does mean that they are not acute nor differentiable from non-GMO varieties.
A few years ago, before LCD screens were big and cheap, a company making LCD projectors was running a contest where they'd give a projector to people with good "alternative" ways to use the technology.
I suggested what you are suggesting. Namely, a table with a translucent surface onto which the game map (and possibly various stats, rolls, etc.) was projected.
I didn't win. They even e-mailed me back to tell me it was a silly waste of technology.
It's nice to see MS licensing Apple's multitouch tech for their product, though. At least, I assume it's properly licensed.
Slashdot Mirror
FireFox deployment is trivial on all those platforms. For example: ssh root@redhat.workstation.work.com yum install firefox for Redhat Linux 5. On the Mac (OS X): scp FireFox.app root@macosx.workstation.work.com:/Applications. On Windows, use SMS/Altiris/whatever you already use. Heck, neither Linux or Mac require you to "install" it at all if all you machines are setup with a common share for applications.
If you want to add your own add-ons, bookmarks, etc. Obviously you've got to drop your custom stuff in the appropriate folders and package them, and yes, Windows is the most difficult and time consuming platform to do it on, but it's Windows -- deployment on Windows is a primary concern on that platform precisely because it is (comparatively) so difficult to do (well, and reliably, anyway).
The ONLY two reasons that FF doesn't supplant IE are: IE is already installed and is generally considered good enough that it's not worth any effort, regardless how small, to install FF (and chances are your user will do it anyway if they care and you let them), and FF doesn't support ActiveX (there are still people that have ActiveX-based apps). There's also a somewhat smaller issue of some sites depending on IE-specific JavaScript, HTML, or CSS-behavior. Using FF seems to only be an issue if you're plagued by poorly implemented web-apps that work under some version of IE and nothing else. FWIW - We have several vendors that have XUL-based apps that only run in FF too.
This post is copyrighted. By virtue of posting in the forum, I am granting license to slashdot.org to distribute a copy of it to those that browse the site, and I even have an a priori understanding that Google crawls, caches, and indexes this site so, by posting hear, I accept that this copyrighted editorial will be copied and possibly be redistributed by them as well. So, they too have been granted - albeit not explicitly - a license to distribute my work. Very good, I'm comfortable with this.
But here's the wrinkle. How does AT&T propose to understand whether or not this is copyrighted or public domain (perhaps my words are a transcript of an address given 200 years ago and are now in the public domain)? How can they know who is licensed to copy and distribute the work? How do they know the terms and conditions under which I've granted limited rights to my work to others? Moreover, how can they distinguish between my fair-use of a non-original work, and one that's not fair-use when the judgement regarding fair use happens a posteriori the use taking place and a complaint being filed with the court? Hmm...
The short answer is that they simply can't. There's simply no technological method to do so. But in attempting to, they publicly assert that it's not only feasible but that they have the means to do so. Dumb. They'll end up being held liable for permitting and abetting infringement the first time someone takes issue with another party's use of their work because AT&T said they could and would stop it but didn't. Any you know what, I bet AT&T's got much deeper pockets to rifle through than that mom that posted a clip from her kid's birthday party with everyone singing "Happy Birthday to You" (copyright 1935, AOL Time Warner -- expires 2030).
A CC licensee can't revoke use at all, obviously. Nor can the CC licensor, since, in using the CC license, they've granted others the right to distribute under the same terms as they've received their copy. The terms are irrevocable once two parties have accepted the terms (which one party does by providing the work under the auspices of the license, and the second party by receiving it in the same manner).
So, the CC license is irrevocable, and it's general (not specific to an individual). The right to continue to distribute the work under the original terms is transferred, and as part of it not only the right, but the obligation to grant the recipient to redistribute under the same terms.
This is an entirely different subject from the notion of model releases - which is another issue that affects CC and non-CC works in precisely the same manner.
The biggest issue with CC is that it's proving a work was licensed under any terms without a signed agreement (or receipt) is difficult. If I were to use a work commercially, I'd make sure I'd have some sort of documentation (perhaps a screenshot) that you found a CC license for the work. For non-commercial uses, I don't see why you'd bother. For a non-commercial work, it should be sufficient to stop using the work and indicate that you, in good faith, believed the work to be CC-licensed and yourself in compliance (I suspect you'd need to be specific about how you came to reach the conclusion).
It's not a matter of relicensing a copyrighted work. All works are copyright until they are explicitly placed into, or statutorily pass into the public domain. Licenses don't apply to public domain works since no license is ever required for something in the public domain.
A Creative Commons license can only be applied, therefore to a copyrighted work. Further, the license does not waive the copyright or place the work into the public domain. The copyright is fully intact.
His argument that you can game the license by licensing the work, then revoking the license doesn't hold either. Once the work has been licensed under Creative Commons, the license is good indefinitely so long as its terms are met. You could decide to license the work under other terms later, of course, but the Creative Commons license would persist (you can't alter the terms after the terms are agreed upon and accepted by both parties). In the case of most of the licenses, you couldn't effectively terminate the licenses either. Once you've given permission for others to distribute a work under the same license terms, you've effectively passed on the authority to license the work under those terms. Even if you don't want to distribute the work under a CC license anymore, you've already granted the right for others to do so and can't revoke that right until they violate the terms of the license.
If someone takes a work that they don't have copyright to and distributes under a CC license, this is not "relicensing". That's simple fraud. There's no problem there, you would do the same thing as you would if someone took a non-CC work and distributed indicating it was in the public domain: namely sue the initial violator for willful infringement and any other parties distributing copies (generally speaking, if the court finds a party copied a work in good faith believing it to be public domain or licensed and halts distribution after notification, that party will generally be let off the hook).
There's nothing wrong with Creative Commons that isn't wrong with the implementation of copyrights in general (particularly in the USA). The same problems exist with all other licensing schemes as well.
When I attended Georgia Tech (some time ago) they had computer programming classes for biologists, chemists, and physicists (at the time, Pascal and FORTRAN), but CS students where expected to pick up languages on their own as requisite self-study for their course work.
As a bioinformatics student (prior to its formalization as an area of study), I had learned C, C++, PERL, Postscript, Pascal, SQL, FORTRAN, Matlab, Java (started with 1.0), Python (very early on), Tcl, LISP and a few application-specific programming languages. I even had some exposure to Objective-C (NeXT). While a class clearly included code examples and some exposition on the languages themselves, the classes focused on concepts with minimal focus on the language.
Now I work in an environment where I am considered a research scientist and many of my colleagues are software developers of one sort or another. I do, however, write lots of code for various forms of data analysis, visualization, data integration and process automation, etc. A popular topic for the developers is the apparent mish-mash of languages and applications I use in my work. Where they tend to focus on a particular language or toolset (VB.Net, or Java mainly), I use whatever seems appropriate to the task. I look at it the same as the hand and power tools I have at home, I use whatever best fits the application (hammer > screwdriver for driving nails), and I have no qualms about seeking out a new tool if nothing I have seems appropriate.
The polyglot approach has its plusses an minuses. On the plus side, I find it far more efficient and myself more productive, and it's easy to strike the appropriate balances for performance, stability, ease of application, etc. On the minus side, not all of my work is fully accessible to people that don't have a more diverse background in programming. On the other hand, the work I do is sufficiently specialized in bioinformatics that anyone who'd take it up would necessarily have to be similarly schooled to make heads or tails of it (most of the developers we have work on information management systems, which are more widely accessible problems).
Teaching Java is not in itself a problem. However, it'd be foolish to believe that Java programming skills equate to computer science knowledge in and of themselves. It would seem to me the actual languages are not as relevent as the underlying knowledge that would bring clarity to why there are so many languages are and how their differences represent attempts to address specific problems. With that, it would seem that a survey of languages would be in order, with further study for the generalist, or language focus for the specialist in a sub-discipline.
The Sony Reader, is a better device for display, form-factor, battery life, format support (like PDF) and ergonomics, but lacks the cellular component. The Kindle is chunky, lots of buttons, smaller screen, etc. I wouldn't by either though since they are still fairly costly and both have crappy software (some of which is necessary to operate it, but still buggy).
The next version of the Sony Reader has the possibility to be great, but Sony will complicate it rather than refine it and won't come up with a reasonable DRM scheme (which, iTunes, despite it's wrinkles, is perhaps the most palatable today).
While you're generally correct, the third item is not correct. The BSA is a duly designated representative of the copyright holders with power of attorney to prosecute infringement claims. So, that part is perfectly legitimate (under US law, anyway). It's no different than hiring a private law firm to do the same thing.
Also, the BSA doesn't impose fines. The propose settlements (as they are empowered to do by their member companies). Again, this is as legitimate in the USA. In the USA, if there was a copyright infringement, the law permits the copyright holder to seek statutory damages up to $150,000 per incident. They are not obligated to license the software to you, and purchasing a license wouldn't absolve or indemnify the infringer with regard to the prior infringement.
The argument that you could ignore the BSA on the grounds that it isn't the copyright holder is baseless, because the BSA is a valid agent of the copyright holder.
The argument that you could simply come into compliance and that would eliminate any liability for prior infringement is also incorrect. The liability remains until it's legally settled -- either by out-of-court settlement or as the result of going to court (which could incur much higher costs and damages).
Also, I'd point out that users of software from BSA-affiliated companies generally agree as part of the license to submit to audits on demand as a condition of the license.
Using proprietary commercial software is a huge legal and fiscal liability for a company. If the company cannot devote sufficient resources to dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's to be 100% certain it's compliant, it probably shouldn't touch the stuff. Clearly, certain software will be necessary for certain businesses, but it behooves those companies to familiarize themselves with the issue and absorb the costs as part of the cost of doing business.
Two things, really. A power supply where the individual outputs are switchable via USB (go to sleep, printers, USB hubs, etc shut off) -- at the very least that cuts power to all outputs when one output's load drops (i.e., the computer turning off cuts power to everything else plugged into the switch). The other thing I'm looking for is a single higher-efficiency power adapter that would replace the multitudinous little bricks with a multi-output brick.
Put those things together and you could easily drop power consumption 30-50% in a setup like that.
Ask a lawyer since the legality will depend on your locale. Generally speaking, most states have some pretty strict limits about those sort of things.
My previous employer had a non-compete agreement, but their feeling on the subject was that it couldn't be enforcable unless the employee was duly compensated for not competing. So, the agreement stated that for a period of 1 year after leaving your position you were supposed to notify them of any offers of new employment and they had the option of countering with a 10% premium over the value of the other offer (e.g., they paid you not to work for that company) for up to 1 year. They didn't have any particular issues with patents and so on, but if it were demonstrable that something you or your new company patented was based on their technology, they no doubt would have good grounds for suing.
My guess would be that those terms would be unenforcable -- particularly the patent part because it would put you in the position of having to divulge the technological developments of a third party to them for review, which you probably could not legally do.
If it works as they said, anyone affected can request their money back and, if denied, file a wire fraud complaint.
I never saw the blue screen, but I know better than to use a hack like APE.
For me, upgrading went with only one hitch: for no apparent reason, Leopard changed the name of my printer from "HP Photosmart 8200 series" to "HP Photosmart 8250". From the standpoint of the system, it made no difference, but from the standpoint of other systems in the house that were printing through my machine, they got confused because the queue had been renamed. Easy to fix, but an annoyance all the same.
Aesthetics are too subjective to consider anything but a minor annoyance -- the visual changes are pretty minor (actually, the untextured background to menus is a big plus for me).
As far as new features go, everything appears to work precisely as one would hope.
Novell can't veto the sale. What they can do is take their ball (the UNIX business) and go home. Presumably a purchaser would take this into account (and, perhaps, offer repayment on the monies due to them). I bet that a buyer could make the sale contingent on Novell agreeing to accept 50-cents on the dollar for what they are owed by SCO if it was guaranteed and all legal activities stop. If Novell didn't agree, the company would otherwise not buy and SCO would litigate away all potential cash.
Yes. I regularly experience transfer rates of 45 kBps on Comcast, but if I go to preferences and turn off filesharing, it jumps up to 800 kBps (just HTTP from Blizzard).
Not 1984... The patent was filed in 1987. IIRC, by that time X had already implemented the ability to associate a window with a particular display or desktop (which, at the time, was equivalent). Amiga's Intuition also provided a mechanism to do this (in their parlance, "screens") in 1985.
Namely, the patent covers what UNIX users know as "sticky" windows -- that is, a window that would appear in the same location on all desktop views (real or virtual is not clearly and consistently stated in the patent itself).
Here we have an interesting issue. X explicitly contained a feature to address this issue with the notion that someone else would find it useful in the future, but didn't provide (right a way) a window manager that actually used it (as opposed to the Amiga situation where it was technically possible but they obviously hand't thought about using the framework that way). So, if X designed a product that was planned to allow implementation of the feature listed in this patent, 3 years prior to the patent filing, but never implemented an application to exposed the ability to the end-user until after the patent was filed, is it really prior art?
There are three companies that I have to deal with for issues related to hardware problems, ironically both for home and work (large biotech): Dell, HP, and Apple.
If I'm calling related to an issue with a system at work: HP is the least responsive (they are our companie's "preferred" vendor) and Dell and Apple are both excellent (for Dell, we purchase the highest level of support and, for Apple, we just have standard AppleCare).
If I'm calling related to an issue with a system at home: HP is more or less worthless, Dell is onerous but, if you persist for long enough they general fix whatever the issue is. Apple has proven to be quite good. Actually, I'd give Apple some additional points because, despite a large segment of their user-base being non-technical, they don't treat you like a computer-neophyte and they seem quite comfortable listening to a problem and rationally troubleshooting it with you rather than adhering to a script.
Since someone mentioned forums: Dell does sometimes respond to users in their forums directly, and even usefully. Typically, they are people with technical acumen. HP, not so much. Apple's forums are user-only and you never see any posts from employees. That said, the majority of useful content on all of them is user-submitted responses to questions. The users are invariably more candid, concise, and correct with their responses.
Strictly speaking it's not illegal copying or copyright infringement until a determination is made in he court that the activity is infringing. Prior to that, it is alleged copyright infringement or unauthorized copying (which is not necessarily illegal or infringing in its own right, at least in the USA).
They're worried about the advertisement being removed and being able to resell the content. Of course, the advertisement revenu is somewhat of a Red Herring, since the model already presumes all the revenue stems from the initial broadcast or rebroadcast (i.e., the cost is based on viewership for the time slot; so the advertiser's bought the attention of the estimated number of viewers).
They're also worried that Internet availability undermines their availability to sell advertising for rebroadcasts and might impact packaged sale of shows on DVD. There's a better argument for that.
I think that, increasingly, but removing their shows from Internet distribution they're undercutting exposue of their properties to a wide audience. There's plenty of opportunity to capitalize on content without adhereing to an onerous in-broadcast advertising model.
... and that's really the crux of the matter. Every picture you take, every letter you write, every story you tell, whatever you create is copyrighted -- by you. You have every right in the world to distribute your creations and you expect to. When you browse a company's web-site, you are receiving images and content that are, ostensibly, copyrighted by them which they also freely distribute so that you can view them on your own computer.
The key is not that a work is copyrighted, but rather that the distribution occurs without the permission of the copyright holder. There's where it gets sticky. The ISP knows you are exchanging copyrighted works because everything is copyrighted. What the indutry is asking for is that the ISP identify specific chunks of data for which the distribution constitutes infringement. But how can the ISP know whether infringement is taking place?
For something to be infringing, they will need to know whether or not the sender of the content is the copyright holder, a licensee for the content with permission to redistribute (like iTunes), the terms under which the content may be distributed (only if fee collected and DRM in place), whether those terms are met (valid credit card number used / the user hasn't implemented a hack to remove DRM), whether the copyright has expired (there are still some copyrights that expire), or whether the distribution constitutes an exception to copyright protection (such as a "fair use" under US law). How can the ISP possibly know these things?
Well, they can't possibly distinguish (doubly so if the content is encrypted). Some of those things can only be answered by a court.
Nevermind it being an unnecessary burden on ISPs or a violation of their customers, the ISP is simply unable to know the legal context in which data is distributed and whether it may constitute infringement. Any accusation of that sort would necessarily need to be vetted through the approriate legal authority, not the ISP.
I suspect that, like carnivore and similar systems before it, the bulk of the users of the system are individuals from outside the US. At one time, there was considerable concern generated by the observation that the majority (large majority) of wiretaps were being executed by foreign nationals (frequently eastern Europe, but also Asia) exploiting flaws in the design of the systems that allow any knowledgable person with network access to tap a phone line. I'm guessing that this is probably still the case.
Should it be that easy? It seems to me that the intelligence community ought to heed the old adage: if you don't want people to see your bollocks, don't drop your drawers in the middle of Main street.
The DMCA covers copyrighted works, not thrid party contracts. Does the DMCA control access to a work (in the copyright sense)? No, the mechanism in place enforces a contract term between other parties. It restricts access to a service, not "the work".
Neither copyright nor the DMCA exist to prop-up ill-conceived get-rich-quick schemes (well, the DMCA is, but it's also probably not constitutional).
Interesting, but since Clara Barton didn't possess the rights, how could she dispossess them. Keep in mind that she borrowed the red cross logo from the International Red Cross, which had, at that point, already been using it for 33 years. Barton certainly had permission to use the logo, but did she have the right to exclusive license the mark of another organization? The International Red Cross may object to J&J's claim.
The Red Cross, as an organization, was founded in Geneva in 1863 by the Societe Genevoise d'Utilite Publique. The following year, the organization held the Geneva Convention for the "Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field". At that convention, in 1864, the Red Cross adopted the inverse of the Swiss national flag, a red cross on a field of white, as the official emblem of the organization -- at that time known as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The American Red Cross was founded in 1881 with the aim of endorsing US becoming party to the Geneva Convention (which it did in 1882) and extended the ICRC mission to the USA. In doing so, the adopted they adopted the logo of the ICRC (with their approval). Johnson & Johnson adopted the red cross logo in part, because the symbol of a red cross on a field of white had already become synonymous with treating the sick, since, at that point, the logo had already been used in that capacity for 24 years and had become familiar with it through the ARC's activity in treating civil war soldiers.
J&J is being foolish. The suit will cost them their trademark.
Every post on Slashdot is copyrighted -- it's a creative form of expression in a fixed medium (namely bits on a disk somewhere). Yet here they are... How can that be? It's because the posters are granting a public license to view their work, implicitly by placing it in a public forum.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the content flowing through AT&T's networks are copyrighted. It's not sufficient that a work is copyrighted, but rather that the exchange itself is a violation of copyright. But how can the computer know? If you have a license to the work through some asset purchase, it's not infringing; if you have a license agreement that grants certain rights to obtain/distribute copies, it's not infringement; if you are using the content for academic research, the purpose of criticism, or in parody, it's not infringing. So, how is their computer system to know, a priori, of the legal arrangements, or your intent to use a work? What if you live in a jurisdiction that doesn't recognize the copyright (e.g., it may be public domain because the copyright expired in your jurisdiction).
The point is that it's technically not feasible to police copyrights. AT&T may be inerefering with network traffic on behalf of a third party for fun and profit, but they are most certainly not protecting copyrights. It's a little disingenuous.
I'm not saying Monsanto isn't evil, what big company isn't, but at least the R&D people have no desire to mess with the environment. You mention ADM as being less evil, but I think if you look into the matter you'll find ADM considerably more sinister (they got Nixon to go to China for a reason) and influential with the US government. Monsanto is very much beholden to ADM.
Monsanto's chemical division split off decades ago, the company that is now Monsanto is a seed and glyphosate company. It's the most successful of about a 1/2 dozen of producers of GMO seeds.
I've never hear any evidence of GMO corn causing elevated levels of liver damage in rats (it does cause some when consumed in quantity, but so does non-GMO corn -- both have ANFs). I don't know of any incidence in the literature that makes a claim that it has an effect on animal's immune systems either (I've heard that from anti-GMO activists, but never seen it supported).
As far as antibiotics -- I thought the main reason that people had an issue with this was because the animals aren't sick but still get them. Those against chronically dosing agricultural animals with antibiotics don't claim the animals have weak immune systems, they are claiming it's unnecessary and risks producing antibiotic resistant strains of infectious bacteria, or that people will consume antibiotics given to the animal (and produce antibiotic resistant strains of human-infecting bacteria). There's at least something to that (albeit, it's not nearly as problematic as you might think). Farmers give antibiotics to the animals, by the way, not because the animals have weakened immune systems, but because chronic dosing yields suppression of immune responses that diminish yield (a chicken using up calories to fight bacterial infections can't use those calories ot build muscle mass, for instance -- especially important when you raise the animals in high density farms).
Monsanto doesn't sell any pesticide, just an herbicide (that they sell a resistance trait for). They do sell plants that express Bt toxin (a popular insecticide derived from soil bacteria widely used in organic farming) in their leaves and stems, though. In case you are wondering, Bt is only toxic to animals with alkaline guts (e.g., herbivorous insects).
You're right about Monsanto wanting to lock up the seed market. That's for certain. But they only do so in highly profitable industrialized agriculture. Organic (who won't have them), subsistence, and 3rd world agriculture isn't really affected.
Also, I'd add that GMO plants, for better or worse, probably can't be considered "near universally rejected". More GMO acres are planted than not. At least 5 years ago, >99% of the commercially produced soy in the USA was of one or another GMO variety (though only about 40% from Monsanto). I believe Canada produced more GMO canola than the US does, though.
The first transgenic crops appeared in US supermarkets in 1993 (tomatos).
Really, the true test is: can anyone attribute ill effects to the consumption of the crops. Many people have looked into it (there's lots of scientific literature from the US and elsewhere), but no statistical evidence exists (yet) to substantiate it. It doesn't mean that health risks don't exist, but it does mean that they are not acute nor differentiable from non-GMO varieties.
A few years ago, before LCD screens were big and cheap, a company making LCD projectors was running a contest where they'd give a projector to people with good "alternative" ways to use the technology.
I suggested what you are suggesting. Namely, a table with a translucent surface onto which the game map (and possibly various stats, rolls, etc.) was projected.
I didn't win. They even e-mailed me back to tell me it was a silly waste of technology.
It's nice to see MS licensing Apple's multitouch tech for their product, though. At least, I assume it's properly licensed.