Yes, they fix bugs and minor other issues. Good for them. In addition to the base OSS products they use... there is a ton of proprietary code
Well, unfortunately, this is how the world works. I'm sure it'd be great to get all the other code used by every website that runs Apache, MySQL, Linux, or anything open source, but it's never going to happen. Google's doing more than they have to in turning over these enhancements they needed to make MySQL suitable for them. The other option to using and freely altering MySQL is likely using a commercial database, or making one internally. Then who benefits?
The initial development that went into MySQL didn't cost Google a penny.
Nope, and it doesn't cost anyone else who uses it any money, either (although I believe MySQL AB sells support contracts). This is the decision you make when you open source your code/project. You get to benefit the world at large (hopefully), and you get the support of many varied contributors (again, hopefully).
Who sells Open Source Software? Tell me!
Well, the parent was talking about companies that sell "closed source" software for Linux, of which there are several (though not as many as one would hope). The whole line of conversation is somewhat off-topic, since Google doesn't really sell software, they offer services. Even when dealing with large commerical entities, they generally just install hardware that does the job instead of handing over a copy of Gmail, etc.
The real point is that companies can't all realistically just give up their code to be open-sourced. Google's main asset now, arguably, is their brand name, but could they have survived in their early years if they gave up all of their implementation and algorithm details? Even considering pure software companies, you point to the selling of support contracts instead of selling the software outright. This works for several classes of software, database management systems for example, but who would buy a support contract for, say, Microsoft Office? Or just about any GUI desktop software. Adobe's products, CAD programs, video editing software and many other types of software (games, excluding those that charge subscriptions) couldn't really survive commercially except under the proprietary model.
There's an argument to be made that this software shouldn't and won't survive as is, and that may be, but that day has not yet come.
Of course, the owners of Monopoly (Hasbro), can claim, as you called it, "monopoly" on the name Monopoly in the spheres of board games, and/or games in general, but not on all uses of the legal term "monopoly".
So, Rockstar (or possibly Take-Two) very likely have some kind of claim to stake here. All the valid counter-arguments aside, including that the names are not exactly the same, and that this use is a parody, EA probably made the decision to change the name rather than face any legal murkiness (or bad press associated with the GTA brand). In the scheme of things, does the name of a sub-game really make that big of a difference?
My trademark argument above would have probably been more readable without using the game Monopoly as my example, but I just couldn't resist.
When the post you're replying to is just partially-relevant words substituted into lines from "The Simpsons", I think it can be safely ignored, or treated as a poor attempt at comedy.
Slightly better than just "I, for one, welcome our new blank overlords", but not by enough.
Ah. He has always been a stickler on the Linux GNU/Linux issue. I also remember that Windows has BSD-licensed portions in it, but as I remember, that stuff was mostly in places like the TCP/IP stack and other places that have been heavily rewritten of late.
Good thing you're looking to go to TiVo, because, at least in my area, FIOS TV uses Motorola recievers with some similar-sounding cruddy Microsoft software on them. I wasn't too happy with some things about my Cox cable boxes, but I'd kill for a Scientific Atlanta box at this point.
I was pretty sure that the "linux" name came from the folder the source was placed in. I think it was one of Linus' co-workers that just sort of chose the name on his own.
Also, why would Richard Stallman (unless you were talking about the root mean square) be disgusted at the name of a kernel being based on the name of its creator?
Along with your comment about "so many Windows programs being under the BSD license", I'm not really sure about the intent of your post. On the other hand, we can agree that the Linux name definitely isn't yet another recursive acronym like the GP suggested.
"For Dummies" books cost like $10-$20. I think I've had maybe one college textbook in that range. Average books range from about $40-$80, and if you're unlucky the books for some subjects (in my case I think it was physics and calculus) will run you well over $100. At least these books you sometimes need for more than one class. Sadly, even this isn't always true. For example, my school's required books for statics and dynamics run $123.50 each from the bookstore, and each are only used for one class.
Dorm rooms have a common area and kitchen? I should really take this up with Housing Services, it seems I've been fleeced. Plus, I've only got about 160 square feet... So small...
I'm pretty sure Halo 2 and Halo 3 are actually designed so that at no point are you fighting other humans... I assume they're playing multiplayer, right? I mean, rolling up to the church to take turns playing parts of the single player campaign isn't really a staggering draw, is it? If they are playing multiplayer, pretty much you're exclusively attacking other humans. Sections of the battlefield get nicely filled up with human corpses when you're playing a particularly spirited multiplayer match.
Really, it doesn't even matter. Trademark is the weakest of the forms of "intellectual property." It's essentially designed to only prevent people from offering services under the same or confusingly similar names/logos as a trademarked one. Admittedly, trademark holders sometimes exercise "rights" beyond this, but the main goal is to prevent confusion for consumers. So, one thing you're always allowed to do with a trademark is use it to refer to its source, this is called nominative use.
So, even though, as other people have pointed out, the Republican and Democratic national committees have trademarked their respective names, they can't do anything about you bashing their party in print or in speech. In general, they use these trademarks to
ensure that political organizations referring to themselves as "Republican" or "Democratic" are actually in line with the party's views.
Of course, I guess, due to Google's policy, they could take down ads that they disapprove of, but really, on the Internet, is an ad a very effective way of getting a political point across? This isn't the same thing as TV ads we're talking about here.
All sarcasm aside, it's important for people to remember that this isn't a First Amendment or free speech issue. You're already allowed to use a trademark all you want as long as you're referring to the the actual product or service that the trademark represents, because of a doctrine of "trademark fair use". So, even though almost every company has a registered trademark on their name and the names of their products, there's nothing they can do to stop you from referring to them by name. This is how companies can run comparison ads that portray the competition in a bad light. If every use of trademark for advertising had to be authorized by the owner, they'd never allow it for such ads.
Google just has this policy of their own. To avoid controversy and confrontation with trademark holders, they simply always allow an ad containing trademarks to be removed at the owner's request. I don't particularly like the practice, but of course, if you were looking to make some comment about a product, service, or organization, you're perfectly free to just post it online somewhere. Surprise, it gets on Google anyway! Now, if they allowed similar removals from their search results, that would be a horse of a different color.
What am I missing here? Doesn't the DMCA already make it legal to unlock phones? ...it is in fact not illegal for an individual to unlock a phone.
I think we're in agreement here that it's legal. The lawsuit seems to deal with T-Mobile having to tell it's customers how their phones have been locked, basically helping them unlock them.
Also, I'm a bit skeptical that it was really the US Patent and Trademark Office's "copyright office" that made these regulations. The US Copyright Office, which is, I assume, is the body which would make these regulations, falls under the Library of Congress.
Psst. Netscape is not a competitor to Windows. Never was...
MS cripples themselves when they try and lean on Windows...
Well, the grandparent never said that Netscape was a competitor to Windows, but it sure was a competitor with Internet Explorer. Considering that Internet Explorer completely crushed Netscape due to it being free and bundled with Windows (and, eventually, a better product), I think that Microsoft's plan of leaning on their Windows dominance to sell their other products seems like a pretty successful one. Of course, of these, only IE is "bundled". For Office and Visual Studio, it's really a two-way street. People get Office or VS because they're the de-facto standard on Windows, then they stay with Windows so they can keep the same office suite/IDE.
They seemed to "cripple" themselves with the decaying quality of IE before the release of version 7, but really, it's a consequence of how they dominated the market so effectively. When there's no real competition, why bother innovating? If anything, Microsoft's business model sometimes works too well for their own good.
Farewell Jade Empire & Mass Effect sequels, you're going the way of NFL Gameday or Mythic. Ah well.
I wouldn't say that's true. If anything, EA loves a sequel. With all the crap they churn out, EA probably wasn't looking to acquire BioWare's programming and game design talents, but their brand names and IP. I would say that some sequels are in the cards. As to whether they'll be any good, who knows? Even EA scores some hits every once in a while.
Re:why check everything
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
By that logic any problem can be called "constant time" as long as you've chosen an actual problem to solve. Admittedly, for games, you in general have a fixed board/game size. The point, as far as I'm concerned, of time complexity classes is to categorize how the problem's computation time grows with respect to n. Just because you've fixed n to some value doesn't change the problem's complexity. I mean, as long as your algorithm/machine is deterministic, every specific problem would be "constant time" by your definition.
Or, i misunderstand something crucial about complexity theory. This is very possible.
The fact that the labels pursuing these suits currently offer "nice" settlements to people has no bearing on the fact that the underlying laws are unfair. The high damages for distribution seem to be designed for an pre-digital era where someone engaged in distribution would have to spend, and therefore have, a large amount of money.
Now, anyone with a computer can be a large-scale distributor, but the same laws and damages apply.
Except that this vote wasn't on legalizing medical marijuana, that's already happened in California. This measure (from 2004) would have allowed the existing medical marijuana "clubs" to move into retail areas in Berkeley without having a hearing for each one.
In addition, there's a very easy way to erase old laws, just pass new ones the normal way through the legislature. It's very popular to use referendum instead on contentious issues, because then the politicians never have to go on record as either opposing or supporting the measure.
This is a good scheme too, but finding a good length for copyright to last is tough. One problem is the sheer number of things copyright covers. For artistic works (under the traditional definition of "artistic") a somewhat large time would seem to be appropriate, but at even comparatively short lengths, code maintains its copyright past what many would consider to be its useful life. If you say, fix for 20 years, we're only getting access to code from 1987 and before. Still, anything's an improvement from the current state of affairs, where I'll be long dead by the time any code falls into the public domain.
The issue is that Dell would probably have a patent out for their computer which clearly lists the use of the violating Award BIOS chip.
Dell doesn't go get patents for every one of their computers, or each configuration of parts. Any parts which they make I'm sure they have patents on, like their case with the hinges (assuming they build it.) Getting a patent for every amalgamation of parts they assemble is 1: impossible, since I would think this fails the test of novelty, and 2: ridiculous. Even assuming the patents would be granted, the products wouldn't be offered anymore by the time the patent process was over.
If you tax all of this above you mentioned, the internet is already implicitly taxed..... The complication of taxes is just a way to hide how big taxes are in fact
Well, the point of my post was, originally anyway, to say basically the same thing, that many small individual taxes are easier to get done.
Of course, by your logic, everything is already implicitly taxed, since income is. Which, in a way is very much true. I've always hated the political objection to some taxes as "taxing money twice". All money is taxed at least twice, pretty much, once it's spent, barring charitable donations or tax loopholes (or Delaware). Most money gets taxed more, with capital gains and interest taxes, inheritance taxes, etc. Ever since income tax was instituted, we've been taxing people multiple times over. Why stop now?
Internet tax definitely won't ruin teh Internet. The question is rather: why on Earth tax it in the first place.
Well why tax anything? Why tax income, or sales, or gasoline, or any of the other million categories of items that are taxed? The bottom line is, the government needs money, and it's probably a lot easier to get it by nickel-and-diming people with taxes on everything they pay for than by raising income taxes or some other high-profile tax. Of course this simplistically assumes that all tax revenue just goes into a big pile to be used for anything, but...
Also, in response to the other part of your post, I thought that the main complaint about Internet access in Europe was higher prices. I'm spoiled by being on the edge of an urban area, where I get 10Mb "unlimited" broadband for $25 a month. I know many areas of the country can't get broadband at all, or just super-expensive options from only one provider, but claiming that the Internet is faster and cheaper in Europe than the US is a claim I'd need some numbers to back up before I believed it. On average you might have us beat, but I think our best options probably match up pretty well.
More worrying, to me, is that the original author dies or becomes uncontactable (or just one of several copyright holders dies) and the software cannot ever be relicensed to a new GPL version. That is why I support the 'at your option, any later version' formula. It doesn't hurt to be a bit too liberal. Another good reason why copyright should expire at, or soon after, death. If the original author is long dead, then the code would just fall into the public domain.
I'm pretty sure that going from something bad to something better is always an improvement, no matter which "land" you're in. Assuming that the old Finder is "bad" and the new one isn't, then I would call that an improvement. Or an advantage, if you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, unfortunately, this is how the world works. I'm sure it'd be great to get all the other code used by every website that runs Apache, MySQL, Linux, or anything open source, but it's never going to happen. Google's doing more than they have to in turning over these enhancements they needed to make MySQL suitable for them. The other option to using and freely altering MySQL is likely using a commercial database, or making one internally. Then who benefits?
The initial development that went into MySQL didn't cost Google a penny.Nope, and it doesn't cost anyone else who uses it any money, either (although I believe MySQL AB sells support contracts). This is the decision you make when you open source your code/project. You get to benefit the world at large (hopefully), and you get the support of many varied contributors (again, hopefully).
Who sells Open Source Software? Tell me!Well, the parent was talking about companies that sell "closed source" software for Linux, of which there are several (though not as many as one would hope). The whole line of conversation is somewhat off-topic, since Google doesn't really sell software, they offer services. Even when dealing with large commerical entities, they generally just install hardware that does the job instead of handing over a copy of Gmail, etc.
The real point is that companies can't all realistically just give up their code to be open-sourced. Google's main asset now, arguably, is their brand name, but could they have survived in their early years if they gave up all of their implementation and algorithm details? Even considering pure software companies, you point to the selling of support contracts instead of selling the software outright. This works for several classes of software, database management systems for example, but who would buy a support contract for, say, Microsoft Office? Or just about any GUI desktop software. Adobe's products, CAD programs, video editing software and many other types of software (games, excluding those that charge subscriptions) couldn't really survive commercially except under the proprietary model.
There's an argument to be made that this software shouldn't and won't survive as is, and that may be, but that day has not yet come.
global warming cult memebers, you have no facts to back that up
...the hard fact is, C02 doesn't dictate climate on earth
Facts to back that up?...Of course, the owners of Monopoly (Hasbro), can claim, as you called it, "monopoly" on the name Monopoly in the spheres of board games, and/or games in general, but not on all uses of the legal term "monopoly".
So, Rockstar (or possibly Take-Two) very likely have some kind of claim to stake here. All the valid counter-arguments aside, including that the names are not exactly the same, and that this use is a parody, EA probably made the decision to change the name rather than face any legal murkiness (or bad press associated with the GTA brand). In the scheme of things, does the name of a sub-game really make that big of a difference?
My trademark argument above would have probably been more readable without using the game Monopoly as my example, but I just couldn't resist.
Well, if you use the HTML escape sequence (ampersand-euro-semicolon), it's pretty easy to write € on Slashdot.
When the post you're replying to is just partially-relevant words substituted into lines from "The Simpsons", I think it can be safely ignored, or treated as a poor attempt at comedy.
Slightly better than just "I, for one, welcome our new blank overlords", but not by enough.
Ah. He has always been a stickler on the Linux GNU/Linux issue. I also remember that Windows has BSD-licensed portions in it, but as I remember, that stuff was mostly in places like the TCP/IP stack and other places that have been heavily rewritten of late.
Good thing you're looking to go to TiVo, because, at least in my area, FIOS TV uses Motorola recievers with some similar-sounding cruddy Microsoft software on them. I wasn't too happy with some things about my Cox cable boxes, but I'd kill for a Scientific Atlanta box at this point.
I was pretty sure that the "linux" name came from the folder the source was placed in. I think it was one of Linus' co-workers that just sort of chose the name on his own.
Also, why would Richard Stallman (unless you were talking about the root mean square) be disgusted at the name of a kernel being based on the name of its creator?
Along with your comment about "so many Windows programs being under the BSD license", I'm not really sure about the intent of your post. On the other hand, we can agree that the Linux name definitely isn't yet another recursive acronym like the GP suggested.
"For Dummies" books cost like $10-$20. I think I've had maybe one college textbook in that range. Average books range from about $40-$80, and if you're unlucky the books for some subjects (in my case I think it was physics and calculus) will run you well over $100. At least these books you sometimes need for more than one class. Sadly, even this isn't always true. For example, my school's required books for statics and dynamics run $123.50 each from the bookstore, and each are only used for one class.
Dorm rooms have a common area and kitchen? I should really take this up with Housing Services, it seems I've been fleeced. Plus, I've only got about 160 square feet... So small...
Really, it doesn't even matter. Trademark is the weakest of the forms of "intellectual property." It's essentially designed to only prevent people from offering services under the same or confusingly similar names/logos as a trademarked one. Admittedly, trademark holders sometimes exercise "rights" beyond this, but the main goal is to prevent confusion for consumers. So, one thing you're always allowed to do with a trademark is use it to refer to its source, this is called nominative use.
So, even though, as other people have pointed out, the Republican and Democratic national committees have trademarked their respective names, they can't do anything about you bashing their party in print or in speech. In general, they use these trademarks to ensure that political organizations referring to themselves as "Republican" or "Democratic" are actually in line with the party's views.
Of course, I guess, due to Google's policy, they could take down ads that they disapprove of, but really, on the Internet, is an ad a very effective way of getting a political point across? This isn't the same thing as TV ads we're talking about here.
All sarcasm aside, it's important for people to remember that this isn't a First Amendment or free speech issue. You're already allowed to use a trademark all you want as long as you're referring to the the actual product or service that the trademark represents, because of a doctrine of "trademark fair use". So, even though almost every company has a registered trademark on their name and the names of their products, there's nothing they can do to stop you from referring to them by name. This is how companies can run comparison ads that portray the competition in a bad light. If every use of trademark for advertising had to be authorized by the owner, they'd never allow it for such ads.
Google just has this policy of their own. To avoid controversy and confrontation with trademark holders, they simply always allow an ad containing trademarks to be removed at the owner's request. I don't particularly like the practice, but of course, if you were looking to make some comment about a product, service, or organization, you're perfectly free to just post it online somewhere. Surprise, it gets on Google anyway! Now, if they allowed similar removals from their search results, that would be a horse of a different color.
I think we're in agreement here that it's legal. The lawsuit seems to deal with T-Mobile having to tell it's customers how their phones have been locked, basically helping them unlock them.
Also, I'm a bit skeptical that it was really the US Patent and Trademark Office's "copyright office" that made these regulations. The US Copyright Office, which is, I assume, is the body which would make these regulations, falls under the Library of Congress.
MS cripples themselves when they try and lean on Windows...
Well, the grandparent never said that Netscape was a competitor to Windows, but it sure was a competitor with Internet Explorer. Considering that Internet Explorer completely crushed Netscape due to it being free and bundled with Windows (and, eventually, a better product), I think that Microsoft's plan of leaning on their Windows dominance to sell their other products seems like a pretty successful one. Of course, of these, only IE is "bundled". For Office and Visual Studio, it's really a two-way street. People get Office or VS because they're the de-facto standard on Windows, then they stay with Windows so they can keep the same office suite/IDE.
They seemed to "cripple" themselves with the decaying quality of IE before the release of version 7, but really, it's a consequence of how they dominated the market so effectively. When there's no real competition, why bother innovating? If anything, Microsoft's business model sometimes works too well for their own good.
I wouldn't say that's true. If anything, EA loves a sequel. With all the crap they churn out, EA probably wasn't looking to acquire BioWare's programming and game design talents, but their brand names and IP. I would say that some sequels are in the cards. As to whether they'll be any good, who knows? Even EA scores some hits every once in a while.
By that logic any problem can be called "constant time" as long as you've chosen an actual problem to solve. Admittedly, for games, you in general have a fixed board/game size. The point, as far as I'm concerned, of time complexity classes is to categorize how the problem's computation time grows with respect to n. Just because you've fixed n to some value doesn't change the problem's complexity. I mean, as long as your algorithm/machine is deterministic, every specific problem would be "constant time" by your definition.
Or, i misunderstand something crucial about complexity theory. This is very possible.
The fact that the labels pursuing these suits currently offer "nice" settlements to people has no bearing on the fact that the underlying laws are unfair. The high damages for distribution seem to be designed for an pre-digital era where someone engaged in distribution would have to spend, and therefore have, a large amount of money.
Now, anyone with a computer can be a large-scale distributor, but the same laws and damages apply.
Except that this vote wasn't on legalizing medical marijuana, that's already happened in California. This measure (from 2004) would have allowed the existing medical marijuana "clubs" to move into retail areas in Berkeley without having a hearing for each one.
In addition, there's a very easy way to erase old laws, just pass new ones the normal way through the legislature. It's very popular to use referendum instead on contentious issues, because then the politicians never have to go on record as either opposing or supporting the measure.
This is a good scheme too, but finding a good length for copyright to last is tough. One problem is the sheer number of things copyright covers. For artistic works (under the traditional definition of "artistic") a somewhat large time would seem to be appropriate, but at even comparatively short lengths, code maintains its copyright past what many would consider to be its useful life. If you say, fix for 20 years, we're only getting access to code from 1987 and before. Still, anything's an improvement from the current state of affairs, where I'll be long dead by the time any code falls into the public domain.
Dell doesn't go get patents for every one of their computers, or each configuration of parts. Any parts which they make I'm sure they have patents on, like their case with the hinges (assuming they build it.) Getting a patent for every amalgamation of parts they assemble is 1: impossible, since I would think this fails the test of novelty, and 2: ridiculous. Even assuming the patents would be granted, the products wouldn't be offered anymore by the time the patent process was over.
Well, the point of my post was, originally anyway, to say basically the same thing, that many small individual taxes are easier to get done.
Of course, by your logic, everything is already implicitly taxed, since income is. Which, in a way is very much true. I've always hated the political objection to some taxes as "taxing money twice". All money is taxed at least twice, pretty much, once it's spent, barring charitable donations or tax loopholes (or Delaware). Most money gets taxed more, with capital gains and interest taxes, inheritance taxes, etc. Ever since income tax was instituted, we've been taxing people multiple times over. Why stop now?
Well why tax anything? Why tax income, or sales, or gasoline, or any of the other million categories of items that are taxed? The bottom line is, the government needs money, and it's probably a lot easier to get it by nickel-and-diming people with taxes on everything they pay for than by raising income taxes or some other high-profile tax. Of course this simplistically assumes that all tax revenue just goes into a big pile to be used for anything, but...
Also, in response to the other part of your post, I thought that the main complaint about Internet access in Europe was higher prices. I'm spoiled by being on the edge of an urban area, where I get 10Mb "unlimited" broadband for $25 a month. I know many areas of the country can't get broadband at all, or just super-expensive options from only one provider, but claiming that the Internet is faster and cheaper in Europe than the US is a claim I'd need some numbers to back up before I believed it. On average you might have us beat, but I think our best options probably match up pretty well.
I'm pretty sure that going from something bad to something better is always an improvement, no matter which "land" you're in. Assuming that the old Finder is "bad" and the new one isn't, then I would call that an improvement. Or an advantage, if you want.