Because this is the interpretation of DoD lawyers. The example of the Qt library wasn't a fabrication of mine- it really happened. I suspect that the Trolltech lawyers felt the same way.
Do those DoD lawyers specialise in copyright and software licensing? Is there any public record of this, or do we just have to trust your account?
At any rate, in the specific case of QT, just a couple of comments - I can't see why the DoD wouldn't just go ahead and buy a commercial license anyway. It's not like they don't have money, and it's not like they don't spend astronomical sums on things of much more dubious utility already. It would be the decent thing to do.
And yes, I'm sure Trolltech would rather they do that, and I'm sure they would rather the GPL didn't give people the rights it does, but I don't think their wishes would change the outcome of a court case, if they were foolish enough to pursue one.
Some of your other points are certainly wourthy of concern. Facilitating this sort of use was not the goal in writing the license, and I can see how some of it could be inconvenient. I don't think your interpretation of 'any third party' is correct, however. The third parties reference is to a situation where you have distributed the program publically, and it's gone on from there to third parties. Obviously this can't come up if you don't do external distribution to begin with, and I'm sure the DoD has plenty of experience with protecting secret data.
As you consider the FAQ entry too terse to be relied on, I wonder if you or anyone else to your knowledge has taken the obvious step of writing to the FSF Counsel and asking for a clarification?
300,000 soldiers who run modified GPL software but aren't allowed to take copies cannot possibly be what Stallman intended.
I don't think it's exactly what he was trying to create, no, but I don't think it's within his power to forbid either. A license can only control certain things, and as a matter of principle he would probably tell you that it should be able to control even less.
Anyway, good discussion, if you ever do write the FSF be sure and post whatever response you get...
I'm talking about sending out files to install on government computers to be used by government employees on government time. (There happen to be 10,000 of them, and spread around the world). Entirely similar situations, from a copyright perspective.
You're saying it's similar to passing out CDs to take home and use. This is not a similar situation. You can easily have permission to use something institutionally without having permission to distribute beyond the institution, as I mentioned before. But the actual issue here is simply who are you distributing it to. I'm saying in such a situation the DoD would be, legally, distributing it only to itself. It would not be distributing to employees as private persons, but only in their capacity as DoD employees. Therefore, under the law, the only entity to which the DoD would be 'distributing' the software would be the DoD itself - and therefore the only entity with standing to demand the code or exercise other rights given to distributees would be the DoD itself.
Obviously for some reason you don't want to believe this, but I can't for the life of me see why. It's the publically stated opinion of the lawyers that wrote the license, and I haven't yet seen any reason to doubt that it's correct.
Making copies of a program cannot be done without the author's permission, which means obeying her license terms.
Agreed. The point is that an organisation already has permission to do this in the GPL.
Get a dictionary. Walking around with a CD-Rom and installing a program on 100s of computers is distribution. You seem not to understand what that word means. To make a copy of something and leave it in a different position than the original copy- that's distribution.
You're right, I phrased things poorly. It is distribution in a sense. But as long as it's distribution internally only, it's distribution to oneself essentially. It's a bit odd to refer to that as distribution, but I can see how you read it that way. It doesn't change the situation though - if you distribute a GPL work to yourself, then the only obligation you incur is to yourself. A copyright license doesn't have the power to alter employer/employee relations.
No court will ever find that passing out a program to 10,000 people is not distribution.
Who's talking about 'passing out a program to 10,000 people?' I'm talking about installing it on company computers to be used by company employees on company time. You appear to be talking now about passing out CDs to take home and use. Very different situations.
I've had software on hundreds of computers being used by thousands of people on a site license - this was not 'distribution' and I had no rights to distribute it.
When you got the site license you were given explicit permission to distribute it to everyone on a site.
No, I wasn't. I was explicitly forbidden from distributing it in fact. This was made very clear.
When someone sat down at one of the computers I had installed, they were not receiving copies of the binaries in question - that would be distribution, but that's not what happens. They simply receive the use of the binary while they are at that station.
Now if we were putting disk images on machines with CD-Burners and big buttons on the desktop so people could copy it and take it home - THAT would be distribution.
For a specific example, look at Qt from Trolltech. The DoD would like to transition its Unix X11 programs away from Motif and towards a modern toolkit, but they're unwilling to pay for a commercial license to Qt, and Trolltech's lawyer would be all over them if a GPLed version were given out to 600,000 soldiers and sailors.
This seems to be the key point where one of us isn't understanding. Why the hell would the DoD need to 'pass out' copies of Qt to anyone if they want to use it internally? This doesn't entail 'passing out copies' to everyone and their dog - it means installing it on DoD owned machines to be used by DoD employees in the course of carrying out DoD business.
Someone else already said x86 for desktop, ppc for laptop, and I basically agree.
The downside to the ppc on desktop is price/performance. It's not a huge gap. But you definately get more flops per buck on the x86 market.
PPC is really a much better designed architecture, however. One of the main practical benefits is a cooler running system using less power. Very important points on a laptop. Not insignificant on a desktop either, but not nearly as important there.
Apple laptops are really nice. Whether running OSX or Linux. For a portable workstation I wouldn't go any other way.
The word "distribution" means passing something out. Nobody can claim that giving a program to 1 million people spread around the world is not "distribution". The fact that all the recipients get paychecks from the same place means nothing.
Actually it does, courts make the distinction between internal use and external distribution all the time in reference to large organisations. Usually not that large, of course, but the principle is the same.
I've seen that entry in the FAQ. FAQs, however, have no legal weight. Only licenses do. What I don't see is anything in the text of the GPL itself to modify the definition of "distribution" to something other than in the English dictionary.
Of course IANAL, but the FSF has lawyers that specialise in this very area to vet that FAQ. If you're really worried about it why not write them?
There are many other cases where copyrighted materials are used by many people in an organisation without it being considered 'distribution'. I've had software on hundreds of computers being used by thousands of people on a site license - this was not 'distribution' and I had no rights to distribute it.
Also, to the contrary of the statement that the FAQ has no legal weight, it actually does, if the issue ever came into question, at least in regards to any GNU programs. The copyright holder for those programs is the FSF, the FSF is on record that it is their understanding and intention that the license allows such use.
It says the organization doesn't have to release to the public. It does not say the organization can forbid its members from releasing to the public.
Of course it doesn't, that's an employee relation issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with the license. The DoD doesn't need the GPL to tell it what kind of arrangements it can or cannot make with it's employees, that's absurd.
If a boss can forbid his employees from redistributing a GPLed program based on the strength of the employment contract between them, or because they're in the same "organization", then commercial software vendors could evade the GPL by requiring their customers to sign onto shell corporations first. Obviously, that can't fly.
That would be an interesting dodge, and I don't think it would fly, but the reason it wouldn't fly is because one could demonstrate to a court that it was nothing but a sham perpetrated to evade the license. Can you imagine anyone trying to prove the same of the DoDs employment contracts? Can you imagine a court taking such an argument seriously for even a second? I certainly can't.
Even if you think the FSF lawyers, specialists precisely on this issue, are utter morons and don't know what they're talking about here, I still think all you would need to be completely covered legally would be an affidavit from the copyright holder of whatever program you're interested in that their position, as reflected in the FAQ, is acceptable to them. For all GNU programs that affidavit is already published and on record. Remember, this is a copyright issue, the only way it could come into question would be if the copyright holder (no one else has standing) files a civil suit over it.
The GPL never requires you to post code to a public site. You only have to give it to people who recieve binaries.
Right.
When you distribute that application to fellow DoD employees, you have two choices.
1. Give them unlimited permission to pass out copies to whomever they want. This is a violation of security clearance, and you could be prosecuted for treason.
2. Forbid them from handing out copies to anyone. Doing this will violate the GPL, meaning you have broken copyright law by duplicating the software.
Umm no. As long as it doesn't leave the DoD it's not 'distribution' under the terms of the license. You don't have to do shit.
If you have trouble understanding the second point, imagine that I want to sell a modified Gimp (GPL program), and that I first require all customers to sign a promise that they won't hand out copies. Then I sell them the Gimp, along with the GPL, whose permission to re-distribute I claim has been overridden by the other promise. See how that doesn't work?
Selling the program to outside customers and simply using it in-house are two entirely different situations though. See this entry in the GPL FAQ.
The only difference between GPL and BSD in this context would be if the DoD had some reason to distribute the program in question to the public. As long as it's used exclusively in-house it doesn't matter at all.
I wish my story was like yours. As it turns out the service has been the one horrible flaw on the otherwise wonderful experience of owning a TiBook.
Had a little accident with it, dropped actually, but a very small drop, maybe two feet. Apparently it landed just precisely the wrong way though, the case crumpled on the corner noticeably, but it seemed to have done it's job and protected the inside. It didn't seem like any real damage, still worked fine in every way, just a little cosmetic damage, though I felt horrible about the slip it didn't seem like it would even need any work. Until I tried to eject a CD.
No dice. After checking it out I figured that it was an alignment problem with the CD probably as a result of the fall, which the store-techs agreed with when I took it in. So I took it to the apple store here. At first they were great, they said the CD would be fixed under warranty, they'd have to ship it to Holland to get it fixed so it could take up to a week though. They were real specific about the warranty, they said it would cover the CD but not the cosmetic damage on the corner, the shop might fix that too, probably would, but no guarantees cause they really didn't have to. That was fine with me, it was really just a scratch and not important. The problem was being without my book for a week, but I got my files off and found a week when I could do without it, and took it in.
So a week passes. Another day. Another. I call them. And find out my box is still sitting at the store, hasn't been shipped to Holland, hasn't been touched.
Seems they decided the warranty wouldn't cover the CD afterall, and didn't bother to let me know, just sat it in a corner and forgot about it.
In the end it got fixed, warranty covered nothing, they replaced pieces of the case which weren't even scratched and charged me for that too. I was pretty incrediblly pissed about the whole treatment. If the warranty didn't cover the damage because it was associated with the drop, that's one thing - but sitting on the damn thing for over a week without shipping it to repair or calling me and letting me know was inexcusable, as was inflating the bill by doing work that wasn't requested or needed. The store essentially just used that book as leverage to extort money from us once they got their hands on it, and I won't ever trust them again.
I love Apple hardware, and I love Apple software, but my experience with their service sucks really bad. It's the one and only reason my next book will probably not be Apple.
There is no way to remember all of the theorems their proofs without notes, and unless you can type latex at 80+ wpm, go with the pen and paper.
I think you're exagerrating a bit. I only type ~65 wpm, and haven't learned latex (I really should, I know) but I still find my tibook is a lot more useful for taking notes than pen and paper. Diagrams and formula can be typed out pretty damn quick if you concentrate on just getting it down, rather than making it look pretty. You can pretty it up later if you want.
When I take notes with pen and paper they always wind up getting lost/buried and I don't have them when I need them. Plus my handwriting sucks;) ymmv.
Well yes 'blame the judges' and 'blame the legislature' have much to recommend them instead. But all the judges are lawyers, and most of the legislators too...
People filing frivilous [sic] suits wouldn't be a problem if they didn't win so damn often.
The maffia just steals your money and sends you on your way. The government proceeds to berate you at length about the supposed virtue of the act.
The maffia generally don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home/business whatever, as long as you pay up. The government not only wants to steal your money, but also to micromanage every aspect of your life.
If you pay the maffia for protection and someone trashes your club, you'll get compensation and they'll hunt the bastard down and cap him too. If you rely on the government, the cops will come hours or days later, ask a bunch of stupid questions, write up a report, and forget about it.
There are actually a lot of differences.
Re:The only problem is
on
PeltierBeer
·
· Score: 1
Agreed.
Cold beer is a barbaric custom invented to numb the taste buds so the drinker doesn't notice that he's drinking rocky mountain pisswater.
[Why do so many women] use their body and fliting [sic] to get ahead,
Umm because it works?
don't they ever want to be judged by their mind and merrits?[sic]
Are the two exclusive? I don't think so.
There is a school of thought that says 'if you've got it, flaunt it' and I'm not saying I completely agree with it, but it's certainly a satisfactory behaviour as long as others do.
I will humbly submit that if you think she's 'paunchy' your sexual tastes would be better fulfilled if you look for young boys. And I want to be clear I'm not saying that to be insulting or anything - it's no skin off my butt if you like little boys, it's your choice. But if you want a woman that looks like a little boy you're going to be damn disappointed. Even the very few that look that way at 18 will fill out a few years later.
For a female, she's actually pretty damn svelt. Those models you see are deliberately chosen to look like little boys, you know. Not one woman in 10,000 looks like that naturally, even at 18.
Those signals are broadcast into Canada without invitation, and are not given any special government protection, unlike in the USA. They are thus considered public domain, and intercepting and decoding them is therefore not illegal.
Hrm well apparently slashcode doesn't like that link either. What a wourthless piece of crap... anyway search with jigle.com or your client, source and exes are out there.
I'd look for circumstances that might be amplifying the interference.
Remember, it isn't that wireless can't be affected by, for instance, weather - but simply that it should have sufficient fault tolerance that you don't need to worry about it.
So it sounds to me like there's something in your setup amplifying the interference, or a breakdown in the fault tolerance features, or both.
It's just a wild guess, but, well, I've seen radio interference from weather drastically amplified in the vicinity of iron pipes, for instance. Improperly insulated power cords, malfunctioning power supplies... that sort of thing I would look at.
A friend of mine growing up lost tv and radio reception entirely whenever the weather acted up. His roof was one of those old-fashioned ones made of steel plates... it's a thought.
- we have yet to build a magnetic rail launcher of anything like the capabilities described in the book here on Earth, let alone the moon, and
For lack of reason, not for lack of ability.
- we still have Mutual Assured Destruction. You may not like the doctrine, but in the end it means that even if the Chinese will soon have a novel way to annihilate us from their moon base, the balance of power remains the same.
I think you're missing the point. A chinese base with an accellerator and a big pile of rocks wouldn't void MAD, far from it, it would keep it alive. US anti-ballistic missile technology may well be able to nullify their ICBMs soon, and the thought does NOT sit well with them, nor should we expect it to. Particularly given the recent shift of US policy from quiet imperialism to very very loud blatant imperialism.
On the other hand, interceptor missiles are pretty useless against the types of projectiles in this scenario, at the very least it's a MUCH harder job, to really nullify them you'd have to knock the heat shielding off very early in the trajectory, and if they're big enough even that wouldn't work. Deflecting them a touch isn't going to make things much better either. So this sort of capability could be what keeps MAD alive for the rest of the century, or at least a few crucial decades...
Slashdot Mirror
Do those DoD lawyers specialise in copyright and software licensing? Is there any public record of this, or do we just have to trust your account?
At any rate, in the specific case of QT, just a couple of comments - I can't see why the DoD wouldn't just go ahead and buy a commercial license anyway. It's not like they don't have money, and it's not like they don't spend astronomical sums on things of much more dubious utility already. It would be the decent thing to do.
And yes, I'm sure Trolltech would rather they do that, and I'm sure they would rather the GPL didn't give people the rights it does, but I don't think their wishes would change the outcome of a court case, if they were foolish enough to pursue one.
Some of your other points are certainly wourthy of concern. Facilitating this sort of use was not the goal in writing the license, and I can see how some of it could be inconvenient. I don't think your interpretation of 'any third party' is correct, however. The third parties reference is to a situation where you have distributed the program publically, and it's gone on from there to third parties. Obviously this can't come up if you don't do external distribution to begin with, and I'm sure the DoD has plenty of experience with protecting secret data.
As you consider the FAQ entry too terse to be relied on, I wonder if you or anyone else to your knowledge has taken the obvious step of writing to the FSF Counsel and asking for a clarification?
I don't think it's exactly what he was trying to create, no, but I don't think it's within his power to forbid either. A license can only control certain things, and as a matter of principle he would probably tell you that it should be able to control even less.
Anyway, good discussion, if you ever do write the FSF be sure and post whatever response you get...
Bah. Historically it stood for Feeble actually, a bit of self-deprecation.
Of course recursion fans know what it really stands for - the true hidden meaning. FVWM = FVWM Virtual Window Manager.
You're saying it's similar to passing out CDs to take home and use. This is not a similar situation. You can easily have permission to use something institutionally without having permission to distribute beyond the institution, as I mentioned before. But the actual issue here is simply who are you distributing it to. I'm saying in such a situation the DoD would be, legally, distributing it only to itself. It would not be distributing to employees as private persons, but only in their capacity as DoD employees. Therefore, under the law, the only entity to which the DoD would be 'distributing' the software would be the DoD itself - and therefore the only entity with standing to demand the code or exercise other rights given to distributees would be the DoD itself.
Obviously for some reason you don't want to believe this, but I can't for the life of me see why. It's the publically stated opinion of the lawyers that wrote the license, and I haven't yet seen any reason to doubt that it's correct.
Agreed. The point is that an organisation already has permission to do this in the GPL.
You're right, I phrased things poorly. It is distribution in a sense. But as long as it's distribution internally only, it's distribution to oneself essentially. It's a bit odd to refer to that as distribution, but I can see how you read it that way. It doesn't change the situation though - if you distribute a GPL work to yourself, then the only obligation you incur is to yourself. A copyright license doesn't have the power to alter employer/employee relations.
Who's talking about 'passing out a program to 10,000 people?' I'm talking about installing it on company computers to be used by company employees on company time. You appear to be talking now about passing out CDs to take home and use. Very different situations.
No, I wasn't. I was explicitly forbidden from distributing it in fact. This was made very clear.
When someone sat down at one of the computers I had installed, they were not receiving copies of the binaries in question - that would be distribution, but that's not what happens. They simply receive the use of the binary while they are at that station.
Now if we were putting disk images on machines with CD-Burners and big buttons on the desktop so people could copy it and take it home - THAT would be distribution.
This seems to be the key point where one of us isn't understanding. Why the hell would the DoD need to 'pass out' copies of Qt to anyone if they want to use it internally? This doesn't entail 'passing out copies' to everyone and their dog - it means installing it on DoD owned machines to be used by DoD employees in the course of carrying out DoD business.
Someone else already said x86 for desktop, ppc for laptop, and I basically agree.
The downside to the ppc on desktop is price/performance. It's not a huge gap. But you definately get more flops per buck on the x86 market.
PPC is really a much better designed architecture, however. One of the main practical benefits is a cooler running system using less power. Very important points on a laptop. Not insignificant on a desktop either, but not nearly as important there.
Apple laptops are really nice. Whether running OSX or Linux. For a portable workstation I wouldn't go any other way.
Actually it does, courts make the distinction between internal use and external distribution all the time in reference to large organisations. Usually not that large, of course, but the principle is the same.
Of course IANAL, but the FSF has lawyers that specialise in this very area to vet that FAQ. If you're really worried about it why not write them?
There are many other cases where copyrighted materials are used by many people in an organisation without it being considered 'distribution'. I've had software on hundreds of computers being used by thousands of people on a site license - this was not 'distribution' and I had no rights to distribute it.
Also, to the contrary of the statement that the FAQ has no legal weight, it actually does, if the issue ever came into question, at least in regards to any GNU programs. The copyright holder for those programs is the FSF, the FSF is on record that it is their understanding and intention that the license allows such use.
Of course it doesn't, that's an employee relation issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with the license. The DoD doesn't need the GPL to tell it what kind of arrangements it can or cannot make with it's employees, that's absurd.
That would be an interesting dodge, and I don't think it would fly, but the reason it wouldn't fly is because one could demonstrate to a court that it was nothing but a sham perpetrated to evade the license. Can you imagine anyone trying to prove the same of the DoDs employment contracts? Can you imagine a court taking such an argument seriously for even a second? I certainly can't.
Even if you think the FSF lawyers, specialists precisely on this issue, are utter morons and don't know what they're talking about here, I still think all you would need to be completely covered legally would be an affidavit from the copyright holder of whatever program you're interested in that their position, as reflected in the FAQ, is acceptable to them. For all GNU programs that affidavit is already published and on record. Remember, this is a copyright issue, the only way it could come into question would be if the copyright holder (no one else has standing) files a civil suit over it.
Right.
Umm no. As long as it doesn't leave the DoD it's not 'distribution' under the terms of the license. You don't have to do shit.
Selling the program to outside customers and simply using it in-house are two entirely different situations though. See this entry in the GPL FAQ.
The only difference between GPL and BSD in this context would be if the DoD had some reason to distribute the program in question to the public. As long as it's used exclusively in-house it doesn't matter at all.
I wish my story was like yours. As it turns out the service has been the one horrible flaw on the otherwise wonderful experience of owning a TiBook.
Had a little accident with it, dropped actually, but a very small drop, maybe two feet. Apparently it landed just precisely the wrong way though, the case crumpled on the corner noticeably, but it seemed to have done it's job and protected the inside. It didn't seem like any real damage, still worked fine in every way, just a little cosmetic damage, though I felt horrible about the slip it didn't seem like it would even need any work. Until I tried to eject a CD.
No dice. After checking it out I figured that it was an alignment problem with the CD probably as a result of the fall, which the store-techs agreed with when I took it in. So I took it to the apple store here. At first they were great, they said the CD would be fixed under warranty, they'd have to ship it to Holland to get it fixed so it could take up to a week though. They were real specific about the warranty, they said it would cover the CD but not the cosmetic damage on the corner, the shop might fix that too, probably would, but no guarantees cause they really didn't have to. That was fine with me, it was really just a scratch and not important. The problem was being without my book for a week, but I got my files off and found a week when I could do without it, and took it in.
So a week passes. Another day. Another. I call them. And find out my box is still sitting at the store, hasn't been shipped to Holland, hasn't been touched.
Seems they decided the warranty wouldn't cover the CD afterall, and didn't bother to let me know, just sat it in a corner and forgot about it.
In the end it got fixed, warranty covered nothing, they replaced pieces of the case which weren't even scratched and charged me for that too. I was pretty incrediblly pissed about the whole treatment. If the warranty didn't cover the damage because it was associated with the drop, that's one thing - but sitting on the damn thing for over a week without shipping it to repair or calling me and letting me know was inexcusable, as was inflating the bill by doing work that wasn't requested or needed. The store essentially just used that book as leverage to extort money from us once they got their hands on it, and I won't ever trust them again.
I love Apple hardware, and I love Apple software, but my experience with their service sucks really bad. It's the one and only reason my next book will probably not be Apple.
Oh bullshit. It's one of the least reliable rags to ever exist, a cut below the National Enquirer even on a good day. Get real.
I think you're exagerrating a bit. I only type ~65 wpm, and haven't learned latex (I really should, I know) but I still find my tibook is a lot more useful for taking notes than pen and paper. Diagrams and formula can be typed out pretty damn quick if you concentrate on just getting it down, rather than making it look pretty. You can pretty it up later if you want.
When I take notes with pen and paper they always wind up getting lost/buried and I don't have them when I need them. Plus my handwriting sucks ;) ymmv.
Well yes 'blame the judges' and 'blame the legislature' have much to recommend them instead. But all the judges are lawyers, and most of the legislators too...
People filing frivilous [sic] suits wouldn't be a problem if they didn't win so damn often.
What's the difference?
The maffia just steals your money and sends you on your way. The government proceeds to berate you at length about the supposed virtue of the act.
The maffia generally don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home/business whatever, as long as you pay up. The government not only wants to steal your money, but also to micromanage every aspect of your life.
If you pay the maffia for protection and someone trashes your club, you'll get compensation and they'll hunt the bastard down and cap him too. If you rely on the government, the cops will come hours or days later, ask a bunch of stupid questions, write up a report, and forget about it.
There are actually a lot of differences.
Agreed.
Cold beer is a barbaric custom invented to numb the taste buds so the drinker doesn't notice that he's drinking rocky mountain pisswater.
No decent beer needs to be chilled.
That's like asking folks not to look at train wrecks anymore.
This is just too damn stupid, too damn ugly, and for some reason our species seems programmed to be fascinated with such things.
I did, dumbass.
Maybe you should.
Jesus Christ, what a bunch of catty old hosers this article attracted. If I didn't know better I'd think you were a bunch of girls.
She made a lot more sense than you did.
I can't believe that you and the guy that responded she's an airhead got modded up.
Are you little boys really that intimidated by the idea that a good-looking female might actually have a brain too?
But I guess some people like it that way, fine.
But that website is positively hideous.
Umm because it works?
Are the two exclusive? I don't think so.
There is a school of thought that says 'if you've got it, flaunt it' and I'm not saying I completely agree with it, but it's certainly a satisfactory behaviour as long as others do.
I will humbly submit that if you think she's 'paunchy' your sexual tastes would be better fulfilled if you look for young boys. And I want to be clear I'm not saying that to be insulting or anything - it's no skin off my butt if you like little boys, it's your choice. But if you want a woman that looks like a little boy you're going to be damn disappointed. Even the very few that look that way at 18 will fill out a few years later.
For a female, she's actually pretty damn svelt. Those models you see are deliberately chosen to look like little boys, you know. Not one woman in 10,000 looks like that naturally, even at 18.
It's not an illegal exploit in Canada.
Those signals are broadcast into Canada without invitation, and are not given any special government protection, unlike in the USA. They are thus considered public domain, and intercepting and decoding them is therefore not illegal.
Hrm well apparently slashcode doesn't like that link either. What a wourthless piece of crap... anyway search with jigle.com or your client, source and exes are out there.
Ed2k Link (Source file, use Edonkey/MLDonkey/Overnet/Emule to process the link and download)
I'd look for circumstances that might be amplifying the interference.
Remember, it isn't that wireless can't be affected by, for instance, weather - but simply that it should have sufficient fault tolerance that you don't need to worry about it.
So it sounds to me like there's something in your setup amplifying the interference, or a breakdown in the fault tolerance features, or both.
It's just a wild guess, but, well, I've seen radio interference from weather drastically amplified in the vicinity of iron pipes, for instance. Improperly insulated power cords, malfunctioning power supplies... that sort of thing I would look at.
A friend of mine growing up lost tv and radio reception entirely whenever the weather acted up. His roof was one of those old-fashioned ones made of steel plates... it's a thought.
It's really not that hard to understand is it?
The Bremen Linux specialist univention obtained a provisional order against the SCO Group GmbH from a the regional court of Bremen.
The word order is different in German, but if you can do scrambles you should be able to get the gist.
I'm guessing 'univention' is LinuxTag, which holds a single (uni) large con(vention) on linux. And GmbH is something like Inc. in english.
For lack of reason, not for lack of ability.
I think you're missing the point. A chinese base with an accellerator and a big pile of rocks wouldn't void MAD, far from it, it would keep it alive. US anti-ballistic missile technology may well be able to nullify their ICBMs soon, and the thought does NOT sit well with them, nor should we expect it to. Particularly given the recent shift of US policy from quiet imperialism to very very loud blatant imperialism.
On the other hand, interceptor missiles are pretty useless against the types of projectiles in this scenario, at the very least it's a MUCH harder job, to really nullify them you'd have to knock the heat shielding off very early in the trajectory, and if they're big enough even that wouldn't work. Deflecting them a touch isn't going to make things much better either. So this sort of capability could be what keeps MAD alive for the rest of the century, or at least a few crucial decades...