No, it's not horribly worded, it's quite clear, even without looking at the extrinsic evidence it's plain and clear on its face, and yet those who dont like what it says are incredibly persistent in misinterpreting it.
Take the same structure and apply it to a different subject and no one would misinterpret it. Like this for example:
"A well-read electorate being necessary to the function of an elective democracy, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I know we are on the internet so you are on the honour system here, but can you seriously even keep a straight face while arguing that this language would mean that only registered voters have a right to keep and read books?
Actually, it is completely true. Free Software is a hack to fix a broken copyright system. Free Software supporters may and do have different opinions on whether or not a non-broken copyright system is possible, and if so what it would look like, but that doesnt change the fact that what Stallman did was create a clever and practical adaption to the situation he found himself in. Being practical and making lemonade from the lemons doesnt mean you endorse the system that dumps tons of lemons on your door unasked.
Personally, I rather think the US Constitutional (i.e. pre-Berne Convention) copyright laws represent a fairly reasonable reference point on what a non-broken copyright system would look like. Copyright was not automatic and it was not a one-sided entitlement. If you wanted copyright on a work you had to apply, and lodge copies of the work with the Library of Congress. Then and only then would you be awarded with a legal monopoly on reproduction of that work, for a limited time, after which those copies ensured that your work would, in fact, enter the public domain and be available for the general good.
In those days we didnt have digital computers, and as a result there was no 'software' as such, but it seems fairly clear how a system like that would be able to deal with software copyrights. Just like books, music, etc. copyright would not apply automatically as an entitledment, but represent a bargain with the public domain. You could apply for a copyright by lodging copies of your work (in source code, with any associated build-scripts and so forth) with the LoC, and be rewarded with a legal monopoly on that work for a limited time, with the source-copies in deposit to ensure that after that monopoly expired the work would enter the public domain and be available for the general good.
Now I think that is a pretty reasonable compromise, but failing that I would just as soon see the elimination of copyright entirely. Either change would in some sense weaken Free Software as we know it (by weakening copyright monopolies, on which Free Software licenses rely for enforcement) but each would also lessen the problems that those licenses were developed to counter as well. Free Software could and would adapt to either situation, just as it has adapted to the current situation, with the pragmatic measures which best serve the ultimate goal. Dont confuse the specific adaption to a specific situation with the ultimate goal those adaptions are designed to serve.
Actually that language was subject of much debate and very carefully written. As you've just demonstrated, it's impossible to do the job to the point that someone who really wants to read it differently cant make it work in their own head.
Even if global warming is nothing more than a scheme to get us to pollute less, isn't it time we started doing so anyways?
Unfortunately the issue isnt so clear-cut as this. You see, CO2 is a naturally component of the atmosphere - not a pollutant. Unless, of course, the currently fashionable AGW dogma is taken to be true and correct. In that case, and in that case only, it makes some sense to consider carbon emissions as something like pollution.
So what does decreasing pollution mean? To the skeptic it means decreasing things like particulate pollution and noxious gasses (including carbon monoxide but not carbon dioxide, which is a normal and necessary part of the biosystem) in the air, along with all the nasty poisonous stuff that can get in our water, and so on. But to the true-believer, all those traditionally recognised pollutants take a back seat to the new boogey-man, CO2 emissions. So the skeptic and the true-believer can both agree that we should pollute less, without actually agreeing on what that means.
My understanding of the situation is that our legal system couldn't exist without them, or would at least cost waaaaaaay more to run and require far more personnel, as we simply don't have enough judges and public defenders to handle more than a small fraction of cases, should a full trial be required.
True, and points out how broken our system is.
If we got rid of all the "victimless crime" nonsense our courts would actually be able to function. But nobody (in power) wants that.
He is one of many republican operatives that are trying to subvert it for purposes of their own purposes. So far they seem to be moderately successful, but that appearance may be deceiving, and created more by media decisions as to 'newsworthiness' rather than the facts on the ground from what I have seen.
In fact the success of Linux distros is proof enough that rewriting from scratch when needed is more important than "executable" compatibility.
Executable compatibility is a minor convenience when dealing with software. However for all those stuck using binary-blobs instead of software, it can be a huge deal. Linux-based OSs typically have the freedom to break binary-blob compatibility whenever there is a reason because the ecosystem is built from free software. For people on unfree platforms, however, it can be a huge deal.
At any rate you are completely missing the point here - and frankly the author of the article is pretty myopic too, even if he sees the little edge that is hitting him at the moment. But throwing out software that works, in order to force the customer to buy something NEW! SHINY!! (and often not actually working as well) is a very old scam. The first time it hit me, personally, full-front in the face was back when over a period of a couple years whole toolchains that worked perfectly under DOS were replaced with NEW! SHINY!! (and also bug-ridden and vastly inferior) Windows applications.
It's a common phenomena that is viewed as absolutely necessary by those that attempt to make money selling binary-blobs. For those trying to use those blobs, it is a senseless waste, however.
This implies that the author of the post does not understand the distinction between "peak" (meaning by "up to") and average or median.
You might get that impression from the blurb here but if you read TFA it does not, in fact, miss that distinction. What you are missing is the assertion in the article that, although they do advertise 'up to' they make that phrase inconspicuous with tiny letters next to very large numbers, and focus on those numbers. So while the advertisement may be technically correct, it's also deceptive nonetheless, and many consumers who are not knowledgeable in the area are deceived by this.
Any properly formed web-page is already accessible, it's part of the design of HTML. No sympathy for the legions of incompetent "web designers" that flood the web with defective crap, sorry.
The general methodology of UMG, at least, is to delay, obfuscate and obstruct, claiming at times that it can't answer questions from subordinate companies, or forcing artists to deal with individuals who ultimately have no authority to answer or compel someone else to answer the artist's requests. While I suppose it could be colossal incompetence, I posit that the system is purposefully set up to steal money owed to artists.
Simple random incompetence would result in errors in the artists favour as well as the other way around. That does not happen, therefore the hypothesis is ruled out.
Yes, the claim as to what the web was designed and intended for could not be more bass-ackwards. HTML is a semantic markup language, not a presentation language, for a reason. I havent used this safari reader whatsit myself, but from what I have read, it sounds like it is a perfect example of what the web was designed for - it's an example of the client software making independent decisions on presentation and that is exactly what client software is supposed to do.
What's clear is that they have no invention here, they are simply staking out a prospective monopoly so that in case someone actually does build such a device in the future, Amazon will own it. This is what our patent system has become.
To make the analogy to electricity work, we would have to postulate a fantasy world where the power companies run no generators of their own, they just maintain the grid. Their customers pay them for access to that grid, and use it transfer energy around between them as needed. The problem is that the electric-power-line company isnt happy with the reasonable profits they are making, and dont want to upgrade their lines to keep up with demand. So they want to start metering the endpoints and charging for the power as if they ran the generators too, but without actually doing any generation themselves, and without even spending some small part of their profits upgrading the grid, which is currently staggering because they have multiplied their customer base many times without upgrading the infrastructure to support it. Instead of expanding the infrastructure to match demand, they figure they can make more money *fining* the customers that actually attempt to use it, and shaking down the people that DO actually generate electricity for ever more money.
Using a zero for an empty set is perfectly understandable, both may be voiced as 'null.' It is difficult to think of a situation where one usage of it would be confused with another - i.e. where context would not make it clear and obvious which is meant. Also there are other ways to symbolise a null set, {} coming to mind immediately.
Slashed zeros look nothing like a theta. The only thing other alphanumeric character they resemble is the letter Ø used in Norwegian and Danish. The chances for confusion there are vanishingly small, even for those of us in the tiny minority that use that character.
Slashed zeros look nothing at all like thetas, you must have meant the dotted zero. Yet the dot and the crossbar are significantly different, and again, only a tiny minority of us use thetas to begin with, and in context the chance of confusion is miniscule.
On the other hand distinguishing between the capital 'o' and the numeric zero is a much more common case, occurring in every language rather than a tiny fraction of languages, and it is fairly frequently not immediately obvious from context which is intended, so the rational thing is to differentiate those characters clearly, even if it creates ambiguity in a handful of far less common cases.
Yes, that is a proper zero. Now do you have any actual useful information as to how one can get a full set of fonts that actually display zeroes properly?
The biggest problem with 'modern' fonts I can see is that so few have proper differentiation between O and 0. It's an ugly thing, particularly when it's a problem we solved decades ago and should have stayed solved. Yet somehow it doesnt.
Is downloading this package going to help with that problem? MathML is nice but I dont actually need it. 0s that actually look like 0s would make me very happy though.
Statutory damages are per work infringed, not per copy of the infringed work.
You appear to be correct. However there would still be a lot of room to argue that a court should impose the upper, not the lower, end of the damages.
What evidence is there that Apple was aware of the licensing issue? The copyright owner of a GPL work can place it on the Apple store with no problem, so there is no reason for Apple to believe that a GPL work on the Apple store per se violates someone's copyright.
Apple has extensive experience with Free Software and the requirements of all the major license, and it would be almost trivial to demonstrate that just from statements they have published themselves. They are also quite aware that most existing works under those licenses have multiple authors making it impossible to release them under any terms other than the agreed upon free software license. They either knew or should have known that GNU GO is owned by the FSF (a quick google search would have established this, even if there was doubt.) Under neither assumption is it possible for them to distribute a work like this under the terms of the Apple store, which Apple certainly knew to be completely incompatible with the requirements of the GPL.
Like I said, I am not saying that the FSF would or should pursue such a case. Just pointing out what the law is, and how it is applied to others.
That would be $200 for each copy that was downloaded actually. The upper bounds on statutory damages are many orders of magnitude greater, as well. And since Apple has demonstrably aware of the licensing issues for years, and since the App store is so closely controlled by Apple with nothing being posted there before they perform an extensive review, they cannot plausibly rebutt the allegation that they either knew or should have known their obligations. Also while they may not show a profit from that particular program, they run the app store and upload many free apps to iPhone users as part of a clearly commercial, profit-making enterprise. These are loss-leaders to sell their phones, after all.
I'm not saying FSF would or should do it. Just pointing out that copyright law doesnt give anyone the option to simply cease infringing and avoid liability. That is an option that the FSF offers out of generosity, not legal requirement. The RIAA is currently pursuing many thousands of private individuals for non-commercial infringement and they dont get this out.
When a thousand people buy shares in a company - they are paying the companies bills by your logic - and making the CEO rich by raising the share price. But if the company succeeds, they get a massive return on their investment, that's why they do it.
The key difference you overlook is that they invest *willingly*.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not horribly worded, it's quite clear, even without looking at the extrinsic evidence it's plain and clear on its face, and yet those who dont like what it says are incredibly persistent in misinterpreting it.
Take the same structure and apply it to a different subject and no one would misinterpret it. Like this for example:
"A well-read electorate being necessary to the function of an elective democracy, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I know we are on the internet so you are on the honour system here, but can you seriously even keep a straight face while arguing that this language would mean that only registered voters have a right to keep and read books?
Actually, it is completely true. Free Software is a hack to fix a broken copyright system. Free Software supporters may and do have different opinions on whether or not a non-broken copyright system is possible, and if so what it would look like, but that doesnt change the fact that what Stallman did was create a clever and practical adaption to the situation he found himself in. Being practical and making lemonade from the lemons doesnt mean you endorse the system that dumps tons of lemons on your door unasked.
Personally, I rather think the US Constitutional (i.e. pre-Berne Convention) copyright laws represent a fairly reasonable reference point on what a non-broken copyright system would look like. Copyright was not automatic and it was not a one-sided entitlement. If you wanted copyright on a work you had to apply, and lodge copies of the work with the Library of Congress. Then and only then would you be awarded with a legal monopoly on reproduction of that work, for a limited time, after which those copies ensured that your work would, in fact, enter the public domain and be available for the general good.
In those days we didnt have digital computers, and as a result there was no 'software' as such, but it seems fairly clear how a system like that would be able to deal with software copyrights. Just like books, music, etc. copyright would not apply automatically as an entitledment, but represent a bargain with the public domain. You could apply for a copyright by lodging copies of your work (in source code, with any associated build-scripts and so forth) with the LoC, and be rewarded with a legal monopoly on that work for a limited time, with the source-copies in deposit to ensure that after that monopoly expired the work would enter the public domain and be available for the general good.
Now I think that is a pretty reasonable compromise, but failing that I would just as soon see the elimination of copyright entirely. Either change would in some sense weaken Free Software as we know it (by weakening copyright monopolies, on which Free Software licenses rely for enforcement) but each would also lessen the problems that those licenses were developed to counter as well. Free Software could and would adapt to either situation, just as it has adapted to the current situation, with the pragmatic measures which best serve the ultimate goal. Dont confuse the specific adaption to a specific situation with the ultimate goal those adaptions are designed to serve.
Actually that language was subject of much debate and very carefully written. As you've just demonstrated, it's impossible to do the job to the point that someone who really wants to read it differently cant make it work in their own head.
Unfortunately the issue isnt so clear-cut as this. You see, CO2 is a naturally component of the atmosphere - not a pollutant. Unless, of course, the currently fashionable AGW dogma is taken to be true and correct. In that case, and in that case only, it makes some sense to consider carbon emissions as something like pollution.
So what does decreasing pollution mean? To the skeptic it means decreasing things like particulate pollution and noxious gasses (including carbon monoxide but not carbon dioxide, which is a normal and necessary part of the biosystem) in the air, along with all the nasty poisonous stuff that can get in our water, and so on. But to the true-believer, all those traditionally recognised pollutants take a back seat to the new boogey-man, CO2 emissions. So the skeptic and the true-believer can both agree that we should pollute less, without actually agreeing on what that means.
True, and points out how broken our system is.
If we got rid of all the "victimless crime" nonsense our courts would actually be able to function. But nobody (in power) wants that.
He is one of many republican operatives that are trying to subvert it for purposes of their own purposes. So far they seem to be moderately successful, but that appearance may be deceiving, and created more by media decisions as to 'newsworthiness' rather than the facts on the ground from what I have seen.
Executable compatibility is a minor convenience when dealing with software. However for all those stuck using binary-blobs instead of software, it can be a huge deal. Linux-based OSs typically have the freedom to break binary-blob compatibility whenever there is a reason because the ecosystem is built from free software. For people on unfree platforms, however, it can be a huge deal.
At any rate you are completely missing the point here - and frankly the author of the article is pretty myopic too, even if he sees the little edge that is hitting him at the moment. But throwing out software that works, in order to force the customer to buy something NEW! SHINY!! (and often not actually working as well) is a very old scam. The first time it hit me, personally, full-front in the face was back when over a period of a couple years whole toolchains that worked perfectly under DOS were replaced with NEW! SHINY!! (and also bug-ridden and vastly inferior) Windows applications.
It's a common phenomena that is viewed as absolutely necessary by those that attempt to make money selling binary-blobs. For those trying to use those blobs, it is a senseless waste, however.
You might get that impression from the blurb here but if you read TFA it does not, in fact, miss that distinction. What you are missing is the assertion in the article that, although they do advertise 'up to' they make that phrase inconspicuous with tiny letters next to very large numbers, and focus on those numbers. So while the advertisement may be technically correct, it's also deceptive nonetheless, and many consumers who are not knowledgeable in the area are deceived by this.
Wait, what? Cisco routers have a voiceover function now? :D
Braille is not a language, it is a writing system adaptable to many languages.
Spanish speakers in the US can and do learn English.
Blind people, on the other hand, cannot simply learn to see.
Any properly formed web-page is already accessible, it's part of the design of HTML. No sympathy for the legions of incompetent "web designers" that flood the web with defective crap, sorry.
To be fair, many of us were taught that one should always say "most remote" instead, and "remotest" sounds a bit bumpkinesque.
It's still much better than the third alternative, "most remotest," of course.
Simple random incompetence would result in errors in the artists favour as well as the other way around. That does not happen, therefore the hypothesis is ruled out.
Yes, the claim as to what the web was designed and intended for could not be more bass-ackwards. HTML is a semantic markup language, not a presentation language, for a reason. I havent used this safari reader whatsit myself, but from what I have read, it sounds like it is a perfect example of what the web was designed for - it's an example of the client software making independent decisions on presentation and that is exactly what client software is supposed to do.
What's clear is that they have no invention here, they are simply staking out a prospective monopoly so that in case someone actually does build such a device in the future, Amazon will own it. This is what our patent system has become.
To make the analogy to electricity work, we would have to postulate a fantasy world where the power companies run no generators of their own, they just maintain the grid. Their customers pay them for access to that grid, and use it transfer energy around between them as needed. The problem is that the electric-power-line company isnt happy with the reasonable profits they are making, and dont want to upgrade their lines to keep up with demand. So they want to start metering the endpoints and charging for the power as if they ran the generators too, but without actually doing any generation themselves, and without even spending some small part of their profits upgrading the grid, which is currently staggering because they have multiplied their customer base many times without upgrading the infrastructure to support it. Instead of expanding the infrastructure to match demand, they figure they can make more money *fining* the customers that actually attempt to use it, and shaking down the people that DO actually generate electricity for ever more money.
Spot on.
Because the stochastic processor will be able to make mistakes much more quickly of course.
Don't you understand progress?
Using a zero for an empty set is perfectly understandable, both may be voiced as 'null.' It is difficult to think of a situation where one usage of it would be confused with another - i.e. where context would not make it clear and obvious which is meant. Also there are other ways to symbolise a null set, {} coming to mind immediately.
Slashed zeros look nothing like a theta. The only thing other alphanumeric character they resemble is the letter Ø used in Norwegian and Danish. The chances for confusion there are vanishingly small, even for those of us in the tiny minority that use that character.
Slashed zeros look nothing at all like thetas, you must have meant the dotted zero. Yet the dot and the crossbar are significantly different, and again, only a tiny minority of us use thetas to begin with, and in context the chance of confusion is miniscule.
On the other hand distinguishing between the capital 'o' and the numeric zero is a much more common case, occurring in every language rather than a tiny fraction of languages, and it is fairly frequently not immediately obvious from context which is intended, so the rational thing is to differentiate those characters clearly, even if it creates ambiguity in a handful of far less common cases.
Hmmm ok. *takes a look* nope. Just as bad as anything else.
Here, this is an example. The first font is good. The second is acceptable. The third is not. You see?
*Golf clap*
Yes, that is a proper zero. Now do you have any actual useful information as to how one can get a full set of fonts that actually display zeroes properly?
The biggest problem with 'modern' fonts I can see is that so few have proper differentiation between O and 0. It's an ugly thing, particularly when it's a problem we solved decades ago and should have stayed solved. Yet somehow it doesnt.
Is downloading this package going to help with that problem? MathML is nice but I dont actually need it. 0s that actually look like 0s would make me very happy though.
You appear to be correct. However there would still be a lot of room to argue that a court should impose the upper, not the lower, end of the damages.
Apple has extensive experience with Free Software and the requirements of all the major license, and it would be almost trivial to demonstrate that just from statements they have published themselves. They are also quite aware that most existing works under those licenses have multiple authors making it impossible to release them under any terms other than the agreed upon free software license. They either knew or should have known that GNU GO is owned by the FSF (a quick google search would have established this, even if there was doubt.) Under neither assumption is it possible for them to distribute a work like this under the terms of the Apple store, which Apple certainly knew to be completely incompatible with the requirements of the GPL.
Like I said, I am not saying that the FSF would or should pursue such a case. Just pointing out what the law is, and how it is applied to others.
That would be $200 for each copy that was downloaded actually. The upper bounds on statutory damages are many orders of magnitude greater, as well. And since Apple has demonstrably aware of the licensing issues for years, and since the App store is so closely controlled by Apple with nothing being posted there before they perform an extensive review, they cannot plausibly rebutt the allegation that they either knew or should have known their obligations. Also while they may not show a profit from that particular program, they run the app store and upload many free apps to iPhone users as part of a clearly commercial, profit-making enterprise. These are loss-leaders to sell their phones, after all.
I'm not saying FSF would or should do it. Just pointing out that copyright law doesnt give anyone the option to simply cease infringing and avoid liability. That is an option that the FSF offers out of generosity, not legal requirement. The RIAA is currently pursuing many thousands of private individuals for non-commercial infringement and they dont get this out.
The key difference you overlook is that they invest *willingly*.