People are stupid. giving them all the facts in glorious detail only ever creates irrational fear and makes it easier for the government to bring in ridiculous anti terror laws
So, then, why would the government not want the videos to be left up?
Yes? And there is still no wording that can be put in the license to prevent the use of non-linked wrappers in this manner while remaining compatible with GNU philosophies. So, what's your point?
And even if it was spewing a huge amount of low frequency components out, good look getting much of that to couple into a audio system a meter away without only a watt of power and a cell phone's antenna
The AC before me said everything I want to say, except for this: clearly that works, since my old TDMA phone used to be able to make my computer's speakers buzz when they were turned off at the power strip they were plugged in to. You can theorize incorrectly all you want, but the best test of real world physics is the real world.
I didn't ask why *I* can't sue, I asked why they don't get sued, with "by the copyright holders" being implied. Further, you completely misinterpreted the entire scenario: the manufacturer did, in fact, provide the source for all GLP-licensed code; they're in the clear, that was my point.
No, I saw it for what it was. It simply seemed out of place in this discussion, unless you're using it as a means by which to concede and admit you have no counter-argument. That I'd find odd, since you laid out a decent counter to a very similar argument in another thread.
I never said it was, only that it was possible. I'm not going to sit here and extol the virtues of the GPl license, because I'm, in all honestly, not a huge GPL supporter; it's a license, developers are free to use it or not use it; but I keep seeing the same misinformation thrown around and sometimes feel the need to set the record straight.
Funny, i have a Netgear router, and Asus router, and even an Apple Time Capsule, that came with a copy of the GPL license and instructions for obtaining the GPL code that was used in those products. Interestingly, they all also include proprietary code, and provide me no way to obtain a copy; if that's not legally possible without destroying the performance of the application, why are all three devices quite performant, while the manufacturers manage to not get sued over their supposed misappropriation of GPL code?
Actually, you can dynamically link against GPLv2 or older code and be just fine. Likewise, making system calls to a GPL (even GPLv3) application or library (e.g. without linking) removes the requirement that you share any of your code.
Want to use a GPL library in your application? Write a wrapper. Done. It's called abstraction and it's so common I'm amazed any developer hasn't heard of it. Sure, you might have to release the source for that wrapper, but you can most certainly use any GPL code you want in your application, you just have to know how to do it properly.
And before you point to this as an example of how I'm wrong, understand that this is still in reference to linking; there really is nothing stopping you from using an unlinked GPL wrapper in your non-GPL project, provided that you offer the GPL source you are using and, depending on how the wrapper is linked and which version of the GPL is used by the code it links with, possibly the source of the wrapper, as well.
It actually depends how you interface with the GPL code. GPLv2 or older allow for dynamic linking without requiring you to share your code. All versions of the GPL allow for the creation of a wrapper around the library, from which you can expose an interface that does not require linking; at worst, you'd have to share the code for that wrapper (if statically linked, or if the library it wraps is licensed under GPLv3), but at that point it is no longer necessary to share the entire source of your application.
It's called abstraction and it's so common I'm surprised you're not familiar with it.
Well, of course you can't re-license GPL code. Who cares? You didn't write it. The only requirement is that you provide the source for the GPL code you use. Any modifications to GPL code result in more GPL code; interfacing with GPL code does not, unless you want it to, in which case it's a moot point anyway. You are free to write an application using GLIBC, the GNU C Library, licensed under the GPL, and not release the source for your application. You do have to provide the source for GLIBC, as per the terms of the GPL, but nothing requires you to share *your* code. In any version of the GPL.
Uhm... There is nothing in the GPL that says you must share *all* of your code simply because it uses some GPL library somewhere. Only the changes to that GPL code need to be shared. Further, even given that, the changes only need to be shared *if the binaries are distributed*, and then, only need to be shared with whoever you distribute the binaries to. Internal code only deployed on Netflix's servers? No need to share under the GPL. Netflix client code? Only necessary to share the GPL code used, and any modifications to that code; code that Netflix writes to interface with the GPL code they use needn't be shared, but they're free to if they want.
BSD license means Netflix doesn't have to share the BSD code they use or their modifications to that code. That they share anyway is good on them, but the BSD license i more than happy to seem them simply take the code and use it without giving anything back. That's all fine and well, but let's not confuse the issue, here. Just because the BSD license allows you to not share the BSD code you use and the GPL license requires you to share the GPL code you use, don't be so dense as to think that has any implication, whatsoever, for the code you write to interface with any BSD or GPL code; the two can actually co-exist in the same project, if you understand how both licenses work in the first place.
99% of the time, people who don't want to share their code have shitty code in the first place. You're better off without their code.
So, all that spouting off about how BSD is better than GPL because it lets you not share your code if you don't want to... then you close with that. Well... I honestly don't know what to say, I facepalmed so hard I think my brain is hemorrhaging.
No. You have to provide the source *for the GPL software used in your project*. Nowhere in the GPL does it say you have to provide *your* source.
Now, if you make modifications to the GPL code you are using, yes, you have to release those changes. That does not, however, apply to code that you write that *interfaces with* any GPL code you use.
It's simple, really: Did the code start out as GPL? If yes, you must release it; if no, you can do whatever you want, even if it interfaces with GPL code.
You don't understand how TDMA works, do you? Let's say the carrier is 800MHz, 100 slots. That means each TDMA radio on a channel will only transmit for 1/200 of a second, sleep for 99/200 of a second, listen for 1/200 of a second, sleep for 99/200 of a second; essentially it's active for 1/100 of a second each second, leaving the channel open for 99 other users for the remainder of that second. It is that switching on and off that you hear; the radio blasting its transmission 100 times per second, a 100Hz carrier with an 800MHz subcarrier (I know this seems wrong, since a subcarrier is typically lower in frequency than the carrier; it is wrong, but it's the best wording I have to describe how TDMA actually works).
Mind you, I'm pulling the 100 slots thing out of my ass, it's probably much closer to 1000.
As for the pulsing, it's transmitting, waiting for the tower to process and reply, then transmitting again. I'm sure you've noted that the frequency stays roughly the same, while the pulse width changes, then the pulsing stops and you are left with a solid signal, shortly before power adjustment completes and the interference fades.
So they need to shed electronics completely, it has proven, over a reasonable time period, to be a consistent way to lose money.
Only after they began consistently shitting on what was once a respectable brand. The alternative, which I'll admit would be a loss for several years before people caught on and started buying again, would be to stop shitting on their own brand and start producing best-in-class products like they used to. Sony needn't be a brand for everyone; what they sell as high-end now should become their entry-level gear and they should start producing real high-end gear again.
I hate to say it, because I love my country, but catering to the American economy has ruined a once-great Japanese company.
It's case sensitive, I change the case of one or more characters in my WF password every few months and have trouble logging in the next day, until I remember I did so. The actual standard, as listed on their "Change Password" page:
Must be 6-14 characters and contain at least one letter and one number. It cannot contain nine or more numbers.
I'm reading that is he didn't have it when he wrote the first comment, went to the library, checked it out, and now he does have it. Simple logic; I'm guessing he'll resume watching on that medium.
Yeah... staff locked out? Seems fishy, almost as though LEOs took over the domain and brought the site back up. Someone brew some tea, I think there's a pot of honey around here somewhere.
Consider that it has the added overhead of having to handle locking, to prevent the host, or another VM, from stepping on the file while the guest has it, or vise-versa. Essentially, it's a host-only SMB-like implementation with a few added checks so that nobody can write or delete a file that's currently open elsewhere for read. SMB does something similar, but I believe the host can override that and write anyway.
Or, to put it another way, to the guest, the hosts folders aren't local. Likewise for the host, with regard to the guest's folders.
Come to think of it, it's actually quite dropbox-like in operation, and has performance to match as a result. But, hell, if you can do better, go right ahead.
Shared folders are a convenience feature, not a performance feature. Often times, you'll find yourself choosing between the two. Well, those two and security. Can't really ever have all 3.
Slashdot Mirror
People are stupid. giving them all the facts in glorious detail only ever creates irrational fear and makes it easier for the government to bring in ridiculous anti terror laws
So, then, why would the government not want the videos to be left up?
Yes? And there is still no wording that can be put in the license to prevent the use of non-linked wrappers in this manner while remaining compatible with GNU philosophies. So, what's your point?
Understood. That was posted an hour before your reply, thanks for pointing that out again, though.
And even if it was spewing a huge amount of low frequency components out, good look getting much of that to couple into a audio system a meter away without only a watt of power and a cell phone's antenna
The AC before me said everything I want to say, except for this: clearly that works, since my old TDMA phone used to be able to make my computer's speakers buzz when they were turned off at the power strip they were plugged in to. You can theorize incorrectly all you want, but the best test of real world physics is the real world.
I didn't ask why *I* can't sue, I asked why they don't get sued, with "by the copyright holders" being implied. Further, you completely misinterpreted the entire scenario: the manufacturer did, in fact, provide the source for all GLP-licensed code; they're in the clear, that was my point.
No, I saw it for what it was. It simply seemed out of place in this discussion, unless you're using it as a means by which to concede and admit you have no counter-argument. That I'd find odd, since you laid out a decent counter to a very similar argument in another thread.
I never said it was, only that it was possible. I'm not going to sit here and extol the virtues of the GPl license, because I'm, in all honestly, not a huge GPL supporter; it's a license, developers are free to use it or not use it; but I keep seeing the same misinformation thrown around and sometimes feel the need to set the record straight.
Funny, i have a Netgear router, and Asus router, and even an Apple Time Capsule, that came with a copy of the GPL license and instructions for obtaining the GPL code that was used in those products. Interestingly, they all also include proprietary code, and provide me no way to obtain a copy; if that's not legally possible without destroying the performance of the application, why are all three devices quite performant, while the manufacturers manage to not get sued over their supposed misappropriation of GPL code?
And for the record, I understand abstraction just fine.
Control abstraction involves the use of subprograms and related concepts control flows
Actually, you can dynamically link against GPLv2 or older code and be just fine. Likewise, making system calls to a GPL (even GPLv3) application or library (e.g. without linking) removes the requirement that you share any of your code.
Want to use a GPL library in your application? Write a wrapper. Done. It's called abstraction and it's so common I'm amazed any developer hasn't heard of it. Sure, you might have to release the source for that wrapper, but you can most certainly use any GPL code you want in your application, you just have to know how to do it properly.
And before you point to this as an example of how I'm wrong, understand that this is still in reference to linking; there really is nothing stopping you from using an unlinked GPL wrapper in your non-GPL project, provided that you offer the GPL source you are using and, depending on how the wrapper is linked and which version of the GPL is used by the code it links with, possibly the source of the wrapper, as well.
It actually depends how you interface with the GPL code. GPLv2 or older allow for dynamic linking without requiring you to share your code. All versions of the GPL allow for the creation of a wrapper around the library, from which you can expose an interface that does not require linking; at worst, you'd have to share the code for that wrapper (if statically linked, or if the library it wraps is licensed under GPLv3), but at that point it is no longer necessary to share the entire source of your application.
It's called abstraction and it's so common I'm surprised you're not familiar with it.
Well, of course you can't re-license GPL code. Who cares? You didn't write it. The only requirement is that you provide the source for the GPL code you use. Any modifications to GPL code result in more GPL code; interfacing with GPL code does not, unless you want it to, in which case it's a moot point anyway. You are free to write an application using GLIBC, the GNU C Library, licensed under the GPL, and not release the source for your application. You do have to provide the source for GLIBC, as per the terms of the GPL, but nothing requires you to share *your* code. In any version of the GPL.
BSD license means Netflix doesn't have to share the BSD code they use or their modifications to that code. That they share anyway is good on them, but the BSD license i more than happy to seem them simply take the code and use it without giving anything back. That's all fine and well, but let's not confuse the issue, here. Just because the BSD license allows you to not share the BSD code you use and the GPL license requires you to share the GPL code you use, don't be so dense as to think that has any implication, whatsoever, for the code you write to interface with any BSD or GPL code; the two can actually co-exist in the same project, if you understand how both licenses work in the first place.
99% of the time, people who don't want to share their code have shitty code in the first place. You're better off without their code.
So, all that spouting off about how BSD is better than GPL because it lets you not share your code if you don't want to... then you close with that. Well... I honestly don't know what to say, I facepalmed so hard I think my brain is hemorrhaging.
No. You have to provide the source *for the GPL software used in your project*. Nowhere in the GPL does it say you have to provide *your* source.
Now, if you make modifications to the GPL code you are using, yes, you have to release those changes. That does not, however, apply to code that you write that *interfaces with* any GPL code you use.
It's simple, really: Did the code start out as GPL? If yes, you must release it; if no, you can do whatever you want, even if it interfaces with GPL code.
You don't understand how TDMA works, do you? Let's say the carrier is 800MHz, 100 slots. That means each TDMA radio on a channel will only transmit for 1/200 of a second, sleep for 99/200 of a second, listen for 1/200 of a second, sleep for 99/200 of a second; essentially it's active for 1/100 of a second each second, leaving the channel open for 99 other users for the remainder of that second. It is that switching on and off that you hear; the radio blasting its transmission 100 times per second, a 100Hz carrier with an 800MHz subcarrier (I know this seems wrong, since a subcarrier is typically lower in frequency than the carrier; it is wrong, but it's the best wording I have to describe how TDMA actually works).
Mind you, I'm pulling the 100 slots thing out of my ass, it's probably much closer to 1000.
As for the pulsing, it's transmitting, waiting for the tower to process and reply, then transmitting again. I'm sure you've noted that the frequency stays roughly the same, while the pulse width changes, then the pulsing stops and you are left with a solid signal, shortly before power adjustment completes and the interference fades.
So they need to shed electronics completely, it has proven, over a reasonable time period, to be a consistent way to lose money.
Only after they began consistently shitting on what was once a respectable brand. The alternative, which I'll admit would be a loss for several years before people caught on and started buying again, would be to stop shitting on their own brand and start producing best-in-class products like they used to. Sony needn't be a brand for everyone; what they sell as high-end now should become their entry-level gear and they should start producing real high-end gear again.
I hate to say it, because I love my country, but catering to the American economy has ruined a once-great Japanese company.
Fast-forward about 16 years, when OBD-II was federally mandated.
Must be 6-14 characters and contain at least one letter and one number. It cannot contain nine or more numbers.
Why not Zoidberg?
You do realize that Craftsman is a Sears brand, right? That probably has more to do with it than anything else.
In other words it is the SystemD of programming languages compared to Perl 5.
Fuck! Don't say that! Red Hat might adopt it shortly before Ubuntu starts cramming it down our throats!
I'm reading that is he didn't have it when he wrote the first comment, went to the library, checked it out, and now he does have it. Simple logic; I'm guessing he'll resume watching on that medium.
The Phuckin' Borg. Already done.
Yeah... staff locked out? Seems fishy, almost as though LEOs took over the domain and brought the site back up. Someone brew some tea, I think there's a pot of honey around here somewhere.
Consider that it has the added overhead of having to handle locking, to prevent the host, or another VM, from stepping on the file while the guest has it, or vise-versa. Essentially, it's a host-only SMB-like implementation with a few added checks so that nobody can write or delete a file that's currently open elsewhere for read. SMB does something similar, but I believe the host can override that and write anyway.
Or, to put it another way, to the guest, the hosts folders aren't local. Likewise for the host, with regard to the guest's folders.
Come to think of it, it's actually quite dropbox-like in operation, and has performance to match as a result. But, hell, if you can do better, go right ahead.
Shared folders are a convenience feature, not a performance feature. Often times, you'll find yourself choosing between the two. Well, those two and security. Can't really ever have all 3.