Why not just get hibernate to work well and do that?
How much memory do you have in your system? What's the maximum IO throughput of your hard drive? Compare that to the amount of data necessary to transfer to boot a system.
The iPhone is "expected" to be a phone; iPod Touch is "expected" to be a portable media player.
That argument went away the first time Apple advertised the App Store.
You know the deal going in when you buy an iPhone. If you don't like it, get something else.
Part of the complaint from developers of rejected applications is that Apple's rules for inclusion are opaque and seemingly arbitrary. It's disingenuous to argue that they should have known Apple would reject their applications beforehand, and, as such, they took a calculated, fully-informed risk.
Oh, I don't know. I can think of examples, such as one where the subject of a Wikipedia page had to argue with Wikipedia editors about the preferred spelling of her name because she was not a reliable third-party source.
This article, despite its massive breadth and deep emotional investment, did not contain one single citation to a reliable source that was independent of the subject.
Dismissing all primary sources as unreliable a priori would be silly, if it weren't so intellectually bankrupt.
I think it's worth noticing that the title of Section 9...
... is not the complete contents of Section 9.
Suppose the author and sole owner of all copyright rights in a GPL'd program tried to sue you for copyright infringement because you ran and P2P propagated the program.
That would be a ridiculous proposition in the US, given 17 USC 117.
Unfortunately, the case law is against you.
Citation, please.
I just don't see how you can get the rights you need unless you get them from the GPL.
In the US, some of those rights come from the US Copyright Code, which the GPL extends.
Unfortunately, most of the time, it's cheaper to pay up than to fight in court.
Why is that unfortunate? If the infringing party settles out of court, the copyright holder wins -- the company either stops redistributing infringing material or complies with the GPL. How is that anything other than good?
How would patenting (that is, disclosing the mechanism of an invention publicly in return for a government-supported monopoly in producing, distributing, and using that invention) prevent dangerous technology from getting into private hands? If those private hands can't afford it, that's one thing -- but very dangerous and well-funded private hands might not care that they don't have a legal right to produce, distribute, or use a publicly-disclosed invention.
You can make copies for free, but that's not the valuable part, so what does it matter?
It matters to people who understand economics, because the portion of the cost per unit which represents design and implementation work tends toward zero as the number of units produced increases. If each new unit produced requires raw materials and physical goods, those production costs represent a lower bound on the price below which the price cannot sink if the producer of the physical good wants to recoup production costs.
Even people who don't understand economics often know that there is a correlation between decreasing prices and the attractiveness of a product.
Ask yourself this: why does so much more of the cost of the DVD go toward manufacturing costs of the little plastic sleeves and distribution costs of big boxes of plastic sleeves than royalties to writers? If the value of a work is mostly in the creativity of creating the work, why don't prices reflect that in the actual world?
A better analogy might be to compare sending you junk mail via snail mail vs. sending you junk mail via email. Even then there are differences that make any analogy poor.
... such as the fact that recipients have to pay to receive junk email, while senders have to pay to send junk physical mail.
Slashdot Mirror
It's somewhat rude to republish articles without even asking permission.
... you can't take advantage of all of these improvements. Why penalize everyone who doesn't use NIS and autofs?
How much memory do you have in your system? What's the maximum IO throughput of your hard drive? Compare that to the amount of data necessary to transfer to boot a system.
Considering that would violate the OSI guidelines (and contradict the GPL FAQ), probably not.
Only if you want to write and maintain screechingly obvious code.
That's rather a bad example, because the GPL allows you to do just that until you redistribute the resulting binaries.
So much for the incompleteness theorem!
That argument went away the first time Apple advertised the App Store.
Part of the complaint from developers of rejected applications is that Apple's rules for inclusion are opaque and seemingly arbitrary. It's disingenuous to argue that they should have known Apple would reject their applications beforehand, and, as such, they took a calculated, fully-informed risk.
A console isn't an always-on, portable, Wifi-enabled general purpose computing device, and I suspect very few people expect it to be such.
Would you buy a Wii, knowing that you can't play PS3 games on it?
Would you buy a Macbook Pro, knowing that you could (for the sake of argument) only install software from the App Store on it?
Ponder those differences for a while.
If you want to vote for someone who ignores "inconvenient" laws, go ahead -- but I don't want the kind of government you deserve.
Contrariwise, if major party candidates can't find the time or motivation to follow election laws, why do they deserve your vote?
Oh, I don't know. I can think of examples, such as one where the subject of a Wikipedia page had to argue with Wikipedia editors about the preferred spelling of her name because she was not a reliable third-party source.
Dismissing all primary sources as unreliable a priori would be silly, if it weren't so intellectually bankrupt.
... is not the complete contents of Section 9.
That would be a ridiculous proposition in the US, given 17 USC 117.
Citation, please.
In the US, some of those rights come from the US Copyright Code, which the GPL extends.
See Section 9 of the GPL v3:
Why is that unfortunate? If the infringing party settles out of court, the copyright holder wins -- the company either stops redistributing infringing material or complies with the GPL. How is that anything other than good?
How would patenting (that is, disclosing the mechanism of an invention publicly in return for a government-supported monopoly in producing, distributing, and using that invention) prevent dangerous technology from getting into private hands? If those private hands can't afford it, that's one thing -- but very dangerous and well-funded private hands might not care that they don't have a legal right to produce, distribute, or use a publicly-disclosed invention.
Beggging the Question.
It matters to people who understand economics, because the portion of the cost per unit which represents design and implementation work tends toward zero as the number of units produced increases. If each new unit produced requires raw materials and physical goods, those production costs represent a lower bound on the price below which the price cannot sink if the producer of the physical good wants to recoup production costs.
Even people who don't understand economics often know that there is a correlation between decreasing prices and the attractiveness of a product.
Ask yourself this: why does so much more of the cost of the DVD go toward manufacturing costs of the little plastic sleeves and distribution costs of big boxes of plastic sleeves than royalties to writers? If the value of a work is mostly in the creativity of creating the work, why don't prices reflect that in the actual world?
... except for the fact that you can make perfect copies without depriving anyone of anything physical.
The 2006 elections were over almost two years ago.
... such as the fact that recipients have to pay to receive junk email, while senders have to pay to send junk physical mail.
Fraud, wire fraud, and trespass to chattel are illegal in the US. Are you seriously claiming that laws against all three violate the first amendment?
That reminds me; I'd like to order some pet food over the Internet.
This is why Python needs tail recursion.