Actually, I think it's a whole non-issue at the moment, until the waters are less muddy, and only time will tell that. For interoperability, Novell SLES is pretty pleasant. I work for the NHS in the UK, and moving hospitals away from being almost pure Windows is not an easy thing. SLES fills a lot of niches that Windows currently fills (file server, database platform et.), for a fraction of the cost. One of the things I'm working on is to make greater use of SLES. And if you point to Red Hat, and say "Well, they do the same product, except they're more idealistic", Red Hat don't have a current deal with the NHS (where Novell do, and provide fantastic pricing). Couple that with eDirectory, Identity Manager etc. and you've got a lovely heterogenous infrastructure to play with. I like Novell. Yes, they took money from the Beast. However, the Beast is currently being watched very carefully, and has a lot of other (probably unexpected) battles to fight. I tend to run Ubuntu and Debian for home use (and quick build servers/firewalls). But in business, you need to bring a lot of other factors in. And for something the size of the NHS, alas, you can't always choose the idealistic route. Pragmatism and practicality are large factors. As long as SLES keeps on being a great product, performing well, and being a really low cost product (for a commercially supported enterprise grade OS), I'll keep on using it.
Just a sampler which gives an overview of a few viewpoints. Much of what I've read and looked into says that the speed cameras aren't that great an idea, and generate more revenue than safety. Which is why here in the UK, they've stopped giving automatic points on the license if you attend a 'road safety seminar'. Though the fine is still levied. Say something?
No, they're standing up and saying that arbitrary limits set up in arbitrary places and now enforced by automated cameras that fine you and put points on your license for performing what may be a perfectly safe action are grossly unfair.
Take two cases for example:
1) Driving at 40 miles an hour down an empty, open street at 4:30am, with a 30 speed limit.
2) Driving the wrong way down a road at 15 miles an hour in broad daylight in a crowded street.
Which of the above cases do you think should be picked up as being most dangerous? Guess which one isn't?
Most people aren't against traffic monitoring per se. What they're up in arms about is the purely money grabbing enforcement of arbitrary limits. Mathematical analysis of the cameras has shown that at BEST, they make no difference. At worst, they increase the incidence of accidents. Now, the technology is around in image processing to detect honest to goodness dangerous driving. Just the cameras would be a little more expensive. So guess what they don't do? They don't put the cameras in that would actually enforce civility and good driving. They just put in the ones that get the easy buck, and do nothing at all to prevent dangerous driving. Dangerous driving should be what they concentrate on, then EVERYONE would be happy (apart from the dangerous drivers of course who wouldn't be able to force people off the road, ignore traffic lanes, lights, crossings, cut people up, swerve across roads, and ride the wrong way up a street. And yes, all the above are pretty common on the route I take into work every day.
Because the file existed before, and after the patch, and because (as the GP poster mentioned) their clean test machine would continue to boot cleanly after the install. I can understand this one slipping through the cracks in coding (having done coding for years, and knowing that something like a game doesn't get full formal spec treatment). It's still a big ouch, and a real hit on the reputation for the company, but it's one of those honest to god accidents of oversight.
If it happened to me, I'd be mightily peeved, and rightly so. As the company will likely be frantically running round trying to sort it out, and being both scared and embarrassed.. And again, rightly so.
The measure of the company now is in how well they manage the screwup, and how well they look after the people affected. Accidents can happen to anyone. Not everyone can manage to do something good about a disaster.
Well, I come from the UK where we used to have completely funded University education by Grants. Now we have loans, which I consider to be a huge step backwards.
The idea of funding (in the Federal level in the US) is to ensure that if someone proves themself to be extraordinarily bright, the fact that they may not have enough money to attend university should not be a barrier to them receiving a damn good education. The principle behind this is that this bright person may well come up with the solution to a problem that cures cancer, solves the energy problems of the world or some other wonderful thing. They may also create the next plague, be an evil mastermind or some other thing. But the point is that while they're pursuing their dream, they're quite probably going to be in a highly paid job doing some extremely high brow work. And while they're working, they're getting taxed. And over time this elevated level of tax paid more than pays back the money they were allocated by having their tuition fees paid for.. And all the while potentially helping improve the quality of life for all.
So, I've no problems with grants, or anything else like that which funds education. That's a good use of money that stands an elevated chance of making the world a better place.
Now, to turn round and say "If you don't kow tow to the special interests of a business entity, we'll remove your accreditation to effectively teach people and educate them", what you're essentially saying is that you don't care about the future potential money that may be generated by all the people being taught in the future, especially the very bright, but poorer ones who NEED the funding. You'd rather hamstring your technological base of the future, and future competitiveness in the world market to satiate the demands of a corporate entity that produces NO technology, merely entertainment (which is fast becoming of questionably value world wide). This is a very good strategy, long term, to ensure you become a second class country with an inferior technology base. Money in the pockets of a few non-entities at the sacrifice of the progress of all. Rank blackmail and extortion.
Because GDFL allows copying only if you allow the work to be freely copyable, and release the work it is included in under the GDFL. If this is the case, then the whole book that this text is in becomes freely copyable, as long as it's source is attributed. If the publisher chooses not to conform to this license, then it becomes in breach of copyright (as the works on Wikipedia are covered by copyright law, they're simply globally available on a license backed up by copyright law).
When they turn round and say "Well, you've not been doing this job for 20 years, so you're obviously not any good at it, as you have no experience". The amusing thing is that experience doesn't necessarily equate to aptitude. You have to get into the game somewhere, and in a few years, Google WILL have the experience. You don't stop paying attention to good ideas just because they don't come from someone with that 20 year history. A good idea is a good idea. Besides, it's just the opinion of one company; what carries the weight is what the other product producers in the consortium think of it, and whether they consider it viable to carry the idea through to product.
Well, they can't afford for whole countries to escape the Windows hegemony.. It makes "business sense" for Microsoft to 'gift' or 'donate' whole slews of Windows licenses to a government to keep them in the fold. So then everyone else will need Microsoft to interoperate with them. Their whole argument of "people should be free to choose the best software for the task" is a little tongue in cheek. After all, the initial procurement was probably far more lengthy and in depth than the quick 'jerk' reaction to taking MS on board afterwards. They did probably buy what was best for their requirements in the first place. It would be interesting to see what laws on software dumping are present in Nigeria (not many, I'd estimate), so yes, they're obeying Nigerian law. Not necessarily the law as applies to the country that any given reader may be in. So, they can happily state that while engaging in business practices that are illegal in countries other than the one they are making that transaction.
This kind of U turn (and added expenditure, if obeying the normal laws of the Western World) is not really possible without "greasing the wheels"..
Except they've already paid for the Mandriva to come pre-loaded. So Mandriva already put in the winning bid. How can Microsoft undercut something that's already been paid for, apart from giving money per copy of Windows installed? And when you end up giving money to a government to use something, yes, people do tend to use the word 'bribery' a little.
I get the sneaky suspicion that he wouldn't have been raided, and hauled up if he hadn't been selling the pirated games.
Personally, I pay for all the games and stuff I have, but I'm indifferent to people using copies. Where I do draw the line is commercial infringement. I actively dislike the making of money from an infringement setup. For that, I think 90 days is fair. It's not throwing the book at him and making him out to be the root of all evil, and up there with the terrorists.. It's saying "You've been very naughty. Really, don't do it again, or else"..
He really did wrong, and got caught. What were the cops to do, turn round and say "Never mind. Be a good boy. Off you go now!".
Does it let you remove attribution to people from the contributors list (if any)? Sounds like you know more of the details of the licenses than I do, but it just reeks of.. Bad form.. The BSD license explicitly states that "You're not allowed to do this".. And it's a small thing.. So why upset the apple cart when things can just run nicely? I may be "old school", but I really do prefer the spirit of agreements rather than chasing down the technicalities to get my own way contrary to someone else's wishes.. As the really old school would say "That's just not cricket, old boy.."
BSD allows you to modify the code freely. It doesn't allow you to change the license. And the BSD license states you MUST include the BSD attribution. When you combine multiple licenses, you HAVE to abide by all the licenses, so it becomes the most restrictive of the combination. Edits to the code of the files are just fine. The license is NOT the code. That's what Theo is miffed about. And I can understand it entirely. I think the GPL crowd would be miffed if, due to the dual licensing, the BSD crowd took it as ok to remove GPL attribution and put it somewhere as purely BSD code. Really, this is a screw up. And it'd be nice if people raised hands and said "oops, we screwed up, sorry.. Promise it won't happen again", and really put things in place to ensure it doesn't happen again.
GPL, BSD.. Both want to play fair, and both do great things. Issues like this fracture that goodwill and cameraderie. Which in turn only plays into the hands of the big closed source companies.
Interesting; I work in a Hospital too.. And we have a goodly many small firewalls in departments that are cheap PCs with dual network cards and Ubuntu on them. They love it. Got a couple of DB servers (MySQL/PostgreSQL) on Ubuntu.. Our Disaster Recovery systems monitors are all on Ubuntu. Fair enough, we use SLES for higher profile stuff, like the Oracle servers/Identity Manager, but Ubuntu works nicely and easily.
Saves a fortune in licensing fees, and lets the money go back where it's really needed, patient care. At least in the NHS in England, there's no major agreement for server operating systems with MS. So, SLES and Oracle (which there's a great agreement on) save us boat loads of cash. Ubuntu just adds happiness to the mix.
That's what you use DPVs for (though Widipedia has a very military looking one; This is the one I use). Being as they're battery powered, you're not too worried about drag, and you've also got your fins on at the time (for manoeuverability; you steer half with DPV direction, the rest with fins as rudders).
Removing and replacing fins is a bit of a pain in the derriere at the best of times, but having to stow them on you somewhere (loads of drag, cutting down the benefits of the new fins), then changing out of the old, on with the new (especially with thick wet suit/dry suit required in cold water diving, where I do most of mine) is enough to make me shudder.
Still, they do seem great for the open water.. As the great saying goes 'Horses for Courses'.. As with any dive, you pick the gear you'll need for the dive, and go in with that.. Add too much and you end up feeling like a Christmas Tree.. Kit dangling off all over the place (and you try finding it when you need it!).
I'm a diver, and I'd shell out $500 for a pair.. And yep, my diving kit exceeds 2k. Double that and you start to be in the right area. Fins are one of the areas that I'd love to be able to get more power from without increasing my fatigue. If someone comes up with a way of doubling my speed, while keeping my air consumption constant, I'd leap at it. While you're under water, everything you carry keeps you alive, and fins, often forgotten, are critical in keeping you effective in a current. There's been the odd time or two, when I've been caught in an unexpected stream, and being forced to cling to rocks to stop myself being pushed either off course (bad) or down (worse). At times like that, when being faced with a downdraught to 70m or more, you'd gladly pay all you had, and more, just to give yourself the best chance of surviving the dive. Sadly, you don't get the option when the most need it; you have to pay in advance, and hope you never need it..
On the fun side, it'll double your range if you get twice the speed, with no increased air consumption. That means more to see with each dive. Not sure you can do a wreck penetration with one of those on you though. Too much opportunity for it to snarl, and kick up the silt. And one thing you don't want is to be stuck inside a wreck, and have the world go dark (yes, you can get zero visibility quite easily from a badly executed fin kick or two in silty conditions).
Air gas embolism, pneumothorax, mediastinal emphysemia and subcutaneous emphysemia are all in there in the running. All pretty much involve minor ruptures of the lung at the very least; air can be trapped inside the lung alveoli, which rupture, releasing air into the bloodstream/chest cavity.
The only issue I've run into is that there isn't a 64 bit version of Flash, so I'm forced to use the 32 bit version of IE until Adobe release an update. This isn't really a Vista issue.
In much the same way that it's not a Linux issue that there's no native Photoshop, Outlook and various other apps which Windows users frequently raise as the problem preventing them migrating. The Vista updates will seep through in time, no doubt. The 'Microsoft Tax' of pre-installed Vista will see the install base grow with no real effort on Microsoft's part. When the market moves on to deprecate XP, I guess I'll move onto Vista.. But I'm in no hurry. Linux does most of what I want (Windows is for games, Linux for everything else). And although Windows also does most of what I want, it lets me make the personal choice that I'd rather use something with no DRM, that I'm ethically happier with.
That's the model for Terrestrial Broadcast, where you have a limited geographical catchment. Internet Radio.. Well, I'm sure that there's a few million pretty eclectically oriented people out there that'll match your music tastes exactly.. Maybe just a few tens of thousands in the world.. But that's enough to keep a small radio station going.
Who knows, that could slowly grow to be the next "Popular Music" in time. Every popular 'Formula' expires in time. Then it's up for grabs who engineers the next one.
Given enough groups of 'eclectic', small stations that serve a few tens of thousands, there's a good chance that one of those will hit the next 'magic formula' that could well knock the current record labels on their behinds. Stuck on the outside of the next "Rock and Roll" as the younger business model steam rollers them into history. And being as they're broadcasting on the net.. They can reach the world, not just a hundred miles or so from their broadcasting station.
Personally, I'm all for a small station that fits my needs.. I no longer listen to the 'big boys' as they just don't cater to what I like.. It'd be refreshing to hear new, good stuff rather than listen to my existing collection over and over again..
There are differences of opinion, but there are also posts that are inflammatory. Now, given that someone was dragged to court, despite the evidence saying that said person was innocent of all wrongdoing, and the case was pushed, in the hope that they'd run out of money and fold.. Given also that rather than face a judgement against them that would set a precedent that they were dead in the wrong, the RIAA just drop the case, and walk away with the premise that there's no comeback at all.
The GP poster just says effectively "She got away lightly", despite having to fork out legal fees.
That is a highly inflammatory remark to make. The defendant did NOT get away lightly. She was harassed, threatened, and abused. By all measures, it is quite possible that the RIAA will be found guilty of extortion in this case (not all, by any means, but a strong possibility in this, as discovery has already uncovered a lot of illegal processes performed by the RIAA and their agents).
Modding the GP poster as a 'Troll' in this case would probably be better served by a 'Flamebait'. Whether by lack of understanding of the issues, or a deliberately crafted attempt, it serves the purpose of largely being both wrong in the detail (though there are mitigating parts, such as mentioning that not all cases are wrongly brought; the GP just doesn't follow through the logical progression and admit that this case WAS wrongly brought and prosecuted, thus bringing it into the realms of extortion. They merely say that some cases were correctly brought, thus all cases are warranted, which is NOT correct) and in the conclusion.
Now, modding up says that a post is insightful, informative, or similar. Given that the post uses spurious logic (taking a false premise, and building a logical chain of sorts on top of a false premise; in this case that given one case is valid, all cases are therefore valid) AND presents the resulting conclusion in a manner that can be deemed inflammatory (an innocent person harassed and hauled through the courts with the aim of wrongfully obtaining money is deemed to have got off lightly when charges are dropped), modding the post up as insightful OR informative is just plain wrong; it is plainly neither.
I'm all for debate; There are posts on here that I vehemently disagree with, but as they're presented with a rationale that fits facts, I concede they have a point, and have to re-think my own opinion. Sometimes the facts support many opinions. And that's ok.
However, when the opinion does not fit the facts, it is wrong (and thus can't be either informative, or insightful). Presenting the falsehood in an offhanded, condescending fashion is, like it or not, either flamebait, or plain trolling (attempting to derail incisive discussion by presenting falsehood likely to produce a vehemently emotional response rather than an educated an well thought out one).
Vista is a big cost. They'll sell at what they assume to be the target market. Why target something at where your market will be in a year's time, when you need to sell now? Yes, games companies releasing games in DX10 only will finally be what drives the market to Vista over XP (same as they did with Win95 to 98). But you can't afford to produce a game these days and just hope that people will upgrade. When sufficient numbers have trickled through, then the market gets big enough to make the jump (i.e. you can pretty much say you'll get your money back in sales). Everyone that hasn't got DX10 then will upgrade or not as they choose for the extra cost. It's a trickle through that will be watched hawkishly.
Yes, Blizzard claim ownership of all items. Which is fine, considering that you can't ever take them out of the environs of the Blizzard servers. Selling things on from one player to another thus can never be theft, as Blizzard are never deprived of the item.
What the spammers are guilty of is unauthorized access of a computer system. I know the UK has hefty penalties for this, and I believe the US does as well. By breaking the terms and conditions of the game, they are not allowed access (by person, not account) to the game. Continuing to come back and break the terms of access to the system once more then becomes a criminal offense. This is the same area of law that applies to crackers..
Note: The article referred to a seller in Europe. This does not necessarily mean the UK, just a reseller who may travel through the UK now and then, but is based in the EU (which covers a lot of ground). There are a goodly many English Teachers who teach American English, thus anyone who has learned to speak/write English after learning in that environment will refer to a legal representative as an Attorney, rather than a Solicitor.
So, no, doesn't smell like Bullshit here in Bath/Bristol.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think it's a whole non-issue at the moment, until the waters are less muddy, and only time will tell that.
For interoperability, Novell SLES is pretty pleasant. I work for the NHS in the UK, and moving hospitals away from being almost pure Windows is not an easy thing. SLES fills a lot of niches that Windows currently fills (file server, database platform et.), for a fraction of the cost. One of the things I'm working on is to make greater use of SLES. And if you point to Red Hat, and say "Well, they do the same product, except they're more idealistic", Red Hat don't have a current deal with the NHS (where Novell do, and provide fantastic pricing).
Couple that with eDirectory, Identity Manager etc. and you've got a lovely heterogenous infrastructure to play with.
I like Novell. Yes, they took money from the Beast. However, the Beast is currently being watched very carefully, and has a lot of other (probably unexpected) battles to fight.
I tend to run Ubuntu and Debian for home use (and quick build servers/firewalls). But in business, you need to bring a lot of other factors in. And for something the size of the NHS, alas, you can't always choose the idealistic route. Pragmatism and practicality are large factors.
As long as SLES keeps on being a great product, performing well, and being a really low cost product (for a commercially supported enterprise grade OS), I'll keep on using it.
Oh, and I'm actually interested in how advocating "dangerous driving cams" instead of plain speed cameras is considered a Troll these days..
Just a sampler which gives an overview of a few viewpoints. Much of what I've read and looked into says that the speed cameras aren't that great an idea, and generate more revenue than safety. Which is why here in the UK, they've stopped giving automatic points on the license if you attend a 'road safety seminar'. Though the fine is still levied. Say something?
No, they're standing up and saying that arbitrary limits set up in arbitrary places and now enforced by automated cameras that fine you and put points on your license for performing what may be a perfectly safe action are grossly unfair.
Take two cases for example:
1) Driving at 40 miles an hour down an empty, open street at 4:30am, with a 30 speed limit.
2) Driving the wrong way down a road at 15 miles an hour in broad daylight in a crowded street.
Which of the above cases do you think should be picked up as being most dangerous?
Guess which one isn't?
Most people aren't against traffic monitoring per se. What they're up in arms about is the purely money grabbing enforcement of arbitrary limits. Mathematical analysis of the cameras has shown that at BEST, they make no difference. At worst, they increase the incidence of accidents.
Now, the technology is around in image processing to detect honest to goodness dangerous driving. Just the cameras would be a little more expensive. So guess what they don't do?
They don't put the cameras in that would actually enforce civility and good driving. They just put in the ones that get the easy buck, and do nothing at all to prevent dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving should be what they concentrate on, then EVERYONE would be happy (apart from the dangerous drivers of course who wouldn't be able to force people off the road, ignore traffic lanes, lights, crossings, cut people up, swerve across roads, and ride the wrong way up a street. And yes, all the above are pretty common on the route I take into work every day.
Because the file existed before, and after the patch, and because (as the GP poster mentioned) their clean test machine would continue to boot cleanly after the install.
I can understand this one slipping through the cracks in coding (having done coding for years, and knowing that something like a game doesn't get full formal spec treatment). It's still a big ouch, and a real hit on the reputation for the company, but it's one of those honest to god accidents of oversight.
If it happened to me, I'd be mightily peeved, and rightly so. As the company will likely be frantically running round trying to sort it out, and being both scared and embarrassed.. And again, rightly so.
The measure of the company now is in how well they manage the screwup, and how well they look after the people affected. Accidents can happen to anyone. Not everyone can manage to do something good about a disaster.
Well, I come from the UK where we used to have completely funded University education by Grants.
Now we have loans, which I consider to be a huge step backwards.
The idea of funding (in the Federal level in the US) is to ensure that if someone proves themself to be extraordinarily bright, the fact that they may not have enough money to attend university should not be a barrier to them receiving a damn good education. The principle behind this is that this bright person may well come up with the solution to a problem that cures cancer, solves the energy problems of the world or some other wonderful thing.
They may also create the next plague, be an evil mastermind or some other thing. But the point is that while they're pursuing their dream, they're quite probably going to be in a highly paid job doing some extremely high brow work. And while they're working, they're getting taxed. And over time this elevated level of tax paid more than pays back the money they were allocated by having their tuition fees paid for.. And all the while potentially helping improve the quality of life for all.
So, I've no problems with grants, or anything else like that which funds education. That's a good use of money that stands an elevated chance of making the world a better place.
Now, to turn round and say "If you don't kow tow to the special interests of a business entity, we'll remove your accreditation to effectively teach people and educate them", what you're essentially saying is that you don't care about the future potential money that may be generated by all the people being taught in the future, especially the very bright, but poorer ones who NEED the funding.
You'd rather hamstring your technological base of the future, and future competitiveness in the world market to satiate the demands of a corporate entity that produces NO technology, merely entertainment (which is fast becoming of questionably value world wide).
This is a very good strategy, long term, to ensure you become a second class country with an inferior technology base. Money in the pockets of a few non-entities at the sacrifice of the progress of all.
Rank blackmail and extortion.
Because GDFL allows copying only if you allow the work to be freely copyable, and release the work it is included in under the GDFL.
If this is the case, then the whole book that this text is in becomes freely copyable, as long as it's source is attributed. If the publisher chooses not to conform to this license, then it becomes in breach of copyright (as the works on Wikipedia are covered by copyright law, they're simply globally available on a license backed up by copyright law).
When they turn round and say "Well, you've not been doing this job for 20 years, so you're obviously not any good at it, as you have no experience".
The amusing thing is that experience doesn't necessarily equate to aptitude. You have to get into the game somewhere, and in a few years, Google WILL have the experience. You don't stop paying attention to good ideas just because they don't come from someone with that 20 year history. A good idea is a good idea.
Besides, it's just the opinion of one company; what carries the weight is what the other product producers in the consortium think of it, and whether they consider it viable to carry the idea through to product.
Well, they can't afford for whole countries to escape the Windows hegemony.. It makes "business sense" for Microsoft to 'gift' or 'donate' whole slews of Windows licenses to a government to keep them in the fold. So then everyone else will need Microsoft to interoperate with them.
Their whole argument of "people should be free to choose the best software for the task" is a little tongue in cheek. After all, the initial procurement was probably far more lengthy and in depth than the quick 'jerk' reaction to taking MS on board afterwards. They did probably buy what was best for their requirements in the first place.
It would be interesting to see what laws on software dumping are present in Nigeria (not many, I'd estimate), so yes, they're obeying Nigerian law. Not necessarily the law as applies to the country that any given reader may be in.
So, they can happily state that while engaging in business practices that are illegal in countries other than the one they are making that transaction.
This kind of U turn (and added expenditure, if obeying the normal laws of the Western World) is not really possible without "greasing the wheels"..
Smoke and mirrors once again, Microsoft.
Except they've already paid for the Mandriva to come pre-loaded. So Mandriva already put in the winning bid.
How can Microsoft undercut something that's already been paid for, apart from giving money per copy of Windows installed?
And when you end up giving money to a government to use something, yes, people do tend to use the word 'bribery' a little.
I get the sneaky suspicion that he wouldn't have been raided, and hauled up if he hadn't been selling the pirated games.
Personally, I pay for all the games and stuff I have, but I'm indifferent to people using copies. Where I do draw the line is commercial infringement. I actively dislike the making of money from an infringement setup. For that, I think 90 days is fair. It's not throwing the book at him and making him out to be the root of all evil, and up there with the terrorists.. It's saying "You've been very naughty. Really, don't do it again, or else"..
He really did wrong, and got caught. What were the cops to do, turn round and say "Never mind. Be a good boy. Off you go now!".
One of the things also mentioned was that the EU could not/would not do the same against American citizens, perhaps out of fear?
The EU can't and won't do that, as they'd be breaking the law.Does it let you remove attribution to people from the contributors list (if any)?
Sounds like you know more of the details of the licenses than I do, but it just reeks of.. Bad form..
The BSD license explicitly states that "You're not allowed to do this".. And it's a small thing.. So why upset the apple cart when things can just run nicely?
I may be "old school", but I really do prefer the spirit of agreements rather than chasing down the technicalities to get my own way contrary to someone else's wishes..
As the really old school would say "That's just not cricket, old boy.."
BSD allows you to modify the code freely. It doesn't allow you to change the license. And the BSD license states you MUST include the BSD attribution.
When you combine multiple licenses, you HAVE to abide by all the licenses, so it becomes the most restrictive of the combination.
Edits to the code of the files are just fine. The license is NOT the code.
That's what Theo is miffed about. And I can understand it entirely. I think the GPL crowd would be miffed if, due to the dual licensing, the BSD crowd took it as ok to remove GPL attribution and put it somewhere as purely BSD code.
Really, this is a screw up. And it'd be nice if people raised hands and said "oops, we screwed up, sorry.. Promise it won't happen again", and really put things in place to ensure it doesn't happen again.
GPL, BSD.. Both want to play fair, and both do great things. Issues like this fracture that goodwill and cameraderie. Which in turn only plays into the hands of the big closed source companies.
Interesting; I work in a Hospital too.. And we have a goodly many small firewalls in departments that are cheap PCs with dual network cards and Ubuntu on them.
They love it. Got a couple of DB servers (MySQL/PostgreSQL) on Ubuntu.. Our Disaster Recovery systems monitors are all on Ubuntu.
Fair enough, we use SLES for higher profile stuff, like the Oracle servers/Identity Manager, but Ubuntu works nicely and easily.
Saves a fortune in licensing fees, and lets the money go back where it's really needed, patient care.
At least in the NHS in England, there's no major agreement for server operating systems with MS. So, SLES and Oracle (which there's a great agreement on) save us boat loads of cash. Ubuntu just adds happiness to the mix.
That's what you use DPVs for (though Widipedia has a very military looking one; This is the one I use). Being as they're battery powered, you're not too worried about drag, and you've also got your fins on at the time (for manoeuverability; you steer half with DPV direction, the rest with fins as rudders). Removing and replacing fins is a bit of a pain in the derriere at the best of times, but having to stow them on you somewhere (loads of drag, cutting down the benefits of the new fins), then changing out of the old, on with the new (especially with thick wet suit/dry suit required in cold water diving, where I do most of mine) is enough to make me shudder.
Still, they do seem great for the open water.. As the great saying goes 'Horses for Courses'.. As with any dive, you pick the gear you'll need for the dive, and go in with that.. Add too much and you end up feeling like a Christmas Tree.. Kit dangling off all over the place (and you try finding it when you need it!).
I'm a diver, and I'd shell out $500 for a pair.. And yep, my diving kit exceeds 2k. Double that and you start to be in the right area.
Fins are one of the areas that I'd love to be able to get more power from without increasing my fatigue. If someone comes up with a way of doubling my speed, while keeping my air consumption constant, I'd leap at it.
While you're under water, everything you carry keeps you alive, and fins, often forgotten, are critical in keeping you effective in a current. There's been the odd time or two, when I've been caught in an unexpected stream, and being forced to cling to rocks to stop myself being pushed either off course (bad) or down (worse). At times like that, when being faced with a downdraught to 70m or more, you'd gladly pay all you had, and more, just to give yourself the best chance of surviving the dive. Sadly, you don't get the option when the most need it; you have to pay in advance, and hope you never need it..
On the fun side, it'll double your range if you get twice the speed, with no increased air consumption. That means more to see with each dive. Not sure you can do a wreck penetration with one of those on you though. Too much opportunity for it to snarl, and kick up the silt. And one thing you don't want is to be stuck inside a wreck, and have the world go dark (yes, you can get zero visibility quite easily from a badly executed fin kick or two in silty conditions).
Air gas embolism, pneumothorax, mediastinal emphysemia and subcutaneous emphysemia are all in there in the running.
All pretty much involve minor ruptures of the lung at the very least; air can be trapped inside the lung alveoli, which rupture, releasing air into the bloodstream/chest cavity.
The only issue I've run into is that there isn't a 64 bit version of Flash, so I'm forced to use the 32 bit version of IE until Adobe release an update. This isn't really a Vista issue.
In much the same way that it's not a Linux issue that there's no native Photoshop, Outlook and various other apps which Windows users frequently raise as the problem preventing them migrating. The Vista updates will seep through in time, no doubt. The 'Microsoft Tax' of pre-installed Vista will see the install base grow with no real effort on Microsoft's part. When the market moves on to deprecate XP, I guess I'll move onto Vista.. But I'm in no hurry. Linux does most of what I want (Windows is for games, Linux for everything else). And although Windows also does most of what I want, it lets me make the personal choice that I'd rather use something with no DRM, that I'm ethically happier with.
That's the model for Terrestrial Broadcast, where you have a limited geographical catchment.
Internet Radio.. Well, I'm sure that there's a few million pretty eclectically oriented people out there that'll match your music tastes exactly.. Maybe just a few tens of thousands in the world.. But that's enough to keep a small radio station going.
Who knows, that could slowly grow to be the next "Popular Music" in time. Every popular 'Formula' expires in time. Then it's up for grabs who engineers the next one.
Given enough groups of 'eclectic', small stations that serve a few tens of thousands, there's a good chance that one of those will hit the next 'magic formula' that could well knock the current record labels on their behinds. Stuck on the outside of the next "Rock and Roll" as the younger business model steam rollers them into history.
And being as they're broadcasting on the net.. They can reach the world, not just a hundred miles or so from their broadcasting station.
Personally, I'm all for a small station that fits my needs.. I no longer listen to the 'big boys' as they just don't cater to what I like.. It'd be refreshing to hear new, good stuff rather than listen to my existing collection over and over again..
There are differences of opinion, but there are also posts that are inflammatory.
Now, given that someone was dragged to court, despite the evidence saying that said person was innocent of all wrongdoing, and the case was pushed, in the hope that they'd run out of money and fold..
Given also that rather than face a judgement against them that would set a precedent that they were dead in the wrong, the RIAA just drop the case, and walk away with the premise that there's no comeback at all.
The GP poster just says effectively "She got away lightly", despite having to fork out legal fees.
That is a highly inflammatory remark to make. The defendant did NOT get away lightly. She was harassed, threatened, and abused. By all measures, it is quite possible that the RIAA will be found guilty of extortion in this case (not all, by any means, but a strong possibility in this, as discovery has already uncovered a lot of illegal processes performed by the RIAA and their agents).
Modding the GP poster as a 'Troll' in this case would probably be better served by a 'Flamebait'. Whether by lack of understanding of the issues, or a deliberately crafted attempt, it serves the purpose of largely being both wrong in the detail (though there are mitigating parts, such as mentioning that not all cases are wrongly brought; the GP just doesn't follow through the logical progression and admit that this case WAS wrongly brought and prosecuted, thus bringing it into the realms of extortion. They merely say that some cases were correctly brought, thus all cases are warranted, which is NOT correct) and in the conclusion.
Now, modding up says that a post is insightful, informative, or similar. Given that the post uses spurious logic (taking a false premise, and building a logical chain of sorts on top of a false premise; in this case that given one case is valid, all cases are therefore valid) AND presents the resulting conclusion in a manner that can be deemed inflammatory (an innocent person harassed and hauled through the courts with the aim of wrongfully obtaining money is deemed to have got off lightly when charges are dropped), modding the post up as insightful OR informative is just plain wrong; it is plainly neither.
I'm all for debate; There are posts on here that I vehemently disagree with, but as they're presented with a rationale that fits facts, I concede they have a point, and have to re-think my own opinion. Sometimes the facts support many opinions. And that's ok.
However, when the opinion does not fit the facts, it is wrong (and thus can't be either informative, or insightful).
Presenting the falsehood in an offhanded, condescending fashion is, like it or not, either flamebait, or plain trolling (attempting to derail incisive discussion by presenting falsehood likely to produce a vehemently emotional response rather than an educated an well thought out one).
Just one phrase. Formal Methods.
Vista is a big cost. They'll sell at what they assume to be the target market. Why target something at where your market will be in a year's time, when you need to sell now?
Yes, games companies releasing games in DX10 only will finally be what drives the market to Vista over XP (same as they did with Win95 to 98). But you can't afford to produce a game these days and just hope that people will upgrade. When sufficient numbers have trickled through, then the market gets big enough to make the jump (i.e. you can pretty much say you'll get your money back in sales).
Everyone that hasn't got DX10 then will upgrade or not as they choose for the extra cost.
It's a trickle through that will be watched hawkishly.
Yes, Blizzard claim ownership of all items. Which is fine, considering that you can't ever take them out of the environs of the Blizzard servers.
Selling things on from one player to another thus can never be theft, as Blizzard are never deprived of the item.
What the spammers are guilty of is unauthorized access of a computer system. I know the UK has hefty penalties for this, and I believe the US does as well. By breaking the terms and conditions of the game, they are not allowed access (by person, not account) to the game. Continuing to come back and break the terms of access to the system once more then becomes a criminal offense. This is the same area of law that applies to crackers..
Note: The article referred to a seller in Europe. This does not necessarily mean the UK, just a reseller who may travel through the UK now and then, but is based in the EU (which covers a lot of ground).
There are a goodly many English Teachers who teach American English, thus anyone who has learned to speak/write English after learning in that environment will refer to a legal representative as an Attorney, rather than a Solicitor.
So, no, doesn't smell like Bullshit here in Bath/Bristol.