What gets me is this kid gets a crowd around him for a video game.
Joshua Bell, one of the foremost violin players on the planet, with a Strad, incognito at a D.C. metro station can't get more than 5 people to stop and listen while he plays.
Or they announce they have it, so if inspectors come by they're not shocked by this 216 processor beast and going "You never declared you had this! Nuclear tests! Nuclear tests!!"
Easier to swap out programs (even if it means interrupting a test) than it is hiding a computer.
Solar...very inefficient. Not base load (read: on 100%).
If you want solar power at night, you'll need batteries, which are pretty much at peak efficiency. THEN you have to worry about acid leaks and corrosion.
Solar is a fine suppliment, but it isn't anywhere near a primary source yet.
Got my copy yesterday from a So. Cal. Best Buy. They had a good...oh...50 there and this was Thursday.
However, they were all tucked back in the FOX on TV section, which is the farthest DVD section from the new releases. There were ZERO in the new release area...maybe people just gave up when they didn't see anything in the new release area...
But that's the point. It's a Quicktime bug; Firefox is just doing what it's supposed to and giving to QT. If you've got IE catching the overflow, or Safari, that means manhours were spent and lines of code added for stuff that lies outside the bounds of the browser.
Why should Fox be on the ready for datastreams that QT handles wrong? Should we have Fox set up to keep an eye passed to every plugin? If companies have to start worring about handoffs to other plugins and programs, that increases their coding demand, adding the possibility for more bugs. At the extreme end, if everyone has to assume everyone else is the absolute worst coder in the world, then more bound checking will be done than actually making programs.
Course, this goes into the realm of coding philosophy more than practicality.
Exactly. By the time you're fighting the EULA, you're already in the screws. BSA just goes 'It's in the EULA. Wanna fight about it?' And their legal team includes the Nazgul. (IBM's a member)
Whether or not the EULA is unconscionable just becomes a moot point by then.
I think the magic part is the motherboard. Post about that on/. a while ago, but I don't care enough to look it up.
Funny story about that, if true, my work system is out of compliance EVEN THOUGH it's a Dell system, with a Dell OEM Windows disc, with motherboards from Dell, replaced by Dell contracted technicians (yes, I *could* replace it myself, but if it goes south, it's their fault, not mine) and we have all this crap on file.
I think it's pretty well been removed from its OEM licence as it is; ram, cpu and mobo all been replaced.
So yea, add that into the mess. How many systems have had parts replaced that void the OEM licence?
You're seriously overestimating the ease of the software licence world.
This is not a world of 'One Disc, One Key.' This is a world of volume licencing, OEM licencing, per user/per device/per server licencing, student licencing, licencing servers, terminal servers. Some licencing agreements let you use a copy of a program at home that you use at work.
That OEM copy of Office that came with your Dell? Well, you can't put that on another system if you get rid of that old Dell. That's not exactly common knowledge, nor is it out in the open; it's buried in the EULA.
When you have companies who's sole purpose is to keep track of licences, there's something dreadfully wrong with the current system.
Last time I checked the licencing for the student/teacher edition of Powerpoint (I believe 2003) it allowed installation on three seperate machines.
Then there's the per device and per user licencing.
It'd be easy to keep track of if the only licencing model out there was "one key, one system" but in order to appease big businesses there's volume licencing, and that spread out into other different models. The fact that there are businesses out there who exist simply to keep track of licences says there's something dreadfully wrong with the current system.
Assuming here, but if the article's right and Harvard's were stripped out, that would give them de facto copyright on the new one. Since they're not explicitly saying "We got this from Harvard," they're implicitly saying "We did this." A copyright notice is not required to prove copyright either.
I don't think anyone reasonable here would defend copyright infringement on any level.
The key thing that gets everyone riled up over the music lawsuits are the Machiavellian tactics and utter disregard for proper procedure the MPAA uses in filing the lawsuits.
I thought Fair Use required attribution of the source?... Stripping it out and claiming it as your own, that's a case example of copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html
Bach's Chaconne and Schubert's Ave Maria amongst other pieces. He was there 43 minutes.
What gets me is this kid gets a crowd around him for a video game.
Joshua Bell, one of the foremost violin players on the planet, with a Strad, incognito at a D.C. metro station can't get more than 5 people to stop and listen while he plays.
Or they announce they have it, so if inspectors come by they're not shocked by this 216 processor beast and going "You never declared you had this! Nuclear tests! Nuclear tests!!"
Easier to swap out programs (even if it means interrupting a test) than it is hiding a computer.
Just sayin as a counterpoint...
He was protecting his kid, so he already bred. Too late for Darwinism to kick in.
Solar...very inefficient. Not base load (read: on 100%).
If you want solar power at night, you'll need batteries, which are pretty much at peak efficiency. THEN you have to worry about acid leaks and corrosion.
Solar is a fine suppliment, but it isn't anywhere near a primary source yet.
I fail at reading comprehension...
Given it's an irc channel, I would have expected 'i 8 this stuf 2 hrs ago'...
Except it really does cost more (using the equation "Time = Money") to process the Netflix envelopes.
It doesn't cost more to process a packet sent to Port 80 than it does over 23, 443 or 6667.
Boom is right, if Carmack's attempts are anything to go by.
Seemed right to me the first time...
It's a PDA killer in the sense that the Zune is an iPod killer.
Got my copy yesterday from a So. Cal. Best Buy. They had a good...oh...50 there and this was Thursday.
However, they were all tucked back in the FOX on TV section, which is the farthest DVD section from the new releases. There were ZERO in the new release area...maybe people just gave up when they didn't see anything in the new release area...
Dragonball Z trial...
Please make your opening statements.
Rrrrrrraaaaaaaaa!!
Rrrrrrraaaaaaaarrrrrrrrggggggggg!!!
Rrrraaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!!
20 minutes later...
Rrrraaaaaaaarrrrrrhhhhhhh!!
Court will recess for 23 hours, 30 minutes.
My vote's on the common sense bit.
If it takes more than 5 billion years to stop the spin, we'll have more issues with the sun going red giant on us than worrying about spin.
I'm not worried.
But that's the point. It's a Quicktime bug; Firefox is just doing what it's supposed to and giving to QT. If you've got IE catching the overflow, or Safari, that means manhours were spent and lines of code added for stuff that lies outside the bounds of the browser.
Why should Fox be on the ready for datastreams that QT handles wrong? Should we have Fox set up to keep an eye passed to every plugin? If companies have to start worring about handoffs to other plugins and programs, that increases their coding demand, adding the possibility for more bugs. At the extreme end, if everyone has to assume everyone else is the absolute worst coder in the world, then more bound checking will be done than actually making programs.
Course, this goes into the realm of coding philosophy more than practicality.
Exactly...the way I'm reading this, if someone opens whatever this is straight in Quicktime it'd be vulnerable.
Guess they want the more hits by throwing Fox into the mess though, but really, why have Mozilla fix Apple's flaws?
Exactly. By the time you're fighting the EULA, you're already in the screws. BSA just goes 'It's in the EULA. Wanna fight about it?' And their legal team includes the Nazgul. (IBM's a member)
Whether or not the EULA is unconscionable just becomes a moot point by then.
I think the magic part is the motherboard. Post about that on /. a while ago, but I don't care enough to look it up.
Funny story about that, if true, my work system is out of compliance EVEN THOUGH it's a Dell system, with a Dell OEM Windows disc, with motherboards from Dell, replaced by Dell contracted technicians (yes, I *could* replace it myself, but if it goes south, it's their fault, not mine) and we have all this crap on file.
I think it's pretty well been removed from its OEM licence as it is; ram, cpu and mobo all been replaced.
So yea, add that into the mess. How many systems have had parts replaced that void the OEM licence?
You're seriously overestimating the ease of the software licence world.
This is not a world of 'One Disc, One Key.' This is a world of volume licencing, OEM licencing, per user/per device/per server licencing, student licencing, licencing servers, terminal servers. Some licencing agreements let you use a copy of a program at home that you use at work.
That OEM copy of Office that came with your Dell? Well, you can't put that on another system if you get rid of that old Dell. That's not exactly common knowledge, nor is it out in the open; it's buried in the EULA.
When you have companies who's sole purpose is to keep track of licences, there's something dreadfully wrong with the current system.
Last time I checked the licencing for the student/teacher edition of Powerpoint (I believe 2003) it allowed installation on three seperate machines.
Then there's the per device and per user licencing.
It'd be easy to keep track of if the only licencing model out there was "one key, one system" but in order to appease big businesses there's volume licencing, and that spread out into other different models. The fact that there are businesses out there who exist simply to keep track of licences says there's something dreadfully wrong with the current system.
Well, IF copyright duration was a reasonable level... Copyright, period, is necessary. How it gets manipulated and jacked up, that's another rant.
Assuming here, but if the article's right and Harvard's were stripped out, that would give them de facto copyright on the new one. Since they're not explicitly saying "We got this from Harvard," they're implicitly saying "We did this." A copyright notice is not required to prove copyright either.
I don't think anyone reasonable here would defend copyright infringement on any level.
The key thing that gets everyone riled up over the music lawsuits are the Machiavellian tactics and utter disregard for proper procedure the MPAA uses in filing the lawsuits.
Well, that's how I am about it at least.
I thought Fair Use required attribution of the source?... Stripping it out and claiming it as your own, that's a case example of copyright infringement.