...tell him to insert my dick.

Haven't you heard? Don't put your dick in crazy.

A lot of 'American Solder' is actually also available as RoHS, simply because it ends up getting used for the manufacture of items that need to be exported outside the U.S.
Similarly, I can walk into a local electronics store in Europe and get plain ol' 63/37 just fine for my own hobby use

Not that the lead in the article has anything to do with the lead we're discussing here.

if Somebody gave you the code only under the original GPL

That's the part that I'm wondering about, though.

Did Somebody actually give me code under the GPL - or did they just... give me code? At which point, should one assume it is just a gift (which you can do with as you please), that it was implied that it would be under the GPL because the project it's intended for is under the GPL, or that in fact I couldn't do anything with that code other than as stipulated in any particular communication surrounding that code contribution; e.g. if it's sent by e-mail and the e-mail only says "try this, I think it speeds things up about 20%" - does that mean I should only try it, or that I'm free to include it in the distribution and put the GPL license on it, etc.?

Thus why I said in GGGP(?) post that it should be made explicitly clear what license it's being contributed under - rather than any implied licensing - and I have no idea if Wiki had/has any such clauses.

Per your sig I understand you're probably better informed than I am on these matters.

I do wonder though whether or not you are correct in this case.

Let's say I've got a piece of software and I decide to publish that under the GPL.

Somebody sends me a piece of code to include in the software.

I add it, and release it, still under the GPL. Then later on, I decide to release the code under, say, the BSD license - including the bit that was contributed by Somebody.

Whether or not I can do so depends on what license that Somebody gave me when they handed me the code. While it might seem obvious that they contributed to something that's under the GPL license and should therefore also be GPL, what they actually did was contribute to a codebase - a codebase under my control, and one that I can slap any which license on that I like.

At least, that's my understanding. So my questions would be: 1. what license did authors actually give Wikia for their contributed content (explicitly or implicitly), 2. does the license of the greater work at that time trump the license on the contribution and 3. why?

I think there's a bit of confusion with these sites that I agree should be cleared up.

It's not that the authors are licensing the content to the service under the CC-BY-NC license - more often than not, they're just giving the content to the service with no strings attached whatsoever.

The service then applies a CC-BY-NC license to that content for third parties to make use of, but that doesn't mean the service can't change the license around at a later time.

Because authors just gave the content away freely and willingly (albeit perhaps not knowingly, in terms of the extent), they don't really have grounds for complaint other than moral grounds.

So the question wasn't:

Anyone expected pressure-senility [sic] and tilt support for under $2k?

But rather:

Anyone expected pressure-sensitivity and tilt support on the level of a Wacom using Wacom's technology for under $2k?

You're right, I must brush up on my reading comprehension.

The answer is still 'yes'. Be that through alternative techniques (accelerometer/gyroscope/magnetometer all in one handy little monolithic package / detecting the magnetic field off of a magnet at the other end of the pen / whatever people can come up with), or through thinking that if Wacom can throw their 'low end' Cintiq on the market for $1k, another $999 should easily be able to put a decent computer behind that.

Are you saying that accelerometers have nothing to do with calculating the tilting angle of a device, or that the tilting referred to in a pen+tablet combination such as the Wacoms is a wholly different type of tilting?

Point 2 may hinge on the above.

Could you 1. explain what part of GP's question I failed to comprehend and 2. explain what part of my reply came across as trying to be a smartass?

Yes, and what I'm saying is, they don't necessarily need to use that same technology - but perhaps the patents cover the general use case. If not - make it a powered pen, tech's come far enough that that shouldn't be an issue other than a negative review point of "pen's a bit heavier than I'd like", but with the positive review point of "has tilt support".

Well, to be honest.... yes?

Maybe there's patents at play when it comes to 'a hand-held input device as used on a rectangular surface', but tilting things is pretty commonplace ever since the smartphone. Hell, my flashlight has tilt support via a 3-axis accelerometer.

Though there are more fundamental issues for those who would use it for drawing, though - check out the short opinion piece on the Surface Pro 3 at Penny Arcade. tl;dr: The new main (windows logo) button tends to get bumped into fairly easily by right-handed people, and turning the screen around 180 degrees hampers the use of the kickstand.

As you will probably have read, Slashdot readers in general are not a fan of the DMCA (and rightly so).

However, the DMCA also has the Safe Harbor provision, which essentially means a service can say "it wasn't me", drop the content being complained about, and have that be the end of it unless the user decides to challenge the claim - which is either quickly granted if it's reasonable (e.g. 'fair use') or the user just shrugs it off and re-uploads the video (using a new account, if their existing account gets blocked), thus ensuring that while copyright holders may try to keep content off of these services, they ultimately will fail, without exception for popular content - from songs to full movies to sports events to leaked tapes'o'naughtiness.

I have several questions on this phenomenon, unfortunately I can ask only one, so I will ask this: Was that the expected/intended consequence of the Safe Harbor provision all along?

Remember, Remember, November 5th.

This day, July 4th, is our Independence Day.

Hm, no, just don't have the same ring to them that way. Consistency is certainly not one of the strong points of how dates are enunciated in English.

But at least when dealing with the written form and not as part of prose, yyyy-MM-dd will always have my vote.

While I agree with the sentiment that thinking of somebody like McVeigh as an absolute hero, I don't think the reason for that should be hinging on the fact that children died in the attack. It's a bomb. It's about as non-discriminatory as weapons go.

Assume no children died, would that somehow qualify him as being a hero after all?
What about teenager Cartney McRaven, age 19?

What about Kathy Cregan, Rheta Long, Laura Garrison, LutherTreanor, Olen Bloomer, Calvin Battle, Norma Johnson, Donald Burns Sr., Donald Fritzler, Eula Mitchell, Anna Hurlburt, John Vaness III, and Charles Hurlburt - who were all probably looking forward to their retirement or were otherwise just at the wrong place at the wrong time?

What about the 135 other people who don't fit the criteria of child, teen or 60+?

Timothy McVeigh was a murderer, period. Read that, and tell me again about his heroism.

While we're at it - let's not start thinking of weev as a hero either. His mentioning of McVeigh could just as well be part of his usual trolling, which borders on the distasteful at best.

Fuck the police.

Yeah, fuck the police!

I say we hit them where it apparently hurts!

Let's all take a month and not speed. That'll teach 'm!