Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Understandable, but foolish (Score 3, Insightful) 386

Honestly, it sounds like a pretty amazing adventure. Time travel, basically. Albeit low chance of actually arriving & zero chance of a return trip. If I'm dying anyways and have the disposable income, why not? I can always choose to kill myself again (permanently) if I find myself unable to adapt to the future. Other than having a wide variety of things I'd rather do with the money while I'm alive, I don't see a down side.

I was born into a world I knew nothing about once & learned all I could to get where I am now. Granted, I'd lack the neuroplasticity of a child's brain for the second attempt, but I'd be willing to give it a try. Beats the alternative anyways.

Comment Re:Did everyone suddenly forget....? (Score 1) 127

They can write all they want until the system comes back up, but that doesn't give them access to patient history that's been taken electronically for years now. It's all well & good to write down what happened today & data enter it later.

Today patient died because past drug allergy information was unavailable in offline computer system.

Yeah... Not so good... Not undertaking non-emergent care (and diverting emergent care to another near-by facility) is by far the safest choice when medical history is unavailable.

Comment Re:GPL (Score 1) 176

If they're not explicitly offered under a different license in the package and not public domain, they're either GPL or there's no distribution right at all. I know GPL isn't an ideal license for non-code asserts, but absent an explicit grant under some license, they can't be distributed without violating copyright. If the package's license grant doesn't mention the images explicitly, the only reasonable assumption is that they're provided under GPL.

Comment Re:CPU ain't all there is (Score 1) 136

have never found a use for Bluetooth other than connecting headphones.

BT keyboard is one of those weird things that's useful occasionally. I've enjoyed reactions from people, "How do you text so fast???" when I would pair a BT keyboard to my iPhone before iMessage could bridge over from a laptop with a real keyboard. I like my BT heart rate sensor for running too...

Comment Re:CPU ain't all there is (Score 1) 136

When you see Apple users excusing poor design decisions as good ones you know the Apple of Steve Jobs is gone.

Nah... We did that for Steve too. Reality Distortion Field was a thing...

Apple users are a bit more willing to look at realistic real world compromises and determine that trading one thing for another makes more sense for some of us. I can't charge & listen to wired headphones on my iPhone 7. I used to do that on my 6. Like twice a year when I had to travel on Amtrak. Now I'll do something different and accept the improvements that the 7 gives me at the cost of not being able to do something that I very seldom did.

We can also acknowledge that our chosen supplier needn't make products that appeal to 100% of the entire market. I'm certain there are some users who frequently want to charge and listen to wired headphones at the same time. The iPhone 7 is a poor choice for them. Likewise for those users who want a portable device with huge processing capability, the new MacBook Pro might be poor choice. Apple chose to prioritize battery life over performance for a portable device. I'm sure based on significant market research, they found that was the better compromise for the majority of their customers.

Making a product that focuses on maybe 70% of use cases (to completely make up a number), but does those things very very well is much preferable to me than trying to make a product that does everything for everyone. I'm looking at my iPad and my (work provided) Surface 4 as I type this. One of them has a layer of dust on it because it tries to do too much and manages only mediocre success at many of them. The other I use daily for the tasks that it focuses on being excellent at and happily use a different device for other tasks that it's not as well suited for.

There's a lot to be said for being excellent at a few things versus being so-so at a lot of things. As a customer, I often spend more money to buy several devices (watch, phone, tablet, laptop, desktop) to do different tasks. The physical form factors of each of those devices mean they're each more or less suited to certain tasks. It's good that the market can provide less expensive devices or devices that can do more tasks, even if they're not able to do all of them as well as several more focused devices might. If you don't like Apple's choices in that regard, buy something else.

Comment Re: CPU ain't all there is (Score 1) 136

What do you use more than 16GB of RAM for, exactly?

Seriously... I do have 32GB in my Mac Pro, but I rarely use more than 17GB, and that's including cache, etc. that could easily be freed without a substantial impact. That's with a couple of browsers, iTunes, Eclipse, Xcode, email, Twitter client, Slack client, Skype, OneNote, RSS reader, database IDE, and a smattering of other stuff running at once. I upgraded my (much older) MBP to 16GB, and RAM has never been the bottleneck.

Comment Re:GPL (Score 1) 176

Take for example a GPLed game. Now somebody comes along, takes all the graphics and releases a proprietary game with them. Is that a violation or not?

Absolutely a violation of all GPL versions.

What if he doesn't actually include the graphics, but loads them from the web or straight out of your git repository [...]?

Possibly a violation of GPLv2. Probably a violation of GPLv3. Causing the game to download graphics for the user's benefit is not distribution on your part of those graphics. The original developer is distributing the graphics by way of Github, etc. The original developer may also cease that distribution at any time (or rename a directory) and break the game.

The question (for a jury) would be if your game constitutes a derivative work of the original such that distributing only your portion without the images isn't actually distributing a distinct creative work in its own right but only distributing a portion of the derivative work created by combining the parts. If your game could load graphics from additional sources than the original and still do something, that would significantly decrease the likelihood that it would constitute a derivative work. If it was completely useless without the single other game's images, then it's probably derivative. Additionally, requiring the user to take affirmative action to download the graphics themselves and comply with any license would greatly help your standing. Requiring them to run `git clone ...` locally and informing them that what they're cloning is covered under GPL should do the trick, same as many distros require you to download tarballs of Java separately from their package manager.

Larger possibly that this is a violation of GPLv3. GPLv3 closes some of the service provider based loopholes on what constitutes "distribution." I don't know if this would full under that language. This one might be "up to a judge," but a lawyer may tell you differently with respect to how clearly this does or doesn't fall under GPLv3 language.

[...] or their fork of your git repository?

Absolutely a violation of all versions. Now you're the one distributing it and must comply with the GPL in order to have a right to do so.

What if it's not graphics, but interpreted code code?

Copyright makes no distinction on the medium. Both graphics and source code are well established as creative work covered by copyright. You may NOT copy such works without a license. GPL is a distribution license not a use license. Distribution of interpreted code is still done by the original developer in this case. You could NOT distribute modifications of the code yourself. You *could* distribute patch files to be applied on the user's computer at runtime. You may run into a situation where extensive patches must contain so much of the original files as diff context that the diff is arguably a derived work. "Up to a jury" in terms of where that line is for the patch case specifically.

At what point do the assets require the rest of the code released under GPL?

When the final work becomes a deriviative work under copyright law it falls under GPL. GPL additionally specifies that you may not link a work against GPL code and distribute it if the combined work restricts distribution beyond what the GPL provides.

if you use one of their GPLed libraries, your main app shall be released as GPL as well.

False. If you link against a GPL library, you must distribute your app under a GPL compatible license. If you're trying to distribute closed-source binary, you can't do that. If you don't like GPL, Apache, BSD, etc. are all options for your own code's license.

Shall APIs have copyright or not?

That's the key question, and it's what makes it clear FSF doesn't want it both ways. Until Oracle tried suing Google, it was long accepted that API's aren't copyrightable. Even Microsoft was content with letting Samba reimplement all the Windows file sharing API's. FSF is quite clear that API's are not covered by copyright and can be re-implemented by anyone who wants under any license. It's those implementations that represent a creative human endeavor that is protected by copyright.

The only group that wants API's to by copyrightable at this point is Oracle because Google used the fact that they're not to avoid paying substantial fees to license J2ME and instead implemented the same API's in their own code. Oracle's Java licensing attempted to place a restriction on what kind of hardware you could run Java on without paying. PC's = free, mobile = pay $$$$ for the same code. That's a lot more trying to have it both ways than anything FSF has ever done.

Comment Re:GPL (Score 1) 176

I think there's misunderstanding of "based on" versus "linked against" here. If you take a work licensed under GPL, you can't use part of that source code under a different license because you can't change the license on somebody else's code. The only exception is if you yourself wrote that code, retain copyright of it, and choose to offer it under a dual license in addition to the GPL.

Aggregation of multi-licensed works is a different matter. If you have a substantial body of work that stands on its own absent a GPL work, that work maintains its own license. A stand alone library that works with or without another GPL work is its own entity. An application which links against GPL libraries is still its own work and may carry its own license.

You may link any work against a GPL-licensed work for your own purposes without regard to the licenses. GPL is a distribution license, not a use license. If you wish to distributed to someone else a non-GPL work along with the GPL-licensed work, you must comply with the GPL. GPL states that you may not distribute a combined (linked) work with any additional restrictions beyond what GPL specifies. It does not state that distributing the entire work under GPL is the only way to comply with that requirement. It's certainly the easiest way, but not the only way.

There's a list of GPL-compatible licenses on FSF's website. You may link code licensed under any of those licenses with GPL-licensed code and distribute the result.

No part of GPL requires that you license all your code under GPL if you link to GPL code. It only requires that anyone to whom you distribute your final work can obtain, use, and redistribute all of the parts of it (including source, build tools, etc.) without any part being more restrictive than GPL.

Comment Re:GPL (Score 1) 176

There's nothing unclear about how enforceable the GPL is. GPL grants you a license to use a copyrighted work. If you do not comply with the terms of that license (provide source code, etc.) your license is void. At that point, you have no license at all, and you are violating copyright by distributing the work without a valid license to do so.

To my knowledge, there isn't a single jurisdiction where GPL (any version) has been ruled unenforceable. There are very few cases where it has been explicitly ruled enforceable, which I could see being interpreted as doubt, but that's not the case here. The companies who have violated the license and been taken to court have settled or remedied their violation rather than risk losing in court. Every settlement or remedy is a confirmation that a pack of high paid corporate lawyers advised their clients that trying to fight the validity of the GPL would be a BadIdea(TM).

Comment Re:Was Obvious from the Start (Score 1) 330

That's one of the reasons I keep my Apple Watch in a bulky external case. TETHYS makes (made? Can't find it on Amazon any more...) a waterproof case that makes it safe to swim with the original Watch and makes it look like a 1980's throwback to a drugstore $20 Timex. For the same reason I never liked to use my white-corded, "please mug me & steal my iPhone" Apple earbuds, making my $400 Apple Watch look like a junker is a GoodThing.

Comment Re:Was Obvious from the Start (Score 1) 330

Have you ever used an exercise bike, elliptical or treadmill? Unless you keep your hands chained EXACTLY to where they want them and at EXACTLY the right amount of tension squeezing them, the heart rate monitor is pretty much useless. If you're at a public gym, most of them are completely broken a week after they open. The watch tracks my heart rate reliably all the time, even running outside or on a real bike.

And that's to say nothing of fumbling your phone trying to reply and stepping on it while you're working out. With an arm-mounted screen I can just tap my standard response much more safely. The way Apple Watch detects an either/or type question and lets you select one of the sender's options as a canned response is more than a little bit handy when working out.

We get it, AC. You don't want a smart watch. Realize there are more people than you in the world and different technology is useful to different people. It's okay if you don't think you'd find a use for one.

Comment Re:Was Obvious from the Start (Score 1) 330

What is it then? An extra, tiny screen for your phone?

YES! That's exactly what it is. It's a second tiny display for my phone that I can go swimming with and that doesn't have a camera so I can have it out in no-camera places without people freaking out that I'm filming. That's my killer app. YMMV, but it paid for itself this summer in the number of times I got a message that I might otherwise have missed or else would have avoided activities to stay near my phone.

Comment Re:Was Obvious from the Start (Score 1) 330

Watches are JEWELRY first

Lots of people keep trying to tell me that, but I think they're all nuts. I would not even consider buying a watch with gold or gemstones or other pathetic displays of meaningless luxury.

My Apple Watch is a second arm-mounted display for my iPhone FIRST. It's a time piece second, and as jewelry I could not possibly care less. It's a functional device. The fact that it comes in a nice form is .. well.. nice, but an afterthought for me.

It saves me pulling my phone out of my pocket when people contact me. That's especially useful in social situations where predominantly non-millennials take offense that their mere presence doesn't cause me to completely pause my life outside of their existence. For most of them, I can look at my watch and even poke at it a little to respond, communicating with other people in the way I'm accustomed to. That doesn't make them huff and puff the same way that pulling out my phone and doing the exact same thing would. It's also useful in situations where waving a network-attached camera around is considered gauche. I can check the time without freaking people out that I'm filming them.

The added motion & heart rate tracking are great for workouts, and a waterproof(-ish) extension to my phone is great in the summer. I can jump in the pool without disconnecting. (Apple Watch 1 isn't pool proof, but an external case that makes it look like an 80's throwback worked pretty well all summer.)

I understand Apple wanting to hit the market of people who buy a watch to look pretty, but I'm glad they made something that's functional rather than trying to pass off more useless bling. There's plenty of useless bling in the watch market (smart or otherwise) already.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.