I saw Jef Raskin demo the Canon Cat in the 1980s when I was working at Stanford.
One of the more interesting concepts behind the interface was, everything was stored in one "circular" file, with marks for document beginnings and ends. By "circular" I mean that if you leapt forward from file to file, you'd eventually return to your starting point. The idea was, it's hard to remember the names of documents, let alone where in the filesystem you might have saved them. But you can usually remember something about the document -- some piece of text, etc. Using the leap keys you could quickly find the document you were looking for. Modern OSes allow for such searching, but at the time the idea of not worrying about file locations or names seemed very forward thinking.
Jef had research to show that "leaping" was superior (or at least, your productivity was faster) when comapred to other computer interfaces -- provided the user was used to using leap keys. Later I saw Andy Hertzfeld give a talk on Multifinder, and I thought the contrast between the two engineers was stark. The Canon Cat gave you one way to interface with the system (which was "the best way"), while Andy's interface gave you multiple ways to do the same task. Andy said something like "different people interact with the system differently" and he wanted to support all they ways they might want to do their work.
Cover Flow was basically just document thumbnails as OpenGL textures. You’d still have to open the application for the document.
Raskin’s “leap” concept worked within the documents themselves. There was no separation between a document editor and a file browser or shell. A leap would take you directly to the content, and leaping enough times would bring you back where you started. But you never switched from “application mode” to “Finder mode”, so to speak.
The current top comment on the article explains the situation, and ATC are "not being assholes here":
>NorCal had a new interpretation of ILS approaches come down several months ago that tied the controllers hands with regards to ILS approaches during visual conditions... The controllers were issued guidelines that if it’s busy and an aircraft is unable to comply with the approaches advertised on the atis or maintain visual separation that its better to hold them until there is adequate space on final as it’s more unsafe to start vectoring 30/40 different aircraft to build the required hole for the 1 aircraft who’s company has a lame rule
> The controller clears the Lufthansa jet to make a visual approach, and the Lufthansa pilot advises “due to company procedures, we are unable visual approach at nighttime”
> The controller then advises that “if that’s the case, then it will be extended delays”
The individual controller won’t know exactly how many airplanes are ahead of this one, and even if they did they can only estimate the delay. In this case the estimate they gave the plane turned out to be optimistic, because the planes ahead of them were taking longer to land than expected. Certainly saying “This conversation is over” would be rude in most circumstances, but it merely reflects the reality that a controller can only spend so much time talking to each crew. The crew already had all the information the controller could give them, and simply needed to make a decision rather than ask more questions.
I'm pretty sure they did.. the article says controller told them there would be "extended delays". Sounds like the pilot just got impatient when ATC couldn't get him on the ground after 10 minutes.
No, the pilot got inpatient when the controller told them the next info will be in 10 minutes (reasonable, shit happens) and did not contact them at that point -the pilot even had to remind the ATC they were supposed to update the flight.
No you did it the right way. I lived in Canada for 10 years, my partner is Canadian, and we debated what to do when we moved down from Canada to the US. We got an attorney to help advise us.
It is very much a problem if your partner is deemed to have entered the US under false pretenses. That is, if they enter the US on a tourist visa and then you get married and they apply for a change of status, immigration can look askance at your spouse -- "The original tourist visa was a lie, you always intended to get married and change status, they are now barred from the US for 10 years." It might be faster, but you don't want to run that risk, even if the probability of that happening is low.
I can easily see the status of my garage door (open or closed) from anywhere. Solves the problem of "Did I forget to close the garage door?" (and the number of times the answer to that question is "Yes" is > 0).
I can open the door from anywhere to let someone in if they've forgotten their keys (times I've done this is > 0).
I can enter the house through the garage if I've forgotten my keys (times I've done this is > 0).
I have given access to my house to a houseguest without giving them a set of keys to my house; I easily revoked this access when they left.
"Many of the reviews that I have read of the book complain that Lewis does not sufficiently explain that Bankman-Fried is Guilty and Bad, Actually, but that is not the book that he wanted to write... If you want to read a moral condemnation of crypto theft, you can get that anywhere. You go to Michael Lewis for character and story.
Also, reading those reviews you would think that the book is a defense of Bankman-Fried, but it is actually quite damning."
Hover's parent company is Tucows, listed in the parent article as being the third largest "domain holder".
I started using Hover/Tucows back when they were Domain Direct, as I liked the idea of using a Canadian-based registrar. Hover has been great. I've rarely needed to contact Hover support but they've always been responsive and helpful.
No, you can redistribute it. RedHat can't stop you.
But you might only be able to do this once. Because what RedHat can do is cancel your contract, and stop you from using RedHat services, and you won't have access to future versions or updates.
It sound like RedHat has migrated back to a “purchase” model then. You pay once, get your software and do with it as you please and then they ask you kindly to not pay again, kind of like the old days. Sounds good to me.
As long as one subscriber is willing to leave their contract per release, downstream derivatives should have no end of supply for each release. This may not help with patches, but many of those would come from third parties to begin with.
This is the answer. What RedHat is doing is legal but sneaky. So we can be legal but sneaky too.
Start a consortium that creates a new LLC or non-profit organization with no ties back to the consortium. That new organization buys a license, and publishes the code until RedHat cuts them off. Start a new one and repeat.
Of course it could become a cat and mouse game, where RedHat starts denying customers it deems suspicious. They start demanding more info of their customers. But all that could be bad for business...
Not a lawyer, but I suspect doing this with prior intent would be fraud (since you enter the contract with intent to violate it) and probably get you sued.
I don't think so, the whole point here is that the contract does not - and cannot - bar you from sharing the code. The GPL bars RedHat from imposing additional restrictions on your rights to the code.
But RedHat is under no obligation to make future sales to you and can drop you as a customer for any reason, including you exercising your legal right to share the code.
So they want to be legal but sneaky? Let the legal but sneaky games begin!
Even easier - let's say I send you a bunch of GPL code and tell you I'll pay you 1000 dollars if you never send it to anybody else. Easy money right? If you still send the code, I can't sue you for license violation - GPL allows you to do that. But you certainly took $1000 and didn't do what I paid you for. It's not just legal but sneaky, it's a violation of our contract, despite the fact the license is not violated - two different things.
The contract can not remove your legal rights, but can ask you to give them up in exchange for something. For example, I can not prohibit you from driving you own car, but if I rent it from you, and later you just take it back while my rental term still in effect, it would be a breach of contract, despite the car being legally yours. And if I learn that you never intended to let me drive the car, but still pretended to rent if out, then if would be fraud. Same, my employer can not prevent me from exercising my right you free speech, but some of it - eg disclosing trade secrets - may get me fired and sued for damages. Because by signing employment contract I agreed to give up exercise of some rights - like use if my time and some of my speech - in exchange for the salary. If I didn't I could speak of any secrets and they couldn't do a thing.
Contract is a meeting of minds honestly intending to perform. If you did not have the good faith intention to perform the contract, it's not just sneaky, it's fraudulent.
If I understood what you mean, it doesn't sound like it works in any practical sense, because Red Hat wouldn't take you as a customer for release n + 1.
1. You purchase release N
2. You distribute the source code to release N.
3. Red Hat terminates you.
4. You needed Red Hat N. You're doing enterprisey things or using software that runs on Red Hat.
5. Red Hat releases N + 1.
6. You try to get release N + 1 from Red Hat, because you're in the ecosystem, doing enterprisey things, using software that runs on Red Hat
7. Red Hat remembers what you did on release N and doesn't offer you release N + 1.
It doesn't quite seem like the purchase model. This barely seems to get you anything over what a Rocky or Alma or whatever scrape to put together with Red Hat damming distribution, so you might as well resort to them right at release N instead of paying Red Hat for it.
That's not the same thing. You can do everything the GPL allows you to do, you are not restricted from that. But RHEL gets to choose who their customers are and they won't choose you. You can't force them to take you on as a customer, no license can
You’re misunderstanding me. RHEL is saying that to be/maintain as a customer, you have to not redistribute the received product, correct?
So, again, to become a customer and receive a product where the license of that product dictates you CAN redistribute, you MUST first enter into another contract that says if you redistribute the product, it may violate your standing as a customer and jeopardize your chances of receiving any future product.
Of course it’s a loophole, and I really hope it gets to court somehow because I doubt it would stand up. Just my opinion. I don’t know anything about GPL law, but it doesn’t seem logical that this is something that would be able to stand.
It's not a loophole. You have every right you were guaranteed by the license. RHEL also has the right to choose their customers. They choose customers who don't exercise the rights granted by the license. This is all fine and compatible.
I hate to use an anecdote but consider that you have some rights that you may exercise - say, free speech. You then come to me and enter into a contract. I am within my rights to not renew that contract if I dislike the things you say under your pre-existing right to free speech, and in fact, I can put it into our contract that I will cancel it if you exercise that right in a way I don't like.
This is normal and commonplace.
edit: Please do not engage with the anecdote. It's meant to be helpful, not be literally equivalent in a legal sense. This is why I hate anecdotesssss
A better analogy may be how we have a right to take apart our electronic devices, but as soon as we do we void the warranty provided by sellers and/or manufacturers. INAL, I don't know if all warranties fall under contract law, but it makes sense to me that at least extended warranties do, and I imagine those are also voided in such cases.
Only if you are ignorant of the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. It is not legal in the United States to blanket void a warranty when a device is taken apart or disassembled. Manufacturers can decline a warranty claim when work down by the owner or another servicer causes an issue, but the warranty remains intact for anything unrelated to the work done. So, as an example, if you repair the plug on your electronic device, and then the keyboard has a fault and a key fails due to a bad keyswitch, they still have to replace the keyboard, as your plug repair has no relation to the failed keyswitch component.
Given the First Amendment is a limitation on the government, let's apply this logic to a government service. If the government was to say, stop you from accessing the public library due to the speech you engage in, but did not criminally punishing you for the speech, would this be a First Amendment violation? I think so.
Another, perhaps more realistic example, is a government employer choosing to fire an employee who was caught using their free speech to advocate for a political challenger to the office they work under. Firing a person is not criminally punishing them, and in general an employer can fire an employee for what they say, but in this specific case, because the First Amendment limits the government, they couldn't do this. If you were working for private political organization, they likely could do this as the First Amendment wouldn't apply to the private organization.
> If you were working for private political organization, they likely could do this as the First Amendment wouldn't apply to the private organization.
Depends on the state, many have added political beliefs to their anti-discrimination laws, and such an act would be prohibited, but at the federal level this would be fine.
The free speech analogy doesn’t hold water for me. Free speech is extremely broad. “You can redistribute” is extremely specific and precise, and RH is effectively stripping this very precise and extremely specific right from you if you want to be/maintain as a “customer”
It doesn't need to hold water for you as long as you get my point. It sounds like you don't though and for some reason "broad" and "precise" are factoring into this for you - you should justify that.
The key here is future versions of RHEL. They can't and won't cut you off from the version of RHEL that they already distributed to you, but if you use it to build a clone distro, then they don't have to sell you a future version of RHEL.
It isn't quite correct that RedHat is saying that, IIRC from the LWN discussions, the clause is about giving someone who doesn't have a subscription the benefits they would have if they had a subscription. So it would be fine to redistribute in some cases but not others. Probably fine to redistribute every update to entities who already have a subscription, or to redistribute one package to a contractor working on fixing a bug for you etc.
I had read and enjoyed Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum", and as I read Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" I found I kept contrasting Brown's work to Eco's. In the end, I didn't even finish "The Da Vinci Code", it just felt so weak to me.
But art, literature, music, and wine are all things of personal preference. You like what you like! And you shouldn't let anyone tell you not to spend your time reading Dan Brown (or whomever) if you enjoy it.
I had a very same reaction - "this is Foucault's Pendulum with simpler writing and a bad case of wanting to be writing Indiana Jones" - and I think that really drills to the heart of the debate about quality/taste/literature/snobbery/whatever going on in some of the other comments here.
A big part of "taste" is exposure to a lot of stuff.
If you read 1 book a year, or predominantly only 1 genre even, your range of comparison points is going to be so much lower than someone who has read 10x or 50x or 100x more that. And that volume of data is what lets you really start to separate the wheat from the chaff. And this is why so much of what people experience as a teen or young adult sticks with them so long - all of those works have the opportunity to be the first thing of its kind that the person encountered.
If you aren't interested in reading that much more, and especially if you aren't interested in reading more complex plots/subplots/sentence and paragraph structures, then that's perfectly fine.
But if you ARE interested, and you enjoyed Da Vinci Code: definitely check out Foucault's Pendulum. It's got a perfect meta twist on the whole thing too that really makes it hold up today, too, IMO.
I read Foucault's Pendulum several times. First time, I was about 13yo and I loved the story. Then I read it again as an adult and realized just how many subtle jokes and references I had missed upon my first reading.
Just don't forget that the Templars are always in it.
I feel like certain dramas are just more forgiving. Like even if the prose is bad and the characters are flat in a sci-fi or fantasy novel, the concept of the world being explored can still be interesting. I love classic SciFi but I don’t go to it for the rich character development.
Meanwhile, drama relies much more on prose and character. If that fails, the central concept rarely backs it up.
That's OK, I had the same feeling about Foucault's Pendulum and Illuminatus!. It's like there's a conspiracy among publishers to rehash the "what if the conspiracy theories are real" plot every few decades.
To me, the delightful thing about Foucault's Pendulum distinct from the broader "conspiracy fiction" genre is that there is no conspiracy discovered, only created.
And that's a fundamentally different story and investigation into human nature than a straight conspiracy story like Da Vinci Code - IMO, a much more interesting one.
I don't think it's about Samsung not being "large enough"; Samsung has basically the same market share as Apple does in Europe according to https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/europe.