Youtube seems to be pushing these recommendations on me as well.

The funny thing is that "normal" recommended videos are usually preceded by the message "Recommended for you because you watched ..." on youtube's home page. The suggestive recommendations, however, are preceded by a simple, mysterious "Recommended for you".

Doesn't this create a conflict with other copyright laws such as the one related with the night lighting of the Eiffel Tower? Who owns the copyright to such photos?

And on a related note: with this law, who owns a photo of person? the photographer or the person himself?

For the night lighting on the Eiffel tower, this law is talking specifically about 'commissioned' work, where an artist is hired by someone else to take a photo. Normally the commissioner is granted unrestricted use of an image, but the copyright remains with the photographer. Before this law, another law must have made the copyright default to the person or body that commissioned the work.

For your second question, it was always the photographer. You gave them permission to take a photo of you (by word of mouth, or being in public). You never commissioned then, so the previous law doesn't apply. The eiffel tower is different because the owner of the work only grants the rights to take photos if the photographer agrees to a contract to their terms (I'm not too familiar with them).

A month ago I was walking around (not in Canada, but for the sake of argument, let's say it was) taking pictures when a gentleman called me over and asked if I would take a picture of him and his wife (technically, a commission) with his camera.

Now, who owns the picture I took?

You own the picture. The gentleman didn't pay you - a request is not a commission nor a work for hire. Some concrete renumeration must occur.

The Eiffel Tower is in France, not Canada. French copyright laws don't apply in Canada. Afaik, we don't have any provision in Canadian copyright law that allows the subject of a photo to claim ownership over that photo, regardless of whether that photo is a person or a copyrighted work.

> who owns a photo of person? the photographer or the person himself?

The photographer.

It's clear from your comment that you are against the ruling and the man's actions, but calling him "clown" doesn't add anything and, in some cases, takes away from any point you're trying to make.

If you have a point to make, I'm sure you can make it without name calling.

You're making an ad-hom attack for making ad-hom attacks?

What did Huawei do to become a security threat?

I fail to see how Huawei can be any more of a security threat than companies such as Broadcom or Cisco.

If Huawei has indeed acted in bad faith, then make their actions public so other nations/institutions avoid them. Otherwise, this will (and does) seem like a political/financial play.

I think that the news article is a result of the Sixty Minutes Episode that aired yesterday on Huawei. The points I got from their report were:

1. Huawei (like many Chinese companies) works in close partnership with the Chinese government, which has subsidized many of its processes.

2. Huawei may be stealing IP from U.S. based companies

3. The U.S. is totally reliant on foreign companies for swaths of our communications infrastructure (which would be unsettling to a Congressional committee)

4. Then again, just because U.S. companies and the government were asleep at the wheel when it came to these technologies, does that mean we get to be choosy beggars? Is Huawei a threat to security or just a threat to the economy?

Someone at one router company told me that at one point, Huawei used to copy their routers down to the English silk screening assembly instructions on the PCB's.

> "If Huawei has indeed acted in bad faith, then make their actions public so other nations/institutions avoid them"

What if laying out the evidence implicitly compromises the only window into Huawei's alleged operations? Is it more important to try and win the public over, or to keep your advantage?

And would/could the public even be convinced? How many times has the US government warned about the security risks of partnerships with Chinese firms? How many cautionary tales do we have/need? After Boeing, Google, et al were very publicly compromised and all leaked data pointed to Beijing ... the evidence was all but dismissed by those with a direct financial incentive to ignore it.

Why would another round of that be of any use?

Governments go to great lengths to avoid revealing the sources of their information, lest they no longer have such sources.

wouldn't it simply be obtaining software via unofficial means rather than piracy since he already paid for it?

Indeed it would. Piracy it is not.

I haven't heard of Apple's legal team going after anyone for OS X piracy. Either you've purchased the Apple machine already, so whatever, or you're trying to make a Hackintosh in which case it's a bag of hurt anyway and probably not that lucrative to go after you. (Besides, the legal team is busy with Samsung, anyway - much more money in iPhone patents.)

What AMD and intel don't seem to realize is that people like me have no qualms moving to platforms that do support linux (Even if we end up using a raspberry pi to do our main computing).

The result is that amd will just alienate some of it's customers and end up with a smaller audience. Well done, AMD.

I think they believe that such an audience is rather small. However, I do think it's a stupid move. If they continue supporting Windows exclusively, they might run into problems with the server crowd. Which is a pretty important group.

The sever crowd that uses crappy tablet chips? To be clear, Opteron still fully supports Linux.

what about people like me who can't or wont pay the 5$ webstore fee?

I suppose the only option left for me (and people like me) is to do what mrng suggested and instruct users to download the unpacked version and install it manually via dev. mode.

edit: it seems like there there is another way on http://support.google.com/chrome_webstore/bin/answer.py?hl=e... (click on "Steps on adding extensions from other websites"). it makes things better, but it still complicates things for the user. way to go, google.

reminds me of a similar "ban" that happened in my country several years ago with the aim of discouraging students from wasting their time. the object of the banning, however, was trading cards rather than trading virtual items.

it did work; the vast seas of children playing cards in shopping malls and sidewalks seized to exist, but it didn't happen because children were studying. it happened because these kids switched to something else, which isn't necessarily better than the cards they banned.

one of the few things I've been searching for is oneko.js. seeing this, I have new found hope.

as for clippy, it would be more entertaining if it made suggestions when someone typed something in a text field, or so I would think..

I may be naive in asking this, but WHY? Why is being "purely functional" an advantage for package managers?

http://nixos.org/nix/ summarizes some of the advantages of this approach. To summarize, it promises to be fundamentally safer and more flexible than traditional package managers. Package management, IMO, is an area where a "purely functional" approach could really shine, since correctness and replicability are so important.

Well, the obvious answer is that it is an advantage for the same reason that being purely functional is an advantage in other situations. More specifically, the benefit of having no side effect in the package management is that it greatly simplifies the management of multiple versions of a given package. It also simplifies the rollback of an unwanted operation in most cases.