AnyOldName3

America’s first amendment doesn’t grant a total right to free speech. Conspiracy to commit murder is just speech, but is very much illegal, and so is copyright infringement.

If you saw a fruit stand and it had a sign saying you were allowed to try one grape without committing to buy a bunch, and the owner noticed you were doing anything with grapes other than buying them or trying one, they’d be allowed to ban you from their stand or if they really wanted to be a dick about it, take you to small claims court to recover the cost of any stolen grapes. If the local police wanted to be dicks about it rather than just not show up over something so petty, they could treat it like any other kind of low-value shoplifting and arrest you. The owner letting you have a free evaluation grape doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with grapes, whether or not you invent loopholes like claiming you’re a different customer if you walk away from the grapes and come back again or that it’s fine as long as you ony take one grape from each bunch or that it should be fine as long as you pretend you’re evaluating the grapes even though it’s obvious that you were never going to actually buy grapes. They are not your grapes until you’ve paid for them, and while they’re not your grapes, what the shopkeeper says is allowed is what’s allowed, and it’s up to their sole discretion whether you’re taking the piss and need to stop.

If you ask a random person off the street or on social media, they might well agree with you that making a link publicly available means it’s legal to download the linked thing, but that doesn’t mean that they’re right. If you read the text of the DMCA (or equivalent in another country), ask a lawyer, or read a summery in plain English of the DMCA written by a lawyer, it’s really clear that, barring some very specific exceptions, you have no rights to do anything with anything unless either you’re the copyright holder, you’ve been granted a licence to do specific things by the copyright holder, or you’ve bought a copy from the copyright holder and have implicit rights to do things with the copy you’ve bought (which is why, typically, software is sold as a licence, not a copy, as that stops you getting your implicit First Sale Doctrine rights). A lawyer would tell you that Microsoft haven’t granted you, as someone who is not evaluating whether to deploy Windows 11 IoT LTSC for a specific project, permission to download the ISO, so you don’t have permission to download the ISO.

The fact that you mention DMCA takedown requests here shows a serious misconception about what the DMCA is and how it works, because they’re a very specific and minor part of the DMCA that has no relevance to normal people. Takedown requests are a mechanism between copyright holders and online service providers when the service provider is hosting infringing content on behalf of someone else, without necessarily knowing that it’s infringing, and the DMCA introduced them because previously your ISP and any websites you visited were also liable for any crimes you comitted using their services. The person downloading the Windows ISO isn’t an online service provider, so the consequences for them wouldn’t be a takedown request. There are much more exciting consequences for normal people, like unlimited fines and jail sentences.

The fact that the DMCA is so broadly overreaching and draconian that it’s impossible to enforce, and that therefore you don’t need to worry about only breaking the law a little bit as no one’s going to care doesn’t mean that what it says isn’t the law. Plenty of people who’ve ended up in trouble for something else have ended up prosecuted for various copyright offences that were easier to make stick than whatever painted a target on their back in the first place.

Despite it not being a problem for normal people, if you’re a big company with enough money to be worth going after, minor things like getting a Windows ISO from the wrong link can cause trouble. Generally, companies have learned that it’s bad for business to sue their customers, but it’s still worth their while to add on extra fees and charges for breaches of contract as long as they’re not so big that the customer bothers disputing them. To avoid these problems, large companies have compliance departments, and they’ll absolutely discipline employees for doing things like downloading things from the wrong link that wouldn’t matter at all for a home user.

I’m still replying because you keep responding with misconceptions and general nonsense and asserting that it’s factual. That’s enough of a reason on its own when the topic’s something as objective as what the law as written is. It should be obvious from the number of times I’ve said that the law is dumb, draconian and overreaching that I’m in favour of it changing, and that would require more people to know that the law is dumb and makes things illegal that no one would expect to be legal. However, a lot of your last few posts has basically been that if anyone makes any of their property freely available to certain people under certain conditions, in the eyes of the law, it’s okay for anyone else to take it, too, which is obviously bogus in any society with the concept of property. The rest seems to be that somehow, all the lawyers working for the multibillion dollar intellectual property holders that lobbied for world governments to implement current copyright law managed not to notice obvious and easily-exploitable loopholes, and then the lawyers working at those companies today left links up that make the loopholes exploitable, which is a really naive viewpoint. In battles against millions of dollars worth of legal advice, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Copyright law is written as if magically duplicating the fruit is the same thing as stealing it. In a discussion about what the law is rather than what it should be in a sensible society, the analogy is fine. As Microsoft is the copyright holder, you only have the right to do anything with their files that they have deigned to grant you, and anything else is legally piracy. In the case of this specific link, they’ve granted the public the right to use it for evaluation purposes, but they’ve not granted any other rights, so it is legal to use the link to download the file for evaluation purposes, and illegal to use it for anything else.

If you want a slightly different analogy, it’s a little like how if Disney put on a free screening of the latest Marvel film for disabled children at a cinema, and didn’t check at the door, an able bodied adult could wander in, past signs saying that the screening was for disabled children only, and watch the film for free, but the fact that they could physically gain access doesn’t mean they had any legal right to be there. They could be ejected from the cinema and/or sued for the cost of a ticket and any legal costs. You do not have a legal right to click link on Microsoft’s website next to some text saying that it’s for evaluation purposes only unless you’re clicking it for evaluation purposes only. Just because you’ve made it to the link, it doesn’t mean you can ignore the text saying who is and isn’t allowed to click it.

It’s freely available for evaluation purposes (from that link - it’s freely available for other purposes from other links, too, and so are other editions of Windows), but that doesn’t mean you’re legally allowed to use those public links however you want. If the copyright holder says they’re for evaluation purposes only, then if you know you aren’t intending to pay even if you like it, then you’re not evaluating whether or not the download link is public, so it still counts as piracy. It’s still stealing to take produce from a roadside stall with an honesty box if you don’t pay even though the produce was just sitting out in the open.

No, they’re illegal several times over as you’ve got to pirate the thing in the first place to end up in a situation where you need one, and then they’re inherently a DRM circumvention device, which are illegal to possess, and then using them circumvents DRM, which is illegal to do. The upside is that you’re unlikely to be caught.

Legally, it isn’t. The DMCA (and compatible laws in non-US countries, which those countries have to have or they’re not allowed a trade deal, and not having a trade deal with the US is devastating for an economy) doesn’t require copyright holders to do anything to defend their copyright. It does make it illegal to do (nearly) anything with copyrighted media that you don’t have explicit permission to do from the copyright holder (there are some exceptions, but people generally think they go further than they really do). It also makes it illegal to do (nearly) anything to circumvent DRM, even if you have a legal right to use the thing that the DRM is protecting, no matter how crappy the DRM is and how easily it can be bypassed.

You’re allowed to think that the law is stupid (it’s the DMCA - everyone who looks at it and isn’t a multibillion dollar publishing company thinks it’s stupid), but that doesn’t mean that it’s not the law, and for legal terms like piracy, you can’t just substitute your own definition based on what should be legal if it conflicts with the definition that says what really is legal.

The reason why non-crap DRM exists when there’s no legal reason to make it not crap is the same reason why DRM exists at all when there’s no legal reason to have DRM at all when piracy of DRM-free stuff is already a crime. It’s that publishers think that the more of a hassle it is to pirate things, the more likely people are to buy things legally. Technically, a shareholder could sue a company for using crap DRM that failed to protect their IP, but the company has a decent defence by saying that they felt that intrusive DRM would hurt their reputation with legitimate customers, so not using strong DRM is not grounds to say a company’s been negligent and liable for any losses they make due to piracy.

Circumventing DRM by any means, whether that’s by modifying it so it doesn’t work or just clicking buttons that the DRM provider doesn’t want you to click, is legally considered piracy in most of the world. If you didn’t get the activation code from Microsoft (or someone Microsoft authorised to give it to you), it’s pirated.

I’m not sure I’d consider this a total upgrade - I have a Steam Controller and an 8bitdo SN30 Pro, and despite the 8bitdo one being newer and having been used much less, I wore through its original thumbstick rubber and had to replace it much sooner than the Steam Controller’s thumbstick cap, which hasn’t even worn through, it was just flaking.

Either that was a fluke, or the 8bitdo rubber isn’t as durable.

Under maritime law, she was a victim of kidnapping and piracy, and was never arrested as it happened outside Israel’s territorial waters, where it has no authority to have a blockade.

It’s worth bearing in mind that those bar charts on the Nevermore repo are showing the ratio of VOCs rather than the quantity, so make particularly nasty materials like ABS appear comparable to much safer ones like PLA. It’s not going to do you any good if you melt several kilos of PLA in a pan then take the lid off and huff the fumes, but running a single 3D printer with PLA in a large room is going to be pretty safe. The main VOCs emitted by PLA aren’t that harmful - some like acetone and acetaldehyde are produced by the human body and found in food (athough turning alcohol to acetaldehyde is what causes hangovers), methyl methacrylate is used to glue in hip replacements, and isobutanol is often a fermentation byproduct that ends up in alcoholic drinks. That doesn’t mean that PLA fumes are completely harmless, but means that it’s not worth worrying about the level of harm as running a printer in a room with the door open for a whole day is probably somewhere around the level of harm as eating cooked food or having a small beer.

Exhaust/intake fans generally aren’t too important - materials like PLA that tolerate the air in the printer being replaced have very low emissions of potentially harmful VOCs and particles, and materials like ABS that emit lots of nasty stuff want the chamber air to stay hot, so having a fan replace the hot air with cold air isn’t great.

If you do have nasty stuff in the printer chamber that you want to send out a window, then the exhaust fan is the more important one. Unless your chamber is totally sealed, an intake fan is going to increase the chamber pressure and encourage contaminated air to go out any gaps, whereas an exhaust fan makes the pressure lower inside the chamber, so encourages clean air to come in through the gaps, stopping contamination escaping. Obviously, this is only relevant if you’ve got a vent tube or filter on the extractor, as if it’s just extracting into the room, there’s no difference between it extracting the air and it leaking.

I guess maybe the use case for an intake fan is either if you’ve got a material that wants the coldest air possible, so want to swap the chamber air for outside air as quickly as you can, or if you’ve got the exhaust fan venting into a chamber where you’re filtering the air without letting it cool down much, and the intake draws from that chamber. I don’t think either of these are particularly common situations, though.

I’ve got a non-max SV08, and I just don’t have an extractor or intake fan on my enclosure, and feed the extractor fan wire to my air filter.

If you’re the kind of person who wants a particular person banned, you probably want to be on the kind of instance that would ban them, and then from your perspective, they’d be banned, so you’d never have to see their posts. It still being possible to interact with them from other instances isn’t any more of a big deal than it being possible to interact with them on an entirely different website after they’re banned from regular social media - no one can ban someone from the whole Internet.

I know people who say exactly this kind of thing entirely seriously (potentially because they first saw it as an unlabelled joke that they took too seriously). Sometimes people are just incorrect pedants smugly picking fault with things that aren’t even wrong.

It depends on the sense of wet that you’re using. Most of the time, the relevant kind of wet is how much water something contains, and water achieves peak theoretical wetness by that definition. It’s only in specific circumstances that the surface is coated evenly by a wetting agent definition is relevant, like painting or firefighting.

There aren’t currently any RISC-V hardware implementations that support big endian (although I guess someone must have tried it on a simulator), so supporting it in the Linux kernel is about as useful as supporting any other hypothetical CPU that only exists on paper. The mainline kernel is meant for computers that exist in the real world, so supporting BE RISC-V should only happen after such CPUs have actually been made. As things stand, there’s nothing to suggest that anyone will bother making them, so the Linux maintainers shouldn’t bother supporting them.

Technically Temu doesn’t import anything. They’re allowed to sell toxic or otherwise dangerous goods because the customer’s the one importing them, and there are plenty of things you’re allowed to import for personal use that you wouldn’t be allowed to import for retail. The EU’s working on closing this loophole, but the UK isn’t in the EU anymore.

They got lots of consultants in from MindGeek who own Pornhub etc. and several age-verification services. They told the government that the consultants who were raising issues were overreacting, and the government believed them because obviously the world’s largest porn company wouldn’t encourage them to enact a law that would do bad things to the porn industry. They didn’t stop to think that the law as written means there’s now a requirement for smaller compliant porn sites to either spend more than their total revenue implementing an age-verification system or buy in one of the ones MindGeek own.

The law was announced a long time before it came into effect, so companies that didn’t do anything to become compliant in advance were playing chicken in the hope that it’d be repealed before they ever had to obey it.

I got it from here. I don’t think anyone else makes one for the SV08.

https://r3men.com/products/graphite-heated-bed-upgrade-kit-for-sovol-sv08

The comments on the article are pretty illuminating:

• Unlike BIOS transplant mods of the past, this doesn’t enable any disabled cores (which would likely have been disabled due to manufacturing defects) as they’re physically fused off rather than controlled by software. It just increases the power limit, which you can do with the stock BIOS anyway.
• The before and after comparison is inflated due to abnormally poor results on the stock BIOS, and the gain is much less impressive when comparing to an average RX 9070. If I had to guess, maybe the user had previously been meddling with settings and one of them hurt performance, but the reflash restored it to its default.
• Because of the different power limits, RX 9070 XT cards typically have much beefier cooling and power delievery than a non-XT RX 9070, so going for the power limit of the bigger card is pushing things in a way that’s likely a bad idea.

The XT card has more cores, so using its power limit on the non-XT card means more power draw from each core, so it’s pushing things further than they’d be on the XT card. That’s probably an especially bad idea given that it’s already lower-binned silicon to start with.