How trustworthy are those polls? Everything official in China is controlled by the government. If the polls are not right out falsified, then I certainly doubt the honesty of the respondees. If your totalitarian government after brutally crushing opposition, with a smoking gun turns over to you and asks if you have a problem with them, what would you say?
"1. Scofflaws will ignore the law and continue relatively unabated."
"2. Law-abiders will suffer the inevitable unintended consequences and/or become scofflaws at the stroke of a legislators pen."
There is no point guessing. Just look at the places with more sane gun laws and see if what you claim is true for there.
Yet I will provide extra argumentation:
1. And yet it is in the US that firearm misuse is amongst the highest.
2. I don't think so. There is a difference in the degree of necessity here.
I can live my whole life without owning or firing a gun. Not so much can be said about enjoying some/any form of art. Can you?
If you mean to ban a whole technology, such as bit torrent: I dont give a damn what other people are using it for and how many they are. If I want to use it to get my (legit) software upgrades because its technologically superior over direct download, they you be damned trying to prohibit me from doing that! Even if where only 10 people in the whole world doing that.
Capitalization is something typically american. I was never thought in school to use all caps as a tool in writing. I did learn about punctuation, paragraphing and even underlining. Capsing really makes thing less readable. I keep being astonished how eulas and manuals capitalize whole paragraphs of something "really important" in an attempt to make people read those parts - but because it makes it more difficult to read, the effect is of course the opposite.
Having said that, I used to sometimes capitalize selected words in typing to add emphasis but later realized it was in most cases unnecessary (i.e. the emphasis). Besides, one could _underline_ if it was really needed.
You say about somebody offering you a cultural experience in exchange for a price as if it was a piece of a chocolate where the market, supply and demand decide the price. Except that copyright deforms that market by creating an artificial (and nowadays virtually perpetual) monopoly. Its a chocolate only one company is allowed to produce. Ever. Monopolies are not good for free markets.
(Most) people need culture just as they need air and water. Would you say the same if a big company had a monopoly in your area for delivering air and water for you to live in exchange for an agreed price?
Just like u17 said, "we surrender our natural born right to copy bits as we please, for a limited time, (...) but they have abused our trust and taken it to the extreme": I do acknowledge the role copyright have in encouraging productivity, but it has been abused to the extreme.
It is not there to make people produce culture anymore. Its solely there to allow the big content companies to "profit forever, without bound, from a limited amount of work".
I say, limit the copyright to something like 20 years or at most a lifetime, so that most of us can live to the point when our culture is returned back to us. I say 'our culture' because art is useless without people who admire it. It is we who create the value of it and it becomes entangled in our lives. It is more than just a piece of merchandise we would get from a convenience store.
20 years of monopoly should be enough to compensate an artist for the work done and it would encourage him to produce more work after that period had passed.
You need to do manual and potentially textual work to do that in MacOSX? Gnome with NetworkManager does it automatically (tested with Android 2.2 thetering).
It is clear from the look and style that gnome had macosx as a role-model for the UI. Would the student start to be exceeding the teacher?
What a bunch of total human crap (a worse kind of excrement than bull shit). Its _not_enough to see the code for it to be open source.
This is from MS-Public License:
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
This is from SugarCRM public licence:
2. Source Code License.
2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims:
(a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work; and
Finally, this is from Open Source Definition:
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Its clear all of those give the right to modify and/or redistribute the work as source or binary.
No need to do that. #2 clearly states: "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form".
Note: "The program must (...) allow distribution in (...) compiled form". No mention it has to be derived.
No. It used to be fairly common to sell software with source code, with explicit restriction that it may not be redistributed: source was only provided for in-house use. That is certainly not open source.
I remember those days, believe it or not.:) No, that really was (and still is) open source. What we have going on here, is a group (the OSI) attempting to re-define Open Source to be synonymous with Free Software. Perhaps one day they will succeed and we'll have to start referring to any open source software that isn't also licensed under something like the GPL as "shared source". One day, perhaps, but (best Aragorn voice) it is not this day!.
Seriously, if you want to refer to software that is both open source and includes the right to distribute and modify, call it "Free Software"
Those old programs weren't open source just by the virtue of being accompanied by their source code that was open for view. Open Source in the meaning that become public in the 90's always included freedom to modify and/or distribute. If there were other meanings, they were local and are now superseded. The main difference between Free Software and Open Source is that Free Software requires you to use a free license on the derived work, and Open Source only gives you the right to do so.
This difference in point of views is the reason for the creation of the term Open Source. That's also why Open Source is not necessarily Free Software.
There are no 'a' definitions of open source. There is only one. The one that grands the user full use, modification and redistribution rights. Regardless who has the trademarks or inventions. Thats the core. You cant go around changing meanings of words according to your personal view. If you want other meanings there are other words, such as 'shared source'. OSI is just an organization which the community trust to be able to recognize open source licenses. It doesn't matter how they define it. If they start using a different definition, they might lose the trust and thus their purpose.
So they should give all their rights up in return for a promise? How about you sign a job contract binding you to work 80 hours a week for 5$ an hour in return for a promise of really big bonuses. Promises dont count. Contracts and licenses do. Besides, llfonic's representative clearly stated they had no plans to contribute anything back.
The user did not ask for a limit of division when the divisor approaches 0 but the number representing mathematical result of dividing another number in zero even parts. Mathematics assigns no meaning to such operation (it is not defined). Claiming it will get you infinity is either mathematical blasphemy or utter ignorance.
The fact that IEEE might define a state for when a cpu tries to calculate it (NaN - which btw really is NOT a number), does not change the cold fact that doing so is an error and has to result in an error message.
This is actually very nice and neat usability design for this particular case, but how would it work in other circumstances, such as no network connection, no scanner connected, disk io error, random memory error caused by broken hardware or cosmic radiation, printer on fire or any other hardware malfunction ?
Hard drives, network connections and input devices are all part of the hardware not software.
Software does not just break (it can be created broken), but a computer, as a combination of software and hardware, might break.
Brain cells are not re-cultivated (although there some exceptions in a certain area of the brain). When a brain cell dies, another brain cells will likely extend their dendrites and axon terminals to take over the old cell's duties. If too much brain cells dies, the remaining cells wont be able to compensate.
Slashdot Mirror
How trustworthy are those polls? Everything official in China is controlled by the government. If the polls are not right out falsified, then I certainly doubt the honesty of the respondees.
If your totalitarian government after brutally crushing opposition, with a smoking gun turns over to you and asks if you have a problem with them, what would you say?
A USD bill weighs 1 gram. So 218 tonnes becomes mere 8 tonnes. Fully feasible for a normal truck.
"1. Scofflaws will ignore the law and continue relatively unabated." "2. Law-abiders will suffer the inevitable unintended consequences and/or become scofflaws at the stroke of a legislators pen." There is no point guessing. Just look at the places with more sane gun laws and see if what you claim is true for there. Yet I will provide extra argumentation: 1. And yet it is in the US that firearm misuse is amongst the highest. 2. I don't think so. There is a difference in the degree of necessity here. I can live my whole life without owning or firing a gun. Not so much can be said about enjoying some/any form of art. Can you?
If you mean to ban a whole technology, such as bit torrent: I dont give a damn what other people are using it for and how many they are. If I want to use it to get my (legit) software upgrades because its technologically superior over direct download, they you be damned trying to prohibit me from doing that! Even if where only 10 people in the whole world doing that.
Not using imperial units will only make you better people, Americans (and Brits)!
Capitalization is something typically american. I was never thought in school to use all caps as a tool in writing. I did learn about punctuation, paragraphing and even underlining. Capsing really makes thing less readable. I keep being astonished how eulas and manuals capitalize whole paragraphs of something "really important" in an attempt to make people read those parts - but because it makes it more difficult to read, the effect is of course the opposite. Having said that, I used to sometimes capitalize selected words in typing to add emphasis but later realized it was in most cases unnecessary (i.e. the emphasis). Besides, one could _underline_ if it was really needed.
You say about somebody offering you a cultural experience in exchange for a price as if it was a piece of a chocolate where the market, supply and demand decide the price. Except that copyright deforms that market by creating an artificial (and nowadays virtually perpetual) monopoly. Its a chocolate only one company is allowed to produce. Ever. Monopolies are not good for free markets. (Most) people need culture just as they need air and water. Would you say the same if a big company had a monopoly in your area for delivering air and water for you to live in exchange for an agreed price? Just like u17 said, "we surrender our natural born right to copy bits as we please, for a limited time, (...) but they have abused our trust and taken it to the extreme": I do acknowledge the role copyright have in encouraging productivity, but it has been abused to the extreme. It is not there to make people produce culture anymore. Its solely there to allow the big content companies to "profit forever, without bound, from a limited amount of work". I say, limit the copyright to something like 20 years or at most a lifetime, so that most of us can live to the point when our culture is returned back to us. I say 'our culture' because art is useless without people who admire it. It is we who create the value of it and it becomes entangled in our lives. It is more than just a piece of merchandise we would get from a convenience store. 20 years of monopoly should be enough to compensate an artist for the work done and it would encourage him to produce more work after that period had passed.
u17 (1730558) shares my opinion exactly!
You need to do manual and potentially textual work to do that in MacOSX? Gnome with NetworkManager does it automatically (tested with Android 2.2 thetering). It is clear from the look and style that gnome had macosx as a role-model for the UI. Would the student start to be exceeding the teacher?
What a bunch of total human crap (a worse kind of excrement than bull shit). Its _not_enough to see the code for it to be open source.
This is from MS-Public License:
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
This is from SugarCRM public licence:
2. Source Code License.
2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims: (a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work; and
Finally, this is from Open Source Definition:
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Its clear all of those give the right to modify and/or redistribute the work as source or binary.
No need to do that. #2 clearly states: "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form".
Note: "The program must (...) allow distribution in (...) compiled form". No mention it has to be derived.
I remember those days, believe it or not. :) No, that really was (and still is) open source. What we have going on here, is a group (the OSI) attempting to re-define Open Source to be synonymous with Free Software. Perhaps one day they will succeed and we'll have to start referring to any open source software that isn't also licensed under something like the GPL as "shared source". One day, perhaps, but (best Aragorn voice) it is not this day!.
Seriously, if you want to refer to software that is both open source and includes the right to distribute and modify, call it "Free Software"
Those old programs weren't open source just by the virtue of being accompanied by their source code that was open for view. Open Source in the meaning that become public in the 90's always included freedom to modify and/or distribute. If there were other meanings, they were local and are now superseded. The main difference between Free Software and Open Source is that Free Software requires you to use a free license on the derived work, and Open Source only gives you the right to do so. This difference in point of views is the reason for the creation of the term Open Source. That's also why Open Source is not necessarily Free Software.
There are no 'a' definitions of open source. There is only one. The one that grands the user full use, modification and redistribution rights. Regardless who has the trademarks or inventions. Thats the core. You cant go around changing meanings of words according to your personal view. If you want other meanings there are other words, such as 'shared source'. OSI is just an organization which the community trust to be able to recognize open source licenses. It doesn't matter how they define it. If they start using a different definition, they might lose the trust and thus their purpose.
For the general information : except for being unwise to leave the laptop in a car, none of the rest of the previous comment is true.
So they should give all their rights up in return for a promise? How about you sign a job contract binding you to work 80 hours a week for 5$ an hour in return for a promise of really big bonuses. Promises dont count. Contracts and licenses do. Besides, llfonic's representative clearly stated they had no plans to contribute anything back.
The user did not ask for a limit of division when the divisor approaches 0 but the number representing mathematical result of dividing another number in zero even parts. Mathematics assigns no meaning to such operation (it is not defined). Claiming it will get you infinity is either mathematical blasphemy or utter ignorance. The fact that IEEE might define a state for when a cpu tries to calculate it (NaN - which btw really is NOT a number), does not change the cold fact that doing so is an error and has to result in an error message.
This is actually very nice and neat usability design for this particular case, but how would it work in other circumstances, such as no network connection, no scanner connected, disk io error, random memory error caused by broken hardware or cosmic radiation, printer on fire or any other hardware malfunction ?
Hard drives, network connections and input devices are all part of the hardware not software. Software does not just break (it can be created broken), but a computer, as a combination of software and hardware, might break.
Thats because it was a _windows_ senior admin. Windows teaches to ignore error messages and that applies to everyone.
Brain cells are not re-cultivated (although there some exceptions in a certain area of the brain). When a brain cell dies, another brain cells will likely extend their dendrites and axon terminals to take over the old cell's duties. If too much brain cells dies, the remaining cells wont be able to compensate.
FYI: In 2000 1 dollar was 1.083 euros (enl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tables_of_historical_exchange_rates_to_the_USD). Why would it be 25000 eur more ten years ago? Anyway, 75000/1.083 is 69250.
I found about google analytics when I started using the NoScript plugin. Its used almost everywhere!