Can we stop with the obligatory "OMG typo" posts on every thread? We all know the common denominator among editors here is a low proofreading quotient, but let's not allow it to cause division.
Please excuse my dear aunt Sally. She's very pedantic about these sorts of issues.
Data usage on a mobile phone produces different usage patterns than usage on a regular PC.
So while the same data cap applies, the tethered device can put a higher demand on the network. That is what the tethering charge is for.
Bullshit. The tethering charge is there so they can make the option of buying a separate, more expensive wireless plan just for your laptop look like an attractive prospect despite the fact that you already have (or had) "unlimited" data via your phone.
This is not a test case for the GPL, it's a straight-forward copyright violation case
The really clever bit about the GPL is that any test case is a straight-forward copyright infringement case. People who violate the GPL find themselves in the unenviable position of having to try to use the GPL to justify their actions, because it's the only thing that gives them any shred of permission to use the code. All it takes, then, is for the court to evaluate the situation and realize that the GPL didn't actually give them permission because they didn't meet its requirements.
That's not necessarily true. Bear in mind that, if put to a legal test, parts of the license could be found unenforceable, in which case someone could escape the terms of the GPL. Another possible loophole is the definition of a "derivative work". Generally I think we assume that if a project pulls in some code that is identifiable as having been part of a GPL product, then that project (according to the GPL) must also be licensed by the GPL. But that assertion, too, is something that would have to be tested. One could argue that the amount of GPL code is so small in comparison with the rest of the project that to claim the project is now a "derivative work" is unreasonable - in that case, the GPL code being linked in would still have to be distributed, possibly including any changes made to it - but the work as a whole would be unaffected.
You can create a license that says all sorts of things, and have lawyers look at it and try to figure out if it will pass a test in court: but really, you don't know one way or another until it actually happens.
Other than shiny marketing-speak, what is the practical difference between something like computers.apple.com and computers.apple? I doubt anyone is going to use brandname.brandname URLs, so are we just waving goodbye to the first section of the domain?
We're waving good-bye to the last part, too. If ".com" is the first TLD people think of when trying to figure out the domain name for a site - and if that expectation (that it's dot-com) is so ingrained that people get confused when it's anything else, then having that "dot-com" on there is worthless and only introduces confusion. So TLDs become the new (premium-price, anti-squatter) domain names for big organizations, and everyone who can't afford one must accept a domain under an ordinary, "old-fashion" TLD.
Proliferating the TLDs with all the.com domain names is just plain asinine.
Someone take these morons out back and have them shot, please.
As a counter-argument, I'd say that TLDs themselves (as they currently stand) are pretty worthless these days.
Consider: If you have a site that's not on ".com", and there's another domain with the same name, except it's in ".com", there's a pretty good chance site visitors will screw up and go to the ".com" on instead. If the same name is in different TLDs and these domains are not run by the same organization, confusion is bound to result.
So one solution would be to go to a fully flat namespace. Ditch TLDs. Do that, and any given name is going to be held by just one organization.
That's pretty much what this change is. TLDs become the new domains, while domain names within traditional TLDs become somewhat devalued. There will be a new "land-grab" for the newly-available TLD space, but given the cost, not many will gobble up TLDs frivolously.
If this catches on, there will be various benefits for those who can afford the premium exposure. "dot-com" will gradually become old-fashion and forgotten. The cost of domain-squatting a TLD will be significantly higher... And the difference between a high-budget site and a low-budget site (presently a matter of hosting quality, software quality, and organizational effort) would be reflected in the site's domain name, as well.
Of course, I'm less pleased with what this change would mean for everybody else - anyone who can't drop $185k on a TLD. Small sites will become increasingly marginalized...
I sometimes wonder if it's the bad naming that causes so much confusion with pointers. They are just memory addresses. What if they were called "addresses" instead of "pointers?"
When you have a printed mailing label, is the label an "address", or is the "address" that which is printed on the label?
I'm sick of people posting "whoosh" all over the place. Half the time I think the person getting "whooshed" didn't even miss anything, there's no hidden joke, just somebody decided to be a condescending dickhole and post "whoosh", never mind that it's not a suitable occasion...
I got that it was a non-alcoholic drink. I was under the impression that open container laws applied to any beverage container, alcoholic or not, leaving cops free to abuse the power provided by the law and/or use it as an excuse to look for other violations. But I was wrong. That's what I get for not fact-checking simple bits of information like that.:)
Demonstrated ability to run a government? She ran:
* A state with the population of a mid-sized urban area, * Where the residents pay no taxes and in fact are paid by the state to live there, * For less than two years.
Cake, meet walk.
Yeah, but with Russia looming over her on one side, and the constant thread of border raids by disgruntled mounties on the other side, every day presented new and difficult challenges, and she received ample opportunity to practice the subtle arts of international diplomacy. Don't think of it as "she ran a state with a small population" - it's more like, "she ran a state with a small population - on the very boundary where the civilized world meets the fearsome wildlands and enemy hordes". In sci-fi terms, it's like she was running Babylon 5. She was just getting to understand the threat posed by the Shadows when she left office.
The only reason we (massholes) know where NH is, is because you're our taxless hat!
They're also "that state I pass through on my way to Maine".:)
Ah, but I kid New Hamster. They also have cool mountains, Funspot, Weird Beach Drive-in, and at least one comic shop with a nice selection of Gundam kits.
This is blinking to *oncoming* traffic, not the car in front of you.
Unfortunately, in my car, I can't aim the headlights in different directions without turning the car around. If I aimed the headlights specifically at oncoming traffic, I'd wind up hitting oncoming traffic - or the median which prevents me from hitting oncoming traffic.
People on the road today are idiots - especially here in Massachusetts (there is a reason the word Masshole exists): yield signs mean "cut the other person off," stop signs mean "proceed without stopping or slowing and without checking for traffic," red lights mean "Punch it! You have a three-second grace period" and someone turning on their turn indicators (blinkers in New England nomenclature) is an indication that you are to speed up and not let the person change lanes so that they can't get to their exit.
I thought usage of blinkers was an indication that you'd left the state, wound up in New Hamster or some other place where the fundamental rules of the universe are different - where sales tax doesn't exist, where liquor stores are placed right next to the highway, where fireworks can be purchased, and where people use their turn signals sometimes instead of just assuming other people will figure out where they're going.
Don't worry it wont be long before you are branded a pedo since lemonade stands are mostly ran by little girls and boys. Won't someone think about the lemon squeezing children?
Bah. Those lazy little bastards don't squeeze lemons any more. They just buy a container of crappy instant lemonade and sell that by the glass.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we stop with the obligatory "OMG typo" posts on every thread? We all know the common denominator among editors here is a low proofreading quotient, but let's not allow it to cause division.
Please excuse my dear aunt Sally. She's very pedantic about these sorts of issues.
Almost every company that has worked with MS has gotten stabbed in the back.
Look on the bright side. At least you get to keep the knife.
Yes, and everyone here has exactly the same opinions about absolutely everything.
That's OK, I'll just switch to one of those other carriers providing unlimited wireless data.
Don't forget there's another choice as well: If you don't like the available options, don't get any of them.
This comes up every time....
Data usage on a mobile phone produces different usage patterns than usage on a regular PC.
So while the same data cap applies, the tethered device can put a higher demand on the network. That is what the tethering charge is for.
Bullshit. The tethering charge is there so they can make the option of buying a separate, more expensive wireless plan just for your laptop look like an attractive prospect despite the fact that you already have (or had) "unlimited" data via your phone.
The FSF refused to review my code and issue me a "certificate of no GPL code."
The FSF is not the only group that writes GPL code.
This is not a test case for the GPL, it's a straight-forward copyright violation case
The really clever bit about the GPL is that any test case is a straight-forward copyright infringement case. People who violate the GPL find themselves in the unenviable position of having to try to use the GPL to justify their actions, because it's the only thing that gives them any shred of permission to use the code. All it takes, then, is for the court to evaluate the situation and realize that the GPL didn't actually give them permission because they didn't meet its requirements.
That's not necessarily true. Bear in mind that, if put to a legal test, parts of the license could be found unenforceable, in which case someone could escape the terms of the GPL. Another possible loophole is the definition of a "derivative work". Generally I think we assume that if a project pulls in some code that is identifiable as having been part of a GPL product, then that project (according to the GPL) must also be licensed by the GPL. But that assertion, too, is something that would have to be tested. One could argue that the amount of GPL code is so small in comparison with the rest of the project that to claim the project is now a "derivative work" is unreasonable - in that case, the GPL code being linked in would still have to be distributed, possibly including any changes made to it - but the work as a whole would be unaffected.
You can create a license that says all sorts of things, and have lawyers look at it and try to figure out if it will pass a test in court: but really, you don't know one way or another until it actually happens.
Took them long enough
Can't wait to see which spammer registers free.viagra
A spammer with deep pockets and a very strong legal team?
$185k to apply, and if the TLD you're applying for is trademarked, you have to show it's yours.
Hmmmmm, until recently, only countries and groups got TLDs. Now, corporations have been elevated to the level of countries.
Yeah, but on the bright side, I've got this great gig, working with the Ravens' Ark as an independent contractor...
Other than shiny marketing-speak, what is the practical difference between something like computers.apple.com and computers.apple? I doubt anyone is going to use brandname.brandname URLs, so are we just waving goodbye to the first section of the domain?
We're waving good-bye to the last part, too. If ".com" is the first TLD people think of when trying to figure out the domain name for a site - and if that expectation (that it's dot-com) is so ingrained that people get confused when it's anything else, then having that "dot-com" on there is worthless and only introduces confusion. So TLDs become the new (premium-price, anti-squatter) domain names for big organizations, and everyone who can't afford one must accept a domain under an ordinary, "old-fashion" TLD.
Proliferating the TLDs with all the .com domain names is just plain asinine.
Someone take these morons out back and have them shot, please.
As a counter-argument, I'd say that TLDs themselves (as they currently stand) are pretty worthless these days.
Consider: If you have a site that's not on ".com", and there's another domain with the same name, except it's in ".com", there's a pretty good chance site visitors will screw up and go to the ".com" on instead. If the same name is in different TLDs and these domains are not run by the same organization, confusion is bound to result.
So one solution would be to go to a fully flat namespace. Ditch TLDs. Do that, and any given name is going to be held by just one organization.
That's pretty much what this change is. TLDs become the new domains, while domain names within traditional TLDs become somewhat devalued. There will be a new "land-grab" for the newly-available TLD space, but given the cost, not many will gobble up TLDs frivolously.
If this catches on, there will be various benefits for those who can afford the premium exposure. "dot-com" will gradually become old-fashion and forgotten. The cost of domain-squatting a TLD will be significantly higher... And the difference between a high-budget site and a low-budget site (presently a matter of hosting quality, software quality, and organizational effort) would be reflected in the site's domain name, as well.
Of course, I'm less pleased with what this change would mean for everybody else - anyone who can't drop $185k on a TLD. Small sites will become increasingly marginalized...
I sometimes wonder if it's the bad naming that causes so much confusion with pointers. They are just memory addresses. What if they were called "addresses" instead of "pointers?"
When you have a printed mailing label, is the label an "address", or is the "address" that which is printed on the label?
I surely can't be the only one praying that they do drop .NET?
Yes, you are. .NET is one of Microsoft's better ideas.
Could I ask for your perspective on why this is the case?
I'm sick of people posting "whoosh" all over the place. Half the time I think the person getting "whooshed" didn't even miss anything, there's no hidden joke, just somebody decided to be a condescending dickhole and post "whoosh", never mind that it's not a suitable occasion...
...open container for an energy drink?
I got that it was a non-alcoholic drink. I was under the impression that open container laws applied to any beverage container, alcoholic or not, leaving cops free to abuse the power provided by the law and/or use it as an excuse to look for other violations. :)
But I was wrong. That's what I get for not fact-checking simple bits of information like that.
Wahhhh my witch hunt isnt being made easy for me!
If the witch weren't on your team you'd probably accuse her (or her cronies) of obstructing justice...
Good looking? Perhaps.
Intelligent? Anything but.
Demonstrated ability to run a government? She ran:
* A state with the population of a mid-sized urban area,
* Where the residents pay no taxes and in fact are paid by the state to live there,
* For less than two years.
Cake, meet walk.
Yeah, but with Russia looming over her on one side, and the constant thread of border raids by disgruntled mounties on the other side, every day presented new and difficult challenges, and she received ample opportunity to practice the subtle arts of international diplomacy. Don't think of it as "she ran a state with a small population" - it's more like, "she ran a state with a small population - on the very boundary where the civilized world meets the fearsome wildlands and enemy hordes". In sci-fi terms, it's like she was running Babylon 5. She was just getting to understand the threat posed by the Shadows when she left office.
Do you realize how long that internet tube would have to be to reach Alaska?
And it's Juneau, too. There's no roads that get you there, let alone any Information Superhighways.
There's an exemption in the Apple Store policy about DUI checkpoints that are published by the authorities.
So are the exempting apps containing published information? Or are they exempting only apps published by "the authorities"?
Technically, you never have the right-of-way. You are GIVEN the right-of-way, but you never actually have it. Yes, it's confusing.
I have tea. I also have no tea.
The only reason we (massholes) know where NH is, is because you're our taxless hat!
They're also "that state I pass through on my way to Maine". :)
Ah, but I kid New Hamster. They also have cool mountains, Funspot, Weird Beach Drive-in, and at least one comic shop with a nice selection of Gundam kits.
This is blinking to *oncoming* traffic, not the car in front of you.
Unfortunately, in my car, I can't aim the headlights in different directions without turning the car around. If I aimed the headlights specifically at oncoming traffic, I'd wind up hitting oncoming traffic - or the median which prevents me from hitting oncoming traffic.
once the cop was still waiting for me so I had the clerk give me a bag for my Rockstar.
drank said Rockstar on my way to my truck.
Don't some states have "open container" laws to act as a catch-all for cases like this?
Don't worry it wont be long before you are branded a pedo since lemonade stands are mostly ran by little girls and boys. Won't someone think about the lemon squeezing children?
Bah. Those lazy little bastards don't squeeze lemons any more. They just buy a container of crappy instant lemonade and sell that by the glass.