They have, and they are. Join the freedesktop.org mailing list and you will see quite a bit of cooperation and "joining of forces" between Gnome and KDE developers.
Whenever Firefox (or any app) hangs in Linux, I just click the "X" in the window manager, and if the app doesn't respond to the the window manager I am given a Kill/Cancel option, no terminal required.
The license grants them the "right" to make unrestricted "copies". You retain ownership of the work, but you give Google the right to make and use copies it.
1: If Google needs your permission to display the content, they can say "You grant Google permission to display or present the content on your behalf, within the scope of the service you are being provided." See how neatly that takes care of the situation WITHOUT claiming any rights to your work?
Claiming unrestricted copyright gives Google better legal protection, that's really the only reason they chose that instead of your version. The extent of "the scope of the service you are being provided" can be argued about in court, a blanket right to reproduce can not.
Actually, Ubuntu never had an A, B or C named release, they started alphabetical order with Dapper Drake. They've also already used W (Warty Warthog) and repeated H (Hoary Hedgehog and Hardy Heron).
No, that's like showing your appreciation of the service Slashdot provides (idle excepted), and deciding to allow ads on it's websites so it can continue it's revenue model. At least, that's what I use my whitelist for.
Then why did Linus remove the "This version or later" clause from the license of Linux? Clearly he was concerned that people might opt for a future version of the license which contained clauses he didn't agree with, like GPLv3.
Because Linus didn't want to give people the ability to distribute his code under anything but the terms of the GPLv2.
It seems that both the FSF and Linus believe that "version 2 or later at your option" is something which, it it had been applied to the kernel, users could use to force Tivo to do things that version 3 demands of them but version 2 did not.
No, because if Tivo distributes code under "version 2 or later", that only means that Tivo's user can choose either v2 or later when they redistribute the code. Tivo is in no way bound to the terms of any later version, only to the terms of the GPLv2.
Now if he'd left in the "or later" clause then both he the author and Tivo would have been forced to do something they didn't agree with once users decided to opt for GPLv3.
How can you possibly come to that conclusion? If Tivo, Linus or IBM distributes code under the GPLv2, then they just need to comply with the GPLv2. Code with the "or a later version" clause are not licensed under anything but the GPLv2, they are not licensed under the GPLv3, they just give the end user the option of changing the license to a later GPL if they choose to redistribute.
Better yet, read your public key to the teller, who then generates some random data, encrypts it with your public key and the bank's private key, then reads out both the cipher text and their public key over the phone to you. You then decrypt the data, and re-encrypt it with their public key plus your private key, and read the cipher text back to them, over the phone.
Of course, you'd want to call them first thing in the morning, so you can finish the transaction before close of business.
For efficiency, you can both keep a copy of each other's public keys after the first transaction, but you'll then need to read the contents of your respective revocation lists to each other, to make sure they're still valid.
Jesus people, 25 years isn't all that far into the future. Just arrange for Google, Microsoft, Apple, Sun and IBM (and any others you think appropriate) to host the material, and write the URLs on a sheet of paper. If none of those companies exist in 25 years, chances are nobody's going to care about those pictures anyway.
I think he was saying that it provides 70% to 85% _more_ protection against (infect|pregnancy)? than using nothing. However, using nothing isn't a 100% guarantee of becoming (infected|pregnant)?, so if unprotected leaves you with, say, a 50% risk, then protected would leave you with between 7.5% and 15% at risk (85% to 92.5% safe) .
I have companies sending me "Birthday discount" mailers all the time. Anybody with your first and last name, and even a vague idea of where you live, can figure out what your birthday is.
Slashdot Mirror
Global warming on mars would be a very good thing.
The very best manager you could ever have manages the people above him, not the people below him.
No one really was offended by it, as long as they didn't measure the alcohol-levels. :)
They should have measured that, to see where a candidate fell relative to the Ballmer peak.
2) Kid is playing computer and says "This is AWESOME! When are you going to release it?" Bill says "Never, and don't tell anyone where you got it"
Holy Crap it was Linux!
They have, and they are. Join the freedesktop.org mailing list and you will see quite a bit of cooperation and "joining of forces" between Gnome and KDE developers.
A lot of us watch YouTube
A lot of us use Totem for that.
If it doesn't there's nothing to stop Lenovo from adding those codes before shipping.
Whenever Firefox (or any app) hangs in Linux, I just click the "X" in the window manager, and if the app doesn't respond to the the window manager I am given a Kill/Cancel option, no terminal required.
...but you STILL retain copyright, and they don't.
Okay, you're right, I finally did my homework and I was using the word "copyright" to mean something it doesn't.
Yes, Google gets an non-exclusive (and presumably irrevocable) license to copy and distribute your content, but not the actual copyright.
The license grants them the "right" to make unrestricted "copies". You retain ownership of the work, but you give Google the right to make and use copies it.
1: If Google needs your permission to display the content, they can say "You grant Google permission to display or present the content on your behalf, within the scope of the service you are being provided." See how neatly that takes care of the situation WITHOUT claiming any rights to your work?
Claiming unrestricted copyright gives Google better legal protection, that's really the only reason they chose that instead of your version. The extent of "the scope of the service you are being provided" can be argued about in court, a blanket right to reproduce can not.
Actually, Ubuntu never had an A, B or C named release, they started alphabetical order with Dapper Drake. They've also already used W (Warty Warthog) and repeated H (Hoary Hedgehog and Hardy Heron).
But that's like, what, 5 releases?
Seriously, anyone got the Simple English version ?
It's a murder joke.
No, that's like showing your appreciation of the service Slashdot provides (idle excepted), and deciding to allow ads on it's websites so it can continue it's revenue model. At least, that's what I use my whitelist for.
Then why did Linus remove the "This version or later" clause from the license of Linux? Clearly he was concerned that people might opt for a future version of the license which contained clauses he didn't agree with, like GPLv3.
Because Linus didn't want to give people the ability to distribute his code under anything but the terms of the GPLv2.
It seems that both the FSF and Linus believe that "version 2 or later at your option" is something which, it it had been applied to the kernel, users could use to force Tivo to do things that version 3 demands of them but version 2 did not.
No, because if Tivo distributes code under "version 2 or later", that only means that Tivo's user can choose either v2 or later when they redistribute the code. Tivo is in no way bound to the terms of any later version, only to the terms of the GPLv2.
Now if he'd left in the "or later" clause then both he the author and Tivo would have been forced to do something they didn't agree with once users decided to opt for GPLv3.
How can you possibly come to that conclusion? If Tivo, Linus or IBM distributes code under the GPLv2, then they just need to comply with the GPLv2. Code with the "or a later version" clause are not licensed under anything but the GPLv2, they are not licensed under the GPLv3, they just give the end user the option of changing the license to a later GPL if they choose to redistribute.
Isn't it better to specialise in a few of the varied languages and systems you have worked on, rather than trying to spread yourself thin?
There is truth in the saying 'jack of all trades - master of none'.
"Java" isn't a trade, "Programming" is a trade. As some already commented, you become a master of the logic and the problem solving, not of the tools.
What you're advocating is essentially to make yourself a master of the hammer, and not bother learning how to use a screwdriver.
Better yet, read your public key to the teller, who then generates some random data, encrypts it with your public key and the bank's private key, then reads out both the cipher text and their public key over the phone to you. You then decrypt the data, and re-encrypt it with their public key plus your private key, and read the cipher text back to them, over the phone.
Of course, you'd want to call them first thing in the morning, so you can finish the transaction before close of business.
For efficiency, you can both keep a copy of each other's public keys after the first transaction, but you'll then need to read the contents of your respective revocation lists to each other, to make sure they're still valid.
Jesus people, 25 years isn't all that far into the future. Just arrange for Google, Microsoft, Apple, Sun and IBM (and any others you think appropriate) to host the material, and write the URLs on a sheet of paper. If none of those companies exist in 25 years, chances are nobody's going to care about those pictures anyway.
What do you have against Bobby Ext?
Does that make abstinence preconceived murder?
I think he was saying that it provides 70% to 85% _more_ protection against (infect|pregnancy)? than using nothing. However, using nothing isn't a 100% guarantee of becoming (infected|pregnant)?, so if unprotected leaves you with, say, a 50% risk, then protected would leave you with between 7.5% and 15% at risk (85% to 92.5% safe) .
If my math is right, which I won't vouch for.
I can't believe you both passed up an opportunity to make a "mad cow" joke.
I'm trying to figure out if I need to take a compass or some cows.
Take one of each. You know what they say, you can't have your compass and eat it too.
I have companies sending me "Birthday discount" mailers all the time. Anybody with your first and last name, and even a vague idea of where you live, can figure out what your birthday is.