It is common knowledge within certain programming and Internet addict communities that Chromium is open sourced. For people outside these communities (which is the vast majority of humankind) it is not common knowledge.
Feel happy when you can enlighten someone to a piece of knowledge. But don't lord it over them. They are sure to know many things common to their communities of which you have no idea. The first step to being accepted by people (getting friends, wife, getting along with workmates etc.) is learning how to accept people.
Dissing someone for not knowing what Chromium is just reeks of an inferiority complex. Learn to accept that others know things you don't know; and you know things that others don't know.
Should I say you've been living under a rock because you don't know these basic concepts of social behaviour, which are ubiquitous across different cultures and time periods? No, it is much better to tell, convince, persuade. Resorting to insults, or astonishment which implies disrespect is just aggressive behaviour, which is something which most societies do not accept (except for the fact that people being aggressive to one another can be fairly entertaining).
If someone asks "what animal does beef come from?", there are several ways to respond. I will list two.
Correct
Cows. [conversation moves on]
Incorrect
Are you stupid? Have you been living in an igloo for your entire life? It's common knowledge that beef comes from cows.
[person who asked question now feels incredibly stupid and will respond either with aggression, or avoidance of you. Either way, they will not like you]
[alternatively, you will receive a lecture from the politeness police]
Do you know who the Secretary General of Australia is? How could you not know that? It was announced quite a long time ago that it was Ms Quentin Bryce
Just because you feel something is common knowledge doesn't mean that it is, and doesn't mean everyone has to know it.
No offense to anyone (it's actually sarcasm whenever anyone begins a sentence with "no offense"), but I've seen a bunch of idiots on both the Apple side and the anti-Apple side. Just saying.
I agree, the on screen keyboard on my droid slows me down immensely. Heck, I could type faster on my 0-9 Nokia keypad. Not being able to feel the "keys" makes a big difference. I used to text without looking, so I could be listening to someone boring and text under the table. Now I have to look at the phone, otherwise I have to hope of writing the correct thing.
I too would switch to something else if I were forced to have an image like that on my homepage. It really is hard to think, and do research, when you have pretty pictures blasting at your eyeballs.
It's the same reason I block Flash, and GIFs. I just can't think if there is stuff moving, or brightly coloured.
I tried Bing a few times, but it's too distracting, and just plain annoying.
I am quite happy to take my groceries on a bus or train. It's also a bit of a money saver because it prevents me from buying stuff I don't need like ice cream, coke, etc.
No, it's simply ad hominem. Could also call it "reductio ad Murdoch", but it's simply nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis, and is not Godwinish at all. Your comment, however, is.
Heaven forbid that you double check the facts. Not to mention that there is no worldwide measure of the quality/accuracy of any academic papers released. Without any evidence, but based on general Chinese QA processes, I would imagine that a lot of those papers would be useless.
That being said. I do agree that Microsoft, should have that document available on their site. I just don't believe that they have any legal obligation to do so. And whether or not there is a moral obligation is arguable, and therefore needs a proper argument.
That's subjective, and what's that got to do with copyright anyway?
not sufficient... to justify saying that this is uniquely Microsoft's property
Does any other company have exactly the same document, word for word? And if that was the case, we wouldn't need/want to see their document anyway. If it wasn't unique, who cares if we see it or not.
it's a step-by-step description of their legal obligations under U.S. law
It's not. If you want that, read the law. It's their interpretation of it. There is no law (that I know of) saying that have to make their interpretation public. And if it was what you say it is, again their is no law, or obvious moral obligation for them to make it public.
Of course, in my opinion, Microsoft had no need to hide that particular document, or keep it confidential. That being said, I don't believe they have a moral obligation to release that document (morals are subjective anyway), but they certainly have no legal obligation to allow people to see it.
It's not censorship. There is a big difference between keeping one's own secrets, and preventing the publication of someone else's work.
Of course, like any word in any language, the meaning isn't completely clear-cut, but I do not believe that this is censorship. If someone else wrote what they knew about Microsoft's practice, and MS somehow got that taken down, I suppose that could be considered censorship. But in this case, it was a document that Microsoft wrote so they can do what they will. If it was the government trying to prevent the spread of that document, then it would be censorship. If you took censorship in a very broad meaning, it could mean that any copyright at all, and not telling your best friend that you slept with his sister, are forms of censorship.
And whether it was censorship or not, which could be argued, it certainly wasn't an abuse of the DMCA. One thing the DMCA does is strengthen copyright law, and seeing as MS used this aspect in "defense" of their own copyrighted material, I don't see how it is an abuse.
Besides, it's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Not the Digital Millennium Copyright, but not when it comes to censorship, Act.
Whether it's an internal document, or a movie, makes no difference to how copyrightable it is, or whether or not the DMCA should be used.
Of course, IANAL, IANA (I am not American) and MFLINE (my first language is not English), etc.
Why would you suspect anything illegal was going on? I send links to my friends from government sites quite frequently, and they often have seemingly random letters/numbers in the links, which I originally accessed through the menu structure. For instance http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/SubnationalPopulationProjections_MR2031.aspx
This is information the government WANTS people to have access to.
I don't see why the appearance of the URL has anything to do with whether it is private or not.
Slashdot Mirror
*sheepish look* Donchaknow, Ban Ki Moon is actually Quentin with extensive makeup and voice training.
It is common knowledge within certain programming and Internet addict communities that Chromium is open sourced. For people outside these communities (which is the vast majority of humankind) it is not common knowledge.
Feel happy when you can enlighten someone to a piece of knowledge. But don't lord it over them. They are sure to know many things common to their communities of which you have no idea. The first step to being accepted by people (getting friends, wife, getting along with workmates etc.) is learning how to accept people.
Dissing someone for not knowing what Chromium is just reeks of an inferiority complex. Learn to accept that others know things you don't know; and you know things that others don't know.
Should I say you've been living under a rock because you don't know these basic concepts of social behaviour, which are ubiquitous across different cultures and time periods? No, it is much better to tell, convince, persuade. Resorting to insults, or astonishment which implies disrespect is just aggressive behaviour, which is something which most societies do not accept (except for the fact that people being aggressive to one another can be fairly entertaining).
If someone asks "what animal does beef come from?", there are several ways to respond. I will list two.
Correct
Incorrect
[person who asked question now feels incredibly stupid and will respond either with aggression, or avoidance of you. Either way, they will not like you]
[alternatively, you will receive a lecture from the politeness police]
Do you know who the Secretary General of Australia is? How could you not know that? It was announced quite a long time ago that it was Ms Quentin Bryce
Just because you feel something is common knowledge doesn't mean that it is, and doesn't mean everyone has to know it.
In rugby, it seems that the grass does indeed spend more time in the air than on the ground.
Lately? Lately? They've been misleading for YEARS
No offense to anyone (it's actually sarcasm whenever anyone begins a sentence with "no offense"), but I've seen a bunch of idiots on both the Apple side and the anti-Apple side. Just saying.
I agree, the on screen keyboard on my droid slows me down immensely. Heck, I could type faster on my 0-9 Nokia keypad. Not being able to feel the "keys" makes a big difference. I used to text without looking, so I could be listening to someone boring and text under the table. Now I have to look at the phone, otherwise I have to hope of writing the correct thing.
How on Earth is this a troll? Just because someone disagrees, does not make them a troll.
I too would switch to something else if I were forced to have an image like that on my homepage. It really is hard to think, and do research, when you have pretty pictures blasting at your eyeballs.
It's the same reason I block Flash, and GIFs. I just can't think if there is stuff moving, or brightly coloured.
I tried Bing a few times, but it's too distracting, and just plain annoying.
'nuff said.
I am quite happy to take my groceries on a bus or train. It's also a bit of a money saver because it prevents me from buying stuff I don't need like ice cream, coke, etc.
If it were true that Google Apps package was the most secure, and Yale refused to use Google Apps due to security concerns, THAT would be ironic.
Because it would mean, by trying to increase their security, they have reduced their security.
If they were using MS Office instead of Google Apps, because of security issues then, assuming that G Apps is more secure, then yes, that is ironic.
For instance, I find it ironic that my ex school blocked Google Chrome because of security issues, yet runs IE 6.
Of course if it were MS Office that were more secure, then the ironic thing would be us saying that it was ironic...
No, it's simply ad hominem. Could also call it "reductio ad Murdoch", but it's simply nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis, and is not Godwinish at all. Your comment, however, is.
Heaven forbid that you double check the facts. Not to mention that there is no worldwide measure of the quality/accuracy of any academic papers released. Without any evidence, but based on general Chinese QA processes, I would imagine that a lot of those papers would be useless.
Damn. I was looking forward to have a Microsoft Haircut - Professional Edition.
Sorry, global warming is losing. The number of pirates has increased dramatically over the last decade.
That being said. I do agree that Microsoft, should have that document available on their site. I just don't believe that they have any legal obligation to do so. And whether or not there is a moral obligation is arguable, and therefore needs a proper argument.
As such, it should be a matter of public record
Why?
There's not sufficient "transformative work"
That's subjective, and what's that got to do with copyright anyway?
not sufficient ... to justify saying that this is uniquely Microsoft's property
Does any other company have exactly the same document, word for word? And if that was the case, we wouldn't need/want to see their document anyway. If it wasn't unique, who cares if we see it or not.
it's a step-by-step description of their legal obligations under U.S. law
It's not. If you want that, read the law. It's their interpretation of it. There is no law (that I know of) saying that have to make their interpretation public. And if it was what you say it is, again their is no law, or obvious moral obligation for them to make it public.
Of course, in my opinion, Microsoft had no need to hide that particular document, or keep it confidential. That being said, I don't believe they have a moral obligation to release that document (morals are subjective anyway), but they certainly have no legal obligation to allow people to see it.
It's not censorship. There is a big difference between keeping one's own secrets, and preventing the publication of someone else's work.
Of course, like any word in any language, the meaning isn't completely clear-cut, but I do not believe that this is censorship. If someone else wrote what they knew about Microsoft's practice, and MS somehow got that taken down, I suppose that could be considered censorship. But in this case, it was a document that Microsoft wrote so they can do what they will. If it was the government trying to prevent the spread of that document, then it would be censorship. If you took censorship in a very broad meaning, it could mean that any copyright at all, and not telling your best friend that you slept with his sister, are forms of censorship.
And whether it was censorship or not, which could be argued, it certainly wasn't an abuse of the DMCA. One thing the DMCA does is strengthen copyright law, and seeing as MS used this aspect in "defense" of their own copyrighted material, I don't see how it is an abuse.
Besides, it's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Not the Digital Millennium Copyright, but not when it comes to censorship, Act.
Whether it's an internal document, or a movie, makes no difference to how copyrightable it is, or whether or not the DMCA should be used.
Of course, IANAL, IANA (I am not American) and MFLINE (my first language is not English), etc.
If a tree falls in the woods and I don't hear it, do I care? No.
Classic.
Why would you suspect anything illegal was going on? I send links to my friends from government sites quite frequently, and they often have seemingly random letters/numbers in the links, which I originally accessed through the menu structure. For instance http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/SubnationalPopulationProjections_MR2031.aspx This is information the government WANTS people to have access to. I don't see why the appearance of the URL has anything to do with whether it is private or not.
In NZ, tonne and ton are used interchangeably to mean 1 metric tonne.
In the metric system 1 ton = 1000kg. 1 ton = 0.90718474 tons.
Or President Hoover?
Naa, if her DVD player's so old that it can't read multiple regions, it's probably stuck on region 1, like mine is. Getting region 1 DVDs is a bonus!