The system is still called GNU, whether you use the Linux kernel or not.
The GNU tools were ported to Linux; Stallman et al (apprently you included) are trying to argue that this means GNU should be part of the name of the whole since Linux is "worthless" without the tools.
That is just petty squabbling over the fact that GNU didn't manage to make a proper kernel before Linux came along - as you indirectly state.
With the whole "GNU/Linux" thing, GNU gives off the impression of "tag-alongs" trying to ride the coattails of the more successful Linux "brand", instead of making a name for themselves. Pathetic.
We're talking about a situation in which the Developer proves the license wasn't valid to begin with, that the GPL itself is illegal.
And the question returns to: Then why did the Developer use that license in the first place? Is the Developer in violation of the law since he used an - according to him - illegal license? Or did you want to use the word "invalid" instead of the far stronger "illegal"?
No, the site owner has CHOSEN to make the site content publically available, KNOWING people are able to visit and download the content.
You visit the site, you are entering into a social contract with the site owner to look at the ads.
No. The web browser/client is ENTIRELY in the control of the visitor. Much like I can ingore ads in magazines I can ignore ads on web pages, except since I also pay for MY connection, I could be interested in not even downloading them.
Don't want to look at the ads? Dont visit the site.
How can someone know the site uses ads without visiting it?
et me spell it out for the slow witted: when you visit a site with ads you are entering into a social contract which states: I hereby aggree to allow this website to show me ads in exchange for the content it is providing me. By browsing this site you aggree to these terms. If you do not agree to these terms then stop browsing this site.
Utter baloney. Having ads on a page is a business model that CANNOT be enforced using web technology. The "contract" you state there is just in your imagination; it smells of an "end user's license agreement" and should be placed before entry to the site. But, again: That "contract" cannot actually be enforced. What is "showing ads" anyway? As far as the web technology is concerned, a HTTP request for an ad is not tied to the content actually being shown anywhere.
The website operator is saying
No he is not. He can not. Because there is no such agreement as you state above. There is the site, there is a business model, and there is a visitor. What the visitor does with the PUBLIC available content is NOT governed by any "contract".
In fact, we can turn your "contract" on it's head. The web site owner is in practice using the following end user license:
I, the site owner, hereby give full access to my content to any visitor. I acknowledge that how the content is presented or how much of it is actually shown is fully up to the visitor.
I have chosen a business model based on ads, fully knowing that I have no way of controlling whether they are shown with my content or not.
Also: Social contract is an existing term that has nothing to do with the relationship between someone visiting a web site and the site owner's business model.
If you don't like a site's ad policies, then don't use the site.
What you fail to realize is that there is no such thing as "ad policies" laid out for the visitor. The site manager might have a business model, but how this is implemented is not the visitor's problem.
People seem to think that because something is electronically based, it's subject to a different moral code.
You have obviously not read the discussion; Try again.
There is no "moral code" for readers: If a magazine has a product flyer in it I can throw it away without even looking at it; The magazine publisher still got paid. The "moral code" error is on the part of the online advertisers which do not trust "visit counts" - and with good reason since the numbers can be fudged. So they count actual ad views instead (something that cannot be done in the magazine example).
Popunders are a case in point. Used appropriately, they can be a very good thing
Popunder ads are like the flyers mentioned above, except ten times as annoying.
But in the meantime, if you block ads from a site, yes, you are in fact ripping them off and freeloading on someone else's nickel.
Or, in other words: Web technology can not be forced to support our business model, so we will try to insult people and see if that works.
(If you want revenue, a programmer can set up automated ad "showers" and "clickers" for you. To the "web technology" it will look like any other ad view, so you should be happy. Yes? Ad blockers use technology to filter them out, you can use technology to pretend they don't. Remember not to "show" or "click" too often or the advertisers might become suspicious. And use different IP addresses.)
Reading the content of a web page is not a right, it is a privilege afforded to you by the website's author and it comes with strings attached, like ads.
No, it does not. Web pages with or without ads are served in the exact same manner, they have content that is ENTIRELY client dependent how or whether it is rendered. An ad is just inline content like any other.
The only reason it is important is that the technology lets the advertisers count exactly how many load the ad, and pay only for those. In normal advertising, the advertiser pays for the circulation (in magazines or newspapers) or duration (billboards), independent of whether anyone actually bothers to look at the ad, and there is normally no "feedback" that tells the advertiser that the ads have the desired effect.
But here's an idea: Why don't we just make a distributed system that every now and then "shows" and "clicks" ads for a given web site? The ad company's technology registers the ad views and click-throughs (even if we silently dump the HTTP content after reading it), and the site owner gets the ad revenue. Everyone's happy: Ad blocking readers still don't get annoyed, web site owner gets rich and the ad company can boast with its pointless number game.
Where the movie is still playing at the box office.
The "playing at the box office" argument for regions is a fallacy, easily disproved by the existence of region-coded "old" movies - like Spartacus and Casablanca.
The real reason is to divide the world market between distributors.
Which implementation / IDE do you think was better?
At that point (i.e. Visual J++ 1.1)? The stable releases of Symantec Visual Café. Remember, they made the JIT compiler Sun eventually shipped with the standard VM.
You could just as easily say that Sun's Java (as per Netscape) was "non compliant".
It was, and Netscape consequently lost the right to use the Java logo six months after the release of 1.1, since they had not upgraded it (like Microsoft they eventually did). That Netscape WEREN'T Sun's best buddies is overlooked by those defending Microsoft's shenanigans.
You really should read the court documents: Microsoft had entered into a CONTRACT and was in breach of the CONTRACT. That's what makes the situation different.
Or do you really like to live in a world where C++ to 90% of developers means Visual Studio?
Was far and away the best Java implementation and IDE at the time Bullcrap - by definition, an implementation that is incomplete and non-compliant (changes to standard libraries, invented keywords) cannot be the best implementation.
Now, why is there C++ on so many platforms when AT&T, the maker of C++, did not port it to those platforms? Could it possibly be because the OSS community made their own implementation instead of whining to AT&T about opensourcing theirs?
Why should the relationship to Java be any different? Hell, even Mono (the C#/CLR/.Net implementation) is more complete than any of the OSS attempts at making a Java implementation.
Is the OSS community secretly satisfied with the status quo of leaving Java implementations to the industry? (Read: Sun, Apple, IBM, and a few others.)
I do feel my sci-fi life would be seriously degraded without Blade Runner in it.
Blade Runner does NOT share much with Lucas' samurai movie wannabe. It has far more in common with Film Noir as a genre, and the socially heavy sci-fi movies like Soylent Green, Westworld, Logan's Run etc. that predated Star Wars.
If the EU were to treat RedHat like they treat Microsoft... they would have to overlook SuSE/Novell, Knoppix, Gentoo and a million other sources for Linux distributions.
There are NO alternative distributions of Windows than those provided by Microsoft. Microsoft CANNOT be compared to Redhat like you try to.
Or perhaps your use of that term demonstrates that you lack sufficient grasp of the English language to realize what you are saying.
What, you thought he was using the word "fuck" in a literal sense? Get your lazy ass out into the real world! The word is often used figuratively, as an expletive with no meaning beyond the dismissiveness in the remark.
Profanity in forums such as this usually does little more than demonstrate a person's propensity to throw tantrums when logical discussion is beyond their reach.
See, now I recognize your type: You belong to the "superior" ASSHOLES who think that you can get away with such denigrating remarks just because you don't use any of that profanity stuff.
Hint: People can actually be more offended by shit like you wrote than the occasional expletive. What you practice is called "looking down on people who are different from you", or "Übermench worship", depending on how far you take your hate of non-conformists.
(Also, "Big Bang" is a popular theory, but not the only one.)
"God did it" is not an explanation, it's a non-answer designed to make the peasants stop pondering and go back to working for the king (conveniently placed there by God to rule, according to the king and the priests).
Why do people find it so difficult to admit that they were wrong?
It's not that they have to admit that "the I" am wrong, it's that they have to admit that "the we" are wrong. And the fear is that that will mean exclusion from "the we" that they feel comfort in belonging to.
Examine the practices of esp. Jehova's Witnesses regarding people who "fall out" from their dogmatic faith.
I would rather risk believing in something that was not true, which brought me no harm, than risk burning for eternity.
Ah, Pascal's Wager is dragged out again, I see. Now, take Pascal's Wager, replace the word "God" with "Vishnu" and see if you want to become a Hindu.
And can you Cristian "The Bible is true, so bats are birds" believers please stop mixing evolution (which is observed to take place) and "primate origin of man" which is the one you don't like? They are not one and the same theory, though the latter requires the former.
It's been shown already that the Java byte code specification heavily favors a Java-style language, making it cumbersome to support a variety of others. In contrast, Microsoft designed.NET specifically to abstract out as much of the human-interface language as possible.
Nonsense, C# was designed for the CLR and CLS, other languages have been "retrofitted" with various degrees of success. Have you seen the restrictions put on C++ programs to make them able to run in the CLR? Take one step outside those restrictions, and you're in "unsafe" country, aka. native land.
My favorite: Support for different media. E.g. it's pointless to have form buttons etc. on a printout - CSS2 lets you remove them. Also, to turn a web page into a presentation, just add rules for the "projection" media type, e.g. make stuff around the "slides" invisible, use large fonts etc.) So far only Opera supports it, but then again there is a lot of the CSS standard that only Opera supports...
Advanced Squad Leader has been "outsourced" to these guys. Runequest was never AH, but Chaosium - what AH might have had was the "split-off" Glorantha game, which was the Runequest setting without the system, IIRC.
That said, AH before the buyout wasn't too keen on reprinting their old titles like Gunslinger anyway. Ah, a fixed and updated Gunslinger - that would rock.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, the old money will reign and trod on the up-and-coming, or the hobbyist player.
Wake up call: Players were already doing that, except through eBay and the like. This is just Sony going for the cut on the deal eBay gets.
Try Space HoRSE
The system is still called GNU, whether you use the Linux kernel or not.
The GNU tools were ported to Linux; Stallman et al (apprently you included) are trying to argue that this means GNU should be part of the name of the whole since Linux is "worthless" without the tools.
That is just petty squabbling over the fact that GNU didn't manage to make a proper kernel before Linux came along - as you indirectly state.
With the whole "GNU/Linux" thing, GNU gives off the impression of "tag-alongs" trying to ride the coattails of the more successful Linux "brand", instead of making a name for themselves. Pathetic.
We're talking about a situation in which the Developer proves the license wasn't valid to begin with, that the GPL itself is illegal.
And the question returns to: Then why did the Developer use that license in the first place? Is the Developer in violation of the law since he used an - according to him - illegal license? Or did you want to use the word "invalid" instead of the far stronger "illegal"?
No, the site owner has CHOSEN to make the site content publically available, KNOWING people are able to visit and download the content.
You visit the site, you are entering into a social contract with the site owner to look at the ads.
No. The web browser/client is ENTIRELY in the control of the visitor. Much like I can ingore ads in magazines I can ignore ads on web pages, except since I also pay for MY connection, I could be interested in not even downloading them.
Don't want to look at the ads? Dont visit the site.
How can someone know the site uses ads without visiting it?
et me spell it out for the slow witted: when you visit a site with ads you are entering into a social contract which states: I hereby aggree to allow this website to show me ads in exchange for the content it is providing me. By browsing this site you aggree to these terms. If you do not agree to these terms then stop browsing this site.
Utter baloney. Having ads on a page is a business model that CANNOT be enforced using web technology. The "contract" you state there is just in your imagination; it smells of an "end user's license agreement" and should be placed before entry to the site. But, again: That "contract" cannot actually be enforced. What is "showing ads" anyway? As far as the web technology is concerned, a HTTP request for an ad is not tied to the content actually being shown anywhere.
The website operator is saying
No he is not. He can not. Because there is no such agreement as you state above. There is the site, there is a business model, and there is a visitor. What the visitor does with the PUBLIC available content is NOT governed by any "contract".
In fact, we can turn your "contract" on it's head. The web site owner is in practice using the following end user license:
Also: Social contract is an existing term that has nothing to do with the relationship between someone visiting a web site and the site owner's business model.
If you don't like a site's ad policies, then don't use the site.
What you fail to realize is that there is no such thing as "ad policies" laid out for the visitor. The site manager might have a business model, but how this is implemented is not the visitor's problem.
People seem to think that because something is electronically based, it's subject to a different moral code.
You have obviously not read the discussion; Try again.
There is no "moral code" for readers: If a magazine has a product flyer in it I can throw it away without even looking at it; The magazine publisher still got paid. The "moral code" error is on the part of the online advertisers which do not trust "visit counts" - and with good reason since the numbers can be fudged. So they count actual ad views instead (something that cannot be done in the magazine example).
Popunders are a case in point. Used appropriately, they can be a very good thing
Popunder ads are like the flyers mentioned above, except ten times as annoying.
But in the meantime, if you block ads from a site, yes, you are in fact ripping them off and freeloading on someone else's nickel.
Or, in other words: Web technology can not be forced to support our business model, so we will try to insult people and see if that works.
(If you want revenue, a programmer can set up automated ad "showers" and "clickers" for you. To the "web technology" it will look like any other ad view, so you should be happy. Yes? Ad blockers use technology to filter them out, you can use technology to pretend they don't. Remember not to "show" or "click" too often or the advertisers might become suspicious. And use different IP addresses.)
Reading the content of a web page is not a right, it is a privilege afforded to you by the website's author and it comes with strings attached, like ads.
No, it does not. Web pages with or without ads are served in the exact same manner, they have content that is ENTIRELY client dependent how or whether it is rendered. An ad is just inline content like any other.
The only reason it is important is that the technology lets the advertisers count exactly how many load the ad, and pay only for those. In normal advertising, the advertiser pays for the circulation (in magazines or newspapers) or duration (billboards), independent of whether anyone actually bothers to look at the ad, and there is normally no "feedback" that tells the advertiser that the ads have the desired effect.
But here's an idea: Why don't we just make a distributed system that every now and then "shows" and "clicks" ads for a given web site? The ad company's technology registers the ad views and click-throughs (even if we silently dump the HTTP content after reading it), and the site owner gets the ad revenue. Everyone's happy: Ad blocking readers still don't get annoyed, web site owner gets rich and the ad company can boast with its pointless number game.
Would that be of any interest?
How likely is a movie to open in "Japan, Europe, South Africa, Middle East, Greenland" - ie. region 2 - at the same time?
Why were those countries put into the same region? Japan even uses NTSC (like USA) instead of PAL (rest of region)!
The "Cinema distribution argument" can not explain region 2.
Oh , yes your comment whas insane ...
No, it "whas" a humorous remark dissing the person who did not know the difference between "there" and "their".
IT'S NOT HARD, PEOPLE!
Right-click and select "View Source".
That will only show the output from the software. Not the source of the PHP page or any application that was used to generate it.
Where the movie is still playing at the box office.
The "playing at the box office" argument for regions is a fallacy, easily disproved by the existence of region-coded "old" movies - like Spartacus and Casablanca.
The real reason is to divide the world market between distributors.
Which implementation / IDE do you think was better?
At that point (i.e. Visual J++ 1.1)? The stable releases of Symantec Visual Café. Remember, they made the JIT compiler Sun eventually shipped with the standard VM.
You could just as easily say that Sun's Java (as per Netscape) was "non compliant".
It was, and Netscape consequently lost the right to use the Java logo six months after the release of 1.1, since they had not upgraded it (like Microsoft they eventually did). That Netscape WEREN'T Sun's best buddies is overlooked by those defending Microsoft's shenanigans.
You really should read the court documents: Microsoft had entered into a CONTRACT and was in breach of the CONTRACT. That's what makes the situation different.
Or do you really like to live in a world where C++ to 90% of developers means Visual Studio?
Was far and away the best Java implementation and IDE at the time
Bullcrap - by definition, an implementation that is incomplete and non-compliant (changes to standard libraries, invented keywords) cannot be the best implementation.
G++...
Now, why is there C++ on so many platforms when AT&T, the maker of C++, did not port it to those platforms? Could it possibly be because the OSS community made their own implementation instead of whining to AT&T about opensourcing theirs?
Why should the relationship to Java be any different? Hell, even Mono (the C#/CLR/.Net implementation) is more complete than any of the OSS attempts at making a Java implementation.
Is the OSS community secretly satisfied with the status quo of leaving Java implementations to the industry? (Read: Sun, Apple, IBM, and a few others.)
I do feel my sci-fi life would be seriously degraded without Blade Runner in it.
Blade Runner does NOT share much with Lucas' samurai movie wannabe. It has far more in common with Film Noir as a genre, and the socially heavy sci-fi movies like Soylent Green, Westworld, Logan's Run etc. that predated Star Wars.
If there are exceptions, it's not a ban.
If the EU were to treat RedHat like they treat Microsoft ... they would have to overlook SuSE/Novell, Knoppix, Gentoo and a million other sources for Linux distributions.
There are NO alternative distributions of Windows than those provided by Microsoft. Microsoft CANNOT be compared to Redhat like you try to.
Or perhaps your use of that term demonstrates that you lack sufficient grasp of the English language to realize what you are saying.
What, you thought he was using the word "fuck" in a literal sense? Get your lazy ass out into the real world! The word is often used figuratively, as an expletive with no meaning beyond the dismissiveness in the remark.
Profanity in forums such as this usually does little more than demonstrate a person's propensity to throw tantrums when logical discussion is beyond their reach.
See, now I recognize your type: You belong to the "superior" ASSHOLES who think that you can get away with such denigrating remarks just because you don't use any of that profanity stuff.
Hint: People can actually be more offended by shit like you wrote than the occasional expletive. What you practice is called "looking down on people who are different from you", or "Übermench worship", depending on how far you take your hate of non-conformists.
Get a life, and use it well.
But what caused God to happen?
(Also, "Big Bang" is a popular theory, but not the only one.)
"God did it" is not an explanation, it's a non-answer designed to make the peasants stop pondering and go back to working for the king (conveniently placed there by God to rule, according to the king and the priests).
Why do people find it so difficult to admit that they were wrong?
It's not that they have to admit that "the I" am wrong, it's that they have to admit that "the we" are wrong. And the fear is that that will mean exclusion from "the we" that they feel comfort in belonging to.
Examine the practices of esp. Jehova's Witnesses regarding people who "fall out" from their dogmatic faith.
I would rather risk believing in something that was not true, which brought me no harm, than risk burning for eternity.
Ah, Pascal's Wager is dragged out again, I see. Now, take Pascal's Wager, replace the word "God" with "Vishnu" and see if you want to become a Hindu.
And can you Cristian "The Bible is true, so bats are birds" believers please stop mixing evolution (which is observed to take place) and "primate origin of man" which is the one you don't like? They are not one and the same theory, though the latter requires the former.
It's been shown already that the Java byte code specification heavily favors a Java-style language, making it cumbersome to support a variety of others. In contrast, Microsoft designed .NET specifically to abstract out as much of the human-interface language as possible.
Nonsense, C# was designed for the CLR and CLS, other languages have been "retrofitted" with various degrees of success. Have you seen the restrictions put on C++ programs to make them able to run in the CLR? Take one step outside those restrictions, and you're in "unsafe" country, aka. native land.
There are a lot of languages which have a Java-oriented implementation.
My favorite: Support for different media. E.g. it's pointless to have form buttons etc. on a printout - CSS2 lets you remove them. Also, to turn a web page into a presentation, just add rules for the "projection" media type, e.g. make stuff around the "slides" invisible, use large fonts etc.) So far only Opera supports it, but then again there is a lot of the CSS standard that only Opera supports...
A main features list someone made.
Advanced Squad Leader has been "outsourced" to these guys. Runequest was never AH, but Chaosium - what AH might have had was the "split-off" Glorantha game, which was the Runequest setting without the system, IIRC.
That said, AH before the buyout wasn't too keen on reprinting their old titles like Gunslinger anyway. Ah, a fixed and updated Gunslinger - that would rock.
Diplomacy requires you either play it with not-so-close aquaintances. It has a tendency to turn good friends into bitter enemies.