It's not *my* problem that their business model is destined to fail.
How could we have saved the buggy whip manufacturers? There was only one way: outlaw the horseless carriage. How could the Monks have kept a monopoly on books? Outlaw the printing press.
How can Hollywood continue to maintain their current rate of return? Abolish the personal computer.
How does closed source give you any more of "the ability to do what [you] want" than the GPL? I can see BSD or Public Domain letting you do more, but closed source? How?
Since you don't care about source code, I can only assume you're not making derivative applications. So what freedom is the GPL taking from you?
> closed source != not free to redistribute > closed source != commercial
Fine, but how does this give you more freedoms? You can't make changes since you don't have the source, so it doesn't really help if you can redistribute or if you didn't pay.
>...you don't really have much more freedom than with closed software, infact, in many cases you have much less.
How is this possible? Closed source software never allows you to even see their source code, much less modify or redistribute it. Further, more and more closed source license even limit how you can USE the software. They often don't allow you to even install the program on more than one machine at a time.
The GPL places NO restrictions on how you can use the program. As long as you don't redistribute, you have complete freedom to make any changes to the program to suit your needs. You can make unlimited personal copies and run on all of own machines.
Only when you decide to redistribute a GPL'd program does it limit your freedom. Commercial software never allows you to redistribute it.
So please tell me one instance where a closed source application has even a single freedom that the GPL doesn't already give you.
This tax is designed to *replace* the gas tax. In fact, if you pay tha mileage tax, you get a refund on your gas tax. Therefore, under this plan, you pay a fixed rate for every mile regardless of how efficient your car is.
> The article fails to say why they would do this.
Yes it does. They say that their gas tax revenue decreases as cars become more fuel efficient (especially with hybrids). The mileage tax would be based on the current gas-tax rate.
Of course, part of what drives people to adopt fuel efficient cars is the savings. If Oregon decides to reduce those savings, they can expect a proportional reduction in the rate people switch to hybrids.
But Cartoon network doesn't run any football games, so how do they plan to pre-empt it?
I swear, Fox must have *hated* this show. On 12/22, Futurama was the ONLY program Fox was planning to show that was not a rerun. They scheduled it for 7pm and, like every football game every season, the game ran long and they pre-empted Futurama again.
The point here is that Sendo and MS had a formal business relationship. When Sendo found it couldn't get what it needed from MS, they parted ways, only to find that MS had stolen from Sendo.
The whole point of the.NET vs Mono article was that Mono faces an uphill battle. They don't even have so much as any formal working relationship, and (as the original article mentioned):
Mono also implements parts of.NET that have NOT been submitted to ECMA and ISO standards. Those parts of Mono lack even the protection for IP infringement with re-implementation that ISO documentation licensing implies.
Dealing with MS, even when you think you're getting some great deal, has consistently been proven to be dangerous proposition.
Microsoft has already written.NET for another platform (Rotor, for BSD.) And Microsoft has communicated with Miguel many times with regards to Mono. An interview with him on the topic is hosted on MSDN! This does not appear to be a prelude to a lawsuit.
MicroSoft did a lot more than "communicate" with Sendo.
The defense could have called him to the stand, but chose not to.
The defense later called Sklyarov as its own witness...
Incidentally, it looks like the defense attorney's decision was correct--they won.
Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Fred von Lohmann said he's not surprised that many jurors found Sklyarov sympathetic. "The jury saw this serious young man and not a copyright pirate," he said. "They must have said, 'Where's the bad guy here?'"
Since you didn't provide a link, I'll provide one to speakeasy.
If anyone subscribes with the above link, I'd even split the $50 referral fee!
Re:More apocalyptic blather?
on
New Mad Max Film
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I think the plots are more like this:
1. Mad Max = Max chased in his car 2. Road Warrior = Max chased in his truck 3. Thunderdome = Max chased in his train 4. New movie = Max chased in his Rolls Royce
Sasquatch -- by Tenacious D
on
Bigfoot A Hoax?
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
There were some scientists
Try to figure out the Sasquatch riddle Then they figured out it was a missing link
'In Search of Sasquatch'
That was a kick-ass 'In Search Of' With Leonard Nimoy kicking out the jams
He captured the imagination
Of people all around the globe His name was Sasquatch so I'm told...
Affiliates do NOT have to be the same corporation. Affiliates are simply companies with which one business has a formal agreement with another.
For example, Amazon has an "affiliate" program that allows website operators to get referral fees. All you need to do is fill out a form (and have a website). Amazon Affiliates are NOT part of the Amazon corporate structure.
This was the major loophole in the Privacy Act that makes it meaningless. They are free to share any data they like with companies with which they have a business relationship with. But the "business relationship" was left undefined. If a agree to buy the names of all your customers, we would have a business relationship and the opt-out rules would not apply.
Some states have additional limitations (which is why Verizon is suing the State of Washington, for example).
I recently got a letter from Verizon telling me to call them to opt out if you didn't want them to make sales pitches to you. I called, and at the end of the call, he tried to sell me additional services (to help me avoid unwanted sales pitches).
Somehow, I only swear on the phone when I call Verizon...
So then I can have a perfectly stable machine, unless I try and do something useful with it. No thanks.
> make sure the bugs are cleared up rapidly.
You propose clearing up the bugs rapidly by ignoring 90% of them? Are you sure you don't work for MicroSoft?
I supposed if Debian were a commercial distribution that had a marketing department, this is exactly what they'd do. How fortunate that the people building Debian are also their most important customers who wouldn't be easily fooled into thinking their distribution was more stable by fixing fewer bugs.
Special considerations exist when the clock is changed by
less than 3 hours, for example at the beginning and end of
daylight savings time. If the time has moved forwards,
those jobs which would have run in the time that was
skipped will be run soon after the change. Conversely, if
the time has moved backwards by less than 3 hours, those
jobs that fall into the repeated time will not be re-run.
Slashdot Mirror
For DRM to work, it will have to abolish the generally programmable personal computer. Otherwise if I can play it, I can copy it.
It's not *my* problem that their business model is destined to fail.
How could we have saved the buggy whip manufacturers? There was only one way: outlaw the horseless carriage. How could the Monks have kept a monopoly on books? Outlaw the printing press.
How can Hollywood continue to maintain their current rate of return? Abolish the personal computer.
How does closed source give you any more of "the ability to do what [you] want" than the GPL? I can see BSD or Public Domain letting you do more, but closed source? How?
Since you don't care about source code, I can only assume you're not making derivative applications. So what freedom is the GPL taking from you?
> closed source != not free to redistribute
> closed source != commercial
Fine, but how does this give you more freedoms? You can't make changes since you don't have the source, so it doesn't really help if you can redistribute or if you didn't pay.
> ...you don't really have much more freedom than with closed software, infact, in many cases you have much less.
How is this possible? Closed source software never allows you to even see their source code, much less modify or redistribute it. Further, more and more closed source license even limit how you can USE the software. They often don't allow you to even install the program on more than one machine at a time.
The GPL places NO restrictions on how you can use the program. As long as you don't redistribute, you have complete freedom to make any changes to the program to suit your needs. You can make unlimited personal copies and run on all of own machines.
Only when you decide to redistribute a GPL'd program does it limit your freedom. Commercial software never allows you to redistribute it.
So please tell me one instance where a closed source application has even a single freedom that the GPL doesn't already give you.
This tax is designed to *replace* the gas tax. In fact, if you pay tha mileage tax, you get a refund on your gas tax. Therefore, under this plan, you pay a fixed rate for every mile regardless of how efficient your car is.
> The article fails to say why they would do this.
Yes it does. They say that their gas tax revenue decreases as cars become more fuel efficient (especially with hybrids). The mileage tax would be based on the current gas-tax rate.
Of course, part of what drives people to adopt fuel efficient cars is the savings. If Oregon decides to reduce those savings, they can expect a proportional reduction in the rate people switch to hybrids.
But Cartoon network doesn't run any football games, so how do they plan to pre-empt it?
I swear, Fox must have *hated* this show. On 12/22, Futurama was the ONLY program Fox was planning to show that was not a rerun. They scheduled it for 7pm and, like every football game every season, the game ran long and they pre-empted Futurama again.
The whole point of the .NET vs Mono article was that Mono faces an uphill battle. They don't even have so much as any formal working relationship, and (as the original article mentioned):
Dealing with MS, even when you think you're getting some great deal, has consistently been proven to be dangerous proposition.Since you didn't provide a link, I'll provide one to speakeasy.
If anyone subscribes with the above link, I'd even split the $50 referral fee!
I think the plots are more like this:
1. Mad Max = Max chased in his car
2. Road Warrior = Max chased in his truck
3. Thunderdome = Max chased in his train
4. New movie = Max chased in his Rolls Royce
There were some scientists
Try to figure out the Sasquatch riddle
Then they figured out it was a missing link
'In Search of Sasquatch'
That was a kick-ass 'In Search Of'
With Leonard Nimoy kicking out the jams
He captured the imagination
Of people all around the globe
His name was Sasquatch so I'm told...
4. Duplicate Original
5. Duplicate Original
6. Duplicate Original
(PS, this list is a duplicate.)
Tivo thinks you're gay
Phoenix name change
Giant Spider Web
Amnesty International
Affiliates do NOT have to be the same corporation. Affiliates are simply companies with which one business has a formal agreement with another.
For example, Amazon has an "affiliate" program that allows website operators to get referral fees. All you need to do is fill out a form (and have a website). Amazon Affiliates are NOT part of the Amazon corporate structure.
This was the major loophole in the Privacy Act that makes it meaningless. They are free to share any data they like with companies with which they have a business relationship with. But the "business relationship" was left undefined. If a agree to buy the names of all your customers, we would have a business relationship and the opt-out rules would not apply.
Some states have additional limitations (which is why Verizon is suing the State of Washington, for example).
I recently got a letter from Verizon telling me to call them to opt out if you didn't want them to make sales pitches to you. I called, and at the end of the call, he tried to sell me additional services (to help me avoid unwanted sales pitches).
Somehow, I only swear on the phone when I call Verizon...
Debian already released a patch (on Oct 17). Here is the Debian Security Advisory.
In the past, release-critical bugs in obscure packages resulted in obscure packages being dropped from testing.
So then I can have a perfectly stable machine, unless I try and do something useful with it. No thanks.
> make sure the bugs are cleared up rapidly.
You propose clearing up the bugs rapidly by ignoring 90% of them? Are you sure you don't work for MicroSoft?
I supposed if Debian were a commercial distribution that had a marketing department, this is exactly what they'd do. How fortunate that the people building Debian are also their most important customers who wouldn't be easily fooled into thinking their distribution was more stable by fixing fewer bugs.
What's wrong with you? I'd have made a personal copy of the message and used it to blackmail me a key to the executive washroom.
Yeah, but when are they going to pull the rest of their FUD that slashdotters have noted over the years?
Who said no one was ever fired for buying MicroSoft?
She should just switch back and do a testimonial for Apple.