In 10 years language translation programs will be to the point where they can be used in a production level environment. With this in mind I beleive that a standard language on the internet, or even communications in general, will not be nessary. Although this is just my opinion and I do not have any facts to back up this claim.
P.S. I apploigize if this post is redundant, my route to/. went down.
Metallica is, one of my favorite bands. So when I read what they had done I was very disapointed.
From a free speach aspect, this is morally wrong not to mention stupid. With all of the people that listened to their music online, I bet at least 25% of them bought one of their cds. Just think... it is not very easy to listen to mp3s in the car, unless you happen to have a laptop with a far better then adverage sound system.
From a legal aspect, it is their music. Whether it is art or just another way to make money, it is theirs. I write programs for a living. If someone got my code and gave it out to everyone, I would lose money. Not to mention the fact that I think of my source as art. I don't like it when I am forced to share my code with the people I work with much less complete strangers. Now I know that this is not the best analogy but It will have to work for now. In short Metallica, and any other band for that matter, should have the right to restrict people from downloading their music.
To sum up this "post" they are in the right legally, but ethically and morally what they have done is wrong and just plain stupid.
I have to appoligize for the spelling, apperently I devoted all my resources to more important things...everything else.
I have to agree, If the developers put this in the database, it was meant to be seen and laughed at. And yes it was funny. I think that someone has strong feelings against people using the word "gay", most likly because they're still not out of the closet. But back to what I was originaly saying, That post was both funny and insightful and I think that the moderator of that post should not be allowed to do it any more. But of course this is just my opinion...
I would not think that it is possible to change the license of any material without the consent of the author. If I was to GPL a program and someone made money off of my hard work, I would be incredibly upset. At vary least I think that changing the license from GPL to LGPL would be ethically wrong, if not illegal. However this question can only be definitely answered by a ruling of the Supreme Court. But like I said, this is only my opinion.
I think that it was a very bad idea for anyone to move form linux to any version of windows. Why would anyone want to have fish heads when they could have prime rib??? But this is only my opinion.
I think that Microshaft should realease the source to all of there products under the agreement that all changes must be sent back to them. This way real developers could stableize the code and Microsoft would still make money. Linux still has a few years left to go in order to get to the same level of , in terms of easy of use, as Winblows. Most of the business comunity out there is forced to use MS products because business owners will not switch to a better OS i.e. Linux. I don't think that it is right that microsoft forces people to use such crap.
The bunker is just a front for what the government is really going to use this equipment for. Imagine how easy it will be for the government to monitor the internet and log what people are up to. I don't know about you, but this is just disturbing. P.S please excuse the spelling, I went to government funded public schools.
Slashdot Mirror
In 10 years language translation programs will be to the point where they can be used in a production level environment. With this in mind I beleive that a standard language on the internet, or even communications in general, will not be nessary. Although this is just my opinion and I do not have any facts to back up this claim.
/. went down.
P.S. I apploigize if this post is redundant, my route to
Metallica is, one of my favorite bands. So when I read what they had done I was very disapointed.
From a free speach aspect, this is morally wrong not to mention stupid. With all of the people that listened to their music online, I bet at least 25% of them bought one of their cds. Just think... it is not very easy to listen to mp3s in the car, unless you happen to have a laptop with a far better then adverage sound system.
From a legal aspect, it is their music. Whether it is art or just another way to make money, it is theirs. I write programs for a living. If someone got my code and gave it out to everyone, I would lose money. Not to mention the fact that I think of my source as art. I don't like it when I am forced to share my code with the people I work with much less complete strangers. Now I know that this is not the best analogy but It will have to work for now. In short Metallica, and any other band for that matter, should have the right to restrict people from downloading their music.
To sum up this "post" they are in the right legally, but ethically and morally what they have done is wrong and just plain stupid.
I have to appoligize for the spelling, apperently I devoted all my resources to more important things...everything else.
Sorry, this was supposed to be one level higher and was written befor it was moderated as funny. Once again sorry
I have to agree, If the developers put this in the database, it was meant to be seen and laughed at. And yes it was funny. I think that someone has strong feelings against people using the word "gay", most likly because they're still not out of the closet. But back to what I was originaly saying, That post was both funny and insightful and I think that the moderator of that post should not be allowed to do it any more. But of course this is just my opinion...
I would not think that it is possible to change the license of any material without the consent of the author. If I was to GPL a program and someone made money off of my hard work, I would be incredibly upset. At vary least I think that changing the license from GPL to LGPL would be ethically wrong, if not illegal. However this question can only be definitely answered by a ruling of the Supreme Court. But like I said, this is only my opinion.
I think that it was a very bad idea for anyone to move form linux to any version of windows. Why would anyone want to have fish heads when they could have prime rib??? But this is only my opinion.
I think that Microshaft should realease the source to all of there products under the agreement that all changes must be sent back to them. This way real developers could stableize the code and Microsoft would still make money. Linux still has a few years left to go in order to get to the same level of , in terms of easy of use, as Winblows. Most of the business comunity out there is forced to use MS products because business owners will not switch to a better OS i.e. Linux. I don't think that it is right that microsoft forces people to use such crap.
The bunker is just a front for what the government is really going to use this equipment for. Imagine how easy it will be for the government to monitor the internet and log what people are up to. I don't know about you, but this is just disturbing. P.S please excuse the spelling, I went to government funded public schools.