No, the choice is still there. It's a psychological thing, make them think one choice is better than the other.
Kind of like making them think they're choosing whether to cross a desert or jump into a beer fountain full of hot babes and fruit. But it's a kind of environmental thing too. If there were a "smart" lottery, where only smart people could get a ticket, you'd have a different opinion of it than a "poor-tax" lottery.
...removes all competition, which isn't the same thing.
it doesn't quite remove all competition, but it does replace most of it with collaboration instead. To me, this is one of the best points of Open Source.
An authour of a piece of GPL software can re-release it under a different license, assuming of course he is the only once who has been working on it. And it's also possible to withhold your own changes to someone else's GPL program, if you're using it internally.
I'm tired of people making the leap from free software to communism. Yes it's a socialist concept, sharing with the community, but it's also a libertarian concept, protecting freedoms as in free speech.
Libertarian Socialism? Compare and contrast with Anarchism, but anarchism in a world where there is significantly fewer resources to fight over.
Demand for technology will always exceed it's availability. The Internet will always be under heavy stress (without drastic changes), so the ISPs are trying to put a band-aid on the situation by trying to remove a chunk of traffic. But once they do, there'll be all of this bandwidth that people will start trying to use for something else.
Telus in particular, (I'm not sure about Bell or Rogers)has actually contracted out more bandwidth than they can afford to spare now, and smaller companies that it has 10 year contracts with are becoming bandwidth-starved.
The common misconception was that Galileo was trying to disprove something that was religiously important. But he was mostly just going on about something that everyone disagreed with. Pope Urban VII allowed him to discuss the possibilities of a heliocentric model versus a geocentric model as long as he didn't just claim it to be true, but the real trouble began when he made light of the Pope. He wasn't trying to disprove the dogma, but he was persecuted for attacking the authority that generated (or preserved) that dogma with his "Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems"
I think that's supposed to be the main connection here. It's not about what you believe, it's who you believe. Which still hasn't got anything to do with censorship.
But this guy is winning something more important now: The 100 things Challenege"! Now he just has to work his way back up to one hundred, and he's gold.
My opinion is this: Plagiarism is not copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.
I wrote all of that myself, in case you weren't sure. Honest.
The main problem is configuring it. But once it's configured to your liking, then it's rock-solid.
It's just that by then, most of us start getting bored without any problem-solving to do...
16 bit and 64 bit = bloods n crips. Then why do both 16-bit Super NES games and 64-bit N64 games run on the same Wii console? They both run on different virtual consoles, ie: emulators. Wine doesn't (normally).
Net Neutrality is rubbish, get on my bandwagon and we can make the world better using MY products and MY protocols.
The semantic web (by which I mean Web 3.0) is still a far enough in the future. We could reach it quicker by vesting all control to a small group of people, but we're not stupid.
The above is what I was about to post, right before I actually read TFA. I'm glad I did, because this fellow does not appear to be asking for a monopoly on the Internet at all. He raises some good points, but the problem is that I don't think we've adequately defined what Net Neutrality is, and what it applies to.
Regardless, demand always exceeds tech, we'll get to Web 3.0 when we get there. If difficulty in achieving Net Neutrality is its biggest flaw, then that should be an acceptable flaw.
Apparently, no. The Liberals promised to impose some sort of copyright bill about 12 years ago, and had been procrastinating. They might call for heavy changes, but they'd lose face for big companies if they spoke against it.
I tried to find a reference to prove this, but all I've got is my buddy on Parliament Hill as a a source.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the choice is still there. It's a psychological thing, make them think one choice is better than the other.
Kind of like making them think they're choosing whether to cross a desert or jump into a beer fountain full of hot babes and fruit. But it's a kind of environmental thing too. If there were a "smart" lottery, where only smart people could get a ticket, you'd have a different opinion of it than a "poor-tax" lottery.
ha ha
I "agree". If only the GP would "pay attention" to their own "words" and the way they is "using" them.
...removes all competition, which isn't the same thing.
it doesn't quite remove all competition, but it does replace most of it with collaboration instead. To me, this is one of the best points of Open Source.
An authour of a piece of GPL software can re-release it under a different license, assuming of course he is the only once who has been working on it. And it's also possible to withhold your own changes to someone else's GPL program, if you're using it internally.
I'm tired of people making the leap from free software to communism. Yes it's a socialist concept, sharing with the community, but it's also a libertarian concept, protecting freedoms as in free speech.
Libertarian Socialism? Compare and contrast with Anarchism, but anarchism in a world where there is significantly fewer resources to fight over.
That'd be fine if you just want pure alcohol. But there's a lot more to brewing drinkable beer or liquor than just feeding sugar to yeast.
Unless you don't drink for the taste :-P
Super-powered beef cows. No hormones added.
Demand for technology will always exceed it's availability. The Internet will always be under heavy stress (without drastic changes), so the ISPs are trying to put a band-aid on the situation by trying to remove a chunk of traffic. But once they do, there'll be all of this bandwidth that people will start trying to use for something else.
Telus in particular, (I'm not sure about Bell or Rogers)has actually contracted out more bandwidth than they can afford to spare now, and smaller companies that it has 10 year contracts with are becoming bandwidth-starved.
The common misconception was that Galileo was trying to disprove something that was religiously important. But he was mostly just going on about something that everyone disagreed with. Pope Urban VII allowed him to discuss the possibilities of a heliocentric model versus a geocentric model as long as he didn't just claim it to be true, but the real trouble began when he made light of the Pope. He wasn't trying to disprove the dogma, but he was persecuted for attacking the authority that generated (or preserved) that dogma with his "Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems"
I think that's supposed to be the main connection here. It's not about what you believe, it's who you believe. Which still hasn't got anything to do with censorship.
Okay, I was going for a funny here. Whoever modded me Insightful: here, third paragraph from the top.
I'll stop now.
btw, way off-topic: I am so going to here about spell checking. Challenege is just a weird typo.
But this guy is winning something more important now: The 100 things Challenege"! Now he just has to work his way back up to one hundred, and he's gold.
Dude, I don't know whether your being funny or ironic or anything - just stop.
Oh no! He's one of those new semantic-web bots!
We shall call it the Reverse-Streisand effect.
must be blonde. There was no "4. PROFIT!"
My opinion is this: Plagiarism is not copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.
I wrote all of that myself, in case you weren't sure. Honest.
Mod parent up Whether or not this is strictly true, it does affect people's perception of SUSE
The main problem is configuring it. But once it's configured to your liking, then it's rock-solid. It's just that by then, most of us start getting bored without any problem-solving to do...
Maybe the money they spent on their computer is the reason they can't afford windows ;-)
Net Neutrality is rubbish, get on my bandwagon and we can make the world better using MY products and MY protocols.
The semantic web (by which I mean Web 3.0) is still a far enough in the future. We could reach it quicker by vesting all control to a small group of people, but we're not stupid.
The above is what I was about to post, right before I actually read TFA. I'm glad I did, because this fellow does not appear to be asking for a monopoly on the Internet at all. He raises some good points, but the problem is that I don't think we've adequately defined what Net Neutrality is, and what it applies to.
Regardless, demand always exceeds tech, we'll get to Web 3.0 when we get there. If difficulty in achieving Net Neutrality is its biggest flaw, then that should be an acceptable flaw.
How good is your server?
And how do we know we can trust you with our bookmarks?
Apparently, no. The Liberals promised to impose some sort of copyright bill about 12 years ago, and had been procrastinating. They might call for heavy changes, but they'd lose face for big companies if they spoke against it.
I tried to find a reference to prove this, but all I've got is my buddy on Parliament Hill as a a source.