You're talking about click wrap. Like the plastic wrap on a product, except that instead of tearing it off you have to 'click' it off. An EULA (End-user license agreement) is written for (you guessed it) end-users, meaning whoever agrees to it is probably not a person who is distributing it.
The GPL is a license, so it can be used in an end-user license agreement, although it technically isn't one since it tries to promote distribution. It's probably good that devs put it up so that someone looking for a EULA isn't confused by the lack of one. And also to possibly grab their attention with their "Most licenses are designed to take away your rights..." spiel.
These are all things that adult humans have to work for. Children should get theirs via their parents work. What about children without parents, or deadbeat parents? You guys are both playing the same game, mixing facts and 'ought-to's. But unfortunately, in a complex system (such as something as broad as society or life), there is almost always exceptions to almost any rule. We need mutual understanding (which I realize is really only barely attainable), not declarations.
Several nations and entities here on Earth have probably had the power to blow the moon out of orbit for over a decade now, or at least lay heavy bombardment on it. Who wants to defend it?
They will not openly give out a free copy of windows. Simply not. They have to charge at least something. Because if they start giving out free licensed copies, other users might get even more annoyed with MS's stance on software piracy and DRM.
Maybe yes, but then what does need to exist? People's interest is the currency of Open Source projects. If a project has many people's interest, then it will flourish. If it has too many people's interests, it might fork. But if it has at least one person's interest, and enough of it for that person to spend time on it, it will remain alive.
And when there is no interest, code doesn't die. It just remains dormant.
The scheduled release intervals and the "it'll be ready when it's ready" idea can still work. Not all major distros need to have a new release for a given interval. Some can be more regular, some don't have to be.
For example, the next Ubuntu LTS could come out when Pat rolls out Slackware 12.2.
You read a Macleans article??? How did that happen? You thought it was PRAVDA?
It's been a couple of years, but had read several issues, and more than a few articles about "why Stephen Harper's so great!", and "Why the house of commons should be more americanized!", and perhaps one of Steyn's own articles depicting muslims as a horde of black ghouls.
So I haven't read it lately, but if most issues are still the same, then I stand by my comment.
Your OSfaith analogy doesn't quite sound right to me. Because people just use whatever they prefer, and whatever suits their needs. The computers don't alienate other computers with different operating systems. Software, particularly Free Software, can't be said to be the thing that competes. And plus I really dislike the idea of comparing software with religion. If this were a good analogy, a linux system that spreads windows viruses would also be acceptable.
When a muslim wakes up in the morning, their first thought will not be 'let's take over the world... with RELIGION!!!".
I think you might have sent me the wrong link. It was a link to an article about two vaguely muslim men, taking advantage of white girls who liked ecstasy. I'm not saying the girls deserved it, but why do you think muslim men think that white girls are loose? Turn on the tv.
Basically, everything above (except maybe the kill-the-cartoonists bit) could be extrapolated from any fundamentalist group. And not all muslims are fundamentalist.
I'm a Christian, and I know 'spread the Gospel' was not intended to mean 'kill the pagans', just as muslims who recite the Shahadah don't automatically believe they have to 'kill the infidels'.
Ideologicals who do believe in that are themselves dominated by a culture of fear. This 'Us versus Them' mentality is not spread by the ideologies themselves.
Free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. Show me one ounce of evidence Steyn has impacted anyone's right to a happy and free life -- other than being unhappy he's saying something bad about them. The idea that the law gives you a right to not be offended is dangerous. Hate speech is both an expression of hate (not so bad) and an incitement of hate(much worse). If I tell everyone that bears are going to take over the country, I have some 'evidence' and statistics to back it up, and get this message on a widely read magazine (crap magazine that it is notwithstanding), there might be quite a few more unemployed bears around the country. (Replace 'bears' with virtually any ethnic minority).
I'm not really surprised that a Maclean's authour is on trial for this sort of behaviour. I don't really consider myself to be a left wing guy, but Maclean's is xenophobic, right-wing sucking pile of trash. I say this with no exaggeration.
Whenever I've read a Maclean's article in the past, it only made me angry. This sort of thing should have happened long ago.
This is complete un-based speculation, and I'm also a "Millennial"(firefox sp) myself. But here's a thought:
Do you think that maybe all that electronics and software advertising specifically targeted at my generation is what encourages them to use it?
Contrary to what the average slashbot living in their parents' basement thinks, there *is* hard scientific evidence that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
For example...
I wonder how many atheists will just pooh-pooh this evidence instead of actually trying to retort it.
The only one I liked was the attack on the neccessity of dark matter and extra mass in the universe. The all other cases, it seemed to take so-called "secular" science at face value, and was flexible with everything but the facts in question. All points seemed to take extra steps to avoid even the possibility of compatibility.
For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't believe, none will suffice. This is true in more than one way. I'm all for divinely-driven evolution, God as the First-Mover before the big bang, all that jazz. I tire of people who write this fundementalist silliness. Treating proper logic like an enemy, not because of what they believe in, but because they feel the need to misuse logic justify themselves to the world.
That being said, I would like to see more on divine implications of a lack of dark matter or missing mass.
I much prefer firefox to ie. Hell, I've been into using kazehakase. And lynx comes in handy when I'm unable to run Xorg. But I would be glad to see microsoft finally bringing ie up to standards.
It's not about which browser is better. People will use whatever browser they want. The important thing is that if such a widely used browser is up to standards, and if more people starts using, we can actually put those standard to use. If this encourages Mozilla and Opera to meet the standards as well, all the better. The thing is the content! Web developers will less and less have to plan for browsers quirks and contingencies, and focus more on content that everyone will be able to use and view online. So instead of five or six implementations, we can mostly just worry about one.
it seems Microsoft will be developing a framework that will be completely GNU compatible Richard Stallman might disagree. It's not GNU compatible until it's GPL compatible.
This sounds pretty good to me. A P2P patching system makes perfect sense, as long as they used an appropriate type of encryption. The security thing will be the biggest issue to keep people from creating malicious "double-agent" worms.
Although, another issue should be that it's voluntary, or at least make it trivial to disable. And by that I also mean by it can be disabled remotely by Microsoft, in case a double-agent is starting to make the rounds or something goes terribly wrong. But also because some people just may not appreciate using their bandwidth to seed patches.
Personally, I've always hated the cheapness of printers and certain other peripherals. This might not be a widespread sentiment, but I think that if equipment were made to be more robust and long-lasting, it would be better for the consumer and the enviroment.
While I agree that Benedict isn't as cool as John Paul, He's just saying to look at the big picture. There's plenty of research that we can do without splicing up humans and whatnot. Just like in Jurassic Park.
You make it sound as though anyone who's ever used bittorrent has shared at least one thing they weren't supposed to. That would be an interesting claim to prove.
Slashdot Mirror
Any jock can have a facebook, blog, or 'text message'. The real geeks are, and will always be the ones who work in the background.
You're talking about click wrap. Like the plastic wrap on a product, except that instead of tearing it off you have to 'click' it off. An EULA (End-user license agreement) is written for (you guessed it) end-users, meaning whoever agrees to it is probably not a person who is distributing it.
The GPL is a license, so it can be used in an end-user license agreement, although it technically isn't one since it tries to promote distribution. It's probably good that devs put it up so that someone looking for a EULA isn't confused by the lack of one. And also to possibly grab their attention with their "Most licenses are designed to take away your rights..." spiel.
Several nations and entities here on Earth have probably had the power to blow the moon out of orbit for over a decade now, or at least lay heavy bombardment on it. Who wants to defend it?
They will not openly give out a free copy of windows. Simply not. They have to charge at least something. Because if they start giving out free licensed copies, other users might get even more annoyed with MS's stance on software piracy and DRM.
Maybe yes, but then what does need to exist? People's interest is the currency of Open Source projects. If a project has many people's interest, then it will flourish. If it has too many people's interests, it might fork. But if it has at least one person's interest, and enough of it for that person to spend time on it, it will remain alive.
And when there is no interest, code doesn't die. It just remains dormant.
The scheduled release intervals and the "it'll be ready when it's ready" idea can still work. Not all major distros need to have a new release for a given interval. Some can be more regular, some don't have to be. For example, the next Ubuntu LTS could come out when Pat rolls out Slackware 12.2.
It's been a couple of years, but had read several issues, and more than a few articles about "why Stephen Harper's so great!", and "Why the house of commons should be more americanized!", and perhaps one of Steyn's own articles depicting muslims as a horde of black ghouls.
So I haven't read it lately, but if most issues are still the same, then I stand by my comment.
Your OSfaith analogy doesn't quite sound right to me. Because people just use whatever they prefer, and whatever suits their needs. The computers don't alienate other computers with different operating systems. Software, particularly Free Software, can't be said to be the thing that competes. And plus I really dislike the idea of comparing software with religion. If this were a good analogy, a linux system that spreads windows viruses would also be acceptable.
When a muslim wakes up in the morning, their first thought will not be 'let's take over the world... with RELIGION!!!".
I think you might have sent me the wrong link. It was a link to an article about two vaguely muslim men, taking advantage of white girls who liked ecstasy. I'm not saying the girls deserved it, but why do you think muslim men think that white girls are loose? Turn on the tv. Basically, everything above (except maybe the kill-the-cartoonists bit) could be extrapolated from any fundamentalist group. And not all muslims are fundamentalist.
You're joking right?
I'm a Christian, and I know 'spread the Gospel' was not intended to mean 'kill the pagans', just as muslims who recite the Shahadah don't automatically believe they have to 'kill the infidels'.
Ideologicals who do believe in that are themselves dominated by a culture of fear. This 'Us versus Them' mentality is not spread by the ideologies themselves.
Which truth? That Mark Steyn isn't fit for print? Or that muslims are 'planning to take over' the west?
I'm not really surprised that a Maclean's authour is on trial for this sort of behaviour. I don't really consider myself to be a left wing guy, but Maclean's is xenophobic, right-wing sucking pile of trash. I say this with no exaggeration.
Whenever I've read a Maclean's article in the past, it only made me angry. This sort of thing should have happened long ago.
This is complete un-based speculation, and I'm also a "Millennial"(firefox sp) myself. But here's a thought: Do you think that maybe all that electronics and software advertising specifically targeted at my generation is what encourages them to use it?
For example...
I wonder how many atheists will just pooh-pooh this evidence instead of actually trying to retort it.
The only one I liked was the attack on the neccessity of dark matter and extra mass in the universe. The all other cases, it seemed to take so-called "secular" science at face value, and was flexible with everything but the facts in question. All points seemed to take extra steps to avoid even the possibility of compatibility.
For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't believe, none will suffice. This is true in more than one way. I'm all for divinely-driven evolution, God as the First-Mover before the big bang, all that jazz. I tire of people who write this fundementalist silliness. Treating proper logic like an enemy, not because of what they believe in, but because they feel the need to misuse logic justify themselves to the world.
That being said, I would like to see more on divine implications of a lack of dark matter or missing mass.
I much prefer firefox to ie. Hell, I've been into using kazehakase. And lynx comes in handy when I'm unable to run Xorg. But I would be glad to see microsoft finally bringing ie up to standards. It's not about which browser is better. People will use whatever browser they want. The important thing is that if such a widely used browser is up to standards, and if more people starts using, we can actually put those standard to use. If this encourages Mozilla and Opera to meet the standards as well, all the better. The thing is the content! Web developers will less and less have to plan for browsers quirks and contingencies, and focus more on content that everyone will be able to use and view online. So instead of five or six implementations, we can mostly just worry about one.
This sounds pretty good to me. A P2P patching system makes perfect sense, as long as they used an appropriate type of encryption. The security thing will be the biggest issue to keep people from creating malicious "double-agent" worms. Although, another issue should be that it's voluntary, or at least make it trivial to disable. And by that I also mean by it can be disabled remotely by Microsoft, in case a double-agent is starting to make the rounds or something goes terribly wrong. But also because some people just may not appreciate using their bandwidth to seed patches.
Great tag. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xfqkdh5Js4
Just as long as the people buying ad-space don't find out...
Now I don't feel at all guilty about ad-blocking.
Personally, I've always hated the cheapness of printers and certain other peripherals. This might not be a widespread sentiment, but I think that if equipment were made to be more robust and long-lasting, it would be better for the consumer and the enviroment.
While I agree that Benedict isn't as cool as John Paul, He's just saying to look at the big picture. There's plenty of research that we can do without splicing up humans and whatnot. Just like in Jurassic Park.
You make it sound as though anyone who's ever used bittorrent has shared at least one thing they weren't supposed to. That would be an interesting claim to prove.