That depends on how badly the Bush administration screws up in the next few months. If they think that impeaching Bush will get them reelected and help maintain Republican control of congress then they'll try.
And do you really think that those seven astronauts weren't taking a risk for something they believed in and loved? They died while attempting to increase our knowledge and may have lived if the engineers' advice weren't ignored.
That disaster was a tragedy by your own definition. They were real people, not just strings of words on a page, so show a little respect.
I think that idea needs to be taken a step further. The large corporations are like drug dealers. They give people a few free hits to get them hooked and then start upping the price.
Leela: "I don't get it."
Professor: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
Fry: "Oh. What's it called now?"
Professor: "Urectum. Here, let me locate it for you."
Are you familiar with the old robot phrase "Does not compute"?
The GPL is one of the least restrictive open source (not "open source" as you dismissively wrote) licenses in existence. The only restrictions it contains are guarantees that code released under it will remain open.
No, Microsoft has only claimed it has made an enormous move towards security mindedness. Nothing about the company's behavior has indicated that it's actually doing anything significant to improve security.
That depends, if you rewired the alarm clocks so the dream the FBI sends to you is immediately sent back by the second alarm clock, it could be quite entertaining.
If Microsoft needs to license the source code too, then so be it. Microsoft broke the law and now corrective actions need to be taken, regardless of how much it costs Microsoft.
The issue is about Microsoft's APIs, not its source code. Microsoft's licensing terms prevent any party which uses the APIs from releasing its source code under an open source license.
I'm still wondering how Microsoft can claim that APIs need to be licensed at all.
Explain how publishing and documenting its APIs would kill Microsoft.
The purpose of forcing Microsoft to allow distribution of source code that uses its APIs is to make sure that there are no more hidden anticompetitive APIs.
What Slashdotters are complaining about is that certain parties, the music industry for example, have overstepped the bounds of copyright law, and now wish to extend the law to cover even more.
The megacorporations have gone too far in their attempts to protect their "property rights". They assume that everyone is a criminal, attempt to eliminate fair use because they might be able to squeeze a few more pennies out of customers, are trying to shut down filesharing networks because they are a threat to their business model, and they have bought laws that make it illegal for people to actually make use of the rights they have.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because they're smart doesn't mean that they can't make stupid mistakes.
Consider a career change. For a law student, you don't know much about the law.
That depends on how badly the Bush administration screws up in the next few months. If they think that impeaching Bush will get them reelected and help maintain Republican control of congress then they'll try.
No, we aren't. Only congress has the power to declare war, and they haven't done that.
And do you really think that those seven astronauts weren't taking a risk for something they believed in and loved? They died while attempting to increase our knowledge and may have lived if the engineers' advice weren't ignored. That disaster was a tragedy by your own definition. They were real people, not just strings of words on a page, so show a little respect.
I think that idea needs to be taken a step further. The large corporations are like drug dealers. They give people a few free hits to get them hooked and then start upping the price.
I think there's a more important question to as first. Why bother with .Net?
Quick! Somebody post some more things like that!
I heard the password was going to be "12345".
Leela: "I don't get it."
Professor: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
Fry: "Oh. What's it called now?"
Professor: "Urectum. Here, let me locate it for you."
"I claim this planet in the name of Mars. Isn't that lovely." - Marvin the Martian
Don't we already know where he is thanks to the tracking device in his fillings?
The GPL is one of the least restrictive open source (not "open source" as you dismissively wrote) licenses in existence. The only restrictions it contains are guarantees that code released under it will remain open.
Technically, it's only theirs until it is released to the public.
No, Microsoft has only claimed it has made an enormous move towards security mindedness. Nothing about the company's behavior has indicated that it's actually doing anything significant to improve security.
And what if it's an unmarked tiger?
Well, we haven't had many stories about SCO lately...
That depends, if you rewired the alarm clocks so the dream the FBI sends to you is immediately sent back by the second alarm clock, it could be quite entertaining.
Who's suggesting? Season 16 is airing right now, and season 17 is in the works.
For starters, it's a phenomenally bad series.
If Microsoft needs to license the source code too, then so be it. Microsoft broke the law and now corrective actions need to be taken, regardless of how much it costs Microsoft.
I'm still wondering how Microsoft can claim that APIs need to be licensed at all.
The purpose of forcing Microsoft to allow distribution of source code that uses its APIs is to make sure that there are no more hidden anticompetitive APIs.
What Slashdotters are complaining about is that certain parties, the music industry for example, have overstepped the bounds of copyright law, and now wish to extend the law to cover even more.
The megacorporations have gone too far in their attempts to protect their "property rights". They assume that everyone is a criminal, attempt to eliminate fair use because they might be able to squeeze a few more pennies out of customers, are trying to shut down filesharing networks because they are a threat to their business model, and they have bought laws that make it illegal for people to actually make use of the rights they have.
None of that has anything to do with the GPL.
Hopefully, it means that they're extracting Internet Explorer from Windows.