Sites must find ways to profit. The mission of a browser (or any app) is providing the best user experience, and ad block is part of this. You cannot stop technology development and adoption just because some guys don't know how to make money.
I guess it depends on which Europe are talking about. Here in Spain, people usually think that it's better something known to be bad that something good to be discovered (Más vale malo conocido que bueno por conocer).
First of all, I am not afraid of being wrong, because all I did was asking. And I did not ask for evidencing the poster, but because I did want to know if there is such an example. Because if such example exists, the debate would change.
Aside from that, it is a common error to understand that "open source" means "open to watch", but not "open to modify" or "open to redistribute".
True, and that is why I didn't answer other obvious points. But I thought that the information could be useful to people grown in other IP legal frame.
My bet is that the PS3 license agreements allows them to do this sort of wrongdoings. I have not one, so I can't say, but I think Sony won't do anything that can put them in a bad legal position against millions of customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite a story. So, wise hairyfeet, I wait for another day in which you tell me the thing behind COBOL.
Well, that's the thing about discovering and conquering another continent: you don't feel the need to make history on another 500 years.
Is that irony? Jobs sound as one that has a not so far time limit.
Sites must find ways to profit. The mission of a browser (or any app) is providing the best user experience, and ad block is part of this. You cannot stop technology development and adoption just because some guys don't know how to make money.
I guess it depends on which Europe are talking about. Here in Spain, people usually think that it's better something known to be bad that something good to be discovered (Más vale malo conocido que bueno por conocer).
It amaze me how many users are still using IE 6. I mean, why such a pain?
I can only explain it as either masochists or spambots identifying as IE 6. Only machines can sustain these unhuman conditions.
First of all, I am not afraid of being wrong, because all I did was asking. And I did not ask for evidencing the poster, but because I did want to know if there is such an example. Because if such example exists, the debate would change.
Aside from that, it is a common error to understand that "open source" means "open to watch", but not "open to modify" or "open to redistribute".
Open source does require these freedoms.
Well, the OSI invents a term and says that "Open Source" is software that complies with A, B and C.
Who the heck can come and say that "Open Source" is something different?
You can provide other terms, specify other type of software, but changing the definition? How?
Can you provide an OSI-certified example?
Wrong.
OSI invented the term, so their definition is the valid one. If you want another definition, try inventing a new term.
Games usually carry the update, but with homebrew you can try alternate methods for loading the games without installing the updates.
In the rest, I agree with you. I don't like Nintendo messing with homebrew, but at least, it wasn't a sold feature.
Of course. I suppose all the fooled companys will try to retrieve their money (but there won't be enough for all).
Wait a moment. Can you imagine who are you talking about?
A spanish "software" company who based their business on fooling customers. I don't think they're so smart.
True, and that is why I didn't answer other obvious points. But I thought that the information could be useful to people grown in other IP legal frame.
> they did not generate any profit from their site
That is no excuse.
Well, spanish law says sharing is legal if no profit is made. So, it really isn't a excuse. It's a legal principle.
Imparing free PSN users would be like removing a feature. SONY would never do such a thing.
I'm pretty sure you are all talking about the same PS3 ports.
Only that the hotelier has rented the room for free!
You paid for a console that can install other os and access to PSN, reproduce copyrighted media, etc, etc
Sony is removing some rights or another (you elect). So, if you ask me, it's a fraud.
My bet is that the PS3 license agreements allows them to do this sort of wrongdoings. I have not one, so I can't say, but I think Sony won't do anything that can put them in a bad legal position against millions of customers.
Oh, really?
But I can find now a lot of fools warnings previous to the message I replied.
Well, maybe someone found another shortcut to time travel and post the 20 previous warnings.
No. You are like the 20th in this thread. Instead of asking, you should use Ctrl+F.
Again, removing the charger will be a fraud for this few people that actually wanted it and paid for it.
You shouldn't be forced to elect between the functionallities you paid for.
I don't care if PS4 has no Other OS support. I don't care if PS3 Slim has no Other OS support. You will know what you are buying.
But removing Other OS support tu people who paid for it is a fraud.