I wrote the code, so what right does Torvalds have in telling me what to do with my code?
If you actually wrote it entirely yourself, none. If it's a derivative work, however, Torvalds has the same rights as any copyright holder would over derivative works from their stuff... you need the original copyright holder's permission first. The GPL really only outlines what the requirements are to *get* such permission so that no other explicit written permission is necessary, which is what would typically be otherwise required to independently create a derivative work of somone else's copyrighted stuff.
End users are *consumers* of a product, not providers of it. Advertisers are not at the actual receiving end of the product consumption chain, they are either entirely at the top or else somewhere in the middle. By definition, end users cannot be the advertisers, they are the people that are advertised *to*.
Their alleged claim of wanting to "improve your Facebook ads and products experiences" is pure bullshit... while this might be obvious to anyone who knows about Facebook's track record, the claim does not even withstand remotely objective scrutiny.
Assume just for a moment that their claim of wanting to improve the user experience were true....Consider that Whatsapp has no information about the content of any messages sent between users, so any content within the messages that are sent cannot be harvested to generate any kind of targeted advertising, the *only* thing that they have are names and phone numbers, and who is sending messages to whom, with no basis for understanding why beyond anything that might have been communicated out of band directly to Whatsapp. So since Whatsapp has no information about its users that can be used to actually generate any kind of "improved advertising experience" for its users, the assumption that this is what they actually are trying to do cannot possibly be correct.
There is nothing remotely tenable I can see about the notion that this could even somehow theoretically create an improved experience for the end user, and Facebook's claims that it would do so would seem to be wholly transparent lies.
What would be even better is if you could plausibly deny the ability to give them the password at all either because you do not have it, or know it, or you are otherwise technologically prohibited from accessing the system outside of certain locations or environments that cannot be otherwise replicated by you or a border guard.
How did you get that formatted code to show up in your post? I once tried using to try and make indentation in a I did some time ago, and although the text was in a fixed spacing font, and thanks to using , my line breaks were good, the indentation did not work for me at all.
I wasn't trying to make my point more valid by inserting "to do" in there... freedom of speech is the same as any other kind of freedom that might otherwise apply to things like an actual action. I was generalizing when I mentioned "doing", but my point is identical without it when talking specifically about freedom of speech.
Other than [protection from slander] there should be absolutely no consequences to free speech
I disagree.... If you really feel like you have the need to say something publicly but you do not want to be held responsible for the consequences that what you are saying might not be well received, then I think you completely deflate the importance of saying it in the first place. If it's important enough to be publicly known, then it is probably important enough to be worth whatever consequences that might entail. I would compare wanting to say something publicly but not wanting to face any undesirable consequences that might arise from it as being akin to wanting to buy a car on credit but not wanting to have the regular monthly payments it entails.
For small amounts of water, yes. Not so much the case for really large water bodies like oceans. Of course, few feet of difference in sea level is technically a negligible distance for something of that size too.... but its impact can still be huge.
What the fuck does that nonsense have to do with anything that I said?
My point is that floods like this have been happening for as long as there has been weather. I think one would be hard pressed to blame any one of them on climate change specifcally. Even if AGW were the cause, the scale of any individual flood that didn't span at least an entire sizeable country is simply far too small to generally attribute to it. Frankly, it looks to me like Mr. Nye is just using a catchy phrase ("climate change") to get press without putting some actual hard science behind his reasoning, which is kind of ironic, considering the full moniker he is publically known as.
.... regional floods have been happening for quite some time before man even existed, let alone was capable of having an environmental impact on the world.
That's not what makes something a hologram. There is nothing that precludes holograms from being put on glasses to effectively "overlay" on what you see. What makes a hologram distinctive is that your brain perceives it as a truly three-dimensional image. When you focus on a hologram, you are focusing at the distance of the object that is presented in the hologram, not on the surface of what the image is being made on.... like a mirror.
.. if Apple is so dead-set determined to say that their way is better, would be for the iphone to have *2* lightning ports instead of just one... You'd still need an adapter for 3.5 mm phones, but even if you had lightning headphones, you could at least charge your phone while you listen without requiring a lightning hub, (or even plug in other lightning devices that the phone supports)
I wasn't addresing the issue of breaking the law without knowing it when keeping things secret. If you don't know that you've broken the law by doing something, unless there was some aspect of privacy that was otherwise involved, you wouldn't generally have a reason to think you needed to hide that in the first place. My point is that people have things that are private even *IF* there was nothing wrong with what they want to keep hidden (to anyone who says otherwise, you could ask them why they are wearing clothes... is there something wrong with their body?) My point being that even if a person has done absolutely nothing illegal (ignoring the side-issue that you raised of everyone doing illegal stuff without knowing it), that person still has things to hide... again, not because they have necessarily done anything wrong, but because those things are simply private.
As for the issue of the consequences or possibly even undesirable repercussions to speech making that speech somehow less free, that might be the case if you consider freedom synonymous only with anarchy. Freedom to do or say something can entail the responsibility to still be accountable for what you do or say, and still be freedom in nearly every other sense of the word.
Why should freedom of expression necessarily mean freedom of accountability for such expression?
Not trying to troll... this is a serious question.
Barring the situation where one is living under an actual oppressive regime wherein the government surreptitiously "silences" anyone who expresses disagreement with them, I don't see how that is an issue. The USA still definitely has its problems, but it is one of the furthest places I can think of in the world from having such a regime.
I am not an advocate of the notion that "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" either, because I do believe that everyone has something to hide, even if they haven't done anything wrong. Some things are kept secret or hidden not because there is anything wrong with them, but simply because they are private. Using social media, however, isn't exactly private, so I'm not sure what the issue is with anonymity in such forums.
It's not what I can't run... it's that the entire system is less open. The Apple 2, for instance, was openable, an end user could easily plug in cards into available slots much like what PC ISA would years laters, and the manual that came with the machine even had a complete schematic for the computer!
No.... Apple is not more open than they used to be. Not anywhere close.
I am comparing the *reception* of systemd it to how heliocentrism was once received, not suggesting that systemd is actually better in the same way that heliocentrism was actually better than geocentrism. My point is that merely being poorly received is not an indicator of whether something is actually better.
If systemd were actually better.... sure. Systemd solves things that were never really problems in the first place except for people who generally expect to be rebooting their machine almost every time they use it, and while this could be an admirable goal, the improvement is not significant, and the cost of doing so, completely breaking compatibility with init on a technical as well as philosophical level, is definitely not worth the price of admission.
To play devil's advocate, consider that heliocentrism was pretty widely ridiculed (to put it mildly) when it was first proposed, and it took centuries before it was eventually accepted as fact.
Slashdot Mirror
If you actually wrote it entirely yourself, none. If it's a derivative work, however, Torvalds has the same rights as any copyright holder would over derivative works from their stuff... you need the original copyright holder's permission first. The GPL really only outlines what the requirements are to *get* such permission so that no other explicit written permission is necessary, which is what would typically be otherwise required to independently create a derivative work of somone else's copyrighted stuff.
Customer is not necessarily the same as end-user.
End users are *consumers* of a product, not providers of it. Advertisers are not at the actual receiving end of the product consumption chain, they are either entirely at the top or else somewhere in the middle. By definition, end users cannot be the advertisers, they are the people that are advertised *to*.
Of course, but the advertisers, even if they are Facebook's actual customers, are still not "end users".
Their alleged claim of wanting to "improve your Facebook ads and products experiences" is pure bullshit... while this might be obvious to anyone who knows about Facebook's track record, the claim does not even withstand remotely objective scrutiny.
Assume just for a moment that their claim of wanting to improve the user experience were true....Consider that Whatsapp has no information about the content of any messages sent between users, so any content within the messages that are sent cannot be harvested to generate any kind of targeted advertising, the *only* thing that they have are names and phone numbers, and who is sending messages to whom, with no basis for understanding why beyond anything that might have been communicated out of band directly to Whatsapp. So since Whatsapp has no information about its users that can be used to actually generate any kind of "improved advertising experience" for its users, the assumption that this is what they actually are trying to do cannot possibly be correct.
There is nothing remotely tenable I can see about the notion that this could even somehow theoretically create an improved experience for the end user, and Facebook's claims that it would do so would seem to be wholly transparent lies.
What would be even better is if you could plausibly deny the ability to give them the password at all either because you do not have it, or know it, or you are otherwise technologically prohibited from accessing the system outside of certain locations or environments that cannot be otherwise replicated by you or a border guard.
How did you get that formatted code to show up in your post? I once tried using to try and make indentation in a I did some time ago, and although the text was in a fixed spacing font, and thanks to using
, my line breaks were good, the indentation did not work for me at all.
I wasn't trying to make my point more valid by inserting "to do" in there... freedom of speech is the same as any other kind of freedom that might otherwise apply to things like an actual action. I was generalizing when I mentioned "doing", but my point is identical without it when talking specifically about freedom of speech.
I disagree.... If you really feel like you have the need to say something publicly but you do not want to be held responsible for the consequences that what you are saying might not be well received, then I think you completely deflate the importance of saying it in the first place. If it's important enough to be publicly known, then it is probably important enough to be worth whatever consequences that might entail. I would compare wanting to say something publicly but not wanting to face any undesirable consequences that might arise from it as being akin to wanting to buy a car on credit but not wanting to have the regular monthly payments it entails.
For small amounts of water, yes. Not so much the case for really large water bodies like oceans. Of course, few feet of difference in sea level is technically a negligible distance for something of that size too.... but its impact can still be huge.
What the fuck does that nonsense have to do with anything that I said?
My point is that floods like this have been happening for as long as there has been weather. I think one would be hard pressed to blame any one of them on climate change specifcally. Even if AGW were the cause, the scale of any individual flood that didn't span at least an entire sizeable country is simply far too small to generally attribute to it. Frankly, it looks to me like Mr. Nye is just using a catchy phrase ("climate change") to get press without putting some actual hard science behind his reasoning, which is kind of ironic, considering the full moniker he is publically known as.
.... regional floods have been happening for quite some time before man even existed, let alone was capable of having an environmental impact on the world.
That's not what makes something a hologram. There is nothing that precludes holograms from being put on glasses to effectively "overlay" on what you see. What makes a hologram distinctive is that your brain perceives it as a truly three-dimensional image. When you focus on a hologram, you are focusing at the distance of the object that is presented in the hologram, not on the surface of what the image is being made on.... like a mirror.
I was comparing its openness to how it used to be... the original comment said that Apple has become more open, but the opposite is true.
The comparison of this number to assorted lude and crude innuendo and various "your mom" jokes is left as an exercise for the reader.
Schematics, and the ability to tinker.
.. if Apple is so dead-set determined to say that their way is better, would be for the iphone to have *2* lightning ports instead of just one... You'd still need an adapter for 3.5 mm phones, but even if you had lightning headphones, you could at least charge your phone while you listen without requiring a lightning hub, (or even plug in other lightning devices that the phone supports)
I wasn't addresing the issue of breaking the law without knowing it when keeping things secret. If you don't know that you've broken the law by doing something, unless there was some aspect of privacy that was otherwise involved, you wouldn't generally have a reason to think you needed to hide that in the first place. My point is that people have things that are private even *IF* there was nothing wrong with what they want to keep hidden (to anyone who says otherwise, you could ask them why they are wearing clothes... is there something wrong with their body?) My point being that even if a person has done absolutely nothing illegal (ignoring the side-issue that you raised of everyone doing illegal stuff without knowing it), that person still has things to hide... again, not because they have necessarily done anything wrong, but because those things are simply private.
As for the issue of the consequences or possibly even undesirable repercussions to speech making that speech somehow less free, that might be the case if you consider freedom synonymous only with anarchy. Freedom to do or say something can entail the responsibility to still be accountable for what you do or say, and still be freedom in nearly every other sense of the word.
Why should freedom of expression necessarily mean freedom of accountability for such expression?
Not trying to troll... this is a serious question.
Barring the situation where one is living under an actual oppressive regime wherein the government surreptitiously "silences" anyone who expresses disagreement with them, I don't see how that is an issue. The USA still definitely has its problems, but it is one of the furthest places I can think of in the world from having such a regime.
I am not an advocate of the notion that "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" either, because I do believe that everyone has something to hide, even if they haven't done anything wrong. Some things are kept secret or hidden not because there is anything wrong with them, but simply because they are private. Using social media, however, isn't exactly private, so I'm not sure what the issue is with anonymity in such forums.
It's not what I can't run... it's that the entire system is less open. The Apple 2, for instance, was openable, an end user could easily plug in cards into available slots much like what PC ISA would years laters, and the manual that came with the machine even had a complete schematic for the computer!
No.... Apple is not more open than they used to be. Not anywhere close.
Your comment makes no sense... the Apple 2 was *WAY* more open than the Mac has ever been.
I am comparing the *reception* of systemd it to how heliocentrism was once received, not suggesting that systemd is actually better in the same way that heliocentrism was actually better than geocentrism. My point is that merely being poorly received is not an indicator of whether something is actually better.
If systemd were actually better.... sure. Systemd solves things that were never really problems in the first place except for people who generally expect to be rebooting their machine almost every time they use it, and while this could be an admirable goal, the improvement is not significant, and the cost of doing so, completely breaking compatibility with init on a technical as well as philosophical level, is definitely not worth the price of admission.
... why ride sharing services don't run afoul of laws against picking up hitchhikers?
[nt]
To play devil's advocate, consider that heliocentrism was pretty widely ridiculed (to put it mildly) when it was first proposed, and it took centuries before it was eventually accepted as fact.