It's not attached to the web site. It's attached to your browser. You are not storing the messages, Google is. And the only people who will receive the messages are people who want to see them. I see no infringement of any rights of any type here whatsoever.
Something that describes the program in terms that matter to the person opening the about box - the end user. I don't care if the program I'm using is v7.6 build 9584 or v7.7 build 1232, I just care that it works.
You can't. It's like having an iphone app that gives you my opinions of every restaurant you go to - you have no moral, physical or legal right to prevent it from happening.
Speaking of "About", why is it that this option doesn't tell you anything about the program, but gives you some useless copyright information instead? Can't we call it "Copyright" or something like that?
How is sudo apt-get install cryptic? It's the #1 used command (maybe except for cd) in the average user's terminal. From a neutral point of view, I find the concept of having to click the icon twice pointless and confusing. It's all about what you're used to.
And in fact, when I ran into an incompatible printer on my Ubuntu box, I was immediately greeted with a one-click "download proprietary driver yes/no" box and everything worked fine with it afterward.
And dirty needles (both medical and illicit). And getting into a fight with someone where some blood splatters onto your wound. And being deliberately poisoned for whatever reason.
Sorry, that was a mistake, the distributor only owns the changes, they can't redistribute the work under a different license. But they do still have the power to sue for redistributing their modifications without source code.
If they added even the slightest bit to the code, and redistributed their version (following the GPL of course), then they own the copyright to that version of the code.
Slashdot Mirror
Research into electronic solutions specifically also benefits other areas that may be useful, like mind-machine interfaces.
It's not attached to the web site. It's attached to your browser. You are not storing the messages, Google is. And the only people who will receive the messages are people who want to see them. I see no infringement of any rights of any type here whatsoever.
Crappy cowardly comments...
The kill switch only applies to the android market (not the PERFECTLY LEGIT alternate markets) for apps that violate its terms of service.
Just wait a few years, Windows 9 will probably be a ripoff of Wine/ReactOS.
The tweet will soon probably prove its veracity through a link to Slashdot.
It is a 100% scientifically proven fact that there is life on Mars.
Our own bacteria.
I want it to at least briefly describe the program and what it does.
Something that describes the program in terms that matter to the person opening the about box - the end user. I don't care if the program I'm using is v7.6 build 9584 or v7.7 build 1232, I just care that it works.
5 is better. A cube with only one side open. Who needs compiz fusion when you can do it in real life!
9. ?????
10. Nope, we're screwed.
Sounds like a great way to have Apple iCult meetings with Safari. Well, if it weren't for Opera ruining the fun.
You can't. It's like having an iphone app that gives you my opinions of every restaurant you go to - you have no moral, physical or legal right to prevent it from happening.
And I should be able to comment on you. I propose a new SoFarOffTheSideIt'sNotEvenOnYourScreenWiki to handle this problem.
Speaking of "About", why is it that this option doesn't tell you anything about the program, but gives you some useless copyright information instead? Can't we call it "Copyright" or something like that?
How is sudo apt-get install cryptic? It's the #1 used command (maybe except for cd) in the average user's terminal. From a neutral point of view, I find the concept of having to click the icon twice pointless and confusing. It's all about what you're used to.
And in fact, when I ran into an incompatible printer on my Ubuntu box, I was immediately greeted with a one-click "download proprietary driver yes/no" box and everything worked fine with it afterward.
And dirty needles (both medical and illicit). And getting into a fight with someone where some blood splatters onto your wound. And being deliberately poisoned for whatever reason.
Sorry, that was a mistake, the distributor only owns the changes, they can't redistribute the work under a different license. But they do still have the power to sue for redistributing their modifications without source code.
Noscript reduces insecurity. Some features do close certain points of entry.
If they added even the slightest bit to the code, and redistributed their version (following the GPL of course), then they own the copyright to that version of the code.
I think they got their bits and bytes mixed up. 10^13 bytes = 8*10^13 bits = 8000 seconds (2h13m) at 10^10 bits per second.
You're not just adding the security of Chrome and IE, you're adding their insecurity as well.
Google has a horrible history with security?
I think you were reading a European site and mistranslated the decimal
Hydroxyl = OH. Water = H2O