This is true, to an extent, but the real problem from their point of view is that if users actually use all the bandwidth they are paying for...
Well, the problem is that the users are using bandwidth that was advertised, not that they have paid for. If the users were actually paying for a 512Kbps line, as you said, they'd be paying a lot more.
Personally, I wouldn't mind having a cap on daily usage, as long as it's spelled out in the advertising and contract. I'd say it's a lot better than metered net usage, where you end up using the internet less in order to save your pennies. However, claiming that everyone gets 24/7 maximum bandwidth, and then limiting it, is dishonest and false advertising.
running "strings" on a few M$ Windows DLL and EXEs revealed some amazing things.
No, it doesn't. It reveals that MS has used some BSD code, like pretty much any other modern OS out there. This isn't even particularly interesting, much less amazing.
Nobody has ever shown evidence that MS has ever violated the GPL. I rather doubt any will be found, simply because Microsoft is so scared of the GPL that they would rather reimplement a piece of code than take a chance of being caught. It amazes me how many people assume that Microsoft are evil GPL violaters, when it would make absolutely no sense for them to do so.
I agree wholeheartedly. This statement is similar to his reasoning on not mirroring stories -- he conveniently ignores the real argument. I wonder -- is he just stupid and doesn't understand the complaints, or does he really think that these lame excuses are going to fool anybody?
Thank you for coming out and saying that. We've all read the same arguments over & over, yet I'm not reading anything I haven't read before. Unless something really interesting comes up, there should be no +mods, although there will be, because Mods moderate when they agree, not when they think it's important.
Evidenced by the fact that there are at least 3 +5, insightful replies that say exactly the same thing. Come on, people, do you really think that it's insightful to repeat something that's been said hundreds of times already?
And Taco still thinks that Funny is the moderation that should be removed.
Until Linus is taken to court for maintaining an illegal monopoly and the judge threatens to cut him in half in order to foster more competition in the OS marker, I won't consider Linux a success.
Creationism isn't science, and thus doesn't need proof. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is science, and so requires proof. The whole creationism/evolution thing would just go away if people realized that the two are orthogonal rather than opposing, and abandoned the notion that everyone has to believe as they do.
The whole point to the BSDs as well as to the GNU project was to create OSes that aren't owned by big companies, so the code-proliferating traditions of unix hackerdom can continue. Donating code to big companies that publicly state they won't be part of the proliferation process is stupid, contraproductive and against the spirit in which the projects were created.
If this was true, the BSD license would never have been written.
You don't have to allow your code to be used in this manner, but there are those of us who feel that giving our stuff away with no strings attached benefits more people.
These cards are to make people think they're saving money by not paying the marked-up price given as the undiscounted price, and to build customer loyalty. (Yes, some people really do feel loyalty to the grocery store "clubs.") The secondary reason is to collect statistical information (people who by X are likely to buy Y, so put those two products on sale at the same time.) Tracking personal spending history is of no real importance -- nobody (insurance companies included) cares what you, in particular, had for dinner.
There's really no reason to come up with paranoid fantasies about Big Brother. There are dozens of plausible explanations for the cards.
Nitpick: eating a rotten jelly corpse could cause death by food poisoning, NOT a "killed by XXX while helpless" death. You're thinking of getting killed by a kitten after hitting a floating eyeball.
I beg to differ, Ignorant Aardvark. A possible outcome is: "Blecch! Rotten food! The world spins and goes dark." After which you could be killed by the kitten.
Re:What would the founding fathers think?
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
Would not? Not at all? No inventions before patent law? No writing or art before copyright law? I'm astounded.
The phrase "writers would not write," can just as easily mean "some writers would not write," as well as "no writers would write." The OP perhaps should have been a little more specific, but his statement wasn't incorrect.
You fail to realize that without copyright law, individuals and organizations wouldn't be able to restrict distribution, either, therefore abolishing the very problems that RMS created the GPL to address.
Getting rid of copyright is only one part of what RMS wants. He always wants to make it illegal to distribute a binary without source code. If copyright law (and thus the GPL) was to be declared invalid today, there would be nothing stopping anyone from distributing Linux binaries and refusing to distribute source -- one of the main reasons why people choose to use the GPL over other licenses.
All right, I'm curious -- how'd you decide to use "aardvark" in your nick? That the only two posters I'm aware of with nethack-related sigs should both be named after that beast is a rather interesting coincidence.
Remember that, for instance, an airline lost a lawsuit for not making their web site accessible for blind people -- the fact that a blind person could call them using the telephone wasn't good enough to satisfy them.
I fully expect that we'll eventually end up with elevators going to the top of Mount Everest in order to even things out for disabled people.
I find it very hard to believe that SCO could have possibly been fined without a dozen stories going up on Slashdot. The OP is probably referring to the fact that they were threatened with fines, not that they had to pay them.
Watch out, though -- lots of the keyboards being sold on eBay are there because they have nonstandard connectors and therefore are pretty much useless. (I bought some from someone who claimed that the keyboards had PS/2 connectors -- They turned out to have some weird connector; like the AT ones but with slightly different pin placement.) I'd recommend going for the thrift stores instead; finding out that you paid shipping on a five pound paperweight is annoying.
Timothy is looking for investors for his new "SPAM spam" company, which will use bulk e-mail in order to sell canned ham products. He believes that this lawsuit might have an impact on the confidence of his investors.
So, moderators, I'm a troll because I get sick of seeing the same "copyright violation isn't stealing" post half a dozen times every single day? Morons. See this post right here? This is a troll. (Or, more acurrately, flamebait. It's also offtopic, and probably overrated as well. Too bad that I can't start at +3 so I could collect the set.)
(The good part about it is that I know that some people are going to good mod points on a futile attempt to shut me up that they probably would have abused elsewhere. Taco, your moderation system sucks.)
Slashdot Mirror
This is true, to an extent, but the real problem from their point of view is that if users actually use all the bandwidth they are paying for ...
Well, the problem is that the users are using bandwidth that was advertised, not that they have paid for. If the users were actually paying for a 512Kbps line, as you said, they'd be paying a lot more.
Personally, I wouldn't mind having a cap on daily usage, as long as it's spelled out in the advertising and contract. I'd say it's a lot better than metered net usage, where you end up using the internet less in order to save your pennies. However, claiming that everyone gets 24/7 maximum bandwidth, and then limiting it, is dishonest and false advertising.
running "strings" on a few M$ Windows DLL and EXEs revealed some amazing things.
No, it doesn't. It reveals that MS has used some BSD code, like pretty much any other modern OS out there. This isn't even particularly interesting, much less amazing.
Nobody has ever shown evidence that MS has ever violated the GPL. I rather doubt any will be found, simply because Microsoft is so scared of the GPL that they would rather reimplement a piece of code than take a chance of being caught. It amazes me how many people assume that Microsoft are evil GPL violaters, when it would make absolutely no sense for them to do so.
By the time this thing comes out, that'll be the definition of a $200 Wal-mart PC.
They also forgot to blame it on SCO.
I agree wholeheartedly. This statement is similar to his reasoning on not mirroring stories -- he conveniently ignores the real argument. I wonder -- is he just stupid and doesn't understand the complaints, or does he really think that these lame excuses are going to fool anybody?
I have fond memories of creating shelves of cd toasters...
All right, clue me in. How do you use a cd to make toast?
Thank you for coming out and saying that. We've all read the same arguments over & over, yet I'm not reading anything I haven't read before. Unless something really interesting comes up, there should be no +mods, although there will be, because Mods moderate when they agree, not when they think it's important.
Evidenced by the fact that there are at least 3 +5, insightful replies that say exactly the same thing. Come on, people, do you really think that it's insightful to repeat something that's been said hundreds of times already?
And Taco still thinks that Funny is the moderation that should be removed.
Until Linus is taken to court for maintaining an illegal monopoly and the judge threatens to cut him in half in order to foster more competition in the OS marker, I won't consider Linux a success.
Creationism isn't science, and thus doesn't need proof. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is science, and so requires proof. The whole creationism/evolution thing would just go away if people realized that the two are orthogonal rather than opposing, and abandoned the notion that everyone has to believe as they do.
Perhaps they'd like to use the .us domain, then, instead of .com or other TLDs, if they're not willing to do business internationally.
.com TLD.
And maybe slashdot, as a business, ought to use the
The whole point to the BSDs as well as to the GNU project was to create OSes that aren't owned by big companies, so the code-proliferating traditions of unix hackerdom can continue. Donating code to big companies that publicly state they won't be part of the proliferation process is stupid, contraproductive and against the spirit in which the projects were created.
If this was true, the BSD license would never have been written.
You don't have to allow your code to be used in this manner, but there are those of us who feel that giving our stuff away with no strings attached benefits more people.
These cards are to make people think they're saving money by not paying the marked-up price given as the undiscounted price, and to build customer loyalty. (Yes, some people really do feel loyalty to the grocery store "clubs.") The secondary reason is to collect statistical information (people who by X are likely to buy Y, so put those two products on sale at the same time.) Tracking personal spending history is of no real importance -- nobody (insurance companies included) cares what you, in particular, had for dinner.
There's really no reason to come up with paranoid fantasies about Big Brother. There are dozens of plausible explanations for the cards.
1. Assume Microsoft to be Evil
2. Assume Linux to be the alternative
3. ???
4. Proof!
Nitpick: eating a rotten jelly corpse could cause death by food poisoning, NOT a "killed by XXX while helpless" death. You're thinking of getting killed by a kitten after hitting a floating eyeball.
I beg to differ, Ignorant Aardvark. A possible outcome is: "Blecch! Rotten food! The world spins and goes dark." After which you could be killed by the kitten.
Would not? Not at all? No inventions before patent law? No writing or art before copyright law? I'm astounded.
The phrase "writers would not write," can just as easily mean "some writers would not write," as well as "no writers would write." The OP perhaps should have been a little more specific, but his statement wasn't incorrect.
You fail to realize that without copyright law, individuals and organizations wouldn't be able to restrict distribution, either, therefore abolishing the very problems that RMS created the GPL to address.
Getting rid of copyright is only one part of what RMS wants. He always wants to make it illegal to distribute a binary without source code. If copyright law (and thus the GPL) was to be declared invalid today, there would be nothing stopping anyone from distributing Linux binaries and refusing to distribute source -- one of the main reasons why people choose to use the GPL over other licenses.
make up your mind, people
We have. It's "the RIAA is evil, for whatever lame excuse we can come up with."
All right, I'm curious -- how'd you decide to use "aardvark" in your nick? That the only two posters I'm aware of with nethack-related sigs should both be named after that beast is a rather interesting coincidence.
Remember that, for instance, an airline lost a lawsuit for not making their web site accessible for blind people -- the fact that a blind person could call them using the telephone wasn't good enough to satisfy them.
I fully expect that we'll eventually end up with elevators going to the top of Mount Everest in order to even things out for disabled people.
I find it very hard to believe that SCO could have possibly been fined without a dozen stories going up on Slashdot. The OP is probably referring to the fact that they were threatened with fines, not that they had to pay them.
Watch out, though -- lots of the keyboards being sold on eBay are there because they have nonstandard connectors and therefore are pretty much useless. (I bought some from someone who claimed that the keyboards had PS/2 connectors -- They turned out to have some weird connector; like the AT ones but with slightly different pin placement.) I'd recommend going for the thrift stores instead; finding out that you paid shipping on a five pound paperweight is annoying.
Timothy is looking for investors for his new "SPAM spam" company, which will use bulk e-mail in order to sell canned ham products. He believes that this lawsuit might have an impact on the confidence of his investors.
So, moderators, I'm a troll because I get sick of seeing the same "copyright violation isn't stealing" post half a dozen times every single day? Morons. See this post right here? This is a troll. (Or, more acurrately, flamebait. It's also offtopic, and probably overrated as well. Too bad that I can't start at +3 so I could collect the set.)
(The good part about it is that I know that some people are going to good mod points on a futile attempt to shut me up that they probably would have abused elsewhere. Taco, your moderation system sucks.)
File "sharing" is just as wrong a term as "theft" for copyright violation. How come we don't have a hundred people shouting about that?
Thank you. Could all of the idiots who insist on comparing p2p music "sharing" to car theft please start using this analogy instead?