Actually, given the politics surrounding that war, it's the other way around. The British should have started calling them freedom fries; they basically did every other damn thing we told them to.
Apple would have a very tough time surviving if it's code or an ISO image was free for download off of a server. Most of its value is in the OS, not the hardware.
I don't think so; its real value is the elegant combination of the two. I think it would be huge - and profitable - if Apple embraced open source fully and released all of OSX under GPL. I don't think it would hurt them at all, and programmers would flock to the platform. But it ain't gonna happen.
Unless they wanted to work for Apple. Or friends of Apple. IANAP(rogrammer), but I would think that if the APSL meant work and the GPL didn't, the differences in "freedom" between the two licenses aren't significant enough for the FSF to make you feel guilty using the one that gets you paid.
Can you give a specific example of their vagueness? (I am making a joke, yes, but I also would like a specific example of them being deliberately evasive.)
It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
It is incompatible with the GPL.
So, basically, it's incompatible with the GPL because it's incompatible with the GPL. But it gets better:
Aside from this, we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.
First of all, who said anything about judging a company? The issue here is whether a particular license is useful for the free software community, not whether Apple will go to corporate heaven. You can't say the APSL is flawed because Apple doesn't use the APSL for all its software. Obviously Apple is being strategic about what license it chooses for which products (and Apple stockholders probably prefer it that way). It doesn't mean the free software community can't acknowledge positive developments about Apple licensing, even if it's not ideal for everyone.
The articles make it pretty clear that he took the plea because the prosecutor and judge scared him by threatening to make it a terrorism case. What bullshit, like this kid was gonna join al Qaeda? (yeah, anarchy goes over really well with fundamentalist Islam). My point is that this is a means of using intimidation (threatening to put him away for 20 years for terrorism) in order to silence him. Yeah a good lawyer could have got him off, if he had money to afford good lawyers and a different judge. When the judge is more convinced of the kid's guilt than the prosecutor, you have a problem. Read some of the background to this case.
Ummm, it works as a firewire mass storage device so that if you really want to have an overpriced external hard drive you can. A USB player like the one advertised offers no advantage in mass storage over ipod, and certainly not nearly as much of it. Size, price, and battery life, though, are different issues.
Those do look pretty sweet. Some drawbacks: software seems to be windows-dependent; no firewire (except on a 20G version that also has USB 1.1); also as an OS X user I will tolerate nothing less than seamless integration with iTunes. My 20g iPod was stolen by LAX security recently, so I'm in the market and looking around at other players, since I don't really want to spend another $500.... But honestly I don't see anything out there topping the ipod for my needs. The one thing I want that the ipod doesn't have is line in, but apparently the hardware supports it (there was a slashdot story on this when the new ipods came out). Anyway I'm still leaning in the direction of a new ipod. Damn those crooked security guards, but I guess it's an excuse to upgrade....
I agree - that's why I said "through intimidation." Technically the kid eliminated any chance of his case being taken up when he pleaded guilty, but his options were pretty limited.
All the same, the judge here is f*cked. I've agreed with some of his decisions in the past, he's not a totally loose cannon, but this is ridiculous; more time than the prosecutor agreed to so he could teach the kid a lesson? Does the judge think that if this kid spends more time around hardened criminals he'll learn respect for the law? yeesh.
Reread the post you're responding to. The question here is whether the judge has the right to ban this kid from associating with anyone who advocates for change -- not only the violent ones.
He was not convicted of hacking at all. Whatever the FBI said in their affadavit here, that does not seem to be what he was officially charged with. At least, he pleaded guilty only to publishing links to bomb information.
First of all, speech advocating "regime change" is obviously political speech, whatever else you may say about it. Second, the courts have been clear that "incitement to violence" is a pretty high standard; they have made the distinction between advocating violence and instigating it, or between abstract doctrine vs. action. The Supreme Court has said pretty clearly that the danger that is created by the speech has to be likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace. It is hard to see how a website could do that, no matter what it advocates. This case is a clear violation of the first amendment protection of political speech through intimidation of the defendant.
Thanks; hit me up at the address csloat @ nofuncharlie.com. Will I be able to then paste from textedit to word? Email me; thanks!
Re:Spammers
on
FCC Goes WiFi
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The spammers could run a sendmail process directly on their laptop that would route to the destination mail relay directly, but they could do this from any connection with any ISP.
But not anonymously from an IP within the fcc.gov domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Just turn off javascript in your browser. Or Save the page as.... text only.
So the country with the most anal dictionary wins?
Why do care about spelling advice from a guy who can't even pronounce his own name right?
Try their food.
I don't know whether to laugh or sigh.
Actually, given the politics surrounding that war, it's the other way around. The British should have started calling them freedom fries; they basically did every other damn thing we told them to.
What the hell would he need the paperclip for? He doesn't need help writing a letter!
I don't think so; its real value is the elegant combination of the two. I think it would be huge - and profitable - if Apple embraced open source fully and released all of OSX under GPL. I don't think it would hurt them at all, and programmers would flock to the platform. But it ain't gonna happen.
That would ruin all the fun.
You mean, they're not the last bulwark against the brutal tyranny of OS imperialism? Then why were they throwing that hammer at that TV???!!
Unless they wanted to work for Apple. Or friends of Apple. IANAP(rogrammer), but I would think that if the APSL meant work and the GPL didn't, the differences in "freedom" between the two licenses aren't significant enough for the FSF to make you feel guilty using the one that gets you paid.
Can you give a specific example of their vagueness? (I am making a joke, yes, but I also would like a specific example of them being deliberately evasive.)
So, basically, it's incompatible with the GPL because it's incompatible with the GPL. But it gets better:First of all, who said anything about judging a company? The issue here is whether a particular license is useful for the free software community, not whether Apple will go to corporate heaven. You can't say the APSL is flawed because Apple doesn't use the APSL for all its software. Obviously Apple is being strategic about what license it chooses for which products (and Apple stockholders probably prefer it that way). It doesn't mean the free software community can't acknowledge positive developments about Apple licensing, even if it's not ideal for everyone.
The articles make it pretty clear that he took the plea because the prosecutor and judge scared him by threatening to make it a terrorism case. What bullshit, like this kid was gonna join al Qaeda? (yeah, anarchy goes over really well with fundamentalist Islam). My point is that this is a means of using intimidation (threatening to put him away for 20 years for terrorism) in order to silence him. Yeah a good lawyer could have got him off, if he had money to afford good lawyers and a different judge. When the judge is more convinced of the kid's guilt than the prosecutor, you have a problem. Read some of the background to this case.
I think the iPod prevents problems with this by storing like a half hour of music in cache, so even jiggling the hard drive has no effect on playback.
Actually, the iPod doesn't support IDE.
Ummm, it works as a firewire mass storage device so that if you really want to have an overpriced external hard drive you can. A USB player like the one advertised offers no advantage in mass storage over ipod, and certainly not nearly as much of it. Size, price, and battery life, though, are different issues.
Those do look pretty sweet. Some drawbacks: software seems to be windows-dependent; no firewire (except on a 20G version that also has USB 1.1); also as an OS X user I will tolerate nothing less than seamless integration with iTunes. My 20g iPod was stolen by LAX security recently, so I'm in the market and looking around at other players, since I don't really want to spend another $500.... But honestly I don't see anything out there topping the ipod for my needs. The one thing I want that the ipod doesn't have is line in, but apparently the hardware supports it (there was a slashdot story on this when the new ipods came out). Anyway I'm still leaning in the direction of a new ipod. Damn those crooked security guards, but I guess it's an excuse to upgrade....
The iPod only has one mouse button.
I agree - that's why I said "through intimidation." Technically the kid eliminated any chance of his case being taken up when he pleaded guilty, but his options were pretty limited.
All the same, the judge here is f*cked. I've agreed with some of his decisions in the past, he's not a totally loose cannon, but this is ridiculous; more time than the prosecutor agreed to so he could teach the kid a lesson? Does the judge think that if this kid spends more time around hardened criminals he'll learn respect for the law? yeesh.
Reread the post you're responding to. The question here is whether the judge has the right to ban this kid from associating with anyone who advocates for change -- not only the violent ones.
He was not convicted of hacking at all. Whatever the FBI said in their affadavit here, that does not seem to be what he was officially charged with. At least, he pleaded guilty only to publishing links to bomb information.
First of all, speech advocating "regime change" is obviously political speech, whatever else you may say about it. Second, the courts have been clear that "incitement to violence" is a pretty high standard; they have made the distinction between advocating violence and instigating it, or between abstract doctrine vs. action. The Supreme Court has said pretty clearly that the danger that is created by the speech has to be likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace. It is hard to see how a website could do that, no matter what it advocates. This case is a clear violation of the first amendment protection of political speech through intimidation of the defendant.
Thanks; hit me up at the address csloat @ nofuncharlie.com. Will I be able to then paste from textedit to word? Email me; thanks!
But not anonymously from an IP within the fcc.gov domain.