Chase is pretending that they are donating money to charities that are selected by a vote, but in reality they're donating money to charities they choose themselves. They have every right to do so, but pretending otherwise is churlish.
Mac OS X isn't just "unix with a pretty look". Before OS X you had the choice of getting an OS that didn't suck, or software that didn't suck. Linux gets you the OS that doesn't suck, but there's negligible packaged consumer software for it. There's gobs of software for Windows, but Windows sucks so hard it could pull asteroids through pipettes. OS X gets you and OS that doesn't suck, and software that doesn't suck. Putting a pretty face on Linux won't change that.
New stars are continually created out of interstellar dust and gas. You can see "shells" of new stars forming at the edges of supernova remnants as the supernova's shock-wave compresses the interstellar medium.
This can't go on forever, obviously, but second and third generation stars are common. Our sun is one of them.
By contrast - and this is where the distinction is helpful - a gallery is both a showcase for, and a community of projects. The gallery shows related projects that are in the Foundation, and provides clear information on licensing, code provenance, project team members, and the security escalation path.
So CodePlex is more like Freshmeat than Sourceforge.:)
If your email address is common-word@famousprovider.com, then the spammers have already put your email address into their lists. Why not? They don't care if 95% of the mail they send bounces, and they don't care if they target any specific person, the "hit" rate they need to make a profit is is negligible. I see spam attempts to thousands of never-existed addresses on my colo, and my home domain is pretty damn obscure. I'm sure Gmail gets hits from aaron.aardvark through zephram.zymurgy continually.
a) Give your email address (and wait for that confirmation email), credit card, & password b) Click "buy with paypal"
In the first case I am giving Panlala information that they can use to charge me late fees if I don't ship the mp3 back to them by the end of the week.
In the second case I'm giving Panlala precisely what I've entered on the Paypal site, no more, no less.
In the new scheme I'm giving Panlala information that they can use to charge me late fees if I don't ship the mp3 back to them by the end of the week, just using Paypal as a go-between.
In the first case, and in the new scheme, I have to trust every site I visit not to have "you agree to buying 37 episodes of Chick Tract Machinema" in a hidden term in their sales agreement. In the second scheme, what Paypal currently does, I only have to trust Paypal... I haven't given anyone else information they can use to bill me again.
Paypal has never been anything but a processing center. All it ever did was hold your bank accounts and Credit cards online so that you don't have to enter that number in more than one place on the internet. All it ever did was keep the #'s secure, in a sort of "I'll give paypal my money if paypal pays for the product" - thus you only ever have to trust 1 person online. If you ever thought it was anything different, you were sadly mistaken.
I'm waiting for "All it ever did was keep the #'s secure" and "you only ever have to trust 1 person online" to seem like a BAD thing. I mean, there has to be a problem with that for them to be throwing that way. Maybe you can explain it to me.
An open ecosystem is not the same as open source software. There are open source applications that depend on sole-source servers or services, and proprietary applications that work with open servers and use open protocols. While what you say is true, it's not really relevant to this incident.
This is about open systems, not open source... and while the two are related (and definitely good things) they're not the same thing and even, at times, have worked at cross-purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Chase is pretending that they are donating money to charities that are selected by a vote, but in reality they're donating money to charities they choose themselves. They have every right to do so, but pretending otherwise is churlish.
Mac OS X isn't just "unix with a pretty look". Before OS X you had the choice of getting an OS that didn't suck, or software that didn't suck. Linux gets you the OS that doesn't suck, but there's negligible packaged consumer software for it. There's gobs of software for Windows, but Windows sucks so hard it could pull asteroids through pipettes. OS X gets you and OS that doesn't suck, and software that doesn't suck. Putting a pretty face on Linux won't change that.
It's particularly ironic when one feels schadenfreude over yet another DRM disaster in the country that came up with the word.
New stars are continually created out of interstellar dust and gas. You can see "shells" of new stars forming at the edges of supernova remnants as the supernova's shock-wave compresses the interstellar medium.
This can't go on forever, obviously, but second and third generation stars are common. Our sun is one of them.
By contrast - and this is where the distinction is helpful - a gallery is both a showcase for, and a community of projects. The gallery shows related projects that are in the Foundation, and provides clear information on licensing, code provenance, project team members, and the security escalation path.
So CodePlex is more like Freshmeat than Sourceforge. :)
If your email address is common-word@famousprovider.com, then the spammers have already put your email address into their lists. Why not? They don't care if 95% of the mail they send bounces, and they don't care if they target any specific person, the "hit" rate they need to make a profit is is negligible. I see spam attempts to thousands of never-existed addresses on my colo, and my home domain is pretty damn obscure. I'm sure Gmail gets hits from aaron.aardvark through zephram.zymurgy continually.
Yes, but he'd need way too much sauce to dissolve parliament.
I think the only "cool" Australian politician ever was Bob Hawke, even if you hated him you had to love him.
"Any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up today is a bum." -- Bob Hawke, September 27th, 1983.
That is all.
No, but it makes it damn clear why copy protection is a problem.
In this case, however, no open source package is going to require a license server. :)
Seriously this is insane. How exactly could M$ get itself in this mess?
Because an 80% effective license restriction scheme wasn't good for them enough once they had more than 80% of the market.
It's a license server! What kind of open source software is copy protected and requires a license server?
Well, you know, open source software by definition isn't fgoing to depend on a license server.
If it was free software, you wouldn't need to connect to a license server to activate it. :)
Because most people recognize the reference, I guess.
The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face.
Which pirate supporters are you referring to?
a) Give your email address (and wait for that confirmation email), credit card, & password
b) Click "buy with paypal"
In the first case I am giving Panlala information that they can use to charge me late fees if I don't ship the mp3 back to them by the end of the week.
In the second case I'm giving Panlala precisely what I've entered on the Paypal site, no more, no less.
In the new scheme I'm giving Panlala information that they can use to charge me late fees if I don't ship the mp3 back to them by the end of the week, just using Paypal as a go-between.
In the first case, and in the new scheme, I have to trust every site I visit not to have "you agree to buying 37 episodes of Chick Tract Machinema" in a hidden term in their sales agreement. In the second scheme, what Paypal currently does, I only have to trust Paypal... I haven't given anyone else information they can use to bill me again.
You win one (1) lol. I'd still rather trust one Paypal than forty Paypals, which is what they want me to do now.
I'm waiting for "All it ever did was keep the #'s secure" and "you only ever have to trust 1 person online" to seem like a BAD thing. I mean, there has to be a problem with that for them to be throwing that way. Maybe you can explain it to me.
And:
That's the problem. The correct code should be:
An open ecosystem is not the same as open source software. There are open source applications that depend on sole-source servers or services, and proprietary applications that work with open servers and use open protocols. While what you say is true, it's not really relevant to this incident.
This is about open systems, not open source... and while the two are related (and definitely good things) they're not the same thing and even, at times, have worked at cross-purposes.
I guess they were too busy trying to fix this problem?
[insert a whole bunch of DRM schadenfreude here]
That's a little counterintuitive, thanks for pointing that out.
There's been a boatload of warnings about depending on this kind of technology.
The problem is, there's been plenty of opportunities for "I told you so", and people still buy software with time bombs built into it.