What I really want is for a download to speed up when I drag the progress bar.
After using some of the newer video game console emulators which have fast-forward buttons and sliders, I find myself reaching for it whenever the computer is taking too long.
But what will it mean when IE takes on a negative percentage of the market? Will IE-only websites start spontaneously becoming compatible with all browsers? Will history rewrite itself so that it was as if IE never existed?
I'd really like someone to add up all the hours it would take to experience x's book or y's product and they'd soon begin to realize it would take someone an ENTIRE LIFETIME not even to get through a fraction of what is out there.
(slight tangent) This is why they're scared to death of copyright terms not being extended indefinitely; who cares if you're experiencing the latest movie/music/book if there are thousands of good ones in the public domain?
Plus, no matter what you're ranking the countries of the world in, there will ALWAYS be those at the top, those farther down, and those at the bottom. It's all relative! The question shouldn't be "which rates the worst?" but "which rate below acceptable?" (which of course all of those mentioned in the summary probably do)
Are you suggesting the child is just having you come in for the hell of it? Who are you to know better? Keep coming in and trust that he is getting something important from it that will be a benefit later on.
Sure, but once you make a well-known tool to automatically do this, the advertisers will find a way to detect and ignore such downloads (though I guess it still has the nice side-effect of wasting their bandwidth regardless). Thus this can only be done on a small scale, with people writing their own tools to do this and not making them well-known.
Now he's been convicted under a "hacker" law targeted at employees who steal data or access information they shouldn't.
Obviously he forgot the clause in his work contract that stated he was also part of the Shelby City Wastewater Treatment Plant's porn production facility, thus making photos of him nude company property!
Excellent rebuttal. I look at it as an inherent tradeoff between different people's freedoms, here developers and users. Either the developer can boss his users around since he holds the source code, or the users can restrict him from doing that. The BSD and GPL simply favor the respective parties. The GPL argument is that there are far more users than developers, so trading for more user freedom is a net benefit.
The GPL exists to force work that builds upon it to be GPL, as well. It directly opposes copyright by forcing that which builds upon it to be copyleft.
But both copyright and "copyleft" are restrictions placed on distribution/derivation from protected material. They may be aiming for different ends, but they still use the same legal "force".
BSD has no such rules. It doesn't oppose copyright, rather' it simply doesn't care one way or the other You can "build either copyright or copyleft works upon it.
A BSD-style license explicitly demolishes the copyright protection the author would otherwise have on the work. It roughly gives the work the status it would have if copyright didn't exist. That seems like opposing copyright to me.
Additionally, the loss of information doesn't necessarily make it more convenient at all. You go on holiday, lose/break your phone and swap the sim card (maybe with a borrowed phone). You don't *necessarily* get the capability to receive that text (e.g. Internet, email, etc.) but you can still listen to your voicemail. It's low-tech, but sometimes that helps.
Yes, voice is the command-line/remote shell of the phone system; it's the lowest-common-denominator that everything can support. That's why there are even services to read email to you over the phone, as if it were voice mail.
On most networks, if you call your own phone number, you get kicked over to voicemail and it is considered an in-network call (AFAIK) that doesn't cost you anything.
It costs me something I only get 24*60 of each day.
In theory, the the idea of the GPL exists only in opposition to copyright... it is a "necessary evil" for an future good.
If there was no copyright, there would be no GPL... two sides of the same coin.
Nope, you're confusing that with BSD-style licenses. BSD-style = do what you want with the source, including releasing products without source code. GPL = if you release product using source, you must release source you used to build product. Without copyright, BSD-style is all you'd have.
In the employee manual there were dates for Christmas, and Christmas Eve. The dates were the 25 and 26 respectively. If they can't even get the dates for Christmas right at a text book publisher, I don't want to know what else they fail at.
Obviously you haven't been introduced to the virtues of 2-based indexing.
Slashdot Mirror
A point that was used to attack evolution. It does nothing to make ID into even as much as a theory.
After using some of the newer video game console emulators which have fast-forward buttons and sliders, I find myself reaching for it whenever the computer is taking too long.
...and believe that an author has a right to demand something in return for making copies/derivitives of things he's written.
But what will it mean when IE takes on a negative percentage of the market? Will IE-only websites start spontaneously becoming compatible with all browsers? Will history rewrite itself so that it was as if IE never existed?
And that's not even covering the "making available" fines. Wanking may not make you go blind, but it'd make you go broke in a hurry under this scheme.
Genetic recipe, not blueprint
(slight tangent) This is why they're scared to death of copyright terms not being extended indefinitely; who cares if you're experiencing the latest movie/music/book if there are thousands of good ones in the public domain?
But you were arguing that this makes it OK for the recipient of rude behavior to abuse his power over the source?
Anyway, isn't "narrowing the ways in which developers think about and write [type of] applications" another way of saying it abstracted things?
It's illegal at whatever point it increases your enjoyment, because you shouldn't get anything without paying them more.
You did too, twice!
Plus, no matter what you're ranking the countries of the world in, there will ALWAYS be those at the top, those farther down, and those at the bottom. It's all relative! The question shouldn't be "which rates the worst?" but "which rate below acceptable?" (which of course all of those mentioned in the summary probably do)
Are you suggesting the child is just having you come in for the hell of it? Who are you to know better? Keep coming in and trust that he is getting something important from it that will be a benefit later on.
Sure, but once you make a well-known tool to automatically do this, the advertisers will find a way to detect and ignore such downloads (though I guess it still has the nice side-effect of wasting their bandwidth regardless). Thus this can only be done on a small scale, with people writing their own tools to do this and not making them well-known.
Yes, EVERY time the ad would get served to a user. They might think twice about it (actually, millions of times, mwahahahahah!).
Obviously he forgot the clause in his work contract that stated he was also part of the Shelby City Wastewater Treatment Plant's porn production facility, thus making photos of him nude company property!
Only a problem if you're near shark-infested water.
Excellent rebuttal. I look at it as an inherent tradeoff between different people's freedoms, here developers and users. Either the developer can boss his users around since he holds the source code, or the users can restrict him from doing that. The BSD and GPL simply favor the respective parties. The GPL argument is that there are far more users than developers, so trading for more user freedom is a net benefit.
But both copyright and "copyleft" are restrictions placed on distribution/derivation from protected material. They may be aiming for different ends, but they still use the same legal "force".
A BSD-style license explicitly demolishes the copyright protection the author would otherwise have on the work. It roughly gives the work the status it would have if copyright didn't exist. That seems like opposing copyright to me.
Yes, voice is the command-line/remote shell of the phone system; it's the lowest-common-denominator that everything can support. That's why there are even services to read email to you over the phone, as if it were voice mail.
It costs me something I only get 24*60 of each day.
After reading that article, I agree, and am going to start my own website and magazine called PC World.
Nope, you're confusing that with BSD-style licenses. BSD-style = do what you want with the source, including releasing products without source code. GPL = if you release product using source, you must release source you used to build product. Without copyright, BSD-style is all you'd have.
Obviously you haven't been introduced to the virtues of 2-based indexing.
Virtually every software license disclaims liability for problems it causes, not just GPL or open-source licenses.