How the hell do you remove enough dead time for a commercial, when the only leeway you have is a five second bleep delay? You can do this with pre-recorded programs, but not with a live broadcast.
I am aghast at this situation. How the hell can a university hush up a rape? With very few exceptions, universities are located within cities who have their own police forces. It's not like they women don't have any choices to who they report the crime to.
And what's with this "sweet deal" they offer the victims? What the hell is that? Is it something like "here's an A+ in English Lit, now go away and don't bother us"?
I'm starting to think that the real problem is that university life has become too insular, that students are viewing their university as a real bona fide municipality with legitimate authority over them. It is not. A major state funded university has no more authority over its students then a local beauty college or trade school.
Somewhat tangent to this case, but it needs to be said.
The solution to this problem is easy. Try criminal rape cases in a criminal court. Why the woman insists on a university court instead of a criminal court is beyond me. That's like going to the Mafia for arbitration when you have a problem with Don Vito.
Beh. Telling your boss to fuck off is completely different. You're paid to be at work, you pay to be at school.
It's no different at all. Your employment is a voluntary relationship. Your college enrollment is a voluntary relationship. Shacking up with your girlfriend is a voluntary relationship. You tell the other party in a voluntary relationship to "fuck off", you will lose that relationship.
It's one of life's truths that can only be taught be experience. Learning it is part of growing up. Just as a toddler learns that he is not the center of the universe, so too must a recent college graduate learn that the world is full of two way streets.
Because not to plan for "future growth" means giving up, shutting down your ftp servers, and begging your parents to let you live in their basement for minimal rent.
I don't think Debian is ready to give up yet, especially in light of the increasing popularity of its spinoff distros.
Ditto. Qt is now Free Software for Windows (as well as for all other major platforms), and Qt Designer kicks Visual Studio's butt from all across the playground. The only thing it's missing is a visual debugger, but "light" programmers rarely need that.
The manufacturers are not the same people as the retailers. Manufacturers do not set retail prices, but they still have interests in sales promotions. They can't tell the retailer to mark the product down 10%, but they can offer a $50 rebate.
but the second one is only a trouble in cases of lazy packagers making bad dependancy specifications.
But that's the whole point! 9 out of 10 package makers are lazy. While I don't agree that autopackage is the solution, they are correct in pointing out that there is a problem.
That's my whole point. The biggest problem is that people are using the names "spyware" and "adware", instead of their proper terms "virus", "trojan", "worm", etc.
These people should be prosecuted and thrown into Ass Slammer!
"Native package managers' dependency detection depends on a database. Autopackage, on the other hand-detects dependencies by actually scanning for them."
Such a simple idea, such an absurdly simple idea. Yet it's one that 9 out of 10 distros just can't manage to get right. Building one library yourself should NOT break your entire package management system. A minor bugfix release to a library where no ABI has changed should NOT necessitate an update to every application that uses it.
After years of trying to figure this out, I've given up. Maybe I'm just stupid. But how in the hell do so many people get infected with spyware? In twenty five years of computing I have never one received a virus, trojan, worm, spyware or adware. At work or at home.
I can understand people getting trojans, because we all can be fooled. And I can understand people getting viruses or worms, because nothing is ever truly secure. But how in the hell can people get spyware and adware without explicitly installing them or the junkware that contains them? If it's not a virus, not a trojan, then someone must have explicitly installed it.
That's what Free Software is! We got tired of these stupid restrictions are wrote out own software. We wrote GNU, we wrote BSD, we wrote Linux, we wrote all the software running on our systems! It took us two decades, but we did it!
This is our software, and there's no reason we should have to go write it all over again just because some anonymous coward wants to be snarky.
This is not appreciably different than distributing binaries
It's a huge massive difference! In the former bits of the software get passed back and forth, in the latter only the data it manipulates does! They're as different as a hammer and a nail are different!
Providing a service is NOT the same thing as a public performance.
p.s. It's clearly against the spirit of Free Software to be scouring copryight law for loopholes which would allow you to impose additional restrictions on the user. Next thing you know people will be arguing that the DMCA should be used to enforce the FSF's wishes. Stop it.
o I could take slash code (if it's GPL, which I don't recall), hack some changes, and sell access to the website using those changes, and never have to share my code, which violates the spirit of the GPL.
The "spirit" of the GPL is clearly stated within the GPL itself. Look at Clause 0. It's quite explicit. Regulating the services a software may provide may follow the wishes and whims of Slashdot readers, but it is clearly AGAINST the spirit of the GPL itself!
However, in effect, a binary of my program has been, however temporarily, placed at the disposal of that one user. They are a user after all. they are "using" the program.
You are playing semantic word games. The users of the service are no more using the software than I am using the accounting software of my accountant when he does my taxes. Service is a use, and by regulating servicing, the GPLv3 will be regulating usage. Say goodbye to GPLv2 Clause 0!
This isn't merely the nose of the camel entering the tent, this is RMS putting the camel on a truck and driving it in! Are web servers covered as well? Thankfully Apache will never use the GPLv3, otherwise tens of thousands of websites out there would be liable to provide its source code to anyone who visits their sites. Hell, imagine the legal obligations if I use a v3 licensed GIMP to edit a friend's photos!
When I run a web app for users acting as thin clients, I'm effectively distributing my program to them.
No you are not! "Distribution" has a specific and well understood meaning in copyright law. Before you were playing semantic games, now you're just making up definitions.
Here is a good analogy: a roleplaying game. If give a player a copy of "Tomb of Horrors", it is distribution. If you make a copy of it and give the copy to a player, it is distribution. If you place a copy of it on the web for the player to access, it is distribution. But, if you merely run a group of players through the adventure, it is NOT distribution, even though you are providing the services of the adventure to them.
The problem with the webapp clause is that it radically changes the underlying philosophy of the GPL. Previously, the GPL (as with most Free Software licenses) only granted permissions to the user. But with this clause it will start taking away rights. It change will encumber the license. No longer will the license be about keeping the software free, now it will be about explicitly regulating the behavior of the users. This proposed addition evicerates Clause 0 of version two.
The philosophy moves to one more akin to the Microsoft EULA: "This software is mine and you may only use it at my sufferance."
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell do you remove enough dead time for a commercial, when the only leeway you have is a five second bleep delay? You can do this with pre-recorded programs, but not with a live broadcast.
I am aghast at this situation. How the hell can a university hush up a rape? With very few exceptions, universities are located within cities who have their own police forces. It's not like they women don't have any choices to who they report the crime to.
And what's with this "sweet deal" they offer the victims? What the hell is that? Is it something like "here's an A+ in English Lit, now go away and don't bother us"?
I'm starting to think that the real problem is that university life has become too insular, that students are viewing their university as a real bona fide municipality with legitimate authority over them. It is not. A major state funded university has no more authority over its students then a local beauty college or trade school.
Somewhat tangent to this case, but it needs to be said.
The solution to this problem is easy. Try criminal rape cases in a criminal court. Why the woman insists on a university court instead of a criminal court is beyond me. That's like going to the Mafia for arbitration when you have a problem with Don Vito.
In the new America, you have the right to not be offended by anything.
The Berkeleyites are winning the war against free speech. Sad.
Beh. Telling your boss to fuck off is completely different. You're paid to be at work, you pay to be at school.
It's no different at all. Your employment is a voluntary relationship. Your college enrollment is a voluntary relationship. Shacking up with your girlfriend is a voluntary relationship. You tell the other party in a voluntary relationship to "fuck off", you will lose that relationship.
It's one of life's truths that can only be taught be experience. Learning it is part of growing up. Just as a toddler learns that he is not the center of the universe, so too must a recent college graduate learn that the world is full of two way streets.
Isn't the project predicated on the belief that more eyeballs make an article better, not worse?
No, it's predicated on the belief that an infinite number of trolls will eventually produce an objective authoritative reference work.
Because not to plan for "future growth" means giving up, shutting down your ftp servers, and begging your parents to let you live in their basement for minimal rent.
I don't think Debian is ready to give up yet, especially in light of the increasing popularity of its spinoff distros.
Ditto. Qt is now Free Software for Windows (as well as for all other major platforms), and Qt Designer kicks Visual Studio's butt from all across the playground. The only thing it's missing is a visual debugger, but "light" programmers rarely need that.
The manufacturers are not the same people as the retailers. Manufacturers do not set retail prices, but they still have interests in sales promotions. They can't tell the retailer to mark the product down 10%, but they can offer a $50 rebate.
but the second one is only a trouble in cases of lazy packagers making bad dependancy specifications.
But that's the whole point! 9 out of 10 package makers are lazy. While I don't agree that autopackage is the solution, they are correct in pointing out that there is a problem.
But it is still bigotry based on heredity. To be "French" is to be a descended from a white caucasian Gaul. North African Muslims need not apply.
But you're right, it's not "racism".
Seriously, what the hell is the difference?
That's my whole point. The biggest problem is that people are using the names "spyware" and "adware", instead of their proper terms "virus", "trojan", "worm", etc.
These people should be prosecuted and thrown into Ass Slammer!
"Native package managers' dependency detection depends on a database. Autopackage, on the other hand-detects dependencies by actually scanning for them."
Such a simple idea, such an absurdly simple idea. Yet it's one that 9 out of 10 distros just can't manage to get right. Building one library yourself should NOT break your entire package management system. A minor bugfix release to a library where no ABI has changed should NOT necessitate an update to every application that uses it.
So they're viruses then?
It's not just the US. When I was in Germany everyone was making fun of France too.
It is not a race, but it is a specific ethnicity.
What's their beef? What is their complaint? I've read the article and I still can't understand it. What the hell does "giving access to culture" mean?
After years of trying to figure this out, I've given up. Maybe I'm just stupid. But how in the hell do so many people get infected with spyware? In twenty five years of computing I have never one received a virus, trojan, worm, spyware or adware. At work or at home.
I can understand people getting trojans, because we all can be fooled. And I can understand people getting viruses or worms, because nothing is ever truly secure. But how in the hell can people get spyware and adware without explicitly installing them or the junkware that contains them? If it's not a virus, not a trojan, then someone must have explicitly installed it.
That would be a good start, yes!
"write your own."
WE ALREADY WROTE OUR OWN YOU FUCKWIT!
That's what Free Software is! We got tired of these stupid restrictions are wrote out own software. We wrote GNU, we wrote BSD, we wrote Linux, we wrote all the software running on our systems! It took us two decades, but we did it!
This is our software, and there's no reason we should have to go write it all over again just because some anonymous coward wants to be snarky.
This is not appreciably different than distributing binaries
It's a huge massive difference! In the former bits of the software get passed back and forth, in the latter only the data it manipulates does! They're as different as a hammer and a nail are different!
Providing a service is NOT the same thing as a public performance.
p.s. It's clearly against the spirit of Free Software to be scouring copryight law for loopholes which would allow you to impose additional restrictions on the user. Next thing you know people will be arguing that the DMCA should be used to enforce the FSF's wishes. Stop it.
o I could take slash code (if it's GPL, which I don't recall), hack some changes, and sell access to the website using those changes, and never have to share my code, which violates the spirit of the GPL.
The "spirit" of the GPL is clearly stated within the GPL itself. Look at Clause 0. It's quite explicit. Regulating the services a software may provide may follow the wishes and whims of Slashdot readers, but it is clearly AGAINST the spirit of the GPL itself!
However, in effect, a binary of my program has been, however temporarily, placed at the disposal of that one user. They are a user after all. they are "using" the program.
You are playing semantic word games. The users of the service are no more using the software than I am using the accounting software of my accountant when he does my taxes. Service is a use, and by regulating servicing, the GPLv3 will be regulating usage. Say goodbye to GPLv2 Clause 0!
This isn't merely the nose of the camel entering the tent, this is RMS putting the camel on a truck and driving it in! Are web servers covered as well? Thankfully Apache will never use the GPLv3, otherwise tens of thousands of websites out there would be liable to provide its source code to anyone who visits their sites. Hell, imagine the legal obligations if I use a v3 licensed GIMP to edit a friend's photos!
When I run a web app for users acting as thin clients, I'm effectively distributing my program to them.
No you are not! "Distribution" has a specific and well understood meaning in copyright law. Before you were playing semantic games, now you're just making up definitions.
Here is a good analogy: a roleplaying game. If give a player a copy of "Tomb of Horrors", it is distribution. If you make a copy of it and give the copy to a player, it is distribution. If you place a copy of it on the web for the player to access, it is distribution. But, if you merely run a group of players through the adventure, it is NOT distribution, even though you are providing the services of the adventure to them.
The problem with the webapp clause is that it radically changes the underlying philosophy of the GPL. Previously, the GPL (as with most Free Software licenses) only granted permissions to the user. But with this clause it will start taking away rights. It change will encumber the license. No longer will the license be about keeping the software free, now it will be about explicitly regulating the behavior of the users. This proposed addition evicerates Clause 0 of version two.
The philosophy moves to one more akin to the Microsoft EULA: "This software is mine and you may only use it at my sufferance."