It doesn't have to be. You can sell it if you want. Normally I wouldn't mention this because It's a bit pedantic, but it's relevent to my next point.
and if you believe in that freedom, you also believe in others having the freedom to choose differently.
But doesn't this mean that if you believe in freedom, then others should also have the freedom to do what they want with your code?
The thing is, the GPL doesn't require that you give the source to the community. It does require that you give it to the customer and it does prevent you from stopping them giving the source to the community. The only significant freedom that the GPL removes is the freedom to publish the binaries without the source. It's not hugely inconsistent to believe that people should be able to do what they want with software.
Of course it's not public property. But it's still open to the public. The public are invited. That makes it a public place. Strip naked there and see if you can use the fact that it's a private place as a defence against public indecency.
I don't know... It feels a bit wrong to me to have all these arbitrary rules for public events.
If you open up a your space to the general public, then you should damn well expect people to treat it as a public place. Imposing your own rules, and security people and punisheing them by throwing them out seems a little too close to imposing laws, and private police and sentencing people by banishment. If they don't want people acting like people will act in their private property then perhaps they shouldn't be opening it up to the public in the first place.
and encrypt any email or IMs that contain personal information or nefarious plans.
Except this is about civil cases, so they can subpoena the keys. And generally if they get sued its because they're doing stuff that they didn't even consider might be wrong.
There's going to be a lot of code that people don't want under one version of the licence or another. How does the GPL handle this? If the Linux kernel stays at GPL2, then will this mean we are unable to use GPL3 licenced code in the kernel?
purchased iTunes now have your personal data in them. Author suspects that this is to prevent you uploading them to a network.
Perhaps. Or perhaps iit's because they wnt to analyse how many people do share tunes, or perhaps they actually think some people might want to know who the purchaser of the music was (A little like the about box in a lot of software). Or perhaps a programmer thought thye might as well since it would be as easy to add the information as not.
Well, it does say the *people's* right to arms shall not be abridged..
I know. I didn;t say it didn't.
The bit about the militia is only the reason for the right. The specific right actually granted is the second part of the sentence, and it does not state a limit to a militia
Yes, but where does it say that it is to "[fix] corruption on a level that can't be undone through avenues made legal by itself"?
It is an indivudal right. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" makes it pretty clear. But the reasons for the second amendment are many and varied, and those who approved of it approved for a number of reasons of which protection from the government was just one, not shared by all of them.
People have a right to bear arms that cannot be infringed because the constitution says they have. That was the reasoning behind the overturning of the DC gun ban. You can argue about the reasoning behind it, but it's still a matter of some debate what the intent was. It also doesn't matter. The wording is clear.
Of course, the letter of the law also allows the ownership of weapons of mass destruction. Rather than work around the constitution with handwaving about what the clause actually means, the US should ratify an amendment making it clear.
Which is useful. If someone has a gun, we can deduce that they intend to commit other crimes. So if anyone has a gun, it's well worth the time of the police to do a little more investigation to see what else he's been planning.
So, given Bush's complete disregard for the constitution, and the lack on interest in Congress for getting rid of him, why haven't americans rvolted yet?
And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.
But I think the BBC is not considered a public authority. It's certainly not part of the government. And technically (at least legally) the licence fee is not a tax.
I mean it's too late for them to make that sort of demand.
Their offer is that you can either accept the terms, or they'll unilaterally cancel a previously made contract of sale. It's a totally unrealted agreement by this time. Here's a similar agreement; "You agree to give me $100. If you don't accep this agreement, take the most recent item you purchased back to the shop for a refund". Clearly this agreement doesn't oblige you to pay me either $100 or return anything to the shop. So why is it that the only way to reject an agreement by the hardware manufacturer is to cancel the contract with the shop you bought it from?
It's too late for that. You already own the hardware. I might as well impose a random set of demands and insist that if you don't accept them I'll buy your computer from you.
We ARE talking about a computer game, here. There is no *real* harm done to anyone if their account is terminated.
There's a certain amount of investment into an online character and a social group. It's not very easily quantifiable but I wouldn't suggest it's worthless.
I've always wondered though - Do the strongly religious really act the way they do because they want a reward in heaven? I find it hard to believe that. People are good because we have empathy. That's not a trait reserved for the religious.
"Why do we have dinosaur bones?"
"God put them there"
"How are diomonds formed?"
"God made them"
Of course it's a load of rubbish. And while we're at it, completely pointless trying to win these idiots over wiht scientific arguments that they don't understand. The theological arguments point to the bible not being intended as a literal history of the universe.
Most of the proponents of Creationism don't believe in it in the first place. They're just uncomfortable with the idea of the non-existence of God, and it's been pushed by some religious fanatics as a polar choice with God and evolution being mutually exclusive.
While there are a lot of miritless lawsuits around, the small claims court doesn't have this problem. The payouts are limitted, and the ability to pad it out and play legal shenanigans is also greatly reduced. People do have genuine greviences all the time. The right to a legal remedy is essential.
The other day, the cable guy came out. He drops off my HD DVR. He hands me his handheld PC and says "sign here". The thing I'm supposed to sign says something like "I agree to all the stuff above". Of course, I can't scroll up and read anything. So, i ask what I'm signing. He tells me it's that I received the DVR. Grr. OK. So I sign. Then it prints out this huge receipt. Among other things, i've given up my right to sue them.
I imagine that would be unenforcable. Actually I think it may even be technically fraud.
Well, as far as I can see, the second amendment is just there as a leftover from before the US had the world's largest army. I have no illusions about the reason I suggested being the purpose.
I want to know why those who do claim this is the reason they have a gun haven't excercised this right.
Isn't this sort of thing why we have a second amendment?
The president is breaking the law and acting against the people. Congress should have removed him already. The US army should have taken control of the Whitehouse to protect the constitution.
Why are the gun advocates not using their guns for the reasons so many of them claim they have them?
That's just a DSP though. Still, fairly capable x86 compatible systems on chip (or at least in a single package have been around for a while. Here's Intel's latest
Slashdot Mirror
Open source is given away freely,
It doesn't have to be. You can sell it if you want. Normally I wouldn't mention this because It's a bit pedantic, but it's relevent to my next point.
and if you believe in that freedom, you also believe in others having the freedom to choose differently.
But doesn't this mean that if you believe in freedom, then others should also have the freedom to do what they want with your code?
The thing is, the GPL doesn't require that you give the source to the community. It does require that you give it to the customer and it does prevent you from stopping them giving the source to the community. The only significant freedom that the GPL removes is the freedom to publish the binaries without the source. It's not hugely inconsistent to believe that people should be able to do what they want with software.
Really? How do you create a full screen application and set the resolution and screen depth using API calls?
Of course it's not public property. But it's still open to the public. The public are invited. That makes it a public place. Strip naked there and see if you can use the fact that it's a private place as a defence against public indecency.
I don't know... It feels a bit wrong to me to have all these arbitrary rules for public events.
If you open up a your space to the general public, then you should damn well expect people to treat it as a public place. Imposing your own rules, and security people and punisheing them by throwing them out seems a little too close to imposing laws, and private police and sentencing people by banishment. If they don't want people acting like people will act in their private property then perhaps they shouldn't be opening it up to the public in the first place.
Is this an ETLA? Is the RSPCA or RoSPA involved? Does the EBU have any influence? Should we contact PDFORRA? I imagine the IALA might be able to help.
Where's the support in Linux for an application hogging the entire UI, setting its own resolution and asocially hogging a load of resources?
and encrypt any email or IMs that contain personal information or nefarious plans.
Except this is about civil cases, so they can subpoena the keys. And generally if they get sued its because they're doing stuff that they didn't even consider might be wrong.
There's going to be a lot of code that people don't want under one version of the licence or another. How does the GPL handle this? If the Linux kernel stays at GPL2, then will this mean we are unable to use GPL3 licenced code in the kernel?
Back when Slashdot was just a "stuff that Taco thinks is cool" site. I miss those days.
purchased iTunes now have your personal data in them. Author suspects that this is to prevent you uploading them to a network.
Perhaps. Or perhaps iit's because they wnt to analyse how many people do share tunes, or perhaps they actually think some people might want to know who the purchaser of the music was (A little like the about box in a lot of software). Or perhaps a programmer thought thye might as well since it would be as easy to add the information as not.
Well, it does say the *people's* right to arms shall not be abridged..
I know. I didn;t say it didn't.
The bit about the militia is only the reason for the right. The specific right actually granted is the second part of the sentence, and it does not state a limit to a militia
Yes, but where does it say that it is to "[fix] corruption on a level that can't be undone through avenues made legal by itself"?
It is an indivudal right. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" makes it pretty clear. But the reasons for the second amendment are many and varied, and those who approved of it approved for a number of reasons of which protection from the government was just one, not shared by all of them.
People have a right to bear arms that cannot be infringed because the constitution says they have. That was the reasoning behind the overturning of the DC gun ban. You can argue about the reasoning behind it, but it's still a matter of some debate what the intent was. It also doesn't matter. The wording is clear.
Of course, the letter of the law also allows the ownership of weapons of mass destruction. Rather than work around the constitution with handwaving about what the clause actually means, the US should ratify an amendment making it clear.
Which is useful. If someone has a gun, we can deduce that they intend to commit other crimes. So if anyone has a gun, it's well worth the time of the police to do a little more investigation to see what else he's been planning.
So, given Bush's complete disregard for the constitution, and the lack on interest in Congress for getting rid of him, why haven't americans rvolted yet?
And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.
But I think the BBC is not considered a public authority. It's certainly not part of the government. And technically (at least legally) the licence fee is not a tax.
I mean it's too late for them to make that sort of demand.
Their offer is that you can either accept the terms, or they'll unilaterally cancel a previously made contract of sale. It's a totally unrealted agreement by this time. Here's a similar agreement; "You agree to give me $100. If you don't accep this agreement, take the most recent item you purchased back to the shop for a refund". Clearly this agreement doesn't oblige you to pay me either $100 or return anything to the shop. So why is it that the only way to reject an agreement by the hardware manufacturer is to cancel the contract with the shop you bought it from?
It's too late for that. You already own the hardware. I might as well impose a random set of demands and insist that if you don't accept them I'll buy your computer from you.
We ARE talking about a computer game, here. There is no *real* harm done to anyone if their account is terminated.
There's a certain amount of investment into an online character and a social group. It's not very easily quantifiable but I wouldn't suggest it's worthless.
I've always wondered though - Do the strongly religious really act the way they do because they want a reward in heaven? I find it hard to believe that. People are good because we have empathy. That's not a trait reserved for the religious.
"Why do we have dinosaur bones?"
"God put them there"
"How are diomonds formed?"
"God made them"
Of course it's a load of rubbish. And while we're at it, completely pointless trying to win these idiots over wiht scientific arguments that they don't understand. The theological arguments point to the bible not being intended as a literal history of the universe.
Most of the proponents of Creationism don't believe in it in the first place. They're just uncomfortable with the idea of the non-existence of God, and it's been pushed by some religious fanatics as a polar choice with God and evolution being mutually exclusive.
I totally agree. At least at this level.
While there are a lot of miritless lawsuits around, the small claims court doesn't have this problem. The payouts are limitted, and the ability to pad it out and play legal shenanigans is also greatly reduced. People do have genuine greviences all the time. The right to a legal remedy is essential.
The other day, the cable guy came out. He drops off my HD DVR. He hands me his handheld PC and says "sign here". The thing I'm supposed to sign says something like "I agree to all the stuff above". Of course, I can't scroll up and read anything. So, i ask what I'm signing. He tells me it's that I received the DVR. Grr. OK. So I sign. Then it prints out this huge receipt. Among other things, i've given up my right to sue them.
I imagine that would be unenforcable. Actually I think it may even be technically fraud.
Well, as far as I can see, the second amendment is just there as a leftover from before the US had the world's largest army. I have no illusions about the reason I suggested being the purpose.
I want to know why those who do claim this is the reason they have a gun haven't excercised this right.
Isn't this sort of thing why we have a second amendment?
The president is breaking the law and acting against the people. Congress should have removed him already. The US army should have taken control of the Whitehouse to protect the constitution.
Why are the gun advocates not using their guns for the reasons so many of them claim they have them?
That's just a DSP though. Still, fairly capable x86 compatible systems on chip (or at least in a single package have been around for a while. Here's Intel's latest
Yes, but still - it isn't physically possible to do that according to our current understanding of physics.