After several calls, they finally told me they consider the methodology by which they calculate bandwidth usage to be proprietary.
I just want to be sure that people realise that this doesn't actually mean they consider the methodology by which they calculate bandwidth usage to be proprietary. It's just a lie because the person being asked doesn't know the answer, doesn't know how to find out and feels that it's the sort of thing that will shut the submitter up.
Just a warning to those who might actually believe them.
So do you think that if a company decided to release a slightly modified GPL application without the source, and they were open about it being a slightly modified GPL application, people would be as forgiving as they are with file sharers?
Personally, I loved BeOS, but for various reasons ended up as something of a dead end. Everything else has moved on. There are still a few nice idea in the OS but I'd far prefer to see them incorporated into something new.
I think you mean: If you're trying to develop a commercial product by stealing others' code and claiming it's your own, best make sure it has no GPL code in it.
Why is the attitude that copyright infrigement is stealing tolerated so much more here when applied to the GPL than file sharing?
There are plenty of laws protecting freedom of speech, as well as a well established duty of government that this should be preserved.
The difference is that there are also laws protecting other rights. Sometimes these rights contradict each other. Now, I personally think that the right to protest is considerably greater than the right not to be offended. And yes, this is something that needs to be addressed. There's a process for doing so. It's a lot easier and more flexible than amending the US constitution.
Never really been too fussed about this sort of thing. If you want the story then read the books. If this is actually good then it's a whole new story to enjoy. If it's not, then at least they didn't ruin the Thrawn Trilogy
The thing about stupidity is it just needs one stupid lawyer who gets a bee in is bonnet about Copyright. The others aren't going to stop him because he's technically legally right.
It's probable that the people who have the power and desire to reverse this decision hadn't heard about it until now.
The notice isn't there for the benefit of people who are looking for it. They already know what it says.
This is to correct the misapprehension that Samsung copied from Apple, that a casual visitor might be under. If it's hidden off the screen then it's not going to do that, is it?
Yeah, I got that it was tongue in cheek, and I agree. there are two ways of looking at this. Slashdot seems to be biased towards Google though and I'm more interested in providing a counterpoint.
Tell you what - the newspapers split 50% of their ad revenue with the search engine that provides the content. The search engines provide 50% of the revenue that they get through listing the newspaper stories.
Honestly, this actually sounds fair to me. I suspect that the newspapers would leap at this and Google would resist it simply because both sides interest here is to maximise their own revenue. That's largely what a business is for, after all.
Does Beans also have classes called SingletonProxyFactoryBean, ProxyFactoryBean, AbstractProxyFactoryBean, AbstractProxyFactory, and ProxyFactory then? Evidently these need to be distinguished.
You mean like "%s/old name/new name/g" that the vi editor has had since the 80s? Perhaps you should try using a programmers editor. You might be surprised at just how little extra an IDE gives you.
I don't know. Does vi automatically deduce the scope of the variable and change references to it globally without affecting identically named variables in other classes or variables that the changed name is a substring of?
"2 or more xterms and "grep". I find that combination far more efficient than some bloatware IDE
The source I'm working on has a lot of members of different classes with the same names.
Slashdot Mirror
I just want to be sure that people realise that this doesn't actually mean they consider the methodology by which they calculate bandwidth usage to be proprietary. It's just a lie because the person being asked doesn't know the answer, doesn't know how to find out and feels that it's the sort of thing that will shut the submitter up.
Just a warning to those who might actually believe them.
It could be more that 's it a piece of irrelevant character assassination.
Is sending a C&D regarding Doom on the browser more acceptable if it turns out that it's from his angelic business partner?
It's how you make a flat white.
So do you think that if a company decided to release a slightly modified GPL application without the source, and they were open about it being a slightly modified GPL application, people would be as forgiving as they are with file sharers?
You can more or less say that about it now.
Personally, I loved BeOS, but for various reasons ended up as something of a dead end. Everything else has moved on. There are still a few nice idea in the OS but I'd far prefer to see them incorporated into something new.
Why is the attitude that copyright infrigement is stealing tolerated so much more here when applied to the GPL than file sharing?
Who modded this "informative"?
There are plenty of laws protecting freedom of speech, as well as a well established duty of government that this should be preserved.
The difference is that there are also laws protecting other rights. Sometimes these rights contradict each other. Now, I personally think that the right to protest is considerably greater than the right not to be offended. And yes, this is something that needs to be addressed. There's a process for doing so. It's a lot easier and more flexible than amending the US constitution.
Never really been too fussed about this sort of thing. If you want the story then read the books. If this is actually good then it's a whole new story to enjoy. If it's not, then at least they didn't ruin the Thrawn Trilogy
The thing about stupidity is it just needs one stupid lawyer who gets a bee in is bonnet about Copyright. The others aren't going to stop him because he's technically legally right.
It's probable that the people who have the power and desire to reverse this decision hadn't heard about it until now.
In British slang, a ton is 100 pounds. So it's 20 tons of money.
Seems it's just the first commercial flight with an American operator.
Which doesn't strike me as a particularly important milestone, to be honest.
The notice isn't there for the benefit of people who are looking for it. They already know what it says.
This is to correct the misapprehension that Samsung copied from Apple, that a casual visitor might be under. If it's hidden off the screen then it's not going to do that, is it?
Yet a for profit company has this page. It presumably gets them revenue somehow.
Good job I wasn't specific about ad revenue then. I just said "revenue".
How would that help the newspapers make money?
Well, if it goes wrong you can always use the reverse search/replace operation:)
So, why does Google have a news section? What's in it for them?
Yeah, I got that it was tongue in cheek, and I agree. there are two ways of looking at this. Slashdot seems to be biased towards Google though and I'm more interested in providing a counterpoint.
Tell you what - the newspapers split 50% of their ad revenue with the search engine that provides the content. The search engines provide 50% of the revenue that they get through listing the newspaper stories.
Honestly, this actually sounds fair to me. I suspect that the newspapers would leap at this and Google would resist it simply because both sides interest here is to maximise their own revenue. That's largely what a business is for, after all.
There's a value to Google to get the content from the newspapers.
There's a value to the newspapers to get advertising from Google.
Which is worth more?
That's very altruistic of Google. And to think, they're doing this without getting any benefit from it at all.
But, as they say, if someone is offering you a service for free, you're not the customer. You're the product.
The product provider wants to be paid for its product.
Getting the government involved is a bit of a dirty trick, but then, Google is a business as are the newspapers.
Their content helps make Google rich. They're fine with that but want their cut.
Does Beans also have classes called SingletonProxyFactoryBean, ProxyFactoryBean, AbstractProxyFactoryBean, AbstractProxyFactory, and ProxyFactory then? Evidently these need to be distinguished.
To be fair, it is still a flaw with the editor. And you might have a file that long for other reasons. The editor should be able to handle a log file.
I don't know. Does vi automatically deduce the scope of the variable and change references to it globally without affecting identically named variables in other classes or variables that the changed name is a substring of?
The source I'm working on has a lot of members of different classes with the same names.
Almost.
Just needs a good editor.
Why does the class name need to tell you it's abstract, a singleton and a Bean?