A successful public business has a responsibility to its shareholders to use every available avenue to maximize corporate value.
Bullshit. I don't know where poeple like you got the idea that companies have some obligation to a certain course of action.
Don't spew shit about fiduciary duty. The truth of the matter is the people running the company have great latitude to make decisions about the direction of the company. They can't blatently steal from their shareholders, but they can very easily say "Hey, maybe we shouldn't sue people for using obvious patents, that would cost us more in public image than we would gain".
Under your skewed world view, companies that didn't go with the absolute lowest bidder on every contract would be strung up. Companies that build their image based on environmental friendliness can't exist, etc.
So don't feed me that bullshit. People running any company never have their hands tied from doing anything except the most blatently irresponsible and illegal actions.
When I first saw those sketches I really didn't think they were very good. I guess they grow on you. Probably is why people always say "SNL from n-5 years ago is so much better than SNL today"... it's just not funny until it has some time to sink in.:)
One of the Xbox power supply problems was a faulty power cord that didn't fit quite right. This caused arcing and degradation of the terminals on the cord and console, eventually leading to overheating and potentially fire (in one case it caused a small fire).
In true MS form, they issued a half-assed fix. They recalled only the power cords, leaving thousands of users with potentially damaged console-side connectors (caused by the original bad cord) to risk it.
I believe this particular problem was only in Europe, the US power cords didn't have this problem.
Don't act like your lucky lot in life is the same for everyone.
Same to you. It's not anyone else's fault you stayed in a losing situation and got fucked over. You were free to seek employment elsewhere at any point.
Maybe the fact that collisions can be found with less effort than 2^(160/2) -- the attacks of Wang et al?
I looked it up, it's actually less than that, 2^69. Still better than MD5's 2^40.
Doesn't prevent someone from crafting two colliding files, uploading both to Google, and if one is lost claim that it was extremely important data and sue Google over it.
You don't think the judge or defense would want to see both colliding files and have you explain how this collision cost you money? That would be pretty hard to explain, considering that colliding files generally have most of their bytes the same, at least from the block of collision to the end of the file in MD5 collisions I've studied.
I guess what I'm saying is a crafted collision doesn't look anything like a random collision, and it should be easy to convince a court of that.
I'm not sure if SHA-1 collisions are the same (I haven't studied that work as much as the work on MD5), but I still think it would be a hard case to make.
I'd also do poor work if I had to continuously worry that today might be my last day.
Exactly. That's what stops employers in the US from firing on a whim. I believe in the inherent right of employers to hire and fire whomever they please, for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that right should be exercised without due care, if you want to run a successful business.
User-created content is great and it seems to be a good fit for the WWW. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea because I think it appeals to developers as a cost-cutting measure, not as a way of creating a dynamic world.
Imagine paying a monthly subscription fee to your ISP and on top of that having to produce your own content to keep the WWW going. And I hate to say it but more often than not user content and pagers are subpar.
I know this is kinda an old story, but I'm just getting around to it.
I agree, it's a huge world and probably 90% of it is pretty crappy.
I think it's more like 90/10 than 99/1 though, one thing about secondlife is that first impressions can easily be wrong. It's a huge world and it takes weeks to even see a small part of it. As a newb it's easy to mostly see the crappy parts.
That upper 10% is great, and I don't mean places listed on the "popular" list, those are mostly clubs with camping chairs (yes I think the concept of camping chairs is retarded too).
Anyway, I guess my point is, SecondLife is what we make it. I started a company on there to create highly interactive games in-world, and there's a pretty large demand. I'm not getting paid even minimum wage yet, but I'm building up a pretty solid revenue stream with the games we're creating.
One of the problems is there's probably only about 250-500 good LSL scripters out there in SL, and probably 5000 good builders. My company employes two builders on a contract basis, and they are often idle because they can build stuff a lot faster than we can script it.
There's nothing "PC" or "un-PC" about it. It's just the way for members of that particular guild to reduce incidents of griefing as they see it.
Well, that's gay.
Seriously though, I did read the other stories. I'm well aware of the situation. And if I made a guild with "neo-nazis welcome" in the title, I wouldn't mind people calling it "a neo-nazi guild", even though I wasn't exclusive.
Many libertarians as in favor of removing the power of government to arbitrarily inflate money by returning to a gold-based system. Others do advocate privitized money, but they are a smaller minority.
The clause may need some clarification, but the "invisible hand" would take care of most things.
Simply put, if some author decided to create an obnoxious problem by creatively interperting the clause as you propose, people just wouldn't use their software anymore, or would fork the GPLv2 version, or the GPLv3 version immediately preceeding the addition of the facility to download source code that was problematic.
It doesn't require the author to exercise the right, and it would would be foolish for authors to try to abuse it.
Keep in mind, if authors wanted this sort of licensing term, they could have used a different license that specifically required it. All this clause does in GPLv3 is make such works GPL compatible.
How exactly would Linus put functionality into Apache/PHP/Your Web App, or whatever, that would create such an obligation to put a link for kernel source code on your web page?
Apache could append a link to get apache source code on the bottom of every page it serves, but they won't do that, because it would alienate their userbase.
So I really don't see what your point is. If some GPL blog author wants to put a source download link in his blogging software that can't be removed by the end user, that seems fine to me.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what got him into this in the first place. A rational person would have apologized after they got the first reply from the CentOS people.
This man is clearly irrational, and not too bright.
A successful public business has a responsibility to its shareholders to use every available avenue to maximize corporate value.
Bullshit. I don't know where poeple like you got the idea that companies have some obligation to a certain course of action.
Don't spew shit about fiduciary duty. The truth of the matter is the people running the company have great latitude to make decisions about the direction of the company. They can't blatently steal from their shareholders, but they can very easily say "Hey, maybe we shouldn't sue people for using obvious patents, that would cost us more in public image than we would gain".
Under your skewed world view, companies that didn't go with the absolute lowest bidder on every contract would be strung up. Companies that build their image based on environmental friendliness can't exist, etc.
So don't feed me that bullshit. People running any company never have their hands tied from doing anything except the most blatently irresponsible and illegal actions.
Or to Live TV.
:)
When I first saw those sketches I really didn't think they were very good. I guess they grow on you. Probably is why people always say "SNL from n-5 years ago is so much better than SNL today"... it's just not funny until it has some time to sink in.
One of the Xbox power supply problems was a faulty power cord that didn't fit quite right. This caused arcing and degradation of the terminals on the cord and console, eventually leading to overheating and potentially fire (in one case it caused a small fire).
In true MS form, they issued a half-assed fix. They recalled only the power cords, leaving thousands of users with potentially damaged console-side connectors (caused by the original bad cord) to risk it.
I believe this particular problem was only in Europe, the US power cords didn't have this problem.
You can't unpublish a book..
Believe it or not, you can. The US courts have in some cases upheld right of the author to withdraw a work from the marketplace.
In other countries it is particularly common to have a stronger right to withdraw or retract a copyrighted work.
If you consider security in a server-side application something even a beginner can handle, then I question the security of your code.
Don't act like your lucky lot in life is the same for everyone.
Same to you. It's not anyone else's fault you stayed in a losing situation and got fucked over. You were free to seek employment elsewhere at any point.
Maybe the fact that collisions can be found with less effort than 2^(160/2) -- the attacks of Wang et al?
I looked it up, it's actually less than that, 2^69. Still better than MD5's 2^40.
Doesn't prevent someone from crafting two colliding files, uploading both to Google, and if one is lost claim that it was extremely important data and sue Google over it.
You don't think the judge or defense would want to see both colliding files and have you explain how this collision cost you money? That would be pretty hard to explain, considering that colliding files generally have most of their bytes the same, at least from the block of collision to the end of the file in MD5 collisions I've studied.
I guess what I'm saying is a crafted collision doesn't look anything like a random collision, and it should be easy to convince a court of that.
I'm not sure if SHA-1 collisions are the same (I haven't studied that work as much as the work on MD5), but I still think it would be a hard case to make.
Well it's like the normal layoff, except the don't use vaseline as they screw you.
I'd also do poor work if I had to continuously worry that today might be my last day.
Exactly. That's what stops employers in the US from firing on a whim. I believe in the inherent right of employers to hire and fire whomever they please, for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that right should be exercised without due care, if you want to run a successful business.
Whatever happened to cool stuff?
The lawyers petitioned the court for injunctive relief regarding the disclosure of information that may comprise in whole or part "cool stuff".
User-created content is great and it seems to be a good fit for the WWW. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea because I think it appeals to developers as a cost-cutting measure, not as a way of creating a dynamic world.
Imagine paying a monthly subscription fee to your ISP and on top of that having to produce your own content to keep the WWW going. And I hate to say it but more often than not user content and pagers are subpar.
I know this is kinda an old story, but I'm just getting around to it.
I agree, it's a huge world and probably 90% of it is pretty crappy.
I think it's more like 90/10 than 99/1 though, one thing about secondlife is that first impressions can easily be wrong. It's a huge world and it takes weeks to even see a small part of it. As a newb it's easy to mostly see the crappy parts.
That upper 10% is great, and I don't mean places listed on the "popular" list, those are mostly clubs with camping chairs (yes I think the concept of camping chairs is retarded too).
Anyway, I guess my point is, SecondLife is what we make it. I started a company on there to create highly interactive games in-world, and there's a pretty large demand. I'm not getting paid even minimum wage yet, but I'm building up a pretty solid revenue stream with the games we're creating.
One of the problems is there's probably only about 250-500 good LSL scripters out there in SL, and probably 5000 good builders. My company employes two builders on a contract basis, and they are often idle because they can build stuff a lot faster than we can script it.
It's a joke.
Let me guess, it runs grep -v yourPassword on the log file, which then gets entered into the bash history? :)
Wait, so the fix leaves the cleartext root password on the hard disk?
That's still very insecure by unix standards.
There's nothing "PC" or "un-PC" about it. It's just the way for members of that particular guild to reduce incidents of griefing as they see it.
Well, that's gay.
Seriously though, I did read the other stories. I'm well aware of the situation. And if I made a guild with "neo-nazis welcome" in the title, I wouldn't mind people calling it "a neo-nazi guild", even though I wasn't exclusive.
If you call a gay person a ---,
Is this some sort of new leet speak? I've never seen anyone get called a "---" before.
In case you can't tell, self-censorship, when it detracts from meaning, really fucking pisses me off.
You can't do that. With the "or later" clause, the end user gets to decide which license they will use.
Unless you actually own the copyright you can't modify the license, so you can't take away the end user's right to choose GPLv2.
God this PC nonsense has gone too far.
I guess they aren't "gay bars" anymore, they are "gay-friendly bars"?
Is anal sex "gay-friendly sex"?
Is it even possible to relicense Linux under GPLv3?
Did Linus get copyright assignments from every contributor? If not, then there's no way it can ever be really GPLv3, not legally.
Even if the contributors put the "or later" clause, that would still give end users the option for using Version 2.
Many libertarians as in favor of removing the power of government to arbitrarily inflate money by returning to a gold-based system. Others do advocate privitized money, but they are a smaller minority.
The clause may need some clarification, but the "invisible hand" would take care of most things.
Simply put, if some author decided to create an obnoxious problem by creatively interperting the clause as you propose, people just wouldn't use their software anymore, or would fork the GPLv2 version, or the GPLv3 version immediately preceeding the addition of the facility to download source code that was problematic.
It doesn't require the author to exercise the right, and it would would be foolish for authors to try to abuse it.
Keep in mind, if authors wanted this sort of licensing term, they could have used a different license that specifically required it. All this clause does in GPLv3 is make such works GPL compatible.
How exactly would Linus put functionality into Apache/PHP/Your Web App, or whatever, that would create such an obligation to put a link for kernel source code on your web page?
Apache could append a link to get apache source code on the bottom of every page it serves, but they won't do that, because it would alienate their userbase.
So I really don't see what your point is. If some GPL blog author wants to put a source download link in his blogging software that can't be removed by the end user, that seems fine to me.
That's because Buffet doesn't believe in stock splits.
If google only sold a few hundred thousand shares, their price would be up there too. Cut a pie into less pieces and each piece is larger.
This is kindergarten stuff guys.