My OpenOffice actually asks me if I want to overwrite data in that situation. It also has an anti-nag option to never show the warning again. Are you sure you didn't disable this yourself?
Okay, cut, insert, and paste does the trick. Excel has a menu item for this doing the insert and the paste in one go. What's the big deal? If you really want to, you can add it as a macro.
If you actually paid attention to the EU competition commissioner's history, you might notice that many European companies have been fined much heavier than MS has been been. This is serious business, and the EU is very busy to clean up anti-competitive business inside the EU. This because the EU traditionally has been 'trust-country'. Comparatively, they've been pretty soft on Microsoft.
Airbus is a problem in its own right. Being subsidized by both the French and the German governments, they are practically immune from EU anti-competitive regulations for political reasons. However, Boeing is not a victim though. How much DoD money comes their way?
So, 95% market share in the desktop market doesn't count as a monopoly? And that when 25% marketshare is already considered potentially disruptive in other markets? The way a monopoly came into being doesn't matter at all, the question is how to get rid of it, and recreate an open market once again.
This ruling has to do with bundling media players and browsers with the OS, things which you can choose to replace with things like VLC and Firefox.
This ruling has as much to do with bundling media players as Al Capone's detention had to do with tax evasion. Okay, it has slightly more to do with it than that. The windows media player is not the problem, the wmv format is. If MS had its way, the media player would give it a monopoly in the media format market, due to the player becoming the de facto standard (due to windows being a monopoly). Once wmv is ubiquitous, it's simply a matter of closing down VLC and Firefox based on the patents on wmv, and streaming media could only be run by the grace of Microsoft.
The Apache license (2.0) explicitly allows you to add or modify license terms. BSD doesn't, and from what I gather from these posts, it is not clear at all if you are allowed to add license terms to BSD code. The license doesn't explicitly allow it, so it seems open for legal interpretation. BSD is a very short license, and as such falls short of actually specifying what is allowed and what isn't. It seems that Theo de Raadt has a different interpretation than the FSF, while people here assume that all is allowed, based on folklore.
Did you? # Redistribution in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions...
One of these mandatory conditions states that 'Redistribution in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list...'. Following the argument of the OP, redistribution in binary form is allowed, as long as you allow further redistribution (by including the list of conditions). I'm not sure that this is correct way to interpret it, but this is what the OP was using, but applied to the source. I'm only pointing out that exactly the same would hold for binary distributions.
Sooo, applying this theory to the second clause, this would mean that whenever anyone uses a piece of BSD code in a library, the binary library itself would be freely distributable by any user. Furthermore, when the BSD code is statically linked into your own work... free distribution of the whole executable, or no distribution at all? There doesn't seem to be a middle way. How does Mac OSX cope with this?
Wasn't BSD supposed to be the non-viral open source license? Better stick with the Apache license then.
This is an interesting take on it, and would be good for further inquiry if there was even a shred of evidence that dilutions of molecules in water would, indeed, lead to a positive response in a double blind experiment. Unfortunately, this hasn't been measured and it's a bit silly to pursue this before an effect has been found.
Re:%75 as effective as a prescription 3% the price
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 1
If there's a set of double-blind clinical tests backing up the use of the acupuncture points in these Chinese universities, it's a very fine method. If it's not, it's hocus-pocus. It's not chemical vs. everyone else, it's about the method to gather evidence. Note that surgery (cutting flesh, non-chemical), is based upon similar methods to collect evidence (usually not blind, as there are obvious problems with that;)
The Chinese doctor in the OP, who had one son that had 'the gift', and another that hadn't, doesn't seem to follow this particular method of ascertaining that his method works. Not sure if he's professor at one of those universities, the story didn't say that.
Newton was a genius, but not very rational, no. Let alone humble. Dabbling in alchemy, strong believer in God, declaring that the three body problem was unsolvable (by him) and that therefore the balance in the solar system was actively maintained by God. Nope, not very rational at times. Excellent brain, weak mind.
Come on, how much expertise does one need to state that 'if it doesn't survive a double blind experiment, it doesn't work'? All one needs is a good understanding of how a double blind experiment is conducted, and why it is conducted in that way.
And how much expertise does one need to ridicule the postulation of new and unknown mechanisms that lead to substances that don't survive double blind experimentation?
Homeopathic reasoning goes something like this: IF water can take up the form and 'good' things of chemicals without any molecule present, THEN water processed in that way will heal without the 'bad' things of said chemicals.
So now we have that water processed in that way will not heal at all. What does this say about the postulate?
Re:%75 as effective as a prescription 3% the price
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Scientists are keen on disproving such things cause it's something they really don't understand and when something they don't understand works better than their own stuff it's not funny anymore.
Not quite. Scientists have no problem with things they really don't understand. Most of the medicine that is described they don't really understand either (to understand the exact working of medicine we would need a complete theory of the human body. From Gene to Mind. We don't have that). What scientists loathe however is stuff that is not reproducible. The Chinese doctor practices his art (not science), in a thoroughly unreproducible manner. As he apparently can't teach people how to do it, there is nothing there to be learned from it. Scientifically useless, and only worthy of an anecdote or two.
Influence a boy away from WANTING to surf porn? How would you suggest to do that, neuter him? Maybe bring him enough hookers that the sexual fatigue would prevent him to go out for more stimulation.
Chill dude. Your kids have your password already, and use it to get to your porn collection. Furthermore, they've also got root access and all your reports are doctored. No wonder they seem to act responsibly.
Tivo made the engineering effort to set up their hardware in such a way that people were explicitly prevented to run modifications of the source code (that Tivo needed to provide per GPL) on the device. I don't think this is a mistake, this is a deliberate attempt to have their cake and eat it too. They actually spent time and money to prevent people to be able to use the source for its intended purpose: to steer the device.
Intellectual property is a misnomer: it is not property under the law, the concept does not even exist in law. What kind of property will fall to the public domain when a particular period of time has elapsed? A lease from the government. This should give you a hint to the 'property' status of intellectual achievement in law. Some people like it to be actual property, instead of an Intellectual Lease, but the law states differently. So how can RMS take away a freedom you don't have?
Let's phrase it a bit differently. In our world, once you write a piece of software, you have the right to restrict people in their usage of it. In Stallman's ideal world, you lost that ability, ant the software is open source whether you like it or not.
You have the common misconception that you actually 'own' the software you wrote in any meaningful sense. You don't, not according to the law. What you do own is the right to restrict the way the software you wrote is distributed for a limited period of time (in current terms a lifetime plus). What RMS wants to take away is your freedom to restrict others. Whether that leads to a net increase in freedom is anybody's guess, but it's not DoubleSpeak. It is consistent with law and tradition.
I'm pretty sure the actual magnets and their state on his harddisk are his property, not yours. You don't suddenly own his harddrive do you? And photocopying a book from page to page and distributing is completely legit when the book is out of copyright (not that this has happened since 1938). Unlike real property, where a piece of land can be owned through generations, intellectual property is only there for a limited time, for obvious reasons. The creation is yours, you just don't have actual property rights on it. You have a time limited right to prevent people to copy it. It's not a house, it's a figment of your imagination, and for some reason we apparently value you distributing it enough that we give you exclusivity. For a while. Don't confuse this with owning anything. You don't.
Possibly, though there's a finite demand for the products in any particular market. But yes, there are definite gains in commodity libraries (especially free ones) for a macroscopic economy, as it enables new markets to form more rapidly. How that exactly levels out is uncertain though.
But in any case, I was just trying to be obnoxious.
Doesn't make sense. What rights does an enduser have that the hardware developer doesn't? Both have the right to use code they didn't write. Both have the rights to create a device that runs code they didn't write.
The only restriction the hardware developer has to contend with is that if he builds a device that runs code he didn't write, he must make sure that he doesn't purposefully disallow others to run altered versions of the code he didn't write on that device. It effectively saves him work. He doesn't have to write the authorization code anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
No, making murder illegal is not a waste of time. What is a wast of time is to make circumvention technology such as knives illegal.
My OpenOffice actually asks me if I want to overwrite data in that situation. It also has an anti-nag option to never show the warning again. Are you sure you didn't disable this yourself?
Okay, cut, insert, and paste does the trick. Excel has a menu item for this doing the insert and the paste in one go. What's the big deal? If you really want to, you can add it as a macro.
Airbus is a problem in its own right. Being subsidized by both the French and the German governments, they are practically immune from EU anti-competitive regulations for political reasons. However, Boeing is not a victim though. How much DoD money comes their way?
Again, in what market does Apple hold a monopoly that they are using as a lever?
So, 95% market share in the desktop market doesn't count as a monopoly? And that when 25% marketshare is already considered potentially disruptive in other markets? The way a monopoly came into being doesn't matter at all, the question is how to get rid of it, and recreate an open market once again.
Tobacco. Yes. Please follow economy 101. No. No. No. Rhetorical, but okay, yes. Yes. It's about proprietary formats, not about applications.
The Apache license (2.0) explicitly allows you to add or modify license terms. BSD doesn't, and from what I gather from these posts, it is not clear at all if you are allowed to add license terms to BSD code. The license doesn't explicitly allow it, so it seems open for legal interpretation. BSD is a very short license, and as such falls short of actually specifying what is allowed and what isn't. It seems that Theo de Raadt has a different interpretation than the FSF, while people here assume that all is allowed, based on folklore.
One of these mandatory conditions states that 'Redistribution in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list ...'. Following the argument of the OP, redistribution in binary form is allowed, as long as you allow further redistribution (by including the list of conditions). I'm not sure that this is correct way to interpret it, but this is what the OP was using, but applied to the source. I'm only pointing out that exactly the same would hold for binary distributions.
Just put a lid on the pot, and see them squirm.
Wasn't BSD supposed to be the non-viral open source license? Better stick with the Apache license then.
This is an interesting take on it, and would be good for further inquiry if there was even a shred of evidence that dilutions of molecules in water would, indeed, lead to a positive response in a double blind experiment. Unfortunately, this hasn't been measured and it's a bit silly to pursue this before an effect has been found.
The Chinese doctor in the OP, who had one son that had 'the gift', and another that hadn't, doesn't seem to follow this particular method of ascertaining that his method works. Not sure if he's professor at one of those universities, the story didn't say that.
Newton was a genius, but not very rational, no. Let alone humble. Dabbling in alchemy, strong believer in God, declaring that the three body problem was unsolvable (by him) and that therefore the balance in the solar system was actively maintained by God. Nope, not very rational at times. Excellent brain, weak mind.
And how much expertise does one need to ridicule the postulation of new and unknown mechanisms that lead to substances that don't survive double blind experimentation?
Homeopathic reasoning goes something like this: IF water can take up the form and 'good' things of chemicals without any molecule present, THEN water processed in that way will heal without the 'bad' things of said chemicals.
So now we have that water processed in that way will not heal at all. What does this say about the postulate?
Influence a boy away from WANTING to surf porn? How would you suggest to do that, neuter him? Maybe bring him enough hookers that the sexual fatigue would prevent him to go out for more stimulation.
Chill dude. Your kids have your password already, and use it to get to your porn collection. Furthermore, they've also got root access and all your reports are doctored. No wonder they seem to act responsibly.
Tivo made the engineering effort to set up their hardware in such a way that people were explicitly prevented to run modifications of the source code (that Tivo needed to provide per GPL) on the device. I don't think this is a mistake, this is a deliberate attempt to have their cake and eat it too. They actually spent time and money to prevent people to be able to use the source for its intended purpose: to steer the device.
Intellectual property is a misnomer: it is not property under the law, the concept does not even exist in law. What kind of property will fall to the public domain when a particular period of time has elapsed? A lease from the government. This should give you a hint to the 'property' status of intellectual achievement in law. Some people like it to be actual property, instead of an Intellectual Lease, but the law states differently. So how can RMS take away a freedom you don't have?
You have the common misconception that you actually 'own' the software you wrote in any meaningful sense. You don't, not according to the law. What you do own is the right to restrict the way the software you wrote is distributed for a limited period of time (in current terms a lifetime plus). What RMS wants to take away is your freedom to restrict others. Whether that leads to a net increase in freedom is anybody's guess, but it's not DoubleSpeak. It is consistent with law and tradition.
I'm pretty sure the actual magnets and their state on his harddisk are his property, not yours. You don't suddenly own his harddrive do you? And photocopying a book from page to page and distributing is completely legit when the book is out of copyright (not that this has happened since 1938). Unlike real property, where a piece of land can be owned through generations, intellectual property is only there for a limited time, for obvious reasons. The creation is yours, you just don't have actual property rights on it. You have a time limited right to prevent people to copy it. It's not a house, it's a figment of your imagination, and for some reason we apparently value you distributing it enough that we give you exclusivity. For a while. Don't confuse this with owning anything. You don't.
But in any case, I was just trying to be obnoxious.
The only restriction the hardware developer has to contend with is that if he builds a device that runs code he didn't write, he must make sure that he doesn't purposefully disallow others to run altered versions of the code he didn't write on that device. It effectively saves him work. He doesn't have to write the authorization code anymore.