I'm willing to wait as long as it takes for my friends to be granted access.
That's where I'm at too. On FB I only friend people I've met in real life, unless they're relatives I haven't met yet (due to the fact that my immediate family moved from Europe to New Zealand when I was 5). Lot's of them are not techies, so I'm not sure if they'll ever move to G+. I will be giving them every encouragement though.
[Google +] lacks a "killer feature" though that would make anyone use it over FB. Unless it gets something that will make people use it over using FB, it will probably languish, then die like Wave, Google Health, etc.
* Hangouts (up to 10 people in a video chat room) * Circles (a method for fine-tuning whose posts appear in your stream and who can see your posts) * Absence of FarmVille etc.
pre-made pigtail and fusion splicer? The ones we have at work line up the strands automagically before fusing. I'm getting under 0.02dB loss on my splices.
> KDE has improved *greatly* since its 4.4.x days. It is a lot snappier, less buggy and doesn't clutter up your desktop like it used to.
[snip]
So, from the 4.0 days that made me curse it after how nice 3.5 was, I have to say, they have me hooked again.
4.0 is what made me ditch KDE. Now running gnome-based LinuxMint and loving it. I might try KDE again in a few years, but I was badly burnt by moving from 3.5.x to 4.0 so there will have to be a compelling reason to go back.
The letter isn't the issue - the issue is at the device should be at the absolute root of the file system. I don't care if you call the pen-drive G:, pendrive or bubblegumpopannoyingnamesomething, but don't put it somewhere that isn't *immediately* visible...
The only place where it is *immediately* visible is if it appears as an icon on the desktop or opens in a new file manager window as soon as you insert the storage medium. Both Windows and Linux (gnome/KDE) can be set up to do this.
In Windows, to find the drive letters I have to go to "My Computer" or something like that. In Linux, KDE and gnome both have an equivalent to "My Computer" that shows all mounted storage media.
Aw, c'mon. Any user who has only used Linux systems will call the Windows method weird. At least the Linux FIlesystem Heirarchy is logical.
Bullshit. My computer file systems are based on the storage devices they're hosted on - the storage devices ARE the root of the system. How is making an imaginary / root directory and then putting the storage media in some folder more logical than directly showing the drives?
How is some random letter more logical than/media/pendrive or/media/dvd, which is where a pendrive or DVD get mounted automagically on any modern linux distro?
I am opposed because it moves the burden of policing software licence compliance to businesses who may have little or no control over their overseas suppliers and who are not in the business of law enforcement.
It doesn't affect me personally. I live in New Zealand. In addition to my full time job (linesman for the local phone company) I also have a small organic market garden. Our accounts are done in OpenOffice running on Linux, so no compliance issues for us. In any case, we supply local supermarkets and do not export to the USA.
Purchasing products made by a company that is out of compliance with their software licences is not the same as purchasing stolen goods.
I think there are similarities, namely the ones that I highlighted
This is where I have to disagree.
Scenario 1: I buy bolts from a manufacture that has stolen the raw materials (eg steel) in order to make the bolts.
Scenario 2: I buy bolts from a manufacture that uses stolen software to track their stock.
You are lumping these two scenarios together. In reality they are totally different.
Yes I agree I should return bolts made from stolen materials, but the second scenario is nothing at all like that. If you are the legal owner of said stock tracking software and you come to me demanding redress for the actions of the manufacturer, with whom my only relationship is buying bolts to use in my product, I think you can guess where I'd tell you to go. Any law that lets you go after me in the second scenario is lacking in common sense.
And if the non-US supplier provides fake software audit certs, that should let the US company off the hook, because the US company has then acted in good faith.
It would probably afford some possibilities for suing / reneging on payments to those foreign suppliers. If I purchase stolen goods, I still have to give them back when the police show up, but I can seek redress from the person that sold me those goods. If I were knowingly receiving stolen goods, then I am liable myself however.
Purchasing products made by a company that is out of compliance with their software licences is not the same as purchasing stolen goods.
And of course the law should apply to all licence violations, including GPL violations. If Microsoft is doing this for the right reasons, surely they would extend the same protection to software vendors who choose to use Open Source licencing models. No? Ah, I see, Microsoft give their true motives away.
You seem to be suggesting that MS should go out and sue companies that violate GPL licences. What has that got to do with them? Do you go across town and sue people for actions they commit against people you don't even know and have nothing to do with you?
I'm not sure if your lack of comprehension is deliberate, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying that if Microsoft is going to sponsor a law protecting copyright holders, then there should not be exceptions in that law for certain classes of copyright holders. I am not saying that Microsoft should sue GPL violators. I am saying that a Microsoft sponsored law change should not exclude GPL vendors from suing under the same circumstances that Microsoft can sue.
I don't believe it's physically possible to use commercial software in any but the smallest of organisations and at the same time be 100% correct in your licensing of it.
Except by over-licencing, buying more cover than you actually need.
If you're prepared to accept this, then laws such as this start to sound dangerously close to legalised extortion : "Nice company you've got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
How difficult is it to show that the software used is pirated or not? It is not like auditing thousands of pages of financial records. The company just has to show that it acquired a genuine license from Microsoft.
The law isn't that unreasonable
It would be more reasonable if the law provided the same protection to Open Source licence-holders. So far none of the pro-microsoft comments on this article address this issue, which is adding weight to the astroturfing theory. I'm not saying that you are astroturfing. I'm just waiting for your reply that you agree or disagree that Open Source licence-holders should also be protected. Just because I release software with an Open Source licence, doesn't mean you can mis-appropriate my code. Open Source licences have conditions too and the authors of the code retain their rights.
I haven't seen any of the/.ers who take Microsoft's side on this issue address the anomaly that Open Source licence-holders are not given the same protection by this law that is given to Microsoft. Until one of the suspected astroturfers posts a comment supporting the removal of the Open Source exception, they will remain suspect.
And if the non-US supplier provides fake software audit certs, that should let the US company off the hook, because the US company has then acted in good faith. And of course the law should apply to all licence violations, including GPL violations. If Microsoft is doing this for the right reasons, surely they would extend the same protection to software vendors who choose to use Open Source licencing models. No? Ah, I see, Microsoft give their true motives away.
If any of my representatives sign a trade deal with USA that involves adopting stupid American laws here, I will bitch-slap that representative until the cops drag me away.
I think it's drawing a long bow to put child labour in the same category as using a bootleg copy of Excel. Licence violations are harder to police as well.
Also I would expect the likes of Microsoft to be more capable of looking after themselves than exploited poor people.
Huh, unfair competition laws? Don't you think it's only fair if companies can't buy from companies using pirated software who sell at lower price because frankly they don't need to pay as much costs as lawful companies?
If I contract out some work to an overseas company, am I expected to police the software they use internally? And even if that has some merit, the exception for Open Source licence violations exposes this for what it is. Thank God I don't live in America.
As soon as I saw this article come up on/. I wondered how long will it take for paid astroturfers to put a spin on this.
I wonder how the quality of the BB ecosystem will go over time though, sure it's a boon to have access to all the Android apps but will people develop native PlayBook apps knowing that they could just develop an Android one that runs on the PB *and* on Android devices?
I think this was one of IBM's mistakes with OS/2 Warp. It ran Win3.1 and DOS apps so well that no-one made native apps for OS/2.
This is why I demand a copyright release up front from any photographer I pay to take pictures. I also demand all photos taken, not just the ones the photographer thinks I might like. It costs more, but it's worth it to me.
I did this for my wedding photos in 2002. I shopped around for photographers who would do this and the only one who agreed was actually cheaper than the others and took very good photos. The first few that I approached laughed in my face and smugly told me no-one in their industry would do it. I have since advised all my friends as they got engaged to shop around for a photographer who will let you have all the photos (and raw files) and release copyright to you.
There's also a built-in assumption here, that the z% will want Windows -- but it's not a stretch -- not everyone has a nerd at hand to install Linux and configure it to make it work for them.
A few years ago my brother, who is not a computer nerd but reasonably self motivated as a user, downloaded a linux distro and asked me to help install it.
I visited him for the weekend (he lives in a different city) and sat in his living room watching TV with my nephews while he tried to see how far he could get. I told him to give me a yell if he got stuck.
When he finally called me over to the computer (one TV episode later, so probably about half an hour) he was finished.
Not every non-nerd needs a nerd to install Linux and configure it to make it work for them.
I do something similar, but not to the same extent. My date of birth on Facebook is the 1st of January 1970. I was born in the 70s so I've given them the right decade for their demographic stats out of courtesy. I have my first name and my last initial as my FB name. I don't allow access to 3rd party apps.
I don't friend anyone connected with my workplace and I don't post anything that could get me fired if someone from HR stumbled across it and linked it to me. I also don't friend people who are not connected to me offline.
Good lecture though. I will link to your post when advising others.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm willing to wait as long as it takes for my friends to be granted access.
That's where I'm at too. On FB I only friend people I've met in real life, unless they're relatives I haven't met yet (due to the fact that my immediate family moved from Europe to New Zealand when I was 5).
Lot's of them are not techies, so I'm not sure if they'll ever move to G+. I will be giving them every encouragement though.
Yuri
[Google +] lacks a "killer feature" though that would make anyone use it over FB. Unless it gets something that will make people use it over using FB, it will probably languish, then die like Wave, Google Health, etc.
* Hangouts (up to 10 people in a video chat room)
* Circles (a method for fine-tuning whose posts appear in your stream and who can see your posts)
* Absence of FarmVille etc.
Those are killer features for me.
"ok, so what now"
Try hanging out with webcams. Much better set-up than the Facebook/Skype hybrid.
Woosh.
pre-made pigtail and fusion splicer? The ones we have at work line up the strands automagically before fusing. I'm getting under 0.02dB loss on my splices.
As I always said,
Do not underestimate the bandwidth of a pack mule loaded with DAT tapes.
Or an African swallow carrying an SD card.
Or two African swallows carrying a 2TB portable drive between them (assuming a 2TB portable drive is about as heavy as a coconut).
> KDE has improved *greatly* since its 4.4.x days. It is a lot snappier, less buggy and doesn't clutter up your desktop like it used to.
[snip]
So, from the 4.0 days that made me curse it after how nice 3.5 was, I have to say, they have me hooked again.
4.0 is what made me ditch KDE. Now running gnome-based LinuxMint and loving it. I might try KDE again in a few years, but I was badly burnt by moving from 3.5.x to 4.0 so there will have to be a compelling reason to go back.
"Gender" is a grammatical term. "Sex" is a biological term. So yes, he did mean sex.
That about sums it up. I wish I had mod points.
The letter isn't the issue - the issue is at the device should be at the absolute root of the file system. I don't care if you call the pen-drive G:, pendrive or bubblegumpopannoyingnamesomething, but don't put it somewhere that isn't *immediately* visible...
The only place where it is *immediately* visible is if it appears as an icon on the desktop or opens in a new file manager window as soon as you insert the storage medium. Both Windows and Linux (gnome/KDE) can be set up to do this.
In Windows, to find the drive letters I have to go to "My Computer" or something like that. In Linux, KDE and gnome both have an equivalent to "My Computer" that shows all mounted storage media.
Both are equally visible.
Aw, c'mon. Any user who has only used Linux systems will call the Windows method weird. At least the Linux FIlesystem Heirarchy is logical.
Bullshit. My computer file systems are based on the storage devices they're hosted on - the storage devices ARE the root of the system. How is making an imaginary / root directory and then putting the storage media in some folder more logical than directly showing the drives?
How is some random letter more logical than /media/pendrive or /media/dvd, which is where a pendrive or DVD get mounted automagically on any modern linux distro?
I am opposed because it moves the burden of policing software licence compliance to businesses who may have little or no control over their overseas suppliers and who are not in the business of law enforcement.
It doesn't affect me personally. I live in New Zealand. In addition to my full time job (linesman for the local phone company) I also have a small organic market garden. Our accounts are done in OpenOffice running on Linux, so no compliance issues for us. In any case, we supply local supermarkets and do not export to the USA.
Purchasing products made by a company that is out of compliance with their software licences is not the same as purchasing stolen goods.
I think there are similarities, namely the ones that I highlighted
This is where I have to disagree.
Scenario 1: I buy bolts from a manufacture that has stolen the raw materials (eg steel) in order to make the bolts.
Scenario 2: I buy bolts from a manufacture that uses stolen software to track their stock.
You are lumping these two scenarios together. In reality they are totally different.
Yes I agree I should return bolts made from stolen materials, but the second scenario is nothing at all like that. If you are the legal owner of said stock tracking software and you come to me demanding redress for the actions of the manufacturer, with whom my only relationship is buying bolts to use in my product, I think you can guess where I'd tell you to go. Any law that lets you go after me in the second scenario is lacking in common sense.
And if the non-US supplier provides fake software audit certs, that should let the US company off the hook, because the US company has then acted in good faith.
It would probably afford some possibilities for suing / reneging on payments to those foreign suppliers. If I purchase stolen goods, I still have to give them back when the police show up, but I can seek redress from the person that sold me those goods. If I were knowingly receiving stolen goods, then I am liable myself however.
Purchasing products made by a company that is out of compliance with their software licences is not the same as purchasing stolen goods.
And of course the law should apply to all licence violations, including GPL violations. If Microsoft is doing this for the right reasons, surely they would extend the same protection to software vendors who choose to use Open Source licencing models. No? Ah, I see, Microsoft give their true motives away.
You seem to be suggesting that MS should go out and sue companies that violate GPL licences. What has that got to do with them? Do you go across town and sue people for actions they commit against people you don't even know and have nothing to do with you?
I'm not sure if your lack of comprehension is deliberate, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I'm saying that if Microsoft is going to sponsor a law protecting copyright holders, then there should not be exceptions in that law for certain classes of copyright holders.
I am not saying that Microsoft should sue GPL violators. I am saying that a Microsoft sponsored law change should not exclude GPL vendors from suing under the same circumstances that Microsoft can sue.
I don't believe it's physically possible to use commercial software in any but the smallest of organisations and at the same time be 100% correct in your licensing of it.
Except by over-licencing, buying more cover than you actually need.
If you're prepared to accept this, then laws such as this start to sound dangerously close to legalised extortion : "Nice company you've got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
Exactly.
How difficult is it to show that the software used is pirated or not? It is not like auditing thousands of pages of financial records. The company just has to show that it acquired a genuine license from Microsoft.
The law isn't that unreasonable
It would be more reasonable if the law provided the same protection to Open Source licence-holders.
So far none of the pro-microsoft comments on this article address this issue, which is adding weight to the astroturfing theory.
I'm not saying that you are astroturfing. I'm just waiting for your reply that you agree or disagree that Open Source licence-holders should also be protected. Just because I release software with an Open Source licence, doesn't mean you can mis-appropriate my code. Open Source licences have conditions too and the authors of the code retain their rights.
I haven't seen any of the /.ers who take Microsoft's side on this issue address the anomaly that Open Source licence-holders are not given the same protection by this law that is given to Microsoft.
Until one of the suspected astroturfers posts a comment supporting the removal of the Open Source exception, they will remain suspect.
And if the non-US supplier provides fake software audit certs, that should let the US company off the hook, because the US company has then acted in good faith.
And of course the law should apply to all licence violations, including GPL violations. If Microsoft is doing this for the right reasons, surely they would extend the same protection to software vendors who choose to use Open Source licencing models. No? Ah, I see, Microsoft give their true motives away.
If any of my representatives sign a trade deal with USA that involves adopting stupid American laws here, I will bitch-slap that representative until the cops drag me away.
I think it's drawing a long bow to put child labour in the same category as using a bootleg copy of Excel.
Licence violations are harder to police as well.
Also I would expect the likes of Microsoft to be more capable of looking after themselves than exploited poor people.
Huh, unfair competition laws? Don't you think it's only fair if companies can't buy from companies using pirated software who sell at lower price because frankly they don't need to pay as much costs as lawful companies?
If I contract out some work to an overseas company, am I expected to police the software they use internally?
And even if that has some merit, the exception for Open Source licence violations exposes this for what it is.
Thank God I don't live in America.
As soon as I saw this article come up on /. I wondered how long will it take for paid astroturfers to put a spin on this.
I wonder how the quality of the BB ecosystem will go over time though, sure it's a boon to have access to all the Android apps but will people develop native PlayBook apps knowing that they could just develop an Android one that runs on the PB *and* on Android devices?
I think this was one of IBM's mistakes with OS/2 Warp. It ran Win3.1 and DOS apps so well that no-one made native apps for OS/2.
...does six years a 'half a decade' make?
My math teachers taught me that a decade was 10 years, and half of 10 was five...
Six years, rounded to the nearest half decade, is half a decade.
This is why I demand a copyright release up front from any photographer I pay to take pictures. I also demand all photos taken, not just the ones the photographer thinks I might like. It costs more, but it's worth it to me.
I did this for my wedding photos in 2002. I shopped around for photographers who would do this and the only one who agreed was actually cheaper than the others and took very good photos. The first few that I approached laughed in my face and smugly told me no-one in their industry would do it. I have since advised all my friends as they got engaged to shop around for a photographer who will let you have all the photos (and raw files) and release copyright to you.
There's also a built-in assumption here, that the z% will want Windows -- but it's not a stretch -- not everyone has a nerd at hand to install Linux and configure it to make it work for them.
A few years ago my brother, who is not a computer nerd but reasonably self motivated as a user, downloaded a linux distro and asked me to help install it.
I visited him for the weekend (he lives in a different city) and sat in his living room watching TV with my nephews while he tried to see how far he could get. I told him to give me a yell if he got stuck.
When he finally called me over to the computer (one TV episode later, so probably about half an hour) he was finished.
Not every non-nerd needs a nerd to install Linux and configure it to make it work for them.
I do something similar, but not to the same extent. My date of birth on Facebook is the 1st of January 1970. I was born in the 70s so I've given them the right decade for their demographic stats out of courtesy. I have my first name and my last initial as my FB name. I don't allow access to 3rd party apps.
I don't friend anyone connected with my workplace and I don't post anything that could get me fired if someone from HR stumbled across it and linked it to me. I also don't friend people who are not connected to me offline.
Good lecture though. I will link to your post when advising others.