Yes, reading books and newspapers while driving is probably a bad enough idea as be in something that should be illegal.
With that said, talking on a cell phone has been shown to be as statistically bad as drunk driving. You may want your freedoms, but I'd like the freedom to not be hit on the freeway because you were so self-absorbed in your call that you rammed into my car.
1. Ignore it. 2. Blame it on the [random nation name here]. 3. Try to weasel (it was a technical failure, we weren't really spying on you, etc) 4. Start a third major war when we're broke.
Because, you know, what this nation needs more than anything else is yet another war fought when we're broke from two other wars that were fought on credit (and against the wrong folks, even).
One of the worst things that BushCo did to us was to have us, as a nation, blow our collective wad against the wrong people. The PNAC neocons so wanted their Middle East dominating presence that they jumped too fast, leaving us nothing in reserve for when the real threat, complete with actual (as opposed to imagined) WMD development programs came along.
Let's just hope that some defense contractor didn't skimp on any of the required security related to the inevitable event of the technology falling into an enemies hands...
Classic case of "We're not doing anything wrong, and even if we are, it's not really wrong anyway, and you should let us keep doing these not-wrong things, because, really, they're the right thing to do, because they're not wrong and we're not doing them."
Yes, there is something wrong when the point of contact between the company and the rest of the world cannot give a definitive answer on whether or not it is legal to redistribute works generated with their product.
The forum index is what MS points to as their FAQ on all things express in various threads. Not really a FAQ in the traditional sense, but what is referred to as such by forum moderators.
Except for where Microsoft themselves says no for 2008 in once place and gives a non-committal AFAIK while removing references to commercial publication from their FAQ.
If you want professional level developers writing for free for your platform, you gotta give them the tools for free to do so. Or at least make it cheap enough that it isn't a boundary.
Kind of makes me wonder about a few things concerning the App Store and Visual Studio licensing.
Since the app store will be able to kill apps, will they use stricter controls on ownership of their compiler, or will they lower the price and open it up in hopes of pulling open source devs away from the Linux world and also increasing the number of available apps?
Will someone with a student license be able to freely disseminate compiled programs?
Would they be far sighted enough to allow a low price version of the IDE/compiler that isn't allowed to be used for generation of programs for sale, but is for free apps on the app store? (Given that they can kill apps, they could easily ensure that for-pay apps are compiled with a properly licensed version of the compiler; I'm sure they could embed that or have some validation process as part of their licensed developer program or whatever...)
However, in our monopolistic oriented version, where the invisible hand is a puppet and the corporations pay our legislators to keep the money pipes open to the top, they aren't libertarian. They're neo-conservative, because that's the fastest and most efficient path to even more money for those who already have the lion's share.
Slashdot Mirror
Do know evil?
Honestly. It'll lower the chance of your getting shot somewhat.
So raise the fine.
Yes, reading books and newspapers while driving is probably a bad enough idea as be in something that should be illegal.
With that said, talking on a cell phone has been shown to be as statistically bad as drunk driving. You may want your freedoms, but I'd like the freedom to not be hit on the freeway because you were so self-absorbed in your call that you rammed into my car.
Except that studies show that driving while using one's cell phone are as dangerous as DUI:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html
Hands free with voice recognition.
Give the cop five bucks per paid ticket. Dock him 50 for each successfully disputed ticket.
Other possible options:
1. Ignore it.
2. Blame it on the [random nation name here].
3. Try to weasel (it was a technical failure, we weren't really spying on you, etc)
4. Start a third major war when we're broke.
Which would you have chosen?
Because, you know, what this nation needs more than anything else is yet another war fought when we're broke from two other wars that were fought on credit (and against the wrong folks, even).
One of the worst things that BushCo did to us was to have us, as a nation, blow our collective wad against the wrong people. The PNAC neocons so wanted their Middle East dominating presence that they jumped too fast, leaving us nothing in reserve for when the real threat, complete with actual (as opposed to imagined) WMD development programs came along.
Let's just hope that some defense contractor didn't skimp on any of the required security related to the inevitable event of the technology falling into an enemies hands...
They shouldn't have had to do that; there should have been a way to blow it up remotely.
Actually, it's like parking your car on the street in front of your neighbor's house and having them tow it on to their yard and put it up on blocks.
(Well, somebody had to make the car analogy....)
Classic case of "We're not doing anything wrong, and even if we are, it's not really wrong anyway, and you should let us keep doing these not-wrong things, because, really, they're the right thing to do, because they're not wrong and we're not doing them."
... itself also undoubtedly "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."
Is there such thing as an unarmed, remote controlled guided mis^H^H^Haircraft?
Cost of a predator drone: $30M
Cost of a cow: $2K
So, as soon as they use a predator to round up 15,000 cows stolen, they'll break even....
What do they need that info for? I'm sure that binding real names to IP's is of use to some folks....
Yes, there is something wrong when the point of contact between the company and the rest of the world cannot give a definitive answer on whether or not it is legal to redistribute works generated with their product.
The forum index is what MS points to as their FAQ on all things express in various threads. Not really a FAQ in the traditional sense, but what is referred to as such by forum moderators.
Except for where Microsoft themselves says no for 2008 in once place and gives a non-committal AFAIK while removing references to commercial publication from their FAQ.
I think that the key word here is "hobbyist".
If you want professional level developers writing for free for your platform, you gotta give them the tools for free to do so. Or at least make it cheap enough that it isn't a boundary.
Hmmm....
Well, 2008 could not be:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/Vsexpressinstall/thread/f280e5b7-f17a-4984-9b08-28c5449b6417
However, the moderators on social.msdn are saying "as far as I know, yes"
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/Vsexpressinstall/thread/e471aff6-90fd-432b-8388-0d9a65a394b0
But it's not in the FAQ, and I can't find the actual license agreement.
Regardless, express is not the full compiler; it is a somewhat stripped down entry-level version.
Not complete (e.g., no ATL, MFC, some other core stuff). And binaries are not redistributable for pay:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hs24szh9.aspx
Kind of makes me wonder about a few things concerning the App Store and Visual Studio licensing.
Since the app store will be able to kill apps, will they use stricter controls on ownership of their compiler, or will they lower the price and open it up in hopes of pulling open source devs away from the Linux world and also increasing the number of available apps?
Will someone with a student license be able to freely disseminate compiled programs?
Would they be far sighted enough to allow a low price version of the IDE/compiler that isn't allowed to be used for generation of programs for sale, but is for free apps on the app store? (Given that they can kill apps, they could easily ensure that for-pay apps are compiled with a properly licensed version of the compiler; I'm sure they could embed that or have some validation process as part of their licensed developer program or whatever...)
Already defeated By-Tor
Yes, the Snow Dog did.
In a free market, I'd agree with you.
However, in our monopolistic oriented version, where the invisible hand is a puppet and the corporations pay our legislators to keep the money pipes open to the top, they aren't libertarian. They're neo-conservative, because that's the fastest and most efficient path to even more money for those who already have the lion's share.