True, but that is *not* the extent of the FSF's mission. They want to cover use too. Just look at the GPLv3 drafts, and the webservices clauses. They only took them out due to extreme backlash, but anyone, *anyone* licensing their code under the GPL should not put the forward compatibility clause in; you have no idea what the nuts at the FSF might do--they already proved once that they were willing to drastically change the terms into something that doesn't even resemble the GPL.
Yep, because when Nike doesn't go in somewhere to charge $.50 an hour to make shoes, alternative jobs will magically spring up that pay the people $7.25. What's more likely is the competition from Nike would have driven up the cost above what they could get without Nike.
The US ostensibly doesn't care about civilian casualties, and they haven't ever since they stopped reporting estimates of them. That's right, the government gives no estimate of how many civilians have been killed in any modern war. There are two possibilities: they didn't make estimates while planning attacks and didn't perform any investigation after attacks to see the effects of their strategies, or they know the estimates and because they are damning they don't report them. So you see, no matter which possibility is true there is one invariant: the US doesn't give a damn about civilian casualties.
It is environmentally friendly, compared to a nuclear bomb, and it will enable us to ensure national security and at the same time stand up to international terrorism in any part of the globe and in any situation, Two of the biggest buzzwords: "environmentally friendly" and "international terrorism". Neither of which apply to this bomb. Can you really fight terrorists with giant bombs?
Stallman is full of it. The whole GPLv3 thing is a good example of why you shouldn't put the "order later" clause into your GPL'd software, and why you certainly shouldn't assign the copyright to the FSF. While the final GPLv3 largely didn't do anything (the torrent change was nice), the fact that early drafts included such *usage* mandates as the web services clauses shows just how unprincipled the FSF really is. I wouldn't want the danger that in the future people could "give back" in a way that wouldn't allow users to *use* the software any way they want. The GPL has always been a distribution license covering copying, it's not a frickin' EULA!
That's totally wrong; any birds flying at night basically have night vision-they aren't flying blind, or they would smack into trees all the time. Secondly, birds constantly get chopped up by wind ginnies even during broad daylight.
A simple contract between the machinist and the inventor would solve all of that (though then the lawyer who drafted the contract could steal it... just make a contract with him, using another lawyer, and of course you will need another contract for the *other* lawyer.. it's turtles all the way down).
The GPL people sure complained about Tivo exploiting a loophole in their license, so it isn't just whether or not a license technically allows something (at least when the GPL babies are the ones getting 'hurt')--it is that you are decent person and you aren't trying dick over some guy that wrote something just because you technically can.
The reason they are immoral is that were they 'moral', people would be less willing to give to the church, which is of course tax exempt (in the 'States at least).
>They have already said that this is strictly for early in the game's life cycle when its most at risk of being pirated. At some point in the future, the whole procedure will go away.
So what? The box says "online activation required". They are under no obligation to waive this requirement at a later date, so why should we trust them on their non-binding word? Why didn't they put that on the box?
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhh Virgin mobile anyone?
True, but that is *not* the extent of the FSF's mission. They want to cover use too. Just look at the GPLv3 drafts, and the webservices clauses. They only took them out due to extreme backlash, but anyone, *anyone* licensing their code under the GPL should not put the forward compatibility clause in; you have no idea what the nuts at the FSF might do--they already proved once that they were willing to drastically change the terms into something that doesn't even resemble the GPL.
Say it isn't so.
Yep, because when Nike doesn't go in somewhere to charge $.50 an hour to make shoes, alternative jobs will magically spring up that pay the people $7.25. What's more likely is the competition from Nike would have driven up the cost above what they could get without Nike.
I don't know, if we go by past trends, the price of this device will steadily increase.
Completely wrong and out of line with US Copyright Law.
The US ostensibly doesn't care about civilian casualties, and they haven't ever since they stopped reporting estimates of them. That's right, the government gives no estimate of how many civilians have been killed in any modern war. There are two possibilities: they didn't make estimates while planning attacks and didn't perform any investigation after attacks to see the effects of their strategies, or they know the estimates and because they are damning they don't report them. So you see, no matter which possibility is true there is one invariant: the US doesn't give a damn about civilian casualties.
Stallman is full of it. The whole GPLv3 thing is a good example of why you shouldn't put the "order later" clause into your GPL'd software, and why you certainly shouldn't assign the copyright to the FSF. While the final GPLv3 largely didn't do anything (the torrent change was nice), the fact that early drafts included such *usage* mandates as the web services clauses shows just how unprincipled the FSF really is. I wouldn't want the danger that in the future people could "give back" in a way that wouldn't allow users to *use* the software any way they want. The GPL has always been a distribution license covering copying, it's not a frickin' EULA!
It's a great game, but I read about it on ancientgamehistory.com the other day and never would have expected to see this here.
The server is mostly written in python, not the client (though it does have some python). They aren't talking about the server here.
This rather famous drop out warns against game schools.
Choice 3: start the hearing at 1PM Eastern
If I could only have this photo, slowly moving over the course of the day, as my desktop background, I would be in heaven.
That's totally wrong; any birds flying at night basically have night vision-they aren't flying blind, or they would smack into trees all the time. Secondly, birds constantly get chopped up by wind ginnies even during broad daylight.
"and some nebula's and galaxy's
could be discerned with the un-aided eye.."
I've got to question this as we didn't discover other galaxy's until around the 1900's.
A simple contract between the machinist and the inventor would solve all of that (though then the lawyer who drafted the contract could steal it... just make a contract with him, using another lawyer, and of course you will need another contract for the *other* lawyer.. it's turtles all the way down).
I've made it a point that anytime this saying is applicable, it should be liberally applied: quit being such a baby.
Yep, it was posted to Slashdot as well, but I can't find the article.
The GPL people sure complained about Tivo exploiting a loophole in their license, so it isn't just whether or not a license technically allows something (at least when the GPL babies are the ones getting 'hurt')--it is that you are decent person and you aren't trying dick over some guy that wrote something just because you technically can.
The reason they are immoral is that were they 'moral', people would be less willing to give to the church, which is of course tax exempt (in the 'States at least).
and BOOM!
Since a sphere is a spheroid, you are wrong.
> (I mean seriously.... a crap dell of for a few hundred more something that won't burn down the dorm room),
Funny, Apple was subject to the exact same battery problems. I like Apple, but quit being a wanker.
>They have already said that this is strictly for early in the game's life cycle when its most at risk of being pirated. At some point in the future, the whole procedure will go away.
So what? The box says "online activation required". They are under no obligation to waive this requirement at a later date, so why should we trust them on their non-binding word? Why didn't they put that on the box?