Haha, you're so funny when you're wrong, drinkypoo. Y'know whenever this subject comes up, there's always somebody who says this, and... it's always you. Do you feel lonely? Looking for friends who agree with you? You should get more popular opinions if so.
We're literally defining what "Open Source" means. Open means whatever the hell you want it to mean. But Open Source means what we say it means (and you can feel free to disagree but you'll be holding the wrong end of the manure fork).
There's no question that MS is doing this specifically to confuse Actually, there is. Shared Source came about because Microsoft wanted to distribute source code for *some* of their products to *some* of their customers under *some* conditions (mostly, non-commercial). Obviously not Open Source. Trouble is that their customers started asking for Open Source licenses, so they created the Ms-PL and Ms-Rl. But they weren't approved by OSI and Microsoft couldn't call them Open Source without infringing our trademark. Thus, they put them in their Shared Source program.
Unfortunately, that created problems later when they decided to get them approved. They now have to re-brand these licenses as Open Source, which will take a while.
If it's a traditional botnet (running on machines owned by other people) then it sounds WAY unConstitutional to me. The 3rd amendment (which gets no respect):
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.
Given that AGW is a scam (nobody knows whether water vapor increases or decreases warming, but everybody is agreed that it has a greater effect than carbon dioxide) there should be no wonder that the tactics used to combat it will also be scams.
In other, shorter words: it's okay to use ineffective methods to address human-caused global warming because nobody knows if there really will be any.
The difference being that a bug in one thread affects every other thread, whereas a bug in one program is a bug in one program, and can be debugged in isolation.
Why should the government pay for ANY health care? Why not have house care? Why not clothing care? Why not food care? Why not shoe care? Why not hair care? Why not computer care? At some point you need to draw a line. I draw the line back at the start -- government should stick to keeping the peace -- if we have peace, we can do everything ourselves.
Oh, and as for your assertion that your friend has no health care, I assume that they have no Band-Aids in their house, no aspirin, no sun block, has never been immunized, and has never been to see a doctor. No? Perhaps you mean that your friend doesn't have "enough" health care, at which point we can argue what is "enough" health care.
Handing a computer to a kid who's brain is damaged from malnutrition does nothing except add another life-long banner ad clicker to the Internet. Then I suppose it's too much to ask you to stop clicking on banner ads?
It's an education project, not a technology project. The point is not to get technology into kids hands. The point is to create a system for better education of the entire world's children. If it could be done with books, then so be it.
Slowaris is behind threading. Because it was so slow to create new processes, the only way they could compete with Linux (which forks very quickly) was to create threading. Threading *is* faster than forking, but it also creates HUGE synchronization problems. You can overcome these problems, at the cost of more complicated, more fragile programs that take more time to write and more time to get right.
I know of no case law, because I've never heard of anybody being accused, much less convicted, of copyright violation when making fair use of a work which is not being sold.
Can you imagine how stupid a plaintiff would look in a court of law, when suing someone for infringing a copyright on an item previously but not currently sold? The judge would look at him over the top of her glasses and say: Judge: "So why not sell it to them? Why are you in my court, wasting my time?" Microsoft: "But Judge, we want them to sell them Vista, not XP!" Judge: "Are they the same thing? Is Vista of equal quality to XP?" Microsoft: "Well, no." Judge: "Defendant is guilty of copying XP. The fine shall be set to the most recent retail price of XP, and they may continue to run XP."
Or for that matter, can you imagine a jury convicting someone of infringing copyright in that manner?
There's no case law because there's no case to be made.
Hehe, you're so funny when you're desperate. If copyright is a right to own property, how can it expire?
Copyright isn't property, it's a bargain: we give you a monopoly on selling your work for a limited time, and in exchange, we agree not to copy it. Copyright doesn't work if either side breaks this bargain. Creators STARTED the copyright disrepect by not limiting the length of copyright, so you should not be surprised to find that the public is disrespecting copyright.
The phrase ("open source") was in common use in the Unix community prior to the OSI You exaggerate. A few people used it a few times. There was no common use like you see today. We started promoting it as having a fixed meaning written down, and the usage shot up.
Your understanding of trademark law is weak. A descriptive phrase like "Open Source" may be unregisterable initially, but over time can acquire (has acquired!) a secondary meaning, just like "Windows" now refers to a Microsoft operating system.
Yes, we know about the use of Open Source in the intelligence community. Given that it is a completely different trademark field, there is no conflict. The phrase was chosen in part because of the way the intelligence community uses it.
Slashdot Mirror
Vice-versa. The term started off generic, and has acquired a secondary meaning.
Haha, you're so funny when you're wrong, drinkypoo. Y'know whenever this subject comes up, there's always somebody who says this, and ... it's always you. Do you feel lonely? Looking for friends who agree with you? You should get more popular opinions if so.
We're literally defining what "Open Source" means. Open means whatever the hell you want it to mean. But Open Source means what we say it means (and you can feel free to disagree but you'll be holding the wrong end of the manure fork).
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
Unfortunately, that created problems later when they decided to get them approved. They now have to re-brand these licenses as Open Source, which will take a while.
OMG! Shared Source is not Open Source! Gifs at 11! In other news, the sun rose today and water ran downhill.
I'm sorry, but this is SUCH a stupid article.
Given that AGW is a scam (nobody knows whether water vapor increases or decreases warming, but everybody is agreed that it has a greater effect than carbon dioxide) there should be no wonder that the tactics used to combat it will also be scams.
In other, shorter words: it's okay to use ineffective methods to address human-caused global warming because nobody knows if there really will be any.
http://tinydns.org/djbdns-1.05-ignoreip2.patch
Turns A records for certain IP addresses back into NXDOMAIN results.
I'm with the Taco on this one ... it's going to be teh suxors. The trailer has convinced me: don't bother.
The difference being that a bug in one thread affects every other thread, whereas a bug in one program is a bug in one program, and can be debugged in isolation.
Uh-huh, and how are stock prices doing now? They're in the shitter and I Blame You and your threads.
Why should the government pay for ANY health care? Why not have house care? Why not clothing care? Why not food care? Why not shoe care? Why not hair care? Why not computer care? At some point you need to draw a line. I draw the line back at the start -- government should stick to keeping the peace -- if we have peace, we can do everything ourselves.
Oh, and as for your assertion that your friend has no health care, I assume that they have no Band-Aids in their house, no aspirin, no sun block, has never been immunized, and has never been to see a doctor. No? Perhaps you mean that your friend doesn't have "enough" health care, at which point we can argue what is "enough" health care.
It's an education project, not a technology project. The point is not to get technology into kids hands. The point is to create a system for better education of the entire world's children. If it could be done with books, then so be it.
Slowaris is behind threading. Because it was so slow to create new processes, the only way they could compete with Linux (which forks very quickly) was to create threading. Threading *is* faster than forking, but it also creates HUGE synchronization problems. You can overcome these problems, at the cost of more complicated, more fragile programs that take more time to write and more time to get right.
Linux doesn't need threading.
I know of no case law, because I've never heard of anybody being accused, much less convicted, of copyright violation when making fair use of a work which is not being sold.
Can you imagine how stupid a plaintiff would look in a court of law, when suing someone for infringing a copyright on an item previously but not currently sold? The judge would look at him over the top of her glasses and say:
Judge: "So why not sell it to them? Why are you in my court, wasting my time?"
Microsoft: "But Judge, we want them to sell them Vista, not XP!"
Judge: "Are they the same thing? Is Vista of equal quality to XP?"
Microsoft: "Well, no."
Judge: "Defendant is guilty of copying XP. The fine shall be set to the most recent retail price of XP, and they may continue to run XP."
Or for that matter, can you imagine a jury convicting someone of infringing copyright in that manner?
There's no case law because there's no case to be made.
Hehe, you're so funny when you're desperate. If copyright is a right to own property, how can it expire?
Copyright isn't property, it's a bargain: we give you a monopoly on selling your work for a limited time, and in exchange, we agree not to copy it. Copyright doesn't work if either side breaks this bargain. Creators STARTED the copyright disrepect by not limiting the length of copyright, so you should not be surprised to find that the public is disrespecting copyright.
Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the Congressional medical system, every public employees' health care -- all health care paid-for by taxpayers.
Your understanding of trademark law is weak. A descriptive phrase like "Open Source" may be unregisterable initially, but over time can acquire (has acquired!) a secondary meaning, just like "Windows" now refers to a Microsoft operating system.
Yes, we know about the use of Open Source in the intelligence community. Given that it is a completely different trademark field, there is no conflict. The phrase was chosen in part because of the way the intelligence community uses it.
I did attack his statement. I'm saying that as part of work of FICTION it need have no basis in reality. Attacking Heinlein would be ad-hominem.
I doubt that facts would change your mind. Your opinion seems pretty fixed.
When The Gap starts employing dragoon squads to force customers into their stores, THEN and ONLY THEN will you be talking sense.
I don't think we have any opinion on what "Open" means. We have a strong opinion on what "Open Source" means.