No one knows if you made 30 or 500 edits. Or if twenty previous tests were flops. (To do it properly, you should have informed someone before doing the test.)
And then you chose which pages and which facts to edit. (With a clear interest in these changes going unnoticed.)
No one knows how selective you're being in these posts which feed your business's interests.
There is nothing reliable, scientific, or objective about your tests.
Your guesses and theories about "intake of knowledge" are waaay off.
Thing is, wrong info is only likely to stay wrong if it gets no attention. Change Hugo Chavez's date of birth and it will be fixed in 2 minutes. Change the date of the marriage of one of his kids and then you have a chance of a lasting "hoax". The article about his kid might get a few thousand hits, but few reads and no one cares about the date of the kid's marriage. Your guess: "Bwaa hahah, thousands of people are convinced Ramon Chavez got married in April". My guess: hoax fools zero people.
The Jar'Edo Wens page is a great example. It lasted because it was only two lines long and not a single person edited those two lines during it's 9.8 year existence. I don't know what its hit count was, but the number of people fooled is surely close to zero. Probably exactly zero.
These stories of hoaxes are mostly just urban legends.
On the rare occasions that a "hoax" article such as "Jar'Edo Wens" stays around, it's because no one is visiting it.
No visits means it wasn't actually fooling anyone, so there was no hoax. It was just a dusty page, so dead and forgotten that no one had even thought of tagging it for deletion yet.
Truth is that there are very few people in the world who will bother inserting 30 hoax factoids into Wikipedia, and most people that try would get spotted quickly. It's very easy to spot suspicious contributors, and once you do then it's easy to check their other contributors. (Or they could edit anonymously, which also attracts heightened scrutiny.)
(Wikipedia does have problems. "Hoaxes" are mostly a distraction topic. Corporate and party-political editing is probably the big problem yet to be really exposed.)
Ok. Regarding section 10, the text itself says no licence provision can be predicated on a specific technology. Microsoft's licence does *exactly* that. It predicates a patent safety provision on being a.NET project. The osd-fail couldn't be clearer.
Then comes the annotation that says they were thinking of something else when they wrote section 10. So the question is: does the annotation narrow the meaning of section 10? No, because
1. while they say it "is aimed specifically", they don't say it's aimed exclusively at that one problem. By good draftsmanship or by pot luck they used broad wording which includes other problems.
2. the intro to the annotated version says "italicized sections below appear as annotations to the Open Source Definition (OSD) and are not a part of the OSD".
You say "Section 10 deals with how the license is signed and not the technology used in the code", but that's not true at all. You're completely ignoring the section itself (which is part of the OSD), replacing it with the annotation (which isn't part of the OSD), and you're rewording the annotation to imply exclusivity.
But, hypothetically, let's say we agree that your "exclusivity" interpretation of of the section 10 annotation is correct and that you are correct that the intention trumps the wording. I think we'll agree that the OSI never intended to let developers call their software "open source" and reserve the right to sue people if they don't like technical choices of how they use the code. If we agree on that, then your insistence on intention leads again to me being right about Microsoft's terms being in conflict with the OSD.
"The license granted hereunder will terminate (...) for anyone (...) alleging (...) that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable."
But there are ways that it's better than Microsoft's promise:
* It's a licence, rather than a promise, so it remains valid if Facebook transfers the patents to someone else * It's titled "Additional Grant of Patent Rights", so there's no implication of this document taking away any rights granted elsewhere (explicitly or implicitly)
I can't decide if the last line of the first paragraph is reasonable: "no license is granted under Facebook’s rights in any patent claims that are infringed by (...) the Software in combination with any software or other technology provided by you or a third party."
All sections and annotations of the OSD are unclear.
This lack of clarity allows for ridiculous interpretations, such claiming that nothing in sections 1, 3, 6, 7 or 10 prevents developers from reserving the right to sue people who modify their "open source" software.
However, I don't think you'll find many people who agree with such interpretations. I find it fairly disingenuous.
I'm not going to explain the OSD point by point, but I don't want you thinking I'm dodging the argument either, so if you pick one point and I'll respond to it.
We spent _hours_ reading the OSD and its annotations. I can tell you, it's an awful document to have to work with. Lots of ambiguity, some parts are incoherent/inconsistent, and the annotations are certainly no better.
Nothing in the OSD is clearly stated. The gist of it is spread across all the sections. If we hadn't used sections 3 and 10, we would have used 1, 6, and 7, or we could have used all five of those but we decided two sections were sufficient to make the point that the OSD isn't supposed to approve of suing people who reuse your code. I think we all agree on that much.
At the end of the day, Microsoft point to the unannotated version. Those are the standards they claim to be living by, so those are the standards we judged their licensing on.
Well, GNOME is the GNU project's primary desktop
on
GNOME 3.16 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The GNU project has two desktop environments: GNUstep and GNOME. Of the two, GNOME is the primary one.
For the history: in the late 90s, the KDE desktop was getting popular but it required people to install non-free Qt libraries. Two GNU projects were launched to counter this problem. One was Harmony, which aimed to be a Qt replacement, to allow KDE be run without installing non-free software. The other was GNOME.
Years later, when GNOME was successful, the Qt libraries were released as free software.
There was a third GNU project which aimed to make a graphical desktop, but they decided to first focus on a Scheme scripting engine. This effort produced GNU Guile, but no graphical desktop got made.
I think there was even a fourth project, but I can't think of it right now.
And the article you link to doesn't mention that the Peruvian government lets the Dakar Rally use said monument as part of its route.
Is it possible there's politics involved in approving race cars but criticising environmental activists who wear normal shoes instead of special shoes?
A few years ago I worked at a desk facing a wall and I got the feeling that it wasn't good for my eyes that they never focussed on anything more than a metre away, so I put a mirror on the wall and I think this has helped my eyes.
I tilted the mirror up a little so I could stare into it whenever I wanted without making eye contact with others.
Nonsense. I never mentioned security, but even if GNU/Linux's security were as bad as Windows', the point is that Windows comes with publicised backdoors (forced updates), unpublicised backdoors (put in for the NSA or others), and unnecessary technical limits to ensure incompatibilities with non-MS software or to lock the user into buying more MS software.
Every OS has a risk of accidental security flaws, but at least if you run free software (not just a Linux kernel but your OS and applications too) you don't get intentional flaws.
> only a vanishingly small percentage of the population really cares about hacking on their devices.
I don't hack the software on my laptop, but it's all free software and I know it's written by people who aren't trying to spy on me or to give me inconveniences so that I'll buy some premium version.
"Software Freedom Conservancy has filed a Comment... to legally permit circumvention of encryption for firmwares found on Smart TV products from manufacturers"
And another submission in part by Karen Sandler about allowing putting free software on medical devices such as the one in her heart: http://copyright.gov/1201/2015...
Everyone does. The explanation I read was that 3d video is complex and very different from word processors etc. and you need a very specialised interface.
There are various keyboard shortcut cheat sheets you can print and stick to the wall:
It's daunting for the first few days (yep, days) but you'll get used to the blender workflow.
To edit video you need to go into VSE mode. You have to learn it, you can't just brute force and guess your way around, so go watch a bunch of tutorial videos (search: blender vse or blender visual sequence editor) and you'll be flying.
Neighbour's greenhouse smashed by falling illegal drone (over my or neighbour's land), downed by my legal drone (over my land, possibly on autopilot). Who's liable?
If he means you shouldn't be free to insult religions, then I disagree with him on that, but I wonder if he meant that insults are rude and should be avoided....but I have to say, the example of getting a punch does seem to indicate that he's endorsing punishment for insults, so that would be like a legal limit. His statements are contradictory.
To explain the idea of softening copyright laws, I always think of food laws.
You can make your meals however you like, but once you start distributing them to the public you have a bunch of obligations (no poison, list ingredients and nutrients on package, note the best before date...).
I see culture similarly. If you write a great song and you don't want people to share it, then the simple solution is to keep it to yourself. Then it's your song. But if you distribute it to the public, it becomes part of society and the people who enjoy the song also have rights to it.
Taking the analogy any further would lead to silliness but I think it's useful just to dispel the misconception that our society is based on property laws giving absolute rights to the holder.
Phones and SIM cards can be bought and used anonymously in my country.
If you leave your phone on all the time, someone could look at where you spend your days and where you spend your nights and they'd have a very good starting point for identifying you. But, that takes effort, so it's not (yet) being done on a mass scale.
But my question was about using a dummy phone that you leave off and only turn it on when using Uber (or similar).
Slashdot Mirror
No one knows if you made 30 or 500 edits. Or if twenty previous tests were flops. (To do it properly, you should have informed someone before doing the test.)
And then you chose which pages and which facts to edit. (With a clear interest in these changes going unnoticed.)
No one knows how selective you're being in these posts which feed your business's interests.
There is nothing reliable, scientific, or objective about your tests.
Your guesses and theories about "intake of knowledge" are waaay off.
Thing is, wrong info is only likely to stay wrong if it gets no attention. Change Hugo Chavez's date of birth and it will be fixed in 2 minutes. Change the date of the marriage of one of his kids and then you have a chance of a lasting "hoax". The article about his kid might get a few thousand hits, but few reads and no one cares about the date of the kid's marriage. Your guess: "Bwaa hahah, thousands of people are convinced Ramon Chavez got married in April". My guess: hoax fools zero people.
The Jar'Edo Wens page is a great example. It lasted because it was only two lines long and not a single person edited those two lines during it's 9.8 year existence. I don't know what its hit count was, but the number of people fooled is surely close to zero. Probably exactly zero.
These stories of hoaxes are mostly just urban legends.
On the rare occasions that a "hoax" article such as "Jar'Edo Wens" stays around, it's because no one is visiting it.
No visits means it wasn't actually fooling anyone, so there was no hoax. It was just a dusty page, so dead and forgotten that no one had even thought of tagging it for deletion yet.
Truth is that there are very few people in the world who will bother inserting 30 hoax factoids into Wikipedia, and most people that try would get spotted quickly. It's very easy to spot suspicious contributors, and once you do then it's easy to check their other contributors. (Or they could edit anonymously, which also attracts heightened scrutiny.)
(Wikipedia does have problems. "Hoaxes" are mostly a distraction topic. Corporate and party-political editing is probably the big problem yet to be really exposed.)
And since you've never experienced all of its roundness, you can't *know* the Earth is round...
(Let's stop wasting our time.)
Ok. Regarding section 10, the text itself says no licence provision can be predicated on a specific technology. Microsoft's licence does *exactly* that. It predicates a patent safety provision on being a .NET project. The osd-fail couldn't be clearer.
Then comes the annotation that says they were thinking of something else when they wrote section 10. So the question is: does the annotation narrow the meaning of section 10? No, because
1. while they say it "is aimed specifically", they don't say it's aimed exclusively at that one problem. By good draftsmanship or by pot luck they used broad wording which includes other problems.
2. the intro to the annotated version says "italicized sections below appear as annotations to the Open Source Definition (OSD) and are not a part of the OSD".
You say "Section 10 deals with how the license is signed and not the technology used in the code", but that's not true at all. You're completely ignoring the section itself (which is part of the OSD), replacing it with the annotation (which isn't part of the OSD), and you're rewording the annotation to imply exclusivity.
But, hypothetically, let's say we agree that your "exclusivity" interpretation of of the section 10 annotation is correct and that you are correct that the intention trumps the wording. I think we'll agree that the OSI never intended to let developers call their software "open source" and reserve the right to sue people if they don't like technical choices of how they use the code. If we agree on that, then your insistence on intention leads again to me being right about Microsoft's terms being in conflict with the OSD.
The very last line is certainly bad:
"The license granted hereunder will terminate (...) for anyone (...) alleging (...) that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable."
But there are ways that it's better than Microsoft's promise:
* It's a licence, rather than a promise, so it remains valid if Facebook transfers the patents to someone else
* It's titled "Additional Grant of Patent Rights", so there's no implication of this document taking away any rights granted elsewhere (explicitly or implicitly)
I can't decide if the last line of the first paragraph is reasonable: "no license is granted under Facebook’s rights in any patent claims that
are infringed by (...) the Software in combination with any software or other technology provided by you or a third party."
All sections and annotations of the OSD are unclear.
This lack of clarity allows for ridiculous interpretations, such claiming that nothing in sections 1, 3, 6, 7 or 10 prevents developers from reserving the right to sue people who modify their "open source" software.
However, I don't think you'll find many people who agree with such interpretations. I find it fairly disingenuous.
I'm not going to explain the OSD point by point, but I don't want you thinking I'm dodging the argument either, so if you pick one point and I'll respond to it.
Hi, one of the authors here.
We spent _hours_ reading the OSD and its annotations. I can tell you, it's an awful document to have to work with. Lots of ambiguity, some parts are incoherent/inconsistent, and the annotations are certainly no better.
Nothing in the OSD is clearly stated. The gist of it is spread across all the sections. If we hadn't used sections 3 and 10, we would have used 1, 6, and 7, or we could have used all five of those but we decided two sections were sufficient to make the point that the OSD isn't supposed to approve of suing people who reuse your code. I think we all agree on that much.
At the end of the day, Microsoft point to the unannotated version. Those are the standards they claim to be living by, so those are the standards we judged their licensing on.
The GNU project has two desktop environments: GNUstep and GNOME. Of the two, GNOME is the primary one.
For the history: in the late 90s, the KDE desktop was getting popular but it required people to install non-free Qt libraries. Two GNU projects were launched to counter this problem. One was Harmony, which aimed to be a Qt replacement, to allow KDE be run without installing non-free software. The other was GNOME.
Years later, when GNOME was successful, the Qt libraries were released as free software.
There was a third GNU project which aimed to make a graphical desktop, but they decided to first focus on a Scheme scripting engine. This effort produced GNU Guile, but no graphical desktop got made.
I think there was even a fourth project, but I can't think of it right now.
Here's a transcript: http://libreplanet.org/wiki/GN...
And an article written about the keynote: http://www.networkworld.com/ar...
(Thanks to 2 AC's for pointing these links out.)
The whole event was recorded and streamed, so the keynote video should be available some time soon.
(I can't see any reason why the article summary didn't include the link.)
And the article you link to doesn't mention that the Peruvian government lets the Dakar Rally use said monument as part of its route.
Is it possible there's politics involved in approving race cars but criticising environmental activists who wear normal shoes instead of special shoes?
"One strike, you're out Greenpeace!"
Thanks for the 45 years of environmental activism, it was nice knowin' ye.
(I assume you hold companies to the same standard.)
A few years ago I worked at a desk facing a wall and I got the feeling that it wasn't good for my eyes that they never focussed on anything more than a metre away, so I put a mirror on the wall and I think this has helped my eyes.
I tilted the mirror up a little so I could stare into it whenever I wanted without making eye contact with others.
Nope. They've decided to hit 7nm and then call it a day.
Nonsense. I never mentioned security, but even if GNU/Linux's security were as bad as Windows', the point is that Windows comes with publicised backdoors (forced updates), unpublicised backdoors (put in for the NSA or others), and unnecessary technical limits to ensure incompatibilities with non-MS software or to lock the user into buying more MS software.
Every OS has a risk of accidental security flaws, but at least if you run free software (not just a Linux kernel but your OS and applications too) you don't get intentional flaws.
> only a vanishingly small percentage of the population really cares about hacking on their devices.
I don't hack the software on my laptop, but it's all free software and I know it's written by people who aren't trying to spy on me or to give me inconveniences so that I'll buy some premium version.
If you have Window, then MS has owned your PC.
If you have free software, then you "own" it.
"Software Freedom Conservancy has filed a Comment ... to legally permit circumvention of encryption for firmwares found on Smart TV products from manufacturers"
News:
http://sfconservancy.org/news/...
The submission:
https://sfconservancy.org/docs...
And another submission in part by Karen Sandler about allowing putting free software on medical devices such as the one in her heart:
http://copyright.gov/1201/2015...
> I find the Blender to be awfully unintuitive.
Everyone does. The explanation I read was that 3d video is complex and very different from word processors etc. and you need a very specialised interface.
There are various keyboard shortcut cheat sheets you can print and stick to the wall:
http://ostrovskeho.sk/ucivo/da...
https://www.google.be/search?q...
It's daunting for the first few days (yep, days) but you'll get used to the blender workflow.
To edit video you need to go into VSE mode. You have to learn it, you can't just brute force and guess your way around, so go watch a bunch of tutorial videos (search: blender vse or blender visual sequence editor) and you'll be flying.
Neighbour's greenhouse smashed by falling illegal drone (over my or neighbour's land), downed by my legal drone (over my land, possibly on autopilot). Who's liable?
If he means you shouldn't be free to insult religions, then I disagree with him on that, but I wonder if he meant that insults are rude and should be avoided. ...but I have to say, the example of getting a punch does seem to indicate that he's endorsing punishment for insults, so that would be like a legal limit. His statements are contradictory.
I think your expected to teach your kid to speak your language.
> who pays for a research where they are going to feed birds alcohol?
Exactly! I want names! Who paid for those two thimbles of rum and a half days work from six finches!
To explain the idea of softening copyright laws, I always think of food laws.
You can make your meals however you like, but once you start distributing them to the public you have a bunch of obligations (no poison, list ingredients and nutrients on package, note the best before date...).
I see culture similarly. If you write a great song and you don't want people to share it, then the simple solution is to keep it to yourself. Then it's your song. But if you distribute it to the public, it becomes part of society and the people who enjoy the song also have rights to it.
Taking the analogy any further would lead to silliness but I think it's useful just to dispel the misconception that our society is based on property laws giving absolute rights to the holder.
> We badly need anonymous phones?
Phones and SIM cards can be bought and used anonymously in my country.
If you leave your phone on all the time, someone could look at where you spend your days and where you spend your nights and they'd have a very good starting point for identifying you. But, that takes effort, so it's not (yet) being done on a mass scale.
But my question was about using a dummy phone that you leave off and only turn it on when using Uber (or similar).