I dunno... when I'm watching something on TiVo, I don't want to wait, so I always skip the adverts. That said, this...
Besides, if you are not lazy, you are not a good target audience for the advertisers - if you are active enough to put some effort into skipping ads, you are probably also active enough to make your own market research and you generally don't buy something just because you saw it on TV.
...is totally true. I have no memory for advertising because I don't think of it as a source of information, only polemic and lies.
I have reason to believe that works I have written (mostly slashdot comments) are being downloaded via the naughty interweb and therefore I should be allowed to levy a tax on everyone who ever, ever accesses it. Ever ever ever.
Do you really think that you have to get the new version of anti-spam *software* every few months? Settings, sure, but not software.
Sounds to me like SA has improved lots recently, but I'm hardly seeing the suggested conspiracy. It's not like Ballmer comparing RH6 to XP the other week!
p>
J.
That is the oldest canard (read: excuse) in the FOSS zealot's book. And I say that as a regular proscelitiser myself.
How old is Red Hat 9? It was the current release till earlier this year, when they launched Fedora. So, he used a version that is a few months old. Whoop-de-fuck. 'Very old' my arse.
Bollocks, the reviewer said in the damn article why he used it. It's cos that's what comes with RH9. I've just checked on the RH web site, and 9 is their current release.
So if you want to whinge at anyone, whinge at RH. At least this shows that reviewers now think they should include FOSS in their reviews.
If I understand correctly, under the FSF definition, patches--binary or source, and dynamic linking of libraries would be considered derived works for purposes of the GPL, even when the creator of such works does not distribute the original work.
I think you're mistaken on one important count: the sole action that leads to a requirement to release GPL source is distribution. If you modify something for your personal sole use, that's no problem. If you roll it out across your company or to your customers, then you've got to show code.
That said, this...
<snip>the copyright law does not grant creators of derivative works the right to distribute those works without prior authorization from the copyright holder of the orginal work. In the the case of GPLed software, the GPL provides the terms of this authorization.
...is an excellent rebuttal of that point, and I hope (and expect) the crack-ninja-lawyers at IBM have thought of it.
It's my opinion that Darl et al will argue that: because the GPL requires a licensee of GPL code to give up the rights they have under copyright law to their additions/derivatives (instead of giving up money) then it is not an allowable license.
It's total bollocks when you think about it - after all, any copyright owner gives up rights they have under copyright law when they accept money from a publisher! However, that's my tuppence (like 2 cents, but English).
Can anyone tell me if these files would be useful to anyone, most of all IBM?
Mate, first of all, good idea.
Second: Yes, IBM probably would find these files useful.
Third: I'll bet the farm that IBM's legions of highly trained ninja-attack-lawyers - like Wolfram and Hart with attitude - already dled the files before they were yanked. Even if they didn't, they could probably get them via discovery processes. So you don't have to worry too much 'bout your own legality;-)
You might also be interested to hear that gout can be caused by incomplete protein breakdown. Both my brother and I have had it, due to exercising (cycling to work) and then just stopping, no warm down. In his case it was even worse: cycle, train, cycle.
The warm down, which in my case just means taking the last half mile easier, is all it takes to avoid the problem.
Of course, the average fat, bearded, unwashed, sysadmin doesn't cycle to work anyway...
Even if were 0-sum, at least it wouldn't all be being burnt Mb>right in your face like it is now.
I hate smog, and it's getting worse here (UK). When I go up to London, the sky colours are wrong from all the crap in the air. I'd really hate to live in LA.
Oh come on, Firebird isn't 1.0 yet, is it? Latest is 0.6.1. Have you reported the bug to Bugzilla? Currently Moz is the alternative, and Firebird is the pretender in the wings. There's no requirement to 'improve Mozilla', but you're right that we need to get the word out.
It's like everyone's driving around in old but shiny cars and simply can't see that there are other cars with better brakes/steering/suspension. The only ways the car companies get that point across is by pointing at accidents and advertising their own brakes as better.
So... I'm beginning to think that a good old fashioned c-drive-formatting worm is the answer. No, I'm not serious, but how else can we (developers) get consumers to realise they are using an old, worn-out piece of shit like IE?
Similarly there is a problem with newspapers around the world who can't tell the difference between "in the public interest" and "of interest to the public". Sigh.
You 'obviously' didn't read the text at the very top of the page at IBM:
The eServer self-management technologies enable the server to protect itself, to detect and recover from errors, to change and configure itself, and to optimize itself, in the presence of problems and changes, for maximum performance with minimum outside intervention. [My emphasis.]
Sounds to me like prior art. So, not so insightful after all, huh?
"How come you chose as your public sample of 'infringing code' in Linux a routine which can easily be found in textbooks going back over thirty years? Surely this does not represent due diligence by your company, even if you have evidence of other, real, infringements."
TPS web site has forms where you can fill this stuff in. *They* will trace the company for you from the phone number they used - which *can't* be faked! I've done it, it works.
I like that, and arguably it's a form of slander/libel. The parents are loudly blaming someone else for the failure - clearly a counter-suit is in order.
For me, ultimately, if there is no evidence of a known distribution curve in the responses, then there's no possibilty of a case. If 19,999,998 kids have shown no violent tendencies as a result, and two kids (who had access to violent material, guns, but sadly not effective parents) do show violent tendencies, then I see no curve and hence no relationship.
This sort of bullshit 'cause-and-effect' means everyone seeing a falling apple should have come up with a theory of gravity.... hmmm... perhaps I can sue Granny Smith for failing to provide me with a groung-breaking discovery;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Justin.
-
pay-to-view programmes
-
pay-to-view channels
-
blip-verts
-
embedded advertising.
Only blip-verts could be more annoying than a traditional ad break.Justin.
Justin. But call me Darl.
Sounds to me like SA has improved lots recently, but I'm hardly seeing the suggested conspiracy. It's not like Ballmer comparing RH6 to XP the other week! p> J.
That is the oldest canard (read: excuse) in the FOSS zealot's book. And I say that as a regular proscelitiser myself.
How old is Red Hat 9? It was the current release till earlier this year, when they launched Fedora. So, he used a version that is a few months old. Whoop-de-fuck. 'Very old' my arse.
J.
So if you want to whinge at anyone, whinge at RH. At least this shows that reviewers now think they should include FOSS in their reviews.
Justin.
I think you're mistaken on one important count: the sole action that leads to a requirement to release GPL source is distribution. If you modify something for your personal sole use, that's no problem. If you roll it out across your company or to your customers, then you've got to show code.
That said, this...
<snip>the copyright law does not grant creators of derivative works the right to distribute those works without prior authorization from the copyright holder of the orginal work. In the the case of GPLed software, the GPL provides the terms of this authorization.
J.
It's my opinion that Darl et al will argue that: because the GPL requires a licensee of GPL code to give up the rights they have under copyright law to their additions/derivatives (instead of giving up money) then it is not an allowable license.
It's total bollocks when you think about it - after all, any copyright owner gives up rights they have under copyright law when they accept money from a publisher! However, that's my tuppence (like 2 cents, but English).
Justin.
Mate, first of all, good idea.
Second: Yes, IBM probably would find these files useful.
Third: I'll bet the farm that IBM's legions of highly trained ninja-attack-lawyers - like Wolfram and Hart with attitude - already dled the files before they were yanked. Even if they didn't, they could probably get them via discovery processes. So you don't have to worry too much 'bout your own legality ;-)
J.
If it helps, I handed my g/f a Linux/KDE/OOo desktop, and she was absolutely fine.
J.
I'll do it! I look good in a suit. I'm English too, and I know that impresses you guys. Now, who's going to pay my flights to the US?
J.
Do you really think spammers are going to install bluetooth devices every ten yards to acheive that...?
Justin.
Really, they must just mean that they can't be buggered to organise 100 teams.
J.
The warm down, which in my case just means taking the last half mile easier, is all it takes to avoid the problem.
Of course, the average fat, bearded, unwashed, sysadmin doesn't cycle to work anyway...
J.
Hence there are an awful lot of innocent people out there with whom SCO are breaking their licence terms. Got get 'em!
Justin.
J.
I hate smog, and it's getting worse here (UK). When I go up to London, the sky colours are wrong from all the crap in the air. I'd really hate to live in LA.
J.
It's like everyone's driving around in old but shiny cars and simply can't see that there are other cars with better brakes/steering/suspension. The only ways the car companies get that point across is by pointing at accidents and advertising their own brakes as better.
So... I'm beginning to think that a good old fashioned c-drive-formatting worm is the answer. No, I'm not serious, but how else can we (developers) get consumers to realise they are using an old, worn-out piece of shit like IE?
J.
Similarly there is a problem with newspapers around the world who can't tell the difference between "in the public interest" and "of interest to the public". Sigh.
J.
The eServer self-management technologies enable the server to protect itself, to detect and recover from errors, to change and configure itself, and to optimize itself, in the presence of problems and changes, for maximum performance with minimum outside intervention. [My emphasis.]
Sounds to me like prior art. So, not so insightful after all, huh?
J.
"How come you chose as your public sample of 'infringing code' in Linux a routine which can easily be found in textbooks going back over thirty years? Surely this does not represent due diligence by your company, even if you have evidence of other, real, infringements."
J/
Or you can use 'fuckthis' as both username and password. I always find that easier to remember ;-)
You missed the dot out of goatse.cx ;-)
For me, ultimately, if there is no evidence of a known distribution curve in the responses, then there's no possibilty of a case. If 19,999,998 kids have shown no violent tendencies as a result, and two kids (who had access to violent material, guns, but sadly not effective parents) do show violent tendencies, then I see no curve and hence no relationship.
This sort of bullshit 'cause-and-effect' means everyone seeing a falling apple should have come up with a theory of gravity.... hmmm... perhaps I can sue Granny Smith for failing to provide me with a groung-breaking discovery ;-)
J.