Copyright law exists to guarantee your control over it. According to your position, the GPL is unenforceable and meaningless because GPL code is posted to the internet. The GPL is, after all, a copyright license.
Slashdot: "Pirate Bay Back Online" Zealot: "Yes! Take that, MPAA and RIAA. Copyright and intellectual property don't exist. Piracy isn't theft." (+5 Insightful) Rabble-rouser: "But the GPL is a copyright license. GPL code is intellectual property. Doesn't anybody care about artists getting ripped off?" (-1 Flamebait)
Slashdot: "GPL Code Stolen By Some Company" Zealot: "Why doesn't the FSF sue them for millions of dollars? This is an outrage. How dare they steal code, those thieves." (+5 Insightful) Rabble-rouser: "You realize you have two contradictory, self-serving positions, right?" (-1 Troll)
Is Slashdot on the side of the company or the author? Copyright law is constantly described as being "broken" around here, and posters are often on the side of music pirates and other pro-piracy entities, like Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party.
I suspect, however, that because a company made the violation, people will side with the author. Which suggests that it's really more about anti-corporatism than anti-copyright, which explains why people get up in arms over GPL code theft despite the double standard (the GPL is a copyright license).
An intelligent person would also capitalize and punctuate.
Telling people that correlation does not equate to causation is just a reminder to others that the fact one things occurs after another doesn't automatically mean there's a connection. For you to call such people "unintelligent" is bizarre, especially in light of how many articles Slashdot posts that do imply that two events are connected when they aren't necessarily (and often skewed toward the agenda of the community here; e.g., there have been articles claiming that piracy boosted sales without skepticism, while articles that claimed piracy hurt sales were mocked, often by posters stating that--you guessed it--correlation does not equal causation).
I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder against users of the phrase or why you consider it useless noise. When you say that an intelligent person would look at the merits of the implied causation, that's what they're doing when they tell you that just because something happened around the time of something else, it doesn't mean there's a connection. In other words, there is no obvious causation at play.
I'd further suggest that people who accuse others of being unintelligent and trying to sound clever are in fact trying to sound clever themselves.
Are we really linking to stories at the left-wing Huffington Post? I can't imagine people being okay with Brietbart editorials being linked here.
It seems as if pro net neutrality just the assumed position at Slashdot or something. Not everyone here thinks alike or agrees such legislation was ever necessary.
So even if you support regulation of the internet and the foot in the door for greater control over allowable traffic that brings with it, even if you support that - shouldn't we at least wait and see IF issues arise so we can construct regulation that actually solves a problem instead of just being there to make us all feel warm and fuzzy?.
How is having one government provider somehow different from having one private provider, other than that it's much harder to change governments? I've never really understood how people logically justify telling sysadmins at a company how they're supposed to regulate traffic on their network. If people are paying to use their network, they can regulate it however they want. Since internet access isn't a right but a convenient privilege, I'm not sure why the government is involved in the first place.
I would much rather my fellow users were educated about how to protect their privacy online than have a few extra pennies in my pocket (and that is about what this would amount to if paid out in cash to every class member).
Presumably, by "protect their privacy online," you mean somehow knowing that Google is going to automatically link your Gmail account to Buzz and list your most emailed contacts?
The pro-Google replies will get instant +5. The replies like yours will hover between +2 and +3 before falling low as the story moves off the front page.
Slashdot simply does not give a shit about privacy anymore (except when it affects piracy, such as an ISP revealing user activity...then, privacy is suddenly a big deal around here). Google can do no wrong here. If Steve Jobs or Ballmer said, "Only users who have something to hide care about privacy," there'd be a call for their heads. When Google's CEO says it, people just pretend he didn't, apparently.
Could you take your lips off Google's ass for a second and acknowledge that it shouldn't be the burden of the user to navigate a company's privacy settings just to avoid having their email history revealed to the world? There's a reasonable expectation that a product or service you use won't exploit you or your personal information. Not accepting the money just makes you an embarrassing corporate tool who is saying, "Feel free to disregard my privacy, Google!"
It "dominates" in the same way Windows dominates PCs...a fractured mess controlled by the carriers, with their own unremovable junkware, their own app stores, and their own differing hardware features.
Personally, I'm not too excited about the idea of Google owning search, advertising, email, chat, documents, phones, netbooks, blogs, etc., all while skirting the edge of privacy. I'm not really interested in replacing one Micorosft with another. Apple is more concerned with being the best in a market, not #1 in a market.
They're also comparing a development version of a browser to the released versions of other browsers, instead of their development versions. For example, Chromium already passes tests that Chrome failed in the article.
Given all the data from multiple polls, I think it's pretty obvious to election observers that today is going to be a bloodbath. Independents are breaking toward the GOP in droves.
I think it's more interesting to wonder how, two years after the so-called "death of conservativism," the nation is trending conservative. I think there was quite a bit of self-delusion happening among Democrats a couple of years ago because of a populace that was afraid of the economic collapse. I knew the moment Obama was elected that, in 2010, Democrats would be losing Congress, but people like James Carville were predicting 40 years of liberalism.
Some of the standard left-wing blogs are gnashing their teeth and blaming a dumb population of voters, but those same voters elected their party in 2006 and 2008, so I'm not sure what their point is. Thinking the general population is just too stupid to get it is pretty arrogant, especially since the polls are showing that it's independents who are driving this wave, not just conservative enthusiasm.
Democrats kept spending and spending in the time of a recession--what did they expect would happen? Most people, in tough times, tighten their belts and save their money. They saw that their government wasn't doing that and felt that their leaders weren't listening to them.
I thought Android was open? Not being sarcastic here; I'm genuinely curious how the platform could be regarded as open if carriers have that kind of control over it. In fact, it makes me think Android is merely being used by carriers as a tool against Apple, who totally controls their platform and won't let carriers have any say in it, and that Android isn't about openness at all.
Are you seriously suggesting that it's okay for Google to sniff your emails and passwords because it's merely "gathering demographic information" for marketing purposes? Even the UK has reopened their investigation into Google's wifi spying, and dozens of states in the U.S. are doing probes of their own.
The blind Google defenders on Slashdot are really getting annoying. This company can apparently do no wrong! Calling the spying of your private data a harmless case of "gathering demographic information" is probably the most amusing understatement I've seen yet. Amusing in a sad way.
At some point, you have to take a stand and let people know your privacy does have meaning, even on the internet. This attitude I'm seeing lately where people shrug their shoulders and accept that everything they do on the internet is accessible is bullshit, especially for a site that used to take anonymity and privacy seriously and is one of the last big websites to allow anonymous posting.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright law exists to guarantee your control over it. According to your position, the GPL is unenforceable and meaningless because GPL code is posted to the internet. The GPL is, after all, a copyright license.
So what? Are you saying it's unethical to be hypocritical? Guess what's also unethical?
Slashdot: "Pirate Bay Back Online"
Zealot: "Yes! Take that, MPAA and RIAA. Copyright and intellectual property don't exist. Piracy isn't theft." (+5 Insightful)
Rabble-rouser: "But the GPL is a copyright license. GPL code is intellectual property. Doesn't anybody care about artists getting ripped off?" (-1 Flamebait)
Slashdot: "GPL Code Stolen By Some Company"
Zealot: "Why doesn't the FSF sue them for millions of dollars? This is an outrage. How dare they steal code, those thieves." (+5 Insightful)
Rabble-rouser: "You realize you have two contradictory, self-serving positions, right?" (-1 Troll)
Are we reading the same Slashdot?
So now we're saying it's okay to pirate but not sell what you pirate? Why is one act okay but the other not?
Is Slashdot on the side of the company or the author? Copyright law is constantly described as being "broken" around here, and posters are often on the side of music pirates and other pro-piracy entities, like Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party.
I suspect, however, that because a company made the violation, people will side with the author. Which suggests that it's really more about anti-corporatism than anti-copyright, which explains why people get up in arms over GPL code theft despite the double standard (the GPL is a copyright license).
Hell, most people still think Jesus was crucified through the palms.
An intelligent person would also capitalize and punctuate.
Telling people that correlation does not equate to causation is just a reminder to others that the fact one things occurs after another doesn't automatically mean there's a connection. For you to call such people "unintelligent" is bizarre, especially in light of how many articles Slashdot posts that do imply that two events are connected when they aren't necessarily (and often skewed toward the agenda of the community here; e.g., there have been articles claiming that piracy boosted sales without skepticism, while articles that claimed piracy hurt sales were mocked, often by posters stating that--you guessed it--correlation does not equal causation).
I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder against users of the phrase or why you consider it useless noise. When you say that an intelligent person would look at the merits of the implied causation, that's what they're doing when they tell you that just because something happened around the time of something else, it doesn't mean there's a connection. In other words, there is no obvious causation at play.
I'd further suggest that people who accuse others of being unintelligent and trying to sound clever are in fact trying to sound clever themselves.
Are we really linking to stories at the left-wing Huffington Post? I can't imagine people being okay with Brietbart editorials being linked here.
It seems as if pro net neutrality just the assumed position at Slashdot or something. Not everyone here thinks alike or agrees such legislation was ever necessary.
No! We want to feel warm and fuzzy!
How is having one government provider somehow different from having one private provider, other than that it's much harder to change governments? I've never really understood how people logically justify telling sysadmins at a company how they're supposed to regulate traffic on their network. If people are paying to use their network, they can regulate it however they want. Since internet access isn't a right but a convenient privilege, I'm not sure why the government is involved in the first place.
But not Chromium or WebKit, as I said.
The profiles were a list of you were emailing most. In other words, a history of your email activity.
Presumably, by "protect their privacy online," you mean somehow knowing that Google is going to automatically link your Gmail account to Buzz and list your most emailed contacts?
The pro-Google replies will get instant +5. The replies like yours will hover between +2 and +3 before falling low as the story moves off the front page.
Slashdot simply does not give a shit about privacy anymore (except when it affects piracy, such as an ISP revealing user activity...then, privacy is suddenly a big deal around here). Google can do no wrong here. If Steve Jobs or Ballmer said, "Only users who have something to hide care about privacy," there'd be a call for their heads. When Google's CEO says it, people just pretend he didn't, apparently.
Could you take your lips off Google's ass for a second and acknowledge that it shouldn't be the burden of the user to navigate a company's privacy settings just to avoid having their email history revealed to the world? There's a reasonable expectation that a product or service you use won't exploit you or your personal information. Not accepting the money just makes you an embarrassing corporate tool who is saying, "Feel free to disregard my privacy, Google!"
The winners were users, who made a powerful, Microsoft-esque company that much more wary of violating privacy.
[citation needed]
Since Android hit the market, there has been a lot of uninformed, suspicious Apple-bashing on Slashdot, often from anonymous posters.
It "dominates" in the same way Windows dominates PCs...a fractured mess controlled by the carriers, with their own unremovable junkware, their own app stores, and their own differing hardware features.
Here's an article you won't see written about the iPhone: How Can I Tell If An Android App Is Malware?
Personally, I'm not too excited about the idea of Google owning search, advertising, email, chat, documents, phones, netbooks, blogs, etc., all while skirting the edge of privacy. I'm not really interested in replacing one Micorosft with another. Apple is more concerned with being the best in a market, not #1 in a market.
They're also comparing a development version of a browser to the released versions of other browsers, instead of their development versions. For example, Chromium already passes tests that Chrome failed in the article.
Given all the data from multiple polls, I think it's pretty obvious to election observers that today is going to be a bloodbath. Independents are breaking toward the GOP in droves.
I think it's more interesting to wonder how, two years after the so-called "death of conservativism," the nation is trending conservative. I think there was quite a bit of self-delusion happening among Democrats a couple of years ago because of a populace that was afraid of the economic collapse. I knew the moment Obama was elected that, in 2010, Democrats would be losing Congress, but people like James Carville were predicting 40 years of liberalism.
Some of the standard left-wing blogs are gnashing their teeth and blaming a dumb population of voters, but those same voters elected their party in 2006 and 2008, so I'm not sure what their point is. Thinking the general population is just too stupid to get it is pretty arrogant, especially since the polls are showing that it's independents who are driving this wave, not just conservative enthusiasm.
Democrats kept spending and spending in the time of a recession--what did they expect would happen? Most people, in tough times, tighten their belts and save their money. They saw that their government wasn't doing that and felt that their leaders weren't listening to them.
The bad publicity it might get them. Google's "openness" has its limits.
I thought Android was open? Not being sarcastic here; I'm genuinely curious how the platform could be regarded as open if carriers have that kind of control over it. In fact, it makes me think Android is merely being used by carriers as a tool against Apple, who totally controls their platform and won't let carriers have any say in it, and that Android isn't about openness at all.
Are you seriously suggesting that it's okay for Google to sniff your emails and passwords because it's merely "gathering demographic information" for marketing purposes? Even the UK has reopened their investigation into Google's wifi spying, and dozens of states in the U.S. are doing probes of their own.
The blind Google defenders on Slashdot are really getting annoying. This company can apparently do no wrong! Calling the spying of your private data a harmless case of "gathering demographic information" is probably the most amusing understatement I've seen yet. Amusing in a sad way.
At some point, you have to take a stand and let people know your privacy does have meaning, even on the internet. This attitude I'm seeing lately where people shrug their shoulders and accept that everything they do on the internet is accessible is bullshit, especially for a site that used to take anonymity and privacy seriously and is one of the last big websites to allow anonymous posting.