Yeah, it IS possible to relicense GPL code, but you need to be able to prove in a court of law that you attempted to contact EVERY single contributor and give them plenty of time to reply.
In common law jurisdictions, I think the licensor also needs to overcome any estoppel issues that arises. It would probably be a tough fight.
Unless the company loses them, gets sued, goes bankrupt, spend it on a foolish merger with a company that has lots of debt, is involved in fraud, bad accounting, and lots of other risks I can't think of right now (see also: Enron & anyone who invested in all those bad mortgages but didn't get a bailout).
In short, money in your pocket is worth more to you than money in someone company's bank account.
If so, why buy stocks in the first place? Whenever you buy stocks of a company, you're partially trading money in your bank account with money in the company's bank account and all its other assets. By your logic, one would be an idiot to do this, even if the stock pays dividends.
Seriously, if you don't trust the company to wisely invest with its cash reserves, you don't buy the stock, dividends or not.
You've drank too much kool-aid if you honestly thought the lies from Western governments are more "credible" than China.
North Korea's lies are truly jokes (thanks to Wikileaks, we know that even Chinese officials think they are crazy), but I've yet to hear anything major from China that's truly ridiculous. Much of the "lies" you hear about are somewhat amplified by the fact that most of the west do not understand Chinese, stuff is lost in translation, and usually the context of the sound bites are not accurately conveyed. You wouldn't understand how crazy the western media's twists towards China related events can be, if you understood the story from China's perspective. As if BBC, CNN, etc. are actually unbiased. The fact that the PR of the Chinese government is horrible doesn't help either.
Take out all the dictatorships before you focus all this negative energy on Democracies.
The problem is, you still think "Democracies" are automatically better.
On a lot of fronts, the USA is doing a lot more harm than many "lesser" authoritarian states. Does being a democracy make it immune to criticism for those things? You've been drinking too much kool-aid.
I can agree with you that generally democracies have better governance and tend to respect human rights more. But just because a country is a "Democracy" does not mean it is incapable of infringing upon the rights of human beings on a massive scale.
What good is a "democracy" that wage unnecessary wars, lies to its people, censors information, and acts as if it has jurisdiction all over the world?
Why should the world aspire to become such a "democracy"? On a lot of measures, these so called "non-democratic" countries are actually a lot more civil.
Cowards? Who would you fear more, the USA, who controls the whole world, or some puny authoritarian state, which you can escape by simply moving to some "free" country?
I'd be quite interested to know which resource you learnt the above from
Was trying to use Javascript as a simple mathematical expression evaluator a few years ago. I thought that a simple regex that disallowed [a-zA-Z] etc should be enough. After spending some time with my friends in attacking it, we came up with this.
But I really don't remember what the "constructor" thing is now. Sorry.:(
I guess you can probably find useful information with Google anyway.
Wrote this on my blog, might as well post it here too.
------
Wikileaks moved its site to "Wikileaks.ch" after "Wikileaks.org" was taken down. I think this is a big mistake. They should have moved to "Wikileaks.cn".
Here's why: - China is not interested in censoring English documents. - China does not violate the rights of foreigners. - China does not care that US classified documents are leaked. - China is a rare place in the world where American law is unenforcible. - China has a massive intranet, even if USA uses ICANN to take down your site, you will still have 300+ million people who can spread the information. - Even if you get into trouble with the authorities, at least the charge will bear some resemblance to the actions that offended them (i.e. subversion, theft of state secrets, etc.). You won't get charged for *rape* if you post classified documents online. - If you get incarcerated, you can apply for "medical parole", and have a good chance of succeeding.
I'm sorry, but the only explanation is that you don't want to pay enough. The idea of a *constant* shortage makes no sense. It defies the basic laws of economics.
Ever crossed your mind that the number of people who have certain level of talent and skill level are limited? Your so called laws of economics would say that if I were willing to pay $1M salary for a certain position, there'd be thousands of qualified individuals lining out there waiting to be interviewed, even if in fact there are only a handful of them out there in the real world.
The civil case is not the "lesser alternative" to a criminal case.
Both can run in parallel. It's just that, if the criminal case succeeds, it will be really difficult for the accused to defend the civil case, so they are likely to be settled out of court. And if you are the victim and you know the criminal case is ongoing, you're not going to spend thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to duplicate the effort of proving all the evidence if the government is doing it for you.
It's not like the 6 year old girl has any money to cough up to pay damages. Why are they bothering with her anyway? Does including the child on the list of defendants make it easier for them to claim from the parents?
When you create web applications that are designed for one closed web browser then you're going to get burned.
If you coded for Firefox 1.0 only, relying on specific quirks and bugs of Firefox 1.0, at least you know there's still some way to somehow continue use it for another ten years. Mozilla isn't going to come out and say you can't run it under a VM.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it IS possible to relicense GPL code, but you need to be able to prove in a court of law that you attempted to contact EVERY single contributor and give them plenty of time to reply.
In common law jurisdictions, I think the licensor also needs to overcome any estoppel issues that arises. It would probably be a tough fight.
Virtual machines all the way down!
Unless the company loses them, gets sued, goes bankrupt, spend it on a foolish merger with a company that has lots of debt, is involved in fraud, bad accounting, and lots of other risks I can't think of right now (see also: Enron & anyone who invested in all those bad mortgages but didn't get a bailout).
In short, money in your pocket is worth more to you than money in someone company's bank account.
If so, why buy stocks in the first place? Whenever you buy stocks of a company, you're partially trading money in your bank account with money in the company's bank account and all its other assets. By your logic, one would be an idiot to do this, even if the stock pays dividends.
Seriously, if you don't trust the company to wisely invest with its cash reserves, you don't buy the stock, dividends or not.
And with supposedly more than half of the population against Gitmo, you can't even find a politician that would actually shut it down.
Statistically, simply randomly electing a John Doe would more likely than not get the job done.
And yet you wonder why Democracy is not selling like hot cakes in some parts of the world where people have half a brain?
You've drank too much kool-aid if you honestly thought the lies from Western governments are more "credible" than China.
North Korea's lies are truly jokes (thanks to Wikileaks, we know that even Chinese officials think they are crazy), but I've yet to hear anything major from China that's truly ridiculous. Much of the "lies" you hear about are somewhat amplified by the fact that most of the west do not understand Chinese, stuff is lost in translation, and usually the context of the sound bites are not accurately conveyed. You wouldn't understand how crazy the western media's twists towards China related events can be, if you understood the story from China's perspective. As if BBC, CNN, etc. are actually unbiased. The fact that the PR of the Chinese government is horrible doesn't help either.
Your "compatriots" aren't. Otherwise in your "democratic" country you'd have voted in somebody who'd have shut down Gitmo.
Democracy is a great way to see the true colors of at least half of a country's people.
Though I don't disagree with most of what you said, I do have a little doubt that "grey" lies by governments are better than the brutal truth.
Would you rather have Liu be charged with rape-by-sex-without-condom? I wouldn't.
Name a person that is executed, or harvested for organs due to the 08 Charter movement that Liu started.
Man, so true.
OK, I know it's rather rude to ask a stranger about his/her salary, but since you brought up the topic:
What's your net income after paying loans, taxes, insurance and operational expenses?
Take out all the dictatorships before you focus all this negative energy on Democracies.
The problem is, you still think "Democracies" are automatically better.
On a lot of fronts, the USA is doing a lot more harm than many "lesser" authoritarian states. Does being a democracy make it immune to criticism for those things? You've been drinking too much kool-aid.
I can agree with you that generally democracies have better governance and tend to respect human rights more. But just because a country is a "Democracy" does not mean it is incapable of infringing upon the rights of human beings on a massive scale.
I'm also on a country where censorship is unlikely.
You're joking, right?
What good is a "democracy" that wage unnecessary wars, lies to its people, censors information, and acts as if it has jurisdiction all over the world?
Why should the world aspire to become such a "democracy"? On a lot of measures, these so called "non-democratic" countries are actually a lot more civil.
Cowards? Who would you fear more, the USA, who controls the whole world, or some puny authoritarian state, which you can escape by simply moving to some "free" country?
I'd be quite interested to know which resource you learnt the above from
Was trying to use Javascript as a simple mathematical expression evaluator a few years ago. I thought that a simple regex that disallowed [a-zA-Z] etc should be enough. After spending some time with my friends in attacking it, we came up with this.
But I really don't remember what the "constructor" thing is now. Sorry. :(
I guess you can probably find useful information with Google anyway.
This is valid Javascript equivalent to alert('hello');
1['\164\157\123\164\162\151\156\147']
['\143\157\156\163\164\162\165\143\164\157\162']
('$','\141\154\145\162\164($)')('\150\145\154\154\157')
Try to beautify that.
Maybe there are plenty of opportunities elsewhere?
See my other post here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1894524&cid=34433566
And I'm really half joking only.
Wrote this on my blog, might as well post it here too.
------
Wikileaks moved its site to "Wikileaks.ch" after "Wikileaks.org" was taken down. I think this is a big mistake. They should have moved to "Wikileaks.cn".
Here's why:
- China is not interested in censoring English documents.
- China does not violate the rights of foreigners.
- China does not care that US classified documents are leaked.
- China is a rare place in the world where American law is unenforcible.
- China has a massive intranet, even if USA uses ICANN to take down your site, you will still have 300+ million people who can spread the information.
- Even if you get into trouble with the authorities, at least the charge will bear some resemblance to the actions that offended them (i.e. subversion, theft of state secrets, etc.). You won't get charged for *rape* if you post classified documents online.
- If you get incarcerated, you can apply for "medical parole", and have a good chance of succeeding.
Welcome to the land of the free!
You're saying that we shouldn't let people say things that might be harmful to <people in power>?
If this isn't the antithesis of free speech, I don't know what else it can be.
And now you resort to defending the US government's actions by appealing to the letter of the law -- the spirit of the law be damned?
I'm sorry, but the only explanation is that you don't want to pay enough. The idea of a *constant* shortage makes no sense. It defies the basic laws of economics.
Ever crossed your mind that the number of people who have certain level of talent and skill level are limited? Your so called laws of economics would say that if I were willing to pay $1M salary for a certain position, there'd be thousands of qualified individuals lining out there waiting to be interviewed, even if in fact there are only a handful of them out there in the real world.
It took me six!
The civil case is not the "lesser alternative" to a criminal case.
Both can run in parallel. It's just that, if the criminal case succeeds, it will be really difficult for the accused to defend the civil case, so they are likely to be settled out of court. And if you are the victim and you know the criminal case is ongoing, you're not going to spend thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to duplicate the effort of proving all the evidence if the government is doing it for you.
Note: I am not a lawyer.
It's not like the 6 year old girl has any money to cough up to pay damages. Why are they bothering with her anyway? Does including the child on the list of defendants make it easier for them to claim from the parents?
When you create web applications that are designed for one closed web browser then you're going to get burned.
If you coded for Firefox 1.0 only, relying on specific quirks and bugs of Firefox 1.0, at least you know there's still some way to somehow continue use it for another ten years. Mozilla isn't going to come out and say you can't run it under a VM.
Name a dozen platforms that runs Java.
Bonus question: Name a dozen platforms that runs Eclipse.