> The real cause of the issue was the instability of the Ford Explorer.
The real cause of the problem (that's *problem*, not "issue") was idiot drivers who bought trucks and drove them like pancake cars. Trucks necessarily have high centers of gravity. It is obvious to anyone with any brains that you can't drift a truck around a corner. Most modern cars are so low and flat (in the interest of fuel economy) that they are almost impossible to roll. People get used to that and then try to drive trucks the same way.
Google has never said they will leave China. They have said they will (that's *will*, not have) refuse to continue to censor, which will probably result in them being forced to leave, but it is clear that in the unlikely event the Chinese government agrees to let them stop censoring they will stay.
>...his response sounded well intentioned and responsive...
Microsoft managers are very good at *sounding* well intentioned and resposive when the shit hits the fan. But why the hell can't they do things right the first time?
Stupid and obnoxious, but not criminal unless there was deliberate intent to interfere with use of the site. Robots.txt is not access control. If you want to strictly limit your site to authorized users install an authorization system. The Web is public by default.
Is it an 'agreement' to not scan the site at all...
It is a request not to scan part or all of a site. robots.txt
And if so, I can't see anything wrong with what Microsoft's bots did.
Every site does not have dozens of powerful servers and terabytes of bandwidth, nor is every site an ad-supported one that wants to maximize traffic. Common courtesy requires that a bot operator minimize his impact on any given site and honor requests not to index. Of course "courtesy" and "honor" are concepts that baffle Microsoft managers.
> The same can't be said of the 50's during the 70's.
Yes it can. 99% of pop music is forgotten within a decade or two (modulo a bit of nostalgia) and for good reason: it's crap. Always has been, always will be.
> They want it, let them write it and specify the terms. You just need to read > it to make sure that it doesn't limit your ability to continue giving the > code away.
Just above your signature write "Only non-exclusive rights are granted." Make them initial that.
> It makes perfect sense to include a clause like the one the OP is talking > about when buying the source to a program for incorporation in a larger > closed-source ecosystem.
No it doesn't. It makes sense to require that the vendor certify that it has certain specified rights to all the software it supplies (which may exclude some Free Software licenses such as the GPL) but the terms described make no sense at all (and may not in fact be as described to the OP).
>...forced to open-source some or all of your code...
No license can (and the GPL does not attempt to) force anyone to "open source" their code.
If it seems sufficient, tell them to send you a proposed license. If they won't pay tell them they've already got the only license they are going to get.
BTW it is a virtual certainty that they are already using BSD-licensed software.
> Each tower is divided into three 120-degree zones...
And they can use signal strength and/or round-trip time to estimate distance. That should give them all the information they need for network planning purposes.
However, they pretty much have to use GPS to comply with FCC E911 rules.
Slashdot Mirror
> The real cause of the issue was the instability of the Ford Explorer.
The real cause of the problem (that's *problem*, not "issue") was idiot drivers who bought trucks and drove them like pancake cars. Trucks necessarily have high centers of gravity. It is obvious to anyone with any brains that you can't drift a truck around a corner. Most modern cars are so low and flat (in the interest of fuel economy) that they are almost impossible to roll. People get used to that and then try to drive trucks the same way.
Google has never said they will leave China. They have said they will (that's *will*, not have) refuse to continue to censor, which will probably result in them being forced to leave, but it is clear that in the unlikely event the Chinese government agrees to let them stop censoring they will stay.
> IP packets do not necessarily come from the address inscribed in their
> headers?
TCP/IP connections do necessarily come from the address inscribed in their headers.
Robots.txt is merely advisory. Ignoring it is discourteous and oafish but not illegal.
> ...his response sounded well intentioned and responsive...
Microsoft managers are very good at *sounding* well intentioned and resposive when the shit hits the fan. But why the hell can't they do things right the first time?
Stupid and obnoxious, but not criminal unless there was deliberate intent to interfere with use of the site. Robots.txt is not access control. If you want to strictly limit your site to authorized users install an authorization system. The Web is public by default.
It is a request not to scan part or all of a site. robots.txt
Every site does not have dozens of powerful servers and terabytes of bandwidth, nor is every site an ad-supported one that wants to maximize traffic. Common courtesy requires that a bot operator minimize his impact on any given site and honor requests not to index. Of course "courtesy" and "honor" are concepts that baffle Microsoft managers.
> ...issues accessing their sites...
"Issues"? What's wrong with "problem"? "Issues" is marketing-speak. Microsoft marketing-speak.
And yes, get off my lawn.
Seems like the CPAN admin has already solved the "issue".
> ...why not just block them?
They have.
You cannot know, of course, how many of those people were lying when they said they noticed nothing.
> The same can't be said of the 50's during the 70's.
Yes it can. 99% of pop music is forgotten within a decade or two (modulo a bit of nostalgia) and for good reason: it's crap. Always has been, always will be.
The star's job is marketing, not acting. The studios will continue to pay them millions even when they never appear on the set (what set?).
Have you never heard of a body double?
> ...a clown isn't that unusual for a college campus.
Right. The frats, for example, are populated entirely by clowns.
Right. They should have asked "Did you walk into a unicycling clown?"
n/t
> They want it, let them write it and specify the terms. You just need to read
> it to make sure that it doesn't limit your ability to continue giving the
> code away.
Just above your signature write "Only non-exclusive rights are granted." Make them initial that.
> It makes perfect sense to include a clause like the one the OP is talking
> about when buying the source to a program for incorporation in a larger
> closed-source ecosystem.
No it doesn't. It makes sense to require that the vendor certify that it has certain specified rights to all the software it supplies (which may exclude some Free Software licenses such as the GPL) but the terms described make no sense at all (and may not in fact be as described to the OP).
> ...forced to open-source some or all of your code...
No license can (and the GPL does not attempt to) force anyone to "open source" their code.
If it seems sufficient, tell them to send you a proposed license. If they won't pay tell them they've already got the only license they are going to get.
BTW it is a virtual certainty that they are already using BSD-licensed software.
> How exactly would they enforce this?
Selectively, of course. That's the whole point of such laws.
> Democracy is the worst system except for all the others...
Which is a good reason to have as little democracy as possible and none of anything else.
Italy has a constitution which this law may violate.
GPS can't be completely disabled because E911 needs it. They still screwed up, though.
> Each tower is divided into three 120-degree zones...
And they can use signal strength and/or round-trip time to estimate distance. That should give them all the information they need for network planning purposes.
However, they pretty much have to use GPS to comply with FCC E911 rules.