Huh, no, I never heard that 0.5EUR figure. It was more like 1EUR (5FF). And that is NOT symbolic. A softcover costs around 80FF. Deduct printing, paper, distribution and what gets back to the publisher is probably around 5 to 10FF. See the problem? They will make MUCH MORE money with this tax than by selling books. It's out of whack. And the response was'nt THAT sympathetic, with many authors opposing it.
Publishers have been pushing the french government to establish a right-to-read in public libraries. Nevermind that many library users could'nt afford the books they read there. Of course, they expect the government to cover those fees instead of the users.
The sickening part of it is that the fee they request is absolutely outrageous: they want 5 FF, or abour $0.80, per loan. Now compare this to the cose of a pocket book, or even of a hardcover, factor out the printing and distribution cost... and with that kind of fee they would make MORE money per single loan than per book *sold*!
Their request is being received with rather unsympathetic responses, but you never know how lobbying can go...
Could have been the wrong bookmark. Say you're using any kind of GUI ftp client, click a bookmark but slip while clicking.. and you end up on the CS class's web site instead of the CS-Clan web site.
djb's license in a nutshell: you can redistribute the tarballs AS IS freely. You can distribute pristine binary packages freely. You can use / modify freely, but you can only distribute modifications as patches.
I agree, it's a *major* pain in the ass, but would you rather have some bloated, compromised, resource hogging, buggy crap like Bind or sendmail on a 'mission critical' service like DNS or mail?
And then, while it's a pain in the ass, it's still *free* software. Annoying license, but still free (just like the Qt licence).
Perl is the duct tape of the internet. If it was so vulnerable it wouldn't be so widely used.
Hmm... that's a strange logic. With such logic, we can logically deduce that BIND is the parangon of computer security, that sendmail is a great piece of software, and that Paul Vixie knows how to write code.
Intellectual stimulation? Oh I forgot, Einstein smoked cigarettes. Give me a break.
Duh! Why this sarcasm? It has been proven by psychological studies. It's a really easy test -- get a set of people to do an IQ test, get a similar set to do an IQ test while under the influence of nicotine, watch those on nicotine perform better, QED.
Being toxic does'nt mean it can't have positive effects -- hell, all the dope athletes use DO have positive effects (amphetamines, steroids, etc...)... along with very detrimental ones.
Hey fucknut, did he preach or try to convert you? No. So sit the fuck down and shut your cock-sucking piehole. The man said he helps
youth, which is far more than your selfish ass has ever contributed to society.
Oh, and by the way, smoking kills you. That's how they lose customers. If they were striving to make more money, they would make a
less cancerous cigarette.
You've missed the point by a very long shot.
Nicotine is addictive. Nicotine is mildly toxic. However... nicotine is the lesser of the cigarette's dangers. Tar is the danger, what causes cancer. You would'nt smoke that tar if you were'nt addicted to nicotine, obviously; BUT if you are, and are'nt going to quit, the less nicotine per cigarette, the more tar you will get.
Besides, nicotine has some positive effects, such as intellectual stimulation, while tar has none.
Why should we try harder to stop something like this? they need to change their ways, we can't change them for them.
How nice of you. They "just" have to change their ways. It's easy, really. Nevermind it goes against their culture, that it's not facilitated by their extreme poverty, nevermind that most of the people there aren't even litterate enough to even READ recommendations.
Well, I think you're onto something. With your methods we could stop wars! Think about it, the beligerants just have to stop fighting! And poof, no more war! Wonderful!
as geologically ephemeral inhabitants of the earth we do not own this planet,
Define 'own'.
I'm not nitpicking here, I'm pointing a very common flaw in reasoning. This flaw is very similar to the one which leads some people to believe in the existance of gods.
Let me explain. 'property' and 'meaning' are human symbols, which have a signification, in a communication between human beings. It is a built-in thought process for us, communicating beings, to look for 'meanings' in things. A word has a meaning. Pictures have meaning, such as an arrow. An open or a closed door have a meaning... because someone wrote / drew / opened / closed them.
Primitives found meanings in volcanic eruptions, eclipses, and various natural events. This is part of what is called 'animism', attributing meanings and intent in natural intent. Religiosity is an extrapolation of this tendency to attribute meanings to everything in the world.
When you look at things this way, your usage of the word 'owning' in this context, where there is no human being, no human communication involved, is inappropriate. Which is why it seems to have a negative connotation. Of course, nobody 'own' this planet, or another, or the sun or the moon, because 'owning' at this scale does'nt mean anything... 'property' exists only as long as enough people believe it and act accordingly.
The church used to own most of the land in my country two centuries ago. Suddenly, the people decided it that they did'nt. So they didn't anymore.
(This might sound offtopic, but I hope people will get my point).
Slashdot Mirror
--
--
Erm... GM owns Chrysler...
You mean ... Daimler-Chrysler owns Chrysler ...
--
--
Publishers have been pushing the french government to establish a right-to-read in public libraries. Nevermind that many library users could'nt afford the books they read there. Of course, they expect the government to cover those fees instead of the users.
The sickening part of it is that the fee they request is absolutely outrageous: they want 5 FF, or abour $0.80, per loan. Now compare this to the cose of a pocket book, or even of a hardcover, factor out the printing and distribution cost ... and with that kind of fee they would make MORE money per single loan than per book *sold*!
Their request is being received with rather unsympathetic responses, but you never know how lobbying can go ...
--
--
--
--
djb's license in a nutshell: you can redistribute the tarballs AS IS freely. You can distribute pristine binary packages freely. You can use / modify freely, but you can only distribute modifications as patches.
I agree, it's a *major* pain in the ass, but would you rather have some bloated, compromised, resource hogging, buggy crap like Bind or sendmail on a 'mission critical' service like DNS or mail?
And then, while it's a pain in the ass, it's still *free* software. Annoying license, but still free (just like the Qt licence).
--
it works well and has given no probs (touch wood)
Hmmm ... I don't know, this sentence coming from a sysadmin kind of scares me. 'touch wood' ... Hmm.
--
Perl is the duct tape of the internet. If it was so vulnerable it wouldn't be so widely used.
Hmm ... that's a strange logic. With such logic, we can logically deduce that BIND is the parangon of computer security, that sendmail is a great piece of software, and that Paul Vixie knows how to write code.
Might be a bit too much.
--
--
Intellectual stimulation? Oh I forgot, Einstein smoked cigarettes. Give me a break.
Duh! Why this sarcasm? It has been proven by psychological studies. It's a really easy test -- get a set of people to do an IQ test, get a similar set to do an IQ test while under the influence of nicotine, watch those on nicotine perform better, QED.
Being toxic does'nt mean it can't have positive effects -- hell, all the dope athletes use DO have positive effects (amphetamines, steroids, etc ...) ... along with very detrimental ones.
--
Hey fucknut, did he preach or try to convert you? No. So sit the fuck down and shut your cock-sucking piehole. The man said he helps youth, which is far more than your selfish ass has ever contributed to society.
Ewwwwwww .. You said 'fuck'. I'm shocked.
--
--
Oh, and by the way, smoking kills you. That's how they lose customers. If they were striving to make more money, they would make a less cancerous cigarette.
You've missed the point by a very long shot.
Nicotine is addictive. Nicotine is mildly toxic. However ... nicotine is the lesser of the cigarette's dangers. Tar is the danger, what causes cancer. You would'nt smoke that tar if you were'nt addicted to nicotine, obviously; BUT if you are, and are'nt going to quit, the less nicotine per cigarette, the more tar you will get.
Besides, nicotine has some positive effects, such as intellectual stimulation, while tar has none.
--
That's exactly what I thought. I only "watched" it because my church young adult group had a party over it. The ads beat the tar out of the game.
There's two things I hate above everything else. Football, and religion. War, torture, crime ... well even intelligent people get angry at times.
--
--
Poverty doesn't mean you can't stop having unprotected sex, or have multiple partners, or use IV drugs.
So how do you educate them about it? Through television? They don't have any. Through radio? Barely more? At school? What school?
--
Why should we try harder to stop something like this? they need to change their ways, we can't change them for them.
How nice of you. They "just" have to change their ways. It's easy, really. Nevermind it goes against their culture, that it's not facilitated by their extreme poverty, nevermind that most of the people there aren't even litterate enough to even READ recommendations.
Well, I think you're onto something. With your methods we could stop wars! Think about it, the beligerants just have to stop fighting! And poof, no more war! Wonderful!
What, you're hungy? Why just go eat something!
--
as geologically ephemeral inhabitants of the earth we do not own this planet,
Define 'own'.
I'm not nitpicking here, I'm pointing a very common flaw in reasoning. This flaw is very similar to the one which leads some people to believe in the existance of gods.
Let me explain. 'property' and 'meaning' are human symbols, which have a signification, in a communication between human beings. It is a built-in thought process for us, communicating beings, to look for 'meanings' in things. A word has a meaning. Pictures have meaning, such as an arrow. An open or a closed door have a meaning ... because someone wrote / drew / opened / closed them.
Primitives found meanings in volcanic eruptions, eclipses, and various natural events. This is part of what is called 'animism', attributing meanings and intent in natural intent. Religiosity is an extrapolation of this tendency to attribute meanings to everything in the world.
When you look at things this way, your usage of the word 'owning' in this context, where there is no human being, no human communication involved, is inappropriate. Which is why it seems to have a negative connotation. Of course, nobody 'own' this planet, or another, or the sun or the moon, because 'owning' at this scale does'nt mean anything ... 'property' exists only as long as enough people believe it and act accordingly.
The church used to own most of the land in my country two centuries ago. Suddenly, the people decided it that they did'nt. So they didn't anymore.
(This might sound offtopic, but I hope people will get my point).
--
Be careful, your laugh could blow up in your face. If you want to call a toll free number, do it from a public phone.
How so?
Besides in my country, they can't circumvent caller ID blocking. If they did, they'd face up to 3 years jail time, considering computer privacy laws.
--
I used to do that years ago. I don't get much junk mail free return address lately though.
Calling 1-800 lines is fun too. You have to be really bored, though.
--
Aaaahhh french laws... did I mention we're still not supposed to even *use* openssh?
When you don't have the right, take the left.
IOW, everybody does it anyway.
--
--