Typical American attitude. Our laws and ideals apply everywhere. We are the world.
Every company that sells products in a region has to meet the standards of the region to sell their products. Why should software services be treated any differently?
You want to do business in China, you follow Chinese law. You want to do business in the UK, you follow UK law.
You don't want to follow the local laws, you don't get to do business.
It also means children under legal age can't sign purchase contracts. In the US, there could be an argument that even a child has the right to make purchases.
But that's why our civil forfeiture laws don't have to break our constitution to be enforced. If you don't have the right to own property, it can be seized.
To the desk with lots of duct tape so it's harder for anyone to steal the computer.
Plus if you use more duct tape to stop the user from pressing on the keyboard or moving the mouse, it does wonders for preventing "drive by" website infections...:P
Other countries do have things like Canada's "Charter of Rights" section of our Constitution. Just because the US is famous for it's Constitution doesn't mean other countries don't have them.
However, unless/until the leaks come out to document that our nations are involved in spying similar to the NSA, it's not like the agencies in question are going to respond to a FOI request as to whether they're spying within a nation's boundaries or not. While I'm comfortable that CSEC isn't spying within Canada, I know all too well that bi-lateral security agreements mean that the various agencies just "outsource" their spying to partners.
Think about it. The people who claim things are "racist" tend to identify theymselves as black/white/hispanic/asian/firstnations/indian/whatever first and foremost. So they think everyone else in the world sees things the same way, and shares in their "offense" at "racist" things.
Well, the rest of the world does not look at things that way. But they do hear the illiterate use of language, the slang, see the weird clothes, and so on. They may not give two shits about the fact that you're of a particular race, but they sure as hell aren't going to hire someone who doesn't even speak the language properly or know how to dress for an interview.
The biggest problem people who suffer from 'racism" have is themselves. But it's ever so much more convenient to blame "racism" than to take a hard look at yourself and to do something about the mess you're in. After all, that way you can walk around with your head held high that it's the world against you, not some problem with you.
Myself, when I feel the whole world is against me on something, I tend to think maybe I'm wrong.
Of course it's "flamebait". You can't say anything about racial issues in this day and age without pissing someone off. Which is precisely what pisses me off about all the wankers and jerkoffs with their politically correct phrasing and crap. "Black" is a colour far more than it is a race, but use it to describe something, and that description is automatically "racist".
And as to those trying to bait me into thinking I'm a racist -- I didn't say when I'd last used such language, now did I? That's all your assumptions, and obviously that includes the assumption that I *must* be a racist because I won't kiss the arses of the politically correct chip on the shoulder whingers and whiners.
Yeah, it's PC phrasing. Because the actual niggers out there think every mention of "black" *must* be about them.
I define "nigger" as a "black person with a chip on their shoulder" or "black person with an attitude problem." The same goes for every racist epithet I've ever used; it's never been about the colour of your skin -- it's about your screwed up attitude and self-indulgent worry that everyone is always talking about you.
I don't know you. I don't give two shits about you. Believe me, when I refer to "black", it's about colour and nothing more.
Given the pathetically few cases of terrorists being intercepted and the billions spent, people don't want to be spied on at all. It's not worth the loss of privacy and freedom. It's not worth the outrageous expense. It's not paying off.
It backfires on them, though, too. Because I'm on disability, I have all kinds of time to read newspapers and browse links friends have posted. It sure as heck doesn't provide the income they're dreaming of raping and pillaging, though.:)
*sigh* iOS devices are more expensive to begin with. iOS users obviously have more money to spend than brains. It has nothing to do with the quality of the device, and everything to do with being willing to be gouged.
The big argument for dropping POTS is that companies charge more for cell access, and I've yet to see any cell company offer a long distance bundle comparable to what the phone companies offer over POTS lines.
It's not about reliability or better service or easier deployment.
It's about gouging the consumer for every last possible dime.
Where it gets real interesting is the recent decision against Oracle over the Java APIs. That ruling says that you can implement a GPL library's interface under a non-GPL license. So if you license your code under terms other than the GPL, people who rely on those other licenses are free to replace the GPL library with a non-GPL library that is compatible with your terms.
However, in such a case, you are no longer using the GPL code. It would be interesting in court to see how that would play out as to whether the third-party's code using your code is required to abide by the GPL, or if they would be required to specify the specific libraries they are linking to in order to avoid GPL compliance.
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
In other words, you can put additional restrictions on your code, but if someone doesn't like them, they can still use it under the terms of the GPL. So the only modifications that make sense is to grant additional permissions, such as a dual-license of GPL or commercial use.
That is not "however you want". It is within the confines of the originating GPL license, not a free-for-all.
You are absolutely wrong about point 2. A GPL licensed library does not give you the freedom to license your code "however you like." The LGPL does that. Don't confuse the two.
If you use a GPL library, you're required to use the GPL license for your code as well. This is not an accident or a "mistaken interpretation" of the license. It's clearly stated and has been known since the first version of the GPL license was released.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, with every product in the world, you are subject to the terms, conditions, and legal system in place where the product is used/sold.
Software services should be no different. If you don't like the terms of a particular nation, block their users from using your service.
If a Japanese car's brake system fails in the US (like Toyota), they get sued where the cars were sold, not where the cars were manufactured.
Typical American attitude. Our laws and ideals apply everywhere. We are the world.
Every company that sells products in a region has to meet the standards of the region to sell their products. Why should software services be treated any differently?
You want to do business in China, you follow Chinese law. You want to do business in the UK, you follow UK law.
You don't want to follow the local laws, you don't get to do business.
Plain and simple.
It also means children under legal age can't sign purchase contracts. In the US, there could be an argument that even a child has the right to make purchases.
But that's why our civil forfeiture laws don't have to break our constitution to be enforced. If you don't have the right to own property, it can be seized.
To the desk with lots of duct tape so it's harder for anyone to steal the computer.
Plus if you use more duct tape to stop the user from pressing on the keyboard or moving the mouse, it does wonders for preventing "drive by" website infections... :P
Other countries do have things like Canada's "Charter of Rights" section of our Constitution. Just because the US is famous for it's Constitution doesn't mean other countries don't have them.
However, unless/until the leaks come out to document that our nations are involved in spying similar to the NSA, it's not like the agencies in question are going to respond to a FOI request as to whether they're spying within a nation's boundaries or not. While I'm comfortable that CSEC isn't spying within Canada, I know all too well that bi-lateral security agreements mean that the various agencies just "outsource" their spying to partners.
We still get spied on.
There is no escape.
Anywhere.
I've never heard of "Blue Origin" before. As such, I'm guessing they haven't successfully launched shit.
Space-X can actually use the pad now.
That kilo of cocaine they claim they found in the CEO's trunk might be another story...
Think about it. The people who claim things are "racist" tend to identify theymselves as black/white/hispanic/asian/firstnations/indian/whatever first and foremost. So they think everyone else in the world sees things the same way, and shares in their "offense" at "racist" things.
Well, the rest of the world does not look at things that way. But they do hear the illiterate use of language, the slang, see the weird clothes, and so on. They may not give two shits about the fact that you're of a particular race, but they sure as hell aren't going to hire someone who doesn't even speak the language properly or know how to dress for an interview.
The biggest problem people who suffer from 'racism" have is themselves. But it's ever so much more convenient to blame "racism" than to take a hard look at yourself and to do something about the mess you're in. After all, that way you can walk around with your head held high that it's the world against you, not some problem with you.
Myself, when I feel the whole world is against me on something, I tend to think maybe I'm wrong.
Of course it's "flamebait". You can't say anything about racial issues in this day and age without pissing someone off. Which is precisely what pisses me off about all the wankers and jerkoffs with their politically correct phrasing and crap. "Black" is a colour far more than it is a race, but use it to describe something, and that description is automatically "racist".
And as to those trying to bait me into thinking I'm a racist -- I didn't say when I'd last used such language, now did I? That's all your assumptions, and obviously that includes the assumption that I *must* be a racist because I won't kiss the arses of the politically correct chip on the shoulder whingers and whiners.
Yeah, it's PC phrasing. Because the actual niggers out there think every mention of "black" *must* be about them.
I define "nigger" as a "black person with a chip on their shoulder" or "black person with an attitude problem." The same goes for every racist epithet I've ever used; it's never been about the colour of your skin -- it's about your screwed up attitude and self-indulgent worry that everyone is always talking about you.
I don't know you. I don't give two shits about you. Believe me, when I refer to "black", it's about colour and nothing more.
Declare the copper thieves terrorists and have them shot.
Given the pathetically few cases of terrorists being intercepted and the billions spent, people don't want to be spied on at all. It's not worth the loss of privacy and freedom. It's not worth the outrageous expense. It's not paying off.
We want the whole of the NSA fired.
Check the resolution of the display.
It may cover your full field of view, but it's pixel count sucks. There is just no excuse for that in the day of 5" retina displays and such.
It backfires on them, though, too. Because I'm on disability, I have all kinds of time to read newspapers and browse links friends have posted. It sure as heck doesn't provide the income they're dreaming of raping and pillaging, though. :)
*sigh* iOS devices are more expensive to begin with. iOS users obviously have more money to spend than brains. It has nothing to do with the quality of the device, and everything to do with being willing to be gouged.
So you're saying iOS users are suckers with too much money to burn. :P
Or maybe Iron Maiden just happens to produce music that is worth buying, unlike a lot of "new" bands and "artists".
Mod parent up. Way up.
The big argument for dropping POTS is that companies charge more for cell access, and I've yet to see any cell company offer a long distance bundle comparable to what the phone companies offer over POTS lines.
It's not about reliability or better service or easier deployment.
It's about gouging the consumer for every last possible dime.
Where it gets real interesting is the recent decision against Oracle over the Java APIs. That ruling says that you can implement a GPL library's interface under a non-GPL license. So if you license your code under terms other than the GPL, people who rely on those other licenses are free to replace the GPL library with a non-GPL library that is compatible with your terms.
However, in such a case, you are no longer using the GPL code. It would be interesting in court to see how that would play out as to whether the third-party's code using your code is required to abide by the GPL, or if they would be required to specify the specific libraries they are linking to in order to avoid GPL compliance.
In other words, you can license your code under as many additional licenses as you like, but it must be available under the terms of the GPL.
From the GPL:
In other words, you can put additional restrictions on your code, but if someone doesn't like them, they can still use it under the terms of the GPL. So the only modifications that make sense is to grant additional permissions, such as a dual-license of GPL or commercial use.
That is not "however you want". It is within the confines of the originating GPL license, not a free-for-all.
There is nothing requiring a library to use the LGPL. That's why it's properly referred to as the "Lesser GPL", not the "Library GPL."
You are absolutely wrong about point 2. A GPL licensed library does not give you the freedom to license your code "however you like." The LGPL does that. Don't confuse the two.
If you use a GPL library, you're required to use the GPL license for your code as well. This is not an accident or a "mistaken interpretation" of the license. It's clearly stated and has been known since the first version of the GPL license was released.