Of course it's reasonable for them to do this. But this is exactly why people didn't want to start using it in the first place - because you become beholden to the goodwill of a third party. That's an uncomfortable spot for anyone to be in, anywhere.
The fact that Larry is being pissy about a tenuous connection to a third party developer working on a BK alternative just makes him sound like an asshole. It was nice to read his little speech about accepting commercial developers, like any time a company releaases a commercial product for Linux all the OSS guys should cease work on anything to compete with it. That attitude is the whole reason OSS got started in the first place.
If you really believe this, you're inacceptably naive about the realities of commerce and the market. Libertarian econ 101 doesn't really address the way things really work. Monopolies are never, ever, ever, healthy markets. Period. The way all these people are jumping and saying that MS should pull out of the EU in order to show everyone how tough they are is a great example why - what's next, maybe MS should pull out of the EU to make them lower corporate taxes, or to raise the power of the Euro or something?
Your response is at the social edge of the uppity 133t h4x0rs out there that think we should all pitch in a help, and if we don't we are a bunch of lazy leacher punks.
Well, basically, you are. Not to be rude. Here's an example: OSS is like a communal kitchen. A bunch of people get together to make great meals. You're welcome to come eat, whether you can cook or not - people who can't cook can help wash. But you can still come even if you don't wash. *But*, and this is the important part, if you don't cook and you don't help wash, and all you do is eat, you're welcome to be there but people are going to get pissed when you bang your silverware about how you wanted tapioca pudding and what we served was chocolate.
You've already acomplished what you wanted with your anti-OSS troll here on Slashdot, but I'd just like to point out that IE has exactly the same text-scale behavior as Firefox. So it's hardly the biting, pithy condemntation of those amateur OSS developers that you no doubt imagine it to be.
Don't be stupid, and it *is* finger pointing..NET 2.0 has many improvements over 1.1. That's why it's 2.0 and not 1.1. Not taking advantage of them would be stupid.
I, personally, don't rationalize it. But it's not hypocritical to do so. It's not even especially gray, assuming that you don't subscribe to the commercial exploitation theory of copyright.
I know it's hard, but try not to be stupid. You might not agree with the results, but it's perfectly possible to support, say, music piracy while not supporting GPL violations without being a hypocrite. It depends very much on your motivations for supporting copyright law and your stance on the reason for copyright law. It's kinda like how I can think that laws against statutory rape are stupid while still supporting laws against real rape.
I should note that I support the rights of artists and I'm not a supporter of piracy, although I am vehemently against the RIAA and MPAA, as well as all cartels of that kind, and I approve of the results of P2P, which is a shaking down of those extremely broken and unhealthy markets, although I don't approve of the mechanism.
The screenshots look almost identical because most of the bytes shown is the EXE header info. It doesn't mean anything, although it is a stupid thing to post as part of your screenshot. Obviously, running a diff of the binary is totally insufficent to detect code similiarity.
Sort of. No, you can't just revoke the GPL. However, a) you don't get a free pass for past infringment and b) depending on your reading of the GPL, a GPL violation can be considered to revoke your GPL rights, period.
Laptop prices are comparable, but the desktops aren't even in the same ballpark unless you only compare non-discounted high end workstation prices. The mini isn't even a contender - it's $500 price tag gets a more powerful workstation complete with monitor & periphals from a PC vendor. The numbers get *really* bad if you compare homebuilt systems or price/performance.
I think you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from. I'm not trying argue the factual or historical basis of your religion - there's no point, since it's not like I'm going to convince you that God doesn't exist, and you aren't going to convince me that he does. My point is that Christianity, as a religion, is a foul and despicable cult that I wouldn't expose my children to. It's interesting that you mention the walls of Jericho. Sure the walls came tumbling down. And after that, the Israelites killed "everything that breathes" within those walls, with God taking a physical manifestation at their side. The only people spared were hookers who helped betray the city. It doesn't matter if it really happened or not - it's an article of faith for Christianity that it did, and further, that it was a good thing. I think this is reprehensible. There's lots more to choose from, like the way God likes to play little dominance games but will sentence you to eternal agony if you lose. I sometimes wonder if you can draw a parellel between Christianity and abusive households, considering how similiar the behavior of God in the Bible is to an abusive spouse. You can almost hear him asking the wandering tribes of Israel "Baby, why gotta make me beat you?".
I should add that despite my distate for Christianity, the religion, I have no special dislike for Christians, the people, at least as far as they don't actually follow the rather despicable moral beliefs taught in the Bible. For example, a Christian who'll sacrifice his mistress to a rape gang, and then after she crawls back, leaves her on his doorstep to die is not someone I 'd want to associate with (Judges 19:24 - this was, supposedly, the only righteous man in Sodom).
One last point on the creationism vs. evolution thing - as with most creationist arguments, your argument essentially boils down to "I don't know, ergo God". This is fine for your personal beliefs, and there's more than a few scientists who think this way, but it's not scientific and teaching it as an answer doesn't help anyone. The point of science is to answer questions, not to accept them.
Do you have the executable if you use a washing machine running linux? Yes
do you have the executable if you access a device of the LAn
Yes
do you have a executable if you run an application on a gpl webserver?
No
The "web application" is considered by some to be a loophole in the GPL, personally I dont'.
The limits of the GPL are exactly as clear as copyright law is. Unfortunately, thats not very clear, but there's nothing the GPL can do to clear that up. The GPL applies if you're creating a derived work. If you work isn't sufficently derived so as to be covered under copyright law, then you can safely ignore the GPL. Knowing where that boundy is is hard, because (unfortunately) copyright law provides only the most minimal guidelines. The FSF posts what it thinks the limits are, and sticking to those is a pretty safe legal bet.
Please review what part of the Bible you're talking about. A lot of things changed between the OT and the NT. OT is no longer applicable as we are now saved by grace and not by anical sacrifice and following the 10 Commandments.
I'll stop calling you on all the nasty parts of the Bible when all the major Christian faiths remove them from the Bible, stop using them in sermons, and generally stop treating them as articles of faith except when it's inconvenient or bad PR, mmmkay? It's pretty damn hypocritical to get up there and blather on about how X is bad and preaching fire and brimstone from the OT, but to turn around and claim you don't need to follow it when someone brings up the nasty bits. If you look *only* to the NT, then Clinton is totally off the hook and you're the one out of line for condemning him. 400 years ago Clintons main failing as a Christian would be that he wasn't abusive enough of Jews. Look at the history of your own religion before you go re-defining all your terms to exclude anything you don't approve of.
Are abortions science? If so, then I might disagree with you.
They aren't done *in the name of science*, which is what we're talking about here. If, say, we had baby-farms where we specifcally aborted fetuses for scientific research, then it'd count. Use of fetuses aborted for other reasons doesn't. Priest molesting boys doesn't count against religion, either, unless it's some sort of cult where molestation is an article of worship. You'd be wrong anyway, if you wanted to count numbers.
But if you state that, to be fair, you should state how many truly non-Christian cults pop up "in the name of Christianity" that kill themselves or others.
Vanishingly few, actually. Especially since you can't count the various Christian cults that do the same thing.
Christianity is about love and forgiveness
Eh. You'd have a hard time proving it on the merits. Read your bible, buddy. Christianity, if categorized without prejudice would be a blood cult. Ritual cannibalism, glorification of death, penitence through suffering. The very core and most important belief of any Christian faith is that Christ died for your sins! Think about what your religion would be like if Christ was born, preached that you were all forgiven now, and then went on his way in peace.
All things done in the name of Christianity are not Christian, my friend.
Well. Yes, they are. If you don't act like all the other Christians, maybe it's *you* who isn't the Christian. Defining anyone who does something you don't like as "non-Christian" is a pretty pathetic rhetorical refuge. Driving over the speed limit, by the way, has not a damn thing to do with being a Christian.
The differences are rapidly shrinking. For example, there is very little technical difference between the way Java is compiled and ran and the Python is compiled and ran. It's really more a matter of feel and attitude than anything else.
The fundamentalist/literalist belief is that the Bible, all of it, is the literal word of God, protected from corruption and loss by His will through the years. This is obviously contradictory with picking and choosing which parts you're going to listen to. But that doesn't seem to actually bother anyone.
For what it's worth, it's not especially hard to justify getting a BJ in the Oval Office with Christian principles, assuming you go straight to the source. Theres a commandment against adultery but it's condoned and even advocated in more than one spot in the bible (polygamy, rape, and the use of prostitutes is endemic in the bible). So-called "Christian beliefs" are, generally speaking, made up out of whole cloth. I don't know of anyone who actually strictly maintains a set of Christian beliefs based on the Bible, and such a person would probably be schizophrenic.
The more extreme religious figures need no media exaggeration, either. Just as the more extreme fringe "scientists" don't either.
There's been more than a few atrocities in the name "of science. Nazi medical expirimentation comes to mind. The numbers pale in comparison to religious atrocity, though. Further, you have to compare the beliefs and guidelines of the religion. For example, Christianity is a bloody death-cult, and it's hardly suprising that plenty of people have been killed in it's name. On the other hand, hardly anyone has been killed in Buddhist jihads.
Google is doing exactly what a 302 means - it's "assigning" the content at the URL in the Location header to the original URL. 302s are heavily misused on the web today as a means of "moving" people to a different site. They're intended to be used as a way of temporarily redirecting content instead. For example, if your site was slashdotted you might serve a 302 pointing to a more-robust mirror. The common usage of a redirect as a way of "moving" people is what links are for. Googles treatment of the 302 may be naive and impractical as a matter of reality, but it's the correct behavior according to the HTTP standard.
You're using 302s incorrectly. Use a 301. Or better yet, just use a link instead of a redirect. All thes e referral/go/whatever pages are a pain in the ass.
Well, no, it's not. Thats the whole thing. People want the DRM so they can enforce the business model, not to protect copyright. It's trivially proved through example - there is not one single DRM mechanism on the market which limits it's protections to the ones in copyright law. Nobody would be interested in such a thing.
One problem is that people use 302s when they should be using 301s, like directory sites. No doubt this is because they want to get referral counts up.
A 302 is a "temporary redirect". Basically, it says that the content normally lives at the URL you requested but that, just this once, you should look at this other URL for the content. Googles response to a 302 is actually very reasonable. I suppose the best thing they could do is just not follow 302s.
A 301 is a permanent redirect, indicating that the page isn't at the original URL and that all future requests should be made to the new one. I don't know what Googlebot does in this case but I assume it discards the original URL, which is what the standard recommends.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that Larry is being pissy about a tenuous connection to a third party developer working on a BK alternative just makes him sound like an asshole. It was nice to read his little speech about accepting commercial developers, like any time a company releaases a commercial product for Linux all the OSS guys should cease work on anything to compete with it. That attitude is the whole reason OSS got started in the first place.
If you really believe this, you're inacceptably naive about the realities of commerce and the market. Libertarian econ 101 doesn't really address the way things really work. Monopolies are never, ever, ever, healthy markets. Period. The way all these people are jumping and saying that MS should pull out of the EU in order to show everyone how tough they are is a great example why - what's next, maybe MS should pull out of the EU to make them lower corporate taxes, or to raise the power of the Euro or something?
Well, basically, you are. Not to be rude. Here's an example: OSS is like a communal kitchen. A bunch of people get together to make great meals. You're welcome to come eat, whether you can cook or not - people who can't cook can help wash. But you can still come even if you don't wash. *But*, and this is the important part, if you don't cook and you don't help wash, and all you do is eat, you're welcome to be there but people are going to get pissed when you bang your silverware about how you wanted tapioca pudding and what we served was chocolate.
You've already acomplished what you wanted with your anti-OSS troll here on Slashdot, but I'd just like to point out that IE has exactly the same text-scale behavior as Firefox. So it's hardly the biting, pithy condemntation of those amateur OSS developers that you no doubt imagine it to be.
Don't be stupid, and it *is* finger pointing. .NET 2.0 has many improvements over 1.1. That's why it's 2.0 and not 1.1. Not taking advantage of them would be stupid.
I, personally, don't rationalize it. But it's not hypocritical to do so. It's not even especially gray, assuming that you don't subscribe to the commercial exploitation theory of copyright.
I should note that I support the rights of artists and I'm not a supporter of piracy, although I am vehemently against the RIAA and MPAA, as well as all cartels of that kind, and I approve of the results of P2P, which is a shaking down of those extremely broken and unhealthy markets, although I don't approve of the mechanism.
Certain levels of commercial copyright violation are criminal in the states.
The screenshots look almost identical because most of the bytes shown is the EXE header info. It doesn't mean anything, although it is a stupid thing to post as part of your screenshot. Obviously, running a diff of the binary is totally insufficent to detect code similiarity.
It would all be within the restrictions of the GPL if that was what they were doing, which it is not. RTFA.
Sort of. No, you can't just revoke the GPL. However, a) you don't get a free pass for past infringment and b) depending on your reading of the GPL, a GPL violation can be considered to revoke your GPL rights, period.
Laptop prices are comparable, but the desktops aren't even in the same ballpark unless you only compare non-discounted high end workstation prices. The mini isn't even a contender - it's $500 price tag gets a more powerful workstation complete with monitor & periphals from a PC vendor. The numbers get *really* bad if you compare homebuilt systems or price/performance.
I should add that despite my distate for Christianity, the religion, I have no special dislike for Christians, the people, at least as far as they don't actually follow the rather despicable moral beliefs taught in the Bible. For example, a Christian who'll sacrifice his mistress to a rape gang, and then after she crawls back, leaves her on his doorstep to die is not someone I 'd want to associate with (Judges 19:24 - this was, supposedly, the only righteous man in Sodom).
One last point on the creationism vs. evolution thing - as with most creationist arguments, your argument essentially boils down to "I don't know, ergo God". This is fine for your personal beliefs, and there's more than a few scientists who think this way, but it's not scientific and teaching it as an answer doesn't help anyone. The point of science is to answer questions, not to accept them.
Yes
do you have the executable if you access a device of the LAn
Yes
do you have a executable if you run an application on a gpl webserver?
No
The "web application" is considered by some to be a loophole in the GPL, personally I dont'.
The limits of the GPL are exactly as clear as copyright law is. Unfortunately, thats not very clear, but there's nothing the GPL can do to clear that up. The GPL applies if you're creating a derived work. If you work isn't sufficently derived so as to be covered under copyright law, then you can safely ignore the GPL. Knowing where that boundy is is hard, because (unfortunately) copyright law provides only the most minimal guidelines. The FSF posts what it thinks the limits are, and sticking to those is a pretty safe legal bet.
I'll stop calling you on all the nasty parts of the Bible when all the major Christian faiths remove them from the Bible, stop using them in sermons, and generally stop treating them as articles of faith except when it's inconvenient or bad PR, mmmkay? It's pretty damn hypocritical to get up there and blather on about how X is bad and preaching fire and brimstone from the OT, but to turn around and claim you don't need to follow it when someone brings up the nasty bits. If you look *only* to the NT, then Clinton is totally off the hook and you're the one out of line for condemning him. 400 years ago Clintons main failing as a Christian would be that he wasn't abusive enough of Jews. Look at the history of your own religion before you go re-defining all your terms to exclude anything you don't approve of.
They aren't done *in the name of science*, which is what we're talking about here. If, say, we had baby-farms where we specifcally aborted fetuses for scientific research, then it'd count. Use of fetuses aborted for other reasons doesn't. Priest molesting boys doesn't count against religion, either, unless it's some sort of cult where molestation is an article of worship. You'd be wrong anyway, if you wanted to count numbers.
But if you state that, to be fair, you should state how many truly non-Christian cults pop up "in the name of Christianity" that kill themselves or others.
Vanishingly few, actually. Especially since you can't count the various Christian cults that do the same thing.
Christianity is about love and forgiveness
Eh. You'd have a hard time proving it on the merits. Read your bible, buddy. Christianity, if categorized without prejudice would be a blood cult. Ritual cannibalism, glorification of death, penitence through suffering. The very core and most important belief of any Christian faith is that Christ died for your sins! Think about what your religion would be like if Christ was born, preached that you were all forgiven now, and then went on his way in peace.
All things done in the name of Christianity are not Christian, my friend.
Well. Yes, they are. If you don't act like all the other Christians, maybe it's *you* who isn't the Christian. Defining anyone who does something you don't like as "non-Christian" is a pretty pathetic rhetorical refuge. Driving over the speed limit, by the way, has not a damn thing to do with being a Christian.
The differences are rapidly shrinking. For example, there is very little technical difference between the way Java is compiled and ran and the Python is compiled and ran. It's really more a matter of feel and attitude than anything else.
The fundamentalist/literalist belief is that the Bible, all of it, is the literal word of God, protected from corruption and loss by His will through the years. This is obviously contradictory with picking and choosing which parts you're going to listen to. But that doesn't seem to actually bother anyone.
The more extreme religious figures need no media exaggeration, either. Just as the more extreme fringe "scientists" don't either.
There's been more than a few atrocities in the name "of science. Nazi medical expirimentation comes to mind. The numbers pale in comparison to religious atrocity, though. Further, you have to compare the beliefs and guidelines of the religion. For example, Christianity is a bloody death-cult, and it's hardly suprising that plenty of people have been killed in it's name. On the other hand, hardly anyone has been killed in Buddhist jihads.
Google is doing exactly what a 302 means - it's "assigning" the content at the URL in the Location header to the original URL. 302s are heavily misused on the web today as a means of "moving" people to a different site. They're intended to be used as a way of temporarily redirecting content instead. For example, if your site was slashdotted you might serve a 302 pointing to a more-robust mirror. The common usage of a redirect as a way of "moving" people is what links are for. Googles treatment of the 302 may be naive and impractical as a matter of reality, but it's the correct behavior according to the HTTP standard.
You're using 302s incorrectly. Use a 301. Or better yet, just use a link instead of a redirect. All thes e referral/go/whatever pages are a pain in the ass.
Well, no, it's not. Thats the whole thing. People want the DRM so they can enforce the business model, not to protect copyright. It's trivially proved through example - there is not one single DRM mechanism on the market which limits it's protections to the ones in copyright law. Nobody would be interested in such a thing.
Because a 302 is a temporary redirect - it's supposed to indicate that you have the correct URL, but the content is temporarily hosted elsewhere.
A 302 is a "temporary redirect". Basically, it says that the content normally lives at the URL you requested but that, just this once, you should look at this other URL for the content. Googles response to a 302 is actually very reasonable. I suppose the best thing they could do is just not follow 302s.
A 301 is a permanent redirect, indicating that the page isn't at the original URL and that all future requests should be made to the new one. I don't know what Googlebot does in this case but I assume it discards the original URL, which is what the standard recommends.