The term back door man doesn't mean what you think it means. The back door on question belongs to the ladies house not her anatomy, and the man in question sneaks out the back door when the husband comes home.
The graph the parent post links to shows sheet ice area in the antarctic, the one you refer to shows sheet ice anomaly in the arctic. From the two you can work out that total world sheet ice is at a record high since records began. Not that thirty years of records are enough to draw definite conclusions from, gut that data certainly doesn't support the notion of global warming. More like unipolar warming.
It is not possible to successfully find some 'loophole' in the concept of fair use. There's simply no such thing because fair use by definition is a fungible thing that relies on reasonable human judgment to decide when too much is too much. Therefore, the very fact that you attempt to use some loophole pretty much in itself no longer makes your actions fair use.
What on earth do you think you are talking about. No one in their right mind would go looking for a loophole in a concept. The idea of a loophole is that a badly drafted law may allow for it to be interpreted in a way that it wasn't intended, thus allowing an action which would otherwise be prohibited. Surely you can tell the difference between the concept of fair use and a legal definition of fair use. To argue something is falls under the concept of fair use is not looking for a loophole it is just giving an example of an action which a person considers a definition of fair use should cover. To look for a loophole in a legal definition of fair use in order to cover an action that falls under the concept of fair use is a legitimate thing to do. It does not make that action non fair use, it merely extends the legal definition of fair use such that it falls more into line with how a reasonable person might define fair use.
Secondly, you use the word fungible but it does not mean what you think it means. Nothing in and of itself is fungible, you need at least two things for them to be fungible. These two things must be interchangeable in regard to a legal obligation. For example say I go into a store and ask for a copy of a particular CD, and the shop has three copies of that CD in stock. These three CD's are fungible because any one of the three will satisfy my order. Similarly I may pay by cash or credit card, these are fungibles because either is sufficient to satisfy my debt for the CD. What exactly are you saying fair use is fungible with, or were you just using a big word in order to sound impressive.
You're right, I hadn't realised that FC5 dovetailed so nicely this time around. However I think I'll stick with be prepared to wait 2-6 months as being good advice to someone switching to Linux from a Windows background. Debian Sid's great if you want to run bleeding edge, but a poor choice for people that aren't used to trouble-shooting a Linux system. Also, many distributions will offer the opportunity to upgrade to a new release of Gnome or KDE between distributions, but this often means foregoing automatic security patching. So, unless you're prepared to patch manually or can live with security issues it might be better to be patient.
I'd even suggest that a complete novice doesn't install a new distribution on the day of its release. If they wait a month or two they will be able to get feedback on the quality of the release, patches will be available for any teething problems, and more experienced people will have already come across any issues so advice will be available on forums.
After all most releases of OSS are incremental and not radical improvements on the previous release. So unless the new release fixes a particular problem for you, or you're involved in development (or at least willing to contribute bug reports) then there's no need to be in a hurry to upgrade.
There's a reason you find that text dense, it's because it's not aimed at you. It's aimed at those that want to live on the bleeding edge, and your not one of them. Gnome 2.14 has been released by the Gnome development team, but that doesn't mean that it is ready for general consumption, it means that it is now available for distribution developers to integrate it into their distributions. Only after that is done will it be truly ready for the main stream. You can expect that process to take between two and six months, and during that period the bleeding edge adopters will have uncovered a few bugs which will be fixed by the time you get to play with the new release, and there will me more documentation or help available. By the time you (or I) want to install Gnome 2.14 the process will be much simpler than that described in the article.
"Gowen has committed ad hominem, regardless of his position on the author's statements. They are verifiable or they are not."
He may have committed ad hominem, but he hasn't committed a fallacy. Ad hominem is only a fallacy in deductive reasoning which deals in absolutes. However Gowen only invites us to hypothesise that the article is tainted not to regard it as a certainty. That is abductive rather than deductive logic, and in the real world abductive logic is usually a more useful tool than deduction. Given the number of observations of those funded by MS making bogus statements about the GPL, and the puacity of truthful statements on any subject from such sources it is reasonable to infer there is rule that such sources are tainted.
One only needs to glance at the article to see that in this case that the hypothesis is not disproven. This gives further weight to the theory that any source funded by MS is untrustworthy.
Since none of us have the time nor ability to independently verify every source of information out there only a fool would dismiss the utility of sifting information according to the likely veracity of its source.
No, the parent is correct the assumption that an 8 year old is 8/11 as intelligent as an 11 year old is one of the many bizarre assumptions made in measurement of children's intelligence. That the questions in tests are selected according to this assumption might compensate for this if the development of intelligence were to follow a smooth curve like a logarithmic scale. However it is well established that children's mental development follows a series of stages which would suggest that intelligence develops in a series of advances and plateaus.
Strangely, the man (Piaget) responsible for demonstrating that children develop through a series of stages is also responsible for the way we measure children's IQ's, and the really weird assumption that all children complete their development on their sixteenth birthday.
The parent is also correct that a drop of IQ of 27 points, which is nearly two standard deviations, across two generations is impossible. That degree of difference represents the gap between average intelligence and retardation. This suggests that the test was not one of intelligence but one of knowledge.
I'd like to know if people would be so tolerant if another company, Microsoft for example, had done the same.
MS have already done the same, as have Yahoo, with two important differences: Google will highlight when results have been censored so that searchers can go and try a search engine outwith china; and Google will refrain from collecting their usual data so that when the Chinese government comes asking for information they do not have any to hand over. We've already seen that MS and Yahoo are more than willing to hand over information to governments. Furthermore Cisco built the infrastructure that allows the Chinese government to monitor internet activity in China. Yet, none of these other companies have attracted the negative headlines in the mainstream media that Google has.
Google has actually stood up to the Chinese government and come up with a solution which while not ideal is workable and doesn't create further harm beyond the status quo. If anything their highlighting of when results are suppressed is an advance for free speech in China.
The most disturbing thing I have seen today is the queue of 'free speech' advocates lining up to be interviewed on how Google's actions are evil. Yet they seem to be oblivious to how the news agenda is being manipulated here. If Google is in the wrong and their actions worthy of headlines then why didn't Yahoo and MS receive similar attention, and who's agenda does this advance? Free speech is a great ideal, but without critical thinking you may be think you are exercising it, but in reality be an unwitting mouthpiece for someone else.
To all the people pooh-poohing Sony on here- have any of you ever owned a (cassette) walkman
Not since the early 80's when they were the only show in town. It was replaced by an AIWA who made far superior portable cassette players than the walkmans. They weren't as neat or pretty, but they had far better sound quality.
or a (cd) discman?
Yes it crapped out after 18 months, the price SONY quoted to fix it was more than the price of the unit, and it wasn't one of their cheaper models.
How about a Viao laptop,
No, I'm daft but I'm not that stupid
or a portable minidisc player?
Yes, and exactly the same happened as with the discman. The microphone I bought with it still works, but I never use it, the gain is so low that it's useless for recording. The headphones I bought at the same time fell apart after two years due to poor materials, and I've had similar issues with a Sony Ericsson phone. Before you say anything, I've always looked after my stuff, it's only Sony equipment I've ever had problems with.
Whatever your opinions are about their non-potable equipment; their politics or their policies, Sony has ALWAYS made very durable and dependable portable equipment. Paying a "premium" for Sony equipment is like paying a premium for Apple equipment- except that you get durable devices instead of pretty ones.
No, with both companies you are paying for the brand name. It's like buying Calvin Klein underpants you can get better and cheaper. In Sony's case my experience is that you would be hard pushed to find worse.
Hmmm, it appears this is a *nix problem that has migrated to Windows.
Oh dear, you've fallen into the trap of being as daft as the person you're responding to. Rootkits are a response to system security, not a sign of a badly designed system. The reason that *nix had rootkits and Windows didn't was that early versions of Windows had no security, especially not a separate administrative account. The reason we now of rootkits for MS systems is that these systems now have some of the security measures that *nix systems have had for many years, and with the advent of XP all new Windows systems are now NT based rather than DOS based, and so have the potential to be made more secure, so long as the user doesn't run as admin by default.
Unfortunately so many programs that the typical home user wants require admin privileges, that even those users that understand the need for a seperate admin account often eschew best practise, and the default setup is borked anyway. So there isn't a real need for rootkits for Windows, because those breaking into machines on an individual basis tend to attack *nix machines for the greater power they give to privileged accounts to mount further attacks on third party systems.
What we have seen in the Windows world, is various forms of malware hide themselves from uninstall programs and malware detection programs. It just so happened that the way that the Sony CD's did this provided a mechanism for obscuring further attacks and so provided a sort of half baked rootkit. In a sense the parent is correct, it is probably now the case that rootkits are now more common on Widows machines than *nix ones. As a Linux user I am not immune to resourceful cracker, but ar least I won't get rooted by an audio CD.
Sometimes large corporations with expensive legal teams can sway courts into making wrong decisions. That was such a case in California, which wil give you no precedence in an English court. Even in California if I wanted to get that precedent overturned I would choose to take you on. Adobe has an aura of respectability that Retrocoder does not, though that is unfair, they are in actuality just as sleazy as you.
You should have consulted a solicitor before you embarked on this course of action, as you clearly have no understanding of copyright law. If you had consulted one they would of explained the "doctrine of first sale", (aka exhaustion) to you, and you would understand that you have no case.
For example, if you have a copy of Windows without MicroSofts permission, is this not a crime?
It is not a crime.
The action will be that we may be (in our opinion) forced to get the UK police authorities involved with Sunbelt over copyright theft. This is a criminal offence, not a civil one I believe.
Wrong, they have committed neither civil nor criminal offence, however you have just opened yourself up to an action for defamation. You really shouldn't go around accusing inoccent parties of theft.
It looks like the maintainers of my distro have fixed one of the examples you mention, which is one of the things I pay them for. That is to ensure that the applications they provide with the distribution conform to the FHS. The original poster seemed to me to be complaining that the FHS is borked, and then misrepresented it. You seem to be complaining about applications and systems that fail to conform to the FHS. Two different things. FWIW I agree with your complaint, FHS may be opaque to those that don't take the time to understand it, but it seems to me to be about as good a compromise as is possible.
Nor should there be a/usr/local/share/bin, that was my point. They don't exist, and that the original complaint amount the multitude of directories for executables was talking through a hole in his head.
No, he's saying the GPL is not a EULA, and in that he is entirely correct. The GPL does not address what the end user does with the software, it addresses under what circumstances it may be copied and distributed.
However if he were to claim that EULA's are not licenses he would also be correct. A license is a permission to do something that is prohibited without the license. Most EULA's do not come into this category the are attempts to restrict your legal rights to use goods that you have bought and paid for. The use of the term license in these documents is disingenuous.
I hate to break it to you, but the GPL is a EULA. It dictates what you can and cannot do with a given piece of software (or in the GPL's case, the code).
That is just plain wrong. The GPL grants permission to copy and distribute the software providing that certain conditions are adhered to, it grants rights that would otherwise be denied by copyright law, and says nothing that restricts how you may use the software.
When you click 'I Agree' and install a copy of Windows, you are agreeing that you will not hold Microsoft liable should your 1st born die to the software, along with a number of other stipulations.
Nonsense, I'm installing the software that I own. I'm not agreeing to anything. The 'I Agree' button is just one of those annoyances that come with doing business with the businesses without ethics.
The GPL is far shorter yes, and it too dictates what you cannot do... like release a binary without making available the code.
Pure FUD, as stated before the GPL grants rights it doesn't take any away.
In fact, both make quite clear that you are using said software at your own risk and that the publisher/writer/distributor/etc of said code is not liable for any damage.
The relevant section of the GPL starts,
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE,
These clauses are there to protect authors and distributors of GPL'd software from being sued as vendors. If you sell GPL'd software you are still subject to any laws that require your product be of merchantable quality.
I often times find it funny, when people like you bad mouth EULA's so much and seem to be so in love with the GPL.
I find it funny how people like you can't grasp the fundamental differences between a the GPL and a EULA. You should try and not let your prejudices obscure your understanding of the facts.
Here's a horrific thought for you to consider, should the entire concept of EULA's be struck down in couAre you saying that a EULA is not a license?
Both govern how you can use a piece of software, if anything, I'd argue that a EULA is more legally sound than the GPL for a single reason... with a standard EULA, active consent is required to press the "I Agree" button. With GPL, it is implied consent.
More bullshit, a license does not require consent form the person receiving the license, they are free to make use of it or not as they desire. The 'I Agree' button on a EULA is a sure indication that they are not licenses, they are attempts to unilaterally alter the contract of sale after the fact. That fundamental difference is why in the long term the GPL will survive and eventually EULA's will be struck down in most jurisdictions.
The crows you know must be brighter than the ones that I'm used to. The crows round here can only count one, more, but the do have the concept of a gun. The trick is to send three men into the wood, one man has a gun and the other two carry broom handles. The two with broom handles leave the wood and the crows return.
If anyone uses this trick to kill crows please take the time to cut it open and examine the contents of their stomach. You'll find that it contains bugs not seed grain. These wonderful and intelligent birds are the farmers friend and shouldn't be persecuted.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry! Maybe though, the next time you hear a certain blues song, you might appreciate it in a different way.
The term back door man doesn't mean what you think it means. The back door on question belongs to the ladies house not her anatomy, and the man in question sneaks out the back door when the husband comes home.
The graph the parent post links to shows sheet ice area in the antarctic, the one you refer to shows sheet ice anomaly in the arctic. From the two you can work out that total world sheet ice is at a record high since records began. Not that thirty years of records are enough to draw definite conclusions from, gut that data certainly doesn't support the notion of global warming. More like unipolar warming.
It is not possible to successfully find some 'loophole' in the concept of fair use. There's simply no such thing because fair use by definition is a fungible thing that relies on reasonable human judgment to decide when too much is too much. Therefore, the very fact that you attempt to use some loophole pretty much in itself no longer makes your actions fair use.
What on earth do you think you are talking about. No one in their right mind would go looking for a loophole in a concept. The idea of a loophole is that a badly drafted law may allow for it to be interpreted in a way that it wasn't intended, thus allowing an action which would otherwise be prohibited. Surely you can tell the difference between the concept of fair use and a legal definition of fair use. To argue something is falls under the concept of fair use is not looking for a loophole it is just giving an example of an action which a person considers a definition of fair use should cover. To look for a loophole in a legal definition of fair use in order to cover an action that falls under the concept of fair use is a legitimate thing to do. It does not make that action non fair use, it merely extends the legal definition of fair use such that it falls more into line with how a reasonable person might define fair use.
Secondly, you use the word fungible but it does not mean what you think it means. Nothing in and of itself is fungible, you need at least two things for them to be fungible. These two things must be interchangeable in regard to a legal obligation. For example say I go into a store and ask for a copy of a particular CD, and the shop has three copies of that CD in stock. These three CD's are fungible because any one of the three will satisfy my order. Similarly I may pay by cash or credit card, these are fungibles because either is sufficient to satisfy my debt for the CD. What exactly are you saying fair use is fungible with, or were you just using a big word in order to sound impressive.
You're right, I hadn't realised that FC5 dovetailed so nicely this time around. However I think I'll stick with be prepared to wait 2-6 months as being good advice to someone switching to Linux from a Windows background. Debian Sid's great if you want to run bleeding edge, but a poor choice for people that aren't used to trouble-shooting a Linux system. Also, many distributions will offer the opportunity to upgrade to a new release of Gnome or KDE between distributions, but this often means foregoing automatic security patching. So, unless you're prepared to patch manually or can live with security issues it might be better to be patient.
I'd even suggest that a complete novice doesn't install a new distribution on the day of its release. If they wait a month or two they will be able to get feedback on the quality of the release, patches will be available for any teething problems, and more experienced people will have already come across any issues so advice will be available on forums.
After all most releases of OSS are incremental and not radical improvements on the previous release. So unless the new release fixes a particular problem for you, or you're involved in development (or at least willing to contribute bug reports) then there's no need to be in a hurry to upgrade.
There's a reason you find that text dense, it's because it's not aimed at you. It's aimed at those that want to live on the bleeding edge, and your not one of them. Gnome 2.14 has been released by the Gnome development team, but that doesn't mean that it is ready for general consumption, it means that it is now available for distribution developers to integrate it into their distributions. Only after that is done will it be truly ready for the main stream. You can expect that process to take between two and six months, and during that period the bleeding edge adopters will have uncovered a few bugs which will be fixed by the time you get to play with the new release, and there will me more documentation or help available. By the time you (or I) want to install Gnome 2.14 the process will be much simpler than that described in the article.
"Gowen has committed ad hominem, regardless of his position on the author's statements. They are verifiable or they are not."
He may have committed ad hominem, but he hasn't committed a fallacy. Ad hominem is only a fallacy in deductive reasoning which deals in absolutes. However Gowen only invites us to hypothesise that the article is tainted not to regard it as a certainty. That is abductive rather than deductive logic, and in the real world abductive logic is usually a more useful tool than deduction. Given the number of observations of those funded by MS making bogus statements about the GPL, and the puacity of truthful statements on any subject from such sources it is reasonable to infer there is rule that such sources are tainted.
One only needs to glance at the article to see that in this case that the hypothesis is not disproven. This gives further weight to the theory that any source funded by MS is untrustworthy.
Since none of us have the time nor ability to independently verify every source of information out there only a fool would dismiss the utility of sifting information according to the likely veracity of its source.
Why don't you ask the poly-theists in Mecca if Muhhamed was a terrorist? That's if you can find any that aren't too terrorised to identify themselves.
No, the parent is correct the assumption that an 8 year old is 8/11 as intelligent as an 11 year old is one of the many bizarre assumptions made in measurement of children's intelligence. That the questions in tests are selected according to this assumption might compensate for this if the development of intelligence were to follow a smooth curve like a logarithmic scale. However it is well established that children's mental development follows a series of stages which would suggest that intelligence develops in a series of advances and plateaus.
Strangely, the man (Piaget) responsible for demonstrating that children develop through a series of stages is also responsible for the way we measure children's IQ's, and the really weird assumption that all children complete their development on their sixteenth birthday.
The parent is also correct that a drop of IQ of 27 points, which is nearly two standard deviations, across two generations is impossible. That degree of difference represents the gap between average intelligence and retardation. This suggests that the test was not one of intelligence but one of knowledge.
I'd like to know if people would be so tolerant if another company, Microsoft for example, had done the same.
MS have already done the same, as have Yahoo, with two important differences: Google will highlight when results have been censored so that searchers can go and try a search engine outwith china; and Google will refrain from collecting their usual data so that when the Chinese government comes asking for information they do not have any to hand over. We've already seen that MS and Yahoo are more than willing to hand over information to governments. Furthermore Cisco built the infrastructure that allows the Chinese government to monitor internet activity in China. Yet, none of these other companies have attracted the negative headlines in the mainstream media that Google has.
Google has actually stood up to the Chinese government and come up with a solution which while not ideal is workable and doesn't create further harm beyond the status quo. If anything their highlighting of when results are suppressed is an advance for free speech in China.
The most disturbing thing I have seen today is the queue of 'free speech' advocates lining up to be interviewed on how Google's actions are evil. Yet they seem to be oblivious to how the news agenda is being manipulated here. If Google is in the wrong and their actions worthy of headlines then why didn't Yahoo and MS receive similar attention, and who's agenda does this advance? Free speech is a great ideal, but without critical thinking you may be think you are exercising it, but in reality be an unwitting mouthpiece for someone else.
Sony took over AIWA in 2002, I haven't used a portable cassette player for a long time now (around ten years). Have you?
To all the people pooh-poohing Sony on here- have any of you ever owned a (cassette) walkman
Not since the early 80's when they were the only show in town. It was replaced by an AIWA who made far superior portable cassette players than the walkmans. They weren't as neat or pretty, but they had far better sound quality.
or a (cd) discman?
Yes it crapped out after 18 months, the price SONY quoted to fix it was more than the price of the unit, and it wasn't one of their cheaper models.
How about a Viao laptop,
No, I'm daft but I'm not that stupid
or a portable minidisc player?
Yes, and exactly the same happened as with the discman. The microphone I bought with it still works, but I never use it, the gain is so low that it's useless for recording. The headphones I bought at the same time fell apart after two years due to poor materials, and I've had similar issues with a Sony Ericsson phone. Before you say anything, I've always looked after my stuff, it's only Sony equipment I've ever had problems with.
Whatever your opinions are about their non-potable equipment; their politics or their policies, Sony has ALWAYS made very durable and dependable portable equipment. Paying a "premium" for Sony equipment is like paying a premium for Apple equipment- except that you get durable devices instead of pretty ones.
No, with both companies you are paying for the brand name. It's like buying Calvin Klein underpants you can get better and cheaper. In Sony's case my experience is that you would be hard pushed to find worse.
I only went to the article to see the pictures of big breasted women, and there weren't any. Sucks :-(
Hmmm, it appears this is a *nix problem that has migrated to Windows.
Oh dear, you've fallen into the trap of being as daft as the person you're responding to. Rootkits are a response to system security, not a sign of a badly designed system. The reason that *nix had rootkits and Windows didn't was that early versions of Windows had no security, especially not a separate administrative account. The reason we now of rootkits for MS systems is that these systems now have some of the security measures that *nix systems have had for many years, and with the advent of XP all new Windows systems are now NT based rather than DOS based, and so have the potential to be made more secure, so long as the user doesn't run as admin by default.
Unfortunately so many programs that the typical home user wants require admin privileges, that even those users that understand the need for a seperate admin account often eschew best practise, and the default setup is borked anyway. So there isn't a real need for rootkits for Windows, because those breaking into machines on an individual basis tend to attack *nix machines for the greater power they give to privileged accounts to mount further attacks on third party systems.What we have seen in the Windows world, is various forms of malware hide themselves from uninstall programs and malware detection programs. It just so happened that the way that the Sony CD's did this provided a mechanism for obscuring further attacks and so provided a sort of half baked rootkit. In a sense the parent is correct, it is probably now the case that rootkits are now more common on Widows machines than *nix ones. As a Linux user I am not immune to resourceful cracker, but ar least I won't get rooted by an audio CD.
Sometimes large corporations with expensive legal teams can sway courts into making wrong decisions. That was such a case in California, which wil give you no precedence in an English court. Even in California if I wanted to get that precedent overturned I would choose to take you on. Adobe has an aura of respectability that Retrocoder does not, though that is unfair, they are in actuality just as sleazy as you.
You should have consulted a solicitor before you embarked on this course of action, as you clearly have no understanding of copyright law. If you had consulted one they would of explained the "doctrine of first sale", (aka exhaustion) to you, and you would understand that you have no case.
For example, if you have a copy of Windows without MicroSofts permission, is this not a crime?
It is not a crime.
The action will be that we may be (in our opinion) forced to get the UK police authorities involved with Sunbelt over copyright theft. This is a criminal offence, not a civil one I believe.
Wrong, they have committed neither civil nor criminal offence, however you have just opened yourself up to an action for defamation. You really shouldn't go around accusing inoccent parties of theft.
No I'm in the huff, and muttering nasty things about you under my breath.
What? You didn't recognise 11413 as the product of 101 and 113? Hang your head in shame and hang in your geek badge at the door.
$ whereis postfix
postfix: /usr/sbin/postfix /etc/postfix /usr/lib/postfix /usr/share/man/man1/postfix.1.gz
It looks like the maintainers of my distro have fixed one of the examples you mention, which is one of the things I pay them for. That is to ensure that the applications they provide with the distribution conform to the FHS. The original poster seemed to me to be complaining that the FHS is borked, and then misrepresented it. You seem to be complaining about applications and systems that fail to conform to the FHS. Two different things. FWIW I agree with your complaint, FHS may be opaque to those that don't take the time to understand it, but it seems to me to be about as good a compromise as is possible.
Nor should there be a /usr/local/share/bin, that was my point. They don't exist, and that the original complaint amount the multitude of directories for executables was talking through a hole in his head.
Whats non-standard about that?
Are you saying that a EULA is not a license?
No, he's saying the GPL is not a EULA, and in that he is entirely correct. The GPL does not address what the end user does with the software, it addresses under what circumstances it may be copied and distributed.
However if he were to claim that EULA's are not licenses he would also be correct. A license is a permission to do something that is prohibited without the license. Most EULA's do not come into this category the are attempts to restrict your legal rights to use goods that you have bought and paid for. The use of the term license in these documents is disingenuous.
I hate to break it to you, but the GPL is a EULA. It dictates what you can and cannot do with a given piece of software (or in the GPL's case, the code).
That is just plain wrong. The GPL grants permission to copy and distribute the software providing that certain conditions are adhered to, it grants rights that would otherwise be denied by copyright law, and says nothing that restricts how you may use the software.
When you click 'I Agree' and install a copy of Windows, you are agreeing that you will not hold Microsoft liable should your 1st born die to the software, along with a number of other stipulations.
Nonsense, I'm installing the software that I own. I'm not agreeing to anything. The 'I Agree' button is just one of those annoyances that come with doing business with the businesses without ethics.
The GPL is far shorter yes, and it too dictates what you cannot do... like release a binary without making available the code.
Pure FUD, as stated before the GPL grants rights it doesn't take any away.
In fact, both make quite clear that you are using said software at your own risk and that the publisher/writer/distributor/etc of said code is not liable for any damage.
The relevant section of the GPL starts,
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE,
These clauses are there to protect authors and distributors of GPL'd software from being sued as vendors. If you sell GPL'd software you are still subject to any laws that require your product be of merchantable quality.
I often times find it funny, when people like you bad mouth EULA's so much and seem to be so in love with the GPL.
I find it funny how people like you can't grasp the fundamental differences between a the GPL and a EULA. You should try and not let your prejudices obscure your understanding of the facts.
Here's a horrific thought for you to consider, should the entire concept of EULA's be struck down in couAre you saying that a EULA is not a license?
Both govern how you can use a piece of software, if anything, I'd argue that a EULA is more legally sound than the GPL for a single reason... with a standard EULA, active consent is required to press the "I Agree" button. With GPL, it is implied consent.
More bullshit, a license does not require consent form the person receiving the license, they are free to make use of it or not as they desire. The 'I Agree' button on a EULA is a sure indication that they are not licenses, they are attempts to unilaterally alter the contract of sale after the fact. That fundamental difference is why in the long term the GPL will survive and eventually EULA's will be struck down in most jurisdictions.
Crows can distinguish one, two, three, many.
The crows you know must be brighter than the ones that I'm used to. The crows round here can only count one, more, but the do have the concept of a gun. The trick is to send three men into the wood, one man has a gun and the other two carry broom handles. The two with broom handles leave the wood and the crows return.
If anyone uses this trick to kill crows please take the time to cut it open and examine the contents of their stomach. You'll find that it contains bugs not seed grain. These wonderful and intelligent birds are the farmers friend and shouldn't be persecuted.
Trying hard not to be flamebait here or an ad for apple, but why is Mac OS X considered a toy OS in this report?
Because they knew fanboys would bite.
Fart comes from Old English, flatulence is a later polite latinate term. Fart is fine it's flatulence which is the slang word.