Throwing money at the problem isn't good enough, though - you have to convince users that your search engine offers a better experience than Google does. And for that, you not only have to improve until you're up to par with Google, you actually have to outperform them by a considerable margin - and that takes time and talent.
It's definitely not true that Microsoft doesn't have to win, either. In order to starve Google out of business, they'd have to get the vast majority of users to use their search by default rather than Google's, and if they manage to do that, then they actually *have* won.
I'm not sure I can see the conflict of interest here. Does Intel have an office suite of their own they're trying to sell? Or did they merge with Microsoft recently?:)
The fact that Linux installation is pretty much easy as pie these days (generally, anyway) is irrelevant, though - what matters is whether the average user who hasn't experimented with Linux before knows this. Once everyone knows that installation isn't something you have to worry about, it doesn't have to be mentioned anymore, but so far, Linux still carries the "it can only be installed by experts" stigma among non-geeks, so I do think it's important that it's pointed out that this isn't true anymore.
Oh, get real. Do you really think that if someone else submitted a story that essentially said "Blizzard told me I had to change my username because it's against the rules, and they were right", it would be accepted?
Well, at least Slashdot has metamoderation, so in theory at least, bad moderation gets punished. And also, moderation only lowers a comment's score; it does not cause it to disappear altogether. But then, why am I saying this? If anyone knows, it should be you... I hope.:)
No, it's not Taco's personal blog anymore. Outside of the fact that it's called "News for Nerds" (that is, it proclaims itself a news site, as opposed to a blog or journal where personal stories are posted), Slashdot is owned by OSTG nowadays (and has been for quite a while). Saying that Slashdot is the personal blog of Taco is like saying that the New York Times is the personal blog of Bill Keller.
IIS is arguably easier to use then apache because you don't need to go threw and end a text file and add commands that may not be part of the default configuration.
If your IT department is afraid of editing text files (I assume that was supposed to mean "edit", right?), then you have a bigger problem than being dependant on Microsoft, anyway.
I can't really speak for Switzerland and the Netherlands, but as far as Iceland is concerned, out of the total ~300,000 inhabitants, roughly 180,000 (60%) live in the Reykjavík metropolitan area; the next biggest settlements are Kopavógur (~25,000), Hafnafjörður (~21,000) and Akureyri (~16,000). In other words, compared to the USA at least, a relatively large percentage of the population lives in urban areas.
It might not be usable as a weapon really, but it could conceivably be used on prisoners, for example. Or, for that matter, on suspects who're not willing to cooperate during an interrogation.
I'm not sure about you, but I feel distinctly uncomfortable with both these scenarios.
Well, that part of the article was FUD at its best, and you're the perfect example of a naive Slashdot reader who took the bait and fell for it, so to speak.
For one, not all the world's Iran and China; admittedly those are dictatorships that you probably don't want having a say in how the Internet is governed, but the majority of the world's countries is not like that. Furthermore, the proposition wasn't that individual countries control the Internet; rather, it was suggested that an international body responsible for this be created. Kind of like the ITU, for example - which is not exactly a prime example of the devastating influence that countries like China and Iran would have, is it?
And don't even think about playing the "free speech" card - that coming from a country where an accidentally-exposed nipple on TV causes a major outrage and where the FBI goes after and tries to shut down porn websites is just ironic. If you want the USA to keep control of the Internet, at least be honest enough to admit that you like to feel that you're in power, that you have control, and that you're better than the rest of the world.
And now I'll most likely get modded down to oblivion for saying this, probably - again by people who otherwise constantly talk about free speech. Isn't it ironic...
Copyright infringement per se is not a crime (i.e., a criminal offense) in any place I'm aware of, so... no. But it still would be copyright infringement, obviously; the question whether he actually watches the movies is irrelevant.
You already can link to specific revisions of a page, which is what you should do when you're citing an article, anyway, so that wouldn't be anything new.
Two things... first of all, it's perfectly legal to sell the source code to GPL'ed software, just like it's legal to sell the software itself (which actually may be distributed in source code form). What you can't do is charge someone *extra* for the source code who *already* got the software from you.
In particular, this also means that you (or me, or anyone) is not automatically entitled to receiving the source code; if the source code or a written offer to send it, as well as the text of the GPL license, accompanies the product, that's enough to be in compliance with the GPL. You do not have to make the source code available to random third parties who did not receive the product from you.
Of course, once someone has the source code, they are free to put it up on their own web page for all the world to download, for example. But if noone does that, then you cannot go to the company who sells the product and demand the source code unless you have bought the product yourself.
HTH. And JBTW, IANAL, of course.
Re:Illegal vs. Against the terms of the license
on
DrDOS Inc Breaking GPL
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Of course violating a license is illegal. What it's not is a criminal offense; "illegal", though, simply means that it's not allowed under current law.
Why shouldn't it be? Licensing issues, "intellectual property" (no matter whether it's copyrights, patents, trademarks or whatever) stories and all that belong in here.
Slashdot Mirror
The richest person in the world is actually Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of Ikea.
Throwing money at the problem isn't good enough, though - you have to convince users that your search engine offers a better experience than Google does. And for that, you not only have to improve until you're up to par with Google, you actually have to outperform them by a considerable margin - and that takes time and talent.
It's definitely not true that Microsoft doesn't have to win, either. In order to starve Google out of business, they'd have to get the vast majority of users to use their search by default rather than Google's, and if they manage to do that, then they actually *have* won.
I'm not sure I can see the conflict of interest here. Does Intel have an office suite of their own they're trying to sell? Or did they merge with Microsoft recently? :)
What makes you think he gave away *all* of them? :)
The fact that Linux installation is pretty much easy as pie these days (generally, anyway) is irrelevant, though - what matters is whether the average user who hasn't experimented with Linux before knows this. Once everyone knows that installation isn't something you have to worry about, it doesn't have to be mentioned anymore, but so far, Linux still carries the "it can only be installed by experts" stigma among non-geeks, so I do think it's important that it's pointed out that this isn't true anymore.
Convenient mirror link, as the site seems to be slashdotted already: http://charlespetzold.com.nyud.net:8090/etc/DoesVi sualStudioRotTheMind.html
Oh, get real. Do you really think that if someone else submitted a story that essentially said "Blizzard told me I had to change my username because it's against the rules, and they were right", it would be accepted?
Well, at least Slashdot has metamoderation, so in theory at least, bad moderation gets punished. And also, moderation only lowers a comment's score; it does not cause it to disappear altogether. But then, why am I saying this? If anyone knows, it should be you... I hope. :)
No, it's not Taco's personal blog anymore. Outside of the fact that it's called "News for Nerds" (that is, it proclaims itself a news site, as opposed to a blog or journal where personal stories are posted), Slashdot is owned by OSTG nowadays (and has been for quite a while). Saying that Slashdot is the personal blog of Taco is like saying that the New York Times is the personal blog of Bill Keller.
Because he's personally affected.
If your IT department is afraid of editing text files (I assume that was supposed to mean "edit", right?), then you have a bigger problem than being dependant on Microsoft, anyway.
I can't really speak for Switzerland and the Netherlands, but as far as Iceland is concerned, out of the total ~300,000 inhabitants, roughly 180,000 (60%) live in the Reykjavík metropolitan area; the next biggest settlements are Kopavógur (~25,000), Hafnafjörður (~21,000) and Akureyri (~16,000). In other words, compared to the USA at least, a relatively large percentage of the population lives in urban areas.
:)
JFYI.
It might not be usable as a weapon really, but it could conceivably be used on prisoners, for example. Or, for that matter, on suspects who're not willing to cooperate during an interrogation.
I'm not sure about you, but I feel distinctly uncomfortable with both these scenarios.
Well, that part of the article was FUD at its best, and you're the perfect example of a naive Slashdot reader who took the bait and fell for it, so to speak.
For one, not all the world's Iran and China; admittedly those are dictatorships that you probably don't want having a say in how the Internet is governed, but the majority of the world's countries is not like that. Furthermore, the proposition wasn't that individual countries control the Internet; rather, it was suggested that an international body responsible for this be created. Kind of like the ITU, for example - which is not exactly a prime example of the devastating influence that countries like China and Iran would have, is it?
And don't even think about playing the "free speech" card - that coming from a country where an accidentally-exposed nipple on TV causes a major outrage and where the FBI goes after and tries to shut down porn websites is just ironic. If you want the USA to keep control of the Internet, at least be honest enough to admit that you like to feel that you're in power, that you have control, and that you're better than the rest of the world.
And now I'll most likely get modded down to oblivion for saying this, probably - again by people who otherwise constantly talk about free speech. Isn't it ironic...
Well... scratch that. Seems like Slashdot doesn't allow Cyrillic characters in comments (idiots).
, ! :)
Copyright infringement per se is not a crime (i.e., a criminal offense) in any place I'm aware of, so... no. But it still would be copyright infringement, obviously; the question whether he actually watches the movies is irrelevant.
Whether the tracker could be help responsible or not very much depends on the laws of the country you're in, though.
Thanks - you said that better than I could've hoped to do myself.
It wouldn't be able to "adjust" prices based on the user's country, then - or at least not as easily.
You already can link to specific revisions of a page, which is what you should do when you're citing an article, anyway, so that wouldn't be anything new.
Two things... first of all, it's perfectly legal to sell the source code to GPL'ed software, just like it's legal to sell the software itself (which actually may be distributed in source code form). What you can't do is charge someone *extra* for the source code who *already* got the software from you.
In particular, this also means that you (or me, or anyone) is not automatically entitled to receiving the source code; if the source code or a written offer to send it, as well as the text of the GPL license, accompanies the product, that's enough to be in compliance with the GPL. You do not have to make the source code available to random third parties who did not receive the product from you.
Of course, once someone has the source code, they are free to put it up on their own web page for all the world to download, for example. But if noone does that, then you cannot go to the company who sells the product and demand the source code unless you have bought the product yourself.
HTH. And JBTW, IANAL, of course.
Of course violating a license is illegal. What it's not is a criminal offense; "illegal", though, simply means that it's not allowed under current law.
Why shouldn't it be? Licensing issues, "intellectual property" (no matter whether it's copyrights, patents, trademarks or whatever) stories and all that belong in here.
Oh, come on. The grand-parent was *so* obviously being ironic - don't tell us you didn't realise that.