Spraypainting (I assume you are talking about bottled paint in spraycans... right?) is not defecating, though. And even if the crews actually *did* defecate on you, that wouldn't be the fault of the game, much like it isn't the fault of the game (or, for that matter, the game manufacturer) when you *say* things to other people in a multiplayer game that might be considered offensive.
Linus made that choice two years ago, though, and both Arch and Subversion have probably improved since then (I can't talk about darcs, since I don't know that really).
That being said, it's not just about closed source, although that certainly is a factor, too (did you ever think about where those GNU tools you're (probably) using on a daily basis came from, and why they were created?); the problem with BK is not so much that it's closed-source, but that its "free" (as in beer) license does not permit you to work on any projects that could be seen as competing. That's a serious restriction of your own freedom, and it sure does overstep some ethical boundaries at least because it not only tells you what you can and cannot do with the software in question (BK), but also what you can and cannot do in the rest of your life. There is at least one kernel developer I can remember right now (Andrea Arcangeli) who got bitten by this - he already worked on Arch (I think - it may have been another system, too, though) in the past, so he simply could not use BK at all, and until now, he could not even directly access Linus' BK tree, instead having to rely on things like the bk2cvs gateway etc.
And what's also bad about the whole thing is that this is not the deal that was initially promised: initially, it was (basically) "you (the kernel developers) get to use our commercial product (BK) for free, and we get the opportunity to use the fact that you use it to advertise BK and show how it's able to efficiently handle even large projects". I can definitely understand why Andrea (and others) were upset, and while Linus had to take many things into account (and while it certainly is clear that BK did provide a substantial improvement over CVS), I think the criticism of BK is all but unjustified (and Larry's arrogant and condescending attitude which he showed in many, many lkml posts didn't exactly help, either).
99.9%? And where exactly did that figure come from? Remember, the burden of proof is on Sony's side; if they claim things like that, then it's up to THEM to back them up with data, and if they say things like "all of us know that..." then it really just shows that they can't do that. The same goes for you: you're just repeating that kind of misinformation that's uninformed at best and deliberate FUD at worst.
Considering Theo de Raadt's main area of work is OpenBSD, which is licensed under a BSD license, I've got to admit I find it rather funny that you say he's fighting against proprietary software. I surely applaud his efforts to get wifi device drivers open-sourced, but still...
The person behind this effort *is* a contributor to the Linux kernel at least, though, so I don't see what's wrong with him warning vendors about violations of the GPL when it comes to using the Linux kernel. Not all of the code is his, of course, but some of it is, so why shouldn't he be allowed to tell them to stop it, and why shouldn't he threaten to take legal actions if they continue to violate HIS copyrights?
There is a grain of truth in that, but a big part of the problem (the problem that people don't RTFA before posting, that is) is that more often than not, sites linked to are so slashdotted that you simply can't RTFA even if you want to. There's mirrordot, of course, yes, and also Google's cache etc., but not much is gonna change about all this while you still have to check those manually.
That would be possible, in the sense that it would be possible for the developers of a piece of (GPL'ed) software to license that software to a company under another license (which presumably does not have the requirements the GPL does); it would also be possible to do that in exchange for not being sued for patent infringement, although it probably would be a good idea to do a written contract then. ^_~
The problem, however, is that this would require the approval of each and every person who owns the copyright to parts of the code of the project in question, and given a large enough project, it would seem reasonable to assume that there will be at least one person who does not agree to this, in which case it would be necessary to remove the relevant code from the project in order to still be able to do something like this - which may or may not be feasible.
Côte d'Or (which belongs to Kraft) is nice enough, though, and Milka isn't that bad, either. The same goes for Marabou - they're not the best in the world, sure, but not so bad that you have to look down on them with a snotty attitude, either.:)
I have a bar of Côte d'Or Sensations Intense (Côte d'Or is a Kraft brand these days) right in front of me, and it has cocoa paste as the first ingredient (followed by sugar, cocoa butter and cocoa).
And it makes sense, too, when you think about it. Why would you buy an established brand the name of which stands for a certain quality and then water it down?
I have to disagree about Milka. They make good chocolate, that's true, but not great chocolate; if you really want the "finest" varieties, try Leysieffer or Rausch, for example. You'll be in for a (positive!) surprise.:)
She, not he. And she's a fashion designer, not a web designer, which is a big difference - next time you design a website, try to come up with the haute couture to go with it and you'll know what I mean.:)
Kraft has owned Milka for quite a while - several years, at least, and they haven't gotten any worse. The same goes for other brands they own, like Côte d'Or, Toblerone, Marabou, Suchard etc.
But of course, that's only talking about the quality of the chocolate, not that of the business ethics.
Is it just me, or is document 26b missing? It's probably just a goof-up, really, but still, it's rather funny - you don't really see that kind of goof-up every day, after all, or at least not on the websites of a well-known university (which I think the GWU counts as).
So... the government will get an entire month where they can analyse the patches, see what vulnerabilities they fix, and develop exploits to use against those who haven't received the updates yet?
Not that they probably need much help to find holes in M$ software, but still, this stinks. If the government really was concerned about security, they wouldn't ask to get patches before everyone else; rather, they'd ask that patches be made available to *everyone* as soon as possible.
But Sweden (which is where ThePirateBay resides, if I'm informed correctly) is not Australia. And furthermore, what this guy did *was* illegal in Australia, which is something that the PirateBay guys claim is not true in their case. I'm not sure, but I think even Howard's government has enough decency left to not just arrest people because the USA tells them, when no illegal activity occured under Australian law (well, that's what I hope, anyway).
There's a crucial question that I haven't seen answered so far, though: why should he be extradited at all? He's an Australian citizen, he committed a crime in Australia (as far as we can tell, anyway), and what he did *is*, in fact, illegal under Australian law. Why shouldn't he be tried in Australia, then, under Australian law and before an Australian court?
Slashdot Mirror
Spraypainting (I assume you are talking about bottled paint in spraycans... right?) is not defecating, though. And even if the crews actually *did* defecate on you, that wouldn't be the fault of the game, much like it isn't the fault of the game (or, for that matter, the game manufacturer) when you *say* things to other people in a multiplayer game that might be considered offensive.
Linus made that choice two years ago, though, and both Arch and Subversion have probably improved since then (I can't talk about darcs, since I don't know that really).
That being said, it's not just about closed source, although that certainly is a factor, too (did you ever think about where those GNU tools you're (probably) using on a daily basis came from, and why they were created?); the problem with BK is not so much that it's closed-source, but that its "free" (as in beer) license does not permit you to work on any projects that could be seen as competing. That's a serious restriction of your own freedom, and it sure does overstep some ethical boundaries at least because it not only tells you what you can and cannot do with the software in question (BK), but also what you can and cannot do in the rest of your life. There is at least one kernel developer I can remember right now (Andrea Arcangeli) who got bitten by this - he already worked on Arch (I think - it may have been another system, too, though) in the past, so he simply could not use BK at all, and until now, he could not even directly access Linus' BK tree, instead having to rely on things like the bk2cvs gateway etc.
And what's also bad about the whole thing is that this is not the deal that was initially promised: initially, it was (basically) "you (the kernel developers) get to use our commercial product (BK) for free, and we get the opportunity to use the fact that you use it to advertise BK and show how it's able to efficiently handle even large projects". I can definitely understand why Andrea (and others) were upset, and while Linus had to take many things into account (and while it certainly is clear that BK did provide a substantial improvement over CVS), I think the criticism of BK is all but unjustified (and Larry's arrogant and condescending attitude which he showed in many, many lkml posts didn't exactly help, either).
If only they were - I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd get considerably less spam then.
... which is actually a good thing. How are fines supposed to make a difference if the company doesn't even feel them?
99.9%? And where exactly did that figure come from? Remember, the burden of proof is on Sony's side; if they claim things like that, then it's up to THEM to back them up with data, and if they say things like "all of us know that..." then it really just shows that they can't do that. The same goes for you: you're just repeating that kind of misinformation that's uninformed at best and deliberate FUD at worst.
Wait, wait, wait. You're from the USA and complain about bad beer? You can't be serious.
Idiot.
Considering Theo de Raadt's main area of work is OpenBSD, which is licensed under a BSD license, I've got to admit I find it rather funny that you say he's fighting against proprietary software. I surely applaud his efforts to get wifi device drivers open-sourced, but still...
The person behind this effort *is* a contributor to the Linux kernel at least, though, so I don't see what's wrong with him warning vendors about violations of the GPL when it comes to using the Linux kernel. Not all of the code is his, of course, but some of it is, so why shouldn't he be allowed to tell them to stop it, and why shouldn't he threaten to take legal actions if they continue to violate HIS copyrights?
There is a grain of truth in that, but a big part of the problem (the problem that people don't RTFA before posting, that is) is that more often than not, sites linked to are so slashdotted that you simply can't RTFA even if you want to. There's mirrordot, of course, yes, and also Google's cache etc., but not much is gonna change about all this while you still have to check those manually.
That would be possible, in the sense that it would be possible for the developers of a piece of (GPL'ed) software to license that software to a company under another license (which presumably does not have the requirements the GPL does); it would also be possible to do that in exchange for not being sued for patent infringement, although it probably would be a good idea to do a written contract then. ^_~
The problem, however, is that this would require the approval of each and every person who owns the copyright to parts of the code of the project in question, and given a large enough project, it would seem reasonable to assume that there will be at least one person who does not agree to this, in which case it would be necessary to remove the relevant code from the project in order to still be able to do something like this - which may or may not be feasible.
Same thing: the connection times out.
Great - the site was slashdotted even when the story was still in the mysterious future. Does anyone have a mirror?
Côte d'Or (which belongs to Kraft) is nice enough, though, and Milka isn't that bad, either. The same goes for Marabou - they're not the best in the world, sure, but not so bad that you have to look down on them with a snotty attitude, either. :)
I have a bar of Côte d'Or Sensations Intense (Côte d'Or is a Kraft brand these days) right in front of me, and it has cocoa paste as the first ingredient (followed by sugar, cocoa butter and cocoa).
And it makes sense, too, when you think about it. Why would you buy an established brand the name of which stands for a certain quality and then water it down?
I have to disagree about Milka. They make good chocolate, that's true, but not great chocolate; if you really want the "finest" varieties, try Leysieffer or Rausch, for example. You'll be in for a (positive!) surprise. :)
She, not he. And she's a fashion designer, not a web designer, which is a big difference - next time you design a website, try to come up with the haute couture to go with it and you'll know what I mean. :)
Kraft has owned Milka for quite a while - several years, at least, and they haven't gotten any worse. The same goes for other brands they own, like Côte d'Or, Toblerone, Marabou, Suchard etc.
But of course, that's only talking about the quality of the chocolate, not that of the business ethics.
That's not bad english per se; it's just rather informal.
Is it just me, or is document 26b missing? It's probably just a goof-up, really, but still, it's rather funny - you don't really see that kind of goof-up every day, after all, or at least not on the websites of a well-known university (which I think the GWU counts as).
So... the government will get an entire month where they can analyse the patches, see what vulnerabilities they fix, and develop exploits to use against those who haven't received the updates yet?
Not that they probably need much help to find holes in M$ software, but still, this stinks. If the government really was concerned about security, they wouldn't ask to get patches before everyone else; rather, they'd ask that patches be made available to *everyone* as soon as possible.
I'm not an expert in this area, so I can't say really, but... shouldn't that be the case in every state that upholds human rights?
A 486 with under one MB of RAM? That's rather unusual, to say the least - I thought the "under one MB" era was when 286's where common. :)
But Sweden (which is where ThePirateBay resides, if I'm informed correctly) is not Australia. And furthermore, what this guy did *was* illegal in Australia, which is something that the PirateBay guys claim is not true in their case. I'm not sure, but I think even Howard's government has enough decency left to not just arrest people because the USA tells them, when no illegal activity occured under Australian law (well, that's what I hope, anyway).
There's a crucial question that I haven't seen answered so far, though: why should he be extradited at all? He's an Australian citizen, he committed a crime in Australia (as far as we can tell, anyway), and what he did *is*, in fact, illegal under Australian law. Why shouldn't he be tried in Australia, then, under Australian law and before an Australian court?