Yes, Apple did that. But when the community cried out in protest, Apple corrected their practice, and now everyone involved seems happy enough. Except for those that didn't get the memo, and continue to repeat the story as if it was an ongoing situation. Now that you know better, I hope you don't continue to spread misinformation.
Actually, Linus has made lukewarm noises about the last draft, but has not said that Linux would move to GPL 3. The very fact that Linus is no longer strongly opposed is being hailed as a great victory.
Thank you. It seems to be the only way to get a submission accepted these days. However, the quote is real, and it looks, smells, and tastes like a veiled threat to me.
As far as being against the spirit of GPL 2, as a poster above stated and with which you agreed, I guess you are free to put that spin on it. To me, the spirit of GPL 2 is this: You give up a little freedom to gain a lot of benefit. It's an equitable quid pro quo, maybe more than equitable. If the FSF had intended anything more, they would have written it that way, as they have done in GPL 3. In my mind, GPL 2 represents a cooperative anarchist model while GPL 3 represents a top down control marxist/socialist model. But whatever. Use what ever suits you.
Great work, Dan (I'm assuming you're Daniel Eran). I'm a recently converted fan of RDM, having been introduced by Gruber/Darling Furball. I emailed you on the privacy panic story under my regular non-slashdot nom de net, MxxxxxMxxx@gmail.com, aka Marcos El Malo aka Marcos Malo. Cheers!
You're ignoring case law. Codified law is only one part of the U.S. legal system. If you want to really understand how the law works, you must study the case law, i.e., the application of the codified laws in the courts. This is one of the aspects of U.S. law that many from non-English speaking countries don't fully grasp. England developed her own legal system, which was passed on to her colonies. This system is structurally different than the Napoleonic Code of the European Continent (and its colonies).
That's pre-9/11 thinking. Now, you're a criminal (unlawful enemy combatant) if the President says you are. You don't even need to be charged with a crime.
Why must it be either one or the other? Why can't we ban dangerous stimuli and offer mandatory therapy?
I welcome the day when we are forced to go to therapy after we've eaten our required dosage of vanilla pudding. I think we'll all be calmer and happier.
Does you company do visual voicemail? Can I look at my voicemail queue on the web, and identify the callers, cross index with my address book or contact software? Does your Telco offer APIs to developers who want to tie in your service with other apps and services?
This is the most intelligent thing I've read from a Hawk in a long time. Thank you, it was refreshing. That said, even with the best political and military leadership, going to war is always going to be extremely chancy, which is why elective wars (i.e., wars not required for graduation) are generally not a good idea for a superpower. Sure, limited engagements might be a policy tool (Falklands, Panama, Grenada) if one is careful that they don't get out of hand, but what we (the U.S.) did by invading Iraq was cracked even if we had gone in with sufficient force. Even with a draft and without Afghanistan it is far from guaranteed that we would have been successful. And even if had been successful, chances are we'd still need to occupy Iraq for years.
If I may devolve into a rant, the people in the Bush Administration are lying sacks of shit whose delusions are as bad as those of Hitler's Nazis. It's bad enough that they lied to us so shamelessly. That they believed their own bullshit shows just how insane they are.
And yes, you seem to be one of the few that remember that the saber rattling worked, that Sadam had caved.
I've voted GOP since the middle of my college years (I'm 43 now), and the sooner the GOP loses control of Congress and the Presidency, the better. There really is something wrong mentally with the GOP leadership and anyone who would keep voting for them at this point.
It's a decent price, but not "extremely" so. Unless you mean X-treem!!!!!!bangbang. (in which case, what are you, a damn marketer?)
It's still a little too rich for my blood, but I wasn't planning on spending $500 on a phone in the immediate future anyway. At some point, the iPhone price will come down a bit (I think ~$300 is the I'll bite) and as these mobile internet thin clients (which is what they really are) become ubiquitous, we'll see the carriers become more competitive with their data plans.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very enthusiastic about these developments. I think the iPhone is pushing this to the tipping point, and mobile internet thin clients will be the way most people will connect to the internet most of the time. We'll still have general purpose computers at home, most likely. At least slashdotters will.
The phone is a thin client. Currently, only a few phones really qualify as being a robust thin client, but the smart phone is really the first widely accepted consumer thin client. And currently, the portion of the total cell phone market that is smart phones/thin clients is small. But this is going to change in a big way relatively quickly as the technology (both in the phones and in the networks) becomes ubiquitous.
I'm not sure of the numbers, but I believe that the number of phones surpasses the number of computers on the internet by a wide margin. So anyone who wants to target an audience bigger than the current one that uses desktops and laptops better get their rears in gear and begin to at least plan for this whole new market.
Apple and Google have been planning (and I think creating) a part of the network tailored to phone devices. Or more than just the phone devices. The release of Safari for Windows makes more sense if Google and Apple are about to open their own structured section of the net that will be putting more services on the browser while giving more capabilities to the user and developer. Safari gives them more control over the browser, but it's not exactly a return to the MS "embrace and extend" paradigm because (so far this Millennium) Apple and Google have been good about supporting open standards. Watch for Apple and Google to begin offering more tools to developers and businesses to create their own niches in this new environment.
When you start looking for a grand strategy, and I mean a really grand, audacious, breathtaking strategy, all these recent moves by both Apple and Google make a lot more sense. Apple has Safari (and the open source WebKit), the iPhone and iTunes (as well as the iLife suite on the OS X computer platform). Google has Google Labs, Calendar, mail, maps, marketplace, YouTube, Google Gears, Blogger, Picasa, the list goes on. Google has a huge latent infrastructure, if the stories of shipping containers are true. Apple has OS X server which now runs on intel hardware. And WebObjects. Could Google and Apple offer a virtual(ized) OS X server to businesses and individuals (hosted on Google's servers)? (This could also be a way to move more developers to Macs. Remember, Apple is all about selling hardware.)
All of this is just a wild guess, of course. There's a lot of clues, but it might all be coincidental.
Exactly, he's shifting to a more important priority. Copyright law is important, but not nearly as fundamentally important as the overall corruption of our political system(s). If we liken the legal code to software code, then Larry is moving from hacking content systems (copyright law) to hacking the OS itself. It doesn't matter how successful he's been in the courtroom. What matters is that he is going to be applying his fairly brilliant mind to a bottleneck that threatens, at a fundamental level, our ability to address problems of our species' survival.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading some of your other comments, I think we are more in agreement than disagreement. Context is a wonderful thing.
Proprietary, OSS, F/OSS, use whatever license is best for your particular situation. You've said this a few times, and I can roll with that.
Yes, Apple did that. But when the community cried out in protest, Apple corrected their practice, and now everyone involved seems happy enough. Except for those that didn't get the memo, and continue to repeat the story as if it was an ongoing situation. Now that you know better, I hope you don't continue to spread misinformation.
Actually, Linus has made lukewarm noises about the last draft, but has not said that Linux would move to GPL 3. The very fact that Linus is no longer strongly opposed is being hailed as a great victory.
Thank you. It seems to be the only way to get a submission accepted these days. However, the quote is real, and it looks, smells, and tastes like a veiled threat to me.
As far as being against the spirit of GPL 2, as a poster above stated and with which you agreed, I guess you are free to put that spin on it. To me, the spirit of GPL 2 is this: You give up a little freedom to gain a lot of benefit. It's an equitable quid pro quo, maybe more than equitable. If the FSF had intended anything more, they would have written it that way, as they have done in GPL 3. In my mind, GPL 2 represents a cooperative anarchist model while GPL 3 represents a top down control marxist/socialist model. But whatever. Use what ever suits you.
Great work, Dan (I'm assuming you're Daniel Eran). I'm a recently converted fan of RDM, having been introduced by Gruber/Darling Furball. I emailed you on the privacy panic story under my regular non-slashdot nom de net, MxxxxxMxxx@gmail.com, aka Marcos El Malo aka Marcos Malo. Cheers!
You're ignoring case law. Codified law is only one part of the U.S. legal system. If you want to really understand how the law works, you must study the case law, i.e., the application of the codified laws in the courts. This is one of the aspects of U.S. law that many from non-English speaking countries don't fully grasp. England developed her own legal system, which was passed on to her colonies. This system is structurally different than the Napoleonic Code of the European Continent (and its colonies).
You're confusing distribution with use, which shows your flawed understanding of copyright law.
That's pre-9/11 thinking. Now, you're a criminal (unlawful enemy combatant) if the President says you are. You don't even need to be charged with a crime.
Why must it be either one or the other? Why can't we ban dangerous stimuli and offer mandatory therapy?
I welcome the day when we are forced to go to therapy after we've eaten our required dosage of vanilla pudding. I think we'll all be calmer and happier.
Fair enough.
If Google Search will help me find my car keys, I'm not going to complain.
Does you company do visual voicemail? Can I look at my voicemail queue on the web, and identify the callers, cross index with my address book or contact software? Does your Telco offer APIs to developers who want to tie in your service with other apps and services?
What is, "Jeopardy! What a country!"?
(Was that Meme Mashups for $500?)
Hello. My name is Aladrin Montoya. You killed my mother. Prepare to be disconnected.
I read it as the thing that sticks to the tub after my monthly bath (once a month, whether I need it or not).
I'm not looking at porn and jerking because IT'S A FREAKIN' PHONE!
And I didn't lie just now because IT'S A FREAKIN' PHONE!
Do you think you could map a route for me and then fed ex me your old GPS device? Thanks in advance.
This is the most intelligent thing I've read from a Hawk in a long time. Thank you, it was refreshing. That said, even with the best political and military leadership, going to war is always going to be extremely chancy, which is why elective wars (i.e., wars not required for graduation) are generally not a good idea for a superpower. Sure, limited engagements might be a policy tool (Falklands, Panama, Grenada) if one is careful that they don't get out of hand, but what we (the U.S.) did by invading Iraq was cracked even if we had gone in with sufficient force. Even with a draft and without Afghanistan it is far from guaranteed that we would have been successful. And even if had been successful, chances are we'd still need to occupy Iraq for years.
If I may devolve into a rant, the people in the Bush Administration are lying sacks of shit whose delusions are as bad as those of Hitler's Nazis. It's bad enough that they lied to us so shamelessly. That they believed their own bullshit shows just how insane they are.
And yes, you seem to be one of the few that remember that the saber rattling worked, that Sadam had caved.
I've voted GOP since the middle of my college years (I'm 43 now), and the sooner the GOP loses control of Congress and the Presidency, the better. There really is something wrong mentally with the GOP leadership and anyone who would keep voting for them at this point.
How about,
SOYLENT GREEN IS PIXELS!!
uh, lameness filter, lameness filter, lamenessssssss filterrrrrrr
It's a decent price, but not "extremely" so. Unless you mean X-treem!!!!!!bangbang. (in which case, what are you, a damn marketer?)
It's still a little too rich for my blood, but I wasn't planning on spending $500 on a phone in the immediate future anyway. At some point, the iPhone price will come down a bit (I think ~$300 is the I'll bite) and as these mobile internet thin clients (which is what they really are) become ubiquitous, we'll see the carriers become more competitive with their data plans.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very enthusiastic about these developments. I think the iPhone is pushing this to the tipping point, and mobile internet thin clients will be the way most people will connect to the internet most of the time. We'll still have general purpose computers at home, most likely. At least slashdotters will.
The phone is a thin client. Currently, only a few phones really qualify as being a robust thin client, but the smart phone is really the first widely accepted consumer thin client. And currently, the portion of the total cell phone market that is smart phones/thin clients is small. But this is going to change in a big way relatively quickly as the technology (both in the phones and in the networks) becomes ubiquitous.
I'm not sure of the numbers, but I believe that the number of phones surpasses the number of computers on the internet by a wide margin. So anyone who wants to target an audience bigger than the current one that uses desktops and laptops better get their rears in gear and begin to at least plan for this whole new market.
Apple and Google have been planning (and I think creating) a part of the network tailored to phone devices. Or more than just the phone devices. The release of Safari for Windows makes more sense if Google and Apple are about to open their own structured section of the net that will be putting more services on the browser while giving more capabilities to the user and developer. Safari gives them more control over the browser, but it's not exactly a return to the MS "embrace and extend" paradigm because (so far this Millennium) Apple and Google have been good about supporting open standards. Watch for Apple and Google to begin offering more tools to developers and businesses to create their own niches in this new environment.
When you start looking for a grand strategy, and I mean a really grand, audacious, breathtaking strategy, all these recent moves by both Apple and Google make a lot more sense. Apple has Safari (and the open source WebKit), the iPhone and iTunes (as well as the iLife suite on the OS X computer platform). Google has Google Labs, Calendar, mail, maps, marketplace, YouTube, Google Gears, Blogger, Picasa, the list goes on. Google has a huge latent infrastructure, if the stories of shipping containers are true. Apple has OS X server which now runs on intel hardware. And WebObjects. Could Google and Apple offer a virtual(ized) OS X server to businesses and individuals (hosted on Google's servers)? (This could also be a way to move more developers to Macs. Remember, Apple is all about selling hardware.)
All of this is just a wild guess, of course. There's a lot of clues, but it might all be coincidental.
I don't know whether she ever specifically lists her food likes, but I think the link you seek is Hope Is Emo. (It's from the Ask a Ninja gang.)
Exactly, he's shifting to a more important priority. Copyright law is important, but not nearly as fundamentally important as the overall corruption of our political system(s). If we liken the legal code to software code, then Larry is moving from hacking content systems (copyright law) to hacking the OS itself. It doesn't matter how successful he's been in the courtroom. What matters is that he is going to be applying his fairly brilliant mind to a bottleneck that threatens, at a fundamental level, our ability to address problems of our species' survival.
If you really loved cyberdog, we'd be calling her Mrs. Cowan.
Do you know how hot the surface of a star is? Much to hot to colonize, I'll tell you that much.