A higher average temperature means that areas that were able to grow crops will now be dryer, pushing growing areas to cooler places. Yes, higher average temps may mean that it stays 70 degrees for a longer period of time, but it also means that you will hit 100+ more often, drying the ground and drying plants.
Actually, Radiohead knew that some people would pay nothing. That's why you didn't have to enter a credit card number. They were doing a social experiment as well as an album sale.
Don't we also hate politicians who run around and poll test everything? And really, what would you have done had he gone around and found that his constituents didn't care at all about telecom immmunity?
With the BSD, Microsoft can, and does, incorporate code into their OS with the purpose of crushing non-proprietary software. With GPL, they have to write their own.
Check on the rules in your state about carrying martial arts weapons. In Texas, you can get a concealed handgun license, but you cannot legally carry around a bo staff.
This means that you get to see whatever GPL'd code Skype was using, and if they made changes to that code, they are required to release them as well under the GPL. You don't have access under the GPL to any of their other code that does not meet these conditions.
The obvious counter to this is that the GPL is a license on the copyright of the code in question. If Skype doesn't like the terms of the license, they can write their own code. The GPL doesn't apply to the new code, and therefore is not a monopoly.
It's not going to matter to him whether it's running Windows or Linux. What will matter is when he wants to update the OS to get some new features, he can either pay MS his family's monthly salary, or he can get it for free.
Just like Neil Armstrong's statement when he landed on the moon left out the "a" - "One small step for a man", what Bill actually said was: "GPL creates a license where nobody can ever improve the profits on software"
If the news and book sites wanted to keep the search engines out, they would just set up their robots.txt files to block all access. Then they would never show up on Google. The don't want to do that because they know it would be death to them. Google doesn't supply any content, but it does supply a service: It's the first place people go to find out information. If they need more than a summary, they can click on links from the summary page to get details. People aren't going to go to ten websites to look for something if they can start at one place.
You are right: If the search engines disappeared, the big news services wouldn't care. Actually, they would probably enjoy it, because people would go to the New York Times, Washington Post, and other big names sites rather than seeing these smaller sites with better reporting and commentary. But you contradict yourself as well. You say that if the search engines disappeared, the internet would just create more, but then you say that if the big news services stopped providing news, the search engines would die. No they wouldn't. The internet would create more, filling the need.
If the news sites want to control their content better, fine. But I guarantee you the next whine you will hear from them is how Google isn't directing traffic to their websites and it must all be retribution by Google for being made to limit what it displays, rather than people clicking on sites where they can read the summary.
He's so focused on music that he missed even his own point: give customers what they want, don't try to make them take what you think they should get. Yes, we want easy to access music, because with the newer technology, we shouldn't have to do the same old thing to get music. What he should be telling the carriers is to stop thinking that they can push what they want onto customers, because the customer will find a way to get what they want anyway. Apple is fighting that very thing with the iPhone. Bronfman should be telling Apple to quit and listen to the customer rather than trying to control them.
The company I work for has a policy that if you get hired by a competitor, they will escort you out immediately. If it's a non-competitor company, you can serve out your two weeks. Theoretically, this is about intellectual property, though I'm still trying to find some of that.
Did we miss the point of the GPL? The instance of the software is owned by the user. They can do what they want with it. If they feel like doing everything on their own, they can do so (CentOS). If they want to pay someone else to make their life easier, they can do so (RedHat). RedHat knows this. "Choosing" to tolerate is the one choice RedHat doesn't have: If RedHat wants to use GPL'd software, they have to let other people play by the same rules they do. CentOS isn't going to hurt RedHat any more than Debian does.
A story I remember about technology:
Two men are standing beside the road watching the new backhoe dig a hole. "Look at that. Think of how many men with shovels could be working if we didn't have that thing," says the older man.
"Think of how many men with spoons could be working if we didn't have the shovel," said the other.
If a problem is simple enough that it can be replaced by an automated system, then solve it and give me a more interesting problem to work on.
The logic is this: We say it's mandatory, everyone on windows downloads them, windows-based developers use them, and now everyone is required to have them.
She probably went back to XP because she hasn't been exposed to Linux, one of the perks of being a monopoly.
I switched my family to Debian form XP, switched the default desktop from Gnome to KDE, and my kids haven't missed a beat. It's been especially nice for them because none of that crap gets installed on Linux that was constantly getting installed on Windows, taking up hard drive space, slowing down the machine, making it impossible to shut it down, etc.
I think this was covered by the supreme court decision on obviousness. The company in that case couldn't patent putting together brake pedals and the electronics to elevate them because since each had already been invented, putting them together was "obvious." Seems like that would apply to what you are saying.
Other than the fact that this is a flamebit, you seem to have missed the obvious moral superiority that BSD developers believe they have. If they didn't, Theo wouldn't be yelling about how wrong the GPL is.
The GPL is a militant license. I totally agree. It's just as militant as the companies it was designed to fight against. It was designed to make sure that no company could take GPL'd code and use it without returning the favor. Most companies would not do that without being forced. Look at Microsoft use BSD code in its operating system, not provide access to it, and at the same time try to destroy free software with the money it makes. Look at the trouble it is having doing this with GPL software.
As I have said before, when the only two ways to release software are BSD and GPL, the GPL will no longer be necessary, but we are not there.
Isn't it horrible that reasonable people came together, worked things out, and decided on the best course of action? Now, the people who will obviously continue to rant will look like all they have is an agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
A higher average temperature means that areas that were able to grow crops will now be dryer, pushing growing areas to cooler places. Yes, higher average temps may mean that it stays 70 degrees for a longer period of time, but it also means that you will hit 100+ more often, drying the ground and drying plants.
Actually, Radiohead knew that some people would pay nothing. That's why you didn't have to enter a credit card number. They were doing a social experiment as well as an album sale.
Don't we also hate politicians who run around and poll test everything? And really, what would you have done had he gone around and found that his constituents didn't care at all about telecom immmunity?
With the BSD, Microsoft can, and does, incorporate code into their OS with the purpose of crushing non-proprietary software. With GPL, they have to write their own.
Check on the rules in your state about carrying martial arts weapons. In Texas, you can get a concealed handgun license, but you cannot legally carry around a bo staff.
This means that you get to see whatever GPL'd code Skype was using, and if they made changes to that code, they are required to release them as well under the GPL. You don't have access under the GPL to any of their other code that does not meet these conditions.
The obvious counter to this is that the GPL is a license on the copyright of the code in question. If Skype doesn't like the terms of the license, they can write their own code. The GPL doesn't apply to the new code, and therefore is not a monopoly.
It's not going to matter to him whether it's running Windows or Linux. What will matter is when he wants to update the OS to get some new features, he can either pay MS his family's monthly salary, or he can get it for free.
Just like Neil Armstrong's statement when he landed on the moon left out the "a" - "One small step for a man", what Bill actually said was: "GPL creates a license where nobody can ever improve the profits on software"
The hypothetical elevator is in space, far away from any other gravitational pull in the acceleration experiment.
If the news and book sites wanted to keep the search engines out, they would just set up their robots.txt files to block all access. Then they would never show up on Google. The don't want to do that because they know it would be death to them. Google doesn't supply any content, but it does supply a service: It's the first place people go to find out information. If they need more than a summary, they can click on links from the summary page to get details. People aren't going to go to ten websites to look for something if they can start at one place.
You are right: If the search engines disappeared, the big news services wouldn't care. Actually, they would probably enjoy it, because people would go to the New York Times, Washington Post, and other big names sites rather than seeing these smaller sites with better reporting and commentary. But you contradict yourself as well. You say that if the search engines disappeared, the internet would just create more, but then you say that if the big news services stopped providing news, the search engines would die. No they wouldn't. The internet would create more, filling the need.
If the news sites want to control their content better, fine. But I guarantee you the next whine you will hear from them is how Google isn't directing traffic to their websites and it must all be retribution by Google for being made to limit what it displays, rather than people clicking on sites where they can read the summary.
He's so focused on music that he missed even his own point: give customers what they want, don't try to make them take what you think they should get. Yes, we want easy to access music, because with the newer technology, we shouldn't have to do the same old thing to get music. What he should be telling the carriers is to stop thinking that they can push what they want onto customers, because the customer will find a way to get what they want anyway. Apple is fighting that very thing with the iPhone. Bronfman should be telling Apple to quit and listen to the customer rather than trying to control them.
And who says this is dark? Wire me up.
The company I work for has a policy that if you get hired by a competitor, they will escort you out immediately. If it's a non-competitor company, you can serve out your two weeks. Theoretically, this is about intellectual property, though I'm still trying to find some of that.
Did we miss the point of the GPL? The instance of the software is owned by the user. They can do what they want with it. If they feel like doing everything on their own, they can do so (CentOS). If they want to pay someone else to make their life easier, they can do so (RedHat). RedHat knows this. "Choosing" to tolerate is the one choice RedHat doesn't have: If RedHat wants to use GPL'd software, they have to let other people play by the same rules they do. CentOS isn't going to hurt RedHat any more than Debian does.
A story I remember about technology:
Two men are standing beside the road watching the new backhoe dig a hole. "Look at that. Think of how many men with shovels could be working if we didn't have that thing," says the older man. "Think of how many men with spoons could be working if we didn't have the shovel," said the other.
If a problem is simple enough that it can be replaced by an automated system, then solve it and give me a more interesting problem to work on.
No, the bands that are good, like Metallica and Green Day, will build themselves up through fans, and will earn their money by being good.
I did buy it just because of the way they sold it. Not bad, but a little on the light side for me.
The logic is this: We say it's mandatory, everyone on windows downloads them, windows-based developers use them, and now everyone is required to have them.
You're right. I was in too much of a hurry when I typed that one.
Read this as far as you wish, but one of M$ patent people when to IP Innovation on October 1st, the suit was filed October 9.
She probably went back to XP because she hasn't been exposed to Linux, one of the perks of being a monopoly.
I switched my family to Debian form XP, switched the default desktop from Gnome to KDE, and my kids haven't missed a beat. It's been especially nice for them because none of that crap gets installed on Linux that was constantly getting installed on Windows, taking up hard drive space, slowing down the machine, making it impossible to shut it down, etc.
I think this was covered by the supreme court decision on obviousness. The company in that case couldn't patent putting together brake pedals and the electronics to elevate them because since each had already been invented, putting them together was "obvious." Seems like that would apply to what you are saying.
Other than the fact that this is a flamebit, you seem to have missed the obvious moral superiority that BSD developers believe they have. If they didn't, Theo wouldn't be yelling about how wrong the GPL is.
The GPL is a militant license. I totally agree. It's just as militant as the companies it was designed to fight against. It was designed to make sure that no company could take GPL'd code and use it without returning the favor. Most companies would not do that without being forced. Look at Microsoft use BSD code in its operating system, not provide access to it, and at the same time try to destroy free software with the money it makes. Look at the trouble it is having doing this with GPL software.
As I have said before, when the only two ways to release software are BSD and GPL, the GPL will no longer be necessary, but we are not there.
Isn't it horrible that reasonable people came together, worked things out, and decided on the best course of action? Now, the people who will obviously continue to rant will look like all they have is an agenda.