Also, judging by their other box covers you might wish to rotate the image 90 degrees... I would guess clockwise, but who's to know? Every other box art on their site is in something like 3:4 aspect ratio whereas this image is in 4:3 aspect ratio, so I'm thinking they rotated it for added effect.
And after 20 minutes of fiddling with and starting at the image, I have a headache.:)
They got the number from Sony's PR department, who gave that in order to make it seem like the PS3 selling price is such a bargain because they'll sell more units if people think they're getting an advantage. Nothing to see here, move along.
The LGPL license would have given them that choice.
My apologies -- you are correct. I had missed the part where you said it had gone from LGPL to GPL/commercial. My comment was under the incorrect understanding that it went from GPL to GPL+commercial, so ignore everything I said.
... rather, it forces proprietary developers to use MySQL under the proprietary license.
Nothing forces anybody to do anything. What a great troll. So by your logic, the GPL license forces proprietary developers to ignore the product altogether? More license options means more choice, and choice is *good*. This is like the argument against the BSD license: but... but... someone could develop their own closed source app! Sure, but it doesn't take away the fact that the source is still there for the original product.
And while you're mentioning different projects, any project which requires you to assign your copyright (in order to get your code integrated into the main distribution) is able to do dual licensing. Asterisk is another one which springs to mind. If you don't like it, you can just release your own software distribution under a different name.
For email, you can use the countries.nerd.dk RBL. Just add the two-letter country code as a prefix. So if you wish to block China from sending email, the RBL server is cn.countries.nerd.dk.
If Microsoft actually had to comply to someone else's standard, then there would actually be interoperability.
In this case, the standard defines how it should work and what it should do. Microsoft can *implement* this in any way that they choose. In no way does this imply that adhering to the standard will promote interoperability. Think of it this way: a security standard might say that "door locks should be of sufficient strength and complexity that it would withstand 500 pounds of force and take an experienced lockpick a minimum of 30 minutes to pick". Adhering to this standard doesn't mean that one vendor's keys will work with another, nor that the locks will even fit on your brand of door.
A neat idea, but my first reaction is in how insecure this is. Basically, anyone running this can monitor your calls, just as you can monitor theirs. Sorry, but for the few cents a minute it costs to call most places I'd much rather have my privacy protected -- or at least significantly reduce the risk of eavesdropping.
So at the equator it's several hundred degrees below zero -- cold enough to freeze your balls off in 2.3 seconds. At the south polar region, it's a bit less... cold enough to freeze your balls off in 2.15 seconds. When do we send the manned mission?
Why of all things should you not be responsible for creating a software intended for potentially criminal purpose (here: spying on users) and giving it to people who will use it?
It's not that. Many people who (of course) haven't RTFA miss the point. This isn't software which someone buys and then installs on their target's computer themselves. What they do is sign up at the site and then have that site send out an email with "You have a greeting card..." message. The victim clicks on the link to the website and views the card while, at the same time, this spyware is installed on their system automatically. So the end-user isn't the one doing the hacking and installation -- the guy running the site is the one who, in effect, does it all.
The end users are scumbags for using the service, but it's the guy who wrote it and put it up on the website and caused victims' computers to be compromised who is the guilty party here. This has nothing to do with distributing software.
Google listens, gives everything away for free, yet is one of the richest and most loved companies.
What are you talking about? Google isn't free. You get commercials alongside your search results. You get commercials alongside your gmail inbox. Pretty much all their revenue is driven by advertisers. Many sites have "Ads by Goooooogle" which adds to Google's revenue.
BBC is just now listening to what people say, and now we must give them respect for doing that.
Respecting them is fine, but don't throw your brain out and expect all companies ought to do what a publicly funded organization does. Nor *must* anyone give them respect -- that sounds like some cult movement. It's easy to give everything away when your costs are already paid for by tax dollars. The more they do and give away, the more taxes people pay.
Give people what they want and they won't hate you so much.
What kind of argument is that? Companies aren't in business to be loved, they're in business to make money. People pirate movies so movie companies should just give them away for free?? People steal cars, so GM should just give them away? Who cares if you hate the MPAA and its movies? If you don't like the terms under which they offer their movies to you, then don't watch them.
Go with the flow instead of against it.
Yeah, great advice. If the flow says that they wish to watch the content which you spent money to make, but they don't wish to compensate you for the privelege of watching it, you should just capitulate and release it all at no charge? Learn when to recognize when "the flow" is wrong and act accordingly.
The evidence that circumcision can protect against HIV is actually quite good.
And there's quite good evidence that subjecting women to a double mastectomy (removal of both breasts) would significantly reduce the levels of female breast cancer. However, not many would argue that we should go down that road. The only reason circumcisions are still performed is for societal reasons, be they traditional, religious, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, judging by their other box covers you might wish to rotate the image 90 degrees... I would guess clockwise, but who's to know? Every other box art on their site is in something like 3:4 aspect ratio whereas this image is in 4:3 aspect ratio, so I'm thinking they rotated it for added effect.
:)
And after 20 minutes of fiddling with and starting at the image, I have a headache.
Punitive, not necessarily compensation.
They got the number from Sony's PR department, who gave that in order to make it seem like the PS3 selling price is such a bargain because they'll sell more units if people think they're getting an advantage. Nothing to see here, move along.
Post Humously? You mean humorously?
Read my journal, and try with less whitespace if you still don't get it.
Your comment assumes his incompetence is intentional.
The LGPL license would have given them that choice.
My apologies -- you are correct. I had missed the part where you said it had gone from LGPL to GPL/commercial. My comment was under the incorrect understanding that it went from GPL to GPL+commercial, so ignore everything I said.
... rather, it forces proprietary developers to use MySQL under the proprietary license.
Nothing forces anybody to do anything. What a great troll. So by your logic, the GPL license forces proprietary developers to ignore the product altogether? More license options means more choice, and choice is *good*. This is like the argument against the BSD license: but... but... someone could develop their own closed source app! Sure, but it doesn't take away the fact that the source is still there for the original product.
And while you're mentioning different projects, any project which requires you to assign your copyright (in order to get your code integrated into the main distribution) is able to do dual licensing. Asterisk is another one which springs to mind. If you don't like it, you can just release your own software distribution under a different name.
No, Microsoft's answer is:
Services Terminated For Unix
Sure the judge is female but I find it difficult to imagine her saying "I'd love to see a dad fighting one of these".
For email, you can use the countries.nerd.dk RBL. Just add the two-letter country code as a prefix. So if you wish to block China from sending email, the RBL server is cn.countries.nerd.dk.
If Microsoft actually had to comply to someone else's standard, then there would actually be interoperability.
In this case, the standard defines how it should work and what it should do. Microsoft can *implement* this in any way that they choose. In no way does this imply that adhering to the standard will promote interoperability. Think of it this way: a security standard might say that "door locks should be of sufficient strength and complexity that it would withstand 500 pounds of force and take an experienced lockpick a minimum of 30 minutes to pick". Adhering to this standard doesn't mean that one vendor's keys will work with another, nor that the locks will even fit on your brand of door.
A neat idea, but my first reaction is in how insecure this is. Basically, anyone running this can monitor your calls, just as you can monitor theirs. Sorry, but for the few cents a minute it costs to call most places I'd much rather have my privacy protected -- or at least significantly reduce the risk of eavesdropping.
I think he meant VOIP combined with instant messanger....
In that case, Gizmo Project fits the description nicely.
So at the equator it's several hundred degrees below zero -- cold enough to freeze your balls off in 2.3 seconds. At the south polar region, it's a bit less... cold enough to freeze your balls off in 2.15 seconds. When do we send the manned mission?
"And that's what you're going to get. Someday son, all of this will be yours [gestures]."
"Wot? The curtains?"
And while it may be doubly robust and scalable, it's only singularly clean and adaptable. Given that, I think I'll have to pass.
With GPL people can even make closed source plugins because they are not derivitive works.
Is the reverse true? Can you have a closed source app with GPL plugins? At what point in "linking" does the viral nature kick in?
so bring on the coffee! ...BLACK coffee ...NO sugar
You mean the way I've been drinking it for over 10 years? Sounds good to me!
1) Wait for arctic to melt
2) Setup eco-tours for tourists
3) ???
4) Profit!
Why of all things should you not be responsible for creating a software intended for potentially criminal purpose (here: spying on users) and giving it to people who will use it?
It's not that. Many people who (of course) haven't RTFA miss the point. This isn't software which someone buys and then installs on their target's computer themselves. What they do is sign up at the site and then have that site send out an email with "You have a greeting card..." message. The victim clicks on the link to the website and views the card while, at the same time, this spyware is installed on their system automatically. So the end-user isn't the one doing the hacking and installation -- the guy running the site is the one who, in effect, does it all.
The end users are scumbags for using the service, but it's the guy who wrote it and put it up on the website and caused victims' computers to be compromised who is the guilty party here. This has nothing to do with distributing software.
Us internet veterans call it "downloading a file".
Pfft... you whippersnappers don't know how good you have it. Us real veterans call it encapsulating data in ethernet frames.
You mean this isn't a Mac topic?
Actually, it is.
Google listens, gives everything away for free, yet is one of the richest and most loved companies.
What are you talking about? Google isn't free. You get commercials alongside your search results. You get commercials alongside your gmail inbox. Pretty much all their revenue is driven by advertisers. Many sites have "Ads by Goooooogle" which adds to Google's revenue.
BBC is just now listening to what people say, and now we must give them respect for doing that.
Respecting them is fine, but don't throw your brain out and expect all companies ought to do what a publicly funded organization does. Nor *must* anyone give them respect -- that sounds like some cult movement. It's easy to give everything away when your costs are already paid for by tax dollars. The more they do and give away, the more taxes people pay.
Give people what they want and they won't hate you so much.
What kind of argument is that? Companies aren't in business to be loved, they're in business to make money. People pirate movies so movie companies should just give them away for free?? People steal cars, so GM should just give them away? Who cares if you hate the MPAA and its movies? If you don't like the terms under which they offer their movies to you, then don't watch them.
Go with the flow instead of against it.
Yeah, great advice. If the flow says that they wish to watch the content which you spent money to make, but they don't wish to compensate you for the privelege of watching it, you should just capitulate and release it all at no charge? Learn when to recognize when "the flow" is wrong and act accordingly.
The evidence that circumcision can protect against HIV is actually quite good.
And there's quite good evidence that subjecting women to a double mastectomy (removal of both breasts) would significantly reduce the levels of female breast cancer. However, not many would argue that we should go down that road. The only reason circumcisions are still performed is for societal reasons, be they traditional, religious, etc.
again?