I've always imagined it would roll out in a manner similar to Wordpress. You can host your own by installing from either source or package (if offered by your distribution). Or you can sign-up for an account at their hosted service. IANAC (I am not a cryptographer) but I guess the hosted service is still secure due to the GPG implementation.
That's one reason the/. crowd might differentiate. An equal perspective is the one from the origins of Gnu or the Internet: that we should exert democratic control. A Slashdotter who believes in democratic ideals wouldn't differentiate between the DMCA and the laws of a heirarchial, albeit sovereign, nation.
The company also must establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program, which will be assessed by a third party every other year for 10 years.
Twitter must also donate five nickels to five charities. At least three of those charities must be entirely independent of Twitter.
Maybe the message is: if you marginally screw with the President, we marginally screw with you.
I think this is an interesting juxtaposition. I lessly the fonder of Google services because too often it seems things are centralised with the various Google Services. What I liked about Linux was it's decentralisation, that control was distributed to whomever had the capacity and the will to partake.
I don't suggest it's worthless that I can give content to Google from the command line, but that it seems to ideologically oppose one of the strengths of Linux. And artistic content is one area that is suffering from centralisation. Artistic content builds upon what came before it (I mention that because we're not all Lessig-educated), and copyright is increasingly centralising content to a small number of firms. Giving your content to Google isn't like giving your content to Disney, but it's submitting it to the control of a lessly interested party.
Do Chinese people enjoy freedom of speech on the Internet in a substantively different way than we do?
I can say whatever I want, except things that are against the law to say. It's the same system in China, but they have different laws. I'm no expert, but I think the only meaningful difference is that citizens cannot criticise the government -and don't get me wrong, that's a big difference, but they report they are trying a system where the nation is unified. Maybe I disagree with that approach, but I think it's suspect to say that China opposes freedom of speech when they only differ on a single issue.
Further, there are many laws here in Canada that limit speech, that don't have a corresponding law in China. Specifically, I'm thinking about race.
Potentially, a society puts a government in power and gives that government the authority to act. If young Mr. Bush commits horrendous atrocities, it's, at best, conceivable that the society that enabled him is responsible. Now, I don't know if you do have the ability, but if the society has the option to revoke the leader's power after those atrocities have been committed, isn't the society even more responsible? They enabled it, then failed to react. I don't jeer individual Americans, but I think the American society is responsible for the actions of it's government.
Definitely, it might alter our perception because we knew they had cameras, but the military officers did not know they had weapons. They saw objects, presumed they were weapons, then reported these unclear objects were weapons in order to obtain clearance to engage. It's alright to make a mistake, but it's not alright to err when you are killing someone. I'm no warmaster, but it might be the case that AK-47s, which is what they reported the weapons were, weren't a threat to them. If that's the case, then they had leave to further investigate whether these unclear objects really were weapons. Although I'm sympathetic to the officer who believed he might have seen an RPG. That's an immediate threat.
I think the moral issues are compounded by the fact it was a manufactured war, where no threat existed. For instance, whether they were wrong to bring children into the area (I don't know what their circumstances were), is preceded, in my opinion, that there never should've been a war. I'm not saying it's justifies their actions of bringing the children in, I'm saying we should've never had to judge these people because there oughtn't have been a war.
I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that Microsoft needs the EU more than the EU needs microsoft. If MS pulled out of the EU they certainly would both be hurt, but the EU would fund alternatives, such as the European Commission did with AGNULA. The damage to MS would be severe in regards to their sales. Imagine how much money MS makes in the EU -it would become zero.
Well, it makes sense to me that if there was a school looking at windows vs. Mac -they chose win. School budgets don't really allow for labs of Mac computers. It seems they are simply unaware of what linux can do on older computers? I can't know what the school knows...
However, on a limited budget, Mac vs. win seems an easy decision.
I think it is because the first review panders to the satisfaction unix-monkeys get in knowing the arcane and counter-intuitive technologia extremis of Linux, and condemn the consumer oriented approach for its simple, direct perspective of coming at Linux with no pre-conceived notions.
Yeah, or it may have something to do with the Wash-Post fellow writing some things that were just plain wrong; giving an incorrect opinion of the state of linux, and thereby earning our disrespect.
I personally don't mind people bagging linux for is shortcomings, but I do mind when those who are new to linux decry it's failures because it either doesn't work the windows way, or they couldn't be bothered by finding out the linux way.
I doubt it. I have an english degree and I don't care. They're just being anal, most teachers don't care all that much. If they were writing a paper for publication teachers would be nazi-esque, if they're commenting on a thread colloquiallisms are fine.
RTFA, that was addressed in the commentary. They are a large player in IT, and they are still a small fry in the gaming industry. What works in IT doesn't neccessarily work with consoles.
Alright, I got really nailed on this. The great-grandparent I wrote said: Companies that make hardware [such as] router/etc
I used a router as an example, and it was a bad one. I mean hardware in general, another might be a video card. Drivers for a video card should be open source because I buy a vid card for the hardware, not whatever software is on it. It seems to me that a company would sell more hardware since it's compatible with more operating systems.
I used router, but that seems to be a particularly bad example to use.
I'm not sure linux is held in any responsibility to SCO's actions. I mean, I think people understand the legal system enough to know that people sue for whatever reason they can sometimes: disregarding whether it is justified.
A lot of people scoff at the legal system, I don't think companies would avoid a product because of one companies actions. Now, if microsoft gives similar advances to, say, ten more companies -and they decide to sue, then we got a problem.
IANAL, but I don't see SCO, alone, damaging linux too much....
Without the firmware, that router of yours would cease working.
Give more credit than that.
I realize they won't work, but firmware should not be a core component of a hardware company, they should work on their hardware first, and not consider firmware a company-breaking secret technology.
For instance, open firmware makes this possible.
I don't believe that. Companies that make hardware shouldn't be so dogged about protecting their software. I buy a router/etc for the hardware, not for the companies excellent firmware. I don't see why companies should protect their firmware at all, if it's open source, more people will buy their hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always imagined it would roll out in a manner similar to Wordpress. You can host your own by installing from either source or package (if offered by your distribution). Or you can sign-up for an account at their hosted service. IANAC (I am not a cryptographer) but I guess the hosted service is still secure due to the GPG implementation.
Are you sure? What makes you think that?
Twitter must also donate five nickels to five charities. At least three of those charities must be entirely independent of Twitter. Maybe the message is: if you marginally screw with the President, we marginally screw with you.
I think this is an interesting juxtaposition. I lessly the fonder of Google services because too often it seems things are centralised with the various Google Services. What I liked about Linux was it's decentralisation, that control was distributed to whomever had the capacity and the will to partake.
I don't suggest it's worthless that I can give content to Google from the command line, but that it seems to ideologically oppose one of the strengths of Linux. And artistic content is one area that is suffering from centralisation. Artistic content builds upon what came before it (I mention that because we're not all Lessig-educated), and copyright is increasingly centralising content to a small number of firms. Giving your content to Google isn't like giving your content to Disney, but it's submitting it to the control of a lessly interested party.
There must be examples of prior art of SNS. Wouldn't ICQ fall under the terms of that description? SMS?
Do Chinese people enjoy freedom of speech on the Internet in a substantively different way than we do?
I can say whatever I want, except things that are against the law to say. It's the same system in China, but they have different laws. I'm no expert, but I think the only meaningful difference is that citizens cannot criticise the government -and don't get me wrong, that's a big difference, but they report they are trying a system where the nation is unified. Maybe I disagree with that approach, but I think it's suspect to say that China opposes freedom of speech when they only differ on a single issue.
Further, there are many laws here in Canada that limit speech, that don't have a corresponding law in China. Specifically, I'm thinking about race.
Potentially, a society puts a government in power and gives that government the authority to act. If young Mr. Bush commits horrendous atrocities, it's, at best, conceivable that the society that enabled him is responsible. Now, I don't know if you do have the ability, but if the society has the option to revoke the leader's power after those atrocities have been committed, isn't the society even more responsible? They enabled it, then failed to react.
I don't jeer individual Americans, but I think the American society is responsible for the actions of it's government.
Definitely, it might alter our perception because we knew they had cameras, but the military officers did not know they had weapons. They saw objects, presumed they were weapons, then reported these unclear objects were weapons in order to obtain clearance to engage. It's alright to make a mistake, but it's not alright to err when you are killing someone.
I'm no warmaster, but it might be the case that AK-47s, which is what they reported the weapons were, weren't a threat to them. If that's the case, then they had leave to further investigate whether these unclear objects really were weapons. Although I'm sympathetic to the officer who believed he might have seen an RPG. That's an immediate threat.
I think the moral issues are compounded by the fact it was a manufactured war, where no threat existed. For instance, whether they were wrong to bring children into the area (I don't know what their circumstances were), is preceded, in my opinion, that there never should've been a war. I'm not saying it's justifies their actions of bringing the children in, I'm saying we should've never had to judge these people because there oughtn't have been a war.
I don't understand the inferiority justification, side by side they look indistinguishable to me.
The article reads the RIAA would lose the rights, not the copyrights.
It's also a Radiohead song, and IANAL but I believe everyone likes Radiohead.
At least in the case of Lessig he's stated he is not anti-copyright, he is pro-copyright-reform.
And thusly we see the beginning of taking over Microsoft by getting on the inside, one at a time.
Another major issue is Microsofts EULA would easily prevent all EU clients from recieving security updates. Man, that would be deadly for any company.
I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that Microsoft needs the EU more than the EU needs microsoft. If MS pulled out of the EU they certainly would both be hurt, but the EU would fund alternatives, such as the European Commission did with AGNULA. The damage to MS would be severe in regards to their sales. Imagine how much money MS makes in the EU -it would become zero.
Well, it makes sense to me that if there was a school looking at windows vs. Mac -they chose win. School budgets don't really allow for labs of Mac computers. It seems they are simply unaware of what linux can do on older computers? I can't know what the school knows...
However, on a limited budget, Mac vs. win seems an easy decision.
I think it is because the first review panders to the satisfaction unix-monkeys get in knowing the arcane and counter-intuitive technologia extremis of Linux, and condemn the consumer oriented approach for its simple, direct perspective of coming at Linux with no pre-conceived notions.
Yeah, or it may have something to do with the Wash-Post fellow writing some things that were just plain wrong; giving an incorrect opinion of the state of linux, and thereby earning our disrespect.
I personally don't mind people bagging linux for is shortcomings, but I do mind when those who are new to linux decry it's failures because it either doesn't work the windows way, or they couldn't be bothered by finding out the linux way.
I doubt it. I have an english degree and I don't care. They're just being anal, most teachers don't care all that much. If they were writing a paper for publication teachers would be nazi-esque, if they're commenting on a thread colloquiallisms are fine.
RTFA, that was addressed in the commentary. They are a large player in IT, and they are still a small fry in the gaming industry. What works in IT doesn't neccessarily work with consoles.
Alright, I got really nailed on this. The great-grandparent I wrote said:
Companies that make hardware [such as] router/etc
I used a router as an example, and it was a bad one. I mean hardware in general, another might be a video card. Drivers for a video card should be open source because I buy a vid card for the hardware, not whatever software is on it. It seems to me that a company would sell more hardware since it's compatible with more operating systems.
I used router, but that seems to be a particularly bad example to use.
I'm not sure linux is held in any responsibility to SCO's actions. I mean, I think people understand the legal system enough to know that people sue for whatever reason they can sometimes: disregarding whether it is justified.
A lot of people scoff at the legal system, I don't think companies would avoid a product because of one companies actions. Now, if microsoft gives similar advances to, say, ten more companies -and they decide to sue, then we got a problem.
IANAL, but I don't see SCO, alone, damaging linux too much....
Without the firmware, that router of yours would cease working.
Give more credit than that.
I realize they won't work, but firmware should not be a core component of a hardware company, they should work on their hardware first, and not consider firmware a company-breaking secret technology.
For instance, open firmware makes this possible.
I don't believe that. Companies that make hardware shouldn't be so dogged about protecting their software. I buy a router/etc for the hardware, not for the companies excellent firmware. I don't see why companies should protect their firmware at all, if it's open source, more people will buy their hardware.
What?!?! damn, I always suspected The Smoking Gun would use their powers for evil.
Without Microsoft less people would be going to hotmale.com out of curiosity and the need for a giggle.