You neglect the possibility one competetive tactic might be to extract the most work for the least money by juggling the definition of contract labour. One company doing it makes it tempting for others. Cladestine meetings aren't required, only collusive behaviour.
How many more times will this misrepresentation be up-modded? The GPL = maximum sharing, trademark = not sharing, bundling GPL in proprietary closed software = not sharing. This isn't just about copying FFS, think beyond black and white for once!
I think you're being unfairly modded as troll, but he GPL is a reaction to copyright, turning it back on itself through licensing. If the intent is to remove barriers to the flow of information would the GPL be relevant if copyright was abolished? Losing doctors isn't a good argument against perfect health for everyone.
I agree with the parent, 'terrorist' is the wrong term. The arrangement between companies and government, lead by politicians who've unabashedly abdicated any responsibility to their constituents in favour of their benefactors, more closely mirrors the times before the seperation of church and state. From the collusion to regulate or stop the flow of information, the compete lack of proven harm for the 'crime', the insane and inhuman penalties, with protecting a revenue stream a primary motive, the parallels are surprising. Osama, no. Torquemada maybe.
That's completely backwards. "Google" became a common use word for Internet search and achieved its overwhelming dominance precisely because it offered honest search results without hidden 'placements'. Few even remember the gold standards before Google came on the scene, names like Altavista and.....? Saying Google has no incentive to retain the characteristics which made it number 1 makes little sense.
I still don't understand. Is it a training issue? Why otherwise would your company care if the competition uses a different desktop when you're internally consistent? One or the other - KDE or Gnome - best suits your needs. And in our corporate environment the user has no administrative rights so that isn't an issue, and no user should ever be in/opt. Here access to the C: drive utself is slowly being phased. I presume you're only talking about the desktop. Is it that users aren't capable of starting a word processor by clicking on an icon pre-configured with the label 'word processor'?
"If you're shaking your head, make a BSOD comment and watch how quickly you're corrected."
Lack of BSODs doesn't make a computing experience decent, just possible. I like to run with auto-hide enabled on my taskbar and can't begin to describe how annoying the dynamics of its re-appearance are, especially on a wireless notebook. I've learned to ignore complaints of not being connected to my neighbours's unsecured 'linksys' network - giving the impression it's not connected to anything - and continue browsing through my WEP connect, the only access point listed in my preference. And the notifications themselves, my god who comes up with this crap? A huge pop-up which brings up a spurious unrequested window if touched anywhere, with a tiny little 'X' in the corner to signal 'ignore'. And the damn thing won't get out of the way until the 'X' is clicked, for granny's benefit I presume.
And don't get me started on the way Windows still ignores user requests to any window busy with a network task and generates spurious 'app not responding' messages when nothing has crashed. To my use XP is a serious step down in user experience from 2k, the Me of the current series. Linux has it problems but this automated second-guessing the user crap isn't one of them. No thanks.
You completely miss the point by refusing to look beneath the surface. Open access to information is the guiding principle in both cases. The GPL is a license brilliantly designed to rest on copyright law such that the stronger the latter becomes the easier it is to enforce the GPL. There's no contradiction at the level of intent, only the method gives that impression.
"Pay for what you take...."
"Take"? It's 'copy', not 'take', one source of the confusion.
IP is the foundation of information technology, unless Microsoft is stealing it? Double standards anyone?
This is core argument, companies like MS pushing hard for IP legislation ignoring the laws at will. So yes, I'ld like to see them roast for the hypocrisy.
Right.... and this explains why my place of work is still struggling with the process for rolling out XP SP2 in our 100% MS OS shop because it breaks so many critical packages. I don't see Microsoft stepping up to our plate to assure compatibility.
"I won't go into the history, but right now the term of copyright for a recording is 50 years from the time of first publication.
Interesting fact, I wasn't aware of that. Dont hold your breath though, expect to see the music indusrty pull a 'cartoon mouse manuover' when that big fat rock stable approaches copyright ripeness. By then plenty of prescendent will be in place to make extension a shoe-in.
"They" don't own the servers, don't own the ISP, don't own my CPU, drives or blank media. If "they' don't like what I do with them, don't release easily replicated data to the general public. Period.
Your reasoning doesn't follow. Jumping up and down on a person's chest doesn't meet the reasonable definition of "intent to provide assistance" and has nothing to do with medical capabilities, good job or bad. Alternately, poorly researched "official" journalism is still considered journalism, just of inferior quality. It also ignores the special place afforded to the Press in the American Constitution, so even if the example had greater relevance it doesn't hold.
Don't you have that backwards? According to Gates the hardware will soon be free and the money spent on a computer will all go to software. So he says...
Slashdot Mirror
You neglect the possibility one competetive tactic might be to extract the most work for the least money by juggling the definition of contract labour. One company doing it makes it tempting for others. Cladestine meetings aren't required, only collusive behaviour.
How many more times will this misrepresentation be up-modded? The GPL = maximum sharing, trademark = not sharing, bundling GPL in proprietary closed software = not sharing. This isn't just about copying FFS, think beyond black and white for once!
Misspellings don't count?
If Ender refers to the shotgun as his 'boomstick', I'm there.
You can be sure he'll never sing the part of the "Bill of Rights" from Schoolhouse Rocks.
I think you're being unfairly modded as troll, but he GPL is a reaction to copyright, turning it back on itself through licensing. If the intent is to remove barriers to the flow of information would the GPL be relevant if copyright was abolished? Losing doctors isn't a good argument against perfect health for everyone.
I agree with the parent, 'terrorist' is the wrong term. The arrangement between companies and government, lead by politicians who've unabashedly abdicated any responsibility to their constituents in favour of their benefactors, more closely mirrors the times before the seperation of church and state. From the collusion to regulate or stop the flow of information, the compete lack of proven harm for the 'crime', the insane and inhuman penalties, with protecting a revenue stream a primary motive, the parallels are surprising. Osama, no. Torquemada maybe.
That's completely backwards. "Google" became a common use word for Internet search and achieved its overwhelming dominance precisely because it offered honest search results without hidden 'placements'. Few even remember the gold standards before Google came on the scene, names like Altavista and.....? Saying Google has no incentive to retain the characteristics which made it number 1 makes little sense.
I still don't understand. Is it a training issue? Why otherwise would your company care if the competition uses a different desktop when you're internally consistent? One or the other - KDE or Gnome - best suits your needs. And in our corporate environment the user has no administrative rights so that isn't an issue, and no user should ever be in /opt. Here access to the C: drive utself is slowly being phased. I presume you're only talking about the desktop. Is it that users aren't capable of starting a word processor by clicking on an icon pre-configured with the label 'word processor'?
Lack of BSODs doesn't make a computing experience decent, just possible. I like to run with auto-hide enabled on my taskbar and can't begin to describe how annoying the dynamics of its re-appearance are, especially on a wireless notebook. I've learned to ignore complaints of not being connected to my neighbours's unsecured 'linksys' network - giving the impression it's not connected to anything - and continue browsing through my WEP connect, the only access point listed in my preference. And the notifications themselves, my god who comes up with this crap? A huge pop-up which brings up a spurious unrequested window if touched anywhere, with a tiny little 'X' in the corner to signal 'ignore'. And the damn thing won't get out of the way until the 'X' is clicked, for granny's benefit I presume.
And don't get me started on the way Windows still ignores user requests to any window busy with a network task and generates spurious 'app not responding' messages when nothing has crashed. To my use XP is a serious step down in user experience from 2k, the Me of the current series. Linux has it problems but this automated second-guessing the user crap isn't one of them. No thanks.
Are there examples other than end users?
"Pay for what you take...."
"Take"? It's 'copy', not 'take', one source of the confusion.
Because the BSA hounds users, not developers. Everyone is free to use GPL'd software.
This is core argument, companies like MS pushing hard for IP legislation ignoring the laws at will. So yes, I'ld like to see them roast for the hypocrisy.
Right.... and this explains why my place of work is still struggling with the process for rolling out XP SP2 in our 100% MS OS shop because it breaks so many critical packages. I don't see Microsoft stepping up to our plate to assure compatibility.
Interesting fact, I wasn't aware of that. Dont hold your breath though, expect to see the music indusrty pull a 'cartoon mouse manuover' when that big fat rock stable approaches copyright ripeness. By then plenty of prescendent will be in place to make extension a shoe-in.
Isn't simple-minded absolutism fun?
Don't be rediculuous!
Marketing 101 only applies to a free market, hardly applicable in this proposal. Think oligarchy.
Your reasoning doesn't follow. Jumping up and down on a person's chest doesn't meet the reasonable definition of "intent to provide assistance" and has nothing to do with medical capabilities, good job or bad. Alternately, poorly researched "official" journalism is still considered journalism, just of inferior quality. It also ignores the special place afforded to the Press in the American Constitution, so even if the example had greater relevance it doesn't hold.
Don't you have that backwards? According to Gates the hardware will soon be free and the money spent on a computer will all go to software. So he says...
No. 'Zombie attack' is a Windows tactic.
Turning Windows firewall off poses the same risk as a strike with a hammer or microwaving? That's one fragile OS!
And the term "adult content registry" doesn't bother you?
Where exactly in the constitution does it give them the right to restrict it?