Does it also mean that if I, for example, take the code behind Gaim's GUI and use it in a program that has nothing to do with instant messaging, that I violate the license if my new product can't communicate with AIM, MSN, Jabber, etc. servers? So much for code reuse.
Given the GPLv3 (however it's written) cannot reduce the liberty provided by the GPLv2
Sure it can. If you grant me the right to redistribute a derivative work from something you've written under GPLv2 or later, and GPLv3 says I can sell a work without providing any source whatsoever, you can't stop me from taking your work and releasing a closed source product using your source. I don't think "however it's written" means what you think it means. Even if you firmly believe that GPLv3 will do no such thing, can you be sure that GPLv10 won't? It's foolish to agree to license something under a license that hasn't been written and will be written by someone you don't know.
Dying didn't hurt the spread of Jesus' message. I'm sure we can find you a dozen disciples to spread your word after you're done demonstrating the wisdom of starving to death.
What an idiot. I don't care whether Greedo shot first, but that scene was by far the funniest thing in the entire Indiana Jones series, and removing it would be as dumb as letting Lucas write dialog of any kind.
I can already just watch the BRAND NEW EPISODES on BBC America. I'm delighted to see that Christopher Eccleston is back from a yearlong hiatus and appearing in these BRAND NEW EPISODES, too.
Do you complain when your car is really bad at cooking an egg, and argue with people that tell you you should have bought a stove instead?
There's absolutely no compelling reason why OS X should work the way a user wants it to, if what the user wants is Linux or Windows. I don't complain that when I hit CTRL-C on a Windows box, it copies something instead of sending a SIGINT signal.
How is this a misuse of Google's hypothetical monopoly status? Are they trying to leverage their search monopoly to eliminate competitors with their new, highly profitable, evolution discussion site, GOrigins? I must have missed that.
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that you're completely wrong. Except that it's not about the US Congress. That part was right, but irrelevant, since GP included the phrase "federal and state levels".
I don't know much about the California legislature, but I doubt they have committees that include half of the legislative body.
Yes, it's out of date, but the different colors in new currency are designed to prevent counterfeiting, not for accessibility, and none of the changes do anything to help blind people. In any case, the link was posted to counter the argument that everyone else's currency is just as bad as that in the US; even if the colors were there from accessibility, we'd still be even with Brazil and just about no one else.
Here is a page describing the accessibility features of all of the world's currencies as of 1995. Note that the US is the only country on the list that didn't have a single one of the 4 features they look at, and Brazil was very rare in using just bill color (which is obviously useless to people who are completely blind) to distinguish bills. China's currency includes a tactile recognition symbol, and India's uses a different size bill for some denominations.
Besides, a more fair comparison would be not to similar-sized countries, but to other industrialized democracies. But, for the record, almost every country in Africa has (or had, in 1995) more accessible currency than the US.
I don't know how may people there are out there using their Blackberries while driving, but I bet most of them read Business Week and agree heartily with this article.
That's nice, but argument from authority doesn't work when the methodology used is clearly bogus. If Larry Ellison announced that MSSQL is more secure than Oracle and based that assertion on the number of bugs fixed in a given time period, I wouldn't trust him either.
Of course this hypothesis doesn't make it any less likely that life is common. It doesn't make it any more likely, either. However, until you have any actual evidence either way, it's unscientific for someone to say that the odds of life/intelligent life arising on a given planet are high enough that there must necessarily be such life on other planets. I generally try not to make up "facts" with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and then base "certain" belief in those facts. If that leads to the anthropic principle, so be it.
However, note that I'm not stating that the probability is 1 in NUMBER_OF_STARS, I'm asserting that it's absolutely impossible, at the moment, to say with certainty that it's not, and to pretend otherwise is a fallacy.
Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones
"it almost seems" to whom? Stand by a busy road sometime, and count the % of people driving past using their cell phones to make voice calls. Come and and tell me it seems like voice calls are the least-used function of phones.
I suspect the submitter just has no friends who would actually want to talk to him on a phone, because he keeps saying stupid things to them that are contradicted by a huge body of empirical evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Hear hear! This is exactly why I never upgraded to Windows in the first place. Real professionals use DOS.
Does it also mean that if I, for example, take the code behind Gaim's GUI and use it in a program that has nothing to do with instant messaging, that I violate the license if my new product can't communicate with AIM, MSN, Jabber, etc. servers? So much for code reuse.
Given the GPLv3 (however it's written) cannot reduce the liberty provided by the GPLv2
Sure it can. If you grant me the right to redistribute a derivative work from something you've written under GPLv2 or later, and GPLv3 says I can sell a work without providing any source whatsoever, you can't stop me from taking your work and releasing a closed source product using your source. I don't think "however it's written" means what you think it means. Even if you firmly believe that GPLv3 will do no such thing, can you be sure that GPLv10 won't? It's foolish to agree to license something under a license that hasn't been written and will be written by someone you don't know.
I'm not interested in making money, and you can't do it either.
The GPL doesn't forbid you from making money. Mod parent Troll.
Dying didn't hurt the spread of Jesus' message. I'm sure we can find you a dozen disciples to spread your word after you're done demonstrating the wisdom of starving to death.
Informative? Give me a break. Full text was already posted by a non-karma-whoring AC. Mod parent (and grandparent) down.
What an idiot. I don't care whether Greedo shot first, but that scene was by far the funniest thing in the entire Indiana Jones series, and removing it would be as dumb as letting Lucas write dialog of any kind.
The Apple Store salesperson I bought my iMac from a couple of months ago asked me what color I wanted.
Clearly they're hiring people who are experts in the products they're selling.
I can already just watch the BRAND NEW EPISODES on BBC America. I'm delighted to see that Christopher Eccleston is back from a yearlong hiatus and appearing in these BRAND NEW EPISODES, too.
What?
Do you complain when your car is really bad at cooking an egg, and argue with people that tell you you should have bought a stove instead?
There's absolutely no compelling reason why OS X should work the way a user wants it to, if what the user wants is Linux or Windows. I don't complain that when I hit CTRL-C on a Windows box, it copies something instead of sending a SIGINT signal.
How is selling a metal at its market value remotely fraudulent?
How is this a misuse of Google's hypothetical monopoly status? Are they trying to leverage their search monopoly to eliminate competitors with their new, highly profitable, evolution discussion site, GOrigins? I must have missed that.
You think it's human nature to tend to do things sensibly? Have you ever actually met a human before?
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that you're completely wrong. Except that it's not about the US Congress. That part was right, but irrelevant, since GP included the phrase "federal and state levels".
I don't know much about the California legislature, but I doubt they have committees that include half of the legislative body.
You misspelled "some state". Hope this helps, corn boy.
Uh, right. And we should just give nukes to every country in the world, because then we wouldn't need to worry about Iran and North Korea having them.
Yes, it's out of date, but the different colors in new currency are designed to prevent counterfeiting, not for accessibility, and none of the changes do anything to help blind people. In any case, the link was posted to counter the argument that everyone else's currency is just as bad as that in the US; even if the colors were there from accessibility, we'd still be even with Brazil and just about no one else.
Whoever modded this "interesting" has never seen a US Dollar. There's no Braille printing on any of them. Parent is either a troll or an idiot.
Sure, if your right wing nutjob buddies ever get control of Congress again.
Here is a page describing the accessibility features of all of the world's currencies as of 1995. Note that the US is the only country on the list that didn't have a single one of the 4 features they look at, and Brazil was very rare in using just bill color (which is obviously useless to people who are completely blind) to distinguish bills. China's currency includes a tactile recognition symbol, and India's uses a different size bill for some denominations.
Besides, a more fair comparison would be not to similar-sized countries, but to other industrialized democracies. But, for the record, almost every country in Africa has (or had, in 1995) more accessible currency than the US.
I don't know how may people there are out there using their Blackberries while driving, but I bet most of them read Business Week and agree heartily with this article.
That's nice, but argument from authority doesn't work when the methodology used is clearly bogus. If Larry Ellison announced that MSSQL is more secure than Oracle and based that assertion on the number of bugs fixed in a given time period, I wouldn't trust him either.
Of course this hypothesis doesn't make it any less likely that life is common. It doesn't make it any more likely, either. However, until you have any actual evidence either way, it's unscientific for someone to say that the odds of life/intelligent life arising on a given planet are high enough that there must necessarily be such life on other planets. I generally try not to make up "facts" with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and then base "certain" belief in those facts. If that leads to the anthropic principle, so be it.
However, note that I'm not stating that the probability is 1 in NUMBER_OF_STARS, I'm asserting that it's absolutely impossible, at the moment, to say with certainty that it's not, and to pretend otherwise is a fallacy.
The article makes no such claim about voice calls being the least used function of phones, so you don't even have the RTFA.
Besides, it's from Business Week, so you probably saved plenty of brain cells by not reading it.
Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones
"it almost seems" to whom? Stand by a busy road sometime, and count the % of people driving past using their cell phones to make voice calls. Come and and tell me it seems like voice calls are the least-used function of phones.
I suspect the submitter just has no friends who would actually want to talk to him on a phone, because he keeps saying stupid things to them that are contradicted by a huge body of empirical evidence.