For example, if you take OOo and serve it up as a web page, shouldn't you be required to release the changes you've made to it?
Fcuk no! If I'm not distributing the software, then I'm not distributing the software. Period. I don't know what so hard to understand about this. If the GPL is to be based on copyright law, then it must limit itself to copyright law. And copyright law does not define derivation as "letting someone else use the software over the web." They *MIGHT* be able to use public performance as a trigger for this, but that's very shaky ground to rest your legal case on.
I think the real reason it's taking so long to get the GPLv3 out is that they're (the FSF) is still trying to figure out a way to make something as bezoomy as this fit their pre-existing Free Software definition.
People don't look at their money, but I do. So when I was a cashier in college I used to grab the rare stuff that passed my hands. (No, I didn't steal it, I bought it from the cash register!) Silver (pre 1965) coins and some buffalo nickels were common. Occasional liberty dimes would pass my way. I stopped taking wheat pennies unless they were steel.
Among my more notable finds were several silver and gold certificates (still redeemable if you go to the mint, iirc)... and one gold Krugerand passed off as a penny!
Only if its silver (pre '65). Copper sandwiches are worth much less. There are so many 1976 JFKs and Ikes that they're not worth much more than their face value.
If you replace the bills with coins, you are STILL going to have dollar bills in circulation for quite a while. Thus you will still get customers with bills instead of coins, and you don't want to turn them away by removing the dollar bill slot.
This kind of paranoia is disturbing enough among the unwashed, paranoid, intellectually barren cannon fodder of America
Let's just project the stupidity of one ignorant cashier onto an entire society, why don't we? That's the Slashdot way. Why think when you can stereotype!
There are many laptop manufacturers that will sell you a laptop without Windows on it. But they are NOT well known manufacturers like Dell, IBM or Compaq. Instead you need to seek out manufacturers with "penguin" or "daemon" in their name...
I think the general point stands. The type of people who demand Windows refunds aren't the type of people who buy Dell Latitudes.
It's a hell of a lot more than that. You guys just fixate on that one in the hopes that all the others will be forgotten. What other slipups? See, you've forgotten already!
Here's one other. Right at the very beginning of his VPship he said he was going to do a study of government waste and get right back to us. And get back to us he did. Most of you aren't old enough to remember, so run upstairs to the kitchen and ask your parents. In Al Gore's half hour government waste primetime television special I held up two bottles of floor polish. One was expensive and used by the government, and the other was inexpensive and a common consumer brand item (Mop-n-Glo, IIRC).
Here was his slipup: He claimed the two items were equivalent. Bullshit! The polish you mom uses on her cheap kitchen vinyl is *NOT* equivalent to industrial grade floor polish. It's a different chemical compound. One barely manages to keep a shine with just one small family and a schnauzer. The other manages to keep a shine with hundreds of people traipsing across it all day long.
He should have bought a commercial polish at a commercial janitorial supply company, and compared the price of that to the polish the government used. That would have been an equivalent comparison. But instead he went for the cheap visual and used a common household brand. He blew his credibility for me in his first month.
An acorn germinates, grows into a sapling, and a few years later Al Gore comes along and waters it. Years later still it becomes a mighty oak and Al Gore proudly proclaims that he "took the initiative in planting the oak tree".
Is he telling the truth? While he certainly did water the tree and dump MiracleGro(tm) on it, it is untrue that he "planted" the tree. He wasn't there at the beginning.
This is the core of the issue, and it has NOTHING to do with whether I like Al Gore or not. Was it the creating (planting) or the fostering (watering) that Al Gore took the initiative in?
I didn't call the response unreasonable or fanatic. Only "fervent".
If this were the only discussion I ever had on the subject, I wouldn't have a problem. But when these exact same arguments come up, over and over again, at exactly the same tempo, like they're all reading from the same Mikkelson script, then it begins to sound like a religious litany.
...no matter how many times an urban legend has been put to rest.
The urban legend is about him saying he *invented* the internet. That's clearly untrue, and I never repeated this anywhere. However, he DID say he took the *initiative* *in* *creating* the internet. Even the famous Algore apologist, Barbara Mikkelson, affirms that he made this statement.
The problem seems to be over the definition of "internet." Those who want Algore to be the father will define it in such a way that he becomes the father. There are those of us, however, who distinctly remember using something remarkably similar to the internet before Gore "took initiative."
p.s. I call you guys "religous" because of the religious style indignation you exhibit over this possibility that he isn't infallible.
p.p.s. What what the fck are you doing bringing in Ruby Ridge? Let's just hijack the whole thread why don't we? Let's just make it a left versus right issue and damn the facts to hell! "Oo oo he doesn't like algore therefore he must be a rightwing nutbag because only rightwing nutbags don't like algore so let me drop in a reference to ruby ridge and that will show him who has the biggest yarbles yeah!"
Wrong here too. Al Gore did a lot more than throw money at it.
Why did you reply to my post twice? Lame.
I don't understand why you and people like you are treating this like a religious issue. The fervency of the rebuttals approaches fanaticism. Again, why did you reply to my post twice? Of all the accomplishments of Al Gore, why are you fixated on this one tiny mispeak of his? Why do you act as if disputations of his claim are sacrilege?
ARPANET was the internet. Period. Much of the core infrastructure of todays internet was in ARPANET. That was the seed from which the internet directly grew. The internet *evolved*, grew and coalesced, it was never created. I know someone who happens to have an internet account that has been continuously active since its creation on ARPANET.
Algore certainly promoted the internet. I believe he was the one who came up with the ultralame "Information Superhighway". Heck, he may even have been the first person to capitalize "The Internet". But he didn't take the initiative in creating it. Your sacred hero exaggerated his importance in a television interview. He's a politician and that's what politicians do. So get over it.
Dude, I was USING the internet before Al Gore was ever got involved! Maybe it didn't have that name, but a TCP/IP network connecting universities and government agencies was already in place. That may not be the internet that we know today, but it was the seed from which it directly grew.
Al Gore didn't create a damned thing, all he did was spend money to expand it. No matter how many times his fans mod it down as flamebait, the truth will not change.
It was much later. The internet was already around by the time Algore took the initiative in creating it.
Like Quayle's Tomatoe, Algore's invention is something he will never live down. It's the curse of vice presidents, and all his sycophants need to realize it and get on with their lives.
You laugh now, but if Canada/Mexico doesn't check for passports leaving the US, you can rest assured that a lot of people who don't know about this will leave theirs behind.
This isn't because Americans are stupid, its because the US and Canada do not have a culture of "papers please!" We think of passports as something you need to enter another country, not something you need to get back home.
one's right to free speech ends where another's civil liberties begin.
What are civil liberties? Ask the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and they will tell you the two most important are freedom of speech and of the press. What makes the rights of a handful more important than the rights of millions?
What is being banned isn't innuendo and hearsay, but DIRECT TESTIMONY in a court of law!
You're right this wouldn't be reported but for the ban...
Oh, but it would be. It might not have been column one page one in the Old Media, but it would still be reported. Financial scandals tend to be godawful boring, but enough people are out there that like to trace payments around that it could not have been kept covered up.
I know this is April Fool, but let's explore the question anyway. Some people have asked this question in other forms before, and meant it seriously. There's usually a political motive behind it, such as "if we could we could stop war", or "if we could then we could immediately enact this utopian society I came up with while drinking absinthe."
The question is too broad (or the asker's mind too narrow). Is it allowable to kill another human being in the course of self-defense? Or use both your brain cells to figure this one out: what if you could save the lives of two people by killing their imminent assassin?
Write these questions large. If the purpose is to stop war, what do you do when an unvaccinated army comes invading? Do you take up arms in defense to save your fellow vaccinated citizens? Or do you comfort yourself on your deathbed knowing that although you could have prevented ten million deaths, at least the Halkan Council will remember you kindly?
Here's another one. What if Judge Greer had been vaccinated? Would he have been able to order the removal of Terry's feeding tube? Or what about abortion? Really think about that last one. If you don't believe that the fetus is a human being, then the vaccine won't prevent you from performing an abortion. But if you do believe that the fetus is a human being, it will. Follow that logic and you'll soon discover that the vaccine will not prevent any killing that the killer can mentally justify. What if the only thing preventing the killing is the killer's *belief* that he is not killing?
I remember once having to create a passphrase. I chose a short obscure quotation, misquoted it, and translated it into Quenya. Unacceptable! The passphrase needed upper case, lower case, numbers and symbols! Huh?!?!
I guarantee you that EVERYONE, including the shitwit who came up with the rules, has their passphrase written down.
I'm looking at the side by side comparison in the second link, and I can't tell the difference. Which makes me wonder what the big ruckus is about.
Other than some trivial alterations in verbiage, it's nearly identical. One could argue that the Photoshop verbiage is more "usable", but not if one were objective. How is "brush tool" more usable than "paintbrush", and "type tool" more usable than "text"?
Does the Open Source community really want users so bloody stupid they can't handle these trivial differences? Do we need break trademark law and give them an Adobe logo so they don't freak and wet their pants?
If you're going to give GIMP a usable interface, the first thing you do is ignore the monstrosity that is Photoshop.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, if you take OOo and serve it up as a web page, shouldn't you be required to release the changes you've made to it?
Fcuk no! If I'm not distributing the software, then I'm not distributing the software. Period. I don't know what so hard to understand about this. If the GPL is to be based on copyright law, then it must limit itself to copyright law. And copyright law does not define derivation as "letting someone else use the software over the web." They *MIGHT* be able to use public performance as a trigger for this, but that's very shaky ground to rest your legal case on.
I think the real reason it's taking so long to get the GPLv3 out is that they're (the FSF) is still trying to figure out a way to make something as bezoomy as this fit their pre-existing Free Software definition.
People don't look at their money, but I do. So when I was a cashier in college I used to grab the rare stuff that passed my hands. (No, I didn't steal it, I bought it from the cash register!) Silver (pre 1965) coins and some buffalo nickels were common. Occasional liberty dimes would pass my way. I stopped taking wheat pennies unless they were steel.
Among my more notable finds were several silver and gold certificates (still redeemable if you go to the mint, iirc)... and one gold Krugerand passed off as a penny!
Only if its silver (pre '65). Copper sandwiches are worth much less. There are so many 1976 JFKs and Ikes that they're not worth much more than their face value.
If you replace the bills with coins, you are STILL going to have dollar bills in circulation for quite a while. Thus you will still get customers with bills instead of coins, and you don't want to turn them away by removing the dollar bill slot.
This kind of paranoia is disturbing enough among the unwashed, paranoid, intellectually barren cannon fodder of America
Let's just project the stupidity of one ignorant cashier onto an entire society, why don't we? That's the Slashdot way. Why think when you can stereotype!
Are you really entitled to a refund? Can you take apart any product and return the parts that you don't want?
If that part says you can return it if you don't agree with it's EULA, then the answer is yes.
There are many laptop manufacturers that will sell you a laptop without Windows on it. But they are NOT well known manufacturers like Dell, IBM or Compaq. Instead you need to seek out manufacturers with "penguin" or "daemon" in their name...
I think the general point stands. The type of people who demand Windows refunds aren't the type of people who buy Dell Latitudes.
Don't take a contrary opinion to the professor
In other words, don't defend Israel in your term paper at Columbia. Heck, don't even let them know you're Jewish!
Al Gore: 1 semantic slipup
It's a hell of a lot more than that. You guys just fixate on that one in the hopes that all the others will be forgotten. What other slipups? See, you've forgotten already!
Here's one other. Right at the very beginning of his VPship he said he was going to do a study of government waste and get right back to us. And get back to us he did. Most of you aren't old enough to remember, so run upstairs to the kitchen and ask your parents. In Al Gore's half hour government waste primetime television special I held up two bottles of floor polish. One was expensive and used by the government, and the other was inexpensive and a common consumer brand item (Mop-n-Glo, IIRC).
Here was his slipup: He claimed the two items were equivalent. Bullshit! The polish you mom uses on her cheap kitchen vinyl is *NOT* equivalent to industrial grade floor polish. It's a different chemical compound. One barely manages to keep a shine with just one small family and a schnauzer. The other manages to keep a shine with hundreds of people traipsing across it all day long.
He should have bought a commercial polish at a commercial janitorial supply company, and compared the price of that to the polish the government used. That would have been an equivalent comparison. But instead he went for the cheap visual and used a common household brand. He blew his credibility for me in his first month.
An acorn germinates, grows into a sapling, and a few years later Al Gore comes along and waters it. Years later still it becomes a mighty oak and Al Gore proudly proclaims that he "took the initiative in planting the oak tree".
Is he telling the truth? While he certainly did water the tree and dump MiracleGro(tm) on it, it is untrue that he "planted" the tree. He wasn't there at the beginning.
This is the core of the issue, and it has NOTHING to do with whether I like Al Gore or not. Was it the creating (planting) or the fostering (watering) that Al Gore took the initiative in?
Most of us call that reason, not fanaticism.
I didn't call the response unreasonable or fanatic. Only "fervent".
If this were the only discussion I ever had on the subject, I wouldn't have a problem. But when these exact same arguments come up, over and over again, at exactly the same tempo, like they're all reading from the same Mikkelson script, then it begins to sound like a religious litany.
...no matter how many times an urban legend has been put to rest.
The urban legend is about him saying he *invented* the internet. That's clearly untrue, and I never repeated this anywhere. However, he DID say he took the *initiative* *in* *creating* the internet. Even the famous Algore apologist, Barbara Mikkelson, affirms that he made this statement.
The problem seems to be over the definition of "internet." Those who want Algore to be the father will define it in such a way that he becomes the father. There are those of us, however, who distinctly remember using something remarkably similar to the internet before Gore "took initiative."
p.s. I call you guys "religous" because of the religious style indignation you exhibit over this possibility that he isn't infallible.
p.p.s. What what the fck are you doing bringing in Ruby Ridge? Let's just hijack the whole thread why don't we? Let's just make it a left versus right issue and damn the facts to hell! "Oo oo he doesn't like algore therefore he must be a rightwing nutbag because only rightwing nutbags don't like algore so let me drop in a reference to ruby ridge and that will show him who has the biggest yarbles yeah!"
Wrong here too. Al Gore did a lot more than throw money at it.
Why did you reply to my post twice? Lame.
I don't understand why you and people like you are treating this like a religious issue. The fervency of the rebuttals approaches fanaticism. Again, why did you reply to my post twice? Of all the accomplishments of Al Gore, why are you fixated on this one tiny mispeak of his? Why do you act as if disputations of his claim are sacrilege?
ARPANET was the internet. Period. Much of the core infrastructure of todays internet was in ARPANET. That was the seed from which the internet directly grew. The internet *evolved*, grew and coalesced, it was never created. I know someone who happens to have an internet account that has been continuously active since its creation on ARPANET.
Algore certainly promoted the internet. I believe he was the one who came up with the ultralame "Information Superhighway". Heck, he may even have been the first person to capitalize "The Internet". But he didn't take the initiative in creating it. Your sacred hero exaggerated his importance in a television interview. He's a politician and that's what politicians do. So get over it.
Dude, I was USING the internet before Al Gore was ever got involved! Maybe it didn't have that name, but a TCP/IP network connecting universities and government agencies was already in place. That may not be the internet that we know today, but it was the seed from which it directly grew.
Al Gore didn't create a damned thing, all he did was spend money to expand it. No matter how many times his fans mod it down as flamebait, the truth will not change.
... there *ARE* perfectly legitimate and powerful reasons for believing in it.
When people say I should start believing in licenses, I start to worry.
(or invented much later)
It was much later. The internet was already around by the time Algore took the initiative in creating it.
Like Quayle's Tomatoe, Algore's invention is something he will never live down. It's the curse of vice presidents, and all his sycophants need to realize it and get on with their lives.
To get back into the US, all I need to do is to prove my US citizenship. That doesn't require a passport. At least it doesn't anywhere else.
You laugh now, but if Canada/Mexico doesn't check for passports leaving the US, you can rest assured that a lot of people who don't know about this will leave theirs behind.
This isn't because Americans are stupid, its because the US and Canada do not have a culture of "papers please!" We think of passports as something you need to enter another country, not something you need to get back home.
one's right to free speech ends where another's civil liberties begin.
What are civil liberties? Ask the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and they will tell you the two most important are freedom of speech and of the press. What makes the rights of a handful more important than the rights of millions?
What is being banned isn't innuendo and hearsay, but DIRECT TESTIMONY in a court of law!
You're right this wouldn't be reported but for the ban...
Oh, but it would be. It might not have been column one page one in the Old Media, but it would still be reported. Financial scandals tend to be godawful boring, but enough people are out there that like to trace payments around that it could not have been kept covered up.
I've got a 64bit PPC NetBSD self-installing package here that. Can you use it?
Especially those blue states. Lots of stupid people in those blue states.
William Bates is a fraud and hoaxster, and his been debunked numerous times.
I know this is April Fool, but let's explore the question anyway. Some people have asked this question in other forms before, and meant it seriously. There's usually a political motive behind it, such as "if we could we could stop war", or "if we could then we could immediately enact this utopian society I came up with while drinking absinthe."
The question is too broad (or the asker's mind too narrow). Is it allowable to kill another human being in the course of self-defense? Or use both your brain cells to figure this one out: what if you could save the lives of two people by killing their imminent assassin?
Write these questions large. If the purpose is to stop war, what do you do when an unvaccinated army comes invading? Do you take up arms in defense to save your fellow vaccinated citizens? Or do you comfort yourself on your deathbed knowing that although you could have prevented ten million deaths, at least the Halkan Council will remember you kindly?
Here's another one. What if Judge Greer had been vaccinated? Would he have been able to order the removal of Terry's feeding tube? Or what about abortion? Really think about that last one. If you don't believe that the fetus is a human being, then the vaccine won't prevent you from performing an abortion. But if you do believe that the fetus is a human being, it will. Follow that logic and you'll soon discover that the vaccine will not prevent any killing that the killer can mentally justify. What if the only thing preventing the killing is the killer's *belief* that he is not killing?
I remember once having to create a passphrase. I chose a short obscure quotation, misquoted it, and translated it into Quenya. Unacceptable! The passphrase needed upper case, lower case, numbers and symbols! Huh?!?!
I guarantee you that EVERYONE, including the shitwit who came up with the rules, has their passphrase written down.
I'm looking at the side by side comparison in the second link, and I can't tell the difference. Which makes me wonder what the big ruckus is about.
Other than some trivial alterations in verbiage, it's nearly identical. One could argue that the Photoshop verbiage is more "usable", but not if one were objective. How is "brush tool" more usable than "paintbrush", and "type tool" more usable than "text"?
Does the Open Source community really want users so bloody stupid they can't handle these trivial differences? Do we need break trademark law and give them an Adobe logo so they don't freak and wet their pants?
If you're going to give GIMP a usable interface, the first thing you do is ignore the monstrosity that is Photoshop.