It's not that they sound the same, it's that the files are similar.
If you ever have the chance, go over and test drive the mail program that comes on every new macintosh, and send off a test mail. Make sure the volume is turned up.
If this guy was the President of the United States he'd probably have decalred martial law and then used the Secret Service and the National Guard to conduct a manhunt for the guy who made fun of him.
They have no moral basis to obligate me to anything. Only by the force of their weaponry do I comply. Life is still good, so there won't be much resistance at present.
Aaahh, That's good enough. They'll fix it in post.
I'm not sure I understand. Are they saying that being able to put out more defective chips because they're too cheap to test them first is a good thing? What's good for buggy software is good for hardware, I guess. Everyday is Patch Day...
A lot of coders will refuse to code if the result is going to be placed under an unfavorable license.
It's a free world. I would never ask them to. Somebody else will fill in out of necessity. If it provokes others into learning code, all the better.
Um, didn't you read about the recent Google pinyin fiasco, where they did take the code away?
What? They actually stopped the Chinese from using it? How was that possible? The only issue I took up there is the possible plagiarism. I have made myself perfectly clear on that matter. Everything else is window dressing for the lawyers. I don't look for guarantees. It would be very unbecoming of me to expect anybody to guarantee anything to me...without a signed contract anyway. By the same token, I offer none. Without exclusivity there will be no lockdown of abandonware, for instance. Speculation will be reduced dramatically. Exclusivity is keeping us in the computer stone age. In fact, it is responsible for all impediments to every facet of human progress. It necessitates constant re-inventing of the wheel, instead of creating blocks on which to build. Old argument, so what. It's the truth.
I don't care who or what you are This damn time you've gone too far We're gonna create a copyright czar This is the way we raise the bar cuz Copyright killed the internet star
A group of employees cannot divide and conquer their management as easily as the management can isolate and destroy the lead employees--the rest fall back in line very quickly after watching one or two token sacrifices...
Yes, that is an easy exploit. Dependence on a single leader is a weakness. It is by the lack of this that some groups are able to survive despite the odds and the opposing strength. The workers need to adopt and be able to continue without the "generals". Seeing a companion go down should strengthen their resolve.
The unnatural part comes with the artificial shortage of wealth.
Yes, in light of the fact that people are capable of producing and transporting anything they need or want, that is absolutely true. But the motivation to create those shortages is quite natural. It's how the alpha male stays in that position and subjugates the others, all the way down to the right to mate. I can't think of any particular instance, but I believe you can find somewhere in the animal world you will find the exact same behavior, where one will hold out on another to get what she wants. Well yeah, the girls aren't THAT easy. No roll in the hay until you build me a nest. While we may be perverted, we are not unnatural. You yourself brought up a really good point about natural defense mechanisms in another post. It was very right on. The exact thing applies here also. "You and me baby, we ain't nuthin' but mammals..."
Where you might have a real problem is that so many people live a very soft life in the city and few of them even see each other, even when they bump into them. The vast majority don't want to make waves. In part because they are so dependent on BIGCO. Hell, I got pretty comfy myself. Now I live much closer to the food and water supply in eternal summer, so it's a bit easier for me to tell them to screw off.
Simply a group of people who seem to be incapable of speaking with one voice. I do accept the premise that when on company time and using company property, you give up many rights you would have at home or on public property. So if the workers want better accommodations, unity is the way to bring it about. The workers, like the customers, have the power to set the rules. I am uncertain as to whether that has occurred to them yet. And it won't matter whose property they're on. The worker simply must state that if the company wishes to use their services, these are the conditions. Presently everything is done precisely backwards. We have given up our authority to the company. We are letting them set the rules. The servant has become the master. The real problem is that they(the workers, all of us actually) put their self interests ahead of the group interests and are so easily distracted by petty, useless things. So what you get is a lot of bickering with few results. It would appear that I'm complaining about nature itself, because I see nothing unnatural here.
Regardless of its "good" intention. To me the law is clearly a violation. But, but contrary to what one person I know says, I don't base my interpretation on inferences that simply don't exist. That's why I made my statement. I see only one way to read what was actually written. And yes, you are right about the 2nd. And furthermore, the 4th, 5th, and 9th are taking big hits. Considering how loose we are getting with the law, the whole Bill of Rights is up in the air right now. Oh well, it's this backwater thinking that put Warren Hatch where he is today, putting all our computers under threat. They can do what they want in Utah, but they should keep their incessant meddling out of Washington and the rest of the country (world).
In my dream world a well organized work force will dispatch the problem quite swiftly. In the real world the fight will drag on with uncertain results.
New Keyword. Stop it, you guys. You're just confusing search engines even more. The next guy that Googles Slashdot is going to get a Guns and Ammo centerfold of a buxom blonde with an M-16.
The license is there, but the program will run without it. To the computer it's just another occupied block of disk space that goes completely unused. That much less space for my documents. But you're right. We're just caught in the crossfire in a fight amongst lawyers.
What I'm saying is that the computer doesn't read and agree with a license when I fire it up. "Trusted" computing is an apparent attempt to change that, I suppose.
Since there is, he uses the GPL to turn copyright law upon its head as well as he can.
Yes, I actually DO agree with that. GPL derives its power from copyright law, which of course is a good thing. I am happy to see this happening for that reason. But a big problem, to me anyway, is multiple licenses in one program. Talk about bloat! The big companies work under a single copyright. Not very well, I might add, but they're rakin' it in. So, who am I to argue with success? Maybe I'm a bit too anxious and want to eliminate the middleman and cut straight to the chase. Ignore all licenses. It's a shame that too many people don't understand that we won't need GPL if their is no copyright law. They seem to be under some impression that they can't use the code if a big company "takes" it. If somebody wants my code for whatever purpose, it's not for me to say or do anything about it. He would gain no exclusivity over it without copyright law. I still have my copy to do with as I please. What I'm concerned about is that with all these people worrying about licensing, it leaves little time for un-distracted(?) coding. It's like a nag screen in the back of your head. And even worse is the number and variation of licenses. The whole FOSS thing is moving from a bazaar to a Tower of Babel. The licenses will bring the whole thing tumbling down. As a business, I would avoid it for these reasons. Because then I would have to be concerned about being held liable for some mysterious, obscure copyright violation that only a lawyer could see. Licenses take up disk space. It's like a ball and chain. Imagine if each of my Snap-on wrenches came with a foot long, ten pound "dongle" stipulating how I can use it. Well, all that weight just made the tool pretty useless. The same is happening to software. The licenses are getting that it will be prohibited to use the program for what I bought it for. Well, here's hoping that someday Stallman's trumpets will bring down the Walls of Jericho.
Soon webmail will be as integrated with the desktop as Internet Explorer is with Windows. When that happens, we will create a hack to rip it out, just like IE
It works just fine without one. They are merely a waste of disk space. Licenses are for lawyers. Not for regular people, or computers. A simple "created by..." is good enough. Nobody can take the code away.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that they sound the same, it's that the files are similar.
If you ever have the chance, go over and test drive the mail program that comes on every new macintosh, and send off a test mail. Make sure the volume is turned up.
If this guy was the President of the United States he'd probably have decalred martial law and then used the Secret Service and the National Guard to conduct a manhunt for the guy who made fun of him.
Beaten to the punch.
Is to start a nuclear program, and the U.S. will back down...oh, wait.
...except they have to recover the cost of actually making the movie...
That's what the occasional shakedown is for. The same way the cops deal with drug dealers.
What did they do? Dump the machines into Prince William Sound?
They have no moral basis to obligate me to anything. Only by the force of their weaponry do I comply. Life is still good, so there won't be much resistance at present.
Note to self: Neutralize all weapons.
sooner or later mobsters will show their true face and "weed out" competition.
Yeah! Took care of the Kennedys. After '68 they decided to play ball.
Aaahh, That's good enough. They'll fix it in post.
I'm not sure I understand. Are they saying that being able to put out more defective chips because they're too cheap to test them first is a good thing? What's good for buggy software is good for hardware, I guess. Everyday is Patch Day...
A lot of coders will refuse to code if the result is going to be placed under an unfavorable license.
It's a free world. I would never ask them to. Somebody else will fill in out of necessity. If it provokes others into learning code, all the better.
Um, didn't you read about the recent Google pinyin fiasco, where they did take the code away?
What? They actually stopped the Chinese from using it? How was that possible? The only issue I took up there is the possible plagiarism. I have made myself perfectly clear on that matter. Everything else is window dressing for the lawyers. I don't look for guarantees. It would be very unbecoming of me to expect anybody to guarantee anything to me...without a signed contract anyway. By the same token, I offer none. Without exclusivity there will be no lockdown of abandonware, for instance. Speculation will be reduced dramatically. Exclusivity is keeping us in the computer stone age. In fact, it is responsible for all impediments to every facet of human progress. It necessitates constant re-inventing of the wheel, instead of creating blocks on which to build. Old argument, so what. It's the truth.
If you do not agree to one of the founding ideas of our country, you are welcome to the door.
Where did everybody go? Helllo...I wonder if I should turn off the lights.
Copyright killed the internet star
I don't care who or what you are
This damn time you've gone too far
We're gonna create a copyright czar
This is the way we raise the bar
cuz Copyright killed the internet star
Chorus
A group of employees cannot divide and conquer their management as easily as the management can isolate and destroy the lead employees--the rest fall back in line very quickly after watching one or two token sacrifices...
Yes, that is an easy exploit. Dependence on a single leader is a weakness. It is by the lack of this that some groups are able to survive despite the odds and the opposing strength. The workers need to adopt and be able to continue without the "generals". Seeing a companion go down should strengthen their resolve.
The unnatural part comes with the artificial shortage of wealth.
Yes, in light of the fact that people are capable of producing and transporting anything they need or want, that is absolutely true. But the motivation to create those shortages is quite natural. It's how the alpha male stays in that position and subjugates the others, all the way down to the right to mate. I can't think of any particular instance, but I believe you can find somewhere in the animal world you will find the exact same behavior, where one will hold out on another to get what she wants. Well yeah, the girls aren't THAT easy. No roll in the hay until you build me a nest. While we may be perverted, we are not unnatural. You yourself brought up a really good point about natural defense mechanisms in another post. It was very right on. The exact thing applies here also. "You and me baby, we ain't nuthin' but mammals..."
Where you might have a real problem is that so many people live a very soft life in the city and few of them even see each other, even when they bump into them. The vast majority don't want to make waves. In part because they are so dependent on BIGCO. Hell, I got pretty comfy myself. Now I live much closer to the food and water supply in eternal summer, so it's a bit easier for me to tell them to screw off.
Simply a group of people who seem to be incapable of speaking with one voice. I do accept the premise that when on company time and using company property, you give up many rights you would have at home or on public property. So if the workers want better accommodations, unity is the way to bring it about. The workers, like the customers, have the power to set the rules. I am uncertain as to whether that has occurred to them yet. And it won't matter whose property they're on. The worker simply must state that if the company wishes to use their services, these are the conditions. Presently everything is done precisely backwards. We have given up our authority to the company. We are letting them set the rules. The servant has become the master. The real problem is that they(the workers, all of us actually) put their self interests ahead of the group interests and are so easily distracted by petty, useless things. So what you get is a lot of bickering with few results. It would appear that I'm complaining about nature itself, because I see nothing unnatural here.
Second, more on topic reply:
Regardless of its "good" intention. To me the law is clearly a violation. But, but contrary to what one person I know says, I don't base my interpretation on inferences that simply don't exist. That's why I made my statement. I see only one way to read what was actually written. And yes, you are right about the 2nd. And furthermore, the 4th, 5th, and 9th are taking big hits. Considering how loose we are getting with the law, the whole Bill of Rights is up in the air right now. Oh well, it's this backwater thinking that put Warren Hatch where he is today, putting all our computers under threat. They can do what they want in Utah, but they should keep their incessant meddling out of Washington and the rest of the country (world).
In my dream world a well organized work force will dispatch the problem quite swiftly. In the real world the fight will drag on with uncertain results.
New Keyword. Stop it, you guys. You're just confusing search engines even more. The next guy that Googles Slashdot is going to get a Guns and Ammo centerfold of a buxom blonde with an M-16.
The license is there, but the program will run without it. To the computer it's just another occupied block of disk space that goes completely unused. That much less space for my documents. But you're right. We're just caught in the crossfire in a fight amongst lawyers.
What I'm saying is that the computer doesn't read and agree with a license when I fire it up. "Trusted" computing is an apparent attempt to change that, I suppose.
Since there is, he uses the GPL to turn copyright law upon its head as well as he can.
Yes, I actually DO agree with that. GPL derives its power from copyright law, which of course is a good thing. I am happy to see this happening for that reason. But a big problem, to me anyway, is multiple licenses in one program. Talk about bloat! The big companies work under a single copyright. Not very well, I might add, but they're rakin' it in. So, who am I to argue with success? Maybe I'm a bit too anxious and want to eliminate the middleman and cut straight to the chase. Ignore all licenses. It's a shame that too many people don't understand that we won't need GPL if their is no copyright law. They seem to be under some impression that they can't use the code if a big company "takes" it. If somebody wants my code for whatever purpose, it's not for me to say or do anything about it. He would gain no exclusivity over it without copyright law. I still have my copy to do with as I please. What I'm concerned about is that with all these people worrying about licensing, it leaves little time for un-distracted(?) coding. It's like a nag screen in the back of your head. And even worse is the number and variation of licenses. The whole FOSS thing is moving from a bazaar to a Tower of Babel. The licenses will bring the whole thing tumbling down. As a business, I would avoid it for these reasons. Because then I would have to be concerned about being held liable for some mysterious, obscure copyright violation that only a lawyer could see. Licenses take up disk space. It's like a ball and chain. Imagine if each of my Snap-on wrenches came with a foot long, ten pound "dongle" stipulating how I can use it. Well, all that weight just made the tool pretty useless. The same is happening to software. The licenses are getting that it will be prohibited to use the program for what I bought it for. Well, here's hoping that someday Stallman's trumpets will bring down the Walls of Jericho.
Soon webmail will be as integrated with the desktop as Internet Explorer is with Windows. When that happens, we will create a hack to rip it out, just like IE
It works just fine without one. They are merely a waste of disk space. Licenses are for lawyers. Not for regular people, or computers. A simple "created by..." is good enough. Nobody can take the code away.
Probably about the same thing you and I do, but possibly in black and white.
By the indications of the moderation, I get the impression that most people will pick the red one. Too bad the color code was reversed :-)
The future is now.
The Future is fun
The Future is fair
You may have already won
You may already be there
Yeah, I said your mama's so fat, she uses her boogers for bowling balls. Go back to sleep.
(Score:0, Flamebait)
Oops, so sorry. I forgot that standing up for freedom of speech is forbidden in front of the children.