Well, yes. That's why the FSF likes to have copyright assigned to them, obviously. I haven't checked, but presumably the same would be true of any major (and especially corporate) project that would come out under the GPL (e.g. Solaris and Java).
Um, what? GPLv2 specifically allows (but doesn't require) that software released under it can be released under "GPLv2 or any later version". Any software so released can be relicensed under GPLv3 at will; conversely, the last version of any software so released can continue to be released under GPLv2, presumably (if this is the point) with the "or any later version" clause removed.
I really don't get what's so hard to understand about this. The idea is that you can't make a (consumer level) device that uses free software and can only be patched by you--the right to modify the software that runs on the device must include the right to actually run the modified software. (Note that there's a specific exception for inherently unmodifiable devices--OSs on ROM and such.)
Whatever happened to the bond-backed anonymous library cards I read about a couple years ago? The idea was that instead of securing their trust with contact information, you would secure it with cash, and then be able to borrow up to the value of your deposit, completely anonymously.
I'm as much for protecting kids from online boobies as the next parent[....]
Congratulations, you're part of the problem. Until we realize that there's nothing wrong with boobies, we're never going to get rid of ideas like this.
Do you find it reasonable that some Brussels bureaucrat can tell Steve Jobs, a man who has clearly done more good for humanity than ten of her kind, how to run his business? Something's got to change.
all spectra is a natural public resource, spectrum "auctions" be damned
Yes, because the socialists who were running everything in the 30's declared it so. When are people going to realize that government is the problem, not the solution? Allow true, permanent ownership of bandwidth, defined by reasonable limits on range, interference, etc., and let the market take care of the rest. You may as well declare that land belongs to the people, and see how far that gets you.
Is this submission even English? "The Microsoft Corporation", "The attack, such as it were", "who have a copyright lawsuit against Google for the last sixteen months"--none of these are right. And to top it off, it ends in a sentence fragment.
Yes, but overhyping it in the first place, then whining about it for years after the problem was gone, created a public perception that CS was no longer a smart field to go into, a perception which I bet is still in place.
This (like most things) is the media's fault. The media spent two or three years in the post-bubble and post-9/11 recession panicking about the shrinking IT sector and how all the CS grads were going jobless. Surprise, surprise, no one majored in CS. Add four years' lag, and what do you get?
I must admit, I never got that. I used to think it was a question of computer literacy--most of the liberal arts types in college had enormous inboxes, while all my friends in CS, EE, etc., had sparkling clean ones (and multi-k.procmailrc's). Now that I'm a professional programmer though, I think it's deeper than that--it seems to correlate with possession of the true hacker nature, which is not actually necessary to be a competent programmer. Show me someone with a clean inbox, and I'll show you someone who's defined a couple dozen shell aliases, writes shell scripts on a regular basis, uses meta-key shortcuts, etc. Or that could just be me.
Honestly though, I only have three real folders--"letters", "work", and "tech". tech holds account confirmations, shipping receipts, and, in general, stuff generated by computers. letters and work hold important communication from real people, segregated based on whether it's work related or not. The other twenty or so folders are for mailing lists.
It is based on a paper which has nothing to with string theory and doesn't do a string theory calculation at all. The paper first appeared on the arXiv last April with the title Falsifying String Theory Through WW Scattering, and was extensively discussed here. In October a new version of the paper was put on the arXiv, with a changed title Falsifying Models of New Physics via WW Scattering (and this was discussed here). I'm guessing that the removal of the claims about string theory from the title was due to a referee at PRL not being willing to go along with such a title [...].
Paraphrase: "I think complex issues are best left to the market to deal with, except for my personal pet peeve, which requires government force to correct."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes. That's why the FSF likes to have copyright assigned to them, obviously. I haven't checked, but presumably the same would be true of any major (and especially corporate) project that would come out under the GPL (e.g. Solaris and Java).
Um, what? GPLv2 specifically allows (but doesn't require) that software released under it can be released under "GPLv2 or any later version". Any software so released can be relicensed under GPLv3 at will; conversely, the last version of any software so released can continue to be released under GPLv2, presumably (if this is the point) with the "or any later version" clause removed.
I really don't get what's so hard to understand about this. The idea is that you can't make a (consumer level) device that uses free software and can only be patched by you--the right to modify the software that runs on the device must include the right to actually run the modified software. (Note that there's a specific exception for inherently unmodifiable devices--OSs on ROM and such.)
Who was clueless enough to let that slip through? Love RMS or hate him, that should clearly be "selling free software".
Whatever happened to the bond-backed anonymous library cards I read about a couple years ago? The idea was that instead of securing their trust with contact information, you would secure it with cash, and then be able to borrow up to the value of your deposit, completely anonymously.
You're kidding, right? Some people are smarter than others. It might not fit your notion of "fairness", but it's the way the world is. Cope.
Unless this is being run by the IETF with EFF looking over their shoulder the whole time, I don't trust this to end up as something I want to use.
Congratulations, you're part of the problem. Until we realize that there's nothing wrong with boobies, we're never going to get rid of ideas like this.
I don't. I google it and go to the first listing. The search field is just a away from the URL field after all.
Do you find it reasonable that some Brussels bureaucrat can tell Steve Jobs, a man who has clearly done more good for humanity than ten of her kind, how to run his business? Something's got to change.
Yes, because the socialists who were running everything in the 30's declared it so. When are people going to realize that government is the problem, not the solution? Allow true, permanent ownership of bandwidth, defined by reasonable limits on range, interference, etc., and let the market take care of the rest. You may as well declare that land belongs to the people, and see how far that gets you.
There's nothing wrong with initial "and". (I.e., YHBT, YHL, HAND.)
Is this submission even English? "The Microsoft Corporation", "The attack, such as it were", "who have a copyright lawsuit against Google for the last sixteen months"--none of these are right. And to top it off, it ends in a sentence fragment.
Lobbiests would be people who are most like lobbies, I take it?
Yes, but overhyping it in the first place, then whining about it for years after the problem was gone, created a public perception that CS was no longer a smart field to go into, a perception which I bet is still in place.
This (like most things) is the media's fault. The media spent two or three years in the post-bubble and post-9/11 recession panicking about the shrinking IT sector and how all the CS grads were going jobless. Surprise, surprise, no one majored in CS. Add four years' lag, and what do you get?
I must admit, I never got that. I used to think it was a question of computer literacy--most of the liberal arts types in college had enormous inboxes, while all my friends in CS, EE, etc., had sparkling clean ones (and multi-k .procmailrc's). Now that I'm a professional programmer though, I think it's deeper than that--it seems to correlate with possession of the true hacker nature, which is not actually necessary to be a competent programmer. Show me someone with a clean inbox, and I'll show you someone who's defined a couple dozen shell aliases, writes shell scripts on a regular basis, uses meta-key shortcuts, etc. Or that could just be me.
Honestly though, I only have three real folders--"letters", "work", and "tech". tech holds account confirmations, shipping receipts, and, in general, stuff generated by computers. letters and work hold important communication from real people, segregated based on whether it's work related or not. The other twenty or so folders are for mailing lists.
Have you read A Deepness in the Sky?
"browswer"?
If this is the same story referenced here, it's bogus. To quote Not Even Wrong,
Oingo Boingo forever!
Libel and slander apply to real, individual people, not fictional people or groups.
It's not unworkable, it's immoral. What part of free speech don't you understand?
Paraphrase: "I think complex issues are best left to the market to deal with, except for my personal pet peeve, which requires government force to correct."
Ex-squeeze me? Safari's had tabs for at least a couple years now.