Well, if its GPL they have to provide the source anyway. Why spend the moolah unless you really need the support for the product?
Again, not true.
They *only* need to provide the Source Code to people that *they* distributed the Binary or Source to. And they can CHARGE for that initial distrobution.
"And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch."
But that's not true at all. There is no bar at all for a company to charge for their software. They must provide the source, and it must be freely distributable (assuming we are talking GPL), but MANY companies charge for Open Source software.
Also, such a statement ignores that there are many different "Open Source" licenses. People automatically think "GPL", but it's certainly not the only one. And with so many issues cropping up with GPLv3, we may see a decline of GPL and an interest in other, equally "Open Source", licenses.
it will take care of itself eventually, demand for bandwidth will increase and money will be poured into infrastructure
Indeed. Perhaps it will only be the USA that "browns out"? It seems that America is years behind even small obscure European countries, and even some so-called "third world" counties.
Always remember that competition improves service and reduces cost. Right? Right? So we have no competition, obviously. Comcast may disagree.
He should not have to, but he needs to. Judging from this as well as his prior posts, the man is smart, knows he is smart, and has little patience for other people being less bright, than he expects them to.
I don't think he goes into it honestly thinking that these asswipe judges will give him a "fair shake", he's clearly not that stupid. What it does is provide great evidence of what one of the main problems with punishing spammers it. And, one would expect a judge to be at the higher end of the "smart" spectrum, yes?
This suggests, our (self-represented) anti-spam crusader annoyed her and lost for that reason -- not at all because she does not know, what spam is... I admire his intentions, but he needs to partner with a like-minded lawyer, who would be going to courts leaving Bennet to what he does best -- baiting spammers and collecting evidence.
Why should he have to? It's "small claims". If she doesn't like dealing with people who represent themselves, she shouldn't be sitting on that particular court.
Meanwhile, The Economist, MLB, Canada.com, etc won't take responsibility for the content they present on their website (after all, they chose to use Doubleclick, they chose to put advertisements on the website, they chose not to require approval of ads before they were shown on their website, etc.) Funny how everyone is trigger-happy when it comes to copyright, but when it comes to content they present causing harm, it ain't theirs, eh?
And speaking of "trigger-happy", you seem to point the finger right back at the Web sites for not inspecting the ads and the underlaying code. Well, that's what they hire DoubleClick for, thats one of the points for using outside ad servers. DoubleClick (and its Mother Ship Google) where not doing their jobs. It was THEIR responsibility to know that the ads THEY served where ligit or not. That's why THEY make the "big bucks". Google is good, Google is God...
If you want encrypted mail, run the encryption yourself... GPG is freely available.
I don't know anything about "HushMail", but I assume it has some kind of Web interface? Are there any alternatives for people that must use Web mail (for example on the road a lot)? Could some type of encryption program be carried on a USB drive that might translate the message locally into code?
But seriously, it seems that Microsoft is going to keep after Linux until it has it surrounded on all sides. Then I suppose they'll get to a lawsuit. And, while Linux will be found to be free of MS patents, it will end up costing Microsoft's enemies so much to defend Linux that they will be forced into oblivion...
Just like SCO/Microsoft did to IBM and Novell? Yes...
It's open source. If Google wanted to be in control, they would just release their own version.
But the point of the question is, why would they do that when they are already paying Mozilla for what they want? If effect aren't they really the magician behind the curtain? If the control the purse strings, isn't Mozilla by default a Google project?
Do you have any examples or are you just making shit up?
Google has been taken to task concerning Serious Privacy Issues (as I'm sure you have heard). There are other concerns. Point Of Fact: Google can have whatever flowery sounding utopian Company Tag Line they wish ("Do no evil, blah, blah, blah..."), but the bottom line is that they are a for-profit publicly traded corporation whose PRIMARY BUSINESS is not Feel-Good Software For The People, but technology based advertising. They have shown through actions that they will do whatever it takes to dominate in the field of serving advertising in every possible technology format. They are not in the business of saving starving children in Africa, or whatever goodie-goodie cause turns you on. They in fact work with China just as Yahoo does.
Google has shown themselves to be at least somewhat ethical as a company...
Keep on sayn' that... But actual actions (as opposed to PR smoke) show that Google is ethically about the same as most huge publically traded megacorps. Fro example Yahoo...
It seemed to start growing quickly out of AOL customers starting circa '94-'95, and sadly hasn't slowed down.
No, I think you are mistaken. "AOL Speak" is not the same as a low threshold for the acceptance of typos and misspellings. "AOL Speak" is a specific shorthand. Misspellings and typos are due to inattention and apathy to spell correctly resulting in leaving actual mistakes. "AOL Speak" unfortunately is not considered a "mistake".
What's funny about this is the absolute masturbation fest that happens here every time Google farts. But nary a "Here, here!" peep from the minions about the fact that prior to the acquisition by Google, DoubleClick was the most hated entity on the Interweb short of Microsoft? And what would have been the response from the Google Drones had Microsoft succeeded in acquiring DoubleClick? The DoubleStandards are amusing.
half that stuff on their list is already a part of firefox and either a part of many linux distros or easily addable- what is new here exactly?
Did anyone say these things where "new"? And, do you think all the ideas folded into Linux and other Open Source Projects like FireFox are 100% "new"? This has exactly ZERO to do with "new".
It has to do with areas that Microsoft wishes to improve their "operating system". You can't bitch about Windows and then also bitch about "fixing" Windows.
If it's that good, why don't they just require standard government ID and use the face recognizer to determine if the buyer is the person on the ID and let the ID provide the age?
How often am I supposed to go in for a new picture / have new facial recognition meta info encoded onto this card? My drivers license is good for 5 years, and I'm now 44 years old. At 49 will I look enough the same?
This technology has potential for AI programming for robots and such, but should only be used as a "one of many" input to determine if additional confirmation is necessary. And what about rubber masks and make-up?
Slashdot Mirror
They *only* need to provide the Source Code to people that *they* distributed the Binary or Source to. And they can CHARGE for that initial distrobution.
Also, such a statement ignores that there are many different "Open Source" licenses. People automatically think "GPL", but it's certainly not the only one. And with so many issues cropping up with GPLv3, we may see a decline of GPL and an interest in other, equally "Open Source", licenses.
Always remember that competition improves service and reduces cost. Right? Right? So we have no competition, obviously. Comcast may disagree.
Some guy in lab at Google farts! Read it on the front page of Slashdot!
None of the sites listed in the "story" are on this list. Where did this list come from? Or is this some SEO trick for a bunch of spam sites?
At least, that's the question...
What's funny about this is the absolute masturbation fest that happens here every time Google farts. But nary a "Here, here!" peep from the minions about the fact that prior to the acquisition by Google, DoubleClick was the most hated entity on the Interweb short of Microsoft? And what would have been the response from the Google Drones had Microsoft succeeded in acquiring DoubleClick? The DoubleStandards are amusing.
Modern cars simply *will not* run without the "brain box", not to mention all the other little microprocessors.
My '84 Volvo will not run without its "brain box". At all.
It has to do with areas that Microsoft wishes to improve their "operating system". You can't bitch about Windows and then also bitch about "fixing" Windows.
This technology has potential for AI programming for robots and such, but should only be used as a "one of many" input to determine if additional confirmation is necessary. And what about rubber masks and make-up?