I thought closed source was code you couldn't modify, view or redistribute. How silly of me, I guess I'll go redistribute the code for Windows Vista then.
As the parent article points out. GPL is about restricting what people can do with software. Really? A large part of the GPL is restricting how <B>closed source</B> applications can use GPL'd content. Abolishing copyright law would mean that those restrictions are superfluous and so a large part of what the GPL restricts would no longer exist. While the other restrictions would also have to go, you don't have to be for the entire GPL to be for the GPL.
This is patently false. Public domain means it can be used in closed source, copyrighted content. I may wish for my content to be used in all open source and public domain work and exclude the closed source, copyrighted content, but that is impossible to do by putting it into the public domain. If we got rid of copyright laws, such people would be able to have their desires met.
Myself, I'm not for abolishment of copyright but indeed reform. However seeking to abolish copyright and supporting open source is not necessarily at odds with each other.
As a copyright holder who disagrees with the current copyright laws, I disagree that breaking the law is the correct thing to do and ask that you don't infringe on my rights.
Instead of infringing on their copyright you could watch other sports, buy DVDs of it (if available), support soccer in your own country, partake in other forms of entertainment. There's no reason to infringe on someone else's copyright.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - American English noun irony was found dead in its Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss it - even if you didn't enjoy its work, there's no denying its contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
Its actually an unfair test as what if IBM tweaked the chip so it would run as efficiently as possible under OX X? A better test would be to do it, and then in conjunction to run a test with OS X on a PC and compare it with Vista's performance there. Oh wait, we can't do that because of OS X's DRM.
Sure that's a nice alternate theory. And backed up with some proof of an obsession or anger on Sturgeon's part it will go towards reasonable doubt. But this admission alone doesn't create it. It might tip it if the jury was wavering based on how weak the prosecution's evidence was, but it doesn't guarantee it.
Well Hans Reiser is an ex lover, right? After all, if she's dead, he aint exactly banging her (we hope). So the headline could very well be him (at least, that's how I interpreted it).
Well thanks to the religion lessons at school, I actually got to broaden my understanding and knowledge. Your equating religious with narrow minded is unnecessary.
How would you have preferred "A smoker destroyed public property and risked people's lives because he couldn't control his filthy habit"? Given the alternatives, I'd say homeless guy was a pretty good description.
This isn't directed at you as you're simply being funny, but the mod who either abused the system and modded you informative or thought you were serious:
Of course the newly imposed standards didn't work in this case. If a mattress is lying around for a homeless guy to burn, then its probably old, made BEFORE the standards were imposed. Duh!
A little known fact: Pohms is actually spelt with a h. Its because its actually an acronym for Property of His/Her Majesty and it originally referred to English immigrants to Australia, rather then English people in England.
And it's the media man, you know, the ones who mod Jack Thompson +100,000 Insightful Well yes, but many Australians actually don't mind Good ol' Jack. In fact, my grandmother has got a signed photo of him.
What's wrong with scripture in school? The religion they're taught is decided by their parents who have to fill out a form to give permission and there's a group(s) for kids whose parents don't want any religion to be taught to them and they go there when the others are being taught religion. Everyone is split into different groups so those of one particular religion (or lack of it) are never ostracized because of these groups and every time there's an assembly going on for a particular group (such as the Easter assembly that always had a strong Christian basis) those whose parents don't want them attending it are always given the option to be taken elsewhere, and the teachers are always very careful and very specific about why those kids aren't there to make sure they're not picked on. As someone who went through public school the entire time and saw these happening, never once did I see someone picking on those kids because they didn't attend an easter assembly (now they were picked on because they wore religious garments, but they would have unless banned by the school and then you can imagine the outcry from that).
If its wasted resources, I see nothing wrong with teaching some religion in addition to Winney the Pooh and crossword puzzles.
I'm an Australian atheist, whose parents are both atheists, who did attend Christian classes.
That's a ridiculous idea. If less people are driving then they can use the fuel that those people would have used in their cars to power the train. There's a good chance that the train would cost less fuel then all those cars would have. You'll also have less traffic with less cars so people will have less traffic jams (although I don't know if this area is prone to them) which would also mean less fuel used due to idling.
Obviously you haven't thought about this too much.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought closed source was code you couldn't modify, view or redistribute. How silly of me, I guess I'll go redistribute the code for Windows Vista then.
His comment (as of this post) has yet to be modded. Stop trolling.
There would be no closed source products. There would be products we can reverse engineer and products we don't need to reverse engineer.
As the parent article points out. GPL is about restricting what people can do with software.
Really? A large part of the GPL is restricting how <B>closed source</B> applications can use GPL'd content. Abolishing copyright law would mean that those restrictions are superfluous and so a large part of what the GPL restricts would no longer exist. While the other restrictions would also have to go, you don't have to be for the entire GPL to be for the GPL.
No, someone can be for non-commercial infringement while for commercial infringement.
This is patently false. Public domain means it can be used in closed source, copyrighted content. I may wish for my content to be used in all open source and public domain work and exclude the closed source, copyrighted content, but that is impossible to do by putting it into the public domain. If we got rid of copyright laws, such people would be able to have their desires met. Myself, I'm not for abolishment of copyright but indeed reform. However seeking to abolish copyright and supporting open source is not necessarily at odds with each other.
As a copyright holder who disagrees with the current copyright laws, I disagree that breaking the law is the correct thing to do and ask that you don't infringe on my rights.
Instead of infringing on their copyright you could watch other sports, buy DVDs of it (if available), support soccer in your own country, partake in other forms of entertainment. There's no reason to infringe on someone else's copyright.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - American English noun irony was found dead in its Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss it - even if you didn't enjoy its work, there's no denying its contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
Its actually an unfair test as what if IBM tweaked the chip so it would run as efficiently as possible under OX X? A better test would be to do it, and then in conjunction to run a test with OS X on a PC and compare it with Vista's performance there. Oh wait, we can't do that because of OS X's DRM.
Sure that's a nice alternate theory. And backed up with some proof of an obsession or anger on Sturgeon's part it will go towards reasonable doubt. But this admission alone doesn't create it. It might tip it if the jury was wavering based on how weak the prosecution's evidence was, but it doesn't guarantee it.
Common sense says if Sturgeon is going to spontaneously admit to 8 (possibly 9) murders, he'll probably admit to a 10th if it exists.
Well Hans Reiser is an ex lover, right? After all, if she's dead, he aint exactly banging her (we hope). So the headline could very well be him (at least, that's how I interpreted it).
I see you've lost the ability to speak with people, I pity you.
There are more Disneyworlds in America then in any other country ;)
The copyright for KJV was held in 1700s and its still in copyright? Jesus christ(tm?) on a pogostick. How long does copyright last in England?
Huh, well thanks. You learn something new every day.
Well thanks to the religion lessons at school, I actually got to broaden my understanding and knowledge. Your equating religious with narrow minded is unnecessary.
How would you have preferred "A smoker destroyed public property and risked people's lives because he couldn't control his filthy habit"? Given the alternatives, I'd say homeless guy was a pretty good description.
This isn't directed at you as you're simply being funny, but the mod who either abused the system and modded you informative or thought you were serious: Of course the newly imposed standards didn't work in this case. If a mattress is lying around for a homeless guy to burn, then its probably old, made BEFORE the standards were imposed. Duh!
A little known fact: Pohms is actually spelt with a h. Its because its actually an acronym for Property of His/Her Majesty and it originally referred to English immigrants to Australia, rather then English people in England.
What's wrong with scripture in school? The religion they're taught is decided by their parents who have to fill out a form to give permission and there's a group(s) for kids whose parents don't want any religion to be taught to them and they go there when the others are being taught religion. Everyone is split into different groups so those of one particular religion (or lack of it) are never ostracized because of these groups and every time there's an assembly going on for a particular group (such as the Easter assembly that always had a strong Christian basis) those whose parents don't want them attending it are always given the option to be taken elsewhere, and the teachers are always very careful and very specific about why those kids aren't there to make sure they're not picked on. As someone who went through public school the entire time and saw these happening, never once did I see someone picking on those kids because they didn't attend an easter assembly (now they were picked on because they wore religious garments, but they would have unless banned by the school and then you can imagine the outcry from that). If its wasted resources, I see nothing wrong with teaching some religion in addition to Winney the Pooh and crossword puzzles. I'm an Australian atheist, whose parents are both atheists, who did attend Christian classes.
Why not do both?
That's a ridiculous idea. If less people are driving then they can use the fuel that those people would have used in their cars to power the train. There's a good chance that the train would cost less fuel then all those cars would have. You'll also have less traffic with less cars so people will have less traffic jams (although I don't know if this area is prone to them) which would also mean less fuel used due to idling. Obviously you haven't thought about this too much.