Your concept is exactly what I was thinking too. However, my commute is 24 miles round trip, so I might actually just empty the gas out entirely again *if this works the way it's advertised*. Sadly, I suspect it works more like a prius or something, or they've done something to game the EPA mileage as the summary indicates.
Say what? Can we try that with a little closer touch with reality?
What you are referring to is not creating a serious document, it is the same as editing a SMS message. This is not synonymous with what we are referring to by serious document editing. An "outline" done on a phone properly involves some hefy processing and is not something that can be done easily without a mouse or touchscreen/hauptics.
That could be as simple as positioning of a clipart or attaching a spreadsheet to a word doc, neither of those which are likely to be very functional on the average T9 cellphone (on the business phones with full keypads/enterprise software, touchscreens, or an iphone, or a G1, the solutions already exist). This is why this nokia-microsoft partnership is just a redundancy, and why people won't care in the long run.
Uh, DMCA has problems, but I highly doubt that a: congresscritters will repeal it or b: you want section 230 to be gone, so throwing DMCA out the door isn't going to help that as much as it would solve some problems.
so let's think this through: the proper answer is, lets fix this thing up and get rid of the ridiculous anti-circumvention portions.
I agree with this concept completely. I've sold cars for a living and am familiar with all the bullshit but if this works *AS ADVERTISED* then I will absolutely buy one too.
I don't care about green, for cars that's just marketing. But if it really can drive for the life of the car 40 miles without needing gas, then I might actually have a lot of months where the car isn't running on gas. This would absolutely be worth it. Of course, accidents are more expensive and you know given GM that all the non-electric parts will fail in the first year probably since their quality doesn't exist.
Websense filters are both inaccurate and shitty. However, they sell themselves off as a very US-friendly enterprise/corporate friendly filter solution, which is the only reason they are still around. Apparently people don't know about what openDNS can do for free (and safer).
No social stigma? Have you ever tried to use a cellphone on a plane, or in a movie theatre, or yelled into it on a crowded street/with a train nearby, or maybe on a train, or in a library? I can keep adding examples if you want. Surely there is no social stigma, you say?/sarcasm.
Is there a surprise that there is absolutely no mention of the accuracy of this product? Sure, it tests for a bunch of drugs, but there's no comment if there will be false positives like we've seen with the breathalyzers.
Does anyone who knows better than I, have the capability of making a comment on this? Will this be another one of those things that shows the wrong result just because you had a poppyseed bagel for breakfast, etc?
They appear during online and offline play. However, that's a pretty bullshit disclaimer for them to use though. That is like the "your contract terms may change without notice" that got certain companies sued. Sorry, that's the easiest dig, but there are other examples.
It's called the "you're fucked clause", and companies love it.
Maybe I don't know, the fact that they block things other than just cell phone signals might be an issue?
Sheesh. People don't seem to understand that.
Give it another 20 years and the social stigma of cellphones should go away and we should see less of shit like people complaining that a cellphone can be used anywhere, etc.
It's currently about the same level as the people who say they want the government to keep their hands off of medicare (a conundrum in and of itself)
It's a slight but quite complicated difference in what you are saying, I agree. However, who is to say that something contributed under BSD can't be removed? Being able to copyright the result can cause something to fade out of existence. Example: if someone copyrights out of print books and refuses to print them, then what? Same concept applies to software if nobody is required to keep a copy around, it can fade out/lose significance.
It's definitely mindsets between each, but I can see a conceptual issue with both sides. I only prefer GPLv3 just because there's no way for someone to be able to force copyright upon the result. Meanwhile, why isn't there a combination of both camps? I think we could use it to solidify programming in general and its ensuing compatibility. Isn't there some kind of BSD-GPLv3 hybrid? I mean clearly people don't have ethical problems contributing to both camps.
No probe needed. All things evolve into other things. Whereas we define ourselves as "evolved from fish", the more accurate term is "our eldest ancestors were single celled organisms".
I don't know squat about BSD, nor do I keep up with it since people who promote BSD seem to be all "GPLv3 is evil", which kind of makes me turn a deaf ear. Taking a product that *was* free off the market is the same concept as putting public works back into copyright. That is explicitly not a good idea, if that's what you mean. That is the same thing as copyrighting from the start. I'm taking this strictly from what you hvae said. Freely contributed code implies people put it out there. They're not forced,nor obligated. GPLv3 requires the source.
You have to do that, because otherwise people will keep things private. Like they say, locks keep honest people honest. It's the same general concept behind the phrase. You have to have violations for things (and legal penalties) for corporations to recognize it.
I'm pretty sure free= 0 no cost to obtain and compile. So no, it's not a twisted definition.
People eventually use free software anyway. It's the law of all businesses and products. Market pressure will always push product costs towards 0. free software is just more honest about it.
good point. I think as a matter of politeness everyone wants to try to avoid the legal liabilities and would rather defuse a situation before it comes up. Maybe as well that people are super afraid of that form of copyright having to be compounded in court since judges will definitely get it *wrong* before they get it right.
I'm not at the level of an oracle DBA as far as technical knowledge but there is an extreme prejudice to people who don't have a masters in IT against being in the business intelligence side of things. Somehow the technical knowledge side recognizes knowledge/skill/adaptability but the same principles do not apply to the business analysts for the same companies.
The thing is, I imagine the license fee is quite variable. I've heard 40$ us, 80$ us, and other numbers, not to mention based on the version of windows that happens to be included (you'd not expect the same for ultimate vs home edition).
Anyone else care to correct me or provide more info (I'm sure people are more familiar with this than I am)
I agree. Maybe if there was some sort of copyright violation equivalent? Does the GPL have any sort of statute for fines with GPLv2 or would it be based off copyright violations?
Well, you have a point, but it's not a new one. MS has always feared the GPL and they are merely doing what is in their best interest AKA licensing before they get sued. The folks who created the software could easily still sue for the time from when it was being used -> when it was licensed for damages.
Everyone has had to respect the GPL because it has already been held up in court as far back as germany in 2004 and redhat in 2006.
Slashdot Mirror
thank you both, I forgot there are specific safe harbors in both.
ha, bingo.
Your concept is exactly what I was thinking too. However, my commute is 24 miles round trip, so I might actually just empty the gas out entirely again *if this works the way it's advertised*. Sadly, I suspect it works more like a prius or something, or they've done something to game the EPA mileage as the summary indicates.
Say what? Can we try that with a little closer touch with reality?
What you are referring to is not creating a serious document, it is the same as editing a SMS message. This is not synonymous with what we are referring to by serious document editing. An "outline" done on a phone properly involves some hefy processing and is not something that can be done easily without a mouse or touchscreen/hauptics.
That could be as simple as positioning of a clipart or attaching a spreadsheet to a word doc, neither of those which are likely to be very functional on the average T9 cellphone (on the business phones with full keypads/enterprise software, touchscreens, or an iphone, or a G1, the solutions already exist). This is why this nokia-microsoft partnership is just a redundancy, and why people won't care in the long run.
Uh, DMCA has problems, but I highly doubt that a: congresscritters will repeal it or b: you want section 230 to be gone, so throwing DMCA out the door isn't going to help that as much as it would solve some problems.
so let's think this through: the proper answer is, lets fix this thing up and get rid of the ridiculous anti-circumvention portions.
I agree with this concept completely. I've sold cars for a living and am familiar with all the bullshit but if this works *AS ADVERTISED* then I will absolutely buy one too.
I don't care about green, for cars that's just marketing. But if it really can drive for the life of the car 40 miles without needing gas, then I might actually have a lot of months where the car isn't running on gas. This would absolutely be worth it. Of course, accidents are more expensive and you know given GM that all the non-electric parts will fail in the first year probably since their quality doesn't exist.
There are mailing lists for this, and websense does not catch them.
Websense doesn't even check subdomains, they just block an entire domain and let all the possibly legitimate stuff underneath get blocked.
Example: blogspot, wordpress are blocked, instant messengers are blocked, but yahoo.com is not.
I'd guess there are very few who don't, and those ones are smart enough to not have to invest in crap like websense.
sad, but accurate.
Websense filters are both inaccurate and shitty. However, they sell themselves off as a very US-friendly enterprise/corporate friendly filter solution, which is the only reason they are still around. Apparently people don't know about what openDNS can do for free (and safer).
emulation -> PS2, or Ps3, 4 controllers. USB controllers which are ~10$ each and shaped exactly like the legit console ones are available online.
Thus, done. Just make sure you have a pretty serious PC which should by default have a HDMI output for your nice monitor.
That's why many of us don't buy ps3, or a wii, or an xbox360. Some of us stick with ubuntu gaming, as wine works quite well lately.
No social stigma? Have you ever tried to use a cellphone on a plane, or in a movie theatre, or yelled into it on a crowded street/with a train nearby, or maybe on a train, or in a library? I can keep adding examples if you want. Surely there is no social stigma, you say? /sarcasm.
Is there a surprise that there is absolutely no mention of the accuracy of this product? Sure, it tests for a bunch of drugs, but there's no comment if there will be false positives like we've seen with the breathalyzers.
Does anyone who knows better than I, have the capability of making a comment on this? Will this be another one of those things that shows the wrong result just because you had a poppyseed bagel for breakfast, etc?
They appear during online and offline play. However, that's a pretty bullshit disclaimer for them to use though. That is like the "your contract terms may change without notice" that got certain companies sued. Sorry, that's the easiest dig, but there are other examples.
It's called the "you're fucked clause", and companies love it.
Maybe I don't know, the fact that they block things other than just cell phone signals might be an issue?
Sheesh. People don't seem to understand that.
Give it another 20 years and the social stigma of cellphones should go away and we should see less of shit like people complaining that a cellphone can be used anywhere, etc.
It's currently about the same level as the people who say they want the government to keep their hands off of medicare (a conundrum in and of itself)
It's a slight but quite complicated difference in what you are saying, I agree. However, who is to say that something contributed under BSD can't be removed? Being able to copyright the result can cause something to fade out of existence. Example: if someone copyrights out of print books and refuses to print them, then what? Same concept applies to software if nobody is required to keep a copy around, it can fade out/lose significance.
It's definitely mindsets between each, but I can see a conceptual issue with both sides. I only prefer GPLv3 just because there's no way for someone to be able to force copyright upon the result. Meanwhile, why isn't there a combination of both camps? I think we could use it to solidify programming in general and its ensuing compatibility. Isn't there some kind of BSD-GPLv3 hybrid? I mean clearly people don't have ethical problems contributing to both camps.
Or you know, there could be many lifeforms that can survive in a vacuum indefinitely, and they have existed for far more than 6 billion years?
No probe needed. All things evolve into other things. Whereas we define ourselves as "evolved from fish", the more accurate term is "our eldest ancestors were single celled organisms".
I don't know squat about BSD, nor do I keep up with it since people who promote BSD seem to be all "GPLv3 is evil", which kind of makes me turn a deaf ear. Taking a product that *was* free off the market is the same concept as putting public works back into copyright. That is explicitly not a good idea, if that's what you mean. That is the same thing as copyrighting from the start. I'm taking this strictly from what you hvae said. Freely contributed code implies people put it out there. They're not forced ,nor obligated. GPLv3 requires the source.
You have to do that, because otherwise people will keep things private. Like they say, locks keep honest people honest. It's the same general concept behind the phrase. You have to have violations for things (and legal penalties) for corporations to recognize it.
I'm pretty sure free= 0 no cost to obtain and compile. So no, it's not a twisted definition.
People eventually use free software anyway. It's the law of all businesses and products. Market pressure will always push product costs towards 0. free software is just more honest about it.
Some people call it the clap, some people call it Windows.
good point. I think as a matter of politeness everyone wants to try to avoid the legal liabilities and would rather defuse a situation before it comes up. Maybe as well that people are super afraid of that form of copyright having to be compounded in court since judges will definitely get it *wrong* before they get it right.
I'm not at the level of an oracle DBA as far as technical knowledge but there is an extreme prejudice to people who don't have a masters in IT against being in the business intelligence side of things. Somehow the technical knowledge side recognizes knowledge/skill/adaptability but the same principles do not apply to the business analysts for the same companies.
The thing is, I imagine the license fee is quite variable. I've heard 40$ us, 80$ us, and other numbers, not to mention based on the version of windows that happens to be included (you'd not expect the same for ultimate vs home edition).
Anyone else care to correct me or provide more info (I'm sure people are more familiar with this than I am)
As I had said and you had defended this in some odd way, today's article would tend to disagree with you.
I agree. Maybe if there was some sort of copyright violation equivalent? Does the GPL have any sort of statute for fines with GPLv2 or would it be based off copyright violations?
Well, you have a point, but it's not a new one. MS has always feared the GPL and they are merely doing what is in their best interest AKA licensing before they get sued. The folks who created the software could easily still sue for the time from when it was being used -> when it was licensed for damages.
Everyone has had to respect the GPL because it has already been held up in court as far back as germany in 2004 and redhat in 2006.