Nothing denies use of the code by the BSD originators. They can use the code just as much as anyone else. It's not that the other 6 billion people get preferential treatment, it's just that the BSD originators also have to comply by the GPL if they want to distribute the modified code.
Is it fair to make them play by your rules? It sort of sucks, I guess. It's not all that unfair or anything: they chose to let you do so.
Does it matter to the legal issue of whether selling unlocked iPhones can be stopped? Probably not. Does it matter to GGP's contention that unlocked iPhones taked revenue from AT&T but do not affect Apple's cash flow from iPhones? Yes.
PDF is an open standard, so it plays nice as much as people want it to.
It is rather complex. I don't know that it is any more complex than it needs to be to do what it does. For quicker-loading stuff, HTML/CSS presentations make a lot of sense. For camera-ready print-style documents, PDF does its job pretty well. It's more designed to be perfect than to be fast.
Are there problems with it? I'll buy that. Are there additional problems in the Adobe Reader implementation? Plenty (though I very rarely use it to find out.) But all-in-all, I think it does what it is supposed to pretty well.
Why am I going to pay $10 for a ticket to see McClain pick up his kids from school?
Because you go to an overpriced theater?
As to a "modern" Seven Up!, those people aren't constantly being filmed, they're interviewed every few years. Further, they are younger than Bruce Willis.
The thing about opening the computer without the need for tools is, well, kids would do it. I know when I was a little kid, I would take stuff apart. So long as I didn't have to use tools, I prettymuch thought of it as a feature of the object. If I had to use tools, I'd know that I was going to the special insides of the machine, either because I was servicing it or because I was curious, but I knew to be careful.
Needing a screwdriver requires someone to think about what they're doing and not just prod around inside the computer. I assume that if a kid can get hold of a replacement motherboard or whatever electronic component, she can get hold of a screwdriver.
Is truth in advertising essential to capitalism? Capitalism is competition. Caveat emptor!
Stealing is wrong. Lying to sell your product is wrong. In any economic system (be it capitalism, socialism, feudalism, or whatever), these things must be prohibited. However, it is not--as far as I can imagine--inherently capitalistic to prohibit these things. Capitalistic goals can be accomplished by morally justified or morally reprehensible means.
According to the about section of the Debian website
WHAT is Debian? The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system. This operating system that we have created is called Debian GNU/Linux, or simply Debian for short.
Terms like GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd would be especially useful when distinguishing the projects, but using them outside of that distinction is not unfair, and it does align with the way the Debian folks use language.
It's your old friend AC, you noticed. Why feed the troll?
Anyways, there are a lot of folks to thank for the stuff making your computer go. The FSF and the Linux kernel people come to mind. The X.org people, too. The KDE people. I could go on a while.
They should all be given credit where credit was due. But that doesn't mean I should say that my computer runs GNU/Linux/X11/KDE every time I need to name my operating system. It doesn't take credit away from the X.org people to tell someone I run GNU/Linux, and it doesn't take credit away from the FSF people when I say I run Linux.
Would I be critical of someone for using the term GNU/Linux like the flamebait parent? No. It's a fair enough term, and one I sometimes use.
Does it make sense to be critical of people for calling their GNU/Linux/X11 systems Linux? I don't see why. They aren't taking away any credit from anyone, just using what has happened to become common parlance.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
Average Joe on the street? He doesn't have to crack it—only one person has to crack it.
I'm sorry, but this is one of the instances where I disagree with the ACLU.
You're out on the open road. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy. No civil right is being violated, IMO.
Is this another example of us basically having less and less privacy when we leave our homes? Yes? Are our movements being recorded more and more and is it getting annoying? Yes? But claim that the police recording license plates on the open highway is unconstitutional? Can't side with you
I tend to agree in a sense--all this does it let them do what they already do a whole lot better, nothing has fundamentally changed. But at the same time, I'm not comfortable with it.
Do you want the government tracking you wherever you go? I certainly don't. That makes me very uncomfortable.
I think I'm not the only one. I suspect most people would prefer the government not keep records of their movements this way. If that's so, then (the US and Canada having democratic forms of government), it seems like such practices should be banned. Is some fundamental right clearly violated? I can't nail one down, exactly. Do I like it? No. Does that mean that we shouldn't do it? If most people share my distaste.
Just because I might not have anything to hide, that doesn't mean I want you looking at it. This seems an issue perhaps better suited to the legislature than the courts.
OSS projects (the kind you're talking about) depend on volunteers' talents and donators' money to accomplish their goals. The people who this attracts can be a funny group, and the projects don't necessarily have the resources or desires to market their product effectively to the groups that big proprietary software companies like Microsoft do.
This does mean that such OSS products aren't going to be replacing their proprietary counterparts quickly. But that isn't failure. People are continually making better stuff. The number of people to use it is always increasing. Expansion isn't the whole point. For-profit companies want as many users as quickly as possible—that's how they make money. (If they don't make money, they die.) F/OSS projects are less sensitive to growth in this way, not so dependent on it for their survival.
So F/OSS projects focus more on a great product. Being more free from the pressures for-profit companies are under can be helpful at times and unfortunate at others. But it is how things are.
(I realize I've used a lot of generalization to say this, but meh.)
I doubt that most people in the world know what a gnu is. There's something like six-and-a-half million of us, most of whom do not life in Africa and aren't all that well-educated.
Wildebeests have electricity coursing through them.
There isn't currently much network architecture in the US for 3G services. I don't think Apple is opposed to selling a 3G phone when the architecture is in place.
Slashdot Mirror
And in related news, scientists are reporting the polar ice caps are cold.
Logic that would apply in both directions, then.
No one is keeping the code away from the BSD coders. The coders can use the code in all ways allowed by the GPL, just like anyone else.
Nothing denies use of the code by the BSD originators. They can use the code just as much as anyone else. It's not that the other 6 billion people get preferential treatment, it's just that the BSD originators also have to comply by the GPL if they want to distribute the modified code.
Is it fair to make them play by your rules? It sort of sucks, I guess. It's not all that unfair or anything: they chose to let you do so.
Does it matter to the legal issue of whether selling unlocked iPhones can be stopped? Probably not. Does it matter to GGP's contention that unlocked iPhones taked revenue from AT&T but do not affect Apple's cash flow from iPhones? Yes.
We don't know for sure what Apple and AT&T's agreement is, I don't think. It's not necessarily as simple as Apple gets $500 and AT&T gets $60/month.
nyse.com seems to indicate that the M is in use by Macy's.
Just trite, I imagine.
PDF is an open standard, so it plays nice as much as people want it to.
It is rather complex. I don't know that it is any more complex than it needs to be to do what it does. For quicker-loading stuff, HTML/CSS presentations make a lot of sense. For camera-ready print-style documents, PDF does its job pretty well. It's more designed to be perfect than to be fast.
Are there problems with it? I'll buy that. Are there additional problems in the Adobe Reader implementation? Plenty (though I very rarely use it to find out.) But all-in-all, I think it does what it is supposed to pretty well.
Because you go to an overpriced theater?
As to a "modern" Seven Up!, those people aren't constantly being filmed, they're interviewed every few years. Further, they are younger than Bruce Willis.
The thing about opening the computer without the need for tools is, well, kids would do it. I know when I was a little kid, I would take stuff apart. So long as I didn't have to use tools, I prettymuch thought of it as a feature of the object. If I had to use tools, I'd know that I was going to the special insides of the machine, either because I was servicing it or because I was curious, but I knew to be careful.
Needing a screwdriver requires someone to think about what they're doing and not just prod around inside the computer. I assume that if a kid can get hold of a replacement motherboard or whatever electronic component, she can get hold of a screwdriver.
Is truth in advertising essential to capitalism? Capitalism is competition. Caveat emptor!
Stealing is wrong. Lying to sell your product is wrong. In any economic system (be it capitalism, socialism, feudalism, or whatever), these things must be prohibited. However, it is not--as far as I can imagine--inherently capitalistic to prohibit these things. Capitalistic goals can be accomplished by morally justified or morally reprehensible means.
IANAE: I am not an economist.
Terms like GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd would be especially useful when distinguishing the projects, but using them outside of that distinction is not unfair, and it does align with the way the Debian folks use language.
It's your old friend AC, you noticed. Why feed the troll?
Anyways, there are a lot of folks to thank for the stuff making your computer go. The FSF and the Linux kernel people come to mind. The X.org people, too. The KDE people. I could go on a while.
They should all be given credit where credit was due. But that doesn't mean I should say that my computer runs GNU/Linux/X11/KDE every time I need to name my operating system. It doesn't take credit away from the X.org people to tell someone I run GNU/Linux, and it doesn't take credit away from the FSF people when I say I run Linux.
Would I be critical of someone for using the term GNU/Linux like the flamebait parent? No. It's a fair enough term, and one I sometimes use.
Does it make sense to be critical of people for calling their GNU/Linux/X11 systems Linux? I don't see why. They aren't taking away any credit from anyone, just using what has happened to become common parlance.
Average Joe on the street? He doesn't have to crack it—only one person has to crack it.
I tend to agree in a sense--all this does it let them do what they already do a whole lot better, nothing has fundamentally changed. But at the same time, I'm not comfortable with it.
Do you want the government tracking you wherever you go? I certainly don't. That makes me very uncomfortable.
I think I'm not the only one. I suspect most people would prefer the government not keep records of their movements this way. If that's so, then (the US and Canada having democratic forms of government), it seems like such practices should be banned. Is some fundamental right clearly violated? I can't nail one down, exactly. Do I like it? No. Does that mean that we shouldn't do it? If most people share my distaste.
Just because I might not have anything to hide, that doesn't mean I want you looking at it. This seems an issue perhaps better suited to the legislature than the courts.
OSS projects (the kind you're talking about) depend on volunteers' talents and donators' money to accomplish their goals. The people who this attracts can be a funny group, and the projects don't necessarily have the resources or desires to market their product effectively to the groups that big proprietary software companies like Microsoft do.
This does mean that such OSS products aren't going to be replacing their proprietary counterparts quickly. But that isn't failure. People are continually making better stuff. The number of people to use it is always increasing. Expansion isn't the whole point. For-profit companies want as many users as quickly as possible—that's how they make money. (If they don't make money, they die.) F/OSS projects are less sensitive to growth in this way, not so dependent on it for their survival.
So F/OSS projects focus more on a great product. Being more free from the pressures for-profit companies are under can be helpful at times and unfortunate at others. But it is how things are.
(I realize I've used a lot of generalization to say this, but meh.)
Wow! Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? :)
But does it run Solaris?
I want to learn how to play the standard handshake one piano. "Dunh dunh dunh, buhna nuh nuh nu bunah."
And well before.
Sounds like the limitation with be server/account-based.
Yes, the Zune supports AAC.
There isn't currently much network architecture in the US for 3G services. I don't think Apple is opposed to selling a 3G phone when the architecture is in place.
I don't have the time to regularly check for web-mail, during the day
Find it.