Windows does use BSD code (for the networking stack and some other things), and I (as a Windows user) have no chance of seeing their version of it. That's why I prefer copyleft.
Many portable players actually support AAC. The real problem is with GNU/Linux; AAC's patented, so there's no legal decoding free/open source decoding software. I already asked them to offer Ogg Vorbis. Either way, though, it's a lot better than DRM and I intend to partake..
Wikipedia is under the GNU Free Documentation License, so there's nothing stopping you from selling the articles. There are already many mirrors, some of which have ads. However, I doubt many people would pay for what they could get for free.:)
What are you talking about? If you mean, Siegenthaler, he never sued Wikimedia. As for multiple editors/authors being absurd, every encyclopedia is then (and most books). You can tell what the article is about by looking at the big header on the top of the page. I also disagree about Wikipedia not having enough organization; sometimes it has too much. The moderators (every editor of Wikipedia) are not very concerned with public opinion; the Wikimedia Foundation is and that's because we need grant money. We guage quality through common sense and basic guidelines; the wiki process lets it be improved.
I hope no one decides to take a train to Jordanhill just because it was the millionth article; still, it will be interesting for those that encounter the station regularly. The thing about Jimbo visiting is a joke (I hope)
Wikipedia is not trying to accomplish what Everything2 is. A lot of our problems stem from people thinking we are, in fact. The biggest difference is that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia but is encouraged and central to Everything2.
I'm not certain, but the other metadata is verifiably accurate (or plausible) and they removed the images, and when someone asked them about Roland, OK, the town name. That's very convincing to me.
Whatever you call it, a corporate sponsorship is an advertisement, plain and simple. If Wikipedia ever starts advertising on pages I helped create, I will personally take advantage of the GFDL and fork the site. For this reason, Wikipedia will never have ads, and I'm proud of that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
The bank documents are up at http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~mflaschen3/banned/julius-baer-stalking.zip . Enjoy (or at least piss JB off).
It's foolish to say the FSF equates morality with legality. No one argues more strenuously that many legal licensing schemes are immoral.
That's not right. Derivative works have to be under the same license (or possibly a later version, if the copyright holder allowed this)
Windows does use BSD code (for the networking stack and some other things), and I (as a Windows user) have no chance of seeing their version of it. That's why I prefer copyleft.
Many portable players actually support AAC. The real problem is with GNU/Linux; AAC's patented, so there's no legal decoding free/open source decoding software. I already asked them to offer Ogg Vorbis. Either way, though, it's a lot better than DRM and I intend to partake..
Actually, albums are the same price, DRM or not. Only individual songs have the surcharge. Can't understand the logic, but I prefer albums anyway.
It's based on statutory damages, not a specific number of infringements. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
But..., people don't visit Wikipedia because they're getting a cut of soft-porn proceeds. They visit because of the content.
Wikipedia is under the GNU Free Documentation License, so there's nothing stopping you from selling the articles. There are already many mirrors, some of which have ads. However, I doubt many people would pay for what they could get for free. :)
I agree; I mean really. :)
Moreover, it's original research for you to decide who's a troll, and that's forbidden (to avoid crazy new theories popping up everywhere).
What are you talking about? If you mean, Siegenthaler, he never sued Wikimedia. As for multiple editors/authors being absurd, every encyclopedia is then (and most books). You can tell what the article is about by looking at the big header on the top of the page. I also disagree about Wikipedia not having enough organization; sometimes it has too much. The moderators (every editor of Wikipedia) are not very concerned with public opinion; the Wikimedia Foundation is and that's because we need grant money. We guage quality through common sense and basic guidelines; the wiki process lets it be improved.
I hope no one decides to take a train to Jordanhill just because it was the millionth article; still, it will be interesting for those that encounter the station regularly. The thing about Jimbo visiting is a joke (I hope)
For the record, it does include stubs, as long as they have an internal link (or at least "[[" in the wikitext). Redirects are not counted.
Wikipedia is not trying to accomplish what Everything2 is. A lot of our problems stem from people thinking we are, in fact. The biggest difference is that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia but is encouraged and central to Everything2.
Yes, but only as a supplement to the wikipedia, not as a replacement.
Do you really think any of his friends who still know him will be stupid enough to tell you his name? Besides, I bet all his friends are virtual.
I have to say this: The reason that not everyone has AIDS is only that not everyone has AIDS. Learn about the network effect.
I've sent them.
I hope so too. It's really the fault of whoever designed the image system. It should always strip all meta data from the copies shown to readers.
I'm not certain, but the other metadata is verifiably accurate (or plausible) and they removed the images, and when someone asked them about Roland, OK, the town name. That's very convincing to me.
I just sent the FBI a tip using their form (https://tips.fbi.gov/). I doubt I was the first but you never know (Kitty Genovese syndrome).
That's not entirely fair. At least he's making his own scripts; his friends are the script kiddies.
Whatever you call it, a corporate sponsorship is an advertisement, plain and simple. If Wikipedia ever starts advertising on pages I helped create, I will personally take advantage of the GFDL and fork the site. For this reason, Wikipedia will never have ads, and I'm proud of that fact.