I don't see what the big deal is either. I simply stated my opinion. You're the one taking the time to argue against that opinion instead of simply accepting it and moving on.
Maybe we could get the toilets named RIAA or something?
Come on. Do you really think the RIAA would be satisfied having their name associated with a toilet? They're obviously attempting to be associated with satan.
News about patches to a game belong on the game's RSS feed, not a tech news site.
If the latest version comes with new AI so that NPCs happen to tell you about their dreams last night, and how they plan to put them into action today by building putting wheels on a board, adding an engine, and calling this new invention of theirs a "car", then it's worth seeing here.
Pretty sure they'll define proxy somewhere in the law by its features, rather than relying on the commonly accepted (and fluid) meaning. In other words, it won't matter what YOU call it, if it fits their definition.
Either use a properly secure (i.e., end-to-end encrypted, proxied, indirect, padded, anonymous, etc.) p2p network, or better, do it in the open, and stand up for yourself in court, so others can do the same and add their voices to yours.
Perhaps, but I'd never read that until yesterday, and I doubt many others had either. The wikipedia footer specifically links to the original 1.2 license, and I think it's valid to see other contributions with that footer, and trust that your contributions will be using that specific license. Technically, you're correct, but I wouldn't want to bet on which way it would go in court.
"MMC Site"... means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server....
Neat legal hack...
Wikipedia links to v1.2 of the GFDL, which doesn't mention MMC. I licensed my contributions to them under the GFDL. They are not the owners of the content, as their copyright page clearly states in a big read box. If they try to relicense that content, it'll be copyright infringement.
It's a fair argument, but I disagree with your assessment. Neither of us will know for sure until the future gets here though. Personally, I'm betting that a few companies will have the guts to invest in better tech, to charge more reasonable prices, and to count on demand making it work.
Exactly. I can't help thinking that Java might have been a lot more pervasive and standardised by now (not to mention that the CLR probably wouldn't exist) if Sun had been more open with Java licensing years ago.
then the people around here who want 8GB unlimited traffic for $10 a month would get the abrupt reality check they seem to need.
Considering economies of scale, supply and demand, and the fact that many people want this, and that many more soon will, it seems to me that it's ISPs (a little) and Telcos (especially) who need the reality check.
Here's a wild and crazy idea. You could disable the Google Updater Service
Here's a wilder idea: license Google Pack openly, give it better dependency handling, and setup an independant debian-like group to oversee it and it's packages on google-sponsored (but easily mirrorable/replaceable/overridable) servers. Then release tools to help people publish their software, review other software, etc. If google wants to beat MS, the best way to do that is to encourage a debian-like software delivery system on Windows, which gives users entirely equal choice between firefox and IE, OpenOffice and MS Office, etc. It's microsoft's software delivery channel that needs to be conquered, not its products, which at best aren't that great.
"Good for office monkey stuff" is not exactly the connection I envisage when I think of a good ISP. Slow, simple connections that cover email and uploading a word document, yet can't be shut down for a day or two while you switch ISPs would be very bad for the net.
It's clearly abuse though, and if the site has any terms of use, this one's in there.
Really? You've seen a lot of sites saying "You agree not to use this site's pages to store P2P data for you uni project"? I agree with you in principle, that this is abuse, but unfortunately, the spirit of rules are quite detached from the wording of them sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see what the big deal is either. I simply stated my opinion. You're the one taking the time to argue against that opinion instead of simply accepting it and moving on.
apt-get install dbmail imapsync
Sure. You first.
The legal and political systems. Most of the malicious code was from the RIAA.
Microsoft.com is great, when used for ridicule, rather than authority.
If the overlap was 70%+, then perhaps. If it was 90%+, then definitely. But I doubt it's approaching either of those.
Come on. Do you really think the RIAA would be satisfied having their name associated with a toilet? They're obviously attempting to be associated with satan.
News about patches to a game belong on the game's RSS feed, not a tech news site.
If the latest version comes with new AI so that NPCs happen to tell you about their dreams last night, and how they plan to put them into action today by building putting wheels on a board, adding an engine, and calling this new invention of theirs a "car", then it's worth seeing here.
Pretty sure they'll define proxy somewhere in the law by its features, rather than relying on the commonly accepted (and fluid) meaning. In other words, it won't matter what YOU call it, if it fits their definition.
Either use a properly secure (i.e., end-to-end encrypted, proxied, indirect, padded, anonymous, etc.) p2p network, or better, do it in the open, and stand up for yourself in court, so others can do the same and add their voices to yours.
I think you understand it just fine ;)
If that company fits the definition of a monopoly, yes.
That's easy. "It's not working. Someone needs to fix it."
Perhaps, but I'd never read that until yesterday, and I doubt many others had either. The wikipedia footer specifically links to the original 1.2 license, and I think it's valid to see other contributions with that footer, and trust that your contributions will be using that specific license. Technically, you're correct, but I wouldn't want to bet on which way it would go in court.
Actually that's two areas.
Wikipedia links to v1.2 of the GFDL, which doesn't mention MMC. I licensed my contributions to them under the GFDL. They are not the owners of the content, as their copyright page clearly states in a big read box. If they try to relicense that content, it'll be copyright infringement.
But perhaps they're just thinking of new content?
It's a fair argument, but I disagree with your assessment. Neither of us will know for sure until the future gets here though. Personally, I'm betting that a few companies will have the guts to invest in better tech, to charge more reasonable prices, and to count on demand making it work.
Yes, it is. On two levels.
Exactly. I can't help thinking that Java might have been a lot more pervasive and standardised by now (not to mention that the CLR probably wouldn't exist) if Sun had been more open with Java licensing years ago.
Considering economies of scale, supply and demand, and the fact that many people want this, and that many more soon will, it seems to me that it's ISPs (a little) and Telcos (especially) who need the reality check.
Here's a wilder idea: license Google Pack openly, give it better dependency handling, and setup an independant debian-like group to oversee it and it's packages on google-sponsored (but easily mirrorable/replaceable/overridable) servers. Then release tools to help people publish their software, review other software, etc. If google wants to beat MS, the best way to do that is to encourage a debian-like software delivery system on Windows, which gives users entirely equal choice between firefox and IE, OpenOffice and MS Office, etc. It's microsoft's software delivery channel that needs to be conquered, not its products, which at best aren't that great.
That'll be the day.
Joker? Is that you?
Jeez man, where have you been? NeoYoda was publicly executed six years ago by UberKhan, in the aftermath of the GeoDax wars.
"Good for office monkey stuff" is not exactly the connection I envisage when I think of a good ISP. Slow, simple connections that cover email and uploading a word document, yet can't be shut down for a day or two while you switch ISPs would be very bad for the net.
Really? You've seen a lot of sites saying "You agree not to use this site's pages to store P2P data for you uni project"? I agree with you in principle, that this is abuse, but unfortunately, the spirit of rules are quite detached from the wording of them sometimes.